[b][b]This is a very thoughtful and thought through view and opinion regarding CNS fatigue.
Is there a down side to the implications of acknowledging the existence of CNS fatigue? Maybe it exists. Maybe it doesn’t.
Understanding how to track volume and progressions for ideal adaptation or respecting a 48 hour window (or more) before engaging in maximal intensity work to exploit your personal abilities has served me extremely well. It’s also critical to be able to access a value of intensity to the type of work you are performing. In this case medicine ball accelerations on tempo/recovery days. (see the graph above and medicine ball 1 or 2)
What I have experienced might not be considered as hard scientific evidence regarding the existence of CNS fatigue but I am not ready to accept my experiences up to now have been perceived and not real. (Noake’s CG theory)
I’ve been taught to make training and recovery decisions based on what I know for sure. Many of those decisions might not be supported by research or published scientific journals.
Imagine we each have our own well of water. Now imagine that each of us must mind how many times we dip into the well for water. Think of the well as our CNS. Each time we dip into the well we begin to deplete something that is finite yet able to replenish and over time given the correct circumstances we will expand our ability to dip into the well more frequently. I have attempted to describe in previous posts and blogs that CNS fatigue sneaks up on a person if it’s not managed. Unchecked CNS fatigue accumulates bit by bit and once you dig a hole below your personal baseline of ideal adaptation you need to remember that you need to climb out of that deep hole in enough time to apply your highest level of intensity again in an ideal amount of time to make progress.
Your suggested protocol of 4 x 5 heavy lifts is only one slice of a possible myriad of lifting protocols throughout this graph and also the season as a hole. The volume of 4 x 5 for heavy lifts during the highest level of meets would be too high and in the fall and spring too low.(in general terms) Additionally, volumes and lifts will vary from person to person and female to male.
One persons Special Endurance 200 meter cannot nor should it be compared to another persons 200 meter SE run. A 200-meter SE might actually end up low or medium if it’s not done as hoped. This happens.
Lastly, explosive medicine ball drills can absolutely rival each mentioned workout above or not. If someone has no background doing medicine ball these circuits would move quickly into the high intensity realm for training.
The mere suggestion of the possible outcome of the medicine ball 1 or medicine ball 2 workout in the graph I posted as medium work is troublesome for anyone who is not understanding the dangers of this type on work on REST and or TEMPO days.
We did a fair bit of backward throws and squat throws in the spring and for sure in the fall after competitive season was over. Backward throws and squat throws for a seasoned athlete at a high level could easily perform these drills so they are low intensity. Would I do these exercises during comp season? Likely never. The single hop throws and med ball accelerations to 20 meters as well as the roll back accelerations over 20 meters performed on a REST/TEMPO day in these volumes are going to be considered HIGH intensity for almost anyone performing them with the exception of the very top elite that are familiar with these drills and have a long season possibly ending in first or second week of September.
To conclude: The criteria set for this protocol on the graph has to do with the extensive training background of the people performing the work which makes the med ball work on Tempo/Rest days turn into LOW intensity by virtue of their world class rank and experience.
RB I agree completely about the “LOL” in response to your conversation.
If CF theories are outdated then what is the latest thinking that replaces its validity - where are the the “updated” training plans, the graphs, the lectures, the successful athletes and so on. Unless someone can point me towards their existence I take this outdated comment as plain uninformed.
On the subject of med balls. You are absolutely correct about med ball intensity being dependent on the condition of the athlete, their familiarity with the movements and the specifics of an individual exercsie. The job of the coach/athlete is to fine tune the exercises to match the necessary intensity level for the phase of the athlete`s training.
FYI. I am not anti-CNS I just prefer parameters that are more directly measurable. This is where heart rate, lactate levels are measurable indicators of fitness and recovery. VO2 a useful measure of aerobic conditioning. Unfortunately an athletes CNS condition lacks these types feedback measures.
So I prefer to consider “general body fatigue” with clear parameters as something I can measure and to some extent fix. So hydration, nutrition, sleep, muscle fatigue all contribute towards a general malaise after high intensity training. I try to improve them as much as possible for what works for me. For example, a protein drink at the end of a weights session seems to help me the next day. A hot shower the morning after a hard session helps with muscle aches.
Is this fixing a number of components of CNS fatigue or just separate (additional) symptons - I dont know.
But the CNS debate is a separate topic and I dont want to hijack the thread.
Why do people continually look for reasons to do more work? Rather than ask whether you can add more work, determine whether you absolutely have to in order to improve.
The profession of sport is host to more parochial thinking than so many other professions. In fact, when viewed in comparison to so many other professions, the operational competency of much of sport is laughable.
What so many sports people of low cognitive ability fail to realize is that what is objectively true- remains so until evolution, if any, occurs at some time in the future by way of knew knowledge. Isaac Newton developed calculus to solve the celestial problems he was working on in the 1600s and his work profoundly impacted classical mechanics. Newton’s equations are used to this very day, nearly 500 years later, to plan the travel of rockets and satellites due to the objective truth of them.
Similarly, Charlie’s work was objectively true and will stand the test of time, no matter how many sports people of low cognitive ability claim otherwise. The proof is in the explanations that are extraordinarily hard to vary, not to mention the results that anyone with the ability to effectively assimilate the knowledge observes in their own application.
