I have stated on this website that long toss is not as effective in developing velocity because it forces the thrower to use more of the arm to throw the ball a long distance like 300 feet. I also said that if you want to increase velocity you must develop throwing mechanics that use more big muscle groups, like the core and legs, rather than the small muscle groups, like the shoulders and arm. Once you have learned these “Total Body Mechanics,” like I talk about constantly on this site and have listed in detail in the Ace Pitcher Handbook, you will not only begin to throw harder but you will take more stress off of the arm which will allow you to throw longer.

Now for the research Mr. Jaeger!

I will use Dr. James Andrews and his studies on proper throwing mechanics at the American Sports Medicine Institute to support my claims above. You can read his case studies here http://www.asmi.org/asmiweb/research/baseball.htm.

A quote from Dr. Andrews’ case study on “Interval Throwing Program” states:

“Throwing from flat ground produced a shorter stride and less shoulder external rotation at foot contact, more elbow varus torque during arm cocking, a more upright trunk at ball release……”

A quote from,  Dr. Andrews’ case study on “Shoulder Abduction and Lateral Trunk Tilt Influence the Peak Elbow Varus Torque During Pitching” states:

“The combination of 10 degrees of lateral trunk tilt and 100 degrees of shoulder abduction produced the minimum peak varus torque among all conditions in the study. Thus, the results of this simulation study clearly show that shoulder abduction angle and lateral trunk tilt have an affect on elbow varus torque and thus can be helpful in reducing stressful forces on the shoulder and elbow during pitching.”

A quote from Dr. Andrews’ case study on “Flat-Ground Throwing” states:

“Elbow varus torque was greatest during 180 ft’ throwing.”

You can read Dr. Andrews’ case study on “Biomechanics of Elbow Injuries During Throwing” to learn about Elbow Varus Torque here http://www.asmi.org/asmiweb/research/usedarticles/elbow_injuries.htm

Based on these three studies performed by the most respective Doctor in the game of baseball, we learn that throwing long toss at only 180 ft, which was the farthest distance used in the study, causes more elbow varus torque because of the shorter stride and the lack of forward trunk tilt than pitching on a mound. Could you imagine the results of these case studies if they used 300 ft instead of 180 ft?

Mr. Jaeger, I am sure you have an answer for all of this and your Long Toss Program addresses these issues but there is a better way then using this “Old School” approach to “Arm Development.” I believe that better way is learning “Total body mechanics” by using normal throwing distances because we do not throw with just our arms. We also never throw the ball 300 feet in the game. If you want to develop more velocity and decrease injury, you must also work hard to develop fast twitch muscle fibers in the weight room using total body lifts, like the Olympic lifts, along with plyometric training and speed/agility work.

I warn all pitchers that perform a long toss program, that pushes the distances to 300 feet, you better make sure you have “total body mechanics” because if not, based on Dr. Andrews’ case studies above, you are putting extreme amounts of pressure on your elbow which could ruin your arm and end your career.

I am not the only pitching coach against long toss programs. Dick Mill’s has a similar opinion in this video.

Related articles:

• Pulling Down is Slowing Down
• Comparison of High Velocity and Low Velocity Pitch Deliveries
• Dr. James Andrews

Stodden DF, Fleisig GS, McLean SP, Lyman SL, Andrews JR. Relationship of pelvis and upper torso kinematics to pitched baseball velocity. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 17(2):164-172, 2001.

Matsuo T, Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, Barrentine SW, Andrews JF. Comparison of kinematic and temporal parameters between different pitch velocity groups. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 17(1): 1-13, 2001.

Stodden, DF, Fleisig, GS, McLean, SP, Andrews, JR. Relationship of Biomechanical Factors to Basebal Pitching Velocity: Within Pitcher Variation. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 21(1): 44-56, 2005

Methods

In three published studies, Dr. Glenn Fleisig and Dr. James R. Andrews from ASMI worked with other researchers in studying many of the parameters that affect baseball pitch velocity. Two of the studies looked between different pitchers and one study looked at variations within each pitcher. Motions during delivery were analyzed using a high speed (200 frames per second) infrared three-dimensional motion analysis system.

