961
Basketball / Re: Andrew Wiggins offseason training
« on: August 16, 2015, 06:06:48 pm »
I know you don't see because I couldn't find the one I was reffering to.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
962
Basketball / Re: Andrew Wiggins offseason training
« on: August 16, 2015, 07:49:21 am »
Those plates look a lot like the ones in that crossfit gym I once went to, when I deadlifted my 184 kg deadlift (405 lbs).
In that gym there were plates as "big" (in diameter) as a 25 or 20 kg plate, but they were 5 kg. They were like that for weak people to do snatches and cleans off the floor from the "correct height" (question remains - what business do weak people have with Olympic lifts?).
So there's a great chance that except for the thicker plates which might be ~15-20kg, all the others are 10 kg or less (probably 5). It looks like 20+20+10+10+5+5 on each side, which is 70+70+20 = 160 kg.
But I hate how his feet are not exactly in the same positions (weight distribution) and his lack of control of the movement.
This makes me remember Brandon Roy training with his trainer and the trainer allowing him a tremendous amount of knee valgus occuring during plyos and lunges and all that jazz. Unbelievable.
A video:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfeswVUHQkY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfeswVUHQkY</a>
I can't find the video I was talking about though, it might've been removed. I even commented in there like "how is this even possible?!"
In that gym there were plates as "big" (in diameter) as a 25 or 20 kg plate, but they were 5 kg. They were like that for weak people to do snatches and cleans off the floor from the "correct height" (question remains - what business do weak people have with Olympic lifts?).
So there's a great chance that except for the thicker plates which might be ~15-20kg, all the others are 10 kg or less (probably 5). It looks like 20+20+10+10+5+5 on each side, which is 70+70+20 = 160 kg.
But I hate how his feet are not exactly in the same positions (weight distribution) and his lack of control of the movement.
This makes me remember Brandon Roy training with his trainer and the trainer allowing him a tremendous amount of knee valgus occuring during plyos and lunges and all that jazz. Unbelievable.
A video:
I can't find the video I was talking about though, it might've been removed. I even commented in there like "how is this even possible?!"
963
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: ADARQ's journal
« on: August 16, 2015, 04:59:34 am »
Happy birthday
965
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Weight Vested Plyo's
« on: August 13, 2015, 03:56:05 am »
Doing weighed vest plyos increases the GCT (ground contact time). What that means is the muscle load is increased and the "tendon contribution" decreases (in other words, the movement becomes more "muscled up" and less "springy" or "reactive"). Even more, there's a tendency to "break" more (at the hip, knee or ankle).
One "advantage" would be to see where you "break" but then it's a matter of understanding if the breaking is occuring due to lack of strength or too much dominance (for example, if breaking at the knee is a matter of lack of quad strength (knee collapses and goes forward) or too much quad strength relative to the posterior chain, so the quads are preferentially recruited when the load is heavier and therefore, for the quads to express their "strength", the CNS "wants" to move the knee forward to get quad range of motion). It's tricky to figure out what the case is (well, not really, look at your squat numbers to figure that out).
I used to do the other way around for my reactivity - donkey ankle bounces. I would support my chest on something (usually a trash can) and take away a lot of my upperbody weight. Then I would jump up and down while being UNLOADED. That would allow me to be VERY reactive since I'm weighing like half my bodyweight.
Looks funny but is efficient:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwu5U3gSCDU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwu5U3gSCDU</a>
One "advantage" would be to see where you "break" but then it's a matter of understanding if the breaking is occuring due to lack of strength or too much dominance (for example, if breaking at the knee is a matter of lack of quad strength (knee collapses and goes forward) or too much quad strength relative to the posterior chain, so the quads are preferentially recruited when the load is heavier and therefore, for the quads to express their "strength", the CNS "wants" to move the knee forward to get quad range of motion). It's tricky to figure out what the case is (well, not really, look at your squat numbers to figure that out).
I used to do the other way around for my reactivity - donkey ankle bounces. I would support my chest on something (usually a trash can) and take away a lot of my upperbody weight. Then I would jump up and down while being UNLOADED. That would allow me to be VERY reactive since I'm weighing like half my bodyweight.
Looks funny but is efficient:
966
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Age vs Vertical
« on: August 01, 2015, 08:30:43 pm »
I can, if my knees are straight. Once they start to approach a half-squat depth, getting the glutes to fired requires a tremendous amount of effort. Like, actively thinking about that happening like crazy. No wonder my half squat sucks.
On the other hand, the glute recruitment becomes better if I just push the hips back, like in a RDL. But once the knees bend (knees travel forward) as in a jump or half squat, the glutes are being turned off.
On the other hand, the glute recruitment becomes better if I just push the hips back, like in a RDL. But once the knees bend (knees travel forward) as in a jump or half squat, the glutes are being turned off.
967
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Age vs Vertical
« on: August 01, 2015, 06:56:56 pm »
I can't. I have no glute control while with both legs planted etc. It's complicated.
