I don’t know whether multiple posts are preferred if I have more than one point at a time. Sorry if I’m being annoying here.
One point that was raised a few times is what % of 1RM a given athlete was training at if his sets/reps were x and such.
There are of course different methodologies with respect to reps. Dinosaur trainers use(among other things of course) sub maximal singles. Some athletes/trainers believe that if you can do or could have done more reps then you didn’t use either the right weight or the right # of reps. Others say that you should have some left. Some go till failure, and others say to never fail a rep. Some say only the last rep of the last set should fail or nearly so, etc. Inferring what % of 1RM a given weight “must be” based upon his sets/reps is only a guess, and possibly very misleading. Just an observation.
Strength is never enough if performance is to improve. I think you have to get away from judging strength gains based on what is happening in the weightroom only. I do thing there is limit to the value of “weight training”.
Juggler and the One
You’re both right. As long as speed and special end are moving forward in a linear fashion, then the strength elements can move forward as well. However, if these key results either stop improving or begin to plateau, choices must be made on which other elements to limit in order to allow speed and speed end to move forward again.
Charlie, you stated many times that work done anywhere on the strength curve affects the entire curve, but closer to the point that was worked. Would it be correct to say the further away you work from the point you want to see changes in, the bigger the gains must be to affect the point you want to improve. For example, would a 10% gain in my max strength(100%max) have the same affect as a 10% gain in my “speed strength”(60%max) on my sprinting speed(5%max). I hope you get what I am trying to ask.
I’m not entirely clear (nothing new there!) but I’ll take a stab.
You are right when you suggest that the farther to the right of the strength curve (towards absolute strength) you work, the greater the improvement must be to impact the extreme left, BUT, the farther to the right of the curve, the larger the possibility for change (if you bench 300lbs, going up 10% to 330 is not too tough, but, at the extreme left- sprint speed- if you run 10.30, obviously, a 10% drop is impossible).
The implication is that improvement possibilities are smaller and run out first to the left of the curve, so, gradually, over time, the remaining opportunity to influence sprint performance moves to the right of the strength curve.
At the highest level, improvement to the left comes mainly through enhanced recovery (achieved mainly by the increased percentage of high intensity sessions in the sub-maximum catagory), a reduced volume of high intensity work, and the “cross-over” influence of improvements to the right.
Most of the improvement comes from the above measures taken to the left of the curve BUT they will eventually be limited if the final influence from the extreme right of the strength curve is not used.
It is no coincidence that all three athletes who have run sub 9.80 have utilized this approach.
Thoughts??
…um… I got a wee bit dizzy with that one… like watching table-tennis - (right-left-right… Charlie, if you’ll indulge my slow-wittedness for a second, you’d said, ~ "At the highest level, improvement to the left comes mainly through enhanced recovery (achieved mainly by the increased percentage of high intensity sessions in the sub-maximum catagory), a reduced volume of high intensity work, and the “cross-over” influence of improvements to the right. ~ In brief, are you saying, a) lift weights to assist in strength and power
b) indulge in more high-intensity training sessions (whether with weights or on the track), but at just below max
c) reduce the volume of high-intensity work
d) all the above helps enhance recovery
Is that right, or have I muddled your sentiments? (Much obliged)
Is there a point in an athlete’s development when a 10% improvement in max strength in not enough to influence the left of the curve? What if you have an athlete that is very elastic, would the point on the curve you choose to focus on differ?
The reason I am asking is, last season my guy uped his bench from 320lb to 335lb and his power clean from 275lb to 300lb, but it did not result in a pb on the track. He is 6’1" and 187lb. Do I need bigger gains to see a transfer? I was thinking he would need to bench over 400lb to be anywhere close to the power output of Tim and Ben.
The One
The gains from lifting will, like with any other training element, become increasingly hard to get, therefore, the percentage gains will decrease over time, BUT they will run out last-of-all. Ben was down to an OVERALL annual improvement rate of 6% by 1987. The reason his upper body weights went up so much in 1988 was the need for a training change due to injury. The improvements were restricted to the upper body region, with no lower body improvement, so you could reasonably conclude that the OVERALL improvement was slightly below 6%. Again, cases are individual and dependant on the interplay of all other training factors.
