A number of people believe that after step 3, sprinting seems to be the only way to get people faster. Some believe that exercises in the weight room transfers to the track. Research has found that very little activities transfer or correlate to maximal velocity. Perhaps transferring is the wrong area, as drills seem not to have that direct ability as well. Like they say, sometimes the Drill DVD
Transfer, Specificity, and Support
-
-
Participant -
Participant
Most college programs, (maybe even high school) are attempting to do what you are saying. They include plyos, sprint drills, olympics and strength training. 3 out of 4 of these are working more specifically on stride length than on frequency. And if we look at the data of college sprinters v. elite, it is not stride length that is holding them back. It is the fact that the elite will reposition the lower limbs far quicker. (this is simplifying it I know)
So my question to you is, how do you teach the rapid repositioning of the limbs on a consistent basis? (other than just sprinting)
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1322848681"]I think Boo is right that they are great harmonizers of the body, and for some reason, I find them to be great ways to develop work capacity for the nervous system without [b]breaking down the joints like plyos do.[/b][color=red][/color]
Plyo’s break down the joints?. Sprints is the biggest plyo there is.
Another reason for grass.[/quote]
I’m not saying grass isn’t valuable, but your assertion that sprinting is the biggest plyo is wrong.
Is sprinting the most specific plyo to sprinting? Obviously.
Is it the most forceful, ie the body experiences the highest forces? Not at all.
Forces during triple jump are frequently much higher than during a sprint. Forces from a depth jump or drop, although mitigated by two legs and spread between the ankles, knees and hips will still produce a very large force to be handled at the SI joint. These forces reach higher than 5x bodyweight, which is much greater than that experienced during sprinting.
And heres a source since I’m feeling generous today https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19924006
-
Participant
Most college programs, (maybe even high school) are attempting to do what you are saying. They include plyos, sprint drills, olympics and strength training. 3 out of 4 of these are working more specifically on stride length than on frequency. And if we look at the data of college sprinters v. elite, it is not stride length that is holding them back. It is the fact that the elite will reposition the lower limbs far quicker. (this is simplifying it I know)
So my question to you is, how do you teach the rapid repositioning of the limbs on a consistent basis? (other than just sprinting)
Chad I respectfully disagree with you and the research does too.
Velocity and stride parameters in the 400 Metres and in Changes in the step width, step length
Step frequency of the world’s top sprinters during the 100 Metres
Both articles are available on IAAF database. Under the NSA
Read and enjoy. 🙂
"Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse." -Albert Einstein
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
pet peeve time- I’m sorry, but I hate the entire stride length and stride frequency debate and it’s entirely because of the nomenclature. Using wave frequency and length, drawn via the COM, makes it so much easier to depict whats actually going on. It also prevents neophytes from assuming that to increase stride length you somehow need to step further, rather than still stepping underneath yourself.
That being said, run with good form and rhythm and I’ve found they optimize themselves. Increased relaxation rate would just facilitate more force production I would imagine, as there is less interference from antagonizing muscles.
-
Participant
Carl,
Your thoughts that plyos aren’t always necessary is something I’ve been thinking more about lately. I understand that jumping or performing certain plyos can be an integral part of building a better athlete and many do seem to start at box jumps up. That being said, do those who just sprint, especially the genetically gifted ones, need to do fewer plyos? We all like lists so do you have a favorite or two when it comes to bilateral power or single leg stiffness jumps?
-
Participant
As the great Hakan always says, do only what is needed…..how much is necessary and what is necessary. What that is I don’t know….
Sometimes the talented guys look like they are not needing ploys because they resting more and the modality is part of the overtraining. We all know how many meters we run but adding ground contacts is not the answer.
-
Participant
Chad I respectfully disagree with you and the research does too.
Velocity and stride parameters in the 400 Metres and in Changes in the step width, step length
Step frequency of the world’s top sprinters during the 100 Metres
Both articles are available on IAAF database. Under the NSA
Read and enjoy. 🙂
Read both of them already. I prefer to trust the data from 30 years of research instead of two studies. Thanks though.
If you were to make Usain Bolt about 5’10, his limb speeds would be off the chart. It is just simple physics that because his limbs are longer that it takes them longer to reposition.
And to clarify, I am talking about the 100m-200m. The 400m is a different animal due to the demands of the race and maximal velocity are subdued due to the duration. So maybe we are talking apples v. oranges.
From an early age, IMHO, I believe that the focus should be on developing frequency not length. Look at your top sprinters like Bolt and Gay, both can run 45.XX if we were to throw in the 400m.
-
Participant
Please refer to Jon Goodwin’s presentation as he shares that frequency and length are not the true indicators….if you want his presentation you will have to get to the UK page or if someone has the video they can let you borrow it.
-
Participant
[quote author="Ryan Banta" date="1322873734"]
Chad I respectfully disagree with you and the research does too.
Velocity and stride parameters in the 400 Metres and in Changes in the step width, step length
Step frequency of the world’s top sprinters during the 100 Metres
Both articles are available on IAAF database. Under the NSA
Read and enjoy. 🙂
Read both of them already. I prefer to trust the data from 30 years of research instead of two studies. Thanks though.
If you were to make Usain Bolt about 5’10, his limb speeds would be off the chart. It is just simple physics that because his limbs are longer that it takes them longer to reposition.
And to clarify, I am talking about the 100m-200m. The 400m is a different animal due to the demands of the race and maximal velocity are subdued due to the duration. So maybe we are talking apples v. oranges.
From an early age, IMHO, I believe that the focus should be on developing frequency not length. Look at your top sprinters like Bolt and Gay, both can run 45.XX if we were to throw in the 400m.[/quote]
Did you READ them because the one article about the 400 the other is about 100 DASH. 30 years of research sounds like a great thing and understand I dont just jump on board. However, people said the world was flat for 1000s years….
Also, I find it interesting you mention Usain and Gay. There is another research article that discuss why Asafa and Tyson are faster…. Stride length. Usain is tall and covers more distance and takes less steps. We will agree to disagree.
"Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse." -Albert Einstein
-
Participant
Also, I find it interesting you mention Usain and Gay. There is another research article that discuss why Asafa and Tyson are faster…. Stride length. Usain is tall and covers more distance and takes less steps. We will agree to disagree.
Tyson and Gay are the same person. So whom are you referring?
-
Participant
I only saw a snippet of his entire presentation and his main point is maximize GCT with power output.
I don’t want to give the wrong impression, I deem stride length very important. GCT and power output are also very important.
Here is what I rank for sprinter for be successful (dumbing this down) . . .
1) Limb Speed
2) Elasticity
3) Strength3 is the easiest to develop later. 1 and 2 must be the focus early in youth throughout high school in order to develop the neural pathways and the tendons for later on.
