masterstrack.com

The No. 1 site for masters track discussions

Login | Register

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ] 

Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:10 pm

 
Offline
Journeyman Masters Athlete
User avatar
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:56 am
Posts: 30
Location: Puerto Rico / NYC

Their are too many factors to simplify how one should train for the 400m. This is how I train and it works for me. I'm my own case study.

_________________
400H/400M
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti



Top Top
  Profile WWWYIM

Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:52 pm

 
Offline
Master Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 42
Location: southern california

Tony Echeandia wrote:
Their are too many factors to simplify how one should train for the 400m. This is how I train and it works for me. I'm my own case study.


Hmm...

There are numerous factors involved in running at any distance, but a very limited amount can be trained. If your taking into consideration the trainable factors and your happy with your result it would be foolish to change, but the "if" is the overarching issue.

What most do is spend too much time on what is not trainable and to little on what is.

_________________
Barry Ross
www.bearpowered.com
www.ASRspeed.com



Top Top
  Profile WWW

Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:17 pm

 
Offline
Master Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 42
Location: southern california

Riddle wrote:

Barry,
Are you suggesting something along the lines of 8x200 at 90% with limited rest such as 2 minutes?


Yes and no.

Until recently, what you describe above was the way coaches would build a workout: x reps @ x distance @ x Percent. If you ask them the specific reason why that number of sets or reps or percent, they would either point to some other coach who had a world beater athlete who did that particular workout or they would just guess.

The days of just guessing are over.

We've been using an algorithym developed by locomotion experts at Rice University (which owns the patent) that will predict any persons (trained or not) running time from distances of a few meters to 5 full minutes of running. It's 96% accurate in its predictive ability.

We've taken that algorithm and modified it for training purposes so that we can take any individual, time them at a very short distance (10m) and at the distance they can cover in 30-40 sec of running, plug the results into the algorithm and find out what 90% effort means in real time. Our method allows us to train either distance over time or time over distance.

The algorithm will show the predicted time at any distance so we can chart where major fall-off's occur early in the race, and train short of that distance until their time improves. We do this by giving them a time they need to run repeats under until they cannot stay below that time. It could be one repeat or ten repeats or more. Once they go over the time, the plometric effect on the muscle during sprinting is not sufficient to make additional improvements in their speed.

esttaxes, who has posted on this site, has been training under the algorithm and can tell you how effective and efficient it is.

What must accompany that training method is what actually happens when you run. That information is also readily available, but the coaching ranks will not accept it because, for the most part they don't understand it.
Sprint coaching is very simple, there is no magic dust, no special technique -- just physics and physiology.

_________________
Barry Ross
www.bearpowered.com
www.ASRspeed.com



Top Top
  Profile WWW

Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:23 pm

 
Offline
Journeyman Masters Athlete
User avatar
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:56 am
Posts: 30
Location: Puerto Rico / NYC

Do you have experience running the 400M. I'm not trying to be rude but I'm new to everyone on the board.

_________________
400H/400M
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti



Top Top
  Profile WWWYIM

Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:41 pm

 
Offline
Master Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 42
Location: southern california

Tony Echeandia wrote:
Do you have experience running the 400M. I'm not trying to be rude but I'm new to everyone on the board.


No, I did not and do not run 400 m. But I do train runners who do.

Do you have any knowledge of the physics of running or muscle physiology?

I'm not trying to be rude either, but everything I've said is based upon both. I'm not guessing.

_________________
Barry Ross
www.bearpowered.com
www.ASRspeed.com



Top Top
  Profile WWW

Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:53 pm

 
Offline
Journeyman Masters Athlete
User avatar
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:56 am
Posts: 30
Location: Puerto Rico / NYC

thefattys wrote:
Tony Echeandia wrote:
Do you have experience running the 400M. I'm not trying to be rude but I'm new to everyone on the board.


No, I did not and do not run 400 m. But I do train runners who do.

Do you have any knowledge of the physics of running or muscle physiology?

I'm not trying to be rude either, but everything I've said is based upon both. I'm not guessing.


