This topic contains 24 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
Quickness- “The ability of the CNS to contract, relax, or control muscle function without involvement of any preliminary stretch” (Siff, 2004, p. 133)
Quickness gets measured by one’s reaction time. Reaction time is the time between stimulus and the initiation of movement (Siff, 2004, p. 133).
Examples of quickness include single and repeated tasks. A single task could be executing a single punch in boxing and a repeated would be dribbling a soccer ball (Siff, 2004, 134).
Reactive ability- “The neuromuscular ability to generate explosive force, a quality which relies on both preliminary stretch hand rapidity of reaction” (Siff, 2004, p. 134).
Reactive ability is highly dependent on the ability to display powerful driving force after an intense mechanical muscular stretch (Siff, 2004, 134).
Reactive ability is a specific neuromuscular characteristic which can be improved through training (Sif, 2004, p.136)
It is very easy to see a major difference in the two is the factor of the load and the need of muscular stretching in reactive ability.
Quickness seems more basic because it is based on one’s ability to initiate an unloaded movement as quickly as possible once a stimulus has been introduced.
Reactive ability uses the intense stretch to increase strength potential and with one’s reaction can turn it into kinetic energy.
Both require a stimulus and a reaction from an individual. For quickness, it may just be seeing a punch coming at you in boxing and avoiding the punch. For reactive ability, it may be a triple jumper using the muscular strength and reaction of contact with the ground to turn potential energy into kinetic energy.
In training, we use the consecutive broad jump to increase reactive ability to decrease the amount of time our feet contact the ground. We use quickness during our wall drill with the coach yelling “go” (stimulus) to alternate knee up leg and driving leg (initiation of movement), the athlete must initiate the movement as quickly as possible after hearing the word “go” (reaction time). We can use training to improve both and we could even integrate them into the same exercise as long as it doesn’t put the athlete at high risk of injury.
-
Quickness- “The ability of the CNS to contract, relax, or control muscle function without involvement of any preliminary stretch” (Siff, 2004, p. 133)
Reactive ability- “The neuromuscular ability to generate explosive force, a quality which relies on both preliminary stretch and rapidity of reaction” (Siff, 2004, p. 134).
Not to copy @benkuch here with the definitions, but a major difference between these two is stated in the definition itself. Quickness does not utilize any preliminary stretch where Reactive ability clearly does. To highlight this difference I will stick with the example of a boxer’s punch. I would relate quickness to a jab from the defensive position as opposed to a haymaker with a large loading phase which would be reactive ability.
What stood out to me as the main similarity would be both quickness and reactive ability would have to rely on precision to be effective. Siff defines precision as “the ability to execute a single goal-directed task with the smallest degree of error or the least number of random moves during performance of the task.” (Siff, M. p133) Let’s stick with the example of a jab vs a haymaker. Disregarding the strategic element of the jab in boxing let’s just focus on if the jab is landed. If it is not precise, one has a very small and moving target to hit, it will not be effective. Similarly the haymaker must have very little “wasted” movement in order to not give the punch away and if landed could end the fight, if not landed could open the fighter up for disaster.
These two abilities can work together quite well in the sporting arena. Think successful jab followed by haymaker. Think very small jump cut followed by huge juke covering a large distance. If you look at this video of Vick (Welbourn’s favorite person, at least it’s an interception though) at the 3 or 4s mark when he avoids the sack I look at as quickness, and then the 7or 8s mark you see him get low on his plant into the ground and explode off his foot to cover about 2 yards just before he throws I look at that as reactive ability.
-
@chobbs,
How about a forward step (not utilize any preliminary stretch) vs a false step (preliminary stretch and rapidity of reaction)?-
I 100% agree with that, assuming you are referring to a plyo-step not sure of this “false step” you speak of.
-
However, there is still quickness involved within the plyo step. How “quick” can you be to drop the step back to load then explode.
-
I need to go this way —>
A. I step this way <—- (Hobbs)
B. I step this way —>
Always B
-
Putting Hobbs on blast with Siff
“The initial acceleration from rest, for example, is determined primarily by stride length through a high level of explosive and maximal strength of the propulsive muscles”
When you use the plyo step, your stride length is negative, lacking or absent of length (common theme w Hobbs). The plyo step is now heretofore named “the Hobbs negative step”.
