Group: Strength & Powerlifting

Created: 2012/01/01, Members: 38, Messages: 16459

Discuss the topic of Power lifting, Strength training and Strong Man training!

Join group

Has Paul Chek finally lost it???

wrestler125
wrestler125
Posts: 4,619
Joined: 2004/01/27
United States
2006/01/15, 10:01 PM
I like to stay on top of things, but I can't say I check his website every morning after I drink my tea. But has anyone checked out his website lately???
Is it just me, or is it starting to look even MORE like a cult? Check out his "mission statement". Wow.

--------------
Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run.

============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
The squat cage is holy ground.
============
wrestler125
wrestler125
Posts: 4,619
Joined: 2004/01/27
United States
2006/01/16, 04:25 PM
Barely a day after I post this, an article from t-nation comes out.

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=40F324A4D7EDB046A955928F6D2BA9FA.hydra?id=885647

--------------
Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run.

============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
The squat cage is holy ground.
============
2006/01/16, 09:29 PM
So let me comment on some of his points:

"And the first thing they ask me every time is, "What drugs are you using?" I tell them chicken, carrots, broccoli, water, sleep, and a reason to be alive. I go into the gym and lift weights because it's a part of my spiritual practice; it's part of maintaining the temple. I don't need to go to church; I am the church."

-old saying, your body is your temple...your body will only take you as far as you allow it....

"• If you don't want to have problems, eat real food. Stop eating all this cheap crap. I've had multi-millionaires and world-class professional athletes in my office tell me that organic food is too expensive.

I walk them to the window and point to their $140,000 sports car and say, "Eat that fucker then! Because when you die they aren't going to bury that son of a bitch with you!"

It's just a matter of getting your priorities right. The more toxic your body is, the lower your quality of life is."

-excellent point we must set our priorities straight...materialism in itself is not wrong however when it begins to cloud one's judgement especially when it comes to one's health....no amount of money can buy an old person their youth and many would be willing to give away everything for just that....and often do in search of it...
(gotta love plastic surgeons)

"If you can't pronounce a word on the label, don't eat it."
-people new to fitness are often mislead by fancy sounding names....an apple is an apple, rye bread is rye bread...when there are a bunch of crazy sounding ingredients...it's time to go for something healthier....

"• The people who say that organic food is no better then regular are what's technically known as controlbots. A controlbot is somebody whose mind has been taken over by corporate entities or religion or anybody who has an agenda

• Scientific studies show that hands-down, bar none, not only is there far more nutrition in food raised organically, but there are detrimental effects to the consumption of any commercially raised food.

This isn't only because the commercially raised food carries the residues of the toxic chemicals within and on them, but the soil microorganisms that are responsible for generating the nutrition to feed the plant and provide much of the immune system of the plant are rapidly killed by the application of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides

One of the things commercial farmers do is they put so much salt on the ground that the plants have to suck up huge amounts of water to neutralize the salt and survive. This makes for bigger, lovely looking produce, but in reality you get big empty corn cobs and big empty carrots.

One research study showed that today, to get the same nutrition from one head of lettuce as you did 50 years ago, you'd have to eat 20 heads of lettuce from the commercial farms."

-I think if Paul looks hard enough he'll recognize that he's a 'controlbot' in many areas as well....driven by his own agenda....however if organic food is an option, I would lean this way to avoid many chemicals used to raise produce...

" Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to look at one picture of me and know that you can't do that with just a Swiss ball!

A Swiss ball is a very therapeutic and useful adjunct to add to any weight lifting program. It's a tool. I just happened to have popularized it. So people with sheep mentality immediately think that's all that I do.
"

-great point I think he's seen as a mad genius...but there's a method to his craziness....yes he uses it...but it's not everything....he was among first to use it...(not sure he invented or popularized it..)...so people overgeneralize this as the whole system of his training...


Although his comments have made his ideology sound like integration into a cult...I will say that health and healthy living is a process of immersion...so you can't do it half way....you have to embrace it...and that's his main point...beyond his mysticism and spirituality which he espouses....

Many of his theories have been shown misleading or wrong...however....the point is not to be perfect....the point is to contribute and I think among his eccentricity....there are many valuable things to learn from him...one just has to be smart enough to see through a lot of bs...he's not the fitness mesiah....so once that is grasped....everything else follows..
nellyboy
nellyboy
Posts: 209
Joined: 2004/07/09
United States
2006/01/21, 05:36 PM
Hey I know it's been awhile since I posted, but since you believe I'm a Chek fanatic, I figured I'd post on this topic.

First off wrestler, yeah I agree with you that he has kind of gone a different direction than everyone in world seems to be heading, but hey, that's his choice. Whatever flips your bill...I guess. Secondly, he's a TEACHER, not Budda! The Institutes curriculum is like any other, it's up for interpretation regarding its validity. You should see how I can rip apart our local College curriculum for this profession...but am I completely right? Who knows.

Menace, what theories have been "shown" to be misleading or wrong? You stated two paragraphs earlier that many over-generalize his theories, so if "his" theories aren't even completely understood or in most cases...read completely, then how can they be "shown" to be misleading or wrong?

What I find when I discuss any of these topics with fellow health practitioners, all they've read is the information listed on his websites!
nellyboy
nellyboy
Posts: 209
Joined: 2004/07/09
United States
2006/01/21, 06:50 PM
Another point I've wanted to make many times concerning being bashed for following theories from the Chek Institute or Charles Poliquin or Weston A Price is that: don't argue the person...ARGUE THE POINT! If you read up on propaganda, one of the first ways to spot it, is to see if they attack the person. This usually means that they cannot argue the points and therefore attempt to discredit the individual.
wrestler125
wrestler125
Posts: 4,619
Joined: 2004/01/27
United States
2006/01/21, 08:04 PM
sorry man, but his website looks like a cult. I have read a lot of his articles, and I do agree that most people tend to take him the wrong way and misunderstand where he is coming from. That is why I still continue to visit his website from time to time. But have you seen it lately? Is he starting a cult or something. Problem is, I don't disagree with a lot of his points, just that he takes them too far. I argue with anyone that believes in such extremes.

--------------
Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run.

============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
The squat cage is holy ground.
============
nellyboy
nellyboy
Posts: 209
Joined: 2004/07/09
United States
2006/01/21, 11:07 PM
Have I seen it lately? I am a Chek Student, so of course I have. The issue you're having is with his spiritual ideology, which I personally do NOT agree with. I am a psuedo-Baptist and all that information that's on that particular subject is not for me. This does not mean that I think he's starting a cult, he just believes in something different than I and many others do. He also states...clearly...that this is not something Chek students are required to learn or buy into.

Now, what extremes are you talking about? Nutrition? Motor Re-Conditioning? Strength and Conditioning? ect.
wrestler125
wrestler125
Posts: 4,619
Joined: 2004/01/27
United States
2006/01/22, 12:26 AM
He takes a lot of stuff too far. Nutrition (I want to see his proof that he mentions that others say doesn't exist), organic eating, motor re-conditioning, toxins, etc. I remember chek when it first came out, it was good stuff. A friend posted on a board and put it well: "I think he gives far too little credit to the basics that he practices that has kept himself in shape and gives far too much credit to the mysticism."

It is this mysticism that had people walking out on him at the SWIS symposium.

Of course you're a chek student. It's easy to follow when you pay thousands of dollars to do so. I know trainers that have spent thousands of dollars to become "Chek Interns" that now regret it and think he is full of BS. Not trying to take a cheap shot, but this is a reality.

I prefer to follow no one particular teacher. Instead, I prefer to learn from all of them. If you were to ask me who influenced what I know, I could give you a list 2 pages long. Cosgrove, DeFranco, Waterbury, Ballantyne, Tate, Wendler, Simmons, Cressey, Robertson, Tsatsouline, Furey, Ferruggia, Berardi, Fry, King, Poliquin, Rooney, Jim Smith, James Smith, Murphy, Shugart, Even-Esh and even Chek all of the top of my head. Follow no one blindly. Chek may claim to be able to smell when his athletes are eating poorly, but I can always follow a Chek follower.


Look, I of all people that Chek is capable of making some excellent points that some people tend to get a little bit to far off of. At the Swis symposium, he made a point about when one of his athletes told him eating healthy was too expensive, he walked to the window, and told him to eat his (expetive deleted) sports car. This is something todays athletes need to pay attention to. Similarly, he can push jerk a 185lb man, and from what I hear he deadlifts 400+.

"Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to look at one picture of me and know that you can't do that with just a Swiss ball!" I think if he concentrated on the basics that he used to achieve this, and less on playing the mystic, then people wouldnt react so harshly to him.


Off topic, but I have successfully returned to drinking milk with no problems, after having given it up for almost 10 weeks. Only thing I can say is that I have changed to skim, as that way it follows a P+C meal.

--------------
Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run.

============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
The squat cage is holy ground.
============
wrestler125
wrestler125
Posts: 4,619
Joined: 2004/01/27
United States
2006/01/22, 11:24 PM
He claims organic is more pro performance. I have seen studies that have shown that while nutritional content may be higher, it is no easier on the digestive track.

I'm going to have to ask you to be a little more objective. You are attacking members of that board as "idiots", saying they are brainwashed, and attacking them saying they can not form sentences, and then YOU talk about propaganda. Re-read your post, I am sure you will realize how you come across there.

You comment that guys are talking about how people live longer today than they did in the 1900's. While this is incorrect thinking, this is Chek's line of thinking.

Now, you comment on the intelligence of some of the t-nation posters. It has been my experiance that many of them show a better understanding of the concepts that MATTER than many other individuals. However, I know at least 4 people that were full fledged Chek followers that now disagree with a lot of what he says. Not to mention all the people I have read talking about the same thing.

I think we agree on more than you realize. Chek advocates weight lifting as the best form of activity, and he knows his kinesiology on spot. He is one of the best in his field (rehabilitive kinesiology) in the world, I do not argue with this. I believe him when he says that it takes more than a balance board to push press a 235lb man. He didn't develop this through what he promotes, he developed it through his hardcore approach to strength training.

I could compare chek to Dave Tate. There are those that would follow tate blindly. Tate knows how to develop strength second to few. But I will readily argue when I disagree with him (which is about half of what he says not regarding strength development). I think you need to learn to be more discriminatory with what you choose to believe. I may be called a tate follower, as I was early on influenced by him and the westside crew, but there are interviews that I hear him in that I am like, wtf?

I think you need to learn to be more discriminatory with what you choose to believe, and be a little more objective in your thinking.
Question everything nelly. I don't care who says it.

--------------
Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run.

============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
The squat cage is holy ground.
============
2006/01/23, 12:15 AM
Generally speaking T-nation posters are quite a bit smarter than members of most other boards I have run across....also just because they make spelling mistakes....(as we all do) that doesn't take away from their arguments....you attacked each of those members without exactly showing how they are wrong....the guy who explained why Chek was way off about bacteria knew what he was talking about....Chek sounded rediculous when he says stuff that he did....and reread what you wrote....instead of disproving those posters, you simply attacked them as idiots...you even admitted that you didn't understand what one of the guys was writing but only that he corrected himself....so what?....many of them made great points.....

Chek spouts a bunch of crazy concepts .....with little scientific support for it....sorry but in this day and age you do need it......double blind studies ...etc...yes some may have flaws in them that make them inapplicable but nevertheless they are the best thing to prove something as worthwhile or worthless....

Also pesticides are often not as big of a problem as it is made out to be....only some plants are significantly affected by it...there are plenty of vegetation that has been found to have only minute amounts of pesticides on them and no real need to buy organic foods instead ....

Chek is definitely no fool in many areas...but blindly following every damn thing he says is a joke....no one is 100% right...and to think so is outright rediculous....I think part of his 'schtick' ise just to attract attention on to himself...good or bad....

::::goes to measure his feces...::::::
wrestler125
wrestler125
Posts: 4,619
Joined: 2004/01/27
United States
2006/01/23, 12:41 AM
play nice boys.

nelly, no more attacking posters...
menace, no more fecal matter comments...


--------------
Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run.

============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
The squat cage is holy ground.
============
2006/01/23, 01:06 AM
lol....i am only too glad not to do it....on to the 'earthy smells'...lol...jk....
rev8ball
rev8ball
Posts: 3,081
Joined: 2001/12/27
United States
2006/01/23, 11:23 AM
Don't mind the CONSTRUCTIVE arguing, gents; but let's remember to keep it civil. Otherwise, don't bother posting...

--------------
Michael

Powerlifters -
We eat raw meat, and sleep naked in the snow...
2006/01/24, 07:18 AM
What I like about Siff is that he can take a very complex topic and simplify it....so that evena 5 yr old can understand it....Chek does the opposite....here's one of Siff's articles I found in which he breaks down some of Chek's statements and points out his fallacies...I stumbled on his Supertrainer group on yahoo and I am really enjoying his articles.....here he discusses Chek's incorrect assertion about pulling Abs in during heavy big exercises-squats/deadlifts for proper TVA activation....

