Can you give another avenue?
Re: David W, I understand what you are pointing out. However, I don’t think it’s as simple as you want to believe. Force is mass x acceleration, so I can’t see why work done on the track can’t also exceed the force produced in the weightroom. If I am able to accelerate a constant mass faster and faster I am working on force development(f=MxA).
Check the F:V curve, maximum force occurs when velocity is zero. (a = g = 9.8m/s^2). Incidently, for this reason powerlifting should actually be called Force lifting…
The arguement (over the magnitude of contribution of different types of work) matters only in as much as it determines the amount of additional work done, not whether the additional intensification of a training componant is of value in advancing overall performance.
Nice point DW, maybe we should do isometrics 
Charlie, in determining the additional work that should be done, how would you know when more gains in max strength is not worth the effort? Would you continue to weight train with a focus on making gains if you felt the sprints is the cause for the lift numbers going up? I’ve seen so many sprinters make great gains by following a great strength program, but there always come a time when the weight numbers still go up but the track times don’t come down. What happens at this point? Is it the forces on the track and those generated in the weightroom are now equal?
The question is: What constitutes a “great strength program”? The answer is- one that advances the speed portion in the long run. Weights are not done for their own sake. It’s hard to imagine a max phase that can’t move at least one componant even slightly ahead. It is during the maintenance phase that the result should manifest itself. The ratio of contribution between componants shouldn’t really change because all should advance if overall work is moved ahead proportionately. Thoughts?
What I would say constitutes a great strength program is one that provides appropriate amounts of weight training. The question is: what(how much) is appropriate? We can agree that speed (recruitment velocity) would not advance if max strength work is pursued too much. Also it would seem the most gifted athletes would reach the limit of what is appropriate levels of strength work before the less gifted.
Just my thoughts.
I’m wondering why a gifted athlete would reach the limit of “appropriate” strength before the less gifted? Recognizing that the more gifted will gain strength faster,are you assuming that the definition of “appropriate” will be the same for both?
Besides gaining strength faster, I would assume that the more gifted athlete would be putting out more on the track. This would leave him with less cns energy to use elsewhere, so “appropriate” would be less for him.
What about the exponentially increasing differential between the weights and the sprints for the higher level athlete? Wouldn’t the higher sprint result make his weights easier relatively?
I would think yes. This brings us back to the original question; when this level is reached, is it not the sprints that is driving the weights up? At this point it would seem that weights are only a way of expressing the power capacity of the sprinter.
Also, wouldn’t the exponentially increasing differential between the weights and sprints make weight training less and less of a value for the super high level sprinter?
This does not change the fact that the weights are one of the training factors. The percentage of contribution that an advance in this area may provide will lesson but it does not disappear till all other training factors have been exhausted. It may reach a point where some of the weight elements will be deliberately levelled off to allow other elements in training to advance, but, since the weights are, as you restate, an expression of an overall advancing power capacity, why wouldn’t you allow it to be expressed at least in part?
This is what gets me;the further to the right of the curve you work the bigger the gains have to be to influence the left of the curve. But, as an athlete advances in weight training the gains become less and less. So here we have an athlete going further right, making less gains, and the left is moving further left (maybe,via speed wokr). I can only see the weights helping if the percentage of gain is equal to or higher that the previous anvancement (elite level sprinter).
Did Ben ever had a year where his gains in the weightroom were not equal or above those of the previous year(not counting 88 when he was hurt)?
The One:
You have brought up some good points and I appreciate reading your post.
IMO, the only reasons to continue to work on the right of the curve (lift weights) even after advancements are less than speed work is for maintenance and training variety. Having said that, the focus should be on the left of the curve (speed work).
Personally, once I got to the level of bench pressing 2x b/w, squatting 3x b/w, and leg pressing 5.5x b/w, I decided to focus much more on improvements to the left of the curve.
hehe I have a long way to go before I have to worry about my strength being exhausted…
thats a bit depressing though… 
The One,
‘I can only see the weights helping if the percentage of gain is equal to or higher that the previous advancement (elite level sprinter)’.
I agree with this statement entirely.
However, the strength training exercises that aided your transition to you current standard will need to be maintained. Hence, strength training, whether weights, bounding or whatever, remain critical within any balanced program.
holy crap man those ratios are crazy!
I would think you would have PLENTY of strength with ratios like that!!
I am approx 1.5 x BW bench, 2 x BW squat and 2.5 x BW deadlift and am generally considered fairly strong. You are one STRONG dude!
What would your plyo routines consist of? Total contacts, type of exercises etc?
Sorry if my post is slightly off topic please PM me if you like.
Cheers,
Chris
Thanks man! I’ll PM you…
The One:
I’m not suggesting that you should work “further to the right” with weights. In fact, even though you may continue to strive for the marginal gains still available with weights, the emphasis is, by definition, moving to the left. There IS some slight contribution still available, which must be taken when you start looking for thousandths of a second. the stress caused by the pursuit is LESSENED for all the reasons we’ve discussed. The speed work volume, as you point out, will have to be reduced (as will the overall lifting vol) to allow intensification to continue.
I guessthe relative stress arguement was proven out by me in Seoul, even if by accident. The big bench PB put up by Ben had NO EFFECT WHATEVER on his ability to perform 4 days later in the 100m final.
Charlie,
Professor Carmelo Bosco has made a device called micro-muscle lab or ERGO-POWER that can find every individuals velocity / strength curve by a simple few repetition test. The feedback mechanism build in will help in order to train up to the repetition which is within speed effectiveness.
Check this out: www.elitesportservices.com/en/ergopower.shtml
One other point that seems to be missing from this disucssion is the practical matter of training variety. Not variety for variety’s sake but the fact that any training modaliaty will plateau after a certain number of sessions. For example, EMS requires short training cycles because gains start to plateau after about 2 weeks.
Training exclusively at the left side of the curve will eventually plateau and a new training modaility will need to be focused on for a while to provide the foundation for new advancements. So even if the strength gains from working on the right are marginal, they provide a relatively high level of organism stimulus and set the stage for more intensification when work focus moves back to the left.