Nap, you’re right, it doesn’t apply to the study. Weyand, and the other locomotion experts involved solely in research, don’t use treadmills in the manner of training devices during testing. In addition, Weyands study came to the conclusion that stride frequency does increase but it does so by reduced ground contact time as runners approach top speed.
Does the fact that the treadmill alters mechanics and firing pattern of the fast twich fiber bring in to question reliability and validity to some of the claims. Especially as you approach top speed on the treadmill?
i think it should be kept in mind that this is was a relative study of lower limb speed and force not a labratory replication of elite level sprinting.
How do you know it’s a “fact” mechanics and firing patterns are altered on a treadmill as one approaches top speed? The Bompa article you posted says nothing about anything under supra-maximal speed. In addition, Bompa is basing his point on mechanical muscle work at high speed running, and that is not the prevailing model by biomechanists and experts in human locomotion. He’s presupposing a “fact” which is not in accordance with a spring-mass model. I do not believe that Bompa is a degreed biomechanist nor do I believe he is peer-reviewed expert in mamalian locomotion.
Despite that, it doesn’t seem rational to use an overspeed treadmill for training purposes anyway.
I’m still waiting for scientific research that discredits not only the Weyand study but the predecessors studies, starting in the late 70’s, that led to the Weyand study.
Hi Bear,
Firstly, I did not read anywhere in the Weyand study that firing patterns on the treadmill were identical to ground contact.
Secondly, many scientific laws are based on theory and not absolute fact.
It is a reasonable assumption that when sprinters run on the ground the ground remains still and the athlete moves. This is not the case with the treadmill (the athlete stays in the same spot and the carpet moves), therfore not the same as running on the ground. It is very difficult to apply force to an unstable surface, especially at high speeds. I do not think I need to do a peer reviewed study to figure that out.
Thirdly, Tudor Bompa has a PhD in Sports Science, and is World Renown. His background is varied as are many sport scientists and would include biomechanics.
Note that the XIX Century basic and simple philosophy “compete at 100m, train over 100m” approach has been used in this new Century by some Greek sprinters (at least what they wanted us to believe?). This method, has been used recently by other groups and all have failed due to injuries and speed barrier. Sorry, no scientific evidence here, just empirical evidence.
I’m just sceptic about how science can help us (again, which science are we talking about?), as i said, most of elite athletes are somehow “untrainable” or “uncoachable” individuals (should we ignore them because science won’t help, as you stated before?). Can experts on biomechanics build individual training programs? How many of these experts have worked with sub10 guys? Can we take the risk of use some of these guys as guinea pigs?
Concerning the technical aspect of running, i personally don’t work with biomechanicians who have failed so far to give me practical advices, on the other hand i have big faith in recent neuro-science discoveries on mirror neurons, empathy and visualisation/autoscopy.
Maybe Weyand study is too young (2002) and maybe not important enough to have been discredited?
Anyway concerning treadmill and various corelated items, i suggest the reading of:
The Sprint : Nontraditional Means of Training (A Review of Scientific Studies), N. Romanova, Legkaya Atletika, 12:3-4, 1983. (this article has been translated in English in Soviet Sport Review, but i don’t have the references).
Among other things, this articles delas with experiences on various treadmills machines, and the one Weyand uses is probably an other type.
Quote for general description of treadmill running:
“The increased running speed on a treadmill, as compared to running in normal conditions, is made possible by the peculiarities of the support interactions between the athlete and the moving belt. When an athlete runs on a treadmill, he expends most of his effort on leg movement, and then only during the shifting phase.
However, the treadmill motor performs most of the work during the support phase, which allows the athlete to increase his leg speed. A runner can also effectively improve the structure of his running and eliminate certain technical flaws with the help of a treadmill. The way a treadmill is constructed forces an athlete to place his support leg closer to his center of gravity and to avoid, as an example, whipping his shins”.
The rest of the article is about advanced treadmill machines, their atcions on biomechanics compared to normal running and their practical use for training.
This scientific review is a good argument against Weyand’s discussion and misleading conclusion. His conclusion is valid for running on the treadmill machine he used for his experience, but not valid for normal running on usual track.
Sorry, you must have misunderstood a lot of the arguments.
.
What’s wrong with the scale? It will show you the ground contact force. Did you try it? Probably not, because if you did, you would already know that a forceful arm swing will increase ground contact force considerably.
Yes, what else?
Let me give you a quick lesson. If you move the free leg or the arms, the body’s center of mass is moved. This can only happen if there is an external force acting on the body. In this case it must be the ground that acts on the body. We call the force ground contact force.
Sorry, but that is really weak. Let me tell you that the breaking force on the foot by the ground is not a question of belief. Again, the basic laws of mechanics will do. You won’t find a single physicist that will question this or what I have stated above.
Bear, you’re starting to come across more as an apologist for the science that you’ve attached your beliefs to than some one with an understanding of science capable of looking at things critically and objectively.
I suggested that you used the scales because it would demonstrate to even the simplest mind Newtons third law of motion. And like you said earlier, we all deal with the same physics. So how about you leave the ridicule at the door, you’re only one step across the bathroom from the statement “Achimedes? What we’ve progressed to sitting in baths? Ha, he wasn’t even peer reviewed”.
As an athlete/subject I’ve worked with many biomechanists in the past with the Sydnew Academy of Sport, the NSW Institute of Sport and the AIS. The reduction of braking forces through footspeed, and the effects of knee lift on ground forces are taken as a given, that do not need to be tested. Why? Because they are related to fundamental physical attributes of our universe. Why not look at what people are actually saying and relating it to sprinting rather than immediately asking for a study?
