Summing up OS results this year?
AJ’s athlete, UKcheetah and LKH=?
LKH ran 15.0 in the 100m. Healthy. Not kidding.
I think he has been dealing with injuries…
?..seriously…
Personally, the initial use of contrast appeared to give me a large performance boost 10 days out. However, this was after months of rehab and only around a month proper training, so maybe the performance boost was amplified. I also did a full squat 1RM test (failure) 7 days out from the initial PB. The season PB 10.70 came 1 week later. Prior use of it didn’t yeild much benefit, however I didn’t have favourable conditions, so not sure how much to take from it. Not sure how it would work with <10.5s, hopefully i’ll find out for myself next season 
On the other hand I was able to really experiment this season as nothing was expected after partial preparation… I used contrast in some reckless manners and didn’t get injured.
This season I will be implementing contrast in a manner similar to LSU, and to some of CF’s acc work (resisted, assisted graph) where sleds/mb accels are mixed with blocks. I may use OS only once, as a final stim before the 10-day taper.
Incidently, we would know the full extent of the LSU contrast training (apparently) if Fogelson would share it, rather than use it as an idol threat…
LSU’s use of overspeed is, at best, a misinterpretation from LKH that he made based off of a SINGLE powerpoint slide and I’ll leave it at that. They are not sprinting faster than race speed (overspeed) in these efforts when using the pulley/cable system. That isn’t to say there is absolutely no efficacy in such a system, but that Shaver’s protocols are not as described by LKH, simple as that.
I think you know the deal here: Fogelson doesn’t know anything, and just attacks other people (see Goose, and well as people other than LKH in this thread) to make himself look good.
From what I see in this thread, LKH didn’t post anything claimed to be from Shaver; The Shaver training that was posted was contained in a link (now dead) posted by Tamfb, and LKH linked some information from a Speed Dynamics video by Loren Seagrave (you can’t argue that it’s in there or that it’s from Loren). There’s more about contrast (at LSU) in the old Richard Thompson thread, which others have pointed out. I also found this comment about contrast training from Mike Young:
I’ve done something similar and found it can work quite well. I actually just prefer sticking to acceleration with this method if you’re going to use it as a contrast because acceleration and maximal velocity are so different in technique and physical demand that it’s basically like doing two different activities. If you wanted to do some version of this though in one clean quick format you could use a releaser belt that releases tension at 20m (or wherever you want) so that you are resisted through acceleration and then can fly at top end.
Fogelson, actual training snippets from LSU containing contrast traning has been posted twice on this forum. You have claimed knowledge about Shaver’s training a number of times that what is claimed is wrong. But YOU have actually produced nothing. If you have something REAL, post it. Otherwise, I have to conclude that you’re just a bullshitter who belongs on everyone’s ignore list.
I’ve shown numerous people the actual workouts of LSU. I am not obligated to post it on the forum for people who wish to believe LKH blindly. Notice that I said it is done differently than how LKH claims. It is not overspeed in the slightest bit. Is there a contrast? Sure, but using a sled is contrast. Using an isorobic/exegine or a hill can easily be a contrast. Just saying contrast is meaningless. Having a resistance and letting going can be a contrast, but it isn’t overspeed. Hell, running into a headwind and then with a tailwind is contrast, but it isn’t overspeed. It isn’t running down a random road and claiming that being injured is a good thing because you have peaked from it so much (-LKH).
Go argue about how you know Carl Lewis LJ’d 9.28m, Dartfish. You almost had a point there, you have none here.
This isn’t about LKH. This is about YOU. You have attacked Goose and others, claimed to have LSU program workouts, etc., so I called you out. And as expected, you have NOTHING to back up your claims.
You are nothing more than a bald-faced liar.
If anyone has any doubts here, this is what tamfb posted in the Richard Thompson thread:
look like a tough workout:
Thursday:
Warm Up: B-BSRContrast Training:
2 x 30m accelerator
1 x 60m assistance as per told
(g1h and g1 only)
2 x 30m blocks (3h)
2 x 40m blocks (4h)Speed Development:
RI=5:00 Sprinters
1 x In & Outs
g1-2 x 15m peakSpecial Endurance:
g1- 1 x 150
W @ 18 (13)
M @ 16.5Intensive Tempo:
RI=2:30
g1-4x150 declining
W @ (21-18)
M @ (19-16)
http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showpost.php?p=201655&postcount=16
Way to contribute to the forum! If you were so irate about LKH’s claims you’d prove him wrong rather than throwing your toys outta the pram. Infact, if you felt people were going to get injured then you’d do what any stable person would do and offer some counter-argument for the good of the like-minded people reading. Hell! If I so much as thought an exercise would hurt someones performance I’d try my best to present an argument against, as I’m sure other forum members would, unless they had some real character defects.