-
Participant
I only saw a snippet of his entire presentation and his main point is maximize GCT with power output.
I don’t want to give the wrong impression, I deem stride length very important. GCT and power output are also very important.
Here is what I rank for sprinter for be successful (dumbing this down) . . .
1) Limb Speed
2) Elasticity
3) Strength3 is the easiest to develop later. 1 and 2 must be the focus early in youth throughout high school in order to develop the neural pathways and the tendons for later on.
Tyson and Asafa is who I was refering to. What do you think becomes better due to elasticity improved elasticity? Stride length. I do agree that all three above are very important. One of the best ways to improve Elasticity is using periodization strategies with plyometrics.
"Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse." -Albert Einstein
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
I only saw a snippet of his entire presentation and his main point is maximize GCT with power output.
I don’t want to give the wrong impression, I deem stride length very important. GCT and power output are also very important.
Here is what I rank for sprinter for be successful (dumbing this down) . . .
1) Limb Speed
2) Elasticity
3) Strength3 is the easiest to develop later. 1 and 2 must be the focus early in youth throughout high school in order to develop the neural pathways and the tendons for later on.
What about force production? What about RFD? Stride length is an artifact of force production. Most studies that I have seen indicate frequency does not correlate to Max V nearly as well as stride length, even for athletes of similar size.
-
Participant
Does Jon Goodwin’s discussion on contact length differ at all from what Weyand describes in his presentation of steady-state running?
-
Participant
To clarify, the focus of a program should always be a balanced approach. I am never discounting the other aspects that those of you have mentioned. They are certainly important and 100% included.
To hit some of the questions:
1) How do you develop limb speed?
There has to be a focus on it. I think that Pat Connoly had it down with Evelyn Ashford in her shake-ups. The volume was a little high . . . but the emphasis of building up the rate of stride as you move down the track had it benefits. It was basically 100m of tempo with every 20 meters the stride rate increasing.
Also, a lot of coaches use stick drills or cones drills to hone in on this skill. Some daily, some alternate, but they are done often.
Then the obvious one is sprinting.
2) Why couldn’t one focus on those late in the career (limb speed and elasticity)
Sure you can. If done earlier, the athlete will have far greater success in building it. Think about 20 years of limb speed development vs. 2 years. I also think it is important to build strong tendons early with jumping rope, skipping, and things of that nature.
3) Force production.
Most people know that producing force on the front side is 2x greater than producing force on the back side. Also, it is easier to apply more force with greater speed. Think about shot put moving at 5mph v 30 mph. So by developing limb speed, you are automatically going to produce more force as a by product of the speed of the down stroke.
By developing stronger, faster hip flexors, the athlete is able to maintain position better, longer and hit more front side steps during the race. We all know that force is a vector so it is not just how much but the direction it is being applied.
The best sprinters in the world use physics to the their advantage by holding their front side mechanics. They are able to create lower leg rotational speed towards the track and nearly the match the speed that they are moving forward. This make it easier to apply force because you are not wasting time and effort catching up.
There are many, many factors to consider when developing a complete balanced program. I just happen to think that a little more emphasis on stride rate and developing powerful hip flexors pays bigger dividends.
-
Participant
“Most studies that I have seen indicate frequency does not correlate to Max V nearly as well as stride length, even for athletes of similar size.”
Not true but always good to focus on physics…..the Strike length of elite 400m and 100m athletes is similar but the ground contact time is very different. Bolt is putting a lot of force int he ground quickly, something the stronger guys are not doing, not matter how much the clean and squat. Limb speed is stretch reflex based on power going down and that power needs to have less time to work with….not about quick steps but elastic enough to get great speed.
-
Participant
“Most studies that I have seen indicate frequency does not correlate to Max V nearly as well as stride length, even for athletes of similar size.”
Not true but always good to focus on physics…..
Carl, would you provide links to peer reviewed studies that indicate MaxV correlates better to frequency than to stride length? I will try to provide some links that seem to indicate the opposite. Then we can all review and discuss the results.
Edit: Here are two quick articles, the first of course Weyland, and the second a non-peer reviewed article which explains Weylands point of view in simple terms. I agree with the points illustrated in the article, that the limits on Max V are about the sprinter’s ability to produce more force in a shorter amount of time as GCT is reduced. As I’ve said many times in the past, GCT is the enemy and improved RFD is the solution.
Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements
Peter G. Weyand, Deborah B. Sternlight, Matthew J. Bellizzi, and Seth Wright
https://jap.physiology.org/content/89/5/1991.shortHuman Running Speeds of 35 to 40 Mph May Be Biologically Possible
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100122102843.htm
-
Participant
Star, spend $25 bucks and order this below. It is not a study of random non-athletes, it is a 30 year ongoing project that highlights the commonalities amongst the greatest sprinters of all time. To compare anything under elite, you are going to get false data because they simply cannot replicate what is happening.
-
Participant
Thanks Chad, it seems that it should be rather obvious that when ground contact decreases that frequency increases. Buy the book Star61 as that is data that I like, elite athletes and not house wives from Watertown running on treadmill being compared to grainy NBC tapes with graduate students interpretation. While I agree with Peter’s conclusion, yet the underlying details are not clear.
Very simple for the members to hear. If GCT decreases and output is the same, 4 steps can become 4.3 steps in the same time. This may be tough to swallow but both are influenced and how much is very individual. This is why we tend to see similarities of .84 splits with 10 or so sprinters….not to many 12.0 meter per second spits with 3 monster strides!
When Star61 reads the book I welcome discussion….otherwise he simply doesn’t have the data to back up his argument. Frequency with stride lengths close to 1.25 x BH is what is normal.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323034429"]“Most studies that I have seen indicate frequency does not correlate to Max V nearly as well as stride length, even for athletes of similar size.”
Not true but always good to focus on physics…..
Carl, would you provide links to peer reviewed studies that indicate MaxV correlates better to frequency than to stride length? I will try to provide some links that seem to indicate the opposite. Then we can all review and discuss the results.
Edit: Here are two quick articles, the first of course Weyland, and the second a non-peer reviewed article which explains Weylands point of view in simple terms. I agree with the points illustrated in the article, that the limits on Max V are about the sprinter’s ability to produce more force in a shorter amount of time as GCT is reduced. As I’ve said many times in the past, GCT is the enemy and improved RFD is the solution.
Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements
Peter G. Weyand, Deborah B. Sternlight, Matthew J. Bellizzi, and Seth Wright
https://jap.physiology.org/content/89/5/1991.shortHuman Running Speeds of 35 to 40 Mph May Be Biologically Possible
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100122102843.htm%5B/quote%5D
The speed of the leg stepping down is certainly going to have an effect on the amount of force generated at impact, no?
