I recently had a talk with a fellow coach who brought up the following point:

“I could not do what you do because I’d be concerned that kids would think my program is a ‘blow off’ program, and I don’t want kids believing that track requires less of a commitment than other sports.  My AD would want to know why track practices are so short, or why athletes aren’t expected to ‘work hard’ every day.”

I found these comments quite insightful,  because they suggest that some inherent ‘fear’ of program perception may be at the heart of why certain coaches feel compelled to provide far more training ‘substance’ than we do.  

Coaches create training complexity because they worry that athletes would think less of a far simpler program-and by association perhaps less of them.  

Some may dismiss this as just ridiculous, but think about it?  Do cross country coaches really need to run two-a-day practices in August?  Do track coaches really need to practice for two to three hours each afternoon?  How is much of that time spent?  Is it all running workouts and strength workouts and drills and technique work?  If so, how much of each is ‘necessary’?  How does the coach know how much is enough?  

I discussed this recently with Barry, because I believe this notion of program image is indeed a reason why we often encounter resistance to what we do.   A ‘simple’ program is a reflection of a lazy coach, and a lazy coach will eventually have a mediocre program.  But is that necessarily the case?  My ASR workouts are often completed within 45 minutes, yet it takes me longer than that to prepare these workouts based on previous data and test results.  Do athletes really ‘get’ what goes into a workout, or is this even a concern for them?

Barry’s view is that this attitude is more in the mind of the coach than the athlete.  Kids just do what you tell them to do.   They may question something that they think is dumb, but if the concept makes sense, and they understand why they’re doing what they’re doing, their focus is not on how much time that workout requires.

Further, Barry touched on two other issues that are worth considering:

Coaches have an inherent fear that they’re not doing something everyone else is doing.  Hence, the more ‘substance’ to the program, the more what they do is ‘like’ what everyone else is doing, the more secure they are thinking they’re doing the right things.

Coaches view change with skepticism because somewhere along the line, somebody told them this is what they need to do.  And there is indeed ‘safety in numbers’ when it comes to training philosophies. As another coach recently told me:  If what you do is such ‘state of the art’ training, how come everyone isn’t doing it.”


Ken Jakalski

The Bearpowered Hall Of Fame welcomes 4 new members, starting with Sarah Pearson. Sarah gained entry with a 2x lift of 275 lbs. Sarah attained this milestone with quickly, especially for a distance runner!

Next on the list is Andrew Neelon:


Andrew 2x lift was a solid 320 lbs. Andrew looks like he isn't far away from a 2.5x lift from his 145 lb frame!

Brian Owusu, a 170 lb football-track runner, hoisted the most weight amoung the new inductees with a 425 lb load:


Our final inductee, joining with Andrew, had the best  lift of the 4. Morgan Kelly makes the HOF with a 2.5 x lift of 370 lbs. That's a great lift for a 144 lb athlete!:



Congratulations to all of these athletes!

The following response was posted recently on another website where my name was brought up:

 

“I’m aware of Ross. So far as I can tell he’s mainly good at making really poor arguments on sprint forums and not knowing a whole hell of a lot about what he’s talking about.

Put differently, I get more of a kick out of watching Ross make a fool of himself by using poor analogies, misunderstanding physics, quoting irrelevant running research (Ross seems incapable of understanding the differences between running on a treadmill and over ground) and then disappearing from forums when his arguments get torn to absolute shreds.”

 

In light of the glowing report above, here’s my side of the story:

 

Allyson Felix approached me at the end of her freshman year in high school with a specific request—could she work with me in the weightroom.

The request came at the end of USATF’s development clinic for athletes who had placed in the top 3 spots in the U.S. National Junior Championships (age 20 and under).

 

Felix had been tested in a variety of jumps and bounds, including the standing long jump, jump and reach and sets of 3, 5 and 10 single leg bounds.

USATF officials had created a target time expectation in the 100m sprint based upon the results of the trials and measured in the maximum number of meters attained for each bounding set. They did the same with the standing long jump.

The trial distances for the jumps and bounds would then be matched to an expected 100m target time ranging from 10.20 seconds to 13.20 seconds depending on the maximum number of meters jumped.

 

Felix maxed at 2.29 meters in the standing long jump. The minimum distance on the chart was 2.30 meters. In other words, Felix had no standing long jump far enough to attain the minimum expected time of 13.20 seconds in the 100 meters.

She did not fare much better in the 3 or 5 bound trials, missing the minimum expected distance in the shorter by more than a full meter and the longer by more than 3 meters.

The one bright spot was the 10 bound trial. The distance she covered put her in the 12.9 to 13.2 category.

