Another thing that must be considered is that in-season practices/spring ball are anything but a high/low split, especially at WR/DB. It has always seemed prudent to me to include some form of CNS work on a daily basis as you get closer to training camp and the season.
Anecdotally, I have run into people (some on this board) that find explosive med ball throws with lighter implements to be restorative in nature. Additionally, Dan has mentioned in the past that med ball throws were great for “rebooting the CNS.”
James, great comment on feeling excellent as often as possible. It’s quite simple but sticking to such advice would eliminate 90% of the overtraining/overuse injuries and pathologies that seem so common in many programs.
By spring I’m guessing that you’re referring to pre-spring ball.
It’s a sequence from week to week, and block to block, and I modify the program every year.
At certain times the load is graduated in terms of volume and in others its graduated in terms of intensity.
There are different volume ranges depending on where we are in each training block and the intensity of the jump variants.
Short of illustrating what we did each week any volumes would only represent what did on a particular day.
I illustrate the general outline in my DVD entitled Bionergetic Sequencing in the Development of Sport Form.
In general, however, explosive throws will range from 10-50 total throws per session and the range is even bigger for jumps depending on whether the emphasis is more explosive or reactive.
What’s your thoughts on low intensity jump circuits on speed days done in GPP? For example 10 different low intensity jumps (pogo jumps, squat jumps, lateral jumps etc) perform for 10reps while resting 30sec btw movements. I think it’s a great way to condition the lower body while developing power, also you are able to get a high volume of jumps without torching the CNS.
Based upon the training setup you are currently employing, does the H/L/Off set up allow you to be more liberal in terms of the distribution of of HI elements over the course of the training week compared to a H/L setup?
Furthermore, do you believe that this is actually required in order to maintain the stimulus over the extended time period between HI sessions as compared to a H/L/H/L/H/L setup? Is a significant dispersion even more necessary during GPP where the magnitude of the cumulative stimulus for a given HI training day is by definition lower?
Along those lines, due to the many training components required in team sports (both general and specific), are your GPP phases actually of fairly high intensity relative to an olympic sport discipline in that the HI means change over the course of training, yet most are performed at high intensity (i.e. linear speed vs. position specific speed, etc…)?
What are your opinions on including hill/sled work close to a testing period? I’m speaking more in terms of extensive work such as the 4x4x30 workout you mentioned rather than a potentiating load prior to a session.
We are limited by the NCAA in how many hours per week we may train the players. Thus, the current split is executed out of necessity. Having 2 opportunities for intensive sessions obviously necessitates that a greater volume of this type of work be executed per session as opposed to having 3 intensive sessions which provides for greater workload distribution. In either case, however, we have 2 low intensive sessions (because we’re not counting on anything being done over the weekend).
So, because we don’t train on Wednesdays I’m able to take slightly greater liberties on the Tuesday (extensive) session because they have the next day off; and this also obviously applies to the extensive Friday session which precedes the two day weekend recovery opportunity.
The greater distribution of the weekly workload across all training sessions is highly compatible with GPP (as Charlie explained extensively). By definition, the CNS intensive work conducted during GPP is less intensive in its form then it will be later; thus it’s only logical to disperse the workload across more training sessions in order to lessen the stress of each individual session.
As to your last question, rather than thinking in terms team sport vs Olympic sport, it is more wise to think physiologically and compare the GPP of multi-motor regime disciplines vs that of more singular/less complicated motor regime disciplines. In so doing, one will observe that there are more considerations to make when planning the training of the multi-motor regime athlete as the demands of the less complex motor regime disciplines typically represent just one component of the necessary abilities of the multi-motor regime athlete.
As to the approach taken in constructing the GPP, we’d have to compare specific disciplines to do justice to the conversation; however, in general I’d probably characterize the differences in the GPP to come more in the shape of breadth versus height.
It’s also important to note that there is a good argument against the need for a true GPP period for athletes of certain qualification who compete in certain disciplines. Wolfgang Ritzdorf and Ivan Abadjiev are two esteemed coaches who have presented very interested arguments in this regard.