-
Participant
The speed of the femur and the tibia can be observed to be a factor of stretch reflex of earlier actions…….simply put frequency increases not from limb speed but from less GCT…the stride may get longer and the limb velocity may increase but the cause and effect are not the same.
-
Participant
The speed of the femur and the tibia can be observed to be a factor of stretch reflex of earlier actions…….simply put frequency increases not from limb speed but from less GCT…the stride may get longer and the limb velocity may increase but the cause and effect are not the same.
Carl,
But wouldn’t less GCT occur from the tibia’s rotational speed? Please explain more or blog on it.
My thoughts are that the elites are closely matching the forward velocity with their foot strike. So this allows them lessen the duration of the force in order to match the lower limb with the forward velocity. While others who plant the foot slower (without rotational velocity) must extend the duration of the push because they require the additional GCT to first catch up. Hopes that makes sense. . .
-
Participant
Thanks Chad, it seems that it should be rather obvious that when ground contact decreases that frequency increases.
This is absolutely false. GCT is related to how fast the centerline moves though the step pattern and is related absolutely to speed first and secondarily to mechanics specific to the sprinter. It is not about increasing frequency.
Very simple for the members to hear. If GCT decreases and output is the same, 4 steps can become 4.3 steps in the same time. This may be tough to swallow but both are influenced and how much is very individual. This is why we tend to see similarities of .84 splits with 10 or so sprinters….not to many 12.0 meter per second spits with 3 monster strides!
Can you share any data that indicate that elite sprinters take more steps as they move from sub-elite to elite (indicating an increase in frequency without an increase in stride length), or as sprinters move from sub-elite to elite do you see fewer steps, indicating an increase in stride length. And I’m not talking about early steps dependent on changes in starting technique. What about the number of steps to cover the last 40 meters. Higher number of steps or fewer.
If it is truly frequency, then you should see no difference in the number of steps between 60m and 100m for any one sprinter as his times drop. If you see fewer steps, his stride is lengthening. Any data on the number of steps on individual sprinters when the run varying times (like when they ran a 10.5 vs when they ran a 9.8 etc.)
-
Participant
Look at the Coh study from T and F (Track Coach) in the 2001 Summer issue. I don’t think people should look for frequency and length information as both, like horizontal and vertical forces are related. Focusing on frequency only or length only will not help as both need to be expressed at the same time. Sure people can do flys and set up a fast rhythm or do bounds with a vest, but much of that ability is fiber type and the ability to create arousal from adrenaline.
Over time, those that are more length based vs frequency based will be more balanced at elite levels. Look at the 60-80 segments of the elite and many will have intra foot strike changes. Only three times this has been privately filmed at 200 Fps and I don’t think this is coached by cues as it’s happening at .0001 intervals. No way is this taught.
many people can tap dance at greater than 5 strides a second……many can bound 1.5 meters on the track. Putting it together is just a natural product of adaptation.
Foot strike and the center of force through the foot is forefoot, to mid foot (with heel contact) to toe off and the tibia will roll to the point that the forces are nearly gone before the heel lifts! The contributions of the gastroc don’t need to be visual but they are happening during landing. No need to do toe risers on the tippy toes with 700 pounds!
All of this is not coachable but can be taught.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323047970"]Thanks Chad, it seems that it should be rather obvious that when ground contact decreases that frequency increases.
This is absolutely false. GCT is related to how fast the centerline moves though the step pattern and is related absolutely to speed first and secondarily to mechanics specific to the sprinter. It is not about increasing frequency.
Very simple for the members to hear. If GCT decreases and output is the same, 4 steps can become 4.3 steps in the same time. This may be tough to swallow but both are influenced and how much is very individual. This is why we tend to see similarities of .84 splits with 10 or so sprinters….not to many 12.0 meter per second spits with 3 monster strides!
Can you share any data that indicate that elite sprinters take more steps as they move from sub-elite to elite (indicating an increase in frequency without an increase in stride length), or as sprinters move from sub-elite to elite do you see fewer steps, indicating an increase in stride length. And I’m not talking about early steps dependent on changes in starting technique. What about the number of steps to cover the last 40 meters. Higher number of steps or fewer.
If it is truly frequency, then you should see no difference in the number of steps between 60m and 100m for any one sprinter as his times drop. If you see fewer steps, his stride is lengthening. Any data on the number of steps on individual sprinters when the run varying times (like when they ran a 10.5 vs when they ran a 9.8 etc.)[/quote]
Conversely can you show me the opposite being true? And your question is nothing what I said. Get the book and get on the same page or I can’t help you.
-
Participant
Does Jon Goodwin’s discussion on contact length differ at all from what Weyand describes in his presentation of steady-state running?
Contact length and contact time are better root markers of what is going on. Someone can have a longer stride while have less distance traveled. Running faster is not the same as being a faster runner as Goodwin points out.
What we want to see is an improvement in the COM velocity, not just the distance between the leg stride. For example I can increase stride length by reaching and pushing further back but the velocity may drop. What we need to see is the same quality leg mechanics create bigger displacements of the body.
Increasing frequency by going high stepping will cut off power as well, so you don’t want to manipulate the sprinter by adjusting either one directly mechanically. The frequency and length will fall into place with good mechanics and training.
-
Participant
JC, Edwards could never run 11.9mps. Evn he said it coulnt have been true.
-
Participant
[quote author="W.E. Price" date="1323031665"]Does Jon Goodwin’s discussion on contact length differ at all from what Weyand describes in his presentation of steady-state running?
Contact length and contact time are better root markers of what is going on. Someone can have a longer stride while have less distance traveled. Running faster is not the same as being a faster runner as Goodwin points out.
What we want to see is an improvement in the COM velocity, not just the distance between the leg stride. For example I can increase stride length by reaching and pushing further back but the velocity may drop. What we need to see is the same quality leg mechanics create bigger displacements of the body.
Increasing frequency by going high stepping will cut off power as well, so you don’t want to manipulate the sprinter by adjusting either one directly mechanically. The frequency and length will fall into place with good mechanics and training.[/quote]
I appreciate the reply Carl and concur with your lead point. Weyand does express length as related to distance the body travels (the hip being point of reference) during contact time. Unfortunately I’ve only seen snippets of Goodwin’s points on this.
When you speak of good mechanics I assume you’re referring to those issues similar to what Mann, Tellez et al discuss given the ability and limitations of each individual performer upon certain demands?
-
Participant
Guys please reply to the two articles I posted from NSA it would seem both of them 100 and 400 results would argue stride length is most important it was done with elite athletes and the greatest difference between all of them is stride length.
"Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse." -Albert Einstein
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1323053563"][quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323047970"]Thanks Chad, it seems that it should be rather obvious that when ground contact decreases that frequency increases.
This is absolutely false. GCT is related to how fast the centerline moves though the step pattern and is related absolutely to speed first and secondarily to mechanics specific to the sprinter. It is not about increasing frequency.
Very simple for the members to hear. If GCT decreases and output is the same, 4 steps can become 4.3 steps in the same time. This may be tough to swallow but both are influenced and how much is very individual. This is why we tend to see similarities of .84 splits with 10 or so sprinters….not to many 12.0 meter per second spits with 3 monster strides!
Can you share any data that indicate that elite sprinters take more steps as they move from sub-elite to elite (indicating an increase in frequency without an increase in stride length), or as sprinters move from sub-elite to elite do you see fewer steps, indicating an increase in stride length. And I’m not talking about early steps dependent on changes in starting technique. What about the number of steps to cover the last 40 meters. Higher number of steps or fewer.
If it is truly frequency, then you should see no difference in the number of steps between 60m and 100m for any one sprinter as his times drop. If you see fewer steps, his stride is lengthening. Any data on the number of steps on individual sprinters when the run varying times (like when they ran a 10.5 vs when they ran a 9.8 etc.)[/quote]
Conversely can you show me the opposite being true? And your question is nothing what I said. Get the book and get on the same page or I can’t help you.[/quote]Another typical Carl Valle response…deflecting any question that might shed light in a way that doesn’t support your own opinion.
-
Participant
[quote author="W.E. Price" date="1323031665"]Does Jon Goodwin’s discussion on contact length differ at all from what Weyand describes in his presentation of steady-state running?
Contact length and contact time are better root markers of what is going on. Someone can have a longer stride while have less distance traveled. [/quote]If stride length is defined as the distance between contacts, how can someone with a longer stride travel a shorter distance than someone with a shorter stride, regardless of GCT?
-
Participant
JC stop being a dumbass. Look at Edwards 60m time, look at his training times and speed. Look up quotes from the man himself. Use some common sence, hes not that fast.
An article says he can run 11.9mps, so it must be true, eh?
-
Participant
If it is truly frequency, then you should see no difference in the number of steps between 60m and 100m for any one sprinter as his times drop. If you see fewer steps, his stride is lengthening. Any data on the number of steps on individual sprinters when the run varying times (like when they ran a 10.5 vs when they ran a 9.8 etc.)
This is from CFTS page 36: “the importance of reduced contact time is demonstrated through Ben Johnson’s career. From 1981 to 1988 his average stride length remained constant (46.6 strides per 100m) yet his time improved from 10.25 seconds to 9.79 solely due to increased stride frequency”
There is always a point during training years when stride length stops to increase and after that you simply would rely on improving stride frequency through reduced contact time.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323054369"][quote author="W.E. Price" date="1323031665"]Does Jon Goodwin’s discussion on contact length differ at all from what Weyand describes in his presentation of steady-state running?
Contact length and contact time are better root markers of what is going on. Someone can have a longer stride while have less distance traveled. [/quote]If stride length is defined as the distance between contacts, how can someone with a longer stride travel a shorter distance than someone with a shorter stride, regardless of GCT?[/quote]
It’s not the length of the stride it’s the speed one is traveling. Longer strides don’t mean faster speeds Star61.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323054021"][quote author="star61" date="1323053563"][quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323047970"]Thanks Chad, it seems that it should be rather obvious that when ground contact decreases that frequency increases.
This is absolutely false. GCT is related to how fast the centerline moves though the step pattern and is related absolutely to speed first and secondarily to mechanics specific to the sprinter. It is not about increasing frequency.
Very simple for the members to hear. If GCT decreases and output is the same, 4 steps can become 4.3 steps in the same time. This may be tough to swallow but both are influenced and how much is very individual. This is why we tend to see similarities of .84 splits with 10 or so sprinters….not to many 12.0 meter per second spits with 3 monster strides!
Can you share any data that indicate that elite sprinters take more steps as they move from sub-elite to elite (indicating an increase in frequency without an increase in stride length), or as sprinters move from sub-elite to elite do you see fewer steps, indicating an increase in stride length. And I’m not talking about early steps dependent on changes in starting technique. What about the number of steps to cover the last 40 meters. Higher number of steps or fewer.
If it is truly frequency, then you should see no difference in the number of steps between 60m and 100m for any one sprinter as his times drop. If you see fewer steps, his stride is lengthening. Any data on the number of steps on individual sprinters when the run varying times (like when they ran a 10.5 vs when they ran a 9.8 etc.)[/quote]
Conversely can you show me the opposite being true? And your question is nothing what I said. Get the book and get on the same page or I can’t help you.[/quote]Another typical Carl Valle response…deflecting any question that might shed light in a way that doesn’t support your own opinion.[/quote]
I use my real name because I believe what I say so I am not the one dodging questions. Just because you ask a question, doesn’t mean I need to respond when it’s set up to try to put words in my mouth.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323034429"]“Most studies that I have seen indicate frequency does not correlate to Max V nearly as well as stride length, even for athletes of similar size.”
Not true but always good to focus on physics…..
Carl, would you provide links to peer reviewed studies that indicate MaxV correlates better to frequency than to stride length? I will try to provide some links that seem to indicate the opposite. Then we can all review and discuss the results.
Edit: Here are two quick articles, the first of course Weyland, and the second a non-peer reviewed article which explains Weylands point of view in simple terms. I agree with the points illustrated in the article, that the limits on Max V are about the sprinter’s ability to produce more force in a shorter amount of time as GCT is reduced. As I’ve said many times in the past, GCT is the enemy and improved RFD is the solution.
Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements
Peter G. Weyand, Deborah B. Sternlight, Matthew J. Bellizzi, and Seth Wright
https://jap.physiology.org/content/89/5/1991.shortHuman Running Speeds of 35 to 40 Mph May Be Biologically Possible
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100122102843.htm%5B/quote%5D
(Everyone) I couldn’t care less whether a sprinter takes 1 stride 10m long or 10 strides 1 metre long each. The sprinter might have stronger/faster hip flexors compared to hip/leg extensors or vice versa and they will work it out sooner or later which strategy leads to running faster. The answer as you say is improved RFD for either hip/leg extensors or hip flexors but preferably both; so how can we improve RFD?
-
Participant
I use my real name because I believe what I say so I am not the one dodging questions. Just because you ask a question, doesn’t mean I need to respond when it’s set up to try to put words in my mouth.
That’s a ridiculous statement. Who cares what you call yourself. Use a number. The fact is you question people, requiring them to post full text articles in defense of their opinions, and even when they do, answering every question you ask, you still refuse to offer even links supporting your own opinions and you routinely refuse to answer questions. I think the majority on here already know that to be true.
