SPEED ENDURANCE for 200m - IMPLICATIONS AND OPTIONS TO IMPROVE

It is an observation that 200m seems to be regarded as a lesser event on the Track and Field program with the 100m
the undoubted glamour event. Athletes tend to favour the 100m and often don’t develop their ability at 200m fully.
Little specific preparation may be made and consequently I contend that optimal results in this demanding event
may not be achieved. Arguably, the entry standards for major competitions are easier to attain for 200m. Even at
times, the athlete with definite ability for 200m may train as a pure speed athlete and let the speed endurance
component by and large look after itself. Analysis of biomechanical data, and observation, reveals that even in 100m
races the difference in peak velocities and slowest velocities is marked. In 200m races this disparity can be extreme
and may be limiting the achievements possible.
My contention is that much can be done to minimise this disparity and lead to better performance.
This article will focus on the speed endurance aspects of 200m running and trying to address the above disparity.
MAJOR ASPECTS TO EXAMINE: 3 “T’s”
TECHNIQUE
TRAINING TACTICS

ENERGY SYSTEMS
Before looking at the 3 T’s it is appropriate to briefly examine the energy systems relevant to the 200m event.
Muscle activity relies on the utilisation of ATP (adenosine triphosphate) but the body can only store small amounts –
enough for 5-7 seconds+/-. A phosphate is used to release energy leaving ADP (adenosine diphosphate). Therefore
further energy to keep exercising (ATP) must be resynthesised by a process called phosphorylation which adds a
phosphate back to adp to reform ATP.
This process can be done with oxygen (aerobic metabolism) or without oxygen (anaerobic metabolism).
There are several sources of substrates to help replenish ATP including carbohydrates, fats, and protein which
produce varying levels and rates of restoring phosphate. Another significant source is Creatine Phosphate which
with ATP forms the group known as the “high energy phosphogens”. The comparatively recent use of Creatine
supplements tries to store additional amounts to the body’s natural stores to give greater energy production.
To go further, there are 3 energy processes that can produce ATP from the previously mentioned sources.
 ATP + CREATINE PHOSPHATE = ATP-PCr. This process can operate with or without oxygen. Thus it is regarded
as anaerobic. ATP-PCr is relied on for rest to about 15 seconds of intensive exercise.
 GLYCOLOSIS - ANAEROBIC GLYCOLOSIS = ENERGY + LACTIC ACID (FAST)
- AEROBIC GLYCOLOSIS = ENERGY + PYRUVATE (SLOW)
 OXIDATIVE - PYRUVATE IS CONVERTED TO ATP VIA A NUMBER OF PROCESSES.

The above do not work separately but for any given intensity, one or two may predominate. For 200m, the
predominant sources are atp-pcr + anaerobic glycolysis and one source states 72% with aerobic contribution 28%
(AOD method). This research alleges greater aerobic contribution than thought earlier.
1. TECHNIQUE
• OBVIOUSLY THE MORE EFFICIENT THE RUNNING TECHNIQUE, THE LESS ENERVATING THE EFFORT WILL BE.
• OPTIMAL STRIDE LENGTH MUST BE MAINTAINED – NO OVERSTRIDING.
• FOOT STRIKE NEAR UNDER CENTRE OF GRAVITY.
• EMPHASIS ON FRONT-SIDE MECHANICS (FASTER GROUND FORCE PRODUCTION)
• RELAXATION AT TOP SPEED.
• MAINTAIN OPTIMAL BODY ANGLES.
• MAINTAIN STRIDE RATE BY RESISTING OVERSTRIDING AND THROUGH INCREASED FITNESS AND STRENGTH
LEVELS.
• COMPACT AND EFFICIENT ARM ACTION.
• HIGH LEVELS OF CORE STRENGTH AND STABILITY
Coaches should constantly analyse and monitor the athlete’s technical model.
2. TRAINING
There are many different training regimes that have developed regarding sprint training. There are the “long to
short”, “short to long” and other concentrations. When dealing with the 200m specialist they are all trying to achieve
the best possible time and all have some common elements:
• DEVELOPMENT OF PURE SPEED
• EFFICIENT TECHNIQUE
• STRENGTH AND POWER DEVELOPMENT
• DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIMAL SPEED ENDURANCE