I have an understanding of both the Physics of Running and muscle physiology. I'm not a pro but I read. More importantly I run the 400 so I try to apply what I do understand to my running and I'm always willing to learn something new.[/i]

_________________
400H/400M
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti



Top Top
  Profile WWWYIM

Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:41 pm

 
Offline
Master Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 42
Location: southern california

Tony Echeandia wrote:
I have an understanding of both the Physics of Running and muscle physiology. I'm not a pro but I read. More importantly I run the 400 so I try to apply what I do understand to my running and I'm always willing to learn something new.


It's not more important that one runs the distance. What's important is understanding what really happens during the race.

You stated in your post that "Long to short is really effective especially for longverity in completing at 400m." The 400 is an oxygen deficit event and barely scratches the surface of the aerobic capacity. 400 meter runners, including you :) , don't run out of fuel; your muscles tire. Your muscles are fueled by the alactic , and then lactic anaerobic system which does not require oxygen. Lactic acid comes from the lactic anaerobic metabolism, so running till one is in an aerobic metabolism is of minimal (if any) benefit. It certainly is of very minimal benefit to running fast longer.

If what you're reading isn't clear about that, then you're reading the wrong material :(

Muscles tire because of the constant, powerful and forced eccentric stretch (again, not from lack of fuel supply) when you run at higher speeds.

Strength training enhances the ability of the muscles to last longer, in the sense of withstanding the effects of gravity at touchdown, and the storage of elastic energy.

Running is effective in training the release of stored elastic energy, but only at higher speeds (because of the magnitude of force). Running long in training will not give much benefit to storage or release of energy because the amount of force created at landing is much smaller.

That's how the system works whether I run that race or not. :D

_________________
Barry Ross
www.bearpowered.com
www.ASRspeed.com



Top Top
  Profile WWW

Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:48 pm

 
Offline
Journeyman Masters Athlete
User avatar
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:56 am
Posts: 30
Location: Puerto Rico / NYC

thefattys wrote:
Tony Echeandia wrote:
I have an understanding of both the Physics of Running and muscle physiology. I'm not a pro but I read. More importantly I run the 400 so I try to apply what I do understand to my running and I'm always willing to learn something new.


It's not more important that one runs the distance. What's important is understanding what really happens during the race.

You stated in your post that "Long to short is really effective especially for longverity in completing at 400m." The 400 is an oxygen deficit event and barely scratches the surface of the aerobic capacity. 400 meter runners, including you :) , don't run out of fuel; your muscles tire. Your muscles are fueled by the alactic , and then lactic anaerobic system which does not require oxygen. Lactic acid comes from the lactic anaerobic metabolism, so running till one is in an aerobic metabolism is of minimal (if any) benefit. It certainly is of very minimal benefit to running fast longer.

If what you're reading isn't clear about that, then you're reading the wrong material :(

Muscles tire because of the constant, powerful and forced eccentric stretch (again, not from lack of fuel supply) when you run at higher speeds.

Strength training enhances the ability of the muscles to last longer, in the sense of withstanding the effects of gravity at touchdown, and the storage of elastic energy.

Running is effective in training the release of stored elastic energy, but only at higher speeds (because of the magnitude of force). Running long in training will not give much benefit to storage or release of energy because the amount of force created at landing is much smaller.

That's how the system works whether I run that race or not. :D


Listen not looking to piss you off. I do what I can. All things in theory are relevent but one must have expirence as well to truly understand what systems work or not. What would be a work out that you recommend which would best high light your training principles.

_________________
400H/400M
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti



Top Top
  Profile WWWYIM

Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:42 pm

 
Offline
Master Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 42
Location: southern california

Tony Echeandia wrote:

Listen not looking to piss you off. I do what I can. All things in theory are relevent but one must have expirence as well to truly understand what systems work or not. What would be a work out that you recommend which would best high light your training principles.


Tony, I'm not pissed off at all! Well not at you anyway :D

What does make me mad is the amount of time I spent (approximately 30 years) listening to (and believing :oops: ) coaches who wrote a bunch of crap about strength training and running faster. Most of what I got from them is not possible, let alone not accurate

I coached with Tommie Smith at Santa Monica City College a few years ago. I worked out in the weightroom with George Woods in '67-'68 (I was a teenager at the time) who won silver in the shot at the Mexico City Olympics. I can say now, without any reservation, that both did not apply what was known by scientists, especially locomotion experts and physiologists, at that time.

