What does a week of training look like for a 100/200 runner?

Yeah, I agree, the program was light on plyos, weights, and hills.

Karma Police wrote:

Hurno wrote:

That volume is just so low...can't even call it volume, it's like the absence of volume.

It’s friggin 100-200 training. Mileage?

Who said anything about mileage?

Karma Police wrote:

So what time of the year?

It will have.

- 2 x proper gym sessions, with Olympic lifts, ancillaries like glute and hammy circuits.

- accelerations, including sleds moving to rope with spikes

- top speed as you move into season, like 60s, fly 20s etc

- Speed endurance, repeat 300-250-200s on a long to short basis

- plyos worked into those sessions

- maybe a tempo session a week.

I actually know what one Olympic semi finalist in the 100 does. But he is much more 100 than 200. 200 involves a lot more work.

Good advice, just more volume and frequency needed.

That was similar to what was already being said(it was being kept to track workouts though)

.............. wrote:

Good luck asking a real 100/200 person to run a 600. It is wildly inappropriate.

Also "strength" comes in the weightroom.

Only endurance coaches call running something long as "strength." Again, wildly inappropriate.

Nobody said anything about "strength"

I specifically was leaning against 600s, 200-300m tempos are plenty for 100-200m runners. Sub-8 Mile suggested them very early season. It's not the hottest take considering so many sprinters are so aerobically underdeveloped to the point of straight up laziness. Somehow they think 5 x 60m or 80-150s are tough.

You're good btw, don't worry. There's 2 differing schools of thought. Long to short and short to long, also apparently short to short as well. So 3 prominent schools of thought.

You included 600s pre-season or 400/300/200, ONCE a week. That is not extreme at all.

I don't think football has anything to do with it. Yes, there are some current sprinters that played football in high school but the elite sprinters did not. Also, Jamaicans, Canadiens, Europeans do not play American football and look where they're at now.

Oh, and no one has suggested hill sprints. They are a big part of off and pre-season power conditioning.

There's another school of thought - ends to middle.

The top speed stuff starts at accelerations, 6 sec hills, sleds etc, then moves to 60s, 80s and up to 120s. 3 (or maybe 4) x 120 flat out is a seriously tough session for someone running them fast and can take 3-4 days (or even more) to recover from.

Then the endurance part is long to short.

I like 400 programming to be done this way too.

To the HS coach who only has people for 10 weeks, I am assuming boys and girls - boys in the 10.8-11.5 range (21.8-23) and girls a second slower in the 100.

I would do something like this for the first 4 weeks (and following).

Monday top speed - 60s at submax (though fast) for the first 4 weeks, gradually get faster and work on firm. Week 5 add 80s, week 6 100s, weeks 7-8 120s. For the 400 specialists, add sleds.

Tuesday gym - power- not going to write it out but Olympic lifts, other glute/hammy work like nordics, core etc.

Wed

(a) For the 100-200 runners accelerations -plyos, short (6 second) hills, sleds if you have them., up to 30m sprints (don't get to top speed the day after gym)

(b) for 400 types, you get to do special endurance. No time for a proper base. First 4 weeks do (week 1) 3 x 400 on 12 min recov at about goal 400m time + 4-5 seconds (2) 3 x 350 6 min recovery similar speed or 1 second slower, (3) 2 x 450 15 min recovery similar speed (4) 3 x 300m 12 min recov at goal 400 speed. If you had a 3-month GPP this is where you do 4 x 400, 3 x 500 etc, but no time in a 10-week program. Then you can almost alternate 2-3 x (200+150) with 30 seconds and 15min recovery and the 3 x 300s (probably the classic 400 session) and also 10 x 100m at 95% of max with 5-6 min recov - can be brutal (distance runners might not think som ut try doing them at 10.7 speed x 10.

Thurs - off

Fri speed endurance - all 4 reps with 10 min recovery. week 1 40 sec runs, week 2 30 sec, week 3 20 sec and week 4 150s, getting faster each week. The benefit of running time rather than distance is it's equally difficult for all (male/female). Running 300s is harder the slower you are. The following 4 weeks do same progression but one less, faster with 12 min recovery.

Saturday gym - strength

Sunday -off - so roller, stretch and do some core. The 400 specialists can do some extensive tempo like 200s at 70% o f race pace if they are keen. Alternatively the 400 guys can do their tempo Sat morning and gym Sat evening, then have Sunday off (my preference but not always practical)

Yeah, since people want to debate whether short to long or long to short is better...the truth is usually a compromise somewhere in the middle or taking parts of both and adding it together --> "ends to middle" taking from both schools of thought.

I believe that was originally what Sub-8 Mile was saying with his suggestion. He had accelerations, max velocity and speed endurance with extensive tempos once a week early on, they didn't seem to be a main focus...and they shouldn't be.

Good post btw!

Imagine how good their sprinters would be IF they played football growing up.

Hurno. wrote:

Spreenter wrote:

I don't think football has anything to do with it. Yes, there are some current sprinters that played football in high school but the elite sprinters did not. Also, Jamaicans, Canadiens, Europeans do not play American football and look where they're at now.

