Adarq.org

I've talked about this theory of mine some time ago on TVS, but here it is again:

Box height / VJ (cm):

30 / 60
40 / 70
50 / 75
60 / 72

If we're to listen to the "general consensus", the optimal box height for this athlete is 50 cm, since off that box he gets the highest subsequent VJ (75 cm). But in my opinion, maybe he should use the 60 cm box where the inhibition starts to take place, that being the 60 cm box since the subsequent VJ is 72 cm there (-3 cm).

That should teach this athlete that it's OK to load more eccentrically so adaptations occur.

What do you guys think?

PS. I think this could work but it might be even more injury prone than a regular depth jumps since probably the landing mechanics are compromised, and this kind of destroys my concept.

I've talked about this theory of mine some time ago on TVS, but here it is again:

Box height / VJ (cm):

30 / 60
40 / 70
50 / 75
60 / 72

If we're to listen to the "general consensus", the optimal box height for this athlete is 50 cm, since off that box he gets the highest subsequent VJ (75 cm). But in my opinion, maybe he should use the 60 cm box where the inhibition starts to take place, that being the 60 cm box since the subsequent VJ is 72 cm there (-3 cm).

That should teach this athlete that it's OK to load more eccentrically so adaptations occur.

What do you guys think?

PS. I think this could work but it might be even more injury prone than a regular depth jumps since probably the landing mechanics are compromised, and this kind of destroys my concept.

Yea raptor, I would always start with a very short period of drops and landings any time you move up the height of the box,  once the landings are good then progress into the rebounding.   If the athlete has been adequately prepared, what youre proposing is fine as long as they can land properly, anytime the landing is not in optimal form the risk of injury is too high and the intensity needs to be lowered.