ptpoul Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 russerneWill the real Mikkel Sand please stand up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sindbad Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Sinbad, nu forstår jeg du ikke mener Siff er en videnskabsmand af høj klasse.Mel Siff is en hel masseRelativt 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 )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... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 (edited) No offence Har Siff nogensinde vægttrænet? Det er lidt svært at dømme ud fra billeder ;) Edited June 5, 2004 by sas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henning Friis Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolai Thygesen Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 godeDu er vist, at blive for blød på dine gamle dage! :hippy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptpoul Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 (edited) No offence Har Siff nogensinde vægttrænet? Det er lidt svært at dømme ud fra billederA 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jørgen L Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted 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.. 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 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 bæltetJeg beklager at mine svigtende sproglige kvaliteterJeg 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 deleLige over! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptpoul Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 :DJeg 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 BenchSteve 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 secretto every malady suffered by exercisers. While some exercises are fantasticothers are quite ludicrous.>*** It will be to your great advantage realising that no training tool iscomplete on its own and that the intelligent use of a well-selected varietyof individualised training methods offers a far wider range of conditioningpossibilities. Of course, the ball offers some interesting trainingvariations for different applications, but it certainly cannot qualify as auniversal training tool.<For the groups perusal I include the following bits from Paul Chek's "WhyTrain 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 toproduce significant transfer to the actual sporting arena. As we have noted,balance and stabilisation tend to be very specific to the sport and theactivity in that sport, so that the ball will not develop these qualitiesmore efficiently than the movements of the sport itself. The comment aboutchallenging the nervous system is so general that it applies to almosteverything in life. As I commented earlier, the playing of a musicalinstrument is far more neurally challenging - does that necessarily mean thatplaying a cello will directly enhance one's sporting performance? If onewishes to make claims about "neural challenge", then they must be made withspecific reference to the precise situationinvolved.One cannot use the Ball for maximal or supramaximal efforts in any lifts, soit cannot offer superior strengthening or stabilisation than the liftingsports themselves. We have also discussed the fact that the skills andmuscles involved in efforts against lighter and heavier loads do not remainconstant, so that lighter training on a ball will not necessarily enhancecertain abilities on terra firma (such as the lifting platform) when 1RMs arebeing attempted.The claim that ball training will "improve posture by strengthening thestabilizer musculature of the spine" is not supported by research, whichshows that poor posture is not necessarily a consequence of compromisedstrength. Posture is determined not by structural muscle strength, but bythe neural and motor control processes which orchestrate how the muscles willfunction and hold the body in any given position, or move it from oneposition to the next.The claim that ball training will "improve the function of the neutralizerand stabilizer muscles" is another very general statement which may beapplied equally to any activities which involve movement in free space.However, the ball does not allow one to explore space anywhere near asextensively and challengingly as sports and other activities which permit oneto move the limbs freely in all directions, including those which involve thevery important ability to use the "stepping reflex" to correct any deviationsfrom static or dynamic balance.Anyway, the categorisation of certain muscles as neutralisers andstabilisers, as is often done traditionally and archaically, tends to make uslose sight of the fact that many of our muscles do not play a single role inthe body, but change their roles from instant to instant in any extendedrange activity. Muscles can also simultaneously play a stabilising andmoving role.In other words, the categorisation of muscles into neat little compartmentsis yet another vestige of the old traditions which preserve the idea ofisolation of function. The sooner that we realise the huge limitationsimposed by clinging to any belief in isolated activity of any physiologicalor anatomical system, the better for the entire field of physical trainingand rehabilitation. Isolation methods usually are intended for handlingcertain pathologies, often by the use of biofeedback methods, but they haveminimal 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 moreheavily loaded free weight training in free space (not lying or sitting in aconfined position) or in activities such as gymnastics, wrestling and judo.For example, try doing snatch grip overhead squats, first in a normal stablestance and then try it by slightly displacing your body in space. Then, dothe same with squat or split style holdings of the overhead jerk. As theload increases, so greater and greater demands are placed on many of themuscles, especially those playing a stabilising role. These methodsconstitute 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 hundredsof non-Swiss Ball exercises that can accomplish these same objectives. In mywisdom, I have come to learn that every "guru" has to have a gimmick. PaulChek's is The Swiss Ball.