PDA

View Full Version : Hit- The Best Choice For Football Players!



silles
09-16-2003, 05:41 PM
Rich Tuten discusses the importance of intensity training.




Intensity is a word used commonly in the training world, but why is it important to understand and to use in your workout routine?

The higher the intensity of your effort the better your results will be. Once you have worked to failure, or close to failure a high level of intensity has been accomplished. The intensity level can be elevated even further by working the eccentric contraction to failure, this is commonly called doing negatives. The eccentric contraction is the movement that is used to lower the weight. By nature we can handle more weight eccentrically therefore, once failure is reached concentrically, we can use forced negatives to take you to complete failure. If we can approach each exercise, and training session, with a high intensity level the results will be dramatic.

The amount of rest between sets can also be used to create greater intensity within your workout program. The less rest you take between sets the more intense the training session becomes. Rest periods are a key component in creating progressive strength gains in your program over an extended period of time.

Applying high intensity training to your workout might be just what you need to take your body to the next level. We have used this with players all over the NFL, and have seen tremendous gains in our athletes. High Intensity, however, is very difficult and requires some lifting experience. I would recommend that you should have a couple of years of lifting experience, and always use a spotter when performing any of these principles. Whenever you are reaching failure in a workout, it is absolutely necessary to have an experienced spotter watching you closely.

Coach's Philosophy

Training the Rich Tuten Way
The Denver Broncos Strength Development Program consists of controlled exercises that are easy to learn and safe to use. We use multiple exercises for all the muscle groups, which help in the prevention of injuries caused by the lack of strength. We train to be the strongest and best conditioned team in the game, not to become weightlifters.

Most of our strength programs provide more than one exercise for each muscle group. This insures that a specific muscle will have a greater opportunity for size and strength. Remember that a muscle will develop more size and strength only if it is worked with greater intensity or if it is worked longer than before. This is called "overload" and is necessary if progress is to be made.

For the development of strength, each player has a "workout max" or an ideal exercise level to provide results. If your "workout max" for the triceps muscle is 100 pounds for a set of ten repetitions in the Triceps Pushdown, using less than 100 pounds is nonproductive in terms of strength development. Using more than 100 pounds ("overloading" the muscle) results in the greatest strength gains.

We begin our strength training by warming up and stretching the body parts to be worked. Be certain that your muscles are properly "warmed up" in advance by performing lighter, similar movements. We do a couple of light sets using dumbbells on the major muscle group to be worked. Example: two sets of eight repetitions on the Dumbbell Bench Press before starting the Bench Press.

After the warm up, add weight on each successive set. Your heaviest weight should be used on the last set. As you get stronger, you will be able to add more weight on each set of your workout. Once you perform extra repetitions at your max weight on the last set, you will increase your weight. Once again, you should only be able to do your heaviest weight on the last set, but continue applying the "overload" principle to stimulate muscle growth.

To have an athlete ready for the season it is important to train for explosive strength and power.

When training for speed, run fast to be fast. Speed training techniques are best learned through assimilation. For these techniques to work, they must be learned at progressive speeds, half to three-quarter to full speed.

Your speed will progress faster and you will learn speed-training techniques more effectively if you run with people of roughly the same speed. If you run with people slower or much faster than you are, you will either run to slow or strain to catch up.

The length of the workout is not what's important; the quality of the workout is what's important. Using low repetitions with high intensity will help insure quality in your workouts. Recovery between runs is just as important. Wearing a heart monitor insures proper recovery, allowing you to repeat the same intensity needed for speed.

Distance running is irrelevant to football when training for speed. The game of football contains short burst, very explosive and quick. In order to train for the game, you need to train at game speed.

In the initial stages of training, begin your program with two sets of medium range distances of high intensity running. When these two sets are performed without a drop off of technique or time, increase to three sets. The maximum needed is eight repetitions per set; three to five sets per session. Recovery time between reps and sets depends on the individual. It should range from three to five minutes. Wearing a heart monitor allows you to track your recovery time more efficiently and progress as your endurance improves. As with the sets, begin speed training two days per week in the beginning of your program. When there is no drop off in quality of workouts, training can be increased to three days per week. Never schedule two speeds days back to back. Always run fresh; do not train for speed after practice or lower body weight workouts.

Meat_Head
09-16-2003, 06:18 PM
HIT is almost completely useless for football players. There's almost no better way to put the most stress on the body while gaining the least.

PowerManDL
09-16-2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by silles
The higher the intensity of your effort the better your results will be. Once you have worked to failure, or close to failure a high level of intensity has been accomplished. The intensity level can be elevated even further by working the eccentric contraction to failure, this is commonly called doing negatives. The eccentric contraction is the movement that is used to lower the weight. By nature we can handle more weight eccentrically therefore, once failure is reached concentrically, we can use forced negatives to take you to complete failure. If we can approach each exercise, and training session, with a high intensity level the results will be dramatic.

Why does "intensity" correlate to maximal results? What process is occuring that makes magical gains in size and strength?

And just how would you go to eccentric "failure" (at least w/o injury)?

The amount of rest between sets can also be used to create greater intensity within your workout program. The less rest you take between sets the more intense the training session becomes. Rest periods are a key component in creating progressive strength gains in your program over an extended period of time.

Fatigue accumulation from short rest intervals is an entirely different process from failing on a set.

Most of our strength programs provide more than one exercise for each muscle group. This insures that a specific muscle will have a greater opportunity for size and strength. Remember that a muscle will develop more size and strength only if it is worked with greater intensity or if it is worked longer than before. This is called "overload" and is necessary if progress is to be made.

Why does the concept of progressive overload automatically become generalized to some rabid desire to increase from workout to workout?

Seems like these guys forget it can (and should) happen in the long-term......

For the development of strength, each player has a "workout max" or an ideal exercise level to provide results. If your "workout max" for the triceps muscle is 100 pounds for a set of ten repetitions in the Triceps Pushdown, using less than 100 pounds is nonproductive in terms of strength development. Using more than 100 pounds ("overloading" the muscle) results in the greatest strength gains.

Why's that?

Neil
09-16-2003, 06:53 PM
Seems to work for a lot of NFL players.

A lot of top sports teams have strength coaches that advocate HIT.

Powerman, I think so much of the stuff you say is theoretical that you can break most of your rules and still make the same, if not better gains. I realize that you are trying to understand how everything works, but the best way to find out if something works is to do it.

Hercule
09-16-2003, 07:26 PM
Here is a good read on football and HIT.

http://www.deepsquatter.com/strength/archives/ls12.htm

fuzz
09-16-2003, 07:49 PM
silles I take it you are just posting these HIT studies for Matt or anyone to break down?

silles
09-16-2003, 08:49 PM
Lmao, yeah.

PowerManDL
09-16-2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Neil
Seems to work for a lot of NFL players.

A lot of top sports teams have strength coaches that advocate HIT.

Powerman, I think so much of the stuff you say is theoretical that you can break most of your rules and still make the same, if not better gains. I realize that you are trying to understand how everything works, but the best way to find out if something works is to do it.

Neil, you're right, I am.

And at the same time, what I've been learning is that there's about as many permutations and variable methods of achieving the "size" and "strength" goals as anyone could imagine.

However, I'm also learning, via trial and error, what actually does and does not tend to produce optimal effects, within that fuzzy area. HIT, as it stands, does not.

I stand by my assessment. If you can point out any top level athlete, from any sport, that uses HIT (not low volume, but HIT) to achieve superior performance, either strength, size, or sport-specific, I'll be more than happy to acknowledge that there might be some validity to the approach. I've yet to find such an individual, however.

The entire concept of HIT is built upon false premises (intensity, incredibly low volume and frequency), and as such tends to make shoddy conclusions from those premises. It further transgresses by invoking science in an attempt to support those premises, yet seems to only apply that science selectively or improperly.

silles
09-16-2003, 08:53 PM
I sets 'em up, he knocks 'em down.

Neil
09-16-2003, 10:36 PM
Powerman, the guy that wrote that article is an NFL strength coach, so it stands to reason that many top athletes have used his prescribed training methods. Junior Seau is also a one set to failure HIT guy. Many NFL and college strength coaches use HIT.

I'm still standing, Sean:)

IceRgrrl
09-17-2003, 05:29 AM
Most athletes' training is very specialized to the demands of their particular sport. They do not do "bodybuilding training" in general, although in some sports, a hypertrophy/mass gaining phase in their periodization is sometimes helpful (football players, etc.). And then there is simply the fact that competing athletes' training is highly periodized around off season/pre-season/in-season. HIT tends to be associated with a particularly fanatical wing of bodybuilders/strength trainers and is not exactly suited to sports training, so I think the article is somewhat oversimplifying a more complicated situation.

Training to failure may be part of an off-season workout, but during the season it may simply reduce recovery from workouts/practices/games and add to injury risk. Like all articles, you can take out of it what you like and leave the rest.

One very good point that the article made was that football is an anaerobic burst sport, and therefore a series of sprints is much better training than distance running. High school football coaches who make their players run two miles for "conditioning" are training the wrong energy system.

Neil
09-19-2003, 12:05 AM
Powerman?

IceRgrrl
09-19-2003, 05:32 AM
And I think you have to make the distinction between "high intensity training" and "High Intensity Training/HIT." Same words, different definitions.

PowerManDL
09-19-2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Neil
Powerman, the guy that wrote that article is an NFL strength coach, so it stands to reason that many top athletes have used his prescribed training methods. Junior Seau is also a one set to failure HIT guy. Many NFL and college strength coaches use HIT.

That still says nothing of HIT's efficacy as training system.

Lots of people listen to Britney Spears; that doesnt' mean its good music.

chris mason
09-20-2003, 08:36 AM
Quote from Powerman:

"I stand by my assessment. If you can point out any top level athlete, from any sport, that uses HIT (not low volume, but HIT) to achieve superior performance, either strength, size, or sport-specific, I'll be more than happy to acknowledge that there might be some validity to the approach. I've yet to find such an individual, however."



Quote from Meathead:


"Junior Seau is also a one set to failure HIT guy. Many NFL and college strength coaches use HIT."


Now, as to the validity of Meat's qoute I have no idea, but if it is correct, then I think you need to admit to validity as you said you would Powerman.

silles
09-20-2003, 02:00 PM
I think what Powerman is saying is that the exception does not confirm the rule, and that's obviously the case with HIT. As far as I am concerened, anyone who would train an athlete using HIT for prolonged periods of time (i.e. more than two or three weeks) is just out of their mind.

chris mason
09-20-2003, 03:13 PM
Lol, I didn't type the words he did, and he is certainly an intelligent enough of a writer to not type what he did and mean what you say.


As to you idea about HIT and athletes, I think your statement is way overboard.

HIT is weightlifting. Using the form advocated with a HIT type of routine the trainee will avoid injury and post-workout soreness will be minimized. Hardly a crazy routine for an athlete.

Another thing about HIT is you all assume Mentzer was a robot who would was super rigid. The guy was a decent thinker. If he himself were training a high level athlete I am sure he would have devised a routine which he thought best for the application. He varied his training with different individuals, that was how he developed HIT over the years.

Neil
09-20-2003, 04:26 PM
I think you meant to quote me, Chris.

This was Meatheads quote-
"HIT is almost completely useless for football players. There's almost no better way to put the most stress on the body while gaining the least."


I think the simplicity of HIT is one of the reasons it gets bashed all the time. People think that it's so basic that it must be wrong.


Powerman, as Chris already said, I did point out a top level athlete. You seem to be spinning the subject.

silles
09-20-2003, 06:19 PM
I think the simplicity of HIT is one of the reasons it gets bashed all the time. People think that it's so basic that it must be wrong.

No, I think it's bashed hard because it's based on pseudo science, faulty understandings of physics, ignorance in regards to the nervous system, and lacks any practical athletic application. Man, HIT is the shiz for niz!

Neil
09-20-2003, 06:23 PM
Last time I checked it was based on adaptation and results.

chris mason
09-20-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by silles


No, I think it's bashed hard because it's based on pseudo science, faulty understandings of physics, ignorance in regards to the nervous system, and lacks any practical athletic application. Man, HIT is the shiz for niz!


Well, following the basic principles put forth by Jones and Mentzer (call it whatever you like), all of that "pseudo science, faulty understandings of physics, ignorance in regards to the nervous system, and lacks any practical athletic application", got me a lot bigger and stronger than most trainees.

You can say what you want, but it did the trick for me.

Now, let's be specific if we are going to demonize someone.

What exactly about HIT or Jones' ideas showed a faulty understanding of physics?

Next, why EXACTLY do you think it has no practical application for athletics?

Where exactly was the pseudo-science?

Finally, I will grant you that Mentzer and Jones' ideas did not properly account for the nervous system.

It was not perfect, but as you seem to be so bent on discrediting it I would like to have you answer my above questions. Be careful, I will feel compelled to debate any points I consider invalid.

PowerManDL
09-20-2003, 09:36 PM
Chris, the routine you used was low-volume, but it wasn't HIT by any means, assuming its the same routine you've posted before.

What silles (and myself) is arguing is that the HIT method, one set to failure, infrequently, is flawed. I personally don't have anything against abbreviated volume, for the simple reason that it works like no other method for developing general strength.

Orthodox HIT isn't the same thing, and the two have to be differentiated in this discussion as they are two different concepts and methodology.

As far as Junior Seau-- I still haven't found a routine for him, but everything I've found so far has shown that he trains very frequently....5 times a week or more. This in and of itself is evidence that he is not doing HIT.

So what I said stands. Find a professional athlete that trains true HIT (one set to failure and infrequently) and you might begin to have a case.

The primary misuse of science on the part of the HIT camp has to do with the notion of intensity as the indicator of a successful and sufficient stress upon the body. As my research into the topic has been showing lately, the achievement of muscular failure can correlate with muscular fatigue and workload, but is not the causal variable in and of itself.

As the HIT camp tends to pride itself on being rational and scientific to the point of being condescending at times, to make such an overgeneralized error as that only invites criticism, regardless of how valid its other postulates may be. Unfortunately, the above argument is but one of the inappropriate and incorrect assertions set forth by the HIT camp under the guise of scientific validity.

noraa
09-20-2003, 11:43 PM
Last time I checked it was based on adaptation and results.

I know I shouldnt, but

hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha

ha

chris mason
09-21-2003, 10:06 AM
Again, Powerman, you didn't read my last post very carefully.

I never said I trained with one set to failure to produce gains (although I have). I said that "following the basic principles put forth by Jones and Menzter" I was able to make very good progress.

I also stated that HIT (thus Menzter) evolved over the years. Mentzer also experimented with various levels of volume over the years on himself and his clients.

Here is the biggest problem I have, it is in vogue recently to bash Arthur Jones and Mentzer. The bashing involves generalizations about what they advocated. By that I mean that specific ideas which Mentzer proposed late in his life are used to blanket the whole methodology of low volume to failure. When people say that many strength coaches use HIT the naysayers get on about how foolish it is. What they don't realize is that these coaches most likely don't train their athletes with one set to failure, they most like use low volume taken to failure.

Another problem with the HIT bashers is that they don't realize that the main thrust of HIT is to train just enough to stimulate growth and then allow enough time for recovery. That is it. Yes, Mike thought one set was sufficient for this purpose for most people, but he also realized some may require a bit more volume. Another thing about HIT style routines is that they may advocate one set per exercise to failure, but there may be more than one exercise per routine which works a particular bodypart. In other words the routine might contain chins and barbell curls. Both exercises train the biceps. That makes 2 sets to failure.

Mike would also have his clients perform giant sets of 3 exercises for a bodypart back to back to back. Here is an excerpt from an article by Mike:

"What's Possible

With a properly conducted high-intensity training program, the individual will grow stronger every workout, without any serious breach in progress, until he has actualized his strength/muscular potential. I had a client several years ago who improved the functional ability of his quadriceps such that he was able to perform 10 reps with the whole stack, or 250 pounds, on the Nautilus Leg Extension after only being able to do seven reps with 170 pounds two months prior, a tremendous increase. (This type of response is not experienced by every one of my trainees; but it is far from atypical.)

The strongest client I ever had was able to perform 33 reps on the Nautilus Leg-Extension with the whole stack. And that was an incredibly well-developed, strong "genetic freak," the famed David Paul of the Barbarian Brothers. When David first started having me supervise his workouts, he performed 15 reps on the Leg-Extension and then went immediately, in superset fashion, to the Nautilus Leg Press where he performed 18 reps to complete failure with the full stack, 510 pounds. One week later David performed 25 reps on the Leg-Extension and immediately ran to the Leg Press where he did 38 reps. Impressive? You better believe it. But, keep reading.

