After good sound running mechanics are in place, loading sleds for resistance speed work is a good option. For those that don’t have hills, sleds are a must, and parachutes don’t work early acceleration enough for me to use them. Sled sprinting is not the same as sled pulling or pushing. Changes in kinematics often change the motor skill development and muscle recruitment. I have used wireless E
Coaching Sled Sprints- Part 2
-
-
Participant -
Participant
After good sound running mechanics are in place, loading sleds for resistance speed work is a good option. For those that don’t have hills, sleds are a must, and parachutes don’t work early acceleration enough for me to use them. Sled sprinting is not the same as sled pulling or pushing. Changes in kinematics often change the motor skill development and muscle recruitment. I have used wireless E
In past blogs, such as Acceleration- Resistance Ideas, Breaking Rules, and Swedish Speed, you seemed to be against heavy sled work and supported the 10% rule. What changed your mind?
-
Participant
Could you define heavy? Could you define slow? 10% speed or BW%?
-
Participant
Could you define heavy? Could you define slow? 10% speed or BW%?
In the past, including the blog I posted earlier, you seemed to be making a case for not going above 10% bw OR 10% reduction in time. In this blog, you seem to be suggesting there is no reason not to exceed 10%. Your position seems to have softened on the idea, and I was just wondering what prompted the change.
-
Participant
Elite sprinters have gone beyond 10% and sometimes up to 20-30%, but never to the point it looks like the call of the wild. When load decays those qualities statistically to the point it’s “significant” I decrease the weight and focus on getting faster, not heavier.
10% is fine for many but notice that I sad get faster (focus on time) not load. The quote is from the earlier blog post that you shared. I never speak in absolutes, as someone going 11% slower will not ruin careers. Going heavy for the early steps may make sense, but 10-30 meters needs to show an increase in acceleration. Some loads flat line acceleration from step 3 and that is not acceleration or speed development, even if helps performance with neophytes as anything will help newbies.
-
Participant
[quote]Elite sprinters have gone beyond 10% and sometimes up to 20-30%, but never to the point it looks like the call of the wild. When load decays those qualities statistically to the point it’s “significant” I decrease the weight and focus on getting faster, not heavier.
10% is fine for many but notice that I sad get faster (focus on time) not load. The quote is from the earlier blog post that you shared. I never speak in absolutes, as someone going 11% slower will not ruin careers. Going heavy for the early steps may make sense, but 10-30 meters needs to show an increase in acceleration. Some loads flat line acceleration from step 3 and that is not acceleration or speed development, even if helps performance with neophytes as anything will help newbies.[/quote]So then one way to gauge the distance and weight of a sled would be to time the run and limit the distance to the distance that the athlete can continue to accelerate. If an athlete can continue to accelerate the load through the end of the rep, the load would not be too heavy. Any issues with that approach?
-
Participant
So then one way to gauge the distance and weight of a sled would be to time the run and limit the distance to the distance that the athlete can continue to accelerate. If an athlete can continue to accelerate the load through the end of the rep, the load would not be too heavy. Any issues with that approach?
Some thoughts-
This is a good discussion so far, hopefully we will not get people getting rude.
“They make pretty powerpoint slides and can really work an Excel spreadsheet…especially the colors.”
Now this is where things get interesting Star61, what happens to muscle recruitment with acceleration at the same mechanical position? Physiologically (and physics) you are accelerating but mechanically the technique is rather similar. In natural sprinting you accelerate with changes to posture, making your question compacted with numbers I don’t have. The Roberto Bonomi post is now interesting because he is describing things beyond my experience and now I understand why people change body positions and loads so much with sleds.
I am only at the level of timing sleds, and from the loads pictured I am not close to 50% load or even 25%. Speed wise even sleds with 5 kilo plates are not following 10% rule because a lot of the elasticity is lost. Yet the body adapts and is able to improve speed of the sled sprinting, perhaps because of the neuromuscular adaptations.
So how does it relate to your guidelines? I like the structure but the athlete should have the same shape acceleration curve as the regular sprints. A good idea is to do loads the are great for the middle of the distance because too heavy will hurt the end acceleration and it’s better to work traditional explosive training to overcome inertia versus loading up a sled.
As for step hills, they work for early steps but I like brief 4-7 step bursts rather than heavy sleds because I find the body english too much.
-
Participant
I prefer a protocal of:
super heavy = 50% BW in some cases for 20m sprints (will go to 40 on odd occasion)
Normal = 10% for longer reps such as 40m (will go to 60 on odd occasions)and use weighted vest for 60m> sprints, this way body posture is easily adjusted to be more upright but still under a loaded positin
Of course i mix these up into contract sessions also from time to time
-
Participant
if you were to try and stick with matching the acceleration curve of an unresisted run, this of course would be far shorter and perhaps only be in the region of 10m for entire completion, the difference would be as you have stated the body position / mechanics would in fact still resemble the first few steps of a unresisted run
So although the curve has ‘peaked’ in terms of acceleration much earlier, the mechanical difference is very much delayed.
From experience, I feel sled traiing of any weight aids the mid to later stages of acceleration / transistion
-
Participant
if you were to try and stick with matching the acceleration curve of an unresisted run, this of course would be far shorter and perhaps only be in the region of 10m for entire completion, the difference would be as you have stated the body position / mechanics would in fact still resemble the first few steps of a unresisted run
So although the curve has ‘peaked’ in terms of acceleration much earlier, the mechanical difference is very much delayed.
From experience, I feel sled traiing of any weight aids the mid to later stages of acceleration / transistion
Not sure what data you are referring to in the research.
A direct improvement on the first 20-30 meters can help transition from allowing to hold a better distribution, but it’s highly based on max speed as well, otherwise great football players who have super 20 yard dash abilities would have great 30-60m abilities. They may have good performances but this usually is when they are lighter.
Some very good information but I think it’s better to share precise experience with some splits so I can better understand how you came to the conclusions.
-
Participant
I prefer a protocal of:
super heavy = 50% BW in some cases for 20m sprints (will go to 40 on odd occasion)
Normal = 10% for longer reps such as 40m (will go to 60 on odd occasions)and use weighted vest for 60m> sprints, this way body posture is easily adjusted to be more upright but still under a loaded positin
Of course i mix these up into contract sessions also from time to time
Please don’t think I am attacking because I believe in contrast work, but what do you see objectively with contrast sled use?
-
Participant
I don’t think any resisted pull will match an unresisted acceleration curve. If it does, there’s not much resistance. I think sleds and steep hills are fairly non-specific methods so I’m not concerned with matching exact mechanics although I would never use a weight that caused a significant departure from good form. I always use both sleds and hills in a complex/contrast method, doing 1-3 sled/hill sprints followed by 1-3 unresisted sprints, sometimes using a very slight downward slope for the unresisted reps.
Having said that, the heavier the sled or steeper the hill, the shorter the resisted rep. Heavy sleds (typically 25%bw) or very steep (20-30 degrees) are typically 10-15m, and never over 20m. As the sled gets lighter, or the hill shallower, the reps are extended. I rarely do sleds over 30m, and can’t remember the last time over 40m. The same with hills. I see resisted sprints primarily impacting the first 30m, but I do believe there is carry over to longer distances. No studies I am aware of back that up, however.
I would say however, that if there are athletes, football players or otherwise, that have “super” 0-20m times, those athletes will probably get to 30m, or even 40m, sooner than athletes that have a pedestrian 0-20m. Not always, but typically. Again, if you look at the fastest 100m sprinters in the world, or at any meet, the sprinters performing the best at 100m typically are performing better to 60m, and the sprinters performing well to 60m typically get to 30m somewhere near the front. Not always, there are many exceptions, but if someone has the statistics broken down for a number of races/meets, I would bet that the top three sprinters in any give race are near the top at 30m and 60m. Exceptions may lack 30-60m acceleration performance, but if you’re in the back of the pack at 30m, you will need exceptional 30-60m acceleration to get back into the mix.
-
Participant
I don’t think any resisted pull will match an unresisted acceleration curve.
Can you expand on the concept of matching acceleration curves? Does that mean the shape of the velocity vs time curves are somehow similar? What would be an example of a non-matching acceleration curve? A couple hand drawn examples would be helpful.
Also, has anyone measured and plotted these curves for various weights?
Best,
Christopher -
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1341526605"]I don’t think any resisted pull will match an unresisted acceleration curve.
Can you expand on the concept of matching acceleration curves? Does that mean the shape of the velocity vs time curves are somehow similar? What would be an example of a non-matching acceleration curve? A couple hand drawn examples would be helpful.
Also, has anyone measured and plotted these curves for various weights?
Best,
Christopher[/quote]Christopher,Carl will need to answer that question. I don’t fully understand what is meant either. In my mind, for a curve to ‘match’, the two variables that are plotted, velocity and time, would have to be the same at any given point in time (or velocity) which means the acceleration is the same, which I don’t see happening even with very light resistance. There will be some deflection in velocity at any point in time.
To me ‘specific’ means 1) nearly identical (but not exact) mechanics and contact times that are somewhere close on the force-velocity curve. Training means such as sleds, hills, bounds etc. are much more specific than the squat or many plyometric exercises, but they are not totally specific. Only unresisted sprinting is specific. When using non-specific means (or even semi-specific) I don’t expect the rate of force development to exactly match, neither in terms of the absolute force nor the rate at which the force was applied. I also do not expect the accelerations or velocities of the athlete to exactly match those encountered in an unresisted sprint. Personally, I’m not that concerned with the acceleratin curve itself, but I do think there may be merit in not extending the rep much beyond the point that accelertion flatlines.
-
Participant
I don’t fully understand what is meant either. In my mind, for a curve to ‘match’, the two variables that are plotted, velocity and time, would have to be the same at any given point in time (or velocity) which means the acceleration is the same, which I don’t see happening even with very light resistance.
OK, thanks. I just wanted to clarify. I think we all have the same view on this regarding “matching” acceleration curves. I talked to Carl at some length last night, and I think he has the same view. In summary, as the sled weight increases, everything else being equal (e.g. same athlete arousal, etc) the velocity vs time curve will change. It’s not a profound statement; just wanted to make sure I was on the same page.
Personally, I’m not that concerned with the acceleratin curve itself, but I do think there may be merit in not extending the rep much beyond the point that accelertion flatlines.
Would you be interested in timing your sled splits for comparison against acceleration splits? I can send you loaner equipment if you are interested.
In addition to the topics that have been discussed, there is an added dimension of considering the contributions of the force components. A typical sled has two force components, the force required to accelerate the mass of the sled, and the force due to normal force times the coefficient of friction. If the coefficient of friction is near zero (e.g. bobsled) then, in theory, the athlete could accelerate further and, assuming they were not too fatigued having accelerated the sled, could potentially reach their unweighted maxV. Are there are any studies that have looked at varying the coefficient of friction? One wonders what would be the affects, for example, of high weight and low COF (which would require high effort to initiate movement and low effort to maintain) versus low weight and high COF (which would require more effort to maintain and inhibit maximum velocity).
