Adarq.org

2 x bodyweight seems to be a good rule of thumb for many people. It's around the number where improving the jump gets harder because squat increases don't transfer as readily. And it's an easy enough goal that most male people can get there sort of quickly when their programming and motivation is okay.
That being said, more strength is always better in very general terms. But there is a point where more squat strength will not immediately and might actually never transfer to better jump height. This point varies from person to person, but I would assume it is higher than 2 x bodyweight for most. So going for 2 x for a set of 5 seems pretty reasonable.

What about BSS vs Squat for one leg jumpers? You can say BSS is more specific, but uses less total weight. However, is the total weight important? Or is what important the amount of load per leg?

The BSS has much less of an instability component compared to the 'shrimp'. I would say that it is a better assistance exercise, but I would still prefer barbell lunges in most situations. The squat is the best strength builder either way. I think as single leg jumper you should use both, the squat as well as a weighted unilateral, according to their role as main and assistance exercises.

Steven, if 155 lbs of bodyweight were lifted in the squat then it would be subtracted from the 600, not added to the 410. It would look like this:

(190 + 110) + (190 + 110) = 600 lbs total tension on the legs
600 - 155 = 445 lbs squat

I intentionally fudge the numbers so my estimates come out on the low side when I compare my "squat" to other movements. Realistically though, you're right, a 110 lb pistol or shrimp at my weight has similar leg/hip loading to a 445 lb back squat.

I agree with that. I just added the 155 lbs to the 410 lbs to show that 565 lbs is not the same as 600 lbs which means the loads are not equal. No big deal about fudging on the conservative side, it was just confusing to read initially.

As for my tone being condescending, I'm sorry. Training boards are full of idiots (The Situation) and I originally left the internet for a reason. I couldn't deal with the jackasses. Sorry, I was on the defensive and called you out unnecessarily. The number comparison was given for a similar reason. You discredited the lift and poked fun at the fact that I was using 110 lbs for a lower body strength movement, which makes no sense. As stated, the load is irrelevant.

Not a problem at all, I am glad we can have a civilized conversation about this.

I think this is somewhat important because there are a lot of things people think they need to do nowadays. Becoming stronger by training on unstable surfaces under load is an example of that. Therefore I think my critique of the movement is making a lot of sense. Load is not entirely irrelevant either because it can be an indicator of the potential the lift has for optimal expression of muscular strength. The squat is a better exercise at expressing strength. For this reason it enables a better increase in strength as well. The lift is not limited by the instability of having to stand on one leg.

There was a ridiculous study a while ago in I believe the NSCA journal about how people can bench more on a solid bench compared to a bosu ball. Big surprise? I don't think so.

Further, I provided my numbers because they are a testament to the usefulness of the shrimp. Yes, a back squat could allow me to accomplish the same feats, but the shrimp is an equally valid lift, more so for someone who has recurring SI joint problems when heavily loading the lower back for long stretches of time. I stand by my case that it is a useful lift, perhaps more so than the squat if one does not need an overly developed lower back.

Your numbers are a testament to your good genetics compared with your dedication to train. I do not think the shrimp has a lot to do with that other than being a poor squat substitute. I can relate to you having SI joint problems, I had those as well on and off. Getting a stronger back helps with that. Squats help with getting a stronger back.

And regarding your own numbers, Steven, they're impressive. Keep up the good work.

Thanks. I can return that compliment.

Quote from: steven-miller on August 29, 2011, 06:31:55 pm

So provided lack of balance was not there, which will always be a limiting factor with a heavy weight no matter how coordinated you are, it would be a useful unilateral exercises. But this is purely hypothetical because balance is an issue, for example for you. The evidence is you using 110 lbs for a lower body strength exercise.

I'm sorry, but your post shows a lack of understanding. The load utilized is, in itself, irrelevant. Would you say someone is weak because they can only do an iron cross with a 10kg weight vest? I mean, the vest is only 10 kilos, that's light, right?

When calculating loads for a shrimp or a pistol, the trainee's body weight needs to be taken into consideration. When doing an unladen shrimp, the load is roughly 85% of the person's body weight, so 170 lbs for a 200 lb man, which is being lifted on one foot. This is equivalent to the load on the legs found in a ~170 lb back squat.

For someone like me, an unladen shrimp results in about 190 lbs of weight per leg. Add 110 lbs of load and that's 300 lbs per leg. An equivalent back squat (in terms of tension on the legs) is around 410 lbs. The math breaks down as follows. 300 per leg x 2 = 600 lbs. 600 lbs - 190 for BW = 410. In other words, when I'm doing 110 lb single leg work, it's equivalent to repping 410 lb squats, at least as far as tension on the muscles of my legs and hips are concerned. The lower back is another matter.  

First, you seem to think that I am dumb because you are explaining to me that load is depended on the exercise. I find that hilarious.

Second, your math is wrong because you pretend that people don't have to lift their bodyweight as well in the squat.

Third, you fail to see my point. It is irrelevant that you THINK that your 110 lbs shrimp corresponds to a 410 lbs squat. My argument is that you would be able to train your body more efficiently with an exercise that does not limit your performance due to imposed demand of balancing around on one foot.

OK, something useful...

If you didn't have a barbell, do you think this exercise could become a useful alternative for squatting to enhance sprint ability?.

This is as useless as it gets since barbells exist and if you are serious about training you get access to them.

Hi

I was wondering, when you weight train like doing squats you become stronger and you recruit more muscle units as more muscle mass has been added.

A person who weighs 150lbs works up to a squat of 360lbs and yet his strength will below this level when doing sprint.

So i was wondering that after you reach the squat target is there any types of exercise you do so that you can utilize most of the force from the squat training to carry over onto your sprint. So utilize the force/strength acquired from the squat in a short time so it can be useful in the track.

Thanks

There are several great exercises that can be used for exactly this purpose. Depending on training advancement I would advise on different ones to improve carryover from the slower exercises (squat, deadlift etc.). The powerclean is a good exercise to start immediately with. From the conventional explosive strength exercises this one allows the most weight to be used and is comparatively easy to learn. Nearing the intermediate stage including the powersnatch and variations of it (hang snatch, jump snatch etc.) has been proven to be a good idea. After that things have to be evaluated on a more individual basis I assume. Various plyometric exercises (first and foremost the depth jump, depth drop and bounding variations) fit somewhere in there as well. I would probably introduce them for intermediates since beginners have no need for them IMO. Nothing wrong with low level plyos for every type of advancement though.

I don't care if $ick3nin.v3nd3tta is just a troll. The guy is one of the dumbest people on this forum regardless of his intentions. No one with even half a brain can willingly act as stupid as him.