yeah amt’s…
Kruger,
"One simple question, Clemson: why is (as I recall) the average elite swimmer typically 10-12% bodyfat compared to 5% for runners and about 8% for cyclists? " Lyle
His earlier post did go lower but he starts getting into buoyancy and that is when he joined DB and John Davies.
" For swimming, not only is bodyfat not a gravity related hindrance, excessive leanness harms performance because the athlete sinks, meaning more energy has to go into keeping him/her afloat. "- Lyle
I guess Aaron’s bodybuilder would do ok…he is only one percent off of the average elite swimmer! -Clemson
What an joke! Wayne Goldsmith, you know a thing about what is going on in swimming being appointed the lead in sport science with the Austrialians…what is your take on the subject? Clemson
"Although increased body fat is likely to enhance buoyancy, the increase in body drag will offset any advantage resulting from improved buoyancy. "
I will address all your questions in a format that will be effective later. In the mean time i will defend why I am not in a rush------
Lyle’s Great Training Secrets found only on bodyrecomposition.com!
Training Secrets
It is very rare that I bother writing new articles at this point, far preferring to just recycle old stuff or crap I've already written. There are several reasons for this:
-
I’m unbelievably lazy
-
Most of the time I’m a gibbering idiot "
well we are getting off topic and the members are not happy so let’s repect them. I will write an article…with plenty of theories!
Congratulations on avoiding any real content, and taking Lyles sarcastic HUMOUR out of context…
Also when you keep posting Wayne like your mates with him or something please post the REST of the quote… ie he prefaced the statement you made with this
Above a certain individual level, an increase in body fat will be deleterious to performance due to increased body drag.
He gives no examples of what individual levels there are, but also considering that plenty of his swimmers swim at or above 10% …
Kruger…when someone demands me to answer 10 questions in full response that takes time. MY TIME. You failed to answer my questions but did I complain? Ian thorpe is a great swimmer, but failed to improve and swim his fastest times at the olympics. The Austrialians failed to medal in the 4x100 free and medley relay events. A big drop from Sydney. Now how do you explain that? Sure he won gold, but the world records that he owned were left untouched. Too many extra kilograms? Or is the kilograms a symptom of something else? Listen to you coach Ian, but I guess coach Frost is just and old man. He has gone to someone else and the results have been less than his best.
Training Secrets It is very rare that I bother writing new articles at this point, far preferring to just recycle old stuff or crap I’ve already written. There are several reasons for this:
I’m unbelievably lazy
Most of the time I’m a gibbering idiot "
I am pasting the rest of the article. The articcle is a great read, especially for all those aspiring young athletes.
Tough to find someone so honest as Lyle in this field. And thethe article proves it:
-
I’ve written 99% of what I think there is to say previously
-
There is truly nothing new under the sun, endless navel gazing and reductive theorizing on other ‘cutting edge’ sites to the contrary.
What stimulated this article was an experience I had last week. As some of you may know (and some of you don’t know, and the rest of you could give a shit about), I’m currently living in SLC Utah training full time at the speed skating oval, trying to make the US national team for the 2006 olympics. yes, I’m old, yes I’m short, yes, I don’t have much time. Tough, I’d rather try and fail then wake up 10 years from now and wonder what if.
Anyhow, last week I made friends with one of the other skaters (most of the skaters at the oval are, shall we say, unfriendly. Coming from me that’s saying a lot. I personally think they carry the same elitist prick gene that road cyclists carry but I digress). He’s young and big, I shall call him The Big Kid (TBK).
So TBK and I are at dinner talking skating. He tells me that he moved down here to try and make the national team. Ok, I’m down. Except that when I see him at the rink, he’s usually spending more time hitting on everything with a vagina (SLC is depressingly boring) instead of training. While he’s currently training 3X/week (he’s nursing a back injury that he’s too stubborn to let heal), I’m training 2-3X PER DAY on average.
