bigjohngreentights wrote:
Can someone explain how one would do this? In my own case, I can't hardly believe I became so slow at 21 after being reasonably fast as a middle schooler and HS freshman.
What can I do to regain "the magic"? I have been trying to work on speed for some time, but largely to no avail. It just "feels wrong", like I've "forgotten" how to sprint. It just doesn't "feel" like it used to.
Have you lost some range of motion?
isn't losing sprint speed between 15 and 21 more about recruiting fibers for distance? or to put it another way, it may take a serious program of retraining to get them back. I would think that pure sprint training, lots of explosive stuff, and weight lifting with high weights and low reps (like squats) would allow you to get back to 12 and below within a year.
jjjjjjjjj wrote:
isn't losing sprint speed between 15 and 21 more about recruiting fibers for distance? or to put it another way, it may take a serious program of retraining to get them back. I would think that pure sprint training, lots of explosive stuff, and weight lifting with high weights and low reps (like squats) would allow you to get back to 12 and below within a year.
You're probably right, although I think a reduction in ROM due to lack of stretching can also be a factor. If he can't reach certain muscle fibers, he can't recruit them.
define slow?
13secs 100m?
15secs 100m?
17secs 100m?
Lee_Ness wrote:
Little else?
No training, coaching, nutrition, development etc. just genetics. That will explain why people who are genetically disposed to sprinting just turn up and win Olympic !medals without any prior experience.
Oh which genetics exactly. It's kind of like saying physics is overwhelmingly the dominant factor in sprinting. It is true but doesn't tell you anything meaningful.
The influence of training is minimal compared to that of genetics—a lifetime of training makes a difference of a few tenths over 100m. Most sprint coaches, including elite ones, are completely clueless as to what constitutes proper training for a sprinter and much of what they subject their athletes to makes them slower instead of faster. Genetics is the factor that decides what caliber of a sprinter you will be and how far you will go.
knotasprinter wrote:
I think the point he is making is that genetics is the most important factor; not that someone like Usain Bolt doesn't train hard to become the best in the world.
For example, if Bolt didn't run a step for the next 3 years, and all I did was train specifically for the 100, I guarantee he'd still beat me. That's genetics. But if Bolt doesn't train 'extremely hard' in that same time period he won't be able to beat the world's best that do.
[/quote]
If Bekele doesn't run a step for the next 3 years and I trained specifically for the marathon he would still beat me.
Endurance is genetic.
If a chess grandmaster didn't play chess for 3 years and all I did play chess the grandmaster would beat me.
Chess is genetic.
How would you regain the ROM? Sprint drills? Yoga? Downhill running?
I can't relate to chess, but I disagree with you about Bekele. In those 3 years of not training, I'm also assuming a weight gain of ~25 lbs. I doubt if he was packing that much extra flab (and lost the specific training to boot), he'd still be able to put on a pair of shoes and run a 2:20. Bolt, on the other hand, 25 lbs or not, would still kill me in a short sprint.
bump
Can a tortoise morph into a cheetah if it works hard enough?
Captain Oblivious wrote:
ssdfasdlfjasj wrote:So you think Usain Bolt doesn't train extremely hard?
That's not the point. He didn't go from being slow to really fast.
He went from blazing fast to out of this world fast.
Captain Oblivious is an appropriate name for you. You're complety missing the point. Bolt would be nobody without training.
Laissez-faire capitalism wrote:
Lee_Ness wrote:Little else?
No training, coaching, nutrition, development etc. just genetics. That will explain why people who are genetically disposed to sprinting just turn up and win Olympic !medals without any prior experience.
Oh which genetics exactly. It's kind of like saying physics is overwhelmingly the dominant factor in sprinting. It is true but doesn't tell you anything meaningful.
The influence of training is minimal compared to that of genetics—a lifetime of training makes a difference of a few tenths over 100m. Most sprint coaches, including elite ones, are completely clueless as to what constitutes proper training for a sprinter and much of what they subject their athletes to makes them slower instead of faster. Genetics is the factor that decides what caliber of a sprinter you will be and how far you will go.
Contradict yourself much?
There are countless millions of potential sprinters on planet Earth. Very few break 10 seconds for 100m.
ssdfasdlfjasj wrote:
Contradict yourself much?
There are countless millions of potential sprinters on planet Earth. Very few break 10 seconds for 100m.
If you're actually dumb enough to be suggesting that sub-10 sprinters owe their speed to the quality of their coaching, your stupid opinion only begs the question, which is: "is sprinting ability mainly determined by genetics or training?" Your inability to see that is congruent with the quality of your conclusion.
ssdfasdlfjasj wrote:
Captain Oblivious wrote:That's not the point. He didn't go from being slow to really fast.
He went from blazing fast to out of this world fast.
Captain Oblivious is an appropriate name for you. You're complety missing the point. Bolt would be nobody without training.
No. You can borrow my name if you want. Bolt would be elite if he just went clubbing and ate a lot of yams.
marijuologist wrote:
ssdfasdlfjasj wrote:Contradict yourself much?
There are countless millions of potential sprinters on planet Earth. Very few break 10 seconds for 100m.
If you're actually dumb enough to be suggesting that sub-10 sprinters owe their speed to the quality of their coaching, your stupid opinion only begs the question, which is: "is sprinting ability mainly determined by genetics or training?" Your inability to see that is congruent with the quality of your conclusion.
Lay off the weed long enough to understand what I'm saying.
Read what I actully wrote a few times until you get it.