“While the focus of track coaching education in the U.S. is on improved technique and efficiency, Jakalski and other like-minded coaches present a glimpse as to where the field might go one day.”

John Cissik, NSCA Journal

Neither Barry nor I want to anger colleagues who have spent major portions of their careers looking very closely at the relationship between kinematics and speed. We are not proposing any revolutionary theory to speed, we have no intellectual property we are trying to endorse, protect, or market, and we certainly aren’t trying to discredit researchers who have been involved in valuable kinematic studies since the early eighties. 

In addition, we’re not looking only at the Weyand research to the exclusion of all other research, nor are we basing our position solely on the swing data that explored the issue of speed from force rather than kinematics.

In fact, I believe the following will be most enlightening, at least in terms of my own change in thinking. Here are a few of my Supertraining posts from years back:

“When Mel first presented Dr. Weyand's Journal of Applied Physiology study to the group over a year ago, I too challenged the research, and shared my views in a post that initially suggested my concern that important aspects of sprint mechanics were being overlooked.”

What specifically was my challenge? Here’s that original letter:

“In light of the studies of the late Leigh Kolka, as well as those of Pink, Hamilton, Mann suggesting that propulsion is coming from the free swinging limb, I’m trying to understand the Weyand, Sternlight research which concluded that human runners reach faster top speeds, not by repositioning their limbs more rapidly in the air, but by applying greater support forces to the ground.

If this were a high speed treadmill (which I’m sure was the case) what if they fitted all subjects in an exo-harness (for safety) and accelerated them beyond their top end speed?  I wonder if all would reach failure at the same time?  What will cause failure, ground force breakdown, or the inability of the free swinging limb (hip flexors) to “call the hip forward”?  If it appears to be the latter, then what are we saying truly defines the limits of maximum velocity? 

Perhaps we should look again at Roger Mann’s 1980 study (Biomechanics of Walking, Running, and Sprinting” American Journal of Sports Medicine).  “It appears hip flexion is an extremely important part of running and, unfortunately, the one we have the least amount of data on at the present time.  As the speed of gait increases, the speed of hip flexion likewise increases.  This may be the joint that gives us the biggest boost forward…”

Here’s another post:

“For those skeptical of the findings, I can assure you that I was also reluctant to accept them without a fight. As a high school sprint coach for the past twenty-eight years, I too could sight numerous athletes who I believe benefited from my attempts to enhance technique. Like many of my colleagues, I've been a long time advocate of the sprint model that most of us believe is essential in training both developmental and emerging elite athletes.

However, I was introduced to concepts that made it clear I was arguing from an entirely different context. My concern is that, without a firm grasp of this different context, "good information might be getting a bad rap."

So what is our position?

Questions relative to what actions create more ground force and what needs to be done
to improve them assumes that the ground forces are somehow determined by leg kinematics, and this, at least for me, lead to the various ‘kinematic duplication’ drills I had been doing since 1982.  From 1982 to the late nineties, if I came across a coach with good technique drills, I immediately put those into my program.  In fact, the Speed Dynamics “Drills for Speed” tape became my ‘technique bible’ for several years. 

What I’ve come to accept is that sprinting performance is a function of mass-specific strength and rapid force development.  These attributes are not conferred by some action, but rather by the muscle properties and stance limb mechanics different runners use.  We don't yet have the answer to how the fast sprinters do it or what physiological and mechanical factors allow them to.  However, virtually all the locomotion literature Barry and I have pursued has been consistent with the idea that runners naturally select the stance limb mechanics that are best for them.  In other words, there is no magic kinematic bullet that will provide the necessary mass-specific forces quickly.

The research indicates speed is a physiological attribute and while skill may be required, runners already operate at the limits of this skill. Teaching skill won't provide greater or faster force. For example, I would spend considerable time on ‘fast foot drills,” because the Speed Dynamics model noted that faster runners spend less time on the ground.  However, faster runners have shorter contact times as they run faster. They do not run faster because they take shorter contacts.  Further, the contact times different runners use at the same speed can vary a little (individual variation), but generally fast and slow runners use the same contacts at any given running speed. Trying to shorten contact time at any speed by leg swing or other ‘fast foot release’ drills would harm performance.

Ken Jakalski