400 intervals: timing?

[cdorr@dorrwayzN]

I'm thinking about adding some track workouts in the near future (Jan or Feb) to try and bring my
time in the 5K down (started running in Sept. In addition to adding more miles when the weather's
nice; Iowa!).

I remember reading somewhere that people said to do 400 intervals at around or below your 5K pace if
I remember correctly, to improve your 5K and 10K times. If I did the pace that I ran in my 5K a few
weeks ago a 400 would be about 1:50 (7:40 a mile). This seemed awfully slow to me, but I haven't ran
them yet so maybe its not.

My question is this: Should this 5K pace for the 400's be on the time you want to achieve, or the
time that you know you can achieve? For instance I would like to get down to 7 minute miles in a 5K.
Should I do my 400 intervals at that pace (1:30 for a 400 I believe) or should I do the pace that I
know I can hit (7:40 a mile or 1:50 a 400). My guess is that I should be doing it for the pace that
I'd like to achieve.

Thanks for everyone's help and patience with my dumb questions!

CD

[Brian Wakem]

"cdorr@dorrwayzNOsPaM.com" <cdorr@dorrwayz.com> wrote in message
news:182b519b.0312160718.28c8cf1d@posting.google.com...
> I'm thinking about adding some track workouts in the near future (Jan or Feb) to try and bring my
> time in the 5K down (started running in Sept. In addition to adding more miles when the weather's
> nice; Iowa!).
>
> I remember reading somewhere that people said to do 400 intervals at around or below your 5K pace
> if I remember correctly, to improve your 5K and 10K times. If I did the pace that I ran in my 5K a
> few weeks ago a 400 would be about 1:50 (7:40 a mile). This seemed awfully slow to me, but I
> haven't ran them yet so maybe its not.
>
> My question is this: Should this 5K pace for the 400's be on the time you want to achieve, or the
> time that you know you can achieve? For instance I would like to get down to 7 minute miles in a
> 5K. Should I do my 400 intervals at that pace (1:30 for a 400 I believe) or should I do the pace
> that I know I can hit (7:40 a mile or 1:50 a 400). My guess is that I should be doing it for the
> pace that I'd like to achieve.
>
> Thanks for everyone's help and patience with my dumb questions!

I was running 16:50 for 5k towards the end of summer, which is 80 seconds per lap. When doing 400's
I used to do 10 of them in 70-72 seconds with 60 seconds recovery in between. I used to do these on
a grass track though, so probably equivalent to 68-70 seconds on a proper track.

Your short reps should always be at a significantly faster pace than you goal pace for 5k IMO.

--
Brian Wakem

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <182b519b.0312160718.28c8cf1d@posting.google.com>,
cdorr@dorrwayzNOsPaM.com wrote:

> I remember reading somewhere that people said to do 400 intervals at around or below your 5K pace
> if I remember correctly, to improve your 5K and 10K times.

First, you haven't said anything about the training you're doing. Unless you're doing a reasonable
amount of training (for example, 5 days a week, 30 minutes per session), you're better off just
doing some base building.

Now about intervals ...

400m is very short for a repeat, not really long enough to get your heart rate up for a long time.
You rely on the cumulative effect of multiple repeats with short rests unless you're just after
anaerobic conditioning.

A good length for a repeat is 3-5 mintues duration. So that's 800m-1000m for you.

> If I did the pace that I ran in my 5K a few weeks ago a 400 would be about 1:50 (7:40 a mile).
> This seemed awfully slow to me,

It seems slow because 400m isn't long enough to test your endurance. 400m reps are more anaerobic.
You'd be better off focusing on endurance.

> but I haven't ran them yet so maybe its not.
>
> My question is this: Should this 5K pace for the 400's be on the time you want to achieve, or the
> time that you know you can achieve? For

You could do your repeats slightly faster than your current 5k pace. Maybe 2 seconds faster
per repeat.

> instance I would like to get down to 7 minute miles in a 5K. Should I do my 400 intervals at that
> pace (1:30 for a 400 I believe) or should I do the pace that I know I can hit (7:40 a mile or 1:50
> a 400). My

First, get your math straight! 1:50 is a 7:20 pace, and 1:30 is a 6:00 pace.

Keep in mind that consistent training is much more effective than hard or intense training.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Lyndon]

>I remember reading somewhere that people said to do 400 intervals at around or below your 5K pace
>if I remember correctly, to improve your 5K and 10K times. If I did the pace that I ran in my 5K a
>few weeks ago a 400 would be about 1:50 (7:40 a mile). This seemed awfully slow to me, but I
>haven't ran them yet so maybe its not.
>
>My question is this: Should this 5K pace for the 400's be on the time you want to achieve, or the
>time that you know you can achieve? For instance I would like to get down to 7 minute miles in a
>5K. Should I do my 400 intervals at that pace (1:30 for a 400 I believe) or should I do the pace
>that I know I can hit (7:40 a mile or 1:50 a 400). My guess is that I should be doing it for the
>pace that I'd like to achieve.
>
How much speed do you plan to have in your program? If you will have one track session and you
will not be doing tempo runs, you will probably get better results with longer intervals: 800-
1200, or 3-5 minutes in length, at present 5K pace, with a recovery time slightly less than the
run time. This optimizes VO2max (most people can't hold this intensity mentally for longer than 5
minutes at a time).

400s are pretty short for 5K training and are better for mile training or kicking speed for 5K/10K.
This works best for people who are also doing a tempo run or longer intervals (3-4 X 1 mile) each
week. One strategy that works well is to start by running the 400s at goal pace with a relaxed
recovery (2 minutes), then gradually cut the rest (to as little as 30 seconds) as you can run the
longer recoveries on pace.

Lyndon "Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track Coach Brooks Johnson

[Xenman]

On 16 Dec 2003 07:18:21 -0800, cdorr@dorrwayz.com (cdorr@dorrwayzNOsPaM.com)
wrote:

>I'm thinking about adding some track workouts in the near future (Jan or Feb) to try and bring my
>time in the 5K down (started running in Sept. In addition to adding more miles when the weather's
>nice; Iowa!).
>
>I remember reading somewhere that people said to do 400 intervals at around or below your 5K pace
>if I remember correctly, to improve your 5K and 10K times. If I did the pace that I ran in my 5K a
>few weeks ago a 400 would be about 1:50 (7:40 a mile). This seemed awfully slow to me, but I
>haven't ran them yet so maybe its not.
>
>My question is this: Should this 5K pace for the 400's be on the time you want to achieve, or the
>time that you know you can achieve? For instance I would like to get down to 7 minute miles in a
>5K. Should I do my 400 intervals at that pace (1:30 for a 400 I believe) or should I do the pace
>that I know I can hit (7:40 a mile or 1:50 a 400). My guess is that I should be doing it for the
>pace that I'd like to achieve.
>
>Thanks for everyone's help and patience with my dumb questions!
>
>CD

Doing 400m intervals will improve your 5K race times. I would suggest trying 2 x 5 x 400m at your
1600m (1 mile) time. It will take a few attempts for you to determine the proper 400m times. Your
last couple of intervals should be very difficult, if they aren't your times were too slow. At your
desired 5K time, I'd suggest trying 400m intervals at 90 to 95 seconds with 60 to 90 second rest and
4 minute rest between interval 5 and 6.

[Cdorr@Dorrwayzn]

Yes I don't have my math down on this running stuff quite yet. One of these days I'll figure it out.
Perhaps there's some trick that I'm not aware of?

As for the amount of training I'm doing here's what a usual week is for me right now.

M - No run or bike T - 30 to 45 minutes on the bike W - 3 to 4 miles running but increasing over
time T - 30 to 45 minutes on the bike F - 3 to 4 miles running again (I throw in some fartleks on
here) S - Was supposed to be a biking day, but I'm turning it into a running day s - 5 to 6 miles
running (Usually slow 8:00+).

Total running miles is about 13-15 if I've done the math correctly. I'd like to work this up to 20+.

Besides the 5K goal of less than 20 minutes, I'd like to do a duathlon, thats why the biking is in
there, and the Quad City Bix 7 in under 60 minutes (the course is pretty damn hilly!).

Perhaps I'm worry about the speed to early in my training?

Again thanks for answering my newbie questions. CD

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <182b519b.0312170707.3f620bff@posting.google.com>, cdorr@dorrwayzNOsPaM.com wrote:
> Yes I don't have my math down on this running stuff quite yet. One of these days I'll figure it
> out. Perhaps there's some trick that I'm not aware of?

(1) Commit to memory:

min per mile pace per lap 9 2:15 8 2:00 7 1:45 6 1:30 5 1:15 4 1:00

(2) learn this rule: each second per lap is 4 seconds per mile.

> Total running miles is about 13-15 if I've done the math correctly.

What pace are you using for your training runs ?

