Get the lecture series on this as the decision making process is laid out there.
why the bounds first? 
I’ve done this circuit often and find it to be beneficial. The bounds are the most technical, hence they are done first. The run is done at ExT pace and should be light recovery before going into the running A’s for strength endurance. The last portion requires concentration to maintain technique but this is precisely what the athlete wants to focus on at say, the end of a 400m race.
As Charlie said, the strength training videos will fill in the blanks. IMO, the role of weights is somewhat less in L-to-S than in S-to-L due to the greater emphasis on SE. It’s pretty tough to do a hard weight session after 600’s even if they are split.
sorry I wasn’t clear with my question, I understand why you wold place them first in that sequence, I meant why do them at all? Wouldn’t 200m (or whatever distance) + running A’s be enough?
The speed bounds are a great way of working speed-power form - basically development of power from a physical perspective and a technical sprint position.
Although the nature of bounding only bears limited resemblence to a full sprint cycle due to lack of heel recovery, the rear extension and front side dorsiflexion and drive down make the speed bounds great as a form drills while developing power at the same time.
It provides good variety in the programme too! I have used very similar, for example doing 150m runs split into speed bound:sprint:speed bound:sprint for 30-40m per section. Off form work, drills, and this type of power-speed I ran some very good times over 400m with little specific prep work (I ran indoors mainly relays to mix up the winter a bit and ended up making a world indoor team!).
Im big believer in this but the athletes have to have the underlying physical and technical abilities in place for the bounding to work well or you are asking for trouble!
I’ve found, and there is some research to support it, that extended power bounds have positive effect on performance, particularly as it relates to 400m/400mH. The caveat that I put on this is that bad bounding cannot be tolerated. It makes the session worthless, and likely counterproductive. It may take a couple of years to build into this session.
Early on, when I’m doing this circuit, the jumps are alternate leg power bounds. The speed bounds come later, usually just before competitions or even during some of the less important meets, depending on the situation and the annual schedule.
Neither power or speed bounds can be viewed as technically similar to running in terms of mechanics, but I do agree to an extent regarding the positive effects on running form. Even advanced athletes that I have coached seemed to apply force better after starting this type of work. Slowing down the foot contact a little and getting them to feel the ground seemed to be the primary reason. That was their impression at least. It doesn’t have to be in circuit form, but it does need to be done properly.
To me though, bounds a bridge between general strength (ie: weights) and sprinting. In circuit form they can be viewed as close to SE, without the overall stress on the system. Hence my preference is to use them on the final day of a training week when this is possible.
I think you are right about the role of the bounds in the GPP, especially in the L-to-S program, in the transition towards speed work.
I was just reviewing Mach’s training schedules and according to these, he had his athletes do the jump/run/drill circuit twice a week in GPP and carried it right through into the Comp Phase.
When this type of work was introduced into the schedule of two 400m hurdlers who I coached, their times dropped substantially (male 50.84->49.73; female 58.93->57.78). There were some other changes in their training, but I consider this to have been one of the keys to their improvement. They did not train with me at the same period of time, btw.
It was mentioned earlier about the speeds of the runs between the bounds and drills.
Can someone (athletics coach?) suggest what a typical session would look like - sets/reps/bound/run/drill distances
Also would like to look at the speed of the run - ExT pace was mentioned earlier?
Suggested progressions?
I think it is good stuff and would like some more ideas about its use and progression.
Perhaps a rule of thumb might be, run at a pace that allows the running As at the end to be completed with good form and begin to pick up the pace in a fashion that maintains that ability.
The longer this work is maintained in the program, the faster that pace will get.
2-3 sets. Intermediate + advanced 400/400h athletes should have no problem with 3. Breaks between are @7-8min. As bounds get longer, the runs get shorter. Running A’s get longer, but only as much as I feel that the athlete can maintain form. The run segment begins at@75% and as Charlie noted, get proportionally faster as the distance shortens and fitness is gained. I also throw in ab work at the end of the running A’s.
Hope that this helps.
Yeah thats good thanks. By 2-3 sets you mean the bound/run/drill = 1 set? Just to make sure! I did 100m run A’s last week just to see what it was like and how long it took - 66sec of pretty hard labour! Got to about 40m and started to wobble but held together - just. So its looking like about 6sec per 10m which makes the whole of the set pretty long, which I like.
The jump-run-bound circuit is a continuum. Very short break between each, maybe 5-10sec. It’s 2-3x of the entirety.
The furthest that I take them on the running A’s is 60m. It is very tough.
Do you feel that circuit directly improves performance, or does it serve to enhance the quality of later special endurance training? Both?
A bit of both. I think that there’s good transference between the long bounds and performance. The greater value is as a bridge to SE though, IMO.
This type of session can take on a number of different forms. The first work of this type that I prescribed were Loren Seagrave’s “triangle runs” which I still like and will throw in for variation. The next were Seagrave’s version of the drill/jump/run circuit which I don’t like mostly due to the extended length of the running and ensuing potential for bad foot strikes.
Here’s link to one more variation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcLFGwVIeW4
I like this because the exercises are simple to master. For those who stuck indoors it looks like a good session.
I understand the bridge comment, but isn’t sprinting the sole bridge between itself and all other activities or points on the curve?
Thanks, that helps a lot.
I would agree that according to Charlie that is likely the case. My statement was that the jump/run/drill circuit acts as a bridge to SE, which is, in a L-to-S program more removed from pure sprinting.
In general though, I view jumps work as sitting someplace between general strength (weights) and sprinting. I have gotten much better results when I have taken this approach. It is simply my opinion based not only on my experience and that of other coaches that I know and respect and not meant to argumentative.