-
Alright boys the can is open, the worms are out let’s go down this rabbit hole. Let me clarify my point as to when a “plyo-step” is warranted. I contest that when an athlete is in a bilateral foot position whether standing upright or in an athletic position and a reaction to a stimulus is involved that the plyo-step is the fast way to get from point A to point
B. I am not arguing for other positions such as a 3 point stance or a staggered stance because a mechanical advantage has already been establish in those positions.Think about the athletic position, you need to be able to step in any direction we can all agree on that. That being said we are not leaning forward excessively because we need to react to a stimulus, IF we could have excessive forward lean then there would be no need for the plyo-step because our body is putting itself in a position that gives us a mechanical advantage to explode from, mainly from displacement of the trunk. However, if we are in a true athletic position and need to REACT from it and that reaction is to go forward as fast as possible then the “plyo-step” is the best way to get there. Why? We don’t have to displace anything other than the leg that steps back, the hips and torso stay fixed. This decreasing margin for error because if we immediately step forward the torso and hips have to come with it to establish proper lean to explode. By plyo-stepping we are already there.
First video:
- Fast forward to the 45 sec mark for a great angle.
- Both Lewis and 59 Plyo-step
- Ray’s is more of a gather as he is creeping up to get closer to the line and is showing his blitz.
- 59 is not giving his blitz away and reacts to the snap of the ball. He is in a pretty darn good athletic position, reacts to a stimulus and explodes with a plyo-step. I would contest if he tried to lean and step forward with reaction to the ball he would not have been nearly as effective.
Video 2:
- Fast forward to about the 25 sec mark.
- Hester is walking and is upright
- When he reacts what does he do? Massive “plyo-step” to get into a position to be shot out of a fucking cannon.
-
All Ill say is just because someone is doing something, and just because it works out for them one time, doesn’t mean its right or will work everytime. Sure, he “plyo” stepped, and it worked out this time, but we never see all the plays where it doesn’t work. They dont make the highlight reels.
-
Could have pulled this from the book or anyone elses post, but i chose to take it from chads…
”Siff defines precision as “the ability to execute a single goal-directed task with the smallest degree of error or the least number of random moves during performance of the task.” (Siff, M. p133)
Just saying…. “least number of random moves during performance of the task”I’m imagining your argument is that the plyo-step is not wasted movement, but if we are speaking in relation to quickness and reactive ability…im not so sure… If the movement is a forward motion, we receive stimulus and our first step is backwards..?
-
@DavidMck Did you read my whole post? My entire argument is that it is not wasted movement and I know you just pointed that out, but the main thing is trying to get over the mental block or at least being open to the fact that the backward “step” is advantageous from the athletic position. If we are talking about the “least number of random moves” which has less? A slight step back with no other movement needed or stepping forward having to lean the entire torso with the step? The former I believe has less margin for error and is a quicker way to get into an advantageous position to explode forward getting from point A to point B faster.
-
Alright I’m late to this party but let me just throw this out there. If we look at the NHEDPS as the most advantageous position to be explosive or display quickness why isn’t the UAP a staggered stance? I would contend that the reason is because a staggered stance wouldn’t be advantageous to all angles or directions necessary for an athlete to respond to. @chobbs may be right with respect to straight ahead speed but a false step or NHEDPS is not the best way to respond laterally or more so backwards. @conorwlynch hits the nail on the head is this simply a technique used in competition or the inability to train reactive ability and quickness in the weight room.
-
-
@chobbs @menacedolan @mcquilkin
What about considering theory versus application in this case?
It may be that many athletes have not developed the skill of producing explosive strength from a static position and, despite moving in the opposite direction from which they ultimately intend to go, are able to generate explosive and then maximal strength faster given the enhanced force development due to the stretch shortening cycle involved in a plyo step. Those athletes are defaulting to their reactive ability because it feels more powerful or has been successful for them on the field.
@chobbs argument, if I may be so bold, is that, as measured by on field performance, the overall movement time for his athletes is decreased with a Neo-Hobbsian Eccentrically Directed Plyo Step. (Movement time “which is the interval from the end of the reaction phase to the end of the movement”. Siff, p. 133)
The argument lies in whether or not you can develop an athlete’s reactive ability to a greater extent than you can develop their starting and acceleration strength from an isometric position. The reactive ability would have to be improved to the point that it overcame the isometric start in addition the lost time and distance of the counter movement involved in the NHEDPS.
Would using a box squat or seated box jumps help an athlete to develop the default movement pattern of a forward step? Or athletic burpees with an enforced and extended hold in the universal athletic position prior to the vertical jump? What about an athletic burpee where the athlete has to wait for a coach’s call and then react with either a vertical or forward jump?
