GRF?/No Squat?No OL? Just a Catchy Title?

Here is an excerpt from an article I was reading, well actually I was looking for the Harvard study I believe there may have been more than one about the topic of grf and how it was the main cause of faster sprinting. Basically the faster you can push down the faster you also rebound up causing shorter time between strides and longer strides as well was the jest I got out of it, here it is:

Can You Trust Research
Fourth and perhaps most important is that most studies are not designed to uncover something unknown or to present unknown information for better understanding of the topic. For example, a recent Harvard study done with runners found that ground reaction force (GRF) was the key to running speed. The more force generated, the greater the running speed. On the surface this appears sound. But, the researchers did not start with a full understanding of what constitutes running. They did not look at running technique and the joint actions involved to produce GRF. To be valid, running technique must be superimposed over force recordings to see how they correlate. It is necessary to know where the runners body is and where the limbs are in relation to the not only the amount but the point of ground reaction force production.

However, on a particular web group consisting of researchers, coaches, athletes and others, a major discussion on the topic began related to the asking of a simple question posed to a few people who literally raved about this Harvard study. How do you produce GRF, and what are the joint actions involved According to them, the GRF was such a key element that it revolutionized their training. In indicated to them not only what exercises to use, but how they should train their athletes, including in one of the cases, an Olympic runner.

But yet, not one of these individuals could explain how this study influenced them or why they chose certain exercises or protocols. In their explanations, of how GRF was created, they simply expounded on other aspects of running that did not address the core question. For example, the study found that leg swing time was the same for elite fast runners and “slow” runners. They failed to recognize that faster runners had longer stride lengths and brought the swing leg through faster. Because swing time for fast and slow runners was the same, speed of leg movement was ignored.

Even more disturbing was their lack of understanding of ground reaction forces that they considered so crucial and revolutionary. But as mentioned earlier, it is necessary to coordinate running technique with the production of force. To understand the interaction of forces you must know where the body (center of gravity) is, the direction in which the forces are applied and where the forces are applied in relation to the body position. (see the adjoining article on ground reaction forces.)

Basically, much like these people talked about in the this excerpt, a couple days ago I was having a discussion trying to figure out if squat or deadlift or olympic lifts were necessarily the best exercises for sprinting as they seem to be centered around pushing up rather than driving the leg down. My knowledge of physiology and other topics that would help me understand if my questioning of traditional methods in this sense is even justifiable is next to nothing. So if anyone can help me out about whether these exercises do support driving the leg down, or if this is even the point or if I am just absolutely stupid please help me out here in anyway possible, obviously I wont be able to help out much in terms of the discussion, but if other members cud that would be greatly appreciated, thanx.

studies always have to be considered with a grain of salt. you have to look at all the different factors. like all those studies done with isokenetic devices are for th emost part boogus. they dont take into account premuscle tension, elastic energy storage ect. always be cautious when someone quotes a study.

Pope,

Regarding your question about the usefulness of squat/dead/OL/etc. I think it would be helpful to review the “dynamic correspondence” section of Supertraining- if you own it. I was pondering the same thing earlier this summer my original reaction was that strengthening this vertical ability was not too important for sport (hockey in my case). However, what I came to realize was that weights are a general means of physical preparation so their aim is not necessarily to closely match the direction, amplitude, velocity, etc. of the actual sporting movement.

Hope this helps, I would also check out James Smith’s Classification of the Means article which helped clear up related issues i had.

Pope,

Regarding your question about the usefulness of squat/dead/OL/etc. I think it would be helpful to review the “dynamic correspondence” section of Supertraining- if you own it. I was pondering the same thing earlier this summer my original reaction was that strengthening this vertical ability was not too important for sport (hockey in my case). However, what I came to realize was that weights are a general means of physical preparation so their aim is not necessarily to closely match the direction, amplitude, velocity, etc. of the actual sporting movement.

Hope this helps, I would also check out James Smith’s Classification of the Means article which helped clear up related issues I had.

so weird, i was reading that section just before i checked the forum. this goes back to specficity, there i sa section that talkes about how force can be equal in movements with different loads (100% as comepared to 35%). yet the heavier oad will be more applicalbe in event in which force is developed realitvly slower (shot put). bu that does not mean that maximum weights are not important in the training of sprinters. we have to look at what is occuring in the muscle during these attempts, high motor unit recruitment and high frequency rate coding (though not the highest possible) both are desirable traits in any explosive event and therefore have a place in training. the hard thing is knowing when and how much.