Research review: Management of the training process in qualified female hammer throwers

I recently came across a great IAAF database of articles dedicated to improving understanding of the athletic training process.

As a compulsive hunter-gatherer, I have stashed away all kinds of interesting articles to review over the coming months but this one about periodisation for hammer throwing fits well with my book review of Tessa Sanderson’s autobiography and my interview with Jeff Noel of A Throw Coach’s Journey.

The right picture for a change (photo by dirkhansen)

***

What’s it all about?

Well, it’s called Management of the training process in qualified female hammer throwers, by Eugene Wrublevsky, New Studies in Athletics, 2005.  

It’s not a strict research article but it does contain some very interesting data and some fascinating observations and conclusions about how to set up periodisation for training throwing athletes.  I think there is a lot to learn from here.

I was particularly interested in where in the training cycle weights were used and where overweight implements were used.

***

The women’s hammer throw

Embarassingly, I did not know until I came to read this article that the hammer is a relatively new event for women in the Olympics.

Hammer throwing has been around for the men since the year dot but was only introduced for women in 2000, in at the Olympic Games in Sydney.

***

Periodisation of female hammer throwers’ training

Wrublevsky explains that according to the data he has collected, the strongest female hammer throwers concentrate on certain kinds of training at certain stages of the training year.  He describes it in very broad terms as follows:

• November - high volume auxiliary equipment (weight, shot, other implement) training
• December – January – high volume of hammer throwing of different weights, imitation exercises and weight training
• February - low volume of general training due to winter competition
• March – April – high volume of special strength training (weights and plyometrics) and the quantity of different weight throws (competitive and over-weight hammers)
• Summer - low volume of general training due to competition

More specifically, Wrublevsky presents data showing the distribution of throwing different implements, and different weights of hammers throughout the year.  This analysis makes it clear that the programming is more sophisticated than the above descriptions would have you believe.

This is my summary of his data, which he presents in chart form:

• Hammers – the monthly volume of hammer throwing starts the training year (October – September) just below the annual average and rises steadily towards February, when it drops to the annual minimum during the winter competitive period.  In March, it jumps up to its highest level and then tapers gradually down from there to another minimum during the summer competitive period.
• Auxiliary equipment – the monthly volume of throwing other implements starts the training year at just above the annual average and jumps quickly up to a maximum in November before dropping away for the rest of the year, with only another small peak in March.
• Weight training – the monthly volume of weight training starts at below the annual average and rises slightly before dropping back to a minimum during the February winter competitive season.  It then jumps to an all-time high in March before tapering just as the volume of throwing and auxiliary equipment does, to the summer competitions.
• Short runs – the volume fluctuations of short runs is slightly staggered with the above variables, as stays low in the first part of the year and drops even lower during March when the volume of weight training, hammer throwing and auxiliary equipment throwing is highest.  It jumps to an all-time annual high in April as the weight training, hammer throwing and auxiliary equipment throwing start to taper.
• Plyometrics – the volume of plyometrics tracks the same pattern as the short runs except it rises further to a peak in May rather than April before tapering back down into the summer.

And breaking down the throws with different weight hammers, we see the following pattern:

• Standard weight – the standard weight hammer is rarely used in October and November.  It reaches a peak in December and January before the February deload for competition.  It then goes back to the peak levels for the rest of the season for specificity reasons, I guess, before deloading at the end of the summer.
• Overweight – the overweight hammer is used extensively just pre-season in October and November and again in March and April.  It is used very little in the rest of the year.
• Lighter weight – the lighter hammer also has two peaks, which are staggered from the overweight hammer.  They occur in December – January and May – June.

That’s pretty much the meat of the article, right there.

***

Weight training for throwing

Wrublevsky notes that the optimal volume and intensity of weight training exercises in a top thrower’s programme is still an open question.  He points out that his experience shows that an increase in barbell press, squat and snatch, etc. does not always positively influence competitive results.

Wrublevsky asserts that the men’s world record holder Yuriy Sedykh showed inferior results in the barbell exercises to his main opponents but was considerably better in explosive plyometrics such as the standing long jump.

Wrubslevsky conlcudes that the decisive factor in achieving the highest level of performance in hammer throwing is “strength–velocity readiness and the subtle ability to utilise it in a specific movement skill.”

I can see how improvement in plyometrics would then correlate reasonably well with that definition, so long as the movement skill was able to keep pace.  Also, the use of over- and under- weight implements fits, as it requires the thrower to learn to manipulate a different point on the strength-velocity curve, which will increase their strength-velocity readiness.

I wonder whether a wider range of throwing implement weights would have a beneficial effect?  Wrublevsky refers to his athletes using two weights in addition to the standard weight hammer, one lighter and one heavier.  I wonder what would happen if two additional weights were used, but with similar overall volume of training?

***

Individuality

Wrubslevsky finishes up by discussing how different throwers will have different strengths and weaknesses and different requirements and tolerances for training.

This means that throwers, particularly as they move towards their genetic potential, should have a particularly individualised programme and should not follow a standard template, however brilliant.

***

My last research post of the year

Because of the way my holidays fall and because I want to do some annual summaries next week, this is my last research post of the year.  Is any of this material helping you?  Is there anything I can do to make it more helpful?

Please let me know.