Fulkrum, I am not debating that the protocol was different, i have a copy of both papers in front of me and the reps they used in 2000 would suggest that you are spot on, it was the sort of protocol that would have induced high lactates. However that was not the only difference between the protocols or even the subjects used, so its not possible to say with any certainty that the different types of training i.e bodybuilding weights protocol (2000) vs more ballistic power training protocol (2005) was the cause of the different muscle adaptations… There are heaps of papers that show a substantial increase in training volume (of any sort including sprint training) often leads to a decrease in IIX and a shift toward the more fatigue resistant IIA MHC isoforms. I reckon you could argue that the low volume of the 2005 paper relative to their normal exercise volume was responsible for the lack of change in muscle fibre composition rather than the type of training itself (though that could also have been part of the cause…)
First off, I just want to say that I think this has been an outstanding thread even if discussions have gotten a bit heated. Let’s keep it cordial and perhaps we can all learn something.
So, getting back to the original topic of this thread…
Even if one grants that the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy of Ben or Mo was more than was strictly necessary for optimal MSF, perhaps that hypertrophy was useful in order to get them to world class performances (outside of the performance of the actual event.)
For example, one challenge with producing world class performances revolves around peaking. On one hand, you need to have enough CNS stimulation close enough to the event to produce an optimal performance. On the other hand, if you simply sprint or otherwise use the same muscles that will be required in the event to provide this stimulation, you risk competing when not fully recovered from a muscular standpoint (at best) or injury while attempting to get the stimulation (at worst).
The upper body hypertrophy, specifically of the muscles used for bench press, may add some extra mass that is not specific to the act of sprinting, but this mass enables the athlete to optimally stimulate the CNS without taxing the prime movers in the event so that the athlete is able to to produce the best performance on race day. The tradeoff is a bit of extra mass vs going into an event with non-optimal stimulation. If the athlete did not have this hypertrophy of the muscles for bench pressing, they would not be able to press enough weight to optimally stimulate their CNS close to the event. Note that this is not an argument for hypertrophy training, simply an argument that being able to lift heavy weights that are not specific to sprinting may have uses outside of the actual performance of the sprint. Thoughts?
I am not issuing the breakthrough, Peter Weyand, et. al. did. I’m merely addressing a manner of dealing with the issue of gravity and its affect on msf through strength training that minimises mass without sacrificing strength.
Unless one does not believe that gravity affects sprinting, every race is an example of msf(mass specific force). Weyands study addressed all of the information you are asking for, so your response sounds like you did not read the study. If that is the case, you might enjoy reading it, if you did read it, exactly what do you think his results showed?
I’ve addressed all of these issues, with the science behind them in the book including why MSF is a priority, how mass can be minimalized, why training for increased stride rate and length are relatively unimportant, and many other areas. While you certainly don’t have to read the book, I also don’t need to post every detail here either.
I think you have noted this yourself, but the Weyland study only looked at top speed. The results would likely be different when looking at acceleration (and perhaps even different phases of acceleration!) So I’m not sure that it makes sense to base all training for the 100m around this study given that more than 60% of the race is acceleration.
I agree with you on all the points.
But, we have always to be sure of the protocol they are using.
Maybe with “sprint training” they mean many repetitions on 150m… 
I can’t believe noone has commented on this yet, all I’ll say is that you make raise a very valid point.
[QUOTE=xlr8]First off, I just want to say that I think this has been an outstanding thread even if discussions have gotten a bit heated. Let’s keep it cordial and perhaps we can all learn something.
So, getting back to the original topic of this thread…
Even if one grants that the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy of Ben or Mo was more than was strictly necessary for optimal MSF, perhaps that hypertrophy was useful in order to get them to world class performances (outside of the performance of the actual event.)
For example, one challenge with producing world class performances revolves around peaking. On one hand, you need to have enough CNS stimulation close enough to the event to produce an optimal performance. On the other hand, if you simply sprint or otherwise use the same muscles that will be required in the event to provide this stimulation, you risk competing when not fully recovered from a muscular standpoint (at best) or injury while attempting to get the stimulation (at worst).
The upper body hypertrophy, specifically of the muscles used for bench press, may add some extra mass that is not specific to the act of sprinting, but this mass enables the athlete to optimally stimulate the CNS without taxing the prime movers in the event so that the athlete is able to to produce the best performance on race day. The tradeoff is a bit of extra mass vs going into an event with non-optimal stimulation. If the athlete did not have this hypertrophy of the muscles for bench pressing, they would not be able to press enough weight to optimally stimulate their CNS close to the event. Note that this is not an argument for hypertrophy training, simply an argument that being able to lift heavy weights that are not specific to sprinting may have uses outside of the actual performance of the sprint. Thoughts?
…Not sure if you attended the recent seminar at Simon Fraser but this very interesting point was brought to our attention by Charlie and he used two interesting graphs related to the force/time curve. One was related to track and the other to swimming. Maybe Charlie can comment as he would be better able to describe this in detail.
Yes, certainly, the Bench Press was used as a final stimulus before important finals, but, beyond that, it, and other supposedly unimportant lifts are part of the means to generate strength everywhere.
Concentrating all the necessary work from weights on specific areas puts those areas under a more critical load than would be required if the load was shared (general vs specific lifting)
On top of this, more sprint and jump work must be piled onto these specific areas to compensate for the shortfall in the weight work that can never be adequately covered by specific lifting means. Even if the job could ever be done, there would be a far greater incidence of injuries.
