Asafa Out?

Members Area In the News
18

Lots of questions. I’ll do my best.

CNS tolerance is not a function of genetics, but more so of development and time. Your ability to tolerate high outputs will develop over time as you build a base of high-intensity work beneath you. However, you are also building a base of low intensity work that will help you to recover more readily from high output workouts/races (assuming you are following an appropriate training program and progression). This is why Charlie liked the short-to-long approach, which included high-intensity runs throughout the year (building a large base of speed work). His contention was that a long-to-short program included a lower overall volume of speed work (and less exposure to speed throughout the year) and, thus, made the athlete more susceptible to injury and CNS overload in the latter stages of training.

This all makes sense in the case of Powell. If he is following a long-to-short program, it will take him longer to reach his peak (i.e. he needs a min of 16 races to be in top form), but it will also make him more susceptible to injury when he is in the thick of competition season with lots of high intensity races week to week. We could say that his CNS tolerance is low due to the progression of training he is following and the lower exposure to speed work throughout the year.

Of course, it is a double-edged sword and when you get to the latter stages of your career, you must back off on the frequency of high intensity workouts because you cannot tolerate higher volumes of work in the high-intensity zone. This could be both a central and peripheral recovery issue, as testosterone levels will begin to level off and drop as athletes enter their thirties. This is represented in one of the graphs we created for Charlie where training volume at the high-intensity level drops off after a number of years. (See below - lower diagram)

Developing athletes with less strength may very well improve more readily on a long-to-short program because of their reduced power output. And, they do need to develop a base of general fitness and strength. They may have lower CNS tolerance, but it doesn’t matter because they can’t training at a high enough output to create that level of fatigue. Remember, much of Ben’s initial training was long-to-short in structure.

19

Thank you very much! Now things are more clear, just still makes me confused with your last sentences of explanation, maybe I misunderstood something:

“Developing athletes with less strength may very well improve more readily on a long-to-short program because of their reduced power output. And, they do need to develop a base of general fitness and strength. They may have lower CNS tolerance, but it doesn’t matter because they can’t training at a high enough output to create that level of fatigue. Remember, much of Ben’s initial training was long-to-short in structure.”

For sure developing athletes will improve on a long-to-short, but wouldn’t be better start using more short-to-long for better adaptation and CNS tolerance for later stages of training? B/c you said " Your ability to tolerate high outputs will develop over time as you build a base of high-intensity work beneath you. However, you are also building a base of low intensity work that will help you to recover more readily from high output workouts/races (assuming you are following an appropriate training program and progression). This is why Charlie liked the short-to-long approach, which included high-intensity runs throughout the year (building a large base of speed work). His contention was that a long-to-short program included a lower overall volume of speed work (and less exposure to speed throughout the year) and, thus, made the athlete more susceptible to injury and CNS overload in the latter stages of training."

Low intensity, strength base no doubt, but why sometimes it’s better to use long-to-short program for developing athletes? Such program offers longer periods of special endurance and SE workouts and I’m not sure how it could be better for developing athletes and how it builds the base for high intensity work for later stages of training.

20

its looking like powell may run the relay according to his management team…i dont get this guy!

21

Guys, for all updates on asafa here is a link to the doylemangement facebook page. Along with Asafa it holds news of Bryan Clay and many other DMG athletes.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Doyle-Management-Group/173236439400467

22

Like it to continue to get updates

23

The reason(s) he might run the relay are that it is later in the competition and gives him more time to rehab, and that he’ll only have to run one leg in the final. They are deep enough to easily qualify without him.

24

I agree with all that No.2 has said but the facts are Steven Francis has many Olympic and World medallists in his squad and Asafa is the only one I am aware of who suffers routinely at the majors. Maybe it’s more down to Asafa than coach Steven.

When Steven spoke at a seminar I organised a couple of years back he said that in Jamaica they don’t have expert therapists like they do in some other countries. And it seems almost anyone with a basic feel for massage can get a job with these elite JAM sprinters. In any case I think the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that coach Francis can: (A) get his people ready on the big day; (B) get them to the line healthy; © get their physical prep ramped up to medal zone.

25

Amen…

26

Of course we don’t have the whole story on who else may be whispering in Asafa’s ear. Perhaps the coach doesn’t have total control of Asafa and there are outside influences creating problems. But it is clear the current situation isn’t working for Asafa.

