Posted In: The Classics
I have a friend who does the 800m and the 1600m and he needs some help in setting up his training schedule. Right now he plays soccer and for indoors he doesn’t know which one he wants to concentrate on more…the 8 or 16.
He’s a senior and his 1600m is 5:30 and hasn’t run the 800m yet. He’s going up from the 400m (62 PR).
Can you guys give him some ideas on how to setup micros for each phase and maybe some training ideas for him. It’s his Sr. year and he wants to do well.
Thanks.
before offering suggestions: 2 questions– when does soccer season end? what meets are on his schedule for indoor (dates please)?
Soccer is a great lead in for the 800m. As for setting up micros, I think one possible setup would be to perform a similar setup to a long sprinter but increase the volumes and decrease the intensities. Here's an example (running workouts only):
Mon: 6 x 300m @ goal race pace
Tues: 20' Continuous Tempo
Wed: 12 x 150m
Thurs: 20' Fartlek or Extensive tempo
Fri: 2 x 250m, 2 x 200m
Sat: Extensive tempo
ELITETRACK Founder
Fartlek means speed play. It is continuous running with varied paces. Traditionally the pace is varied based on how the athlete feels but time and speed controlled fartlek are also a possibility. An example of the former would be going out for a 20 minute run and whenever you feel like jogging you jog, when you feel like sprinting you sprint, when you feel like running at 70% you do so, and so on. An example of the latter would be going out for a 20 minute run consisting of a 4 minute warmup, and alternating 1 minute hard and 3 minutes easy. Continuous tempo is basically what a sprinter would call a distance run. See the FAQ section for a more detailed description.
ELITETRACK Founder
i like what mike offers— but for the 1600 i tend to incorporate 600's, 750's and 900's. either an up-the-ladder;down-the-ladder or repeats @tempo pace. still think there should be a min. 25miles/week base. also, like 20 min. of fartleks on the track (sprint the curve-jog/run the straightaway or vice versa); i work repeats much more— min. 6-8 300's in one session; also can do 200-250-300-250-400— then back down; or another FAVORITE is run a 200; jog the backstretch- do another 200 then jog 400 for recovery— do 4 sets of (2-200's) get it? also, 150's off the final curve for pure form is a good thing.
Good points Mag-
Perhaps I should have clarified that that the recommended micro setup I gave was only if the person was going to do the 800m. I'd up the interval lengths and increase the continous tempo quite dramatically for the mile because general endurance and fitness are undoubtedly the biggest factors for success and speed is really only of primary importance when you get to championship level racing (i.e. being able to finish a mile in 48 seconds).
ELITETRACK Founder
keith: fairly intense— when do incoporate rest days— no running
[i]Originally posted by DIII Coach[/i]
After I wrote my last post a thought came to me that I would share now. I don't mean to imply that the program Mike suggested wouldn't work. It very well might work better than what I wrote given the fact that the kid might be coming into the program a bit short on mileage and a bit broken down after a hard season of wrestling. So, in this case, there is definitely more than one way to skin a cat.
I was actually thinking the same thing about your post. Sometimes my training advice for middle distance athletes is biased by the fact that I only train speed and power athletes now, hence the low volume and higher intensity runs. In my younger days, I ran the open 800m quite a bit and often trained how you suggested (which hurt my decathlon performances…..I was a big dummy back then). Also, my first coaching position was actually as a XC coach and we did what would be considered by many HS programs to be high milage (55+ mpw) with quite a bit of fast running thrown in and we were very successful. But as I've said a couple times before on this board, the 800m is unlike any other event because you could be equally successful at it coming from both directions (speed or endurance) depending on the particular talents of the athlete. As such, any advice for this event is probably only as good as the familiarity of the coach with the athlete.
ELITETRACK Founder
Not trying to rain on anyone's parade…Actually, I wasn't going to say anything, but here I go….
An aerobic base is MANDATORY in events from 800m and above. This aerobic base must be achieved through both continuos runs and intervals (i.e. ext. tempo). Continuos runs increase maximum oxygen uptake (VO2), while interval runs improve the efficiency of the system!
Just like weight training is key in developing maximum strength, so is continuos runs in developing maximum oxygen uptake!
While Observing elite 800m runners??? train, I???ve noticed that they do continuos runs in the morning and intervals in the afternoon.
Neglecting continuous runs is a BIG mistake!
Dark Knight-
I totally agree with you about the continuous runs. The debate however is not "yes or no" but "how much?" What would be the minimal milage requirement for an 800m runner considering the point that 800m runners may be coming from either speed or endurance backgrounds? As for the elite athletes you mentioned, I think it's important to note how they work out but it's equally important to note that to be elite at the 800m you are neither a fast guy or an endurance guy…..you are probably an unbelievable genetic freak with the capacity for both; and as such can train that way with no problem.
Also, I should probably clarify on the workout suggestion I posted above that it is running workouts only…..just as it says :D. It doesn't include the many other training variables that would be incorporated to develop general fitness and endurance like extended dynamic warmups, hurdle mobility, general strength, med ball work, etc. Just doing those posted workouts alone with a standard half mile jog and static stretch would probably appear to be extremely minimal but anyone whose done my workouts know that the warmup portion and post running addons may be just as intensive as the actual workout in some cases. Those workouts with my extended dynamic warmups (1600m-2400m) would total to about 20 miles in an in-season week. Do you think this is too little for a HS 800m runner?
Here are some other questions to keep this discussion going:
-Should non-elite 800m runners train to focus on their weakness or their strength (i.e- speed or endurance)?
-What is the minimal amount of milage needed for a half miler at various points of the year?
-Does the benefits of the milage done during XC season carry over to track season, if so, to what extent?
ELITETRACK Founder
Mike,
You make some very interesting points and present good questions.
Let me say that I am a sprinter and by know mean want to come off like I'm an 800m expert. I was able to train and ask questions of elite mid-distance runners. Also, I am aware that everyone cannot train or manage the same workouts as elite athletes.
Nevertheless, I learned some important information that can be helpful to ALL 800m runners:
1) Elite runners maintain their aerobic base by doing 3-5 runs in the a.m. (30+ miles weekly)
2) Some of the intervals done in the afternoon are intense ex. 12-20x200m@22-24s w90s rest per rep.
On the benefits of XC. It helps keep your volume up and VO2. Having a short XC (no more than 2 months) might cause you to lose some speed temporarily because of reduced muscular co-ordination and PNS. -as opposed to more permanent fiber changes.
This makes any changes loss through distance work recoverable, while giving you a higher capacity to handle more volume.
I think that their strengths are more important to focus on than weakness. I currently have three athletes, two men and one woman that are potential 800m athletes. They will all be sophomores but both guys are returned missionaries. One just off his mission, the other went on a mission out of high school. Their freshmen seasons were all useed to develop speed and see what abilities they had. This year will end up as an experimental year, because of need. They may be forced to help on the 4 x 400 or they may need to run the 800m.
To facillitate both they have begun doing very short continuous runs that will hopefully begin to act as a base. The continuous runs will get longer and faster throughout the year. My plan right now is to eliminate slower intervals and replace them with the continuous runs. Track days will then focus on speed development and specific speed in relation to 400m/800m needs of each individual.
As of now it is a very broad plan with a lot of experimentation to follow, for example I am not sure there is a minimum mileage requirement without first determining how the road runs will effect each individual. I am looking forward to the experiment.
Another point is racing strategy, the 800m has a definite strategic component that is a new dynamic for a 400m runner and can effect progress or confuse the training progress.
