masterstrack.com

Barry - I have to admit I was skeptical of the short, fast repeat as the only training, especially for the quarter. I posted my question in June, and I did mostly what you have just suggested (I also visited your forum and read EVERYTHING). My competitive season concluded in August and I was pretty happy with the results (11.45, 22.89, 51.80 - all auto and legal winds) using your suggestions. My current challenge is to incorporate that type of training with the lousy NE winter weather and my lack of indoor facility.

Excellent results!

We've been mulling over some training possibilities for those who have similar weather problems...including the Scandinavian countries.

We know how to do it but are not convinced of the return on investment. Yet.

You guys are funny a lot of theory no results, keep up the good work, I'll see you when it matters.

Thanks for the information Barry.

Tony, I'll never run the mens 400 so dontcha worry. I think the discussion was interesting and an open mind is often a good thing. I know you've been very successful in the 400 doing the training that works for you! Keep it up!

Thanks guys!

Hi Tony,

What I've posted on here prior to now is based on research (which I will post here if you would like. I've already posted one earlier) What is not based on research is the training methods that have been around for years. Many have relied on them because they were used by either famous coaches or athletes. The outlier's on the performance curve are what most people end up trying to model despite the fact that these elite athletes that would most likely show excellent results from just about any sprint training "theory".

Allyson Felix ran a 52.26 400 in her senior year of high school. She ran it on the first meet of the year and NEVER ran anywhere near that distance in practice. She also bested her nearest competitor by nearly 8 seconds so she obviously was not pushed. She ran it a few more times in relay races with split times in the low 51's. Again, she never ran anywere near that distance in workouts. What she did do is improve her deadlift from 150 lbs to nearly 300 lbs with minimal increase in mass. Research states that increasing mass-specific support force by 1/10 the bodyweight could result in an increase in top speed of 1 m/s. In Felix' case, that would require only a 11 lb increase in MSF applied to the ground.
While that much change would not necessarily happen for an experienced elite runner, it could easily occur in non-elites.

The example above shows that it is not necessary for an elite athlete to perform a Clyde Hart like workout to show outstanding results. It also shows that outliers are capable of doing things we (me) mere mortals cannot.

Despite that, nearly all track related sites are plastered with training information based on outliers on the curve. The vast majority of that information does NOT have any scientific research behind it and the small amount the does have some basis also has serious flaws in its application to running faster.

What I've posted to leigh and bowleggedlouie has a solid basis in research. In addition to the research, I've spent a significant amount of time conversing by telephone and email with research scientists in the field of bipedal and quadripedal locomotion. I've also presented both a seminar and a speed training clinic with them present. I've asked for clarification on not only their work but the works of other scientist so that the information I provide is as accurate as possible.

I've also coached outliers on the curve as well as mediocre high school athletes. I train athletes from all over the U.S. as well as South Africa, Australia and Sweden. Most of them I've never personally met. The reason this is possible is because the amount and type of training required to increase speed is neither complicated nor difficult...as long as one understands the science behind the training.


I think most readers would be surprised when they try to find peer-reviewed reseach that justifies most current coaching "theories."

As for the rest of the "stuff" coaches have their athletes do, my partner Ken describes this way, "Any fool can make another fool tired!"

Blah Blah Blah

I apologize Leigh nothing against you. I once wrote my ideas on running the 400 and these knuckle heads took a tizzy fit. I appreciate that you recognize I run the 400. Good luck to you and if I could ever be any help to you let me.

Tony - I have never met you and don't believe I ever dismissed anything you wrote on running the 400. I have read about your numerous accomplishments and please believe me when I say I have the utmost respect for you. My response to Barry was simply that I tried his suggestions and I was pleasantly surprised and pleased with my results. I have submerged myself in all kinds of training theories from Clyde Hart to Brent MacFarland to Barry Ross to world-class runners like yourself. As a high school coach and a self-described track-bum, I have experimented with many of them. Quite honestly, I have had some measure of success for most any training method - either on myself or on my athletes. In college I ran (hand-timed) 10.7-21.5-48.4 with a more traditional program. I realize that is mediocre, but probably near the top-end of my potential - you have to work with what God gives ya!! I don't have the ability or desire to pound out 2000 or 3000 meters worth of speed like I did 15-20 years ago. My personal feeling is that the human body is too complex for there to be one training program to fit all athletes. So I "steal" ideas from all the great track minds I can and try to fit them into the type of athletes I have. I haven't quite got it right yet, but I am still trying. Again, I apologize if I previously offended or insulted you - that was not my intention.

