In “Inside the SPP” Charlie breaks down the short to long approach and details the series of special endurance 60m runs with incomplete recovery. It is apparent that team sport athletes should follow short to long rather than long to short because as Charlie has said, there is no reason for them to be running 600s and the like.
On the other hand, the High Intensity Training for Sport graphic shows that special endurance is not a quality needed for team sport athletes. Therefore, how should the short to long program be altered to account for this?
There seem to be some issues here. First, due to mandates by the governing bodies of the sport and/or collective bargaining agreements, there is simply not enough time to perform all runs with complete recovery without sacrificing volume substantially.
If sticking with 60 meter runs with recoveries approaching 10 minutes between reps, it is only feasible to perform perhaps 3 to 4 reps (factoring in the warm-up and assuming there is also a lift that day because again, time is limited). If the distance is reduced to 40m and rest between reps is dropped to 5 minutes, you’re probably looking at something like 2x4x40 at the most.
These volumes may be fine for sports like soccer which will have a lower ratio of high intensity to low intensity training. But for sports with a large speed component like football, would these low volumes be enough to stimulate adaptation or would you be better off with higher volumes and incomplete recovery (2-3 min) but thus entering the special endurance zone?
Also, what might be the very lower limit of “complete recovery”? Could you perhaps get away with 60m runs with 5 min between reps, so that sufficient volume is achieved without pushing too much lactate?
I have lectured and written on this extensively Swogger (regarding the application of CFTS to team sports). In my Applied Sprint training book you can see outlines for a variety of sports where I’ve integrated Charlie’s protocols into the preparation (including split 60m special endurance sprints).
What’s more, the concept of S-L, L-S, and aggregate approaches should ultimately be applied to the concept of sport practice itself in which all modes of preparation are accounted for in the scheme just as you see Charlie outline in the Inside the SPP in which the schematic accounts for all work done, not just sprinting.
In this way, the sport coaches must educate themselves to the point where all work, not just sport practice, is part of their acumen.
As for only the speed work, which you are asking about, the predominance of pure sprint work will come in the form of acceleration development. In this way, a S-L scheme would begin with the GPP using a hill or sled and not exceed 30-40m per rep and as the end of the GPP approaches you then transition the athlete to the flat yet need not exceed the 30-40m mark save for moderate volumes of work either in the max V range or flying sprints.
Remember, that it’s not a best of 10 contest regarding the volume required to advance speed- particularly regarding team sport athletes who are virtually uneducated in the realm of actual alactic speed work. The magnitude of stimulus necessary to advance the organism is largely proportional to the event requirements and task specific work history/trainedness of the athlete. In this way, the predominance of team sport athletes, due to their limited experience with high quality pure speed work, are fine with total speed work volumes that are much smaller than what a season track sprinter requires to advance their own speed.
I suggest that you always respect quality over quantity so do not be afraid of small volume workloads of pure speed work because the intensity is what is required to advance speed and if you limit the recoveries too much the athletes will be too fatigued to hit their max acceleration or velocity and at that point you cease to develop speed.
Lastly, don’t be too quick to make your living off of 60m work alone because very few team sport athletes are fast enough to accelerate out to that mark and, as a result, will hit their max V long before they reach 60m.
The exact ‘team sport’ in question is a critical factor.
NFL is completely different from soccer as is hockey, this will affect the need (if any for ‘special endurance’ and/or anaerobic power & capacity).
Alactic ‘power’, is shared by all sports however.
The main consideration that differentiates training in team sport and training for individual sports is the nature of the total training effect. In team sports you have less control than track for example. IMO the key is to add in your own time the quality, in the optimal (i.e. minimal) dosage using the optimal method for you.
As James said above, straight line 60m is not relevant in any team sport.
Thanks for the insight. James, you bring up a good point about sport practice. Clearly, the first priority should be to complement the practice schedule so that even the best-laid plan will likely need adjusted. But broadly speaking, due to the decreased need for pure speed volume compared to a track athlete, would that then allow for the inclusion of more plyos, explosive med ball throws, and olympic lifts for team sports? Just as Charlie supplemented the 60m split runs with increasing amounts of starts and accels, in a similar way for team sports the starts and accels could be the main ingredient and the plyos, med balls, olympic lifts be the “extra” that increases throughout the SPP to maintain a somewhat constant volume as speed intensity rises.
So perhaps the total training load throughout the SPP would be similar for the sprinter (made up almost entirely of speed work) and team athlete (much less speed volume but supplemented with more plyo, med ball, olympic lifts). In this way, a more appropriate training means is used as the primary component (accels and short distance speed as opposed to speed endurance) while the supplementary provides additional volume towards the left of the F/T curve.
Of course, as No23 points out, this is all context-specific but I’m just speaking in general terms.
I wasn’t aware your Applied Sprint Training book was directed toward team sports, I will certainly be purchasing a copy.
Regarding the training load components, we must go further and pursue all inclusive discourse related to sport performance. Think of this as an “on balance” discussion that is unicorn of sports related dialogue. This mandates, that we speak from the standpoint of global authority and therefore postulate that we are the despots of a sports organizations and the head coach is simply just one of our assistants.
In this way, we may classify all preparatory actions (psychological, analytical/intellectual, sensorimotor, technical, tactical, physical, physiotherapeutic) according to movement based or not. We then ensure that the programming and organization of all movement preparation is consistent with the logic, for example, laid out in the SPP such that the primary load component is the basis from which perspective is gained and all additional load components serve their supportive roles.
Thus I encourage you to think globally and recognize that the “more appropriate training means used as the primary component” will then become the designated specialized movement forms that both constitute and contribute to advanced sport form. sprint work is surely a large part of this; however, in no way constitutes the movement preparation required to advance the spectrum of sport skills.
If you’re not already aware, I have a lecture site (globalsportconcepts.net) in which I discuss such matters at length; having already posted over 60 distinct lectures and my next book addresses this directly.
Regarding the training load components, we must go further and pursue all inclusive discourse related to sport performance. Think of this as an “on balance” discussion that is unicorn of sports related dialogue. This mandates, that we speak from the standpoint of global authority and therefore postulate that we are the despots of a sports organizations and the head coach is simply just one of our assistants.
In this way, we may classify all preparatory actions (psychological, analytical/intellectual, sensorimotor, technical, tactical, physical, physiotherapeutic) according to movement based or not. We then ensure that the programming and organization of all movement preparation is consistent with the logic, for example, laid out in the SPP such that the primary load component is the basis from which perspective is gained and all additional load components serve their supportive roles.
Thus I encourage you to think globally and recognize that the “more appropriate training means used as the primary component” will then become the designated specialized movement forms that both constitute and contribute to advanced sport form. sprint work is surely a large part of this; however, in no way constitutes the movement preparation required to advance the spectrum of sport skills.
If you’re not already aware, I have a lecture site (globalsportconcepts.net) in which I discuss such matters at length; having already posted over 60 distinct lectures and my next book addresses this directly.
Good stuff. I want to get deeper into this concept so I’ll check out your site. Thinking in these global terms makes me realize how much more control and potential for improvement there is over a track or swimming athlete where the coach handles all load components at all times.
Monday Speed work ( J. M . Wide Receiver Kansas City May 2002)
Warm up
Stretching / Strides to warm up 4 x 100meters
Spikes
3 x 20 meters , 2 x 30 meters, 2 x 40 meters , 2 x 50 meters
2 m rest ( 4) 2.5 m rest (5) 3.5 m rest (7) 4.5 m rest
Wednesday Speed Work
Warm up same as Monday
Spikes
4 x 30 m, 2 x ( 3 x 60m)
2 m rest between runs for 30 meters / take 5 minutes rest before 60’s
3.5 m rest between 60m runs, 7 minutes
FAST FORWARD TO WEEK 6 same athlete ( J.M.) and the same program
Monday
Warm up same
Spikes
30m , 40m, 50m, 50m
4m, 6m, 8m rest
Wednesday
Warm up same
Spikes
30m, 40m, 50m, 60 m, 80m
4,6,8, 10 or 11m rest between sets
Friday
Warm up same
3x20m, 3. 30 meters, 3x 60 meters
3.5 m (5) 4.5 m ( 10 ) 8 min
Precisely! The global load management presented by Charlie in all of his products must be assimilated by all coaches regardless if it’s over 100 collegiate American football athletes on a team or a single sprinter; the premise is exactly the same.
One of the questions you have to answer is who is your specific athlete population? What sport do they play, how old are they, and how fast?
If they are developing athletes, are they at a rudimentary technical level, or greater?
A developing athlete wouldn’t need the rest times that an elite NFL wideout would.
I choose not to have my developing athletes go beyond an acceleration phase until their mechanics allow them to sprint upright with a decent understanding of what upright / max velocity mechanics should feel and look like. I am NOT saying that they don’t do upright running! They just do it in a controlled fashion at a lower speed after some very deliberate drills that set them up for technical success.
To teach upright mechanics from scratch, I do:
-a variety of resistance band drills from a static non-forward moving position in 3D so they know how to position their pelvis in space [e.g. side-lying, standing, prone quadruped, supine]
-drills with double support with limited forward movement (e.g. two foot hops),
-single leg A skip (no forward movement- step down through the ground and create positive hip displacement)
-single leg A skip (with forward movement- step down through the ground and create positive hip displacement)
-regular A skip (step down through the ground and create positive hip displacement)
-upright runs from a standing start over mini-hurdles which reinforce the “stepping over the support knee” idea
-[this could be seen as a variation of Vince Anderson’s “wicket drill”- the original Anderson wicket drill has a running start, which is a DISASTER of a drill for athletes with rudimentary technique- their technique goes to hell instantly]
They tend to only reach 80%-85% of maximum velocity at first, but it does teach what good sprint technique should feel, look and sound like.
It also allows me to include many more safe metres of upright sprints with minimal rest.
As they become more comfortable with quality technique, I take the drill out further and add flying zones, where they will be able to hit 90% or better of their top speed.
With elite athletes who already have solid mechanics, this is probably somewhat of a moot point.
With regard to volume, I am a big believer in getting your technical model in order first, then worrying about running super fast over 40 metres or longer.
Huge thanks to Ange for posting the awesome training log of an elite NFL player that CF trained! It’s always fascinating to see what Charlie did with a variety of athletes.
Working with team sports, I think it’s important to understand the athlete’s demands. Ange’s example of Charlie’s sessions for a wide receiver shows the benefit of creating speed reserve with fairly long rests. Linemen would likely have a different training demand consisting of shorter sprints, and likely a high amount of medicine ball throws and box jumps. Charlie’s chart (I can’t recall which product) of the training exercises for the length of sprinting demands is one of the best resources that I continue to review annually.
I recall several things discussed on here with Charlie when I first started working in team sports. When I was working with soccer players, Charlie and I discussed the need for speed reserve taking those players out to 30-40m. Another discussion point I recall is when I had athletes return for a second training year, how to progress them. I remember asking him how can I increase the volume, and his reply was something like, "why do you need to increase volume, couldn’t the increased improvements continue to work? "
What’s pertinent to understand is the reference point from which stimulus A, B, or C effects targeted ability A, B, or C. In this way, every team sport athlete, regardless of discipline, benefits from enhanced acceleration ability and fewer benefit from enhanced maximum velocity.
Interestingly, in the team sport realm, the vast majority of even the fastest male athletes will hit their max V long before an elite male 100m sprinter. for this reason, the speed reserve stimulus necessary to advance the elite hundred meter man is different than that required for the rugby back, American football receiver, and so on.
The field sport athlete who hit’s max V at 40m, doesn’t need much more than 40m to stimulate speed reserve. This is where the flying sprints are so useful by the way.
So the real question is what is the point/distance in which your athletes hit max V. This distance is the reference point from which sprint training that serves to advance max V must be based upon. While the American football guard or Rugby tight head prop might only need 30m to spike max velocity, the odd winger or receiver (such as Charlie’s work with the KC receiver) might very well benefit from work out to 60-80m.
I used split 60m special endurance reps (with advancing intensity limits) with my Rugby 7’s players in Portugal simply as a more favorable lactic alternative to the misdirected yo-yo work the coach was married to.
In Indianapolis combine training, historically, I always used max V, and beyond, distances for the athletes to improve their 40yd times.