Training in sand has been used for decades in an attempt to provide variation and training stimulus to advanced athletes. Sand can be a particularly useful environment for vertical jumpers to train. Firstly, it reduces the stress on the joints by providing a softer landing surface. Secondly, it provides additional training stimulus and breaks up the monotony of training on land (all of the sudden squat jumps feel totally new and invigorating!).
Let’s move into when jump training in sand can be useful. It is in my opinion that training in sand is beneficial during the early off-season and during recovery periods. It allows an athlete to recover while preventing a decay in performance. In addition, it could also be implemented when overreaching in the weight room as training in sand is less stressful on the body. This would theoretically allow for your body’s recovery reserves to be used for weight training.
If you have my guide to the vertical jump, you would know that because the training surface is “softer” it most likely reduces training adaptation. This simply means it is probably not as effective in training for the vertical jump. This is exactly what a 2007 study found [1].
“Plyometric training on sand improved both jumping and sprinting ability and induced less muscle soreness. A grass surface seems to be superior in enhancing CMJ performance while the sand surface showed a greater improvement in SJ. Therefore, plyometric training on different surfaces may be associated with different training-induced effects on some neuromuscular factors related to the efficiency of the stretch-shortening cycle.”
Softer surfaces do not elicit the stretch shortening cycle as well as harder training surfaces. This should come as no surprise.
- Impellizzeri, F. M., E. Rampinini, C. Castagna, F. Martino, S. Fiorini, and U. Wisloff. “Effect of Plyometric Training on Sand versus Grass on Muscle Soreness and Jumping and Sprinting Ability in Soccer Players.” British Journal of Sports Medicine 42.1 (2007): 42-46. NSCA. Full text here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17526621
No comments yet.