Well said Star!
I really want to be done here. Like I said before, I think my case speaks for itself thus far.
I provided studies for the article and now we’re all getting off track. If you want to continue though, I will.
Any studies using unilateral training that might be affected by balance would be done on untrained subjects, and are therefore of little help. Most people are about as coordinated as palsy victims so asking them to do anything short of walk and chew gum at the same time is bound to result in a disaster. As such, we’ll need to rely on real world observations to get to the bottom of this.
If you have access to a hyperextension bench or a 45 degree hyper I want you to work up to a max set of 6-8 reps with one leg. I then want you to work up to a max of 6-8 reps with both legs working simultaneously. Look at the weights used, and don’t forget to factor in roughly 40% of your bodyweight to cover the fact your hip extensors are lifting your upper body as well as the barbell.
If you do this I will guarantee you that the weight used for your unilateral max (including 40% of your BW) will be far in excess of half the weight used in your bilateral test. Not only that, but the unilateral training will leave your hips and hamstrings far more sore the next day. The same would go for any other remotely skilled athlete.
And for lifts like split squats, lunges, and bulgarian squats I’d ask you do them yourself and compare them to squats. There is a much higher strain on all of the hip extensors and rotators as well as the adductors than you would ever encounter in a squat. These are the muscles that matter in a sprint, not the quads (aside from the rectus femori anyways). Not only that, but you’d be utilizing and reinforcing things like the stumble reflex which plays a large part in not just sprinting, but locomotion in general.
And finally, regarding CNS drain, yes, less is always better when talking about general strength work. Why use up CNS resources in the weight room when you could be spending them out on the track or with much more specific means.
That’s it.
I’m not against single leg movements, but it is obviously a false statement to say that single leg movements are better at producing either strength or hypertrophy. If they were, they would form the base of training for weightlifters, powerlifters and bodybuilders (regardless of their diet). They don’t, they are auxilliary or supplementary if they are done at all.
Weightlifters and powerlifters need large amounts of spinal erector hypertrophy and strength. That’s why they don’t primarily utilize unilateral movements.
It doesn’t need to be argued…it is obviously false on its face. If it were true, powerlifters and Oly lifters (who generate the highest intramuscular tensions in the gym) would have much larger muscles than bodybuilders, who don’t lift at the intensities that the weightlifters do. Look at a 205lb. weightlifter or Oly lifter compared to a 205lb. bodybuilder…nowhere near the hypertrophy. Your assumptions are way off base as to what generates not only hypertrophy, but limit strength as well.
Of course it’s a function of volume and nutrition as well. That should go without saying. Provided an equal volume of work and adequate nutrition, higher intramuscular forces would lead to more hypertrophy, simple as that.
Do you know many athletes that can single leg squat with 300-400lbs on their back, even with balance assist? I know a great many that can do it on two legs.
This is dumb and you should know it. When back squatting or doing a pistol you’re lifting roughly 85% of your bodyweight in addition to the bar. So when you lift 400 lbs in the squat and you weigh 200 lbs you’re actually lifting 570 lbs. That equals out to 285 lbs per leg.
To get that same level of load with a pistol, you’d need to use 115 lbs (115 + 170 = 285) of load per leg. Either way, whether 400 lbs bilaterally or 115 lbs unilaterally, your legs are under the same amount of stress, but one results in more spinal erector stress and CNS drain.
Simple comparison…Arnold vs Chuck Vogelpohl. Arnold has twice the mass in the legs, but nowhere near the strength Chuck does. I could give you hundreds of such comparisons, weight class to weight class. You are greatly underestimating the role of neural adaptions relating to strength, and overestimating the contributions of hypertrophy, not to mention the lack of consideration to the weight penalty that hypertrophy brings with it.
Again, this is dumb too. Not only are their bodily dimension different in every way, but so is their training. Hell, you even make my case for me in your post. The reason we have weight classes in the first place is because bigger lifters with more muscle are stronger. More muscle means greater strength potential. And before you try pulling something else like saying that relative strength decreases with an increase in class weight, of course it does. Not only does the length of bar path increase greatly with weight class (height), but so do the lever lengths of the lifters. And in sprinting, with Usain, Asafa, and Gatlin (sort of) running wild, no one is going to make the case that the best sprinters would be 4’10", 132 lb men, even though their strength to weight ratios are the highest when viewed in terms of weight lifting.
