I should have added box jumps as well. In either case, there is a strong correlation between stepping off a box at some elevation and “dropping” back to the ground when sprinting since gravity is affecting both and there is a rapid and powerful forced eccentric contraction.
In the depth jump, we focus on reaction to ground contact with a following jump performed as quickly as the jumper can react. We are not interested in the direction or height of the jump but on moving from eccentric to concentric contraction.
Box jumps are similarly done, but we do focus on the ability to jump over or on top of boxes of various sizes. Again, the focus is on the rapid change in contraction, so we try to get the athlete to react at ground contact not “gather” for the next jump.
We start with very low boxes and we don’t do any plyos until the athlete has completed 10-12 lifiting sessions.
For sprinters, these are the only weightroom plyos that are used. We use other plyos for other sports.
Thanks for this, Bear!
Hopefully these will also be interesting, applicable information for the forum.
I understand the nature of your drills. May I ask a couple more things though
Where would you place such drills? Along with the weights’ session, straight after, for example?
Would these be along some track work and of what nature? Or separate sessions on a day? Lastly,
How would you progress these exercises? E.g., the height of the drop jumps? How would you monitor the progression of GRTs? Would you be interested in these?
I have a few thoughts on this. Whether the model is 100% correct or not, it’s clear that the conscious action of the sprinter, at top speed, is vertical, and, at the top level, any attempt to consciously impart horizontal force will result in slowing down.
Plyos are very effective in increasing “stiffness” BUT the height and number of the plyos must be very carefully controlled, and, perhaps paradoxically, the value of plyos diminishes as the speed improves to World Record levels. This is due to the increasing plyometric effect from the sprinting itself which narrows the gap between the two activities, making them more competitive towards each other for training resources.
In regards to weights, whether you accept that the vertical nature of sprinting influences your selection of weight exercises will depend, to some extent, on whether you believe that weights are specific or general in the nature of their training contribution.
Also, I couldn’t find the reference to hypers, but, interestingly, my old coach had me do hypers in very limited numbers (usually 2 set of 6) before speed sessions going back to 1970.
The biomechanical aspect/analysis of the phases of the sprint is undoubtedly complex. The very nature of this regime of science as it relates to sport, as well as most others, lends itself to a certain degree of uncertainty. For this reason we may observe that debates in this regard can easily become academic and even nebulous in relation to the usefulness of the material as it relates to programming and organizing the training.
In order to effectively apply the data, regardless of school of thought as to which model most accuratley describes the biomechanical dynamics of the sprint phases, perhaps the discussion may redirect itself towards the useful application of the data towards systematic planning.
In this regard, Charlie, what impact (if any) does/did your understanding of the biomechanical aspects of the sprint phases have in influencing your decisions and selection of specific and non-specific means during the actual planning process?
Charlie, Its funny I remember Mel Siff talking about plyo’s in a similar way. Of course Doc didn’t know sprinting, but he knew if you went to the well a little to often…it would be dry. In our case actually ruin that elasticity.
Charlie, good point about the plyos being less effective at higher levels of comp. Don’t get me wrong Back Extensions have there place in a program, I just think that a heavy support exercise would yield a better response from the CNS.
I always stuck with the feeling/teaching aspect of it all. if I could get them to feel the right things, everything would fall into place.
I always trained top speed from a gradual build up that allowed you to concentrate on the up and down aspect first before combining it with a strong acceleration. If you want to see some of this approach have a look at the GPP DVD. In the “top speed” drills, shown in full speed, slo-mo, and stop action, you can clearly see the “lift” generated by the emphasis on arm action.
Kind of goes back to the plyo comment. The back extentions were only an “awakening” exercise, done in numbers that couldn’t possibly fatigue these vital muscles.
Yes. I suspect, though, Mel knew more about sprinting than he let on. He was quite familiar with the training of the South African Paul Nash, who tied the 100m WR (then 10.0h) several times in 1968.
Yes that last statement is true. And is also true for weight training. One of the adaptations to strenth training is for the body to lay down more collagen in the tendon in order to increase it’s stiffness, reducing distortion during muscular contraction. Now stiffness is inversely proportional to elasticity, so you can see whats going on …
Does any body know how to counter act this? I’ve heard tempo running can, is anyone familiar with anything that suggests this?
Quite some time ago I had posted something on this, but no replies! Hope this is what you meant…
"Studies in humans (D.P. Ferris and Farley, 1997) show that runners can alter their leg stiffness by more than threefold. In particular, they do this when running on surfaces that differ in hardness. The result is that the combined stiffness of the leg and the contact surface remain the same. As a result, the length of the time that the foot is on the ground (GCT) and the duration of the airborne phase remain the same. Consequently, the stride frequency and the vertical oscillation of the body do not change, irrespective of the softness of the surface on which the subject runs. A failure of this adaptation would mean that the duration of the ground contact phase would increase by about 70% when running on very soft surfaces.
As a result of increases in leg stifness, there is reduced flexion of the knee during ground contact. Running with increased flexion of the knee is wasteful of energy. … … Acute changes in leg stiffness occur predominantly as a result of changes in ankle stiffness. Thus, as the surface becomes softer, ankle stiffness increases and knee bend is reduced on landing. How changes in leg stiffness are brought about is not known, but it is not simply the result of increased muscle activation (recruitment), since this is reduced when running on harder surfaces (Farley et al., 1998)."
Nik, Interesting post. My 2cents say that as the surface gets softer proprioceptive sensory at the ankle has to fire more often to keep the ankle from inverting or everting excessively.
Why does the knee joint stiffen more? Possibly to reduce the total amount of CNS input from sensory neurons. The less the bending from the knee joint, the more energy can be spent to make sure the ankle is being properly stabalized.
It would then make sense that the harder, smoother surfaces would allow the sprinter to fully relax and only use the stabilizers that are necessary to reach high velocities. When the surface is unstable or soft, the excess proprioceptive background noise would hamper higher velocities from being attained, yet would work stabilizing more intensely.
To illustrate try doing a handstand on flat ground, then try doing one on a wrestling mat. There is such a vast difference in difficulty it is really amazing. You notice just how much more the stabilizers play a role when you attempt an unfamiliar movement such as a handstand.
I don’t understand how the two stimulus (sprinting itself and plyometric training) would compete moreso at World Record level. Ground contact time decreases at top speed and as you progress up the plyometric difficulty training GCT increases (depth jumps). So how do they compete more? Aren’t they moving away from each other - contact times?
OK, that’s what I thought you meant. Plyos and Sprinting are the two training elements that are closest to each other on the F/T curve. As performance goes up, GCT improves in sprints AND CNS demand goes up exponentially. To continue to improve in speed, competing elements will eventually have to decrease, starting with those that are closest on the F/T curve.
It would be tough enough to keep the same demand from plyos, where ability would improve but GCT would remain relatively the same if the training challenge was matched to the improved capacity. If GCT for plyos actually increased, the conflicting demand would be even greater.
Charlie, assuming the following F/T spectrum for high intensity elements:
Speed <—Plyos <—Med Ball <—Weights
From a long term development standpoint would the general progression be to start with the relative emphasis on the right side of the spectrum and progress toward the left side? Then as the speed progressivley intensifies, the other high intensity elements are reduced starting with those closest to speed on the left and moving back toward the right side, with weights being the last thing adjusted.
Well, that’s tough to pin down because, when you start out you’re not ready for weights till you get some background with general fitness and lower intensity med-ball work, then progressively higher int med-ball work. Additionally, you have a capacity to incorporate alactic speed work, with coordination/alternation/relaxation benefits from the very start. So it depends when you start defining things.
I’d say (and, of course, this is a gross simplification), from the point of being ready for individualized programming, you might start at both ends of the F/T curve, then fill in the middle, then work back to both ends if and when you achieve the highest levels.
Note that working back occurs only at the level where intensification at current volume levels is no longer possible and, therefor, the componants that remain are not raised in volume.
