Read the Article here, and discuss it below.
ELITETRACK Founder
A Review of Training Theories on Periodization for Sprinters
-
-
Keymaster -
Participant
Why do so many coaches do the western model? I have talked to so many schools in D2 and good D1 schools currenlty with national ranking and they always give me the western periodization, (they don’t know that it’s called western usually), and it just seems like there is no hope. They’re argument is to get endurance to handle more quality speed work later so your not as tired and can run all the reps the same if not faster speed! What a joke… in my opinion. If you take the proper amount of rest in between doing speed work (like 3-4 minutes) their arguement is pretty much garbage. And if you run indoors, having not run fast much before… injury is increased (it appears that way for me anyway)! I’ve been on an eastern model now for 5 months, and I am running faster than ever before (having been at a JC on the western model)and this is the first year I am injury free since my senior of high school! Speed progress was MUCH slower on the western model and I think it was very counterproductive to my jumping ability(while at JC my vert jump went from 34 to 30 in two years, despite being able to power clean more weight) and for those who run the 100 meters…. with that said, why is it so many coaches do the western model and expect big improvement?
-
Participant
I should say I’ve only talked to two good D1 schools with national ranking… for those who are technical.
-
Participant
On the Western style:
The obvious reason for coaches: “This is how I was trained”.
The less obvious reason: I think the linear structure of the Western model appeals to certain kinds of minds, or conversely, the concurrent model is difficult for some minds to grasp – too many parts, too many elements to hold in proper proportion and tension.
That said, Cylde Hart and John Smith both follow, broadly, the Western model, and Smith has pretty well with short sprinters.
I was in a recent seminar with Smith and he said there are two ways to build speed: strength (and by that I think he meant running and not weightroom strength) and neural stimulation. He prefers to go in that order.
Charlie Francis says that max speed can only be effectively trained for eight consecutive weeks, and I’ve heard others suggest four weeks as the maximum. How would that fit into Mike’s portrayal of the Eastern model of year-round max-speed work?
-
Keymaster
On the Western style:
The obvious reason for coaches: “This is how I was trained”.
The less obvious reason: I think the linear structure of the Western model appeals to certain kinds of minds, or conversely, the concurrent model is difficult for some minds to grasp – too many parts, too many elements to hold in proper proportion and tension.
That said, Cylde Hart and John Smith both follow, broadly, the Western model, and Smith has pretty well with short sprinters.
I was in a recent seminar with Smith and he said there are two ways to build speed: strength (and by that I think he meant running and not weightroom strength) and neural stimulation. He prefers to go in that order.
Charlie Francis says that max speed can only be effectively trained for eight consecutive weeks, and I’ve heard others suggest four weeks as the maximum. How would that fit into Mike’s portrayal of the Eastern model of year-round max-speed work?
Wow…the very first article discussion! I was hoping this new feature would get rolling.
A couple thoughts:
-I wrote the article about 7 years ago….I’ve since come to learn that there are many hybrid models out there and what I presented was more of a polar opposites interpretation.
-I think the effective depth / length of exposure to speed training will vary greatly depending on the intensities, modes, and volumes used. Many (including myself) use some form of speed training all year round (other than during transition phase).
-Using the word strength in the way that Smith uses it is one of my pet peeves. I can’t stand it when speed endurance is called strength. Having said that, I have the utmost respect for John. I heard him speak and watched him coach recently in Vegas and was impressed with his presentation and coaching skills.ELITETRACK Founder
-
Member
I would like to write further on my even more opposed view of Western models. Today in practice we did 4x60m of overspeed with a bungee and I pulled my hammy. Prior to today we had done neither accels nor top speed. How do we jump right into 60m overspeed? Thats part of the problem with any model for that matter, but especially western models. When you split up elements of your training plan (i.e. endurance, speed endurance, speed, top speed, etc.) and do not have all of those in there simultaneously, you have to be even more careful with how you progress from one to the other. And going from 0m top speed to 60m top is definitely not the way to go.
I feel like quitting. Would I be better of quitting and just starting my GPP over now or at least training myself for outdoor?
-
Participant
…-Using the word strength in the way that Smith uses it is one of my pet peeves. I can’t stand it when speed endurance is called strength…
I couldn’t agree with you more. Stamina would certainly be the more appropriate term to use for event endurance.
