Over the last few months I have watched the Bear Droppings thread grow to 11,000 views, great sign that people are investigating the importance of maximum strength training and the influence of speed and power athletes, specifically sprinters. Since I came up with the original post I will state my purpose is not to undermine the importance of strength training, but to share the reality of what is
de jure and de facto
-
-
Participant -
KeymasterGood points but I still think there’s a disconnect between what you’re saying and the debate in the thread. Perhaps part of the disconnect is that one side is looking at this solely for sprinters and what is possible without 85+% loads and not at the entire spectrum of athletes that compete in speed-power activities. And while examples may be few in the sprint world of athletes using near limit loads there are plenty in the jumps, throws and bobsled. Coaches? Pfaff uses loads in excess of 85% for many of his athletes. Boo does too. These are the two coaches I’m most familiar with so I’ll limit my commentary to them but there’s no questioning there success.
Maybe we just need to really come to a conclusion about what we’re debating…is it:
1) What is the best way to get strong without regard to sport?
2) What is the best way for a sprinter to get strong without regard to whether that increased strength is relevant to their event?
3) What is the best way for a speed-power athlete to get strong (as measured by weight room maxes)?
4) What is the best way for a speed-power athlete to get strong in a manner that will benefit there sporting activity?
5) Do you even need to be strong in the first place?
6) And on and on….I had the impression that the debate was not necessarily ‘what is best for sprinters’ (i.e. what will yield the best results on the track) but ‘what is the best way for a sprinter to get strong as measured by 1RM.’ More specifically, isn’t the question currently being addressed in the Bear Droppings thread whether including a regular dosage of 85+% loads in strength training activities at appropriate times of the year is a worthwhile and valuable addition to the training of a speed-power athlete.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Good points but I still think there’s a disconnect between what you’re saying and the debate in the thread. Perhaps part of the disconnect is that one side is looking at this solely for sprinters and what is possible without 85+% loads and not at the entire spectrum of athletes that compete in speed-power activities. And while examples may be few in the sprint world of athletes using near limit loads there are plenty in the jumps, throws and bobsled. Coaches? Pfaff uses loads in excess of 85% for many of his athletes. Boo does too. These are the two coaches I’m most familiar with so I’ll limit my commentary to them but there’s no questioning there success.
Maybe we just need to really come to a conclusion about what we’re debating…is it:
1) What is the best way to get strong without regard to sport?
2) What is the best way for a sprinter to get strong without regard to whether that increased strength is relevant to their event?
3) What is the best way for a speed-power athlete to get strong (as measured by weight room maxes)?
4) What is the best way for a speed-power athlete to get strong in a manner that will benefit there sporting activity?
5) Do you even need to be strong in the first place?
6) And on and on….I had the impression that the debate was not necessarily ‘what is best for sprinters’ (i.e. what will yield the best results on the track) but ‘what is the best way for a sprinter to get strong as measured by 1RM.’ More specifically, isn’t the question currently being addressed in the [url=https://elitetrack.com/forums/viewthread/8555]Bear Droppings thread[/url] whether including a regular dosage of 85+% loads in strength training activities at appropriate times of the year is a worthwhile and valuable addition to the training of a speed-power athlete.
Thank you for starting this thread, but good luck trying to keep everyone on topic.
I think each of these questions are extremely important, but as I have tried to do in Bear Droppings, and prior threads, I personally believe question 1 must be answered first. Without knowing what the optimal, uncompromised, method for improving max strength is, you can’t properly answer questions 2-6 etc. One caveat, even this simple question has no one simple answer. Are we talking a young skinny teen or a thick 30 something adult?
I would be interested in you (Mike) choosing an individual (real or imaginary) and get everyone’s opinion and input for three different training goals; hypertrophy, max strength, and power development (RFD). We could start with strength, since that’s the one we’re on now, and usually seems the most divisive topic.
Rather than these contentious, once-every-three-month threads that travel to the moon and back and end with posters at each others throats, posters should be required to offer support of their opinion with either scientific articles (that can be discussed for relevancy) or well established training programs that have obviously produced results (LSU, Bulgarian Olympic weightlifting, etc.). Anecdotal experience and undocumented information should carry little or no weight.
Once there is a general consensus, we could then discuss how this plan would be modified as to allow it to be useful for a particular sport or event.
