How to train between meets

Given your biological age, training history, and existing times, it is highly improbable that you will reach an elite level. Thus, to forecast multiple years of tapered high intensity volumes is most likely an effort in futility. More favorable for you would be to think of more consistent/lesser sloped volume changes year after year by way of lower overall (dedicated) high intensity volumes and allow genetics + sensible training to take their course.

Exception to the high intensity volumes discussed thus far would be if you were doing pure long to short in which it would be more reasonable for you to total speed volumes in the +600m range per session.

As oldbloke stated, however, none of us can responsibly offer you specifics without more detailed back and forth and that’s beyond the scope of the forum.

Well, clearly elite level is very far from where I’m at and thus I know that it’s best to focus on present.

I thought though, regardless of whether or not I (or anybody) reach elite level, I thought that one should train like an elite athlete to reach full genetic potential. So for example, lets say there are three people with all about 5 years of experience. Person A with time of 11.1 with genetic potential of 10.7, person B with time of 11.8 with genetic potential of 11.3, and person C with time of 10.0 with elite genetic potential of 9.7 would all be required to put in same amount of effort, dedication, training volume, etc although training styles can differ (meaning same level of stimulus is required, even with very different levels of performances).

Is my understanding above wrong? I think I learned that idea from powerlifting world, but maybe track is different.

Much of the powerlifting world exists amidst some of the most parochial sport training knowledge kwave. What you have described is the same dysfunctional scenario that plagues lower education in the US.

Even military units specialize training once you get into special operations. The problem with the one size fits all approach that you’ve outlined is the same with all populations who utilize it (military infantry, most sport teams, most educational environments) is that it tends to cater mediocrity.

While the group training environment is positive for many obvious reasons, the idea the the entire group should be performing the same training is, and this should be obvious, dysfunctional for obvious reasons.

Uniformity of training load amongst a group has only one possible progenitor, a person unfit to lead them; and just because this scenario is commonplace doesn’t make it right.

I didn’t mean that athlete A, B, and C should train with exact same cookie cutter approach. I guess the way I’m wording it is causing confusion. I meant they should all train with same level of “advanced-ness” because they’re all about same when it comes to their proximity to their genetic potential.

I’m curious why do you want to do more volume if you can achieve the same goals with less volume? Little off topic - this is why I have a major issue with certifications in this country, kwave has a BS in exercise science - nsca - usatf lv 1 and seem to be struggling with simple training issues that can only be learned through hours/years in the trenches. I see so many trainers and coaches blowing up athletes and parents have no clue because they trust in the certifications.

The simple answer is, because I’m not confident that less volume can get me same or better result. It probably can, but I don’t believe in my ability to program it correctly. If I am unsure of both high vs. low volume I would tend to go higher, because if I fail, I can get angry about bad result, but I won’t have to get angry at myself for my lack of discipline.

And I must admit, I definitely don’t think I have what it takes to be a track coach, at least for now. However, this is not simple training issue…it’s a very difficult issue. I think any track issue is very difficult and complex unless you’re dealing with an athlete that is new and talented enough to make easy beginner’s gains.

I think track is probably like the most difficult sport to coach because you have to rely more on “art” than “science”

Good to see you illustrating the recognition RB34. You’ll recall me outlining these dysfunctions over the last 13 years on the forum. The biggest culprit of all being the athletes who never had a chance to reach their potential because of incompetent coaching.

I think Kwave, makes a brilliant point, well to my mind. Change is the hardest thing to do; and we tend to think what if it doesn’t work, what will happen if it doesn’t work, and etc…

The other point James makes about athletes never reaching their potential. As an athlete I don’t think I reached my potential due to many factors, but athletes and coaches know differently now. As a coach, I don’t want to make the same mistakes as an athlete - although I was lucky that I thought differently to what I was taught during my coaching courses and came across Charlies Book (the Australian version)

My thought pattern as a coach played havoc with the traditional style of periodisation and coaching.

Kwave, my suggestion is try to reduce volume and see what happens. Worse case, you will get a better understanding of what works for you.

Yes, I think as CF said there are many different ways to skin a cat. With that said, there’s not just one way of doing high volume, and same goes for low volume. I think when applied properly, either way can work for me. Maybe properly applied low volume will work best for me. I’m not counting out those possibilities at all.

