This overview covers a piece out of Greece from November’s Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research that gives an evaluation of different training methods used by 400m runners and their coaches. It compares the physiological effects of longer runs of 300m-500m and shorter intermittent runs of between 80m-200m.

The participant group consisted of 12 males aged 18.9 ± 0.7 yrs, each was physically active involved in recreational fitness activity or team sports. In preparation for the tests, each participant took part in 2 sessions per week for the 4 preceding weeks. These served to familiarise participants with pacing strategies, improve conditioning and to record times for 100m and 200m.

Testing took place over 4 sessions and consisted of a 40 minute warm up including a slow run, stretching, coordination drills and some 80m accelerations followed by the test. The 4 test sessions were a) 300m, b) 3x100m with 1min rests, c) 400m and d) 2x200m with 1 min rest. Blood was drawn pre and post exercise and analysed for measurements of glucose, lactate, creatinine and creatine kinase (CK) and velocity was measured every 100m and was averaged for each of the 4 tests.

The main finding was that the intermittent runs resulted in greater stimulation of the lactate system indicated by the higher levels of blood lactate post exercise. Further, average velocity during the intermittent runs was higher than that achieved during the continuous runs. They conclude that both the longer and shorter runs taxed the lactate system but the longer runs had more aerobic system contribution and that both have a role to play in periodised plan for 400m athletes. The final point was that CK concentrations were similar for each test and so no advantage in terms of reduced muscle damage exists for any of the methodologies.

Saraslanidis, P.J., Manetzis, C.G., Tsalis, G.A. & Zafeiridis, A.S. (2009). Biochemical evaluation of running workouts used in training for the 400m sprint. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(8) pp. 2266-2271

I don’t know how many column inches Usain Bolt is taking up at the moment, I suspect it’s a lot…but it’s not as much as it could be due to the ineptitude of the IAAF.   The last week should’ve been about the Jamaican’s quest for the 200m world record, but focus was fixed primarily at the women’s 800m, not because of an attempt at a world record or an intense rivalry but because athletics’ governing body decided to question the gender of the favourite, Caster Semenya, on the same day she was competing in her semi final.

It says a lot about the class of the athlete that she was able to compete and go on to win her gold despite this public and deeply embarrassing ordeal hanging over her head.   No doubt she will have been in contact with her family who were being interviewed by the world’s media about the gender of their daughter/grandaughter/sister which must also have been very distressing.  To be put through all this during the largest event in the sport outside the Olympics under an intense media spotlight, by the sport’s own governing body, is frankly outrageous.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the championships, there have been some stellar performances and intriguing competitions; Jessica Ennis, Philips Idowu, obviously Usain Bolt and the mens Decathlon being my picks. The IAAF had the opportunity to positively enhance the reputation of the sport, increase popularity and ride the Bolt wave, instead they hung one of their own out to dry.