 

In addition to the above, Felix ran a 10m and 30m fly-in trial. Her 1.07 10m trial equates to 9.35m/s and her 9.29m/s 30m trial was not far off.

Felix had already run 11.97 in the 100m race prior to attending the clinic. She also ran 23.90 in the 200m.

All this from a 14 year old high school athlete!

 

Tony Wells, a well known sprint coach, administered the trials. His advice to Felix was simple: get in the weight room and get stronger.

This was the reason that Felix had approached me at the end of track season.

It was also the beginning of nearly 4 years of working with her. The work would continue every month with minimal breaks. Three other athletes would also be involved.

 

It should be noted that I did not approach Felix, at any time, regarding her need for strength training. She was fully aware of her need to improve strength because of Well’s testing.

Felix also had the same “sprint coach” for all 4 years of her high school career. He was also fully aware of Well’s advice that she needed improvement in her strength in order to improve her speed.

 

The initial 2 years of strength training included most of the lifts I had learned in 1967 from Olympic shot put silver medalist (1968) George Woods and Dave Davis (Olympic qualifier 1964). The list of exercises included power cleans, leg press, push press, pushups, arm curls, squats and assorted others I had used with my throwers.

 

After watching Felix run repeats during a practice session, it seemed to me that when she got up to nearly maximal speed she could maintain that speed longer than the others she practiced with…and those she competed against.

In that moment, I had an epiphany: If Felix was able to increase her strength with minimal increase in her weight she could run faster longer!

 

I’m not sure how or why that thought came to me since it was not something I was concerned with when training throwers. It just seemed logical that increasing strength while keeping bodyweight lower would be more efficient for a sprinter.

I mentioned this to my son a few days later (he was into strength training). Several days passed before he called me about a book he had recently read that proposed the way to do what I was looking for. It was Pavel’s “Power to the People.”

 

Prior to the call from my son I had continued to look for resources that would provide some back up to my recently hatched theory of efficiency. In 2002 Google provided the initial resource in the form of research conducted by Dr. Peter Weyand, et al.  Weyand’s research paper, “Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements” seemed to agree with my epiphany: increasing strength without increasing mass could increase speed. Admittedly, at the first reading of the paper I did not understand much of the research, but what I did understand provided the spark to learn more.

 

Spending time with Dr. Weyand and reading many more studies from a variety of researchers provided the impetus to significantly reduce the workload in the weightroom. I dropped off lifts over the next 4 years, retaining just 2: the deadlift and the bench press (or pushups in some cases).

I’ve also recognized that I was constantly misapplying the SAID principle (Specific Adaptation to Implied Demand) through most of my coaching career and that most strength and conditioning coaches are currently guilty of the same.

 

Dropping all of the other weightroom exercises has not shown any reduction in the rate of speed gains from the sprinters I’ve trained over the last several years.

This was to be expected based on the available research

 

Certainly there are many who would argue that I’m not a “sprint” coach. I would agree with them whole heartedly, but this tends to make for an even more compelling argument for minimalism.

 

Focusing on Felix and the coaching community, here are some reasons why I believe this to be the case:

1.     She came to me in order to increase her strength, as prescribed by Tony Wells.

2.     She came to me for strength training specifically to improve her running speed.

3.     Jonathan Patton was the “sprint coach” for Felix during her high school career. To my knowledge Tony Wells focused more attention on the greater need for strength training rather than just additional drills for Patton to use to increase Felix speed.

4.     Many of the drills Patton used with Felix have fallen out of favor over the course of time. Some fallout was due to additional research that showed a lack of viability—the focus was based on training effects rather than causes of speed enhancement.

5.     Patton acknowledged the overriding importance of strength training for improved speed to every interviewer who wanted to know his training protocol for Felix.

6.     Most, if not all, coaches of elite athletes prescribe strength training as a necessary part of their coaching even though they might differ in exercise types and loads.

7.     Increasing strength alone will improve sprinting times, often dramatically and without any training other than just running fast.

8.     Our experience shows that running form follows function and running form improves as strength, and resultant speed, change.

9.     Form “anomalies” exist at all levels of sport including Olympic and other professional sports.

 

If, as others might contend, my program was not inclusive enough or correctly periodized to result in strength gains that would enhance her speed, one would not expect her to run the times she posted in her senior year, which she did:

 

100: 11.29

200: 22.11

 

If the program I developed was so limited as to result in muscle imbalances that could result in possible injury, one would expect this to manifest itself at some point during the season, yet she suffered no serious injuries that resulted in missed meets, time from training, or lost opportunities to record the fastest times of her career.