PROGRAMMING
The main differences are how the various elements are programmed in a training macrocycle. The very general
description of training regimes into names like “short to long” and “long to short” can be confusing. The advocates of
the traditional “long to short” maintain a program that adheres generally to the periodization model proposed in the
1970s which put structure to the general approach of most sprint coaches at the time and before. In more recent
times, some coaches have moved to a “modern” adaptation where speed is established virtually from the outset and
the athlete’s ability to sustain speed is trained throughout the program (Francis et al). These simple titles may be
misleading as there are elements common to both and both wrestle with the dilemma of optimal programming of all
sprint training elements. Both regimes contain both short reps and longer reps and both may include them
throughout a program in varying degrees. To look at distance only in this question is misleading. Intensity levels and
where in the program may be more appropriate in seeking the differences between them.
“Long to short” in simple terms describes a program whose advocates believe in the gradual adaptation of the
athlete to fast running by graduating speed through the cycles to a peak. These advocates may allege:
• easier to program (phase emphasis)
• easily applied to sub elite (less competitive demands and at a more specific time)
• logical progression through adaptation with a graduated program
• lays down a solid aerobic and anaerobic fitness base to build on
“Short to long” advocates believe that the modern approach requires that speed is developed early over short
distances which increase with adaptation and that the Central Nervous System(CNS) and fastest twitch muscle fibres
must be enhanced throughout a program. These advocates may allege:
• athlete is always nearer the ability to run fast
• greater stimulation of C.N.S.
• less injuries due to evolving speed of adaptation
• more development of the predominant energy sources throughout
• more time to work on the technical model through the program

“Block” or Undulating Periodization, which emphasise shorter, more specific blocks of training geared to optimising
specific elements has recently gained favour with some coaches especially of throwers. This application has
developed from the perception that modern competition demands are not as suited to traditional periodization with
competitions throughout a training year. This approach is possibly more suited to the “short to long” group.

Common to all, however, is the need to develop very specific speed endurance especially regarding the 200m
specialist. I believe that this is where some debate lies between the advocates of each method. “Short to long” still
requires full attention to the development of optimal speed endurance as part of the program for the 200m athlete.

COMMON TERMINOLOGY DESCRIBING SOME SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE TRACK TRAINING UNITS
• TEMPO – EXTENSIVE AND INTENSIVE (80-300m+, 80-90% speed short recov.)
• SPEED ENDURANCE (SE 1,2,3 etc. shorter distances – 80-150m, 90-100% medium-long recov.)
• LONG SPEED ENDURANCE – (as above, longer reps 150-300m)
• SHORT SPEED ENDURANCE – (80m - 150m, 90-100% often split between alactic-ASSE and glycolytic - GSSE)
SOME EXAMPLE SESSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY COACHES IN SPECIFIC PREPARATION
• REPETITIONS OF 200m-300m 75-85% 3-8 reps/3-8min recov. (ET)
• 6 x 150m 85%, 3min rec(IT)
• VARIED SPEED REPETITIONS 120m-250m+ 3-5 REPS LONG RECOVERIES(LSE)
• 2 x 150m 90%, 10min rec.,3x250m VARIED SPEED e.g. - 100m85%, 50m60%, 100m95% (SE)
• 5-6 x 120m VARIED SPEED - 40m90%, 40m60%, 40m100% 8min rec.(SE)
• 4 x 170m VARIED SPEED (80m90%, 40m60%, 50m95%), 12min(SE)
• 5 x 150m 95%, 4-7min rec.(SE)
• 3 x 2 x 100m 95%+, 30sec b/w reps, 15min b/w sets(GSSE)
• 3 x 3 x 70m 95%+ 30 sec b/w reps, 12min b/w sets (GSSE)
• 100m,120m,100m,80m,80m, (95%+) 1-2min rec(GSSE)
• 50m,60m,70m,80m,70m,60m(95%), 2min rec (ASSE)

SOME OTHER MODALITIES

INERTIA RUNS - acceleration to top speed with a controlled relaxed gradual slowing down.
TRANSITION SPRINTS – accelerations followed by relaxed fast running, varied speed runs with minimal variations in
speed but variations in effort.
“SWITCH OFF” RUNS – switching off for a few strides in a repetition to require re-accelerating back to the optimal
speed.
HILL RUNS – fast runs up moderate inclines up to 150m with fairly long recoveries to maintain speed.
STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING – conversion of strength to power, use of plyometrics.

