Plyometrics

I don't. At least not yet (running for about 8 years).  They seem to be relatively high risk/low reward to me, for the most part.  I prefer some easier 'plyo-type' exercises, like strides and hills.  Not exactly the explosive movements of most plyos, but seem to help make my running stride feel easier and more relaxed.

Just shooting from the hip.  I'm not a run guru.  BUT, maybe for the elite runner looking for an edge, plyometrics may be provide a small edge, but as mentioned above, also a lot of risk.  I think run volume and intensity is 90% of the equation, so spending time on the last 10% seems a bit inefficient use of time plus it may take away from the effectiveness of your run workouts due to fatigue or over training.

Using a golf analogy.  A beginner could work on the nuances of working the ball (draw/fade) but would probably improve their game a LOT more just working on consistency and ball striking than spending time on details.  Do that when the basics are solid and looking for the next step to improve.

If you were in a sport that required a lot of explosive movements, I can see a LOT of plyo work and probably a lot less LSD stuff.

I think technically things like bounding and A skips can be considered so I could answer yes.  I don't incorporate them into any sort of workout, just dynamic stretching as prescribed by the coach.   

Yes. 

Bouding, box jumps, squat jumps. 

Plyometric exercises are one of those things that seem to be poorly understood by most people, yet everyone wants to do them anyway.  IMO, most people try to either add them into their training before their body is ready for them, do too much too soon, or do them Incorrectly.

In general, you should have a fairly high fitness level before even contemplating them.  They should be implemented slowly, starting with very low volumes of lower intensity exercises, and progress conservatively.

I've only done them with high school and college athletes.  I haven't worked with an age group endurance athlete where I felt plyo work made sense.

Here is a good article that may also be helpful:  http://www.nsca.com/Education/Articles/Common-Mistakes-in-the-Implementation-of-Plyometrics/

Great source.

I should elaborate on my answer. I built a pretty high fitness level before I started integrating them and I do them almost exclusively with our coaches supervision (with exception of the bounding, which might not even totally count.) 

We tend to do more of this during summer track season and then in fall for XC. Not so much during half marathon/marathon training. 

The exercises that Skiba show's in Chapter 3 of the book quoted above don't look that "risky" per se--they're a progression from single leg hops up to a step, to cone jumps, to shallowish (max 8") box jump-cone hop, to forward leaps and bounding repeats. 

It would seem like there are age groupers with a high enough fitness level that these exercises wouldn't be inherently risky.  They kinda seem like stuff people with active jobs (firefighting, farming, etc) do all the time.  Is it just that you have felt the AG athletes you work with would be better served spending their time doing something else? 

Do you agree with the premise of a "correlation of running economy and stiffness" and do anything specific to address that in a different way, or is it really just a pointy end concern?

Originally posted by switch

Originally posted by TriMyBest

Plyometric exercises are one of those things that seem to be poorly understood by most people, yet everyone wants to do them anyway.  IMO, most people try to either add them into their training before their body is ready for them, do too much too soon, or do them Incorrectly.

In general, you should have a fairly high fitness level before even contemplating them.  They should be implemented slowly, starting with very low volumes of lower intensity exercises, and progress conservatively.

I've only done them with high school and college athletes.  I haven't worked with an age group endurance athlete where I felt plyo work made sense.

Here is a good article that may also be helpful:  http://www.nsca.com/Education/Articles/Common-Mistakes-in-the-Implementation-of-Plyometrics/

 

There are many different kinds of plyos and I'm definitely not talking 30" box jumps

The exercises that Skiba show's in Chapter 3 of the book quoted above don't look that "risky" per se--they're a progression from single leg hops up to a step, to cone jumps, to shallowish (max 8") box jump-cone hop, to forward leaps and bounding repeats. 

It would seem like there are age groupers with a high enough fitness level that these exercises wouldn't be inherently risky.  They kinda seem like stuff people with active jobs (firefighting, farming, etc) do all the time.  Is it just that you have felt the AG athletes you work with would be better served spending their time doing something else? 

Do you agree with the premise of a "correlation of running economy and stiffness" and do anything specific to address that in a different way, or is it really just a pointy end concern?

I should qualify my answer by pointing out that I'm an NSCA-CPT, so I tend to follow their guidelines, which some people might consider conservative regarding application of plyometric exercise, hence my statement about having a higher level of fitness first and progressing conservatively.

That said, I would say that most of the AGer's I've worked with could physically handle them, but with AGer's, we're always looking at how to get the best return on their limited available time.  IMO, considering the primary performance limiters and goals of most AGer's, there are better ways to spend their available training time than doing plyometrics, whether it's s/b/r training or other types of strength training for specific purposes.  The HS and college athletes I've worked with have had specific reasons to incorporate them, such as divers or swimmers who we want to improve their height off the board or distance off the starting blocks or walls; or football players who can obviously benefit from increased explosive power.  My statement about who I have and have not done them with was intended to be in response to your OP where you asked who did or didn't do them.

Yes, I agree with the premise that there is a correlation between running economy and stiffness, because there seems to be mounting evidence to support the connection.  But, again, I personally haven't dealt with an athlete where I wasn't able to identify other higher priorities to focus training on, so I've never done anything specifically intended to address that.  Usually, we're spending all the available strength training time trying to correct the imbalances caused by their modern life that includes long commutes sitting in a car and a couple dozen hours a week in front of the computer, maintaining muscle mass and bone density in aging athletes, or warding off the imbalances that can develop from so many hours training in sports that occur primarily in the sagittal plane.

The closest we get is with some running drills, such as Bobby McGee's ankle springs, but I don't consider them plyometrics, because there isn't an emphasis on making the amortization phase as short as possible, and we do more repetitions of them than I would have someone do a true plyometric exercise, because they're not as intense.

Originally posted by switch

Originally posted by TriMyBest

Plyometric exercises are one of those things that seem to be poorly understood by most people, yet everyone wants to do them anyway.  IMO, most people try to either add them into their training before their body is ready for them, do too much too soon, or do them Incorrectly.

In general, you should have a fairly high fitness level before even contemplating them.  They should be implemented slowly, starting with very low volumes of lower intensity exercises, and progress conservatively.

I've only done them with high school and college athletes.  I haven't worked with an age group endurance athlete where I felt plyo work made sense.

Here is a good article that may also be helpful:  http://www.nsca.com/Education/Articles/Common-Mistakes-in-the-Implementation-of-Plyometrics/

 

There are many different kinds of plyos and I'm definitely not talking 30" box jumps

The exercises that Skiba show's in Chapter 3 of the book quoted above don't look that "risky" per se--they're a progression from single leg hops up to a step, to cone jumps, to shallowish (max 8") box jump-cone hop, to forward leaps and bounding repeats. 

It would seem like there are age groupers with a high enough fitness level that these exercises wouldn't be inherently risky.  They kinda seem like stuff people with active jobs (firefighting, farming, etc) do all the time.  Is it just that you have felt the AG athletes you work with would be better served spending their time doing something else? 

Do you agree with the premise of a "correlation of running economy and stiffness" and do anything specific to address that in a different way, or is it really just a pointy end concern?

I originally thought no - I never do that stuff. But I after reading your description I think I do, inadvertently though. I teach a class at the Y for preschoolers & toddlers (Toddler Gym). We work on jump ups from the floor to a step or on top of a Bosu ball, bound from one bosu ball to the next, hop around the room like a frog (I'm way too old for that), jump on one foot, skip, gallop.

I think I'll change the name of the class to Toddler Plyometrics .

So much of the play I do with my kids is plyo like.  We live in a converted barn, and the main floor is one big open space with a large fireplace in the middle.  We will often do chasing laps around the main floor--bounds, skips, jumps--as a game, and it definitely seems applicable.  We also do a ton of game play-capture the flag, different kinds of tag, jumping hay bale to hay bale or off of hay bales, you get the idea :)  It's "just" play, but I think it ends up translating in some fashion to the intent of plyos.

I think a lot of adults just stop moving their bodies like that.  If you break down a game of tag or a skipping chase session into what it's doing in terms of "training," it probably has quite a bit of good stuff in there.

Maybe I'll just play with my kids more.  That sounds like a win all the way around.

I had to vote "Never".

As I mentioned in Shane's thread on running economy, I'm 60 years old and have degenerative tendinosis in both Achilles tendons.  Plyometrics are too high risk in my situation.  My orthopedic surgeon has also had me give up any other sports that require jumping and/or sudden starts, stops or changes of direction.

Mark 

I voted year round because the class I teach which is a full body, core intensive drill based "bootcamp" style class includes several rounds of plyos.  I've been teaching it for about 10 years and I can tell you that it has definitely taken its toll on my joints--but it's also a big part of how I stay fiercely lean.  It's like the best friend/worst enemy.

The goal of my class like most other group fitness classes is overall improved general fitness and improving body composition.  For endurance athletes, it would be considered a cross training day.  While I do think it's helped me cardiovascularly because it's essentially zone training, I've never really thought of it as directly applicable to triathlon training.  The problem for me is that it zaps my strength and energy for a day and basically makes any s/b/r training I would do that day or the next into a lackluster session.

I do love them and love that feeling of a super concentrated quick burst of power.  But I think I'd be a faster triathlete without them (at least doing them once a week into tri training season).  I guess I don't care THAT much about being a still as average as I am now but slightly faster AG'er.

Plyos most certainly can be conditioning drills and in my class that is how they are used.  Zapped because it's essentially a zone 4/5 workout.  It's similar to HIIT where the high intensity portion is the plyos.

Yes, we recover between sets.  Doesn't make the 75 minute workout any less intense or draining.

To say that plyos have no place in a conditioning class, I respectfully disagree.  I don't even understand the statement you quoted above "On this note, remember that plyometric exercises are not meant to be conditioning. They are exercises aimed at increasing power development".  Isn't increasing power development a way to condition the body?

Secondly, I've already stated that we make a full recovery between sets so I'm not sure why you're citing that again.

I think here conditioning is meant to indicate training of the aerobic systems. Bcagle is pointing out that the purpose of plyometrics is to increase maximal power, not aerobic endurance. If you do not allow rest, you are not getting the intended benefits out of your plyometrics