Results

In the study by Matsuo and others, pitchers with higher ball velocity were compared with pitchers with lower ball velocity. Four significant differences were found between these two groups. Compared to the low ball velocity group, the higher ball velocity pitchers demonstrated less lead knee flexion velocity after front foot contact and greater lead knee extension velocity at the time of ball release. Extending the lead knee in this manner may provide stabilization allowing better energy transfer from the trunk to the throwing arm, and could be a critical factor in pitch velocity. Maximum shoulder external rotation and forward trunk tilt at ball release were also greater in the higher velocity group. Greater shoulder external rotation causes a stretch of the internal rotators allowing energy to be stored in these muscles, and creating greater internal rotation during the arm acceleration phase.

Two variations were found in the timing of events. Maximum elbow extension angular velocity and maximum shoulder internal rotation angular velocity occurred earlier in the motion of higher velocity pitchers. The maximum shoulder internal rotation angular velocity also occurred closer to the moment of ball release in the higher velocity pitchers. This optimal timing may aid in generating higher velocity pitches.

Another finding of interest is that early in the pitching motion, the two groups were dissimilar in the timing of their movements, while their later movement timing was much more similar. This implies that early trunk and torso movements are more varied among pitchers than late arm movements.

In the first study by Stodden and others (2001), pelvis and upper torso variables were studied in 19 elite baseball pitchers. The study found that when the arm was completely cocked back (that is, maximum shoulder external rotation, or “MER”), more “open” pelvis and upper torso orientation correlated with increased ball velocity. More open pelvis angle at the time of ball release (REL) also correlated with increased pitch velocity increased. Additionally, pelvis angular velocity from front foot contact to MER, and upper torso angular velocity from MER to REL increased with increased velocity.

The data indicate that a pitcher who is able to position himself properly, and rotate his pelvis and upper torso more quickly is able to generate greater momentum. Theoretically, this increase in momentum leads to greater velocity of the throwing arm and thus greater pitch velocity.

The most recent study by Stodden and others (2005) showed that for a given pitcher, increased elbow flexion torque, shoulder proximal force and elbow proximal force produced greater ball velocity. In addition, the maximum shoulder horizontal adduction occurred later and maximum shoulder internal rotation occurred earlier at greater ball velocities. Higher ball velocity also resulted in decreased shoulder horizontal adduction at foot contact, decreased shoulder abduction during acceleration, and increased trunk tilt forward at ball release.

Conclusion

A pitcher with increased shoulder external rotation, faster pelvis and upper trunk rotation, and greater front knee stabilization and extension will throw with greater ball velocity. Improved timing to maximize arm velocity closer to the time of ball release will also help ball velocity. Increased torque and force produced at both the shoulder and elbow will also lead to greater ball velocity.

Copyright © 2000, American Sports Medicine Institute
December 18, 2007

http://www.asmi.org/asmiweb/research/usedarticles/highlowpitches.htm

Related articles:

• What is Momentum Pitching?
• Olympic Lifting Increases Pitching Velocity
• How to Develop Top Velocity

Introduction

Specificity of Training principle is one of the most utilized training principles used by exercise professionals today. (Kramer et al., 2002) discussed the principle of training specificity and explained that the training responses elicited by a given exercise mode are directly related to the physiological elements involved with coping with the specific exercise stress. What this means is that if an athlete’s want to perform better at a particular event or skill they must train specifically for that particular skill. For example, if an athlete wants to become stronger one must lift heavy weights and if an athlete wants to jump higher one must jump. As a strength and conditioning professional one must know if the movement patterns as well as the methods of the training will lead to neuromuscular or metabolic training adaptations to their specific sport. This goes back to an important rule of coaching which is, “Know your athletes.” This is important because if a strength and speed coach wants to work on a vertical jump for a 15 year old female volleyball player and she does not have the lower body strength to handle the eccentric load of landing or she does not know how to land she could injure herself. Therefore, before training specifically to enhance particular sports movements always evaluate the athlete first.