I think I see where you are going with this Dark Knight. I have had success with 800 runners using an endurance based program and a speed based program. Yes, there is always a base phase or period to be sure. But, one of the keys to success is determining which kind of 800 runner you are dealing with. Bob Parks has said that he doesn't want the type of 800 runner who is too slow for the 400 and not strong enought for the 1500. Ideally, you'd want to have someone who is good at both in order to conquer the 800. Seb Coe and Joaquim Cruz come to mind as the closest to brilliant in both, but we are not talking about an elite athlete in this case.
Some people favor the Lydiard approach in which your base period is nearly exclusively devoted to endurance workouts. An approach favored by Seb Coe is a multi tiered program which gives you most all elements of training within a 10 day–> 2 week time frame and quality speed efforts are done year round. I tend to be in the balanced program camp as I think it is the training that is best suited to the demands of the race. The complexion of the quality days will change as time goes on, but the scheme is the same with work done at 5 different race paces during each microcycle. I find this method really helps people get through meets with rounds, but I digress.
As to Mike's questions:
1) I've always found that the off seasons were the best time to work on weaknesses. As an athlete, I actually worked on my speed and special endurance in the summer. I could do that because we didn't have cross country at Kent then, but I would recommend it even if you do run cc as an 800 runner.
2) Minimal mileage could vary. For a 1500/800 runner it's probably going to be higher than for a 400/800 runner. With endurance training, I have found that it takes a bit more mileage each year to elicit the same results, but there is a point of diminishing returns. One thing sticks in my mind is something I once read-do enough mileage for the task. That is to say, don't do mileage just to show big impressive numbers in a training log, but do enough to handle the work you need to do in order to be as fast as you can be over your prime distance(s). It's tough to put hard numbers on it.
3) The benefits should carry over, but I would make sure that you don't overdo the attempts to have the strength carry over. As a sprinter sometimes uses the 4 x 4 to gain special endurance during the indoor season, I would use the cross races as tempo efforts and not be too concerned about training too specifically for cc. I don't think it's cc that diminishes speed so much as it's neglecting speed in your training.
In general, I've always felt that one of the training keys is to be able to handle relatively high intensity with rather minimal recovery.
Coach,
Very good info. Two of the points you made are:
1) "I don't think it's cc that diminishes speed so much as it's neglecting speed in your training."
2)"In general, I've always felt that one of the training keys is to be able to handle relatively high intensity with rather minimal recovery."
Point (1) puts into perspective that its mainly the lack of speed work that diminishes speed as oppose to JUST too much low intensity work volume.
Point (2) really applies to track as a whole. Being able to handle high intensity in the environment of endurance is important for all events from 100 to marathon -with relative degrees of intensity/endurance dependant on event type.
And of course, you've pointed out some important elements involved in achieving the aforementioned point(s) for the 800/1500m runner.
Good stuff!
How much mileage is sufficient for a 400/800 runner at the high school level? I understand that alot depends on whether the athlete is more speed based vs. endurance based, but is there a relative formula for making the determination? As a high school coach with a sprint background, I am constantly battling coaches who don't do speed work until the week of the state meet, have kids run 40+ miles per week whether they run the 400 or the 2 mile or don't know what speed is at all. I don't know how many times I've explained that 150s and 200s don't constitute true speed work. I tend to focus more on general conditioning than mileage since high school kids have such poor posture, they can't keep their form no matter what approach to training you take. Thoughts?
The better the gpp….the better the program! :flaming:
I would have speed and power elements at all phases of a 400/800 runners program. Many backwards thinking coaches (many of which seem to get high school jobs unfortunately) think that doing quality work early in a program gets kids hurt, when in reality, it's making an abrupt switch from all distance (many times run too slowly to begin with) to almost all speed is what gets kids hurt because distance alone (notice the term alone before you rip me) does little to get you ready for speed events and the 400 and 800 are speed events. Yes, you do need a base or a GP phase for all events, but as McFarlane says: the base for speed is primarily SPEED (sorry to yell) :yes:
I coudn't really site any formula for figuring out optimal volume, but I would say that you ought to be able to figure out what the athletes background is for a starting point. Then, I would map out your season long macrocycle with your scheme of work. I am a big fan of multi tiered training. Some endurance work is needed, but within the realm of "aerobic" work there is a wide range of running that can be truly labeled as such and it needn't be SLOW running. Slow training produces slow racing. That doesn't mean that every work out is done at max aerobic capabilities but you should be emphasizing some type of aerobic quality on most days.
