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)
Pre-season
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
Season
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
End:season
Couple of days off, two-three weeks of high rep
work, extensive tempo, MB circuits and prehab.
Thoughts?
|
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: http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/04/moses-mosops-training.html
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!
|
Roger
White: On the subject of Charlie, http://www.runningmechanics.com/eight-athlete-development-lessons-i-learned-from-charlie-francis/
|
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 www.windsprint.se.....
|
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
|
Mladen
Jovanović: Link to mentioned
discussion: http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?6758-Lactate-Threshold
|
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.
Thoughs?
|
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: http://bit.ly/1gzTRCa)
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): http://1.usa.gov/1gzTXtL
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 http://www.crossfitbrisbane.com
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…..
Damn Mladen, thanks for reposting this. I missed the FB chat/thread. Amazing stuff!
ReplyDelete