Italian sprint training

Training Articles
41

That is a very generic overview - even the so-called ‘Western Periodization’ could be considered ‘conjugate, block training’ by your interpretation. How is Western periodization considered to be sequential, ok, hypertrophy block, max strength block, power block etc. I’ll bet the athletes are still playing the sport to some degree?

It is entirely nebulous to speak of Verkhoshanski’s block, Western periodization or Westside or Charlie’s system as the aims of objectives of each system differ greatly, there are different and unsynchronised rates of adaptation of different training qualities and physiological systems. At least from Verkhoshansky’s research with speed-strength athletes the block was concentrated with one primary emphasis and retaining levels for other abilities, which would lead to a disturbance not only in the primary training method but in other motor abilities (e.g., technique).

Yes, Westside is similar to Verkhoshansky’s ‘block’ training in that there is an overlapping of different training methods over time. However, the definition of the concentration of the training method varies considerably between Westside and Verkhoshanski’s ‘block.’ Jumps 4 weeks, barbell exercises 4 weeks depths jumps 4 weeks etc.

May be it is better to place the programs on a continuum as some authors have with the general vs specific exercises?

42

i think, the best is to face the graph in CF’s forum review with Verkh’s those ones.
how is ratio between loading period and maintance (or sub phase B)?
what is the % of volume bwt sub phase A with sub phase B)?
when CF introduce max speed work after strenght sub phase?

i think for these points, we can approach CF’ideas with Verk’s ones

43

Steve, yes you are correct, my input is general. Hence, my ‘global programming perspective’ reference.

‘Western periodization’ can in NO way be considered as having the slightest commonality with the aforementioned systems.

You must realize that the periodization scheme does not account for SPP. Meaning, it does not matter whether a purely linear trained athlete, in the general and non-specific regime, engages in SPP practice concurrently. The SPP practice is not part of the general and non-specific plan (eg weights, speed, power, etc).

Thus the glaring DIS-similarity is such that the ‘western’ model fails to provide sufficient, if ANY, training volume to secondary, tertiary, etc non-emphasized general and non-specific abilities.

Regarding your perception of my logic, perhaps I mislead you. Hopefully the preceeding served to clarify.

Nebulous? I agree that the methodologies serve different masters in regards to the development of the targeted and specific motor tasks (e.g., maximal strength, or absolute speed, or speed-strength, etc); however, and again, my post was to provide a general insight as to the commonalities between Charlie’s and Verkhoshanski’s programming methodologies.

Accordingly, Charlie validated my ‘general’ assessment.

Steve, your interperation of Verkhoshanski’s Block Training seems to stem entirely from your, perhaps, misdirected interperetation of translated material. Just as Charlie eluded to regarding the common distortion of Verkhoshanski’s methodologies.

Again, I, as all those who were there, was fortunate to address some of these very questions, which come as a result of some of the possible multi-interperations of the translations, to Verkhoshanski directly. Subsequently I feel confident in the assertions which I have made.

Perhaps.

44

These are general observations about various approaches.
Let’s also consider the DEGREE of emphasis by componant. This can vary dramatically between programs, phases, and by individuals within the same general approach, based on ability, performance level, and training background, etc .

45

Not sure I have entirely understood this section, but how can a periodization scheme not account for SPP? Charlie seems to place considerable emphasis on sprinting (technique) throughout the season, whether one is in the GPP phases or an SPP phase (hills, med ball etc). Matveyev also mentions that the GPP and SPP are not rigidly separated.

When performance of technique downgrades or shall we say 'supercedes’ (personal best), my understanding is that Charlie would most likely alter the session in some sort of means, if not completely finish the session. This, in my opinion is in direct contrast to Verkhoshanki’s ‘block training.’ The block would cause disturbances in technique and Verkhoshanski refers to it as a ‘loss of sense.’

46

May be it could be your misdirected interpretations of Verkhoshansky’s translated materials too!:wink: Yessis and Val were the translators, Dr V was not bound to provide his audience with the entire truth and Bud Chargina translated Fundamentals…Dr V says he has never heard of conjugate training! The plot thickens.

47

If you can read Italian or know someone who can translate I will send u a PDF version of vittori’s stremgth training methods. I got the article from Sports Discus and had it translated by an Italian track athlete but he did not do such a good job of it. I have other articles by Vittori translated professionally I will sacn those and post on site.

48

Beware of misinformation…I am so weary of what I read nowadays…

49

James,

Thank you for your post.

My “speculation” was not groundless. I too have read Prof. Verkhoshanskij work, including the latest books which are not available in English, have witnessed one of his latest speach in 2002 and have exchanged a few mails with him regarding this very matter.

It’s true what Steve just wrote: Prof. Verkhoshanskij doesn’t even know who Lou Simmons is or what Conjugated training is being mentally associated to in the US. Anyhow, that doesn’t change anything.

In Prof. Verkhoshanskij’s article on “New Studies in Athletics”, 1998, #3, 21-31, re-published as it was in his latest books, he clearly opposes the successive-contiguous method (his) to the complex parallel method. He then stress the “sequentiality” of his method, as its main characteristic. Coach Francis method is may be something in between the two models, but it’s in no way like the first one. And this is pretty clear if you compare the actual training plans: Prof. Verkhshanskij’s sprinters plan for Moscow 1980 and Coach Francis’ plan on the Forum Review.

You can probably find a lot of similarities because both methods are grounded on sound (applied) exercise physiology, but methodologically they are far apart.

I would appreciate if you can expand on the WSB/successive-contiguous commonalities.

50

Steve, we must identify SPP with respect to context.

The process of developing SPP for a non weightlifter/powerlifter/strongman consists of the perfection of the sport skill itself and has little/nothing to do with weight/speed training directly.

In regards to to the ‘western plan’ in terms of the development of strength preparedness (for which it was conceived); the western model, as I stated, negates the maintainenence of other non-specific/general abilities that are developed in previous cycles. This lack of multi-dimensional training is what distinguishes and far distances it from any of the other conjugate/concurrent plans.

So although, as I stated, a linear trained athlete may practice sport skill all year, this is secondary to the fact that certain general/non-specific abilities go entirely untrained for certain periods.

So if we localize the programming methods to the development of strength preparedness we see that the Western plan is unrelated.

Yes, Charlie utilizes certain measurables/observeables to identify readiness, or lack thereof, and possibly shut down the training day accordingly; however, it appears as if you are drawing a misplaced comparison of the Block training and Charlie’s principle of calculating readiness.

CFTS, as we know, is a training system devised specifically for yielding improvements in various regimes of sprint speed.

Block Training outlines a training system intended to develop various motor qualities/energy systems inherent to the expression of sport skill. Not necessarily a speed development system such as CFTS.

This is where they differ.

We know that SPP regarding CFTS entails various components of speed development, whereas SPP during Block Training is going to be comprised of perfecting the skill of whatever sport the block style training is being dedicated to.

The common example of Block Training is the jumps followed by barbell lifts followed by depth jumps in order to improve speed-strength/exploisve strength. This is merely one application of the Block Training.

The multitdue of other applications were addressed by Verkhoshanski at the clinic. All of them revolve around the development, in sequence of various energy systems which yields improvements in biological power as an organic whole along with the concurrent maintenance or emphasisi of SPP

There is never a regression in sport skill during the block training, as the SPP, what ever it may be, always maintains a certain percentage training volume. This was a direct question of mine to Verkhoshanski.

Sure Verkhoshanski may not have had a gun to his head demanding that he be entirely truthful (how F’n outrageously speculative are you going to get) but I will take Val’s interperation and disection of the material ANY DAY. In fact, I discussed Verkhoshanski’s response at length with Val later that night.

If you’ve met Val then I am sure you share my sentiments.

beyond this, I was able to pose specific questions very much akin to the root of our discussion here and Verkhoshanski via Val provided direct responses. I will simply have to forego your tendency to theorize that he may have been lying to me and take the esteemed strength scientist for his word.

Yes, Verkhoshanski was unfamiliar with the ‘conjugate’ term, which I definitely found interesting. However, this is beside the point which maintains itself as being the commonality between the various systems (what ever you want to call them) in the GLOBAL programming sense.

51

Sprinterouge, I appreciate your insights.

However, it appears as if I am going to have to attempt to clarify and qualify the specifics of the different planning methods.

Damn, I’m about to write a short book.

Ok, it is true that the Block Training is not to be confused with complex/concurrent planning in totality.

The Block Training, just like Conjugate/Coupled/vertical integration exists as training cycles directed to the intense concentrated-unidirectional loading of the primary skill. However, all of these systems also dedicate a certain percentage training volume to secondary, tertiary, etc abilites.

In contrast, concurrent/complex planning does not suggest to dedicate any concentration of the training load to any singular skill.

So, in one sense, the real markers of delineation exist in dissecting the training load in percentages.

Allow me to utilize a rudimentary pie chart example.

The Block/Conjugate/Coupled/Vertical models, at any instant during a particular phase of training will illustrate a large piece of pie dedicated to singular tasks. Whereas the Complex/Concurrent models will illustrate a fairly uniform dissection of the pie with each piece of pie exisisting as roughly the same size.

So yes, regarding Block training: there is a definite sequence to developing the energy systems/motor tasks of any particular phase/block of training. HOwever, and to reiterate, there also exists a multi-dimension to these systems (the maintenance of all other abilities) which incorporate the sequential concentration-uni-directional blocks.

So again, the Block vs Complex systems are distinguished primarily with respect to the allottment of various quantities of the training load volume to the development of certain tasks.

The lack of intensification of the training load of the Complex/Concurrent schemes is an insufficient stimulus to raise the special work capacity of the highly qualified athlete.

The similarities between WSB and the other methods of sequencing targeted motor tasks in succession exists as this very dynamic.

The WSB method, in it’s truest sense, implies the development of targeted motor tasks in sequence, over time, leading up to contests.

A typicl timeline for an elite lifter will resemble, at the upper tier, a linear model such that GPP/hypertrophy, corrective means, etc are emphasized early in the plan. This is followed by strength work, this is then followed by speed strength work, then a final intensification (circa max) is employed) which is then deloaded prior to contests. Meanwhile, during each of these stages, the concurrent maintenance/development of all abilities are addressed.

So the development/maintenance of speed-strength, strength-speed, muscle cross-section, pre-hab/re-hab, technique and absolute strength are either present at some capacity, or not diminsished for long, at all times throughout the yearly calendar along with the concurrent uni-directional/concentrated emphasis of what ever skill for that period of time.

this is sometimes not illustrated so well in various articles dedicated to the WSB method. After having discussed the training with westside lifters, however, the former becomes very clear.

52

The Block Training, just like Conjugate/Coupled/vertical integration exists as training cycles directed to the intense concentrated-unidirectional loading of the primary skill. However, all of these systems also dedicate a certain percentage training volume to secondary, tertiary, etc abilites.

In contrast, concurrent/complex planning does not suggest to dedicate any concentration of the training load to any singular skill.

I don’t see a concentrated sequence such as strength (where intensity is NOT the main stressor) THEN speed in Coach Francis’ plan, or any kind of load concentration that reminds me of Prof. Verkhoshanskij’s method. In this respect placing Vertical Integration along with Block Training is, IMO, arbitrary.

The Block/Conjugate/Coupled/Vertical models, at any instant during a particular phase of training will illustrate a large piece of pie dedicated to singular tasks.

Singular task; I stress this because if you do focus on two things at a time, albeit complementary such as max strength and accelerations, you are not concentrating the load in Prof. Verkhoshanskij’s perspective.

So again, the Block vs Complex systems are distinguished primarily with respect to the allottment of various quantities of the training load volume to the development of certain tasks.

Agreed.

