What should the contact time of depth jumps be? I’ve heard some people say focus on quick contact time and screw height. And some have said go for maximum rebound height as long as the contact time is less than 1 second.
Yes, in-season football is a great example of the challenge of maintaing contractile strength. Hence the value of submaximal eccentrics, and the submaximal and repeated effort methods.
Steve, the 110cm height yields developments in explosive strength, not absolute, with the 75cm height (as you listed) yielding more substantial develoment in reactive ability.
This comes straight from Verkhoshanksi at the clinic, not to mention a careful consideration of the physiological implications of unloaded shock methods.
The developmet of absolute strength demands the utilization of limit loads, except in the case of untrained subjects and low class lifters in which submaximal efforts still contribute to developments in absolute strength.
So as we may observe, as we become more specific with the discussion, we must provide more specific context as the organism of elite/highly qualified lifters/athlets, for example; possess completely different characteristics then that of an untrained/low class lifer/athlete.
Consequently, it must be noted that the 110cm depth jump is an entirely insufficient and misplaced means of raising the absolute strength of high class (in the strength preparedness regime) athletes. The realization of muscular activity per unit time is entirely too far to the left (F:T) to yield increases in absolute (slow) stength.
What are we considering high class here? Is that a 4x bodyweight squat or 3x or what? Obviously this varies, but what about some general guidelines. BJ apparently made improvements without ever doing limit strength work in the way you describe and I would say he was fairly high class (probably top 10 in unequipped squat for his bw at the time), as have many other sprinters and other elite athletes.
Davan, great question, and one which further impacts the significance of providing context to this type of discussion.
Let’s use Ben as an example. A sprinter of the highest qualification with respect to competitiveness at the world stage.
Also an extremely strong lifter, yet to my knowledge, no one will ever know his limit strength (squat) without making predictions based upon sub-maximal efforts.
His strength increases were observed and demonstrated at the submaximal level (eg. 5, 6RM etc). Charlie would not have him train with heavier loads due to the potential risk factor (cost outweighed benefit).
So, in reality, all we can to speculate as to his 1RM, and the study of world class weightlifters (MSIC) shows us that training with maximal loads, with some degree of regularity, is the only means in which to raise absolute strength.
The perspective here, per Ben’s example, is such that his observable strength increases were demonstrated at the submaximal level. These strength increases surely would correlate, the degree to which we will never know, to his increase in 1RM. However, if we are to localize 1RM (limit) strength then we know that weights circa 1RM must be utilized and account for a certain percentage of the monthly tonnage.
The moral here is that if Ben were to have dropped sprinting and focused on breaking 1RM squat records, he sure as hell would have had to start training with heavier weights at greater frequencies.
USA weightlifting is a great example of the gross mistake of over emphasizing technique with too high of the training load being executed at submaximal efforts. We repeatedly get our ass handed to us at the world class level, and perhaps the most significant reason is that we are not as strong (limit) as our overseas counterparts. Very few lifters make the exception (eg Hammon) and correspondingly, he is one who competed at the world class level. Coincidence?
Returning from my tangent;
This same exact principle applies to speed work, as Charlie has demonstated to the planet; the sprinter must train over certain short enough distances, with sufficient recuperative intervals, which allow for limit speeds/accelerations to be reached in order to stretch the envelope of absolute speed development.
Context, context, context, Ben’s repetitions with 600+lbs in the half squat are in a different universe along the strength curve then what his 1-2RMs would have been, and to have raised his 1RM, he would have had to train, with some degree of regularity, with near limit and limit loads.
There is more then enough data presented in the translated texts to account for this very phenomenon, and corroborate my position, with regards to limit strength development in MS and MSIC class weightlifters.
Yes that is a good analogy, but is a bit more complicated then that. Strength is quick to gain and quick to lose for beginners; however, advanced athletes IMHO are different. For example, My 1 Rep max of bench press is 405lbs but if I took 2-4 months off I could still hit 315lbs (so for a wide receiver, corner back, and special teams the strength loss might not be noticable on the field bc of the player skill and speed in these positions); furthermore, within 1 month of retraining I could get back to 355lbs. My point here is that the longer you have lifted in terms of years the strength gains/losses come at a slower ratio.
Now getting back to the NFL and why those players got injured could be the fact that they did lose some strength (which may not be that big of deal depending on how strong you are and depending on what position you play) but at the NFL level for most positions it is very dangerous as you pointed out bc of the level of competition.
Con’t from Clemsons discussion above, had those athletes not completely dumped their strength work but had gone into plyometrics as (Stevemac describes above) then the strength losses probably would have been minimal (say 5-10%). So if we assume that the Colts had only abandoned their strength phase for 1 month and immediately when into a Plyometric phase for 1 month before returning to strength then the strength losses would have been minimal (if you assume 5-10% is minimal).
