I totally agree with you and I am definitely not advocating that EVERY 100m man should now take on a long to short 400m training program. The acceleration phase is JUST as important as the development of reactive power. If your acceleration is wack and you can’t generate speed, then all the reactive strength in the world will not help you. GENERALLY speaking, 400m are usually taller and heavier and so they can generate more reactive power due to the larger muscle mass. Reactive power is measured as the amount of watts generated per kilogram of bodyweight in time. Please bear in mind that reactive power IS NOTTHE only prerequisite to fast 100m times. A 400m man though possesing high amounts of reactive power may not achieve a high maximum speed due to their running efficiency SPECIFIC to the max speed phase AND their acceleration not being able to generate high enough speeds to attain higher top speeds. If an athlete possesses ACCELERATION AND has high amounts of reactive strength, and the correct sprint mechanics allowing efficiency in the max speed phase; then they WILL attain a high performance. Micheal Johnson, though efficient did not have the acceleration capabilities of a truelly fast 100m man, thats not to say that it was never attainable. What I am trying to point out is ONE facet to explain why SOME 100m men are able to achieve outstanding times using 400m training. Please, do me a favour download the articles and read them yourself… I am not saying either or I am intimating and deducing that there maybe a scientific explanation for using 400m training to prepare a 100m man. Please download the research and read it. After all you provided the info for the IAAF archive…download the three articles and give us a take on what you think the research is intimating, because I may be just peeing in the wind. As the distance increases from 60 -400m there is an increase in the amount of reactive strength generated and required from 60w/kg to 80w/kg to 85w/kg to 90w/kg 60, 100, 200 and 400 respectively. So you could look at 400m as a form of strength training (or max strength for reactive strength)and as we know you can be strong but not necessarily fast. Having greater strength means you ahve the POTENTIAL to perform but only if you learn to transfer.
Anyone who was successful at producing a world class 400m sprinter in my book has more than enough brain matter…
Luca, you are talking about men who ran programs at theItalian school of sport. Men responsible for athletes like P Minnea and G Pavoni, how much more practical experience do they need? Please… do me a fvour download and read the research yourself, its clear to understand and is not full of scientific jargon…don’t shoot the messenger.
400m guys usually are not heavier at all, quite the countrary …
Locatelli test for reactive power were all based on in place jumping with a mat…during actual srprint ok, wìyou hit the groud in almost the same position, but the way you reach it is totally different…( leg cycle, so hip extension and so on)
It seems as though a heavier athlete would have less reactive power outputs than a lighter athlete-relatively speaking and the reverse would be true during acceleration performances-less reactive/elastic demands and more contractile force requirements.
I think another factor to consider is the difference between correlation and causation - it is often easy (and convenient) to confuse the two.
Very important point, all too often these days in various fields even scholars attempt to take the easy way out of research, often times focusing way too much on correlation and not enough on causation. In particular in my area of expertise I enjoy seeing correlation studies on the national news stations such as if a democrat is elected the stock market performs better or if an afc team wins the stock market goes up etc., the same often goes for medical studies now adays.
You can find correlations to anything, there are so many various occurences that happen in a given day that you can find a correlation for anything, maybe I run faster wen it rains over 1 inch in vatatican city on the day of my race, does that mean it caused it no.
Anyhow the point is, if your looking for true causation in a medical field or finance or whatever you are looking for you better have an upper level degree to understand the explanation, if you dont have an upper level degree and can understand the causation chances are its actually a correlation study made for the lay person to get signficant exposure and the actual work behind the study is not a causation at all.
This becomes even trickier and harder to spot when the two items being examed seem to logically follow each other - however even with a correlational study this does not make it so.
well if you refer to IAAf tables…Scott should be 76 kg…so greene until some years ago…
Powell is 88, gatlin, listed at 83 for years, got lots bigger…and in no way scott is less than 85…so add chambers, 90 kg.
well’, but we should come beck to the topic, this is not important.
400 m for special strenght for 100m? I think it can work…but only if they are not used to them in training…( new stimulus)
Well, in that case the majority of us may as well not bother to follow science without a PHD from MIT or Cambridge University. In life there is only one thing that we can ALL agree on we are all going to die eventually…
Well, in that case the majority of us may as well not bother to follow science without a PHD from MIT or Cambridge University. In life there is only one thing that we can ALL agree on we are all going to die eventually…
I did not say people cant follow or attempt to follow. Correlation studies are still at times very important, I am not meaning to say that they have no use, they are a tool. But these studies oft times are done out of haste or for public exposure or for advertising etc, not to actually increase knowledge. And this is what one needs to be careful of, when studies are used to fit predetermined conclusions or to come to a rational conclusion that is not necessarily backed by the data. Where true causation is found is usually in the vastly more techniqual writing of a subject as causation usually involves a very deep understanding of the topic at hand, whereas correlation only involves choosing characteristics and seeing if they occur in syncronization at a basic level.
And I still stand by my statement that an upper level degree is needed to understand these discussions or to please you I will also use the term equivalent, obviously an extremely bright person who did not continue on for more schooling would be able to understand the topics, but with continued education or following of the subject, but I use this very sparingly and do not intend it to account for many other people as I feel allowing this exception will allow many people to believe they fit in the category when it is not the case.
Correlation studies can only be used correctly when one understands exactly how and why one attribute would contribute to the other. This will often lead shaky theory by lesser educated individuals. Or inappropriate conclusions by mass media not so intended by the authors.
I find it somewhat laughable when almost, if not every study that is posted on the board people say is flawed, as if they know the true intent of the author. Perhaps it is their logic behind what they think the study should show that is flawed. Not accounting for all variables - well most of these studies deal with humans and performance which is a system including almost an infinite amount of levels of freedom, such a study would be impossible to find that controlled for them all. Also not using elite athletes, show me the effect of the study at state and the difference between elite and non-elite athletes in a statistical fashion before you bash the study and chances are the study was not meant for elite athletes if they are no being used in the study and was in fact just a correlation study that some individual tried to wrap into a package to fit their preconceived notions on a topic and not what the other actually intended. So dont blame the author for not using elite athletes if that is not what the study was for. And btw how many people are actually training elite athletes anyway, so does this really matter, trained athletes for most studies will be fine, yes time is a constraint most of the time, but what are the authors actually looking for compared to what you are looking for. Dont blame authors that are doing a study to find something they want and not what you want. If you want the data so badly do your own study.
Ok I think if have ranted enough, I have more, but it has gotten way off topic, sorry.
Comments from trackshark forum
“NW400runner : haha i got to see that race, funny stuff, he was in lane 1 and caught lanes 2 and 3 about 50 meters in…then in the last 5-10 meters he stopped and skipped the rest and layed on the track for about 30 minutes lol”
“JamesTheJet : I can vouch for that…Crawford could have easily went low 47 but in the last 10-15 meters he not only slowed down completely but in the last few meters started to skip and laughed while laying on the track for about 20 min”
I think it’s Crawford’s debut for 400m… Crawford ran 10.14 on 17 Feb and 20.32 on 2 March.
