EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Fitness, Health, Nutrition, Injury, and Recovery › Are Drop-Jumps the queefy alternative for squat jumps?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are Drop-Jumps the queefy alternative for squat jumps?

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 

So I saw "drop-jumps" in Ski Magazine's fitness section as a way to get ready for the season.  Great; I like all their exercises so I've added them.

 

However, I have noticed that for some of their exercises they substitute in a SERIOUSLY lame version of the movement that will be "safe" or "easy"  (such as that nonsense for box-clean pulls, and quarter squats).

 

So, just wondering if squat jumps are better than drop-jumps for addressing that movement?

post #2 of 14

Well, jump squats would be way better for season-ending, or even life-altering, injury potential.  Since neither depth jumps nor squat jumps bear much relation to skiing, it's tough to address which would be better in this regard.


Put on a technical level, very little of skiing or snowboarding well requires explosiveness in a vertical plane.  So, exercises with a focus on developing that quality aren't gonna be of much help for most skiers or snowboarders.  Most skiers and snowboarders are also real far away from being fit enough to do things like depth jumps regularly.

 

Again, junior racers generally don't do much of this stuff.  Middle age desk jockeys may be more fit and have better strength to weight ratios than junior racers, but it is wise to be cautious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitamin Ski View Post

So I saw "drop-jumps" in Ski Magazine's fitness section as a way to get ready for the season.  Great; I like all their exercises so I've added them.

 

However, I have noticed that for some of their exercises they substitute in a SERIOUSLY lame version of the movement that will be "safe" or "easy"  (such as that nonsense for box-clean pulls, and quarter squats).

 

So, just wondering if squat jumps are better than drop-jumps for addressing that movement?



 

post #3 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

Put on a technical level, very little of skiing or snowboarding well requires explosiveness in a vertical plane.  So, exercises with a focus on developing that quality aren't gonna be of much help for most skiers or snowboarders.  

 

I'm going to go ahead and completely disagree with that. Skiing is a very explosive sport. The notion that training for explosiveness has to mimic the exact vectors in which it will be required is not accurate. Training for skiing should include explosive movements, and squat jumps are a great option for developing that.

 

CTKook is partly correct though - squat jumps should not be the main training as an underlying base of strength is much more important. But in an optimal training program for skiing you would add some power work to the strength work. 

 

As for depth jumps, I think they have their place for some people, but they are an advanced plyometric because of the stress of the landings on your joints. Squat jumps are a much better option for most people in my opinion. Jumping onto a box is actually a better starting plyometric than squat jumps though: you still  get the explosiveness but without the impact.

 

 

post #4 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by evaino View Post

 

...Skiing is a very explosive sport. The notion that training for explosiveness has to mimic the exact vectors in which it will be required is not accurate. Training for skiing should include explosive movements, and squat jumps are a great option for developing that...

 

 



You and I probably have very different views of the technical reality of modern skiing.  Even for ski racing, which is far more demanding than the skiing most recreational skiers will ever do, it's less explosive than many would think, but more importantly at a recreational level if someone views their ski technique as "explosive" that's a sign they have really bad technique.  The bulk of the energy of a modern ski turn is normally coming from the momentum of skiing itself, and simply being channeled by the skier.  It is more similar to a skater in a halfpipe or a surfer on a wave than to a hurdler or a running back. 

 

Now, at the extremes, there are exceptions to this, but it's safe to assume that someone looking to, say, Ski Mag's fitness section for training tips doesn't fit within one of those highly advanced exceptions.  You could go to instructor lineups at big mountains, where the ability level can be quite high relative to the average skier, and not only would few of the instructors benefit from plyos, most would be at risk of getting hurt if you put them on a steady diet of depth jumps or jump squats.  They would also tell you that you shouldn't be hopping for many of your turns.

 

At the level of the ski, the ski should spend most of its time on the snow, and at the point where turn forces are greatest, which is well into the turn, the skier should have a long leg so they are not relying on muscular effort.  This is why a middle-aged housewife who skis 10 days a year, but who jogs regularly, can leave LA and fly to SLC and ski Park CIty beautifully if she knows how to ski.  She would in many cases not be able to clear a single hurdle on a running track, but fortunately skiing does not require that type of explosive movement.