As you mentioned above, I’ll have to try many different training styles to eventually figure out what tends to work best. It would be really nice if I had an experienced coach give me advises on that matter, since it might take like 20 years for me to figure out everything on my own.

Thank you for understanding my difficulties.

Didn’t you ask for advice because you are NOT progressing? I’m sure you can get at least the same result (I.e. no progress) with less volume. Instead of arguing why you should continue doing what you are doing even though it’s not working, how about you just try out what everyone here is telling you?

It’s not difficult to program less volume, just do 30-50% less each session.

Not only that, but I was regressing while I was on taper schedule for competitions. I was progressing, at a very slow rate when using higher volume prior to that, although the fatigue from that previous high volume could’ve appeared later when I switched to taper schedule. Well, I really hope that it doesn’t make me regress as you said.

Developing Speed in the High School Athlete
Boo Schexnayder, Schexnayder Athletic Consulting

Most coaches would probably classify speed as the most critical of all athletic abilities. Yet in
spite of this importance, in many programs speed abilities go largely undeveloped. This is often
because of the faulty assumption that speed cannot be improved, or simply because so many
training systems follow traditional yet ineffective means for developing speed. Sometimes
coaches think they are developing speed, but due to misconceptions about speed development
they really aren’t.
Improving your training program to enhance speed is often not so much a matter of changing
what you do as it is taking a different philosophical approach to what you are already doing. It
is not the purpose of this article to describe specific, detailed workouts for speed, but rather to
examine gross premises and concepts around which the speed training program should be
organized.
Following are some key concepts for speed development, and also some common
misconceptions about speed development that will help the coach to form this philosophy.
• You Can’t Train Speed Slowly. In order to effectively develop speed, a significant
portion of the athlete’s training program must consist of high speed movements. Runs
must be fast. In the weight room, some of the work must involve the bar travelling fast.
Jumping exercises and medicine ball work must be done explosively as well. You train
athletes to be fast by having them express speed in many forms of training.
• Wind Sprints Don’t Cut It. While wind sprints might be a useful tool to develop
anaerobic fitness in athletes, they don’t serve as a speed development tool. To insure
the development of speed, athletes must run at maximal velocities. While an athlete in
a wind sprint session might feel fast on the first couple of sprints, fatigue quickly sets in
and velocities become decidedly submaximal.
• Identify Types of Speed. Acceleration and Absolute Velocity are both components of
speed, but they are quite different. Acceleration represents an athlete’s ability to move
the body from rest, while absolute speed refers to an athlete’s top velocity once
acceleration has been done. These are both critical components in sports performance,
but are often confused. They are different qualities, are trained in different ways, and
should be trained separately.
• Make the Entire Program your Speed Development Program. Speed development
should encompass every aspect of training. The best planned run training program will
not effectively develop speed if the weight training, strength training, mobility work,
jumping exercises, etc. are not done consistently and in accordance with the principles
of speed development training. Speed development cannot take place in a vacuum, so
doing run training designed to improve speed without including all of these other
components is doomed to fail in the long run.
• Be Careful with Endurance Work. Endurance work by nature is typically slow. Many
speed training systems fail because the endurance training component is
overemphasized. Speed qualities are easily destroyed by the chronic repetition of slow
movements. These chronic slow movements erode fast muscle contraction qualities,
wrecking speed abilities when this type of work is overdone. In addition, high lactic acid
levels can interfere with the function of the nervous system, making gains in speed,
power, coordination, and skill tough to achieve. As a general guideline, prioritize speed
and power development first, and focus on endurance later.
• Don’t Mix Speed with Endurance. Even a well done endurance program can limit gains
in speed development in certain situations. If endurance training must be done,
schedule it apart from speed and power related activities. Don’t combine speed and
endurance in the same training session.
• Rest for Quality. In order to train speed effectively, training must be intense. This
means runs must be at maximal intensities, jumps and medicine ball work must be
explosive, and power oriented weight exercises must be performed with speed. In order
to guarantee that the intensity remains high, athletes must be given adequate rest
between sets or repetitions. This rest insures that the athlete is capable of performing
maximally on every set or repetition, from the first to the last. Good training programs
typically devote approximately half of the training days to high intensity – long rest
work.
• Keep Runs Short. Speed cannot be developed in an environment of fatigue. For this
reason, when designing run training for speed development, it is far better to run
shorter distances. This prevents the accumulation of fatigue that could potentially
destroy the session. Good training programs typically use runs of 10-30 meters in length
to train acceleration, and runs of 40-60 meters to train absolute speed.
Keep Volumes Low. When speed development is your concern, it is always better to
underdo it. Quality of training is key. It is far better to do fewer repetitions at high
intensity than to allow fatigue to creep in and prevent the athlete from performing with
intensity at the end of the workout. Some speed oriented run training sessions may
contain as few as 3 or 4 repetitions.

