A+A - does still 15 seconds work?

Discussion in 'Other' started by kiwipete, Sep 14, 2018.

  1. kiwipete

    kiwipete More than 500 posts

    Kia ora team!

    I'm looking at starting a A+A protocol and I'm curious to know if there is a difference between using work intervals of 10s as compared to 15s.

    My initial use of this would be 15s work : 1min 45s active recovery, does this format still target the Alactic and aerobic pathways as originally intended by the creators of A+A?

    My selection of 15s over 10s is that I want to incorporate faster running into my slow jogs and I feel that 10s is not enough time to accelerate and maintain a fast but comfortable speed for those efforts.

    Appreciate any thoughts/ responses :)
  2. fractal

    fractal More than 500 posts

    Kia ora Pete,

    Interesting question. Sounds like you're planning on sprinting within a jog? I'm no authority but I would think the acceleration phase would count towards your total work time, perhaps even more so as you're overcoming inertia? My understanding is that it's a continuum with energy systems and overlap. In my limited experience 10s or less works much better than longer intervals - sets of 10 swings always felt like they overshot the mark a bit, but that's just me.
    kiwipete likes this.
  3. kiwipete

    kiwipete More than 500 posts

    OK - that's good to know. Really interesting about your sets of 10 reps swings overshooting the mark. food for thought, thank you. Maybe I should treat it as ' less is more' ?
  4. wespom9

    wespom9 More than 500 posts Certified Instructor

    Personal experience, both myself and clients see that heart rate drifts higher progressively when doing 15 : 45 work/rest. It's tougher to maintain similar power output as when it's a 10 : 50 work/rest. Just my two cents
    Bret S. and Oscar like this.
  5. fractal

    fractal More than 500 posts

    I think so, it also allows me to go up a bell size if I keep it to sets of 5. This means I can accumulate more volume with a heavier weight, which seems to work well.
    Tim Randolph, kiwipete and Bret S. like this.
  6. Bro Mo

    Bro Mo Quadruple-Digit Post Count

    Fartleks have been working for a long time. I am able to get high enough HR with 100% effort of ~7sec starting from a dead stop. Your effort during the acceleration should be just as high regardless, you just won't reach the same speed.
    kiwipete, offwidth and fractal like this.
  7. ali

    ali Quadruple-Digit Post Count

    Not sure fartlek falls into A&A. A 10 second acceleration isn't fast and powerful enough, I'd have thought.
    Not all interval training is created equal.....power output/duration is different for running v swing/snatch and isn't always correlated to hr.
    Nothing wrong with it, it's good to introduce faster paced running and with adequate rest will allow recovery, if that's the goal.....some anaerobic work after a period of base building ...for healthy sustainable performance gains. Following a Maf type of approach to base building that is.
    And if a base hasn't been gained sufficiently, it is a matter of duration and frequency that will award you increased performance or you overcook yourself. As a one off example of a fartlek interval and defining if it is alactic or not is a grey area....how is your base, how often do you run, what else do you do and how often do you do it...are more pertinent questions.
    Some easy distance, peppered with fartlek is a good programme but it just all depends. It's not A&A though.....at least how I frame the distinction, if a distinction even exists!
    Will it improve your pace? Yes, factoring in recovery and frequency it is perfectly manageable and productive.
  8. offwidth

    offwidth More than 5000 posts

    Remember that fartlek is 'speed play'.
    The way I have always used it (quite successfully I might add), is to emphasize the 'play'. Random accelerations for random distances during either a tempo effort or LED effort.
    fractal, Bret S., ali and 1 other person like this.
  9. Dave DeJohn

    Dave DeJohn Double-Digit Post Count

    "Healthy Intelligent Training" by Keith Livingstone describes energy system training for running. He uses the same terms (alactic, glycolytic, and aerobic) as StrongFirst, which is handy. The book defines alactic training as very short, explosive bursts of running lasting at most 10 - 13 seconds, depending on genetics.

    So, perhaps play it safe and stay under 10 seconds, if your intent is to stay alactic.
  10. Bret S.

    Bret S. Quadruple-Digit Post Count Certified Instructor

    As I understand it A+A is about max power bursts, then recovery until you can again put forth a max power burst of the same intensity using the aerobic system.

    If you time the intervals the recovery phase may be incomplete for the next power burst which will have a domino effect, thereby kicking you out of the A+A template.

    The main driver of timing between power bursts should be complete recovery which will again be self regulating and cannot be forced with a timer. Consistent practice will lower the time between repeats organically.
    Bro Mo, fractal and Harald Motz like this.
  11. Bro Mo

    Bro Mo Quadruple-Digit Post Count

    Alternatively, in other cases, a timer can ensure you aren't going hard too often.
    A HR monitor is a good friend to find what rest interval works. For sprinting, 3min rest is probably a good starting place until you're sure you can do less rest and maintain full power.
    Bret S. likes this.
  12. kiwipete

    kiwipete More than 500 posts

    Thanks Dave, good reminder - I actually have that book somewhere - I must re-read! If genetics are a factor I'm definitely thinking of going back to 10s or less then...

Share This Page