i like it much more than any banded variation of overspeed… you can shave off a variable amount of time from each 10 yard/meters depending on how hard the puller runs…
light pulls = ~0.05s per 10yd,
hard pulls = ~0.1xs per 10yd…
positive, negative, or whatever opinions if you have them, drop them i’d like to know what you all think.
i know some people hate overspeed alltogether, i’m on the side of the fence that thinks it’s pretty effective… just not in those crazy band assisted ways…
I’m not a massive fan of it purely from the injury risk stand point. However, the pulleys I would imagine are superior as they are better able to be controlled and monitored in terms of the velocities reached.
ya you have to be careful not to overstride… it’s alot easier not to overstride with the pulley because you can pull pretty light and shave off only a small amount of time (which is still significant)…
First off, moving from 1.07 to 1.04 wouldn’t take much and other forms of stimulation should yield the same result more safely. Towing INCREASES Ground Contact times- just what you want to shorten and the only way I can conceive of towing as being helpful is if it’s used to ease the accel effort to top speed allowing you to complete the top speed with less effort.
there is a lot of info on towing in the archives and you can read about it in CFTS and the first Forum review available from the site store.
Anyone else want to comment?
btw it was 1.07 to 1.00… after the overspeed, 1.04 was on the second run, 1.00 on the first… i would say 1.07 to 1.00 is a nice increase, especially considering that was a PR run.
so far most people on the forums i’m on dislike overspeed… so ya if you people have opinions drop them.
Agreed, margin of improvement this small is very likely to be realized on subsequent reps without any form of novel stimulation other than the specific warm up yielded from the first few sprints of the workout or minor technical adjustments.
My athletes have seen similar to larger improvements than this, using manual start laser finish, from one rep to the next simply by making technique adjustments, changing breathing patterns, etcetera.
Not knowing the training history of your athlete, you will find PR’s to come frequently with consistent training regarding athletes who are in the developmental stage.
I see the same improvements in my fastest athletes on the team, from rep to rep, in 10-30yd sprints simply from adjusting start technique, cuing arm drive, head position, relaxation, breathing, etcetera.
Example- going from low 1.6 to a PR low 1.5, one rep to the next, in a 10yd from 3pt (fully automatic timed on Speed Trap 2). Keep in mind the times don’t drop every workout, however.
These PRs do not necessitate the use of extraordinary means- simply the optimal exercise selection, planning, and programming.
Now, if you start seeing some type of extraordinary drop in times every time you use the overspeed set up, workout after workout, than I’d say you are definitely on to something.
I would wager against this occurring; however, unless the athletes are of very low preparation.
I’d suggest to gather 4-8 weeks of information before you draw any hard conclusions- as what happens in any single workout, especially if this was first exposure, is certainly nothing worth debating.
right i will be gathering data on the subject for weeks to come… i will post some summaries of it later on.
i’m not saying it’s magical or anything, i just showed data from one workout that’s it… i am simply curious as to what people think of that method of overspeed. seems like mot people are against overspeed in general.
thanks for the input.
btw, was coach francis speaking about downhill running and ground contact times, or was he stating the the pulley method im using would increase ground contact times? i know downhill running increases them but i would not predict this method would?
Tom Green, couldn’t find the abstract for the one you pasted…
1985
Effects of Supramaximal Velocity on Biomechanical Variables in Sprinting
Antti Mero; Paavo V. Komi
Full Article Table of Contents for Vol. 1, Iss. 3
Abstract
The effects of running at supramaximal velocity on biochemical variables were studied in 13 male and 9 female sprinters. Cinematographical analysis was employed to investigate the biomechanics of the running technique. In supramaximal running the velocity is increased by 8.5%, stride rate by 1.7%, and stride length by 6.8% over that of the normal maximal running. The elite male sprinters increased their stride rate significantly but did not increase their stride length. The major biomechanical differences between supramaximal and maximal running occurred during the contact phase. In supramaximal running the inclination of the ground shank at the beginning of eccentric phase was more “braking” and the angle of the ground knee was greater. During the ground contact phase, the maximal horizontal velocity of the swinging thigh was faster. The duration of the contact phase was shorter and the flight phase was longer in the supramaximal run as compared to the maximal run. It was concluded that in supramaximal effort it is possible to run at a higher stride rate than in maximal running. Data suggest that supramaximal sprinting can be beneficial in preparing for competition and as an additional stimulus for the neuromuscular system during training. This may result in adaptation of the neuromuscular system to a higher performance level.
