Individualization of Short Distance Runners Training based on
Analysis of Specific Preparedness
Anna Zakharova and Tatiana Miasnikova
Institute of Physical Education, Sport and Youth Policy, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia
B.N. Yeltsin, 19 Mira Street, Yekaterinburg, Russia
Keywords: Individualization of Training, Specific Training, Track and Field, Short Distance Runners, Testing and
Training, Wingate Test, Tapping Test, Athlete’s Specific Preparedness Profile.
Abstract: High-intensity training load in the training of short distance runners require consideration of individual
features of components of their specific preparedness. The assessment of different aspects in advances sprint
performers (males, age 19.9±2.1 years; the level of sports results: 60 m running – 6.8-7.1 s; 200 m running–
21.0–23.0 s) through tests is under consideration. Methods: Wingate test, Tapping test, simple sensomotor
reaction, 30 m running with out of blocks start, 30 m running on the move, maximum and repeated jump test.
Results: Peak power, explosive power, strength endurance, speed performance and psycho physiological
factors important in sprint: latent time of reaction, taps frequency, nervous system type, leg muscles
composition were defined in the research. Obtained individual athlete characteristics highlight the significant
differences in the structure of athletes’ specific preparedness. Individual post-test recommendations were
suggested.
1 INTRODUCTION
The main principles of advanced athletes’ training
theory are to focus on the highest possible levels of
performance, in-depth specificity and individualiza-
tion. For the success in sport performance it is
important to identify the athlete’ individual structure
of preparedness, which will allow to find reserves in
order to ensure the growth of sports results.
However, in sports practice during training plan
development coaches often rely on the experience of
elite athletes preparation, own practice and intuition
in many cases without considering the individual
characteristics of the athlete. This leads to inadequate
training impacts that do not achieve planned results.
For improving such situation it is necessary to have
objective indicators and informative criteria that
reflect the functional and morphological properties of
the athlete and factors associated with talent
identification which will allow giving an adequate
assessment of the athlete. The individualization of
specific training is extremely important as it is
associated with sport performance demands.
The structure of the specific physical
preparedness of the sprinter includes the following
components: latent time of reaction, the rate and
velocity of movement, peak power, speed and
strength endurance, etc. For the development of each
of the above listed components high intensity
loadings are used (Verkhoshansky, 1985; DeWeese et
al., 2015, part 2). Since the development of specific
physical preparedness components of the athletes
may vary considerably, inappropriate use of high-
intensity loads (same for all) can provoke the
exhaustion of adaptive resources (Shephard and
Astrand, 2008; Myakinchenko and Seluyanov, 2009;
Kenney et al., 2015; Kuznetsova et al., 2015).
Therefore, it is important to plan the advanced sprint
performers training taking into account the individual
characteristics of their physical preparedness.
As sprint running is extremely fast it is hard to
evaluate the structural components of performance
without use of modern information technologies. This
situation actualizes the search of informative criteria
to assess the individual specific preparedness of short
distance runners with the use of athletes’ testing
support technologies in order to provide
individualization of training.
Zakharova A. and Miasnikova T.
Individualization of Short Distance Runners Training based on Analysis of Specific Preparedness.
DOI: 10.5220/0006514801150120
In Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support (icSPORTS 2017), pages 115-120
ISBN: 978-989-758-269-1
Copyright
c
 2017 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

2 ORGANIZATION AND
METHODS
Research Organization. The research was
conducted in Ural Federal University in 2016. Nine
advanced short distance runners (males, age 19.9±2.1
years; the level of sports results: 60 m running – 6.8–
7.1 s; 200 m running – 21.0–22.5 s) took part in the
research. The participants of the study had more than
7 years of sport experience in track-and-field. All
subjects were free of cardiovascular or any other
chronic disease. The investigation conforms to the
principles of the Declaration of Helsinki of the World
Medical Association. Athletes had been provided
with comprehensive information on the procedures,
methods, benefits and possible risks involved in the
study before their written consent was obtained. The
study was approved by the Ural Federal University
Ethics Committee.
Methods. Tests were chosen under the principle of
objective assessment of essential athletes’ demands
of short-distance runners (Table 1).
For the assessment of psychophysiological
features of athletes the hardware and software
complex “Neurosoft” (Ivanovo, Russia) was used.
Two tests were conducted with “Neurosoft” in the
research: simple sensomotor reaction (SSMR) and
Tapping test. Following indicators were defined in
SSMR: average time of 30 attempts of reaction,
number of signal omissions (SO) and premature
reaction (PM) and functionality level (FL).
Tapping test (rapid tapping with electronic stick
on electronic plate during 30 seconds) was conducted
for finding of nervous processes strength by
monitoring of tapping rate dynamics in every five
seconds interval. Total amount of taps (TA), taps
frequency, workability graph character with taps
distribution in 5 seconds intervals were under
consideration.
Cycling Wingate test was conducted with the use
of the ergometer BIKE MED (TechnoGym, Italy) and
Cardio Memory software V 1.0 SP3. The athlete has
30 seconds to perform the leg cycling at maximum
speed with load, which is set automatically in
accordance with the athlete body weight. Anaerobic
power measures were obtained using leg cycling
Wingate anaerobic test, and included peak power (PP,
W), relative PP (W/kg), power at 15 (P
15
, W) and 30
sec (P
30
, W), average power (AP
30
) and their relative
values (P
15
, W/kg, P
30
, W/kg, AP
30
, W/kg) and
fatigue (F, %).
Maximum jump test involves the execution of a
standing countermovement vertical jump with hands
on hip with fixing its height. Subjects were asked to
perform three attempts with a recovery interval
sufficient for the realization of the maximum
potential of athletes in each attempt.
Table 1: Short distance runners tests.
Specific
physical
preparedness
components
Test Athletes’ indicators
Latent time
of reaction
Simple
sensomotor
reaction
(SSMR)
Average time of 30
attempts of reaction,
number of signal
omissions (SO) and
premature reaction
(PM), functionality
level (FL)
Movement
rate
Tapping test Total amount of taps
(TA), amount of taps
per 5 second interval,
frequency of taps in
every 5 second
interval, Hz, nervous
processes strength
Explosive
power
Maximum
jump test
Vertical jump height,
cm
Peak power Cycling
Wingate-
тест
Peak power, W,
Relative Peak power,
W/kg
Speed
performance
30 m
running
with out of
blocks start,
30 m
running on
the move
Running time, sec
Strength
endurance
Cycling
Wingate-
тест
Power reduction (peak
power, power at 15th
and 30th seconds),
level of fatigue
Leg muscle
composition
Repeated
jump test
Vertical jump height
changing
The determination of maximal jump height testing
was done with video recorder camera. Between the
camera and athlete transparent ruler – a sheet of
plexiglass with nontransparent transverse graduations
was installed (Shishkina, 2008). It allows to fix the
maximum height of an athlete waist belt control
marker movement. Once jump testing is complete, the
video was viewed frame-by-frame on the monitor.
Thus the determination of the jump height and time
of peak height reaching of the waist marker were
proceeded.
The repeated jump test was also used in the
proposed set of short-distance runner tests to define
biodynamic evaluation of muscle composition

(Shishkina, 2008). The athlete performed 40-50
maximal (all-out) standing countermovement vertical
jumps from the half squat. Measuring the vertical
jumps height during the test was carried out through
video as in maximum jump test in our research.
The percentage indicator of slow twitch muscles
content K was calculated according to a formula:
K = Н

÷ Н
ах
× 100%,
(1)
where Н

– average height of the thirty first, thirty
second and thirty third jumps, Н
ах
– average height
of the first three vertical jumps (Shishkina, 2008).
Statistical analysis was performed with the use of
statistic software package Microsoft Excel. Mean
value (M) and standard deviation (SD) of the used
parameters were calculated.
For each studied parameter three levels were set:
- the average level with indicators being in range
M± 0.5 SD;
- above the average with indicators more than
M+0.5 SD;
- below the average with indicators less than
M-0.5 SD (Zaciorskij, 1982).
For a holistic understanding of the level of athletes
specific physical preparedness graphical
representation of the data was used. To build the
individual athlete’s specific preparedness profile in
accordance with established levels each athlete’s
result was rated with following points: below the
average - 1, the average - 2 and above the average - 3.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Speed abilities in elementary forms of their
manifestation depend upon two factors: operational
efficiency of neuro-motor apparatus and motor
mobilization (Platonov, 2004). So to be elite sprint
performer in track-and-field one must have several
innate prerequisites such as excellent latent time of
reaction, great amount of taps in Tapping test and
muscle composition with prevalence of fast-twitch
fibers, preferentially recruited while sprinting.
The testing of advanced sprint performers
revealed that they had excellent ( average latent time
of sensomotor reaction (149.9±16.9 ms) and a large
number of taps during 30 seconds (207.1±25.3 ms).
When performing Tapping test the sprinters
demonstrated three types of nervous system
determined by E. Ilyin (1981): strong nervous system
with even workability graph character (A1, A3, A8),
weak when the workability graph is descending (A4,
A5, A7) and intermediate (A2, A6, A9). In our
research the type of athlete’ nervous system (figure 1)
considered as a clue to load distribution in a training
session. So, strong type of nervous system is
characterized by a uniform distribution of movement
rate in Tapping test. Such workability is like personal
“handwriting” when performing any work.
Figure 1: Tapping test workability graph of sprinters with
different types of nervous system.
For athletes with strong type of nervous system
the physical load can be distributed evenly in the main
part of training session. An intermediate type is
characterized by reduced performance in the middle
of work and its restoration to baseline levels after
short period of “rest” (frequency fall-off) in tapping
test. So, for effective training session the physical
load, especially in high-intensity programs, should be
divided in two or three parts to det the most out of the
workouts. In case of downward type of workability
intensive work should be carried out in the first half
of the training sessions.
Following important factors of achieving success
in sprint is the muscle composition. Olympic
Champions in sprint are characterized by a
predominance of type II motor units (or fast twitch
fibers), the content of which is up to 60 %. Results of
repetition maximal test revealed the relatively low
content of slow twitch motor units indicating the high
level of potential development of power only in one
athlete (A1). On the contrary athlete 9 (A9) has a high
percentage of slow twitch motor units, that is a low
potential in sprinting. The rest of the athletes are
within the average, that means that they need
corrections in the training process in favor of
increasing the volume of exercises aimed at
developing power or extend the competition distance
length (Platonov, 2004; Seluyanov, 2007; DeWeese
et al., 2015, part 1).
Wingate test results enable to work out power and
speed endurance norms for advanced short-distance
runners (table 2).
6
6,5
7
7,5
123456
taps frequency, Hz
Number of 5 second interval
weak intermediate strong

Table 2: The results of advanced sprint performers testing and levels norms.
Parameters Athletes’ indicators M ± SD
Levels (points)
Above the
average (3)
The average
(2)
Below the
average (1)
Latent time of
reaction
Average time of 30 attempts of
reaction, ms
143.6±12.8
<137.2
137.2–150.0
˃150.0
Movement rate Total amount of taps, times 207.1±25.2
˃219.7
194.5–219.7
<194.5
Explosive
power
Vertical jump height, cm 52.2±3.7
˃54.05
50.3–54.1
<50.3
Peak power
Peak power, W 861.0±84.0
˃903.0
819.0–903.0 <819.0
Relative Peak power, W/kg 11.9±1.3
˃12.55
11.25–12.55 <11.25
Speed
performance
30 m running with out of
blocks start, s
3.7±0.1 <3.65 3.65–3.75 >3.75
Strength
endurance
Level of fatigue in Wingate test,
c.u.
36.7±5.9
<33.75
33.75–39.65
˃39.65
Table 3: Short-distance runners levels of specific physical preparedness components on completion of testing.
