OK. Let’s move this out a bit further.
What if you reach the point where vertical stim above current max has reached its (assumed at least) limit?
Would that then be the point at which you stretch things with-wise?
We know Glen Mills has used 2 x (300, 180, 150) vs his normal 1 set as stimulus for Bolt.
1:What is the impact of this? We know that intensity changes provide an exponential change in stimulus while volume change is linear, so we know that a very small change in intensity can make things happen while the volume change must be significant.
2: The volume theory has been around for many years. Do you think most people who have used this approach in the past went there before they reached a level where they needed to and could have done better with an ‘over-speed’ stimulus?
3: What is the injury risk of both approaches? I personally had less injuries relative to most groups with the peaking stimulus methods I used.
4: Is Bolt now at a level where he has no other option? Is Gay as well?
5: Both these athletes are ‘doublers’. Even if the over-speed approach could be used for maxV, it would seem less likely to shift performance in the 200 relative to the volume approach. Would some kind of combination of the two be desirable or even possible?
A combination would require a two day stimulus into the final taper with day one height and day two vol. Would these be more effective if back to back or separated by a tempo day as normal? (I would think that the first option is doable and possibly more desirable.)
hmmm a volume stimulas the day after a O/S contrast, this would stimulate from all ends within the same training block.
Charlie how would the vert stim not effect the 200 seeing as maxV could play a part in speed reserve
I think a corollary to both of these would be, which is safer and can either be done safely (and numerous other off-shoot questions)?
Overspeed seems incredibly risky the way it has been discussed here. Regarding intensity peaks, I have personally had a difficult time seeing people match competition times in training. As I mentioned before, I personally know of elites (granted, not Bolt level, but fast enough to be discussing this) who can simply not approach their competition times or speeds in practice, regardless of the effort and even when deloaded. For these reasons, it seems logical that going a bit submax (controlled speed if you will) and using more volume would be a logical way to go about things. It also seems like it might be easier to calculate/expect things if you aren’t trying to push where you have never been before so close to a bit meet.
The only exception I may add is if you were also using the weightroom to heighten this stimulus, which tends to be both safer to peak intensity and easier. If you are a person that uses olympic lifts and have typically been doing say 3-4x2 @ 85%, a session of 8-10x2 in addition to some sort of track adjustments may give enough of a stimulation here? What do you think, Charlie?
3: What is the injury risk of both approaches? I personally had less injuries relative to most groups with the peaking stimulus methods I used.
4: Is Bolt now at a level where he has no other option? Is Gay as well?
The workouts reported are still really submax. Talking 90% and even under. I don’t think he would be limited to only going at that speed.
5: Both these athletes are ‘doublers’. Even if the over-speed approach could be used for maxV, it would seem less likely to shift performance in the 200 relative to the volume approach. Would some kind of combination of the two be desirable or even possible?
A combination would require a two day stimulus into the final taper with day one height and day two vol. Would these be more effective if back to back or separated by a tempo day as normal? (I would think that the first option is doable and possibly more desirable.)
A 2 day stimulus (intensity and THEN volume)? That seems insane for mortals, but maybe with the right physios, coaches, doctors, diet, etc. it could be done… Not sure if it is worth it though considering how injury prone many of these guys appear to be (ie Asafa, Gay, even Bolt not long ago and Mo in years past).
I was reading some articles, by 3 well known authors (I won’t name them), who say periodization is dead. So to improve my knowledge I went out and bought Periodization by Bompa. I reckon my understanding of planning has improved 20% and I’ve only started reading the book.
It is interesting how people can use words to cover there own arse when attacking a basis of sports performance. Bompa’s response to these authors is they are talking about the periodization of bio-motor abilities not periodization as the planning tool (my understanding of his word)
Just like when Clyde Hart says he doesn’t believe in peaking - MJ, Warnier and Richards all set PBs (or WRs) either in Olympics, World Champs or World Cups.
I’d like to put some light on a fact. When bolt goes 150 or 250 with 85% effort, does not mean that he doesn’t do starts or sections to 60 meters with maximum effort or 95% effort. A difference between the 100% and 95% is really large … but we can still speak about maximum. Let’s say Bolt is able to run 60 meters to 6.40-6.50 right now. Which is for 95% 6.73-6.84, which should not be for him any problem. More jogging… 
If you remember the document on HSI, and there were training where both Mo and Ato went flying 30 m sections and were run very fast, I would say with 100% efford.
It would but likely not as much once the amount of contrast possible becomes smaller. If it was an intermediate level athlete, I’d only use the vert stim.
