I cannot agree with you there my friend. To each his own, however.
Indeed, I’m having to repeat myself to assist you in your understanding. I am happy to assist, however.
Not corrections Wermouth, reiterations and further clarifications. You’ll not find an instance in which I overlook the magnitude of important of optimizing event technique. In fact, if you were a member of my site globalsportconcepts you’d find I have nearly 60 lectures and in many of them I expound upon the fact that sport skill is often sacrificed due to coaches urgency to practice at intensities at the expense of mechanical inefficiency. The good thing for the readers of this thread is that they can go back and read what’s been posted versus readjusting what they think has been previously posted such as it seems you are doing here.
Again, I certainly won’t hold the language issue against you; however, you have proposed words that have alternate meanings then what is appropriate to signify the statement I made regarding the motor pathway. brace, stiffen, toughen, support all refer to structural rigidity and have nothing to do with fortifying the motor pathway. Ironic, however, that you were so eager to illustrate the nature of your academic history in order to defend it from being “standarized” yet be so quick to criticize the proper use of language.
In various fields of psycho-therapy it has been expounded upon that, often, individuals who render various accusations (infidelity, drug use, criminal behavior) against romantic partners/family/friends/associates, particular with rigor, are doing so because they themselves are guilty of the accusation.
Now, if you require any more assistance in understanding the placement of training modalities in GPP/SPP, the role of specialized exercises, or more discussion pertaining to the sled on a hill then let’s continue, however, nearly this entire post you made is a personal attack that offers zero value to the CF forum. I’m not a moderator, however, you’re definitely a smart enough fellow to realize that.
Thank you X-Man, DMA and Sady and a few others for providing some breathing room on this thread.
I know some of you are trying so hard to learn and understand. Too hard I might tell you.
It’s not enough to say that running hills are effective for various stages of your speed development.
It’s not enough to say running hills work.
Historically this site had a reputation to break it all down. Analyze it. Explain why.
The information is all here. In the forums and in the books. In the presentations. It’s a lifetime of work. I understand how the overwhelming amount of information is easy to overlook.
If you want to pull a sled up a hill go to it. See what it feels like. Judge for yourself.
I think you make doing hills a lot more difficult to maintain technical excellence if you add more i.e. a sled up a hill. Remember. It’s not enough to just run the hills. They need to be done well to be effective.
Did I ever pull a sled up a hill? No.
Did I do sled work? Yes.
Had I ever heard of pulling a sled up a hill for improved speed and acceleration? No but that does not mean it has not effectively happened. Likely I would have heard about it if it was a great idea.
CMF was only one man in the game of athletics but he was a Giant in his field. Like it or not. Its worth following his ideas. Not without thinking mind you.
I’ve had more than enough bs in my life for a few lives.It’s on the record in case some of you don’t know. Let’s share information here, teach if we are able and foster interest in learning what we know for sure. Let’s try and keep the shit for someplace else.
Thus, in an effort to provide clarification to all here who are trying so hard to learn and understand it is prudent to first point out that sprinting up a hill with a sled, for the purpose of speed/acceleration development, is not a new idea. A cursory youtube search will reveal at least a handful of people running/sprinting up a hill with a sled. As usual, however, you’ll be hard pressed to observe a mechanical model of efficiency.
Those of us here who have actually worked with enough high level athletes and developed a thorough understanding of the unarguable laws of physics as well as sprint/sport performance methodology understand that this matter is not one in which qualifies for “someone go out and try it and collect the data” because: 1, it’s being done, 2, it’s been done, and 3. as I stated earlier in this thread, the reason it’s not a staple for the world’s elite is because it does not pass the “sprint training 101” common sense test.
Surely there is high value in theoretical discussion, however, it is also noteworthy to recognize who has broad experience working/coaching with elite level athletes and who does not.
There are well established reasons you won’t find elite sprint cyclists performing sprints up hill with external resistance in tow, why you won’t fine elite swim sprinters performing sprints against the current with external resistance in tow, why you won’t find elite Canoeists performing sprints against the current with external resistance in tow, and why elite speed skaters aren’t performing sprints up artificial inclines covered in ice along with external resistance in tow, and just some of the well established reasons are those which I have outlined already in this thread.
The premise of this thread is to elucidate why or why not sprinting up a hill with a sled in tow is a viable idea for acceleration/speed development and let it be clear to everyone reading this thread that it’s long since been done and it’s being done, just not by anyone we’ve seen, or will see, breaking world records in the WC or Olympic games.