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1323040492"][quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323034429"]“Most studies that I have seen indicate frequency does not correlate to Max V nearly as well as stride length, even for athletes of similar size.”
Not true but always good to focus on physics…..
Carl, would you provide links to peer reviewed studies that indicate MaxV correlates better to frequency than to stride length? I will try to provide some links that seem to indicate the opposite. Then we can all review and discuss the results.
Edit: Here are two quick articles, the first of course Weyland, and the second a non-peer reviewed article which explains Weylands point of view in simple terms. I agree with the points illustrated in the article, that the limits on Max V are about the sprinter’s ability to produce more force in a shorter amount of time as GCT is reduced. As I’ve said many times in the past, GCT is the enemy and improved RFD is the solution.
Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements
Peter G. Weyand, Deborah B. Sternlight, Matthew J. Bellizzi, and Seth Wright
https://jap.physiology.org/content/89/5/1991.shortHuman Running Speeds of 35 to 40 Mph May Be Biologically Possible
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100122102843.htm%5B/quote%5D
(Everyone) I couldn’t care less whether a sprinter takes 1 stride 10m long or 10 strides 1 metre long each. The sprinter might have stronger/faster hip flexors compared to hip/leg extensors or vice versa and they will work it out sooner or later which strategy leads to running faster. The answer as you say is improved RFD for either hip/leg extensors or hip flexors but preferably both; so how can we improve RFD?[/quote]Fantastic! If you agree that RFD is the answer, let us all focus on research and observations that lead us in that direction. Lets discuss the force-time curve and try to understand how to improve RFD at the extreme end (milliseconds).
-
Participant
So what’s the best way to reduce GCT, or the the best way to improve stride length without reducing frequency?
I may be in the minority with this opinion, but I think any attempt to intentionally reduce GCT will lead to less force application and slower speeds. GCT is simply a function of the speed of the sprinter, IMHO, with minor differences resulting from sprinter specific differences such as limb length etc. The faster you run, the shorter GCT gets, but shorter GCTs are a problem, THE problem, not a solution. The answer to the second part is easy in theory, difficult in application. More force application during the shorter and shorter GCT will result in a greater stride length, and the easy answer is to improve RFD so more force can be generated in less time. How to train for that is, IMHO, the Holy Grail of sprinting, but I have no idea what it is.
-
Participant
I have been to all if not most of Lorens lectures here in the uk over the past few years now.
I think there may be confusion as to what Loren was saying and or how this has been transfered.
The aim is to reduce GCT!! without a doubt that is true! and this is the aim of every athlete and coach.
However, as Star has correctly pointed out this reduced GCT is a result of other factors such as strength, power, RFD, stiffness, form etc etc etc it is these variable you work on in order to reduce GCT, GCT is merely a measure (along with your PB) to the effectivness of your training
RFD is vital through the correct running form.
-
Participant
[quote author="Irish100m" date="1323113529"]So what’s the best way to reduce GCT, or the the best way to improve stride length without reducing frequency?
I may be in the minority with this opinion, but I think any attempt to intentionally reduce GCT will lead to less force application and slower speeds. GCT is simply a function of the speed of the sprinter, IMHO, with minor differences resulting from sprinter specific differences such as limb length etc. The faster you run, the shorter GCT gets, but shorter GCTs are a problem, THE problem, not a solution. The answer to the second part is easy in theory, difficult in application. More force application during the shorter and shorter GCT will result in a greater stride length, and the easy answer is to improve RFD so more force can be generated in less time. How to train for that is, IMHO, the Holy Grail of sprinting, but I have no idea what it is.[/quote]
Holy Grail? Great genetics and exposure to the training we know makes the impact. A dose of the right general qualities and sprinting is obvious, but how much is just based on history of what tends to work with most. The cup is right in front of us, but it’s too obvious that nobody wants to address that talent is # 1 and many different training methods may work, but the realities is that nothing special exists. We all want to believe that more available options will help outside talent, such as supplements, gadgets, and of course Max Strength.
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1323123810"][quote author="Irish100m" date="1323113529"]So what’s the best way to reduce GCT, or the the best way to improve stride length without reducing frequency?
I may be in the minority with this opinion, but I think any attempt to intentionally reduce GCT will lead to less force application and slower speeds. GCT is simply a function of the speed of the sprinter, IMHO, with minor differences resulting from sprinter specific differences such as limb length etc. The faster you run, the shorter GCT gets, but shorter GCTs are a problem, THE problem, not a solution. The answer to the second part is easy in theory, difficult in application. More force application during the shorter and shorter GCT will result in a greater stride length, and the easy answer is to improve RFD so more force can be generated in less time. How to train for that is, IMHO, the Holy Grail of sprinting, but I have no idea what it is.[/quote]
Holy Grail? Great genetics and exposure to the training we know makes the impact. A dose of the right general qualities and sprinting is obvious, but how much is just based on history of what tends to work with most. The cup is right in front of us, but it’s too obvious that nobody wants to address that talent is # 1 and many different training methods may work, but the realities is that nothing special exists. We all want to believe that more available options will help outside talent, such as supplements, gadgets, and of course Max Strength.[/quote]You speak the obvious and the absolute useless. We can’t, at the current time, change anyone’s genetics. And the reality is that there ARE things that work better than others…that’s why times have steadily dropped over the last few decades. Better nutrition, better training, better equipment. But we all know that. We’re discussing what specific training might be used to attack the problems surrounding MaxV. I believe that if we can improve RFD in the muscles and motions specific to sprinting, which will allow greater force applicaton, we can see some success. I have not been convinced that reducing GCT by any other means than running faster, will result in a higher frequency without affecting stride length, although I welcome being corrected on this point. I think Max Strength runs its course very early in a sprinters career, after that RFD is more important. I don’t know exactly how to improve RFD specific to sprinting, but I know posts like your last three or four bring us no closer to getting there.
-
Participant
I have not been convinced that reducing GCT by any other means than running faster, will result in a higher frequency without affecting stride length, although I welcome being corrected on this point.
Star,
Please pick up the book . . . spend $25 bucks. Data doesn’t lie.
I think it will give you some insight on some of the aspects of sprinting which keep getting debated. My crappy posts do nothing to justify the brilliance and endless knowledge that lies in its pages.
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1323147715"]
I have not been convinced that reducing GCT by any other means than running faster, will result in a higher frequency without affecting stride length, although I welcome being corrected on this point.
Star,
Please pick up the book . . . spend $25 bucks. Data doesn’t lie.
I think it will give you some insight on some of the aspects of sprinting which keep getting debated. My crappy posts do nothing to justify the brilliance and endless knowledge that lies in its pages.[/quote]
I don’t have the book but will hopefully pick it up for Christmas.
The data from comparing the studies I’ve read does show that there is a clear difference at maximum speed; when taking into account leg length, shorter GCT = faster velocites
However even during the early stages of sprinting, the faster sprinters (over the entire length of the race) seem to be able to produce the same impulse (force x time) as slower sprinters, with a shorter GCT (for the faster sprinters) as well.
This implies only one thing; faster sprinters have the capacity to produce greater forces in shorter time frames. As the speed increases, this capacity to produce force in 10-20 milliseconds less than for slower sprinters is the difference in the top speeds that faster sprinters can reach. Slower sprinters have difficulty in breaching 90-100 milliseconds of force production time limitation and hence struggle to get beyond about 10 -10.5 metres/second.
The key is to increase RFD but to do so in a way that demands shorter GCT (exercises should be designed for shorter GCT’s; short fast hops for example). That way we provide stimulus to the brain to recruit motor units as close to simultaneously as possible as opposed to the usual graded recruitment patterns. Ultimately this should produce adaptation within the synapse in the CNS that allows sub-conscious near simultaneous recruitment of motor units during sprinting.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323143348"][quote author="star61" date="1323123810"][quote author="Irish100m" date="1323113529"]So what’s the best way to reduce GCT, or the the best way to improve stride length without reducing frequency?
I may be in the minority with this opinion, but I think any attempt to intentionally reduce GCT will lead to less force application and slower speeds. GCT is simply a function of the speed of the sprinter, IMHO, with minor differences resulting from sprinter specific differences such as limb length etc. The faster you run, the shorter GCT gets, but shorter GCTs are a problem, THE problem, not a solution. The answer to the second part is easy in theory, difficult in application. More force application during the shorter and shorter GCT will result in a greater stride length, and the easy answer is to improve RFD so more force can be generated in less time. How to train for that is, IMHO, the Holy Grail of sprinting, but I have no idea what it is.[/quote]
Holy Grail? Great genetics and exposure to the training we know makes the impact. A dose of the right general qualities and sprinting is obvious, but how much is just based on history of what tends to work with most. The cup is right in front of us, but it’s too obvious that nobody wants to address that talent is # 1 and many different training methods may work, but the realities is that nothing special exists. We all want to believe that more available options will help outside talent, such as supplements, gadgets, and of course Max Strength.[/quote]You speak the obvious and the absolute useless. We can’t, at the current time, change anyone’s genetics. And the reality is that there ARE things that work better than others…that’s why times have steadily dropped over the last few decades. Better nutrition, better training, better equipment. But we all know that. We’re discussing what specific training might be used to attack the problems surrounding MaxV. I believe that if we can improve RFD in the muscles and motions specific to sprinting, which will allow greater force applicaton, we can see some success. I have not been convinced that reducing GCT by any other means than running faster, will result in a higher frequency without affecting stride length, although I welcome being corrected on this point. I think Max Strength runs its course very early in a sprinters career, after that RFD is more important. I don’t know exactly how to improve RFD specific to sprinting, but I know posts like your last three or four bring us no closer to getting there.[/quote]
“Better nutrition, better training, better equipment. But we all know that.”
Nutrition?
https://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/7294360/olympics-usain-bolt-being-fastest-man-world-espn-magazine
Training?
Equipment?
I don’t think anyone agrees here. In 1991 Carl hit a top speed that is still one of the best split times. What has changed since then? 20 years ago. Buy the book and read it……we have asked for months to do so.
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1323147715"][quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323143348"][quote author="star61" date="1323123810"][quote author="Irish100m" date="1323113529"]So what’s the best way to reduce GCT, or the the best way to improve stride length without reducing frequency?
I may be in the minority with this opinion, but I think any attempt to intentionally reduce GCT will lead to less force application and slower speeds. GCT is simply a function of the speed of the sprinter, IMHO, with minor differences resulting from sprinter specific differences such as limb length etc. The faster you run, the shorter GCT gets, but shorter GCTs are a problem, THE problem, not a solution. The answer to the second part is easy in theory, difficult in application. More force application during the shorter and shorter GCT will result in a greater stride length, and the easy answer is to improve RFD so more force can be generated in less time. How to train for that is, IMHO, the Holy Grail of sprinting, but I have no idea what it is.[/quote]
Holy Grail? Great genetics and exposure to the training we know makes the impact. A dose of the right general qualities and sprinting is obvious, but how much is just based on history of what tends to work with most. The cup is right in front of us, but it’s too obvious that nobody wants to address that talent is # 1 and many different training methods may work, but the realities is that nothing special exists. We all want to believe that more available options will help outside talent, such as supplements, gadgets, and of course Max Strength.[/quote]You speak the obvious and the absolute useless. We can’t, at the current time, change anyone’s genetics. And the reality is that there ARE things that work better than others…that’s why times have steadily dropped over the last few decades. Better nutrition, better training, better equipment. But we all know that. We’re discussing what specific training might be used to attack the problems surrounding MaxV. I believe that if we can improve RFD in the muscles and motions specific to sprinting, which will allow greater force applicaton, we can see some success. I have not been convinced that reducing GCT by any other means than running faster, will result in a higher frequency without affecting stride length, although I welcome being corrected on this point. I think Max Strength runs its course very early in a sprinters career, after that RFD is more important. I don’t know exactly how to improve RFD specific to sprinting, but I know posts like your last three or four bring us no closer to getting there.[/quote]
“Better nutrition, better training, better equipment. But we all know that.”
Nutrition?
https://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/7294360/olympics-usain-bolt-being-fastest-man-world-espn-magazine
Training?
Equipment?
I don’t think anyone agrees here. In 1991 Carl hit a top speed that is still one of the best split times. What has changed since then? 20 years ago. Buy the book and read it……we have asked for months to do so.[/quote]How can anyone disagree? Are you saying there hasn’t been some amazing advancements in both 100m and 200m times in the last ten years, even in spite of the tightened scrutiny on doping and PEDs? Times continue to drop in the sprints with at least the best seven, and possibly more, of men’s 200m times having been posted in the last 5 years and something like the top ten times of all time in the 100m in the last decade. I think Carl’s best time is something like 15th best overall. And again under much closer scrutiny in terms of doping and PED’s. Are genetics changing? Are we evolving? Or are improved training and coaching techniques possibly the answer? Stop hiding behind the ‘buy the book’ response. This is a forum. You started the thread.
-
Participant
Unless you have access to the research, stop making conjectures on information you don’t have. I can’t provide books for you for free so you need to pony up and catch up with sprinting data.