Just my two cents.
-
Participant
Good points but I still think there’s a disconnect between what you’re saying and the debate in the thread. Perhaps part of the disconnect is that one side is looking at this solely for sprinters and what is possible without 85+% loads and not at the entire spectrum of athletes that compete in speed-power activities. And while examples may be few in the sprint world of athletes using near limit loads there are plenty in the jumps, throws and bobsled. Coaches? Pfaff uses loads in excess of 85% for many of his athletes. Boo does too. These are the two coaches I’m most familiar with so I’ll limit my commentary to them but there’s no questioning there success.
Maybe we just need to really come to a conclusion about what we’re debating…is it:
1) What is the best way to get strong without regard to sport?
2) What is the best way for a sprinter to get strong without regard to whether that increased strength is relevant to their event?
3) What is the best way for a speed-power athlete to get strong (as measured by weight room maxes)?
4) What is the best way for a speed-power athlete to get strong in a manner that will benefit there sporting activity?
5) Do you even need to be strong in the first place?
6) And on and on….I had the impression that the debate was not necessarily ‘what is best for sprinters’ (i.e. what will yield the best results on the track) but ‘what is the best way for a sprinter to get strong as measured by 1RM.’ More specifically, isn’t the question currently being addressed in the [url=https://elitetrack.com/forums/viewthread/8555]Bear Droppings thread[/url] whether including a regular dosage of 85+% loads in strength training activities at appropriate times of the year is a worthwhile and valuable addition to the training of a speed-power athlete.
I am not Robert Frost so articulating things in writing is not my strong point. I think the responses from those looking at sub 90% loads could care less about question 1 as we don’t live in a world of isolation. Hence the title of this blog post. We realize that strength training like a powerlifter will increase strength. Great. Merging track and powerlifting is foolish if just tossed together or compromised. This is why we don’t see too many programs that look like totem poles.
My point is one rep testing is usually a maximal strength test and how important max strength in sprinting has shown over and over to fail. Sure get stronger…as many coaches in the S and C community you have never heard will get linebackers to squat 400 pounds frequently but how many of them break 4.4? Here are my questions
1) What is the best way to get fast without regard to lifting weights?
2) What is the best way for a sprinter to get fast without regard to whether that increased strength is relevant to their event?
3) What is the best way for a speed-power athlete to get fast (as measured by electronic timing)?
4) What is the best way for a speed-power athlete to get better in a manner that will benefit there sporting activity?
5) Do you even need to be fast in the first place?
6) And on and on….The answers lie with the fact running and lifting work. Many guys can get to squat 315 in many different ways. But getting to sub 10 is a different story. What importance does great maximal numbers mean to an athlete? If all being equal, the athlete with the higher squat is not necessarily faster as I made that mistake ten years ago when I read training for speed and found that we could lift like Mark McCoy but we were not going 10.0. In fact the guy that had the lowest squat was faster as he was 150 pounds lighter (335) and the rest of the guys were 10.6 with 450 pounds. Same jumps and body types but any differences is going to need resources.
How much strength is enough to run 10.0? How much strength is enough to run a 6.6? Or how little is enough?
-
Participant
I am not Robert Frost so articulating things in writing is not my strong point. I think the responses from those looking at sub 90% loads could care less about question 1 as we don’t live in a world of isolation. Hence the title of this blog post. We realize that strength training like a powerlifter will increase strength. Great. Merging track and powerlifting is foolish if just tossed together or compromised. This is why we don’t see too many programs that look like totem poles.
My point is one rep testing is usually a maximal strength test and how important max strength in sprinting has shown over and over to fail. Sure get stronger…as many coaches in the S and C community you have never heard will get linebackers to squat 400 pounds frequently but how many of them break 4.4? Here are my questions
1) What is the best way to get fast without regard to lifting weights?
2) What is the best way for a sprinter to get fast without regard to whether that increased strength is relevant to their event?
3) What is the best way for a speed-power athlete to get fast (as measured by electronic timing)?
4) What is the best way for a speed-power athlete to get better in a manner that will benefit there sporting activity?
5) Do you even need to be fast in the first place?