The majority of Stephen Francis’ success has been with female sprinters. Perhaps he has the training volume correct for them (i.e. 20% less than men) and too high for Asafa. KitKat - what is your opinion of this gender difference in his success? Is it planning related? Is there any information you gleaned from your seminar with him? Did anything stick out of his philosophy that could be problematic on the male sprinter side?

Strangely enough, my source tells me that John Smith truly believes Asafa is more naturally talented and has more potential than Bolt. I wonder if Asafa would ever consider moving to another coach or training group?

27

It is true Stephen Francis’s majority successes have come with females. I cannot imagine however that Asafa would succeed outside of the Islands. He is so quintessentially Jamaican. It would be very interesting to see how he might fare if he teamed up across the road with Glen Mills, Bolt & Co. But it is a move I don’t see either Mills or Asafa embracing, unless Bolt insisted. John Smith no doubt would have success with Asafa but I doubt Asafa could adjust to the LA scene. Although he is extremely well travelled, whenever I’ve met him he’s been surrounded by fellow Jamaicans and it’s like he’s on Island time wherever he is. He is so laid back it’s ridiculous. John though has the chat and the cool to run with his willingness to embrace science and his old school discipline which Asafa appears to need.
I would have to go back over my seminar notes but I cannot recall anything in Stephen’s commentary that led me to think his women athletes may be better suited to his training regime.
One thing I suspect is that Asafa may need better and more therapy than the women sprinters in their group. Even if the therapies are available I wonder whether Asafa is religious about submitting to them? I recall Charlie saying that during the competition phase he would have his therapists “all over” Ben, up to five times a day or whenever/whatever he needed to preserve function and form.

28

I know for myself, there was a period a few months ago when my training was ramping up a Lot. To do so, i had to therapy nearly the same volume in time as my training… Personally, i would rather cull a session short and do extra Therapy to prevent an injury than keep training and try and treat an injury.

29

Squirming, Powell admits he could do more still to win. “Sometimes I’m at home and I remember I’m supposed to do 100 push-ups and I don’t. Sometimes my coach will call me and say: ‘Asafa, you done your exercises?’ and I’d say: ‘Yes, coach,’ and then after I start doing them. Sometimes I’m training and I just want to go home and work on an engine. Sometimes I’ll be working on an engine and just miss practice. Or go to the beach. I know, I’m like a kid. Maybe I was a bit too spoilt growing up. Everything just came like I wanted it to.”

If he truly has been missing sessions like this I could see how things fall apart for him.

Source- Guardian Aug 20 Article

30

Like Kit-kat, I was also at the Stephen Francis seminar and he did say that they do acceleration development all-year round - lots of 30m runs - many with sled. (I was also fortunate enough to drive him from his hotel to Homebush that day and we luckily we got stuck in a lot of traffic!!). As a result I was able to ask a lot of questions, which he basically re-enforced at the seminar. He termed his training long to short because his endurance work started at longer intervals and progressively got shorter as it got quicker. I think at the seminar kit-kat mentioned that perhaps it was more concurrent to which I think he replied ‘I guess so’…He mentioned that he follows many of John Smiths principals and reads and talks to many so I think he is more knowledgable than some of the comments appear…

31

No.2 I’m surprised you’ve never come across any sprinters with an injured groin. I’ve seen quite a few sprinters strain their adductors during the acceleration phase. Adductor/groin injuries are notoriously slow to heal and difficult to rehab. Many times, once that part of the body has been injured, it will reoccur again and again.

32

Sad story. This might have been his last best shot at a global title. He has racked up a lot more milage than his main rivals with the exception of Gay, who is also struggling, his first WC was in 2003. Eight years (nine seasons) at the top is already exceptional.

33

how many gold medals in majors!!!

34

DAEGU (Sporting Alert) — Defending champion Usain Bolt has expressed disappointment about the withdrawal of his fellow countryman Asafa Powell from the men’s 100m field at the upcoming IAAF World Athletics Championships.

Powell, who has been bothered by a groin injury, which had ruled him out of the Crystal Palace meeting earlier this month, has failed to recover in time for three rounds, according to his manager Paul Doyle.

This means that the 28-year-old will not face the starter’s gun for the individual event – something that saddens world record holder Bolt.