Second, so why are people improving? The suggestions you had are nutrition (chicken nuggets), training (using 1968 training models), and equipment (what evidence). Nothing that spells 2011 Star61. Like I said earlier, people are stringing together better splits but bolt didn’t hit a 1.62 for the first 10m and his top split was a factor of his height and limb length, not his squat strength! Accept the facts no holy grail exists.
-
Participant
Unless you have access to the research, stop making conjectures on information you don’t have. I can’t provide books for you for free so you need to pony up and catch up with sprinting data.
Second, so why are people improving? The suggestions you had are nutrition (chicken nuggets), training (using 1968 training models), and equipment (what evidence). Nothing that spells 2011 Star61. Like I said earlier, people are stringing together better splits but bolt didn’t hit a 1.62 for the first 10m and his top split was a factor of his height and limb length, not his squat strength! Accept the facts no holy grail exists.
Apparently it does exist, and in the form of a book. You are the biggest cop out artist and strawman constuction I have ever seen. You’re James Smith without the brains. Now you’ve hijacked this forum and unfortunately the caliber of discussion has gone straight downhill.
Good luck with your cyber career.
-
Participant
The hate is strong with star61.
-
Participant
In all seriousness, star, you seem to have an issue with Carl going back to the Bear Droppings thread. Nearly every one of your replies to Carl’s blog is combative. You have two guys here, posting under their real names, who suggest you buy the book to further the quality of discussion. Pick it up and argue thoughts and the research. Personal attacks cheapen both your reputation and the board itself.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
In all seriousness, star, you seem to have an issue with Carl going back to the Bear Droppings thread. Nearly every one of your replies to Carl’s blog is combative. You have two guys here, posting under their real names, who suggest you buy the book to further the quality of discussion. Pick it up and argue thoughts and the research. Personal attacks cheapen both your reputation and the board itself.
There is no hate, but no doubt Carl frustrates me to no end. This entire thread, not one bit of data or scientific evidence, even the claims themselves, have been presented to make any point at all. If Carl disargees with you, he simply says I have a book or an article. He asks you to supply full text articles to defend your point but even if you do he won’t respond. He answers your questions with his questions without ever answering yours first. Most of his posts do not further the debate, the simply make excuses for why he can’t debate the point. When Josh or whoever told me to buy the book, Carl latched onto that now claiming that if I haven’t read the book I wont be able to understand points he might make. That’s bull. Even if I memorized the book and then asked Carl about something, he wouldn’t answer it directly. I, like others, appreciate the effort Carl puts in in bringing new information and debate to the forum. But when he sets himself up as Head Moderator and now for the second time threatens to vote someone off the forum because they don’t drink his Kool-aid, I lose patience.
I view this forum as a place to exchange ideas and debate the facts, or at least the beliefs, based on someone’s experiences or a someone’s research. I appreciate Matt, Josh, Newman, and others point of view and respect their opinions. They have no ax to grind, don’t have ulterior motives lilke trying to convince cyberspace they are an expert, experienced, elite level coach when they really aren’t.
Hate…no. Frustration and probably a lack of patience….absolutely. But I can honestly say my motives are honest and about trying to learn what I don’t know, and not trying to convince the world that I’m the only one who knows best.
And speaking of Bear Droppings, without my contribution, whether you agree with me or not, I don’t think the thread, which has a lot of good points of view from several people, would be what it is. I don’t sit back and agree with everything that anyone says and I will ask you to back up claims if you make them. If you don’t get cute or smart, I’m a nice guy. Carl has worn me thin, and admittedly it doesn’t take much from him to get me started, especially since, as I’ve said, I think he has too much unjustified influence in this forum.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323209890"]Accept the facts no holy grail exists.
For someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, then seemingly break the record at will, I believe something new exists. It’s just too incredible.
Certainly some outside the box thinking with a big dollop of genius.[/quote]
Not to mention a whole population group that trains under the same system. Its not only Usain that is running incredible times; we mustn’t forget Asafa (in spite of his poor race strategies) and all the other Jamaican male and female spinters.
Innovation in sport has been done before; the Fosbury flop, plyometrics…why not now? Maybe it is a combination of small Holy Grails. I’m certain that therapy has something to do with improvements across all countries.
-
Participant
Not wanting to stoke any fire here, but, I have the book! Can any one point to the part about GCT as in the case of this discussion.
Having only briefly reviewed the book/date I can’t remember any key info
Also having been present at pretty much every ‘sprints’ lecture in the uk over the past 2-3 years and spoken with Loren and dan, my personal conclusions are as I stated in my last post.
-
Participant
Pages 95 shows the flight time v. the ground contact time.
Page 96 goes into details about GCT and stride rate.
-
Participant
[quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323154559"][quote author="star61" date="1323147715"][quote author="Carl Valle" date="1323143348"][quote author="star61" date="1323123810"][quote author="Irish100m" date="1323113529"]So what’s the best way to reduce GCT, or the the best way to improve stride length without reducing frequency?
I may be in the minority with this opinion, but I think any attempt to intentionally reduce GCT will lead to less force application and slower speeds. GCT is simply a function of the speed of the sprinter, IMHO, with minor differences resulting from sprinter specific differences such as limb length etc. The faster you run, the shorter GCT gets, but shorter GCTs are a problem, THE problem, not a solution. The answer to the second part is easy in theory, difficult in application. More force application during the shorter and shorter GCT will result in a greater stride length, and the easy answer is to improve RFD so more force can be generated in less time. How to train for that is, IMHO, the Holy Grail of sprinting, but I have no idea what it is.[/quote]
Holy Grail? Great genetics and exposure to the training we know makes the impact. A dose of the right general qualities and sprinting is obvious, but how much is just based on history of what tends to work with most. The cup is right in front of us, but it’s too obvious that nobody wants to address that talent is # 1 and many different training methods may work, but the realities is that nothing special exists. We all want to believe that more available options will help outside talent, such as supplements, gadgets, and of course Max Strength.[/quote]You speak the obvious and the absolute useless. We can’t, at the current time, change anyone’s genetics. And the reality is that there ARE things that work better than others…that’s why times have steadily dropped over the last few decades. Better nutrition, better training, better equipment. But we all know that. We’re discussing what specific training might be used to attack the problems surrounding MaxV. I believe that if we can improve RFD in the muscles and motions specific to sprinting, which will allow greater force applicaton, we can see some success. I have not been convinced that reducing GCT by any other means than running faster, will result in a higher frequency without affecting stride length, although I welcome being corrected on this point. I think Max Strength runs its course very early in a sprinters career, after that RFD is more important. I don’t know exactly how to improve RFD specific to sprinting, but I know posts like your last three or four bring us no closer to getting there.[/quote]
“Better nutrition, better training, better equipment. But we all know that.”
