[burkhalter]

burkhalter on January 7, 2005 at 3:17 am #10231

How would you guys go about structuring your initial speed/special endurance? I have been in GPP for 10 weeks and SPP for 3. My 7 week max strength phase began the last 4 weeks of GPP and extended into the first 3 weeks of SPP. Max velocity was introduced in the form of short flying sprints and short sprint-float-sprints at the end of GPP and continued into SPP.

I am looking to add speed endurance as follows:

2-3x3x50 with walkback rep recovery for 3 weeks
2-3x3x60 with walkback rep recovery for 3 weeks

Then Maybe:

4-5 x 65 – 75 with complete recoveries I saw JJ recommends this.

After this is it best to gradually continue to extend the reps for outdoor or jump to 150-200m special endurance reps and work on extending the Max Velocity days into short speed endurance like 60,80,100 or 80,100, 120.

This is my first time with a full, thorough GPP and proper acceleration and max velocity progressions.

Thanks.

[QUIKAZHELL]

QUIKAZHELL on January 7, 2005 at 3:47 am #40097

Special endurance and speed endurance are two different things.

The speed endurance session you mentioned 3x3x50 is reffered to by JJ as neuromuscular speed endurance. In my opinon it can be worked on during SPP and through other times of the year.

Special Endurance is seperated into 2 types. Special End I which is usually classified as distances under 300 meters and Special End II which is usually classified as distances of 300 meters and above.

In Special Prep before I begin Special Endurance I like to do “Split Runs” which is pretty much a combo of Intensive tempo/Spe end. These type of runs get you ready for the special endurance II reps later in the phase. A split rep session would be something like 200@90% Rest 90″ 100 @ Max. You may start at 3 of these reps and maybe get up to 5. 10-15 mins is taken between sets. This session will get you read for a session such as 2×300@95% with 15′ rest.
The reason I go from split runs to Special End. II is because I like to work from both ends. For short speed I go from accel===>Max V======>Speed End. and for Special Endurance Spectrum I like to go from Intensive Tempo====>Split Runs====>Special End II====>Special End I====>Speed End (with the neuromuscular speed endurance be worked on right after max velocity is in place).
The reason I like to go long to short with Spe End is because if max velocity is not in place yet you still have the ability to accelerate fast enough for a 300 to break the world record however not fat enough to break the 150 world record. So as the season goes on and your max velocity is in place you can work on the short Spe end reps at a fast enough speed to be benificial.

I know my post may have been a little hard to follow but I hope I helped. I believe this topic has been discussed many times before. Do a search for speed end or special end and check 400Studs Training Journal and Im sure you will pick up alot of ideas.

[burkhalter]

burkhalter on January 7, 2005 at 4:26 am #40098

Thanks Quik.

I researched the site extensively and understood the differences I just kind of lumped them as a spectrum, thanks for proposing the idea of short to long speed and long to short spec end. It looks like what HSI does and intuitively makes sense, however if you were gonna focus on the short sprints is Spec End II really needed.

Do most people go short to long for speed and long to short for Spec End? Mike, JJ, CF, Pfaff, Ktolbert?

Thanks.

[QUIKAZHELL]

QUIKAZHELL on January 7, 2005 at 6:03 am #40099

Depends. If you are going to be running just the 60 and the 100 I personally wouldnt suggest going over 200 meters for Special endurance or perhaps maybe even 160 meters. However if you are going to be running the 200 I would def. suggest at least 250 meter special end reps at least early on. I still think that the 150 meter distance is most important in an 100 200 meter runners program. Sessions like 4×150 @95-100% with 10-15 mins rest are of great benefit.

I run the 60 and 200 indoors and 100 and 200 outdoors. My best events are the Long Jump and 200. I also sometimes run the 4×4. I feel that I respond well to 300 meter special endurance reps even though I am not a long sprinter. Physiologically Im sure it helps me finish the 200 as well as teaching me pace for the 400 but above all that I think it gives me confidence and builds work capacity.

[400stud]

400stud on January 8, 2005 at 9:37 pm #40100

Glad to see my journal is still being put to good use Quik 😀

LR – I agree with what Quik says. I find that a both-ends-to-the-middle approach works best for sub-elite sprinters. All qualities are hit in the essential order and results tend to be more optimal.

Quik – I see no reason why a short sprinter couldn’t do 250-300m SE reps in practice. I don’t think they should be the staple of their program, by no means, but why not do them, maybe 1-2x’s per meso for some general fitness and strength work. Think, if a 100m sprinter has the endurance to run a good 200m or 300m, wouldn’t that just eventually trickle down to a stronger finish in a 100m seeing the strength needed to finish a 200m and 300m? Just a laid-off-for-too-long though…. 😆

[QUIKAZHELL]

QUIKAZHELL on January 8, 2005 at 11:05 pm #40101

Good to have you back.

Yes, I agree.

[Jay Turner]

Jay Turner on January 9, 2005 at 1:03 pm #40102

400, welcome back.

