Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse?
In other words, instead of asking: What specific exercises work specifically towards ground support forces? Shouldn’t the question be: How do I make the athletes stronger overall and how does that best generate the required forces during EVERY portion of the race?
If you can step away from the specific model and look at the general model of strengthening the entire organism, the entire debate shifts away from proportionate distribution of workload (how much is accel [neg foot speed] and how much is max speed?) to a technical execution issue.
All 100m records since Ben Johnson first went under 9.80 almost 20 years ago have been based on improvements in what is clearly the acceleration portion of the 100m and Asafa Powell has continued that trend. Studies based on MJ don’t carry alot of weight with many as he never hit the same 10m segment top speeds as many many other sprinters.
If you get the original paper, you can use the algorithm and see for yourself!
Charlie’s insight: the entire debate shifts away from proportionate distribution of workload (how much is accel [neg foot speed] and how much is max speed?)
It is indeed accurate that the mechanical behavior of the extensors during a sprint shifts from pure power (or nearly so) for step one to ~ pure force once top speed isreached, and everything in the middle lies on a continuum.
So the argument about the limited impact of max velocity on a race like the 100 meters is a valid one. However, it may well be that the protocol contributes to the acceleration phase, and that’s why I’ve invested in Opto Jump and LYNX ReacTime for my program. With these technologies, along with SiliconCoach video analysis, I can better assess what is going on during the first sixty meters, and that’s one of my plans for this spring.
A previous post noted the following: Some teenage distance runner at the beginning of this thread slightly improved their flying 75m, when the bulk of the improvement came from the wind assistance on the track that day, and probably the depth jumps introduced to their program.
The athlete improved from 7.84 to 8.09 meters per second, which I hardly consider a slight improvement. At an average speed of 8.09 mps for 100 meters, the time would be 12.4. At 7.84, that time is 12.7.
For every test trial day, I set up a wind-gauge, and athletes run through Polifemo sensors. I also video-tape the trials and then analyze them through SiliconCoach to check for stride lengths, contact times, etc.
The wind for that trial was the lowest I had recorded for similar tests over the previous three years. The depth jumps simply followed the protocol as Barry had outlined it.
Though I’m only a high school coach, I believe that I set up assessments that were as procedurally sound as I could make them considering the technology available to me, and the importance of gathering good data for analysis.
Tom Tellez said…64% of the 100 meter race is acceleration!
Top speed…how long are we talking about?
Dan Fichter
64% of the race doesn’t mean a whole lot in many cases. How many of these top indoor 2007 guys have a good WC performance this year (or even a proportionally good performance) in the 100 or 200?
6.46 Marcus Brunson USA 24 04 1978 1 Karlsruhe 11 02 2007
6.49 Olusoji A. Fasuba NGR 09 07 1984 1 Stuttgart 03 02 2007
6.51 Jason Gardener GBR 18 09 1975 1 Birmingham 04 03 2007
6.52 Jacoby Ford USA 27 07 1987 1r2 Clemson, SC 24 02 2007
6.54 Preston Perry USA 13 09 1983 1 Houston, TX 10 02 2007
6.55 Shawn Crawford USA 14 01 1978 1 Boston (Rox), MA 27 01 2007
6.55 Craig Pickering GBR 16 10 1986 1 Glasgow 27 01 2007
6.55 Abidemi Omole USA 29 07 1985 1r2 South Bend, IN 03 02 2007
6.55 Ronald Pognon FRA 16 11 1982 1 Aubière 09 02 2007
6.56 DaBryan Blanton USA 03 07 1984 1 Boston (Rox), MA 25 02 2007
6.56 Travis Padgett USA 13 12 1986 1 Fayetteville, AR 10 03 2007
6.57 Brendan Christian ANT 11 12 1983 2 Houston, TX 10 02 2007
6.59 Christian Blum GER 10 03 1987 1 Leipzig 17 02 2007
6.59 Yongyi Wen CHN 03 01 1987 1r1 Beijing 20 03 2007
They may have a proportionally good 100m/200m (converted), but if other guys are running sub 6.4 in the 60m at the world champs then it doesn’t matter if you run 6.4high or 6.5low in the winter/spring.
I’d figure that all these guys’ brilliant coaches would have them in form to run a 100. If they even made WCs I’d also expect the tens of thousands of fans to help a wee bit;)
Check the splits in the 100m events themselves.
Indeed but even Ben crushed his 60m WR in an outdoor 100m WR split. I would expect these guys to be faster through 60m outdoor also.
The algorithm is based on an individuals decrement in speed over time. It requires a short run (about 10m) for the anaerobic speed reserve and a longer run (300-400m) for the aerobic segment.
We have each sprinter run at 95% of predicted time based on the midpoint of the range of accuracy. We have them run as many trials as possible (4 min rest between attempts) up to 10. If they run 10 trials, we assume that they are faster and we need to retest. Generally, they run around 5 or 6 repeats within the time alloted.