>*** You are quite correct in stating that there are hundreds of non-ballexercises which can achieve the same objectives as those claimed for balldrills, often in less time and more specifically to suit one's individualneeds, especially in some therapeutic roles (remember that the ball has beenborrowed from the world of physical therapy, where it has been used for manydecades 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 exaggeratedclaims about ball conditioning are neither borne out by research or practicein competitive sport. Those who visit my training facility will notice aball there, but it forms a very minor aspect of the armamentorium of trainingmethods which I use for myself or athletes. And so it should be!Dr Mel C SiffDenver, USAOm stabilitetstræning:<<I just want to clarify something else about my position on the greatstabilizer debate. I am not a huge fan of specific stabilizer training. Ihave seen most of Paul Chek's videos, and I cannot honestly think of a timein my training when I would devote a whole workout to some of his exercisesfor stabilizers.>>Mel Siff:***Several issues are fundamental to the whole stabilisation saga :1. The ability to stabilise with little or no load does not automaticallyenable one to stabilise under heavy loads2. Stabilising training on an unstable surface does not necessarily endowone with the ability to stabilise on a rigid surface when the body issuddenly displaced by its own movement or by external influences3. The ability to stabilise at low speeds does not enable one to stabiliseeffectively at higher speeds4. The body does not necessarily use the same stabilisation strategy eachtime it tries to stabilise under the same conditions - there are multiplesolutions to every stabilisng equation5. Large deviations from a stable position are relatively harmless if theloading on the body is small, but they can be very dangerous if the load islarge (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 ina situation in which the COM of the body-load system is higher (as inoverhead pressing or jerking).7. The proprioceptive information referred to the brain by foot contact witha resilient ball is very different from information fed back to the brain byfoot contact on a rigid surface8. The ability to cope effectively and safely as possible with postures thatare not close to stability is just as important as the ability to return to aposition of stability (since one is frequently forced into positions ofinstability in all sports, especially those involving impact with otherplayers).9. A position of 'ideal' stability or posture can still lead to injury ifthe body is loaded too intensively or for too long10. Regular deviations and oscillations away from the 'ideal' position ofstability is nature's way of minimising the risk of injury or dysfunctioncaused by focalised pressure (according to information arising from researchin Nonlinear Dynamics).So, before one extols the virtues of any stabilising training method, let theabove few points be borne carefully in mind, even if one has some vestedinterest in promoting various balancing devices or training courses.---------------------------------Dr Mel C SiffGenerel diskussion Chek/Siff; inden det blev grimt :(Abdominal Conditioning: Chek & SiffSome people have been commenting that Paul Chek and I some day need to have aone-on-one debate because we have never done so. On the contrary, we havehad several open debates on various aspects of training and rehabilitation.Here is one of them from Oct 1998 which appeared on another listserv beforeour Supertraining list came into being. On this occasion we took part inwhat generally was a rather productive discussion, even if it became verylong. 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 domy best to be concise and make my counter-points.Mel:*** Me, too, but because this issue of weird and wonderful abs is such afocal point of fitness training today, it deserves a lot more clarification.BACKGROUNDFirst of all, I must clarify one issue. You constantly comment on my input asif 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 myanalysis.Actually, virtually none of my work has ever been done for solely theoreticalreasons. Most of the subjects involved in my research or trainingprogrammes have been competitive athletes, fitness lovers or ordinary injuredfolk who have been referred to me by their doctors or physical therapists.For many years, besides my main job as professor in mechanical engineeringdept, I have been involved in lecturing in biomechanics and strengthrehabilitation or training to departments of physical therapy and physicaleducation.Numerous projects in the departments of physiology, physical therapy,anatomy, orthopaedics, occupational therapy and others in the Faculty ofmedicine at my university and with many private physical therapists,orthopaedic surgeons and sports doctors led me to become practically involvedin the rehabilitation of hundreds of subjects with many musculoskeletaldisorders, including the back.This led to my being invited to lecture at several chiropractic, physicaltherapy and sports medicine conferences on lifting mechanics and backrehabilitation, where the emphasis was on practical methods, rather thantheoretical modelling.As national coach in S African weightlifting, I worked with hundreds ofcompetitive lifters right up to national level and I competed nationally inweightlifting, powerlifting and karate and carried out many biomechanicaltests on these and many other athletes. I was deeply involved in thepreparation and future training of some of the world's most successful teamsin cricket and rugby.So, now may I be permitted to talk to you as a fellow practitioner and seekerwho is not just sitting ensconced in some ivory tower proclaiming from aplace which many coaches and clinicians think is inhabited by alien creaturesin 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 ofthe trunk)<This is an intriguing comment. How does one definitely confirm that thisis the order of events without the use of microelectrodes or needleelectrodes 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 - researchhas even indicated that transversus is one of the first muscles to becomeactivated during forward walking.