[reo]

reo on June 29, 2003 at 6:58 pm #8455

I've just look through the Treat about "resistance running". But I think it's not exactly what I'd like to discuss.
What about up-hill running as a form of sprint training.
In my oppinion, there it is much harder to run up hill so that it could be useful for gaining more speed. On the other hand, you will step more slowly, as a result you loose speed.
But in combination whit down-hill running with fast steps, up-hill runs would probably work!??

So what do you think about or have you any experiences?

regards
Reo

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on June 29, 2003 at 11:11 pm #20845

As you mentioned there are pros and cons of up hill running. I think the specific strength and power gained from it are very beneficial. Also, the necessary knee lift required in hill sprints has good carry over for flat sprinting. Like you pointed out though, the speed of movement is slower and that's why I think it's best used earlier in a macrocycle rather than during the competitive season. As for downhill running their are some benefits, but unless the decline is very small (i.e-2-3 degrees) I think the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. Their are some serious kinematic changes that occur with downfill running that unlike uphill running are probably harmful to performance on the flat ground. Also, the loads placed on the body (as in mechanical loads: measured in N) during downhill running is much greater than in flat running and uphill running. As a result, it's easier to get soft tissue and muscle damage. Increased eccentric muscle contraction and the soreness associated with it are also a concern (or possible benefit depending on how you look at it). I think if turn-over rate needed to be specifically addressed (which I don't personally think it ever really does) then flat ground towing with a slightly elevated assistance would probably be a safer and more effective way. Very shallow inclines might also be ok.

ELITETRACK Founder

[dk]

dk on June 30, 2003 at 1:38 am #20846

I love hills rather than stadium stairs

Uphills:
1. because you can avoid the cement-landing pounding on the lower limbs, and back.
2. To run uphill requires dorsiflexion rather than the planter flexion of foot strike on the elevated flat steps.
3. You can either vary the stride length or find a slope either steeper or less so, where as a stadium stair is a fixed object.
4. Athletes spend enough time in athletic venues. Isnt it nice to have a training exercise not dependant on the track, stadium, weight room, et al???
5. You can vary the nature of the hill surface, grass, sand, gravel, etc., for more dymanics.
Too often we apply greater loads in volume or resistance to the same exercise to achieve overload rather than change the dynamics of the exercise(s)
6.
7.
and on…

Downhills
1. for the stride length / overspeed work

Many good reasons in my mind both up and down.

Any opinion(s) to the contrary?

DK

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on June 30, 2003 at 4:50 am #20847

I think stride length is determined much less by the kinematics (technique) than it is by force production. In my opinion, the kinematics of the runner really just set up a good or bad position to produce force. If this is true, using down hill running to directly increase stride length might be an effort in futility. If you take any given runner, their stride length will be longer going down hill as compared to running on the flat. This is because even with equal forces put into the ground, the downward slope of the hill ensures a longer flight phase. This means that all else being equal, they'll travel further with each step. Once put on flat ground though, the advantage that the hill provides in increasing stride length will be gone and kinematics might possibly be negatively altered. What I'm referring to, is that I've noticed that downhill running promotes excessive opening of the leg (at the knee joint) prior to ground contact. If this carried over to flat sprinting it would be a horrible problem.

Down hill running might however be a good way to overload the central nervous system on rare occassions due to the increased load that I mentioned above. Or if one had access to a very shallow slope.

Reo: I changed the title of this thread to add down hill running also.

ELITETRACK Founder

[stylee]

stylee on June 30, 2003 at 7:41 am #20848

Could you explain, without getting too technical, as to why turnover rate does not ever need to be specifically adressed?

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on June 30, 2003 at 10:54 am #20849

The most simple answer I can come up with: it's not a limiting factor for sprint performance in the way that most people think that it is. Complex answer to follow later on when I have more time.

ELITETRACK Founder

[dk]

dk on June 30, 2003 at 6:48 pm #20850

it does have to be a very slight downhill slope, but I find it easier for the non-elite to run this way than the unnatural pull/tow equipment overspeed application.

[Kebba Tolbert]

Kebba Tolbert on June 30, 2003 at 7:46 pm #20851

[i]Originally posted by mike[/i]
The most simple answer I can come up with: it's not a limiting factor for sprint performance in the way that most people think that it is. Complex answer to follow later on when I have more time.

i disagree. with many athletes their concept of what to do during certain parts of the race is to . You have to try to hold on to or maintain frequency during the latter stages of the race. too often they let the hips drop, let the foot get too far in front, and thus the frequency decline is too great for good performances.

i also think that that overpushing and long ground contacts that are too long during max velocity lead to frequency drops that have to be examined and sometimes taught.

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on July 22, 2003 at 8:58 am #20852

I was away for a while and almost forgot all about this thread.

KT, Here's my thoughts, intuitively it would be easy to conclude that stride frequency is a limiting factor in race performance. Looking over analyses of elite level sprinters however indicates that this may not be the case. For instance, at the 1997 World Championships, Maurice Greene had a stride frequency of 4.65 strides / second and ran 9.86 seconds in the 100m. Donovan Bailey had a stride frequency of 4.49 strides / second and ran 9.91 seconds. At first glance, this might indicate that stride frequency was in fact important but a deeper review is more revealing. Greene???s average stride frequency from 30-60m was 5.00 strides / second and 4.73 from 60-100m. In these same race segments, Bailey???s average stride frequencies were 4.64 and 4.57. Despite having a much greater loss in stride frequency, his 10m splits did not reflect any serious impact on his speed (30 to 60m: 0.88, 0.87, 0.85; 60 to 100m: 0.85, 0.86, 0.87). Similar results have been found for other elite level sprinters (both male and female). I'm sure you probably have more championship race data to look at than I do. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this.

I'm in the process of writing an article that covers this phenonmenon and hopefully will be able to finish it soon.

ELITETRACK Founder

[400stud]

400stud on September 7, 2003 at 1:49 am #20853

Where's the article?

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on September 9, 2003 at 10:54 am #20854

It's about number 4 on my list of partially completed articles….I think I have pretty severe ADD and do tons of things at once and always have different projects in various states of completion. I just finished two for the shot put the past two weeks, next in line are one on training to failure, a lit review on stretching, and the aforementioned sprint article. All are seriously on hold due to an overload of USATF sports science work as well as personal research. They will get done sometime though.

ELITETRACK Founder