Star, I appreciate a little smart arse in folks as well…prolly why I enjoy dropping a little sarcasm here and there myself. I also enjoy impassioned, smart, well researched debate. It is how we evolve in just about everything…academics, politics…and track and field. If everyone agreed about everything the world would be a very dull place.
I just assumed it was Weyland’s sled pull study you were referring to. Thanks for the link. I would still hesitate to put too much stock in research done on a treadmill. Bosch disputes any biomechanical data done on a treadmill, unless the data is meant to prove some point specifically about treadmill running. The ground is moving for you, the hip and leg anatomy do not work in same biomechanic, the stance mechanic is not specific to sprinting over stable surface and force applications are different…again, mostly because ground is moving for you. Hamstrings don’t have to do much on a treadmill. Furthermore, Weyland tells you up front that he has only worked with 30 or so subjects of varying sprint abilities. First off, that is not a big enough sample group for me to put much trust into his data and findings. Secondly, I couldn’t tell you if any of his subjects have ever run under 11 seconds in the 100m. Unskilled runner’s data on a treadmill is not specific enough to compare to elite sprinters running over solid ground…for me at least.
I will again defer to Ralph Mann, who has done the most extensive research on nothing but elite level sprinters and hurdlers (has to be over thousand by now, maybe couple thousand) over the last few decades or so. He has biomechanically analyzed every, yes every, elite American sprinter and hurdler since 1982. I believe he has been publishing his research data and findings since 1984. His latest and best publication was this year, 2011. It is fantastic (as they all have been) and I’d suggest it to anyone who coaches runners. You can find it on Amazon. His nearly 3 decades of research says that the best male sprinters in the world spend 0.087 seconds or less, while poor sprinters spend 0.101 seconds or more. Ton of data on Women as well. His good and poor evaluations are relative to thousands of elite sprinters running actual races, not 33 poor schlubs pulled off the local track and put on a treadmill. Mann’s good sprinters run approximately 10 sec or less, while his athletes from the poor category are still making NCAA finals. Again, I think it is obvious if a 10 sec or less guy tried to quicken GCT to 0.050 sec or less, he would obviously not be able to apply enough force needed to run his fastest. That is absolutely not what I am trying to suggest in my previous posts. My original statement says “short” contact times for fast, and “longer” for slower…not shortest and/or longest. I use these words in context to what I understand Mann to have already figured out. I do not suggest that to run fast you have to shorten GCTs to ridiculous levels. There is obviously tremendous power outputs by very strong athletes inside of the 0.087 GCTs I am referring to as “short”…in these posts. “Longer” is spelled out in the numbers I’ve already quoted. As for my use of the word longer for slower pace racing, please see Mann’s chapter on what elite level quarter milers from the past 3 decades do while they are on the ground. I feel like the folks who continue to debate that I say the absolute shortest GCT would make for the fastest run have not read my entire, long-winded posts…or jumped to conclusion on my original post.
Many track coaches do misunderstand biomechanics quite a bit, I definitely agree whole-heatedly with that statement…but none of the ones I name dropped in my last post misunderstand biomechanics. I will have to stop carrying on now…my wife is beginning to get mad at me. Until next time…peace.