Influence of the type of training on the results in adolescents.
The results turned out to be very clear. Two previously distinguished groups with different types of sports development (I i P) they used a completely different training structure and load structure. And this is regardless of the analyzed sport specialty.
Training of athletes, whose career development we have described as intense (I) it was characterized by much higher loads, more work volume, including a much greater share of special loads from the outset (S) in the highest intensity zones. We named this "model" of training (according to the type of career development induced) intensive training (I). It's early (premature) specialization!
Training leading to the progressive development of results (achievements) was a peculiar opposite to the characteristics of intensive training. With generally lower loads and less volume, is based on the youngest age categories on a proportionally higher share of all-round loads (W) and targeted (At), with limited effort in high intensity zones. Appropriately, we called such a solution a progressive training (P).
Dig. 2.2. Jumping men. Load zones (M±s) by. types and intensity of work, designated for age 15-16 and 17-18 years in groups P (solid lines, barred surfaces) and and (dashed lines, white surfaces).
The essence of the phenomenon is illustrated in Fig. 2.2. Here, on the example of men's athletics jumps, the differences in the structure of loads are clearly visible, as well as their dynamics over the age range 15-18 years for both types of training (I, P). We are dealing with a specific one, a completely separate course of "channels" describing the structure and size of loads in subsequent years of life (training).
Dig. 2.3. Women's short runs. Average values of training loads expressed in % (100- training at the master level) by type, intensity, type and intensity of work in total in groups P. (white circles) and and (black circles) at the age of 15-16 (I1-P1) and 17-18 (I2-P2) lat-and the lower limits 95% PU confidence intervals between them. The occurrence of gaps is marked 01 s (x) and 02s (xx) between the mean values of I and P.. When MI>MP broken lines; when MI<MP solid lines.
The data presented in Fig. 2.3. The differences in the average load values in groups I and P in% in relation to the average loads at the master level for only six detailed parameters have higher values for W (for both age zones). This clearly specifies the nature and scale of the differences of the two (I i P) analyzed types of training. These differences are not accidental. These are completely different training models, using various methodological solutions, different technology.
Table 2.1. Women's short track athletics: characteristics of the differences in training loads between groups with progressive development (P) and intense (I) at subsequent stages of training, taking into account the types of loads; data for the annual cycle.
And what a meaningful list in tab. 2.1. We can see, how are the differences in loads between groups I and R oriented. From the smallest ones within the comprehensive loads (respectively 1,4 and 19%) – to the maximum (73,5 and 67,2%) in the area of special loads. Total load differences (TR) in both age zones exceed 30% (34,8 and 32,1).
Both of these structures are statistically different . What is important, each of them is characterized by a different effectiveness, measured by the amount of loads per unit-increment of the result (intensive training is clearly more "cost-intensive"). The data in tab. 2.2, which shows converted into points (according to multi-room tables) sports performance, comparing them with the increase of loads in a given period of time. The differences of the efficiency coefficient Eg calculated in this way show, that progressive training (P) in the long run it gave better results. And that's what career development is all about!
Table 2.2. Values of group efficiency coefficients (EG) for groups I and P, taking into account gender and competition.