One week after that, he did 33 reps on the Leg-Extension followed by a hard-to-believe 71 reps on the Leg Press! In both exercises, he again, employed the entire weight stacks. No, the above is not a misprint. David improved his Leg-Extension from 15 to 33 reps and his Leg Press from 18 to 71 reps as a result of only two leg workouts that lasted less than 15 minutes each. That represents an improvement of 388 percent in the functional ability of the quadriceps of an already highly advanced bodybuilder. In the one month I trained David, he gained seven pounds of muscle. These are phenomenal increases, especially when considered against the fact that for the previous five years, David's volume training, involving training sessions that lasted for at least two hours (sometimes twice a day ) six days a week, yielded zero strength and size increases.

Since David was capable of such a rate of improvement, imagine what a rank beginner - (with similar genetics) - might achieve on such a program. I've already provided you an indication, with the description of the first individual. If a beginner can improve as I described above, going from 170 for seven reps to 250 for 10 reps on the Leg-Extension in two months, he has only 23 reps to go with the same weight before achieving the functional capacity of a super genetic freak. How long would that take him? He'd probably never achieve it, as he, by all appearances, was only average - or slightly above - in genetics. My point is: Given the enormous improvement he made in only two months, it wouldn't even take year before he actualized his strength/muscle potential. (We'll never know exactly; because of enormous career pressures he had to cease training after two months.)

Bear in mind that a prerequisite for growing larger muscles is that one grow stronger. Since the individual I described would cease growing in strength in less than one year, his muscle growth would cease soon thereafter."

PowerManDL
09-21-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by chris mason
Again, Powerman, you didn't read my last post very carefully.

I never said I trained with one set to failure to produce gains (although I have). I said that "following the basic principles put forth by Jones and Menzter" I was able to make very good progress.

I also stated that HIT (thus Menzter) evolved over the years. Mentzer also experimented with various levels of volume over the years on himself and his clients.

I never said that you trained one set to failure. That was my entire point in fact when you used your personal example as grounds for HIT not being useless.

The routine you performed was not HIT as is commonly touted.


Here is the biggest problem I have, it is in vogue recently to bash Arthur Jones and Mentzer. The bashing involves generalizations about what they advocated. By that I mean that specific ideas which Mentzer proposed late in his life are used to blanket the whole methodology of low volume to failure. When people say that many strength coaches use HIT the naysayers get on about how foolish it is. What they don't realize is that these coaches most likely don't train their athletes with one set to failure, they most like use low volume taken to failure.

Maybe, maybe not...but in any event the one-set-to-failure school does encompass the perception of HIT, and their vocality on the matter of their training efficacy is what draws the attention to them.

The real issue comes down to HIT not being clearly defined even to its followers, hence my previous contention that a clear definition must be used. The definition chosen by most that choose to critique HIT is the one-set-to-failure defintion, as it is the methodology most commonly attributed.

silles
09-21-2003, 11:57 AM
Either way, even if a coach were to do low volume, short of failure workouts, the frequency would have to increase substantially. Brzcki and other Cyberpump/Hardgainer trainers believe in low volume and INFREQUENT workouts, something that eventually yields little to no gains. A lot of this is just cult brainwashing, and the only way to break yourself of it is to step outside the bull****, have confidence that you won't overtrain, and enjoy progress while varying volume and intensity.

body
09-21-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by silles
something that eventually yields little to no gains. .

well everyone eventually gets to the point regardless of trianing style.

chris mason
09-21-2003, 01:41 PM
Lol, EXACTLY Body.


Silles, you seem to be under the delusion that one can progress forever. Unfortunately, regardless of training style or method, everyone stalls. If they did not, there would be no need for drugs like steroids etc.

Guess what, even all of the top westside lifters and others that you are referring to use the drugs (or else they are not top lifters).

To use the argument that low volume training to failure will lead to stagnation in the manner you did is ridiculous as Body so eloquently pointed out.


Powerman, you have made my point for me. The definition the naysayers use for HIT is very rigid and limited and they use their own spin on it to discredit the system.

I have no misunderstandings concerning the ideas of Jones and Menzter, and anyone who does has simply not read the body or work by the men (they may have read critiques by others who misunderstood...). In other words, Jones and Mentzer were always painfully clear to me.

Do I think low volume to failure is the only way to progress? Heck no! Do I think it is a good way? Heck yes!



Silles, you have not answered my questions. Please do. If you cannot, then I think you might want to reconsider your own opinion on the matter.

PowerManDL
09-21-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Powerman, you have made my point for me. The definition the naysayers use for HIT is very rigid and limited and they use their own spin on it to discredit the system.

I have no misunderstandings concerning the ideas of Jones and Menzter, and anyone who does has simply not read the body or work by the men (they may have read critiques by others who misunderstood...). In other words, Jones and Mentzer were always painfully clear to me.


Regardless of the definition used, HIT still derives its methodology from the notion of intensity, which is admittedly flawed.

As I've stated continuously, I have no beef whatsoever with limited volume. I do have a problem with the one-set-to-failure once a week mentality that is often foisted upon others by orthodox HITers.

chris mason
09-21-2003, 02:23 PM
Intensity as a percentage of momentary ability (as defined by Jones et al) is certainly very important.

Is going to failure necessary as they tout? Obviously the answer is no. However, it is very important to train close to one's limits in order to stimulate the kind of adaptive response we are looking for (increased size and strength). In other words, performing 10 reps with 30 percent of your 1RM won't do much for progress. Do you agree?

PowerManDL
09-21-2003, 02:46 PM
Depending on the context.

noraa
09-21-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by body


well everyone eventually gets to the point regardless of trianing style.

But, with the stringent example of HIT with 1set to failure very infequently, they will reach a sticking point sooner than a comparable multiset routine not to failure.

Looking at some of the early arthur jones 3x weekly programs, have a lot in similar to HST, but with jones, the failure could have lead to quicker over reaching than HST and its more periodized approach.

silles
09-21-2003, 04:28 PM
Well, following the basic principles put forth by Jones and Mentzer (call it whatever you like), all of that "pseudo science, faulty understandings of physics, ignorance in regards to the nervous system, and lacks any practical athletic application", got me a lot bigger and stronger than most trainees.

[Yuo win teh PRIZE!!!!11111

Good for you, but the exception does not confirm the rule. I could never progress training to failure, or using low volume concurrently with infrequent workouts. Don't assume that what works for you will work for everyone, that's bad policy.]

You can say what you want, but it did the trick for me.

[A WINNAR = YUO!]

Now, let's be specific if we are going to demonize someone.

What exactly about HIT or Jones' ideas showed a faulty understanding of physics?

[Where do I begin? How about the Jones/Bryzcki belief in removing momentum from a given lift? How about misunderstanding the application of force? How about overlooking the complexities of Olympic lifting and calling them "Ballistic" lifts? I've demonstrated countless times on the forums the bull****, and puerile understanding of physics the HITers buy into.]


Next, why EXACTLY do you think it has no practical application for athletics?

[You look like an athletic dude Mason, you ever play a sport? Try going to failure on an eight repper on the bench and then try to hit some golf balls....that is if you can manage to hold onto the club without going into convulsions like Muhammad Ali! How about the complete disregard for speed work? How about the fact that the rep ranges espoused by HITers won't even target high threshold motor units--and even worse, will just contribute to useless hypertrophy? HIT training makes you slow, period.]


Where exactly was the pseudo-science?'

[Misapplied physiological understandings. Overlooking the true definition of intensity. Correlated failure with the recruitment of high threshhold motor units. Working on an outdated understanding of supercompensation? I could go on forever]

Finally, I will grant you that Mentzer and Jones' ideas did not properly account for the nervous system.

[No ****?!]

It was not perfect, but as you seem to be so bent on discrediting it I would like to have you answer my above questions. Be careful, I will feel compelled to debate any points I consider invalid.

[I've got a lot of endurance.]

chris mason
09-22-2003, 08:24 AM
You've also got a lot of misinformation.


In addition, you seem to angry. Why?


I will expound tomorrow when I have more time (have to work 12 hours + today), but here is a tidbit.


Momentum. Have you ever wondered why an Olympic lifter has relatively good thigh and back development and poor arm development (specifically triceps)?

It is due to the nature of the movements practiced. The clean and jerk as well as the snatch obviously work the legs through a full ROM with the legs being fully stressed during the ascent phase (after the drop). When the lifter squats up from the bottom position there is little in the way of excess momentum used. This is very similar to a squat a bodybuilder or powerlifter might use.

Contrast that movement with the jerk when the lifter puts the weight overhead. The legs and hips are used to help "thrust" the load overhead. The deltoids and triceps are stressed, but certainly not in the same manner as a strict press. There is a phase in the movement where the increased momentum from the force created by the legs and hips reduces the load on the delts and triceps. To argue this point is completely moronic because if the increased momentum did not reduce the load on the muscles at some point you would not be able to jerk more than you can strict press.

Those are the facts. To argue them merely points out a bias or ignorance.

How about Olympic lifts being ballistic in nature? How do we define ballistic? To me, it is when the force involved in a movement is greatly increased. When an Olympic lifter is literally bouncing at the rock bottom of a squat position after catching the weight in a clean a jerk the force placed on the knees is much greater than when a powerlifter breaks parallel and begins his ascent. For anyone to not call that portion of the movement ballistic is beyond me. Again, it only shows bias or ignorance.

PowerManDL
09-22-2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by chris mason
Momentum. Have you ever wondered why an Olympic lifter has relatively good thigh and back development and poor arm development (specifically triceps)?

It is due to the nature of the movements practiced. The clean and jerk as well as the snatch obviously work the legs through a full ROM with the legs being fully stressed during the ascent phase (after the drop). When the lifter squats up from the bottom position there is little in the way of excess momentum used. This is very similar to a squat a bodybuilder or powerlifter might use.

Contrast that movement with the jerk when the lifter puts the weight overhead. The legs and hips are used to help "thrust" the load overhead. The deltoids and triceps are stressed, but certainly not in the same manner as a strict press. There is a phase in the movement where the increased momentum from the force created by the legs and hips reduces the load on the delts and triceps. To argue this point is completely moronic because if the increased momentum did not reduce the load on the muscles at some point you would not be able to jerk more than you can strict press.

Momentum is mass*velocity.

How can momentum alone cause a reduction in the force required to accelerate the bar, when acceleration is defined as (delta v/delta t)^2?

Even using the calculus-based definitions and accounting for differing rates of acceleration and velocity, that doesn't explain where the velocity of the bar came from without a strong acceleration-- which had to be produced by a force above and beyond the force imparted by the mass of the bar alone.

The argument about Olympic lifting is moot, as well. The jerk is not an upper-body movement, so to contrast the triceps of an Olympic weightlifter with someone performing direct tricep work isn't an equal comparison. Comparing someone using speed-oriented bench work to someone who does not would be, however.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by PowerManDL


Momentum is mass*velocity.

How can momentum alone cause a reduction in the force required to accelerate the bar, when acceleration is defined as (delta v/delta t)^2?

Even using the calculus-based definitions and accounting for differing rates of acceleration and velocity, that doesn't explain where the velocity of the bar came from without a strong acceleration-- which had to be produced by a force above and beyond the force imparted by the mass of the bar alone.

The argument about Olympic lifting is moot, as well. The jerk is not an upper-body movement, so to contrast the triceps of an Olympic weightlifter with someone performing direct tricep work isn't an equal comparison. Comparing someone using speed-oriented bench work to someone who does not would be, however.


You are not understanding the problem correctly Powerman.

Think about the lift. When you jerk the weight you start the movement by bending your lower body. This initial thrust is what gets the bar moving. You then use a hard press with the shoulders and triceps (they happen almost simultaneously). This combination allows you to get a heavier load moving than if you did a strict press. Very quickly after the initial press you then drop your body under the moving weight. During the phase in which your body is moving down your triceps and deltoids are not generating the same force against the bar as if the upper body were steady. What is it that keeps the bar moving, at least in part? You got it, the additional momentum which was created by the initial thrust with the legs and hips.

The triceps and deltoids are not working in the same fashion at that point which they would be in a strict press.

Now, to say the jerk is not an upper body movement is silly. Heck, was it not Dr. Siff (maybe someone else) that discussed the involvement of the muscles of the delts and triceps during the jerk? He was arguing against the momentum argument used by Bryzcki. The triceps and delts are definitely involved in the jerk movement. The difference, as I have stated, is in how much they are involved throughout the ROM. The difference is due to the nature of the two movements.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by PowerManDL


How can momentum alone cause a reduction in the force required to accelerate the bar, when acceleration is defined as (delta v/delta t)^2?




It doesn't. When lifting the bar is not accelerating through the entire ROM. If it did, you would not be able to hold the bar at the end of the movement.

In a jerk, the bar is initially accelerated by the combination of force generated by the legs, hips, shoulders, and triceps. When the lifter drops beneath the weight he is obviously no longer accelerating the bar. The bar is still moving, but not accelerating.

PowerManDL
09-22-2003, 02:12 PM
That's not the point, though. You're arguing apples and oranges--The issue you're pointing is really cheating vs. not cheating.

Given equal form, its always going to be harder to accelerate a weight than it is to move it slower.

That's where the argument is coming in in this particular example...I'm not comparing a jerk to a press-- I'm just saying that a faster press isn't easier than a slower one, due to the forces involved. If no other body parts are involved, then the momentum is a non-issue.


Originally posted by chris mason
You are not understanding the problem correctly Powerman.

Think about the lift. When you jerk the weight you start the movement by bending your lower body. This initial thrust is what gets the bar moving. You then use a hard press with the shoulders and triceps (they happen almost simultaneously). This combination allows you to get a heavier load moving than if you did a strict press. Very quickly after the initial press you then drop your body under the moving weight. During the phase in which your body is moving down your triceps and deltoids are not generating the same force against the bar as if the upper body were steady. What is it that keeps the bar moving, at least in part? You got it, the additional momentum which was created by the initial thrust with the legs and hips.

The triceps and deltoids are not working in the same fashion at that point which they would be in a strict press.

Now, to say the jerk is not an upper body movement is silly. Heck, was it not Dr. Siff (maybe someone else) that discussed the involvement of the muscles of the delts and triceps during the jerk? He was arguing against the momentum argument used by Bryzcki. The triceps and delts are definitely involved in the jerk movement. The difference, as I have stated, is in how much they are involved throughout the ROM. The difference is due to the nature of the two movements.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 02:37 PM
I was talking about the momentum argument. Momentum in an Olympic lift reduces the involvement of certain muscles in certain portions of the ROM as I described. That was my point. That is the argument of HIT proponents (plus they argue the danger factor which I illustrated in the bottom portion of the catch after a clean).

Arthur Jones and Mentzer were not the idiots that Silles and some other try to portray them as. They were both pretty smart guys that had some very good insights into training.

To call their definition of intensity not the true definition is silly. It is playing semantics. They defined their use of the word quite well.

I must say it just gets tiresome. People who regurgitate stuff they have read without having any real understanding of it and buying into it hook, line, and sinker.

I am going to let you all in on a little secret. Louie Simmons doesn't have it all figured out. Arthur Jones didn't have it all figured out. I certainly don't.

PowerManDL
09-22-2003, 03:24 PM
Yes, but since current HIT methodology doesn't account for Olympic movements, how can their adherence to "slow is better" be applicable to anything but "regular" exercises? Momentum isn't going to be an issue in anything *but* Olympic lifts...and in that case, for the limited parts of the ROM when the barbell is unloaded, momentum is the entire point-- the lift can't be achieved without unloading it and dipping under.

The same thing can't be said for a deadlift, a bench press, or anything similar.

I'm not even getting into the intensity defintion...that's a whole different issue that we've covered many times.

The entire reason behind this debate, at least on my part, is whether or not HIT uses science properly...and it doesn't. That is irrespective of how accurate or inaccurate they may have been; bad science is still bad science. If HIT doesn't want to face criticisms of its use of science, it shouldn't be invoking scientific terminology and concepts to validate its points. That's all.

delldell
09-22-2003, 04:27 PM
In case anyone hasn't seen these articles:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2001/12/12-05-01tdc/12-05-01dsports-05.asp
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2001/12/12-06-01tdc/12-06-01dsports-02.asp
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2001/12/12-07-01tdc/12-07-01dsports-column-02.asp

And to see a NFL coach basically being an advertisement for hammer strength:
http://www.houstontexans.com/fans/index.cfm?page_type=dept&subnav_key=fitness&cont_id=132481

silles
09-22-2003, 04:30 PM
Arthur Jones and Mentzer were not the idiots that Silles and some other try to portray them as. They were both pretty smart guys that had some very good insights into training.

To call their definition of intensity not the true definition is silly. It is playing semantics. They defined their use of the word quite well.