We choose distances, at random, from 20 m to 70 m (it’s rare that we would do 70m) for most sprinters. Our average runs for the season are between 30m and 40m.
Initial acceleration is radically different what the spring-mass model describes at high speed running.
The initial horizontal force application comes from volitional mechanical work of the extensor muscles as they push backwards against the ground, creating horizontal kinetic energy that propels the body forward.
After approximately 10-20m, the runner begins the spring-mass bounce, which is based on vertical force application, effective impulse and elastic recoil.
When does vertical impulse peak, between 40-60m? Do you have data demonstrating this variation of vertical impulses through the phases, or is it based on the model?
You’re right-- and maybe your wrong 
Your right, I was her strength coach.
The spring-mass model is about strength, or more precisely, mass-specific force. From the Weyand study:
“Accordingly, we suggest that the mechanism by which faster muscle fibers confer faster top running speeds in terrestrial cursors is not by decreasing minimum swing times but by increasing the maximum rates at which force can be applied to the ground. We conclude that human runners reach faster top speeds not by repositioning their limbs more rapidly in the air but by applying greater support forces to the ground.”
How, then, does a “sprint” coach train an athlete to apply more force to the ground while on the track?
"We found the second mechanical alternative for achieving faster top speeds, applying greater support forces to the ground, to be the predominant mechanism faster runners utilized to reach their faster top speeds."
If greater support force is the predominant mechanism that faster runners use to reach faster top speed, then would it not make sense to spend a greater proportion of the training time to increase support force? In other words, would it not be more rational to train the cause and not the effect?
“Although support forces differed roughly twice as much across this range of top speeds as did either step frequencies or contact lengths, we expected these force differences to be greater. Our regression relationship indicates that altering the support force applied by only one tenth of one body weight is sufficient to alter top speed by one full meter per second.”
Of course it becomes much more difficult to increase support force on athletes who have been training longer.
“The large sensitivity of top speeds to small differences in the mass-specific support forces applied to the running surface resulted from the positive effect of support forces on maximal stride frequencies.”
This last paragraph clearly states that support force affects stride frequency. Would it not be more rational to train the cause and not the effect?
Based on the above, would our workout be viable at any level?
For those who think it won’t, I’m interested in hearing your facts backed by research…no guessing please!
What, then, is the function of the “sprint” coach?
To give “cues” to the sprinter?
Ok, what cue could I use to tell a runner to put more force into the ground? Keep in mind that an elite sprinter will be on the ground for as short as 0.08 seconds and force peaks just prior to the midpoint of the stance time… or 0.04 seconds. At ground contact, the elite runner is going to need to apply about 4.5x bodyweight to stay an elite runner. Running repeats, doing drills, or altering running mechanics aren’t going to create that much force no matter how good the “sprint” coach is.
What about coaching the sprinter to find their proper running vector?
Grab this study for some interesting reading:
[i]“THE INDEPENDENT EFFECTS OF GRAVITY AND INERTIA ON RUNNING MECHANICS”
YOUNG-HUI CHANG, HSUAN-WEN CATHY HUANG, CHRIS M. HAMERSKI AND RODGER KRAM
To familiarize the subjects with the apparatus, they practiced running in the reduced-gravity simulator and with the lead weights. Subjects practiced running at two levels of each of our three experimental treatments. The entire familiarization process lasted approximately 30 min and took place within 7 days prior to data collection. [/i]
Come on men, you got 30 minutes to figure out how to run in increased gravity and increased inertia, increased inertia and reduced gravity
No time for coaching help here!
“Despite a nearly threefold change in the magnitude of the resultant force vector generated across three different experimental treatments and 10 conditions, the orientation of the resultant force vectors at corresponding instants remained nearly constant during times of high force generation.”
Looks like they didn’t need a coach. 
[i]We suggest that the resultant force vector at these corresponding times of the step cycle remained nearly constant across the different trials to maintain the alignment with the leg. During legged locomotion, this alignment may be a universal mechanism for running animals to minimize net muscle moments about each joint and, therefore, muscle forces. Many running mammals align the resultant force vector with the long axis of the leg (Biewener, 1989, 1990).
Given the empirical and theoretical support, it is likely that our subjects were also aligning the resultant force vector with the leg to minimize muscle forces in both our control and experimental treatments in response to acute changes in weight and mass.[/i]"
If the athletes were able to align the force vector with their leg without the aid of a coach, would it not be more rational to spend coaching time on the aspects of performance that are not readily trainable by the athlete himself/herself?
What I’ve gleaned from the studies above and dozens more from various researchers is that their research is adaptable to training and should be adapted by trainers.
