Thread: Pliometric exercises for the upper body?

Depends on who you ask. I believe in longer tension times and the old saying, "you can throw a very heavy weight, but you can't lift it" - and of course jerking weights is a good way to injure yourself. when the structural integrity of the muscle and connective tissue is exceeded by the forces of the weights involved, an injury will occur.

some people think that individuals who do "pliometric" based exercises are faster or more explosive. i've never experienced anything but lower back pain from doing them, though. i've seen remarkably explosive individuals who did field work and then progressively overloading their "traditional" weight training exercises, focusing on developing strength and force output potential increases via hypertrophy of muscle. I know because I've trained them. I never incorporate so called power cleans for athletes, ever, except if it is involved in the sport they are performing.

So would your advice be to decrease workout intensity (to 60-70% 1R) and use shorter rest intervals or to increase intensity? Also, would some sort of tempo adjustment for the "traditional lifts" help to develop more power output from the muscles?

No, in my opinion, it would not. Learning how to express power relative to a sport is in learning the appropriate motor skill SPECIFIC to the sport. Increasing the cross section of your muscle (hypertrophy) through means of slower movements and gradual overload will increase that.

Strength training and skill training are independent of each other, in my direct opinion.

to many variables involved to answer this through internet convo.

P is right, there is more we would need to know. We don't know the sport, how strong you are, you current reactive/force development capabilities, if you even move properly in the first place, etc. In general though, yes, plyometric exercises are capable of improving the ability to recycle elastic energy and improve the rate of force development.

I respectfully disagree with DD and his stance on specificity. Plenty of studies, and mounds of empirical evidence, show a correlation between various exercises that are different movements, but involve some of the same prime movers, force generation characteristics, and joint articulations.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

I respectfully disagree with DD and his stance on specificity. Plenty of studies, and mounds of empirical evidence, show a correlation between various exercises that are different movements, but involve some of the same prime movers, force generation characteristics, and joint articulations.

I disagree with this interpretation of the literature. The principle of specificity is well received. Because of interdependent variables involved with the extremely complicated task of programming a "motor" system of moving a three dimensional mass against gravity through a very intricate system of levers - not operating with linear forces but with torque - each individually specific task is learned best by performing it specifically.

Throwing a baseball and throwing a football include a number of similarities but it is clear that working one will hardly help the other. Any trasnference of skill can be easily explained by pointing out the progressive overload of the muscle resulting in an increase in force from larger muscles. Is this skill transfer? In my opinion, hell no, and it would be a lot wiser and more effective to increase the strength of the muscles in the weight room and practicing the ball throwing without trying to "mimic" joint angles or what not. You simply can not "mimic" a specific skill in a weight room, and I will explain this below.

Because every skill is composed of an action involving specific body and posture positioning, the speed of the contraction (through a multiple joint movement, each muscle group will be contributing a very distinct amount of torque through different rates of acceleration), the nature of the contractions, the overall force of the contractions, the range of motion specific to the motion, the joint angle position, the neuromuscular firing pattern including firing rates and firing order, the sequencing and timing of the contractions, the energy systems involved in the skill, the variety of mental focus involved, etc. etc. etc., the nervous system codes a very specific method of action for performing that skill. This is why you can practice throwing a Frisbee and throwing a football and not having the two skills have a negative overlap despite the similarities. If there was a "transfer", the nervous system would quickly become a miss-mash of inefficient patterns. Our CNS instead learns to code for a movement by practicing that and learning extremely efficient patterns to complete it. Mimicking these various intricacies in the gym is in my opinion a big waste of time. There are simply too many interdependent variables that make an action specific.

And we've debated this before, so no disrespect to the vast majority who disagree with me. I simply don't buy any of it.

So DD, let me get this clear on your behalf.

What you are saying is 'In your opinion, practises in the gym will not in any way merge into sport-specific, task-specific actions. Except for powerlifters and oly lifters.'

Is this your point? The sciencesy stuff just makes it a little unclear.

Originally Posted by Raz

What you are saying is 'In your opinion, practises in the gym will not in any way merge into sport-specific, task-specific actions. Except for powerlifters and oly lifters.'

this is correct. in order for skill transfer to be realized, the athlete must take what they have developed in the gym and develop it on the field of play.

That said, there are a lot of applications for plyometrics (in my opinion) in a training program.

given the individuals level and ability, there is a time and place for almost anything. it is knowing when to use the techniques that will make or break the program.

Originally Posted by P-funk

this is correct. in order for skill transfer to be realized, the athlete must take what they have developed in the gym and develop it on the field of play.

That said, there are a lot of applications for plyometrics (in my opinion) in a training program.

given the individuals level and ability, there is a time and place for almost anything. it is knowing when to use the techniques that will make or break the program.

True, true.

But aren't certain exercises ballistic in nature? And ofcourse there certainly may be a need to focus on 'neural efficiency' via hig weight/low reps for an athlete. Is there no actual transfer in neural effiency?

Originally Posted by Raz

True, true.

But aren't certain exercises ballistic in nature? And ofcourse there certainly may be a need to focus on 'neural efficiency' via hig weight/low reps for an athlete. Is there no actual transfer in neural effiency?

no transfer for what?

if you go in the gym and you strength train, but you don't practice your sport or you are not very good at your sport, all you will be is a bigger, faster and stronger shitty football player (or whatever the sport is).

Originally Posted by P-funk

no transfer for what?

if you go in the gym and you strength train, but you don't practice your sport or you are not very good at your sport, all you will be is a bigger, faster and stronger shitty football player (or whatever the sport is).

Ok, get your point.