Jay Johnson - Question about Routines & Strength Training

whatt?? wrote:

However, the plyos have been substantiated with highly trained athletes.

Check out an article entitled:

Short-term plyometric training improves running economy in highly trained middle and long distance runners.

The runners Averaged around 8:40 for 3k pre plyos, and 8:30 for 3k post plyos. While not elite elite, 8:30 3k oviously shows a large amount of training and some natural talent. It's about the best you can do for research studies (What 8min 3k guy is going to have some scientists manipulate their training?)

I am working on a video response, but could someone forward me the full article - I can only find the abstract online. Thanks in advance.

Hi Jay

I don't have access to the journal, but I pasted the abstract below.

I respect the authors of the study, but note that the p value for running economy was 0.02 at 18 km/hr but not significant at the other speeds and for the overall slope, p was 0.12, hopefully you recall from your Kines degree that most stats people feel p <0.05 is a good threshold for a significant difference. The sample size 7 and 8 in the two groups is small. Test/re-test repeatability for running economy is in the 2% range for careful scientists.

Few controlled studies have been done on good runners, so I don't want to dish on the study, but I wouldn't say the results were conclusive. I'd say that the study suggest that a more comprehensive study is warranted.

Rodger

Saunders Philo U; Telford Richard D; Pyne David B; Peltola Esa M; Cunningham Ross B; Gore Chris J; Hawley John A

Short-term plyometric training improves running economy in highly trained middle and long distance runners.

Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association 2006;20(4):947-54.

Fifteen highly trained distance runners VO(2)max 71.1 +/- 6.0 ml.min(-1).kg(-1), mean +/- SD) were randomly assigned to a plyometric training (PLY; n = 7) or control (CON; n = 8) group. In addition to their normal training, the PLY group undertook 3 x 30 minutes PLY sessions per week for 9 weeks. Running economy (RE) was assessed during 3 x 4 minute treadmill runs (14, 16, and 18 km.h(-1)), followed by an incremental test to measure VO(2)max. Muscle power characteristics were assessed on a portable, unidirectional ground reaction force plate. Compared with CON, PLY improved RE at 18 km.h(-1) (4.1%, p = 0.02), but not at 14 or 16 km.h(-1). This was accompanied by trends for increased average power during a 5-jump plyometric test (15%, p = 0.11), a shorter time to reach maximal dynamic strength during a strength quality assessment test (14%, p = 0.09), and a lower VO(2)-speed slope (14%, p = 0.12) after 9 weeks of PLY. There were no significant differences in cardiorespiratory measures or VO(2)max as a result of PLY. In a group of highly-trained distance runners, 9 weeks of PLY improved RE, with likely mechanisms residing in the muscle, or alternatively by improving running mechanics.

Dr. Kram*, always good to hear from you and thanks for adding some legitimacy to my complaints about the plyo/RE articles; on a related note, I am accepting applications for an internship program; ideal candidates would be an aspiring lawyer and the job is to simply follow me around during the day to add legitimacy to my other complaints in life.**

Dr. Kram, you poked a little with "hopefully you recall from your Kines degree that...." statement and I appreciate that you're asking if I remember those elements components of any graduate education in science given that most people in that program went on to meaningful and exciting careers as research assistants, careers where they use those statistics every day, where as I simply went on to coach.*** I do appreciate you poking as I'm staring to become a dough boy and that's what happens to dough boys, they get poked.

But seriously, Dale Mood's 5,000 level stats class my fist year of grad school was a great lesson for me because I did try to get an A and I failed to get that A and it taught me the same thing that Jim Collins discusses in Good to Great - I had always been pretty good with numbers, but I am not wired to speak in numbers the way some people can. That said, I do know that the bigger the n the better and that while a a p-value of p<0.05 likely gets you published a p<0.01 is not unreasonable if the efficacy of the intervention in question is actually does what the authors are hoping it does.

