Re: Weyand Study Strength Gain Implications (Long)

[Guest guest]

Hello again to ST Members:

I just got back from our state cross country championships, and I'll try to

respond to Tony's questions in a couple of parts, once I catch up with my my

season-ending tasks: team booklets, slide shows, etc.

****Once again, I must point out that swing time is not a measure of

swing velocity. We DO NOT know what the difference was in angular

velocity of the thigh between elite and novice runners

The average velocity of the foot is the same as the average velocity of the

runner or the runner's body. A fast athlete’s feet move faster than a slow

athlete’s feet in the forward direction. And yes, accordingly, his feet move

farther forward during the same swing time. This observation means that we agree

perfectly well that faster runners do run faster.

We DO NOT know what the angle at the hip was at push-off. We DO NOT know

what

the hip angle was when the knee was at maximum height. We cannot,

therefore, conclude from a measure of swing time that swing leg

velocity is unimportant in improving the speed of running.

What is the value of the presumed greater range of motion if

the runner does not reposition any faster? Why is a greater ROM superior

to a lesser one? Note in eq. 5 of the study that frequency has nothing to do

with ROM,

but is directly affected by swing time:

frequency = 1/(tsw + tc)

The data from the Weyand study does not suggest that swing times are

untrainable.

I never said this was part of the study. It is something for coaches to

think about.

Again, I could care less about the swing time of a

runner as this tells us nothing.

It accomplishes something very important about the study: it tells us what

limits human speed. Aerial time decreases as top speed is approached. These

aerial time reductions are the result of decreases in foot ground contact,

which are larger than the increases in effective force. Why aerial time

similarities? Equivalent vertical impulses. Faster runners apply greater

forces

during briefer contacts. Slower runners apply lesser forces during longer

contacts

The swing velocity is what's important

Now I’m confused by what you mean by swing velocity. What you seem to be

suggesting is a forward speed of the limb. Again, there is no disagreement

here.

The feet, knees, ankles, etc. do indeed move forward at a faster rate.

**** I am not contradicting the finding that fast and slow runners

reposition their foot in approximately the same amount of time. But

what does this matter?

It matters because it’s part of what provides us the answer to the barriers

to speed. There seems to be an intrinsic limit to how fast the limb can move

at its maximum velocity.

Reviews of the study have noted the following:

The mechanical variable separating the swift from the slowpokes was the

amount of force applied downward against the running surface. For the fastest

sprinters the average force applied to the running surface approached three

times the weight of the body, while the maximum forces managed by slower

runners

were less by one half or more of the body’s weight.

Although intuition suggests the forces exerted backward against the running

surface to propel the body forward might limit a runner’s speed, this work

indicates that forces exerted vertically, in opposition to gravity, are most

important. This observation is consistent with previous work from this lab and

others that suggests that once a runner is up to speed, most of the energy

needed to keep the body moving forward is stored and recovered in each step by

springy tendons. At top speed, greater support forces enable faster runners

to get off the running surface more rapidly, reducing the time taken for

each stride, and therefore increasing maximal stride frequencies.

The authors also noted the following:

What does all this mean in the arena of Olympic sprint glory? For coaches,

athletes and trainers in hot pursuit of gold, the practical message is

simple: enhancing a sprinter’s ability to push downward against the ground

will

improve top speeds considerably, while attempts to alter limb speeds are not

likely to be effective. Viewers, on the other hand, will now be able

appreciate that what Freeman, Maurice Green, , and n

bring to their craft is not blinding limb speed, but rather, support forces to

be reckoned with.

**** If my arguments are so laughable then why do you refuse to

answer the questions I posed initially?

I think you have misinterpreted my comment. My point was that I traveled

to Harvard with many of the same arguments you have mentioned. The irony is

that I first felt as you did that the study really didn’t tell us very much.

I

didn’t mean your arguments were laughable. I apologize if it came across

that way.

If you disagree with what Dr. Yessis has to say on these matters,

please tell me why and give your own explanation.

There are certain issues that Mike will support and justify wholeheartedly,

such the pawback action, and I respect that. However, I believe we tend to

agree far more than we disagree For example: If the mechanics of swing are

not a trainable entity, then there are certain isolated exercises or techniques

that may not have the value we think they do. As leg conditioners or

strength exercises, they may be of value, as Vern Gambetta pointed out. I

don’t

think they should be looked upon as mimicking the mechanics of swing.

