Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Training Periodization, sprinting, tempo, Charlie Francis, technology and much, much more --- Facebook discussion

Training Periodization, sprinting, tempo, Charlie Francis, technology and much, much more --- Facebook discussion

This is the discussion that emerged on my Facebook wall after my post on Stephen Seiler presentation for INSEP regarding the MENAGEMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF TRAINING INTENSITY: THE POLARIZED MODEL and my suggestion for similar observation and experiment to Mike Tuchscherer involving powerlifters instead of endurance runners.

The discussion evolved into much more and Craig Liebenson described it in following words:

Craig Liebenson: …it’s epic. To hear/learn from great coaches is inspiring. None knows better what actually works than those whose true measurement is performance. Our ego makes us “slaves of our methods”(K Lewit). Håkan Andersson’s comment "There are virtually hundreds of questions that we need to know to maximize performance...I have a feeling that we are still in the dark ages in terms of sports science..” reveals a deep humility. I am in awe.

Here is the copy of the discussion, because I think it needs to be saved. I also wanted to thank everyone who participated.

Enjoy and don’t hesitate to leave comments. Note that this discussion is still ongoing and I will update in couple of days/weeks.

Mladen Jovanović: [Stephen Seiler] Just watching your presentation on Polarized model (after reading most of your papers) and I wonder could similar model be applied to strength training. I would love to see distribution of sets based on set RPE (or Exertion level ~ proximity to failure) regardless of the %1RM used. Maybe Mike Tuchscherer can provide some insight into the distribution?

Happy Holidays!

Stephen Seiler: Yes, that would be an interesting distribution to quantify for sure!

Keijo Wilkinson: the intensity black hole was interesting

Keir Wenham-Flatt: I've wondered before if that is perhaps the reason the west side lifters are actually deriving benefits from their dynamic effort work. Maybe because it occupies a different region of the force velocity curve to their event

Mladen Jovanović: [Stephen Seiler] Here is the slides on "Black Hole" (medium intensity) approach by late Charlie Francis (coach of elite sprinters from CAN). Very similar to your insights.

Stephen Seiler: Interesting! Espen Tønnessen and my sprint specialist PhD student Thomas Haugen would find this slide interesting

Sergei Iljukov: [Mladen Jovanovic] another interesting point is application of "polarisation principles" in strength training, where you first lift heavy weights 90-95% and then do sprint exercises, so called contrast training.

Mladen Jovanović: Thanks for chiming in Sergei. That might be viable strategy, but the only problem with it is that effects of that approach and 'normal' one (speed before strength) is that effects are very similar (damn, I need to find the study to prove this).

It might be great strategy in-season, but also problematic to implement in team sports (e.g. soccer guys wearing cleats and squatting)

Alex Pett: Mladen, if you could find that study I would really like to see it.

Keijo Wilkinson: I get the feeling that the medium intensity range is too broad. 76-94 is quite a stretch

Mike Tuchscherer: Sorry I'm just getting around to this. Very interesting presentation! Thanks for that and for tagging me. I actually don't have much to add at this point in terms of data. Maybe in the future though. But as I think about what strength athletes actually do, I can't think of any that use a polarized model in terms of intensity. Perhaps you could argue that Boris Sheiko's programs use that model (lots of sets at 7-8 RPE or below, one session per 8 weeks of high RPE work). I get the impression that Dietmar Wolf's programs might be similar. And seeing as he's Norwegian, perhaps he has been inspired by some of this line of thinking? But this seems like it is more polarization of RPE and not so much polarization of intensity.
Regardless, now my curiosity is piqued. I'm going to look for some guinea pigs.

Mladen Jovanović: Exactly Mike - I think RPE distribution might be polarized. Thanks for chiming in

Mike Tuchscherer: Something else we'd need to start to define is what the categories are for maximal strength development. If we were to use the general categories that CF used in the graphic you posted, you'd have to define the categories. I think it would be erroneous to say 85% intensity in strength training fits the definition of the middle category, so some decisions would have to be made on category. And then defining by RPE would be different still. My tendency is to think 9 or 10 RPE would fit the high intensity category. 8 RPE's might be in the middle? 7 RPE might be low? But then reverse-defining in this way comes with a batch of biases.

Mladen Jovanović: The only 'problem' might be subjective indication. Maybe using (my) velocity convertor might help. Or calculate the distribution of velocity loss per set - that might be more reliable/valid? Might be very interesting research

Mike Tuchscherer: Yeah, velocity is the only way to go for research. I've also been converting velocity to RPE for several years now. But subjective is still going to get the job done in a practical setting. How would you define the categories of effort or velocity?

Mladen Jovanović: It is tricky... We need to have two variables: starting and ending velocity of the set. Starting is related to %1RM used (load-velocity relationship) and end-velocity is related to proximity of failure (load-exertion relationship). I would like to see distribution of start speed, end speed and speed drop per sets over a training block. That might give us some insight. Plus, distribution of %1RM, reps done, etc. Thoughts?

Mladen Jovanović: I need to do research to confirm by hypothesis on end-velocity and reps-in-the set. There is some proof of this (I referenced in upcoming article for JASC), but it needs to be confirmed with more research. The unfortunate story is that Serbian Custom fu*ked me pretty bad - so I needed to return just sent GymAware unit.

Håkan Andersson: Bosco came up with that concept some 20 years ago and it is integrated in the feedback system of Musclelab.

Mladen Jovanović: Damn... it is very hard to be innovative in our field

Håkan Andersson: Doesn’t mean that it is not room and great need for further research, go for it Mladen!

Landon Evans: Hakan, as a coach that has seen a lot over the years, what types of questions do you still have that the (good) research groups still haven't investigated yet?

Mladen Jovanović: That's a great question Landon.

Håkan Andersson: In not so distance future a man is stepping on the planet of Mars but we still don’t know why there is a speed reduction in 100m dash or why we can’t lift a weight equivalent to 1RM twice.

In terms of high performance sprinting we don’t know the difference between a 9.7 sprinter and a 10.7 sprinter except for some externally measurable parameters.

There are still many questions regarding acceleration technique and force application from 0-60m (acceleration phase) since most studies has been focusing on either just the start or the maximal velocity phase. What exactly happens on the way up to 12m/s is in my view unsolved.

