in the forum review, CF says ben seldom ran over 500-600m in any given HI session, however in vertical integration graph it has speed volumes of 2000m-2400m per week, which if doing 3 HI session means an average of 670-800m per session.
so which one is it???
The average is 500m but it can go up as high as 700. Volume is used as an overload at certain times of year.
If the average is 500 then there will be other sessions where it is less. For example, when you are fatigued and cut the session short or during the taper towards the seasons peaks.
Depends on timing, athlete level and training type and time of year. Example 3 x 300 is not unreasonable in a long to short set up. that’s 900m right there without any other preliminary sprints counted (starts etc)
Speed End sessions will almost always have a higher vol than pure speed regardless of the approach.
As an example of pure speed, Ben ran:
WU
4 x 30m block starts
80, 100, 120, 150 with complete recovery.
That’s a total of 570m but it’s tougher than any other session he had of higher speed volume, since, at times, all the runs were at world record speeds. Such a session would require a 10day period of sub-max work to recover from.
A sub-max session might occasionally have been 6 x 150 which is 900m
Charlie,
Could you clarify how sprints at 80-150 would be considered pure speed work, since many people would classify them as speed endurance for a 100m sprinter? I think of pure speed work being more in the 50-80m range.
Charlie, in this case, what would be the average times and the rest time between reps?
Flash, in the 80-100-120-150 workout, given the complete rests and the average intensity (world record level), the max speed (around 12m/s) can be hit in each of these distances. It is unlikely that a sprinter reach these intensities for longer distances (curve running prevents to reach these intensities and anyway accel and max speed are delayed, probably by unconscient inhibition, studies have shown that for a same athlete, reaction times are better for 60m races than 100m, 100m better than 200m, 200m better than 400m).
Anyway, beeing able to reach WR intensity at 150m in such a workout indicates work capacity as well as mental strength to its higher level.
The rest periods are extreme. 7 min between 30m starts, 15min between the 30s and the 80m, 20min till the 100m, 25min till the 120m, 35min till the 150m.
This may not be the perfect example of a speed session because it isn’t pure, but it’s the best one I used. I got the session from the GDR’s Horst Hilla, liked it and never changed it. I suppose keeping the distance at 80m would allow max speed to be attained and held, but then how would I have fit the short speed end as well as any longer SE with the prolonged recovery time required to get over it at those speeds? Pure speed was done with 60s because of the indoor training, which allowed for the reaching of max V but not its maintenance.
Anyway, it worked for me just as it worked for Hilla. The highest results would be obtained in phase 3 of a triple phase short-to-long program.
As for times, I went from first committed motion, which was generous but ensured that the sprinter wouldn’t rock back and go again before I could re-set the watch (never good!).
I allowed for a differential to fully auto timing from blocks of .65, which seemed to work out very well.
Best times for Ben
80m 7.35 (= 8.00e, best race performance 8.02 Seoul)
100m 9.19 (= 9.84e, race performace after that session 9.83e, best ever 9.79e)
120m 11.11 (= 11.76e )
150m 14.00 (= 14.65e )
Would it also be safe to say that 80-150m constitutes more of a SE workout for a slower athlete due to the longer run times and the relatively smaller alactic envelope?
True, as the slower athlete also reaches top speed earlier and is slowing down sooner. Only the highest level sprinters can accelerate through to 60m. It has also always been my contention that the alactic envelope becomes larger with the right training.
Charlie, I think PJ was interested in the rest breaks and average times for the 6x150 sub max for total of 900m, as am I.
Thanks,
TC
The following is an excerpt from:
Shepard, R. J. (1978). Aerobic versus anaerobic training for success in various athletic events. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 3, 9-15.
Quote:
"Very Brief Events (less than 10 seconds)
Examples: Running a 50 meter dash, performing a long jump, sprinting in cover defense in football, running between bases in baseball.
Important Features
The anaerobic power that is available. This is affected by:
(a) the energy transfer ability of ATPase and CPase to the bonding of actin and myosin in muscle contraction;
(b) the total number of muscle fibers used;
© the proportion of fast-twitch fibers used in each single action in the total event;
(d) towards the upper limit of this type of activity there may be some demand placed on the lactacid energy system so that some lactic acid is formed although it will not reach very high levels.
The mechanical resistive forces in the body are:
(a) muscle viscosity,
(b) the degree of relaxation in the antagonist muscles,
© the inertia in the various body parts that are moved.
The mechanical resistive forces outside of the body are :
(a) energy loss due to friction with the ground and/or performance medium (water and/or air), (b) air resistance,
© the raising and lowering of the center of gravity (the less the better).
From a physiological viewpoint, there should be sufficient training performed to overload the alactacid energy system so that it improves (the amount of improvement may be as much as 20 percent but that will translate into extending maximum performance by only a few seconds). "
Sometimes I find great authors and publications from the good old days supporting empirical training evidences of nowadays which seem to have been too much ignored or at least forgotten in the last 25 years!
That’s my point. You can look at the graphs that present energy system contributions and train according to the percentage involvement shown, leaving you stuck within the old parameter- or you can work to change the parameter!
A 20% change in the alactic threshold would be fantastic, possibly leaving less than one second in the 100m for the top sprinters. Since already within the 100m at the top we are seeing 0 to 3% drop in performance in the closing stages, the only real area remaining for improvement is in accel and top speed, which are alacticly trained. This is why training over time should shift towards more and more alactic work - or some of the work will be shifted for you.
That was actually my question, Charlie, please have you got memories of the rest breaks and average times?
The 150s were of such ease for him that 5 to 7 min sufficed (even though they’d all have been faster than most sprinters could run at all. With a best by my timing of 14.00, these were 14.7 to 15.0 range.
Would the 6x150m workout count as a reduced intensity SE workout during the 10-day recovery, with shorter distances (e.g., 50-80m) used for lower intensity “pure” speed workouts during the recovery?
I remember the 80-100-120-150 workout from Speed Trap, but I always thought that was just used for peaking for the top meets.
In using a short-to-long approach, did you ever use an analogous workout for phase 1? For example, 4x30m starts followed by 50-60-70-80.
With 7min rest, a young 6.50/10.10/20.50 sprinter did 3 reps at 15.80 (estimated electr.) into cold windy weather. Couldn’t do more reps without taking considerable risks.
Do you think training toward reaching higher volume at these intensities and density would provide any help for in order to improve the last 20m of 100m races ? Or because of his poor lactic threshold, would there by other ways, like using short distances?
Not at York! They’d have gone through the wall at the end. 60 was it. we could have done 80s at a training camp but we usually used the camps to work on grass as we had the track surface we needed where we were and didn’t have unlimited funds for the whole group.
Whenever the weather is cold or rainy, run into the wind. This increases the work while slightly decreasing ROM for safety sake. Are you in Paris? Isn’t there still an indoor track. I remember a dirt track with very large bends indoors in the 70s.
What’s your take on this, Pierre-Jean?
For this particular person and with those 150s being at ~96%, I would prefer the second of your options, but I’d like to hear your view as well.
What’s your reason behind suggesting the first option?
Thanks!
Didn’t answer the second ppart. i’d work on the finish via alactic training primarily as he’s already performing at a level where this would be where most of his potential gains could come from.