[Jay Turner]

Jay Turner on February 3, 2009 at 7:56 am #15317

Over the past few months I’ve been thinking of ways to train high school freshman sprinters. Obviously their long term development is what’s important, but I’m beginning to wonder what would be the benefits of extending this theory to the extreme end of the spectrum.

For example, instead of a year-to-year, short-to-long/long-to-short/both ends approach, what about extending any of these approaches out to one, four year development plan.

In year one, you could be HUGE on fitness training (General Strength and Endurance Circuits, basic plyometrics (jumping), Med Ball Circits, Core Training, etc.), while maintaining the short speed aspect. For your championship meet(s) at the end of the year, you could taper a bit.

In year two, you could continue this method, but slowly begin to move into more tempo (long/short, extensive/intensive), hills, etc. Again, you’d maintain the speed aspect, but take it out to short speed endurance (80-150m, perhaps). Taper for the championship meet(s).

In year three, you could continue with the Intervals, but slowly begin to make the reps faster (85-90%), while also keeping Extensive Tempo involved. Continue with short speed endurance, but start to introduce SE1 early in the year. Continue to keep short speed involved, and taper at the end of the season.

Finally, as a senior, continue with the faster intervals, but now start to introduce SE2. Along with the essentials to keep doing all year (speed work, extensive tempo, short speed endurance, etc.), having worked on everything else over the first three years, you can now treat the athletes senior year as almost an “advanced placement class”, as in pretty much fine tuning anything you’ve already covered.

I’d like to hear from EVERYONE. What are your thoughts? How might this be beneficial? What might be some hurdles to overcome? Why might this NOT work?

[RussZHC]

RussZHC on February 7, 2009 at 3:23 pm #77666

IMO the first hurdle to overcome could be fluctuating numbers of athletes. To me there is little doubt such a longer term plan has benefits but in some ways thinking, what for that age group is sooo long term could be a tough sell to the athletes themselves. I could foresee starting with say 100 students and numbers dwindling until the fourth year, or at least those who had been involved in the program all four years, you may have 15. An aside related to that would be with shrinking numbers, if it were me doing the programming, I would begin to question the validity and without large enough numbers all the way through 4 years how do you judge how valid and therefore valuable the whole plan has been?

I only know locally of one specific athlete who a coach convinced it was so important to improve her strength to increase chances of success in the chosen event (pole vault) that for an entire year all parts but the strength were put into maintenance. She achieved the additional strength they figured she needed but it sacrificed too many other supporting features and within 3 years she was out of the sport entirely. That is an extreme example and with good planning could be easily avoided but it makes a point that the vision has to be both short and long term and it has been my experience that high school athletes can have trouble with the latter.

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on February 7, 2009 at 3:42 pm #77670

I would love to do something like what you mentioned (although I’d keep speed in the program throughout with gradually increasing volumes up to a certain level and then gradually decrease the volume as they progressed to post-collegiate / elite levels).

I’ve tried doing a very minor progression with collegiate athletes but it was a logistical nightmare because I found it impossible to keep track of who was doing what. Also, factor in that different athletes progress at different rates and it has the potential of washing any benefits out.

I think to do it well, you’d really need to have a relatively small group or work individually. I can tell you with some of the post-collegiate athletes I’m working with I am on a 4 year plan with a general road map for each year that will hopefully culminate in 2012 Olympic appearances.

ELITETRACK Founder

[Daniel Andrews]

Daniel Andrews on February 7, 2009 at 4:28 pm #77674

I haven’t finished all my thoughts on this subject, but I think you have be adaptable, patient, and expect a wide range in performance enhancement from adaptations by being as specific to the competitive task with enough general training to finely tune the body. An athlete’s general fitness on a whole and task specific fitness should increase from year to year at each point in the year (not counting injury or rehab periods). You cannot rob peter to pay paul and if you do the athlete will suffer and so will their performances. If an athlete who is a sprinter, jumper, or thrower needs stamina/endurance it must come from the cumulative effect of training on stamina/endurance and not from long slow runs or lifting weights with lots of reps. If you are going to do high reps do it with general strength activities but even then you have to keep it reasonable. In the case of strength don’t make the weight room a priority, because ultimately power is the deciding factor. I could list endless examples, but you don’t take a very good distance runner or couch potato and turn them into an elite sprinter, jumper, or thrower at any level overnight.

