Barry Ross Is Back!!!!

[Bear]

@CoachMdd

Welcome back.

Regardless of the topic, your participation is always interesting.

Thanks CoachMdd!

[Bear]

@Charlie_Francis

There is quite a discussion on this in the first forum review.

Hi Charlie!

In all sincerity, you’ve always been a gracious host to me, but I do like the butt-whipping I get on your site. Makes me think harder.

Despite Sharmar’s protest to the contrary, I have, and will, change my mind on some of the issues as the sprint story unfolds.

[Bear]

@Albert_Pike

Barry,
Have you ever thought about making a training DVD?

I thought about it for a thousandth of a second…then I forgot.

Just kidding, but I have too many things going on to do a DVD right now.

[Charlie_Francis]

@Bear

Hi Charlie!

In all sincerity, you’ve always been a gracious host to me, but I do like the butt-whipping I get on your site. Makes me think harder.

Despite Sharmar’s protest to the contrary, I have, and will, change my mind on some of the issues as the sprint story unfolds.

Thanks Bear. You’re always welcome here.

[Sharmer]

@Bear

Hi Dazed!

Before moving on to your questions, these are not my “philosophies”. This is information gleaned from research. My philsophy would only apply to the adaptation of training to the information. In other words, similar to what Sharmer the Charmer said. I’ve put on both a seminar and a clinic at Rice University, in the presence of some of the researchers I’ve mentioned here, on my site and other sites. The researchers are not bashful about correcting my errors when necessary.

As you know, horizontal force is necessary to overcome inertia. As the runner continues, vertical force becomes domininant. If you examine the chart of force application (www.bearpowered.com/images/vert_vs_horiz_force.jpg) it’s clear that horizontal force is minimal; about 10%.

The study that the chart came from is “THE INDEPENDENT EFFECTS OF GRAVITY AND INERTIA ON RUNNING MECHANICS”
YOUNG-HUI CHANG, et al.

In that study they found, “Contrary to our original hypothesis and intuition, these data indicate that gravity affects not only the generation of active vertical forces but also indirectly affects the generation of horizontal forces.”
In addition, “The horizontal forces are modulated so that they change in proportion to the vertical force.”

This last statement clearly shows that the horizontal is dictated by the vertical.

However, which vertical are we talking about?

It’s the response to vertical force that increases the athletes speed. The ability to withstand the effect of force, created by gravity acting on a falling body, at ground contact decides the race. Ground contact time is shorter for the runner with sufficient strength to minimise knee bend, etc. For example, if you jumped off a box and landed with a deep knee bend it would be harder to get off the ground rapidly than if you minimised knee bend.
The relationship of the force required to minimise the effect of vertical force from gravity and the mass of the athlete is mass-specific force.

Horizontal direction of the runner begins at the start of the race and is continued by acceleration and braking. The braking action is necessary at ground contact to continue the runners inertia. At steady state running on level ground, braking and acceleration force must be equal (those who try to minimise braking action would find themselves flat on their face). The greater part of the mass is from the hips up (including the non-grounded leg), so braking action at ground contact would cause the greater part of the mass to continue moving horizontally.

See above. As speed increases wind effect is created, obviously more so in the faster runner. Regardless of the source, the effect of wind force in the horizontal is a function of wind velocity squared. As opposed to steady state running on a treadmill, overcoming increased horizontal force from wind requires more propulsion than braking.

If I understand your question, the contraction subsequent to the eccentric contraction does not play much of a roll.
Take another look at the image of the force plate. It’s clear that maximum force peaks prior to mid-stance, then rapidly diminishes. Where active push off is supposed to occur, there is minimal force measured. The elite runners ground contact time can be as short as .08s. The eccentric contraction begins as the COM continues over the grounded foot and ends at toe off, when elastic recoil pushes the leg back into the air. Some heat dissipation (~10%) may occur but the time frame is very short between creation and utilization in faster runners.

Connective tissue should not wear makeup when running…sorry, I couldn’t pass that up

Strength training over time will develop tendons, but for all intents and purposes, elastic energy used in sprinting is created in the muscle (primarily the calf muscle) not the tendon. That being said, making the calf muscle “bigger” should not be the goal of strength training. Strength training that increases muscle density allows for both the creation of additional elastic energy and the strength necessary to apply opposing force at ground contact. The plyometric effected by running short, fast repeats aids intermuscular co-ordination under “work” conditions. In the weightroom, plyos immediately after completion of a set of deadlift (or squat, etc.) does the same as noted above, but after longer load times.

Good post, I agree with the findings, next question how do go about increasing Vertical force development?

