Charlie do u agree that no change will occur without stimulus and the resulting adaption from said stimulus is a summation of all previously applied stimuli? this is basic adaptation theory yes? a stressor is induced and adaption to said stressor produces movement towards the goal. I never stated that all variables must advance only those which constraint movement towards the goal. it is evident that there is progress with sub maximal means but I have found more rapid gains for alternate means.
I think its to general. form is described in bodybuilding magazines where as bio-mechanical energy efficiency or inter/intra muscular efficiency is more specific. its just one of those things that I don’t like doesn’t really matter in the big picture.
Yes, and the higher the stimulus, the greater the supercompensation from it. This is precisely why I go to such lengths to set the stage for greater stimulus by the means at my disposal, as I’ve described.
I don’t know if my sources are right, but I thought I read somewhere that the bulgarians would start a workout each day by building up to a maximum for that day and then after reaching that maximum they would lift off of percentages from that given days maximum. So, they would be lifting close to maximal weights for that given day, but, it might not be the same as there maximum effort ever. (again, not sure on accuracy) Another note, I know that when I pracitced too much with sub-maximal speeds in the discus, when I was in a competition, my technique couldn’t handle my 100% full speed and my throwing would suffer. Again, I remember Mo Green stating after his race in Edmonton 01’ and pulling up the last three steps with a injury that he was running to fast for his body. My dad couldn’t understand how if his body propelled him to that speed, why couldn’t it handle it. I know my father lacks sprinting knoweledge, but could it be that if we trained our bodies to train more at a maximal speed we would be able to keep “form” (bio-mechanical energy efficiency? wouldn’t practising at near 100% of what you can do that given day be better preperation for the real thing than 80% movements.
James,
I understand you may have your own experiences with athletes, but have you tried this interesting thinking specifically with track athletes? I am genuinely asking! Because I am sure you appreciate the considerable differences between these sports and/or the multi-factorial aspect of running.
How long would you insist on application of this approach on a future prospect and/or on an experienced athlete -a more difficult case for me, who’s probably got a completely different background of what you are proposing (e.g, “normal” training methods, if you want), if in either case the results were not what you expected?
Of course, this isn’t a reason not to try new things that may go against, say, Charlie’s or anyone else’s methods, but where would you stop?
At the end of the day, consistency and results are the things that matter the most! Thanks!
PS I understand the hypothetical of my question, but on a more practical level perhaps…
nikboa, how do you throw at 80% speed? That must feel strange! I don’t think we can draw parallels between percentages in throwing or jumping to those of sprinting. Usually throws operate at scales of effort (the actual speed stays much closer to 100%). The jumps on the other hand, usually operate on scales of horizontal speed – you can still have close to maximal take-off, although the speed up to the board might vary to a large degree. Sprinting usually operates at both scales (timed speed between 95-100% and perceived effort between 90-99%).
If you remember Ricky Bruch (discus thrower), he brought up the importance of “lowering your shame threshold”. Basically what he meant was, that you must have the balls to throw at “over-relaxed” effort even in some competitions (the impact of speed is much less than the impact on effort here) in order to get ready for throwing at maximal effort yet staying sufficiently relaxed (like in those “shameful” competitions).
I don’t think anyone is advocating that we should constantly train at sub-max levels (effort or actual) but that these are important variables in the whole picture. It’s equally important to train at maximal intensities as you said.
One interesting idea is to alternate between higher and lower intensities in order to maximize technical learning (i.e. the overload principle, Boo Schexnayder): We can first perform at, say, 85% effort. In order to continue learning, stimulus must increase. Thus, we continue performing at much higher intensities, say, 95%. After that we go back to 90% which should feel easier to technically master. We can build up towards 100% in this fashion; a ‘two steps forward and one step back’ principle. This is one idea of how we can gradually increase intensities so that technical learning and adaptation still follows close by.
As for Mo Greene’s injury, it’s impossible to speculate about how it might have been prevented through training. John Smith is an excellent coach who has a strong track record of having the athletes ready on the day it counts.
