0
comments
HI Jerry
In your response you wrote
"On the other hand it has been my experience that the Olympic lifts require
such an elite performance, that many athletes have not the time, proper
supervision and or athletic ability to learn these movements to the point of
productivity. Many even have problems with productive nonnconstrained squat
performance! Yet given the use of a properly designed leaper or smith
machine these
limitations were, anecdotal, more easily resolved."
I'm not sure but I seem to be able to teach Olympic lifts to a good level
fairly quickly , form is good with in weeks. Is this the optimal time line
who knows, but it seems to help athletes, who have a long term goals, as
training is not about next week, but about my plan for the season, the next
season the Olympics. There are different uses for machines and I have
recently started training with one designed specifically for rugby scrums,
that has great carry over to leg drive and hip extension required in scrums,
rucks and mauls. However I would unlikely ever stop using exercizes like
squats, cleans, overhead squats, lunges etc as they a very valuable tools.
The whole stability thing has a continuum. Low instability guided movement
at one end and highly unstable circus tricks at the other. For most
athletes time constraint seems to be the issue. In my mind using exercises
that capture more training uses are better. When selecting a barbell squat
for example, as opposed to a smith machine squat or a Swiss ball squat, I do
this because it challenges the muscle with large loads, which is not
possible with a swiss ball squat, but it has stability elements that
challenge the athlete to stabilise the weight (while producing force) that
the Smith Machine does not challenge. Overhead squatting challenges the
stability function more than back squats, but force development is reduced
as less weight can be handled. So I select the lifts for a reason, time
effectiveness.
A problem that I have (not what you wrote but a point that it raises) " that
many athletes have not the time, proper supervision and or athletic ability
to learn these movements" Is that is exactly the problem, poor supervision
and poor teaching ability. I hope that groups like this and others are
impacting on the strength community to improve supervision for athletes
and are improving industry skills. To say that we invent machines because
people are unable to learn is living with the problem not fixing the
problem, putting a band aid on not stitching the cut. Machines invented to
do specific task are useful, but lifting a barbel and some weights is a
cheap and easy way to equip a gym. a platform and some rubber training
discs and you are away. I have yet (with the exception of the para-Olympic
athletes) to see athletes who have not mastered squats, dead lifts and some
form of Olympic lift variation to productivity. Even Oscar Pistorious (no
legs) learned to snatch at some point. Even non sporting clients with
aesthetic goals can learn these basic lifts.
As a question about heel raises, have you noticed that during a clean,
snatch or squat jump, high pulls the athlete or trainee trains heel raises
as part of the movement, is there a need to train heel raises specifically?
Do we need machines do do this. If the athlete needs this training you can
stand on a step holding dumbbells (touch a wall if balance is an issue), a
barbell on your shoulders teaches balance too that a machine may not, yet
you could load the weight to develop the movement concerned.
Tools are tool, but it seems that David argues in favour of machines as he
sells them. I fabricate and sell a machine called the ScrumTruk (under
licence from Australia), that is very useful for some rugby related
strengths (and other sports e.g. bob sledding although we don't get much
snow around here), but I sell this not as a replacement for classical weight
training but as an enhancement for it. Yet the gym where I trained did not
have machines until a recent upgrade of facility and change of location (no
space). The new tools, cable machine mostly and a ScrumTruck and leg
press, we have improved the offering, but the basics remain, in my mind at
least, firmly in place at the platform.
Best Regards
Nick Tatalias
Johannesburg
South Africa
On 16/01/2008, JRTELLE@aol.com <JRTELLE@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Gordon Waddell wrote,
>
> I have never heard of or seen an offset Smith machine to allow for proper
> back positioning in squats etc ---------- Like all machines, any Smith
> will
> decrease stabilizer activation, disrupt coordinated movement patterns and
> place an
> unnatural load across joints.
>
> The way I look at it: Poliquin, Boyle, Cosgrove, Cook, Simmons, Hartman -
> none of these well known coaches/therapists ever recommend a Smith-for
> squats-----
> ".
>
> "-------------much deleted------------------'
>
> Steven Plisk wrote;
>
> Colleagues,
>
> I don't believe there's evidence showing that machines (guided resistance)
>
> are more dangerous than free weights (unguided resistance). The consensus
> emerging from the literature is that 1) the perception that free weights
> are more
> dangerous isn't necessarily true, and 2) unguided-resistance equipment is
> superior in most regards, particularly when used with qualified
> instruction and
> supervision. -------
> ---- much deleted including many references.
>
> John Casler wrote;
>
> If we look at both machines, and free weights all as "force loading
> devices", then we can more clearly evaluate each individually, and apply
> it
> to the goals and needs of the application.-----------------much
> deleted--------"
>
> So in the end, strength, function, hypertrophy, endurance and any number
> of
> goals and complexed goals can be accommodated via looking for the right
> tool
> (load device) for the job.
>
> Paul Rogers wrote;
>
> This position seems widely held: that machine weights are either 1)
> dangerous, or 2) useless.
>
> "-------------- much deleted -------------------'
>
> Okay, as Lee requested, put your cards on the table folks. Show us that
> machine weights are injurious or useless. -------------------"
>
> *************
> Jerry Telle writes;
>
> Greetings iron scientists,
>
> As the above authors express there is general agreement of many well known
>
> iron practitioners that "free weights," with the experience of the lifter
> and
> under proper supervision, is superior to any guided resistance.
>
> I must question this belief that a constrained resistance is inherently
> harmful to the involved joints -- especially in movements like the squat
> or maybe
> even the deadlift. I base my inquiry on the lack of quantified measurement
> and
> the observation that there are many joints involved in said lifts.
>
> Because of the relative functions of so many joints it seems to me that
> any "
> unnatural" movement -- if such a concept is applicable here -- is
> compensated
> for through out the lift by continuous joint adjustment. In some exercises
> the
> use of guided resistance is a must. For instance I have yet to see anyone
> doing "free" resistance heel raises. Yet no one has submitted any negative
>
> anecdotal, much less quantified, observations in protest.
>
> As such the squat, as used in many applications such as the development of
>
> power or horizontal acceleration/velocity, or absolute strength (depending
> on
> ones definition of strength) maybe best addressed by constrained
> resistance.
> With constrained resistance the athlete can more intently focus on the
> power or
> pure strength elements of the exercise. Admittedly a good deal of
> biomechanical efficiency must be present -- as a function of athlete
> experience and
> supervision.
>
> On the other hand it has been my experience that the Olympic lifts require
>
> such an elite performance, that many athletes have not the time, proper
> supervision and or athletic ability to learn these movements to the point
> of
> productivity. Many even have problems with productive nonnconstrained
> squat
> performance! Yet given the use of a properly designed leaper or smith
> machine these
> limitations were, anecdotally, more easily resolved.
>
> One problem with the use of non traditional equipment is the lack of
> quantified research or even anecdotal observation. The purported
> advantages of
> productive equipment are not easy manifestations to demonstrate. ANY
> increase in
> speed, horizontal elevation or functional sstrength, e.g., offensive or
> defensive
> line performance, is desirable. Yet we are interested in small increases
> in
> improvement. Increasing a corner backs speed from a 4.5 40 to a 4.47 is
> the
> difference in wining and loosing. Three 100 ths of a second (30 mills).
> equates to
> about 6-8 inches of travel at a 4.5 per 40 yds/mtrs. velocity. Yet this is
>
> *only* a 4-6% increase in performance – a fairly hard task to anecdotally
> validate.
>
> It is my contention that various types of constrained inertial resistance
> are
> better than "free weight" equivalents in the production of speed, power
> and
> pure strength. The use of force plates, video and EMG measures may be an
> investigative beginning.
>
> It is also my contention that the "coordination and synergistic" aspects
> of
> performance are more productively addressed via more action specific
> avenues.
> You might ask yourself how much velocity and height issues can be
> addressed
> squatting on a Swiss ball! However, the attempt at or performance of such
> incredible feats, using a gymnastic safety harness, may be performance --
> as in
> balance -- useful?
>
> So given the above treatise in speculation – and as J Casler expresses "
> ------------- strength, function, hypertrophy, endurance and any number of
> goals
> and complexed goals can be accommodated via looking for the right tool."
> And
> with lee and John admonishments to "put your cards on the table folks.
> Show us
> that machine weights are injurious or useless", ---its time to measure
> when and
> what happens when the rubber meets the road. Ultimate performance and
> safety
> are the beneficiaries.
>
> Jerry
>
> Jerry Telle
> Lakewood CO USA
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Modify/cancel your subscription at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
wish them to be published!
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Supertraining-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Supertraining-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Supertraining-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
March
0 comments: