Transcription
It is 2025! Welcome to the New Year, folks! I hope that you guys had a great New Year's Eve. Hopefully, you guys are recovered if you decided to partake in the nonsense that is New Year's Eve celebrations.
Shout out to the Microsoft font when they dropped the ball; it was absolutely absurd! I don't know if you guys saw that, but it was like '07 Microsoft text, and it was really giving, "We put no effort into this major important billboard shown to millions of Americans on their TV screen."
Today, we are going to get into Eccentric RFD. We actually had a long chat yesterday about what it was. I mean, just everything! What did we even talk about in that chat for like an hour? My girlfriend fell asleep and was so pissed at me. She's like, "When are you gonna be done working?" And I was like, "Little do you know, I'm not actually working. I'm not achieving any work outcome at the moment other than discussing." It's like talking about it instead of being about it. That's what we were doing yesterday; it's our hobby, I think.
Yeah, our loved ones forget that this is our hobby, our passion. I could have watched TV with you or played video games, but instead, I wanted to talk about jumping higher.
So, getting into Eccentric RFD, let's— as Isaiah says, he likes to define things—so I'm gonna leave this one to you, Ben. How would you define Eccentric RFD and Eccentric Peak Force?
Ben: Well, at its basic, it's developing force eccentrically very, very rapidly. It's recruiting more motor units faster; it's recruiting them at higher discharge frequencies, right?
The easiest way to picture this is just looking at the force-time curve on a force plate of a jump. The Eccentric RFD would be indicative of how steep the slope is getting up to Eccentric Peak Force.
And then Peak Force eccentrically is just the top; it's the peak of where the force is at, usually at minimum displacement of the center of mass in a jump. Like, how low you are is usually when the peak of Eccentric Force hits.
So let's just—P! Yeah, there we go. I'm not showing anything crazy, right? You guys can see this?
Audience: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Ben: So yeah, basically this curve right here is demonstrating the—so you're seeing ground reaction forces. That's basically going to show you the change in force over a given interval.
So for this one, we're looking at—okay, left leg, leftward, left leg, or wait, first leg upward? Blue is second?
Audience: Yeah, blue is your block foot.
Ben: Blue is the block foot, but why does it say forward GRF left?
Audience: That's just the direction of the ground reaction force.
Ben: Just look—he didn't summate it. Oh, whatever.
Alright, so we're looking at these ones, I guess, here. So we're seeing the rate that this goes up, how fast the slope—that is your rate of force development. And eccentrically means that the muscle is lengthening.
So during the eccentric action, which is pretty much until like probably here, you're seeing the muscle lengthening. We're going to see the craziest changes in Eccentric RFD here.
You know what's interesting that Ben and I talked about, though, is that your knee is flexing as you're planting this foot, right? But at touchdown, it's not really doing anything. What's actually happening is your tibialis anterior is doing most of the work, and then the foot plants.
From here to here is probably where you see the most amount of Eccentric RFD in the quad. But what's hard about that is this isn't going to cooperate because it's a symphony of joint actions. There's a lot of different things happening here at the knee, at the hip, at the ankle, and I think that makes it a little bit hard to know for sure what the RFD is in the quad.
And that's what I was trying to explain to you yesterday, Ben; that was my kind of argument.
Can you pull up that other curve that I put in from Hawkins Dynamics? That's probably easier to picture.
Ben: Yeah, let me— that's from a drop jump, so let me pull this up here. Uno momento. See if I can just open with preview. There we go, and we'll go here, share.
And this is also going to show—yeah, drop jump will definitely be a little bit easier to see here. But it's also important—so one quick note: if you look at the—this is once they start developing force, but usually there'll be a huge spike before that. So it'll go like really spiked up, come down, and then you start developing the—
Which curve are you looking at, leftward or rightward?
Ben: On the left part of the curve, but it doesn't show us on this model because it's just simplified. But I just want to make a quick note: it would look more like what we just saw on Sam's graph.
So when you're looking at these graphs, right, you see this moderate— that big spike—like what is the—so that's not spring-like. They're essentially saying on that leftward curve.
Audience: Yeah, that.
Ben: So to me, that would be their—I would call that they came in with good force. They were able to develop pretty good Eccentric RFD, but they weren't able to sustain it.
What do you think is happening in the MTU at that point?
Audience: I think that is when you—MTU is muscular tendon unit for everyone that was wondering. I would call that yielding, as in you're getting stretch on the tendon, but you're also getting the muscle fibers are actually eccentrically contracting as opposed to being more quasi-isometric or slow concentric to get more strain on a tendon.
Because like that's how you actually apply a lot of force into the ground, and that's how you wind tight.
Two things: one, when you say yield versus break—yielding, you're saying bad muscle lengthening is what you're saying.
Yielding: I'm talking about Eccentric contraction of the muscle. Breaking would be the quasi-isometric or the concentric, right?
So breaking is tendon lengthening versus yielding is more so muscle lengthening.
Audience: Yeah, but keep in mind with yielding, you're still getting tendon lengthening. So you're getting tendon lengthening and muscle lengthening versus muscle shortening and tendon lengthening.
Ben: Yeah, you think in this left one you're seeing the fast go lengthening a lot, which means that you're going to see crazy peak, really good. Because I would say that the Eccentric RFD in this left one's the highest, right?
Audience: Yes, but it says poor because it's not spring-like, which is interesting.
Ben: Yeah, so that's why it's like— that would be the example of they hit the ground and they like would lower really quickly, but then they quickly realize they can't keep applying force, and then it just drops.
This is what I was saying the other day with Isaiah. This is what I think happens.
Oh, well, real quick, this is a force-time curve, right?
Audience: Yes.
Ben: So this would be, for those of you guys watching, the area under the curve basically shows impulse. The higher the impulse, the higher you're going to jump.
So what I'm assuming they mean by good is this good athlete is jumping higher than the moderate and jumping higher than the— and you can have a high Eccentric RFD but not as high of an impulse compared to the other athletes and jump lower, right?
Audience: Yeah, and this is—
Ben: It should—I mean, for those of you that are watching this, I mean, it's obvious that the green has the most impulse, and that would mean you would have the highest takeoff velocity and jump higher.
So the whole point of jumping higher in this context is you need to raise the entire curve.
So for the good athlete, they need to raise both the Eccentric curve and the concentric curve, whereas the poor athlete needs to probably also develop both qualities. They need to both apply more force eccentrically to be able to handle all that breaking force and then also be able to push out of it concentrically.
They're not being very spring-like, as John was saying.
So when we see this dip here after like we got the sharp peak and there's a dip, and then it drops off, and the moderate, you see a sharp peak, dip, drop off. Then this one, you see a pretty sharp peak, less of a drop off.
Audience: Yep, good push off.
Ben: So is that dip where they're just losing all the energy in the tendon, more or less?
Audience: Yep, that's where everything is kind of dissipating. You get that internal friction of all the tissues, and that's dissipating.
Like once you start going into an Eccentric contraction, that's when you start dissipating the energy.
So that's why your muscles have to be able to hold their ground, trust the tendon, and apply force. Because that nice smooth transition with the good—that's amortization. That's like not being stuck on the ground, essentially, right?
So you could have crazy—like for example, I wonder what this would look like if you watched it. You know, I would imagine the good one looks like a good rebound, like a good jump.
And you know, it's also interesting too because if you look at depth jumps—this is a depth jump, correct?
Audience: Yeah, it's a drop jump.
Ben: When you look at a depth jump, you can have different RSIs, meaning you could have—sorry, you could have the same RSI and get it different ways. Meaning you could have a long time on the ground and get a really high jump height, or you could spend less time on the ground, not have as high of a jump height, but it's a better rebound, quote unquote, more spring-like.
So the area under the curve doesn't necessarily tell the whole picture when it comes to that, but the shape of the curve is probably very important, right?
So it would be interesting to see what the shape of that curve looks like as you move up or down that continuum and comparing that with what the actual jump looks like.
Come on up, my dog! Someone said this the other day; they're like, "It wouldn't be a podcast without John’s dog interrupting." And I'm like, "You are correct! No matter what I do, Bayy will interrupt."
So yeah, I would be kind of interested to see. I used to have the force plates from Hawkins; they lent them to me, but the problem was they didn't work, and they broke, and it was really upsetting.
So yeah, that was a big problem with it. And force plates are great for some things. You know, it's interesting to look at if you were to use them all the time. It would be kind of difficult because the setup is annoying, the apps are okay, they're not great.
And typically what I've noticed is RSI, like one to one, is related to what you'll see on the force plate. So if your RSI is good, it's gonna be spring-like, you know what I mean? If your RSI is poor—
It's not something I found with these metrics; the reliability of them can be finicky. And it reminds me a lot of when we measure the flight time on my jumps, for example. A lot of it depends on how you land.
