I have read that before.
Changing the subject slightly, can anyone suggest some articles/authors that have given good ideas on Sprint Talent ID and Speed Predictors etc.
It is imposible to attribute the cause of injuries to training methodology. There are other variables that come into play that may have caused the injuries.
1 “is s2l passes l2s”
2 “Long term damage from l2s is permanently irreparable in developing athletes”
Certainly it can be a combination of many things but for example doing only grass work in the winter and then jumping into spikes and running an indoor season is an example of a mistake in methodology that will almost certainly lead to injury.
Most injuries are based on training choices though well structured plans of any type should result in a low number of injuries and significant improvement.
Indeed. Most of my injuries can be traced back to faulty workout design (usually too much load at too high of an intensity). Very few total surprises in hindsight.
If all work is performed at or near 100% effort, yet volume doesn’t increase, how does the intensity of a sprinters programme increase??
I could understand how progression may be bought about if volume increased, but if the intensity is already 95-100%, how does this bring about the progressions needed??
There are other ways to manipulate progression
other than altering volume and intensity.
You get better so the absolute intensity rises from year to year therefore the training load would rise each year regardless of whether volume rises (load = volume + intensity).
Anyway, volume would rise gradually from year to year up to a point- this is all described in great detail in the Vancouver video series and then again in writing in the Key Concepts Elite Edition - which for my money is one of the greatest pieces of writing on speed ever written.
This assumes that one follows a well thought out and structured training program year to year. If you follow a completely different program every year you don’t have bench marks to surpass because everything would be new, right?
It would be good to separate the notion of ‘effort’ vs. that of ‘intensity’, i.e., 95-100% effort (subjective by feeling) doesn’t necessarily equal 95-100% intensity (objective by timing).
Yes, i am assuming you are following a rational, low volume high intensity training plan with long term progression in mind.
Having read the CFTS, I understand that an out-and-out speed rep should be followed a complete recovery to prevent over-training of the CNS.
However, how long is a complete recovery?? Obviously, it is going to depend on the athlete, but how is this time determined?
If you are a beginner, you (should) have PBs all the time, hence 100% etc but at the top a PB equals WR so you live in the sub-max speed area most of the time. Regardless, if you follow sessions written by me yet ignore my provisos about shutting down when you have a PB and when tired etc, it is NOT my program any more.
Guys, thanks for the replies, starting to get my head around this now!!
Have been looking at the CNS stress in training programs, and am unsure on the specifics. Are we talking CNS fatigue due to suboptimal descending drive and changes in afferent inputs, or more towards the peripheral sites such as an impairment at the NMJ where the action potential fails to cross the motor neuron to the muscle fibre?? Or is it both??
Charlie and Topcat
Maybe I did not make my point clear. What I was trying to say is one can not say l2s or s2l cause more injuries than the other
It depends on how the coach uses the philosophy-if you push the intensity up to fast and not allow for rest…the athlete will be damaged regardless of the coaches philosophical approach.
There hasnt been shown to be exact evidence of what CNS fatigue is. We know It involves the altering of neural drive from the motor cortex to the muscle cell, which encompasses many factors. But the exact mechanism for central fatigue is still debatable
OK that of course makes perfect sense because that is the essence of coaching after all.
This is exactly the problem. I think we assume some coaches are doing cerebral and intelligent things in program design to the granule level. When you go to Jamaica you are not seeing elaborate periodization. Talent and culture.
I am not so sure it is a progression like that. On this Ja sprint dvd the guy talks about hills as how important they are and how critical to Ja success they are, almost like it is a Ja institution to do hills and sled work a lot. This guy does hills in GPP, SPP and Comp. He seems to drop the longer ones in Comp phase to short accel distances. Lots of volume on the shorter ones still though. Does drills on the hill too.
I have no idea if this is how Franno does his but I would assume it is similar considering how this guy emphasizes how critical to Ja success they are.
From someone who would know, Franno keeps his tempo volume pretty high even into comp phase so he doesn’t seem to be following a progression of ext tempo -> int tempo -> spec end like some coaches do with tempo.