Some random questions and observations on the 400 with the hope of starting some discussion.
1) At a meet, was watching the 4 x 400. Programs that I know are very runtempo oriented, seemed like their kids ran very evenly paced races, never blowing it out anywhere. Less run tempo oriented programs seemed to have the ability to reaccelerate during the race. Anyone else notice this?
2) Improvements in absolute speed are accepted as improvements in frequency or length of stride. Is it possible in a heavyrun tempo oriented program to make these improvements or does run tempo work retard this improvement?
At what race distance does metabolic become more important than neural?
(All of this may be old discussion, if so I apologize).
3) In a 4 year plan for a 400 athlete, which theme should be placed first within the plan, metabolic or neural?
1. Now that you point it out, I've noticed what you point out in your first observation also.
2. I definitely think so, I think this may be why you never really see guys from these types of programs make it at the elite level (excepting MJ of course).
3. This is a good and very interesting question and I think it really depends on what level athlete you're dealing with. In some cases, big neural improvements may actually take the race time (duration of effort) into a different energy system in which case training for the athlete's current metabolic demands of the event may be unnecessary.
mike, could you restate your response to question 2? im confused as to whether you meant you could make the improvements, or if they retard development.
I think programs that do very high quantities of tempo may limit the development of their athletes UNLESS the athletes doing the program are already VERY fast.
Originally posted by mike
I think programs that do very high quantities of tempo may limit the development of their athletes UNLESS the athletes doing the program are already VERY fast.
When you say "high", elaborate. What do you feel is consistently high? I ask because as you know mike, I am a fan of tempo. However, I do not want to retard my athletes' development.
DaGov-
The programs I'm referring to are those that use 3 or more tempo sessions a week and incorporate little acceleration or maxV development. However it seems (just observation here) that at the developmental level (HS or under), tempo and speed oriented programs may work equally well so I don't think you have much to worry about.
Originally posted by todd
Look in USATF Coaching Manual and see plan for long sprinters. I would consider that to be high.
That's because the staple of Clyde Hart's program is tempo (of both forms). The athletes he gets are also very fast and very well-developed before they arrive to him so the high amounts don't affect them as much as "Developmental-Level" athletes.
To be honest with you mike - I think speed-oriented programs (from my experiences) work better on the HS level than tempo-heavy programs, at least in my state. All the top athletes in the sprints in AZ are from speed-heavy backgrounds while other, not-so-fast kids are usually the result of too much tempo. That's just a little anecdotal evidence....
I believe that there are more factors to consider here. I know of some tempo oriented programs that choose that path because of facilities, location, weather, etc. It's tough to figure in max velo workouts when all you have is an outdoor track and 40 degrees. The risk of injury becomes too high for those programs.
We just purchased an indoor rollout track to lay out in the school's hallway. So during the indoor season we were fortunate to be able to work on Acceleration Development and MaxV the way I wanted to.
i think often athletes in HS might react equally to tempo and sprint heavy programs. at my school, the track team doesnt get very many developed athletes. the people who join track often havent done any other sport in their lives. so a lot of people get faster simply because they get in better shape (IMO). the program at my school did not further develop me as a sprinter (i think) since i was so active in junior high. also, i had basically been doing tempo based programs for 4 years. however once i started more quality based workouts, my improvements have been drastic.
It all depends on the athlete and background of the athlete to be honest. 800m runners will respond better to Tempo-oriented programs while 200m runners will respond better to speed-oriented programs, plain and simple.
That's not necessarily true. If it was, then that would make MJ an 800 meter type athlete! I think it's safe to say that he was more the 200 type .
To be honest, I think that there's certainly more than one way to get to the kitchen. We're all hungry, we just don't all go through the same door to get something to eat.
I think that an athlete's success will eventually be based less off of the type of program (tempo v. speed), but more off of consistency in coaching, training, and health. The best advice I ever got as a coach was: "Get 'em fit, keep 'em healthy and happy, and they'll run fast for you."
You can't throw MJ into the argument, the guy was a freak! He runs 19.32 for 200m and he realized that his biggest downfall was his speed endurance—the 200m type 400m runner. He just responded very well to a tempo-oriented program. However, the rule still applies to the general consensus that the different types require different training. MJ is an exception.
OK - I concede that MJ was a freakof nature. But, you can't tell me that Jeremy Wariner is any different. He was a 20-point high 200 kid in HS, so he sure isn't an 800 guy.
I agree that different types of athletes require different training. But I don't think that it can be lumped into 2/4 types go speed and 4/8 types lean towards tempo programs.
.