A number of people have asked you politely for for the info you claim to have. So it’s pretty hard not to have you down as a bullshitter.
Ask yourself this:
Who did Tamfb get that workout from? Who sent him those materials? Couldn’t be me… :rolleyes: Nah not possible.
You guys are free to not believe me–that part is on you. How you train yourself and/or your athletes is also on you. The fact that I am telling you LKH is full of it shouldn’t make you angry. If you think I am bullshitting, then that is fine, just ignore me. The choice is your’s. I do hope that you don’t use misguided and false information to train other athletes (or even yourself) as it may very well result in injury or, at best, suboptimal results.
BTW attaching a cable/pulley and using it to assist an easy acceleration and then running normally for your top speed portion is not overspeed, in case you guys didn’t catch it. As I have said numerous times, they are NOT running faster than race speed and this is an incredibly minor part of the training, at best. Believe the claims that they are running .02 or faster than their best 10m split in training if you want (I think LKH claimed .04/10m, but oh well), but don’t bitch at me for telling you they aren’t doing overspeed by any real definition of the word.
This is coming from a guy who sent PMs to me threatening me if I didn’t send him the workouts. Get a life.
Wow, lies… that is a new low. I’m actually genuinely saddened that you’ve put me in a position where I ought to defend myself and dig you further into this hole … I’ve been quite civil, trying to prize some info off you for the good of the forum
Anyway, I’m glad I’m lazy and don’t clear my PM box…
I sent the following PM after Fogelson made accusations against LKH and claimed to have the LSU info:
Re: LKH, contrast, etc
You are the same person that got upset when I exposed the last clown.
LKH has been exposed on other message boards in the past. He used to claim to be an elite 800m runner (and also an elite master’s 800m runner–yes he claimed he was 2 different ages at different times) and someone exposed his fraud. What he has been known to do is enter NUMEROUS meets in California and other places with ridiculous entry times and under a variety of ages (21, 54, 49, etc.) and he has scratched out of all but 2 or 3. The one race he did run was this year and he ran 15.04
http://www.mastersrankings.com/indresults…(Iv cut the address)
I have all of the LSU workouts from the beginning through the entire summer for athletes who competed in international meets and in Europe. I will be holding onto these in case another joker comes along.[/QUOTE]
The definition of overspeed is tricky. For example, running flying 20s off a full relaxed run up will often result in a segment that is faster than is possible in a race (up to that point, at least) because the 20m segment is not compromised by the acceleration. Assisting in the acceleration can enhance the quality of the 20s further by making the approach to maximal speed easier.
The trick is knowing exactly how to keep the athlete in rhythm through the acceleration and when to let go each time, every time, with no mistakes. This requires trust in whoever controls the assistance.
I know it scares me and I’d rather rely on a tail wind. The marginal gains with assistance allow you to advance the speed a bit faster, which might be more of an issue in a L-to-S type approach where less time is available for this overall.
The other issue is athlete level, as the higher to performance goes, the less room for advancement and error there is. Most collegiate athletes enter a system with a fairly significant margin for improvement, and, if all goes well, leave it with limited room for more, so that would imply flexibility on the part of the coaches if the injury rate remains low.
I think this is why I saw the gains I did, I’d only done a month of speed before-hand.
Again, I only peaked at 10.70 and AJ’s athlete at 10.48. So it seems to work for average sprinters. It’ll be interesting to see how AJ uses it next year because his athlete has the potential to be going 10.2.
I would question whether or not any of these athletes are approaching their top speed from actual races. Richard Thompson has hit .85 for 10m in his best segments. Do people actually think he is hitting that in practice? Ironically, Seagrave (who Dartfish apparently understands nothing about) has even said that most of his athletes never hit actual race speed in practice (just unable to because of adrenaline, tapering, etc.).
Charlie how do you recommend to do the flying 20’s, this past outdoor season I went with option A and gpp/spp option B.
A: Flying 20 with 40m acc zone. Gradual accelerate over 40m when the athlete hit 40m zone “take off” accelerate faster.
B: Flying 20 with 40m acc zone. Gradual accelerate over 40m when the athlete hit 40m zone “ride out over the next 20” focusing on staying relax and stepping over opposite knee etc.
I think option A put more focus on top speed, and option B is more sub max very similar to doing a 60m sprint with a 40m intensity limit.
I wouldn’t attempt to speculate but look at it this way. Whatever speed is achieved, it is higher than it might otherwise be under the training circumstances, OR, alternatively, you may be able to get a few more quality reps at the same velocity.
Relaxation is key in either option you present and since technique is the main purpose, most of the work will be slightly sub max as in the examples from the GPP download during the first track sessions.