Weight training is just a general stimulus? Everything works? Yes. Everything can work with someone at some point, but again perhaps not with you or your athletes. The real questions should be what works most often with most athletes and most effectively. Note the word efficiently doesn’t come up as coaching and training is not very efficient in Track and Field. 48 weeks a year of training 3+ hou
Stimulus Package
-
-
Participant -
Participant
Weight training is just a general stimulus? Everything works? Yes. Everything can work with someone at some point, but again perhaps not with you or your athletes. The real questions should be what works most often with most athletes and most effectively. Note the word efficiently doesn’t come up as coaching and training is not very efficient in Track and Field. 48 weeks a year of training 3+ hours a day for 10 second events to improve 0.08 a year or more is a poor investment. When reading forum posts I constantly hear sprinting is specific and that any weight program will work since many different programs have worked for the elite level. So what. Can you use one elite program with non-elites and have it work just as well? Will speed deads at 60% of MVC get me to run faster than Allyson Felix since she only did regular deadlifts? What lifts act generally and what acts specifically? What does both? What models seem to work with more athletes and what changes to that program must be done to develop them further?
I’m a firm believer in specificity although not to the extent of 60% speed deadlifts. Good luck to those that do them currently. One problem that would arise from the most specific and time-efficient program is boredom. Plyometrics can improve strength such as measured in a squat. However one benefit of weightraining is that one can design the body to increase in specific areas which is nothing new. For example we could choose an exercise that does general strength with moderate specificity but targets a particular muscle group such as adductors that a coach would assess as needing development. I’m not sure of too many plyometric exercises that could strengthen that muscle without the grave risk of injury. Across training (new word for training with different modalities) would give a wider margin for error in performance in my opinion. If an athlete does not execute the perfect technique during the event then they will need to call on the increased strength of muscles that may otherwise have been ignored in the most specific training program. However would sprinting is unpredictable windy conditions be more time-effective? And what about variety. Variety allows for more enjoyment and related increased motivation.
I wouldn’t mind expanding this discussion more. This blog comprehensively presents different areas for good old fashion arguments. Who’s up next?
I believe that Allyson Felix would be more better with more specific deadlifts.
-
Participant
Can you be specific on the specific deadlifts? How much would the change be in her performance? What would that change specifically? Technique, power, hypertophy, or anything else?
-
Participant
Carl,
Is the Vermeil presentation you speak of his “Stability Indentifying what you need to do and do not need to do?”
That he presented a couple of years ago or is it a different presentation?
-
Participant
Ryan,
I am referring sort of to the “are your athletes ready to lift” and his bigger presentation on his training methods. What I like is that the corrective exercises are clear and effective and are a collection of many people’s work. Each year we start over the season with training similar to Al’s. Can’t say enough good things about him.
-
Participant
Can you be specific on the specific deadlifts? How much would the change be in her performance? What would that change specifically? Technique, power, hypertophy, or anything else?
On its own I think the drop-catch deadlifts (Mike Young 2009)are far more effective. In the context of Allyson Felix, I’m of the opinion that her program includes the deadlift as a near-maximal lift in a complex with mostly vertical reactive plyometrics but occasionally horizontal plyometrics with the intention to produce maximal force in minimal time. Also her program includes Olympic lifts. The deadlift is a good base for Olympic lifting.
In that regard, Olympic lift programs with deadlift and squats can produce about 0.05-0.07 seconds of improvement over the first few steps and may contribute half of that near the maximal sprint power zone. For sprinting heavy lifting programs can benefit those with a ‘natural ability’ to contract and relax their muscles quickly.
If the purpose of your question concerns deadlifting as the means for Allysons’ success, then I very much doubt that it is the most effective method. More likely it will be a tempo programming efficacy. In my opinion the complex chosen is not a bad guess to put it midly but could certainly have more purpose. Chris Boardman and Lance Armstrong are examples (and Borzov) of great planning in a program. In that regard do we have an idea of Allysons’ splits. Better still if we had information from force platforms (especially platforms that have a vertical direction -lol) I could answer your question on technique, power, hypertrophy, etc.
