Say you have an athlete who runs the 100 in low 12’s to high 11’s. Their time to 25m is 3.8s and their time to 50 is 6.4s. Elite level athletes cover 30m and 60m respectively in this same time. So should you have the developing athlete run 25’s and 50’s for practice instead of 30’s and 60’s? Should training be based on time and not distance to ensure that only fast-twitch muscles are being trained?
That’s certainly reasonable. For a young developing athlete who reaches maximum speed at 30m, a 60m sprint is more speed endurance training than max velocity. However, I think reducing the distance has less to do with fiber type and more to do with minimizing lactactic acid buildup during speed work.
Something that Pioneer discussed recently (and it could have been in a post on the older forum) was instead of using distance, use time as the interval setting when doing speed work. This would prevent the athlete from bridging into speed endurance as Flash mentioned.
How would review the review the distance travelled by time. How would you tell the athlete to stop at the specific time.
I agree with the point, but we still will look at the distance travelled. I think the question of doing 25 instead of 30 probably is the answer. How would you calculate this?
Probably need an answer from a better mind than mine.
It would really be subjective and rely on the coach being in tune with the athlete. I agree with your remark on distance travelled, but lets say that you start off with an interval of 4 seconds and the athlete travels 34 meters, then later in training, is hitting a distance of 38 meters, so distance would be the measurer of success. I dont think this is the best method for training, just an option, especially when working with a developing athlete. (when I get out of my brain funk, I will explain this better).