Elitetrack: Sport Training & Conditioning

.

Chad Williams - 03 December 2011 11:34 AM

I only saw a snippet of his entire presentation and his main point is maximize GCT with power output.

I don’t want to give the wrong impression, I deem stride length very important. GCT and power output are also very important.

Here is what I rank for sprinter for be successful (dumbing this down) . . .

1) Limb Speed
2) Elasticity
3) Strength

3 is the easiest to develop later. 1 and 2 must be the focus early in youth throughout high school in order to develop the neural pathways and the tendons for later on.

What about force production? What about RFD? Stride length is an artifact of force production. Most studies that I have seen indicate frequency does not correlate to Max V nearly as well as stride length, even for athletes of similar size.

Does Jon Goodwin’s discussion on contact length differ at all from what Weyand describes in his presentation of steady-state running?

To clarify, the focus of a program should always be a balanced approach. I am never discounting the other aspects that those of you have mentioned. They are certainly important and 100% included.

To hit some of the questions:

1) How do you develop limb speed?

There has to be a focus on it. I think that Pat Connoly had it down with Evelyn Ashford in her shake-ups. The volume was a little high . . . but the emphasis of building up the rate of stride as you move down the track had it benefits. It was basically 100m of tempo with every 20 meters the stride rate increasing.

Also, a lot of coaches use stick drills or cones drills to hone in on this skill. Some daily, some alternate, but they are done often.

Then the obvious one is sprinting.

2) Why couldn’t one focus on those late in the career (limb speed and elasticity)

Sure you can. If done earlier, the athlete will have far greater success in building it. Think about 20 years of limb speed development vs. 2 years. I also think it is important to build strong tendons early with jumping rope, skipping, and things of that nature.

3) Force production.

Most people know that producing force on the front side is 2x greater than producing force on the back side. Also, it is easier to apply more force with greater speed. Think about shot put moving at 5mph v 30 mph. So by developing limb speed, you are automatically going to produce more force as a by product of the speed of the down stroke.

By developing stronger, faster hip flexors, the athlete is able to maintain position better, longer and hit more front side steps during the race. We all know that force is a vector so it is not just how much but the direction it is being applied.

The best sprinters in the world use physics to the their advantage by holding their front side mechanics. They are able to create lower leg rotational speed towards the track and nearly the match the speed that they are moving forward. This make it easier to apply force because you are not wasting time and effort catching up.

There are many, many factors to consider when developing a complete balanced program. I just happen to think that a little more emphasis on stride rate and developing powerful hip flexors pays bigger dividends.

“Most studies that I have seen indicate frequency does not correlate to Max V nearly as well as stride length, even for athletes of similar size.”

Not true but always good to focus on physics…..the Strike length of elite 400m and 100m athletes is similar but the ground contact time is very different. Bolt is putting a lot of force int he ground quickly, something the stronger guys are not doing, not matter how much the clean and squat. Limb speed is stretch reflex based on power going down and that power needs to have less time to work with….not about quick steps but elastic enough to get great speed.

Carl Valle - 04 December 2011 11:33 AM

“Most studies that I have seen indicate frequency does not correlate to Max V nearly as well as stride length, even for athletes of similar size.”

Not true but always good to focus on physics…..

Carl, would you provide links to peer reviewed studies that indicate MaxV correlates better to frequency than to stride length? I will try to provide some links that seem to indicate the opposite. Then we can all review and discuss the results.

Edit: Here are two quick articles, the first of course Weyland, and the second a non-peer reviewed article which explains Weylands point of view in simple terms. I agree with the points illustrated in the article, that the limits on Max V are about the sprinter’s ability to produce more force in a shorter amount of time as GCT is reduced. As I’ve said many times in the past, GCT is the enemy and improved RFD is the solution.

Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements
Peter G. Weyand, Deborah B. Sternlight, Matthew J. Bellizzi, and Seth Wright
http://jap.physiology.org/content/89/5/1991.short

Human Running Speeds of 35 to 40 Mph May Be Biologically Possible

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100122102843.htm

Star, spend $25 bucks and order this below. It is not a study of random non-athletes, it is a 30 year ongoing project that highlights the commonalities amongst the greatest sprinters of all time. To compare anything under elite, you are going to get false data because they simply cannot replicate what is happening. 

http://www.compusport.com/

Thanks Chad, it seems that it should be rather obvious that when ground contact decreases that frequency increases. Buy the book Star61 as that is data that I like, elite athletes and not house wives from Watertown running on treadmill being compared to grainy NBC tapes with graduate students interpretation. While I agree with Peter’s conclusion, yet the underlying details are not clear.

Very simple for the members to hear. If GCT decreases and output is the same, 4 steps can become 4.3 steps in the same time. This may be tough to swallow but both are influenced and how much is very individual. This is why we tend to see similarities of .84 splits with 10 or so sprinters….not to many 12.0 meter per second spits with 3 monster strides!

When Star61 reads the book I welcome discussion….otherwise he simply doesn’t have the data to back up his argument. Frequency with stride lengths close to 1.25 x BH is what is normal.

star61 - 04 December 2011 01:14 PM

Carl Valle - 04 December 2011 11:33 AM

“Most studies that I have seen indicate frequency does not correlate to Max V nearly as well as stride length, even for athletes of similar size.”

Not true but always good to focus on physics…..

Carl, would you provide links to peer reviewed studies that indicate MaxV correlates better to frequency than to stride length? I will try to provide some links that seem to indicate the opposite. Then we can all review and discuss the results.

Edit: Here are two quick articles, the first of course Weyland, and the second a non-peer reviewed article which explains Weylands point of view in simple terms. I agree with the points illustrated in the article, that the limits on Max V are about the sprinter’s ability to produce more force in a shorter amount of time as GCT is reduced. As I’ve said many times in the past, GCT is the enemy and improved RFD is the solution.

Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements
Peter G. Weyand, Deborah B. Sternlight, Matthew J. Bellizzi, and Seth Wright
http://jap.physiology.org/content/89/5/1991.short

Human Running Speeds of 35 to 40 Mph May Be Biologically Possible

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100122102843.htm

The speed of the leg stepping down is certainly going to have an effect on the amount of force generated at impact, no?

The speed of the femur and the tibia can be observed to be a factor of stretch reflex of earlier actions…....simply put frequency increases not from limb speed but from less GCT…the stride may get longer and the limb velocity may increase but the cause and effect are not the same.

Carl Valle - 04 December 2011 03:33 PM

The speed of the femur and the tibia can be observed to be a factor of stretch reflex of earlier actions…....simply put frequency increases not from limb speed but from less GCT…the stride may get longer and the limb velocity may increase but the cause and effect are not the same.

Carl,

But wouldn’t less GCT occur from the tibia’s rotational speed? Please explain more or blog on it.

My thoughts are that the elites are closely matching the forward velocity with their foot strike. So this allows them lessen the duration of the force in order to match the lower limb with the forward velocity. While others who plant the foot slower (without rotational velocity) must extend the duration of the push because they require the additional GCT to first catch up. Hopes that makes sense. . .

Carl Valle - 04 December 2011 03:19 PM

Thanks Chad, it seems that it should be rather obvious that when ground contact decreases that frequency increases.

This is absolutely false. GCT is related to how fast the centerline moves though the step pattern and is related absolutely to speed first and secondarily to mechanics specific to the sprinter. It is not about increasing frequency.

Very simple for the members to hear. If GCT decreases and output is the same, 4 steps can become 4.3 steps in the same time. This may be tough to swallow but both are influenced and how much is very individual. This is why we tend to see similarities of .84 splits with 10 or so sprinters….not to many 12.0 meter per second spits with 3 monster strides!

