With the level of specific movement you tend gravitate towards, do you find any reason for track and field jumpers to use depth jumps to improve the jump itself?
With the double leg movements not really being specific to their task. And single leg jumps having too high of contact times.
Excellent point!
Also, would a basketball player who already can jump pretty high, from a good height with a smaller knee bend and GCT, intentionally increase the GCT and knee bend just to be more specific?
Has this been specifically documented in any study? Could you please point me to the empircal data?
Regarding coupling time, this must also be specific to the sport being trained for regarding the ground contact times associated with particular aspects of competition in which explosive jumps occur.
If the coupling time of the depth jump in training far exceeds that which the athlete has time for during that aspect of their discipline then the reliability of the transfer becomes diminished.
Has this been documented in any study? Could you please point me to the empircal data?
Again, we must acknowledge the reason for using the depth jump. If the reason is rooted in improving the performance of a specific aspect of sport from a kinematic and neuromuscular standpoint then a greater degree of dynamic correspondence must be satisfied in order to ensure positive transfer.
I here this mantra repeated over and over, but it simply doesn’t apply to all methods of training. In the most basic of exercises, the squat, one that most athletes perform to enhance speed, explosive strength etc., its simply not true. Running and jumping are extremely rapid, explosive, movements. If you squat in that manner, very light weight is required. There is no question that athletes doing dynamic squats only would not be able to realize the same benefits that athletes doing much slower, heavier, max effort squats would realize. Here the dynamic correspondence actually correlates inversely. Interestingly, knee flexion also does not correlate, as knee flexion in sprinting and even explosive jumping is minimal, while it is openly acknowledged that shallow squats offer very little benefit…in fact many on this board suggest ATG squats are the most beneficial. If squats with little dynamic correlation are actually more beneficial as a training aid for sprinting and jumping than squats performed in a more ‘dynamically correlated’ fashion, how do we know that depth jumps or box jumps must be dynamically correlated for best results? Again, is there a study which tests this question empirically?
You seem to be forgetting the purpose of each exercise and element. People use squats and other lifts to improve maximal strength as a general quality. Specifically, you want glute/hamstring/lower back strength and the like, but it acts as a general element in the program that has to interact with the rest of the program.
Depth jumps and vertical plyos are teaching vertical power production, hence why you tend to use vertical plyos more in phases where you’re emphasizing top speed rather than acceleration (where you would focus more on jumps with more deep knee bend). This has been discussed by many coaches, including CF.
If you do depth jumps from too high, you lose a lot of the elastic response and you aren’t really even doing a plyometric activity in some extreme cases.
When you talk about studies, what studies are you looking for? Ones done on hung over college kids looking for a few bucks (like most studies) or ones with very specific populations or what? A number of coaches have discussed this and presented their results (good and bad), which should give us plenty of empirical evidence for those beliefs. At this point, applying many studies on sports enhancement would be applying misinformation or limited information at best.
That or the Verkhoshansky studies where the depth jump results graphs shoot into the stratosphere.
Possibly they act as a sort of lightened method - i.e., the forces in the triple are far greater than those generally in a depth jump (both feet)?
Perhaps, but then I still do not see how double leg depth jumps would come close enough to mimicking the way force is applied to only a single leg at take off (no support from the other leg). Also that is assuming you believe that the exercise should be of such a specific nature like James, otherwise I see your point.
I like how over half of Verkohoshanky’s references in that piece are related to his own works. Must think highly of himself. Seriously 34 references and 22 of them are of himself.
What I will state is that, regarding dynamic correspondence, it is not possible to draw an inverse correlation. what is possible and too often commonplace amongst western sports coaches is an incomplete understanding of transference.
Those who sufficiently understand dynamic correspondence think much differently about this type of discussion and also understand the particularities of the full criteria:
It is erroneous to mention squats within the context of a specific speed development means because those of us who are fully informed of the biodynamic and bioenergetic foundations of sport disciplines and training means know that there is nothing more specific to sprinting then sprinting and the biodynamic characteristics of the squat lift are too distant to register high in transference at best to anything more than particular aspects of sprinting.
