Author Topic: Who would jump higher and why? (Read 19364 times)

D4 · « **on:** July 21, 2011, 09:13:35 am »

Just something I was curious about...
If there were 2 athletes, somehow they are exactly the same. Same height, weight, lower body/core/upper body strength is all equal, body structure, age, EVERYTHING. But, athlete A had 8% BF, while athlete B had 14%BF. Just assume athlete A has more muscle mass, while athlete B has less muscle mass and carries more fat, but they are still both equally strong and same weight.

Would they jump the same height? I'm assuming most would say the leaner athlete A will jump higher. If so, WHY? If jumping is a power to weight ratio and both athletes are built the same, why would athlete A jump higher if both athletes power and weight is equal?

steven-miller · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2011, 09:32:25 am »

Quote from: Ineedtodunk on July 21, 2011, 09:13:35 am

Just something I was curious about...
If there were 2 athletes, somehow they are exactly the same. Same height, weight, lower body/core/upper body strength is all equal, body structure, age, EVERYTHING. But, athlete A had 8% BF, while athlete B had 14%BF. Just assume athlete A has more muscle mass, while athlete B has less muscle mass and carries more fat, but they are still both equally strong and same weight.

Would they jump the same height? I'm assuming most would say the leaner athlete A will jump higher. If so, WHY? If jumping is a power to weight ratio and both athletes are built the same, why would athlete A jump higher if both athletes power and weight is equal?

There is a fundamental problem in this scenario. If A and B are equally strong but carry different muscle mass at the same bodyweight it's not ceteris paribus. Because something obviously IS different in those two athletes that one guy can squat the same as the other with less muscle mass.

D4 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2011, 09:38:56 am »

Quote from: steven-miller on July 21, 2011, 09:32:25 am

Quote from: Ineedtodunk on July 21, 2011, 09:13:35 am
Just something I was curious about...
If there were 2 athletes, somehow they are exactly the same. Same height, weight, lower body/core/upper body strength is all equal, body structure, age, EVERYTHING. But, athlete A had 8% BF, while athlete B had 14%BF. Just assume athlete A has more muscle mass, while athlete B has less muscle mass and carries more fat, but they are still both equally strong and same weight.

Would they jump the same height? I'm assuming most would say the leaner athlete A will jump higher. If so, WHY? If jumping is a power to weight ratio and both athletes are built the same, why would athlete A jump higher if both athletes power and weight is equal?

There is a fundamental problem in this scenario. If A and B are equally strong but carry different muscle mass at the same bodyweight it's not ceteris paribus. Because something obviously IS different in those two athletes that one guy can squat the same as the other with less muscle mass.

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

Basically, is there some kind of way body fat can reduce vertical jump height BESIDES the fact that it is extra weight?
When they say you gotta have low body fat to jump high, is the fact that the body fat is useless weight weighing us down the only reason why?

vag · « **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2011, 09:54:16 am »

BTW , the example is set a bit wrong , if they are identical ( same CNS etc ) at the same bodyweight with different bodyfats they can't be equally strong.

The correct example is 2 ( or more ) identical individuals ( same CNS , bones , heights , tendons , RFD , everything ) with the same relative strength and various bw/bf combinations.

Or just one individual at a given bw and bf, what will happen if he leans down , reduces bf% , also loses some strength and mass so overall relative strength is the same?

IMO the answer is the same for all cases:
The subject with less bodyfat for a given relative strength will jump higher because of better coordination.

edit : oops , while i was typing the above , steven-miller already posted the first part ( why the example was wrong )

steven-miller · « **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2011, 10:12:37 am »

Quote from: Ineedtodunk on July 21, 2011, 09:38:56 am

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.

vag · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2011, 10:16:03 am »

Also , http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/relativestrengthmyth.html

Raptor · « **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2011, 10:44:27 am »

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.

What I mean by that is the fact that the CNS, body, whatever you want to call it, has to receive proprioceptive signals from the body to determine body position etc. It will always have that. But (and this is just my belief, no scientific background whatsoever) with a heavier mass it "believes" (and maybe that's true) it needs a much higher effort to decelerate/amortizate/control/coordinate both intra and inter-muscularily.

Now we have to define what effort means. In my opinion it's a matter of core strength, body awareness, stabilizer muscle recruitment/necessity of recruitment, and just overall the need of stronger/faster signals because more mass is present. Which takes more effort to make all this happen from the CNS.

If a guy is weak though he will need more muscle in order to actually GAIN from the additional force that muscle will provide vs the whatever negatives, if my case really exist, that will provide as well.

With bodyfat that's even worse - it's just a weight that your CNS and muscles will need to worry about and move around and exert additional effort to do so. It can change the body's center of mass a bit and that might move you out of the optimal firing position to a specific movement. That instead will make you use some muscles more and some muscles less and all sorts of shitty things will happen.

At least this is how I view things.

steven-miller · « **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2011, 10:58:31 am »

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

Quote from: Raptor on July 21, 2011, 10:44:27 am

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.

LBSS · « **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2011, 11:23:17 am »

Raptor · « **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2011, 01:17:09 pm »

Quote from: steven-miller on July 21, 2011, 10:58:31 am

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

Quote from: Raptor on July 21, 2011, 10:44:27 am
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.

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.

vag · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2011, 01:56:38 pm »

I wanted to avoid maths but it must happen:

To know if mass is detrimental or not , we need to know how extra mass is connected with extra strength.

Let's suppose that the ratio is the same. Then for a 10% increase of muscle mass we will have 10% increase in strength.
Now we need to know another ratio. What increase in bodyfat comes together with the LBM increase. Those numbers are not steady , as a 5% bodyfat guy will have a much harder time adding pure LBM than a 15% one.

So let's get to an average example:

200lbs , 15%bodyfat , 170lbs LBM , 30lbs fat. Lets say max squat is 350lbs , so relative strength is 1.75

He increases his LBM by 10% , 187lbs. Lets say that with those 17lbs of LBM he also added 5lbs of fat, total 35.
His new body composition is : 222lbs , 15,7% bodyfat.
Now , since strength increase is also 10% , his new max squat is 385 and new relative strength 1.73
If for 10% LBM increase the strength increase is 20% , new squat is 420 , new relative strength 1.89
If he piled just 1lb of fat instead of 5 , he would be 218lbs / 14.2%bf.
Relative strength would be 1.76 for 10% strength increase and 1.92 for 20%.

Now let's say he cuts down 20lbs , 10 of them fat and 10 of them LBM.
He is now 180lbs, 160LBM , 20fat , 11% bodyfat.
His LBM loss is 6.25%
If strength loss is also 6.25% , new max squat = 330 , new relative strength = 1.83. Expected improvement as his cut was VERY sucessful.
If his strength loss is double though ( like the previous example ) , new max squat = 306 , new relative strength = 1.7

All those supposing RFD is the same at all times.
So we need to know that strength/mass increase relationship AND the nutrient partitioning profile of the subject.

I used 1:1 absolute lbs loss for cutdown and ~3:1 absolute lbs for bulk. Just seemed 'normal'. Any studies with info on those ratios ( and also the strength/mass increase ratios ) would help this discussion a lot.

Nerd rant off!

steven-miller · « **Reply #11 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.

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

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 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2011, 02:27:01 pm »

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?

Raptor · « **Reply #13 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).

steven-miller · « **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2011, 02:48:49 pm »

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

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).

So? A car with a really weak motor will still not drive fast, even if other components are at a lower risk for "wearing out".

Adarq.org

News:

Author Topic: Who would jump higher and why? (Read 19364 times)

D4

Who would jump higher and why?

steven-miller

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

D4

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

vag

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

steven-miller

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

vag

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

Raptor

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

steven-miller

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

LBSS

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

Raptor

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

vag

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

steven-miller

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

Raptor

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

Raptor

Re: Who would jump higher and why?

steven-miller

Re: Who would jump higher and why?