because shorter distance requirements are optimized by more frequent cycles (sometimes 5 per year), it’s likely there isn’t time for longer max strength cycles, only potentially more of them.
I wish I was smart to understand what you people are on about.
Charlie mentioned, if I understand, the 0-30m helps the improvement i strength.
Being a bit simple wouldn’t the first element of 100m being 0-30m be based on power which is speed x strength. The closer to a 1 off performance the more the importance of strength the further to mulitple performances (eg 30m sprint) the more speed requirement in power.
Also with acceleration is the CNS unlikely to taxed as much as speed and speed end, being that acceleration you are moving into max speed and at speed and speed endurance you are moving at your max speed for that element
Just some thoughts.
Don’t know if it’s a matter of being smart- or just too dumb to communicate effectively.
Probably closer to the truth is the idea that the weights are general in benefit and follow speed/accel, and, to some extent, SE. If you accept that, you have great flexibility in the selection of lifts and the vol per session.
If you believe that higher strength numbers must preceed advancements in speed/accel/SE, then the selection of lifts, timing, and volume would need to be very precise with limited flexibility.
I assume you don’t believe this? Though I think it would make some sense to at least concurrently develop strength with acceleration - which is where I see max strength as playing the biggest role.
I believe Wt Str follows, as you say. I don’t think you DEVELOP weight strength concurrently, though it appears to rise concurrently with the speed. I think, though, you do have more time to express max weight strength during the accel phase because of less need to manage/balance the CNS stress to have the resources available for greater max speed and to have the muscles at their greatest ROM.
So what we have here is a delicate balance between ability to lift weights, CNS resources and muscle tone. How these things interact is of prime importance. Certainly as tone rises so does max strength but max speed can decrease because you are not elastic enough.
yeah I definately agree. Doing mostly short acceleration work during a max strength phase is going to cause less interference since a slightly higher muscle tone is not going to cause as many problems as it would if you were doing longer sprint work.
A small and big skill football player would be similar to the horizontal jumper in that they could perform more max strength cycles because the speed work will almost always be in the 0-30m range. Would this change a bit for those athletes who require a bit more speed WR/CB PR/KR special teams guys etc? They might have some maxV work as well and this would mean less max strenth work as well?
Seems reasonable.
At some point doesn’t an athlete reach an optimal level of acceleration for his given maximum velocity. For example, if an athlete only runs 11m/sec, his 0-30m time can only be so fast before only an increase in MaxV will yield a faster 0-30m time? Or would the increased ability from higher and higher strength levels generated from more frequent max strength cycles and the stimulus of speed work in the 0-30m range be enough of an impetus to improve the 30m time consistently? It seems that while the latter may work, the prospect of diminishing returns would be quick to strike. Thoughts?
Which is why our linemen lift heavier weights more frequently and sprint shorter distances while our skill players lift maximal weights less frequently and sprint longer (while still short in T&F terms) distances.
Yup. that’s how it should be.
I think I understand.
James could you give us readers an example of your reply ol/dl and skill position workout.
With respect, it has long since been my decision not to illustrate programming other than anything I might feature in manual or DVD format.
As I’m sure Charlie and others will corroborate, there’s far too much time and effort that goes into the programming, based upon a myriad of considerations, to warrant or justify any open sharing of the material.
So you, as well as some others believe weight room strength rises as a result of speed improvements. Then let’s go back to one of the original questions of this thread which I don’t believe has been answered yet, why expend any energy on weights, for a track athlete, if they aren’t needed to make speed improvements?
Other than for muscle size improvements by the way.
Why because they follow are they not needed? If the situation was reversed and weights lead speed, would you then say that speed isn’t needed?
If the athlete was a powerlifter then I dont see why not 
Speed only leads weights where there is significant intensity. If you aren’t fast enough… well…
I would then say speed work is only needed to remain technically efficient.
If doing speed work improves speed (the ultimate goal for a sprinter) and improves weights (which I think we are saying can help a sprinter) why are weights needed? If the goal of attaining more speed is being accomplished without the weights, why add them?
Isn’t our goal in accomplishing whatever task to do so with what is necessary and nothing more? As adding anything more than what is necessary provides the body with an extra stressor(s) to adapt to.