EPTVertical Jump - Page 2
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
decafchicken
United States20154 Posts
| ||
|
Dead9
United States4725 Posts
| ||
|
emjaytron
Australia544 Posts
video uses dumbells but you will have to find a substitute perhaps, like a backpack full of rocks or something I dunno. Add this for extra glute work, and do something like stair runs or hill/beach sprints. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On August 25 2012 08:05 eshlow wrote: Buy a barbell and plates off of craigslist for cheap. If you want to make any good progress you need barbells for squats and deadlifts. And yes, training explosiveness and endurance hurts each other. Strength and power are at one end of the spectrum and endurance is at the others. YOu can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to be a good athlete focus on getting stronger and powerful. It applies to the most sports. This isn't quite true, depending on how you look at it. Any top distance athlete competing at 10k and below (and often marathon) has pretty good speed. Depending on the event and runner usually between 46-52s speed for the 400m, which roughly translates to 10.5s-12s 100m speed. Not otherworldly, but far from slow. You have to have that speed to run these events; take the 5k for instance where 60.5-62s per 400m is the typical race pace. The average guy likely cannot sprint one lap of the track at the pace these guys are cruising for 12.5 laps. No matter how much endurance he builds, he'll never run anywhere near a 61s/lap pace because he can never be relaxed at those speeds. Any good distance runner is absolutely in the gym doing serious lifting, plyometric work, and sprint work. Speed is essential, and doesn't hurt performance. My guess is that what your saying is that by doing the sprint/strength work your inherently not doing aerobic work which decreases endurance, and that you might be converting more fiber types over to pure type IIx/b. What tends to happen though is that the gains in economy from race pace being "further" from sprint pace and thus "more relaxed" likely offset the loss in aerobic potential. | ||
|
AirbladeOrange
United States2574 Posts
On August 30 2012 14:31 L_Master wrote: This isn't quite true, depending on how you look at it. Any top distance athlete competing at 10k and below (and often marathon) has pretty good speed. Depending on the event and runner usually between 46-52s speed for the 400m, which roughly translates to 10.5s-12s 100m speed. Not otherworldly, but far from slow. You have to have that speed to run these events; take the 5k for instance where 60.5-62s per 400m is the typical race pace. The average guy likely cannot sprint one lap of the track at the pace these guys are cruising for 12.5 laps. No matter how much endurance he builds, he'll never run anywhere near a 61s/lap pace because he can never be relaxed at those speeds. Any good distance runner is absolutely in the gym doing serious lifting, plyometric work, and sprint work. Speed is essential, and doesn't hurt performance. My guess is that what your saying is that by doing the sprint/strength work your inherently not doing aerobic work which decreases endurance, and that you might be converting more fiber types over to pure type IIx/b. What tends to happen though is that the gains in economy from race pace being "further" from sprint pace and thus "more relaxed" likely offset the loss in aerobic potential. You're right but it's not the best comparison. I know that you know top distance runners need speed to kick at the end of tactical races. They definitely do train for speed but it's part of their plan. Plus the speed they use isn't exactly the same type of power 100m sprinters do let alone a vertical jump. If you train your muscles for fast twitch they get good at explosiveness at the expense of endurance. And slow twitch is the same idea but opposite. The bottom line is that training for an explosive vertical jump and running cross country are very different. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On August 30 2012 14:45 AirbladeOrange wrote: You're right but it's not the best comparison. I know that you know top distance runners need speed to kick at the end of tactical races. They definitely do train for speed but it's part of their plan. Plus the speed they use isn't exactly the same type of power 100m sprinters do let alone a vertical jump. If you train your muscles for fast twitch they get good at explosiveness at the expense of endurance. And slow twitch is the same idea but opposite. The bottom line is that training for an explosive vertical jump and running cross country are very different. No doubt there. I should have clarified that while any top distance runner does work some on top end speed, the training (even in that regard) is definitely nothing like what a sprinter would do, even if distance runners incorporate some sprint-work. | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
Elite Endurance runners can definitely run in the 10.5 100m range or a bit better. It just depends on what your overall goals are... you can't really specialize in both sprinting and endurance. And most laypeople -- read non-athletic -- who have 15+s 100m if not more need to get faster first as that will help improve their explosive performance the fastest. | ||
|
emjaytron
Australia544 Posts
| ||
|
fatfail
United States386 Posts
btw my high school has a weight room, but only the football team is allowed to use it. | ||
|
seanisgrand
United States1039 Posts
| ||
|
AirbladeOrange
United States2574 Posts
On August 31 2012 01:08 fatfail wrote: A question, after I buy a barbell and plates, can I do weight training without a rack? Squatting without a rack seems impossibru. btw my high school has a weight room, but only the football team is allowed to use it. The football team is the only group allowed to use the weight room? Are you running cross country? It sounds really unfair if only one team can use the weight room. | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20154 Posts
On August 31 2012 01:08 fatfail wrote: A question, after I buy a barbell and plates, can I do weight training without a rack? Squatting without a rack seems impossibru. btw my high school has a weight room, but only the football team is allowed to use it. Your taxes probably paid for it, I used my high school gym for years after I graduated. Ask a coach or gym teacher if you can use it. | ||
|
shawster
Canada2485 Posts
my friend goes to a private school that has like 8 squat racks and a couple platforms full of bumper plates though, damn private schools. | ||
|
fatfail
United States386 Posts
On August 31 2012 14:06 AirbladeOrange wrote: The football team is the only group allowed to use the weight room? Are you running cross country? It sounds really unfair if only one team can use the weight room. Yeah, only football gets regular access. Sometimes when football goes to some party (like once per month), cross country gets 30 minutes access. The equipment is sufficient. There is a glute raise, leg extension, squat rack, bench press, smith machine, pullup bar, bicep curl table thing, lat pull-down, the two cable thing that you pull together, and the pectoral machine. I think I'm in a strange situation, I want to lift weights but can't. Most other people have access to weights but don't want to. Basically, my high school has a terrible football team that hasn't won a game in 20 years, yet they get 100% of the resources. All of the funding goes towards their parties, uniforms, promotion, etc. They get 99% of the weight room schedule. I just want those football players to fuck off. Also, wrestling gets occasional access to the weight room. Maybe I should join wrestling? But I'm busy with my schoolwork too. fml | ||
|
kaluro
Netherlands760 Posts
On August 29 2012 09:49 emjaytron wrote: Cannot emphasise this enough. When I was in final year of high school trying to make our top division volleyball team I squatted 3x weekly, going from about 60-70kg to 120kg in 3 months with little prior strength and conditioning training, and learnt to powerclean. Put about 15cm on my vertical jump to get it to about 80cm in 3 months training. Then the next 8 years I barely managed to put another 5cm on it through all kinds of exercises. Getting that squat up towards 1.5-2x bodyweight is everything man. And powercleans are fantastic neural recruitment exercise. It's nearly impossible to get a 120kg squat within 3 months. Even if you would have superior nutrition, bulk super dirty and focus completely on strength, it's very unlikely that anyone would be able to manage a 120kg squat within 3 months. If you're talking about your 1RM, it might be a bit more likely but still very suspicious. 3 months is 12 weeks, that's like a single workout program cycle. I am well aware that beginners improve extremely rapidly but this just seems to be really suspicious. p.s. If you have extremely high bodyfat (e.g. >25%) and/or if you would have extremely small legs compared to your upper body, I would be slightly more inclined to believe you, but it's still very doubtful. | ||
|
TheResidentEvil
United States991 Posts
| ||
|
Malinor
Germany4734 Posts
On October 09 2012 02:34 kaluro wrote: It's nearly impossible to get a 120kg squat within 3 months. Even if you would have superior nutrition, bulk super dirty and focus completely on strength, it's very unlikely that anyone would be able to manage a 120kg squat within 3 months. If you're talking about your 1RM, it might be a bit more likely but still very suspicious. 3 months is 12 weeks, that's like a single workout program cycle. I am well aware that beginners improve extremely rapidly but this just seems to be really suspicious. p.s. If you have extremely high bodyfat (e.g. >25%) and/or if you would have extremely small legs compared to your upper body, I would be slightly more inclined to believe you, but it's still very doubtful. a 120kg 1RM after 3 months of training is definitely possible for people who weigh above 80kg. If you are obese, 120kg is a walk in the park. I was obese while starting squatting and it did not take me eight weeks to hit that weight. Now I was extremely fat, but 3 months is still plenty of time for someone at 25-30% bf. | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20154 Posts
On October 09 2012 02:34 kaluro wrote: It's nearly impossible to get a 120kg squat within 3 months. Even if you would have superior nutrition, bulk super dirty and focus completely on strength, it's very unlikely that anyone would be able to manage a 120kg squat within 3 months. If you're talking about your 1RM, it might be a bit more likely but still very suspicious. 3 months is 12 weeks, that's like a single workout program cycle. I am well aware that beginners improve extremely rapidly but this just seems to be really suspicious. p.s. If you have extremely high bodyfat (e.g. >25%) and/or if you would have extremely small legs compared to your upper body, I would be slightly more inclined to believe you, but it's still very doubtful. No its not. I've seen it done. Obviously dependent on the person but entirely realistic. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On October 09 2012 03:02 decafchicken wrote: No its not. I've seen it done. Obviously dependent on the person but entirely realistic. ya depends mostly on the person's size and previous experience. Any decent rugby foward (more than 85kg) should EASILY be able to do that training 3x a week. Paul Anderson squatted 400pounds x2 the first time he tried :p http://ditillo2.blogspot.com/search?q=anderson | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
| ||