>Paul:Yes, in a laboratory setting these things are all of real importance. If Irelied on such intricate mechanisms I would have a $500,000+ tool box andwould need my patients to stay for days at a time to get to the bottom ofthins. The fact is, most of my patients come to me after failing in themedical system where they have had extensive EMG studies, conduction velocitystudies, MRI arthogram, and most every expensive and invasive test you canimagine and they are not better off! I have been in business for many yearssuccessfully rehabilitating the people that the fancy equipment couldn'thelp, so believe me, if you are a skilled clinician you only need this stuffto develop conceptual models and confirm or not confirm your clinicalsuspicions.Mel:Costly apparatus is unnecessary - all of my research apparatus was built forme personally or as part of student projects at a fraction of the commercialcost. Certainly, we found palpatory, 'eye-balling' and simple movementtests, like the standard ones used by many phyios most helpful, but when weallied that with some quickly administered laboratory tests, the results wereeven better.Unfortunately, reliance on being a skilled clinician is another isolationistapproach which sometimes can have serious consequences. I recall some otherexpert who was vainly trying to rehabilitate someone with chronic back pain.Several of the tests you mentioned showed inadequate transversus and internaloblique strength, as well as a serious deficit in multifidus strength. Forweeks, a series of pelvic tilting, breathing, postural realignment and otherremedies, plus pain-killers were tried, but to no avail. Eventually, he wassent for a CAT scan and other conventional laboratory medical tests - lo andbehold, this poor man had cancer of the spine!On other occasions, force plate tests and EMG studies have shown uppathologies which skilled clinicians have failed to detect. On the otherhand, the most intricate laboratory tests have not been able to detect latentheart disease or distinguish between different neuromuscular disorders.In other words, it is a good idea to integrate the best of which bothscientists and clinicians have to offer and not to throw out anyonediscipline 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 alwaysdraws the umbilicus toward the spine, exaggerates the oblique line,is accompanied by recruitment of the multifidus, pelvic floor and often thediaphragm. . . .Mel:The pulling in of the umbilicus and exaggeration of the oblique line is notobserved to occur during the squat, clean, bench press, snatch or deadlift,since a reflex distension of the abdominal region occurs in all maximallifting and pushing tasks.Paul:<When an individual loads a bar and places it upon his/her back, there is animmediate stabilization response secondary to the mechanoreceptor input fromall involved joints, particularly the weight bearing joints. >Mel:??? I don't follow what you mean here. This is a very general remark whichneeds to be elaborated upon to be meaningful in the context of trunkstabilisation. Recent research distinguishes between the differentstabilisation processes involved if loading of the spine is compressive orshearing.Others attribute this initial acute stabilisation reflex to depend largely onincreases in intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal pressure, rather than simplemechanoreception (by the way, are you regarding mechanoreception as the sameas proprioception or as a more limited process involving only mechanicaltransduction?).Paul:<This input is combined with the conscious command to run the generalizedmotor program "squat" for example, which also activates all stabilizerfunctions 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 containingpain, unconsciousness and a real or fancied threat to survival. It is arecording in the reactive mind of something which actually happened to anindividual in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness, both ofwhich are recorded in the mental image picture called an engram. It must, bydefinition, have impact or injury as part of its content. These engrams area complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perceptionpresent 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 beingtied to an engram?Paul:<My observation begins immediately upon the decision is made to "squat" asthat is when you see the body in the set-up or preparation phase. Onceloaded, I will observe and palpate for recruitment of the TVA, multifidus,tension in the thoracolumbar fascia watch respiratory patterns. Although goodstabilization is usually obvious immediately, I will observe the entireprocess of execution and return to the rack. >Mel:Of course, we know that the very act of palpation being applied during activemovement can modify the kinaesthetic input to the nervous system and skew theresults. This is emphasized in many books such as Knott & Voss"Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation" and is actually used by Russiancoaches as a form of 'kinaesthetic manipulation' to deliberately influencepatterns of muscle activation.Paul:As one passes through the sticking point (in particular) I will observe theaction of the abdominal wall and associated segments.Mel:Is this just by visual observation? Which associated segments? As researchgiven in my original post mentioned, the variations in recruitment, includingleft to right symmetry, are often idiosyncractic and non-repeatable, evenwith careful instrumented analysis, so how can eye-balling achieve more?Paul:If the TVA is contributing