968
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Age vs Vertical
« on: July 31, 2015, 04:44:10 pm »
It's really, really weird.
When I jump off two, for example for a jumpshot, I feel 100% quad. No glute no nothing. In fact, my two leg jump with a ball in hand looks and feels horrible, for a jumpshot. And when I land I feel like crashing. I basically just bend at the knees and jump, the hips don't do anything.
So how can I be quad dominant in a jump and yet suck at half squatting? Doesn't make any sense. Unless I have weak quads and even weaker posterior chain, so the CNS is like "well OK, let me choose a knee bend since the quads are a bit stronger".
But then shouldn't I be better at half squats, like high bar squats (although it's a serious flexiblity issue there that is limiting me) and suck at deadlifts?
Really weird.
When I jump off two, for example for a jumpshot, I feel 100% quad. No glute no nothing. In fact, my two leg jump with a ball in hand looks and feels horrible, for a jumpshot. And when I land I feel like crashing. I basically just bend at the knees and jump, the hips don't do anything.
So how can I be quad dominant in a jump and yet suck at half squatting? Doesn't make any sense. Unless I have weak quads and even weaker posterior chain, so the CNS is like "well OK, let me choose a knee bend since the quads are a bit stronger".
But then shouldn't I be better at half squats, like high bar squats (although it's a serious flexiblity issue there that is limiting me) and suck at deadlifts?
Really weird.
969
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Age vs Vertical
« on: July 31, 2015, 06:58:31 am »
It's so weird looking how much you smoke me on the half squats and how much you struggle with the hang cleans while also being able to do a proper catch on the shoulders. Very interesting.
I guess you have better quads/better structure for quad "expression" whereas I have better PC. I don't know.
I guess you have better quads/better structure for quad "expression" whereas I have better PC. I don't know.
970
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Chris' training journal
« on: July 29, 2015, 04:03:09 pm »
Well I've done everything by the book. You tell me how the same ratio is maintained despite increases in bodyweight? Sounds like a genetic thing to me.
Remember, my "natural" VJ back when I was 15 was "wow I touched the net" level off one leg (12 inches) and I didn't know a two-leg jump was even possible. That's the genetics I was served up with.
Remember, my "natural" VJ back when I was 15 was "wow I touched the net" level off one leg (12 inches) and I didn't know a two-leg jump was even possible. That's the genetics I was served up with.
971
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Chris' training journal
« on: July 29, 2015, 03:46:42 pm »
Are you kidding me?
How about telling me how much I waste my time having pretty much the same ratio of squat/BW in the last 7 years or so, going religiously to the gym and putting as much if not MORE effort than anybody else I know.
No matter what I did, the squat/BW ratio stayed the same all this time. And pretty much everything else. Increase in bodyweight? See SOME increases in strength, but overall the same ratio.
Genetics is genetics, and you can't go around it.
How about telling me how much I waste my time having pretty much the same ratio of squat/BW in the last 7 years or so, going religiously to the gym and putting as much if not MORE effort than anybody else I know.
No matter what I did, the squat/BW ratio stayed the same all this time. And pretty much everything else. Increase in bodyweight? See SOME increases in strength, but overall the same ratio.
Genetics is genetics, and you can't go around it.
972
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Chris' training journal
« on: July 29, 2015, 06:21:17 am »
Dem glucocorticoid levels...
973
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Age vs Vertical
« on: July 29, 2015, 06:19:54 am »
I would probably have a ~100% collapse rate in my plants after that, or 12 inch jumps at the most.
974
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Chris' training journal
« on: July 28, 2015, 07:34:20 pm »
Well of course it is. But it's depressing to think that stuff is more into the realm of genetics than it is in the realm of actual training effects. To get a training effect would mean, IMO, to do a tremendous amount of volume of plyometric work, a stuff that athletic/high jump coaches here in Romania do abide by.
Same thing with becoming a reactive "dunker" - go the Jordan Kilganon or Kadour Ziani "non stop dunking/dunk or die" route. But only those whose genetics were "right" to begin with will be able to go that route without getting injured, because someone with faulty mechanics/"bad structure" for jumping will take in so much damage from high volume jumping (using those bad mechanics combined with a bad structure) that they will get injured before any positive training effects will become noticeable.
It's really depressing when you think about it.
Same thing with becoming a reactive "dunker" - go the Jordan Kilganon or Kadour Ziani "non stop dunking/dunk or die" route. But only those whose genetics were "right" to begin with will be able to go that route without getting injured, because someone with faulty mechanics/"bad structure" for jumping will take in so much damage from high volume jumping (using those bad mechanics combined with a bad structure) that they will get injured before any positive training effects will become noticeable.
It's really depressing when you think about it.
975
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Chris' training journal
« on: July 28, 2015, 06:46:28 pm »
Reactive in my books is just a translation of "my quad tendons accept a tremendous amount of load without shutting down the quads in the process".