And it's better when comparing like intra-rider reliability, like yourself to yourself. But even then, like when I have the OVR and I'm measuring my bar speeds and I'm looking at power specifically in watts—me and John were messing around with it the other day, I think the last time we used it—and just getting like wildly—not wildly different, but pretty significant differences in numbers.
For example, we were doing a clean pull, comparing it to a panda pull on some reps. My panda initially—my panda pull is way better, so I was like, "Oh, the panda pull's better." But then there was like a small technique change or how I pulled it off the ground, and we got a different number off the clean pull.
Something borderline not repeatable for everyone; it would be like a very nuanced change he made that caused a major difference for him.
It's made me—initially, I was very excited about being able to use that data, but then it made me kind of not like using that data as much because I can get sensationally—for example, I can tell if I'm fatigued. I don't have to look at the number on the OVR to tell me I'm not as fatigued.
When John watches me power clean, he can tell when I'm pulling it slow off the floor or when I'm dogging it or when it's looking really good and fast.
And I don't know how I feel about us using those numbers. I think it's more informative; you need that data over very long intervals for it to be very informative.
I think that's the biggest thing I've always recognized about data: more of it is better. Because if you're looking at it and you're comparing changes, that's when it's meaningful data.
Yeah, like you just do it every once in a while; it might help a little bit because you'll be like, "Oh, like the data is good for comparison purposes for yourself."
That is what I would—if I were to sum it up, I don't necessarily think it's always good for comparing person to person, specifically when you're talking about OVR.
But I think when you're looking at intra-rater reliability and you're comparing it to yourself, it can be really meaningful. Because let's say you do the same warm-up every time, which you do. You always go green, blue, blue, green, blue, blue for power clean.
So if you look at that every time you do the same buildup, you know, two to three reps of it, over time you're going to start to see trends. And that's really where the beauty of data comes in: it's objective and it shows you trends.
The same thing with Freelap data; like I love Freelap data because it's pretty objective, it's pretty reliable, and it's repeatable.
So if I go out and I know I'm on the same surface that I usually run on, you'll start to make sense of the data as you see more of it.
You know what I mean? You'll be like, "Wait, like at first I might see something and be like, 'Whoa, I'm running way faster on turf,' but it's not repeatable."
Maybe you did that once in a year, but then you're like, "Oh, well, maybe I did it once, but I haven't been able to do that. I always run faster on the track even though my all-time best times are on the turf."
And then you start to realize that—why did that happen? Was it a mismeasure? Was it an error? Did I get a bad reading?
And then maybe you're like, "Oh, well, yeah, I did only have one rep on the grass that was fast." It's like, "Okay, it was probably misread."
Especially when you start to understand how Freelap works; like it's a bubble. If you catch the front of the bubble or you catch the end of the bubble of a zone, then the beginning of the bubble, you decrease the distance by upwards of a few feet.
So that would make sense versus like a Brower is a laser, so it's perfect basically. You know, it's always going to give you very reliable data that you can trust unless it's way off.
Sometimes they're finicky because they just don't work; like it just flat out won't measure. But generally, if they work, then you're going to get pretty good data.
So, but it's way worse to set up, and it's annoying. So it's like when you kind of find that balance of things being fast and easy and repeatable, and you could just throw it on and kind of glance at it—that's whenever—that's why I like OVR.
Because if you can't make a mental note of your data and make sense of it, then it's probably not worth using.
Like if I have to pull up a spreadsheet to look at the data, it's probably not worth using.
Like I would prefer to have something that in the moment I can glance at, and in the back of my head, I know, "Hey, when I do cleans, my power on cleans is usually this," or "my wattage is usually this," and it's way down today.
Okay, that's enough; that's informative enough. I don't need any more data, right?
So I think that's where it can be really useful when you start to get into these really nuanced analytics.
And as I've played with them, the more complex the metric, typically the more difficult it is to make it meaningful, and it sometimes will be nonsensical.
For example, if I'm looking at RFD, this is a really good one, and I'm doing a mid-thigh isometric pull or I'm doing a single-leg exercise or any isometric on it, and you're using the Hawkins force plates—if you tap that plate, you tap it, your RFD could go from really low to really high.
Like it can drastically change if you make a seemingly irrelevant change in how you did the test.
And so that's kind of why I don't love force plates, because it's almost too sensitive.
And it doesn't take out the noise; like noise is data that's kind of not perfect, right? Like jaggedy. It doesn't do post-processing and like remove the noise from the data.
So like to get into those variables, it's like this is non-usable as much anymore.
