Originally Posted by Donald Lee
That sounds incredibly short. Do they average about 5 runs/day because they cannot complete all 10 runs in the alloted goal time? Also, you keep the 400 m runners to a maximum of 60 m sprints? I'm guessing you allow for maximal recovery between sprints because you don't do intervals.
The majority of the reason for averaging 5 is because they reach 10, but there are times they cannot make the first 2 runs within the goal time.
Recovery time between runs is 4 minutes.
1. You stated that the horizontal force forward and the braking force generally even out, and that what propells the runner forward is the vertical force against gravity. Obviously the vertical force is not the only force in play, or else the runner wouldn't go anywhere. How does angeled force play into this?
Out of the blocks, step one's horizontal impulse is equal to 60% OF vertical impulse. By step 3, horizontal impulse is 32% OF vertical impulse. Horizontal impulse eventually drops to ~10% of vertical impulse.
From the above, as the runner increases speed, the force vector changes. There is also the factor of inertia that keeps the runner moving horizontally. The braking action at ground contact causes the center of mass to continue in a forward direction--because of inertia (this is why those who want to minimise braking force at landing are being silly--not a nice way to put it but that's what it is
From "Running Springs: Speed and animal size"Farley, et. al.
"Running, hopping, trotting and galloping animals bounce along the ground using
springs to store and return elastic energy (Cavagna et al. 1964, 1977; Heglund et al.1982b). These springs include muscles, tendons and ligaments which alternately stretch and recoil, storing and releasing elastic energy, while the feet are on the ground (Alexander, 1988).
Cavangna's study, I believe, was the first to recognize the fact that humans bounce along the ground. Bouncing as in a bouncing ball. The amount we bounce is based upon muscle stiffness and hip, knee and ankle joint angles at ground contact. Too much joint angle change creates longer ground contact time. Too little angle causes reduction of the "spring."Muscle stiffness dictates spring actions as well as the amount of elastic energy created.
2. Also, POSE running attempts to use gravitational force to its advantage by leaning forward. It minimizes the use of the quads and high knees. Instead, it goes more for the butt kick motion and utilizes the hamstrings. According to your thoughts on running technique ala your book and blog, it would seem that POSE would be only beneficial for correcting overstriding. Michael Johnson seems to naturally run in this manner. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this if you are familiar with POSE running, because you put so much important on MSF and fighting against gravity.
Leaning forward is most often a function of existant weather condition and/or increase in drag force created by the runners speed. Without any wind at all, an elite runner at top speed will exceed 11m/s at top speed ~around 24 mph. If we simply walked into that headwind speed we would automatically lean forward into it to effectively "reduce" the drag by creating a smaller surface.
I'll bet no one told you to do that as a kid...you just did it!
High knees, are the result of the elastic energy stored during ground contact time. As the COM passes over the grounded foot, there is a powerful eccentric contraction along the posterior muscles and tendons. At toe off, the elastic recoil drives the leg up and in front of the runner, just like a stretched rubber band when one side is released. More recoil=higher knees.
The Pose method is guilty of the same thing that the majority of speed coaches do. They ignore research, they ignore gravity, and they ignore the fact that form follows function.
I know that's harsh but what the heck, you asked!
3. I am also wondering about your disdain for training past 10 seconds in order to train mostly the ATP-PC energy system. Even in a 100 m race, there are significant glycolitic and aerobic components. And you claim that inability to sustain maximum speed is due to insufficient strength. You training, both in the gym and on the track, seems EXTREMELY strength biased. To put it in rudimentary terms, you seem to want to out-muscle through everything. While this might be optimal for a distance as short as 40 m, I don't see how it could be optimal for events that have significant components beyond the ATP-PC energy system.
I can see your point that there seems to be more work necessary than just looking at the strength component.
However, Weyand, et al's research paper on hypoxic (reduced oxygin intake) verses normoxic running states, "decreasing their rates of oxygen uptake during sprinting, we found they could run just as fast for sprints of up to 60 s and nearly as fast for sprints of up to 120 s."
Clearly, 60s sprints would cover up to 400m for a decent runner, yet with a reduction of nearly 35% they ran the same. They also ran nearly as fast for what would be equvalent to a mediocre high school female 800m runner.
What type of run training would be required if the oxygen-fueled muscles don't need more oxygen (let alone they were severly deprived)?
The same study mentioned above also provided the ground work for the algorithm we use. Several more research papers were published, culminating with "A metabolic basis for impaired muscle force production and neuromuscular compensation during sprint cycling" Matthew W. Bundle, et al
"We conclude that impaired
muscular force production and compensatory neuromuscular activity during sprint locomotion are triggered by a reliance on anaerobic metabolism for force production
What this means is that there is a significant anaerobic fuel reserve. So much so that fast twitch fiber will simply stop creating the necessary tension to continue.
All fiber types create tension with in the muslces: Aerobic fibers run out of fuel supply to "feed" the fibers, causing the runner to slow down or even stop; anaerobic fibers have an over abundance fuel, which causes the motor units to stop firing. It's like having a lot of fuel in the tank but the spark plugs won't fire.
So what can we do?
Increase the number of faster firing motor units...through heavy strength training.
One cannot maximally increase these units by doing "explosive" type workouts because those workous are, at best, 70% 1rm.
How do we know that runners improvement are based on the strength training?
- We only do heavy strength training and speed work.
- We can see the aerobic/anaerobic/anaerobic reserve changes relative to each other through the algorithm.
4. Is there a point in which you feel that increasing the deadlift no longer increases the speed of the runner, while maintaing the same mass of course? I ask this because Olympic lifters, after building up sufficient strength, focus primarily on the lifts themselves. There comes a point when moving up the squat or the deadlift doesn't help them in the C&J and Snatch.
I'm sure that at some point the DL will not increase the runners speed, but I've not seen it yet. That being said, your following statement about Oly lifter's focus on the lift itself is what we are doing with the runs.
5. I don't understand what you were saying about supercompensation in the plyometrics section of your book. I understand that immediately following maximal contraction or isometric contraction, plyometrics can have a supercompensatory effect. But, it caught me by surprise that you stated that. You seem to focus on keeping exercises within 10 sec to avoid lactic acid buildup, yet you say to superset the deadlift with the plyometric exercise. Is the lactic acid buildup not a concern in this case?
Few of our lifters would ever hold a lift for anywhere near 10 seconds, so the lactic issue is moot for us. However, not reaching that threshold also allows us to do up to 5 workouts per week with minimal fatigue. It was more of a warning to NOT attempt to redo missed lifts.
The duration of plyo's, as far as loading is concerned, is minimal.
Since writing the book, I'm convinced that supercompensation does NOT occur by adding plyos.
I addressed this issue with Dr. Weyand who advised that the plyos were still of value in training the force "delivery" system (at landing) and intramuscular coordination under duress.
So, I'm in the process of writing book 2 to address that issue and new research.
Thanks for those great questions!