Sticking with your analogy, you’d continually test your changes on the track and improved speed and lap times would be the indicator that you’re making the right changes. slower lap times or a loss or reliability mean a return to the drawing board.
In F1, teams continue with minute evolutionary changes throughout the season, race by race, not just between seasons.
Again, turning your statement around, higher speeds would change the qualities of the muscles/CNS.
To what extent would you use resisted and assisted sprints in competition season?
Another thing I would like to bring up is the relation of how each factor (resisted, assisted, sans variable) effects the proceeding training, testing, or competing trials. As I train more and more towards getting faster, I am realizing that I placed too high an emphasis on weightroom work early in my career.
Although effective as an adjunct, I would be cautious to never place more emphasis on weight room work compared to work on the track that is training skills. While lifting max weights in a squat will get your body used to recruiting high amounts of MU’s, in comparison to what happens out on the track during a race, it doesn’t compare in terms of skill.
I like Charlie’s ability to reset our attention towards the main objective. The ultimate goal is to train skills, now which skills hasten our progress, and which skills threaten it? Thats the question, or at least the major one. Next the countless variables come into play.
We never used assisted sprints at all and used resisted only earlier in the GPP or early SPP periods.
thank you.
I have heard however that using a bungee release cord for overspeed can be effective right around peaking period. THoughts?
Thanks Charlie,
Have you found that the more gradual the improvement the more reliable (consistant) the results (the ability to repeat good performances)?
Yes, and, beyond that, Gradual is a tricky word.
By that I mean the more you can accumulate a series of gradual improvements, without the backward steps that are inevitable when overreaching, the faster the overall rate of improvement and the longer improvement continues throughout a career.
Longer is also key here because those last improvements are the ones that separate great from good.
You can check the archives here to see my opinion of overspeed.
Also, read the previous response on “gradual”. Aside from the lack of benefits, putting yourself at maximum injury risk just when you have no time to recover from injury is a bad plan in my books.
Bompa on overspeed training:
Let me try to make some comments regarding sprinting, and in the process, to reveal the fallacies of over-speed devices:
• Maximum acceleration is generated not by artificially pulling the body forward, but rather by pushing it forward. During high velocity running the body is propelled forward by the power applied against the ground during the propulsion phase (push-off in ice hockey, or pulling-pushing against the water resistance in water polo). The more powerful the propulsion, the shorter the duration of the contact phase, and as such, the higher the velocity generated by the athlete.
• One of the first researchers who has measured the duration of the contact phase was Schmidtbleicher (1984). He has found that best sprinters have a shorter contact phase: between 100 to <200 milliseconds (ms).The duration of the foot contact on the ground for mediocre sprinters is well over 200ms. Therefore, high velocity is the result of a powerful and fast force applied against the ground (propulsion phase) and not the outcome of a pulling force produced by artificial means.
• The above comments allow me to draw an obvious conclusion: the shorter the duration of contact phase, the faster the force application, and as a result, the higher the velocity developed by the player.
• As a cable or elastic band is pulling the player forward, he/she is decreasing rather than increasing the velocity. Why? During the artificial forward pull the landing leg is placed into an unknown, disturbed neuromuscular functioning. As the foot touches the ground the proprioceptors detect that as compared to normal running the leg is pulled over the landing, phase far too quickly, destabilizing its balance. The proprioceptors are sending the information about the new conditions to the CNS, to monitor the status of the neuromuscular system (Enoka,2002). The result of these neural actions’ is to 'correct the disturbing factors and to stabilize the leg first, and only then to 'perform a strong propulsion action. These relays of neural signals, and the time necessary to stabilize the body take few milliseconds, enough to prolong the duration of the contact phase. Therefore, increased duration of the contact phase means a decrease in sprinting velocity. But, the force of propulsion is also affected by the forward pull of an artificial pulling, device. As the coach/partner pulls the athlete forward, the propulsion leg does not have enough time to powerfully apply force against, the ground. Consequently, a strong propulsion phase is quite impossible. As the force of propulsion decreases, the duration of contact phase increases, and player’s velocity decreases as well.
The conclusion therefore is: over-speed training does not improve athletes’ speed. On the contrary, it decreases it!
• As a reaction to this artificial pull the mechanics of running is changing as well. During the stabilization (see above) of the landing leg, the trunk slightly leans backward, moving the center of gravity (CG) behind the support leg. This is a typical position for deceleration, not for acceleration. Such alteration in the mechanics of running is far from being a favorable position for a strong forward push. As a chain reaction to the backward lean of the trunk, the forward driving leg is lifted over the horizontal line, lengthening the duration of this leg’s action, and as a result, slowing-down running velocity.
• Finally, one more comment. As everybody knows, Sprinting Coaches are the most knowledgeable individuals in sprinting training and technique. Did you ever asked yourself why sprinting coaches have never used over-speed gimmicks?
How did you get your athletes to appreciate (buy into) ‘gradual’ and not ‘immediate’ improvement as part of your training philosophy?
As I’ve pointed out many times before, if you’re convinced increased speed through the air matters, take a Jet flight. 600mph of overspeed should do the trick. Just don’t come back or you’ll loose the benefits!
Charlie,
Why do you think it is that people still attempt to use these methods to improve speed, and risk injury to themselves and their athletes?
Is that not what happend to STEVE AUSTIN (THE 6 MILLION DOLLAR MAN)?
Maybe I just answered my own question?
WE CAN REBUILD HIM WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!
Because the coach “knows” he’s right and the injuries are just the result of imbalances, bad luck, and so on.
Some did, some didn’t. That’s why you need a big group.
Did you spend time trying to talk guys into your philosophy or do you just work with those who do?
Of course you try. You can’t just throw talent away!
Luckily, it’s usually only after they get into a University Physiology class that the shit hits the fan. If you ever get the chance, ask Tudor Bompa about the “prevailing wisdom”.
I have spoken to Tudor Bompa and Istvan Javorek and when talking to both, I sense they thought they escaped oppression only to find another, in a different form.
Your opposition to towing is well-known here and something that (almost) all of us here accept. But you have also talked about some of the Soviet research using slight (2-3% as I recall) inclines/declines. The uphills are done in GPP, but have you found slight downhills (2-3% again) to be useful?
No one despises you more than the man who knows that you know he’s an idiot.
You keep trying! The answer is No- far better than towing but still changes mechanics, even if you find a perfectly smooth and even 3% slope (which you won’t).