What must also be considered is the consequence of running in hyper perfect condition with slight altitude and a hard track.
There is a risk inherent in these conditions as well as a reward. On super-hard tracks, the footstrike ahead of BDC causes more landing shock and that shock increases late in the race.
If you were to train regularly on such a track in an attempt to adapt, you’d be plagued with injuries starting with stress fractures and moving to tendon problems.
Hey Charlie,
Came across this quote and thought of your advice on strengthening the bottoms of feet with barefoot tempos on grass and ems! Done both with my athletes and love the results!
The foot feels the foot when it feels the ground. ~Buddha
I think something else to be mentioned is the force involved in the different activities. James mentioned the higher incidence of injury with the bulgarian program. From what I have read in Science and Practice, the bulgarian method involved weights with very little sprinting or other plyometric activities. While I am sure the forces exerted where very high, it still would not be near the forces produced when sprinting or doing plyometrics. In a program where there is even more force to go along with the high volume, the likelyhood of injury is even greater. This probably is why doing a high volume of max sprints or plyometrics usually result in injury. So what works for one sport(olympic weightlifting) doesn’t necessarily work for sprinting. Yes maximum strength and strength speed can aid in increasing sprinting speed, but it is not the end goal. Other factors than just lifting for maximum strength must be trained as well and many of them have a higher force component than weightlifting. Doing these in a fatigued state very likely would lead to injury. The end goal is to be a faster sprinter, which has some different training components than olympic weightlifting.
Your reasoning is flawed. first off the concerns where with the CNS. forces can be adpated to and the forces experienced during Olympic weightlifting are closer in nature than those experienced in traditional weight training simply because of the catch phase of the lift (which is often skipped in athletic programs when in fact it is probably the most beneficial aspect of the lift) during this time a powerful stretch reflex occurs similar to that during the sprint. this account for stabilization occurred during high force movements. again I’ve said this I don’t know how many times… I AM NOT ADVOCATING SPRINTING MAXIMALLY EVERYDAY!!! but to me the problem with injury fatigue and performance is simple. before you can create force you must absorb force yes? let me explain during a sprint you foot hits the ground during a stride and experiences time the athletes body weight as it contracts eccentrically then isometrically before positive movement is made concentrically. the time between the onset of eccentric contraction and the end of the isometric/start of the concentric is a measure of force absorption efficiency. the more rapid this transition can be made the more efficient the athlete is said to be at absorbing force. force is also the cause of injury. all injury is caused by an inability to absorb force, period. you break a bone , the bone couldn’t absorb the force of impact, you pull a hamstring the hamstring couldn’t absorb the force of ground contact. so on and so forth. so train to absorb force and your ground contact times will become shorter you will be less likely to become injured. also you put you body under a situation in which the body must contract the muscles maximally. do this enough and inhibition is broken down. you are reprogramming yourself to be able to generate large forces over and over. there are other considerations but that give u an idea. also I believe that training forces should even exceed those experienced in sport in greater volumes. why because then the issue of you performing maximally at any given instance will be easier. performance will stabilize. when it is not increasing. our goal for athletic development besides the obvious should be to accelerate development and raise its ultimate peak. this is the best way to avoid decline and stagnation.
With plyos and anything else that affects the joints you must always remember that it takes a lot longer for these to supercompensate. Weightlifters will tell you all about joint pain from heavy lifting etc… This should be programmed into your training so if you are exposing your athletes to this for a period of time (e.g. a section of plyos) then you will need a period to recover from this and allow supercompensation. This may be significantly more than 48 hours - how long i don’t know cos i can’t get anyone to let me do cartilage biopsies during a training phase!
James, I don’t think it’s a question about flaws in reasoning, more like different perspectives on degrees. First, while the catch phase in OLs might be beneficial in its own right, it’s also arguably sufficient to do just the power versions of the lifts because a good program already consists of many other modalities that include the stretch reflex. The question is more like: How much more should this be focused on in the weight lifting protocol. Second, ability to absorb force is important, although we should not forget that this ability is also gained during sprinting and jumping (aka normal training); it’s not like you have to go into one room to enhance ability to produce force, and the go into another room to enhance force absorption. While there certainly is ways of training the former aspects at greater focus, the same kind of question arises again: How much more should we focus on specific “force absorption protocols”?