The benefit of the squat towards speed development, as Davan well pointed out, is one of the improvement of general strength.
If squats registered as high in transference as sprinting, relative to sprint development, you could rest assured that sprinters would sprint much less in favor of squatting; but don’t hold your breath on that one.
I’m not sure what you consider to be ‘openly acknowledged’ regarding squat depth; however, you should know that full squats are a more general strength means relative to sprinting while half and quarter squats register much higher in transference- all the while being far lower in transference then sprint variations.
The level of context that must be applied in order to have an intelligent discussion regarding training is of the utmost importance.
The concept of transference is only as meaningful as the identification of the level of preparation of the athlete.
The lesser the qualification the more disjointed the state of preparation; hence, the higher the transference of a wider variety of training means and the greater the significance of higher volumes of non-specific training.
As the athlete, in this case, the sprinter, becomes faster it becomes more challenging to yield high transference out of a wider variety of means and, as a result, the complex of means becomes reduced throughout the career of athletes who participate in the sprints and T&F disciplines in general.
As time moves forward GPP eventually requires much shorter stages of training to maintain/re-elevate it to sufficient enough levels to support and concentrate the SPP efforts.
As a result, it is meaningless to discuss the relationship between squat, jump, and sprint without isolating qualification level and due to the information I have just provided we know that it becomes more and more futile to debate the training of those lesser in qualification.
Regarding high qualification in the sprints (ergo sub 10.1) we know that physical preparation must be very high simply in order to attain such results. We also know that the specific characteristics of each athletes training history, morphology, special preparation levels, and so on must be identified, again, in order to have some type of meaningful discussion.
This is illustrated ever so clearly in Bondarchuk’s Transfer of Training text (note how the data was gathered from national and world champions due to the futile nature of conducting such testing on lesser qualified athletes)
Regarding my statements about coupling time and joint positions I encourage you to more fully examine dynamic correspondence and, more than isolated studies, I would encourage you to review as much translated literature as you can acquire.
I didn’t mention squats in the context of specific speed development. I compared the use of squats to the use of depth jumps, both of which are general training tools, rather than specific to sprint training development. You stated that the training form of the depth jump should match the the intended sport movement specifically, in terms of knee flexion and coupling time. Why is it necessary to duplicate, as closely as possible, knee flexion and coupling time when performing depth jumps to maximize benefits, when another general training exercise, the squat, produces greater benefits when knee flexion and coupling time do not correspond to knee flexion and coupling times measured during sprinting or jumping?
If squats registered as high in transference as sprinting, relative to sprint development, you could rest assured that sprinters would sprint much less in favor of squatting; but don’t hold your breath on that one.
Actually, from what I’ve gathered on this forum, it is recommended that all sprinters, including elite sprinters, perform squats of some kind regularly, whether back squats, Olympic squats or front squats as part of a power clean. Of course squats don’t have the high transference that sprinting itself does, but we we weren’t comparing squatting to sprinting, we were comparing squatting to depth jumps.
I’m not sure what you consider to be ‘openly acknowledged’ regarding squat depth; however, you should know that full squats are a more general strength means relative to sprinting while half and quarter squats register much higher in transference- all the while being far lower in transference then sprint variations.
Awesome. Could you point me to an empirical study showing half squats superior to ATG squats in terms of transference…I would love to have that one in my ammo bag. And by the way, can you also show me an empirical study that suggests quarter squats produce more benefits for sprinters than either half or ATG squats? I’ll be running sub 10.0 in no time.
…As a result, it is meaningless to discuss the relationship between squat, jump, and sprint without isolating qualification level and due to the information I have just provided we know that it becomes more and more futile to debate the training of those lesser in qualification.
So what you’re saying is that until an athete can run a 10.1 100m, it really doesn’t matter how he squats or jumps.
