Recently, Ken Jakalski and I were discussing the reason why some coaches find it difficult to accept that the simple approach to training for speed should be preferred.

There is enough research available to dissuade coaches from continuing to prescribe aspects of their training that simply doesn’t do anything.

What we’ve gleaned from our former coaching methods is that no real line of demarcation exists between workout protocols. Sure, some coaches like to use different gadgets and gimmicks (such as sleds and parachutes), different strength training sets and reps, different percentages of effort and distances of repeats, etc. In addition, a majority of coaches would agree that running fast in practice is necessary for running fast on the track or on the surface of any sport venue where speed is a major factor. The cliché, run fast to be fast is universal.

Since our “discovery” of new research into training for speed, we’ve both (independent of each other) made the commitment to take the shortest, simplest route to speed training. After all, why not trust the existent science to provide all that is necessary to running faster? A simple running protocol and a simple strength training protocol will do the job perfectly well, thank you!

Or will it?

Several years ago, while I was working with Allyson Felix, I sat next to Trevor Graham and Justin Gatlin at a well known meet in the southern California area. At the time, Graham wasn’t embroiled with problems of suspected drug use among his athletes. I excitedly told Graham the new strength workout I prescribed for Felix and (naively) asked him how it compared to the strength workout Gatlin used. Graham remained quiet for a few moments then turned toward me while answering: “Whatever you’re doing with Felix, keep doing it.” He said nothing about his strength or speed training methods. 

His response caused me to feel awkward for a moment, but I quickly realized my naiveté in asking Graham how he trained.

Of course a pro coach wasn’t going to reveal any secret coaching methods to an amateur like me let alone another coach! He was not going to divulge his own secrets of faster running to anyone (Graham subsequent problems with the law have caused some of the “secrets” of other pro coaches to be revealed).

Yet there still remained something of a mystery to me: Why would a coach, at any level, not take the short, simple, effective and science based route to increased speed?  Was there still some method of training I was missing? Had researchers missed some aspect of speed training that was hidden from them, and us, by those who coach elite athletes?

Despite the knowledge I had obtained through the painful reading of research papers, email correspondence and face to face discussions with locomotion experts, I still believed there was a missing ingredient somewhere—that is until I received an email from the head strength coach of one of the most well known professional teams in all of sports.

We discussed both his current training protocol and mine. He asked several questions regarding the validity of our workout for his sport in particular. We discussed certain aspects of their current training that he thought might still be worth retaining. Throughout the conversation, I reiterated the reason for the simplicity of our training method.

In the end, he thanked me for my time, then asked a rhetorical question: “How can I justify my position to the owners of this team with such a simple workout? Why would they continue to pay me my current salary for the minimalist workout you propose?”

Eureka!

I had no answer for him but I did have an answer for myself: The economics of professional coaching in regards to strength and speed. In other words how does one coaching at the elite level differentiate their methods enough to justify their cost over another elite level (or even non-elite level) coach?

By keeping some of their methods a secret?

By revealing some aspects of their training that have little practical application (such as increasing mass in the calves) but sound as if they are of primary importance?

By spending training time on minimal or no benefit running “techniques” like head angles out of the blocks or proper arm swing at high speed?

Do these methods really do anything or are they a means of separation from the others to justify the cost of the training?

So there is no misunderstanding, I see nothing wrong with charging for training since I do that as well. However, I don’t keep any secrets (obviously from the title of my book, Underground Secrets To Faster Running).

Are there differences in training between coaches in the world of speed?

I believe there is. However, I believe that the differences are not due to some secret ingredient but rather in the relationship between coach and athlete. The coach who fully understands their athlete when they are emotionally down, not motivated to work, reacting to a poor performance or any of a number of personal issues is a great coach regardless of the level of athlete

I have no doubt that those who compare the how and why of what I coach to those who work exclusively in the world of elite athletes, I am a simpleton!

Barry Ross