Posted In: Sprints
When constructing workouts to do, should I have my athletes do workouts based on time or distance?
For example, should I do. . . .
Speed – up to 50-60m
Speed Endurance – 60-150m
SE1 – 150-300m
SE2 – 300-600m
or
Speed – up to 6 sec.
Speed Endurance – 6-15 sec.
SE1 – 15-45 sec.
SE2 – longer than 45 sec.
I know you can train athletes either way, but what in everyones opinion would be the more efficient way to train?
I would say distances so that way they can strive to try to beat their Personal Bests on each distance instead of a set amount of time…Plus I'm not an expert but I would think that running by time would make you be at a "set" pace after a god while. But all in all I would use the distances because of the above mentioned plus its always fun seeing if you improve from rep to rep on time or beat your personal best. Its a better way to check progress.
That seems like a decent general guideline however I'd make some recommendations. Because one of the primary limiting factors in this type of training is the athlete's energy system, I think it's important to not match up the time and distance guidelines unless you are applying it to a specific group of athletes with a known running capabilities. It seems like you didn't really do this and as a result, the time guidelines you list don't really jibe with the distance guidelines. For instance on your speed recommendation you say 60m or up to 6 seconds. Well, most HS male athletes will only be at about 45m in 6 seconds while elite athletes would be closer to 55m. As a result, it might be best to use time as the foundation for your distance guidelines so that you can then come up with appropriate distances based on the speed the athlete is capable of running rather than using more arbitrary guidelines.
ELITETRACK Founder
[i]Originally posted by mike[/i]
That seems like a decent general guideline however I'd make some recommendations. Because one of the primary limiting factors in this type of training is the athlete's energy system, I think it's important to not match up the time and distance guidelines unless you are applying it to a specific group of athletes with a known running capabilities. It seems like you didn't really do this and as a result, the time guidelines you list don't really jibe with the distance guidelines. For instance on your speed recommendation you say 60m or up to 6 seconds. Well, most HS male athletes will only be at about 45m in 6 seconds while elite athletes would be closer to 55m. As a result, it might be best to use time as the foundation for your distance guidelines so that you can then come up with appropriate distances based on the speed the athlete is capable of running rather than using more arbitrary guidelines.
I THINK I know what you're saying, but could you put it in more laymans term for me and possibly give me some examples mike?
Keep in mind I coach high school girls.
In my opinion when training the various energy systems there are two dependent factors which should establish the guidelines for your training distances: intensity and duration. Using rep distances alone without factoring in either the intensity or duration that it takes to cover the rep is ignoring the limitations of each energy system. Taking that into consideration here are some very GENERAL guidelines for when the various energy systems will last (note that there is overlap between these energy systems and also that the exact durations will vary slightly depending on where you look):
ATP: ~4-6 seconds
ATP+PC: ~15-20 seconds
Anaerobic Glycolysis (alactatic): ~ 20-45 seconds
Anaerobic Glycolysis (lactic): >45 seconds
Keeping these numbers in mind you can see that using distances alone wouldn't be sufficient because athletes of various levels could be running the same distance but working different energy systems. So for example, if we take an average female HS 200m runner who has a 200m PR of 28s and an elite male 200m runner who has a PR of 20s. If we prescribed the same workout to both athletes, say 4 x 300m @ 95% with 8 minutes rest, they would actually be very different energy system workouts. This is because of the difference in the speed of the athletes. The elite male could likely run all of the 300s in under 33 seconds. The HS female would likely be running about 50 seconds for each one. So in the case of the elite male the workout would be almost completely alactic and would PRIMARILY be working the ATP+PC system. In the case of the female, the workout would induce a ton of lactate and would probably be PRIMARILY an anaerobic glycolysis workout.
ELITETRACK Founder
[i]Originally posted by mike[/i]
In my opinion when training the various energy systems there are two dependent factors which should establish the guidelines for your training distances: intensity and duration. Using rep distances alone without factoring in either the intensity or duration that it takes to cover the rep is ignoring the limitations of each energy system. Taking that into consideration here are some very GENERAL guidelines for when the various energy systems will last (note that there is overlap between these energy systems and also that the exact durations will vary slightly depending on where you look):ATP: ~4-6 seconds
ATP+PC: ~15-20 seconds
Anaerobic Glycolysis (alactatic): ~ 20-45 seconds
Anaerobic Glycolysis (lactic): >45 secondsKeeping these numbers in mind you can see that using distances alone wouldn’t be sufficient because athletes of various levels could be running the same distance but working different energy systems. So for example, if we take an average female HS 200m runner who has a 200m PR of 28s and an elite male 400m runner who has a PR of 20s. If we prescribed the same workout to both athletes, say 4 x 300m @ 95% with 8 minutes rest, they would actually be completely different energy system workouts. This is because of the difference in the speed of the athletes. The elite male could likely run all of the 300s in under 33 seconds. The HS female would likely be running about 50 seconds for each one. So in the case of the elite male the workout would be almost completely alactic and would PRIMARILY be working the ATP+PC system. In the case of the female, the workout would induce a ton of lactate and would probably be PRIMARILY an anaerobic glycolysis workout.