Regarding sprinters, weight training makes up a very, very small amount of their total volume. And studies have shown that traditional BB type training leads to the greatest increase in speed amongst trained sprinters. Just ask lkh.
The difference is in neural adaptations. Sprint work and plyos act as the high intensity stimulus for the nervous system while weights act as a stimulus for the muscular system. Sprinters don’t need to squat heavy to get the neural adaptations like powerlifters. Their other training (which is like 90% of their workload) provides that.
And I know I shouldn’t make it personal, but with the quality of the arguments you’ve brought up I’m surprised that you can function in day to day life without some sort of assistance. It was like you were trying to make poor arguments, and let me tell you, if you were, you succeeded spectacularly.
With that, I’m out of here for now.
EDIT: If you can’t tell, I’m mere seconds away from banging my head against the wall in frustration. Not that it excuses my actions, but it does help explain them.
I haven’t seen the studies you are referring to, but, correct me if I am wrong, in any particular phase, you would probably expect a group of sprinters doing bodybuilding training to increase their speed more so than a group doing more intense weight work, just because it is lower intensity, wouldn’t you? Bodybuilding training is generally fairly low in intensity, so less CNS resources used compared to heavier training. The bodybuilding group would have more CNS energy to go towards improving sprint speed, whereas the group training heavier would have to share their CNS energy between speed and max strength, so the bodybuilding group would likely improve more. But that is not to say that the bodybuilding training was the cause of the improved sprint speed, nor is it to say that the potentially greater strength gains attained in the heavier lifting group (not necessarily I guess, but majority of time a concentrated strength phase would lead to more strength than a lower intensity BB type routine) wouldn’t help them on the track more so once the intensity on weights was lowered later in the year… isn’t that one of the reasons to have a max strength phase? so that the new strength can help later in the year? not trying to have a big argument, just throwin my ideas out there…
Yes, one reason BB training might be more effective is because of the neural fatigue MaxS methods cause. Beyond that though, other studies show that sprinters exhibit high levels of muscle mass in the proximal section of their thighs, and even further studies have found correlations between sprinters’ hip strength (flexion and extension) and muscular CSA. Basically, in trained sprinters, a bigger muscle equals a stronger muscle, which strongly correlated with sprinting speed.
As for the rest of your post, I’d have to ask how does MaxS (especially that which is accompanied by little or no hypertrophy) gained from a focused block actually carry over to the sprints?
I’m fairly certain I’ve gone over it in this thread already, but muscle strength is limited by only a few key factors:
- Muscle volume
- Muscle quality (fast vs. slow twitch)
- Neural Drive
- Intramuscular Coordination (rate coding, synchronicity of firing, etc.)
- Intermuscular Coordination
Of all of those qualities, the only thing lifting improves that sprints and plyos don’t (as much) is muscle volume. Beyond that, sprints and plyos alone will increase muscle quality, neural drive, intramuscular coordination, and intermuscular coordination (which is task-specific). So, based upon that, the actual purpose of strength work is to provide more muscle tissue that can be trained through more specific work.
Max strength phases are not actually for MaxS, but are periods in which track volume and performance can be reduced in order to gain a little more mass in the right places. This is made even more apparent by the fact that most of today’s top sprinters never actually lift heavy, yet display the correct characteristics required for sprinting.
It sounds simple, but all weight work is there for is essentially to build more muscle in the right places. It can be made more specific by taking notice of applicable ROMs, speed of movement, and even the nature of the loading, but in the end, all it needs to do is increase muscle mass throughout the important muscle groups.
rj, I don’t want to get your panties twisted any more than they are, but your theories are so full of holes they are almost invisible. You seem to have all the answers already, though. Please don’t limit your posting of these theories to just the sprinting forums. Besides revolutionizing sprint training, you can post on all the bodybuilding, powerlifting, and Olympic lifting forums to let them know they’ve had it all wrong these past 50 years or so.
Star, nothing I’ve posted has any relation to powerlifting, olympic lifting, or bodybuilding (well, maybe).
I’ve addressed every one of your points and I’ve done it well. If everything I’ve said is so full of holes then why don’t you point them out and I’ll address each and every one of them individually.
And this time, don’t try to compare someone like Arnold (who was tall, had a tiny waist, had no high intensity training to condition his CNS, and wasn’t interested in his max strength) to someone like Chuck Vogelpohl (who is short as hell, build like a brick, and practices lifting maximal loads on a regular basis). I mean, well duh one is stronger than the other. Who’d have thought, huh?
If you’re going to use examples, at least try to think them through. The other ones you used aren’t any better.
rj, you, not I, are the one postulating theories with actual data to back them up. Ideas that are not only contrary to the opinions of learned and experienced professionals, but to practical observation as well. You’ve stated that single leg lifts are better for developing both max strength and hypertrophy. Forget theoretical assumptions based on your limited understanding for just a moment, and use common sense. If your theories had any validity at all, professional and Olympic caliber athletes would already be training the way you suggest…but the vast, vast majority do not. Not be so full of yourself that you think you can read a few articles and now have a better understanding than people much smarter, much more experienced, and much better educated than yourself. Its fine to post opinions and ask questions, but to assume that you’re right when the world tells you you’re wrong is very Quixotic.
Going contrary to general opinion is never a problem- that’s how progress is made- but going counter to general observations is.
I’ve been fooling around with Google Earth with my 4 year old son (it’s great - we did fly overs of Afghanistan!). We are quite certain the world is not flat now! 
Star, I don’t know what else you want from me. I’ve dealt with every single point you’ve brought up, and yet still, you’re not satisfied. And how do you know my level of intelligence or education? Not that education is even something to base an opinion on, especially when facts rather than opinion are presented. So here, I’m going to lay this whole thing out in facts.
And thus begins my case for explaining why unilateral lifts are better for sprint athletes (See what I did there? Now you can’t go dragging this off into a discussion about powerlifters again.). 
To start, strength gained during bilateral training (with squats or DLs) offers more specific improvements in bilateral activities such as the snatch or clean. Strength gained from unilateral activities (like lunges of split cleans) enhances performance more effectively in unilateral activities like running, jumping (off one-leg), or martial arts (Siff, 2004). This alone is a primary reason for a sprinter (whose sport is entirely unilateral) to favor unilateral lifts.
Further along that arc, other studies show that unilateral and horizontal exercises transfer over to sprint performance more easily than bilateral exercises (Young, 2006). And unilateral strength training also results in greater increases in performance in unilateral athletic movements and increases in relative power when compared to bilateral strength training (McCurdy et al, 2005). Furthermore, strength gained on a bilateral training regime does lead to greater increases in bilateral force generation, but increases on a per leg basis are considerably higher after training with unilateral exercises (Hakkinen et al, 1996).
There is also reflex strengthening to take into account with single leg work. Movements such as split squats and bulgarian squats involve the stumble reflex, in which the extension of one thigh potentiates the flexion of the other, and vice versa (Bosch & Klomp, 2001). Sprinting relies heavily on this reflex and strength training and plyo training done in a split position can capitalize on it as well.
And in addition to reflex-specificity in training, central drive issues also arise in bilateral training. It has been shown time and time again that force produced by bilateral contractions is less than the sum of the forces produced by both the left and the right leg individually (Vandervoort et al, 1984). Yet another blow to bilateral training as it applies to unilateral athletes.
Regarding my distaste for traditional max strength work, which I’m going to define here as work above 90% of 1RM, data shows that after a brief period of neural adaptations at the onset of training, further strength increases are accompanied by increases in muscle cross sectional area (Sale, 1988). This means that beyond an initial point (which trained sprinters have long since passed), hypertrophic gains are required to see increases in strength. Bringing it around to sprinters more specifically, not only is sprinting performance strongly correlated with the strength in the hip extensors and flexors, but the strength of the muscles is correlated with their CSA, and this is in trained sprinters. Along this same line, faster sprinters demonstrate greater muscle thickness in the upper region of their thighs (Kumagai et al, 2000) and it has been shown that general hypertrophy training (with loads of 80%) leads to such accumulations of mass (Narici et al, 1996).
Stepping outside of the realm of sprinting for the moment, even Olympic medalist weight lifters of the 1980s employed submaximal sets of 3 on squats most commonly and on accessory work mostly stuck to sets of 5-8. Similarly, only 7% of their training load of competition lifts was above 90% 1RM (Zatsiorsky, 1995). So even athletes whose sports are entirely dependent on lifting heavy weights spend the vast, vast majority of their time and effort outside of the 90%+ range. For sprinters, who already face large quantities of intense training in the form of sprints and plyos, the time spent in the weight room on true MaxS training (90%+ 1RM) should be limited.
Not only does MaxS training cause minimal hypertrophy, but its gains in strength have their own neuromuscular specificity (Siff, 2004). And when volume of MaxS (or any other high intensity strength training means) is too high, burnout is not only a possibility, but an inevitability (Zatsiorsky, 1995). All of these are further reasons why true MaxS work is not needed and may actually be counterproductive to sprinters (especially when the total high intensity volume of their training is taken into consideration). In addition, increased performance is primarily a result of neuromuscular skill, and increased strength is only useful when it is demonstrated during the same type of movement as the sporting movement (Sale & MacDougall, 1981). This means that any neuromuscular gains in MaxS gained via MaxS specific training will only transfer over into similar movements. And on that note…
As I’ve pointed out before, the factors comprising the generation of MaxS are primarily the muscular CSA, the quality of contractile proteins, intramuscular coordination (the synchronization of fiber firing), the strength of the neural impulse (central), and intermuscular coordination (how the muscle interact with one another) (Siff, 2004). Again, MaxS-specific training will develop all of these things, but so will sprint and plyo training. And the differences come in in that intermuscular coordination is task-specific, strength of the central drive is best trained by reflex driven activities (ie. sprinting and plyos), sprints and plyos will result in high quality of contractile proteins, and muscle CSA is best increased (especially in the right areas) by training with roughly 80% 1RM.
That’s about all I’ve got. I’ve laid out my claims, backed them all up with research, and have stopped the petty name calling (which I probably started, but oh well). As for the things which weren’t dealt with, such as the reduced spinal loading, well that’s just a matter of looking at the situation for yourself. I can’t forcefeed you insights, but hopefully I can do so with facts.
References:
Bosch F, Klomp R (2001) Running: Biomechanics and Exercise Physiology Applied in Practice. Reed Business Information
Hakkinen K, Kallinen M, Linnamo V, Pastinen UM, Newton RU, Kraemer WJ (1996) Neuromuscular adaptations during bilateral versus unilateral strength training in middle-aged and elderly men and women. Acta physiologica Scandinavica 158(1): p. 77-88
Kumagai K, Abe T, Brechue WF, Ryushi T, Takano S, Mizuno M (2000) Sprint performance is related to muscle fascicle length in male 100-m sprinters. Journal of applied physiology 88(3): p. 811-816
McCurdy KW, Langford GA, Doscher MW, Wiley LP, Mallard KG (2005) The effects of short-term unilateral and bilateral lower-body resistance training on measures of strength and power. Journal of strength and conditioning research 19(1): p. 9-15
Narici MV, Hoppeler H, Kayser B, Landoni L, Claassen H, Gavardi C, Conti M, Cerretelli P (1996) Human quadriceps cross-sectional area, torque and neural activation during 6 months strength training. Acta physiologica Scandinavica 157(2): p. 175-186
Sale DG (1988) Neural adaptations to resistance training. Medicine & science in sports & exercise Supplement 20: p. 135-145
Sale DG, MacDougall JD (1981) Neuromuscular adaptation in human thenar muscles following strength training and immobilization. Sports Coaching associates of Canada: p. 1-7
Siff MC (2003) Supertraining 4th Ed. Supertraining International, Denver
Vandervoort A, Sale D, Moroz J (1984) Comparison of motor unit activation during unilateral and bilateral leg extension. Journal of applied physiology: respiratory, environmental, and exercise physiology 56: p. 46-51
Young WB (2006) Transfer of strength and training to sports performance. Internation journal of sports physiology and performance 1(2): p. 74-83
Zatsiorsky VM (1995) Science and practice of strength training. Human Kinetics, Champaign, Illinois
How can you be sure without parallax?
I can see what you’re saying in this but:
-
Weightlifters wouldn’t perform unilateral lifts simply because it doesn’t relate to the type of strength their body needs in comparison to bilateral
-
unilateral lifts will provide the same simulus per leg for an athlete who cannot perform MaxS worth due to injuries or physical attributes other than core strength that limit ones ability to perform MaxS in a bilateral movement (e.g. someone with smaller waist, smaller wrists and overall smaller inserts along with longer levers will find it harder to gain the same type of strength exhibited by a shorter, bigger boned individual but can still equal or better them when it comes to a lighter load moving at speed)
-
Bilateral Squats ARE good for increasing one’s strength in order to boost submaximal strength which will be used for power work, PLUS it can be great for raising endogenous testosterone as maximal muscular contractions induce more testosterone in the body BUT it’s limits are not only the load of the back and core (which do not necessarily have to be worked as strenuously in an excercise that aims to provide an athlete with relative/ mass specific strength per leg which is essentially what they want for reduced GCT) BUT ALSO that heavy back squats in particular do not allow the body to fully extend through the hips, which is a quintessential aspect of any power development as the hips play probably the biggest role in power generation during sprinting (I know the glutes, quads and hams do play a role but not to the same extent IMO)
-
Unilateral movements, if increased in gradual increments, can provide an athlete with equal relative strength/ power, and although will not stress the body as much and not force it to utilize as much core stability as a heavy bilateral exercise (arguable seeing as different elements of core stability are used in exercise requiring balance), they can probably reduce muscular/ strength imbalances as well as provide a more functional and easier to monitor power output per leg. I can definitely do with increasing my strength but at the moment I’m lifting 198lbs on box step ups for 6 reps per leg, which, taking the load of my BW which is 177lbs, gives me a total of 349lbs per leg. Now although it isn’t that good at all as far as relative strength is concerned, I’m new to the exercise and because I’m raising the opposite knee in concordance with stepping onto the box, I don’t want to inhibit the speed of the movement with a heavier weight for now (note; I aim to increase the weight lifted by 2.5 kgs per week, so that weight increase is not noticed and speed of movement is not compromised)
So my overall conclusion is that despite the benefits of bilateral movements, I think they’re primary role is general base strength at the start of a season. Otherwise they do have the propensity to interfere with other CNS demanding exercise such as block starts, plyos, cleans/ snatches (the only exercises I believe should be staple throughout a season due to the explosive nature and the principle of recruiting more muscles in a single movement). Okay, it is arguable that even cleans and snatches are not that necessary but I think for taller people in particular (I wouldn’t say I’m tall but have long legs at 6"1), where explosiveness and particularly getting the brain to co-ordinate the whole body to produce force in one moment is a key issue, then oly lifts IMO are a great way, and not as taxing to the body as block starts, to improve intial power generation off the blocks (it requires a greater amount of total torque for a taller person to produce the same type of power as a shorter person and also I’m sure I’ve read something about the neuromuscular signals taking slightly longer than that in a shorter individual - will look up again and post references).
Everything else, from the type of plyos that will transfer better into sprinting or jumping (single leg) and the type of strength needed in each stride based on the load of the leg (again, singular) it makes sense that any muscular strength and additional mass gained be specific to the strength needed in sprinting (which is unilateral by nature :D).
** Just as a side note, I find it interesting to hear people’s opinions on upper body exercises. I mean, I knocw the pectoralis minor and major are utilised to a certain extent in sprinting but I see it as less so than say the trapeziums, front and rear deltoids and upper sections of the lattisimus dorsi, which I believe produces most of the power from the upper body (correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the backward driving off the arm automatically propels the opposite arm forward and is more essential in the drive phase, no?). Certainly by looking at top sprinters, you’ll notice that they almost always (bar Chambers who has quite slumpy and narrow shoulders compared to overall mass) have broad and rounded shoulders as well as fairly developed traps, and chest size, outside of your Ben Johnson’s, Dwain Chambers, Maurice Greene’s etc doesn’t seem to be that big, especially in the two fastest sprinters of this generation, Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell who appear to have almost non-existent chests!
Back on topic…anterior chain development, In agreement with the OP, is definitely an understated aspect as far as the mass and strength need in flexion is concerned. Just like weightlifters or powerlifters, who although have good PWR, also have hypertrophy in the areas needed to be strongest in their events (weightlifters have quite pronounced triceps, shoulders, upper and lower quads, traps whiles having almost non-existent chests and quite narrow lats).
This thread has been very thought provoking to say the least!
To be honest, I’m not quite sure about anything after meeting your friend Tony! Every time I get crappy weather in Vancouver, I think of Tony flipping a switch somewhere and laughing.
Ok! Now it’s time to keep your eye on the ball here.
Some pretty strong assertions have been made in this thread, including that single leg work is superior to bilateral and that bilateral work should PRECEED and not follow single leg work, and so on. I think my views on this are pretty clear and I doubt I can make much further headway. Please have a go!
Charlie, I’d just like to point out that the majority of the work I’m referring to and the majority of the work I recommend is in the form of lunges, split squats, and bulgarian split squats. You yourself have said that you don’t actually classify these movements as unilateral.
EDIT: Besides mentioning that, I don’t see how I could make my case any more clear.
So specify them as bilateral- it’s important that people follow the argument. You see how this is confusing where the argument is to go bilateral to unilateral.
That’s the thing though, I still consider those movements as unilateral (or at least have been referring to them as such). The way in which the body works in each type of movement (lunges, BSS, etc.) is fundamentally different than in traditional “bilateral” lifts.
Going further, movements like pistols are of much less use, whereas movements like single-leg hyperextensions or RDLs are much better. The less of an issue one can make balance, the better.
rj, I am a scientist by training and education (24 years working at the Ph.D. level). Scientific theory is nothing without empirical data that can be observed. So lets just keep this very simple. I’ll also keep it close to home. My 200lb., 23y.o. nephew can squat 620lbs. raw to an inch or two below parallel. I see him do it with some regularity. Let’s say that the torso represents 60% of bodyweight, and each leg 20%. His squat then would be 620 + (.6 * 200) = 740lbs, or 370lbs. per leg. The single leg equivalent would be (.8 * 200) = 160, leaving 210lbs. for the bar. I know other 200lb athletes that can squat over 600lbs raw. Do you know many (or any) 200lb athletes that can single leg squat to 2 inches below parallel with 210lbs. on their back? If so, please post a video.
I’m sorry for the earlier hotheadedness, but now we’re getting somewhere. While I am not currently a PhD (I’m still a university student), I am very committed to factual evidence and have put in more research time than you’d ever believe. At your request, I provided factual support this morning.
And no, I do not personally know any athletes that can squat 210 lbs on one leg, but I’ve been able to hit 5 reps with 90 lbs in a free standing single leg squat to rock bottom with no prior practice or instruction. My best all time back squat was 335 x 5. It’s not unbelievable that were I to get my squat to 600 lbs I would be able to do 210 lbs for one. In fact, I would guarantee that I could do in excess of it.
The only reason we don’t see things like this happening is because it’s hard to load up 210 lbs for a single leg squat. Getting 600 lbs on your back is easy. Load up a barbell in a squat rack and get underneath it. But given the balance of a single-leg free squat and the awkwardness of loading, getting 210 lbs into position is very difficult. This is why I prefer to stick with movements like lunges, bulgarian split squats, and step ups. The loading is simple and the balance is more solid.
Here’s me screwing around with 70 lbs for REA SL squats. It was the first and only session in which I did this movement, so there was plenty of room for weight improvement from form alone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K3aJy-5ppM
Still using me as an example, I have been doing isometric single leg deadlifts (where only one foot is on the ground) and I used 170 lbs last session while holding the bar at mid shin (plates a couple inches off the ground). I’ve never pulled more than 405 in my life, but my legs are significantly stronger now than when I did.
I truly believe that single leg loading is more beneficial for unilateral athletes, but it hasn’t been widely utilized because it requires a little bit of skill and some movements are awkward to load.
Again, I’m sorry for the way in which I reacted earlier. It was childish.