Chek Ab Revision?
Only 1 message in topic - view as tree

Mcs...@a..
Sep 16 2001, 2:18 pm show options

Mark Reifkind wrote:


<It seems Dr Siff's true scientific approach has finally reached Mr Chek. In
this latest article on his site he backtracks on his contention that one
should consciously activate the TVA on all squatting exercises and that, if
one's rectus is "activated" (bulging out), then it is a sign of inadequate
TVA strength.


It seems it is now possible to having a passively bulging rectus during heavy
loading and healthy and functioning TVA, after all!!


<http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=24>


Mel Siff:


*** Even though it would appear that Chek has begun to acknowledge my
analyses of trunk stabilisation, abdominal muscle action and so forth, if one
reads his article, you will see, as Mark has intimated, that this
acknowledgement is barely present and his old beliefs are still very evident.
He has tried to revise his views and appease his critics by saying "Yes, my
critics have been correct all along, but my beliefs are also still correct
because parts of the abs are pulling in and other parts are pushing out.
Therefore, we are all right - nobody is all correct and nobody is all
incorrect."


At least he has now accepted that the correct "spelling" for a certain muscle
group is rectus abdominis and not rectus abdominus - some progress has been
made! However, he hasn't quite got round to recognising that the plural is
"recti abdominis". But, let's move along, for pedantry of anatomical
terminology is not our objective today!


Instead, let's examine his apparently revised viewpoint by applying some of
the methods of science and practical experience to his latest article.


-----------------------------


ABS IN, OR ABS OUT?


Paul Chek


<Today, there is much confusion regarding proper use of the abdominal wall,
especially during resistance training or heavy lifting activities. Currently,
there are numerous organizations and elite coaches who instruct their
students to push their abdominals out while passing through the sticking
point of a lift. This is encouraged both with, and without the use of a
weight belt.>


Mel Siff:


*** There would be no confusion if he simply acknowledged that the healthy,
body with no damage or dysfunction of abdominal and trunk structures, knows
what to do automatically without any need for trying to suck, push, pull,
activate, deactivate and so forth. This is the reason why reflexes exist and
why changes in reflex activation occur if the body is injured. Chek's
article is referring the squat, so we may assume that the subject is not ina
medically unsound state. Thus, as soon as the load is taken on the shoulders
and the descent phase commences, the individual reflexively holds the breath
and the diaphragm, abdominal and other trunk muscles all activate
reflexively to suit the exact demands of each phase of the movement.


According to basic biomechanics and physiology, the increase in
intra-abdominal pressure associated with the reflexive breath holding against
a closed glottis will also reflexively activate the abdominal structures in
an attempt to oppose excessive distention of the anterior (front) and lateral
abdominal walls. However, since the latter are viscoelastic in nature and
not inelastically rigid, they will still tend to bulge outwards, unless all
that we have learned in physics for many decades has been revised recently.


Paul Chek:


<The technique of pushing the abs out during a lift may be more founded in
tradition than current anatomical knowledge. In this article, I will present
an anatomically based explanation for proper abdominal wall function during
resistance training and will use the squat to help demonstrate this.>


Mel Siff:


*** No, as we have seen directly above, much of the outward movement of the
abs in the healthy subject during squatting and other heavy load moving is
produced reflexively by increases in intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). Some
powerlifters indeed try to increase the IAP even further by deliberately
pushing outwards against a lifting belt. As we have noted from some
references posted here some months ago, this action actually can diminish
stress on the spine and increase the ability to lift heavier loads, so that
deliberate pushing against a belt should be regarded as a perfectly rational
procedure to be used by lifters who are raising huge loads.


Paul Chek:


<ACTIVATION OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL


A deep diaphragmatic breath should be taken prior to initiation of the squat
or any other heavy lift. This results in contraction and subsequent lowering
of the diaphragm into the thoracic cavity which pushes the organs down and
out onto the abdominal wall. As seen in Figure 1-A, inhalation causes the
diaphragm to drop from its resting position (shown in blue) to a position
representative of inhalation, which causes distention of the abdominal wall.
This results in the umbilicus moving away from the spinal column.>


Mel Siff:


*** One does not actively have to think about diaphragmatic or any other
specific forms of breathing when readying oneself for the squat, since the
appropriate action happens quite reflexively. No matter how one holds one's
breath with a heavy load on the shoulders, the resultant Valsalva manouevre
will result in a large increase in IAP and reflex activation of the necessary
spinal muscles - and that is ALL that is needed to stabilise and prepare the
body for the subsequent squatting action. And - here we go - as Mark pointed
out - Chek at last recognises that the abdominal wall distends - moves
outwards, not inwards - as we have been trying to tell him for several years.
But don't drop your guard, folks, here comes the counterproposal .......


Paul Chek:


<After a full inhalation is achieved, the transversus abdominis (TVA) should
be activated. Because the fibers of the TVA are horizontal with respect to
the spine (Figure 2 - A1), when activated, it causes the umbilicus to move
toward the spine. This inward movement is critical the following reasons:


As you descend in the squat, the line of gravity relative to the load
gradually moves forward which creates a progressively greater flexion moment
on the lumbar spine. Something you may have experienced while squatting is
that, as you progress toward the sticking point, there is greater load placed
on your back. This requires a concomitant increase in stability to prevent
unwanted compression, torsion and/or sheer of the spinal structures..........>


Mel Siff:


*** This is where a little knowledge of biomechanics becomes an even more
dangerous thing. "The line of gravity" always runs perpendicular to the
surface of the earth, no matter how hard you or even Zeus try to change the
state of affairs. Possibly Chek is referring to the line of action of the
centre of mass (COM) of the combined lifter-load system. Even then, if this
line of action gradually moves forward (which no sensible lifter will ever
allow to happen), it will soon pass beyond the ball of the foot and you will
topple over forwards and immediately forget about any form of pushing or
pulling abs!


While the trunk, hip, knee and ankle angles, plus angle of inclination of the
trunk, all will change during the squat (or clean etc), the line of action of
the COM has to fall well within the base of the foot closer to the heels than
the toes, otherwise balance will be critically disrupted and you will have to
fall forwards or take a step to halt the fall. The body of the lifter
constantly adjusts to optimise joint angles so that balance and the ability
to optimally exert torque persist until the lift is over.


If we carry out a high speed video analysis of the squat, we see that the
joint markers on the hips, shoulders and knees all describe some very
characteristic curvilinear trajectories in three dimensional space, because,
if they did not, the line of action of the COM would move outside the base of
stabilisation formed by the feet and balance would be impossible.


The comment about all of this requiring "a concomitant increase in stability
to prevent unwanted compression, torsion and/or sheer of the spinal
structures" is further guruspeak which describes almost everything
incorrectly. The stability does not have to increase - the body simply has
to remain optimally stable from beginning to end of the movement - though
certain stages of the movement will require different relative controlling
contributions from the different muscle groups involved, stability does not
wax and wane like the phases of the moon.


Chek should have avoided any attempts to apply a rudimentary knowledge of
biomechanics and said something like, "If you lean forwards during the squat,
you will force the back muscles to contract more powerfully in an attempt to
prevent you from falling over. This increased muscle tension will tend to
compress the spinal discs more strongly and if you happen to flex the lower
spine at the same time, the discs will be loaded unevenly which can be
especially harmful. Similarly, if you twist and flex during the squat, the
resulting torsion can also impose large shearing (not sheering!) forces
across and about the discs and other soft tissue around the vertebrae."
American efficiency experts often say: "KISS" (Keep it Simple, Simon)!


The moral is "never try to sound like an expert in any field unless you
really are an expert in that field." All of us who have presented papers at
learned conferences often have learned the truth of this statement with
profound discomfort and humility, so that, as the years have plodded along,
we have become far less enthusiastic to proclaim ourselves as experts.
Others, sadly, try to solve the problem by avoiding learned encounters with
peers or superiors, and that is not doing anyone any favours educationally,
other than saving some face.


Paul Chek:


< THEORY OF ENERGY CONSERVATION


Many anatomists and biomechanics consider the body to be a highly efficient
and energy-conserving organism for reasons of survival during developmental
times. The body’s tendency to conserve energy can been seen while performing
a heavy lift, such as the squat. As described above, when the powerful
diaphragm contracts to meet the progressive demand for stabilization of the
spinal column and rib cage, the viscera will be forced downward and outward.
This would demonstrate why many coaches and athletes have observed the abs
pushing out during a lift.>


Mel Siff:


*** While Chek has referred to the energy conserving propensities of the
human body, he has not said how the diaphragm or abdominal actions actually
operate in this regard during the squat. Anyway, even if one is not moving
with optimal energy saving efficiency (and most machines or bodies never do),
the body still will be able to produce a highly efficient and safe external
movement, albeit using some more energy. That being the case, it will have
cost you a few more calories and you will have to compensate by eating a
little more after your workout or competition!


Don't forget that the viscera are not rigid hard structures which somehow
push the very tense abdominal muscles outwards. The viscera are very soft
organs which are compressed and pushed about within the abdominal cavity, but
it is the IAP in general which distends the abdominal region, which would
happen whether or not we had any viscera.


Paul Chek:


<As the abs are being pushed outward under the force of contraction from the
superincumbent diaphragm, the TVA will be forced to work eccentrically. Most
of you know that a muscle is approximately 30-40% stronger eccentrically than
concentrically. This mechanism would not only allow the body to better
stabilize the spinal column, it would do it at a reduced energy cost!>


Mel Siff:


*** Apparently, this comment is aimed at analysing how specific types of
abdominal action conserve energy. Here we are being offered some unique
insights into what happens when transversus abdominis (TVA) apparently is
acting eccentrically. I have never come across any research which somehow
has examined eccentric action of this muscle during lifting, so it would be
fascinating to read any references that address this process. Even if sucha
reference happens to exist, it would be even more fascinating to hear how
eccentric action of TVA, which does not control torsion, flexion, extension
or any other dynamic actions of the spine during heavy dynamic lifting,
manages to improve movement efficiency during the squat. While the economy
of eccentric muscle action has been shown in the case of antigravity muscles
or in muscles which cross a joint, the role of eccentric action in TVA
certainly has not been shown. I await information on this "cutting edge"
activity in the near future.


Paul Chek:


< SO ARE THE ABS OUT OR IN?


While initiating the squat, or during preparation for any heavy lift, the
deep abdominal wall (inner unit) of a functional body will activate to
provide segmental stabilization of the spine. This results in a visible
inward motion of the umbilicus; the abs are going in. As you move through the
sticking point, the relative load against the spinal column will be at a
maximum and will therefore require a maximum contribution from both the inner
and outer unit muscles. The inner unit muscles will act to stiffen the spinal
column while the larger outer unit muscles will provide gross stability and
motion. >


Mel Siff:


*** I have EMGraphed, videod and "eye-balled" numerous squats of some
reasonably competent lifters and have never ever seen the abs "go in" during
any phase of the squat. I have been involved in competitive lifting for many
decades now and have never observed "visible inward motion of the umbilicus"
with abs "going in" during the preparatory or any other phases of any Olympic
or Power lift. One simply has to watch a single lifting event to see that
this statement is preposterous. I find it hard to believe that anyone can
actually believe it to be true. It would be more than interesting to see any
biomechanical recordings or read any research that shows it to be true. In
fact, I have never even been able to find a single lifting subject who is
willing to pull his abs in during any heavy lifts just for the sake of
scientific research. And my own abs have always displayed this nasty
tendency to bulge outwards when I squat, overhead press or jerk. Maybe I
have been missing something over all these years of misguided competitive
lifting and biomechanical research!


Paul Chek:


<To better appreciate this, one need only look at the line of gravity during
the decent into a squat.>


Mel Siff:


*** As I stated much earlier, this remark about "line of gravity" is
biomechanical nonsense, even during a decent or a descent into a squat :)


Paul Chek:


<The progressively larger lever arm against the spine will require an
increasingly greater contraction of the erector spinae muscles to move the
load in concert with the leg musculature.>


Mel Siff:


*** I also showed earlier at some length that a progressively larger lever
arm is displayed during the well-executed squat and that this occurred only
if the lifter incorrectly leans over more or rounds the lumbar spine. Maybe
some tragically unsafe lifters would allow the line of action of the COM to
move very far forwards and carry out some hair-raising squatting corrections
to stay balanced, but no reasonably skilled lifter would allow the load to
move further forwards in this unwise manner.


Even if the spine is more heavily loaded by greater trunk inclination during
some phases of deadlifting or Olympic lifting, the skilled lifter makes sure
that the body is aligned at all times to minimise the imposition of any
potentially risky asymmetric or torsional loading on the spinal structures.
Several months ago I posted some biomechanical analyses of joint and bar (in
our "Files" section) trajectories during the snatch to illustrate how this
happens. Unfortunately, Chek's analyses are based entirely on hypothesis
and not biomechanical analysis during actual lifts, yet he frequently accuses
the "academics" for relying on theory and not on practical knowledge.