The principle of specificity is also important for Strength and Speed coaches when designing strength and speed programs to their particular sport. The coach must know the type neuromuscular adaptations the athletes need during the particular time of the year whether; it is off-season, pre-season or in-season this is important because as a coach, one does not want to stress the neuromuscular system. Ronnie McKeefey Head Strength and Conditioning Coach for The University of South Florida believes that sport specificity goes too far when exercises that are prescribed place undue orthopedic stress on the body and are not principled based. He goes on to explain that there must be more exercise than just trying to mimic sport movements while under load (2). Specificity is important principle in all of these training modules because the exercise or training protocol must be specific to the type of action required so that the body is neuromuscular adapted to the particular demands of the type of training.

Research Finding and Specificity

As professionals coaches understand that explosive Olympic lifting and other forms of weight training will help athletes on the field however, many coaches feel that a sprint training program should also include strength specific exercises like sled sprints or weighted sprints. Young, W., Grant, D., and Pryor, J., (2001) did a study on resistance training for short sprints and maximum-speed sprints and found that the quadriceps muscles were important for short sprints and the hamstrings were more important for maximum sprinting. They go on to explain some specificity exercises for sprinting, for the short sprints 10 meter or less the exercises are sled sprints and inclined sprints both from static standing starts. The maximum speed exercise were speed bounding and weighted vest sprinting. As strength and conditioning professional these are great specific exercises to help become a faster athlete. The short sprint exercises really target the quadriceps and glutes, helps with stride frequency and helps increase the force on the motor units. The max speed exercises target the hamstrings, helps with stride length and helps increase the rate of the motor units. This is a great specificity example for speed because through this specificity training an athlete has increased the size and force of the motor unit as well as the rate at which the motor unit fires which in turn with proper mechanics should make the athlete a faster runner. Alcaraz, P., Palao, J., Elvira, J., and Linthorne, N., (2008) also did a study on resistance sprinting but they wanted to find out more specifically the effects of three different types of resisted sprint training on the kinematics of sprinting at maximum velocity. They used three types of resisted sprint training devices which were a sled, parachute, and weighted belt to compare sprinting kinematics during maximum velocity. What they found was that all three types were appropriate training for the maximum velocity phase of sprinting and only induced minor changes in the athletes running technique. These two studies are great examples on the specificity principle they show if an athlete’s wants to get faster than the athlete must sprint to become faster.

Another athletic movement that we train specifically is the vertical jump. Although as professionals one knows that resistance training and explosive training can get you stronger but if an athlete wants to jump higher than they must train using plyometrics. McClenton, L., Brown, J., Coburn, J., and Kersey, R., (2008) did a short term study on the Verti-max vs. Depth jump training and its effect on vertical performance. The verti-max is a training apparatus that uses rubber bands and a pulley system that fully loads the athlete in the low squat position, and then maintains this same level of resistance all the way to the top of the jump. The depth jump is a plyometric exercise that rapidly utilizes the stretch shortening cycle. This exercise consists on stepping off a box landing with both feet, then jumping off the ground as fast and as high as possible. During this six week study they found that the verti-max had no improvement on the vertical jump and the depth jump had significant improvement. Both are very good specific exercises but the verti-max costs nearly $2,000.00 and for the depth jump all an athlete needs is a box. The depth jump also in my opinion is a better exercise if strong enough because of the rapid eccentric movements which in turn causes a rapid concentric movement. Wagner, DR and Kocak, MS (1997) explains that the faster a muscle is stretched the greater the force production and the more powerful the muscle action; which, explains why the depth jump is a more efficient exercise when coached and performed properly.