Best,
Christopher -
Participant
I don’t think any resisted pull will match an unresisted acceleration curve. If it does, there’s not much resistance. I think sleds and steep hills are fairly non-specific methods so I’m not concerned with matching exact mechanics although I would never use a weight that caused a significant departure from good form. I always use both sleds and hills in a complex/contrast method, doing 1-3 sled/hill sprints followed by 1-3 unresisted sprints, sometimes using a very slight downward slope for the unresisted reps.
Having said that, the heavier the sled or steeper the hill, the shorter the resisted rep. Heavy sleds (typically 25%bw) or very steep (20-30 degrees) are typically 10-15m, and never over 20m. As the sled gets lighter, or the hill shallower, the reps are extended. I rarely do sleds over 30m, and can’t remember the last time over 40m. The same with hills. I see resisted sprints primarily impacting the first 30m, but I do believe there is carry over to longer distances. No studies I am aware of back that up, however.
I would say however, that if there are athletes, football players or otherwise, that have “super” 0-20m times, those athletes will probably get to 30m, or even 40m, sooner than athletes that have a pedestrian 0-20m. Not always, but typically. Again, if you look at the fastest 100m sprinters in the world, or at any meet, the sprinters performing the best at 100m typically are performing better to 60m, and the sprinters performing well to 60m typically get to 30m somewhere near the front. Not always, there are many exceptions, but if someone has the statistics broken down for a number of races/meets, I would bet that the top three sprinters in any give race are near the top at 30m and 60m. Exceptions may lack 30-60m acceleration performance, but if you’re in the back of the pack at 30m, you will need exceptional 30-60m acceleration to get back into the mix.
Without specific times, body masses, and external loads I don’t know what to say here. Are you timing the sprints and sled work? If not I don’t know what we are talking about specifically as I need specific summary data.
-
Participant
[quote author="Christopher Glaeser" date="1341528194"][quote author="star61" date="1341526605"]I don’t think any resisted pull will match an unresisted acceleration curve.
Can you expand on the concept of matching acceleration curves? Does that mean the shape of the velocity vs time curves are somehow similar? What would be an example of a non-matching acceleration curve? A couple hand drawn examples would be helpful.
Also, has anyone measured and plotted these curves for various weights?
Best,
Christopher[/quote]Christopher,Carl will need to answer that question. I don’t fully understand what is meant either. In my mind, for a curve to ‘match’, the two variables that are plotted, velocity and time, would have to be the same at any given point in time (or velocity) which means the acceleration is the same, which I don’t see happening even with very light resistance. There will be some deflection in velocity at any point in time.
To me ‘specific’ means 1) nearly identical (but not exact) mechanics and contact times that are somewhere close on the force-velocity curve. Training means such as sleds, hills, bounds etc. are much more specific than the squat or many plyometric exercises, but they are not totally specific. Only unresisted sprinting is specific. When using non-specific means (or even semi-specific) I don’t expect the rate of force development to exactly match, neither in terms of the absolute force nor the rate at which the force was applied. I also do not expect the accelerations or velocities of the athlete to exactly match those encountered in an unresisted sprint. Personally, I’m not that concerned with the acceleratin curve itself, but I do think there may be merit in not extending the rep much beyond the point that accelertion flatlines.[/quote]
This is a good point. Not extending the rep beyond the point that acceleration flatlines will be earlier as the weight becomes heavier. Then acceleration is “terminal” and then why run past 30m?
-
Participant
Ok, if we’re looking at “flatline” it becomes difficult, as due to the mass and force being exerted you will in some way still be accelerating similier in some ways to those normal splits between 40-70 but much earlier, no? What I mean is the difference will be minute but you will in theory and practice be accelerating!
Further, in regards to distance I propose this……
…. The initial act of overcoming inertia is a very strenuouse one! Correct? Hence the use of flys to enable freshness and repeat biliary in order to “practice” the correct phase.How many actuall accel will you prescribe in a given session?
IMO the important steps are those between 2-15! And these being in the A-typical accel stance of exaggerated forward lean.
So… Given how many normal reps you would do, and the number of “important” steps you are trying to improve! It’s a small winow IMO
By using sled for a greater distance, you are removing the inertia aspect more, and forcing the athlete to do more steps with similar mechanics to the “aimed for” element of acceleration. Just my thoughts.
Christopher your spot on friction p,ats a huge part, which is why I have 3 different sled versions so I can allow the athletes to get into different positions, depending on when element I want them to be repeating more (as per my above thoughts)
-
Participant
How many actuall accel will you prescribe in a given session?
I use intervention. Nothing fancy, just a fall off in time. In addition to intervention, timing enhances arousal, and encourages the athlete to put down some really good pulls.
Best,
Christopher -
Participant
Ok, if we’re looking at “flatline” it becomes difficult, as due to the mass and force being exerted you will in some way still be accelerating similier in some ways to those normal splits between 40-70 but much earlier, no? What I mean is the difference will be minute but you will in theory and practice be accelerating!
Further, in regards to distance I propose this……
…. The initial act of overcoming inertia is a very strenuouse one! Correct? Hence the use of flys to enable freshness and repeat biliary in order to “practice” the correct phase.How many actuall accel will you prescribe in a given session?
IMO the important steps are those between 2-15! And these being in the A-typical accel stance of exaggerated forward lean.
So… Given how many normal reps you would do, and the number of “important” steps you are trying to improve! It’s a small winow IMO
By using sled for a greater distance, you are removing the inertia aspect more, and forcing the athlete to do more steps with similar mechanics to the “aimed for” element of acceleration. Just my thoughts.
Christopher your spot on friction p,ats a huge part, which is why I have 3 different sled versions so I can allow the athletes to get into different positions, depending on when element I want them to be repeating more (as per my above thoughts)
Not to sound repetitive but volumes are like regular sprinting because the resistance is often slowing down the contractions, thus equaling the fatigue a bit. This is not perfect but 200-360m is sufficient.
During the entire sled discussion nobody ever share example workouts with time. Also the research does favor the loading to be under 20% for nearly all occasions and acceleration distances to be focused on the 30m or less zone.
-
Participant
research states no more than 20% etc and as everyone has quoted at some point, body weight or time to be within 10% etc etc etc
And this is for what exactly? Due to sprint mechanics?!
Any research on super heavy sled for a period? Ignoring the technique / mechanics stuff!?
Seems to me everyone is sooooo concerned with being 100% specific it’s closing minds.
10/20% for me is just too light…. Hell my sleds weigh more than that by themselves lol
Just so happens I have n athlete who has chosen not to race again this year, so I’m gonna talk him into my own experiment, I will get him to train only with a heavy sled for 4 weeks and then time over 40 and 60 base times to be established before hand. Timing FAT -
Participant
Time is important, and so are biomechanics (kinetics and kinematics).
How about videoing the sprints from the side and get FAT timing. How do you plan on setting it up?
It’s not the weight of the sled or even the weights, it’s the drag differentiation on the sprint times. The underlying issue is that kinetics that change too much do change physiological and even morphological adaptations. I am not worried about hyper specificity, as squats are general and even plyos have limits. If you are doing sled work to overload sprinting, make sure the adaptations help performances as even improvements in practices have limits.
-
Participant
Thats actually something I’ve been wondering for awhile, how are they measuring load? Weight or frictional resistance? Weight is just one means of increased the horizontal resistance and not all sleds are build equally.
-
Participant
Thats actually something I’ve been wondering for awhile, how are they measuring load? Weight or frictional resistance? Weight is just one means of increased the horizontal resistance and not all sleds are build equally.
The simplest thing to do is have a % drop off (time) you think creates specific and measurable adaptions or improvements. Those that use too heavy of a sled are not training speed qualities that you need to run FASTER. If you want more strength and power do more weight room and plyo activities. If you are training the first 5 steps with heavy sleds focus on the the 40 steps first. I see way too many 10.8 guys thinking that they can go 10.X with world class three steps and “hold on” because they are in striking distance of elites.
Focus on having a good 30m first. I am all for anything that works, but the meta analysis said the optimal loads are lighter than 50%. If 50% works so well, where does it work? Likely the first 10 or more likely the first 5 steps. Focus on 30 meter times and the zone that covers the most wide of strokes, the 5-25 zone.
If you are deciding to “run” or slog 30 meters with a lot of weight it’s likely you are replacing speed training with fast marching work that is going to help less talented and less developed athletes just by doing SOMETHING.
I am happy people are going to time things and video things ( I shared video and photos in my blogs to get on the same page) and I got everyone to see what we were doing. I have used % bodyweight in the past but feel time and technique dictates how we are getting faster and why. I see very little 40-60m improvements from sled work and research shows regular sprinting has better results in some of the literature for horizontal pulling actions, so the hip thrust people can start rethinking their philosophy of why specific horizontal loading isn’t working in sleds, it’s likely not to work with barbells doing male review shows.
-
Participant
The simplest thing to do is have a % drop off (time) you think creates specific and measurable adaptions or improvements. Those that use too heavy of a sled are not training speed qualities that you need to run FASTER.
The problem here is that we don’t have proper studies, long-term studies, that compare a variety of loads, and combination of loads, integrated into a variety of training plans, to know what % dropoff is ideal. We can only use conjecture and anecdotal experience to determine the cutoffs.
Focus on having a good 30m first. I am all for anything that works, but the meta analysis said the optimal loads are lighter than 50%. If 50% works so well, where does it work? Likely the first 10 or more likely the first 5 steps. Focus on 30 meter times and the zone that covers the most wide of strokes, the 5-25 zone.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting loads greater than 50%. I certainly wouldn’t use a load like that for anyone other than a big lineman in football, certainly not for sprinting. I do agree that you first need a good 30m, then a good 60m, then a good finish, but I think you can train all three (or however many phases you feel there are) from the beginning.
If you are deciding to “run” or slog 30 meters with a lot of weight it’s likely you are replacing speed training with fast marching work that is going to help less talented and less developed athletes just by doing SOMETHING.
I agree, however if an athlete feels the need for increased strength without access to a gym, I think heavier sleds and steeper hills with a vest can help build posterior chain strength, especially in a neophyte.
I am happy people are going to time things and video things ( I shared video and photos in my blogs to get on the same page) and I got everyone to see what we were doing. I have used % bodyweight in the past but feel time and technique dictates how we are getting faster and why. I see very little 40-60m improvements from sled work and research shows regular sprinting has better results in some of the literature for horizontal pulling actions, so the hip thrust people can start rethinking their philosophy of why specific horizontal loading isn’t working in sleds, it’s likely not to work with barbells doing male review shows.
I agree with you here, but its difficult for me to believe that there is not some type of training (overspeed, high speed resisted etc.) that can’t be of benefit. I just don’t know what it is.
-
Participant
Star61,
The problem here is that we don’t have proper studies, long-term studies, that compare a variety of loads, and combination of loads, integrated into a variety of training plans, to know what % dropoff is ideal. We can only use conjecture and anecdotal experience to determine the cutoffs.