TBK also opines that he is just convinced that the top guys must have some secret. Ah, there’s the rub, he’s still looking for secrets instead of realizing that the only secret is ass busting work over a long period of time. And that’s what stimulated this article.
I still get emails, see posts to my forum and to mfw from people looking for that elusive training or diet secret. Something quick and easy, preferably in pill form that can be taken and make you great without putting in ass busting work over a long period of time.
Now, this is the American fucking way (and if you don’t like it, go back to Russia, you fucking commie), look for a quick fix secret instead of realizing that the only way to succeed is with ass busting work over a long period of time. Give me a pill, a piece of equipment, a piece of clothing (UnderArmor being the new clothing of choice for fat ass gym posers everywhere). Anything except for having to put in ass busting work over a period of time.
Anything. Supplement companies, magazines, equipment companies use this to their advantage. Read a muscle magazine, a fishing magazine, a women’s magazine, all use the same cover boilerplate that promises training, fishing or sex secrets. It’s the same wording.
10 training secrets of muscle building
10 bassmasster secrets to catching a lunker
10 sex secrets you can use tonite
Now, this reminds me of me when I was back in college, an athlete who desperately wanted to be better and who got sucked into all of the crap in the magazines. This magic supplement, this magic training program, I read the muscle magazines religiously for years just so I wouldn’t miss that one issue that contained the secret.
Then I got my head (partially anyhow) out of my ass.
Over time, as I gained experience (and the horror of all horrors: maturity), I realized that there are no secrets. The equation is simply ass busting work + time = results. There are no shortcuts, no secrets, no easy solutions (except drugs).
Sure, you need to train smart, you need to apply good principles to your diet and training and some stuff is relatively more effective than other stuff. But once you’ve got the basics, all you can do is bust ass for a long period of time. Or take drugs. Both work and, of course, drugs are easier. See my bromocriptine booklet for example.
So with that said, I give you the training and diet secrets I have developed over the past decade (note: this is why I’ll never be a best selling author).
Training secrets for size and strength gains (for naturals)
-
If you are natural, you must get stronger to get bigger. If, over time, you are not adding weight to the bar, you are not growing.
-
Training a bodypart less than 2X/week will not give you optimal gains. An upper/lower split done Mon/Tue/Thu/Fri is close to optimal for most. Full body twice a week can work very well. Once every 5th day is the least frequently I would ever recommend a natural train. You’ll get less sore training more frequently and you’ll grow better. Save once/week bodypart training for pro bodybuilders (read: steroid users) and the genetically elite.
-
When in doubt, do less volume, not more. You don’t need a zillion sets to stimulate hypertrophy, the bullshit written in the magazines to the contrary. If you can’t get it done in 4-8 hard sets (sometimes less, rarely more) you need to quit training like a pussy in the gym. I had a friend who sold supplements one time who kept asking me to design him a product that would really work. I told him to make a supplement that would make people work hard in the gym and watch their diets. He thought I was joking.
-
Generally, basic compound exercises are best but isolation stuff has its place. Same for the machines versus free weights ‘argument’: both have their place. Anybody who tell you that you MUST do a certain exercise is arguing from an emotional stance, not a physiological one.
-
If you think you can gain muscle without eating sufficient food or calories, you should quit bodybuilding and take up something easier, like golf. You can’t magically make muscle out of nothing, you need calories and protein to grow. If you can’t buckle down to eat enough on a consistent basis, you won’t grow an ounce of muscle. And spare me the excuses that you’re not hungry or your schedule won’t allow it. It’s about priorities, eat more or stay skinny.
-
Most hardgainers train like idiots and don’t eat enough.
-
Diets should be based around whole foods first, supplements second. Remember the hoopla over zinc and testosterone and ZMA from Balco (hi Victor, hope you’re enjoying the forced sodomy in jail)? Red meat is a great source of zinc, iron, B12 and protein. Not to mention who knows how many other trace nutrients that are involved in optimal human physiology. Eat it every day. Remember all of that crap about indole 3 carbinole. Guess what, it’s found in cruciferous vegetables like broccoli and cauliflower. Every time you hear about a new magic compound, 99 times out of 100 it’s found in some whole food that you’re probably not eating. Eat whole foods with a shitpile of veggies every day.
