8 replies to this topic

[kbits]

Hi all - hope I have the right forum for this

I was recently involved in a study at university which investigated the effects of power and strength training on sprint times (amongst other things). The study has now wound down but I would like to continue to incorporate some of the training methods.

One of the things we used as a progress marker was sprint times in the 40m, using IR gates. Very accurate and all...but who has them just laying around...

I wonder - do any of you know of a relatively cheap, no fuss way to *accurately* track 40m sprint times? (Of course, one could suggest "use a partner to time you", but I would like something more accurate than that AND something that could be done solo).

I was looking at something like the Forerunner 50 + fodpod but I'm not sure it does what I want. Or does it?

(any other ideas appreciated too).

Edited by kbits, 15 June 2008 - 05:38 AM.

[wombatface]

I'd suggest using a video camera in an elevated position at the 40m mark. You'd also need a starter's gun. Have the video aimed at the gun (so you can see the smoke), then pan to the finish. Do your timing off the video.

That would work for 1 x 40m. If you want every 40m of 100m, maybe have the runner run through light paper 'tapes' stretched across the track, so you could see when each one is broken.

[kbits]

wombatface, on Jun 15 2008, 09:41 AM, said:

I'd suggest using a video camera in an elevated position at the 40m mark. You'd also need a starter's gun. Have the video aimed at the gun (so you can see the smoke), then pan to the finish. Do your timing off the video.

That would work for 1 x 40m. If you want every 40m of 100m, maybe have the runner run through light paper 'tapes' stretched across the track, so you could see when each one is broken.

That's actually fairly ingenious. Thank you! I suppose I could even set it up so that, with a wide enough zoom out, I wouldn't need an assistant.

Can anyone think of any other ideas too?

(also - *does* the Forerunner 50 + foodpod measure accurately over 40m? Would it be useful for this purpose? Amazon is doing a special right now - HR strap, USB collector, watch and footpod for around A$150)

[bruncle]

"(also - *does* the Forerunner 50 + foodpod measure accurately over 40m? Would it be useful for this purpose? Amazon is doing a special right now - HR strap, USB collector, watch and footpod for around A$150)"
Doubt it. Those kind of devices rely on smoothing out data over distance and although footpods are better than GPS for short distances, I still don't think it'd be that accurate. Is it that important that your time is recorded exactly anyway? Wouldn't it be the training that is important and its impact on goal distance speed? There aren't many 40m races around after all. Was the university study tracking the effects of HIIT or something like that?

[kbits]

"There aren't many 40m races around after all. Was the university study tracking the effects of HIIT or something like that?"

Not HIIT specifically but along those lines. Effects of power vs strength training on tests like sprinting, vertical jump etc

The 40m is based off the 40yard dash, as used by some to measure power and strength output potential in power based sports (eg: american football). Funnily enough, there seems to be a 60m contested race (indoors only).

In any case, my interest is to see whether with some modifications in the training regimen I can further improve my power output (and thus sprint times) without necessarily improving sprint technique, as my interest isn't in running per se, but rather to track knock on effects. Thus far I have been able to improve my 40 by 0.42 seconds without running a jot....as well as my 1.6K times

I kind of like the 40m test - it has immediate feedback and is great little workout to boot every few weeks. Plus, I have become somewhat accustomed to it now and it seems intellectually easier and more satisfying to track than some of the more esoteric power output measures.

How inaccurate would you say the footpod is for this kind of thing? Are they better over say...100m?

Are there any other quick and easy ways you can think to test something like this?

Edited by kbits, 16 June 2008 - 03:15 AM.

[bruncle]

I don't know really, I've never used one. Have a google for the polar footpod devices, I suspect they're in greater use. But again, they're more for longer distances, and I just don't think you'd get repeatibility with them. The way you start could mean that they don't measure for the first 10m.

By the way, what kind of improvements did you see in your 1.6k times? I've always viewed HIIT style programs as a bit suspect for anything above sprint distances (and yet they claim that it'll help all the way up to marathon and beyond). I can see that improving power output would help though. Sounds like plyometrics almost.

[kbits]

Although I am not at liberty to discuss the exact protocol (because I did once on another forum...and got into some trouble with the ethics committee over IP rights. Crazy - the seem to scour the net for posts) I can tell you that your last sentence is pretty much on. Ie: improved power output from plyo like exercise leading to less 'fatigue' over the 1.6, resulting in quicker time (About 15 seconds). Not that my 1.6 was in anyway fast to begin with (8:45)...but I did enjoy the 'what the hell?' effect of the training.

It would be interesting to see what kind of results someone who actually runs that distance regularly gets out of a training program like this.

Edited by kbits, 16 June 2008 - 05:54 PM.

[bruncle]

Well I've heard that plyometrics (which is also said to improve power output) can gain you a good 5% of your race times (and that's for experienced runners), so it would probably be a similar amount. My next phase of training will involve hill bounding and general hill repeats, so hopefully that'll have a similar effect:)

[kbits]

Oh yeah: I'd be surprised if it didn't. Look at it from two points.

One - resistance training increases running efficiency. Concurrent strength + endurance training increase efficiency AND aerobic capacity. Win win.

Two - resistance training decreases effects of fatigue by increasing metabolite absorption, substrate stores (glycogen) and possibly Lactate Threshold tolerance.

Really, if you think about, power training is a type of resistance training (where power = force x velocity....gotta get the 'force' component from somewhere....IIRC, one of the ways to train *for* power is to train limit strength anyways)