6) And on and on….The answers lie with the fact running and lifting work. Many guys can get to squat 315 in many different ways. But getting to sub 10 is a different story. What importance does great maximal numbers mean to an athlete? If all being equal, the athlete with the higher squat is not necessarily faster as I made that mistake ten years ago when I read training for speed and found that we could lift like Mark McCoy but we were not going 10.0. In fact the guy that had the lowest squat was faster as he was 150 pounds lighter (335) and the rest of the guys were 10.6 with 450 pounds. Same jumps and body types but any differences is going to need resources.
How much strength is enough to run 10.0? How much strength is enough to run a 6.6? Or how little is enough?
Those are all great questions that have been asked, and studied, for years. The current debate isn’t at all how to improve a 1RM test. As I’ve said, I personally don’t feel the need to test a 1RM unless the subject is a weightlifter with an upcoming meet. Others feel that an actual maximal lift does improve event performance, but that is still another debate. Neither was the debate ‘will improving max strength make me faster?’. If you don’t think improving max strength will make you faster, there’s no debate for you in terms of loading, because you aren’t going to be working on max strength anyway.
The issue is determining which method of improving max strength is best for those that DO believe improving max strength will improve their sprinting, or jumping, or throwing, or whatever.
This is where my rub comes in, and why I like Mike’s series of questions. How can you intelligently answer ‘Which max strength exercises and rep schemes will make me (faster, jump higher, throw farther, jump farther)?’ if you don’t know which exercises and schemes works best in general? If one person believes three exercises of 4 x 8 at 70% three times per week is the best strength building plan in general, and another thinks two exercises of 5 x 3 at 80-90% twice per week works best, and another thinks one exercise at 1 x 8 once per week works best, the three will arrive at markedly different results when they modify their plans to a more sport specific scheme.
So again, there has to be a good understanding of the rep schemes, volumes, frequencies, densities, and loadings that work best when max strength IS the ultimate goal, in order to fully understand what modifications are necessary when the ultimate training goal is some other sport or event besides weightlifting, and max strength is a secondary goal that you believe will help you achieve your primary goal, whether it is quickness, speed, vertical jump, horizontal jump, a throw or whatever.
-
Participant
I like both of the ideas suggested.
Carl makes a good point – in that all most of us care about is how to get more functionally strong. I don’t really care how much I can squat. I do care about how far/high I can jump.
Star makes a great suggestion – Take an individual (real or imagined) and tweak their program for performance.
Given that I am in a unique position (serious about training again, but not trying to break any records – just improve) I’d love to volunteer myself as a guinea pig for some experimental program designs. Can talk about goals and protocols, but I’m open to try all sorts of different things.
I think it is reasonably obvious that strength relates to speed, and probably doesn’t even have diminishing returns (Being stronger will never make you slower on its own). The questions — IMO — are: How can you gain (and apply) as much strength as possible to the discipline(s) you are trying to perform.
-
Participant
So again, there has to be a good understanding of the rep schemes, volumes, frequencies, densities, and loadings that work best when max strength IS the ultimate goal, in order to fully understand what modifications are necessary when the ultimate training goal is some other sport or event besides weightlifting, and max strength is a secondary goal that you believe will help you achieve your primary goal, whether it is quickness, speed, vertical jump, horizontal jump, a throw or whatever.
Sure. And the modifications are greatly adjusted as the overlap and often to a maladaptation is often why the differences are so much. Again, Davan and Twhite are stating the obvious that you are getting a lot of overlap of the the high intensity work and other support needs such as hormonal and the myosin chain increases at lifts lower than 90% will work very well. Those that do splits with lifts that are very heavy will get what they want and then wonder why they are stronger than bolt but barely break 11 seconds.
The rep schemes are based on increasing strength with what is available after the workout and specific to the development process.
-
ParticipantThose that do splits with lifts that are very heavy will get what they want and then wonder why they are stronger than bolt but barely break 11 seconds.
Why do you keep saying things like this? It has nothing to do with strength with these athletes! Clearly those sprinter who have great strength and don’t run fast are missing a TON of other factors needed to run fast which Bolt clearly has!
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1258237876"]Those that do splits with lifts that are very heavy will get what they want and then wonder why they are stronger than bolt but barely break 11 seconds.
Why do you keep saying things like this? It has nothing to do with strength with these athletes! Clearly those sprinter who have great strength and don’t run fast are missing a TON of other factors needed to run fast which Bolt clearly has![/quote]
Lifting heavy didn’t hurt Linford Christie, Ben Johnson, Ato, Crawford surely Gatlin as well, Bruny Surin, Donovan Bailey, Kareem Streete Thompson.