Okay, lets go back the original issue:

I said "DON'T do plyos, even though you can find primary research articles showing that plyos help very average 3k runners. Not only are you likely not a very average 3k runner, but you're trying to run a ton and it's simple a bad cost/benefit equation; if you do the damn plyos wrong and your fracture your navicular you might never run again."

"Whatt??" said is response "However, the plyos have been substantiated with highly trained athletes. Check out an article entitled: Short-term plyometric training improves running economy in highly trained middle and long distance runners. The runners Averaged around 8:40 for 3k pre plyos, and 8:30 for 3k post plyos. While not elite elite, 8:30 3k oviously shows a large amount of training and some natural talent. It's about the best you can do for research studies (What 8min 3k guy is going to have some scientists manipulate their training?)"

Dr. Kram has weighed in and said, "Few controlled studies have been done on good runners, so I don't want to dish on the study, but I wouldn't say the results were conclusive. I'd say that the study suggest that a more comprehensive study is warranted." Since he's the smartest person posting I suggest you reread his post.

So, I think my complaint is still valid and now let me add a new complaint: the lack of a pre and post race/time trial. Let me explain.

I'm looking at a full copy of the study above, emailed to me yesterday (who says that the letsrun viewership isn't helpful?) and from what I can tell the authors list the 3k PRs as part of the parameters, but there is no mention of when this PR was run. I would link the study but it says, at the bottom, "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission." I'm sure someone can find a public version of it...if people can find free versions of RunningDVDs.com content gratis online this shouldn't be that hard ;-)

My point? I once ran 14:20 on Friday, and 3:49.51 on Sunday morning (Mt. Sac); on any metric of your choosing I would have had a number, but since we don't any data from a lab we'll use my copy of Daniels (Kennedy cover....yes, yes, I need to get the updated one) and we'll use the Vdot for me, either 74 or 73. But here's the problem - right now, today, I suck at running. I can't even run behind a baby jogger at 8 min pace without feeling fatigued. So today my Vdot would be lower, right? So if we study me today should we talk of PRs that are over a decade old or my current dough boy state of fitness? My simple question is "When did the subjects run the 8.6 +/- 0.4 and 8.5 +/- 0.4 for E and C groups?" And I'm quite happy to give the authors credit for finding an 8:06 and 8:12 guy for each group, but again, when were these times run in relation to the study?

So, the real issue here is simple: Where is the study that shows pre and post 3k race/time trial performance following _____ weeks of plyos? Don't give us Vo2 values WITHOUT telling us that you tested them 10 days after the _____ meet where they ran ____ . And I know what you're going to say, you're going to say "But we know that in the 4 min run tests the Plyo group out performed the control group." Great. I don't care. As a coach, not a sports scientist, all I care about when asking the question "will this new training thing (i.e. plyos) help the athlete run faster?" If the answer to that question is yes, then I ask, "Do I have to take out some other important component of training to do this new thing that the study is suggesting will improve performance?"

...and if there are subsequent questions or contingencies to consider my brain gets tiered and I give up...sorta like like having too many tabs open in Firefox...

This is a ridiculously long response, but I took the time to write if for one simple reason. I have an MS from CU in Kinesiology and Applied Physiology and while I treasure that degree, I only treasure it because to get that degree I had to learn how to think critically, a skill that I was not forced to learn as an undergrad at a somewhat prestigious (no longer?) state institution. You don't need a background in exercise physiology to read a primary research article and figure out that while it raised some nice questions, it's flawed. Don't let your background in _______ prevent you from telling the "running experts" they're wrong; what you've learned on the track at practice is valuable and if you take good notes and are willing to change your approach the next year based on those notes. Remember, you probably know more about the aerobic and anaerobic metabolisms than Gags, but he's 10 times the coach you are...and I would guess that if you explained to Gags that there are tons of studies showing that plyos help you run faster he'd say "Well, did they race faster?****"

*for those of you who don't know, Dr. Kram is not only a contributing member of the Boulder running community, not only a tireless supportor of CU's Track program, but also one of the brightest minds in the world of biomechanics. Basically, he's smarter than you and I.

**What would the intern do? Well, they would accompany me through life and feed me talking points to support my general complaints. For example, I went to the Nuggets game the other night and I was totally frustrated with the Nuggets and I was asking myself, "Why can't the Nuggets guard Ray Allen on the perimeter?" Rather than just let the question hang in the ether of my mind, the intern would chime with 3 specific points that better illuminate my general point. For instance, the intern might say, "Well, the Nuggets are generally complacent because they think that 3rd place in the Western Conference means something, but all it means is that they're at a minimum 4 spots away from the Tiffany and Co. designed trophy. Also, even their best player, who played in the Big East, doesn't know basketball history and doesn't understand that the Celtics play an NBA version of the old Big East, the 'getting a beast in the middle and surrounding him with long, tough kids who aren't afraid to play defense' Big East. And George Karl sucks, though he's no doubt a good man...but he still sucks."

***Why did I get a MS if I didn't want to be a research assistant? The answer is that I wanted to be a coach and as a college graduate in the 1990's I fall between two distance models of "How to become a college coach."

The old model of becoming a college coach:

- compete in your sport of choice in college; the level (DI vs. NAIA) dosen't matter (if you don't believe me then look at the alma matters of the 12 men who coach basketball in the Big 12; for every Jeff Capel/Duke there's a Rick Barnes/Lenoir-Rhyne)

- get a masters; what you get it in doesn't matter, but you've got to have the two letters - Don't argue, Just Do It

- apply to many places; if you interview well you'll likely get the job because the person that is hiring you knows that the best way to get experience is to have the chance to get experience

- Take the job, even though when you tell your friends/spouse/parents what you're making they force a smile, but to you is so cool because you get to coach; recruit you ass off to do the most important thing an assistant does, making the Head Coach's job easier; this could mean having your event area score a ton of points at the conference meet, but it probably has more to do with compliance, recruiting and safe van driving then you might had thought.

- When the "next logical step" job opens up the Head Coach calls and helps you get that next job

The new model of becoming a college coach:

- compete in your sport of choice in college; the level now matters more than it should

- don't get a masters as letters now mean nothing but do get the best unpaid position you can in DI; you can always coach DII or NAIA if you don't like DI but if you're a volunteer at a GREAT DII program you will struggle to get to ever get to DI if that is your aspiration. After two years in this position you apply for jobs, hoping the person that you worked for for free has some time to make some calls on your behalf

- apply to many places; if you interview well it may not matter but the phone calls from the person for whom you're working for gratis do matter

- Take the job, even though when you tell your friends/spouse/parents what you're making they force a smile, but to you is so cool because you get to coach; recruit you ass off and do the most important thing an assistant does, making the Head Coach's job easier; this could mean having your event area score a ton of points at the conference meet, but it probably has more to do with compliance, recruiting and safe van driving then you might had thought.

- When the "next logical step" job opens up the Head Coach calls and helps you get that next job

Charmed Life model

- Run 9:45 in HS and then walk onto a program that is at the begging of it's ascension to national prominence as the program has a then unpaid assistant named Wetmore; you can walk on because both your parents are college educated and when you ask them if "we" ("we" in this case really means "they" but you're dumb and 18 so you say "we") can afford to turn down the DII deal that would be cheaper for your family, they say yes...but remember, you live a charmed life model - not everyone can do that.

- Run decent in college, but again, you're running 14:20 and 8:20 when those times, on the right day, will score 13 points at the indoor conference meet; a short time later those times would have gotten you zero at the same damn meet, yet you live a charmed life...but because you're also human and you're not above asking Billy Nelson weekly, "Hey, I forgot - what's the most points you've ever scored in the conference meet. Really? Wow - that's it. Hey, is 13 points good?"

-Then get your name printed in the book, a book written by a guy who lives with your later-to-be spouse when he's writing the damn book, which means that even though you didn't run that well during "the book" the author feels guilty not putting you in the book.

-Then get an MS so you can coach in the middle of Kansas in a town with a nice golf course, but a track that's not nice, so you roll a 320m oval on the grass around the town's demolition derby pit; you sometimes blow out of the office early in the months of February, March and April to go shovel the ice/snow off the track, which turns out do to something amazing - the bumps in the dirt/grass stick to the ice and when you remove a 4" chunk of ice some 1/2" clumps of dirt/grass come with it, leaving a nice level running surface, all grass. This makes you happy, but then again, of course the chunks of dirt come off with the ice because you live a charmed life. This ice shoveling - actually, more like ice prying - also makes you realize that this coaching gig is great - you have to pry ice off a grass oval around a demolition derby pit in the middle of Kansas, but when compared sitting in an office and hearing about "core capacities" or worrying about "leveraging your skill set in a competitive job market" it's a no brainer! After 2 years in Kansas an assistant coach at CU leaves and because the Head Track and Field coach at CU, like all college coaches, would rather hire someone he knows - even if that person is flawed***** than hire someone he does not know.

Of the three models I highly recommend the Charmed Life model. Regarding the other two, my worry is that while the old model makes better coaches as it gives young coaches a chance to screw up and learn from their mistakes. The new, preferred model, teaches the coach more about compliance rules than it does about developing athletes. Long term, the new model might be bad for track and field.

****Though I don't really know Gags I really can hear him as my wife, like most former Hoyas, loves to do her Gags impression every time she has a chance. Former Hoyas love that guy.

*****Flaws include, but are not limited to, being a pour poof reeder and walking as if he has a stick up his butt.

Video response to "Whatt??"

http://www.coachjayjohnson.com/2009/03/to-plyo-or-not-to-plyo-part-i/

Jay - your lame jokes kill me.

That's all.

Jay,

This thread and your posts are a breath of fresh air on letsrun. Not to mention, I am really enjoying your blog about college recruiting, that's some really great stuff.

While I don't have anything to actually add to this thread in terms of technical info at the moment, I will say I enjoy watching and reading what you have say. I had the pleasure of hearing Lauren Seagrave speak at my level I school and I was floored. That guy knew his stuff and, from what I could gather, he learned a lot of it from Dan Pfaff, whom I have never had the fortune of meeting. Their knowledge seems very specific to sprinting and you are the first coach I have seen apply a lot of the biomechanical/strength training ideas into distance training; at least in "new media" fashion.

I personally believe its really important but haven't had the fortune, facilities (I have to admit we do not have a track, weight room or equipment at our school), or knowledge to implement all of the stuff I have learned, minus some of the core and body weight stuff. I really think you are really on the right track with taking the knowledge and coaching of our sport, especially females, to another level. Your comments about strength training/plyos being a "firefox tab" is dead on and I wish I would have realized that much earlier in my own running career, haha.

In any case, in an attempt to contribute something to this great learning thread, what do you think about the recent move towards "speed development" at the elite level? In talking with Terrance and in reading Brad Hudson's book, it seems they are both focused on using sprints to help the US catch back up to the world in terms of pure speed. I thought Terrance's focus on sprint development, mechanics and economy was just an innovative (at least to me at the time) method to develop speed in athletes without sacrificing long term gains. In case you don't know what I am referring to, Terrance spoke about having his athletes run very short, timed sprints the day before hard workouts. Sometimes they would be very short, fast (15m-30m) bouts (from 2-8 depending on the development of the athlete) with full recovery the day before speed workouts (He did use the more conventional "strides" before threshold workouts, granted they were much faster and controlled, read timed, than a normal stride). He concluded that their running economy improved, mechanics got better, and the neuromuscular stimulation actually helped athletes prepare for the next days workout and not get them fatigued. I know Brad uses the hills but I have never used them so I have no basis to talk.

In any case, do you have athletes do this at all? Or do you feel that the work you do in the gym is means by which to accomplish a similar task? I hope this stimulates some more great conversation. Thanks to all who have contributed!

I definately think sprinting/mechanics are an overlooked aspect in distance training. In the past couple years, you've seen a resurgence in distance coaches paying attention to such things.

I'd just like to caution that ideas on sprint mechanics and training are just as varied as ideas on distance training. So, try and learn, get good sources, and disect the info just as you would for distance training.

The most common mistake I see with distance coaches in regards to sprint work is they automatically accept whatever some sprint coach says. Most of the time they just copy the sprint drills and implement them, without really thinking what they do. Well, in terms of mechanics development, they are practically useless. They can be good for other things, but for running form, useless, and that's the reason most distance coaches have their athletes do them.

No offense meant to you Jeff, but your post illustrates this great. The concepts of sprint training are new, so it seems impressive to hear what many of them say.

All I'm saying is that there are many different approaches, so don't just copy stuff.

Just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but Seagrave's ideas on mechanics are a bit off. Not someone I'd copy.

No offense taken as I think you are exactly right. I think Jay illustrated something similar in one of his responses. He basically said that just because something makes scientific sense it doesn't mean we should blindly incorporate it. You have to ask yourself, "does this make me faster". I don't have the technical expertise to accurately discuss if what Seagrave says is right or wrong (and he never really mentioned anything about distance running), but you hit it on the head when you said more distance coaches should be concerned about mechanics. I've read "Explosive Running" by Dr. Yessis a while ago and I thought that made some decent sense, albeit not all correct. What are your thoughts on some of the better mechanics coaches for distance running?

Once again, this is just my opinion. Like with distance running there is a ton of controversy. Learn basic biomechanics and then read a variety of sources, talk to a variety of succcessfull coaches and just like with distance running you'll be able to critique everything pretty well.

A couple controversial topics you'll come across:

1. Pawback in running.

-Some coaches believe there's a pawback, some don't. Seagrave is one who thinks there's a pawback. I'm on the opposite end. I don't.

2. Sprint Drills for mechanics

-Some coaches believe drills improve mechanics. Some believe that mechanics must be learned while running. I'm of the learn while running view.

3. Technique improves performance

-Most obviously think technique improves performance, but there are some who think

4. The ankle, toe off and dorsiflexion

-On two fronts: 1st- do we need active full extension (toe off). 2nd- always dorsiflex b4 landing. I'm in the opinion of leaving the ankle alone and that trying to get extra force by extended toe off is bad. On dorsiflexion, I think you should once again leave the ankle alone. It should be in a neutral position when ground contact occurs.

5. Actively kicking butt or actively lifting knee

-Both are No-no's in my opinion, but some coaches love trying to get their athletes to do it.

There's more, but that's a sampling.

As far as coaches go. I'm a Tom Tellez guy. My biased opinion is that he's the biomechanics man in terms of running mechanics. Besides him, Dan Pfaff does good work. Frans Bosch has some interesting ideas and a good book although I don't agree with everything, as he is a proponent of a "scissor model" of the lower legs. Mike Young of elitetrack.com does some good work in regards to running mechanics.

As mentioned above, Seagrave is an active pawback guy which I don't agree with.

Good to see that my long post killed the thread as that was partly my goal - a lazy letsreader can't read that long...Specific to your point Jeff

Yes, I do, but since three Mahon coached athletes finished ahead of Sara on TV Sunday letsassume that you should do it his way...and you should email me the handouts from his talk if you have them ;-)

Here Sara's training from Mt. Sac to Stanford in 2007; I will do a video response showing you what this looks like if people want it...lots to do this week, but I want to be helpful, though now we are most definitely off the OP

Remember, she had a different endocrine profile post-pregnancy so I hit her hard with power work in the weight room and speed development on the track (too much?) as my theory was simply that she would respond better to that AND she had no "base*" and we only had 4 months (she ran her first 40 min week late Jan '07.

I will close with this as I need to go:

I ran on cow paths in High School and while the cow paths I would run on from Douglas Country HS are now covered in track housing, it's how I think of and remember HS running...that and 400's twice a week.

In Gambetta's "Athletic Development" he talks about the idea that the nervous system adapts in such a way that it's hard to make a break through, but when you do you don't have to do as much work the next year to get to that same point. Vern's analogy is great - It's like a path a person walks, wearing out the grass; the path may over grow a little over the winter, but after a week of two of walking it the path is back to where it was the year prior." As a guy who trained on cow trails this obviously made sense to me.

I will write this up in detail sometime in the coming months, but the key here (and the key for me to remember with the new athletes this year?) is to open up those neural pathways early so that you don't have to spend as much time in subsequent years. But again, part of that approach was due to Sara's unique endocrine profile at the time, coupled with the fact that she hadn't run for 4 months.

...the first post of my blog was basically a name check, like KRS-ONE saying "lyrics when you hear it rock all ya' all, and my production be classic like Mally-Mal"...

and on that note listen to this if you have time

*I hate that term - I think GI Joes and snow forts when I say it

Just wanted to add something on this topic.

Look up post activation potentiation. It's the big thing with throwers/sprinters in the literature right now. Basically, it is getting the nervous system firing to improve performance.

While the application is somewhat different, the theory is similar for why one would do some sort of sprint/neural activity the day before a workout.

If you want to look into it more, Canova mentions using hill sprints before workouts, as does Hudson.

From my practical experience, it works great for many athletes. I tend to use hill sprints to get the job done, but you can also use sprints on the track, plyos, or many GS type activities like Jay seems to use (I imagine some of the power/med ball throws would be great for getting the nervous system firing).

What I've found with HS kids, is that whenever someone is feeling sluggish or flat, hill sprints liven up their legs. It makes sense for two reasons. One, you are engaging the Nervous system to recruit a lot of fibers. That potentially increases the fiber pool of which to choose from. Secondly, you are altering the muscle tension, essentially making things more responsive.

The response varies based on the athletes make up. I suspect it's because of two things. The fiber make up of a runner, or the elasticity of his stride. I've had some athlete's who almost had to do some sort of sprint work weekly because it made his legs feel so good. A

So, doing some sort of sprint work the day before a workout or even two days before a workout works great for the most part, UNLESS the athlete already has a very high degree of muscle tone/tension. Meaning he already feels very bouncy in his stride maybe because he's been tapering a lot and doing faster work for a bit.

Also, sticking in some short sprints during a heavy mileage period is a good way to prevent someone from getting flat from just tons of mileage.

For what it's worth, Webb does similar things in the form of short sprints the day before workouts on occasion.

two video responses below

thanks Jay, was that done after a recovery run the day before a workout?

Also getting back to the OP he was looking at specifically marathon build up. would you be careful with how much sprinting and GS you are doing when running well over 100 mile weeks? thanks

Jay and sjm1368,

Thanks very much for the response and the continued dialogue. Its late and I have to travel tomorrow morning but I wanted to just say thanks. It's refreshing to see coaches sharing so much knowledge and training programs on a forum like this. Too often coaches are very secretive. I am extremely appreciative for all that you have shared thus far.

I don't have typed notes from Terrance's speech. It was from his lecture at the Long Distance Summit this year and Charlotte. A task for the plane ride!

this has to be one of maybe three or four topics on the boards that actually contains substance and USEFUL informations for running & training. THIS, is a quality thread, THANK YOU ALL.

Jay,

Thanks very much for all the great info. Good to see that you've discovered the wisdom in Moo, Baa, La La La. Much better than anything Lydiard, Canova, et al.

At least, my 6 month old son thinks so.

I think Jay Johnson wanted some information on hill sprints to improve or maintain the elasticity of the heart.

Here it is straight from Renato Canova.

I always use short sprints uphill (from 60 to 100m, with a gradient of 10-15%, depending on the characteristics of the place), also during full track season (or during every period of preparation regarding marathon runners).

Running long distances many times, not always fast but often moderate, athletes become unable to use completely their fibres, expecially FT. Runners of long distance become unable to have quick nervous reactions, and step by step lose capacity of MENTAL INTENSITY in efforts. So, the goal is to recruit their capacity in requiring max intensity to their brain, that means rapidity in transmitting stimula to muscles, and means also the possibility of using the most percentage possible of fibres.

So, the first goal of short sprints uphill is not to improve speed, but to reach the capacity of working with the higher number of fibres in each muscle (of course interested in specific activity).

The second goal is to increase the elasticity of heart.

Being a muscle, heart needs to work using a large range of possibilities. Under this point of view, if you reduce too much your max heart rate, you reduce your capacity of working.

An example :Athlete A : Basic HR 50/min - Max HR 200Athlete B : Basic HR 40/min - Max HR 180Athlete C : Basic HR 36/min - Max HR 180

A) is the athlete after 2-3 years of training. He's yet young, didn't work very much on long run, is able to reach a high level of HR (200) having a good elasticity in his myocardium. His coefficient of contraction is 4, as he's able to work 4 times his basic value (200 : 50).

B) the same athlete, after working 2 years in dicrection of long run, improving very much his aerobic capacity. As his heart becomes bigger, he's able to reduce his basic HR of 20% (from 50 to 40). Of course, he's no more able to have the same peak (from 200 to 180), but loses only 10%. So, now his coefficient of contraction is 4,5 (180 : 40), so the capacity of working of his heart is higher than before.

C) after thie type of work, the athlete can yet reduce a little his basic HR, using long run FAST and long intervals (2000/3000m) at speed of 10000m, with short recovery. In this way, his heart can yet become a little bit bigger, but myocardium preserves his elasticity, because heart walls are not too thick, but able to contract and to relax very fast. The improvement of basic HR is 10% (from 40 to 36), but max HR is the same. So, the capacity of working of his heart is now of 5 times (180 : 36).

The only way to keep a high level of max HR is to push your heart to its max level, only for very short time, then to relax completly. In this way, myocardium can work at its max intensity, but the effort doesn't last long time, and the muscle cannot become hypertrophic, that is damageous for health and diminutive for performances.

Also some information from Renato on Sprints uphill and why he uses them for Marathoner's over sprints on flat ground.

Last thing : about "ramps" that sometimes I use (see John Korir training), these NEVER ARE LONGER THAN 40m (many times only 20m), depending on the gradient. In any case, are very different from sprints uphill (about 10%), because you must use more STRENGTH in less dynamic way (so, while I use sprints during all the season, I finish with ramps after the first 2 months of preparation).

Why are better climbing than on flat ? Because climbing you can use and develop a higher percentage of STRENGTH : a normal runner cannot recruit a high percentage of fibers carrying out flat sprints, because the limits for his speed are mechanical. Climbing, you have less risk (it's very easy to have some injury sprinting on flat, practically impossible sprinting climbing) and can use more fibers. Of course, sprint is sprint, and the interpreation is AT MAX SPEED. Long and complete recovery in this case, forget to be long runners : one thing is to prepare your ENDURANCE (that is an enzymatic problem), another thing to prepare your muscles to work (that is a mechanical problem). Is completely useless to have a car with a very powerful engine, having a lot of problems in the wheels.

Coach Jay,

The amount of information on this thread blows my mind. You've done a great job putting all this information together, and sharing your knowledge with us. That being said when you get the time I was wondering if you could list the exersises that Brent Vaughn is doing in the pedestal routine. And what would be the aproperate sets and reps for these for a college runner doing the same events as Brent but obviously not as fast.

Thanks

Pete