Paul Chek:


<The massive contraction of the back muscles can not go unchecked by the
large rectus abdominis and oblique muscles, or the spine would simply colapse
into extension. Therefore we could say that there is co-contraction of the
outer abdominal muscles against the back muscles to provide gross stability
of the torso and move the load. As this co-contraction takes place, there
will be thickening of the rectus abdominis and oblique muscles, just as you
would expect when contracting any skeletal muscle. Considering this along
with the fact that the diaphragm can force the TVA into an eccentric
contraction thus pushing the umbilicus away from the spine (while maintaining
segmental stability), would make it appear to the observer or athlete looking
in the mirror that the abs are moving out!>


Mel Siff:


*** No matter how one wishes to disguise it with comments about apparent
"moving out" vs "actual moving out", the fact remains that the surface of the
abdomen moves OUTWARDS during the squat. This outward movement is both the
result of passive outwards bulging of the abdominal wall produced by
increases in IAP (as I discussed earlier and as corroborated by Basmajian's
research in his book, "Muscles Alive"), as well as by thickening of the recti
abdominis and obliques during contraction associated with concontraction
processes AND with reflexive activation to oppose the large increase in IAP.


As a matter of fact, similar bulging of the lower back muscles during the
deadlift, squat and Olympic lifts sometimes creates the impression that the
lower back is rounding, which is a major reason why one cannot simply rely on
visual superficial analysis of spinal dynamics during any lifts.


Paul Chek:


<However, what I have shown here is that in a properly functioning body, the
inner unit musculature remains contracted (abs in) while the outer unit
contracts to act as a gross stabilizer, pushing the abdominals progressively
more outward as the load and need for gross stability increases.>


Mel Siff:


*** As I have shown by application of some standard biomechanics and muscle
physiology, Chek most definitely has NOT shown what he claims to have shown.
He simply has propounded a totally unsubstantiated hypothesis that, despite
the clear evidence that the abdominal wall distends during the squat, the
"outer" abdominal musculature pushes outwards, while the "inner" abdominal
musculature pulls inwards, so that we are all correct and nobody is
incorrect.


Paul Chek:


<CONCLUSION


What is critical, with regard to stability and longevity of the spine in
anyone lifting heavy loads (or loads heavy enough to require natural
interruption of the respiratory cycle) is the sequence of events. In the
functional body, the umbilicus will move inward as an indicator that the
segmental stabilizing mechanism is activated. As the demand for greater
stiffness and stabilization of the torso increases, the diaphragm will force
the TVA to contract eccentrically. In concert with this action there will be
an increased activation of the rectus abdominis and oblique abdominal
muscles, providing gross stability by the way of co-contraction against the
spinal extensors. This will be recognized as the abs moving outward, during
which time the inner unit muscles will continue to be active unless the
lifter is wearing a lifting belt; belt wearing may completely alter the
recruitment patterns of the core musculature.>


Mel Siff:


*** As I showed in some detail earlier, much of this hypothesizing is
incorrect. He is also suggesting that belt-wearing causes the "inner unit
muscles" to become inactive, but, as far as I know, I have seen no research
which has ever analysed differences in activation patterns between "inner"
and "outer" abdominal muscles during any heavy lifts. Yet, as a research
article posted here a while ago showed, the use of a belt can enhance IAP and
maximal lifting ability. If this takes place with some muscles in the trunk
(like those mystical 'inner units') deactivated, then many lifters apparently
are taking their spinal lives in their hands.


Paul Chek:


<For a much more comprehensive explanation of the core stabilizing mechanisms
see my correspondence courses titled Scientific Back Training and Scientific
Core Conditioning. For an in-depth review of the effects of weight belts on
the back and back stability mechanisms, please see my article titled Back
Strong and Beltless.>


Mel Siff:


*** Last year I wrote a comprehensive review of that article (see our
archives) and showed that it, too, contained numerous biomechanical errors.
As yet, it has not been revised to take into account findings that belt usage
can indeed enhance lifting efficiency and safety. Most critiques of belt
usage, including Chek's, rely on studies carried out on chronic (long-term,
long duration) belt usage among manual labourers and not on competitive high
level lifters and these cannot be extrapolated uncritically to the world of
competitive and training lifting.


AN AB PUSHING SECRET


What I am now about to share with you is something interesting that none of
the gurus and very few others will even be aware of in the world of
biomechanical analysis of the lifts. Its implications are enormous for
anyone who, like Chek, believe that they really understand the mechanics of
the lifts and trunk stabilisation during the lifts.


Something that I have been pointing out for some years now (and teaching at
my Supertraining Camps) is the fact that nobody has explained yet how the
competitive lifter actually uses strong contact between the lower abdominal
region and the upper thighs to stabilise the trunk and enhance force
production during the power and Olympic lifts.


This is very easy to show without any need for sophisticated biomechanical
apparatus. Descend into a squat or assume your starting position for the
pull (Power or Olympic) and keep one hand in the fold between the lower abs
and the upper thigh. You will notice that this region of your body squeezes
your hand strongly and ensures during the earliest stages of the lifts that
the trunk receives additional stabilisation by abs pressing pneumatically
against the upper thigh.


In addition, the pressure exerted by the upper thighs on the abdomen
reflexively increases abdominal muscle tension and, if you employ a slight
ballistic bounce in that position, this facilitation becomes even greater.
Some lifters like Fred Hatfield and several others actively have used this
tiny ballistic bounce in the lowest position of the squat to enhance their
upward drive - this little ballistic prestretch facilitates stronger
contraction not only in the lower extremity muscles, but also in the
abdominal musculature, because superficial pressure is also one of the
facilitation methods that one can use to increase muscle tension (e.g., see
Knott & Voss, "Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation" and Guyton,
'Textbook of Medical Physiology").


Now, let's move to the world of powerlifting for a peek at one of Louie
Simmons' impressive party tricks. If any of you have visited his Westside
Barbell Club in Columbus, Ohio, you may well have witnessed Louie pushing a
broomstick into his lower abs, forcibly holding his breath and shoving his
abs explosively outwards to propel the stick with unbelievable force across
the room. Now, that is not simply for amusement - Louie and some of his
powerlifting crew actually explosively thrust the abs outwards in the lowest
squat position to utilise that special form of contact facilitation that I
have described above.


In a somewhat similar fashion, many of us, in the days when the standing
Olympic Press was an official lift, learned how to ballistically increase
abdominal muscle tension with the spine held in a powerfully prestretched
back-arching. Without that explosive little "trick", we would never have
been able to press such heavy loads overhead so rapidly and safely.


ACADEMIA AGAIN!


All of the recent analyses of trunk and abdominal mechanics and utilisation
carried out by Chek regrettably are guilty of exactly what he has been
accusing so many "academics" of for many years now, namely a heavy reliance
on theory and little familiarity with experience in the trenches. It is time
that he offered his disciples a superior product by using a dump truck
(apologies to Dave Tate and Louie Simmons!) to dispose of all the academic
guruspeak and clinical dogma, and bring in something far more proven and
valid from the practical lifting trenches. Oh - and a little time spent with
some 'academic' biomechanists wouldn't be wasted!


Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
2006/01/24, 07:25 AM
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/



Mcs...@a..
Feb 9 2002, 4:19 am show options

Here is a summary of some very interesting information that was sent to me
from top international researchers in the field of TVA activity and spinal
stability. For obvious reasons, no names are being mentioned at this stage
because their work is due to be published soon in a peer-reviewed journal.
Their information, together with John Gray's recent feedback from that Spinal
Congress in Montreal decisively deposes many of the current guruesque beliefs
about TVA action and activation.


It will be interesting to see how those promulgating all those beliefs will
now respond. Will they openly admit their errors, will they subtly remove
the incorrect material from their web articles, course material and lectures
or will they declare that they were really saying "much the same thing, but
in different words", which led to everyone misunderstanding what they
actually stated? Let's wait and see!


--------------------


TRANSVERSUS ABDOMINIS AND SPINAL STABILITY


TVA as activated through the abdominal "sucking-in" technique may not improve
spinal stability, as has been hypothesized, because reducing the moment arm
of the abdominal wall reduces the potential energy of the spinal column.
Furthermore, unstable behaviour occurs in the two shear directions and the 3
rotational axes, something which the TVA muscle is not really equipped to do.


However, if one executes an abdominal bracing action which activates the TVA
together with the obliques, this can significantly enhance stability in all 6
degrees of freedom for the lumbar joints. In fact, in terms of maintaining
spinal stability through a wide variety of tasks, the most important muscles
to ensure adequate stability CONTINUALLY CHANGE and no single muscle may be
singled out in that regard.


What does this imply? --- Train motion/motor patterns that involve all
muscles rather than emphasizing only one. This having been stated, it is
relevant to note that the Australian researchers in this field have shown
that they can correct delayed onset times of TVA activation with hollowing
training - this has merit for muscle re-education in clinical settings, which
is what they have always said - it is apparent that various others have
misinterpreted this to mean that this is the appropriate technique to build
spine stability in general.


---------


Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
2006/01/24, 07:37 AM
Mcs...@a..
Dec 29 2000, 2:14 am show options

This virtual encounter between me and Chek probably served an instructional
purpose in offering a case study about how easy it can become for a
prolonged debate on some commercially lucrative projects and concepts to
deviate far from the scientific path into more emotive territory, so I am
going to terminate any further offerings on this topic unless they address
the scientific and practical aspects of the original debate on stabilisation,
back mechanics and injury.


You will note from some recent posts that I have now tried to return the
focus to the underlying issues, so that this will indeed be the Last Thread on
the fizzled "Rumble Down Under". Please read the websites and articles that
I have quoted in those posts and share your opinions on the mechanisms of
stabilisation, back problems and ab involvement, rather than expending any
more energy on a non-event.


In a recent post from David Driscoll, I note that he referred to some
material which may not have been discussed here. Reluctantly, I have to fill
in some of the gaps by quoting a few more extracts from the so-called Siff
vs Chek saga, otherwise those of you who wish to read the closing arguments
will be left a little in the air.


-------------------------------------


THE LAST THREADS


On 12/27/00, Paul Chek<pchek@c...> wrote on WeightsNet:


<I would like it to be very clear to Dr. Siff, and all others that read these
posts, that I have NEVER changed my opinion or approach to ANYTHING I do
clinically or otherwise as a result of reading anything Dr. Siff has written!>


Siff:


*** Compare your recent writings with past ones where a few of us challenged
you on many on several training issues and it requires no great imagination
to see that your view has quietly become more in tune with what we have been
writing and saying. However, you continue to incorrectly talk about "force
couples" and "couples" in the body, even though in most cases they simply do
not exist in human kinesiology, despite what the clinical references you use
might state. Biomechanically, they are incorrect, and that is why one simply
cannot rely on any references without being able to analyse them
critically......


Chek:


< I reference any and all sources that have influenced my direction, or whose
work I have used as developmental to my approach in each article, course or
video program I develop.....>


Siff:


***Then why have you invariably failed to provide several of us with
peer-reviewed references to support several of your claims that we have
questioned on the Internet over the years? Let's start again with references
to prove that a voluntary emphasis on transversus abdominis has ever been
shown to offer more effective, safer production of strength during non
clinical squatting and lifting. Let's also see the references which show
that belt usage definitely weakens the abdominal musculature in sporting
situations. Other group members have recently cited research which shows
exactly the opposite - how about sorting out that dilemma?


Don't forget, too, to provide references for all of those claims about
dangerous bench pressing and several other remarks about powerlifters being
"dump trucks"...... Would you care to fill all of those gaps now?


Chek:


< My position on belts, abdominal training and most any topic I have spent
time investigating was well founded and often publicized long before I was
even introduced to Dr. Siff's work by Kim Goss in 1995. I don't recall even
reading anything other than the first edition of "Supertraining" prior to
mapproximately 1997, when, if memory serves me correctly, Dr. Siff began
debating with me and others on this and other lists. It may have even been
1998? >


Siff:


***That is very interesting! I have a note that you wrote to me bearing a
postal date of 13 Sept 1994 and an address of 737 Pearl St, Suite 210, La
Jolla, CA, which states:


"Mel, I made a photo copy of your book for free. I want to make it up to
you, so choose any video of same value and drop me a line. I will send it to
you. I like your stuff! Sincerely, Paul Chek"


Speaks for itself, does it not? Would you like to see a copy of that note?
By the way, I never ever received my video, although I am aware that you
provided several of your videos in attempts to appease other Internet critics
of yours......


-----------------------------------


That is the last snippet of material on this issue here - those of you who
wish to read more on the whole debate, please go to the WeightsNet discussion
group . For the rest of us - over to a scientific re-examination of back, ab
and postural speculations elsewhere on this forum!


Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcsiff@a...