Au contraire! I believe that Mentzer and Jones undermined years of training experience gathered by physical culturalists. You're aware of the way that the old schoolers trained lifts, how did strongmen like Arthur Saxon and Edward Aston train to get un****ingbelievably strong? HINT: IT WAS NOT THROUGH INFREQUENT FAILURE TRAINING.

I think Charles Poliquin sums up Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer quite well:


Arthur Jones was the greatest tonic the fitness club industry's ever known. During the '70s, his ideas led to the birth of hundreds of Nautilus clubs that eventually graduated to larger clubs with more free-weight apparatus, which then converted to health and fitness clubs. I can honestly say that he created a whole new industry of better-designed strength-training equipment by setting up a new standard, but the training methodology that he advocated has been refuted by controlled scientific studies many times over. That is one of the reasons why his biggest cult disciple, Mike Mentzer, was booted out of Muscular Development magazine (MD column writers such as the highly respected sports scientist William Kraemer kept demonstrating with plenty of scientific studies that Mentzer's training dogma went out of style about the same time as the notion that the Earth is flat).

All fun aside, they did contribute some valuable things. But in this day and age, it all comes down to "what have you done lately?"


As for the intensity issue, there is only one definition of intensity, that is %1RM, period. It's not a game of semantics, intensity and intensiveness are two separate entities. If you would just admit that the majority of your input comes from experience rather than experiments, and simply state that your findings are anecdotal, I think these discussions would be finished.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 04:54 PM
Yeah Silles, my information has no scientific basis at all.


You know what, that has to be the stupidest ****ing thing I have ever heard.

What I have to say is based upon very sound science and a better understanding of it than just about anyone on this site. Better than a lot of the crap sources you cite.


You talk a lot of crap and have nothing to back it up. You talk about faulty undertanding of physics by HITers yet you don't explain anything. Guess why? You don't understand enough yourself to do anything other than regurgitate the words of others.

It may impress others or yourself, but it does nothing for me.

silles
09-22-2003, 06:59 PM
Excuse me Chris, but I don't think you ought to turn the tables on me like this. I called you out for one reason, and that is you don't cite any outside references or studies. I'm not saying that what you say has no scientific basis, I stated the following:

"If you would just admit that the majority of your input comes from experience rather than experiments, and simply state that your findings are anecdotal, I think these discussions would be finished."

I'm not discounting your experience. You're obviously one of the strongest members on the forum, but at the same time, you are far from posessing, "a better understanding of it [the science of strength training] than just about anyone on this site." (This is especially evident with your misunderstanding of intensity, intensiveness, and the role of fatigue)

As far as talking smack without backing it up, how about previously cited EMG studies by Siff? How about research performed by Verkoshansky? You're right, some of the science I read goes over my head, but I make the greatest effort to comprehend and research that which I do not understand. I'll tell you one thing though, I've grasped the concept of momentum, inertia, mass, force, and acceleration--sometimes I'm not sure if you have done so yet. As far as your research goes, I guess you've read High Intensity Training: The Mike Mentzer Way

Face it, I called you out in front of all your homies and you can't step up. You've just gone back to your old, and comfortable ad hominem style of debate. My posts might have had a hostile tone, but I never attacked you, merely suggested that the majority of the advice you dish out is based on experience--it's not like that makes you less of a man, but maybe by shifting the attention from your misunderstanding of intensity you'll feel like the better one.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 07:11 PM
Let me ask you a question, have you ever even taken a high school level physics course?

Please, demonstrate your grasp of momentum, inertia, mass, force, and acceleration.


PLEASE


Oh, and do it without taking a few hours to read up on it on the net and cut and paste a bunch of crap.

silles
09-22-2003, 07:15 PM
No, I have not. The only formal education I've had in physics was what I had to learn in chemistry. However, I don't see how this has anything to do with your misapplication of concepts. And I find it sadly ironic that you ignore all other points that I made in my post.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 07:18 PM
Tell me what I have misapplied.

Tell me.

I would love to know Dr. Silles.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 07:20 PM
Oh, my thoughts on the subject come from what I have read, my education, which allows me to make sound judgments on what others write, personal experience, and an overall decent intellect.


You might make an effort to understand, but you have failed, else you might not be so smug in your attitude that everything you post (the information of others) is correct.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 07:22 PM
Go on, tell me what I have misapplied.

You talk a lot. Prove it. Show me exactly what I do not understand.


If you are right I will freely admit it. FREELY.

silles
09-22-2003, 07:24 PM
I have reduced you to a sad, and feeble man. If you think by barking out orders for me to defend myself after I call you out on your lack of knowledge that makes you cool, well, it makes you look like a loser. Anyway, just so that I don't get accused of not putting my money where my mouth is.

For the purpose of keeping it simple.

Momentum- Mass in motion. M*V

Inertia- Resistance to acceleration.

Mass- Unified matter.

Force- Capacity to cause change.

Acceleration- Increase in velocity.

Velocity- Speed in a direction.

RoidRage
09-22-2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Oh, my thoughts on the subject come from what I have read, my education, which allows me to make sound judgments on what others write, personal experience, and an overall decent intellect.


You might make an effort to understand, but you have failed, else you might not be so smug in your attitude that everything you post (the information of others) is correct.

i'm not in this but if your knowledge comes from reading and his does too, why is your knowledge SO much better than his? :confused:

gotta admit though he has posted lots of evidence backing his claims.

silles
09-22-2003, 07:24 PM
By the way, I'm waiting for you, in your infinite wisdom, to accuse me of copy pasting from google or something or other. So go ahead and make yourself look like an asshole.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by silles
I have reduced you to a sad, and feeble man. If you think by barking out orders for me to defend myself after I call you out on your lack of knowledge that makes you cool, well, it makes you look like a loser. Anyway, just so that I don't get accused of not putting my money where my mouth is.

For the purpose of keeping it simple.

Momentum- Mass in motion. M*V

Inertia- Resistance to acceleration.

Mass- Unified matter.

Force- Capacity to cause change.

Acceleration- Increase in velocity.

Velocity- Speed in a direction.



Lol. Listen, you talk a lot of ****. You state I have no grasp of physics.

SHOW ME WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND OR BE QUIET.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by silles
By the way, I'm waiting for you, in your infinite wisdom, to accuse me of copy pasting from google or something or other. So go ahead and make yourself look like an asshole.



Lol, please, that is EXACTLY what you have done.

silles
09-22-2003, 07:30 PM
I can't wait until I get through with you. Standby.

RoidRage
09-22-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by chris mason




Lol. Listen, you talk a lot of ****. You state I have no grasp of physics.

SHOW ME WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND OR BE QUIET.

show why you're right scientifically or find a study that backs your experiance up *shrug*

chris mason
09-22-2003, 07:32 PM
I have already done that.

I suggest you stay out of this unless you are looking to be banned.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by silles
I can't wait until I get through with you. Standby.


I'm waiting...

chris mason
09-22-2003, 07:37 PM
Cutting and pasting some more Siff or whoever are we?

RoidRage
09-22-2003, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
I have already done that.

I suggest you stay out of this unless you are looking to be banned.


.

silles
09-22-2003, 07:52 PM
Now, force is force. If you bench pressed 200 lbs, and the rep took 6 seconds, you create a certain amount of force. If you bench press the same 200 lbs, but the rep only takes 3 seconds, you have greatly increased the force placed on your connective tissues. Do you get it?


Ballistic movements are more dangerous than slow controlled movements because they generate more force. Period. End of story.


Of course the muscles are used throughout an Olympic lift, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not a press (for example) involves a more continuous loading of the muscles throughout the ROM. As I have shown, with less momentum involved in the movement, I think it is clear that there is a more sustained (a greater load over a larger portion of the ROM) stress placed on on the muscles of the shoulders and triceps during a strict press vs. a jerk.

Note: I guess you don't know the difference between the body movements of a jerk and military press?


train in a slower more controlled fashion, taking your sets to failure, and you will have sufficiently stimulated your muscles while at the same time reducing the chance of injury to almost zero.


Ok, we have ruled out Olympic lifts for sensible training. We have also determined that it is best to train in a slow and controlled fashion. That doesn't mean you need to use light weights, it means you need to train under control, but use as much weight as your target reps will allow. You will get bigger and stronger.

Note: Right, since you get bigger and stronger by not targetting IIB fibers?



Contrast that movement with the jerk when the lifter puts the weight overhead. The legs and hips are used to help "thrust" the load overhead. The deltoids and triceps are stressed, but certainly not in the same manner as a strict press. There is a phase in the movement where the increased momentum from the force created by the legs and hips reduces the load on the delts and triceps. To argue this point is completely moronic because if the increased momentum did not reduce the load on the muscles at some point you would not be able to jerk more than you can strict press.

Okay, time for me to concede a point or two. I shouldn't have accused your knowledge of physics as being the limiting factor in your knowledge of training, rather it's your extreme misapplication of your knowledge.

silles
09-22-2003, 07:55 PM
Cutting and pasting some more Siff or whoever are we?

And even if I was cutting and pasting Siff, what does that matter? Are you going to discount the research put forth by he and Verkoshansky. He practicall wrote the Bible on the science of strength training. Oh yeah, I forgot though, you probably read Mike Mentzer's Complete Book of Training.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 08:17 PM
Oh man, ok, first off, you are cutting and pasting some quotes from me from a long time ago.

Unlike many people who do not change their ideas, I would like to think I have grown.

There was a time when I was Jones or nothing in mentality. I no longer am.

I do, however, believe that everything you qouted is still quite correct. Training in a slow, controlled fashion places less stress (force) on the connective tissues, therefore it is safer.

Anyone who would argue that point is a moron and has absolutely zero command of the laws of physics.

Does that mean Olympic lifting will result in injury? No, not necessarily. It does mean it is less safe and if you are solely interested in obtaining a nice physique or fitness you should avoid the exercise.

As to your cutting and pasting of others, I wish you might have some solid ideas of your own. That would indicate a sound basis of knowledge on the topic.


Finally, I was reflecting on my ride home from work on why you have upset me so. It is because you have insulted my intelligence and have provided nothing to backup your argument (as to my lack of knowledge of physics). Now, upon further reflection I realize I have insulted your intelligence and thus you are probably quite angry with me and therefore spewing nonsensical crap just because you are so upset. I apologize for insulting your intelligence.

I do think you should really try to broaden your training horizons as I have. You should consider the validity of some of what Mentzer and Jones had to say.

silles
09-22-2003, 08:24 PM
Finally, I was reflecting on my ride home from work on why you have upset me so. It is because you have insulted my intelligence and have provided nothing to backup your argument (as to my lack of knowledge of physics). Now, upon further reflection I realize I have insulted your intelligence and thus you are probably quite angry with me and therefore spewing nonsensical crap just because you are so upset. I apologize for insulting your intelligence.

I do think you should really try to broaden your training horizons as I have. You should consider the validity of some of what Mentzer and Jones had to say.

Okay, thank you, quite understandable. If I hurt your feelings, or insulted your intellegence, I apologize profusely as well. It's not that I don't think what Mentzer and Jones have to say is valid. Obviously HIT training works to a degree or else we wouldn't even be debating this. The point that I am trying to make is that it is still based on bad science, good results or not. Furthermore, I have to say that any training dogma used exclusively will never be optimal, I'd like to hope my training horizons are broad, since I do believe that pretty much every type of training can work until you adapt to it.

-sin-
09-22-2003, 08:29 PM
You can ban people for not agreeing with you?

Anyway all BS aside. Im not an advocate of HIT, but I dont think the entire approach is without merit. Do you think HIT is the best choice for football players Chris?

Football is about explosiveness so it doesn't make sense to train with a method that contradicts the nature of football.

chris mason
09-22-2003, 08:42 PM
No sin, one should not ban people for disagreement. However, you must look at a member in terms of a whole. Roid was not chiming in to merely disagree, he was chiming in to further stir the pot. This is not the first time.

I have no issue with people vehemently disagreeing with me. Do you note I didn't even hint at banning Silles?


On to your question. I don't think that training for explosiveness with weights will make you any better of a football player than training in a standard fashion and generally increasing your strength. If you want explosion in football moves (blowing off the line etc.), then you should train for that on the field by practicing it (hitting a sled, hitting another player etc.). This contradicts a lot of the current thinking. Obviously I think a lot of the current thinking on these matters is wrong.

HIT is a good method of training in my mind. Do I think a player should train in this fashion and then go out on the field and play the same day? Heck no.

I think a low volume approach taken to failure or close to failure would be best in the off-season (maximize growth stimulation) and a program which stops well short of failure with very slow and controlled reps would be best in-season (minimize soreness and joint stress).

PowerManDL
09-22-2003, 08:44 PM
Wow, this turned into a nice little party.

Not much else left to say really, but regarding the injury thing, I found these excerpts from Dr. Siff over on Supertraining, and in the interest of cut and paste, I thought they would be appopro:

Originally posted at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/message/23179

[Asanovich:

<To make matters worse, performing exercises at maximal speeds will also
result in maximum muscular risks. Newton's second law of motion states that,
"for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Relative to an
individual performing an accelerated exercise movement therefore, the
magnitude of potential internal forces produced is directly proportional to
the speed at which the exercise is performed. >

Siff:

*** All of this is nonsense and non-science. Some more seriously incorrect
ideas about biomechanics are very evident here that should not be even made
by a ninth grade child who is first learning Newton's Laws. Newton's Second
law does NOT state what Asanovich claims - Asanovich is quoting the THIRD
LAW. Even if he quoted the correct law, he would have known that force is
proportional to the rate of change of momentum or acceleration, NOT SPEED.
Yet he arrogantly proclaims that "the magnitude of potential internal forces
produced is directly proportional to the speed at which the exercise is
performed." We could be even more exact and point out that the word
"velocity" should be used, because spped is not a vector and its use in the
equation would be incorrect. With this abysmal knowledge of mechanics how
can he presume to be sufficiently equipped to critique the biomechanics of
any form of strength training, be it non-ballistic or ballistic?

Asanovich:

<Orthopedic injuries are sustained when these forces exceed the structural
integrity of the involved joint(s). If acute injuries are avoided, repeated
trauma from such biomechanical loading can predispose the muscles, fascia
(sic), bones and connective tissue to chronic injuries that are sustained
once an athlete enters competition. For this reason, Dr. Fred Allman, former
American College of Sports Medicine president has warned, "It is even
possible that many injuries...may be the result of weakened connective
tissue caused by explosive training in the weight room." >

Siff:

Both he and Dr Allman have omitted to mention one essential fact, namely that
graded progressive explosive training causes adaptation in the entire
musculoskeletal system, with the rate of loading determining how the
different tissues are conditioned (see Chs 1 and 3 of "Supertraining"). As
I have mentioned before, fast rates of loading are more directed at tendinous
and ligamentous conditioning, whereas slower rates are more directed at
conditioning of the tendon-bone interface. In other words, it is important
to use a wide variety of loading rates and durations to offer all-round
musculoskeletal training.

He and Allman also fail to mention that it is not simply the type of movement
which causes injury, but the manner in which any movement is prescribed.
Thus, even slow movement which involves "too much, too soon, too
unskillfully" can also cause injury. Their beliefs would be a lot more
convincing if they were backed up with valid research or comparative clinical
studies.

****

Asanovich:

<Certainly many controversies exist relative to training methodologies,
ballistic training and Olympic lifting being a major concern. Yet,
regardless of which training protocols may be right or wrong, as
health/fitness professionals our first responsibility is to the safety of
those who have entrusted their health to us. By denying, ignoring, or
overlooking the risks involved in training protocols/devices, we do a great
disservice to the individuals we train. For these reasons, I would encourage
coaches to be very discriminating in selecting training protocols.

After all, as with anything in life that sounds too good to be true, it
probably is. Ballistic resistance training and Olympic lifting are no
exception to the rule.>

Mel Siff:

*** Unfortunately his critique betrays such a serious lack of understanding
of the biomechanics of human movement that it is of minimal value to anyone.
Of course, there are risks associated with all forms of training and all
types of sport. One can minimise the risks, but the indeterminate nature of
many injuries means that injuries will always occur. It is misleading to lay
the blame on any specific type of training; instead, he should objectively
have acknowledged that ALL forms of training improperly prescribed can be
risky. Else, he would have remarked on the fact that the incidence of back
and limb injuries in explosive sports like weightlifting is lower than in the
general population and far lower than in school level football, basketball
and baseball. He does himself or the cause of strength and conditioning any
credit by relying on prejudice, bias and emotion to decry a method of
training which doesn't meet with his liking.]