I too have been a recipient of butt whipping, and it did make think harder. If the criticism remains constructive it can have positive effects.

[Ken_Jakalski]

The last question is the critical question. When Dr. Weyand presented a day-long seminar here in Lisle back in ’02, what emerged from his presentations was that the focus should be on increasing the forces applied downward against the ground. Perhaps this is not a new concept for most. Applying greater ground forces at any given speed will allow sprinters to get more aerial time, which then enables them to use longer swing times at every speed. As a result, the speed at which sprinters must use their minimum swing times (and fastest leg movements)–in order to get their foot back into position for the next step-- occurs at a faster speed.

In other words, more force results in more aerial time, more aerial time means a longer, more casual swing, which means the runner is not required to use his or her minimum swing time until a greater speed is reached, which means top speed becomes faster.

But how do we go about changing how much force is applied, and how rapidly the sprinter can apply that force? Maybe it’s a combination of things coaches have already been doing for years—strength training, plyometrics, and intelligent bouts of faster running.

Tom Green, who has a pretty good grasp of what it is that we are doing, has repeatedly noted that he doesn’t see much difference in what Charlie has been offering as appropriate seed protocols, and what we’re suggesting. And that indeed may be accurate. For my clinics and seminars, I quote Charlie quite extensively, especially relative to form intervention and leg swing issues, the same things which Dr. Weyand has gone on record as suggesting are not mechanical variables by which athletes may increase speed.

So how did Barry get where he is today? Working independently on grasping exactly what the researchers meant by ground support force, he contacted Dr. Weyand directly. Dr. Weyand, whom I had the good fortune to visit, first at Harvard and then at Rice, contacted me about Barry, and the rest is history.

Barry conducted a seminar at Rice, which Dr. Weyand sponsored. Barry’s explanations and procedures were well received, and future research may explore how the lifting protocol might actually contribute to speed gains, especially since at least one grad student at Rice has had surprising results following the protocol herself.

My take on this: Intrigued by Barry’s concept, though by no means convinced of its efficacy (just a deadlift), I took a fairly respectable high school distance runner who had not improved his top end meters per second in three straight years. I followed the protocol to the letter with this athlete, and sent Barry videos for analysis at least once or twice a week for the first several weeks of the program. Barry even flew out to review the athlete’s progress.

I presented my “Barry project” to the Supertraining group, and here is part of my analysis of that project.

Friday’s strength workout involved four sets of three reps (deadlift) at 280 pounds. His perception of effort was “good” for each lift. He followed each deadlift set with plyos: falling from a 20 inch box and jumping over two eight inch boxes. He did five repeats of these jumps, and then took a full five minute recovery until his next set of deadlifts.

He also did his push-ups and core exercises as per Barry Ross’s protocol. We then went to the track and set up to run our fly 75’s. We generally don’t do these runs until we are outdoors in late March. However, we caught a fifty degree day, and he was anxious to see what he could run, especially since his efforts in his plyos (suprisingly low contact times) indicated that he might be able to deliver some of the strength gains he’s achieved since December 12th (from 127 pounds to 300 in the deadlift)

His previous best fly 75 was 9.56, which he ran last spring (April 1st). For his fly 75’s, he accelerates for twenty to twenty-five meters before he hits the start of the timing zone.

His first run last evening was 9.26. That is an improvement from 7.8 meters per second to 8.1 meters per second.

We time all efforts through infra-red beams. The wind was +2.6 meters per second.

He ran a second trial, and his time was 9.46 ( after five minutes recovery). He was less aggressive in his acceleration to the first beam, and felt that he would have been even faster had he approached the fly-in zone more aggressively. I will confirm this, since I video taped a fixed fifteen meter segment during each trial (ten meters prior to the second beam). Because the camera did not pan to follow him, and I have a metric measuring point for analysis, I can evaluate his stride length and contact time on these two runs using SiliconCoach software.

What is most interesting is that he has not put in any mileage since mid November (end of cross country). He begins training with the distance runners in late February. His best race performances over 1600 and 3200 meters usually occur in May.

Here are his top five marks in the 3200 over the past two years: 10:03.16 (5/20/05) 10:07.01 (5/13/04) 10:08.17 (05/07/05) 10:09.00 (04/30/04) 10:09.62 (05/15/05)

As a sophomore, he recorded his best fly 75 of 9.57 in March of '04. The speed change from his sophomore year to his junior showed no substantial improvement in time (9.57 to 9.56), and off-season mileage and in-season training were exactly the same. Incidentally, the fastest fly 75 in our program over the past two years has been an 8.53, and that was recorded by our top sprinter.

