Excellent. There’s been a lot of damn good conversation going on, as well as some squabbling. Keep it up, I like where the good parts of the discussion are going.
I will make things simple and ask the question that nobody is talking about. Who are the fastest and why? Doping questions will be asked, but let’s put that aside as this could lead to a drug discussion that would be excluded.
The fastest now are athletes that simply are from the islands and culturally not focus on strength and conditioning methods. This is a fact, and unless we see trailers in the kingston area looking like training halls in China, I will believe that the bud winters method with a little more classic strength training (more than the 1960s) will be the king.
The UK, like many organized groups, have invested a lot of money in their training centers. Big mistake, as the key to many environments is warm weather areas. The islands are culturally the best area for growth, and waking up without red tape of federations picking number 7 and 8 on the relay pool when one finishes 4th at national trails is the reason why US, Canada, and UK are stagnating. Also the fact that college coaches often don’t have the ability to do both post college and college duties. Making athletes hop around and hope that they land with the right coach for them.
We need to figure out which section of the population we are discussing first before we can have a truly meaningful debate. If we are talking about the elite level athlete then everything mentioned above is entirely valid. However, if we are talking about the typical college scenario of taking 11.0-10.5 sprinters and turning them into 10.5-10.2 sprinters there needs to be different thinking as we can’t compete with the combination of genetics and a culture that supports eating whole foods, fosters activity/exercise/competition from a young age, and has the climate to support perfect training weather all year. There also needs to be a conversation had about post maturation training as its very easy to look at training for 18-22 year olds and call it successful when a lot of PR’s are coming from the athlete simply learning their body.
Simply abilities of top speed, 30m acceleration, speed endurance, and scheduling is vital.
I would argue that the reason Josh isn’t 10.15 or similar athletes that use to be on this forum is because his schedule is compacted like the NBA, too much focus between february -may, when the elites are peaking in August, plus or minus a few weeks. You simply can’t replicate the peaking conditions of elites when meets dry up. Forget about methodology, you simply run out of time. That is the big factor and perhaps the biggest factor.
I am all for weighted sleds, plyos, heavy lifts (olympic and squats) but look at the training logs here on this message board. Everyone is either plagued by injuries or overtrains. Designing training methods that work isn’t easy. It’s what you do with what you got, and if you don’t have the horses, money, and expertise, a medical problem will kill anything on paper.
I agree with those simple abilities. I trained through July last year with a large portion of the summer being simple maintenance weights. I did 90% of my work sprinting and with plyos and saw great fly results. The meets I ran at I just either had 15mph headwinds they wouldnt switch or for my Late july one I ran I had a migraine and still tried to run (I’m susceptible to migraines, and anyone who has had one will know my pain). I haven’t been injured since college and had it not been my getting lymes disease and being hospitalized with encephalitis I would be haflway through a 6 week period of meets every weekend. I never got a chance to compete often enough to run my fastest, so I don’t think I can be too valid of a case study but the point is taken.
I know this is more rant than help, but the methodologies I believe in are far different than 2003 because I tried the methods I heard form all of the experts and it failed to replicate because key things were missing.
(1) The ability to train all season injury free for years. Slight snags and aches will happen, but not loosing primary training time allows for growth.
(2) Competition schedules that allow for maturation of good programs. I don’t know what programs are magic, but those that have more time to work with and pace themselves to peak later tend to do better. When World records in the 100 are set in March I will think differently, but then again the shadow of Balco is still lingering in some areas.
(3) Patience progress in a balanced program. Many non sprinting exercises are great because yes sprinting is risky and sometimes one can get better without just doing max sprinting. Yet the same athletes that seem to be googling tendon inflammation and fish oil mega doses are the ones that skipped single leg hops over banana hurdles because they got excited watching Linford get airborne on yoututbe.
(4) Get stronger, but do it conservatively. The fastest are not the strongest, but the weakest are not pathetic either. Much of the skill of lifting can be acquired by those that are fast and combining good lifting and speed programs is difficult.
(5) precise programs take years to tinker with and as you work with the athlete more you can unlock their specifics. Henk did a great job talking about individualization in his lectures. A good program may be better in a few years.
(6) Massage could more valuable that a fancy program. Find money to get therapy as even shotgun approaches work.
(7) Vanilla programs typical to USATF II schools are great, but the problem is nobody wants to be vanilla. Simple, safe, and clear works, provided that athletes are not in jail, academically fried, or having children because life is in the way of track.
With the exception of #6 since I simply have zero experience with anything other than foam rolling, tennis balls, stretching, and other simple self therapy tools, I find nothing wrong or offensive with that list and agree mostly.