[jacko]

jacko on March 11, 2003 at 6:35 am #8290

to all.
would like to get your thoughts on the following, 60m reps are commonly used for speed development, however I feel that the amount of acceleration V the actual time at or around vmax in these reps offers a poor cost/return relationship
I propose that reps of around 80m could be a more energy efficient way to go for these reasons
1) you actually spend some time at vmax (even for 11.50 females it take aroung 50-55m to hit vmax from blocks)
2) the extra distance promotes a slightly more relaxed acceleration
3) 5 x 80m with sufficient recovery involves less work in acceleration than the equivilent volume of 60m runs (7 x 60m)
of course this is only appropriate for mature athletes as 80m is more like speed endurance for a young athlete.
regards
Andrew

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on March 11, 2003 at 9:44 am #19213

Excellent question. I agree with pretty much everything you said and have flip-flopped on this subject for a while. I agree that it seems the cost benefit of running 60m for MaxV development might be low compared to a 80m run but we might need to take a deeper look. To counter what you said, I think if we are TRULY talking about max velocity we are really only talking about maybe 10 meters of running, after which deceleration begins. As such, working beyond that 10m window isn’t truly working at max velocity. Following that rationale, you could say that 60m would be about the right distance for developing max velocity (about 50m needed for acceleration + 10m at MaxV) and anything beyond that might be considered speed endurance. Taking your example and applying what I’ve just said, if you did 7 x 60m you’d have run a total of 70m at MaxV compared to the 50m at MaxV if you had run 5 x 80m.

To clarify, here’s my cajun attempt at an analogy…..when you eat crawfish, you’ve got this small lobster looking thing sitting in front of you, then you peel it and take off the shell only to find a piece of tail meat smaller than your pinky. You could go ahead and eat the head and the guts but it wouldn’t really be what you want. When it’s all said and done, you’ve got to do a lot of work just to get a little bit of meat, but that little bit tastes so good 😀 Thoughts?

ELITETRACK Founder

[jacko]

jacko on March 11, 2003 at 10:23 am #19214

good points…
I think though that sometimes sprinters spend too much of their time in training % wise accelerating, to the point they have poor rhythm with Vmax mechanics, of course this is where the high intensity SE work fits in.

[Todd Lane]

Todd Lane on March 13, 2003 at 12:19 am #19215

Mike and Jacko-

Interesting thoughts. I’m like Mike I go back and forth. I do agree that true max velocity occurs only for 10meters. Looking at 1999 Biomechanics research
a majority of the 100m men’s finalist had one 10m segment that was faster than any other.

To change the direction just a tad, my thoughts are that, speed development and max velocity are two different concepts, one building on the other though. It seems like we use the two interchangeably quite a bit.

I go this way with the two (sorry don’t have any cajun examples)
Speed Development- In some way challenging the system in the two areas of stride length or stride frequency. Stick drills, resisted runs, assisted runs, intermuscular, anything involving running that is doing something to directly affect those two parameters. It is in the 10m or 1-2 second time frame.

Max Velocity to me is just flat out sprinting for that 1-2 second time frame. It is similar very much to speed development, but it is not specifically trying to change one of the two parameters mentioned above, merely rehearsing and “locking in” firing patterns.

I’ll have to think of a good south Georgia analogy in relation to barqecue for this.

Thoughts from others?

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on March 14, 2003 at 5:09 am #19216

Todd-
I see what your saying and pretty much agree with all of it (except I’m not a fan of trying to increase stride length through any other means than force production…so no stick drills for me).

I think we all are seeing eye to eye on this but we’re just speaking different langauges. Most of this thread is really an issue over semantics but is important nonetheless and has raised some good points.

Eagerly awaiting a Georgia BBQ analogy….

ELITETRACK Founder

[Todd Lane]

Todd Lane on March 14, 2003 at 5:53 am #19217

Mike-

Your right it is sematics.
After our discussions last fall and then through some attempts, any stick drills with lengthening are gone. I do like stick drills as a teaching component to get into better positions and working frequency. Increases in length come from as you said, strength/elastic gains.