Continuing the discussion,
While I agree that Plyo’s generaly aren’t going to increase Maximum Strength, they can be used to maintain strength or prevent big losses assuming that the layoff from strength work is minimal (2weeks-6weeks although I prefer to see no more than a 6 week layoff from Strength and no more then twice a year of this type of layoff. Generally a 2 week layoff in some sports like track [2 weeks for intermediate athletes only 1 for advanced]happen during Christmas/Exams and 4-6 week layoff in the the Transition period say in Aug-Sept for track athletes).
“Con’t from Clemsons discussion above, had those athletes not completely dumped their strength work but had gone into plyometrics”
good idea…too bad the NFL is plagued with HIT guys!
SVS, regarding the football players. Yes depth jumps may have reduced the strength deficit,albeit at the high probability of debilitating the lineman and big skill players.
Ask Charlie about the thrower who F’d himself by performing altitude landings.
Bodymass is a massive consideration regarding the utilizing of true ‘shock’ plyometric/ballistics.
Regarding, your last statement, and I admit that this is approaching my limit of theoretical/academic, but if you take a highly qualified (strength preparedness) athlete and have he/she cease strength training for two months, then I don’t care how many ways you manipulate plyometric muscle action, but you will observe a sizeable reduction in absolute strength.
I have found through personal/anecdotal/practiacl experience that I am able to maintain my high school (American) football players in season strength potential above 90 and in some cases 95% relative to 3RM and 6RM by way of submaximal and repeated effort training alone.
I test them in 3RM and 6RM depending on how I have them classified relative to technical proficiency, one to two weeks prior to our first inseason contest. I then test them once mid season and once near end of the season. Last season I had some players actually set PRs prior to our final competition.
Clearly we must recognize that these are high school athletes of relatively low levels of strength preparedness. None the less, this is an example of one of the means of maintaining contractile strength during in-season frequent CNS intensive demand SPP training.
James, I would not take more than 6 weeks off and that would be in the transition period. I am in agreement with you in that the CFTS is the best methodology for training a sport like football and that you will want to always do some type of strength work albeit, at a reduced volume (but not necessarily at a reduced intensity, 90%) during certain periods.
Regarding plyo training for offensive/defensive lineman, I agree with you on this to some degree. The wt issue with the big guys doing plyo’s can cause more harm than good at the NFL level; however, this has to be addressed as a case by case basis and I would not expect offensive lineman to be depth jumping the same height as running backs.
James you must not forget that as the level of strength rises the performance gains to the sport increase at a decreasing rate when you get to the NFL strength levels. I know you are familar with the ESD so paraphrasing Zatsiorsky a bench press of 600 compared to 400 will not yield that much of a gain in performance of a running back or a squat of a 750 compared to 600. Now I know that different positions will have different ESD’s but it is possible for certain members of a team in the NFL not to do any strength work for 1 month. I’m not saying I would do this but just saying that you have take it on a case by case basis. Regarding highschool athletes you are 100% absolutely correct. I can’t imagine any athlete in any football position (except maybe the punter/kicker/Quarterback) take 1 month off while they are in any (pre/post/in) season.
Finally, if all qualities are at an elite level (strength/speed/plyos and their various sub components such as explosive strength and acceleration in speed and etc) including the skill of the game then their is no reason not to continue to do Strength Training (or any other quality) say in the off season as an example (i.e. trying to get a 600lb bench press) unless the hypertrophy of doing such things intereferes with the players position.
While this is becoming a very interesting thread I would like it if we could go back to the thread topic of Italian sprint training and I would still like to see more pro’s/con’s of the PAP approach that Vittori uses in relation to wt training.
SVS, your reference toe ESD in relation to the NFL athlete, and most athletes for that matter, exists more in the ideological sense.
In reality, I would wager that the vast majority of these athletes are no where near their own personal level of achieving a large ESD. Remember, Zatsiorsky’s example refers to throwers.
Again, I must reiterate the significance of context. Compare a 16lb shot to a 300lb lineman. I think
now that you will observe that in order for (a lineman for example) to create a large explosive strengh deficit that he would have to be astronomically strong. Because remember, the duration of the force cycle when trhowing the shot is very very short. Whereas the duration of TUT when battling an opponent is comparitevly light years longer than the throws. So here we see the value of maximal strength is most relevant for the down lineman.
Remember, the ESD is a function of how much force can be generated in the duration of time one has to apply that force to the implement/opponent, etc and the degree to which the duration is shorter then the sportsman’s ability to generate max force defines the magnitude of the ESD.
Throws and (clinch) combat type scenarios are worlds apart with respect to time. The lineman have a comparative eternity to generate force against their opponents.
Sure, certain athletes may be able to get away with longer layoffs then others, However, now we must account for a rise in injury potential (as a result of the immense eccentric loads encountered during multi-directional field/combat sports).
