Author Topic: Vertical Jump (Read 42179 times)

Joel Smith · « **Reply #15 on:** July 03, 2011, 01:54:39 pm »

Hey, speaking of the deep squat position for vertical jumping study... anyone ever notice how deep dee brown gets in his jumping?

Here is a clip from the 1991 dunk contest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgfIrCTjud0

Good studies though, I'll have to read them and try and get a few comments/discussion going.

Raptor · « **Reply #16 on:** July 03, 2011, 03:04:08 pm »

You want deep, check out 1:00 here:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79oVy1pw1Xw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79oVy1pw1Xw</a>

Joel Smith · « **Reply #17 on:** July 03, 2011, 03:14:31 pm »

holy sh%t.... actually though, this is how a lot of awesome two leg jumpers take off, his center of mass is crazy low, but his left leg doesn't bend all that much. Just working speed and com lowering to his best advantage. That right leg is bent pretty far though, but I think most of the force is going to the left leg. This is kind what gives a lot of "speed" high jumpers their lift without them bending their knee much, because they are leaning to the side which lowers the center of mass.

Raptor · « **Reply #18 on:** July 03, 2011, 03:30:20 pm »

I think the reality is that in T-Dub's case, that first leg that he plants LOADS a lot muscularly, also spends more time than the left leg on the ground and therefore contributes more muscularly and it kind of loads more due to the twisting occuring onto it as well which, in my opinion, helps "stress" the CNS and recruit more muscle.

Joel Smith · « **Reply #19 on:** July 04, 2011, 12:43:05 pm »

this is what I want to see.... a study showing the link between fiber type and knee bend in standing vertical jump with no instruction given and then instruction given and see what results happen. It seems like those who are more slow twitch oriented would do better by digging down further to jump, as they would have more time to produce force. if I get my Ph.d maybe I could do my dissertation on this

I have a sprinter on the track team though, who seems to be pretty fast twitch oriented and likes to do his standing vertical tests by going way past 90 degrees. He isn't very athletic though... didn't play any jumping sports in hs. His standing VJ is about 30-32" on the jump mat. He can parallel squat 275 at 145lbs. He also runs the 200 in about 23.0, although he would have broke 23 if I was coaching the long sprints this past year

all my other sprinters/jumpers don't use past 90 knee bend.

What is crazy is that Dee Brown does his running dunks with such great knee bend, that is a lot of force out of the hole there.

Raptor · « **Reply #20 on:** July 04, 2011, 01:09:00 pm »

It's not that easy. There are structural factors, sleeping vs active muscles, flexibility issues, previous/current injuries and so on and so forth that factor in quite a bit in determining what is going to happen in terms of bending or knee vs hip bend.

LanceSTS · « **Reply #21 on:** July 04, 2011, 04:49:43 pm »

There are a ton of factors that all come into play here, and they can also be changed through different types of training, some for better, some for worse.

One thing that I have noticed simply through years of observation is athletes with a very long tibia relative to the femur will not have the same "weak" spot that athletes with longer femur to tibial ratios, and can descend further without a loss of power in the svj. These same athletes seem to be able to get more of the hips into any jump they do as the length of the shorter femur pivoting around a longer tibia is advantageous for that extra depth without moving the center of mass too far away from the fulcrum.

This is only one of many factors, but this type of athlete will actually benefit from a little deeper gather during the jump, dee brown looks to be a pretty good example of this. It would definitely be interesting to see some good studies done on it.

Raptor · « **Reply #22 on:** July 04, 2011, 05:12:46 pm »

I think you might have something going on with that ^^^

Joel Smith · « **Reply #23 on:** July 04, 2011, 07:49:36 pm »

I can see how the tibia/femur ratio can make sense. Thinking about it a bit more.... I think squat strength is a big inflencing factor, as when you look at most any football player, they get down pretty deep as well. That cam wake 11'8 jump is a good example too. Then again, I remember watching staffan strand do some standing high jumps, and he dug down unbelievably far, especially for a high jumper with a bad squat.

