The more advanced an athlete is in their training career, the less they’re able to cause fatigue.
5 x 100 meter sprints at 100% in a week, for a world class sprinter will have the same effect regardless of whether those sprints are all taken on the same day or spread throughout the week 1 per day.
thoughts?
I would argue the contrary.
For example: the more advanced a lifter is, the more MU’s they are able to recruit during intense training, thereby taxing the CNS to a greater degree than a novice lifter who has not yet developed the inter/intramuscular coordination neccessary to exhaust the higher threshold MU’s.
What a more advanced athlete is likely to do is recover faster than a novice athlete. However, the ability to recover is not to be confused with lacking the ability to fatigue.
James
Agree with James
Agreed. 90-100% intensity for a novice athlete is much different than 90-100% for an advanced athlete.
Thanks guys.
Why does a world class sprinter use or require a 10 day taper before a competition? If I’m a 14 second 100 meter guy do I need the same taper? Why or why not?
Adrian Faccioni’s review: “Speed Development Methods: New Concepts from the USA” states that speed/power athletes only need 7-10 days to “peak” for top performance. I’ve read it can take as many as 14 days for some athletes to be ready to peak for competition. I don’t think a 14 second sprinter can approach the same intensity of a 9-10 second 100-meter sprinter, but their volume and total workload are comparable if not higher, so I believe a similar cessation phase would be necessary.
One reason is that if he or she pulls a hamstring, then 10 days gives you some time to recover. Don’t want to chance an injury close to a major competition.
The less qualified the athlete and the less important the competition, the shorter the taper.
If that’s true, why not just pile up all your weight-training on one day as well and save on travel to the training site!
Surely everyone can see through this through their own general experience.
What do you mean by “peak”. To taper, perhaps, but peaking requires a planned adjustment of training elements over many weeks for the top athletes.
Another reason not to taper less than 10days is that this is the minimum injury recovery time. A problem any closer in and you’re done! For beginners/ younger athletes and lower level performers, these rules don’t realy apply, as performance changes will be more variable and, thus, be harder to regulate.
My comments removed from that post, and it’s faccioni’s review of john smith and dan pfaff. My statement on peaking was directed towards strength athletes (powerlifting) and I believe I heard dr. squat say that in a talk somewhere. It is important that I not post “peak” and “taper” as the same thing. Thanks for the correction, Charlie.
So, may i say that Injuries are more common on elite sprinters than begginers ?
Any statistics about frequency of injuries in men and women ? Apparently women suffer less from injuries. Am i right ?
Injuries are prob not more common for elites, in fact, likely the opposite bescause of the good preparation that got them there in the first place.
Injuries are likely similar between men and women, though I’ve never studied it beyond my personal experience.
Ooops… What I meant to say was “peak” instead of taper.
And the comment about 5 maximal 100 m sprints for a world class athlete what I’m curious about is fatigue.
Say one were to take one sprint per day over 5 days:
Day 1- one sprint
Day 2- one sprint
Day 3- one sprint
Day 4- one sprint
Day 5- one sprint
Total- 5 sprints
VS
An every other day approach
Day 1- 2 sprints
Day 2-
Day 3- 2 sprints
Day 4-
Day 5- 1 sprint
Total- 5 sprints
VS
Day 1- 3 sprints
Day 2- off
Day 3- tempo
Day 4- 2 sprints
Day 5- off
Total- 5 sprints
On paper the volume is the same but IMO the degree of neural fatigue induced would be different and I don’t think scenario #1 would really be as effective as it looks on paper. I equate turning on the nervous system maximally in an advanced athlete similar to turning on the lights in a major league ballpark…Whether you leave the lights on for 30 seconds or 2 hours most of the energy is spent getting the lights on - and regardless the city’s gonna send you a big ass bill that might take a while to pay back (fully recover). Turning the light on in my room here could be likened to turning on the nervous system in a less advanced athlete - not as energy intensive.
This is an interesting topic to me also. I think the alternative view would be that the energy used to warm up (or intensity of warm up) is insignificant compared to the energy levels used in the actual working sets. It depends on how you warm up I think, as well.
This can be directly compared to study of the variety of weightlifting programs, which vary from around 3000 reps a year, to around 50,000 reps - the highest ones train frequently (see Drechsler). Maybe the total volume and average intensity (or the combination more specifically) is more important than the frequency.
I’m just throwing some ideas out because I’m not decided on this one.
First is definitely worst way ( other than to slim ).
And for me, the 3rd program sounds better than 2nd.
What about the 2nd one. Don’t you think that the 3rd is wasting some time of "recovered CNS " if you know what I mean. I know that the 3rd is more balanced but for improving speed the 2nd would better I guess or any other comments
Do you have a link to this review, I searched the site and couldn’t find it but I’d be interested in reading it.
Thanks,
Lyle
Just throwing some random thoughts, it seems to me that a primary issue would be one of:
a. performing sufficient volume to induce a training effect
b. recovery from same
I wouldn’t think that a single repeat sprint would meet the requierments of A for an elite athlete (it might in a beginner), anymore than the standard 20-30’ exercise bout would stimulate much in the way of endurance adaptations in an elite endurance athlete (tho it might in a beginner). A larger volume (up to a point of diminishing returns, of course) is probably necessary. Of course, that induces greater fatigue and longer recovery times. Think about the difference in terms of what volumes stimulate strength gains in beginners (1 or 2 setes may be more than sufficient) versus more well trained athletes (where more volume, up to a point of diminishing returns may be necessary).
I guess the question is what the minimum or optimum volume of training is to give the best return of a and b. I guess that’s as much of the art of training as anything, finding what volume/intensity of loading induces adaptations.
of course, that interacts with frequency, and I think that’s a big issue when you talk about high technique activities (sprinting, sports, weightlifting). putting all training onto a single day might maximize A (but also increase B) but the limited frequency means less technique training.
It seems to me that most systems are trying to optimize those (and other) variables: enough of a load/session to induce an adaptation but enough sessinos/week to induce longer term changes (either muscular or neural) and give sufficient technique practice.
Lyle
My bets goes to 2nd because of the capilarization thing obtained by Tempo Sessions