TRAINING DISCUSSION:
Typically, specific speed endurance sessions have a total volume of 300m – 1200m with repetitions between 70m –
150m performed at high intensity (95%+).
An interesting question is how much volume and the recovery between efforts.
Some studies with cyclists and runners have shown promising results from short reps with very short recoveries as
low as 10 seconds. Another study reported better responses from 3 x 2 x 80m/10 secs recov. than from the same
session with 1 min. recov. Most Track and Field coaches would specify longer recoveries to cope with the eccentric
load.
Another question which may be posed is how long repetitions should be to fully develop speed endurance. Can all
requirements be met with training distances 30-40% of race distance with multiple repetitions off short recoveries?
Many coaches prefer to “cover the bases” regularly using sessions utilising 120-150m distances at high intensity to
more accurately simulate race demands, and long reps(400m+) at tempo to develop the aerobic system and general
fitness.
Other coaches feel that adequate S/E response can be gained from short reps (60-80m) with recoveries around 1
minute or less which still accords with the science and may avoid excess fatigue and a decrease in efficiency of
movement.
Both methods will theoretically stimulate the PC and Glycolytic systems. The longer rep group may additionally
engage the aerobic systems more to provide the required energy which may have benefits in better utilising the
pyruvate mechanism which, as shown, contributes significantly at 200m. In addition there may be gains in recovery
and repeatability, and general fitness. It would be beneficial to see some research looking at this question as
currently there seems limited research on track and field athletes. Anecdotally, observers have noted that the
Jamaican sprinters include a significant amount of sub maximal tempo running which may also allow more
concentration on technique.
Does speed endurance training have a negative effect on speed development? I believe that any negative effects if
indeed they exist may be more than compensated by the positives of a good speed endurance component in the
program. Optimal recovery positioned in the program should minimise any stresses caused by such training.
3. TACTICS
• Are there any tactics in a 200m race or does the athlete run flat out and hold on til the finish as best they
can.
• Can an athlete efficiently run at maximum for 200m without losing form or significant speed?
• The drop off in speed towards the end of a 200m race is often marked. Can this be at least partially
addressed by a specific race plan or it a matter of a good speed endurance program.
• I believe the goal for a female 200m athlete is to aim for a second 100m 0.2-0.5 faster than the first
100m(Felix O.T. 2012 - 11.0 – 10.7). A female athlete with a goal of 24.0 could target 12.1 - 11.9. Male
athletes may have a greater difference due mainly to greater strength and power.
• Any time given up in the first 100m may be more than compensated by the gains made in the last 50m with
efficient technique, tactics, and training.
• When a top athlete ”switches off” when safe, observe how well their comparative speed is maintained.

