Adarq.org

Quote from: vag on July 21, 2011, 01:56:38 pm

He increases his LBM by 10% , 187lbs. Lets say that with those 17lbs of LBM he also added 5lbs of fat, total 35.

You lost me here. Choose it: either 17 lbs or 35?

Initial weight = 200 , initial LBM= 170 , initial fat = 30

10% LBM increase : 170 + 10% = 187 ( +17 )
5lbs fat increase   : 30 + 5 = 35
Total weight increase : 17 + 5 = 22

Final weight = 222 ( + 22 ) , final LBM = 187 ( +17 ) , final fat = 35 ( +5 )

I think my example demostrates perfectly what Lance said , you can't be sure what will happen , it depends on the individual.

Quote from: Raptor on July 21, 2011, 02:28:53 pm

Quote from: steven-miller on July 21, 2011, 02:09:52 pm

Quote from: Raptor on July 21, 2011, 01:17:09 pm

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.

If you put a bigger and heavier engine in a car, it will have a bigger power production (positive effect) but it will burn more fuel and maybe, due to the higher forces, wear some other components out (negative effect).

 the problem with statement is the human body is not a car, not even close.  our "parts" adapt just like anything else to increased strength/stress and get bigger, stronger, faster.

 also, dont say mass hurts ATHLETICISM, thats insane, tell that to some of the football guys who went from 150 - 190 and got much faster, more explosive, and became 10x the players the were.  If you said it hurts, "vertical jump", you would still be wrong in several different ways, but youd have some ground to stand on at least.

Yeah that's true, sprinters or football players would punch me if they heard that but high jumpers would kiss you if they heard what you said. Haha.

If both cars have the same engine power.

Car A is made from iron.

Car B is made from carbon fibre.



Car B wins the race. Its resistance to acceleration or its inertia (mass) is far easily overcome.


Mass (to a small extent) will have played role in this result.


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYX2EWK4QWo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYX2EWK4QWo</a>




It's horses for courses. There is more to athleticism than sprinting & jumping.

What about endurance athletes, Tour De France cyclists etc... Mass is massively detrimental.

Think outside the box.

Vitamin C shrinks tumors and Alkaline foods kill cancer

and brb mass is bad

Guys on a serious note, everybody needs to watch this vid. I have only put it here because this thread is getting traffic.


Rick Simpson - Cure for Cancer.


DON'T EVER FORGET THIS VID. WATCH IT!!!.


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uomQey0HVGw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uomQey0HVGw</a>



Orgignal Link: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Rick+Simpson+&aq=f

Official website: http://phoenixtears.ca/

WTF?

If both cars have the same engine power.

Car A is made from iron.

Car B is made from carbon fibre.



Car B wins the race. Its resistance to acceleration or its inertia (mass) is far easily overcome.


Mass (to a small extent) will have played role in this result.


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYX2EWK4QWo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYX2EWK4QWo</a>




It's horses for courses. There is more to athleticism than sprinting & jumping.

What about endurance athletes, Tour De France cyclists etc... Mass is massively detrimental.

Think outside the box.

You fail to address the points already made in this thread. How can mass be detrimental when the execution of any athletic act requires the presence of a physical body in the first place?

Sure, there are types of athletes whose bodies don't require large amounts of mass, because their muscles only have to perform minimal efforts very often - a marathon runner comes to mind or your Tour De France cyclist example. But even for them there is a sweet spot in the middle where losing even more weight or bodyfat will not yield any performance increase. That spot will be remarkably lower than a sprinters, but it will nevertheless be there.

But of course this is besides the point anyways since the OP asked about jumping. And if you think your bodyweight is a variable to minimize for a higher VJ, you are fooling yourself big time.

I can agree with Steven Miller and most other people saying that adding some mass will be beneficial to jumping, but what I failed to mention was, what about for a single leg jumper?  

Idk, I've always read that, single leg jumping has a lot more to do with leverage, lower body weight, etc... While double leg jumping has a lot more to do with strength meaning added muscle mass (+strength) can only help.

I mean besides Lebron James, cause he's a freak of nature, most great single leg jumpers I've seen were very light/lean/skinny.  My friend on my intramural bball team who dunks on opponents on the regular is 6'0" 159lbs, and he has a 42"+ vertical.  Kadour Ziani, prolly the best single leg dunker ever, is very skinny.  


ALSO, are you guys saying that carrying excess body fat (10%+) has a structural disadvantage as well?  Like the fat effects your movement efficiency, COM, leverage and such?