For example, I really began to look more closely at this whole issue of

dorsi-flexion when various “training†devices began to appear on the market

which literally forced the athletes’ foot into this dorsi-flexed position.

Athletes would then train wearing these “dorsi-flexors.â€

The great Willie , former sprint coach at the University of Illinois,

even began to market such a product. When I talked him at a seminar here

in Illinois, I said, “Willie, you ran ten flat 100 yards on cinders back in

1950, and never heard of the term dorsi-flexion.†His reponse was that we are

learning more and more about the mechanics of sprinting.

Here’s what I believe is the reality behind this seemingly necessary but

highly controversial mechanical intervention:

Ask an athlete to dorsiflex a foot in the air and then measure the joint

angle. Next, have that athlete stretch his ankle into the most dorsiflexed

position possible by having him stand on weight plates or a curb with nothing

more than the weight of their body. If you measure the difference, you’ll

see

just how much more dorsiflexion the body creates relative to the trivial

amount of muscle available in the ankle flexors to dorsiflex.

The key fact that I came away with from my experiences at Harvard and Rice

was that the force and energy loaded into the achilles by dorsiflexing is an

approximate linear function of the distance the Achilles is stretched. The

force the body's weight exerts on the ground is greater than 2 times body

weight; the force the achilles experiences is probably 5 times body weight and

roughly 10 times that which the ankle flexors can generate while dorsiflexing

the

ankle in mid-air. In other words, any dorsiflexion achieved in the air would

be completely swamped out by the ground forces during the contact phase.

As I’ve always understand the argument, one of the many benefits of

dorsiflexion is that it is supposed to increase the force slapped against the

ground

on touchdown. Again, any

force transmitted indirectly (to the Achilles and later the ground) from the

ankle flexors is trivial in the grand scheme of the ground and extensor

muscle-tendons forces that occur in the middle of the stance phase, at which

time

they reach their peak. Furthermore, the force loaded by dorsiflexing in

mid-air, even if it could be released, would be released on touchdown when the

horizontal forces are negative. This, in effect, would slow the runner down.

This begs the simple question to those trying to “train†an athlete to

assume a specific anatomical position via a harness or strap: why would want to

use a swing phase muscle action to increase the braking action on landing?

The reason the force of dorsi-flexing cannot be released in any meaningful

way on touchdown is simple and can be observed simply by watching the foot and

ankle joint

(without any measurements) from a video of the stance phase. I’ve done this

numerous times, and most can see the same thing using either Dartfish or

SiliconCoach software. The ankle continues to dorsi-flex through the first half

of stance. This indicates that the achilles forces are increasing throughout

the first half of contact. In order for dorsi-flexion forces and the energy

loaded in the swing phase to be released, the ankle must move in the opposite

direction (i.e., plantarflex) and this does not occur.

The force of the body's weight as it loads the leg all the way down to the

ground causes

progressive dorsi-flexion throughout the first half of the contact phase.

As noted above, these body forces exceed the forces the ankle flexor could

generate. Dorsi-flexing while loading does not increase these forces

further. Even

if the latter were possible, it would be counterproductive, since it would

elevate

the force required in the extensors above the huge forces they already

generate.

Even Mike Yessis noted the following on the ST forum debate we had back in ‘

02:

“I would agree that the dorsi-flexing is not well supported. As far as I am

concerned, this happens automatically and is not a conscious action by the

athlete. Also, to say that the animals accomplished their running without any

conscious effort – well, so do humans.â€

**** Why don't you tell us what it was that Dr. Weyand spoke about

for so long at the clinic?

Part of the seminar involved answering questions that speed practitioners

had relative to the following points of concern:

1) the study really tells us nothing we don’t already know

2) there is significant horizontal propulsive force even at maximum velocity

3) how else might these greater support forces be achieved without pawback

4) the data regarding swing time for sprinters at their top speed is

incorrect

5) treadmill testing cannot be used to relate to overground running

Although did a thorough job explaining these points in our day long

seminar. I’m sure there were coaches and speed consultants who left the

clinic

thinking this is all hogwash. They have spent years of their lives

developing programs and products around concepts that, with the elite athletes

they

coach, have produced results. But those who responded to me that they found

the insights reassuring and valuable are those whose training experiences were

similar to mine.