Magico, you have a true grasp of training concepts as evidenced by your comment regarding 150's etc. One problem you're facing is that of ignorance of physiology by your peers (loose usage of the term, I imagine). I have 400/800 runners do some form of true speed development 40's or 60's year round. What you're talking about is wanting kids to do work at race pace early in the season and that is what they SHOULD be doing.
Somewhere in the early 80's speed became a four letter word. Some coaches were having all of their distance runners do interval type of training 4-5 days per week, plus trying to race and that was going too far in the other direction. It was breaking kids down and they weren't progressing in the 1600 and the 3200 because there was too much anaerobic work and not enough true aerobic development. So, in the US, we went the opposite direction and termed all training not done at or close to max speed as aerobic. As we all know, you need to be at or above about 60% of max to get any aerobic benefit yet you coudn't convince the less and slower is better crowd of that until you started seeing a rapid decline in high school distance performances starting around the mid 80's in the US. Ideally for the 1600 and 3200 runner to get better they would get to the point at which they could handle reasonably higher volumes AND an ample amount of quality track work at the same time before lowering that volume to induce the peak.
In an attempt to try to put some hard numbers in my loquacious answer. I probably would not have a hs 400/800 runner doing long runs of over 6-8 miles. Most aerobic training would be as Mike described above in the form of tempo running (fast continuous runs) or fartlek (intermittent surging within a medium length distance run). You need some recovery type of run days but not that many in a week-depending on how many meets you have in that week.
If I can help you in your mission to convince any coaches you work with, don't hesitate to ask. I have tried the best I can to educate as many other coaches as possible and this forum is incredibly informative so maybe you can steer some folks this way who really want to learn to help the kids they work with as much as possible because that's what we're supposed to be about.
Hang in there, it's worth it!!
:cul:
Very good points! I think what makes this a complicated issue is the different approaches involved in achieving good performances. In the case of mid distance running, this can be accomplished by increasing VO2 max (through volume and/or intensity) or by making oneself more efficient in other areas.
In fact, just like the correlation between strength max. and performance IS NOT absolute, VO2 max and performance is not absolute.
Other factors include: mental attitude (ability to tolerate pain), running economy (how efficiently one runs), and lactate threshold (fastest pace you can maintain without accumulating large amounts of lactic acid in your blood). A runner with a relatively low VO2 max, but high in these other performance factors, could outperform a runner with a significantly higher VO2 max but with poor running economy and a low lactate threshold.
In other words, lower VO2 max values can be compensated with high efficiency and the ability to run at a higher percentage of one's VO2 max without accumulating too much lactic acid (high lactate threshold).
The fact that H.S. coaches focuses on longer run come from the improving VO2 max view through volume. It is important to note that VO2 max is improved by training above 75% max. of heart rate. This heart rate above 75% can be achieved by increasing intensity OR volume. Having said that…Increasing VO2 by increasing intensity, as opposed to volume, seems to be more efficient.
Not bad for a freaking 100m sprinter, huh? :saint:
Excellent posts guys. I just thought I'd add something regarding VO2 because it's been brought up several times in this thread…..development of VO2 max is FAR less important than development of lactate threshold for the 800m…..it's really not even close. In fact, if I recall correctly, lactate threshold is a better indicator for success all the way up to the 5k.
ELITETRACK Founder
Absolutely correct Mike. When you consider that lactate threshold is, as I understand it, only affected by training whereas Max VO2 can actually be improved by losing weight whether or not the loss occured as a result of training.
An even more important factor as far as the 800 is concerned is lactate tolerance just as in the 400. You have to learn to continue to run fast when swimming in lactic acid. Threshold training helps that point come later in the race and lactate tolerance helps you to operate (both metabolically and biomehcanically) once you are there.
:spin:
You guys are correct lactate threshold/tolerance is far more important for running under 5k. Also VO2 can be improved by losing body fat w/o losing muscle.
This brings up a interesting question: Let???s say for the sake of argument that two athletes are equal in other factors (i.e. lactate threshold/tolerance, mental toughness etc.)…Will the athlete with the superior VO2 max have an advantage in the 800/1600?
I have heard that just having a 10% improvement in VO2 can improve one???s 5k time by app. 1min.
How about the 800/1600? Maybe 10/30sec max. respectively?
I don't really think that a vo2 max jump would really affect the 800 that much because we are talking different energy systems. Also I suspect that the people experiencing such a jump would be relatively beginning runners so such a jump wouldn't be out of the question. You would see very minute jumps in max with a runner who has been training for a long time.
I believe you are correct about beginning runners having more of a benefit from a jump in VO2 max.
On energy systems: It is true that all non-aerobic (anaerobic) activity puts an athlete in an "oxygen debt??? which is made up by heavy breathing at the end of an activity. For example if an athlete were to run a 12 sec 100m sprint his body would require app. 6L of oxygen for total aerobic respiration. However the VO2 max during that 12 sec is 1.2L, and would incur 4.8L debt, requiring one to replenish that oxygen through heavy breathing. As he becomes better conditioned, his VO2 (and, of course, anaerobic threshold) improves and his oxygen debt lowers.
In fact most athletes have a 10% greater VO2 max than the sedentary person does, and marathoners have a 45% higher VO2 max. This is one reason why an elite distance runner can do a workout like 16x200m in 24s without breathing as hard as a short sprinter trying to attempt the same workout.
Hope it wasn't too wordy, just wanted to clarify the value of VO2 -assuming there is one of course 🙄
while you fellas continue the discussion— i'm heading out the door for a 20miler— literally. who woulda thunk that running could be such a science?
Running is both an art and a science. As an exercise physiologist once told me "every successful coach is a scientist whether they know it or not." You have to understand the demands of the event before you can coach it well.
Hope your run was a good one.
Good stuff here.
Knight, the absolute Vo2 hasn't changed with weight loss, just the relative Vo2. So, is 1 minute improvement in 5k with 10% vo2 improvement, due to better oxygen exchange or decrease in mass??
Have read this in only one place, i'm paraphrasing- "women's anaerobic threshold is naturally almost same as vo2 max, much more than in men". Read in Coe and Martin first edition, I can site page tomorrow. Have not read anywhere else.
In experience with one more elite female have found this to be very true. Has anyone else found this to be true or read anywhere?
Todd,
I'm not sure I could confine that much improvement in 5k due to one or two factors. We could very well be looking at other associated factors such as mitochondrial density or even biomechanical efficiency. It's my understanding that the % of max that the anaerobic threshold occurs is at least as important. Also, I would say that the V Vo2 Max is possibly a more telling statistic since you know what speeds these physiological changes occur. Then you can take the science to the workout scheme and plan your workout paces accordingly.
I have read similar things about women's threshold and some scientists have mistakenly extrapolated that out to mean that the women's marathon world record would be faster than the men's, but it is very interesting
Here's an old post by a former American Record holder which sums up my philosophy about the whole thing quite nicely:
It's an oft-used and little understood term used by grad students to justify to their parents that all of their efforts and money have not gone to waste. University administrators have been duped by this fog-machine, as well. How else could the waste of valuable resources, time and money, be covered-up? Parents and other intelligent, rational thinking adults could not possibly decipher this code. Do not try to yourself. You'll only make yourself look foolish reciting the catechism of the exercise-physio-geeks.
