Can Weight Training Make You Fast?

TheZ

I am interested in this as a debate and so have started new thread

My view is that you are born with pace/natural speed as speed depends on the number of fast twitch fibres you have.


While weight training will make you faster the difference will be quite marginal and is not worth the effort you make to get faster when that effort would be better spent on working on things like speed endurance for a match so that your last run is same time as your first run in a match.

I am not saying weight training won't make you faster. I am saying if you don't have natural pace then weight training won't change that - you will be a marginally less slower version of your pre weight training self.

I also think that having natural pace has in the last five years or so become key to success for people who want to make it at the highest level in ball games.

So can you train a slow person to make them fast?

cmyk

TheZ wrote: »

My view is that you are born with pace/natural speed as speed depends on the number of fast twitch fibres you have.

It's one factor. There is a train of thought (IIRC in Charlie Francis' speedtrap) that development of intermediate fibres to fast twitch between the ages of 9-13 (again from memory) may have a massive bearing on speed development in later life.

TheZ wrote: »

While weight training will make you faster the difference will be quite marginal and is not worth the effort you make to get faster when that effort would be better spent on working on things like speed endurance for a match so that your last run is same time as your first run in a match.

Are you stating that, or is it a question?

TheZ wrote: »

I am not saying weight training won't make you faster. I am saying if you don't have natural pace then weight training won't change that - you will be a marginally less slower version of your pre weight training self.

Are you talking about 'training' in the broad sense or purely weight training?

TheZ wrote: »

I also think that having natural pace has in the last five years or so become key to success for people who want to make it at the highest level in ball games.
So can you train a slow person to make them fast?

Im preempting questions here if you want to get answers, you'll have to define what you mean by a slow person and what you mean by a fast person. If the question is can you become faster then yes of course.

Mellor

Why are you isolating ball games? If anythign its a poor measure as there are so many other factors.

I realy don't see what the discusion is tbh.
"Fast" is a relative term.
Will being naturally fast help, of course.
Will training help, of course.

Whats the issue?
It's pretty futile trying to quantify the benefit from natural vrs trained.
Also, any example of somebody that is "naturally fast" is going to be a well known sports person and therefore also going to have been training for a long time (weights or otherwise).

I would suggest that trainign is key to unlock the natural potential. But can't be proved, because those that are natuarally fast but don't play sports will never come into public view

Hanley

TheZ wrote: »

I am interested in this as a debate and so have started new thread

My view is that you are born with pace/natural speed as speed depends on the number of fast twitch fibres you have.

Just that? Or does limb length and general neural efficiency play a part too? You can’t just say he’s fast because of ‘X’. There’s a lot that plays into it.

While weight training will make you faster the difference will be quite marginal and is not worth the effort you make to get faster when that effort would be better spent on working on things like speed endurance for a match so that your last run is same time as your first run in a match.

I wish I had some data from Joe D and others on hand, but I know they’re pulling decrease of 0.2 to 0.3 seconds in their guys 40 times when they’re already running low to mid 4’s. Some of this is due to technical improvements, some due to getting stronger.

But if those gains can be made with guys who are already super strong and gifted in that department, surely an average dude could stand to make similar gains?

Also, why speed endurance? You don’t really need to endure for that long on a football pitch. How long does the average sprint last at full, 10-20m maybe? You’d be much better training repeatability than trying to train your body to go at full pace for 300+m (I think that’s the number you quoted elsewhere).

I am not saying weight training won't make you faster. I am saying if you don't have natural pace then weight training won't change that - you will be a marginally less slower version of your pre weight training self.

‘Pace’ on the field is as much to do with reactions times and the ability to anticipate plays as anything. It’s not simply just a case of line lads up, fire a gun and see how fast they can run. Agreed?

Speaking from experience of playing a decent level of soccer and GAA during my younger years, over 20-40m there was never that much of a difference between guys in a straight line. The difference came when you started to add in reactions , repeated turning, deceleration and acceleration.

I also think that having natural pace has in the last five years or so become key to success for people who want to make it at the highest level in ball games.

‘natural’ pace is going to be a benefit definitely.

So can you train a slow person to make them fast?

Yeah, of course you can. You won’t turn Joe Bloggs into Usain Bolt tho.