If you follow the current belief of high school through elite and pro level coaches, you will hear terms that describe runners as pushing off the ground, (or pawback or other terms) for propulsion at high speed. They will talk about applying force to the ground, mechanically (or more precisely: chemical muscle mechanical work derived from signals sent from the brain to activate the muscles). So what's the problem?

It can't happen that way, so it doesn't happen that way.

How do we know this? Because ground reaction force plates measuring force at touchdown show forces of 3-5 times bodyweight. So if I'm a 150lb superstar sprinter, I'm going to show ground contact force between 450 lbs and 750 lbs. Measurements of slow to pro runners ground contact times range from .12s to .08s. So as the superstar runner that I made myself above, I would have to be able to push off the ground with 750lb of force which I've developed in the .08s I'm contacting the ground. So far so good (maybe).

Wait! The measurements by the ground force reaction plates show that forces peak BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE STANCE PERIOD! That means I must be able to signal my brain to signal my legs to push 750lb against the ground in under .044 sec.

Oops, sorry, I forgot that only one leg is making contact with the ground!

This means that I should be able to go in the weightroom, put 600lbs (plus my bodyweight for a total of 750lbs ) on a racked bar and push it up 4-5" (about how much elevation the hips show) in less than 1/2 a second. Oh, and do it over and over and over again with each leg.

The ground reaction force plates have no reason to lie about the forces. The timing systems have no reason to lie about the time of ground contact. So what's up with this?

No human being could generate, through chemical muscle mechanical work, that amount of force in that amount of time.

The force is there, so where is it coming from?

I had this same argument with Charlie Francis on his site (along with a lot of other issues but not drugs. the thread was 540 posts and about 23,000 looks). He had no answer. Nor do the vast majority of coaches I come in contact with personally and online.

So again, where is this force coming from and how should one train based upon knowing what and where this force is derived from?

Knowing the answer and training for it is all that is necessary to run fast or faster.

The answer of course is gravity.

_________________
Barry Ross
www.bearpowered.com
www.ASRspeed.com



Top Top
  Profile WWW

Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:16 am

 
Offline
Journeyman Masters Athlete
User avatar
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:56 am
Posts: 30
Location: Puerto Rico / NYC

thefattys wrote:
Tony Echeandia wrote:

Listen not looking to piss you off. I do what I can. All things in theory are relevent but one must have expirence as well to truly understand what systems work or not. What would be a work out that you recommend which would best high light your training principles.


Tony, I'm not pissed off at all! Well not at you anyway :D

What does make me mad is the amount of time I spent (approximately 30 years) listening to (and believing :oops: ) coaches who wrote a bunch of crap about strength training and running faster. Most of what I got from them is not possible, let alone not accurate

I coached with Tommie Smith at Santa Monica City College a few years ago. I worked out in the weightroom with George Woods in '67-'68 (I was a teenager at the time) who won silver in the shot at the Mexico City Olympics. I can say now, without any reservation, that both did not apply what was known by scientists, especially locomotion experts and physiologists, at that time.

If you follow the current belief of high school through elite and pro level coaches, you will hear terms that describe runners as pushing off the ground, (or pawback or other terms) for propulsion at high speed. They will talk about applying force to the ground, mechanically (or more precisely: chemical muscle mechanical work derived from signals sent from the brain to activate the muscles). So what's the problem?

It can't happen that way, so it doesn't happen that way.

How do we know this? Because ground reaction force plates measuring force at touchdown show forces of 3-5 times bodyweight. So if I'm a 150lb superstar sprinter, I'm going to show ground contact force between 450 lbs and 750 lbs. Measurements of slow to pro runners ground contact times range from .12s to .08s. So as the superstar runner that I made myself above, I would have to be able to push off the ground with 750lb of force which I've developed in the .08s I'm contacting the ground. So far so good (maybe).

Wait! The measurements by the ground force reaction plates show that forces peak BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE STANCE PERIOD! That means I must be able to signal my brain to signal my legs to push 750lb against the ground in under .044 sec.

Oops, sorry, I forgot that only one leg is making contact with the ground!

This means that I should be able to go in the weightroom, put 600lbs (plus my bodyweight for a total of 750lbs ) on a racked bar and push it up 4-5" (about how much elevation the hips show) in less than 1/2 a second. Oh, and do it over and over and over again with each leg.

