to absorb more force absorb force. lol kinda. train your bodies muscles for maximum motor unit activation. ie high load high velocity training over and over again this can be done eccentrically with depth landings. but the techniques are numerous and the system extensive like i said im still learning from others. but u can start by reading those books i mentioned they are packed with alot of good stuff.
P.S. JUGGLER obviously you didnt have a specific question but if you do feel free to ask 
Kind of true, but wouldn’t training with high load and high velocity over and over again increase the risk we’re trying to decrease? I mean, trying to stay away from injuries (absorb force) by doing more of the things that most likely will injure us – or at least have a higher risk potential? I kind know what you mean, but we’re in a paradox anyhow. We cannot train harder than we’re able to recover from, and sometimes the recovery span is just a few days if long term goals are to be achieved (training plan).
Simple even though they have the abliity to create force at amazing levels they are unable to effeciently control the nerological aspects of athletesism and i would argue that 99.999999% of all athletes in all sports are the same way. so wut the hell am i talking about? ok if your running an u need to turn your quads on alternative to your hamstirings back and forth back and forth then neuroligically this aspect must be trained. imagine if your quads create 100N of force and your hamstinrgs 80N. if your quads are on even alittle say 20N then the force of your hamstrings is hampered, performace is hurt and u can become hurt because your hamstrings are overloaded by external forces and the enternal ones of the quads. (this is a extremly ruff example). all though relaxing when u run has a great effect in preventing injury it can be better adressed through training. teaching your agnostic and atagnostic muscles to rapidly fire back in forth between the two, BUT even better yet train your muscles to absorb massive amounts of force. this is a nerological principle, we want when needed the maximum number of motor neurons to activate during eccentric muscle actions. So STRENGTH IS NOT THE KEY TO ATHLETIC PROWESS!!! Its all neurological…
it has to do with ballistic muscle action and the feed-forward system (LOOK IT UP IN SUPERTRAINING IF YOU HAVE IT IF NOT USE THE NET) hope that helps…
That sounds really fancy but some of it is false. Sprinters and other high level speed strength athletes already demonstrate the best inherent ability to completely and fully relax in between contractions as well as alternate between agonistic and antgonistic contractions proficiently. So saying they get injured more then others because of lack of those abilities compared to other athletes is wrong.
Your last statement is just a fancy way of saying there’s a difference between speed strength (which consists of explosive and reactive strength) and limit strenght.
actually no but i do agree with you, if it came across confusing or wrong i meant to say that all athletes in all types of sports display an inablity to correctly activate ballistic muscle actions even sprinters. but u are right if i had to choose one class of athlete that best displayed feedforward ability it would be sprinters becasue of the demands of the given sport. im just trying to say that the physiological trait should be greater improved not simply by means of “relaxing” but by special training methods.
p.s. i am not talking in terms of speed strength or limit strength
Very good and valid point. so wut we have to do is train to train. i know that sounds stupid but look at it this way. in this type of training we are attempting to affect changes in neurologically. one of the problems with physical exertion or excercies is that when the muscle is fatigued it contracts (shortens) this is a natural physiological occurance but has the negative effect of making you body more subseptibale (spelling) to injury. the shorter a muscle the less force it is able to absrob and thus the more probable injury. our neurological systems being as adaptive as they are, allow us a way out of this problem. one method to solve this problem is to keep your muscles in extension during periods of great fatigue. so just for a very general example you could do so many sets of ballistic explosive push ups then follow each set with a period in wich the pectoralis muscles are held in extension under tension, a lowered push up position between 2 bowes. so as the muscle is fatigued and wants to contract we dont allow it to and "teach " it to remain elongated. remember elongated muscle is healthy strong muscle. now after praticing this when your muscle fatigues it will not contract, you will be able to continue to absorb force, and the more force you can absorb the more force you can create (plyometrics). so u are less likely to become injured becasue you can absorb more force even after the muscle fatigues and you will be able to handel greater volumes of work.
You say force absorption is key and that this is controlled by neurological factors.
I want some references for all this neurological stuff. (“Jay Schroeder said” is not a legit reference)
I can dig up plenty demonstrating how simple all of this is - for example, for a start, force absorption is determined by eccentric strength which is nothing more then the ability to lock up a muscle under force. Increase the rate that force must be developed and released and you shift focus towards explosive strength.
If you’re gonna complicate things at least reference them.
as a final statment let me say look at valery borsov the russion sprinter and olympic champ. when he starte to train he ra 13 sec in the 100m, doest show much potential does it, but through prper training he became thw worlds fastest man. his ability in atributed to plyometrics but this is not completly true atleast not in the way americans concieve plyometrics. get this… at his peak he was doing altitude drops from heights over 20 feet and landing in a perfect PERFECT!!! dead stop squat position.
