Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks
-
@mcquilkin or @luke can you fix this so it’s readable.
-
“The discussion does not dismiss the risks posed by inappropriate or excessive use of plyometric training, but it stresses that it is not the inherent nature of plyometrics which may produce injury, but the manner in which it is used, as is the case with all forms of training.” (Siff, M. p.267) To me this quote says it all, any form of training comes with inherent risks. If training is not properly progressed then overall effectiveness is at risk, reaching top performance is not as likely, and higher possibility for injury ensues. To single out plyometrics as dangerous to train is one of the most idiotic statements anyone can make. The fact that they do carry a slightly higher risk for injury, given that all field and court sports have significant amounts of plyometric components related to them is even more of a reason you should train them in the weight room!
Safety concerns include posture and position, maintaining said posture and position during loading and landing, and paying attention to volume. Not to brown nose here but the power athlete progressions are spot on for teaching plyos.
- Teach proper posture and position. If one doesn’t know what position to land in or take off from they will never be effective and can risk injury.
- Landing in proper position, once it’s establish test it with depth lands from a low height.
- Alignment while jumping, or just another way of saying stay in the correct positions during the eccentric, amortization, and concentric phases.
- Prep work. “<span style=”color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia, ‘Times New Roman’, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: #a7a9ac;”>Supplementary and preparatory drills consist of weight training exercises to develop sufficient muscular strength, especially </span>eccentric<span style=”color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia, ‘Times New Roman’, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: #a7a9ac;”> strength, and connective tissue strength and elasticity to handle the forces involved.”(Mcquilkin,T) </span>
-
-
Didn’t film opposite side of See-saw because her knee was flared up so we didn’t do it. And back is currently recovering from a small injury so I didn’t feel comfortable taking her up to the point of failure. We went to 205 and her true 3rm is 275.
-
-
Waiting on my vids to upload to youtube
-
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.
-
Nailed Carl. I deal with the same thing in basketball. Kids have AAU practice 2x/week and tournaments on the weekends of 5+ games. Your last sentence is spot on.
-
Also, knock on wood, in 3 1/2 years of the Athlete Factory not one athlete has been injured during plyometric training. In 7 years of our CrossFit gym we had one lady who is a marathon runner tear a muscle in the calf doing double unders. So far by “training” the plyo’s it has worked out well. I know your statement wasn’t assuming my gym or any of ours elicits injuries due to plyo’s but more so as a whole. This is understandable without competent coaches to train them. Furthermore, I also understand even with an competent coach shit still happens occasionally.
-
@menacedolan If something pertinent to sport comes with a higher risk of injury within the sport, such as plyometrics, then shouldn’t an athlete be trained on how to do it properly. I said:
” <span style=”color: #000000; font-family: Georgia, ‘Times New Roman’, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 22.5px;”>To single out plyometrics as dangerous to train is one of the most idiotic statements anyone can make.” </span>
Notice I used the word “train”, not simply execute, workout with, be prescribed by a coach, but “train”. One needs to put them as a priority in there program under proper progressions to “train” them so the athlete can not only perform better with them, but cut the inherently higher risk for injury down. So if people say you shouldn’t “train” plyometrics, I will stick with my original statement is saying that is an idiotic thing to say.
-
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. -
@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 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.
-
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 100% agree with that, assuming you are referring to a plyo-step not sure of this “false step” you speak of.