Originally posted at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/message/20996

[2. Failure of or damage to the soft tissues of the body depends not only on
the peak forces and the rate of laoding imposed on them, but also on the
duration of the force. Thus, if a certain above-threshold force is imposed
upon the muscle complex for a prolonged period, as in SuperSlow training,
some of the tissues may undergo "creep" and plastic deformation and even
fail, depending upon factors including the load, the duration, the level of
fatigue and the degree of hydration. Research has shown that, at slow
loading rates, the bony insertion of tendons is the weakest component of the
muscle complex (Frankel & Nordin, 1980). ]

chris mason
09-22-2003, 08:53 PM
A note to Dr. Siff lovers, just because he says it don't make it so...


For example, as a counter-argument he states that "Thus, even slow movement which involves "too much, too soon, too
unskillfully" can also cause injury."

Hmmm, let's ponder that one. If one is able to lift or lower a weight very slowly, then the weight simply cannot be too much. Have you ever tried to lift significantly more than you are capable of in the bench? No matter how hard you tried the weight came crashing down at a very quick pace. Lowering a weight under good control means the weight is, by definition, not too much. In terms of skill, fortunately if one has trained with a standard weightlifting exercise more than few times skill becomes a moot point. It doesn't take a lot of skill (some, but nothing like a clean) to bench press.

You see, even Dr. Siff can talk out of his ass like everyone else.

PowerManDL
09-22-2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
A note to Dr. Siff lovers, just because he says it don't make it so...

Then its a good thing he wasn't trying to claim truth.

He was pointing out fallacy.


For example, as a counter-argument he states that "Thus, even slow movement which involves "too much, too soon, too
unskillfully" can also cause injury."

Hmmm, let's ponder that one. If one is able to lift or lower a weight very slowly, then the weight simply cannot be too much. Have you ever tried to lift significantly more than you are capable of in the bench? No matter how hard you tried the weight came crashing down at a very quick pace. Lowering a weight under good control means the weight is, by definition, not too much. In terms of skill, fortunately if one has trained with a standard weightlifting exercise more than few times skill becomes a moot point. It doesn't take a lot of skill (some, but nothing like a clean) to bench press.

That's a pretty limited viewpoint.

One can very easily do too much weight, in terms of a limiting factor, with a slow cadence. Load isn't the only determining factor of velocity, and thusly shouldn't be used as the only criteria for judging such a situation.

Anyone who would argue that point is a moron and has absolutely zero command of the laws of physics.

It would be nice if you could point out *why* what he said is incorrect, in light of the fact that he gave his reasoning, instead of simply saying "look, I can prove the expert wrong."


You see, even Dr. Siff can talk out of his ass like everyone else.

What's funny is that when he talked out of his ass it was generally better than what came from the other guy's mouth, firstly for the mere fact that Mel knew this stuff better than just about anybody in the world, due to both academic knowledge and a personal experience that eclipses anyone here, and secondly because he didn't push any agenda...he made it a point to call out people for mis-applications of science, and he did it quite well.

IceRgrrl
09-23-2003, 05:40 AM
One variable that may be a very important factor in this debate is the importance of good guidance, WHATEVER training method you are using, but coaching is especially important in Olympic lifts...the casual weightlifter trying to teach him/herself Oly movements is probably risking injury simply because those lifts are extremely technical and necessitate good coaching to learn the proper form which will "make" the lift and avoid injuries.

And even the HIT lifter who tries too much too soon risks straining tendons, ligaments, connective tissue even if his/her muscles are able to move the load.

Also I just want to point out that it takes just as much force to move a weight quickly as it does to move it slowly. However you are moving the weight, you are applying enough force to overcome the action of gravity on that weight. Power = Force/time, so if you move the weight in a smaller amount of time, you are generating more power. I think the use of the word "force" as defined in the physics sense gets mixed up with the sense of effort that a person feels while trying to move a heavy weight.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by PowerManDL


Then its a good thing he wasn't trying to claim truth.

He was pointing out fallacy.



That's a pretty limited viewpoint.

One can very easily do too much weight, in terms of a limiting factor, with a slow cadence. Load isn't the only determining factor of velocity, and thusly shouldn't be used as the only criteria for judging such a situation.

Anyone who would argue that point is a moron and has absolutely zero command of the laws of physics.

It would be nice if you could point out *why* what he said is incorrect, in light of the fact that he gave his reasoning, instead of simply saying "look, I can prove the expert wrong."



What's funny is that when he talked out of his ass it was generally better than what came from the other guy's mouth, firstly for the mere fact that Mel knew this stuff better than just about anybody in the world, due to both academic knowledge and a personal experience that eclipses anyone here, and secondly because he didn't push any agenda...he made it a point to call out people for mis-applications of science, and he did it quite well.



Powerman, I did point out exactly why he is incorrect. You are just too enamoured with the guy to see it.

One doesn't need to qoute a study to prove a point. Sometimes the ability to think on one's own is all that is needed.

As I already said, if you can lift or lower a weight in a slow and controlled fashion, then the resistance cannot be too heavy. Let's review an example. You can bench in a slow and controlled fashion somewhere in the 260-275 range, no? Now, if you tried to bench press 315 lbs you would not be able to handle the resistance in a slow and controlled fashion, it would crash to your chest. Now, Dr. Siff included the caveat of skill in the equation. By including this caveat he basically made his argument a non-argument because if anyone lifts any weight unskillfully the chance of injury is always there. He also nullifys his argument for the other reason I mentioned, most non-Olympic style lifts don't take much skill to perform. Anyone who has performed them a few times will have a sufficient mastery (assuming he is not a motor moron) in order to lift in a safe manner if he lifts slowly and in a controlled fashion. His argument is tantamount to saying that any form of weightlifting is dangerous, which it is, but some types are obviously safer than others.

As a final note, I understand you have placed the guy on a pedastel. I did much the same with Jones at one point. You have to realize that while he might have a lot of accurate ideas, he can have very flawed ideas as well. You talk about his debugging of the misapplications of science. What you have to realize is that he is not going to be 100% correct. Sometimes he might even have exaggerated or fudged his points in order to make an impression. He is also using his interpretation of science to do his debugging. It is quite possible his interpretation is wrong in certain cases.

Finally, it is possible that your interpretation of his words is incorrect in some instances.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by IceRgrrl
One variable that may be a very important factor in this debate is the importance of good guidance, WHATEVER training method you are using, but coaching is especially important in Olympic lifts...the casual weightlifter trying to teach him/herself Oly movements is probably risking injury simply because those lifts are extremely technical and necessitate good coaching to learn the proper form which will "make" the lift and avoid injuries.

And even the HIT lifter who tries too much too soon risks straining tendons, ligaments, connective tissue even if his/her muscles are able to move the load.

Also I just want to point out that it takes just as much force to move a weight quickly as it does to move it slowly. However you are moving the weight, you are applying enough force to overcome the action of gravity on that weight. Power = Force/time, so if you move the weight in a smaller amount of time, you are generating more power. I think the use of the word "force" as defined in the physics sense gets mixed up with the sense of effort that a person feels while trying to move a heavy weight.


Ice, F=ma. Force equals mass times acceleration. Thus, if an given mass is accelerated more quickly then the force required to do so is also increased. Thus, to move 100 lbs more quickly, more force is required.

"And even the HIT lifter who tries too much too soon risks straining tendons, ligaments, connective tissue even if his/her muscles are able to move the load."

That is why I discussed lifting the load in a
slow and controlled fashion. Big difference.

I agree with your first point.

WillKuenzel
09-23-2003, 07:34 AM
I'm not exactly sure that a weight you are incapable of benching comes crashing down. Take for example, failed attempts at powerlifting meets. They can slowly let the weight descend as it is close to their max and a bit above but it is too much for them to get it back up. Now of course a major jump in weight will cause it just slam down but if its just slightly more than they are capable of, they are able to slowly let the weight descend.

Could you also consider reps in this case? Lets say a person attempts to bench 225x8. He can do that slowly and controlled but the last rep is too much and he can't complete it. But was able to let down slowly.

Of course there are so many examples and that's the problem I have with all these different training methods. There are loop holes in all of them that have to be specifically laid out or just general flaws.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by HomeYield
I'm not exactly sure that a weight you are incapable of benching comes crashing down. Take for example, failed attempts at powerlifting meets. They can slowly let the weight descend as it is close to their max and a bit above but it is too much for them to get it back up. Now of course a major jump in weight will cause it just slam down but if its just slightly more than they are capable of, they are able to slowly let the weight descend.

Could you also consider reps in this case? Lets say a person attempts to bench 225x8. He can do that slowly and controlled but the last rep is too much and he can't complete it. But was able to let down slowly.

Of course there are so many examples and that's the problem I have with all these different training methods. There are loop holes in all of them that have to be specifically laid out or just general flaws.



Look, yes, you can lower more than you can lift. I was talking about attempting a load which is more than you can even lower slowly. If you can lower the weight slowly and in a controlled fashion, then your risk of injury is very slight, especially if you are performing reps. When you perform reps and fail after several reps you are failing with a resistance which is much less than your tendons and ligaments can handle. In other words, if you can bench 285 but use 225 for a set of 8, then the safety factor is greatly increased. You are training with a weight which is well below your maximum. Failing in a lift does not make it dangerous unless of course you cheat to get the weight up and accidently move in a way which places you at greater risk of injury.

When you lifty in a slow and controlled fashion you are lifting well within the parameters of what your body can handle. You are minimizing the stress (forces being exerted) to you joints and connective tissues. That is the point.

Training with a quicker cadence often includes using looser form, or cheating, and thus greater loads. The increased speed and loads place greater stress on the joints. This leads to an increased chance of injury. It does not necessarily lead to an injury, it just leads to a greater chance of injury.

delldell
09-23-2003, 08:20 AM
Can someone find the study from the olympics where oly lifters outperformed sprinters in the first 15 meters?

chris mason
09-23-2003, 08:35 AM
How about when Kevin Levrone kept pace for the first portion of the race with a record holding sprinter. Kevin Levrone is a 270 + lb bodybuilder who certainly doesn't train explosively, yet he was pretty explosive;) .



Here is a link. They list him here at 237lbs which is more like contest weight. I am not sure what he weighed exactly at the race, but read this:

http://www.snacsystem.com/chamblevres.html

Now, for all of you explosive guys who claim that controlled lifting will not make you more explosive, and Olympic lifts are needed for sports etc. Think again!

PowerManDL
09-23-2003, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by chris mason
One doesn't need to qoute a study to prove a point. Sometimes the ability to think on one's own is all that is needed.

I didn't ask you for logic.

I asked for empirical proof.

You gave one very limited perspective on why you felt he was wrong, then considered your argument made....are you familiar with the "strawman" fallacy in logic?

That's one reason why I *do* quote so many studies, so that I have a wider perspective to go from. Logic that isn't empirically valid is useless.


As I already said, if you can lift or lower a weight in a slow and controlled fashion, then the resistance cannot be too heavy.

Cannot be too heavy for *what* exactly?

Did you ignore the part about long-duration stresses being worse on the tendons than an immediate impulse in some instances?


Let's review an example. You can bench in a slow and controlled fashion somewhere in the 260-275 range, no? Now, if you tried to bench press 315 lbs you would not be able to handle the resistance in a slow and controlled fashion, it would crash to your chest.

Again, that's one limited example, and is not any evidence of the full spectrum of possibilities. What if I tried to take 225 to failure *very* slowly? You think there's no chance of injury in that?


Now, Dr. Siff included the caveat of skill in the equation. By including this caveat he basically made his argument a non-argument because if anyone lifts any weight unskillfully the chance of injury is always there. He also nullifys his argument for the other reason I mentioned, most non-Olympic style lifts don't take much skill to perform.

That was his whole point...that ALL lifting IS inherently dangerous if you push the limits too quickly and improperly. There's no specific form of danger coming from any one means.


Anyone who has performed them a few times will have a sufficient mastery (assuming he is not a motor moron) in order to lift in a safe manner if he lifts slowly and in a controlled fashion. His argument is tantamount to saying that any form of weightlifting is dangerous, which it is, but some types are obviously safer than others.

That last sentence is key here.

What evidence are you drawing upon to state this fact? Simple critical thinking won't do it. There have to be concrete statistics showing that explosive lifting causes more injury than slow lifting, and I've yet to see those from anyone.


As a final note, I understand you have placed the guy on a pedastel. I did much the same with Jones at one point. You have to realize that while he might have a lot of accurate ideas, he can have very flawed ideas as well. You talk about his debugging of the misapplications of science. What you have to realize is that he is not going to be 100% correct. Sometimes he might even have exaggerated or fudged his points in order to make an impression. He is also using his interpretation of science to do his debugging. It is quite possible his interpretation is wrong in certain cases.

Finally, it is possible that your interpretation of his words is incorrect in some instances.

Nicely disguised ad hominem argument, but it still stands that if you cannot refute the argument, you go after the individual. Paragraphs like this have no place in a structured debate. If you can't tackle the issue, fine....but don't turn this into "my guy is better than your guy."

The simple fact remains that you cannot refute what he said, short of the overly-generalized, simplistic, and ultimately inaccurate example you gave above, which doesn't even hold true to your own standards and you know it. Strawman arguments simply do not hold water.

If there's anything I *did* learn from Mel, it was to question everything....I gladly admit he influenced me a lot, but it wasn't in what he *told* me to do...it was how he taught me to think. Not to keep limitations on any possibilities, and not to take anybody's word (even his) without questioning things.

So when I see the HIT mentality, or even the restricted thinking you displayed in an attempt to be right, I call it out. And yes, it takes more than logical thinking to convince me....if your example had been somewhat more accurate in terms of biology or biomechanics, it might have held up to an extent w/o references. But as it stands, that example is invalid because it is grossly irrelevant to actual motion.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 09:38 AM
Here is the whole problem with your perspective Powerman.

A study can be found in the field of weightlifting (as is most fields) which will backup nearly any point of view.

I can't take stock in studies which make no sense to me. I can in those that do.

This much I know. An injury occurs in weightlifting when (for whatever reason) the force imparted to the connective tissue, muscle, or joint exceeds said area's ability to withstand it. In other words, a X amount of force is required to tear a tendon. Less than X will not tear it, X or more will.

Anything which increases the force involved in a movement places us closer to reaching X.

Faster movements involve great force. F=ma.

Thus, faster movements are inherently more dangerous than slow ones with other factors being equal.

You can argue this all you want. You can show studies. It just is what it is.

Does that mean I don't train that way? No. I like to train very heavy. I like to push the envelope. That doesn't change the facts.

IceRgrrl
09-23-2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by chris mason

Ice, F=ma. Force equals mass times acceleration. Thus, if an given mass is accelerated more quickly then the force required to do so is also increased. Thus, to move 100 lbs more quickly, more force is required.



Originally posted by chris mason

Faster movements involve great force. F=ma.


There's no time (t) variable in F = ma. And I think that's what you all are getting in arguments about.

I think the basics are getting a little mixed up here. To move a load (mass x gravity), you need to apply a force that is greater in magnitude than m *g. If they are equal, the forces balance exactly and there is no motion, so:

F(applied by lifter) > mass X gravity (bar + plates)

But if you replace F with ma (since F = ma), notice that the mass cancels out and you basically only need to apply an acceleration that overcomes the acceleration due to gravity.

mass X accel > mass x gravity

accel > gravity

You only need to generate an amount of force slightly greater than m*g to move the weight, since the mass of the bar and gravity does not change. HOW the force is generated, using the whole body or an isolated muscles group is not relevant to the physics equation.

Which brings TIME duration into the scenario...i.e. how fast is the applied force causing the bar to travel over a given distance. It's not simply a matter of applying a force, but applying it over a distance and within what kind of time duration, which is why I mentioned "power."

A better way to look at this situation is to use work and power:

Work = force x distance

Power = Force/time ---> Force = Power * time


And combining these brings about what seems to be being discussed here:

Work = Power x time x distance

You can vary the time it takes to perform a lift...you're doing the same amount of work, but whether you do it slow and controlled or explosively is what every one seems to be debating.

Alex.V
09-23-2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by chris mason


This much I know. An injury occurs in weightlifting when (for whatever reason) the force imparted to the connective tissue, muscle, or joint exceeds said area's ability to withstand it. In other words, a X amount of force is required to tear a tendon. Less than X will not tear it, X or more will.


There are very few lifts that will cause injury simply by excessive force applied as intended. The majority of injuries come from excessive force applied in a direction other than where it's supposed to be applied. i.e., f*ck ups. So really, regardless of power, the main variable seems to be technique.

