Is your quarrel w/ the fact he cited them as examples or the “tone” of discussion? If the latter, okay, but I disagree that raising a question is disrespectful. Baseball fans do this aaaalllllllllllllllll the time, it’s called the Hot Stove League. People dissect players, teams, strategies, etc. It’s a way of advancing the discussion. I agree that “maybe Ben would have been faster if he has a little less mass, here’s my argument” is different from “I would have made Ben faster than he was with my superior ideas”. That’s a little much, but I don’t think analyzing the greats, even critically, is disrespectful to them.
I wouldn’t change anything cause there was no drop off in improvement up to 1988. If his career had gone on and there was a drop-off, I’d have had to look at options as they presented. I am certain that by 1991 when the new track surface was introduced that his performace would have been in the 9.60s, based on the improvements seen in others during the changeover.
The fact is that he was a sub-set of one and every advancement in performace brought with it a set of new and unknowable in advance changes in recovery and response.
Charlie…intresting response…since I started throwing in college I had a very young training age…when the current generation of athletes asked about “supplementing” back in the day…I kind of give them the same response you gave me…when introduced to Peanuts West type training (Bil Star…Louie Simmons…Jack “The Monster-Maker” O’Blenns ) I too just kept increasing in strengh-power-speed and the only reason for a strength/power plateau was an injury…getting sick or (God forbid) a couple of .357 slugs…OUCH
Intresting comment from Aleeexyv when he had to take a year off at his prime he actually TOTALLY examined his training structure and came up with some real intresting idea’s…holding hollow drums under water (core groupies make a note)…lifitng in a river…the weights are olbviously lighter UNDER water therefore effecting the strength curves when they come out of the water (Nautilus groupies make a note) very instinctive training …it always appeared that his W.R. 's were kind of a joke as they appeared effortless…might have had something to do with the BONUS system in place …intresting line of thought !!!
Train SMART…not hard !!!
First off, I’d like to say that I loved reading every thread on this topic. Second, I’m very sorry that it took a harvard professor to prove what was theorized ~300 years ago by newton, with hardly any scientific abilities which we have today. We need to give newton credit. F=MA is the rule and always will be.
However, taking a purely mechanical equation and translating it into a working physiological methodology is where the art of coaching comes in.
I think it is a big mistake to take a visual perception as an athletic ability. Charlie hit on it exactly, ectomorphic builds will vary from meso, or endomorphic builds in size. To look at an individual and say they are fast, is not possible. To clarify, what you see is not what you get. The proof is the race.
Obviously Jeremy Wariner is a great example of this. But what about the countless other tremendously muscular athletes that show no correlation to the speed they have? What about the countless other thin athletes that show extreme levels of strength but not speed? They are out there.
I think That Mr. Ross is correct in his assumption, but this assumption is nothing more than F=MA. Acceleration doesn’t have to always be thought of in a horizontal component. In the vertical component A=F/M, hence if the force is the same, the less mass, the more acceleration. Keep in mind that mass is not weight, mass is the product of gravity’s acceleration and thus, gravity is accounted for. Gravity wont be changing on earth so the only way to change your mass is to change your weight.
Or if you want to look at other variables, a=V/T, acceleration equals velocity divided by time. If velocity is held constant, decreasing time to reach that velocity increases acceleration. Hmmm, could decreasing contact time increase acceleration…top speed…you bet, top speed is nothig more than acceleration stretched out longer. But keep in mind the time of every event or action in sprinting is interelated and changing one will tend to change the other (ie. stride rate, length, contact time).
To conclude, I think we as coaches and athletes sometimes make the task more complicated. The answers have been around for hundreds of years and merely need reassortment and re-education. I think we need to give credit to the people who originated the idea, and to those who bring it back to our attention. We do forget about our base of teachings, and we need to contantly be reminded.
I think Mr. Ross has done an excellent job presenting the idea, it shouldn’t be knocked because It can’t be proved wrong, and can be proven to be correct through Newton’s laws. I know a lot of times typing can’t convey tone, but I think it’s dumb to argue against something that has stood 300 years of science.
First of all, F depends on many many factor (one of who is eccentric load before concentric contraction,who is, related also with mass).
Second point: if you can’t model a muscle properly and with only a few variables,how can you only guess to study a complex movement like running?