I have long tibia length compared to my femur, but I can't squat for sh#t (not being able to hit 2.0x when you have been lifting for 13 years is kind of weak), and I have less knee bend than anyone I know on my standing vertical. A lot of this though is because I get a lot of power out of my upper body, and my legs play a slightly more reactive function than most. I suppose there are a lot of factors, I would like to see more research on it.

I bet achilles length and structure has something to do with it as well, a great study in the JSCR came out a few months ago talking about how athletes with differently structured muscle-tendon complexes in their calves produced force differently in standing and running verticals. Long tendons were good for standing vertical jumps, and short were not good. Case in point I had a swedish long jumper who went 22' this past year and wasn't that fast either, who only had a 25" standing vertical. His achilles were really short.... and so are Stefan Holm's for that matter, and his standing vertical is like... half of his running. KB wrote about that in one of his recent articles too.

I would be really interested if more research came out on the knee bend topic as well.

Raptor · « **Reply #24 on:** July 05, 2011, 05:38:05 am »

Quote from: Joel Smith on July 04, 2011, 07:49:36 pm

A lot of this though is because I get a lot of power out of my upper body, and my legs play a slightly more reactive function than most.

Interesting. I think that might be true, if you were lacking the upperbody strength that you have right now you'd probably bend more in the body's effort to find more strength resources.

TKXII · « **Reply #25 on:** July 25, 2011, 02:47:09 am »

00:21 in the TDUB video is insane. Looks like he has a lot of strength, that's the first time I've seen him jump without his usually 3 step approach.

http://faculty.fullerton.edu/leebrown/PDF%20Files/Academic/McBride-heavy%20vs%20light%20load%20training.pdf

THis study found that jump squats using 30% 1RM were way more effective than at 80% 1RM. They did not test vertical jump, but they tested performance on jump squats using 30, 55, an 80% 1RM using a force plate. THey also tested 20 meter sprint. Problems is that they used a smith machine, and were told to lower the weight in a controlled manner (wold like to see the video), but subjects were instructed to accelerate the bar as fast as possible.
Results:
-1RM increased as expected more in the 80% jump squat group more than the 30%, and relative strength increased as well.
-The 30% JS group increased jump height more than the 80% at all weights tested, that means the 30% jump squat was more effective at increasing jump height in the 80% jump squat even compared to the group that actually trained with 80% jump squats- pretty crazy results.
-Peak force improved more in the 80% JS group in testing post-study, however peak power and peak velocity improve much more in the 30% JS group.

"The JS30 group had
an overall trend of improved velocity capabilities regardless of the load in the jump-squat tests."

Very nice tables to check out in there.
Edit: especially table 3 page 80. Notice the 30js group is producing more power in the 80% 1rm jump squat test than the group that trained with 80%.

fedexpress · « **Reply #26 on:** July 25, 2011, 08:06:03 pm »

I just read this study and am interested in other peoples' opinion on it as I have just recently added js into my routine. I have very little experience deciphering research studies but there a few things that seem strange to me on this one, some of which Avishek has already mentioned:

-Smith machine
-No bw vj pre/post testing
-1RM squat % calc @knee angle of 80', not parallel or ATG
-EMG for vastus lateralis only
-Control group increased 1RM by over 6% - how? (Table 2)
-Much more work(43%) done by JS80% group than JS30% - overtrained? (Table 2)
-BF%/BW went down for JS30, abt same for JS80, up for Control grp (Table 1)
-No wt or diet control for subjects
-Jump height on 55% JS test up ~8% on control grp, abt same as JS30 grp, WTF? (Figure 3)
-Jump ht up the most (>12%) on the control grp for the 80% JS test when they did no 80% jumping at all?? WTFx2 (Fig 4)

Any thoughts on this study and its validity/conclusions would be appreciated.

TKXII · « **Reply #27 on:** July 26, 2011, 12:10:00 am »

Wow I didn't even notice the control group's gains in the 80JS. Maybe they entered their values wrong? THe control group is producing less power than the others at the 80%JS test but jump higher? Wtf..

