This is just an excuse for the coach not wanting to do any work. Instead of actually pushing for strength gains they just do the bare minimum or worse some bodybuilding crap. This works because it conserves all the neurological energy for the sport activity and drills but it is short-sighted as the advanced athlete needs to be strong if they are too continually progress. Just look at the physique differences between top athletes of today and top athletes of past decades. As for the soreness or fatigue caused by doing weights, the coach should manage that with appropriate restorative measures. God forbid he/she have to get someone in better shape or invest in restoration. There’s all this bullshit about how athletes shouldn’t worry about getting strong. How the strongest athletes aren’t necessarily the best. Then how come whenever someone’s starts suck the coaches tell them to hit the weights? Well if you show me two guys that look identical and tell me one of them squats 300 pounds more than the other than I’d guess for the heavier squatter to be the better athlete. When your athlete can only deadlift 125 lbs they are in an untrained state. My elderly mother could do 135 when I taught her technique for weight lifting. Just because there is variety in the program doesn’t mean you’re going to get sore. I do less than 20 sets a week for weighted lower body and weighted core combined and am never sore.
You took an untrained (in the weightlifting sense) and weak individual and made them strong.
The same idividual gained 216% (!) of strength in the deadlift in six months while training to bring her 200m time from 22.83" to 22.11". You probably have no clue of what that means…
And I hate it when coaches say they shouldn’t train like powerlifters, but you test in the bench and deadlift.
You are missing the difference between a training program and a strength test.
I believe this program lacks the variation required to take the next step in strength levels.
Check the example at page 37 of Science and Practice of Strength Training, that would give you a hint on what it means to be strength training for a sport.
Also, bodyweight is completely a dietary factor
“Completely” is a stretch.
There’s a lot of other tools out there that can be more effectively catered to the individual athlete than presented in this article.
I am honestly curious to know the list.
I am sure you have heard of myofibrillar hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
(Here’s a link for those who haven’t http://www.defrancostraining.com/ar...uscle-equal.htm)
Supreme, may I see a study that corroborate this and not just a list of badly done notes by De Franco? Then, if we want to agree that the empirical experience tell us so, I do agree, just let’s stop to bring it up as a scientific fact. I would honestly love somebody to prove me wrong on this.
This is just an excuse for the coach not wanting to do any work.
No, this is just REAL world, on-the-field experience.
Instead of actually pushing for strength gains they just do the bare minimum or worse some bodybuilding crap.
Did anyone push bodybuilding crap? I see no HIT advocates around…
as the advanced athlete needs to be strong if they are too continually progress.
And you worked with many “advanced athletes”, I guess, a part from you and your elderly mother…
The point is, do advanced athletes continually progress because of continual progress in strength? If so, is it always the case?
As for the soreness or fatigue caused by doing weights, the coach should manage that with appropriate restorative measures. God forbid he/she have to get someone in better shape or invest in restoration.
Soreness should be managed aprioristically thru the program design, i.e. you don’t implement whatever program and then ask the world to move around it, it just doesn’t work that way in the real world.
There’s all this bullshit about how athletes shouldn’t worry about getting strong.
I never read such bullshit, where did you read it?
How the strongest athletes aren’t necessarily the best
Oh, really, you should have explained that to Kim Collins in Paris or Birminghan.
Then how come whenever someone’s starts suck the coaches tell them to hit the weights?
I am adamant to see the 10m event at the next Olympics…
Well if you show me two guys that look identical and tell me one of them squats 300 pounds more than the other than I’d guess for the heavier squatter to be the better athlete.
“All things being equal” rarely happen in real world.
I do less than 20 sets a week for weighted lower body and weighted core combined and am never sore.
When you’ll hit the low 10’s I’ll be interested on the details.
