<< Someone posted before and I have tried with success a way to make your own
medicine balls. Take a kickball or soccer ball. Carefully pull out the
piece where the air goes in. It is just a rubber seal. Fill the ball with
sand or water and put the rubber seal back in. It really works! I filled a
small one with water and it doesn’t leak, it can bounce and it only costs a
few bucks! >>

Mel Siff:

***Yes, I posted that information a while ago. I have been making my own
medicine and “plyo” balls for many years from old basketball, water polo,
volleyball, soccer and other used balls and saved a fortune in the process.
When I used sand for making heavier medicine balls, I filled the balls with
very fine (river type) sand from the gold mines in South Africa (where I used
to live), so it was very easy to pour through an enlarged hole made in the
ball or even into the original bladder of the ball. In the USA, you can buy
some of the very fine construction sand to serve the same purpose. If I had
to make a larger hole instead of using the existing hole, I simply covered
the enlarged hole with a rubber patch.

To make balancing devices, I simply used a variety of used inner tubes from
cars, trucks and tractors inflated to a suitable pressure – again the cost is
little or nothing and one does not have stabilise the base, as one has to for
some physio ball routines. In using them as an unstable surface for standing
exercises, I simply place a large wood rectangular piece across the top of
the tube. Just another cash saving device for you! If you visit my gym in
Denver, you will come across many other such home-made training devices.

Mel Siff
Denver, USA
Mel Siff Dot Com
Supertraining Twitter Feed

We often come across endless debates about the risk of using plyometrics, but
the case against the latter is usually poorly researched or emotively
argued, so let’s see if we can address a related issue in some more depth:

Is it possible to develop explosive speed and power without using plyometric
training? Can anyone quote past or present examples of world class
‘explosive’ athletes who have achieved their results without plyometrics or
combinations of plyometrics and free weights? In responding to these
queries, we also need to ask if it possible to entirely avoid the use of some
form of plyometric ACTION in sports training.

What does the example of gymnastics teach us, knowing that large numbers of
elite gymnasts do not use formal weight training or plyometrics?

How many elite Weightlifters use plyometric training (as opposed to fairly
conventional jumps)?

In answering these questions, let us draw upon logical science and practical
experience and avoid being drawn into the highly emotional territory which so
often characterises HIT and ‘Superslow’ discussions on this sort of topic.

Mel Siff
Denver, USA
Mel Siff Dot Com
Supertraining Twitter Feed

Dr Mel Siff and a Supertraining Yahoogroup member going back and forth

<If you hit bounce off the box correctly you will not experience any problems
with the lower back. The bounce needs to be make on the hamstrings and not
directly with your butt. If you perform it correctly you will the hamstrings
and to some extent the gluts will absorb the impact.

If you perform it incorrectly, you will experience some pressure in the
spine. Sitting back on the box places a lot of pressure on the lower back.
If you perform the bounce correctly, this is no more loading on the
spine…maybe even less that sitting back on the box. >

*** It certainly is useful advice to make most of the contact with the back
of the thighs rather than ever sitting with any significant pressure on the
glutes. However, cases have occurred where poorly understood and
technically hazardous bouncing off a box has caused fractures of area such as
the lumbosacral region of the lower spine, while back pain is also not
uncommon among those who use a definite bounce — and that is the problem
with novice users of the box squat. One cannot emphasize Kenny’s advice
strongly enough that the exercise be done with a correct, very light touching
bounce which does not longitudinally impose impact along the spinal column or
cause the spine to lose its lumbar concavity

Remember that the act of sitting down tends to elicit a relaxation of the
lumbar spine and posterior tilting of the pelvis, which leads to flattening
of the lumbar concavity. If you sit down on a box, you have to make very
definite actions to prevent these spinal relaxing processes from happening,
as is constantly stressed by the Westsiders.

<Bouncing off the box provides a greater stretch reflex. Minimize the risk
by performing it correctly and you’ll illicit a greater training effect in
the stretch reflex.

*** Bouncing off the prestretched muscle complex stimulates the myotatic
stretch reflex more strongly if you do not sit on a box at all. Any
superficial contact with the skin that you sit on will tend to diminish the
intensity of this reflex, plus any delay incurred while you are sitting (even
for less than a second) will diminish it further. Advocates of the box
squat do not even advocate “bouncing” off the box, especially under heavy
loading with a weight or a weight and bands combination.

If you wish to retain enough of the stretch reflex in the muscles of the
“posterior chain”, you should not use the box to offer anything more than a
slight brief touch to the backs of the thighs to enhance proprioceptive
awareness of the position at which you wish to commence your upward drive.
You can gain a good awareness of the prestretch in that position by using a
“Romanian” deadlift — i.e., by lowering and raising the bar from upper thigh
to below the knees by pushing your rear end backwards. Bent-knee good
mornings with glutes thrust back (rather than relying solely on hip flexion
or simple “leaning forwards”) will also enhance one’s awareness of that same
prestretch process.

<You should ease into ballistic box squatting. Once you learn to do it
you’ll illicit a greater training effect in the stretch reflex.>

*** See above – ballistic box squatting will not elicit a greater “training
effect in the stretch reflex”. If you are using box squats to enhance
performance in the squat, the reason is not mainly because you are trying to
“train” the stretch reflex, especially since the competition squat has to be
done without a box and methods of acquiring specific neural programmes tend
to be rather specific to the way in which they were learned. Anyway, I am
sure that this is what Kenny is advising – namely not using the box to sit
upon, but to serve as just a gentle warning system to offer tactile contact
so that you know exactly when to begin your upward drive in the squat. In
this way, you will retain the necessary prestretch and manage to execute the
movement explosively.

There are several reasons why one may use some forms of box squatting, but
“training the stretch reflex” is not one of them. However, the main problem
here is more a matter of scientific correctness and differences in phrasing
the advice more accurately. Some of the box squatting and Westside fans out
there might like to list some of their reasons for using box squats with and
without the added effect of bands for those who have never used box squats.

Mel Siff
Denver, USA
Mel Siff Dot Com
Supertraining Twitter Feed

Siff MC “Supertraining” 2000 Ch 8

This well-known test may be applied in several different ways. Invariably it
requires the subject to leap from a standing position with a preliminary dip
and touch a measuring device sideways with one’s dominant hand. Recalling
the specificity of training, it is important to note that the results of this
test correlate best with conditions which are most similar to that of the
test. Therefore, it is useful to repeat the test with the non-dominant hand
or in the frontal plane with the athlete using both hands to reach for the
target. Moreover, there are several different initial conditions for
executing this test:

1. Starting statically from an optimum knee flexed position using no arm
swing
2. Starting statically from an optimum knee flexed position using arm swing
3. Starting statically from sitting on a low seat using (a) no arm swing, or
(b) arm swing
4. Starting dynamically with an optimal knee dip using no arm swing
5. Starting dynamically with an optimal knee dip using arm swing.

The major difference between the first two methods is that jumping without
armswing is intended to focus primarily on the role played by extension of
the lower extremity and trunk, without the picture being confounded by the
use of arm momentum. The major difference between the static and dynamic
starts is that the absence of an initial sharp dip allows one to focus more
on starting strength and the role played by the contractile (actin-myosin)
component of the muscle complex, instead of the more plyometric rebound
action encouraged by the use of the dip. This can sometimes assist one in
ascertaining whether the athlete needs more strength (or functional
hypertrophy) training or more rebound, nervous system training.

It can also be helpful to perform the static tests from different initial
knee angles to obtain a profile of individual jumping characteristics. For
example, if the maximum vertical jump is attained for a fairly large knee
angle, which is generally associated with a slower overall jumping time from
start to finish of the action, then it is obvious that the athlete needs to
concentrate on modifying his range and speed of maximal strength production.

Table 8.12 provides guidelines concerning the depth of loaded knee dips.
This reveals that the dip characteristically is deeper for heavier loads or
persons and that in all cases the pause during the dip should not last longer
than 0.25 second. Herein lies the benefit of performing push jerks or jerks
off racks with different weights as a form of supplementary plyometric
training. After all, plyometric training is of little value if it fails to
enhance adequately explosive strength or power over the range required in a
given activity. The use of drills which do not correlate strongly with the
functional needs of a given sport constitute one of the most common errors in
popular plyometric training…..

———————

Mel Siff
Denver, USA
Mel Siff Dot Com
Supertraining Twitter Feed

I am interested in whatever information someone might have on depth landings,
such as recommended height, how depth landings impact strength development,
how the Russians used them in training, frequency in training, etc.

Mel Siff’s response was
*** Their main role is in producing high levels of eccentric force, which
seems to be associated with increases in strength and hypertrophy, but only
for a limited time, because their ephemeral and explosive nature is
associated more with neural than muscular changes (depending on how you
amortise or slow down the landing). Russian research has even examined depth
drops from a height of as much as 9ft or more, but this has not shown any
superior increase in “functional strength” or movement speed over
conventional “plyometrics” (discussed in Ch 5 of “Supertraining”). Dr
Zatsiorsky also is not very enthusiastic in his text “Science and Practice of
Strength Training” about the value of depth landings. Russian athletes seem
to rely seldom on this type of training for any significant part of their
training, although many forms of vertical or long jumping (and low
repetition”plyometrics”) are quite regularly used.

If you are contemplating the use of regular landings for bodybuilding or
non-competitive reasons, you are simply increasing the risk of injury unless
your drop heights are no more than about 1 metre (say, about 3 ft), your
number of repetitions is low and your landing technique is exemplary. A far
better way of eccentrically loading the extensors of the knee for increasing
strength and hypertrophy is to do exercises such as heavy squats, dips for
jerks or push presses.

Mel Siff
Denver, USA
Mel Siff Dot Com
Supertraining Twitter Feed

With regard to biological rhhthms, it is interesting to note that some
researchers have measured more than one optimal period during the average
day. For example, Y Sherbina (‘Daily Variations in Muscle Tone and its
Correlation with Strength Indicators’ in Teoriya i Praktika Fizischeskoi
Kultury 1989, 1:45-46). He used dynamometry on an hourly basis from 08:00
to 22:00 for several weeks to measure muscle tonus at rest and during
maximal effort. He concluded that there were two periods of elevated muscle
strength: 11:00-1-15:00 and 18:00-21:00, during which times there was a drop
in resting muscle tonus. He found no correlation between daily variations
in strength and muscle tonus during contraction.

It is also relevant to refer to the concept of entrainment of rhythms or the
external imposition of rhythms on natural (“endogenous”) rhythms of the body
(see CVh 6 of “Supertraining”). Some of the earliest work in Russia and
Finland which established the concept of periodisation was based upon the
effect of climatic variables on human performance, an aspect which has been
almost totally ignored today (e.g. Pikhala ATHLETISM, Finland, 1930; Kotov,
OLYMPIC SPORT, Russia, 1917). Some of the best early sports oriented
research in this field was conducted by Hettinger and Müller (see Hettinger
“Physiology of Strength” 1961).

Letunov wrote an article ‘Reflections on the Systematic Formulation of
Training’ (Sovietsky Sport, 1950: 125), which strongly criticised the design
of training regimes solely on the basis of the competitive calendar, as is
still the case with almost every Western sports coach who claims to be
meticulously working out ‘periodised training’ for his athletes. Letunov
considered that the stages of training depended on variation in biological
processes, some of which were influenced by external events. Curiously, he
failed to appreciate that these biological processes are modified by
training, a point strongly emphasised by some researchers (Siff
“Supertraining” 2000).

Ozolin (TRAINING THE ATHLETE, Moscow, 1949) stressed the importance of
considering climatic factors as well as the timing of the competitive
calendar.

The bottom line of this work into the structure and timing of training needs
to be emphasised, namely that: PERIODISATION is a system of training
organisation intended to impose definite rhythms of sporting adaptation in
athletes. It is not simply a case of using the early Matveyev model of
beginning with high work volume and gradually increasing the intensity and
decreasing the volume as one peaks for specific events. There are many
methods of planning training and periodisation is not the only one, though
many coaches seem to forget that periodisation is but ONE of several
different models for organising training.

There are also several major categories of periodisation model for different
levels of athletic qualification and each one was designed by various Russian
and Eastern European pioneers to produce a specific type of entrainment.
Naturally, these models must be re-examined by the rest of us to assess
their validity and to ascertain if our new forays into biological
rhythmicity and chaos will cause us to significantly modify or discard them.

Naturally, attempts to correlate performance with some underlying biological
“rhythms” would also have to consider the possibility that concurrent or
preceding use of various periodisation schemes might modify the cyclicity of
various endogenous biorhythms (this poses great problems for those who
believe implicitly in Fleiss’s old concept of physical, intellectual and
emotional “biorhythms” calculated simply from the one’s date of birth!).

The entire concept of periodisation and its validity has been severely
questioned by Verkhoshansky (I provided a translation of his Russian paper on
this topic over a year ago – see our archives), so that its use is not as
universally acclaimed as it used to be. This is why I included a whole new
chapter in “Supertraining” on re-examining periodisation and dealing with the
current controversy (Ch 6). For anyone contemplating the use of
periodisation in physical or mental sports training, the information there
will assist in updating your views on this tricky subject.