All those guys ran sub 10 and they at times lifted heavy.
Clearly none of them are Bolt’s caliber but who is and is Bolt’s training really anything special.
-
Participant
Sure. And the modifications are greatly adjusted as the overlap and often to a maladaptation is often why the differences are so much. Again, Davan and Twhite are stating the obvious that you are getting a lot of overlap of the the high intensity work and other support needs such as hormonal and the myosin chain increases at lifts lower than 90% will work very well. Those that do splits with lifts that are very heavy will get what they want and then wonder why they are stronger than bolt but barely break 11 seconds.
The rep schemes are based on increasing strength with what is available after the workout and specific to the development process.
Do you have any evidence or case studies where athletes trained exactly the same except for volume/intensity of their lifting, and the athletes that trained heavy were slower? Please post those studies. Can you post any long term studies or well doucmented cases where sprinters trained exclusively with lighter loads and became stonger and faster than sprinters who included some heavy loads during offseason or GPP?
-
Participant
Lifting heavy didn’t hurt Linford Christie, Ben Johnson, Ato, Crawford surely Gatlin as well, Bruny Surin, Donovan Bailey, Kareem Streete Thompson.
All those guys ran sub 10 and they at times lifted heavy.
Clearly none of them are Bolt’s caliber but who is and is Bolt’s training really anything special.
Might want to re-read the threads because this has been covered numerous times. First of all, lifting 85% for a significant volume). Carl actually saw Crawford and Gatlin lift as well as a lot of Dan’s people train, so I think he has a ‘little bit’ of an idea of what they are doing.
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1258238468"][quote author="Carl Valle" date="1258237876"]Those that do splits with lifts that are very heavy will get what they want and then wonder why they are stronger than bolt but barely break 11 seconds.
Why do you keep saying things like this? It has nothing to do with strength with these athletes! Clearly those sprinter who have great strength and don’t run fast are missing a TON of other factors needed to run fast which Bolt clearly has![/quote]
Lifting heavy didn’t hurt Linford Christie, Ben Johnson, Ato, Crawford surely Gatlin as well, Bruny Surin, Donovan Bailey, Kareem Streete Thompson.
All those guys ran sub 10 and they at times lifted heavy.
Clearly none of them are Bolt’s caliber but who is and is Bolt’s training really anything special.[/quote]
Exactly. There is an endless list of athletes who are super strong and can hit great top speeds! The fact that some of them can’t break 10 has to do with something totally different…not strength.
-
Participant
I tend to side with Carl on this one. Grand schemes in lifting are great on paper and may have fabulous weight room results, but what are we really trying to achieve with weights? This might get a little rant-ish and I probably over simplify.
Here is my best response to some of the posts I have seen in either thread. The weightroom is a way to help achieve a little more stimulus that closely resembles sprinting/jumping/throwing without overloading the body with overuse injuries. In some respects, it will enhance the bodies ability to handle greater loads on the track given the right set-up. IMO, the weightroom is a way to train movements with load. You slow the movements down too much, you begin to work the body too far away on the F/V curve to achieve a benefit. With this reasoning, a lot of programs will have success by dropping the squat in season since the movements need to move closer on the F/V curve.
Great sprinters have vastly greater neuro-muscular development than your average 11s guy. They are not squatting heavy weights due to their massiveness, but rather their ability to recruit better and faster. Which is why developing your MxS is not necessarily going to correlate directly. Getting faster is about firing the system more effectively and more efficiently rather than just increasing the frame by which it stands. Training at slightly lighter loads with greater speeds enhances the bodies ability to utilize the neuromuscular system more effectively.
When looking at lifting and the weightroom, Vern is usually spot on. You train movements to enhance the bodies ability to complete more complex tasks. Adding weight adds complexity after movements have gained prowess. If the movements slow down for too long since they are too heavy, are we enhancing or deterring rate coding . . . Learn how to work the wiring and you are one step closer to sprinting nirvana.
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1258238468"][quote author="Carl Valle" date="1258237876"]Those that do splits with lifts that are very heavy will get what they want and then wonder why they are stronger than bolt but barely break 11 seconds.
