I agree with dlive11, don’t throw in the kitchen sink with every HI workout. You’ll get there in the long run with a careful distribution of the work. Keep your eye on the advancement of the individual HI componants. Are they moving forward as they should?
Originally posted by Charlie Francis
Yes, for the long bounds, as it becomes a “height vs breadth” issue of CNS stress (You can see a graphic illustration of this in the Forum E-book). Shorter bounds could be done on the tempo days as the overall height x breadth CNS exposure is much lower.
I used to do 4-6 x 50m Bounding after tempo work with some of the 200/400/400H/800 athletes.
In the fall we normally do “long bounding” on Saturdays. We’ll staqrt at something like 4 x 90m and build up to 14-18 x 90m. I’ve found it to be a very good blend of the work on the track and the work in the weight room. A good way to bleed into high intensity endurance work. So even during indoor when I don’t feel like they can handle something like 3-4x 150 )or 250 or whatever) at the speeds I want we may instead do
a) 1 x 150, 1 x 120m, 4 x 80m bound
b) 1 x 250m, 1 x 150m , 4 x 80m bound
c) 1 x 300m, 1 x 250m, 4 x 60m bound
just examples
Where should long bounds be placed to get the best results, phase one or phase 2 or 3. Being that they are long and have a endurance component to them you would think they should come later in the plan (using a short to long approach). However, they have more of a horizontal component to them, and that fits best with acceleration.
Thanks
Long bounds would more likely be used in phase 2 and/or 3 in a short to long program. As max speed and speed end is emphasized at this point, there would be a limit to the numbers. Higher numbers of shorter bounds could be used in phase 1.
So what would you think about throwing them on during acc. dev. or Int. Tempo workouts during GPP? Would you throw them on before or after the workout? Would you consider throwing them on hill days?
You could do shorter bounds during the GPP as part of acceleration development. I would think that bounds would only be used in intensive tempo as part of a short to long program. (an example of this type of work- several reps of (80m bound directly into 200m tempo directly into 50m running As.)
Charlie, can you give your working definition of short bounds and long bounds.
Thanks
Short bounds might be out to 40m or so, while long bound would probably be 80m and up.
Dlive:
What I was proposing was a.) for a 400/400m hurdle athlete, and b.) to be used in GPP. The patern that I was loking at would go something like this:
D-1: Weights (short intense session, preferably in the a.m.)
D-2: Intesive Tempo
D-3: Ext. Tempo
D-4: Speed (hurdle tech)+ Weights
D-5: Ext. Tempo
D-6: Long Bounds
D-7: Active Recovery
My reasoning was that in my experience, weights and any work which leads to high blood lactate levels is a bad mix on the same day. The value of the weights session is diminished and the chance of injury is increased.
Just brainstorming. I do agree that hurdle sessions should be doen when the athlete is relatively fresh, though I do think that Ext. Tempo or some other for of L.I. session helps many athletes coordination for technique sessions.
My expereince with long bounds parallel’s what Keeba has written. The methodology that I use in terms of jumps progressions appears to be in line with what Charlie has written , especially with in-experienced athletes.
How many weeks would the GPP run?
Charlie:
I learned early on that Int. Tempo should be used sparingly, due somewhat to my own experience as an athlete.
This had nothing to do with the issue of fibre coversion. I had a coach who was mad for Int. Tempo. We did it year-around. Not much variance, nothing shorter than 150m (or longer than 600m), and the only work above 90% of max. was in the final month or so of the season. Everyone got to a certain level very quickly, but could never improve. None of us would have had a clue what fibre coversion was (including the coaches).
Not only did all us of us lack the required sprinting “snap” (fibre conversion I guess), but evryone ran with low hip height. Some called this running in the bucket like you were about to sit in the tub, which is where we all should have been after these sessions.
I know of some coaches who use Int. Tempo to keep athletes from peaking to soon. I think that this says something about its nature.
Anyway, I keep Int.Tempo to a minimum, and would be looking to replace them with more hill sessions in the future.
To my mind the length of GPP should depend upon who you are with (beginner or expereinced) and whether or not the athlete is working towards a single or double peak.
For beginners working toward a single peak, I’d say 3 months (12 weeks), and for an experienced athlete peaking twice, I’d say 2 months.
Two points though. First I’m talking about long sprinters and hurdlers, for whom I find the value of an indoor season dubious. Second, I have used one month blocks which which evolve such that strict lines of demarcation between GPP and SPP are not always apparent. As you said, as long as the athlete is progressing, I think that things are working.
As you GPPs are very long, I would be concerned with the time spent with intensive tempo. I wouldn’t go over a month with this type of training before moving on to the special endurance.
Charlie:
Just taking the opportunity to brainstorm some ideas and examine my own methods.
The weekly plan outlined above would be for a male athlete who is at least 19 years of age, and has a training age not less than 3. It is essentially a long to short program. For females and younger male athletes I think that I would avoid Int. Tempo (maybe some for experienced females), and go short to long.
Hence the athlete working of the above microcycle would do a total of 3-4 Int. Tempo sessions. If he were on a single periodization there might be 6-7 sessions. I really don’t think this a huge number, especially when sufficient time is being spentto keep the CNS sprint activated.
The type of Int. Tempo sessions which I invision would be the “Minnesota” type 600m breakdowns. Are these Int. or Ext. Tempo? Finish time would indicate Ext. Tempo but intensity the level of blood lactate that expect will be generated would make them Latate Tolerance, and hence Int. Tempo.
At the beginning of SPP I would consider using Hills as a transition to SE. Again just a thought, as I’ve had good results when I’ve kept the hills in a little longer.
Point taken. I suppose the definition of intensive tempo is a little cloudy. I’d consider that as training in the intermediate zone. So, if an athlete can run 21sec for 200m, then training at 24 sec would be intensive tempo, training at slower than 27sec would be extensive. Thoughts?
Charlie:
If I lived in perfect world I would have one of those devices that allow the coach to measure blood lactic acid levels. I think that we would be surprised at how quickly some sprinters, especially 100-200m types generate lactate.
This is why I slide the Ext. Tempo to the slower side. Yes 27.0sec. would be about 78% of max effort, and would therefore qualify as Ext. Tempo by definition. However, since I run these session on grass (where available) or a cinder track (before they all vanish), in flats, I slow them down alot more than that, especially at the start. Personally I think that you start to get into the intermediate zone when you go over 75% with many athletes. Respiratory rate is often the only indicator that we as coaches have.
I’ve had athletes of widely varying abilities work to very high Ext. Tempo volumes and the payoffs at the end of the season were to my mind quite good. When combined with Speed and Short Speed End., it really did allow them to jump into Spec. End sessions at very high level. In retrospect I should have been going Short to Long, and skipped over the intermediate work, but I really hadn’t a clue at that point.
Has anyone every heard of a 4-1-4 scheme? Would that promote a greater base than a 3-1-3 scheme? Understand that higher schemes would be more suited to athletes capable of handling such work loads over that time but I assume you wouldn’t go no higher than that. Thoughts?
Hey guys!?! Any takers on my last post??
It might work as long as the athlete can handle it. I would not try something like that with someone who has a training age less than probably 3-5 years. That is a lot of work and CNS stress for a prolonged period of time and novices would not be able to handle it. Also, you are going to need to really plan carefully so that everything builds on itself gradually and there aren’t any huge jumps in volume/intensity or anything during that period that would promote even greater CNS fatigue.
In what phase would you want to stress the CNS to get it to adapt? GPP?