Underground Secrets To Faster Running BREAKTHROUGH TRAINING FOR BREAKAWAY RUNNING
By Barry Ross
Many thanks to Peter Weyand and Pavel Tsatsouline, who helped me see through the fog of history. To coach Ken Jakalski, who was more than willing to listen to me ramble on for hours upon hours, thank you for sharing your knowledge and expertise! Thanks to coaches Jonathan Patton and Wes Smith who were instrumental in testing the system and believing in it. Also to coaches Webster, Von Busch, Hart and many others who are using the system in a variety of different sports. Robert Hommel and Michael Ragosta: Your comments and suggestions were invaluable and the time you spent helping me is greatly appreciated. To Renah Howell and Mike Abourched, keep working hard and thanks for allowing me to interrupt your workouts while writing this book! To my son Chris who encouraged me to write this book, my son Eric who put in so many hours developing the bearpowered.com website and my daughter Aimee, thank you for all your help! To my wife Laurie, whose patience is beyond reason, thank you for 31 years of love, care and tolerance with a foolish old man! To my Lord, Jesus Christ, thank you for saving me! Copyright(c) 2005 by Barry Ross All rights reserved. Except for use in review, the reproduction or utilization of this work in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including xerography, photocopying, and recording , and in any information storage and retrieval system, is forbidden without permission of the publisher. DISCLAIMER: The author and publisher of this material are not responsible in any manner whatsoever for any injury that may occur through following the instructions in this material. The activities, physical and otherwise, described herein for informational purposes, may be too strenuous or dangerous for some people and the reader should consult a physician before engaging in them. Published by
[email protected]
‐Table of Contents‐ ‐Introduction‐……………………………………….……1 ‐Body Building, Beach Style‐…………………………..7 ‐MSF‐…………………………………………………….10 ‐Mass‐………………………………………………….…22 ‐Physiology Part 1‐……………………………………..25 ‐Physiology Part 2‐……………………………………..33 ‐Workout, General‐…………………………………….37 ‐Workout, Specific Exercises‐………………………....49 ‐The Mid‐Torso‐………………………………………..62 ‐Plyometrics‐…………………………………………….64 ‐A Workout‐……………………………………………..66 ‐Recycling‐……………………………………………….75 ‐Ockham’s Razor‐…………………………………….....85
‐Introduction‐ The strength training concept presented in this book is simple yet powerful. Powerful enough to make you run faster than you’ve ever run before. Perhaps faster than you ever dreamed! The concept isn’t just for sprinters. In fact, the training can increase running speed and performance from 10 meters to 10,000 meters. Yet the concept is so focused on providing exactly what is necessary for faster running that your total strength training time may be cut by up to 50%. And, most of that time will be spent resting! The training routine, based upon both physics and muscle physiology, does not require any special equipment or gimmicks. A barbell and a set of weights will work just fine. The most difficult part of the concept is accepting that something so simple can be effective: so effective that it can be used to improve performance in almost every sport or virtually any other endeavor that requires strength. As you go through each section, much of what you read might not fit into your current perception of strength training. You may question the adaptation of the concept to your event or your sport. You may take exception to the way in which the material is presented or question the science behind the concepts. 1
Let me encourage you to do just that, because that is exactly what I did. It will be worth every moment you spend in thinking through what is being presented, in challenging the research, the science, the “experts” and me. I hope it will be as interesting and informative a journey as the one that began for me in 2000. In that year, Peter Weyand, Ph.D. (a physiologist and biomechanist specializing in the locomotion of humans and other terrestrial animals) and his associates published the results of a study, completed at Harvard University, in the Journal of Applied Physiology. They had hypothesized that greater force applied to the ground rather than shorter minimum swing time (the time a given foot was not in contact with the ground) enabled humans to increase top speed. The results of the study led them to conclude that this was indeed the case. The conclusion should lead the reader to question whether or not the accepted methods of training to increase running speed are focused on the factors that actually cause speed to increase. That same year, at a small high school in the San Fernando Valley section of Los Angeles, California, a 14 year old freshman enrolled in track. Her name was Allyson Felix. These two events, occurring 3000 miles apart, would combine to make track and field history. Felix would run the fastest 200 meters in the world, besting all of the U.S. high school records set by Marion Jones as well as the Junior (under 20) 200 meter world record. She would be crowned the American Women’s 200 meter indoor champion in 2003. 2
As a high school junior in 1967, I had just finished my second year of track, competing in the shot put with mediocre results. I was fully aware of the muscle mania of the time and longed for the look of those masculine marvels with their huge chest and bulging biceps. I believed I could put the shot better if I was stronger but I had never lifted weights and had no idea what to do. A fellow “thrower” called me just as summer began. He told me that his friend, Dave Davis, would train us in the shot put and weightlifting if we competed on his weightlifting team. I agreed immediately. We were introduced to weight training in the garage of a one‐ time world powerlifting champion located in Venice Beach, California ‐ the location of Muscle Beach, bodybuilding’s Mecca. Entering the garage/weightroom, I came face to face with the biggest and strongest man I had ever seen. George Woods, who would become the Olympic silver medalist in the shot put at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, was about to do a set of 2 repetitions in the bench press with over 450 pounds. Mr. Davis told us we were going to begin our weight training shortly but first we had to learn how to “spot” for George and him. To “spot” was to assist in getting the weight off Wood’s chest if he “missed” the lift. Being quite naïve, I assumed that I would have to lift the entire 450 lbs off Woods massive chest if he missed. I could see myself tearing every muscle in my 170 lb body. Thankfully, George didn’t miss and I learned how to spot. The workout proved to be tough but effective. On each lifting day we would progress to our previous maximum (max) for 3
