I have to admit that I've not spent any significant time reading the works of Lauren Seagrave.
However, I recently found a PDF version of his Speed Dynamics Video Series.

To be fair, what I read was a summary outline of the content of the videos listed.
That being said, the first "Mission Statement” was about the importance of reduction of ground time or air time by .01 seconds at every stride.

The Mission Statement followed with a chart showing the benefits obtained at 40 yards (?), 100m and 1600m.

The chart showed that at 20 strides of the 40-yard run, a .01 reduction in either ground or airtime would produce a .20 second improvement in running time.
At 100m, the improvement was .50 seconds.
 
The benefits:  Improved efficiency; quickended(?) neuromuscular response; heightened awareness and increased general and specific strength and power capacities.

All of that just by reducing either ground time or air time!

One of the charts had some of the nifty standard cues to help:
"Toe Up"
"Heel Up"
"Knee Up"
"Step over the opposite knee"

Ok, all of this sounds great, but...

How does one reduce airtime?
 
Why do faster runners have longer airtime? What are they doing wrong?
Faster runners do have shorter contact times as a result of high rates of force delivery (no one knows for certain why faster runners have higher rates of force delivery than slower runners) but how can slower runners simply get off the ground as fast as swifter runners?

Heightened awareness? The fastest runners have ground contact times at or under 0.08 seconds. Force delivery occurs in half that time. That does not leave much time to be aware of either what you are doing or what you are seeing.

Moving on to the nifty standard cues, why would it matter if the toe was up or down at ground contact if ground reaction force is greater than 2x bodyweight? Is it possible to keep the toe down under that amount of force anyway?

The other clues do sound important.
What do they actually do in the air that will help the runner on the ground?

Finally, according to research, "If the mechanical energy to reposition limbs is provided largely passively through elastic recoil and energy transfers between body segments rather than actively by power generated within muscles, minimum swing time would be affected minimally by muscle fiber speeds." Weyand, et al JAP 2000

Clearly, the drills mentioned above, "Toe Up","Heel Up","Knee Up", and "Step over the opposite knee" requires power generated within the muscles to effect them.
If that is the case, what is the point?

Frankly, these drills appear fabrications of what one sees rather than what actually occurs at high speed.
That being the case and apologies to Mr. Seagrave, but I will continue to rely on legitimate research rather than guessing.

 This is exactly what I'm seeing with my high school sprinters. The faster athletes clocked a 50 fly-in in 5.70 or 8.77 meters per second. The slower athlete clocked his fly-in 50 in 7.33 or 6.82 meters per second.

Ken Jakalski

A while back, Barrett Dorko started a thread on SomaSimple regarding the relationship between 'magic' and physical therapy. Barrett. who finds the art of the illusionist quite intriguing, got me hooked on studying the great magicians of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and he introduced me to a wonderful book, Jim Steinmeyer's Hiding the Elephant.

In a manner similar to Barrett's, I find a parallel between magicians and speed coaches.

Magicians would often attend each other's performances, and, as we saw in novel and subsequent film, The Prestige, try to discredit the illusions. This, of course, was intended to draw focus on how much better their own illusions were, and to draw people to their shows.

In a sense, this also happens in the world of speed training. The internet offers a variety of speed and performance enhancement programs designed by experts in the field. Sometimes, we go to those sites just to learn, to look for similarities to our own programs, or to challenge the concepts that we think are incorrect. These challenges can be focused on promoting good science and mechanics. They also can be focused on promoting or enhancing one's own intellectual property. In other words, it can be intended to draw a larger audience to our own shows.

Are any of these reasons necessarily bad? As Barrett pointed out, "magicians frequently watch and critique each other," and, in the words of Eugene Burger, author of the book Close-Up Magic, "this should result in subsequent performances that are unique and original rather than merely mimicked." Such "slavish imitation" he says will seriously stunt the growth of any profession committed to theory - something that's supposed to change - and certainly the method that should flow from that."

My point is that maybe this critiquing, which we continue to do not just of other protocols, but more often our own or the ones we've done in the past, certainly has some value.

As Barrett concludes:

"Remember Joel Achenbach’s admonition regarding the nature of science: In science if you don’t work hard enough to prove yourself wrong your friends will gleefully take up the slack."

Ken Jakalski

In one of her recent books on the art of writing, Connie Weaver points out six characteristics of the 'smart' teacher. If I substitute 'teacher' with 'coach' or 'teacher-coach,' 'kid' with 'athlete,' and 'subject' with 'sport,' the following becomes my list of key components for a successful coaching experience:

Smart coaches

* know their athletes and the different ways they learn best

* know their sport

*know the 'best practices'--specifically, the best practices for accomplishing their goals

Smart coaches are also:

*risk-takers and experimenters

*innovators

*integrators within and across their sport

We believe these characteristics are what brought you to this website. Our goal is to keep you coming back.

Ken Jakalski