> I'd like to work this up to 20+.

Good idea. It's probably premature to do much in the way of speed work until you've done this.
At the stage you're at (low milage, fairly slow pace), endurance and not speed is the main
limiting factor.

If you like, every other week, do a 3 mile run at about 30 seconds per mile slower than your current
5k pace. Don't try to do these as quickly as possible or set "PRs" on these runs (the worst thing
you can do is try and get a "PR" on a training run), try to get as close to the target pace as
possible. These will get you familiar with running at a reasonably hard pace, and should help you
monitor your fitness (these runs should get easier)

This may come as a surprise, but I have trained people who have made substantial improvements in
racing times, without *ever* training anywhere near race pace. The cumulative effect of getting in
the miles will increase your basic endurance, and that's all you need for now.

> Perhaps I'm worry about the speed to early in my training?

Yes, once you're at a consistent 20 miles per week, you could add some speed work (I'd suggest a
workout consisting of 3x800m with 400m jog rests in between, doing the repeats slightly faster than
5k pace and the jog rests as slowly as you like)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Cdorr@Dorrwayzn]

Donovan,

Thanks for sharing the information with me. I'll put this information to good use and will hopefully
be able to pass onto others.

I was reading a post yesterday about someone trying to do to much when they started out and that got
me to thinking maybe I should just work on the mileage increase at an easy and steady pace.

Again thanks to all for answering my questions.

CD

[Mark]

cdorr@dorrwayz.com (cdorr@dorrwayzNOsPaM.com) writes:
>My question is this: Should this 5K pace for the 400's be on the time you want to achieve, or the
>time that you know you can achieve?

Run the intervals fast, rest for however long you need, and use the required resting time, itself,
to track your condition and your change and improvement in condition; as well as the trend in
successive 400 times.

For 200 intervals I've been resting between 0 seconds (when doing them consecutively) and 5 minutes.
The times are generally between 30 and 35 seconds. When it gets above 35 and the resting time above
4 minutes or so, it's time to call it quits for the day.

Saturday was an exception, working with a track club whose medium distance runners were doing them
around 40 seconds with only 1 minute rests. There, I went around 30-35 seconds on #1-#6, 37 on #7,
40 on #8 with 1 minute rest between #1-#2, #2-#3, #5-#6, 30-45 seconds between
#3-#4, #4-#5, 90 seconds between #6-#7, and 120 between #7-#8; the
slowdown however being intentional since there were to be 400 meter, 300 meter and 200 meter time
trials right afterwards (18+16+15+14; 17+15+13 and 15+13 100m splits).

Generally it would be 1-2 minutes rest between each of the first 8 in my condition.

>instance I would like to get down to 7 minute miles in a 5K. Should I do my 400 intervals at
>that pace.

Always faster. The whole point of resting is to recover from going faster than you're capable of.
And the whole point of going faster than you're capable of going is to adapt to going faster
speeds. Otherwise, there's no point in breaking it up into intervals: just run the whole 5K
straight through if you're only going to go at a pace that's slow enough to enable you to go 5K
straight through. 5K pace.

[Mark]

Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> writes:
>400m is very short for a repeat, not really long enough to get your heart rate up for a long time.
>You rely on the cumulative effect of multiple repeats with short rests unless you're just after
>anaerobic conditioning.

You'll use about the same amount of energy going a set distance (say: 13 miles) no matter how you do
it: sprinting, running, walking, crawling, or any combination thereof. So, it really doesn't matter
whether you do intervals or straight running or even all-out walking, just as long as you do the
distance. The bottom line is the energy usage.

But as far as speed goes: you're better off running in higher speed intervals; since the only way to
adapt to higher speeds is by actually going at higher speeds.

>It seems slow because 400m isn't long enough to test your endurance. 400m reps are more anaerobic.
>You'd be better off focusing on endurance.

However, 400m reps, and even 200m reps (say: 20-30 of them) over a longer distance (like: 13 miles)
is aerobic. Anything over 13 miles is aerobic, if you're getting it done in the same day. Even
crawling it.

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <bs9upf$tom$1@uwm.edu>, Mark wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> writes:
>>400m is very short for a repeat, not really long enough to get your heart rate up for a long time.
>>You rely on the cumulative effect of multiple repeats with short rests unless you're just after
>>anaerobic conditioning.
>
> You'll use about the same amount of energy going a set distance (say: 13 miles) no matter how you
> do it: sprinting, running, walking, crawling, or any combination thereof. So, it really doesn't
> matter whether you do intervals or straight running or even all-out walking, just as long as you
> do the distance. The bottom line is the energy usage.

