http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/files/Sprintinggroundforce.pdf
There’s a Yahoo Login request when I hit the link 
Check out Peter’s homepage where you can also download this link under selected publications:
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pweyand/
[edit] Here is the direct link:
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pweyand/publications/selected_publications_pdf.htm
Thanks, Tom!
Palmtag, try this one, as the link from the site didn’t work for me:
http://www.elitetrack.com/articles/weyand.pdf
Hope it’s ok now!
The title of the experience is misleading because running on treadmill “strapped into an upper-body harness suspended from the
ceiling” imples different sprinting technique on a track.
Practical experience i led this year show that all the elements of running (stride length, frequency, contact time ground force etc) all raise as the speed increase, up to a certain percentage of max speed where stride length no longer improves and even keeps stable in spite of the switch into lactic zone. Near 100% of max speed, the stride frequency still increase for +11m/s elite sprinters, that’s the interesting thing.
This is where the TOP in the title refers to! 
I’m not sure if this has already been discussed, but what does everyone think about the Barry Ross approach to strength training for sprinting? For those who don’t know Barry Ross is the Strength Coach for high school sensaiton Allison Felix who’s already won some impressive medals.
Ross bases his entire strength training approach on Weyend’s research and doesn’t believe in adding any additional muscle mass. Check out his website:
http://www.bearpowered.com/
He’s just released a book on his approach to training/ Has anyone read this?
Any thoughts on this?
The problem is that the comparison between sprinters shows that there is more corelation between body mass and ground force contact than max speed and ground force contact.
It also shows that the highest the GFC, the longer the stride, but there is no corelation between body mass and stride length.
We are going nowhere with these GFC stories.
OK for the difference between walking, jogging and sprinting, obviously the GFC increases, anyway everybody knows how to run faster from jogging and sprinting. The real problem for the coach is to improve sprinting speed (speed barrier).
I gave it a quick read. It focuses on deadlifts followed by some plyometrics after sets, and some supplemental exercises. Emphasizes strength over mass. I think it merits a closer look for athletes looking to gain strength for speed improvement. I think footballers want speed plus mass, so it’s probably not the best approach there. Much of it is along the lines of Pavel’s stuff, which has been discussed on this forum before. I’m also interested in hearing opinions on this.
What is the correlation between GFC and bodyweight?
The heavier the body, the higher the force recorded during contact.
This has been discussed before - in a thread with Pavel i belive. I think Barry is a member of this forum and his handle is BEAR (something) i believe! Have a search around… for alison felix, etc
Perhaps a better way to think of it is adequate GFC. The trick is to provide the same requirement of force (related to bodyweight) in ever shorter time frames to increase speed (movement to the left on the F/T curve).
To achieve this, exponentially greater overall power is required. Is the overall power that yields the adequate forces in shorter times a general or specific quality? Should this quality be sought by “event specific” means only? Can limiting the selection of strengthening moves provide an adequate stimulus? What are the long-term injury implications of concentrating all the required work onto a few vital areas?
Any improvements on the curve affect all other areas, but closer to the area worked…right? This would mean you would have to make huge gains on the right to see any improvements this far on the left(sub 9.80). This is not likely if the sprinter already has huge weightroom #s.
So if we can’t load heavier then we would have to load faster(depth jumps ?). This would put us on the specific side. Charlie, as you pointed out before at this level the forces on the track already out-strip anything that can be generated in the weightroom(general).
Thoughts?
So i guess you are pointing the finger towards intensification on the track? The other area would probably be economy of motion --> decreased energy output --> less fatigue so the force output and RFD do not diminish with each footstrike.
This skill emphasis would also probably also be trained best by lower numbers of maximal sprints (as in a lower overall volume as opposed to the early years). So again sprint work intensification probably is the only possible answer.
Hypterthetically, if i was trying to do this in the weightroom I might consider a 2 footed death jump onto a contact mat to measure amortization time (time on the floor). Then over time i could try and increase the weight of the athlete (microloading with a light weight vest or something) while keeping the amortization time the same. If i wanted to be “functional” i’d do it 1 footed! 
I guess increasing the height would also be another option. I assume you kill the exercise when the ammortization time for each set increase dramatically from the initial repetitions.
Look! We are looking for the slightest shift at the highest levels, in fact, at the 9.80s level, we’re lucky if we can find ANY, so we can’t afford to shut the door on any possibility. There is also the idea of STIMULUS which is aside from strength alone (this sets up the conditions for performance on the track)
Just one thought, can we directly assume that when huge numbers in the weight room are achieved that a change in stimulus must be changed if progression is to be maintained? I mean, we’re assuming one modality value being directly transmitted to another without giving thought to the time frame needed for that. Perhaps an athlete must continue with huge numbers in the weight room for a considerable amount of time until the effect from one modality (strength) is fully “uploaded” to another (speed), and vice versa … kind of an individual “bandwidth” question. Would this have common characteristics what Charlie said about the idea ‘STIMULUS’?
Perhaps it isn’t changing the stimulus (from a focus on heavy lifting - maximal strength - towards speed strength or shock methods) that is important but how you position the stimulus you are already using in your training cycle for maximal results.
So while intensification on the track may be a major training aim, the percieved role of heavy lifting has to be tweeked to support this. Everything has to be positioned with the upmost precision to allow intensification to occur because if you are using ever higher intensity it is unlikely you can use volume in the traditional sense (more) to get the results you require? Maybe with some configurations the sum of the whole is far greater than sum of the parts?
If this is true then planning (both prospective - preplanned - and reactive) should become the focus of attention rather than being distracted by staleness in terms of the individual training components?
I am not saying we should drop weightroom work. The original question was how do we get the required GFC in less time. I am just guessing that at the 9.80 level the power needed to go further to the left may be a specific quality.
Does’nt the timing, intesity and tapering of the general qualities provide the stimulus for the specific qualities of the performance?