Adarq.org

Quote from: steven-miller on September 02, 2011, 08:36:37 pm

Quote from: T0ddday on September 02, 2011, 04:36:48 pm

Quote from: steven-miller on September 02, 2011, 09:08:54 am

Quote from: T0ddday on September 02, 2011, 02:02:12 am

Quote from: p.Esk. on September 01, 2011, 06:43:21 pm

what about for sprinting>

Depends on whether you mean speed or actual sprinting.  In general increasing your squat will help you more in two-footed standing jumping than it will in running.  Squatting will usually have some carryover to the acceleration phase of sprinting.  For speed relevant to sport (soccer, football, etc) this is about all that matters.  However, for actual sprinting the acceleration phase is a minor part of the race.  Most high level sprint races separate when athletes get the chance to display max velocity.  The problem with this is that if your increases in the squat are combined with increases in bodyweight your maximum velocity may suffer EVEN if your relative strength (as measured by squat to bw) increases.  If you plan on competing as a sprinter... watch out for this.

For a track sprinter, what would you prescribe to improve maximum velocity and how do you explain lower speed despite improved relative strength?

Maximum velocity is by far the hardest quality to train.  It's equal part tendon stiffness and leg strength.  For well trained athletes max V can be improved with overspeed work (pulling, slight downhill runs, etc), lot's of max V work (flying 20s, etc), single leg bounding work, or changes to mechanics. 

It's lower speed despite improved relative strength as measured by the squat.  You see this because the squat becomes a poor measure of strength at maximum velocity.   Even high school sprinters have their fastest 10-meter splits well under a second.  At this speed an athlete must exhibit extremely brief powerful single leg ground contact and the squat does not accurately predict their ability to produce power in this movement.  So basically, if you weigh 150 pounds and squat 300 pounds and run an 11 flat 100m (assume fastest 10m split of 0.9) and you increase your back squat to 400 pounds and your bodyweight to 200 pounds  it's very likely that your 10m split will now be slower.   

Note that this is less true for poorly trained athletes.  If an athlete is running 13.0 seconds in the 100m then their max V may likely simply because they fatigue before they can accelerate to max V.   If this is the case then overdistance work for endurance and increase in relative strength as measured by squat will increase their acceleration, maximum velocity and speed endurance.   

Notice that this is less true for an untrained athlete. 

Thanks for taking the time to answer this. Still, I don't understand your explanation. If an athlete increases his squat / bw ratio through an increase in bw and much larger increase in the squat, which mechanism makes that he is now slower?

i just don't get the ratio he used as in wasn't an increase in relative strength but rather absolute strength

Sorry.  Typo on the example.  Assume the athlete is initially a 150 pound athlete squatting 300 pounds and becomes a 200 pound athlete squatting 450 pounds. 

Anyway, the mechanism that makes him slower is the increase in bodyweight.  At max V the squat loses its specificity to the relative strength the athlete needs to exhibit and no longer is a good predictor of performance. 

For comparison we could instead look at vertical jump and three hypothetical athletes.  All three athletes begin at 150lbs with 200 lb bench press, 300 lb squat and 400 lb deadlift.  All three increase their bodyweight to 200 lbs to gain strength in one of the lifts.  Athlete A now bench presses 500 lbs but his squat and deadlift are unchanged.  Athlete B now squats 600 lbs but his bench and deadlift are unchanged.  Athlete C now deadlifts 750 lbs but his squat and bench are unchanged.  Which athlete is mostly likely to have increased his vertical jump?  Most would answer B is most likely and A is least likely and C is somewhere in the middle.  That's because the strength exhibited in the squat (not necessarily the lift itself - A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION) is very specific to vertical jump, while the deadlift is less specific and the bench is the least specific.   Athlete A did gain relative strength (as shown by bench) but most would not expect this to transfer to his vertical jump. 

If you followed the previous example you can think of the relationship of achieving and holding max V and squatting as similar to the relationship between vertical jump and bench press or deadlift.  This is why gaining weight is such a poor idea for sprinters.

The good thing is for clean athletes who don't go on stupid "bulking" diets you usually won't gain much more than 5lbs or so in a year.  So for most non-elite athletes an increase in strength in any compound lift usually has a positive or at worst neutral effect on performance.  When this is really a problem is when an athlete decides the need to "bulk" to gain strength and muscle and eats in excess and gains a large amount of fat, a small amount of muscle, and a moderate amount of strength. 

 

Quote from: T0ddday on September 04, 2011, 12:26:13 am

Sorry.  Typo on the example.  Assume the athlete is initially a 150 pound athlete squatting 300 pounds and becomes a 200 pound athlete squatting 450 pounds.  

Anyway, the mechanism that makes him slower is the increase in bodyweight.  At max V the squat loses its specificity to the relative strength the athlete needs to exhibit and no longer is a good predictor of performance.  

For comparison we could instead look at vertical jump and three hypothetical athletes.  All three athletes begin at 150lbs with 200 lb bench press, 300 lb squat and 400 lb deadlift.  All three increase their bodyweight to 200 lbs to gain strength in one of the lifts.  Athlete A now bench presses 500 lbs but his squat and deadlift are unchanged.  Athlete B now squats 600 lbs but his bench and deadlift are unchanged.  Athlete C now deadlifts 750 lbs but his squat and bench are unchanged.  Which athlete is mostly likely to have increased his vertical jump?  Most would answer B is most likely and A is least likely and C is somewhere in the middle.  That's because the strength exhibited in the squat (not necessarily the lift itself - A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION) is very specific to vertical jump, while the deadlift is less specific and the bench is the least specific.   Athlete A did gain relative strength (as shown by bench) but most would not expect this to transfer to his vertical jump.  

If you followed the previous example you can think of the relationship of achieving and holding max V and squatting as similar to the relationship between vertical jump and bench press or deadlift.  This is why gaining weight is such a poor idea for sprinters.

The good thing is for clean athletes who don't go on stupid "bulking" diets you usually won't gain much more than 5lbs or so in a year.  So for most non-elite athletes an increase in strength in any compound lift usually has a positive or at worst neutral effect on performance.  When this is really a problem is when an athlete decides the need to "bulk" to gain strength and muscle and eats in excess and gains a large amount of fat, a small amount of muscle, and a moderate amount of strength.  

Thanks again for your thoughts. I understand the reasoning now and want to comment on some of it and what it implicates to me as a layman in terms of track.

From what I understand you are basically saying that top end speed is the biggest determinant of success for a sprinter and at the same time responds the worst to training in general and responds probably not at all to increases in relative squat strength, except maybe for complete beginners, because it is that unspecific. You also give advice that a sprinter should never gain bodyweight because it slows down his maximum velocity. Assuming what was said initially was true for all cases I see no controversy regarding that argument. However it bears one of two implications that I will outline now:

A) If increases in bodyweight, no matter the composition of it, influences a sprinters V max and therefore his overall time that negatively, regardless of the squat specific strength gained in the process, than it logically follows that a decrease in bodyweight would have a positive influence on V max and his overall performance, regardless of squat specific strength lost during that process. UNLESS:

B) You for some reason assume that the bodyweight an athlete has is by some mechanism optimal and an increase OR decrease in bodyweight would both have negative influence.

Which one do you think is the case? If you believe A) is, then why are SOME elite sprinters not even lighter? Is Usain Bolt the lightest he can be at a competition weight of 190 lbs or could he be lighter and therefore [sic] faster? And if B) reflects your opinion, how can this be?

Great reply.  I will answer the A/B question but first I want to make some points to clarify some of those assumptions.  

