Season is finished here (or at least I can’t find any more meetings), so after a couple of weeks “resting” I was thinking on how can I schedule my next season. I would be happy of any input you can provide (especially kitkat1, since I have “followed” his system, and I plan on doing a first complete season now ).
After 3 years without competing, I went back to track this season with only a few months of training. Surprisingly to me I did pretty well (for my standards) in 100-200m getting closer than expected to my PB. For 400m I lacked training and (specially) rhythm. The main problems that I felt while running where:
Pain in tendons (hamstrings in general + aquiles).
Crossing legs.
Rhythm.
For the first 2 I have to visit a physiotherapist. I tried with some massages and stretching but… it even got worse. It felt like the muscles were to tight and instead of stretching the muscles I was pulling the tendons, which made the feeling worse, specially for the hamstrings.
I was planning on scheduling the training for a target time of sub-48.00 (my PB is 48.37). My PB in 100-200 are 10.93 and 22.15. Since I would try a (aprox) 22.8-24.8, I thought of starting with a short-to-long approach to the 400 and then move to 2 “kitkat1 programs”. Even though I made times close to my PB, I have been running consistently slower while training (eg: my pb in 150m is 15.8 and the sb has been 16.5), and when I tried to run with the rhythm of a 400… I was going way too slow (I was pretty good at knowing the pace) so I thought that a S-L approach would help me improving the speed for the next phases. Does that makes sense?
As for how to schedule the macro cycles, I was thinking on 1 month of pre-season work, and then 12 weeks cycles (GPP+SPP/transition).
Even though I could start directly with a GPP, I prefer to have some time of recovery, specially from the tendon “problem”. How would you schedule the pre-season?
I have several doubts in general with the program, but I will ask them later, when I am closer to the program :). They’re mostly related with the intensity of the sessions.
I am honored to finally join this tread I have read trough it 2 times now but still I have some questions for kitkat. (or other who can reply)
Is there an example of the training program in season? I would be great with an example of a program in a week with a competition and a week without competition!
Inn GPP and SPP program there are sometimes 2 very hard days back to back. Like day 4 and 5 in spp.
Day 4:4x40-20-20 +300-250-180-150-120
Day 5: 2x2x200m
Are u sure most people can handle that? and get benefit from session 5 when already very tired from day 4?
play with the distance, for me cutting volume in +/- half kept me running. More breaks me up.
e.g. to make thing more easy for your guys take a day 4 :4x40-20-20 +300-250-180-150-120; 5 tempo/rest.; day6 the 2x2x200
or just skip some runs
Do u remember how kitkats program could be adjusted to 800m?
I remember there was some info about it, but the tread is so huge and I could not find it.
I guess its just to add some volume to the interval sessions and reduce the speed abit?
What is actually the benefit/key of kit kats program?
Is it the weekly structure of 2 “hard”, 1 easy, “3 hard” 1 easy?
The type of sessions?
The variation from week to week?
I think Contrast and Recovery. Add in the Intensive Tempo (6x200 in comehome pace of last 200 of your goal 400m) and the Extensive Tempo (3x3x300m jog recoveries) as well as emphasis on “lift” (Triple Extension/Step-Over and Down action) during Speed Endurance and Max Vel development sessions. It’s a package deal but there is a Balance between High Intensity and Low Intensity as well as an insistence by me on “Adequate” Recovery at every step of the program construct.
Sorry I have been off-line for ages, moving house, takjing leave from work to renovate etc etc.
thanks Kit Kat.
Some time offline is also good for our mental health
My english is not perfect. Can you explain what you mean about contrast? contrast like u have a wide vairiaty of training sessions with different stimuli in the 6 week period?
Would you say its possible to run a decent 800m on your program?
How would you have adjusted the program to a 400/800m runner?
Is this program more suited for very fast athletes (high maxV) or can also people with a slower 100m time also benefit from your program?
Thanks again for replying and good luck with renovating.
Volle, you have the contrast idea correct. The body needs constant variety of stimuli. You cannot just change the distance. You must also change the rhythm and that comes from a variation in intensity. Chaos Theory has much to recommend itself when it comes to forcing adaptation :). Change is good. Constant change is better. But rehab and regeneration are imperative. Ultimately they will enable progress (by helping to avoid injury and thereby facilitating continuity of training and adaptation) along a higher pathway where the higher intensity and loads at higher intensity become crucial factors in reaching world standard performances.
As for running 800 of this programme. I think a lot more long aerobic runs might be necessary and a few more thresh-hold runs as well. But I would be interested to know how Jarmila Kratochvila - the world women’s 800m recordholder - managed to run around 11-flat for 100m and a world record for 800m. It suggests long runs may not have been much of a factor in her preparation back in 1983.
The constant change in stimuli/intensity sounds logical. To prevent that the body gets “immune” against the training stimuli.