The discs in the spinal column rarely herniate when the lumbar curve is maintained. Rotator cuff muscles/tendons are rarely torn when a press is performed correctly. In those cases where a load tears a pec or bicep tendon, it is simply sheer mass causing the rip, it has little to do with speed. Simply stopping a weight and attempting to apply acceleration against gravity (so you don't get skooshed) would be more than enough to cause the tear. The difference between holding a 600 pound bench in place (resisting gravity) and lifting it to lockout over 3 seconds is not great, if you look at the difference in force. So, again, when it comes to non-f*ck up injuries, the main variable is load.

IceRgrrl
09-23-2003, 11:02 AM
Then there are the overuse injuries, which are also all too common, and are the accumulation of small stresses that eventually add up to a major problem.






Alex, perhaps you can enlighten us as to the dangers of overuse? :angel:

Alex.V
09-23-2003, 11:02 AM
:eek:

I, uh....

Alex.V
09-23-2003, 11:11 AM
I dunno. Ask this guy.

http://64.95.118.51/images/opti/39/79/wellPersonalMassageAllTeledyne_SM85_Shower_Massager_TWP_SM851-resized200.gif

IceRgrrl
09-23-2003, 11:15 AM
ROFLMAO! I think you've definitely crossed the line into degeneration there, pal...




(Anyone who doesn't understand, ask your girlfriends, girl friends, wives, sisters, etc...)

Alex.V
09-23-2003, 11:16 AM
Sorry folks, back on topic. Nothing to see here. You all may resume.

delldell
09-23-2003, 11:26 AM
Yes, but that is one example. The results from olympic lifters as a whole is not an exception, but more like the rule.

""Nicu Vlad of Romania, World Record holder and Two time Olympic Medallist, came to the United States back in 1990, with now current U.S. National and Olympic Team Coach Dragomir Cioroslan, for a training camp. It was here at the U.S. Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, that this 100-kg (220 lbs) weightlifter recorded a 42" vertical jump. Not to mention he was in weightlifting shoes, which weighs a lot more than tennis shoes and no formal warm-up. (Snatch 200 kg, Clean and Jerk 232.5 kg)

Wesley Barnett of Team USA, 3-time Olympian and Silver Medallist @ 1997 World Championships, have legs (especially hamstrings) and ass like a thoroughbred on him that most body builders would like to have. He has recorded vertical jumps of over 39" @ a height of 6'1" and 105 kg (231 lbs). I've even witnessed him dunking a basketball while jumping over my head, and I do mean literally jumping over my head which of course only stands a mere 5'2" but he straddle jumped directly over my head and dunked. (Snatch 175 kg, Clean and Jerk 220 kg)

Mark Henry, 1996 Olympic Team Member, now known as "Sexual Chocolate" on the WWF scene, had quite a vertical jump. At 6'3" tall he could dunk a basketball, not to mention that he could squat over 1000 lbs and deadlift over 900 lbs. Now dunking a basketball at 6'3" doesn't sound that hard, but take in to account that he weighed at that time 175 kg (385 lbs). Now that's impressive for a big guy. (Snatch 180 kg, Clean and Jerk 220 kg)

Shane Hamman, 2000 Olympic Team Member and current National Super heavyweight Champion, another big man weighing in @ 163 kg (358 lbs) but only at a height of 5'9" tall, can jump onto boxes @ a height over 42" high. Of course Shane was also known for his squatting ability of over 1000 lbs. (Snatch 195 kg, Clean and Jerk 230 kg)."

chris mason
09-23-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by IceRgrrl




There's no time (t) variable in F = ma. And I think that's what you all are getting in arguments about.

I think the basics are getting a little mixed up here. To move a load (mass x gravity), you need to apply a force that is greater in magnitude than m *g. If they are equal, the forces balance exactly and there is no motion, so:

F(applied by lifter) > mass X gravity (bar + plates)

But if you replace F with ma (since F = ma), notice that the mass cancels out and you basically only need to apply an acceleration that overcomes the acceleration due to gravity.

mass X accel > mass x gravity

accel > gravity

You only need to generate an amount of force slightly greater than m*g to move the weight, since the mass of the bar and gravity does not change. HOW the force is generated, using the whole body or an isolated muscles group is not relevant to the physics equation.

Which brings TIME duration into the scenario...i.e. how fast is the applied force causing the bar to travel over a given distance. It's not simply a matter of applying a force, but applying it over a distance and within what kind of time duration, which is why I mentioned "power."

A better way to look at this situation is to use work and power:

Work = force x distance

Power = Force/time ---> Force = Power * time


And combining these brings about what seems to be being discussed here:

Work = Power x time x distance

You can vary the time it takes to perform a lift...you're doing the same amount of work, but whether you do it slow and controlled or explosively is what every one seems to be debating.


Ice, acceleration equals the change in velocity over the change in time (if I remember correctly). Thus, acceleration includes a time factor.

Yes, to move an object just enough force is required to overcome the force of gravity on the object. To move it at an increasing rate requires acceleration. Increased acceleration requires increased force be applied.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by delldell
Yes, but that is one example. The results from olympic lifters as a whole is not an exception, but more like the rule.

""Nicu Vlad of Romania, World Record holder and Two time Olympic Medallist, came to the United States back in 1990, with now current U.S. National and Olympic Team Coach Dragomir Cioroslan, for a training camp. It was here at the U.S. Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, that this 100-kg (220 lbs) weightlifter recorded a 42" vertical jump. Not to mention he was in weightlifting shoes, which weighs a lot more than tennis shoes and no formal warm-up. (Snatch 200 kg, Clean and Jerk 232.5 kg)

Wesley Barnett of Team USA, 3-time Olympian and Silver Medallist @ 1997 World Championships, have legs (especially hamstrings) and ass like a thoroughbred on him that most body builders would like to have. He has recorded vertical jumps of over 39" @ a height of 6'1" and 105 kg (231 lbs). I've even witnessed him dunking a basketball while jumping over my head, and I do mean literally jumping over my head which of course only stands a mere 5'2" but he straddle jumped directly over my head and dunked. (Snatch 175 kg, Clean and Jerk 220 kg)

Mark Henry, 1996 Olympic Team Member, now known as "Sexual Chocolate" on the WWF scene, had quite a vertical jump. At 6'3" tall he could dunk a basketball, not to mention that he could squat over 1000 lbs and deadlift over 900 lbs. Now dunking a basketball at 6'3" doesn't sound that hard, but take in to account that he weighed at that time 175 kg (385 lbs). Now that's impressive for a big guy. (Snatch 180 kg, Clean and Jerk 220 kg)

Shane Hamman, 2000 Olympic Team Member and current National Super heavyweight Champion, another big man weighing in @ 163 kg (358 lbs) but only at a height of 5'9" tall, can jump onto boxes @ a height over 42" high. Of course Shane was also known for his squatting ability of over 1000 lbs. (Snatch 195 kg, Clean and Jerk 230 kg)."



Listen, all your examples and mine really prove is that these guys have athletic gifts.

The fact that each of these guys can do what they do has very little to do with their particular training style. That was my point with Levrone.

IceRgrrl
09-23-2003, 12:17 PM
Yes, but the change in velocity and change in time are linked in a more subtle way that you are implying. If you change the velocity and the time by the same amount, the ratio --acceleration ---remains the same. A force is needed to initiate the movement by overcoming the force of gravity. Again, HOW that force is generated is the subject under debate here.

Explosive lift of 200 lbs: mass x gravity = 200 x 32 = 6400 lbf.
Slow controlled lift of 200 lbs: mass x gravity = 200 x 32 = 6400 lbf. Force applied is the same. The time needed to generate and apply that force through a distance is what is the difference between an explosive lift and a slow, controlled one.

Also, acceleration is defined as the instantaneous ratio of velocity to time, which changes over the duration of the lift. At the start of the lift, velocity = zero, midway through the lift, velocity is greater than zero, at the top of the lift velocity = zero again.

It's very hard to explain in words, without mathematical notation and without too much calculus, but basic physics is getting overly watered down and oversimplified in this debate and that is what I was getting at.

In short, an explosive lift does not require more force in the physics sense than a slow controlled lift of the same amount of weight. It may FEEL different, but that is due to physical work rather than physics. It DOES require that that same force be applied in a smaller period of time, and then again, we're talking power (force per unit time).

chris mason
09-23-2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Belial


There are very few lifts that will cause injury simply by excessive force applied as intended. The majority of injuries come from excessive force applied in a direction other than where it's supposed to be applied. i.e., f*ck ups. So really, regardless of power, the main variable seems to be technique.

The discs in the spinal column rarely herniate when the lumbar curve is maintained. Rotator cuff muscles/tendons are rarely torn when a press is performed correctly. In those cases where a load tears a pec or bicep tendon, it is simply sheer mass causing the rip, it has little to do with speed. Simply stopping a weight and attempting to apply acceleration against gravity (so you don't get skooshed) would be more than enough to cause the tear. The difference between holding a 600 pound bench in place (resisting gravity) and lifting it to lockout over 3 seconds is not great, if you look at the difference in force. So, again, when it comes to non-f*ck up injuries, the main variable is load.


Except for all of the guys who tear their pecs while warmup up on the bench....


But that is another story all together...

You are making the point that maximal loads cannot be moved quickly, that is true by definition.

However, catching a 400+ lb load at the bottom of the squat in the clean and jerk results in a bounce at the bottom position in most cases. This portion of the movement gererates huge forces. The force placed on the knee joints here is much greater than that of a powerlifter squatting 700 + lbs to just below parallel.

The load is important, yes, but so is the speed at which the load is moving. The greater the speed of a given load, the greater the force required to stop it and reverse its direction.

If you doubt, do a self test. Take an unloaded barbell and do a slow, smooth rep. Note how it feels. Now, perform a very fast rep which you lower very quickly and then push back up as quickly as possible. Which movement placed more stress on the joints? Why? Read above.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 12:35 PM
You're wrong Ice.


Actually, you are right and wrong. Here is the difference. When you perform a quick lift, there is a portion of the movement, right in the beginning when you quickly accelerate the mass that you must produce a greater PEAK force than is required in the slow lift. That greater PEAK force required places the involved connective tissues at greater risk.

That is the difference. The same amount of work may be performed, but the bulk of the work is being done in a burst in the quick lift and over a more sustained period in the slow lift.

PowerManDL
09-23-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Here is the whole problem with your perspective Powerman.

A study can be found in the field of weightlifting (as is most fields) which will backup nearly any point of view.

I can't take stock in studies which make no sense to me. I can in those that do.

Then you're in no position to be debating this issue with me. Its that simple...if you're not grasping the concepts laid out, you have no basis to even be arguing this.


This much I know. An injury occurs in weightlifting when (for whatever reason) the force imparted to the connective tissue, muscle, or joint exceeds said area's ability to withstand it. In other words, a X amount of force is required to tear a tendon. Less than X will not tear it, X or more will.

Anything which increases the force involved in a movement places us closer to reaching X.


As Alex already hinted, that's a pretty simplistic viewpoint, and its showing a lack of knowledge about the connective tissues and the joint complex.

Its not as cut and dry as "quantity X causes injury." The connective tissues are dynamic in nature, both in the short term and long term. Above and beyond long-term adaptation, tissues behave differently according to temperature, tension, and several other issues that make a blanket assessment like that untenable, even discounting the technique matter.


Faster movements involve great force. F=ma.

Thus, faster movements are inherently more dangerous than slow ones with other factors being equal.

You can argue this all you want. You can show studies. It just is what it is.

I sure can. Studies based on a more comprehensive knowledge of biology than you're applying, as well as reflecting "reality."

If you're worried about forces, athletes shouldn't be running, jumping, or any "normal" activity since those actions involve forces far in excess of anything encountered in weight training. This, too, is reflected in studies of the forces encountered by athletes.

Again this is coming back to a strawman argument. You're making one assertion, based on how it "should be" and trying to generalize it to the entire matter at hand, even ignoring the mass of empirical evidence contradicting your position.


Does that mean I don't train that way? No. I like to train very heavy. I like to push the envelope. That doesn't change the facts.

Facts imply truths, not opinions. Again, you're creating a circular argument...."It should work this way" isn't the same thing as "it DOES work this way." You're using reasoning based on flawed concepts to assert "truth," then ignoring the very facts that should ideally be supporting the premises.

What Molly is saying about the acceleration issue is what I've been trying to get across the entire time....its not some simplistic, static formula you can apply and say thereby that X -> Y. Biomechanics isn't that simple, and when you apply it simply, you get the kind of errors that you're making.

PowerManDL
09-23-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
You're wrong Ice.

Actually, you are right and wrong. Here is the difference. When you perform a quick lift, there is a portion of the movement, right in the beginning when you quickly accelerate the mass that you must produce a greater PEAK force than is required in the slow lift. That greater PEAK force required places the involved connective tissues at greater risk.

That is the difference. The same amount of work may be performed, but the bulk of the work is being done in a burst in the quick lift and over a more sustained period in the slow lift.

1) If you've got RFD curves showing that the peak tension occurs at the immediate beginning of the lift then drops off linearly, I'll be happy to have a look.

2) There is a difference between external force and force applied to the muscle complex.

3) Show me any evidence, any at all (evidence, not "reasoning") that a higher RFD increases injury risk.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 12:58 PM
Well Powerman, most runners end up with joint problems. Especially road runners.


I know you think I am not grasping matters, but you really are not reading anything I have written.

To say a movement generates more force and thus is more dangerous does not rate the danger scale. Rather than overly complicating matters (a ploy all too commonly used), we should look at the issue in the simplest terms possible.

In the end, greater peak force increases the liklihood of injury. That is all.

Yes, connective tissues grow in strength and adapt. Does that mean that they adapt exactly proportionately to increased loads? No. Has there ever been a valid study done of this phenomena? I seriously doubt it. You would have to have human volunteers who were willing to have tendons ruptured in the interest of science.

You also can't agree and disagree with Alex at the same time. He says load is the determining factor. You and Siff say that the body will adapt to increasing loads. Pick one.

PowerManDL
09-23-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Well Powerman, most runners end up with joint problems. Especially road runners.

My point exactly.


I know you think I am not grasping matters, but you really are not reading anything I have written.

To say a movement generates more force and thus is more dangerous does not rate the danger scale. Rather than overly complicating matters (a ploy all too commonly used), we should look at the issue in the simplest terms possible.

In the end, greater peak force increases the liklihood of injury. That is all.

Chris, this is the whole point...you keep making this assertion with absolutely *nothing* to back it up. You know good and well that if you're going to make that point, you can' t just pull it out of thin air.


Yes, connective tissues grow in strength and adapt. Does that mean that they adapt exactly proportionately to increased loads? No. Has there ever been a valid study done of this phenomena? I seriously doubt it. You would have to have human volunteers who were willing to have tendons ruptured in the interest of science.

I think you'd be surprised. In fact, I'll look them up if you'd like. That's also why Mel hinted at *progressively introduced* loading so that the joints *could* adapt....you've got to stop looking at this stuff as if there's one and only one case that determines all of it.


You also can't agree and disagree with Alex at the same time. He says load is the determining factor. You and Siff say that the body will adapt to increasing loads. Pick one.

They're both correct viewpoints. As I stated above, there's more than one context involved here. This is far too complex a discussion for any single point such as this to be altogether correct or incorrect.

In a single instance, load wrt technique most defintely can be a factor. But over the course of the long term, yes the body will adapt. There's nothing mutually exclusive about those points.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by PowerManDL


1) If you've got RFD curves showing that the peak tension occurs at the immediate beginning of the lift then drops off linearly, I'll be happy to have a look.




Well, I don't have quite the luxury of time that some of you do to search the net for stuff, but I do have some of my old books.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 01:21 PM
Answer me just one question. A direct answer, no bobbing around the issue.


How exactly does one sustain an injury, what is the impetus?

PowerManDL
09-23-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Answer me just one question. A direct answer, no bobbing around the issue.


How exactly does one sustain an injury, what is the impetus?

When a stress is applied to a tissue in a direction or in a magnitude for which it is unable to cope with said stress.

Yes, that's broad. Yes, it leaves open a lot of possibilities. Then again, so does the functioning of the human body.

PowerManDL
09-23-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Well, I don't have quite the luxury of time that some of you do to search the net for stuff, but I do have some of my old books.

Ahem.

I ask again:


Originally posted by PowerManDL
1) If you've got RFD curves showing that the peak tension occurs at the immediate beginning of the lift then drops off linearly, I'll be happy to have a look.

I know that there are peaks occuring, and that the force is developed unevenly; that was never the issue. The assertion that there's no tension is still invalid, however, for the point I made above. There's a distinction between external force and muscular tension.

Muscular tension is the loading on the muscles and joints, and would be the factor responsible for injury. Its also the stimulus for the training effect.

The two factors correlate only in that the muscular tension (internal force) is what generates the external display of the moving barbell. The mechanical quantities expressed by the motion of the barbell aren't necessarily indicative of the exact process occuring in the body. Only an EMG could show which muscles are active.