There are virtually hundreds of questions that we need to know to maximize performance for the individual. I have a feeling that we are still in the dark ages in terms of sport science and that is probably one of the reasons doping has been an easy option for many in our game…

Ryan Banta: I have had the chance to coach the former American high school record holder in the 5k. She loved lactic threshold runs. I do think the idea of polarized training makes some sense for distance runners because over extremely long distances the intensity is VERY low. Then on the other hand when it's time to kick you need to be fast but rarely in championship races does anyone go to the wall in term of intensity. Until the kick phase.

Another interesting note is he stated how the longer interval set high intensity show better results. I have found this to be true with the kids I have trained.

Now as you shorten the race distance that middle zone becomes more important. You have to be comfortable with being uncomfortable. This is done by the training effect from the middle zone which creates enzymes/buffers to help you tolerate that load. Charlie had the most success with short sprints and I believe the bipolar model works for the 110h, 60, 100 dash. as you move toward the 400 and 800 this type of middle tolerance is more important.

Mike Tuchscherer: I have Tendo velocities on nearly every rep I've done for the past 3 years. I can send that to you if you like.

I've found as reps increase, velocity isn't correlated quite as much to RPE. I also favor the velocity of the slowest rep rather than the last rep. They are usually the same but not always. I haven't looked into the first rep being correlated to intensity. That's interesting.

Mladen Jovanović: Maybe we can analyze it and publish it . Have you done all the reps with CAT or full effort?

Pierre-Jean Vazel: I'm not sure that the "Running velocity" graph fits for weight lifting. A lot of concern was about contact times at the various velocities, and possible nuisance caused by middle intensity range on CT. Charlie used to rank high intensity lifting at + 80 %. However, he produced an other graph "Motor unit involvement, approximate %age of an athlete's total motor units involved in different activities (when performed at max effort)" based on EMG during various exercises (see Bompa, 2003).

Mike Tuchscherer: No, not full on show-off CAT. But not intentionally slow either. Full effort, but not "afterburners" if that makes sense.

Regarding the zones -- intensity is a spectrum, so categorizing some as high/medium/low is going to depend on the context through which it's seen. I can't imagine 80% of 1RM being in the same category for widely divergent athletic demands.

Keir Wenham-Flatt: God damn this a good thread!

Håkan Andersson: Charlie Francis is without doubts one of the most influential sprint coaches in the last couple of decades and the intensity model for running that Mladen has uploaded is classic by now.

The question that comes to mind is how many has been able to fully apply his model with drug free sprinters?

I’m a strong believer in specificity but to start the mesocycle with “speed work with CNS focus”* at >95% effort and a weekly volume of 2000-3000m as CF is suggesting in his book Charlie Francis Training System and Key Concept booklet has none of my sprinters ever been close to in 30 years of coaching.

I couple of male sprinters that I firmly believe was drug free did an attempt but they all had very short term effect and their development seemed to gradually level of or even decline after only one season.

In terms of speed work my empirical experience tells me that the mesocycle is better of starting around 90% in terms of alactic speed work and from then both the intensity and volume can gradually increase. Shorter accelerations and hill running’s can start at a slightly higher intensity but even that might proof difficult in case you are introducing heavy weight training in the same period.

Some speed endurance 80-90% even for 100/200m sprinters at the beginning of the meso cycle will as Ryan Banta is saying will enhance enzymes/buffers and help you to tolerate the load of larger volumes of >95% speed endurance in the specific preparatory phase. I feel this by no means will hamper the development of speed if property periodized.

I’m also slight intrigued by CF suggested 2000-3000m of tempo running at <75% 3-4 times a week. In my book way too much and to frequent to able the systems to adapt to high intensity stimuli especially in the latter stages of the meso cycle.

This despite the rather wild statement by CF that tempo running <75% is speed enhancement through the effect of increased capillary density (ie. heating of motor neurons, lowering electrical resistance) therefore the motor neurons take on characteristics of white fibers! Any one that knows where that comes from?

All type of low intensity endurance training and even resistance training for that matter are known to reduce MHC-IIX distribution of the muscles and probably making the muscle slower. It is possible but perhaps not fully proven that certain steroid might have a reducing effect on this mechanism.

I’m not ready to totally disregarding tempo running. I also have a feeling that it in moderation can enhance recovery despite the fact at least I don’t fully understand the mechanisms behind.

Sorry for high jacking your tread Mladen Jovanović and the long post but I could help it:-)

It is so sad that Charlie Francis is not around, he would have liked to discuss this I’m sure.

*Charlie Francis

Pierre-Jean Vazel: Training plan training done training report.
As for tempo, you might find the answer in Bompa's training theory book.

Mladen Jovanović: Håkan, all great thoughts and questions. Do you have an example of mesocycle you did with your sprinters willing to share? It would be interesting to see distribution and intensities

Håkan Andersson: [Mladen Jovanović] Not in a presentable format I'm afraid. Might work on it when I have some time…

Ryan Banta: Hakan did a great job and wrote a ton for my book I have been working on. Actually thanks to all of you guys that have helped sooo much.

Carl Valle: I am not against what Charlie has promoted but I have said many times you have to know exactly what is done not what is recalled or revised historically. The core outline is spot on for me but the devil is the details, and 60k of speed work without drugs or world class physios giving rub downs three times a day. Tempo running doesn't do any of the mechanisms Charlie suggested a decade or more, but his athletes did run high volumes and I think it helped develop lower limb stiffness. Capillary density discussions are true as Henk Kraaijenhof explained that this was not changing motor neurons at the old Super Training list but I believe that if an athlete is crazy fit and on drugs it may help with ANS changes and keeping athletes fit and lean. For a drug free and athlete without full time rubs or access to grass surfaces this doesn't work without injury. I think the High low program is more lower and less and the highs are peaking because one is fresher, but not 95-100%. I think the Flo Jo workout has ruined a fleet of athletes because one workout in isolation is now looking like a common approach. Charlie's stuff is valuable but you have to ensure that the numbers are not replicated. When I followed a similar model life was great, when I approached his specific suggestions on volumes I could not keep up without flying people down to get massage.

Carl Valle: Wow the above post is messed up from autocorrect so I will clean it up later.

Carl Valle: Craig Liebenson are you reading this thread? This isn't a stupid pain science or foam rolling debate!

Ryan Banta: My next question is "what about long lasting adaptations?" Recently a research study had compelling data showing steroid usage actually creates muscle memory. This was done on rats. Giving a steroid user after a ban still with some physiological advantages. Sean Burris always discussed how he believe that once you lay down capillary beds they stay with tempo/aerobic training? The improved capillary beds would then allow the coach to focus their training in other areas. training in other areas. Does myelin also have long lasting adaptation?

