I agree with velocegatto.
Can’t think of anything I have read so far but I’ll make sure I look into it soon.
As for energy cost…that is a REALLY good question! Unfortunately I am not sure it is one that can be answered with what we know so far in terms of exercise physiology.
Imagine this model of the ultimate sprinter. Everyone can develop this mental picture, of which (including myself) is probably wrong. It’s a big mistake to attach ability with assumption, especially in terms of physique.
The fact is, the black, white, and gray areas of neuro-physiology are not clear. Throw in biochemistry and it confuses us even more. I can’t begin to imagine the MILLIONS of variables that interplay between biochemistry and neuro-physiology.
My personal philosophy holds overdistance in high regard for 100m, 200m runners because most of the sub 19.9 guys regularly performe(d) it. It wasn’t until Asafa Powell / Tyson Gay came along that I can remember top 100m players saying they regularly ran 300-400m (correct me if I’m wrong).
So, in my mind lactate buildup has definite positive correlations even down to 100m distances. That type of training was always frowned upon by most short sprinters until now because it was believed to be somewhat detrimental.
The funny thing is, fast twitch fibers were always to believed to be highly sensitive to hypertrophy. If you take the top 100m, 200m, and 400m guys right now…where are their bulging muscles?
Don’t get me wrong, they are NOT small muscled…but they are neither heavily muscled, they are built for speed. So all the hubbub about fast twitch in my mind isn’t holding up. The explanation is MUCH MORE complex, and we can only individually test methods to get closer and closer to understanding the process.
I’m happy to be a part of this board:)
The whole point of fiber study is not to be bound by its findings in some strict training regime. NO ONE is proclaiming that you train fibers. I would not even advocate training “muscle actions” whatever that means. What I would advocate is the CONTROL of training, the diligent keeping of times and the monitoring of volume and intensity to make sure that unwanted outcomes such as too much left transformations are kept under control. I would definitely advocate the setting of clear objectives and the monitoring of those objectives. For example if you are training for speed ARE YOU really meeting the objectives with the correct training loads? If you are aiming for max strength are you achieving that or are you really training another bio-motor ability? Going through different phases such as max strength then maintenance then unloading/taper (as an example, just to illustrate I am not saying you must), is probably the way to go. Doing large loads of say bodybuilding close to competitions for example would not be a good idea. The study by Tidow and other shows what the effects of different training methods have on the CNS, the outcome is the fiber conversion thats all.
You are wrong. Carl was doing this in breakdowns starting with 600-500-400–doing L-S of course–but Mo and Ato were also doing up to 300-400 in training for years. Ato years ago pointed out on his website the 400m fitness the HSI guys built up, and we’re talking about doing up to 300 and 400 in training. I’ve argued in the past that you can build up to this in a S-L program (I do), but let’s face it: 300-200-100 or 400-300-200 with 8 min just isn’t as comfortable as 6X60 and a lot of people don’t want to do it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
So, in my mind lactate buildup has definite positive correlations even down to 100m distances. That type of training was always frowned upon by most short sprinters until now because it was believed to be somewhat detrimental.
See the Locatelli paper. Lactate capacity seems to not have an impact on 60, but it is definitely there in 100-200. Numbers are there to justify it. CF has talked about going from lactic to alactic even in Phase 1 for 60m.
The funny thing is, fast twitch fibers were always to believed to be highly sensitive to hypertrophy. If you take the top 100m, 200m, and 400m guys right now…where are their bulging muscles?
Don’t get me wrong, they are NOT small muscled…but they are neither heavily muscled, they are built for speed. So all the hubbub about fast twitch in my mind isn’t holding up. The explanation is MUCH MORE complex, and we can only individually test methods to get closer and closer to understanding the process.
Charlie has mentioned that you won’t get too big from hypertrophy if you’re doing enough speed endurance. So if you see somebody who looks “too big” (maybe Bruny Surin or Leonard Scott) perhaps they’re doing too much short stuff and not enough longer stuff (or maybe because the longer stuff doesn’t work for them).
Yes, this is this case in a long to short program, however, Gay specifically said recently that he believes his Pr’s are do to his fitness from 300s and 400s. Now, if he was still doing them close to his PRs, that technically wouldn’t be considered early season conditioning. These are supposedly his mainstream type workouts.
Not familiar with that paper, but I believe it to effect pretty much everything with my experience. The key is full recovery and full intensity.
I know what Charlie stresses and his philosophies. My point was in emphasizing that the top 3 fastest times from 100-400m are by men who are not as muscular as their competitors.
What do you define as muscular? Asafa is almost 200lbs and Maurice was under 180lbs (obviously a height difference, but the almost 20lb difference between the two should be made up there).
"I have read several articles all saying that after training, (around 4 weeks onwards) most IIb fibres, will convert to the slower type IIa.
and after several weeks (the study i read, 3months) rest after the training, fibre IIa converts to IIb. and us as sprinters cannot do this as we would prob lose more than any gain from fibre conversion. but there must be away, and i think i am looking in the wrong place for the answers.
any ideas guys??"
martn, I was simply trying to help the young man get on a better track of research. I don’t believe fiber conversion is as detrimental as most research claims it to.
