Increasing Speed - Interview with Jon Goodwin

Here is the beginning of a great interview with Jon Goodwin, that was done by Patrick Ward on his blog. 
http://optimumsportsperformance.com/blog/

Increasing Speed – Interview with Jon Goodwin
by Patrick on August 9, 2010

Last month I attended the NSCA National Conference and watched a lecture on sprint biomechanics given by Jon Goodwin. The lecture was easily the best of the weekend and I jotted down a lot of notes. Jon was nice enough to take time out of his busy schedule (as both a coach and researcher on sprint biomechanics) to do this interview and I am very excited to present it to you.
1. Thanks for taking the time out of your day to do this interview, Jon. Could you please tell the readers a little bit about yourself.

Essentially, I’m a frustrated athlete. Injury ended my involvement in athletics and like many, coaching was my next avenue to stay involved in the sport I loved. I started coaching in 1997 and from there my coaching interest progressed from athletics to strength and conditioning. Whilst this was going on I completed a BSc in Sport Rehabilitation and an MSc in Biomedical Engineering before progressing from teaching biomechanics at undergraduate level to validating both a BSc in Strength and Conditioning in 2006 and a distance learning MSc in Strength and Conditioning in 2008 at St Mary’s University College in the UK. I now run these programmes whilst continuing some coaching and starting studies towards a PhD in sprint mechanics.

2. Your presentation at the NSCA National Conference on sprint mechanics was excellent. In that presentation you talked a lot contact length and contact frequency in attaining high velocity. Can you please talk a little bit about this? More specifically, why is contact frequency so important and what can we do about it?

The mechanical relationship here is real simple and governed by real simple rules.

Firstly, obeying simple laws of mechanics our motion is only altered by forces. We are subjected to 2 important forces when we run – gravity vertically and air resistance mostly horizontally. If not for these 2 forces we would just continue throught the air at a constant velocity forever. The job of running at max velocity is then to apply forces in such a way that we overcome the changes in motion that these forces create. i.e. when we land we need to arrest the downward velocity we have accrued during freefall and also overcome the loss of horizontal velocity we are subjected to due to air resistance.

Next, we need to think about when we are able to apply the forces that can do these jobs. The answer to that is simple too. The only time we can express these forces actively is when we have a surface to push against. i.e. when we are on the ground.

So now we’re left to consider; what are the variables we have access to while the athlete is on the ground? What things can a coach enable an athlete to change to apply force in a more effective way to allow faster top running velocities?

There are 2 variables we have access to here.

The first is contact length, the distance travelled by the centre of mass whilst the athlete is in contact with the ground. This is controlled by how long your legs are and how far you reach in front of your mass and/or push off behind.

The second is contact time, the time you take in contact with the ground. This is controlled by how long it takes the athlete to apply enough impulse (force x time) to halt their downward velocity and reaccelerate themself back into the air for the next flight phase.

You should be able to see here, we have the components of our standard equations for velocity; a displacement and a time taken to cover that displacement. This leaves us with a fundamentally important relationship for speed (and acceleration and agility) coaches to keep in mind.

Velocity = Contact length / contact time

Obviously our leg length isn’t something we’re actively going to change (not ethically anyway) and wide contact positions such as reaching in front or pushing off a long way behind have been demonstrated to become progressively more ineffective mechanically. Whilst there is likely to be some plasticity in contact length, possibly controlled by athletes strength around the hip, contact length probably only offers small opportunities for change. i.e. getting stronger might enable you to handle longer contact lengths (so allowing faster velocities) but we certainly aren’t going to cue athletes technically to reach out in front or push off further behind.

Contact time on the other hand has been shown to be a huge variable of importance. The primary thing faster sprinters do differently is they generate much higher peak leg extension forces on the ground and they do it much more quickly. This means they can overcome gravity and project themselves back in to the air in less time (air time being virtually almost constant across runners of different ability). With this capability they are able to cover their contact length in less time. So what happens to our equation? Contact time gets smaller, so velocity gets larger. This is the primary mechanism by which faster sprinters travel at faster velocities than slower ones.

read the rest here...

10 % Rule of Speed Training

If you’ve read speed training articles, or watched most presenters and dvds, and even if you’ve gone through coaching education you’ve heard it.

