[Supertraining] Productive Discussions (Was Explosive Exercise is pointless)

Hello Group,

I've been late getting back regarding the discussion on HIT /
Mannie / Siff. It has always been clear that the general consensus
of this group is Siff fans and probably sleeps with Supertraining
under their pillows. However, I felt compelled to ask some questions
to the group on behalf of HIT since no one else seems eager to
question both sides of the coin. I will preface my questions with
the statement that I have trained under both methodologies and I hold
no allegiance to either. I am a proponent of sound, safe,
productive, progressive, training that is appropriate to meet the
needs and goals of the individual(s).

With that said:
How was it possible that statements made by Siff were used to pick
Mannie's article apart but Mr. Casler could conclude with paragraphs
of unsupported information generalizing the methodology of "HIT?"
More importantly this happened and it was alright with the group. I
have been a long time follower of this discussion and it is becoming
more and more evident that one of two realities is true. 1) The
group does not care about examining all aspects of training and
seeing the value in every resource or 2) The subscribers are largely
proponents of Olympic style training and seek to eloquently smite
anything that differs from their views?

John Casler writes:

The "motor" control and strength of the motor impulse will have
significant determination on the "speed" at which a muscle can create
force. Additionally, the simplistic vision of concentric muscle
action as the key element to creating dynamic muscle actions in
sports is myopic to how the body functions in dynamic conditions.
The combination(s) of eccentric, static and concentric actions,
blended with significant motor signals strengths and the ability to
load both the hard tissues (skeleton) and soft tissues, (muscle,
ligaments, fascia and cartilages) is only a part of creating speed
and dynamic effectiveness.

John Casler goes on to states the primary deficit of the HIT
philosophy is that it ignores the "realities of the above," and that
HIT assumes that simply making the muscle tissues themselves stronger
will take care of it all. These generalized statements suggest that
HIT proponents ignore everything but using heavy loads to train to
fatigue. Now I am certainly placing words in Mr. Casler's mouth but
you may go back and read the posting to judge for yourself. If
this can be said then we can go back to Mr Scheitel's concern that
many Olympic lifting coaches are not properly trained to teach the
proper execution of Olympic lifts, therefore, Olympic lifting is too
risky and unsupervised to be used.

I am pulling very broad and general statements based upon the posts
but this is the gist of what I am seeing. Am I the only one who sees
the drive of these discussions as fundamentally wrong?

Rather than sharing successes and failures of specific activities
with others we are throwing stones? Shall we go back to the
roundtable discussions and pick on every article written 10, 20 and
30 years ago for the sake of showing off our knowledge? I imagine a
professional discussion forum would share information not drive
opinions. Additionally I feel we are doing a disservice to the
novice professionals and young people logging on to learn. All they
are learning is to draw lines like every body else which closes them
off from seeing all the tools available to them. When reading posts
like this it makes one say "well then who cares?" This stumps the
learning process early on.

With that said:
Mr. Casler can you please provided me with answers to the following:
Peer reviewed research that specifically demonstrates HIT or Hard
training as a methodology:
1)Produces greater incidents of athletic injuries to non-contractile
structures?
2)Produces athletes who yeild weaker/slower strength and speed
development?

Thank you,
Rob Barrese
Pennsylvania, USA

__._,_.___

__,_._,___