Posted In: Blog Discussion
A couple days ago it occurred to me that I had one more blog entry to reach 400 and figured it would only be appropriate if my 400th blog post was about the 400m (thanks to Nick for the suggestion). The 400m is one of the weird birds of track and field. Probably more so than any other event (other than the 800m) the ‘Many Roads to Rome’ concept seems to hold true. I’d like to take a look at why
ELITETRACK Founder
Best blog I have read in a while. I have always wondered if shifting the emphasis throughout the athletes years would create the best result. Question always is for me is this: With a freshman in high school do you develop speed first then build in fitness later in his high school career or do you build fitness first to take off the seconds then focus on speed when hes a little older?
Tkaberna:
Couldn’t you do both, to an extent, with athletes that young?
They are probably hitting top speed no later than 30m, probably earlier. If you are doing 2 days a week of work to 30m and then 2 days of ext. tempo and maybe 1 day of int. tempo, you should see all around improvement. Most people, especially younger athletes, are running the speed work so much slower than their meet times, I don’t see it as being that necessary to run a bunch of 60s to get them ready to go if they are that novice/new to the sport.
Perhaps you could get the most improvement by keeping training quite simple like that and using meets to generate that sort of specific SE, especially since they are so young and in HS you run numerous meets (just counted mine from senior year a few weeks ago and I had nearly 40 races going into the state meet!).
Example: Having athletes run more 100s, 200s, and 4x100s early in their HS careers and then slowly incorporate them into more 4x4s and open 4s. If weather isn’t bad, you could even do that each season. You may have issues with order of meets (we always had the 400 immediately before the 4×100, so you couldn’t safely do both), but you get the idea.
Thoughts?
Awesome blog.
I have delved into both methods in my 400m training and found that the 85-90% window for the majority of the season keeps the body and CNS feeling fresher throughout the course of the year. I equate it to lifting. The majority of our lifts fall in the 80% range for the olympics, yet when we go and test, PR numbers are frequent. Like Mike said, you can put far more volume into a program that way. Unlike elites, we do ask that our good 400m runners do a lot at big meets (conference, national championships). Sometimes running 6 or more race in two/three days. Without having built a strong foundation to handle volume, I think that an athlete from the speed-power end of the spectrum would crumble under such high volume demands.
When I was at Army, I actually experimented quite a bit with my 400m runners…using indoor and outdoor as labs to test short-to-long, long-to-short, and ends-to-middle approaches. My weight and plyo programs stayed basically the same so it wasn’t a perfect test but I found it very beneficial for my own learning. We had the best results using short-to-long with an accelerated progression to speed endurance. Maybe this was because of the kids I have (generally not speed demons and coming in with average high school PRs of 52 seconds. They were able to handle very high training loads and could run rounds without any dropoff.
Many speed demons seem to do well on the tempo-based programs but there are tons who don’t progress after 4 years if they continue with the program.
ELITETRACK Founder
Great post. I’ve been researching and experimenting with the 400m for a while, working to understand the how, when, and why’s for the different training methods. What I’ve learned definitely agrees with what Mike laid out, and this is by far the clearest explanation/summarization I’ve come across.
Has anyone developed a preferred process for determining which end of the spectrum is best suited for a particular athlete? For example, do you use a set training method and figure out the makeup of an athlete based on their performance over time? Or are there a specific set of parameters that can help identify where an athlete naturally falls within the training spectrum?
Great Blog!
I will be reading this one closely. If I am guilty of one thing, it is that I basically start in the middle, without trying one end or the other. I apply that “middle of the spectrum” to sprinters and see it through all four years. I would like to specify to each athlete more, but it is challenging to do that based on picking “what” for “who”.
Best blog I have read in a while. I have always wondered if shifting the emphasis throughout the athletes years would create the best result. Question always is for me is this: With a freshman in high school do you develop speed first then build in fitness later in his high school career or do you build fitness first to take off the seconds then focus on speed when hes a little older?