Why do you keep saying things like this? It has nothing to do with strength with these athletes! Clearly those sprinter who have great strength and don’t run fast are missing a TON of other factors needed to run fast which Bolt clearly has![/quote]
Lifting heavy didn’t hurt Linford Christie, Ben Johnson, Ato, Crawford surely Gatlin as well, Bruny Surin, Donovan Bailey, Kareem Streete Thompson.
All those guys ran sub 10 and they at times lifted heavy.
Clearly none of them are Bolt’s caliber but who is and is Bolt’s training really anything special.[/quote]
Lifting heavy is great but when Nick says super strong I laugh as the average top 20 sprinters of all time squat and clean is replicated by 100 football players each year.
As for the throws I have the table from Don with Reese as the guy wasn’t even squatting 2 x bodyweight. So why are kids trying to squat 500 to run 10.4?
Super strong and heavy? Bro bounce on a 15 in box? What are the drug free numbers for some of those guys posted? My point is I like heavy but only when it’s gradual and proven to be effective.
-
Participant
I tend to side with Carl on this one. Grand schemes in lifting are great on paper and may have fabulous weight room results, but what are we really trying to achieve with weights? This might get a little rant-ish and I probably over simplify.
Here is my best response to some of the posts I have seen in either thread. The weightroom is a way to help achieve a little more stimulus that closely resembles sprinting/jumping/throwing without overloading the body with overuse injuries. In some respects, it will enhance the bodies ability to handle greater loads on the track given the right set-up. IMO, the weightroom is a way to train movements with load. You slow the movements down too much, you begin to work the body too far away on the F/V curve to achieve a benefit. With this reasoning, a lot of programs will have success by dropping the squat in season since the movements need to move closer on the F/V curve.
Great sprinters have vastly greater neuro-muscular development than your average 11s guy. They are not squatting heavy weights due to their massiveness, but rather their ability to recruit better and faster. Which is why developing your MxS is not necessarily going to correlate directly. Getting faster is about firing the system more effectively and more efficiently rather than just increasing the frame by which it stands. Training at slightly lighter loads with greater speeds enhances the bodies ability to utilize the neuromuscular system more effectively.
When looking at lifting and the weightroom, Vern is usually spot on. You train movements to enhance the bodies ability to complete more complex tasks. Adding weight adds complexity after movements have gained prowess. If the movements slow down for too long since they are too heavy, are we enhancing or deterring rate coding . . . Learn how to work the wiring and you are one step closer to sprinting nirvana.
Finally…a few thousand posts later and I can finally participate in the debate (bear dropping and de what?).
But only to clap my hands in applause.
Is max strength training important? The top class sprinter can recruit their fast twitch fibre (type IIb) more readily than elite wannabe’s who will recruit a lot of type IIa fibre. Still even the top class sprinter must detrain prior to an event to reconvert some of their type IIa developed as a result of training back into type IIb fibre.What about recruitment patterns? Imagine strong quads pushing against strong hamstrings – gonna go nowhere I think. Top class sprinters have an innate ability to recruit agonists and antagonists without much conflict and in better patterns. Take an exaggerated case – ever seen a newbie in the gym trying to use an elliptical trainer but instead of going forward their legs cycle backwards. The top class sprinter skillfully recruits their muscles in the sequence required to run fast. Elite sprinter wannabe’s should be using resistance training to improve coordination – use similar patterns of recruitment, similar movements, reasonably similar speeds. Occasionally they should lift heavy to maintain the storage of phosphocreatine (and ATP) in the muscle essential to prevent early fatigue. Also lifting heavy is a stimulus for the nervous system which also utilises ATP to transmit signal from brain to muscle.
Nick Newman
It has nothing to do with strength with these athletes! Clearly those sprinters who have great strength and don’t run fast are missing a TON of other factors needed to run fast which Bolt clearly has!There is an endless list of athletes who are super strong and can hit great top speeds! The fact that some of them can’t break 10 has to do with something totally different…not strength.
More applause.
-
Participant
I tend to side with Carl on this one. Grand schemes in lifting are great on paper and may have fabulous weight room results, but what are we really trying to achieve with weights? This might get a little rant-ish and I probably over simplify.
