Mostly sunny and warm with calm winds at the Sewanee track, 84º and a bit humid. Yesterday, I continued my search for the perfect 400m race splits and I think I've come pretty close. Fastest 400m I've run in training this year.
Hoka trainers on
stretches, drills, bands
100m - 13.60
400m - 57.13 (27.20, 29.93 / 12.9, 14.30, 14.31, 15.62 / 41.5, 15.62)
300m - 41.90 (13.23, 13.94, 14.73 /
That's it. My first 200m should be no faster than 26.9 or so. At 27.2, I was able to get the last 200 in under 30 (just barely) and not rig in the end. This confirms that I've been going out too hard most of the season. I've really wasted a lot of opportunities to run fast times in the 400m. In ten 400m races this season, I've rigged up in 7... not a good percentage of success. Now I think, finally, I've got it together. The 57.13 I ran yesterday is by far faster than any time I've raced this season, and with a time differential of 2.7 sec between 200m splits, it is far closer to what the pros do, and a departure from what I used to do. Most every fast time I've run, including PRs and championship races, I've had big differentials between 1st and 2nd 200s. In Korea, when I ran 55.17, it was something like 4+ sec (25.5 / 29.67). That was typical then, but just isn't working now. I have to rely more on my speed endurance rather than just raw top end speed. The problem with track meets is that I get so pumped up and anxious at the start, I take a risk and go out too fast, often pushing beyond optimum performance limits.
I was going to run 2 400s but my foot was a bit sore so I ran a 300m. My first 200m split was again right on: 27.17. Was a little tired so the 3rd 100 wasn't as fast. My 300m split in the 400m was 41.5, right where it should be. My last 100m was only 15.62, but hopefully that would improve a few tenths in spikes. With a 41.5 300m split, I have to bring the last 100m in at under 15.5 to break 57.
Continuing resistance today. I'm continuing single leg squats and band work. I can really feel it in the glutes. I may go swimming later this morning before the forecast afternoon rain. So, I may take the day off from the track and return tomorrow. Nationals are just over 3 weeks away and when I get back on Sunday, I'll begin my last workout cycle. I need to respect my days off and not do consecutive track days.
138.7 lbs after workout
Nationals
Regular on-time registration for Nationals has closed and no one else of note has entered. There are 14 people signed up for the M60 400m, including previous champion Tyrone, although he did not run well last week. Assuming the usual scratches, that means we'll probably have to run a prelim on Thurs., which sucks... all to eliminate just a few people. Of the 14 people registered, only about 2 or 3 have run under a minute since 2019. There are some that are probably capable but just haven't recorded any times, like Brian H. It's definitely my race to lose. In the 800m, there's a whopping 25 people registered! Just one US guy (legitimately) seeded ahead of me, a miler who ran a 2:23 last week - about an hour after he ran a 4:55 1500m. So, he's capable of sub 2:20. He ran 2:17.99 in 2019. Many of the others haven't raced since 2019. Another Canadian competing unofficially is top seed. So, I have a shot to medal. I think my chances are also good in the 200m. I don't think Don and Alan are 100%, Tony and Val can't run a 200, and Tyrone ran a very slow 200 last week, so... we'll see. Brian is probably the one to watch out for if Alan and Don are sub par. (Brian and some of my other competition were supposed to race this weekend in the AAU Championships in Miami, but it was canceled). For me, the 100m event is last priority. If I lose the 400m, I definitely won't run the 100m, and I still may not if it's particularly hot. The 100 prelim is shortly after the 400m final. If I were to be injured in that, it could close out my chances for 2 more medals and perhaps a possible championship. I'm not worried about injuries since I have a good warmup and prehab routine that has proven itself. So, we'll see.
Bill, masters T&F in the US began in the late 1960s with two precepts of note:
ReplyDelete(1) Let's do things the right way in terms of conducting the track and field events. (2) There should be no requirement that anyone entering a specific event, e.g., javelin, 400-meter hurdles, should actually be able to do that event. Some 53 years later, here we are.
I will revisit this later, but those decisions of many years ago have had a profound effect on our championships. It hasn't been that long since we gave up on trials in the 1500, for example. Imagine being a 3:55 guy in the 1500 having to prove in a trial that you are worthy of being in the final.
While I am at it, Bill, let me say that I think there should be minimum standards in the 10,000 run, which has never had trials. I announced Orono (Maine) 2002 nationals, and they combined M50 and M55 in the 10,000 as one of the many finals that day. The first M55 guy finished in 35:20.10, but how did the slowest M55 guy do?