End of messages

Functional and Stability Training Myths: Part 4
Only 1 message in topic - view as tree

Mcs...@a..
Oct 15 2001, 4:31 am show options

CONTINUED


Recently I have had some very interesting and productive discussions with
Brian Johnston, who runs the following website:


http:// www.ExerciseCertification.com


Like many of us on the Supertraining list, he also has a very critical
approach to the seriously overmarketed concepts such functional training,
ball balancing and rehabilitation and is in the process of writing a book on
these topics. Meanwhile he has kindly given me permission to share some
excerpts from his forthcoming book, because much of this material is directly
relevant to our current discussions of Ball training and so forth. His
material will be published here in a series of several episodes, with the
full text being available within a few months.


<Functional Training: Motor Learning Contradictions of a Misguided Training
Practice


By Brian D. Johnston


PART 4


Paul Chek agrees with Vladimir Janda that "if we could speed the reflex
response time of our bodies by 50%, we would reduce the chances of acquiring
an orthopedic injury by about 80%" Chek did not explain why this would be
the case (and I wonder if Janda was simply making a hypothetical point versus
actually believing it could be done). Nor did Chek state or suggest that
reflexes are genetically determined or that any betterment of reflex reaction
is specific to the task in question and within genetic limits of the
individual. This means that to increase the response to a stimulus within a
specific task requires specific practice of specific skills.


Regardless, Chek sets out to increase general reflexes via exercise
selection. In an absurd example, Chek suggests that if a motor-cross racer
has difficulty sliding through corners, but can handle straight-away riding
and jumping, he can correct this through Swiss ball training. He would have
the individual emphasize "the tilting aspect of an equilibrium response" by
kneeling upon and balancing himself on a Swiss ball (his feet are not
touching the ground). That person would then catch a medicine ball being
tossed from the side (having to twist at the torso in order to catch the
medicine ball). Apparently, "this would aid in improving the rider’s ability
to respond more quickly to the motorcycle when sliding through corners."
Hmmmm? How about practicing sliding through corners!


If that is the case, that such an exercise could assist this motor-cross
racer, the opposite should be true; that an individual who can easily slide
through corners should be able to automatically kneel on a Swiss ball and
catch a medicine ball to the side with little difficulty. However, such is
not the case. Why? The motor-cross racer lacks the specific skills to do so
(unless he has exceptional ability to do so).


Chek also concludes that the elderly fall due to losing glute and ab tissue,
resulting in the loss of reflexes. There are many reasons why an elderly
person may fall. Other reasons include:


Loss of bone mass (viz., osteoporosis; the bones collapse, causing the person
to fall).


Loss of strength (not necessarily reflexes) as a result of loss of bone mass
and muscle tissue.


Hence, weight-bearing exercise (regular strength training not involving Swiss
balls) decreases the risk of falling by strengthening and developing more
dense bones and muscles. If the muscles are particularly strong, then there
won’t be any wasting of the reflexes (nothing beyond normal decompensation
due to aging).


Consequently, Swiss ball training is unnecessary to correct problems with
reflexes due to muscle wasting. This is particularly true since Chek
admitted that muscle hypertrophy is best achieved through non-FT exercises
due to greater overload and specificity (viz., isolation)! That also means
that non-FT exercises are not only functional’ exercises, but they produce
greater functional change than FT exercises....


Paul Chek concludes that "the concept of the generalized motor program
explains why so many forms of exercise simply do not improve function or
serve as optimal injury prevention." This statement is misleading,
particularly since he further recommends FT exercise in the manner and for
the purpose described throughout this report - as if they do improve function
more so than any other exercise modality. The generalized motor program is
an innate neurological system. It is something we are born with. It has
nothing to do with any specific skills necessary to demonstrate ability
(ability being factors established by the generalized motor program)......


Next, consider any Swiss ball exercise, such as dumbbell bench pressing with
your back resting on the ball (there are many more complex exercises, but
they are difficult to explain without photos). The particular balancing,
coordination and agility required during this movement is unique onto itself,
and it does not mirror any other neuromuscular requirements. The Swiss ball
dumbbell press can improve function (since you are exercising muscle groups
necessary to demonstrate ability), but it does not hold any "magical"
properties (despite what Chek states) simply because there is greater skill
involved.


Many FT exercises are executed on the basis that not only is there a
noticeable or substantial transfer of one skill to another (which should seem
irrational at this point), or the enhancement of genetically constrained
abilities, but also that the practice of certain movements help to prevent
injury. For instance, balance training on a wobble board will help prevent
injury to the ankles since the trainee is exercising in an unstable
environment. The same has been said about plyometrics, in that regular
high-force training helps prepare the body to accept high forces (in order to
prevent injury from high forces!). However, since each skill is specific and
unique, and since there are so many deviances within motor patterns that
could occur in athletics or everyday living, the chances of those specific
motor patterns as practiced in FT exercises coming into play are highly
remote.....


Chek then contends that Swiss balls do not fortify faulty patterns’. What is
a faulty pattern? I presume one that places the body in unnatural positions
and improperly stresses the muscles. But how do traditional exercises (free
weights or machines) fortify faulty patterns (which apparently lead to
injury), particularly since any exercise properly performed, using any tool
of application, falls in accordance to joint and muscle movement
requirements? What is faulty about a machine curl that requires the elbow
joint to flex?....


It should be obvious that delay in reaction (explosiveness) has everything to
do with the mind’s reply to a stimulus (signaling the muscles to do
something’) rather than the method of exercise (i.e., explosive movements
versus very slow movements). Besides moving too fast or using weights that
exceed your ability to maintain control and proper positioning/form, injury
is often the result of lack of focus and confidence, causing hesitation and
poorly reacting/functioning muscles...... >


Brian welcomes you to visit his website at:


http:// www.ExerciseCertification.com.


There you will find various articles, including his Consumer Advocate
section, with further warnings of fraud and incompetence in the exercise and
nutrition industries.


----------------------


Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
2006/01/24, 07:40 AM
The Evil Bench Press?
Only 1 message in topic - view as tree

Mcs...@a..
Aug 28 2001, 1:28 pm show options

Here is some material written by baseball coach, Dick Mills, who runs the
pitching.com website. It repeats the well-worn myth that the bench press per
se is a dangerous exercise and has no value to anyone except possibly some
misguided powerlifters or bodybuilders. In the second article he cites Paul
Chek's beliefs on this topic as providing scientific evidence for his own
beliefs about the bench press. I have offered a few comments here and there.
Over to the rest of you for your remarks!


----------------------------------------


<http://www.pitching.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000099.html>


However, you have to be careful with your upper body lifting. Bench pressing
is not going to enhance your ability to throw since throwing works most of
the same muscles. You can do light dumbbell work but stay away from heavy
benching. You also should stay away from upright rows, military press, lat
pulls behind the neck and pullups. They are all very stressful on the
shoulder. You can substitute pushups for bench press.


The key is to work the whole body and to make sure you don't overwork the
front of the shoulder (chest, pecs etc) and not balance by working the back
of the shoulder.


So you keep the front stretched and the back of the shoulder strong. That way
you will keep a balance so that your arm will work within the shoulder socket
the way it is supposed to do.


There a thousands of pitchers who will work in the weight room this year the
wrong way - like doing a lot of heavy chest or shoulder work. They are
putting themselves at risk of shoulder injury and/or inflexibility.


--------------------


<http://www.pitching.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/006297.html>


Here's an article some of you pitchers who think that bench pressing is a
great way to build strength for pitching.


Guys, if benching was the way to go every big league pitcher would be doing
it up big but that is not true in most cases and this article explains why.


Read carefully what Paul Chek says about joint stability and you might think
twice about scapula loading and forced horizontal adduction which is for the
first time actually being taught to young pitchers by unqualified-non
certified non-professionals out to make a buck from unsuspecting high school
pitchers and even some parents. One such person never even pitched but was a
high jumper.


I believe time will prove that teaching this creates shoulder joint
instability which means a looser shoulder
joint which leads to shoulder injury and eventually surgery.


Keep in mind that the shoulder is the loosest joint in the body already.
There is a fine line between too much looseness and stability. Pitching
creates a loose shoulder by simply going through the act of throwing a
baseball over and over all by itself. To teach a high school pitcher to
intensionally force his shoulder out of alignment thus stretching the soft
tissue and the capsule is irresponsible.





By the way Paul Chek is one of the most qualified sports performance
professionals in the business. Some giving out advice on the internet have
zero qualifications. As always, talk is cheap so be careful.





Many of you are compromising the health of your arm just for more performance
- performance that has not proven to work for pitchers at any time. And those
selling the performance advice have no qualifications. That is short term
thinking at best. And by doing this you will lose big in the end. Many sooner
than later.





For those interested here is Chek's article:


<http://user.tninet.se/~ksz774p/articles/Bench.html>


-------------------------------------------------


"BIG BENCH - BAD SHOULDERS!"


by Paul Chek


Why all the fuss over a big bench-press? What does the sheer amount of weight
that someone can push whilst lying flat on their back have to do with
anything? If you're sitting with a bunch of guys and someone strong walks in,
it's common to hear "I wonder what he can bench?". Or when discussing sport,
the same question comes up, "How much can so-and-so bench?" When I go to a
party and meet people, you can be as sure as the presence of beer that
someone will ask, "What can you bench?" It is always great fun to see their
reaction when I tell them "Not much, but I can run 30 meters flat out with
Malu Mainu'u on my back!"


The bench press exercise was never intended to be a benchmark of man (or
woman!) hood. It is an exercise for improving the size and/or strength of the
chest, anterior deltoids and triceps, nothing else. In fact, the star player
on any team is rarely the one with the biggest bench press! Unfortunately,
over-emphasis on the bench press often coupled with poor technique has led to
a high incidence of shoulder injuries in both athletes and non-athletes.
Additionally many people are not anatomically designed to perform the
exercise as it is generally taught in most strength training texts, Personal
Trainer certification courses and by many strength coaches.





The Problem with Traditional Technique


The bar is lowered until it touches the chest and then pressed back up to the
start position. Everyone is expected to lower the bar to the chest; anything
less is considered poor form, sub-standard, and even wimpy by fellow lifters.
However, to perform the exercise under such guidelines requires a greater
range of motion (ROM) than is found in the shoulder joint of most people –
particularly male athletes. Why is it so important to work within the ROM of
your shoulder joint? Some simple anatomy will help to explain this.


The movement-restricting factor during a bench press is not the muscles of
the shoulder; it is the special connective tissue casing around the shoulder
joint called the "joint capsule". This highly specialized structure is
anatomically designed to not only allow just the right amount of motion to
prevent joint damage, but also contains thousands of specialized nerve
endings called "proprioceptors".





Proprioceptors are special nerve endings that communicate with the brain to
inform it of joint position and speed of movement, as well as pressure,
tension and pain in and around the joint. Loading the shoulder and forcing it
beyond the functional ROM limit will stretch the shoulder joint capsule. In
most people this will occur by letting the bench-press bar travel until it
touches the chest.





Additionally, because the bench press is performed on a flat weight lifting
bench, normal movement of the shoulder blades (scapulae) is disrupted. This
demands that more movement must occur in the shoulder joint itself. As the
bar is loaded with heavier and heavier weights, the shoulder blades are
pressed into the bench harder and harder, further disrupting the normal
mechanics of the shoulder girdle joints and overloading the shoulder.


How far should you let the bar travel when performing a bench press?


To protect the shoulder joint capsule from being stretched out or injured the
exerciser must determine how far to safely lower the bar. It is essential
that each person determine optimal bench press range of motion for his or her
own shoulders, as each person is different.





Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/


End of messages

sorry for these long articles/posts but I found them interesting and on cue with what we were discussing about how Chek was often wrong....also what is the definitive answer of Chek's educational background? has he even got a bachelor degree?
2006/01/24, 07:51 AM
This is the last one for today, I promise...LOL....

Bench Press & Chek
All 2 messages in topic - view as tree

Mcs...@a..
Nov 3 2000, 8:47 pm show options

Bob Forney <bobage24@a...>


<<I have also recently read Paul Chek's article Big Bench, Bad Shoulders:


<http://216.150.5.6/exclusive/chek/benchpress.htm>


I have an opinion on the subject, but would also like to hear what everyone
on the list thinks >>


***Thanks for bringing this latest Chek point to our attention. This tale warranted some in-depth analysis, because it addresses several issues that are part of fitness and therapeutic folklore, so be prepared for some lengthy reading based upon a series of extracts taken from this article!


------------------------


Big Bench, Bad Shoulders
By Paul Chek


Chek point:


The bench press exercise was never intended to be a benchmark of man (or woman!) hood. It is an exercise for improving the size and/or strength of thechest, anterior deltoids and triceps, nothing else.


Siff Comment:


*** Historically, the bench press has long been associated with producing an impressive chest, one of the hallmarks of bodybuilding. Try excelling inany bodybuilding event with an underdeveloped chest and see how far you go! Chest size and shape is important in some sports and careers, so it is fairer to say that the bench press may play an essential role in certain situations.


Chek point:


The movement-restricting factor during a bench press is not the muscles of the shoulder; it is the special connective tissue casing around the shoulder joint called the "joint capsule". This highly specialized structure is anatomically designed to not only allow just right amount of motion to prevent joint damage, but also contains thousands of specialized nerve endings called "proprioceptors".