Resistance training is one of the most important aspects to the specificity principle. There are many types of possible outcomes in resistance training; which include endurance, hypertrophy, strength, and power. As strength and conditioning professionals one must know what to train for and at what time of the year to train for the particular outcome. Behm, D. (1995) did a study on the neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance training specifically on strength and power training. This study explained that the high rate of force development achieved with ballistic contractions should serve as a template for power training; and that muscle hypertrophy is dependent upon protein degradation and synthesis, which may be enhanced through high intensity, high volume eccentric work and concentric contractions. One of the most interesting parts of this research was the part on power training. Behm believes that the high-speed training may increase the rate of force development through an increase in the firing frequency or the motor units. He goes on to explain that to guarantee high-specific adaptations in a power training program the speed of the contraction must be high and that the movement speed is not essential as long as the intent of the contraction is explosive. Saltin and Gollnick (1983) showed through their research that with endurance training, muscle fibers shift towards a slow profile thus allowing those muscles fibers to increase their endurance capacity. Staron, Malickly, Leonardi, Falkel, Hagerman, and Dudley (1990) did a study on muscle hypertrophy and fast fiber types in heavy resistance-trained women and found that heavy resistance training results in a shifting of the rarely used fast twitch B fibers to heavily used fast twitch A fibers; which, allow more fibers to be called upon to produce force for faster and more forceful explosive movements. This type of research on resistance training shows that if an athlete requires muscular endurance, strength, size or explosiveness there are specific training patterns. The strength and conditioning professional must follow the specific training protocols to ensure that the neuromuscular system is adapting to the training properly so that the athletes body can perform better in his or her sport.

Conclusion

In closing, Zatsiorsky (1995) explains that the training principle on specificity is well accepted and suggests that for training to be effective, it should be similar to the demands of the sport. Usually, the more specific the training, the better the transfer to sports performance. All though that last statement may be true, many strength and conditioning professionals including myself believe non-specific training should also take place in a training program not only to achieve a higher level of ability but for also injury prevention. Keep in mind, training first started to prevent injury and later professionals discovered that training can also improve performance. Finally, as a strength and conditioning professional one must know the performance goals of the sport which will help the professional dictate the type of training for the athlete or team; and while every possible type of sports movement cannot be simulated in the weight room, there are other non-specific sports movements and exercises that will stimulate the neuromuscular system which will help athletes when they go into competition.

References

1. Behm, D.G. Neuromuscular Implications and Applications of Resistance Training. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 9(4): 264-274. 1995.
2. Bennett, Scott. Sport Specificity: How far Do you take it? Strength and Conditioning Journal. 28(4): 29-30. 2006.
3. Eduardo Sáez Sáez, González-Badillo, Juan Jose, Izquierdo, Mike .Low and Moderate Plyometric Training Frequency Produces Greater Jumping and Sprinting Gains Compared with High Frequency. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 22(3): 715-725. 2008.
4. Kramer, JF, Morrow, A, and Leger, A. Changes in rowing ergometer, weight lighting, vertical jump and isokinetic performance in response to standard and standard plus plyometric training programs. Int J Sports Med 14: 449-454, 1983.
5. McClenton, L., Brown, Lee, Coburn, J., Kersey, R., The Effect of Short-Term VertiMax vs. Depth Jump Training on Vertical Jump Performance. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 22(2): 321-325. 2008.
6. Saltin B and Gollnic PD. Skeletal muscle adaptability: Significance for metabolism and performance. In Handbook of Physiology (eds. L. Peachy, R. Adrian, and SR Gerzer). American Physiological Society: Bethesda, MD, 555-631, 1983.
7. Staron RS, Malicky ES, Leonardi MJ, Falkel JE, Hagerman FC, and Dudley GA. Muscle hypertrophy and fast fiber type conversions in heavy resistance –trained women. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology 60, 71-79, 1990
8. Wagner, DR and Kocak, MS. A multivariate approach to assessing anaerobic power following a plyometric training program. Journal of Strength & ConditioningResearch.11: 251-255, 1997.
9. Young, Warren PhD, Benton, Dean, Pryor, John,. Resistance Training for Short Sprints and Maximum-speed Sprints. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 23(2): 7-13. 2001.
10. Zatsiorsky, V.M. Science and Practice of Strength Training. Champaign. IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.

