Proper Form

[Arrow]

I have two questions about proper form in sprinting:

1. Should I swing arms parallel to chest or inwards torwards chest? Which saves more energy and is more efficiently?

2. When striding, should one try to bend the knees and lift the heels back(as if trying to kick your own a$$)? Does this make for a more forceful and quicker landing when the foot snaps back onto the track? Also, when I start a race, I notice that I lift my thighs rather high and as a result I bob up and down alot as if I am jumping--is this a bad form and how do I prevent this?

Thanks!

[jeffA]

1. Your arms should swing pretty much parallel to each other. Try to keep the cross over to a minimum, i.e. they should definitely not cross the "center-line" of your body.

2. In a sense, yes; you should do that. But try not to focus on that or think about it too hard when sprinting. Because more importantly, you should be relaxed and not even thinking about form.

Look here for a good photo sequence relating to sprint form:
http://advantageathletics.com/2005/?page_id=39

Hope that helps

[Arrow]

Also, open or closed fists?

[teamV]

open

[Speed-driven]

i think fists r more optional..since its how comfortable you feel..with me i start out of a 400m..with my fists open..to build speed up until i hit the back stretch ..and that is when i have closed fists till the finish.

[barton_hurdler]

i run with my index fingers and middle fingers on my thumbs when i go slow, and when im sprinting i have them open for a Carl Lewis look.

[Yulaw2k2]

http://advantageathletics.com/2005/?cat=4

Thats a really good site to see how the great sprinters run, nice pictures of there form like every.1 second.

You can take a video of your self and cut every frame out and compare it to theres, thats what i did lol.

[thefattys]

Also, open or closed fists?

Doesn't matter. Arm drive is only important for the first few strides and then they are of no benefit. In fact, you could wrap them up with duct tape in the middle of the race and you would see almost no difference in top end speed.

[Rob J]

Doesn't matter. Arm drive is only important for the first few strides and then they are of no benefit. In fact, you could wrap them up with duct tape in the middle of the race and you would see almost no difference in top end speed.


I hope your saying that wrists wrapped with duct tape dont matter, as oppsoed to arms. They are so important, esp. at the end of a 400m.

[Coreyc]

1. Arms should remain nearly parallel to your body...they should also remain at roughly 90 degrees, that is, make sure your elbow isnt opening up when you drop your arms down. When in a full sprint, arms should go from about chin level, down to your hip/butt. I prefer to keep a loose fist when sprinting because this helps relax my arms, and keeps my shoulders down. Also proper arm drive allows for your hips to open up a few degrees which allows for a good stride length, this wouldnt happen if you had your arms duct taped.

2. You shouldnt focus on kicking your butt when you run, instead focus on bringing your foot over the top of your opposite calf, this will help maintain proper knee lift. If you are trying to kick your butt, you will be running behind yourself causing you to lean forward and have improper mechanics. Focus on keeping your foot dorsa flexed, that is: toe up, heal down. This allows for an active landing when your foot comes in contact with the track (a paw back motion). Lastly, it is hard to see yourself, but try to make sure when your foot hits the track at top speed, it is nearly directly under your hip. This will allow you to run tall and keep knees up properly.

It will feel weird and almost effortless if you incorporate this, you may even feel slower. But this is the way to run the fastest...analyze all top sprinters of the world.

[Coreyc]

The reason their arms open up is because the tremondous amount of power and force that is on display when they are sprinting, forcing their arm to drop. Obviously I dont mean keep your arm locked at 90 degrees, just try to keep it in that range, some kids drop their arm all the way down to 180 when they run. Eye level-chin level give or take a couple inches.

PS The main thing T Mont fixed was he started taking some vitamin S regurlarly

[thefattys]

Are you kidding me?

No, I'm not kidding you.

[thefattys]

I hope your saying that wrists wrapped with duct tape dont matter, as oppsoed to arms. They are so important, esp. at the end of a 400m.

Really? Are you sure of that?

[thefattys]

1. Arms should remain nearly parallel to your body...they should also remain at roughly 90 degrees, that is, make sure your elbow isnt opening up when you drop your arms down. When in a full sprint, arms should go from about chin level, down to your hip/butt. I prefer to keep a loose fist when sprinting because this helps relax my arms, and keeps my shoulders down. Also proper arm drive allows for your hips to open up a few degrees which allows for a good stride length, this wouldnt happen if you had your arms duct taped.

