Re: Strength Training & Specificity

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Tim Wakeham " <wakeham@...>

> I agree with you . There is research to show that explosive lifting

> increases vertical jump. Do you believe that explosive lifting is the

best

> method for enhancing vertical jump and other explosive performances? I

ask

> this because of the Schmidtbleicher and Haralambie (1981), Napier (1991)

and

> Young and Bilby (1993) studies demonstrating high and moderate load

training

> to be optimal for speed and power acquisition.

>

> Additionally, would you agree with the theory of specificity which states

that

> " maximum benefits of a training stimulus can only be obtained when it

> REPLICATES the movements and energy systems involved in the activities of

a

> sport? " In other words for optimal transfer, performance of a skill

> practiced under game type conditions would be better than exposive lifting

> in the weight room?

My impression (please correct me if I am wrong) after reading Siff on this

subject is that training should go in two directions for specificity:

1. Developing the general qualities necessary for each sport, and each

movement group within a sport, such as speed-strength (with care taken to

see that nuances are recognized within each general quality: is speed,

frinstance, more significant than strength?) with training that is related,

but not directly so. This requires a clear understanding of the various

individual components of the sport and movement patterns, so in a way the

specificity here is conceptual.

2. Performing the required actual movements (e.g. throwing a ball) without

additional resistance (i.e. it would not be worthwhile to have someone throw

a heavier ball), because as an external load is changed, the body's movement

patterns also change, so that potentially the trainee can " unlearn " the

right way to perform the movement.

Krista

http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html

mistresskrista@...

[Guest guest]

>From: " Tim Wakeham " <wakeham@...>

>There is research to show that explosive lifting

>increases vertical jump. Do you believe that explosive lifting is the best

>method for enhancing vertical jump and other explosive performances?

Depends on the athlete. Are we talking about standing, cmjumps? Or jumps

which come at the end of a movement (eg.long jump in track). Is the athlete

demonstrating proper footplant and force generation?

In short, explosive lifts can be beneficial, perhaps the most beneficial to

an athlete. But, if an athlete has been lifting explosively, and wants more

vertical gains, depth-rebound jumps might be the appropriate next step. And

vice versa.

>Additionally, would you agree with the theory of specificity which states

>that

> " maximum benefits of a training stimulus can only be obtained when it

>REPLICATES the movements and energy systems involved in the activities of a

>sport? " In other words for optimal transfer, performance of a skill

>practiced under game type conditions would be better than exposive lifting

>in the weight room?

Again, it depends on the athlete, his personal characteristics, training

backgrounds, etc.

Joe Alden

[Guest guest]

Hello

From: " Tim Wakeham " <wakeham@...>

> I don't believe that a meaningful portion of developed measurable power

> gained from overloaded movements is transferable to other specific tasks.

> Based on the listed and other readings, general motor qualities gained

from

> one task do not transfer to other tasks. If your point is true (which it

> indeed could be), I haven't seen a majority of evidence that shows it.

This and your previous post make some good points in regards to specificity.

I have yet to hear any good biological reasons why people believe that

Olympic Lifts contribute to Vertical Jump performance.

Yet however how much I believe that sport specific training is the only way

to enhance actual performance I still include weight training for my own

sport and in the training of others.

I use a mix of weight training (squats and deadlifts as staples) to help

develop general strength as well as include exercises for the back like rows

and pull ups as sport aerobics involves no pulling movements (except in

pairs and trios) and mainly pushing type movements in supports, push ups and

free falls.

I also use several yoga type exercises that reflect the joint range of

movement that are required in aerobics and adapt them by using an Olympic

bar. There is a yoga move that is similar to the one leg stiff leg deadlift

that when done with the bar allows one to progress lower and provide

resistance through a greater range over Yoga which tends to be more

isometric.

I find these two types of training provide me with a strength base to

precede with more specific training.

One notable statement from Rushall at his site is that athletes in anaerobic

sports only require 4 weeks to reach peak fitness and the figure is three

months for aerobic sports. I am assuming that this is dependant on the

athlete being in a good state of health, having basic fitness and the

required skill. Any comments from the list?

Cheers

Hamish

Hamish Ferguson

BA, Dip SpSt, Cert Coaching

Personal Trainer and Cycling Coach

New Zealand Sport Aerobics Representative

ph/fax 64 3 338 7373 and mobile 025 221 1287

email Bikecoach@...

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Falls/8908/index.html

[Guest guest]

Hamish Ferguson <bikecoach@...> wrote:

> I have yet to hear any good biological reasons why people believe

> that Olympic Lifts contribute to Vertical Jump performance.

Do you need " biological " reasons? How about if we don't necessarily

understand it, but we know it's true? After all, power cleans and

weighted jumps have both been shown to increase vertical leap. (I

wish I had a good reference on hand.)

I think we have to come to terms with the fact that SAID is an

important principle, and it's extremely important with respect to

skill development, but it's not the be-all, end-all of training. We

all know that supplementary exercises and drills help athletes, at

least in some cases.

Matt Madsen

[Guest guest]

>From: Matt Madsen <mmadsen@...>

>I think we have to come to terms with the fact that SAID is an

>important principle, and it's extremely important with respect to

>skill development, but it's not the be-all, end-all of training.

I am introducing today a new principle. It is called GTAWHOSN. It is being

used, as we type, for a fast pitch softball pitcher who is having trouble

with balanced landings on her lead leg. She is hopping back and forth over

a small plastic disc on one leg. No bars. no weights, no p[ower, nothing

cleaned.

Oh, btw, GTAWHOSN stands for Give The Athlete What He Or She Needs. It is

copyrighted and I have no intention of sharing it.

Joe Alden

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

Hamish Ferguson wrote:

> Hello

>

> From: " Tim Wakeham " <wakeham@...>

>

> > I don't believe that a meaningful portion of developed measurable power

> > gained from overloaded movements is transferable to other specific tasks.

> > Based on the listed and other readings, general motor qualities gained

> from

> > one task do not transfer to other tasks. If your point is true (which it

> > indeed could be), I haven't seen a majority of evidence that shows it.

>

> This and your previous post make some good points in regards to specificity.

> I have yet to hear any good biological reasons why people believe that

> Olympic Lifts contribute to Vertical Jump performance.

We've argued this before. Our own Burkhardt has published abstracts

relating to this topic. Search under Garhammer, Stone, and Hakkinen for more

references. Weightlifting improves vertical jump. Period.

> Yet however how much I believe that sport specific training is the only way

> to enhance actual performance I still include weight training for my own

> sport and in the training of others.

If weight training does not " enhance actual performance, " why are you doing it?

Look through old issues of Research Quarterly (circa 1950-1960). Even back then

they were showing that weight training improved measures of sporting

performance.

