In sport training literature, the terms “Depth Jump” and “Drop Jump” are usually understood as synonyms and both of them are used to name the same exercise: a jump executed by droping from a height with vertical rebound.   It is well known that this exercise was invented by Verkhoshansky at the end of the 1950’s for Track & Field jumpers and sprinters, and was also successfully used in many other Olympic sports.  These coaches recognized it as the most powerful training means for increasing explosive strength.

Near the end of the 1960’s, this “secret weapon” of Soviet athletes became known in the United States under the name Depth Jump thanks to the English translation of some of Verkhoshansky’s articles (M.Yessis, 1968, 1969). In 1978, Fred Wilt, who was a pen friend of Verkhoshansky sense from the 60s, presented the Depth Jump as one of the exercises, which were termed as Plyometrics[1]:

“The way drop jumping has become popular is typical of how training methods evolve.  It is rumored that the Russian athlete who won the 100 and 200m  dash in the 1972 Olympics, Valery Borzov, utilized plyometric drills as part of his training (Wilt, 1978). Coaches of rival athletes became interested and began to search for more information. They found a description of drop jumping in a translated Russian paper by Verkhoshansky (1966), and adopted the idea and developed their own modifications. These modifications are now incorporated in widespread athletic programs” (Bobbert, 1990)[2]

Unfortunately, in these programs the rules proposed by Verkhoshansky in applying Depth Jumps in the training process were often not taken into consideration. The rules were associated with Verkhoshansky’s methodology of Special Strength Training and were not well known in the West because his books were not officially translated into English. Near the end of 1970, the ways to apply this exercise in training practice was strongly influenced by the researches of Paavo Komi and his collaborators.

Komi introduced a new understanding of Plyometrics as exercises which involve the Stretch-Shortening Cycle. The exercise, which was termed Drop Jump, was used as the model of the SSC and adapted to study its mechanics and energetics in standardized conditions. These studies analyzed how the changes in these conditions influence the activity of physiological mechanisms which were hypothesized to be responsible for the enhancement of performance during the final phase of reversing in landing-take-off movements. In the longitudinal experiments the training effect of this exercise was evaluated based on the level of the subject’s improvement. Subsequently, a certain technique of the Drop Jump was developed which allowed emphasizing these physiological mechanisms.  This technique was standardized in the Drop Jump test, which was proposed by Carmelo Bosco to be the control in evaluating the level of athlete’s jumping
abilities.

Since the terms “drop jump” and “depth jump” were considered to be synonyms, Drop Jump and Depth Jump were considered to be the same exercise. In consequence, coaches began to apply Bosco’s Drop Jump in the athletes training believing it was the same training means as the Depth Jump developed by Verkhoshansky.

However, for those who are familiar with the works of Verkhoshansky, the execution technique of Drop Jump may seem to be very different from the technique proposed earlier for the Depth Jump.  The first difference is in regards to the athlete using an arm swing. Even if the coach allows arm swings in training with the Drop Jump, the arm swing is not allowed in the Drop Jump Test, so in evaluating the SSC the evaluating movement would be different than the training exercise. The same characteristic appears in the early research on the Drop Jump. The exercise was always applied as the jump with the hands on hips. In regards to the Depth Jump, we don’t find such constraints. In fact, the athlete should use the arm to reach (touch) the overhead goal.

The second difference is in the technique of landing. Drop jumps should be executed with a hard landing keeping the leg muscles stiff, in attempt to minimize the leg’s flexion during the landing. This is a fundamental condition for the elastic energy recoil. On the contrary, in Depth Jump the athlete should not land with rigid, extended legs.  The landing should be resilient and elastic, with the optimal depth of knee flexion at the end of the amortization phase.

Also in the rules of applying these exercises we find differences as well.  The first difference regards the goal of the exercise. Drop Jumps should be performed trying to obtain the maximal height of rebound with minimal ground contact time. The short ground contact time is considered to be the fundamental condition for the elastic energy recoil. Whereas the Depth Jump should be performed trying to obtain the highest height of vertical rebound using the overhead goal. The ground contact time should be short, but it should be the optimal time to allow the athlete express the maximal explosive effort in take-off phase.

The third difference regards the drop height. Depth Jump should be performed from the drop height of  75 cm (or even 1.10 m when this exercise is used to increase maximum strength), while the Drop Jump should be from 20 to 60 cm. For the Drop jump, the distance of dropping higher than 60 cm is considered to be dangerous for the leg joints of athletes and inappropriate for reaching the goal.  Increasing the height above .6 M leads to an increase in ground contact time and to decreasing the height of rebound, which is the exact opposite of the goal of utilizing this exercise (decreasing ground contact time and increasing rebound height by increasing the ability to utilize the SCC).

How, with all these differences, could the confusion be explained through point of view of modern research?

In fact, Verkhoshansky’s Depth Jump could be seen as a Drop Jump executed wrong: with inappropriate drop height and with inappropriate technique (without the close control of the ground contact time and the level of leg flexion at the end of landing phase). With this confusion we could only wonder why Depth Jump was considered by several generations of Soviet coaches and athletes as the most effective jumping exercise.  The reason is because they are two different training means for two different purposes.  Many advanced coaches who tried to keep abreast of modern scientific research had noted these differences and had decided to modernize the execution technique of this exercise. Their thinking was that it’s effect would improve.

On the other hand, a great part of trainers/practitioners did not attach great importance to these differences in the execution of these exercises.  They only heard of this exercise that was a powerful training means discovered by Verkhoshansky, but they did not read his works. As consequence, they accepted the results of research on Drop Jumps as the rules for correct execution of technique of the Depth Jump. We often find such confusion in the popular texts about Plyometrics where Verkhoshansky’s Depth Jump is described as the Drop Jump.   All indications for this application is that the information was taken from the articles about Drop Jump and misinterpreted.  In both cases, the use of the Drop jump as the original exercise, or an advanced form of the Depth Jump, led to an misinterpretation of the methodical guidelines elaborated by Verkhoshansky.

Thus, the results of one Italian researcher showed disagreement with the opinion of Verkhoshansky, and that his famous exercise may be successfully used only by low level athletes. In this research, the experimental group of low-level athletes carried out this exercise during a certain period and obtained a greater increase in the maximal height of the countermovement vertical jump than a control group of same level athletes who used only ordinary jumping exercises. The problem is that the experimental group carried out not Depth Jumps, but Drop Jumps executed according to the technique proposed by C. Bosco.  In fact, Verkhoshansky considered Depth Jump as a Shock Method exercise.  These powerful training means for development of explosive strength should be used only by the high level athletes.  This is not because it is ineffective for the low-level athlete, but because the ordinary jumping exercises could give them the same results.  Nevertheless, we do not always find the same opinions about the training effect of the Drop Jump and we often find discussions about the ways of applying them in the training of low-level athletes, adolescents and even children.

May Depth Jumps and Drop Jumps be considered as the same exercise?

If the answer is “yes”, what technique of this exercise is more correct? In other words, who was wrong: Verkhoshansky of Bosco? If the answer is “no”, what exercise is more effective?

To answer these questions, Depth Jumps and Drop Jumps were analyzed beginning with their origins. To clarify the similarities and the differences between them, the results of the recent research was analyzed in which the physiological mechanisms involved in these exercises were investigated as were the results of applying these exercises in training practice.  The results of this analysis showed that Y. Verkhoshansky and C. Bosco were both correct.  They not only used different terms, but also different exercises which should be used for different purposes, and should be applied according different rules.

Coaches should be advised to distinguish between these two exercises that are so often confused.  The main purpose of using Drop Jumps in training process is, mostly, the improvement of the athlete’s capacity to utilize the elastic energy recoil during the reversal phase of SSC movements. Whereas, the main purpose of using Depth Jumps is, mostly, increasing the explosive strength and improvement of the athlete’s ability to express the highest explosive strength effort in specific take-off movements.  This could be performed not only in the reversal SSC regime, but also in isolated concentric regime.   Another feature of this training means is that it allows the athlete to increase maximal strength through the improvement of their neural mechanisms.  More exactly, the exercises increase the level of motor unit synchronization, the level of motor unit recruitment, and firing rate at the beginning of maximal strength effort. Depth Jumps performed with a high drop height (1.10 m) allows the stimulation of muscles in similar way as the Barbell Squat executed according to Maximal Effort Method, but not by the same means.  The depth jump does not use a high level of
opposition (barbell weight) to the bring about a maximal voluntary strength effort, but utilizes the forcible muscle activation brought on by the impact with the ground.

The recent research[3] indicates that this forcible activation of muscles starts not at the beginning of touchdown phase, but before ground contact and that it is provoked by the increased descending drive from the motor cortex. This pre-landing muscle activation serves to protect the athlete’s feet from the impact.  It is determined by the perceived distance of falling by the athlete when he/she stands on the raised platform before the drop down. As consequence, the stretch reflex mechanisms are likely to contribute to, but not control, the post-landing muscle activity during the downward movement after touchdown and mediated not by stretch receptors, but by higher order CNS structures. As a result, during the push off phase these structures work in concert with simple reflexes to reach a given goal; to achieve a maximal height of rebound or to achieve a maximal height with minimal ground contact time.  This explains why the obtaining a shortest ground contact time is not as important in the Depth Jump as in the Drop Jump, and therefore a higher height of dropping is allowed.

The muscle activity prior to foot contact is timed to the expected instant of touch down and is modulated as a function of drop height. More than this, the pre- and post-landing EMG activity amplitude, which determines the level of muscles activation before the active take-off movement, is scaled to drop height in an approximately linear fashion. So a high drop height used in Depth Jump, which is inappropriate for increasing of the elastic energy recoil, allows obtaining an extremely high level of muscles activation during the take-off movement. However, such a high level of training stimuli is needed only for  high-level athletes and its applying requires  careful considerations.

The rules of the preliminary preparation to the use of Depth Jump will be analyzed in the second presentation: “Progressing the Jumping Exercises: Practical Application for Coaches”.

[1] Fred Wilt. “Plyometrics – What is it and how it works”, Modern athlete and coach, 1978, n.16, pp.9-12.

The aim of this presentation is to introduce Strength & Conditioning coaches to the methodology of applying jumping exercises.

In most sports, jumping exercises are essential elements of special physical preparation because they increase the mechanical efficiency of landing-take-off (Stretch-Shortening Cycle) movements, which are key-elements in most competition exercises.  Jumping exercises improve both sprinting and jumping abilities, which are very important in team sports. However, Strength & Conditioning coaches who usually work with team sport athletes often are not familiar with the methodology of applying these exercises.  This may be due to the fact that, although the exercises were well elaborated, it was mainly for track & field jumpers and sprinters.  This unfamiliarity brings on certain issues. Inappropriately sequenced jumping exercises may cause leg injuries if the athlete has never used this kind of exercise before.  Jumping exercises, therefore, need to be prepared for in advance.

How should this preliminary preparation be accomplished?

Sport training literature usually suggests that to be ready for jump training it is necessary only to enforce the leg’s muscles and improve the flexibility of the athlete. If this were enough, how could we explain that, very often, athletes with very high levels of strength obtained by weight training have difficulty in executing jump exercises?  The problem is that the “jumping skill” depends not only on the strength of the legs but also on the individual’s coordination to efficiently apply the strength during execution. Improving jumping ability requires not only physical preparation, but also technical preparation by applying appropriate methods of motor teaching.

What are these methods and how do we better apply them in the jump training?

The second problem that arises in applying jumping exercises is related to their variety, which makes it difficult to find the appropriate selection for a given athlete.  Among jump exercises many types could be individualized, and can be used for different specific purpose (increasing Explosive Strength, Reactive Ability, Local Muscular Endurance etc.).  The exercises can be calibrated in relation to the level of intensity of their training stimuli.  According to this criterion, jump exercises may be placed in a hierarchical sequence with the following progression when applied to the training process:

1. Jumps without weights (standing jumps and bounds)

2. Jumps with weights (consecutive Barbell Jumps, Kettlebell Squat Jumps and Vertical Jumps with Barbell)

3. Depth jump

How do you apply this progression in the training of a given athlete? How does a coach know that the athlete is ready to progress with either intensity of the load, or intensity of the means selected?

To answer these questions, the following issues should be examined:

1. Fitness and skill components of training process and their compatibility.

2. Basic methodological approach for increasing the motor potential and for improving the ability to apply the motor potential in specific exercise.

3. Jumping skill: what it is and how it may be improved.

4. The general scheme of the jump exercise progression in the training process.

5. First step of the jump exercises progression: Short- and Long-coupling time jumping exercises and “ankling” runs.

6. Progressing the methods of jump training: from Extensive to Intensive.

7. Second step of the jump exercises progression: jumps with weights.

8. Consecutive Barbell jumps and Kettlebell Squat jumps: the differences between them.

9. Vertical Jumps with barbell (Countermovement Barbell Jump) and Consecutive Barbell Jumps: the differences between them.

10.  How to evaluate the jumping ability improvement at every step of jump exercise’s progression?

11.  Should Drop Landings be used as preliminary exercise for Depth Jumps?

12.  Three main principles for successful coaching of jump training.

To better outline the practical aspects in the presentation I will be showing sample workouts for every step of the jump exercise progression and video clips of the exercise’s execution with athletes of different jump training experience.

The Greek word “plethyein” has a different meaning: “be or become full”. This Greek root is used, for example, in the English words “plethora” and “plenty”. The meaning of “Increase” or greater in size, extent, has another Greek root: “plio-”. In fact, the Russian, German, and other European coaches used and continue to use another term for Plyomentrics: “pliometric exercises”. To understand why they began to use this term, we need to take a quick trip to the early 20th century.

The term “pliometric” was introduced in 1938 by Hubbard and Stetson who “recognized that muscles underwent contractions during three different “conditions”: when they are shortening, are keeping the same length, or are lengthening. The three conditions were termed “miometric,” “isometric,” and “pliometric,” by coupling the Greek prefixes “mio” (shorter), “iso” (same), and “plio” (longer) to the noun “metric,” defined as “pertaining to measures or measurement, to differentiate among the three conditions under which the muscles ‘contracted’.”

The pliometric muscular action occurs when the external load actively extends (stretch) the muscles while the contraction is in progress. In Russian sport training literature it is usually termed as the yielding regime of muscular work. From a biomechanics point of view, during such “lengthening contraction”, the muscles do not produce any external positive work (i.e., mechanical work, equal to force generated x distance moved); all of the energy has been used to exert tension on the load.
The feature of such “negative” work was outlined in 1892 by A. Fick , who demonstrated that a muscle can exert greater force when stretched by an external force while contracting; the heat produced by actively stretched muscle was less than that measured during the active shortening. Using the terms introduced in 1938 by Hubbard and Stetson, it was shown, that the pliometric and miometric muscular contractions (with the same velocity) produce different forces and consume different amounts of energy. Pliometric muscular actions:
1) Produce a greater force
2) Consume less energy than miometric muscular actions
This phenomenon was confirmed and extended in 1923 by W. Fenn in his study on the quantitative relation between the heat production of muscles and the work that they perform . Fenn showed that “The work done in stretching the muscle does not therefore add itself to the ‘physiological’ heat but . . . replaced energy which would have been liberated by the muscle if it had not been stretched.”

Fenn’s study was performed in the laboratory of Archibald V. Hill, who termed the results as “Fenn’s Effect”. He summarized this effect in the following words: “ …Shortening during contraction, lengthening during relaxation, appears to require excess liberation of energy. Lengthening during contraction, shortening during relaxation, appear to cause an excess “absorption” of energy, i.e. to lead to a total energy liberation less than that of the isometric twitch…. If it be held fast and allowed to shorten only during relaxation, then again it will give out less heat. ” .

Numerous studies were carried out to discover the basic mechanisms of this phenomenon. In 1938 Hill theorized that Fenn’s effect could be related to a decrease in the rate of chemical transformation in the muscle. However, in 1950, Hill had also hypothesized that the mechanical energy produced by an external force, which causes a contracting muscle to stretch, could be stored in the series elastic components of muscle and reutilized in the subsequent shortening phase of movement: “An important factor of mechanical behavior of muscle is the passive elastic component in series with the active contractile one…. This acts as a buffer when a muscle passes abruptly from the resting to the active state, and it accumulates mechanical energy as the tension of the muscle rises. If a muscle is opposed, as in most ordinary movements, by the inertia of a limb or an external mass, this mechanical energy can be used in producing a final velocity greater than that at which the contractile component itself can shorten. This is important in such movements as jumping or throwing.”

In 1968, the research of G. Cavana, B. Dusman, and R. Margaria showed, in isolated frog muscle and in the muscle of working humans, that the work done by muscle shortening at a given velocity was greater if the shortening was preceded by a stretch during stimulation. This effect, they concluded, was partly due to an increase in the force of contraction of the contractile component. The force developed by contractile component, when the muscle shortens after being stretched, is greater than the force developed when the muscle shortens, at the same speed and length, but starting from a state of isometric contraction.
During the following two decades it was established that pliometric contraction:
− can maximize the force exerted and the work performed by muscle
− is associated with a greater mechanical efficiency
− can attenuate the mechanical effects of impact forces.
So, it was natural to suppose that the pliometric muscular action during the landing and take-off phases typical of jumping exercises stretches the activated muscles during the downward movement after touchdown, causing an increase in the force produced in the following take-off movement. In other words, the performance of the jump is enhanced.

This was likely the reason why high power jumps that involve repeated, rapid, and forceful shortening and lengthening actions during almost maximum activation of large muscle groups (as does similar forms of throwing) where the pliometric regime is emphasized, were termed “pliometric” exercises. This term was then converted to “plyometric” probably because both terms are pronounced similarly, though no one saw the written word. We know this because in 1953 E. Asmussen introduced another term for pliometric muscular actions: “eccentric”, which is also defined as whimsical as well as excentric , meaning to move away from the center of the muscle. In 1959, in Karpovich’s textbook “Physiology of Muscular Activity” , miometric actions were named “concentric” and pliometric were named “eccentric”.
“Presently, lengthening, miometric and pliometric, and concentric and eccentric are all in use in the physiological, biomechanics, sports medicine, and sports science literature. Despite their inappropriateness, the most commonly used expressions in the conditioning and sports exercise papers are concentric and eccentric contractions (Knuttgen HG and Kraemer WJ. Terminology and measurement in exercise performance. J Appl Sport Sci Res 1: 1–10,1987.)”
In the sport training literature the term “pliometric” became obsolete and was gradually replaced by the term “eccentric”, also thanks to the growth of popularity in “eccentric training”, which consists in using only the lowering phase of resistance exercise.

The term “pliometric” gradually lost its primary meaning and continued be used in Europe synonymously with plyometric. By the end of the 1980s, the new term came to be considered more appropriated for plyometrics: exercises that emphasize the Stretch-Shortening Cycle (SSC). However, the term Plyometrics is still more popular between the coaches, athletes and sport scientists. According to M. Siff, Plyometrics “consist of stimulating the muscles by means of a sudden stretch preceding any voluntary effort”.

Now, we know that under a sudden stretch, in this definition, the pliometric muscular action is implied, which increases the power output of the subsequent movement. We may thus apply a more suitable interpretation of the term Plyometrics: exercises in which the pliometric muscular action is applied as a means of intensifying the muscular activity. Essentially, in simplest terms, Plyometrics means “to apply pliometric”

[1] Fred Wilt. “Plyometrics – What is it and how it works”, Modern athlete and coach, 1978, n.16, pp.9-12.

[2] Hubbard A.W. and Stetson R,H. An experimental analysis of human locomotion. J Physiol 124: 300–313, 1938.

[3] Faulkner, John A. Terminology for contractions of muscles during shortening, while isometric, and during lengthening. J Appl Physiol, 95: 455–459, 2003

[4] Fick A. Neue Beiträge zur Kenntniss von der Wärme-Entwicklung im Muskel. Pflügers Arch 51: 541–569, 1892.

[5] Wallace Osgood Fenn, A Quantitative Comparison between the Energy Liberated and the Work Performed by the Isolated Sartorius Muscle of the Frog, Journal of Physiology, 58(1924): 175.

[6] Fenn WO. The relationship between the work performed and the energy liberated in muscular contraction. J Physiol 58: 373–395, 1924.

[7] Archibald V. Hill. The Mechanism of  Muscular Contraction.  Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1923.

[8] Hill AV. Heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 126: 136–195, 1938.

[9] Hill, A.V. (1950) The series elastic component of muscle. Proceedings of the Royal Society London Series B 137, 273–280.

[10] G.Cavana, B.Dusman, R.Margaria. Positive work done by a previously stretched muscle . J Appl Physiol January 1, 1968.

[11] “In 1962, during a discussion on muscle performance chaired by D. B. Dill (Rodahl K, Horvath SM, and Risch MPS. Muscle as a Tissue. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.) , Erling Asmussen used the terms concentric and eccentric and B. J. Ralston made the perceptive comment that these terms led to confusion and should be eliminated from the literature. Asmussen conceded that the terms miometric and pliometric might be better..” (Faulkner, John A. Terminology for contractions of muscles during shortening, while isometric, and during lengthening. J Appl Physiol, 95: 455–459, 2003).

[12]Karpovich PV. Physiology of Muscular Activity. Philadelphia,PA: Saunders, 1959.

[13] Faulkner, John A. Terminology for contractions of muscles during shortening, while isometric, and during lengthening. J Appl Physiol, 95: 455–459, 2003.

[14] Komi PV. Physiological and biomechanical correlates of muscle function: effects of muscle structure and stretch-shortening cycle on force and speed. In: Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, edited by Terjung RL. Lexington, MA: Collamore, 1984, p. 81–121.

JD: Landon, we’re excited to have you back on the docket this year. I know you have been very busy since you spoke last year. Why don’t you tell us what has been going on.

LE: I was given the great opportunity to join the University of Iowa Olympic Sports Strength & Conditioning department. I serve as an assistant strength & conditioning coach and oversee the sports nutrition department for the teams that we serve.

There were many great and supportive people that my family left a lot of great people at Illinois State University.  I would be nowhere without the people at ISU, and am grateful for their support in my tenure there.

Additionally, my wife and I are proud parents of a 1 year old little girl. The timing of her coming into our lives, the opportunity to get back to Iowa, and to be apart of a great athletic department and staff has been a dream for our family.

***********************

JD: The new position sounds fantastic. How has the transition been? How is the new staff/environment and where do you see things going for you professionally at Iowa?

LE: The transition has been smooth. The staff at Iowa is top notch and they genuinely care about what they do. Additionally, the athletic training services director has been great to work with. The collaboration between our departments has been steadily moving forward and becoming more and more integrated by the day. It has been a great ride so far.

Professionally here, it is limitless in my opinion. There is always more that can be done.  The environment in which I work allows for the envelope to continually to be pushed. Outside of the athletics department, I will begin teaching in the Health and Human Physiology department this upcoming fall. The people that I’ve met so far in the department are exactly the people that I love being around. They seem to be a very proactive group. Being a part of this department will lend itself for many opportunities for myself, and potentially our strength & conditioning department.

**********************

JD: One thing many people do not know about you is that you studied computer engineering in college. How was the transition, and where does your work as an undergrad help you as a sports performance coach?

LE: When I entered my undergraduate studies, I began in computer engineering. I was head-over-heels for computing in my early years in high school, but as the years went on in undergraduate, I became more aware of the reality of what I was actually working towards.  This didn’t sit well with me so I decided to make the switch to a sport related field.  Granted, knowing how the profession is now, I may have stuck out the engineering, especially from a software development standpoint. With that being said, I’m very happy with what I’m doing now.

In engineering, I was forced to think critically all the time. You were always in pursuit of finding a better way to do something. That was the expectation. It wasn’t an option. So you naturally developed more and more skillsets to solve a problem. Coaching is all about solving problems, so it was a natural transition.

Microsoft Excel was something I used right away when the Office package came out, but I didn’t get into it until I was actually coaching. From a database standpoint, I was only exposed to setting up MySQL servers, and working within Microsoft Access a bit. As a coach, everything I need (at least right now) is done in Microsoft Excel. This includes everything from workouts, to data analysis, to data visualization.

**********************

JD: I’m excited for your presentation on how coaches can utilize computer programs for tracking and analyzing data; I think that this is a topic many coaches are undereducated in. Can you tell us why this sort of work is important for the coach, and what they can learn from utilizing computer programs correctly?

LE: Numbers drive a lot of decisions. Using instinct as a coach is important, but objective data can definitely help us make many decisions a little bit easier. There are many instrumental channels that help us make those decisions. Objective data is just one of them, but a powerful one. Software can help us manage this data much better, especially if you know how to utilize the basic elements of the software.

The talk is going to be strictly on Microsoft Excel as this is the most popular software being used in our profession. Some are going web-based to write their programs, but those programs are still very limited. Excel is what the majority of the strength & conditioning professionals that I know use to construct their programs and to enter in their respective data.

If I look at my work-day, a lot of time is sitting on the computer writing programs, inputting data, analyzing data, visualizing data, staring at data to make sense of it, or reading. All of that can take a ton of time, that we really don’t have, but you can speed up the analysis and visualization by simply writing better Excel programs. Some people are intimidated by Excel, but in the hour that I will be presenting, I’ll share how to write programs easier, showcase best practices with database entry, provide shortcuts, and highlight dashboard design.

I encourage people to bring their laptops to actively work along with my presentation. Additionally, since the presentation is only 1 hour long, I do not have any issue sitting down with individuals to hack at their Excel with them to come up with a better solution for them.

JD: That sounds absolutely fantastic Landon.  Finding a better way to track and input data, write programs, and visualize the data is something that can help any coach.  From presentations for sport coaches, sharing data with other strength and conditioning coaches, to analyzing the training that they are implementing with there athletes, making that a faster and smoother operation would be fantastic.  We can’t wait for the presentation.

JJ: Just staying busy, working on a few different projects, training the usual group of fighters and running the gym – same old, same old. Mostly I’ve been focused on the new stuff for the BioForce Project, which is something I’ll be discussing at the 2013 seminar.  It’s really exciting work, something that I don’t think has ever really been done before and I’m excited to talk more about it.

JD: Your presentation is going to be an example of one of your fighters’ “camps” leading up to a fight.  What can our attendees expect to take away?

JJ: The goal will be to give attendees an inside look at what it really takes to get ready for a fight and my goal is to give them practical ideas that they can implement with their own athletes. I’ll be explaining not just what we did week by week, but also why we did it that way, which is the most important part.

JD: All of the fighters must be absolute freaks.  Strong, fast, fit, tough, fantastic athletes.  So when you get the opportunity to work with the cream of the crop, like a DJ, where do you start?  Where do you go?

JJ: I wouldn’t say every fighter in the sport is a fantastic athlete by any means, but it’s been getting that way more and more in the last few years. You’re finally starting to see some really high level athletes competing in MMA and I think over the next few years the level of athleticism is only going to get better.

Still, no matter how good an athlete might be, there are always places that he or she can improve. This is especially true in a sport like MMA, which requires such a diverse skill set and such a high level of fitness. Whether it’s DJ or any other fighter, there’s always something that can be improved and that’s where the training will be focused on.

JD: What evaluations, if any, do you utilize at the beginning of a camp to see where you need to go with an athlete in their fight prep?

JJ: There’s a ton of evaluation that goes on at the beginning of a camp; we look at their overall fitness levels, their skill set, and their opponent. The biggest part of this is really done by their skill coach because at the end of the day, the sport is one of skills; fitness levels just support that, so a fighter’s skills must be evaluated so that the right game plan can be drawn up based on the opponent. This is where working with a world class coach like Matt Hume is so valuable because he’s as good at evaluating fighters and coming up with game plans as anyone in the world.

JD: With these evaluations in mind, when you start a camp with a fighter, what are some common “issues” you run into with the athletes?  How might these change your approach?

JJ: Every fighter is different and so I don’t know that there really are “common” issues. Everyone has their own set of needs, goals, limitations, strengths, weaknesses, etc. At this level, they are all professional athletes and they take their training seriously so it’s just a matter of putting together the right game plan and executing it.

JD: What may change throughout the camp is how well they recover, if they sustain any minor injuries, etc. These day to day issues are really the biggest things that come up and need to be managed. At the end of the day, everything is based around keeping them healthy and training so that they can be ready to fight.

JJ: The strength and conditioning program can’t beat them up, but rather must get them in shape without increasing the risk of injury. It also can’t have a negative impact on their skill training. So on a day to day basis there’s quite a bit of evaluation and management that goes on to keep them on the right track, but the overall approach and game plan stays the same.

JD: Joel, thanks for taking the time out to catch us up with what’s going on with you.  We’re really excited to have you in the lineup again.  To hear firsthand how you prepared a fighter will be an awesome presentation.  I can’t wait to see it.

JJ: No problem, looking forward to coming back to Virginia and seeing everyone again this spring!

Click Here To Download

As a new strength coach with only three years of experience, were my father still alive, he could say the same thing and be right again.  There is so much I don’t know, which is why Mike’s know-it-all vs. learn-it-all article made me chuckle.  I’m not worried about being a know-it-all.  In fact, I look forward to the day when I can be a know-a-hundredth-of-it-all.

To fix these yawning gaps in my knowledge base, I have to read constantly.  This can be a bit of a crap shoot: some of the books you pick up really open your eyes and some end up being rather vacuous and you feel like the author just wanted to say s/he wrote a book.

Of everything I have read over the last year, the book that I feel expanded how I think about strength training the most was Triphasic Training, a relatively new book written by Cal Dietz and Ben Peterson, a strength and conditioning coach at the University of Minnesota and a former strength and conditioning coach and current Ph.D. candidate at the UofM.

In my limited experience, Cal seems to have one of the most unique approaches to strength and conditioning that I have encountered.  I liked the book because it really made me think and forced me to look at what I was doing and most important, why I was doing it.

Before I highlight what stood out for me, I want to put out two disclaimers.  First, I think their approach is different from typical programming approaches discussed on the StrengthCoach.com site and other places.  However, because I am a new strength coach, maybe a lot of coaches have been doing what they recommend for a long time and it is just a matter of my lack of exposure.

Second, I want to be clear that I am not advocating for their approach…I am just saying it made me think…and I am not saying the Triphasic Training method is better.  “Better” is an empirical question that can be challenging to research.  I will say a little more about the empirical nature of this “better” question at the end.

Here is what stood out for me:

1)    Their primary goal is to create more powerful, faster athletes

That’s not unique, you say, we’re all trying to create more powerful athletes.  However, it is interesting to me that many coaches don’t say they have that as they primary goal.  I have more often seen that coaches have three goals:  eliminate weight room injuries, reduce on-field injuries, and improve athletic performance in that order.  Dietz and Peterson say their goal is to create more powerful, faster athletes.  It is not that they ignore mobility/prehab work and weight room safety.  But their primary objective is to create more powerful athletes.

I am thinking about this because I know that how you state your goals can have a big effect on your approach and your outcomes.

Here is one particular way that plays out.  I have read in multiple places that the ideal plyometric progression is from double leg to single leg.  In other words, the athlete goes through a double leg progression from jump-stick, to jump-hop, to continuous jumping and then onto roughly the same progression on one leg.  This is seen as ideal to prevent injuries.

The Triphasic approach turns this typical progression around and advocates for moving from single leg plyometrics to double leg plyometrics because they feel the double leg plyometrics are better for power development and on-field performance, which is what they are primarily solving for.

2)    Though we all want to create more powerful athletes, many aspects of the Triphasic approach are different from approaches I have read about on this forum and other places.

I will give several examples in this article but here is one example to illustrate the point.  In a 12 week off-season, they will spend half the time working heavy loads (above 80%) and the other half of the time, dramatically de-loading the athletes.  By the last 3 weeks of training, their athletes are lifting between 25 and 50% of their 1 RMs.

I know many coaches deload as they get closer to season, but I have never seen this dramatic of a drop off in load in other off-season programs.  Dietz and Peterson strongly believe that the last phase with the dramatically reduced loads is absolutely key to developing power that translates into athletic performance.

Here is another, perhaps more minor but nonetheless significant example of a difference in their approach.

3)    Olympic Lifts might not be the best way to develop power.

Triphasic Training rarely programs Olympic Lifts.  On the one hand you say, so what, there are many coaches who don’t program Olympic Lifts and they still improve athletic power.

On the other hand, you scratch your head and say, wait a minute, one of the guys is in a collegiate setting and he has his athletes for 4-5 years.  He clearly knows how to do the Olympic lifts and knows how to teach them.  Many other strength coaches say Olympic lifts are one of the single best methods for developing power. Why then wouldn’t they be using them if they say they are focused on developing powerful, reactive athletes?

Here is the reason:  They don’t like to program Olympic lifts because Olympic lifts don’t support the physiological adaptations they are trying to drive in their multi-phased approach.

I am guessing many strength coaches think of cleans/snatches as the rapid acceleration of load and I am also guessing that is part of the reason they like and use them.  Olympic lifts are the epitome of power.

The characteristic of Olympic lifts that make them not work in Dietz and Peterson’s Triphasic approach is that the time between reps is too slow.  They want their athletes to develop a powerful, repetitive hip extension and they believe they can develop that more effectively by taking a squat through their five phases.

The Clean and Snatch are too slow?  Now you might not agree with that, but I had never even factored the time between reps for those exercises into my thinking about their value.

4)    They don’t organize their workouts into exercises focused on Power (like Olympic Lifts, plyos, and med ball throws) and strength (knee/hip dominant, vertical/horizontal pushing and pulling)

Every workout is built around two main lifts…squats and bench.  They take typical, easy to teach, lifts and uses them to develop power.

They do this by working each lift through their five phases.  (Yes, go figure, the Triphasic Method has five phases.)  The five phases are eccentric, isometric, concentric (all above 80% of 1RM), a 55-80% phases with the lower weight complimented by the use of chains and bands, and a 25-55% phase focused on as many reps as possible (AMRAP) in a fixed amount of time.  (The times are aimed at optimizing for the sport you are training for…longer for, say, hockey or lacrosse, shorter for football).  I will say more on these phases in a moment.

Around those two main lifts, they program assistance lifts as recovery from the main lift, thus creating program density and also to ensure they are hitting prehab movements for reducing injury.  More on these assistance exercises in a moment as well.

The simplicity of the two-big-lifts approach appeals to me.  If they are right, I may not have to teach all my athletes to clean.  I can teach them to squat and then take multiple approaches to that squat…isometric, rapid contractions for time, high and low loads…and develop power that way.  That is appealing when you work by yourself with groups of 16 or more, which is what I do.

5)    Power increases by “narrowing the V”…the time it takes to move from eccentric through the isometric “pause” to concentric contraction stages of muscular action.

Muscular action has three stages:  eccentric, isometric, and concentric.  They feel the key to power is “narrowing the V”…the time it takes to move from eccentric through the isometric pause to the concentric muscle action.  And the key to narrowing that V is training, for extended periods of time, in all three phases.

