[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1225326056"]If you took a gifted sprinter and put him on a sport specific explosive lifting and sprinting programme for 3 months would the change in his performance be greater than if you put the same sprinter on a general strength non explosive lifting programme with the same sprint training?
I am not convinced there would be any significant difference between the 2 methods.
Now i understand your point a bit better! And i still totally disagree. You are basically saying that alternate methods of training do not make a difference to performance and the only thing that does is by actually performing the given task/sport. That is just wrong.
Practical experience and great coaches all over the world has taught us that variability of specific training has a great effect on performance. Also, be fast train fast, be explosive train explosive – this is simple but true. Just on the mere fact of the overload principle would have option A beating option B time and time again. There is no question.
Not really saying that Nick, your misunderstanding is likely my lack of ability to put a point across. I ‘ll try again;
Will a gifted sprinter (or any sprinter for that matter) improve there performance more from fast lifts like OL, depth jumps or what ever plyo/explosive method a coaches use MORE than they would if they lifted heavy weights with the intent to move quickly (so no atual fast movements) with the aim of getting stronger.
There is little evidence to suggest that there would be a difference in the improvements found between the explosive lifting focusing on power and the intended explosive lifitng focused on strength.
which opens all sorts of questions.
If power is best produced at circa 30% of max effort then why not get strong enough to make the body weight offer 30% rep max per leg to allow for maximum power output per stride? – just one of many qeustions to consider
Richard aka Ham[/quote]
Delecluse (1995) found that concurrent heavy resistance and sprint training did not improve 100m sprint performance in average sprinters (100m in 12.4s) whereas concurrent plyometric (rfd related) training and concurrent sprint training improved 100m times by 0.2s with most improvement within the first 10m.
Blazevich (2002) who is now based at Brunel University alongside Nick Linthorne (the long jump researcher)-small world- tested highly trained sprinters that were almost elite (20m in 2.95-3.10s) with either a highish velocity/low resistance or low velocity/high resistance training program. All subjects were instructed to move as fast as possible and were also concurrently sprint and plyometric training. The high velocity group had a 4.3% improvement compared to the low velocity groups 2.9% improvement over 20m.
Yes, those with enough fast twitch fibre and sprint oriented nervous system will respond to resistance training but the more velocity specific group improved more. However, it must be realised that the high velocity group also reverted to lower velocity and heavier weights every fourth training session whereas the low velocity group only used higher velocity/lower weights for the first warm-up set. Therefore the high velocity group got the added benefit of stimulating as many fast fibres as possible during the heavier movements to complement the more rfd specific high velocity resistance training.
As for optimum power training at 30% 1RM, power is really only correlated to improvement at the start (according to me) and between 5-10m (according to me and Morin 2002). Therefore a reliance on optimal power training will not satisfy many other places in a 100m race.