[Jay Turner]

Jay Turner on February 7, 2009 at 6:31 pm #77679

I would love to do something like what you mentioned (although I’d keep speed in the program throughout with gradually increasing volumes up to a certain level and then gradually decrease the volume as they progressed to post-collegiate / elite levels).

With my proposal, speed IS kept in throughout. The whole point of the proposal is progression, so volume will increase/decrease accordingly.

I think to do it well, you’d really need to have a relatively small group or work individually. I can tell you with some of the post-collegiate athletes I’m working with I am on a 4 year plan with a general road map for each year that will hopefully culminate in 2012 Olympic appearances.

With each freshman class that comes in, on AVERAGE it’s usually about 4-5 that begin with me (everyone else goes to our “JV” team). Out of those 4-5 freshman, it dwindles down to 2-3 by their senior year. Of those 2-3 girls, one, MAYBE two of them are track only. So in a given year I’ll have 10-12 athletes that I work with (4-5 that are full time track and field). Everyone else runs for the “JV” team. Do you think that’s a small enough group to pull this off with?

[Jay Turner]

Jay Turner on February 19, 2009 at 8:35 pm #78335

I would love to do something like what you mentioned (although I’d keep speed in the program throughout with gradually increasing volumes up to a certain level and then gradually decrease the volume as they progressed to post-collegiate / elite levels).

What would this “certain level” be that you’d gradually increase the speed volumes to?

Also, when you say “progressed to post collegiate/elite levels”, do you mean as far as their performance times, or as in their age/training age?

[RussZHC]

RussZHC on February 20, 2009 at 3:53 am #78345

Not that it matters but I am beginning to warm to this, I like the idea and think it is worth attempting.

What Mike said about small numbers or individual athletes may in fact be the key (I was using large numbers just to illustrate) and if you can in fact keep the numbers each year you suggest…geez for me that would be close to ideal, I have just never had such “luck”, the numbers go high or low.

A potential pitfall that I am sure you have thought of (and if you have figured out, I for one would like to know “how”) is that the further you progress the more time each athlete will take, provided the programs are truly individual, so that by the time the “last year” rolls around you will have that 3 or 4 who each have their own but very “advanced” programs needing attention because they are that advanced but you will also have 3 to 4 more at each lower level of sophistication in terms of a developed program that could be similar but would not be identical to someone at any level above them.
Of course by that fourth year you may also have enough “data” that what you did with those first athletes who are now in year 4 was at least partially wrong, which, in a way, is the point.

Another event I can definitely see happening is that once those first reach the end of that 4th year, they are almost going to have to have continuation of training, which should be expected but how will they adapt to what else is out there, say any college program?
What happens if one or more needs your time at that age/level? Just thinking since that could give you a range of athletes from very raw 13/14 year old to someone looking towards an Olympic spot in a couple of more years. For that 13/14 year old definitely a visible path to follow upward within a program that would obviously be working but could you as a coach look after that wide a variety of athlete?

It’s a bad term to use but I have quite often found myself using the most advanced athlete (at one thing, at more than one thing or with an overall program) as the guinea pig for those at a less advanced level and while, of course, there have been mistakes I think because of their being the “advanced” and provided the trial and error is reasonable, they adapt quickly to change. Your idea is a well thought out and structured version of that.

[Jay Turner]

Jay Turner on February 20, 2009 at 5:00 am #78351

Not that it matters but I am beginning to warm to this, I like the idea and think it is worth attempting.

Trust me, I’ve been thinking about this for a VERY long time. I’ve been hesitant to pull the trigger because I want opinions from sources, and also some (although I’m sure there isn’t much) scientific evidence this could work.

What Mike said about small numbers or individual athletes may in fact be the key (I was using large numbers just to illustrate) and if you can in fact keep the numbers each year you suggest…geez for me that would be close to ideal, I have just never had such “luck”, the numbers go high or low.

I’m sure at most high schools, the numbers dwindle like I prescribed in my example. Is yours any different?

A potential pitfall that I am sure you have thought of (and if you have figured out, I for one would like to know “how”) is that the further you progress the more time each athlete will take, provided the programs are truly individual, so that by the time the “last year” rolls around you will have that 3 or 4 who each have their own but very “advanced” programs needing attention because they are that advanced but you will also have 3 to 4 more at each lower level of sophistication in terms of a developed program that could be similar but would not be identical to someone at any level above them.
Of course by that fourth year you may also have enough “data” that what you did with those first athletes who are now in year 4 was at least partially wrong, which, in a way, is the point.

