Re: Siff vs Chek?? Let's get ready to rumble!!!

[Guest guest]

Dont spose the West Coast gets a mention.... If it does, count me in... 100%

Cull

Siff vs Chek?? Let's get ready to rumble!!!

I'm currently organising Dr Siff's tour of australia next year, and it will

most likely start off with the FILEX convention in Sydney June 1-4. (similar

to the american IDEA personal training / aerobics convention).

Dr Siff will most likely be delivering 2-3 lectures, but the biggest news of

all is that Chek will also be delivering numerous lectures at the same

conference.

I'm currently trying to organise some kind of debate/discussion - hopefully

it will come off if there is available time and both parties agree!!!!!

What do you guys think - Hopefully we could video it or get some kind of

transcript - maybe even pay-per view??!!

and in this corner.........

Driscoll

BEFITting Image Training and Nutrition Service

B Sc - Ex. Sci. & Nut.

M Sc - Exercise Rehab. and Nut./Diet. (in progress)

RFL

Sydney, Australia.

_________________________________________________________________________

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

[Guest guest]

,

Very interesting proposition. With some skillful marketeering you could play

Don King and give both parties a nice pay day!

If you have a good moderator it could prove to be the highlight of the

conference and I know Mel will be fit, lean and ready for it.

Please keep the list informed of the program/venue/sessions as they become

available.

Warburton

Brisbane

Siff vs Chek?? Let's get ready to rumble!!!

> I'm currently organising Dr Siff's tour of australia next year, and it

will

> most likely start off with the FILEX convention in Sydney June 1-4.

(similar

> to the american IDEA personal training / aerobics convention).

>

> Dr Siff will most likely be delivering 2-3 lectures, but the biggest news

of

> all is that Chek will also be delivering numerous lectures at the

same

> conference.

>

> I'm currently trying to organise some kind of debate/discussion -

hopefully

> it will come off if there is available time and both parties agree!!!!!

>

> What do you guys think - Hopefully we could video it or get some kind of

> transcript - maybe even pay-per view??!!

>

> and in this corner.........

>

> Driscoll

> BEFITting Image Training and Nutrition Service

> B Sc - Ex. Sci. & Nut.

> M Sc - Exercise Rehab. and Nut./Diet. (in progress)

> RFL

> Sydney, Australia.

>

> _________________________________________________________________________

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

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sounds very interesting and fun. Of course, the winner of such a dialogue

merely proves he has better debating skills. It won't validate the weakness

of certain areas of Chek's approach.

In spite of that, I put my money on the good doctor. Way too much energy

for poor Mr Chek.

wrote,

>I'm currently organising Dr Siff's tour of australia next year, and it will

>most likely start off with the FILEX convention in Sydney June 1-4. (similar

>to the american IDEA personal training / aerobics convention).

>

>Dr Siff will most likely be delivering 2-3 lectures, but the biggest news of

>all is that Chek will also be delivering numerous lectures at the same

>conference.

>

>I'm currently trying to organise some kind of debate/discussion - hopefully

>it will come off if there is available time and both parties agree!!!!!

>

>What do you guys think - Hopefully we could video it or get some kind of

>transcript - maybe even pay-per view??!!

>

>and in this corner.........

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

Grip it and rip it!

[Guest guest]

There seems to be a bit much emotion here and a bit too much Guru worship

and knockdown. It seems that to be able to argue effectively with anyone's

idea that one would need to become an expert in them. I just wonder how many

of the Chek knockers on this list really have learned them firsthand by

seeing or listening to Chek's latest concepts.

I am currently studying Chek's Correspondence Course " Scientific Core

Training " ,8hrs of Videos + 100+ page Manual. I am very interested in any

real argument with the ideas and may be able to offer a balanced view as I

am genuinely familiar with the ideas.

One thing is for certain I wonder just how many people have seen anyone

doing some of the advanced exercises as well as Chek. Try doing slow

leg lifts to vertical from a hanging position or a 200Lb Dumbell Crunch on a

Swiss Ball, Med Ball throws and ctaches while standing on a Swiss Ball. Or

best of all use a 3kg convert-a-ball (med ball with rope through it) to do

rapid and explosive med ball impacts all around your body while you do

crunches and alternate leg lifts.

