You never stop Clemson. Those types of comments are par for the course you play on. Is it that bad to hear someone besides your self speak?? Half your posts rip on people. The difference between you and Charlie…or the really good coaches, is they will try to find positives in tiny amounts in different peoples work. You on the other hand……well we all know. You are unbelievable.
Here is a sample of the first couple of pages of his book ‘Underground Secrets To Faster Running’
Introduction-
The strength training concept presented in this book is simple yet powerful. Powerful enough to make you run faster than you’ve ever run before. Perhaps faster than you ever dreamed!
The concept isn’t just for sprinters. In fact, the training can increase running speed and performance from 10 meters to 10,000 meters.
Yet the concept is so focused on providing exactly what is necessary for faster running that your total strength training time may be cut by up to 50%. And, most of that time will be spent resting!
The training routine, based upon both physics and muscle physiology, does not require any special equipment or gimmicks. A barbell and a set of weights will work just fine.
The most difficult part of the concept is accepting that something so simple can be effective: so effective that it can be used to improve performance in almost every sport or virtually any other endeavor that requires strength.
As you go through each section, much of what you read might not fit into your current perception of strength training. You may question the adaptation of the concept to your event or your sport. You may take exception to the way in which the material is presented or question the science behind the concepts.
Let me encourage you to do just that, because that is exactly what I did. It will be worth every moment you spend in thinking through what is being presented, in challenging the research, the science, the “experts” and me. I hope it will be as interesting and informative a journey as the one that began for me in 2000.
In that year, Peter Weyand, Ph.D. (a physiologist and biomechanist specializing in the locomotion of humans and other terrestrial animals) and his associates published the results of a study, completed at Harvard University, in the Journal of Applied Physiology. They had hypothesized that greater force applied to the ground rather than shorter minimum swing time (the time a given foot was not in contact with the ground) enabled humans to increase top speed. The results of the study led them to conclude that this was indeed the case.
The conclusion should lead the reader to question whether or not the accepted methods of training to increase running speed are focused on the factors that actually cause speed to increase.
That same year, at a small high school in the San Fernando Valley section of Los Angeles, California, a 14 year old freshman enrolled in track. Her name was Allyson Felix.
These two events, occurring 3000 miles apart, would combine to make track and field history. Felix would run the fastest 200 meters in the world, besting all of the U.S. high school records set by Marion Jones as well as the Junior (under 20) 200 meter world record. She would be crowned the American Women’s 200 meter indoor champion in 2003…
-MSF-
Peter Weyand’s study “Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements,” published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, underscores the fact that there is a disconnect between what science shows to be the major factors involved with running speed and what coaches focus on to increase an athlete’s running speed.
At the core of the disconnect is the traditional equation for running speed: Speed = Stride Length x Stride Rate.
Runners that take more frequent steps (Stride Rate, a time factor) should run faster than they did when they took steps less frequently. If those runners decide instead to increase the distance between each step (Stride Length, a distance factor), then running speed would also increase. A combination of the two, longer distance between steps and more frequent steps would be a third alternative to increasing speed. Seems simple enough, at least in theory.
But it’s that theory that the study challenged.
The three components of faster running are actually this: How often you contact the ground; how much muscular force you can deliver during ground contact; how much ground contact time is available to deliver that force.
Stride length and stride rate are effects of the three components.
Among the components, the predominant factor in running faster is the ability to generate and transmit muscular force to the ground. Not just any amount of force will do because there is still one shadowy figure whose impact is hidden in the speed equation. It’s name? Gravity.
The same gravity that keeps pulling you back to earth when you jump up from the ground or jump out of an airplane also has a powerful impact on how fast you run. The major component of gravity is Mass: greater mass equals greater gravitational pull.
There are two reasons for the gravity factor remaining hidden. One reason is the fact that gravity is invisible (which makes it your toughest opponent), and the other is the commonly held belief that the horizontal direction of a stride is where the power goes. While the second reason seems intuitive, it’s simply wrong. A study published in the Journal of Biomechanics in 1987 showed that the amount of force used horizontally during constant speed running is as little as one-tenth the amount of force applied vertically. It’s the vertical direction of the stride that needs our help because it is the portion of the stride direction that faces the major assault from gravity. How can this be?
During constant speed running (with no air resistance) propulsion forces and breaking forces are equal. In other words, the amount of force applied to the ground to propel your body horizontally is offset by the braking force when you contact the ground again. In order to run, we must elevate our body above the ground. And that’s where gravity, arch-enemy of faster running speed, lurks. If we don’t oppose it, we won’t take longer or quicker strides.