A performance jump this early is quite substantial. I would have normally waited at least another four or five weeks before attempting a speed trial, but he felt very good, and he was anxious to see if this strength protocol alone could have any impact on his short speed even after just five weeks worth of training, and no base conditioning or sprint work.

His confidence was based upon how well he was executing his plyos. Historically, my best single leg bounders have been my fastest sprinters, and his elastic response was quite impressive for someone who seldom races below 1600 meters.

He is very pleased, and feels that this minimal investment in time (the entire strength workout takes less than 45 minutes per session, and most of that is in recovery) has a huge upside.

Keep in mind I coach high school athletes—not elites. At this level kids will get stronger and faster regardless of what they do, simply because they are growing. Nevertheless, the results we experienced with this experiment were significant enough for me to add the protocol to our training program.

Is it ‘better’ than any other program for building strength? I’ve never been critical of any other program designed to improve strength or speed. After thirty-four years as a prep coach, I’ve probably tried just about everything anyway, and perhaps I am a little more open to experimentation, primarily because I don’t coach elites. All I can say is that its contribution is much easier to assess because the program requires no ancillary lifts or complicated cycling of sets, reps, and poundage. Kids get very strong very quickly, and don’t gain mass. It’s also very easy to manage, since I don’t need spotters, racks, or specialized equipment. With our Kraiberg bumpers, kids can actually lift in my classroom or outside right at the track if the weather is cooperative. And our girls are genuinely enthusiastic about deadlifting, and prior to the protocol getting them to take any weight training seriously was always a struggle.

[Sharmer]

@Ken_Jakalski

The last question is the critical question. When Dr. Weyand presented a day-long seminar here in Lisle back in ’02, what emerged from his presentations was that the focus should be on increasing the forces applied downward against the ground. Perhaps this is not a new concept for most. Applying greater ground forces at any given speed will allow sprinters to get more aerial time, which then enables them to use longer swing times at every speed. As a result, the speed at which sprinters must use their minimum swing times (and fastest leg movements)–in order to get their foot back into position for the next step-- occurs at a faster speed.

In other words, more force results in more aerial time, more aerial time means a longer, more casual swing, which means the runner is not required to use his or her minimum swing time until a greater speed is reached, which means top speed becomes faster.

But how do we go about changing how much force is applied, and how rapidly the sprinter can apply that force? Maybe it’s a combination of things coaches have already been doing for years—strength training, plyometrics, and intelligent bouts of faster running.

Tom Green, who has a pretty good grasp of what it is that we are doing, has repeatedly noted that he doesn’t see much difference in what Charlie has been offering as appropriate seed protocols, and what we’re suggesting. And that indeed may be accurate. For my clinics and seminars, I quote Charlie quite extensively, especially relative to form intervention and leg swing issues, the same things which Dr. Weyand has gone on record as suggesting are not mechanical variables by which athletes may increase speed.

So how did Barry get where he is today? Working independently on grasping exactly what the researchers meant by ground support force, he contacted Dr. Weyand directly. Dr. Weyand, whom I had the good fortune to visit, first at Harvard and then at Rice, contacted me about Barry, and the rest is history.

Barry conducted a seminar at Rice, which Dr. Weyand sponsored. Barry’s explanations and procedures were well received, and future research may explore how the lifting protocol might actually contribute to speed gains, especially since at least one grad student at Rice has had surprising results following the protocol herself.

My take on this: Intrigued by Barry’s concept, though by no means convinced of its efficacy (just a deadlift), I took a fairly respectable high school distance runner who had not improved his top end meters per second in three straight years. I followed the protocol to the letter with this athlete, and sent Barry videos for analysis at least once or twice a week for the first several weeks of the program. Barry even flew out to review the athlete’s progress.

I presented my “Barry project” to the Supertraining group, and here is part of my analysis of that project.

Friday’s strength workout involved four sets of three reps (deadlift) at 280 pounds. His perception of effort was “good” for each lift. He followed each deadlift set with plyos: falling from a 20 inch box and jumping over two eight inch boxes. He did five repeats of these jumps, and then took a full five minute recovery until his next set of deadlifts.

He also did his push-ups and core exercises as per Barry Ross’s protocol. We then went to the track and set up to run our fly 75’s. We generally don’t do these runs until we are outdoors in late March. However, we caught a fifty degree day, and he was anxious to see what he could run, especially since his efforts in his plyos (suprisingly low contact times) indicated that he might be able to deliver some of the strength gains he’s achieved since December 12th (from 127 pounds to 300 in the deadlift)

His previous best fly 75 was 9.56, which he ran last spring (April 1st). For his fly 75’s, he accelerates for twenty to twenty-five meters before he hits the start of the timing zone.