Comment:


*** Wrong. The connective tissues also stretch and enhance the efficiencyof muscle action, especially if it is more rapid or ballistic, as in throwing and running, or if prestretch is involved. Interestingly, the shoulder joint is ballistically thrust much further back (extended) during sprinting and fast running than any form of barbell bench pressing and for many more reps at a time. The force imposed on the shoulder joint under these conditions can exceed that experienced by the average recreational bench presser, so does this mean that we should not forcefully swing the arms back when we run?


This highly specialised structure is meant to manage different types of passive and active range of movement which are significantly greater than the unloaded passive range stipulated by Chek. If the shoulder is designed to allow only just the right amount of motion (i.e. display what is known as �zero safety factor� in engineering), then it would be incapable of handling any unexpectedly large or extensive loads. That is not the way in which the body is designed. Even more cleverly, the different parts of the body obey the well known principle of SAID (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands), so that progressive gradual (or fluctuating) overload will cause adaptive reconstruction and allow the trained parts of the body to cope easily with loads which were impossible at the beginning.


To state that each joint permits only �just the right amount� of movement is tantamount to saying that musculoskeletal adaptation does not take place. In other words, stretching and strengthening programs cannot significantly increase the safe range of motion of any joint. Chek should have stated that it is not advisable to begin bench pressing with loads that are too demanding for you to cope with, but that it would be more sensible to progressively increase loading, range and rate of movement so that the body can adapt effectively to ultimately work over a greater range of joint motion.


Chek point:


Additionally, because the bench press is performed on a flat weight liftingbench, normal movement of the shoulder blades (scapulae) is disrupted. This demands that more movement must occur in the shoulder joint itself. As the bar is loaded with heavier and heavier weights, the shoulder blades are pressed into the bench harder and harder, further disrupting the normal mechanics of the shoulder girdle joints and overloading the shoulder.


Comment:


*** The use of an inappropriate bench or position on a bench may indeed inhibit the scapula from rotating freely, but that does not mean that the shoulder joint has to produce more movement. Scapular restrainment controls the movement of the shoulder so that the connective tissues associated with the thoracoscapular �joint� and the glenohumeral joint may have to stretch to offer an alternative mode of movement under those specific conditions.


This is one reason why it is incorrect to refer to certain joints as behaving like �force couples�. A couple comprises a system of two equal and opposite forces which implicate only rotation and NO element of translation, but most joints that are popularly thought to produce couples are passively restrained by various connective tissues which are there to handle translational forces. That is why all this trendy talk about joint �couples� and �force couples� needs some serious reappraisal - this misinformation is leading too many folk to understand joint action imperfectly.


Chek point:


Place your arm in the bench press position and allow your arm to lower to its passive end range of motion. This is the position where the arm naturally stops without being forced. At this point you have determined the exact point at which the shoulder joint capsule becomes the primary restraint to shoulder ROM.


*** This is suitable for unloaded, relaxed measurements of shoulder action,not the dynamic, loaded or ballistic actions of sport. This sort of relaxed test can be very misleading because normal sporting movement does not encourage the muscles to relax at the extreme end of range. Thus, under 'functional' conditions, it is not just the capsule which stabilises the joint,but also all the contracted muscles associated with the shoulder (and thatmeans not simply the adored 'rotator cuff' muscles).


Chek point:


Although many will argue that you must train through the "full range of motion" to be strong for sport, this concept is unfounded. It is well known among Physiotherapists and exercise scientists that there is approximately a 15� +/- carry-over of strength developed at any specific joint angle withstrength training. i.e. if you train the shoulder from 15� to 75�, thestrength gained will carry over from 0� to 90�. This is how sports medicine doctors improve strength in an injured shoulder or knee without actually ever moving the joint through the painful ROM.


*** Of course you have to train through full range of sports specific movement in order to produce sporting proficiency, because a large number of sports compel the joints to act over far greater ranges than those measured passively according to Chek�s guidelines. His entire article is based upon the typical model of the soft tissues behaving non-ballistically or cocontractively under conditions of predictable and smooth loading, which is thestandard model used by therapists who rely on isokinetic devices and manual muscle testing to analyse human movement.


Can you imagine if a wrestler, gymnast, weightlifter, powerlifter, field athlete, judoka and many other types of athlete who throw, catch, push or manhandle objects or other people did NOT train the most relevant joints over a full range of �functional� movement? In fact, research done by Iashvili, Tumanyan and Dzhanyan have shown the importance of this type of training by thoroughly investigating the ranges of movement (ROM) and ways of enhancing ROM, as well as the relationship between unloaded and loaded active and passive ways of stretching (detailed in Siff & Verkhoshansky �Supertraining� 1999, Ch 3.5.8).


The figures of approximately 15 percent carry-over were obtained under isometric loading conditions, which have nothing to do with the prestretched orballistic actions commonly involved in many sports. Physical therapists use this type of training during the early post-acute stages of rehabilitation, but these regimes of isometric holding do not condition the muscle complex to cope with ballistic loading or heavily loaded exercise over a full ROM.


It is entirely invalid to extrapolate highly limited methods from the clinical setting to the world of normal physical activity and sport, especially when the biomechanics and neurophysiology involved are so very different. For example, the brain mechanisms associated with isometric and ballistic movement implicate different regions of the motor cortex, basal ganglia andcerebellum. In simple terms, Chek is trying to use screwdrivers instead of spanners to work on the machine.


Chek point:


What most trainers, athletes and coaches don�t seem to respect is the fact that training beyond the shoulder�s passive barrier with heavy loads will stretch the shoulder joint capsule. Once stretched, the joint capsule can no longer stabilize the shoulder joint with common arm movements such as swimming, hitting a volley ball or netball, holding power tools over head or even swinging a hammer. If these arm movements are repeated without the stability provided by a functional shoulder joint capsule, an impingement develops, resulting in inflammation and pain in the shoulder joint.


*** That is the very point of the whole exercise, provided that it is done in manner and rate which suits the individual and that even means using ballistic loading if appropriate for a given athlete. The fear that an activemuscle will be permanently stretched is incorrect. There are at least twoways of stretching the muscle complex: by heavy loading or sustained loading. The former usually causes partial or complete ruptures, so that the issue of gradual plastic deformation does not arise, though the possibility of cumulative microrupture may exist. This leaves us with sustained lighter loading, but it is known that plastic deformation is produced in uncontracted muscle (i.e. in its non-contracting elements), not in the ...

read more »


Mcs...@a..
Nov 6 2000, 5:07 pm show options

Clifton Ng wrote:


<<I look forward to the debate about the safety of bench presses that this
post is sure to inspire. As a quick aside, however, I'd like to ask about
the effectiveness of using the bench press to train for throwing or
sprinting sports at all. I recently heard from a trainer that this exercise
did not develop strength within the proper ROM to improve throwing, and that
OLs were a much more efficient means of training for throwing/sprinting
actions. When I thought about it, it did seem that the arm/shoulder motions
of the bench press were not a very close match to those performed in
throwing/sprinting, but perhaps I'm missing something?>>


***This sort of criticism of many supplementary exercises usually is based
upon various beliefs in specificity and simulation. A supplementary or
general training exercise is not necessarily chosen because it is as similar
as possible to the actual sporting movement being trained for or because it
simulates the sporting movement, but because it can improve some of the motor
qualities involved in that sport.


In fact, there is some evidence which shows that using exercises that are
very similar to sporting movements, though different in some respects, such
as the degree of loading, the way in which force is produced or the load
used, can be more problematic than using exercises that are clearly different
from the sporting movements. Apparently, the similarity in the resulting
neural programs causes more inter-task interference than between programs
which are associated with different movements.


On top of this, it is overly simplistic and misleading to condemn any
exercise out of hand, because the same exercise can be done in many different
ways. In the case above, is the person referring to bench press from a
static start on the chest, a narrow grip BP, a wide grip BP, a ballistic BP,
a BP executed using CAT (compensatory action) methods, BP with elastic bands,
BP with chains, BP over a restricted range, BP using a load for maximal power
generation.... etc etc. I have something like 40 variations in
"Supertraining" and that by no means exhausts the possibilities! The bottom
line? That trainer whom you mention above probably is rather limited in his
knowledge of the science of strength training and powerlifting training.


Some coaches used to endlessly criticise me for bench pressing as an Olympic
lifter, because they considered that the BP "limited shoulder flexibility"
and conflicted with my overhead movements. I, on the other hand, reasoned
that pectoralis major plays a useful role in helping one stabilise the bar
overhead, since the pecs limit abduction (backward) movement of the
shoulders. I also felt that the bench press increased tricep (and anconeus)
strength, which can be very helpful in locking the elbows under heavy
overhead loading. Despite my "bench pressing "sin", my shoulders have always
remained flexible, strong and injury free, and I can still catch a squat
snatch in an extremely low position.


As long as you understand what you are doing and why you are doing it, and
science and practical experience appear to support your actions, then just go
ahead and ignore any critics whose theories are based on belief, anecdotes,
unwarranted extrapolation from the world of therapy and limited experience.


Any time that you happen to be in our area of lovely Colorado, you are
welcome to pop in to my gym for a free session on bench press (and other
exercise) variations. It always affords me great pleasure to be able to
assist like this, especially when there is so much mythology around every
training corner. Already many folk from around the world have stayed with us
both for formal Strength Camps and informal training sessions.


Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcsiff@a...
2006/01/24, 03:50 PM
Abdominal Conditioning: Chek & Siff Discussion
Only 1 message in topic - view as tree

Mcs...@a..
Jun 29 2001, 5:38 pm show options

Some people have been commenting that Paul Chek and I some day need to have a
one-on-one debate because we have never done so. On the contrary, we have
had several open debates on various aspects of training and rehabilitation.
Here is one of them from Oct 1998 which appeared on another listserv before
our Supertraining list came into being. On this occasion we took part in
what generally was a rather productive discussion, even if it became very
long. Here is a copy of some of the discussion.


----------------------------------------


Paul Chek wrote:


* Wow Mel! I will have to schedule time off to answer your post. I will do
my best to be concise and make my counter-points.


Mel:


*** Me, too, but because this issue of weird and wonderful abs is such a
focal point of fitness training today, it deserves a lot more clarification.


BACKGROUND


First of all, I must clarify one issue. You constantly comment on my input as
if I am a theoretical scientist with no practical or clinical experience,
which tends to give you and others a very limited view of the scope of my
analysis.


Actually, virtually none of my work has ever been done for solely theoretical
reasons. Most of the subjects involved in my research or training
programmes have been competitive athletes, fitness lovers or ordinary injured
folk who have been referred to me by their doctors or physical therapists.
For many years, besides my main job as professor in mechanical engineering
dept, I have been involved in lecturing in biomechanics and strength
rehabilitation or training to departments of physical therapy and physical
education.


Numerous projects in the departments of physiology, physical therapy,
anatomy, orthopaedics, occupational therapy and others in the Faculty of
medicine at my university and with many private physical therapists,
orthopaedic surgeons and sports doctors led me to become practically involved
in the rehabilitation of hundreds of subjects with many musculoskeletal
disorders, including the back.


This led to my being invited to lecture at several chiropractic, physical
therapy and sports medicine conferences on lifting mechanics and back
rehabilitation, where the emphasis was on practical methods, rather than
theoretical modelling.


As national coach in S African weightlifting, I worked with hundreds of
competitive lifters right up to national level and I competed nationally in
weightlifting, powerlifting and karate and carried out many biomechanical
tests on these and many other athletes. I was deeply involved in the
preparation and future training of some of the world's most successful teams
in cricket and rugby.


So, now may I be permitted to talk to you as a fellow practitioner and seeker
who is not just sitting ensconced in some ivory tower proclaiming from a
place which many coaches and clinicians think is inhabited by alien creatures
in white coats waiting to dissect earthly cockroaches?


Right, now on to the major discussion:


----------------------------------------------------------------


Mel:


ANALYTICAL DIFFICULTIES


(Paul was offering his views on recruitment and control of deeper muscles of
the trunk)


<This is an intriguing comment. How does one definitely confirm that this
is the order of events without the use of microelectrodes or needle
electrodes inserted into the different components of the abdominal muscles?...


......Visual or palpatory methods are even more equivocal than EMGs,
especially since transversus may be recruited in several different ways,
including pulling in or rapid distention of the abdominal area - research
has even indicated that transversus is one of the first muscles to become
activated during forward walking.>


Paul:


Yes, in a laboratory setting these things are all of real importance. If I
relied on such intricate mechanisms I would have a $500,000+ tool box and
would need my patients to stay for days at a time to get to the bottom of
thins. The fact is, most of my patients come to me after failing in the
medical system where they have had extensive EMG studies, conduction velocity
studies, MRI arthogram, and most every expensive and invasive test you can
imagine and they are not better off! I have been in business for many years
successfully rehabilitating the people that the fancy equipment couldn't
help, so believe me, if you are a skilled clinician you only need this stuff
to develop conceptual models and confirm or not confirm your clinical
suspicions.