I am a high school coach. Even when my best athletes are seniors, the

'training age' is still just about one, because they train--at most--three

months

out of the year. They are out for track primarily to have fun, and to feel

good about themselves in the process. I have had only two full-ride Division I

track athletes in the past fifteen years, and I consider myself fortunate to

have that many in a school that has averaged 600 students during those

years. I average eighteen to twenty boys in our program, and the majority of

these

seldom can break twelve seconds in the 100 meter dash. Their goal is

improving their times from the previous season, and to run their fastest times

in

the biggest and most important meets in late May--conference, sectional, and

state.

Each year I keep returning to some of Mel’s initial training questions. For

coaches in my situation, they are extremely important:

Is what we’re doing necessary? Are they being given sufficient training

opportunities? Are the sequences I’m employing appropriate? Are they

effective? Is what I’m doing safe? (That’s why I will not use surgical

tubing,

overspeed cables, parachutes, etc.) Are my workouts challenging and fun?

Like many of my colleagues who teach and coach in small high schools in the

midwest, we don’t begin track until early March. For the first two to three

weeks, we are doing activities in a hallway that is fifteen feet wide and

sixty feet long. The weather is just too bad to go outside, and we have no

indoor complex. Once we get outside, we have the team for a week before

spring

break, at which time the majority of our kids leave on vacation with their

families for a week. When they return, outdoor competition begins (first week

in April), and the state championships are the fourth week in May.

That’s the reality around which I must create my periodization, cycling, or

whatever we wish to call this.

I have always questioned what it is that I have been doing, or actually need

to do, to get athletes to this level of personal satisfaction within what

amounts to little more than an eight week cycle. What I try to do is: get them

in shape, get them stronger, get them to use effective legs spring (via

various plyometric activities), and get them doing a lot of short, high speed

sprints (6 X 200 meters is not a speed workout).

I also keep re-considering if what I'm doing is appropriate, sufficient,

effective, safe, and, above all, fun and enjoyable for the athletes in my

program. I simply can't justify putting kids in various devises that force the

foot

into some anatomical position that is deemed appropriate for optimal maximum

velocity mechanics.

Kindest regards,

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, Illinois

[Guest guest]

Ken, Dr. Fahey, and others:

Thank you all for your replies to this topic. You all bring up some

very interesting points on several topics. Dr. Fahey, I am

interested in discussing your research on throwers at some point.

Ken, I believe the topic of dorsiflexion is an important one that

needs to be discussed. I would like to get into these topics, but I

would like to finish our discussion on sprinting ground force first.

Specifically, I would like an answer to my questions from a week ago

that I have yet to see an answer to:

If greater ground forces improve running speed, what specific actions

in running do we need to improve in order to generate more ground

force? In other words, what action or actions in running aid in

producing ground force?

Dr. Fahey, you say that you found a correlation between deadlift

strength and sprinting speed. Does this mean that increasing glute

and hamstring strength will increase ground force? If so, what

phase of the running action will this enhanced strength improve?

Ken, it seems that there was some confusion as to what I was

referring to as swing velocity. I am referring to the angular

velocity of the thigh during the swing phase, not the linear

velocity of the entire body. This was not measured in the Weyand

study so I do not believe we can make conclusions as to the

importance and trainability of swing velocity.

It also seems that you doubt the importance of the greater ROM at

the hip in sprinters. You seem to be implying that this greater ROM

has no purpose if it is achieved in the same time as a shorter ROM.

So why not just tell sprinters to run like long distance runners

with a short ROM at the hip? Why do sprinters have a greater ROM at

the hip than long distance runners? Does this greater ROM have any

effect on speed? If not, then sprinters are wasting a lot of energy

with that extra ROM.

I believe these are interesting questions and topics that we should

discuss at some point. However, I would like to have my original

questions answered before moving on.

I wouldn't even pose these questions in the first place, but those

of you who claim the Weyand study is great and that coaches can

learn something from it need to tell me how it can be applied. I

have gotten the point that the great thing about the Weyand study is

that it emphasizes the role of ground reaction force in sprinting.

But how do we go about applying this knowledge? Please don't tell

me to just do more strength training unless you can tell me

specifically how it improves ground force.

I don't believe the questions I pose above, and have posed several

times in the past week, should be difficult for qualified coaches

and researchers to answer. They relate to simple biomechanical and

kinesiological facts about the phases of sprinting and the joint

actions involved. If you don't know the answers then please just

say so. Then I will provide the answers and we can move on.

