Not my area of expertise, but one thing that comes to mind is the lack of specific neuro-motor adaptations in nonspecific training. Sport-specific training provides the opportunity for the nervous system to potentially 'optimize' movement patterns in terms of some cost. Strength training might build muscular strength or endurance, but perhaps not 'coordination' which is useful to the sport.

Agree with Sean. You have to have specificity in training if you are training for peak performance in that event. Cross training or nonspecific training will increase fitness and strength but not specifically for that activity. To be the best in that activity must train for it at varying HR intensities and in varying conditions.

Nonspecific transfer, of course.

Could you clarify what you have in mind when you refer to "nonspecific training". What type of non specific training? How often? When in the season?

Andrew

Ondrej, again depending upon what type of "non-specific" you mean, but, there is evidence that plyometrics and/or maximal strength training can increase economy (see articles from Hakkinen, Helgerud, Hoff). Don't fear non-specificity! For example plyometrics have little to no relationship in terms of movement specificity for running the 400m, but, they are very likely to improve start performance and also likely to improve economy. Also training athletes to run with weighted vests etc. as "specific training", will train them to run slow, not faster. Too much specificity also leads to overuse injury

I tend to agree with Stephan; non-specific training in small doses at the right time eg plyometrics, might help, in this case, 400m performance. But even if lactate concentrations, HR, etc are the same in the non-specific training, there are other physiological events going on in the actual 400m event that are too far removed from those that occur during the non-specific training. So the non-specific training could be useful to build, say, one specific physiological adaptation that the actual 400m run achieves to a lessor degree.

Thank you all for response, I agree with you, but I was thinking of increasing the competitive performance through better adaptation of the organism to a high level of blood lactate. I expect that highly trained athletes has already optimized the nervous system so much to the specific training, that adaptation and further improvement is more a matter of adaptation to high levels of lactate and work in anaerobic energy system. Therefore, I do a reaserch about using nonspecific training to upgrade the competitive performance due to bettter adaptation in anaerobic energy system using nonspecific training. To clarify in my reaserch I use as a specific training 2x 3x300m and nonspecific training 2 x3x50s of modified Clean and jerk, rest intervals are similar in both type of training... dependent on returning the heart rate to the value of 125 beats per minute.

HR curve of nonspecific training

HR curve of specific training

I agree with Andrew and even if lactate concentrations, HR, and others indicator would be the same in the non-specific training, there are other variables to consider that are more important for optimizing performance in 400-m running sprint and one of them and one of the most important is the running pace!! and I think that this aspect must be trained in a specific way always!

Hope to help you

Hello everyone. After a while I am back with the nonspecific training. In last three months I done smal experiment. I took 8 students from university probably the same age and same sport performance. All of them are active but not professionals athletes. I split them in two groups. One group was performing specific-runing training, the second one non-specific (strenght training). Both groups accomplished two trainings during week the whole training program lasted 6 week. I measured PB-personal best in 300 m sprint before and after training program. Every participant performed Wingate test where we mesured maximal power during the test. The specific group improved in maximal power by 1,32% in compared with 8,31% improvement in non-specific group. But more important is that the nonspecific group improved in average PB time (300m test) 0,79s and specific group improved by 0,65s. I know that was a small group and not professional 400 m athletes but still, It shows (in a small scale) that nonspecific training can improve specific performance, despite widely accepted specific principle in training. But the nonspecific training must stimulate the same energetic system used during specific training.

If you have any thoughts or explanations how these results can be evaluate please write me. It will help me with my next research. Thanks a lot

length of running sections VS duration of series

In my opinion, the non-specific training can increase the specific cellular adaptations. As observed in plyometrics and/or maximal strength training studies. However, the globalization of all adaptive processes depends on the specific training.

In this way, the training periodization is always the best way to control the non-specificity/specificity training, consequently the adaptation process and sports performance.

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse yet, but coaches in swimming and running routinely use non specific training. The "specific" consequence could be increased lactate removal by the specific muscles, or in case of a taper, keeping the neurolgical system tuned and awake while the specific muscles rest. The area not only warrants research: it demands.