lol it’s basically a question of, would you rather be doing lots of plyometric training (bounds,jumps,hops, etc.) or heavy squats/deads/bench/etc.
when you look at the two ( max s v plys) which one relates more specifically to sprinting?
RFD ( rate of force development) of plys is closer than RFD with max s- so if you had to choose you may pick plys- absolute max s really has no role for sprinters, other than getting hurt.
ideally you want to stay in the 80% of 1R max 4-6reps.
Again, elements interact and make this question incoherent and illogical. It also depends on the sprinting program and the athletes’ propensities. A combination approach almost always beats out any exclusive method.
Not sure on that. Have trialled the 3 different methods. Wgts, Plyo, Wgts& Plyos.
Outcome was very similiar for all. It must be noted that you must use what is on offer. If no wgts are available then plyo’s it is. For my preference I would say Plyo’s based on the faster contact/reaction times.
Rather than lash out, perhaps you could share examples of sprinters you’ve worked with and how choosing one or the other might have adversely affected them on the track?
Track_man
For the first 2 years of my training with Charlie @ age 26 I never lifted a weight. I only did plyos which included lots of med ball drills, box jumps and power speed. The reasoning behind this was to lay a strong foundation with ligaments and tendons for a longer, healthier career. I had very little organized background in track training ( despite ranking 3rd in Canada as a Junior).
It is highly unlikely that everyone has access to ideal training situations. In fact most don’t.
This means you need to be creative to get the job done and if there is a choice that has to be made picking plyos whould be the way to go for sure especially when it comes to sprinting.
You can get a ton done with a med ball and a wooden box or crash pads.
Critical comments can be useful for debating facts but the use of profanity is not helpful.
In my experience I have never felt humiliated for asking the brightest minds curious open minded questions.
Doesn’t help when someone goes to 1000 different forums asking the same retard questions.
interesting experiences
lol? i only post on 2 forums on the internet. and last i checked, people ask questions on forums? 
:rolleyes:
and i ask the same questions? really? lol…:rolleyes:
I am disappointed in some for not directing the conversation here in a more helpful way. Who cares about other sites?
The balance over the force/time curve is a vital consideration which will shift according to both training requirements, time, and, surprisingly, the taper phase as well - and not always how you might expect.
I go through this in detail in a number of areas but I have summarized the arguments in the weights lecture series available from the site store. If you don’t have it, you should IMO.
yep have it from a while ago, and just watched it today. good info.
If genetics are good, plyo’s all day long.
Incidentally, My 40 times lowered considerably when I dropped weights all together. Slow, heavy movements, increasing mass etc did nothing for my 40. In fact pilates, stretching everyday, reducing muscle mass & conditioning the “pilates powerhouse” did more for me than 2 years of weights ever did.
I’m still trying to work out how heavy weights translates to higher explosive limb movements. 1000lb squatters can’t cross the road without turning red. The rubbish that is spoken about Westside lifters, olympic weightlifters all being fast, etc. Thats BS. I’ve seen skinny guys running faster 40’s than guys lifting in the gym for years. Look at Kim Collins, Carl Lewis etc. I once read Carl Lewis’s times increased when he started lifting. How true?.
My question would be how long after the weights were deleted before the 40 times came down? It could be they did help but did so some time after they were removed.
I literally knocked .8 second within a few months. I lost mass, put far far more emphasis on conditioning the core, hip flexors, relative strength & BOOM. Performing exercises explosively instead of training for a new, slow, heavy 1RM. You could say I went from posterior to anterior. For me, in my sport, what happens after 40 is pretty irrelevant anyway.
From what I see on here, guys place so much more emphasis on extremities with (squats/deads/bench/Oly lifts) than the core & I think its the other way round. Ask some of the most powerful guys of all time, Mas Oyama, William Cheung, Bruce Lee etc they will tell you the same. The explosive nature of there hand/leg movements must relate too a low 40?. Its probably not gonna be low out of the blocks as a standing start?. But then there not training for blocks.
All I’m saying is, through High school, college, university, I’ve witnessed skinny guys that have never stood under a squat rack, performed bench & regularly beat much stronger guys (much stronger athletes). What if the skinny guys did squat. Would they have got faster?. Not sure man.
Its why I opt for Plyos.
You’re kind of rambling around here. I have never heard anyone say 1000lb. squatters were fast. What some have said is Olympic lifters, and some powerlifters if they include explosive movements, can be very explosive, i.e. jump and start well. Shotputters are a classic example of a very large, very strong, very powerful athlete that usually forms a base of strength on powerlifting, then compliments that with explosive lifting and plyometric training. Many of the top standing broadjumps are owned by shotputters. They are extremely explosive and very powerful, but would not be as explosive as they are at their size without the weights. Football lineman could get along fine training like a shotputter. They won’t run fast 40 times, but they will put you on your butt on the line of scrimmage.
As Charlie has stated numerous times, work many spots on the force-velocity curve for maximum gains.
It’s interesting you mention your 40 time too, because generally speaking weights SHOULD benefit the drive phase/acceleration phase more than any other part of a sprint, and a 40 yard is essentially just that.
I agree with the skinny fast guy thing, I see that on almost a daily basis 
Weights when periodized properly and planned properly at proper volumes should be helpful generally, but how helpful would all depend on the person. I know one guy who went from 11.7 to 10.8 in a year and he swore that it was cause of his extremely improved deep squat.
and at the same time, a guy goes from 11.2 to 10.6 and isn’t touching a barbell or a dumbbell at all.
If you knocked off that much time it seems you must have been overtrained. My guess is that a more appropriate loading with the weights or the entirety of your training would have produced at least more consistent results. If the loading was right for you where you were in that time of development, you would not have elicited that significant improvement upon deletion of the strength training.
Where I see many people go wrong in this aspect of training is that their weights tend to be too heavy from the start of the training cycle(not nearly submaximal enough), therefore their capacity to adapt is much too heavily stressed early in a cycle and they have very little room (intensity) to increase over the duration of their training program. Since they are heavily fatigued early in the cycle it limits the gains they can make in many areas-including the strength training itself.
I believe (obviously just my opinion from what info. you’ve provided and what I’ve viewed with others) is that the weights did help and would have helped if you had simply tapered their use. The weights use resulted in a performance boost weeks, it would seem, after you quit them.
I think this is why most here don’t choose any one modality/method to improve performance but instead rely on many tools to “get the job done.” I would rather not have to use one or two tools to advance performance but intstead have a number of means of providing stimuli to accomplish performance improvement.
how old were these two guys out of curiousity?
both in high school, grade 10-11. There’s also another one I know who in grade 9, was going 11.5, high 11.4s at his best, then went to 10.9 in grade 10, and then 10.4 last year. Came 2nd at world youths. Not sure how much he lifts, but based on size, i can say close to none! lol.
The one who swears by the weights, i know everyone can talk about physical maturity, but going by appearance alone, he didnt gain much height if any during the year he gained a lot of speed. He also didn’t “look” much more mature physically, other than that he added a lot of mass.
This contradicts your views. Most likely the majority of the mass he gained was muscle, and he was undoubtedly stronger. If the majority of the mass was fat, I strongly doubt he would have gotten faster.
ya muscle ofc. but by mature i meant looking older.