-
There is no singular best protein, each one has pros and cons. Generally, I thinnk casein is better for dieting, whey for around workouts, whole proteins the rest of the time. You can’t beat milk (and the dairy calcium has benefits on bodyfat). I think mixing proteins at a given meal is a good idea to eliminte any shortcomings of one. I think food combining (or protein rotation) is a lot of hippy holistic bullshit.
Dieting secrets for fat loss:
-
You can’t magically lose weight unless you eat less or burn more calories with activity. Not unless you take drugs and those either make you eat less or burn more anyhow.
-
Don’t bitch about how much you hate dieting or exercise. You can either change your diet and activity patterns, or you can stay fat. Those are your two options, except for drugs.
-
The key to losing weight and keeping it off is the following
a. Change your eating habits: so that you’re eating less
b. Change your activity patterns: so that you’re expending more calories
c. Repeat: Keep doing this over a long period of time.
d. Forever: Newsflash, you don’t EVER get to go back to your old eating habits unless you want to get fat again. To maintain weight loss means maintaining at least part of the changes you made to a and b.
- All diet books, no matter what line of bullshit they sell you, are working in terms of a-d. Cutting all of the carbs out of your diet will generally make you eat less, so will cutting out all of the fat, so do diets taht change your eating habits in one fashion or another. Some books go the activity route. At the end of the day, even if they tell you that you don’t have to eat less to lose weight, they will trick you into doing it one way or another.
Note: My job, as diet book author, is to turn a-d into a 300 page book. Most diet books do it with 150 pages of recipes.
Everything else that you may come across, including my various gibberings in my books, are just details on the above. But at a fundamental level, until you are dealing with that 1% of 1% of trainees (elite athletes, bodybuilders trying to get to 5% bodyfat without muscle loss), those secrets are about all you need to know.
The equation is this:
Ass busting work + consistency + time = results.
Burn that into your head and quit looking for quick fixes and secrets.
Because they don’t exist.
Finally, back to me, since I am a self-important tool: I know that the next 1.5 years of my life will be hell. I am currently training 2-3X/day and, under the guise of my new coach, I expect to suffer pretty much nonstop (except for a month in April) until I reach my goal or I fail to reach my goal. I have no false expectations, I know what it’s going to take: ass busting work over the next 1.5 years. And that’s fine with me.
Look at Inge, the fastest and leanest. Now being lean is not the only variable but look at Alex Popov?
I did I posted the pic of popov and looked at inge… I have already discussed this
Why not try to help athletes get stronger with the same size?
Someone at low bodyfats like 6 vs 8 or even 10% IS effectively the same size…
Worrying about “size” is a bit futile anyway considering that swimmers are some of the BIGGEST athletes in the world - they belittle the sprinters… Thorpe sometimes swims at 105kgs… average is taller and has wider shoulders than sprinters boxers, weightlifters…
You failed to answer my questions but did I complain?
No but you did only ask 2 and one of them was whether I saw a pic that I posted…
Ian thorpe is a great swimmer, but failed to improve and swim his fastest times at the olympics.
He also be disinterested and nearly quit… perhaps that had something to do with it
A big drop from Sydney. Now how do you explain that?
Inury and guys being out of form… by the way Grant hacket had pneumonia before hand and reportedly still had lung problems at the time. but really i didnt hear the coaches afterwards saying, well if we were 2% lower bodyfat we would have won that one…
This was a stupid question anyway… Why does any team come in and out of form? are you proposing its bodyfat related?
Sure he won gold, but the world records that he owned were left untouched. Too many extra kilograms? Or is the kilograms a symptom of something else?