Specific physical
preparedness
components
Athletes, points
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9
Latent time of
reaction
2 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 3
Movement rate 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2
Explosive power 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 1
Peak power 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 2
Speed
performance
1 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 1
Strength
endurance
2 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 3
Comparison of individual results with norms
allowed to evaluate the peak power (relative PP
parameters were under consideration for final
research execution, that is of athletes specific
preparedness athletes specific preparedness structure
design) and strength endurance by degree of fatigue,
calculated by Cardio Memory software of the
ergometer BIKE MED by TechnoGym.
Analyzing the obtained results, it can be noted that
two athletes have above the average level of absolute
peak power (A2, A3) and two athletes are the leaders
in relative power (A6, A8). For athletes with below
average level of PP (A1, A5, A7) at first it is
recommended to provide hypertrophy through a
higher volume of exercise with an intensity of 60-
80% of the 1 RM (DeWeese et al., 2015, part 2).
The level of strength endurance above the average
observed in three athletes (A2, A4, A9) and three
athletes (A3, A7, A8) are below the average. The last
sprinters are recommended to increase the share of
maximal intensity short sprint with duration not more
than 3-5 seconds (Seluyanov, 2007).
Assessment of explosive power showed a high
level of four athletes (A1, A2, A3, A6) and the
relatively low level of explosive power in athletes
(A7, A8, A9). The latter athletes group should
emphasize on heavy load (90-100%) in strength
training.
Summary table with individual athlete
characteristics (table 3) of advanced short-distance
runners highlight the significant differences in the
structure of athletes specific preparedness, their
strengths and weaknesses. So, athletes show close
sports results due to their advantages in various
components. At the same time athletes have lagging
components. It is obviously that low level of some
components development is compensated by other
components excellence. All this confirms the sharp
necessity of training process individualization of the
athletes.

0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
The athletes profiles (figure 2) contain innate
aspects which is hardly improving through training
(time of reaction and rate of movement in tapping
test) and two physiologically different and
developing in training components: strength and
power related and endurance. Speed performance
serves a detector of optimal carryover of strength and
power to running performance: if a sprinter have
higher level in strength and power development and
below the average level of speed performance (for
example, A6), then the possible reason of this
discordance is poor running technique of the athlete.
Table 4 presents examples of athlete specific
preparedness profiles and recommendations in
accordance with individual athlete characteristics.
Figure 2: The individual athlete’s specific preparedness
profile (A2).
Table 4: Recommendations for individualization of sprinter training.
Athlete
Athlete’s specific
preparedness profile
Recommendations for individualization of sprinter training
Power and strength
development
Strength endurance
improvement
Comments and suggestions
A1
For peak power twice
per week hypertrophy
training with 60 -80 %
of 1 RM. Then specific
track-and-field power
training with exercises
for quick production of
high levels of force.
Short “all-out” sprint
(30-50 m). 20-30 reps
may be divided in 3
sets.
High intensity load may be
distributed evenly in core of
training session (strong nervous
system). Take a shot at length or
high jumping.
Pay attention to running
technique.
A6
No need of power or
strength development.
Short “all-out” sprint
(30-50 m). 20-30 reps
may be divided in 3
sets. Strength training
(bodybuilding,
weightlifting, resistance
training): low intensity
(25 RM)-high volume.
High-intensity training session
should be divided in two or three
parts because of intermediate type
of athlete 6 nervous system.
Select effective specfic running
exercises for running technique
improvement.
A8
For explosive power
development high
intensity (90-100%) or
1-3 RM weightlifting
exercises, plyometric
training, power
training.
Short “all-out” sprint
(30-50 m). 20-30 reps
may be divided in 3
sets. Strength training
(bodybuilding,
weightlifting, resistance
training): low intensity
(25 RM)-high volume.
High intensity load may be
distributed evenly in core of
training session (strong nervous
system). Above the average
movement rate and peak power
permit central nervous system to
keep up the pace in sprint
competition but muscle strength
endurance is A8 weakness.
