According to the Weyand, et al, 2000 JAP study, speed is derived from the mechanics of ground force application. Because of this fact, and absent any contrary research data, it is well known that as the runner increases speed, kinematic changes will accompany the speed increase both naturally and necessarily. In other words, kinematic change is the result of adaptation to (rather than the cause of) faster running. Therefore, time spent on technique training to alter kinematics would be redundant at best and in all likelihood would be counterproductive.

Kinematic analysis, by definition, does not include force. The fact that Mann's work revealed similar kinematics among elite runners and some differing kinematics between elite and sub-elite runners, is consistent with the conclusion that kinematics adapt to increased speed. Therefore, any implication that Mann's work is invalidated if technique training is not necessary has little support.

Many coaches today advocate adapted technique training based upon their own conclusions from the literature available at the time of Mann’s work. Unfortunately, the practice of technique training still persists despite the lack of substantive basis and a growing body of contrary evidence.

Prior to the 2000 JAP study, the importance of ground force support and the relationship between mass-specific force and sprint performance had not been established. Thus, the evaluation of cause and effect in regards to kinematics was not undertaken by researchers, allowing coaches to derive a logical conclusion regarding technique training based upon their own flawed premise - that kinematics are causes rather than effects. While it's understandable that they did so (the data available today was not available then), it is no longer the case now. The bottom line is that the use of technique training to alter kinematics, problematical from the beginning, is not justified by current research.

The JAP study states that the consistency of "relationships between support forces, aerial times, effective impulses, and swing times, under the different experimental conditions link the mechanics of the ground force application to minimum swing times to explain the mechanical limit to running speed."

The study also states that, "In each case, top speed was reached when increases in speed and decreases in foot-ground contact times reduced effective impulses and aerial times to the minimum values providing sufficient time to swing the leg into position for the next step."

Certainly there is an expectation of differing kinematics of each runner involved in the research since top speeds ranged from 6 m/s to 11 m/s, yet minimum swing times varied little and speed limits were reached within that minimally variant minimum swing time of each runner.

Weyand's study states that speed is derived primarily from ground force application. To be sure, the researchers were well aware of Mann's previous works and the shortage of data then versus today, allowing them to make reasonable conclusions as to the cause/effect relationship between ground force application and kinematics.

The swing time data of the 2000 JAP study neither negates Mann's data nor the kinematics of high speed running.

The "how" of faster running speed is clear from the 2000 JAP study: ground force application must increase. Therefore, any rationale for technique training specifically designed to alter kinematics and/or swing mechanics must provide the basis by which ground force application increases through such training.  

Utilizing all of the foregoing information derived from research, we've devised a training protocol, absent technique training, based upon strength training in order to focus attention on what sound science indicates matters for speed: increasing ground force application. Simply stated, we believe that training time should be spent on causes and not wasted on effects. We neither want our athletes to burn training time on attempting to change what may well be unchangeable, nor do we want them to spend time on training protocols that research indicates is not a means by which they can apply greater forces to the ground.

We are actively involved with coaching athletes on a daily basis and have spent untold hours in discussion with various scientists in order to provide our own athletes training methods that we believe will show the highest return for the time each athlete invests in training. We understand that much better training protocols than ours might exist and we would embrace any changes for the better as quickly as we did our current protocol.

That being said, in the case of effecting kinematic changes through specific training validation should be via peer-reviewed research that shows: (1) Kinematic changes can be derived solely from specific technique training (absent the use of any strength training). (2) That kinematic changes derived from technique training alone shows statistically significant increases in running speed. (3) Evidence that kinematics taught by isolated drills mimic the kinematics during high speed running. (4) That swing mechanics can be altered by technique training to correctly apply ground force and improve speed. 

Barry Ross