Regardless if a ‘stronger’ athlete can lay off training and still be ‘stronger’ then a weaker athlete; the relative consideration is such that the
‘stronger’ athlete has increased his own relative probability of sustaining injury due to his inability to tolerate as great of eccentric loads due to his loss of contractile strength.
I agree that the lineman’s ESD is different and I alluded to that in my previous post; however, you have shed some more light on the subject in this latest post then most people do on this forum and I have learned something as a result of it. You have opened my eyes to the TUT with respect to the lineman. I knew before hand that they would using more of their maximal strength for a longer period of time but you have put some icing on the cake to speak.
Thank You for your insight James.
SVS, I am a self proclaimed student of all of this, perhaps more then anyone on this or any other collective of training discussions.
Just as my intentions are on my Symposium and at EFS, I simply hope that through my attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the material I am able to subsequently assist others in their own further understanding.
The consciousness must be raised because, especially here in the western hemisphere, mediocrity runs rampant.
you’re right about sidelining this thread. I will take responsibility.
I am now officially pulling out of this discussion.
All the best to everyone involved.
I think we can use some general observations and estimations to a certain extent. Obviously we cannot be perfect with it, but we can still use norms seen in weightlifting and powerlifting.
His strength increases were observed and demonstrated at the submaximal level (eg. 5, 6RM etc). Charlie would not have him train with heavier loads due to the potential risk factor (cost outweighed benefit).
So, in reality, all we can to speculate as to his 1RM, and the study of world class weightlifters (MSIC) shows us that training with maximal loads, with some degree of regularity, is the only means in which to raise absolute strength.
The perspective here, per Ben’s example, is such that his observable strength increases were demonstrated at the submaximal level. These strength increases surely would correlate, the degree to which we will never know, to his increase in 1RM. However, if we are to localize 1RM (limit) strength then we know that weights circa 1RM must be utilized and account for a certain percentage of the monthly tonnage.
So he only increased his submaximal strength? I don’t think so. I think it is clear that submaximal lifting can improve both submaximal AND maximal. Westside’s Angelino squatted around 750lbs suited at a compareable weight to Ben (I’d say probably the same because of diuretic use often seen to make weight classes). So if his maximal with a SUIT is 750lbs v.s. Ben’s 2 x 6 x 600lbs with a belt, I think we can say that BJ was obviously at the level of an elite powerlifter. Even if 600lbs was his max, which I doubt, he would have obviously done much more by just adding a suit. If Angelino is truly working with a group that is so elite and that they are training the way that virtually all powerlifters should (max strength virtually all year long, each week), then why can he not blow this guy who is doing just “sub-maximal work,” out of the water? I am not going to say he is crap as he can squat a hell of a lot more than I can at this point (or probably ever will), but if the system is that great, why can he not show massive strength difference than sprinters who are doing submaximal work? This is simply a question because to me, it APPEARS like sub-max lifting can significantly effect max lifting at virtually all levels. I may be wrong, but I would be interested how this is.
The moral here is that if Ben were to have dropped sprinting and focused on breaking 1RM squat records, he sure as hell would have had to start training with heavier weights at greater frequencies.
USA weightlifting is a great example of the gross mistake of over emphasizing technique with too high of the training load being executed at submaximal efforts. We repeatedly get our ass handed to us at the world class level, and perhaps the most significant reason is that we are not as strong (limit) as our overseas counterparts. Very few lifters make the exception (eg Hammon) and correspondingly, he is one who competed at the world class level. Coincidence?
What about the government sponsored lifting programs? Starting a kid out before he is a teenager and making sure he does not have to worry about money or expenses and sometimes even education has a dramatic positive effect on performance I am going to guess. I don’t know enough about the systems our lifters in particular use v.s. overseas lifters to say more than that.
Returning from my tangent;
This same exact principle applies to speed work, as Charlie has demonstated to the planet; the sprinter must train over certain short enough distances, with sufficient recuperative intervals, which allow for limit speeds/accelerations to be reached in order to stretch the envelope of absolute speed development.
This is true, but what about the increase in submaximal work in the elites? I think powerlifting and sprinting are a little different in this regard. Sprinting technique changes as the speed increases, while perfect form can be used on squatting and benching are various weight ranges. Does powerlifting have bimotor qualities (I don’t know, I am curious)?
Context, context, context, Ben’s repetitions with 600+lbs in the half squat are in a different universe along the strength curve then what his 1-2RMs would have been, and to have raised his 1RM, he would have had to train, with some degree of regularity, with near limit and limit loads.
There is more then enough data presented in the translated texts to account for this very phenomenon, and corroborate my position, with regards to limit strength development in MS and MSIC class weightlifters.