Another point to consider, straight line speed isn’t really a huge deal in field sports. Your ability to change direction rapidly, stop, start, drive off etc etc is more important in the real world. Chances are the ‘fast’ guys going to have these qualities too.

Mobility and technique drills can be used to drive real world ‘on the field’ performance increases so that a player can complete plays more effectively and faster, but that’s not necessarily indicative of straight line speed.

I remember reading something a while back that measured foot contact time and the best/fasted guys tended to have a shorter time in contact with the ground than mid level dudes. Think of it as ‘fast feet’, the faster you can put a foot down, change direction and move to your next stride, the faster you’ll get from point A to B.

Looking at it purely from a straight line speed perspective for sporting purposes doesn’t make sense in my opinion. Especially if we’re talking about it in the context of on the field performance.

This threads got potential.

kevpants

I've stopped believing the muscle fibers argument. It's never been proved, it seems to be just the belief of choice at the moment. Similarly they say Kenyans have a genetic advantage in long distance running but no one has ever found it. The Kenyan thing is isolated to a small enough area within Kenya so unless there is some kind of link between geography and genetics I think it's far more likely that it's a cultural thing. Running is a way out of the slums. Young kids are encouraged to start learning to run when they are pre-teenage and think that's the key. 6-13 seems to be a key age for anyone world class at anything.

Speaking as someone who was fast a a young lad in sprints etc, my experience was aged 6 and 7 that I was one of the slowest in my school for my age. I remember lumbering along in last place in local sports days. I remember sports day when I was 8 though. I won EVERYTHING. 100m's 200m's, 400m's, long jump. Winners were given blue ribbons and I always wanted one. I remember my mothers face when I cam home with fistfuls of them. Think she thought I robbed them.

So what happened to make me fast from 7 to 8? Did I grow some fibers? I thought I was born with an amount and I couldn't change that? I had no training or technique.

The only change I can think of was the amount of "strength" I developed in that year. We got a trampoline that year (I grew up in Australia i the 80's not Ireland, as I understand it kids didn't even have shoes in Ireland in the 80's) and spent hours bouncing on that every single day. My other favourite hobby was climbing trees. Every afternoon for about 2 years was spent up a tree or on a trampoline. These things replaced my sedantary sitting and playing with my transformers and he-man toys.

Maybe my coordination and muscle recruitment got "trained" through the change in my play time and as a result I got fast.

I'm not a world class athlete or anything close but that's my experience. If I had spent those years playing video games or watching TV I bet I'd not have won those races when I was 8 and the years after and I'd now be someone who just presumes they were just naturally slow because of genetics.

boomtown84

kevpants wrote: »

I've stopped believing the muscle fibers argument. It's never been proved, it seems to be just the belief of choice at the moment. Similarly they say Kenyans have a genetic advantage in long distance running but no one has ever found it. The Kenyan thing is isolated to a small enough area within Kenya so unless there is some kind of link between geography and genetics I think it's far more likely that it's a cultural thing. Running is a way out of the slums. Young kids are encouraged to start learning to run when they are pre-teenage and think that's the key. 6-13 seems to be a key age for anyone world class at anything.

Speaking as someone who was fast a a young lad in sprints etc, my experience was aged 6 and 7 that I was one of the slowest in my school for my age. I remember lumbering along in last place in local sports days. I remember sports day when I was 8 though. I won EVERYTHING. 100m's 200m's, 400m's, long jump. Winners were given blue ribbons and I always wanted one. I remember my mothers face when I cam home with fistfuls of them. Think she thought I robbed them.

So what happened to make me fast from 7 to 8? Did I grow some fibers? I thought I was born with an amount and I couldn't change that? I had no training or technique.

The only change I can think of was the amount of "strength" I developed in that year. We got a trampoline that year (I grew up in Australia i the 80's not Ireland, as I understand it kids didn't even have shoes in Ireland in the 80's) and spent hours bouncing on that every single day. My other favourite hobby was climbing trees. Every afternoon for about 2 years was spent up a tree or on a trampoline. These things replaced my sedantary sitting and playing with my transformers and he-man toys.

Maybe my coordination and muscle recruitment got "trained" through the change in my play time and as a result I got fast.