Related articles:

• Resisted Sprints and Effects on Kinematics and Sprint Speed
• Sprint Mechanics and the 40 yard Dash
• Bad Mechanics is a sign of Muscular Weakness

Speed Training

Implied in any linear speed discussion with a Strength and Conditioning Specialist, is the concept of resisted speed training strategies. Some professionals consider resisted speed training as the most efficient sprint training technique on the planet, while other consider it not as effective because of a biomechanical stand point. Different resisted speed strategies include, towing, uphill sprints, sand sprints, and weighted sprints. Tahachnik (1992) explained that towing of weighted devices such as sleds and tires is the most common method of providing towing resistance for the enhancement of sprint performance, although the use of parachutes has also been documented. In fact, resisted towing can involve an athlete towing a weighted sled, tire, speed parachute, or some other device over a set distance (Faccioni 1994).

The function of resisted towing is said to improve the acceleration or drive phase of a sprint. Acceleration is integral to successful performance in the various football codes, including Australian rules, rugby union, and soccer and is potentially decisive in determining the outcome of a game (Spinks et al. 2007). It has been said that resisted towing will increase muscular force output, especially at the hip, knee, and ankle. According to researches improved strength levels allow for the production of greater force and decreased ground contact time, leading to a possible increase in stride frequency. Increased stride length may be achieved by improved utilization of elastic energy during the support stage of the sprint cycle (Spinks et al. 2007).

Regardless of the many benefits of resisted towing speed training, the most effective type of resistant speed training for overall speed and acceleration remains for the most part uncertain.

Resistant Towing

Weighted sled towing is a common resisted sprint training technique even though relatively little is known about the effects that such practice has on sprint kinematics. Lockie, R.G., A.J. Murphy, and C.D. Spinks (2003) examined twenty men, which completed a series of sprints without resistance and with loads equating to 12.6% (load1) and 32.2% (load 2) of body mass. Through their findings the participants stride length was significantly reduced by 10% with a 12.6% load and lowered 24% with a 32.2% load. Stride frequency did not change from load 1 to load 2 and only dropped by 6% between the unloaded and loaded trials. In addition, sled towing increased ground contact time, trunk lean, and hip flexion in both loads but, more of an increase happened with load 2. As for the upper body, the results showed an increase in shoulder range of motion with added resistance. The heavier load generally resulted in a greater disruption to normal acceleration kinematics compared with the lighter load. Lockie, R.G., A.J. Murphy, and C.D. Spinks concluded that a lighter load is most likely best for use in a speed training program.

Letzelter et al. (1995) studied the acute effect that different loads had on performance variables with a group of female sprinters during sled towing. The research found that a 2.5-kg load resulted in an 8% decrease in performance over 30 m, and 10 kg resulted in a 22% decrease in sprint performance. Stride length was affected to a greater degree than stride frequency by the increased resistance. As the load increased, the stride length decreased which, accounted for the decrease in velocity speed. Increased loads also caused increased upper-body lean and increased thigh angle at both the beginning and the end of the stance phase. Regrettably, Letzelter et al. did not quantify towing loads relative to body mass or provide anthropometric data on the subjects. It is therefore complicated to relate the results found to earlier recommended loading guidelines.

Spinks C.D., Murphy A.J., Spinks W.L., Lockie R.G. (2007) did a study on effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration performance and kinematics and found that an 8 week resistant speed training group significantly improves acceleration and leg power but, is no more effective than an 8 week non resistant speed training program. Although the study did not find it more effective, how can an athlete increase force production and not increase speed, maybe longer research study should take place.

Both Lockie et al., Letzelter et al. and Spink’s et al. studies concluded that the athletes stride length decreased as the load increased. Mutually, both also found that stride frequency did not change much at all with the different loads. Although this is great information neither one of the researchers put any of this to the real test, “Can towing increase speed?” They both gave great information but what coaches want to see are results. A good number of coaches by now should know that your speed is only as good as your technique but, if a greater load can increase arm speed which both researchers agreed, and arm speed accounts for 15-20% speed how can both suggest a lighter load is better for speed training, more research is needed.

Other Types of Resisted Speed Training

Supplementary, to towing there are many other types of resistant training. Some other types of resistant speed training are weighted vest, uphill running, and sand sprinting.

A study by Bosco et al. (1986) looked at the effect of increasing body weight (7 to 8%) on sprint athletes over a three-week period, training 3 to 5 sessions per week. The added resistance through weighted vests was worn from morning to evening and the athletes were tested for jumping and running on a treadmill, pre and post experiment. The jump tests included squat jumps, countermovement jump, drop jump and 15 seconds continuous jumps on a resistive platform. The squat jump improved 4.5 cm which helped the hypothesis that the increased loading would have a positive effect upon force production and running speed. Another positive effect of weight vest is that the added mass would increase the vertical force at each ground contact; which would increase the stress placed on the stretch shortening cycle (reactive strength). This would improve the muscle’s capacity to tolerate greater stretch loads, store more elastic energy, and improve power output, which may increase in stride length. Although Bosco et al (1986). brings up great and valet points about the SSC, how does he know for sure if increasing vertical force in the ground is even beneficial as far as sprinting goes. Remember, your speed is only as good as your technique.

Uphill sprinting had a study conducted by Kunz & Kaufmann (1981) on sprint kinematics maximal sprinting up a 3% incline. They found the velocity to be slower than that of level ground running (8.35m/s to 8.85m/s) and that the subjects sprint kinematics had shorter stride lengths and longer ground contact times. Kunz & Kaufmann believe that uphill sprinting will increase the stress placed on the hip extensor muscle groups as the athlete will attempt to maximize stride length, therefore increasing this component on the flat surface. They feel this training method will develop a shorter ground contact time if the athlete emphasizes fast push off to conquer the effects of the positive grade. An incline of greater than 3% would still be beneficial in developing the forceful hip extensor movements required but will be less specific in the simulation of the specific technical movements of the sprint.

Sand sprinting had little to no research on it. The little research on sand sprinting concluded that it helped increase hamstring strength as well as its flexibility due to the sands unstable surface. Oviatt and Hemba (1991) wrote an article named Sand Blast and in it, stated that “Walking in the sand, however, is almost twice as costly (energy expenditures for physical activity) as walking on firm turf. It follows that sprinting in the sand will compound energy expenditures of a 50% increase. In other words, you can get twice the cardiovascular conditioning in half the time, which, is important because body fat between muscle fibers inhibit rapid contractions of the involved muscle.

Resisted Towing and Kinematics

Steven LeBlanc and Pierre L Gervais (N/A) researched the basic kinematics of sprinting under assisted and resisted conditions as compared to free sprinting in the acceleration and top-speed phases. Free Sprint and assisted sprint kinematics will not be discussed in this section only resisted kinematics compared to sprint start will be discussed because of resisted sprints have more of an impact on acceleration. LeBlanc and Gervais completed 3 trials of resisted sprinting, and a sprint start, using 1 female and 5 male track and field athletes from the University of Alberta. Each sprint was approximately 50m in distance, the participants were also filmed. The linear kinematic measures of interest included average running speed, stride rate, stride length, and ground support time. Angular kinematic measures of interest included average trunk angle, thigh range of motion and peak velocity. The resisted sprinting condition used a parachutechute approximately 1 m2 attached to a waist belt and subjects were given a 30m acceleration zone prior to the filming area to reach top running speed. For the sprint start condition, the blocks were setup 20m prior to the filming area. They established is that there were no significant differences in any of the kinematics being tested and that RS and SS were very similar in average running speed (8.74 m/s vs. 8.76 m/s), stride length (4.03 m vs. 3.92 m), and support time (0.122 s vs. .123 s). This suggests that resisted sprinting has similar kinematics to the acceleration phase of sprinting much more than the velocity phase.

