Gravity isn't exactly an enemy. Gravity provides resistance. However, just like a bicycle, you need resistance in order to accelerate, you need gravity to bring you back to the ground in order to have something to push off. So I would consider rephrasing that. You didn't discuss how a 45 degree angle maximizes a projectile's distance (both horizontal and vertical forces working equally). This is important to consider, since this will provide the most space for an athlete to reposition their limbs to strike the ground further behind, and with greater negative foot speed, than if they had less space and air time to do so from a more vertical or horizontal angle. I am not saying everyone should use a 45 degree angle to project from initially, but it is something that should be discussed. I'd like to see you do a short clip about your thoughts on that. You should have also mentioned more specifics on the low-heel-recovery technique. There can be a significant loss of force with some toe-dragging methods, there can be more mechanical energy needed to drive the longer lever, a decrease in angular velocity of the recovering limb, and some athletes (especially inexperienced youth) may have a tendency to land far in front of the COM and have a decrease in negative foot speed because of this. Not saying that it is bad, but I think it is certainly debatable as regards to how low or how high? Some of the top coaches and sprinters have not used LHR. So another debate is, should we really be teaching a "piston" (translatory perspective) or a small version of a growing cycle (rotary perspective)? Perhaps both (elliptical perspective)? But I think this should be discussed as I have seen many athletes hindered by utilizing LHR, when they would have been better well off left alone. Certainly teaching a full cycle from the blocks is going to be a performance inhibitor as well. Just some more thoughts that I'd like to see you address. Nice job on the videos and thank you.
Just said enemy because we are always having to produce force to oppose gravity. And being able to do that better does make us better athletes. I actually recently made a video series on low heel recovery, and I agree with your comments. Honestly I think it is way over-done and over-coached. i prefer to never make an athlete think about it at all. jump-science.com/speed-science-low-heel-recovery/
@@JumpScience22 My assertion isn't to use a 45 degree trajectory to maximize distance of displacement, but rather that it might provide an athlete more time and space to position their ground contact point farther behind (as opposed to coming out lower and not having enough air time to get their feet close to the COM). Additionally, lower level athletes may benefit from having their hips up higher too, before they have developed the necessary strength to use lower takeoff angles. So it is something I think is interesting to consider and experiment with. This is something Tellez teaches. I generally use this angle with weaker athletes (sometimes even more vertical if necessary, a 2 point start might work better for a youth/beginner), and I think it does help with the position that they land in. However, with more advanced athletes, the excessive air time and premature verticality might be a hindrance, so most times I leave it alone if they are coming out of deeper angles and are not stumbling or overstriding or etc. Thanks. Looking forward to watching your LHR videos.
Yeah, more forceful people come out lower. Less forceful have to come out higher. There is nothing significant about 45 degrees, and bringing it up would only confuse people. we don't even have the ability to calculate an optimal angle for anyone. Suggesting any angle to be optimal is silly.
@@JumpScience22 Well Tellez and his disciples in Houston teach it and have produced some of the greatest sprinters of all time, so I'm not opposed to it. See his research paper "Sprinting: A Biomechanical Approach" for his rationale. Can't rule it out as something worth experimenting with.
“More force, more force, more force” is a dangerous message during acceleration. You need balanced force production for a successful sprint, so increasing force beyond a self-optimized level will cause you to spend too much time in the air.
Jump Science this is what my current research is observing. Just as in top speed, more vertical force leads to greater aerials. The dynamics flip during the acceleration phase. Go read a chapter on projectile motion in any basic textbook on classical mechanics.
Jump Science if you produce too much horizontal without the BALANCE of vertical force to compensate, you will not have time to reposition your swing limb for subsequent stance. Unless you’ve had elite athletes sprinting off of force plates out of blocks in your lab the way we have, you can’t possibly postulate the mechanical limitations of the sprint start.
Out of curiosity now that it is 2019...but even back in 2016... You didn't mention anything about vertical propulsion during acceleration? In which I have read that vertical propulsion is needed greater than horizontal forces when accelerating? I'm confused bc i thought that too about horizontal force....but studies are coming out from 2016 to now about vertical propulsion as the biggest aid in speed acceleration. Thats why jump training for sprints is a key component in acceleration training? Help me understand my head hurts hahhaha
Vertical force is greater even during acceleration, because we have to oppose gravity. But vertical force cannot accelerate you horizontally. Basically the more force you can push into the ground along the long axis of your body, the faster you will be. The vertical and horizontal components will take care of themselves. An athlete doesn't need to worry about that really.
Sorry but you're wrong about striking under the hips during acceleration. There is no sprinter in the world that does that or that can do that even if they wanted to. The reason being the C.o.G is not under the hips during acceleration. It's under the naval. Correct foot strike is just in front of the naval.
I love you man. Can't believe there are 8 dislikes. If you don't enjoy this,you don't like sports science.
thanks, brother
You explain everything so perfectly! In my 2 years of an exercise science degree, I have just understood acceleration now 🙈
Gravity isn't exactly an enemy. Gravity provides resistance. However, just like a bicycle, you need resistance in order to accelerate, you need gravity to bring you back to the ground in order to have something to push off. So I would consider rephrasing that.
You didn't discuss how a 45 degree angle maximizes a projectile's distance (both horizontal and vertical forces working equally). This is important to consider, since this will provide the most space for an athlete to reposition their limbs to strike the ground further behind, and with greater negative foot speed, than if they had less space and air time to do so from a more vertical or horizontal angle. I am not saying everyone should use a 45 degree angle to project from initially, but it is something that should be discussed. I'd like to see you do a short clip about your thoughts on that.
