Velocegatto:
Sorry! I buggered your last post! I thought I was replying with quotes but I accidentally went into the edit post mode and ended up screwing it up. If you can re-post the original, please do! Again sorry, I’m no computor whiz!
Why can’t you do this?
I am pretty sure i read an abstract to a paper about it. I think it involved doing the molecular dynamics approach to fluids (again this is from memory). I can try to find it again, if you are really interested. I should clarify also that when i said math, I included numerical simulation in that classification. Probably someone observed it experimentally first though. For the most part, your last statement (about math and fluids) rings very true.
Reverse it Charlie! Why should you do this? Specific arm training? Perhaps you should give guidelines if you think it should be included. Maybe we can hear why you didn’t do this with your athletes.
Charlie, no need to appologize, I honestly can’t remember everything I posted. I agree with everything youve said, my point during the post was just to emphasize our topic, the topic being:
{If training to gain a specific level of strength can be accomplished without means of hypertrophy, why train to induce it?}
I don’t disagree with your training methods or the ones used for Ben. I like to hear everyones training methods. That is why I believe Ross’ point of view has merit. I believe we have gotten a bit off topic.
Anders, I meant to say decreasing time to reach the specific velocity, will increase the acceleration.
Fulk, I appreciate your point of view. And while I think Ross could have chosen better wording to get his point across, I don’t think I am infalible to writing or wording errors by any degree.
What exactly do you guys see as being the major disagreement against his theories or training modalities? I’d like to start there.
I can’t say I did exactly that one but I did plenty of similar exercises, which I consider low intensity, such as med ball throws or passes or rotation work from that or a similar position.
Since that type of work is actually low intensity, it shouldn’t be a concern.
Fair enough Charlie I just think better options are available than running with dumbbells. I would do your medball techniques for conditioning players or running athletes.
Perhaps I am, but this is not a good example to prove it. This exercise is for core strength - to work on core stabilization during distal limb movements. If you don’t like it, just say so.
Am I “full of it” because I study, ask questions, read the research and try to put into effect what I’ve learned? Or am I full of it because I don’t agree with what some are doing? If that’s the case, you’re just as full of it.
I think many good points have been brought out on this forum, on both sides (other than the stupid comment in the quote). If my comments, or the comments of others, get all of us thinking, then we’re all better off. Some of the info posted here by others has caused me to look hard at what I believe in order to not screw-up those who rely on me as a coach.
I would like to clarify some points:
Mass-specific force vs faster limb movements was the focus of Weyand’s research. MSF is trainable so it does not fall under the category of useless science. You can choose to accept or reject the usefulness of the research.
Acceleration reguires muscle mechanical work to overcome inertia and to “set-up” the horizontal direction of sprinting. Recent studies have shown that the horizontal direction of sprinting requires 1/3 of the total energy used yet only contributes 10-20% of the force required at faster speeds. Therefore, muscle mechanical work is not an efficient system for the body to use at faster speeds, so it does not. The spring-mass model does describe a more efficient system at higher speeds: elastic energy. Again, this is not only trainable, but more recent studies show that muscles can become a much more active part of the entire “spring” system where it was once thought that only tendons and ligaments were involved. Again, this is trainable.
Mass-specific force and the spring-mass theory go hand in hand. The downside of these, or any other theories of running, is decreasing contact time. Because an individual has the potential to create msf doesn’t mean it is fully deliverable. Certainly there is a need for a “baseline” amount of mass in order to run fast, but limitations on the amount of force that can be delivered means that mass should be a critical issue when designing a workout plan.
O.K., I need to retreat to my fox hole for the next barrage.
Thanks for coming out of the fox hole between barrages. I think it’s a good discussion with many good points being raised. Building better mousetraps is as much about art as it is science. There’s a lot of room for debate. Thanks to all who have shared their knowledge and opinions on this topic. Looking forward to more.
Hey, I agree with this. It’s precisely BECAUSE Bear’s been in the athletic foxhole that he has some valid points to bring up!
This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for when I started this site.
To be fair most of the top UK coaches do stuff like this. While I can’t see it improving arm action it is a simple low intensity exercise and I guess it could be used to challenge the torso musculature. Having heard Bear’s interview on SportsSpecific.com I like what he has to say - the run fast in training message needs to get out to the masses.
TC
I can honestly say that the exercise pictured is not half as rediculous looking as some of the stuff I have done in the past and presently do. Really have you tried it? Cmon guys, don’t judge the book by it’s cover.
Whether the exercise is likeable or foolish looking is one thing, whether it delivers effiecient results is a whole different beast.
Actually, now that I recall, all of the exercises I do look foolish to other people. As long as they work, I really don’t care about the critics.
So, to elaborate, maybe some of us should invest in new knowledge and put the training theories to the test. After all, who would you rather trust, some unathletic people that comprise most studies (not referring to any particular study), or us here at the board?
Just a thought:) I have thuroughly enjoyed this topic!
Everything very nice and “clean”.
Now,how you use this information in practice? Mantaining the same mass and trying to work on neural aspects (force,that affect the plyometric side; neural side of plyometric itself).
Now,how can you be sure that more mass wouldn’t mean also greater stifeness k (f=kx spring) so that the overall effect would be positive ?
That’s exactly why i don’t like to use research and poor science here…we still don’t know how really work a muscle so we can’t model it…an example: depht jump from 25cm and 50 cm…the second one shows faster contact times even if the inertia (who can in a way be tought like more mass)is bigger…
That stupid example underlines how tricky is the situation in my point of view.
I am not crazy,i won’t never tell someone to become fat so he can run faster.
But also,you don’t have to fight hypertrophy in every circustamnce.
It’s primarily working the core.
Everyone is arguing hypertrophy or not when the real questions should be: How will the body respond/react to the most appropriate training program for that individual?
Charlie, I agree with you and it goes back to the body type thing. An athlete may look bloated or heavily muscled even if only non-hypertrophy type programs are followed because of the athletes genetics.
For this reason, and many others, I never look at competition and feel intimidated. Ive been blown away by to many skinny, non-athletic looking sprinters, and beaten too many jacked diesel dudes. Goes back to saying you really can’t tell by looks what program a person follows, or even if they are fast.
I feel body language is an even better, yet still unreliable methods to determine someones competitiveness. Yet another topic…lol.
To add, we must not ignore the fact that athletes who possess different fiber makeups respond differently to like loading schemes.
An athlete with a higher percentage of white fibers may very well experience greater increases in cross-section from weight training which is intended to recruit maximal amounts of high threshold MU’s.
So two different athletes of varying fiber makeup who are both exposed to high intensity low volume weights are likely to both increase their abilities to generate high force contractions while one may experience significantly greater increases in cross-section then the other.
Also, let’s not view this development of cross-section or not as a process which exists in a vacuum. The ‘neurally’ trained athlete will grow big strong muscles if the genetic predisposition and caloric surplus is there. The heavier powerlifters, weightlifters, shot throwers aren’t modeling their weight training after bodybuilders but we may all observe their abundance of cross-section.
Exactly, and if we work on the principle of avoiding cross section, we will inappropriately modify the program for the athlete with the highest percentage of white fibres.(coincidentally, the person we most want to do the right job with)
I don’t disagree with some of what you are saying. We all know it isn’t possible to eliminate hypertrophy, but that doesn’t mean we can’t actively attempt to control it. It’s possible to use 40-50% of strength gain to offset gravity against added mass.
So, you are right in looking at it as being tricky- thus the expertise of the coach in trying to monitor the equation. We will never know if we hit the bullseye every time, but it sure won’t hurt to shoot at the target whenever we can!
I’ve been reading though this thread and there are so many excellent ideas (most of which i wouldn’t have thought of) but perhaps as CF points out and Henk Kraaijenhof emphasies:
“the key is to give the athlete the training session they need to improve every time they train”
Now as the athlete develops the training is going to change because at any one time there will be an optimal session to keep the athlete progressing and this probably isn’t going to be the same thing every time (periodization?).
My gut feeling is that this whole topic is very similar to the idea of strength deficit (electro stim and max voluntary muscle contraction etc). When you start training you can’t put out so power training (both on the track and in the weight room) is extremely important. But there comes a time when the nervous system is so well trained that the deficit becomes almost non existant. More power training won’t help so you have to switch to other options (hypertrophy/better regeneration).
Perhaps the training process will look something like this:
Beginner--------------Intermediate--------Adv
Hyper----------powertraining----------hyp>power>hype>power…
At the very highest levels perhaps it is all about shifting the focus between power (track or weights etc) and tissue growth (weights, recovery) at the right times? Perhaps it is also about shifting between different methods of training each factor (hypertrophy=tempo/bodybuilding/regeneration) (power=speed work/olympic lifts/plyos/maximal lifting)
Thinking about it perhaps the hypertrophy is in some ways analogous to tempo? It doesn’t directly help you get better (specificy) but is important in the grand scheme of things.
I put out these crazy ideas simply because I can’t answer the science question! While it makes sense that lower mass = faster; i can’t be sure. I can’t optomise the equation because i can’t figure out what all the variables are…
This is a great thread… keep it coming…
TC