When it comes to injuries, you’re absolutely right; injures come from the inability to absorb force (unless you’re not just decomposing). It’s a kind of a truism really, what else could it be? To get to the bottom of the matter is hence to identify the cause behind the inability to absorb force… and this is not as simple anymore. Simply adding protocols of even higher stress might not be the best solution, especially since it implies cutting down on other training modalities… simply adding to an already near-critical situation is not very smart.
There are many ways, and what I’m trying to get across is that we’re dealing with degrees rather than completely different alternatives.
intersting bulgarian lifters would differ. ofcourse overload can occur but under the proper conditions it is far further than most peolpe usualyl genearlize (ie 24, 48, 72 hours ect.) dividing a time for plyos is rather counterintuitive rather they should be instituded when needed.
A few provisos to force absorption in sprinting:
1: The straighter the leg (higher the hip) the faster the transition phase occurs. This is facilitated by complete recovery before the session and cessation of the sprint session before a deterioration of form occurs.
2: Injury risk is directly related to the duration of the absorption phase. This is why, perhaps counterintuitively, beginners have more injuries than top athletes and is another reason for caution.
actually force absorption isn’t train by jumping or sprinting well at least not effectively. its like having someone do plyos but having them start with depth jumps. that’s why I believe there is a high instance of injury with sprinters because their bodies are not even equipped to handle the load they generate. as a person becomes accustom to the load over years of training they become faster more proficient. its been shown that the diff between novice and elite sprinters is related to ground contact times. I believe a person can more rapidly and safely progress if they systematically and progressively overload the ability to absorb force just as one would do while trying to increase their squat. if a person can squat 600 lbs the likelihood of someone getting injured with 400 lbs is unlikely. so once we equal the forces in the gym/track weight room we exceed them.
i apply the theory of constraints to designing training programs.
-
determine the goal
-
identify THE main constraint
-
exploit the constraint
-
subordinate all else
-
elevate the constraint
-
the goal in this instance is simple to sprint faster
-
the main constraint to sprinting faster is ground contact times as with reduced time on the ground comes faster times. but we must break this down even further. what inhibits short ground contact times well it’s the ability to EFFICIENTLY absorb force because before you can go u got to slow and stop the faster u do this the faster you can go LOL.
-
exploiting the constraint means findings the connection between this factor and all others which effect the goal. we want tom make sure our course of action will not have any unexpected negative effects.
-
everything becomes subordinate to this factor. this doesn’t mean you don’t do anything else it means that all other things are secondary and luckily the system can be built to maintain or even raise other traits even though they are secondary.
-
elevating the constraint is simple train the ability progressively this is mostly a neurological aspect so changes can be rapid if done knowledgeably.
see the above points i believe we agree fully on both points.
2. exactly so training this ablity will not only make injury less prevelant but also accelerate ability. train the limiting facotr, bring up the constraint and the system will improve.
"researchers found that as the amount of force applied to the ground increases, ground-contact time diminishes. “It is not intuitive,” says Weyand, “but basically, pressing harder shortens the ground-contact time”
The Source of Human Speed, April 2001, Harvard Magazine
Harder push or better absorbtion?
Obviously you need to be able to apply the force without getting injured, but focusing primarily on shock absorbtion?
said nothing about always focusing on force absorption. only the main constraint. can you press before you absorb?
Yes you did talk about force absorption. Why must you argue everything? Ok, if I am a 400lb sprinter, then being fat is my main constraint. Would I not focus on not being 400lbs?
the main constraint to sprinting faster is ground contact times …what inhibits short ground contact times well it’s the ability to EFFICIENTLY absorb force
That kinda makes it sound like force absorbtion is the main contraint.