I know people that can run 6.8fat in the 60m or faster that do train the squat, they just aren’t good at it.
Better yet, look at Biacofsky’s blog over on trackshark. He opens his season w/ 10.5xfat and is pretty weak in the weightroom. Gotta find what works for you, no equation for everyone. I think some people can do fine w/o any max strength work, but some people definitely need it, at least for brief periods, to maximize their potential.
lol mort that reminds me of a girl on my team. She is an animal in the weightroom. She pc’d more than bw first time ever doing it, not common for a chick, powersquatted 2.5x bw (no belt or anything), and is ripped. She also has broken 13secs only twice in like 8+ years of sprinting… guess all of that natural strength and horsepower didn’t help out too much.
Davan, that could all come down to limb lengths, tendon lengths and insertion points, and any number of factors.
Those who are built to lift the biggest weights are inherently those who are built to be the worst sprinters.
The question posed by this thread is whether you should even train them (naturally strong athletes) with max strength protocols. Not too long ago and I would have definitely said yes, that they should train with such protocols. However, as I see things now I would train them with heavier weights in the 5-10 rep range for the majority of the time. The training would be less CNS intensive and more muscle (to a degree) would only increase the potential of their natural strength. Also, I know plenty of athletes who have built a substantial amount of limit strength despite working primarily with reps above 6.
As with you, I too would’ve thought max strength protocols were necessary not too long ago. However, now I believe that for good, naturally strong athletes that intermediate work (25-40 seconds in duration) is all that is required. When dealing with naturally weaker athletes though, I’d probably include it as often as was necessary.
Finally, if the external resistance is insignificant (sprinting and hurdling), an even lower level of absolute strength is required.
From: Verkhoshansky, Y, “The Development of Special Strength in Power/Speed Events”
I’m not sure this makes sense, with all due respect to the knowledgeable Dr. V. The external resistance in a sprint resulting from gravity, friction, and even wind resistance, is tremendous…that’s why it takes so much strength and energy to run fast. Just stop moving your legs and see how far you coast. Even CF has talked about how much more power output is generated in a sprint as compared to a set of squats.
What you need is POWER–the ability to apply strength quickly–and this is where the high absolute or limit strength have a problem for sprinters in that the effect of traing at high intensity–and this also applies to high intensity plyos–causes the muscle fibers to shift to more oxidative (i.e., slower) types, which causes slower SSC performance. Not good for sprinters.
Are you saying high intensity exercise such as max effort lifts and plyos shift fibers toward slow twitch? What about high intensity sprinting? Is the shift there also towards slow twitch? This is the opposite of what I have assumed. My assumption was low intensity, such as tempo running or sub-maximal lifting, shifted toward slow twitch, while explosive, high intensity exercises shifted toward fast twitch.
I think the bottom line to all of this is increasing funtional strength. Some may improve by Max Effort low rep programs, others by low rep Oly or Dynamic Effort programs, and still others by higher rep hypertrophy programs.
Bottom line, most improvements in sprint speed seem to come from increased stride lengths and lower contact times, and more power is required for this. To generate more power, you need to increase the force (strength0 and/or decrease the time over which that force is applied. Increasing functional strength without contracting a body weight penalty seems to be the way to do this, whether its done by sprinting, lifting, plyos, or more probably, a combination of all three.
It’s always the same question…
What’s better? Absolute strength or relative strength?
BB training, with muscle cross-section growth, means more weight to carry in the track.
I don’t think that things are linear… increasing muscle mass increase weight you have to carry, but also increase total ammount of CP in cells and a potential for strength increase. It seems that there is some optimum, and that increase in relative strength is not allway the best option or possible option. Also, maybe the optimal ammount of mass is needed to elicit elastic response during the GC? Also, maybe the ammount of connective tissue build trough BB training may increase elasticity of the muscles via increase in stiffness…
Also, remeber the Explosive Strength Deficit???
have a look at these two pics. in the asafa pic his thighs at the thickest point are nearly as thick as his (tiny) waist and you can definitely see they are much thicker at the top. also he has low calves 
in the second picture look at dwain’s and kim’s legs and the massive size difference. i dont wanna sidetrack this thread but what do you think kim collins could have done with weights and that amount of hypertrophy in his hamstrings?
This has nothing to do with relative strength vs. absolute strength.