Oh I TOTALLY understand that part. I always factor in intensity, but not always duration. And this brings me back to my original question. For each individual athlete I have, would it be better to simply prescribe workouts based on time rather than distance?
For example:
If I wanna work on SE1 should I give them 3 x 300 @90% with full recovery, or should I give them 3 x 45 second runs?
Another important question is, whenever I do give workouts based on duration, how do you calculate intensity? Is it the same way you would when doing training based on distance?
And lastly, if training based off of duration, lets say for example that my 28 second 200m runner is doing repeat runs of 28 seconds (alactic work). Will she conceivably be able (over time) to take that 28 seconds further out (say to 225m, as an example)?
I just thought of another question for you mike. I hope this doesn't induce the start of another topic but if so I'll do it. Maybe you can even add this to the FAQ list.
Can you explain exactly what each of these energy systems work for sprinting?
ATP?
ATP+PC?
Anaerobic Glycolysis (alactic and lactic)?
If this question does not make sense, please let me know.
[i]Originally posted by mike[/i]
In my opinion when training the various energy systems there are two dependent factors which should establish the guidelines for your training distances: intensity and duration. Using rep distances alone without factoring in either the intensity or duration that it takes to cover the rep is ignoring the limitations of each energy system. Taking that into consideration here are some very GENERAL guidelines for when the various energy systems will last (note that there is overlap between these energy systems and also that the exact durations will vary slightly depending on where you look):ATP: ~4-6 seconds
ATP+PC: ~15-20 seconds
Anaerobic Glycolysis (alactatic): ~ 20-45 seconds
Anaerobic Glycolysis (lactic): >45 secondsKeeping these numbers in mind you can see that using distances alone wouldn't be sufficient because athletes of various levels could be running the same distance but working different energy systems. So for example, if we take an average female HS 200m runner who has a 200m PR of 28s and an elite male 200m runner who has a PR of 20s. If we prescribed the same workout to both athletes, say 4 x 300m @ 95% with 8 minutes rest, they would actually be very different energy system workouts. This is because of the difference in the speed of the athletes. The elite male could likely run all of the 300s in under 33 seconds. The HS female would likely be running about 50 seconds for each one. So in the case of the elite male the workout would be almost completely alactic and would PRIMARILY be working the ATP+PC system. In the case of the female, the workout would induce a ton of lactate and would probably be PRIMARILY an anaerobic glycolysis workout.
EXCELLENT post mike..I had just finishing searching for this type of info you posted..while I am designing my own training schedules and meet dates I thought of how I could better encompass my weekly training needs wityh respect to the different energy systems..
great job on the post..here is the article I found while on my search if anyone is interested..
EnergySystems
Wizzard
Wizzard-
Thanks for the compliments….I aim to please.
DaGov-
I’m not quite sure I understand your question. I do however think the topic is worthy of an FAQ. Help me out with what you’re asking though.
ELITETRACK Founder
I guess I’m asking to properly define ATP, ATP+PC, as well as lactic/alactic anaerobic glycolysis. Can you tell me what the letters stand for, why would you use them, etc. Basically what you would put in the FAQ if you were to start one. Does that make more sense?
They are the energy systems of the body on a cellular level – a basic biology book or course will give you an understanding of how they function, which should allow you to see the implications for training
Thanks brian.
mike do you have an explanation?
dagov, i think you should always go by distance. if you want to more accurately get a workout for a specific energy system, then you can choose a distance which will more specifically target a given energy system. for your examples…
with the “3 x 300 @90% with full recovery, or should I give them 3 x 45 second run” example, you could choose a distance that would be covered in 45 seconds instead of prescribing a 45 second run, make sense? in this way you specifically choose a distance so an athlete cant slack off, but you also get the proper energy work.
“Another important question is, whenever I do give workouts based on duration, how do you calculate intensity? Is it the same way you would when doing training based on distance?”
the intensity should be measured the same i believe, but mike knows better than me.
“And lastly, if training based off of duration, lets say for example that my 28 second 200m runner is doing repeat runs of 28 seconds (alactic work). Will she conceivably be able (over time) to take that 28 seconds further out (say to 225m, as an example)?”
conceivably yes, but refer to my response to your first example.
[i]Originally posted by cockysprinter[/i]
dagov, i think you should always go by distance. if you want to more accurately get a workout for a specific energy system, then you can choose a distance which will more specifically target a given energy system. for your examples…with the “3 x 300 @90% with full recovery, or should I give them 3 x 45 second run” example, you could choose a distance that would be covered in 45 seconds instead of prescribing a 45 second run, make sense? in this way you specifically choose a distance so an athlete cant slack off, but you also get the proper energy work.
“Another important question is, whenever I do give workouts based on duration, how do you calculate intensity? Is it the same way you would when doing training based on distance?”
the intensity should be measured the same i believe, but mike knows better than me.
“And lastly, if training based off of duration, lets say for example that my 28 second 200m runner is doing repeat runs of 28 seconds (alactic work). Will she conceivably be able (over time) to take that 28 seconds further out (say to 225m, as an example)?”
conceivably yes, but refer to my response to your first example.