appropriately, the umbilicus will have movedprogressively toward the spine until the stabilization threshold is crossed(a term I developed to indicate the point at which gross stabilization isobserved or palpated).Mel:What is a stabilisation threshold? This idea of thresholds may apply toall-or-none processes such as action-potential firing of nerve cells, butincreasing amounts of research show that traditional concepts of homeostasisand balance in the body are no longer acceptable. Even the concept of'anaerobic' or lactate thresholds are no lonegr being applied as casually asthey used to.In the case of joint and overall trunk stabilisation, there is no singlefinely tuned threshold of stabilisation, but a region or continuum in whichthe joint or body 'hunts around' for a specific moment in a dynamicallychanging metastable situation to ensure that the movement may continue orstop in a given way. There is no single mathematical solution to the problemsof balance and stabilisation of the body - there are always several variablestrategies which may be adopted to cope with a given situation.Research is showing that when the degree of variability decreases and therange of stability becomes more finely defined, then the likelihood of injuryand disease (including heart attacks and epileptic seizures) tends toincrease. In know that this sounds paradoxical, but this research is beingfound to agree with many clinical observations.Paul:If the TVA is dormant the abdominal wall gets thicker anterior to posteriorright away, usually before the descent even begins.Mel:How can one be categoric about transversus being dormant while increases inintra-abdominal pressure caused by breath holding are occurring? Are yoursubjects performing submaximal, breathing squats?How can one ever measure the anterior to posterior thickness of the abdominalwall without invasive surgical procedures or costly MRI or PET scans? - oh,sometimes, very skilled use of certain ultrasound scanners can give a goodapproximation! One certainly cannot differentially palpate this from thecontribution made by other tissues and muscles.If you are referring to thickening due to muscle contraction, the samecomment applies, but once the recti abdominis are taut, you cannot palpate ordifferentiate transversus during a heavy squat (as mentioned earlier, thereis a reflex distension of this region which counters any inward pull viaconnective 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 youreferring to an inverse stretch reflex or what? Where was this type ofsyndrome 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 inabilityto reverse the thoracic curvature....to name a fewMel:No doubt you have read my comments on the different ways of wearing a beltand how we must distinguish between belts as mechanical supports and belts aslightly-worn kinaesthetic devices and belts being used for maximal attemptsand belts being worn all the time. No published clinical studies or researchhave shown that all forms of belt usage correlate significantly with theincidence of back pain or dysfunction. There are far more folk with backproblems 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 andnever occurs in normal daily life or under any sporting conditions. Reversalof this curvature means changing the thoracic convexity to concavity, so thatthe upper back curves inwards just like the lower back! Is this really whatyou mean? It is impossible voluntarily to reverse the thoracic convexity -don't even mention this concept anywhere in the medical field, because it iswrong.Mel:<Many researchers (e.g. see Basmajian "Muscles Alive") have shown thatvigorous exhalation . . . or explosive tensing of the abdominal musclecomplex (as often done during Olympic or power lifts) automatically activatesthe obliques far more than rectus abdominis, so that heavy lifting, if anything, 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 ofthe obliques reflexively become far more actively involved than rectusabdominis in heavy lifting and pushing tasks.Mel:<Other material cited by Basmajian shows that apparent contraction of therecti abdominis is due more to passive bulging than electrical activationduring this sort of stabilising task. In addition, several of his colleagueshave confirmed that the recti are far less electrically active than theobliques during trunk stabilization in response to lifting or pushing tasks.Paul:<This is very task specific in my opinion. The fascia of the oblique musclesinvests the rectus muscles, therefore any contraction of the oblique muscleswould cause a palpatory tightening of what would appear to be the rectusmuscles. There is a distance difference to the trained hand.>Mel:It is not possible to distinguish by palpation between passive increase inmuscle tension or active contraction of muscle - one can crudely distinguishdifferences 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 thisis associated with secondary passive involvement of rectus (along withactivation caused by increases in intra-abdominal pressure produced by breathholding). So we agree that the abs are not the primary stabilisers inlifting tasks . . ?Paul :<Olympic lifts are all pulling lifts, which require only enough recruitmentof the rectus abdominus to stabilize the thorax, providing an effective forcegenerating platform for the extensors of the body. If the abdominalsdid not activate sufficiently to resist the force of the extensors the bodywould just collapse on the floor. >Mel:Olympic lifts have been shown also to be strongly similar to jumps andactivation of the recti abdominis (via the passive bulging and activationcaused by intra-abdominal pressure) as shown by EMG and intra-abdominalpressure recordings is greater than that recorded with any form of unloadedsupine situps, crunches or leg raises.You referred to abs as stabilising the thorax in lifting - now the thoraxanatomically is just the chest, so once again we are referring to the passiverole of the abs, since active use of the abs as trunk flexors would causerounding of the lumbar spine and this is dangerous during any Olympic liftingor powerlifting.Mel:< Moreover, EMG studies show that the erector spinae, hamstrings and glutealmuscles play a far more significant active role than any of the abdominalmuscles (their role is more passive) during lifting (Vorobyev 'Textbook onWeightlifting' has many EMGs on weightlifters showing this), so it alwaysintrigues me why physical therapists in particular seem to be so fanaticalabout the apparently overriding importance of the abdominal muscles duringlifting.