Lets have some more real argument. The type that people actually learn from.

otherwise this is simply acting as a Supertraining and Mel Siff Fans list.

No disrespect to Mel as many of his ideas have been very useful for my

coaching.

regards

Steve

http://www.oztrack.com

> Re: Siff vs Chek?? Let's get ready to rumble!!!

>

>

> Sounds very interesting and fun. Of course, the winner of such a dialogue

> merely proves he has better debating skills. It won't validate

> the weakness

> of certain areas of Chek's approach.

>

> In spite of that, I put my money on the good doctor. Way too much energy

> for poor Mr Chek.

>

> wrote,

>

> >I'm currently organising Dr Siff's tour of australia next year,

> and it will

> >most likely start off with the FILEX convention in Sydney June

> 1-4. (similar

> >to the american IDEA personal training / aerobics convention).

> >

> >Dr Siff will most likely be delivering 2-3 lectures, but the

> biggest news of

> >all is that Chek will also be delivering numerous lectures

> at the same

> >conference.

> >

> >I'm currently trying to organise some kind of debate/discussion

> - hopefully

> >it will come off if there is available time and both parties agree!!!!!

> >

> >What do you guys think - Hopefully we could video it or get some kind of

> >transcript - maybe even pay-per view??!!

> >

> >and in this corner.........

>

> Hobman

> Saskatoon, Canada

> Grip it and rip it!

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Steve wrote,

>

>One thing is for certain I wonder just how many people have seen anyone

>doing some of the advanced exercises as well as Chek. Try doing slow

>leg lifts to vertical from a hanging position or a 200Lb Dumbell Crunch on a

>Swiss Ball, Med Ball throws and ctaches while standing on a Swiss Ball. Or

>best of all use a 3kg convert-a-ball (med ball with rope through it) to do

>rapid and explosive med ball impacts all around your body while you do

>crunches and alternate leg lifts.

Why? The concept of core training is all the vogue now, but what exactly

does it do?

I'm a competitive powerlifter and martial artist. Those are the two primary

things I do to stay in shape. Why would I do the slow leg to vertical from

a hanging position? You seem to be suggesting exercises without having any

rationale for suggesting them. I happen to use this particular exercise

when I feel my abs are weak because I like the way I tighten them through a

range of movement while using hip recruitment. Very similiar to how I squat

while pushing my abs out against my belt. So it is specific to me - but you

didn't know that until I told you. I did these 5 years ago before I even

heard of Chek and I'm betting in a showdown with I'd be able to hold

my own.

Next a 200 lb dumbbell crunch on a medicine ball. Have you ever seen a 200

lbs dumbbell? (Okay, an inanimate one and I weight 220, so no snide

comments please!)

:^)

Very few of them around.

Also, what is the point? The crunch is pretty much useless IMO. I prefer to

activate my abs over a range of movement. For me there are much better

exercises, because of what my sports are.

The medicine ball throw and catch while standing on a swiss ball. Why

bother with the swiss ball? I'd prefer to have someone just give me a real

hard throw to catch. Put this way, let me throw the ball from six feet away

and see if stays on the swiss ball. Yeehaha! I'd pay money for that!

As a powerlifter I prefer to use the heavy bag throw. We throw a 80 lb

heavy bag at the person as a powermetric type of exercise. I'd like to see

anyone do this while standing on a swiss ball.

The last exercise is also a useful one, although there is no need to use a

convert a ball. We do much the same thing while being struck by a

shindo-bo. Thats a stick. Exactly the same idea, but no trademark pending

or fancy name for it. Useful exercise. Of course, the Shaolin monks have

been doing a variation of this while being struck by a log for centuries

and boxers have been doing it for a long time too. So I'm not sure I'd give

a whole pile of credit to . Although, of course, the 'convert-a-ball'

will probably retail for a little more than my stick.

So in reality you have listed four very common exercises that have been

done by people training for various activities for centuries, with slight

twists to them so you can call them Chek exercises and put TM pending on

them and charge ridiculous amounts of money to people to teach them to do

this. Hence the guru label and the derision of people who aren't motivated

to do this by economic gain.

As far as the allegation that this list simply exists to kow-tow to Mel

Siff. I've disagreed with some of Mel's comments as have most of the people

on this list. We listen to and learn from each other. I have to admit, I

spend more time listening than talking because we have some very

knowledgable people on this list. If you can't learn from these people than

I see only two possibilities.