THOUGHTS ON RACE PLAN

It may be possible that the 200m can be treated as a tactical race where the optimal execution of a plan will bring
the best results:
• It is important that a major effort in getting to top speed is made – start should be maximal to about 40-50m.
• At around 40-50m, a transition is made to relaxed fast running with high cadence, efficient stride length. This
aspect is difficult to do without losing speed – speed should be maintained with less effort if done well. Can
the athlete “feel” the increase in effort.
• From 120-110m to go, full effort in and out of bend (“slingshot” effect).
• Maintain stride rate and length as far as possible to finish.
• Accurately time dip at the line, or run through holding form.
4. PARAMETERS
An athlete aiming for success in 200m must always strive for speed as the better the maximum speed attainable, the
better the prospects of turning that into the best possible 200m. PURE SPEED DEVT. MUST BE THE STAPLE OF THE
200m ATHLETES PROGRAM.
However, a substantial effort must also be made to gain very specific speed endurance.
I am proposing 3 major parameters that coaches can analyse to assist their planning and coaching process. I contend
that these can apply irrespective of the type of athlete. Athletes already achieving the parameters could well be
more focussed on speed development as their speed endurance is at an acceptable level.
1. THE DOUBLE 100mPB PARAMETER
2. THE 1st AND 2nd 100m OF A 200m PARAMETER
3. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEAK VELOCITY AND LOWEST VELOCITY IN A 200m RACE PARAMETER.( Difficult
to obtain but looking at the time for the last 50m can suffice).
DOUBLE 100m PB TEST
Most 200m athletes are also very proficient at 100m. Some may be equally known as 100m athletes as 200m. Can
the 200m athlete double their 100m pb in their 200m?
• One of the goals of the 200m specialist should be to run faster than double their 100m pb. This is easier to
attain for male athletes but the female athlete should also try to achieve that benchmark without sacrificing
speed devt.
• Historically, some of the top Australian male 200m athletes appear to show excellent speed endurance (see
table 1). Possibly this indicates greater concentration on the 200m event by those athletes.
• It may take some time for young athletes with speed, to develop the speed endurance component optimally.
(see table 1)
 COMPARISON OF 100m AND 200m PERSONAL BESTS
MALES 100m PB 200m PB Diff.
BOLT 9.58 – 19.19 +0.01
BLAKE 9.69 – 19.26 -0.12
SPEARMON 9.96 – 19.65 -0.27
LEWIS 9.86 – 19.75 +0.03
MARSH 9.93 – 19.73 -0.13
AUST
CAPOBIANCO 10.25 – 20.18 -0.32
DINAN 10.34* - 20.19 -0.49 * estimate from manual timing
BRIMACOMBE 10.28 – 20.30 -0.26
MARSH 10.13 – 20.32 +0.06
JOHNSON 9.93 – 20.35 +0.49
McCABE 10.51 – 20.70 -0.32
U/20
ATHLETE 1 10.47 – 20.79 -0.15
ATHLETE 2 10.43 – 21.35 +0.49
ATHLETE 3 10.53 – 21.30 +0.24
FEMALES:
FELIX 10.89 - 21.69 -0.09
GAINSF.-TAYLOR 11.12A - 22.23 -0.01
FREEMAN 11.24 - 22.25 -0.23
HEWITT 11.28 - 22.52 -0.04
CRIPPS 11.38 - 22.84 +0.08
MOORE-MEDL. 11.55 - 22.94 -0.16
LAMBERT 11.47 - 23.13 +0.19
U/20
ATHLETE A 11.59 - 23.72 +0.54
ATHLETE B 11.76 - 24.00 +0.48
ATHLETE C 11.88 - 23.68 -0.10
Table 1

THE 1st AND 2nd 100m OF A 200m RACE and DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEAK VELOCITY AND LOWEST VELOCITY TEST
Looking at parameters 2 and 3 shows: (Table 2)
• Elite 200m athletes appear to be able to “negative split” the 2 x 100m segments of a 200m race. This should
always be the goal of the 200m athlete as the 2 nd 100m is from a flying start. Failure to achieve this usually
means a poor execution or a lack of specific speed endurance. Once again, males find this easier than
females but I believe this is definitely the goal of the female elite 200m athlete.
• Examination of data from a number of races reveals some dramatic speed losses in the last 50m of a 200m.
The difference between peak velocity and slowest velocity can be up to 2-3 metres per second! Can this be
minimised (this parameter is difficult to quantify without sophisticated race analysis but can often be clearly
seen when video is examined)?
• It has been common to look upon the 200m as a straight sprint not requiring the thoughts of energy
conservation more usually associated with the 400m. Should this be considered?
 SOME EXAMPLES OF RACE ANALYSIS
FEB 2012 CURRENT RESULTS SYDNEY A SERIES (-1.4)
MALE ATHLETE 1A Diff. Str.Rate last 150 Vel.mps Final time
0 - 100m – 10.72 100m – 200m - 10.40 -0.32 4.55-4.08 10.73-8.93 21.12
100m – 150m - 5.00 150m – 200m 5.40 +0.40
MALE ATHLETE 1B
0 - 100m – 10.93 100m – 200m - 10.25 -0.68 4.49-3.85 10.48-9.01 21.18
100m – 150m - 4.96 150m – 200m 5.29 +0.33
MALE ATHLETE 1C
0 - 100m – 10.96 100m – 200m - 10.35 -0.61 4.49-4.08 10.42-9.01 21.31
100m – 150m – 5.03 150m – 200m 5.32 +0.29
FEMALE ATHLETE 1A (-1.8)
0 - 100m – 11.42 100m – 200m - 11.64 +0.32 4.44-4.00 9.67-7.81 23.06
100m – 150m - 5.55 150m – 200m 6.09 +0.54
FEMALE ATHLETE 1B
0 - 100m – 11.94 100m – 200m - 11.66 -0.28 4.44-3.92 9.43-8.00 23.60
100m – 150m - 5.64 150m – 200m 6.02 +0.38
FEMALE ATHLETE 1C
0 - 100m – 11.82 100m – 200m - 11.93 +0.11 4.40-3.64 9.40-7.46 23.75
100m – 150m - 5.71 150m – 200m 6.22 +0.51
FEMALE ATHLETE 1D
0 - 100m – 11.86 100m – 200m - 11.89 +0.03 4.35-3.77 9.33-7.69 23.75
100m – 150m - 5.69 150m – 200m 6.20 +0.51

