Originally Posted by Steven Low
I think it might be better to approach this from a global view.
We know that frequency of stride based on human biomechanics is pretty much virtually the same for all sprinters.
Therefore, the sprinters who have longer strides are going to be able to run faster. Those who have longer strides are those who are able to exert the most mass specific force. Therefore, increasing mass specific force is key.
We pretty much know that lifting heavy ass weights is going to raise all CNS related intermuscular and intramuscular coordination as well as preferentially hypertrophy/strength type II fibers..... so why not do heavy DLs?
Anyway, what distances are you referring to for speed endurance (for a 100m sprinter and/or a 400m sprinter let say).
I'll think over more later on what you posted, but in reference to speed endurance, I just mean distances beyond which top speeds are reached.
A few quick thoughts:
1. I do agree with maximizing mass specific force in order to increase top speed and RFD.
2. Once top speeds are reached, however, fatigue comes in to play. As higher threshold fibres become fatigued, due to intramuscular coordination, other higher threshold fibres are recruited. If all or nearly all fibres are indeed recruited at top speeds, why not spend some time on speed endurance?
3. Does the ability to not train speed endurance for sprinting have anything to do with the fact that the force in sprinting is expressed in milliseconds (which does not allow for maximal contraction)? Does it also not have anything to do with elastic energy contributions?
I could be way off base with #3, but it's a random thought that popped into my head.