10%

That’s the most you want to load according to conventional wisdom, 10% of bodyweight. Of course that’s a bit arbitrary because are we talking a sled or parachute. Grass or track or turf? So it’s evolved a bit to be no more than 10% decrement in speed.

Only 10%

It’s been handed down over the last few decades like a prized heirloom from mentor to apprentice, coach to athlete.

10%. No more or else! If you use more, you risk detriment to sprint technique.

Almost all coaches will agree without thinking twice. This is blanket rule for sleds or other resistance training and it’s applied broadly to both acceleration and maximum velocity.

Why?

I stuck to this 10% rule in my early sprint training days because it’s what other track coaches taught me and made some sense. However, over time, I couldn’t find the full logic and my background as a weightlifting coach probably made me biased toward more load. As I did graduate work in biomechanics I developed a new lens to analyze it. For many years now, I have used heavy resistance (50% to > 100% Bodyweight) to improve acceleration in team sport athletes.

One way to add weight for Mark Sanchez?

If you ask most proponents of the 10% limit why, you won’t get many solid answers, because people aren’t asking the right questions. Let me help ask some.

Are you training acceleration or maximum velocity?
Big difference. The kinetics and kinematics are not the same in acceleration and max velocity.

Quick Review: Kinetics is about motion and causes (torque, force, impulse, rate of force development, etc…) and kinematics (velocity, acceleration, joint angles, alignment, etc…) describes the motion. From a technique standpoint, it’s chicken and egg. Each impacts the other.
In terms of force production what we know today is that the HORIZONTAL component is large in pure acceleration, but the VERTICAL component is dominant in maximum velocity. A heavy sled provides horizontal resistance. Makes sense why a heavy sled wouldn’t translate to max velocity sprinting.
It can be argued that in most team sport settings, it is acceleration that is more common and therefore more important. Right now what I’m talking about is focusing on improving acceleration. Since we are talking about acceleration, and most of the research on resisted sprinting is on max velocity, THROW IT OUT.
So what, if it acutely changes some kinematics?
Sprinting with resistance changes the kinetics and kinematics. So what? Is that inherently bad? Isn’t that often a goal of training drills?

In coaching athletes I am often trying to change kinematics. That can be the main point. I may be trying to develop a greater arm action, or a larger horizontal force component, or a higher stride frequency. It’s not whether or not heavy sleds changes things. For the coach it’s a question of; is it the change you want?

Speaking of different kinematics, what about some other drills that we use? Wall drills change the upper body kinematics, but we decide that the value of training the core and lower body motion is worth the temporary change in the upper body. Plyometrics have different kinematics as do many “technical” drills. Why are those OK but, heavy resisted sprinting is not?

Remember also, of the little data there is on acceleration, this is an acute change while doing the resisted run. The question is what does it do to the actual acceleration mechanics without resistance?

What are you using it for?
This is a key question that should drive our decision to use any drills. I like to classify drills as technical, training, or applied. This helps guide our selection based on athlete and training session goals.

Technical drills are designed to improve motor control, build kinesthetic awareness and teach the athlete how to move. Training drills are designed to elicit a training effect such as force characteristics, or energy system development. Applied drills are intended to add variability and let the athlete discover the movement solutions to different problems.

In a movement training session we will have some of each, but with a focus on one area more than others. I think resisted sprint drills can be used in different ways.

An athlete may get a technical benefit out of heavy sled resistance if it brings about kinesthetic awareness, helps them understand the feel of driving back. In working on 40 yd dash starts, I’ll use that heavy sled to build awareness of what it feels like to have tension in the start position.

It also can be a training drill. We can use it to build special strength and work on the impulse components. When used in a contrast method (which for me is almost always) it has a potentiating effect on the following un-resisted accelerations.

What research says it’s detrimental?
There is research, almost all of it on maximum velocity sprinting, which shows changes in kinematics with heavier resistances. Does that mean it causes negative adaptation?

I don’t care if the athlete’s time over a distance is 1000% longer if the technique is right. Lets imagine I have a very heavy load on the sled. The athlete goes for 6-10 steps. If it only moves a few inches on each stride, so what? As long as the mechanics are right and the contact time is good, why not? You are getting a stimulus even if it didn’t move.

Not exactly what I had in mind.

I definitely think you can cause detriment to acceleration technique if you use it poorly. Add a lot of resistance to the athlete and their form could fall apart. Allowing this while yelling “Drive harder!” isn’t what I consider good coaching.

