Last Updated on April 20, 2015 by Jimson Lee
Every week, I get at least one email from an unhappy parent asking for advice on changing coaches for their child.
Here is my “executive summary” and somewhat over-simplified, but works..
The weekly workouts really boils down to balancing 5 parts of 10 elements in training:
- (A ) speed, speed endurance, AND special endurance (lactate sessions)
- (B ) elastic strength like Plyos, general strength like bench/squats, AND explosive lifts like power cleans
- (C ) REST and recovery runs
- (D ) proper biomechanics
- (E ) proper nutrition
Those really are the 10 elements you need to balance out on a week to week basis. I know I am oversimplifying it, but afterwards, it really does all boil down to the fundamentals, and execution on race day.
I love John Wooden’s philosophy… focus on execution and excellence, and the winning will take care of itself.
I don’t think I need to sell you a DVD on how to accomplish this, but if you insist I will create one :)
How Much is Enough?
This is where coaching is an art AND a science.
I would say for part (A) along with recovery/tempo runs should be 70-80% of the training load. Depends on weather, facilities, physical age of the athlete, training age of the athlete, time of the season, etc.
The running workouts and program really depends on your body, genetics, training background, age, etc. I know for me, I need my lactate sessions as I feel I have the “raw speed”.
In short, the goal is “not to screw up”, so you don’t get injured. If you want the perfect season like Aries Merritt, stay injury free all season and good things will happen.
VOLUME & INTENSITY
So the 2 key things to always remember is VOLUME and INTENSITY and don’t forget recovery!
For part (B), you need to look at the force velocity curve and see where you are weak:
You need to cover all ends of the spectrum. I personally found the Power Cleans helped my start and first 20 meters. Maybe the correlation was psychological?
… and let’s not forget Al Vermeil’s Hierarchy of Athletic Development.
If you want to see more of Al Vermeil’s philosophy, you can purchase his video Speed: The Ultimate Weapon and/or Al Vermeil’s Comprehensive Strength Coach Series from StrengthPowerSpeed.com.
Even for part (C), I was surprised to hear how Sally Pearson did nothing leading up to the Games, just like Roger Bannister taking several days off and doing nothing (and I mean nothing) leading up to his sub 4 minute mile in 1954.
You’ll have to watch for signs of overtraining (i.e. grumpiness, chronic fatigue, etc.) because a tired body does get injured easily. I’ll take an under-trained athlete over an over-trained athlete to the meet any day!
Based on the above 5 points, and keeping an eye on VOLUME and INTENSITY, anyone can PR and SB if healthy.
Should you Change your Coach?
At this point, if your kid’s coach isn’t following the basic principles, and if their training resembles a WWII military boot camp, I think it’s safe to say you need to talk and look at fundamentals.
But let’s start with a civil face to face talk and address the issues?
Just make sure to do what’s in the best interest for your kid!
Loyalty speaks volume over results. I hear way too often, ” the coach has done so much for my child” except make them better.
You even hear it from adults about how a coach is really good, but yet they haven’t improved.
Check this out:
Olympic pole vault champion Renaud Lavillenie of France has changed coach!
http://www.brecorder.com/sports/other-sports/82443.html
Jimson, I was struck by your Force/Velocity Curve and Hierarchy of Athletic Development diagrams. Have you checked out this study?
http://sprint42.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/bundle-weyand-sprint-exercise-performance-does-metabolic-power-matter-essr-2012.pdf
I don’t think I really understand the study, but my take on it is that when we think we are training energy systems because they matter, we are really training something else that matters more. Not sure how it would translate into better training or better coaching in a practical way. Eager to read your comments.
Hey Peter,
Yes, it’s a tough read. And Weyand/Bundle don’t really suggest how their findings can be used to improve your training/coaching. The study is focused on scientifically proving that how we’ve been describing anaerobic energy systems isn’t accurate (you can see my write up at http://sprint42.com/2012/09/21/anaerobic-fatigue/).
I don’t think Jimson’s article contradicts anything in the Weyand/Bundle study, except for perhaps calling special endurance “lactate sessions”– Weyand believes, “the cause of muscle fatigue, whether H+ or other is not known, but the H+ support is far more tenuous than it was formerly.”
