My experiences with the GPP is after completing 6 weeks, you are capable of handing an increased amount of training loads. I found with a 6 week gpp, 4 week transition worked great for 300 and 60m times for my high school kids (for them, the average speeds of 60 and 300m are similar, which is what I guess showed the improvements). I found 150 times were rather stagnant.
I gave them a few weeks off (don’t recall exactly how many), and then went to s-l gpp in fall followed by s-l spp in early winter. This was a huge success. The repeat 60s were very easy to handle and I saw steady improvements in 60s during training. I then thought it would be a good idea to go back to KK gPP which then turned into disaster.
Using the GPP followed by a long to short for 100m should work nicely. I know there has been some question about L-S gpp, and although I have not seen Charlie’s GPP for L-S, I think concepts can be adapted to fit the needs of 100m specialists.
As T-Slow has mentioned, we used the GPP for 12 weeks, then transition followed by some progressions Charlie used for 400m Long to short. I felt it could be adapted rather smoothly and it did work out for T Slow last season. I know it seems like a a la carte program, but I feel there are general concepts that can be adapted depending on what preceeds it.
Trying to understand - after the season you gave them a few weeks off follow by KK gpp follow by s-l gpp etc? How/why did things go bad the second time through?
Great question. I’m not 100% sure why, but I suspect it in this way:
Going gpp—>s-L went from work capacity to increased velocity.
Going s-l --> went from fast velocity to slower velocity which resulted in stagnant training and potential overtraining at one point with one athlete.
The reason I felt the need to change was to use new speed from s-l with longer distances. This didn’t work at all. I guess it’s like a puzzle piece that doesn’t fit, but belongs to the same puzzle.
Well, if you think about it, going from L-S GPP to S-L later means;
Long -> kind of short -> back to long again
So what you might be losing is acceleration development. If so, your performance above 60 in the 80-150 range later might be off because MaxV is off, because you aren’t doing enough accel development early to reach a high enough MaxV. The Jamaican programs are using plenty of work in the 300-450 range for GPP, but also plenty of power development in that same GPP using sleds and hills. If I was starting L and planning to go S-L later, I would be incorporating some S work in GPP in the 30-50m accel range.
ESTI, can you clarify- a previous conversation we had indicated that you may have used a sled day in the initial GPP period which would be true accel / power work, something the original KitKat version does not touch upon until transition. I’m not sure if it was this particular instance or not?
I can say that using the traditional KitKat model I saw 30m acceleration times for my guy go from:
3.70 (end of GPP)
3.65 (end of transition / race block)
3.58 (10 day taper after transition for major competition)
3.50 (competition phase after)
Acceleration definitely develops over time, but if using the traditional KitKat GPP the biggest improvement shows nearing the end of transition and into the competition phase it seems.
I saw the same pattern with myself but of course at a much lower level. (Add about half a second!)
You are correct. Let me clarify- what I remember ESTI saying was that he did a sled day one day every week during one of his modified KK GPP blocks, so not just the two workouts that would normally appear during weeks 4 and 5 of the traditional 6 week GPP.
lkh, that’s different, I guess. As long as you are prepared for what’s to come, anything can happen. Perhaps I was a bit strict in my mind, but working from both ends -if that’s what you are implying- can surely work! Thanks for clarification!
IMHO gofast’s model is worth raising in the context of this discussion. Obviously he is referring to 400m but the principals could be adapted to suit 100m.
[i]
I have the weights on day 1 and day 4 (the short speed/max vel days) to hit CNS all at one time. I have found that it doesn’t interfere with the SE work the next day. If I felt it did with a particular athlete then I would add it to the SE day instead but I find most athletes struggle to lift very well after hard SE sessions.
The day 2 SE is what I term special endurance II (300-600m) whereas the day 5 session is special endurance I (150-300m) to hit overdistance as well as under distance (which I know KK goes by).
My approach is really built around short to long to develop accel/max velocity and long to short to develop speed endurance/lactate capacity…all ideas tried by many before me I am sure.
The big thing I have found, and a good masters project (not done by me) supported this well, is to focus on developing the max vel, that’s where I think there are big gains can be made for many athletes in the 400m. Improve their max vel so essentially they can run at high velocities in the first 200m without using up too much energy. Then when the race starts at the water-jump they can kick hard and be charging home. [/i]
TrevorS, EFE stands for easy-fast-easy and the reverse for FEF.
John, that’s what I meant regarding working from both ends. The latter point on developing maximum speed as much as possible is also true and especially for women. As Charlie says in his book “The key to the longer sprints (200-400 m) is the speed reserve, especially in races such as the women’s 400 m. There are few women, who are good in the 400 m at the world level and not also good in the 100-m sprint.” In gofast’s model though -which I am sure has been quite successful- attention should be paid on the 4-day weeks’ schedule (e.g., working on a 2+1-week plan). Perhaps he could comment on that and how it may fluctuate per phase.
Thanks Nikoluski. Now how does that work exactly? I see ESTI says tires then EFE. I want to do the Canadian Indoor and outdoor season this year so just finishing up my GPP phase and while the weather is still hot have added sled sprints over 30m this week.
I tried to follow the same Endurance vs. Power format as KK, while incorporating Accels/speed from day one. I shortened the distances in the first couple of weeks due to focusing on the 100m and not having done much Speed Endurance work. During the second GPP cycle, I will probably increase the distances covered in the GPP. What are your thoughts?
In the Lance Brauman interview a few years ago, his group at the time was doing a lot of split runs similar to KK’s. They also did 40 sec+20 seconds (similar to 300+150). Tyson Gay has repeated a few times on Twitter he likes 300+100 as a workout.
Climb, I’d be cautious in your week 2 and 3. Give it a shot and report back your results.