Carl Valle: Drugs do have long lasting adaptations but capillaries are not targets Ryan but muscle fiber changes are a question Hakan will Answer better than me

Ryan Banta: Sorry I meant that as a separate question. Edited please see my post above.

Håkan Andersson: It is most likely that increased capillary density of FT fibers to some extent would be sign of change of muscle fiber characteristics in for sprinters a unwanted direction don’t you think?     

Regarding long lasting effects of steroid usage:

The Journal of Physiology, 591, 6221-6230.Ingrid M. Egner, Jo C. Bruusgaard, Einar Eftestøl, and Kristian Gundersen. A cellular memory mechanism aids overload hypertrophy in muscle long after an episodic exposure to anabolic steroids.

A animal study in witch the authors concluded that when mice were treated with steroids the muscle mass and number of nuclei increased. When the drug was subsequently withdrawn the muscle mass returned to normal, but the excess cell nuclei persisted. Therefore a brief exposure to anabolic steroids might have long lasting performance enhancing effects.

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Nov;31 (11):1528-34. Effects of anabolic steroids on the muscle cells of strength-trained athletes. Kadi F, Eriksson A, Holmner S, Thornell LE.

A study on steroid and no using power lifters Authors conclusion that intake of anabolic steroids and strength training induce an increase in muscle size by both hypertrophy and the formation of new muscle fibers. They proposed that activation of satellite cells is a key process and is enhanced by the steroid use and the incorporation of the satellite cells into preexisting fibers to maintain a constant nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio seems to be a fundamental mechanism for muscle fiber growth.

Both studies indicating that steroids has a long lasting effect and in my view there is no other fair punishment for steroid users than life time ban..

Mladen Jovanović: Here are some of my thoughts on 'block' design for 'intermediate' (might be considered long-to-short?)

Off-season (GPP) [Build up volume, adapt to running and strength training, technique]
Speed: Technique work, sleds, hills, bounds. Everything more 'extensive' than intensive (sub-max intensity)
Strength: Higher-freq, high number of sets, low reps, medium-intensity. Add couple of extensive sets if hypertrophy needed. Overall body - strength
Conditioning: Build up volume of tempo runs, anatomic adaptation circuits, jump circuits, core & MB circuits, etc
Power: Non-specific jumps and throws (extensive)

Speed: Slowly move to more intensive work, decrease volume, work on blocks, acc, VMax or SE/SpE depending on the need
Strength: Reduce number of sets and frequency. Decrease number of exercises
Conditioning: Maintain/decrease volume to support main work on track
Power: Intensive jumps and throws. Support the main track work

Speed: Continue with specific work - participate in meets. Race simulations.
Strength: Reduce volume even more. Combine with explosive work / (compex/contrast method)
Conditioning: Aimed at recovery, non-contact based/pool
Power: Combined with strength

Couple of days off, two-three weeks of high rep work, extensive tempo, MB circuits and prehab.


Håkan Andersson: You are hired:-)

Mladen Jovanović: My main 'critique' of many programs out there is why do we have to follow certain 'path'? Where is experimentation, individualization, discovery? There are certainly some principles (based on averages), but we are dealing with individuals not statistics. Why not experiment and see what works or not (depending on cost/benefit and time available)? Maybe someone 'responds' to more 'medium' intensity and some only to >90/95%. Maybe someone has crap chassis and need completely different approach? If we never experiment we might never know - and I am not sure those predictive tests are so predictive...

Why work on 'periodized progressions' like experts say and not on what one needs to do (strength~weakness and needs analysis)?

Carl Valle: Certain paths do work Mladen, and going outside the box has left people off the podium. I think a better idea is to see what has worked historically and see if any room is left for adjustments, but this is track and field and not lab experiment. Let's all be honest here, much of the innovation is gone and we need to fine tune things, not add more changes when we are likely to have the tools. Athletes are individual but their ranges in idiosyncrasies are not off the charts. Some can do more or less, and some can't perform activities at all. The lesson learned here is that history, provided it's verified, has done more help than periodization hype.

Mladen Jovanović: Beautifully said Carl! Nothing to disagree with. Fine tuning around averages and path

Håkan Andersson: Mladen you are absolutely right that an individual approach is essential even though you need to have a basic general philosophy as Carl is saying. The philosophy has to be adjusted according to circumstances like climate, facilities, equipment, and medical support etc ec. Last but not least the age, background and individual characteristics of the athlete you are supposed to guide is of major importance...

I’m as you already know a strong believer in specificity and I do believe that you as a senior have to spend as much time as possible in the >95% speed zone. This is especially true for subjects that are not winners in the genetic lottery.

Tolerance to high volume of high intensity doesn’t come over night though and you have to be patient both in the career of the athletes and during the training year, if not chances of breaking down are enormous.

In terms of long term development of speed we have in our country and in others as well I’m sure too many examples of juniors that has been producing international results at an very early age due to in my opinion way to specific training way too early.

On the other side of the spectrum you have the older sprinters that are facing the fact that tolerance to high intensity training will diminish with age and the training has to be adjusted accordingly. At what extent is highly individual of course..

In terms of general philosophy you will find coaches around the world that still put a lot more emphasize on longer sprints and basic endurance than we do. If Sweden was blessed with a new Bolt and I would be given the privilege to coach him I could probably afford to be more conservative when it comes to high intensity training both on the track and in the gym, that is at least my basic philosophy :-)

Ryan Banta: A couple things: first I think as a coach you must have a basic structure that you use once successful and repeatable. Then the program needs to have the flexibility to fit different types of situations and athletes durning what I call the discovery phase(getting to know/testing). Once you are able to properly assess the athlete then you become prescriptive in nature. Dan Pfaff discusses this a lot and his "prescriptions" are different training modules that you have cooked up to attack the athletes strength/weakness. I believe Carl Valle discussed this in a podcast so while ago when he talked about percentage of change in you program year to year. You want to allow space for growth but at the same time you don't want to reinvent the entire program each season. Carl didn't you discuss 95% same 5% different policy year to year for your programs?

Mladen Jovanović: Stability~variability, general~individual

Roger White: " The philosophy has to be adjusted according to circumstances like climate, facilities, equipment, and medical support etc ec. Last but not least the age, background and individual characteristics of the athlete you are supposed to guide is of major importance..." So true Håkan Andersson, especially in areas like ours where climate is a factor half of the year or more.

