Food for thought

[Guest guest]

Stegeman (1981, p. 277) proposed that speed can be improved by

strength training and by improving coordination with practice. This

is the transfer of training effects hypothesis, that is, as

capacities are altered they can be reeducated into movements in a

sport which will result in performance improvements. For speed

training the argument is as follows. The greater the load on an

individual muscle, the slower will be the contractile velocity of

that muscle. Consequently, the absolute contractile velocity depends

upon the reserve strength, that is, the difference between maximal

force and the actual force applied. For the same externally delivered

force, reserve force is of primary importance for the velocity of

contraction. This combines two principles of muscular contraction,

the faster a muscle contracts the less the force that can be applied,

and peak power is attained when a muscle contracts in the vicinity of

40 percent of maximum force. Continuing with this logic, if absolute

strength is increased, then the 40 percent of maximum force also

increases, resulting in an increase in power. Similarly, if strength

is increased then speed will be increased at any given velocity of

contraction because of the improved percentage of the new strength

levels that have been attained. The final conclusion of this argument

is that an increase in strength makes an absolute load " lighter " in

relative terms to absolute strength. Thus, since the load is lighter,

speed of movement will be faster.

The above argument hinges on two basic assumptions. The first is that

the improvements in strength that are gained are specific enough to

be used exactly in the real sporting action. The second is that

strength changes will be incorporated into the neuromuscular pattern

of the action. The scientific support for these two assumptions is

not strong. However, to conclude this argument a brief description of

the status of these assumptions will be presented. First, a major

portion of strength gains is of a neuromuscular reorganization

(skill) form and neuromuscular patterns do not generalize to other

activities. Added to this is the finding that simple activity

performance improvements (such as those gained doing specific

resistance exercises) do not transfer any benefits to more complex

activities in seriously training athletes. The second argument is

that once a skill pattern, and its associated feeling of " comfort "

from the athlete's viewpoint, is established, athletes resist

changing the pattern and feeling. Thus, if new strength capacities

are developed while an athlete is training, and those capacities can

be strongly justified as needing to be incorporated into the

athlete's technique, the athlete will have to be prepared to suffer

through the negative feelings and performance reductions associated

with such changes. During a competitive season that alteration is

hardly possible and usually resisted by athletes.

A compromise for this dilemma and controversy in the literature has

been expressed. All strength changes that " are supposed to influence "

strength, power, and speed should be attained prior to the

development of the movement patterns associated with that capacity in

a sport. By doing that, the relearning of technique features that

occurs in the specific-preparatory training phase will incorporate

the higher levels of strength which should result in greater

strength, power, and speed of movement in the sport. It should be

realized that if strength training is performed at the wrong time in

the annual training program it will not benefit performance.

Return to Table of Contents