Is the limitation the technique used on the field or the ability to replicate the demands of the field in the weight room?
-
Just in case anyone still cares…Here is some research on the step.
STEPPING BACKWARD CAN IMPROVE SPRINT
PERFORMANCE OVER SHORT DISTANCES
DAVID M. FROST,
1 JOHN B. CRONIN,
1,2 AND GREGORY LEVIN1
1
School of Exercise, Biomedical, and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, West Australia, Australia;
2
School of Sport and Recreation, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand
ABSTRACT
The use of a backward (false) step to initiate forward movement
has been regarded as an inferior starting technique and
detrimental to sprinting performance over short distances as it
requires additional time to be completed, but little evidence
exists to support or refute this claim. Therefore, we recruited
27 men to examine the temporal differences among three standing
starts that employed either a step forward (F) or a step
backward (B) to initiate movement. An audio cue was used to
mark the commencement of each start and to activate the
subsequent timing gates. Three trials of each starting style
were performed, and movement (0 m), 2.5 m, and 5 m times
were recorded. Despite similar performances to the first timing
gate (0.80 and 0.81s for F and B, respectively), utilizing a step
forward to initiate movement resulted in significantly slower
sprint times to both 2.5 and 5 m (6.4% and 5.3%, respectively).
Furthermore, when the movement times were removed and
performances were compared between gates 1 and 2, and 2
and 3, all significant differences were seen before reaching
a distance of only 2.5 m. The results from this investigation
question the advocacy of removing the false step to improve an
athlete’s sprint performance over short distances. In fact, if the
distance to be traveled is as little as 0.5 m in the forward
direction, adopting a starting technique in which a step
backward is employed may result in superior performance.
KEY WORDS sprint start, timing gates, false step
INTRODUCTION
The ability to accelerate over short distances is of
paramount importance to success in many sports
(1,13) Because of the paucity of empirical evidence,
however, conflicting views remain with
regard to the most advantageous starting style (9). Investigators
have placed a great deal of effort toward improving
our understanding of the sprint start but have focused
primarily on the kinetics and kinematics associated with
blocks starts (10–12,15,16), making the transference to fieldbased
sports, where athletes begin from a standing position,
somewhat problematic (9,13). This fact motivated the present
research, with the objective being to provide further insight
into the possible mechanical advantages and sprint performance
differences associated with various standing starts.
To initiate forward movement from a stationary standing
position, the center of mass must be positioned anterior to the
base of support (feet) (6). This is achieved in one of two ways:
a rotation of the body about the ankle joint, thereby shifting
the center of mass forward, or by displacing the support area
behind the center of mass (placing one foot backward) (6).
However, if we consider a tennis player sprinting from the
baseline to pick up a drop shot, a baseball player reacting to
a shallow fly ball, or a basketball player attempting to make
a steal, they all initiate forward movement from a variation of
the athletic ready position that is characteristic of their
respective sport (feet parallel) (8,14). With the exception of
a stoppage in play, the chaotic nature of most sports rarely
allows an athlete to set his/her position before the initiation
of forward movement; therefore, most athletes are forced to
accelerate from a variation of this parallel foot position.
From this parallel stance, an athlete may choose to initiate
movement via a repositioning of their center of mass (lean and
step forward – parallel start) or their feet (step backward –
false start). Intuitively, the use of a backward step to accelerate
forward seems counterproductive and has led to the belief
that an athlete should eliminate this unnecessary movement
to produce a more time-efficient start (6). However, if the
time taken to achieve the backward step does not exceed
the time required to shift the center of mass forward, then
perhaps the false step is not counterproductive and an athlete
may see a performance benefit by employing a backward step
to initiate forward movement.
Comparing the parallel and false starts, Kraan et al. (9)
found that stepping backward resulted in significantly greater
horizontal force and power production at push off via
a contribution from the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC). This
result led the investigators to conclude that the fastest start
achieved from a standing position was in fact one that allows
a paradoxical step backward; however, this was stated
without any empirical support from sprint times over set
Address correspondence to Dr. David M. Frost, d.frost@ecu.edu.au.