Also, BB training does not always lead to significant hypertrophy. By limiting food intake and making sure to keep a higher volume of Speed and SE work in your routine you can limit weight gain.
And Duxx, you bring up a good point about intramuscular creatine phosphate. More fuel is always better.
Those are low calves? Pretty damn long achilles to me.
lol well relative to most elite sprinters. if u look at his right lower leg u can see his calf is not much more than halfway up, which is probably high on average but not high for elite like him - compare to shawn crawford etc.
So where does Ben Johnson fit in then?
It maybe down to just bad sprinting technique rather than leg length and whatever else…
Ben Johnson fits in when you consider he probably had a freakishly powerful CNS, coupled with a high percentage of fast twitch fibers and a body that was not overly long limbed. He was not perfectly built to sprint, ala Carl Lewis, Asafa Powell, and Shawn Crawford before he got too big.
Ben had the tendon lengths and muscle distribution for sprinting, but also had a frame that was pretty conducive to lifting big weights. Were he shorter and had more full muscle bellies with a similar CNS and fiber distribution, he would’ve been much stronger.
[QUOTE=star61]
Are you saying high intensity exercise such as max effort lifts and plyos shift fibers toward slow twitch? What about high intensity sprinting? Is the shift there also towards slow twitch? This is the opposite of what I have assumed. My assumption was low intensity, such as tempo running or sub-maximal lifting, shifted toward slow twitch, while explosive, high intensity exercises shifted toward fast twitch.
I guess the comment was simply a statement of the training paradox that ANY training will cause the faster type IIB muscle fibers to shift to slower contracting type IIA.
It is perhaps counter intuitive but from what I have read including on this forum it does not appear to have significant training implications.
Kelly Baggett has written about this issue more fully elsewhere
Sprinting with long recovery between reps causes fiber shift to the right in favour of type II isoforms. Any activity that causes fatigue to the fast twitch fibers and forcing them to rely on aerobic processes as an energy source will cause type II conversion to slower isoforms.
In other words try to avoid undue fatigue and massive volumes during sprint and strength training. You need to avoid heat shock proteins accumalating. Make usre you are well fed after training to avoid muscle conversion to slow twitch.
martn76,
Is that now the definitive position?
The views that I had previously read suggested that almost any training converted type IIB fibers to type IIA.
You appear conversely to be saying that you can convert to IIB with sufficient stimulus and avoidance of fatigue.
I have no idea which view is correct. Is there recent research which backs you up?
fiber conversion doesnt happen because of how long the fiber type is under duress or because of fatigued fast twtich fibers. it changes because of its use. if you use a muscle explosivly and dynamically maximally or send the proper signal to the muscle (high frequency rate coding) then no ocnversion will occur towards a more ineffecient state. simply saying if you fatigue ft muscle fibers then they will convert is a fallacy now can this occur as along with conversion… yes, but dont allow what appears to be causing the problem and what is actually causing the problem. all these studies have been done to test the effectivness of this type of training or that and many take away from these studies that bodybuilding is the way to train or that powerlifting is the ways to train or even olympic lifting. but you are all wrong if you think that and you are all right because all of those disciplines can teach us about training the body effectivly. though they themselves are not the best means they contribute to the knoweldge base.
Once again James you are plain wrong. Mammalian muscle is incredibly adaptive and so it will adapt EITHER due to fatigue OR duration RATHER than just USE as you are trying to say. The levator muscles of the eyelid are under use all the time but they do not become slower fibered because of JUST use its the duration/exposure that may affect them and other fast fibers example if you stayed up for 24 hours it is likely that your eyelid muscles wouold try to adapt by producing more oxidative enzymes to fight fatigue for example. If you continuously fatigue a fast twitch muscle, deplete it of its normal energy substrates or cause heat shock proteins to build up due to over-training. it will adapt by trying to become resistant to the stress its under. Physiologists achieve this by applying chronic electrical stimulation to mammalian muscle fibers with low frequency stimulation without recovery. It really erks me when you make these grandiose statements read the damn literature and stop re-inventing the damn wheel really…
James I can provide you with numerous references that will refute what you are trying tp push across.
Muscles are very plastic and will adapt due to duration of exercise, fatigue, depletion of energy substrates, illness, to name a few stressors.
Yes, it is possible to re-convert muscle to faster fibers through explosive work with long recovery and rest, reduced volume and avoidance of fatigue…what do you think happens in a taper before a competition?
http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=5595&highlight=conversion