I would develop speed first. One could argue that it would depend on the talent level of the athlete. Personally, I say develop speed first no matter what. I say this because no matter how fast they are running coming into high school, they can’t possibly be running to their absolute potential that early in age. Now, while developing that speed, I’d mix in tempo, plyos, weights, etc. Then as Mike said, as they start to develop further, you have to determine what specific route to take, whether it be more to the tempo side, or more to the speed/power side.
I agree with everyone here Mike. Best post I’ve read in quite a while. This is an instant classic.
We do take the speed route first where I am at and still mix in tempo, plyos and weights. The problem for me is by the time I actually learn the athlete and how they respond to a certain stimulus they are a senior. I would love to start with a lot of speed for their frosh/soph years then move the juniors and seniors to more of a tempo based program to see how they respond. Problem is living in Chicago it is very difficult to get outside and do anything worthwhile when it is under 20 degrees for the first couple months of the season. I have found if we do too much tempo on the basketball court it wrecks our kids lower extremities for a couple days.
When?
Based on some casual observations of various training systems I think it’s fair to say that for many athletes it’s probably best to start off on one side of the spectrum and move towards the center as there career progresses.
Based on your when, here is my question…
How do you determine WHEN to move to something else? And I guess this can be asked for any sprint event, from 100 and beyond regarding training. How do you know when they’ve had enough of one thing, and have them move on to something else? What should you look for in training/races?
[quote author="Mike Young" date="1240913932"]When?
Based on some casual observations of various training systems I think it’s fair to say that for many athletes it’s probably best to start off on one side of the spectrum and move towards the center as there career progresses.
Based on your when, here is my question…
How do you determine WHEN to move to something else? And I guess this can be asked for any sprint event, from 100 and beyond regarding training. How do you know when they’ve had enough of one thing, and have them move on to something else? What should you look for in training/races?[/quote]It seems that in most of the cases I’ve observed that it becomes fairly obvious because performances actually start to DROP off. They don’t even maintain. There are TONS of great collegiate 400m runners who never progressed beyond there junior year. I’m guessing that it’s basically a case of being away from one end of the training spectrum for too long so those qualities can no longer be maintained through indirect training stimuli.
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="Jay Turner" date="1241251191"][quote author="Mike Young" date="1240913932"]When?
Based on some casual observations of various training systems I think it’s fair to say that for many athletes it’s probably best to start off on one side of the spectrum and move towards the center as there career progresses.
Based on your when, here is my question…
How do you determine WHEN to move to something else? And I guess this can be asked for any sprint event, from 100 and beyond regarding training. How do you know when they’ve had enough of one thing, and have them move on to something else? What should you look for in training/races?[/quote]It seems that in most of the cases I’ve observed that it becomes fairly obvious because performances actually start to DROP off. They don’t even maintain. There are TONS of great collegiate 400m runners who never progressed beyond there junior year. I’m guessing that it’s basically a case of being away from one end of the training spectrum for too long so those qualities can no longer be maintained through indirect training stimuli.[/quote]
So basically you’re saying you’ll see your times get WORSE over time? Is that to say that the answer to my question would be to train one side of the spectrum until you see these drop offs in time, or should you try to be ahead of the curve?
Also, is what you’re saying pretty good evidence as to why a “both ends…” approach is usually the better way to go in sprint training, simply because it allows you to keep all aspects of training involved from micro to micro, meso to meso, and year to year?
Mike? Anyone?
So basically you’re saying you’ll see your times get WORSE over time?
That’s what it seems like when you look at athletes that start in programs that are clearly on one side of the spectrum.
Is that to say that the answer to my question would be to train one side of the spectrum until you see these drop offs in time, or should you try to be ahead of the curve?
I’d imagine you could try to stay ahead of the curve but I’m not sure how to do it to be honest. It seems some people progress for 2 years and others for 3 or 4. Still others don’t progress at all.
Also, is what you’re saying pretty good evidence as to why a “both ends…” approach is usually the better way to go in sprint training, simply because it allows you to keep all aspects of training involved from micro to micro, meso to meso, and year to year?
