Could you guys post some studies about this topic? Thanks!
Martn could you post some studies on the conversion during taper specifically?
http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=5595&highlight=conversion
Andersen JL, Aagaard P. Myosin heavy chain IIX overshooting in human skeletal muscle. Muscle & Nerve. 23: 1095-1104, 2000.
Martyn,
I accept the point about reconversion when tapering but it was the assertion about conversion to type IIB through training that I was querying as this appears to be contrary to what I have previously read.
In the study you cite above the authors state:
" Sprint-training appears to induce an increased expression of MHC isoform IIA in skeletal muscles. This seems related to a bi-directional transformation from both MHC isoforms I and IIB towards MHC isoform IIA".
This is in line with what I thought was the position but I take it that you are saying that this can be avoided by appropriate training.
Are there studies supporting your position?
Even if there is some unavoidable conversion so that type IIB assume type IIA “characteristics” does this matter so long as we are not engaging in prolonged endurance work and moving to type I?
Schmidtbleicher et al have documented conversion to type IIB through plyometrics (depth jumps). Tidow et al have documented re-transformation to type IIB using strength training with intra rest intervals between reps in a set… so its not an assertion and its not a given either because not much research has backed up these researchers. I will provide you with reference in due course. What we must always remember is that some of these transformations are not necessarily useful or achieveable in real life situations. What we must try to achieve is the general feel or general rules to follow, example excessive volume to the body is equivalent to prolonged endurance as far as an organism is concerned.
Fiber transformation to type IIA is very useful but I remember seeing a piece of research that documented improvements in an athlete’s performance due to an increase in type IIB percentage. Rest seems to favour fast twitch fiber whilst work generally favours type I. So it is imperative to have high intensity units seperated by low- very low intensity days.
The former East German physiologists did a lot of research on this but unfortunately its written in German and I can’t speak the language. What is fascinating is the plasticity of muscle and the fact that even if you have low percentage fast fiber you can compensate through hypertrophy. So if you have 30% fast fiber and an opponent has 70%. You can bring parity through purposeful training leading to your fast fiber growing in size to take up 70% of your muscle cross-section, so it is very possible to make a sprinter who was not born fast…in theory. Assuming that the athlete has a superb endocrinal system its very possible.
So do we have a consensus here regarding “bodybuilding” (or SE/RE) versus dynamic weight training for hamstrings?
Actually, throw in ME weight training as well.
For example, in a two-peak year (six month macro cycles), during what phases would you work on ME, SE/RE, and/or DE (dynamic/oly) weight training? Is the suggestion put forth in this thread that we should avoid ME at all times of the year in favor of RE, or only during the taper?
As an example, our current plan utilizes all three methods, each on a seperate day for a total of three days of posterior chain training. Our plan is to phase out the ME in the latest stages of SPP, and then phase out RE during Comp phase, lifting once or twice a week, DE/oly only. Could those of you discussing this issue put examples of how you think the various intensity programs (ME, DE, RE) would fit into a macrocycle?
Also, is fiber conversion the only issue that should be considered when planning a weight program?
It seems to me that DE weight training is unnecessary for someone performing sprint and “plyo” work.
Use both I think would be the consensus
So what is it?
A) Speed/reflex speed; Sprints, fast work.
B) Recruitment work; Heavy weight, low reps.
C) Stiffness potential; Lots of work, mainly via volume of reps? per day/or weak.
So which of the above would be better training method for hamstrings?
Personally, I’m leaning towards C, but could still be persuaded otherwise.
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.