I followed the Jump Attack program to the letter, and my training in December, January and February looked and felt nothing like what had preceded it. I spent a month doing those nonsensical lunge holds (and squat holds, push-up holds, chin-up holds). I trusted those holds, and the tendon-testing leg workouts that lasted 2 ½ hours and left me tasting my own broken down muscle in my mouth. I trusted all of it because I was living in that moment, as Carter put it, when the hammering of Carter’s “muscle memory” into my body finally would bear fruit and I’d pitch the ball downward into a 10-foot hoop like a cafeteria customer dunking a roll in coffee.
So, you are probably wondering what the difference is right? Well, the first big difference is in the look. If you want to look the best while doing your jump shoes the Jump 99 will be one complete unit that will look better than the Jumpsoles. Now that doesn't have anything to do with jumping higher but we know players care about how they look when training so that is an advantage for the Jump 99 shoe.
This is why using a slightly deeper countermovement often increases jump height, because the larger range of motion allows the muscles to exert force for a longer duration of time before take-off. Jump height *can* increase even though the force produced is almost always smaller. (Force is smaller when the countermovement is deeper partly because shortening through a longer range of motion leads to a faster contraction velocity, on account of the force-velocity relationship, and partly because the leverage of bodyweight on the lower body joints is larger with a deeper countermovement).
This phase begins with the athlete at the bottom of the jump, just as he begins exploding upwards towards the takeoff. The force-time graph shows that the athlete reaches peak forces shortly after reaching the lowest point of the jump. He then further accelerates until his feet leave the ground and there are no more ground reaction forces measurable.

Copyright © 2019 Leaf Group Ltd. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the LIVESTRONG.COM Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Copyright Policy. The material appearing on LIVESTRONG.COM is for educational use only. It should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. LIVESTRONG is a registered trademark of the LIVESTRONG Foundation. The LIVESTRONG Foundation and LIVESTRONG.COM do not endorse any of the products or services that are advertised on the web site. Moreover, we do not select every advertiser or advertisement that appears on the web site-many of the advertisements are served by third party advertising companies.

A total of 1679 patients were enrolled — 858 in the dopamine group and 821 in the norepinephrine group (Figure 1). All patients were followed to day 28; data on the outcome during the stay in the hospital were available for 1656 patients (98.6%), data on the 6-month outcome for 1443 patients (85.9%), and data on the 12-month outcome for 1036 patients (61.7%). There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to most of the baseline characteristics (Table 1); there were small differences, which were of questionable clinical relevance, in the heart rate, partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2), arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2), and ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2). The type of shock that was seen most frequently was septic shock (in 1044 patients [62.2%]), followed by cardiogenic shock (in 280 patients [16.7%]) and hypovolemic shock (in 263 patients [15.7%]). The sources of sepsis are detailed in Table 2 in the Supplementary Appendix. Hydrocortisone was administered in 344 patients who received dopamine (40.1%) and in 326 patients who received norepinephrine (39.7%). Among patients with septic shock, recombinant activated human protein C was administered in 102 patients in the dopamine group (18.8%) and 96 patients in the norepinephrine group (19.1%).
Dunking exposes you to some extra risk of injury. First of all, you can get low-bridged or get your legs tangled up with defenders near the hoop, causing you to fall awkwardly from a significant height. You can also throw yourself off balance by trying to hang on the rim and slipping off, resulting in awkward falls. If you are in heavy traffic on the dunk, then being able to grab and hang on the rim until the clutter beneath you clears is a safety technique. If you are in the clear on a dunk, then avoiding hanging on the rim at all is the recommended safety technique (It's also a technical foul to hang on the rim in that situation). Whatever the situation, you need to come down with control and balance. Ankle, knee, neck, and head injuries await those who fail to control their momentum after a dunk.
Whichever equipment you use, the first thing you’ll need to do is measure your reach standing flat-footed on the floor with one arm fully extended straight overhead. (You can measure your reach up against a wall for the chalk option.) Then, when you mark the highest point you touched, you’ll subtract your reach from that number. For example, if your reach is 90 inches and you touched 115 inches up on the wall with your chalk, your vertical leap is 25 inches.
The materials and information provided in this presentation, document and/or any other communication (“Communication”) from Onnit Labs, Inc. or any related entity or person (collectively “Onnit”) are strictly for informational purposes only and are not intended for use as diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a health problem or as a substitute for consulting a qualified medical professional. Some of the concepts presented herein may be theoretical.

Many models have been constructed to identify the most important muscles in the vertical jump, with some conflicting results. Some have suggested that movement is governed by the gluteus maximus and quadriceps, while others have proposed that the hamstrings, quadriceps, and calf muscles are key. Importantly, no model has yet explored the role of the adductor magnus, which is the primary hip extensor in the barbell squat. This is relevant, as many studies have found that the squat is an ideal exercise for improving jump height, and maximum back squat strength is closely associated with vertical jump performance among athletes.
This study has several limitations. First, dopamine is a less potent vasopressor than norepinephrine; however, we used infusion rates that were roughly equipotent with respect to systemic arterial pressure, and there were only minor differences in the use of open-label norepinephrine, most of which were related to early termination of the study drug and a shift to open-label norepinephrine because of the occurrence of arrhythmias that were difficult to control. Doses of open-label norepinephrine and the use of open-label epinephrine and vasopressin were similar between the two groups. Second, we used a sequential design, which potentially allowed us to stop the study early if an effect larger than that expected from observational trials occurred; however, the trial was eventually stopped after inclusion of more patients than we had expected to be included on the basis of our estimates of the sample size. Accordingly, all conclusions related to the primary outcome reached the predefined power.
The following data were recorded every 6 hours for 48 hours, every 8 hours on days 3, 4, and 5, and once a day on days 6, 7, 14, 21, and 28: vital signs, hemodynamic variables (including systolic and diastolic arterial pressures, heart rate, central venous pressure, and, when possible, pulmonary-artery pressures), cardiac output, arterial and mixed-venous (or central venous) blood gas levels, doses of vasoactive agents, and respiratory conditions. Biologic variables, data on daily fluid balance, microbiologic data, and antibiotic therapy were recorded daily for the first 7 days and then on days 14, 21, and 28.

An important component of maximizing height in a vertical jump is attributed to the use of counter-movements of the legs and arm swings prior to take off, as both of these actions have been shown to significantly increase the body’s center of mass rise. The counter-movement of the legs, a quick bend of the knees which lowers the center of mass prior to springing upwards, has been shown to improve jump height by 12% compared to jumping without the counter-movement. This is attributed to the stretch shortening cycle of the leg muscles enabling the muscles to create more contractile energy. Furthermore, jump height can be increased another 10% by executing arm swings during the take off phase of the jump compared to if no arm swings are utilized. This involves lowering the arms distally and posteriorly during the leg counter-movements, and powerfully thrusting the arms up and over the head as the leg extension phase begins. As the arms complete the swinging movement they pull up on the lower body causing the lower musculature to contract more rapidly, hence aiding in greater jump height.[5] Despite these increases due to technical adjustments, it appears as if optimizing both the force producing and elastic properties of the musculotendinous system in the lower limbs is largely determined by genetics and partially mutable through resistance exercise training.[6][7]