Track - high 70’s, no wind or slight tailwind for all runs
3x30 1lb weights @ 80, 85, 85%
4.69, 4.44, 4.49
2x3x30
4.19, 4.28, 4.03
4.25, 4.25, 4.09
5x1 - SLJ all around mid to high 9s into a pit
1x4 - Short runway jumps - estimated high 17’s low 18’s nothing to be proud of just wanted to start getting a feel for the long jump again
Notes - I will take the 4.03 as equal to my last weeks 4.03 so I will continue at the 30m if I equal it again I will go up to 40m if I lower it I will continue at this distance.
how the hell are your 30s so different?
Different levels of effort, am trying to run more relaxed, but still put on the burners time and again to see if I am making any progress.
Also self handtiming does not lead to great accuracy, your the one telling me to do it anyhow.
- Ankling 20m
- Bounding 40m
- RRLL Quick Leg 30m
- Single Leg Bound 1x15 each leg
1,2,3,4
2,2,1,3
4,1,1,4
3,2,3,4
2x40m not timed
Notes - you know just in the spirit of my recent posts.
Squat - 5x6 @ 210
Front Squat - 2x10 @ 135
Single Leg Calve Raise - 3x30
Lunge 2x10 @ 35lb dumbells
why so light on the squats?
I believe he posted earlier that alot of the stuff he is doing that looks light is a dynamic effort type lift. He goes light 1-2x/week and is going for the speed of the lift if I’m not mistaken?
Well the times I’m using low 100’s it is dynamic.
If your referring to the low 200’s as still being low, your right its still low, like 75 off my projected max, same with when I deadlift now tho I dont do it as often.
The reason for the lighter weight is a couple of things.
A. I dont have supports or any spotters so I have come to the conclusion it is not worth any risk to attempt heavy weights if I dont believe the exercise is going to benefit my sprinting anyhow.
B. I had been stuck at or below 350 for quite some time, so I just want to go back some weight and work back from the ground up to make sure I have better form.
C. If I use lighter weight and believe what I preach this will allow better work on the track and the strength aspect of the lifting should have little consequence anyhow.
D. The reason I keep it in at all is for basic general fitness so I dont start putting on fat and also I believe lifting still provides a reserve to allow for furthering work capacity on the track and an extra area to pull back from to allow better peaking.
I keep my bench high basically because I have always seen improvement when I am on a structured plan and also I just like having a big bench to say that I do and hopefully go over 2x my body weight soon as i was at 165 when I hit 310 last year, now I’m at around 157-158 and look to go for 315 - 320 soon. I know I keep saying it, but its coming. I have rearranged my training and probably still have another 2-3 months before I even attempt a max though.
Bench - 4x6, 1x5+1 @ 240
Incline Bench - 2x10 @ 145 pw/
Dumbell Row - 2x10 @ 70
Incline Fly - 3x10 @ 30 pw/
Reverse Fly - 3x10 @ 10
Notes - felt a little run down today, but had a shortened work day today and no work tomorrow for the 4th so hopefully get a nice run in and maybe some abs and arms. Hopefully drop that 30 time a little more, should be fresh and ready to go barring a rain storm.
Also on the personal side reading a trigger point book, a microbrewery book, and just starting my job search for next year, and the summer work is going well.
i understand, i’ve been thinking about doing the same thing, dropping the weight and working my way back up, lately.
Tell me how it goes if you do drop the weights back.
Bench - 4x5@250
Track
1lb weights
3x30 - 4.88, 4.67, 4.57
3x30 - 4.22, 4.19, 4.19
3x30 - 4.22, 4.06, 4.12
Close Grip Bench - 3x10@135
Concentration Cur - 3x10 @ 35
Notes - 70’s and raining, but it was still nice out probably didnt effect my times much at all so I will b moving up to 40s next, also to the beach for a week so it’ll b awhile til my next post. On the journal atleast.
Well… the more I read and think about it, the more confused I am about why certain training methods, planning, etc. works or doesn’t work. This is especially true of this hypertrophy/weights question, but here are my (random) thoughts on the topic:
-
hypertrophy (of the prime movers) is important since a muscles potential maximum force is proportional to its cross sectional area
-
sacromere hypertrophy is an increase in the number and size of sacromeres which make up the myofibrils… this seems like the desired hypertrophy because it enlarges the contractile component of the muscle fiber
-
sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is an increase in the volume of non-contractile protein and fluid that surrounds the myofibrils and doesn’t correspond with an increase in “muscle strength” (maximum force??)
-
I ran in my first track meet this year and it really stood out to me how nearly every (good) sprinter there had very well developed glutes and hamstrings. Some were just straight up jacked… very muscular all over, but even the ones who were skinnier definitely had glutes and hamstrings that were big for their size (very little, if any gluteal fold).
-
“If it looks right, it flies right” (CF)
-
Over the course of my training history I started off skinny, slow and weak, then I gained about 25lbs of muscle so I was somewhat muscular, slow and weak. Then I discovered WSB and started lifting for strength so I got a lot stronger (still wouldnt say I was strong though :D) so then I was somewhat muscular, somewhat strong and slow. Recently I have gotten more into track and realized that speed can actually be improved so I’ve trained for speed and vertical jump improvements over the last 1-2yrs and my strength levels aren’t that much different and I weigh the same as I did 4yrs ago but my VJ and sprint times both improved a lot (still not fast or explosive though :eek: ). So what I am trying to say with all of that is that the muscle size alone didn’t do much for me… the strength alone didn’t do much for me… but when I put it all together with the speed/power training, I saw improvements. I don’t know if it was the speed/power “teaching” the hypertrophy to display the force or if it was a combo of developing hypertrophy then getting stronger and then turning that into performance gains, or if its something completely different!