2. You shouldnt focus on kicking your butt when you run, instead focus on bringing your foot over the top of your opposite calf, this will help maintain proper knee lift. If you are trying to kick your butt, you will be running behind yourself causing you to lean forward and have improper mechanics. Focus on keeping your foot dorsa flexed, that is: toe up, heal down. This allows for an active landing when your foot comes in contact with the track (a paw back motion). Lastly, it is hard to see yourself, but try to make sure when your foot hits the track at top speed, it is nearly directly under your hip. This will allow you to run tall and keep knees up properly.

It will feel weird and almost effortless if you incorporate this, you may even feel slower. But this is the way to run the fastest...analyze all top sprinters of the world.

You realize, of course, that not one word of that is scientific. No, not one word.

[Coreyc]

You realize that if I paraphrased or copied a scientific lecture on sprinting in here, that not one high school sprinter that reads this would benefit from it, dont you?

[elcaballo]

Really? Are you sure of that?
have you ever run a 400? The arms power you home

[thefattys]

You realize that if I paraphrased or copied a scientific lecture on sprinting in here, that not one high school sprinter that reads this would benefit from it, dont you?

Actually, Coreyc, what you've written is what most sprint coaches would teach, but you won't find much in the way of scientific evidence to support what you've written. There are 2 problems here: stride length is increased by ground force, not arm drive (which must be controlled by the hips because of distal limb force); paw back motion during high speed running is not only a myth, it is impossible. There is no muscle mechanical work at top end speed because there is no time. Ground contact time is shorter than the amount of time for even the fastest mechanical work of muscles. In fact, what happens at top speed is purely impulse so that we are actually bounding.

Arm drive is only critical at the start in order to overcome inertia and gravity. Once the runner has taken a few strides, the arms are not doing much at all. Ground force at top speed and during deceleration is far more powerful than any force the arms could possibly deliver. It would feel ackward to run with arms taped, but it would have minimal, if any, effect on speed.

[Arrow]

TheFattys,

That is completely untrue. When you run, your legs push you forward, but the arms provide a counterforce that provides balance. This is especially true for sprinting where the runner generates a lot of force by pushing forward off the ground. Why don't you try sprinting with your arms taped? You're going to fall on your face if you actually sprinted. Better yet, just try running with your arms at your side like a penguin and tell us how that works out

[Arrow]

Arm drive is only critical at the start in order to overcome inertia and gravity. Once the runner has taken a few strides, the arms are not doing much at all. Ground force at top speed and during deceleration is far more powerful than any force the arms could possibly deliver. It would feel ackward to run with arms taped, but it would have minimal, if any, effect on speed.

Fine, next time you run a 400 fold your arms around your chest once you reach top speed. Tell us how that works out.

[remiks]

Arm drive is only critical at the start in order to overcome inertia and gravity. Once the runner has taken a few strides, the arms are not doing much at all. Ground force at top speed and during deceleration is far more powerful than any force the arms could possibly deliver. It would feel ackward to run with arms taped, but it would have minimal, if any, effect on speed.

After a few strides, I'm almost positive there is still inertia. An object has inertia no matter how fast or slow it's going, so if you say pumping the arms is important in the beginning because of it, its just as important for maintaining top speed.

[thefattys]

Why don't you provide the science here? Everything I have read points to arm drive being very critical, especially at max velocity where vertical forces are the highest. Also, what about rotational forces and torque and how the handle them. Without the arm drive, you would probably not be running too straight nor efficiently. You are completely incorrect. Go time yourself instead of saying it and see what the result really is.

Here's a quote from Peter Weyand, who is an expert in biped and quadraped running mechanics, with numerous publishes studied (unlike the stuff you've been sold by sprint coaches), "That is simply not true. The whole Tony Volpentest situation made this clear. How could coaches "explain" dorsiflexion for a guy who didn't have feet? How could they talk about proper arm carriage when this guy didn't have lower arms? They couldn't, because they were still in the dark ages."

He is talking about the same sprint coaches that you have been listening to or read about. They are NOT experts nor are the scientists. They are merely relying on what they see.

I believed the same thing you do until I actually stopped relying on what "coaches" told me and began to look up what phyisologist, biomechanists, and scientific studies actually said.