each lift by the third or fourth repetition (rep), then do 5 sets of 2 reps at 85‐90% of the max. This was followed by dropping the weight to around 50% of a one rep max and doing a set of 10 reps as fast as possible. We did this for squats and bench. We also did deadlifts on occasion and lots of power cleans, clean and jerks, and snatches. It was an incredibly exhausting 3 hour workout, so we only lifted two days per week. It would have been hard for me to accept then what I know now: The same strength increases can be obtained or exceeded in a one hour workout; a workout that is so much less demanding on your neuromuscular system that it can be done 3, 4 or even 5 days in row without overtaxing your body! I completed the first session believing that all of my muscles had turned to jelly and had slipped down to my shoes. The next few days were worse as soreness attacked every fiber in my body. To me, the idea of “no pain, no gain” changed to “where was my brain while I was inflicting that pain?” I did become significantly stronger while adding 28 lbs of additional mass. Through this book, you will discover why adding strength is necessary for faster running while adding mass is devastating. A major flaw of the system was “sticking points” that could take several weeks to break through before we reached new lifting highs. Periodized training (which will be covered later) is the current method for overcoming sticking points but was unknown to us in 1968. By my final year in high school track, my shot put marks had improved dramatically, I was the reigning California State Junior Heavyweight Division Weightlifting Champion, I no longer was sore after lifting and life was grand. 4
I taught my older brother Steve how to train the way I did. The training rapidly improved his strength and he became a Division 2 College All‐American sprinter. He was my first coaching experience. I attended a Division 2 college on a track scholarship. The head coach had minimal knowledge of strength training so he changed my strength workout to whatever was the current “best” way to lift, fully dependent on the last article he had read prior to our training session. In four years of college competition I bounced from American to East German to Soviet to Eastern European to American lifting techniques. I realized that methods of training were subject to changes driven by the success of a team or an individual. The same holds true today. I’m sure this is not a new phenomenon. The ancient Greeks trained for the Olympics and other sporting events, so it would not be a surprise if the workouts of the champion of one ancient Olympic contest became the new rage in athletic training in preparation for the coming Olympic contest! I began coaching the throwing events, shot put and discus, and the strength workout for Los Angeles Baptist High School in 1989. I continued to train others using what I had learned 22 years earlier. The results were outstanding. Those whom I coached became bigger and stronger. Eleven years later, in 2000, freshman Allyson Felix walked up to me and said, “I want to lift weights with you”. The three other young ladies, two freshman and one sophomore, accompaning Felix spoke up immediately, “So do we”. Felix had recently returned from the United States Junior National championships where she had been tested in a number of categories to see where she could improve her performance. 5
The tests showed that Felix, though still a freshman in high school, already ranked at the elite levels in almost every category tested except one: Her strength rating was below the minimum chart level. The track season had just ended and there were a couple of weeks before summer vacation began. I told the young ladies that weight training would extend through the summer and into the following school year. I naively assumed they would drop out immediately upon discovering I was going to take 2‐3 days per week out of their summer vacation. I did not realize then the tenacity of young female athletes who have a desire to excel. I do now! They didn’t blink while responding, “When do we start?” We started the following week, working through the next three years during the school semesters and summers. Our workout was very similar to what I thought to be the most effective weight training regime: The “garage” routine I learned from Woods and Davis. I was still looking to increase mass and strength just as we did in 1967. Back then we were not alone in the pursuit of mass and strength; so were those who trained on the hot sands and cool breezes of Muscle Beach just up the street from the garage… 6
‐Body Building, Beach Style‐ This is a good place to take a short stroll down memory lane to see how Allyson Felix, star athlete of the 21st century nearly forged the same link with Eugen Sandow, star strongman/bodybuilder of the late 19th and early 20th centuries ‐ a link that has plagued generations of athletes over several decades. It is the same link that, most likely, you have forged! It is believed by some that bodybuilding may have started in the 11th century in India. Gyms have been found in that country that date as far back as the 16th century. Somewhere during the late 19th and early 20th century, in the mind of the public as well as many strength coaches, muscle size and muscle strength became inseparably linked together. Most likely the link was forged by the feats of one traveling strongman performer, the German‐born Eugen Sandow. He was the fitness trainer to King George V and an early pioneer of bodybuilding through the 1880’s to early 1900’s. He performed to sold‐out auditoriums wherever he went. Sandow was the European superstar of his day. North America had been introduced to strongman shows in the middle to late 1800’s but nothing compared to the popularity of Sandow. In fact, he became so popular that he was featured as one of the early performers in motion pictures via Thomas Edison’s 1894 kinetoscope in which Sandow displayed his muscles.
