I think people get too caught up in the absolutes of lifting. That is, it does not matter if athlete A can squat 300 and athlete B squats 500. What matters is what, if anything, that output represents for that specific athlete. If the weight performance, regardless of the actual number, creates a stimulus for gains in power production and most importantly improved performance than that’s the role of that max for that exercise.
We all know people who can’t necessarily put up big weights for their bodyweight or where WE THINK someone who can put out big performances in various athletic endeavors (sprints, jumps etc.) should be able to do. Whatever Bolt or Powell can lift for various exercises, if that lift represents an improvement over what they were previously capable and helps to improve or maintain strength/power levels then that’s the role of the inclusion of that particular lift and the weight program in general.
No matter where they are at right now with their weights, it likely represents a gain or at least a maintenance of output that permits the performances on the track in conjunction, obviously, with their track work.
The important point I feel is not whether or not the numbers are bigger than someone else. I think people are at times looking for the formula-just as Charlie pointed out-of which there is no formula that will fit everyone.
Just because a top athlete does not lift huge numbers does not mean that the weights don’t represent a means/tool for advancing their performances. Their maxes don’t have to be huge or bigger than that of their competitors to assist them in maintaining or improving high levels of performance.
When you refer to a gain in power production, What are you actually referring to?. Is it a gain/improvement in limb speeds (both sets)? regardless of what #'s you put up in the gym.
Power production as measured by various tests of of power output- force platforms, jumps tests, med ball throws etc. or most importantly in place of tests, just the max. performance as that is really the most important test.
I always thought that weights were used as an extra stimulus for the cns after the speed work and for strengthening the specific muscled without worrying about speed of movement as this is taken care of during the speed sessions.
But wouldn’t slow movements in the gym carry over to slow movement on the track?.
This is what I have found, particularly with the big lifts.
I’ve seen more HS guys go bigger & bigger in the gym (Bench/Squat/Dead/Oly’s) & get slower & slower on the track than guys who didn’t lift any barbell.
The fastest guys I’ve know where all core strength, basic bodyweight exercises & plyo’s all with great relative strength, & I’m talking guys who ran 4.3, 4.4 40’s (Electronically timed).
ironically in my hs, all the fastest sprinters (with a few exceptions of course) have been extremely strong weightlifters (kids squatting 400-500 lbs)… granted this may be because of the lack of a solid speed program
It goes both ways, I’ve seen a lot of people who are extremely weak and are also very slow.
In the end neither example proves anything since it’s extremely important to know the whole program and how the different variables are interacting.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find people at the world class level who don’t engage in weight training in their schedules. We know there are exceptions such as Kim Collins but most, apparently, do.
The biggest problem with regards to weight training is possible the misapplication of the weights within the program-i.e. too many consecutive weeks of heavy loading without unload weeks and a lack of a maintenance or conversion phases. Then I completely believe the weights can be a negative however, conducted properly will provide a positive stimulus for improved performance.
Dwain Chambers mentioned that after his squat improoved from 180 to 230kg, he did not have any improovement in his 100m times.
I know that’s not what you were looking for, but I don’t think the squat is all that great.
It is merely a basic strength exercise to keep the body strong because weather / travell / time, don’t allways permit you to train on the track. I can’t rate the squat as being much more than that.
In my opinion: weight lifting only helps those areas where G-force is high. That is, the beginning of the race. (even then, block start practice, plyo’s, sled starts, would be more effective than weights, and a lot more fun.)
Consider the position of the legs when running at top speed. When the foot is in contact with the ground, the leg is slightly ahead of the body and then travels back to slightly behind the body … before lifting in the air again.
Thus, while in contact with the ground, the leg is almost straight. Squatting takes place by bending the knees much much further than you would when running at top speed.
However, in the acceleration phase, the body leans foreward and depends on bent leg strength ie squat. So, this would tell me that squatting helps acceleration and even the start of the race… but little in regards to top speed.
you can think of it like that, but what about all those skinny guys who have rocket starts/super fast accelerations? and even improve on it without ever getting in the squat rack.
by skinny do you mean short? I have witnessed short/tiny guys with Great quickness and explosiveness. But no, I don’t recall seeing a tall skinny guy with an explosive start. Have you? I mean, Bolt is tall, but by no means is he a skinny (scrawny) guy
But I’ve seen the opposite as well. Were these guys who got bigger and bigger and stronger, also doing regular speed training? And was speed training the more dominant part of their program? or was the lifting more dominant?
And as you say, those guys had great relative strength, well… that’s kind of it too, naturally they were strong, thus the need to improve their squat numbers is not as great.
Oh that’s wierd… the second best youth aged sprinter in the world is a relatively skinny tall guy. He lives near me and runs 10.3, just turned 18. He has more explosive starts than many of your thicker guys + ran a 6.7 60m.
The key word is relatively. Skinny as compared to your typical sprinter of that level.
Hmm. Interesting. Skinny is a very vague word however. Like I mentioned, Is Bolt skinny? Skinny and lean are different. Skinny is weak, whereas lean can still be very strong, but appear very thin.
not too fast (4.5-4.8 handtimed 40 yard dash). its just that some of these kids have little to no speed work in their workout programs and have gotten much faster (contributing their improvement to strength increases) whereas others have lifted no weights and done only running, but have dropped little to no time from fr to sr yr.
I have witnessed short/tiny guys with Great quickness and explosiveness. But no, I don’t recall seeing a tall skinny guy with an explosive start. Have you? I mean, Bolt is tall, but by no means is he a skinny (scrawny) guy