Sorry, but what are you talking about? This doesn’t really relate to anything in my post at all.
Sure, I imagine he is doing starts. As does everyone, even those who follow Long to Short typically do plenty of starts or acceleration work (in some form) from day 1. What that doesn’t cover is the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of the work seen is not speed work (speed work as in things that will be targeting maximum velocity or even SE, not just acceleration work) and it is work in the 90% area, not the 95% or even above region.
I don’t understand your comment on the 60s or why you are mentioning HSI here. Interesting to note though is that nobody has seen these 60s and Stephen Francis specifically doesn’t do them. Not to say nobody is doing them, but if they had such a great prevalence in the programs in comparison to some of the other work, they would have probably been seen by now. I am interested that a large amount of the work we have seen are things that are slower, albeit still quick (90% is still pretty quick). They take fair rests and don’t go too overboard on volume, but it is quite a bit away from the 100% type stuff.
Overspeed as I use it is wind assistance, not towing etc. In any event, my point about safety extends to both training and to the races themselves. If you are sub max all the time in training there is a significant jump between what your body is trained to accept and what it will be exposed to in races- that is where the risk comes in from the volume side, assuming you haven’t already built up a tolerance to meet speed in the past.
as for the combo stimulus, many groups use a training approach that replicates this (Speed, SE, off etc) so it might not be too big a stretch for them IF the first intensity stimulus is extremely limited in breadth (1 or 2 x flying 20m as the session for example)
lol… video of usain running 60s in a workout 2 days before ostrava
//youtu.be/ <object width=“425” height=“344”><param name=“movie” value=“http://www.youtube.com/v/m8ROOamlSXs&hl=en&fs=1&”></param><param name=“allowFullScreen” value=“true”></param><param name=“allowscriptaccess” value=“always”></param><embed src=“http://www.youtube.com/v/m8ROOamlSXs&hl=en&fs=1&” type=“application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=“always” allowfullscreen=“true” width=“425” height=“344”></embed></object>
Besides the fact that that wasn’t 60m (not sure where you got that distance from) the discussion is about the majority of the work they are doing and more specifically the work that has been seen and is supposed to be in preparation for the major meets (ie the workout PJ posted before). I am sure they do starts and probably do some 60s at some point, but most of the workouts shown are not filled with MAXIMAL 60s, but with work that is well submax–often below 95%, which is the whole point I was making in my post.
I read on another site it was timed 60s, but looks more like 50s. Regardless, just something to add on.
Count the number of strides. He does 41 or so in a 100m race and he did 20 or less (depending on when you want to say he shut it down) in that video, so we’re talking 40m or so, could even be less (41 strides in a 100m, but the ones after 50m are significantly longer with ones at the beginning significantly shorter, so more plenty more steps for the first 50m).
Okay, let say that my PB over 100 meters is 10 flat. Can you, please ,advise me how I could get to 9.8? Jogging, run 400 meters in 55 and do some lifting in the gym? 
Nah, do 10x200 in 28 rest 2mins. Make sure its on grass and eat your yams.
In all seriousness, if you look at what I have been posting, they are questions given the context of what is known and what has been seen, not a prescription for success. Maybe you missed that part.
I only went by time and general assumption. Regardless it doesnt matter.
I also dont think we should act like we know everything, we get a couple workouts, but its just that… couple workouts. Not a weekly template.
Just a little thing from MVP, from what someone told me on elitetrack, MVP does do some speed work over 50m-80m. Yes I know, franno saying no 60s or etc.
Please, do not copy Hart’s training. I know what are you talking about. However, even MJ did a lot of thinks over short distances and pretty fast. But Hart’s boys arent same like guys under 10 or even under 9.8. And for that you need to get 60m under 6.5 and running 10m under 0.85 and 10x200m in 28 is not good for that…
Having trained in Jamaica with Simeon Williamson, the British 100 metres champion, last winter, Powell believes sprinters from these shores are lazy. “When Simeon started doing practice he was actually dying,” Powell said. “It was the first time he’d trained that hard. We do lots of over-distance running so you build up serious lactic acid in your legs — 200s, 400s, 600s.”
Christ you don’t get it. Perhaps it is a language barrier, I don’t know.
So do you think that as a sprinter moves closer to running elite times that there should be a gradual shift away from the percentage of work done that puts an emphasis on height (overspeed) and a slightly higher percentage of work towards breadth? Not that you are entirely eliminating either, but just general shift the amount of each type of work?