Angela, you’ll remember better than anyone how Charlie made the clear distinction between the stimulus: response nature of what works on the elite versus what works on the “general population” of athletes.
In the interest of all readers on here, regardless if you’re academics who enjoy training discussion, young coaches, or young athletes, it is useful for you to recognize this distinction.
On that note, even if anyone is resistant to what I’ve shared on the matter, this topic may as well be put to rest unless someone is determined enough, and/or has the time, to embark on a journey to ask why: Dennis Mitchell, Pierre Carraz, Dan Pfaff, Brooks Johnson, Guy Ontanon, John Smith, Lance Brauman, Vince Anderson, Tom Tellez, Glen Mills, Stephen Francis, John Drummond, Darryl Woodson, and every other coach of a World elite sprinter is well aware of sprinting up a hill with sled yet does not/did not use it as a main training component for acceleration/speed development. Meanwhile, the spirits of Charlie, Petrovski, and others will spin over the illogical idea.
As Verkhoshansky said, and I’ll paraphrase, there are no more new exercises, only room for new approaches to the programming and organization of training.
The level of conversation is a bit high. Some of us do not know how to converse at the masters level. My wife is 2 weeks off finishing her masters, she is getting d’s and hd’s. When she got her first d she was embarrased "that is lower than a c and she was a straight a at school (40+ years ago).
Couple things need to be addressed before we can put this thread to bed.
James
I think, it’s very malicious of you to point out again unknown “language difficulties” as I do feel that you are trying to create pseudo advantage. Even thou I have pointed out before that I do not appreciate it.
Looks like you are still confused, even thou you have admitted in previous posts that there is no argument with the evidence I have provided of how neuropathway is created, we were talking about superconductor from scientific perspective, where oligodendroytes creates extra STRUCTURAL support for the myelin consequently neuron itself. When extra layer/ coat of cytostol is building up as a result of this process nerve actually stiffen up, so yeah, it is neurological change and at the same time structural.
Re: standarised & about being eager to illustrate my qualifications. You have stated that I went through some standarised coaching course. I said, that you are absolutely right about it, that I actually did and I have provided information for you about what the standarised course looked like. Now, you are pointing that out. Sorry mate but that was a cheap shot from you.
Now, I’ll let you tast your own medicine. Right from the beginning of this thread you are decorating your posts with how many lectures you have done, coaching coaches, correcting people’s work, working with elite athletes and consultations that’s truly great, fantastic experience, thumbs up. However, anyone who read this thread can clearly see that someone trying to enhance its own image, promoting themselves at any given opportunity (me, me, me, I, I, I)
Consultation to me in most of the cases I have come across is taking credit for what people weren’t responsible for in the first place (looks great on the CV)
If you don’t mind me ask, just out of curiosity. (this is what my fellow coach asked me actually, when I had a discussion with him)
How many T&F athletes did you actually coach from scratch to elite level?
Not, consultation.
As for hill+sled, question asked by sprint94 was “I was wondering what everyone thought about doing sled sprints on hills” Angela and James said that it might work “but that does not mean it has not effectively happened” “As for the hypothetical sled being added at the further stages of GPP, again, not optimal, but not because it cannot work”
I have mentioned before, coach who is working with youngsters, NOT world class sprinters, with relatively good success.
James pointed out it might be not be optimal, there might be other ways of doing things, sure.
We do have to respect other people opinions.
Things are.
No matter what we are going to say at the end of the day coach will decide what best for her/his athletes. What works for her/him but at the same time coach should have a personalized approach and must be accountable for all the outcomes.
Decision is yours.
Kind regards
Wermouth
p.s.That was fun
p.p.s hope nobody is/was offended.
If I was to contemplate hill and sled together.
Joint angles, load required and what am I hoping to achieve.
More of a weight session than speed development.
Wermouth, feel free to private message me if you wish for me to clarify any more information for you or to learn more about my work experience. Angela and X-man have been clear about their instruction for you and I to cease all non-thread related discussion.
Precisely, which is why the hill + sled can in no way serve as a viable specific or specialized acceleration/speed development protocol. The farther away the stimulus drifts from directly influencing the training target the more non-direct of an influence, if any, it becomes. Certainly there is merit to performing work outside of that which directly transfers; however, the context in which the original question was asked pertained directly to speed work.
As we know, it ceases to be speed work if it ceases to directly stimulate speed.
