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.


Messages - Raptor

Pages: 1 ... 256 257 [258] 259 260 ... 494
3856
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: chasing athleticism
« on: September 26, 2012, 04:40:47 am »
Why don't you go to the gym when you're fresh, whenever that happens?

I was trapped into the schedule mentality for years but I'm finally seeing the bigger picture. You don't need to become the slave of layed out programs.

3857
Basketball / Re: A WHOLE BUNCH OF DUNKS AND SHIT.
« on: September 25, 2012, 06:29:17 pm »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwB9UlyOPiA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwB9UlyOPiA</a>

3858
Basketball / Re: A WHOLE BUNCH OF DUNKS AND SHIT.
« on: September 25, 2012, 06:25:32 pm »
Love the plant at 0:49

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

3859
LanceSTS's Performance Blog / Re: TRAINING POSTS
« on: September 25, 2012, 03:25:33 pm »
What do you feel about alternating a MSEM workout with a volume workout (say 4x10 or 8x5) every 3 days or so?

I feel like there's no need to do 1x5 or 3x5 because it's not at the either end of the spectrum - it's neither CNS intensive nor it is a volume workout, so I personally ditched it and use a 8x1 one day and a 8x5 the other day.

What are your thoughts on the 1x5 day? I'd rather do an explosive workout in that day.

3860
News, Announcements, & Suggestions / Re: some analytics
« on: September 25, 2012, 02:23:03 pm »
I think it's safe to say: BOW BEFORE ME, OR ELSE!!!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway... where the heck do I find these stats?

3861
News, Announcements, & Suggestions / Re: some analytics
« on: September 25, 2012, 12:56:38 pm »
Where are these stats located at?

3862
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Squat depth
« on: September 25, 2012, 06:34:12 am »
I agree with what you said Andrew. It's still interesting to read these studies though.

3865
News, Announcements, & Suggestions / Re: some analytics
« on: September 25, 2012, 05:47:50 am »
Says who?

3866
Article & Video Discussion / Squat depth
« on: September 24, 2012, 05:23:59 pm »
http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/2012/08/29/squat-depth/

A similar article to the bilateral deficit one ^^

Quote
The researchers note that a recent study by Hartmann (2012) found that partial squats were not effective at improving vertical jump performance, while parallel squats were effective. They also note that models have suggested that the knee extensors are more important in vertical jumping than the hip extensors, although other studies have suggested that this may depend on the actual jumping strategies of the athlete. Some athletes have been reported to use a hip-dominant jumping strategy while others have been found to use a knee-dominant strategy.

Also

Quote
What did the researchers conclude?

The researchers concluded that:

Load had a more pronounced effect than squat depth on the force required from the ankle plantar-flexors

So load is mainly what dictates how hard the ankle-plantar flexors are working in comparison with their maximum possible force output. Going deeper makes little difference to how hard the ankle-plantar flexors have to work.

Depth was a more significant factor than load for the force required of the knee extensors.

So depth is mainly what dictates how hard the knee extensors (quadriceps) have to work. Adding more weight to the bar makes much less difference. This could be part of the reason that Olympic lifters have large quadriceps in comparison to other strength athletes, because they of all athletes have to squat deep and depth makes more difference to the quadriceps than load.

The force required from the hip extensors was influenced by both barbell load and squat depth.

So both depth and loading influence how hard the hip extensors have to work. Partial squats are therefore putting much more emphasis on the hip extensors and much less on the quadriceps, since depth is key for the knee extensors.

Both depth and load should be considered as variables in using squats depending on which muscle groups are to be strengthened.

So this means that the knee extensors can be strengthened most effectively by deep squats and can be performed with lighter loads. However, the hip extensors and ankle plantar-flexors can be trained using heavier loads with smaller ranges of motion, as these muscle groups are less sensitive to depth.

And additional notes regarding the viewers of this forum:

Quote
For athletes

Athletes wanting to develop vertical jump height, who have a knee-dominant jumping strategy, should squat deeper in order to maximize the stress on the quadriceps. Athletes wanting to develop hip extension power for sprinting and other movements could use partial squats for this purpose, although there are many other suitable hip extension exercises.

Additionally, athletes should be aware that, for all its great benefits, the squat does not use the leg muscles to their maximum capabilities, even at very high percentages of 1RM. This suggests that athletes should make use of a variety of exercises to develop the leg musculature to their full extent.

***
For physique competitors

Individuals looking to improve their quadriceps size should employ deeper but lighter squats.

3867
Article & Video Discussion / The bilateral deficit
« on: September 24, 2012, 04:46:20 pm »
http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/2012/09/11/bilateral-deficit/

I found this very interesting:

Quote

Basically saying that you need to really be rested (have close to 100% "battery" or CNS) if you really want to perform off one leg, whereas bilateral stuff requires less peak intensity but more overall CNS burn.

Even more, since we're trying to improve the neural drive and "explosiveness" during our plyo workouts, it should make more sense to use unilateral plyometric exercises since the most neural drive occurs during these movements.

Anyway,

Quote
What did the researchers conclude?

The researchers concluded that the ground reactions force produced by each leg during the two-legged jump were less than that produced during the one-leg jump. This was caused by lower joint moments.

The researchers concluded that while it is possible that the lower joint moments in the two-leg jump were smaller than those in the one-leg jump because of reduced neural drive, peak EMG levels in the two-leg jump were only slightly lower than those in the one-legged jump. They therefore suggest that a reduction in neural drive is unlikely to be the cause of the reduced moments.

Rather, the researchers suggest that because some of the muscles must have shortened at higher velocities in the two-legged jump, this caused them to produce lower forces because of the force-velocity relationship. They note that this was the result produced by their computer simulation, as enforcing the same muscle-shortening velocities in both jump variations eliminated 75% of the difference in jump height.

Quote

3868
News, Announcements, & Suggestions / Re: some analytics
« on: September 24, 2012, 04:08:48 pm »
Sheesh... imagine the amount of trolling YOU did!

3869
News, Announcements, & Suggestions / Re: some analytics
« on: September 24, 2012, 02:36:01 pm »
And then people come in and say I only care about the number of my posts!!!

I did it for you... oh Adarqui!

3870
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: ADARQ's journal
« on: September 24, 2012, 09:05:44 am »

Pages: 1 ... 256 257 [258] 259 260 ... 494