0
comments
The below post from the late Dr Siff seems pertinent to recent
discussions:
============
There has been considerable discussion (if some of the hostile
exchanges may be called that!) on many lists on the issue of one vs
many set training. It is evident that, no matter what the evidence
either way, there are exceptions to the rule that will never allow
us to deduce that there is only one way for everyone.
THE ROLE OF SKILL
Sure we know that single set training has almost never been used by
any elite Olympic lifters or in any other sports which require a
high level of skill, since repetition is the way shown by
generations of neuroscientists to facilitate learning of motor
patterns. Bodybuilding is not a pursuit which requires a high
level of neuromotor skill and it should not be surprising that some
individuals may indeed achieve favourable results with one set
training.
Some might be tempted to proclaim that powerlifting is similarly
fairly unskilled, but we should note that there are definite
technical skills which distinguish the classy, elite powerlifter from
amateurs or novices. For instance, many personal trainers are
amazed to learn that there are optimal movement patterns for even
the apparently basic lifts of benching or squatting - far too many
of them think that 'any fool can teach and execute these lifts
correctly'.
However, in Olympic lifting the skillful movements are very rapid
and error correction via ongoing feedback is extremely unlikely -
the lifts are determined largely by pre-visualised, feedforward
mental and kinaesthetic 'images' formed before the actions begin.
In powerlifting and all other physique training exercises, the
movements are relatively slow, especially as the load increases, so
that ongoing correction is relatively simple.
Thus, if anyone wishes to make a fair evaluation of the
appropriateness of the different types of resistance training, the
issue of the primacy of neuromotor skill has to be raised - otherwise
we will continue to produce years of hostile, unproductive debate
which serves to divide, rather than to unite, the various
specialisations within our wonderful and unequalled Iron
Game!
PLACEBO EFFECT & INDIVIDUALITY
Moreover, we also have to consider the powerful influence of the
placebo effect - everyone eventually chooses a favourite approach to
training and establishes a mental and physical formula which suits
him/her best (not that it necessarily produces the best results).
If one does not believe in and passionately enjoy his/her training
regime, then the results will hardly be noteworthy. Thus, someone
demands silence when training, another likes Tarzan cries, others
prefer loud music and so forth. To each his own - with one proviso -
always respect another person's way, provided it is not harming
anyone else.
EXCEPTIONS, NOT AVERAGES
After all, it is not the average person who stands on the Olympic
podium or bodybuilding rostrum to receive the world's greatest
accolades - it is the exception, the idiosyncrasy, the abnormal who
gets there. This is one of the major problems which besets
scientific research. Science depends on performing experiments
with large numbers of similar subjects doing some standard set of
carefully administered things to ensure accuracy, reproducibility and
precision. The results are subjected to painstaking statistical
analysis to ascertain how the 'average' or 'mean' subject behaves
under those precise conditions.
Now this is hardly what happens in sport, where reproducibility of
results, environmental conditions, standard actions and so forth
occur predicably and simply. Average subjects never stand on the
winner's podium, never break world records or fill the top teams, so
the non-scientist quite rightly questions the relevance of it all.
The serious scientist will head straight for those exceptional
individuals, sporting mutants or whatever we wish to call them and
ascertain what makes THEM what they are. The averages are for those
who are targetted by the infomercials or those who want to gather as
many academic publications as possible in a lifetime, but they are
not often for those who aspire to elite levels of achievement.
HIDDEN FACTORS
All too often, the discussions about the superiority of some or
other training regime omits to mention the use of other regimes or
supplements that may currently be used or were used during some other
phase of training. There is no standard method that one can use at
all stages of training over a lifetime, as any experienced athlete
or bodybuilder will tell you. The secret of the stars is 'knowing
thyself' and learning to exploit some relevant intuition or inner
feeling for what is 'right' or 'wrong' about any exercise or
exercise method at a given time.
This is why highly deterministic periodisation (as opposed to the
interactively modified Cybernetic Periodisation, discussed in the
textbook Siff 'Supertraining'
successful as its more rigid, computational proponents would have us
believe.
Another massive hidden factor is the undeclared use of AA steroids
by competitors and subjects in many scientific studies. How on
earth one can fairly and accurately compare 'clean' athletes with
steroids users is anyone's guess. I don't for one moment believe
that showing up 'clean' in steroid or doping tests means that the
subject is 'clean' or never has relied on drugs to enhance
performance. Steroid assisted gains last for many months or even
years (yes, years!), so this hidden or undisclosed factor always
lurks there to taunt the scientist.
CONCLUSION
There will never be a definitive conclusion to this entire issue -
that is why we scientists and competitors are always trying
something new or just trying. Note, however, that if anyone
advocates using a single method for all purposes forever and ever,
till death do us part, then we will recognise the average type.
Sure, adhere exclusively to HIT, Nautilus devices, power cleans, one
set workouts, non-explosive methods, sumo squats, thumbless grip
benches and so forth and you will never discover what your real
potential could have been.
Continue to deny the reality of individuality, specificity,
plasticity, inconstancy and variability and your training and
knowledge will bar you from standing on Everest, instead of nibbling
canned food in the foothills.
To borrow some concepts from Russia, let's invoke some more glasnost
and perestroika in the warring ranks of all of us in the Iron
Game! My gym at my homes in S Africa and the USA have always been
replete with Eleiko lifting bars, Schnell equipment, biomechanical
apparatus, pulley machines, benches - AND a great group of
bodybuilders, powerlifters, weightlifters and sports competitors
who all flourish in the stimulating and varied training
atmosphere. The diffferences are what help as grow, not our
samenesses - let that continue to be a theme for the great Iron
Game.
============
============
Jamie Carruthers
Wakefield, UK
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
wish them to be published!
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
March
0 comments: