 Sitemap  FAQ So they said Links Link to us Thanks! Feedback |
   |
||
 |
 |
|
 | ||
TRAINING PAGE  |
by Petros Kyprianou MA, USAT&F, USAW The purpose of this paper is to examine the purpose of training smarter and aim to produce more points by working smart. All of these systems help in some way to performance so all should be trained to improve their ability to make some specific contribution to performance. These systems are also interdependent upon each other, so great development of any of these systems is impossible without parallel improvements in others. The basic premise of a philosophy of multi system training is that we must over time address all of these body systems in some planned balance. The balance of development levels of these systems is as crucial as the absolute development level for everyone. Typical problems in training system design include in overemphasize the energy systems at the expense of the neuromuscular system, failure to address the proprioceptive system and neuroendocrine system, and overdevelopment of the neuromuscular system with respect to the musculoskeletal system. Training the key events is very important for the decathlete to conserve energy and time so he can focus on the high point offering events than wasting time on training events that do not support this statement (e.x. 1500m). Finding the best combination events can result to better understanding of the meaning of commonality theory. Recently I got into an argument with a distance coach about Bryan Clay’s 1500m. He stated that the reason that Clay could not run a 4’30’’ during his 8820pt decathlon is that he has gained 8lbs that year to improve other events and that his VO2max which is the highest rate of oxygen consumption attainable during maximal or exhaustive exercise (Willmore and Costill, 2005) has decreased due to excessive muscle mass (well as most of you right now are about to curse, I was in the same situation). Anyway, I maintain my composure and I brought up examples like the great Jurgen Hingsen, and many other great decathletes that were literally giants and ran some crazy 1500m!!There is nothing wrong with Bryan’s training. In elite athletes, VO2 max is not a good predictor of performance. The winner of a marathon race for example, cannot be predicted from maximal oxygen uptake. Perhaps more significant than VO2 max is the speed at which an athlete can run, bike or swim at VO2 max. Two athletes may have the same level of aerobic power but one may reach their VO2 max at a running speed of 20 km/hr and the other at 22 km/hr. While a high VO2 max may be a prerequisite for performance in endurance events at the highest level, other markers such as lactate threshold are more predictive of performance. Again, the speed at lactate threshold is more significant than the actual value itself. Think of VO2 max as an athlete’s aerobic potential and the lactate threshold as the marker for how much of that potential they are tapping. The table below shows the oxygen consumption in relation to exercise intensity: The key for success in a decathlon is the performance development based philosophy, injury prevention and time management. If a coach can assemble those ingredients and train them smart on the proper talent, the chances to fail are minimal. There are several schools of decathlon that support the idea of doing loads of aerobic power exercise and long runs. They do that because it has been a coaching tradition or they think that running that much can prevent injury and help them run a great 1500m. The table below shows the breakdown of the events of the top ten all time decathletes, (from Decathlon2000 website) and the percentages of the points accumulated from the 4 event categories.
% of points accumulated from Sprints, Jumps, Throws and Endurance
It is obvious that the major event contributors are the sprints and jumps. That is why a coach must concentrate on developing the jumps and sprints and emphasizes the commonalities within the techniques and other modalities in his/her annual plan. The next question is the following: "ok coach, now we determined that hurdles and two jumps must be trained in order to identify the 3 key events". Well yes and no! The hurdles and pole vault can be the first two since they fall into the most technical events in the event of decathlon. The commonalities that hurdles and pole vault have can be identified in the take off position, hip mobility, penultimate step and linear acceleration. Someone can refer to long jump or high jump as the third key event due to jumping orientation and the high point derivation these events have. Keeping the balance I our training plan we should incorporate a throw since there are 3 throws in a decathlon. The throw that has the most positive commonalities with hurdles and pole vault is with no doubt the Javelin due to its linear acceleration and impulse oriented approach. Again, all this information should be perceived with positively and must be identified as part of your "needs analysis". Some biomechanists support discus as the third key event due to its angular acceleration and non-compatibility with the other nine events of the decathlon. It will be wise to use discus instead of the javelin since the transition from the hurdles to discus is considered to be the hardest amongst the decathletes. There is an interesting article written by Mike Maynard on the orbit of the discus technique that discusses the foot work and axes involved in the separation during a throw. Coach Maynard very clearly identifies the beginning of the "South African" technique section of the throw as similar to the take off preparation during the hurdles. We can actually correlate this statement with the loading phase of the final step in long jump. Either one of the throws can be utilized as key event and should be trained more frequently than other events. It is important for the coach and the athlete to design a needs analysis during their annual planning. Designing an annual plan based on point production than minimizing the deficiencies can be ideal for the ambitious decathlete. The following table shows the top ten decathlon scores based on personal bests. In contrast we subtracted their decathlon personal best from the sum of personal bests score:
These numbers clearly show the quality of these decathletes. The top ten bests are over 9,000 points but only one has actually pulled that score in a decathlon; and he is the one with the smallest difference between his decathlon personal best and the sum of his individual personal bests (300pts – Roman Sebrle). Interestingly, the second best difference belongs to the former world record holder Thomas Dvorak (302pts); ironically from the same country! The Czechs must be doing something right! In addition to those theories a coach must take in consideration prior to designing his athletes’ needs analysis or implementing any motor patterns the following factors: 1) Cognitive decision 2) Perception of the task 3) Reflexive action 4) Nature of the task 5) Perception of the task 6) Reflexive action 7) Injury prevention mechanisms 8) Environmental factor 9) Mechanical/Anatomical concerns 10) Proprioceptive concerns and 11) Biomotor concerns Comments (3) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© 1999-2010 Decathlon 2000 - All Rights Reserved. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
