Once again I don’t want to hijack this thread with a discussion of YV. I think that there are valid points to his methodology. He is often at odds, however, with Tudor Bompa who’s work has had a strong influence in CF training system.
The above pattern looks very much like what Charlie outlined earlier in this thread as an example of an Italian sprint microcycle. Simply extend it out through the remainder of the week. It looks nothing like the logs that I have Mennea, however.
If memory serves Charlie did say that this pattern would be “acceptable” but that an adjustment would have to be made so that the loading would only last 2 weeks before a recovery week was inserted.
-AC
YV changed over the years and seemed to be open to anything that could stand up to thoughtful analysis.
I met him when I presented at a conference in Holland in 1994 and he questionned me extensively on my theories and ended by saying he liked them and wished his coaches were there to hear the lecture.
Not long after that, he wrote an article saying “Periodization is Dead” What he meant was that serial application of training elements was being supplanted by concurrent schemes.
In all Prof. V. works there is an effort to present a periodized program without using the typical periodization terminology, probably due to a personal issue with Prof. Matveyev.
In his latest books (2001, edited by the Italian Olympic Committee and available only in Italian) he still supports his own sequential approach. On the other hand I know that Prof. V. respects coach F. training methods.
Being a “sequentialist” I wonder why his name is often associated with the WSB method. In fact in his work the conjugation, thru “superposition of the work loads having different training influence on the organism", is at macrocycle level, not at the microcycle one; which makes a huge difference.
Personally, I see more similarities between WSB and Bondarchuk’s methods.
Back on topic, I don’t see any influence of Prof. V. on the training of the Italian sprinters. Whatever they do nowdays seems like a slight evolution of Vittori’s work.
…
Pr. YV’s main investigation area in 1950-60s was Triple Jump and i think he coached Kreer, the national champ at that time, who would later become Saneev’s coach…
If YV rejects speed beeing adressed through the program, then his influence on Borzov’s training is not that apparent:
I can give you the percentage of the training means, month per month, for his 1971 season, this show that runs ranging from 30m to 100m makes the major part of the training:
month / 30-100m / 150-800m
NOV / 44% / 36%
DEC / 53% / 24%
JAN / 65% / 27%
FEB / 85% / 7%
MAR / 68% / 19%
APR / 69% / 18%
MAY / 80% / 15%
JUN / 76% / 20%
JUL / 66% / 22%
AUG / 52% / 38%
Also, the volume (total in meters) of work per month was usually higher for 30-100m runs than for 150-300m runs.
The main similarity between Borzov and Mennea (and CF!, but, hey, we all use more or less the same training ingredients?) is the speed endurance development using 60m repetitions.
Prof. V. approach separates the strength block from the speed/technical one.
Vittori’s rationale for using the 60s is very interesting, in fact he guessed that the neural component was more influential than the metabolic one on speed endurance.
Excellent analysis, this is what I have personally noticed about elite sprint programs that are successful. The 60m speed endurance sprints seem to be very similar in volume and intensity.
I recently have had the lucky chance to be Dr.Verkhoshansky’s guest in Rome,and to enjoy a long private,discussion about some most recent developments of His training and sports research: too bad it was all in stricly spoken Russian…! My scarce knowledge of the language did limit my possibility to fully understand the contents,but also gave me the chance to appreciate the passion and the vibrant effort Dr.Verkhoshansky put in every single word describing His work,present and past: extremely inspiring passion and true commitment to a life of science,research and experience in sports training…
Upon leaving I finally managed to exchange a few words in English with Dr.V.,briefly talking about this site too,and bringing Him Charlie’s best regards: He was extremely pleased and started reminding of their encounter a few years ago,as well as of some written communications,and finally commented : “Charlie Francis,very very interesting person…!”
I realize this does not contribute much to bring this discussion further, but I thought sometimes it might even be a good thing to fill names with faces,real life episodes and a bit of rather personal impressions.
When time comes to talk about people like Verkhoshanskiy and his work, things get complicated, it’s like talking about an artist, like Picasso and the various evolution in his thinking. That’s not something reductibe. The truth is that many claim his name as reference, but very few have actually read Verkhoshanskiy in the text, and the complexity of his researches make his writing somehow esotheric. Things i red 2 years make sense now in the light of the questions raised by my own coaching practice. This is what makes these great sport researchers/coaches like Pr. V or Charlie Francis so fascinating…
Reasons for the selection of 60m reps:
1: The neural effect can be maximized as top speed can be reached by then.
2: It’s easy to see the relationship between speed and speed end over the same distance.
3: It’s easy to see the evolution of performance through the periods of the season as 60s can be done in any period, indoors as well as out.
4: It’s easy to adjust the ratio of speed to speed-end throughout the season by manipulating the breaks and acceleration distances in a short-to-long program.
You can see an example of such a program in the Vanc2004 DVD.
Fascinating, I am going to try and set some time aside to scan in the article by Vittori very very soon.
Some reasons to vary from 60m SE later in the program:
1: More variability in the stress between pure speed and speed end in the late stages when speed is the most demanding (split-run SEs are more CNS intensive and therefore compete more for finite CNS resources)
2: Makes it possible to lower the ratio of acceleration to top speed and speed end once acceleration has been perfected in a short-to-long scheme- again to spare finite CNS resources for use where needed more.