7
Sandow was very strong, yet he was not in the same class as some of the others of his day. What he lacked in strength he made up in physique and physical accomplishments that completely overshadowed his competition. Sandow did not stuff himself with food and drink like the other strong men of his time. Ever the consummate showman, Sandow recognized that strength alone was not enough to thrill the masses so he introduced classical posing into his act. His show opened in an auditorium devoid of lights except for those positioned to show his muscles. Sandow secured the link with his book, ʺStrength And How To Obtain Itʺ which became associated with his show, “Muscle Display Performances,” at the beginning of the 20th century. The link carried into the mid 20th century when on June 25 and 26 of 1949, America had its first official professional weight lifting championships in conjunction with the ʺMr. 1949 Physique” contest. 1967 was near the peak of what many believe was the golden age of bodybuilding (from 1940‐1970) when there were numerous international competitions, a number of magazines devoted to the sport, and an ideology embracing health, fitness, strength, and targeted muscular development. While professional weight lifting and professional bodybuilding championships are no longer linked in the minds of either bodybuilders or powerlifters, the idea of maximum strength coming from maximum muscle size is linked in the minds of the public and the majority of sport coaches. 8
Don’t be fooled into thinking this a harmless link. In fact, this link directly leads to the deadly use of the performance enhancing drugs that are devastating sports today. While I’ve never subscribed or The misunderstanding of the condoned the use of drugs, I connection between strength and mass has created a vicious, and believed in the same strength sometimes deadly, cycle of using comes from size myth for over 30 performance enhancing drugs. years. Why do athletes use performance enhancers? There are several Allyson Felix and her teammates reasons but the ones most important to the concepts of this book are: were already participants in the myth when I realized that neither Build mass and strength of muscle physiology nor the laws muscles of physics are suspended during Reduce weight workouts or competition. As you read on, you will discover how Hide use of other drugs you can use this knowledge to gain a solid edge over your Here is where the downward cycle begins: An athlete, determined to competition! make a team, get a new contract, justify a hefty salary, or retain an image that will produce millions in fees, begins to use anabolic steroids. The goal: To increase muscle strength by encouraging new muscle growth or mass. But adding mass causes the addition of useless excess weight, which can lead to the use of drugs to reduce excess weight, which causes the need to hide the use of drugs that were used to reduce weight caused by the increase of mass. Anabolic steroids also allow the athlete to train harder and longer so the athlete can continue to build the mass that leads to the useless weight -- and so the cycle continues. 9
‐MSF‐ Peter Weyand’s study “Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements,” published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, underscores the fact that there is a disconnect between what science shows to be the major factors involved with running speed and what coaches focus on to increase an athlete’s running speed. At the core of the disconnect is the traditional equation for running speed: Speed = Stride Length x Stride Rate. Runners that take more frequent steps (Stride Rate, a time factor) should run faster than they did when they took steps less frequently. If those runners decide instead to increase the distance between each step (Stride Length, a distance factor), then running speed would also increase. A combination of the two, longer distance between steps and more frequent steps would be a third alternative to increasing speed. Seems simple enough, at least in theory. But it’s that theory that the study challenged. The three components of faster running are actually this: How often you contact the ground; how much muscular force you can deliver during ground contact; how much ground contact time is available to deliver that force. Stride length and stride rate are effects of the three components. Among the components, the predominant factor in running faster is the ability to generate and transmit muscular force to the 10
ground. Not just any amount of force will do because there is still one shadowy figure whose impact is hidden in the speed equation. It’s name? Gravity. The same gravity that keeps pulling you back to earth when you jump up from the ground or jump out of an airplane also has a powerful impact on how fast you run. The major component of gravity is Mass: greater mass equals greater gravitational pull. There are two reasons for the gravity factor remaining hidden. One reason is the fact that gravity is invisible (which makes it your toughest opponent), and the other is the commonly held belief that the horizontal direction of a stride is where the power goes. While the second reason seems intuitive, it’s simply wrong. A study published in the Journal of Biomechanics in 1987 showed that the amount of force used horizontally during constant speed running is as little as one‐tenth the amount of force applied vertically. It’s the vertical direction of the stride that needs our help because it is the portion of the stride direction that faces the major assault from gravity. How can this be? During constant speed running (with no air resistance) propulsion forces and breaking forces are equal. In other words, the amount of force applied to the ground to propel your body horizontally is offset by the braking force when you contact the ground again. In order to run, we must elevate our body above the ground. And that’s where gravity, arch‐enemy of faster running speed, lurks. If we don’t oppose it, we won’t take longer or quicker strides. So how do we oppose this villain bent on robbing us of our speed? We do it like NASA does: Boost up the power! Get stronger and apply more force to the ground! 11