We hav many studies that talk about changes not favorable with preparing sprinters to replicate or stress specifically what they are trying to do. Those that claim that they don’t need specificity with sleds are trying to sprint with heavier loads than 20-30% range, hence the earlier posts by many members and outside experts. They are not trying to carioca or B Skip to the gold medal, they are sprinting with a heavy load and hope the combination of resistance and sprinting will result in supra maximal sprinting without equipment more than a weights/plyos/sprint program without sleds. Even a few people are trying to go 50% in this thread! Not saying you can’t make improvement, but the likelihood and greatest probability is what I hope to do.
As the weights get heavy, eventually you hit a point that you become double supported, hence the prowler post. Research has shown that the first three steps with those that squat heavy and sprint are faster than less powerful people that sprint and squat lighter. After those three steps those with better 30m times and 30m fly times did better. It seems that a lifting program and ability to sprint fast (maximally) trumps those that have great strength and power and are not great at top speed. It’s far easier to get someone stronger than faster, hence why some lesser quality athletes lifting may do rather well for sports like American football if they are big enough.
I agree, however if an athlete feels the need for increased strength without access to a gym, I think heavier sleds and steeper hills with a vest can help build posterior chain strength, especially in a neophyte.
The forefoot strike of acceleration is more quad dominant if you read the research. Posterior chain is gluteus, hamstrings, and maybe adductor group as mid stance will be a massive EMG reading. Forefoot = foreleg or anterior foot = anterior thigh. You are getting very little hip extension with hill.
I agree with you here, but its difficult for me to believe that there is not some type of training (overspeed, high speed resisted etc.) that can’t be of benefit. I just don’t know what it is.
Research on resisted speed showed that acceleration had improvements to those that did acceleration work but those that did resistance had slower max speed adaptions. When I see the vest people doing fly work and leapfrog conventional vanilla programs I will drink the koolaide. I think the indoor wind tunnel places do help but those are located in the random european regions and the talent is sparse. El Paso perhaps could be a great way to run faster as the wind is awesome.
-
Participant
Thats actually something I’ve been wondering for awhile, how are they measuring load? Weight or frictional resistance? Weight is just one means of increased the horizontal resistance and not all sleds are build equally.
Surface and sled design are factors but let’s get things clear, time can illustrate the friction here. Even a 30 dollar luggage scale can get the information you are looking for, but the easiest way is to see what drop off speed wise is happening during timing splits. Since friction is rather static but fatigue and loading is variable during training periods.
(1) Keep the sled uniform and keep adjust the load as nobody is going to sand the sled or wet the grass.
(2) Time is a result of kinetics and kinematics, so look at those factors and ask what adaptations and overload are we looking for. Adding weight is tricky as too little doesn’t recruit enough overload but too heavy ruins the purpose of the track work-speed development. Every time someone says I am worried about being too specific I just want to signal want I am trying to do and that is likely to be transferring.
Still wondering what people are going to use for set-ups since first movement is rather impossible with sleds.
-
Participant
I’ve had a lot of time on my hands lately so I’ve been working on a rope system with an aluminum flywheel and magnetic brake to control resistance.
Another thing I’ve done is a pulley attached to a fencepost and a 150ft of rope. The pulley smooths out the run as there is no sway and you can come out of blocks.
-
Participant
I’ve had a lot of time on my hands lately so I’ve been working on a rope system with an aluminum flywheel and magnetic brake to control resistance.
Another thing I’ve done is a pulley attached to a fencepost and a 150ft of rope. The pulley smooths out the run as there is no sway and you can come out of blocks.
The variable adjustments need an algorithm and micro braking at .0001 per second to adjust per step. Not something I see as a backyard project!
I will use Time for something I know has a statistical benefit and history to defend the use.
-
Participant
I think the major point and something I defo want to see is a full analysis across the spectrum….
Let’s forget the “weight” aspect and go with time the athletes is slowed by…
I want to see the benefits of programmes from to start to end against training with resistance that = 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% against the end result benefit of race time!
But I’m not gknna see it
-
Participant
Just so happens I have n athlete who has chosen not to race again this year, so I’m gonna talk him into my own experiment, I will get him to train only with a heavy sled for 4 weeks and then time over 40 and 60 base times to be established before hand. Timing FAT
I look forward to reviewing your results. Although the sample size is small and there is no control, just setting up an experiment like this can generate some useful ideas and good discussion. For example, when measuring an acceleration, one might initially time from the start, but if the athlete is popping the sled, then measuring from the 1m may produce more consistent results. And if measuring from the 1m, do you measure from the 1m – 10m and then 10m increments from there, or do you measure from the 1m – 11m. Do you use a touch-and-release for the start, and if so, how do you avoid running it over, or do you use a short fly-in. All this minutia has to be resolved when setting up such an experiment.
Another significant factor when adding electronic timing to an experiment is athlete arousal. Simply adding electronic timing to any type of training can affect an athlete’s performance, and a growing number of elite coaches and athletes are integrating electronic timing into their training programs specifically for this purpose. Dennis Mitchell mentioned this in his lecture at the US Olympic trials clinic.
I posted an article on Sled Training that is specific to Freelap but could be modified to any timing system and may provide some ideas and further discussion.
Best,
Christopher -
Participant
…I will get him to train only with a heavy sled for 4 weeks and then time over 40 and 60 base times to be established before hand. Timing FAT
I would suggest contrasting the heavy sled with un-resisted sprints. If you time him at the end of 4 weeks, I would also suggest continuing with unresisted sprints (no sled) for another two weeks, then a week taper and time again.
-
Participant
We will be using timing systems, I have a freelap, recently purchased and also access to track timing.
He has an offical 100m tonight, so will use that as a ‘race base’
When I start I will get base times for 60m at 10m intervals (costly but worth it)
I will have stats for his weight and will keep a diary of the training undertaken. I will review the sled we have for which one offers the most friction given our Mondo track and then choose a load accordingy that will possibly be 50%BW (yes 50% lol)
-
Participant
[quote author="COV-GOD" date="1341769899"]…I will get him to train only with a heavy sled for 4 weeks and then time over 40 and 60 base times to be established before hand. Timing FAT
I would suggest contrasting the heavy sled with un-resisted sprints. If you time him at the end of 4 weeks, I would also suggest continuing with unresisted sprints (no sled) for another two weeks, then a week taper and time again.[/quote]
What data time wise makes you conclude contrast work is worth doing? Many athletes like it (including me) but what have you seen with times and video? I posted photos, videos, and yes charts, but could you share something besides an opinion to conclude contrast work is working?
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1341986402"][quote author="COV-GOD" date="1341769899"]…I will get him to train only with a heavy sled for 4 weeks and then time over 40 and 60 base times to be established before hand. Timing FAT
I would suggest contrasting the heavy sled with un-resisted sprints. If you time him at the end of 4 weeks, I would also suggest continuing with unresisted sprints (no sled) for another two weeks, then a week taper and time again.[/quote]
What data time wise makes you conclude contrast work is worth doing? Many athletes like it (including me) but what have you seen with times and video? I posted photos, videos, and yes charts, but could you share something besides an opinion to conclude contrast work is working?[/quote]First, I could share a million videos, but how would you be able to tell if something was working by watching a video? You can’t. Secondly, outside of a double blind, controlled study of a large population over a period of time, everything we say here is opinion. Do you have studies you’ve conducted and reported yourself? No, so everything you say is opinion as well. I don’t believe I have ever said contrast works. I have said I like it because I believe it to work based on the studies conducted by others, as well as andecdotal reports of those I respect who seem to think they have benefited in measureable ways after adding contrast to their workout. Why do you like it?
-
Participant
Star61,
Video is both qualitative and quantitative and used for studies. How do you think researchers get kinematic information or even timing? Don’t answer questions that have other answers you don’t want to see or hear.
I have detailed records with timing, video, and contextual data. You seem to have your opinions and that is fine as I agree with some of the points, but without evidence I can’t get why you have suggestions.
My opinions are based both on history and research, and athlete engagement is for the art of coaching.
Anecdotal or observations are fine, but without basic record keeping and times, I am thinking that TSCM will quote the biography and biology problem with “big time” names usually being big time talents attracted to coaches who are more legend than anything else.
“I believe it to work based on the studies conducted by others,”
Share those studies Star61 and it doesn’t have to be lab grade to be helpful.
-
Participant
Star61,
Video is both qualitative and quantitative and used for studies. How do you think researchers get kinematic information or even timing? Don’t answer questions that have other answers you don’t want to see or hear.
Video can be qualitative, but it can only be used in a qualitative sense when used to collect empirical data that is then subjected to rigorous scientific study. You are not a scientist and have no clue on what data to collect in order to determine whether or not contrast training actually has a positive result independent of the two methods being contrasted. There is absolutely no way anyone can look at a video, and based on the training being done, know that a particular means is actually contributing in a positive way unless they have analysis or research outside of the video itself upon which to base that opinion. If you can, then tell us, please, what you would look for in a video demonstrating contrast methods that would inform you that contrast is or is not producing positive results that would not be taking place without the contrast.
I have detailed records with timing, video, and contextual data. You seem to have your opinions and that is fine as I agree with some of the points, but without evidence I can’t get why you have suggestions.
There seem to be a lot of things you don’t get. Having said that, DO NOT instruct me on which posts to respond to, or how to respond when I choose to do so. This is not your forum. This forum is 99% opinion, and I have absolutely no need to validate my opinions to you of all people. It is actually extremely rare for anyone on this board to support their opinion with quotations from the literature. You certainly don’t. If you would like to start a thread in which the relevent research concerning contrast methods are discussed, please start that thread with a post stating your opinion…backed up with ample research and of course, videos of the elite athletes you train performing contrast training, along with your expert analysis of the video, proving that YOUR contrast methods work while everyone else’s are utter nonsense.
My opinions are based both on history and research, and athlete engagement is for the art of coaching. Anecdotal or observations are fine, but without basic record keeping and times, I am thinking that TSCM will quote the biography and biology problem with “big time” names usually being big time talents attracted to coaches who are more legend than anything else.
Where is your data? Where are your contrast videos? Where is the research you base your position on? Why don’t you stop worrying about the opinions of others and back up your own opinions. If you spent 10% of the time discussing issues intelligently that you do in posturing and critiquing others, you might accidentally become a positive influence around here. But I doubt it. And who the hell are you to talk about ‘coaching legends’? You are the epitome of ‘a legend in his own mind’.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1342232748"]Star61,
Video is both qualitative and quantitative and used for studies. How do you think researchers get kinematic information or even timing? Don’t answer questions that have other answers you don’t want to see or hear.
Video can be qualitative, but it can only be used in a qualitative sense when used to collect empirical data that is then subjected to rigorous scientific study. You are not a scientist and have no clue on what data to collect in order to determine whether or not contrast training actually has a positive result independent of the two methods being contrasted. There is absolutely no way anyone can look at a video, and based on the training being done, know that a particular means is actually contributing in a positive way unless they have analysis or research outside of the video itself upon which to base that opinion. If you can, then tell us, please, what you would look for in a video demonstrating contrast methods that would inform you that contrast is or is not producing positive results that would not be taking place without the contrast.
I have detailed records with timing, video, and contextual data. You seem to have your opinions and that is fine as I agree with some of the points, but without evidence I can’t get why you have suggestions.
There seem to be a lot of things you don’t get. Having said that, DO NOT instruct me on which posts to respond to, or how to respond when I choose to do so. This is not your forum. This forum is 99% opinion, and I have absolutely no need to validate my opinions to you of all people. It is actually extremely rare for anyone on this board to support their opinion with quotations from the literature. You certainly don’t. If you would like to start a thread in which the relevent research concerning contrast methods are discussed, please start that thread with a post stating your opinion…backed up with ample research and of course, videos of the elite athletes you train performing contrast training, along with your expert analysis of the video, proving that YOUR contrast methods work while everyone else’s are utter nonsense.
My opinions are based both on history and research, and athlete engagement is for the art of coaching. Anecdotal or observations are fine, but without basic record keeping and times, I am thinking that TSCM will quote the biography and biology problem with “big time” names usually being big time talents attracted to coaches who are more legend than anything else.
Where is your data? Where are your contrast videos? Where is the research you base your position on? Why don’t you stop worrying about the opinions of others and back up your own opinions. If you spent 10% of the time discussing issues intelligently that you do in posturing and critiquing others, you might accidentally become a positive influence around here. But I doubt it. And who the hell are you to talk about ‘coaching legends’? You are the epitome of ‘a legend in his own mind’.[/quote]
Star61,
I am just asking for you to share something. It looks like that will not be happening from the look of this post. If you feel strongly about something share to help out the community since you feel coaching is a part of the wellbeing of public service. My opinion is not what matters as you don’t like what I have to say, and it is not a trial, but a form of sharing.
Kinematics are real from video, and I wanted to see if contrast with your methodology shows faster times via kinovea or similar video analysis as a chronometer is a great tool. I like contrast for athlete engagement as they “like” the feel. Sort of like a boom box playing popular music, it’s just a way to keep people engaged. I have no data to show if it works or not.
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1342502080"][quote author="Carl Valle" date="1342232748"]Star61,
Video is both qualitative and quantitative and used for studies. How do you think researchers get kinematic information or even timing? Don’t answer questions that have other answers you don’t want to see or hear.
Video can be qualitative, but it can only be used in a qualitative sense when used to collect empirical data that is then subjected to rigorous scientific study. You are not a scientist and have no clue on what data to collect in order to determine whether or not contrast training actually has a positive result independent of the two methods being contrasted. There is absolutely no way anyone can look at a video, and based on the training being done, know that a particular means is actually contributing in a positive way unless they have analysis or research outside of the video itself upon which to base that opinion. If you can, then tell us, please, what you would look for in a video demonstrating contrast methods that would inform you that contrast is or is not producing positive results that would not be taking place without the contrast.
I have detailed records with timing, video, and contextual data. You seem to have your opinions and that is fine as I agree with some of the points, but without evidence I can’t get why you have suggestions.
There seem to be a lot of things you don’t get. Having said that, DO NOT instruct me on which posts to respond to, or how to respond when I choose to do so. This is not your forum. This forum is 99% opinion, and I have absolutely no need to validate my opinions to you of all people. It is actually extremely rare for anyone on this board to support their opinion with quotations from the literature. You certainly don’t. If you would like to start a thread in which the relevent research concerning contrast methods are discussed, please start that thread with a post stating your opinion…backed up with ample research and of course, videos of the elite athletes you train performing contrast training, along with your expert analysis of the video, proving that YOUR contrast methods work while everyone else’s are utter nonsense.
My opinions are based both on history and research, and athlete engagement is for the art of coaching. Anecdotal or observations are fine, but without basic record keeping and times, I am thinking that TSCM will quote the biography and biology problem with “big time” names usually being big time talents attracted to coaches who are more legend than anything else.
Where is your data? Where are your contrast videos? Where is the research you base your position on? Why don’t you stop worrying about the opinions of others and back up your own opinions. If you spent 10% of the time discussing issues intelligently that you do in posturing and critiquing others, you might accidentally become a positive influence around here. But I doubt it. And who the hell are you to talk about ‘coaching legends’? You are the epitome of ‘a legend in his own mind’.[/quote]
Star61,
I am just asking for you to share something. It looks like that will not be happening from the look of this post. If you feel strongly about something share to help out the community since you feel coaching is a part of the wellbeing of public service. My opinion is not what matters as you don’t like what I have to say, and it is not a trial, but a form of sharing.
Kinematics are real from video, and I wanted to see if contrast with your methodology shows faster times via kinovea or similar video analysis as a chronometer is a great tool. I like contrast for athlete engagement as they “like” the feel. Sort of like a boom box playing popular music, it’s just a way to keep people engaged. I have no data to show if it works or not.[/quote]Carl,
You have stated you have the appropriate video. I would assume you have already done a similar analysis on your own sprinters. You don’t need anything from me to post a video along with the analysis. Why are you wasting bandwidth asking for my video? Have I ever stated that I even have video of contrast training? Just share what you have or don’t. I could care less at this point.
-
Participant
A question to Carl, how do you generate kinematic variables using kinovea? Not looking for conflict here, I used it when writing a class paper last year and wasn’t to happy with it and was just wondering how others may have used it to better effect.
*edit – How did you use it to measure time to the degree of accuracy that is needed? i.e ground contact times etc.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1342503831"][quote author="star61" date="1342502080"][quote author="Carl Valle" date="1342232748"]Star61,
Video is both qualitative and quantitative and used for studies. How do you think researchers get kinematic information or even timing? Don’t answer questions that have other answers you don’t want to see or hear.
Video can be qualitative, but it can only be used in a qualitative sense when used to collect empirical data that is then subjected to rigorous scientific study. You are not a scientist and have no clue on what data to collect in order to determine whether or not contrast training actually has a positive result independent of the two methods being contrasted. There is absolutely no way anyone can look at a video, and based on the training being done, know that a particular means is actually contributing in a positive way unless they have analysis or research outside of the video itself upon which to base that opinion. If you can, then tell us, please, what you would look for in a video demonstrating contrast methods that would inform you that contrast is or is not producing positive results that would not be taking place without the contrast.
I have detailed records with timing, video, and contextual data. You seem to have your opinions and that is fine as I agree with some of the points, but without evidence I can’t get why you have suggestions.
There seem to be a lot of things you don’t get. Having said that, DO NOT instruct me on which posts to respond to, or how to respond when I choose to do so. This is not your forum. This forum is 99% opinion, and I have absolutely no need to validate my opinions to you of all people. It is actually extremely rare for anyone on this board to support their opinion with quotations from the literature. You certainly don’t. If you would like to start a thread in which the relevent research concerning contrast methods are discussed, please start that thread with a post stating your opinion…backed up with ample research and of course, videos of the elite athletes you train performing contrast training, along with your expert analysis of the video, proving that YOUR contrast methods work while everyone else’s are utter nonsense.
My opinions are based both on history and research, and athlete engagement is for the art of coaching. Anecdotal or observations are fine, but without basic record keeping and times, I am thinking that TSCM will quote the biography and biology problem with “big time” names usually being big time talents attracted to coaches who are more legend than anything else.
Where is your data? Where are your contrast videos? Where is the research you base your position on? Why don’t you stop worrying about the opinions of others and back up your own opinions. If you spent 10% of the time discussing issues intelligently that you do in posturing and critiquing others, you might accidentally become a positive influence around here. But I doubt it. And who the hell are you to talk about ‘coaching legends’? You are the epitome of ‘a legend in his own mind’.[/quote]
Star61,
I am just asking for you to share something. It looks like that will not be happening from the look of this post. If you feel strongly about something share to help out the community since you feel coaching is a part of the wellbeing of public service. My opinion is not what matters as you don’t like what I have to say, and it is not a trial, but a form of sharing.
Kinematics are real from video, and I wanted to see if contrast with your methodology shows faster times via kinovea or similar video analysis as a chronometer is a great tool. I like contrast for athlete engagement as they “like” the feel. Sort of like a boom box playing popular music, it’s just a way to keep people engaged. I have no data to show if it works or not.[/quote]Carl,
You have stated you have the appropriate video. I would assume you have already done a similar analysis on your own sprinters. You don’t need anything from me to post a video along with the analysis. Why are you wasting bandwidth asking for my video? Have I ever stated that I even have video of contrast training? Just share what you have or don’t. I could care less at this point.[/quote]
You have shared your opinion, just wanted to know how you formed it and it seems that you have nothing to share that could help illustrate your points.
-
Participant
A question to Carl, how do you generate kinematic variables using kinovea? Not looking for conflict here, I used it when writing a class paper last year and wasn’t to happy with it and was just wondering how others may have used it to better effect.
*edit – How did you use it to measure time to the degree of accuracy that is needed? i.e ground contact times etc.
“kinovea or similar video analysis as a chronometer is a great tool.”
Note or similar Callam as you would never do stance times but what about estimating the 30m times based on first movement? What accuracy level could you get on the free program? Time is a great first step.
-
Participant
I think you are walking dangerous ground preaching about what works and what doesn’t work when you just admit to using software so bad its available free on the internet and suggesting an estimate of time is actually worth anything. Filming someone and watching it back in slow-mo isn’t research.
And when you said that studies don’t have to be lab grade to be helpful (which I think you mean peer reviewed) that is a total crock. Papers go through a stringent review process to cut the bullshit.
-
Participant
I think you are walking dangerous ground preaching about what works and what doesn’t work when you just admit to using software so bad its available free on the internet and suggesting an estimate of time is actually worth anything.
Callam,
So what should we do to prove what does work? You tell me. It seems that when I request information (research, video, record) nothing can be done. Perhaps you could share how we could investigate this?
Question 1- What is the accuracy of the chronometers for all of the popular systems compared to FAT? Since you are not content with anything please share what you do.
Kineovea
Dartfish
Kinesiocapture
Quintic
-
Participant
I think you are walking dangerous ground preaching about what works and what doesn’t work when you just admit to using software so bad its available free on the internet and suggesting an estimate of time is actually worth anything. Filming someone and watching it back in slow-mo isn’t research.
And when you said that studies don’t have to be lab grade to be helpful (which I think you mean peer reviewed) that is a total crock. Papers go through a stringent review process to cut the bullshit.
Callam,
It seems that asking for any evidence is like requesting a million dollars from a scrooge. After dozens of posts it seems people are not able to come up with any evidence they are doing anything they are suggesting.
-
Participant
People don’t provide evidence because its their opinion and that includes you. Those names you listed are just video analysis systems which you can’t actually use to generate kinematic data unless you were to digitise the image and that would still be dodgy as more often than not there would be no calibration device. Not to mention the process’ required after that.
Using video analysis doesn’t make your opinion any more evidence based than anyone else’s. This is just circular, some people like Red sauce some people like brown sauce. So what?
If you want to talk about biomechanics we can as there is a whole host of errors with some of the things you have mentioned.
-
Participant
Carl,
I have said repeatedly that I would be happy to participate in a thread that discusses the literature, as well as personal experiences of myself and others, about any aspect of contrast training if you care to do so. However, while you routinely ask, repeatedly, that others back up their opinions with research, you do not. I say again, start a thread about contrast training, why you like it, why you think it works and how you implement it and cite one line of evidence, whether it is a study, personal experience, or just the recommendation of someone you respect, and I will gladly participate…fully. I will contribute in terms of citing research that I have studied, personal recommendations from athletes/coaches I have discussed the issue with, as well as the experiences with contrast training they have shared. BUT, I will not be required to back up every opinion I have with research and data when you refuse to do the same, ever.
