Mel Siff Talks Cutting Calories and Weight Loss

Here Mel Siff gives us some insight into some of ingenius work back in South Africa regarding Plyometrics (or powermetrics as he liked to call them) - this is from the group that he formed in 2000 which is still going strong - http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

Drop jumps and various standing drills are so widely used as a means of

plyometric training that we often seem to forget that they classically may be

done in many other ways, such as using the common children’s swing that we

all used to play upon in public parks. With the latter, you simply arrange a

swing near a wall so that you can swing to different heights and strike the

wall with your feet to provide the rebound. For those who have our

textbook, “Supertraining” (Siff & Verkhoshansky 1999), see p275 for diagrams

of this exercise.

In this way you do not have to buy a big supply of costly “plyo” boxes - all

that you need is some rope, wood and something to hang your swing from and

you have a very controllable plyometric training device. With a little

ingenuity, you can even arrange a wooden wall at hand height that will allow

you to shove off with the hands, as well. (”Supertraining” p275 for

diagrams.)

Of course, you can make these devices more sophisticated and technical so

that you can carry out accurate biomechanical measurements with them. For

those who have our textbook, “Supertraining”, page 219, you will see a

diagram of a special plyometric bench that my senior engineering students

constructed at the University of the Witwatersrand (South Africa) in 1992.

The same students also constructed various upper and lower body swings with

built in load cells or force plates to measure the forces exerted during

impact.

Quite recently I came across the following research article that carried out

much the same sort of work that my engineers had been doing. I think that

many of you will find the results interesting.

—————————————-

Fowler NE, Lees A & Reilly T Changes in stature following plyometric

drop-jump and pendulum exercises. Ergonomics 1997 Dec; 40(12):1279-86

The aim of this study was to compare the changes in stature following the

performance of plyometric exercises using drop-jumps and a pendulum swing.

Eight male participants aged 21.7 +/- 1.8 years with experience of plyometric

training gave their informed consent to act as subjects. Participants

undertook two exercise regimens and a 15-min standing test in a random order.

The exercises entailed the performance of 50 drop-jumps from a height of 0.28

m or 50 pendulum rebounds (off a wall).

Participants were instructed to perform maximal jumps or rebounds using a

‘bounce’ style. Measurements of stature were performed after a 20-min period

of standing (pre-exercise), 2-min after exercise (post-exercise) and after a

20-min standing recovery (recovery). Back pain and muscle soreness were

assessed using an analogue-visual scale, at each of the above times and also

24 hours and 36 hours after the test. Peak torque during isokinetic knee

extension at 1.04 rad per sec was measured immediately before and after the

exercise bouts, to assess the degree of muscular fatigue.

Ground/wall reaction force data were recorded using a Kistler force platform

mounted in the floor for drop-jumps and vertically on the rebound wall for

pendulum exercises. Drop-jumps resulted in the greatest change in stature

(-2.71 mm), compared to pendulum exercises (-1.77 mm) and standing (-0.39mm).

Both exercise regimens resulted in a significant decrease in stature when

compared to the standing condition. Drop-jumps resulted in significantly

greater peak impact forces (p < 0.05) than pendulum exercises (drop-jumps =

3.2 x body weight, pendulum = 2.6 x body weight).

The two exercise conditions both invoked a small degree of muscle soreness

but there were no significant differences between either. Both exercise

regimens resulted in a non-significant decrease in peak torque, indicating a

similar degree of muscular fatigue. Based on the lower in height and lower

peak forces, it can be concluded that pendulum exercises pose a lower injury

potential to the lower back than drop-jumps performed from a height of 28 cm.

————————————-

***What does this mean for the coach? Well, first of all, it stresses that

there is a very real place for use of the PLYOMETRIC SWING as a safe and

effective form of explosive training. Secondly, it shows that the

*potential* for injury is greater with drop jumps, because of the greater

impact forces exerted on the whole body.

However, it needs to be pointed out that the body can adapt to such stresses,

but this potential for injury is a good reason why any drop jumps should be

prescribed carefully and intelligently, especially among novices whose

musculoskeletal system has not adequately adapted to the impulsive loading.

Regarding the experiment, it should also be pointed out that, if 50

repetitions are to be done, then it is essential that they be done in limited

sets of a few repetitions at a time, not like some sort of endurance

exercise. In the USA many coaches tend to prescribe far too many plyometric

repetitions at a time. More is not necessarily better. In the case of

plyometrics, quality is definitely more important than quantity.

Mel Siff

Diet Pills Are Here To Stay So What Is The View Out There?

Wellness

Wellness