Tips to best use heavy sleds for acceleration
Enough questions already. Bottom line, I question the proposed rationale for limiting sleds resistance to 10% when training pure acceleration. You might want to question it too. Here are some tips I use for sled resisted acceleration.

Use heavy sleds for pure acceleration.
After using these techniques and analyzing video I advocate using loads greater than 50% and sometimes up to 100% for the first 5 steps of acceleration and that’s it. If you are getting into longer distances I think you need lower resistance. As a matter of fact, we barely ever use any horizontal resistance during max velocity. I might be more inclined to add a weight vest to influence the vertical component.

Make sure you get the effect you are looking for.
Heavy sleds are going to change something. Whether its kinetics or kinematics, consider how the change will influence the adaptation you like. If I have a very strong athlete, who is a plodder with long ground contact times already, I need to be wary of very heavy sleds because the change may not be what I was looking for.

Contrast with free accelerations
Always follow heavy resisted acceleration with free acceleration. If you are using it as a technical exercise than this clearly makes sense. If you are using it for a training effect, it may not be as clear cut, but I still follow with free accelerations.

I advocate a “guided learning” approach to movement training. I introduce technical and training effect elements, then allow the athlete to solve movement problems. These applied drills are key for the individual to adapt the technique to their personal and environmental constraints. I think it’s a key to get a transfer effect into actual sport competition and preventing that robotic look to movement.

Use waves for more reps.
With an athlete that can handle a higher training load and will benefit from more reps, use contrast waves. Just increasing volume, you could add more reps in each set of resisted runs and then go to more reps of un-resisted accelerations.

Instead I would suggest doing multiple waves. Each wave would include 2-5 reps with resistance and then doing at least as many un-resisted. These contrast sets can then be repeated by going back to resistance and finishing with un-resisted. I find this helps with the motor control adaptation better and prefer a series of waves where each wave has fewer resisted reps.
Go Use It
So now it’s time to figure out what you are going to use. Ask the questions, analyze the acute effect. Review training adaptations and decide what works. That’s what coaches do!

NSCA 2009

Just got back from NSCA in Las Vegas. No speaking this time, but will be speaking on multi-directional speed in Orlando next year. It's easy to forget how enjoyable and valuable it is to get to spend time seeing friends and colleagues, that you may not spend time with often.

One of the things I was looking forward to, was actually trying the new Woodway Speedboard. I have worked with the Woodway Force for years both in research and in training. Its a great tool for many aspects of speed training, energy system development, and diagnosis.

Like the Force, the Speedboard was intriguing because it is self propelled. It would offer the opportunity to provide video analysis and feedback easily. It would allow instant changes in speed for in-outs or interval work, and we could switch between users quickly.



For me a key though is how it feels to a sprinting athlete, along with what it does to both the kinetics and kinematics. I haven't got one yet to do video analysis, but the feel was pretty good to me, and I was able to hear what some collegiate level sprinters thought.

It takes just a minute to get used to it, which is always a good sign for natural mechanics. While using a high speed treadmill, you sometimes can notice that need to focus on quicker recovery but not necessarily force production into the ground. On the Force treadmill you become very aware of the need for force production.

One of the things I noticed was that I did have to focus on force into the ground as I accelerated along with feeling the need for quicker recovery. I would say the feel was somewhere in the middle of the those other two modalities. This may make some sense since the curve of the belt means that you will need to increase force into the ground as you hit up higher on the belt where there is a greater angle. The angle of the deck transfers some of the vertical forces into horizontal for you thus increasing the belt speed.

All in all my initial impression is this is a device with a lot of potential. It is going to be great for individual or group interval training without question. For an athlete that needs max velocity training I think it will probably be good as well. Not a replacement for over-ground running, but it could be a very effective supplement. As I learn more and study the kinematics/kinetics, we'll find out more.

Mechanics

Communication. Most coaches you ask will tell it is they are critical.

Many are also terrible at it.

One of the places this shows up is in the terms we use to describe sport and training. Don’t believe it. Go look at many arguments in sports performance or coaching forums online and you’ll see there is a lot of mis-use and disagreement about terms.

A recent series of forum posts on EliteTrack.com helped point out a common one in coaching speed. Coaches readily jump into discussions and arguments about mechanics, but often, are not talking about the same thing and can’t give the same definition of mechanics.

MECHANICS DEFINED
Mechanics (Greek Μηχανική) is the branch of physics concerned with the behaviour of physical bodies when subjected to forces or displacements, and the subsequent effect of the bodies on their environment.

me•chan•ics (m -k n ks) n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The branch of physics that is concerned with the analysis of the action of forces on matter or material systems.

me•chan•ics
Pronunciation: \mi-ˈka-niks\ Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction Date: 1612
1 : a branch of physical science that deals with energy and forces and their effect on bodies

One of the clear things from these definitions is the connections between forces and their effect on objects (in our case humans). It involves both the kinetics and the kinematics.

KINETICS and KINEMATICS
When a lot of coaches talk mechanics or technique, WHAT they are really focused on is kinematics. The positions and motions observable to their eyes. Its easy to see how this happens; after all, your eyes are the tool you always have with and use while coaching. Early on it was easy to start using still sequence photos to analyze “mechanics”, then film, and now access to video is instant and everywhere.

Don’t forget however, that there are forces acting that create the motion and motion that is creating forces. They are there, if you don't have a force plate with you. They go together and true “mechanics” involves both. If you are only thinking about one or the other, you’re only half coaching your athlete.

Harness Drills

A tool I like to employ like many other coaches is harness drills. As I was watching some coaches use these recently I was reminded of the importance of not losing sight of the forest for the trees.

We use various harness drills for acceleration such as marching, skips and runs. The harness is a great tool because the resistance can help teach body position, focus on the drive angle, and even work a little on ground reaction forces.

To effectively teach a good powerline with the body around a 45 degree angle, the partner holding the harness must apply enough force to hold the training athlete steady. Too little resistance and the athlete can't lean.

Unfortunately as I was watching the other day, the athletes were making a common mistake. They were all trying to prove how strong they were and resist when holding with all their might. This often leads to the in the harness trying to overpower them in return using long ground contact times to generate more force.

I also saw another problem whicvh was uneven force. Whether it was kids with arms bent (which causes the arms to straighten and lengthen as the athlete makes ground contact) or the holders were in bad body positions, the amount of resistance was uneven. This makes it very hard for the training athlete to get the right kinesthetic feedback or generate a consistent force pattern themselves.

These are common errors, but the real error was the coaches. Some were actually trying to encourage the resistance to gain a big force production. True, there was a lot of force applied. Unfortunately the rest of the technical model went out the window. The old adage of the 10% rule tries to emphasize the idea of not adding too muich resistance. I disagree with this for acceleration(that's another post), but regardless you can never compromise the basic technical model.



As a coach you have to make sure this is done right. The harness is great beacuse you can have differnet athletes easily focus on different aspects. Force production, contact time, body position, range of motion, direction of force application, etc... but no matter what you can't sacrifice technique for huge force overloads.

40 Yd Dash Training Tools

Over this coming week I'll be posting about how we prepare our guys for the 40yd dash at the Scouting Combine. I'll be in Indianapolis with our guys for 8 days so I should be able to find the time.

One of the greatest challenges of preparing athletes for the NFL Combine is that we have such a short time. We need to find those places where we can have the most impact and which drills will be most effective.

One of the areas we can impact the most is the start. We are going to try and build power and impart some basic technique. I say basic because most of the guys never ran track. The mechanics of acceleration in football are generally in contrast to those that are best for the 40yd dash.

One of the common movement strategies is to stay low and to take quick, choppy steps. Great if you are a running back hitting the hole, or a lineman who needs to apply leverage against another 300lb guy, but really ineffective if you need to go straight ahead as fast as possible.

Acceleration bounds are a great tool for these guys. It helps then develop specific leg power and rate of force development. It reinforces applying them in a proper direction and often can help improve the range of motion.

We actually progress those short. choppy step guys using some 3pt starts directly into an acceleration bound. Though its an exaggeration, it helps them learn about building a drive phase. We do this as a contrast drill and progress towards an optimal 3pt start and first ten yards.

Some guys struggle with achieving a technically proficient bound however from a motor control standpoint. This is especially true for many of our "big uglies", the 300 lb linemen.

We have the FORCE treadmill from Woodway and its a great tool to help this. As you can see in the video below, it takes away some of the challenges and lets the athlete focus on 3 of our 4 main points; Big Force, Proper Direction, and Optimal Range of Motion.