I got $100 for the first person that can show me a video of Borzov or any other retard doing depth drops from 20 feet. If you read the Soviet research on that topic what you’ll find is that at heights above over ~1.15 meters, even though they worked well to increase explosive and eccentric strength, athletes were reluctant to perform the drops because of the pain and injury potential involved.
kelly, buddy… calm down lets keep this civil. i understand your disbelief and your desire for the facts. im not sure if there is a video of him doing it out there. but i have talked to a person i consider very credible about the subject. now ofcourse this may not convince you but let not rush to the conclusion that its not possible. now i know of the study that your talking about done by the soviets, its in supertraining, but what we have to realize is that that study was subjective ie. it did not really delve into the possiblities of years of trianing with these methods. the bottom line is that if someone can do absorb that kinda force they would display superior abilites, specifically for developing force (the more force you can take in the more you can put out) i think we can both agree on that. and i have talked to other strength coaches who have seen people perform similar excercises from heights well beyond 1.15 meters, all be it borsov’s being the most extreme. so if you want to attack the point that i havent seen and can not produce a video of someone doing and excercise to this extreme you have a valid point of argument. but i believe strongly in the people that i get this information from and no they are not all jay schroeder lol.
20ft = over 6 meters. Let’s all reflect about that for a while! And no, we’re not talking about Batman. Let’s be civil and reasonable!
my intent is not to complicate things but to simplify them. im gunna assume that we can both agree that the nervous system has a great deal of plasticity. and that maximum force output eccentric or other wise is based on fiber type, sarcomere density and motor unit recruitment. as for refrence look at any study done in which the inervation ratio of its participants increased due to training. now im not quit sure what your second statment is aluding too but i would argue that eccentric strength has more to do with physiological prowess than just being able to “lock up” the muscle. but again im not sure of your statement. i think a problem is that you want published research data on these assertion which is a perfectly legitamte want, but alot of this stuff is synthesized based on the expereince of others. it must be tried if you dont believe. not all things are going to have a nice research study performed to check its validity. for me its becoming a truth simply becasue i am experiencing it. for you its a falsehood that must be proven with indisputible evidence. the science is there behind the methods. it has always been there. the stuff that jay uses can be found in a 1940s anatomy a physiology book or a run of the mill kinesiology book. its just the way that you choose to view the material that makes the difference. the holds in the extreme joint range for extended periods of time for example. if you read enoka’s neuromechanics text you would come to understand that and extreme lenghths sarcomere overlap is minimal reducing the number of binding sites available for muscle contractions. but because fast twitch muscle fibers tend to display a denser concentration of binding sites and sarcomeres these fiber types are preferentially choosen by the cns to maintain contraction once the weaker motor units (slow twitch) fatigue.
when i was a kid ( 10 years of age and younger) i use to jump of the top of the jungle gym, sounds stupid i know, but i would do it all the time, i recently went back to my elementry school with some old friends (for kicks and giggles) and the old jungle gym was there and i kid you not it was atleast 12 feet from the ground to where i use to jump off of. why was i able to do that? was i some freak of nature? NO. but as youths are muscles are more plastic and elongated. thats why i didnt become injured. ever notice how little kids never get injured? ever ask yourself why? now if a little kid with no training can do that what can a full grown man with the training and backing of a nation do after some 6 years of training?..
Honestly it sounds like you’re just regurgitating a bunch of crap that someone impressed you with. There is nothing new under the sun. Depth drops do not work miracles and force absorption isn’t even a motor quality.
You can overcomplicate things as much as you want and giving a 10 page dissertation as to why fast twitch muscle fibers are recruited once slow twtich fatigue etc. but there’s nothing all that complicated about any of this stuff.
your entitled to your opinion.
Kelly,
Just think this guy can stay in a squat position without activating the quads and was doing 12 feet (at least…) depth jumps at the age of 10.
That was 10 years ago, by the way, because our strength guru is just 20 years old.
