[i]Originally posted by 400Stud[/i]
Marshall – the plan you proposed is just another short-to-long approach where the "short" section is just prolonged. Sounds good, though.
I agree with what both you and Rice said with speed reserve, though.
But, here's my biggest issue. I don't think (in fact I know) that I won't be capable of a 49 sec. 400m until my 200m speed is below 23.0. There's just no way. That's why I'm debating on spending next season on endurance with speed-maintenance to bridge the gap b/t my 200m pb and 400m pb (about 6 seconds now) or to work on speed with endurance-maintenance sessions to bring my time down more off speed and then train for endurance later. That's the real point here, for me.
But, that raises another question — is it easier to train for speed or endurance and should you train the easier or harder component first?
It IS in fact possible to go 49.xx and not go faster than 23 flat. My freshman year of high school I was living proof of this. If you have great speed/special endurance then it can be done. My overall speed did not improve until my junior year.
If it were me training someone, I think it would depend. If you have a 200/400 type, I'd train speed first. If it is a 400/800 type, I'd go endurance first.
As far as easier or harder, I think this ties in to my last statement. . . it all depends on the runner.