…
This, in my opinion, is fundamentally wrong. Inference by a scientist and not a coach.
“If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor”
It’s the relative volume at high intensities. CF volume of high intensity work is much lower compared to what Bear suggests. High volumes of sub max work can be tolerated; you only need to look at John Smith or Hart. Therefore even though the entire volume of Bears workouts is lower, most of them are at high intensities, which rise’s the question of overtraining.
Charlie,
I am interested to hear your thoughts on this topic as I have been unable to find them elsewhere on the forum. I have heard lots of people talk about how LA causes increases in muscle stiffness and I read the studies Martn76 posted a while back. These studies correlate higher levels of LA with faster sprints speeds but do not show causation… my feeling is that the higher speeds demand more energy, some of which comes from anaerobic glycolysis which produces more LA, and that its not a capability of producing more LA that causes higher speeds. Seems to me that muscle stiffness is more likely a product of CNS function (RFD or whatever) but I could be way off base here.
I’d guess that you are right. That makes a lot more sense to me.
Ian, the problem with assuming that stiffness is only dependant on neural factors is that the longer the sprint (60M, 100M, and 200M) the higher average stiffness the athletes have. Neural factors alone cannot account for this, so one must assume that anaerobic conditioning plays a part.
From Locatelli’s “The Importance of Anaerobic Glycolysis and Stiffness in the Sprints.”
This is the average stiffness of runners in each distance group:
60M: 61.6
100M: 69.9
200M: 76.3
So, while RFD is a significant factor, it is not the only one.
For some reason I am unable to read that study on my computer right now… I can open it up but its not readable.
Anyway, I see a couple issues here: first of all I suspect that the pool of athletes who run the 60, 100, and 200m are very similar and may even contain some of the same athletes. Meaning you may have athlete A running the 60m and contributing data towards the 61.6 stiffness value and having athlete A running the 100m as well, contributing to the 69.9 stiffness value.
Secondly, (I think) they are taking the stiffness over the whole race when sprinters are performing very different actions during the first few steps of a 60m than they are in the last last 20m of a 200m or 60-80m in the 100m… this could, and probably does, hugely skew the stiffness ratings for the various races. I suspect that the research would paint an entirely different picture if they took the stiffness during the fastest 10 or 20m segment of each race.
I still disagree. CF’s protocols normally have 3 days of speed training where the training is high intensity. The volume of these sessions is much greater than Bear’s and an argument could made that that alone is more than Bear’s program. Bear’s program may include a higher intensity for the lifting sessions, but a max of 10 reps per session should not lead to overtraining. I would imagine most of the exercises sessions consist of less than 10 reps of the deadlift. Also, Bear’s program normally has at least 4 days of rest per week.
4 days of rest? I remembered him describing some sample sessions/weeks before and never was there 4 days of rest?
Another consideration is response to demand, related to the time where stiffness is most used- approaching, at, and resisting the loss of top speed. Whether LA is responsible or not, the adaptation is due to exposure to the stimulus.
4 days of rest? I remembered him describing some sample sessions/weeks before and never was there 4 days of rest?
See my new thread in the Periodization forum.
Ian, no runner’s data was used for more than one group. Also, stiffness was calculated by having the athletes perform 5 consecutive vertical leaps on a contact mat and plugging the jump height and contact time of each jump into an equation. So, the stiffness values were not taken from their races.
Charlie, I think I might agree with you here, if I’m understanding you correctly. I think you’re saying that the adaptations might not be due to LA, but to the increased time at and around top speed present in longer runs. Is this correct?
If so, this would change nothing of my training philosophy as I believe runs meant to increase stiffness should be taken with near full rests, and not with limited rests just to see a spike in LA levels.
Ahh… thats right, I forgot about the multiple jumps and contact times. I couldn’t remember how they measured stiffness and I can’t read the study now.
Charlie, I think I might agree with you here, if I’m understanding you correctly. I think you’re saying that the adaptations might not be due to LA, but to the increased time at and around top speed present in longer runs. Is this correct?
I think this is the difference in stiffness. The greater exposure to top speed running in the 100 and 200m causes changes in RFD due to CNS and not LA abilities.
so what if you did complex type training, like a circuit for general strength, this done in low intensity days would caus lactic acid accumulation, so would that in effect lead to muscle stiffness if you added this in low intensity but maintained high intensity days strictly to sprinting and other exercises geared towards stimulating the CNS? Or is it only LA accumulation in relation to the sprint training itself that would cause muscle stiffness in sprinters?
oh ok that makes sense.
Still, this cannot only be the case as both groups of runners will have simlar top speeds, yet the 200M runners will demonstrate higher stiffness. Why is this?
Why do 200M men have a higher stiffness, but their top speeds are the same as 100M men, who demonstrate lower stiffness? Could it be due to physical changes within the musculotendon complex brought on by exposure to high levels of lactate, or could it be due to an increase in CNS effeciency brought on by being forced to maintain speed for longer? I really don’t know.
Either way, while the CNS is the driving force behind stiffness and top speed, it is not the only factor.
I don’t know for sure. Could be either of those things I guess… it could also be related to the sprinters body types. Possible predominance of those with greater reactivity (through CNS or structure or whatever) in the longer sprint races such as the 200m which require better top end speed?
I never considered body type. Good catch. I guess it’s necessary to take that into account as well, as tendon lengths, limb lengths, and muscle insertion points could all have an impact on the numbers.
However, I’m fairly certain both the 100M and 200M sprints have an equal need for a high top speed. The need to sustain such a speed (an area in which stiffness is of prime importance) is greater in the 200M though.
With 4 days rest per week, how would sufficient loading occur for adaptation with such extensive rest periods? It seems the set up would be 3 days of speed, split with either max weights & plys, is that correct?
It may be the demand of the longer events and that it could be this extra stiffness that allowed for greater production of LA rather than vice versa.
The longer the sprint the more important speed maintainance becomes therefore the more important leg stiffness becomes for reasons dicussed elswhere in this thread. In terms of maximal stiffness I think it may be a phenomenon similar to speed reserve: It’s easier to adapt to having a higher maximal potential output than to work maximally for the duration of the race/workout.
I’ve recently seen reviews that suggest endurance work strengthen tendons and muscle fiber in such a way as to increase running efficiency (by producing a stiffer limb). This could point to the benefits of tempo beyond merely being an aerobic stimulus that aids regeneration (particularly when performed on grass - softer surfaces require stiffer limbs)