Mel:


Costly apparatus is unnecessary - all of my research apparatus was built for
me personally or as part of student projects at a fraction of the commercial
cost. Certainly, we found palpatory, 'eye-balling' and simple movement
tests, like the standard ones used by many phyios most helpful, but when we
allied that with some quickly administered laboratory tests, the results were
even better.


Unfortunately, reliance on being a skilled clinician is another isolationist
approach which sometimes can have serious consequences. I recall some other
expert who was vainly trying to rehabilitate someone with chronic back pain.
Several of the tests you mentioned showed inadequate transversus and internal
oblique strength, as well as a serious deficit in multifidus strength. For
weeks, a series of pelvic tilting, breathing, postural realignment and other
remedies, plus pain-killers were tried, but to no avail. Eventually, he was
sent for a CAT scan and other conventional laboratory medical tests - lo and
behold, this poor man had cancer of the spine!


On other occasions, force plate tests and EMG studies have shown up
pathologies which skilled clinicians have failed to detect. On the other
hand, the most intricate laboratory tests have not been able to detect latent
heart disease or distinguish between different neuromuscular disorders.


In other words, it is a good idea to integrate the best of which both
scientists and clinicians have to offer and not to throw out anyone
discipline because of personal preferences.


Paul:


How do I do it??


The transverse abdominus ( TVA) has fibers that are in the transverse plane.
By the very nature of the architecture of the muscle, if it fires it always
draws the umbilicus toward the spine, exaggerates the oblique line,
is accompanied by recruitment of the multifidus, pelvic floor and often the
diaphragm. . . .


Mel:


The pulling in of the umbilicus and exaggeration of the oblique line is not
observed to occur during the squat, clean, bench press, snatch or deadlift,
since a reflex distension of the abdominal region occurs in all maximal
lifting and pushing tasks.


Paul:


<When an individual loads a bar and places it upon his/her back, there is an
immediate stabilization response secondary to the mechanoreceptor input from
all involved joints, particularly the weight bearing joints. >


Mel:


??? I don't follow what you mean here. This is a very general remark which
needs to be elaborated upon to be meaningful in the context of trunk
stabilisation. Recent research distinguishes between the different
stabilisation processes involved if loading of the spine is compressive or
shearing.


Others attribute this initial acute stabilisation reflex to depend largely on
increases in intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal pressure, rather than simple
mechanoreception (by the way, are you regarding mechanoreception as the same
as proprioception or as a more limited process involving only mechanical
transduction?).


Paul:


<This input is combined with the conscious command to run the generalized
motor program "squat" for example, which also activates all stabilizer
functions tied to the engram. >


Mel:


Are you using the term 'engram' in the sense used in Scientology to refer to
"a mental image picture which is a recording of an experience containing
pain, unconsciousness and a real or fancied threat to survival. It is a
recording in the reactive mind of something which actually happened to an
individual in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness, both of
which are recorded in the mental image picture called an engram. It must, by
definition, have impact or injury as part of its content. These engrams are
a complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception
present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness".


Or are you using it in its original archaic sense as an "engraved memory"
(hence 'engram')? Either way, what is meant by stabiliser functions being
tied to an engram?


Paul:


<My observation begins immediately upon the decision is made to "squat" as
that is when you see the body in the set-up or preparation phase. Once
loaded, I will observe and palpate for recruitment of the TVA, multifidus,
tension in the thoracolumbar fascia watch respiratory patterns. Although good
stabilization is usually obvious immediately, I will observe the entire
process of execution and return to the rack. >


Mel:


Of course, we know that the very act of palpation being applied during active
movement can modify the kinaesthetic input to the nervous system and skew the
results. This is emphasized in many books such as Knott & Voss
"Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation" and is actually used by Russian
coaches as a form of 'kinaesthetic manipulation' to deliberately influence
patterns of muscle activation.


Paul:


As one passes through the sticking point (in particular) I will observe the
action of the abdominal wall and associated segments.


Mel:


Is this just by visual observation? Which associated segments? As research
given in my original post mentioned, the variations in recruitment, including
left to right symmetry, are often idiosyncractic and non-repeatable, even
with careful instrumented analysis, so how can eye-balling achieve more?


Paul:


If the TVA is contributing appropriately, the umbilicus will have moved
progressively toward the spine until the stabilization threshold is crossed
(a term I developed to indicate the point at which gross stabilization is
observed or palpated).


Mel:


What is a stabilisation threshold? This idea of thresholds may apply to
all-or-none processes such as action-potential firing of nerve cells, but
increasing amounts of research show that traditional concepts of homeostasis
and balance in the body are no longer acceptable. Even the concept of
'anaerobic' or lactate thresholds are no lonegr being applied as casually as
they used to.


In the case of joint and overall trunk stabilisation, there is no single
finely tuned threshold of stabilisation, but a region or continuum in which
the joint or body 'hunts around' for a specific moment in a dynamically
changing metastable situation to ensure that the movement may continue or
stop in a given way. There is no single mathematical solution to the problems
of balance and stabilisation of the body - there are always several variable
strategies which may be adopted to cope with a given situation.


Research is showing that when the degree of variability decreases and the
range of stability becomes more finely defined, then the likelihood of injury
and disease (including heart attacks and epileptic seizures) tends to
increase. In know that this sounds paradoxical, but this research is being
found to agree with many clinical observations.


Paul:


If the TVA is dormant the abdominal wall gets thicker anterior to posterior
right away, usually before the descent even begins.


Mel:


How can one be categoric about transversus being dormant while increases in
intra-abdominal pressure caused by breath holding are occurring? Are your
subjects performing submaximal, breathing squats?


How can one ever measure the anterior to posterior thickness of the abdominal
wall without invasive surgical procedures or costly MRI or PET scans? - oh,
sometimes, very skilled use of certain ultrasound scanners can give a good
approximation! One certainly cannot differentially palpate this from the
contribution made by other tissues and muscles.


If you are referring to thickening due to muscle contraction, the same
comment applies, but once the recti abdominis are taut, you cannot palpate or
differentiate transversus during a heavy squat (as mentioned earlier, there
is a reflex distension of this region which counters any inward pull via
connective tissues).


Paul:


Many individuals with inverted recruitment patterns have some common findings.


Mel:


In my earlier post I asked exactly what an inverted recruitment pattern is -
I am still none the wiser. Do you mean 'inverse' recruitment or are you
referring to an inverse stretch reflex or what? Where was this type of
syndrome first described clinically?


Paul:


Many individuals with inverted recruitment patterns have some common findings:


- often use weight belts
- often suffer from low back pain . . . . .
- there is frequently restriction of the middle thoracic spine and inability
to reverse the thoracic curvature
....to name a few


Mel:


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


Of more concern is your remark that one can 'reverse the thoracic curvature'.
The reversal of this thoracic convexity is a rare pathological condition and
never occurs in normal daily life or under any sporting conditions. Reversal
of this curvature means changing the thoracic convexity to concavity, so that
the upper back curves inwards just like the lower back! Is this really what
you mean? It is impossible voluntarily to reverse the thoracic convexity -
don't even mention this concept anywhere in the medical field, because it is
wrong.


Mel:


<Many researchers (e.g. see Basmajian "Muscles Alive") have shown that
vigorous exhalation . . . or explosive tensing of the abdominal muscle
complex (as often done during Olympic or power lifts) automatically activates
the obliques far more than rectus abdominis, so that heavy lifting, if anyt
hing, tends to delay or neglect activation of the superficial ab muscles.


Paul:


<The external obliques are superficial ab muscles. >


Mel:


The internal obliques are not superficial and invasive EMGs show that both of
the obliques reflexively become far more actively involved than rectus
abdominis in heavy lifting and pushing tasks.


Mel:


<Other material cited by Basmajian shows that apparent contraction of the
recti abdominis is due more to passive bulging than electrical activation
during this sort of stabilising task. In addition, several of his colleagues
have confirmed that the recti are far less electrically active than the
obliques during trunk stabilization in response to lifting or pushing tasks.


Paul:


<This is very task specific in my opinion. The fascia of the oblique muscles
invests the rectus muscles, therefore any contraction of the oblique muscles
would cause a palpatory tightening of what would appear to be the rectus
muscles. There is a distance difference to the trained hand.>


Mel:


It is not possible to distinguish by palpation between passive increase in
muscle tension or active contraction of muscle - one can crudely distinguish
differences in tension and gross location of changes in tension.


Anyway, what you have just written is almost a rephrasing of what I wrote,
namely that the obliques are responsible for the primary contraction and this
is associated with secondary passive involvement of rectus (along with
activation caused by increases in intra-abdominal pressure produced by breath
holding). So we agree that the abs are not the primary stabilisers in
lifting tasks . . ?


Paul :


<Olympic lifts are all pulling lifts, which require only enough recruitment
of the rectus abdominus to stabilize the thorax, providing an effective force
generating platform for the extensors of the body. If the abdominals
did not activate sufficiently to resist the force of the extensors the body
would just collapse on the floor. >


Mel:


Olympic lifts have been shown also to be strongly similar to jumps and
activation of the recti abdominis (via the passive bulging and activation
caused by intra-abdominal pressure) as shown by EMG and intra-abdominal
pressure recordings is greater than that recorded with any form of unloaded
supine situps, crunches or leg raises.


You referred to abs as stabilising the thorax in lifting - now the thorax
anatomically is just the chest, so once again we are referring to the passive
role of the abs, since active use of the abs as trunk flexors would cause
rounding of the lumbar spine and this is dangerous during any Olympic lifting
or powerlifting.


Mel:


< Moreover, EMG studies show that the erector spinae, hamstrings and gluteal
muscles play a far more significant active role than any of the abdominal
muscles (their role is more passive) during lifting (Vorobyev 'Textbook on
Weightlifting' has many EMGs on weightlifters showing this), so it always
intrigues me why physical therapists in particular seem to be so fanatical
about the apparently overriding importance of the abdominal muscles during
lifting.>


Paul:


Most of what I assume you are referring to is looking at pulling movements.
If not, please tell me which studies to read and then I can make an
intelligent response.


Mel:


See above - I gave the one study written by Vorobyev - you will find others
in "Spine" journal, the Journal of Biomechanics, Ergonomics and several other
places. I am busy collecting summaries of all these back articles at present
and have so far found more than 2000 references (in the journals above and
many others) - how on earth I am going to reduce them to manageable size I do
not know. Anyway, as I come across relevant ones (like the one on spinal
disc shrinkage), I will continue to send them to this group.


Regarding your lengthy comments on the role played by passive bulging of the
abs in stabilising the trunk, I can clarify the picture thus:


The abdominal muscles in a role as antagonists to hyperextension of the
spine, can be activated in two ways:


Action 1 : bringing its distal and proximal attachments closer together to
cause active flexion of the spine (as during situps or overhead throws)


Action 2 : creating a very tense band of muscle-connective tissue across the
front of the body which assists the actively involved deeper abdominal
musculature to allow the trunk to become a much stronger pneumatically
supported structure (as in pulls, squats and bench press) or to prevent the
trunk from moving into dangerous hyperextension (as in standing presses).


When I spoke about its role as a involuntary passive stabiliser, I was
referring to the latter role. Obviously, if the abs were not electrically
activated via all the nerves serving them, then they could not act as a
supportive sheet of anything - I should have mentioned that, instead of just
assuming that would be understood. The point I wished to stress was that
Action 1 (trunk flexion) is totally inappropriate for any form of
weightlifting or powerlifting, while Action 2 of the abs is what dominates
during lifting and pushing.


Mel wrote:


EXTRA AB EXERCISE NECESSARY?


<As Dr Spassov, Bulgarian weightlifting coach, and other lifting coaches have
stressed, if one does lifting training which includes the weightlifting and
powerlifting movements, then there is no need for additional abdominal
exercise, because heavy lifting training and its accompanying stabilization
processes, naturally condition the abdominal muscles. For bodybuilders, yes,
but for athletes who do strength training, no supplementary abdominal
training is required.


Paul :


I will give them a free copy of my new Core Conditioning correspondence
course if you will give me their contact details. I bet you that if they can
step outside their dogma they will change their mind.


Mel:


Don't assume that they are dogmatic - the Russian and Eastern European
scientists base their methods on considerable research and translation of
much Western science and they would most certainly have used additional
abdominal training methods if they had found that it would have helped them
dominate world sport.


I can assure you that Spassov, Medvedev, Verkhoshansky, Zatsiorski, Ozolin,
and others of their ilk have seen and done considerable work on trunk
strengthening and stabilisation, so they are hardly ignorant of what is out
there. They have no minds to change - their methods enabled their athletes to
dominate Olympic sports for many decades and that speaks volumes for their
methods.


Paul:


When I met Poliquin he was making world record holders and Gold medalists
every year and I completely changed his mind and he is not an easy sell, I
assure you. IF you don't believe me Mel, call him. Ask Al Vermeil of the
Bulls if he thinks the abdominals are just a piece of connective tissue, and
if my approach works?