>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 anintelligent response.Mel:See above - I gave the one study written by Vorobyev - you will find othersin "Spine" journal, the Journal of Biomechanics, Ergonomics and several otherplaces. I am busy collecting summaries of all these back articles at presentand have so far found more than 2000 references (in the journals above andmany others) - how on earth I am going to reduce them to manageable size I donot know. Anyway, as I come across relevant ones (like the one on spinaldisc shrinkage), I will continue to send them to this group.Regarding your lengthy comments on the role played by passive bulging of theabs in stabilising the trunk, I can clarify the picture thus:The abdominal muscles in a role as antagonists to hyperextension of thespine, can be activated in two ways:Action 1 : bringing its distal and proximal attachments closer together tocause active flexion of the spine (as during situps or overhead throws)Action 2 : creating a very tense band of muscle-connective tissue across thefront of the body which assists the actively involved deeper abdominalmusculature to allow the trunk to become a much stronger pneumaticallysupported structure (as in pulls, squats and bench press) or to prevent thetrunk from moving into dangerous hyperextension (as in standing presses).When I spoke about its role as a involuntary passive stabiliser, I wasreferring to the latter role. Obviously, if the abs were not electricallyactivated via all the nerves serving them, then they could not act as asupportive sheet of anything - I should have mentioned that, instead of justassuming that would be understood. The point I wished to stress was thatAction 1 (trunk flexion) is totally inappropriate for any form ofweightlifting or powerlifting, while Action 2 of the abs is what dominatesduring lifting and pushing.Mel wrote:EXTRA AB EXERCISE NECESSARY?<As Dr Spassov, Bulgarian weightlifting coach, and other lifting coaches havestressed, if one does lifting training which includes the weightlifting andpowerlifting movements, then there is no need for additional abdominalexercise, because heavy lifting training and its accompanying stabilizationprocesses, naturally condition the abdominal muscles. For bodybuilders, yes,but for athletes who do strength training, no supplementary abdominaltraining is required.Paul :I will give them a free copy of my new Core Conditioning correspondencecourse if you will give me their contact details. I bet you that if they canstep outside their dogma they will change their mind.Mel:Don't assume that they are dogmatic - the Russian and Eastern Europeanscientists base their methods on considerable research and translation ofmuch Western science and they would most certainly have used additionalabdominal training methods if they had found that it would have helped themdominate world sport.I can assure you that Spassov, Medvedev, Verkhoshansky, Zatsiorski, Ozolin,and others of their ilk have seen and done considerable work on trunkstrengthening and stabilisation, so they are hardly ignorant of what is outthere. They have no minds to change - their methods enabled their athletes todominate Olympic sports for many decades and that speaks volumes for theirmethods.Paul:When I met Poliquin he was making world record holders and Gold medalistsevery year and I completely changed his mind and he is not an easy sell, Iassure you. IF you don't believe me Mel, call him. Ask Al Vermeil of theBulls if he thinks the abdominals are just a piece of connective tissue, andif my approach works?Mel:While these two coaches have worked with many top performing athletes, andthough I have great respect for Al from my own work with the Bulls, neitherof these men is a scientist or clinician who is capable of commentingdefinitively on the biomechanics of trunk action. In that respect, I wouldbe more inclined to be convinced by a great scientist and practitioner suchas Dr Zatsiorsky (whose knowledge Al also finds astounding). Unfortunately, Ihave seen too many functional anatomical errors in Charles' work for me to beguided by it yet.Mel wrote:<Do you have any references which shed more light on the abdominal musclecomplex (AMC) recruitment issue during different types of movement, otherthan the ones which I have mentioned above? It would be most unusual for anylifters to actively recruit and not passively distend the abs during lifting,so I am fascinated about the kinesiology displayed by this particular groupof athletes. As far as I know, few, if any definitive EMG studies have beencarried out on the muscle recruitment patterns of the AMC of weightlifters orpowerlifters.Any references yet? Unfortunately, for every one of your anecdotal successeswith isolated ab training, others could produce just as many anecdotal talesof equal or greater success without specialised ab training (e.g. by Russiancoaches who have produced thousands of Olympians) - I would rather like tosee science direct either of us in a way which either reinforces or modifiesour anecdotal experiences.Mel wrote:<Spinal injury, contrary to what is commonly believed is quite rare amongOlympic lifters (about 8% of all injuries, according to a study published inthe IWF Weightlifting magazine). Moreover, elite powerlifters whom I know areconcerned that too many folk take part in powerlifting contests withoutadequate technical training, because they think that powerlifting does notrequire 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 alllevels of proficiency although I have never treated a world class Olympiclifter, just competitors. I have certainly studied them though.Mel:That IWF publication referred to 'ranked' lifters; in other words, ones whocompeted at national and international level in Russia. They also havestudies performed on athletes at all levels of proficiency, right fromchildhood up to Master and International Master class (some of the translatedmaterial is in Dr Yessis' "Soviet Sports Review").We will have to stop there, Paul - I don't know how many readers will manageto read through both of our posts, but let's hope that it has been a usefulexercise for those who have had the trunk endurance to do so!