Everyone knows the three phases of muscle action.  And everyone, of course, does concentric training.  Many also work eccentrically on a regular basis.  But I don’t see much isometric work (do a search on the SC.com Forums).  Moreover, this was the first time I encountered someone programming the three phases, separately, for three and four week blocks of time.

6)    In focusing on developing power, training the nervous system is as, if not more, important than training the muscles

This is where their most provocative or controversial or flat out wrong (depending on your perspective) idea comes in:  the idea that mixed training…training heavy loads for low reps for max strength and lighter loads for high reps for strength endurance in the same session and even in the same week or block “confuses” the nervous system and does not produce the desired homeostatic adaptation:

“When different training parameters are targeted within the same workout they must be seen as having a negative or detractor effect on one another.  That is, stress placed on one training parameter (max strength) detracts from the stress that could be placed on a different training parameter (speed strength)…“Differing neurological signals interpreted by the athlete’s body cause confusion within the homeostatic response.  With no one stressor clearly signaling for adaptation, the multiple training targets worked during mixed training elicit conflicting responses within the athlete.”  (Pages 42 and 43 of Triphasic Training).

Everything is aligned to support the desired adaptations.  Even their conditioning changes by phase and is oriented towards supporting the adaptations they are attempting to drive in the weight room across the various phases.  Moreover, they are thinking about adaptations very broadly…enzymatic adaptations, neurological adaptations, muscular, skeletal adaptations, etc.

The focus on nervous system adaptations is why two main lifts…one upper body, one lower body…work.  Even in their six day programs, where they are alternating squats on M-W-F with bench on T-TH-S, they are moving the bench press through the five phases and “teaching” the nervous system to move load quickly.

As a new coach, I never even really thought about what it meant to train the nervous system.  This not only gave me some idea about what it meant but it also gave me an approach.

It also gave me a big ah-ha about exercise selection.  I used to look at exercises and say does that seem like a good exercise to me?  Is it safe?  Is it functional?  Does it seem like a good progression or regression for something I am trying to accomplish?  Does it give me a lot of bang-for-the-buck?

Triphasic Training adds one more filter:  does the exercise support the phase my athletes are working in?  In other words, an exercise is not good or bad in and of itself.  It is only considered “good” if it supports the adaptations they are trying to accomplish in a particular phase.

For example, most consider the Turkish Get-up a darn “good” exercise…multi-planer, strength and mobility, core to extremity, etc. Dietz and Peterson might program Turkish get-ups in their over 80% phase, but you would never see Get-ups programmed in their final two blocks.  They are too slow and would counteract the nervous system adaptations they are trying to foster.

7)    Triphasic Training outlines a number of specialized training approaches I had never been exposed to.

A)   French Contrast.  The French Contrast is a fancy name for a combination of complex and contrast methods.  A “complex” is a heavy compound exercise followed by a plyometric that mimics the same pattern.  A “contrast” method is a heavy set followed by a drop set.

The French Contrast follows the heavy set with an unloaded plyometric (complex), then a drop set (contrast), and another plyometric (complex).   The authors are big advocates of this approach for improving sports performance in those sports requiring high rates of force production.

B)   Timed Drop-offs.  The idea here is that you have your athletes repeat sets (same load, same number of reps) until the performance (speed of the bar) drops off by more than some specified amount (generally 3-5%).  This seems like a great way to work near max loads, without overly fatiguing athletes.  This was interesting, but I have to admit, I didn’t pay as much attention to it because I don’t feel I can implement it in my situation.

C)   Antagonistically Facilitated Specialized Method (AFSM). They cite research showing that the main difference between the most elite athletes and great athletes was not the speed at which they could contract the agonist muscle but the speed at which they could relax the antagonistic muscles.  They employ a number of means to increase that ability.  Here are a couple that I really liked:

1. Timed Sets.  I referenced this earlier.  In the final phase, with loads in the 25-50% 1-RM range, their athletes are performing AMRAP in a fixed amount of time, with the time a function of the needs of the athletes’ sport.

1. Oscillatory Method.  This involves short, rapid pushes and pulls with the bar or dumbbell only traveling a few inches.  To illustrate, think of doing a bench press with the bar two inches above your chest and pushing up about three or four inches and then pulling the bar down and repeating that for, say, ten seconds.  They are trying to teach their athletes to contract and relax, in this case, in the weakest part of the lift.

The authors use a lot of Oscillation sets, especially in their final two training blocks, to help athletes prepare for the rapid rates of force development needed in their sports.

8)    Triphasic Training lays out multiple methods and means for adding program variation.

Everyone emphasizes the importance of varying the stress applied and keeping it interesting for the athletes.  The Triphasic method provides multiple ways to add variation to your programming.  First, there are the phases themselves.  The loading and focus of the various phases vary but the loading parameters are also changing across weeks within a block or phase.

Second, the loading varies within a given week from a focus on high load/low reps, to lower load/ relatively higher reps relative to the phase the athletes are in.  This is commonly referred to as “undulation” or the undulating block method.

I recognize that many feel undulating blocks are overly complex and unnecessary.  I am not going to argue for it or against it; I am just saying that it is a kind of programmed variation that may help coaches mix it up.

Finally, the variety of exercises they present, especially assistance exercises for injury prevention is off-the-dial.  As a new strength coach, this greatly added to may repertoire of progressions and was worth the price of the book in and of itself.  (You have to by the ebook to have the links directly to the exercise videos.) I especially liked the Inclined Cuban Press and the reactive lateral drops.  I also think that adding a couple of their forearm variations (Thor’s Hammer and Bam-Bam ) into my own routine for several weeks helped me clear up a nagging tennis elbow injury that even ART hadn’t fully addressed.

All this, together with the specialized methods mentioned above took me way beyond the progressions and regressions spreadsheet I had been using to add variation.  I now feel I have a better mental model for thinking about variation and a better system for programming it.

9)    An unbelievable number of sample workouts.

The book lays out hundreds of sample workouts that are actual workout sheets used at the University of Minnesota.  The sheets illustrate how to program for the various phases, but they also show how they program depending on if you are in-season or off-season and if you are working out 3, 4, 5, or 6 days a week.  There are also specific workout sheets tailored to various sports.

Sharing workout sheets in a book is not new, but it was still helpful for me to see how their approach could be implemented depending on how many days one had to work with.

10)  Coach’s Corner and Coaching Tips

Throughout the book they provide coaching tips.  They cover programming tips and suggestions on how to coach various exercises.  But they also provide coaching suggestions around a wide range of topics that were great for a rookie like me:

• Transferring force through the foot and ankle
• The Sport Back Squat (narrower stance and not as deep) and why it is better for peaking athletes
• Breathing and post exercise strategies for recovery
• Accelerated plyometrics (absolutely wild the first time you see it and even more wild the first time you try it!)

These coaching suggestions often revealed how much I didn’t know, wasn’t doing, and wasn’t even considering.  Some I can’t use, but most I can and I benefitted greatly from the authors taking the time to get deeper into the nuances of what they were doing and why.

So there you have it.  Those are the ten things I took away from this book and some of the ways it affected how I think about strength training.  For many, these points will probably seem pedestrian and I apologize.  For others, they may represent things you hadn’t considered and if it gets you interested in exploring these ideas further, well then, mission accomplished.

I mentioned up front and I will say it again, I have no idea if Dietz and Peterson’s Triphasic Methods are better than other approaches…only that they seemed different from other stuff I had read.  The authors obviously feel their approach is better, but “better” is an empirical question.

If these Triphasic methods do represent a different way to program, then it seems to me there are only four possibilities:

1)      The more mainstream programming methods used today are better ways to develop power and speed and increase athletic performance…approaches like Dietz’ have been tried before and don’t work as well as the ones we are currently using,

2)      The Triphasic methods represent distinct improvements in how we approach the development of power and speed and how to increase athletic performance

3)      The current approaches and the Triphasic approach are essentially equivalent…it is like parenting…there is no best approach…it depends on your kids…almost anything works…except the really stupid stuff, or

4)      Neither approach really has any affect on power or athletic performance.

I guess it could be #3 or #4, but if either of those were true, it doesn’t seem to me that many people would be interested in being strength coaches.

If the Triphasic approach does represent a significant departure and if #2 is possible, I would think strength coaches everywhere would be very interested in researching these methods to see if they really do represent a better approaches to the development of power, speed and on-field performance and if so, incorporating them into their programs.

After all, small changes in an athlete’s game performance can have huge effects on game outcomes, seasons, careers, and program reputations.

To gab your copy of Cal Deitz and 2013 Presenter Ben Peterson’s book click here

Dennis Adsit is the Strength and Conditioning coach for the Golden State Elite Youth Hockey in San Mateo, CA.  He can be reached at dennis_adsit@comcast.net

Click Here To Download

JD: If you could, please give our readers a little background information about yourself, what your niche in the world of athletics is, accomplishments, how you got there, education, any products you have available, and/or notable publications.

JB: Well first off thank you very much for considering me to speak, no matter how big or small this is a huge honor. I am a former division one and semi pro baseball player.  After moving to the west coast I needed to find something to stay competitive and interested in and I was able to find powerlifting.  Since that point I am one of 30 people in powerlifting to achieve elite totals in 5 different weight classes.  While learning to lift I became a CSCS, ART therapist, and was able to cut my teeth under some of  the world’s best coaches and lifters.  Right now I am a S & C Coach at CSA gym in dublin, california. I also run powerwod.com and am a frequent contributer  to Men’s Health, Muscle and Fitness, and 2 years ago, along side of Mark Bell, was hand picked by Louie Simmons to assist him in his role of powerlifting coach for CrossFit.

JD: Jesse, you’re a strong dude who’s moved some huge weights on the platform. I’m sure there have been some ups, downs, and hiccups along the way. With that in mind, what are a couple of the common technical issues you see with athletes in a weight room?

JB: There are always thing that can be improved in anyone’s weight room. The biggest issue that I see is a lack of communication, direction, and motivation.  If the athletes are taught properly, have a good idea, or even any idea, of what they are doing and how to work hard, things seem to take care of themselves.

JD: Discuss with us the mistakes you see made by strength and conditioning coaches in the United States and around the world, and what you feel should be done differently to correct these issues.

JB: This is such a loaded and bloated question I’m not sure where to start.  I believe issue number one is recovery.  No one knows exactly how to  accomplish this.  It encompasses so much of life that it is close to impossible to actually get it right.  There are people who err entirely on the side of caution and then those who ignore it.  There are fancy machines and computers that should make things easier and at times create a paralysis by analysis situation. If I knew how to correct this problem, I wouldn’t be doing this interview sitting in the last row of a southwest plane getting smashed by stewardess’ asses and sweating because of the fat chick trying to sleep on my shoulder- I’d be rich as hell.  But I’m not and  I think Buddy Morris said it best when he said, “Listen to your athletes and they will tell you everything you need to know”.

JD: Although strength training is just “a piece of the puzzle”, where do you see its role in the grand scheme of developing an athlete?

JB: I like to think and say that strength is the platform or base of any good program.  No one has ever heard someone say in a post game or fight interview, “Boy you know I think if I was a little weaker out there, I would have had a much better shot of winning.”

JD: What advice would you give a coach to improve knowledge via continuing education, i.e. could you point our readers in a direction to find the scientific and practical information to hone their skills and understanding of physical preparation?

JB: I think it is of utmost importance to read everything available concerning any piece of the physical preparation puzzle. There should certainly be a direction towards the hard sciences and the work being done overseas.  As important as book knowledge is though, in my opinion, it is more important to spend time in your own classroom sweating, straining and bleeding..  Not only should you actually look the part you are trying to play, but when  you lose track of or get too far away from your roots, I think you have lost motivation and direction.

Jesse, thanks for your time and we’re really excited to have you on the docket this year. To be able to pick the brain of one of the top lifters out there is always a great learning experience.