Mel:


While these two coaches have worked with many top performing athletes, and
though I have great respect for Al from my own work with the Bulls, neither
of these men is a scientist or clinician who is capable of commenting
definitively on the biomechanics of trunk action. In that respect, I would
be more inclined to be convinced by a great scientist and practitioner such
as Dr Zatsiorsky (whose knowledge Al also finds astounding). Unfortunately, I
have seen too many functional anatomical errors in Charles' work for me to be
guided by it yet.


Mel wrote:


<Do you have any references which shed more light on the abdominal muscle
complex (AMC) recruitment issue during different types of movement, other
than the ones which I have mentioned above? It would be most unusual for any
lifters to actively recruit and not passively distend the abs during lifting,
so I am fascinated about the kinesiology displayed by this particular group
of athletes. As far as I know, few, if any definitive EMG studies have been
carried out on the muscle recruitment patterns of the AMC of weightlifters or
powerlifters.


Any references yet? Unfortunately, for every one of your anecdotal successes
with isolated ab training, others could produce just as many anecdotal tales
of equal or greater success without specialised ab training (e.g. by Russian
coaches who have produced thousands of Olympians) - I would rather like to
see science direct either of us in a way which either reinforces or modifies
our anecdotal experiences.


Mel wrote:


<Spinal injury, contrary to what is commonly believed is quite rare among
Olympic lifters (about 8% of all injuries, according to a study published in
the IWF Weightlifting magazine). Moreover, elite powerlifters whom I know are
concerned that too many folk take part in powerlifting contests without
adequate technical training, because they think that powerlifting does not
require the same skill as Weightlifting. Were your 'patients' elite lifters?


Paul:


Your 8% is based on lifters of what caliber? I have had patients of all
levels of proficiency although I have never treated a world class Olympic
lifter, just competitors. I have certainly studied them though.


Mel:


That IWF publication referred to 'ranked' lifters; in other words, ones who
competed at national and international level in Russia. They also have
studies performed on athletes at all levels of proficiency, right from
childhood up to Master and International Master class (some of the translated
material is in Dr Yessis' "Soviet Sports Review").


We will have to stop there, Paul - I don't know how many readers will manage
to read through both of our posts, but let's hope that it has been a useful
exercise for those who have had the trunk endurance to do so!


--------------------------


Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/


End of messages
2006/01/24, 06:32 PM
Neck Stabilisation, 'Tongue in Chek'
Only 1 message in topic - view as tree

Mcs...@a..
Feb 28 2001, 2:44 am show options

Dr Mel Siff:


<Other than these more mystical practices from bygone ages, has Chek
offered any references or evidence for such procedures and their effect on
neck muscle tension? It certainly was not his original discovery or
claim, so there must be some source which led him to believe in its alleged
validity. >


Maki Riddington


I have in front of me the book "Core Conditioning" that is used in
his correspondance course.


This is what it says with no references in the binder that I can
find. He may have one on his videos which I will watch again.


----------------------------------------


" THE IMPORTANCE OF TONGUE PLACEMENT DURING ABDOMINAL EXERCISE


Paul Chek


<Proper tounge position is essential during repeated trunk flexion exercises
against gravity.The physiological rest position of the tounge is the roof of
the mouth just behind the front of the teeth. If the tounge not held in this
position as the head (which weighs 7.5% of your total body weight) is lifted
during a crunch or sit up, the
only way to lift the head is with the sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscles and
the deep cervical flexors. If the SCM muscles are used for this purpose they
will hypertrophy just like any other muscle being exercised. Because the SCM
muscles are extensors of the upper cervical spine and flexors of the lower
cervical spine, hypertrophy and hypertonicity can cause a forward head
posture. >


Mel Siff:


*** Really - which anatomy texts did he quote? The physiological rest
position of the tongue is NOT on the roof of the mouth - this position is
never observed even during sleep or under anaesthesia. What nonsense!
Moreover, since when does hypertrophy cause a forward head posture? The SCM
muscles are only extensors of the neck under special conditions - see later.


<Another problem with incorrect tounge position is the deep cervical flexors
must play a major role in lifting the head. >


Siff:


*** How does the tongue control the deep flexors of the neck or alter their
tension to any marked extent? More opinion, no references!


Chek:


<These muscle are long, thin and slight. They fatigue easily, and excessive
fatigue encourages spasms and hypertonicity. If shortened because of poor
techniques these muscles flex the cervical spine, straightening it,
thus reversing its natural curve. This creates many unwanted problems.>


Siff:


*** Entirely opinion. No measurements have shown that muscle length from
distal and proximal attachments is chronically decreased by 'poor techniques'
Again it would be refreshing to see a few references.


Chek:


<The supra and infrahyoid muscles have tremendous mechanical advantages over
the deep cervical flexors (which run along the anterior cervical spine).
Also, the SCM are extensors of the upper cervical spine and are
counterbalanced by the supra and infrahyoid muscles. This is a primary
mechanism for maintaining normal posture of the head.>


Siff:


*** Mechanical advantage changes with joint angle, so this point needs to be
qualified a great deal. The SCM are extensors only if the neck is not flexed
forwards from the start of any forward head action.


Chek:


<The cervical flexors should be allowed to help stabilize the head during
abdominal exercises. This is a natural activity and is taught in this course.



Siff:


*** This is contradictory. Here he says that neck muscle action is
'natural', then he says that it needs to be taught. He is quite correct in
saying that neck stabilisation and mobilisation are natural processes, but
fails to point out that this proves that we do not deliberately need to
isolate or focus on the neck muscles to make
them operate 'functionally'.


With all of these gurus around telling us how defective almost all of our
bodies and muscles are, it is miracle that we cannot do anything without
spending our lives in intensive care wards. How have humans managed to
survive without being taught how to isolate and individually training each
separate muscle in the body. Thank goodness that there are still a few
skeptics and dissidents around who refuse to believe the gospel according to
the fitness gurus! It is a special pleasure to have many of them on our
Supertraining group!


Chek:


<If you pull on your head while performing abdominal exercises the cervical
flexors do not contract. Such inactivity makes them weak and encourages
forward head posture.>


Siff:


*** Definitely not true - how does failure to use the SCM muscles during a
few minutes of situps a day decrease strength in the neck muscles and cause
chronically poor neck posture? The neck muscles are exercised quite
naturally in many exercises - and situps are rather trivial for increasing
neck strength, anyway.


Chek:


<Cervical Flexors


The cervical flexors affect the biomechanical and functional relationship
between the trunk and the head-neck relationship complex during abdominal
exercises. >


Siff:


*** Typical use of pseudo-intellectual jargon which means little or nothing
of any consequence. What is he really trying to say? See my previous letter
(yesterday) on "Sokal and Siff Hoaxes". My guru terminology kit which I
posted several months ago is also most relevant to this commentary - another
of these guru kits appears on p184 of my "Facts & Fallacies of Fitness" book.


Chek:


<The supra and infrahyoid musculature are to the cervical spine what the
lower abdominals are to the lumbar spine. They stabilize the head during the
crunch or the situp.>


Siff:


*** This remark implies that the 'lower' structures of the abdominals are
more central to control of the lumbar spine than the abdominals as a group.
Again, it would be interesting to see references which substantiate this
belief.


Now what have some of us been saying about a little biomechanics and
functional anatomy knowledge being a dangerous thing?


Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
wrestler125
wrestler125
Posts: 4,619
Joined: 2004/01/27
United States
2006/01/24, 11:43 PM
I love how chek pretends he didnt know who siff was... If you dont know the names Siff, Medvedev, Verkoskaskhy (sp), and Zatsorski (sp) then you don't belong in the strength game.

Nelly, as for your comment about regular people and expanding the stomach: I can take any novice lifter and add 20lbs to their squat with this and a few other techniques. That in itself is enough. Have them suck in their abdominals, and they are setting themselves up for injury.
Chek gets scrutiny not because his "sources" aren't famous, but because he is his own source, and he can't back what he says up. I am sorry to say it, but this is where Siff is absolutely correct. Chek has a tarnished reputation for a reason.
As for that mills guy, someone needs to tap him upside the head. I don't even want to talk to that guy. But I would be happy for someone to put him in a ring with me.
Cooling off, I disagree with everything Paul says involving TVA activation. So do most others. It is a rare occassion that I straight up disagree with someone, as I am a believer that everything is a tool, but Chek needs to go back and review his kinesiology. There is not "so much conflicting evidence" there is chek and his followers, and everyone else.
BTW, most Peer reviewed citations ARE done with regular people, that is why I discriminate so highly between studies on trained vs. untrained individuals.

--------------
Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run.

============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
The squat cage is holy ground.
============
wrestler125
wrestler125
Posts: 4,619
Joined: 2004/01/27
United States
2006/01/24, 11:52 PM
Nelly, personally I think you are subscribing to the cult. I think it would do you good to expose yourself to other views a little more openly, see a few different viewpoints. This is how we learn, and learning cannot take place if you follow blindly, let alone follow one source blindly. I am not saying to disregard everything chek based, like some would have you do. Rather, I am suggesting you to expose yourself to others, to accept what can be backed up, more importantly what makes sense, and most importantly what works, and reject the heresay, and all the like that can not be proven or supported.

--------------
Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run.

============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
The squat cage is holy ground.
============
gatormade
gatormade
Posts: 1,355
Joined: 2003/10/01
United States
2006/01/25, 10:41 AM
This topic is a bit rediculous right now. Mel Siff was one of the greatest minds ever in our field. He died a few years back from heart failure. His book Supertraining is a great book filled with tons of research. He does make a great point about Paul Chek back tracking when he gets called out though. Paul was the guy telling people to draw the abs in when you squat. Then all the big squatters in the world called him out on that and now he has an article on abs in or out. He likes them both now. Not a big deal. We all adapt and change. He does not know everything. None of us do. Your chest muscles are important shoulder stabilizers. Athletes need to strengthen them properly just like their upper back muscles. Over benching is bad for anyone. 3-5 sets of bench per week will not hurt a baseball pitcher as long as their is appropriate back and rotator work done. Training a pitcher like a body builder is not a good idea. Then again training any athlete like a body builder is not a good idea. This is probably the reason benching has bad name. It has been overused. I want you all to take the overhead squat and do 10 sets of 10 3 times a week with your workouts. I bet your hips will start show signs of overuse syndrome. The overhead squat is the king exercise of all functional gurus. It, like any other exercise, if over trained will cause injury.
wrestler125
wrestler125
Posts: 4,619
Joined: 2004/01/27
United States
2006/01/25, 03:59 PM
I only say that because of how you reference the CHEK institute. Not only to you call it your "beliefs", but you claim it is no different than any other certification. Not only is the chek institute VERY different, but I would call you out on it even if it was any other institute.
Let me explain: I hold poliquin and his certification system in high regards. However, if you were to tell me that you were a level four PICP practicioner I would give less credibility to you than if you got a kinesiology degree and studied many different people with no certification. As much faith as I put into Poliquin, I would think you were being ignorant if you followed him the way you follow Chek. Similarly, I follow a lot of the westside methodologies. However, if you told me you were taking a certification from dave tate on athletic training, then I would tell you were nuckin futs.
I didn't say what I said because I disagree with Chek. I said what I said because I think it is limiting yourself to follow any one person as blindly as you do. I hope you can understand that.

--------------
Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run.

============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
The squat cage is holy ground.
============
nellyboy
nellyboy
Posts: 209
Joined: 2004/07/09
United States
2006/01/25, 07:16 PM
When refering to the certifications, what I'm implying is that it's no different than other certifiers (NASM, ISSA, PACE, etc.). All of them were ORIGINATED by one of a few individuals and are a CURRICULUM, not a single source or conference or internship.

You college advocates are all the same...go to college or else! So basically you're saying that if you were to go to a week long "intership" presented by Poliquin (or anyone for that matter) it's less than simply sitting through a college level class...presented by a PERSON WITH A PARTICULAR PERCEPTION. The only difference is that now you have a pretty diploma instead of a pretty certificate. What many don't realize is this is how many of the "experts, gurus and brains" learn in more detail about a particular subject once the basics are learned. What do you think the
SWISS symposium is? It's a series of lectures given by "experts" about a particular subject. This is what all certifiers are: a series of lectures on health.

To learn from the best, in a classroom setting is an amazing way to become better at what you do. This is the basics premise of the Chek Institute. Learn Strength and Conditioning from leaders in the field...Poliquin, Goss, Telle, Siff, etc. Learn Nutrition from leaders in the field...Fallon, Timmons, Enig, etc.

Many of those that comment negatively towards certifiers usually fall into 2 types of people: gym rats or college students/graduates that feel above certified individuals. Most of the cases that I've dealt with personally fall under the gym rat title. This is where they learn for their own personal benefit and assume that if it works for them or makes sense to them, then it is the truth. This is dangerous thinking for the fact that if you've never trained a cross-section of trainees, then you are spewing acecdotal information or at the very least, or are narrow-minded in your beliefs.