Are Charlie’s methods the only viable ones for sprint/sport preparation, no, however to argue the brilliance of Charlie’s contributions is as clear an indicator of low cognitive ability as an intelligence quotient of 65.
We all learned from Charlie and the thousands of his posts that we got to read at “No charge” along with reading posts from James Smith (and Ange) who always used to write that he gets smarter every time he reads Charlie’s answers or questions.
I myself get smarter every time I read posts from James and Ange.
HAHAHAHAHA A former elite sprinter is not even close to an elite coach…walking away was smart. I do the same thing all the time with Sports in general.
Once in awhile there are smart folks that I debate…but what I do now is before that I will ask about a dozen questions in general to see their line of thinking…
After that, most times they get tripped up by their own words…contradicting themselves like crazy.
I big up this website often.
A Coach who thinks Charlie’s Methods are outdated?
Have him come here and try to teach some of us.
There are so many coaches that want to show they can teach or how good they think they are but like Gloria Estefan --“but the words get in they way” lol
It took me two years to fully realize/understand what Charlie meant in one 30 min. consultation.
Yeah, sure I could have regurgitated what he said it the next day but that would have just made me sound smarter than I was…but not better.
There are a few things that happen in coaching in sport.
People discount a system which demonstrates they likely lack information and knowledge to appreciate the meaning of the history.
Or people acknowledge a great contribution by a coach but don’t have the will, or patience or means to execute the same with their athletes or coaches.
How many coaches do the kind of massage illustrated in the video I posted on the new charliefrancis.com Facebook page? Almost ZERO.
"I’m not paid enough to do this or that or It doesn’t matter how he or she did it "… or what ever the excuses are there are many things in training that don’t happen because of a pre existing belief.
I have found that the people who have accomplished something or attempted to accomplish something have an idea what the information here is about. Success as an athlete has nothing to do with one’s successes as a coach. And a successful coach might not be fully specialized as an athlete as we all know. Coaching is a skill to be learned and as we have discussed elsewhere the current method to becoming a coach isn’t very clear for many people wanting to pursue this profession.
The “coaches” who discount/discredit CF’s methods are often the same people who push gimmicks and toys as their so called program. I agree with Ange that the discounting of the CF system does mean they really lack knowledge or even a partial understanding of what that system entails.
It’s the same with a sports performance facility who cannot really attract parents or kids with their knowledge, experience of correct programming. For one, this cannot be seen on a tour but rather as a long term observation of the coach and their results & methods. Since this takes time and an eye for and understanding of what’s proper and improper to begin with many will never give that coach the opportunity in the first place. This is so because they don’t know what to look for, how to tell good from bad, good from average. They attract parents and their kids who collectively have little understanding of proper athletic development (which is most of course of that population) with some shiny objects and toys. When they see this they think that clearly this group must be cutting edge!
It looks sexy to have “multiple energy system programming” or “Reactive power dynamics”, but effective training is raw and intense. (Key Concepts Elite p. 27)
overall I honestly think Charlie was head and shoulders above past and present coaches. he was lite years ahead! in regards in what ange said above regarding massage…couldn’t agree more. he was a physio, coach, fatherhood figure and the worlds finest coach. I really hate when people use his work(slides shows) and pretend they created it!
Great people study history for a reason. Good political thinking is based in part on history, trends and patterns. Sport at the very highest levels also does this but the general public is not always privy to this backstage information.
I learned a very different perspective working with normal personal training clients that the public is not so interested in extreme or difficult but they wish to consume or purchase a result. I remember suggesting that one of my female clients be more mindful of the shoes she was wearing so she could do a better job kicking butt in her training which in turn would give her a more sculpted body. She told me it wasn’t worth it. That’s the mentality of non athletes IMO.
Coaching attracts people who want a result too and waiting 5 years to see a result of note is not always of interest to people nor do they make the correlation between how the simple installment of a great warm up over time translates into a necessary base to build from. Just one example.
I ran into the wife of a former client living in our neighborhood the other day and she was saying to me her husband was commenting that Charlie really was right about all the things he had said but at the time it was a bit out there and people don’t want to believe things that are not easy to hear sometimes.
If people go back to his book or his comments on certain subjects regarding the sport these is not one thing he said that has not occurred.
I’ve said before how much he loved history and political science and this has not been a usual background for many coaches at least not in track.
What ever Charlie thought about others he never discounted the good. For example, he gave Carl Lewis full credit for his talent and commitment to those who stuck by him and worked for him.
The mere fact that coaches discredit him is a sign of lack of knowledge regarding training, the sport and a lack of analytical abilities about life in general. As a coach he was tremendously successful and as a person he was respected by his athletes and those who actually knew him and worked with him.
I may have mentioned this lately but I approached a coach all of you know to interview for my blog and he flat out rejected me. Charlie had respect for that coaches accomplishments which in part was one reason I felt it would be of interest to others to do the interview.
This type of petty crap is one of the aspects I feel has not helped track and field as a sport. These types of behaviors hold people back and create an environment where learning is not going to happen.
We need ambassadors of our sport from people that have succeeded at the highest levels and we also need coaches people look up to and respect both professionally and personally.
truth