The Europeans have tried for decades to use this approach and failed. Why jump on this “bandwagon” just when the Europeans are finally giving it up as futile.
The job of going under 9.80 has already (and only) been done via general lifting means, and more than once.
Charlie, I don’t quite understand what you mean by this sentence. Why must you put more jump work onto a specific lifting routine? Wouldn’t that be even more counter productive? If the weight work isn’t working already why would adding more specific stuff to it help?
What is the “shortfall” you are talking about? I understand the arguement but this sentence has me confused 
Cheers!
TC
Charlie, something which also seems overtly obvious, yet for what ever reason hasn’t really been addressed (unless I missed it) is the fact that the production of force, from a structural/morphological resource perspective, is largely dependent upon cross-sectional diameter.
We know that the greater the cross-sectional diameter, the greater the potential to generate a contraction of greater magnitude.
Accordingly, when training is optimized towards heightening the abilities farthest to the right (maximizing CNS/neuromuscular power output potential) any continued developments will ultimately come to a halt when structural resources have been fully exhausted.
Thus, the only means of achieving higher force production is to increase cross-sectional diameter.
This is observed most noteably in MSIC weightlifters. Once the weightlifter has achieved results of the highest level the only means of raising the total is increasing cross-sectional diameter (perhaps moving up a weight class).
Now, the action of lifting barbells is not dependent upon bodymass from the perspective that sprinting is, and weightlifting is to the left of sprinting so these considerations must be accounted for.
*Obviously the sprinter can only afford so much increase in bodymass before relative abilities max out and/or decline
The point, however, is that in the end (assuming structural resources have been fully exhausted yet maximum contest potential still has predicted room to improve) the only means of experiencing increased speed is to increase the resource for force production to the point of optimizing the relative expression of strength/power/speed.
In certain cases then, the MSF athlete must ultimately, and ironically, resort to increasing cross-sectional diameter when contest results cease to improve (unless they have already reached their maximum attainable level of peformance or relative capabilities).
Certainly the factors are mutually dependent; however, short of reaching the maximal potential of relative force production, increasing cross-sectional diameter is an integral part of the step like approach to the highest achievable results.
So again, (always looking for context) we must identify where exactly the athlete exists in his/her timeline of past/present/future training and predicted achievable performance results in order to postulate, with any validity, any concepts which may or may not prove to increase contest results at any point in time.
I may very well be the only one who made sense out of the above
Good points James!
My point is that you simply can’t do the same volume/intensity combination in the weightroom alone if you choose to leave out 35% or more of the motor units by going the specific lifting route. Therefore you need to make up that shortfall in the workload required to run sub 9.80 by some other means, overloading things elsewhere and increasing the risk of injury.
Good points, but what is also missing here is the context of the lifting vs the other training elements, particularly Special Endurance, since SE strongly influences recruitment vs cross section in a way not as readily seen with pure speed work.
In other words, the proper selection of work extends far beyond the weight room and thus allows for the use all avenues for lifting, including cross section work and a whole body lifting program.
Just a quick follow up to some of xlr8’s points. I tend to agree with you regarding the potential for upper body training to be used as Charlie has previously suggested to maintain CNS stimulation without stressing the prime movers, and as you say the upper body would have to be relatively well trained for this to be effective. Also of interest is the study by Ropret et al., 1998 (Eur J Appl Physiol, 77: 547-550) whose results suggest that even when completely nonfunctional mass is added to the upper body i.e. lead rods (0.6kg in each hand) held in hands there is little or no decrement in running velocity. In contrast weights attached to the ankles caused significant decreases in stride rate and as a result running velocity. My take on this is that extra upper body mass (a kg or 2) is unlikely to slow you down much, if at all particularly when its functional and may even serve to help drive stride rate upwards…
relatedly this is why charlie doesn’t include a lot of extra calf work.
Imagine… Barry involved in controversy…this guy thinks out of the box…he has an EGO (I think most of us Homo-sapiens do too)
I wouldn’t discount EVERYTHING he says…I wouldn’t testify in court to everything he does…food for thought …maybe just a crumb !!!
Train SMART…not HARD !
results speak volumes. Two of the greatest sprinters of all time, and all their accomplishments despite the inferiority of their training programs and ideology. Ross is what Dave Tate calls a “Yoda” He only moves things with his mind. He should stick to writing because I feel sorry for anyone he trains.
Barry Ross was handed a monster talent. I need to change my avatar.
I don’t see how piling on Barry advances the discussion.
I agree with the earlier post that stated sprinters come in all shapes and sizes. In the 100 meter, I doubt there is an optimal amount of hypertrophy. Some guys like Ben and Mo are more pure mesomorphs. Carl was ectomorphic. They are all great. In a perfect world it would be great to know just how much relative strength is optimal. If that were true the smae would carry over for all speed sports. By Barney’s thinking, Bo Jackson would have been much faster at 200 vs. 230. I doubt that was true. I just feel that he should stick to training his guys instead of debating whether Ben and Mo would have been better with less sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. It is a bit of a slap at two terrific talents. He could have made his point without naming names.
So was I for that matter. The thing is, you can never know what talent was handed out to which coach, cause, while you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, so many coaches are able to accomplish the reverse.
(BTW, for that avatar,you could mount the rogues’ gallery onto a Swiss Ball)
Charlie what would you ADD or delete in the training that you set up in 1988 era VERSUS the knowlege or experiance-wisdom gained since ?
This has produced some VERY intresting responses from World Class throwers.
THANKS for the TIME and EFFORT as always! mac~