It is interesting to hear your thoughts in this thread.
I am currently working with a number of cyclists. A track sprinter, track enduro and road sprinter (crit specialist).
The major difference between running and cycling is the impact on the body with fast efforts, being that it is more brutal on a runner as they pound the ground where it is relatively low impact, from that perspective, for a rider. This, IMO, allows the cyclist to be better trained to be conditioned for a multitude of relatively like events.
Unless anyone would like to correct me, I suggest that the CNS gives a bigger shock to the body when the whole body puts a force onto the ground, rather than the pedals. It appears that fast (to very fast) reps on a bike are easier to recover from than a land animal. Thoughts?
I have likened my track sprinter (Keirin, 1st off in the team sprint, match sprint) to a 60m/100m specialist and the crit specialist to running a 800/1500m event. Now in saying that, a 60m/100m runner would never want to run more than 150m absolute tops (if even that far) and even in training only up. However, the 800/1500m runner could venture beyond a few km’s in a conditioning or recovery/tempo session.
Why do sprint cyclists want to ride for many km’s on the road? This has been my frustration when confronted with, what I believe, is an archaic attitude of some leading track coaches!
Cyclists have many other issues rather than CNS issues to deal with. For example they often have inhibited muscles as a result of the position they ride in. Much of the training program off the bike must be geared towards correcting these postural issues. As for the CNS burnout issue it is possibly the intensity of the SSC found in running that causes inhibition for sprinters, which is not found to such a degree in cycling.
I would like to add that the tempo sprint programs found here on this site work well to replace longer miles on the bike for someone focused on sprinting/crits. I do not believe there is a endurance component that cannot be covered for short events with tempo sprints. Typically I have the riders make a large number of efforts 10-50 around 25-30 seconds to substitute steady rides. Also I have downloaded various power graphs from crits and there are no steady efforts in them unless a rider goes solo and even then there are short rests for corners.
Thanks for everyone’s input. Nice to know I’m not the only one who comes up against this when training track cyclists. Very frustrating attitude from coaches. It would seem that for them that endurance = mileage
An interesting observation recently with my rider racing in Pennsylvania. She is over there with a New Zealand stable mate who did do the long mileage on the programme I have posted. My rider has been fairly consistent with her performance as racing has gone on over the last 8 weeks. Her team mate, and indeed others over there who have been advocates of long aerobic rides for sprinter, are starting to go backwards. One USA sprinter who was cleaning everyone up in the initial weeks has been mid-pack over the last couple of races. All riders have been exposed to the same environmental conditions. One of the justifications for riding long has been that it is supposed to pay dividends later in the season, with an increase in resiliency??
Does anyone have any thoughts as to the mechanism behind a performance decrease in the more aerobically trained riders? (the racing they have been doing has been short - medium distance and would not be considered sprint events.
Could it be the case that the first few races -as a (relatively) new stimulus to these guys- have led to a rather narrow peak at the first half of their season?
So are you saying that because the longer distance, steady tempo riders have come back to the more interval type nature of racing, they have quickly peaked up but “fallen off” this peak rapidly too? Where as my athlete who went into racing with an interval base is holding up better under the intensity? Sorry for the questions, just trying to get my head around it and look for areas where we can improve!!
if we compare events from swimming to track
ie world class times
100m track = 25m in swimming
200m track = 50m swimming
400m track = 100m swimming
Charlie - are your ideas on sprinting portable to a sport such as swimming.
I have been to 40 or so track workouts to observe and it is clear that track sprinters do not do the heavy volume that sprint swimmers are known to do in workout.
I am interested to hear others ideas on this. In swimming most coaches support a distance or volume oriented approach. It seems to me that regarding training sprinters this runs contrary to what track coaches do.
thanks
Swimming is largely a concentric exercise v’s running eccentric. Its been shown many times that eccentric exercise Hurts more (DOMS) and takes more to recover from. Also, swimming is extremely technical. Alex. Popov, the Russian sprint champ, well documented that he trains technique technique technique. They say his Power output could be as low as 35% less than others in the same race, his technique is that good.
However, saying that, there is certainly room for improvement in swimming. Have you ever seen the starts? The gun go off, an eternity later, they dive. The last world champs i seen, i noticed that there reaction times were like 0.7sec for the fast guys!! Then there is the lack of power diving off the wall.
The reason reaction times are so much slower, not necessarily because of slow reaction, but because of the starting position and the position that must be obtained for sport skill (diving vs driving out). The reaction time is measured from time the clock starts to the time when the feet leave the blocks. Time of first movement is probably relatively similar, but it takes more time to accelerate the body when the center of mass is behind the feet. That is the critical difference, the feet (one or both) are in front of the hips, not behind them as in T&F.
The reason there seems to be a lack of power of the wall during terms is because of the drag force of the water. Any slight deficiency in streamlining will bring the swimmer to a screeching halt regardless of the power generated from pushing off. The human body, no matter the skill of the athlete, is not built for aquatic streamlining. However, power outputs are probably less than those of elite T&F athletes, but not so much as one would think.