A9
For explosive power
development high
intensity (90-100%) or
1-3 RM weightlifting
exercises, plyometric
training, power
training. Provide leg
muscles hypertrophy
with 60 -80 % of 1
RM.
High-intensity training session
should be divided in two or three
parts because of intermediate type
of athlete 9 nervous system.
Low percentage of fast twitch
motor units causes the lack of
power, strength and speed. A9
may consider running distance
extension.
0
1
2
3
Latent time
of reaction
Movement
rate
Explosive
power
Peak power
Speed
performance
Strength
endurance

Recommendations are separated into two
differently directed blocks ̶ strength and endurance
development (table 4). This separation allows the
coach to emphasize on the various types of fitness
development using block periodization, that is
effective in advanced and elite athletes
(Verkoshansky, 1985; Issurin, 2010; DeWeese et al.,
2015, part 2).
In case of identifying below the average
components of the specific preparedness (for
example, poor explosive power, peak power and
strength endurance, etc) it is necessary to increase the
volume of exercise focused on stressed development
of appropriate qualities in the training process (in
micro- and mesocycles).
4 CONCLUSIONS
1. For individualization of short distance runners
specific physical training one should take into
account athlete’s innate features and power, speed
and strength endurance development levels.
2. Testing of advanced short distance runners with
the help of sport science technologies revealed that
similar level of short distance running results is
achieved through different athletes’ phycho-
physiological features and physical fitness level.
Thus, individual profile of specific preparedness
varies greatly.
3. The short distance runners tests under
consideration in the research allowed to identify the
weaknesses of the athletes and suggest adequate
corrections to the content of the training process.
4. The type of sprinter’s nervous system obtained
from Tapping test may be used to determine the load
distribution structure especially in high intensity
training session.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work was supported by Act 211 Government of
the Russian Federation, contract № 02.A03.21.0006
REFERENCES
DeWeese, B., Hornsby, G., Stone, M., Stone, M., 2015. The
training process: planning for strength–power training
in track and field. Part 1: theoretical aspects. In Journal
of Sport Health Science, Vol. 4, Issue 4. P. 308–317.
DeWeese, B., Hornsby, G., Stone, M., Stone, M., 2015. The
training process: planning for strength–power training
in track and field. Part 2: practical and applied aspects.
In Journal of Sport Health Science. Vol. 4, Issue 4. P.
318–324.
Ilyin, E., 1981. Methodical instructions to the workshop on
psychophysiology, Leningrad.
Issurin, V., 2010. Bloc periodization of athletic training,
Soviet Sport. Moscow.
Kuznetsova, Z., Kuznetsov, A., Mutaeva, I., Khalikov, G.,
Zakharova, A., 2015. Athletes preparation based on a
complex assessment of functional state. In Proceedings
of the 3rd International Congress on Sport Sciences
Research and Technology Support. SCITEPRESS. P.
156-160.
Larry Kenney, W., Wilmore J., Costill D., 2015. Physiology
of Sport and Exercise, Human Kinetics, Human
Kinetics publishers. Champaign, Illinois, 6th edition.
Myakinchenko, E., Seluyanov, V., 2009. Development of
local muscle endurance in cyclic sports, TVT-Division.
Moscow.
Platonov, V., 2004. System of training athletes in Olympic
sports. The general theory and its practical
applications, Olympic literature. Kiev.
Seluyanov, V., 2007. Preparation of middle distance
runner, TVT-Division. Moscow.
Shephard, R., Astrand, P.-O., 2008. Factors to be measure.
In Endurance in sports. COPYRIGHT, International
Olympic Committee. P. 271-272.
Shishkina, А., 2008. Biodynamical estimation of human
muscle composition. In Uchenye zapiski universiteta
imeni P.F. Lesgafta, No. 11, Vol. 45.
Verkoshansky, Y., 1985. Programming and organization of
the training process, Fizkultura and sport. Moscow.
Zaciorskij, V., 1982. Sports metrology, Fizkultura and
sport. Moscow.