DeleteWell, with a furious sprint at the end he managed to break the 1:20 barrier, as he stormed home in 1 hour, 19 minutes, 57.32 seconds.
In fairness, he did lose a little time because of the action of the officials, as after seeing how slow he was running they moved him out to lane 7 or 8.
I still remember my call, "And here comes xxxx Brown finishing from an EARLIER race." Now how many times does that happen in a major track and field meet? You simply continue your schedule of races while letting some guy in an earlier event jog around until he finally finishes HIS race?
Wow, what a story. The problem we face now is fake seed times. I'll be racing in a Nationals 800 race for the first time and they are running seeded final heats by time. There are 2 dozen people signed up for this race in M60! USATF on the registration page was clear about putting down seed times that were documentable from 2019-2021. I actually wrote up a blog post where I named names and pointed out the fake seeds (like the #1 seed in my M60 400m), but I never posted it publicly. Some of my colleagues simply haven't raced much after the pandemic and are putting up seed times that are a fair estimate, but still, it's not within the stated guidelines. They should be listed NT. What bothers me the most are the repeat offenders who put up fake seed times in multiple events near or at the top of the performance list.
DeleteEnjoy reading your blog on running in general and training for the 400m in particular. Your insights to finding a racing strategy for the 400m helps me fine tune my workouts in my quest to run my age in the 400. As a former physics teacher, I like the concept of fine tuning, searching for that sweet spot which can produce resonance in musical instruments and personal best times in the 400 on the track. Like you, I have very good top end speed, but tend to go out too fast in the 400 and then struggle in the end. For me my “sweet spot” seems to be 31s at the 200m, which gives me a chance to run 35 for the second half of the race. Not there yet, but making progress, striving for perfection.
ReplyDeleteThanks Wayne. A couple things that I meant to emphasize are 1) self perception of how fast we are running, and 2) how we must cope with a loss of speed due to aging. For example, because I can still run 26 in a 200m, doesn't mean I can still go out in 26 the way I used to. I've determined that best 'safe' speed for ME for the first 200m is 95%. Optimum might be slightly higher, 96% - 96.5%. Beyond that, it's risky and likely a recipe for diminishing returns.
DeleteThis is how you calculate: Say your 200m best is 28.00. 2.8 sec is 10%. 1.4 sec is 5%, so 28 + 1.4 = 29.4. This will vary by athlete. Van Niekirk broke the WR by going out in 20.5, which is 96.7% of his 200m PR.
Back when I was running 55sec 400s just 4 yrs ago, I aimed for splits of 26/29 or 13,13,14,15. Now I'm aiming for splits of 27/29.8 (13,14,14.3,15.5). I can still run 26 but now instead of it being 96%, it's now 98-99%, way too fast for a first 200m split.
Bill, back to the earlier discussion, I have a lot of experience as a meet director and for the Penn Relays in evaluating entrants. I sometimes thought to myself that "this entrant had a dream." In brief, the athlete dreamed that he (or she) had run a very fast time in the event of interest but in fact had not. It reminds me of what some people do when applying for a real job; they greatly exaggerate their qualifications.
ReplyDeleteIn looking at the M65 300 hurdles I noted that there are 9 entrants, including former world champion George Haywood. In Ames they are scheduled to run a trial on Saturday and then come back the next day as a field of 8. A tough race to do twice, especially with the possibility of hitting a hurdle or sustaining an injury on Saturday.
Personally, I would prefer no heats and two finals, one of 4 and then one of 5. But exactly who deserves to be in the second (stronger) final? One thing that occurred to me is to take it out of the hands of the athletes, with their responsibility simply to list all the IMPORTANT meets (worlds, national indoor masters, national outdoor masters, etc.) in which they have competed in the last 30 months (or other appropriate period). A committee would then review results from the events of interest and make its own decision.
This would avoid having to deal with "bad memory" while giving more objective data. Going forward it would be an incentive for athletes to enter important meets.
Re my comment just above, I forgot to list regional championships as "important meets." The problem is that I simply don't know how many regional championships are still in operation. Again, I want to give this to a committee, noting that many of the events (all the walks, all the longer hurdles, age groups with modest turnouts, etc.) will not be affected.
ReplyDeleteMy bad....I meant to say "all the longer RACES." Please forgive me.
ReplyDelete