Not necessarily the point, but more of a necessary evil. Since that first group would inevitibly be the “guinea pigs”, I’d be able to use them as templates for what to and what not to do.

It might also be helpful (but not necesarily imperative) to have an assistant coach to help out as well. They could over see one group, while you evaluate the other.

Another event I can definitely see happening is that once those first reach the end of that 4th year, they are almost going to have to have continuation of training, which should be expected but how will they adapt to what else is out there, say any college program?
What happens if one or more needs your time at that age/level? Just thinking since that could give you a range of athletes from very raw 13/14 year old to someone looking towards an Olympic spot in a couple of more years. For that 13/14 year old definitely a visible path to follow upward within a program that would obviously be working but could you as a coach look after that wide a variety of athlete?

As the athlete is choosing a college to go to, this is where you as a coach should also serve as his/her mentor. You assist the athlete in choosing what college is best for her. Just as the parents/guidance counselor help choose what is the best course of study for them and what school best gives her this opportunity, your job is to help her find out which school offers her the best chance to continue her development. It’s not too different than when GMs evaluate what players they may draft out of college. They evaluate, and ultimately determine which players best suit their style of play. Which is also just another way of saying which players would flourish the most in their system.

[Jay Turner]

Jay Turner on August 6, 2009 at 11:09 pm #87233

I’m very suprised this thread never took off. This was a very interesting topic, and the people who contributed seemed intrigued by the possibilities.

I’d like to shift the focus to younger kids. What about those that are, for example, ages 7 to 13? What are the important things to work on with these youngsters?

[RussZHC]

RussZHC on August 7, 2009 at 1:39 pm #87269

Agreed, Jay. It happens too often that I lose track of threads I have replied to…I find so much of interest on this site.

To back-up a bit, I think the reason my numbers have such big swings is I am not in a school setting but rather a club but that is one of the things I am working on and in a more communal sense it relates to the topic.
In the case of club situations the club must be well aware of the age groups within the club or suddenly you have all those athletes that started as say 12/13 y.o. hitting 17/18 at the exact same time without having brought in an ongoing number of “beginners” and somewhere in there you have a couple of years of high percentage dropping a given sport [comment below]. And very importantly, there have to be coaches available for all events at all stages of development when athletes are ready for said stage. A club or head coach should not expect a college level sprint coach to handle those ages that could still be figuring out how long their arms/legs are and now that they are “bigger” how to run without getting all tangled up. It is not that such a coach could not handle the task but they may not want to or the day to day dealings with college level may preclude working with youngsters, just the time factor. I am not a high end college coach but would not fit well working with very young, say under 12, and the group I work with currently (17 to 20 y.o), I would need some separation, say alternating days, just due to the mindset needed.

Another idea for an assistant coach would be to make use and encourage one of the athletes who are now 3rd or 4th year (many local high schools have an element of community work/volunteerism that Gr 11/12 can use to fulfill credit hours) and this helps the communal long term development as well since there is an attempt to bring fresh coaching blood along as well.

Related to your Aug 6/09 shift to younger ages and my comment above about dropping sports.
One of the chats I had this week sort of illustrated the point.
Athletics appears to do quite a good job of bringing younger athletes along in what most LTAD would view as an appropriate manner. Such things as at the age range you talk about having an all-a-round training “scheme” that does not need to be extreme in any aspect (# times per week, level of precision of workouts etc.) and competitions where age groupers are encouraged to compete in a run, a jump and a throw at each meet (again little “specialization”). Not to say there is not very good competition, our provincial group just got back from Hershey, had a great time, had quite good results (2 firsts from a Canadian province of less than 2 million) and if done right Hershey is a very good model.
Other sports, it will vary by location but soccer is almost always a good example, appear to be less concerned about “proper development” from a formally trained psychologist/physiologist/child development specialist viewpoint but are keen on just getting the kids out to their sport as often as possible and in as large a number as possible. I think in many areas around the world survey numbers would bear this out…where is there still growth?
The flip side of this is, and I suspect the numbers would also show this, what was the biggest bump in soccer numbers in N.A. are now well into their 20s, how many of those inflated early numbers are still involved in their late teens/early 20s?
The chat was along the lines of, “We have to get to this 11/12 year old before other sports do…”. Sorry, well the sentiment maybe correct, to me the overtones (“get”) are negative yet that could be just because I don’t recruit very well or not with the tone of, ‘I have to have that athlete’. And there is a part of me that says chasing a 13 year old to participate when they could drop out in a month or stay a life time…well the percentages just are not in my favor.