--------------------------Dr Mel C SiffDenver, USALinks 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 :DSikkerhed og swissballsOmm tungen/nakkestabilisationChek's top styrkeløftere/rehabilitering af rygskaderproblematikken vedr. voluntær aktivering af TVASiff diskuterer Chek's back storn and beltless artikelcoretraining/stabilitets fallacybænkpres og chekMere bænk og chekstabilisations mytenChek's svar på bænk kritikSiff tager Chek i en løgnVidere diskussion af bænk mellem siff/chek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jørgen L Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 OK, jeg vender tilbage om en måneds tid, når jeg har læst det :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptpoul Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 modsatteMin 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 temperamentÆrgeligt 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptpoul Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 OK, jeg vender tilbage om en måneds tid, når jeg har læst detDet 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jørgen L Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted 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. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptpoul Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 beltand how we must distinguish between belts as mechanical supports and belts aslightly-worn kinaesthetic devices and belts being used for maximal attemptsand belts being worn all the time. No published clinical studies or researchhave shown that all forms of belt usage correlate significantly with theincidence of back pain or dysfunction. There are far more folk with backproblems who do not wear belts or lift heavy weights.BELTLESS BELIEFSADVERTISEMENTSeveral folk have requested that I review a few articles that Paul Chek wrotefor Testosterone magazine on "How to be Back Strong and Beltless", aspublished 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. Thesetwo article already suggest that he has taken some of our earlier criticismsto heart, because he is now admitting in this series that breath holding doesindeed stabilise the trunk.HOW TO BE BACK STRONG & BELTLESSPART 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-issueequipment. On second thought, maybe he did, and we just don't know how to usethem correctly.>>*** Exactly the same remark may be applied to the wearing of shoes and it isentirely spurious. We might even have said that we should have retained ahairy cover all over our bodies to protect us from the sun and other extremesof climate. Why we should have evolved to lose something that protects usfrom our environment is anyone's guess. A remark like that has been used byLuddites, the Amish folk, the Taliban and others who reject manytechnological 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 beenregarded as pre-eminent over any others. In fact, there is even moredisagreement over spinal function than there has ever been. The number oftheories about spinal action may be at an all-time high, but ourunderstanding is certainly not yet at an all-time high. It is still highlytheoretical and by no means definitive, though it is very exciting to try anddecode some of the complex biomathematical models (which Chek, unfortunatelyis not trained to be able to do).<<As you are likely aware, when lifting a heavy object or exerting yourselfto throw or move an object such as in work or sports, it is natural to holdthe breath. Holding the breath under load is associated with increasedtension in the diaphragm. ...Practical experimentation in the gym will show that the trunk is stifferwhen filling the lungs as opposed to not filling the lungs withinhalation....>>***These remarks are most revealing, because Chek has constantly disagreedwith me and several others (in several Internet exchanges that still exist inthe archives of several user groups) on breath holding as a perfectly naturalconcomitant to spinal stabilisation. He has always been vigorously opposed tobreath holding to stabilise the spine. Instead he has placed an exaggeratedemphasis on "pulling the abs in" and trying to voluntarily activatetransversus abdominis (TVA) during all stages of squatting and lifting. It appears 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 effecton the lumbar spine, but that IAP is most effective at stabilizing the spinewhen applied in concert with co-activation of the erector spinae muscles.....Although, as suggested by Gracovetsky, we can not rely on muscles alonebecause mathematical modeling shows that Olympic athletes would not be strongenough to lift the loads they currently are lifting during competition. Wemust look to the fascial system of the body for a missing link, the hydraulicamplifier effect...It has also been suggested that IAP does not stabilize the spine. Standingfirmly against the notion that IAP provides any significant stabilizingmechanism 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 othertheorists and researchers, especially some of the world's most eruditebiomechanists. What Chek has done is a commendable cut-and-paste collage jobof information from various sources, but he has failed to go beyond aliterature retrieval stage of the literature review. A true review retrievesthe necessary information, then compares and analyses it, then, if the authorhas specific scientific or research skills, he offers his own views andmodels. Anyone can cut and paste from books, articles and Medline, but notanyone can intelligently analyse the material and go beyond the obvious.