A Bodybuilding Lens to Sprint Training Design

Jack Edwards
Sep 25, 2025
9 min read

Kevin Levrone racing Dwaine Chambers in 2002

This article shows how bodybuilding’s mindset can sharpen sprint training, through three ideas: epistemology, heuristics, and pragmatism.

Epistemology

I’ve long admired the training of bodybuilders. In my opinion, they are the greatest trainers in sport. Some may argue that bodybuilding is not a sport, but I believe it is, because:

There is competition with rules, officiating, and varying categories of competency.
Preparing for competition requires rigorous physical training.

Sports performance frameworks—such as the Four Coactive Model popularised by Fergus Connolly and Cameron Josse—recognise that performance is shaped by physical, technical, tactical, and psychological components. Yet the weight of each component varies across sports, as does the way they interact. In bodybuilding, technical and tactical demands are minimal (beyond posing or proper exercise execution), so the physical element is amplified. If bodybuilding had its own performance framework, this simplicity would define it.

Despite the ongoing debate over whether bodybuilding qualifies as a sport, its training culture has influenced virtually all of sport and fitness. As we look through the history of both sprinting and bodybuilding training cultures, it's undeniable to see the parallels with training culture and to gain a better understand of how we've come to where we are in our understanding of 'best-practice' right now.

From Arnold to the Evidence-Based Era

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s training methodology began influencing gym-goers worldwide in the 1970s after his six consecutive Mr Olympia titles. His approach was high-volume: a two-a-day body-part split (about 12 sessions per week), delivering roughly 250–300 working sets weekly.

The rise of Mike Mentzer’s High-Intensity Training (HIT) in the 1980s—later embodied by Dorian Yates, who won Mr Olympia from 1992 to 1997—offered an opposite path. HIT favoured low volume, around 30–40 total working sets per week.

As these polarised methods both produced champions, the concept of “best practice” became murky. Today’s evidence-based era is defined less by a single methodology than by attempts to synthesise a vast and sometimes conflicting body of scientific research and decades of anecdotal programs.

In my view, this effort to synthesise has left many gym-goers paralysed. They struggle to reconcile that credible evidence—whether from scientific studies or phenomenological experience—can support opposite conclusions on the same topic.

The Sprinting Parallel

A similar arc has unfolded in North American sprinting.

Bud Winter, coaching at San Jose’s “Speed City” from the 1940s through the 1960s, popularised a long-to-short approach: off-season may have begun with 5–6 days of sprinting a week, completing 150–320 m sprints with limited recovery, gradually shortened and intensified toward competition.

Charlie Francis, coached as an athlete by Gerard Mach (who drew from European and Winter’s methods), flipped that model. His short-to-long system began with three weekly sessions of 30 m sprints plus heavy resistance training, separated by low-intensity aerobic days. Sprint distances lengthened as competition approached. His High–Low method helped pioneer the understanding of fatigue as both central and peripheral.

Modern sprint programs are highly varied. Culture and environment remain crucial, but technology now defines the era. Motorised pulley systems (e.g., 1080 Sprint), velocity-based training devices, wearable resistance, and advanced monitoring tools have expanded the coaching toolbox. Randy Huntington, also known as Mr Gizmo, may be the figurehead for this era of training as he has been able to successfully integrate a myriad of technologies (Keiser - although utilised in the 1990s as well, 1080, wearable resistance, VBT devices, Omegawave, etc.) in a manner which has significantly enhanced the performance of his athletes.

The task, of integration of technology and synthesisation of data, is undoubtedly the greates difficulty presented towards sprint coaches as new technology and knowledge present great opportunity for growth in training quality; but also present a significant threat in creating confusion.

Much like the dilemma facing bodybuilding enthusiasts, how can sprint coaches reconcile athletes standing on top of the podium are coming from a wide variety of systems? Some which are highly technologically driven, some which are not; some which are more short-to-long, some which are long-to-short? What is best practice?

Bodybuilding	Sprinting
Arnold Schwarzenegger (1960s–70s) – Golden Era, high volume	Bud Winter & Gerard Mach (1940s–70s) – Long-to-short, high volume, extensive drills
Mike Mentzer (late 70s–80s) – HIT, very low volume	Charlie Francis (late 70s–80s) – Short-to-long, high intensity, CNS focus
Evidence-based era (2000s–today)	Randy Huntington & tech-driven coaches (2010s–today) – Force–velocity profiling, motorised pulleys

Shared Dilemmas

Bodybuilding and sprinting therefore face the same question: What is best practice?