I agree with you and QUIK, to an extent. However, a short to long approach can work very well for sub-elite sprinters as well.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on January 9, 2005 at 1:29 pm #40103

stick around eric

short to long for life! i believe most sub elite sprinters just need more speed 😀

[800prince]

800prince on January 10, 2005 at 9:43 pm #40104

They need more everything. You even suggested a conjugate system whatever happened to that I kinda liked it.

[400stud]

400stud on January 10, 2005 at 11:52 pm #40105

Short-to-Long can work well for sub-elite sprinters. However, the reason why I advocate a both-ends-to-middle approach is because one thing that a large majority of sub-elite sprinters lack is fitness. I believe that a large speed base will only go so far before fitness starts to become the detrimental factor. What good is it that you can run a 10.9 100m if you don’t have good fitness to back it and you end up running something like a 23. 200m? I’ve seen it many a time and it’s quite embarrassing to watch. I agree that a sub-elite sprinter who already has a good fitness base (usually from years of good training…seen that as well) would probably benefit most from a short-to-long as speed is more than likely the limiting factor. But, as has been said many-a time before…..training is on an individual basis. Each program should be suited and personalized to address each athlete’s individual needs and modified as needed.

As far as me….I get my computer back up and running on Monday so I should be back on the boards more consistently (barring work and school commitments). I’m glad to be back!

[eliteathlete]

eliteathlete on January 11, 2005 at 12:58 am #40106

Agreed!

Just to add… It’s easy to plateau and burn out from speed work. That’s why the best short to long program need exceptional regeneration methods. Most programs don’t have the resources or expertise to manage a short to long program and are more successful using long to short program.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on January 11, 2005 at 1:15 am #40107

[i]Originally posted by 800prince[/i]
They need more everything. You even suggested a conjugate system whatever happened to that I kinda liked it.

im still working on a conjugate system. the problem is that sprinting has a lot more motor qualities than say… powerlifting. and for this reason making a conjugate approach is a little more complex. though if you noticed i asked mike about writing an article, and thatll be the focus, referencing my own experiences along with bompa, zatsiorsky, francis, siff, etc. (without spoiling too much 😉 )

[Jay Turner]

Jay Turner on January 11, 2005 at 6:46 am #40108

[i]Originally posted by 400Stud[/i]
Short-to-Long can work well for sub-elite sprinters. However, the reason why I advocate a both-ends-to-middle approach is because one thing that a large majority of sub-elite sprinters lack is fitness. I believe that a large speed base will only go so far before fitness starts to become the detrimental factor. What good is it that you can run a 10.9 100m if you don’t have good fitness to back it and you end up running something like a 23. 200m? I’ve seen it many a time and it’s quite embarrassing to watch. I agree that a sub-elite sprinter who already has a good fitness base (usually from years of good training…seen that as well) would probably benefit most from a short-to-long as speed is more than likely the limiting factor. But, as has been said many-a time before…..training is on an individual basis. Each program should be suited and personalized to address each athlete’s individual needs and modified as needed.

As far as me….I get my computer back up and running on Monday so I should be back on the boards more consistently (barring work and school commitments). I’m glad to be back!

400,

I am actually an advocate of the both ends to the middle approach. I was simply playing devils advocate. But I agree with what you’re saying.

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on January 11, 2005 at 1:03 pm #40109

Nice thoughts everyone. I too think fitness might be one of the biggest limiting factor for a HS level long sprinter. I think that’s why long to short can be so successful at this level and why ends to middle might be the best option in my opinion. Unlike EliteAthlete though, I’ve luckily never had a problem with plateauing on speed work as long as the appropriate form of speed work is used at the appropriate time.

ELITETRACK Founder

[eliteathlete]

eliteathlete on January 11, 2005 at 7:11 pm #40110

IMO, the fact that you haven’t had problems plateauing reflects greatly on your ability to manage a speed based program. Based on my experience and observation. Many HS and some colleges lack that type of expertise. Also, some of those programs don’t even have preventative therapy, which should be a staple for any short to long program

[utfootball4]

utfootball4 on July 5, 2006 at 11:04 am #40111

i think coaches should look at each athlete, more power base guys should be during short to long etc.

[davan]

davan on July 5, 2006 at 5:30 pm #40112

I don't think short-long really causes speed plateaus (although it may compared to long-short because there is so little speed in long-short, it's hard to plateau it anywhere!). I think some people don't recover well from it for one reason or another–possibly not enough therapy or simply too much volumexintensity. I think a 2 day a week set-up works very feel in short-long, but that's just me.

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on July 12, 2006 at 8:26 am #40113

Short-to-long progressions may give the impression of speed plateaus because maxV development occus earlier in the year before the emphasis shifts to speed endurance. By contrast, long-to-short progressions could give the impression of speed continuing to get better all the way through the end of the season because this is what the training is set up to do. In reality, what you're seeing is what you are supposed to see from each training program. The fact that you might see absolute / maxV plateau mid-season is not a weakness of a short-to-long program….it is a consequence of the the shift towards speed endurance.

ELITETRACK Founder