I'm not a world class athlete or anything close but that's my experience. If I had spent those years playing video games or watching TV I bet I'd not have won those races when I was 8 and the years after and I'd now be someone who just presumes they were just naturally slow because of genetics.

Or maybe your folks were sick of having a loser child so they secretly dosed you with anabolics!:D

BlueIsland

No facts or stats or anything to back up anything i think, just personal experience. I think we are mixing up a load of issues here as a few posters have mentioned. We all know the quick guy with the natural pace that on a field looks like he can just breeze over the ground! Can you train a guy to do it? I dont think you can make him look like that guy we all know with the natural pace!!! Can you make him individually faster and quicker on the field?The answer is a yes but moreso to do with how quick you are off the mark and how you can change and alter your gears as you move! Speed in g.a.a (as an example) for me is way more about 3-4 yards than anything else!

kevpants

BlueIsland wrote: »

We all know the quick guy with the natural pace that on a field looks like he can just breeze over the ground! Can you train a guy to do it? I dont think you can make him look like that guy we all know with the natural pace!!!

This is the point of my rambling post. I don't think natural pace really exists to the extent you think it does. The guys who is naturally faster probably had a very active or sporty childhood.

It's similar to Leo Messi having natural talent, I suspect he just spent more time than anyone else practicing when he was at an age that his body could adapt and learn in an optimum way.

I partly agree with you to be honest, I think if you're training a teenager or older then you can't turn the slow guy into the fastest guy but only because you missed the window. You can make serious gains but the time when your muscles and your nervous system is at it's most elastic is when you're <10 years old.

There was an article on elitfts recently, I think Chad WS wrote it, bemoaning that the US will never compete at the top level in weightlifting simply because it's high school before the kids start snatching and cleaning. There's really no substitute for chinese 7 year olds learning to snatch. They'd have 1000's of hours put in before an american kid even grips a bar for the first time.

Hanley

kevpants wrote: »

This is the point of my rambling post. I don't think natural pace really exists to the extent you think it does. The guys who is naturally faster probably had a very active or sporty childhood.

It's similar to Leo Messi having natural talent, I suspect he just spent more time than anyone else practicing when he was at an age that his body could adapt and learn in an optimum way.

I partly agree with you to be honest, I think if you're training a teenager or older then you can't turn the slow guy into the fastest guy but only because you missed the window. You can make serious gains but the time when your muscles and your nervous system is at it's most elastic is when you're <10 years old.

There was an article on elitfts recently, I think Chad WS wrote it, bemoaning that the US will never compete at the top level in weightlifting simply because it's high school before the kids start snatching and cleaning. There's really no substitute for chinese 7 year olds learning to snatch. They'd have 1000's of hours put in before an american kid even grips a bar for the first time.

Anyone know of any data or studies on how gross motor learning is effected as we age? I’ve a feeling that the development and learning of new skills happens much quicker at a younger age similar to what cmyk was alluding to with his Charlie Francis reference.

If for instance say 1 hour of practice as a 10 year old is equivalent to 2 hours of practice as 22 year old, suddenly you can see why training from a young age is so important. Add to that the fact that if you’re already proficient with the lifts from a young age you can spend years just getting stronger, rather than having to practice form and tekkers and you’re in a pretty strong position. Then there’s the whole area of injury resilience, rate of recovery etc etc

There’s an interesting chapter in Malcom Gladwell’s book ‘Outliers’ around this topic. They followed Candian pee-wee hockey players over their career. Guys born as soon as possible after the age cut off date tended to do better because at that age 10-11 months of additional physical maturity is huge, it resulted in more coaching because they appeared ‘better’, the coaching lead to more skill, skill lead to opportunities, and from there they had a chance to work with much better coaching staff and tended to be selected for more elite teen, junior and eventually NHL teams.

Barry.Oglesby

Don't get me started on Outliers. A very good book, a good read but he went too far left of the genetic argument and bent a few stories to suit. A lot of good stuff in there too though.

If I were to recommend anything that would make someone "quicker" at anything it would be to spend more time doing their chosen sport. In all honesty, I think the biggest problem Irish kids have is not that they're not lifting heavy things from an early age, it's that they don't have the ball at their feet 24/7 anymore. And then when they do go training they're running through ladders because their coach has done SAQ and has been told it's the key to making Premiership players out of them. A lot of "speed" in every skill sport is awareness, nous and timing.

I know that doesn't play into the genetic or weight training argument very well, but I can only say what I see and that's that kids are not weak because they don't lift weights, they're weak because they spend a lot of time on their hoops or in the back of Mummy's SUV.

gymsoldier

Genetically, people are going to be fast or not.

Simply put, it comes down to to how many fibers are activated by one motor neuron unit.

Also I do believe in the three fast twitch muscle fibers and one slow twitch.
Fast twitch fibers generate more force because the motor units contain a greater amount of fibers then slow twitch. Fast twitch fibers take 50ms to reach peak tension, while slow twitch take approx 110ms.

Biopsy of sprint athletes gastrocnemius showed that 76% of the fibers were FT, and in long distant runners only 21% were FT.

Through different types of training you can develop speed. But if your born to be fast, your gonna be fast. You cant change the about of motor units you have activating muscle fibers.

Doug Cartel

gymsoldier wrote: »

But if your born to be fast, your gonna be fast.

But seriously, while genetics are going to have a factor, it's not going to be as big a factor as training is. Everyone reading this thread could probably get faster with the right training. Most of us significantly so.

gymsoldier

Doug Cartel wrote: »

But seriously, while genetics are going to have a factor, it's not going to be as big a factor as training is. Everyone reading this thread could probably get faster with the right training. Most of us significantly so.

I think genetics are an even bigger factor, yes training plays a huge role. But if you have a geneticly fast person doing the same training as a "normal" person, the person with the good genetics is going to be miles ahead.

Fast people are born to be fast, its a hard-knock life, buts thats the way it is.

Doug Cartel

gymsoldier wrote: »

I think genetics are an even bigger factor, yes training plays a huge role. But if you have a geneticly fast person doing the same training as a "normal" person, the person with the good genetics is going to be miles ahead.

The question was "Can weight training make you fast?", the evidence would seem to suggest that weight training can make you faster. You haven't put a number on what constitutes "fast" as an absolute term, so I guess we have to nail that down before we can go any further with this thread.

A cheetah can run at 120 km/h, if that's your idea of fast then no weight training can not make you fast. It would be purely down to genetics, both your parents would probably have to be cheetahs for you to be able to achieve those speeds. If by fast you mean having one of the best 100m times of anyone in your pub football team, then yeah, weights, technique and practice could probably get you there.

mushykeogh

kevpants wrote: »

I've stopped believing the muscle fibers argument. It's never been proved,

Really? so we all have just one fibre type? Interesting.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

And then when they do go training they're running through ladders because their coach has done SAQ and has been told it's the key to making Premiership players out of them. A lot of "speed" in every skill sport is awareness, nous and timing.

Ah the oul ladders, i still use these for the kids, for about 5 mins, great for the SUV gang who cant move but wont turn them into linford christie. Contact time is very important for sprinting but pretty worthless if everything from the ankles up isnt doing what it should be doing.
I met a young guy once who had been at some talk where the coach talked about how important the calf and ankle were in sprinting, he spent the next few weeks in the gym doing endless calf raises to "get faster".

Sprinters are born and then made. The genetic stuff all has to be there first but correct training can refine things a hell of a lot.

cmyk

kevpants wrote: »

There was an article on elitfts recently, I think Chad WS wrote it, bemoaning that the US will never compete at the top level in weightlifting simply because it's high school before the kids start snatching and cleaning. There's really no substitute for chinese 7 year olds learning to snatch. They'd have 1000's of hours put in before an american kid even grips a bar for the first time.

Does this, and your own childhood experience not play into the hands of Charlie Francis' hypotheses I mentioned above?

cmyk

mushykeogh wrote: »

Really? so we all have just one fibre type? Interesting.

I'm pretty sure kevpants was referring to the fact he doesn't believe in the transfer of fibre types, rather than the existence of them.

Brian?

Right so, I don't really know the science relating to muscle fibers so I'd like to pose a few questions.

I read through this:

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/muscle.htm

This particular section is relevant I think:

Body muscle make up
Most skeletal muscles of the body are a mixture of all three types of skeletal muscle fibres, but their proportion varies depending on the usual action of the muscle. For example, postural muscles of the neck, back, and leg have a higher proportion of type I fibres. Muscles of the shoulders and arms are not constantly active but are used intermittently, usually for short periods, to produce large amounts of tension such as in lifting and throwing. These muscles have a higher proportion of type I and type II B fibres.

Even though most skeletal muscle is a mixture of all three types of skeletal, all the skeletal muscle fibres of any one motor unit are all the same. In addition, the different skeletal muscle fibres in a muscle may be used in various ways, depending on need. For example, if only a weak contraction is needed to perform a task, only type I fibres are activated by their motor units. If a stronger contraction is needed, the motor units of type II A fibres are activated. If a maximal contraction is required, motor units of type II B fibres are activated as well. Activation of various motor units is determined in the brain and spinal cord. Although the number of the different skeletal muscle fibres does not change, the characteristics of those present can be altered.

The fast muscle (what the researchers call type IIa) moves 5 times faster than the slow muscle, and the super-fast (called type IIb) moves 10 times faster than the slow muscle fibre.

The average person has approximately 60% fast muscle fibre and 40% slow-twitch fibre (type I). There can be swings in fibre composition, but essentially, we all have three types of muscle fibre that need to be trained.

Fibre type modification
Various types of exercises can bring about changes in the fibres in a skeletal muscle. Endurance type exercises, such as running or swimming, cause a gradual transformation of type II B fibres into type II A fibres. The transformed muscle fibres show a slight increase in diameter, mitochondria, blood capillaries, and strength. Endurance exercises result in cardiovascular and respiratory changes that cause skeletal muscles to receive better supplies of oxygen and carbohydrates but do not contribute to muscle mass. On the other hand, exercises that require great strength for short periods, such as weight lifting, produce an increase in the size and strength of type II B fibres. The increase in size is due to increased synthesis of thin and thick myofilaments. The overall result is that the person develops large muscles.

You can develop your fast-twitch muscle fibre by conducting plyometric or complex training (combination of plyometrics and weights) to build the fast muscle (IIa) and performing sprinting types of training to build the super-fast (IIb) to the point where you can release exercise-induced growth hormone.

The body itself produces the best form of growth hormone. If you want to accelerate muscle building then use large muscle group targeted weight training in combination with anaerobic sprinting-types of exercise to increase your body's natural muscle building steroids.

Unless I'm reading this wrong you can only change super-fast twitch fibers, type II B, into fast twitch fibers type II A. Does this mean that training for endurance can negativly impact sprint speed?

With weight training you can develop fast both types of twitch fibers making them larger. Is this why only strenght training will cause significant muscle growth?

So given that weight training increases the size of fast twitch and super fast twitch fibers, the answer has to be that weight training can make you "fast". Which is what we know anyway in fairness.

Logically it could also be the reason that Kenyans are so gifted at long distance running, they have done so much endurance training at a young age that they have changed their super-fast twitch fibers into fast twitch giving them greater endurance. It's enviroment and training that creates endurance athletes and not genetics. Conversly, it's why Jamacians are such good sprinters, they have done little or no endurance training at a young age and have grown their super-fast and fast twitch fibers. Too much of a stretch?

Scuba Ste

kevpants wrote: »

There was an article on elitfts recently, I think Chad WS wrote it, bemoaning that the US will never compete at the top level in weightlifting simply because it's high school before the kids start snatching and cleaning. There's really no substitute for chinese 7 year olds learning to snatch. They'd have 1000's of hours put in before an american kid even grips a bar for the first time.

Not saying early development plays no part but I don't think the above shows development as a greater determinant of success than genetics. Don't the Chinese take lots of kids into their sports programmes based on what they think they are genetically capable of. Kids with certain body types will be pushed towards one sport, kids with another towards something else. What I mean is the kids that have put in 1000's of hours are probably the one's with the 'best' genetics.

Even if you think skill development at that early age is crucial, for every gold medal weightlifter how many didn't make it even though they received the same training from an early age. The combination of the right genetics and the right training is important and I don't think you can place a higher value on one over the other.

Interestingly though I remember being told that if you got an xray of every Olympian weightlifter you'd find they all had the same shoulder joint type which is necessary for the amount of overhead work they do. Maybe there's something similar for other athlete's in terms of an anatomical advantage necessary for their sport, eg basketball players height, and maybe sprinters have something too beyond fibre types.

I think this debate is great in theory but in practice none of us are in danger of becoming olympians so for the average athlete training will be the most important aspect of your sporting achievements.

cc87

Good piece here by defranco talking about sprint technique

http://www.defrancostraining.com/ask-joe-test/42-speedplyometricsconditioning/213-joe-d-disputes-the-track-a-field-experts-regarding-acceleration-mechanics.html

mushykeogh

briankeating wrote: »

Unless I'm reading this wrong you can only change super-fast twitch fibers, type II B, into fast twitch fibers type II A. Does this mean that training for endurance can negativly impact sprint speed?

Endurance training can can improve the oxidative potential of Fast twitch fibres, the metabolic properties of the cell can be changed so they may display more slow twitch properties.
As far as i know it isnt enough for a fibre to change classification, a fast twitch cant be changed to a slow twitch.
Apologies Mr Kevpants!(Although you should have been more clear!)

gymsoldier

Doug Cartel wrote: »

The question was "Can weight training make you fast?", the evidence would seem to suggest that weight training can make you faster. You haven't put a number on what constitutes "fast" as an absolute term, so I guess we have to nail that down before we can go any further with this thread.

A cheetah can run at 120 km/h, if that's your idea of fast then no weight training can not make you fast. It would be purely down to genetics, both your parents would probably have to be cheetahs for you to be able to achieve those speeds. If by fast you mean having one of the best 100m times of anyone in your pub football team, then yeah, weights, technique and practice could probably get you there.

My wording was probably wrong, but I was agreeing that yes weight training can make you faster. My argument is how fast weight training makes you, is dependent on genetics.

mufcboy1999

is there any way of actually getting tested to see what type of muscle fibers you predominantly have?

without blowing my own horn, im pretty quick and responsive and i know im one of the fastest at my football club and during my crossfit days my musclar endurance was very good, a recent bad groin tear has kept me out for 7 months leading me to go back and do more slow twitch training i.e heavy weight lifting as im trying to bulk up a bit but im also fairly strong for my size and weight and i didnt really have many problems in switching my training around but i would like to determine which training would suit me best? (genetically)

how do i go about this and more importantly is it expensive?

cheers

mushykeogh

I wonder what the average back squat 1RM was of the 8 100m finalists in last world championships was? 220kg? 250kg?

cc87

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

is there any way of actually getting tested to see what type of muscle fibers you predominantly have?

without blowing my own horn, im pretty quick and responsive and i know im one of the fastest at my football club and during my crossfit days my musclar endurance was very good, a recent bad groin tear has kept me out for 7 months leading me to go back and do more slow twitch training i.e heavy weight lifting as im trying to bulk up a bit but im also fairly strong for my size and weight and i didnt really have many problems in switching my training around but i would like to determine which training would suit me best? (genetically)

how do i go about this and more importantly is it expensive?

cheers

Muscle biopsy
Very painful
Hard to get it done
Wouldnt recommend getting it done, there is a huge risk associated with it for people currently involved in sports

cc87

mushykeogh wrote: »

I wonder what the average back squat 1RM was of the 8 100m finalists in last world championships was? 220kg? 250kg?

I think i read somewhere about how Bolt is different in that he doesnt have a huge amount of strength compared to other sprinters.

Having said that I think i remember thinking about how the source was slightly questionable

Barry.Oglesby

mushykeogh,

I think sprint technique is fine. Turning mechanics, agility training etc. is all good but it depends on the sport too. But I was particularly referring to field sports with my comments.

I don't think we have a balance yet between S&C and skill training. Kids spend about 3 hours a week training and one game per week playing. Now maybe they have a field or a quiet road to play with their mates on but that's the exception rather than the rule now, a total reverse from 15 years ago. Given a 90 minute window in which to train a group of kids, I would have the ball at their feet/in their hand from the first minute until the last.

