Those, now, are not my opinions, those are Shaver’s. Your position about 50-70% seems to be about what I’ve found useful outside MxS, but John Smith also pays particular attention to how fast the bar is moving (with sets of about 10 reps for primary lifts).
Regarding your overspeed work, what is the magnitude of increase it has consistently yielded you in order that you are willing to accept its risks?
You don’t get the gains unless you minimize those risks!
When I first learned of Loren’s contrast training workout (and I have no idea whether he invented it, but it seems that he popularized it), I saw gains of 0.2-0.3 in 60 meter times after ONE session. The problem was that I injured my hamstring after two sessions for 5-6 weeks and didn’t get to compete.
Somebody here on the forum who I’m not going to name saw a 0.3s improvement in 150 after ONE session.
I know it sounds too good to be true, but you have to see it to believe it. But there’s a giant gotcha: You have to learn how to do this safely.
One advantage of this approach over the towing-type overspeed approaches (and maybe some of the stuff Franno does with sleds) is that you only have to tempt fate–yes, I think that’s the proper way of looking at it–once or twice.
It looks like I finally learned how much to cut back everything else to make contrast training work safely, which is why I listed every single workout (and every single non-workout) in one of my posts above. And from what I’ve learned now, I think I’m going to end Phase II this way from now on.
Equally as disappointing, as now not only is it implied that the speed of lifting the barbell is important for the sprinter but also during the context of high rep sets on the primary lifts.
It’s information like this that lies at the root of my criticism of many in the industry, even those at the ‘perceived’, or via ‘assocation’, ‘highest’ levels.
Some things are open to debate (ergo general exercise selection, long to short, short to long, and so on); however, some things are not.
Hence, while it earns me my own share of criticism and haters, I must caution all readers to closely scrutinize the methods of even those who are, according to conventional wisdom, the most celebrated coaches because what you may find out, as is too often the case, is that a fair share of success often occurs in spite of, NOTdirectly because of, the coaching.
While this may sound preposterous, hence the friction I receive for stating my unpopular opinion, I have had many a conversation with individuals ‘in the know’ that are in a position to reveal coaching tactics and otherwise that are strikingly absurd.
But if we are only looking for an overspeed stimulus once or twice then wouldn’t early season competition be ideal at these locations… El Paso Texas for many would be a good location.
I remember somebody on here saying that Maurice Greene ran real fast wind aided (don’t remember when or where sorry) and then from that point just needed to get stronger to run the same time sans wind.
Charlie is the one who made the comment about Mo and likely knows the location. Prior to Gay in Eugene at the Oly Trials, the fastest all conditions 100m ever run was by Oba at Kidd Field (UTEP).
Yea I think Edmonton might have been the race where he was “strong” enough to run that time minus the wind.
I think Charaundy Martina ran a beast time (9.7X wind and altittude aided) there last year at the begining of the season (at UTEP’s track) and then went on to have his best season ever. I have a feeling this may be a heavily explored pathway in the next couple years.
Overspeed has been attempted in a variety of ways and to different degrees. I have always used tailwind (Cheap and plentiful at York U) as an overspeed method and the contrast there is done by either modifying subsequent sessions to sub-max or running into a headwind if you fear the athlete will get carried away or the weather isn’t cooperating. (Tailwind stretches out the stride while a headwind shortens it).
The East Germans used altitude training for this effect for sprinters in Mexico City for years but the longer duration of their training camps meant sufficient exposure to “local conditions” that food poisoning often undid any benefit.
What about using an overspeed competition after the main competition (final peak of the year) is over with? If you use it early in the year, the achievable speed may be something that the athlete would be capable of later on anyway since their speed isn’t fully developed for the year yet. You wouldn’t have to involve the risk and the overspeed may not provide a fast enough speed to provide a new neural imprint. For example, Asafa’s 10.1 with the 1.3 tailwind; if we add another 2-3m/s onto that tailwind it probably would not be enough to push him below his 9.72 PB and provide a new neural imprint - his speed just isn’t there yet.
However, if you look at Tyson Gay: just as he was beginning to peak last year, and with a large volume of speed work behind him for the year, he runs an “overspeed” 100m in 9.69. He goes on to pull his hamstring, but then this year runs a PB in the 200m relatively early in the year.
What if you used an overspeed method such as tailwind and altitude AFTER the main, final competition of the year, but before the peak had fallen away. The speed and capability would already be there, plus the additional component of overspeed. Once the season is mainly over, the recovery process, if necessary, can occur, and a new season will eventually begin with a new neural imprint.
Specifically in regards to training at altitude as means of overspeed, we must still consider the sprinters sport form at the time of the altitude session as I’m not sure that sprinting at altitude guarantees a supramax performance. If not, then the idea of peaking for a meet or session at altitude, in order to attain a supramax performance, seems counter intuitive.
If, on the other hand, we were to accept that sprinting at altitude ensures, with high probability, that a supramax performance is likely to happen, even if the sprinter is not in top form, then your idea would stand to reason IF one accepts that one or two single exposures to a supramax stimulus is sufficient to provide a strong enough residual to build upon with subsequent ‘conventional’ speed training, back home, that would serve to bring ‘unaided’ speed potential closer to the previous supramax performances at altitude.
The method described above in this thread (contrast method) is of course the extreme way of going about it and got described only because the training at LSU was linked, and Shaver, like Loren, uses contrast training.
In the past, when I tried this, I got large short term performance gains–and then I got injured. So this time, I was MUCH more careful about total volume and total stress.
I survived!
This time, I actually got to race after the contrast/overspeed, and got a lifetime PB right out of the gate (and the conditions weren’t even that good–overnight storm, 60F, cloudy, slight drizzle).
So the next question is does the sharp cutback in volume necessary to get through the workout uninjured (500m HI/wk compared to 1500m at the start of SPP2) give you an absolute peak–or do you get faster yet through the SE from several weeks of racing?
I’m pretty possitive altitude results in faster times, but I agree with you that the circumstances surrounding a performance at altitude may not be conducive to produce that faster time.
the point to remember here is- the greater the PB the more extreme the stress on the body is and the greater the care must be going into the next comp or top speed session.
Of course, I favor less extreme measures done more often over time to yield overall higher results with less injuries (or, perhaps, because of less injuries).
But, if you have been stuck and training has not gone as planned and a big meet is upon you, this may be your answer.
Just make sure you are not in this situation in the first place because of a reliance on such extreme measures.
This training method was discussed in the Richard Thompson thread I believe… and I stated then that as a misinformed 16yo (physically about 14yo) I undertook a training regime of plyometrics and overspeed only about 2 or 3 times a week. Any way in a matter of weeks I’d gone from 12.00 to 11.3…
I’ve missed pretty much the whole SPP with an ankle operation and college work. But I’ve managed to do a solid 3 week intenstification (a la CF SPP s-l) and am now going to taper for 14 days (two meets in 14 days)… not expecting to set the track alight atm obv. but once these meets are out of the way I’m going to attempt a jump start with some contrast training… I’ll get back to you with the results.