Can you share any data that indicate that elite sprinters take more steps as they move from sub-elite to elite (indicating an increase in frequency without an increase in stride length), or as sprinters move from sub-elite to elite do you see fewer steps, indicating an increase in stride length. And I’m not talking about early steps dependent on changes in starting technique. What about the number of steps to cover the last 40 meters. Higher number of steps or fewer.

If it is truly frequency, then you should see no difference in the number of steps between 60m and 100m for any one sprinter as his times drop. If you see fewer steps, his stride is lengthening. Any data on the number of steps on individual sprinters when the run varying times (like when they ran a 10.5 vs when they ran a 9.8 etc.)

Look at the Coh study from T and F (Track Coach) in the 2001 Summer issue. I don’t think people should look for frequency and length information as both, like horizontal and vertical forces are related. Focusing on frequency only or length only will not help as both need to be expressed at the same time. Sure people can do flys and set up a fast rhythm or do bounds with a vest, but much of that ability is fiber type and the ability to create arousal from adrenaline.

Over time, those that are more length based vs frequency based will be more balanced at elite levels. Look at the 60-80 segments of the elite and many will have intra foot strike changes. Only three times this has been privately filmed at 200 Fps and I don’t think this is coached by cues as it’s happening at .0001 intervals. No way is this taught.

many people can tap dance at greater than 5 strides a second…...many can bound 1.5 meters on the track. Putting it together is just a natural product of adaptation.

Foot strike and the center of force through the foot is forefoot, to mid foot (with heel contact) to toe off and the tibia will roll to the point that the forces are nearly gone before the heel lifts! The contributions of the gastroc don’t need to be visual but they are happening during landing. No need to do toe risers on the tippy toes with 700 pounds!

All of this is not coachable but can be taught.

star61 - 04 December 2011 04:52 PM

Carl Valle - 04 December 2011 03:19 PM

Thanks Chad, it seems that it should be rather obvious that when ground contact decreases that frequency increases.

This is absolutely false. GCT is related to how fast the centerline moves though the step pattern and is related absolutely to speed first and secondarily to mechanics specific to the sprinter. It is not about increasing frequency.

Very simple for the members to hear. If GCT decreases and output is the same, 4 steps can become 4.3 steps in the same time. This may be tough to swallow but both are influenced and how much is very individual. This is why we tend to see similarities of .84 splits with 10 or so sprinters….not to many 12.0 meter per second spits with 3 monster strides!

Can you share any data that indicate that elite sprinters take more steps as they move from sub-elite to elite (indicating an increase in frequency without an increase in stride length), or as sprinters move from sub-elite to elite do you see fewer steps, indicating an increase in stride length. And I’m not talking about early steps dependent on changes in starting technique. What about the number of steps to cover the last 40 meters. Higher number of steps or fewer.

If it is truly frequency, then you should see no difference in the number of steps between 60m and 100m for any one sprinter as his times drop. If you see fewer steps, his stride is lengthening. Any data on the number of steps on individual sprinters when the run varying times (like when they ran a 10.5 vs when they ran a 9.8 etc.)

Conversely can you show me the opposite being true? And your question is nothing what I said. Get the book and get on the same page or I can’t help you.

W.E. Price - 04 December 2011 10:47 AM

Does Jon Goodwin’s discussion on contact length differ at all from what Weyand describes in his presentation of steady-state running?

Contact length and contact time are better root markers of what is going on. Someone can have a longer stride while have less distance traveled. Running faster is not the same as being a faster runner as Goodwin points out.

What we want to see is an improvement in the COM velocity, not just the distance between the leg stride. For example I can increase stride length by reaching and pushing further back but the velocity may drop. What we need to see is the same quality leg mechanics create bigger displacements of the body.

Increasing frequency by going high stepping will cut off power as well, so you don’t want to manipulate the sprinter by adjusting either one directly mechanically. The frequency and length will fall into place with good mechanics and training.