I know some from the Short-to-Long camp have quoted (wrongly, I might add) this study as support for their position. But that’s not accurate. The study doesn’t prove that training Anaerobic Fatigue (I prefer this term over Lactate Sessions/Tolerance) is bad or not necessary.
Personally, I think Jimson has it right. To me “(A) speed, speed endurance, AND special endurance” are the building blocks of the sprinting portion of the sprinter’s training (and the non-sprinting portion being the other elements Jimson mentions above). The coach/artist varies the volume/intensity/recovery to build the athlete they are trying to create. Of course, the coach must also be mindful of genetics and current ability when planning…and they must vary the workouts as not to create plateaus.
I’m not a fan of tons of repeats with minimal rest until you throw up (and trust me, I’ve thrown up a ton of times). I wouldn’t include this type of workout under the “special endurance” category. To me, this is the Intensive Tempo that mostly teaches the athlete mental toughness, but is not optimal for creating “speed” adaptations (one caveat, at the high school level, you’ll still see progress using these types of intervals, because the kids are maturing and getting more coordinated…but I don’t believe it would be near optimal progress). I’m not sure what Jimson would say on this.
Jimson, I’d also love to hear you comments on the Weyand/Bundle paper.
Everyone, sorry for dropping out of the radar… I’ve been on the road since London and the occasional lack of Internet access.
Will get back to everyone’s questions soon…
Actually, I believe both philosophies are correct the “old theory” way of thinking and the Weygand/Bundle paper via sprint42 with their versions of the energy systems.
One major component that’s missing from both is “Individualization” everyone is different. You can’t put athletes in a box and say this works or applies to everyone. Think of the phases of sprinting a 100m. Not everyone will shift gears at the same distance but may run the exact same times. The same principle applies here. I could be wrong but I don’t believe the study mentions what level the tested athletes are. Are the athletes, high school, collegian or elite? In addition, what are the tested athletes “Training age”? I’m doubting that they are couch potatoes (old theory could apply). Even if they are high school or college level the old theory could still apply if the biological or physical age is at the low end of the spectrum (another subject). However, if the test subjects have a few training years under their belt then “Adaptation” could have taken place and in my opinion produce the Weygand/Bundle results. But this is just my take on the subject. Your thoughts?
sprint42:
Thanks for the reply and by the way, your blog is awesome!
This article by Borzov reminds me of the Weyand paper:
https://speedendurance.com/2009/01/12/valeri-borzov-training-procedures-in-sprinting/
They don’t seem to mention energy systems. They talk about “Methods A, B, and C” (dealing with manipulating recovery times) in the paragraph just before the table and a few paragraphs after the table.
Thanks Peter. I hadn’t read that post…very interesting. I love the scientific approach Petrovski uses with measuring Borzov’s “current” fitness (30 fly, 30 crouch, 60m crouch) and then extrapolates a year out to where he needs to be to run 10.0. That’s pretty standard now, but this was in the early 70’s.
I was especially drawn to the A-B-C systems that you pointed out. What’s interesting is how different Petrovski’s beliefs were then to what we think now. The System B workouts, which he describes as the best method which “brings about an efficient development of maximum speed.” But when you look at his workouts for Method B, they are repeat 60m with only 1min – 1.5min rest (and only 45 sec rest when working on speed endurance). This workout doesn’t fall into any of the UKA sprint training classification. The closest category would be Special Endurance, but that’s reserved for over 7 seconds. So, in the UKA classifications, it’s a mix between Maximum Velocity, Acceleration, and Special Endurance. Of course, the 7 second rule now seems arbitrary after reading Weyand’s metabolic myth paper.
What was even more interesting was what Petrovski thought about Method C, “It has little influence on the development of maximum speed.” Yet Method C is the exact definition of speed work today.
I was looking for sample workouts for Dennis Mitchell (when he was sprinting, not as a coach) and I could not find any. My recollection is that his staple sessions were something like Method B but 100s instead of 60s. Does anyone have any info on this?
Nice debate… Somebody took of the “Borzov’s Pdf”