What does your gpp look like??
I’ll be doing progressive hills 1x/wk, weighted sleds 1x/wk and a progressively more intense speed day consisting of 20m build up and 20m maintain. With tempo work 3 days/wk.
My tempo work will go from 2x4x100m with walkback recoveries and progressing to 3x4x150m with walkback. With the possibility of eventually hitting 300m repeats for x reps and walkback recoveries.
Weights will be pretty standard, 3 days/wk lower body and 1 day/wk upper body. General jumps will probably happen 1-2xper week. The specific details of the weights are still unknown, my weights coach will prepare those.
Hill day: 3x4x30m
Sled day: 8x10m, 8x20m, 4x40m(unresisted)
Speed introduction day: 8x20m, 8x60m(20m accel+ 40m maintain)
Eventually, hill day becomes a fast easy fast day, with some starts over 30m. Sled day eventually becomes block day with sprints over 30 and 60m from blocks and Speed intro day becomes flying sprints.
The GPP lasts 8 weeks, 3 weeks hard 1 reduced vol week, 3 weeks hard 1 reduced vol week. Each month will progress volume and intensity.
The downside to not having a coach is the mental effort that is wasted worrying about planning and whether or not the training is appropriate.With my weights coach I have total trust that whatever he plans will work and so long as I follow it I will improve. It would be amazing to have that same trust in a track coach, and see the results. Unfortunately there aren’t many qualified coaches out here.
Your speed sessions don’t seem to have anything over 40 meters, and most of the reps are 20 meters.
Is this the best way for you? If there is nothing over 40 meters, how can you polish relaxation at top end speed, if you rarely ever reach it in training? (This is not a critique. I have been often surprised by the amount of very short rep work, by so many who are trying to improve their track sprints.) I think I have missed something and I’m not fully appreciating what such short reps are supposed to achieve. Somebody tell me. At what point in your GPP, would you feel right about increasing any of the distances in any of the reps? (Or would you save that for the next training cycle?)
You also mention that jogging 400 meters is difficult for you. This can’t be good in my opinion. You aught to be able to jog 800 meters comfortably (though you don’t necesarily have to use 2 laps as part of a warm up.) However, your commitment to tempo work, will surely make up for the current lack in cardio fitness. Remember that cardio is often called ‘real world power’. That’s because those that have it, have a myriad of benefits, including (as you mentioned) the ability to recover between reps.
You have a solid grasp of where you’re at and what you need to do. You also need to drop your 11% bodyfat to below 6% bodyfat if you want to run under 6.7 seconds, but do it oh so gradually.
After the initial month,I progress to FEF over 60m, 60m repeats of 30m accel + 30m maintain. I use the 20m+maintain as a progression in to speed work. The use of short distances are a natural progression of a short to long program. As I understand it, you’re constantly integrating further and further distances as you develop the shorter ones. Develop 0-30m, then 30-60m, since while running 30-60m you’ll be maintaining the progress achieved in the 0-30m aspect of the race. I use the GPP to gradually ease in to speed work.I feel as though I need to emphasize an aspect of my race in order to improve it, so as I’m emphasizing acceleration in the first portion of my training season, I am easing in to speed work. I then put acceleration on maintenance, with some occasional 20 and 30m accels and emphasize speed over 60m.
I know, its terrible. I’ll go for a short jog with my weight coach, who was a shot putter, and he is always amazed at how quickly I start complaining. I contrast myself with a friend who’s an Olympian in track and field and she can run an awesome 1,2,4 and 6! She has no problem doing steady state runs with the 800m crew.
Its been coming down pretty well so far. In April I was 197, and now in August I am 189. Its coming slowly.
I just realized that my speed intro day was actually 8x60m not 40m, with 20m+maintain. Also, I plan on hitting grass runs with spikes for as long as possible in the fall. Probably 6-8 weeks.
How exactly do you determine this?
Are you asking how I can be so certain that my numbers are realistic, and that I may seem presumptous?
Or are you asking me the best way for somebody to lose that amount of bodyfat?
I think you are asking me the former. I used a very simple observation to presume this statement.
Linford Christie: 4.5 % bodyfat.
Ian Mackie: 4.5%
Carl lewis: Bodyfat went from just unde 6% to 4%, I even heard 3.5% during his career.
There have been many world class sprinters who have had there bodyfat % measured and I have never heard of one that was higher than 6%. More often, they are below 5%.
Look at all the best sprinters, and they are all as lean as the above mentioned sprinters. It is a simple way of coming to the conclusion that 6% bodyfat or below is one of the requirements for world class sprinting.
In my book, a sub 6.6 second 60 meters - on an indoor track (say 6.67 secs) is 0.12 - 0.15 secs slower than being able to win a national final at British championships. A 6.67 would get you middle place finish in the final. It is ‘nearly’ world class. And so, you got to take the bodyfat down to a comparable level with the best sprinters to compete against them. Bodyfat is not the most important thing, but it is deffinately one of the factors. Look how lean Usain Bolt is. I simple used my observation to come to the above conclusion.
Remember also, that low bodyfat, often means less work for the heart. Do you know that it takes a lot of blood and capilaries to maintain one pound of fat? I wish I could remember the numbers and referance, but it was quite startling. Those with lowerbodyfat, have less work to do (for the same tasks to be completed) over each 24 hour period, and so they absoluteley recover quicker between training sessions. They are less likely to get lethargic, and are more likely to be energetic. (feeling ‘up’ for a training session.)
Also, I have seen papers that show a correlation between slightly faster track times at end of a soccer season (than at beginning of season). For practically all memebers of the team. They all had slightly less bodyfat % at the end of the season than pre-season. That was the correlation mentioned, in the study.
Also, there was a paper on school children and 40 yard dash times. The ones that had lower bodyfat were the fastest kids in the study.
The fastest dog is also the breed with the lowest bodyfat. The Greyhound. (Even ones that were not trained to participate in the sport, had lower bodyfat than other breeds of dog.)
29 is unbelievably low. I can’t believe that number for someone with you stats. That is getting to only 5 on the 20m shuttle run (beep test). If the first part of my warmup is a 400m jog, I often feel worse after it than I do than after running 5km. Could it be related to your body not being ready?
Thats a pretty random number from my first year university when I did a bike test predicted VO2max. Based off of HR. My 800m friend in the class reached 75. He’s had his retested on a treadmill the real way and I can’t remember if it was similar.
When I jog, my calfs burn up really quickly and then my legs, not necessarily my lungs. Its definitely genetic because my parents were fast runners/ never been able to jog much. I can push through the pain, but its agony. I always tell people I feel the same whether I sprint or jog a 300m, haha.
In high school I remember doing a beep test, I’m trying real hard to figure out how far I got. I want to say 7 maybe 6. Now that was in grade 9 before I started weight lifting at 170lbs.
Another indication of how terrible my aerobic capacity is, I used to go for jogs with my buddy’s overweight girlfriend, I’m talking probably over 200lbs, and we had the same aerobic tolerance. And I’m supposed to be the athlete, haha.
Anyway, suffice it to say that its bad, and some tempo with walkback recovery won’t hurt.
Oh, haha, I just remembered one more example. In grade 8 my entire class participated at the local cross country meet. Needless to say I came last, but it was a mixed race. Every girl in the race beat me, and there was over 100 people in the race! On the other hand, the only exposure to track and field that I had was in grade 5. I remember running a 6.5s ht 50m in the school yard, long jump was 3.2m and high jump was 1.3m. Because I was at a small school in Ontario at the time, no one noticed I guess.
And Mo had about 7% bf, sometimes higher, and was way, way faster than any of them.
There have been many world class sprinters who have had there bodyfat % measured and I have never heard of one that was higher than 6%. More often, they are below 5%.
Inaccurate testing methods is why there would be more than a couple below 5%. Realize that pro bodybuilders in contest shape are not much below 5%.
Look at all the best sprinters, and they are all as lean as the above mentioned sprinters. It is a simple way of coming to the conclusion that 6% bodyfat or below is one of the requirements for world class sprinting.
I know a guy that ran 6.5x at >10% bf. He dropped his bodyfat significantly over the course of a few years and only ran a few hundredths faster. I think it is a bit more complex than just a number, which you do not indicate at all.
In my book, a sub 6.6 second 60 meters - on an indoor track (say 6.67 secs) is 0.12 - 0.15 secs slower than being able to win a national final at British championships. A 6.67 would get you middle place finish in the final. It is ‘nearly’ world class. And so, you got to take the bodyfat down to a comparable level with the best sprinters to compete against them. Bodyfat is not the most important thing, but it is deffinately one of the factors. Look how lean Usain Bolt is. I simple used my observation to come to the above conclusion.
You realize that there are multiple sprinters for GB that are well over 8% bf? Let me guess… you think Simeon is pretty lean lol.
Remember also, that low bodyfat, often means less work for the heart. Do you know that it takes a lot of blood and capilaries to maintain one pound of fat? I wish I could remember the numbers and referance, but it was quite startling. Those with lowerbodyfat, have less work to do (for the same tasks to be completed) over each 24 hour period, and so they absoluteley recover quicker between training sessions. They are less likely to get lethargic, and are more likely to be energetic. (feeling ‘up’ for a training session.)
That’s just bad science.
Also, I have seen papers that show a correlation between slightly faster track times at end of a soccer season (than at beginning of season). For practically all memebers of the team. They all had slightly less bodyfat % at the end of the season than pre-season. That was the correlation mentioned, in the study.
Also, there was a paper on school children and 40 yard dash times. The ones that had lower bodyfat were the fastest kids in the study.
The fastest dog is also the breed with the lowest bodyfat. The Greyhound. (Even ones that were not trained to participate in the sport, had lower bodyfat than other breeds of dog.)
That is because they were bred to have low bodyfat levels and of course they will be faster than all other breads, they are bred to have terrific structures. That, along with the school statements, are just stupid.
Most people are going to start their 100% work under 40m. It is difficult to be ready to run a great 40m and beyond at the beginning of the season. Syrus seems to have a very sound plan for slowly progressing into working on max velocity. Rome wasn’t built in a day and I imagine he would plateau quite quickly if he started to work to 40m from day 1.
haha this sounds very similar to me but i dont have your speed either unfortunately. i know how you feel im not quite as bad, i can jog a mile but thats about it (and even for that i have to be very motivated to push through it), and the pains always in my legs never my lungs too. you’re not alone
Yes, I was asking why you said he had to drop below 6% to run 6.7.
The logic in the post above is, frankly, baffling. The correlations noted do not at all imply that he must get below 6% to achieve his goal.
You say he had ‘about 7%’ which indicates you don’t know what his actual score was. I don’t believe he had 7% bodyfat. I believe he was lower.
Not as inacurate a testing method as your eye sight, which suggests to you that Mo green was 7% bodyfat.
I said clearly that I wasn’t suggesting that bodyfat% was the most important factor. I said it was one of many factors (in sprinting speed.)
‘Lol’ what? None of the sprinters ‘well over 8%’ are not running 6.5 seconds for 60 meters are they? No, they are not. And I don’t recall saying anything about Simeon in this thread.
You probably are a bit fat and chubby and you probably think you’re in great shape. Lol to you.
‘School statements?’ ‘Stupid’. You are quite the critique aren’t you? For some reason, you wanted to make this personal. There are no ‘school statements’ in anything that I have said. Some of what I have said in this thread, was from reading scientific journals, that were conducted. When I mentioned (admittedly without referance - doesn’t mean I didn’t read them) the papers that showed correlations between bodyfat loss and sprint speed improvement for the soccer players tested. When I mentioned the school children who were tested and the ones with lower bodyfat tended to have the faster times, there was nothing stupid about it. Personally, I have never seen a ‘soft’ physique in a world class sprinter. I’ve never seen a remotely fat sprinter in my life.