The lack of intensification of the training load of the Complex/Concurrent schemes is an insufficient stimulus to raise the special work capacity of the highly qualified athlete.

According to Prof. Verkhoshanskij’s work, is not precisely the lack of intensification, rather the “monotonous quantitative effect, DESPITE the increase of volume and intensity” of training loads, i.e. the reiteration of identical complex stimuli which leads to generic adaptatative response. In other words, it’s not the training load that lacks intensity, but the training stimulus.

A typicl timeline for an elite lifter will resemble, at the upper tier, a linear model such that GPP/hypertrophy, corrective means, etc are emphasized early in the plan. This is followed by strength work, this is then followed by speed strength work, then a final intensification (circa max) is employed) which is then deloaded prior to contests.

this is sometimes not illustrated so well in various articles dedicated to the WSB method. After having discussed the training with westside lifters, however, the former becomes very clear.

Very interesting; it makes me wonder why so prolific writers such as Simmons and Tate would not stress it…

53

According to Prof. Verkhoshanskij’s work, is not precisely the lack of intensification, rather the “monotonous quantitative effect, DESPITE the increase of volume and intensity” of training loads, i.e. the reiteration of identical complex stimuli which leads to generic adaptatative response. In other words, it’s not the training load that lacks intensity, but the training stimulus.

Perhaps the art is finding appropriate variety of stimuli without resorting to methods that have no impact such as squating on balance pads. Enlisting the use of “primative” means such as the classical lifts with slight variation and calculated restoration will prove the most effective.

54

  1. Perhaps then you should reconsider the phases of the CFTS triple periodization scheme (GPP, accumulation, max strength, maintenance, SPP, etc) during any of these stages the Vertical placement exists for nearly all related skills albeit at different intensities and volume and surely one phase to the next signifies a sequence of loading/emphasizing a different objective.

  2. I would not view a three dimensional model which provides a certain volume to secondary skills as not qualifying for concentrated loading. We surely must provide context to the training load itself, and all regime of work which it encompasses, in order to realize that there is more then enough room for supplementary training to exist and still qualify the targeted skill for unidirectional loading.

Meaning; if we are in a depth jump block of Block training the athlete surely will perform a certain volume of ‘strength’ lifts with barbells yet the concentrated loading of the primary stressor remains the uninterupted focus.

So, understand, and perhaps this is becoming overly academic, that focusing on two objectives concurrently is not synonymous with focusing on a singular task while concurrently providing for the maintenance of other secondary tasks which serve to maintain the biological power necessary to fully support the adaptation to the target stressor and ultimately the end result/cummultive training effect to be realized during and through the competition cycle.

  1. Regarding the intensity of the load and that of the stimulus, I believe that these are in essence mutually dependent; as the stimulus must be qualitatively accounted for as some degree of the load.

I, however, appreciate your reference as it definitely is important to distinguish between the two and fully comprehend the differences and similiarities and the physiological effects.

Certainly, the target/primary emphasized stimulus must be adjusted so as to maintain continued adaptation. Hence, the sequencing of tasks.

  1. Regarding the WSB concept. I feel that a certain degree of the infastructure is somewhat implied in the publications more then it is laid out in simple terms. You must remember, however, that I am in direct contact with some of the past and present WSB lifters so I am able to discuss these issues one on one.

Sprinterouge I just want to compliment you on your outstanding mastery of two (though I wouldn’t be suprised if there are more), to my knowledge, languages and possess the ability to discuss ‘scientific’ topics.

It is one thing to be proficient in the multi-lingual sense, however, to have a powerful grasp of the scientific vernacular of more than one language is highly impressive. Individuals like you, Pakewi, Val, and others truly blow me away.

You are a better man than I.

Ciao mi amico de Italiano

55

I agree, if we take the example of a block of depth jumps for speed-strength athlete’s (not including weightlifters) there will be no barbell work done at all. Only in the preceding block.

An example from a Westside lifter:

Weeks 20-11: During this period my overall volume will be at it’s highest. This is the period where I am probably slightly over trained. I am pushing the main DE or ME movement and still trying to hammer the assistance work.