Charlie, on great form today, again 
Some references for those interested, since I’ve got them handy:
Yuri V. Verkoshansky (1996). Principles for a rational organization of the training process aimed at speed development. New Studies in Athletics, 11:2-3, 155-160.
Yuri V. Verkoshansky (1996). Speed training for high level athletes. New Studies in Athletics, 11:2-3, 39-49.
Thanks for the references- and thanks to everyone for this discussion. Understanding the evolution of the thinking of various coaches and researchers on speed development helps the new generation decide on the best individual approach for them.
A few more recent references:
Yuri V. Verkoshansky (1999). The skills of programming the training process. New Studies in Athletics, 14:4, 45-54.
Yuri V. Verkoshansky (1998). Organization of the training process. New Studies in Athletics, 13:3, 21-31.
Yuri V. Verkoshansky (1998). Main features of a modern scientific sports training theory. New Studies in Athletics, 13:3, 9-20.
Enjoy!
Did you manage to take a look at this one,
http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=9149&page=4
I was kind of waiting for eroszag’s thread but the wts have not been discussed into great detail. Just thought I get some more comments on the wts combined with the Italian sprint training!
Some considerations regarding Verkhoshanksi’s Block Training:
I state the following in an effort to reduce, and possibly eliminate as much speculation as possible from the discussion.
Though he was not present at the Chicago conference he was, as those of you know who were there, able to answer questions via phone as well as lecture fairly extensively on various regimes of training which was then translated by eithr Yessis or Val.
I, being more of a self proclaimed student of this all then anyone, asked quite a few questions. As as side note, I also asked a monumental load of questions at Charlie’s Vancouver clinic. So if you have the DVD, that’s me asking the five thousand questions.
I am also, self admittedly, fully emersed in learning as much as I can regarding former Russian/Eastern bloc training methodics as well as those of Charlie’s.
Athletics Coach, where we may observe a similarity in programming regimes of work, between Verkhsoshanksi and Charlie, is in the concentrated loading of the primary emphasized skill with the concurrent maintenance of secondary, tertiary abilities, etc.
So although the appropriation/concentration of sprint work volume/intensity may differ throughout the yearly calendar, the global consciousness of programming all abilities is nearly identical. Again, I state this after having inquired to Verkhoshanski directly as well as having what I believe to be a strong grasp of his translated material.
Depending on who you discuss this with we may view this programming methodology and vernacular as Conjugate Sequencing, Coupled Successive System, Block Training, or Charlies Vertical Integration. There are all, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with one another.
At the Chicago clinic Verkhoshanksi was very clear in identifying the significance of training data and theory having been a result of anecdotal and practical experience with athletes. He made several references of athletes who he, and his team, worked with in Russia ranging from high jumpers to middle distance runners.
Additionally, though the Block Training, at first glance, may appear as being the sequential application of concentrated loading (much similar to linear planning) the truth is that it is very much the unification of concentrated and concurrent planning. This was something that I asked Verkhoshanski about at the clinic. Now, whether his perception of planning has changed over time, I do not know; however, when I asked if all secondary, tertiary, etc abiliites received a certain volume of training at any given block of training, his answer was of course.
Moving on, and for these reasons, Sprinterouge we may now observe how Verkhoshanski’s Block Training is very much in line with the WSB method. I am fortunate in that my staff position at EFS allows me to maintain objectivity as I have direct access to WSB lifters.
The Block Training, just as Vertical Integration, Conjugate Sequencing, Coupled Successive System , and yes, the WSB method, outlines a procedure wherein all skills are stacked and concurrently trained, at some capacity, during any given phase of the yearly calendar. The volume and intensity of the training load allotted to any particular skills increases as we move up the ladder. And once we get to the top, the primary targeted motor task possesses the predominace of training volume/intensity for that block/phase, etc of training.
Furthermore, and as somewhat of a side note, the translated materials, specifically ‘Fundamentals of Special Strength Training in Sport’ is truly an encyclodpedia. Upon ongoing review of this text I can personally attest to the similarities between Verkhoshanski and Charlie as well as Westside. Again, the similarities share a common denominator which demonstrates the importance of the concentration of the training load weighed against the SPP of the athlete.
So understand that I am speaking from a global programming perspective and not necessarily comparing speed training methodologies between Verkhoshanski and Charlie.
The greater, and more highly qualified, the athlete the greater the concentration and specificity of the training load must be in order to yield continued and positive training effects.
As special work capacity increases the organism requires that much more of a concentration and intensifiction of specific stressors to effectively heighten sport skill peformance/contest results.
Hence the common observeable trend between weightlifters, track and field athletes, powerlifters, etc over time which outlines (in the multi-year sense) a gradual increase in training intensity and volume and then a plateau in volume and subsequently a reduction in volume with intensity continuing to rise up to and through the Master of Sport International Class qualification and its equivalents in the world of track and field and powerlifting.
Well then, this made sense to me; how about everyone else.
good discussions- worth a read!
This is an excellent analysis of the situation- and clarifies alot about Prof V’s thinking, which can often be distorted because of the language barrier.
His extensive questioning of me in Holland in 1994 and his agreement at the end of it convinces me that this is a true analysis and also convinces me of the value of a Q and A format during seminars.
I’m also pretty sure that without Prof V’s questioning of me in 1994, my own methods could have been open to a wrong interpretation by the audience without me realizing it.