Oh, and no one has suggested hill sprints. They are a big part of off and pre-season power conditioning.

Imagine how good their sprinters would be IF they played football growing up.

Better than Bolt, Blake, DeGrasse and Jacobs? Don't think so.

89 steps wrote:

I’m glad you got some serious answers. I was going to say throw around a football, eat some pizza, run a little, play around with starting blocks for 45 minutes…

I was a distance guy, so that’s what I saw the sprinters doing.

As a distance guy as well, that was also pretty much my impression of the training that my sprinter teammates did in high school and college.

I recall reading a profile of Carl Lewis in Sports Illustrated in 1984, and this passage has stayed with me since then, as it reinforced that impression:

"Those who consider him the world's greatest athlete might be startled at how little it takes, physically, to be that. Five days of practice a week, two hours a day, 45 minutes of bona fide work, an hour and 15 minutes of bona fide play. Weekends off. He lifts weights rarely, because he doesn't like to...

When the interviews are over, he whooshes four 200s in 23 seconds apiece without trying or breathing hard. He jokes with a few friends, says goodby and steps into his BMW."

It's complicated, but 100/200 runners that are true fast twitchers should avoid moderate work in the 70-90% range.

Runners basically have a certain amount of slow twitch fibers (type 1). They can be trained, but will never convert to fast twitch fibers (type II). Running under 70% mostly engages the type 1 fibers if you keep the rep length low. (<200).

The type II fibers are highly malleable. They can adapt to become more aerobically fueled towards the type IIa side or predominately fueled by ATP and Creatine Phosphate on the type IIx side. There are different ranges in the middle.

*distance runners - need to have their type II muscles low output and energy efficient (more runs at easy pace & around lactate threshold)

**100m runners need the most explosive muscles possible - type IIx can perform twice the power output of type IIa muscle fibers. Type IIx muscle fibers also have the largest stores of ATP & Creatine Phosphate. They took a biopsy of Colin Jackson (former WR in 110 hurdles) and he had the highest concentration of type IIx they had ever seen.

Even lifting weights will cause Type IIx to convert to type IIa. That's why you don't want short sprinters over doing the weight room, and always periodize the lifting to give them time to revert back to IIx.

I do agree that tempo runs like 10-20 x 100m at <70% are good for recovery. I don't think you should run fast everyday. The CNS must recover.

TLDR - Avoid moderate - sort of fast running that requires any kind of endurance

Hurno. wrote:

Yeah, since people want to debate whether short to long or long to short is better...the truth is usually a compromise somewhere in the middle or taking parts of both and adding it together --> "ends to middle" taking from both schools of thought.

I believe that was originally what Sub-8 Mile was saying with his suggestion. He had accelerations, max velocity and speed endurance with extensive tempos once a week early on, they didn't seem to be a main focus...and they shouldn't be.

Good post btw!

Right, that's what I was suggesting, based on what I saw & experienced (limitedly, I admit, but I did observe closely and learned what I could).

Since there's been some interest/discussion, I'll put some thought into it and post a more fleshed-out version later. Again, same caveat -- I'm not an expert, just an avid student. But some may find it helpful so I'll work on it :)

not my thread, but thanks for all the responses. this will be my first year having sprint coaching responsibilities after several years with distance. I have really nudged towards the ends to middle ideology over the years in the distance realm, so I will probably gravitate towards that with sprints as well.

I like the idea of just lifting days. I thought our prior coach ran them too much. He had a distance background, and it can be second nature for us to try to fill in off days with "easier" stuff. lifting seems more appropriate for the skill set here.

I like everything karma had to say, but I will have a bunch of guys that I do not believe will realistically put in the weekend work. I can always get my distance guys to work 7 days a week, but the sprinters are just here filling in for football and soccer. It would be a tough sell to get them to put in that kind of commitment.

Also, I would have to figure out how and when to fit jumps in.

Feed the Cats

But high intensity.

I can tell by your training, you have never coached a really quick sprinter.

critic 100 wrote:

I can tell by your training, you have never coached a really quick sprinter.

When did I say I coached sprinters?

Training is a process of moving from where you are to where you have to be. Your base (for any athlete) should focus primarily on what comes naturally, then move to what's more difficult.

Different things work for different people, but most 100/200 sprinters are people who can do a variety of athletic activities and work at top intensity for a few seconds. For them, working mostly on stuff that's focused there is their "base": accelerations to touch top speed, short flying sprints, games that involve a lot of short bursts, brief (six seconds or shorter, to start) power work, lifting (particularly balancing strength among quads/adductors/hams/hips).

In contrast to many coaches, I think that overspeed work in the preseason--aka base period--is fine, provided quad/ham strength ratios and strength in squats or leg press are adequate. Top speed (and a little beyond top speed) comes naturally to most 100/200 folks, especially the 60/100 people.

I well remember the story about when Merlene Ottey moved to her European coach. On Day One of the macrocycle she presented him with the program she'd been on--pretty successfully!--at Nebraska: 600s in preseason/early season, speed later, etc. He thanked her, threw it in the trash, and said, "Put on your spikes. We're sprinting today." And he moved her from a top sprinter to a many-time world champion.