-
strength training takes away more “CNS reserves” from sprinting (or whatever) training than hypertrophy training
-
strength training increases MU recruitment, rate coding, disinhibition of GTO and other inhibitory reflexes, agonist/antagonist interaction, etc. however I don’t know if those improvements are limited to weight training or if there is carryover to sporting actions
-
strength training can be stimulatory for sprints/throws/plyos/etc.
-
hypertrophy training, especially during SPP, can lead to more “muscle pump” and tightness that would interfere with top speed sprinting or other movements which may require optimum mobility in the muscles
-
“fiber conversion” implications?? I’m inclined to say it doesn’t matter because I have read that both methods cause conversion from IIX to IIA which is followed by a IIX overshoot if complete rest (or maybe a taper period??) follows the training. However, I have also read that it was found that heavy weights (and maybe OLYs) cause an increase in IIX% compared to IIA and that bodybuilders have a much lower % of IIX fibers than weightlifters (this gets into a genes vs. training issue). I don’t have this stuff in front of me right now so don’t quote me on this stuff…
-
weights are a general means and even the force exerted during max strength weights don’t even approach those found during sprints and jumps so why would the CNS benefits of weights have anywhere near the effect of the very high tension contractions experienced in sprinting? time component?
Ok this is becoming brutally long and I could probably go on all night if I sat here and continued to think about it. Let me know what you think… I would love to hear what anyone else has to say as well.
Sounds interesting thanks for respondings, I’ll get back to you in like a week, like I said i’m doing 7xsit in the sun all day this week, so when I get back from vacation I’ll give you my thoughts.
Feel free to write as much as you want, this is the kinda stuff I like to see, thoughtful open-minded discussion.
Here is some info to confuse you more. Frans Bosch says that I fibers are more important for speed than type II fiber because they better support the isometric component in the sprint (support phase). The better the isometric contraction, the better the tendonous structures are loaded so you get more force with less cost…
So he’s basically saying unless your tendons are amazing, you will suck forever.
Pope,
Sounds good, I’m interested to hear your thoughts
Mortac,
Like I said… everything is confusing/contradictory. Anyway, that is an interesting take on the fiber issue but if it were the case then why are sprinters found to have such high % of II fibers? I think tendons are hugely important for sprinting and may be a big piece of the puzzle (whether trainable or not). Also, I tried to send you a PM last night but your inbox was full.
Mortac,
Anyway, that is an interesting take on the fiber issue but if it were the case then why are sprinters found to have such high % of II fibers?
Do they?
My inbox is cleared.
Department of Biology of Physical Activity, University of Jyväskylä, 40100 Jyväskylä, Finland
Accepted: 25 April 1989
Summary Seven male elite strength-trained athletes (SA) from different weight categories, six elite sprinters (SPA) and seven elite endurance-trained athletes (EA) volunteered as subjects for examination of their muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), maximal voluntary isometric force, force-time and relaxation-time characteristics of the leg extensor muscles. The SA group demonstrated slightly greater CSA and maximal absolute strength than the SPA group, while the EA group demonstrated the smallest values both in CSA and especially in maximal strength (p<0.05). When the maximal forces were related to CSA of the muscles, the mean value for the SA group of 60.8±10.0 N·cm−2 remained slightly greater than that recorded in the SPA group 55.0±3.1 N·cm−2 and significantly greater (p<0.05) than that recorded in the EA group 49.3±4.0 N·cm−2. The mean value in the SPA was also significantly greater (p<0.05) than that of the EA group. The isometric force-time curves differed between the groups (p<0.05−0.01) so that the times taken to produce the same absolute force were the shortest in the SPA group and the longest in the EA group. With force expressed as a percentage of the maximum, the force-time curves showed that the SPA group demonstrated still shorter times to a given value (p<0.05), especially at the lower force levels, than the other two groups. With regard to the differences in force production per CSA and in the shape of the force-time curves, the present findings may be explained by possible differences both in the rate and the amount of neural activation of the muscles and/or in the qualitative characteristics of the muscle tissue itself. The present findings characterize the very specific nature of high resistance strength-, sprint- and endurance-training stimuli over a very prolonged period of time.
I thought the underlined part of this summary was pretty interesting and related to the question of “teaching” hypertrophy to develop force.
From Supertraining:
“Fibre types differ considerably between individuals, especially, between endurance and strength athletes. For instance, vastus medialis biopsies reveal that the proportion of FT fibres in field athletes and weightlifters can be over three times (i.e. over 60% FT fibres) greater than that of marathon runners (approximately 17% FT fibers) and 50% greater than that of bodybuilders, cyclists and race walkers (all about 40% FT fibres).”
I am assuming that sprinters would be include in the field athlete and weightlifter group.
Agree. So why would type I fibers be more conducive to a “better isometric contraction”? Wouldn’t the amount of potential energy absorbed by the tendonous structures be more dependant upon the RFD or time to isometric contraction?