My understanding is that strength is the ability to produce force irrespective time. Practically speaking, that means the ability to overcome resistance. During sprinting, the only resistance is the weight of the body. Therefore, am I to conclude that the primary means by which strength training improves sprint performance is by making it possible to overcome ones bodyweight more easily (hence faster)? The only other thing I can think of is that improved leg strength would allow the athlete to apply more force to the ground, improving stide length and thus velocity. However, I cannot see how strength training will improve turnover?
exactly the opposite. increased strength will increase stride frequency. once you have gone beyond a beginner level in terms of strength and speed, you will find stride length is basically going to stay the same. ben johnson ran the same number of steps in the 100m when he ran his WR and also when he was running above 10 sec, so that proves that it is stride frequency that will & must improve.
HOW does strength training improve stride frequency?
Disagree, Stride Length is improved by strength(then conversion into power) training because it allows you to apply more force to the ground in that crucial limit of time which makes you jump higher and farther and this is why you increase your stride length. There are other drills for stride frequency. Look at a bear, if this animal can run 35-40 miles per hour then obviously force production increases stride length.
Strength/power allows you to apply more force in the same amount of time(stride length) or same amount of force in less time(stride frequency).
You want the true answer, the real answer, genetics…
ESPN 3 is correct —
CFTS talks about this in detail
genetics! I don’t believe in genetics. Why train then when you believe you’ve got a limit. Training would have no meaning to me unless the limit is decided by MY training!
Thats exactly the case, hence why we train
By allowing you to send more impulses to your muscles, by allowing you to overcome the resistance of your own legs. By allowing you to apply more force in the same time or shorter time. By increase the percentage area of fast muscle… and so on. The key is to sequence the correct type of strength training before competition.
First of all, I have nothing but repect for people who train & train hard.
Its this very subject which sets the elite from the almost has-beens. From what I have gathered and please (correct me if I’m wrong), but there is no amount of training that is going to produce a Tim Montgomery leg frequency or/ equivalent. Do you agree???..
No, but strength will allow you the individual to achieve your optimum frequency.
I’m your Huckleberry. That’s Just My Game.
I totally disagree. This is going to create a lot of controversy so just remember that I am not a racist! Now from what my black friend told me was that in the years of slavery the Islands around the Dominican Republic, there were Black slaves a couple of centuries ago and these slaves had to meet the demands of their owners. Now to increase the work these poor slaves could do, the owners would pick the biggest and strongest slaves they could find and would breed them together. Hence, they became stronger through their adaptation to their environment and would pass their genes off to their offspring. This one of the theories why the Black man/woman are such great athletes. So in this sense, strength training plays the ultimate role! If you look at the data (i.e.from sceptic magazine) over 90% of the world’s fastest men were Black and these men came from West Africa, the Dominican, Canada, and the U.S.A. If you trace back their heritage, you will find that most of them came from western Africa.
So strength/power training is the ultimate equalizer!
P.S.
I am terribly sorry if I have offended anybody including African Americans, African Canadians, Africans in general, and anybody else of any other race. I just thought that such an important historical fact to why Black athletes dominate the 100 should not be overlooked.
Good theory. But b.s. i wish that were true and it was just that easy. I will not get into this topic but after much research i personally have found out that sprinting speed as well as “wide reciever” athletism seems to be socioecomic issue all together.
The facts in sceptic magazine tell the tale (and when I find it again in my closet I’ll post the results), that’s why there’s rarely any white sprinters who have won the 100m final, can you remember the last time?
Ironically enough, Charlie Francis ran a 10.1 in Vancouver. Impressive when you think of all the training factors, support/non-support, and competition out there.
When i say socioeconomic issue what i mean is that from a while back when some blacks were now allowed to compete and started dominating the short events it somewhat must have discouraged alot of white athletes and through the years they were told that black people are the sprinters and running backs and white people are made for distance and playing quarterback so basically it went on and on and they started believing it. Also in low income areas track and field has more opportunity since for the sprints much equiptment is not needed. I know there is much more to it than that but that is the basic idea.
Look at the results from worlds indoor this past yr. And look at the photo finishes. Half the guys in the 60 as well as the 200 final were caucasian.
Then what about the first black man to break the white barrier and win 100m in the olympics? I’m sure he faced much more obstacles than any white person in the 100m ever. And did you ever think of why these black athletes started dominating these events? Soccer is played throughout the world and is the most popular sport in the world because a soccer ball is very cheap; however, when was the last time you ever heard of a Bagio or Pele type player ever come from the U.S. and Canada?
Sprinting is more available to poorer people just as soccer is and bowling and ping-pong but you forget that basketball and football at the same time were allowing black athletes to compete yet none of the white people in those sports ran away! In the NBA and NFL more than 60% of the athletes are black and don’t tell me that football and basketball are cheap sports to play! You have to be accepted to college and then perform on both the court and the classroom.
Your are right in the fact that environment leads to a better selection pool for black athletes but white people are not excluded in these sports, they just choose not to. A brown person has never made the NFL so there again is the environment issue, but brown people can afford to do these sports yet they choose not to for one reason or another.
P.S. When I meant a white person winning or even in the final, I meant the Olympics.
Olympics in the 100m.
the reason youve never had a Pele or Bagio come from the US or canada is because soccer isnt as popular in US and Canada as the rest of the world. There are probably a thousand white and black peles in the US and Canada, but theyve never touched a soccer ball.
In the NBA and NFL more than 60% of the athletes are black and don’t tell me that football and basketball are cheap sports to play!
Umm how much does it cost to get a football and throw it around the street? ditto a basketball
Your are right in the fact that environment leads to a better selection pool for black athletes but white people are not excluded in these sports, they just choose not to
which is exactly quickazhell’s point. This is all generalisations on both sides of the fence, but according to the socio-economic theory, white people that CAN run sub 10 100m are instead going and getting a degree and earning money, which leaves more spots for the AA people to fill in the sports. So therefore its not a case of African Americans etc etc being super athletes, its just that theyre tho only ones competing…
A brown person has never made the NFL
who do u define as a brown person? cuz most african americans are brown, not black.
sorry to do the quote/reply technique, bugs the hell out of me when someone replies to me like that 
I disagree with the soccer point. Soccer is very popular here in Canada, there’s more kids enrolled in soccer between the ages of 6 to 14 than any other sport in this age category.
Throwing a football around is very easy, but you missed my point altogether in my posts. It costs money to be on the highschool football and basketball teams, the costs of travel,food,hotels,transportation,tournaments. This cost is raised exponetially in the collegeite level. In highschool soccer these costs are minimized compared to other sports, in fact some tournaments don’t cost a dime. Not every school can afford to have a basketball court.