I was tweaking you a bit to get your attention, and you can believe what you want (obviously) but I made the mistake of listening to the wrong people for 30 years, so do yourself a favor and look a little closer to make sure what you think is actually true! You might be surprised, as I was.

What is happening out there is athletes becoming coaches, then spreading the same stuff they learned from their coaches. What you hear is 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th generation fairy tales.

Have fun, train hard!

[Arrow]

Here's a quote from Peter Weyand, who is an expert in biped and quadraped running mechanics, with numerous publishes studied (unlike the stuff you've been sold by sprint coaches), "That is simply not true. The whole Tony Volpentest situation made this clear. How could coaches "explain" dorsiflexion for a guy who didn't have feet? How could they talk about proper arm carriage when this guy didn't have lower arms? They couldn't, because they were still in the dark ages."

He is talking about the same sprint coaches that you have been listening to or read about. They are NOT experts nor are the scientists. They are merely relying on what they see.

I believed the same thing you do until I actually stopped relying on what "coaches" told me and began to look up what phyisologist, biomechanists, and scientific studies actually said.

I was tweaking you a bit to get your attention, and you can believe what you want (obviously) but I made the mistake of listening to the wrong people for 30 years, so do yourself a favor and look a little closer to make sure what you think is actually true! You might be surprised, as I was.

What is happening out there is athletes becoming coaches, then spreading the same stuff they learned from their coaches. What you hear is 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th generation fairy tales.

Have fun, train hard!

Could you please then elaborate on the taped arms part and answer our questions? If what you say is indeed true, I'll be very surprised. Im open to new viewpoints but only if you give me some reasoning behind your ideas

[thefattys]

What is not true? Provide the entire study if you want us to take it as fact. You can, of course, run without lower arms or feet, but how fast would you run? That's the question and until I see some people without arms or feet running sub 10.2 in the 100m, I am going to have a tough time believing it.


Is it the same type of sports scientists that advocate dorsiflexion the entire race or overspeed treadmill running? I trust the opinions and thoughts of John Smith, Charlie Francis, and Dan Pfaff far more than some schmuck scientists who has produced nothing and is generally studying a non-elite athlete under special conditions. Take a statistics class--you can make anything seem the way you want it to seem.


Read weyands study, you can find it yourself. Dorsiflexion is stupid and unscientific. Charlie Francis, the drug czar? Please....
Weyand's studies included Michael Johnson, is that fast enough for you?
You take the word of a shmuck drug dealer, and 2 non-scientists and build a case for what you believe? You ignore physiology and physics for people who coach the same as those from 40 years ago? You ignore biomechanists, those who study how the body works, for Dan Pfaff? John Smith with his extended head down nonsense that has no basis in running mechanics and who pumps his athletes up with useless mass, makes sense to you? I've coached a fastest sprinter in the world, what have you done to justify your position against fact?

I already said I posted to get you too take a look at science not science fiction. I still hope you do that with an open mind because it will help you run faster. If that was offensive to you, than I apologise for taking your time...

[thefattys]

Could you please then elaborate on the taped arms part and answer our questions? If what you say is indeed true, I'll be very surprised. Im open to new viewpoints but only if you give me some reasoning behind your ideas

I'm not advocating taping your arms, obviously, but they are not anywhere near as important as one might think. The driving force behind speed is mass-specific ground force, not just ground force. At top speed, arms are not powerful enough to make you run faster, the have nothing to do with ground force production. The runner who puts down the most mass-specific force will win the race, regardless of the angle of arm swing. The vertical portion of a sprint takes up to 10 times the power of the horizontal because of gravity. You must elevate to run, even though that elevation is not much, it is constantly repeated as you can see from this photo If the majority of your ground force is necessary to elevate, of how much value is the arm swing? It's not that arm swing is totally unnecessary, it's just not much of a factor.
Focus your training on mass specific ground force, (get stronger but don't get bigger), use plyometrics to train for faster delivery of force as ground contact time reduces (because of Newton's 3rd law) and you will run a lot faster.

[thefattys]

Give me a link--it's your support. Moving on, this discussion has nothing to do with drugs, so the fact that some of his athletes used drugs should have nothing to do with this discussion (although you would love it to considering he is both incredibly intelligent, being Stanford educated, and produced the best results yet. John Smith's drive phase is clearly a cue, although I don't agree with it and none of the coaches I mentioned are into over-emphasis of dorsiflexion. Again, though, if Weynand has produced a sub 9.9 sprinter (Dan Pfaff, John Smith, and Charlie Francis all have produced 2 or better).