You should have also mentioned more specifics on the low-heel-recovery technique. There can be a significant loss of force with some toe-dragging methods, there can be more mechanical energy needed to drive the longer lever, a decrease in angular velocity of the recovering limb, and some athletes (especially inexperienced youth) may have a tendency to land far in front of the COM and have a decrease in negative foot speed because of this. Not saying that it is bad, but I think it is certainly debatable as regards to how low or how high? Some of the top coaches and sprinters have not used LHR. So another debate is, should we really be teaching a "piston" (translatory perspective) or a small version of a growing cycle (rotary perspective)? Perhaps both (elliptical perspective)? But I think this should be discussed as I have seen many athletes hindered by utilizing LHR, when they would have been better well off left alone. Certainly teaching a full cycle from the blocks is going to be a performance inhibitor as well. Just some more thoughts that I'd like to see you address. Nice job on the videos and thank you.
Just said enemy because we are always having to produce force to oppose gravity. And being able to do that better does make us better athletes.
I actually recently made a video series on low heel recovery, and I agree with your comments. Honestly I think it is way over-done and over-coached. i prefer to never make an athlete think about it at all. jump-science.com/speed-science-low-heel-recovery/
Since achieving maximal distance on each stride is not the goal of sprinting, I don't think the 45 degree projectile angle is relevant.
@@JumpScience22 My assertion isn't to use a 45 degree trajectory to maximize distance of displacement, but rather that it might provide an athlete more time and space to position their ground contact point farther behind (as opposed to coming out lower and not having enough air time to get their feet close to the COM). Additionally, lower level athletes may benefit from having their hips up higher too, before they have developed the necessary strength to use lower takeoff angles. So it is something I think is interesting to consider and experiment with.
This is something Tellez teaches. I generally use this angle with weaker athletes (sometimes even more vertical if necessary, a 2 point start might work better for a youth/beginner), and I think it does help with the position that they land in. However, with more advanced athletes, the excessive air time and premature verticality might be a hindrance, so most times I leave it alone if they are coming out of deeper angles and are not stumbling or overstriding or etc.
Thanks. Looking forward to watching your LHR videos.
Yeah, more forceful people come out lower. Less forceful have to come out higher. There is nothing significant about 45 degrees, and bringing it up would only confuse people. we don't even have the ability to calculate an optimal angle for anyone. Suggesting any angle to be optimal is silly.
@@JumpScience22 Well Tellez and his disciples in Houston teach it and have produced some of the greatest sprinters of all time, so I'm not opposed to it. See his research paper "Sprinting: A Biomechanical Approach" for his rationale. Can't rule it out as something worth experimenting with.
running needs a momentary acceleration in every stride. its vertical component shown in ("solving-apollo-enigma-2")
Hey do a video on the 40 yard dash. Nobody gets in depth how you do
Very nice video very well explained thanks
Good stuff. Thumbs up bro!!!
BUUU to few videos like this. THanks dude!!!!!! Very good videos!!
“More force, more force, more force” is a dangerous message during acceleration. You need balanced force production for a successful sprint, so increasing force beyond a self-optimized level will cause you to spend too much time in the air.
Wrong. With more force you can just accelerate at a steeper angle without extra air time.
Jump Science this is what my current research is observing. Just as in top speed, more vertical force leads to greater aerials. The dynamics flip during the acceleration phase.
Go read a chapter on projectile motion in any basic textbook on classical mechanics.
right, but it doesn't have to be more vertical force if you angle it lower. Go read a geometry 101 textbook
Jump Science if you produce too much horizontal without the BALANCE of vertical force to compensate, you will not have time to reposition your swing limb for subsequent stance. Unless you’ve had elite athletes sprinting off of force plates out of blocks in your lab the way we have, you can’t possibly postulate the mechanical limitations of the sprint start.
dude, you're not making sense. I'm not suggesting a loss or a gain of air time.
Can you make a video on reactive strength for jumping events like the triple jump
Hey Daniel, what are some of the drills to do to improve technique upper body and lower body?
+RUNNERCR7 9 for acceleration, A skip, and bounding. For maintenance, high knee butt kick. Nothing fancy. It's about how you do the drills.
+Jump Science is it possible for you to have a vid about correctly doing these drills including distance and reps?
Can't give that away for free. Not allowed to by the place I work.
Out of curiosity now that it is 2019...but even back in 2016... You didn't mention anything about vertical propulsion during acceleration? In which I have read that vertical propulsion is needed greater than horizontal forces when accelerating? I'm confused bc i thought that too about horizontal force....but studies are coming out from 2016 to now about vertical propulsion as the biggest aid in speed acceleration. Thats why jump training for sprints is a key component in acceleration training? Help me understand my head hurts hahhaha
yes. see my comment above
Vertical force is greater even during acceleration, because we have to oppose gravity. But vertical force cannot accelerate you horizontally. Basically the more force you can push into the ground along the long axis of your body, the faster you will be. The vertical and horizontal components will take care of themselves. An athlete doesn't need to worry about that really.
Thank you
Sorry but you're wrong about striking under the hips during acceleration. There is no sprinter in the world that does that or that can do that even if they wanted to. The reason being the C.o.G is not under the hips during acceleration. It's under the naval. Correct foot strike is just in front of the naval.
nah. The more powerful the athlete, the further back they contact. High level accelerators can actually contact behind the hip the first couple steps