To run efficiently means optimising both step length (SL) and step frequency (SF) whilst minimizing energy loss and aberrant movement. Horizontal speed relies on maximizing these factors. To maximise SL and SF, the combination of flight distance and stance distance and ground contact time and swing times, need to be optimised. Proficient high speed running involves maximizing step length and step frequency by minimising both ground contact time and swing time. Although several important factors can be influenced through refined technique the fundamental underpinning of optimal SL and SF is vertical impulse.
Vertical impulse impacts both step length and frequency, particularly affecting flight distance and ground contact time. With a higher relative vertical impulse an increase in flight time can lead to an increase in SL. Combined with a stiffer leg spring there is a decrease in ground contact time, with shorter touch down distances (in front of the centre of mass) and a corresponding decrease in toe off distance (behind the centre of mass). With the stance leg in a more optimal position at toe off an effective folding and unfolding of the leg can occur through the swing phase with a resultant increase in step frequency. With effective folding and unfolding the leg can be put into a more optimal position to minimise braking and be able to generate high vertical impulses again at touch down and through stance. The underpinning determinant of vertical impulse, specifically related to running fast, is what I term as the “SOURCE”. The vertical impulse acts as the “SOURCE” for step optimisation.
Running fast and efficiently is underpinned by the SOURCE. It is the SOURCE that allows athletes to achieve the technical shapes during high speed running. As above, if the athlete has the SOURCE, they can minimise ground contact time and fold and unfold there legs more effectively. The SOURCE will allow the athletes to be able to reposition their limbs to hit key joint angles, limb positions and SHAPES synonymous with high speed running. The “SHAPES” are what I call these positions. Creating the SHAPE of a vertical thigh of the stance leg at toe off is a product of having a stiffer leg spring and a shorter contact time due to high vertical impulse generating capabilities (SOURCE). Creating the figure 4 shape with the shin of the recovery leg parallel to the ground as it intersects the stance leg thigh is again a product of the SOURCE which has afforded a more optimal toe off position for the leg to immediately and rapidly fold after toe off. Of course, many of the SHAPES can be taught or coached over time but without the underpinning SOURCE these SHAPES don’t often stand up under times of stress and duress. On the flip side, having the SOURCE doesn’t necessarily mean you can create the SHAPES. The propensity to access more optimal SHAPES is there if the SOURCE is there, however, motor skill development along with the SOURCE is essential.
Another important component of efficient high speed running is the coordinated, fluid, and rhythmic movement of the whole body – limbs and trunk. The timing of muscle activity and muscle relaxation of individual muscles and groups of muscle through different parts of the running gate is not only intricate but critical. The timing and extent of oscillations and effective rotations of different body segments is crucial for effective limb positioning, energy transfer and ultimately optimal generation of the SOURCE. The delicate interplay between forceful and violent ground contact with calm and smooth airborne movement is another vital key to efficient high speed running. This highly co-ordinated aspect of high speed running is what I term the “SYNERGIES”. Developing the SYNERGIES is best served by running at progressively higher running speeds in well planned training programs that manipulate essential training variables in order to provide the athlete with avenues to do so in a fresh state with low levels of fatigue. Developing SYNERGIES, underpinned by the SOURCE that can allow for the efficient creation of the SHAPES are for me the key ingredients to efficient high speed running.
The SSS through the lens of team sport versus track sprinting
For the team sport practitioner, we must be very careful when making direct comparisons with the training methods and philosophies of those that train the fastest humans. Those that compete in track sprinting aren’t there solely because they decided they wanted to be a track sprinter. This decision was largely determined off the back of their genetics. Sprint coaches working predominantly with this type of athlete often see speed development through a lens biased towards what they observe, record and experience with these unique athletes of theirs. Their athletes naturally have a very different genetic predisposition. For example, these athletes are likely to innately have a greater distribution of fast twitch fibres compared to our average team sport athlete.
Due to their genetic predisposition these athletes have the innate ability to generate a high vertical impulse in relation to their mass. They naturally have the SOURCE, and this is why they can run faster than most of their friends in the school yard. I previously have had the experience of testing 5 young kids (12-15 years of age) selected directly out of a tiny West African village. They had no training experience, no sporting background and sadly were badly malnourished. All 5 of these kids had strength, power and speed scores that would humble 21 years old’s that had been in a professional team Academy system for 3-4 years.
Of course, these athletes can and will further develop the SOURCE with exposure to consistent and progressive strength and speed training. Their SOURCE will develop further through both neural and soft tissue architectural and morphological changes with this training exposure. These adaptations will further enhance their speed but by virtue of their genetics, they start at a different level of SOURCE compared to most of our regular team sport athletes.
A few percent of our team sports athletes have some of these genetic traits. If they chose a different path maybe some of these athletes could have been able to compete internationally in the sprint events. I’ve personally seen one team sport player make the transfer over to sprinting in his late teens and compete very well at an international level. However, in my experience and to my knowledge this is very rare. The average team sport player lacks the SOURCE, while the sprinter was largely born with the SOURCE. Already we can see a difference in terms of what the priority and/or limiting factor may be when we start to compare team sport players with sprinters. We can also start to understand why coaching of the SHAPES and exposure to developing the SYNERGIES is likely to be more effective for one group then the other.
When we blindly copy the speed programmes and methodologies from track coaches, we disregard the differences in genetics between sprinters and most team sport athletes. We tend to overlook difference in the nervous system and physiology between sprinters and team sport athletes. We disregard the training background and training exposure differences between team sport athletes and sprinters and what effect that has on their physiology and load tolerance. We tend to disregard the demands of team sport from both a training and competition perspective.
Everything from the frequency of sprinting, the session volume, the speed intensities, the rest between efforts, the progression/periodisation and the technical model can all conflict with the make-up and design of a track sprinters training program. Unless there’s a very targeted approach, 2-3 quality speed sessions (be it an acceleration focused session, a maximal velocity focused session and a speed-endurance focused session) with track based volumes of work is difficult to achieve and risky with a team sport athlete. Exposing a team sport athlete to this frequency and volume of maximal or near maximal speed work must be based on the athlete’s history of exposure (not the previous month but the previous years of exposure). A periodised plan that follows the progressions of track athletes is a high risk strategy that often backfires on the well-meaning practitioner at some stage over the season. Track sprinters have years of adaptation to their training plans and have not just finished a brutal season of 30-50 games averaging 20-40 km of running every week. Following the rest times of track sprinters is another strategy that is not only unsustainable and logistically problematic, with the training and competitions schedules of team sports, but is also unnecessary. The physiology of most team sport players does not require the “1 minute rest for every 10 m travelled” heuristic used in track sprint training. In general, a slow walk back recovery that takes less than 25% of the touted rest time allows for sustained performance, with minimal accumulative fatigue, in most team sport athletes. Having this time back means a) you can actually get a speed session in within the small, allotted times but b) it also means you can be more gradual with your within session progression of intensity and be even safer with the exposure you give your players.
Warthogs, Stallions and Cheetahs
I affectionally group my team sport players into 3 categories that help me a) understand their limitations, b) align my expectation and c) prioritise their needs. The Warthog, Stallion and Cheetah groups are largely determined by genetics but can still be influenced substantially by training. Whilst their genetics determine each groups ceiling potential for speed there are often hybrids and blurred boundaries that exist between the groups.
A Warthog is more of an aerobic beast. They are often not built for speed. Many can be “gym strong” but when it comes to neuromuscular diagnostics (eg. jump and isometric assessments) there is a mismatch between the barbell and force plate. Some warthogs can have exceptional agility and good acceleration despite their lack of pure speed. Elastic qualities are particularly low in most warthogs. Warthogs work hard on the ground to run fast, and they can have quite an aggressive action that generally doesn’t look pleasing to the eye.
A stallion is an all-rounder, impressive aerobically but also has speed. They are exceptional in the gym and their force plate data aligns well with their prowess. Their prowess is particularly force biased. The stallions generally have an impressive physique and can easily gain muscle mass. The Stallions anaerobic capacity is well developed, and they can perform repeated high intensity efforts for fun. Stallions running actions have a little more bounce to them than the Warthog, but they still prefer to be ground based and push for longer.
The Cheetah is an all-out speed merchant. Their aerobic capabilities are often a work on or were once, something they had to work on hard at some stage in their career. These guys may or may not be gym strong but their relative force plate data in general is impressive comparatively. The elastic qualities of the cheetahs often separate them from the Stallions. Compared to the other groups these guys bounce a lot more and some can appear effortless at top speed. Cheetahs are naturally gifted with a lot of their physical qualities. In another life some Cheetahs may have been able to compete Nationally or even Internationally as sprinters.
No matter what, a Stallion, let alone a Warthog, would never have been able to compete in the sprint events for their state, let alone Nationally or Internationally. A stallion may have been able to fool people for a while, as a youngster, in the 800m and potentially the 400m but in time their hybrid genetics wont’ allow them to excel at either 400m or the 800m. The Cheetah’s are the only ones that might have had an outside chance as a sprinter.