Anyway here are some of my thoughts. Something to always keep in mind in these sport related studies is the athletic abilities of the participants. We have no data on their training experience or program other than that they play intamural sports. They seem to have high starting strength levels though, if you look at their 1RM, averages are above 300lbs.

So perhaps these participants had been perforing slower weight training already and so more slow weight training as in the 80%1rm jump squats, did not help them in jum performance.

For athletes with lower starting 1RMs, we might have seen a better result from the heavier jump squats. It would also be interesting to see if we took athletes with 40 inch running verticals and tried this protocol on them to compare light fast training to slower and heavier training. The fact that their sprint times decreased is nothing new though. SPrinting is something totally different

Edit: i think most atheltes here would agree with my analysis. But I tend to disagree with this conventional wisdom. I think lighter training may be a better idea. A lot of us really believe in maximal strength training, when the forces in vertical jump aren't near what is seen in maximal strength training. Maximal strength increases will only help one jump higher by increasing their power output in the short time of a ground contact, so a better term is maximal exploive strength expressed in 200 milliseconds or less. Once ai get to a 50 inch vertical I'll talk more though.

fedexpress · « **Reply #28 on:** July 26, 2011, 12:46:38 am »

Quote from: Avishek on July 26, 2011, 12:10:00 am

Wow I didn't even notice the control group's gains in the 80JS. Maybe they entered their values wrong? THe control group is producing less power than the others at the 80%JS test but jump higher? Wtf..

Anyway here are some of my thoughts. Something to always keep in mind in these sport related studies is the athletic abilities of the participants. We have no data on their training experience or program other than that they play intamural sports. They seem to have high starting strength levels though, if you look at their 1RM, averages are above 300lbs.

So perhaps these participants had been perforing slower weight training already and so more slow weight training as in the 80%1rm jump squats, did not help them in jum performance.

For athletes with lower starting 1RMs, we might have seen a better result from the heavier jump squats. It would also be interesting to see if we took athletes with 40 inch running verticals and tried this protocol on them to compare light fast training to slower and heavier training. The fact that their sprint times decreased is nothing new though. SPrinting is something totally different

Edit: i think most atheltes here would agree with my analysis. But I tend to disagree with this conventional wisdom. I think lighter training may be a better idea. A lot of us really believe in maximal strength training, when the forces in vertical jump aren't near what is seen in maximal strength training. Maximal strength increases will only help one jump higher by increasing their power output in the short time of a ground contact, so a better term is maximal exploive strength expressed in 200 milliseconds or less. Once ai get to a 50 inch vertical I'll talk more though.

From the way I read the study, they measured their 1RM at an 80' knee angle though, which is basically a half-squat, and is why their 1RM #s & their 1RM/Wt ratios are so high. This is the 1st thing that caught my attention bcs these strength ratios are far from typical for intramural sport athletes. So they are basing their 30/55/80% #'s on the % of a HALF-SQUAT, not FULL-SQUAT, which I thought was very strange and different from the other similar studies and recommendations that I have seen.

TKXII · « **Reply #29 on:** July 26, 2011, 01:20:22 am »

True, but I don't think I can half squat that much..well maybe I can I should try. Yeah they should have really tested vertical jump that would have been cool.

I guess the best extrapolation we can make is that it would probably go up since power increased the most in the 30JS group

Adarq.org

News:

Author Topic: Vertical Jump (Read 42179 times)

Joel Smith

Re: Vertical Jump

Raptor

Re: Vertical Jump

Joel Smith

Re: Vertical Jump

Raptor

Re: Vertical Jump

Joel Smith

Re: Vertical Jump

Raptor

Re: Vertical Jump

LanceSTS

Re: Vertical Jump

Raptor

Re: Vertical Jump

Joel Smith

Re: Vertical Jump

Raptor

Re: Vertical Jump

TKXII

Re: Vertical Jump

fedexpress

Re: Vertical Jump

TKXII

Re: Vertical Jump

fedexpress

Re: Vertical Jump

TKXII

Re: Vertical Jump