http://affiliate.kickapps.com/service/displayHomePageExperience.kickAction?page=Homepage&as=18880 New blogs from hamish on Uber Sportz Sat, 03 May 2008 07:53:55 GMT Sat, 03 May 2008 07:53:55 GMT hamishwagner@hotmail.com (hamish) hamishwagner@hotmail.com (hamish) KickApps Feed Builder 2008-05-03T07:53:55Z 7 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?as=18880&sortType=recent 0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Sell-Sports-Stuff/BLOG/55377/18880.html Welcome everyone! This blog allows you to sell any sports stuff you have through the ubersportz.com community. Welcome everyone! This blog allows you to sell any sports stuff you have through the ubersportz.com community. Sat, 03 May 2008 07:53:55 GMT http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Sell-Sports-Stuff/BLOG/55377/18880.html hamish 2008-05-03T07:53:55Z Athletics Uber Sportz Welcome everyone! This blog allows you to sell any sports stuff you have through the ubersportz.com community. athletics, sell, sports, stuff nonadult false Sell Sports Stuff text blog athletics,sell,sports,stuff 157 0 0.0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=1969086&as=18880 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/18880/photos/PHOTO_907792_18880_1969086_ap_160X120.jpg false 1 0 55377 1969086 Member 0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Leg-Strength/BLOG/30663/18880.html To begin with, I should point out that proponents of one-leg over two-leg weight-bearing exercises often make two key arguments: (1) Utilizing one-leg exercises during training does a much better job of improving coordination and efficiency during one-leg activities like running, compared with two-leg exercises. (2) Since full body weight must be supported by one leg rather than two during one-leg activities, force production in the muscles of the involved leg increases dramatically, thus producing a considerably greater strengthening effect. But by how much does leg-muscle activation increase when one shifts from two-leg to one-leg activities? In one study in which subjects performed maximal leg extensions, the average force produced in one-leg performance was 23-per cent greater than the force produced by the same leg during maximal two-leg work ('Contralateral Influence on Recruitment of Curarized Muscle Fibers during Maximal Voluntary Extension of the Legs,' Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, vol. 103, pp. 456-462, 1978). In another study, activation level of the quadriceps muscles during leg extensions was from 27 to 116 per cent (!) higher at various extension velocities when the activity was carried out in one-leg fashion rather than two ('Comparison of Motor Unit Activation during Unilateral and Bilateral Leg Extension,' Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 56, pp. 46-52, 1984). The 'knock' against these two pieces of research has been that the actual exercise utilized - leg extensions - is not a complicated, dynamic, or weight-bearing activity. Would the same kind of results be obtained during complex motor activities involving high degrees of coordination, such as running and jumping? Enter the Dutch volleyballers To answer that question, researchers at the Free University of Amsterdam studied 10 well-trained male volleyball players who warmed up thoroughly and then performed a number of vertical jumps with preparatory counter-movements, using the left leg alone for some jumps and both legs simultaneously for others (for the left-leg jump, the right leg was held inactively under the body). As the athletes carried out their jumps, I EMGs were recorded from the key muscles of the legs ('A Comparison of One-Legged and Two-Legged Countermovement Jumps,' Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol. 17(6), pp. 635-639, 1985). The decision to utilize the left legs of the athletes was a particularly good one. Leg circumferences (i.e., leg-muscle sizes) were smaller in the left legs,than in the right ones, so it was likely that the left legs of the athletes were the weaker, non-dominant ones. Thus, if power output happened to be greater in the left leg, compared with average power production for the two legs, it would have to be the result of unique aspects of one-leg activity, not merely a reflection of the greater strength of a dominant leg. Naturally, mean jumping height during the one-leg jumps was lower than that achieved during the two-leg efforts. Interestingly enough, however, jumping height in the one-leg case was significantly greater than 50 per cent of the two-leg height, averaging 58.5 per cent. In effect, the left leg acting alone was producing a higher jump than the mere average of the two legs acting together (i.e., total jump height divided by two), even though the left leg was the more impoverished appendage! In fact, total work carried out per leg per jump was about 16-per cent greater in the one-leg case. What happens to the ankle joint Interestingly, the Dutch scientists were able to show that one-leg and two-leg jumping produced significantly different effects on the ankle joint. Specifically, the 'minimal angle' attained by the ankle during the countermovement (squatting motion) prior to the jump was smaller during the one-leg jump, compared to the two-leg effort. The minimal angle is simply the angle between the top of the foot and the shin, which means that during one-leg jumping significantly more dorsiflexion of the ankle was permitted. Not surprisingly, in the one-leg jump both peak and average power outputs were greater in the ankle joint than they were during the two-leg jumps, i.e., the calf muscles had to work generally harder and more powerfully to control and respond to the greater magnitude of dorsiflexion during counter-movement. It would not be too great a 'stretch' to suggest that the magnitude of the gain in ankle strength should be greater after a period of one-leg jump training than after two-leg efforts. These three studies indicate that during two-leg activity it is usually impossible to reach the levels of neural activation and force production which can be attained during one-leg exertion. When one also takes into account the coordination effect mentioned earlier, it becomes difficult to understand why athletes engaged in sports which involve running would prefer two-leg and seated activities over one-leg exercises. Where's the speed? So far, so good! I've shown you exactly how to produce the right neural adaptations for running and thus maximally heighten your running-specific strength (in case you've already forgotten, the idea is to stress one-leg movements which mimic the mechanics of running in at least some key way). If you strength-train in the right way, you'll be able to take longer strides when you run, you'll be less prone to injury, you'll climb hills like a mountain goat, you'll run farther than you ever could before, and you could finish the London Marathon with a sack of rocks on your back. adsense: cached f course, all of that is great, but there's just one little problem: you won't necessarily be a faster runner. If you think that longer stride lengths automatically make you faster, think again - greater stride lengths are sometimes associated with a longer stance phase in the gait cycle (the increased amount of time with the foot on the ground gives the leg muscles more time to pile up force, thus elongating strides). If stride length increases but stride rate declines (because of swollen footstrike times), you are not necessarily faster. Thus, to be a significantly faster (i.e., more powerful) runner, you should not only generate more force but generate that extra force more quickly (i.e., increase stride length and abbreviate footstrike time). You must work on your rate of force production. To cut a long story short, to enhance your rate of force production while running, you must of course emphasize high-quality running training, and you must also be certain that the speeds of movement you select for your strengthening exercises begin to approach the speeds of movement characteristic of running. Otherwise, the strength you gain from your resistance exercises might carry over very well to slow running speeds - but transfer poorly to faster ones. What happened in Sweden If you doubt that this is the case, consider research carried out recently at the renowned Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, in which Swedish athletes were randomly assigned to groups undertaking either eccentric or concentric exercise of their quadriceps muscles ('Specific Effects of Eccentric and Concentric Training on Muscle Strength and Morphology in Humans,' European Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 79, pp. 49-57, 1998). The subjects were tested and trained on an isokinetic dynamometer while in a seated position, restrained by straps over the upper thigh, pelvis, and trunk. The concentric-group members exercised by extending one leg at the knee, pushing maximally on the resisting lever arm of the dynamometer as the leg straightened (the lever arm was attached to the lower part of the leg with a pad). These were concentric contractions - the quads shortened as they flexed the leg at the knee. In contrast, the eccentric-group athletes maximally resisted the movement of the lever arm as it relentlessly flexed the leg at the knee (thus, the quads were engaged in eccentric activity, lengthening even as they exerted maximal tension against the remorseless lever). During both the concentric and eccentric actions, actual angular velocity of movement was kept constant (isokinetic) by the dynamometer. One velocity of movement (90 degrees per second) was utilized during training, and three velocities (30, 90, and 270 degrees per second) were utilized to test for gains in strength at the ends of the training periods. Total range of motion per eccentric or concentric action was always 85 degrees (between knee angles of 90 and 5 degrees, with 0 degrees representing a perfectly straight leg). All subjects trained three times a week for a total of 20 weeks. Only the left leg was trained during the first 10 weeks of the study, with the right leg going through training over the final 10 weeks Each workout consisted of four sets of 10 consecutive maximal actions (either concentric or eccentric), with a two-minute rest between sets. As mentioned, training velocity was set at 90 degrees per second, which meant that every action (eccentric or concentric) lasted about one second, with one second of rest during the passive return of the dynamometer arm to the beginning position. During training, the non-active leg hung passively from the dynamometer seat. Before the training period began, the two groups were identical in terms of concentric and eccentric strength. And the results? After 10 weeks, the eccentric training had a dramatic impact on maximal power during eccentric activity, with peak torque increasing by up to 43 per cent at 90 degrees per second and 17 per cent at 30 degrees per second (note the specificity-of-training principle at work here; the subjects trained at 90 degrees per second, and therefore the increase in strength was greater at 90 degrees per second than at the slower movement speed of 30 degrees per second). The story was similar in the concentric group: peak torque increased by 20 per cent at 90 degrees per second but by only 13 per cent at 30 degrees per second. Interestingly enough, in no case (either concentric or eccentric) did strength improve at 270 degrees per second. In other words, the training velocity utilized (90 degrees per second) produced the greatest gains in strength for both the eccentric and concentric groups, when the test velocity was set at 90 degrees per second. Both groups also improved - although to a lesser extent - at the slower velocities, but neither group was able to upgrade strength at high speed. Lesson: If you want to be stronger at high rates of movement, you must carry out your resistance exercises at high rates of movement, too. Those crazy, control legs Now that you know something about how the nervous system determines strength, you should not be surprised about this: in the Karolinska study, the 'control legs' (i.e., the legs which didn't exercise at all) were able to improve their strength somewhat during the training periods, too. For example, after the first 10-week period, during which the right legs did no work at all in either the eccentric or concentric groups, peak torque during eccentric activity at 90 degrees per second advanced by 16 per cent in the right legs of eccentric-group members! Similarly, peak torque in the non-exercised right legs of concentric-group members increased by 10 per cent at 90 degrees per second! This shows us once again that there is this small thing called the nervous system which plays an important role during strength development. Very interestingly, these gains in strength made by the non-exercised legs had a pronounced specificity. That is, the sedentary right legs of the eccentric-group members improved eccentric strength after 10 weeks only at the specific velocity - 90 degrees per second - utilized during the strengthening of the left legs, and there was no gain at all in concentric strength. The same was true in the concentric group, with the potato-couch right legs bolstering concentric strength only when the speed of movement was set at the familiar (for the muscles of the left leg and nervous system) 90 degrees per second; there was no upswing at all in eccentric strength. Since gains in muscular strength are speed-specific, it follows that the athlete who runs at a higher speed during training is going to be stronger, and thus more fatigue-resistant, than the athlete who trains at slower velocities when the two are running at race-type paces. The athlete who trains at slower velocities may be more fatigue resistant at slow running speeds, especially if the slow velocities are combined with a high volume of training, but this has little importance in competitive situations, unless we are talking about ultra-marathons. To begin with, I should point out that proponents of one-leg over two-leg weight-bearing exercises often make two key arguments: (1) Utilizing one-leg exercises during training does a much better job of improving coordination and efficiency during one-leg activities like running, compared with two-leg exercises. (2) Since full body weight must be supported by one leg rather than two during one-leg activities, force production in the muscles of the involved leg increases dramatically, thus producing a considerably greater strengthening effect. But by how much does leg-muscle activation increase when one shifts from two-leg to one-leg activities? In one study in which subjects performed maximal leg extensions, the average force produced in one-leg performance was 23-per cent greater than the force produced by the same leg during maximal two-leg work ('Contralateral Influence on Recruitment of Curarized Muscle Fibers during Maximal Voluntary Extension of the Legs,' Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, vol. 103, pp. 456-462, 1978). In another study, activation level of the quadriceps muscles during leg extensions was from 27 to 116 per cent (!) higher at various extension velocities when the activity was carried out in one-leg fashion rather than two ('Comparison of Motor Unit Activation during Unilateral and Bilateral Leg Extension,' Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 56, pp. 46-52, 1984). The 'knock' against these two pieces of research has been that the actual exercise utilized - leg extensions - is not a complicated, dynamic, or weight-bearing activity. Would the same kind of results be obtained during complex motor activities involving high degrees of coordination, such as running and jumping? Enter the Dutch volleyballers To answer that question, researchers at the Free University of Amsterdam studied 10 well-trained male volleyball players who warmed up thoroughly and then performed a number of vertical jumps with preparatory counter-movements, using the left leg alone for some jumps and both legs simultaneously for others (for the left-leg jump, the right leg was held inactively under the body). As the athletes carried out their jumps, I EMGs were recorded from the key muscles of the legs ('A Comparison of One-Legged and Two-Legged Countermovement Jumps,' Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol. 17(6), pp. 635-639, 1985). The decision to utilize the left legs of the athletes was a particularly good one. Leg circumferences (i.e., leg-muscle sizes) were smaller in the left legs,than in the right ones, so it was likely that the left legs of the athletes were the weaker, non-dominant ones. Thus, if power output happened to be greater in the left leg, compared with average power production for the two legs, it would have to be the result of unique aspects of one-leg activity, not merely a reflection of the greater strength of a dominant leg. Naturally, mean jumping height during the one-leg jumps was lower than that achieved during the two-leg efforts. Interestingly enough, however, jumping height in the one-leg case was significantly greater than 50 per cent of the two-leg height, averaging 58.5 per cent. In effect, the left leg acting alone was producing a higher jump than the mere average of the two legs acting together (i.e., total jump height divided by two), even though the left leg was the more impoverished appendage! In fact, total work carried out per leg per jump was about 16-per cent greater in the one-leg case. What happens to the ankle joint Interestingly, the Dutch scientists were able to show that one-leg and two-leg jumping produced significantly different effects on the ankle joint. Specifically, the 'minimal angle' attained by the ankle during the countermovement (squatting motion) prior to the jump was smaller during the one-leg jump, compared to the two-leg effort. The minimal angle is simply the angle between the top of the foot and the shin, which means that during one-leg jumping significantly more dorsiflexion of the ankle was permitted. Not surprisingly, in the one-leg jump both peak and average power outputs were greater in the ankle joint than they were during the two-leg jumps, i.e., the calf muscles had to work generally harder and more powerfully to control and respond to the greater magnitude of dorsiflexion during counter-movement. It would not be too great a 'stretch' to suggest that the magnitude of the gain in ankle strength should be greater after a period of one-leg jump training than after two-leg efforts. These three studies indicate that during two-leg activity it is usually impossible to reach the levels of neural activation and force production which can be attained during one-leg exertion. When one also takes into account the coordination effect mentioned