We can add a significant load if the athlete can handle it since the FORCE has adjustable resistance. To facilitate motor learning we use it in a contrast method, where we go and do 10 yard starts after a few reps, and repeat this several times.

I find it very effective. We see instant improvements in fewer steps over ten yards, faster times, and a better drive action in the initial 1-4 steps. Then we have to keep reinforcing it and make sure they do it when the pressure is on.

Does Sprint Technique Matter?

This was the topic of my presentation at the National Strength & Conditioning Associations Sport Specific Conference. Instead of a presentation that just gave coaches a bunch of speed drills, I looked at the path I have gone trough as a coach and how I view the importance and application of sprint technique to team sports. We have a number of different camps today although these are stereotypes we all have seen them (and I've been in all of them at one point)
1 - Pure Strength Coach - "technique doesn't matter wothout strength"
2 - Classic Track Coach - perfecting technique is essential.
3 - Sports Performance coach - do it. "the athlete will figure it out if you work them hard in the drills"
As I have grown through the years I can see there is some degree of truth in all of these. The key is what you take from each, and how you apply it. We'll get much more indepth in this in the February webinar, but lets focus on one question for now.

DOES SPRINT TECHNIQUE MATTER IN TEAM SPORTS?
Of Course It Does! If we want to really break it down, there is no coach out there who is going to same that an athlete take 15 steps to cover 10yds, who is up on a planter flexed ankle or on their heels, with a frontal plane arm action, is using the optimum technique. Now thats an extreme example, but haven't we all seen that athlete?

A better question would be, "Can We DO Anything About It?"

Can we change technique?
Of Course!In the video below we have a visually subtle difference, but one that makes a world of difference. This athlete is preparing for the NFL Combine and Draft. This was part of a Max velocity mechanics coaching session.

In the second part you can see the blocking angle of the leg in front is slightly higher and the angle between the lead and trail leg is also slightly greater. Whether this is good or bad is irrelevant for this discussion. Its changed. And it changed because of different cueing and focus by the athlete.

There are some that argue about whether technique changes matter or whether its just about ground reaction forces. Silly question because how do you seperate the two? This particular treadmill is self propelled and it measures both the vertical and horizontal forces produced.

So now we can quickly answer the question; did changing the technique change the forces into the ground?
YES!
This athletes forces changed a little vertically, but a lot horizontally. This in turn led to greater power output and higher top speed.

So YES, we can change technique and alter ground reaction forces, the the question becomes "Can We Make the Change Last?"

Ground Reaction Forces

Ground Reaction Forces are a key component to consider in improving an athletes speed. Today in the track world there are some big arguements in this realm. They can become oversimplified and end as technique training vs. force training. Using the Woodway FORCE treadmill, we actually get to see whats happening in terms of ground reaction forces.

One of the things that surprised me as we started research with this several years ago, was that the horizontal forces are more sensitive to differences than the verical. Coming from the strength side of coaching and having been a weightlifting coach, I had an early bias (and still do at times) towards the "force" side of things. "Build more of the right strength qualitites to improve impulse and they will run faster" My thinking and understanding have evolved dramatically over the last 16 years, but there is still a lot of truth in this.

This ia typical horizontal GRF graph during an unloaded sprint on the FORCE treadmill. It Shows some variability as expected from prior reserach, but no consistent pattern. The athlete is not displaying a significant difference between the left and right legs.
An interesting note is that this athlete had an injury to the knee about a year ago. They rehabbed and played the season. On intake, they reported no pain or problems in this knee. As they were doing the test. this one was bad enough that we could here it before we could see it. However we find this differences even when they are visible or audible.

However, what we often see is below. It doesn't take a Master's degree in biomechanics or motor control to understand there is a problem here. We have an athlete that is generating a fraction of the force on one leg versus the other. This athlete was getting ready for the NFL COmbine where 40yd dash is critical to his draft position and making money. Obviously this can't be optimal. This also has to lead to some seriously unbalanced force through the kinetic chain and may lead to problems in the hips or lumbar spine.



The real key step to any assessment however is how do you use the information to help the athlete. Research is great to help us learn and grow, but for each athlete the questions is "What Now?"

Some we do a number of things. First we will use this data with data from functional movement assessments, joint rom and testing, other performance tests. Then we address the specific strength, stability and range of motion issues on this leg. We will also probably do some additional work on this leg with drills like fast leg, gallops and bounds when appropriate.