Yep.
ELITETRACK Founder
Question Mike:
What is your stance on returning a 400m athlete to form coming off a hamstring injury when that athlete is already in a short to long system? Would you adjust the regim to fit a more tempo based program i.e. what led clyde hart to create his training system for Michael Johnson and for years to follow? Or would you trust and allow a proper physiotherapy program re-inserting the athlete back into the same short to long path but simply in an adjusted spot in the system based upon returning fitness?
Sorry for the following but I held back as long as I could.
CFKA’s 400 tid bits:
Key to 400m, dont take any right turns.
“Anything over 1 lap is redundant”
And my fav… when I was a much younger CFKA, one of my HS kids came up to me while I was talking to the opposing coach (a guy in his late 60’s) So my kid starts telling me his master plan for running his open 400 to come that day – when to accelerate, how he was going to pace it, etc… 5 minutes later, my opposite looks at him and with the perfect stare tells him, “Son, last time I looked they still called it, the 400m…DASH” – dash being said in a half drawl / half growl.
My kid walked away from us like the lunch room bully just stole his desert.
Again, sorry to interupt.
3 years ago the best 400m guy I had at Army (47.1x his jr year) hurt his hamstring really bad during the 1st meet of the indoor season in a freak accident involving a sharp cut-in at the brake. We weren’t able to do too much running at all and basically just did all tempo work (some running but mostly pool and bike) and some 10m hill accelerations. His lifting generally stayed the same but speed work was practically non-existent. He definitely ran his best when he had regular doses of speed and it really hurt his performance. By the time outdoor rolled around he was able to do speed work again but had lost a lot of his speed. That was also the year I tried to do an ends-to-middle training approach and of all my 400m experiments I actually liked it the least.
ELITETRACK Founder
3 years ago the best 400m guy I had at Army (47.1x his jr year) hurt his hamstring really bad during the 1st meet of the indoor season in a freak accident involving a sharp cut-in at the brake. We weren’t able to do too much running at all and basically just did all tempo work (some running but mostly pool and bike) and some 10m hill accelerations. His lifting generally stayed the same but speed work was practically non-existent. He definitely ran his best when he had regular doses of speed and it really hurt his performance. By the time outdoor rolled around he was able to do speed work again but had lost a lot of his speed. That was also the year I tried to do an ends-to-middle training approach and of all my 400m experiments I actually liked it the least.
Ok wait, I’m confused. So now you’re saying ends-to-the-middle is NOT the way to go in your opinion? I know that in the end, we all have to experiment to find what works best for us, but I thought in an earlier post you said you like an ends-to-the-middle best of all. Please clarify.
Not really….I think I might have been unclear.
I’ve known some people to be quite successful with ends to the middle approaches but my experiment with it wasn’t as good as I had hoped. We still ran quite fast just not as well as I’d hoped.
What I was trying to say before is that a more balanced approach is better for continued success. This could probably come in the form of long-to-short, short-to-long, or even ends-to-middle as long as all aspects of physical development were being addressed throughout the year in some fashion and not neglected completely as is the case in some programs.
ELITETRACK Founder
Not really….I think I might have been unclear.
I’ve known some people to be quite successful with ends to the middle approaches but my experiment with it wasn’t as good as I had hoped. We still ran quite fast just not as well as I’d hoped.
What I was trying to say before is that a more balanced approach is better for continued success. This could probably come in the form of long-to-short, short-to-long, or even ends-to-middle as long as all aspects of physical development were being addressed throughout the year in some fashion and not neglected completely as is the case in some programs.
Mike, just so everyone knows what we’re talking about, could you explain, in general terms, your preferred approach? I have one female athlete (18y.o. college freshman) who I worked with in the past that is just now wanting to get back into the 400m. In general, these are the progressions I had planned, roughly GPP, SPP1 and SPP2…
Day 1 – Accel
Day 2 – Easy Ext. Tempo
Day 3 – Easy Ext. Tempo
Day 4 – Long Accel
Day 5 – Easy Ext. Tempo
Day 6 – Accel
Day 7- OFF
Day 1 – Long Accel/ Max V
Day 2 – Harder Ext. Tempo
Day 3 – Easy Ext. Tempo
Day 4 – Long Accel/Max V
Day 5 – Easy Ext. Tempo
Day 6- Accel/Max V
Day 7 – OFF
Day 1 – Max V
Day 2 – Split Runs/Spec. End I
Day 3 – Easy Ext. Tempo
Day 4 – Max V/Speed Endurance
Day 5 – Split Runs/Spec End 2
Day 6 – Easy Ext. Tempo
Day 7 – OFF
The progressions are not exact and certain progresssions change at different times…not everything at once. I consider this an ends to the middle, because we are working accel/speed from day 1, and also hitting the other end, aerobic and lactic, very early as well.
Star–
I’d be interested in seeing how you are progressing the individual elements a bit as one can say “accel” “long accel” “ext. tempo” and the like and mean very different things from a volume/density/progression standpoint.
In your SPP1 base template, I’m a bit curious about the set-up because if you put the weeks together rather than just look at one week, you see that you have Max V days in 3 out of 5 consecutive days, which seems a bit excessive IMO for a 400m runner. Quite excessive for anyone actually, but especially a 400m sprinter.
Star–
I’d be interested in seeing how you are progressing the individual elements a bit as one can say “accel” “long accel” “ext. tempo” and the like and mean very different things from a volume/density/progression standpoint.
In your SPP1 base template, I’m a bit curious about the set-up because if you put the weeks together rather than just look at one week, you see that you have Max V days in 3 out of 5 consecutive days, which seems a bit excessive IMO for a 400m runner. Quite excessive for anyone actually, but especially a 400m sprinter.
The third group is a sample SPP, and there are only two accel/speed days. The second group is a late GPP/early SPP, and there are three speed days, but the volume on any given day would be less than if we were doing only two speed days. When we’re doing three speed days, the accels are short, the max v work is limited to one of the days, and the other day is a speed/speed endurance day. Depending on the volume, we may not do any accel work on the speed/speed endurance day.
By the time we start doing any split runs, intensive tempo, or special endurance, there are only two speed days, with one being more a max v focus and the other being a speed/speed endurance focus.
My point in posting was just to illustrate how one ‘concurrent’ or ‘ends-to-the-middle’ set up might work. If someone is doing strictly S-L, I would think they probably need to already have a strong endurance background such as soccer, cross country, or previous 800m experience. I don’t really like the L-S setup, due to to influences of CF and kitkat, who both stress the need to train speed from day one. And from my experience working with an athlete who did not play soccer, run cross country, and has never raced anything 800m or longer, we need the whole year to work on aerobic capacity and special endurance. So my post was to stimulate discussion with Mike, who stated above that he didn’t like ends-to-the-middle. I wanted to see how he would address speed throughout training, as well as how he would address aerobic capacity and special endurance.
What I was trying to say before is that a more balanced approach is better for continued success. This could probably come in the form of long-to-short, short-to-long, or even ends-to-middle as long as all aspects of physical development were being addressed throughout the year in some fashion and not neglected completely as is the case in some programs.
Wouldn’t a balanced approach in fact be ends-to-middle? More specifically, wouldn’t all aspects of your development be addressed throughout using an ends-to-middle?
This was a good thread that began in response to a great blog. So I’m hoping we can get back to it. For those who coach non-endurance athletes (no soccer, no cross country, no longer distance experience) I feel the ends to the middle is necessary, because building aerobic capacity and lactic tolerance can’t be done quickly. However, I also appreciate the issue of mixing speed work with endurance work during the same microcycle…both will probably suffer. What about using a block approach wherein speed was the focus for the first two weeks, and endurance the focus for the next two weeks, and so on and so forth. That way, both qualities are being trained from early in the training season, but since only one quality is emphasized in a 2-week microcycle, the two training modalities don’t work against each other.