PS I’m not sure if her goal of 10.6 seconds is anywhere achievable with the program listed above.
-
Participant
This is all very interesting, and I’m particularly interested by the comments regarding Armstrong, Boardman and Borzov having great planning. Could you expand on this? I don’t really have any specific questions regarding it, but am interested to learn more in terms of what they were doing and why you interpret it to be the result of great planning.
-
Participant
Carl, Thanks
I was lucky enough to meet Al when i was first starting out as an intern, he was brought in to eval. the basketball team and talk shop with my then boss. I skipped my classes for two days just so i could be there and learn. He is who made me really want to be in this profession. I couldn’t agree with you more on his abilities and his knowledge and approach to training!
-
Participant
This is all very interesting, and I’m particularly interested by the comments regarding Armstrong, Boardman and Borzov having great planning. Could you expand on this? I don’t really have any specific questions regarding it, but am interested to learn more in terms of what they were doing and why you interpret it to be the result of great planning.
Armstrong had/has an infatuation with scientific measuring tools even to the point of knowing how much steady-state power per kilogram he had, and how much muscle efficiency he had improved by.
In terms of Boardman, I have been unable to unearth my prized antique articles from training for the hour records (back in the day!). Suffice to say he considered himself as not exceptionally talented and so relied on scientific measurements to devise and measure his strategy. I’ve got data showing how he monitored his VO2 and maximal power during different stages of training up to world championships. Graeme Obree on the other hand (for whom I have great admiration) was an improviser who went on ‘feel’.
Cycling has access to many scientific tools as does sprinting. However, sprinters choose not to use these tools. If one sets one’s sights on specific biomechanical goals for example, one can achieve them (planning). One of my inspirations is Dick Fosbury who ignored the status quo thus changing the world of high jumping ever since. Likewise, Borzov.
His coach was a scientist who broke Borzov’s race into parts and analyzed them individually. Then they figured out how to improve those parts with specific training. (There is a Borzov article on this site).
In reference to the deadlift and its efficacy towards sprint performance, in order to gain a measurable effect the improvement in strength must be massive. If one improves their hamstring strength (in terms of contraction in 500ms)by double,it will still only have a slight effect on the hamstring strength in 100ms. The hamstring is one area that a long time of contraction could have some degree of specificity as at top speeds of around 10m/s the hamstring activates for around 200ms. However, it does so in two peaks. One peak is invoked with a stretch reflex at the end of the forward leg swing and the other is moments after ground contact. I doubt whether we have found the most specific training exercise that will replicate this. If we were to find this then 13m/s could be quite possible and exciting to watch.
-
Participant
Jeremy:
Although, you state Obree was an improviser who went on feel in reference to using scientific knowledge and tools. I have to say that I don’t agree with this assessment. I think Obree is one of those intrinsically gifted athletes that understand the science behind what he was doing even though he couldn’t explain it. You can lack engineering talents and build a bike from parts of other bikes and reshape into something that could break the hour record of Moser’s. Not only did understand the mechanical side, he understood the biological problems involved particularly those with recovery in which he made 2 attempts on consecutive days at the hour record which were so far advanced for the time they seem ludicrous in retrospect.
-
Participant
The hamstring is one area that a long time of contraction could have some degree of specificity as at top speeds of around 10m/s the hamstring activates for around 200ms. However, it does so in two peaks. One peak is invoked with a stretch reflex at the end of the forward leg swing and the other is moments after ground contact. I doubt whether we have found the most specific training exercise that will replicate this. If we were to find this then 13m/s could be quite possible and exciting to watch.
How about sprinting?
-
Participant
Jeremy:
Although, you state Obree was an improviser who went on feel in reference to using scientific knowledge and tools. I have to say that I don’t agree with this assessment. I think Obree is one of those intrinsically gifted athletes that understand the science behind what he was doing even though he couldn’t explain it. You can lack engineering talents and build a bike from parts of other bikes and reshape into something that could break the hour record of Moser’s. Not only did understand the mechanical side, he understood the biological problems involved particularly those with recovery in which he made 2 attempts on consecutive days at the hour record which were so far advanced for the time they seem ludicrous in retrospect.
More likely I didn’t explain myself comprehensively. Obree as with most cyclists know the science of their sport. Obree’s training program was highly scientific (as was his bike design and body positioning) but Obree did not have the measuring tools that Boardman had by his side. Those were certainly the great days of cycling. Even Rominger got into it. Was it he who used methylated spirits on his clothing to aid in cooling thereby sparing the bodies own mechanisms? Altogether they went beyond what was thought to be human limits.
And something tells me that Obree’s psyche preferred to be recognised as the rebel. I think he thrived as a result. It’s a great pity the cycling world (federation) don’t give him the respect he deserves.
-
Participant
[quote author="Daniel Andrews (dbandre)" date="1239955857"]Jeremy:
Although, you state Obree was an improviser who went on feel in reference to using scientific knowledge and tools. I have to say that I don’t agree with this assessment. I think Obree is one of those intrinsically gifted athletes that understand the science behind what he was doing even though he couldn’t explain it. You can lack engineering talents and build a bike from parts of other bikes and reshape into something that could break the hour record of Moser’s. Not only did understand the mechanical side, he understood the biological problems involved particularly those with recovery in which he made 2 attempts on consecutive days at the hour record which were so far advanced for the time they seem ludicrous in retrospect.
More likely I didn’t explain myself comprehensively. Obree as with most cyclists know the science of their sport. Obree’s training program was highly scientific (as was his bike design and body positioning) but Obree did not have the measuring tools that Boardman had by his side. Those were certainly the great days of cycling. Even Rominger got into it. Was it he who used methylated spirits on his clothing to aid in cooling thereby sparing the bodies own mechanisms? Altogether they went beyond what was thought to be human limits.
And something tells me that Obree’s psyche preferred to be recognised as the rebel. I think he thrived as a result. It’s a great pity the cycling world (federation) don’t give him the respect he deserves.[/quote]
Gotcha! Good to hear we are once again in agreement.
-
Participant
[quote author="Jeremy Richmond" date="1239953436"]The hamstring is one area that a long time of contraction could have some degree of specificity as at top speeds of around 10m/s the hamstring activates for around 200ms. However, it does so in two peaks. One peak is invoked with a stretch reflex at the end of the forward leg swing and the other is moments after ground contact. I doubt whether we have found the most specific training exercise that will replicate this. If we were to find this then 13m/s could be quite possible and exciting to watch.
How about sprinting?[/quote]
Sprint training will help you get to the limits of your ability to sprint. However to go beyond your limits we need to provide extra stimulus and invoke an adaptation. Maximum speed drills where you accelerate and decelerate come to mind as one method that can achieve a small improvement however the energy expended and neural fatigue as a consequence of getting to top speed can be to the detriment of other aspects of training.
EMG data referred to is from Mero and Komi 1987, Kyrolainen et al. 2005, Nummela et al. 1994.
-
Participant
[quote author="maris" date="1239904962"]This is all very interesting, and I’m particularly interested by the comments regarding Armstrong, Boardman and Borzov having great planning. Could you expand on this? I don’t really have any specific questions regarding it, but am interested to learn more in terms of what they were doing and why you interpret it to be the result of great planning.
Armstrong had/has an infatuation with scientific measuring tools even to the point of knowing how much steady-state power per kilogram he had, and how much muscle efficiency he had improved by.
In terms of Boardman, I have been unable to unearth my prized antique articles from training for the hour records (back in the day!). Suffice to say he considered himself as not exceptionally talented and so relied on scientific measurements to devise and measure his strategy. I’ve got data showing how he monitored his VO2 and maximal power during different stages of training up to world championships. Graeme Obree on the other hand (for whom I have great admiration) was an improviser who went on ‘feel’.
Cycling has access to many scientific tools as does sprinting. However, sprinters choose not to use these tools. If one sets one’s sights on specific biomechanical goals for example, one can achieve them (planning). One of my inspirations is Dick Fosbury who ignored the status quo thus changing the world of high jumping ever since. Likewise, Borzov.
His coach was a scientist who broke Borzov’s race into parts and analyzed them individually. Then they figured out how to improve those parts with specific training. (There is a Borzov article on this site).
In reference to the deadlift and its efficacy towards sprint performance, in order to gain a measurable effect the improvement in strength must be massive. If one improves their hamstring strength (in terms of contraction in 500ms)by double,it will still only have a slight effect on the hamstring strength in 100ms. The hamstring is one area that a long time of contraction could have some degree of specificity as at top speeds of around 10m/s the hamstring activates for around 200ms. However, it does so in two peaks. One peak is invoked with a stretch reflex at the end of the forward leg swing and the other is moments after ground contact. I doubt whether we have found the most specific training exercise that will replicate this. If we were to find this then 13m/s could be quite possible and exciting to watch.[/quote]
I’d just like to clarify some of this, as I feel there are some underlying principles to be considered.
1. Wattage (power output) is the standard metric for measuring cycling capacity, while speed is the standard metric for sprinting capacity, as actual muscular effciency is not really modifiable in cycling and power output is very measurable as crank length, RPM, fly wheel resistance and length are known. As such the “scientific tools” you are referring to are quite a direct and specific measure of cycling performance, this is not really the case for sprinting.
Increasing hamstring strength/force production through “training exercises” cannot be said to describe power output when sprinting as they are different activities, and transfer must take place. When Lance Armstrong or Chris Boardman measure power output, they are measuring power output while cycling (i.e. during the activity itself), which is an extremely valuable descriptive measure as power output will closely match speed as muscular efficiency is not an issue with cycling.
2. In terms of Armstrong and Boardman being overly scientific, this was more with respect to their bikes and aerodynamics than physiological concerns like “steady-state power per kilogram he had, and how much muscle efficiency” or “VO2 and maximal power”.
As mentioned above, wattage is easily measured on a bike ergometer, I believe some road bike computers can give these values also. Power per kilogram is then measured by simple division by bodyweight of the ergometer value, muscular efficiency is a somewhat dubious measure in cycling and the study detailing Armstrong’s effiency improvements has been roundly criticised and is generally considered pseudo-scientific (see https://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors.html
https://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2.html
https://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-continued.html)I would be suprised if any professional cyclist in the world was not aware of:
a) VO2 Max and Power Output at VO2 Max
b) Ventilatory Threshold and PO at VT
c) Above values relative to bodyweight (this is just a calculation).These are easily measured in a single progressive test with some basic equipment (bike + gas analyser) in around 20 minutes total.
It is key to note that at an aerobic steady state (VO2 Max and below) which is key for cyclists like Armstrong and Boardman, one can easily measure metabolic cost, while in sprinting with mixed energy systems with no steady state this is tricky.
As the energy cost of increased work is quite linear (due to the absence of modifiable efficiency values). Track and Field is well and truly up with this, the same values are often measured, with speed (on a treadmill) substitiuted for PO. This paper (https://www.athleticscoaching.ca/UserFiles/File/Sport Science/Theory & Methodology/Endurance/General Concepts/Jones Physiology Womens WR Holder Marathon.pdf) gives the progression of Paula Radcliffe’s VO2 Max, Speed at VO2 Max (and hence efficiency), Ventilatory Threshold, and Speed at Ventilatory threshold from ages 18-29.
My personal impression of what we can learn from learn from Lance Armstrong:
1. Train specifically: He trained on the exact mountains and time trial courses he would race on in the Tour like no-one has before or since, and built a team entirely to help him win, including some potential rivals. His tactical preparation for this specific race was also vastly superior.
