well, we our original coach took a job with ajax capetown, so I don’t know for sure who the coach is going to be but I know at least one of the prospective coaches does the timed 2 mile. The reasons I’d like to do well are to
A) stand out from the beginning
B) avoid getting put in any potential “extra running sessions” for not making the cut off time
Lets say I am just short of my goal with 10 days before the test. How would you alter training in order to give myself the best chance of performing well on test day?
If you’re just short- taper a bit more to freshen up over the last five days.
Very conservatively. As many have already stated there’s a very fine line between overtraining and not.
A lot of soccer (contrary to popular belief) is short sprinting bursts and a bit of jogging down the field so I don’t think tempo runs longer than 400-600m (at the very most) would be necessary.
For your 2 mile run time, I think it’s more important you focus on running the 2 miles on a regular basis. Like all long distance running, accomidating your body is most important. Once you have a good base and work capacity than I think adding speed reserve would be a good idea so that at certain epriods during the run your able to run a bit faster and therefore decrease your time.
So to sum up, build work capacity imo.
Spending valuable training time preparing for inconsequential testing is not the best direction to go. Focus on the qualities that need to be enhanced (limiting factors for the athlete and the sport) and most importantly the qualities which cannot be developed within the sport (speed and power).
What is the value in developing endurance qualities when the speed you have is not at a level worth enduring. The 2 mile run pace and distance is of little value for soccer players. The test is usually used to see if athletes have been diligent in the offseason and eliminate lazy athletes.
Concerns about work capacity can easily and more efficiently be improved with tempo activities (medi ball circuits / tempo runs / body weight exercises). Running technique is better reinforced during 100 and 200’s and very difficult during a 2 mile run.
Very valid point, but he still has to finish the two miles in a relatively quick timeframe! If he doesn’t have the endurance for that then speed reserve will only go so far…
Do you think a weekly 2 mile run for the month prior to the test would be sufficient (in addition to the extensive tempos and what not)? Or would you recommend running it more frequently, or with different distances? This would be my only continuous running.
I agree. The two mile target should be met via tempo means, both as the most efficient way to get to the test level required and as the best supporting means to achieve actual game requirements. You can do the odd two mile run but I wouldn’t do it regularly.
Care to elaborate on this most interesting comment? Is it that the distance types with a greater proportion of slow fibers do better with the slower pace?
The pace(intensity) and the volume of the tempo work (extensive) will be more than adequate for the needs of the 2 mile. I have athletes who are tested in the 2 mile at college as well (baseball go-figure the need for a 2 mile test) we focus on speed / power / Tempo and never run the 2 mile and my guys always finish in the top percentile.
The further you move the force/time curve to the right (endurance) the more you move away from speed and power (left of the curve). Focus on the qualities that will make your athletes successful on the field of play and not the 2 mile run.
I am only speculating what CF is implying but I would say that in training the stimulus need only be a little ahead of the athlete, therefore athletes who are higher white fiber(or have worked hard to develop those qualitie) will have a very strong training response to the introduction of tempo work into their program. There would be little need to introduce the 2 mile run into their program as the adaptation would be much longer in comming. Also if the pace (intensity) and volume are high it would interfer with the development and maintanence of the more valuable qualities of speed and power.
The usuall test for ‘soccer endurance’ is 12-min run, and the average results (for referees, which are btw at the level of midfielder) are somewhere from 2,800 - 3,000m.
The mean VO2max in elite soccer players is around 55-67 ml/kg/min. This refferees who run around 3000m in 12minutes are around 55ml/kg/min. The vVO2max is around 16kmh-1 in those referees.
For a mathematical comparation, suppose you run 3.6 km (2miles) in 12minutes. The average speed is 18kmh-1 (also, vVO2max is around that value)
When you do tempo run, I suppose you run 100m @ 16sec, and the average speed is 22,5kmh-1, which is 25% faster than average speed for 3.6km in 12minutes. This is the inteval done at 125% of vVO2max. Studies has shown that these intervals (HIT) improve vVO2max, VO2max, 3000m time etc, etc (see studies at the end). Thus, theretically tempo should improve 2miles run (up until some point and depending on the level of the athlete)
Anyway, even if tempo improves vVO2max, VO2max, vLT etc, it is important to do 2mile run now and them, because your brain is accustomed to interval stuff (tempo) and not to continuous stuff. Your brain needs to find optimal pacing strategy for 2miles run, and as a result of this, 2mile time can improve without any effect on VO2max and other physiological crap. To allow your brain to find optimal pacing strategy, well, you gotta run 2miles…
What I would suggest is that you keep up with tempo and stuff, and 2 weeks before a 2miles test, you check your 2miles time. If it is ok, then keep doing tempo. If it is not, do 2miles runs instead of tempo on low days. Last 5 days, recovery will help you to improve 2miles time rather than more training. This is 5day taper as CF have suggested.
In the mean time, try contacting your new coach and try conviencing him that YoYo Intermitent Recovery Test is far more ‘sensitive’ and ‘specific’ for evaluation soccer preparednes than 12min runs and 2mile runs.
Hope this helps!
J Sci Med Sport. 2007 Feb;10(1):27-35. Epub 2006 Jul 28.
Manipulating high-intensity interval training: effects on VO2max, the lactate threshold and 3000 m running performance in moderately trained males.
Esfarjani F, Laursen PB.
School of Science and Physical Education, Esfahan University, Esfahan, Iran. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two high-intensity interval training (HIT) programmes on maximal oxygen uptake (.VO(2max)), the lactate threshold (LT) and 3000 m running performance in moderately trained male runners. .VO(2max), the running speed associated with .VO(2max) (V.VO(2max)), the time for which V.VO(2max) can be maintained (T(max)), the running speed at LT (v(LT)) and 3000 m running time (3000 mTT) were determined before and following three different training programmes performed for 10 weeks. Following the pre-test, 17 moderately trained male runners (V O(2max)=51.6+/-2.7ml kg(-1)min(-1)) were divided into training groups based on their 3000 mTT (Group 1, G(1), N=6, 8 x 60% of T(max) at V.VO(2max), 1:1 work:recovery ratio; Group 2, G(2), N=6, 12 x 30s at 130% V.VO(2max), 4.5 min recovery; control group, G(CON), N=5, 60 min at 75% V.VO(2max)). G(1) and G(2) performed two HIT sessions and two 60 min recovery run sessions (75% V.VO(2max)) each week. Control subjects performed four 60 min recovery run sessions (75% V.VO(2max)) each week. In G(1), significant improvements (p<0.05) following HIT were found in .VO(2max) (+9.1%), V.VO(2max) (+6.4%), T(max) (5%), v(LT) (+11.7%) and 3000 mTT (-7.3%). In G(2), significant improvements (p<0.05) following HIT were found in .VO(2max) (+6.2%), V.VO(2max)(+7.8%), T(max) (+32%) and 3000 mTT (-3.4%), but not in v(LT) (+4.7%; p=0.07). No significant changes in these variables were found in G(CON). [b]The present study has shown that 3000 m running performance, .VO(2max), V.VO(2max), T(max) and v(LT) can be significantly enhanced using different HIT programmes in moderately trained runners, but that changes in performance and physiological variables may be more profound using prolonged HIT at intensities of V.VO(2max) with interval durations of 60% T(max).[/b]
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2006 Dec;31(6):737-43.Links
Interval training at 95% and 100% of the velocity at VO2 max: effects on aerobic physiological indexes and running performance.
Denadai BS, Ortiz MJ, Greco CC, de Mello MT.Human Performance Laboratory, Av. 24 A, 1515, Bela Vista, UNESP, Rio Claro, CEP, 13506-900, Brazil. [email]bdenadai@rc.unesp.br[/email] The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of two different high-intensity interval training (HIT) programs on selected aerobic physiological indices and 1500 and 5000 m running performance in well-trained runners. The following tests were completed (n=17): (i) incremental treadmill test to determine maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max), running velocity associated with VO2 max (vVO2 max), and the velocity corresponding to 3.5 mmol/L of blood lactate concentration (vOBLA); (ii) submaximal constant-intensity test to determine running economy (RE); and (iii) 1500 and 5000 m time trials on a 400 m track. Runners were then randomized into 95% vVO2 max or 100% vVO2 max groups, and undertook a 4 week training program consisting of 2 HIT sessions (performed at 95% or 100% vVO2 max, respectively) and 4 submaximal run sessions per week. Runners were retested on all parameters at the completion of the training program. The VO2 max values were not different after training for both groups. There was a significant increase in post-training vVO2 max, RE, and 1500 m running performance in the 100% vVO2 max group. The vOBLA and 5000 m running performance were significantly higher after the training period for both groups. We conclude that vOBLA and 5000 m running performance can be significantly improved in well-trained runners using a 4 week training program consisting of 2 HIT sessions (performed at 95% or 100% vVO2 max) and 4 submaximal run sessions per week. However, the improvement in vVO2 max, RE, and 1500 m running performance seems to be dependent on the HIT program at 100% vVO2 max.
Excellent data Duxx, thanks
on the 5 day taper, should I be doing low volume tempo (1500m maybe) or nothing at all
Medium vol low intensity tempo- no need to drop off too much. Likey tempo vol during the period is 4000 to 4400m per session, and at the end, perhaps 3000 to 2200m.
What do you mean by the stimulus need only be a little ahead of the athlete?
This is really an element CF discussed at the seminar in Edmonton and the better man to define it, but I will make an attempt, if I fail hopefully Charlie will fill in the gaps.
When an athlete is developing a specific quality, lets say for instance speed, you are looking at all methods that will provide a stimulus to improve that quality.
You have many different methods available (weight lifting, plyo’s, explosive med balls) and many different intensities of these different methods.
You are using these methods to provide the stimulus you need to improve the quality you are developing (speed for our example). As long as your stimulis is just a head of your performance needs(correct intensity) the athlete continues to improve.
In other words there is no need to use dangerous or advanced methods and intensities that far excede the present out-put (speed capabilities) of the athlete. Give the athlete what he/she needs when they need it, and no more.
Hope CF can expand on this, I found it very interesting at the seminar.
Sure but how does that relate to the speed biased athlete getting more out of tempo work than continuous runs? Is the long run too far behind or ahead of the athlete’s present out-put? I don’t see this discrepancy fitting the model.
I would say it would depend on the pace required for the test, but I would speculate that the 2 mile run would be well ahead of the speed biased athletes endurance?
A more important issue would be the move on the force time curve further to the right, why would you want this athlete to reduce this valuable quality? Tempo runs are much closer to this ability and the game requirements.
Of course. I am making assumptions that the athlete is having difficulty completing the 2 mile run in a competative timeframe though (aka, a lack of general endurance). Building aerobic endurance is a fast way to build endurance for a 2 mile run, opposed to a speed approach where the effects will take longer to show in longer distances. Don’t get me wrong, I completely agree with what your saying though, I am just assuming that the athlete is having difficulty competing in the first place. More time to train = speed/tempo approach, less time to train = aerobic approach. The goal should be on athleticism for the sport as we both have said, but if they’re for whatever reason really looking to increase their 2 mile in a very short time frame then aerobic endurance is the way to go about it. Yes, it will have negative consequences on speed but this is if they’re goal is the fast 2 mile time.