[QUOTE=nArKeD]As for the soreness or fatigue caused by doing weights, the coach should manage that with appropriate restorative measures.[QUOTE]
No will to add to Sprinterouge’s hits on target here-nor need-but planning in advance to induce soreness and fatigue - when you can most of the times avoid it with a well designed and thought out plan-in order to be able to display the “appropriate restorative measures” afterwards doesn’t really seem the smartest move anyway…
Sprinterouge, you can find information by looking through “Power to the People!” by Pavel Tsatsouline. You should be able to find some stuff in “Science and Practices of Strength Training”, “Periodization Training for Sports” by Tudor O. Bompa. For a scientific basis you can look at this website http://www.dolfzine.com/page216.htm and also search up the Sliding Filament Theory and look at Myofilament or Myofibril . -S
Supreme,
I went thru these books again. I didn’t find any study to support the claim.
I am glad Prof. Zatsiorsky states it so clearly (I had forgotten it) but still, I would like to see the studies this statement is based on.
If you don’t have it- buy the forum review- with reference to Central Drive. If you already have it -read it.
If you’ve read it- read it again.
The gains are what they are. I’m not going to really comment. Strength wise I’ve seen better and worse. Speed wise I have nothing to compare it to (she is the silver medalist after all).
You are missing the difference between a training program and a strength test.
Why test strength if all you are concerned about is track times?
“Completely” is a stretch.
Certainly there are bodyweights where an athlete will have trouble maintaining. But when you are already at a state of maintenance for your sport than you will not gain excessive mass by utilizing any type of training unless you eat enough. Food is the most important factor.
I am honestly curious to know the list.
The program only contains a modified sub-max effort method w/ some optional plyos and some olympic lifts. I don’t use olympic lifts and don’t like them so we’ll leave them out. But how about some overspeed eccentrics w/ weights? What about the repetition method? What about accomodating resistance? Why no exercise variation (this isn’t the 80’s)? Why no supplemental or assistance work? Why exclusively the use of long rest periods with submaximal weights? “The benefit is much more rapid strength gain”. I think a lot of strength athletes will disagree with this. How is the strength gain more rapid?
Did anyone push bodybuilding crap? I see no HIT advocates around…
There was a thread in the past where it was brought up that sprinters made better progress using basic bodybuilding methods rather than a strength based program. There was even a scientific study to support it I believe. Do a search. Neurological cost-expense and recovery is the most important factor of any training program.
The point is, do advanced athletes continually progress because of continual progress in strength? If so, is it always the case?
You have to learn to turn on more motor units somehow or hypertrophy existing motor units at the expense of others.
Soreness should be managed aprioristically thru the program design, i.e. you don’t implement whatever program and then ask the world to move around it, it just doesn’t work that way in the real world.
I should have worded my statement differently. While many strength programs are considered overtraining for a track athlete it may be because of poor implementation (such as having full body workouts three days in a row) or the athlete simply being out of shape. I’m not saying you can just do whatever volumes you want, but what we have here is 36 sub-maximal reps a week!
I never read such bullshit, where did you read it?
"If coaches are going to train their sprinters like powerlifters why not start with powerlifters and train them to run faster? If it’s just leg strength that makes a sprinter faster, we should recruit super heavyweight powerlifters, work on their turnover rate, throw in some plyometrics, and finish off with some work out of the blocks. It would be easier than the current practice of blowing up a sprinter to look like the Michelin man (with or without drugs).
Sound ridiculous? Of course, but no more so than the current methods of speed training for sports, which entirely misses the key to faster running-- maintaining a delicate balance between strength gain and changes in bodyweight. It is the Holy Grail of sprinting, the most significant aspect to keep in mind when training for speed. "
Oh, really, you should have explained that to Kim Collins in Paris or Birminghan.
How do you know what Kim Collins has done throughout his entire training career? Do you think other athletes should completely emulate the plan of a successful one regardless of their individual strengths and weaknesses?
I am adamant to see the 10m event at the next Olympics…
Every event begins with 10m 
But since you don’t give a damn this will be my last response.
The gains are what they are. I’m not going to really comment. Strength wise I’ve seen better and worse. Speed wise I have nothing to compare it to (she is the silver medalist after all).
Strength wise during a preparation I have not seen much better around. The point is the girl has been doing a lot of work on the track, so the results are outstanding.
Why test strength if all you are concerned about is track times?