Key realities emerge:

Most people cannot confidently interpret scientific evidence (I include myself).
Human nature seeks certainty between input and outcome.
True adaptations emerge from many interacting subsystems; targeting a single adaptation is overly reductionist.
Social identity matters—“I’m a HIT guy,” “I’m a High/Low coach.”
Labels can both clarify and distort. Once attached to a method, labels often outlive the nuances of the original concept. For instance, Charlie Francis’ “high-intensity” model is frequently misread as low volume despite detailed logs showing substantial total work.
Social and environmental forces—peer groups, cultural norms, funding pressures—often outweigh pure logic in shaping how programs are designed or adjusted.
The modern explosion of accessible knowledge and online content can create information paralysis, making it harder to filter what is relevant and actionable.
“Scientific” or tech-driven approaches can create a false sense of superiority, sometimes reducing genuine training effort.

These forces combine to create epistemological traps:

“Best practice” is often defined by prominent figures or medal counts, not necessarily by reproducible training principles.
Counter-culture narratives (“Feed the Cats,” “High/Low,” “HIT”) can appear more exciting and gain followers even when misunderstood or oversimplified.
Financial incentives—from books to devices—shape training fads as much as results.

Navigating These Traps

Based on my coaching experience, a few practices help cut through the noise:

Invest in scientific literacy If you aim to use research to guide training design, build your ability to interpret and appraise scientific evidence and keep a solid baseline in physiology.
Be wary of labels Even plain ones carry hidden assumptions. Avoid letting catchy systems—High/Low, long-to-short, HIT—become rigid definitions.
Know your own lens and bias Understand your coaching journey and philosophical stance. (Mine is realist–pragmatist, which helps me weigh evidence without chasing every trend.)
Design for systems, not single outcomes Training interventions affect many interlinked subsystems. Overly reductionist goals risk missing the real drivers of adaptation.
Question authority by outcomes alone Podium success depends on many variables beyond training design. High-profile wins shouldn’t automatically define best practice.
Favour pragmatism over optimisation Build a system on pragmatic principles and enhance it with optimisation, not the other way around. Optimisation is always shifting.

Cultivating these habits strengthens your bullshit filter, creating clarity and consistency in training decisions.

Just using this article as an excuse to post photos of Asafa Powell.

Heuristics

Despite philosophical shifts since Arnold’s era, several enduring rules of thumb continue to guide high-performance training. Each has direct relevance for sprint coaching:

Match training dose to adaptive capacity Arnold trained a muscle intensely and only repeated the stimulus once soreness had resolved. Mentzer shared the same rationale but with a different design. Modern science has clarified refractory periods after resistance stress. Sprint programs should likewise balance workload with central and peripheral recovery to ensure consistent, sustainable progress.
Prioritise technical execution as load rises Proper technique is the first line of defence against injury. The margin for error narrows as athletes approach peak speed and force outputs.
Recognise technique as a stress regulator Technical quality shapes how forces are distributed across muscles, tendons, and connective tissues. Small deviations can shift loads and injury risk.
Manipulate overload variables to drive adaptation Intensity (maximal speed, heavy resistance, or high effort) is powerful, but it’s only one lever. Volume, density (work-to-rest structure), and strategic variability all interact to create progressive overload and stimulate specific adaptations.
Apply the right tool at the right time Not every exercise is executed under the same paradigm. A barbell bench press demands different set/rep/intensity logic than a dumbbell hammer curl. Sprint training likewise requires choosing and dosing drills and lifts according to their specific purpose in the program.
Work backwards from the competition date Bodybuilders design long cycles that culminate in a contest-ready physique, regulating training to preserve health and freshness as the show approaches. Sprint coaches can follow a similar model—planning phases with specific goals and tapering intelligently into key races.
Amplify strengths, address weaknesses Even with his standout chest development, Arnold trained that area hard while dedicating a smaller but deliberate portion of his program to weaker points. Sprint programs can mirror this balance by continuing to refine an athlete’s unique strengths while systematically shoring up limiting factors. Neither sprinter nor bodybuilder can with with a weak-link.
Leverage social and psychological factors Training partners, full system buy-in, and proactive management of boredom or mental fatigue all influence how well athletes adapt and stay engaged.