I cant believe you are attacknig a guy who was the second most dominant swimmer at the olympics to make a point… Think about that for a second… If you must have a reason for why he did not break his own world records see above for a possible reason…
You are REALLy begining to violate what you have stated in the past about how theorizing is no good and case studies and history is important… if you want to hypothesize about what you could have done to make the dominant swimmer of the last 5 years better then go ahead… perhaps you should also tell charlie what he did wrong with ben while your at it…
Now I have answered every single question ive seen that you asked me…
Feel free to do the same for me
This really is a BS argument. More personal than anything. Fueled by big egos and followers.
You both need to realize some things:
-Bouyancy is not simply a direct correlation of BF%
-Strength to Bodyweight ratio is not as important in swimming as land based activities. However increased body mass of any kind will be a hinderance, if it not accompanied by a relative increase in strength. (getting stronger at the same size is the way to go)
-One of the main reasons many swimmers carry more BF is because of the water temperature . I eat so much more after swimming than a “dry” sport. A very intersting study would be to take a group of untrained people have them burn an estimated equivalent amount of calories. One group by running the other by swimming. Then after they are done serve them a buffet of all types of food. The swimming group will undoubtedly eat more calories, likely from unhealthier food.
-No ATHLETE should concern themselves with their Bodyfat percentage. They should just train hard, eat properly etc and let the rest take care of itself. To say it’s THE factor in someone winning or losing a race is bushleague.
-Swimmers log far more time in the pool in relation to the distance of the race than a sprinter would on the track. A swimmer does not require nearly as much power than a sprinter coming out of the blocks.
-With an elite sprinter and swimmer of the same height- the sprinter should outweigh the swimmer by 30 or so pounds. If they’re a re equal in BF% the sprinter will appear to be leaner because of his muscle mass.
-For the above reasons it would make more sense to compare swimmers to middle distance runners. Popov, Spitz appear just as lean if not leaner than Coe, Cram, Larson :). However you wil be hard pressed to find an elite runner at any distance that you may look at and say he could stand to lose a pound or two. This is not the case with swimmers.
Both of you have made valid points. But now you are just attempting to make the other look bad.
This is one of the few boards that I’ll be a member of because there is usually not this amount of pettiness. (besides the fact that it’s Charlie Francis for god’s sake 
) The original topic of this thread was antibiotics and I would appreciate it if we could get back to it.
Antibiotics?
Yeah lets make fun of DB and his cult a little more.
Nice post…
The studies done on swimmers bodyfat have been done with varied results, I remember one posted at Siffs Supertraining list which mentioned as you stated that swimmers eat a lot more. The search engine there sucks so I wont try to find it… Clemson has also posted about the rediculous amounts of food that Phelps was eating…
There are some other interesting studies though…
http://www.sportsci.org/news/compeat/fat.html
SWIMMERS: Body fat mystery!
Louise Burke, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, AustraliaSwimmers, especially female swimmers, face an energy balance conundrum. Elite swimmers typically undertake 4000-20,000 m per day in training, burning thousands of calories. However, the typical body fat levels of these athletes are significantly higher than runners or cyclists who expend similar or even smaller amounts of energy in their training. Many female swimmers have fought well-publicized battles with their body fat levels and with their coaches! They are generally prescribed “land training” (running or cycling) in addition to their many laps of the pool in the belief that it is a necessary treatment to produce lower skinfold levels.
Do energy discrepancies really exist in swimming? Why do swimmers seem to have drawn the short straw of body fat management? The following theories have been suggested:
Swimmers have higher energy intakes than other athletes and eat more energy than they expend. It has been suggested that swimming doesn’t cause the appetite drop that accompanies heavy running and cycling training. Many people observe that they feel like “eating a horse” after they have finished a swim training session, and may overcompensate for the energy they have just burned. Some research suggests that this is due to the cool temperatures in which swimmers train. By contrast, runners and cyclists usually experience an increase in body temperature during training, which may serve to suppress appetite - at least in the short term.
Swimmers are less active outside their training sessions. They are so tired from the hours spent training that they sleep, sit or otherwise avoid any real energy expenditure outside their sessions.
Two studies from Costill’s Human Performance Laboratory at Ball State University have tried to address the energy balance oddity of swimmers. Jang et al.(1987) attempted to gain a crude measure of daily energy balance by comparing collegiate swimmers and collegiate distance runners. Ten athletes of each sex from each sport participated in the study. The findings: runners had lower body fat levels than swimmers (7% v 12% for male runners v swimmers, and 15% v 20% for females). All subjects kept detailed 3-day food records, and 1-day activity records were kept by half the subjects in each group. These records noted the amount of time each individual spent sleeping, sitting, walking, standing or training. The energy cost of these activities was estimated individually for each athlete by duplicating the activity in the laboratory and collecting oxygen consumption data. This factor multiplied by the time spent in each activity produced an estimate of total daily energy expenditure.Results showed that both groups reported similar daily energy intakes: 3380 kcal and 3460 kcal for male swimmers and runners; 2490 kcal and 2040 kcal for female swimmers and runners, respectively. Estimated energy output was in agreement for each group, with the values for the groups of male athletes being roughly equal and similar to their reported intake. The female swimmers had a higher energy expenditure than female runners, and in fact were in slight negative energy balance. These results were not helpful in finding or explaining an energy dilemma, or major differences between types of athletes. The theories above might explain the problems experienced by some individual swimmers, but the theories were not supported by evidence from the study.
One of the limitations of this study is that each method of measuring energy balance is subject to considerable flaws. It is almost impossible to measure usual energy intake from diaries. Apart from the errors in translating descriptions of food into calorie counts, it is unlikely that people eat “normally” while they are recording. It is well-known that those who are conscious of their body fat underreport their food intake. It is also hard to complete and describe “normal” by record. In reporting, athletes try to appear as “good” as possible and thereby cover-up the clues to any energy balance problems. The behavior of individuals may also be masked by the “averaging” of results.
The other study by Flynn et al.(1990) examined energy and fuel usage during training sessions and recovery in swimming and running. It theorized that differences in hormonal patterns and the oxidation of fat might explain differences in body fat levels. Swimmers and runners trained for 45 minutes at 75-80% V02max then recovered for 2 hours. Triathletes did one session of each so that results could be compared for the same individual. During these periods, blood hormone levels, glucose and fatty acid levels, and gas exchange were measured and oxidation of various body fuels monitored.
The results showed no differences in total energy expenditure during training or recovery between groups. There were some differences in substrate utilization and hormone levels. For example, swimming resulted in lower blood glucose levels than running, with some evidence of a greater reliance on carbohydrate as a fuel during swimming. This is likely to be further accentuated in the real life training of swimmers who undertake a high proportion of high-intensity interval work. During recovery, fat oxidation tended to be greater after swimming than running. Overall, these differences were small and could not explain why swimmers have higher body fat levels.
While theories abound, no studies can verify or explain a real difference. These studies clearly leave the way open for further research. Techniques such as the double-labelled water method of energy expenditure estimation might provide a new way to measure energy balance issues. A final idea that needs to be explored is whether a selection process is at hand. Elite swimmers may be predisposed to have higher body fat levels because it is a help, or at least less of a disadvantage, to their swimming. Rounded shoulders and smooth curves may be more biomechanically sound than bony angles. Higher body fat levels are a greater disadvantage to weight-bearing sports like running. So perhaps those who aren’t genetically inclined to very low body fat levels, but are otherwise possessive of high-level endurance qualities, should head for the water at an early age!
Flynn, M.L., Costill, D.L., Kirwan, J.P., Mitchell, J.B., Houmard, J.A., Fink, W.J., Beltz, J.D., D’Acquisto, L.J. (1990). Fat storage in athletes: metabolic and hormonal responses to swimming and running. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 11, 433-440.