Alex.V
09-23-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by chris mason

You also can't agree and disagree with Alex at the same time. He says load is the determining factor. You and Siff say that the body will adapt to increasing loads.


No no no, re-read. I said load was the determining factor in a certain kind of injury.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 01:29 PM
Ok, so then why are you arguing with me?

If the force in a movement is increased does is place you closer or further away from said threshold?



Oh, and don't you like my force curve (or close enough)? Don't mind the guy's cool outfit...

chris mason
09-23-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by PowerManDL


Ahem.

I ask again:



I know that there are peaks occuring, and that the force is developed unevenly; that was never the issue. The assertion that there's no tension is still invalid, however, for the point I made above. There's a distinction between external force and muscular tension.

Muscular tension is the loading on the muscles and joints, and would be the factor responsible for injury. Its also the stimulus for the training effect.

The two factors correlate only in that the muscular tension (internal force) is what generates the external display of the moving barbell. The mechanical quantities expressed by the motion of the barbell aren't necessarily indicative of the exact process occuring in the body. Only an EMG could show which muscles are active.

Ok, last thing then it is nap nap time for me.


What do you think connects the force produced by your muscles to the load and vice versa?

I will answer for you, the connective tissues. Thus, if the force produced in the movement increases so does the force placed on the connective tissues. There is no way around that.

PowerManDL
09-23-2003, 01:32 PM
The threshold is dynamic, for one, changing both during the session and over the long-term, and for two, it requires a break-down of technique, not simple force itself.

The body is *more* than capable of handling quite intensive loading without injury. Its only when that loading is applied improperly that injury results.

PowerManDL
09-23-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by chris mason


What do you think connects the force produced by your muscles to the load and vice versa?

I will answer for you, the connective tissues. Thus, if the force produced in the movement increases so does the force placed on the connective tissues. There is no way around that.

You are *assuming* the truth yet again.

Force displayed is not a one to one correlation with forces generated in the muscle complex.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 01:42 PM
You boob! No one said it was one to one, but I guaran****ingtee you that if one goes up so does the other.

You crack me up, you will never even concede a small point. Fair enough, I must go train now to take out my aggressions. Then it is nappy nappy time.

PowerManDL
09-23-2003, 01:46 PM
I'm a hardass like that ;)

But seriously...the forces incurred during training, regardless of external movement speed only rarely exceed the strength of connective tissues. When it happens in every-day lifting, like the pec-tear example you gave, that's more than likely a pre-existing issue or an overuse problem.

Its more likely to happen in a max attempt than a fast movement anyway, as the speeds of an explosive barbell movement are in all actuality pretty small in comparison to sporting moves or plyos.

Which just goes back to what started this whole mess...its not more inherently dangerous to train quickly than it is to train slowly.

fuzz
09-23-2003, 03:12 PM
I agree with Matt.

IceRgrrl
09-23-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by chris mason

Here is the difference. When you perform a quick lift, there is a portion of the movement, right in the beginning when you quickly accelerate the mass that you must produce a greater PEAK force than is required in the slow lift. That greater PEAK force required places the involved connective tissues at greater risk.



If you apply a greater peak force, only the part of the force that is slightly greater than m * g is required to move the weight. Applying a greater force may result in greater acceleration, but that greater acceleration translates to momentum and takes the load off of the muscle. Oly lifters exploit this technique so that they can accelerate the bar fast enough to use momentum to their advantage so that they can drop under the bar while it's unloaded at the peak of it's acceleration. Using greater acceleration results in greater contribution from momentum and less load on the muscle, which is what you all are concerned about.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by IceRgrrl


Applying a greater force may result in greater acceleration, but that greater acceleration translates to momentum and takes the load off of the muscle. Oly lifters exploit this technique so that they can accelerate the bar fast enough to use momentum to their advantage so that they can drop under the bar while it's unloaded at the peak of it's acceleration. Using greater acceleration results in greater contribution from momentum and less load on the muscle, which is what you all are concerned about.

Oh oh, you just disagreed with Mel Siff, I am surprised no one has jumped on you yet.

I have already said this and so have most of the HIT proponents.

I think you just agreed with me without realizing it.


Lastly, the greater force and acceleration are what make those movements more dangerous than slow movements.

No, I AM NOT SAYING THEY WILL NECESSARILY CAUSE INJURY, I am only saying they are more dangerous because greater peak force is involved.

IceRgrrl
09-23-2003, 04:04 PM
I don't care who I agree or disagree with...LOL! I just like physics :D Because I'm a big geek, but that's a personal problem.

My own opinion is that Oly's CAN be dangerous if perfect form and technique is not used. That's why even elite level Oly lifters train with a coach who can spot any drift in form or developing bad habits. Oly's are definitely NOT something that the average fitness lifter is going to throw into their routine just for the hell of it.

PowerManDL
09-23-2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by IceRgrrl
If you apply a greater peak force, only the part of the force that is slightly greater than m * g is required to move the weight. Applying a greater force may result in greater acceleration, but that greater acceleration translates to momentum and takes the load off of the muscle.

That's very context-dependent, though. In an Oly lift, sure...but even in that event, the *muscular* tension is still very present. That says nothing of other movements.


Using greater acceleration results in greater contribution from momentum and less load on the muscle, which is what you all are concerned about.

Again, it might seem that way, and I will concede that in certain phases of the lift there is less tension in the muscle...however, I have to stress that there is still tension, and quite a bit, created in any ballistic movement, even during the phase supposedly "unloaded" by momentum.

Moll, as you noted earlier that in a biomechanical scenario, acceleration is never static...its a changing quantity defined by the derivative dv/dt, with the integral of that quantity * mass defining force.

In that sense, I'm still not seeing how momentum, which is defined similarly, would "unload" any of the force quantity; I'll submit that it would lessen the tension in the active muscles as compared to the initial impulse, but assuming that an attempt to accelerate the bar is made (and it is or the lift fails) there must be a constant force applied to the bar.....the unloading effect at the end is a result of the particular mechanics of the Oly lifts, not an effect common to all movements.

That is of course excepting the deceleration at the end of a "traditional" exercise....but involving the action of antagonist groups, joint complexes, and the proprioceptive "safety systems" makes it even more complex than it already is.

delldell
09-23-2003, 04:46 PM
I don't think this is about athletic gifts in my examples. It's pretty clear that most oly lifters have abnormal verticals and short sprints. That's why I was asking for that study. It's not like an exception with that bodybuilder.

chris mason
09-23-2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by delldell
I don't think this is about athletic gifts in my examples. It's pretty clear that most oly lifters have abnormal verticals and short sprints. That's why I was asking for that study. It's not like an exception with that bodybuilder.


Ok, let me ask you a question. Is it a causitive effect of the training or did the lifters become Olympic lifters because their heredity suited that sort of lifting (i.e. they have natural "explosiveness").

chris mason
09-23-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by PowerManDL


That's very context-dependent, though. In an Oly lift, sure...but even in that event, the *muscular* tension is still very present. That says nothing of other movements.



Again, it might seem that way, and I will concede that in certain phases of the lift there is less tension in the muscle...however, I have to stress that there is still tension, and quite a bit, created in any ballistic movement, even during the phase supposedly "unloaded" by momentum.

Moll, as you noted earlier that in a biomechanical scenario, acceleration is never static...its a changing quantity defined by the derivative dv/dt, with the integral of that quantity * mass defining force.

In that sense, I'm still not seeing how momentum, which is defined similarly, would "unload" any of the force quantity; I'll submit that it would lessen the tension in the active muscles as compared to the initial impulse, but assuming that an attempt to accelerate the bar is made (and it is or the lift fails) there must be a constant force applied to the bar.....the unloading effect at the end is a result of the particular mechanics of the Oly lifts, not an effect common to all movements.

That is of course excepting the deceleration at the end of a "traditional" exercise....but involving the action of antagonist groups, joint complexes, and the proprioceptive "safety systems" makes it even more complex than it already is.



This is for you and Ice. I took physics and calculus in high school. I took physics and calculus in college. Both were a long time ago. My current job does not have me using either very often (sales manager at a car dealership).

I was always a general concepts kinda guy and the formulas have long ago escaped me. Remembering those formulas long term is a real weakness of mine. Fortunately my wife remembers that crap with uncanny ability. So, if I want to humble myself I can go get the formulas from her (I rarely do that as you may have noticed my ego doesn't like to allow for such things).

That being said, I remember just enough to be dangerous and I can relearn real quick.

Here is a little thought experiment to determine how much increased momentum is involved in a clean from the floor.

a) Can you upright row with strict form as much as you can clean from the floor?

b) Can you hang clean as much as you can clean from the floor?

answer to both: NO

Why is that? Well, there is a lot of initial force accelerating the load from the floor being generated by the legs, lower back, and hip area. The initial burst of force plus the hard pull from the upper body allows you to literally drop under a lot more weight than you could lift in any other fashion. Lifters can drop because all of the force they have exerted on the bar keeps it in motion upward just long enough to allow that drop. Sure, gravity is still doing its thing but the combo of force holds it off just long enough (hopefully) to get under the weight. The portion of the movement is when momentum is doing the trick.

Getting back to the safety argument. It takes as much or more of an initial force to get the bar moving fast enough to clean a 400lb weight as it does to deadlift a weight that is probably twice that much (no formula, just a guess, but one of you formula freaks can probably figure it out for me).

In any event, I like to watch Olympic lifting. Cool sport.

Wu36
09-23-2003, 08:27 PM
Good thread.
That is all I can possibly contribute.

PowerManDL
09-23-2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
This is for you and Ice. I took physics and calculus in high school. I took physics and calculus in college. Both were a long time ago. My current job does not have me using either very often (sales manager at a car dealership).

I was always a general concepts kinda guy and the formulas have long ago escaped me. Remembering those formulas long term is a real weakness of mine. Fortunately my wife remembers that crap with uncanny ability. So, if I want to humble myself I can go get the formulas from her (I rarely do that as you may have noticed my ego doesn't like to allow for such things).

That being said, I remember just enough to be dangerous and I can relearn real quick.

You do realize what Molly's degree is in, right?

In any event, this has little to do with strict calculus or physics...its how those factors apply to the body, which is the separate science of biomechanics.


Here is a little thought experiment to determine how much increased momentum is involved in a clean from the floor.

a) Can you upright row with strict form as much as you can clean from the floor?

b) Can you hang clean as much as you can clean from the floor?

answer to both: NO

No, and I wouldn't expect to as every single exercise you listed is a wholly different movement involving differing muscle groups, leverages, ROMs for each individual exercise, muscle, and joint, different neuro-motor recruitment patterns, individual techniques, and a whole host of other issues which make similar weights about impossible, because they aren't the same movements.


Why is that? Well, there is a lot of initial force accelerating the load from the floor being generated by the legs, lower back, and hip area. The initial burst of force plus the hard pull from the upper body allows you to literally drop under a lot more weight than you could lift in any other fashion. Lifters can drop because all of the force they have exerted on the bar keeps it in motion upward just long enough to allow that drop. Sure, gravity is still doing its thing but the combo of force holds it off just long enough (hopefully) to get under the weight. The portion of the movement is when momentum is doing the trick.

So your point is that the posterior chain is stronger than the traps? Or...what?


Getting back to the safety argument. It takes as much or more of an initial force to get the bar moving fast enough to clean a 400lb weight as it does to deadlift a weight that is probably twice that much (no formula, just a guess, but one of you formula freaks can probably figure it out for me).

Still...as has been pointed out, more force doesn't linearly equate to greater risk of injury for all the reasons that have already been put forth. The joints aren't just going to snap once a certain amount of force is applied. Injury is as much a function of poor technique as it is the force applied.

delldell
09-23-2003, 09:25 PM
Sorry, I'm not buying that it happens to be heredity for numerous examples...

JuniorMint6669
09-23-2003, 11:31 PM
:lurk: *sticky*

IceRgrrl
09-24-2003, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by PowerManDL

In any event, this has little to do with strict calculus or physics...its how those factors apply to the body, which is the separate science of biomechanics.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. Applying simple force balance equations does not take into account a whole host of other forces/factors that come into play when you're talking about a whole body system...not quite the same as a weight hanging from a support in a simple physics problem. The forces and acceleration vary widely at different points in the lift with different parts of the body generating/controlling them. to model all the forces/stresses on the body during a lift would take a system of many, many variables and equations of motion and would be a large project, which is why we have people doing kinesiology/biomechanics research ;)


Originally posted by chris mason


Here is a little thought experiment to determine how much increased momentum is involved in a clean from the floor.

a) Can you upright row with strict form as much as you can clean from the floor?

b) Can you hang clean as much as you can clean from the floor?

answer to both: NO


Completely different muscle groups are being used in those two comparisons. Yes, you can clean more from the floor because you are able to use your powerful legs as well as your upper body. Isolating a small muscle group is NOT going to produce as much force as a whole body movement. To take it to an extreme, the shoulders and traps are not capable of the strength of the posterior chain. But if the posterior chain is initiating the movement and all the upper body has to do is assist and control the travel of the bar, that's not the same as trying to get the upper body to do all the work.


Originally posted by chris mason

Getting back to the safety argument. It takes as much or more of an initial force to get the bar moving fast enough to clean a 400lb weight as it does to deadlift a weight that is probably twice that much (no formula, just a guess, but one of you formula freaks can probably figure it out for me).


But the time/power factor comes in here again. A clean is a lift that happens very fast. A heavy deadlift generally does not happen as quickly. Both take explosive ability to perform but "explosive" in different uses of the word. The force generated in a clean needs to happen in a shorter period of time, hence the power (force per unit time) concept that I keep bringing up.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you...I'm just contributing to the discussion because I find it very interesting. :)Having trained strength style and Oly style, my experience with the two make me feel that they are so different that it's hard to compare. I don't think Oly lifts are any more dangerous than any other type of lifting, provided a person has good coaching/guidance, uses good form, and doesn't try to use more weight than he/she can handle, which goes for pretty much any lifting.

The real danger in Oly lifting is trying to perform a lift that you don't have the training/experience to attempt. Kind of like me trying to fly an airplane by trial and error without any/enough lessons...doesn't mean that flying is dangerous in and of itself, but trying to teach yourself to fly probably is pretty damn lethal.

Paul Stagg
09-24-2003, 07:28 AM
"The real danger in Oly lifting is trying to perform a lift that you don't have the training/experience to attempt. Kind of like me trying to fly an airplane by trial and error without any/enough lessons...doesn't mean that flying is dangerous in and of itself, but trying to teach yourself to fly probably is pretty damn lethal."

This is an excellent analogy.

fuzz
09-24-2003, 09:01 AM
This has been an excellant thread. Its great to see an intelligent debate without it degenerating into name-calling or personal attacks (for the most part).

It should be renamed and made sticky.

chris mason
09-24-2003, 10:56 AM
One last word.

The physics I used are correct with the exception that was pointed out when I did not specify PEAK force produced in movements (i.e. total work is the same).

My final say on the matter is that faster movements done with relatively heavy loads are inherently more dangerous. Does that mean performing them will lead to injury? No. It just means the involve greater peak forces on the joints and connective tissues which places one closer to an injury (as opposed to further away).

Very heavy powerlifting movements are similar just due to the total loads involved.

Slow, controlled reps are, by definition, the safest.

unshift
09-24-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by chris mason
My final say on the matter is that faster movements done with relatively heavy loads are inherently more dangerous. Does that mean performing them will lead to injury? No. It just means the involve greater peak forces on the joints and connective tissues which places one closer to an injury (as opposed to further away).

Very heavy powerlifting movements are similar just due to the total loads involved.

Slow, controlled reps are, by definition, the safest.

now what's this have to do with HIT being a worthwhile training program for a football player? :)

Neil
09-24-2003, 11:53 AM
HIT uses a slower, non explosive tempo.

silles
09-24-2003, 05:32 PM
And part of the argument, was, at one time, whether or not you need to train explosive to be explosive. I submit you do, and think we ought to pursue that discussion. I'd definetly have more to contribute.

chris mason
09-24-2003, 07:30 PM
I think you can train to be more explosive, no doubt. I also think training is very movement specific. I don't think that improving your power clean is going to do much of anything for your vertical jump (certainly not beyond what any general strengthening of the leg muscles would do).

There, that should prove fodder for more stuff...

unshift
09-24-2003, 11:16 PM
uh hoh, now powerman's going to come and give us 35 different definitions of strength :D

isn't 6 pages enough?!