What you suggested at the beginning would “solve” many of the long term bumps in the road. I am going to attempt a version by starting with less than 6 older high performance sprinters with whom I will put in a lot of time towards planned years plus a “middle” group of hurdlers that are a couple of years “out” from that so need the attention but not quite as much time in planning (learning more from visual and situational v. written words) and a third far less “set” group of hurdlers that will range in age but are all at the “beginning to learn” hurdles, that will “need” even less time (sort of the parallel to the “JV” mentioned) but will thrive with a lot of encouragement. I want all to be there because they want to be there but using different methodology.

[Jay Turner]

Jay Turner on August 7, 2009 at 11:19 pm #87277

Another idea for an assistant coach would be to make use and encourage one of the athletes who are now 3rd or 4th year (many local high schools have an element of community work/volunteerism that Gr 11/12 can use to fulfill credit hours) and this helps the communal long term development as well since there is an attempt to bring fresh coaching blood along as well.

Very good idea Russ. My thinking was to use some of my current high school athletes as assistants. This does a few things…

1. allows them to fullful service hours
2. allows them to learn from a coaches viewpoint, which ultimately will help them as athletes
3. gives the younger kids someone less imposing/intimidating to serve as their mentors so to speak

Such things as at the age range you talk about having an all-a-round training “scheme” that does not need to be extreme in any aspect (# times per week, level of precision of workouts etc.) and competitions where age groupers are encouraged to compete in a run, a jump and a throw at each meet (again little “specialization”).

My thinking is children at that age could train 3 days/week (Monday/Wednesday/Friday?), and most meets are on Saturday’s. Counting the meet (which you should), that gives them 4 training days, which at that age is plenty IMO. I hadn’t considered it in the way you prescribed, which is encourage all athletes to compete in a run, jump and throw at each meet to avoid specialization. Now though, the question becomes, what do you work on in training? Speed? Tempo Endurance (Extensive and Intensive)? All of the above?

[RussZHC]

RussZHC on August 11, 2009 at 12:25 am #87395

I agree with the number of days/week you mention but that it could be even less, depending on what else is done, e.g. soccer at certain times of year would lessen the need for some aspects and would certainly add to the “day” total.

The only thought I would have regarding you last question, “…what…” would be advice given to me that there has been a shift in the training of all-a-round athletes (read: combined events) away from the “endurance” model to the speed/power model (granted I can not put a time as to when this “shift” occurred but for this discussion I don’t think that matters…it moved quite a few “so so” athletes up a fair number of notches).

The idea of basing training on speed/power also fits in nicely for the younger ages as there are a couple of periods early, 6 to 8 y.o. for girls, 7 to 9 y.o. for boys where speed can be taught and “absorbed”, the first stamina time frame does not really kick in until a bit later, 10 to 13 y.o. girls, 13 to 16 y.o. boys, which is also, roughly, the time the second speed development phase (based on age but that in turn is linked to average age of growth spurts). [above was from printed version P. 27, LTAD.ca]

[Jay Turner]

Jay Turner on August 11, 2009 at 9:03 am #87408

I agree with the number of days/week you mention but that it could be even less, depending on what else is done, e.g. soccer at certain times of year would lessen the need for some aspects and would certainly add to the “day” total.

The only thought I would have regarding you last question, “…what…” would be advice given to me that there has been a shift in the training of all-a-round athletes (read: combined events) away from the “endurance” model to the speed/power model (granted I can not put a time as to when this “shift” occurred but for this discussion I don’t think that matters…it moved quite a few “so so” athletes up a fair number of notches).

The idea of basing training on speed/power also fits in nicely for the younger ages as there are a couple of periods early, 6 to 8 y.o. for girls, 7 to 9 y.o. for boys where speed can be taught and “absorbed”, the first stamina time frame does not really kick in until a bit later, 10 to 13 y.o. girls, 13 to 16 y.o. boys, which is also, roughly, the time the second speed development phase (based on age but that in turn is linked to average age of growth spurts). [above was from printed version P. 27, LTAD.ca]

So what you’re saying is…

With girls 6-8 y.o. (but you can perhaps stretch it to 9 or 10 y.o) and boys 7-9 y.o. (can perhaps stretch it out to 11 or 12 y.o.) – work the speed/power aspect

And after that, you can work in more endurance/stamina? Is that what I’m understanding?

If so, why is it that younger children ages 6-12 can better “absorb” the speed component?

[RussZHC]

RussZHC on August 12, 2009 at 6:30 am #87430

https://www.canadiansportforlife.ca/default.aspx?PageID=1045&LangID=en

is a link to a page and there is another link on that page that is HUGELY helpful in terms of outlining what a coach can expect but also suggestions for coping

[the url is weird, the above link does not change when going directly to the appendix and I am not the brightest when it comes to these things so maybe they want you to go “through” the article]

Jay: “absorb” was my description.

From what I have read there are several things ongoing…”development” which refers to various aspects of maturity (social, emotional, intellectual, motor…),
“developmental age” is the degree of above but intertwined with physical developmental age which is “determined” by skeletal maturity/bone age.
The idea between those two is to identify early, average and late maturers which in turn influences “optimal trainability and readiness”.

Most articles talk more about “windows of opportunity” as opposed to exact ages since it takes the early/average/late into account but stamina and strength are based on scales of onset of the growth spurt and PHV (peak height velocity) with PSV (peak strength velocity) coming a year or more later (both move chronologically based on maturation…the whole idea that an early maturing male may hit that first speed window at 7 y.o but a “late” maturing male may only hit that first window at 9 y.o., as examples, or a 2 year difference in grades at school). The other “windows”: speed, skill and suppleness are based on chronological age.
Sorry to go a bit off track here but the implication is “we” as coaches, should be spending a lot more time with rulers and scales early on since those growth spurts are all over the map in terms of ages; very individual which in turn leads to the peer group. Those early maturers often stand out from their peer group in school but in some aspects they may not be as mature as their physical features would have one believe and I am sure you know as well as I or better what can happen if there is separation from a peer group at certain times in a child’s life. I can only imagine if following this idea to the letter what could happen if you took that early maturing female,
say 13 y.o., and instituted an appropriate but full strength program while very few of her peers would be “there” for another 2 to 3 years. I won’t even mention male coaches interaction with female athletes at that age and some of the swarmier thoughts that go through some minds. One other aspect worth touching, “track and field” is viewed as a relatively “late” sport, compared to say gymnastics.

Perhaps my “absorb” was the incorrect word or usage, a better word(s) would be referring to these “windows” as “point in development of a specific capacity when training has an optimal effect.” What that means is that all capacities can be trained at any time but there are times that are “optimal”, relatively speaking.
Sort of FYI: the graphs and charts I have seen do not go much past 20 y.o. and to me one of the most important, partially based on discussions/threads on this website, items is that “strength window” in females is between 12 and about 15 y.o. whereas the male is between 17 y.o. and around 20 y.o. and in terms of when that happens, age at what grade in school; the correlation for males being in final years of high school/early in college…right when some other studies have suggested testosterone is at its peak [sort of a “d’uh” as it makes perfect sense logically but it also means for females the “optimal window” for strength is while they are in middle school and that, to me anyway, in terms of coaching/training, is an entirely and very different situation]

To answer your question more directly, I have not yet come across anything that states specifically “why”, but I don’t know why that is either. It could be the all the mechanisms having an effect are just too complex or too complex in their interaction to be studied and verified as to cause. The topic is quite specific with some numbers (the timing and duration of those windows as example) and relationships to events (growth spurt) but IMO they are not even necessarily looking for “why” as the “when/what/how” interactions are critical so much/many of the numbers could just be doctors looking for indicators and collecting matching data groups and then drawing overall conclusions.

[Jay Turner]

Jay Turner on June 7, 2011 at 9:14 am #108502

Prior to outdoor season, is it better to train speed only (accel. work, maxV) and let any indoor meet you run serve as speed endurance/special endurance work? Or, is it better to work both ends to the middle approach.

From afar, I’ve looked at quite a few high school teams and it seems like (IMHO) they work speed, speed, and more speed early, then add speed end./SE late (outdoor season).

Thoughts anyone?