“It’s really sad,” Bolt told BBC Sport.

Powell holds the current world best at 9.78 seconds, and Bolt says it must be hurting to him to know that he won’t be able to continue his outstanding start to the season.

“At this point I can just imagine how he’s feeling (to know that) at this last minute he’s not able to compete after doing so well throughout the season.

Bolt added: "It’s really sad. I was looking forward to it (the battle). It was going to be a showdown and it was gonna be good.”

35

As far as Francis going longer to shorter with the intervals, does he venture into the 75-95% zone?

36

Not picking on you, Number Two, but trying to get a more substantive discussion going…

What I see in Francis’ seminar notes is “I read in a book a while back that to run longer than 20 mins continuous will affect your speed”. I take it they do some continuous runs in GPP not over 20 minutes. Does anyone here suggest more than this for a pure sprinter? The MVP plan implies that they do tempo on Saturday, but after Mike Rogers work with 8X800 in GPP last fall, I’m interested to know if there’s an advantage in doing 20 min continuous runs in the fall or 800’s (Clyde Hart has things like 6X800 in his plan for 400) for pure sprinters. The Duffield and Dawson paper on energy systems (IAAF, New Studies On Athletics, 4:3) implies 20% aerobic energy component for even 100 meters, and I wonder if even the tempo is enough to fully develop this.

  1. “I read in a book…” - Well, at least he didn’t read it in Men’s Health.

Response follows the same comment but the 20 minutes may also be more about 400 training or may be a response to the old school Bud Winter training which went up to 10 miles of jogging in the fall

  1. “The women do 20% less volume than the men” - Charlie’s work with Marion and Tim confirmed that women need more volume than men, due to the differences in output and performance (i.e. world class men have significantly higher intensity in their runs, thus need lower volume and more recovery.

Francis has stated in interviews that MVP does not do MaxV work. Short power work is maintained, some IT overdistance work (37 second 300s) is maintained, and SE is added in January, but they apparently don’t do all-out 50s or 60s, or flys. Thus the emphasis is more on work capacity than CNS stimulus.

  1. “I believe you can work hard on successive days…” - Maybe for developing athletes who do not have the speed in their SE work to create a problem. But in an athlete that runs sub-10 sec in 100m?

There is a philosophy that’s been around for many years that you can do back-back hard days if you train different systems. Bob Kersee does this. long-short-off-long-short…something like that.

  1. “…this is more important than any theory about CNS and its recovery” - Again, for elite sprinters… bullshit.

Once again, work capacity vs CNS stimulus. There was some mention of this in the Dan Pfaff video that someone linked here recently. Pfaff was talking about why he was doing 18 accelerations (that Donavan complained about), and he also mentioned that sprinters with higher work capacity may be able to maintain hard efforts (don’t know if he really meant to imply acceleration that long, but not doing maintenance) out to 8-9 seconds.

  1. “…it is not what the theories agrees with but that’s just how we do it.” - Chalk it up to arrogance…

Charlie says to key quickness in the blocks. John Smith emphasizes power (pushing). Steve Francis emphasizes long strides from the beginning, and Bolt has mentioned keying “drive” (and I decided to copy him). Now, whom are running 6.31-6.32?

If someone posted this on the forum and we didn’t know who they coached, we would all think this person was an idiot. Powell’s results (not the coaching approach) have brought the spotlight on Francis. It is easy to detect the arrogance in his responses. I would rather have had him say that “experience with my athletes has shown” or “my coaching mentors have passed on these theories” rather than “I read it in a book” or “that’s just how we do it”.
When I visited John Smith, back when Mo Greene was finishing his career, John was very careful to say that, “We need to heed the science behind everything we do. As coaches, we can make adjustments day-to-day based on the needs of our athletes. There is a feel component to coaching, but we must not forget the science that guides our decision making.” Charlie agreed that John has done a good job in preparing athletes for the big meets, when they need to perform. Stephen Francis could do well in paying a visit to John Smith and just listening to what an experienced coach has to say.

Steve Francis has credited some things coming from John Smith. But HSI really has one athlete in Deagu. MVP has how many? I think I’d really like to understand what the guys running 9.58-9.72 are doing and why, and not to believe nothing has changed since 1986-1988.

37

That USa doc would be dr douglass a chiro. I knows his stuff. Ive been to him a few times