-
Participant
Carl,
I have said repeatedly that I would be happy to participate in a thread that discusses the literature, as well as personal experiences of myself and others, about any aspect of contrast training if you care to do so. However, while you routinely ask, repeatedly, that others back up their opinions with research, you do not. I say again, start a thread about contrast training, why you like it, why you think it works and how you implement it and cite one line of evidence, whether it is a study, personal experience, or just the recommendation of someone you respect, and I will gladly participate…fully. I will contribute in terms of citing research that I have studied, personal recommendations from athletes/coaches I have discussed the issue with, as well as the experiences with contrast training they have shared. BUT, I will not be required to back up every opinion I have with research and data when you refuse to do the same, ever.
Let’s start now without contrast details as that seems to be requiring additional threads. I have posted 20 studies to back my opinions in pdf form, and posted links. I have provided youtube videos of training elite athletes to demonstrate drills, exercises, technique, and other factors. So far I have yet to see anything from you to help describe what you are doing or what you consider good or bad.
When I ask for time, video, or even a table of athlete development I see arguments of what I am not doing.
So Star61 do you time or video your athletes?
-
Participant
[quote author="Callam Mccabe" date="1342553830"]I think you are walking dangerous ground preaching about what works and what doesn’t work when you just admit to using software so bad its available free on the internet and suggesting an estimate of time is actually worth anything.
Callam,
So what should we do to prove what does work? You tell me. It seems that when I request information (research, video, record) nothing can be done. Perhaps you could share how we could investigate this?
Question 1- What is the accuracy of the chronometers for all of the popular systems compared to FAT? Since you are not content with anything please share what you do.
Kineovea
Dartfish
Kinesiocapture
Quintic[/quote]
I am asking for basic timing. Are you doing any video or timing of your athletes (or your training) Callam?
-
Participant
I am not saying not to include breakfast and clothing…..but let me ask again. Do you time or video?
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1342556578"]Carl,
I have said repeatedly that I would be happy to participate in a thread that discusses the literature, as well as personal experiences of myself and others, about any aspect of contrast training if you care to do so. However, while you routinely ask, repeatedly, that others back up their opinions with research, you do not. I say again, start a thread about contrast training, why you like it, why you think it works and how you implement it and cite one line of evidence, whether it is a study, personal experience, or just the recommendation of someone you respect, and I will gladly participate…fully. I will contribute in terms of citing research that I have studied, personal recommendations from athletes/coaches I have discussed the issue with, as well as the experiences with contrast training they have shared. BUT, I will not be required to back up every opinion I have with research and data when you refuse to do the same, ever.
Let’s start now without contrast details as that seems to be requiring additional threads. I have posted 20 studies to back my opinions in pdf form, and posted links. I have provided youtube videos of training elite athletes to demonstrate drills, exercises, technique, and other factors. So far I have yet to see anything from you to help describe what you are doing or what you consider good or bad.
When I ask for time, video, or even a table of athlete development I see arguments of what I am not doing.
So Star61 do you time or video your athletes?[/quote]Carl,
Yes I time my athletes. Yes I have video. I also have video of two of my powerlifters setting world records on youtube. So what. And, when did this thread transform into a thread where contributors are required to validate themselves to you, of all people, in order to justify their opinions? Perhaps you haven’t noticed Carl, but I have no respect for you as any kind of expert. If I worked as a technology aid at a high school I might have time to search the internet all day for videos and blogs to comment on like you. But I have real businesses to run. I’ve never held myself up as an expert, something that you have done since you first started blogging. I assume that you are supposed to be a leader on this board, so please tell me how this incredible need to continuously posture yourself above everyone else on the board actually contributes to the forum? Have your comments improved the level of information in this thread? Let me answer for you…NO. Your comments, as always, serve to position yourself and and improve your self generated, internet persona. And completely kill the thread. Hasn’t it been you lately pushing for civil discourse? Why don’t you simply contribute and not worry what others are writing. Just contribute what you can and stop believing that you are part of the web police on this board.
And for the record, you can video all you want, record times all you want, play with all the gadgets you want, criticize all you want and blog all you want. That doesn’t make you a good coach, and it certainly doesn’t make you a good contributor to this forum.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1342557560"][quote author="star61" date="1342556578"]Carl,
I have said repeatedly that I would be happy to participate in a thread that discusses the literature, as well as personal experiences of myself and others, about any aspect of contrast training if you care to do so. However, while you routinely ask, repeatedly, that others back up their opinions with research, you do not. I say again, start a thread about contrast training, why you like it, why you think it works and how you implement it and cite one line of evidence, whether it is a study, personal experience, or just the recommendation of someone you respect, and I will gladly participate…fully. I will contribute in terms of citing research that I have studied, personal recommendations from athletes/coaches I have discussed the issue with, as well as the experiences with contrast training they have shared. BUT, I will not be required to back up every opinion I have with research and data when you refuse to do the same, ever.
Let’s start now without contrast details as that seems to be requiring additional threads. I have posted 20 studies to back my opinions in pdf form, and posted links. I have provided youtube videos of training elite athletes to demonstrate drills, exercises, technique, and other factors. So far I have yet to see anything from you to help describe what you are doing or what you consider good or bad.
When I ask for time, video, or even a table of athlete development I see arguments of what I am not doing.
So Star61 do you time or video your athletes?[/quote]Carl,
Yes I time my athletes. Yes I have video. I also have video of two of my powerlifters setting world records on youtube. So what. And, when did this thread transform into a thread where contributors are required to validate themselves to you, of all people, in order to justify their opinions? Perhaps you haven’t noticed Carl, but I have no respect for you as any kind of expert. If I worked as a technology aid at a high school I might have time to search the internet all day for videos and blogs to comment on like you. But I have real businesses to run. I’ve never held myself up as an expert, something that you have done since you first started blogging. I assume that you are supposed to be a leader on this board, so please tell me how this incredible need to continuously posture yourself above everyone else on the board actually contributes to the forum? Have your comments improved the level of information in this thread? Let me answer for you…NO. Your comments, as always, serve to position yourself and and improve your self generated, internet persona. And completely kill the thread. Hasn’t it been you lately pushing for civil discourse? Why don’t you simply contribute and not worry what others are writing. Just contribute what you can and stop believing that you are part of the web police on this board.
And for the record, you can video all you want, record times all you want, play with all the gadgets you want, criticize all you want and blog all you want. That doesn’t make you a good coach, and it certainly doesn’t make you a good contributor to this forum.[/quote]
It looks like we will not be seeing any sprints with greater than 10% load!
-
Participant
Just more ducking and weaving!
It’s ok, Star61 has no need to share anything as this a community of discussion. Sometimes sharing video, times in workouts, or program design is great to learn from. If he chooses not to share that is not a problem.
Now COV-GOD has some timing and he may see strong relationships with athletes that are stronger or have more needs in the early phase of acceleration from heavier loads. Whatever he finds and shares is good to learn from. Training takes a long time and it’s good to find out what works, what works well, and what maybe isn’t worth the time.
-
Participant
Elvira, JLL, Alcaraz, PE, and Palao, JM. Effects of different resisted sprint running methods on stride length, stride frequency, and CG vertical oscillation. In: XXIV ISBS Symposium 2006. S. Hermann, ed. Salzburg: International Society of Sports Biomechanics, 2006.
“Working out with excessive loads in sled towing provokes significant increases in CG vertical oscillation and significant reductions in stride length.”
I don’t have Kebba’s DVD but if anyone gets it I would be interested in pretension firing routines of acceleration as not much research I found on the subject.
-
Participant
the problem with that paper is it is already biased in achiveing what the equation for 90% is at max velocity mechanics (upright running)
meaning it is only to establish what weight is approriate to ensure you are being within the pre determined ‘ speicific’ frame. and does not analyse the effect of a training programme using each weight and its effects on improving top speed section.
I think we can all agree that adding weight….. will slow you down! ‘for that run’
Using a heavier sled may indeed slow ou outside the ‘holy grail’ of 90/95% speed, but sure as hell isnt outside 100% intensity or muscle recruitment….
FYI, I have 4 athletes in my experiment 🙂
-
Participant
That abstract isn’t looking at max velocity, but rather stride length and frequency. Basically looking at how different methods of resisted sprint training affect sprint technique. For it to be specific technique needs to remain unaltered so the male athletes should stick to 9% BW and the females could also include the parachute.
-
Participant
Re:
Elvira, JLL, Alcaraz, PE, and Palao, JM. Effects of different resisted sprint running methods on stride length, stride frequency, and CG vertical oscillation.In: XXIV ISBS Symposium 2006. S. Hermann, ed. Salzburg: International Society of Sports Biomechanics, 2006.
First, this paper is not necessarily on point with the sled discussion in this thread. This paper is about the usefulness of sled towing during the Max V phase. There has been not one single statement in this thread, that I am aware, suggesting heavy sleds should be used for Max V training. The use of heavier than 10%bw sleds, as we have discussed it, has been limited to the acceleration phase.
Secondly, even if we restrict the discussion to Max V, this study is very poorly developed, at least for our purposes. It is typical of a “model driven” study with absolutely no empirical data suggesting whether or not the assumptions made, and conclusions drawn, are supported by empirical data. The studies only utility is to assist in calculating the proper load IF you buy into the 10% rule or something like it. It has absolutely zero value in determining if sled towing at ANY weight benefits Max V.
The authors base their model on the following theory…
The training principle of specificity states that for an exercise to be effective, it must maintain
similar characteristics to the sport requirements…This theory is not universally true in all circumstances. One simple example. Neither squats nor most plyos are specific to early acceleration running mechanics, yet we all know that a training program consisting of squats and plyos has very positive benefits to early acceleration. Specificity is good, but does a means have to be exactly specific to have a positive contribution? In many cases, no. The authors do not test this hypothesis in this regard; they simply assume that if some arbitrary degree of non-specificity occurs, the means are of no benefit. They do not even test unresisted Max V velocity before and after an extended training cycle to determine if ANY load on a sled has ANY benefit.
Bottom line….I could have guessed the data included in their table within a reasonable margin of error. Yes, when you tow a sled you run slower, and the heavier the sled the slower you go. Yes, when you run slower, it takes longer to go 30m. But what long term training effects on Max V are associated with towing at various loads when towing is included as part of an integrated sprint training plan? That is our question, and this study does absolutely nothing to answer it.
-
Participant
Re:
[b]Elvira, JLL, Alcaraz, PE, and Palao, JM. Effects of different resisted sprint running methods on stride length, stride frequency, and CG vertical oscillation.[/b]In: XXIV ISBS Symposium 2006. S. Hermann, ed. Salzburg: International Society of Sports Biomechanics, 2006.
First, this paper is not necessarily on point with the sled discussion in this thread. This paper is about the usefulness of sled towing during the Max V phase. There has been not one single statement in this thread, that I am aware, suggesting heavy sleds should be used for Max V training. The use of heavier than 10%bw sleds, as we have discussed it, has been limited to the acceleration phase.