<<The hydraulic amplifier effect, originally theorized by Gracovetsky toincrease the strength of the back muscles, was later proven mathematically toincrease the strength of the back muscles by 30%.... The hydraulic amplifiermechanism is composed of the TLF (thoracolumbar fasciae) surrounding the backmuscles to create a relatively stable cylinder.... >>***While Chek has given a reasonable summary of how some of the trunkmusculature can act like an hydraulic lift, he has not shown that heunderstands the significance of the "amplifier" part of the spinal model.This is a very significant omission, because a knowledge of the dynamicprocess of mechanical amplification (including amplifier "gain" and feedbackcontrol) is vital to an understanding of lifting, stabilising and injury.<<What modern researchers have been able to do is more clearly define twomajor stabilizer systems of the body, the inner unit and the outer unit. Thestabilizer system considered as our "God-given weight belt" is the innerunit.....The Inner Unit serves to stiffen the axial skeleton in preparation for work.The Inner Unit muscles are A) Transversus Abdominis and the posteriorfibers 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 musculatureand 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 unitmuscles are responsible for developing and maintaining segmentalstiffness, the bigger muscles, shown here as guide wires, are responsible forcreating movement. >>***The accompanying figure depicted the spine as a system of guy wiressupporting the mast of a ship. Significantly, this model excludes anytransverse members on the sails or the fact that the hull, like the rest ofthe human body, does not provide a stable base. This incomplete spinal modelallows us to understand in part why it is nowadays so fashionable to talkabout "core stabilisation". The latter misleading concept is based upon asystem which excludes the role of peripheral stabilisation (of which I havewritten elsewhere) and the systems nature of motor control. One of theproblems with models and analogies is that, in attempts to simplify complexprocesses, they can omit details which can lead to some very defectiveconclusions.Division of the muscles of the trunk into "inner" and "outer" systems, whileoften being convenient for the sake of simplifying the complexity of thespine, sometimes proves to be a rather limiting model of trunk functioning.Interestingly, Chek, while sketching this model in a superficiallyattractive way, has not explained if this mast and guy rope depiction of thespine or Gracovetsky's model constitutes a frame, truss or machine (recallingthat frames are designed to support loads, whereas machines are designed totransmit or amplify forces or couples).Chek, in previous discussions, has always evaded my attempts to make himunderstand the difference between moments, couples, force couples and relatedmechanical concepts with some entirely irrelevant personal retorts. Thislatest article makes it very apparent that he really should have attended tothis deficit in his knowledge base. He might then have come acrossbiomechanical models of the spine which rely on a systems theoreticalapproach which does not regard the spine a system of guy ropes and rigidmembers and which do not implicate the fasciae in the role suggested byGracovetsky and others.Other models regard the spine as a cantilever system, while yet othersexamine the spine as a suspension system. In these models, there is nonecessity to divide the muscles into inner and outer units, but as an entiresystem which stabilises the spine in terms of the least energy principle.By selecting only one favourite model of the spine, he has been biased tomake some misleading and unjustified conclusions and applications in the restof his material, especially the practical applications.PART 2<<Lahad et al concluded that sufficient evidence was unavailable to recommendthe use of mechanical back supports for the prevention of back pain. Inanother study conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safetyand Health, prophylactic use of back belts for healthy workers was notrecommended because of a lack of scientific evidence promoting theirbenefit. There are also many other studies indicating belt use provides nosignificant improvement in performance or reduction in the user's chance ofinjury. >>***Virtually all of the studies that Chek quotes to condemn the use of a beltare drawn from the world of manual labour or research studies with averagevolunteers in which belts are worn for prolonged periods. It isscientifically invalid to extrapolate such findings from the setting ofCHRONIC belt usage to the setting of occasional ACUTE belt usage for veryheavy or maximal competitive lifting.<<Davis' Law is demonstrated and well known by physical therapists who treatneurological injuries; stimulating the surface of the body producesstimulation of the muscles served by the same nerve root. Therefore,repeatedly "pushing outward" against the belt, which is encouraged by thebelt through sensory-motor stimulus, is likely to develop and perpetuatefaulty recruitment patterns. >>***This statement that superficial methods of kineasthetic manipulationperpetuates faulty motor patterns (see Siff & Verkhoshansky "Supertraining"1999, Ch 8) is entirely one of personal opinion and not supported by anyquoted research. On the contrary, PNF and neurodevelopmental methods inphysiotherapy rely heavily on manual contacts and touch to teach correctoptimal motor patterns. It is not the stimulation of the surface of the skinwhich may elicit faulty patterns, but the inappropriate use of suchstimulation. This sort of remark is grossly misleading and inaccurate, asany experienced physical therapist and neurologist will tell us.