22(3)/918–922
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2008 National Strength and Conditioning Association
918 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research the TM
distances. Consequently, it remains
unclear as to whether
there are performance benefits
from this increased force production,
what the minimal
sprint distance is to exploit
these benefits, and how long
can they be maintained. Therefore,
the primary purpose of
this investigation was to examine
the movement (0 m), 2.5 m,
and 5 m times between standing
starts employing a step
forward and a step backward
to initiate movement.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Forward movement from a standing position is initiated in
one of two ways: by rotating the body about the ankle joint or
by taking a step backward (6). To assess the effect that either
starting strategy has on sprinting performance, athletic men
from various sporting backgrounds performed three 5-m
sprints employing three different standing starts. An audio
cue was used to initiate movement and trigger the timing
system with the aim of capturing sprint times at the 0-, 2.5-,
and 5-m lines. A between-start comparison was conducted
for each distance recorded, including or excluding the time
taken to the first gate.
Subjects
Twenty-seven men of an athletic background volunteered to
participate in this study. Each individual cited previous
involvement in an organized running-related sport; however,
no one competed at the national level. They were 22.1 6 2.9
years of age, 180.1 6 6.6 cm tall, and weighed 76.1 6 7.7 kg.
The investigation was approved by the human ethics committee
of Edith Cowan University, and all participants gave
their informed consent before data collection.
Starting Styles
The three standing starts employed for the purpose of this
investigation are shown in Figure 1. The false start began with
participants placing both feet directly behind the starting line.
On the audio command, the first movement was a step
backward with the right foot. Subjects were permitted to
raise their left foot as the right went back, permitting that the
first step forward was also with the right foot. This protocol
was used to maintain consistency between all starting styles.
The parallel start began in the same manner as the false start
(both feet directly behind the starting line), but on the audio
command, participants were required to adopt a technique
in which they rotated their bodies about the ankle joints,
shifting their center of mass forward, to allow the first step to
be forward with the right foot. No movement backward with
either foot was permitted. A split stance starting posture was
used as a control condition to allow comparisons with the
false start to be made, as it involved a similar displacement of
the support area before the commencement of forward
movement. All starts required that the subject be absolutely
still before the sounding of the audio buzzer.
Equipment
Three pairs of dual-beam infrared timing lights (Swift
Performance Equipment, Lismore, NSW, Australia) with
a beam height of 0.6 and 0.9 m from the ground (Figure 1)
were positioned 0, 2.5, and 5 m from the start line. The
starting line was located 0.5 m behind the first timing light
to prevent any extraneous movement from prematurely
breaking the beams (7).
Procedures
After measuring height and weight and signing the informed
consent, participants completed a general warm-up consisting
of 10 minutes of light jogging and dynamic stretching.
They were then familiarized with the three starting styles that
were to be used during the investigation and asked to perform
five submaximal 5-m sprints progressing in intensity from 50%
to 90% maximal effort with a self-selected starting style. All
sprints were performed indoors on a rubberized surface and
required participants to wear an athletic running shoe. Kraan
et al. (9) stated that initiating forward movement with
Figure 1. (A) Starting position of parallel and false start. (B) Starting position of split start and representative of the
backward step for the false start. (C) First forward step for all each start.
TABLE 1. Coefficient of variation (%) based on sprint
times for each starting style at each distance.
Starting
style 0 m 2.5 m 5 m 0–2.5 m 2.5–5 m 0–5 m
Parallel 8.71 4.17 2.91 5.01 8.53 2.64
Split 6.24 3.51 2.26 5.02 4.81 2.20
False 7.20 3.92 2.94 4.08 3.38 2.79
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2008 | 919
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research the TM
| http://www.nsca-jscr.org
a backward step is instinctive for up to 95% of individuals;
therefore, to ensure that participants were adopting their
natural backward step and to avoid any influence of the
parallel start, the first sprinting style used for all participants
was the false start. The order of the two remaining starting
styles (parallel and split) was randomized for all participants.
Each subject was required to perform a minimum of three
5-m maximal effort sprints for each starting style with the last
two being recorded for analyses. Approximately 90 seconds’
rest was given between each trial and 3 minutes’ rest between
each starting style. If the trial was not completed according
to the descriptions outlined above or if the participant
attempted to anticipate the starting buzzer, then an additional
trial was completed after a subsequent 90 seconds of rest.
All trials were initiated with a buzzer (Swift Performance
Equipment) that also commenced the timing gates. This was
used as a means of capturing the reaction and movement times
before crossing the first timing gate.
Statistical Analyses
Means and standard deviations are used throughout as
measures of centrality and spread of data. Within-subject
reliability of the sprint times (0, 2.5, and 5 m) for each starting
style was evaluated using coefficients of variation (CV). Pearson
correlation coefficients were used to identify relationships
among the different starts. A two-factor (distance 3 start)
repeated-measures ANOVA with Holm-Sidak post hoc
comparisons was used to determine significant differences
among conditions. Statistical significance for all tests was set
at an a level of 0.05. ANOVAs and Pearson correlations were
analyzed with SigmaStat 3.1 (Systat Software Inc., Richmond,
CA).
