Ya thats definitely true. But for less than elite/younger sprinters (such as myself :D) with pbs of 11.0, going maximal most the time seems to be the better way to go.
You missed much of the point. Often going “all out” in practice means running, at best, marginally faster than if you do more relaxed and a bit slower runs. You could do those with better, more efficient technique and handle more volume and likely have a better training effect than “going all out” all the time and doing some of these crazy contrast things.
I wonder if anybody here has actually seen some of those LSU workouts because I have the logs and there is barely any of it in there and definitely not used how it is written here.
What results have you obtained in your competitions? Have you found any modifications that have improved the contrast effect?
At 10.8+ I don’t think this is very risky to be honest… and I’d rather take the risk, cos 11.0 ain’t gonna get me anywhere… I’m in a DAMN hurry to improve… becuase I havn’t got the comfort of running 10.00 or jumping 8m… I can’t hit 12m/s down any slope… if I did it’d be time to stop…
Asafa, Bolt… these guys are 9.6-7! How does that apply to us mortals?
And I’ve used this only twice this season… and my previous experience with improvements from overspeed warrant my use of it… if it makes me run quicker then why the hell would I care if it’s deemed ‘gimmicky’…
I used this with my athlete this year and he has improved .2 we intend to go again this weekend.
I don’t care how fast you are it’s risky!! I ran 10.68 and have 4 weeks reminding to my season and there’s no way in hell I would take that gamble. Even at 10.8 you will probably be running 10.4 with the over speed and I’m sure your body isn’t ready for those speeds.
Guess I am old school like Charlie, I save the gimmicks for suckers and try my best to destroy them when we meet; that’s if they survive there own training.
Well at least Charlie acknowledges that the methods used by Shaver warrant investigation… Even CF uses the ‘overspeed’ effect… with wind or fly’s. And I believe CF warrants finding tail-wind and altitude conditions… the CNS stress of a windy, altitude 100m race dwarfs that of constrast in my opinion.
Good job I was a sucker then… 'cos I don’t think I would have dropped .55 or qualified for nationals otherwise, off a months training.
And after years of overspeed with NO injuries I think that’s prove that my body CAN handle it.
Until the day my times and distances are close to earning me money I’m not planning on being conservative.
That’s to dismissive of information provided showing a system of training works! My athlete was about the same level as your self 1 week after our session took a tenth off 2 weeks after dropped another tenth! Incidentlt I think you under estimate the human body I hacr seen people towed to speeds much faster then 10.4 and they previously hadn’t broke 11 needless to say they subsequently have
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.