Weeks 10-6: During this period I really push the main movement of the day. On my ME stuff I am trying to break records and break them by as much as I can. On DE day I am upping the band tension and bar weight. The DE stuff will tax me a lot during this period. To compensate for the DE focus, I back off on my volume and intensity of assistance work.

Weeks 5-1: During this phase I will focus on quality assistance work and bringing my speed back on DE day. On DE day I will back off on the bands/chain tension and focus on moving the bar VERY fast and perfecting my technique. On ME day I will break my PR by 5-10 pounds and stop. My assiatnce work becomes more important due to the shift in my main exercise. During this period I am very focused on being 100% recovered by the meet. I would rather be 3% under trainer rather than 1% over trained.

Week 0: Meet week. My whole focus is on recovery and making weight. I probably won’t work out at all after Sunday.

56

Not sure I agree. The sport skill itself has both a direct and indirect impact on the weights/speed. The sport skill itself can be used to facilitate the development of strength and speed. What lead to the big weights in Charlie’s program?

57

[QUOTE=Stevemac24]I agree, if we take the example of a block of depth jumps for speed-strength athlete’s (not including weightlifters) there will be no barbell work done at all. Only in the preceding block.
QUOTE]

I disagree. I spoke to Dr. Yessis about this (and James Smith mentioned it earlier). I understood that the athlete DOES NOT totally eliminate barbell work during a “shock/ depth jump block”. The FOCUS just changed to depth jumps.

On a related note, I am surprised that depth jumps are so highly regarded by Dr V but many coaches don’t use them or even recommend that they not be done. I have seen great results with them since I have almost been forced to use them a few times. I had a long jumper who suffered a mild hamstring injury and could not run fast without pain for about 3-4 weeks. He COULD do depth jumps without pain. Within a few weeks after the injury healed, he jumped a PR.

I’m really enjoying this thread BTW.

58

Steve, I should have been more specific. I will agree that speed training can have a positive influence on strength development, for certain subjects, due to the high neural, reactive, etc stimulus of the speed work itself.

Contact, combat, and many other field/court sport athletes; however, are engaged in disciplines in which the perfection of sport skill, mostly in the acyclical sense is very indirectly impacted by general/non-specific training.

Regarding, the depth jump/block training example; there is absolutely no conceivable scenario (aside from injury, etc) in which a speed-strength sport athlete could eliminate strength work, at some capacity and under typical conditions, for an entire training block. The development of speed-strength itself is heavily dependent upon the limit strength and there must be a certain degree of strengh lifts peformed, at least to maintain this regime of contractile strength, during this late stage of training.

This is the same reason why the strength work in the CFTS maintenance weeks will typically still remain at or above 90%, albeit for reduced volume. The stimulus of the near limit loads is too significant towards the development/maintenance of speed-strength.

59

Regarding, the depth jump/block training example; there is absolutely no conceivable scenario (aside from injury, etc) in which a speed-strength sport athlete could eliminate strength work, at some capacity and under typical conditions, for an entire training block. The development of speed-strength itself is heavily dependent upon the limit strength and there must be a certain degree of strengh lifts peformed, at least to maintain this regime of contractile strength, during this late stage of training.

during a NFL comp phase things become a problem when you are bruised up…this is why maximal strength during the off season is vital. One coach I thought was shrewd was Jason Trott, a colts assistant years ago during James’s rookie year. He pointed out that joints were busted with many players and just getting them to be able to participate the next year was half the battle. Talk about cold baths!

Like charlie said…strength is quick to gain and quick to loose.

60

Depth jumps are strength work:

Depth of 1.10m - development of absolute strength (shock)
Depth of 0.75 development of reactivity/explosiveness

(Highly dependant on the characteristics of the athlete and level of preparedness). While were on this subject lets throw the general guideline of 0.15ms contact time out of the window to be considered ‘plyometric.’

Good discussion - pleasure discussing with members!!