RESULTS
The inter-trial variability for each starting style is shown in
Table 1. Greatest variation in the times (CV 6.24–8.71%) was
observed from the beginning of the audio cue to the first light.
Less variation was noted as the distance from the starting
line increased and reaction time became less influential on
total time.
No significant differences in time taken to the first timing
gate were observed between the false and parallel starting
styles, although both starts took significantly longer than the
split start (see Table 2). At 2.5 and 5 m, there were significant
differences among all starts, as initiating forward movement
with a backward step was found to be quicker than stepping
TABLE 2. Mean (SD) sprint times for each starting style at each distance.
Starting style 0 m (s) 2.5 m (s) 5 m (s) 0–2.5 m (s) 2.5–5 m (s) 0–5 m (s)
Parallel 0.80 (0.11) 1.55 (0.10)† 1.99 (0.11)† 0.74 (0.07)† 0.44 (0.06) 1.19 (0.06)†
Split 0.69 (0.06)† 1.31 (0.07)† 1.74 (0.08)† 0.62 (0.06)* 0.43 (0.03) 1.05 (0.06)*
False 0.81 (0.07) 1.45 (0.08)† 1.89 (0.13)† 0.65 (0.05)* 0.44 (0.11) 1.08 (0.12)*
*Significantly different from parallel start (p , 0.01).
†Significantly different from both starts (p , 0.01).
TABLE 3. Pearson correlation matrix between starting styles and distances.
S0 F0 P2.5 S2.5 F2.5 P5 S5 F5 M
P0 0.226 20.077 0.748* 0.215 0.010 0.826* 0.221 0.393 20.393
S0 0.077 0.309 0.665* 0.133 0.343 0.647* 0.406 0.136
F0 0.059 0.115 0.820* 0.152 0.208 0.398 0.089
P2.5 0.218 0.207 0.862* 0.289 0.342 20.102
S2.5 0.258 0.254 0.931* 0.399 20.010
F2.5 0.284 0.336 0.544 0.104
P5 0.357 0.468 20.214
S5 0.499 0.095
F5 20.223
M = mass of participants; P = parallel; S = split; F = false.
*Significant difference (p , 0.01).
920 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research the TM
Stepping Backwards and Sprint Performance
forward (parallel was 6.4% slower at 2.5 m and 5.3% slower at
5 m compared with the false start).
When the movement time was removed (time to the first
timing gate) and only the time between each successive gate was
examined, the false start was not significantly different from the
split start at any distance; however, the times were significantly
less than for the parallel start for 0–2.5 and 0–5 m (parallel was
15.0% slower for 0–2.5 and 9.5% slower from 0–5). However,
there were no significant differences among any of the starts in
the time taken to sprint from 2.5 to 5 m (see Table 2).
Pearson correlations were used to identify the relationship
among the various starts at the three distances. As can be
observed from the correlation matrix (see Table 3), there were
no significant correlations among any start regardless of
whether movement time was included (see Table 3). The
only significant correlations were found within the starting
styles between distances.
DISCUSSION
The use of a backward step to accelerate forward has been
regarded as an inferior starting style because intuitively it
seems counterproductive to an athlete’s performance (6).
However, this conjecture is based on the assumption that the
time required to complete the backward step is greater than
that to adjust the position of the center of mass and step
forward. The results from the current investigation provide
opposition for this notion as the false and parallel starts
achieved near-identical times to the first timing gate (Table 2).
In fact, when the distance to be covered was just 3 m (second
timing gate), using a backward step reduced the sprint time by
100 ms or 6.0% (Tables 2 and 3). A 6% reduction in the time to
cover a short distance may have a considerable impact on
athletic performance when movement time is a critical factor.
When an athlete adopts a false starting style by repositioning
their base of support, forward movement of the
center of mass is either temporarily suspended or slowed until
the horizontal impulse generated from the backward step is
large enough to elicit forward movement. As a result, the total
false start movement time recorded by the first timing gate is
composed of reaction time, and positive (forward) and
negative (backward) movement time, compared with just
reaction time and positive movement time when the parallel
start is initiated via a displacement of the center of mass.