> I use a mix of weight training (squats and deadlifts as staples) to help

> develop general strength as well as include exercises for the back like rows

> and pull ups as sport aerobics involves no pulling movements (except in

> pairs and trios) and mainly pushing type movements in supports, push ups and

> free falls.

Again, if this won't help your sporting performance, why are you doing it or

having your athletes do it? Most athletes I know are already short on time, so

why waste it doing something unproductive?

> I also use several yoga type exercises that reflect the joint range of

> movement that are required in aerobics and adapt them by using an Olympic

> bar. There is a yoga move that is similar to the one leg stiff leg deadlift

> that when done with the bar allows one to progress lower and provide

> resistance through a greater range over Yoga which tends to be more

> isometric.

At the beginning of your post you state " I believe that sport specific training

is the only way

to enhance actual performance. " Your above paragraph details how you use yoga

to " enhance actual performance. " Isn't this contradictory?

> I find these two types of training provide me with a strength base to precede

> with more specific training.

Why do you need a strength base from supplemental training if it won't " enhance

acutal performance. " Shouldn't your sport specific training be " the only way to

enhance actual performance? "

Loren Chiu

Graduate Assistant

Exercise Biochemistry Lab

Human Performance Labs

The University of Memphis

[Guest guest]

From: " lchiu " <lchiu@...>

> > This and your previous post make some good points in regards to

> > specificity.

> > I have yet to hear any good biological reasons why people believe that

> > Olympic Lifts contribute to Vertical Jump performance.

>

> We've argued this before. Our own Burkhardt has published abstracts

> relating to this topic. Search under Garhammer, Stone, and Hakkinen for

> more references. Weightlifting improves vertical jump. Period.

These studies have not covered a biological reason why. What is happening

when we are led to believe that when training the CNS to act in one way that

using a different movement will assist it.

> > Yet however how much I believe that sport specific training is the only

> > way to enhance actual performance I still include weight training for my

own

> > sport and in the training of others.

>

> If weight training does not " enhance actual performance, " why are you

> doing it? Look through old issues of Research Quarterly (circa 1950-1960).

> Even back then they were showing that weight training improved measures of

> sporting performance.

Improves the athlete or improves the performance?

> > I use a mix of weight training (squats and deadlifts as staples) to help

> > develop general strength as well as include exercises for the back like

> > rows

> > and pull ups as sport aerobics involves no pulling movements (except in

> > pairs and trios) and mainly pushing type movements in supports, push ups

> > and free falls.

> Again, if this won't help your sporting performance, why are you doing it

> or having your athletes do it? Most athletes I know are already short on

> time, so why waste it doing something unproductive?

Hmmm lets see, poor hamstrings, can't do the specific moves till they come

right, trying to recorrect how I rise from a squat before getting back into

jumping, jumping is hurting my knees, I enjoy deadlifting and squating,

developing general condition before specfic.

> > I also use several yoga type exercises that reflect the joint range of

> > movement that are required in aerobics and adapt them by using an

> > Olympic bar. There is a yoga move that is similar to the one leg stiff leg

> > deadlift that when done with the bar allows one to progress lower and

provide

> > resistance through a greater range over Yoga which tends to be more

> > isometric.

> At the beginning of your post you state " I believe that sport specific

training is the only way to enhance actual performance. " Your above paragraph

details how you use yoga to " enhance actual performance. " Isn't this

contradictory?

> > I find these two types of training provide me with a strength base to

> > precede with more specific training.

No I again use these exercises as general conditioning.

< Why do you need a strength base from supplemental training if it won't

" enhance acutal performance. " Shouldn't your sport specific training be " the

only way to enhance actual performance? " >

Yes, but just doing sport aerobics will lead to imbalances (it's all pushing

and no pulling) and I will get bored (maybe this a weakness on my behalf as

many gymnasts train specifically 3-6 hours a day 6 times a week).

< Jumping with no weight/load will not improve jumping height. The

principle of progressive overload says that to improve ______ (insert

skill/exercise/etc. here) you need to overload the movement.>

So increasing resistance is the only way to overload the body? I thought

that time, frequency and type of movement counted as well. In Sport Aerobics

when we perfect one move we move onto more complex ones.

> > Many top athletes (many Europeans) make little use of weight training at

> > all.

< That's a general statement if I've ever heard one. The use of

supplementary weight training is dependent on the nature of the sport involved.

Curling is getting big in some parts of Europe, but I doubt power cleans and

snatches will make a big difference in their training.>

Not specifically, but with all that forward bending I am sure that they

would help with avoiding injury.

> > Why not push up strength?Many athletes when headed into a ruck or

> > leaping over people land in push up position or if lucky get to roll (hint

> > Gymnastics training) so this would make more sense.

> Well if someone's lying on top of you and you need to push them off, I

> don't think push up strength alone is enough.

Good point.

Cheers

Hamish

Hamish Ferguson

BA, Dip SpSt, Cert Coaching

Personal Trainer and Cycling Coach

New Zealand Sport Aerobics Representative

ph/fax 64 3 338 7373 and mobile 025 221 1287

email Bikecoach@...

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Falls/8908/index.html

[Guest guest]

From: " Joe Alden " <joealden@...>

< In short, explosive lifts can be beneficial, perhaps the most beneficial

to an athlete. But, if an athlete has been lifting explosively, and wants

more vertical gains, depth-rebound jumps might be the appropriate next step.

And vice versa.>

What, like a periodised training programme where one goes from general

condition to specific condition?

Cheers

Hamish Ferguson

[Guest guest]

From: " Krista--Dixon " <kristasd@...>

> My impression (please correct me if I am wrong) after reading Siff on this

> subject is that training should go in two directions for specificity:

>

> 1. Developing the general qualities necessary for each sport, and each

> movement group within a sport, such as speed-strength (with care taken to

> see that nuances are recognized within each general quality: is speed,

> frinstance, more significant than strength?) with training that is

> related, but not directly so. This requires a clear understanding of the

> various individual components of the sport and movement patterns, so in a way

> the specificity here is conceptual.

Agreed. Hence my use of squats and deadlifts for Sport Aerobics. Similar to

an extent. It's not like I would use knee extensions to get strong knees.

Then I would move into the explosive lifts like Power snatch and Power cleans

to improve my back and hamstrings and it allows me to think about my

technique as I jump before I hit the aerobics room and do proper jumps.

Before...

> 2. Performing the required actual movements (e.g. throwing a ball)

> without additional resistance (i.e. it would not be worthwhile to have someone

> throw a heavier ball), because as an external load is changed, the body's

> movement patterns also change, so that potentially the trainee can " unlearn "

> the right way to perform the movement.

Indeed. I see that in aerobics one overloads the athletes through using more

complex exercises.

In other sports any one of the FITT equation can be manipulated to overload

the athlete. Seeing Volleyball crops up here quite a bit one could start

with basic jumps, move to jumps for different positions and then jumps as

part of specific plays.

Cheers

Hamish Ferguson

[Guest guest]

>From: " Joe Alden " <joealden@...>

>

>< In short, explosive lifts can be beneficial, perhaps the most beneficial

>to an athlete. But, if an athlete has been lifting explosively, and wants

>more vertical gains, depth-rebound jumps might be the appropriate next

>step.

>And vice versa.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

>What, like a periodised training programme where one goes from general

>condition to specific condition?

>

>Hamish Ferguson

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explosive lifts do not address the force absorption/force generation issues

common to running/sprinting and jumping (after a moving start). One may

increase a cm (conter movement) jump or a squat jump with power clean/snatch

training but if the athlete is in a sport which demands multiplanar movmements

(combined with force production from the lower limbs), stops, starts and

vertical

progressions, you have to train to address the biomechanical efficiency of

such movements.

I have worked with numbers of athletes who are very quick through the clean

and pull movements but, when in locomotion, are unable to convert this

explosiveness to vertical or horizontal power, that is sprint speed or

vetical jump height/speed. Their feet seem stuck to the ground.

Depth-rebound jumps train not only the faster conversion of " stretch energy "

but also deal with proper foot strike during the force absorption phase.

Joe Alden

[Guest guest]

Hello

From: " Matt Madsen " <mmadsen@...>

> Do you need " biological " reasons?

It would be nice.

> How about if we don't necessarily

> understand it, but we know it's true?

Then how do we know it's true.

BTW if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there does it make a sound?

:-)

> After all, power cleans and

> weighted jumps have both been shown to increase vertical leap. (I

> wish I had a good reference on hand.)

Anyone have a good reference from a study done over a full season?

> I think we have to come to terms with the fact that SAID is an

> important principle, and it's extremely important with respect to

> skill development, but it's not the be-all, end-all of training. We

> all know that supplementary exercises and drills help athletes, at

> least in some cases.

Indeed. As I mention in previous posts that I include all the main

powerlifts and Olympic lifts in my programme. However as some have written

in error I do not include them to specifically improve my performance.

Many sports (especially to two I am closely involved in Sport Aerobics and

Cycling) do not provide optimal general conditioning and this is where the

use of resistance training is useful.

Still keen to hear peoples thoughts on sports like Gymnastics where many

athletes never use weight training yet display great levels of strength and

other aspects of fitness.

Cheers

Hamish

Hamish Ferguson

BA, Dip SpSt, Cert Coaching

Personal Trainer and Cycling Coach

New Zealand Sport Aerobics Representative

ph/fax 64 3 338 7373 and mobile 025 221 1287

email Bikecoach@...

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Falls/8908/index.html

[Guest guest]

Hamish Ferguson wrote:

> From: " lchiu " <lchiu@...>

> > > This and your previous post make some good points in regards to

> > > specificity.

> > > I have yet to hear any good biological reasons why people believe that

> > > Olympic Lifts contribute to Vertical Jump performance.

> >

> > We've argued this before. Our own Burkhardt has published abstracts

> > relating to this topic. Search under Garhammer, Stone, and Hakkinen for

> > more references. Weightlifting improves vertical jump. Period.

>

> These studies have not covered a biological reason why. What is happening

> when we are led to believe that when training the CNS to act in one way that

> using a different movement will assist it.

First, do we need a biological reason? As a coach and athlete, I'd say no. But

as a scientist, I'd have to say yes. OK, here go a few attempts.

1. SSC training improves SSC performance. Why? Greater involvement of elastic

tissue (contributes ~30% I believe) and improved/greater

activation/synchronisation of motor units (refs: Bosco (many, many, articles)).

2. Strength/power training increases force generation capacities. More force

equals more acceleration (assuming mass is the same F=ma). More acceleration

equals greater increase in velocity (v[f]= at + v).

Greater final velocity, greater momentum (p=mv) and power (P=Fxd/t).

3. Weightlifting movements are similar in nature (sequence of muscle activation,

rate and sequence of joint angle changes) to jumping movements (and other

movements). Ever here of General motor program (GMP) theory?

Movements do not have to be exactly the same, they only have to have similar

characteristics. (refs: Schmidt and Lee, Motor Control and Learning, also see

Dynamic Correspondence in Siff & Verkhokshansky,

Supertraining). According to GMP theory there are invariant features (eg.

relative timing of actions/muscles and relative force [inter- and intra-muscular

coordination]). There are also programmable parameters

(overall force and overall duration). Going back to 2., if one can generate

more overall force, they can perform the movement with greater velocity, power,

etc. (assuming that is the desired outcome of the GMP. Why

GMP theory? The degrees of freedom problem (another post all on it's own).

<snip>

> > If weight training does not " enhance actual performance, " why are you

> > doing it? Look through old issues of Research Quarterly (circa 1950-1960).

> > Even back then they were showing that weight training improved measures of

> > sporting performance.

>

> Improves the athlete or improves the performance?

Improves athletic performance (eg. shuttle run, sprint, jump etc.)

> > > I use a mix of weight training (squats and deadlifts as staples) to help

> > > develop general strength as well as include exercises for the back like

> > > rows

> > > and pull ups as sport aerobics involves no pulling movements (except in

> > > pairs and trios) and mainly pushing type movements in supports, push ups

> > > and free falls.

> > Again, if this won't help your sporting performance, why are you doing it

> > or having your athletes do it? Most athletes I know are already short on

> > time, so why waste it doing something unproductive?

> Hmmm lets see, poor hamstrings, can't do the specific moves till they come

> right, trying to recorrect how I rise from a squat before getting back into

> jumping, jumping is hurting my knees, I enjoy deadlifting and squating,

> developing general condition before specfic.

Wouldn't you agree that improving general condition would improve sporting

performance?

Let's work backwards. If I have poor general conditioning to for a sport,

wouldn't my performance suffer? So if I improve general conditioning, then my

performance improves.

> > > I also use several yoga type exercises that reflect the joint range of

> > > movement that are required in aerobics and adapt them by using an

> > > Olympic bar. There is a yoga move that is similar to the one leg stiff leg

> > > deadlift that when done with the bar allows one to progress lower and

provide

> > > resistance through a greater range over Yoga which tends to be more

> > > isometric.

> > At the beginning of your post you state " I believe that sport specific

> training is the only way to enhance actual performance. " Your above paragraph

details how you use yoga to " enhance actual performance. " Isn't this

contradictory?

> > > I find these two types of training provide me with a strength base to

> > > precede with more specific training.

> No I again use these exercises as general conditioning.

See question above.