2. Peak: Armstrong rarely won a race all year outside the tour, all other events were training and it was straight back to preparation for the next year afterwards, barely racing for the latter half of the season and consequently his year end ranking never reflected his ability. His teammates also peaked for the Tour.
3. Race on your terms/control what you can: Armstrong had the best team, the best understanding of the race and the most specific preparation. He dictated the race to his opposition and this as much as physiological superiority is why he dominated this particular event for so long.
4. Mental edge and focus as well as self-belief, which partly arise from knowing you’ve done the things above, including familiarity with the conditions, good form (i.e. peaking) and tactical confidence, clarity and support (i.e. his team, both cyclists and support staff).
Take Home for sprinters: Know your conditions, train for them, train in them either by simulation (heat, altitude, wind etc) or by going there, acclimatise, peak for your event, be tactically superior, dictate the race, be mentally prepared.
Or in summary: GET THE MOST OUT OF YOUR RAW PHYSIOLOGICAL ABILITY
-
Participant
I’d just like to clarify some of this, as I feel there are some underlying principles to be considered.
1. Wattage (power output) is the standard metric for measuring cycling capacity, while speed is the standard metric for sprinting capacity, as actual muscular effciency is not really modifiable in cycling and power output is very measurable as crank length, RPM, fly wheel resistance and length are known. As such the “scientific tools” you are referring to are quite a direct and specific measure of cycling performance, this is not really the case for sprinting.
Increasing hamstring strength/force production through “training exercises” cannot be said to describe power output when sprinting as they are different activities, and transfer must take place. When Lance Armstrong or Chris Boardman measure power output, they are measuring power output while cycling (i.e. during the activity itself), which is an extremely valuable descriptive measure as power output will closely match speed as muscular efficiency is not an issue with cycling.
2. In terms of Armstrong and Boardman being overly scientific, this was more with respect to their bikes and aerodynamics than physiological concerns like “steady-state power per kilogram he had, and how much muscle efficiency” or “VO2 and maximal power”.
I would be suprised if any professional cyclist in the world was not aware of:
a) VO2 Max and Power Output at VO2 Max
b) Ventilatory Threshold and PO at VT
c) Above values relative to bodyweight (this is just a calculation).These are easily measured in a single progressive test with some basic equipment (bike + gas analyser) in around 20 minutes total.
It is key to note that at an aerobic steady state (VO2 Max and below) which is key for cyclists like Armstrong and Boardman, one can easily measure metabolic cost, while in sprinting with mixed energy systems with no steady state this is tricky.
As the energy cost of increased work is quite linear (due to the absence of modifiable efficiency values). Track and Field is well and truly up with this, the same values are often measured, with speed (on a treadmill) substitiuted for PO. This paper (https://www.athleticscoaching.ca/UserFiles/File/Sport Science/Theory & Methodology/Endurance/General Concepts/Jones Physiology Womens WR Holder Marathon.pdf) gives the progression of Paula Radcliffe’s VO2 Max, Speed at VO2 Max (and hence efficiency), Ventilatory Threshold, and Speed at Ventilatory threshold from ages 18-29.
tscm post # 1. Welcome aboard – how did you find out about our forum?
Yes wattage is not the scientific tool I was referring for sprinting. Neither was VO2 max VT etc but we are glad to have you aboard so that the distance athletes amongst us can share in your knowledge. Those were brought up in accordance to a question on the planning inherent of Boardman and Armstrong. Whilst we have your presence, what is your opinion of Micro-interval training (Boardman apparently) or any specific interval training protocol that results in training very high in a VO2 max zone?
And do you have any suggestions as to a plan for sprinters to improve via the use of Olympic lifts, sprint training, weight training, specificity and in particular the use of deadlifts? What do you think of 60% MVC deadlifts or some of the more explosive variants put forward in related threads?
-
Viewing 16 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.