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).
Mo ran 9.79w at the Pre Classic in 1998
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.
Since John Smith and Dennis Shaver are disappointments, James, you should improve upon their results.
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.
Does this make sense or am I just rambling?
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.
Are there any speed sessions after the overspeed or is it the last speed w/o for the season?
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?
Going to find out in the next few weeks.
Nice work on the PR!!!
This makes sense, more so than what I was thinking at least…
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.
Well, I’m experimenting with doing this on top of (after) what you advocate. And in the second overspeed session (after 12 minute rest) I hit 2.41 for 30m. Such measurements are of course fraught with error, but it was fast enough that I don’t want to think about going faster than that. So all week I was thinking about your 10-day rule about spectacular performances, and between the last overspeed and the race this weekend, I did absolutely, positively NOTHING. No submax, no tempo, no starts, no weights, no plyos, no nothing–just get through the week uninjured and see what you get.
I have not gotten injured and have had no pain (hamstring or anything else) all week.
At this point, it looks like this works to taper down to comp from what you have in your SPP lecture. From what I’ve experienced, there is no way you can do this type of training as part of a Charlie Francis SPP structure–you have to cut everything else back too far and there’s no chance of anything like 3X/week with weights after track or 4X/week with weights before track like John Smith has it. The contrast/overspeed has to be done as the final taper.
But now after I have the PB, is THIS the peak, or do you peak off this after a few races? Only one way to find out.
Be VERY careful here. See the stuff tamfb linked about LSU early in this thread and understand how much you have to cut back AFTER the contrast/overspeed-- and the after part is the key. Because of the contrast effect, the impact forces, and muscular and CNS loadings in this workout are extreme. You cannot combine this training with how you would normally train and expect to survive uninjured. But Dennis Shaver has a whole bunch of folks who argue strongly for what they’ve been doing.
Some more thoughts to consider.
Given the very powerful training impact that is yielded by the over speed work that you are conducting- we know, by your admission, that the frequency of other subsequent training sessions must be reduced dramatically; regardless of content.
This then poses the question of reduced work capacity and unstable readiness: preparedness
It would seem as if you are operating more upon these very sharp spikes in readiness while the preparedness curve may potentially suffer the losses in the steepness of its slope and, as a result, create this situation in which you are always walking on egg shells so to speak following the over speed session.
The over speed creates a powerful impact and longer residual; however, at the expense of a loss in preparedness due to the infrequent post-over speed training sessions.
So while the possibility to attain higher performance peaks is ensured it poses the question as to whether it’s worth it as your qualification level rises, and with it your speed, and with that the greater risk of disaster…
I took the time to draw a graphic illustration of the typical readiness: preparedness curve and another one that might potentially reflect your situation.
If the down period is ten days, you can come up again but I’d think you’d need prob three to four weeks to train, spike and recover till the next big performance to keep going but you can use your last big performance as the lead in to another ten days on- but that one will represent your peak and will require re-building after. How does that scenario fit with what you’ve noted in these groups.