So how do we oppose this villain bent on robbing us of our speed? We do it like NASA does: Boost up the power! Get stronger and apply more force to the ground!
Coaches recognized early on that stride lengths increased when runners applied more force to the ground. Unfortunately, coaches and athletes wrongly believe that the only way to increase strength is by increasing mass. Their goal is to increase mass because they believe more mass=more muscle=more strength=more force applied to the ground. What they don’t realize, and what you can use to your advantage by using the principles presented in this book, is that added mass creates more gravitational pull – mass is actually working against you!
Recall that the predominant factor in faster running is the ability to generate and transmit muscular force to the ground. But, because of gravity, it isn’t merely the amount of force applied to the ground that increases stride length; it’s the amount of force in relation to bodyweight, or mass-specific force (MSF).
To clear up any possible confusion about the concept and importance of MSF, let’s revisit our comment about NASA to illustrate MSF in action:
Suppose two rockets, A and B, are of equal size, carry equal fuel load, have equal power and differ only in weight. Rocket A weighs in at a hefty 100 pounds while B is a mere 50 pounds.
When the engines fire, B blows off its launch pad before A, quickly puts an increasing amount of distance between them, then cruises while A’s added weight causes it to drain its fuel supply and drop like a brick.
All other things being equal, the lighter rocket will go faster and further every time.
If force alone was the major factor in speed, then a 400 pound man able to pound down 700 pounds of force would win every race - but we know that’s not what happens. If we match our 400 pound behemoth against a 170 pound man able to lay down 500 lbs of force, there’s no contest. The big man bites the dust.
Why? MSF!
The 400 pound man is generating a meager 1.75 times his bodyweight against the ground while our thin man is applying a whopping 2.94 times his bodyweight. Like our rocket example, the big man can’t keep up from the start and quickly runs out of gas trying to push his mammoth mass. Even though the big man can generate 40% more force, it pales compared to the thin man’s 68% greater MSF. Thin man’s stride length will far exceed big man’s.
Stride length isn’t the only part of the equation affected by greater force: Stride rates also show significant gain.
The two main factors of Stride Rate are ground contact time and swing time (the time between ground contact for the same foot). Coaches who work on increasing Stride Rate spend their time attempting to decrease swing time. But you will soon see that decreasing swing time is really of little consequence in speed training because contact time is the more important factor in Stride Rate. Greater MSF causes the ground contact times to decrease, so Stride Rates become faster by the amount of time NOT spent on the ground. Think of it like a bouncing ball, the harder you throw it against the ground the faster it bounces back up.
Yes, it is hard to believe that swing time is of little consequence. After all, runners must swing their feet from behind to in-front…
Thanks, I needed that!
Barry Ross
I did read it, and it was not a follow-up according to Peter Weyand, who would know more than those who post to the contrary here. It was about the relatively greater need for mass for a sprinter vs a distance runner.
Another error by several of the posters, including Mr. Francis, regards the difference between mass-specific force and strength/bodyweight. They are not the same animal.
This, posted by NumberTwo is interesting: “This is like Ralph Mann standing up in front of some of the top US sprint coaches and saying that arm technique doesn’t matter - based on his scientific findings. John Smith certainly stood up and gave his counter-opinion - based on his experience as a coach and an athlete”
So we are to deny science for the ideas of a coach and athlete (that’s not meant do demean Mr. Francis in anyway since I don’t know his background)?
Mann is a highly respected researcher who changed from preaching the same messages posted here when he faced the reality of newer research.
As for this, “Were Ross to have his way with Ben and Mo, their mass would vary from the model, as would their results. Two guesses which way,” —how would Mr. Francis know what I would do? May I remind him of his own statement “Yes, exactly. People speak who don’t know”. He doesn’t know.
What makes me think that Green would have run faster if he had less mass? Simply because he was able to apply a high rate of MSF with mass developed through workouts that increase excess hypertrophy. If he could gain equal strength with less mass he would necessarily produce greater MSF. He would run faster.
Mr. Ross,
What is the difference between mass-specific force and strenght/bodyweight ratio? Do they not both deal with relative strength?
Mr. Ross,
What is the difference between mass-specific force and strength/bodyweight ratio?