Secondly, even if we restrict the discussion to Max V, this study is very poorly developed, at least for our purposes. It is typical of a “model driven” study with absolutely no empirical data suggesting whether or not the assumptions made, and conclusions drawn, are supported by empirical data. The studies only utility is to assist in calculating the proper load IF you buy into the 10% rule or something like it. It has absolutely zero value in determining if sled towing at ANY weight benefits Max V.
The authors base their model on the following theory…
[i]The training principle of specificity states that for an exercise to be effective, it must maintain
similar characteristics to the sport requirements…[/i]This theory is not universally true in all circumstances. One simple example. Neither squats nor most plyos are specific to early acceleration running mechanics, yet we all know that a training program consisting of squats and plyos has very positive benefits to early acceleration. Specificity is good, but does a means have to be exactly specific to have a positive contribution? In many cases, no. The authors do not test this hypothesis in this regard; they simply assume that if some arbitrary degree of non-specificity occurs, the means are of no benefit. They do not even test unresisted Max V velocity before and after an extended training cycle to determine if ANY load on a sled has ANY benefit.
Bottom line….I could have guessed the data included in their table within a reasonable margin of error. Yes, when you tow a sled you run slower, and the heavier the sled the slower you go. Yes, when you run slower, it takes longer to go 30m. But what long term training effects on Max V are associated with towing at various loads when towing is included as part of an integrated sprint training plan? That is our question, and this study does absolutely nothing to answer it.
Max speed and early acceleration are very polar, but eventually mid range will be something that needs to be discussed like the 40-50m zone. The purpose of the study is to see the effects on sprinting, not necessarily the adaptions.
Long term studies show
In fact, for the loads used by WS and WV in this study, UR training may actually be superior for improving sprint performance in the 18.3- to 54.9-m interval.
THE LONGITUDINAL EFFECTS OF RESISTED SPRINT TRAINING USING WEIGHTED
SLEDS vS. WEIGHTED VESTSSo heavy sled (50% BW) max sprinting would be an unlikely method of developing max velocity. Unresisted acceleration with plyos and weight room work versus a similar volume with sleds included perhaps will be a wash out. Perhaps no plyos and heavy sleds may be superior?
If someone has a specific protocol based on loading and % speed decay to improve different parts of acceleration I would be interested. I don’t have this data because I just started timing sled work seriously this past year.
-
Participant
You can’t answer the questions with timing alone.
Not saying that you can get all of the information alone, hence what I wrote never included that level of absolute wording Callam. Anyway…..you can’t even see all of the adaptions through kinetics and kinematics either so what do you think a good study would be? This can perhaps shed what directions we are expecting to have from a hypothesis standpoint.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1342655671"]
Anyway…..you can’t even see all of the adaptions through kinetics and kinematics either
Do you even know what kinematics and kinetics actually are? Of course you can.[/quote]
Are you saying the only adaptations you can see are kinetics and kinematics Callam?
-
Participant
-
Participant
What are adaptations in sprint and power training in your mind ? Perhaps physiological and and morphological right?
-
Participant
I was going to say hook or false but it’s not as clever as Josh’s stuff. Good luck in the 100m this year Callam.
-
Participant
And good luck to you talking crap and pretending you are someone on an internet forum.
Note 10.33
-
Participant
My comments above were strictly related to the study cited. I would agree that heavier sleds, and possibly any resisted sprint work, have not been shown to improve any aspect of sprinting past 30m, but I would add a big caveat in that I have not seen a good study which tested the question properly, especially for those that have never weight trained. The study cited does not lend any insight into the question, “Does heavy sled towing improve sprint speed?” My idea of a good study to address that question would be…
Several groups, including a control group, with all subjects having a good amount (3-5 years) of sprint training that DID NOT include resisted sprinting. Within each group, I would ensure that both experienced weight trainers (squat, Oly etc.) and those that have never done extensive weight training be included.
Example:
Group 1 – Control Group, standard sprint training with no resisted training.
Group 2 – Resisted group using light (<5%bw sled) for acceleration training only
Group 3 – Resisted group using moderate(5-10%bw sled) for acceleration training only
Group 4 – Resisted group using heavy (20%%bw sled) for acceleration training only
Group 5 – Resisted group using light (<5%bw sled) for acceleration and Max V training
Group 6 – Resisted group using light (5-10%bw sled) for acceleration and Max V training
Group 7 – Resisted group using light (20%%bw sled) for acceleration and Max V trainingTraining, which would include a standard sprint training program, would last at least 8 weeks with testing (which would include jump and strength testing, acceleration data and Max V data) at the beginning, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks (after continued unresisted training and a taper) and 16 weeks (after continued unresisted training and a taper) to see if any short term or long term benefits are derived from towing sleds of any weight for those with, and without, a strength training background. This would be a difficult study to manage, I know, but I think it would answer the question.
-
Participant
Max speed and early acceleration are very polar, but eventually mid range will be something that needs to be discussed like the 40-50m zone. The purpose of the study is to see the effects on sprinting, not necessarily the adaptions.
I’m not sure why anyone is really interested in the effects on sprinting while your pulling the sled, I would think you would be interested in the whether or not there is a benefit that shows up in unresisted sprinting, which they didn’t measure. As I mentioned, I could have saved them the time and money because all of their results were obviously predictable. If they want to do a study on the effects of jumping with a heavy vest, I can tell them that the heavier the vest, the lower you jump. Its not rocket science.
Long term studies show
I’ve never seen a long term study covering this issue. This study tested immediately after training ceased at week 7. What about the long term effects, say 6 weeks later?
I[i]n fact, for the loads used by WS and WV in this study, UR training may actually be superior for improving sprint performance in the 18.3- to 54.9-m interval.[/i]
Again, badly designed study in that they are studying the transistion zone and Max V (remember these are lacrosse players) but using loads characteristic of acceleration training. Secondly, it appears this training was not part of an overall sprint training program. Who does heavy sled towing only and expects to improve Max V? What if sleds of various weights were towed as part of a well planned sprint training program? Again, not a well designed study.
So heavy sled (50% BW) max sprinting would be an unlikely method of developing max velocity.
I, like just about everyone else, doubts 50%bw sleds will do anything for Max V, with the remotely possible exception of an athlete who has no weight room training (or other resistance training for strength), who may lack general strength, and does the work as part of a well designed sprint program. This study was not designed in manner that would allow it to answer any of these questions.
-
Participant
Since this thread went off course when I mentioned contrast training, I thought I would toss out a link from a discussion on contrast this forum had a few years ago that went a little smoother. I threw out some quotes from some athletes/coaches that had led me to believe there was potential benefits to be derived from contrast training. I’ve read nothing, either science or anecdote, that changes my mind that there is a benefit derived from contrast training.
https://elitetrack.com/forums/viewthread/8297/
You will note an exchange between COV-GOD and myself. Earlier in this thread I made a suggestion to COV to include contrast in a training session he was considering, knowing that he would understand where I was coming from because of our earlier discussions. Some people felt the suggestion was out of line because I didn’t validate my suggestion with a lot of data and videos, but I knew that COV was on the same page and knew where I was coming.
-
Participant
So how much more benefit contrast has over conventional acceleration in say college athletes who have 2-4 years of good weightlifting and plyo background you think (not looking for research? If sleds help 30m acceleration by 1% or so, does contrast help say another .5 percent? Do athletes of the same weight use the same load if they are dramatically different speed wise?
-
Participant
So how much more benefit contrast has over conventional acceleration in say college athletes who have 2-4 years of good weightlifting and plyo background you think (not looking for research? If sleds help 30m acceleration by 1% or so, does contrast help say another .5 percent? Do athletes of the same weight use the same load if they are dramatically different speed wise?
I haven’t coached enough athletes with a similar enough overall plan to put a number to it. My first real world experience with it several years ago is summarized below.
A close relative playing D-2 football, undersized and slow for his position (tight end), but strong and extremely hard working with great hands, spent three years of college (with a world class power lifter for a strength coach) and four years of high school, which including power lifting team, utilizing traditional football (not soccer) strength and fitness training and could never break 5.0 for the 40yd, 28inches for the vertical. He did normally test at the top on the shuttle drill. His history was quasi power lifting with football style (very heavy, bad technique) Olys and repetitive sprints etc. etc.
I put him on a 8 week contrast program with a foundation of heavy box squats alternating with box jumps and bilateral plyos in a complex/contrast format in the gym and resisted sled sprints (cycling from 5% – 15% bodyweight on a weekly basis) alternating with slight downhill accelerations and flys, again in a complex/contrast format.
I can’t say what exactly made the difference, but the only real difference in his training was the contrast and full recovery on the sprint reps (5min). He tested at 4.6x on multiple 40yd dashes and his vertical routinely tested between 34 and 36 inches. His squat numbers went up dramatically as well, from low 400’s for a half squat to over 500 with very good form. His strength coach and position coach, both who knew him very well, pulled him to the side and asked him about steroids. He could not convince them that an adjustment to his training, after years of training their way, had made such a drastic improvement in strength and acceleration without drugs. But it did.
With other athletes, most of whom are younger and have little or no history, I have nothing to compare it to. They all make good progress, but without history, I can’t say it has been any one aspect of the training. I don’t keep track of a lot of data. I measure and look for changes/anamolies, both short term and long term, to see if any adjustments to training is having an impact anywhere. But since I’m not a professional coach, I don’t keep long term records on any one athlete that would allow me to put a number or percentage on how much improvement any specific means or protocal would be expected to have. I just feel strongly that what we’re doing works better than traditional strength training and traditional sprint work they have done up to that point. I will say this, I have never had an athlete regress or injured..they have all made progress and set PRs, but of course they are young and that is to be expected.
In the gym, I have applied contrast training to a few athletes who have all made great progress, even as power lifters. Logan Lacy came to me at age 20 (I think) having a very spotty history of power lifting, and my nephew, who ‘retired’ from powerlifting after high school with bad knees and unimpressive numbers. We used contrast, complex and concurrent training and within two years both had set world records in the squat. Had Logan lifted as a junior, his squat would still be a world record in that division by quite a margin, but he lifted in the open division to experience better competition. Both of these athletes feel the contrast, complex and concurrent training had a significant impact on their numbers, but obviously that’s not a scientific determination.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1342710580"]So how much more benefit contrast has over conventional acceleration in say college athletes who have 2-4 years of good weightlifting and plyo background you think (not looking for research? If sleds help 30m acceleration by 1% or so, does contrast help say another .5 percent? Do athletes of the same weight use the same load if they are dramatically different speed wise?
I haven’t coached enough athletes with a similar enough overall plan to put a number to it. My first real world experience with it several years ago is summarized below.
A close relative playing D-2 football, undersized and slow for his position (tight end), but strong and extremely hard working with great hands, spent three years of college (with a world class power lifter for a strength coach) and four years of high school, which including power lifting team, utilizing traditional football (not soccer) strength and fitness training and could never break 5.0 for the 40yd, 28inches for the vertical. He did normally test at the top on the shuttle drill. His history was quasi power lifting with football style (very heavy, bad technique) Olys and repetitive sprints etc. etc.
I put him on a 8 week contrast program with a foundation of heavy box squats alternating with box jumps and bilateral plyos in a complex/contrast format in the gym and resisted sled sprints (cycling from 5% – 15% bodyweight on a weekly basis) alternating with slight downhill accelerations and flys, again in a complex/contrast format.
I can’t say what exactly made the difference, but the only real difference in his training was the contrast and full recovery on the sprint reps (5min). He tested at 4.6x on multiple 40yd dashes and his vertical routinely tested between 34 and 36 inches. His squat numbers went up dramatically as well, from low 400’s for a half squat to over 500 with very good form. His strength coach and position coach, both who knew him very well, pulled him to the side and asked him about steroids. He could not convince them that an adjustment to his training, after years of training their way, had made such a drastic improvement in strength and acceleration without drugs. But it did.
With other athletes, most of whom are younger and have little or no history, I have nothing to compare it to. They all make good progress, but without history, I can’t say it has been any one aspect of the training. I don’t keep track of a lot of data. I measure and look for changes/anamolies, both short term and long term, to see if any adjustments to training is having an impact anywhere. But since I’m not a professional coach, I don’t keep long term records on any one athlete that would allow me to put a number or percentage on how much improvement any specific means or protocal would be expected to have. I just feel strongly that what we’re doing works better than traditional strength training and traditional sprint work they have done up to that point. I will say this, I have never had an athlete regress or injured..they have all made progress and set PRs, but of course they are young and that is to be expected.
In the gym, I have applied contrast training to a few athletes who have all made great progress, even as power lifters. Logan Lacy came to me at age 20 (I think) having a very spotty history of power lifting, and my nephew, who ‘retired’ from powerlifting after high school with bad knees and unimpressive numbers. We used contrast, complex and concurrent training and within two years both had set world records in the squat. Had Logan lifted as a junior, his squat would still be a world record in that division by quite a margin, but he lifted in the open division to experience better competition. Both of these athletes feel the contrast, complex and concurrent training had a significant impact on their numbers, but obviously that’s not a scientific determination.[/quote]
While it’s not a research study, history lessons are great to learn from. Thanks for sharing. Now how does that athlete go from 4.6x to 4.4 considering that his weights are excellent compared to most sprinters?
-
Participant
While it’s not a research study, history lessons are great to learn from. Thanks for sharing. Now how does that athlete go from 4.6x to 4.4 considering that his weights are excellent compared to most sprinters?
I think it could be done, but the focus would need to be on RFD and technique. I think I could manage the RFD, but he would need a better coach than me to work on starting technique and better running mechanics. We’ll never know, because he graduated and no longer trains.
For what its worth, I have always believed that for young, weak, untrained or under trained (in terms of strength) athletes, strength training, including resisted sprints, give a huge return. As the athlete approaches some unknown level of strength and fitness, RFD becomes more and more important relative to strength. Technique and running mechanics are always important, of course.
-
Participant
to add a bit more fuel to the fire…
A guy I used to coach a few years ago, and then moved to a national coach…
Things werent working great for him and so he moved to Bobsleigh (in fact very succesfully involved in the 4 man which ranked 10th in the world this winter)
He moved back to track for the summer, unfortunatley too late to make an assualt on the olympic team…..
….but with a winter of heavy bobsleigh and sled training, this weekend he PB’d with 10.23 taking off over a tenth from his previous best.
My experiment is still on going and will be compete by end of august, working a 4 week load and two week taper.
-
Participant
Example of heavy sled training by Sparta Science at 0:58 seconds.
Best,
Christopher -
Participant
to add a bit more fuel to the fire…
A guy I used to coach a few years ago, and then moved to a national coach…
Things werent working great for him and so he moved to Bobsleigh (in fact very succesfully involved in the 4 man which ranked 10th in the world this winter)
He moved back to track for the summer, unfortunatley too late to make an assualt on the olympic team…..
….but with a winter of heavy bobsleigh and sled training, this weekend he PB’d with 10.23 taking off over a tenth from his previous best.
My experiment is still on going and will be compete by end of august, working a 4 week load and two week taper.
There were a couple of Swiss guys, world champions, who had similar results. Not sure if they trained out beyond 60m, most likely they did not by much.
-
Participant
[quote author="COV-GOD" date="1343391344"]to add a bit more fuel to the fire…
A guy I used to coach a few years ago, and then moved to a national coach…
Things werent working great for him and so he moved to Bobsleigh (in fact very succesfully involved in the 4 man which ranked 10th in the world this winter)
He moved back to track for the summer, unfortunatley too late to make an assualt on the olympic team…..
….but with a winter of heavy bobsleigh and sled training, this weekend he PB’d with 10.23 taking off over a tenth from his previous best.
My experiment is still on going and will be compete by end of august, working a 4 week load and two week taper.
There were a couple of Swiss guys, world champions, who had similar results. Not sure if they trained out beyond 60m, most likely they did not by much.[/quote]Any idea how long any of these bobsleigh guys were from actual bobsleigh training before the PBs? It would surprise me if there was a slight dip in performance immediately after, followed by improvement sometime later, especially after a taper.
Thanks…
-
Participant
Every time I’ve pushed the sled, usually around a week each time, I feel faster when I go back to unresisted sprints.
-
Participant
-
Participant
Didnt want to start a new blog with these as of course its just my work carried out, but im happy with it and TBH confirmed my thoughts and previous results.
Was able to use more athletes in this then just the one as soon as I mentioned it, more wanted in.AIM:
The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted (RS) 40% Body weighted sled, and un-resisted (URS) sprint training programs on acceleration and maximum speed performance.
METHODS:
8 Male sprint trained athletes (age 19.3+/-4.2 y, height 1.79+/-9 cm, and weight 71.5 +/-4.5 kg training age of 3 years +/- 3) completed RS (n=4) or URS (n=4) sprint training programs. The RS group followed a sprint-training program with 40% BW sled pulling (using the same sled) and the URS group followed a similar sprint-training program without sled pulling. The training program consisted of sprint drills for each session and Session 1 – 4x15m and 4x36m maximal runs, Session 2- 4x25m and 4x 50m, each session was applied each week along with a 3rd session that both groups combined without resistance to cover extensive tempo conditioning for 4 weeks. Followed by a ten day taper (matched for both groups). Before and after the training programs the subjects performed a 60m run through Brower timing gates at 0-10 (inclusive of reaction time) 10-40m and 40-60m was measured.
RESULTS:
Resisted Group Unresisted Group
Pre Post Pre Post
0-10 m 2.32 ± 0.14 2.21 ± 0.10 2.26 ± 0.13 2.20 ± 0.09
10-40 m 3.08 ± 0.12 2.99± 0.09 3.03 ± 0.13 2.98 ± 0.11
40-60 m 1.95 ± 0.12 1.92 ± 0.08 1.96 ± 0.10 1.91 ± 0.09
Both the RS and URS groups improved in all 3 timed sectors, the RS group showed the biggest progress in the sector 10-40m (drive and transition phase of sprinting) this also correlated to significant improvement in the 40-60m sector.
CONCLUSION:
Sprint training with 40% BW sled pulling for 4 weeks with a ten day taper, improves acceleration performance (0-40m) above that of training without resistance, whilst also showing beneficial qualities to maximal speed development inline with those achieved by training unresisted.
2012 MarshallAnyway, thats that to rip apart, I dont claim for it to be perfect.
-
Participant
Didnt want to start a new blog with these as of course its just my work carried out, but im happy with it and TBH confirmed my thoughts and previous results.
Was able to use more athletes in this then just the one as soon as I mentioned it, more wanted in.AIM:
The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted (RS) 40% Body weighted sled, and un-resisted (URS) sprint training programs on acceleration and maximum speed performance.
METHODS:
8 Male sprint trained athletes (age 19.3+/-4.2 y, height 1.79+/-9 cm, and weight 71.5 +/-4.5 kg training age of 3 years +/- 3) completed RS (n=4) or URS (n=4) sprint training programs. The RS group followed a sprint-training program with 40% BW sled pulling (using the same sled) and the URS group followed a similar sprint-training program without sled pulling. The training program consisted of sprint drills for each session and Session 1 – 4x and 4x maximal runs, Session 2- 4x and 4x 50m, each session was applied each week along with a 3rd session that both groups combined without resistance to cover extensive tempo conditioning for 4 weeks. Followed by a ten day taper (matched for both groups). Before and after the training programs the subjects performed a 60m run through Brower timing gates at 0-10 (inclusive of reaction time) 10-40m and 40-60m was measured.
RESULTS:
Resisted Group Unresisted Group
Pre Post Pre Post
0-10 m 2.32 ± 0.14 2.21 ± 0.10 2.26 ± 0.13 2.20 ± 0.09
10-40 m 3.08 ± 0.12 2.99± 0.09 3.03 ± 0.13 2.98 ± 0.11
40-60 m 1.95 ± 0.12 1.92 ± 0.08 1.96 ± 0.10 1.91 ± 0.09
Both the RS and URS groups improved in all 3 timed sectors, the RS group showed the biggest progress in the sector 10-40m (drive and transition phase of sprinting) this also correlated to significant improvement in the 40-60m sector.
CONCLUSION:
Sprint training with 40% BW sled pulling for 4 weeks with a ten day taper, improves acceleration performance (0-40m) above that of training without resistance, whilst also showing beneficial qualities to maximal speed development inline with those achieved by training unresisted.
2012 MarshallAnyway, thats that to rip apart, I dont claim for it to be perfect.
Thanks for all the effort and for sharing…as good a study as we see in many publications. Two questions…1) did the Resisted Group do any unresisted sprint work in addition to the sled training 2) if you dig down (I know the populations are small) did you notice any tendency or trend that might suggest the weaker individuals benefited the most from the sled training?
-
Participant
Only 4 build up sprints as part of warm up from circa 60m all participants.
Yes one particular lad who has minimal “gym strength” development improved greatest.
I intend to run a similar process at some point for contrast using overspeed of sorts! Actually learning a lot from my own experiments.
-
Participant
Did you find any difference at 100 meters. I would think it would be awesome to do similar program and see its affect on the entire race distance. Good work dude!
"Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse." -Albert Einstein
-
Participant
Cool to see a coaches study if you will. What type of sled (brand model) and harness setup? What were time detriments between resisted and unresisted work. Any film of resisted work so we can see what the runs look like?
-
Participant
No one has raced a 100 since, as mot had finished the season already (early start in UK for the olympics) I have 1 doing a 100 next weekend who was part of the sled group, so will update after that race
Brand of the sled? good question, I will check this evening, however it is of a tubular construction with what i would say the weight on 2 runners!?!? secured at waist level, as in the past when we have used shoulder harness there has been jarring that cause back pain (not good!)also as the weight was heavier we still wanted to allow some forward lean of the trunk (shoulder harness would almost certainly cause some lift)
I have a vid on my ipad will try get onto youtube 🙂
-
Participant
Didnt want to start a new blog with these as of course its just my work carried out, but im happy with it and TBH confirmed my thoughts and previous results.
Was able to use more athletes in this then just the one as soon as I mentioned it, more wanted in.AIM:
The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted (RS) 40% Body weighted sled, and un-resisted (URS) sprint training programs on acceleration and maximum speed performance.
METHODS:
8 Male sprint trained athletes (age 19.3+/-4.2 y, height 1.79+/-9 cm, and weight 71.5 +/-4.5 kg training age of 3 years +/- 3) completed RS (n=4) or URS (n=4) sprint training programs. The RS group followed a sprint-training program with 40% BW sled pulling (using the same sled) and the URS group followed a similar sprint-training program without sled pulling. The training program consisted of sprint drills for each session and Session 1 – 4x15m and 4x36m maximal runs, Session 2- 4x25m and 4x 50m, each session was applied each week along with a 3rd session that both groups combined without resistance to cover extensive tempo conditioning for 4 weeks. Followed by a ten day taper (matched for both groups). Before and after the training programs the subjects performed a 60m run through Brower timing gates at 0-10 (inclusive of reaction time) 10-40m and 40-60m was measured.
RESULTS:
Resisted Group Unresisted Group
Pre Post Pre Post
0-10 m 2.32 ± 0.14 2.21 ± 0.10 2.26 ± 0.13 2.20 ± 0.09
10-40 m 3.08 ± 0.12 2.99± 0.09 3.03 ± 0.13 2.98 ± 0.11
40-60 m 1.95 ± 0.12 1.92 ± 0.08 1.96 ± 0.10 1.91 ± 0.09
Both the RS and URS groups improved in all 3 timed sectors, the RS group showed the biggest progress in the sector 10-40m (drive and transition phase of sprinting) this also correlated to significant improvement in the 40-60m sector.
CONCLUSION:
Sprint training with 40% BW sled pulling for 4 weeks with a ten day taper, improves acceleration performance (0-40m) above that of training without resistance, whilst also showing beneficial qualities to maximal speed development inline with those achieved by training unresisted.
2012 MarshallAnyway, thats that to rip apart, I dont claim for it to be perfect.
Very interesting results. Have you calculated a p value?
-
Participant
Lol hell no
If I was gonna submit or publish then maybe I would look at all the extra stat requirements etc, I may let one of my sports sci kids submit and gain credits though
Just on the surface there might not be significance (0.07s improvement +/- 0.09 over 60m relative to sprint training) but the intervention seems like it could work. Has anyone thought of a complex/contrast method for resisted sprinting? Perhaps pushing the sled backwards? Room for discussion…
-
Participant
[quote author="COV-GOD" date="1345835088"]Lol hell no
If I was gonna submit or publish then maybe I would look at all the extra stat requirements etc, I may let one of my sports sci kids submit and gain credits though
Just on the surface there might not be significance (0.07s improvement +/- 0.09 over 60m relative to sprint training) but the intervention seems like it could work. Has anyone thought of a complex/contrast method for resisted sprinting? Perhaps pushing the sled backwards? Room for discussion…[/quote]This thread spun off of a discussion of contrast training with a sled. The training you hint at would not be contrast, it would be antagonist training. Contrast with a sled would be sled pull resisted sprint followed within 2-3 minutes with unresisted or assisted sprint. I think several members on this board use something like this. I don’t know anyone doing antagonist sprint training. We do use it in the gym sometimes (i.e. sets of bench press alternating with sets of dumbell or machine rows).
-
Participant
Damn it!!! Lol
We actually have one session now n then which I have planned to include more in the coming winter which consists of
Bear walks and VMO walks, everyone ows the bear walk, the vmo is just a backward walk but with a distinct sink of the hips and ensure extension of the lower log to full lock out to activate the VMO with changes in foot placement angle.
Of course these are done heavy
(the vmo walk us been added due to my knee issues)
-
Participant
[quote author="Jeremy Richmond" date="1345869209"][quote author="COV-GOD" date="1345835088"]Lol hell no
If I was gonna submit or publish then maybe I would look at all the extra stat requirements etc, I may let one of my sports sci kids submit and gain credits though
Just on the surface there might not be significance (0.07s improvement +/- 0.09 over 60m relative to sprint training) but the intervention seems like it could work. Has anyone thought of a complex/contrast method for resisted sprinting? Perhaps pushing the sled backwards? Room for discussion…[/quote]This thread spun off of a discussion of contrast training with a sled. The training you hint at would not be contrast, it would be antagonist training. Contrast with a sled would be sled pull resisted sprint followed within 2-3 minutes with unresisted or assisted sprint. I think several members on this board use something like this. I don’t know anyone doing antagonist sprint training. We do use it in the gym sometimes (i.e. sets of bench press alternating with sets of dumbell or machine rows).[/quote]
Yes I was more thinkng antagonist training but not sure how it would be done with a sled because of the co-contractions.
On the topic of contrast sled work, has any discussion taken place regarding resisted bounding?
I would do resisted sprints, resisted bounding, and resisted high knees in contrast with unresisted. Any thoughts? -
Participant
Damn it!!! Lol
We actually have one session now n then which I have planned to include more in the coming winter which consists of
Bear walks and VMO walks, everyone ows the bear walk, the vmo is just a backward walk but with a distinct sink of the hips and ensure extension of the lower log to full lock out to activate the VMO with changes in foot placement angle.
Of course these are done heavy
(the vmo walk us been added due to my knee issues)
I’m not trying to be critical. I appreciate the information gathered from your experiment. One possible factor that may have influenced the results was that the intervention group (the sled group) may have felt they were getting special training whereas the sprint only group might have felt unwanted (or a little bored compared to the excited sled group). Perhaps the sprint group needed to be given a placebo EMS intervention prior to there sprints or some similar special effect.
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1346114180"][quote author="Jeremy Richmond" date="1345869209"][quote author="COV-GOD" date="1345835088"]Lol hell no
If I was gonna submit or publish then maybe I would look at all the extra stat requirements etc, I may let one of my sports sci kids submit and gain credits though
Just on the surface there might not be significance (0.07s improvement +/- 0.09 over 60m relative to sprint training) but the intervention seems like it could work. Has anyone thought of a complex/contrast method for resisted sprinting? Perhaps pushing the sled backwards? Room for discussion…[/quote]This thread spun off of a discussion of contrast training with a sled. The training you hint at would not be contrast, it would be antagonist training. Contrast with a sled would be sled pull resisted sprint followed within 2-3 minutes with unresisted or assisted sprint. I think several members on this board use something like this. I don’t know anyone doing antagonist sprint training. We do use it in the gym sometimes (i.e. sets of bench press alternating with sets of dumbell or machine rows).[/quote]
Yes I was more thinkng antagonist training but not sure how it would be done with a sled because of the co-contractions.
On the topic of contrast sled work, has any discussion taken place regarding resisted bounding?
I would do resisted sprints, resisted bounding, and resisted high knees in contrast with unresisted. Any thoughts?[/quote]I like the idea of resisted bounding and have tried it once or twice, but considering the level of athlete I was working with, we were not ready for that. With an athlete that has truly mastered bounding, I would use a contrast method that included weighted vest bounding emphasizing height followed by unresisted bounding also emphazing height, and light sled bounding for distance/speed also followed by unresisted bounding for same. I have no actual evidence that it would add much but I like resistance training, I like contrast training, and I think it would be fun and introduce some variety. -
Participant
…I would use a contrast method that included weighted vest bounding emphasizing height followed by unresisted bounding also emphazing height, and light sled bounding for distance/speed also followed by unresisted bounding for same. I have no actual evidence that it would add much but I like resistance training, I like contrast training, and I think it would be fun and introduce some variety.
What sort of displacement (hip) are you looking at? Are there trades with contact length as well considering horizontal resistance?
-
Participant
JR funny enough actually it was more the other way in regards to motivation.
The sled group hated the sessions as they were used to training fast, and after the second week found the sessions hard
But the in resisted group were very mentally “on” as they didn’t want to lose to the other group.
Big fan of weighted vest plyos, mixed into contrast….. I remember a discussion on here with nick who a few years ago experimented with contrast jumping I think in a overspeed way (making the athlete lighter etc)
-
Participant
JR funny enough actually it was more the other way in regards to motivation.
The sled group hated the sessions as they were used to training fast, and after the second week found the sessions hard
But the in resisted group were very mentally “on” as they didn’t want to lose to the other group.
Big fan of weighted vest plyos, mixed into contrast….. I remember a discussion on here with nick who a few years ago experimented with contrast jumping I think in a overspeed way (making the athlete lighter etc)
Hakkinen et al.1985 showed dramatic improvement to the force-time curve from an explosive training program that incorporated lighter training. I’ve found it difficult to replicate unweighted sprint movements. Maybe hill running unweighted would help but that would require an elaborate set-up; a pulley device at the top of the slope. This may allow sufficient repetitions in the specific sprint early acceleration positions for a motor learning process to be enabled.
I use a different protocol to unweighted but similar in principle which gets immediate improvements to movement velocity but I can’t reveal such a powerful and simple method. We are talking about between 10-20% improvement to movement time after about 50 reps.
Check out the summary of Hakkinens study I’ve attached. If it doesn’t attach then follow the link in my signature to my facebook page.
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1346446427"]…I would use a contrast method that included weighted vest bounding emphasizing height followed by unresisted bounding also emphazing height, and light sled bounding for distance/speed also followed by unresisted bounding for same. I have no actual evidence that it would add much but I like resistance training, I like contrast training, and I think it would be fun and introduce some variety.
What sort of displacement (hip) are you looking at? Are there trades with contact length as well considering horizontal resistance?[/quote]I don’t look for anything specific in a drill like this. Emphasize speed, height or distance, and try to keep form athletic will with no glaring weaknesses or collapse, which does happen with under prepared athletes.
Concerning contact length, I don’t really see that changing much except there tends to be more complete extension, and thus longer contact length, with resisted movements. If you mean GCT, I don’t concern myself with it…I know resisted movements have longer GCT’s. With unresisted bounds, I do try to emphasize very short, sharp contacts to minimize GCT in an effort to make the movements slightly more specific in terms of force-time.
-
Participant
Appreciate your response star61. Your response regarding CL was helpful. I’m assuming your speaking of post ground contact/backside extension, correct?
What are posture issues that you have your athletes avoid during this exercise, if any?
-
Participant
Appreciate your response star61. Your response regarding CL was helpful. I’m assuming your speaking of post ground contact/backside extension, correct?
What are posture issues that you have your athletes avoid during this exercise, if any?
I don’t trust myself to have a really great eye for mechanics, but I try keep in mind posture/mechanics associated with the particular phase we’re working on. With heavier sleds I keep the following points in mind and try to cue the athletes when I see them deviate.
-I want the athlete to maintain appropriate forward lean.
-Rigid core, flat back, no bend at the waist.
-Head in line with spine, no chin tuck or looking up.
-Low heal recovery.
-Initiate ground contact on forefoot under or even a little behind the hips
-Full strides looking for triple extension in first several steps, driving well behind COG
-Good knee drive, forceful arm motion.I have trouble identifying proper hip position so I don’t mess with that too much.
-
Viewing 107 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.