Journeyman:
With regards to B: High intensity sessions would already be at the max number long before reaching this point and any change would be made to allow harder-to-get improvements to continue to be logged by spreading out the attempts to get them (hence the increase the number of sub-max sessions within the number of high-intensity ones already being done in the previous year’s program).
Re D: The increased recovery is related to the greater number of sub-max sessions (the assumption being that all other active and passive recovery tactics have already been in place).
Charlie ~ thanks for the clarification. (Good stuff for me to mull over). In touching further on maximizing all elements in the recovery equation, would you be able to speak on the adaptation of one’s nutritional intake… especially increased protein intake, overall caloric intake, and whether or not this was a strict consideration when you worked with Ben? (Or would such a question be best served on another thread?) - much thanks.
Re Protein
Protein intake would/should already be at a high level (up to 1gm/lb/day) leading up to this level of training, but, if it isn’t, obviously, it would have to go up. The calories tend to take care of themselves and do tend to go up as the athlete becomes ever more lean and ever more muscular (in the metabolic game, fat’s an insulator and muscle’s a radiator)
Much obliged, Charlie… thank you. I’ve found over the years that my strength stagnates at anything below an intake of 1.5grams of quality(!) protein per pound of bodyweight. I have to go up to 2grams per pound for my gains to remain consistent, and to speed up my recovery time between workouts. I stagnated for years(!) till I followed the protein intake advice found on this site: http://www.ast-ss.com
They’ve also written some interesting stuff on the nutritional requirements immediately pre-and especially post workout: http://www.ast-ss.com/dev/qa_search/full_text.asp?ID=1351
While they gear a lot of their info towards the needs of natural bodybuilders, they are also associated with athletes in a wide spectrum of sports disciplines… including track athletes. Charlie (forgive my boldness but… ) if you’ve not yet come across this site, I think that some of the articles and Q & A’s might be of interest to you. You can speak directly and freely with the creator of this company and his head researcher as well. Their frankness, candor, body of knowledge, practical experience and willingness to share is refreshing. (Again, forgive my boldness. At your level of esteemed understanding, peerage is rare, and it seems that you and the creator of the AST site and his Director of Research might be ‘cut from similar cloth’, and that you might like to hook up with each other).
Why are they the last to run out? (you don’t have to answer that)
This is my question; on the old forum you said, at some point the absolute power output in the sprints exceed power generated elsewhere. If this is so, and sprinting recruites the most motor units, and there is a crossover effect, then it is the sprinting that is driving the weight numbers up. So could it be that even though lifting gains are the last to run out, they are not really influencing speed, but the speed is influencing them?
We already went over that a few post up. What I want to know, is why continue to weight train when you reach a level where your sprinting is generating a higher power output than work done elsewhere?
I think the point is that, at some point, the absolute power output in the sprint must exceed power generated elsewhere. This is bore out by experiences as opposed to research, and only applies beyond a certain level of performance,perhaps at the 10.10 level and faster.(Charlie Francis).
At the highest running velocity, Ben put out 3500watts at the hip, single leg (121000lbs 1ft in 1min, or 2000lb over the distance and time of a typical squat). As this is higher than anything generated in a lift, and is done multiple times, and as all points on the f/t curve affect all other points, then the faster actions(speed,then plyos, then explosive med ball) contribute more to the advancement of lower velocity elements than the lower velocity elements contribute to the advancement of the heigher velocity elements(Charlie Francis)
:mad: Yes, sprinters produce more power on the track than they typically do in the gym. However, you are not training to develop power in the gym you’re training to develop maximum force. If you increase maximum force you then have the potential to increase maximum power.
BTW. The greatest recorded power outputs have been achieved by Olympic lifters in the jerk.
Charlie, if you’ll indulge my slow-wittedness for a second, you’d said, ~ "At the highest level, improvement to the left comes mainly through enhanced recovery (achieved mainly by the increased percentage of high intensity sessions in the sub-maximum catagory), a reduced volume of high intensity work, and the “cross-over” influence of improvements to the right. ~ In brief, are you saying, a) lift weights to assist in strength and power