You seem to think a scientist is always correct or uses logic. Lucky for us this is not the Renaissance or Medieval times and their erroneous conclusions don't mean life or death. Most scientists in "sports science" are a joke and try to draw conclusions based on what they want to see, rather than looking at the way it really is and then drawing conclusions. In this case, they are just ignoring common sense. It would take all of a minute for them to get their arms taped down and run and see how fast they go for them to realize how idiotic their point is.

Again, I urge you to go out with arms taped down and run sub 11. If you cannot do that, then you need to honestly question yourself how valid your argument is.

I don't assume a scientist is always correct, and since you don't know me you can't assume what I assume. You put more faith in coaches than science, and that is sad, expecially since you are not willing to look up something that challenges your belief. You assume something is common sense without any knowledge, yet you make statements like "most scientists in "sports science" are a joke. Since you have no knowledge of even who most scientists in sports science actually are, you cannot logically make that statement. In fact, Peter Weyand and his associates are not "sports scientists" they are, as stated earlier, biomechanists who did a study of what makes people run faster.

I already stated why I made the comment about taping arms and you got so hung up on that you can only come up with ad hominem fallacies to make a case for coaches who are not using science. I repeat, I have no reason to trust a coach who believed that drugs are the answer, so why trust what he says, even if he is "Stanford" educated. His "Stanford" education did not stop him from knowingly cheating. You should really spend time reading what you said and you might go past relying solely on "common sense", which is no more than that, and what you "think" you see. Your "logic" of thinking that because someone has coached a sub 9.9 sprinter they are doing all the right things is just as flawed since it is also possible that those they coached would have run faster if they knew more. If they did know more, they would not have created the michelin man bodies with added weight.
The real question is who the heck have you coached and what have you studied to act as an expert?

[thefattys]

And what about rotational forces? Your argument is completely illogical. You are saying that because sprinting requires a relatively high force production in comparison to weight, the arms have little factor. I just want you to read over that again and see what you are saying. As a historical note, the only real change in TMont form from his elite years to his WR year was changing his arm swing from tight and small to more open, allowing for a higher top speed to be achieved.

K, i read it. What is your point. What about rotational forces? Give me something scientific not your "common" sense nonsense.

[Coreyc]

I dont wish to get involved in this arguement as I am a college runner trying to get faster, whatever I can read that will help my understand the science of sprinting and what can make me faster I would greatly appreciate. Do you have any websites or links that I could look at to further understand my knowledge (or lack thereof) of sprinting. I consider myself pretty knowledgable but my coach has coaches a world champion runner and who took 2nd in worlds this last summer, so i find it hard to not listen to a coach who took a kid who went 50.9 in high school and now runs 44.35.

On a side note, how come an physiologist or someone who is in expert in the biomechanics of sprinting never coached or taught someone? It would be interesting to back up their science.

[thefattys]

I dont wish to get involved in this arguement as I am a college runner trying to get faster, whatever I can read that will help my understand the science of sprinting and what can make me faster I would greatly appreciate. Do you have any websites or links that I could look at to further understand my knowledge (or lack thereof) of sprinting. I consider myself pretty knowledgable but my coach has coaches a world champion runner and who took 2nd in worlds this last summer, so i find it hard to not listen to a coach who took a kid who went 50.9 in high school and now runs 44.35.

On a side note, how come an physiologist or someone who is in expert in the biomechanics of sprinting never coached or taught someone? It would be interesting to back up their science.

Read the article on the lower left side of www.bearpowered.com about running faster.

Physiologists do studies, they don't coach (thank goodness!). Biomechanists study how humans and animals move, including running. Coaches should keep up with what physiologists and other scientists are discovering about running and training. Cross country coaches are doing a much better job of this because of the vast amount of research and study that is available for distance running, but the old timers still like to fall back on old, out-dated training. Weyand and others are just beginning to do research on what makes people run faster (sprinting), but they will say there is a lot more that can be done. What they have found is that what is currently taught is not what is actually happening during high speed running. For instance, the fastest male(1999) sprinter's swing time (the time it took for the same foot to leave the surface and then make contact again) was only .03 sec. faster than a female runner who runs at just over half his speed (11.1mps vs 6.2mps), yet coaches still harp on turnover rate. The male sprinter could have decreased swing time, but there was no reason to do that because his stride length was so long that it would not have mattered. There is a lot of new measuring equipment available to coaches for measuring the effects of training but few are using the equipment.

[Arrow]

I still don't see your argument on how arms are not important in sprinting. Look at the elite sprinters--all of them have well-built upper bodies that are much stronger than those of distance runners. What do you have to say about this?

[Brumund-Smith]

Yes your arms help you in sprinting. Obviously they are not as important as the legs, but if you do not have correct sprinting form in your upper body, you are not going to be as fast. That is basically indisputed. Next time you sprint, thefattys, try swinging your arms across your body and tell me if you can run as fast. Obviously this will slow you down. Try running with your arms above your head. Obviously this will slow you down. Having your arms move efficiently and effectively can make you faster! DUH!

[thefattys]

I am not going to waste my time posting studies on the use of arms. You can find them yourself. You can also do a quick study for yourself by going out and sprinting with your arms taped to your sides! Simple as that!

Of course some sprinters may have been able to go even faster with different coaches, but who has the results? Until one of these biomechanics wizards (funny, it was generally these coaches that changed the mechanics rather than some tool in a lab) produces a fast sprinter, it is a rather moot point what they have to say. I know plenty of people who have gone to camps by these "biomechanic wizards" where they practice form the entire time and generally come back slower than when they left.

Still don't want to look up the studies davan? Still stuck on the arms there, chief?

Which biomechanic would that be? Which camps are you talking about?

I feel sorry for ostriches. They run on two legs yet they are almost torn to shreds by rotational force because of they don't swing their arms at the proper angle. And those skinny legs! My goodness, Charlie Francis could pump those legs up and make them stupid birds fly (with some special cream,maybe?). Smith would keep those slim-necked critter's heads down for the perfect amount of time, and dudley Dan would show them how to truly work their front-side and back-side action to perfection. No doubt in my mind that a great coach could easily get that top speed of 40+ mph down to 30 or 35 in no time with their voodoo training (and a little secret sauce, maybe?).

[thefattys]

Yes your arms help you in sprinting. Obviously they are not as important as the legs, but if you do not have correct sprinting form in your upper body, you are not going to be as fast. That is basically indisputed. Next time you sprint, thefattys, try swinging your arms across your body and tell me if you can run as fast. Obviously this will slow you down. Try running with your arms above your head. Obviously this will slow you down. Having your arms move efficiently and effectively can make you faster! DUH!

Well, we can't talk on here about scientific studies because it seems to insult some. So I'll just use the same type of "proofs" that seem to abound here: I don't think it will reduce top end speed so it won't.

Running with your arms above your head is a different dynamic so I would think...oops- so it is absolutely sure, as everyone else in the world knows (all 6.5 billion people except for those ignorant biomechanists, of course), that you would immediately start to elevate at a high rate of speed, then glide at a level of 7-8 feet off the ground for the duration of the run. And that, Brumund-Smith is indisputable. Duh! :D

[Brumund-Smith]

thefattys, you are possibly the biggest idiot on the face of the earth. Nobody cares how animals run, we're not talking about animals. We're talking about HUMANS! HUMANS! Tell you what, we'll ran a 400m against each other. I'll use my arms and you'll tape your arms to your side and we'll see who wins. Please post a scientific study that proves your point. I guarantee you won't find any.

By the way, I posted something that IS indisputible. You posted something that you think makes you sound clever, but actually just exposes you as a jackass.

[sjm1368]

To say that arms are not needed in running/sprinting is rediculous. It's not even worth an argument.

Go out and try a little experiment. Try sprinting with correct arm swing. Then try sprinting with your back swing of the arm going too far back and causing your shoulder to rotate a bit...video tape it and notice when you throw your arm back too much, it throws off the stride mechanics of the opposite leg, and will throw off your landing phase or whatever you want to call it of that leg (most likely causing you to "reach" with your lower leg instead of landing with about a 90 degree angle).

You can do the same experiment the opposite way. Run with your arm stroke being shorter than normal, meaning you cut it off a bit before you hit the stretch reflex on the backswing. This will also throw off your stride.
If you have too much or too little arm swing it can shorten or lengthen the time that force application occurs. That's why optimum arm swing is needed.

Simple conclusion....pay attention now......arm swing is connected to your lower body stride! brilliant! properly directed arm action can facilitate the reaction of the lower body.

[remiks]

I feel sorry for ostriches. They run on two legs yet they are almost torn to shreds by rotational force because of they don't swing their arms at the proper angle. And those skinny legs!

We're not ostriches. Its clear that arms do play a part in maintaining balance & help you during a sprint, and its proven with concrete examples, while I haven't seen anyone who runs with their arms at their sides after 'overcoming inertia and gravity' as you would put it experiencing any great success.

[Arrow]

thefattys,

your last post just made me lose all credibility I had in you, which wasn't much anyway.

Before posting a response, why don't you use some basic reasoning skills first? Better yet, test out your theories on the track. You talk a lot of crap but its all meaningless if you can't back it up with results. If arms were not important I dont see why elite sprinters would work on their upper bodies.

[Rob J]

Really? Are you sure of that?

Yeah arms defiantly are important at the end of a 400m, they are the afterburners for the runner and the big extra boost that has been waiting in the tank till the runner gets desperate for energy.

[adidas400]

yeah try sprinting with ur arms at ur side. It sucks. Youll run like napolean dynamite.

[Coreyc]

thefattys,

your last post just made me lose all credibility I had in you, which wasn't much anyway.

Before posting a response, why don't you use some basic reasoning skills first? Better yet, test out your theories on the track. You talk a lot of crap but its all meaningless if you can't back it up with results. If arms were not important I dont see why elite sprinters would work on their upper bodies.

Was Allison Felix successful?

Guys dont get caught up in his whole arms comment, he says he wasnt advocating not using arms, just saying that during max velocity that arms dont provide the proper force to make you run faster...he didnt say the start of the race, or the finish of the race, when max velocity isnt present and these are the examples you guys are using.

[Arrow]

Was Allison Felix successful?

Guys dont get caught up in his whole arms comment, he says he wasnt advocating not using arms, just saying that during max velocity that arms dont provide the proper force to make you run faster...he didnt say the start of the race, or the finish of the race, when max velocity isnt present and these are the examples you guys are using.

Well everybody here is saying how the arms power you hoem at the end of the 400 while this guy here comes in and say you don't need arms once you reach max speed. True, they might not make you faster once you reach top speed, but they provide the balance to maintain that top speed.
Also, during max velocity, nothing will make you run faster anyway since you have reached "max" velocity. So whats his whole argument here?

[thefattys]

Were Maurice Greene, Asafa Powell, Donovan Bailey, Ato Boldon, FloJo, and Marion Jones successful?



They apply plenty of force and help the body have proper form! Run with your arms at your sides and see for yourself! I don't see why arms would help at the beginning and the end, but not at max velocity, when opening up the stride is key and the arms help in this.

Don't like animal analogies? Try football players, especially receivers and running backs. Spend some time thinking about it before coming up with ridiculous comments based on coaches with no clue about how people run. Think about what would happen if what you believe about "rotational forces" was true. Stop parroting your heroes and think for yourselves.

How about standing up and thrusting your arm in a running motion as hard and as fast as you can. Try it. Did you fall over? Did you lurch forward? Were you thrown off balance, even the slightest bit? Stand on one leg and do it. Were you thrown totally off balance? Did you slam into a wall or fall over a chair?

Not a valid test? WATCH FOOTBALL! Really watch it. See what really happens, not what you think you see.

[Rob J]

thefattys, you are possibly the biggest idiot on the face of the earth. You posted something that you think makes you sound clever, but actually just exposes you as a jackass.

Lets just say Brumund-Smith knows what he's talking about...

[remiks]

Don't like animal analogies? Try football players, especially receivers and running backs. Spend some time thinking about it before coming up with ridiculous comments based on coaches with no clue about how people run. Think about what would happen if what you believe about "rotational forces" was true. Stop parroting your heroes and think for yourselves.

Are you implying that recievers, half backs, and full backs don't run significantly faster without the ball? If arms didn't matter, explain why a DB who runs a 4.7 40 Yard Dash runs down the 4.3 second running back with the ball from 20-30 yards out like Davan said. Do you think someone who runs a 10.9 would chase down a guy who runs a 10.0 from 15 meters out? Of course not! If the 10.0 guy was carrying a football, of course, it'd be a lot more possible.

[thefattys]

Lets just say Brumund-Smith knows what he's talking about...
LOL that's good

[thefattys]

Hmm, I see a lot of guys with supposedly superior speed get run down when they have the ball in their hands. It should also be noted the speeds they reach while in their pads and on the grass is rather slow in absolute terms). Even then, guys with superior speed routinely get chased down. Hell, I had a video clip before of a guy chase down Barry Sanders from nearly 20 yards away. Regardless of who you are, 20 yards is a tremendous distance to make up in such a short distance (<60 yards).

When I pump my arms hard, my body moves around a fair amount, considering I was just in the standing position.

Rotational forces can be seen yourself. Your knee drives towards the midline, rather than straight in front. Your arms follow suit on the other side with the hands driving towards the midline. Watch FloJo front view--perfect example.

If these coaches don't know what they're talking about, I sure don't want to know what I am talking about either! They have just produced the world records and fastest times ever run and all--they cannot be doing anything right, oh no, they are far too unscientific, although your scientists reference birds in a study about biped mammals with much larger upper bodies. That sounds very scientific to me.

Nice try Davan. The rotational force your so sure of, that is so powerful it turns you when your standing still, has no effect on a runner at high speed driving only one arm fully forward while carrying a football. Amazing. If the rotational force was that strong, the runner would be forced to turn to the opposite side of the free swinging arm. You will come up with any non-sense. I've seen many receivers match stride for stride with a defender until they catch the ball, when they don't have to slow down to catch it, still out run the defender while only using one arm. I know, you've never seen that.

Biped animals with much larger upper bodies? And your point about that is? Are larger upper bodies a plus or a minus? What is scientific to you? Drugs?

[thefattys]

Are you implying that recievers, half backs, and full backs don't run significantly faster without the ball? If arms didn't matter, explain why a DB who runs a 4.7 40 Yard Dash runs down the 4.3 second running back with the ball from 20-30 yards out like Davan said. Do you think someone who runs a 10.9 would chase down a guy who runs a 10.0 from 15 meters out? Of course not! If the 10.0 guy was carrying a football, of course, it'd be a lot more possible.

Gee what a loaded example, did the receiver have to slow down to get the ball? Was the dback running at an angle and that allowed him to make up more ground?

And yes, I'm implying that a runner who gets clear and has a chance to excelerate to his top speed will be running nearly the same top speed as when he is running without the ball, assuming all the other conditions are the same (like the surface, wind, ect.). Are you telling me that Reggie bush is 2-3 seconds faster in a 100m than every dback they play against? That he can run from a full tuck with the ball (i guess he must have another set of hidden arms that allows him to drive hard), bounce off several player, accelerate to top speed with only one arm (and not turn sideways from the unequal rotational force) drive past an unblocked dback (all of whom must be very, very slow) because he is simply that much faster than every one he plays against. By your example he must be doing a 3.8 40 to beat those lowly 4.7 guys.

You guys are pretty gullible.

[thefattys]

thefattys, you are possibly the biggest idiot on the face of the earth. Nobody cares how animals run, we're not talking about animals. We're talking about HUMANS! HUMANS! Tell you what, we'll ran a 400m against each other. I'll use my arms and you'll tape your arms to your side and we'll see who wins. Please post a scientific study that proves your point. I guarantee you won't find any.

By the way, I posted something that IS indisputible. You posted something that you think makes you sound clever, but actually just exposes you as a jackass.


You know Brumund-Smith, if you guys would go get Peter Weyand's study, you would see that there is studies that prove what I'm saying. What you cannot show me is studies that prove what Davan is saying. What you posted is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Which is exactly what the problem is with the coaches mention on here earlier.

I've been coaching for 30 years and I believed exactly what you all believe for most of that time. The difference is that after all that time I actually looked for evidence from studies, not ancedotal evidence that comes from a coach.

I'm not trying to sound clever, I obviously keep coming back on here to present my case despite being called a variety of names ( of which some are true unfortunately). The difference is that I have already coached world class athletes and to the best of my knowledge, none of you have. It won't be long before several other studies will be presented out of Rice University in Texas, that will dramatically change training for speed.

You are wrong about looking at how animals run because many run very similar to how we run, and we can learn from that. Of course we can't use all of it but we can use a lot.

