I think we are confusing multilateral training, General Physical Preparedness, General Physical Preparation and Anatomical Adaptation.
Multilateral training is a concept that applies to junior athletes as the opposite of early specialization. It’s a set of varied sporting stimuli to develop a round physical preparedness as the base for later specialization.
General Physical Preparedness à la Simmons is just a set of general training means that complete a complex (as opposite to sequential) approach to strength training, representing the “general” part of it.
General Physical Preparation is a period of the year devoted to the development of the conditional motor capacities (aka biomotor abilities) in a sport specific way nevertheless.
Anatomical Adaptation is the early phase of the periodization of strength where the high reps, moderate loads supposedly give time to the tendons (especially) to adapt to strength training.
On a side note, I also prefer to use low reps with decreasing buffer during GP.
Nothing wrong with using 6-10reps for a short time period during gpp, gpp is only a small portion of the sprinters training year. Listening to Coach Vermeil speaks he dont believe in during much high reps but if the athlete is coming off a long layoff then he would spend a couple weeks reconditioning the body with higher reps. I wouldnt have any of my athletes during max testing the first 3 weeks of the offseason like some of your programs have.
Athletes go to the gym to get stronger so, if GPP ‘is not the time to get stronger’, why go at all? GPP usually follows a short recuperative lay off and the conclusion of the competitive season. Due to the length of time elapsed since the last strength phase, maximums will likely have decreased by 10 -15%. Surely the goal should be to quickly re-establish previous strength levels so that they can be improved further in the subsequent ‘strength phase’. If not you go in with a deficit. Doing high reps during GPP is MORE likely to cause soreness, and doing different exercises (or circuit training) is just totally non-sensical! It’s similar to Charlie’s point from Speed Trap of introducing speed work early in preparation (‘otherwise you set a huge foundation… with nothing on top’)
BTW. It’s not the rep number that’s the issue, only the large difference in set/rep plans between GPP and other strength phases.
David I believe you said the reason why cf, pj and other track coaches use similar methods during gpp is because they are track coaches and over 90% of the athletes on this forum are sprinters etc, so i guess theres not a problem with using 6-10reps during gpp if your a sprinter.
Could you please expand upon this concept? In what way does the lifting create a stimulus that the speed work does not? Why is the stimulus created by the speed work alone insufficient? If it is insufficient, what is the danger of simply doing more speed work? I understand how weights can create a stimulus when speed work is not being conducted (i.e. bench during taper/injury), but what is the benefit during normal training periods?
Using weights to “top off the stimulus” has also been mentioned. How does this concept relate to the above?
I believe this was as of Autumn 2007 and there may have been improvements since. I heard for example the Craig improved his pb this spring. Harry had only been doing the exercise seriously for 9 months. I saw him at St Mary’s and he actually has quite a deceptive build. Very big shoulders certainly, but that is exaggerated as he is so lean.
a simple example of an expanded stimulus would be the inclusion of the bench press which employs a high load to muscles that don’t get it directly from sprinting alone.
Another example would be the “full glass” concept where, if you can’t perform sprints at a high level, you can top off the stimulus with a big weights session, while. if you’ve had a great sprint session, you might only be able to handle a limited, or even no weights session to maximise the stimulus you can currently tolerate/benefit from.
If the sprinting was poor it is probably because the CNS is is drained so in this respect would doing a big weights session afterwards be a good idea or would it just deplete it further? Basically under what circumstances do you want to “top up the glass” after a poor sprints session?
Topcat, obviously Charlie will speak for himself; however, if my thinking is the same as Charlie’s then read on:
I don’t think Charlie was referring to a ‘poor’ speed workout per se; but rather, a speed session that was limited in any meaningful volume of intensive sprints for any other possible reasons (ergo weather turned bad, short on available time at the track, during a taper, etcetera). As a result, in this case, readiness to work is still high its just that, for one reason or another, the track work is done for that day.
Not necessarily. it might be part of a max/sub-max set-up. At the highest levels, the decision of when to do each is not left to chance alone. Where sub-max is selected, there is room to adjust the weights. Where sub-max is necessitated by CNS fatigue, you’re right.
Thanks for the response and the subsequent explanations.
Is it possible, or has anyone else found, that the volumes of weight work necessary for maintenance of strength and the volume necessary to create/maintain a stimulus are not always in concert?
James has mentioned repeatedly how extremely low volumes of work can maintain strength. However, is it possible that this level of work, while maintaining strength, does not always provide a sufficient (context dependent) stimulus, if it desired? If one is not using weights to create a stimulus, this is academic.
