In your opinions, what is the ideal volume of sprinting in meters that one should reach when training acceleration?
There is no ideal- only specific solutions for individuals. depends on:
1:Nature of program- short-to-long or long-to-short.
2:Number of training years- more can be gained initially by developing general fitness first, and, as the beginner reaches his (lower) top speed sooner in the race, he will spend more race time in the speed endurance area.
3:Time of year- the vol of accel work must be balanced against requiremed vols for speed and speed endurance.
4: Individual tolerance for high intensity work (less tolerance requires more work in the endurance portion of the equation)
The CFTS gives an overview and The Vancouver Tapes and the Forum Review cover these topics in detail.
Well what would be the difference if you were in a short to long vs. long to short?
Charlie ,
in a short to long program how would the overall volumes of Speed and SE interact and progress during SPP and to Taper ?
Thanks.
I read something on one of these threads where Charlie said that the better your acceleration the better top speed you reach. But then Loren seagrave used to say that improving your top speed would automatically get you to be faster at the acceleration phase. So you don’t keep accelerating for longer times useing your original acceleration rates. Instead you’ll have better rates of acceleration.
I just wanted to ask you Charlie. Does it go both ways. I mean does improving any of them affect the other?? Or have I miss understood something?
So, top speed will lead to better acceleration? How did you get to this top speed if you didn’t accelerate effectively and long enough to get there in the first place?
(maybe you were dragged there by a towing device?)
You have to develop through acceleration first (with general endurance and fitness at the other end of the development curve). But, once acceleration is in place, top speed WILL influence the acceleration curve as well as vice-versa.
As for time under acceleration, I think it is a bit tricky to answer but, I suspect, for the higher level sprinters, the development would yield a longer accel time initially, but development of accel would yield the previous velocities sooner, though new top speed capacities, achieved farther into the race, would end up leaving the acceleration duration pretty much constant.
sorry if this is a little convoluted.
In both programs, acceleration and speed end are developed from the beginning and acceleration distances are used to control the speed of execution.
With the long-to-short approach, the main emphasis is on longer runs, so accel vols start off a bit lower and tend to be concentrated on accel distances needed for the speed required, ie 20m accel is adequate for any level of 600m run required (20m accel + maintain).
With the short-to-long approach, the initial accel vols are higher and tend to run slightly longer than required for the speed end runs at any given time, ie accels out to 30m simultaneous to speed end runs of 60m, performed as 20m accel + 40 maintain.
Ok, well this may end up starting a whole new topic of conversation but, what are the objectives and advantages of short to long AND long to short programs?
Thank you so much Charlie. I DO appreciate every word you say 