Mass-specific force is the amount of ground force application in relation to bodyweight. As ground contact time decreases the time to deliver potential force decreases as well. Top speed can be defined as the maximum force delivered, in the shortest contact time, in relation to bodyweight. Strength to bodyweight ratios do not consider time.
Without following all the scientific arguments I find it very interesting to compare Ben and Maurice in this way.
Maurice is a lot heavier and shorter than Ben was.
Maurice does a lot of Bodybuilding type weight work afaik while Ben’s weight work is described in detail on this site or CFTS book which does not have very much to do with Bodybuilding, but with “trainig your cns” to put it in simple words. Hypertrophy for hypertrophy’s sake was avoided.
I don’t understand what they really have in common beside the fact that both were sub 9.8 runners and one get’s the feeling “wow they were strong” looking at them. They achieved similar results on track but in quite different ways.
It was mentioned that Christie looked strong too, but was quite light for his bodyheight. So was Ben if you compare him to Mo.
So first of all I don’t understand the classification “Mo and Ben” at all.
The main point of the argument (wrap scientific sounding terms around it as much as you want) is: "the heavier the moving body the more gravitational forces work on it (wow that’s new!) " - add the well-known “the more force you can apply to the ground in shorter time the faster you are” you’ll get the result: “try to be capable of applying as much force on the ground in minimized ground contact time by being as light as possible, but as heavy as necessary.”
That’s exactly why CFTS followers do not lift with 10-12 reps all year if at all…
A few points:
1:Whether, by your definition, I am familiar with your terminology, Ben did develop the equal highest max velocity yet seen.
2: Top speed must be balanced with accel, with more emphasis on accel as the event moves farthest to the left (men’s 100m)
3: You don’t demean me as you don’t know my background? So, If I had a background acceptable to you, I’d be immune from criticism for the same theories?
4: You are able to conclude that you could do a better job with Ben and Mo “simply” by observation of body type and speed. Yet, with this simplistic approach, without an understanding of the overall role, type, or amount of weights employed relative to Speed work in either program, you say that I can’t predict an unfortunate outcome?
The point, of course, is moot, but you have every opportunity to develop a men’s WR holder of your own.
5:Mann has stated flat out that arm drive doesn’t control the sprint. Both John and I have sprinted and produced WR holders and are aware that this is absolute BS.
You say Mann was able to “scientifically” arrive at this conclusion but he is in biomechanics and the role of the arms is determined by neurology. The nerve signals are not transmitted down the neural pathways at the speed of light, they top out at around 122mps so the signal reaches the arms first and this is perceptable to the top sprinters.
By pointing this out, John is not “denying science”, he’s denying BS!
Mann left his own personal experience behind after his career. Bloody good thing, as he broke the WR using the philosophies cited here which he now rejects- as do you.
You never stop Clemson. Those types of comments are par for the course you play on. Is it that bad to hear someone besides your self speak?? Half your posts rip on people. The difference between you and Charlie…or the really good coaches, is they will try to find positives in tiny amounts in different peoples work. You on the other hand……well we all know. You are unbelievable.
Nope. I have paid a lot of money to hear many speak. Over the last 10 years I have visited LA, Austin, Waco, Toronto, NC and have seen what works and what is BS.
So when Barry Ross steps up and is critical of Ben’s program( because he is bloated) and argues that he could have run faster without the program that got him to WR speed I get pissed.
Strength to bodyweight does affect contact time, however. The higher the absolute peak on an F/T curve, the sooner (farther to the left) the critical required force is generated, relative to the bodyweight to be moved.
There are other factors that alter the shape of the curve, but this is certainly one.
You paid a lot of money…sorry to hear that. Still doesn’t say much for your ability to communicate respectfully. Didn’t know the more money spent= a higher incidence of rude behavior?? I am quite sorry I missed that presentation
Hi Bear,
Interesting debate going on here. Since we are on the topic of theorising I have thrown up a few hypothesis for fun…
Could you explain how you might achieve this? If you want more strength with less weight then i assume you want to achieve this all through improvements to the nervous system - which i assume means ever highter intesities in the gym. How do you do this and still balance out the extra intensity in the gym with intensity on the track?
Theorising now…
If we want to increase strength but decrease mass… once the athlete gets to a very high level, say 9.8, each track session could perhaps be thought of as a very specific form of strength training for running.
At this point, what would happen if you stopped weight training all together?
There would be less competing stress which might lead to better track performances and hence generally shorter ground contact times and bodyweight would also decrease because you arn’t working any muscles that arn’t being used while sprinting.