Same with my guys in my gym. From the warm up through to their last round I want them doing movements from their sport- be it footwork, mat movements etc. etc.

As for worrying about what type of fibres you have? Look I know it's tempting and it's really sexy to want to know these things. And everyone imagines that what's holding them back is their genetics but bad news: you're getting beaten (to the ball on the court in the ring etc.) most of the time because you're not as good as the other guy, or you're not as dedicated as the other guy. That's it, 9 times out of 10.

Sure, sometimes a small guy needs to get bigger, and everyone could do with better agility (much easier to improve than converting fibres!) but really, from what I see, just train at your sport more and you will see more improvements than if you can squat 200kg. Now there's another discussion re: strength training and injury prevention that's a much more realistic scenario, but maybe that's for another thread.

mushykeogh

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

mushykeogh,

I think sprint technique is fine. Turning mechanics, agility training etc. is all good but it depends on the sport too. But I was particularly referring to field sports with my comments.

I don't think we have a balance yet between S&C and skill training. Kids spend about 3 hours a week training and one game per week playing. Now maybe they have a field or a quiet road to play with their mates on but that's the exception rather than the rule now, a total reverse from 15 years ago. Given a 90 minute window in which to train a group of kids, I would have the ball at their feet/in their hand from the first minute until the last.

Agreed, i use the ladders for kids who arent even playing field sports! Just as a way of improving their movement. 9 year olds who actually cant hop or skip, for that ladders are grand. Agree with the ball in hand stuff, i wouldnt actually use a ladder if was training kids for field sports.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

As for worrying about what type of fibres you have? Look I know it's tempting and it's really sexy to want to know these things. And everyone imagines that what's holding them back is their genetics but bad news: you're getting beaten (to the ball on the court in the ring etc.) most of the time because you're not as good as the other guy, or you're not as dedicated as the other guy. That's it, 9 times out of 10.

I dont worry about fibre types, just saying that fibre type is predominately set by genetics.
I worked with one kid who had a relatively small amount of so called "natural talent", he worked his sock offs for three years, gym, pool, diet, sleep, recovery, you name it, earned himself a scholarship to the states, job done.
Following year, a more "naturally talented" guy was on the scene but with zero work ethic, he didnt even finish the season with us.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Sure, sometimes a small guy needs to get bigger, and everyone could do with better agility (much easier to improve than converting fibres!) but really, from what I see, just train at your sport more and you will see more improvements than if you can squat 200kg. Now there's another discussion re: strength training and injury prevention that's a much more realistic scenario, but maybe that's for another thread.

True, but if you have the sport skills, surely having more strength and being able to utilise that strength can allow you to demonstrate your skill more effectively? That said, i think one of the top female us sprinters never did strength work and made the olympic squad in 2008( cant remember her name though).
Be a better athlete, as some guy once told me!

mufcboy1999

cc87 wrote: »

Muscle biopsy
Very painful
Hard to get it done
Wouldnt recommend getting it done, there is a huge risk associated with it for people currently involved in sports

whats involved in it mate?

seriousily you wouldn't recommend it? does it not give you satisfaction knowing which type of training suits you best...

cheers

Hanley

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

whats involved in it mate?

seriousily you wouldn't recommend it? does it not give you satisfaction knowing which type of training suits you best...

cheers

THey stick a REALLY f*cking big needle in your leg and take it takes a chunk out. Ever seen the yoke people use to core pineapples? Think along those lines.

And no, it REALLY doesn't matter.

cc87

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

whats involved in it mate?

seriousily you wouldn't recommend it? does it not give you satisfaction knowing which type of training suits you best...

cheers

What hanley said

A big ass needle into your quad and they take a chunk of muscle

Its not worth it just to find out your muscle fibre type, not only is there a huge risk associated with it, if it turned out you are best suited to the complete opposite of what you are doing now, would you change??

I turned down the opportunity to get one done for free a while back, i dont see any benefit to it

I dont care what kind of training suits me best, il still only do the kind of training i want to do and will get satisfaction from doing

TheZ

www.atlasgene.com

will test for ACTN3

be aware there is sketchy detail on how useful this test is

on a related point an Irish company called equinome are pioneering genetic testing on race horses to see what events they would be best suited to

http://www.equinome.com/