 

For those who would contend that any strength program would have resulted in similar gains, then what is it that makes these other programs/protocols that much better? Is it the results? The results in Allyson Felix’s case, as well as in the other girls who were also involved in the protocol, were faster times than recorded in the past with the only change in the program being the strength training.

 

Perhaps the argument is that she would have run even faster her senior year had she been involved in a far different strength program. In that regard, though we can’t go back in time to change the model, perhaps future endeavors under a far different strength training regime might reveal this to be accurate. 

 

The ‘out’ that other coaches would have were they in my situation is that, by structuring a more holistic, established, and orthodox training program, they would have literally covered all their bases, and if something didn’t go as planned, the error would be in the application and cycling of the combinations.

 

By assuming this minimalist approach, I left myself no ‘out’ or justification. If the program failed to achieve what it was intended to achieve, it was clearly going to be my fault for screwing up an elite athlete.

Several months ago I posted Dave Pike's research paper on distance training (using the our strength training protocol) for the Air Force Academy. Dave mentioned that several participants, using standard training methods (the control group) switched to  the other side when the research ended.

 

Here Dave reveals the results of his continuing use of our protocol:

 

Barry,

Just wanted to pass you some interesting results…as you know I’ve been following your program and doing the ASR speed training for a while now.  Today I took the cadet Physical Fitness test here at the Academy.  The test consists of  pull-ups, standing long jump, sit-ups, push-ups and a 600yd run in that order.  In each section you are allotted 2 minutes to do as many as possible then you move directly to the next section.  To score a “max” on the test you have to do 21 pull-ups followed by 2 tries at a standing long jump over 8’8” then do 95 sit-ups, 72 push-ups then a 600yd run under 1:35.  I had made a deal with the cadets in my squadron that if anyone met or beat my score or improved by over 100 points from their previous best score that I would have them over for a big party at the house.  I had not done any training outside your lifting and ASR protocols specifically designed for this test...So I didn’t know what to expect other than I am stronger than ever in my life with a virtual max in the dead lift now over 460lbs—I weigh 173 at 7.3% body fat.  All I can say is that I am amazed at my results on the PFT today:

 

Pull-ups:  to max = 21.  I stopped at 25—could have probably gotten 30—I initially was doing weighted pull-ups using your methods but quit about 3 months prior

Standing Long Jump:  To max is 8’8”—with no previous practice my first jump was 9’2”

Sit-ups: max = 95…I stopped at 96 and was still cranking…The only ab work I do is Abs 45, Obliques 45 and what I call combos or alternating between the two.

Push-ups: max = 72…I stopped at 73 and was still going—think I could have hit 100…once again the only thing I do is the bench press and have gotten to where I can do 5, 1-arm, 1-leg push-ups each arm from Pavel’s Naked Warrior—I also do weighted Pistols with 30lbs on top of the dead lifts several times a week

600yd run—here’s where I amazed myself and everyone else.  I ran a 1:25 which is so far the fastest of anyone who has taken the test…including the cadets many of whom are in great shape.

 

I could not believe how strong and powerful I felt as “the bear” never really jumped on.  I did have to back down a bit as I strained my right hamstring during a flying sprint last Friday (I was 1/100^th off my target time so decided to do another…bad move)…anyway, despite a cranky hamstring I still was able to bring it…I’m thinking I could have hit 1:20 had I been completely healthy.

 

The whole athletic department staff are the ones who administer the test to the cadets:  All the head coaches, assistants and PE instructors…they couldn’t believe my performance.  I told them it was all from dead lifts.  I think my performance maybe turned enough heads to at least get some of them to read your book.  I bought 2 more copies of your book and e-book for my squadron as I’ve been training some cadets who have also seen some great improvements and I lent one to the strength coach for track and field to read.  He said he’d give it a read so I’m encouraged.  Even if I can’t convince him or the jumps coach to train the vaulters I work with more in line with your protocol, at least I’ll be able to really help my normal, average cadets who need it the most.

 

Anyway…just wanted to tell you I’ve continued to be amazed at the results…I trained one of our female pole vaulters this summer using your methods and she ended up taking .13 off her first flying 10 and over 4 seconds off her 300m trial times.  She is now working out with the team and is miserable with the “old school” traditional training methods they have her doing…In her case it is now a “curse” having the knowledge she does and not being able to train how she wants…I feel really bad for her.

 

Thanks for all you do Barry.  I really enjoy reading the forums and your blogs on bearpowered.com

 

God Bless,

Dave Pike

Thank you Dave!

Barry Ross

 

On the Wannagetfast site, www.wannagetfast.com, Chris Korfist posted the following statement in his article  Weyand Revisited 

http://wannagetfast.com/articles.aspx?id=46

 

"Weyand had a lab in an old nuclear missile site where he had a force plate that measured the force that an animal put into its limb when it ran. He had lions, elephants etc. run on the treadmill with a force plate built into it. In fact, the only animal he couldn’t get to run on the treadmill was a domestic house cat. From there, he moved on to humans and found that the data was the same, the harder you hit the ground, the faster you run. He also found that the swing time from animal to animal and individual to individual varied very little. It was very radical research for the track coaches that were there because it discounted the very popular Mach drills, or Speed Dynamic drills. In fact, what was inferred from the research was that form really didn’t matter. All that mattered was the fact that if you hit the plate hard, you would go faster. I think this is where things get cloudy. I went along with this concept for quite some time. In fact, I even went through my own Barry Ross phase who argues that the more you deadlift, the harder you will hit the ground. While I agree completely with Weyand’s research, I disagree with the theory that form does not matter."

 

Before I'm phased out completely, I thought it would be helpful for readers  if I addressed some major errors in Mr. Korfist's article; perhaps even make things less cloudy for Mr. Korfist!

 

First, it's more likely that Dr. Weyand said  something closer to the more force runners slap against the ground the faster they would run.  Of course hitting the plate hard (force plate?) does not, by itself, make one run faster. Dropping a dead body from  high altitude would cause the body to hit the "plate" extremely hard, but there is only a very slight possibility that the dead body would run faster at ground contact.

 

Next, I don't recall saying that the more one deadlifts the harder one hits the ground. Hitting the ground harder (with more force?) is a factor of mass multiplied by acceleration. If a person increases mass through deadlifting (may it never be! Or at least let it be minimally) then the same acceleration with the additional mass  would create more force at ground contact. Increasing acceleration, or increasing both mass and acceleration, would also increase force at ground contact. 

 

Mr. Korfist goes on to state that the research was radical for the track coaches in attendance, because it discounted popular types of drills that they have been using.

More importantly, Mr. Korfist recognized that the research inferred running "form" didn't really matter. This probably is the most accurate information that Mr. Korfist caught onto.

Apparently, it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

 

He continued by offering that there is more to producing force on the ground than pure strength, and in this, he is right. There is force that occurs at ground contact because of gravity accelerating a falling body (which is not controlled by the runner). There is ground reaction force at ground contact and, finally, there is force production by the athlete to counter ground reaction force.

 

Mr. Korfist also added the following tidbits:

 

1.       An athlete who can lift a lot will never  get to use the power the brain would have sent to his feet if his feet aren't functioning properly. "The brain knows not to send it."

2.       On the treadmill/force plate, he will not have a high output do to the fact that his feet are shut down.

3.       The same holds true for arm swings, knee points, hip swivels, duck foot, pigeon toe, etc.

4.       An arm swing can force the body to rotate and generate rotational forces. 

5.       Knees pointing in or out can come from the hips or feet by the impact is a loss of power

6.       Toes turning in will prevent an athlete from getting to the big toe.

7.       Feet turning out can result in the creation of rotational power which will spill out the vertical power needed to run fast.

 

Finally, Mr. Korfist states, "All of these things can be seen as form issues. Most cannot be fixed by performing some drills. So basically, when the body is not in line, it is not functioning at its potential and power is lost. After having seen some top athletes, they are mostly in line and have the above mentioned strong.

The sum of all of the above is that "they can hit the plate harder and run faster."

 

Mr. Korfist, I have news for you: You could drop a 9,000 lb stone on the ground and it won't run any faster…even if you did fix its duck feet, allow the stone to get to its big toe or reduce its hip swivel to the minimum. A few minutes taken to read and understand Newton 3rd law would add significantly to your coaching base.

 

You certainly do not fully agree with Dr. Weyand's research, despite what you say. If you did, you would not claim that form matters to the extent you think it does.

Not only are you completely off base in your understanding of Weyand, et al, you've offered nothing from any locomotion scientist to back up the 7 items listed above.

 

Some, like number 2, you've totally butchered.

Force plate measurements at ground contact measure the force (mass x acceleration) of a falling body at contact. The return force from the runner to offset ground reaction force is delivered primarily isometrically through the foot or whatever appendage is making ground contact. A complete lack of toes would hardly make a difference, if any thing at all. Spend some time watching Oscar Pistorius running if you want to see how much emphasis can be placed on pigeon toes, duck feet, etc. 

 

Monetizing your site by offering something unique is one thing , doing so with a bunch of gibberish is something else.

 

Finally, you didn't go through a "Barry Ross phase", you went through your own version of what you thought rather than what we do, just as you did with the work of Dr. Weyand and Dr. Bundle.

 

Barry Ross