I’ve got my analogy, it came to me after talking with Ron yesterday, the fast talking, smooth north east coaster he is. Not quite barbeque, but you’ll enjoy from your trip over here in Jan.

speed development- is taking a guy with ralph lauren glasses, black leather coat, turtle neck sweater, polo jeans, and black leather designer looking boots to my favorite hole in the wall barbeque place- Vandy’s. Everyone else is dressed way down, probably in some type of camoflage, just taking a break from hunting. The floor hasn’t been swept in days and the table is straight out of 1965. The ralph lauren guy is challenging the system., becuase he’s different and probably looking to get his rear kicked.

Max Velocity- You take the guy in there enough and eventually you lock in where everyone’s wearing what he’s got on. The system has changed and now you’re just rehearsing the changes. You’ve got candles on the table and instead of using good old fashion white bread, you’re eating pumpernickel and eating off of real plates.

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on March 14, 2003 at 11:31 am #19218

Todd-
Nice analogy! Hopefully, even people who weren’t at the scene when the groundwork for the analogy was made will be able to appreciate just how funny it is.

ELITETRACK Founder

[tank]

tank on March 14, 2003 at 3:55 pm #19219

hey, i thought the analogy was funny!:P but don’t ask for a hawaiian one.

[Kebba Tolbert]

Kebba Tolbert on March 27, 2003 at 1:13 am #19220

re: speed development

for me i look at it as trying to change the parameters (Stride, Length, stride freq) and sub-components (ground time & air time). but this is all easier said than done and hard to analyze without video and timing equip.

however, i still think it’s important to individualize your training with regard to these components

re – stick drills
i use them but not as much as in the past. as with any drill they can be good or bad. ii believe they can help teach your kids how modulate certain efforts from a timing and/or force production standpoint. i like to do a lot contrast where i’ll do stick drills then flat sprinting or flying sprints (anywher e from 10-30m). sometimes i’ll combine them in the same exercise in an attempt to enhance the carryover.

re – max velocity
teaching an athlete how to sustain max/near max efforts in sprinting is crucial.
so sprint-float or sprint-float-sprint efforts are an “easy” way to do beign this. competetive runs over 60-90m are another. the main problem is that the athlete has to be ready to roll as it is diffcult and unwise to attempt to many top speed efforts in a session.

a lot of times what’s percieves as a max velocity problem is simply a problem with effort/race distribution. this is one reason why handicapped starts (over 50-80m) or comp. like 80’s can really help teach this. and all of a sudden what you thought was an energy system problem gets cleaned up.

–KT

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on March 27, 2003 at 5:01 am #19221

Kebba can you please clarify the following….

[i]Originally posted by ktolbert[/i]
re: speed development

a lot of times what’s percieves as a max velocity problem is simply a problem with effort/race distribution. this is one reason why handicapped starts (over 50-80m) or comp. like 80’s can really help teach this. and all of a sudden what you thought was an energy system problem gets cleaned up.

–KT

ELITETRACK Founder

[Kebba Tolbert]

Kebba Tolbert on March 27, 2003 at 5:20 am #19222

[i]Originally posted by mike[/i]
Kebba can you please clarify the following….
[quote][i]Originally posted by ktolbert[/i]
re: speed development

a lot of times what’s percieved as a max velocity problem is simply a problem with effort/race distribution. this is one reason why handicapped starts (over 50-80m) or comp. like 80’s can really help teach this. and all of a sudden what you thought was an energy system problem gets cleaned up.

–KT

[/quote]

What I mean is that much too often well meaning coaches will incorrectly analyze a race and implement a training plan that’s doomed to failure. When we see athletes fall apart in the last 1/2 to 1/3 of a 100m meter dash we always hear coaches say that they
1) need more strength/stamina/endurance
2) need to do more 400 work

but many times the problem is that the athlete has poor acceleration and race distribution concepts… so all of the 200’s or 250’s in the world won’t help that athlete hold their top end better in the 100m if they’re always blowing out all of the sockets in the first 40-60m.

there has to be an increase in tempo throughout the run… and sometimes the really bad positions and mechanics we see late in the race are a result of poor momentum development early in the race. if the athlete tries to rev it up early they often end up in positions that feel powerful but aren’t…

does that help?

–KT

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on March 27, 2003 at 8:48 am #19223

Thanks Kebba-
That makes perfect sense. I totally agree.

ELITETRACK Founder

[Kebba Tolbert]

Kebba Tolbert on April 17, 2003 at 5:11 am #19224

was looking through some stuff and thought this may be of interest to some people… it was in response to a questions from a friend in August of 2000. hopefully it will spurn some discussion.

–Kebba

[Carl Valle]

Carl Valle on April 17, 2003 at 7:10 pm #19225

as with any drill they can be good or bad.

This is so true Kebba, and that is the backbone of my motor skill philosophy. For example the hindbrain/forebrain addiction with some people have is a shift, not a instant or microwave result. Motor learning is ….motor LEARNING. Of course it will be a little artificial in the begining. It takes time to make things unconcious or hindbrain. I don’t do any stick drills or any direct drills at near race speed….but any drill from any coach no matter how unpopular he is that improves the athlete’s mechanics and speed is a good one, only if used correctly.

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on April 22, 2003 at 4:05 am #19226

Kebba-
Nice points in the letter you posted. I really do agree with what you said about the general strength stuff….I think it can be very very important. I think it shouldn’t be reduced or eliminated when an athlete reaches higher levels. In fact, I think the need for it may increase because many of the qualities general strength develops will be in greater and greater demand the better an athlete becomes at their specific motor qualitites.

Regarding the sprints, I worked with some female HS sprinters and I thought that the 400-500m guideline worked well for me. In retrospect though, I think that that guideline is really general and should be heavily influenced by how fast the athlete is as well things like their training experience and age, time of the year, etc.

ELITETRACK Founder

[flow]

flow on September 24, 2006 at 1:47 am #19227

a lot of times what's percieved as a max velocity problem is simply a problem with effort/race distribution.  this is one reason why handicapped starts (over 50-80m) or comp. like 80's can really help teach this. and all of a sudden what you thought was an energy system problem gets cleaned up.
–KT

[/quote]

Thanks Kebba-
That makes perfect sense. I totally agree.

hey there : )
although you answered my qestion here  https://elitetrack.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=94&topic=3676.msg40861#quickreply  (see quote below)
i now stumbled over the thread above and i´m  confused again -.-  sorry.
how can there be a race distribution when accelerating maximally?  this hole issue throws up questions for  acceleration,  maxV and speed endurance training and really doesnt let me sleep -.-
would be really nice to get some help again.  i´m really sorry for being such a pain…

[quote author="Flow" date="1158547504"]
mike,  i have great problems with not accelerating as fast as i can (pride: P ).  at the moment im working in the "just let it happen"  manner,  unfolding and striding as it feels good(under consideration of proper? mechanics).
should i give this "power not speed" thing a concideration and try to stay longer in a "pushing backward with power,  strong armswing,  emphasized powerfull trippelextension" phase/thing/whatever??
(quotation marks mark my understanding of the info given in below text and not actual quotes)

I don't really recommend a submaximal acceleration…what I recommend is submaximal turnover during the first 30-50m. To generate momentum efficiently while accelerating one must create as large an impulse as possible. To do this ground contacts should be a little longer. Not plodding along long but longer than at top end speed. One of the most common faults I see is athletes attempting to turnover like crazy in the first couple steps without generating any force whatsoever. As a general statement I'd recommend longer-to-progressively shorter ground contacts, larger ranges of motion of the limbs, and a naturally and progressively changing body angle throughout the acceleration.
[/quote]

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on September 24, 2006 at 9:54 am #19228

I don't understand where the hang up is. The response you quoted was from a thread about 55/60m runs. There isn't really any race distribution in a race that short….run the whole thing as hard as possible. In longer races (as discussed in this thread) there may be an advantage to a submaximal acceleration due to the effect that it may have on the latter portions of the race. Either way the real acceleration (i.e. first 20-40m) is going to be essentially the same. In the 100m any throttling back typically takes place in the 40-60m range…so the first 20-40m of a 60m race and a 100m race are practically identical. I guess what I'm saying is that even when an athlete intentially distributes there effort over the course of a race the difference between maximal and submaximal is very slight.

This brings to light a common problem among younger and less experienced athletes. That is, many lack the ability to distinguish gradations of effort and pace. A lot of athletes can't tell the difference between 95% and 100% much less the ~98% and 100% efforts that might be used in a well distributed race.

ELITETRACK Founder

[flow]

flow on September 24, 2006 at 11:50 am #19229

i somehow denied the fact that the latter quote was referring to strictly 55/60m races,  dont know why  :puzzled:
however you anyhow cleared up everything – i thought the holding back would take place earlier,  thanks.