Rather than ridiculing and claiming that if a concrete element of physics doesn’t effect sprinting until a study shows it does, how about you discuss the points raised on their merrit. And if you do not have the scientific understanding to discuss the points, ask questions.
I’m confused here. Are we talking about top speed here? Making sure everyone realizes the study is dealing with top speed. Please read it. Don’t give it lip service saying you read it. With this understanding of the spring mass model, I’m not quite sure how people are not using this to fill in what they think they already know, and what they may be able to spend less time on in their training. You have heard Charlie say a million times that everyone can certainly move their legs fast enough, why then do we all not realize anything that’s good in sprinting happens on the ground??? I posted on the Supertraining site the following
Why do we discredit things that are different or new? We’d be cheating ourselves and the athletes we come in contact with if we “white flagged” to the opposition just because of popular opinion or whatnot. It’s very clear in scientific history that the ideas that got ridiculed the most ended up making the greatest impact on our theoretical and, subsequently, our technological advancement. Galileo and Heisenberg are two names that come to mind off the top of my head. Damn, without these guys we would have nil for physics, engineering, and technology. Please don’t get upset and say the study doesn’t help us. It sure does help us if we look at it with out a bias towards what we have been accustom to for years.
Charlie’s program was designed by beliefs that people over looked for years.
Dan Fichter
I am also confused. Lets get rid of the technical jargon for a moment here. I like when specialists in their field like to confuse the masses with hyper-inflated definitions and confusing statements that remind me of a dog chasing it’s tale. We keep talking, but getting nowhere.
First off, most of what we know scientifically is not conducted under race like conditions or with our ideal contraints. Every study will have something wrong with it, or something we can pick on to critique, and there is nothing wrong with this fact.
Second, I do not see where Bear and Charlie differ too much in most of what they say. I can tell they are both educated and self-giving teachers which is more than what most of us on the board can say. Untill we produce or become a world class athlete in sprinting, we should be doing more listening, reading, and discovering than putting our own critique in.
We must remember that we are all here for the same cause, and I really think that if we were so self-confident to accept our own training protocols as the ideal, we wouldn’t have a reason to post here or read anything further on the subject. I believe if we really knew how training should be conducted, we wouldn’t be part of this community.
With that being said, I suppose most of us here are not world class athletes or coaches of them, and are thus not making the progress we would like to see. I also don’t know when we all became so intelligent or prestigious to offer such critiques 
Im really tired of hearing opinions, so let me see something to prove the man right or wrong. So far I see nothing groundbreaking to say he is wrong, so like I said, whats wrong with the concept? I am not looking for a discrepancy amongst all the discussion so far. I am asking, what’s wrong with the concept?
What I don’t get is why no one is seeing that Weyand and Bear are behind the curve.
As Dan pointed out above, Charlie has been saying for years that everyone can move their legs fast enough in the air(in other words… it’s what happens on the ground that counts).
Here is a quote from an old Tellez paper; “Pawing action is actually an illusion resulting from rapid hip extension. Too much voluntary action at the knees and ankles causes a reduction in angular velocity of the hip, which is the prime generator of force. Force causes motion while speed is a measurement of motion. Cyclic force is applied from the hip (radial force) which results in tangential motion of the foot. At foot placement, the shin should be approximately 90 degrees to the ground. As the COM passes over the point of support. the heel briefly touches the ground and the ankle angle closes. This motion puts the achilles tendon and calf in a stretgh position while the knee is bent, allowing a greater push off force from the ball of the foot…”
The top coaches always knew what was going on. Btw Tellez also belived in staying as light as possible. He would say “it helps you to pop off the ground towards the end of a race”. Not that much is new.
You seem to be good with physics Dazed, tell me if i stood on a force plate, designed to measure force applied to the ground, would it register more force if i just bent my knees or if I jumped up?
If you jumped of course.
Now tell me, if you were standing on a force plate and performed a single legged jump, you you produce more force if you just jumped with a stationary free leg, or if you you jumped and drove the knee of the free leg skyward?
lets put it like this. Do you think a high jumper would jump higher with or without knee drive?
The point that I’m trying to make is not that triple extension is not the prime generator of force in sprinting, nor am I trying to discredit your programme, but that the study was not adequately constructed to hang a training philosophy on.
I guess my non-scientific take on this debate is that swing time tends to be measured as a function of air time, Since speed increases almost entirely as a result of decreased ground contact time, swing time remains relatively constant BUT the knee drive must move in lock-step with increased ground force/rate, thus increasing variability within the swing time.
Tudor has produced Olympic champions and can figure out applications.
Top speed occurs at the very last step of the acceleration phase. In order to accelerate forward, you must generate foot speed backwards that is greater that the speed at which the track is moving backwards relative to your body. If you actually did this on a treadmill, you’d fly off the front.
Are you absolutely sure of your answer to my question? I don’t want to be accused of giving you a trick question.
Sorry to go a little off topic…but could you explain the above highlighted sentenced.
Thanks
PS. That was taken from response made on page 8 of this thread.
Speed End and Special End strongly affect recruitment but not cross section. If you have an athlete who perfects these qualities, you will see their muscles appear to get longer and slightly smaller, although with no significant weight loss (denser). This is why the odds-makers at the horse races are able to “see” which horses will be the strong finishers and which will die in the stretch- the same is possible for people. This SE effect is so strong (because the overall training exposure to it is so great) that it mitigates the effects of weight programs, regardless of type.
Wow thats deep…