Swissball ---> ATT. Mikkel Sand

ptpoul · June 5, 2004

Sinbad, nu forstår jeg du ikke mener Siff er en videnskabsmand af høj klasse.

Mel Siff is currently a Senior Lecturer in the School of Mechanical Engineering at the University of the Witwatersrand (popularly known as 'Wits' university), Johannesburg, South Africa, where he has been on its staff for about 30 years.
He has a PhD in physiology specialising in biomechanics, MSc (Applied Mathematics) awarded summa cum laude in brain research, BSc Honours in Applied Mathematics and a BSc (Physics, Applied Math). His serious involvement with the Internet began when he devised the unique concept of electronic education in sports science based on methods of propositional analysis pioneered by the ancient Grecian philosophers. This enterprise created the well-known weekly P&P's (Puzzles & Paradoxes) and F&F's (Facts & Fallacies) which he wrote for various user groups, including Sportscience, Physio, PTHER, FIT-L, Sport Psycho and Weights.
His main teaching duties at his university are in applied mechanics, biomechanics and professional communication. Previous appointments have included Acting Headships of the Sports Administration and the Communication Studies Division at his university, the latter post having involved him in researching communication models, the visual image, human symbol systems and language processing. Besides lecturing to engineering students, he regularly lectures to physiotherapy and physical education students at several universities in his country.
He has presented numerous papers at over 100 conferences in sports science, sports medicine, physiology, physical education, ergonomics, engineering, psychology, chiropractice, communication and linguistics. He has written more than 150 papers and books in these disciplines and was author/co- producer of the rock opera 'Genesis Won'. He has addressed numerous conferences of the NSCA in the USA and Australia, as well as IDEA in the USA and the Exercise Association in England.
After several working visits to Russia, he and renowned Russian scientist, Dr Yuri Verkhoshansky, wrote the major textbook 'Supertraining - Special Strength Training for Sporting Excellence'. This extensive volume offers one of the few definitive treatises available on integrated Western-Eastern methods of sports training. His other book 'Facts and Fallacies of Fitness' has become very popular among fitness professionals and the general public.
He was the longest-serving Chairman of his university's Sports Council (1971-78) and was largely responsible for establishing its professional Sports Administration. He was Vice-Chairman of the S African Weightlifting Union, Chairman of the Weightlifting, Karate and Trampoline Clubs at his university, as well as the national Chairman of the combined S African Universities Weightlifting Association. He is also a qualified weightlifting referee.
He was manager-coach for the South African Weightlifting team (1983-84) and received many awards in Olympic weightlifting at university, inter- university, state and national level. A former Sportsman of the Year at his university, he also represented the university in karate, track-and-field, trampolining and cricket. He introduced and taught the first aerobics classes at his university, later becoming an international judge in competitive aerobics. His services to the university were recognized in the form of two Meritorious Service Awards 'for exceptional contribution to sport', as well as a Sports Council Resolution (1978) that 'This Council thank Mel Siff, ex- Chairman and more recently, Sports Officer, for doing more for Wits Sport than any other individual in the history of the university'.
He has devised and co-ordinated for many years the highly successful Continuing Education Fitness Instruction courses at his university (in Personal Training, Sports Massage & Restoration, Aerobics Instruction, Exercise Science and Seated Fitness). As a highly experienced sports massage specialist who has trained with Bulgarian, Rumanian and other Eastern European experts, he introduced the first certificated Sports Massage courses to be offered at any university in his country. He and Dr Michael Yessis co-edited the textbook 'Sports Restoration and Massage' to provide a solid scientific foundation for this and other massage courses.
He has consulted for numerous sports organizations, teams, athletes or coaches in several countries in sports including track-and-field, weightlifting, rowing, tennis, swimming, karate, American football, rugby, boxing, fencing, basketball, volleyball, baseball, hockey, squash, gymnastics, competitive aerobics, cricket, underwater sports, golf, bodybuilding, dance and cycling.
His presentation of physiotherapeutic PNF (Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation) as an entire system of sports conditioning at the NSCA conference in Denver in 1989 marked the first steps of any scientist to take PNF out of the rehabilitation and stretching setting so as to provide a comprehensive system of sports training. A particular interest of his is the design of low-cost biomechanical research, training and rehabilitation devices to enable less affluent countries and institutions to undertake sophisticated work which would normally be beyond their reach. His collaboration with fellow engineering staff and senior students in this enterprise led to his establishing the first biomechanics facility at his university, as well as a comprehensively equipped weights gym and research facility at his home to enable him to extend his working day with minimal interruption. This facility also allows him to continue weightlifting training three times a week with other lifters, bodybuilders and athletes.
Currently a member of the Technical Committee of the Australian Strength & Conditioning Association, he is or has been a member of the NSCA, the Coaching Association of Canada, the US Weightlifting Federation and the Australian Coaching Council.

Relativt mange præsentationer, videnskabelige artikler, og flere meget anerkendte bøger.

Har været aktiv, leder eller deltager for en del internationalt anerkendte organisationer. Udført en del praktisk arbejde med træning af internationale atleter.

Dette giver mig et billede af ikke kun en anerkendt videnskabsmand, men også en der ikke havde tabt grebet om den praktiske dimension af dette emne..

Det er derfor vi har brug for Mikkel Sand, som jo kan komme med info direkte fra russerne

Will the real Mikkel Sand please stand up :w00t:

Sindbad · June 5, 2004

Sinbad, nu forstår jeg du ikke mener Siff er en videnskabsmand af høj klasse.
Mel Siff is
en hel masse
Relativt mange præsentationer, videnskabelige artikler, og flere meget anerkendte bøger.
Har været aktiv, leder eller deltager for en del internationalt anerkendte organisationer. Udført en del praktisk arbejde med træning af internationale atleter.
Dette giver mig et billede af ikke kun en anerkendt videnskabsmand, men også en der ikke havde tabt grebet om den praktiske dimension af dette emne..

Jeps, fint nok, men IMAO er der alligevel et stykke vej fra anerkendt videnskabsmand til videnskabsmand af højeste klasse...

Pubmed viser ikke de helt vilde hits (noget med tobaksrygning :blink: )

Jeg siger ikke, at han ikke er dygtig, har ret, er praktiker, er mere videnskabelig end Chek. Jeg er blot ikke overbevist om, at han er videnskabsmand af "højeste klasse". Og undskyld, hvis jeg tager dig for bogstaveligt, for hvis din pointe er, at der rent faktisk ligger videnskabeligt grundlag bag, så er det fint med mig... :)

sas · June 5, 2004

No offence :tongue:

Har Siff nogensinde vægttrænet? Det er lidt svært at dømme ud fra billeder ;)

Edited June 5, 2004 by sas

Henning Friis · June 5, 2004

No offence
Har Siff nogensinde vægttrænet? Det er lidt svært at dømme ud fra billeder ;)

I sine unge dage var han vægtløfter i Sydafrika. Han gjorde et stort stykke arbejde for sporten i dette land, og jeg mener sågar han var national mester på et tidspunkt.

Derudover har han også dyrket karate.

Nicolai Thygesen · June 6, 2004

Hey Nicolai jeg ville bare pointere, at der måske var et endnu bedre alternativ end swiss ball (læg mærke til at jeg skrev endnu bedre=swissballs er gode

Du er vist, at blive for blød på dine gamle dage! :hippy:

ptpoul · June 6, 2004

No offence
Har Siff nogensinde vægttrænet? Det er lidt svært at dømme ud fra billeder

A former Sportsman of the Year at his university, he also represented the university in karate, track-and-field, trampolining and cricket.

His collaboration with fellow engineering staff and senior students in this enterprise led to his establishing the first biomechanics facility at his university, as well as a comprehensively equipped weights gym and research facility at his home to enable him to extend his working day with minimal interruption. This facility also allows him to continue weightlifting training three times a week with other lifters, bodybuilders and athletes.

Edited June 6, 2004 by ptpoul

Jørgen L · June 6, 2004

Jeg undskylder uforbeholdent!
Et mere præcist udtryk havde været manglende indsigt i det specifikke område!

Jeg vil nu vælge at se bort fra din arrogante tone, og antage at du mener jeg ikke kender Chek så godt som dig. Og det er også rigtigt. Vi leger ikke "min videnskabsmand er klogere end din". Min pointe har bare fra starten været: Manden har nogle pointer. Bl.a. omkring brugen af bælte. ;)

Jeg er sikker på at det er en udemærket bog..
Underligt at du kritiserer den uden at have læst den?

Poul - jeg kritiserer den ikke.. Det er jo derfor jeg skriver sådan.. :unsure:

At du senere vender det til den antagelse, at jeg mener alt kan kvantificeres i form af "randomiserede behandlingsmetoder"

Det er jo fordi du kritiserer Chek for ikke at have referencerne i orden. Og så siger jeg egentlig bare: Det kan godt være brugbart, uden at der er randomiserede forsøg. Poul, jeg har også haft videnskabelig metode på studiet, så du behøver ikke fortælle mig hvilken metode der bedst viser validitet B)

Jeg finder det interessant at du mener at en given træningsmetodik er ubrugelig så længe den ikke er bevist da jeg tidligere i denne tråd leverede dette citat:

Jeg siger jo også netop det modsatte :blink:

Jeg vil i morgen grave de førnævnte kritikpunkter fra Siff frem. Så kan du selv vurdere hans argumentation.

Det bestemmer du selv om du vil, men det kunne da være interessant at se om han mener noget andet end Chek omkring bolden og bæltet

Jeg beklager at mine svigtende sproglige kvaliteter

Jeg mener ikke du har spoglige problemer - tværtimod, du skal bare lære at styre dit temperament B)

Jeg er meget interesseret i dit svar, da du har meget at dele

Lige over! :)

ptpoul · June 6, 2004

Jeg siger ikke, at han ikke er dygtig, har ret, er praktiker, er mere videnskabelig end Chek. Jeg er blot ikke overbevist om, at han er videnskabsmand af "højeste klasse". Og undskyld, hvis jeg tager dig for bogstaveligt, for hvis din pointe er, at der rent faktisk ligger videnskabeligt grundlag bag, så er det fint med mig...

Hmm, god pointe med pubmed... Ud fra hvad jeg har læst om manden er han vældig anerkendt. Om han er af højeste klasse, ved vel kun andre videnskabsmænd der har udført denne form for arbejde selv og har læst de fulde artikler og vurderet disse!

Det kunne være rart at få en vurdering af dette fra en kompetent kilde!

Ud fra det jeg har postet virker han bare pænt vild!!!

MS kom an! Mell Siff tager dig ud på "bloated CV" delen :D

Jeg har brugt et par timer på at søge igennem Supertraining newsgroups arkiver..

Læg mærke til i diskussionerne at Chek ikke kan modargumentere med andet end: min erfaring siger mig...

Læg mærke till Siff's brug af referencer til tilgængelig videnskabelig litteratur, hvor Chek ikke kan frembyde noget på helt centrale elementer omkring mandens træning.

