Talk:Plyometrics/Archive 1

Rewrite

I suggest a complete rewrite of this article. It fails to mention that plyometrics means "measurable increases", fails to give any history (its first usage by the russians for the olympics), and fails to give any real information on what the training entails (that is to train the brain to control muscles better in order to produce more power, speed, and agility - only agility has anything to do with the stretch reflex yet this whole article seems to be focused around it). Guess I shouldn't be surprised that the articles related to exercise are the worst written and filled with the highest levels of ignorance. AeoniosHaplo (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This article really needs an expert to look at it. There is a lot of good things that could be writeen about this. Jmacleod9975 19:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)jmacleod

agreed, needs serious work. StrengthCoach 19:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. I disagree with the characterization of weight training. Although weight training is not plyometric, effective weightlifting does not advocate "jerking" weight up and then lowering it. I think that image comes from the Olympics when weightlifters perform the deadlift. That jerking style should only be used during competitions or while practicing for a competition like that. Smoothly lifting weights while contracting and extending the muscles is much more effective.

Common myth. If the lifter uses good form (full control and supporting muscle recruitment throughout the lift), then a fast concentric contraction will add power without causing injury issues. Powerlifting/Olympic style "jerking" (not to be confused with the exercise), however, is generally avoided even in powerlifting/olympic training, except immediately pre-contest. Lifts don't have to be slow to be controlled though; fast, controlled concentrics are fine. Kajerm 22:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In order to qualify something as a myth, it would require one to speak correctly about the subject matter. Injury occurs when the subject force exceeds the structural limitations of the subject body structure(s). This threshold cannot be known until it is exceeded, which is too late for injury prevention. Therefore, our best effort is to mitigate force when possible. Encouraging an increase of movement velocity is contrary to this goal. A greater change in velocity in a given period of time of a fixed mass necessarily requires greater force. In a practical context of a strength training movement, a lesser maximum velocity during the movement means a reduction in maximum force due to a reduction of required acceleration at the transition points of a repetition. Reduction of maximum force means reduction of injury risk. Thus, reduction of maximum velocity will reduce injury risk (along with other benefits outside the scope of this discussion).72.199.163.248 (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made major additions to the page from the mechanisms behind plyometrics to the risks involved. Probably still needs some cleaning up towards the end. I intend to add specific exercises at low, med and high intensity along with program design considerations, but it's already been an hour or two of work. Some better formatting might be possible once all the information is there, but I will leave that to others who are better at it. I will also try to improve the related stretch shortening cycle article. ps. I don't have a wikipedia account, maybe I should make one.

Seems bizarre to me that this article could include such a detailed discussion of the physiology of plyometrics without even a single example of a plyometric exercise. Do plyometrics really exist? Dubfiend (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I still dont understand what plyometrics are, despite how long this wiki entry is, why is there such a long history section? and how come the introduction doesn't tell me what plyometrics are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.208.93 (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We have put together a rewrite of the plyometrics entry with references. Does anyone have a suggestion as to where I should post this for review before actually writing the current entry? I don't want it to just be reversed as we have spent a lot of time on the rewrite using published material from "the father of plyometrics" Yuri Verkhoshansky and others. Can anyone offer suggestions as to the proper protocol for submitting rewrites so I don't post and offend anyone? Thank you very much Kam012069 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Karate

"karate" is a japanese word. That's the dumbest thing I've read today x.x AeoniosHaplo (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh....the chinese developed karate? What the heck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.14.174 (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the comment requires a citation. I'm contemplating removing it. WLU 15:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

lead technical

I ended up here after wondering what "plyo" means in the quote ""Not until a machine delivers a superbly executed plyo jump can it be truly intelligent...". I stumble over the first sentence

"Plyometrics is a type of exercise that utilizes a rapid eccentric movement, followed by a short amortization phase, and then followed by an explosive concentric movement...".

I usually think of "eccentric" as a kind of rotary motion Eccentric (mechanism), "amortization" having something to do with business finances, and "concentric" again having something to do with circles -- but that doesn't make any sense here.

Please make the very first sentence more easily understandable to a broader audience. (You can talk about highly technical stuff lower in the article). --75.19.73.101 (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Please post comments at the bottom and your technical tag should go on the mainspace page, not the talk. WLU (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys, polymetric redirects here! We gotta do smth! Aklesov (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"A plyometric contraction involves first a rapid muscle lengthening movement, followed by a short resting phase, then an explosive muscle shortening movement, which enables the muscles that work together in doing the particular motion."

Is this missing a "...to work effectively blah, blah" at the end? Or is the phrase "which enables the muscles that work together" really supposed to read "which enables the muscles to work together"? Or is it just fine as it is, and "enables" is being used kinda like "she enabled his drinking"? -- Mwanner | Talk 17:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a bunch of woo.

Has a physiologist ever looked at this type of training? It sounds a bit far-fetched. And this sentence makes no sense: "Muscular power is determined by how long it takes for strength to be converted into speed." I will assume that strength refers to potential energy. Energy cannot be converted to speed any more than mass can be converted to time. Rex Manning (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Power in weightlifting terms (physics is probably quite different) is strength delivered fast. There is no "conversion", it's just lifting heavy things fast. Olympic weightlifting is a very good example to use. They lift heavy weights very fast (for a heavy weight) and thus the sport is considered a measure of power. Contrast this with powerlifting, where the weight may be lifted as slow as one desires, which is a measure of strength. Also, strength, again in weightlifting terms, is purely a measure of the contractile force of a muscle. 58.7.212.115 (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd never come across this term until I looked at the P90X exercise regimen. There are kernels of truth to a lot of the explanations but the explicit term seems more like advertising when the only citations are from the 90's. Merge the content into another article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.159.136 (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Physics

"power = force * speed"

pretty sure this is incorrect as a physics formula goes, it should probably be this: velocity * mass = force, or removed from the article. power is too ambiguous, it could mean heat or electrity, force^, or anyother kind of energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.245.101 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that the formula is absolutely correct. The unit of power is the watt, which, in turn is 1 joule per second (P = W/t). A joule is defined as 1 newton * 1 meter (W = F*x). Thus, a watt is 1 N * 1 m/s (P = F*|v|). Therefore, power can be expressed as the product of force and speed (absolute value of velocity) in suitable contexts. One such context would be pushing a box with the force F at a constant velocity v for a time t. The distance would be x = |v|*t. The work done was W = F*x. Thus, the power at which the box was pushed is P = W/t = F*x/t = F*|v|*t/t = F*|v|. Of course, in this example the friction must have equaled the force at which the box was pushed - else the box would have accelerated. 80.248.254.68 (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, in North America, people in the fitness industry have made a separation between strength and power. In weight lifting, power lifting, plyometrics, etc., the only thing that matters is the rate of force development. The rate of force development dictates how efficiently one can move a load. Neuromuscular activation and cross sectional tissue area dictates how explosive a person is or can be. Plyometric training increases neuromuscular activation and coordination. As you increase load speed will decrease (force time curve will show this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.14.162 (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Needs etymology/cleanup/wikification.

Where's the name come from? At first glance it seems to just be someone's pet concept for a commercial book or PhD thesis. Pär Larsson (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)