[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on August 17, 2013 at 10:52 am #18995

Hey guys, a recent thread (https://elitetrack.com/forums/viewthread/11419) got me thinking about how we evaluate our programs. Anyone who has been coaching for some time but also a lot of research can see that there is a huge disconnect between what happens in the laboratory vs what happens in real life. How do we know that what works for an untrained individual will work for a trained track athlete? Unfortunately, we have to test it ourselves.

My approach in general has been to get ideas from research, books, etc. but only in an actual training program can these things be tested. And more importantly than that, one has to know how to evaluate their own results. This is where we need to know improvement rates. Ryan Banta posted a great blog a couple years ago that I think is a great reference point (https://elitetrack.com/blogs-details-6028/). A high school season lasts roughly three months and it could be said that most kids come in untrained. Therefore, the progression rates above could be looked at as a standard for the first three months of training.

What happens after three months? Improvement rates tend to follow an exponential decay model easiest seen on a year to year basis. it tends to decrease 30-50% per year. If you are so inclined, you could write a differential equation that would convert to month to month decay as well. I have written on this topic before (https://elitetrack.com/forums/viewthread/10483/#94914) and so has Carl (https://elitetrack.com/blogs-details-6517/).

I have also given some examples before of athletes I worked with in hurdles. I have found that when I get a new hurdler, they improve about 2 seconds in the 100/110 hurdles the first year. The second year would see a decrease of roughly 1-1.2 seconds. Following that model, high level hurdling comes during the 3rd and 4th years hurdling, with the exception of very talented athletes.

So to come full circle to my original point, we need to make sure that we make changes to our programs with an eye on how they affect improvement rates. That is the most constant (in my experience) factor in determining our coaching success.

If anyone has their own data to share, either by season or by year, please feel free to share it. Collegiate data is obviously lacking here as well.

[Ryan Banta]

Ryan Banta on August 18, 2013 at 6:50 pm #120402

In the next couples posts I will include day one mile times from cross country for over a decade. I have included the mile time they ran at the beginning of the year and the season’s best time from that year. Obviously, some of this data has to be taken with a grain of salt as most years we don’t run the same course. In addition I did not start coaching until XC exclusively in the fall until 2009. However, I did coach these athletes in the off seasons almost every year. That is why some of the times you see week one in the mile might not match up with the end result as training in season was sometimes suspect. In conclusion some of these end of season predictions have much larger ranges then data I collect on the track.

5:20 to 6:20
Diane Robison 5:23 2009 17:37.5 SQ
Diane Robison 5:40j 2008 18:23 SQ
Emily Sisson 5:40j 2008 17:38 SQ
Thompson Kathleen 5:47 2008 19:43 SQ
Sarah Madsen 5:49 2013 –
Clare Roberts 5:57 2010 20:24 SQ
Kayla Friesen 6:01 2012 19:23 SQ
Taylore Burke 6:04 2011 20:04 SQ
Kathleen Thompson 6:05 2005 19:35 SQ
Kara Stark 6:05 2012 21:15
Tirzah Williams 6:05 2013 –
Taylore Burke 6:07 2010 20:19 SQ
Sara Sherman 6:10 2008 21:59 SQt
Kara Stark 6:11 2013 –
Alex Vaenberg 6:13 2005 21:07 SQt
Taylor Burlis 6:14 2013 –
Diane Robison 6:19j 2007 18:18 SQ
Thompson Kathleen 6:19j 2007 19:25 SQ
Epstein Vanessa 10 6:19 2003 Injured2nd wk
Taylor Burlis 6:20 2012 20:30

SQ=state Qualifier SQt=state Qualifier as a member of team
J= jogging

"Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse." -Albert Einstein

[rcfan2]

rcfan2 on August 20, 2013 at 9:37 pm #120407

Derrick,

I’m kinda curious about the example you noted:

I have also given some examples before of athletes I worked with in hurdles. I have found that when I get a new hurdler, they improve about 2 seconds in the 100/110 hurdles the first year. The second year would see a decrease of roughly 1-1.2 seconds. Following that model, high level hurdling comes during the 3rd and 4th years hurdling, with the exception of very talented athletes.

I’m assuming this is a high school athletes or is this age group (USATF/AAU)?

While I’ve seen similar progressions in the high school kids – much of which is attributed to transitioning from 5 > 4 or hopefully 3 stepping – I’ve not really seen regression of that magnitude year to year. That said – almost all the girl’s I’ve coached seem to have a season where they plateaued – and struggled to match the previous season PR’s. There may be some regression – but it’s far less than a second. In most cases their bodies are changing – and it sometimes takes time for them to adapt. The boys seem to have a more linear improvement year to year (they tend to get bigger, stronger, smellier, hairier…hah, hah)…

Disclaimer – I typically had between 4-10 hurdlers (I coach both genders) per year…

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on August 22, 2013 at 9:14 pm #120418

Thanks for your contributions Ryan and rcfan2.

Derrick,
I’m assuming this is a high school athletes or is this age group (USATF/AAU)?

While I’ve seen similar progressions in the high school kids – much of which is attributed to transitioning from 5 > 4 or hopefully 3 stepping – I’ve not really seen regression of that magnitude year to year. That said – almost all the girl’s I’ve coached seem to have a season where they plateaued – and struggled to match the previous season PR’s. There may be some regression – but it’s far less than a second. In most cases their bodies are changing – and it sometimes takes time for them to adapt. The boys seem to have a more linear improvement year to year (they tend to get bigger, stronger, smellier, hairier…hah, hah)…

Disclaimer – I typically had between 4-10 hurdlers (I coach both genders) per year…

Those are referencing high school athletes training year round. Probably would have been good to include that minor detail. 😛 For sure a lot of it has to do with kids switching down to 3 steps. Or in my cases, learning to three step well. Most of my kids don’t have their technical abilities match their physical abilities in the first year. That could be a flaw in my coaching, but I don’t think it is. Once an athlete’s technical abilities match their physical abilities, progression slows down quite a bit. Hurdles are a somewhat unique event in track and field for that reason, especially since there is a huge difference between the boys event and the girls event. Progression in girls is no easy feat for the reasons you’ve already alluded to.

The hurdle athletes at this school (https://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/EventRecords.aspx?SchoolID=235) often train year round as part of a club and have seen improvements like I’m talking about. Predictions aren’t perfect, but if we match an athlete to where they are in the improvement curve we should have a good idea of what they can accomplish.

If these aren’t the improvement rates you see, what do you see? And could you specify if they train year round, only track HS track season, etc. Obviously, one athlete with 9 months training per year and one with 3 months training per year is not a fair comparison. I hope this thread will eventually see year to year and month to month progressions for a variety of events/levels/coaches.

EDIT: Another detail that I feel is overlooked about progression in hurdles is the speed of the athlete. If I have boy whose 100m progression might look something like 12.6->12.0->11.6->11.35 then yes I can see an obscene drop in hurdle times by year into the mid 14s. But if I have someone conversely who might be 13.0->12.5->12.2->12.0 then that athlete might never break into the 15s.