1) I should have said top end speed is the biggest determinant of success at a high level of track and field.  If sprinters are not well trained they will lack speed endurance so much that this is not necessarily true.  In fact in all sports except track and field (ie American football) what separates a "fast" from a "slow" athlete is acceleration.  You could say that "sport specific speed" is acceleration.  However, to see how this is true in track and field we can look at the all time marks.  Even though the 60m is contested very rarely in comparison to the 100m there are a greater many more athletes who have run within reasonably close to the 60m world record.  For example the high school 60m record is only 0.18 seconds from the 60m mark while the 100m high school record is 0.5 seconds from the mark.  This discrepancy is why an athlete like Justin Gatlin can be meters faster than everyone in the NFL but still not become a great football player (his acceleration is only marginally better).  

2) I should also have been clear about what a beginner is.  By beginner I don't mean someone who does not run fast.  Usain Bolt ran 20.5 seconds as a 6'5 170lb 15 year old.  Unfortunately, that's faster than I have even run, and certainly not a time I would call beginner.  He has since gained about close to 20 pounds and gotten much faster.  So, in this definition he is a beginner.  If you watch his 20.5 second 200m ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7W4kbobqIw ) you see a very weak but very fast athlete.  The gains in strength he made to his upper-body, his back and abs and legs more than offset the additional weight.  This wasn't necessarily increased squat strength but an overall increase in measurable strength.  

Finally, as to whether it's A or B... I believe it's more A.  Provided an athlete has "enough" relative strength to accelerate and hold their max V losing weight will be beneficial.  In fact it's not well known but Usain Bolt actually lost about 10 pounds from 2010 to 2011.  This is why I believe that had it not been for some injuries and an unfortunate false start Bolt was actually in his finest form yet.  His split on the 4x100 was fastest of all time.  If he can stay healthy I believe that the weight he has lost will be very helpful.
Of course the question you are asking is what is "enough" strength.  It's something you can see on the track rather than in the weight room.  For example Bolt does not have enough strength as a 15 year old, but today he does.  Usually, a decent coach can make this assessment pretty quick when watching a track athlete.  Of course, there are general guidelines that are decent suggestions for the weight room.  For example if you can't do 10 pullups or you can't deadlift and squat far more than your bodyweight... You surely do not have enough strength and work in the weight room will help a lot.  However, I hesitate to put a number on it.  

Now, as to why I believe it could be B.  Walter Dix.  When I see an athlete like that I just can't imagine how he couldn't run much much faster if he lost 10-20 pounds.  He carries a lot of muscle and much more fat than most sprinters.  The only explanation I have heard is that we all have variable levels of bodyfat at which our leptin (a very important hormone) secretion is optimal.  Leptin circulates in proportion to bodyfat and is one reason why nobody should aim to have extremely low bodyfat.  When leptin is low you will not recover from training or perform well at all.  So, it's possible that if an athlete like Dix has to carry an additional 10 lbs of bodyfat for adequate leptin secretion then he may as well carry an extra 15 lbs of muscle too to give him the required strength to weight ratios.  Basically your level of leptin secretion will determine the size and strength that you need to be, somethin akin to the idea of finding your "ideal bodyweight".  

*I hope that wraps it up.  You might not believe my explanation for B, but if you do then that is why the advice is:

1) If you are light and strong, never gain weight to get stronger, because you will get slower.  
2) If you are light and weak, get stronger.  Ideally, attempt to do this without adding weight, but if weight is added it will be worth it.  Don't do something stupid and deliberately get fat because you are on a "bulking diet".  
3) If you are heavy and strong:

A) If you are naturally light (ie had you never lifted weights and bulked up you would be skinny) then losing weight will make you faster.  
B) If you are naturally large (ie you have always had much more muscle and fat than average ) then you may not be able to lose weight because you require moderate bodyfat for hormonal regulation.  Make sure never to gain weight to get stronger, but don't cut more weight than you are comfortable with.  

4) If you are heavy and weak: Probably won't make a good sprinter.