Force-, EMG-, and elasticity-velocity relationships at submaximal, maximal and supramaximal running speeds in sprinters
Antti Mero1 Contact Information and Paavo V. Komi1(1) Department of Biology of Physical Activity, University of Jyv?~Dskyl?~D, SF-40100 Jyv?~Dskyl?~D, FinlandAccepted: 26 April 1986
Summary The relationships between ground reaction forces, electromyographic activity (EMG), elasticity and running velocity were investigated at five speeds from submaximal to supramaximal levels in 11 male and 8 female sprinters. Supramaximal running was performed by a towing system. Reaction forces were measured on a force platform. EMGs were recorded telemetrically with surface electrodes from the vastus lateralis and gastrocnemius muscles, and elasticity of the contact leg was evaluated with spring constant values measured by film analysis. Data showed increases in most of the parameters studied with increasing running speed. At supramaximal velocity (10.36±0.31 m?~Ws?~H~R1; 108.4±3.8%) the relative increase in running velocity elated significantly (P<0.01) with the relative increase in stride rate of all subjects. In male subjects he relative change in stride rate correlated with the relative change of IEMG in the eccentric phase (P<0.05) between maximal and supramaximal runs. Running with the towing system caused a decrease in elasticity during the impact phase but this was significant (P<0.05) only in the female sprinters. The average net resultant force in the eccentric and concentric phases correlated significantly (P<0.05?~H~R0.001) with running velocity and stride length in the maximal run. It is concluded that (1) increased neural activation in supramaximal effort positively affects stride rate and that (2) average net resultant force as a specific force indicator is primarily related to stride length and that (3) the values in this indicator may explain the difference in running velocity between men and women.
Interesting to note “inclination of the ground shank at the beginning of eccentric phase was more “braking” and the angle of the ground knee was greater. During the ground contact phase, the maximal horizontal velocity of the swinging thigh was faster. The duration of the contact phase was shorter and the flight phase was longer in the supramaximal run as compared to the maximal run.”
I think it is clear that the shortened GCT/longer flight phase comes as a result of the overspeed apparatus despite the biomechanical disadvantage of the braking motion of the support leg. Much the same as running down a steeper decline.
Thus while the ‘stimulus’ of the overspeed is clear from a neuromuscular standpoint I think it’s also clear that the cost outweighs any benefit due to the risk potential of the altered support leg mechanics at GCT- especially at supra-maximal speeds.
How long before sprinters start training in wind tunnels? Only partly kidding --it might actually help achieve overspeed without the problems with towing.
Interesting to note “inclination of the ground shank at the beginning of eccentric phase was more “braking” and the angle of the ground knee was greater. During the ground contact phase, the maximal horizontal velocity of the swinging thigh was faster. The duration of the contact phase was shorter and the flight phase was longer in the supramaximal run as compared to the maximal run.”
I think it is clear that the shortened GCT/longer flight phase comes as a result of the overspeed apparatus despite the biomechanical disadvantage of the braking motion of the support leg. Much the same as running down a steeper decline.
Thus while the ‘stimulus’ of the overspeed is clear from a neuromuscular standpoint I think it’s also clear that the cost outweighs any benefit due to the risk potential of the altered support leg mechanics at GCT- especially at supra-maximal speeds.
well, you’re using their criteria for overspeed, at 8.5% velocity increase, which is alot…
im slightly retarded at times, so if this is not what they meant by 8.5% velocity increase, then someone tell me, i’ll edit it out, and act like i never said it:
for a 4.8 40 that would be 0.408s
for a 10s 100m that would be 0.85s
to me that’s a hell of alot… what if with overspeed you play with 1-2% (EDIT: ~1-4%) increases, etc?
the breaking of the leg should be drastically minimized shouldn’t it? and you’re still achieving sensory overload.
How long before sprinters start training in wind tunnels? Only partly kidding --it might actually help achieve overspeed without the problems with towing.
lol, you better hurry up and design/patent that…
edit: you need to build an economical/portable one though that we could purchase at sports authority…
Well, Charlie has certainly well established the efficacy of stim and re-stim, regarding high threshold motor unit activation, via squat and bench during the week prior to contest in concrete form.
Beyond this I suspect the more favorable courses of experimentation may exist in the direction of shock training or barbell lifts, with respect to the hours/minutes prior, as neither one threatens the dynamics of the contest activity under the conditions of high forces.