IceRgrrl
09-25-2003, 05:29 AM
The purpose in the power clean is to get the entire body involved in generating a lot of force quickly...i.e., explosively. Athletes utilize full body movements to train the various body parts to work together, as they do on the field or the court or wherever. Usually the full body explosive lifts are augmented by plenty of plain old pure strength lifts, likes squat and bench, so it's a combination of training styles tailored to the athlete and the particular sport.

Power cleans involve a lot of muscles, a lot of coordination, and a lot of mental attention to details of the form, a process very much like any athletic movement where the entire body is used to generate force where technique is important, like hitting a fastball or throwing a football or placing a backhand return. So it's mental/physical training combined.

I don't think it's an all or nothing, black or white, explosive or slow/controlled training question with athletes. Their training is a mix of all kinds of stuff depending on the athlete and his/her goals and needs: explosive movements, strength movements, very specific movements that mimic some aspect of their sport, plyometrics, and aerobic/anaerobic conditioning, flexibility stuff...we're not talking about the average desk jockey who goes to Gold's or Bally's to trim up.

There's a place for all kinds of different training styles.

PowerManDL
09-25-2003, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by unshift
uh hoh, now powerman's going to come and give us 35 different definitions of strength :D

isn't 6 pages enough?!

Bah, I've only got about 8 definitions of strength.

/pwned

ElPietro
09-25-2003, 08:35 AM
You have those definitions so that you can continuously argue whether right or wrong. You just adjust the definition of the subject at hand and viola, now you are right again. ;)

PowerManDL
09-25-2003, 08:46 AM
:cool::cool:

chris mason
09-25-2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by IceRgrrl

Power cleans involve a lot of muscles, a lot of coordination, and a lot of mental attention to details of the form, a process very much like any athletic movement where the entire body is used to generate force where technique is important, like hitting a fastball or throwing a football or placing a backhand return. So it's mental/physical training combined.




Ok, here is the flaw with that thought process which is so prevalent today.

Training is extremely specific in nature. For example, a study was done where runners were forced to run in a circle. They got progessively faster at running in a circle. Unfortunately, the increased circular speed did not result in increased straight line running speed.

You would think getting faster at running in any form would translate. Unfortunately it does not.

Hence, getting better at powercleans won't make the athlete better at anything else (other than the general strength gains).

There are other examples I can referece for you, I just thought this one was the best.

PowerManDL
09-25-2003, 11:03 AM
Oh dear. This is going to make me think more, isn't it?

chris mason
09-25-2003, 11:10 AM
Is that what you call it?






********sorry, couldn't resist:)

WillKuenzel
09-25-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by chris mason



Ok, here is the flaw with that thought process which is so prevalent today.

Training is extremely specific in nature. For example, a study was done where runners were forced to run in a circle. They got progessively faster at running in a circle. Unfortunately, the increased circular speed did not result in increased straight line running speed.

You would think getting faster at running in any form would translate. Unfortunately it does not.

Hence, getting better at powercleans won't make the athlete better at anything else (other than the general strength gains).

There are other examples I can referece for you, I just thought this one was the best.


That might be the reason she went on to say this:


Originally posted by IceRgrrl
I don't think it's an all or nothing, black or white, explosive or slow/controlled training question with athletes. Their training is a mix of all kinds of stuff depending on the athlete and his/her goals and needs: explosive movements, strength movements, very specific movements that mimic some aspect of their sport, plyometrics, and aerobic/anaerobic conditioning, flexibility stuff...we're not talking about the average desk jockey who goes to Gold's or Bally's to trim up.

There's a place for all kinds of different training styles.



I ran track in college. Pole vaulted actually. Our training involved everything. Explosive, slow and controlled, endurance circuits as well as speed circuits.

All have their place. Is there any argument to say that a mixture of them is not better than just one or the other?

Meat_Head
09-25-2003, 12:37 PM
Lifting weights has made better athletes for years now. When football coaches started getting their players to lift weights, their performance was improved, regardless of wether the lift was exactly like exploding into another player or shoving someone out of the way or anything else they did in the game.

chris mason
09-25-2003, 12:47 PM
Actually Home, you misunderstand. What she was saying is that there is a place for all training types, but that place is determined by what training style will presumably suit the need best (explosive for football etc.).

Otherwise, she would be contradicting herself and I think she is smarter than that.


I think the only argument for the mixture is to combat boredom. I have no problem with that.

I just don't think these different training styles will translate to the field the way many coaches these days do.

WillKuenzel
09-25-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by IceRgrrl
I don't think it's an all or nothing, black or white, explosive or slow/controlled training question with athletes.
Maybe I am getting it confused then. I thought she was saying to incorporate it all to be better balanced, even though it sounded like she like their training should specialize in movements that mimic their sport.

Maybe though I'm not understanding people's stances in this thread. Am I correct in saying that you don't feel like explosive training is necessary at all and its others that are contesting that?

PowerManDL
09-25-2003, 01:27 PM
There's more than one motor quality developed by strength training.

There's more than one motor quality used in *any* athletic endeavor.

Thereby, it stands to reason that one would want to train as many qualities as many ways as possible.

It just happens that explosive lifting helps develop the explosiveness quality in a manner that doing the movement alone cannot. Shotputters and throwers train with implements both heavier and lighter than their competition instrument; and think what you want but especially in the case of the heavier implement, the motor pattern does change to the point that its not exactly the same movement.

To say that explosive lifting is useless for developing that category of qualities is tantamount to saying that the only exercise that could improve a bicep curl is a bicep curl.

IceRgrrl
09-26-2003, 05:52 AM
What I was saying is that athletic training involves more than ONE style of lifting/movement...which ones depend on which sport the person is training for.

A football player may do a mixture of explosive exercises (like power cleans and other Oly's) AND pure strength exercises (bench, squat), AND some sport-specific exercises, like hitting the sled, or doing jammer extensions (to mimic exploding up and off the line against another lineman) or agility/quickness drills. An athlete generally does not do ONLY explosive excecises or ONLY pure strength exercises, but a mix of various types of training depending on the needs of the athlete and whether he/she is in-season or off-season.

Homey, I think you are saying the same thing as I was. Athletic training is much different than bodybuilding, powerlifting, or fitness training, and I think that needs to be a key point in this discussion.

chris mason
09-26-2003, 08:51 AM
Just to be clear, the thrust of my argument on this phase of the thread is that I do not feel that weightlifting for athletic endeavors which do not include weightlifting as part of the sport (i.e. Olympic lifting is weightlifting, playing football isn't) should train any differently than a powerlifter or bodybuilder depending on the specific goals.

I say this for the reasons I mentioned above.

IceRgrrl
09-26-2003, 09:05 AM
I don't agree with that. Bodybuilding focuses on hypertrophy and not pure strength gain. Yes, some strength is usually gained with size, but isolating specific muscles does nothing for athletes who never do anything with just one muscle group, to use your specificity of training point.

Powerlifters and athletes may have MORE in common with their training, but having a big bench/squat/deadlift doesn't not correlate directly to being a big performer on the field. It certainly doesn't hurt, but it won't automatically make a great athlete. Any coach can point out superior athletes on the field of play who are average to mediocre when tested in their lifts. But they have the functional strength (the specific strength/coordination needed to perform an athletic function) along with other tangible and intangible factors such as quickness, coordination, power, and agility. A football player who can deadlift 700 lbs. is not useful if he can't get to the ball quickly enough or explode off the line in the split second after the ball is snapped.

The article at the beginning of the thread below sums up some of the myths of athletic training quite nicely. I don't agree with every single thing that Bompa says, but then I don't agree 100% with anyone...but I think he makes some good points and has the research to back it up.

http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=33556&highlight=Bompa

He also points out something that Chris is getting at...that Oly's are NOT suited for everybody's training. For instance, the article mentions that having judo or swimming athletes train with the power clean or clean and jerk makes no sense. For football, hockey, rubgy maybe, but nothing in swimming or judo really makes use of the type of movements that those particular Oly lifts contain.

So again, my opinion and my experience as an athlete and with strength coaches, is that athletes should not train purely as bodybuilders or fitness lifters, but should have a program specifically tailored to the needs of their sport, which will usually include more than one type of training.

chris mason
09-26-2003, 09:15 AM
Here is a nice article which I read some time back that helped to confirm my ideas.


http://www.classicx.com/html/11balan.html


Oh, and Ice, notice I said like a bodybuilder depending on specific goals. So, as Bompa mentioned, a lineman wants hypertrophy, he would train for that and the resultant strength increases.

IceRgrrl
09-26-2003, 09:19 AM
I agree that specificity is key in any training. Which is why athletes should not train like bodybuilders. Athletes have no need to isolate the function of single muscle groups and perform slow, controlled reps since everything they do in their sport tends to be an ultra compound movement of many parts of the body and is rarely slow and controlled.

However, typical strength exercises CAN be included to augment the sport-specific/explosive movements, especially if an athlete has a weakness in a specific area, say the hamstrings or shoulders, but they will be add-ons and not the prime focus of training.

chris mason
09-26-2003, 09:36 AM
I understand you feel that way Ice (about specific exercises to increase functional capability), but I think you are wrong.

I think any form of general strength increase will accomplish the same goal. Specific exercises like the power clean won't do any more than squats and shrugs.

PowerManDL
09-26-2003, 11:02 AM
That article doesn't differentiate between general and specific characteristics.

Running two miles doesn't help the sprint specifically, but it raises the general capacity of the body (cardiovascular endurance) so that the specific task (sprinting) becomes easier. Same holds for strength training and any other motor quality.

chris mason
09-26-2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by PowerManDL
That article doesn't differentiate between general and specific characteristics.

Running two miles doesn't help the sprint specifically, but it raises the general capacity of the body (cardiovascular endurance) so that the specific task (sprinting) becomes easier. Same holds for strength training and any other motor quality.




Ok, you say that running at a sub-maximal level for 2 miles will increase the general aerobic capacity of the body thus making sprints easier.

Next, you say that this is analagous to strength training and other motor activities.

Two problems. First, sprinting is anaerobic by definition, thus aerobic training will not increase your anaerobic capacity. It might increase your ability to recover from said activity, but not change the amount of glycogen you store to any appreciable level etc.

Next, if you want to compare it on a motor level, how could running at a slow pace, by YOUR OWN BELIEFS ON THE TOPIC, increase your ability in a sprint? That would be akin to saying that slow training in the bench press would increase your explosive ability in said movement and that would contradict everything you have said about explosive training. In other words, running slowly certainly can't make you a better sprinter (by your own thinking).

PowerManDL
09-26-2003, 11:37 AM
Anaerobic work capacity isn't the only factor in a sprint, which *one more time* is the entire point.

You're basically taking what I write, up to and including my whole point, and trying to use that as an argument against what I said.

Aerobic conditioning will aid in a sprint by increasing the cardiovascular work capacity.

And yes, to a degree, slow training on the bench can serve to increase explosive ability in the long run. Not specifically and directly, but by building a foundation to exploit later. I'm doing that very thing right now, in fact.

In any circumstance of training, you have to consider general v. specific as well a acute v. long-term (and how the effects will interact over those time periods).

Just because something isn't helping out *directly* and *right now* doesn't mean it has no benefits whatsoever. Its about scheduling and sequencing.

If I *did* have a sprint competition, you'd best be assured I'd start out with long-distance work and gradually incorporate more and more short-distance training as the event came closer. Weight training would also go from very generalized strength work towards explosive training, with plyos brought in at the final phases. That's above and beyond any other specialized drills to be done.

chris mason
09-26-2003, 01:19 PM
You see, and after all of that I would still smoke you;) .



Seriously, a true sprint is an all out, very brief affair which aerobic capacity has very little to do with.


Now, don't mistake my belief that weightlifting won't translate to the field other than gereral strength increases to mean that I think plyometrics etc. are worthless. I am merely speaking about the use of heavy resistance.

IceRgrrl
09-29-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by PowerManDL

In any circumstance of training, you have to consider general v. specific as well a acute v. long-term (and how the effects will interact over those time periods).

Just because something isn't helping out *directly* and *right now* doesn't mean it has no benefits whatsoever. Its about scheduling and sequencing.



This is the direction that I'm coming from as well. I think heavy resistance, straightforward bench/squat/dead lifting has it's place in a well-rounded, periodized training plan for an athlete, but specific exercises for specific weaknesses/movements/goals certainly have their place in the broad scheme. Chris, I think if you toured around a few different Olympic training centers or professional sports teams and saw what they were doing not on any one day, but year round, you'd see that both of our points of view are well represented.

My bias towards sports training tends to color my perspective, since that's where my experience and my own training has taken place, where Chris is coming from his own background with generalized strength training. And Matt, he just loves a good argument/theorizing ;)

Good discussion, though... :thumbup:

chris mason
09-29-2003, 05:34 PM
Ice, I am fully aware that your viewpoints are well represented.

I think a good part of my argument is trying to get you guys to think "out of the box". Tradition doesn't make it right.

In fact, I see a lot of what goes on in athletic training as people essentially trying to validate their existence (read physiologists, trainers, strength coaches etc.). Unfortunately we perceive simplicity in a negative light and complexity as progress in many things.

Maybe one day I will have the money to sponsor a study I consider to be valid and then we can really test the theories behind our discussions. Until then, for me, I have to believe what I believe.

Isaac Wilkins
09-29-2003, 05:43 PM
Not to derail or politic here, but find agreements with what most of you have said.

Chris, keep some of us in mind when you do that study (I know you're not blowing wind). Those of us in academic pursuits would be very interested in the results.

chris mason
09-29-2003, 06:05 PM
Well, I am blowing wind unless I get rich;) , or can convince the wife to forgo a whole bunch of stuff:eek: .

Lol, but if I do have the means, you can bet your ass I will do it. I will do it for my own personal knowledge if nothing else.

Isaac Wilkins
09-29-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Well, I am blowing wind unless I get rich;) , or can convince the wife to forgo a whole bunch of stuff:eek: .

Lol, but if I do have the means, you can bet your ass I will do it. I will do it for my own personal knowledge if nothing else.

If you figure out how to convince the wife, let us know that too. I'd be just as interested in that knowledge. ;)

IceRgrrl
09-29-2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Ice, I am fully aware that your viewpoints are well represented.

I think a good part of my argument is trying to get you guys to think "out of the box". Tradition doesn't make it right.
I think that people who train athletes---and I'm talking about the ones who have the right background/credentials/experience-- have a good track record of "thinking out of the box." It's not tradition that keeps D-1 football programs and Olympic programs training their athletes the way they do. If they see one program using something new or rediscovering something old that gets results, everyone will take notice. Competition tends to do that in markets and in sports.



In fact, I see a lot of what goes on in athletic training as people essentially trying to validate their existence (read physiologists, trainers, strength coaches etc.). Unfortunately we perceive simplicity in a negative light and complexity as progress in many things.
Much high level research IS being done at various universities and public/private research institutions by highly skilled and trained scientists with backgrounds in physiology, kinesiology, exercise science, physics, biochemistry, etc. It's not a trainer with a 6-month course/certificate making up stuff as he/she goes along. For the weekend warrior, I agree that simpler is usually better. For the elite level athlete who is approaching the limit of his/her potential, more complex methods may be necessary to eke out a small, incremental increases in performance.


Maybe one day I will have the money to sponsor a study I consider to be valid and then we can really test the theories behind our discussions. Until then, for me, I have to believe what I believe.
If you do, I think you will find that it is a much more complex and varied process than you may think. And one study does not make or break a theory. If you find something new, it must be replicated and tested by other scientists and tried over a period of time before any conclusions are reached. During that time period, others will be doing studies than may come to some contradictory conclusions, which is why science is not static, that what we call "science" is just the best that we know SO FAR.

If there was some simple answer, someone would have found it already...that person would be rich and we'd all have all our training questions answered :)

chris mason
09-29-2003, 07:15 PM
You see, I have seen plenty of studies done by those folks you mention and I quite often marvel at the stupidity with which they were performed. I am sure there are some very good studies as well.


Look Ice, I understand that you are currently enamoured with academia. That much is evident in your posts. I suppose we are just going to differ there. I repspect science, yet I think much of what goes on in the academic world is far from science in the pure sense of the word. I also think that scientists are so specialized these days they can't see past their own noses.


Now, as to sports and competition breeding new ideas etc., that is absolutely incorrect in my opinion. It is like pulling teeth to get anyone involved in sports to change their attitude about something with regards to training. If it wasn't, the NFL combine would be long gone. The tests those men are put through tell about zilch about what a player will be able to do on the field, yet draft stock can dramatically rise or fall on the results of those physical tests. The combine and what occurs at it should have gone by the wayside a long time ago.

That is just one example.

Heck, look at weightlifting itself. For how many years did coaches believe weightlifting was detrimental to sports? (answer---a long darn time!)

Oh, and by the way, those same darn scientists you mention perpetuated the myth of the muscle bound weightlifter.

PowerManDL
09-29-2003, 08:48 PM
I think inside the box?

Hell I thought most everything I did or vouched for was cool/unique/creative in some form or fashion when compared to the mainstream.

IceRgrrl
09-30-2003, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by chris mason
You see, I have seen plenty of studies done by those folks you mention and I quite often marvel at the stupidity with which they were performed. I am sure there are some very good studies as well.
I'm attempting to keep the discussion on topic, yet I find it hard to understand how you feel that you have so many answers and such a unique perspective on someone else's line of work, namely those who are doing said research. Your background is bodybuilding, and you work in a business field, yet you claim to be able to know more/understand more than those people who have made human performance their life's work. I enjoy your point of view, but it often gets distorted by your seemingly arrogant point of view towards your own experience and reliance on anecdotal evidence. Are you reading these studies in the popular media or are you actually plowing through the details of the actual experiments in the journals? The studies cut/pasted/posted here are usually summaries...the actual documents are many pages of very technical information that give the actual details of the experimental process and the data collected as well as an overview of how the study correlates with the current body of knowledge.


ok Ice, I understand that you are currently enamoured with academia. That much is evident in your posts. I suppose we are just going to differ there. I repspect science, yet I think much of what goes on in the academic world is far from science in the pure sense of the word. I also think that scientists are so specialized these days they can't see past their own noses.
I work in academia and am in a scientific field, yet I am not blindly enamoured of it...I can separate my job from the rest of my life and my own opinions. The scientific method is far superior to and far more objective than a single person's opinion or experience. I think you need to separate the large, vague term of "academia" from hard science. Research also goes on outside of academia, you realize. And if you have never participated in a research effort, I think that you don't realize how difficult it is to design an experimental method that isolates and tests the variable(s) in question and produces significant results that cannot be attributed to confounding factors or nonexperimental variable interactions, especially when dealing with human subjects. Your perspective on research seems a bit naive, quite frankly.

If you seriously have a revolutionary theory on strength training and you can put together a convincing and detailed grant proposal for a study to test it, if your idea/methods are sound enough, you CAN get your study done. I think you'll be surprised at what's required for good data though...


Oh, and by the way, those same darn scientists you mention perpetuated the myth of the muscle bound weightlifter.
All of them? Or which ones exactly? I think you'll find that if you put three scientists in a room, you'd be hard put to get them to agree on anything. The myth of the muscle bound weightlifter is probably more of a media/popular culture invention.

I'm enjoying the exchange of ideas and theories here, but the idea that you have all the answers and scientists/researchers are full of BS is pretty hard to handle. I think everyone has something to contribute, and that's why we're all here talking about stuff like this.

the doc
09-30-2003, 07:14 AM
one of the main problems is that there is little research money in sports-based training

furthermore, there are good scientists and bad scientists, just like in car sales. THere are good helpful salesman, and slimeball salesmen. Chris, perhaps you have had to much of your information filtered through the news/entertainment media (they will exaggerate or take out of context anything which will fill their fluff time). Next time you hear about some study in the media, contact someone you know who has access to the real journal articles, and compare the actual report to what you hear in the media. They can be as different as night and day.

Good scientists are always open to the opinions of others and are willing to learn from them.

and matt definitely thinks out of the box, i just dont know which box though :D

ectx
09-30-2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
You see, I have seen plenty of studies done by those folks you mention and I quite often marvel at the stupidity with which they were performed. I am sure there are some very good studies as well.

...I respect science, yet I think much of what goes on in the academic world is far from science in the pure sense of the word.

Doc hit it right on. Chris I think part of your problem with scientific studies is that what the layperson is exposed to is different from what the scientist is exposed to. There's hard science, usually published in scientific journals, torn apart multiple times, and resubmitted N times, and then there's pulp science. That's the stuff we see on the web or published in Discover magazine or we see on CNN. The synthesis and translation of the actual information is poor. Also, just because a person has a PhD and publishes an article on the web doesn't make it true. That information, like what comes out on TV and popular magazines is not peer reviewed. Although I respect your opinion, I don't think you have a true respect for the scientific process. Allow me to shed some light on the process. The peer review process for a reputable journal is rigorous. By the time a paper is submitted it usually goes through the skepticism of everybody in that lab and that individuals department, and quite possibly members in the outside academic community at regional and international meetings. When it does get to a reputable journal it at least goes through 4 reviewers, who then tear apart your work and reject, ask for a resubmission, or accept (rarely) your paper. By the time the paper is accepted it's gone through numerous rewrites and submissions. My post doc mentor had to resubmit his paper 20 times before he got it into Science. It took 44 rewrites and 6 additional experiments for me to get my 3rd paper published. In contrast, an article or news story usually involves a layperson doing a quick search...interviewing who they think is an expert...and then possibly a review by a copy editor. That's the stuff you see verses the stuff that actually happens.

chris mason
10-01-2003, 09:07 AM
Look, no personal attacks meant here. I am sure those of you involved in science try very hard a do a good job.

My point was my opinion. Most "science" in the field of weightlifting is hardly written in stone. It has been that way for years and years.

My disagreement with you should not be taken so personally. As I have pointed out before I have changed my mind a bit on a few things, but I know I have a pretty good grasp on the rest.

PowerManDL
10-01-2003, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by chris mason
My point was my opinion. Most "science" in the field of weightlifting is hardly written in stone. It has been that way for years and years.

Then what exactly are we basing our ideas on? Guesswork?

Ultimately it all comes down to implementation of the scientific method to theorize, test, and collect/interpret data, no matter how crude or sophisticated that process. To say otherwise is to suggest that these concepts are pulled out of someone's ass.

With that in mind, its really becoming a process of selectivism. I like this so I'll say its valid, I don't like that so I'll say its not. That's not a good approach. You can't just arbitrarily take ideas you like and ignore the ones you don't.

The point they're trying to make is that you have to read into the papers at length, not just the abstracts and certainly not a media interpretation, in order to draw any conclusions about results.

IceRgrrl
10-01-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by chris mason


My point was my opinion. Most "science" in the field of weightlifting is hardly written in stone. It has been that way for years and years.
I thought that's what we were discussing here...the varied approaches to training for athletic goals.


My disagreement with you should not be taken so personally. As I have pointed out before I have changed my mind a bit on a few things, but I know I have a pretty good grasp on the rest. [/B]

I didn't take your disagreement personally...I enjoy the exchange of ideas and viewpoints. What I found untenable was your assertion that your opinions/viewpoint were more valid than anyone else's and that they even extended so far as to refute hard science, i.e. you were right and everyone else, including the scientists/researchers/people who train elite athletes, were all wrong.

chris mason
10-01-2003, 11:40 AM
Well Ice, to me, my opinions are right. If I was not confident in that fact I would be pretty silly running around spouting off.

PowerManDL
10-01-2003, 11:42 AM
Right, based on?

ectx
10-01-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Well Ice, to me, my opinions are right. If I was not confident in that fact I would be pretty silly running around spouting off.

Chris,
First off, I'm not taking this personally either. I enjoy a good discussion. Second...I hate to argue semantics but an opinion by it's very nature is neither right nor wrong. It simply is.

chris mason
10-01-2003, 04:00 PM
Based on personal knowledge from 15 years of training. Based on extensive reading. Based on a college level education on anatomy, physiology, and nutrition. Based on discussions with others. Based on a generally above average intelligence. Based on training others.



Should I go on?

Maki Riddington
10-01-2003, 04:23 PM
"Based on personal knowledge from 15 years of training. Based on extensive reading. Based on a college level education on anatomy, physiology, and nutrition. Based on discussions with others. Based on a generally above average intelligence. Based on training others."

*** If you are stating that the knowledge you posess is superior simply because you have attended some basic college classes, read some books, discussed certain topics with people and have learned to think for yourself then you are mistaken.

What you have learned has lead you to believe what you feel is right, but that does not mean you hold the key to what is correct and what is not.

chris mason
10-01-2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
"Based on personal knowledge from 15 years of training. Based on extensive reading. Based on a college level education on anatomy, physiology, and nutrition. Based on discussions with others. Based on a generally above average intelligence. Based on training others."

*** If you are stating that the knowledge you posess is superior simply because you have attended some basic college classes, read some books, discussed certain topics with people and have learned to think for yourself then you are mistaken.

What you have learned has lead you to believe what you feel is right, but that does not mean you hold the key to what is correct and what is not.




Nor does it mean that I don't hold the key;) .


Look, I have not yet seen anyone here disprove anything I have had to say.

I am very confident in my views. As I have said before, I am right a heck of a lot more than I am wrong. So, yes, of course I am wrong sometimes, but I am right a lot more often.

Now, as to my being mistaken, I suppose someone could make that same comment about anyone, no?

It is what it is. People can read what I have to say and believe it or not.

To those who do read (and understand) what I have to say, and those who have practiced what I have preached, I think their results will speak for themselves.

To those who disagree, no worries, I will try to convince you and if I cannot then I at least know I have tried.

If and when I am wrong about something, well, I guess that is just the way it is.

Once in a great while I will read something someone else has said and it will cause me to change my thinking, or at least reconsider my opinion. I relish those days. I love to learn, but I equally disdain the perpetuation of misinformation and there is a LOT of it out there (and here).

Maki Riddington
10-01-2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Chris Mason
"Look, I have not yet seen anyone here disprove anything I have had to say."

*** If you're saying that in order for you to change your habit of thinking one must first discredit your beliefs, then you will never accommodate other people's outlooks on training philosophy until you decide to open your eyes. I don't think I'm alone when I say this to you. Not that this makes me correct, it just shows you that I'm not alone in my thinking.

"I am very confident in my views. As I have said before, I am right a heck of a lot more than I am wrong. So, yes, of course I am wrong sometimes, but I am right a lot more often."

*** I too am very confident in my way of thinking, however, I am always trying to analyze everything I believe in so that I don't fall into being close minded.
Being confident is good, no doubt about that, however taking pride in being correct and boasting about it is another. What's right and what's wrong when it comes to the very deep and mystifying issues surrounding training? No one is saying you're wrong, they're merely pointing out another angle. If you're simply caught up with the infatuation about being wrong, then your line of thinking will never allow you to be open minded.

chris mason
10-01-2003, 07:42 PM
Lol, man, what is the point of what you are saying?

I have an opinion. I have stated my opinion. You can agree or disagree.

To get into an esoteric discussion about the mystery of training and why I am right or wrong on my own confidence in my beliefs is pretty irrelevant to the discussion unless you are merely trying to personally attack me. If that is your goal, have at it.

It is one thing when someone is blatantly incorrect in a statement. I don't think you can find one such statement I have made. So, instead of worrying about why I believe what I do, why not argue your point? If it makes sense to me I will concede. If it doesn't, I will argue the point.

I am not sure why it seems to bother some people so much that I know wtf I am talking about. I have never been a braggart. If I was, I would constantly be raving about whatever lifts I perceive as being good. I might run around saying how much money I make etc.

When I say something, I say what I think as truthfully as I can. I happen to know a lot of weightlifting, that is a fact. There are many, many topics I don't know **** about. Guess what? This is a weightlifting site.

The fact that I am knowledgeable in this area and express that here should not be mistaken as my being an egomaniac. I am hardly that, I am just confident about that which I am familiar with.

This discussion is really silly, why not get back to training?

Maki Riddington
10-01-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Lol, man, what is the point of what you are saying?

I have an opinion. I have stated my opinion. You can agree or disagree.

To get into an esoteric discussion about the mystery of training and why I am right or wrong on my own confidence in my beliefs is pretty irrelevant to the discussion unless you are merely trying to personally attack me. If that is your goal, have at it.

It is one thing when someone is blatantly incorrect in a statement. I don't think you can find one such statement I have made. So, instead of worrying about why I believe what I do, why not argue your point? If it makes sense to me I will concede. If it doesn't, I will argue the point.

I am not sure why it seems to bother some people so much that I know wtf I am talking about. I have never been a braggart. If I was, I would constantly be raving about whatever lifts I perceive as being good. I might run around saying how much money I make etc.

When I say something, I say what I think as truthfully as I can. I happen to know a lot of weightlifting, that is a fact. There are many, many topics I don't know **** about. Guess what? This is a weightlifting site.

The fact that I am knowledgeable in this area and express that here should not be mistaken as my being an egomaniac. I am hardly that, I am just confident about that which I am familiar with.

This discussion is really silly, why not get back to training?

*** I have stated my opinion and why I feel you are so stubborn. To you it's all about 'who's' right and who's wrong, or so it seems.

So, it's quite futile to argue any point with you if you're going to pull this every time.

"Based on personal knowledge from 15 years of training. Based on extensive reading. Based on a college level education on anatomy, physiology, and nutrition. Based on discussions with others. Based on a generally above average intelligence. Based on training others."

galileo
10-01-2003, 08:14 PM
<double guns>

rookiebldr
10-01-2003, 08:16 PM
<lat spread>

IceRgrrl
10-02-2003, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by chris mason
Based on personal knowledge from 15 years of training. Based on extensive reading. Based on a college level education on anatomy, physiology, and nutrition. Based on discussions with others. Based on a generally above average intelligence. Based on training others.


Many of us here can claim similar backgrounds, yet we're able to simultaneously develop our opinions while keeping an open mind and revising/testing them based on the continuously developing body of knowledge and our own intellectual maturity.

Maki pretty much summed up why it is that people get frustrated with your statements, Chris. You seem to come off as very narrow-minded and somewhat egomaniacal---though I'd like to think that you don't mean to---and it makes a collegial exchange of ideas very difficult when one person puts his opnions forth as much more valid than anyone else's. It does seem to be all about who's right and who's wrong with you and that is what halts the exchange of ideas and intelligent debate.

IceRgrrl
10-02-2003, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by chris mason
[B]
I have an opinion. I have stated my opinion. You can agree or disagree.
The point is that others here arestating their opinion based on their own experience, education, reading, courses, training experience with others. You were the only person who was telling everyone that they were outright wrong.


It is one thing when someone is blatantly incorrect in a statement. I don't think you can find one such statement I have made. So, instead of worrying about why I believe what I do, why not argue your point? If it makes sense to me I will concede. If it doesn't, I will argue the point.
No one is saying that your points were not valid. The issue is your assertion that YOUR points were the only valid ones. It's not your opinions themselves, it's your lack of respect for other's opinions that is grating.


I am not sure why it seems to bother some people so much that I know wtf I am talking about. I have never been a braggart. If I was, I would constantly be raving about whatever lifts I perceive as being good. I might run around saying how much money I make etc.

The fact that I am knowledgeable in this area and express that here should not be mistaken as my being an egomaniac. I am hardly that, I am just confident about that which I am familiar with.

I don't know how to say this any more simply...I also know wtf I am talking about. Matt and Maki also know wtf they are talking about. Many of us have extensive knowledge and experience that lead us to our opinions. Why is it that yours are so much more worthy of note? Maybe they are to YOU, but we feel as strongly about ours. It's not your opinions, it's your arrogance and stubbornness about them that are the issue here.

It WAS a good thread...I think I'm done with it though. I guess I'll just go back to my advanced coursework, training my athletes, coaching my team, and attending those continuing education classes mandated by the governing body of my sport...

chris mason
10-02-2003, 08:29 AM
AND BEING WRONG


:evillaugh :evillaugh :evillaugh






Just kidding, errr...., well sort of.



Newsflash: I do feel my opinion is accurate, therefore if your opinion varies from mine I must think you are wrong.

No need to take that personally.

chris mason
10-02-2003, 09:06 AM
Just to be clear, I still love you all.


Don't mistake the perceived arrogance in my writing, or the strength of my opinions, to be a personal attack on any of you.

WillKuenzel
10-02-2003, 09:10 AM
Chris, so you are saying that you could, infact, create better athletes than 90% (just a number out of my ass) of the strength coaches in the world given all other factors being the same but training?

Neil
10-02-2003, 09:49 AM
What are 90% of the strength coaches teaching their athletes?

This whole thread started with an NFL strength coach who espouses a HIT type protocol. He isn't the only one, and they are all over professional sports.

chris mason
10-02-2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by HomeYield
Chris, so you are saying that you could, infact, create better athletes than 90% (just a number out of my ass) of the strength coaches in the world given all other factors being the same but training?


Not exactly. I do believe that I could create as good as or better a powerlifter or bodybuilder than anyone else (given the same person to work with). As for Olympic lifting, I am not as familiar and therefore not as confident in that arena.

I also believe I could create as good or better a football player. As to some other sports I am again not as confident because my knowledge of the sport is not as deep.

If I had time to completely familiarize myself with the nuances of the other sports I think I could do just as well.