Fast Running Blog

People keep asking me about my explosive sprints. I figured I'd create a reference post.

First, the idea. Think about for a second what the fastest kids (in a sprint) in your school or neighborhood did while growing up. More often than not you would remember that they played a lot of active games. How do kids play active games? They sprint for 3-5 seconds as fast as they can, then rest until they feel like doing it again, then repeat. They can go on playing like this for hours. Note that it is very rare for them to sprint for 10 seconds or more. Also, they are not completely inactive in between those bursts of speed.

I decided to try an experiment to see if this method can help with speed at the age of 36. So I incorporate 3-5 second maximum effort sprints into my easy runs. Preferably up a hill. Not longer than that, it makes me stale if I do sprints that are too long every day. So far no definite results, but the jury is still out.

What you're training here, and what you're recognizing in kids at play, its the employment of the ATP-PCr Energy system. This is the one energy system of the 3 that we never talk about around here because improving it won't do much for your distance running. The reason you see these kids bursting for 3-5 seconds is because that's about how much energy is stored for maximal effort. You can improve this system somewhat through training, but the capacity for improvement in this system is not as great as the capacity for improvement in the other 2 systems that we do talk about around here (aerobic glycolytic and anaerobic glycolytic), or in base terms when we produce lactate for a bi-product and when we don't.

If you still want to improve this ATP-PCr system you're doing the right thing, short bursts of maximal speed and maximal power will improve it. Fly 30s are great for improving this. Take 30 meters to build up to maximal speed, float for 30 meters at maximal speed, slow back down. Ever wonder why a 100 meter sprinter actually slows down over the last 25 meters or so? Because he can't maintain absolute maximal speed for more than about 3-5 seconds. He builds to it, expends it, and then hangs on.

Ever wonder why you don't see sprinters do even moderate mileage aerobic base work, or why you don't see marathoners do fly 30s? Probably not. While the energy systems of the 2nd two types work a bit more together, they really don't transfer back and forth too much between the 2nd/3rd and the 1st when it comes to endurance sports.

Want to know more about these 3 energy systems and their relationship to excercise? Probably not, but if you do, here's a link I found that seems to explain things pretty well. Don't give up on the article early if you're struggling with the science early on, skim and skip to the end to see the relationship to sporting activities.

http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/energysystems.html

Actually you do see marathoners do power sprints up a hill. 10 seconds, as fast as possible, that's all. Canova has his runners do it regularly. It is not about energy, it is about muscle fiber recruitment. It is also about refining the control of the muscles, learning to contract and relax the right muscles at the right time. The lack of control that would be forgivable at 5:00 pace for good 5-10 minutes is not forgivable any more for even 3-5 seconds at sub-4:00 pace. But that is theoretical speculation. In practice a kid with a running talent across the board (something around 11.5 100, 50.0 400, with training 1:55 800, with more training 4:10 mile, with more training 13:40 5 K, with more training 28:20 10 K, with more training 2:10 marathon, slow twitch dominant a bit slower in 100 and a bit faster in the marathon, fast twitch the other way around, and he does not have to run the marathon if he does not want to) will have played those active games that involved a lot of jogging around with spontaneous explosive bursts of speed, and will have played those games in large quantity, more than your average American kid.  So if this play is indeed a critical factor in developing Quality X, you can just do it as a whole package without taking it apart and trying to understand why it works.

Hey Sasha, aren't those more like stride pace (mile pace), not all out like your explosive sprint?

You certainly can take it apart and understand how and why it works so that you may put it back together again more productively. If you can't, then why not just skip the 3-5 second bursts (which are not the same as 10 second sprints -- you can't run all out for 10 seconds) and get the gang together for a game of tag.

Running Times magazine had an article a few months ago about how short steep fast hill sprints (they talked about 8 to 10 seconds) will make you faster at every distance.  Jeff, since the article you cited was over my head and I couldn't figure it out, does the science say that 8 to 10 second hill sprints will help you be faster in a marathon and are worth taking the time to do?

Cheryl,
Dathan Ritzenhein's former coach Brad Hudson (Ritz just announced he will be leaving Boulder and Hudson to train with Alberto Salazar and his elite Nike group in Oregon.  I think Ritz is going to take it to another level now because of this - but that is another discussion) had his marathoners, including Ritz, do the 10x10 sec hills to work on marathons.  Not as a marathon specific workout, but as an addition to easy days (like striders) for muscle recruitment.  I did them a couple years ago and believe it really helped me - and I am now bringing them back as I think they may help where I have been lacking.

Dave--Thanks.  I think I'll try them and see what it does for me at St. George this year.

Michelle - those are "the tiger is after me" sprints - get going as fast as you can. Jeff - the reason I pick 3-5 is that I noticed that if I made it 10 I got neural/adrenal fatigue if I did it daily. I also recalled that when playing tag or a ball game kids very rarely sprint all out for the full 10 seconds. This is possibly what allows them to play for hours day after day without fatigue. So they  get to practice the proper muscle recruitment in large volume and frequently. I speculate that 3-5 seconds clears out the engine, while 10 is long enough to overheat it.

Cheryl - the science behind it is that the best way to improve muscle fiber recruitment is to recruit as many as you can at once even if it is only for a short period of time. This all goes back to the Quality X discussion. There is a certain running quality that is universal to all distances. Ryan Hall and I have equal disposition to long distance, but he will destroy me in a 100 meter sprint. That is why he destroys me in the marathon. I can run 2:23 in St. George, and 2:27 on an honest course when the stars align by training marathon endurance. If I want to go beyond that, I need to solve the muscle fiber recruitment problem, the muscle group coordination problem, and whatever else is involved that keeps my 100 meter sprint at 13.9 and 800 at 2:12. If my 800 does not improve, my marathon will not either. Those problems are difficult to solve. In part, I believe, because we have traditionally thought of the marathon as an endurance race, and most of the research focused on improving endurance while the Quality X aspect has been largely neglected. To the point that I had to invent a term for it.

Some more food for thought. World record in the marathon today is impossible for anybody who cannot break 4:00 in the mile. So much for endurance winning over speed by putting in lots and lots of miles. You will win over the guy that has speed but no training, or that has speed off fast twitch fibers, but if you go against somebody who has speed off slow twitch fibers and trains right you have zero chance. And yes, you can have speed of slow twitch fibers, contrary to what the popular scientific mythology would have us believe. Unless 49 second quarter is not considered as having speed, of course. And no, it is not because the guy has some unusual secret reserve of fast twitch fibers that he pulls out as a trump card when it is time to sprint. He is able to run 63 second quarters, 25 of them back to back, he is able to run 71 second quarters, 104 of them back to back with no break, those fibers have to be slow twitch. He does not have any more fast twitch fibers than your average distance runner, his slow twitch ones are just faster, or he is using them better, which is the whole point that keeps getting missed time and again.

That's interesting, now I think I understand Quality X a little better.

I'm not sure it really matters or not, but the bottom line is that if you are running all out, that is, your body's absolute top speed, you can only sustain that for 3-5 seconds. This is why if you check the speed in small increments of 100 meter sprinters, their top out speed begins somewhere usually after about 25 meters and falls off again after 75 meters. Why would someone merely running 100 meters actually slow down with only 25 meters to go? They simply cannot sustain it through to the finish and most of them don't spend 50 meters building to it. As such, they hit top speed at 25+ meters and hold it for 4-5 seconds. What I don't know is approximately how long is required until you can engage in this activity again. We have 3 different systems by which our body utilizes energy for tasks. Maximal speed or maximal power is a very short lived energy system. 10 second sprints, while maybe all out for a 10 second duration are not all out (much like perhaps a runner might be able to run a 4 minute mile if they go all out over a mile, they're not running at all out speed). However, these will surely help with muscle fiber recruitment. Here's another way to look at things ...

Ever run track as a distance runner and look at the sprinters only to find them sitting around on the grass? Or lazily making their way back to the start line where they're lining up for a 40 meter sprint? And you think, what wimps, they only go 40 meters and all they can muster is 3 or 4 of them for the entire day? The reason is because the energy system required for hitting maximal speed requires time to recover from and only once it is fully recovered is the system capable of producing again maximal speed or maximal power. 10 second sprints, uphill or not, are more equivalent to striders. You're practicing speed, you're working on muscle fiber recruitment necessary at faster speeds (say your mile pace -- without actually having to run the mile), you're working on form, running economy, control, a whole host of things that will improve your overall running. You are not, however, working on maximal speed or power. Sasha's term 'explosive', is a common type of language used to describe the sort of training associated with maximal speed and maximal power. When he said he did these for the same duration that is sustainable for maximum power or speed, I just assumed he was doing maximal speed and maximal power training. My point is simply that that sort of training is very very minimally necessary for marathon training, if its necessary at all. 10 second bursts, in addition to doing the things listed above, will do one other thing. They will make slower paces easier. Think of it like this. Lets say your a new runner and you run 95% of your miles at 8:30 pace. If you continue to do this day after day, you may, in time, drop down to 8:15s. However, if every so often you went out and kicked out a couple miles at 7:30 pace, your body will recover and adapt and running 8:30s will become easier and you will probably drop down to 8:15s sooner than if you spent the time strictly running 8:30s.