<<If belts really did improve trunk stability, then the lifter would be ableto use them for a given period of time, remove the belt and experienceimproved performance when lifting; THIS IS NOT THE CASE! .....If indeed belts did improve proprioception, the user would be able to takethe belt off after a period of use and have improved proprioceptive sense or"position sense" while lifting. This would constitute a learning effect; Ihave never experienced this to be the case! Belt users become dependent upontheir 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 thenew skintight swimming and cycling outfits which, besides reducingaerodynamic drag, apparently enhance proprioceptive sensitivity and muscleactivation. Anyway, many lifters who wear belts for maximal lifts have shownthat they are quite capable of lifting the same loads without belts, butchoose to wear belts for attempting new maximal lifts because they considerthat belts may offer enhanced safety under those extreme conditions. It isvery common for athletes in the most demanding situations to use specificprotective or 'ergogenic' devices, so why would this be so reprehensible forcompetitive lifters?Remember that the lifting of maximal loads is not undertaken every day oreven every week, but only on occasional maximal training days or trainingcompetitions that are weeks or months apart. As I have written many timesbefore, it is the manner and duration of belt wearing that may deem itinappropriate, not simply because belts "weaken" everyone under allcircumstances.<<The only way to restore function of the deep abdominal wall is to usevarious forms of biofeedback (described below).....It is very valuable to use other extroceptive (sic) stimuli, such as athletictape to improve kinesthetic awareness. As the patient learns, the need fortape is reduced, and eventually the tape is eliminated. String is also usedas a form of biofeedback during movement training and is particularly usefulin restoration of deep abdominal wall function during functional movementtraining.>>***Here we have a fascinating contradiction! Chek spent a great deal ofspace in denouncing the value of a lightly worn belt as a mode of offeringmechanical feedback, but here he is extolling the virtues of usinginextensible 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 takethe belt off after a period of use and have improved proprioceptive sense or"position sense" while lifting. This would constitute a learning effect; Ihave never experienced this to be the case! Belt users become dependent upontheir 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 woulddismiss his evidence as being unreliable, because he is clearly admittingthat devices like tape (and, by implication, certain types of belt) CANimprove kinaesthetic awareness. The device being used may be different, butthe underlying principle remains the same. CASE CLOSED!***Finally, let us reinforce the case a little more strongly - Chek evenquotes the following reference which supports the use of belts. Is this notanother 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/orincreased 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 doso intelligently and selectively! Note that I am not stating that one cannotlift successfully and safely without a belt or that one cannot develop a verystrong trunk without using a belt - I am simply stressing that sometimes itmay be appropriate or useful to astutely use a belt in a given situation.What I oppose is any blanket or "allness" statement which creates anotheritem of dogma in the strength training world.Dr Mel C SiffDenver, USA4. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptpoul Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Grundlæggende set er vi jo ret enige :DBælter 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 :DMht. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jørgen L Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 trykDet 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 weightsDet 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. JudoPåstand - 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=3378Problemet 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptpoul Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 (edited) 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 doso intelligently and selectively! Note that I am not stating that one cannotlift successfully and safely without a belt or that one cannot develop a verystrong trunk without using a belt - I am simply stressing that sometimes itmay 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sindbad Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted 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.... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolai Thygesen Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 ) og Check er altså ikke helt ved siden af i det han siger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptpoul Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 >>NicolaiInteressant, hvis du skulle få tid/lyst ville det være dejligt med links :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clorius Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sindbad Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 biomechanicsHvor skal man ellers finde det? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolai Thygesen Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jørgen L Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 heruinteressant, 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 appropriateOg 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandpyt Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptpoul Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 (edited) 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 herQUOTE 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 megetDet 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.