871
Peer Reviewed Studies Discussion / Re: depth jumps & depth drops
« on: December 18, 2015, 05:35:06 pm »Quote
The gains are sticking around because you haven't lost strength. You have lost movement efficiency in the squat. That's why it might take you 3 months to go from 250 to 275 and another three to go from 275 to 300, but after taking time off and going back down to 270 you can get back to 300 in a matter of weeks. One thing you will notice is that the "increased strength" from going back to 300 from 270 won't have any carryover. That's because for most people squats have very little direct carryover to jumping (far less than bounding, depth jumps, sprints, etc). The increase in the jump from squats is the side effect of squats - larger lower body muscles, stronger core muscular, etc. But that's the problem with your claim that maximal strength has a higher ceiling - as we get stronger we make more and more squat gains because of squat movement efficiency... These won't carry over.
I agree with everything you are saying and already knew it, except for the following:
- I have always had a direct carryover to my jumps from increased squat strength relative to bodyweight, even when I was a 1 foot jumper. Admittedly the carryover will have diminishing returns, and part of the reason is because after a certain point i'm just gaining a much higher proportion of squat specificity versus muscle strength thats used in jumping. but the single most important thing I have ever done is taken my squat from 1x bw to 2x bw.
- I think you're undermining the "high ceiling" of strength gains. Compare it to the gains from DJ's and stuff. Taking your squat from 1x bw to 2x bw makes a hell of a difference. Max strength is a more trainable quality than reactive strength, even ignoring that much of the gains may be from specificity in the squat. This is what I mean by it has a "high ceiling."
What's interesting is that you present yourself as a naturally reactive athlete (and I'm not here to tell you that you are not) but keep stating the carryover of maximal squat strength to your jumping ability. Truly reactive athletes don't see returns on increasing their squat:bw ratio from jump. They essentially begin at what you define as the end of their career. Depending on their build and level of starting strength some will see gains from squat:bw ratios if they are very weak - but these are fleeting. My max squat was a shaky above parallel 185lbs when I was in highschool - I was 5'11 170 and could dunk off 1 foot and rim out my attempts off two feet and could run 11.2 in the 100m. My jumping ability (svj,dlrvj,slrvj was about 28'', 33', 35'') . After getting in the weight room and getting to the point where I could nail 5x5x225lbs ATG @ 5'11 183 I was able to run 10.6 and my jumping ability was ~ 30'',38'',36'. Interestingly I tried deadlifting for the first time then and could do 405 on my first try... Anyway, years later I built my squat to 500lbs @ 205lbs and achieved jumps of ~ 34'', 38, 34''. My gains from squat:bw ratio essentially were maxed out by the time I could handle 225lbs...
Sorry for the long digression but I think this reminds me of one very important coaching tip: Sometimes we have to train to our strength. You might have good reactive and maximal strength expression in your jump. Which is the point your making - essentially that you should focus on your weakness because it will give you the best bang for your buck... This might be true for you. But for those on the extremes it's important to recognize that while it seems counterintuitive focusing on your weak link is often the worst thing you can do. We see this all the time in sprints. You have an aspiring 400m runner with runner who has amazing top speed and mediocre speed endurance ( say 100/200/400 10.4/20.8/46.5 ) - the runner dies at the end of the race. A well meaning coach immediately looks at the athlete and decides that the athlete has "enough" speed and needs to focus on speed endurance. After getting far more speed endurance the athlete comes back and now has the ability to run 46.0 (but has splits of 10.6/21.3/46.0). It's terrible coaching and it happens all the time. Initially the athletes 400 time was "bad" relative to his 200m (a 20.8 200m predicts a 45.3) not it's "good" because a a 21.3 predict a 46.8. I've gone through this cycle with coaches and it's really frustrating. The coach should have done a little endurance work throughout the year but kept emphasis on speed - the athlete would have been better served getting their 100m and 200m down to 10.2 and 20.5 then neglecting their natural ability to gain speed endurance...
The same is true for jumps. The really reactive guy - he needs to focus on reactive work. Sure maximal strength training should probably take place but it should not be emphasized. The really reactive guy is the one who needs the depth jumps! His bang for the buck for reactive training is far greater than the other guy, in other words he is the best athlete he can be when he is squeezing out 95% of his reactive potential and 70% of his maximal strength potential. Same thing with the other way around... get the non-reactive person as strong as possible. Reactive work is his background training... Sometimes we have to train our strength and just be conscious of our weakness.
This is a lot to take in at once, but one important thing i took away is that in the case of training our VJ, a very reactive person is better off still focusing a bunch on training reactivity versus max strength? I probably understood it wrong.
Anyway my main gripe with DJ training is... we know that the increased strength from the squats sticks around long after you stop squatting. But does the RoFD from DJ's stick around long after you stop DJing?! Because if it doesn't, then why would I ever program it into my training for purposes other than peaking or potentiation? Not to mention it can get in the way of maximal strength training... PLUS throw in the fact that maximal strength training helps increase RoFD as well (not reactive strength though).
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. I like your sprinting example a lot.