Third point: it doesn’t exist a really good model about the sprinting…too many unknown parameters.
Bottom line:how can you be sure that the impact of mass on force is not predominant on the mass to carry ?
So,using Newton formula is without sense.
Again,i think that science here has…a difficult life …and i’m not saying that because i don’t like science(i am an aerospace engineer).
I agree with you on this.
Science says the best angle of take- off to gain horizontal distance is 45 degrees. Show me one long jumper with a 45degree take-off angle. So it is possible to question Newton on somethings.
Mechanically the best angle for projectile motion is between 42-45 degrees. This is true. In long jumping however, it is difficult to maintain a high amount of speed at takeoff while maintaining the 45 degree angle for takeoff. Thus, rather than sacrificing speed for the jump, the angle is compromised.
If the athlete could maintain his top speed at a 42 degree takeoff he would jump further than at the same speed for a 15-25 degree takeoff. The law still holds, its just the body once again tries to find the path of least resistance.
I dont understand your argument that a good model of sprinting doesnt apply. It surely does. Do you mean to say that high level athletes exibit no likeness? They do, they all exhibit very short GCT’s. So the model does exist, it’s just no one agrees on how to attain it…lol.
I agree, and I quoted, that Coaching was “the art of taking the scientific models and translating them to a physiological equivalent.” And though science can’t cover every variable to the body, it’s laws can be used to govern the efficiency of the program. As complex as running may be, it still boils down to minimizing GCTimes.
The individuals unique molecular composition is not even worth discussing because you can’t change it! Whynot study and discuss the things that can be changed!
I know that mass is the key component to high level competition, ask any elite gymnast if they want to gain weight. It is well known that the body’s ability to acheive a higher relative strength or whatever term you want to call it, decreases as mass increases. You can argue the fact to the grave and beyond, but I train gymnasts, track athletes and breakdancers. I see what the extremely gifted athletes posses outside of the track world, and if the tasks at hand requires speed, mass is NOT an asset.
Just to let you know, one of my breakdancers runs a 3.87 30m Handtime and he never trains for it, however he can also do a planche at 160 lbs. which I say would be about 300lb.+bench if he lifted weights:) Not tooting a horn, but you can see the coorelation. I always loved Casey Combest, if that kid would have only had the drive!!!
P.S. You might want to consider reading the book before posting a comment. While a lot of defensive and offensive bashing goes on here. I bet a lot of people would change their position after they read the book.
I am talking about bad concepts,I don’t care about the book.
And because i know what i am talking about (science),i can say that bad examples and sentences like “ask any elite gymnast if they want to gain weight” are not helping here.Maybe you really can’t image how science can be tricky if you don’t know what are you exactly doing.
I think you have to read again my post, about the lean mass…suppose an athlete with his mass and his performances. Now think at the same athlete with his mass plus x kg of lean mass more on his body…are you sure his performance would be worse than before?? If yes,you are in fault in my point of view.
Better answers will be: maybe, depends, nobody knows for sure.
You can be sure if you can model exactly everything (starting for the exact behaviour of muscles ecc ecc).Since that is not possible,and we are quite far from,then is better:
1- don’t use Newton laws because is “trendy” to use them.
2- don’t try to model a very complex situation in a veary easy one, if you loose the coherence with reality.
I am telling this really in a relaxed way.Don’t like to be defensive or offensive.
Only,i think i must say something about the bad use of science i see too often “today”.
Fulk, I didn’t think your original post was too specific on what you were addressing, and Im not offended. I have my degree in exercise physiology so I feel qualified enough to comment on the topic.
The issue isn’t neccessarily that an athlete would be worse if he gained bodyweight from training. But, would the same athlete be able to gain the strength without the weight? Thats the issue.
I wasn’t using science because it was trendy. For reference, I have competed and coached athletes in gymnastics, Strongman, Track & Field, Breakdancing, Oly Lifting, Powerlifting, Triathalon, Police, Military, NYPD, NYFD and Coast Guard testing, and a host of other events.
To say the same individual would be faster or slower dependent on bodyweight is a predictable matter. If the individual has not gained a higher ratio of strength per unit of bodyweight, then really what was the excess weight accomplishing? Hypertrophy should be avoided when it can.
Economy of motion is present in all speed related sports. I used the gymnastics example because it is true, in practice, and practical. You will not find an athlete on this earth with higher strength to bodyweight ratios than that of an olympic level gymnast for the upper body. The success they exhibit is largely in proportion to the light weight they posses, why is it so hard to imagine this concept beyond gymnastics? To say " I dont know what Im doing" is foolish.
Your previous post mentions nothing about
lean body mass. It mentions only mass in the general term. And the point is still that higher masses require higher forces to control. Frankly, I find nothing to suggest you have even put to thought anything I have suggested, only a meager attempt to argue something that has been proven scientifically.
The thought I am trying to convey with you is that hypertrophy should be avoided in activities where it can be. This is not bad science. Its about being efficient, and the body likes to be efficient. You dont have to know complex biochemistry or any other science to know this.
This is not a bad use of science my friend, it was the reason science was born, to dispute theories. Show me an instance where excess bodyweight is an asset for sprinting or speed. I’ll show you many where it isn’t. How about cars? Do fast cars weight a lot. How about birds? Cheetahs? Fleas? Cats? Does anything fast in nature outweigh slower counterparts? They are fighting the same laws of physics we are. Once again, look up Casey Combest.
And, Im talking about the book. If you read the book, you would be better equipped to talk about this subject. The concepts are from the book by the way…
I don’t care about the book and I am not trying to knock Barry Ross. My only point was, science does not always fit. According to science a humming bird should not be able to fly.
Velocegatto
now i don’t see science in your post,and that is good.
You think that someone will have a larger strength/bodyweight if he is lean ??
“Excess bodymass” is relative to the optimum,and if you can’t define the optimum…we are losing time.
I am not saying i’ll tell the gymnast he has to go on the gym and do hypertrophic work.
In fact everysport has his peculiarities(in gymnastic lean mass on the legs would usually help).
What makes me crazy is to hear about guys who thinks to know for every athlete, for everysport what is the right mass to have for better performing.
Is the body mass of Maurice Green more than optimum?? I don’t know,i really can’t say that.NOBODY can say that!I can only say:"oh,i don’t know if he is too big,but i know he is (was) the faster."That’s matter my man.
I also would quote “gofast” post :
“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…”
Don’t remember exactly,but some years ago they finally explained how and why this bird could fly.
That of course doesn’t change anything about the aforesaid discussion 
Probably the whole discussion leads to the more basic problem of the relation between science an coaching an athlete.
Science is a nice thing, but for being exact it needs to focus on very basic facts.
Sprinting on the other hand is a very complex thing. So reducing principles of coaching to isolated simple facts - even if they might seem very or the most important for speed - can lead to misleading conclusions as far as coaching work with the athlete is concerned.
I can think of a lot of abstract models, which might be correct in itself, but it might be very questionable how relevant they are for sprint training or what exactly follows their conclusions.
We all know that gravity works in a certain proportion to our bodies mass and that it is a very important factor for sprinting speed.
But all conclusions from this knowledge isolate vertical movement like there was nothing else about sprinting.
There are other things one could make up like: bodies with more mass but comparable extension keep their movement longer against outer forces (like air), so the greater the mass the better the speed endurance (as fas as horizontal forces are concerned), so the lighter the athlete the better his acceleration, the heavier the athlete the better speed endurance.
Abstractions and resulting models can lead to absurd coclusions for practical life (training).
Careful. Lay-man’s “science” (in other words without rigorous math) is not science. In regards to the humming bird, i could point you to some fluid mechanics papers, if you would like. The math though is pretty hideous (and i love math).
The problem is (and i have noticed that this has been mentionned before on this thread) that the use of physical models in athletes often includes simplifying assumptions that can invalidate the model. In this case, we have someone who believes if an athlete has less mass but the equivalent strength, then they will be faster. This is true not matter how you slice it. However, this argument does not take how the athlete becomes strong and maintains that strength into account. This does not invalidate the physical equations involved (although, it is crude to think of an athlete as a point mass with point forces), it is invalidated by the assumptions made about how the athlete obtainned their ability to produce force.
Of course there is a vertical force component when running. But what’s the big deal? Strength in relation to bodyweight is the critical factor for both vertical and horizontal acceleration. Is there a correlation between performance in the standing vertical jump and the standing long jump? Do heavy weight throwers/weightlifters excel in both?
If velocity is constant, there is no acceleration. End of the story. In reality velocity is never constant – not even at “top speed”. For example, there is a distinct breaking phase when the foot strikes the ground. If airborne velocity is to remain the same (from stride to stride) there must also be an acceleration phase later during ground contact. Your formula is wrong and therefore the discussion following makes no sense. Acceleration = CHANGE of velocity / time (for that change to happen).
This is very true and therefore it is VERY misleading to talk about swing action and ground contact force application as two separate entities.
Good point.
Very good point. As I understand the exact mechanism of force production in muscles are not understood. We are sooo far away of from a complete understanding of running (or other athletic activities).
Yet, another good point. Considering that skeleton, connective tissue and other “dead weight” that do not produce force and the mass of we cannot reduce, amounts for about 40% of body weight, increasing muscle mass may be the only option to increase relative strength for the lean athlete. A person with 45% muscle weight who want to keep or improve relative strength can afford to gain mass (evenly distributed over the body) as long as muscle gain > 45% of total mass gain. That is, if relative strength decreases, fat gain has most likely exceeded 55% of the total gain in mass. If the measurement of relative strength is constricted to a small part of body musculature even more fat gain can me tolerated.
Sorry, GRAVE misunderstanding! 45 degree is valid only if the speed (velocity in the direction of take-off angle) is the same irrespective of the magnitude of take-off angle. A 45 degree take-off corresponds to a jump where the vertical take-off velocity is as high as the horizontal take-off velocity. You have to sacrifice a lot of speed for that to happen! Consider that you have about 0.1 – 0.2 s to your disposal for vertical acceleration (ground contact time at take-off) while you have several seconds (during the run-up) to your disposal to build up horizontal velocity. There are also several other factors in play that make the 45 degree concept to be of no use. This goes for the throwing events also
I have seen this study and I think there are a lot of fruitful speculation & hypothesizing to be made out of it (in contrast to the Weyand study).
Great illustration of your point!
Quote:You all still havent adressed the fact which is:
If the same amount of strength can be attained without hypertrophy why attain it?
First ask yourself, can the strength be abtained without hypertorphy? Yes, it’s possible, there are many examples which I do not need to list.
Second, once a high level of strength is obtained…does further strength increases warrant hypertrophy? I don’t believe so personally, but you have your right to believe what you want.
Third, once again, everyone here has dismissed the neural component of athletics. Does hypertrophy train these specific neural components? No it doesn’t.
4:Keep in mind your ability to dismiss anothers point of view as nonsense may be the reason why you are at your current level of performance.Quote:
CF REPLIES (By mistake in here!)
1:You suggest that for advanced athletes the same level of strength can be obtained without utilizing at least some cross section, citing unspecified examples.
Humour me with an example of any athlete with a higher strength to weight ratio than Ben.
2: Once a high level of strength is achieved, it may not be necessary for some athletes to employ further cross section training, but the relationship between the work on the track itself and the weight room requires flexibility.
3:You suggest that everyone here has dismissed the neural componant of athletics.
Oh? Have I done so?
Is the neural aspect of training not the prime emphasis in everything I’ve written in the last 20 yrs?
4: I am not dismissing neural training and, as well, I’m not dismissing cross sectional work either.
BTW, am I qualified to speak?
Ok,in the AUT71,quarkthedark,Andres posts i can honestly see a good attitude and approach to the problem.Really i liked this posts.
Quarkthedark:
are the papers on hummingbird containing so much maths??really?
I was thinking they can explain the fact with sperimental observation and experimentation.
(maths in real fluiddynamics sometimes couldn’t help you much)
Velocegatto
I am sorry you think that about me and the other guys who don’t agree with you.
What do you know about my current level of performance?
I am self confident , and at the same time happy of myself because i am so different from people:
-who thinks to be right only beacuse is working with high level athlete
-that thinks to know everything about science with a degree.
-who has studied a lot,but is not still able to catch some of the real essences of phisics(like creating a model)
That’s all.
Look at the Ross Exercises from Bear Powered. This guy is full of it.
I won’t - and I DIDN’T - argue - with THAT. You stated: “If velocity is held constant, decreasing time increases acceleration.” Please explain further because, honestly, it makes no sense to me.