earlier, it becomes difficult to understand why athletes engaged in sports which involve running would prefer two-leg and seated activities over one-leg exercises. Where's the speed? So far, so good! I've shown you exactly how to produce the right neural adaptations for running and thus maximally heighten your running-specific strength (in case you've already forgotten, the idea is to stress one-leg movements which mimic the mechanics of running in at least some key way). If you strength-train in the right way, you'll be able to take longer strides when you run, you'll be less prone to injury, you'll climb hills like a mountain goat, you'll run farther than you ever could before, and you could finish the London Marathon with a sack of rocks on your back. adsense: cached f course, all of that is great, but there's just one little problem: you won't necessarily be a faster runner. If you think that longer stride lengths automatically make you faster, think again - greater stride lengths are sometimes associated with a longer stance phase in the gait cycle (the increased amount of time with the foot on the ground gives the leg muscles more time to pile up force, thus elongating strides). If stride length increases but stride rate declines (because of swollen footstrike times), you are not necessarily faster. Thus, to be a significantly faster (i.e., more powerful) runner, you should not only generate more force but generate that extra force more quickly (i.e., increase stride length and abbreviate footstrike time). You must work on your rate of force production. To cut a long story short, to enhance your rate of force production while running, you must of course emphasize high-quality running training, and you must also be certain that the speeds of movement you select for your strengthening exercises begin to approach the speeds of movement characteristic of running. Otherwise, the strength you gain from your resistance exercises might carry over very well to slow running speeds - but transfer poorly to faster ones. What happened in Sweden If you doubt that this is the case, consider research carried out recently at the renowned Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, in which Swedish athletes were randomly assigned to groups undertaking either eccentric or concentric exercise of their quadriceps muscles ('Specific Effects of Eccentric and Concentric Training on Muscle Strength and Morphology in Humans,' European Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 79, pp. 49-57, 1998). The subjects were tested and trained on an isokinetic dynamometer while in a seated position, restrained by straps over the upper thigh, pelvis, and trunk. The concentric-group members exercised by extending one leg at the knee, pushing maximally on the resisting lever arm of the dynamometer as the leg straightened (the lever arm was attached to the lower part of the leg with a pad). These were concentric contractions - the quads shortened as they flexed the leg at the knee. In contrast, the eccentric-group athletes maximally resisted the movement of the lever arm as it relentlessly flexed the leg at the knee (thus, the quads were engaged in eccentric activity, lengthening even as they exerted maximal tension against the remorseless lever). During both the concentric and eccentric actions, actual angular velocity of movement was kept constant (isokinetic) by the dynamometer. One velocity of movement (90 degrees per second) was utilized during training, and three velocities (30, 90, and 270 degrees per second) were utilized to test for gains in strength at the ends of the training periods. Total range of motion per eccentric or concentric action was always 85 degrees (between knee angles of 90 and 5 degrees, with 0 degrees representing a perfectly straight leg). All subjects trained three times a week for a total of 20 weeks. Only the left leg was trained during the first 10 weeks of the study, with the right leg going through training over the final 10 weeks Each workout consisted of four sets of 10 consecutive maximal actions (either concentric or eccentric), with a two-minute rest between sets. As mentioned, training velocity was set at 90 degrees per second, which meant that every action (eccentric or concentric) lasted about one second, with one second of rest during the passive return of the dynamometer arm to the beginning position. During training, the non-active leg hung passively from the dynamometer seat. Before the training period began, the two groups were identical in terms of concentric and eccentric strength. And the results? After 10 weeks, the eccentric training had a dramatic impact on maximal power during eccentric activity, with peak torque increasing by up to 43 per cent at 90 degrees per second and 17 per cent at 30 degrees per second (note the specificity-of-training principle at work here; the subjects trained at 90 degrees per second, and therefore the increase in strength was greater at 90 degrees per second than at the slower movement speed of 30 degrees per second). The story was similar in the concentric group: peak torque increased by 20 per cent at 90 degrees per second but by only 13 per cent at 30 degrees per second. Interestingly enough, in no case (either concentric or eccentric) did strength improve at 270 degrees per second. In other words, the training velocity utilized (90 degrees per second) produced the greatest gains in strength for both the eccentric and concentric groups, when the test velocity was set at 90 degrees per second. Both groups also improved - although to a lesser extent - at the slower velocities, but neither group was able to upgrade strength at high speed. Lesson: If you want to be stronger at high rates of movement, you must carry out your resistance exercises at high rates of movement, too. Those crazy, control legs Now that you know something about how the nervous system determines strength, you should not be surprised about this: in the Karolinska study, the 'control legs' (i.e., the legs which didn't exercise at all) were able to improve their strength somewhat during the training periods, too. For example, after the first 10-week period, during which the right legs did no work at all in either the eccentric or concentric groups, peak torque during eccentric activity at 90 degrees per second advanced by 16 per cent in the right legs of eccentric-group members! Similarly, peak torque in the non-exercised right legs of concentric-group members increased by 10 per cent at 90 degrees per second! This shows us once again that there is this small thing called the nervous system which plays an important role during strength development. Very interestingly, these gains in strength made by the non-exercised legs had a pronounced specificity. That is, the sedentary right legs of the eccentric-group members improved eccentric strength after 10 weeks only at the specific velocity - 90 degrees per second - utilized during the strengthening of the left legs, and there was no gain at all in concentric strength. The same was true in the concentric group, with the potato-couch right legs bolstering concentric strength only when the speed of movement was set at the familiar (for the muscles of the left leg and nervous system) 90 degrees per second; there was no upswing at all in eccentric strength. Since gains in muscular strength are speed-specific, it follows that the athlete who runs at a higher speed during training is going to be stronger, and thus more fatigue-resistant, than the athlete who trains at slower velocities when the two are running at race-type paces. The athlete who trains at slower velocities may be more fatigue resistant at slow running speeds, especially if the slow velocities are combined with a high volume of training, but this has little importance in competitive situations, unless we are talking about ultra-marathons. Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:30:30 GMT http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Leg-Strength/BLOG/30663/18880.html hamish 2008-02-20T06:30:30Z Athletics Uber Sportz To begin with, I should point out that proponents of one-leg over two-leg weight-bearing exercises often make two key arguments: (1) Utilizing one-leg exercises during training does a much better job of improving coordination and efficiency during one-leg activities like running, compared with two-leg exercises. (2) Since full body weight must be supported by one leg rather than two during one-leg activities, force production in the muscles of the involved leg increases dramatically, thus producing a considerably greater strengthening effect. But by how much does leg-muscle activation increase when one shifts from two-leg to one-leg activities? In one study in which subjects performed maximal leg extensions, the average force produced in one-leg performance was 23-per cent greater than the force produced by the same leg during maximal two-leg work ('Contralateral Influence on Recruitment of Curarized Muscle Fibers during Maximal Voluntary Extension of the Legs,' Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, vol. 103, pp. 456-462, 1978). In another study, activation level of the quadriceps muscles during leg extensions was from 27 to 116 per cent (!) higher at various extension velocities when the activity was carried out in one-leg fashion rather than two ('Comparison of Motor Unit Activation during Unilateral and Bilateral Leg Extension,' Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 56, pp. 46-52, 1984). The 'knock' against these two pieces of research has been that the actual exercise utilized - leg extensions - is not a complicated, dynamic, or weight-bearing activity. Would the same kind of results be obtained during complex motor activities involving high degrees of coordination, such as running and jumping? Enter the Dutch volleyballers To answer that question, researchers at the Free University of Amsterdam studied 10 well-trained male volleyball players who warmed up thoroughly and then performed a number of vertical jumps with preparatory counter-movements, using the left leg alone for some jumps and both legs simultaneously for others (for the left-leg jump, the right leg was held inactively under the body). As the athletes carried out their jumps, I EMGs were recorded from the key muscles of the legs ('A Comparison of One-Legged and Two-Legged Countermovement Jumps,' Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol. 17(6), pp. 635-639, 1985). The decision to utilize the left legs of the athletes was a particularly good one. Leg circumferences (i.e., leg-muscle sizes) were smaller in the left legs,than in the right ones, so it was likely that the left legs of the athletes were the weaker, non-dominant ones. Thus, if power output happened to be greater in the left leg, compared with average power production for the two legs, it would have to be the result of unique aspects of one-leg activity, not merely a reflection of the greater strength of a dominant leg. Naturally, mean jumping height during the one-leg jumps was lower than that achieved during the two-leg efforts. Interestingly enough, however, jumping height in the one-leg case was significantly greater than 50 per cent of the two-leg height, averaging 58.5 per cent. In effect, the left leg acting alone was producing a higher jump than the mere average of the two legs acting together (i.e., total jump height divided by two), even though the left leg was the more impoverished appendage! In fact, total work carried out per leg per jump was about 16-per cent greater in the one-leg case. What happens to the ankle joint Interestingly, the Dutch scientists were able to show that one-leg and two-leg jumping produced significantly different effects on the ankle joint. Specifically, the 'minimal angle' attained by the ankle during the countermovement (squatting motion) prior to the jump was smaller during the one-leg jump, compared to the two-leg effort. The minimal angle is simply the angle between the top of the foot and the shin, which means that during one-leg jumping significantly more dorsiflexion of the ankle was permitted. Not surprisingly, in the one-leg jump both peak and average power outputs were greater in the ankle joint than they were during the two-leg jumps, i.e., the calf muscles had to work generally harder and more powerfully to control and respond to the greater magnitude of dorsiflexion during counter-movement. It would not be too great a 'stretch' to suggest that the magnitude of the gain in ankle strength should be greater after a period of one-leg jump training than after two-leg efforts. These three studies indicate that during two-leg activity it is usually impossible to reach the levels of neural activation and force production which can be attained during one-leg exertion. When one also takes into account the coordination effect mentioned earlier, it becomes difficult to understand why athletes engaged in sports which involve running would prefer two-leg and seated activities over one-leg exercises. Where's the speed? So far, so good! I've shown you exactly how to produce the right neural adaptations for running and thus maximally heighten your running-specific strength (in case you've already forgotten, the idea is to stress one-leg movements which mimic the mechanics of running in at least some key way). If you strength-train in the right way, you'll be able to take longer strides when you run, you'll be less prone to injury, you'll climb hills like a mountain goat, you'll run farther than you ever could before, and you could finish the London Marathon with a sack of rocks on your back. adsense: cached f course, all of that is great, but there's just one little problem: you won't necessarily be a faster runner. If you think that longer stride lengths automatically make you faster, think again - greater stride lengths are sometimes associated with a longer stance phase in the gait cycle (the increased amount of time with the foot on the ground gives the leg muscles more time to pile up force, thus elongating strides). If stride length increases but stride rate declines (because of swollen footstrike times), you are not necessarily faster. Thus, to be a significantly faster (i.e., more powerful) runner, you should not only generate more force but generate that extra force more quickly (i.e., increase stride length and abbreviate footstrike time). You must work on your rate of force production. To cut a long story short, to enhance your rate of force production while running, you must of course emphasize high-quality running training, and you must also be certain that the speeds of movement you select for your strengthening exercises begin to approach the speeds of movement characteristic of running. Otherwise, the strength you gain from your resistance exercises might carry over very well to slow running speeds - but transfer poorly to faster ones. What happened in Sweden If you doubt that this is the case, consider research carried out recently at the renowned Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, in which Swedish athletes were randomly assigned to groups undertaking either eccentric or concentric exercise of their quadriceps muscles ('Specific Effects of Eccentric and Concentric Training on Muscle Strength and Morphology in Humans,' European Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 79, pp. 49-57, 1998). The subjects were tested and trained on an isokinetic dynamometer while in a seated position, restrained by straps over the upper thigh, pelvis, and trunk. The concentric-group members exercised by extending one leg at the knee, pushing maximally on the resisting lever arm of the dynamometer as the leg straightened (the lever arm was attached to the lower part of the leg with a pad). These were concentric contractions - the quads shortened as they flexed the leg at the knee. In contrast, the eccentric-group athletes maximally resisted the movement of the lever arm as it relentlessly flexed the leg at the knee (thus, the quads were engaged in eccentric activity, lengthening even as they exerted maximal tension against the remorseless lever). During both the concentric and eccentric actions, actual angular velocity of movement was kept constant (isokinetic) by the dynamometer. One velocity of movement (90 degrees per second) was utilized during training, and three velocities (30, 90, and 270 degrees per second) were utilized to test for gains in strength at the ends of the training periods. Total range of motion per eccentric or concentric action was always 85 degrees (between knee angles of 90 and 5 degrees, with 0 degrees representing a perfectly straight leg). All subjects trained three times a week for a total of 20 weeks. Only the left leg was trained during the first 10 weeks of the study, with the right leg going through training over the final 10 weeks Each workout consisted of four sets of 10 consecutive maximal actions (either concentric or eccentric), with a two-minute rest between sets. As mentioned, training velocity was set at 90 degrees per second, which meant that every action (eccentric or concentric) lasted about one second, with one second of rest during the passive return of the dynamometer arm to the beginning position. During training, the non-active leg hung passively from the dynamometer seat. Before the training period began, the two groups were identical in terms of concentric and eccentric strength. And the results? After 10 weeks, the eccentric training had a dramatic impact on maximal power during eccentric activity, with peak torque increasing by up to 43 per cent at 90 degrees per second and 17 per cent at 30 degrees per second (note the specificity-of-training principle at work here; the subjects trained at 90 degrees per second, and therefore the increase in strength was greater at 90 degrees per second than at the slower movement speed of 30 degrees per second). The story was similar in the concentric group: peak torque increased by 20 per cent at 90 degrees per second but by only 13 per cent at 30 degrees per second. Interestingly enough, in no case (either concentric or eccentric) did strength improve at 270 degrees per second. In other words, the training velocity utilized (90 degrees per second) produced the greatest gains in strength for both the eccentric and concentric groups, when the test velocity was set at 90 degrees per second. Both groups also improved - although to a lesser extent - at the slower velocities, but neither group was able to upgrade strength at high speed. Lesson: If you want to be stronger at high rates of movement, you must carry out your resistance exercises at high rates of movement, too. Those crazy, control legs Now that you know something about how the nervous system determines strength, you should not be surprised about this: in the Karolinska study, the 'control legs' (i.e., the legs which didn't exercise at all) were able to improve their strength somewhat during the training periods, too. For example, after the first 10-week period, during which the right legs did no work at all in either the eccentric or concentric groups, peak torque during eccentric activity at 90 degrees per second advanced by 16 per cent in the right legs of eccentric-group members! Similarly, peak torque in the non-exercised right legs of concentric-group members increased by 10 per cent at 90 degrees per second! This shows us once again that there is this small thing called the nervous system which plays an important role during strength development. Very interestingly, these gains in strength made by the non-exercised legs had a pronounced specificity. That is, the sedentary right legs of the eccentric-group members improved eccentric strength after 10 weeks only at the specific velocity - 90 degrees per second - utilized during the strengthening of the left legs, and there was no gain at all in concentric strength. The same was true in the concentric group, with the potato-couch right legs bolstering concentric strength only when the speed of movement was set at the familiar (for the muscles of the left leg and nervous system) 90 degrees per second; there was no upswing at all in eccentric strength. Since gains in muscular strength are speed-specific, it follows that the athlete who runs at a higher speed during training is going to be stronger, and thus more fatigue-resistant, than the athlete who trains at slower velocities when the two are running at race-type paces. The athlete who trains at slower velocities may be more fatigue resistant at slow running speeds, especially if the slow velocities are combined with a high volume of training, but this has little importance in competitive situations, unless we are talking about ultra-marathons. athletics, volleyball nonadult false Leg Strength text blog athletics,volleyball 58 0 0.0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=1969086&as=18880 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/18880/photos/PHOTO_907792_18880_1969086_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 30663 1969086 Member 0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Improve-your-Jumping-ability/BLOG/30661/18880.html Jump to it – why and how you should improve your jumping ability adsense: cached Being able to jump well is crucial for performance in a number of sports, requiring good conditioning and technique. John Shepherd examines the theories and practical strategies that can help you maximise your vertical and horizontal jumping ability and so enhance your sporting prowess The standing long jump and sergeant jump measure the ability to jump for distance and for height respectively (from a standing two-footed position), and are often used as tests of sports ability. Table 1 (below) displays relative standards for standing long jump (distance) ability. At first sight, this type of jump appears pretty straight forward; the athlete simply bends their knees, whilst swinging their arms back and forward, before making their leap into the pit. However, even this relatively simple jump can be improved technically in one training session, perhaps adding 10cm or more to the distance jumped. A study by Australian researchers focused on the optimum take-off angle for standing long jumps (1). They discovered that jumping distance was strongly influenced by the jumper’s take-off speed and take-off angle. High take-off angles resulted in poor jump distances, as the athlete was unable to generate sufficient horizontal velocity to propel their bodies forward. The researchers discovered that take-off angles of 19-27 degrees optimised jumping distance and that this was actually lower than the jumper’s preferred angle of take-off (31-39 degrees). Role of arms in jumping The use of the arms and free leg (when jumping from one leg) are, like angle of take-off, equally important determinants of jump distance. In an effort to discover exactly how much contribution the arms make to standing long jump distance, researchers from the University of Texas used computer modelling to investigate what effect free and restricted arm movements had (2). They found that simulated jump distances were 40cm longer when arm movements were free. Arm movement allowed for a 15% increase in jump velocity of the centre of gravity. More specifically, this was attributed to an additional 80 joules of propulsive work done by the shoulder muscles. In order to benefit from this extra energy during sports activity, you need to vigorously swing your arms back and forward as they rise and fall with your thigh movements, timing the arm swing past your legs to coincide with the leg drive into your take-off. This will maximise jump speed (provided of course you aim for a take-off angle of between 19-27 degrees). Arm action is crucial to optimum performance, whatever the jump. The high jump is the ultimate test of vertical jumping ability. The men’s world record stands at an incredible 2.45m and was set by Cuba’s Javier Sotomayor in 1993. Researchers from John Moores University in the UK, have looked specifically at how the free limbs are used by elite high jumpers in generating vertical velocity (3). Six elite male high jumpers were subject to tests that enabled the researchers to determine the power and speed of the jumper’s joint motions at take-off. It was discovered that the arms had a greater influence on take-off performance than the free leg. This seemed to be as a result of the limited ability of the free leg to drive further ‘into’ the jump once the take-off foot was grounded and extending into the jump, and was in contrast with the ability of the arms to drive more forcibly ‘through’ into the jump. adsense: cached In all it was estimated that the free limbs contributed 7.1% of whole-body momentum at take-off. The researchers concluded that in order to maximise the contribution the free limbs can make to performance, the arms should have a vigorous downward motion at touch-down (take-off) to make the most use of the high (but little changing) relative momentum of the free leg. Foot contact Such detail can even be extended to foot contact when jumping. Researchers looked at the relevance of foot positioning, and in particular foot-landing positions, when athletes performed depth jumps drills (4). These exercises develop plyometric leg power and require the performer to step off of a suitable platform and on landing, spring immediately upward, sideways or forwards. Specifically, the researchers addressed the force generated from flat-footed versus forefoot ground contacts. Ten healthy male university students performed two types of depth jump from a 0.4m high box placed 1m from the centre of a force plate. They performed jumps down onto either the balls of their feet (without the heels touching the ground during the subsequent vertical jump), or onto their heels (flat-footed). The researchers discovered that the first (landing) and second (subsequent jump) peaks in force generation were 3.4 times greater and 1.4 times lower respectively for flat-footed landings as opposed to forefoot landings. For athlete and coach this type of research has some important implications. Specifically, the nature of jumping foot-strike (ground contact) should be carefully analysed for particular sports and the most appropriate jumping exercises performed that have the greatest sports match. For example, while a flat-footed landing depth jump will develop some jumping power, it may not optimally transfer into the specific performance requirements of an athlete in a specific sport. To give some examples: A sprinter may benefit more from forefoot, single-leg-landing depth jumps, as the sprint action is performed from a similar foot-strike position; A basketball or volleyball player may derive greater vertical spring (a key requirement of their games) by using flat-footed, single- and double-leg-landing depth jumps. As the previous research indicates, the free-limb actions also have to be carefully considered and training drills designed to replicate these. Thus high jumpers, when performing depth jumps, should employ a double-arm shift action (where both arms are driven back and forward and ‘up’ into the jump at take-off) to mimic the specifics of their event. They should also emphasise single-leg landing jumps. Doing this will maximise the transference of the conditioning drill into actual event performance. Leg stiffness The long jump is ultimate test of horizontal jumping and long jump research provides equally prescriptive and detailed findings. For example, researchers from Germany looked at the athlete’s centre of gravity during the take-off phase (5). The researchers focused on a number of contributory factors, one of which was the ‘leg stiffness’ of the jumpers’ muscles. Leg stiffness refers to the tensile properties of muscle. Using an analogy, suppose that a long jumper’s legs were made of plasticine. Even if the athlete could make it down the runway, the take-off leg would instantly buckle under the forces required to launch the athlete off the runway. However, now suppose our athlete’s legs were made of carbon fibre; there would now be little if any yielding and the jumper would very efficiently transfer their horizontal velocity into the jump. Obviously, long jump athletes (and other jumpers) do not want plasticine legs, but would they benefit from carbon fibre-like stiffness? The German researchers concluded that while there is a minimum standard of leg stiffness required for maximum long jump performance, further increases in stiffness do not lead to longer jumps. Leg stiffness can be enhanced by weight training and plyometric drills, power combination training and jumping itself. However, from a more technical perspective, researchers have advocated increasing the touch down velocity of the take-off leg to improve jumping distance. This is something that is also recommended, by George Dintimen(6), one of the world’s leading speed coaches. He argues that the faster a plyometric drill is performed (the long jump take-off is a plyometric movement) the greater, everything else being equal, will be the power transference into the jump. Using another analogy, the harder a ball is thrown against a wall the further and quicker it will fly back. Thus, the faster the foot makes contact with the ground during jumping and running movements, the quicker the reaction will be. However, despite this, athlete and coach need to realise that certain jumping movements require more ground contact time than others (see table 2, opposite). If a high jumper attempted to use the same amount of approach speed as a long jumper, then optimum vertical lift would be sacrificed, as there would not be enough ground contact time to generate vertical lift. It is important that these take-off times are replicated in training, as well as the foot-strike position, and that free limb movements are optimised (as outlined above) for maximum jumping power. Training to improve jumping ability How can athletes utilise these findings to enhance their own training performance? As indicated, plyometric drills are the main weapon in the training armoury when it comes to enhancing jump ability. Here’s how to get the most out of them: Plyometric exercises must replicate the movement patterns and speed of movement of the jumping activity as closely as possible. Athletes should be fresh and rested when performing plyometric exercises, especially if they perform in immediate anaerobic pathway activities such as long and high jump and the gymnastic vault. For sports involving fatigue, where jumping is required, such as football and rugby, quality jumping power should be developed, in ways similar to immediate anaerobic pathway athletes, but also in separate workouts, under conditions of fatigue. Exercises should also be performed on the surface that the player will normally encounter, ie in the case of a field sports player, soft to hard turf. For field sports (as for immediate anaerobic activities) the mechanics of the jumping skill must be optimised. For example, footballers must be made aware of the importance of using their free limbs to aid height and distance. However, due to the nature of these sports, perfect technique will not always be possible. To this end practices should be employed that work on balance, kinaesthetic awareness and proprioception. These will maximise jumping potential and reduce the chances of injury, as the player is able to better control the position of their body in space, their proximity to other players and their landing. Power combination training that combines weights and plyometrics in the same workouts should be utilised throughout the training period. Research indicates that both exercise modes affect the other in a way that enhances the power generation of fast-twitch muscle fibre. Jump to it – why and how you should improve your jumping ability adsense: cached Being able to jump well is crucial for performance in a number of sports, requiring good conditioning and technique. John Shepherd examines the theories and practical strategies that can help you maximise your vertical and horizontal jumping ability and so enhance your sporting prowess The standing long jump and sergeant jump measure the ability to jump for distance and for height respectively (from a standing two-footed position), and are often used as tests of sports ability. Table 1 (below) displays relative standards for standing long jump (distance) ability. At first sight, this type of jump appears pretty straight forward; the athlete simply bends their knees, whilst swinging their arms back and forward, before making their leap into the pit. However, even this relatively simple jump can be improved technically in one training session, perhaps adding 10cm or more to the distance jumped. A study by Australian researchers focused on the optimum take-off angle for standing long jumps (1). They discovered that jumping distance was strongly influenced by the jumper’s take-off speed and take-off angle. High take-off angles resulted in poor jump distances, as the athlete was unable to generate sufficient horizontal velocity to propel their bodies forward. The researchers discovered that take-off angles of 19-27 degrees optimised jumping distance and that this was actually lower than the jumper’s preferred angle of take-off (31-39 degrees). Role of arms in jumping The use of the arms and free leg (when jumping from one leg) are, like angle of take-off, equally important determinants of jump distance. In an effort to discover exactly how much contribution the arms make to standing long jump distance, researchers from the University of Texas used computer modelling to investigate what effect free and restricted arm movements had (2). They found that simulated jump distances were 40cm longer when arm movements were free. Arm movement allowed for a 15% increase in jump velocity of the centre of gravity. More specifically, this was attributed to an additional 80 joules of propulsive work done by the shoulder muscles. In order to benefit from this extra energy during sports activity, you need to vigorously swing your arms back and forward as they rise and fall with your thigh movements, timing the arm swing past your legs to coincide with the leg drive into your take-off. This will maximise jump speed (provided of course you aim for a take-off angle of between 19-27 degrees). Arm action is crucial to optimum performance, whatever the jump. The high jump is the ultimate test of vertical jumping ability. The men’s world record stands at an incredible 2.45m and was set by Cuba’s Javier Sotomayor in 1993. Researchers from John Moores University in the UK, have looked specifically at how the free limbs are used by elite high jumpers in generating vertical velocity (3). Six elite male high jumpers were subject to tests that enabled the researchers to determine the power and speed of the jumper’s joint motions at take-off. It was discovered that the arms had a greater influence on take-off performance than the free leg. This seemed to be as a result of the limited ability of the free leg to drive further ‘into’ the jump once the take-off foot was grounded and extending into the jump, and was in contrast with the ability of the arms to drive more forcibly ‘through’ into the jump. adsense: cached In all it was estimated that the free limbs contributed 7.1% of whole-body momentum at take-off. The researchers concluded that in order to maximise the contribution the free limbs can make to performance, the arms should have a vigorous downward motion at touch-down (take-off) to make the most use of the high (but little changing) relative momentum of the free leg. Foot contact Such detail can even be extended to foot contact when jumping. Researchers looked at the relevance of foot positioning, and in particular foot-landing positions, when athletes performed depth jumps drills (4). These exercises develop plyometric leg power and require the performer to step off of a suitable platform and on landing, spring immediately upward, sideways or forwards. Specifically, the researchers addressed the force generated from flat-footed versus forefoot ground contacts. Ten healthy male university students performed two types of depth jump from a 0.4m high box placed 1m from the centre of a force plate. They performed jumps down onto either the balls of their feet (without the heels touching the ground during the subsequent vertical jump), or onto their heels (flat-footed). The researchers discovered that the first (landing) and second (subsequent jump) peaks in force generation were 3.4 times greater and 1.4 times lower respectively for flat-footed landings as opposed to forefoot landings. For athlete and coach this type of research has some important implications. Specifically, the nature of jumping foot-strike (ground contact) should be carefully analysed for particular sports and the most appropriate jumping exercises performed that have the greatest sports match. For example, while a flat-footed landing depth jump will develop some jumping power, it may not optimally transfer into the specific performance requirements of an athlete in a specific sport. To give some examples: A sprinter may benefit more from forefoot, single-leg-landing depth jumps, as the sprint action is performed from a similar foot-strike position; A basketball or volleyball player may derive greater vertical spring (a key requirement of their games) by using flat-footed, single- and double-leg-landing depth jumps. As the previous research indicates, the free-limb actions also have to be carefully considered and training drills designed to replicate these. Thus high jumpers, when performing depth jumps, should employ a double-arm shift action (where both arms are driven back and forward and ‘up’ into the jump at take-off) to mimic the specifics of their event. They should also emphasise single-leg landing jumps. Doing this will maximise the transference of the conditioning drill into actual event performance. Leg stiffness The long jump is ultimate test of horizontal jumping and long jump research provides equally prescriptive and detailed findings. For example, researchers from Germany looked at the athlete’s centre of gravity during the take-off phase (5). The researchers focused on a number of contributory factors, one of which was the ‘leg stiffness’ of the jumpers’ muscles. Leg stiffness refers to the tensile properties of muscle. Using an analogy, suppose that a long jumper’s legs were made of plasticine. Even if the athlete could make it down the runway, the take-off leg would instantly buckle under the forces required to launch the athlete off the runway. However, now suppose our athlete’s legs were made of carbon fibre; there would now be little if any yielding and the jumper would very efficiently transfer their horizontal velocity into the jump. Obviously, long jump athletes (and other jumpers) do not want plasticine legs, but would they benefit from carbon fibre-like stiffness? The German researchers concluded that while there is a minimum standard of leg stiffness required for maximum long jump performance, further increases in stiffness do not lead to longer jumps. Leg stiffness can be enhanced by weight training and plyometric drills, power combination training and jumping itself. However, from a more technical perspective, researchers have advocated increasing the touch down velocity of the take-off leg to improve jumping distance. This is something that is also recommended, by George Dintimen(6), one of the world’s leading speed coaches. He argues that the faster a plyometric drill is performed (the long jump take-off is a plyometric movement) the greater, everything else being equal, will be the power transference into the jump. Using another analogy, the harder a ball is thrown against a wall the further and quicker it will fly back. Thus, the faster the foot makes contact with the ground during jumping and running movements, the quicker the reaction will be. However, despite this, athlete and coach need to realise that certain jumping movements require more ground contact time than others (see table 2, opposite). If a high jumper attempted to use the same amount of approach speed as a long jumper, then optimum vertical lift would be sacrificed, as there would not be enough ground contact time to generate vertical lift. It is important that these take-off times are replicated in training, as well as the foot-strike position, and that free limb movements are optimised (as outlined above) for maximum jumping power. Training to improve jumping ability How can athletes utilise these findings to enhance their own training performance? As indicated, plyometric drills are the main weapon in the training armoury when it comes to enhancing jump ability. Here’s how to get the most out of them: Plyometric exercises must replicate the movement patterns and speed of movement of the jumping activity as closely as possible. Athletes should be fresh and rested when performing plyometric exercises, especially if they perform in immediate anaerobic pathway activities such as long and high jump and the gymnastic vault. For sports involving fatigue, where jumping is required, such as football and rugby, quality jumping power should be developed, in ways similar to immediate anaerobic pathway athletes, but also in separate workouts, under conditions of fatigue. Exercises should also be performed on the surface that the player will normally encounter, ie in the case of a field sports player, soft to hard turf. For field sports (as for immediate anaerobic activities) the mechanics of the jumping skill must be optimised. For example, footballers must be made aware of the importance of using their free limbs to aid height and distance. However, due to the nature of these sports, perfect technique will not always be possible. To this end practices should be employed that work on balance, kinaesthetic awareness and proprioception. These will maximise jumping potential and reduce the chances of injury, as the player is able to better control the position of their body in space, their proximity to other players and their landing. Power combination training that combines weights and plyometrics in the same workouts should be utilised throughout the training period. Research indicates that both exercise modes affect the other in a way that enhances the power generation of fast-twitch muscle fibre. Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:26:58 GMT http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Improve-your-Jumping-ability/BLOG/30661/18880.html hamish 2008-02-20T06:26:58Z Uber Sportz Jump to it – why and how you should improve your jumping ability adsense: cached Being able to jump well is crucial for performance in a number of sports, requiring good conditioning and technique. John Shepherd examines the theories and practical strategies that can help you maximise your vertical and horizontal jumping ability and so enhance your sporting prowess The standing long jump and sergeant jump measure the ability to jump for distance and for height respectively (from a standing two-footed position), and are often used as tests of sports ability. Table 1 (below) displays relative standards for standing long jump (distance) ability. At first sight, this type of jump appears pretty straight forward; the athlete simply bends their knees, whilst swinging their arms back and forward, before making their leap into the pit. However, even this relatively simple jump can be improved technically in one training session, perhaps adding 10cm or more to the distance jumped. A study by Australian researchers focused on the optimum take-off angle for standing long jumps (1). They discovered that jumping distance was strongly influenced by the jumper’s take-off speed and take-off angle. High take-off angles resulted in poor jump distances, as the athlete was unable to generate sufficient horizontal velocity to propel their bodies forward. The researchers discovered that take-off angles of 19-27 degrees optimised jumping distance and that this was actually lower than the jumper’s preferred angle of take-off (31-39 degrees). Role of arms in jumping The use of the arms and free leg (when jumping from one leg) are, like angle of take-off, equally important determinants of jump distance. In an effort to discover exactly how much contribution the arms make to standing long jump distance, researchers from the University of Texas used computer modelling to investigate what effect free and restricted arm movements had (2). They found that simulated jump distances were 40cm longer when arm movements were free. Arm movement allowed for a 15% increase in jump velocity of the centre of gravity. More specifically, this was attributed to an additional 80 joules of propulsive work done by the shoulder muscles. In order to benefit from this extra energy during sports activity, you need to vigorously swing your arms back and forward as they rise and fall with your thigh movements, timing the arm swing past your legs to coincide with the leg drive into your take-off. This will maximise jump speed (provided of course you aim for a take-off angle of between 19-27 degrees). Arm action is crucial to optimum performance, whatever the jump. The high jump is the ultimate test of vertical jumping ability. The men’s world record stands at an incredible 2.45m and was set by Cuba’s Javier Sotomayor in 1993. Researchers from John Moores University in the UK, have looked specifically at how the free limbs are used by elite high jumpers in generating vertical velocity (3). Six elite male high jumpers were subject to tests that enabled the researchers to determine the power and speed of the jumper’s joint motions at take-off. It was discovered that the arms had a greater influence on take-off performance than the free leg. This seemed to be as a result of the limited ability of the free leg to drive further ‘into’ the jump once the take-off foot was grounded and extending into the jump, and was in contrast with the ability of the arms to drive more forcibly ‘through’ into the jump. adsense: cached In all it was estimated that the free limbs contributed 7.1% of whole-body momentum at take-off. The researchers concluded that in order to maximise the contribution the free limbs can make to performance, the arms should have a vigorous downward motion at touch-down (take-off) to make the most use of the high (but little changing) relative momentum of the free leg. Foot contact Such detail can even be extended to foot contact when jumping. Researchers looked at the relevance of foot positioning, and in particular foot-landing positions, when athletes performed depth jumps drills (4). These exercises develop plyometric leg power and require the performer to step off of a suitable platform and on landing, spring immediately upward, sideways or forwards. Specifically, the researchers addressed the force generated from flat-footed versus forefoot ground contacts. Ten healthy male university students performed two types of depth jump from a 0.4m high box placed 1m from the centre of a force plate. They performed jumps down onto either the balls of their feet (without the heels touching the ground during the subsequent vertical jump), or onto their heels (flat-footed). The researchers discovered that the first (landing) and second (subsequent jump) peaks in force generation were 3.4 times greater and 1.4 times lower respectively for flat-footed landings as opposed to forefoot landings. For athlete and coach this type of research has some important implications. Specifically, the nature of jumping foot-strike (ground contact) should be carefully analysed for particular sports and the most appropriate jumping exercises performed that have the greatest sports match. For example, while a flat-footed landing depth jump will develop some jumping power, it may not optimally transfer into the specific performance requirements of an athlete in a specific sport. To give some examples: A sprinter may benefit more from forefoot, single-leg-landing depth jumps, as the sprint action is performed from a similar foot-strike position; A basketball or volleyball player may derive greater vertical spring (a key requirement of their games) by using flat-footed, single- and double-leg-landing depth jumps. As the previous research indicates, the free-limb actions also have to be carefully considered and training drills designed to replicate these. Thus high jumpers, when performing depth jumps, should employ a double-arm shift action (where both arms are driven back and forward and ‘up’ into the jump at take-off) to mimic the specifics of their event. They should also emphasise single-leg landing jumps. Doing this will maximise the transference of the conditioning drill into actual event performance. Leg stiffness The long jump is ultimate test of horizontal jumping and long jump research provides equally prescriptive and detailed findings. For example, researchers from Germany looked at the athlete’s centre of gravity during the take-off phase (5). The researchers focused on a number of contributory factors, one of which was the ‘leg stiffness’ of the jumpers’ muscles. Leg stiffness refers to the tensile properties of muscle. Using an analogy, suppose that a long jumper’s legs were made of plasticine. Even if the athlete could make it down the runway, the take-off leg would instantly buckle under the forces required to launch the athlete off the runway. However, now suppose our athlete’s legs were made of carbon fibre; there would now be little if any yielding and the jumper would very efficiently transfer their horizontal velocity into the jump. Obviously, long jump athletes (and other jumpers) do not want plasticine legs, but would they benefit from carbon fibre-like stiffness? The German researchers concluded that while there is a minimum standard of leg stiffness required for maximum long jump performance, further increases in stiffness do not lead to longer jumps. Leg stiffness can be enhanced by weight training and plyometric drills, power combination training and jumping itself. However, from a more technical perspective, researchers have advocated increasing the touch down velocity of the take-off leg to improve jumping distance. This is something that is also recommended, by George Dintimen(6), one of the world’s leading speed coaches. He argues that the faster a plyometric drill is performed (the long jump take-off is a plyometric movement) the greater, everything else being equal, will be the power transference into the jump. Using another analogy, the harder a ball is thrown against a wall the further and quicker it will fly back. Thus, the faster the foot makes contact with the ground during jumping and running movements, the quicker the reaction will be. However, despite this, athlete and coach need to realise that certain jumping movements require more ground contact time than others (see table 2, opposite). If a high jumper attempted to use the same amount of approach speed as a long jumper, then optimum vertical lift would be sacrificed, as there would not be enough ground contact time to generate vertical lift. It is important that these take-off times are replicated in training, as well as the foot-strike position, and that free limb movements are optimised (as outlined above) for maximum jumping power. Training to improve jumping ability How can athletes utilise these findings to enhance their own training performance? As indicated, plyometric drills are the main weapon in the training armoury when it comes to enhancing jump ability. Here’s how to get the most out of them: Plyometric exercises must replicate the movement patterns and speed of movement of the jumping activity as closely as possible. Athletes should be fresh and rested when performing plyometric exercises, especially if they perform in immediate anaerobic pathway activities such as long and high jump and the gymnastic vault. For sports involving fatigue, where jumping is required, such as football and rugby, quality jumping power should be developed, in ways similar to immediate anaerobic pathway athletes, but also in separate workouts, under conditions of fatigue. Exercises should also be performed on the surface that the player will normally encounter, ie in the case of a field sports player, soft to hard turf. For field sports (as for immediate anaerobic activities) the mechanics of the jumping skill must be optimised. For example, footballers must be made aware of the importance of using their free limbs to aid height and distance. However, due to the nature of these sports, perfect technique will not always be possible. To this end practices should be employed that work on balance, kinaesthetic awareness and proprioception. These will maximise jumping potential and reduce the chances of injury, as the player is able to better control the position of their body in space, their proximity to other players and their landing. Power combination training that combines weights and plyometrics in the same workouts should be utilised throughout the training period. Research indicates that both exercise modes affect the other in a way that enhances the power generation of fast-twitch muscle fibre. nonadult false Improve your Jumping ability text blog 68 0 0.0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=1969086&as=18880 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/18880/photos/PHOTO_907792_18880_1969086_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 30661 1969086 Member 0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Resistance-Training/BLOG/30660/18880.html Most athletes in search of that elusive extra edge in strength and power look to resistance training in one form or another. Often they think they need a new exercise to sharpen them up. But what they may not realise is that considerable improvements in training outcomes can be achieved without changing the content of their routines but simply by altering the sequence of exercises and varying the rest times between exercises. James Marshall. adsense: cached In a previous article (PP 198, June 2004) I homed in on the potentiation effect in relation to inter-session periodisation, while John Shepherd focused on recent research on complex and contrast training. In this article I want to expand further on both these topics with examples of how different sessions can be devised with specific outcomes in mind by changing the sequence and rest times between sets. All the sessions I will describe are based on just five exercises: bench press, bench throw, bench pull, the squat and the squat jump. How much rest is enough? So far research has not come up with a definitive answer to this question. This is partly due to the varied training levels of subjects used in the studies. In a study of untrained college students, rest periods of 30 and 90 seconds between sets were compared to determine which was most effective at increasing strength or muscle mass (1) . After 12 weeks of training, both groups were found to have increased strength and muscle mass by comparison with non-training ‘controls’, but the improvements in strength were most marked in those who rested for just 30 seconds. By contrast, a study on trained subjects found that five minutes rest was better than one or two minutes for increasing the amount of total weight that could be lifted over four sets of the squat and bench press at an 8RM load (2) . Of course, an increase in strength is desirable, but another study found that the downside of short rest intervals (one minute compared with three minutes) when doing heavy training sessions (10 sets of 10 reps at 65%1RM) may lead to greater muscle damage, affecting the athletes’ ability to perform on the following day, and may also affect the immune system in such a way as to increase susceptibility to illness (3) . Yet another group of researchers compared the effects of rest intervals of one, two, three, four and five minutes on three sets of bench press performance at 90% 1RM and 60% 1RM, and also of one, two, five, seven, 12 and 15 minutes at 85% 1RM (4,5,6) . They considered not just the objective impact of the rest intervals on performance but also the athletes’ subjective preferences. The rest intervals of one and two minutes led to a significant reduction in performance by comparison with the longer intervals. And, interestingly, the intervals of 3-6 minutes, which resulted in most improved performance, were also those most preferred by the athletes. The researchers concluded that