Methodological discrepancies can cause all kinds of confusion especially when someone is not hammering these simple keystone fallicies out of the literature. A great and relevant example of this is the common garden and often spotted jump squat.
A strew of studies have tried to obtain the %RM at which maximal power out put is achieved (a trait of questionable value to start with). Reported values for the optimal range of external load have ranged from 0-90% a somewhat widespread report.
More recent studies have reported that the actual peak power load is 0-1% this was put down to errors in the way previous studies collected and processed their data.
There are various factors as to why this topic along with other more "niche" factors receive more attention than other topics - i.e. observational studies are easier than training studies, studies that require a non trained population are easier than trying to source a trained population etc.
These quibbles aside this example of recommendations being extrapolated from flawed data can be found in a very high percentage of the sports science (and certainly strength and conditioning) literature.
When observational studies use non validated (or loosely) validated measures on small populations and then run them through weak statistical tests apparent phenomenon appear when in actuality non exist.
What we are left with in this case is 20 odd years of coaches using a certain percentage for jump squats in search of maximal power output when they should have just done some box jumps.
I'm sure many coaches have worked this one out themselves by now, however this is a great example of a common pitfall in basing your approach in the research with out a proper appreciation for the limitations offered by many study designs.
So as always stay critical and keep your approach rooted in results and try to keep the cause and effect of your approach as non-tenuous as possible.
Marc.
I don't disagree with any of your points...
ReplyDeleteBut what are your thoughts on jump squats as a training tool? Especially for those with technical issues or injury that prevent them from cleaning or pulling?
I still think the jump squat is a worth while exercise. I think a well executed clean or snatch is a much more efficient tool however the jump squat definitely has its place same as the inclusion of plyometric and other such choices.
ReplyDeleteAs I'm sure you would agree it is never a good idea to be inflexible in your approach.
The faux precision or over reliance on literature to back up approaches was what I was addressing due to the lack of quality in trials people are automatically setting themselves on the back foot.
One of the many reasons why I think a strong practical background is one of if not the most important aspect of S+C.
All true.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of more recent, good, research seems to be pretty much in agreement from what I can see. The highest peak power output is generate in good old fashioned vertical jumps with no resistive load. I do think a feedback measure of power (not jump height) is really important to maximise athlete's performance in vertical jumps though.
But although unloaded jumps might be the best producers of peak power output - i still think training across a variety of loads is important to address the force velocity curve comprehensively - especially for athletes in sport where power development against resistance is common (rugby).
I agree whole heartedly.
ReplyDeleteI would contend that the point at which maximum peak power occurs in a movement plane is fairly useless information.
If you cover your bases with a well designed programme that develops the physical qualities you desire than small mediators such as "peak power" output are of little relevance.#
Power output or producing a force/velocity curve for testing can provide useful information but then again it is not with out it's flaws.
nice points presented brah
ReplyDeletei do enjoy jump squats though.
but one legged box jumps are so cash
oh also after reading the other comments I'm glad to see you aren't so inflexible in training philosophy, a lot of miscers in particular are very dogmatic about particular methods.
props