By the way, how many times has Siff and only Siff been referenced or mentioned in these posts?
7707mutt
7707mutt
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 2002/06/18
United States
2006/01/25, 07:42 PM
So a gym rat could not train others? So unless I have one of your pretty useless certs I am not knowledge? I have had the blessing to train with some with a ISSA etc type of cert. Also with others with college degrees. I have found that those with a solid "gym rat" experience regardless of what additional training they now have are the best trainers. I have seen the so called experts take ave guys and gals and trott them around from machine to bench to ball and pretty much waste their time and money.
Before you start throwing around statements like the above remember that there are a lot of people that are gym rats that know a LOT more than you do and quite possible will always know more.

--------------
Less Talk, More Chalk!
The Men and Boys are Separated by one thing: The Squat Cage!

7707mutt@freetrainers.com
2006/01/25, 07:50 PM
The reason why diplomas are superior is because they on average require much higher level of commitment...NASM and all the other certifications are an outright joke...I know plenty of trainers with them who don't know anything at all...something u learn in undera month with little effort...does not equate to a college education....just because Chek read some books on his own doesn't mean he understands what he read...he can parrot all he wants ...but as Siff pointed out he was wrong in many areas....he just plain didn't understand it...this is why a professor comes in handy whom you can ask questions or ask for clarifications....Chek was arguing/debating with a person with a PhD and a lot of experience and first hand involvement in many areas....he was outmatched and it's obvious...Until a short while back I didn't know who either was and didn't really care...but just following the debates, it's clear Chek was at a loss...he probably is still a great S&C coach and so on..but he definitely has a big gaps in many areas....

The reason that Siff has been cited consistantly is because he's a clear authority in this topic and he had first hand debates with Chek where proved him wrong or showed that Chek was merely stating his opinions...

I personally have nothing against Chek...he often thinks outside the box which is often an innovative way of doing things...however it would be very interesting and productive if he started backing up his opinions with actual scientific data.....just out of pure curiosity he should start 'testing' some of his theories...
2006/01/25, 09:54 PM
Here's another Siff article pointing out very basic mistakes that Chek makes ...this article is on rehabilitation...which is one of Chek's strong points

Water Therapy and Training
Only 1 message in topic - view as tree

Mcs...@a..
May 16 2001, 1:20 pm show options

Recently someone sent me a letter asking me to critique a certain article
which he referred to me. Others might also be interested in reading my
comments.


----------------------------------


Dr Siff, here is an extract from an article that appeared in the April 2001
'Personal Fitness Professional', called 'The Healing Power of the Pool' (by
Paul Chek). I am not out to discredit anyone, but I am not familiar with the
methods written and would just like to have the facts checked before I accept
them


<.... As demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2, loading injured tissues increases
pain, decreases circulation and fortifies the splinting response with
increased spasm in surrounding tissues. Moving an injured joint in the water
causes a therapeutic decompression effect, which can be enhanced by the
addition of a weight distal to the injured joint structure and a flotation
device above the injured joint structure. This will encourage further
decompression or light traction, which is known to inhibit and relax the musc
les crossing the involved joint. The result is often decreased spasm and also
improved functional muscle contraction. This too facilitates venous return,
mechanoreceptor stimulation and reduced pain and aids in accelerating
recovery (Figure 3).


The pool provides an excellent opportunity to interrupt the pain-spasm cycle
via facilitated venous return, sensory modulation and therapeutic
decompression. Intelligent use of the pool for its hydrotherapeutic effects
will speed recovery from injury and serve as a means of naturally increasing
one's training volume and work tolerance. >


------------------------------------------


*** Several issues need correction:


1. Loading tissues does not necessarily increase pain, decrease circulation
or create a stronger splinting response or spasm. In fact, some modalities
impose very intense, impulsive or sustained loading to break spasm or
decrease pain. For example, the imposition of controlled alternate loading
and unloading or traction may achieve all that the author has attributed to
water therapy. Clinics even have special machines which apply this sort of
patterned loading and unloading. If you don't have machines like that, then
PNF offers plenty of information on how to achieve this effect manually (see
Ch 7 of "Supertraining"). It is always important not to make any
generalisations without stating their scope and limitations, as is standard
practice in scientific and clinical circles.


2. Moving an injured joint in the water definitely does not cause a
therapeutic decompression effect. Basic physics shows that immersion in
water causes a COMPRESSION effect, its magnitude depending on the depth of
immersion (H) and the density of water (s). The exact equation is:


Pressure at depth d P(H) = P(o) + s.g.H


where P(o) is pressure at the surface of the water, i.e. atmospheric
pressure, and g is the acceleration due to gravity.


In other words, the deeper that the limb is immersed, the greater the
compression effect. When one LEAVES the water, then the pressure is once
again decreased to atmospheric pressure.


3. Moving a limb at any depth in water also tends to COMPRESS the tissues in
the direction of the motion, according to the laws of hydrodynamics, not
decompress them.


4. The attachment of a weight below an injured joint and a flotation device
above the joint to provide traction theoretically is a step in the right
direction, but Archimedes Laws show that immersion in water diminishes the
effective weight pulling on the limb to such an extent that it would be far
more effective and less trouble to apply normal traction methods on dry land.
In fact, one of the major advantages of water therapy (hydrotherapy) is the
ability to move under diminished loading or gravitational conditions.


5. Venous return is facilitated primarily by the contraction and relaxation
of muscles whether this is done on land or water. Nothing mystical or
special about water in this regard! Even alternate submaximal isometric
contraction and relaxation offers effective venous return. Physios even have
local decompression/compression cylinders that they fit over limbs of
subjects who are very immobile in order to enhance or simulate this natural
pumping action.


6. Mention of water playing a special role in "mechanoreceptor stimulation"
is pretty much redundant in this context, since enhancement of
mechanoreception is provided by INCREASED loading and stress on the body or
its parts. Maybe the author meant to say something else about the role
played by neural activation or relaxation via mechanoreceptors (mechanical
transducers or receivers) in water exercise, but what he wrote does not give
any accurate or meaningful information on this subject.


Note well that hydrotherapy can be a very effective and comfortable
therapeutic and training modality - my comments above should not be construed
to imply the opposite, because they have been provided solely to correct the
pseudoscience that was obvious in parts of that article - nothing more,
nothing less. Anyone who has attended my Camps will immediately know how
extensively I use hot and cold water in jacuzzis and pools for training
(including water 'plyometrics' and lifting, restoration and rehabilitation,
but I try my best not to base my use of this excellent modality on imprecise
science or deficient practice.


This lack of understanding of some ancient and very basic Grecian physics
makes me realise that fitness professionals need more familiarisation not
only with Newton's Laws, but also what Archimedes and others said way back
when. As many have already pointed out in recent posts, most certification
programs are too impoverished or incomplete to offer an adequate working
knowledge of applied sports and strength science. Who was it who said that
formal academic training is a waste of time, because the "academics know
nothing about sport" ?


Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
nellyboy
nellyboy
Posts: 209
Joined: 2004/07/09
United States
2006/01/25, 10:02 PM
Mutt, you've just shown why posting is ridiculous....oooh gym rats are smarter than me...oooh snap!

With worthless arguments like that, it has made me realize something else about posting that I'd forgoten up until this week...this is a huge waste of time. Other than Gator, the rest of you are RESEARCHERS and from time to time, you show some seemingly lost girl at the gym how to perform her tricep pressdowns correctly.

As I'm sure many of you will be happy as hell to hear about, this will be the last post, since I have more important things to do with my valuable spare time.
wrestler125
wrestler125
Posts: 4,619
Joined: 2004/01/27
United States
2006/01/25, 10:32 PM
someones getting a little defensive.
First of all, its SWIS.
Second of all, if you are going to imply that you have a basic knowledge of kinesiology while and screw up your terms more often than I do on my tests, then I think going to college would be a good idea.
Third of all, menace is just posting things from the supertraining board. Tate, Poliquin, Cosgrove, Wendler, Thibedauea (sp) John, and a whole other list seemingly have concurred the same.
Fourth of all, I know more about strength training than the same professors teaching kinesiology. Why? Because there is more to training than just knowing muscle groups, and I have experianced this, so I take it as a personal insult when you reference me as a "college students/graduates that feel above certified individuals" or as narrow minded, as I feel that I have done nothing but prove how I seek influence from MANY different sources.
Nelly, try not to take this stuff personally. But as you said, one form of propaganda is attacking a person rather than a belief, and you have attacked me, other posters on t-nation, members of this board, and thousands of trainers around the world.
I hope you are not serious when you say that you are gone, as I appreciate your insight, but it would be nice if you would post on something non-chek based once in a while.

--------------
Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run.

============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
The squat cage is holy ground.
============
7707mutt
7707mutt
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 2002/06/18
United States
2006/01/25, 10:39 PM
I hopwe he does leave. Every single post he makes is intended to inflame and incite flame wars.
And Yes Nelly I am totaly comfortable in saying I know more than you. I just do not try to force it on others to make myself fell important. You on the other hand take great pains to make others know that you are SO MUCH MORE EDUCATED than the rest of us. I would by far go up to a guy like me in a gym lifting real weight with great form than to a guy like you that jumps on the next great bandwangon.

--------------
Less Talk, More Chalk!
The Men and Boys are Separated by one thing: The Squat Cage!

7707mutt@freetrainers.com
7707mutt
7707mutt
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 2002/06/18
United States
2006/01/25, 10:43 PM
And his reply will be somthing along the lines that Mutt does not look like he knows his shit etc etc.....LOL

--------------
Less Talk, More Chalk!
The Men and Boys are Separated by one thing: The Squat Cage!

7707mutt@freetrainers.com
2006/01/26, 03:05 AM
Nelly I thought u were a gym rat yourself? u were a powerlifter and so forth...so you learned a lot of things first hand...don't know why you're taking things so personally...yes posting takes time...but it is a learning opportunity as well...I just think you like 'yes-man' to agree with u and continue to perpertuate certain inaccuracies...yes many of us don't use scientific terms or complex sounding terms the way you do from time to time...but don't assume that just because you use complex terminology that you know what you're talking about or that we don't....my #1 goal always is simplicity in everything I do...I hate to complicate things needlessly....Also as Siff showed on Chek, just because you use fancy sounding terms doesn't mean that you know wtf you're talking about....even when you're one of the most well known S&C coaches...

Also you seemed to have succumbed to the same things you accused others of doing...of simply attacking people instead of their arguments...or saying I am too good to argue with you...you're all wasting my time....whatever you say....Hey there's a whole club of people in this day and age numbering thousands of people I believe, that think the earth is flat...it's their right....feel free to do the same...

I think you have a lot to contribute on this board and there's no need for the drama...if you choose to leave ...that is your choice ofcourse...and it would be a loss for freetrainers...however no one will lose sleep over it...

best of wishes
gatormade
gatormade
Posts: 1,355
Joined: 2003/10/01
United States
2006/01/26, 01:21 PM
I am a huge gym rat. I have been training since I was 12. That is almost 19 years. That training experience is priceless. But, I also have undergraduate and graduate work under my belt. That is what truely makes me sharp. My training has gotten better with more and more study and personal research. There is only one certification in this country that is accredited and that is the ones through the NSCA (CSCS & CPT). Everyone on here has a different training experience. That is why it is good to post and argue. The posts I hate are the ones with recommendations that will hurt someone. Paul Chek has some good ideas. He does miss the boat sometimes though. Mel Siff knew the science inside and out. His book is awesome. He was awesome. I believe that when someone posts an arguement they shouldn't try to back it up with, "well paul chek says this," or "Mel Siff says this." Put together a well thought out arguement and back it with some personal or professional research. In my eyes that goes a lot further.
tpatpa
tpatpa
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006/07/12
Canada
2006/07/12, 02:31 AM
null - You got OWNED!
2006/07/12, 04:58 AM
good job bringing up a dead post for no reason...as your first post....
orthocarept
orthocarept
Posts: 2
Joined: 2012/02/19
United States
2012/02/19, 01:48 PM
wrestler125
I like to stay on top of things, but I can't say I check his website every morning after I drink my tea. But has anyone checked out his website lately???

Is it just me, or is it starting to look even MORE like a cult? Check out his "mission statement". Wow.

--------------
Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run.



============

Quoting from 7707mutt:

The squat cage is holy ground.

============

---I am not sure of his qualifications.  I realize he is well respected and provides much information.  However, he appears to be a self help guru.  I mean he claims to be a neuromuscular therapist.  Does anyone know what the hell that is?  As a licensed physical therapist, i don't.  He gives seminars on the preventment and treatment of injuries such as low back pan.  Is he even qualified to do this?  His level of knowlegde seems to be based on experiences vs formal education and training and while I am not saying that he does not have knowledge, I am just putting into perspective.  I think him giving talks on rehabilitation of athletic injuries is dangerous as he is most likely not aware of the current evidence based practice inthis area.  any thoughts?  orthocarept@aol.com