 

 

post #5 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by evaino View Post

 Jumping onto a box is actually a better starting plyometric than squat jumps though: you still  get the explosiveness but without the impact.

 

 



I am 6 months post-op with my 2nd ACL along with a lot of meniscus repair.  I have been doing a few of these on occasion as part of my rehab/conditioning.  How do you recommend getting off the box- I have been stepping down backwards (alternating legs), but recall doing an exercise after my 1st ACL repair where I jumped down as well.  Any thoughts?  thx 

post #6 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post



I am 6 months post-op with my 2nd ACL along with a lot of meniscus repair.  I have been doing a few of these on occasion as part of my rehab/conditioning.  How do you recommend getting off the box- I have been stepping down backwards (alternating legs), but recall doing an exercise after my 1st ACL repair where I jumped down as well.  Any thoughts?  thx 



I recommend exactly what you've been doing: stepping down and alternating legs. I don't recommend jumping off. 

post #7 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post


You and I probably have very different views of the technical reality of modern skiing.  Even for ski racing, which is far more demanding than the skiing most recreational skiers will ever do, it's less explosive than many would think, but more importantly at a recreational level if someone views their ski technique as "explosive" that's a sign they have really bad technique.  The bulk of the energy of a modern ski turn is normally coming from the momentum of skiing itself, and simply being channeled by the skier.  It is more similar to a skater in a halfpipe or a surfer on a wave than to a hurdler or a running back. 

 

Now, at the extremes, there are exceptions to this, but it's safe to assume that someone looking to, say, Ski Mag's fitness section for training tips doesn't fit within one of those highly advanced exceptions.  You could go to instructor lineups at big mountains, where the ability level can be quite high relative to the average skier, and not only would few of the instructors benefit from plyos, most would be at risk of getting hurt if you put them on a steady diet of depth jumps or jump squats.  They would also tell you that you shouldn't be hopping for many of your turns.

 

At the level of the ski, the ski should spend most of its time on the snow, and at the point where turn forces are greatest, which is well into the turn, the skier should have a long leg so they are not relying on muscular effort.  This is why a middle-aged housewife who skis 10 days a year, but who jogs regularly, can leave LA and fly to SLC and ski Park CIty beautifully if she knows how to ski.  She would in many cases not be able to clear a single hurdle on a running track, but fortunately skiing does not require that type of explosive movement.

 

 


 

I think what we have is a different understanding of explosiveness and power. You're fixated on the jumping and hopping and assuming that if that's not what you're doing on snow then that's not how you should train. That's flawed. Power is rapid application of force. That's what plyometric training develops - the ability to apply a lot of force quickly. Beginner skiers need this as much or more than advanced skiers because it is what will allow them to survive when the hill presents something they weren't expecting. For advanced skiers who like to get off the groomed or get into the bumps, it is also a huge factor. Racers don't necessarily need it from turn to turn, but they will if they ever catch an edge. 

 

 

post #8 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by evaino View Post


 

I think what we have is a different understanding of explosiveness and power. You're fixated on the jumping and hopping and assuming that if that's not what you're doing on snow then that's not how you should train. That's flawed. Power is rapid application of force. That's what plyometric training develops - the ability to apply a lot of force quickly. Beginner skiers need this as much or more than advanced skiers because it is what will allow them to survive when the hill presents something they weren't expecting. For advanced skiers who like to get off the groomed or get into the bumps, it is also a huge factor. Racers don't necessarily need it from turn to turn, but they will if they ever catch an edge. 

 

 



No, what I am saying is that modern skiing, particularly for recreational skiers, does not require the explosiveness you are suggesting. You were saying explosive earlier, btw, not talking watts.  They are two separate if related things.

 

Skiing off the groomed certainly doesn't require it, either, nor does good bump skiing.  (Competitive bumping is an exception, and slalom in particular can also be an exception, but those are relevant to a very small number of skiers.  They also demand less vertical explosiveness than most people think.)  Even for high-level racers, there is not a premium on either explosive jumping, say, or a brief multi-second spurt of raw power the way there is for some related sports.  You cannot look at the weight room numbers of a skier, or their vertical leap, or their depth jump performance, and know whether they have what it takes. 

 

The reality is that skiing in general is not a power game, and recreational skiing even less so.  Certainly it is not an explosive game -- for recreational skiers the closest you might come on that count is ollie ability, and dropping body weight and developing technique are way more important than training your vertical jump for getting a good ollie.

 

If someone says they ski "explosively," looking at their technique generally is called for.  I mention hopping among other things, because many less-good skiers still think, wrongly, that linked hop or jump turns are an example of "good" skiing and a good way to approach steeper terrain (they are a good drill, though).  Recreational skiers do not need above-average explosive strength, and thinking about explosive movement as a good thing frankly will probably hurt the development of beginning skiers.  As far as reacting "explosively" to, say, try to correct a beginner mistake and not fall, that's a good way for beginners to get hurt. 

 

It helps to go back and look at the development of modern skis and modern ski technique.  One of the great things about modern ski shapes has been they generally require less strength to ski well. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by CTKook - 12/4/11 at 9:53pm
post #9 of 14

You furthered my perception that you don't understand the implications of power development, or how we use it. I'll leave it at that.

 

 

post #10 of 14
Thread Starter 

do drop-jumps and squat jumps accomplish the same thing, one using extra weight, the other using extra momentum?

post #11 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by evaino View Post

You furthered my perception that you don't understand the implications of power development, or how we use it. I'll leave it at that.

 

 



Cool.  I'll head off to the hill and look for all of the "very explosive" skiing I should be seeing in this "very explosive" sport, that seems to be such a power game.  Strangely, what I expect to see will be rather different and none too explosive.  Because I expect to see skiing and riding.

 

 

 

 

post #12 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitamin Ski View Post

do drop-jumps and squat jumps accomplish the same thing, one using extra weight, the other using extra momentum?



No. 

 

post #13 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitamin Ski View Post

do drop-jumps and squat jumps accomplish the same thing, one using extra weight, the other using extra momentum?



They are programmed for the same reason. Both are done to develop power and to a lesser degree, proprioception. Depth jumps are a progression of body weight squat jumps. Some people do progress squat jumps by adding weight, although personally I'm not a fan, especially if you're doing it with a bar as the bar basically smacks down on the cervical spine when you land. Not ideal in my mind. As I noted before, I personally find depth jumps are also not ideal, although there can be a place for them if you have an underlying base of strength and you don't do them from too high. 

 

If you were to use weighted squat jumps, then you could say that it and squat jumps accomplish the same thing but with with extra weight for the squat jump. The extra momentum part isn't really accurate, unless you step off a box that is higher than the peak of your squat jump. .

 

 

post #14 of 14

^^^

 

It helps to go over basics.  An on-box jump, for instance, while explosive doesn't utilize the shock-loading that some like to call "plyometric reflex."  Depth jumps are by contrast kind of a classic example of this type of shock-loading, utilizing this reflex.  They are two separate categories.

 

Weighted jump squats, which in context is what V-S is talking about, at best have a much more gradual shock-loading.  In the real world, if you watch someone do them with the goal of NOT pausing at the bottom before jumping, they can generall succeed in doing this for 1-2 reps, and then they start to pause.  Which is probably safer with the weighted jump squat anyway.  So, lump them as a variant of jumping onto a box, and as doing something different and less intense as far as trying to harness shock-loading for athletic performance.

 

Again, there are all sorts of cautions for doing this stuff.  For instance, many people will advise anyone over 200 lbs of bodyweight to be extra-careful in particular with plyometrics that do seek to use shock-loading, such as depth jumps.  That caution applies to trained athletes with a high level of base strength.  It applies equally well to less-heavy people who may not be trained athletes. 

 

I realize Epic seems to attract primarily elite athletes who already do O-lifts with good form, have high levels of base strength, etc. etc.  It's good for people to hear that in the real world that's pretty rare, though, and that for skiing it's entirely unnecessary. 

 

People tend also to not discuss how quickly the benefits from plyos can plateau, which is one reason when they're done in the real world for training purposes it is usually as part of a periodized training cycle.  Again, in addition to being elite athletes, it is possible that many of the posters here are on such a carefully structured training cycle, that they adhere to, but in the real world that is again pretty rare.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Fitness, Health, Nutrition, Injury, and Recovery › Are Drop-Jumps the queefy alternative for squat jumps?