So…for the majority of athletes on this board who want to run faster and are thinking about including depth jumps in their general training program, how much knee flexion and what type of coupling times do you recommend?
Not entirely accurate. One of the points I am to get across is that there is a continuum of specificity and because of dynamic correspondence we know that certain means fall closer or farther from the more specific end. As a result, jump variations, regardless of kind, will always have higher transference to the sprint action.
Now, regarding a comparison of squat and jump we must look further as to what might be a more glaring deficiency, and again, we won’t find one in sprinters who are already running very fast times. We know, for instance, that any runner whose times drop sharply in short order from adding a full squat to the program certainly wasn’t running that fast to begin with.
Because the depth jump register closer in transference.
But again, the lesser qualified the sprinter the less important the means of execution due to the wider possibilities of positive transfer and, again, in the case of depth jumps there is certainly little justification from including them at all in the case of lower qualified sprinters.
In general I would agree that most sprinters, certainly developing sprinters would tend to benefit from squatting; however, we cannot ignore the likes of Carl Lewis, Asafa Powell, Usain Bolt who, at least according to what is made public, didn’t/don’t squat much at all at least with respect to any intensive load.
And again, with respect to the squat and the jump, the jump is closer in transference.
Don’t get carried away. I suspect you running sub 10.0 will have more to do with planning, what occurs on the track, and if it’s in the cards for you in the first place and that one has more to do with the people who produced you.
While that is certainly a gross generality I would say the answer is much closer to yes than no. Understanding of course the great significance of ensuring that the means are selected properly at any point in time relative to preparation, style of planning, time of year, and so on.
I would first need to know much more about their preparation and trainedness before I even recommended depth jumps.
If it clarifies the issue at all, let it be known that the faster the sprinter, more highly prepared, the more sensitive the organism becomes to imposed stimuli of intensive nature.
As a result, the selection of intensive means becomes that much more important because the athlete cannot afford to pay the price of intensive training that yields neutral to negative transfer especially at the expense of other more valuable work.
Interestingly enough, however, is that from the standpoint of general organism strength there are general means (ergo back squat and bench press) that are still highly valuable for certain high level sprinters yet not because of direct transfer/specificity but rather due to the maintenance/improvement of general organism strength.
Regarding the careful selection of jumps for high level sprinters, this is more important than squat selection, again, due to the biodynamic/bioenergetic characteristics of jumps being closer to those of the sprints. As such, due to the similar draw from like reserves a mistake in the selection/regulation of the jump load has the potential to be that much more detrimental towards speed work.
while the squat, while still registering high in CNS demand and certainly fatiguing to the muscles responsible for the sprint act, has more leeway in terms of its execution leaving the volume of work performed the most critical regulatory element.
I wonder how many sub 10.1 guys are in these eastern bloc depth jump transference studies.
So…sub elite athletes don’t need to do jumps because of points you made earlier, and highly prepared athletes, being more sensitive organisms, can’t afford to do them because the are too, well, sensitive. So…wouldn’t it have been easier to say, about 5000 words ago, that jumps are not a good tool for sprint development?
Interestingly enough, however, is that from the standpoint of general organism strength there are general means (ergo back squat and bench press) that are still highly valuable for certain high level sprinters yet not because of direct transfer/specificity but rather due to the maintenance/improvement of general organism strength.
I said that already. And I would include jumps in that same category…general strength.
…while the squat, while still registering high in CNS demand and certainly fatiguing to the muscles responsible for the sprint act, has more leeway in terms of its execution leaving the volume of work performed the most critical regulatory element.
So a lot of 20 rep sets of light quarter squats provides the same benefits to a sprinter as does 8 sets of 2 reps @ 90+ of 2RM? What would your friends at Elitefitness think of that?
Probably not many. That doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t take a study to acknowledge the obvious nature of transference, however; especially regarding the nature of high level athletes.
Transfer is not always obvious. An example of this would be Bondarchuk finding no correlation between explosive shot throws and elite sprint performance however LSU finds a strong correlation between the two.