Om swiss balls:

Swiss Ball and Bigger Bench
Steve Bubel wrote:
<I must admit that in my earlier (naive) training days I, too, fell into the
"guru" speak. They would have you believe that the Swiss Ball is the secret
to every malady suffered by exercisers. While some exercises are fantastic
others are quite ludicrous.>
*** It will be to your great advantage realising that no training tool is
complete on its own and that the intelligent use of a well-selected variety
of individualised training methods offers a far wider range of conditioning
possibilities. Of course, the ball offers some interesting training
variations for different applications, but it certainly cannot qualify as a
universal training tool.
<For the groups perusal I include the following bits from Paul Chek's "Why
Train with a Swiss Ball?" article.
Swiss Balls...
a) Improve the function of the neutralizer and stabilizer muscles.
B) Improve posture by strengthening the stabilizer musculature of the spine.
c) Improve balance and agility by destabilizing the training environment.
d) Increase core strength and development.
e) Develop strength in all planes of movement.
f) Challenge your nervous system. >
*** This is all conjecture, especially if one is hoping for ball training to
produce significant transfer to the actual sporting arena. As we have noted,
balance and stabilisation tend to be very specific to the sport and the
activity in that sport, so that the ball will not develop these qualities
more efficiently than the movements of the sport itself. The comment about
challenging the nervous system is so general that it applies to almost
everything in life. As I commented earlier, the playing of a musical
instrument is far more neurally challenging - does that necessarily mean that
playing a cello will directly enhance one's sporting performance? If one
wishes to make claims about "neural challenge", then they must be made with
specific reference to the precise situation
involved.
One cannot use the Ball for maximal or supramaximal efforts in any lifts, so
it cannot offer superior strengthening or stabilisation than the lifting
sports themselves. We have also discussed the fact that the skills and
muscles involved in efforts against lighter and heavier loads do not remain
constant, so that lighter training on a ball will not necessarily enhance
certain abilities on terra firma (such as the lifting platform) when 1RMs are
being attempted.
The claim that ball training will "improve posture by strengthening the
stabilizer musculature of the spine" is not supported by research, which
shows that poor posture is not necessarily a consequence of compromised
strength. Posture is determined not by structural muscle strength, but by
the neural and motor control processes which orchestrate how the muscles will
function and hold the body in any given position, or move it from one
position to the next.
The claim that ball training will "improve the function of the neutralizer
and stabilizer muscles" is another very general statement which may be
applied equally to any activities which involve movement in free space.
However, the ball does not allow one to explore space anywhere near as
extensively and challengingly as sports and other activities which permit one
to move the limbs freely in all directions, including those which involve the
very important ability to use the "stepping reflex" to correct any deviations
from static or dynamic balance.
Anyway, the categorisation of certain muscles as neutralisers and
stabilisers, as is often done traditionally and archaically, tends to make us
lose sight of the fact that many of our muscles do not play a single role in
the body, but change their roles from instant to instant in any extended
range activity. Muscles can also simultaneously play a stabilising and
moving role.
In other words, the categorisation of muscles into neat little compartments
is yet another vestige of the old traditions which preserve the idea of
isolation of function. The sooner that we realise the huge limitations
imposed by clinging to any belief in isolated activity of any physiological
or anatomical system, the better for the entire field of physical training
and rehabilitation. Isolation methods usually are intended for handling
certain pathologies, often by the use of biofeedback methods, but they have
minimal role in the training of the normal individual.
The claim that the ball will "develop strength in all planes of movement"
ignores the fact that far superior strengthening may be provided by more
heavily loaded free weight training in free space (not lying or sitting in a
confined position) or in activities such as gymnastics, wrestling and judo.
For example, try doing snatch grip overhead squats, first in a normal stable
stance and then try it by slightly displacing your body in space. Then, do
the same with squat or split style holdings of the overhead jerk. As the
load increases, so greater and greater demands are placed on many of the
muscles, especially those playing a stabilising role. These methods
constitute what we may refer to as "imperfection training" (p457 of
"Supertraining" 2000).
<I do not refute these claims, but I know that everyone can think of hundreds
of non-Swiss Ball exercises that can accomplish these same objectives. In my
wisdom, I have come to learn that every "guru" has to have a gimmick. Paul
Chek's is The Swiss Ball.>
*** You are quite correct in stating that there are hundreds of non-ball
exercises which can achieve the same objectives as those claimed for ball
drills, often in less time and more specifically to suit one's individual
needs, especially in some therapeutic roles (remember that the ball has been
borrowed from the world of physical therapy, where it has been used for many
decades for managing the early stages of musculoskeletal rehabilitation).
However, if the ball offers some variety demanded by certain individuals,
then it will have served some purpose. It is just that the exaggerated
claims about ball conditioning are neither borne out by research or practice
in competitive sport. Those who visit my training facility will notice a
ball there, but it forms a very minor aspect of the armamentorium of training
methods which I use for myself or athletes. And so it should be!
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA

Om stabilitetstræning:

<<I just want to clarify something else about my position on the great
stabilizer debate. I am not a huge fan of specific stabilizer training. I
have seen most of Paul Chek's videos, and I cannot honestly think of a time
in my training when I would devote a whole workout to some of his exercises
for stabilizers.>>
Mel Siff:
***Several issues are fundamental to the whole stabilisation saga :
1. The ability to stabilise with little or no load does not automatically
enable one to stabilise under heavy loads
2. Stabilising training on an unstable surface does not necessarily endow
one with the ability to stabilise on a rigid surface when the body is
suddenly displaced by its own movement or by external influences
3. The ability to stabilise at low speeds does not enable one to stabilise
effectively at higher speeds
4. The body does not necessarily use the same stabilisation strategy each
time it tries to stabilise under the same conditions - there are multiple
solutions to every stabilisng equation
5. Large deviations from a stable position are relatively harmless if the
loading on the body is small, but they can be very dangerous if the load is
large (e.g. in weightlifting or powerlifting)
6. Stabilisation training in a situation which keeps the centre of mass (COM)
of the body-load system low does not automatically allow one to stabilise in
a situation in which the COM of the body-load system is higher (as in
overhead pressing or jerking).
7. The proprioceptive information referred to the brain by foot contact with
a resilient ball is very different from information fed back to the brain by
foot contact on a rigid surface
8. The ability to cope effectively and safely as possible with postures that
are not close to stability is just as important as the ability to return to a
position of stability (since one is frequently forced into positions of
instability in all sports, especially those involving impact with other
players).
9. A position of 'ideal' stability or posture can still lead to injury if
the body is loaded too intensively or for too long
10. Regular deviations and oscillations away from the 'ideal' position of
stability is nature's way of minimising the risk of injury or dysfunction
caused by focalised pressure (according to information arising from research
in Nonlinear Dynamics).
So, before one extols the virtues of any stabilising training method, let the
above few points be borne carefully in mind, even if one has some vested
interest in promoting various balancing devices or training courses.
---------------------------------
Dr Mel C Siff

Generel diskussion Chek/Siff; inden det blev grimt :(

Abdominal Conditioning: Chek & Siff
Some people have been commenting that Paul Chek and I some day need to have a
one-on-one debate because we have never done so. On the contrary, we have
had several open debates on various aspects of training and rehabilitation.
Here is one of them from Oct 1998 which appeared on another listserv before
our Supertraining list came into being. On this occasion we took part in
what generally was a rather productive discussion, even if it became very
long. Here is a copy of some of the discussion.
----------------------------------------
Paul Chek wrote:
* Wow Mel! I will have to schedule time off to answer your post. I will do
my best to be concise and make my counter-points.
Mel:
*** Me, too, but because this issue of weird and wonderful abs is such a
focal point of fitness training today, it deserves a lot more clarification.
BACKGROUND
First of all, I must clarify one issue. You constantly comment on my input as
if I am a theoretical scientist with no practical or clinical experience,
which tends to give you and others a very limited view of the scope of my
analysis.
Actually, virtually none of my work has ever been done for solely theoretical
reasons. Most of the subjects involved in my research or training
programmes have been competitive athletes, fitness lovers or ordinary injured
folk who have been referred to me by their doctors or physical therapists.
For many years, besides my main job as professor in mechanical engineering
dept, I have been involved in lecturing in biomechanics and strength
rehabilitation or training to departments of physical therapy and physical
education.
Numerous projects in the departments of physiology, physical therapy,
anatomy, orthopaedics, occupational therapy and others in the Faculty of
medicine at my university and with many private physical therapists,
orthopaedic surgeons and sports doctors led me to become practically involved
in the rehabilitation of hundreds of subjects with many musculoskeletal
disorders, including the back.
This led to my being invited to lecture at several chiropractic, physical
therapy and sports medicine conferences on lifting mechanics and back
rehabilitation, where the emphasis was on practical methods, rather than
theoretical modelling.
As national coach in S African weightlifting, I worked with hundreds of
competitive lifters right up to national level and I competed nationally in
weightlifting, powerlifting and karate and carried out many biomechanical
tests on these and many other athletes. I was deeply involved in the
preparation and future training of some of the world's most successful teams
in cricket and rugby.
So, now may I be permitted to talk to you as a fellow practitioner and seeker
who is not just sitting ensconced in some ivory tower proclaiming from a
place which many coaches and clinicians think is inhabited by alien creatures
in white coats waiting to dissect earthly cockroaches?
Right, now on to the major discussion:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel:
ANALYTICAL DIFFICULTIES
(Paul was offering his views on recruitment and control of deeper muscles of
the trunk)
<This is an intriguing comment. How does one definitely confirm that this
is the order of events without the use of microelectrodes or needle
electrodes inserted into the different components of the abdominal muscles?...
......Visual or palpatory methods are even more equivocal than EMGs,
especially since transversus may be recruited in several different ways,
including pulling in or rapid distention of the abdominal area - research
has even indicated that transversus is one of the first muscles to become
activated during forward walking.>
Paul:
Yes, in a laboratory setting these things are all of real importance. If I
relied on such intricate mechanisms I would have a $500,000+ tool box and
would need my patients to stay for days at a time to get to the bottom of
thins. The fact is, most of my patients come to me after failing in the
medical system where they have had extensive EMG studies, conduction velocity
studies, MRI arthogram, and most every expensive and invasive test you can
imagine and they are not better off! I have been in business for many years
successfully rehabilitating the people that the fancy equipment couldn't
help, so believe me, if you are a skilled clinician you only need this stuff
to develop conceptual models and confirm or not confirm your clinical
suspicions.
Mel:
Costly apparatus is unnecessary - all of my research apparatus was built for
me personally or as part of student projects at a fraction of the commercial
cost. Certainly, we found palpatory, 'eye-balling' and simple movement
tests, like the standard ones used by many phyios most helpful, but when we
allied that with some quickly administered laboratory tests, the results were
even better.
Unfortunately, reliance on being a skilled clinician is another isolationist
approach which sometimes can have serious consequences. I recall some other
expert who was vainly trying to rehabilitate someone with chronic back pain.
Several of the tests you mentioned showed inadequate transversus and internal
oblique strength, as well as a serious deficit in multifidus strength. For
weeks, a series of pelvic tilting, breathing, postural realignment and other
remedies, plus pain-killers were tried, but to no avail. Eventually, he was
sent for a CAT scan and other conventional laboratory medical tests - lo and
behold, this poor man had cancer of the spine!
On other occasions, force plate tests and EMG studies have shown up
pathologies which skilled clinicians have failed to detect. On the other
hand, the most intricate laboratory tests have not been able to detect latent
heart disease or distinguish between different neuromuscular disorders.
In other words, it is a good idea to integrate the best of which both
scientists and clinicians have to offer and not to throw out anyone
discipline because of personal preferences.
Paul:
How do I do it??
The transverse abdominus ( TVA) has fibers that are in the transverse plane.
By the very nature of the architecture of the muscle, if it fires it always
draws the umbilicus toward the spine, exaggerates the oblique line,
is accompanied by recruitment of the multifidus, pelvic floor and often the
diaphragm. . . .
Mel:
The pulling in of the umbilicus and exaggeration of the oblique line is not
observed to occur during the squat, clean, bench press, snatch or deadlift,
since a reflex distension of the abdominal region occurs in all maximal
lifting and pushing tasks.
Paul:
<When an individual loads a bar and places it upon his/her back, there is an
immediate stabilization response secondary to the mechanoreceptor input from
all involved joints, particularly the weight bearing joints. >
Mel:
??? I don't follow what you mean here. This is a very general remark which
needs to be elaborated upon to be meaningful in the context of trunk
stabilisation. Recent research distinguishes between the different
stabilisation processes involved if loading of the spine is compressive or
shearing.
Others attribute this initial acute stabilisation reflex to depend largely on
increases in intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal pressure, rather than simple
mechanoreception (by the way, are you regarding mechanoreception as the same
as proprioception or as a more limited process involving only mechanical
transduction?).
Paul:
<This input is combined with the conscious command to run the generalized
motor program "squat" for example, which also activates all stabilizer
functions tied to the engram. >
Mel:
Are you using the term 'engram' in the sense used in Scientology to refer to
"a mental image picture which is a recording of an experience containing
pain, unconsciousness and a real or fancied threat to survival. It is a
recording in the reactive mind of something which actually happened to an
individual in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness, both of
which are recorded in the mental image picture called an engram. It must, by
definition, have impact or injury as part of its content. These engrams are
a complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception
present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness".
Or are you using it in its original archaic sense as an "engraved memory"
(hence 'engram')? Either way, what is meant by stabiliser functions being
tied to an engram?
Paul:
<My observation begins immediately upon the decision is made to "squat" as
that is when you see the body in the set-up or preparation phase. Once
loaded, I will observe and palpate for recruitment of the TVA, multifidus,
tension in the thoracolumbar fascia watch respiratory patterns. Although good
stabilization is usually obvious immediately, I will observe the entire
process of execution and return to the rack. >
Mel:
Of course, we know that the very act of palpation being applied during active
movement can modify the kinaesthetic input to the nervous system and skew the
results. This is emphasized in many books such as Knott & Voss
"Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation" and is actually used by Russian
coaches as a form of 'kinaesthetic manipulation' to deliberately influence
patterns of muscle activation.
Paul:
As one passes through the sticking point (in particular) I will observe the
action of the abdominal wall and associated segments.
Mel:
Is this just by visual observation? Which associated segments? As research
given in my original post mentioned, the variations in recruitment, including
left to right symmetry, are often idiosyncractic and non-repeatable, even
with careful instrumented analysis, so how can eye-balling achieve more?
Paul:
If the TVA is contributing appropriately, the umbilicus will have moved
progressively toward the spine until the stabilization threshold is crossed
(a term I developed to indicate the point at which gross stabilization is
observed or palpated).
Mel:
What is a stabilisation threshold? This idea of thresholds may apply to
all-or-none processes such as action-potential firing of nerve cells, but
increasing amounts of research show that traditional concepts of homeostasis
and balance in the body are no longer acceptable. Even the concept of
'anaerobic' or lactate thresholds are no lonegr being applied as casually as
they used to.
In the case of joint and overall trunk stabilisation, there is no single
finely tuned threshold of stabilisation, but a region or continuum in which
the joint or body 'hunts around' for a specific moment in a dynamically
changing metastable situation to ensure that the movement may continue or
stop in a given way. There is no single mathematical solution to the problems
of balance and stabilisation of the body - there are always several variable
strategies which may be adopted to cope with a given situation.
Research is showing that when the degree of variability decreases and the
range of stability becomes more finely defined, then the likelihood of injury
and disease (including heart attacks and epileptic seizures) tends to
increase. In know that this sounds paradoxical, but this research is being
found to agree with many clinical observations.
Paul:
If the TVA is dormant the abdominal wall gets thicker anterior to posterior
right away, usually before the descent even begins.
Mel:
How can one be categoric about transversus being dormant while increases in
intra-abdominal pressure caused by breath holding are occurring? Are your
subjects performing submaximal, breathing squats?
How can one ever measure the anterior to posterior thickness of the abdominal
wall without invasive surgical procedures or costly MRI or PET scans? - oh,
sometimes, very skilled use of certain ultrasound scanners can give a good
approximation! One certainly cannot differentially palpate this from the
contribution made by other tissues and muscles.
If you are referring to thickening due to muscle contraction, the same
comment applies, but once the recti abdominis are taut, you cannot palpate or
differentiate transversus during a heavy squat (as mentioned earlier, there
is a reflex distension of this region which counters any inward pull via
connective tissues).
Paul:
Many individuals with inverted recruitment patterns have some common findings.
Mel:
In my earlier post I asked exactly what an inverted recruitment pattern is -
I am still none the wiser. Do you mean 'inverse' recruitment or are you
referring to an inverse stretch reflex or what? Where was this type of
syndrome first described clinically?
Paul:
Many individuals with inverted recruitment patterns have some common findings:
- often use weight belts
- often suffer from low back pain . . . . .
- there is frequently restriction of the middle thoracic spine and inability
to reverse the thoracic curvature
....to name a few
Mel:
No doubt you have read my comments on the different ways of wearing a belt
and how we must distinguish between belts as mechanical supports and belts as
lightly-worn kinaesthetic devices and belts being used for maximal attempts
and belts being worn all the time. No published clinical studies or research
have shown that all forms of belt usage correlate significantly with the
incidence of back pain or dysfunction. There are far more folk with back
problems who do not wear belts or lift heavy weights.
Of more concern is your remark that one can 'reverse the thoracic curvature'.
The reversal of this thoracic convexity is a rare pathological condition and
never occurs in normal daily life or under any sporting conditions. Reversal
of this curvature means changing the thoracic convexity to concavity, so that
the upper back curves inwards just like the lower back! Is this really what
you mean? It is impossible voluntarily to reverse the thoracic convexity -
don't even mention this concept anywhere in the medical field, because it is
wrong.
Mel:
<Many researchers (e.g. see Basmajian "Muscles Alive") have shown that
vigorous exhalation . . . or explosive tensing of the abdominal muscle
complex (as often done during Olympic or power lifts) automatically activates
the obliques far more than rectus abdominis, so that heavy lifting, if anyt
hing, tends to delay or neglect activation of the superficial ab muscles.
Paul:
<The external obliques are superficial ab muscles. >
Mel:
The internal obliques are not superficial and invasive EMGs show that both of
the obliques reflexively become far more actively involved than rectus
abdominis in heavy lifting and pushing tasks.
Mel:
<Other material cited by Basmajian shows that apparent contraction of the
recti abdominis is due more to passive bulging than electrical activation
during this sort of stabilising task. In addition, several of his colleagues
have confirmed that the recti are far less electrically active than the
obliques during trunk stabilization in response to lifting or pushing tasks.
Paul:
<This is very task specific in my opinion. The fascia of the oblique muscles
invests the rectus muscles, therefore any contraction of the oblique muscles
would cause a palpatory tightening of what would appear to be the rectus
muscles. There is a distance difference to the trained hand.>
Mel:
It is not possible to distinguish by palpation between passive increase in
muscle tension or active contraction of muscle - one can crudely distinguish
differences in tension and gross location of changes in tension.
Anyway, what you have just written is almost a rephrasing of what I wrote,
namely that the obliques are responsible for the primary contraction and this
is associated with secondary passive involvement of rectus (along with
activation caused by increases in intra-abdominal pressure produced by breath
holding). So we agree that the abs are not the primary stabilisers in
lifting tasks . . ?
Paul :
<Olympic lifts are all pulling lifts, which require only enough recruitment
of the rectus abdominus to stabilize the thorax, providing an effective force
generating platform for the extensors of the body. If the abdominals
did not activate sufficiently to resist the force of the extensors the body
would just collapse on the floor. >
Mel:
Olympic lifts have been shown also to be strongly similar to jumps and
activation of the recti abdominis (via the passive bulging and activation
caused by intra-abdominal pressure) as shown by EMG and intra-abdominal
pressure recordings is greater than that recorded with any form of unloaded
supine situps, crunches or leg raises.
You referred to abs as stabilising the thorax in lifting - now the thorax
anatomically is just the chest, so once again we are referring to the passive
role of the abs, since active use of the abs as trunk flexors would cause
rounding of the lumbar spine and this is dangerous during any Olympic lifting
or powerlifting.
Mel:
< Moreover, EMG studies show that the erector spinae, hamstrings and gluteal
muscles play a far more significant active role than any of the abdominal
muscles (their role is more passive) during lifting (Vorobyev 'Textbook on
Weightlifting' has many EMGs on weightlifters showing this), so it always
intrigues me why physical therapists in particular seem to be so fanatical
about the apparently overriding importance of the abdominal muscles during
lifting.>
Paul:
Most of what I assume you are referring to is looking at pulling movements.
If not, please tell me which studies to read and then I can make an
intelligent response.
Mel:
See above - I gave the one study written by Vorobyev - you will find others
in "Spine" journal, the Journal of Biomechanics, Ergonomics and several other
places. I am busy collecting summaries of all these back articles at present
and have so far found more than 2000 references (in the journals above and
many others) - how on earth I am going to reduce them to manageable size I do
not know. Anyway, as I come across relevant ones (like the one on spinal
disc shrinkage), I will continue to send them to this group.
Regarding your lengthy comments on the role played by passive bulging of the
abs in stabilising the trunk, I can clarify the picture thus:
The abdominal muscles in a role as antagonists to hyperextension of the
spine, can be activated in two ways:
Action 1 : bringing its distal and proximal attachments closer together to
cause active flexion of the spine (as during situps or overhead throws)
Action 2 : creating a very tense band of muscle-connective tissue across the
front of the body which assists the actively involved deeper abdominal
musculature to allow the trunk to become a much stronger pneumatically
supported structure (as in pulls, squats and bench press) or to prevent the
trunk from moving into dangerous hyperextension (as in standing presses).
When I spoke about its role as a involuntary passive stabiliser, I was
referring to the latter role. Obviously, if the abs were not electrically
activated via all the nerves serving them, then they could not act as a
supportive sheet of anything - I should have mentioned that, instead of just
assuming that would be understood. The point I wished to stress was that
Action 1 (trunk flexion) is totally inappropriate for any form of
weightlifting or powerlifting, while Action 2 of the abs is what dominates
during lifting and pushing.
Mel wrote:
EXTRA AB EXERCISE NECESSARY?
<As Dr Spassov, Bulgarian weightlifting coach, and other lifting coaches have
stressed, if one does lifting training which includes the weightlifting and
powerlifting movements, then there is no need for additional abdominal
exercise, because heavy lifting training and its accompanying stabilization
processes, naturally condition the abdominal muscles. For bodybuilders, yes,
but for athletes who do strength training, no supplementary abdominal
training is required.
Paul :
I will give them a free copy of my new Core Conditioning correspondence
course if you will give me their contact details. I bet you that if they can
step outside their dogma they will change their mind.
Mel:
Don't assume that they are dogmatic - the Russian and Eastern European
scientists base their methods on considerable research and translation of
much Western science and they would most certainly have used additional
abdominal training methods if they had found that it would have helped them
dominate world sport.
I can assure you that Spassov, Medvedev, Verkhoshansky, Zatsiorski, Ozolin,
and others of their ilk have seen and done considerable work on trunk
strengthening and stabilisation, so they are hardly ignorant of what is out
there. They have no minds to change - their methods enabled their athletes to
dominate Olympic sports for many decades and that speaks volumes for their
methods.
Paul:
When I met Poliquin he was making world record holders and Gold medalists
every year and I completely changed his mind and he is not an easy sell, I
assure you. IF you don't believe me Mel, call him. Ask Al Vermeil of the
Bulls if he thinks the abdominals are just a piece of connective tissue, and
if my approach works?
Mel:
While these two coaches have worked with many top performing athletes, and
though I have great respect for Al from my own work with the Bulls, neither
of these men is a scientist or clinician who is capable of commenting
definitively on the biomechanics of trunk action. In that respect, I would
be more inclined to be convinced by a great scientist and practitioner such
as Dr Zatsiorsky (whose knowledge Al also finds astounding). Unfortunately, I
have seen too many functional anatomical errors in Charles' work for me to be
guided by it yet.
Mel wrote:
<Do you have any references which shed more light on the abdominal muscle
complex (AMC) recruitment issue during different types of movement, other
than the ones which I have mentioned above? It would be most unusual for any
lifters to actively recruit and not passively distend the abs during lifting,
so I am fascinated about the kinesiology displayed by this particular group
of athletes. As far as I know, few, if any definitive EMG studies have been
carried out on the muscle recruitment patterns of the AMC of weightlifters or
powerlifters.
Any references yet? Unfortunately, for every one of your anecdotal successes
with isolated ab training, others could produce just as many anecdotal tales
of equal or greater success without specialised ab training (e.g. by Russian
coaches who have produced thousands of Olympians) - I would rather like to
see science direct either of us in a way which either reinforces or modifies
our anecdotal experiences.
Mel wrote:
<Spinal injury, contrary to what is commonly believed is quite rare among
Olympic lifters (about 8% of all injuries, according to a study published in
the IWF Weightlifting magazine). Moreover, elite powerlifters whom I know are
concerned that too many folk take part in powerlifting contests without
adequate technical training, because they think that powerlifting does not
require the same skill as Weightlifting. Were your 'patients' elite lifters?
Paul:
Your 8% is based on lifters of what caliber? I have had patients of all
levels of proficiency although I have never treated a world class Olympic
lifter, just competitors. I have certainly studied them though.
Mel:
That IWF publication referred to 'ranked' lifters; in other words, ones who
competed at national and international level in Russia. They also have
studies performed on athletes at all levels of proficiency, right from
childhood up to Master and International Master class (some of the translated
material is in Dr Yessis' "Soviet Sports Review").
We will have to stop there, Paul - I don't know how many readers will manage
to read through both of our posts, but let's hope that it has been a useful
exercise for those who have had the trunk endurance to do so!
--------------------------
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA

Links til siff artikler/udtalelser. Kræver at man registrerer sig som bruger af supertraining newsgroup. Meget god info!!!

Tips til søgningen kan fås via en PM til mig :D

Sikkerhed og swissballs

Omm tungen/nakkestabilisation

Chek's top styrkeløftere/rehabilitering af rygskader

problematikken vedr. voluntær aktivering af TVA

Siff diskuterer Chek's back storn and beltless artikel

coretraining/stabilitets fallacy

bænkpres og chek

Mere bænk og chek

stabilisations myten

Chek's svar på bænk kritik

Siff tager Chek i en løgn

Videre diskussion af bænk mellem siff/chek

Jørgen L · June 6, 2004

OK, jeg vender tilbage om en måneds tid, når jeg har læst det :lol:

ptpoul · June 6, 2004

Poul - jeg kritiserer den ikke.. Det er jo derfor jeg skriver sådan..

At påpege begrænsninger i bogen er vel en kritik?

Jeg vil nu vælge at se bort fra din arrogante tone, og antage at du mener jeg ikke kender Chek så godt som dig. Og det er også rigtigt. Vi leger ikke "min videnskabsmand er klogere end din".

Hmm, ærgeligt at jeg ikke må påpeje mangler i et meget specifikt område af din viden (om supertraining bogen), jeg forsøger at gøre det på en pæn måde og ikke arrogant.. Igen svigter min formuleringsevne mig :(

Jeg siger jo også netop det modsatte

Min pointe var at jeg selv har leveret et citat der klart viser MIN holdning:

Evolution and expansion in any endeavor is supported by looking outside of what is written in textbooks for by then it is already common knowledge and too late to be cutting edge.

I dette tilfælde laver Chek bare sååå mange eklatante fejl i sin dokumentation, at det eneste han står tilbage med er sine erfaringer..

Jeg mener ikke du har spoglige problemer - tværtimod, du skal bare lære at styre dit temperament

Ærgeligt at du ikke vil tage imod min undskyldning, men meget forståeligt da det var tåbeligt formuleret fra min side :( Håber det fremgår, at min intention ikke var at udvise mangel på respekt over for dig, eller at trække niveauet af diskussionen ned, til der hvor det handler om sarkasme og namecalling. :bblush:

ptpoul · June 6, 2004

OK, jeg vender tilbage om en måneds tid, når jeg har læst det

Det er nu relativt let læst..

Damn et arbejde med at grave det frem. Alle links'ne er Siff der påpeger fejl på fejl hos Chek.

Meget væsenligt hvis man vælger at stole for meget på Chek's udtalelser..

Chek har noget at byde på -især hans evne til at formidle tungt stof. Her fejler folk som Zaitsorsky og Siff.. En lektie de kunne have lært af Chek's popularitet og evne til at popularisere sit budskab!

Jørgen L · June 6, 2004

OK Poul, du behøver ikke undskylde - lad os viske tavlen ren og starte fra scratch:

Fint stykke arbejde med søgningen!

1. Jeg tror på at Supertraining er en glimrende bog. Den indeholder ikke alle sandheder, og sikkert også et par usandheder, men efter hvad der berettes her på boardet, er den garanteret over gennemsnittet. Jeg læser den en dag, når jeg har noget mere fritid :)

2. Jeg mener, at swisballs er en glimrende metode til stabilitetstræning. Hos raske individer er bolden en udemærket metode til afveksling fra den daglige træning. Måske kan bolden i nogle sammenhænge endda betyde fremskridt i træningen, idet motivationen kan tænkes at stige når man begynder på en ny træningsmetode (Jeg tænker på den motivation man oplever hos motionister, når de præsenteres for en ny træningsmetode)

3. Jeg mener at brug af bælte er komplet meningsløst/tåbeligt medmindre man deltager i konkurrencer hvor alle andre bruger støtteanordninger. Kan man som almindelig motionist ikke løfte vægten uden bælte, bør man lade være. Her korrelerer min holdning vist med Chek.

4. Jeg mener, at raske mennesker sagtens kan have brug for stabilitetstræning, selvom de ikke (endnu) har smerter eller gener. Det kan trænes specifikt med eksempelvis swissball/therabands/mtt udstyr (trækapparat).

Hvis du er uenig i noget af dette (det er du jo nok B) ), foreslår jeg at du kommer med din egen holdning, evt kombineret med referencer til noget af det Siff siger. Helst begrundet med argumenter. :)

ptpoul · June 6, 2004

3. Jeg mener at brug af bælte er komplet meningsløst/tåbeligt medmindre man deltager i konkurrencer hvor alle andre bruger støtteanordninger. Kan man som almindelig motionist ikke løfte vægten uden bælte, bør man lade være. Her korrelerer min holdning vist med Chek.

Det kommer an på hvor tungt man træner. Bæltet kan jo øge det intraabdominale tryk -hvilket i sig selv er aflastende/beskyttende for ryggen.

Selv bruger jeg kun bælte på min ME squat dag i 2-4 sæt af en rep.

I forgårs bgugte jeg dem på sæt med 90, 105, 115 og 125 i archback goodmornings.

Ved ikke hvad andre styrkebøffer gør, men det er nok lignende. Brug af bælter til curls og lignende er retarderet...

Hvis man ikke kan lave en biceps curl uden at få ondt i ryggen er der noget alvorligt galt.

Man burde træne sin mave/ryg og vente indtil disse muskler var oppe på par!

Problemet med Chek er, at han siger brug af bælter er skadeligt i alle tilfælde!!

Siff's svar:

Genberel kritik af back strong and beltless, meget præcis kritik af Chek's dæminisering af bælter.

No doubt you have read my comments on the different ways of wearing a belt
and how we must distinguish between belts as mechanical supports and belts as
lightly-worn kinaesthetic devices and belts being used for maximal attempts
and belts being worn all the time. No published clinical studies or research
have shown that all forms of belt usage correlate significantly with the
incidence of back pain or dysfunction. There are far more folk with back
problems who do not wear belts or lift heavy weights.

