Again I have to disagree here to a certain extent: if you have a look at training programs of the past of developing weightlifters in Eastern Europe,as well as at those of more advanced lifters pertaining the transitions periods - when the qualities outlined above might well be among the training focuses - you would see the widespread use of low intensity plyometric activities in relatively high volumes,and surely not high rep ranges weights or lifting for time methods anyway,and some sprint running,some of which might be compared to “Tempo” as used here.
And I still believe there are many ways to skin the cat even when we refer to cross section and hypertrophy training in a program having as final target is Sport performance.
yes, i understand that, but there will still be a point where further cross section development won’t be necessary, or else performance will suffer and you’ll have to increase strength via other means, or rather methods… that’s what i meant.
A similar scenario was discussed over the weekend at the Verkhoshansky/Yessis clinic. Here is the premise:
Special strength exercises or drills may be performed in order to raise the ‘power’ of certain energy systems. For example: a 400/800m runner may utilized certain specific exercises to heighten the glycolitic-oxidative capacity of the muscles directly involved with generating/absorbing ground forces.
In regards to inserting these into the weekly plan, this would deserve additional consideration, as Verkhoshansky recommended weight training be performed in the AM with sport training/sprinting in the PM. This is, of course, a departure from the CFTS program. Subsequently, with respect to adhering to the CFTS program, I would say that these types of exercises could [edit] be performed during weight work if their role is to strengthen power qualities, OR supplement certain volumes of running, if their role is increasing the mitochondria content/coverting type II fibers to oxidative in the specific muscles is ‘organically related to the biodynamics’ of, in this case, the long/middle distance sprints.
Alternatively, special exercises specific to 100/200m runners would fit into the weight training following speed days, as their function would be to heighten the power capability of predominantly alactic work.
In accordance to Verkhoshansky’s recommendations, the performance of these special exercises would not be performed throughout the yearly cycle, but rather during training blocks which focus on strenghening certain energy systems specific to the sporting action.
I wouldn’t call it a departure from what I’m saying.
I suggest that the faster/more powerful the athlete, the longer he can maintain the stimulus from a high intensity activity, and, likewise, the longer he needs to.
The top sprinter puts out more and uses more of his resources to do it.
V’s example is an 800m runner, therefore less power and shorter retention of the (lower level)stimulus.
So, if the top sprinter did all his intense work in the AM, he’d still be depleted somewhat for the PM session. Likewise, if he lifts after the Mon sprint workout, he’ll still maintain the stimulus through to the next speed session on Wed.
With his lesser power capacity and stimulus maintenance time, it might be ideal for the 800m man to lift in the AM and sprint in the PM.
Does this make sense? (Sounded good when I was typing it, but…)
i suppose Charlie provided the answer/explanation as to why this might be happening ; and although this may apply, or at least to a certain extent, i was wondering whether this would be good for a runner with a not so strong training background and also whether a more advanced athlete would really benefint from this, as his work on the track would still be of great -for him and the event- intensity… it seems to me more effective to control and monitor progress via the track work vs. a combination of the two (i.e., weights + track); not sure if i am making myself clear here…
again, would the inclusion of this kind of weight work be more “appropriate” in the evening, or at least a few hours post- track session, as it might be regarded as less stressful (vs. track)? I am not going against Verkhoshansky, of course :o , or in fact, against Charlie on this, just a thought…
also, the mito- and fibre issue, i don’t understand why this has to be done via weight training and not directly via the event itself; i understand that it’s like extra work, but would this pay off? would you have specific conversion of fibres without the impact factor?of course, if elimination of foot contacts is an issue, then possibly…
regarding the 1st sentense, does this mean that special endurance work is not done during this phase? perhaps as preparation to some special endurance work coming on the track later on? this might be an option, but if special endurance is on the track at the same time -as suggested by the 2nd sentence, i.e., working in blocks with delayed returns, i suppose- wouldn’t it be too much working the same system both on accel/speed and special end. days?
sorry for all these! hope i am not coming across as too single-minded! well…
The video feed did not work, so Val ended up translating for Verkhoshansky via live phone connection to Italy.
My personal highlight was taking a boat load of notes from Verkhoshansky and talking to Val, Buddy, and Tom at length between lectures and at the end of each day.
In my view, the determining factor is your level of physical preparedness. This may not be synonymous with your race times. Meaning: if you are a 100m sprinter and are very strong (from a limit strength stand point) but are running 11seconds then we can safely presume that, if anything, the road to faster times lies not in increasing limit strength.
As far as an elite athlete benefitting from the supplementation of weight lifts for running volume; this is exactly the example which Verkhoshansky gave. The runners which were tested with this ‘new’ method were already (if my notes are correct) national level competitors.
Charlie clearified this.
It all depends on the event. For example: the longer the sprint, the less the work performed (via the event/event training) will facilitate the cross-sectional increase in type II transitional fibers. Hence, the benefit of certain resistance exercises to provide the stimulus which event training does not.
Thanks for coming back on this!
i think that’s what i am saying here ; if performance is not the expected -with “adequate” strength being there, of course, in the first place- i wouldn’t go back to strength to correct things; even more so, to higher number of reps; i would standardise the weight work and see what happens to performance and if the athlete bounces back; I am not sure how the above justifies the high rep work in the gym…
so, i guess i am wrong here :o ; i still feel, however, that the “risk” of such an approach might be high (e.g., possibly overtraining, minimal returns for the effort put in, etc), unless at such level, you have to take it…
does this mean you’d prefer to achieve this via extra gym work? why not via track work? do you think it would be too much this way? or not enough/can’t be achieved?
Again, we must first specify the requirements of the event.
Surely, the means and methods selected for training must yield the most optimal carryover to sport skill expression.
Ultimately, we must assess what can be developed on the track and what can be developed in the weight room or with other types of plyos/drills etc. Then we utilize a cost-benefit/needs analysis to make our targeted and appropriate decision.
This is about as efficiently as we can discuss this without you providing some specific training parameters to reference and consider.
sorry, you are right on this!
i understand the risk factor and that’s what i asked in the previous post; my posts are not just for an argument, but out of curiosity!
the question came about from a previous post of yours saying that the necessary cross-sectional development of the transitional type II fibres does not come via the event -not the exact words, for sure, but i take the “does not” to mean perhaps it’s not enough from the event alone
could repeated short sprints with short recoveries and longer rec between sets work towards these adaptations? especially for the longer sprints (e.g., 800m)