I didn’t say that. I’m simply pointing out what should be commonly accepted knowledge amongst trainers of athletes.
No. This isn’t my thinking at all.
It is irresponsible for you to so greatly simplify the discussion. To think only in terms of general and specific is to deny the existence of the continuum.
If you were familiar with the idea that there is, in fact, gradations of correspondence I don’t think you’d be so eager to categorize with the simplicity that you have demonstrated thus far.
I didn’t say that. I’m simply pointing out what should be commonly accepted knowledge amongst trainers of athletes.
No. This isn’t my thinking at all.
Again, not what I said.
I’m not sure what your own knowledge/experience level is; however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to communicate with you.
In my experience speaking with well informed coaches and athletes it is not necessary to spell everything out to the degree that you seem to require.
Read my words more carefully. For you to presume that I don’t recognize the difference in the training effects between your different squat examples is absurd considering the detailed lengths I have gone to to assist you in your understanding of this matter not to mention the level of thought I put into my responses which you seem to be aware of in regards to your EFS comment.
As Charlie and others have well confirmed, assuming intensities are high (RE the squat) it is the volume of work that must be carefully regulated in observance, and always yielding to, the speed work.
so for you, I’ll spell it out, but I won’t make a habit out of this:
Assume the intensity is 80% of the parallel squat maximum:
More important than if the exercise is realized as:
full squat
parallel squat
half squat
quarter squat
box or no box
front
high bar
low bar
close, medium, wide stance
or at a slow, medium, or fast tempo of movement
is the dosage (ergo volume/how much)
It is a forgone conclusion that the intensity of exercise is already high as we are not concerned with percentages so low that they qualify as what Charlie has referred to as ‘chicken soup’ auxiliary work.
It is the high intensity components that must be carefully regulated and in this capacity it is the volume of work that is regulated because the high intensity components are, more or less, always present in the training. If you were familiar with Charlie’s work, seminar slides, and so forth I wouldn’t have to mention this.
I think this will be my last response to you because if you are not well informed enough to understand the point I’m making I’m fairly certain that nothing productive will come of this exchange and I’m certainly not interested in arguing what I, and those who I respect as coaches, already know to be fact.
I remember this already being addressed in another thread.
So many words to say so little. The problem is you spend the vast majority of your responses explaining why you can’t, or won’t, respond to specific questions with specific solutions. Its a common trait among those whose primary goal is not to actually provide information that can be utilized, but to convince the masses that they actually do have something to provide in order to promote themselves and/or stroke their own ego. Most readers, even very knowledgeable coaches, walk away without challenging you because they fear their inability to converse in your jargon filled, cryptic, psuedoscientific language will make it them seem uneducated or unintelligent. I’ve read many of your articles and posts, which are basically ideas ripped off from, among others, Lou Simmons and Charlie, on various boards for quite some time. You never say anything specific that might actually help someone with their training. I’ve tried on several occasions to bait you into posting something specific, but you rarely do. Ironically, the post above contains one of the most specific responses you’ve ever provided to this forum…
…so for you, I’ll spell it out, but I won’t make a habit out of this:
Assume the intensity is 80% of the parallel squat maximum:
More important than if the exercise is realized as:
full squat
parallel squat
half squat
quarter squat
box or no box
front
high bar
low bar
close, medium, wide stance or at a slow, medium, or fast tempo of movement is the dosage (ergo volume/how much)
This statement reveals how clouded your thinking is with jargon and theoretical ramblings and why you don’t often, if ever get specific. Based on what you’ve stated above, an athlete will get more benefit out of low intensity (80% of 1RM parallel squat) quarter squats performed unexplosively with a narrow stance than he will out of properly performed, higher intensity, parallel or ATG back squats performed explosively, as long as volume is controlled in a better fashion. My belief would be exactly the opposite, that almost any reasonable volume of high intensity parallel or ATG back squats performed explosively with a moderate to wide stance would be much, much more effective than low intensity, narrow stance, quarter squats, regardless of how well the volume was controlled, assuming as you stated above, that all squats were performed at an intensity of “80% of the parallel squat maximum” (your words). Keep in mind that quarter squats performed at intensity that is 80% of a parallel squat is actually a low intensity movement, while ATG squats performed at an intensity that is 80% of a parallel squat is very nearly a max effort lift.
