So a few nights ago I was re-reading the forum review and i came across a passage that i had missed before: “Second, an adequate volume of alactic sprints, when done over an adequate period of the season will enhance alactic capacity by as much as .5 sec (from 7.5 to 8.0 sec) a huge amaount when you consider tha as performance goes up, the 100 time comes down- all of the time shaved off is the lactic anaerobic portion of the race.”
So… What would be adequate volume and adequate period of the season? I understand that this is highly individual, but there must be some concrete guidelines for the training since Charlie offers a concrete maximum amount that can be gained… Ideas?
I’m not offering a concrete maximum guideline (nor can I) as to how much you can prolong the alactic portion, but it’s likely to be as much as .5sec, which would be huge, especially as race time is dropping at the other end also. What this does illustrate is that, once general fitness is in place to reduce the big losses over the final portion of the 100m, gains will increasingly be found by a shift to the ‘left’ in training- the alactic area.
There is a fair bit of info there to go through and it’s worth reading through it a few times to come up with a list of more specific questions about a set training example.
Okay, I’ll take another shot at this… Is the essence of your statement in the forum review that beyond a certain point, high intensity training elements (weights, plyos, accerlation and top speed training) are where the vast majority of improvement will come from? Or is there something more to that statement? Perhaps I was just reading too much into it… Thanks
When the deceleration pattern at the end improves. Beginners might decelerated by 25 to 30% but top guys only up to 3%. so, when the deceleration is pretty good, the main difference will be alactic. Another way to look at it is by time. when an athlete is running 10.50 for example, he still has deceleration to contend with but he also must focus alot on alactic work. An athlete running 10.10 would spend the majority of his emphasis on alactic work. the forum review discusses this as well.
If a 46.0 400m sprinter runs the 100m in 10.50 and a 6.80 60m sprinter also runs the 100m in 10.50 can both gain (in the 100m) from general fitness? I’m asking, because I want to know if special endurance runs can make up for weeknesses in general fitness.
I think I worded things poorly. Both gen fitness and Special End would have to be part of the process by the time results got to 10.50, and, no, general fitness canot be replaced by SE as GF should be there first.
To build off of that Charlie, suppose that the athlete does not have the general fitness to begin with and realizes after about 4 weeks of specific training. Would that athlete have to “start over” with GF and then build back up to more specific stuff?
you don’t need to start over but that would be the preferred order to improve the most rapidly. Once you’re into the specific training you have to adjust the best you can to address deficiencies as you go, but, if the season’s pretty much over, you might as well go back and take care of the GF issues.
If a program has no tempo, no low intensity med-ball work or any general fitness circuit, would special endurance run be enough to maintain an athlete’s fitness throughout the season.
E.G. day1. 300m,200m,100m
day2. blocks 4x20,4x30,4x40
day3. off or warm-up
day4. 6x60 (2 sets of 3)
Speed End (8 to 15 sec)
Spec End 1 (15 to 45 sec)
Spec End 11 (45 sec up )
All play a part but are all in the lactic anaerobic area of training.
With an athlete at the level you describe, more work would be done in the gen fitness and lactic anaerobic area than an athlete at a very high level, who has captured the majority of the time available by reducing or eliminating deceleration, leaving improved max speed and acceleration as the only remaining avenue to improvement.
This is covered in detail in the Forum Review, available from the site store.
Would it be correct to say acceleration & speed (alactic work) is more related to the conditioning of the nervous system, and Spec End 1 & 11(lactic training) and to a lesser extent speed endurance is more related to the conditioning of the energy system?
Yes. Each step up the intensity scale increases CNS demand PROVIDED there is a similarity in breadth to the exposure. IE 2 or 3 flying 20s would have less CNS impact than the normal 2 reps SE 11, but a full alactic speed session more.