Now, if you're just looking at something like Peak Force, then it could—like that's okay, cool, we're just looking at Peak Force, right?
And even that can be confusing because then you'll look at it and you're like, "Well," and you have to—and again, you'd have to use it all the time and do that test all the time for it to make sense.
Because if I do—if I look at Peak Force and the first time I do it, I'm achieving it at 300 milliseconds, the next time I do it, I'm achieving it at 600 milliseconds, and then 800 milliseconds, and then—or a second or three seconds—it's like, "Wait, what?"
Like this one, I'm getting it at a second; this one, I'm getting it at three seconds. That's a massive difference.
And my RFD—the thing about RFD is you're looking at RFD from zero to 100 milliseconds. That's like super fast, so it's not super meaningful to me.
I'd rather just look at RSI: like what does your RSI look like? Is it good or is it bad? Okay, that's going to tell you probably more.
And same thing with sprint times: am I running faster or am I running slower? There you go; like that's gonna tell you the whole picture right there.
You know what I mean? It makes the data more meaningful.
So that's where kind of when I am looking at some of these complex data points like TPV or Peak—like I like Peak Velocity because it's simple.
I like TPV; it can be used. I think TPV is a really easy one to get, and it's very meaningful, specifically EA index.
So what is your Peak V? And I'll just look at Peak VLO, and I'll look at TPV. If TPVs aren't around the ground contact time, as I'm getting more specific, TPV is time to Peak Velocity.
And my Peak VLOs are lower, then it's probably not specific. Like Peak V has to be there. I don't care if you're like—you can get crazy high TPVs, but if your Peak VLO sucks, it doesn't matter.
So I think when you—that's what I've realized after kind of looking at these metrics.
And maybe we'll do a more thorough explanation of this in the future, but I would say for me personally, using this data and coaching someone with it and comparing it to an elite high jumper to a less elite high jumper, those are the major differences that I've personally seen.
I want you to—Ben, Isaiah, I want your lens on what I just said. Ben might disagree completely.
Ben: I don't disagree with anything you said. Yeah, data is super—I mean, data is super sensitive.
Back to the OVR, yeah, I use it a lot. I think number one, it just helps my intent. Like I had a couple weeks where I didn't have it with me, and I was lifting and just like not knowing—knowing that it's not on the bar tracking me, I could just feel internally that I'm just not pushing as hard as I normally would.
So like that's probably the biggest thing; it holds me accountable to maximize my intent.
And then two, kind of what John was saying is I used it a lot for a readiness test. Like I'll do a 185 clean, see how I'm moving that, or I'll do a 225 squat or 185 bench, and it tracks—this was like your previous Peak Power or your previous average velocity.
Ben: Average—the one I was—yeah, and that would show me, "Oh, okay, I'm at near my max strength levels."
Because I'll do every time I max out, I do the full test, so I know what velocities I'm hitting for what given percentage of my 1RM.
Audience: Sorry, continue.
Ben: Oh no, you can finish.
Audience: Yeah, say—yeah, I use it as a readiness test. Like, "Okay, I can push today," or "Oh, I am a little fatigued; maybe I'll drop the weight by five or ten pounds but still get something out of it," basically is how I do it.
So speaking of readiness, I want to talk about fatigue.
What are we talking about? Are we talking about our friend CB?
Ben: Yeah, well, that just—in general, having a lot of discussions about fatigue.
And we saw a post on Instagram. I don't know, are we saying names or no?
Audience: No, I don't think so.
Ben: Somebody posted research and basically said you don't have to train as often as we train.
And yeah, that was basically the extent of it. And then I've seen other stuff saying that you need to prioritize being fresh, essentially.
Also, I think the other thing we discussed—somebody saying you don't need deloads; like your training should be written so that you don't really need to unload.
And then the last one is you can—we usually use like four-week cycles; you can use three-week cycles, basically.
A lot of stuff around being more fresh and how we train. There's a lot of fatigue that we implement. We train really hard, really frequently, and I don't know if I agree with what those people are saying.
What I'm curious about is what you guys' take on the whole being fresh thing.
And then Ben, you saying like the readiness thing, how you'll drop weight if you don't—like if your velocities aren't up to par or your power isn't up to par.
Me personally, I generally just try to do what's on the piece of paper.
Ben: Yeah, just do what's on the piece of paper, dude. Don't ask questions.
Audience: Yeah, and us worry about that.
Ben: I saw it this last workout that I did on Saturday. So normally, this lift that we're doing, it's a max isometric cycle, and the Friday lift is really hard.
Friday is usually my dunk day, so I dunked on Friday, did that lift on Saturday, and that's when I really started feeling the effects of fatigue.
The first two days, I was fine; I was feeling springy, feeling super bouncy. Then I came out of that dunk session into that lift, and I was just drudging through that workout.
Like it was really freaking hard. The clean pulls were terrible, or the P—it was pause power cleans. I barely hit a set of 245 or 225 for three, went up to 255, failed the third rep, so I couldn't even do the three reps.
Dropped to 245 for my working sets, did it one time. The next time, I also failed my third rep.
So it's very obvious that I was just like destroyed from my dunk session and the week of training.
But I still try to push through those days, and I don't know. I've gotten decent results thus far with that, but we're always thinking about—not me and John have been saying this—just because you're a good athlete doesn't mean your training is good.
You always want to be asking what can be better.
One thing I have, as you're talking about this, is the difference between sprint training and jump training. I think they're not the same, and I think that that's really important.
With sprinters, I have seen that they have to be fresh. Like that is just—through my experience, I've seen that that is really genuinely the case.
Especially the more neural the activity, specifically long jump, speed jumpers, and high jump and sprinters—those three activities, you really—in my experience, when I have tested different protocols or different training on them, they do not respond well.
Generally—not all—they generally don't. They prefer to be very fresh; they prefer to have very low volumes.
The problem is they get fat; that's one problem. They don't stay very lean as a result of it, and it's borderline just riding genetics to the promised land.
So that I've seen a lot of the time. I do think that the undertraining and staying very fresh and keeping volumes very low can work for sprinting specifically.
I've seen it work really well for sprinting; that's my experience on that.
And then in terms of some of the other stuff, like a person had talked about excitation-contraction coupling, talked about rate coding and the supraspinal activity and activation.
And I think there was something else about—I don't remember what the other piece was, but those were like two of the rationale.
So excitation-contraction coupling is, Ben, correct me if I'm wrong, basically you have the electrical activity that's happening across the membranes in the nervous system and then also down at the actual muscle tissue, like muscle cell, and allows through a chemical process a contraction where the myosin and actin bind and the muscle fascicle generates tension.
So that process is impeded when you have a significant amount of fatigue.
This person was arguing that there's no adaptation or more adaptation if you're building in more training or more fatigue.
I personally disagree, and I don't know how he would definitively say that that's not the case.
I don't know what research would demonstrate that so definitively that he could so concretely make that conclusion because he was proposing just do two sets to failure every 72 hours.
So train twice a week and like squat 4 by 6 to failure, two by 6 to failure, and then just be done.
And yeah, if you're going truly to failure, first off, that's really freaking hard.
If—is Isaiah just max out two sets twice a week? What would probably—he would drain; he would almost certainly drain.
I don't really have any doubt in my mind. I think people do adapt; like their workloads do improve year to year.
It's not something where like, yeah, maybe initially you could do that, but in my experience, the elite athletes will get to a point where they don't improve, and they need more volume and high-quality volume—not just volume, but high-quality volume.
So every tissue is going to be a little bit different, right?
And if I'm looking at like the quad and the patellar tendon or the Achilles and I'm looking at the hip, like, you know, I'm trying to achieve different goals with each of those exercises that I select.
For the clean, maybe it is the nervous system that is what I'm trying to address. I'm trying to address rate coding; I'm trying to address synchronicity, right?
Can we recruit all these muscles fast at the same time? I'm trying to work on coordination and being able to have a quick double knee bend and use the quadriceps explosively.
Cool, I maybe get six sets of that, three of which, you know, are really truly intense.
And then if I go into squatting, it's like, "Okay, I'm trying to stiffen the tendon. I'm trying to get more motor recruitment, max peak motor recruitment, irrespective of time."
And I'm trying to have more type II fibers as a result of that, and I'm trying to increase the stiffness of the tendon.
Fortunately, jumping is not bound by time as much as high long jump and sprint; they're much more bound by time, meaning that the time component is strongly related to your performance in those activities.
So if you're spending more time on the ground, you only have 80 seconds on the ground or 100 milliseconds on the ground if you're an elite sprinter.
So if you're doing a lot of activities that are taking three seconds, you're going to be limited, right?
Yes, maybe you created more reserve or you increased the ceiling, but you have to connect the dots. Just because you can create more peak force doesn't necessarily mean you can do it faster in a meaningful way.
But there's other reasons to do it, right? It's not just for that.
So there's other boxes you're also trying to check, and I don't know if—yeah, sometimes I just—I look at that and I'm like, "I like his thing is like you don't need fatigue for adaptation."
And I'm like, "No, but fatigue happens when you're pushing for adaptation."
Like you're going to get to a balancing point where you have to train harder to see adaptation, but you're like, "But we can't have any fatigue."
There will be fatigue as you try to push up adaptation. You can't just do one set; it's not enough.
Like what's the minimal threshold for adaptation for an elite athlete? It's a lot higher than someone with a 30-inch vertical, right?
You need to push the threshold.
Ben: Yeah, that's a perfect example. Austin doesn't push; Austin does basically what Chris Beardsley says, and he has a harder time improving because he can't—he can't achieve—like, and it's weird to me because like, "Okay, cool, on paper you said, and maybe you have some studies that supported it."
But like I'm in the weight room, and I'm not seeing what you're saying.
Like I'm seeing a lot of cases across the board where what you're saying is not true, and I think that's the frustrating part for me is like, "Okay, I get what you're saying. I see this on paper, and I see this in research, but I'm not seeing this in real life."
Like where in the weight room, I'm not observing this phenomenon that you're describing. It's not repeatable.
And it's like, "Well, maybe they're just not recovering enough," or "Maybe you need to train them more."
And it's like, "Yeah, okay, for some guys that works, but if I don't train Isaiah hard for weeks and weeks, he just jumps lower."
Like we've seen it happen numerous times.
Can I say one thing in favor of your point?
Ben: Yeah, go ahead.
Audience: With the fatigue, okay, maybe you're not 100%, and you're recruiting 95% like 95% of your fibers, but you're still training that 95%.
So like even if you're not getting that extra 5% by pushing, you're still training all the other fibers that you're working.
So yeah, you're not accessing the highest of high-threshold motor units when you're fatigued, but you're still training every other fiber, and that's, I think, is important because you're still maximizing adaptations in the fibers that are being accessed.
And I wanted to kind of recant my first point of I do try to hit the numbers that are on paper, but my readiness scores just tell me basically how hard is this gonna be?
Like is it gonna be easy to hit 90% of my one-rep max, or is it going to be like am I really have to push it?
So I did want to clarify that; it just more or less just tells me where I'm at and then how maybe how I can modify rest periods.
I don't usually actually decrease the weight, but we're also combating with dunk sessions.
But dunk sessions also, you know, offer a lot of benefits.
Ben: So yeah, because before the podcast started, we were talking about how dunking is different from track and field.
Maybe even if you want to take it as far as like bodybuilding and that type of thing, and that it's very addicting, and it's something that is a temptation to do with the boys every day, right?
And guys don't go out and say, "Yo, let's go sprint for three hours today randomly when we're supposed to be squatting or the day after squatting."
Like that's not really a thing that is a problem in the track and field world, to my knowledge.
Audience: No, not like—
Ben: It's not like they're like just itching to get out there and just run some 30s.
Or if you're running—let's say you're a 400-meter runner and you have four max or three—I don't know what the exact volumes would be for 400 meters, but let's say you have three max effort 400-meter sprints scheduled on the day.
You're not going to be tempted to go do that for—how many do you think you could run in three hours?
Audience: Probably like three.
Ben: Probably need like 40 minutes after each one.
Audience: Yeah, yeah, you would.
Ben: That's not something you'd be tempted to.
When it comes to dunking, what would be ideal—like I'm going to use myself as an example—would probably be like 10 max jumps in a session.
Like go in, warm up, and hit elite guy for an elite guy.
Audience: Yeah, yeah.
Ben: Hit 10 max jumps, but I'm more likely to do 40 to 50 because it's just—that's how dunking is.
It's fun; it really is. Whatever it is about it, it's really addicting, and that is something that's going to be affecting training quality.
It's—you’re going to be way more fatigued, and yeah, I think it's a lot harder.
It's a lot harder to train with that in mind.
Ben: Yeah, well, I feel like this is a good place to cut it off. I like to keep it around between 50 and 30 minutes, so a little bit—podcast tends to be longer, a good way more input.
But we appreciate you guys. Thank you, all of you guys who in 2024 made it such an awesome year.
We appreciate you guys so much; we love our job, and none of this would be possible without you guys believing in us to write your training.
So let's make 2025 even better. Let's get to newer, higher levels, all of us.
And yeah, if you guys are interested in coaching, go to teachben.com.
We appreciate you guys, and we will talk to you guys tomorrow.
Bye-bye!