To check the development of the biomotor abilities that concour to the performance. In certain periods you do want to gain as much strength as possible, but it’s just a mean to an end.
Food is the most important factor.
Agreed.
The program only contains a modified sub-max effort method w/ some optional plyos and some olympic lifts. I don’t use olympic lifts and don’t like them so we’ll leave them out. But how about some overspeed eccentrics w/ weights? What about the repetition method? What about accomodating resistance? Why no exercise variation (this isn’t the 80’s)? Why no supplemental or assistance work? Why exclusively the use of long rest periods with submaximal weights? “The benefit is much more rapid strength gain”. I think a lot of strength athletes will disagree with this. How is the strength gain more rapid?
A lot of the strength athletes that you like probably can’t sprint 60m without blowing a couple of muscles in the process and surely can’t run it in a decent time. This doesn’t mean that they don’t strength coach fast guys using their methods. Sprinters get enough reversal strength from doing plyos and oftentimes need to apply force in less than 0.1". Many (mostly male) sprinters bulk up even without the repetition method (i.e. they bulk up with low reps protocols); as stated by Bear the aim to increase strength and minimize hypertrophy made him chose low reps (the whole article stresses relative strength as the main target). The metabolic implications of the repetition method are of little use to someone that does specific endurance workouts. The only exercise that stays the same is the deadlift, if the strength goes up, why use assistance work? Why sub-max weights? a) you only have so much CNS energy; b) you recover them faster; c) a maximal weight is a slower weight. Ditto for the lonegr rest intervals (plus the relative strength issue).
Neurological cost-expense and recovery is the most important factor of any training program.
Did you just learn it? LOL.
Sorry.
You have to learn to turn on more motor units somehow or hypertrophy existing motor units at the expense of others.
Let me put it in capital letters, tattoo it if you can’t remember it: SPRINTING IS NOT A STRENGTH SPORT. Even as a mantra would do.
While many strength programs are considered overtraining for a track athlete it may be because of poor implementation (such as having full body workouts three days in a row) or the athlete simply being out of shape.
I’m not saying you can just do whatever volumes you want, but what we have here is 36 sub-maximal reps a week!
A minimalist approach, safe and, in this case, effective. I agree more volume could be used, just not in three consecutive days (that’s another reason to further reduce volume).
"If coaches are going to train their sprinters like powerlifters why not start with powerlifters and train them to run faster? If it’s just leg strength that makes a sprinter faster, we should recruit super heavyweight powerlifters, work on their turnover rate, throw in some plyometrics, and finish off with some work out of the blocks. It would be easier than the current practice of blowing up a sprinter to look like the Michelin man (with or without drugs).
Sound ridiculous? Of course, but no more so than the current methods of speed training for sports, which entirely misses the key to faster running-- maintaining a delicate balance between strength gain and changes in bodyweight. It is the Holy Grail of sprinting, the most significant aspect to keep in mind when training for speed. "
It doesn’t mean “don’t worry about getting stronger”, it says not to concentrate on absolute strength methods but on relative strength ones.
How do you know what Kim Collins has done throughout his entire training career? Do you think other athletes should completely emulate the plan of a successful one regardless of their individual strengths and weaknesses?
The point was that as sprinting is not a strength sport, the strongest guy on the field could get his ass kicked by much weaker competitors.
Sprinterouge
Now that you’re in the mood for capital letters and tatoos, please explain to me, in mono-syllables if need be, how SPRINTING IS NOT A STRENGTH SPORT.
In regards to contact times and the relative values of activities, plyos still have contact times on the order of 10 x longer than that found in sprinting. For an extensive review of this whole subject, please refer to the forum review and the discussions of Central Drive and General vs Specific training. (if you don’t have it, it’s available on the site store)
Sorry about that Sprinterouge, I don’t want to give anyone bad information. I thought it was in there. You can certainly find information in Pavel’s “Power to The People”. The sliding filament theory is a study in itself where it explains the need for more contractible elements of the muscle fiber or myofilaments, if the object is to produce more strength.
