Seb Coe Weight Training

Exact quote from the book:

"As an example, for Seb Coe (130lb body weight) doing six sets of half-squats, the number of reps per set will be 15, 15, 15, 10, 10, and 5, with the weight increasing by 10lb per set from 140 to 190lb."

Good for a runner? Yes. That predicts a 1RM of 215...or 1.64 of his body weight.

"Quite an accomplished weight lifter."?

Depends on what you're comparing him to. To other runners he might as well be a powerlifter. Comparing him to powerlifters? Well....

WR raw squat for a 132lb female is 275.

Alan

that is if you can believe anything the Coes tell you.I remember watching the video "born to run" with seb doing multiple leg presses of a lightish weight - probably not an example of something he did in real training.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Exact quote from the book:

"As an example, for Seb Coe (130lb body weight) doing six sets of half-squats, the number of reps per set will be 15, 15, 15, 10, 10, and 5, with the weight increasing by 10lb per set from 140 to 190lb."

Good for a runner? Yes. That predicts a 1RM of 215...or 1.64 of his body weight.

"Quite an accomplished weight lifter."?

Depends on what you're comparing him to. To other runners he might as well be a powerlifter. Comparing him to powerlifters? Well....

WR raw squat for a 132lb female is 275.

Alan

...if he hadnt been doped to the gills.

What is wrong with you people?Why are you so negative in spouting rubbish on matters of which you have no knowledge.

Put up or shut up!

shut up and do some research, judylots of contradictions from their own mouths

Judy wrote:

What is wrong with you people?Why are you so negative in spouting rubbish on matters of which you have no knowledge.

Put up or shut up!

Anthony Chiulli got to a 1RM back squat of 320-330 lbs. by the end of his sophomore year at CU. This was a normal back squat (we didn't use a safe-squat bar because we didn't have one at CU, but obviously there is value in that when testing) and a fairly athletic stance - not hip width, but not much wider than shoulder width and not super splayed feet. Why does this matter? Well, in the video below a guy is squatting a lot, but his feet are about two track lanes wide and his feet really splayed; if a runner were to squat this way it's not very sport specific.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIFuRc9RQxY

Back to Chiulli, he was/is "wired" but it's not like he was a 45 high, 46 low guy. I'd guess that the twins at Texas - in terms of being a "wired" - better Chiulli's numbers.

If someone is really curious about 1RM numbers I'm sure Mike will share Chris's numbers when he ran the 1k record, yet the point of my post is simply that Coe's numbers aren't that crazy. Oh, for those how use the squat, I should that I had kids like Chiulli full squatting for the test; I now hate that knee angle, thinking it too severe, and much prefer the half or 3/4 squat and the respective knee angles....and I really like speed squats at half squat knee angles for 15, 12, and 10 seconds (they go as hard as they can) with full rest...I think its a way to get a MD specific metabolic stimulus while recruiting as many motor units as can be expected out of a distance runner.

Okay, that's it.

Everyone was at that time. It was MLB from the years 2000-2003. No testing. Accessible drugs. Says it all when Coe breaks 1:42 first man ever and the announcer acts as though he just watched the 319th American break 4:00.

Wuhlhuter admits he had friends who were doping (he said he wasnt)

It was everywhere.

Never allow runners to break the 90-degree knee plane. You should know that coach.

MemphisState: what does 1RM back squat have anything to do with middle distance running? This isn't olympic weight lifting.

I used to squat 415 lbs in high school while running a 1:55 in the 800.

id be shocked... wrote:

Everyone was at that time. It was MLB from the years 2000-2003. No testing. Accessible drugs. Says it all when Coe breaks 1:42 first man ever and the announcer acts as though he just watched the 319th American break 4:00.

Wuhlhuter admits he had friends who were doping (he said he wasnt)

It was everywhere.

The only accessible PED in the 1980s were steroids and they had competition testing at the time. Out of competition testing, however, didn´t start until 1988.

HALF-squats??? thanks for that info. i guess i don't really need to be any stronger.

id be shocked... wrote:

Everyone was at that time. It was MLB from the years 2000-2003. No testing. Accessible drugs. Says it all when Coe breaks 1:42 first man ever and the announcer acts as though he just watched the 319th American break 4:00.

Wuhlhuter admits he had friends who were doping (he said he wasnt)

It was everywhere.

Actually not many distance runners were at the time. Plenty of rumors that grow with each passing year. Like the fish-that-got-away story. Ten years after the fact, somebody thought a guy he ran against MIGHT have done it. By twenty years, "everyone knew" that he was "doped to the gills". Just a silly game of telephone across the decades for wannabes.

I doubt all squat numbers unless a video is produced...:)

A 415lb full squat in high school while running 1:55....is just not believable....unless you're tipping the scale at 200lbs.

There is a major difference between a 200, 300, 400, 500, 600lb half-squat (which 90% of people do), and a full-squat.

For general strength & conditioning and for knee health a full squat is better.

For a specific athletic squat (and a specific athletic adaptation), a half-squat is better.

Which one should you do?

BOTH.

