Now I understand - thanks Charlie!!
I think that’s the point I was trying to get at.
Charlie, good post!
Exactly my point. V forces are by far predominant, but H forces are still significant and in the optimum situation would not be ignored in training.
Training the athlete to be able to absorb V forces will generate the best muscle (and passive recoil structures) ‘strength’ to improve sprint speed.
But if the athlete plateaus with V component training, then that athlete could still get faster with proper H component muscle training.
Have I done this training? Not yet. But there is ample biomechanical data, EMG data and force plate data which all support the above statement.
[QUOTE=alexmicha]
There is much debate and confusion with regards to H and V forces. I stated in prior forum letters the fact that H forces are important. V forces are by far the most important ones. But the fact the V forces are the predominant does not negate the fact that H forces are significant.
H forces are ‘dependent’ on the ability to generate greater V forces in peak velocity. That is a true statement. The problem comes when people state that H forces are ‘due’ to V forces. H forces require the ability of absorbing and recoiling V forces - they are dependent on the V forces. But H forces are also present and they are ‘due’ to H component muscle action. H forces are not ‘due’ to V forces, even though they are dependent on them.
Each stance phase consists of a deceleration and an acceleration. These occur in both the V and H components. The H deceleration has to be matched by an equal H acceleration (or propulsion) in the 2nd half of stance phase if speed is to be constant. The H forces are ‘dependent’ on the ability to absorb and recoil V forces, but they are ‘due’ to the absorption and recoil of H forces. Such H forces are predominantly centered at the hip (ie., hip flexors and extensors).
Next, some are concerned with the fact that there is insufficient time for a ‘contraction’ to occur during a short ground contact period of time. But the recoil in the hip (both flexion and extension) is partially generated as a recoil of passive forces. It is also partially generated by an active contraction. One must realize that with rapid movements the muscle contractions that occur are pre-activated by the muscle neural components. With pre-activation the body does have the ability to rapidly contract the muscle, and again this occurs concomitant with the recoil effect.
One could ask the question as to why would the iliopsoas tendon be so thick - it must be designed for recoil of elastic forces that act at the hip joint. The same goes for the hip extensors, most importantly the hamstrings, which have large tendinous extensions that could recoil elastic forces. But again, the recoil effect only partially explains what occurs. An active contraction explains the other half of what occurs. Mero [in Sports Med. 13:376-392, 1992, “Biomechanics of sprint running. A review.”] discusses the role of ‘pre-activation’ of muscles in order to increase their ‘stiffness’, which relates to their ability to contract and recoil rapidly.
Hopefully this explains some of the confusion regarding the H component.
Finally, and again, the V forces are most important. But the H forces are present and they are not insignificant, thus at least some focus on the H component should improve sprint performance.
I’ve got a way to ensure that you cover both the V and the H componants in exactly the right proportion- sprint!
Yes, I’m being a wiseacre, as usual, but the fact is there is truth in this.
In many programs, particularly in Europe, there is such an emphasis on drop jumps, plyos, bounds, etc, that sprint work in practice is so compromised that any speed development is solely via these secondary means, leaving open the possibility of errors in emphasis.
A conservative approach, which recognizes the primacy of and preserves the capacity for speed work, has the best chance of getting it right.
Do think there is some parallel here to training methods that attempt to deconstruct the sprinting action and train stride frequency and stride length as separate components?
Have a question going back to the study, how could ground contact time be accurately determined if they were dependent on the speed of the treadmill and not the athlete?
For self preservation purposes if the athlete does not move at the speed of the moving ground he/she fly’s off the treadmill. This is not the case when running on the ground.
This becomes very important when one of the contentions of the experiment relies on the validity and accuracy of this data?
Well, not exactly. The problem is that many coaches try to improve both at the same time by towing! Better separated by far!
Most learning is based on a separation of tasks and strengths but it must not be done at the cost of eliminating the possibility of moving the prime objectives (speed and SE) forward.
why do so many people like that ice man clip?
I found it also on barry ross’s site
http://www.bearpowered.com/resources/
anyone read his book?
is pat c still trainin felix? and barry how do you feel about his thoughts on decreasing her strength training?
yes i read his book.
Great thread. Some good debates on hypertrophy, biomechanics, and planning. I’d like to refer back to some of the original substance of the discussion, and that is Barry’s strength approach based on MSF. The following sample routine is from the “Holy Grail” link posted much earlier, so I hope BR doesn’t mind its duplication here.
Here is the basic plan, based on strength training sessions on 3 consecutive days:
Dynamic stretch before each session, static stretch after each session
Deadlift every session, 2-3 sets of 2-3 reps @ 85-95% 1RM, TIMED
Plyometrics at the end of each set, within 1 minute of set completion
Usually depth jumps from varying heights but occasionally used stand triple jump or long jump, generally 6 jumps or less. The focus is on delivering maximum strength in minimum time.