Therefore, if both starts require the same distance to be
traveled to the first gate (50 cm) but do not result in significantly
different movement times, as in the current study,
then it can be inferred that the use of a backward step resulted
in a subsequent increase in the horizontal velocity of the
center of mass at the first timing gate (0 m). If the use of
a backward step does increase the horizontal velocity of the
center of mass at the first timing gate, further improvements to
performance should be expected at the second timing gate.
This is precisely what was observed; the false start was 90 ms
faster (p , 0.01) between gates 1 and 2 (0–2.5 m) despite the
near-identical times at gate 1 (see Table 2). However, it is
assumed that the reaction times for both starts were similar,
which may or may not be the case, but was outside the scope
of this investigation and is a possible limitation.
The significant difference between the false and parallel
starts was maintained at the 5-m mark (100 ms or 5.0%) (see
Table 2), but the times between 2.5 and 5 m were not
significantly different (Table 2). This would suggest that any
mechanical advantage gained via a step backward is utilized
before traveling 2.5 m, although any reduction in this first 2.5 m
is maintained for the remainder of the sprint. Kraan et al. (9)
reported that the use of a backward step allowed for the
generation of greater force and power at push off, and the
results from this study suggest that this additional force may
be partly responsible for the superior sprint performance over
5 m. Further investigation into the kinetics and kinematics
associated with the first few steps may provide additional
insight into the mechanical advantages associated with
a backward step.
The split start served as a control condition for the current
study because it allowed each participant to displace his
support area to a position behind their center of mass before
the initiation of forward movement. This start allowed for
a horizontal impulse to be generated immediately after the
starting cue, without having to displace the center of mass or
take a step backward, therefore reducing the movement time
to the first gate (see Table 2). However, with the exception of
a stoppage in play, athletes will rarely find themselves with an
opportunity to adopt this starting posture (6), consequently
reducing its practical significance. Furthermore, Kraan et al.
(9) found the split start to be less effective than the false start
in terms of generating horizontal force and power at push off,
perhaps because of the absence of a SSC action. Although the
split start was significantly faster than both other starts to
each timing gate, the difference between it and the false start
was a result of a reduction in movement time to reach the
first gate (see Table 2). When the initial movement time was
removed from the sprint performance over 5 m, only 30 ms
separated the false from the split starting style (p . 0.05).
Surprisingly, there seems to be no relationship in sprinting
performance among any of the three starting styles even over
a short distance such as 5 m (see Table 3). These findings
imply that each starting style is characterized by its own
specific kinetic and kinematic demands (i.e., technique and
strength/power characteristics). Therefore, if the false start is
viewed as the optimal starting style for an athlete’s respective
sport, then the kinetics and kinematics of the backward step
need to be analyzed and subsequently enhanced for sprint
performance and thus for athletic performance to improve.
Using the SSC has shown to improve performance compared
with concentric-only movements (2–5,9); therefore, with proper
training, the false start may have the potential to result in superior
sprint performance to the split start over certain distances,
although this contention requires additional investigation.
While comparing the first step kinetics associated with
stepping backward or forward, Kraan et al. (9) found that 95%
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2008 | 921
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research the TM
| http://www.nsca-jscr.org
of the sprint trials completed, independent of the starting
style that the athlete was instructed to use, were performed
with a backward step. This finding provides support for the
argument that displacing the support area and taking a step
backward is instinctive to most athletes, whereas a great deal
of practice may be required to perfect a forward step. Similar
results were seen during the present study, although the
percentage of trials performed incorrectly was not recorded.
Despite the fact that it may be instinctive, it would be
interesting to conduct a longitudinal study that looked at the
performance of a parallel start with sufficient practice. Would
performance improve? Would movement time and the subsequent
2.5- and 5-m times remain inferior to the false start?
Conversely, are the benefits associated with the false start
attributable to the positioning of the support area behind the
center of mass and the SSC?
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results from this study failed to justify the elimination of
a backward step to accelerate forward. In fact, they provide
clear support for the use of this paradoxical movement to
improve sprint performance over distances as short as 2.5 m.
If an athlete is able to travel 50 cm just as quickly with a step
backward but can also improve his horizontal velocity and
therefore any subsequent sprint time, is there any practical
application for using a parallel start? The results from the
current investigation suggest that if the distance to be traveled
in a straight line is greater than 0.5 m, there may not be any
advantage to using a forward step; however, the degree of
transference to performance over longer distances and different
surfaces remains unclear.