Nutrition?
https://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/7294360/olympics-usain-bolt-being-fastest-man-world-espn-magazine
Training?
Equipment?
I don’t think anyone agrees here. In 1991 Carl hit a top speed that is still one of the best split times. What has changed since then? 20 years ago. Buy the book and read it……we have asked for months to do so.[/quote]How can anyone disagree? Are you saying there hasn’t been some amazing advancements in both 100m and 200m times in the last ten years, even in spite of the tightened scrutiny on doping and PEDs? Times continue to drop in the sprints with at least the best seven, and possibly more, of men’s 200m times having been posted in the last 5 years and something like the top ten times of all time in the 100m in the last decade. I think Carl’s best time is something like 15th best overall. And again under much closer scrutiny in terms of doping and PED’s. Are genetics changing? Are we evolving? Or are improved training and coaching techniques possibly the answer? Stop hiding behind the ‘buy the book’ response. This is a forum. You started the thread.[/quote]
Best time and best split times are not the same. Read the post again. People’s times are better because they are running more compete races. Not much has changed training but times are better. What over the last 5 years has made the times improve in general star? Chicken nuggets? Small ancient weight rooms? Poorly manicured grass?
-
Participant
Ok, read the pages and most others that seem relevant!
There seems to be some problem with everyone’s opinion and interpretation of the data to hand! It is of course evident the better/faster athletes have a shorter GCT no argument there or that the average flight time regardless of ability is very similar.
I can’t find anywhere in that book, that advises we should therefore try and reduce GCT in its own element!
This reduction of GCT and faster times is a result of other factors contributing to make that shorter more efficient contact, such as strength, power, elasticity, stiffness, technique etc
So that being said, how do you interpret the data and implement it…..how do you coach for reduced GCT? I would like to here, thanks.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
What stats would that be? The fact that he ran 11.9mps? You are an idiot. He has loads of speed measurements in his training. 10.4-10.8mps. Which goes with his 10.48 and 6.7-something 60m best.
No sprinter would hit that speed on the length of Edwards runup. And with that sort of speed, you would have thought he would at least get over 7.50 in the lj no matter how bad the technique.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant[quote author="joe" date="1325047418"]What stats would that be? The fact that he ran 11.9mps? You are an idiot. He has loads of speed measurements in his training. 10.4-10.8mps.
No sprinter would hit that speed on the length of Edwards runup.
But Edwards was capable of achieving it (scientifically proven), which is what he produced in his WR setting performances.[/quote]
I asked his coach and Edwards never ran close to that speed. What human could tj off that speed??? Silly
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
Lol of course.
-
Participant
But the fact of the matter is, he did.
How can his coach argue with science?.
If no sprinter now would hit that speed on the length of Edwards runup, then that interests the hell out of me.
Edwards was reported to be one of the fastest ever TJ’s on the runway but certainly not 11.9m/s. His top speed on the runway is in the same ballpark as some the fastest long jumpers (e.g. Dwight Phillips), see the biomechanics data from WC in Berlin.
https://www.iaaf.org/development/research/index.html
Edwards was fast, but not that fast!!
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
The Cuban guys often jump 17.50m while having takeoff speeds UNDER 10 m/s…
So you think 11.9 m/s is a must to jump 18.29m?
-
Participant
That is a link to a news archive? The news piece you quoted does talk about actual scientific method but the part where they talk about him hitting 11.9 m.s is not scientific method. It is just speculation.
You are either really stubborn or need to go back to school.
Someone who has jumped 18.43 with his attributes might be able to hit 11.9 m.s but what you have given us doesn’t prove that he did it.
-
Participant
[quote author="Callam Mccabe" date="1325056939"]That isn’t a research paper and the stuff you highlighted is just someone saying his max speed is 11.9 m.s
This isn’t scientific proof this is just something in press saying he could do it!
These guys obviously use science.
Give the guy his credentials.
Why couldn’t someone who jumps 18.43m with the incredible elasticity & spring he has run 11.9m/s?.[/quote]
Nobody bought the data when it was published, even the man himself!!
Petrov article gives more data on the approach speed of jumpers
-
Participant
Ok, read the pages and most others that seem relevant!
There seems to be some problem with everyone’s opinion and interpretation of the data to hand! It is of course evident the better/faster athletes have a shorter GCT no argument there or that the average flight time regardless of ability is very similar.
I can’t find anywhere in that book, that advises we should therefore try and reduce GCT in its own element!
This reduction of GCT and faster times is a result of other factors contributing to make that shorter more efficient contact, such as strength, power, elasticity, stiffness, technique etc
So that being said, how do you interpret the data and implement it…..how do you coach for reduced GCT? I would like to here, thanks.
COV-GOD, note the deafening silence to your question even though you have read the material! IMHO, you’ve laid the foundation to the answer of your own question in the asking…by focusing on the factors that allow for a shorter, more powerful and effecient contact, i.e. improving power, elasticity, stiffness etc., or in short by improving those factors that improve RFD. These will lead to increased forces and higher speeds; the shorter GCTs will be a result, not a cause.
-
Participant
.
-
Participant
It is a magazine… not a peer reviewed journal.
JC it is obvious that you have no idea how people do a biomechanical analysis, there are many things that can go wrong and it happens often it just doesn’t manage to make it into a decent journal. They make it into the crap you seem to read.
It it good that you question stuff and have your beliefs but get a grip.
-
Participant
JC, look at his training log previous to his WR. On average his top speed was about 10.5 mps. It gives 40 and 60 times as well.
His 60m best is 6.73. Not worth mentioning really but he ran hand timed 50m in 5.9, 1993+1998.
You think he hits 11.9mps on his roughly 40m+ run up, which would mean he has blistering acceleration AND top speed, yet he runs 6.73? It’s not the only 60m hes ever done either. With that speed at 40m, he would run an easy wr over 60.
In Edwards biography, he mentions he didn’t run as fast as they said. You seriously need to start using some common sence.
-
Participant
Something must give?
JC you don’t seem to understand approach speeds at all. I will break it down. The vast majority of elite tj’ers who jump between 17m-17.60m run between 9.8 – 10.2 m/s on the runway. Idowu is fast and runs around 10.6 m/s for many of his jumps. He can hit 17.80m with the WORST technique out there. For every 0.01 of a speed increase over the last 5m you are looking at 10-15cm increase in jump distance providing technique is good.
Firstly you can do the math and 11.9 m/s would equal what?
Secondly Edwards technique was fantastic as well. 11.9 m/s with technique like that would clearly have been a 19m jump.
Come on man!
-
Participant
.
-
Viewing 85 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.