If you wanted to overload this you could then do some training in a wind tunnel to decrease air resistance and increase speed. I assume this would cut ground contact times as well so you are developing more MSF.
What are your thoughts on these hypothesis?
Cheers, TC
I’ll let Bear handle this one!
Very good points!
I’d like to hear your opinion on your last comment, too! 
Thanks!
About his last comment–
from what I have seen in European programs (seeing the program of a Euro record holder in the sprints) is that weights are not used nearly as much as they are in the states, where it is sometimes the strong point of programs and where I am guessing much of the improvement comes from (I could be wrong on this last point, but many unis are almost entirely based on intensive tempo, yet still yield great results). This leads me to wonder if weights are not used ENOUGH in Europe (or at least, not in the correct way) for success in the sprints.
Always seeking to find context…an empirical statement from beyond the fish bowl…
Barry, with all due respect, when a comparison is drawn between Allyson’s accomplishments and Ben’s, the reality is such that there is none.
(I state this fully understanding that Felix is a tremendous sprinter and competitor who will likely continue to PR given her increases in preparedness to date.)
Let us consider only what has transpired thus far: Felix with an IAAF accepted PR of 22.13 on today’s appreciable faster surfaces in 05 is still .79 (the better part of a second) behind Flo Jo’s 21.34 set in 88 on a considerably slower surface. (Charlie can elaborate on the actual structure of the surfaces)
Alternatively, Ben’s 9.79 set in 88 on a considerably slower track is still only .02 behind Asafa’s 9.77 set in 05 and ran on another modern, and much faster, surface 17 years later. Additionally, there is no fiction in stating that if Ben doesn’t raise his hand that the time he would have ran is likely to be a time that stands untouched to date.
To add, one cannot ignore the world class accomplishments of Williams, Issajenko, Montgomery, Jones, etc… all experienced during their time under Charlie.
So all statements regarding the realization of the maximum structural potential of an optimized proportion of muscle cross-section in an effort to maximize forces during/while minimizing GCT aside, I am curious as to how you feel qualified to argue Charlie’s methodics?
Regarding the scientific foundations supporting your view point, I (along with the masses) am certainly an advocate of the utilization of scientific findings to further improvements in the training; however, if we are to impart the very foundations of solidifying theory to your position then you must certainly provide sufficient practical evidence, and amongst any informed audience and certainly when challenging Charlie, the practical evidence must exist as at least one world record holder who is a multi-year project of your own.
This term (MSF) registers to me as just another sensationalized regurgitation of renamed vernacular which was originally introduced to the planet by the former USSR/Eastern Bloc (much like this Tabata interval craze which Verkhoshanski and his team pioneered and documented years earlier).
Incidentally, I don’t think anyone is disputing the principle you are attempting to get across in terms of the development of motor tasks which will yield increases in absolute speed; but rather the statements that you could improve upon these former Olympic and World record holders when you have yet to produce one yourself.
I mean no disrespect; from a curious standpoint I wish to discover your method of rationalizing (on a moral/conscious level) your assertion that you could have accomplished more then Charlie did with Ben. Unless I am grossly misinformed as to your accolades I fail to see how you can reasonably feel solid about disputing Charlie on any grounds short of the theoretical.
Enlighten me.
With respect,
James
A slight reservation though. The Europe-USA-dichotomy is pretty blur, and too simplistic in my mind; I don’t think we can speak about a European tradition as an entity anymore. Sure, I guess the “specific” strength training argument is still quite common, but on the other hand, “organism” strength has also, and always, been the path for a number of European coaches. And now, in the age if the Internet, the distinction is becoming even less indicative to places. Athletics is usually not attached to universities in Europe; it’s more of a club arrangement, hence a quite heterogenic family of ideas and ways.
When analyzing muscular work we are assuming that available motor units are being recruited in a relatively stereotype fashion. The recruitment order of the motoneurons as a function of the input to the pool is well known as size principle. The recruitment of a motor unit is supposed to be directly related to its size and to its force-generating properties. Smaller units producing less tension are recruited at a lower level of input into the pool, larger units are recruited gradually at a higher level. The force of the additionally recruited motor unit should be proportional to the total muscle force at the moment of recruitment. We have learned that the degree of muscular activity is limited by how many motor units (MU) that are being recruited and at what frequency they are discharged.