> < Why do you need a strength base from supplemental training if it won't

> " enhance acutal performance. " Shouldn't your sport specific training be " the

only way to enhance actual performance? " >

> Yes, but just doing sport aerobics will lead to imbalances (it's all pushing

> and no pulling) and I will get bored (maybe this a weakness on my behalf as

> many gymnasts train specifically 3-6 hours a day 6 times a week).

Will these imbalances hurt your performance? If no, then why do training to fix

them. If yes, then doesn't that benefit (ie. improve) performance?

> < Jumping with no weight/load will not improve jumping height. The

> principle of progressive overload says that to improve ______ (insert

> skill/exercise/etc. here) you need to overload the movement.>

>

> So increasing resistance is the only way to overload the body? I thought

> that time, frequency and type of movement counted as well. In Sport Aerobics

> when we perfect one move we move onto more complex ones.

Here's a figure skating example. Most male skaters can do a triple lutz (I

believe that's the term). Some elite skaters can do a quad (eg. Elvis Stojko).

Why can he do that? Because he can jump higher in the air,

giving him more time to rotate his body on a transverse plane. Why can he jump

higher? Because he can generate more force. Basic kinematics.

Now how do I increase force? Increase intensity (or load ie. overload). If I

want to improve my aerobic conditioning, I might increase my time/duration (but

there is extensive research that interval training [ie.

increasing intensity] will do the same).

> > > Many top athletes (many Europeans) make little use of weight training at

> > > all.

> < That's a general statement if I've ever heard one. The use of

> supplementary weight training is dependent on the nature of the sport

involved. Curling is getting big in some parts of Europe, but I doubt power

cleans and snatches will make a big difference in their training.>

> Not specifically, but with all that forward bending I am sure that they

> would help with avoiding injury.

Okay. If all that forward bending makes them prone to injury, and weight

training will prevent injury, wouldn't that improve performance (by allowing

them to train/practice injury free, compete injury free, etc.?)

> > > Why not push up strength?Many athletes when headed into a ruck or

> > > leaping over people land in push up position or if lucky get to roll (hint

> > > Gymnastics training) so this would make more sense.

> > Well if someone's lying on top of you and you need to push them off, I

> > don't think push up strength alone is enough.

> Good point.

I'm glad you see that one. Can you see the rest of them?

Loren Chiu

Graduate Assistant

Exercise Biochemistry Lab

Human Performance Labs

The University of Memphis

[Guest guest]

Hamish Ferguson wrote:

> From: Loren Chiu <lchiu@...>

> > > These studies have not covered a biological reason why. What is happening

> > > when we are led to believe that, when training the CNS to act in one way,

> > > using a different movement will assist it.

> > First, do we need a biological reason? As a coach and athlete, I'd say no.

> This is Supertraining isn't it? Are we not trying to scratch the surface a

> little deeper here?

> > But as a scientist, I'd have to say yes. OK, here go a few attempts.

> > 1. SSC training improves SSC performance. Why? Greater involvement of

> elastic tissue (contributes ~30% I believe) and improved/greater

> activation/synchronisation of motor units (refs: Bosco (many, many,

> articles)).

>

> In general of specificaly? Does general have a similar (or better) effect

> than specific. Or does one have to do general to get the most out of

> specific?

How else are you going to improve? There is an old adage that goes " if you do

what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten. " If you can

generate x amount of force during a

sport specific movement, and you only do that movement, how are you going to

increase your force generating capacities? Through weight training movements,

you can increase force generating

capacities (and therefore acceleration, velocity, power, etc.). Let me try to

illustrate. I can lift a 50lb dumbell during a bicep curl. If I lift a 30lb

dumbell (for whatever sets and reps)

and never increase the weight of the dumbell, I will never be strong enough to

lift more than that 50lb dumbell. The same goes for jumping (sprinting, or

whatever). If I never increase the

intensity (through whatever means), I'll never get better at it. Sure, my

technique will be great, but what's great technique if my vertical is only 15

inches?

<snip>

> > 3. Weightlifting movements are similar in nature (sequence of muscle

> activation, rate and sequence of joint angle changes) to jumping movements

> (and other movements). Ever here of General motor program (GMP) theory?

> > Movements do not have to be exactly the same, they only have to have

> similar characteristics. (refs: Schmidt and Lee, Motor Control and Learning,

> also see Dynamic Correspondence in Siff & Verkhokshansky,

> > Supertraining). According to GMP theory there are invariant features (eg.

> relative timing of actions/muscles and relative force [inter- and

> intra-muscular coordination]). There are also programmable parameters

> > (overall force and overall duration). Going back to 2., if one can

> generate more overall force, they can perform the movement with greater

> velocity, power, etc. (assuming that is the desired outcome of the GMP. Why

> > GMP theory? The degrees of freedom problem (another post all on it's own).

>

> All very nice but why do all this supplemental stuff if it is easy to do

> specific training. Yeah sure if a boxer is lining up against Mike Tyson then

> specific training of getting smacking around the head with say a 40kg weight

> is going to be very limiting and one may want to delay the inevitable injury

> till the actual fight.

>

> What of engrams? You supposedly develop an engram for each type of movement.

> Is the engram for say a pike jump in aerobics ora jump to spike a ball in

> Volleyball using the same engram. In theory no? So why use a third engram

> (supplemental weights) to try enhance either.

The problem with engrams is the degrees of freedom issue. If we have a specific

engram for every single movement, we'll have some ungodly high number of

engrams. All jumps have similar

characteristics. From the time the person begins the jump, to the point they

leave the ground falls under one GMP. What they do afterwards falls into

another GMP.

> > > Improves the athlete or improves the performance?

> > Improves athletic performance (eg. shuttle run, sprint, jump etc.)

> Be sure and let the group know who wins the Gold in the Shuttle Run event:-)

The shuttle run is characteristic of many stop and go activities such as soccer,

ice hockey, and lacrosse. The same goes for sprinting and jumping.

<snip>

> > Let's work backwards. If I have poor general conditioning to for a sport,

> wouldn't my performance suffer? So if I improve general conditioning, then

> my performance improves.

> What you mean like a Periodised Programme that takes one from general

> condition to specific?

Yes. Although there may be a backlash towards the " traditional " model of

periodisation, you cannot argue that one does not have the general fitness base

to train/compete in a given sport, that

they should not start from the beginning. Now with long term year round

training, it may not be necessary to return to the start with each successive

year/macrocycle/whatever you want to call

it.

> > > < Why do you need a strength base from supplemental training if it won't

> > > " enhance actual performance. " Shouldn't your sport specific training be

> " the only way to enhance actual performance? " >

> > > Yes, but just doing sport aerobics will lead to imbalances (it's all

> pushing and no pulling) and I will get bored (maybe this a weakness on my

behalf

> as many gymnasts train specifically 3-6 hours a day 6 times a week).