I think he can loose that amount of bodyfat. I wasn’t being dissencouraging. I don’t believe I was suggesting an un-attainable goal whatso-ever.
Let’s face it, there has never been a study that showed the accurate bodyfat % of all the sprinters in history who ran under 6.7 secs for 60meters. And because of that, you and the other guy: “Fogey fogel-face” seem to think I’m making stuff up. Do you both believe he’ll reach his goal at his current level of bodyfat?
Will just have to dissagree then. Show me one world class sprinter that is a little chubby, and I might belive you.
There is a factor that niether of you seemed to have observed. Not everyone has the anatomical and physiological traits of the fastest sprinters. One sprinter might need 1% or 2% less bodyfat than his training partner, just to run the same speed as his training partner if everything else, was ‘almost’ equall.
lol do we need to post pictures of people at different bodyfat levels? Have you seen the man up close?
Not as inacurate a testing method as your eye sight, which suggests to you that Mo green was 7% bodyfat.
No, the methods you claim are likely more inaccurate.
I said clearly that I wasn’t suggesting that bodyfat% was the most important factor. I said it was one of many factors (in sprinting speed.)
‘Lol’ what? None of the sprinters ‘well over 8%’ are not running 6.5 seconds for 60 meters are they? No, they are not. And I don’t recall saying anything about Simeon in this thread.
You probably are a bit fat and chubby and you probably think you’re in great shape. Lol to you.
I guarantee you that I am leaner than you and leaner than some of the athletes mentioned in the thread, but that is neither here nor there. There are people over 8% who have run 6.5. In fact, one was tested at 11% and he ran 6.5x at a major meet. If you weren’t such an ass I’d probably clue you in.
‘School statements?’ ‘Stupid’. You are quite the critique aren’t you? For some reason, you wanted to make this personal. There are no ‘school statements’ in anything that I have said. Some of what I have said in this thread, was from reading scientific journals, that were conducted. When I mentioned (admittedly without referance - doesn’t mean I didn’t read them) the papers that showed correlations between bodyfat loss and sprint speed improvement for the soccer players tested. When I mentioned the school children who were tested and the ones with lower bodyfat tended to have the faster times, there was nothing stupid about it. Personally, I have never seen a ‘soft’ physique in a world class sprinter. I’ve never seen a remotely fat sprinter in my life.
How is it personal? Those are stupid statements. Correlation =/= causation and it didn’t say that bodyfat was directly correlated with sprint speed. Obviously an obese person will be slow. The difference between 10% and 7% is small a nd the difference between 7% and 5% is even smaller. I don’t see it making as much of an impact as MANY other things.
I am not talking about fat sprinters. If you are at 12%, you will see your abs and people will think you are 7-8%. If you are 8%, most people will probably think you are 5%. If you are 6%, people will think you are 3%. And etc.
Sorry for the poor lighting the washes out some of the vascularity and definition. Hopefully it doesn’t make me look too fat :rolleyes:
That is before I did some dieting. I was taking some time off and enjoying donuts nearly daily with my Dunkin’ Donuts coffee.
I think he could be fine. Again, one guy dropped a few hundredths after losing over 5% bodyfat. I don’t think it is that clean and clear.
Will just have to dissagree then. Show me one world class sprinter that is a little chubby, and I might belive you.
MLF, even when he was fast. Craig Pickering when he ran his first sub 6.6. Maurice was pretty much never as lean as some of the guys, though he was never chubby. He was about my leanness at his leannest, which goes to show you how much it matters.
There is a factor that niether of you seemed to have observed. Not everyone has the anatomical and physiological traits of the fastest sprinters. One sprinter might need 1% or 2% less bodyfat than his training partner, just to run the same speed as his training partner if everything else, was ‘almost’ equall.
Nope.