• Keep Power Outputs Up. Over the course of a workout, a set, or even a repetition, it is
important that the athlete’s intensity and power output remains high. The coach’s job is
to observe, note the athlete’s intensity, and adjust sets, repetitions, distances, and
recovery times to insure that quality of training is maintained. For example, if an athlete
is doing single leg hops over 20 meters and struggling in the final 5 meters, it would be
better to hop a shorter distance and perform more repetitions in compensation. This
principle should be applied to all run, jump, and weight training.

Didn’t know volume could be down as low as 3 or 4 reps. Though I don’t know 3 or 4 of how many meters.

Thank you for the resource

Read my friend: Keep Runs Short. Speed cannot be developed in an environment of fatigue. For this
reason, when designing run training for speed development, it is far better to run
shorter distances. This prevents the accumulation of fatigue that could potentially
destroy the session. Good training programs typically use runs of 10-30 meters in length
to train acceleration, and runs of 40-60 meters to train absolute speed.

There’s a video on youtube where Dan Pfaff said that Donovan Bailey’s speed workout was 3X60. That was the whole workout. There was a video on ALTIS shown on here in the last week showing, as I recall, Curtis Beach doing 180-150-120, and there has been plenty of discussion on here of Ben doing just 2X150 (or 2X200 if you believe Charlie). In Charlie’s handouts for Vancouver and Edmonton, 4 reps is given as the maximum number for SE1 (8-15 seconds duration).

In particular for flys or maxV workouts like 60s, the real test is not the absolute number, but when you start to lose form (visible to a coach) or slow down (visible to a FAT timing system). If you’re doing 30m flys, and you start to slow down after the second one, that’s when you end the workout, because you’re just training to run slower after that point.

I kept most of my reps short, probably just did too many reps of those short reps because I don’t really feel tired doing them. That’s the challenge I need to work with as I’m looking into change in overall volume. I think I’m not good at knowing when I’m fatigued, unless it’s really intense one. I only feel that intense fatigue after a meet.

Geez, Donovan Baily, at his level, only 180m a day…?? I know there are different ways to skin a cat, but that’s quiet shocking, if that workout wasn’t a taper workout.

For CF SE1 60m reps, I believe those were done in addition to some 20s or 30 accelerations.

I really wish I had coach to tell me when my form is breaking down. I have timing system, but because my technique is so low-leveled, my time could get worse on rep number 2 vs. 1 then the third one can be faster than both of them, which means my rep 2 wasn’t bad due to fatigue, but bad due to improper technical execution due to lack of solid mechanics being ingrained in my system. When my technique gets better, it’d be a good idea to use those times to gauge my fatigue status.

Thank you.

At your level of sprinting this is why i like a more balanced approach for low level sprinters… It allows more reps of work to be done which allows the athletes to practice the skill. 2 short speed days ranging from 180-360m in total volume but the third day would always be something longer 5x150 6x200 etc. Working on tech and staying relax. I don’t believe everything has to be done at race pace to develop better form etc.

Probably not running at a high enough intensity means you are able to run more volume but at sub optimal speed - fast running rather than sprinting.

When you race do you feel that you are left at the start (first 20m), and/or do you lack speed endurance and slow towards the finish line ? In the middle of the race do you feel your max v is equivalent to the other athletes ?

If you can take 7-10 days and perform these tests.

Age/Height/Weight/Bodyfat%

Elastic strength: 3 and 5 double leg hops

Power: SLJ, OHB, BLF

Acceleration touch pad: standing 30m

Absolute speed: 30m fly

Specfic endurance touch pad: 150m

General endurance HT: 300m

Static strength : 1-3rm: bench press and back squat