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?"
John Casler writes:
Rob, You'll be happy to know that:
1) I don't own, or sleep with SUPERTRAINING under my pillow
2) You clearly display significant bias toward a dated version of High
Intensity Training
3) You conclude that I formed my opinions from Siff and Mannie's comments
only, which is not accurate.
4) And you suggest that you know the differences of training methodologies
and have the ability to discern what and when to use specific training yet
question the clear weaknesses of attempting to use a classic HIT
application, for something it clearly cannot satisfy
Rob Barrese wrote:
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:
Your incredulity may only be evident to those that lack the knowledge and
experience to understand the specific mechanisms which I mentioned. I am
not sure what I wrote that specifically "points" to Olympic Lifting, since
while what I wrote might include some of the Olympic movements, it is not
directed at any specific lifting actions other than those that when
performed in a manner that produces exceptional RFD, takes advantage of the
forces that accompany the SSC, and other elements of various stimuli that
produce adaptation that contribute to explosive strength and speed.
John Casler wrote:
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(
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.
Rob Barrese wrote:
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.
John Casler writes:
Again, I said NOTHING of Olympic Lifting specifically. However what I DID
SAY: is that the Mannie stance seems to ignore all other elements of the
development of speed, except "muscle strength" and only supports that
element "IF" it is developed via SSTF (Single set to failure) applications,
and this include a "pseudo-isokinetic" training style that specifically
attempts to perform reps at a "timed rep speed".
There is no evidence that the SSTF can come close to developing "maximal
strength" so it immediately fails at even the first and most basic task.
In its favor, it can be demonstrated that it can provide a "high percentage"
result to time spent training, but this is only valuable to that "very end".
If one has the training time available and would benefit from the additional
explosive strength in their specific application, then by all means it
should be considered an option.
Rob Barrese wrote:
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?
John Casler writes:
The Classical form of HIT is not well accepted as a serious training model
for other than beginning and intermediate trainees, so few experienced
coaches and trainers will adopt your perspective. It is like teaching
Drivers Education classes for Formula One competitors.
As above, its only true value in Strength or Speed Sports applications is
when training time is severely truncated and in those cases, the efficiency
(if the program is modified to NOT have "timed rep speeds") can be valuable.
Rob Barrese wrote:
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.
John Casler writes:
Looks like we agree here, and for the last 10, 20 and 30 years the empirical
evidence is clear. I thought I was very clear in stating that the HIT model
of which you speak, lacks consideration of principle elements that must be
used to acheive the best result.
To follow the assumption that truncated and controlled/timed muscle
strengthening alone (where the methodology also limits results) will work in
a superior way to one that is specifically focused on the goal is "exactly"
what this is.
Rob Barrese wrote:
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?
John Casler writes:
You'll have to do your own educational searching, since I no longer bother
with cataloguing such to "prove" what most of my peers already know and
acknowledge.
I doubt you will be too accepting of the volumes of info available, since
your bias is clear. It is "you" who feel that there is a disparity in
training solutions. There is no controversy in the actual training world.
As far as athletes, I can only suggest that you must live in an insulated
world to not see this 24/7 all over the world, in most every sport. If you
want to be a faster and more explosive sprinter you do not train by slow
motion running.
I have been a competitive strength athlete for over 40 years, and worked
with, and around many athletes, and in particular Strength and Speed
athletes, and cannot recall "ANY" injuries specific to this training model
when incorporated with progressive and intelligent programs.
Regards,
John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA
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
__,_._,___
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar