Special Endurance revisited

[kitkat1]

@kitkat1

Sprint coaches have been programming a 400m sprint 10 to 14 days out before a major tournament for their 100m sprinters for many years, at least back to the early 1950s.

Without the benefit of EMG analysis, the theory has always been that the extreme fatigue of the major working muscles induced through sprinting a 400m would force synergist muscles to come to the rescue, as it were.

I first heard this 400m time trial practise from Mike Agostini, a West Indian who lived in Canada before winning the 100 yards at the 1954 Commonwealth Games.

Then Tom Tellez had Carl Lewis and Leroy Burrell do this,. and presumably all his sprinters, before the 1991 Tokyo world championships (and presumably before Helsinki 83, LA 84 etc).

Extreme muscle fatigue is the critical factor. I wonder though whether the same synergist recruitment could be forced by something as simple as as prolongued isometric contraction - legs raised and held off the ground in an extended position for instance. Maybe no lactic acid, but still extreme fatigue? I don’t know the physiology, just asking. It’s not as “specific” as actually running, but it might get around the lactic issue?

WHAT’S OLD IS NEW . . .
KINGSTON, Jamaica, Jan 30 (2005) - Jamaican Olympian Bridgette Foster began her 2005 outdoor athletics season with a victory on Saturday but Athens teammate ASAFA POWELL was humbled and Olympian Sheree Simpson suffered an injury.
Foster won the women’s 400 metres in 53.84 seconds here at the fourth Queen’s Track and Field Meet at National Stadium, with Sabrina Smith second in 57.06.

Simpson, a member of the 4x100m gold medal relay at Athens, pulled up with 50 metres remaining in the race and was removed from the field on a stretcher.

Powell, fifth in the 100m at Athens, cruised to victory in the 400m heats but was not a factor in the 400m final, won by Kimani Williams in 47.41 seconds.
Kim Collins of St. Kitts was second in 47.75 and Chris Williams, 200m silver medallist at the 2001 World Championship, was third in 47.79.

[RandyG]

As I revisit some old discussions some questions come to mind. In a short to long program, why do we (maybe not all of us) begin with SE (splits runs or by other means) and then progress from there? Sorry I’ve been thinking again. :rolleyes:

[system]

What would you rather begin with? Speed?

[RandyG]

@tc0710

What would you rather begin with? Speed?

It’s not that, I use SE. I’m just re-examining it’s role at that point in the season where. In truth the H. Int. work of a short-long program progresses from

accel->SE (1 or 2 I suppose) ->Speed->SE1->SE2

So again I’m just clearing up or confirming it’s roll to the overall development sprinter…lastly, if you look at the volumes when SE is first introduced you can argue it most best resembles SE2?

Thoughts or comments… :o

[Nikoluski]

Perhaps we should keep in mind that the SE you are describing is an introduction only. And in that sense the progression is still Acceleration to Speed to SE, until the latter is fully transferred to the track, that is -which can be for the whole of phase one. Others?

[RandyG]

@Nikoluski

Perhaps we should keep in mind that the SE you are describing is an introduction only. And in that sense the progression is still Acceleration to Speed to SE, until the latter is fully transferred to the track, that is -which can be for the whole of phase one. Others?

True enough. Another thought is we go from alot to a little or in another words, a lot at a relatively low int and a little at a relatively high int.

Sorry if I’m taking this around and around… :o