Strength/Mass Sprinting for Muscle Growth

[Adnan Adil]

I’ve been fan of sprinting since I was 8 years old. During my life I have trained in garious ways, but the speinte weren’t typically in my workout routines. Recently I have started to srpint again. Now I am trying to pack some muscles with sprinting. I’ve looked on the internet, asked the AIs and found nothing solid. I mean that this is some rar topic for most people. Eo you have any idea how long should I sprint? Should I go for distance or time running? Rest periods? Frequency and so on? Initially I was thinking that shorter the sprint, bigger the hypertrophy, but found that 100 m sprinters are more jacked than their 60 m colleagues. Some say that this is because of genetics and training. Honestly I don’t know what to think.

 

[period]

I’ve been fan of sprinting since I was 8 years old. During my life I have trained in garious ways, but the speinte weren’t typically in my workout routines. Recently I have started to srpint again. Now I am trying to pack some muscles with sprinting. I’ve looked on the internet, asked the AIs and found nothing solid. I mean that this is some rar topic for most people. Eo you have any idea how long should I sprint? Should I go for distance or time running? Rest periods? Frequency and so on? Initially I was thinking that shorter the sprint, bigger the hypertrophy, but found that 100 m sprinters are more jacked than their 60 m colleagues. Some say that this is because of genetics and training. Honestly I don’t know what to think.

First off: did you sprint competitively (= did you get coached in sprinting), or are you simply "a fan of sprinting"? I used to run track in high school, and we had a lot of professional runners in our club (international competitors who were on sponsorship programs by the police, military etc.), although we mostly had 400 m, 400 m hurdles, 800 m and 1500 m runners. So that is the experience I can draw from.

Second, I should point out that first off, most 100 m sprinters are not exactly huge, at best they are athletic. Usain Bolt weighs 94 kg at 1.95 m, Maurice Greene 80 kg at 1.76 m, Tim Montgomery 73 kg at 1.78 m, Ben Johnson 75 kg at 1.77 m, Carl Lewis 80 kg at 1.88 m (attention: this list includes at least one guy who was caught on gear). So it's typically roughly their height minus 100 cm in kg (+- 5-8). What they are is LEAN, most of them are competing at something around 6-10% body fat. Back when I was a runner (800-3000 m for me), I also used to think the sprinters were huge. But now, after spending the last 16 years in combat sports, I would say they are kinda lanky actually. Athletic, but definitely not big.

Third, according to most coaches, sprinters are born, not made. If you are naturally fast-twitch, you may become a good sprinter with appropriate training; if you're not, you will likely never be. The reason I am pointing this out is that if you are fast twitch, you will also tend to put on muscle more easily, so bear that in mind.

Fourth, sprinters in the past 3-4 decades have been weight training quite a bit. Ben Johnson allegedly had a 350 lbs bench and a 540 lbs squat, both of which are quite outstanding for someone his weight (and without a weight cut, no less!) whose sport is not lifting - not bad even for someone on gear. So what you see on TV is the product of that as well. Compare that to earlier sprinters, and you'll see the difference.
The last sprinter I am aware of who apparently didn't weight train was Allan Wells in the 80ies, he wrote a book about his training methods which I should have somewhere; and he had quite phenomenal leg developement if I may say so.