If I understand you correctly, Jeff, and everyone else, are you saying that 3-5 second bursts of speed are not really necessary to marathon training, but 10 seconds is beneficial?  I just want to be using my time efficiently and l want to make sure I understand all this correctly.

Jeff - no the point is to maximize muscle fiber recruitment. So we are not striding. And that is exactly why uphill is good - it tends to elicit higher recruitment. We are not too concerned about energy as long as we are able to recruit every slow twitch fiber. But that will not happen by running mile race pace, or even quarter race pace - you really need to floor it. Thus you see odd stuff - a guy does not change his training at all except for those explosive sprints, and he gets better across the board - 5000 to the marathon. This will not happen unless you are very very fit in terms of endurance already. Otherwise higher recruitment means you just run out of gas sooner.

Cheryl - in your case, I have a concern about injury. Explosive sprint is very disruptive. Also, I wonder if the neural drive/recruitment is what is limiting you at this point. So I would train the endurance first and max it out, this can be done relatively safely because you can always slow down the pace a bit, go a little longer, and still get the same training effect without disturbing the injury beast. Some quick analysis - based on your recent training entry I am roughly estimating that a 7:30 mile for you takes about the same effort as a 5:30 mile for me if we look at percentage of 5 K race pace. So with properly built endurance you'd be running St. George in good conditions in about 3:20 with your current 5 K speed. With this assumption the hill sprints will help you only if you are currently in 3:20 St. George shape. If not, then we are back to mileage and long tempos.

If you want a better estimate of your current speed and endurance, come to our 5 miler race tomorrow. Make sure to record and post your splits. The trail has quarter marks, you can get that precise if you want.

I guess, for the most part, you're utilizing your anaerobic alactic energy system Sasha, you're just not really maximizing your effort. The interesting part of what you're doing is that the point at which you are stopping your burst is actually the point at which you've just gotten to maximal speed. So, in essence, you're building up to maximal speed and as soon as you get there, you're stopping. By going another 30 meters or so you'd actually be training your anaerobic alactic energy system to is maximum. A couple things about this training, either of which may be why you feel stale afterwards. First, you should be doing complete and full rest for at least 2 or 3 minutes between bursts, upwards of 10 minutes. This allows the necessary atomic changes in your body to occur to be capable of reproducing energy with this system again. Second, these workouts should be done after a period of 36-48 hours of easy training. In other words, you shouldn't actually be doing them during your easy runs, rather, you should be doing them after 2 days of easy runs.

For those who want a much simpler explanation of these energy systems ....

http://www.coachr.org/energy_systems.htm


Lets put this all into perspective though Sasha for the majority of runners here. While what you're doing may be *slightly* beneficial, the time spent on these workouts is counterproductive for most runners. I would argue that you shouldn't even begin to consider this system until you've come close to maxing out your aerobic capacity and your anaerobic lactic capacity, only at that point *might* anaerobic alactic energy system training be *slightly* beneficial. (And I know you're saying these workouts aren't about energy systems, but muscle recruitment, Sasha, but the bottom line is you are training this system and you cannot get muscle recruitment at that level without training that system.) At least, that's the traditional training viewpoint. Of course, breakthroughs are only made by going against or beyond traditional methods .... most runners would be better off letting the top 1% of runners give these things a go while the other 99% of us spend our time on tried and true methods to maximize our time potential until these breakthrough methods stand the test of time.

What if you've been running for years, putting in good mileage, doing tempo runs, speedwork, various different types of runs, and you're stuck in a rut, you can't get beyond a certain level?  Isn't it a good idea to try something different, something you've never done before instead of the same old same old that has only gotten you so far?  It seems like explosive hill sprints might be the way to go, because they tax your body in a different way, in a way it's never really been taxed before.  It's an experiment, maybe you won't do any better, maybe you'll get injured, but at least you've tried something different.  I got injured last year putting in 50-60 mile weeks (although I don't think mileage did it, it was mostly some form flaws I was dealing with).  Why wait for the top 1% to possibly try it before you try it?  I just think doing something different is a good way to go.  Any disagreement?

Cheryl,

Don't you think you'd be spending your time more effectively on aerobic base training and AT/LT training? So far this year you're averaging 4.5 miles/day in Jan., 4m/day in Feb., 3.8/day in March, 4.2/day in April, 4.3/day in May, 3.7/day in June, and 2.6/day to date in July. Unless you're not logging all your miles on your blog ... I think your time would be better spent elsewhere than on explosive sprints.

Jeff--you are probably right.  It's just that I've learned that I can't take all the pounding that high mileage marathon training requires, so I've had to figure out other ways to train.  It's an experiment which may fail, but I'm going to see what moderate mileage (30-40 miles a week), lots of cross-training (mainly biking), and hill sprints does for me at St. George this year.