What does Canova mean when he says that short hill sprints improve nervous efficiency????? I am thinking about incorporating short 100% hill sprints once per week? I know they also improve muscle fibers that you don't normally use. I am thinking about using barefoot top end sprints on grass one week, then short hill sprints the next week, alternating. (this is during aerobic base).
I did Canova sprints for about 3months and had huge success with them - took my mile pr down about 8 seconds that season. But I think I may have a runner's hernia which the sprints were aggravating. So I stopped and I feel much slower.
So go for it - should work for you.
When sprinting up a hill, you are using nearly ALL of your leg muscles, and they are producing as much POWER as they can. This requires a tremendous amount of neural involvement--i.e. your nerves and brain are firing like crazy to make it happen. Doing this repeatedly for short bouts (to prevent acidosis, which impairs nerve firing, not to mention negatively impacts all of your OTHER training) can lead to improved neural recruitment.
777 wrote:
When sprinting up a hill, you are using nearly ALL of your leg muscles, and they are producing as much POWER as they can. This requires a tremendous amount of neural involvement--i.e. your nerves and brain are firing like crazy to make it happen. Doing this repeatedly for short bouts (to prevent acidosis, which impairs nerve firing, not to mention negatively impacts all of your OTHER training) can lead to improved neural recruitment.
Good answer, thank you (as was the guy before you lol). Now I understand what renato was saying. Do you think that this improved "fitness" in your brain/nervous system will help a middle/long distance runner?
Almost definitely. Improved neural function will improve efficiency and speed. But who needs the physiological explanation? The best runners in the world do it, so there's a pretty good chance it works.
Also, per your original post, I'm wondering whether doing all-out sprints barefoot is a good idea if you haven't been doing other barefoot running before it (you DO plan to do these on grass, right?).
Thank you again, I am pretty much sold on the short hill sprints (will be using them- as I have in the past). I've had SOME barefoot running experience and actually plan on doing them on the beautiful football field that's inside my local track. Why do you ask?
777 wrote:
When sprinting up a hill, you are using nearly ALL of your leg muscles, and they are producing as much POWER as they can. This requires a tremendous amount of neural involvement--i.e. your nerves and brain are firing like crazy to make it happen. Doing this repeatedly for short bouts (to prevent acidosis, which impairs nerve firing, not to mention negatively impacts all of your OTHER training) can lead to improved neural recruitment.
Your first sentence is good, your second is bad. There is a lot of nonsense talked about acidosis, and you are repeating some of it.
theone wrote:
Thank you again, I am pretty much sold on the short hill sprints (will be using them- as I have in the past). I've had SOME barefoot running experience and actually plan on doing them on the beautiful football field that's inside my local track. Why do you ask?
Is your track on a hill?
how much rest should you take between each sprint??
theone wrote:
What does Canova mean when he says that short hill sprints improve nervous efficiency?????
Ingrid Kristiansen disagrees.
intense training and anaerobic tempo training can also easily "kill" some of your aerobic capacity. Why? Because of the environment this type of training creates in your working muscles; they become more acidic because of the lactic acid (or, more correctly stated, because of the H + ions in the muscles and later in the blood stream)
The "little" anaerobic system with a low weight factor can also interfere with the large aerobic system with its high weight factor.
This is the reason for our advice to stay away from high intensity interval or fartlek training. You have everything to gain and almost nothing to lose because this type of training constitutes a very low % of the total work, and it can easily damage the dominant aerobic systems. The aerobic systems are steady state systems with low risk factors. It is almost always the unstable and unsteady anaerobic systems that make all the mess in your "engine room".
wellnow wrote:
777 wrote:When sprinting up a hill, you are using nearly ALL of your leg muscles, and they are producing as much POWER as they can. This requires a tremendous amount of neural involvement--i.e. your nerves and brain are firing like crazy to make it happen. Doing this repeatedly for short bouts (to prevent acidosis, which impairs nerve firing, not to mention negatively impacts all of your OTHER training) can lead to improved neural recruitment.
Your first sentence is good, your second is bad. There is a lot of nonsense talked about acidosis, and you are repeating some of it.
