Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Body Mass & Foot Speed


Braxton1

Recommended Posts

We were having a discussion over lunch: Is there a direct correlation between body mass and foot speed? In other words, if I spend 16 seconds of a field course running and only 8 seconds actually engaging targets, could I lose 40 lbs. and expect to do it XX seconds faster?

We originally thought "Shoot a course, go on a diet for a few months, come back and shoot it again", but that has too many variables. While losing this weight, I'd probably be doing some sort of improved exercise regimen, so my leg strength may increase. Plus, the shooting itself is too big of a variable: I may pick up or lose time actually shooting because of shooting practice (or lack thereof).

We wanted to completely isolate "body mass" as the variable, so here's what we came up with. Any of you "I was a college football coach" types are certainly welcome to weigh in on this (Pardon the pun.):

Take a person who is in relatively good shape. Let him run a 10 yard sprint, stop in an intermediate "pause-and-set-up" box to simulate another shooting box, and then run another 10 to the Stop Box. Time it. Maybe twice, to get a mean average. Strap a vest to him with 20% of his body weight on it (The equivalent of a 250 lb. man losing 50 lbs.). Re-run the test and compare the differences. I think that this removes the variables of "months between tests" and the obvious variable of "the actual shooting", but it may introduce some that I didn't think about.

I think that a test like this would be the most-telling predictor of how fitness affects an IPSC shooter. I believe that grip strength and upper body strength would pale in comparison.

Opinions? Does anybody know of anyone who has done similar research? Football teams or baseball teams, perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are really three kinds of foot speed...

Quickness, acceleration and sprint speed.

Quickness is related to balance, anticipation and fast twitch muscles. Acceleration speed is where body mass comes into play the most, but there are other factors such as the fast twitch muscles, joint size, joint lubrication, flexibility, muscle structure, muscle strength and attachment of muscles and tendons.

A lot of college and pro scouts, espcially in baseball, want to assess relative joint size as a predominant factor for acceleration and sprint speed. A general test that has been used is to measure finger wrap. If you wrap your middle finger and thumb around your wrist and the finger tips touch, you are in the average group. Half a finger nail overlap puts you into "Pro Sports capable" and a full fingernail overlap indicates you have a great potential for speed. This is only for men. The average woman will need a half a fingernail overlap and top speed women a nail and a half overlap since their hands are not as think as mens. In essence, thin wrists and thin ankles equal the potential for great acceleration and sprint speed. But we all know what potential means.

BJ Norris and Taran for instance, both have very quick feet, but their acceleration speed is less than some of their close competitors. For USPSA pistol courses, one or the other (both is better) is cetainly a benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I actually had a chance to try this out, in a way - not a sophisticated scientific test, but... Between June of 2007 and April of 2008, I lost 30 pounds (13.5% body weight), and got quite a bit fitter and stronger. Today, I actually weight right about what I did when I started, but much of that weight is muscle, and I'm much stronger than I was back in 2007 (though I've still got some leaning out that I could do, which would improve the power to weight ratio to some degree).

Strapping weight onto somebody in order to run a test like this is also error prone. The additional weight throws off their proprioception and kinesthetic awareness (cutting the weight off them would do the same, aside from being pretty painful). The body's used to moving around as it currently is, and if you alter that significantly, you find yourself being a little clumsy until you get used to the new setup. At Area 1 in 2008, I practically threw myself out of a shooting area when moving from a low port up to a high port - I used the same amount of power required for my old body weight, and launched instead of smoothly stopping in the port.

Realize that fitness is not equal to body mass, and achieving a lower body mass does not necessarily equal you being fitter (though you probably are, at that point... at least a little bit). There are other things that factor in - and things that are probably more important to IPSC than body mass (especially given the short duration, short distance physical efforts we almost always engage in). Things like ability to generate power, balance, coordination, stability. Plenty of very big guys have been very fast over short distances.

In the end - it's technique and shooting ability that wins in this game. Let that sink in for a minute before I move forward.... (in other words, if you weigh 250 and hold an M card, eating right, working out, and losing 50 pounds will not magically win the Nationals for you).