From what I have read about 400/800m training they dont do much long runs. Long runs for them have a function of just recovery. A few fast runs or threshold intervalls, but much less than the 800/1500m runner.
For a 400m/800m runner high volume of threshold running says to be damageus.
Their goal is to increase the spesific speed endurance with increasing the volume of specific/fast track training, reduce recoveries.
The first 200 is run 1-2 seconds therefore 26-27 sec
The second 200m is run 2 sec slower therefore 28-29 sec
Without knowing the athlete, the 59 sec runner is probably not 2 seconds slower over 200m then the 55 runner, but lacks the general conditioning. Without seeing and knowing more that is guess.
The 59 runner is either slower over 200, and if this is the case the last 200 will be slower than 2 sec due to having less in reserve or they are not as well conditioned as I suggested and they may not be able to maintain a higher speed anyway.
Personally I tend to say this is what I want you to run the first 200 in, which is based on their 200 speed and see what happens in the last 200.
A pure speed-power animal will often blew the doors off the hinge in the opening 200m and might crawl home over the last 100. I’ve seen differentials blow out to nearly 4sec in women’s races. Some of the poor differentials can be due to lack of pace judgement, some due to lack of specific 400m endurance. Two seconds is considered pretty good. Sub-2sec is what we aim for as coaches in the 400m. Easier said than done, as you know
My girl who ran a season best of 61.3 was a 28/31. In timing many high school girls, they seem to be closer to 3 second differential. In my 49 second boy, he was 2-2.5 range every race.
I found that a 40 second 300 time would get you close to 54 seconds at the high school level, for both boys and girls.
I’ve always wondered whether the concurrent program - or at least the fundamental ideas underpinning it - which I designed 24 years ago and which is described in this thread, would have application to sprint swimming.
Afterall, the time-span for a great men’s 100m freestyle is 47/48sec and for a good 400m run about 44/45sec. Both events could be described as power-endurance activities. I’m hoping to have some news on that around mid-August after I chat with a particular swim coach when he returns home from the FINA world championships in Shanghai… maybe, just maybe… watch this space
Vladimir Issurin has praised the American swim coach (Olympic Hall of Fame) James Counsilman for the ideas he used that, to the contrary, resembled the block training system; and Alexander Popov’s coach (Gennadi Touretski) followed block training principles as well.
While it’s clear that linear, concurrent, and block models are all appropriate when used on the right population/sport/trainedness; it is my feeling that at the elite levels of competitive swimming a block model is more logical.
That said, I have a feeling that when you layout the details of your concurrent idea for swimming you will outline more thematic commonalities between your idea and those influenced by block methodology.
I know Pakewi will have insightful comments to share based upon his experience with high level swimmers.
I expect to be able to post a significant Q&A interview with Brant Best, personal coach of the new 100m freestyle world champion, James Magnussen, within the next couple of weeks. This should shed light which reveals their “state of the art” - quote Magnussen, swim training program which bares an astonishingly close resemblance to the concurrent concepts laid down in the lactate threshold thread as well as an actual attribution. Magnussen swam 47.6sec which is fastest ever for a man swimming in a textile suit, so we can call it a virtual world record. The time for 100m freestyle (especially when you take away the underwater glide time component following the entry dive) is very close indeed to what constitutes a world class time for the men’s 400m track sprint. Food for thought. Well, I’m off to the pool now. kk
In the last 10 years swimming has seen a significant shift to concurrent type training. As with many sports they realised training the speed out of them and leaving qualities untouched produced very good slow swimmers.
The very good programs (back end) programs have been re-rewarded from the removal of the rubber suits as the drop dead sprinter types from sprint based programs have found the last 15m in a 100m can be a painful journey if the back end qualities aren’t trained.
Its like the 300m sprint…a good male short sprinter and longer sprinter can run fast over 300m…however add on another 100m or 11-12s and then you find out who has done the quality work at the right speeds at race specific ratings while maintaining stroke length.
With all these matters, the issue which invites program structure experimentation is the need to improve front-end race rhythm without damaging (and indeed continuing to enhance) back-end speed. Individual sessions are obviously important but it’s how they are sited within the plan(s) that enables the athlete/swimmer to take what s/he wants from each session - be it pure speed, pure power, speed endurance, power endurance etc. Again, contrast and recovery within the plan are key and so the concurrent structure enables that, imo, better than the traditional long to short (pyramid) or even short to long (inverted pyramid).
I look forward to reviewing the interview you spoke of in a previous post.
As for what you’ve described here, have you given thought to how the needs may be addressed within the block system structure? I ask because, the very premise of its creation hinged upon the need to further intensify the specific needs of the training without continuing to increase the annual load volume and the nature of cyclic disciplines, such as swimming, are highly conducive to its use.
).