His first run last evening was 9.26. That is an improvement from 7.8 meters per second to 8.1 meters per second.

We time all efforts through infra-red beams. The wind was +2.6 meters per second.

He ran a second trial, and his time was 9.46 ( after five minutes recovery). He was less aggressive in his acceleration to the first beam, and felt that he would have been even faster had he approached the fly-in zone more aggressively. I will confirm this, since I video taped a fixed fifteen meter segment during each trial (ten meters prior to the second beam). Because the camera did not pan to follow him, and I have a metric measuring point for analysis, I can evaluate his stride length and contact time on these two runs using SiliconCoach software.

What is most interesting is that he has not put in any mileage since mid November (end of cross country). He begins training with the distance runners in late February. His best race performances over 1600 and 3200 meters usually occur in May.

Here are his top five marks in the 3200 over the past two years: 10:03.16 (5/20/05) 10:07.01 (5/13/04) 10:08.17 (05/07/05) 10:09.00 (04/30/04) 10:09.62 (05/15/05)

As a sophomore, he recorded his best fly 75 of 9.57 in March of '04. The speed change from his sophomore year to his junior showed no substantial improvement in time (9.57 to 9.56), and off-season mileage and in-season training were exactly the same. Incidentally, the fastest fly 75 in our program over the past two years has been an 8.53, and that was recorded by our top sprinter.

A performance jump this early is quite substantial. I would have normally waited at least another four or five weeks before attempting a speed trial, but he felt very good, and he was anxious to see if this strength protocol alone could have any impact on his short speed even after just five weeks worth of training, and no base conditioning or sprint work.

His confidence was based upon how well he was executing his plyos. Historically, my best single leg bounders have been my fastest sprinters, and his elastic response was quite impressive for someone who seldom races below 1600 meters.

He is very pleased, and feels that this minimal investment in time (the entire strength workout takes less than 45 minutes per session, and most of that is in recovery) has a huge upside.

Keep in mind I coach high school athletes—not elites. At this level kids will get stronger and faster regardless of what they do, simply because they are growing. Nevertheless, the results we experienced with this experiment were significant enough for me to add the protocol to our training program.

Is it ‘better’ than any other program for building strength? I’ve never been critical of any other program designed to improve strength or speed. After thirty-four years as a prep coach, I’ve probably tried just about everything anyway, and perhaps I am a little more open to experimentation, primarily because I don’t coach elites. All I can say is that its contribution is much easier to assess because the program requires no ancillary lifts or complicated cycling of sets, reps, and poundage. Kids get very strong very quickly, and don’t gain mass. It’s also very easy to manage, since I don’t need spotters, racks, or specialized equipment. With our Kraiberg bumpers, kids can actually lift in my classroom or outside right at the track if the weather is cooperative. And our girls are genuinely enthusiastic about deadlifting, and prior to the protocol getting them to take any weight training seriously was always a struggle.

Thats a very detailed posts, well done. I remember reading a article a few years back title Sultans of Swing, was that written by you?

Given that fact GRF are the key, why is the deadlift so important ?I would of thought that the standing triple Jump or standing long jump would be better alternatives. The power outputs are much higher compared to deadlifts.

[Dazed]

Thanks Barry,

I’m still mulling over your last post, but I’ll reply to it shortly. I have a few questions.

But in the mean time can you describe what is happening on a GRF level during negative accelleration in say a 200 or at the end of a 100m, where horizontal braking forces are greater than the positive. And to your mind or studies you can cite, what are these forces?

[eroszag]

I do not support some points…
Justifying a strenght and speed protocol efficacy basing on one experience of a 17y.o mid distance runner, who never didi any kind of weight training, who got faster, using speed workouts…and not running mileage…really I do not see any useful comparison…

[dr.sprint]

Hi Barrry, my name is the guy from Boston, nice to meet you.

BTW CONGRATULATIONS!

[Bear]

@eroszag

I do not support some points…
Justifying a strenght and speed protocol efficacy basing on one experience of a 17y.o mid distance runner, who never didi any kind of weight training, who got faster, using speed workouts…and not running mileage…really I do not see any useful comparison…

Based on what you’ve said above, I would agree with you… but none of what you said is correct.

[Bear]

@Sharmer

Thats a very detailed posts, well done. I remember reading a article a few years back title Sultans of Swing, was that written by you?