Despite the overarching genetics, it’s important to note that a highly trained warthog can be faster than a poorly trained stallion but if that poorly trained stallion wanted to flick the switch and train, the warthog has no chance (note that a poorly trained Stallion hardly ever exists). Similarly, a highly trained stallion can be faster than a poorly trained cheetah (which is not uncommon) but if that poorly trained cheetah wanted to train even half well, the stallion would have absolutely no chance.
Within a sprint cohort warthogs and stallions don’t really exist. They may have similar sub-groups within a sprint cohort, but they cannot be categorised into the warthog and stallion domains of team sport players.
The Cheetahs are born with the SOURCE. That is one of the biggest differences between the groups. In this case the elastic abilities separate the Cheetahs from the rest. The Cheetahs have the propensity to hone their technique and develop their SHAPES to good effect with the underpinning SOURCE that they naturally possess. The Cheetahs SHAPES have the ability to hold up under duress and thus they have the propensity to further develop effective SYNERGIES through progressive speed exposures and systematic training. The further development of SYNERGIES is the priority for speed improvements for the Cheetahs. Equally the Cheetah’s might be “fast enough” for purpose, and it might be more about keeping them healthy and ready to tolerate the speeds that they can attain in both in a fresh and fatigued state.
Most Stallions are powerful, and they have worked hard to further develop this power and ultimately the SOURCE they have. They can get more specific in the exact SOURCE they need to develop to provided them with opportunities to improve their SHAPES further. Developing elastic qualities and modifying heavy/slow strength training and endurance based work will further assist the speed development of a Stallion. What’s important for these players is the development of their SHAPES. They do have the underpinning SOURCE and so they do have the propensity to hold SHAPES.
The Warthogs just don’t have the SOURCE. Although speed training/developing SYNERGIES and coaching of the SHAPES will help, they will always be limited in the SOURCE that they can generate. Emphasising and prioritising the general and specific development of their SOURCE will often have a positive effect with the Warthogs.
Although speed development need not be so polarised for these groups in simple terms the warthogs will benefit most from improving the SOURCE, the Stallions from improving the SHAPES and the Cheetahs from improving the SYNERGIES.
Developing the Source
Developing the SOURCE can be achieved through both general and specific strength training means. In fact, the SOURCE can be developed through the most specific means in sprinting, something I term “sprint-strength”. Sprint-strength is literally developing specific strength, both at the neural and tissue level, through sprinting. Sprinting in and of itself is a potent high force-high velocity stimulus that is highly effective at driving both neural and soft tissue adaptations. In my opinion sprint-strength is best utilised by those who already have the SOURCE that allows them to effectively hold their SHAPES. It’s these players who I feel get the best adaptation from sprint-strength.
As discussed previously the specific strength developed by sprinting isn’t something we can apply in substantial frequencies and volumes with team sport athletes. Additionally, the development of task specific strength through highly specific means, as in the task itself, has a ceiling limit of transfer if more general strength qualities aren’t maximised first. Therefore, we need training methods that can develop these underpinning qualities and then fill the gap towards methods that can provide a large stimulus in more task specific means.
Traditional strength and power training is important for acceleration performance and can often underpin the development of the SOURCE, high relative vertical impulse, for maximal speed in many players. However, at some stage the law of diminishing returns takes hold and there appears to be less and less of an effect on maximal speed. Often more specific means of strength training are required to develop the SOURCE for maximal speed.
Plyometric training is often a more specific means in developing strength qualities for high speed running. Contact times can be closer to those exhibited in maximal speed running and muscle-tendon unit function, length-tension relationships and ground reaction forces are also more specific to the task. However, the impact, load and rate of loading experienced with high intensity plyometrics that are used to improve maximal speed performance need to be carefully administered. In team sport athletes, with dense training and competition schedules, and with some team sport athletes required to carry substantial muscle mass, it is difficult to manage high intensity plyometric volumes that can truly move the needle and drive maximal speed adaptations.
Isometric strength training offers a complimentary training method that not only is an effective driver of neural and morphological, architectural adaptations beneficial for maximal speed running (for example, RFD and tendon stiffness), but it also serves as a method of high intensity strength training that can be specific, time effective and allow for rapid recovery. Run specific isometric strength training (RSIST) is one such method of isometrics that is used to compliment speed and plyometrics training and drive key adaptations for maximal speed running. RSIST concentrates on the muscle function (quasi-isometric) and the length-tension relationships specific to maximal speed running. RSIST appears to be the only strength training method that can surpass the ground reaction forces found in maximal speed running and with that the force can be produced in the same time frames found in maximal speed running.
RSIST has specific exercises designed to emphasise key joints used in upright running (the ankle, the knee and the hip). The intent used in RSIST prescription can bias RFD or maximal force qualities and can utilise both forms of pure isometrics (PIMA and HIMA). RSIST exercises also cross over into quasi-isometrics which can have a demand for the switching of limbs and the development of pre-tension before impact forces by the foot of the stance leg. In the RSIST quasi-isometrics the impact forces can be greater than those experienced in maximal speed running.
The RSIST variations offer strength training, or SOURCE development, options and solutions based on the targeted joint/s (ankle, knee or hip), the type of muscle action (PIMA, HIMA or Quasi), the intent of the action (ballistic/rapid, maximal or impact). Along with the categorisation of players (Warthog, Stallion and Cheetah), the run specific isometric assessments (RSISA) form an important part of strength diagnostics in determining specific RSIST emphasis. Extrapolating force-time data from both rapid force and maximal force assessments of the Ankle, Knee and Hip Iso-Push provides a first step in determining the development of SOURCE for team sport players.
By using established normative data you can determine whether maximal force generating capability or rapid force generating capability needs to be targeted for each specific joint. PIMA is generally the intervention of choice to increase maximal force generating capabilities. Rapid force PIMA is often the preferred option to improve rapid force generating capabilities. Once adaptation is maximised or if transfer is not observed the use of heavy HIMA’s and ballistic HIMA’s (Iso-Holds and Ballistic Iso-Holds) are recommended to provide a more specific isometric stimulus to replicate the specific type of isometric muscle action occurring at mid-stance (where the stiffness of the leg spring is controlled by HIMAs to avoid compression of the leg spring and further lengthening of muscles). Whilst the application of the pure isometrics (the Iso-Push and Iso-Hold derivatives) can drive adaptations, favourable for maximal speed, for multiple macrocycles, there is a strong case to use RSIST quasi-isometrics in the development of speed for particular players.
When both maximal and rapid force generating capabilities of the ankle, knee and hip are maximised; and both strength and control levels of the iso-holds and ballistic iso-holds for each joint are maximised and transference has stabilised, the RSIST quasi-isometrics (iso-switches and iso-catches) may be warranted. Again, the iso-switch variations, in particular, are a very high intensity RSIST stimulus with substantial impact forces and a high loading rate. Unlike the other RSIST variants, some co-coordinative aspects associated with maximal speed running are also targeted in these variants. The switching of limbs where the coordination between activation and relaxation of different muscles and muscle groups and the pre-activation of the downward swinging leg to ready for impact are essential aspects of the iso-switch derivatives. The iso-switch is therefore even more specific to maximal speed running and based on the SOURCE prerequisites established through the pure RSIST isometrics, presents an adaptive solution for well-trained players or players who are in more genetically gifted categories.
Despite many Warthogs being well versed with the barbell many often benefit from enhancing joint specific maximal iso-push abilities. Some warthogs have very well developed knee iso-push maximal force abilities but when it comes to their ankle iso-push their number can be quite underwhelming. Although all RSIST variants can be used, in general the Warthog often gets a lot out of emphasising and focusing on the maximal iso-push to build their SOURCE.
The Stallions are slightly different. Their knee iso-push is often excellent, yet they may have some discrepancies at the ankle and hip. In general, their iso-push scores are well above average and at good levels. The Stallions can focus on more rapid force iso-push options across the joints and incorporate more specific heavy iso-hold and ballistic iso-hold options for to maximal speed running.
The Cheetahs with their naturally gifted SOURCE can still benefit from the RSIST variants. Although they might take a bit of motivation, they will be able to put out some impressive maximal iso-push numbers across all three joints. Their rapid force expression will also be excellent. They will be able to put out very high relative numbers in very short time frames. High loads for Cheetahs should be specific and be administered via iso-hold or even higher loading ballistic iso-holds. Either due to their training background, or because of their genetic predisposition, the Cheetah’s are prime candidates for the iso-switches. These players can generally work at much higher loadings in the iso-switches and these loadings will prepare these players for the force and loading rates that they can and will achieve at various times throughout the season when they hit their maximal speeds.
Developing the SOURCE is the fundamental aspect of maximal speed efficiency and performance. Understanding the individual player and what their physical needs are can go a long way to prescribing the right strength stimulus to both increase and complement maximal speed running. Although this article primarily focuses on the development of the SOURCE, training for maximal speed is never one dimensional. Although, emphasis might be placed on either the SOURCE, the SHAPES or the SYNEGIES for any one individual it is never the sole focus of the maximal speed training program. A combination of training elements and foci is always recommended.