Roger White: [Carl Valle], " I think a better idea is to see what has worked historically and see if any room is left for adjustments, " This sums up why I have had the success I have. I don't re-invent the wheel. I recall our conversations when I first started with coaching hurdles 2 years ago. Your advice was sound, simple and easy to develop progression. The following year I built on this to fit within the general training program. Same is true for my sprinters who are mainly 200/400 types. I use concurrent theory (mostly intensive work with many split runs in GPP, then 4-5 reps of nearly all out work in later phases) with some modifications and now coaches are asking me "what do you have your kids on?" It's humorous ans yet sad that when one has so much success in a group, good training with runners with some potential isn't the first thought, it's some other "secret." So being I bring a massage table to meets for pre race and between round work, I use your line, "They are on the massage table when they need to be."

Carl Valle: [Roger White] I think that is the issue we see with proponents of the Anti-Charlie because they were following things that on guy did instead of seeing what concepts changed in 2001 and 2010. If you remove some of the explanations of theory and the precise numbers Charlie's methods work, and people forget what he did before the drugs were used. Who knows what would have happened if the athletes didn't use, but that is all 20/20. What I have learned is that principles should be repeatable and running fast to run fast is not evil. The question is how gradual one can develop someone when eventually father time runs out.

Mike T Nelson: Probably one of the best threads on FB in a long time. Amazing info and nobody got mad. Thanks everyone for sharing

Håkan Andersson: [Carl Valle] Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that before the drugs was introduced there was a lot of 80-90% sprinting in CF preparation? If so, do you think that was beneficial or not on the athletes ability to tolerate the latter volumes of >95% regardless of the drug administration? Would be interesting if you could explain how his concept changed as you are indicating between 2001-2010 since I don't have that insight? A would also love to know how fast some drug assisted athletes would have run if they did't choose that path, but sadly we can only speculate... Marion Jones is a typical example, what a bloody waste!!

Mladen Jovanović: I would to copy-paste this into a blog post if everyone agrees? This discussion should be "saved", but I am afraid it is not over yet

Mladen Jovanović: Ryan, when is your book due?

Ryan Banta: The cut off date for writing will be this summer. Then printed and ready for sale in the fall. I was going to ask to do the same thing for elitetrack Mladen Jovanović but you got to the idea first about this Facebook post. Oh well I can shoot a link back to your your blog

Håkan Andersson: [Mladen Jovanović] I don't mind.

Steve Magness: Very interesting presentation by Stephen Seiler and discussion. I don't have a lot to add, except that here's some data from way back in 2009 on the training distribution of Moses Mosop leading up the Kenyana XC champsionships. Mosop was 2x world XC champion, and was 2nd in that crazy fast 2:03 Boston Marathon.

But his distribution was roughly 80% zone 1, 10% zone 2, 10% zone 3. It's further divided into a few more zones here:

As Seiler pointed out, that huge amount of zone 1 training is what we evolved to in distance running from about Lydiard's age until now. One thing I think we are missing though, is that there is likely periodization within the workouts themselves.

One thing that bothers me from the research is it assumes the Zone is what matters. I'd argue that the individual workout dynamics matter. Meaning 6x1000 with 60sec rest in 3:07 is different than 5x1200 with 60sec rest in 3:45. The workout and the progressions of the workout matter. the 1200 workout is an extinction of the 10000s and we worked on specific endurance for the 5k.

So to me, workouts matter. I'd love to see research start to explore that difficult task.

Alex Pett: James Dasaolu is a nice example of some of the points illustrated in this great thread. He comes from a heavily CF influenced programme, but no where near the numbers in Ben's programme-typically 2 high intensity days per week and low volume.

Tom Crick your insight would be good on these topics and questions.

Pierre-Jean Vazel: Re- aerobic training share : it has been suggested in mid'70s that anaerobic metabolism depends crucially on the aerobic metabolism, but not vice-versa (S.Israel, 1973). At that time, glycolysis mechanism was explored but other considerations can't be overlooked (psychology, rhythmic, etc.) It is interesting to observe how GDR sprint training plans have been modified through the years : experimentations on increasing the sprint volume didn't worked so in the '80s, the figures were slightly less that it was during the '70s. Speed endurance kms didn't changed much, however, intensive tempo significantly decreased and, interestingly, extensive tempo was more than doubled, just like the general activities & games.
I can share figures from my personal experience coaching in 2008 a sprinter who set the 3 world leading marks and won the word championships for a distance as short as 60m indoors : in 13 weeks of preparation, 27 days were devoted to sprint training (from 10 to 80m intervals with intensities ranging from 80 to 100%) and 26 days were devoted to aerobic work (from 60 to 300m intervals at pace slower than 80%), and the share was evenly distributed even through competition period (the compensatory - not only developing - role of low intensity work to high intensity role had been evidenced by GDR team back in the days).

Håkan Andersson: [Pierre-Jean Vazel] For a while in the beginning of the nineties we tried to increase the volumes of high intensity sprinting without sufficient active and passive regeneration and the results in general stalled or even went backwards for some. In my view the introduction of higher volumes of tempo running partly solved the problem.

But the suggested 2000-3000m per session 3-4 times per week is in my opinion too much.

1000-2000m twice a week in combination with flexibility work and some general exercises per week has been more of the norm at least for my athletes in the past 20 years. PJ You are presenting density above but what is your experience regarding volume per week and session? Differences men vs. women?

Ryan Banta: James Dasaolu did run fast last season. However, what were his injuries like last season?Where they pretty typical for him? Just curious and mean no disrespect. Very excited to see what he and his new training partner are able to accomplish together.

Pierre-Jean Vazel: Håkan firstly I took in account each one's work capacity regarding slow runs (or some in what brand new for that their former coach believed it was not specific - but what is more specific than exercises that allows you to increase your anaerobic capacity?). However, volume don't vary that much - 1000 to 1800m, 2x or 3x a week, but the form is individualized : 12x100m and 4x300m at the same pace doesn't suit to the same sprinters. Slow run workouts were advantageously replaced or added by other 'cardio' activities for an experienced female sprinter such as pool or bike workouts for that running slow loaded her calves before loading her cardiovascular system.

Pierre-Jean Vazel: For kids 6-14 years old and sprinter/hurdlers preparing IC , I use continuous runs, tempo runs on grass or hard sand surface, upstairs/downstairs runs ("caterpillar"), 3-5' min uphill downhill circuits on the park, "squares" of ~50m sides which are covered doing various drills with or without weight vest or ankle weights, etc.

Pierre-Jean Vazel: As the athletes get older and better, those workouts are design to address "weaknesses" so they are prescribed according to individual needs.
What form of low int do you use?

