Do sprinters do "long runs"?

notasprinter wrote:

Seriously... what kind of aerobic work do they do (if any) and when do they do it? 20 minute runs once a week? I am really curious about this.

_____________________

Every sprinter I knew on the college level was expected to do at least one 3 mile run per week.

every one of them hated it. And every one of them usually blew it off as many times as they could, or went out as a group and cut it short by about 2 miles.

I am going to suspend reality here, for a minute, and go with the idea that at least some of you know what you are talking about.

My question is how do sprinters warmup? jizzmo said form drills but would it really be bad if they jogged between them? My guess is if you set it up right you could have them do 2 miles with drills and strides and they wouldn't even know they had done a distance run. Is this necessary, I doubt it. Would it hurt them, absolutely not.

Of course that is very different from a 3-6 mile run where they go out too fast and die. Which could easily cost them any chance of improving.

A "long aerobic day" in the sprinters vocabulary is called extensive tempo. It is runs done at 60% effort of 100m, 200m, or longer. We might have sprinters run 4 sets of 4 x 200 at 60% effort which for a 21.0 sprinter would be 35.0 seconds. We would have a rest of 45 seconds between reps and 2 minutes between sets. Total volume might be between 1500 - 3000m for a 100/200 guy, up to maybe 4000m for a 400m runner.

I personally don't agree with doing a "long run", but I don't think it's going to set you back in the off season either, we just choose not to do it.

Warm up for our group usually begins with 800m slow jog, so sprinters do have "slow" efforts at times. Followed by dynamic drills, hurdle mobility exercises, and some build ups. Warm up is to get the body warm. Warm up should be specific for the work you are doing...a neural day requires a neural warm up, an extensive tempo day does not require neural work to warm up.

The term long run has me thinking at least 10 miles. So to answer your question. No, they don't do long runs.

20min runs can be the best form of recovery if done slow and easy. I will send both sprinters and jumpers on 20min runs on occasion to help reset the neuromuscular system and aid recovery.

Did you know you could hold your breath and run 100m all-out? You could probably do the same for 200m...although it would be a bit more difficult.

You can improve Vo2max by doing nothing more than repeated sprints. You don't need to do aerobic work to improve your aerobic conditioning. You can improve aerobic conditioning simply by losing weight.

Alan

What does anyone think about a sprinter doing Cross Country?

My friend (100-200m sprinter) did XC and during the same year during the track season he dropped his 100m pr by .6 (12.3->11.7) and his 200m pr by 1.05seconds (25.40-24.35). I think it could have really helped him a lot because he had crappy endurance, he would have a great first 50 then slow down the last 50, but now he looks strong. I guess it will only help some people, but interesting to me.

Looks like my program was a little different in college. 30 min runs 2-3x per week and one long run (40-45) per week...pace probably went 7:30-8:00/mi for women. Plus 1.25 mile warmup and 1.25 mile cooldown. Dropped down a bit in-season, but not by much. We always thought we were a little heavy on the distance side...it was probably tailored for a 400m runner, but our 100-200 people did this too.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

For the 100m, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Unless you're trying to lose some flab, or stay fit, in the off=season.

200 is basically 100 guys--again, no.

400--yes, sporadically, but not in-season, unless it is to work out the kinks, and then it is very slow by any real running standards.

Sorry guys--during 100 or 200, there is just no aerobic component, and developing it, and training slower twitch, is a waste.

You´re wrong. Better aerobic fintess is crucial in fast CP regeneration, so you can train harder and recover quicker in your specific sessions.

And THERE IS AN AEROBIC COMPONENT IN THE 100M AND UP.

Aerobic-Anaerobic:

100m; 20% - 80%

200m; 28%-72% and 100m; 20% - 80%

400m; 47% - 59%

So get your lazy ass up and go for a run if you want to train smarter.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Did you know you could hold your breath and run 100m all-out? You could probably do the same for 200m...although it would be a bit more difficult.

You can improve Vo2max by doing nothing more than repeated sprints. You don't need to do aerobic work to improve your aerobic conditioning. You can improve aerobic conditioning simply by losing weight.

Alan

The problem is that you assume that VO2max=aerobic capacity when it´s not. This is a very common misconception. Read also my earlier post about sprinting and aerobic-anaerobic demands, because it shows that your holding breath theory is pointless.

Ö

I don't agree with this. In my program we would regularly average 30-40mpw to develop and maintain strength. Sprinters need strength too and more would benefit from more OD.

TFK ROX! wrote:

What does anyone think about a sprinter doing Cross Country?

My friend (100-200m sprinter) did XC and during the same year during the track season he dropped his 100m pr by .6 (12.3->11.7) and his 200m pr by 1.05seconds (25.40-24.35). I think it could have really helped him a lot because he had crappy endurance, he would have a great first 50 then slow down the last 50, but now he looks strong. I guess it will only help some people, but interesting to me.

