Unread postby dj » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:32 pm
hey
sorry to take up a lot of space.... but this should be good reading for anyone that wants to get faster... with or without a pole...
carry the pole balanced properly and "dropping' it properly, as resistance free as possible, is of major importance...
has EVERYONE tried a pole run on the track and plant into a towel??? the next time you do them turn loss of the pole with the left hand 3lefts (6 steps) from the plant and see when the tip hits the track... go ahead and plant with the right hand... then turn loss with the right hand at the 6 step mark and plant with the left hand... keep the left hand chest high bfore you let it drop and plant..........
What Contemporary Research Tell us about Sprinting
Illinois Track and Cross Country Coaches Association Clinic
Ken Jakalski
January 12, 2002
Reconsidering the Conceptual Paradigm of Running Mechanics
The history of speed training makes it clear that our philosophical approach changes with the current thinking of the time. For example, several years ago, coaches believed that the only way to increase speed was to increase stride length. Indeed, stride length is a function of running speed, since stride lengths do increase as our speed increases. The natural way for a runner to increase stride length is for him or her to increase the force against the ground in each driving phase. This, of course, requires increased leg strength.
Then, we began almost two decades of sprint training that emphasized what is now referred to as neuro-biomechanics. This approach challenged the commonly held notion that stride frequency was too difficult to improve, and noted that, of the two factors, stride length/stride frequency, frequency was actually more important. The training approach today focuses on reducing the time it takes to get necessary force into the ground. The goal is to increase stride frequency and reduce the time it takes to recycle the leg.
To this end we designed drills to train athletes to place their limbs in more appropriate positions to improve the rate of force development. Since the ground phase was dictated by ground preparation, the key was to generate high speeds backward to minimize breaking forces and maximize propulsive forces. The secret seemed to be the ability to generate high negative thigh speed, or what came to be known in coaching circles as negative vertical velocity.
Unfortunately, the drills we’ve designed have been based more on coaching insight and observation than on hard science, and it’s clear that the questionable carry-over of these drills to actual sprinting has left many coaches and runners frustrated. I have watched many colleagues teaching dorsi-flexion, pawing, clawing, fast foot, stepping over the opposite knee, appropriate arm carriage, etc. only to observe with dismay that these movements don’t appear to be repeated when their athletes begin sprinting. What’s the problem here? Insufficient time to fix these new patterns of movement? Poor coaching of these techniques? Inappropriate cues? Improper drills for appropriate mechanics?
My contention, based upon a wonderful opportunity I had to study over thirty years worth of locomotion research under the direction of renowned Harvard physiologist Peter Weyand, is that we may very well be attempting to make modifications to non trainable entities. I first began to consider this possibility when conventional speed training could not explain to me how it was possible for an athlete without feet to dorsi-flex, or arms to aid in propulsion, could run 22.94, which is exactly what World Paralympic Sprint Champion Tony Volpentest did in Lisle four years ago!
We believe that athlete’s faster muscle fibers can improve stride frequency by reducing the time spent on the ground and in the air. In fact, reducing ground time and air time has been the basic approach to speed training since the early eighties. However, what if we discovered that the mechanical energy to reposition the free swinging limb is actually provided passively through elastic recoil and energy transfer between body segments instead of power generated within muscles?
If this were the case, if muscle speed has little effect on minimum swing time, then training to improve stride frequency, what we now refer to as maximum velocity mechanics, would be of little value.
If frequency is revealed not to be a contributor to faster top end speed, what is? Stride length must be critical. But how do athletes increase stride length? One way to achieve longer strides is to apply greater support forces to the ground. This makes sense, since we know that, at any speed, applying greater force to oppose gravity will increase a runner’s vertical velocity at take-off. As a result, the forward distance traveled between steps will increase.
This was the Harvard researchers’ hypothesis: that greater ground forces rather than minimum swing times enable sprinters to achieve faster top end speeds. In this process, the team re-considered the elementary mechanics of running. First, they explored the possibility that runners reach maximum velocity simply by taking more frequent steps. Next, they explored their original hypothesis, that speed could be achieved by the athlete increasing mass specific force to oppose gravity during the time the foot is in contact with the ground. Finally, they attempted to take into account the fact speed might be achieved by increasing the forward distance the body moves during this contact period, which is referred to as contact length.
The Harvard team expected to find that top speed was indeed more a product of forces applied to the running surface rather than increases in step frequency or contact length. Why did they feel this would be the case? For one, swing time comprises the majority of total stride time, and is the primary determinant of the frequency of a runner’s steps. However, because the range of stride frequencies used by runners at different speeds tends to be narrow, the researchers expected little variation in step frequencies at top speed.
This similarity in step frequency is a difficult concept for most of us to grasp, since video analysis seems to reveal some fundamental yet critical movement “commonalitiesâ€Â
Come out of the back... Get your feet down... Plant big
But my question is would that work well for an imperfect runner? In my case as a decent sprinter but not in any way blazingly fast yet, do you think it would be better to do pole runs or just trin for speed first? And in the study, what level were the atheletes? Top notch or more lke me?