That said, doing those things - especially using a program that stresses general physical preparedness for your exercise regimen - will certainly improve your chances. Being lighter at the same strength level means you're going to be able to move in and out of position faster and more accurately - and we can certainly at least attempt to test that (which is what you were getting at). Chances are, though, that if you're following a GPP improvement program, you'll also be stronger, and have better physical coordination, balance, etc. The benefits multiply from there (and include things like better stamina throughout a match). I've written a lot about this in the past, and my experiences with CrossFit and how following CrossFit's program has improved my shooting and general well being.

For recoil control, technique is king. Grip strength is next. I'm not convinced that upper body strength makes a huge difference relative to those two - but I've found that lower body strength definitely helps when using appropriate technique, FWIW.

It just so happens that I have access to a weight vest or three. I'd be happy to measure some numbers and see what happens to simple sprints, and stops/starts (for instance, a short distance shuttle run involving touching the ground on each side of the lines is a good approximation of the movements we do). Should be able to give it a whirl next week, and should be able to do 20% body weight addition ;)

How's that sound?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that, in my experience, the longer the physical effort in the stage, the more important a role fitness level plays (this is probably obvious). A stage that involves a long run will tend to slant toward the shooter with greater physical prowess. However, the bulk of our stages are too short, or involve sprint efforts much shorter than we'd notice (in Mark's terms, fast foot speed helps for those, but you never get into that acceleration phase)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh...and I recall BE posting about an experiment that he and TGO ran back in the day. Where one of them busted ass between shooting positions and the other just made their way without the hustle. Not a big difference in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh...and I recall BE posting about an experiment that he and TGO ran back in the day. Where one of them busted ass between shooting positions and the other just made their way without the hustle. Not a big difference in time.

Thanks! I won't feel as bad about the steak, potatoes and pie tonight. :eatdrink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a direct correlation between body mass and foot speed? In other words, if I spend 16 seconds of a field course running and only 8 seconds actually engaging targets, could I lose 40 lbs. and expect to do it XX seconds faster?

There actually is a decent relationship between body mass and foot speed -- for long-distance running. If you drop five percent of your body mass, you should be able to sustain a five-percent-faster pace, more or less.

For a practical-shooting course of fire, the relationship won't be so simple -- and strapping on weights isn't quite the same as putting on fat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and strapping on weights isn't quite the same as putting on fat.

I agree totally, but unless you can do one of those "weight losses or gains like Christian Bale or Matt Damon", I don't see a practical way to test it within a reasonable amount of time that would offset other variables like "learning how to shoot better over the course of the next six months" or "getting into better overall shape on top of the weight loss".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just so happens that I have access to a weight vest or three. I'd be happy to measure some numbers and see what happens to simple sprints, and stops/starts (for instance, a short distance shuttle run involving touching the ground on each side of the lines is a good approximation of the movements we do). Should be able to give it a whirl next week, and should be able to do 20% body weight addition ;)

How's that sound?

That is EXACTLY why I specifically called your attention to this thread via PM, you cross-fit training animal!!! I knew you couldn't resist the challenge.

I have contacted a couple of cross-fit guys here in Atlanta. They're interested too. I'll report their findings also....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just so happens that I have access to a weight vest or three. I'd be happy to measure some numbers and see what happens to simple sprints, and stops/starts (for instance, a short distance shuttle run involving touching the ground on each side of the lines is a good approximation of the movements we do). Should be able to give it a whirl next week, and should be able to do 20% body weight addition ;)

How's that sound?

That is EXACTLY why I specifically called your attention to this thread via PM, you cross-fit training animal!!! I knew you couldn't resist the challenge.

Heh... more like, I'm intrigued to find out what the differences would be... and I can probably drag a few fools volunteers in to provide additional data points, too... goof.gif

I have contacted a couple of cross-fit guys here in Atlanta. They're interested too. I'll report their findings also....

It would be interesting to see what they come up with, too... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be a little off topic, but being fat and out of shape can be a definate factor in performance. I'm pretty slow anyway, but my poor physical condition only made things worse for me at the Single Stack Nationals. By about mid day, fatigue started to play a factor in my performance. However, I cherish the experience and feel I did pretty well for a guy of my experience and ability. It made me want to return in 2013 and improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be way off here but this is my experience/opinion. I've dropped 15lbs in just over a month (my ex took off along with all my stress and I drastically changed my diet). Now, sans those 15 lbs I've shot 2 matches while they weren't my best performances I felt like I still had plenty in the tank (granted it's only a 5 stage match). But if I felt way better after shooting those 5 stages than I had at previous matches, how does that translate to a much longer match.

I think having the extra weight off helps a lot. If for on other reason you can move without the extra beating on your joints and without having to move so much weight from point to point. It may not improve your times per on any one given stage; however, at a 14 stage area match or at Single Stack Nationals? I'd say it'd probably, over the course of the match, save you quite a bit of time (a cummulative effect of a few seconds per stage as fatigue sets in). Again, my thoughts and opinion (that and 5 bucks will get you a gallon of gas). :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a question I've been struggling with myself recently. Over the last couple of years I've put on about 30lbs, but the last year or so I've done better in the overall standings than I've done since I started shooting. I think theoretically I'd be faster if I weighed in the 260-270 range versus the 300 range, but its hard to say. I train specifically to improve my power to weight ratio and balance. I'm certainly in the competitive range of lighter shooters. I tend agree with Flex that the biggest factor in determining a matches outcome is the best application of shooting fundamentals. I will say that I suspect that the heavier shooter has to "pull up" sooner to keep from overrunning positions and loses a little time as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also harder to get moving on those chair starts... getting up from a squating or kneeling position, getting more mass moving takes more work for your body... I'm not saying it'll determine who wins, but the less effort you put into moving your body, the more you can put into shooting.

Like coach said, I've been beat by a bunch of people who aren't in great shape (I'm not in awesome shape myself) but I can tell you in my own experience that having less to carry around helps me.

Being in the best shape in the world won't help your shooting, I'm not attempting to imply that, I'm just saying in my experience losing a few lbs has helped me (not in the shooting fundamentals but in the way I feel during and after a match).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been gathering some data this week. The tests we're running (3 different physical tests, repeated 2-4 times each) are, at best, approximations of things that we encounter in shooting this game. This is not scientific study, obviously. I could shoot all kinds of holes in it. Nonetheless, the data is interesting, so far. Once we're done, I'll post it up here in full (along with some video - in fact, if you want, go check out http://www.youtube.com/davere1 and you can see the three tests in action - and yes, it really sucks ass trying to get off the ground when you weigh 265!... thank God I could lose 45# in a big hurry after that hell)

Anyone who thinks that you can be super fit and step out on the range and excel against everyone else out there without having very sharp shooting skills is missing the point - as are the people who think that fitness level makes no difference. What the data I'm gathering seems to be showing is that exactly how much difference actually depends upon how technical the movement is vs. how all out physical it is (and how much movement there is vs. the shooting). So far, we see less difference in times between unweighted and weighted efforts if the movement is more technical (the "Container" drill being the most technical movement, and possibly the drill that best approximates our game's typical challenge). However - so far, there's always a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...if you want, go check out http://www.youtube.com/davere1 ...

Thanks for actually running the tests and sharing.

Anyone who thinks that you can be super fit and step out on the range and excel against everyone else out there without having very sharp shooting skills is missing the point - as are the people who think that fitness level makes no difference. What the data I'm gathering seems to be showing is that exactly how much difference actually depends upon how technical the movement is vs. how all out physical it is (and how much movement there is vs. the shooting).

I think it's pretty clear that shooting and moving involves, well, shooting and moving, and that your ability to shoot and your ability to move both play into your score. Many standards stages involve minimal movement, and many field stages involve tremendous movement.

So far, we see less difference in times between unweighted and weighted efforts if the movement is more technical (the "Container" drill being the most technical movement, and possibly the drill that best approximates our game's typical challenge). However - so far, there's always a difference.

So, an extra 20% of body-weight increased movement time by how much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, an extra 20% of body-weight increased movement time by how much?

On the 25y sprints, so far it's about .5 to .75 seconds. (roughly 15%)

On the sprawl shuttle, it averages about 3-4 seconds. (roughly 18%)

On the Container drill, it averages about 1.5 seconds. (roughly 8%)

I've still got data coming from a few folks - once I have that, I'll post some final numbers and analysis. The Container drill is perhaps most like our typical physical challenge level (albeit, longer duration than we usually encounter), and is definitely more technical than the other two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Acceleration = force/mass. Assuming the ability to produce a given amount of force remains the same (which it should unless you are losing a lot of muscle mass), reducing the mass variable will always result in greater acceleration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...