Here is my best response to some of the posts I have seen in either thread. The weightroom is a way to help achieve a little more stimulus that closely resembles sprinting/jumping/throwing without overloading the body with overuse injuries. In some respects, it will enhance the bodies ability to handle greater loads on the track given the right set-up. IMO, the weightroom is a way to train movements with load. You slow the movements down too much, you begin to work the body too far away on the F/V curve to achieve a benefit. With this reasoning, a lot of programs will have success by dropping the squat in season since the movements need to move closer on the F/V curve.
Great sprinters have vastly greater neuro-muscular development than your average 11s guy. They are not squatting heavy weights due to their massiveness, but rather their ability to recruit better and faster. Which is why developing your MxS is not necessarily going to correlate directly. Getting faster is about firing the system more effectively and more efficiently rather than just increasing the frame by which it stands. Training at slightly lighter loads with greater speeds enhances the bodies ability to utilize the neuromuscular system more effectively.
When looking at lifting and the weightroom, Vern is usually spot on. You train movements to enhance the bodies ability to complete more complex tasks. Adding weight adds complexity after movements have gained prowess. If the movements slow down for too long since they are too heavy, are we enhancing or deterring rate coding . . . Learn how to work the wiring and you are one step closer to sprinting nirvana.
So you’re telling me that my 152lb high school junior that runs 11.6 and has a max squat of 185 will find sprinting nirvana if he LOADS up the bar with 95 lbs and squats really, really fast? It appears that a variety of speeds work best which implies heavier, slower squats can work. It just one of many points on the F/V curve that one can visit during the year.
-
Participant
So you’re telling me that my 152lb high school junior that runs 11.6 and has a max squat of 185 will find sprinting nirvana if he LOADS up the bar with 95 lbs and squats really, really fast? It appears that a variety of speeds work best which implies heavier, slower squats can work. It just one of many points on the F/V curve that one can visit during the year.
No. I never specifically stated squats. I said work the neuromuscular system. That includes the Oly’s, squats, lunges, bench press, overhead throws, plyos, etc. Please re-read the post.
-
Participant
Mr. Glove,
Getting faster is about firing the system more effectively and more efficiently rather than just increasing the frame by which it stands. Training at slightly lighter loads with greater speeds enhances the bodies ability to utilize the neuromuscular system more effectively.
When looking at lifting and the weightroom, Vern is usually spot on. You train movements to enhance the bodies ability to complete more complex tasks. Adding weight adds complexity after movements have gained prowess. If the movements slow down for too long since they are too heavy, are we enhancing or deterring rate coding . . . Learn how to work the wiring and you are one step closer to sprinting nirvana.
-
Participant
Getting faster is about firing the system more effectively and more efficiently rather than just increasing the frame by which it stands. Training at slightly lighter loads with greater speeds enhances the bodies ability to utilize the neuromuscular system more effectively.
When looking at lifting and the weightroom, Vern is usually spot on. You train movements to enhance the bodies ability to complete more complex tasks. Adding weight adds complexity after movements have gained prowess. If the movements slow down for too long since they are too heavy, are we enhancing or deterring rate coding . . . Learn how to work the wiring and you are one step closer to sprinting nirvana.
Getting faster is about applying more force to the ground within the alloted time given. Neuromuscular coordination can be obtained from lifting heavy loads explosivlely. Its about the explosive nature of the lift, not the bar speed. All points on the curve, or at least as many as possible, need to worked.
Mr. Glove’s athlete, with a squat of only 180lbs., is not going to gain maximum benefit from his training if he only works one end of the force/velocity curve with light weights, plyos and med balls. In fact his athelete would probably gain more benefits, by first increasing his strength and possibly gaining a little posterior chain mass. He won’t get that with light weights, plyos and med ball throws. Include all those things, but absolutely don’t ignore the need to gain limit strength, and possibly mass, for this young, not very strong, sprinter. And if strength, and possibly mass, are needed, do it with the most effecient means available. Again, light weights aren’t the answer here.
-
Participant
[quote author="mr glove" date="1258322277"]
So you’re telling me that my 152lb high school junior that runs 11.6 and has a max squat of 185 will find sprinting nirvana if he LOADS up the bar with 95 lbs and squats really, really fast? It appears that a variety of speeds work best which implies heavier, slower squats can work. It just one of many points on the F/V curve that one can visit during the year.
