The scenario is you are on target regards acceleration and top speed but want to work on your speed endurance over 90m -110m.
For the 90m or 110m distance would it be best to work up to top speed at 95% effort holding for the remaining distance or simply sprint at 100% for the whole distance?
I am thinking that working up to top speed at a reduced effort would hold back CNS fatigue and so lead to more productive speed endurance sessions. Acceleration and top speed would be maintained by flat out 30’s and 50’s before the speed endurance runs.
No you would want to take it out at 90-100% the whole way. The point of speed endurance training is to train the body to maintain the high speed for longer periods of time. By building up, you would be doing nothing for the speed endurance but more for top end speed type stuff. You kind of want to wear the CNS down, so that the body gets stronger and is able to “battle it” more effectively the “second” time 'round. On a side note you usually wouldn’t want to mix in accel. work with speed endurance work since they both are very taxing on the CNS and the combined work would “overfill your cup” so to speak. I mean not to say you can’t but as I just said it’s very taxing and you would want to watch how your times come in.
I have stated 95 or 100% and you have stated 90-100%, dont we have the same meaning here?
My point is that if we get to top speed using slightly less effort (ie. taking a longer distance to do so) then we can concentrate on holding top speed as we would in a race.
Where as if we have to put in max effort during the whole distance our top speed may suffer after several reps (or sessions) leading to poorer speed endurance qualities.
Yes we have the same meaning. Ah I see what your saying now; well that could work but dont forget that once the time starts to drift longer one begins to work on another system. But I do like your thinking and I suppose that it could work say useing 250’s or 300’s, is that what you have in mind?
I think you’re trying to mix two different things that are best made separate.
As Charlie has pointed out in the past, SE includes multiple training modalities: acceleration, MaxV, speed maintenance/glycolytic power. There is also a difference between strict SE and race modeling.
I’m not trying to start one of those drive phase holding back at the start kind of arguments, but if I assume for sake of argument that you do this to reach MaxV later, keep in mind that you started with ~7 seconds of alactic power to burn at 100%. If you hold back, that alactic power might take you to, say, 8 seconds. If you’re going to train like this but stop at 90 meters, you might not get much training in the glycolytic mode.
Also remember that for race modeling, you do NOT want to practice running at 100% after 60 meters. You want to accelerate as long as you can, then maintain.
If you want to get something of everything, you likely need to go somewhat longer, to something like 120 meters or close to 15 seconds, depending on ability.
Speed endurance starts at 60m and so using this 95% effort method you would extend the 60m distance to around 70m when targeting this distance. The 90m distance ran this way may be equivalent to 80m. Whatever the distance you just add a little if accelerating for longer.
Regards the defintion of 100% after the acceleration phase it would be put in context to mean 100% MaxV but obviously not fighting.
If an athlete is fresh enough to perform a session of 90m runs with max effort from the start then fine. This prolonged acceleration method helps limit CNS fatigue for any athlete who needs to limit such but who still wants to work on SE.