> >

> > Will these imbalances hurt your performance? If no, then why do training

> to fix them. If yes, then doesn't that benefit (ie. improve) performance?

>

> I would like to think that the training the back and rear delts is helping

> maintain my general fitness and for injury prevention.

>

> I would like to think that instead of doing jump training yesterday that the

> 10 sets of 3 rep squats focusing on maintaining good posture through the

> range while exploding up is going to reduce the back and hamstring pain and

> even if it is more psychological than physical and just reminds me what to

> do when I hit back into Jump training. Damn it better be worth the muscle

> soreness I have today!!!!!

Would you agree that injury prevention enhances performance?

> > > So increasing resistance is the only way to overload the body? I thought

> > > that time, frequency and type of movement counted as well. In Sport

> Aerobics

> > > when we perfect one move we move onto more complex ones.

> >

> > Here's a figure skating example. Most male skaters can do a triple lutz

> (I believe that's the term). Some elite skaters can do a quad (eg. Elvis

> Stojko). Why can he do that? Because he can jump higher in the air,

> > giving him more time to rotate his body on a transverse plane. Why can he

> jump higher? Because he can generate more force. Basic kinematics.

> > Now how do I increase force? Increase intensity (or load ie. overload).

>

> Did weight training improve his ability to do this jump or was it just the

> progression in Jump training of a great athlete?

I'm not a figure skating guy, but I know that for a number of years, jumpers

plateaued on triple jumps. Along comes Elvis Stojko who is incredible strong

for a figure skater (his muscular

physique and " different " skating style were often criticised in figure skating

circles), and he becomes the first person to do a quad jump. Was it because he

had better jumping progressions? Or

was it due to the fact that he was able to generate more force. Basic

kinematics suggests the latter.

> > > Good point.

> >

> > I'm glad you see that one. Can you see the rest of them?

>

> No, your obviously doing a pretty poor job of explaining it to little old

> me.

Perhaps that is because of your wavering opinions. In this thread, you've asked

for " biological reasons " which infers references, however, in previous posts to

the weights-2 list, you claim that

you believe more strongly in actual coaching experience than research. Which is

it? I have provided statements which can be supported by research ( " biological

reasons " ) and/or coaching

experience. Burkhardt, Chad Reilly, and others have done the same.

Perhaps it is time for you to provide support for your statements, using both

research and coaching experience.

Loren Chiu

Graduate Assistant

Exercise Biochemistry Lab

Human Performance Labs

The University of Memphis

[Guest guest]

Hello

From: <efreiber@...>

> The coach of a high trained athlete will most certainly say that

> training should be sport specific for being the fastest way of

> getting to the highest stage and that a strength training should be

> specifically train the most important muscle groups.

If they are highly trained. If not then they must do more general training.

Too much specific training will lead to a loss of general condition so one

needs to cycle general and specific training. I think a good genral base is

important if one needs to change sports, events or learn new skills. Before

my time, but apparently many high jumpers were caught out as the jump

changed to the Fosbury Flop.

> I think I have

> never read the term of training transfer during the whole discussion

> but I think this might be the point and will eventually lead to the

> second approach.First I would like to know of any research done with

> training transfer - it would be wonderful if it has been in the area of

> balance training.

Tudor Bompa does discuss the conversion of strength into specific skill. As

for any real research of this does anyone have any good long term studies

that can pinpoint if positive results came from the inclusion of any form of

supplemental training.

> In terms of getting to the highest stage of a top athletes it might be

> worse to not only focus on the " sport specifics " but also on

> playing around in other areas.

Im confused so neither specific or supplemental?

> For example, from balance research, we know

> that the surrounding plays an important role like solid surface or

> unstable surface, practise with eyes open or eyes closed. Although this

seems

> to be very out of strength training and specific, it involves totally

> other input information and information processing procedures and, by

> doing so, will broaden the motor programs and automatisations in

> movements and most of all in intramuscular coordination which will

> enhance the strength quality of a movement.

I would classify this as supplemetal training. However again there are other

forms of balance training. I do overhead bar squats which will assist ones

balance.

> So my question today is: " Must the strength training for high trained

> athletes really only focus on the energetic input and specificity for

> the sports or may a broader approach not be more valuable, even if

> it takes more time to get to the same point, but have the possibility of

> achieving a higher level of action ? "

It could be a summary of mine that many people feel that as long as you have

powercleans in your overall programme then all will be sweet. I don't think

it is that simple.

Cheers

Hamish

Hamish Ferguson

BA, Dip SpSt, Cert Coaching

Personal Trainer and Cycling Coach

New Zealand Sport Aerobics Representative

ph/fax 64 3 338 7373 and mobile 025 221 1287

email Bikecoach@...

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Falls/8908/index.html

[Guest guest]

Hello

From: " lchiu " <lchiu@...>

> How else are you going to improve? There is an old adage that goes " if

you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten. " If

you can generate x amount of force during a

> sport specific movement, and you only do that movement, how are you going

to increase your force generating capacities? Through weight training

movements, you can increase force generating

> capacities (and therefore acceleration, velocity, power, etc.). Let me

try to illustrate. I can lift a 50lb dumbell during a bicep curl. If I

lift a 30lb dumbell (for whatever sets and reps)

> and never increase the weight of the dumbell, I will never be strong

enough to lift more than that 50lb dumbell. The same goes for jumping

(sprinting, or whatever). If I never increase the

> intensity (through whatever means), I'll never get better at it. Sure, my

technique will be great, but what's great technique if my vertical is only

15 inches?

So doing specific jump training is not going to improve my VJ at all? It

sounds like you think that Olympic lifts are the only way to increase VJ.

> > What of engrams? You supposedly develop an engram for each type of

movement.

> > Is the engram for say a pike jump in aerobics ora jump to spike a ball

in

> > Volleyball using the same engram. In theory no? So why use a third

engram

> > (supplemental weights) to try enhance either.

>

> The problem with engrams is the degrees of freedom issue. If we have a

specific engram for every single movement, we'll have some ungodly high

number of engrams.

Well yes. Therefore it makes sense not to train a large number of them and

focus on the ones we need to perform well in our chosen sport.

> All jumps have similar

> characteristics. From the time the person begins the jump, to the point

they leave the ground falls under one GMP. What they do afterwards falls

into another GMP.

Competing in a sport that requires an lot of jumping and many variations of

jumps I disagree.

> > > > Improves the athlete or improves the performance?

> > > Improves athletic performance (eg. shuttle run, sprint, jump etc.)

> > Be sure and let the group know who wins the Gold in the Shuttle Run

event:-)

>

> The shuttle run is characteristic of many stop and go activities such as

soccer, ice hockey, and lacrosse. The same goes for sprinting and jumping.

