Guest guest Posted December 31, 2000 Report Share Posted December 31, 2000 Burkhardt: > Maybe this is good evidence that all those " speed gurus " who spend countless > hours doing over-speed and various other drills would be better off spending > more time doing to more explosive lifting and plyometric drills. In other > words, exercises that improve RFD and elevate far right-hand side of the > force-velocity curve. If your running drills are not used to develop greater ground forces the definition of " speed guru " should not apply. We still cannot overlook the fact that you can increase Stride Frequency to optimal rates (optimal rate will depend on individuals parents of course - have to choose wisely). <<This article showing that human runners reach faster top speeds, not by repositioning their limbs more rapidly in the air, but by applying greater support forces to the ground When it comes to rate of force development none of the above exercises alone will get you any closer to a higher rate of force development (during maximal velocity spriniting) than good old fashioned sprint training will. They are still too heavy to let the nervous system unload completely to allow unbridled, on the edge of reckless abandon, max velocity sprinting. Now those exercises will help considerably in the acceleration phase of any race or event. Note that Mel talks about reaching top speeds faster. This suggests acceleration to me. Will have to read study. Question is what to do after reaching max velocity. Hmmm! Only few guys in the world can answer that one. Most on this list would be guessing!! So just for some lively discussions. Lets have some good guesses. Randy Huntington Director of Sports Performance Bellingham Athletic Club 1616 Cornwall Bellingham, WA 98225 360-734-1616 360-676-1804x202 voice mail hunt895wr@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2001 Report Share Posted January 1, 2001 Randy Huntington wrote: > Question is what to > do after reaching max velocity. Hmmm! Only few guys in the > world can answer > that one. Most on this list would be guessing!! So just for some lively > discussions. Lets have some good guesses. The answer is maintain perfect body position so that maximum power can be delivered from the prime movers. As an athletics coach what I notice is common among athletes is an increasing anterior rotation of pelvis which decreases knee lift that develops late in the race. Improving core strength has helped to decrease this effect in my athletes especially when they have worked with a combination of swiss ball,med ball, free weights. Much of the focus of development has been on the lower abs. I have noticed that many of the worst offending athletes have very poor ability to do leg lifts and maintain stability at the same time of the lumbar region. I have been using many of the methods that are recommended and taught by Chek and have had good success at improving athletes maintenance of better running position. Holding in the lower abs in drills and running practise certainly has helped the athletes maintain their bodies in a more powerful position with more ease of knee lift. I am interested in developing better ways to control this problem ....as I see that it exists in almost every running event. Some of the very best athletes seem to have overcome the problem very well eg. Maurice Greene, n , Kipketer, Hicham El Guerrouge, El Said Guerni, Haile Gebresellasie. Have also noticed many athletes have tight and " triggering " psoas and glutes. Acupressure has helped in these areas but I am interested in ways to decrease problems in these areas. To be able to sustain maximum speed or sprint fast at the end of endurance races it seems the best athletes have mastered this problem area i.e.. (loss of form due to increasing anterior pelvic tilt). regards Steve Head Coach Athletics. Western Sydney Academy of Sport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2001 Report Share Posted January 1, 2001 Randy Huntington wrote: > Burkhardt: > > Maybe this is good evidence that all those " speed gurus " who spend countless > hours doing over-speed and various other drills would be better off spending > more time doing to more explosive lifting and plyometric drills. In other > words, exercises that improve RFD and elevate far right-hand side of the > force-velocity curve. > > If your running drills are not used to develop greater ground forces the > definition of " speed guru " should not apply. We still cannot overlook the > fact that you can increase Stride Frequency to optimal rates (optimal rate will > depend on individuals parents of course - have to choose wisely). > Even if stride frequency is at an optimal rate, if the forces applied are not sufficient, the athlete will not be able to reach top speed quickly, and top speed will not be very high (compared to an elite criterion). Zatsiorsky proposes an index of explosive strength relative to bodyweight (sorry, forgot the term) in his book " Science and Practice of Strength Training. " This is essentially RFD / load of the object to be moved. RFD is simply the slope of a section of the force-time curve. Peak RFD can be very high even if peak force is not. If peak force is not sufficiently high relative to the load of the object, the object will not move very fast. This is similar to thrust force (the force produced to accelerate the object ; F(thrust) = F(max) - ma [ma = weight of the object = mass of object * acceleration due to gravity]). Garhammer and Gregor showed that thrust forces were similar for a weightlifting movement (snatch) and a vertical jump. Peak forces for the snatch were higher due to the greater weight of the loaded bar as opposed to weight of the body only. I have not seen a similar study done with sprinting but I suspect that similarities would also be present (if adjusted for uni- vs. bilateral). > When it comes to rate of force development none of the above exercises alone > will get you any closer to a higher rate of force development (during maximal > velocity spriniting) than good old fashioned sprint training will. They are > still too heavy to let the nervous system unload completely to allow > unbridled, on the edge of reckless abandon, max velocity sprinting. RFD can be improved by either decreasing time of force application or increasing force production (RFD = dF / dt). As ground contact time (GCT) is already very small and can only be decreased slightly, and force can be increased greatly, there is greater POTENTIAL to improve RFD by increasing force production. What many people don't realise is that increasing force increases velocity. How? Force applied is directly proportional to the acceleration of the object (since F = ma), therefore (for a relatively light object eg. the human body), it is impossible to apply high amounts of force without having a very high acceleration of the object. Subsequently, velocity increases greatly (as v(f) = at + v(i)). As an aside, my major professor ( Fry) asked a very good question a month or so ago in a discussion. Who has the highest peak force, a weightlifter attempting a maximal clean or a powerlifter attempting a maximal squat? The powerlifter would have the higher average force, but I'm not sure that the peak forces would be altogether different due to the greater acceleration of the bar in the clean versus the greater mass of the squat. What this all means is that increasing RFD or peak or average force production is best done by performing explosive-type heavy load movements and not through low load ballistic movements or very heavy slow movements. Even plyometrics and powermetric drills do not compare to explosive heavy load movements in increasing RFD, because the concentric load is not sufficiently high to recruit the high threshold motor units. This is at least true for most athletes. Elite sprinters, jumpers, etc. may be the exception as they already possess a high level of strength and are training other qualities (and who plyometric were originally designed for). What load is too heavy and what is too light? If you can't clean it, it's too heavy, if it's not a slight challenge to power snatch it, it's too light (which I would guess to be about 40-70% 1RM back squat). > Now those exercises will help considerably in the acceleration phase of any race > or event. Note that Mel talks about reaching top speeds faster. This > suggests acceleration to me. Will have to read study. Question is what to do > after reaching max velocity. Hmmm! Only few guys in the world can answer > that one. Most on this list would be guessing!! So just for some lively > discussions. Lets have some good guesses. Excellent question. Attaining peak velocity is an entirely different than maintaining it. I would still suggest that high force production is the key as it is only the system that is maintaining peak velocity, and the individual components (ie. limbs) are in a phase of rhythmic positive and negative acceleration. Greater involvement of the SSC also occurs, thus training the SSC would be necessary, however, I don't think the current trend or fashion of overspeed, agility, etc. drills is required for most athletes. Loren Chiu Graduate Assistant Exercise Biochemistry Laboratory Human Performance Laboratories The University of Memphis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2001 Report Share Posted December 25, 2001 >From: patrice.wilson@... >Reply-Supertraining >Supertraining >Subject: Re: Re: Race and Sports >Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 15:13:08 +0000 > >Whit, I guess I'll bite and be one of those sprint >coaches who wonder where you're coming from. I'll use >the easiest example around. Maurice Green in high >school ran 10.40 in the 100m. Post high school he ran >10.20. His marks were good but not world record. He >knew he needed to change the focus of his training so he >moved to L.A. and his times gradually began to drop. > >Yes he was always faster than the average man, but if >you think he would have broken the records by continuing >the same training he had been doing, I've got a bridge >to sell to you. Sprint training is hardly redundant. It >is one of the most scientific disciplines out there. To >properly train a sprinter, elite or not requires a great >knowledge of several sciences (physiology, psychology, >biomechanics to name a few). I actually have to disagree with Patrice. Maurice made the US team in 1995. He also had a windy sub-10 before moving out to LA to train w/ . >[in addition, if technical sprint training tends to be rather redundant and >sprinting >ability is predominantly genetic, how is it that so many athletes gravitate >towards >certain renowned sprint or speed coaches? How do sprint coaches stay in >business if >their skills are largely redundant? Mel Siff] In some cases athletes leave better coaches because the group they're going with has better bargainig power with meet promoters and advertisers. It's a lot easier to run fast if you can get in the races where the fast people run. It's also a lot easier to train and run if you can make a living atn it. I think that a lot of the training technical training of sprinters is somewhat redundant, much like weightlifting. You may have a different focus from time to time, but there are generally one of a few areas you are working on. At times your training focus will be directed toward " lagging " physical qualities that may be holding back technical development. Redundant doesn't mean simple in mym mind. It just means that training tends to fall into one of a few areas -- especially with regard to technical aspects. Of course there is a big genetic or basic talent component to sprinting. Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolign themselves. However, there are a lot of talented folks who have the genetic wiring to run at world class levels that are lacking in other qualities (comittment, the mean to train after college, the proper coaching/guidance). Genetics are just a part of sprinting. Kebba Tolbert (kebba_t@...) ================= Men's and Women's Jumps & Multis Coach Syracuse University Track & Field _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2001 Report Share Posted December 27, 2001 I certainly agree with Kebba's conclusion that Maurice Greene was a solid sprinter prior to his departure for LA. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, he ran 10.19 the season before he left. This is a time that would just barely get him into the world top 50. However, contributing his rise to become " world's fastest human " to this relocation and 's " expert " coaching is utter nonsense! Sure, there is a lot to be said for the concepts Coach conveys and the training environment which he has helped create. But there is absolutely NO WAY that this will take someone from 10.19 to 9.79. Charlie Francis, the unfortunate poster boy for 'crooked' coaches, was, to my mind, years ahead of his time and he had no choice but to rely on drugs. Many feel that these sprint " gurus " are sought after because of their technical expertise. I tend to think it's often because they also may have pretty solid drug pipelines in place which not only procure the goods, but also help avoid detection. Possibly more than any coach, such drugs are more likely to create the best sprinters from the best potential. By the way, that white sprinter from Kentucky's name was Casey Combest and he was also a very thin lad. Tolman Boston, MA ----------- " Kebba Tolbert " <kebba_t@h...> wrote: > >From: patrice.wilson@a... > > > >Whit, I guess I'll bite and be one of those sprint > >coaches who wonder where you're coming from. I'll use > >the easiest example around. Maurice Green in high > >school ran 10.40 in the 100m. Post high school he ran > >10.20. His marks were good but not world record. He > >knew he needed to change the focus of his training so he > >moved to L.A. and his times gradually began to drop. > > > >Yes he was always faster than the average man, but if > >you think he would have broken the records by continuing > >the same training he had been doing, I've got a bridge > >to sell to you. Sprint training is hardly redundant. It > >is one of the most scientific disciplines out there. To > >properly train a sprinter, elite or not requires a great > >knowledge of several sciences (physiology, psychology, > >biomechanics to name a few). > > I actually have to disagree with Patrice. Maurice made the US team in 1995. > He also had a windy sub-10 before moving out to LA to train w/ . > > > >[in addition, if technical sprint training tends to be rather redundant and > >sprinting > >ability is predominantly genetic, how is it that so many athletes gravitate > >towards > >certain renowned sprint or speed coaches? How do sprint coaches stay in > >business if > >their skills are largely redundant? Mel Siff] > > In some cases athletes leave better coaches because the group they're going > with has better bargainig power with meet promoters and advertisers. It's a > lot easier to run fast if you can get in the races where the fast people > run. It's also a lot easier to train and run if you can make a living atn > it. > > I think that a lot of the training technical training of sprinters is > somewhat redundant, much like weightlifting. You may have a different focus > from time to time, but there are generally one of a few areas you are > working on. At times your training focus will be directed toward " lagging " > physical qualities that may be holding back technical development. Redundant > doesn't mean simple in mym mind. It just means that training tends to fall > into one of a few areas -- especially with regard to technical aspects. > > Of course there is a big genetic or basic talent component to sprinting. > Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolign themselves. However, there are a lot > of talented folks who have the genetic wiring to run at world class levels > that are lacking in other qualities (comittment, the mean to train after > college, the proper coaching/guidance). Genetics are just a part of sprinting. > > > Kebba Tolbert (kebba_t@h...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.