Conclusion

Resistant speed training’s research on overall effectiveness indicated that all but sand sprinting decreased stride length and had little or no change to stride frequency. Most of the research confirmed that resistant towing is very similar to the acceleration phase of a sprint which is the start. However, there is no well-built indication any of these types of resistant training are better than the other.

From a coaching stand point many professionals today prefer towing because of the trunk position having a forward lean. An athlete cannot have that much of a forward lean with any other resistant speed exercise because of gravity. Sprinting uphill may come a very close second but still one cannot accomplish the lean of that with a weighted sled. Even with the weighted vest the research indicated that the force in the ground hit vertical meaning the athletes’ ground time was too long. The reason for this may be because the athletes in the research could not handle the weight of the vest and stood up tall to not fall over; keep in mind, many coaches look at a sprint as just a controlled fall. Sand sprinting is also a great resistant speed exercise but, there just is not enough research and data on this type of resistant exercise to put it at the top.

Resistant towing had the majority of the research in all the resistant training modalities but, all had the same conclusions decreased stride length and had little or no change to stride frequency and increased muscular force output, especially at the hip, knee, and ankle. In fact, Mero (1998) found a high correlation between force production in the start and in the velocity phase of the sprint. This indicates a high level of fast force production in top sprinters and reaffirms the importance of strength during the acceleration phase of sprinting which, one can get through resisted speed training.

In the future, there needs to be more research with resistant speed training. For instance, the Spinks (2007) study indicated that there was not significant increase in sprint performance comparing resisted sprint training and non resistant sprint training but, did they take sprint technique or start technique in consideration. As mentioned previous if an athlete can increase ground force through resisted towing as Spinks (2007) mentioned, how can the athlete not become faster with the proper coaching on the technique of sprinting. That is what wrong with the research, there is a lot of research but very little coaching in the research.

Issues in research for resistant speed training should compare different types of resistant training with proper speed technique coaching and see how they compare to overall speed improvement and kinematics. The reason kinematics is still important is because again an athletes’ speed is only as good as their technique. It is great to know from all this research what is happening biomechanically or muscularly but, the important outcome to all is which will help make you faster in the shortest amount of time. Coaches and athletes want to know the best modalities of resistant speed training and how they compare to each other, more importantly how they compare to overall speed improvement.

References

1. Bosco, C., Rusko, H., and Hirvonen, J. (1986). The effect of extra-load conditioning on muscle performance in athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 18(4), 415-419.
2. Faccioni, A., (1993) Resisted and assisted methods for speed development. Part 2. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 1(3), 7-10
3. Gervais, P., LeBlanc, J. S. (N/A). Biomechanical analysis of assisted and resisted sprinting. Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 1-4.
4. Kunz, H., Kaufmann, D.A. (1981) Biomechanics of hill sprinting. Track Technique. (82), 2603-2605.
5. Letzelter, M., Sauerwein, G., and Burger, R. (1995). Resistance runs in speed development. Modern Athlete and Coach. (33), 7–12.
6. Lockie, R.G., A.J. Murphy and C.D. Spinks. (2003). Effects of resisted sled towing on sprint kinematics in field sport athletes. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 17(4), 760-767.
7. Mero, A. (1988). Force-time characteristics and running velocity of male sprinters during the acceleration phase of sprinting. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59(2), 94-98.
8. Oviatt, R. and Hemba, G. (1991). Oregon State: Sandblasting through the PAC. National Strength & Conditioning Association Journal. 13(4), 40-46.
9. Spinks C.D., Murphy A.J., Spinks W.L., Lockie R.G. (2007). The effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration performance and kinematics in soccer, rugby union, and Australian football players. The Journal Of Strength And Conditioning Research. 21 (1), 77-85.
10. Tabachnik, B. (1992). The speed chute. National Strength & Conditioning Association Journal. 14(4), 75- 80.

Related articles:

• The Principle of Specificity and Sport
• Sprint Mechanics and the 40 yard Dash
• Bad Mechanics is a sign of Muscular Weakness