trained subjects might be best placed to identify the optimal amount of recovery needed for the work they perform. However, while a longer rest interval seems best for trained subjects performing high-volume, strength-based workouts, a shorter rest may be appropriate when performing complex training sets, where an explosive exercise like the squat jump is performed after a strength exercise like the squat. No significant differences in jump performance were found after intervals of one, two and four minutes in a study of 21 US college athletes who performed sets of 5RM squats followed by five countermovement jumps (7) . This has practical implications in terms of fitting sets into training sessions. If too much rest is taken between exercises, then less overall work can be performed within the time available. Those same researchers also found that one- minute rest intervals were best for trained subjects performing two sets of 1RM squats (7) . So it appears that briefer rest intervals may be appropriate for some power sessions using lighter loads, such as body weight, or when performing very low-volume, but high-intensity lifts. Technical guidance All the exercises described in this article should be performed with care and not without prior coaching. Bench press Lie face up on an exercise bench, lower the exercise bar to your chest and then push up; Bench pulls Lie face down on a higher-than-normal exercise bench, pull the exercise bar up to your chest from the floor, then lower it; Bench throws Using a Smith machine or other guided tracking device for safety, lie face up on the exercise bench, lower the exercise bar to your chest, then throw it up as quickly as possible, catching it as it comes back down; Squat Standing up, place the exercise bar across the back of your neck on your shoulders, bend your knees until your thighs are parallel with the floor, then return to start position; Squat jump As for the squat, but instead of returning to a standing position, jump up as high as possible and land safely. Does sequencing matter? How important is the order in which the exercises are performed? Very – if you are trying to achieve the most effective workout with the least amount of work. For example, performing squat jumps after squats makes for effective training in experienced athletes, but not their recreational counterparts (8) . This is because recreational athletes find the squats tiring and are less able than trained athletes to activate the potentiation response, whereby one exercise enhances the impact of the next one. adsense: cached That same effect has been demonstrated, again for trained subjects, with upper body exercises using the bench press and bench throws (9) . This study, involving strength trained rugby players, used six reps of 65%1RM bench press, followed by three minutes’ rest, then five bench throws of 50kg. Power output was shown to have increased after the bench press, by comparison with a control group who just performed the bench throws. But what happens if you put plyometric exercises (eg jumps) before strength exercises (eg squats)? That’s what a team of US researchers set out to consider with 12 experienced subjects who performed 1RM squats after a warm-up of five submaximal sets of squats (10) . The study compared the effects of three different sessions: in the first, the subjects performed the normal warm-up, and in the second and third they performed either two depth jumps or two countermovement jumps after the warm-up and 30 seconds before attempting their 1RM. The researchers found that performing the depth jumps increased the 1RM by an average of 3.5% by comparison with the countermovement jump or no jump at all. The explanation for this improvement is speculative (because no measurements of neuromuscular activity were made), but it is likely that the prime muscles involved in the squat exercise were prepared for maximal effort by the depth jump. This enhancement is likely to have taken the form of increased muscle fibre recruitment and rehearsal of movement patterns. The fact that only two jumps were performed ensured that fatigue was not a factor. It is important to note that no similar research has been carried out with untrained subjects, and care should be taken before extrapolating these results to them. Interestingly, further research has shown that power may be enhanced by working the antagonist muscles before the agonist muscles. The researchers found that performing the bench pull immediately before the bench throw lent more power to the latter movement (11) . It seems that when a power exercise is preceded by an opposite movement, the antagonist muscles can be educated into relaxing more during the subsequent exercise. Again, however, this effect has been observed in only one study, and this was on trained subjects. One further factor to consider when deciding the order of exercises in a session is the impact of overall fatigue. The order of exercises may be carefully designed to promote power or strength and you may have planned in rest periods at the optimum times, but if the session lasts as long as 45 –60 minutes the quality of work at the end is likely to be lower than at the beginning. In a study looking at a sequence of six different exercises, using three sets to failure, with a 10RM load and two minutes’ rest between sets, the researchers found that the last two exercises produced significantly fewer reps, an effect which persisted when the sequence of exercises was reversed (12) . In other words, of the six exercises performed, only four were performed with sufficient load; the last two had fewer reps, so less work was done and less strength gained as a result. One implication of this finding is that, when designing your sequence of work, it is important to put the most important movements at the beginning of the session. If all the movements are considered important, it is probably better to split them into different sessions, allowing for adequate recovery and adaptation between sessions. So, a power training session for experienced trainers might look something like table 1, below, with one set of squats followed by one set of squat jumps, repeated twice more, then the bench pull, bench press and bench throw performed as a sequence, then repeated twice more. Table 1: power training session for experienced Exercise Load Reps Sets Recovery (mins) Squat 60% 1RM 5 3 1 Squat jumps 30% 1RM 5 3 4 Bench pull 85% 1RM 3 3 3 Bench press 60% 1RM 5 3 1 Bench throw 10% 1RM 5 3 3 And a strength training session for experienced trainers might look like table 2, below, with the squat jumps and squat performed in sequence, then the bench pull, bench throw and bench press as the final sequence. Table 2: strength training session for experienced trainers Exercise Load Reps Sets Recovery (mins) Squat jumps 30% 1RM 5 4 1 Squat 80% 1RM 5 4 3 Bench pull 80% 1RM 5 4 3 Bench throw 10% 1RM 5 4 0.5 Bench press 80% 1RM 5 4 3 Less experienced trainers would benefit from establishing a strength base before performing explosive exercises with weights. A good rule of thumb is that you should be able to squat your own body weight before considering progression to more advanced leg exercises. Failure to establish a strength base could not only put you at risk of injury but also hinder long-term gains in power. As a starting point, you could use the strength session set out in table 2, but leaving out the squat jumps and the bench throw. In conclusion Research has yet to come up with definitive answers on the amount of rest required within a session and the ideal sequence of exercises. What is known is that experienced strength-trained subjects are better able to produce power than untrained subjects. Therefore coaches should ensure that their athletes have a solid strength base before introducing more varied and complex training methods. If time permits, the athletes themselves may be the best judges of how much rest they need within a session. Sequencing strength exercises before plyometric exercises, and vice versa, will provide an added training stimulus that will ultimately produce stronger, more powerful athletes. Most athletes in search of that elusive extra edge in strength and power look to resistance training in one form or another. Often they think they need a new exercise to sharpen them up. But what they may not realise is that considerable improvements in training outcomes can be achieved without changing the content of their routines but simply by altering the sequence of exercises and varying the rest times between exercises. James Marshall. adsense: cached In a previous article (PP 198, June 2004) I homed in on the potentiation effect in relation to inter-session periodisation, while John Shepherd focused on recent research on complex and contrast training. In this article I want to expand further on both these topics with examples of how different sessions can be devised with specific outcomes in mind by changing the sequence and rest times between sets. All the sessions I will describe are based on just five exercises: bench press, bench throw, bench pull, the squat and the squat jump. How much rest is enough? So far research has not come up with a definitive answer to this question. This is partly due to the varied training levels of subjects used in the studies. In a study of untrained college students, rest periods of 30 and 90 seconds between sets were compared to determine which was most effective at increasing strength or muscle mass (1) . After 12 weeks of training, both groups were found to have increased strength and muscle mass by comparison with non-training ‘controls’, but the improvements in strength were most marked in those who rested for just 30 seconds. By contrast, a study on trained subjects found that five minutes rest was better than one or two minutes for increasing the amount of total weight that could be lifted over four sets of the squat and bench press at an 8RM load (2) . Of course, an increase in strength is desirable, but another study found that the downside of short rest intervals (one minute compared with three minutes) when doing heavy training sessions (10 sets of 10 reps at 65%1RM) may lead to greater muscle damage, affecting the athletes’ ability to perform on the following day, and may also affect the immune system in such a way as to increase susceptibility to illness (3) . Yet another group of researchers compared the effects of rest intervals of one, two, three, four and five minutes on three sets of bench press performance at 90% 1RM and 60% 1RM, and also of one, two, five, seven, 12 and 15 minutes at 85% 1RM (4,5,6) . They considered not just the objective impact of the rest intervals on performance but also the athletes’ subjective preferences. The rest intervals of one and two minutes led to a significant reduction in performance by comparison with the longer intervals. And, interestingly, the intervals of 3-6 minutes, which resulted in most improved performance, were also those most preferred by the athletes. The researchers concluded that trained subjects might be best placed to identify the optimal amount of recovery needed for the work they perform. However, while a longer rest interval seems best for trained subjects performing high-volume, strength-based workouts, a shorter rest may be appropriate when performing complex training sets, where an explosive exercise like the squat jump is performed after a strength exercise like the squat. No significant differences in jump performance were found after intervals of one, two and four minutes in a study of 21 US college athletes who performed sets of 5RM squats followed by five countermovement jumps (7) . This has practical implications in terms of fitting sets into training sessions. If too much rest is taken between exercises, then less overall work can be performed within the time available. Those same researchers also found that one- minute rest intervals were best for trained subjects performing two sets of 1RM squats (7) . So it appears that briefer rest intervals may be appropriate for some power sessions using lighter loads, such as body weight, or when performing very low-volume, but high-intensity lifts. Technical guidance All the exercises described in this article should be performed with care and not without prior coaching. Bench press Lie face up on an exercise bench, lower the exercise bar to your chest and then push up; Bench pulls Lie face down on a higher-than-normal exercise bench, pull the exercise bar up to your chest from the floor, then lower it; Bench throws Using a Smith machine or other guided tracking device for safety, lie face up on the exercise bench, lower the exercise bar to your chest, then throw it up as quickly as possible, catching it as it comes back down; Squat Standing up, place the exercise bar across the back of your neck on your shoulders, bend your knees until your thighs are parallel with the floor, then return to start position; Squat jump As for the squat, but instead of returning to a standing position, jump up as high as possible and land safely. Does sequencing matter? How important is the order in which the exercises are performed? Very – if you are trying to achieve the most effective workout with the least amount of work. For example, performing squat jumps after squats makes for effective training in experienced athletes, but not their recreational counterparts (8) . This is because recreational athletes find the squats tiring and are less able than trained athletes to activate the potentiation response, whereby one exercise enhances the impact of the next one. adsense: cached That same effect has been demonstrated, again for trained subjects, with upper body exercises using the bench press and bench throws (9) . This study, involving strength trained rugby players, used six reps of 65%1RM bench press, followed by three minutes’ rest, then five bench throws of 50kg. Power output was shown to have increased after the bench press, by comparison with a control group who just performed the bench throws. But what happens if you put plyometric exercises (eg jumps) before strength exercises (eg squats)? That’s what a team of US researchers set out to consider with 12 experienced subjects who performed 1RM squats after a warm-up of five submaximal sets of squats (10) . The study compared the effects of three different sessions: in the first, the subjects performed the normal warm-up, and in the second and third they performed either two depth jumps or two countermovement jumps after the warm-up and 30 seconds before attempting their 1RM. The researchers found that performing the depth jumps increased the 1RM by an average of 3.5% by comparison with the countermovement jump or no jump at all. The explanation for this improvement is speculative (because no measurements of neuromuscular activity were made), but it is likely that the prime muscles involved in the squat exercise were prepared for maximal effort by the depth jump. This enhancement is likely to have taken the form of increased muscle fibre recruitment and rehearsal of movement patterns. The fact that only two jumps were performed ensured that fatigue was not a factor. It is important to note that no similar research has been carried out with untrained subjects, and care should be taken before extrapolating these results to them. Interestingly, further research has shown that power may be enhanced by working the antagonist muscles before the agonist muscles. The researchers found that performing the bench pull immediately before the bench throw lent more power to the latter movement (11) . It seems that when a power exercise is preceded by an opposite movement, the antagonist muscles can be educated into relaxing more during the subsequent exercise. Again, however, this effect has been observed in only one study, and this was on trained subjects. One further factor to consider when deciding the order of exercises in a session is the impact of overall fatigue. The order of exercises may be carefully designed to promote power or strength and you may have planned in rest periods at the optimum times, but if the session lasts as long as 45 –60 minutes the quality of work at the end is likely to be lower than at the beginning. In a study looking at a sequence of six different exercises, using three sets to failure, with a 10RM load and two minutes’ rest between sets, the researchers found that the last two exercises produced significantly fewer reps, an effect which persisted when the sequence of exercises was reversed (12) . In other words, of the six exercises performed, only four were performed with sufficient load; the last two had fewer reps, so less work was done and less strength gained as a result. One implication of this finding is that, when designing your sequence of work, it is important to put the most important movements at the beginning of the session. If all the movements are considered important, it is probably better to split them into different sessions, allowing for adequate recovery and adaptation between sessions. So, a power training session for experienced trainers might look something like table 1, below, with one set of squats followed by one set of squat jumps, repeated twice more, then the bench pull, bench press and bench throw performed as a sequence, then repeated twice more. Table 1: power training session for experienced Exercise Load Reps Sets Recovery (mins) Squat 60% 1RM 5 3 1 Squat jumps 30% 1RM 5 3 4 Bench pull 85% 1RM 3 3 3 Bench press 60% 1RM 5 3 1 Bench throw 10% 1RM 5 3 3 And a strength training session for experienced trainers might look like table 2, below, with the squat jumps and squat performed in sequence, then the bench pull, bench throw and bench press as the final sequence. Table 2: strength training session for experienced trainers Exercise Load Reps Sets Recovery (mins) Squat jumps 30% 1RM 5 4 1 Squat 80% 1RM 5 4 3 Bench pull 80% 1RM 5 4 3 Bench throw 10% 1RM 5 4 0.5 Bench press 80% 1RM 5 4 3 Less experienced trainers would benefit from establishing a strength base before performing explosive exercises with weights. A good rule of thumb is that you should be able to squat your own body weight before considering progression to more advanced leg exercises. Failure to establish a strength base could not only put you at risk of injury but also hinder long-term gains in power. As a starting point, you could use the strength session set out in table 2, but leaving out the squat jumps and the bench throw. In conclusion Research has yet to come up with definitive answers on the amount of rest required within a session and the ideal sequence of exercises. What is known is that experienced strength-trained subjects are better able to produce power than untrained subjects. Therefore coaches should ensure that their athletes have a solid strength base before introducing more varied and complex training methods. If time permits, the athletes themselves may be the best judges of how much rest they need within a session. Sequencing strength exercises before plyometric exercises, and vice versa, will provide an added training stimulus that will ultimately produce stronger, more powerful athletes. Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:23:03 GMT http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Resistance-Training/BLOG/30660/18880.html hamish 2008-02-20T06:23:03Z Uber Sportz Most athletes in search of that elusive extra edge in strength and power look to resistance training in one form or another. Often they think they need a new exercise to sharpen them up. But what they may not realise is that considerable improvements in training outcomes can be achieved without changing the content of their routines but simply by altering the sequence of exercises and varying the rest times between exercises. James Marshall. adsense: cached In a previous article (PP 198, June 2004) I homed in on the potentiation effect in relation to inter-session periodisation, while John Shepherd focused on recent research on complex and contrast training. In this article I want to expand further on both these topics with examples of how different sessions can be devised with specific outcomes in mind by changing the sequence and rest times between sets. All the sessions I will describe are based on just five exercises: bench press, bench throw, bench pull, the squat and the squat jump. How much rest is enough? So far research has not come up with a definitive answer to this question. This is partly due to the varied training levels of subjects used in the studies. In a study of untrained college students, rest periods of 30 and 90 seconds between sets were compared to determine which was most effective at increasing strength or muscle mass (1) . After 12 weeks of training, both groups were found to have increased strength and muscle mass by comparison with non-training ‘controls’, but the improvements in strength were most marked in those who rested for just 30 seconds. By contrast, a study on trained subjects found that five minutes rest was better than one or two minutes for increasing the amount of total weight that could be lifted over four sets of the squat and bench press at an 8RM load (2) . Of course, an increase in strength is desirable, but another study found that the downside of short rest intervals (one minute compared with three minutes) when doing heavy training sessions (10 sets of 10 reps at 65%1RM) may lead to greater muscle damage, affecting the athletes’ ability to perform on the following day, and may also affect the immune system in such a way as to increase susceptibility to illness (3) . Yet another group of researchers compared the effects of rest intervals of one, two, three, four and five minutes on three sets of bench press performance at 90% 1RM and 60% 1RM, and also of one, two, five, seven, 12 and 15 minutes at 85% 1RM (4,5,6) . They considered not just the objective impact of the rest intervals on performance but also the athletes’ subjective preferences. The rest intervals of one and two minutes led to a significant reduction in performance by comparison with the longer intervals. And, interestingly, the intervals of 3-6 minutes, which resulted in most improved performance, were also those most preferred by the athletes. The researchers concluded that trained subjects might be best placed to identify the optimal amount of recovery needed for the work they perform. However, while a longer rest interval seems best for trained subjects performing high-volume, strength-based workouts, a shorter rest may be appropriate when performing complex training sets, where an explosive exercise like the squat jump is performed after a strength exercise like the squat. No significant differences in jump performance were found after intervals of one, two and four minutes in a study of 21 US college athletes who performed sets of 5RM squats followed by five countermovement jumps (7) . This has practical implications in terms of fitting sets into training sessions. If too much rest is taken between exercises, then less overall work can be performed within the time available. Those same researchers also found that one- minute rest intervals were best for trained subjects performing two sets of 1RM squats (7) . So it appears that briefer rest intervals may be appropriate for some power sessions using lighter loads, such as body weight, or when performing very low-volume, but high-intensity lifts. Technical guidance All the exercises described in this article should be performed with care and not without prior coaching. Bench press Lie face up on an exercise bench, lower the exercise bar to your chest and then push up; Bench pulls Lie face down on a higher-than-normal exercise bench, pull the exercise bar up to your chest from the floor, then lower it; Bench throws Using a Smith machine or other guided tracking device for safety, lie face up on the exercise bench, lower the exercise bar to your chest, then throw it up as quickly as possible, catching it as it comes back down; Squat Standing up, place the exercise bar across the back of your neck on your shoulders, bend your knees until your thighs are parallel with the floor, then return to start position; Squat jump As for the squat, but instead of returning to a standing position, jump up as high as possible and land safely. Does sequencing matter? How important is the order in which the exercises are performed? Very – if you are trying to achieve the most effective workout with the least amount of work. For example, performing squat jumps after squats makes for effective training in experienced athletes, but not their recreational counterparts (8) . This is because recreational athletes find the squats tiring and are less able than trained athletes to activate the potentiation response, whereby one exercise enhances the impact of the next one. adsense: cached That same effect has been demonstrated, again for trained subjects, with upper body exercises using the bench press and bench throws (9) . This study, involving strength trained rugby players, used six reps of 65%1RM bench press, followed by three minutes’ rest, then five bench throws of 50kg. Power output was shown to have increased after the bench press, by comparison with a control group who just performed the bench throws. But what happens if you put plyometric exercises (eg jumps) before strength exercises (eg squats)? That’s what a team of US researchers set out to consider with 12 experienced subjects who performed 1RM squats after a warm-up of five submaximal sets of squats (10) . The study compared the effects of three different sessions: in the first, the subjects performed the normal warm-up, and in the second and third they performed either two depth jumps or two countermovement jumps after the warm-up and 30 seconds before attempting their 1RM. The researchers found that performing the depth jumps increased the 1RM by an average of 3.5% by comparison with the countermovement jump or no jump at all. The explanation for this improvement is speculative (because no measurements of neuromuscular activity were made), but it is likely that the prime muscles involved in the squat exercise were prepared for maximal effort by the depth jump. This enhancement is likely to have taken the form of increased muscle fibre recruitment and rehearsal of movement patterns. The fact that only two jumps were performed ensured that fatigue was not a factor. It is important to note that no similar research has been carried out with untrained subjects, and care should be taken before extrapolating these results to them. Interestingly, further research has shown that power may be enhanced by working the antagonist muscles before the agonist muscles. The researchers found that performing the bench pull immediately before the bench throw lent more power to the latter movement (11) . It seems that when a power exercise is preceded by an opposite movement, the antagonist muscles can be educated into relaxing more during the subsequent exercise. Again, however, this effect has been observed in only one study, and this was on trained subjects. One further factor to consider when deciding the order of exercises in a session is the impact of overall fatigue. The order of exercises may be carefully designed to promote power or strength and you may have planned in rest periods at the optimum times, but if the session lasts as long as 45 –60 minutes the quality of work at the end is likely to be lower than at the beginning. In a study looking at a sequence of six different exercises, using three sets to failure, with a 10RM load and two minutes’ rest between sets, the researchers found that the last two exercises produced significantly fewer reps, an effect which persisted when the sequence of exercises was reversed (12) . In other words, of the six exercises performed, only four were performed with sufficient load; the last two had fewer reps, so less work was done and less strength gained as a result. One implication of this finding is that, when designing your sequence of work, it is important to put the most important movements at the beginning of the session. If all the movements are considered important, it is probably better to split them into different sessions, allowing for adequate recovery and adaptation between sessions. So, a power training session for experienced trainers might look something like table 1, below, with one set of squats followed by one set of squat jumps, repeated twice more, then the bench pull, bench press and bench throw performed as a sequence, then repeated twice more. Table 1: power training session for experienced Exercise Load Reps Sets Recovery (mins) Squat 60% 1RM 5 3 1 Squat jumps 30% 1RM 5 3 4 Bench pull 85% 1RM 3 3 3 Bench press 60% 1RM 5 3 1 Bench throw 10% 1RM 5 3 3 And a strength training session for experienced trainers might look like table 2, below, with the squat jumps and squat performed in sequence, then the bench pull, bench throw and bench press as the final sequence. Table 2: strength training session for experienced trainers Exercise Load Reps Sets Recovery (mins) Squat jumps 30% 1RM 5 4 1 Squat 80% 1RM 5 4 3 Bench pull 80% 1RM 5 4 3 Bench throw 10% 1RM 5 4 0.5 Bench press 80% 1RM 5 4 3 Less experienced trainers would benefit from establishing a strength base before performing explosive exercises with weights. A good rule of thumb is that you should be able to squat your own body weight before considering progression to more advanced leg exercises. Failure to establish a strength base could not only put you at risk of injury but also hinder long-term gains in power. As a starting point, you could use the strength session set out in table 2, but leaving out the squat jumps and the bench throw. In conclusion Research has yet to come up with definitive answers on the amount of rest required within a session and the ideal sequence of exercises. What is known is that experienced strength-trained subjects are better able to produce power than untrained subjects. Therefore coaches should ensure that their athletes have a solid strength base before introducing more varied and complex training methods. If time permits, the athletes themselves may be the best judges of how much rest they need within a session. Sequencing strength exercises before plyometric exercises, and vice versa, will provide an added training stimulus that will ultimately produce stronger, more powerful athletes. nonadult false Resistance Training text blog 51 0 0.0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=1969086&as=18880 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/18880/photos/PHOTO_907792_18880_1969086_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 30660 1969086 Member 0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Strength-Training-for-Cyclists/BLOG/30658/18880.html Strength training for cycling – does it really help? Strength training is standard practice in sport; most athletes and their coaches know that improved strength, power or muscular endurance is likely to lead to improved performance in competition. However, recent evidence suggests that, except for those at the very top of their sport, the same may not always be true for cyclists. James Marshall explains Top cyclists such as the Tour de France competitors have a full sports science programme helping them, including nutrition, physiology and psychology. However, apart from training on the bike, the average clubman or woman will probably limit him or herself to a bit of resistance training down at the gym, especially in the off-season. This article aims to answer the following two questions: Is strength training relevant for the beginner cyclist? How does strength training affect performance in elite sprint cycling and road racing? Strength training for the novice cyclist The ability to produce a greater amount of force, to delay fatigue and to control the bicycle are all beneficial when looking to improve cycling performance, and strength training can help all three of these components. Working with weights for the lower body – eg two days per week of four sets of 5 Repetition-Max (5RM) squats – will help improve leg strength as tested in the squat. Repeated lifting of weights, with less recovery time – eg a circuit of squats, lunges, step- ups all at 15-20RM with 10 seconds of rest – will improve local muscular endurance. The use of weights and stability exercises in the upper body and torso will improve body strength and stability in these areas. But can this help the beginner cyclist improve their cycling performance? Strength training inevitably leads to increased strength, but that is only relevant if it helps improve cycling! A study carried out in 1995 compared the effects of a) single-joint strength training b) multiple-joint strength training and c) a sprint cycling programme in beginner sprint cyclists (1). The sprint cycling performance was measured by how much power they could produce in five seconds on a cycle ergometer. All three groups followed their individual programmes for eight weeks, followed by a specific six-week programme of sprint cycling. The two strength-training groups improved their 10RM by 41-44%, with no significant difference between the two forms of training. However, all three groups improved their sprint performance by 4-7%, with no significant difference between the three groups. It appears, therefore, that for newcomers to a sporting activity, doing that activity may be enough stimulation to initiate a change and improve performance. In the study above, it may be that after only eight weeks of strength training the improvements in the 10RM test were mainly skill based, and the cyclists did not actually get stronger, but just better at doing the strength exercises. It would be interesting to see if after a further eight weeks of strength training whether they got stronger in the 10RM test, and then see if that improved their sprint cycling. Strength training for club cyclists If beginner cyclists are able to improve their cycling through practice alone, how about club cyclists who are quite proficient at cycling but may need to be better conditioned? A recent study looked at introducing either a strength-based weights programme, or a muscular-endurance weights programme on club cyclists, three times a week for 10 weeks (2). Testing was based on 1RM on four leg exercises, and lactate and VO2 levels during a progressive cycle ergometer test. Compared to a control group who did no strength training, the two strength-trained groups again showed improved 1RM scores on the strength tests. But neither group showed any improvement over the control group on the lactate and VO2 levels during the cycle ergometer test. This led the authors to conclude that strength training did not improve the cycling performance of club level cyclists. However, the cycling test of both of these studies was conducted on an indoor ergometer, in a fixed position. Cycling, especially downhill or mountain biking (DOMB) requires great stability in the upper body. That, and remaining in a position bent over the handlebars for long periods of time in endurance cycling mean that pressure is placed on the lower back. Whilst strength training has not been conclusively proven to improve cycling performance, certain exercises may be beneficial in allowing the new and intermediate cyclist to spend more time in the saddle, without incurring postural and overuse injuries in the upper body and lower back. Postural exercises performed twice a week for 15 minutes can help establish a base level of strength in the upper body and torso, helping the cyclist adapt to the added demands of their sport. Go through the five exercises in order; start with one set and then progress to two sets with 30 seconds rest between exercises, and two minutes rest between sets. If you have any previous lower back pain consult your doctor or physiotherapist before commencing this routine. Advanced level cyclists If beginner and club level cyclists are best able to improve their cycling performance by simply doing more cycling, what about those at higher performance levels? Elite cyclists would probably find it hard to increase their volume of training and, indeed, excessive volumes of training are linked to overtraining in endurance athletes (3). Are they better off looking at improving and making their current training regime of cycling more efficient, or can weight training offer real advantages? One potential disadvantage of weight training may be the increase in muscle mass that results. An increase in size could hinder the cyclist by increasing the air resistance they face as they cycle at speed; the greater the speed, the greater the drag of wind resistance. Even where drafting is allowed, a larger ‘frontal’ cross-sectional area will make efficient drafting harder. The other resistance faced by the cyclist is that of gravity; a greater mass means that there is gravitational force to overcome when there is any kind of incline. While this is not an issue for a track cyclist on a perfectly level track, it becomes a major factor for road cyclists, especially where the terrain is hilly. Any strength-training routine must therefore result in an improvement in leg power or leg cadence greater than the increase in gravitational or air resistance produced as a result of increased size or mass. To date, no research has been published that analyses this cost/benefit ratio in elite cyclists. For endurance cyclists, increasing the legs’ ability to resist fatigue is important. Whilst the majority of work may rely on aerobic metabolism to provide the energy for the race, about 13% of the energy required comes from anaerobic metabolism (4). This energy source may be called upon at crucial times, such as the sprint to the finish line, or racing up a hill. The legs themselves may be working maximally, producing lactic acid, but because the rest of the body is working sub-maximally, it can redistribute this lactic acid to the liver, heart and upper body muscles, where it can subsequently be metabolised. If the legs can become more proficient at dealing with an increase in lactic acid, by removing it quickly from the system, then more work can be done at a higher intensity, allowing the cyclist to sprint for longer. This is the theory behind circuit-type training of the legs, but as yet, there are no studies in elite cyclists that specifically assess this type of training. However, these peripheral adaptations have been shown to take place after High Intensity Training (HIT) in well-trained cyclists (average peak VO2 = 64.5ml/kg/min) after only four weeks of training at two sessions per week (5). Cyclists were split into three different training groups and a control group. All three training groups showed an improvement in their 40km time trial, anaerobic capacity, peak VO2 and ventilatory thresholds, but not their total plasma volume (PV). The fact that the PV did not change but the performance measures all improved, indicates that the changes were in the legs, not in the central system. The fact also that three different high-intensity training routines all led to improvements shows that it was introducing the intensity that led to improvements in performance. Moreover, it may be that sequencing the different routines every four weeks would lead to further positive changes. Explosive leg training A recent study in New Zealand looked at combining HIT with explosive leg exercises, in an attempt at using specific power exercises to improve mechanical efficiency and anaerobic power (6). This study took place within the cyclists’ competitive season, with the exercise protocols replacing 20% of their normal existing road training. The cyclists were tested for 1km and 4km power as well as peak power and oxygen cost. After five weeks of training (12 sessions lasting 30 minutes each), all the power indicators had increased, and the oxygen cost of cycling had decreased. Remember that these improvements occurred in the competitive season, when the cyclists were already well trained and supposed to be in peak form. Not all the improvements can be due to an increase in central aerobic power; indeed, the 1km trial is mainly anaerobic in nature so an alternative explanation must be found. It is likely that the explosive leg exercises stimulated the neural system by rapidly activating the motor units within the muscles. This may have led to a quicker rate of peak force development when cycling, resulting in greater acceleration and sprint performance. Summary Strength training may improve cycling performance through increased leg power, a greater ability to cope with local fatigue and improved upper body stability. However, this has yet to be proved in research. In beginners and club level cyclists, more cycling is probably the best way to improve performance. Taking time out from cycling to do strength training will probably lead to a decline in cycling efficiency and skill level. The exceptions are abdominal and lower back exercises that can help prevent lower back pain. Once skill and aerobic fitness levels have improved through normal cycling training, performance can be improved through introducing high intensity training even during the competitive season. This is a very specific way of inducing load onto the legs that forces local adaptations to take place. Just doing ever-larger volumes of cycling may well lead to overtraining. For elite level cyclists, introducing explosive strength and body weight exercises is likely to improve sprint and short hill climbing performance. Traditional strength exercises, however, may be detrimental in that they increase muscle mass and size, adding to the air and gravitational resistances that cyclists need to overcome. The important thing to remember is that new stimuli force the body to adapt and improvements in performance are made. New training methods should not be used in addition to existing training. Instead, try to keep one or two sessions a week aside for variety. These may include strength training, HIT or core work. Strength training for cycling – does it really help? Strength training is standard practice in sport; most athletes and their coaches know that improved strength, power or muscular endurance is likely to lead to improved performance in competition. However, recent evidence suggests that, except for those at the very top of their sport, the same may not always be true for cyclists. James Marshall explains Top cyclists such as the Tour de France competitors have a full sports science programme helping them, including nutrition, physiology and psychology. However, apart from training on the bike, the average clubman or woman will probably limit him or herself to a bit of resistance training down at the gym, especially in the off-season. This article aims to answer the following two questions: Is strength training relevant for the beginner cyclist? How does strength training affect performance in elite sprint cycling and road racing? Strength training for the novice cyclist The ability to produce a greater amount of force, to delay fatigue and to control the bicycle are all beneficial when looking to improve cycling performance, and strength training can help all three of these components. Working with weights for the lower body – eg two days per week of four sets of 5 Repetition-Max (5RM) squats – will help improve leg strength as tested in the squat. Repeated lifting of weights, with less recovery time – eg a circuit of squats, lunges, step- ups all at 15-20RM with 10 seconds of rest – will improve local muscular endurance. The use of weights and stability exercises in the upper body and torso will improve body strength and stability in these areas. But can this help the beginner cyclist improve their cycling performance? Strength training inevitably leads to increased strength, but that is only relevant if it helps improve cycling! A study carried out in 1995 compared the effects of a) single-joint strength training b) multiple-joint strength training and c) a sprint cycling programme in beginner sprint cyclists (1). The sprint cycling performance was measured by how much power they could produce in five seconds on a cycle ergometer. All three groups followed their individual programmes for eight weeks, followed by a specific six-week programme of sprint cycling. The two strength-training groups improved their 10RM by 41-44%, with no significant difference between the two forms of training. However, all three groups improved their sprint performance by 4-7%, with no significant difference between the three groups. It appears, therefore, that for newcomers to a sporting activity, doing that activity may be enough stimulation to initiate a change and improve performance. In the study above, it may be that after only eight weeks of strength training the improvements in the 10RM test were mainly skill based, and the cyclists did not actually get stronger, but just better at doing the strength exercises. It would be interesting to see if after a further eight weeks of strength training whether they got stronger in the 10RM test, and then see if that improved their sprint cycling. Strength training for club cyclists If beginner cyclists are able to improve their cycling through practice alone, how about club cyclists who are quite proficient at cycling but may need to be better conditioned? A recent study looked at introducing either a strength-based weights programme, or a muscular-endurance weights programme on club cyclists, three times a week for 10 weeks (2). Testing was based on 1RM on four leg exercises, and lactate and VO2 levels during a progressive cycle ergometer test. Compared to a control group who did no strength training, the two strength-trained groups again showed improved 1RM scores on the strength tests. But neither group showed any improvement over the control group on the lactate and VO2 levels during the cycle ergometer test. This led the authors to conclude that strength training did not improve the cycling performance of club level cyclists. However, the cycling test of both of these studies was conducted on an indoor ergometer, in a fixed position. Cycling, especially downhill or mountain biking (DOMB) requires great stability in the upper body. That, and remaining in a position bent over the handlebars for long periods of time in endurance cycling mean that pressure is placed on the lower back. Whilst strength training has not been conclusively proven to improve cycling performance, certain exercises may be beneficial in allowing the new and intermediate cyclist to spend more time in the saddle, without incurring postural and overuse injuries in the upper body and lower back. Postural exercises performed twice a week for 15 minutes can help establish a base level of strength in the upper body and torso, helping the cyclist adapt to the added demands of their sport. Go through the five exercises in order; start with one set and then progress to two sets with 30 seconds rest between exercises, and two minutes rest between sets. If you have any previous lower back pain consult your doctor or physiotherapist before commencing this routine. Advanced level cyclists If beginner and club level cyclists are best able to improve their cycling performance by simply doing more cycling, what about those at higher performance levels? Elite cyclists would probably find it hard to increase their volume of training and, indeed, excessive volumes of training are linked to overtraining in endurance athletes (3). Are they better off looking at improving and making their current training regime of cycling more efficient, or can weight training offer real advantages? One potential disadvantage of weight training may be the increase in muscle mass that results. An increase in size could hinder the cyclist by increasing the air resistance they face as they cycle at speed; the greater the speed, the greater the drag of wind resistance. Even where drafting is allowed, a larger ‘frontal’ cross-sectional area will make efficient drafting harder. The other resistance faced by the cyclist is that of gravity; a greater mass means that there is gravitational force to overcome when there is any kind of incline. While this is not an issue for a track cyclist on a perfectly level track, it becomes a major factor for road cyclists, especially where the terrain is hilly. Any strength-training routine must therefore result in an improvement in leg power or leg cadence greater than the increase in gravitational or air resistance produced as a result of increased size or mass. To date, no research has been published that analyses this cost/benefit ratio in elite cyclists. For endurance cyclists, increasing the legs’ ability to resist fatigue is important. Whilst the majority of work may rely on aerobic metabolism to provide the energy for the race, about 13% of the energy required comes from anaerobic metabolism (4). This energy source may be called upon at crucial times, such as the sprint to the finish line, or racing up a hill. The legs themselves may be working maximally, producing lactic acid, but because the rest of the body is working sub-maximally, it can redistribute this lactic acid to the liver, heart and upper body muscles, where it can subsequently be metabolised. If the legs can become more proficient at dealing with an increase in lactic acid, by removing it quickly from the system, then more work can be done at a higher intensity, allowing the cyclist to sprint for longer. This is the theory behind circuit-type training of the legs, but as yet, there are no studies in elite cyclists that specifically assess this type of training. However, these peripheral adaptations have been shown to take place after High Intensity Training (HIT) in well-trained cyclists (average peak VO2 = 64.5ml/kg/min) after only four weeks of training at two sessions per week (5). Cyclists were split into three different training groups and a control group. All three training groups showed an improvement in their 40km time trial, anaerobic capacity, peak VO2 and ventilatory thresholds, but not their total plasma volume (PV). The fact that the PV did not change but the performance measures all improved, indicates that the changes were in the legs, not in the central system. The fact also that three different high-intensity training routines all led to improvements shows that it was introducing the intensity that led to improvements in performance. Moreover, it may be that sequencing the different routines every four weeks would lead to further positive changes. Explosive leg training A recent study in New Zealand looked at combining HIT with explosive leg exercises, in an attempt at using specific power exercises to improve mechanical efficiency and anaerobic power (6). This study took place within the cyclists’ competitive season, with the exercise protocols replacing 20% of their normal existing road training. The cyclists were tested for 1km and 4km power as well as peak power and oxygen cost. After five weeks of training (12 sessions lasting 30 minutes each), all the power indicators had increased, and the oxygen cost of cycling had decreased. Remember that these improvements occurred in the competitive season, when the cyclists were already well trained and supposed to be in peak form. Not all the improvements can be due to an increase in central aerobic power; indeed, the 1km trial is mainly anaerobic in nature so an alternative explanation must be found. It is likely that the explosive leg exercises stimulated the neural system by rapidly activating the motor units within the muscles. This may have led to a quicker rate of peak force development when cycling, resulting in greater acceleration and sprint performance. Summary Strength training may improve cycling performance through increased leg power, a greater ability to cope with local fatigue and improved upper body stability. However, this has yet to be proved in research. In beginners and club level cyclists, more cycling is probably the best way to improve performance. Taking time out from cycling to do strength training will probably lead to a decline in cycling efficiency and skill level. The exceptions are abdominal and lower back exercises that can help prevent lower back pain. Once skill and aerobic fitness levels have improved through normal cycling training, performance can be improved through introducing high intensity training even during the competitive season. This is a very specific way of inducing load onto the legs that forces local adaptations to take place. Just doing ever-larger volumes of cycling may well lead to overtraining. For elite level cyclists, introducing explosive strength and body weight exercises is likely to improve sprint and short hill climbing performance. Traditional strength exercises, however, may be detrimental in that they increase muscle mass and size, adding to the air and gravitational resistances that cyclists need to overcome. The important thing to remember is that new stimuli force the body to adapt and improvements in performance are made. New training methods should not be used in addition to existing training. Instead, try to keep one or two sessions a week aside for variety. These may include strength training, HIT or core work. Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:20:30 GMT http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Strength-Training-for-Cyclists/BLOG/30658/18880.html hamish 2008-02-20T06:20:30Z Uber Sportz Strength training for cycling – does it really help? Strength training is standard practice in sport; most athletes and their coaches know that improved strength, power or muscular endurance is likely to lead to improved performance in competition. However, recent evidence suggests that, except for those at the very top of their sport, the same may not always be true for cyclists. James Marshall explains Top cyclists such as the Tour de France competitors have a full sports science programme helping them, including nutrition, physiology and psychology. However, apart from training on the bike, the average clubman or woman will probably limit him or herself to a bit of resistance training down at the gym, especially in the off-season. This article aims to answer the following two questions: Is strength training relevant for the beginner cyclist? How does strength training affect performance in elite sprint cycling and road racing? Strength training for the novice cyclist The ability to produce a greater amount of force, to delay fatigue and to control the bicycle are all beneficial when looking to improve cycling performance, and strength training can help all three of these components. Working with weights for the lower body – eg two days per week of four sets of 5 Repetition-Max (5RM) squats – will help improve leg strength as tested in the squat. Repeated lifting of weights, with less recovery time – eg a circuit of squats, lunges, step- ups all at 15-20RM with 10 seconds of rest – will improve local muscular endurance. The use of weights and stability exercises in the upper body and torso will improve body strength and stability in these areas. But can this help the beginner cyclist improve their cycling performance? Strength training inevitably leads to increased strength, but that is only relevant if it helps improve cycling! A study carried out in 1995 compared the effects of a) single-joint strength training b) multiple-joint strength training and c) a sprint cycling programme in beginner sprint cyclists (1). The sprint cycling performance was measured by how much power they could produce in five seconds on a cycle ergometer. All three groups followed their individual programmes for eight weeks, followed by a specific six-week programme of sprint cycling. The two strength-training groups improved their 10RM by 41-44%, with no significant difference between the two forms of training. However, all three groups improved their sprint performance by 4-7%, with no significant difference between the three groups. It appears, therefore, that for newcomers to a sporting activity, doing that activity may be enough stimulation to initiate a change and improve performance. In the study above, it may be that after only eight weeks of strength training the improvements in the 10RM test were mainly skill based, and the cyclists did not actually get stronger, but just better at doing the strength exercises. It would be interesting to see if after a further eight weeks of strength training whether they got stronger in the 10RM test, and then see if that improved their sprint cycling. Strength training for club cyclists If beginner cyclists are able to improve their cycling through practice alone, how about club cyclists who are quite proficient at cycling but may need to be better conditioned? A recent study looked at introducing either a strength-based weights programme, or a muscular-endurance weights programme on club cyclists, three times a week for 10 weeks (2). Testing was based on 1RM on four leg exercises, and lactate and VO2 levels during a progressive cycle ergometer test. Compared to a control group who did no strength training, the two strength-trained groups again showed improved 1RM scores on the strength tests. But neither group showed any improvement over the control group on the lactate and VO2 levels during the cycle ergometer test. This led the authors to conclude that strength training did not improve the cycling performance of club level cyclists. However, the cycling test of both of these studies was conducted on an indoor ergometer, in a fixed position. Cycling, especially downhill or mountain biking (DOMB) requires great stability in the upper body. That, and remaining in a position bent over the handlebars for long periods of time in endurance cycling mean that pressure is placed on the lower back. Whilst strength training has not been conclusively proven to improve cycling performance, certain exercises may be beneficial in allowing the new and intermediate cyclist to spend more time in the saddle, without incurring postural and overuse injuries in the upper body and lower back. Postural exercises performed twice a week for 15 minutes can help establish a base level of strength in the upper body and torso, helping the cyclist adapt to the added demands of their sport. Go through the five exercises in order; start with one set and then progress to two sets with 30 seconds rest between exercises, and two minutes rest between sets. If you have any previous lower back pain consult your doctor or physiotherapist before commencing this routine. Advanced level cyclists If beginner and club level cyclists are best able to improve their cycling performance by simply doing more cycling, what about those at higher performance levels? Elite cyclists would probably find it hard to increase their volume of training and, indeed, excessive volumes of training are linked to overtraining in endurance athletes (3). Are they better off looking at improving and making their current training regime of cycling more efficient, or can weight training offer real advantages? One potential disadvantage of weight training may be the increase in muscle mass that results. An increase in size could hinder the cyclist by increasing the air resistance they face as they cycle at speed; the greater the speed, the greater the drag of wind resistance. Even where drafting is allowed, a larger ‘frontal’ cross-sectional area will make efficient drafting harder. The other resistance faced by the cyclist is that of gravity; a greater mass means that there is gravitational force to overcome when there is any kind of incline. While this is not an issue for a track cyclist on a perfectly level track, it becomes a major factor for road cyclists, especially where the terrain is hilly. Any strength-training routine must therefore result in an improvement in leg power or leg cadence greater than the increase in gravitational or air resistance produced as a result of increased size or mass. To date, no research has been published that analyses this cost/benefit ratio in elite cyclists. For endurance cyclists, increasing the legs’ ability to resist fatigue is important. Whilst the majority of work may rely on aerobic metabolism to provide the energy for the race, about 13% of the energy required comes from anaerobic metabolism (4). This energy source may be called upon at crucial times, such as the sprint to the finish line, or racing up a hill. The legs themselves may be working maximally, producing lactic acid, but because the rest of the body is working sub-maximally, it can redistribute this lactic acid to the liver, heart and upper body muscles, where it can subsequently be metabolised. If the legs can become more proficient at dealing with an increase in lactic acid, by removing it quickly from the system, then more work can be done at a higher intensity, allowing the cyclist to sprint for longer. This is the theory behind circuit-type training of the legs, but as yet, there are no studies in elite cyclists that specifically assess this type of training. However, these peripheral adaptations have been shown to take place after High Intensity Training (HIT) in well-trained cyclists (average peak VO2 = 64.5ml/kg/min) after only four weeks of training at two sessions per week (5). Cyclists were split into three different training groups and a control group. All three training groups showed an improvement in their 40km time trial, anaerobic capacity, peak VO2 and ventilatory thresholds, but not their total plasma volume (PV). The fact that the PV did not change but the performance measures all improved, indicates that the changes were in the legs, not in the central system. The fact also that three different high-intensity training routines all led to improvements shows that it was introducing the intensity that led to improvements in performance. Moreover, it may be that sequencing the different routines every four weeks would lead to further positive changes. Explosive leg training A recent study in New Zealand looked at combining HIT with explosive leg exercises, in an attempt at using specific power exercises to improve mechanical efficiency and anaerobic power (6). This study took place within the cyclists’ competitive season, with the exercise protocols replacing 20% of their normal existing road training. The cyclists were tested for 1km and 4km power as well as peak power and oxygen cost. After five weeks of training (12 sessions lasting 30 minutes each), all the power indicators had increased, and the oxygen cost of cycling had decreased. Remember that these improvements occurred in the competitive season, when the cyclists were already well trained and supposed to be in peak form. Not all the improvements can be due to an increase in central aerobic power; indeed, the 1km trial is mainly anaerobic in nature so an alternative explanation must be found. It is likely that the explosive leg exercises stimulated the neural system by rapidly activating the motor units within the muscles. This may have led to a quicker rate of peak force development when cycling, resulting in greater acceleration and sprint performance. Summary Strength training may improve cycling performance through increased leg power, a greater ability to cope with local fatigue and improved upper body stability. However, this has yet to be proved in research. In beginners and club level cyclists, more cycling is probably the best way to improve performance. Taking time out from cycling to do strength training will probably lead to a decline in cycling efficiency and skill level. The exceptions are abdominal and lower back exercises that can help prevent lower back pain. Once skill and aerobic fitness levels have improved through normal cycling training, performance can be improved through introducing high intensity training even during the competitive season. This is a very specific way of inducing load onto the legs that forces local adaptations to take place. Just doing ever-larger volumes of cycling may well lead to overtraining. For elite level cyclists, introducing explosive strength and body weight exercises is likely to improve sprint and short hill climbing performance. Traditional strength exercises, however, may be detrimental in that they increase muscle mass and size, adding to the air and gravitational resistances that cyclists need to overcome. The important thing to remember is that new stimuli force the body to adapt and improvements in performance are made. New training methods should not be used in addition to existing training. Instead, try to keep one or two sessions a week aside for variety. These may include strength training, HIT or core work. nonadult false Strength Training for Cyclists text blog 38 0 0.0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=1969086&as=18880 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/18880/photos/PHOTO_907792_18880_1969086_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 30658 1969086 Member 0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Improve-your-Distance-Running/BLOG/30656/18880.html Improve your distance running One of the most fundamental rules of training is specificity; if you want to train for an event, your training should replicate the demands of that event. The rule of specificity arises because different events tend to rely on different energy systems in the body (which need to be specifically trained) and also because many disciplines require a specific set of motor skills and neurological adaptations. However, the reality is that while many endurance events draw heavily on the aerobic energy system, they often also require short high-energy bursts provided by the anaerobic energy pathways (for example, during the sprint for the line) – pathways that are often neglected in training because of the desire to concentrate on endurance performance. But new research by Finnish scientists at the Research Institute for Olympic Sports suggests that this strategy may be counterproductive for endurance runners, and that anaerobic performance can be readily enhanced without increasing training volume or compromising endurance. adsense: cached In the study, the effects of concurrent explosive strength and endurance training on aerobic and anaerobic performance and neuromuscular characteristics were studied in 25 distance runners, who were split into an experimental group (13 runners) and a control group (12 runners). All of the runners trained for eight weeks with the same total training volume, but in the experimental group 19% of the endurance training time was replaced by explosive-type training, including sprints and strength drills. After the eight-week training programme, all the runners were evaluated for various aspects of performance with the following results: *Compared to the controls, the maximal speed during a maximal anaerobic running test and 30-metre speed improved in the experimental group by 3.0% and 1.1% respectively; *The concentric and isometric forces generated during leg extension increased in the experimental group but not in the controls; *The experimental group improved their muscular force-time characteristics and had rapid neural activation of the muscles (ie they were able to generate more power through more rapid muscular contractions); *The increase in thickness of quadriceps muscles after eight weeks was nearly double in the experimental group compared to the controls; *Importantly, the maximal speed during an aerobic running test, the maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and the running economy (how efficiently the runners used oxygen to for any given running speed) remained unchanged in both groups. The implications of these findings are clear; if you are an endurance athlete whose event also demands brief bursts of high-intensity work, substituting some of your endurance training (up to 20%) with anaerobic work needn’t necessarily involve a drop in aerobic performance, and may even give you a competitive edge. Int J Sports Med 2007; 20 [Epub ahead of print] Improve your distance running One of the most fundamental rules of training is specificity; if you want to train for an event, your training should replicate the demands of that event. The rule of specificity arises because different events tend to rely on different energy systems in the body (which need to be specifically trained) and also because many disciplines require a specific set of motor skills and neurological adaptations. However, the reality is that while many endurance events draw heavily on the aerobic energy system, they often also require short high-energy bursts provided by the anaerobic energy pathways (for example, during the sprint for the line) – pathways that are often neglected in training because of the desire to concentrate on endurance performance. But new research by Finnish scientists at the Research Institute for Olympic Sports suggests that this strategy may be counterproductive for endurance runners, and that anaerobic performance can be readily enhanced without increasing training volume or compromising endurance. adsense: cached In the study, the effects of concurrent explosive strength and endurance training on aerobic and anaerobic performance and neuromuscular characteristics were studied in 25 distance runners, who were split into an experimental group (13 runners) and a control group (12 runners). All of the runners trained for eight weeks with the same total training volume, but in the experimental group 19% of the endurance training time was replaced by explosive-type training, including sprints and strength drills. After the eight-week training programme, all the runners were evaluated for various aspects of performance with the following results: *Compared to the controls, the maximal speed during a maximal anaerobic running test and 30-metre speed improved in the experimental group by 3.0% and 1.1% respectively; *The concentric and isometric forces generated during leg extension increased in the experimental group but not in the controls; *The experimental group improved their muscular force-time characteristics and had rapid neural activation of the muscles (ie they were able to generate more power through more rapid muscular contractions); *The increase in thickness of quadriceps muscles after eight weeks was nearly double in the experimental group compared to the controls; *Importantly, the maximal speed during an aerobic running test, the maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and the running economy (how efficiently the runners used oxygen to for any given running speed) remained unchanged in both groups. The implications of these findings are clear; if you are an endurance athlete whose event also demands brief bursts of high-intensity work, substituting some of your endurance training (up to 20%) with anaerobic work needn’t necessarily involve a drop in aerobic performance, and may even give you a competitive edge. Int J Sports Med 2007; 20 [Epub ahead of print] Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:17:41 GMT http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Improve-your-Distance-Running/BLOG/30656/18880.html hamish 2008-02-20T06:17:41Z Uber Sportz Improve your distance running One of the most fundamental rules of training is specificity; if you want to train for an event, your training should replicate the demands of that event. The rule of specificity arises because different events tend to rely on different energy systems in the body (which need to be specifically trained) and also because many disciplines require a specific set of motor skills and neurological adaptations. However, the reality is that while many endurance events draw heavily on the aerobic energy system, they often also require short high-energy bursts provided by the anaerobic energy pathways (for example, during the sprint for the line) – pathways that are often neglected in training because of the desire to concentrate on endurance performance. But new research by Finnish scientists at the Research Institute for Olympic Sports suggests that this strategy may be counterproductive for endurance runners, and that anaerobic performance can be readily enhanced without increasing training volume or compromising endurance. adsense: cached In the study, the effects of concurrent explosive strength and endurance training on aerobic and anaerobic performance and neuromuscular characteristics were studied in 25 distance runners, who were split into an experimental group (13 runners) and a control group (12 runners). All of the runners trained for eight weeks with the same total training volume, but in the experimental group 19% of the endurance training time was replaced by explosive-type training, including sprints and strength drills. After the eight-week training programme, all the runners were evaluated for various aspects of performance with the following results: *Compared to the controls, the maximal speed during a maximal anaerobic running test and 30-metre speed improved in the experimental group by 3.0% and 1.1% respectively; *The concentric and isometric forces generated during leg extension increased in the experimental group but not in the controls; *The experimental group improved their muscular force-time characteristics and had rapid neural activation of the muscles (ie they were able to generate more power through more rapid muscular contractions); *The increase in thickness of quadriceps muscles after eight weeks was nearly double in the experimental group compared to the controls; *Importantly, the maximal speed during an aerobic running test, the maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and the running economy (how efficiently the runners used oxygen to for any given running speed) remained unchanged in both groups. The implications of these findings are clear; if you are an endurance athlete whose event also demands brief bursts of high-intensity work, substituting some of your endurance training (up to 20%) with anaerobic work needn’t necessarily involve a drop in aerobic performance, and may even give you a competitive edge. Int J Sports Med 2007; 20 [Epub ahead of print] nonadult false Improve your Distance Running text blog 46 0 0.0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=1969086&as=18880 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/18880/photos/PHOTO_907792_18880_1969086_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 30656 1969086 Member 0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Groups/BLOG/30518/18880.html Check out all the new groups available on Uber Sportz....make requests for new groups....join a group Check out all the new groups available on Uber Sportz....make requests for new groups....join a group Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:55:46 GMT http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Groups/BLOG/30518/18880.html hamish 2008-02-19T11:55:46Z Uber Sportz Check out all the new groups available on Uber Sportz....make requests for new groups....join a group nonadult false Groups text blog 44 0 0.0 http://affiliate.kickapps.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=1969086&as=18880 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/18880/photos/PHOTO_907792_18880_1969086_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 30518 1969086 Member 0