When the studies show biopsies done on the muscles of elite or even sub-elite sprinters I will feel comfortable giving the theory more weight. Most of the conversion studies I read WAY back were done on people I would consider non-athletes in the arena we are talking about.
Good question. Personally, I would say Asafa is neither muscular nor thin. If I had to describe his physique I would say that I fully believe 100% that his musculature is developed in a highly athletic manner.
I believe whatever Asafa has in terms of muscle, it can be directly used for his speed efforts. Which is the way it should be.
I don’t believe in training for anything but function, and in a more specific nature, function that can transfer to sprinting.
Its that belief that causes me to shake my head at the programs I see most high school and college track programs push here in the US. Let me tell you, in terms of shading for the workouts I’ve seen, there is no gray area. The good programs are great and the bad programs are downright harmful.
But you are saying that the other sprinters out there have too much muscle, but I am not really sure who you are referring to? Mo, Ben, Bruny? Plus, JW and Gay are great right now in the 400 and 200 respectively, but the “very muscular” MJ’s records are pretty far away for both.
Those records are pretty far off…but at the same time, they are quite close. if you notice the times that MJ was running prior to Atlanta, he was getting consistent 19.6-8. Some say the track in Atlanta had a lot to do with that time, but hey you never know.
I spoke to Obedele Thompson in 2001 after Sydney and he said the track in Atlanta was the fastest track he had ever run on.
When I say muscular, I am talking mostly about 2 things. First, the common theory of sprinters needing to be very muscular and powerful. Second, the comparison to a lot of the other sprinters who were considered the best of the past.
True, there have been the heavier muscled elite sprinters in Bruny, Mo, Ben, Linford, Drummond and the like. But, what I think we are seeing now is a re-definition in the focus of athletes training at the elite and college (big school programs) level.
I am perceiving that shift as being away from the more common methods of developing power in the gym to a very detailed focus on track specific work.
Only time will tell in the next decade where our knowledge and technology takes us, but it will be interesting to see what happens in the next year as the trials approach.
The best college team this year in the short sprints had very big sprinters, esp. in the upper body. FSU…
The year before, LSU was dominating nicely and their athletes were not small by any means (maybe Willie, but not that small).
Where do you get the idea that elites are changing to very track specific work? Which groups are doing this and how?
You have made some valid points and I agree with what you are saying but I willl try to clarify some of the points that you have made.
Here goes, you say that fast twitch hypertophy is has somehow a non issue. Depending on the supplementation, diet amount of gylcolytic type training water retention and so on, muscles will be more or less plastic. So, for whatever reason probably diet and supplementation and probably an increase in the volume of special endurance, the muscles look more elongated and less bulging.
Maybe the current elites; through efficient training and diet and…supplementation…are able to have a less bloated look. The type of hypertrophy they are achieving maybe more myofibriller and less sarcoplasmic. Remember that more sprint coaches are now adept at training for power and less reliant on beach weights. The type of training methods that were known by a few tlaneted coaches is now available to many.
Those who have that bloated look usually have indiscriminate hypertrophy, both fast and slow have grown in size. Olympic weight lifters look sleek when you look at the type of loads they are capable of lifting. That doesn’t mean that they have not achieved hypertophy it means that its more selective due to their training. Have a look at Pyrros Dimas, you will see what I mean. If you were to do a biopsy or an MRI scan you would find that he has fast fibers atleast 2x the size of a normal person. This is all very academic IF you don’t have a general idea of how to utilise the info.
I totally agree with the lactate ascertion BUT it must be done very very carefully.
Good point about the difference between myofibriller and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. However, mainstream use of the term “hypertrophy” is usually talking about sarcoplasmic types of hypertrophy (stupid bodybuilding mags).
We had this discussion a while ago on the board and I guess it’s always good to rehash things to keep us on our toes.
Davan, I can’t say that I have any specific evidence besides what I see visually in their physiques and a few example workout weeks from two major camps (that I’m not supposed to have). Keep in mind that I have witnessed none of the workouts myself.
I am however in the process of testing my own very specific methods that back the theories I am talking about. If I get the results that I think I will, I of coarse will be making a program out of it. Last year using this type of program I brought my 100m hand time from 11.39 to 10.84, which is very significant for me.
If it was a fluke performance, I will know this year because I plan on getting more electronic times.
Isn’t winter weight training designed to induce type IIB to IIA conversion because the muscles then overshoot their original proportion of type IIB with the power/speed phase of training?
This is what I’ve been lead to believe, and seems like a good idea.
I’m not sure if it really works this way. Turning a race horse into a donkey so they can then become a better race horse doesn’t seem like good preparation to me! 
Again this is an example of linear periodisation which should have been forgotten long ago!
Well seeing as how you got such an improvement. Fill us in please.
You can post the sample workouts form the two camps, you don’t have to say who they are from. It would be great discussion I am sure.
I’ve always figured that a lot of coaches turn their race horses into donkeys cause they love company.