Re: Technique Training

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/2006 1:41:36 PM Central Standard Time,

patrice.wilson@... writes:

We work on skipping

with opposite arm/leg and getting their arms to go forward. We work with

these kids on body weight training. A push up is challenging to them. We

move into the traditional Mach drills as part of our warm-up.

****

This is all good stuff here. I believe that Vern Gambetta would be relieved

to see coaches using the Mach series this way. He has often noted that the

A-B-C series drills were meant to be general strengthening exercises and not

a simulation of correct swing mechanics. " My interpretation, " says Vern, "

from discussions with Gerard Mach and Biancani, as well as my extensive use

of these drills over the years, is that their primary benefit is not as

technique drills. They are drills that specifically strengthen the muscles in

postures and actions that are similar to those that occur during the sprint

action.

The technical benefit is ancillary. These drills do have a place in a sprint

training program if they are properly taught and constantly coached.â€

Ken Jakalski

Lisle HS

Lisle, IL

[Guest guest]

Patrice,

As I see it, you probably are well versed in Loren Seagraves school

of thought. It's interesting, I showed Loren Weyand's

research some time ago and we actually talked about it on the way to

the airport one day. He hadn't heard of the research and like

everyone else wanted to know " ok if this is true, what do we do with

it???? "

Loren will tell you he actually took the B-skip out of his own

program because he says that stuff really doesn't happen at top

speed. (I'm not quoting him here but something very close to that

statement was said) He also added that a lot has changed since the

Speed Dynamics days! This was a breath of fresh air to hear! The

problem that I have is that people cling to older coaching research

because the newer research doesn't lay it all out for you. Well, it

is from my own practical research, countless hours at the track,

talks with Barry, talks with Ken, talks with Weyand and others

in the field that has led me to my own philosophy on how to improve

top speed. Wasn't that Loren's premise in the first place?? He

created something from science that he thought was correct?? It's

our job as coaches to make this research come to life. Why now with this newer

research are people hesitant to create their own interpretations? Mel would say

when we use to talk..... Marry the science and the coaching and then you'll get

what you are looking

for!

The system we use works for us based on the research available. We

do little in the way of coaching technique. These flaws are fixed

from the inside out; not the outside in. Even then, everyone runs

completely different. Where is this universal text everyone is

looking at?? Did receive this text? Let's look at

the research that has provided, use some creativity like the

great coaches of the past, and forge ahead. If the research changes

again…….we can change too. It's not that bad is it?

Dan Fichter

www.wannagetfast.com

Rochester NY

>

> I've read many of these posts and listened to many of the

arguments about

> technique training, to do or not to do. I too coach club and high

school. We

> get many athletes who are very uncoordinated. These children try

to run same

> arm same leg or swing arms from side to side and kick butt with no

front

> side mechanics. Their ages range from 6 to 18. I tend to think

that what may

> be described by some as technique work is really just coordination

stuff. I

> don't worry about how high they raise their knees. I tend to look

at the

> position of their foot in relation to the opposite knee. We work

on skipping

> with opposite arm/leg and getting their arms to go forward. We

work with

> these kids on body weight training. A push up is challenging to

them. We

> move into the traditional Mach drills as part of our warm-up. When

the

> children are old enough and able to handle body weights we then

delve into

> dead lifts and other regimens. We have been very successful

following the

> above program. I guess I am curious if you all advocate never doing

> technical work no matter what the age or ability of the athlete?

>

> Patrice

> Chicago, IL

>

[Guest guest]

First Mr. Ross I would just like to say that by asking the following questions I

am not trying to question your knowledge. In fact Ive read much I the

discussion between you and Dr. Yessis, and have presented the information to

co-workers and colleagues because I really felt you had some very good points

that Ive never heard before. That being said, for me it is still very hard to

accept some of the opinions you stated in your response to me, do to prior

experiences. I feel that I might not have specified that when I say

coordination I mean in an overall athletic sense, partially but not completely

tied to speed. Please let me know what you think about the following

situations, I am young man in this game and trying to learn:

1. I do feel that lifting programs increase neuromuscular efficiency, more so

for the younger population. Proper muscle firing patterns are learned for both

concentric/eccentric movements. Force summation, and focus to apply maximal

efforts are increased. I also feel that correcting squat mechanics, helps to

correct landing mechanics, which is crucial for the female athletic population.

The OLY lifts enhance enhance the summation of forces in the body, making it

more efficient when working together as a whole.

2. This is where I have always had a conflict, originally I believed the

mechanics of speed, where similiar to learning mechanics for anything else

(boxing, soccer, etc) At first you learn the correct technique conciously

" volitional " , then as it does with sports athletes, it drifts into your

unconcious and become " automatic " . Now like with any other technique or skill,

it detoriates w/o practice. You must keep the skills up in order to be more

efficient at the movement. Well I was finding that I my athletes had nice

mechanics, and were getting faster but, a bug got planted in my ear and my focus

started to shift to the fact that they really needed to be applying more force

into the ground at faster rates. This has led me to the theory that in the

beginning basic technique flaws should be corrected, when these become

" automatic " the focus should then shift to force production, and the time at

which it takes to apply the force (OLY lifts) while still mildly revisiting

the techniques. I am still sold on this mindset.

3. Ok, arm swing, I still feel armswing is important. I tell my athletes to

focus on the backwards swing of the arm, allowing the stretch reflex of the

shoulder to involuntarily swing the arm forward. At top speed I would think

that arm swing is important due to the fact that any crossing will cause

unneccesary transverse trunk movements which decrease transfer of force through

the trunk. I have taught the athletes to move arms independently of the trunk,

and to keep the trunk stable.

4. Landing on the heels is a cue, that can be corrected just by telling an

athlete not to land on their heels. I see this all the time by the way.

5. Now as far as " something " that doesnt work at any age. I have consistently

gotten results with these methods, in my opinion many of the initial results are

just due to a consistent training regimen, but results still increase after the

introductory training period. Now i'm not saying that I have worked with elite

level athletes, or anything, but more so the younger population, kids who have

gone on to college to compete in their sport, elementary through juinor high

kids who parents make them play 10 sports at once :-)

6. I am a very opened minded person, and when I truly believe in something I

have no problem changing my existing philosophy. I cant agree with your opinion

that entire approaches are completely wrong when consistent results still exist,

there may be better ways to do things but it seems much of your philosophy is

based on what you have taken from Dr. Weyands study and how you have translated

these findings into training protocols, which is very subjective. Ive taken Dr.

Weyands study and accounted for it in my philosophy now, things that you and Dr.

Yessis have discussed I have taken into my approach as well. I am trying to

learn, and when I feel I have a grasp my world gets shaken, but that is the name

of the game.

Thank you for your time and your reponses, just reading your posts has taught

me a lot, this thread is my first post since I have been a member on the group,

I look forward to many more over the years,

Todd Holt B.S., C.S.C.S.

Houston, Texas

[Guest guest]

Sorry it's taken awhile to respond. I just returned from the USATF

convention where we discussed some of the ideas put forth here. We teach

little ones and big ones opposite arm and leg work to start. We teach them

to use their arms when running. We go further and show them how to pick up

their feet (notice I didn't say knees). One of the ideas put forth by many

at USATF is that we should do a broad range of exercises with youngsters to

develop a greater kinesthetic awareness. Once we understand our bodies we

have greater control and a better ability in a wide range of sports. We

don't determine when a child is 10 that the only sport he'll play is

football,

hence the broad range of work which may involve lots of work in one sport

and have nothing to do with another.

Patrice

USATF Level II

Chicago, IL

_____

From: Supertraining [mailto:Supertraining ]

On Behalf Of thefattys

Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:59 PM

To: Supertraining

Subject: Re: Technique Training

>

> Dan,

>

> I'd say that I'm probably well versed in a bit more than Loren's

Speed

> Dynamics training. I simply asked these questions because I keep

reading

> quite a few of the Weyand people saying NO Technique work. They

have gone

> further to say that postural concerns are cleared up by increasing

strength.

> It suddenly dawned on me that this study can have little or no

application

> to little ones and that there is still a need to teach mechanics,

> coordination, and the like. We just need to clarify that the type of

> training advocated by Ken J., Barry R., and others applies to an

older group

> of athletes.

[Guest guest]

Todd,

Much of Weyands study conflicts with the USATF teachings. If you are

interested in a USATF Level I course there is one being taught at Rice Univ.

Jan. 5-7. You can find info at www.usatf.org <http://www.usatf.org/> under

resources, then coaches, then coaches education. Compare the info for

yourself. We have gone further than the days of Speed Dynamics.

Patrice

Chicago, IL

_____

From: Supertraining [mailto:Supertraining ]

On Behalf Of Todd Holt

Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:34 AM

To: Supertraining

Subject: Re: Technique Training

Patrice, I agree with you that kids sometimes lack basic coordination,

actually all the way up into the late teens I have seen this. These kids do

need basic running technique cues, because like you stated we cannot improve

them much by extensive lifting programs. This especially applies to kids 12

and under who only need to learn to master basic lifts and there body

weight. Weyands study completely conflicts with everything I've been taught

about speed training. I see you are well credentialed in track, what are

your thoughts about the study and how does it differ from the USA TF

teachings. I've wanted to learn their methods for a while, but nothing comes

around down here too often.

Todd Holt B.S., C.S.C.S.,

Houston, TX

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/4/2006 3:41:39 AM Central Standard Time,

patrice.wilson@... writes:

<<<Compare the info for

yourself. We have gone further than the days of Speed Dynamics. >>>

***

Even for Level I Certification, USATF takes this training very seriously,

and some of the top coaches are the ones developing and presenting the clinics.

I remember Vern Gambetta was one of the instructers for my Level I many

years back.

The USATF officials responsible for the program also do not want instructors

deviating from the curriculum, or using their commercial resources as part

of the program. I remember O'Donnell telling me that he and Loren

Seagrave got 'in trouble' for using clips from their Speed Dynamics series,

even

though the intention was just to point out something from the tapes that had

come up in the unit discussion.

Ken Jakalski

Lisle HS

Lisle, IL

[Guest guest]

>>First Mr. Ross I would just like to say that by asking the

following questions I am not trying to question your knowledge.>>

You should question my knowledge, no one else seems to hesitate!

>>1. I do feel that lifting programs increase neuromuscular

efficiency, more so for the younger population. Proper muscle firing

patterns are learned for both concentric/eccentric movements. Force

summation, and focus to apply maximal efforts are increased. I also

feel that correcting squat mechanics, helps to correct landing

mechanics, which is crucial for the female athletic population. The

OLY lifts enhance enhance the summation of forces in the body, making

it more efficient when working together as a whole. " <<

I have no general argument with this, but it would seem that firing

patterns are better developed within practice of the specific

activity or sport. I used to believe that OLY lifts were important

for athletes in sports other than Olympic and power lifting. I don't

believe that now.

>> 2. This is where I have always had a conflict, originally I

believed the mechanics of speed, where similiar to learning mechanics

for anything else (boxing, soccer, etc) At first you learn the

correct technique conciously " volitional " , then as it does with

sports athletes, it drifts into your unconcious and

become " automatic " . Now like with any other technique or skill, it

detoriates w/o practice. You must keep the skills up in order to be

more efficient at the movement. Well I was finding that I my

athletes had nice mechanics, and were getting faster but, a bug got

planted in my ear and my focus started to shift to the fact that they

really needed to be applying more force into the ground at faster

rates. This has led me to the theory that in the beginning basic

technique flaws should be corrected, when these become " automatic "

the focus should then shift to force production, and the time at

which it takes to apply the force (OLY lifts) while still mildly

revisiting the techniques. I am still sold on this mindset. <<

You're right in seeing this as an area of conflict. When I first read

Weyand's study, I thought the same thing as most others – the runner

applies force to the ground in order to push off into the next stride

by using chemical muscle contraction. This presuppositional approach

is one major flaw in speed training. Another is that technique

training is necessary. Every book, seminar, and workshop foists that

idea on the public, and yet not one of its proponents can show any

proof of necessity besides an image.

In my case, the problem was misunderstanding the magnitude of

measured force. The amount of force measured is the amount of force

measured. It doesn't matter whether you or I or Dr. Yessis believe

HOW it gets there, it's there. Yet which of the training manuals,

instructors, or workshops ever address that issue?

As a long time strength coach, I know that humans cannot volitionally

produce the amount of force measured in the amount of time the foot

is in contact with the ground; certainly not from one limb and

certainly not numerous times in a race.

Once one understands the fact that the amount of measured force is

beyond our limits to create volitionally, then one must look for an

alternative to human volition, without violating the laws of physics.

This would not necessarily deny technique training, assuming there

was a connection between the technique and the force that drives the

runner. Therein lays the problem: If the activity of creating force

is NOT volitional, then what technique training focused on a

volitional action would apply? If force is created by a falling mass,

what should technique training focus on? How do you train a falling

mass?

Dr. Yessis thought the analogy to a bouncing ball was silly. Yet, if

you do bounce a ball in a vector similar to a runner's vector, what

happens? The effects of gravity will create force at ground contact

just as it does with humans. The ball will hit the ground as a

falling mass, and impulse back into the vector. Who taught it the

proper technique to do that? Who instructed the ball to pick up its

feet faster when it was a young ball?

Interestingly, early locomotion research included the use of a human

subject on a pogo stick to mimic the hopping of a kangaroo. The

scientists realized that human locomotion (hopping) without a pogo

stick was so similar to kangaroos that it was not necessary to use

the pogo stick! This was during the early stages of recognizing the

spring-mass model to describe human locomotion.

>> 3. Ok, arm swing, I still feel armswing is important. I tell my

athletes to focus on the backwards swing of the arm, allowing the

stretch reflex of the shoulder to involuntarily swing the arm

forward. At top speed I would think that arm swing is important due

to the fact that any crossing will cause unneccesary transverse trunk

movements which decrease transfer of force through the trunk. I have

taught the athletes to move arms independently of the trunk, and to

keep the trunk stable.<<

At top speed, according to the locomotion guys, you could duct tape

your arms to your sides without causing loss of speed. Many of those

reading this will balk at that statement, or laugh out loud. Arm

swing is necessary at the start to overcome inertia. After that,

forward drive by one arm is concurrent with the backward drive of the

other, so how must they affect each other? Although, they may provide

balance, they do not create force or elastic energy in the legs.

Their mass is not sufficient to effect any real change in running.

Jump straight up in the air and drive your arms forward as fast as

you can. How many meters forward did you go? Ok, how many feet?

Inches? Trunk stability comes from core work. If the core is strong

then distal limb movements will have little or no effect. A football

player carrying a ball in one hand does not start turning to the ball

side when running, even though that side has a truncated swing. If

there is any real issue of distal limb affecting the core, would it

not be from the legs?

Not to be mean or cryptic here Todd, but it doesn't matter what we

feel is important. If something is important, then it's important

whether we feel it or not. The philosopher Parmenides said, " Whatever

exists, exists. " In other words what ever is, is, whether we believe

it or not.

>> 4. Landing on the heels is a cue, that can be corrected just by

telling an athlete not to land on their heels. I see this all the

time by the way.<<

I cannot deny your experience, but I've not seen this to be the case.

>> 5. Now as far as " something " that doesnt work at any age. I have

consistently gotten results with these methods, in my opinion many of

the initial results are just due to a consistent training regimen,

but results still increase after the introductory training period…

<<

Something that doesn't work at any age, doesn't work at any age!

You may agree or disagree with what works or doesn't work, but it

still has to be within the framework of what is really necessary to

enhance performance. If paw-back doesn't accomplish what it's

supposed to then why subject anyone to the wasting of training time

in learning to paw-back at any age? If the application of mass-

specific force in opposition to gravity and effective impulse " force "

a reduction in ground contact time, then why would a coach spend time

on " quick feet " or other such drills?

There is no denying that athletes, who train for running

using " standard " training (including technique training), show

improvement. However, when we asked the locomotion experts about

specific actions that occur during high speed running and how

technique training could affect those specific actions, the answer

was that the actions would be unaffected by specific " technique "

training.

What we've found is that removing technique training does not affect

training results, so we stopped using them. We did the same thing in

the weight room, in regards to certain lifts, with the same results.

Because of this, our workouts are much shorter and less wearing on

the athlete.

The following quote, attributed to former Dutch trainer Henk

Kraayenhof, recently appeared on my website forum: " Do as little as

needed, not as much as possible. "

That's what we try to adhere to.

Barry Ross

Los Angeles, CA

[Guest guest]

Barry,

First off thank you for your reply, I apologize that I am not quite as timely

but must of my reading and replying is spent on my lunch break. As far as

olympic lifts go, I have studies that suggest olympic lifters have in general

some of the highest VJ scores amongst measured athletes, and VJ has been

considered a very strong predictor of athletic performance. I know that sounds

like a slipery slope, but the connection is undeniable. Most of my technique

concern is more wth acceleration mechanics, does weyands study or locomotion

researchers have any insight to magnitude during this phase of a sprint? Vector

is a huge part of this phase, and this is why I feel mechanics are necessary. I

cant deny your approach at top speeds it makes perfect sense to me. Interesting

about the arms though, it seems again they may be more applicable to

acceleration mechanics, arms weigh (wild estimate 25-20lbs each), that is quite

a bit of mass that could contribute from a momentum

perspective. What I meant by landing on the heels was that most kids were

unaware they were even doing it and by teaching them how/why it was corrected

with minimal difficulty. I definitely have shifted to the mindset that less is

more, kids stay refreshed and focused with shorter more intense training

sessions. In closing it is hard for me to believe that that there are many

other lifts that can outperform the Oly from a results standpoint.

Thanks again and I look forward to your responses.

Todd Holt

Houston, TX

[Guest guest]

Why do kickers practice kicking, why do pitchers practice throwing. If you want

to excel at any given thing you must practice that " thing " . If you are

practicing improper technique or movement there is no point to it. I don't have

any research to throw your way but that is probably because it is common sense.

Do they do research on whether or not it hurts to hit your finger with a hammer?

No, because it is common sense.

Tim Daly

Saginaw, MI

thefattys wrote:

<<<Sprinting.

Technique training is not only not crucial, it's not necessary.

We've already had this discussion earlier on supertraining. We've

repeatedly asked for peer-reviewed research that justifies the need for

technique training.

None has been posted to date.

What we've received is nothing more than anecdotal evidence and

opinions based upon images of runners. Simply saying technique is

necessary is simply saying nothing. When asked to explain how, how much

and where force was applied, the " technique " proponents could not

justify their position. Until they (you) can, there is nothing to

discuss.>>>

[Guest guest]

>

> If you want to excel at any given thing you must practice

that " thing " .

>If you are practicing improper technique or movement there is no

point to it.

>I don't have any research to throw your way but that is probably

because it is common sense.

Do they do research on whether or not it hurts to hit your finger

with a hammer? No, because it is common sense.

>

You practice running by running. The only thing worse than practicing

improper technique is practicing a technique that doesn't do anything.

You don't have any research to throw my way because there isn't any.

Why would you defend something without anything to back it up? Common

sense? Is was common sense that said the sun revolves around

the earth.

I'll repeat what I posted before:

> What we've received is nothing more than anecdotal evidence and

> opinions based upon images of runners. Simply saying technique is

> necessary is simply saying nothing. When asked to explain how, how

>much and where force was applied, the " technique " proponents could

>not ustify their position. Until they (you) can, there is nothing to

discuss.>>>

Barry Ross

Los Angeles, California