Greg Potter Interview Part II: Intensive Tempo, Short to Long vs. Long to Short, and CNS Strength and Individual Differences

A few months ago, I posted a great interview with one of the brightest minds in the sprint science world, Greg Potter.  We covered awesome topics such as complex training and approaching squatting for sprinters.  I wanted to share with you more of this great, quality information, so I have 3 more fantastic insights from Greg on some relevant sprinting topics.  If you coach athletes for speed, enjoy track and field, or just like training theory, you’ll love this interview.

Just Fly Sports:  Intensive tempo has been described as a fairly useless nether region in sprint workouts, too slow to provoke adaptation and yet fast enough to not allow a speed workout in the following session without risk of hamstring injury.  Although this may be true, the style is still used by a number of successful coaches, such as LSU coach Dennis Shaver.  What are your thoughts on the use of intensive tempo training?

(For those of you not familiar with intensive tempo, this refers to sprinting in the 75-90% intensity range.  This means if you could maximally run the 200m dash in 23.0 seconds, intensive tempo would be doing training runs in the 26-31 second range over the 200m distance would represent intensive tempo running)

Like most things, I think so-called intensive tempo runs can have their place. Certainly I agree that prolonged periods of high volumes of these runs may be ill-advised and that they are less specific to the competitive sprints than speed endurance runs, but they can be a useful way to transition seamlessly into maximal, longer runs.

I think it’s important first to define what the individual is referring to when intensive tempo runs. It seems that most people consider these to be repeated runs at around 85% of the individual’s fastest time over a given distance with incomplete recoveries between repetitions. With this in mind, I’ll give a couple of thoughts on the velocity side of things first.

Even if these runs are not run at maximal velocities, they can be used to induce relevant training adaptations. More specifically, if Henneman’s principle of orderly recruitment of motor units applies to more complex motor tasks like running then repeated, sub-maximal velocity runs with incomplete recoveries may still produce similar motor unit recruitment to maximal velocity runs and thereby induce relevant adaptations (e.g. elevated glycolytic enzyme activity). Moreover, people would rarely use such runs exclusively, and maximal, shorter sprints are typically performed concurrently such that speed is not being neglected.

Some people have raised reservations about implementing these runs secondary to concerns over skeletal muscle fibre transitions towards slower myosin heavy chain isoforms. The trouble is, virtually all training (with the exception of certain methods such as yielding actions, perhaps) produces shifts towards slower isoforms. I also think that, while still of relevance, the importance of fibre composition has been over-blown by many. It’s interesting that the great importance of skeletal muscle-tendon unit architecture hasn’t gained as much attention.

With respect to recovery, many coaches have suggested previously that these runs cannot be followed by significant volumes of high-intensity work on the following day, stating that these runs require at least 24 hours of recovery. Such time frames strike me as a little arbitrary, and I have reservations about the dichotomies that many people create when speaking of recovery. For example, many people speak of ‘central nervous system fatigue’; I think it’s more useful to consider fatigue as a multi-factorial process, even if central factors do contribute to this process. These central components can also be elucidated using techniques such as electrically-evoked muscle actions, although there has been little research to date in this realm on elite power athletes. Nonetheless, I personally do err on the side of caution and do not include these on days prior to maximal running.

With all of this said, I personally use runs at similar intensities to these runs in General Preparatory and Restoration mesocycles to re-introduce speed endurance runs with a couple of modifications. Rather than using high volumes of these runs, the total volume is little higher than a traditional speed endurance session. Furthermore, I extend the recovery intervals such that chances of excessive decrements in technique are minimised. The end result is slightly sub-maximal (around 85% of fastest time) longer runs that can be progressed in a mesocycle in a similar fashion to speed endurance runs. Speed endurance runs can then be introduced in the following mesocycle. Just as an example, let’s say a 200 metre runner is progressing towards runs of 240 metres. His fastest time in running this distance is 28 seconds. He calculated what 85% of this time would be:

28 / 0.85 = roughly 33 seconds

A mesocycle of such runs could then be something like:

This athlete could then transition into slightly lower volumes of slightly shorter, maximal runs.

It should also be said that more ‘traditional’ intensive tempo runs might be expected to benefit a 400 metre runner more than a 200 metre runner, and a 200 metre runner more than a 100 metre runner. As always, some will respond favourably to intensive tempo runs, some less!

Just Fly Sports:  What is your opinion on when to train a sprinter short to long vs. long to short? (I know this answer could be a whole book, but what are your thoughts in a few paragraphs)

Great question, I don’t think a book could do it justice, however!

The whole notion of short-to-long versus long-to-short is problematic on several grounds. For example, many so-called long-to-short programmes may include small amounts of short, maximal sprints throughout the training year with longer, maximal sprints only introduced as targeted competitions approach. Therefore, it could be said that the maximal runs are following a short-to-long format. Conversely, perhaps a so-called short-to-long programme includes higher volumes of longer distance extensive tempo runs early in the year that are reduced in volume and length as targeted competitions approach. Therefore, it could be said that the extensive tempo runs are following a long-to-short format. Another approach may entail an increase in distance of short maximal runs during the training calendar whereas maximal speed endurance runs are progressed from longer runs to shorter runs as the climax of the season draws near. Thus, maximal runs are following both approaches concurrently. I hope I haven’t belaboured my point!

The actual time frame considered is worthy of a mention. What I mean is that perhaps you perceive a late-maturing 18 year old athlete to have great potential in the 400 metres. You suspect he’s likely to reach peak performance in his mid-to-late twenties, and you decide to train him more like a 100 metre sprinter initially. In a couple of years’ time, he begins training more like a 200 metre sprinter. Finally, he begins training more like a 400 metre sprinter in several years’ time.

In short, I think this depends on myriad factors, including the athlete’s attitude. More specifically, if the athlete is convinced that a long-to-short approach is the only way to advance his performance, even the best-planned short-to-long programme may prove fruitless. It is not uncommon to see people partaking in events of increasing distances with some success as their career progresses, but the reverse is rarely true; speed is the quality that must first be in place. Therefore, my personal inclination is to generally use a ‘short-to-long’ template with 100 and 200 metre athletes; I suspect the 400 metre athlete could probably go either way, although I haven’t coached any 400 metre sprinters and so would be hesitant to comment.

Just Fly Sports:  In the same vein, what are your thoughts on strength training intensity and volume for a gifted “powerful nervous system” athlete vs. a weaker, slower athlete? 

I’m far from reconciling the answer to this one in my mind. Fundamentally, I think it’s useful to begin with a blank slate in a manner akin to scientific experiment. Through the coaching process, you provide a series of inputs to the athlete (e.g. training stimuli) and observe the outputs. If things are going in the right direction, you crack on; if not, you re-evaluate. I say this because I think it’s hard to predict how somebody will respond to a given stimulus with the tools that I have available to me, namely my eyes! I’ve had very powerful athletes blessed with extraordinary abilities in exercises that are further along the force side of the force-velocity spectrum such as jumping, lifting and throwing exercises who have not improved their sprinting as much as I would have expected based on their improvements in these exercises. I tried to make their strengths even stronger through higher intensities and volumes of these exercises. This worked in the weight room, but to next to no avail on the track.

I try to begin with the determinants of sprinting success in mind and then implement what I believe might develop these qualities. In all of training, I think it’s worth trying to identify the minimum effective dose initially. Therefore, I generally favour lower volumes of lower intensity loads in the weight room with a focus on moving the implement as fast as is possible to leave room for future intensification of loading if we think it necessary. In time, the loads may increase gradually, but this transition is hopefully barely perceptible. In time, the athletes will display their strengths and self-select what they feel to benefit them with a bit of guidance.

We don’t always have athletes long enough to manage the training process from start to finish, and sometimes an athlete who is a recent addition has a glaring weakness in the weight room that clearly must be addressed. In these circumstances, reviewing how athletes joining from other groups have been training previously can be important to guiding the selection of loads initially. There may be threshold levels of performance in certain qualities that need to be met in order to reach a certain qualification, but further improving qualities beyond these thresholds may not further improve performance, or perhaps even hinder it.

About the Author: Greg is a coach, personal trainer, and sports massage therapist in the U.K.  Check out his blog at gdmpotter.blogspot.co.uk and find him on Twitter @GDMPotter 

Free Speed Training eBook - Velocity 101

Improving speed is one of the most popular topics in the athletic performance equation.  Where there are many ideas and thoughts out there, as to particular training exercises, or setups, the more core aspects of speed training often go without mention.  These include the fundamental aspects of what makes an athlete fast, specific sprint-power concepts, the relevance of "3D" motion, motor learning and more.  

Velocity 101 will help you take a leap forward in understanding of what makes athletes fast, and how to train it effectively

Invalid email address

Name:

Email:

We will never sell your information and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Thanks for subscribing! Your ebook is on it's way!