I disagree. The aim of intervals is not to burn calories, so the amount of energy usage is actually
not that important.

> But as far as speed goes: you're better off running in higher speed intervals; since the only way
> to adapt to higher speeds is by actually going at higher speeds.

(1) Overly simplistic, and not really true. The specificity argument doesn't have much merit here,
because you can perform intervals as long as 1200m at faster than 5k pace. So unless you are
training for an event shorter than 5k, there is no need to "adapt to higher speeds" than that
which can be used in a 1200m repeat. There are arguments to training at higher speeds, but
specificity is not one of them (for distances 5k and up)

(2) You can max out your cardiovascular system at a much lower speed than the pace you'd usually use
for 400m repeats. So depending on the purpose of the training session, it may be *better* to
train at the lower speed.

>>It seems slow because 400m isn't long enough to test your endurance. 400m reps are more anaerobic.
>>You'd be better off focusing on endurance.
>
> However, 400m reps, and even 200m reps (say: 20-30 of them) over a longer distance (like: 13
> miles) is aerobic. Anything over 13 miles is aerobic, if you're getting it done in the same day.

No it isn't. "Aerobic" is a metabolic state, not a measure of distance. What would happen with the
short repeats over 13 miles is that you would switch to anaerobic metabolism during the fast repeats
and back to aerobic metabolism in the rest periods.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Harold Buck]

In article <bs9upf$tom$1@uwm.edu>, whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
wrote:

> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> writes:
> >400m is very short for a repeat, not really long enough to get your heart rate up for a long
> >time. You rely on the cumulative effect of multiple repeats with short rests unless you're just
> >after anaerobic conditioning.
>
> You'll use about the same amount of energy going a set distance (say: 13 miles) no matter how you
> do it: sprinting, running, walking, crawling, or any combination thereof. So, it really doesn't
> matter whether you do intervals or straight running or even all-out walking, just as long as you
> do the distance. The bottom line is the energy usage.
>

Huh? That might be true if all you cared about was burning calories. But walking 400m "intervals"
isn't going to help condition your heart significantly, or raise your anaerobic threshold, or
build muscle strength or endurance, or do anything else particularly useful unless you're REALLY
out of shape.

> But as far as speed goes: you're better off running in higher speed intervals; since the only way
> to adapt to higher speeds is by actually going at higher speeds.

Exactly; see above.

> >It seems slow because 400m isn't long enough to test your endurance. 400m reps are more
> >anaerobic. You'd be better off focusing on endurance.

AFAIK, 400m intervals can improve aerobic capacity and endurance if you don't have long rest periods
between repeats.

> However, 400m reps, and even 200m reps (say: 20-30 of them) over a longer distance (like: 13
> miles) is aerobic. Anything over 13 miles is aerobic, if you're getting it done in the same day.
> Even crawling it.

Well, define aerobic. Certainly it uses the aerobic energy system. But if you mean "improves aerobic
endurance or capacity," your claim is questionable.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

[Mark]

In article <slrnbuh07i.jh9.abuse@panix2.panix.com> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> writes:
>In article <bs9upf$tom$1@uwm.edu>, Mark wrote:
>> However, 400m reps, and even 200m reps (say: 20-30 of them) over a longer distance (like: 13
>> miles) is aerobic. Anything over 13 miles is aerobic, if you're getting it done in the same day.
>
>No it isn't.

Yes it is.

> "Aerobic" is a metabolic state

Exactly. And you'll be in the same state no matter how you do it. This is not a guess, theory or
opinion. It comes from over 10 years experience doing long-distance walking and running ranging
anywhere from 10 to 70 miles. Even the crawling (6 miles over rocky terrain has the very same feel
and effect as 6 miles running, which in turn has the same feel and effect as 6 miles walking).

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <bs9tt2$905$1@uwm.edu>, Mark wrote:
> cdorr@dorrwayz.com (cdorr@dorrwayzNOsPaM.com) writes:

>>instance I would like to get down to 7 minute miles in a 5K. Should I do my 400 intervals at
>>that pace.
>
> Always faster. The whole point of resting is to recover from going faster than you're capable
> of. And the whole point of going faster than you're capable of going is to adapt to going
> faster speeds.