BELTLESS BELIEFS
ADVERTISEMENT
Several folk have requested that I review a few articles that Paul Chek wrote
for Testosterone magazine on "How to be Back Strong and Beltless", as
published on the following webpages:
< http://t-mag.com/html/body_121back.html >
< http://www.t-mag.com/html/body_122back.html >
He has not submitted Part 3 of this series, so, if he is still working on it,
it will be interesting to see if my review influences what he submits. These
two article already suggest that he has taken some of our earlier criticisms
to heart, because he is now admitting in this series that breath holding does
indeed stabilise the trunk.
HOW TO BE BACK STRONG & BELTLESS
PART 1
<<Regardless of your opinion about the origin of man, if you believe in God,
you have to wonder why he didn't provide weight belts as standard-issue
equipment. On second thought, maybe he did, and we just don't know how to use
them correctly.>>
*** Exactly the same remark may be applied to the wearing of shoes and it is
entirely spurious. We might even have said that we should have retained a
hairy cover all over our bodies to protect us from the sun and other extremes
of climate. Why we should have evolved to lose something that protects us
from our environment is anyone's guess. A remark like that has been used by
Luddites, the Amish folk, the Taliban and others who reject many
technological advances on a similar basis.
<<Today, our understanding of the stabilizer system is at an all time high,
thanks to the works of people like Richardson, Jull, Hodges, Hydes, Vleeming,
Snidjers and Gracovetsky. >>
*** This is misleading, because no theory of spinal function has been
regarded as pre-eminent over any others. In fact, there is even more
disagreement over spinal function than there has ever been. The number of
theories about spinal action may be at an all-time high, but our
understanding is certainly not yet at an all-time high. It is still highly
theoretical and by no means definitive, though it is very exciting to try and
decode some of the complex biomathematical models (which Chek, unfortunately
is not trained to be able to do).
<<As you are likely aware, when lifting a heavy object or exerting yourself
to throw or move an object such as in work or sports, it is natural to hold
the breath. Holding the breath under load is associated with increased
tension in the diaphragm. ...
Practical experimentation in the gym will show that the trunk is stiffer
when filling the lungs as opposed to not filling the lungs with
inhalation....>>
***These remarks are most revealing, because Chek has constantly disagreed
with me and several others (in several Internet exchanges that still exist in
the archives of several user groups) on breath holding as a perfectly natural
concomitant to spinal stabilisation. He has always been vigorously opposed to
breath holding to stabilise the spine. Instead he has placed an exaggerated
emphasis on "pulling the abs in" and trying to voluntarily activate
transversus abdominis (TVA) during all stages of squatting and lifting. It ap
pears as if our criticism of his views may have caused him to change his mind.
<<More recently, it has been shown that IAP does provide a stiffening effect
on the lumbar spine, but that IAP is most effective at stabilizing the spine
when applied in concert with co-activation of the erector spinae muscles.....
Although, as suggested by Gracovetsky, we can not rely on muscles alone
because mathematical modeling shows that Olympic athletes would not be strong
enough to lift the loads they currently are lifting during competition. We
must look to the fascial system of the body for a missing link, the hydraulic
amplifier effect...
It has also been suggested that IAP does not stabilize the spine. Standing
firmly against the notion that IAP provides any significant stabilizing
mechanism for the spine are Gracovetsky and Bogduk.....>>
***Note well that the models of Gracovetsky and others whom he mentions,
though compelling in some respects, are by no means unopposed by other
theorists and researchers, especially some of the world's most erudite
biomechanists. What Chek has done is a commendable cut-and-paste collage job
of information from various sources, but he has failed to go beyond a
literature retrieval stage of the literature review. A true review retrieves
the necessary information, then compares and analyses it, then, if the author
has specific scientific or research skills, he offers his own views and
models. Anyone can cut and paste from books, articles and Medline, but not
anyone can intelligently analyse the material and go beyond the obvious.
<<The hydraulic amplifier effect, originally theorized by Gracovetsky to
increase the strength of the back muscles, was later proven mathematically to
increase the strength of the back muscles by 30%.... The hydraulic amplifier
mechanism is composed of the TLF (thoracolumbar fasciae) surrounding the back
muscles to create a relatively stable cylinder.... >>
***While Chek has given a reasonable summary of how some of the trunk
musculature can act like an hydraulic lift, he has not shown that he
understands the significance of the "amplifier" part of the spinal model.
This is a very significant omission, because a knowledge of the dynamic
process of mechanical amplification (including amplifier "gain" and feedback
control) is vital to an understanding of lifting, stabilising and injury.
<<What modern researchers have been able to do is more clearly define two
major stabilizer systems of the body, the inner unit and the outer unit. The
stabilizer system considered as our "God-given weight belt" is the inner
unit.....
The Inner Unit serves to stiffen the axial skeleton in preparation for work.
The Inner Unit muscles are A) Transversus Abdominis and the posterior
fibers of obliquus internus, B) Diaphragm, C) Deep Multifidus,
D) Pelvic floor musculature....
The outer unit consists of many muscles such as the obliquus externus,
obliquus internus, erector spinae, latissimus dorsi, gluteus maximus,
adductors and hamstrings working in concert with the inner unit musculature
and fascial systems. .....
A simplified version of the inner/outer unit systems, seen in Figure 9,
depicts a pirate ship's mast as a human spinal column. While the inner unit
muscles are responsible for developing and maintaining segmental
stiffness, the bigger muscles, shown here as guide wires, are responsible for
creating movement. >>
***The accompanying figure depicted the spine as a system of guy wires
supporting the mast of a ship. Significantly, this model excludes any
transverse members on the sails or the fact that the hull, like the rest of
the human body, does not provide a stable base. This incomplete spinal model
allows us to understand in part why it is nowadays so fashionable to talk
about "core stabilisation". The latter misleading concept is based upon a
system which excludes the role of peripheral stabilisation (of which I have
written elsewhere) and the systems nature of motor control. One of the
problems with models and analogies is that, in attempts to simplify complex
processes, they can omit details which can lead to some very defective
conclusions.
Division of the muscles of the trunk into "inner" and "outer" systems, while
often being convenient for the sake of simplifying the complexity of the
spine, sometimes proves to be a rather limiting model of trunk functioning.
Interestingly, Chek, while sketching this model in a superficially
attractive way, has not explained if this mast and guy rope depiction of the
spine or Gracovetsky's model constitutes a frame, truss or machine (recalling
that frames are designed to support loads, whereas machines are designed to
transmit or amplify forces or couples).
Chek, in previous discussions, has always evaded my attempts to make him
understand the difference between moments, couples, force couples and related
mechanical concepts with some entirely irrelevant personal retorts. This
latest article makes it very apparent that he really should have attended to
this deficit in his knowledge base. He might then have come across
biomechanical models of the spine which rely on a systems theoretical
approach which does not regard the spine a system of guy ropes and rigid
members and which do not implicate the fasciae in the role suggested by
Gracovetsky and others.
Other models regard the spine as a cantilever system, while yet others
examine the spine as a suspension system. In these models, there is no
necessity to divide the muscles into inner and outer units, but as an entire
system which stabilises the spine in terms of the least energy principle.
By selecting only one favourite model of the spine, he has been biased to
make some misleading and unjustified conclusions and applications in the rest
of his material, especially the practical applications.
PART 2
<<Lahad et al concluded that sufficient evidence was unavailable to recommend
the use of mechanical back supports for the prevention of back pain. In
another study conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, prophylactic use of back belts for healthy workers was not
recommended because of a lack of scientific evidence promoting their
benefit. There are also many other studies indicating belt use provides no
significant improvement in performance or reduction in the user's chance of
injury. >>
***Virtually all of the studies that Chek quotes to condemn the use of a belt
are drawn from the world of manual labour or research studies with average
volunteers in which belts are worn for prolonged periods. It is
scientifically invalid to extrapolate such findings from the setting of
CHRONIC belt usage to the setting of occasional ACUTE belt usage for very
heavy or maximal competitive lifting.
<<Davis' Law is demonstrated and well known by physical therapists who treat
neurological injuries; stimulating the surface of the body produces
stimulation of the muscles served by the same nerve root. Therefore,
repeatedly "pushing outward" against the belt, which is encouraged by the
belt through sensory-motor stimulus, is likely to develop and perpetuate
faulty recruitment patterns. >>
***This statement that superficial methods of kineasthetic manipulation
perpetuates faulty motor patterns (see Siff & Verkhoshansky "Supertraining"
1999, Ch 8) is entirely one of personal opinion and not supported by any
quoted research. On the contrary, PNF and neurodevelopmental methods in
physiotherapy rely heavily on manual contacts and touch to teach correct
optimal motor patterns. It is not the stimulation of the surface of the skin
which may elicit faulty patterns, but the inappropriate use of such
stimulation. This sort of remark is grossly misleading and inaccurate, as
any experienced physical therapist and neurologist will tell us.
<<If belts really did improve trunk stability, then the lifter would be able
to use them for a given period of time, remove the belt and experience
improved performance when lifting; THIS IS NOT THE CASE! .....
If indeed belts did improve proprioception, the user would be able to take
the belt off after a period of use and have improved proprioceptive sense or
"position sense" while lifting. This would constitute a learning effect; I
have never experienced this to be the case! Belt users become dependent upon
their belt, making the belt more of a crutch than a training device. >>
***Once again, the same remark may be applied to the wearing of shoes and the
new skintight swimming and cycling outfits which, besides reducing
aerodynamic drag, apparently enhance proprioceptive sensitivity and muscle
activation. Anyway, many lifters who wear belts for maximal lifts have shown
that they are quite capable of lifting the same loads without belts, but
choose to wear belts for attempting new maximal lifts because they consider
that belts may offer enhanced safety under those extreme conditions. It is
very common for athletes in the most demanding situations to use specific
protective or 'ergogenic' devices, so why would this be so reprehensible for
competitive lifters?
Remember that the lifting of maximal loads is not undertaken every day or
even every week, but only on occasional maximal training days or training
competitions that are weeks or months apart. As I have written many times
before, it is the manner and duration of belt wearing that may deem it
inappropriate, not simply because belts "weaken" everyone under all
circumstances.
<<The only way to restore function of the deep abdominal wall is to use
various forms of biofeedback (described below).....
It is very valuable to use other extroceptive (sic) stimuli, such as athletic
tape to improve kinesthetic awareness. As the patient learns, the need for
tape is reduced, and eventually the tape is eliminated. String is also used
as a form of biofeedback during movement training and is particularly useful
in restoration of deep abdominal wall function during functional movement
training.>>
***Here we have a fascinating contradiction! Chek spent a great deal of
space in denouncing the value of a lightly worn belt as a mode of offering
mechanical feedback, but here he is extolling the virtues of using
inextensible tape (a la Jenny McConnell taping etc) to play the same role.
Let us repeat what he said earlier:
<<If indeed belts did improve proprioception, the user would be able to take
the belt off after a period of use and have improved proprioceptive sense or
"position sense" while lifting. This would constitute a learning effect; I
have never experienced this to be the case! Belt users become dependent upon
their belt, making the belt more of a crutch than a training device. >>
So, the use of belts ruins proprioception, but the use of taping does not!
Any jury presented with this blatantly contradictory information would
dismiss his evidence as being unreliable, because he is clearly admitting
that devices like tape (and, by implication, certain types of belt) CAN
improve kinaesthetic awareness. The device being used may be different, but
the underlying principle remains the same. CASE CLOSED!
***Finally, let us reinforce the case a little more strongly - Chek even
quotes the following reference which supports the use of belts. Is this not
another contradiction?
<< 35. Cholewicki J., Juluru K., Radebold A., Panjabi M.M., Magill S.M.
Lumbar spine stability can be augmented with an abdominal belt and/or
increased intra-abdominal pressure. Eur Spine J 1999;8(5): 388-95. >>
So, I reiterate, that, if you are going to use a belt or straps, then just do
so intelligently and selectively! Note that I am not stating that one cannot
lift successfully and safely without a belt or that one cannot develop a very
strong trunk without using a belt - I am simply stressing that sometimes it
may be appropriate or useful to astutely use a belt in a given situation.
What I oppose is any blanket or "allness" statement which creates another
item of dogma in the strength training world.
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA

4. Jeg mener, at raske mennesker sagtens kan have brug for stabilitetstræning, selvom de ikke (endnu) har smerter eller gener. Det kan trænes specifikt med eksempelvis swissball/therabands/mtt udstyr (trækapparat).

Swissballs træner ikke stabilitet omkring core specifikt! Der er foretaget målinger der viser at den perifiære muskulatur aktiveres i højere grad end mave/ryg muskulaturen. På denne vis kan swissballs benyttes til en mere integreret balancetræning. De er et udemærket værktøj, men der findes sikrere (tai chi) og øvelser der giver andre fordele.

Det handler for mig at se om er at udvikle stabilitet over for specifikke udfordringer i hverdagen (skæve løft for hjemmehjælpere f.eks.) og ellers få så alsidig en bevægeerfaring som muligt (men mere info er velkomment, da min viden ikke er særligt stor på dette område!).

Jeg ville se øvelser som lunges (evt. med vægten over hovedet for en større udforfordring af rotator cuff, mave/ryg oma.), overhead presses/squats, goodmornings osv. som vældigt effektive.

Husk jeg taler ikke om tunge vægte for skadede individer, men vægte der er tilpasset den enkeltes niveau! Det være sig teknik og styrkemæssigt.

Mit mål er altid, at få så mange forskellige positive tilpasninger på samme tid som muligt -så længe det ikke er en forhindring for, at jeg når mine mål hurtigest muligt.

Swissballs er ikke sikre med høje belastninger, og giver uden tunge belastninger ikke de samme krav til stabilitet som f.eks. Judo (Nicolai har vist noget info om Judokæmperes fantstiske styrke/stabilitet omkring truncus).

Swiss balls er ikke værdiløse, jeg syntes bare det er ærgeligt, at der er mange der er blinde over for andre muligheder, da det handler om at vælge de bedste muligheder i en given situation.

F.eks. har jeg brugt diverse swissball øvelser, med en kunde der for 1 år siden havde en slem discusprolaps.

Jeg overtog ham for en måned siden og vi startede bla ved: vi en gang om ugen trænede mere moderat, med fokus på at alle øvelser stillede store krav til proprioception og muskulær udholdenhed omkring truncus. Denne dag var 90%af øvelserne med swissballs :)

Han viste et fantastisk niveau!

Næste fase i vores planlægning, er at inkorporere frivægtsøvelser med store krav til stabilitet omkring truncus. Swissballs vil blive udfaset, da vægtene giver en god overgang til øvelser med mere kosmetisk effekt.

Jeg vil nok beholde swissballs til baglårstræningen for at undgå ubalance i den dynamiske styrke i kundens baglår, og til prestretched crunches: men resten kommer til at foregå med vægte.

Overhead squats (udvikler dynamisk bevægelighed specifikt for squatdybde), lunges, stående dumbell presses oma..

Denne kunde udviste mere kropskontrol og styrke/udholdenhed omkring truncus end 95% af de folk jeg træner der aldrig har haft rygproblemer, så dette er et meget konservativt program.

ptpoul · June 6, 2004

Grundlæggende set er vi jo ret enige :D

Bælter skal ikke bruges konstant, de fleste der bruger dem, træner slet ikke tungt nok til at det er nødvendigt.

De fleste der træner så tungt, kunne nå målene med lettere vægte og højere sikkerhed.

Swissballs giver udemærket variation, men har sine begrænsninger lige som alt andet udstyr/metoder.

Uenige:

Chek er for inkompetent teoretisk set, til at jeg tør bruge særligt meget af hans materiale.

Han har lært mig manuelle tests og avancerede bold øvelser, that's it..

Du har en anden holdning, fred med det :D

Mht. motionister/alm trænende er swissballs ok, men for optimal fremgang i masse/styrke/hurtighed er der ingen sammenligning over for tunge vægte.

Jeg forsøger altid at finde et kompromis imellem effektivitet og træningsglæde, for det er lysten der driver værket!

Set i det lys, er bolde gode til lette pas/opvarmning/mave-ryg udholdenhedstræning.

Det sjove er, at for mange motionister er squats/dødløft rows osv også eksotiske og spændende. De får et kick ud af udfordringen (også kvinder).

Mht. supertraining: well den er meget omfattende, og giver mange muligheder -the rest is up to us..

Men det er blot en bog, med fejl, mangler, svagheder. Men stadigvæk en fremragende bog der ikke udstikker et låst program, men metoder -organisations metoder, resten er op til læseren.

Jørgen L · June 6, 2004

Det kommer an på hvor tungt man træner.

Ikke i min verden. Hvis man ikke kan "holde trykket" uden bæltet, så løfter man for tungt. Men som sagt, der er situationer hvor jeg godt kan forstå at konkurrerende mennesker bruger det.

Bæltet kan jo øge det intraabdominale tryk

Det kan en stærkere mavemuskulatur også.

Det er muligt, at det ikke er skadeligt for det muskulære samspil at løfte een gang med bælte hver 3. måned eller sån'. Men hvorfor så gøre det? Hvis man ikke mener sin ryg er stærk nok til løftet - så tag nogle skiver af. Et argument kunne være: "Det er kun i maxløft, for der er jeg bange for skader.." Jamen - hvis man bruger det i sit maxløft, som jo er redskabet til fastlæggelse af vægtene man skal træne med den kommende tid - er det så ikke forkert vægt man efterfølgende træner med? Det mener jeg det er.

No published clinical studies or research have shown that all forms of belt usage correlate significantly with the incidence of back pain or dysfunction. There are far more folk with back problems who do not wear belts or lift heavy weights

Det eneste den siger er, at der er flere mennesker som får skader uden bælte end med.. Det er ikke noget bevis.

Jeg mener ikke Siff er overbevisende i sin modargumentation. Han sammenligner Cheks argument om "gud skabte os ikke med bælte" med at gud heller ikke skabte os med svømmedragter. Nej - men nu træner man jo netop ikke med bælte hele tiden, modsat brugen af svømmedragt. Og så sammenligner Siff bæltet med teknologiske fremskridt? Jeg kalder det et tilbageskridt!

Og så er der funktionaliteten. Hvis alle dine maxløft er udført med bælte - kan du så regne med din columnastabilitet i eks.vis en flyttesituation? Det tror jeg ikke.

Swissballs træner ikke stabilitet omkring core specifikt!

Det afhænger imo af valget af øvelser.

Swissballs er ikke sikre med høje belastninger, og giver uden tunge belastninger ikke de samme krav til stabilitet som f.eks. Judo

Påstand - Du er nødt til at begrunde mere. Hvis det er sikkerheden der er problemet, må vi udvikle nogle sikrere bolde. Og det er netop usikkerheden der gør den god.

Man mærker med det samme hvis man har holdt pause fra judo, og en af stederne det mærkes er netop i truncus. Selvfølgelig er judo godt for stabiliteten, og jeg har også hele tiden fastholdt at bolden ikke kan stå alene. Men den er et lækkert indslag for den erfarne atlet, med brug for stabilitet.

http://www.fysio.dk/sw12782.asp?which=3378

Problemet med de store øvelser er imo, at de i høj grad rammer de store muskelgrupper, og netop ikke i så høj grad multifidi osv. Hvornår går man fra at være rask til patient? Tænk lidt over det. En tilsyneladende rask person kan sagtens have dysfunktioner, som ikke viser sig før de er på et usikkert underlag. Og her er eks. kontrollerede rotationer siddende/stående på swissball excellente. Men der mange veje til Rom. B)

Btw: Med hensyn til din diskuspatient: Hvordan blev det diagnosticeret? CT? Hvis ja, laver han ekstensioner?

Swissballs giver udemærket variation, men har sine begrænsninger lige som alt andet udstyr/metoder.

Enig!

ptpoul · June 6, 2004

Med hensyn til din diskuspatient: Hvordan blev det diagnosticeret? CT? Hvis ja, laver han ekstensioner?

Med ct ja, var forbi ringe rygcenter. Ikke patient længere!

Han er som sagt meget velfungerende og har fået besked på ikke at droppe sine ekstensioner, ligesom fleksion kun har været udført på swissballs hvor "shear" minimeres/elimineres af støtten fra bolden. Hysterisk? Ja men jeg er meget forsigtig i min omgang med kunder, især hvis de er tidligere skadet.

Ikke i min verden. Hvis man ikke kan "holde trykket" uden bæltet, så løfter man for tungt.

Well, jeg vil gerne have optimal sikkerhed/load i mine maxløft for ben. Dekonditionerer dette min "core"? -jeg finder det ikke sandsynligt.

Vi diskuterede hvorvidt det var dumt at bruge bælter. At du syntes det er forkert er vel uinteressant, hvis ikke det ledsages af relevant argumentation.

Det er muligt, at det ikke er skadeligt for det muskulære samspil at løfte een gang med bælte hver 3. måned eller sån'. Men hvorfor så gøre det? Hvis man ikke mener sin ryg er stærk nok til løftet - så tag nogle skiver af.

Well mit mål er at blive så stærk som muligt, evt. konkurrere hvis min elendige styrke øges med tiden. Hvorfor skulle jeg bruge lavere vægte, når der ikke er nogen skadelig virkning ved at benytte et bælte i 4sæt om ugen -sammenlagt max 120sekunder?

Når der derimod er øget beskyttelse af ryggen? Det vil lige meget hvor stærke mine muskler er altid kunne øges med et bælte.

Hvorfor træne med mindre sikkerhed end det er muligt, når der ikke er nogen skadelige virkninger?

Så længe bæltet ikke gør at man nedprioriterer sin ryg/mavetræning kan jeg ikke se hvad problemet er?

Grundlæggende set giver bæltet mulighed for at øge belastningen med x% over ens udgangspunkt i en given øvelse(begrænset af mave ryg styrke/stabilitet). Det er stadig påkrævet at øge sin kapacitet uden bælte for at løfte tungere vægte.

Så længe styrken i ens "core" og i "resten af ens krop", øges i samme takt, ser jeg ikke hvad problemet er?

Jamen - hvis man bruger det i sit maxløft, som jo er redskabet til fastlæggelse af vægtene man skal træne med den kommende tid - er det så ikke forkert vægt man efterfølgende træner med? Det mener jeg det er.

Ikke hvis man i sin træning benytter bæltet i maksløft. Så vil det kun være fornuftigt at fastslå sin max ud fra samme forhold (med bælte både i test og efterfølgende cyklus).

Det omvendte ville være ufornuftigt ja :)

Min erfaring er at et max fastslået med bælte ikke giver en urealistisk arbejdsvægt med lavere intensiteter. Jeg går ud fra at du her tænker på et periodiseret program, med vægte udregnet på en prædeterminetret max.