Barry - please let me know of any foul-weather training suggestions that I might steal from you. Thanks.

Hey its nothing against you either, like I stated I once gave my opinion about training for the 400 and I was met with a lot of nothing. I understand that no one person has all the answers there are too many variables in this sport, so we tend to share ideas and concepts but when people attack your opinion thats simply childish. My opinion is as valid as anyone else's, more so I am actually competing in the event that we are discussing. I believe that we should think twice before we dismiss each other's ideas. Besides I'm not here selling anything just trying to participate and be helpful. Good Luck with your team!

Thanks for the well-wishes. Good luck with your season also. - Louie

Now that's what a forum should be used for. Placing ideas out there for the world to see and having those ideas questioned and tested. Good job guys your discussions have made for interesting reading and has I am sure got others to think about new ways to train.

Great information -Love to read how coaches train athletes for the 400 meters ... The one thing I believe to be true is that it is not just physics and physiology that makes great 400 meter runners its that gray matter between your ears. Whether you prefer long to short or short to long its what you do with your brain during the training that make one a great runner.....I've tried both -- almost exactly the same results ...For me the long to short is a bit more painful during training but less in races --where as the short to long for me is less painful in training and more painful in races --all obvious reasons ---Regardless of the methods....Everyones body and mind are not identical --the training must fit the individuals mind and body ...Like the saying goes "There is always a better way" .....Lets Find It....Then again what do I know I have a fool for a coach ...I coach myself ha ha ... got to go-- weight room is calling --sully--

I don't want to throw any gasoline on this, but I have been wondering a lot lately how "relative speed" figures into this. I am working on my 400 but I am not particularly fast. My PR was last year, just under 76. I am 53 yo. (F).

All the training I read (short to long OR long to short) seems aimed at 50-60 second runners. My coach tells me the 400 is mostly anaerobic, and he has me train short to long. But I'm really curious how much this might change if the runner is at my slower pace. I don't know if workouts aimed at a 50 second 400 runner are going to be the same for an 80 second 400 runner even if you bring all the target paces down.

Do I require a heavier dose of aerobic fitness just because my (whatever it is) energy that lasts 40 seconds is LONG gone by the time I finish a 400. I do know that when I was mostly a distance runner my 400's were slower but didn't hurt as much. Now they are much faster but if I go out too fast it's like dying.

Not much studies available about senior women athletes - any thoughts? And of course many in my age group are capable of 60-ish 400's, just not me.

I have been looking forward to some sage advice to KimW but I see there's still no reply. Nobody takes much of an interest in us old girls. LOL.(no offense Kim I'm older than you)
To be honest I've given up on the 400 for all the reasons you outlined KimW. I tried EVERYTHING (overdistance, hills, 250 reps etc., etc.). It's a great event and I was sad to drop it from my programme but ultimately it seemed like I was losing speed in the 100/200 to try to train effectively for a 400m which in turn wasn't getting any better.

Oh well, I'll keep revisiting and searching...I don't find giving up easy!!!!

We might not be running 54 sec 400m but we're doing it just as hard as you fast guys (even harder, we're out there in pain for longer LOL)

KimW and Zorn, my suggestion would be to train like 800 meter runners if you are running 70+ seconds for 400 meters. Personally, I feel the 800 meters is torture and I can't imagine the training being much better, but for what you are describing that would be my opinion. You know what they say......... opinions are like ---holes, everybody has one!! Quite honestly, if short to long doesn't work for you, then try training long to short. I have had success training both ways at different parts of my running career. Best of luck to you both.