All of these guys talk about me being illogical, but how illogical is it to train for greater stride length and greater turn over rate (which is really swing time) at the same time. If you increase stride length, why would you need faster swing time? Weyands study showed that the difference in swing time between an 11.1 mps sprinter (a real live sprinter) was only .03 seconds faster than a trained, but slow, female running at 6.2 mps. Why would a coach spend any time on reducing .03 seconds? The faster runner could have reduced the .03 easily, but that would have left a big problem--he would still have to wait in the air because of his significantly longer stride length. Is it a good idea to increase stride length then? Of course, but if you apply more force to the ground, you would get longer stride lengths anyway. That is pure physics. Newtons 3rd law. Sprint coaches are still subject to all of the natural laws, but they don't coach that way. The big 3 favorites of Davan all blow up their athletes in the weightroom because they all know that greater ground force causes longer strides. But longer strides means more air time, which means elevation, which means you must work harder against gravity, which means you should keep bodyweight down to offset gravity. So why would anyone want to make their sprinter bigger buy adding more mass. So much more mass that they resort to drugs like Remy and Charlie. If you add mass, you can't utilize all the new strength because some of it must offset the new mass.

So understanding, from scientific studies in a variety of areas, the effects of gravity, mass, and ground force is not wasted, stupid stuff. It is what makes us run faster, Davan's buds, the ones he thinks so highly of, do not understand how to control mass, the effects of gravity, or the effects of force or they would not do what they are doing. If they did, those athletes would run a lot faster.

[sjm1368]

found this interestin in regards to your football analogies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14748458&query_hl=2
Sprinting 20 m with the ball under the left arm (2.61 +/- 0.15 s) or under the right arm (2.60 +/- 0.17 s) was significantly quicker than when using 'both hands' (P < 0.05), and both these methods were significantly slower than when running without the ball (P < 0.05).

[Coreyc]

"Each sprint consisted of a 10-m rolling start, followed by a 20-m timed section using electronic timing gates."

There is the end of that discussion...it is impossible for times to be conisistent when there is a 10m rolling start.

Also...+/- .15s and .17s is a very significant amount of time over 20m...heck its a very significant amount of time over 100m (11.05 vs 11.22 is a very large margin of victory).

[remiks]

Are you telling me that Reggie bush is 2-3 seconds faster in a 100m than every dback they play against?

I never said anything about being 2-3 seconds faster. Where did you get that from?

That he can run from a full tuck with the ball (i guess he must have another set of hidden arms that allows him to drive hard), bounce off several player, accelerate to top speed with only one arm (and not turn sideways from the unequal rotational force) drive past an unblocked dback (all of whom must be very, very slow) because he is simply that much faster than every one he plays against.

Him getting away from players doesn't mean hes going as fast as he would without the ball. He's doing a lot more than just running straight, its a ton more cutting, slashing, jukeing; which all help him make up the speed lost by carrying the football (not saying its an astronomical amount, but the arms do help.) Running past a dback could mean a ton of things; no one's saying you can't pick up speed while holding a football. It'd be the same if someone got a 10m rolling start and someone had to chase them when they hit their mark, the person who got a head start will have a higher initial velocity and will be diffficult to catch as the person waiting at the line will have 0 initial velocity. Its not like Reggie Bush never gets tackled, anyway, which goes back to my point about a faster runner getting taken down by a slower runner because he's carrying a football (he could also be tired, etc.)

I've seen many receivers match stride for stride with a defender until they catch the ball, when they don't have to slow down to catch it, still out run the defender while only using one arm. I know, you've never seen that.

Reciever doesn't have to be going full speed to be matching stride with the defender. You can still pick up speed after you catch the ball; no one is saying that's not true. While the pass is in the air, they both should be looking at the ball, and when turning your head (even slightly) you definitely won't be going at full speed. After the pass is caught, the reciever'll take off, and if he's faster than the db he'll beat him. If the DB is faster or of equal capability speed-wise he'll catch him, because the reciever will not be going as fast witht he ball in his hands.

PS: Don't take offense or anything, I just don't agree with the whole arms statement. :) For me to believe that arms don't have as much a bearing as we all believe to the sprint, I guess I'd have to try it myself and carry a football or something during a workout, and compare my result to me without the football.

[Rob J]

thefattys,

exactly how far are you prepared to go on this?

[lances00]

Please dont believe arm drive isnt important,number one
your balance,the back swing goes hand and hand with your
drive.