Hvis maxen var med squatdragt, kneewraps og bælte kan jeg godt se problemet :)

Jeg mener ikke Siff er overbevisende i sin modargumentation. Han sammenligner Cheks argument om "gud skabte os ikke med bælte" med at gud heller ikke skabte os med svømmedragter. Nej - men nu træner man jo netop ikke med bælte hele tiden, modsat brugen af svømmedragt. Og så sammenligner Siff bæltet med teknologiske fremskridt? Jeg kalder det et tilbageskridt!

Nu tager du det ud af kontekst. Siff vender blot Chek's egen argumentation imod ham selv :)

Det Siff gør er præcis det samme som dig: viser at denne form for argumentation er usaglig.

Siff skriver også til sidst:

if you are going to use a belt or straps, then just do
so intelligently and selectively! Note that I am not stating that one cannot
lift successfully and safely without a belt or that one cannot develop a very
strong trunk without using a belt - I am simply stressing that sometimes it
may be appropriate or useful to astutely use a belt in a given situation.

Problemet med de store øvelser er imo, at de i høj grad rammer de store muskelgrupper, og netop ikke i så høj grad multifidi osv.

Men gør swissball øvelser dette? Har du andet end din egen opfattelse, der bakker denne antagelse op?

Jeg ved at spændingen i obliquus externus er højere ved overhead presses end ved maveøvelser (Siff gav en reference -kan ikke grave den op lige nu). Mht. multifidi/tva vil det ud fra min viden (begrænsede viden:)), kræve at man måler via indopererede elektroder. Så vidt jeg ved er dette aldrig blevet gjort -dette gør din antagelse til spekulation (ret mig hvis jeg tager fejl!).

Påstand - Du er nødt til at begrunde mere. Hvis det er sikkerheden der er problemet, må vi udvikle nogle sikrere bolde. Og det er netop usikkerheden der gør den god.

Det er usikkerheden, der gør det mere sandsynligt at komme til skade.

Bolden kan sprænge, man kan falde af med tunge vægte over sig.

En begrænsning ved bolden er at man ikke kan benytte meget tunge vægte med rimelig sikkerhed. Squats, bænkpres osv. er IMHO alt for farlige på en swissbal, med en vægt der ville komme i nærheden af nok til at forøge styrke/eksplosivitet.

Usikkerheden/ustabiliteten af underlaget giver en specifik træningsstimulus med et ustabilt underlag -om dette er noget der kan overføres til stabile underlag, under høj fart, ved retningsændringer osv. osv. er aldrig undersøgt og defor ren spekulation.

Hvornår går man fra at være rask til patient? Tænk lidt over det. En tilsyneladende rask person kan sagtens have dysfunktioner, som ikke viser sig før de er på et usikkert underlag. Og her er eks. kontrollerede rotationer siddende/stående på swissball excellente.

Som udgangspunkt må man vel teste om folk har problemer, før man begynder at behandle dem.

At gå ud fra at alle er dyfunktionelle, hæmmer i høj grad de mulige træningsmæssige stimuli.

Og så er der funktionaliteten. Hvis alle dine maxløft er udført med bælte - kan du så regne med din columnastabilitet i eks.vis en flyttesituation? Det tror jeg ikke.

Well du tror det ikke, men er der noget der tyder på at columnastabiliteten nedsættes af brug af bælte? Jeg har i hvertfald ikke set nogen dokumentation. Forværres proprioceptionen ved brug af bælte? Hvis ikke den gør, kan man da mærke om ens ryg er stærk nok til den givne belastning eller ej.

At man ville kunne løfte mere med et bælte, når man flytter et piano for faster Ada, gør da ikke at man pr. automatik vil løfte vægte man ikke kan håndtere, bare fordi man bruger et bælte af og til i sin træning?

En flyttesituation er meget specifik. Man skal løfte i ugunstige positioner. Evt. vride, gå op og ned af trapper osv.

Hvis jeg var flyttemand, ville jeg træne så specifikt jeg kunne efter dette. Goodmornings med rundet ryg, zercher squats, farmer walks, stærkmandsøvelser osv. ikke med et bælte -med mindre jeg ville bruge det imens jeg flyttede.

Men min træning er ikke for at blive flyttemand! Den er efter at blive stærkere. Du mener sjælden brug af bælte på maxløft forværrer evnen til at stabilisere ved høje belastninger.

Jeg går ud fra, at det er fordi du mener, man bliver ude af stand til at stabilisere med høj vægt, hvis man altid bruger bælte ved høj vægt.

Well, det er igen spekulation.

-Mere nærliggende, end at øvelser med lav belastning på en swissball, vil gøre en bedre til at stabilisere ved høj vægt. Hvis vi altså vælger at følge tankegangen: "stabilitets træning er specifik i forhold til hvilken %vis load stabilitetstræning udføres ved".

For mig er det vigtigeste, at enhver flyttesituation vil være relativt lettere jo stærkere jeg er.

Jeg forventer at mine tunge løft med rundet ryg og i ugunstige positioner (archback goodmornings), forbedrer min evne til at stabilisere min ryg ved høje belastninger.

Hvis mit eneste mål var at være så stabil som mulig uden bælte, ville jeg sandsynligvis skippe bæltet, for den teoretisk forhøjede specificitet -men det er ren spekulation at bæltefri træning ville være overlegent.

Min realitet er, at når jeg hjælper mine venner med at flytte, er der ingen af dem der er i nærheden af at lave GM's med 125, og ingen af dem der opvarmer i gm's med 70kg uden bælte. Dette gør mig langt mere stabil end de nogensinde bliver.

Det er i mine øjne det mest væentlige: jeg bliver stærkere i de 3 store -samtidigt er der en bivirkning at dagligdagssituationer klares lettere. Hvis jeg kun trænede efter at kunne klare et bredt spektrum af dagligdags belastninger, ville min træning være langt mere varieret -mere som f.eks. stærkmænds træning. Men det er ikke mit mål. Jeg tror heller ikke at det er ret mange andres mål. Min oplevelse er, at de fleste i motionscentre træner efter kosmetiske mål/moderate helbreds forbedringer.

Edited June 6, 2004 by ptpoul

Sindbad · June 7, 2004

Hmm, god pointe med pubmed... Ud fra hvad jeg har læst om manden er han vældig anerkendt. Om han er af højeste klasse, ved vel kun andre videnskabsmænd der har udført denne form for arbejde selv og har læst de fulde artikler og vurderet disse!
Det kunne være rart at få en vurdering af dette fra en kompetent kilde!
Ud fra det jeg har postet virker han bare pænt vild!!!

Igen: Siff har (ifølge pubmed) lavet 2 videnskabelige artikler, trykt i et sydafrikansk lægetidsskrift. Sæt det op mod Bengt Saltin (som i mine øjne er en videnskabsmand af højeste klasse) som får 367 hits på Pubmed...

Med lad nu det ligge.... :)

Nicolai Thygesen · June 7, 2004

Mhs til Siff`s mening om nakkestabilitet, så er er det et område der forskes meget i i Australien for tiden, og man har også indtil videre givet nogle resultater (som jeg altså ikke lige gider remse op her :chicken: ) og Check er altså ikke helt ved siden af i det han siger.

ptpoul · June 7, 2004

>>Nicolai

Interessant, hvis du skulle få tid/lyst ville det være dejligt med links :)

clorius · June 7, 2004

Igen: Siff har (ifølge pubmed) lavet 2 videnskabelige artikler, trykt i et sydafrikansk lægetidsskrift. Sæt det op mod Bengt Saltin (som i mine øjne er en videnskabsmand af højeste klasse) som får 367 hits på Pubmed...

Nu skal man jo lige huske på at Siff har en helt anden uddannelse end Saltin og derfor ville blive publiseret i andre tidsskrifter. Det overrasker mig meget at det overhovedet er muligt at finde noget som helst om Siff på pubmed.

Sindbad · June 7, 2004

Igen: Siff har (ifølge pubmed) lavet 2 videnskabelige artikler, trykt i et sydafrikansk lægetidsskrift. Sæt det op mod Bengt Saltin (som i mine øjne er en videnskabsmand af højeste klasse) som får 367 hits på Pubmed...
Nu skal man jo lige huske på at Siff har en helt anden uddannelse end Saltin og derfor ville blive publiseret i andre tidsskrifter. Det overrasker mig meget at det overhovedet er muligt at finde noget som helst om Siff på pubmed.

:) Jeg véd ikke engang om det er den rigtige Siff.

Men hvorfor skulle man ikke finde noget om Siff på Pubmed, hvis han er:

PhD in physiology specialising in biomechanics

Hvor skal man ellers finde det?

Nicolai Thygesen · June 7, 2004

Ja, okay, det var et meget billigt indlæg jeg kom med, men jeg har desværre ikke noget link, det er en artikel (på papir, ja de findes endnu) fra et fagblad for Manuel Terapi gruppen.

Jørgen L · June 7, 2004

Well, jeg vil gerne have optimal sikkerhed/load i mine maxløft for ben. Dekonditionerer dette min "core"? -jeg finder det ikke sandsynligt.

Der er intet der tyder på at du skulle få noget gavnligt ud af dine lidt tungere løft (Hvad angår truncus/abd styrke). Det at du er nødt til at have bælte på, antyder jo blot at du løfter for tungt, i forhold til hvad du er konditioneret til. Har man det som mål at konkurrere - som dig - synes jeg da det er helt fint.

Men træner man for at blive stærkere i hverdagen/sin sport, er det direkte fejltræning. Dette mener jeg, fordi du reelt vil have en styrke i resten af kroppen som ikke svarer til truncusstyrken. Man kan så blot håbe, at kroppen af sig selv "siger fra", når du står i løftesituationen.

Den her

-jeg finder det ikke sandsynligt.

Stemmer ikke helt med den her

uinteressant, hvis ikke det ledsages af relevant argumentation.

;)

Så længe bæltet ikke gør at man nedprioriterer sin ryg/mavetræning kan jeg ikke se hvad problemet er?

Hvad mener du? Mener du, at bare man træner mave og ryg, så gør det ikke noget at man bruger bælte? ;)

Det Siff gør er præcis det samme som dig: viser at denne form for argumentation er usaglig.

Nej, det Siff gør, er at anvende samme retorik som Chek. Og Siff's holder bare ikke B)

I am simply stressing that sometimes it may be appropriate

Og så har han jo heller ikke sagt for meget :)

Problemet med de store øvelser er imo, at de i høj grad rammer de store muskelgrupper, og netop ikke i så høj grad multifidi osv.
Men gør swissball øvelser dette? Har du andet end din egen opfattelse, der bakker denne antagelse op?

Nej, men det har du jo heller ikke til at modbevise det, så lad os diskutere det istedet :)

Mht. multifidi/tva vil det ud fra min viden (begrænsede viden:)), kræve at man måler via indopererede elektroder. Så vidt jeg ved er dette aldrig blevet gjort -dette gør din antagelse til spekulation (ret mig hvis jeg tager fejl!).

Som vi startede med at diskutere videnskabelighed - det er bare ikke alt man har randomiserede forsøg på. Mange terapeuter har god effekt af optræning af multifidi. Det er det som er hagen ved træningsprincipper - stort set ingen af dem er dokumenterede. Hverken hos fysserne eller kiro'erne.

