[dion]

dion on June 11, 2004 at 12:42 am #9397

Ok, so I used to be quite a runner about 2yrs ago. I haven't done track&field for awhile – my absence was mostly due to some really nasty shin splints, but I'm over those now and my mind is set on beating the school's 400m record of 52.8 seconds! Holy crap! It was set in 1966, the longest surviving track record in our school.

Anyway, I must beat that. I have 2yrs, because I'll be a junior after the summer is complete. When i was in 8th grade, I ran a pretty good 55-58 second 400m. It'll probably take me a bit to get back to that level, but not much I am sure. I think I may even be in better health than I was then. I just thought I'd ask you all here about how I should go about training for this. I have to beat 52.8 seconds on a 400m; damn, what a feat. That hurts just to think about. :-p But I always love a good challenge.

Anyway, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Will I need to do some weight training? I'm not much for that kind of stuff, but I will do it if I have to.

BTW, last I checked, I ran a 12 second 100m, which ain't that great, but I'm not much of a 100m runner. I don't start off very strong, unfortunately. One thing I have to work on is coming out of the blocks.

Thanks,
-D

[400stud]

400stud on June 11, 2004 at 9:14 am #29283

What's your 200 or 800 time?

[dion]

dion on June 11, 2004 at 3:29 pm #29284

200m = 24

I don't think I've ever timed myself at the 800m… I'm not one for distances. :p

[400stud]

400stud on June 11, 2004 at 8:20 pm #29285

I can tell you right now you need a heavy dose of endurance work. Being a 24sec 200m runner, you should already have the record. So, I recommend lifting weights, doing lots of base work (including hills, tempo, some speed) and maintaining a healthy diet. The speed is there for you, but now you just got to harness it to your advantage.

[dion]

dion on June 12, 2004 at 12:02 am #29286

Alright, thanks. This site rocks. 🙂

[alex]

alex on June 12, 2004 at 8:55 am #29287

I'm not so sure 400. Yes, his endurance could use work, but so could his speed. I think it would be a mistake to work too much on endurance when his speed can use just as much work. I think you should start off by using a balanced program with emphasis on general fitness , and then decide (after a few months) whether or not to lean towards endurance training or speed training.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on June 12, 2004 at 9:12 am #29288

i agree with alex

[dion]

dion on June 13, 2004 at 9:49 am #29289

So what exactly is a good workout to cover speed and endurance? I mean, especially for speed… if I do a fast 400, my whole day is dead. There's no way I can do much else for the next 30min. LOL

[mister-c]

mister-c on June 14, 2004 at 1:26 am #29290

400stud, I actually have a question for you concerning 200 splits in the 400. What would be considered good splits and what dropoff could you expect between the first and second 200s? Would a 23 for the first 200 and a 27 for the second 200 be considered good as far as maintaining speed or is it too much of a dropoff which would indicate the need for more SE? Just wondering…

[crazy400]

crazy400 on June 16, 2004 at 6:58 am #29291

If i were you i would work on speed endurance ,150's,200's,300's it is the only way to drop your time significantly. My best 400 was 52.3 sophomore year and i came back this year after doing alot of speed endurance and now my 400 is 49.7

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on June 16, 2004 at 8:34 am #29292

mister c, i know im not 400, but that 23/27 example is way to big of a dropoff. that sounds like a person who needs to work on their race strategy. i dont know specifics, but within a second would probably be best, if the splits arent identical.

[alex]

alex on June 16, 2004 at 8:51 am #29293

I'm no 400 expert either, but from what I have learned an even split is not the most efficient way to go about running the 400. The general reccomendation is to go out anywhere from .8-2.0 seconds higher than your 200 PB. .8 would be for elite athletes with good fitness, and 2 seconds would be for less experienced athletes. So if you're PB is 23 seconds you should probably go out between 24-25 seconds, the better shape you're in the faster you should go out.

[rice773]

rice773 on June 16, 2004 at 10:33 pm #29294

Great advice, also your second 200m should be around 2 seconds slower than your first. If the difference is less than 2 seconds you went out too slow, if it's greater you probably went out too fast.

[jumpscoachmike]

jumpscoachmike on June 16, 2004 at 10:50 pm #29295

crazy400-

speed endurance work should not exceed 150m – if you get into SE1 and 2 you will involve volumes higher than this (i.e. 200, 300, etc.)

[cstatespr]

cstatespr on June 17, 2004 at 12:53 am #29296

i've heard 3 seconds difference between your 200 splits in a 400. i just split a 47.2 before my season ended. my splits were 22.2 and 25.1. my race felt great. i felt i went out plenty fast enough and i didn't completely die at the end. i also think my strategy was on point…b/c i don't train for the 400 at all. so 3 seconds difference in splits went pretty well for me…those are my thoughts

[alex]

alex on June 17, 2004 at 3:16 am #29297

speed endurance work should not exceed 150m – if you get into SE1 and 2 you will involve volumes higher than this (i.e. 200, 300, etc.)

The terms are interchangable (ie some use speed endurance to refer to speed endurance, SE1, and SE2).

[jumpscoachmike]

jumpscoachmike on June 17, 2004 at 4:16 am #29298

I'm not sure what you mean by 'interchangeable' Alex…if I'm planning a workout with bouts of 150m, 200m, 250m, etc. I am hitting Special endurance 1. If I'm planning a workout with 80m, 100m, 120m, etc. I am hitting Speed endurance. I just simply wouldn't refer to 200s and 300s as 'Speed endurance'….just trying to clarify how i read into it that's all.

[alex]

alex on June 17, 2004 at 4:57 am #29299

That's exactly my point. You wouldn't refer to 200's and 300's as speed endurance, but others might (and do). It's really no big deal, but it's good to be aware that if you give two people the same term they might have entirely different interpretations of it.