No. I never specifically stated squats. I said work the neuromuscular system. That includes the Oly’s, squats, lunges, bench press, overhead throws, plyos, etc. Please re-read the post.[/quote]Do light loads work the neuromuscular system harder than heavy loads? None of the means you mention are specific means to sprinting, they are general means.
-
Participant
This is the American College of Sports Medicine’s (ASCM)”Current Comment” on the topic, I find am in complete agreement with it, with the possible exception of the term isometric. The bold emphasis is mine, underscoring some of the points I have been trying to make in recent threads.
Untrained subjects respond to heavy weight training with a shift of the entire force-velocity curve upward and to the right. In strength-trained subjects, evidence indicates that high velocity or high power training is necessary for continued alterations in the high velocity portion of the force- velocity curve. Isometric training with a high RFD can increase the rate of force production and velocity of movement, while heavy weight training primarily increases measures of maximum strength. Additionally, high power explosive exercise training appears to increase a wide range of athletic performance variables to a greater extent than traditional heavy weight training, [b]particularly if there is a reasonably high initial level of maximum strength. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal data suggest that in order to maximize strength, RFD, power and speed of movement, a combination of heavy and light explosive exercise provides superior results. Furthermore, evidence suggests that in order to maximize power output or speed of movement, the early portion of training should be devoted primarily to increasing maximum strength[/b] with the later portion of training being devoted primarily to power and speed training.
-
Participant
[quote author="mr glove" date="1258322277"]
So you’re telling me that my 152lb high school junior that runs 11.6 and has a max squat of 185 will find sprinting nirvana if he LOADS up the bar with 95 lbs and squats really, really fast? It appears that a variety of speeds work best which implies heavier, slower squats can work. It just one of many points on the F/V curve that one can visit during the year.
No. I never specifically stated squats. I said work the neuromuscular system. That includes the Oly’s, squats, lunges, bench press, overhead throws, plyos, etc. Please re-read the post.[/quote]
I just picked one exercise at random and made up a fictional athlete to illustrate a point. When you’re dealing with a population that, for the most part, is genetically gifted at activities to the left of the F/V curve, doesn’t it become redundant to focus on lighter loads moved at fast speeds?
How, upon entering a weightroom, can I proceed to NOT work the neuromuscular system?
-
Participant
[quote author="Chad Williams" date="1258324363"]Do light loads work the neuromuscular system harder than heavy loads? None of the means you mention are specific means to sprinting, they are general means.
It depends on the time of year and what you are trying to achieve. Certain tasks will be more specific to the athletes goals given the context of the training cycle.
Neuromuscular coordination is certainly more challenging at greater speeds. Try throwing a baseball at 70% and controlling it v. throwing it all out and controlling it.
All weight room tasks will utilize the neuromuscular system, so does typing on this computer. But I fairly certain that me sitting here typing is not making me a better athlete.
To answer Mr. Glove’s example more specifically. I think with your example his squat will go up with time and training age. Therefore, it shouldn’t be a major concern. In season, the focus should be on the track and perhaps some exercises that will coincide with the goals at the time. Perhaps some exercises that will work on elastic qualities and hip extension along with trunk stabilization.
-
Participant
To answer Mr. Glove’s example more specifically. I think with your example his squat will go up with time and training age. Therefore, it shouldn’t be a major concern. In season, the focus should be on the track and perhaps some exercises that will coincide with the goals at the time. Perhaps some exercises that will work on elastic qualities and hip extension along with trunk stabilization.
I agree with this with one caveat. If offseason/GPP strength and/or hypertrophy would make the athlete more competitive at an earlier age, it would be beneficial, and his fictional candidate seems like a prime example that would benefit from offseason/GPP strength training.
-
Member
Maybe this will sound a little too simplistic, but…
Specific and immediate feedback.
Does increasing one’s absolute or relative strength improve speed? Might increase one’s potential to increase speed, but I would say it probably does not directly.
But in response to Carl’s question of S & C coaches routinely getting linebackers to squat over 400, but how many are getting them to run 4.4’s?
In the weightroom, the athlete has immediate feedback, did I, or am I completing the task? i.e. squatting 405 for 1 rep. For the athlete there is always a “gauge”; the weight. Strength training becomes a skill for which there is constant and immediate feedback, for quality “learning” to take place… increasing one’s myelin production.
With speed work/sprinting, how often does one have an immediate feedback mechanism or “gauge”? Is the athlete always sprinting against or after a measurable indicator that is immediately available to the athlete’s sensory systems for adjustments and corrections, or in the case of something as fast as a sprint, “I need to be moving faster”; like a lure or ‘rabbit’ in greyhound racing. Or racing an individual who is slightly faster, which gives the athlete the IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK; is success being attained or not. This would allow for the skill development or ‘learning’ of speed, using greater intention to accomplish a specific task.
Without an immediate, obvious, and available indicator, the athlete has not much direction to channel intention. With the available feedback, i.e. racing an individual slightly faster or going after a lure, may also shift attentional focus from an INTERNAL FOCUS, to an EXTERNAL FOCUS, which has been shown in motor learning to enhance performance.
Just thoughts.
-
Participant
…
Does increasing one’s absolute or relative strength improve speed? Might increase one’s potential to increase speed, but I would say it probably does not directly…
NOt sure where you were going with most of this, but to this specific question, I think initially improving strength does improve speed up to a point. After that (some unknown level of strength has been attained), improving strength will not produce additonal speed gains and the focus should be on RFD, increasing the rate at which force can be applied.
-
Participant
Maybe this will sound a little too simplistic, but…
Specific and immediate feedback.
Does increasing one’s absolute or relative strength improve speed? Might increase one’s potential to increase speed, but I would say it probably does not directly.
But in response to Carl’s question of S & C coaches routinely getting linebackers to squat over 400, but how many are getting them to run 4.4’s?
In the weightroom, the athlete has immediate feedback, did I, or am I completing the task? i.e. squatting 405 for 1 rep. For the athlete there is always a “gauge”; the weight. Strength training becomes a skill for which there is constant and immediate feedback, for quality “learning” to take place… increasing one’s myelin production.
With speed work/sprinting, how often does one have an immediate feedback mechanism or “gauge”? Is the athlete always sprinting against or after a measurable indicator that is immediately available to the athlete’s sensory systems for adjustments and corrections, or in the case of something as fast as a sprint, “I need to be moving faster”; like a lure or ‘rabbit’ in greyhound racing. Or racing an individual who is slightly faster, which gives the athlete the IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK; is success being attained or not. This would allow for the skill development or ‘learning’ of speed, using greater intention to accomplish a specific task.
Without an immediate, obvious, and available indicator, the athlete has not much direction to channel intention. With the available feedback, i.e. racing an individual slightly faster or going after a lure, may also shift attentional focus from an INTERNAL FOCUS, to an EXTERNAL FOCUS, which has been shown in motor learning to enhance performance.
Just thoughts.
In Massachusetts, every so often an exceptional high school sprinter comes along. They usually end up being limited by coaching and competition. The net result is when it’s time to shine at big meets, they don’t do well because they’re used to winning by 5-10 meters and they’re not prepared to race against more talented athletes. The coaches of these athletes need to expose them to higher, but appropriate, levels of competition.
-
Participant
This is the American College of Sports Medicine’s (ASCM)”Current Comment” on the topic, I find am in complete agreement with it, with the possible exception of the term isometric. The bold emphasis is mine, underscoring some of the points I have been trying to make in recent threads.
[quote]Untrained subjects respond to heavy weight training with a shift of the entire force-velocity curve upward and to the right. In strength-trained subjects, evidence indicates that high velocity or high power training is necessary for continued alterations in the high velocity portion of the force- velocity curve. Isometric training with a high RFD can increase the rate of force production and velocity of movement, while heavy weight training primarily increases measures of maximum strength. Additionally, high power explosive exercise training appears to increase a wide range of athletic performance variables to a greater extent than traditional heavy weight training, [b]particularly if there is a reasonably high initial level of maximum strength. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal data suggest that in order to maximize strength, RFD, power and speed of movement, a combination of heavy and light explosive exercise provides superior results. Furthermore, evidence suggests that in order to maximize power output or speed of movement, the early portion of training should be devoted primarily to increasing maximum strength[/b] with the later portion of training being devoted primarily to power and speed training.
untrained research and information that has very little to no transfer to speed is not of use….what are the exact numbers? Going from lame to feeble isn’t my cup of tea. Give me numbers!
-
Viewing 27 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.