Adarq.org

Quote from: steven-miller on July 22, 2011, 07:45:04 am

And if you think your bodyweight is a variable to minimize for a higher VJ, you are fooling yourself big time.

So if I'm 6'0 and 300 lbs with a 50% bodyfat I shouldn't think my bodyweight is a variable to minimize for a higher VJ?

No, you should not minimize it, but you should definitely decrease it. Notice the difference.

Can't comment on the single leg stuff, but I don't think that body fat - in reasonable amounts, like up to 15% - plays a measurable negative role in coordination. At least I cannot see why that would be the case.

If you recall I also said that OVER TIME he should be able to get deeper and deeper.

Yes, that is what I disagree with. I propose that he can go below parallel with proper form in one session if he was coached into it. Many people have also been able to figure proper form out themselves in a few sessions once they knew what the problem was. I disagree with the idea that "going as low as possible with proper form" solves the actual issues. If his stance is shit and that is the reason why he cannot go below parallel without doing stuff with his lower back then this will still be the case in the future regardless of what he does in the meantime because no one is telling him to adjust his stance the way it needs to be. Same thing with other possible issues.

Edit: Also, telling him not to over-arch would be a useful cue. But we still don't know what actually happens because we have not seen his squat, have we?

If he is spilling into his low back, quads , and hamstrings then he is not squatting correctly (if performance is your goal, squatting for OLY or PL is different).  He needs to be getting to his glutes. Depth has nothing to do with this, proper movement does.  So why not move properly.  The OP said he no longer gets his glutes going in squats and loads his erector spinae and hams during DL's, thus It seems safe to conclude he is losing position or form.

I agree and proper movement can be observed with your eyes and COACHED with the help of words so that the person squatting corrects his technique and hence performs the exercise in the proper way afterwards. Please tell me where squatting high is involved in this.

I recently saw a few McGill presentations in person and he echoed the same points.  Going to parallel for parallel's sake in the face of bad technique (not getting to the glutes) will lead to injury.  He also asked people "Why do you need to get to parallel?"   Everyone said the sme thing "P-chain..."  His response was that if that is the reasn you have never seen a properly conducted EMG study or have a very poor understanding of functional anatomy.  I sat there and wondered how many heads his presentation was fling over at that moment.

So in summary only do what you can do with perfect form and over time proper strength development may open up new ROM's

Again, I never said anywhere that anyone should use bad form. What I say is that GOOD form can be coached to nearly everyone in 1-2 sessions and that this should be done instead of recommending high squats when full squats are the goal.

How it's a contradiction? I think mass is detrimental but additional leg muscle at a sub ~2.5 squat helps more than it kills. Meaning - you get a higher force output as a + but you need more effort from the CNS/core/other untrained small muscles to move as a - . I see the CNS power in absolute terms (like everyone of us having a battery in their bodies) that is drained more by the additional mass it has to move around, regardless of it's nature.

Adding muscle cannot be detrimental and useful at the same time because there is only one net effect in the end. This net effect might be the result of independent mechanisms, but what matters is the outcome of a higher, equal or lower VJ.

I wanted to avoid maths but it must happen...

If you are clever about it your relative strength constantly improves even with an increase in bodyweight. So you end up with a higher squat, higher bodyweight and superior relative strength without even cutting anything.

Raptor, I am sorry, but that was the biggest bunch of shit I have ever read from you.

I think that mass, of any kind, is DETRIMENTAL to athleticism to an extent, but muscle gain for some people, even as additional mass, gives more than it takes away in terms of benefits vs. detriments.

That in and off itself is a contradiction. Everything that follows makes even less sense. Please put some thought into these posts because some people might actually take this seriously.

Okay I guess, but you know what I'm trying to ask...

I guess you are trying to ask whether as a jumper you should be as low in bf as possible. Or maybe even if you should be as light as possible as a jumper.
Jump performance and bodyweight as well as jump performance and body fat percentage probably behave to each other in an inverted U-relationship. That means that there will be an optimal value somewhere in the middle. This is very intuitive if you think in extremes. Someone weighing only 100 lbs at 5'10 will not jump very high because you need a functioning body to perform this physical act on a high level. 100 lbs at this height is not functional. On the other hand, someone with a bodyweight of 350 lbs will have a hard time jumping very high as well. There will be abnormalities on both ends of the spectrum though. Shane Hamman had a 36" SVJ at a bodyweight of over 300 lbs at one point in his career. I am sure you could find examples of really light people jumping high as well. But those examples are meaningless for everybody else. I am sure no one would decide to feed himself up to 300 lbs to increase his VJ to 36". By the same token you should not decide to stay as close as possible to 140 lbs because there was one guy weighing that much that jumped 40". The same will be true for body fat percentages.

if he can only squat to 70 degrees without going into lumbar flexion or hyperextension then going any lower will only make teaching him to squat properly even more harder and longer

if he does either of these when he squats then all he's doing going to parallel (if he can't do it properly) is reinforcing bad technique, motor patterns and muscle activation sequencing

experienced or beginner, its better to do something right over a short of motion then wrong over a long range of motion

What I said was that with proper technique nearly everybody can squat below parallel correctly. I have nowhere said that anyone should do anything wrong.