Jang, K.T., Flynn, M.G., Costill, D.L., Kirwan, J.P., Houmard, J.A., Mitchell, J.B., D’Acquisto, L.J. (1987). Energy balance in competitive swimmers and runners. Journal of Swimming Research, 3, 19-23.
-Swimmers log far more time in the pool in relation to the distance of the race than a sprinter would on the track.
Very true strange that when Lyle said that in the other thread it was hotly debated and rejected by some…
-With an elite sprinter and swimmer of the same height- the sprinter should outweigh the swimmer by 30 or so pounds. If they’re a re equal in BF% the sprinter will appear to be leaner because of his muscle mass.
Interesting? 30 pounds? Tim montgomery weighs about 150-160 doesnt he? It would be rare that they would be the same height anyway. Swimmers are MUCH bigger athletes in general than sprinters…
-For the above reasons it would make more sense to compare swimmers to middle distance runners. Popov, Spitz appear just as lean if not leaner than Coe, Cram, Larson :). However you wil be hard pressed to find an elite runner at any distance that you may look at and say he could stand to lose a pound or two. This is not the case with swimmers.
Fair point. One would still think that they would prepare optimally for the event. Swimming as we know it is all short distance work… The longest event is less than 15 minutes, the shortest is 20 seconds…
I had considered the point raised about cold water in the past… But id always dismissed it for 2 reasons.
- The cold water would contribute to the athlete burning fat through body temp regulation. So concievably if someone wanted to lean up it the cold water theoretically would help not hinder provide they controlled their diet.
- if cold water did affect fat gain and fat gain was deemed a very bad thing. I guarentee that the AIS (and probably most athletic centres in the world) would have the athletes swimming in warm pools - making the point moot… Heated pools are not new at all - or even expensive … Or they would all swim up here in north queensland where in summer the water temp is at or above 30C
In response to number 3. Volume must increase in not only sprinting to a certain extent but also powerlifting. Like the Bulgarians did when they increased their volume and noticed greater strength gains.
In response to number 4. I don’t have any need to ever use a machine instead of free wts. The only time I did was when I did Latpulldows bc I just happen to choose that exercise in my youth; however, bentover rows I believe are superior as a free wt exercise and Latpullups lead to injury due to an increased ROM. As a joke I would challenge pussy machine users and we would see who could do the most machine wt. It doesn’t take a genious to figure what happened there! In fact some of these guys couldn’t even do half of the wt stacks on machines while I could do a chest extension exercise with just one arm!
Forget about the whole Clemson-Lyle debate it just wasted my time! DB’s methods aren’t all original I’ve seen that some of that stuff years ago! The split squat seems innovative however, one must have the functional strength to do these exercises; therefore, slow strength-speed or just strength in general must be in place before doing plyo’s of any type! Will doing plyo’s help me run faster? Duh, YES! Does that mean that DB’s method is the best? Duh, NO! I am not against DB’s methods; however, realize that for a sprinter and lifter like myself, most of what I have seen on his site is stuff I already knew about and I have little use for the new stuff as a sprinter! That being said, I can see how it might help a running back in football but then again so do agility drills!
Lets go back to the topic of why this method does or does not work, and if Lyle-Clemson want to continue arguing about swimmers, could you guys start a new thread so that I don’t have to read about it on this one! No disrespect to either of you but I would like to debate the issue at hand.
Here’s my take on DB.
-I don’t know who he is (Schroeder is my guess- methodics, Evo/Inno, etc…) nor do I care.
-The athletes in his video clips are not great and often do the exercises quite poorly. This doesn’t mean those are"his" top athletes
-The athletes in those clips should get stronger. ALOT stronger.
-PIM or Plyometric-Isometric-Miometric just means to lift weight normally. Need I say more (needlessly complicated)
-He is not a genius nor is he a fool. If he really had all the secrets he wouln’t give them away for free
-He makes claims that are out of this world, I try too avoid coaches like this as if they were the plague.