The ground reaction force plates have no reason to lie about the forces. The timing systems have no reason to lie about the time of ground contact. So what's up with this?

No human being could generate, through chemical muscle mechanical work, that amount of force in that amount of time.

The force is there, so where is it coming from?

I had this same argument with Charlie Francis on his site (along with a lot of other issues but not drugs. the thread was 540 posts and about 23,000 looks). He had no answer. Nor do the vast majority of coaches I come in contact with personally and online.

So again, where is this force coming from and how should one train based upon knowing what and where this force is derived from?

Knowing the answer and training for it is all that is necessary to run fast or faster.

The answer of course is gravity.


There is no doubt that you have done your homework and your right there is no one answer, but in the end it doesn't matter what training method you subscribe to the person who win is the person who gets to the finish line first. It's more important to keep athlete's healthy and focused and then you'll never know what you can get out of them as far as performance is concerned. One of the most exciting and depressing things I have ever done is return to racing. Have a great weekend!

_________________
400H/400M
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti



Top Top
  Profile WWWYIM

Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:18 pm

 
Offline
Junior Masters Athlete
User avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:12 pm
Posts: 8
Location: Arlington, Texas

thefattys wrote:
Riddle wrote:

Barry,
Are you suggesting something along the lines of 8x200 at 90% with limited rest such as 2 minutes?


Yes and no.

Until recently, what you describe above was the way coaches would build a workout: x reps @ x distance @ x Percent. If you ask them the specific reason why that number of sets or reps or percent, they would either point to some other coach who had a world beater athlete who did that particular workout or they would just guess.

The days of just guessing are over.

We've been using an algorithym developed by locomotion experts at Rice University (which owns the patent) that will predict any persons (trained or not) running time from distances of a few meters to 5 full minutes of running. It's 96% accurate in its predictive ability.

We've taken that algorithm and modified it for training purposes so that we can take any individual, time them at a very short distance (10m) and at the distance they can cover in 30-40 sec of running, plug the results into the algorithm and find out what 90% effort means in real time. Our method allows us to train either distance over time or time over distance.

The algorithm will show the predicted time at any distance so we can chart where major fall-off's occur early in the race, and train short of that distance until their time improves. We do this by giving them a time they need to run repeats under until they cannot stay below that time. It could be one repeat or ten repeats or more. Once they go over the time, the plometric effect on the muscle during sprinting is not sufficient to make additional improvements in their speed.

esttaxes, who has posted on this site, has been training under the algorithm and can tell you how effective and efficient it is.

What must accompany that training method is what actually happens when you run. That information is also readily available, but the coaching ranks will not accept it because, for the most part they don't understand it.
Sprint coaching is very simple, there is no magic dust, no special technique -- just physics and physiology.


Barry,
I think I understand how that works in concept. Is your adaptaton of the alogorithm available to other coaches or is it proprietary information? Another question is how your training methods address the idea of running rounds in a major compettion. The need to run 6-7 races in a handful of days presents itself for a few people, particularly at a world or national championship. Add relays and the workload can get very high. What do you believe is the best way to train for high performance across several 'rounds'?



Top Top
  Profile

Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:00 am

 
Offline
Master Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 42
Location: southern california

Quote:
Tony Echeandia
There is no doubt that you have done your homework and your right there is no one answer, but in the end it doesn't matter what training method you subscribe to the person who win is the person who gets to the finish line first. It's more important to keep athlete's healthy and focused and then you'll never know what you can get out of them as far as performance is concerned. One of the most exciting and depressing things I have ever done is return to racing. Have a great weekend!


The one who gets to the finish line first is usually the one who trains the trainable in the best possible way :D . You have a great weekend also Tony!

_________________
Barry Ross
www.bearpowered.com
www.ASRspeed.com



Top Top
  Profile WWW

Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:35 am

 
Offline
Master Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 42
Location: southern california

Riddle wrote:
Barry,
I think I understand how that works in concept. Is your adaptaton of the alogorithm available to other coaches or is it proprietary information? Another question is how your training methods address the idea of running rounds in a major compettion. The need to run 6-7 races in a handful of days presents itself for a few people, particularly at a world or national championship. Add relays and the workload can get very high. What do you believe is the best way to train for high performance across several 'rounds'?


Our adaptation of the algorithm should be available to others by next track season.