The 'science' of exercise physiology was born out of a failed genetics experiment in the early 60s: the breeding of an economist and a sociologist. The offspring of this pairing would say more and mean less than the combined blather of the two parents put together. Common sense would have told us how this experiment would have ended, but stubborn researchers pushed ahead nonetheless.
The only numbers that matter are the ones that you receive at the end of the race. The most important of these is called PLACE, and is represented as an ordinal. A '1' is the best indicator of your performance. If you get a '1' then you've done excellent. It's no small coincidence that '1' is a homophone for 'won'. Other excellent numbers to receive are '2' and '3'. Not nearly as good as a '1', but by tradition and convention the numbers '1', '2' and '3' are deemed to be the 'supreme ordinals'; that is to say, worthy of gold, silver and bronze, and are separated from the other ordinals. The rest of the ordinals are represented by the formula: n + 1…(to infinity). There is a direct, inverse relationship between ordinal value and its worth. The closer you get to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer you approach infinity, the worse you've done.
One of the other numbers that matters much more than VO2 Max is TIME. TIME is always secondary to PLACE in it's value. Neither PLACE nor TIME are given in the gerbil-wheel lab tests conducted by the exercise-physio-geeks. You will only receive them in the experiment that the REAL EXPERTS call COMPETITION. TIME does not supercede PLACE, but it is a way of comparing the PLACE of two or more experiments from different venues and eras. The juxtaposition of TIME and PLACE is the business of track statisticians, who, by the way, are also the progeny of the aforementioned failed genetics experiment.
Long ago, TIME was measured as a fraction of the earth's rotation in base 60: hours, minutes and seconds. It's still expressed as such, however, the predecessors to the exercise-physio-geeks have determined that TIME should now be measured in terms of the vibration frequency of irradiated Cesium atoms. Your watch has quartz crystals in it that will simulate this experiment for you (without the attendant radiation and disposal problems) and convert the results automatically, presenting them to you in the form of easily recognizable numbers. No complicated formulae to memorize!
There are many other factors that are much more indicative of athletic performance, or the potential for performance, than VO2 max. I couldn't possibly begin to list them all: height, weight, hair color, skin color, shoe size, favorite TV show…the list is endless.
Steve Prefontaine,US runner, 84.4
Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner, 71.3
Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder, 71.2
Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder, 69.7
Rosa Mota, Marathon runner, 67.2
Jeff Galloway, US Runner, 73.0
Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder, 71.0
Jarmila Krotochvilov
a,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner, 72.8
Greg LeMond, professional cyclist, 92.5
Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder, 92
Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist, 88
RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY
Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 35-45.
Marathon runners (N = 20) and ultra-marathoners (N = 23) were tested for VO2max, peak treadmill running velocity, velocity at lactate turnpoint, and VO2 at 16 km/h using an incremental (1 min) treadmill test.
Results. Race times at 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km of the specialist marathoners were faster than those of the ultra-marathoners, however, only the 10 km time differed significantly. Lactate turnpoint occurred at 77.4% of VO2max and at 74.7% of peak treadmill velocity. The average VO2 at 16 km/h was 51.2 ml/kg/min which represented 78.5% of VO2max.
For all distances, performance time in other races was the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).
The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r = -.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93); and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased.
The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).
Conclusion. There may be no unique physiological characteristics that distinguish elite long-distance (10 km or longer) runners as is often promoted. Other factors determine success in high level sports among exclusive groups of superior athletes.
Implication. Running performance is the best predictor of running capability in elite long-distance runners. Physiological laboratory testing gives less information than does actual performance. Even the fastest speed of running on the treadmill is a better predictor than any physiological measure. This suggests that for at least endurance-dominated sports, actual performances in a variety of performance-specific situations will give more useful information than that which can be obtained in any physiology laboratory test.
As I've said in the satire above, "VO2 max doesn't mean anything."
😯
walla-pallusa! as technical as your post was— i agree— performance and time— always has been and always will be
i really enjoyed your post. thanks. 😆
