Plyometrics and Performance

“…But there is no certain way that exists permanently.  There is no way for us.  Moment after moment, we have to find our own way.  Some idea of perfection, or some perfect way which is set up by someone else, is not the true way for us…”

The above is from Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind, by Shunryu Suzuki, and more succinctly sums-up the Paleo/Primal, n=1 experience than any other thought that I’ve as yet come across.  Whether it’s the personalized protein/fat/carbohydrate ratio that has one looking, feeling and performing at optimal levels, to the intricacies within each and every individual’s goal-driven training philosophy, we all, essentially, have to find our own, unique way.  Information from others can serve as a good compass, however the hard work of boots-on-the-ground navigation – the actual map interpretation and dead reckoning — comes down to us, the individual.  If we’re lucky, somewhere along the way we’ll have knowledgeable hands-on instruction; some of us, though, will have to tease out the bits, pieces and hints that the universe physical culture sees fit to avail to us.  This is the tough road, the school of hard knocks.   I’ve had a little of the former, but a whole lot, though, of the latter – and I’ve got the battle scars and bruises to prove it.

As a correlate to the above, let’s, for a moment, consider the following sports physiology-related study (Effect of Plyometric vs. Dynamic Weight Training on the Energy Cost of Running), and that study’s application to the real world; a little Theory to Practice, if you will.   Now, my friends over at SpeedEndurance.com posted a nice summation of this particular study recently; however, I’d like to consider the findings through a slightly different prism – that of your “Average Joe” trainee.

Now, as studies go, this is a fine and rather interesting piece of work, with the lone drawback being (as was pointed out by Jimson, of SpeedEndurance), the lack of a weight trained + plyo trained group.  Why this group was not included, I have no idea – it would seem a logical progression.  At any rate, to the Average Joe, this study would seem to indicate that one could forgo basic strength training (or at least “dynamic” weight training) and jump (pardon the pun) directly into a plyometrics-based scheme; at the very least, this study might be cause, in some, of a good deal of “paralysis by analysis”.   Empirical experience, a smattering of book knowledge and a good dose of common sense, though, will help us convert this study into useful, real-world training applications.

Now, to be sure, there are plenty on unknowns surrounding the performance of this study, and it may be these “unknowns” are fleshed-out in the full paper (anyone have access to this?).  For example, a precise accounting of the exercise protocols (sets, reps, rest, exercise selection, etc.), diet, other stressors would be great to know, because, as Rummy so eloquently put it:

All that aside, though, what we’re actually seeing here in this study is the development of two different aspects of strength.  The truth of the matter is though, that it’s not a question of “one aspect of strength being better than the other”, but a question of synergy.   It’s not that the Average Joe – or even the highly trained athlete – should concentrate on one aspect of strength at the expense of another, but that no aspect of strength should be left untrained.  And there is a proper time and place for the training of each strength aspect.  The biggest mistake I see, though (and I see it being made continually), is an over-eagerness in trainees to “graduate away” from the building of a solid strength base into the more esoteric aspects of strength training – for example, plyometrics – well before they are ready.

And it’s not so much an injury issue that concerns me – hell kids perform plyometrics every day (or they used to, that is — back in the day when they were allowed unguarded access to a decent playground) without the benefit of a trained sold base of strength or and S&C coach hovering about.  No, this is simply a question of bang-for-the-training-buck.  Knowing to what extent each modality of strength plays in your defined goals –along with when and to what extent to attack those modalities – are the keys to actually reaching your goals.  First and foremost, though, let’s build a super strength base from which to launch into these other strength aspects.  You’ll acquire much more in the way of “look, feel and perform” results by going about things in this, the proper manner.  Patience, grasshopper; one solid step at a time.

Training?  Playing? Hell, I don’t know, the lines have been rather blurred the last few days.  Sunday (the 4th), I spent the day huckin’ it about all over Ocracoke island on the ol’ fixie.  Lots and lots of time in the saddle, a myriad of intensities durations, etc, and a long IF.  By the time I boarded the ferry for the 2-and-a-half hour ride back to the mainland, I was zorched.  Came home to find out that one of my neighbors tried to burn the damn place down with a BBQ gone astray.

Rut-ro!

Remember kids, alcohol should be consumed in inverse proportion to the fat content of the meat one intends on grilling  🙂  Planning on ribs and chicken thighs?  Best lay off the hard stuff, my friend.

Monday, I put in a little more saddle time (mostly to loosen a pair of tight legs), then hit some Vibram-shod, running sprints – and, yes – some plyometrics.  I didn’t track any numbers, times, distances, or what have you.  I’d estimate each sprint (of about 10 total) was approximately 150 yards or so, and there was a definite grade to the field so that I ran, alternately, uphill and downhill.  Also, the field was undulating as all hell, and this added an entirely different proprioception aspect to the endeavor.   In between each pair of sprints I did some “box jumps” up on, and down from, a waist-high table.  I also played around with some various forms of push-ups and pull-ups.  Just out enjoying another day in the sun, with no real rhyme or reason to my activities.

Tuesday evening saw more saddle time, and a pitstop by the gym for this:

single-leg, straight leg deadlift (barbell): 115 x 6, 6, 6, 6 (each leg)

then a superset of the following –

kneeling DB clean and press: 50 x 7; 60 x 6, 6, 6, 6

weighted, regular-grip pull-ups: 45 x 6, 55 x 5, 5, 5, 5

I went into the gym this evening with an open mind, and with no preconceived ideas of what to do, just falling into whatever “felt right”.  A few days of this every now and again always serves as a nice break, both mentally and physically.  Working out doesn’t always have to be “directed”.  Of course, it goes without saying not to dive willy-nilly into things you’re not physically prepared to handle.  Have fun, spread your wings, play – but be smart about it.

4 responses to “Plyometrics and Performance

  1. Thanks for posting this video; I had not seen it yet (had only read Rumsfeld’s words). It’s amazing that even just little old tomorrow contains unknown unknowns. Heck, next hour does. lol. As we already know.

    • Another reason why “fixed” routines (times, weights, days,etc.) are always doomed to fail. Better to be flexible than unbending.

      • I read a lot of Ludwig von Mises, although it’s difficult reading. I usually read only a page or 2 and then have to set it down, look up various words and contemplate. His quote about reality really only being our perception of what will come next based on our understanding of probability has stuck with me over the years.

        We expect the sun to come up tomorrow, in our minds there’s a high probability that it will. But it may not, there’s a chance it won’t. An earthquake may open up a fissure in the earth as we take our next step, and because it’s highly unlikely that that may happen, we put our other foot forward and take that step. We may act in a certain way based on our understanding of the probability of consequences from our actions… we all have different understandings of these millions/billions of probabilities…. we all have different realities.

        “Natural science does not render the future predictable. It makes it possible to foretell the results to be obtained by definite actions. But it leaves unpredictable two spheres: that of insufficiently known natural phenomena and that of human acts of choice. Our ignorance with regard to these two spheres taints all human actions with uncertainty. Apodictic certainty is only within the orbit of the deductive system of aprioristic theory. The most that can be attained with regard to reality is probability.”
        -Mises

        • Plan for the relatively predictable, but be truly open to any occurrence. BTW, I’m a Mises fan as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s