Carmelita Jeter - one of my favourite sprinters of all time. Incredibly jacked.

Pragmatism

Bodybuilders have long excelled at one thing coaches of any sport can learn from: turning complex physiology into clear, actionable plans. Their programs are easy to read—train a muscle hard, recover, and repeat—and ruthlessly organised around what produces visible progress.

Sprint training benefits from the same pragmatic clarity. By mapping sprint qualities to “body-part–style” training days—calf-dominant endurance work on Monday and Thursday, quad/adductor acceleration on Wednesday, hamstring/glute max-velocity on Saturday—this program borrows bodybuilding’s practical split logic without copying its exercises.

The result is a sprint microcycle that:

Separates key biomechanical stressors so no tissue is overloaded twice in quick succession.
Embeds the heuristics—dose to adaptive capacity, choose the right tool at the right time, eliminate weak links—that decades of bodybuilding success have proven.
Remains easy for athletes and coaches to understand, adjust, and periodise as competition nears.

In short, pragmatism means designing for what actually works, not what merely looks scientific. By letting bodybuilding’s organisational discipline shape sprint training, we gain a system that is both evidence-informed and athlete-proof—simple to follow, resilient under real-world constraints, and built for consistent adaptation.

Here’s an example program template that our athletes have run this offseason.

Day	Focus	Key Elements
Mon	Endurance / “Calf day”	800–1200 m @80–85 % MaxV + med-ball throws + metabolic conditioning
Tue	Rest	—
Wed	Acceleration / “Quad & adductor day”	9–15 × 10–30 m accelerations up to 90 % MaxV + gym (squat main lift)
Thu	Aerobic tempo / “Calf day”	1–1.5 km tempo + core circuits
Fri	Rest	—
Sat	Speed / “Hamstring & glute day”	6–8 × 50–70 m sprints >95 % MaxV + gym (power clean & step-up main lifts)
Sun	Rest	—

So how does this program design integrate the heuristics derived from bodybuilding culture?

Heuristic	Alignment in The Program
Match load to recovery capacity	Two high-speed sprint exposures (Wed/Sat) are separated by 72 h and buffered by rest or lower-intensity days. Volume on Mon/Thu is sub-maximal (80–85 % MaxV) to give connective tissue and CNS time to recover.
Make technique the anchor	Technical sprint work is concentrated on dedicated days (Wed acceleration, Sat max velocity) so athletes are fresh enough for precise execution. Gym lifts (squat, power clean, step-up) are similarly placed when quality can be maintained.
Recognise technique as a stress regulator	By isolating high-risk movements (e.g., >95 % MaxV sprinting) to specific days and allowing full recovery, the plan limits cumulative tissue stress and keeps mechanics crisp.
Manipulate overload variables to drive adaptation	Intensity, volume, density and variability are each built in: e.g., Mon metabolic circuits (density), Wed squat (intensity), Thu tempo (volume), Sat max-velocity sprinting (intensity + variability).
Apply the right tool at the right time	Each day targets a distinct physiological quality and primary muscle group—calves (Mon/Thu), quads & adductors (Wed), hamstrings & glutes (Sat)—mirroring bodybuilding’s body-part split logic.
Work backwards from the competition date	Phases can be periodised so that endurance, technical development and general capacity dominate early blocks, with acceleration and max-velocity sessions sharpened closer to key races.
Eliminate weak links	The split ensures every major sprint-relevant muscle group (calf/Achilles, quads/adductors, hamstrings/glutes) receives focused stimulus and recovery, reducing the chance that one tissue or capacity becomes a point of failure.
Harness social and psychological drivers	Having all athletes on board on a similar program is fantastic for group culture. Furthermore, if the program design permits athletes to try their maximum without excessive consideration for subsequent sessions; athletes feel ‘worked’ - which is an important psychological component to feeling ready to compete.

The final component I wish to outline here is that I believe training is mostly about 'getting after it'. This is the primary motivating factor for writing this article - I look to the bodybuilding world as legends of getting after it. Sure, putting on muscle is a relatively simple physical pursuit, but as is running. Anything taken to the extreme requires increased levels of detail - and I believe that the ability to get after it like the bodybuilding greats have is both due to an unwavering drive and self-belief; but also extremely well designed training programs that were evidence based appropriate to their time.

Hope you enjoyed this! Train hard, lift heavy.

Cheers,

Jack