Our training consists of 2 elements: Increasing strength (while minimising increase in mass) and algorithm training for increasing speed. We do no "technique" training, and limited block work. We do not beat up our athletes in the weightroom or on the track with useless execises over exceedingly long training times. Total workout times on days that we lift and run does not exceed 2 hrs and 15 minutes and is often much less than that.

The strength training is also short, about 60-75 minutes, the majority of which is rest time. We do only 2 strength training exercises and 2-3 core exercises. Strength gains are very rapid. Strength training overcomes most sprinting problems, including overstriding. It also makes the runner more efficient (because mass increase is minimal, if any). This efficiency will allow the runner to perform multiple races in a day, or over a couple of days, more easily

To use a car analogy: Sprinters don't run out of fuel, the tires fail. Ultimately, you slow down because the muscles cannot create, store, and release as much of the elastic energy used for impulse at toe-off. That's the point where your legs feel like mush and you struggle to make the next stride. It's also where a well-meaning-but-misinformed coach will tell you to pump your arms faster (which does nothing for you. it would be just as helpful if you stuck your fingers in your ears or duct taped them to your sides). If, during ground contact time, you are able to create more elastic energy than you can release (absolute max speed) then your muscles may not tire as early or as much in the race. That means shorter recovery time and potentially faster times in succeeding races.

Running longer distances in practice will not keep your legs from tiring or help you run more races. It would provide some help in recovery during training, especially for repeats, IF the repeats were longer than necessary to begin with :wink: But who wants to run more than what is necessary anyway...

_________________
Barry Ross
www.bearpowered.com
www.ASRspeed.com



Top Top
  Profile WWW

Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:41 am

Offline
Junior Masters Athlete
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:49 am
Posts: 3
Location: Fresno,ca

I believe the 400m runner should be trained in the winter like a 800m runner. The year is very long and the training is very hard. Master runners especially need to develop a great amount of endurance and stamina because there Nationals are late in the year and there body needs to withstand seven to eight months of training to progress to better than average shape.
In the winter I believe that the 400m runner should develop a 5000m condition and decrease their volume down to a 400m condition by January. In my opinion, this gave me the strength to be very strong runner at the end of the year as a Master athlete. This type of training for the last 10 years helped me to finish last December in a 400m time trial between 49 to 51 seconds in the 400m. I also train with and help train a 62 year old Master 400m runner Dennis Duffy who I rabbit a 600m tine trial at 1:41 a week before Nationals in Hawaii. If anyone would like to know more fill free to contact me.

Joe carnegie 8) 8)

_________________
to find the site first go to google search or jcpsc@genesissub2.com



Top Top
  Profile WWW

Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:53 am

Offline
Master Masters Athlete
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 42
Location: southern california

Joe Carnegie wrote:
I believe the 400m runner should be trained in the winter like a 800m runner. The year is very long and the training is very hard. Master runners especially need to develop a great amount of endurance and stamina because there Nationals are late in the year and there body needs to withstand seven to eight months of training to progress to better than average shape.
In the winter I believe that the 400m runner should develop a 5000m condition and decrease their volume down to a 400m condition by January. In my opinion, this gave me the strength to be very strong runner at the end of the year as a Master athlete. This type of training for the last 10 years helped me to finish last December in a 400m time trial between 49 to 51 seconds in the 400m. I also train with and help train a 62 year old Master 400m runner Dennis Duffy who I rabbit a 600m tine trial at 1:41 a week before Nationals in Hawaii. If anyone would like to know more fill free to contact me.

Joe carnegie 8) 8)


Those are some excellent times! It looks like your program did well for you.

However, the 400 is an oxygen deficit event, which means that it is dominated by the anaerobic metabolism, while the 5000m is aerobic. The length of the season doesn't change the fuel supply for the 400m. The advantage you gained from the aerobic work would be potentially shorter recovery times when running repeats. The question then is the number and distance of repeats, assuming you did repeats.

Running efficiency is of greater benefit to the sprinter than aerobic work. Increasing efficiency leads to faster times with less effort in any age group. Running efficiency increases with strength training and plyometric work.

_________________
Barry Ross
www.bearpowered.com
www.ASRspeed.com



Top Top
  Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Moderators: Jess, trackinfo, Ken Stone, Larry Barnum


Search for:
Jump to:  
cron