Coaches recognized early on that stride lengths increased when runners applied more force to the ground. Unfortunately, coaches and athletes wrongly believe that the only way to increase strength is by increasing mass. Their goal is to increase mass because they believe more mass=more muscle=more strength=more force applied to the ground. What they don’t realize, and what you can use to your advantage by using the principles presented in this book, is that added mass creates more gravitational pull – mass is actually working against you! Recall that the predominant factor in faster running is the ability to generate and transmit muscular force to the ground. But, because of gravity, it isnʹt merely the amount of force applied to the ground that increases stride length; itʹs the amount of force in relation to bodyweight, or mass‐specific force (MSF). To clear up any possible confusion about the concept and importance of MSF, let’s revisit our comment about NASA to illustrate MSF in action: Suppose two rockets, A and B, are of equal size, carry equal fuel load, have equal power and differ only in weight. Rocket A weighs in at a hefty 100 pounds while B is a mere 50 pounds. When the engines fire, B blows off its launch pad before A, quickly puts an increasing amount of distance between them, then cruises while Aʹs added weight causes it to drain its fuel supply and drop like a brick. All other things being equal, the lighter rocket will go faster and further every time. 12
If force alone was the major factor in speed, then a 400 pound man able to pound down 700 pounds of force would win every race ‐ but we know thatʹs not what happens. If we match our 400 pound behemoth against a 170 pound man able to lay down 500 lbs of force, thereʹs no contest. The big man bites the dust. Why? MSF! The 400 pound man is generating a meager 1.75 times his bodyweight against the ground while our thin man is applying a whopping 2.94 times his bodyweight. Like our rocket example, the big man canʹt keep up from the start and quickly runs out of gas trying to push his mammoth mass. Even though the big man can generate 40% more force, it pales compared to the thin manʹs 68% greater MSF. Thin man’s stride length will far exceed big man’s. Stride length isnʹt the only part of the equation affected by greater force: Stride rates also show significant gain. The two main factors of Stride Rate are ground contact time and swing time (the time between ground contact times for the same foot). Coaches who work on increasing Stride Rate spend their time attempting to decrease swing time. But you will soon see that decreasing swing time is really of little consequence in speed training because contact time is the more important factor in Stride Rate. Greater MSF causes the ground contact times to decrease, so Stride Rates become faster by the amount of time NOT spent on the ground. Think of it like a bouncing ball, the harder you throw it against the ground the faster it bounces back up. Yes, it is hard to believe that swing time is of little consequence. After all, runners must swing their feet from behind to in‐front 13
of their body and surely if they can swing faster they should run faster ‐ right? It does appear that way when you watch someone run, and thatʹs the very reason why coaches were fooled for so long. What you see is not what you get. The combination of longer Stride Length AND shorter contact time means longer time in the air on each stride. Not enough time to have made the Wright brothers jealous but more than enough time to render swing time of little concern ‐ to either athlete or coach. Tests showed that the worlds fastest runner in the late 1990’s reached a top speed of 11.1 meters per second (m/s) yet the amount of time it took to reposition his legs in the air was less than three hundredths of a second faster (.03s) than sprinter who poked along at 6.2 m/s, almost half the speed. There is no question that the champion sprinter could have repositioned his feet faster than he did, but the time he gained in the air by the combination of longer stride length and shorter contact time made it unnecessary. The effects of ground force production are not for sprinters only. In fact, this would be a good time to introduce additional research that is bound to be controversial with distance coaches (there is no reason why sprint coaches should feel the heat of science by themselves). Leena Paavolainen, et. al, published a study in 1999 titled, “Explosive‐strength training improves 5‐km running time by improving running economy and muscle power.” The study was composed of a 10 person experimental group and an 8 person control group. All of the participants were highly trained orienteers who were very experienced in running distances of 14
5k or better. There was no statistically significant difference in 5k times between the two groups prior to the experiment. The experimental group reduced their running workout time by 32% and replaced the time with an explosive‐strength training routine. After 9 weeks of training, the control group showed no improvement in their 5k time while the experimental group showed a statistically significant time reduction. Interestingly, ground contact times decreased in the experimental group but actually increased in the control group! The experimental group improved their time without increasing Vo2max (related to oxygen intake) or lactate threshold (related to lactic acid, a topic we will cover later). Both of these measurements are believed to be critical to increased performance in distance runners. The control group did increase Vo2 max, yet did not improve their time, contrary to what distance coaches would expect. The study concluded that a combination of explosive strength training plus endurance training produced improvements in 5k running time without changes in aerobic variables and suggested that the results were caused by strength training’s improved muscle power and running economy. Increasing ground force through added muscle power decreases ground contact time in distance running just as it does in sprinting. Paavolainen’s study showed reduced ground contact times are a significant factor in faster running speed beyond sprinting. Think about this: Saving one‐hundredth of a second per stride may not seem significant but over a long distance with hundreds or even thousands of strides it would be very significant. A competitor in a 5k race with an average stride 15
length of 2 meters would use 2500 strides to complete the distance. A 1/100th of a second reduction in ground contact time would reduce their 5k time by 25 seconds! It should be noted that the strength workout Paavolainen used for the experiment was designed to keep hypertrophy (muscle growth and the added weight that comes with it ‐ mass) to a minimum. In other words, there was an increase in MSF. It should be clear by now that MSF, defeater of the effects of gravity, propels us to greater speeds at a variety of distances. Sadly, MSF does create its own demon that can deter us from reaching our true maximum speed. We know that increasing MSF decreases ground contact time ‐ the key factor for faster stride rates. The demon? Our MSF delivery system. As we run faster we must deliver MSF in a decreasing amount of time due to the continually shortening period of ground contact. What is truly fascinating is that buried in the MSF/contact time equation is both the key to faster times and the limit to maximum running speed! By definition, running includes ground contact (otherwise it would be flying). Therefore, the limitation of maximum speed for an individual runner is the minimum contact time in which that runner can deliver maximum ground force. A well trained runner can deliver maximum speed for 8 to 10 strides before faltering as MSF begins to deteriorate and contact times increase. As a result, stride rate and lengths change for the worse. Surely, this will be different for each runner, but it will affect every runner. 16
The MSF/contact time ratio may ultimately answer a lot of other questions about running faster. For example, it is possible for the weaker (in terms of overall strength) of two sprinters to deliver more MSF because of a more rapid force delivery system. This might be one reason why an athlete who is powerful in the weightroom may not beat an opponent who appears to be only slightly thicker than spaghetti. The thin man may be delivering more MSF at crunch time than the Muscle Beach grad. This faster force delivery system can be aided to a large extent by training methods, yet in some athletes it is present in a highly developed state naturally. There is still some mystery as to all the factors involved in the delivery system. Regardless, the runner able to deliver more MSF is going to win the race. So where are we now in our quest for speed? First, it is important to recognize MSF as the cause of faster running speed while considering Stride Length and Stride Rate as effects of MSF which require minimal individual training time. Second, we know that training for speed must include developing a more rapid delivery system because of decreasing ground contact time. Undelivered force is of little benefit to our quest for increasing maximum speed. Focusing on these two factors, more MSF and faster delivery of MSF (plus aerobic capacity beginning in distances over 400 meters) should be the basis of training to run faster. 17
By now, you may be at the point of screaming out, “Now wait a minute, what about running mechanics? What about muscle and nervous system adaptation to running? You don’t believe that running faster comes only from the weightroom do you?” No, but… Strength training and training on the track MUST be geared to the two factors cited above and only to those factors. In fact, anything that does not affect improvement in one or both is unnecessary. So the litmus test for using any training method (or gadget) is whether it: 1. Creates more MSF 2. Delivers MSF more rapidly. Let’s see if faulty running mechanics passes our litmus test as an area to focus on to improve one or both of the factors. Overstriding, a specific mechanical problem where ground contact is forward of the body mass, is a good place to start. We’ve already discussed stride lengths as being an effect of MSF so neither of our factors is aided by training for longer stride lengths. Longer strides are a big advantage, but overstriding is not because of our old nemesis, gravity and the way in which our muscles work. Remember that vertical force plays the bigger role in running and that MSF is primarily applied vertically in order to offset the force of gravity as we elevate our body (mass). If we take an exaggerated stride, we change the natural behavior of the leg muscles and reduce mechanical advantage. This causes us to recruit more muscle force per unit of ground force applied in order to elevate our mass. In other words, all of our strength is 18
