I was wondering if there was any literature in peer-reviewed journals that supports what Charlie Francis taught insofar as short-to-long, proper rest periods, extensive tempo training, etc.? I’m a Masters student in Kinesiology and Sport Science and I’m working with a couple of teams, both men’s and women’s and I need to defend my annual plan to the program director and the coaches. Unfortunately I can’t just say, “Well, that’s how Charlie Francis said to do it” when asked why I developed my speed-development program as I did. I have read Charlie Francis’ “Key Concepts” and one of the forum reviews and unfortunately I did not see any references. If someone could help me out I would appreciate it.
You’re in a tough spot. Peer reviewed journals are an interesting read but I wouldn’t be able to extract a training program from them. And even if they do provide support for some training element, it will be years and years after it has been shown to work in practice, which some at the time will dismiss as anecdotal.
The problem is that training is highly individual. We can’t clone Usain and send 10 copies to Clyde Hart, 10 copies to John Smith and 10 copies to Bob Kersee to determine scientifically what is the best way.
And BTW which of Charlie’s peers works for a journal? If you’re looking for reviews from peers one should look on the track.
What is the part of your defence you have problems with, i can then point you to some research for specific questions.
I’m not really looking to extract a program from the research. I know what I want to do as far as speed development goes, I just need to defend that when I am told, for example, “historically we have done a long-to-short program with distances between 100m-400m for female golfers.” Obviously this is not speed development as the distances are too long to truly hit 95-100% intensity, especially for female golfers; also, it ceases to be truly alactic (and even anaerobic if the recovery times are low) and this is essentially worthless if RFD is what I’m after (which I am). So basically, I’m trying to find literature that supports the hypothesis that a short-to-long speed development program, properly implemented in the annual plan, can elicit a transfer of training effect for RFD (rate of force development) in untrained collegiate athletes. Of course, I’m not expecting anything that specific but I’m having a hell of a time finding anything that I can even stretch/spin to lend support that that argument.
Basically, I need to defend two things:
-
That a short-to-long speed development program, properly implemented in the annual plan, can elicit a transfer of training effect for RFD in untrained and trained collegiate athletes (or any population for that matter), and
-
That extensive core-tempo work increases the rate of recovery for untrained and trained athletes (I am aware of the hypothetical physiological effects of core-tempo work but I would like the literature to support it).
If you know of any peer-reviewed (or anything that references a specific study, etc.) articles/journals where I can find support for those arguments I would really appreciate it.
NumberTwo, if he isn’t too busy, should be able to help you out here.
The fact that they are questioning #1 of your list above is a bad sign. Maybe just track something down about different energy systems and show them that?
Assuming something similar to that has been done in the past in that program, what is their justification for using such a l to s progression?
While it does nothing, specifically to defend your position, where is the peer-reviewed support for that type of program?
ehart
Yes, you are in a bit of a fix. The lack of sports science research in English - which is one of James’ big beefs - definitely hurts. As was pointed out, it will be years before actual studies are done on this topic…NSCA journals are still debating the efficacy of bands/chains, which have been in use for over a decade.
Perhaps you can use some other published literature to support your cause. Mladen (Duxx) on this website has a great .pdf on using Charlie for soccer. I believe James Smith has stuff as well. Another great resource would be to print any of Al Vermeil’s papers. He is continually speaking well of Charlie’s training methods…and coaches LOVE to hear that this guys won x-number of world championships!
Compile enough literature, even if it’s not peer reviewed, and throw the massive pile at your administrators. I’m willing to believe that they won’t even read it if you sound confident enough, and make solid oral arguments!
Lastly, your topic IS your PhD dissertation! Finish your masters, and get your PhD by supplying the western world with actual research on CFTS!!!
Good luck!
I dont see the issue with your two points. Those points are not necassairly specific to CF. Im pretty sure its well known that aerobic work can enhance recovery in the literatre and that sprinting can enhance RFD. Those seem like very general topics, its not until you get deeper into CFs work that you cannot find literature to support it.
Now that I looked at that abstract, I can’t stop laughing:D
Your points reminds me of some comments made by one of my former professors at Appalachian State, Dr. Harold O’Bryant who, along with Dr. Mike Stone (also at ASU for years), co-wrote the book “Weight Training: A Scientific Approach”. He was critical of the current system of educating PE teachers. His point was that since most PE teachers get into the field, at least in part, to coach, why was there not a proper, practical coaching education curriculum established for these people? He pointed out the dangers of having unqualified coaches working with athletes.
He fully supported that for sure the PE teacher needed to know how to properly teach their courses and write lesson plans but that some time should be devoted within the education to teach these same people how to coach. While there may be some of this occurring nationally, I’d say it’s far from widespread. Most of their classes dealt with pedagogy and lesson plans yet very little to do with coaching/training.