-
Participant
I would like to write further on my even more opposed view of Western models. Today in practice we did 4x60m of overspeed with a bungee and I pulled my hammy. Prior to today we had done neither accels nor top speed. How do we jump right into 60m overspeed? Thats part of the problem with any model for that matter, but especially western models. When you split up elements of your training plan (i.e. endurance, speed endurance, speed, top speed, etc.) and do not have all of those in there simultaneously, you have to be even more careful with how you progress from one to the other. And going from 0m top speed to 60m top is definitely not the way to go.
I feel like quitting. Would I be better of quitting and just starting my GPP over now or at least training myself for outdoor?
Sorry to hear of the injury. Bungees are bad news as far as I’m concern.
I’ve always had reasonable success with approachs similar to Francis as opposed to the older but more favored systems from Jordan,Winter et al. Including relatively short speed as part of an early GPP and/or SPP training block tends to keep acceleration stimuli active throughout the training phases without completely depleting the CNS pool.
-
Participant
On the Western style:
The obvious reason for coaches: “This is how I was trained”.
The less obvious reason: I think the linear structure of the Western model appeals to certain kinds of minds, or conversely, the concurrent model is difficult for some minds to grasp – too many parts, too many elements to hold in proper proportion and tension.
That said, Cylde Hart and John Smith both follow, broadly, the Western model, and Smith has pretty well with short sprinters.
I was in a recent seminar with Smith and he said there are two ways to build speed: strength (and by that I think he meant running and not weightroom strength) and neural stimulation. He prefers to go in that order.
Charlie Francis says that max speed can only be effectively trained for eight consecutive weeks, and I’ve heard others suggest four weeks as the maximum. How would that fit into Mike’s portrayal of the Eastern model of year-round max-speed work?
what to hear what mike think bout this:
Charlie Francis says that max speed can only be effectively trained for eight consecutive weeks, and I’ve heard others suggest four weeks as the maximum. How would that fit into Mike’s portrayal of the Eastern model of year-round max-speed work
-
Keymaster
what to hear what mike think bout this:
[b]Charlie Francis says that max speed can only be effectively trained for eight consecutive weeks, and I’ve heard others suggest four weeks as the maximum. How would that fit into Mike’s portrayal of the Eastern model of year-round max-speed work[/b]
I should have been more clear but I was attempting to answer this when I said:
I think the effective depth / length of exposure to speed training will vary greatly depending on the intensities, modes, and volumes used. Many (including myself) use some form of speed training all year round (other than during transition phase).
If that wasn’t what you’re looking for or I’m unclear let me know.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
[quote author="utfootball4" date="1202968975"]
what to hear what mike think bout this:[b]Charlie Francis says that max speed can only be effectively trained for eight consecutive weeks, and I’ve heard others suggest four weeks as the maximum. How would that fit into Mike’s portrayal of the Eastern model of year-round max-speed work[/b]
I should have been more clear but I was attempting to answer this when I said:
I think the effective depth / length of exposure to speed training will vary greatly depending on the intensities, modes, and volumes used. Many (including myself) use some form of speed training all year round (other than during transition phase).
If that wasn’t what you’re looking for or I’m unclear let me know.[/quote]
I understand what your saying, but i think S.Bones have questions about how long max speed can be effectively trained, according to him CF says 8 weeks while others say 4. I was curious what you thought about max speed only been effectively trained for 4-8 weeks before progress stall.
-
Keymaster
Oh I see….yeah we pretty much never have a max speed emphasis of longer than 8 weeks. In fact I like to keep it right at 8 weeks if possible. I find 4 to be too short. We might do it after those 8 weeks (as part of short speed endurance or as a refresher) but it isn’t the focus.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
Although it doesn’t focus specifically on this topic, Supertraining by Mel Siff would provide loads of info on the subject.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
omg its $55…anyone wanna sell me theirs on here lol
Once you get it you’ll consider it a steal….an invaluable book for ONLY $55.00. Really, it’s worth it.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Oh I see….yeah we pretty much never have a max speed emphasis of longer than 8 weeks. In fact I like to keep it right at 8 weeks if possible. I find 4 to be too short. We might do it after those 8 weeks (as part of short speed endurance or as a refresher) but it isn’t the focus.
sorry if these have been answered before:
1) How about acceleration? How long can be effectively trained?
2) What is the relation between acceleration and top speed? I mean from kinematics viewpoint there isn’t any relation but there should be one for a sprinter in real world. Is it possible for the same individual to have two completely different top speeds but the same acceleration (completely different = 0.90 sec and 1 sec for 10m)??? How about the opposite…is it possible (for the same individual) to have the same top speed but different (again more than 10% difference) acceleration?
-
Participant
Your post isn’t really clear, peki. The same individual? Of course you can delay acceleration and hit top speed later or not run as hard or accelerate as far and hit a lower top speed.
Acceleration is trained all the time in many (I’d almost say most systems since most of the tempo based programs even do some short hills or sled pulls or starts of some kind from day 1)–you can’t possibly do high intensity sprint work without some sort of acceleration involved.
-
Participant
you are right, it wasn’t clear enough…
I’m not talking about submaximal efforts but about the development of acceleration and top speed under different training methods for the same individual.
1) Let’s say somebody trains succesfully for a long period of time only shorter distances (up to 10-20m before hiting top speed) and his acceleration is increased. Is it safe to assume that his top speed is increased too? If no then this would mean he would suddenly stop accelerating after a certain point (propably on these 10-20m he doesn’t train?)
2) Opposite scenario. Somebody trains with top speed emphasis and submaximal accelerations and his top speed is increased. Is his acceleration increased too?
Ok I give these two extreme cases just to ask if it’s possible for the same individual to develop acceleration and top speed independtely or significant changes to one of them affects the other…
sorry for my English, I can’t do better
-
Participant
It is impossible to completely separate things like that. Just the effects on strength levels, body composition, muscle tonus, nervous system readiness, etc. would be enough to change both factors even if you were only working on one specifically. I personally think that extreme changes in one will most definitely result in a change in the other, likely due to the factors I just mentioned though.
Acceleration training alone would probably not significantly change your top speed, though it would change how fast you get there. At lower levels though, if you can increase the distance you accelerate, you will reach a higher top speed. Perhaps some of the coaches here can say what they have seen with large samples of athletes, but I’ve found pure acceleration work to only marginally improve top speed on it’s own.
If you improve top speed, you will inherently improve acceleration in some way. Think about it–if you have a faster top speed, you will either reach this top speed at the same time you reached your previous top speed (increasing the rate of acceleration) or you will reach your new top speed later (increasing the distance which you are able to accelerate).
-
Participant
thanks for you reply
Acceleration training alone would probably not significantly change your top speed, though it would change how fast you get there. At lower levels though, [b]if you can increase the distance you accelerate[/b], you will reach a higher top speed. Perhaps some of the coaches here can say what they have seen with large samples of athletes, but I’ve found pure acceleration work to only marginally improve top speed on it’s own.
But isn’t true that if you increase the distance you accelerate then your max acceleration is higher and vice versa? I think everybody hits the max acceleration between 15m and 20m and then the acceleration decreases (and becomes negative from a point). If you hit high values of max acceleration then propably it takes longer for the acceleration to decrease.
If you improve top speed, you will inherently improve acceleration in some way. Think about it–if you have a faster top speed, [b]you will either reach this top speed at the same time you reached your previous top speed (increasing the rate of acceleration) or you will reach your new top speed later[/b] (increasing the distance which you are able to accelerate).
If you reach the new top speed at the same time, then you already have increased the distance which you are able to accelerate.
It is impossible to completely separate things like that. Just the effects on strength levels, body composition, muscle tonus, nervous system readiness, etc. would be enough to change both factors even if you were only working on one specifically. I personally think that extreme changes in one will most definitely result in a change in the other, likely due to the factors I just mentioned though.
I agree on the first part, neural and anatomical adaptions will influence both of them, but the question is which of these two, acceleration and top speed, is “easier” to train at least for a slow sprinter like me. Sometimes I feel it’s a waste of time training maxv (submaximal or maximal accelerations) or short speed endurance because of the limitations of my acceleration. Maybe I ran smoother (the transition from acceleration to top speed is technically better) so I gain a few hundres of a sec but my top speed doesn’t seem to improve. I understand that variety in training stimulus is a good thing but sometimes I think what would happen if I concentrate on accelerations up to 30m (plus plyometrics and weigths) I know this is the case early on season on short to long plans but I’m talking about a plan involving only short distances. Am going to reach a plateau in perfomance?
-
Participant
Did you not read the part of the sentence after you bolded it? I said, you will reach a higher top speed?
I don’t think everybody hits “max acceleration” between 15 and 20m… Your greatest change in acceleration would actually be 0-10m and the rate of acceleration would start dropping after the initial steps unless you are actively holding back. Your top speed would depend on how fast you are, but if you are 11.0 or faster it’s probably 30m or later.
How slow are you? You may not have the strength or fitness levels to really train any of those qualities “very well.” If you are that slow, hell, 30m IS top speed because you are probably hitting top speed at 20m or so.
-
Viewing 23 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.