Håkan Andersson: Part from tempo we run or swim in the pool, how frequent depends on individual needs. We do gymnastics that is challenging and fun plus general strength training with resistance that is perhaps not so much fun but still important..

Pierre-Jean Vazel: Oh and we came up with a new exercise last year, called the cone game. We hide about 10 cones in the stadium and crowd seats and the guys basically run all around for 5-10min trying to find them and we do 3 or 4 sets. No idea about the total running volume though. But that's only for my 6-9 yo group lol

Ryan Banta: I do a scavenger hunt were I divide me kids into teams. Each group starts with a different password/clue. The kids as a group must all run together and using their cameras on their phone take a picture of the group in front of what I was describing with my password/clue. Each new clue one kid in the group has the option of staying at home base with me until the next round. It cannot be the same kid two times in a row. Each group has the same clues and tasks they are just mixed up so you never have two groups going after the same thing. The winning group gets something I call an "interval card" this is a card stock ticket that I make that allows my athletes to opt out of a future interval sometime in the season during practice. They can use on any interval except the longest for that particular session. You would be amazed how hard these kids will play this game for one silly interval card. I wouldn't do this a day before a contest as some kids don't know how to moderate their pace.

Håkan Andersson: Next career I'll be coaching kids, sound like more fun than squats;-)

Carl Valle: Håkan - and everyone else, I don't believe people should talk about % unless you have testing and electronic timing. Are we talking about relative velocity based on PB times, or estimated effort? For example training times, even when peaking, don't elicit enough output to be considered a percentage of one's ability, just a percentage of practice and that itself a moving target. Testing in October may not be a good scale when practices in April are going to be different, especially when speed endurance is going to be dramatically different.

Charlie's last consult before his passing really illustrated his model differently as what he did with Ben is not repeatable. Even without drugs, and even without daily therapy, each athlete will be able to tolerate different things. Ben couldn't do plyos and didn't olympic lift, some athletes in the Caribbean barely lift and run far more, and some do a bit of everything. So I contend that instead of worrying about aerobic work or black holes one should stick to improvements in practices and fiber type drift (type 1 not increasing ) so we know we are not painting ourselves in to a corner with fitness volumes being too high. I have used TMG testing on athletes and while it's an estimation , the last thing we need is to have an athlete able to do 10 x 200 at 24 seconds with brief rest but can't break 10.5 to save his life.

Pierre-Jean Vazel: Carl it's not that difficult to use % of the season's target based on individual goals for given spritn distances or hurdles interval. Whether the 100% is the previous's year training PR or next year dream time. Then that gives corner stones for the training season planning. Asd for fiber type, that's much more difficult to test, and anyway fiber type is not the holy grail of sprinting, it might well turn out that fat mass % is a more accurate predictor of sprint performance that FT %...

Carl Valle: PJ, I appreciate fat free mass but we don't have too many pudgy sprinters and if you took two 175 pound sprinters on the grade school championships and one was 80% FT and the other 60 FT all being equal we know who would win. Charlie was not using 75% speed during the tempo runs and the reps were admittedly 20 seconds for the 100s. Terms like "controlled speed" and other 90% runs is why Hakan may be a little irritated with this "black hole" myth. At the end of the day a 1% improvement over an entire year is too precise and sensitive to allow haphazard estimates. Charlie pointed out using 70% speed in the early fall for tempo runs based on PB times in 2002 was not a good idea because most athletes are not even close to PB speed. Show me an athlete electronically going greater than 95% of PB before December in practice and I will believe.....except for Flo Jo VHS tapes in LA before 88 but that is another story.

Ryan Banta: Isn't testing a method to figure out these percentages using a hyper accurate system like free lap? It's easy to use and can be set up quick. The old standard standing 30 and flying 30. Take the to scores add them and the give you a 60. The calculate out with the many formulas to get a decent times to start training at. In high school I always try to get the athlete once in shape to training on notch faster their current pb. In shorter intervals then the races distance we are training for. Is this not a good solution? I welcome your responses.

Carl Valle: [Henk Kraaijenhof] can share his experiences with different athletes running difference percentages of PBs in more detail. I do an LSU approach (basic distances and jumps) plus get splits and test quarterly. Twice in the GPP and once in the SPP ( I and II ). I know look at average output since we are trying to improve performance by 1-2% a year with developmental sprinters. HS Kids may just get better from getting in shape but when you hit near a genetic ceiling injury and getting faster becomes a fine line. I just try to improve output by a fraction of a percentage point as "increase in average output plus long injury free training periods= better than last year."

Håkan Andersson: Testing is really difficult but still we can observe and learn by regularly testing different kind of physical components that we feel/hope will influence the result direct or indirect but I also feel that every session in some way or another is a test of different abilities but it doesn't always have to be 100%.

My experience is that you in the early stages of an athlete’s career will find a direct correlation with a lot of the popular tests and sprinting ability. This is not always the case with the mature athlete, making testing’s perhaps less valuable for those.

What about speed testing? It is even more difficult since maximal sprinting speed can usually only be obtained with the arousal of a competition situation. The fact that some athletes can create more arousal than others in a testing situation and run closer to their maximal capacity at that given time makes it even harder. It is not vise to draw absolute conclusion from a recorded time unless you know the athlete very well.

Regarding effort, relative velocity based on PB or maximal capacity in a given period. I don’t think that anybody would be crazy enough to test maximal sprinting speed during general preparation period? The only realistic mean has to be judging by expectation or perhaps “intuition” towards what you would expect the maximal capacity to be on that given day. I guess this is one part of the handicraft being a coach.

With that in mind I don’t see the value of 100% exact electronic timing all year around. We usually bring it out when intensity start to wind up. If nothing else it gives that extra nerve when it’s needed but would burn them out if used in mid November or April.

I think the concept of effort or perhaps one should say effortless is crucial in sprinting and my experience is that it is sometimes better to put the clock away and talk feelings not numbers.

Don’t get me wrong on this though! I love toys and my general philosophy is that everything that can be measured should be measured:-) Sometimes this can get a bit too stressful though, just ask my retired athletes:-)

Pierre-Jean Vazel: Carl Valle We don't have many sprinters with low FT% neither  ;) ... Henk had biopsies on Merlene and Nelli Cooman showing significant diff %. Sprinters can hit 95% of PB in December for 30m, and might get close at 60m. Charlie never used anything else but his stopwatch, but in GDR, e-timing was often used, the reports showed that the diff between training PBs and competition PBs were avg. 2 % of competition PB for 30m time and 6 % for flying 30s. As Håkan Andersson said, max speed can only been obtain with the adrenaline of competition, and hopefully at major champs.