You don´t improve your sprint endurance by running cross country! You improve that by doing stuff like very fast 150 m runs with complete (10-15 min) recovery.

Why do some people here think that sprinters really should train like distance runners. It´s like saying that marathoners would benefit from doing a lot of all out 40-60 m runs in their training.

well. wrote:It´s like saying that marathoners would benefit from doing a lot of all out 40-60 m runs in their training.

Actually, Renato Canova, Brad Hudson, and others recommend exactly that. Sometimes up hills.

well. wrote:

You don´t improve your sprint endurance by running cross country!

Nonsense

HS classmate:

45.xx

1:15.xx 600m indoors

OG 4x4 gold

2-3rd man on our HS JV cross country team.

This made all the difference the spring of his senior year in track. His father (double gold medallist) approved, and encouraged him to run more/longer in the fall.

well. wrote:

You don´t improve your sprint endurance by running cross country! You improve that by doing stuff like very fast 150 m runs with complete (10-15 min) recovery.

Incorrect.

Ö wrote:

well. wrote:

You don´t improve your sprint endurance by running cross country! You improve that by doing stuff like very fast 150 m runs with complete (10-15 min) recovery.

Incorrect.

Those kind of sessions are staple sessions for Johan Wissman

(20,30 200 runner and Olympic finalist in the 400 in -08).

I´ve spoken with his coach at seminars. What is your argument?

I'm not wrong. I've been there.

I do agree with what "coach" was saying upthread.

As far as warmup goes, it depends on whether the warmup is for training, or for racing.

The best coach I ever had used to joke about the "sprinter's warmup", meaning that a bunch of us would sit in a car with the heat cranked, blasting music. I am not kidding.

The other great sprinter's warmup is to sit off to the side and absolutely cover your legs in Rub A-535 until they burn. I'm sure we've all seen this, or at least smelled it.

I have seen guys run well in competition over 100m with only stretching for warmup--no dynamic stuff at all!

I'm aware of all the graphs, aerobic, anaerobic lactic, anaerobic lactic, and I understand that there is an "aerobic" component during 10s of sustained max activity, as there most certainly is during recovery.

It is just not enough to make it worth training, relative to the other energy systems, and in particular, recruitment!

There has, I think, been a shift in emphasis in the 100m over the last 20 years. It used to be all about blasting out of the blocks, eating up ground to 60m, and then trying not to die too badly from 60-100m. Weights, weights, weights, plyometrics, etc.. This is where roids help tremendously, but enough cannot be said for recruitment, getting used to max efforts and having everything coordinated while doing so.

The shift has come with the recognition that the start is not everything. Ben Johnson used to say that "As soon as the gun sounds, the race is over." Well, he could say that because not only did he have good top-end speed, he also had the absolutely best start/early race in his day. But it is simply no longer true. Top-end speed rules the day over 100m--Gay, Bolt, Powell, Thompson, Patton, etc..

Of course, no acceleration gets you nowhere (Spearmon).

Can you imagine Ben Johnson, Andre Cason, Dwain Chambers, Mo Greene, etc. running 400m? Yeah, right.

Although the shift does not benefit me personally, I like it. I think the 200 should be abolished, though, and 50m instituted as the new short sprint/acceleration race.

So while sprinters need some aerobic component, they don't need to do mileage to develop sufficient aerobic component to succeed--recovery, etc. is sufficient--and to do so would only cause muscle confusion by selectively recruiting slow twitch, and would be a waste of time, relative to doing shorter, more intense stuff.

well. wrote:

Ö wrote:

Incorrect.

Those kind of sessions are staple sessions for Johan Wissman

(20,30 200 runner and Olympic finalist in the 400 in -08).

I´ve spoken with his coach at seminars. What is your argument?

Please elaborate

Wissman also performs 2 10k easy runs in a week, I wonder why you didn´t knew it.. His coach has also said that he is capable of a 35min 10k.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

I'm aware of all the graphs, aerobic, anaerobic lactic, anaerobic lactic, and I understand that there is an "aerobic" component during 10s of sustained max activity, as there most certainly is during recovery.

So while sprinters need some aerobic component, they don't need to do mileage to develop sufficient aerobic component to succeed--recovery, etc. is sufficient--and to do so would only cause muscle confusion by selectively recruiting slow twitch, and would be a waste of time, relative to doing shorter, more intense stuff.

You said "during 100 or 200, there is just no aerobic component" So, you were wrong on this.

A little bit of extra training for a better basic fitness and having a bit better aerobic component is not a waste of time for sprinters. The believe that it will make you slower or your muscles "confused" is wrong. Even sprint and weight training causes the FT IIx muscle fiber MHC profile shifting towards the FT IIa fibers.