Yeah, and you end up being capable of going at faster and faster speeds -- though unfortunately not
for a very long distance (sounds familiar, right?). Sprinting is just fine if you want to run a good
400m time or even a decent mile. But it's not going to help a wholoe lot in the longer distances.

The point of doing intervals is not to "adapt to going faster speeds". If that were the case, no-one
would ever need to run faster than a few seconds per mile faster than their pace at their chosen
race. As it happens, 10k runners often run at slightly faster than 5k race pace, and even close to 1
mile pace. The reason for using these very fast paces is not to "adapt to going at faster speeds"
(they don't need to adapt to much speed to race a 10k), it is to train specific components of
fitness that can be addressed by training at those speeds. For example, to reach VO2 Max, you need
to train quite fast, around 10k race pace or a little faster. This is why 10k runners still make use
of intervals that are faster than 5k race pace, even though they don't need to do much running at
that speed.

> Otherwise, there's no point in breaking it up into intervals: just run the whole 5K straight
> through if you're only going to go at a pace that's slow enough to enable you to go 5K straight
> through.

You can do a set of 1200m repeats faster than 5k pace.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Mark]

Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> writes:
>In article <bs9upf$tom$1@uwm.edu>, Mark wrote:
>> The bottom line is the energy usage.
>I disagree. The aim of intervals is not to burn calories [i.e., using energy ...]

... which means, therefore, you agree.

>> But as far as speed goes: you're better off running in higher speed intervals; since the only way
>> to adapt to higher speeds is by actually going at higher speeds.
>
>(1) Overly simplistic, and not really true. The specificity argument doesn't have much merit here

Experience says the exact opposite: in fact, nearly all my recent lifetime PR's over a wide range of
distances from 200m to 21k have come as an immediate result of this. It's also how I originally got
down to a sub 8 minute mile pace when first starting out distance running.

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <bsagvu$66c$1@uwm.edu>, Mark wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> writes:
>>In article <bs9upf$tom$1@uwm.edu>, Mark wrote:
>>> The bottom line is the energy usage.
>>I disagree. The aim of intervals is not to burn calories [i.e., using energy ...]
>
> ... which means, therefore, you agree.
>
>>> But as far as speed goes: you're better off running in higher speed intervals; since the only
>>> way to adapt to higher speeds is by actually going at higher speeds.
>>
>>(1) Overly simplistic, and not really true. The specificity argument doesn't have much merit here
>
> Experience says the exact opposite: in fact, nearly all my recent lifetime PR's over a wide range
> of distances from 200m to 21k have come as an immediate result of this. It's also how I originally
> got down to a sub 8 minute mile pace when first starting out distance running.

I'm not disputing that you can get some improvements from doing short intervals, I'm disputing your
claim that the mechanism that produced the improvements was "adaptation to higher speeds". I'm not
disputing your experience, I'm disputing your interpretation of it.

In this case, if your claim was true, then the best way to train would be to do all of your
intervals at slightly faster than race pace (e.g. 1200m repeats 5-10s/mile faster than race pace for
a 5k race)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <bsabh6$96t$1@uwm.edu>, Mark wrote:
> In article <slrnbuh07i.jh9.abuse@panix2.panix.com> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> writes:
>>In article <bs9upf$tom$1@uwm.edu>, Mark wrote:
>>> However, 400m reps, and even 200m reps (say: 20-30 of them) over a longer distance (like: 13
>>> miles) is aerobic. Anything over 13 miles is aerobic, if you're getting it done in the same day.
>>
>>No it isn't.
>
> Yes it is.

No it isn't. Think about this for a moment -- if you sprint 100m and then walk for 5 minutes, and
then sprint all-out 100m again, are those sprints aerobic ?

>> "Aerobic" is a metabolic state
>
> Exactly. And you'll be in the same state no matter how you do it.

No you won't. If you sprint, you will not be in an aerobic state while you're sprinting. In fact,
you will feel the "muscle burn" sensation after about 30 seconds or so, which indicates lactic acid
production, which indicates anaerobic metabolism is taking place.

Any workout in which you can feel muscle burn is not purely aerobic. The burn comes from lactic acid
production. If you do a hard interval session, you will *always* feel some muscle burn. If you jog
13 miles, you probably will not feel it, indicating purely aerobic metabolism.

> This is not a guess, theory or opinion.

No, it's just plain wrong.

> It comes from over 10 years experience doing long-distance walking and running ranging anywhere
> from 10 to 70 miles.

How do you measure your metabolic state ? How do you determine whether it's aerobic or anaerobic ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/