Show Posts
12676
Peer Reviewed Studies Discussion / Re: depth jumps & depth drops
« on: December 17, 2015, 04:41:36 pm »
So, DJ in my opinion (and experience) is a much more intense tool than pretty much all of the reactive work. Incorporating it as prep work or in lower volume should provide some benefit. I've seen studies claiming benefits in a variety of protocols, but not sure if some of those studies showed benefits simply from supplementing them into an existing program full of beneficial reactive work.
Also, He never mentions single leg bounding in the same area as depth jumps, ie a super method.. if it isn't, it has to be creeping close to that spectrum though, single leg bounds are very intense.
I don't think it should be prescribed high volume + high box height in combination with lots of other work. Then I think it would actually be very detrimental & extremely risky.
On another note, i've done sessions with TONS of reactive work. Overdoing it to the max, all kinds of different varieties of things. I don't recall any of that being as intense as 4x10 depth jumps from 30". 40 total DJ's from 30" had my CNS destroyed and next-day ligaments/tendons feeling wrecked. Performing DJ's towards the second half (reps 5-10) of a set required some serious focus; it felt on the level of a max effort single in terms of how I would have to dial in. I havn't experienced that from lower volume protocols such as 3x3, 3x5 etc.
Finally.. My body is afraid of depth jumping until it's actually prepared. I can go do double leg bounds, kangaroo hops, attempt single leg bounds right now with my severe lack of prepardness.. However, if someone told me to go perform some DJ's from 30" i'd have some serious inhibition. I'd actually be afraid to do it. I could do a depth drop from 30" but I wouldn't even try a DJ from 30" right now (without prepping for several weeks). I find that interesting.
Interesting stuff. I guess my question more specifically is what do you think is unique to the depth jump that makes it more than reactive work, what specifically makes it a super method?
well in regards to depth jumps, the ability to overload using the height of the falling body is what makes it unique. In the case of sprinting, some form of overspeed while maintaining mechanics (downhill sprinting or some kind of wind tunnel, who knows heh!) would qualify as a super method because you're using the falling body as an added stimulus. we can increase the height of the box/drop (depth jumps) or decrease the angle (down hill sprinting). I need to see if there are any studies on downhill sprinting, I remember doing searches before but I forget the results. Verk mentions it on several occasions but most of his actual data revolves around DJ's.
Quote
Is there:
1) Something involved in stepping off the box?
nah
Quote
This seems unlikely. If it isn't that then why would the following not be a super method:
Jump up grab the rim with two hands (32 inch jump for me). Hang on rim. Release and upon landing jump back up and grab rim again. Would these rim grabs not be a super method? If not, then why not??
right, that's basically a DJ. the only difference is you can't increase the height of the drop precisely, resting seems more difficult, controling angles isn't as easy (you drop right down), and gathering yourself would probably be more effective if you drop off of a box.. but it's the same concept IMHO.
Quote
2) Something involved with the rest interval between each rep? Maybe? If not then why would repeated 30''+ jumps not be a super method? Ie jump vertical in place 30'' and repeat 10x times.
well it sounds like it would be but, if you can repeatedly jump 10x and hit 30", then a 30" box is probably too small to be effective overload as a super method. In that case you might need a 36" box etc. The fact that someone jump 10x in a row with no rest in between (rebounding vertical jumps) and hit 30" means that it is a submax effort, a "10RM" in a sense. So that athlete would need a higher box to tap into that "protected motor potential".
I mean I guess you can label DJ's from 12" "shock", but, it's not true shock in the sense that it isn't a powerful enough overload stimulus. So 30" is the low end of Verk's recommendation, 42" on the high end. Box height is determined by the performance/strength stats of the athlete.
Quote
3) Something involved in the reversal of force in only the vertical direction? If not, then why wouldn't bounds or hurdle hops qualify as a super method provided the athlete goes 30'' in the air and comes down and rebounds.
Same reason as above. If an athlete can get their COG 30" above ground on DL/SL bounds etc, they already posses the "special strength" to produce and absorb/redirect that force voluntarily. So in order to tap into that extra motor potential, they would need to practice DJ's from higher boxes.
Even with single leg bounds, if you're able to keep bounding and reach some y-height (30" for example), it's a voluntary effort and according to Verk, falls within your "special strength" motor potential, not the "defended motor potential".
Quote
Finally, I tried a few depth jumps. I jumped off a 34'' box and landed and touched a ceiling that is 10'1 I was able to get into the ceiling about 2 inches so it's about a 10'3 touch or a 31 inch jump for me. At the time I was wearing a weighted vest + weighted shorts (20+15) so my bodyweight went from 215 to 240 and my standing vertical touch was just barely 10'. Given that I am jumping higher off the box means I must be using some of the landing force in my jump. However, I timed the landing time and it was 0.44 seconds. Does the longer landing time disqualify it from being a depth jump? I took a video of the last two, let me know what you think (I realize if I embark on this it would be best without the additional weight, but I was already wearing it and wanted to get a video)...<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbTVp0yAcu8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbTVp0yAcu8</a>
looks good. form-wise, it could perhaps use a bit more of a pronounced step off (one leg, arms come together, then other leg as you gather in the air then drive the arms back), and actively dorsiflexing the ankles as you step off, but that's debatable anyway.
I don't think that GCT disqualifies it at all.. you would have to compare it to unweighted jumps and making sure you are rehearsing the correct cues:
"land with a spring and then fly as high as possible" -- SSTM p100
that cue determines the correct execution of the exercise, according to Verk. So, if you practiced DJ's semi-frequently (low volume) and rehearsed the correct cues (and performed them without extra weight), then whatever your GCT is I would imagine it is acceptable (within reason, 1+ second is unacceptable for example). As you improve MaxS, ExS, ReaS, that GCT should either stay the same while producing more force, or perhaps decrease while producing as much or more force.
i'm going to type out a few sections from SSTM on Shock & DJ's.. it will be worth it, some nice information in there and he says it alot better than I can say it
give me a bit!
pc man!