Well du tror det ikke, men er der noget der tyder på at columnastabiliteten nedsættes af brug af bælte?

Nej, ikke nedsættes, men den opnår ikke samme niveau som resten af kroppen.

Hvis jeg var flyttemand, ville jeg træne så specifikt jeg kunne efter dette. Goodmornings med rundet ryg, zercher squats, farmer walks, stærkmandsøvelser osv. ikke med et bælte -med mindre jeg ville bruge det imens jeg flyttede.

Exacly my point - hvis du vil bruge din styrke uden bælte, bør du ikke træne med bælte. :)

Hvis mit eneste mål var at være så stabil som mulig uden bælte, ville jeg sandsynligvis skippe bæltet, for den teoretisk forhøjede specificitet -men det er ren spekulation at bæltefri træning ville være overlegent.

Ikke desto mindre kan du godt høre at det giver mening, ikke?

Vandpyt · June 7, 2004

Jo, det goer det faktisk. Det er den maade man laver videnskab paa alle universiteter i hele verden. Poul Chek laver ikke videnskab.

Det var sgu da godt, at de ikke lavede videnskabelige undersøgelser om ståls evne til at flyde og dermed udelukkede det som brugbart materiale ved bygning af skibe. :lol:

Eller tænk sig hvis Wright brødrene havde troet på videnskaben. :lol:

'Pyt

ptpoul · June 7, 2004

Der er intet der tyder på at du skulle få noget gavnligt ud af dine lidt tungere løft (Hvad angår truncus/abd styrke). Det at du er nødt til at have bælte på, antyder jo blot at du løfter for tungt, i forhold til hvad du er konditioneret til. Har man det som mål at konkurrere - som dig - synes jeg da det er helt fint.

I wsb systemet er de små fremgange essentielle, derfor er brug af bælte imo valideret især i dette system.

Hvem siger også at målet med fx. at squatte er at kunne squatte mest muligt?

Det er denne antagelse du tager der giver dig et noget ensidigt syn på emnet. Andre mål med en squat, kunne være at man ville øge sin relative styrke i benene, der er et væsentligt fundament, for at kunne øge springhøjde, eksplosovitet oma. vigtige kvaliteter i en given idrætsgren.

I de fleste holdidrætter og atletik, er der ikke behov for at have stor styrke i ryggen, da man ikke flytter på andet end sig selv. Man har ingen voldsom udefrakommende belastning på ryggen.

Hvorfor skulle man så ikke vælge at træne med den ekstra load der er mulighed for med et bælte?

Især da det er fastslået at det intaabdominale tryk øges ved brug af bælte, og at dette kan have betydning for sikkerheden ved tunge løft.

Det eneste tilfælde din pointe holder, er i de tilfælde hvor ryggen udsættes for voldsomme dirkete belastninger. Ikke i utallige andre situationer.

Dette mener jeg, fordi du reelt vil have en styrke i resten af kroppen som ikke svarer til truncusstyrken. Man kan så blot håbe, at kroppen af sig selv "siger fra", når du står i løftesituationen.

Jeg gentager min argumentation fra det tidligere indlæg:

Grundlæggende set giver bæltet mulighed for at øge belastningen med x% over ens udgangspunkt i en given øvelse(begrænset af mave ryg styrke/stabilitet). Det er stadig påkrævet at øge sin kapacitet uden bælte for at løfte tungere vægte.
Så længe styrken i ens "core" og i "resten af ens krop", øges i samme takt, ser jeg ikke hvad problemet er?

Er der overhovedet noget der validerer din frygt for at min proprioception skulle forværres af 240 sec bæltebrug om ugen?

Hvis ikke forstår jeg ikke den sidste del af din kommentar??

-jeg finder det ikke sandsynligt.
Stemmer ikke helt med den her
QUOTE
uinteressant, hvis ikke det ledsages af relevant argumentation.

Nemt at tage og klippe tingene ud af sin kontekst og vende det efter eget behag.

Dit "quote" efterfølges bla. af denne argumentation:

Hvorfor skulle jeg bruge lavere vægte, når der ikke er nogen skadelig virkning ved at benytte et bælte i 4sæt om ugen -sammenlagt max 120sekunder?
Når der derimod er øget beskyttelse af ryggen? Det vil lige meget hvor stærke mine muskler er altid kunne øges med et bælte.
Hvorfor træne med mindre sikkerhed end det er muligt, når der ikke er nogen skadelige virkninger?
Så længe bæltet ikke gør at man nedprioriterer sin ryg/mavetræning kan jeg ikke se hvad problemet er?

Så længe bæltet ikke gør at man nedprioriterer sin ryg/mavetræning kan jeg ikke se hvad problemet er?

NEj, det jeg forsøgte at referere til er den "falske tryghed" bæltet menes at give.

Denne falske tryghed påpejer nogen kan medføre nedsat fokus på ekstra træning af mavemuskulaturen.

Som jeg har pointeret er brugen af bælte ikke noget jeg vil anbefale konstant -simpelthen fordi jeg er overforsigtig!

Jeg har ikke set nogen dokkumentation eller skadesstatistik der antyder at bælter skulle være skadelige.

Hvad mener du? Mener du, at bare man træner mave og ryg, så gør det ikke noget at man bruger bælte?

Hvad mener du? At fordi man bruger et bælte i et par sæt af en rygøvelse giver denne øvelse ingen træningseffekt for maven og ryggen?

Bæltebrug øger beviseligt spændingen i den overfladiske muskulatur, om den nedsætter spændingen i den profunde er uvist da det ikke kan måles.. Dette får mig ikke til at konkludere at bæltebrug skulle nedsætte træningeffekten af mavemuskulauren. Man ville med de tilgængelige informationer nemt argumentere for det modsatte...

Jeg vælger at træne mave og ryg med isolationsøvelser for en sikkerheds skyld, og fordi jeg antager det øger min præstation. Lige som mine mere isolerede øvelser for andre kropsdele udføres med henblik på at øge min præstation. Ikke fordi jeg tror at brugen af bælte nedsætter effektiviteten af f.eks. goodmornings.

Det Siff gør er præcis det samme som dig: viser at denne form for argumentation er usaglig.
Nej, det Siff gør, er at anvende samme retorik som Chek. Og Siff's holder bare ikke

Ok, så de anvender samme form for retorik, men det er ok for Chek, men ikke Siff???

Og så har han jo heller ikke sagt for meget

Det ville IMO også klæde Chek at gøre det samme ;)

QUOTE
QUOTE
Problemet med de store øvelser er imo, at de i høj grad rammer de store muskelgrupper, og netop ikke i så høj grad multifidi osv.
Men gør swissball øvelser dette? Har du andet end din egen opfattelse, der bakker denne antagelse op?

Nu var det dig der kom med påstanden. Det gør det, i mine øjne, til din opgave at validere din antagelse.

Som vi startede med at diskutere videnskabelighed - det er bare ikke alt man har randomiserede forsøg på. Mange terapeuter har god effekt af optræning af multifidi. Det er det som er hagen ved træningsprincipper - stort set ingen af dem er dokumenterede. Hverken hos fysserne eller kiro'erne.

Point taken, men når du kommer med en sådan klar udtalelse omkring boldtræningen skulle være mere specifik, er det for mig underligt du ikke har nogen dokumentation.

Nej, ikke nedsættes, men den opnår ikke samme niveau som resten af kroppen.

Det bygger du på hvad?

Min argumentation:

Vægtløftere har færre rygproblemer under/efter deres karriere end gennemsnittet af befolkningen.

Selv statestikker på russiske vægtløfter viser dette. Denne statistik er for atleter der var hyppige bæltebrugere, løftede enddog meget tunge vægte, og ikke anede hvad en swissball var.

Hvis bæltebrug gav det førnævnte misforhold, kan jeg ikke se hvordan detr skulle hænge sammen.

Hvis du kigger på debatten imellem Siff og Chek, formår chek ikke at komme med relevante studier, der viser at bælter skulle være skadelige ved lejlighedsvis brug, på trods af at dette er undersøgt. Det eneste han ender med at vende tilbage til er hans kliniske arbejde.

Siff har arbejdet med flere uheldige tilfælde end Chek (påstår han), har også arbejdet med konkurrerende eliteatleter(dette er dokumenteret igennem hans ansættelsesforhold) der brugte bælter -og har ikke fundet disse problemer.

Du kommer heller ikke med relevant dokumentation. Min antagelse er at Chek har arbejdet med de uheldige tilfælde -og har valgt at drage en parralel imellem bæltebrug og skader.

Du læser ufatteligt selektivt!

QUOTE
Hvis jeg var flyttemand, ville jeg træne så specifikt jeg kunne efter dette. Goodmornings med rundet ryg, zercher squats, farmer walks, stærkmandsøvelser osv. ikke med et bælte -med mindre jeg ville bruge det imens jeg flyttede.
Exacly my point - hvis du vil bruge din styrke uden bælte, bør du ikke træne med bælte.

Jeg er ikke flyttemand! Funktionalitet er meget specifikt!

Det virker som du mener højt styrkeniveau generelt og stabilitet omkring columna er universelt funktionelt. Hvad baserer du dette på?

Jeg skal ikke være flyttemand, hvorfor så træne efter det?

QUOTE
Hvis mit eneste mål var at være så stabil som mulig uden bælte, ville jeg sandsynligvis skippe bæltet, for den teoretisk forhøjede specificitet -men det er ren spekulation at bæltefri træning ville være overlegent.

Der er 3 forbehold i den sætning:

1. Specificitets forbeholdet (jeg træner ikke efter maksimal stabilitet).

2. Specificiteten er teoretisk. Der er intet der beviser det skulle være mere specifikt at træne uden et bælte.

3. Det er ren spekulation, men værd at prøve, man kunne jo måle resultater ved bæltefri vs med bæltebrug træning og sammenligne. Drage sine egne konklusioner.

Du ser ikke forbeholdene, men kun dine egne pointer valideret..

Og nej jeg kan ikke se det giver mening, at sunde raske mennesker der ikke har som mål at være så stabile som muligt, og ikke har dette specifikke funktionelle krav i deres hverdag, skulle træne efter dette mål.

Funktionalitet er ikke en generel kvalitet -men en specifik kvalitet!

De funktionelle krav for en kontormand er ikke de samme som for en flyttemand. Lige som de ikke er de samme for en Masai på savannen i Østafrika eller for en højdespringer.

At jeg personligt her indrømmer ikke at bruge bælte konstant er: fordi overdreven brug af enhver træningstrategi vil medføre stagnation og de negative effekter ved en given strategi vil akkumuleres med tiden.

Jeg er ikke alvidene, og tager derfor det forbehold ikke at bruge bælter konstant, det gør mine handlinger selvmodsigende! Det gør mig blot ydmyg og velovervejet!

Edited June 7, 2004 by ptpoul

Sign In

Swissball ---> ATT. Mikkel Sand

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation