Each atlete s different and prescribing a one size fits all is a recipe for disaster
There have been studies that show DE/Olympic style lifting works well for increasing explosive strength. You can’t do plyo all year long without incurring some potential for injury or overuse problems.
Studies, eh? Can you post them?
Most of the weight training studies I’ve seen are regarding 1 set vs. 3 sets and whatnot. Nowhere near the level of which you speak.
Here is the link to the article under discussion becuase the link on the first page doesn’t seem to work anymore
http://www.bewegungswissenschaft.uni-wuppertal.de/wiemann/fopro_sprint.htm
Sorry, missed your response, just saw it tonight when the thread was bumped. Here is some literature on topic…
Newton, R.U. and W.J. Kraemer. Developing Explosive Muscular Power: Implications for a Mixed Methods Training Strategy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 16(5):20-31, 1994.
Newton, R.U., W.J. Kraemer, K. Hakkinen, B.J. Humphries, and A.J. Murphy. Kinematics, Kinetics, and Muscle Activation During Explosive Upper Body Movements: Implications for Power Development. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 12(1): 31-43, 1996.
Kraemer, W.J. and R.U. Newton, Training for Muscular Power, Clinics in Sports Medicine, J. Young (Ed), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA. 341-368, 2000.
Schmidtbleicher, D. Training for Power Events in Strength and Power in Sport, Komi, P.V. (Ed) Blackwell Scientific Publishers, Oxford. 381-395, 1992.
Most of the weight training studies I’ve seen are regarding 1 set vs. 3 sets and whatnot. Nowhere near the level of which you speak.
I don’t think one set of anything helps at all. The research I’m refering to focuses on the speed of movement, such as comparing the effectiveness of a slow, powerful movement using maximum weight, such as a max effort squat, to a very explosive, dynamic style squat or a set of powercleans using weights in the range of 30% - 80% of max.
Can you post the title of such studies?
Possibly no articles.
Thanks.
Re. the thread topic, I think some people are drawing conclusions on a single study of which we don’t have the details.
As already pointed out by coach Francis, the parameters of the maximum strength work have to be considered.
For istance, Prof. Andersen agreed with me regarding his studied protocol being too “bodybuildingish” thus eliciting an obvious shift toward type IIa of the MHC.
It’s an old thread, but my ideas on it from reading some other parts of the forum:
bodybuliding
1.improved rate coding, leading to increased RFD
2.greater strength endurance, which builds better speed endurance
max strength methods
1.greater increase in strength without as much bodymass
2.teaches an individual how to voluntarily recruit the maximal number of motor units
Maximum concentric strength plays the largest role in the start of the race, whereas the minimal amount of time available for force to be applied during the portion of the race during which one is in the “sprint position” requires that most of the power be generated by the tendons, while the muscles contract isometrically. However, the muscles do produce some of the power, since CF says increases in squat capacity produce better speed throughout the race. It is my belief that bodybuilding methods would be more effective for the hamstring muscles’ ability to produce power while sprinting because the limiting factor while running upright is the time for the application of force, and bb methods increase RFD.
I would also have to add in though that greater absolute strength means larger gains from bodybuilding methods, and the amount of muscular hypertrophy also correlates with the potential for absolute strength. Thus, it would make sense to work both ends of the spectrum. The only thing is that I think the point in the spectrum should favor cross-section over maximal strength.
That point might also be different for those training in different events. Mass penalty is not as critical in a 60m as it is in a 400m.
There is a mass penalty, I just don’t think it’s as severe as some people claim it to be. Ben Johnson was huge, but his weight was only 170-180lbs. I am not sure as to the specifics of the Barry Ross program, but I believe that he attempts to avoid all bb type of work due to increased mass, and I just think that this type of training is wrong.
Again, the shorter the distance, the less penalty incurred. Not a lot of massive 400m/800m types out there. If you’re still not sure, try to find several line ups of top 60m performers, and then look at several lineups of 400m runners. See if you can differentiate the two groups on BMI.
It’s an old thread, but my ideas on it from reading some other parts of the forum:
bodybuliding
1.improved rate coding, leading to increased RFD
2.greater strength endurance, which builds better speed endurancemax strength methods
1.greater increase in strength without as much bodymass
2.teaches an individual how to voluntarily recruit the maximal number of motor unitsMaximum concentric strength plays the largest role in the start of the race, whereas the minimal amount of time available for force to be applied during the portion of the race during which one is in the “sprint position” requires that most of the power be generated by the tendons, while the muscles contract isometrically. However, the muscles do produce some of the power, since CF says increases in squat capacity produce better speed throughout the race. It is my belief that bodybuilding methods would be more effective for the hamstring muscles’ ability to produce power while sprinting because the limiting factor while running upright is the time for the application of force, and bb methods increase RFD.
The problem with a lot of that is it’s based off the old muscle recruitment theories which have been proven false. Full muscle recruitment isn’t an issue. Even beginners using around an 80% load (depending on the particular muscle), can turn on all their motor units.
Rate coding is partly genetic and partly trainable. The genetic part is highly dependent on the excitability of the CNS and testosterone/catecholamine sensitivity. The trainable parts of rate codingis largely specific to the training method. If you want good rate coding in the squat you need to do lots of squatting. The best way to improve rate coding in the sprint is to do lots of sprints.
The best use of max strength training IMO is as as neural stimulation method, which addresses the first part of rate coding described above.
So, basically in the end we’re left with:
strength + movement efficiency + structure
The best way to improve strength is get bigger. The best way to improve movement efficiency is practice the event(s) of choice. And structure you’re born with.
I think Poliquin may have used the term neurological efficiency to describe one’s ability to activate high threshold motor units and that beginners are less neurologically efficient. How does this factor in here?
Also, in studying for the NSCA exam years ago, I recall the usual gains in strength due to neural factors, not hypertrophy message. If beginners can turn on all their motor units and there’s no hypertrophy, how do they get stronger?
My guess is that they become much more efficient at performing the particular movement being trained, and so at the start of training they may use all their motor units to lift a particular load, but as they get better at it they can rely on less motor units to accomplish the same task.
There was actually a study not long ago that showed larger athletes (on average) up to 400m versus 60/100m.
The reigning WIC for 60m is pretty small overall. Andre Cason is TINY and one of the best 60m guys ever.
Michael Johnson is/was bigger than BJ/Cason/Mo and specialized in the longer sprints.
So as intra or inter-muscular coordination improve, one uses fewer motor units to perform an identical task?
I’ve been near enough to each of these guys to speak with them on more than one occasion. MJ is naturally the largest man of the group, and while he looked very muscular in photos he was actually quite wiry. He is quite thin now.
Mo is small man and proportionally put more mass on his frame than MJ, IMO.
Andre is really little. I mean tiny. He may have put more muscle on his frame than either of the other two, but started from nothing. He was wired though and really tightly wrapped. His reaction to getting his ass whopped in Madden Football something to behold 
Yeah, I agree that it is likely because the 400 guys are taller and have larger frames versus having more muscle mass. The point is moreso that the differences are not significant enough to really worry about having hamstrings and glutes that are “too big”.
Anytime someone wants to take a look can go see some top round steaks. Look at just a 2lb steak and see how big it is… probably much bigger than the muscle bellies most people have and not that many elites can even beat, so I wouldn’t worry about getting glutes and hammies that are “too big”.
Don’t quote me on this, but my understanding is that your body is very good at conserving energy, and so when you repeat a skill over and over (such as a particular weight lift), your body adapts first by using as little energy as it needs to to accomplish the task.
This might be done by decreasing the number of motor units involved, but maybe this applies more to endurance training than max strength training, I am not sure.
Hopefully someone else can help.
false and misguided.