Show Posts
7831
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: The Misc Performance Coaches Thread
« on: October 07, 2017, 06:14:48 pm »
speaking of RJ .. an article was just posted by him on just-fly-sports:
https://www.just-fly-sports.com/concentric-reactive-ballistics-explosive-performance/
it's a nice opening quote .. i like the weight gain part, but that can be controlled when doing traditional lifting simply through diet. not sure about the other claims, would have been nice if he used references
I think the biggest thing he's missing though, is, what happens when the weights become easier over time? ie, you've been squatting for 2 years, and 1.5 x BW used to be hard, now it flies up in < 1s - you can basically jump squat it, with your new slow max at 2.5 x BW, at a 5-7 lb. bodyweight increase.. now what? Sounds like a recipe for solid performance gains.
so now, how's that work with "ballistics"? You used to be able to swing the hammer 30 ft, now you can swing it 50 ft. Surely a power increase, but not sure how well it increases without significant increases in base strength.
I just don't buy the injury stuff though.. Theoretically, the more force you are able to produce at voluntary effort, the more stress you are able to create for your tendons, muscles, bones, joints, etc. Doesn't really matter what you are doing, if you are performing anything at "max effort", whether it's running, sprinting, swinging a hammer, depth jumping, bounding, squatting etc, the injury risk always seems high, even though you are more prepared than the average human. And it's not just more prepared, it's also less inhibited - less inhibition meant to protect you from yourself, controlled the CNS. To me, heavy lifting has always seemed safer than ballistic efforts. Things move so much more slowly, you have way more control.
Regardless, seems very similar to RJ of many years ago. Almost looks like an old article. Wonder how he's progressed more now that he's coaching.
https://www.just-fly-sports.com/concentric-reactive-ballistics-explosive-performance/
Quote
During conventional barbell training, intensity is manipulated primarily via load. The more weight you lift, the higher the intensity, the stronger you get. While this works fine for a while, what most trainees find is that a long term focus on conventional lifting results in excess weight gain, development of the “prime movers” out of proportion with the “stabilizing muscles”, a reduction in sport speed and form, and an ever-increasing chance of injury as the weights climb.
it's a nice opening quote .. i like the weight gain part, but that can be controlled when doing traditional lifting simply through diet. not sure about the other claims, would have been nice if he used references
I think the biggest thing he's missing though, is, what happens when the weights become easier over time? ie, you've been squatting for 2 years, and 1.5 x BW used to be hard, now it flies up in < 1s - you can basically jump squat it, with your new slow max at 2.5 x BW, at a 5-7 lb. bodyweight increase.. now what? Sounds like a recipe for solid performance gains.
so now, how's that work with "ballistics"? You used to be able to swing the hammer 30 ft, now you can swing it 50 ft. Surely a power increase, but not sure how well it increases without significant increases in base strength.
I just don't buy the injury stuff though.. Theoretically, the more force you are able to produce at voluntary effort, the more stress you are able to create for your tendons, muscles, bones, joints, etc. Doesn't really matter what you are doing, if you are performing anything at "max effort", whether it's running, sprinting, swinging a hammer, depth jumping, bounding, squatting etc, the injury risk always seems high, even though you are more prepared than the average human. And it's not just more prepared, it's also less inhibited - less inhibition meant to protect you from yourself, controlled the CNS. To me, heavy lifting has always seemed safer than ballistic efforts. Things move so much more slowly, you have way more control.
Regardless, seems very similar to RJ of many years ago. Almost looks like an old article. Wonder how he's progressed more now that he's coaching.
If you fail to reach 40" SVJ, it could be attributable to genetics, but it would be mostly attributable to training, and not developing such qualities (to give you more of a chance later on in life) while you were a young child/young teen/young adult etc.