One of the following at each session, 2-3 sets of 2-3 reps, TIMED
Push Press
Bench Press
Push-ups or Box Push-ups
One of the following at each session, 2-3 sets of 2-3 reps, TIMED
Power Clean
Clean and Jerk (this would replace #3 above for the session)
Abdominal exercises each session, 3-5 sets of 3-5 reps.
Always isometric and always timed
No Lifts To Failure!!
As one routine viewed in isolation I think this all looks pretty good. There are a limited number of exercises, reps/sets/intensity are structured to target max strength and high CNS stimulus, percentage of the whole body’s motor unit involvement is high, and the core gets high rep (=isometric holds) low intensity treatment.
I’m curious to the reasoning behind the application of the routine.
-Why lift 3 consecutive days and before track work?
-How safe are mid-session plyos? Typical recommendation is only when completely fresh. I see a mention of a 1994 study by Radcliffe on the Bearpowered site. Are these intended to convert max strength to explosive strength, or simply the most efficient time in the schedule to do plyos for the goal of improved stiffness (GSF), as mentioned earlier in the thread?
he dont do power cleans.
If there is insufficient information available then the only honest thing to do is admit that you don’t have the answers and maintain an agnostic perspective. Yes, you still have to proceed somehow based on your own logic, but that isn’t science.
What proof do you have, from a scientific standpoint that there is enough difference between an 11.1m/s and a 12m/s that anything needs to be done differently?
It’s not neccessary to have proof of this. The fact that Weyand’s study didn’t include elite sprinters automatically means that the results don’t neccessarily apply to them. It’s impossible to know.
You don’t use any current studies by locomotion experts so what exactly do you go by? Stuff from 1950?
Who says you have to base your training methods on reserach? Honestly, I don’t believe that there is enough good reserach on sprinting to derive a training approach. That’s why we have training “philosophies”. Furthermore, it’s wrong to assume that the existing research on sprinting is valid. The field of exercise physiology tends to get criticized pretty harshly from all corners of the athletic conditioning community, coaches and scientists alike, and a lot of people will tell you that many studies- particuarly performance studies- are deplorable.
Treadmills are used indoors to remove as many variables as possible (and when tested against runway force plates there is minimal differences if any) but you don’t like them and then you say that there are too many variables.
Treadmill running alters biomechanics to an extent that is visible to the naked eye from the standpoint of an observer, and you could probably find reseach on this. Of course any biomechanical study that is performed on a treadmill will be flawed to some extent.
What do you use to justify how you coach? Do you simply guess and hope for the best?
You can’t defend your philosophy by criticizing how others might train. And like I said before, it’s very wrong to assume that the results of a study are valid and applicable just because it’s the best that’s available. A lack of information or resources doesn’t justify bad science. To the extent that your ideas are extrapolated from an insufficient body of reserach, it could be argued that you are “guessing” just as much as the next person.
EDIT: I would like to add that just becuase a training idea is not based on scientific research does not mean that it is simply guesswork. An analytical mind infers concepts based on logic, experience, and whatever scientific understanding is available. True, that may not be a scientific approach, but it’s a far cry from pulling information out of one’s ass (although many certainly do that too).
A clear and thoughtful response!
Extrapolation, in an event that has unknowingly exponential demands, is not science!
The hubris of assuming that it is leads to the dangerous folly that you are not venturing into the unknown, with its requirement for caution, observation, and good communication with the athlete.
Charlie,
How long into your coaching career did it take for you to form the basic concepts of your training and sprint model?
Exactly. It is this extrapolation that taints a lot of the findings of research into sport-related stuff. Personally, i would like to see more work in the literature in addressing the assumptions of these experiments (like the use of treadmills).
I don’t know really, the basic planning concepts were already there for me from Gerrard Mach and it was a matter seeing a bit further once I developed a large number of high level athletes, some at performance levels no one had seen before me.
While it is folly to extrapolate, it is possible to interpolate to make a more comprehensive explanation for how things fit together to form a repeatable approach.
Attempting to get some feedback on Barry’s strength program:
-The consecutive-day training doesn’t seem like a good idea from a CNS standpoint for anyone other than a beginning athlete. Assuming that the more powerful and advanced an individual becomes with strength, the more they are able to stimulate their CNS, and hence the longer recovery would be needed. I would expect days two and three of this program to be performed in a fatigued state with respect to CNS, and the following 4 days of recovery would be too much recovery and supercompensation would already be on the way down. On the other hand it might be a good schedule for a beginning high school athlete who can only stimulate their CNS so much, and doesn’t need the longer recovery between workouts, but could use the four day break to prevent overtraining.
-In regards to the lifting before trackwork, this also wouldn’t seem to be a great idea, as running form could be compromised in addition to all of the nervous system resources being blown in the weightroom.
-Plyos: Outside of time effiency for scheduling, I don’t understand the benefit of drop jumps during a deadlift session, unless perhaps more pre-stretch occurs from the muscle having a higher tonus or being more excitable.