Do you know what the total volume in that workout on monday was?
Do 80-120yds…
Get a bigger field.
If intensive tempo was to be done on Saturday (with speed work on M-W-F), the surface would be an aspect to consider in my opinion. Although such a set up with hill work is quite stressful, the latter multiplies, if intensive tempo is to be done on track.
Also, if the 8x60s on a hill are to be done with full recovery, they would probably count as SE. Others?
I also remember a discussion about the 300,180,150 session being normally one set but two sets as a stimulus towards a meet. How far out? Are weights still being done? If so, when?
Very good questions. Wouldn’t you think that two sets during this period would be a bit too much?
Charlie, if we had to stick with two sets so close to major meets, and considering from the given times Bolt was doing them in something like just under 90% would you consider doing two sets something like;
- 300m - accel. 30m hold this pace to 240m mark with a strong finish over the last 60m. The same approach would be applied to 180m and 150m rather than run all 6 reps at around 90% so close to competition?
Thanks.
I am having a problem grasping what exactly is intensive tempo then. There are a lot of programs that have significant volumes of “controlled speed work” throughout the year and I have always considered it intensive tempo. There is an issue with vernacular here since intensive tempo can be everything from the example workouts (6x180 with 6 minutes rest @ about 90%) to 6x200 @ 90% with 2-3 minutes. The latter example is much less controlled because of the fatigue generated and likely breakdown in form, but not much is different than a bit extended rest periods and the first is certainly nothing close to >95%. The same would go for the 2x(300, 180, 150). Even if you want to say it is going from a volume perspective, it is the day after a “controlled speed session” and still below the 95% guidelines we’ve seen–pretty much around 85-90%, albeit with good rests.
I have seen terrible things from intensive tempo, but also good things. It is all about how it is implemented. I think there has to be some clarification I guess because it seems like there are a LOT of successful programs–the programs of the 3 fastest men in the world right now-- (and Charlie’s too apparently?) that has significant work below 95% of one’s best, but above 80 to 85% as well. I guess the key here would be to do the work with significant recoveries versus short recoveries and count it as a high intensity day versus a recovery or easy day. Thoughts?
I guess my feeling would be to use work above 80% as part of a speed day, whatever you want to call it. Another issue is- intensive tempo or split-run? Is 3 x (3 x 200 with 2min break) with 7 min between intensive tempo or 3 fast split-run 600s??
Regardless, we need to look at what is done.
RB34 and I have been discussing this in private the past few days.
My thinking is that there is definitely different interpretations of not only intensive tempo but the word tempo in general depending on what coach/camp we might be discussing.
In the context of the discussion that has transpired thus far, I think it’s clear that any way you slice it- intensive tempo characterizes runs in the middle intensity zone +75 and <95
As a result, as I conveyed to RB34, there’s no question in my mind that if it is to be rationalized in the training it must be performed on a high intensive day.
From a physiological standpoint, this type of work is very similar to special endurance in terms of the adaptive reserves it pulls from; so plan accordingly.
Yes, InT is very detrimental to sprint technique when mis-applied, as it is in most case. So the typical 500-400-300-200, 6x300, 8x200 all in the 80-89% range tends to make the athlete sit and shuffle in order to survive, much a like a middle distance athlete. This is why these programs have such high rates of injury, IMO, as hen it comes time to sprint the change in hamstring activity is profound and often dramatic (traumatic?).
A split 600m, either 300+300, or 200+200+200 with 2min breaks gives very much the same affect as the session above, but running form is much easier to maintain, at least in my experience. It also flows more smoothly into SE, as the overall distance gets shorter and the intensities rise.
Another approach would be to do something like 200-250-200 with 3min breaks. The duration and density are short enough for form to be maintained.
I don’t think that this type of work is as bad as some may say as long as you don’t ruin the good technical work done on other days. I do agree though that no more than 1 day a week should be devoted to it and that overall number of sessions should not exceed 6 for a single periodized year.
So are you saying no more then 6 int tempo session per season? Do you have your short sprinters performing int tempo in gpp?
4min for an easy 250m walk? A brisk 200m walk takes @2min+ or minus a few seconds at least for nearly everyone I coach. If I said slow walk around to my athletes they’d take at least 5min and I fear more like 6min.
As an aside I coached a female 400m hurdler who’s father made her jog ALL of her recovery distances. How did she survive? She developed a jog so slow that when I would walk next to her, I would have to slow down or stop. This was in warm-up. I soon took the jogging out of that too. Oh and she had horrible hamstring issues which almost ended her career.
I am not a fan of any type of jog recoveries, btw. They’re often used with InT, and compound poor running form with REALLY bad foot contacts in the same session.
Yes in a single periodized year, no more than 6, all in the fall, likely one day a week.
My short sprinters do a little InT, but mostly as a bridge to SE. I had one do a 150-200-150 (x2) session @6 times in the 06-7 season and she PR’d in the 100, 200 and 400. Her smallest increase was in the 100, but she wasn’t really very talented. In high school she did all the traditional InT stuff and had a 400m PB in 63.8. Doing this she ran 59.7. She was actually quite surprised.
Also, if I saw a breakdown of any sort, I shut the session down.
If you were using spilt 60’s in spp as your SE work would you still use the int tempo as bridge to SE?
Look at the net result of a session to ascertain it’s value. If it makes them fit, OK, but at what cost? Will their form break down to such a degree that losses occur in MaxVel.
300+300 or 200+200+200 will give you controlled speed without the form technical lapses. It has shot and then longer recoveries and if administered properly, should wreck technique.
You’ve hit the nail on the head with the 5-6x200m session at 90% with 2-3min recoveries. There are athletes who will gut this out, but at what cost? Looked at specifically, for a 24.00 female 200m runner, those are being run at 26.6. That’s faster than her “come home time” for a 400.
Way to many US college programs are still Darwinian (ie: survival of the fittest). Talented people can overcome much more severe training in most cases.
Tough to say. I’ve never done an S-to-L program at least in a pure sense. I’ll leave that answer to those who have.
Would you mind listing a sample template of gpp training for short sprinters, I am curious since you don’t follow a pure s-l?
I completely agree. I am however including a bit more intensive tempo, but I guess it is more of “controlled speed work” than traditional intensive tempo.
Example, intensive tempo 80s with walk back rest between reps, 5-7 minutes between sets. This is done on grass and is a lead into eventually doing split rep 60s. The 80s are intensive tempo pace (~90%) and there is fatigue towards the end of a workout (3x3-4x80m), but form is quite good throughout because of the short distances and the like. Keep in mind I am the type of person who responds very poorly to things like 6-8x200 @ 85-90% with short rests.
It varies a bit from year to year based primarily on the capacity of the people that I coach. I’ll post something later tonight, but it will be a hybrid program.
I don’t have a problem with int tempo 80’s but I feel 150’s are the sweet distance mainly because they don’t cause a lot of fatigue and allows the athlete to really open up there stride etc with the 80’s by the time the athlete comes upright its already time to shut it down.
Does anyone really respond well to 8x200m in the 85% range? It is my supposition that some people simply adapt to that stress a little better than others.
To me at least, speed is just that speed. Once should always be under control, but at 95%+ of max. for distance less than 60m, usually more like 30m.
The way that you outline the 80m session, it looks more like running a broken 240 or 320. In that way, yes, you can keep good technique if the focus is there. With distances that short, the breaks should be very sort IMO.