Is the DL a secret weapon for faster running? Of course not. It’s simply a tool that we use to increase msf. Is it viable for acceleration training…without a doubt.
If you want to use squats or leg press instead…do it. Just understand the drawbacks they represent.
Are explosive lifts necessary? Not to me, but if you’re convinced…go for it.
So do I consider myself as the “sprint” coach for Felix or Olear?
Do I care? 
Well, the constant alignment of the force vector with the long axis of the support leg is not surprising at all. Otherwise the force vector wouldn’t pass through the athlete’s center of mass and consequently the athlete would wobble and struggle to maintain balance. You shouldn’t need a coach for that.
I am able to run in several different ways - slow, fast, tensed, ineffecient etc. - and still be able to maintain balance.
Simply stated: Good running implies good balance but good balance does not imply good running.
I pretty much agree on this. (But that’s another matter altogether.)
My concern about the deadlift is that it seemed to make me very stiff and unflexible in the hamstrings compared to the full squat (which the deadlift replaced).
Also, the eccentric part of the full squat is good for functional hypertrophy which I believe (and you don’t) is a must for most athletes. I view the deadlift (without an eccentric part) as primary a CNS lift, which of course can be to its advantage too.
Bear, could you post an exact session in the weight room what you did with Felix? Including warm up sets? Thank you!
What you’re missing, I think, is that there is only one peer-reviewed paper showing strength training giving a performance advantage in trained distance runners. This is the well-known Paavolainen study, which you can find here:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/1527
In this study, distance runners with average 5K times of 18.5 minutes actually improved their times by roughly 4 percent by cutting their mileage by 25-30 percent and adding explosive strength training. The strength training consisted of plyometrics, all-out sprints up to 200m, and light load power-type weight lifting. The results show a performance improvement due to better running economy due to lower ground contact time. There are other studies on distance runners showing an improvement in running economy due to plyometrics, but the other results are not bound to actual running performance.
The Paavolainen results do not conflict with Weyand’s work, but would seem to suggest that your results from the deadlift program are not statistically significant. In fact, your results with distance runners might actually be better with just plyometrics.
Also, the introduction in Paavolainen contains a discussion of the various studies done on distance runners with heavy weight strength training. The positive results in such studies are limited to distance runners doing light mileage (less than 20 miles per week) where any increase in the load might generate a performance improvement. Such results DO NOT apply to athletes utilizing a higher training load where the improvement would come from the strength training specifically and not the increase in load.
The spring-mass model is over simplified and any training scheme based around will be the same.
My opinion.
Previously: The Paavolainen results do not conflict with Weyand’s work, but would seem to suggest that your results from the deadlift program are not statistically significant.
There was no attempt to establish any link between faster distance running and the protocol, nor was I attempting to establish any statistically singificant findings from a sample of one. Barry’s claim was that athletes would get strong very quickly, and reveal an improvement in their meters per second. The project was simply to satsify my own concerns about his program, and I chose a distance runner, as I noted earlier, simply because he was someone fairly successful (low 10’s in the 3200 and 4:44 in the 1600) who had not improved his fly-in 75 speed in three previous years. In addition, he had no bias toward any strength training protocols, and his mileage, cycling model, and workouts had not changed in three previous years, and would not change in his senior year, with the exception of the strength protocol.
If I had a sprinter who fit that profile, I would have certainly chosen him or her.
I’m very familiar with the Paavolainen study. According to Owen Anderson, Paavolainen’s work “provided strong evidence that workouts which combine high-speed running intervals with explosive strengthening movements (hops, jumps, bounds, presses etc) can significantly improve 5k race times.” In that study, runners who increased mileage from 45 to 70 miles per week failed to improve 5k times, while runners who remained at 45 miles but added explosive running and strength drills to their training bettered their 5k performances by around 30 seconds. In effect, the explosive group replaced 32% of the training volume of the 70-mile group with the explosive drills.
Of course, the problem with this study is that it doesn’t provide us with a clear picture of what really caused the improvement. Was it the high-speed running, the explosive strengthening movements, or the combination of the two?
In addition, as John Stevens pointed out in a recent ST discussion of the study: One of the
unfortunate things about the study was that the performance of the control group, experienced 5k runners, got worse over the course of the experiment. An inference that could be drawn that the control group was given a poor workout program, and if so, it would follow that the performance of the control group did not offer a valid
comparison with the experimental group.
Previously: The spring-mass model is over simplified and any training scheme based around will be the same.
Explain what you mean by ‘oversimplified.’ Also, comment on how double btk paralympians such as Tony Volptentest and Oscar Pistorius are able to sprint as effectively as they have in the absence of lower leg musculature and the inability to ‘push-off’ in the conventional sense.
I think Pistorius’s $18,000 per leg cheetah prosthetics (which weigh 10% of a normal lower limb) aid his effectiveness a wee bit.