I agree that his 1RM would have increased more if he did work at max levels regularly. This does not say though that it isn’t possible to increase max strength at submaximal levels. To play devil’s advocate here, what about Clyde Hart’s program? There is virtually no max velocity work, yet his sprinters do increase max velocity during their careers (usually). As an example, MJ ran 21.3 in highschool, and improved to sub 20 during college! Obviously speed endurance is a great factor, but I doubt any 21.3 guys have near the max velocity of sub 20 guys. His time at the Clippers, from what I’ve heard, had a great impact on him, but he still had great improvements before training with other coaches than Clyde Hart.
I am not trying to attack you here as you know far more in this than I, but I just see some of these “absolute facts” as no being the whole picture of the situation.
According to doc.V.( I heard it and seen it at a seminar here in italy 2 years ago):“many coaches try to teach depth jumps rebounding like a slap on a desk, a sudden and jerky movement(he actually hit the desk in front of him).It is wrong, it shoul d be an elastic rebound, allowing the heel to lower and then exploding to reach maximum height…(heigth gauge are useful, like a simple ball hanging over the athlete…)”
I like the thread i started…
Martn76, I can transalte the articles on strength training for the forum,I just need some time:)
Ok, I’ll jump back in for this one and then I I’m out.
It’s not that Ben’s increase in strength was localized to the submaximal regime, it’s that his tremedous capacity to move great load (albeit submaximal in the relative sense), combined with his clear white fiber dominance, suggests that his limit strength was far far in excess of the loads that he performed repetitions with.
This, clear albeit predicted difference between his limit strength and submaximal efforts presents far too large a gradation to intelligently discuss or postulate with regards to increases in limit strength.
Again, what must be recognized here is that the submaximal effort combined with maximal efforts is absolutely a premier means of raising limit strength; however, submaximal efforts alone are an insufficient means of raising absolute strength to any significant degree in lifters/athletes of a high level of strength preparedness. As I stated their is more then enough data presented in the translated texts, among others, to validate this statement.
Bottom line is that in the end we are still debating based upon gross approximations which, in my view, is deleterious to the objective of forming concrete methodology.
Lastly, lifting and sprinting are not as distant to one another as you might think. Yes technique can look identical despite the load of the barbell/resistance;however, and again I must provide specific context, lower qualified lifters may display proficient technique/sport form at submaximal loads and completely deteriorate at circa maximal loads. This is why the perfection of lifting technique/most substantial motor learning must be trained at high submaximal/circa maximal loads. And once again, this very fact is substantiated in the translated materials.
Again, a close parallel to sprinting in which a low class runner may demonstrate excellent mechanics while skipping, mach drills, running A’s, submaximal effort runs/tempo, etc and technically fall apart during max speed drills. I can personally attest to this based upon my experience administering speed training to my young athletes.
It would be easier to determine Ben’s capacity if there were a video of him squatting 600lb, so everyone could take a closer look at the body angels. Yes, I know, ‘past parallel’ but does that apply to the really heavy weights also (600lb), or might there be a slight “leak” from the norm then?
Great information, James. Your posts help solidify my belief that, in the weightroom, many sprint coaches overemphasize the speed part of the equation and underemphasize the strength and/or cross section part of the equation. Cross section is important year round, MxS is important year round, it’s the volume devoted to training them that gets manipulated.
Hasn’t the change in the financial landscape of the sport affected how athletes train, too? I don’t know what the sport was like in 1960 or 1970, but I can only assume there are more opportunities to make money year round which means an athlete needs to be sharper year round.
Good point and as I stated the stimulus from the SPP can also act as a stimulus to maintain maximum strength (throwing, sprinting, jumping etc)
The Long-Term Delayed Training Effect from the preceding block (maximal strength)?
If sufficient CNS stress is provided from other activities why can’t max strength be augmented if not improved. Ben Johnson’s awesome display of strength in the gym was as a direct consequence of what he was doing in the ‘field.’ One of my colleagues informs me that Prof V. states that those who have utilized depth jumps have improved their squats by as much as 50kg over a period of two years. If we equate strength with force production nothing comes close to depth jumps.
Using Ben as an example isn’t supported by the realities of the weightlifters. The fact that Ben didn’t approach his limit strength would NOT make it as difficult for him to move up as for the weightlifter because of the additional “external” influence of the sprinting on limit strength (as outlined by you above). This is supported by the extreme bench result in Seoul that could not be explained by the lifting alone.
While I agree that depth jumps will have a huge influence on the squat, consider elements that have a larger spread away on the strength curve from the lifting (event) itself.
Sprint contact times are as much as 10 times shorter than depth jump contact times, moving them far to the left of depth jumps which are closest to the left of weights. It’s possible to utilise sprints, and, to a lesser degree, reg plyos to a higher degree safely. For throwers, depth jumps are often incorporated every tenth or twelfth day.
Also how can a height of 1.10m be used to define expl str across the board without reference to weight class?