HISTORICAL RESULTS JAN 2000 CANBERRA GP (+1.5)

LAUREN HEWITT
0 - 100m – 11.39 100m – 200m - 11.13 -0.26 4.44-3.77 9.86-8.26 22.52
100m – 150m - 5.36 150m – 200m - 5.77 +0.41
MEL. GAINSFORD-TAYLOR
0 - 100m – 11.70 100m – 200m - 11.05 -0.65 4.44-3.70 9.82-8.26 22.75
100m – 150m - 5.31 150m – 200m - 5.74 +0.43
CATHERINE FREEMAN
0 - 100m – 11.71 100m – 200m - 11.05 -0.65 4.40-3.57 9.60-8.26 22.76
100m – 150m - 5.35 150m – 200m 5.70 +0.35
FEB 2000 SYDNEY GP (-3.8)
MEL. GAINSFORD-TAYLOR
0 - 100m – 11.37 100m – 200m - 11.36 -0.01 4.49-3.64 10.04-8.20 22.73
100m – 150m - 5.42 150m – 200m 5.94 +0.52
CATHERINE FREEMAN
0 - 100m – 11.63 100m – 200m - 11.31 -0.32 4.21-3.77 9.69-8.26 22.94
100m – 150m - 5.49 150m – 200m 5.82 +0.35

Table 2
CONCLUSION:
The 200m event is an exciting and demanding event and is sometimes neglected. I am suggesting that the coach can
utilise several measures to guide them on an optimal plan for preparing their athlete to achieve their best
performance. Speed endurance training is very demanding but I believe vital to attaining top performance.

In considering all of the speed endurance aspects of 200m running, how is it best to plan a program for this event?
The science tells us so much but there are still different ways of interpreting the science and applying it and empirical
knowledge, to a program and a race plan. As discussed earlier, session planning can include a multitude of
interpretations. Athletes are not robots and vary greatly in physical and psychological characteristics and thus will
respond in different ways. The task of the coach is to try to find the optimal way for each athlete. Some coaches
propose sessions based purely on the science whereas other coaches go with their own interpretations based often
on a combination of science and “gut feeling”. What I suggest is that coaches communicate closely with the athlete
on their perceptions, look at the science and research, principles of training especially specificity, investigate what
successful coaches and athletes have done, and devise a program specific to their athlete’s characteristics, keeping
in mind the fundamentals of needing to be fast, and the optimal speed endurance development which together will
enhance performance. What does seem to a constant whatever regime a coach chooses to follow, is that care needs
to be taken in the programming focus to minimise negative effects and injury risk.

REFERENCES:

Specific Endurance for 200m. RACHMANOV.H

Devt of Muscular Relaxation in Sprinting. GOLDRIN.A
Block Periodisation ISSURIN.V
Building speed before endurance: is it time to turn convention on its head. SHEPHERD.J
A total Sprint Training program for maximum Strength, Power, Sprint Speed and Core Strength. HISERMAN.J
Energy systems in sports and exercise. SPORTS FITNESS ADVISOR
Speed training. DARE AND KEARNEY
Muscle metabolism and performance improvement after two training programmes of sprint running differing in rest
interval duration. PLUTARCHOS ET AL
An examination of speed endurance(IAAF Journal 1991) WINCKLER.G
The 200m Race- A retrospective view of its Devt. DOTTA.G
The 200m – a balanced approach to the planning of training and development of the athlete. GAFFNEY.S
Energy system contrib. during 200-1500m running in highly trained athletes. SPENCER.M, GASTIN.P
Trends in Men’s and Women’s sprints in the period 1985-1990 MULLER.H
Energy system contribution to 100m and 200m events DUFFIELD ET AL
AIS Biomechanical data 2000, 2012 ROSEMOND.D ET AL