Finally, IF you want to go ahead with this "sprinting for muscle" project, I would recommend considering a few factors.
First, definitely add resistance training, preferably squats (although some sprinting coaches like the guy who trained Allyson Felix - whose name escaped me at the moment - swear by deadlifts insted) and whatever else you want to add in (lunges, Bulgarian split squats, Olympic lifts...). You may choose to do bodyweight squats instead (e.g. pistols, shrimp squats and sissy squats), but be aware those tend to produce less size growth overall, are more difficult to progress, and in my experience, you should include several variations to hit the muscles from all angles. Nordic hamstring curls aka glute ham raises and reverse hypers are also great, and I dare say mandatory if you don't deadlift. Other effective forms of resistance training for sprinting include running against resistance (prowler, sled, exergenie, resistance band...).
Second, if you're not a trained sprinter and don't care about your track sprinting times, focus on hill sprints (50-80 m) and stair sprints. Those will put more load on your legs and be ultimately safer due to the slower speed - I wish I had a dollar for every sprinter I saw tear a muscle.
Third, don't just do sprints, because neither do sprinters. Do all kinds of jumps as well (uphill or upstairs are especially brutal versions of that).
Fourth, like always when trying to get bigger, limit all the extra activity. No long runs, no long bike rides etc. Sprinters will dial in their bodyweight and body fat percentay mostly through nutrition, not through extra cardio etc.

 

[ROcknrollracing]

Sprinting is the best plyometric there is.

 

[period]

As for volume and frequency, the sprinters I trained with typically had rather low volumes. As a middle distance runner, I sometimes did 10x100 (jogging back that same way, then going again), but that's basically interval training. A more typical sprinter workout would have been 5-10x30 m, then 2-3x 60-100, then call it a day. Their breaks were usually longer, 3-5 minutes. 400 m runners would often do things like 5-6x 200 m, then build up to 3-5x 300, maybe 2-3x 400 in the late pre-season (with up to ten minutes of rest).

 

[period]

Sprinting is the best plyometric there is.

Sorry I can't comment on your Bruce Lee fan thread anymore - it got moved to the barknuckle forum, and apparently I don't have enough posts yet to comment there. You guys have fun.

 

[ROcknrollracing]

When using sprinting you want to about 100-400 total meters of sprinting in a given session 1-3 times per week.

 

[ROcknrollracing]

Sorry I can't comment on your Bruce Lee fan thread anymore - it got moved to the barknuckle forum, and apparently I don't have enough posts yet to comment there. You guys have fun.

PM if you'd like to discuss. I would really recommend Sayf Carmans videos on him. Sayf is a very good martial arts mind and is a realist.

 

[period]

PM if you'd like to discuss. I would really recommend Sayf Carmans videos on him. Sayf is a very good martial arts mind and is a realist.

Nah, it's ok, but thanks.

I think in the end, it comes down to the two of us having fairly different concepts of what "good technique" is: where I come from, "good technique" (or, more commonly: " a good... [insert name of technique]") is a package meaning you can catch (almost) everyone with it, and usually that package contains aspects like effective setups (hiding the technique, off-balancing the opponent first, hitting it without telegraphing), efficient entry, efficent energy transfer into the opponent (not wasting a lot of useless energy, but making the opponent feel every ounce of it), a variety of reliable finishes, ability to exploit new situations or at lest withdraw without being scored on; of course, if you happen to be exceptional in one regard, you may be able to overplay some lack in others. This also automatically entails that you also possess the necessary physical attributes to do so in competition (which of course will vary somewhat from technique to technique - a low single has different demands than a snapdown, arm drag, shoulder throw, lift...), or else you don't have "good technique", nor would you have been able to develop it. Now, HOW you develop good technique is another matter, and lots of schools have pondered over this question and come up with various solutions and methods (including SPP). A "good technician" is someone who can do that with an unsually wide variety of techniques.
Being able to hit the technique well with little resistance is a pre-requisite to that - very rarely does anyone something perfect with high resistance if they can't do it with little - but nor do we regard the ability to do just that as a sign of "good technique", though it may make you a capable coach, if you can outline all the neccessary aspects to pull it off successfully (despite being unable to do so yourself).
As such, in my world a cmpetition format that alters the reality of combat in order to exaggerate certain attributes is a training game at best, but a useful one only if you can make it carry over to your main goal. It's like raw strength, really, in some ways - it only counts if you can transfer it into the opponent, if not, it just as well be inexistant.

