[Supertraining] Re: Productive Discussions-Explosive Exercise is pointless

Finally, a breath of fresh air mixed with some common sense!

Thanks Rob.

Some of us are still waiting to see the peer reviewed studies that
refute Bruce_Low and Smiths contention that peer-reviewed studies do
not support explosive exercises as being more effective than
traditional slow and heavy weight training for enhancement of power
and athletic performance.

I'm especially interested because I've worked both sides of the
street, finding no difference in performance from my athletes when
the explosive routines were eliminated.
After using Olympic lifts from 1967 to 2003, I can attest to the
difficulty of removing some of these iconic lifts!

Barry Ross
Los Angeles, USA

--- In Supertraining@yahoogroups.com, "rob_barrese" <rob_barrese@...>
wrote:
>
> 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
>

__._,_.___