Then why do skaters bother skating, basketball players run drills with the

ball, aerobics athletes do various shape jumps if all one needs to do is

lift weights. You make it sound like technique training does nothing to

overload the body.

> Yes. Although there may be a backlash towards the " traditional " model of

periodisation, you cannot argue that one does not have the general fitness

base to train/compete in a given sport, that

> they should not start from the beginning. Now with long term year round

training, it may not be necessary to return to the start with each

successive year/macrocycle/whatever you want to call

Indeed over the years an athlete with a sound base will not need to do as

much general training and will e able to handle greater volumes of specific

training or a greater numer of competitions.

> Would you agree that injury prevention enhances performance?

No, it's an insurance policy.

> > Did weight training improve his ability to do this jump or was it just

the

> > progression in Jump training of a great athlete?

>

> I'm not a figure skating guy, but I know that for a number of years,

jumpers plateaued on triple jumps. Along comes Elvis Stojko who is

incredible strong for a figure skater (his muscular

> physique and " different " skating style were often criticised in figure

skating circles), and he becomes the first person to do a quad jump. Was it

because he had better jumping progressions? Or

> was it due to the fact that he was able to generate more force. Basic

kinematics suggests the latter.

Any ice skaters out there prepared to confirm that this is the case?

> Perhaps that is because of your wavering opinions. In this thread, you've

asked for " biological reasons " which infers references, however, in previous

posts to the weights-2 list, you claim that

> you believe more strongly in actual coaching experience than research.

> Which is it?

Can't it be both. If you get over me challenging your beloved Olympic Lifts

and reread those posts and see that I do read all journals I can lay my

hands on. You are not making a good argument based on either experience (do

you have any???) or research!

Cheers

Hamish

Hamish Ferguson

BA, Dip SpSt, Cert Coaching

Personal Trainer and Cycling Coach

New Zealand Sport Aerobics Representative

ph/fax 64 3 338 7373 and mobile 025 221 1287

email Bikecoach@...

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Falls/8908/index.html

[Guest guest]

Hamish Ferguson <bikecoach@...> wrote:

> Then why do skaters bother skating, basketball players run drills

> with the ball, aerobics athletes do various shape jumps if all one

> needs to do is lift weights. You make it sound like technique

> training does nothing to overload the body.

Not all training is overload training. Skill training is obviously

quite important too -- and it needs to be quite specific.

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hello

From: " Matt Madsen " <mmadsen@...>

> Not all training is overload training. Skill training is obviously

> quite important too -- and it needs to be quite specific.

Agreed. What I challenging is the idea that skill training does nothing to

overload the system and thus require supplemental training. Technical

training for aerobics is a bit all or nothing for many jumps and is quite

physical. Same can be said for many gymnastic skills which is why one

questions the use of supplemental training for them.

Cheers

Hamish

[Guest guest]

Hamish Ferguson wrote:

> Hello

> From: " lchiu " <lchiu@...>

> > How else are you going to improve? There is an old adage that goes " if you

> do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten. " If

> you can generate x amount of force during a sport specific movement, and you

> only do that movement, how are you going to increase your force generating

> capacities? Through weight training movements, you can increase force

> generating capacities (and therefore acceleration, velocity, power, etc.).

> Let me

> try to illustrate. I can lift a 50lb dumbell during a bicep curl. If I lift

> a 30lb dumbell (for whatever sets and reps) and never increase the weight of

> the dumbell, I will never be strong enough to lift more than that 50lb

> dumbell. The same goes for jumping (sprinting, or whatever). If I never

> increase the intensity (through whatever means), I'll never get better at it.

> Sure, my technique will be great, but what's great technique if my vertical is

> only 15 inches?

>

> So doing specific jump training is not going to improve my VJ at all? It

> sounds like you think that Olympic lifts are the only way to increase VJ.

Specific jump training will help you improve the skill of the jump. Past a

beginners stage, jumping up and down will not improve the height in the jump.

> > > What of engrams? You supposedly develop an engram for each type of

> movement.

> > > Is the engram for say a pike jump in aerobics ora jump to spike a ball in

> Volleyball using the same engram. In theory no? So why use a third

> engram (supplemental weights) to try enhance either.

> >

> > The problem with engrams is the degrees of freedom issue. If we have a

> specific engram for every single movement, we'll have some ungodly high

> number of engrams.

> Well yes. Therefore it makes sense not to train a large number of them and

> focus on the ones we need to perform well in our chosen sport.

Have you read any of the motor learning texts/literature. The issue is not how

many engrams we train. Adding one engram to a million engrams makes very little

difference. If we were talking about a small number, it might, but the number

of possible engrams is astounding. Before you continue with this discussion

about movement patterns, please read some literature on this topic so you fully

understand the issue.

> > All jumps have similar characteristics. From the time the person begins the

> jump, to the point they leave the ground falls under one GMP. What they do

> afterwards falls into another GMP.

>

> Competing in a sport that requires an lot of jumping and many variations of

> jumps I disagree.

Jumping is jumping. When you break down a jump into it's basic components, you

have a rapid extension of the hip, knee, and ankle joints resulting in a

vertical (and sometimes horizontal) displacement. This is true for single leg,

double leg, counter-movement, static and all other sort of jump take offs. The

relative timing and relative force of the contributing muscles (more accurately

motor units) is the same for all jumps. It is the overall force and duration

parameters that change. Again this falls exactly into GMP. Whether you rotate

in a transverse plane, move your legs in a sagittal plane, or whatever, that is

inconsequential of the basic components of the take-off.

> > > > > Improves the athlete or improves the performance?

> > > > Improves athletic performance (eg. shuttle run, sprint, jump etc.)

> > > Be sure and let the group know who wins the Gold in the Shuttle Run

> event:-)

> >

> > The shuttle run is characteristic of many stop and go activities such as

> soccer, ice hockey, and lacrosse. The same goes for sprinting and jumping.

>

> Then why do skaters bother skating, basketball players run drills with the

> ball, aerobics athletes do various shape jumps if all one needs to do is

> lift weights. You make it sound like technique training does nothing to

> overload the body.

Skill training ( " drills " ) increases skill. For a beginner athlete it will even

improve physical fitness. However, to reach the high levels of physical fitness

required for elite level competition, skill training is not enough. If one does

not have the required physical fitness components to train/compete in that

sport, it doesn't matter how good their skills are, they won't be able to use

them. For example, if a ice hockey team has poor anaerobic fitness and aerobic

capacity, they won't be able to make it out of the first period. In the second

and third periods, the other team will outskate them, outmaneuver them, and

generally, kick their butt. Regardless of how great their skill is, it is

irrelevant when they can't skate up and down the ice. (BTW, this is a real

example and was the case for a team when I started working for them last year).

In fact, this is fairly evident among North American hockey coaches. Back in

the day, when the NHL faced off against the Soviet teams, the Soviet teams

soundly trounced the Canadians and Americans. What did the CDN and US training

consist of? On-ice practice. What did the Soviet team do? On-ice practice

supplemented with off-ice training.

> > > Did weight training improve his ability to do this jump or was it just the

> progression in Jump training of a great athlete?

> >

> > I'm not a figure skating guy, but I know that for a number of years, jumpers

> plateaued on triple jumps. Along comes Elvis Stojko who is

> incredible strong for a figure skater (his muscular physique and " different "

> skating style were often criticised in figure

> skating circles), and he becomes the first person to do a quad jump. Was it

> because he had better jumping progressions? Or

> > was it due to the fact that he was able to generate more force. Basic

> kinematics suggests the latter.

>

> Any ice skaters out there prepared to confirm that this is the case?

>

> > Perhaps that is because of your wavering opinions. In this thread, you've

> asked for " biological reasons " which infers references, however, in previous

> posts to the weights-2 list, you claim that you believe more strongly in

> actual coaching experience than research. Which is it?

> Can't it be both. If you get over me challenging your beloved Olympic Lifts

> and reread those posts and see that I do read all journals I can lay my

> hands on. You are not making a good argument based on either experience (do

> you have any???) or research!

What I've read from you are posts on abstracts you've come across on Medline or

Rushalls site. Abstracts are all well and good, however, without reading the

full article, you can't just go out and make conclusions based on abstracts.

For example, I recently read a paper on post-exercise massage, where the title

and abstract were completely misleading and upon reviewing the data presented, I

believe the authors came to a poor conclusion. This is why full papers are

published, so you can review the authors work. I (and others) have provided

ample amounts of research to support are opinions. I have presented " biological

reasons " , simple freshman level biomechanics (specifically linear kinematics),

and motor control theories that are firmly grounded with research to support

them. Before we continue with this discussion, perhaps you should go back and

review these topics. In reviewing your posts, you have not made one statement

that you can back up with research. From now on, please provide references

(from full articles you have read) for any statements you make. For that

matter, you may want to make a few statements instead of just asking questions.

Btw, I don't think that the OLs are the be all and end all of sports training.

No one can make that claim. Skill comes first. Weight training is simply a

method to enhance performance, and OL is one of the best forms of WT to do

that. If you think that I (or anyone else) thinks that OL is the god of sports

training, go back and re-post where any of us have made that statement.

Loren Chiu

Graduate Assistant

Exercise Biochemistry Lab

Human Performance Labs

The University of Memphis

[Guest guest]

Hello

From: " lchiu " <lchiu@...>

> What I've read from you are posts on abstracts you've come across on

Medline or Rushalls site

Good grief, you sure enjoy making baseless assumptions about me. FYI I have

a stack of 600 journal papers at my house (the stack is taller than me). As

for Rushall's site Mel has commented that it may not give the full picture.

Fair enough, what source of information does.

Hamish

[Guest guest]

Hello

From: " lchiu " <lchiu@...>

> > So doing specific jump training is not going to improve my VJ at all? It

> > sounds like you think that Olympic lifts are the only way to increase

VJ.

>

> Specific jump training will help you improve the skill of the jump. Past

a

> beginners stage, jumping up and down will not improve the height in the

jump.

So plyometrics (real plyos not the US version) are a waste of time?

> > Well yes. Therefore it makes sense not to train a large number of them

and

> > focus on the ones we need to perform well in our chosen sport.

>

> Have you read any of the motor learning texts/literature. The issue is

not how

> many engrams we train. Adding one engram to a million engrams makes very

little

> difference. If we were talking about a small number, it might, but the

number

> of possible engrams is astounding. Before you continue with this

discussion

> about movement patterns, please read some literature on this topic so you

fully

> understand the issue.

Again get over yourself Loren. I am not suggesting adding more engrams but

perfecting the ones we wish to excell in.

> Jumping is jumping. When you break down a jump into it's basic

components, you

> have a rapid extension of the hip, knee, and ankle joints resulting in a

> vertical (and sometimes horizontal) displacement. This is true for single

leg,

> double leg, counter-movement, static and all other sort of jump take offs.

The

> relative timing and relative force of the contributing muscles (more

accurately

> motor units) is the same for all jumps. It is the overall force and

duration

> parameters that change. Again this falls exactly into GMP. Whether you

rotate

> in a transverse plane, move your legs in a sagittal plane, or whatever,

that is

> inconsequential of the basic components of the take-off.

Have you been involved in a sport that requires many different types of

jumps. Each one requires years of training to progress to higher skill

moves. In aerobics the three basic jumps are the Pike, Straddle and Air

Turn. If I do each one ten times in a workout then where is the need to then

go and do 10 sets of Powercleans to train the same movement?

> Skill training ( " drills " ) increases skill. For a beginner athlete it will

even

> improve physical fitness. However, to reach the high levels of physical

fitness

> required for elite level competition, skill training is not enough. If

one does

> not have the required physical fitness components to train/compete in that

> sport, it doesn't matter how good their skills are, they won't be able to

use

> them. For example, if a ice hockey team has poor anaerobic fitness and

aerobic

> capacity, they won't be able to make it out of the first period.

Did I ever say that one does not need to develop basic fitness before they

carry out more specific training? Do I not do aerobic and weight training

myself to achieve this very end? My argument is over your idea that weight

training improves specific skill (in this case jumps) over performing the

skill itself. If one is pushing the boundarys in their sport or at their

upper limits of their potential the skill training is going to still be very

physically challenging.

>Before we continue with this discussion, perhaps you should go back and

> review these topics. In reviewing your posts, you have not made one

statement

> that you can back up with research. From now on, please provide

references

> (from full articles you have read) for any statements you make.

If I can find any long term studies rather than 6-10 week ones I will. Till

then I will rely on coaching experience.

Cheers

Hamish

[Guest guest]

Hamish Ferguson wrote:

From: " lchiu " <lchiu@...>

> > > So doing specific jump training is not going to improve my VJ at all? It

> sounds like you think that Olympic lifts are the only way to increase VJ.

> Specific jump training will help you improve the skill of the jump. Past a

> beginners stage, jumping up and down will not improve the height in the

> jump. So plyometrics (real plyos not the US version) are a waste of time?

I recall a study (and I apologise for not having it in front of me, but I can

e-mail the ref to you later) that compared two styles of box jump training. One

style instructed the subjects to jump for maximum height, the other to minimise

ground contact time and jump for maximum height. Neither training group

significantly increased jump height. There are a few studies out that do

suggest that plyometric are no better and possibly less effective at increasing

VJ height when compared to weight training. One criticism of these studies is

that for plyometrics used, subjects were not instructed to minimise ground

contact time. The first study I mentioned however covers that criticism.

> > > Well yes. Therefore it makes sense not to train a large number of them and

> focus on the ones we need to perform well in our chosen sport.

> >

> > Have you read any of the motor learning texts/literature. The issue is not

> how many engrams we train. Adding one engram to a million engrams makes very

> little difference. If we were talking about a small number, it might, but the

> number of possible engrams is astounding. Before you continue with this

> discussion about movement patterns, please read some literature on this topic

> so you fully understand the issue.

>

> Again get over yourself Loren. I am not suggesting adding more engrams but

> perfecting the ones we wish to excell in.

You are missing my point. Current motor learning/control theory uses GMP not

engrams. There are problems with engram theories that GMP solves. GMP theory

is not perfect, however, it is the current belief. Count how many different

movements exist in sport aerobics, or gymnastics for that matter. In those

sports alone, there are hundreds of different movements. If I add one engram

(eg. power clean) to those hundreds (plus whatever else exists for locomotion,

and other " normal " activities), how can that interfere? It's a moot point

anyway, as GMP theory is the current belief.

> Jumping is jumping. When you break down a jump into it's basic components,

> you have a rapid extension of the hip, knee, and ankle joints resulting in a

> vertical (and sometimes horizontal) displacement. This is true for single

> leg, double leg, counter-movement, static and all other sort of jump take

> offs.

> The relative timing and relative force of the contributing muscles (more

> accurately motor units) is the same for all jumps. It is the overall force

> and duration parameters that change. Again this falls exactly into GMP.

> Whether you rotate in a transverse plane, move your legs in a sagittal plane,

> or whatever,that is inconsequential of the basic components of the take-off.

>

> Have you been involved in a sport that requires many different types of jumps.

> Each one requires years of training to progress to higher skill

> moves. In aerobics the three basic jumps are the Pike, Straddle and Air Turn.

> If I do each one ten times in a workout then where is the need to then

> go and do 10 sets of Powercleans to train the same movement?

See comments below

> > Skill training ( " drills " ) increases skill. For a beginner athlete it will

> even improve physical fitness. However, to reach the high levels of physical

> fitness required for elite level competition, skill training is not enough.

> If one does not have the required physical fitness components to train/compete

> in that sport, it doesn't matter how good their skills are, they won't be able

> to use them. For example, if a ice hockey team has poor anaerobic fitness and

> aerobic capacity, they won't be able to make it out of the first period.

>

> Did I ever say that one does not need to develop basic fitness before they

> carry out more specific training? Do I not do aerobic and weight training

> myself to achieve this very end? My argument is over your idea that weight

> training improves specific skill (in this case jumps) over performing the

> skill itself. If one is pushing the boundarys in their sport or at their upper

> limits of their potential the skill training is going to still be very

> physically challenging.

I and no one else who as participated in this argument has ever said that weight

training will improve a specific skill. Read my above paragraph. " Skill

training ( " drills " ) increases skill. " What weight training will do (in this

case for VJ) is increase vertical jump height. More specifically, it will

increase the force production during a VJ. What weight training does is

improve the physical capabilities of the athlete so that it allows them to

perform that skill. Going back to the ice hockey example, the team couldn't

perform in the second and third period because their anaerobic fitness/aerobic

fitness were lacking. The same goes for jumping. I don't care how nice your

pike/straddle/air turn is, if you can't jump high enough to give you enough air

time to complete the action, you won't finish the action.

Again, this comes down to basic kinematics. You have to agree that a certain

amount of " hang time " is required to complete the pike/straddle/air turn. To

increase " hang time, " you need to increase force production, so that you have

greater momentum at take off. Weight training just happens to be a great way to

increase force production.

> >Before we continue with this discussion, perhaps you should go back and

> review these topics. In reviewing your posts, you have not made one

> statement that you can back up with research. From now on, please provide

> references (from full articles you have read) for any statements you make.

>

> If I can find any long term studies rather than 6-10 week ones I will. Till

> then I will rely on coaching experience.

Again, your opinion is wavering. Your last post (and I'll quote) stated: " Can't

it be both. " Now you say you'll rely on coaching experience. Which is it?

I'll agree that there is a lack of research using highly trained individuals,

but just because a study only lasts 6-10 weeks, doesn't make it worthless.

Heck, using untrained individuals doens't make it worthless. If you take highly

trained individuals and put them through a 6-10 week training intervention, you

can get important study findings. These studies do exist.

As for your other reply to my post, I am making comments based on your current

and previous posts. Again, you have not provided any support for any of your

statements. This appears to me that you are not evaluating my statements for

their content, but rather whether or not they agree or disagree with yours. In

fact you may find we agree on some points (eg. weight training won't improve

skill), but your quick responses don't allow you to see that.

I have provided physiological mechanisms, biomechanical mechanisms, and research

to support my statements. Before you jump out and argue against them, evaluate

them. If you provide support for your statements, I'll do the same thing.

Loren Chiu

Graduate Assistant

Exercise Biochemistry Lab

Human Performance Labs

The University of Memphis

[Guest guest]

Hamish Ferguson <bikecoach@...> wrote:

> Have you been involved in a sport that requires many different

> types of jumps. Each one requires years of training to progress to

> higher skill moves.

They're not simply higher skill; they also require greater strength.

Unfortunately, just trying to jump higher doesn't improve strength

very effectively. Jumping with added weight or performing a power

clean does improve strength and power fairly well though.

> In aerobics the three basic jumps are the Pike, Straddle and Air

> Turn. If I do each one ten times in a workout then where is the

> need to then go and do 10 sets of Powercleans to train the same

> movement?

Doing power cleans -- you probably wouldn't want to do 10 sets, by

the way -- isn't training the same movement. It's not skill training

at all; it's strength/power training.

> My argument is over your idea that weight training improves

> specific skill (in this case jumps) over performing the skill

> itself.

He's not discussing skill or technique.

> If one is pushing the boundarys in their sport or at their

> upper limits of their potential the skill training is going to

> still be very physically challenging.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean such skill training will build the

strength that will further improve performance.

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

The question of Wescott's work can really be answered quite simply. I

appologize if someone has already stated this, but I just do not have the time

to read every message. Wescott works with a low fit adult population. His

research states that this population can make gains in both CR endurance and in

strength with a combined training program. It may well not apply to a fit

population. It may well not apply to MAXIMUM gains in strength. An unfit

population can improve in fitness with a rather small stimulus.

But the point he makes for the adult fitness population is a good one. We can

make a greater impact on the health of the world population by getting 60% of

the people to increase their activity level by 30% than by getting 30% of the

population to increase their activity level by 60%. Harold

Register for your free email account at www.muscle-fitness.com