So maybe you can see why with that definition, "good technique" is seen as the essence of combat sport in some schools, as if it's present in this form, it trumps everything else since it's already a bundle of things and defined by working in the given context. Nobody cares about my bench, or squat, or deadlift if my left hook puts everyone to sleep, or that my jab is so efficient to let nobody pass and out-score everyone each round. So the general idea (at least in the schools I trained in) is to develop "good technique(s)" first, then coming up with a strategy and appropriate conditioning to bring that technique(s) to bear each and every time. The biggest variable in combat sports in my opinion are not the physical attributes, it's also not "good techniques" (if you don't have them, you likely would have gotten stuck at high school level latest) but rather being able to play your cards so that you can bring your a-game.

 

[ROcknrollracing]

Nah, it's ok, but thanks.

I think in the end, it comes down to the two of us having fairly different concepts of what "good technique" is: where I come from, "good technique" (or, more commonly: " a good... [insert name of technique]") is a package meaning you can catch (almost) everyone with it, and usually that package contains aspects like effective setups (hiding the technique, off-balancing the opponent first, hitting it without telegraphing), efficient entry, efficent energy transfer into the opponent (not wasting a lot of useless energy, but making the opponent feel every ounce of it), a variety of reliable finishes, ability to exploit new situations or at lest withdraw without being scored on; of course, if you happen to be exceptional in one regard, you may be able to overplay some lack in others. This also automatically entails that you also possess the necessary physical attributes to do so in competition (which of course will vary somewhat from technique to technique - a low single has different demands than a snapdown, arm drag, shoulder throw, lift...), or else you don't have "good technique", nor would you have been able to develop it. Now, HOW you develop good technique is another matter, and lots of schools have pondered over this question and come up with various solutions and methods (including SPP). A "good technician" is someone who can do that with an unsually wide variety of techniques.
Being able to hit the technique well with little resistance is a pre-requisite to that - very rarely does anyone something perfect with high resistance if they can't do it with little - but nor do we regard the ability to do just that as a sign of "good technique", though it may make you a capable coach, if you can outline all the neccessary aspects to pull it off successfully (despite being unable to do so yourself).
As such, in my world a cmpetition format that alters the reality of combat in order to exaggerate certain attributes is a training game at best, but a useful one only if you can make it carry over to your main goal. It's like raw strength, really, in some ways - it only counts if you can transfer it into the opponent, if not, it just as well be inexistant.

So maybe you can see why with that definition, "good technique" is seen as the essence of combat sport in some schools, as if it's present in this form, it trumps everything else since it's already a bundle of things and defined by working in the given context. Nobody cares about my bench, or squat, or deadlift if my left hook puts everyone to sleep, or that my jab is so efficient to let nobody pass and out-score everyone each round. So the general idea (at least in the schools I trained in) is to develop "good technique(s)" first, then coming up with a strategy and appropriate conditioning to bring that technique(s) to bear each and every time. The biggest variable in combat sports in my opinion are not the physical attributes, it's also not "good techniques" (if you don't have them, you likely would have gotten stuck at high school level latest) but rather being able to play your cards so that you can bring your a-game.

I don’t disagree with most of that. Here the thing though. If I am vastly stronger than you in relevant movement patterns trained in general strength training I do not have to have as good as technique as you do to win the fight.

Practicing and refining technique is important but it still doesn’t change my statement and other quality martial arts instructors saying the exact same thing I’m telling you.

This is why you don’t NEED a black belt in bjj to be a very effective mma fighter.

Here is where belts come into play it is like learning a new language. White to blue belt is learning words. Blue to purple is like putting sentences together and brown to black is writing paragraphs to essays.

A belt doesn’t make or break a given fighter in fight sports or fighting in general.

You could theoretically come up with a belt system for any sport you could think of actually. It wouldn’t make or break a given athlete because a white belt in powerlifting or rather a beginner could be so physically talented that they could defeat even a black belt level lifter in powerlifting just because of genetics.

 

[maximus__]

I’ve been fan of sprinting since I was 8 years old. During my life I have trained in garious ways, but the speinte weren’t typically in my workout routines. Recently I have started to srpint again. Now I am trying to pack some muscles with sprinting. I’ve looked on the internet, asked the AIs and found nothing solid. I mean that this is some rar topic for most people. Eo you have any idea how long should I sprint? Should I go for distance or time running? Rest periods? Frequency and so on? Initially I was thinking that shorter the sprint, bigger the hypertrophy, but found that 100 m sprinters are more jacked than their 60 m colleagues. Some say that this is because of genetics and training. Honestly I don’t know what to think.

One thing I can definitely say is do some prep before you start sprinting 100%. People come back to it after years off sprinting and end up injuring achilles or hamstrings pretty fast. Start a little slower and build up to it over longer distances 800s, 600s, 400s etc before going 100% on the 200s, 100s or shorter.

Another good way to enter back into sprinting is hill sprints. Same thing is to start a bit slower and on hill that takes you 30-40 secs to run. Do repeats and walk jog back down. 5-10 repeats for now.

You will develop some lower body hypertrophy from sprinting but it will most be in the calf area unless you are severely detrained. Sprinting isn't why those athletes look the way they do, those type of athletes are drawn to the sport and perform well in it.

 

[maximus__]

Sorry I can't comment on your Bruce Lee fan thread anymore - it got moved to the barknuckle forum, and apparently I don't have enough posts yet to comment there. You guys have fun.

You can have the thread he challenged me to a fight in if you want. Either that or move it to his training log.

 

[period]

I don’t disagree with most of that. Here the thing though. If I am vastly stronger than you in relevant movement patterns trained in general strength training I do not have to have as good as technique as you do to win the fight.

If you mean you can waste more energy in the transfer than me, then generally yes. However, there are still some caveats: first of all, we would have to discuss "relevant movement patterns" - and for example, one of my coaches made a very strong case that rope climbing is a much more relevant mevement pattern for wrestling than deadlifts for example - it's al there, reaching, gripping, immediately pulling, even the adrenalin to some degree. I have written it before, rope climbing is also like running to a degree, you won't get better at it if you don't do it enough - and just adding weight would be a bit like running with weight (yoke carry for example) and expecting a linear carry-over in speed, without taking into account that it will shorten your stride, put strain on different muscles etc. So if I train unweighted rope climbing all the time while you train deadlifts, I will be stronger at a more relevant movement pattern, and that may trump your numbers.
Second, we would have to discuss what "vastly stronger" means. I think Ken Leistner once said that if you squat 350 and I squat 300, it won't matter much. However, if you squat 700 and I squat 300, then well, I might have problems. But again, it will fall back to "relevant movement patterns" to a large degree.

Practicing and refining technique is important but it still doesn’t change my statement and other quality martial arts instructors saying the exact same thing I’m telling you.

Different schools have different opinions. Opinions are tested on the mat, in the ring and in the cage. We see what currently prevails, and while we can of course discuss whether other methods are more optimal in theory, they still need to prove themselves effective in practice.

This is why you don’t NEED a black belt in bjj to be a very effective mma fighter.

Here is where belts come into play it is like learning a new language. White to blue belt is learning words. Blue to purple is like putting sentences together and brown to black is writing paragraphs to essays.

A belt doesn’t make or break a given fighter in fight sports or fighting in general.

No, of course you don't need to be a black belt at anything to be effective in MMA (or any other combat sport), but you do need at least one trump card to get the desired result, and to be able to play it. On the other hand, you can hardly afford to not have a working plan B and C if your plan A fails - all eggs in one basket only works for exceptional individuals like Karelin (we never even got to see if he had a plan B).
I have long been arguing that BJJ should introduce separate categories for experience and success in competition (belts vs. beginner, intermediate, advanced and pro). The German SAMBO federation had a system like that once, if you had won a certain number of fights as a beginner, they force-advanced you in the next category. No sandbagging problems there.
MMA is both more simple and more complex, because on one hand, a lot of successful strategies in grappling are simply nullified by striking etc., and vice-versa.

