More Thoughts on Running Mechanics & Technique Training
I went to the Bear Power site and as soon I clicked on it I recognized it. I actually read the book by Barry Ross last year. I hope this does not offend anyone, but I could not see anything remarkable or particularly enlightening. ( I will go back through it again to see if I missed something) Strength and force application are a big factor but not the only factor. Sure everything is centered ion optimizing ground contact, but you must address technique. The question is how to address technique. Pawing drills are not technique drills; you do not paw when you sprint. That is one example. Getting too far away from actual sprinting with too many segmented drills does not help technique. They may indirectly help technique by strengthening through larger ranges of motion. In fact if you really study Gerard mach’s writing his drills are not technique drills, they are for power endurance or specific strengthening. For example the “B” series of pawing type drills are for functional hamstring strengthening, not technique. We also need to differentiate technique during different Zones of the Sprint. Starting and acceleration demand different drills and different training emphasis than do top speed. There is so much crap out there that creates confusion, that I think we need to go back to the basic action of sprinting and thoroughly understand that and compare our sprinters to what we know of proper mechanics and derive a plan to improve that individual. Remember it also changes with regard to level of development. How you work on technique is important. Without a good foundation of strength it is difficult to achieve sound sprint mechanics. The argument then becomes how do you work on strength? A hint it is more than a dead lift and it is more than weights, there is one hell of a lot of remedial work!
posted by Vern Gambetta @ 11/22/2006 08:12:00 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Would you explain a little more about pawing? Loren Seagrave uses this technique with his track athletes.
hello Vern,
you:
"I think we need to go back to the basic action of sprinting and thoroughly understand that and compare our sprinters to what we know of proper mechanics and derive a plan to improve that individual."
me:
there are a lot of different ideas about what the basic actions are in sprinting
Yessis, Michalow, Bosch
Spring-mass model (Ross, Tellez), Pose, Wiemann/Tidow
However they are all different in what they do in training and how time they spend (on technique training)
Barry Ross advocates dropping technique work because it does not seem to influence ground support force.
My question to you is how technique work can influence ground support force (and in line with this ground reaction forces)?
This brings me down to the basic actions in sprinting: what causes acceleration and what causes max speed, what is the speed limiting factor(s). There are a lot of ideas around, but not much science.
I believe, but you can correct me, that most experts base their ideas on kinematical and EMG data (Wiemann, Bosch for sure). However in the end, it all comes down on ground reaction forces in my opinion.
Looking forward to your reply
Best regards Stefan IJmker.
@anonymous:
you can find the reasoning on bearpowered.com (I cannot provide the direct link, because I cannot access the home page at the moment). I like the ideas on bearpowered, but I am certainly interested in additional / other (competing) ideas.
there are two thoughts I know why pawing might not be such a good idea:
1. pawing (meaning reaching a backward velocity of the foot relative to the ground (which does "not" move) directly prior to ground contact) does not actually occur. In reality the foot reaches the same speed as the ground (0 m/s).
Why 0 m/s might be so important might be related to absorbing forces better or decreasing energy loss. See below.
There has been research on robots indicating that the collision of the ground is the main factor of energy loss in running.
Note: clawing has been supported based on EMG findings (gluteus and hamstring activity prior to ground contact). However based on EMG data you cannnot be sure whether the muscle action was isometric, concentric or eccentric. If you look at a video it looks like pawing, but is it really?
2. If it would be possible to paw and reach a backward velocity with the foot relative to the ground prior to ground contact, what would happen if the foot touches the ground? The ground will react instantanuously. The foot will be forced to go forward (and upward), actually slowing the leg down! I think this is not what you want in sprinting. However in jumping this might actually be what you want, because it provides a mechanism to apply force to the ground longer and time to revert horizontal movement (partial) to more vertical movement (which is needed in jumping events).
More thoughts on this from you?
regards
Stefan IJmker
Stefan
Can you explain how the the quality of groundreactionforce can NOT be a result of technique (like the bearpower people say).
Also explain why the work of so many good scientists (like for v Ingen Schenau, Duch like you) is wrong or irrelevant for running.
I try to read the Bosch book, but I read something completly different from what you "quote" from them. Maybe you just do not understand their concept.
@anonymous:
I did not want to say that the work by Van Ingen is irrelevant. However, the studies by Van Ingen are based on kinematical data and on jumping experiments.
In running, ground contact times are very short and the possibility to deliver sufficient force to the ground is also very limited (<0.1 s for good sprinters for example).
The question is whether ground reaction forces, which ultimately drive the runner forward, can be explained based on the ideas by Bosch and co-workers.
The problem is that the ground reaction profile can be explained by more than one theory.
The Bearpowered people say that technique drills are not likely to result in altered ground reaction forces. I gave the example of the pawback, but there is no data showing that the idea of Bosch lead to a faster Rate of Force Development, actually happens when one pre-tenses the muscles around the ankle, or by pawbacking.
Two essential findings from locomotor theory gives fuel to the thinking that technique is not likely to alter ground reaction forces (in constant velocity running): the movement of the body seem to be a mass-spring model: a superball bouncing along. Ground contact times are very short. Volition cannot alter this because 1) time is to short and 2) technigue alterations of the leg in the air (pre-tension scissor movement) are not likely to alter ground reaction forces in a positive way (actually if it was or is possible it would result in increased braking).
The Bearpowered people actually propose the following
1) get strong (max. strength) and 2) increase rate of force development by plyometric jumping and fast sprinting
There experience is that when the above two are worked on, technique changes as well.
Other theories like the one by Bosch are advocating to spend considerable time on technique issues which might be spoiled time.
I do not say that technique training is spoiled time, but I think there is quite some reason to doubt the effectiveness of doing it. Technique training is based on kinematics (what you observe). Can it alter ground reaction forces?
If you are interested in the line of reasoning the bearpowered people follow, you could read the book underground secrets to faster running by Barry Ross and visit the forum on their website (bearpowered.com)
If there are more questions you could also e-mail me (I am very familiar with the Bosch line of thinking and most of the other theories that are and have been around)
regards
Stefan (sijmker@hotmail.com)
Stefan
I rather stick to the writing of Bosch Klomp themselfs, then go by someone else explaning it to me. If you do not mind.
The weak point in your line of thinking is that you refer to "a superball bouncing along" without thinking about what makes the body a superball.
Many scientists have proven (also van Ingen) that technique is key to the superball effect. Primitive strenghttraining and plyometrics without much of technical detail is proven not to be a good way to optimize the superball effect. How many sprinters are there that are extremely strong and can bound like crazy but are slow at topspeed at the same time? There is not much correlation between strenght, + isolated bounding and speed. I do not know how much you have been around elite sprinters, but to my experience being a good sprinter takes more than crude exercises.
The Bosch book gives me a lot of fascinating thoughts on how the body can be a superball at topspeed.
A good article on running that covers most of the Bosch concept is at;
http://www.elitetrack.com/main/index.php?option=com_directory&listing=Maximal%20Velocity%20Sprint%20Mechanics&page=viewListing&lid=231&Itemid=37
Hope the link works
So technique training is key to good topspeed. Positive running is a interesting concept. Simple non functional strenght and simple non functional bounding is a waist of energy.
(p.s. stop putting "there are no data proving" all over the place. Your line of thinking and also the bearpower BS is not proven by any data.)
@anonymous:
Thank you for the link.
You
Many scientists have proven (also van Ingen) that technique is key to the superball effect
Me
What do you exactly mean with technigue? I have read the stuff by Van Ingen and a lot of other scientists. Based on observational data (comparing better with poorer sprinters) I do not believe you can prove anything. The proof is in the pudding: making an individual faster. There is no intervention study around that shows that technigue training works. This also true for the Bearpowered idea!
You
How many sprinters are there that are extremely strong and can bound like crazy but are slow at topspeed at the same time?
Me
What is the difference between bounding and running at top speed?
It is contact time, which is much shorter at high speeds compared to low speed bounding. Ground contact time in triple jumping for example is roughly twice that of fast running. In order to gain more vertical displacement more force (more exactly impulse (Force*time) has to be applied to the ground. If a runner wants to do this two options exist:
faster rate of force development or longer contact time. At top speed contact time is contstrained. The good bounders who cannot deliver the needed force (3-5 times bodyweight!) fast enough will not run very fast.