not going to be applied to ground force and our running speed will be reduced. To illustrate this for yourself, place your feet directly under your body, about 6 inches apart. Jump as high as you can. Now place your feet as far apart as you can while keeping your entire sole on the ground. Jump again. You won’t jump as high or as easily because your legs are not directly under the mass of your body. Some of your strength is expended to overcome the loss of leverage. The amount of strength lost causes the difference in the height of the two jumps. The second jump should prove the folly of overstriding, but more importantly, it shows the importance of having correct running mechanics in order to deliver maximum ground force, the first of the two factors above. This definitely passes our litmus test. Therefore, the correction of overstriding requires additional training time. What about other factors such as neuromuscular adaptation to running at higher speeds? Again, the litmus test should be applied. Neuromuscular adaptation to running at higher speeds comes from running as close to maximum speed as possible during training. Muscles are trained to adapt and react to the stresses placed upon the body under those conditions, causing improved muscle reaction times and faster delivery of MSF at increasingly greater rates of speed. Since this aids the second factor above it passes the litmus test as well. Take a hard look at your own training methods. If you have not subjected every part of it to the litmus test, do it now. Training methods that pass must be continued and those that don’t should go the way of the kinetoscope. One example of speed training that fails the test is spending time on “high knees” because they are not as much a cause of 19
faster running but much more an effect of MSF. Increasing ground force causes a rebound effect that forces the knees to increase elevation, just as Newton’s 3rd law of physics assumes. Why does anyone spend time on this effect? Because they sometimes misinterpret what they see. Coaches and athletes often spend time watching videos of world class sprinters in order to glean information that leads to faster running. Champion sprinters generally have high knee action that is easily seen on slow motion video. Misinterpreting what they see, they include in their workout what they think creates a champion – high knee action. What isn’t seen is the exceptional amount of ground force applied by champion sprinters which causes the high knee action. It is MSF that causes these champions to produce high knee action. Another facet of training that fails the litmus test is a false understanding of sprinting “form.” Many coaches and athletes seem to crave working on non‐essentials, spending time correcting what they believe is bad form but many times is simply the runners style. Mechanical problems (bad form) should be corrected; style needs no correction. What’s the difference? Ken Jakalski, an Illinois Hall of Fame track coach states it quite eloquently: “Athletes should be allowed to interpret the skill of the activity in their own style.” Michael Johnson, multiple record holder as well as multiple world and Olympic champion, is a great example of interpreting the 200 and 400 meter races in his own style which seemed to be short, choppy steps and a backward lean. In fact, his stride length was at the high end of elite sprinters, a direct result of enormous MSF! There are numerous examples in professional sports where champion athletes don’t always fit 20
the ideal “form” of the experts yet are highly successful. Some coaches will argue that the athlete would have done better with the right form, but it is just as likely that many would do worse by trying to do something that was not suited to their own body; their own style. Regardless, spending time using the strength training techniques within this book to increase MSF and perfecting running mechanics could make you the next Olympic champion ‐ or the coach of one! 21
‐Mass‐ Since MSF is the secret to faster running and higher jumping, then it is time we dealt with the issue of “M” in MSF: Mass. To the bodybuilder, mass is a beautiful thing. To other athletes, it’s like awakening to find the nightmarish monster you saw in your dreams last night really is hiding in the closet. Striving for mass in order to become stronger has become the nightmare for an increasing number of athletes at all levels. It is the driving force behind the use of performance enhancing drugs and thus has tainted the performance of some while destroying the careers of other. Sadly, the pursuit of mass is unnecessary. In his outstanding book on strength training, Power to the People”, Pavel Tsatsouline states, “If you compare strength training to car racing, conventional bulking up is an unimaginative increase of the engine size.” Increasing the physical size of the engine neither automatically nor maximally increase its horsepower. The same holds true in the pursuit of running speed since bulk does not automatically increase speed. But there is also a negative attached to the bulk. As you know, MSF is mass‐specific force. This means that if you add mass (weight) to your body then the amount of force applied to the ground must increase proportionately to maintain the same rate of speed. Let’s look at an example: Suppose an athlete weighing 150 lbs can apply 260 lbs of force to the ground; a 1.75:1 ratio of force to mass.
22
At the coach’s suggestion, our athlete (a very diligent worker in the weightroom) adds 10 lbs of additional bodyweight on his way to increasing ground force to 300 lbs; 40 lbs of force greater than before. If we divide the new ground force (300 lbs) by the new bodyweight (160) we get a new force to mass ratio of 1.88. As expected, this higher ratio causes an increase in the athlete’s running speed. Both the coach and athlete are happy. All is well. But it’s not as good as it could be. The athlete’s 10 lb increase in body weight means that, at the original 1.75:1 ratio, 17.5 lbs of ground force (44% of the newly added ground force) would be needed just to match the previous rate of speed. Almost half of our athlete’s hard labor is wasted. What if our athlete was able to increase ground force without the extra 10 lbs? The ratio of force to bodyweight would be 2:1 (300 lb of ground force / 150 lbs bodyweight), 14% greater than the original ratio and 6% greater than the ratio where bodyweight increased. Are these differences significant? According to Weyand’s study they are. The differences are very significant. In fact, maximum speeds are so sensitive to small differences in MSF that an athlete able to deliver additional ground force of only one tenth of their bodyweight would realize an increase in maximum speed of one full meter per second. The primary reason for this is the positive effect of MSF on maximal stride frequency (through reduced ground contact time). Using our example of the 150 lb athlete above, each 15 lb increase in MSF could bring a full meter per second increase in 23
the maximum speed of the athlete. That would be an incredible improvement. However, before you get too excited about the prospect of spectacular running times based on small improvements in MSF, keep in mind we are talking about maximum speed not sustained speed. The phrase “able to deliver additional ground force” must not be ignored. There is a greater likelihood that more significant improvement in maximum speed would occur in an athlete who is at the earlier stages of strength and delivery system development. Why? Because of the demon created by MSF: More force=less contact time to deliver force. The runner who has great strength and a well developed delivery system will see only marginal increases in speed. While the delivery system still has an aura of mystery, there is no mystery about gaining strength without mass. It’s time to put part of Sandow’s legacy to sleep. 24
‐Physiology Part 1‐ Understanding how to increase strength without increasing mass requires the review of some basic muscle physiology. Muscle physiology may not rate highly on your personal list of favorite pastimes, but if you want to run faster and jump higher, or train others to do so, then the subject should move to the top of your list. Basically, all skeletal muscles contain the three major muscle fiber types: TYPE I ‐ SLOW TWITCH OR SLOW OXIDATIVE: Type I fibers are the fatigue resistant fibers which are primarily used in activities such as long distance running, swimming, cycling, etc. These fibers respond best to lighter training weights and higher amounts of repetitions (reps). They have a low potential for hypertrophy (an increase in thickness or bulk without adding parts) which means they expand minimally regardless of how much they are exercised. These fibers are aerobic because the are “fueled” by oxygen. TYPE IIA ‐ FAST TWITCH OXIDATIVE: These fibers have both aerobic and anaerobic (not fueled by oxygen) properties. The fibers have greater contraction ability then Type I fibers and can sustain contraction longer than Type IIB fibers. They are used to some degree during just about all physical activities. TYPE IIB ‐ FAST TWITCH GLYCOLYTIC: Type IIB fibers are the maximal force production fibers. Type IIB fibers have the largest diameter of the fibers and also have the largest potential to increase size and strength. Type IIB fibers require a very high 25
load for stimulation. These fibers come into play in activities such as sprinting, Olympic lifting and a maximal effort vertical jump. These fibers are anaerobic. In order for a muscle to contract it must be activated by the nervous system through motor units. The terms “slow twitch” and “fast twitch” describe the relative relationship between the speed of the motor units. Faster motor units provide stronger contractions which produces to greater strength. Athletes generally tend to excel in a particular sport that requires a larger percentage of a particular fiber type. For example, sprinters generally have a greater proportion of Type IIB fibers compared to Type I, a distance runner may have greater proportion of Type I versus Type IIB, and a soccer player may have an relatively equal amount of all three fibers. Type IIA fibers can be trained to “act” like Type I or Type IIB depending upon the greater need for strength or endurance. The descriptions of the three fiber types should make it clear that Type IIB, comprised of fast motor units, is our fiber of choice for MSF. They are the maximal force providers because of their strength and speed of contraction. What contracts within the muscle cells are the myofibrils. These tiny contractile elements should become your best friends, assuming of course that you want to run faster. In fact, you should invite as many of them into your muscles as possible (as often as possible does not refer to the number of repetitions in a single workout, but rather to the number of times per week the workout is performed). Expanding the number of myofibrils in your muscle fibers directly increases muscular force production. How do you invite them in? Lift heavy weights as often as 26
possible to pack your Type IIB fibers with as many myofibrils as you can. This is called Myofibrillar Hypertrophy. There is another type of hypertrophy but this one we need to minimize: Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Sarcoplasm is important because it supplies ATP (adenosine triphosphate), and ATP is the fuel that energizes all muscular contractions. That’s the good part. The bad part is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the growth of the non‐contractile elements of the muscle cell, represents as much as 20% or more of muscle size and contains the greatest number of mitochondria (responsible for the oxidative properties of muscle cells which sustains muscular endurance). Why is this bad? Two reasons: First, in order for mitochondria to sustain muscle endurance it needs additional fluids and capillaries and that means added weight. Adding weight reduces MSF; Second, maximal muscle force is an element of MSF while muscle endurance is not. The bodybuilder’s main purpose is to stimulate both myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is a major element in bodybuilding because it increases muscular endurance that allows longer workouts. This is necessary because mass, not strength, is the goal of the bodybuilder. Strength without mass is the goal of the runner. As stated earlier, strength comes from lifting heavy weights as often as possible to pack Type IIB fibers with as many myofibrils as possible. A good benchmark for heavy lifting is the one rep maximum, which is simply the most weight you can lift one time. From that starting point it’s easy to build a solid 27
workout, but for now let’s look at the general difference in training for each muscle type: FIBER TYPE
RANGE OF REPS
% 1 REP MAXIMUM
Type I
15+
Up to 70%
Type II A
6-12
75-80%
Type II B
1-5
90-100%
Training For Types Of Fiber #1
It is easy to see that training the Type IIB fiber allows very few repetitions because of the amount of weight it takes to stimulate the fibers involved. This fact is a critical part of creating strength without mass. The next chart is a more detailed look at the difference between a workout geared toward myofibrillar hypertrophy and one based on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy: FIBER TYPE
HYPERTROPHY
RANGE OF REPS
Type I
Myofibrillar
15-50
Type I
Sarcoplasmic
50+
Type IIA
Myofibrillar
8-15
Type IIA
Sarcoplasmic
Type IIB
Myofibrillar
Type IIB
Sarcoplasmic
16-25 1-5 6-10
Training For Types Of Fiber #2
Clearly, maximum myofibrillar hypertrophy is the result of fewer repetitions at heavier weight. The sarcoplasmic workout would certainly add strength (not as much as a myofibrillar workout) but it would also add weight (more than a myofibrillar workout). Ready for a quick quiz on what has been covered so far? 28
Examine the chart that follows. What end result would you expect from this weight training workout purportedly used by a world champion sprinter? EXERCISE
SETS
REPS
Bench Press
5
10,8,6,6,6
Incline Dumbbell Press
3
15
Rear Deltoid Dumbbell Flyes
3
15
Front Dumbbell Raises
3
10
Dumbbell Arm Running
4
4
Dumbbell Curls
3
15
Lat Pull Downs
3
10
Dumbbell Shrugs
3
10
Squats
4
10,8,6,3
Power Clean
5
3
Single Leg Curls
3
10
Single Leg Extensions
3
10
If you believe the athlete would be stronger and heavier, congratulations, you’ve been paying close attention! The athlete would be stronger, but bodyweight would increase by 13%, almost double the amount of our example in the previous section. Would the athlete’s sprint speed improve because of the added strength? There is a reasonable probability that it would because ground force should have increased. But, could the athlete have run even faster? 29
As we saw in our earlier example, emphatically, yes! But only if the athlete had minimal weight gain, maximizing the increase in MSF. Before moving on to the next segment, there is an issue that needs to be addressed from an earlier statement: Muscular endurance is not an element of MSF. This seemingly contradicts the modern concept of speed endurance. Confusion enters because the term “endurance” causes some coaches and athletes to equate that term “speed endurance” to aerobic capacity and so an aerobic element is added to the athletes training. Countless hours are wasted by athletes spending time developing “endurance” through aerobic activity when the event in which they compete has little dependence on the aerobic system. In reality, “speed endurance” in sprints has no connection to aerobic capacity at all. Sprints up to 400 meters are considered oxygen‐deficit events. It is not necessary for the athlete to take a breath during an oxygen‐deficit event because oxygen is not required for muscle metabolism during the event. The oxygen deficit is recovered through heavy breathing after the conclusion of the event. To illustrate, let’s look at another study published in 1999 by Weyand, et al., which concluded, “…human running speed is largely independent of aerobic power during all‐out sprints lasting