-Isometric training is very specific to joint angle.
-Strength training and power training are not enemies as he would have you believe.
-I have always found landing in a split squat position to have a better carryover. He has some nice “moves” that I may implement. Nothing really too grounbreaking however.
-He seems to have an obsession with plantar-flexion strength. Most athletes are pretty strong in their calves, the weakness is almost always the glutes, hamstrings.
- I would sooner believe Strongerathlete.com’s reason’s not to do Olympic Lifts than DB’s. They really were a joke.
I don’t think anyone other than a few of those on his forum care.
The athletes in the videos are not his “top” athletes, he is adament about keeping their confidentiality. Why he chooses these athletes, that would be a question only he could answer.
His complicated methods may be a ploy to get people to buy his book, so they can understand the many acronyms that he uses. I have heard the book has a lot of great and useful info. DB gives his information out just as freely as Charlie does. He writes articles, answers questions that people have for him, and the bulk of his info is in his book (which you must buy like Charlie’s books). I’m curious as to what claims he has made that are out of this world (seriously, I have not seen many of his claims)?
Although this is true, isometric training at full or near full extentionwill display gains in absolute strength over the full ROM. These types of isometrics will drasticly increase starting strength.
I would not call them enemies, but training for absolute strengthy can be detrimental to speed strength or power. This is why periodization or organization are so important.
Isn’t this the point of all exercises? Pick and choose the ones that fit into your regime.
Much of DB’s methods utilize force absorbtion. The calves will provide the most amortization for the lower body within the stretch reflex cycle. The posterior chain is crucial for functional strength, but DB’s methods require strong force absorbtion.
I am not familiar with Strongerathlete.com, but I don’t believe that DB would recommend not do olympic lifts at all. Everything has it’s place and time.
Great post elars21!
The calves will provide the most amortization for the lower body within the stretch reflex cycle.
Could you expand on this?
When landing, the plantar/ dorsi flexor complex will be stimulated first. As the calves are able to absorb more decceleration forces, the knee and hip complexes will be recruited to a lesser degree. For example, if you performed a reactive depth jump (a depth jump followed immediately by a plyometric vertical jump) and you landed flatfooted, rather than on the balls of your feet, then you have taken away a good majority of elastic energy away from the vertical jump. The knees and hips will provide a small amount of stretch reflex, but too much energy is absorbed by the bones.
Now, there are ways to increase the recruitment of the quads and glutes. When landing, if the muscles are extended (such as when in a squat position, 90- 90) then the center of gravity will be displaced backwards. The quads and glutes will be forced to absorb more force and contribute to the resultant reaction to a greater degree.
Is this clear and informative enough? Please let me hear other’s views on this topic as well.
Not quite sure I get it. When do you recommend the squat landing, on the drop or on the next landing after going back up?
The funny thing is that the measurement of ‘my’ bodybuilder is found within a peer reviewed journal, all of the other figures you are providing are guestimates. Do you have a figure for “average” elite swimmers? that isnt just pulled from thin air?
I’m with you Charlie.
The only way the calves absorb all of the forces (body weight) is if you land with your knees locked and no degree of hip flexion.
In a “normal” landing (knees bent, hips flexed) you would want to land on a flat or dorsi flexed foot to enhance the SSC.
The quads, hams, glutes and low back are the major contributers in jumping (SSC).
If you land and drop to a 90-90 position. I’m assuming you mean 90 degrees of knee flexion and 90 degrees of hip flexion, you’ve either,
- Jumped from 10 feet.
- Have low strength.
and also, - Have decreased the contribution of the SSC.
If your COG is displaced backwards, you’ve either,
- Landed on your heels.
- Landed on your ass.
- Landed on your head.
Either way you’ll not get the same SS effect if your COG is “displaced backward” as if you would land flat-footed.
Thomas
I was just thinking that it was a down and up series.