For anyone who hasn't heard the question enough, I will post it once

more, with the hope that this time I will get an answer:

What action or actions in running aid in producing ground force?

I believe that many topics brought out in recent posts warrant

serious discussion that I would like to be a part of. But until my

questions are answered I will respectfully withhold from answering

any questions posed to me.

Tony Schwartz

Minneapolis, MN

[Guest guest]

> For anyone who hasn't heard the question enough, I will post it once

> more, with the hope that this time I will get an answer:

>

> What action or actions in running aid in producing ground force?

Hi Tony

I have found the discussion interesting but my interest is at the sharp end

of delivering to the performer. I dont consider that your request isnt

exactly rocket science. The simplest one is to work movement patterns to

develop an powerful active contraction of the gluts / hamstrings with a

dorsi flexed foot - called by some coaches - 'pullbacks/clawbacks' into the

ground contact phase WITHOUT the hips collapsing down and to the rear.

- Various 'ankle' drills to develop the ability to maintain and control

tension under load in the ankle/foot

- As above to for the knees / hips

- Add to this extension drills that develop in the performer a feeling of

toeing off for longer than normal

Its not so much what drills you use but what the physical focus should be by

the performer during the performance of the movements. I can give what

appears to be the same drill to several athletes but each person is focussed

on a different emphasis to address the issues they need to overcome. What I

have seen over 35 years of teaching and coaching is the lip service being

paid to technique development activities or 'driills' by coaches who don't

appear to understand the 'why' of movement activity.

> I believe that many topics brought out in recent posts warrant

> serious discussion that I would like to be a part of. But until my

> questions are answered I will respectfully withhold from answering

> any questions posed to me.

Your turn now :-)

Denis Doyle

Shropshire UK

[Guest guest]

The following information below may add to this discussion:

Resistance Training for Short Sprints and Maximum-speed Sprints

Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 7–13.

Warren Young, PhD, Dean Benton, BAppSci, and Grant Duthie, BAppSci

Pryor, MHSci

Short Sprint 10YDS/Meters - Maximum Speed

Quadriceps**** - ***

Gluteus **** - ****

Hamstrings*** - ****

Spinal Erectors**** - ****

Calves**** - ****

Hip Flexors*** - **

Upper Body***? - **?

Postural/Stabilizing Muscle*** - ***

**** = Very Important: *** = Quite Important

** = Important * = Less Important ? = Not Clear

------------

Table 6 Medium Specificity Exercises for Sprinting

Short Sprint 10YDS/Meters - Maximum Speed

Half squat - Quarter squats

Single leg squats - High speed hip flexion

machine

Power clean/snatch from floor - Single leg squats lunges

Push Press - Power clean/snatch from

blocks

Bench Press throws - Bounding hopping for distance

- Drop jumps/hopping for

distance

--------------

Table 7 High and Very High Specificity Exercises for Sprinting

Short Sprint 10YDS/Meters - Maximum Speed

Sled sprints (standing start) - Sled sprints (jog start low

load)

Inclined sprints - Inclined sprints ( " low incline)

(standing start medium incline)

- Speed bounding

- Weighted vest sprinting

----------------

Carruthers

Wakefield, UK

[Guest guest]

> There is always a danger in bringing a pre-suppositional bias

toward

> any subject that one is examining. Yet, this is precisely what you

> have done in this post. You've made it clear that, in your

opinion,

> others do not have your level of understanding regarding

mechanics.

> You've expressed your opinion regarding the ineptness of American

> research. You've expressed your opinion regarding the efficacy of

> Russian research. You've opined your personal observations

regarding

> what a good study should reveal. You've expressed your opinion of

> the value of Weyands research. Finally you wrap up with, " lets

talk

> issues, not opinions. "

>

> ly, I am thoroughly confused by your post!

*****Do you mean to say that all the other posts were clear to you?

If this is what you think then this in itself requires clarification!

> The fact that no one on this board told you exactly how to train

to

> increase ground force support does not logically lead to the

> conclusion that the method does not exist.

***** I never said it didn't exist. How to train was only the

second part of my question. As I said before we must know what we

are trying to improve by looking at the joint actions involved. You

can only train actions or muscles. I may train the knee drive for

the hip flexors, while you may train with some general exercise. So

you are training strength, while I am training strength with a

specific action.

Now let's go back to my original questions: Everyone who has been

raving about the Weyand study and how it has changed their coaching

philosophy and how they train athletes, but no one has told us what

actions are involved in developing this ground reaction force or in

utilizing it, this is the crux of the continuing discussion, why

can't anyone answer this question if the study revolutionized what

they do as a coach? Those who suggest that training for greater

ground force is the answer to improving sprint times need to be able

to support their stance with some coherent argument that adheres to

the basic laws of physics.

> It can mean that none of the posters are aware of it, those that

are

> aware do not wish to divulge it, others see anecdotal improvments

> but have no way to measure it, etc.

>

> Having trained the female with the fastest 200m time in the world

in

> 2003, using Mr. Weyands research solely as the basis for strength

> training, I feel strongly about the positives of the research. It

> took a radical reformation of my own thoughts and biases to take

the

> leap into the NEW. Most of what I see, including Yessis, is just a

> rehash of the same OLD, dreary stuff.

*****Can you share with us how this study showed you what exercises

to use? What actions were you trying to improve? How did you

display this ground reaction force? The information previously

posted on your training of Allyson Felix seemed to indicate that the

primary modification you made was a low-volume, high-intensity

strength program with an emphasis on deadlifts. Were there other

modifications as well? Obviously you found these modifications to

be effective. However, how did you come to the conclusion that this

is what the Weyand study was advocating? How do deadlifts help

improve ground force? What actions in running do they improve that

will help to generate more ground force? What specifically in

Weyand's study told you which exercises to use and why?

I am in no way doubting the effectiveness of what you do, rather I

am attempting to understand the how and why of those who have

applied the information in the Weyand study. Please tell us one

thing that you did that was new based on the information the study

provided.

In regard to your comments about Dr. Yessis' book " the same old

dreary stuff. " I am tempted to say that you did not read the book.

Please tell us about one other book that has:

-sequenced pictures of un-posed runners at different speeds

-analyses of technique, including the what and why for each action

-discussion and explanation of the difference between general and

specialized exercises

-criteria for specialized exercises, along with photos and

descriptions of specialized exercises that duplicate what occurs in

the running stride

-the integrated sequencing of training

-active stretches specific to running

Please let us all know what other book this information is in, since

I have looked all over and haven't found anything close to the

information in this book. It appears to me that Explosive Running

is too far ahead of its time. Even though it is written very simply

it still seems that many coaches cannot comprehend the information

it contains.

> Unquestionably, my experiences are anecdotal. None are Allyson

> Felix,but the vast majority have have shown significant increases

in

> performance in a variety of sports that require running.

>

> Barry Ross

> North Hills, California

>

-------

Tony Schwartz

Minneapolis, MN

[Guest guest]

> As the song lyrics go, " The secret to life is there is

> no secret at all. " This should always be kept in mind

> when searching for the presumed single key to athletic

> success. You have expressed dismay that no one has

> answered your question, but if the question truly is

> " what action or actions in running aid in producing

> ground force " , the answer is they all do, even if some

> only reposition the foot. Without ground force there

> is no forward propulsion and therefore no running.

> Neither the question, nor the answer get you very far.

> Put the question in the converse " Are there any

> actions in running mechanics that are detrimental or

> unnecessary to running? " Of course the answer is no.

>

> There is no one secret to sports success including

> mechanics or Russian studies or lore.

*****You seem to be implying that I said these things were the

secrets to success, which I have not. However, I do believe that

proper mechanics are an essential piece of the puzzle, as is the

information available in the Russian research.

> Yes you must

> work on achieving acceptable form in running or you

> will not optimize the ground forces you create, but

> form alone will not trump strength every time. Andre

> Agassi can hit a tennis ball faster than Arnold

> Schwartzenegger who is bigger and stronger because

> Agassi is more skilled. But Pete Sampras hits faster

> than Agassi because he is bigger and stronger. Is

> there really anyone in the biomechanical/kinesiology

> crowd that would bet on Borzov over Bob in a

> race? For those that don't remember actually seeing

> run, he rambled down the track pigeon toed.

*****As you have stated both technique and strength play important

roles. I whole-heartedly agree with this statement.

> I have the Explosive Running book referenced. I am

> nowhere near as impressed by the book as you. The

> author makes some good points about not doing butt

> kicks with the knee pointed down, practicing running

> barefoot and that sort of thing, but the information

> is no more advanced than what you would pick up at a

> typical coaching clinic.

*****I strongly disagree here as I have heard several coaches speak

on running, but none with a detailed analysis of the actions

involved as is done in Explosive Running.

How about the specialized exercises? How about the differences in

technique in long distance runners and sprinters? How about the

active stretches? Have you seen other coaches go over this material

in detail? This is the heart of the book and I don't believe you

can say this information is available at your typical coaching

clinic.

> What evidence do you have

> for your statement that it is obvious to you that

> many coaches lack an understanding of the mechanics of

> running? Are you speaking of , Curtis Frye,

> Clyde , Trevor Graham or just the local high

> school coach?

******I was referring to the posts I've seen on this list, but

certainly many other coaches of all levels fall into this group. I

was not referring to any of the coaches you named specifically,

however I am tempted to say yes to your question since I haven't

seen statements from any of these coaches that talk about technique

in a serious manner. I can't speak for all of them, but I know that

some of them simply run the athlete with no technique training

whatsoever.

> In my opinion, the analysis of technique in the

> pictures shown in the book is off base at times. The

> author is often critical of the technique of what are

> obviously accomplished runners and uses as an example

> of outstanding technique a runner who looks like he

> posed for the pictures.

*****Yes, the author is critical of accomplished runners. I believe

this to be a positive though. All too many coaches are satisfied to

leave well-enough alone. I don't believe this is a prescription for

the continued success of the athlete.

Which figure are you referring to as the one that looks posed? All

of the pictures of running were taken from live video. Only some of

the pictures of the exercises were posed, and even then most were

taken while in action.

> The kid looks like he is just

> engaged in exaggerated bounding.

******Can you give me a source of pictures of an accomplished runner

who doesn't look like this? Please post it on the group. Dr. Yessis

has said he will post the pictures from his book on the group as

well and we can do a comparison.

> There are risks involved in correcting perceived

> `biomechanical errors in running.

*****If you have a good understanding of what's involved in running

technique you can make corrections with confidence because you know

they will produce positive results. This is where understanding and

practice come into play. The corrections that Dr. Yessis mentions

in the book have been proven with many athletes with similar

problems and we know that they work.

> did

> not lift his knee as high as perfect form would

> suggest. His coach seemed to know enough to leave

> well enough alone. a Radcliffe has horrible form

> and so did Emil Zapotek.

*****No athlete runs with perfect form. In regard to a

Radcliffe, she doesn't run with her head, she runs with her legs.

What's terrible about her leg action?

How about Deena Kasser? She's a heel-hitter and would be much more

effective if she landed mid-foot. Would you also call this a

perceived error?

> The best American 800 meter

> runner we had at the last Olympics has run with his

> head tilted to one side his entire life. Some of

> Kenya's top runners over the years have had unusual

> form. The Kenyan coaches by and large leave well

> enough alone.

*****We absolutely need to understand the difference between style

and correct technique. No runner has perfect technique. The coach

must be able to differentiate between those deviations from the

ideal technique that are harmful to the performance and those which

are not. Simply attempting to make every athlete run with the same

exact form is not a good idea. This is why a good understanding of

the actions in running, and what each of them contributes to the

total skill, is important. This is what I have been getting at with

my questions, which have yet to be answered.

> I agree with you that many of the studies done produce

> little in the way of innovation in training, but then

> that is not the purpose of the studies in the first

> place.

***** People talking about the Weyand study are talking about the

practical applications of this study. According to them, it's lead

to innovations in training.

> However, if as you say " All that matters is

> results " and if, as you further suggest, the Russian

> science is much better than ours and science is the

> key to developing sprinters, then where are the

> Russian equivalents to Bob , Jim Hines, Carl

> , Maurice Green, Gaitlin, etc. We have

> produced a steady stream of world record holders and

> Olympic champions in the 100 and 200 since the start

> of the modern Olympics. Times have dropped. We have

> the deepest pool of 400 meter talent in the world by a

> huge margin.

*****Are these results due to the research we have done in this

country? Did these athletes all train in the same way?

> Meanwhile, Borzov got his medal because

> our coaches screwed up and did not get our guys to the

> start line of the semis. Is it really " indisputable

> that the Soviets got far more from their research then

> we do from ours. "

*****To me this statement is indisputable simply because the

research the Soviets conducted was applied by coaches, whereas the

research done in the U.S. is not (largely because there is nothing

new to apply). Furthermore, while the Soviet results in the sprints

were admittedly low, their results in other sports were

exceptional. I believe much of these results can be directly

attributed to their extensive research program. How about East

Germany who would beat us in a variety of sports with a population

the size of Texas? If their results were not due to science then

what were they due to?

> You want proof that strong vertical forces aid in

> sprinting, but dismiss the reference to throwers as

> clouding the issue.

*****Yes, that's right. Bringing in the throwers had no connection

to the sprinters. Dr. Fahey did not show how this correlated to

sprint time.

> Olympic weight lifters and world

> class shot putters are quite fast over short

> distances. There used to be a study referenced that

> held that Olympic weight lifters were the second

> fastest Olympic athletes in short sprints after the

> sprinters. Many of them and the Olympic throwers can

> keep up with world class hurdlers (absent the hurdles)

> for 30 meters or so before the strength/body weight

> ratio catches up with them..

*****I'm not sure where this information came from (though I have

heard it talked about before) and I have never seen this study on

throwers and Olympic lifters keeping up with sprinters to 30m. I

find it very hard to believe. The first 10m maybe, but up to 30m I

don't believe many could keep up with elite sprinters. If this is

the basis of the argument then I think we need to see the study or

at least know where this information came from.

In any case, if this is all that is involved then why not make

Olympic weightlifters into sprinters? You reference the weight-to-

strength ratio, so why not use lower weight class lifters? These

athletes have what are arguably the best weight-to-strength ratios

in the world. They can also put a lot of vertical force into the

ground. If these are the criteria for a great sprinter then what is

the purpose of doing any training other than to improve vertical

ground force and the strength-to-weight ratio?

> None of them practice

> pawbacks. They all practice moving heavy weights

> quickly in a vertical plane (the Olympic lifts). The

> fact that Russian studies show little vertical

> movement at high speed means the runners are producing

> strong vertical forces. It is weak or tired runners

> that go up and down a lot (and run quite slowly).

*****So large vertical force creates small vertical movement? I

agree that athletes need to produce vertical force to prevent

flexion on touchdown, but beyond this amount greater vertical force

will cause excessive up and down movement.

This indicates to me that you misunderstand the key actions involved

in running. This is the crux of my posts.

> You are creating your own definition of correlation

> when you state that if there is a lag in time between

> an activity (lifting weights) and an improvement

> (sprint speed), that there is no correlation between

> the two. If I go out and practice my golf game for an

> hour and there is not an immediate improvement the

> next time I play is there no correlation between

> practice and improvement?

*****I understand the need for time in order for improvement to

occur, but Dr. Fahey appeared to be suggesting that other things

needed to be done during this time other then simply resting. This

sounds to me like he is talking about a power conversion phase, not

a delayed training effect. If this is the case then the correlation

should be between power and sprint times, not strength and sprint

times.

Tony Schwartz

Minneapolis, MN

[Guest guest]

>

> It seemed in another post that you stated you have some answers to

> your questions. I would like to hear your answers and how it applies

> to specific training to increase speed? Would this also increase

> vertical jump? If not, would you be able to modify some of this

> informatin to make it more relevant to jump training?

>

> Heth Jennings

> Greenville, SC

Heth,

This information can be found in parts in my other posts. For the

complete picture I highly suggest Explosive Running for detail on

improving running speed, and Explosive Basketball for detail on

improving the vertical jump.

Tony Schwartz

Minneapolis, MN

[Guest guest]

> *****Can you share with us how this study showed you what

exercises

> to use? What actions were you trying to improve? How did you

> display this ground reaction force? The information previously

> posted on your training of Allyson Felix seemed to indicate that

the

> primary modification you made was a low-volume, high-intensity

> strength program with an emphasis on deadlifts. Were there other

> modifications as well? Obviously you found these modifications to

> be effective. However, how did you come to the conclusion that

this

> is what the Weyand study was advocating? How do deadlifts help

> improve ground force? What actions in running do they improve

that

> will help to generate more ground force? What specifically in

> Weyand's study told you which exercises to use and why?

To follow your advice, read my book! It covers all those topics in

detail. Sorry, no pictures of runners are included.

> In regard to your comments about Dr. Yessis' book " the same old

> dreary stuff. " I am tempted to say that you did not read the

book.

> Please tell us about one other book that has:

> -sequenced pictures of un-posed runners at different speeds

> -analyses of technique, including the what and why for each action

> -discussion and explanation of the difference between general and

> specialized exercises

> -criteria for specialized exercises, along with photos and

> descriptions of specialized exercises that duplicate what occurs

in

> the running stride

> -the integrated sequencing of training

> -active stretches specific to running

>

Again, your using pre-suppositional bias. Sequenced pictures of

unposed runners at different speeds does not measure the amount of

ground force support. It merely shows the effects of the ground

force. The specialized exercises are biased to paw-back and supposed

muscular activity during high speed running. The what and why of

each actions pre-supposes that each of those actions are causal.

Where is Yessis' research data that undeniably shows that they are

causal and not effects?

Previous studies have shown that breaking forces on landing are

equal to propulsion forces at take-off. At what stage of the

breaking force is paw-back force applied? The beginning? The middle?

The end? If it is at the beginning than how can propulsive and

braking occur at the same time? If it is in the middle or the end,

there is no knee bend so exactly where is this paw-back force being

generated from? Where is the mechanical muscle work? Exactly how

much force is applied during paw-back? What direction is it being

applied in? Can you tell that from the pictures?

I won't tell you about any other book that has interesting pictures.

You can't photograph gravity. You can't photograph the amount of

force applicaton. You can photograph effects-- and call them causes.

Barry Ross

North Hills California

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > *****Can you share with us how this study showed you what

> exercises

> > to use? What actions were you trying to improve? How did you

> > display this ground reaction force? The information previously

> > posted on your training of Allyson Felix seemed to indicate that

> the

> > primary modification you made was a low-volume, high-intensity

> > strength program with an emphasis on deadlifts. Were there other

> > modifications as well? Obviously you found these modifications

to

> > be effective. However, how did you come to the conclusion that

> this

> > is what the Weyand study was advocating? How do deadlifts help

> > improve ground force? What actions in running do they improve

> that

> > will help to generate more ground force? What specifically in

> > Weyand's study told you which exercises to use and why?

>

> To follow your advice, read my book! It covers all those topics in

> detail. Sorry, no pictures of runners are included.

>

> > In regard to your comments about Dr. Yessis' book " the same old

> > dreary stuff. " I am tempted to say that you did not read the

> book.

> > Please tell us about one other book that has:

> > -sequenced pictures of un-posed runners at different speeds

> > -analyses of technique, including the what and why for each action

> > -discussion and explanation of the difference between general and

> > specialized exercises

> > -criteria for specialized exercises, along with photos and

> > descriptions of specialized exercises that duplicate what occurs

> in

> > the running stride

> > -the integrated sequencing of training

> > -active stretches specific to running

> >

> Again, your using pre-suppositional bias. Sequenced pictures of

> unposed runners at different speeds does not measure the amount of

> ground force support. It merely shows the effects of the ground

> force. The specialized exercises are biased to paw-back and

supposed

> muscular activity during high speed running. The what and why of

> each actions pre-supposes that each of those actions are causal.

> Where is Yessis' research data that undeniably shows that they are

> causal and not effects?

>

> Previous studies have shown that breaking forces on landing are

> equal to propulsion forces at take-off. At what stage of the

> breaking force is paw-back force applied? The beginning? The

middle?

> The end? If it is at the beginning than how can propulsive and

> braking occur at the same time? If it is in the middle or the end,

> there is no knee bend so exactly where is this paw-back force being

> generated from? Where is the mechanical muscle work? Exactly how

> much force is applied during paw-back? What direction is it being

> applied in? Can you tell that from the pictures?

>

> I won't tell you about any other book that has interesting

pictures.

> You can't photograph gravity. You can't photograph the amount of

> force applicaton. You can photograph effects-- and call them

causes.

>

> Barry Ross

> North Hills California

>

*********** Ya know every EFFECT does have a CAUSE. Sprinting is a

horizontal and minimally (if at all) vertical activity. It is also

true that hip joint extension and ankle joint extension measured

vertically does have a strong carryover to force application in ANY

direction that the body will go. In fact it's my guess that an

increase in the deadlift will increase force going backward in

addition to up,down and forward or for that matter at an angle.

However it would seem that the greatest carryover to force

application is in the diection ,with the technique and at the speed

that is needed by the main sport activity. Specialized exercices

fulfill this requirement. In my opinion having had an opportunity to

utilize special execices and compare them to general ones there's no

comparison in terms of coordination and force application that is

specific. Although of course general exercices have a place in a

yearly and multi-yearly scheme.

Green

New Orleans LA.