Do full squats during the off-season and half-squats in-season along with split squats and lunges, which are even more athlete specific.

Alan

I second Alan idea that without a video who knows what's going on. Alan, I confirmed with Chiulli those numbers just to make sure I wasn't making this up...AND he hit those numbers his senior year while running 14-15 mile weekly long runs; I didn't know that and incorectly thought the numbers went down a bit as he ran more...but that tidbit should keep the Lydiard devotees happy...

In response to Millitary conspiracy and in regards to the full squat definition, my experience (limited to small cohort of athletes) is that:

a) No MD or LD runner, once they're back squatting body weight, will EVER get to a 90º knee angle and keep their heals on the ground. However, most distance kids can keep their knee behind the toe, if not above the ankle, which I think is Millitary's concern.

b) When this athlete is testing (i.e. 3-5 reps to determine a 1RM) they probably only get a 110º knee angle, maybe even greater...is this cheating? Maybe, but if we distill lifting for distance runners down to it's essence, don't we simply want to recruit more motor units than we can on the track by sprinting? If so, then the depth of the squat probably isn't that important, except when we're trying to compare and contrast metrics (which is the point of the original post)

The real issue underlying Millitary conspiracy's concern is how many patellar tendon injuries did we see? None. Luck? Maybe...but maybe not.

Final thought. Vern Gambetta - who likely understand this issue on a deeper level than all of us on this thread combined - doesn't think that they knee has to stay behind the toe and will often find a photo to post on his blog of an athlete in their respective sport with that "severe" knee angle.

http://www.functionalpathtraining.typepad.com/

The reason why a distance runner has trouble getting to proper depth is because their ankle joint is shit and has no range of motion because their calves are tight and filled with micro-tears. Foam roll and start doing proper squats and your ankle ROM will improve.

The goal of strength training isn't just increased strength/power or muscle recruitment...it is also increased functional ROM and increased connective tissue strength as well as bone strength. By not going to proper depth you miss out on 1. some development of connective tissue strength and 2. proper development of glute strength (since glutes are activated more the deep your go as you begin your concentric lift in a more hip-flexed position).

The placement of the knee in relation to the toe has no bearing on the incidence of knee injury PROVIDED the other joints are in their proper place. Try walking up and down stairs without placing the knee past the toe. We walk around all day and perform daily activities all the time with the knee passing the toe.

The placement of the knee in relation to the toe during lunges and squats has more to do with the length of the limb segments than anything else. A short person may be able to get to full depth on a squat without even getting close to "knee pass toe".

The "don't ever put the knee pass the toe" is a myth. Now, IF your heels are coming up on a squat (or even if your weight is shifted to the toes instead of midfood/heel) OR your knees are moving inward ("push/force" your feet outward to keep your knees from coming in) OR if your torso is leaning forward on a lunge OR your knee is again moving side to side on the lunge, that changes everything and your knee will be at risk.

IF you can lunge or squat with knee pass toe without pain then there is no problem.

Now, I can point too many strength & conditioning specialist, PhDs, etc who agree with what I've written above, but I'm lazy and don't feel like doing the homework, so I'll leave you this with:

-------------------------------------------------------

Fry AC, Smith JC, Schilling BK. Effect of knee position on hip and knee torques during the barbell squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2003 Nov;17(4):629-33.

The above study examined joint kinetics during back squats under two conditions. The first condition placed a board in front of the participants’ shins, which restricted forward displacement of the knee. In the second condition, movement wasn’t restricted at all. They squatted normally and the knees were allowed to pass the toes (GASP).

Squat Joint Kinetics

The researchers found that restricting the forward excursion of the knees during the squat (not allowing the knees to go over toes) increased anterior lean of the trunk and promoted an increased “internal angle at the knees and ankles.”

The results showed a 22% decrease in knee torque and a 1070% increase in hip torque! That stress has to go somewhere. Keeping the knees behind the toes definitely reduces the forces on the knee, but those forces were transferred more than tenfold to the hips and lower back. Translation: that’s an ouchie.

--------------------------------------------------------

Alan

not disagreeing with you on the benefits of weight lifting, but why is increased ROM needed?

Almost all good distance runners can achieve the ROM needed for running. What good does increasing ankle ROM do then? Especially considering that ankle movement does little for running in terms of contributing to forward movement.

another runner wrote:

shut up and do some research, judy

lots of contradictions from their own mouths

Care to share some examples of your own "research?"

"Foam roll and start doing proper squats and your ankle ROM will improve"

Would you say that's a universal thing? Leaving aside implications for proper form when strength training, the fact that I can dorsiflex my ankle so little seems to shorten my stride quite dramatically even when walking but it doesn't feel as if my calves are particularly tight, it feels as if my ankle simply hits a brick wall, as if the joint is blocked.

Do you think daily foam rolling and other calf releasing methods are the best way to increase ankle ROM or should I be looking into other ankle mobilising exercises?

Lack of ankle dorsiflexion seems to really inhibit my running performance but I don't want to play around with my calves and ankles for months for no functional benefit when I could be running (if a bit inefficently).