You could theoretically come up with a belt system for any sport you could think of actually. It wouldn’t make or break a given athlete because a white belt in powerlifting or rather a beginner could be so physically talented that they could defeat even a black belt level lifter in powerlifting just because of genetics.

Maybe they could, but I don't think we've seen that in a long while, if ever. Nor have we seen complete beginners dominate international competition in any respectable combat sport - if anything, we saw people who were world class in one sport take over the belt in another immediately, but that is typically a sign that sport A has much stiffer competition than sport B.

 

[Trabaho]

Just do a few explosive sprints 1-3 a week. I wouldn´t overcomplicate it.

 

[period]

One thing I can definitely say is do some prep before you start sprinting 100%. People come back to it after years off sprinting and end up injuring achilles or hamstrings pretty fast. Start a little slower and build up to it over longer distances 800s, 600s, 400s etc before going 100% on the 200s, 100s or shorter.

Another good way to enter back into sprinting is hill sprints. Same thing is to start a bit slower and on hill that takes you 30-40 secs to run. Do repeats and walk jog back down. 5-10 repeats for now.

You will develop some lower body hypertrophy from sprinting but it will most be in the calf area unless you are severely detrained. Sprinting isn't why those athletes look the way they do, those type of athletes are drawn to the sport and perform well in it.

Yes, starting sprinting is more risky than most people believe. I second hill sprints for that reason, or prowlers, sleds, exergenies or long bands; they will all put your body in a position more similar to the starting position - or a hill, for that matter.
800 m not so much, that's a middle distance, not a sprint, plus it's metabolically different. A top 800 m runner will run two sub-51 s 400 m back to back, and he'll have battery acid in his legs by the time he reaches the 600 m mark. 800 m runners are typically very, very lanky, typically around 10 kg lighter than most sprinters their height.
BTW, track athletes have an ongoing internal debate whether 400 m are still a sprint or already middle distance - it has some elements of both.

 

[period]

You can have the thread he challenged me to a fight in if you want. Either that or move it to his training log.

I'm not trying to mess with him at all (that's what I charge money for), we are just having an ongoing discussion about a topic we both think and care about. I don't mind if we keep disagreeing and are both content to keep doing what we're both doing - his training has to work in his context, mine has to work in mine. Both may be helpful to someone else here at some point down the line, so it's all good.

 

[maximus__]

Yes, starting sprinting is more risky than most people believe. I second hill sprints for that reason. 800 m not so much, that's a middle distance, not a sprint, plus it's metabolically different. A top 800 m runner will run two sub-51 s 400 m back to back, and he'll have battery acid in his legs by the time he reaches the 600 m mark. 800 m runners are typically very, very lanky, typically around 10 kg lighter than most sprinters their height.

That's why I picked those distances. A non conditioned athlete won't hit a fast enough speed over that distance. I would recommend doing those 800, 600,400,200 sequentially over a couple weeks. By the time we are hitting our real sprint efforts we have a bit of conditioning and general prep at those longer paces, before we go hard.

I don't think the poster is going for world class sprint times. Just wants to use sprinting as part of their training.Most important thing is to not get injured.

 

[maximus__]

I'm not trying to mess with him at all (that's what I charge money for), we are just having an ongoing discussion about a topic we both think and care about. I don't mind if we keep disagreeing and are both content to keep doing what we're both doing - his training has to work in his context, mine has to work in mine. Both may be helpful to someone else here at some point down the line, so it's all good.

No issues there, but at this point every thread has divulged into this pointless discussion (I am guilty of it to) but I realised when he couldn't own the fact he got caught lying again about doing 5/3/1, it's pointless. They will just keep moving the threads to the OT.

 

[ROcknrollracing]

No issues there, but at this point every thread has divulged into this pointless discussion (I am guilty of it to) but I realised when he couldn't own the fact he got caught lying again about doing 5/3/1, it's pointless. They will just keep moving the threads to the OT.

it will all sink in one day for you.

 

[maximus__]

it will all sink in one day for you.

It has. You have outright lied or misrepresented every supposed achievement you have had in your posts.

I used to give you the benefit of the doubt in threads pre all this. Now that I went and used the search function, it's obvious you are full of shit.

There isn't even a point of wasting the time, because you have no understanding of what you are talking about, say something and when anyone doesn't immediately agree with you,you lie about something you did in the past as proof of your experience and then throw a tantrum.

Congatulations on officially becoming the worst poster in this forum.It took you a while to commit fully, but you finally managed it.

 

[ROcknrollracing]

If you mean you can waste more energy in the transfer than me, then generally yes. However, there are still some caveats: first of all, we would have to discuss "relevant movement patterns" - and for example, one of my coaches made a very strong case that rope climbing is a much more relevant mevement pattern for wrestling than deadlifts for example - it's al there, reaching, gripping, immediately pulling, even the adrenalin to some degree. I have written it before, rope climbing is also like running to a degree, you won't get better at it if you don't do it enough - and just adding weight would be a bit like running with weight (yoke carry for example) and expecting a linear carry-over in speed, without taking into account that it will shorten your stride, put strain on different muscles etc. So if I train unweighted rope climbing all the time while you train deadlifts, I will be stronger at a more relevant movement pattern, and that may trump your numbers.
Second, we would have to discuss what "vastly stronger" means. I think Ken Leistner once said that if you squat 350 and I squat 300, it won't matter much. However, if you squat 700 and I squat 300, then well, I might have problems. But again, it will fall back to "relevant movement patterns" to a large degree.

I never said you have to squat, bench or deadlift at all to be a fighter only that you train general movement patterns. Rope climbing is great.

Different schools have different opinions. Opinions are tested on the mat, in the ring and in the cage. We see what currently prevails, and while we can of course discuss whether other methods are more optimal in theory, they still need to prove themselves effective in practice.

Other than myself the two martial artists that I posted videos in that thread one has been testing his method and theories since to early 70s. Ramsey dewey was a former MMA fighter who had to retire from getting a broken bone in his face and now teaches in china.

No, of course you don't need to be a black belt at anything to be effective in MMA (or any other combat sport), but you do need at least one trump card to get the desired result, and to be able to play it. On the other hand, you can hardly afford to not have a working plan B and C if your plan A fails - all eggs in one basket only works for exceptional individuals like Karelin (we never even got to see if he had a plan B).
I have long been arguing that BJJ should introduce separate categories for experience and success in competition (belts vs. beginner, intermediate, advanced and pro). The German SAMBO federation had a system like that once, if you had won a certain number of fights as a beginner, they force-advanced you in the next category. No sandbagging problems there.
MMA is both more simple and more complex, because on one hand, a lot of successful strategies in grappling are simply nullified by striking etc., and vice-versa.

Of course not. At the highest levels strategy of the fight comes into play even more so then. Even a certain style against another style could be one fighters advantage. Fighting is only one thing it is not a style. I hope people can understand that and it would make understanding MMA easier.

Maybe they could, but I don't think we've seen that in a long while, if ever. Nor have we seen complete beginners dominate international competition in any respectable combat sport - if anything, we saw people who were world class in one sport take over the belt in another immediately, but that is typically a sign that sport A has much stiffer competition than sport B.

Not a complete beginner. A complete beginner is someone I consider that has not any GPP relevant to being an athlete at all. A less genetic specimen for a given sport could be very well be technically better than a more endowed phenotype but still lose because the genetic attributes are nearly too much to overcome. They very well could over come them on a given day because that is where upsets do happen.


Hope that makes sense.