Given that fact GRF are the key, why is the deadlift so important ?I would of thought that the standing triple Jump or standing long jump would be better alternatives. The power outputs are much higher compared to deadlifts.

The deadlift is no more important than squats, it’s just more efficient. It works more muscles and doesn’t require racks or spotters. In addition, it allows for shorter time under tension which makes it easier to control lactic acid onset.

Standing jumps will not increase muscle density like the squats or deadlifts. There is a dual purpose for the lift: increase strength to offset force (msf), increase muscle density to improve elastic recoil.

[Charlie_Francis]

@Bear

The deadlift is no more important than squats, it’s just more efficient. It works more muscles and doesn’t require racks or spotters. In addition, it allows for shorter time under tension which makes it easier to control lactic acid onset.

Standing jumps will not increase muscle density like the squats or deadlifts. There is a dual purpose for the lift: increase strength to offset force (msf), increase muscle density to improve elastic recoil.

Whichever of the lifts you choose, one of the benefits is the spread on the force/time curve away from the actual sprints themselves. A heavy reliance on plyos may reduce the quality of speed work you are able to tolerate because plyos are the closest thing to sprints on the F/T curve.

[kitkat1]

@Charlie_Francis

Whichever of the lifts you choose, one of the benefits is the spread on the force/time curve away from the actual sprints themselves. A heavy reliance on plyos may reduce the quality of speed work you are able to tolerate because plyos are the closest thing to sprints on the F/T curve.

Comfortably the most interesting and provocative thread on the forum (again). Thanks Bear for putting it out there. In terms of Food for Thought, it’s all caviar and champagne for the Mind.

[Senri]

@Charlie_Francis

Whichever of the lifts you choose, one of the benefits is the spread on the force/time curve away from the actual sprints themselves. A heavy reliance on plyos may reduce the quality of speed work you are able to tolerate because plyos are the closest thing to sprints on the F/T curve.

i dont understand this F/t curve it is so elusive in my understanding. Is there a graph or something i can visually see to understand how things works with the f/t curve.

[Charlie_Francis]

@Senri

i dont understand this F/t curve it is so elusive in my understanding. Is there a graph or something i can visually see to understand how things works with the f/t curve.

this is covered in the Vanc 2004 and Edmonton downloads. (Big weight moves slowly, sprint contact times are extremely short. Plyos are closest in contact time)

[Sharmer]

@Senri

i dont understand this F/t curve it is so elusive in my understanding. Is there a graph or something i can visually see to understand how things works with the f/t curve.

Usually at heavy loads the velocity (speed) of muscle shortening is relatively slow. When the load is light, the velocity of shortening can be relatively fast. Simply big weights move slow, small weights move fast. Hence the argument against max weights for sprinters.

The force/velocity curve relationship doesn’t mean that heavy loads can’t be moved at faster rate or light loads can’t be moved at a slow speed.

The physiological basis for the F/V is not fully understood & the model is based on correlations rather then causation.

[Jstu3565]

Also, to add to what Sharmer said, assuming the same effort is given, the higher the force(resistance) the slower the velocity and vice versa.

From my understanding(feel free to correct me if I am wrong) The way Charlie uses the curve is since so much work is being done at the extreme end of the velocity side of things(sprinting) it is counterproductive to perform a lot of other movements near the velocity end of the curve and chooses to use exercises such as heavy squats that are near the force side of the F/V curve.

[Senri]

@Jstu3565

Also, to add to what Sharmer said, assuming the same effort is given, the higher the force(resistance) the slower the velocity and vice versa.

From my understanding(feel free to correct me if I am wrong) The way Charlie uses the curve is since so much work is being done at the extreme end of the velocity side of things(sprinting) it is counterproductive to perform a lot of other movements near the velocity end of the curve and chooses to use exercises such as heavy squats that are near the force side of the F/V curve.

okay now its slowly coming into my brain.

[Sharmer]

@Jstu3565

Also, to add to what Sharmer said, assuming the same effort is given, the higher the force(resistance) the slower the velocity and vice versa.

From my understanding(feel free to correct me if I am wrong) The way Charlie uses the curve is since so much work is being done at the extreme end of the velocity side of things(sprinting) it is counterproductive to perform a lot of other movements near the velocity end of the curve and chooses to use exercises such as heavy squats that are near the force side of the F/V curve.

Good explanation, controversy still remains on the cross over effects of heavy work to fast work. Currently physiology suggest that the cross over is minimal. Anecdotal experience indicates that this cross over may be more significant. The issue is not clear cut or definitive at this stage.