Mel Siff

The following appeared in a newsletter by Ian King, an Australian fitness
professional who often tours the world market
(http://www.kingsports.net/bs18-askthemaster.htm)

Someone asked him in his column which he calls “Ask the Master” :

JUMP WITHOUT PLANTARFLEXION

—————————————————-

<In the seminar you did near Boston you mentioned during jump training, to
jump without plantar flexing the feet. What is the purpose of that? . . .
. . . >

King’s reply was as follows:

<< The technique of actually dorsi flexing in the jump has a number of
purposes, including:

* decreasing ground contact time
* therefore increasing elastic energy utilization
* teaches focus on air time, not toe time
* greater specificity with the sprint technique I teach
* reduces hamstring flex in sprint leg cycle >>

—————————-

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

Issues such as the following immediately spring to mind:

1. If one really wishes to jump without plantarflexion, one has to begin
from a static start way back on the heels, with no contact whatsoever between
any other part of the foot and the ground. After you have read this, try it
for yourself and experience how one needs to balance on the tip of the heel
before one even attempts this drill. Any ground contact with other parts of
the sole besides the heel will elicit a reflex tendency to plantarflex the
ankle.

2. One needs to stress that there can be dorsiflexion of the toes, as well
as the ankle. The correct phasing of contributions from each is central to
all jumping and running efficiency.

3. In referring to elastic energy utilization, it is essential to identify
in which exact tissues the elastic energy storage and release is occurring.
Regarding increased utilisation of elastic energy processes in the all of the
soft tissues involved in jumping and running, it is essential to understand
the central role played by plantarflexion.

Anyway, no scientists have yet managed to determine how much of rebounding
efficiency is due to contributions from stored elastic energy and how much is
due to facilitation of stretch and related nervous processes. To claim that
any training method will increase elastic energy usage in isolation from
other mechanisms implies that one knows the answer to a problem that science
has not yet managed to resolve.

4. Once you left the ground, air time is unaffected by anything that your
driving leg can do. Long jumpers use specific running techniques in the air
before they land, but the ability to execute them depends on a very powerful
take-off facilitated by processes including ankle and toe plantarflexion.

5. Whatever exact meaning is attributed to the obscure phrase, “reduces
hamstring flex in sprint leg cycle”, it needs to be pointed out that the
hamstrings do not “flex”. Muscles contract and relax, while joints flex or
extend. The deflection of bones under the effect of strong transverse
loading might also be regarded as a form of flexion, but “hamstring flex” is
a new one to me.

Would anyone be interested in commenting further on the validity and accuracy
of these statements, regarding either the biomechanics or the practical
issues involved?

Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA

This following reference should make some interesting reading for those who
are vehemently opposed to the idea of plyometric training on the basis of it
“causing injuries”. In fact, this article indicates that properly prescribed
plyometric exercises can offer significant benefits over normal sporting
activities.

——————————————-

Witzke KA & Snow CM Effects of plyometric jump training on bone mass in
adolescent girls. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000 Jun; 32(6):1051-7

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 9 months
of plyometric jump training on bone mineral content (BMC), lower extremity
performance, and static balance in adolescent girls METHODS: Exercisers
trained 30-45 min, three times per week, performing various exercises using
weighted vests (squats, lunges, calf raises) and plyometrics (hopping,
jumping, bounding, and box depth jumps). The program was designed to load the
lower extremities. Control subjects, matched to exercisers for age and months
past menarche, maintained their usual activities. The following were assessed
at baseline and 9 months: BMC, strength by isokinetic dynamometry, power
(Wingate test), and static balance. . . .

RESULTS: ….Both groups experienced a significant increase in percent change
in bone mass compared to zero, for the whole body (mean: 3.7% for exercisers,
3.6% for controls), femoral neck (4.5% vs 2.4%), lumbar spine (L2-4) (6.6% vs
5.3%), and femoral shaft (3.4% vs 2.3%), but only the exercisers improved BMC
of the greater trochanter (3.1% vs 1.9%). Furthermore, the exercise group
significantly improved knee extensor strength (14.7% vs 7.3%) and
medial/lateral balance (38.1% vs 9.5%), whereas the control group
demonstrated no changes. The variety of lateral movement activities performed
by the exercise group may have contributed to the differences observed
between groups for greater trochanter bone mineral density (BMD), leg
strength, and medial/lateral balance.

CONCLUSION: The trends observed in bone mass between groups suggest that
plyometric jump training continued over a longer period of time during
adolescent growth may increase peak bone mass.

—————————

Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA

Drop jumps and various standing drills are so widely used as a means of
plyometric training that we often seem to forget that they classically may be
done in many other ways, such as using the common children’s swing that we
all used to play upon in public parks. With the latter, you simply arrange a
swing near a wall so that you can swing to different heights and strike the
wall with your feet to provide the rebound. For those who have our
textbook, “Supertraining” (Siff & Verkhoshansky 1999), see p275 for diagrams
of this exercise.

In this way you do not have to buy a big supply of costly “plyo” boxes – all
that you need is some rope, wood and something to hang your swing from and
you have a very controllable plyometric training device. With a little
ingenuity, you can even arrange a wooden wall at hand height that will allow
you to shove off with the hands, as well. (“Supertraining” p275 for
diagrams.)

Of course, you can make these devices more sophisticated and technical so
that you can carry out accurate biomechanical measurements with them. For
those who have our textbook, “Supertraining”, page 219, you will see a
diagram of a special plyometric bench that my senior engineering students
constructed at the University of the Witwatersrand (South Africa) in 1992.
The same students also constructed various upper and lower body swings with
built in load cells or force plates to measure the forces exerted during
impact.

Quite recently I came across the following research article that carried out
much the same sort of work that my engineers had been doing. I think that
many of you will find the results interesting.

—————————————-

Fowler NE, Lees A & Reilly T Changes in stature following plyometric
drop-jump and pendulum exercises. Ergonomics 1997 Dec; 40(12):1279-86

The aim of this study was to compare the changes in stature following the
performance of plyometric exercises using drop-jumps and a pendulum swing.
Eight male participants aged 21.7 +/- 1.8 years with experience of plyometric
training gave their informed consent to act as subjects. Participants
undertook two exercise regimens and a 15-min standing test in a random order.
The exercises entailed the performance of 50 drop-jumps from a height of 0.28
m or 50 pendulum rebounds (off a wall).

Participants were instructed to perform maximal jumps or rebounds using a
‘bounce’ style. Measurements of stature were performed after a 20-min period
of standing (pre-exercise), 2-min after exercise (post-exercise) and after a
20-min standing recovery (recovery). Back pain and muscle soreness were
assessed using an analogue-visual scale, at each of the above times and also
24 hours and 36 hours after the test. Peak torque during isokinetic knee
extension at 1.04 rad per sec was measured immediately before and after the
exercise bouts, to assess the degree of muscular fatigue.

Ground/wall reaction force data were recorded using a Kistler force platform
mounted in the floor for drop-jumps and vertically on the rebound wall for
pendulum exercises. Drop-jumps resulted in the greatest change in stature
(-2.71 mm), compared to pendulum exercises (-1.77 mm) and standing (-0.39mm).
Both exercise regimens resulted in a significant decrease in stature when
compared to the standing condition. Drop-jumps resulted in significantly
greater peak impact forces (p < 0.05) than pendulum exercises (drop-jumps =
3.2 x body weight, pendulum = 2.6 x body weight).

The two exercise conditions both invoked a small degree of muscle soreness
but there were no significant differences between either. Both exercise
regimens resulted in a non-significant decrease in peak torque, indicating a
similar degree of muscular fatigue. Based on the lower in height and lower
peak forces, it can be concluded that pendulum exercises pose a lower injury
potential to the lower back than drop-jumps performed from a height of 28 cm.

————————————-

***What does this mean for the coach? Well, first of all, it stresses that
there is a very real place for use of the PLYOMETRIC SWING as a safe and
effective form of explosive training. Secondly, it shows that the
*potential* for injury is greater with drop jumps, because of the greater
impact forces exerted on the whole body.

However, it needs to be pointed out that the body can adapt to such stresses,
but this potential for injury is a good reason why any drop jumps should be
prescribed carefully and intelligently, especially among novices whose
musculoskeletal system has not adequately adapted to the impulsive loading.

Regarding the experiment, it should also be pointed out that, if 50
repetitions are to be done, then it is essential that they be done in limited
sets of a few repetitions at a time, not like some sort of endurance
exercise. In the USA many coaches tend to prescribe far too many plyometric
repetitions at a time. More is not necessarily better. In the case of
plyometrics, quality is definitely more important than quantity.

Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA