Does that mean as you improve (performance wise) you have to be even more cognizant of heavy CNS stress and take extra precautions for recovery even though muscularly you might feel fine?
Do you feel that heavy weights (ie: heavy powercleans, squats, deads etc) have the same CNS impact as flat out sprinting?
chris, Re Weights
Unlikely, due to “breadth”.
Re Recovery. Yes, CNS and muscular recovery begin to diverge as performance rises.
Thanks Charlie! Lots of factors to think about!
Originally posted by Terminator2
dcw23 you mention the limit you can keep improving your top speed by doing max speed work as 12 weeks. My question is can’t someone theoritacally do max speed work longer then 12 weeks and still make gains? If someone does max speed for 12 weeks but their flexibility is lacking and their flexibility keeps on improving after the 12 weeks and their still doing max speed sessions won’t their max speed improve purley from the improved flexibility in combination with the improved flexibility.Can’t the same be said of strength in the weightroom.Couldn’t you theoratically periodize other elements but not the max speed work and still make signifigant gains beyond 12 weeks?
Keep in mind, I am not talking about speed work perse, I am talking about maximum speed work.
Speed work and max speed work are different. Just like strength work and max strength work are different.
By max speed I am talking about maximum velocity work i.e. 100% effort top speed runs.
To answer your question, I don’t think you could really do max strength work at the same time as max speed work, therefore, if you were lacking in strength and this is what was limiting your top speed, maybe you should back off and do a max strength phase, e.g. 3 weeks on, 1 week off, 3 weeks on, keeping speed work to about 90-95%, and then after the max strength phase, you could increase the intensity of your speed work so you begin to move into max speed development, capitilising on your strength gains.
You have to ask yourself, how many “maximums” can you do at once?
good point,
but i feel that when you are doing 40-60 meter sprints at 95% its really 100% but realxed. Im sure this has been brought up before but how you know the difference between 95% and 100% at practice in such a short distance? i can understand if you were doing 100’s or 200’s you divide and figure out 95% of your personal best but i dont feel this works for the shorter distances.
Originally posted by QUIKAZHELL
good point,
but i feel that when you are doing 40-60 meter sprints at 95% its really 100% but realxed.
If you run a 60 in 7 flat, 95% is 7.4. That’s a pretty big difference!
What you don’t want to be doing is getting to the stage where is takes 100% of your effort to do the 7.4 because you are so fried.
Runs up to 30m aren’t differentiated 95 to 100% for CNS reasons very often as the “breadth” isn’t great and the “height” is limited by the velocity you can reach by that distance.
BTW, why is 5 x 120 at 95% not “Charlie like”? Hey! I’m for moderation - but not for lounging around! Everything I’m suggesting is to get MORE quality into your programs over the long haul by manipulating all the variables at your disposal. Comments?
Any coach can read around, ‘borrow’ scedules and prescribe blanket programmes but I suppose the real genius is in the manipulating of these factors to extract the maximum from each individual.
Fascinating the way variables can be manipulated to ensure optimisation of performance.
5 submaximal runs at 95% to 120m unCharlie like? A rash statement indeed - as you say another example of how a variable can be adjusted to deliver an end objective.
"Hey! I’m for moderation - but not for lounging around! " I love it!
So would 5 x 120m @ 95% be the CNS equivalent of 2 x 100m 1 x 150m @ 100% ?
Not at all, as the intensity is lower. This is the point of having variability of intensity within the HI range. This would allow you to get in the muscular work between the most CNS taxing workouts.
Charlie, within this set up
M - Speed
T - Tempo
W special end - 2 x 300m
t - tempo
f - speed
s - special 2 x 600m
how could we vary the special endurance to prevent staleness, bordom or regulate the intensity. You spoke of using split runs to break barriers…over a 4 week cycle how can we mix things up effectively.
Charlie, within this set up
M - Speed
T - Tempo
W special end - 2 x 300m
t - tempo
f - speed
s - special 2 x 600m
how could we vary the special endurance to prevent staleness, bordom or regulate the intensity. You spoke of using split runs to break barriers…over a 4 week cycle how can we mix things up effectively.
’ Not at all, as the intensity is lower. This is the point of having variability of intensity within the HI range. This would allow you to get in the muscular work between the most CNS taxing workouts. ’
By this token would I benefit more from 2 x 100% speed days and 1 x 95% speed days per week .
Currently I aim for 100% every speed workout and adjust volume - I suppose really there’s no general rule and each session should be approached and gauged individually .
In another thread context DCW has recently written:
The key word is think. Look at the total context and don’t be so simplistic.
Would Anyone please care to read through the following article recently published on Elitefitness.com :
http://www.elitefitnesssystems.com/documents/slavery_isnt_dead.htm
and possibly share some thoughts…
Many here will probably have already read some of the Author’s past articles on the site,and maybe followed some of the discussion with never enough missed Dr.Siff on His site,and Many-like myself- will be somehow perplexed yet by often used esotheric language and figures.
I still think this article is well worth reading,particularly in the light of the recent “height and breadth” of training stimuli discussion … or maybe just to give new life to this complex,yet so crucial topic.
Thanks.
Giving an example of sprinting to a 6% loss of performance as often as possible…what might one expect the result to be? Thoughts?
aj The special end variability depends on emphasis and cycling/intensification choice that has been mentionned elsewhere. Which area of SE is being emphasized and over which intensification schedule- 2 + 1, or 3 + 1 weeks? If you give a few specific examples- age, performance level, training PBs over all SE distances, training background, etc, we might be able to make a few suggestions.
Pakewi,
Dynamic Bench 4 days in a row? I am confused about the article. DB seems to talk about workcapacity and speed/power improvements and how to improve both at the same time? I am not very smart so someone will have to translate the article.
Originally posted by Charlie Francis
Privateer:
Stimulation comes in different forms. Short speed= higher CNS stim/lower overall muscle stim. Longer SE=higher muscle stim and lower CNS stim. As recovery at the highest levels of performance can vary hugely, this gives great flexibility in assigning what, at first glance, might seem similar work.
Examples:
Problem: All high intensity sprinting requires 48 hrs recovery BUT very high CNS stim from session 1 with a probable complete CNS recovery time of 6 days.
Solution: Session 1: “Flying 20s”
Session 2: Tempo
Session 3: Long SE= 2 x 200m
(this is the opposite of session 1 with high muscular demands and moderately low CNS demands)
Session 4 OFF
Session 5 5 x 120s at 95%. (this sub max loading provides the capacity to handle a relatively high vol of speed work while still allowing the CNS to bounce back from session 1)
Session 6 Tempo
Session 7 80, 100, 120, 150 max effort.
(The CNS and muscular systems are now fully capable of handling this demand)
This is purely an example chosen at random and individual loads and recoveries will vary widely. This just shows the flexibility you have to adjust.
Comments?
This is really cool stuff, but what if you’re just at the point of year when you’re not doing any speed endurance. Could you still do the 5*120 at 95% to build work capacity and sprinting muscles? I guess overall though there can be less variation during non speed-endurance phases and just giving more rest might be the solution sometimes.
?
I think I have a long way to go in understanding periodization.
I want to bump this again while heavy hitters are on.
I am still on the second paragraph on DB Hammers article…I guess I bunt to get on base!