i find it intresting that alot of individuals find it necessary to attack a person or what he writes on this forum. if you guys disagree with me that is fine. i may be wrong lord knows its happened before. but why dont u guys prove me wrong and argue with me instead of just being insulting and sarcastic. if you can prove me wrong know one will be more happy than me becasue i leave my ego out of it i want the kowledge and could care less if through constructive argument i am found to be wrong. if you dont believe, for example, that a person can do a 20 foot altitude landing tell me why, dont just say thats impossible. i think on this forum its become to much a contest to prove who has the greater knowledge instead of a place where we can come to share ideas unacausted. anyway im sure this will piss some of you off to say something rude an unconstructive but i thought it should be said considering the scholastic and mutually beneficial nature of this forum. peace…
James, you must not get crossed if people respond to your strength guru self-proclamation with sarcasm. It’s normal to get critics when you get “on the stage”, and it’s even more normal when you do so without really having the numbers. You’ll probably become a great strength coach, but as for now, you don’t have neither the knowledge nor the experience, especially given your young age. This doesn’t mean that you cannot post or anything like that, but you should consider that some posters have something to teach you and when they make you realize that you wrote something wrong it’s cool to say “you are right, I was wrong” in stead of steering the attention on something else. Also, when you speculated something, it’s better to present it like it is, i.e. just a speculation, otherwise people with the on the field experience will immediately understand your lack of practical basis. One more thing to consider is the use of technical words; when you want to use them it’s better if you look for the right spelling, otherwise you can just use words you know better. A wrong technical word weakens your point more than a more simple word used in the right context.
One last thing, you should respect your own thoughts and those that read them, for this reason is fair to present your points in a neat, readable way; sure this is not grammar school, but it would be like going to a job interview with just your undies, you could be the really best man for the position, but the interviewer would have built aesthethic prejudices (and not just those) even before you spoke.
As English is not my mother tongue, I do hope my message came out the way I wanted and it would be of some help.
the thing is these are not speculations they are based on personal research sythesized by doing research. also i dont mind if people question my grammer or spelling becasue i want to get a point across but i havent been using the wrong words i have just been misspelling them. finally i did attempt to present to you my rational for one aspect of jays program, but i did not get a response debating my point just one insulting it. in that example was there anything that i said that was wrong or not based on science. oh yea one more thing i dont want to be a strength coach. i am an athelte who is in the process of using these techniques. thats how i know they work.
oh yea i never proclaimed myself a strenght training guru. all i did was try to present a different way of viewing of something.
C’mon, don’t be silly. There is a difference in arguing with (and only) valid points, than certifying them with examples that’s just unconvincing – drop jumps from 6m into a perfect squat position being one of the most outrageous I have ever heard (being around triple-, high- and longjumpers for the past 15 years, I thought I’ve already heard all there is about legendary altitude jumps).
i find it intresting that alot of individuals find it necessary to attack a person or what he writes on this forum. if you guys disagree with me that is fine. i may be wrong lord knows its happened before. but why dont u guys prove me wrong and argue with me instead of just being insulting and sarcastic. if you can prove me wrong know one will be more happy than me becasue i leave my ego out of it i want the kowledge and could care less if through constructive argument i am found to be wrong. if you dont believe, for example, that a person can do a 20 foot altitude landing tell me why, dont just say thats impossible. i think on this forum its become to much a contest to prove who has the greater knowledge instead of a place where we can come to share ideas unacausted. anyway im sure this will piss some of you off to say something rude an unconstructive but i thought it should be said considering the scholastic and mutually beneficial nature of this forum. peace…
Well for one thing there are a number of people on this forum who don’t know what and what not to believe. The result is they can be easily swayed with misinformation like you’re promoting. That can lead to lots of wasted $$$ provoking thoughts such as “wow in order to ever be a good athlete I need an inertial impulse machine”. Or, it can lead to injury promoting thinking such as “ok I need to work up to where I can do a depth drop from 20 feet” Do you not see what the problem is with that? I won’t even get into the reality of what you’re claiming.
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Additionally, you attach special significance to certain conditions regarding training and physiology. Let me give you an example. BTW this is the 2nd time you’ve done this the last time was with that thread on iso pushups. You claim that isometric wall squats, iso pushups, and other assorted variations are cutting edge because they recruit the fast twitch fibers as the slow twitch fatigue. Now to the uneducated , that might seem like a big deal but guess what? The fast twitch fibers are always recruited as the slow twitch fatigue regardless of what you do! It’s called the size principle of recruitment.
Now, recruiting the FT fibers in events requiring prolonged durations of output (above 20 seconds or so), is in fact something for the most part people on this forum try to avoid because it causes FT fibers to take on ST characteristics! Go out and try to run a 4:00 mile and you’ll accomplish the same thing. Do a set of 10 to 20 traditional weight training movements and you’ll do the same thing. Now, you’re probably gonna say, “well it’s the tension placed over the full rom and the stretch that’s important” Ok then go ahead and look at all the bodybuilding plans that incorporate either loaded stretches, static holds, or mini partial reps at the end of the set and tell me why those guys aren’t setting all kinds of physical performance records if recruiting the FT after the ST and subsequently engaging the muscle in a stretch is so cutting edge? By that line of thinking I guess baseball catchers should be the fastest, most explosive, and least injured athletes of all right?
Active flexibility, flexibility strength, and plyometrics do have a place but nothing cutting edge like you’re claiming.