For sprinting fast, fast sprinting is crucial (letting the body deal with short(er) ground contact times). In the Bearpowered protocol this is highly accentuated. The lifting and plyo stiff is used to increase Vertical ground support force by the body (vertical rate of force development to ofsett gravity effect at touchdown). This aim is not very different from the Bosch and co-workers camp. However, the means to accomplish this do differ.
You
"The weak point in your line of thinking is that you refer to "a superball bouncing along" without thinking about what makes the body a superball."
I would like to clarify, based on the ideas of the bearpowered people:
during acceleration mechanical work is performed by the muscles. At top speed merely (but not exclusively) isometric muscle work) to ofset gravity effects. The body is forced to pass the ground founded. The leg is then forced in a eccentric contraction leading to a passive return of elastic energy. This all happens so fast (and the forces are so high) that no volitional muscle action can have any effect. According to Barry Ross.
As you might know this discussion has been around in the Charlie Francis forum (search for Barry Ross). It's more about beliefs than about data.
I would like to end this message by saying that I do respect your opinion and that I will further study the ideas by Bosch and Van Ingen and others.
There is much to learn at the other side of the border.
regards,
Stefan IJmker
Stefan
So short groundcontacts are needed in bounding. It has to be specific, right? Why not also single-leg bounding to be more specific, bounding after a paw-back motion to be more specific and bounding with the swingleg in the right position to be more even more specific.
That is technique and will shorten groundcontact (by the way, long jump take off not much longer than running (0.012 sec))
In other words what the Bosch book explains and what Vern means by functional path, bridge the gap between conditioning and running technique. Right Vern?
Regards
@anonymous:
I agree with what you say, BK and others break up the sprinting activity into the basis biomotor abilities, train them separatively, join them ("coordination exercises") and then go sprinting.
From a motor control theory perspective there are some problems (I refer to Schmidt, Bernstein and others). Drills (partial movement / partial context) do not easily transfer to the whole movement in the whole context (speed, fatigue, underground, environment, emotional status).
BK do advocate maximal strength training and plyo work. Maybe that by itself causes the improvements. How can we know if we allways put in drills etc in our program. I do not say I do not put drills in my program, but Barry got me thinking at least.
bounding does not have to be specificic, because we have the ultimate specific training: sprinting itself. Strength trainly hardly can get specific, given the contact times observed in fast sprinting.
You and BK and others seem to advocate specific drills. These might actually decrease ground contact. However I question the use of pawback and pretension, because both they seem to lead to increased braking in my opinion (stiff legg landing lead to higher peak forces). It will result in more vertical displacement (exactly what BK are advocating).
This might be good for jumping movements (high jump,vertical jump etc.). However sprinting and running by definition is an event in which the Center of Mass does not come higher than the position while standing upright (Margaria, 1969). All (extra) vertical movement is waisted energy in my opinion.
Regarding the (assumed) braking effect of pawback and/or pretension, I question to some extent the cost(INJURY RISK)-benefit ratio of this approach.
regards
Stefan
Stefan
You study al lot I see. That is good. But in your comment there is more and more "i question: "unlikely" "They might" etc. So you are building you opinion on effectiveness of certain excersis not on facts, but just on believes or maybe just on a vast experience with elitesprinters, if you have that.
In a new blog there is a Weyland idea on running technique modification; his opinion is that it can’t be significantly changed. Based on what (like your "unlikely")? On science? No way!
The training process is to complicated to make these kind of statements on effectiveness of training and no scientist should make them.
Same goes for your overrating the Schmidt idea. It is old school and based on rather abstract ideas rather that knowing the reality of elite training.
Do not overrate intelectual knowlege. Learn from experience not just from books.
@anonymous: thanks for your reply.
I regret that you haven't provide any "facts" that run counter the ideas I presented. I think you just do not believe what Weyand and Ross say (there was a "BS" in one of your posts)
Maybe you should follow Vern and go and talk with Peter yourself. You could also stick with the ideas presented by BK. It is up to you. In the meantime I talk with Frans en Peter myself.
I am done with this converation, since you are just saying that I am wrong, without providing direct arguments. And last of all, you don't even show your name......
I admit I do not have the full truth. That's why my wording in my previous pose was not so factual as yours.
Regards,
Stefan
Post a Comment
<< Home