At what extent an athlete can produce muscular tension is heavily dependent on how well he is trained and prepared for the work demands exposed to. There are as we all know very well, great demands on neuromuscular rehearsal before one fully masters certain motor programs. When training with maximal or near maximal loads there is a great possibility that major parts of relevant muscles instantly will get recruited. The same is likely to happen with a sub-maximal load moved with maximal intensity (power training) as well as in plyometric movements. The size principle for recruitment can easily be applied, especially to strength training with loads. It has been suggested that fast eccentric contractions in humans might be exceptions from the size principle. There is a possibility that FT-fibres has “done the job” before the ST can contribute in a meaningful way though and plyometric should therefore not be classified as an exception to the size principle.
All this is fairly easy to understand. Everything gets much more blurry if one tries to understand what happens in a series of cyclic contractions like for example the 100m sprint. If we use EMG, we can see that some of the prime movers have rather brief periods of inactivity in the running gait cycle. The hamstrings for example seems active more than 60% of the approximately 200ms a gait cycle will take. 80ms to relax before it’s time to be back at work, it’s seems to be tough life to be a FT fiber in the hamstrings:-). Why can’t we lift a maximal weight twice, probably because the fastest MU with least endurance give in. The 100m dash involves 22-25 contractions per leg in hopefully less than 10 seconds. How can that possible be a maximal recruitment of MU in every single step!
The success in sprinting probably has much more to do with how well one can recruit the fastest contracting muscle fibres in the most economical not the most maximal fashion. Unfortunately EMG doesn’t give a very clear picture how the individual MU are working. We have seen speculations that a part of the muscle is more active when it is able to work more effectively in relationship to the movement. There are also speculation there might be a question of not only selective recruitment of fast contracting fibres, it has been suggested that these fibers might take turns in a rotational fashion to be able to maintain the force-production needed in more than just a few contractions.
Any way, from a recovery perspective one must assume periods of none or low activity are extremely important and the ability to relax might be just or even more important than the ability to maximally recruit MU, especially during maximal velocity sprinting.
In my contacts with the coaches to some world class sprinters have I concluded that these sprinters do not exceed our sprinters in jumping ability nor in maximal strength or power capacity measured with the MusceLab system. For some this might sound surprising because these individual most likely posses extremely high percentage of FT-fibers. The difference in jumping ability and ability to produce power in non sprint specific tests might be explained that these qualities are by tradition very important part of most European sprint-coaches training protocol. Since plyometrics assumingly recruit the highest threshold MU at a very high discharge rate it has become a very popular and effective training method in many sports that has a high demand on fast and powerful muscle contractions. Still many of the world’s fastest men don’t do much plyometrics.
Ability to maximally recruit fibers but unability to relax while sprinting is probably one reason why there is relatively faster 60m times produced by European sprinters than in the 100m every year. In 60m there is a large component of acceleration where maximal recruitment will in fact be very usefull. Another limiting factor might be that the viscoelastic properties of muscle-tendon complex needed to run 12m/s is not best developed with extreme plyometric activities. On the contrary, the motor programs developed in such activities might in fact be contra productive for world class sprinting.
Some Swedish sprinters with good acceleration capabilities have been very successful especially in the 60m indoors (world championship finals and European medals). These sprinters have not been even near in reproducing the same level of sprinting in 100m. This can’t solely be explained by lack of talent. In my view there must be something in the design of their training too. I feel that we and many other have been overemphasizing the importance of maximal strength and powertraining for our sprinters.
Is it possible that excessive maximal lifting and to extreme jumping exercises might disturb sprint performance? Is there a risk that if non specific training is taking to large proportion there might be a risk that it will obstruct the learning of an for sprinting optimal motor pattern? Isn’t it possible that maximal velocity sprinting with to much tension will be negative from a metabolic perspective?
Please observe that I’m generalizing heavily and I do understand that sprint performance is limited by a wide spectrum of trainable and non trainable factors. And for sure, the most limiting factors are to be found in the genes of the athlete and not in the excellence of their training.
All the best
Håkan Andersson
Sundsvall, Sweden
MUST READ THIS POST
CF
The post deserves of course an accurate reading and re-reading process,as many are the points that hit my attention and curiosity, but at a very first glance doesn’t the above quote move every further consideration towards the Speed (or Strength for the matter…) Reserve concept? And to the crucial importance to target the training process to the construction of a general output capacity which creates the the favourable necessary environment and margins for improvement more than to any performance specific requirements?
My most recent experiences seem at least to point in this direction…