your right not all great sprinters use the machine but that doesnt mean they couldnt benefit from it. its a tool plain and simple and i too believe that it is probably the single best apratus to train the hamstrings and glutes but that does not mean that effective training can not occur without it.
Very interesting. From what I understand it it kind of improving the weakest link of the various expressions of strength(absolute strength, reactive strength, etc) until the point where the amount of stimuli it would take to see an increase in that particular area would be too great of a competition for resources. Now, once one has brought up the various weaknesses one start this over again in that the coach/athlete would look and see which weaknesses need to be brought up for an increase in performance, is that a correct assessment? And once a further increase is sought would the 20-80% rule still strictly apply or would this be adjusted according to the athlete’s degree of ability to express the various forms of strenght?
Marginal benefits… been around since Adam Smith…
This is just new phrasing on what we already know for the most part. I don’t see how it relates to the form of training you are advocating, James, but maybe you can explain further as it seems I am missing something. In most training systems this is what is done to some extent–some more so than others–and periodization allows for performing your best when you need to perform. I have yet to hear of a successful model except maybe in weightlifting (notice, they still have prep periods and some long tapers) that operates strictly on the basis of boosting up individual qualities at a time (ie low max V, work on max V whenever, even in september or accel in june or max strength during comp phase, vertical in may, etc.).
I was just thinking the same thing (I don’t know any top jumpers either that really emphasise the GHR)! Perhaps it’s good when there’s a specific problem area to alter, although, when the overall training regimen is in balance (likewise the athlete), it seems to be way down in the hierarchy.
It’s not that GHRs are useless or that people don’t know about the exercise. Maybe there has been a careful assessment of what exercises to include and what’s left out? We can also rephrase your statement to: There seems to be, perhaps, better and more effective means to achieve good sprinting and jumping standards. This is, however, not a refutation to the notion of GHRs being a good exercise, its more about its importance in a training regimen.
Plyometrics is an interesting phenomenon too; people tend look at them as some kind of “Holy Grail” without looking at the whole picture. If we consider sprinting (and jumping) to be plyometric activities, we must also realize that plyometrics are already involved in the training program every time we train (sprinting, jumping, tempo) in various volumes and intensities (and in the most specific form there is). Hence the question is how much more should one focus on even more intense plyometrics. The answer appears to suggest: very little! Moreover, it appears intense plyometrics (drop jumps etc) in successful programs are indeed performed on specific occasions rather than continually. Go figure!
Very true.
And since the GHR has become more common there has been no one claiming it’s magnificance.
you are not understanding what i am talking about or the theroy of constraits. i can tell because of your example with perodization that is completly counter to what i am speaking about. basically you have a goal but that goal most first be correctly defined. the right quetion must first be asked and in many ways this is the most difficult part. this type oftraining can not been done in perodization perodization is slow to adapt and counter the athletest needs it is vry rigid system what i am talking about is a fluid method for problem solving read over what i posted again cause you didnt get it the first time.
i think this a problem with a lot of people on this forum. you judge the validdity of something wholey by the achievemnts or failures of it with others. so you have a machine that has been getting this type of results with no bodies but no elite atheltes you know of are using it so the fuck what do you want to be them or better than them. Listen you do the saem thing you get the same results you cant become a better couch or a better athlete if your just following in someones shadow. yes it is important to llok at what they did but dont exculde other training means. look at the physiologcial benefit , look at the bimechancial benefit and make and educated decision for yourself. we need to start thinking for oursevles guys not just regergatating someone elses stuff. what if charlie never considered using EMS because no one else did it they didnt use it with carl lewis so why ben. strenght trianing use to be ocnsidered a hinderance to athletic development. what if that first guy didnt say no im gunna think utside the box and i know that lifting weights has this and that effect so i will apply it to my atheltes. you gotta think .
The GHR is a very interesting exercise and to be honest I started this thread to try and tease out the biomechanical contribution of the GHR to sprinting becuase my problme with it is that every new wet sprint coach is advocating GHRs when half the school kids can’t even deadlift their lunch boxes, just becuase Dave Tate says its great for Hams.
To be fair James you’re only the second person to actaully suggest a real reason apart from the obvious and usual knee flexion stuff.
I’m actually wondering does it have a greater contribution to team sports strength/recruitment where decceleration is more importnat than in linear speed which is why I think it may not be as popular in sprinting.
the ghr was performed for many decades b4 dave tate and his crew. it was used in the eastern block countries then they use a pummel horse and wall bars for foot placement. like i said before its simply a tool, a very valuable and useful tool but just a tool and not having one tool is not going to make or break an athlete it can help a person but it wont greatly hinder them. just like i believe the ARP is an amazing tool, that doesnt mean you cant train without one just means if i had the chance i would get one.
as for deacceleration the same training goals apply simply the ability to absorb force. the more effeciently a person can do this the shorter the amount of time it takes on to stop and change direction. also i dont kno where i read it but recently i did read somtehing on the deaccelration charcteristics as the varied among gender. women tend to deaccelerate with the knee extensors where men the hip extensors, men being more profecient and with a lower incednce of knee related injuries (both genders knee related injuries are too high if you ask me) an important aspect to consider wehn traiing for field sports.
the 20 -80 % rule is a genreal guide line in actuality the relatvice percentages will vary and are probbaly impossible to predict or measure in realtion to one another in a human individual. the basic idea is that initial growth for a trait will occur with a relativly small portion of the available resources and additonal improvement in that same trait beyond the initial stage will require a greater and greater resource expenditure. for example it may only take 10 resource units to move to increase trait A 70 % but it will cost 70 to increase it another 20 %. ofcourse all of this is relative. the traits can be general or more specific and adaptation can take place individually as the differentiating factor is motor control patterns. absolue strenght accelration strength reactive strength are quite general terms which are used to describe the different patterns of motor unit recruitment, rate coding, syncronocity, and reflexive actions.