The findings from this study may have been different had
each participant been well trained with the parallel start, but it
is possible that the superior performance is a result of the
mechanical advantages associated with shifting the support
area vs. the center of mass. With a parallel start, the center of
mass must be repositioned in front of the feet before a
horizontal force can be developed. This delay, in combination
with the absence of a SSC action, may not be conducive to
improving an athlete’s acceleration over short distances, thus
resulting in an increased movement time. If an athlete were
able to stop play and set their position, then perhaps a split
start could result in superior performance. If this is not the
case and they are starting from a parallel stance variation, then
the next best way to initiate forward movement is with a step
in the opposite direction.
REFERENCES
1. Baker, D and Nance, S. The relation between running speed and
measures of strength and power in professional rugby league players.
J Strength Cond Res 13: 230–235, 1999.
2. Bobbert, MF. Dependence of human squat jump performance on the
series elastic compliance of the triceps surae: a simulation study.
J Exp Biol 204: 533–542, 2001.
3. Bobbert, MF and Casius, LJR. Is the effect of a countermovement
on jump height due to active state development? Med Sci Sports Exerc
37: 440–446, 2005.
4. Bohm, H, Cole, GK, Bruggemann, GP, and Ruder, H. Contribution
of muscle series elasticity to maximum performance in drop
jumping. J Appl Biomech 22: 3–13, 2006.
5. Bosco, C, Vitasalo, JT, Komi, PV, and Luhtahen, P. The combined
effect of elastic energy and myoelectrical potentiation during stretch
shortening cycle exercise. Acta Physiol Scand 114: 557–565, 1982.
6. Brown, TD and Vescovi, JD. Is stepping back really
counterproductive? Strength Cond J 26: 42–44, 2004.
7. Duthie, GM, Pyne, DB, Ross, AA, Livingstone, SG, and Hooper, SL.
The reliability of ten meter sprint time using different starting
techniques. J Strength Cond Res 20: 246–251, 2006.
8. Ford, KR, Myer, GD, Toms, HE, and Hewett, TE. Gender
differences in the kinematics of unanticipated cutting in young
athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 124–129, 2005.
9. Kraan, GA, Van Veen, J, Snijders, CJ, and Storm, J. Starting from
standing: why step backwards? J Biomech 34: 211–215, 2001.
10. Mero, A and Komi, PV. Reaction time and electromyographic
activity during a sprint start. Eur J Appl Physiol 61: 73–80, 1990.
11. Mero, A, Kuittunen, S, Harland, M, Kyrolainen, H, and Komi, PV.
Effects of muscle-tendon length on joint moment and power during
sprint starts. J Sport Sci 24: 165–173, 2006.
12. Mero, A, Luhtanen, P, and Komi, P. A biomechanical study of the
sprint start. Scand J Sports Sci 5: 20–28, 1983.
13. Murphy, AJ, Lockie, RG, and Coutts, AJ. Kinematic determinants of
early acceleration in field sport athletes. J Sports Sci Med 2: 144–150,
2003.
14. Myer, GD, Ford, KR, and Hewett, TE. Rationale and clinical
techniques for anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention among
female athletes. J Athl Train 39: 352–364, 2004.
15. Schot, PK and Knutzen, KM. A biomechanical analysis of four sprint
start positions. Res Q Exerc Sport 63: 137–147, 1992.
16. Stock, M. Influence of various track starting positions on speed.
Res Q 33: 607–614, 1962.
-
-
How bout dem Stillers
-
-
Quickness rely on our ability to produce high-speed movement which does not encounter large external resistance or require great strength, power or energy consumption. (siff. Pg. 134) Quickness is heavily dependent on neuromuscular efficiency and our ability to receive and quickly process information, involving multiple abilities that are not necessarily dependent on strength. The latency phase and response phase of reaction time, our “ability to accurately anticipate trajectory”, sensing time, and decision time all play a pivotal roll in quickness. @mcquilkin it would seem that the improvement in quickness which rely’s on the response phase and not the latency phase, due to genetics, is directly related to decision time and an athletes ability to complete a given task with unconscious competency? so we improve quickness in sport through practice of specific movements, improving our ability to efficiently complete a given motor task as soon a electrical activity reaches the given muscle, reps on reps. We can also improve quickness through the ability to express the movement with the utmost proficiency and efficiency. It seems that quickness rely’s heavily on building good movement patterns, intra/intermuscular coordination and the efficiency of the kinematic system as well as practice. “movement time is strongly influenced by motor coordination or precision of movement”(siff, pg. 134)
Reactive ability relies on our efficiency to utilize the SSC and our ability to generate force as quickly as possible against an external force. Both require neuromuscular efficiency but reactive ability also rely’s on force production unlike quickness. The SSC can be positively influenced through variations of strength training, where emphasis is put on a “faster transition from eccentric to concentric work”. We see this in our CAT lifts, as well as repeated loading and unloading in jump training, or sprint training utilizing bounding movements, or COD.
-
My take away from the reading lies in how you train, or more accurately improve, quickness vs reactive ability. The 2 phases of quickness that make up reaction time, latency and response, are generally not improved in the weight room. The latency phase is “determined largely by genetics and is minimally affected by training” and improvement of response time is tied to “regular practice of neuromuscular skill” ie sport skill. To me quickness is determined by 1) winning the genetic lottery and 2) practicing the specific set of skills one will encounter in a given sport to improve response time, precision, and the “ability to accurately anticipate” tasks.
Reactive ability on the other hand is something that can not only be improved in the weight room but should be if the training program is complete. Reactive ability was defined above but basically it’s the ability to maximize the elastic energy of the SSC to provide a more powerful movement. Whether it is the Oly lifts or plyometrics, training and improving reactive ability is appropriate and necessary. You cannot be a Power Athlete if you do not utilize reactive ability to maximize power and express your strength in a dynamic fashion.
-
Thank you everyone for the definitions and applications of quickness and reactive ability. Quickness will be trained as SST and reactive ability will be developed through SAID and specialization.
-
@menacedolen Are you saying that quickness can not be developed outside of SST? I was looking at the development of quickness through an increase proficiency withing the application of the kinematic system… Obviously genetics play a huge part but if we can improve our kinematic link, chain system, and its operational efficiency, cant we improve quickness?
-
I was also looking at in a sense of improved motor coordination which is developed in the Amateur through the LP, precision of movement patters through increased proficiency of the primal movement patterns, and neuromuscular skill training through oculomotor, sensorimotor, and auditory reactions
-
-
@tonyfu Killed it.
@menacedolan Wrote the obituary.
Would love to hear what Inky would say about supplements to enhance the neural processes. Or how much of a moot point you can make the genetic aspects of quickness through the study of game situations so that you can apply anticipation instead of waiting for the reaction time between the stimulus of your opponent’s actions and your response.
-
Quickness- “The ability of the central nervous system to contract, relax, or control muscle function without involvement of any preliminary stretch” (Siff, page 133 Supertraining)
Reactive ability- “The neuromuscular ability to generate explosive force, a quality which relies on both preliminary stretch and rapidity of reaction” (Siff, 2004, p. 134).
We have to go back to the genetic make up. Are you able to tap onto your “quickness” potential. And if so how are you achieving that? Have you trained well, have you been coached well, are you ready for that neuromuscular response, is your body primed for that response. I think one can’t go without the other let me explain. If you train under eustress and create adaptation through the SAID principle based on your sport your quickness and reactive ability will improve tremendously.
Basically you can’t improve one with out the other. Krav Maga is based upon creating reflexive reactions to a specific violent attack. We want for you to punch and kick over and over and over again, that when ever a stimulus comes at you(violent attack) there is no voluntary response and its a reactive ability that will then make you quick to the naked eye. Siff mentioned in the book is that if we start perceiving movement and reacting or have the ability to accurately anticipate, it will enhance our skills and improve neuromuscular patterns.
Like @conorwlynch said it will be interesting to hear Dr. Inc, I can assure you that just like in fatigue everything from supplements, to diet, to sleep, to training will affect both either negatively or positively as a whole.
-
Quickness: May be referred to the ability of the central nervous system to contract, relax, or control muscle function without involvement of any preliminary stretch. Its primary role is to produce high-speed movement which do not encounter large external resistance or require great strength, power, or energy consumption”(Siff, 2004, p. 133). This is the muscles ability to create movement. To focus on the development in training the focus should be directed towards the response phase, since the latency phase largely influenced by genetics. “A response phase between appearance of the electromyography signal and the motor reaction.” This can be developed through oculomotor, sensorimotor, and auditory reactions. It can also be influenced through motor coordination, and precision of movement. Through the linear progression motor coordination is improved, which will have an affect on ones quickness. And the focus of posture and position is paramount in the precision of movement.
Reactive ability: “The neuromuscular ability to generate explosive force, a quality which relies on both preliminary stretch and rapidity of reaction. This depends on the specific ability to display a powerful driving force immediately after an intense, mechanical muscular stretch.” (Siff, 2004, p. 134). This screams stretch reflex, which we improve through lifting weights, sprinting, and plyometrics.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.