1. True, but exercise selection will inherently change programming if it is giving a qualitatively different stimulus. Olympic lifts would fit this.
2. I think you missed the point of this. My point is that you are talking about not looking at programs that get people to 10.5 (or any other time) and instead look to sub 10, which is fairly arbitrary in itself since it is already selecting parts of the population to a great extent (ie very specific region and socio-economic background).
3. I would hope you would have a couple guys under 10.5 because you have some guys that ran around that time with minimal to no sprint-specific training. Tommie Campbell ran 10.69 his first year out without basically training (team doesn’t even have a track and I am not even sure blocks to practice with). That is another issue though.
4. So the transference between an OHB and a 100m holds less weight and significance (in spite of the literally thousands of data points to go from, along with results) than a 30m sprint and a shotput throw (the study you just quoted)? Think about that for a second.
5. That is kind of like saying running with a 5lb weight vest has a higher cross-over because it would relate more to sprint results than an OHB. I wait for the training programs that use that as a foundational component of their training.
1. No arguement here, other than the fact that Olympic lifts aren’t necessary nor is the need to ‘fit’ any other means into the training that is not necessary.
Instead of ‘fit’ I encourage you to ‘minimize’. Remember, the higher the qualification the more inherently stressful the competitive act becomes as a result of the higher intensisites. thus, optimization, in this case, characterizes taking the opportunity to relieve stress where it is not needed.
Adaptive reserves are finite and as you know the Olympic lifts, while characteristically different enough, still pull from similar reserves in terms of MU recruitment thus their removal from the program leaves those reserves, that would otherwise be expended, for use elsewhere (ergo via the competitive act)
2. Not my point either. I’m more curious as to what programs lead to sub 10 versus what programs lead to 10.5, regardless of the gene pool.
After all, if the selection of the athlete is poor in so far as they have no shot at qualifying for the B standard than why waste the athlete or the coaches time in scheming how to get meaningless results (meaningless being defined as the inabilty to compete at the international level).
now, if we are talking about the training for speed for other sports that do not require world class times I still hold to my points because in this case there are obviously other tasks that have very high priority and, thus, the reserves arguement still holds weight.
3. No doubt, however, I don’t know the specifics as to what some of these guys ran, whether times were FAT, and so on, and I’d really not like to make aggressive speculations as far as saying I could get him to 10.3 or 10. 2 and so on because it’s neither here nor there. My point is that I get them faster in the very short sprints without the weightlifts and they are already, as you point out, quite fast when they arrive here.
4. I disagree with the way you’ve used the data I quoted to make your point. The 30m sprint, while correlating more highly than one of the Olympic lifts, still paled in comparison to the means of higher transfer (ergo those more bioenergeticaly/biodynamically similar to the competitive event). Thus, again, this fits perfectly in my arguement as the sprint satsisfies greater criteria of correspondence, relative to the throw, than that particular barbell exercise.
In contrast, the LSU findings suggest that the OHB throw, which is no where near as bioenergetically/biodynamically similar to the 100m as the 30m sprint, showed a higher correlation to improved results in the 100m; which is why this, to me, throws major red flags.
5. to my knowledge, Vittori and certainly other Soviet and Eastern European coaches, did make use of various means of externally loading (ergo customized weighted belts) the thighs or waist, during short sprints, as a specific strength training means and from a biodynamic/bioenergetic standpoint this surely, all things equal, would correlate more highly than a medicine ball throw to 100m sprint performances. As far as this training means, or any other, forming a foundational element in the program- I should hope this is never the case as this would imply that some other means has superceded the practice of the actual competitive event in the training.
Again, I would wager that the LSU study is more indicative of the fact that the improved results in the (weights, jumps, throws) all follow, and not lead, the improved results in the sprints. The fact that the OHB throw correlated more highly than the 30m sprint could only, in my mind, reference how improved max V and SE, while not mentioned, is what lead to improved 100m times and the fact that the OHB throw improved all the way along is more incidental.