As stated in the articles, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy leads to more muscle fluid than contractible components. This is a fact that is backed by every biology textbook in the world.I know you were looking for the 3 did this workout and 3 did another workout study. I doubt there are much studies done on this, but I will certainly try to find some.
For nArKeD, why was that your last response? It is common knowledge that you learn by asking questions.
”This is just an excuse for the coach not wanting to do any work” …&… “SPRINTING IS NOT A STRENGTH SPORT” Building towards extremes to prove a “lesser-extreme point”. This pattern is becoming more common, and consequently: less useful.
Coach F,
What I meant was that lifting weights is not the specific activity and getting stronger without integrating it with the track program does nothing performance wise; Narked is talking about westside methods all the way as a viable method to make advanced sprinters better. As you are reluctant to have your athletes perform 1RM test at the end of a mesocycle (according to Speed Trap), what do you think of doing 1RMs every week?
Lorien and Coach F,
If we accept Narked equation (sprinters=powerlifters, as they both have to get as strong as possible) as a given in the debate and “strength sport=powerlifting” as the paradigm, then we need to state that sprinting is not a strength sport.
Coach F,
For plyometrics we can also refer to this article: http://www.coachesinfo.com/category/rugby/253/
There is no reference to contact times of 800ms…
Anyway, the point was the difference between “overspeed eccentrics” (barbell+bands+voluntary acceleration) and plyometrics. Being force of gravity a costant force we can get whatever velocity at impact from plyometrics by just increasing the drop height, so there would not be much difference in the eccentric-isometric phase. On the other hand, in the concentric phase, being the force required lower with plyometrics, the contraction velocity is higher and contact time lower as well (roughly F.dT=m.dV), thus more specific to sprinting.
Without going thru the Forum Review, I aknowledge the limits of the Specificity Principle, but I think it is pertaining to this very case.
Supreme,
What I was unable to find is a study that proves selective sarcoplasmic and sarcomeric hypertrophy according to strength training methods. I think there are some Russians that research on that, though.
Sprinterouge,
The only plyometric exercise that comes close to sprinting itself is the long jump plant (70-120ms). Every other plyometric exercise does not compare. Slow stretch shortening exercises like squat jumps DO have contact times circa 10x of sprint contact time. Hurdle hop contact times come close approx 110-200ms (the lower contact times are few and usually occur 10% of the time this applies to most plyo exercises in my experience) whilst sprint contact times are 120-80ms with the higher contact times at the beginning of the sprint in the acceleration phase. Fast stretch shortening exercises still do not compare to sprint ground contact times. Depth jump contact times around 140-300ms (lower contact due to height and emphasis on jump for height or distance).
When you say different types of strength training do not produce different types of hypertrophy do you mean resistance training or all types of strength training?
In a nutshell;
There is a general carry-over of all qualities, so enhancement of one will cause improvement in others (I have always believed that the big weights moved by my people were the results of their great speed rather than the other way around. This is because it is the stimulus on the entire organism is the key) This theory would weigh against the search for specificity that prevailed in Europe 30 years ago- and is supported by the fact that all the top sprinters (sub 9.90) have carried out general lifting routines.
Strength is not the only qualty- but it’s BIG.
Precisely! This is essential to understand!
The only plyometric exercise that comes close to sprinting itself is the long jump plant (70-120ms). Every other plyometric exercise does not compare. Slow stretch shortening exercises like squat jumps DO have contact times circa 10x of sprint contact time. Hurdle hop contact times come close approx 110-200ms (the lower contact times are few and usually occur 10% of the time this applies to most plyo exercises in my experience) whilst sprint contact times are 120-80ms with the higher contact times at the beginning of the sprint in the acceleration phase. Fast stretch shortening exercises still do not compare to sprint ground contact times. Depth jump contact times around 140-300ms (lower contact due to height and emphasis on jump for height or distance).
The original point was: why use overspeed eccentrics over plyometrics when the eccentric-isometric phases are pretty much the same and the concentric one of the plyos is much faster? Then if you want you can isolate several plyometric modalities that deliver 800ms+ contact times…
When you say different types of strength training do not produce different types of hypertrophy
Where do I say that??