For my first question, if I were to give them a distance that covers 45 seconds (for example, they can cover 285m in 45 sec but run 300s for a workout), why would I need the extra distance (in this case, an extra 15m) for what I am trying to accomplish?
For the second question. . . . . for some of these athletes, they dont yet fully understand how to run at a certain percentage. I have just got them to understand how to do it when running a workout using distance as a guide; intensity is easier to calculate as well. But when usgin time as a guide, how would you know how to run at a particular pace?
Thoughts?
your first question: im not sure if i understand what youre asking, but this is exactly my point, you dont need the extra 15m. 285m reps is still SE1, and and as a plus, youre targeting a specific energy system. thats why i suggested looking at workouts like that, because you can balance energy system work AND distance work if you manipulate distances/target times properly.
your second question…still use distance as a guide. if 300@90% is above 45 seconds, 285m@90% = 45s, and you want a run of 45 seconds or less, choose a distance of 285m or less for your workouts. i think trying to think in terms of intensity for a given period of time is too complicated. just think of distance, intensity and target times. you should be able to get what you need.
Makes pefect sence cockysprinter. Thank you for clearing that up.
Now back to the definitions I was looking for. Is anyone able to give me info on that?
ATP
ATP+PC
alactic and lactic anaerobic glycolysis
???
[i]Originally posted by DaGovernor[/i]
Now back to the definitions I was looking for. Is anyone able to give me info on that?ATP
ATP+PC
alactic and lactic anaerobic glycolysis???
It’s coming…..Wizzard has submitted a really nice post for the FAQ section and I’m editing it and adding a couple things to it right now. It should be up shortly.
ELITETRACK Founder
[i]Originally posted by mike[/i]
[quote][i]Originally posted by DaGovernor[/i]
Now back to the definitions I was looking for. Is anyone able to give me info on that?ATP
ATP+PC
alactic and lactic anaerobic glycolysis???
It’s coming…..Wizzard has submitted a really nice post for the FAQ section and I’m editing it and adding a couple things to it right now. It should be up shortly. [/quote]Thanks mike. You know me, I’m an impatient little SOB. ANYWAY, will be anxiously awaiting for the FAQ.
mike, Wizzard. . .
Thank you, thank you, thank you for the FAQ! This is just what I needed. The energy systems make a great deal more sense to me after reading what was put into it. I do however, have just a couple questions regarding certain things.
1. When training to develop anaerobic lactate tolerance (anaerobic glycolysis), I noticed as an example you noted 6 x 500m with 3:00 recovery as an option. Is that session for 400m runners? And if so, what would be the intensity percentage on that?
2. As an assurance, can you re-state what should be a guide as to the duration limits (min. and max.) of each particular energy system?
3. And lastly, I was wondering if you could discuss why training a particular energy system is necessary for a given sprint event, and also when during the track season this training is needed.
[i]Originally posted by DaGovernor[/i]
1. When training to develop anaerobic lactate tolerance (anaerobic glycolysis), I noticed as an example you noted 6 x 500m with 3:00 recovery as an option. Is that session for 400m runners? And if so, what would be the intensity percentage on that?
I’d say it’s probably better suited to 800m runners but it doesn’t really matter……it just an example workout to work that energy system.
2. As an assurance, can you re-state what should be a guide as to the duration limits (min. and max.) of each particular energy system?
See the chart I added to the FAQ.
3. And lastly, I was wondering if you could discuss why training a particular energy system is necessary for a given sprint event, and also when during the track season this training is needed.
I don’t necessarily think one has to get super specific, but it’s important to what effects the various energy systems play in our performance and how we can best train to get the adaptations we’re looking for. For example, if we go back to my example comparing an elite male 400m runner to a HS female 400m runer, you should now be able to see that because they are competing in different energy systems their training almost certainly needs to be different.
ELITETRACK Founder
[i]Originally posted by mike[/i]
I don’t necessarily think one has to get super specific, but it’s important to what effects the various energy systems play in our performance and how we can best train to get the adaptations we’re looking for. For example, if we go back to my example comparing an elite male 400m runner to a HS female 400m runer, you should now be able to see that because they are competing in different energy systems their training almost certainly needs to be different.
Maybe you don’t understand what I am trying to ask. This is what I mean. For example, for a 400m runner, when is the best time (at what point in the season) to train anaerobic lactic/alactic glycolysis? Or another example of what I am trying to ask. . . . . . for a 200m runner, what energy systems are essential for that given event? Thoughts?
The answer to your first question would depend on your own coaching philosophy (short-to-long or long-to-short approach) and the characteristics of the athletes in question.
For 200m runners, the ATP-CP system is the primary energy system with anaerobic glycolysis also playing a significant role in performance. The aerobic energy system won’t have a direct effect on performance but is likely to be important for its link to work capacity and recovery. Note however that the aerobic energy system probably doesn’t need to be specifically addressed in a sprinters training as it gets indirectly worked in most workouts.
ELITETRACK Founder