I’m not sure what your own knowledge/experience level is; however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to communicate with you.
In my experience speaking with well informed coaches and athletes it is not necessary to spell everything out to the degree that you seem to require.
In response, I’ll share with you some thoughts, many of which I’ve borrowed from others, concerning effective scientific communication. Questioning the readers intelligence or education is a common method diverting attention away from the fact you have nothing specific to offer. True, a complicated idea may just require a complicated explanation. You, however, take this to an extreme, possessing a seemingly relentless determination to avoid writing comprehensibly. On most occasions, you resist or deny any actual practical advice, often stating that it is impossible to share the actual science with the us, the uneducated masses, due to the subject’s complexity. If defining a theory is beyond even the theoretician who conceived of it, (or in your case, beyond the writer who ‘borrowed’ the theory from someone else who actually conceived it) then who can possibly be expected to understand it? With you, it’s safe to assume the sharing of scientific knowledge–at least through new ways of writing and speaking about science–isn’t actually a priority. Instead, the use of such language is actually one huge game of “one-upmanship”. Furthermore, the contention that certain theories resist understandable expression is, well, baloney.
The essence of superior scientific expression is functional communication, and its proficiency is certainly something to strive for in science. But an important goal in functional communication is to improve communication through the elimination of unnecessarily complicated vocabulary and jargon while maintaining accuracy. The truth is, once the terminology is simplified, the average scientific sentence is actually very elementary. Having realized this, it is clear that big words and complicated sentences are a smokescreen intended to hide the lack of usable substance and in your case, your inability to translate scientific theory into practical advice. Considering the flawed and erroneous advice you gave above concerning squat technique, it does seem to be working for you.
Well then, you must feel better.
we’ll continue to exchange after all.
Your knack for creating fantastically presumptuous spin off my words is really something else.
As a side note, you have created an interesting counterargument regarding me questioning your status. That’s a new one- that I may be attempting to “divert attention because I have nothing specific to offer”
You speak as if you’ve been asked that same question before (as I suspiciously raise one eyebrow)
I suspect that if you were motivated enough to more thoughtfully and less defensively search my posts here and at EFS, my contributions to my own website, or perhaps even come visit and question me in person or one of my football players here or in the NFL you would in fact discover usable, practical, and much to your surprise, specific information.
These forums never cease to amuse me regarding how emotional the users become during discussions.
Yet I digress, since it’s out in the open, what is your status in the field?
I would really be disappointed if you were one of the many misinformed keyboard warriors whose size medium t-shirt flaps in the breeze of the ceiling fan as they lash out against those who are out there doing the job.
By the way, I’m fairly certain that I’ve had more weight on my back and in my hands than most of the users of this forum so you can put to rest all lectures pertaining to the difference between lift variations and percentage of the maximum.
Regarding your claim that I fail to present specific information, if you are referencing your interest in reviewing the studies containing the empirical data, the ones that I find most useful are contained within a great deal of the overseas literature. Beyond that, and perhaps even more meaningful to certain populations, is my own experiences working with a vast amount of athletes. While I haven’t taken the time to submit my own findings to peer reviewed scientific journals it would behoove you to know that I have and continue to work with some very gifted athletes and, as a result, any theoretical ideas I may have shared on occasion are certainly matched with practical experience.
what about you? Do you with your vehement opinions of me have the practical experience training yourself and others to high levels to throw such large stones?
or have you just attained average results and read a few books?
At any rate, you do write well so, if nothing else, you have that going for you.
Moving back towards productive discussion: exactly where in this thread have I failed to offer the specific information that you seek?