Posted In: Blog Discussion
I’m going to start an ongoing thematic series about some of the random training thoughts that pop in to my mind. Most of these I’ll point out, I have never tried but they seem to be like ineresting ideas although relatively experimental. Since many are quite nontraditional and potentially thought provoking I thought they might be good conversation fodder for the forums. Here’s my first one:What
ELITETRACK Founder
1. Is this a worthwhile idea?
2. Potentially injurious?
3. Which leg would you put on the high side?
4. Would it screw up mechanics too much?
5. Could it even be used with athletes who don’t display asymmetries by using each leg equally on the high side thus overloading one leg over the other?
1. Yes, why would it not be? It would be a good variation to add to a workout and you can use the football field to do it as one typically lies on the inside of most tracks. Even track and field only venues are still cambered, but not as much as football field.
2. Yes, if overused it could lead to injury just like any other form of training.
3. Doesn’t matter, because you should alternate, but I would do the right leg more often as it mimics running on a curve.
4. Yes, if used too much which depends on the speed of movement and the slope combined.
5. Having certain asymmetries is a good thing, just don’t rid the athlete of asymmetries which are helpful to performance.
Some British athletes that i know often bound up and down hill…I did it also 2-3 years ago…i liked it a lot.
Some British athletes that i know often bound up and down hill…I did it also 2-3 years ago…i liked it a lot.
Cambered is different than going up or down hill. Cambered would be like bounding on the side of the hill so one side of the body was higher than than the other.
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="Mike Young" date="1228879134"]
1. Is this a worthwhile idea?
2. Potentially injurious?
3. Which leg would you put on the high side?
4. Would it screw up mechanics too much?
5. Could it even be used with athletes who don’t display asymmetries by using each leg equally on the high side thus overloading one leg over the other?
1. Yes, why would it not be? It would be a good variation to add to a workout and you can use the football field to do it as one typically lies on the inside of most tracks. Even track and field only venues are still cambered, but not as much as football field.
2. Yes, if overused it could lead to injury just like any other form of training.
3. Doesn’t matter, because you should alternate, but I would do the right leg more often as it mimics running on a curve.
4. Yes, if used too much which depends on the speed of movement and the slope combined.
5. Having certain asymmetries is a good thing, just don’t rid the athlete of asymmetries which are helpful to performance.[/quote]
Surely this idea challenges the limits to sprint performance. It’s a training method that is a completely new stimulus (almost instant adaptation one could measure) although the intensity and frequency should be cautiously tempered as we are not sure of the consequences to joints and tissues. It’s also highly velocity and movement specific to actual sprinting. Use of a football field (or cricket field if one lives in Jamaica) would be perfect.
Mechanics wouldn’t be screwed up too much although they may have to alter over time as we encourage more asymmetry. I can’t see how this wouldn’t work and work well. 😉
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1228892268"]Some British athletes that i know often bound up and down hill…I did it also 2-3 years ago…i liked it a lot.
Cambered is different than going up or down hill. Cambered would be like bounding on the side of the hill so one side of the body was higher than than the other.[/quote]
I like the idea of bounding up or down hills (or high knees up a sealed road- make it driveway) but plyometrics on a cambered surface may have to be done to a restricted range of joint movement initially. I think it would benefit tremendously bend sprinters as the forces are greater on a bend.
Which side should be on the higher side of the camber if one is a 200 or 400-m sprinter?
Which side should be higher if one is a 60 or 100-m sprinter with a slightly shorter left leg for example?
What about side hill and down hill combined?
Opened up a can of worms now haven’t we?
I don’t like the idea of it then…
Bounding up hill early on, then bounding downhill slightly later on in the set up is great through…
Actually long jumping down hill is also something a few camps do also.
I don’t like the idea of it then…
Bounding up hill early on, then bounding downhill slightly later on in the set up is great through…
Actually long jumping down hill is also something a few camps do also.
Hey I like the long jumping down hill idea. Pity it is something that can’t be repeated at a fast rate (ie a few reps of bounding can be executed in a row over 10 secs). This would help facilitate adaptation.
I can see your point in not liking cambered surfaces as a long jumper. It’s more for people that want to run around a bend (200 and 400-m). I’m thinking that the cambered surface may cause disorientation. Perhaps it would be best to run into (at an angle) the cambered surface and then turn away.
Years ago I tried sprinting whereby every fourth step we placed a step (like an aerobics step) on the ground on which we would step onto with only one leg and back down into the sprint. The effect would be much like a cambered surface. It certainly felt like it improved sprint performance. The same could be used for bounding.
The idea itself is interesting but, IMO, like running hills, more exact parameters even for just an idea should be established.
I have seen and competed on football/soccer fields that have been nearly flat (judging by the lack of run off) to near ridiculously crowned (proper sports fields usually, including track surfaces if built to IAAF spec, have a range of slope and a symmetry about them).
We have berms surrounding the outdoor track we train on and trying to go “across” (as opposed to in a straight line up or down) I feel encourages ankle and knee injuries but I am assuming it is because of the severe slope since in say an average width stance one foot would be about 5 inches lower than the other…just listened to an interview of Vince Anderson (CACC website, audio files) and he talks a bit about posture, having one side 5 inches lower can not help…the loading maybe of interest but useful?