Carl Valle: Hakan,
Testing should not be a mood but a hidden approach to capturing data or the athlete will feel like a lab rat, get stressed from testing, but all of this is about creating a good training environment. I find speed training correlates with speed, and other components are murky at best. Otherwise Usain would have a poor correlation to his leg extensions and upright rows (cleans!).

I throw out intuition but do listen to my gut when the numbers don't make sense and more data helps create clarity. I find anytime one sprints, either early or later in the year is just as valuable because nobody uses bumper plates without recorded weight numbers and nobody tosses a cone at arbitrary distances. Speed, the most coveted quality, is rarely recorded yet everyone will measure standing broad jumps and tendo velocities like it's the secret to getting speed. Loading an athlete is not just volume, but a percentage out available output and I find that timing precisely allows for more sensitive readings of a program. 10.5 and 11 mps is light years yet everyone thinks they have dartfish vision and radar gun eyes.

Carl Valle:
Interesting data PJ I will look at that but I would argue that the GDR information is something we should look at as I find 30m times more stable but 2% drop off in December? And is that specific to Henks training or would this be seen in Jamaica with their style of training? I think the numbers you share make sense but it's all about seeing change in one's own program versus trying to mimic another. We can learn from what you shared and that was brain candy for me today but we need to see what our programs are doing from a training load as well as a physiological response. I still find TL to be more important than all of the Omegawave nonsense as HRV and EEG is limited. Long term pattens over a season will be seen with physiological responses but that is weekly trending and this is where Charlie was trying to explain in the SPP video when he allowed for overreaching and suggested the watch not being used. I secretly time using video and find that he is right, times go up and fatigue overreaches but that is so sensitive that if you are not on drugs or getting a rub by waldermar you can be in trouble. Given the fact charlie had athletes for ten years, a sophomore athlete in college may not be so lucky especially if a coach doesn't have the experience.

Carl Valle: Chief Keef can increase velocity by 1% but Josh Groban decreases fly times by 7%.

Håkan Andersson: [Carl Valle] Nice reading, well written as always my friend:-) Ryan Banta I'm not convinced regarding the accuracy of Freelap! When I tested Freelap against a state of the art system times were fluctuating too much! If we are talking fractions of tenth that's not good enough. At the moment I trust my hand watch more..

Carl Valle: Benke evaluated the freelap system and found it very accurate. One note though make sure batteries in the sensor are not near dead as I experienced the same thing three years ago before calling my national distributor. Our Estonian friend has a great system and that was compared to freelap. If you want the test results I can send the copy again Hakan.

Ryan Banta: [Håkan Andersson] I agree electronic timing should not always be used. An athlete doing the same thing over and over creates a docile psychological state. That is why I believe even with sports psychology you need to set things up in stages. Out side of testing I usually use a stop watch for my purposes more then the athlete. I spend more time watching why the time is what it is by their front side mechanics, their bounce off the group, the way they attack the interval, who are they running with, etc. I believe interval discipline is important. Now as the season progresses or I have a athlete with a higher training age electronic timing becomes more important. Arousal is huge with electronic time when used on a lower level kid dogging it in practices. As we move to the late parts of the season if I have a kid being lazy this might be the one thing that will save their practice and get them back on track with a more appropriate effort.

Pierre-Jean Vazel: [Håkan Andersson] I'm surprised re-freelap, i've used it for flying 20's with Christine several times and each time double checked with HS video measurement and found the same numbers to 0.01s

Carl Valle: Pj the other issue is the 80 cm adjustments that screwed me up. I swap batteries on transmitters an receivers and if something doesn't seem right I switch it. Downhill skiing is much faster than sprinting and I trust the Swiss!

Ryan Banta: [Carl Valle] lol @ Josh Groban.

Pierre-Jean Vazel: Carl Valle re-Jamaica...... (youtube snapshot)

Håkan Andersson: I no longer have the Freelap since I returned the system when I found it wasn't accurate. I might reconsider if I sometime get the opportunity to retest i, until then I'm happy with our present system. For me spit times from competitions is the ultimate test and that is the reason why we braking our backs analyzing that in every final, every year at

Carl Valle: [Pierre-Jean Vazel] I have plenty if type 1 athletes for you to play with!

Pierre-Jean Vazel: lol Carl

Carl Valle: Windsprint is the best!

Carl Valle: Type 3 fibraz

Mladen Jovanović: Going back to 'polarization' of training load distribution (and expanding to every other volume/intensity "model"):

Is this chicken vs. egg problem?
Is this result of good training or cause of good training?

Should coaches get anxious about their 'curves', or about their philosophy?

I see a lot of coaches focusing on volume/intensity distributions, but I think they are putting cart before a horse.

Would love to hear what Stephen Seiler has on mind if he would love to share?

And BTW, thanks everyone for sharing their thoughts and contributing. Will save this discussion for blog for everyone can review it. BTW, the ex CF forum members: remember how Blinky started that mega discussion on Speed Endurance training (erroneously titles Lactate Threshold Thread) with KitKat1? Amazing J

Rune Fog Brix: 204 pages...

Ryan Banta: [Mladen Jovanović] from my perspective I don't get to choose what I work with and this means for me I get anxious that I am maximizing what the athlete needs from me in terms of training. Kids will need different things depending on their discipline in track and field. No periodization scheme fits all athletes due to their ability level and gifts. For example this year I am moving far away my usual strength based program because in our region we have a great group of 3200runners (longest race in track in hs at our state meet) and none of my girls are exceptionally talented in that event. However, our 400 group and 800 group has the potential to be as good as we once were. Understanding this reality I am going to do something very different then I have done in the past with all of my distance runners. This season they will be running every other day with the sprinters to be ready to run fast in the 800. All of my team has training themes linked to the same days. That allows me to move kids in and out of different groups without blowing them up.

Mike Tuchscherer: I'd be interested to hear why you think volume and intensity distribution is putting the cart before the horse.

Kedric Kwan: This is awesome.

Mladen Jovanović: Here is my rationale Mike, although as you will see I am again 'complementarist'.

When analyzing programs we usually refer to volume and intensity distributions of the same. Then coaches try to copy programs and emulate the volume/intensity.

IMO this might be part of the story ~ one needs to know the goals and methods of certain periods/blocks or 'reasons' why such distribution is realized and whether it was planned or ended as such.

I do agree that reaching certain goals demand certain volume/intensity distributions, hence one starts to plan with volume/intensity distribution. With other goals the process is other way around ~ one assess needs, strength~weaknesses and context and proceed with implementation of the plan, and volume/intensity distribution is a result of such a process not the cause.

Again complementarity ~ I am not sure what 'direction' is the right one, but I am urging against pure copy/paste of volume/intensity distribution without considering the whole picture.


Pierre-Jean Vazel: [Mladen Jovanović] A same workout (volume intensity density) will lead, for example, to very different biological marker results within a group, or will simply be impossible to achieve by some athletes. I guess that what you mean?

Mladen Jovanović: I think that is additional factor: individual reaction.

Mike Tuchscherer: Yes I agree. It's contextual, but more than that too. It's like the river flows both directions and an optimal top down approach is an oxymoron. Or an optimal bottom up approach too. Must have both.

Håkan Andersson: Programming training according to individual needs and ability to tolerate the workload that hopefully is optimal is indeed very difficult both in a short and long term.

If you choose to work in training blocks with more concentrated loading it is in my mind somewhat easier to balance and control the relationship between volume and intensity than in a mixed parallel approach. You might call this goal setting in a training period. I have found that it suits mature athletes that needs a stronger stimuli to adapt better than youngsters that need or more gradual development of all physical components.

This approach is I’m afraid virtually impossible to apply in most team sport due to their relatively short preparation period but they are fortunate in that sense that they don’t need to maximize physical performance, as individual athletes need to. Perhaps some one has different opinion on this but that is my experience.

Regardless even a block approach doesn’t solve the entire problem since as Mladen and PJ mentioned there is an individual reaction do different volumes, intensities and density.

It is understandable that it might be tempting to copy successful coaches and athletes training programs. As a coach it can also be tempting to repeat the training that has proven successful on former successful athletes. A mistake in this regard is not enough considerations to the present athletes background, capacity, social situation, desire etc is taken.

Naturally you should look back though and I do think that your own empirical experience can be crucial in many situations. The new athlete might resembles some or your former athlete in some particular aspects and it would for sure be stupid not to use that experience.

If you are new to the game it would be stupid not to learn from old coaches mistakes but it doesn’t mean being a copy cat or being a “complemetarist” as Mladen was calling it if ai understood it right.

Copying other others trainings programs will most of the time lead to disaster and is one of the reasons why I hesitate spreading my own both privately and in seminars. Training programs are personal and designed to fit certain athletes need at a certain time of his career. Most of the time they don’t match the athletes training diary any way, since most days by many different reasons you are forced to change the context of session.

Back to the question on intensity vs. volume in sprinting training. My experience is that ability to run with high intensity >95% the last 6-8 weeks prior to the competitive season is absolutely essential for the performance and the ability to tolerate a steady increasement of speed up to that intensity level and beyond will really determine the competitive results. Naturally sometimes one has been forced to reduce the planned intensity but volume even though it is important stimuli it is the factor I do acutely change much more often.

Mladen Jovanović: Håkan and Mike ~ I think that coaches should try 'Career in Modeling' (see the attached presentation from WindSprint seminar:

What I mean by this is using a simple model (e.g. Impulse/Response or Rolling Averages) we can track load (Impulse or input) and performance (Response or output) and model it, so we have more educated guess what works for someone.

There is one paper on this modeling for sprinters using sRPE (hmm... might work):

For powerlifting, tools such as GymAware can give us quick 'performance' indicator (KPI) or one can employ daily 1RMs. For sprints that could be timed runs.

Other problem is what constitutes load? IMHO, one can experiment and see what gives the least modeling error (sRPE, distance >90%, tonnage, whatever).

This way we can employ timely tested approaches, but fine tune them for each individual.

Håkan Andersson: I think it is easy to overlook one factor that is perhaps the most important in regards of programming and execution of effective training, the placebo effect! Meaning you need to have great fait in the doctor and the “medicine” he is prescribing in order for the treatment to be effective.

As professor Sapolsky is stating very nicely in his brilliant lecture that Mladen is linking to in his Wind Sprint presentation 2013, “our thinking affects the body”.

Many of the most successful coaches I’ve met are not only smart people they are also have often very dynamic personalities that has great influence on the athletes thinking I’m sure. Sometimes you almost get the feeling of a cult situation where the followers is absolutely convinced that their religion (training) is superior to everybody else…

I think we should explore this area further. I have feeling it is at least as potent and definitely more healthy than using banned chemicals, but perhaps that is material for another thread. Now of to training, see what I can do to screw up their minds today:-)

Pierre-Jean Vazel: Have a nice workout Håkan, from what I see your guys are quite screwed up lol Day off for us, so very important time for synthesizing the work done

Sam Dao: Mladen, would you happen to have the PowerPoint version of the slides from WindSprint 2013?

Mladen Jovanović: It is not done in PowerPoint

Pierre-Jean Vazel: It was a great prez

Ryan Banta: [Håkan Andersson] is correct in my opinion the Cult of Personality plays a huge role in the belief in what one is doing in training and some times that is more important then the actually training from time to time. If you read Talent Code, Talent is over rated, and Gold Mine Effect they all have one thing in common coaches they call "talent whispers." These people of course tend to be eccentric which makes them interesting. Think we have spent nearly 50 of these responses talking about Charlie Francis and his methods. Can you think of any other sprint coaches who meets this standard better. Now after his passing this adds to a mythical status as we only have stories, some videos, and his writings to go off of when trying to address his training methods, thoughts, or ideas.

Pierre-Jean Vazel: We all do mistakes but when you see stupid workouts done and athletes still performing good (maybe not their best though) in spite of their coach, one can wonder that placebo effect really works lol

Håkan Andersson: Verbal placebo, I love the expression:-)

Pierre-Jean Vazel: Hope that athletes are not reading our discussion.

Ashley Mort: Talent is overrated...unless you're a sprinter

Ryan Banta: Each book talks about the need for talent. However, many other factors can play a major role in improved performance. Think about how many teammates or athletes you have met not accomplish what their talent seemed to predict. I can tell you a number of coaches can do this too by destroying an athlete before they get started. My teammate was the state recorder holder in the 400 dash in 1997. He went to a small college and ran fast but with hopes of being in the big time he transferred to a mid level DI and never ran fast again. It's important to note that my teammate dominated workouts not losing a single rep in practice his senior season.

Carl Valle: Lebron- amazing job overcoming his lack of talent from hard work and hustle.

Ryan Banta: I was just explaining that in those books they laid out good examples of what where some commonalities of good coaches. Be nice guys.

David Kerin: To all who precede
Bravo, Encore ......

Ryan Banta: Periodizaton models: Long to short, short to long, Concurrent, bipolar, matveyev, tschiene, vershosansky, and bonderchuck. Any other common models for periodization?

Craig Liebenson: [Håkan Andersson], Your comment above, "What about speed testing? It is even more difficult since maximal sprinting speed can usually only be obtained with the arousal of a competition situation. The fact that some athletes can create more arousal than others in a testing situation and run closer to their maximal capacity at that given time makes it even harder. It is not vise to draw absolute conclusion from a recorded time unless you know the athlete very well. “ is practical genius. I love testing too, but am aware of the nuances. Rene Dubos once said “the measurable drives out the useful”. Your remark “...we can observe and learn by regularly testing different kind of physical components that we feel/hope will influence the result direct or indirect but I also feel that every session in some way or another is a test of different abilities but it doesn’t always have to be 100”. matches how I approach my patients/athletes. Function changes. Performance enhancement is our goal & the means to the end are what we are seeking. Testing for w/in session change in performance markers is more important than being a slave to any particular test. Dr Lewit the great Czech neurologist was fond of saying “the methods should serve the goals.” This sounds a lot like Henk “outcome is more important than output”.

Håkan Andersson: Thanks Craig Liebenson Henk Kraaijenhof has been a good friend and I great mentor for 20 years:-)

Bob Alejo: That's Carl's charm coming out! In the end it's not the dozens of programs/theories/postulates/"toys" that make any difference at all. It is the coaching skill that knows which one of those to apply to which athlete. As I have said, the only thing cutting edge today is great coaching skills. No excel sheet, HR monitor or GPS will ever beat that......ever!

Mladen Jovanović: Nothing with beat that (coaching) Bob, but try getting a job without those skills. They are important "supplement". Coaches need to document their work and pull meaning out of it to know what worked, what not and why. Intuition might be biased - data is not.

If I am director and I need to chose between two highly skilled coaches, I would choose the one that is my relative . Seriously now, I would chose the one that measure, document and monitor his work.

A lot of coaches whine about this, not because it is not true, but because they are lazy to learn new skills demanded by the "industry" and shareholders.

Carl Valle: [Bob Alejo] True but this is not a coaching versus equipment, or data versus human, it's a combination. It all maters and now the standard is you have to prove your job versus be a salesman (heading that way). Craig Liebenson measurement has value otherwise it's an endless debate. Outcomes have outputs as you are not going to win 100m dashes with no output! Medical interventions need proof, and the functional or movement quality people need to realize all of this is going toward some sort of proof of results. Results are measurable and we need to stop looking at measurements as a tool and a way to audit what we do.

Bob Alejo: My point exactly to both Carl and Mladen- Catapult, Polar, etc. do not implement programs, coaches implement programs. I would say anyone can measure, document and monitor work but not everyone can do it well. So, again coaching is cutting edge because we now know it's not the data or the data gathering tool that coaches athletes, it's good coaching that takes that information and develops programs from it. Do the teams in the Premier League all have essentially some tracking and monitoring programs? And if they do then the difference in winning or losing is a) better interpretation of the data towards better training plans, b) better players or c) both. Let's flip it around, give a less skilled coach the most expensive, detailed tracking equipment and there is a problem, the outcome will be poorer than it should be. On the soccer side, what's the use in looking at fitness and physiological data when you have not looked at how many passes you make in a match and how many have connected?

Mladen Jovanović: I feel huge "frustration" with all that stuff because even in the big clubs it is basically "smoke and mirrors". Huge coaching staff - mostly alibi positions with no influence of decision making with data analysis. Technology put before team culture and coaching.

IMO, technology should make doing the basics (eg coaching) easier with more compliance and accountability, and not to represent the "magic bullet".

Carl Valle: Conversely the opposite is true as well. Technology should be making the harder and more complex more manageable. When I see a football club show three weeks of lifting like an adult (not geriatric) instead of a child I will ask about GPS and Omegawave data. Speaking of the GPS why are some clubs spending 30k for a dashboard of smily faces and subjective indicators again? GPS should show the pubs and clubs they are at. Coach Bob Alejo- I don't care about what is not working as we have plenty of that, you tell me who is doing it right besides NC State? I have some plane miles to use and so far I see the same stuff I can get a the HS next to my house except the locker rooms are nicer and they have catapult.

David Tenney: What a very nice discussion I have apparently missed out on.

David Tenney: Bob, you are dead on with this quote: "So, again coaching is cutting edge because we now know it's not the data or the data gathering tool that coaches athletes, it's good coaching that takes that information and develops programs from it." But that's what makes the difference... Too many coaches here in the States are terrified of the data, and have no clue how to use it to "guide" their programming. I have no doubt that all the technology we use has made me a better coach because I get a better feel for the inputs (training loads) and outputs (training effects + fatigue) far better.

David Tenney: And Mladen Jovanović, I don't know what to say about your frustration other than try and get yourself down to Australia already so you can see some performance teams integrate everything in a professional manner.

Ryan Banta: Meanwhile, away from practice it is important to stick with the "Valle" five minute rule for data collection. Meaning anything you gather or ask you athlete can only take five minutes. Any longer and you will not get the follow through that makes the data worth it.

David Tenney: Hmmm... Wasn't aware that was named the "Valle" rule... Anyone working in pro sports (aka "herding cats') knows that's reality

Carl Valle: Now that the world is flat, you are going to see the US "problems " everywhere. I learned quickly that you will have a and now the US has more GPS systems in a few years after FSU acquiring the system a few years ago.

@Dave Tenney- I think coaches are terrified of the poor data or lack of data to be specific. Imagine if people find out that no change has happened with those with low level abilities or good athletes took a few steps back? Imagine presenting a chart that shows strength or power decreases and a Yo Yo test looking like black monday over a few years? What about no data? Showing the athlete is skipping workouts?

@Ryan Banta- Sustainable collection of data is the most important because athletes are human and don't like having too much interfere with their day and only so much time in a day. Wearables is nice but not everything is precise enough to put on smart fabric. Now that EMG and Motion Capture is increasing, we are going to see more and more headaches unless people have platforms, since dashboards are nice for HRV but don't fit the complexity of gait analysis.

Will be continued…..

1 comment:

  1. Damn Mladen, thanks for reposting this. I missed the FB chat/thread. Amazing stuff!