You mean my second sentence is good and my third is bad?
Anyways, I was under the impression that the increased intramuscular and intracellular acidity associated with long (35+ sec) bouts of maximum effort inhibit the ion pumps that cause muscle contraction. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Kristiansen wrote:
theone wrote:What does Canova mean when he says that short hill sprints improve nervous efficiency?????
Ingrid Kristiansen disagrees.
http://www.ingrid-kristiansen.com/holisticfitness/running.htmintense training and anaerobic tempo training can also easily "kill" some of your aerobic capacity. Why? Because of the environment this type of training creates in your working muscles; they become more acidic because of the lactic acid (or, more correctly stated, because of the H + ions in the muscles and later in the blood stream)
The "little" anaerobic system with a low weight factor can also interfere with the large aerobic system with its high weight factor.
This is the reason for our advice to stay away from high intensity interval or fartlek training. You have everything to gain and almost nothing to lose because this type of training constitutes a very low % of the total work, and it can easily damage the dominant aerobic systems. The aerobic systems are steady state systems with low risk factors. It is almost always the unstable and unsteady anaerobic systems that make all the mess in your "engine room".
Ingrid Kristiansen talks a lot of bullshit. This is proof that being a great runner doesn´t automatically make you a good coach or a knowledgeable exercise physiologist.
777 wrote:
When sprinting up a hill, you are using nearly ALL of your leg muscles, and they are producing as much POWER as they can. This requires a tremendous amount of neural involvement--i.e. your nerves and brain are firing like crazy to make it happen. Doing this repeatedly for short bouts (to prevent acidosis, which impairs nerve firing, not to mention negatively impacts all of your OTHER training) can lead to improved neural recruitment.
This is clear to me, and I agree.
wellnow wrote:
Your first sentence is good, your second is bad. There is a lot of nonsense talked about acidosis, and you are repeating some of it.
Your statement is not clear at all. If you have something constructive to say, it would be better to say it. When people responds obtusely as you did, it makes me think they have no clue of what they are talking about.
well. wrote:
Ingrid Kristiansen talks a lot of bullshit. This is proof that being a great runner doesn´t automatically make you a good coach or a knowledgeable exercise physiologist.
Again, your post makes you look like an idiot.
If you disagree, then say why, otherwise you look like a fool.
Kristiansen wasn't even talking about these kind of sprints. If you're doing them correctly you have complete recovery and stop as soon as your time starts to slow, meaning you avoid any muscular damage. I often do this hill sprint session as a warmup the morning before a workout, which would be impossible to do with the kind of sustained sprints Kristiansen is talking about.
Is your track on a hill?[/quote]
Haha wow you're so clever and witty! No here in america we have what's called away bleachers because we watch FOOTBALL baby. So I have a very steep hill (for short hill sprints) and a grassy field (for barefoot accelerations) very close to each other.
r? wrote:
how much rest should you take between each sprint??
Obviously there is no reason to do anything other than full rest (probably about 4ish minutes). Oh maybe you were being sarcastic... oh well
If you're doing them correctly you have complete recovery and stop as soon as your time starts to slow, meaning you avoid any muscular damage. [/quote]
Yeah that makes sense to me. It almost seems like he's trying to emphasize his preference for the development of the aerobic system by making up BS about anaerobic training.... Just sayin what it seems like to me!
The point of keeping them short (8-10 seconds) is to prevent the formation of any lactic acid, which come from workbouts longer than 10s. shorter workbouts get energy from the CP system. Recovery in between should be very long and make sure that you're fully recovered before going again.
There's a nice article in the new Running Times about muscle fiber types and the theory behind this type of training that improves motor unit recruitment. Very solid.
theone wrote:
Is your track on a hill?
Haha wow you're so clever and witty! No here in america we have what's called away bleachers because we watch FOOTBALL baby. So I have a very steep hill (for short hill sprints) and a grassy field (for barefoot accelerations) very close to each other.[/quote]
Believe it or not, the HS I attended boasted a dirt track with a slight 3 degree incline. They actually held meets there and it wasn't that long ago.