1. You know everything. In which case, welcome to the list God!

2. You think you know everything and don't bother really listening or even

responding to anything that doesn't have Chek's name on it.

Mel, if you edit even one word out of this I'm gonna have to come on down

to Denver and talk this over!

:^)

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

Grip it and rip it!

[Guest guest]

>From: " Steve " <stevebn@...>

>One thing is for certain I wonder just how many people have seen anyone

>doing some of the advanced exercises as well as Chek. Try doing slow

>leg lifts to vertical from a hanging position or a 200Lb Dumbell Crunch on

>a

>Swiss Ball, Med Ball throws and ctaches while standing on a Swiss Ball. Or

>best of all use a 3kg convert-a-ball (med ball with rope through it) to do

>rapid and explosive med ball impacts all around your body while you do

>crunches and alternate leg lifts.

Or we could stand on our heads and do vertical leg presses while balanced on

a " swiss ball " .

>Lets have some more real argument. The type that people actually learn

> >from.

It's in the archives. Take a look.

Joe Alden

Atlanta USA

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Steve wrote:

> There seems to be a bit much emotion here and a bit too much Guru worship

> and knockdown. It seems that to be able to argue effectively with anyone's

> idea that one would need to become an expert in them. I just wonder how

many

> of the Chek knockers on this list really have learned them firsthand by

> seeing or listening to Chek's latest concepts.

Steve, you are missing the point. Those of us who have contributed

critiques of Chek's online articles didn't need to read/study

Chek's correspondence courses for the knowledge to do so. Chek's

latest concepts? Actually, his works are based on research that is

available to anyone who knows how to find an article in a library and

photocopy it.

If you go back and review the posts critiquing Chek's online articles,

you will notice that we considered only those issues that he raised. We did

so on the basis of the articles' validity and applicability, not on some

unfair preconception of Chek's character. As I have only read some of

what he has put online, I have stayed within those boundaries. And on the

extent of my experience, library and understanding of the research, I feel I

have shown fairly conclusively that those particular " latest concepts " are

invalid. Others have been able to do the same by looking at specific

practical examples where those concepts do not apply. None of us have

received any reasonable discussion to the contrary. As you are familiar

with his work, would you like to volunteer?

> I am currently studying Chek's Correspondence Course " Scientific Core

> Training " ,8hrs of Videos + 100+ page Manual. I am very interested in any

> real argument with the ideas and may be able to offer a balanced view as I

> am genuinely familiar with the ideas.

If you are interested in real balanced discussion, then submit a post to the

group to discuss any given segment of " Scientific Core Training. " This will

allow you to understand the perspectives of other professionals who not only

may have purchased the course, but have also read the original papers on

this topic. To me, that would be especially valuable when seeking an

unbiased view.

> One thing is for certain I wonder just how many people have seen anyone

> doing some of the advanced exercises as well as Chek. Try doing slow

> leg lifts to vertical from a hanging position or a 200Lb Dumbell Crunch on

a

> Swiss Ball, Med Ball throws and ctaches while standing on a Swiss Ball. Or

> best of all use a 3kg convert-a-ball (med ball with rope through it) to do

> rapid and explosive med ball impacts all around your body while you do

> crunches and alternate leg lifts.

To the best of my knowledge, I don't recall anyone from the list ever making

a blanket statement that these are useless exercises. I do, however, recall

reading several people discussing the usefulness of different exercises in

different contexts. Are these exercises difficult? Yes. Are these

exercises applicable to increasing specific fitness? Sometimes. The

questions we are all looking to answer are: when and why?

I'm not so concerned about Chek's content as much as I am concerned at

a more universal level about people who blindly accept a concept because an

apparently legitimate authority said so. If the concept is valid, it will

hold up to scrutiny. Ask anyone on the list who successfully defended a

doctoral dissertation or published a peer-reviewed article. We scrutinized;

the concepts failed.

Best regards,

R. Gray, M.Sc., C.S.C.S., C.K.

firstline@...

Toronto, Canada

[Guest guest]

Does Dr Siff have any plans to jump over the ditch to New Zealand while he

is in this neck of the woods? If there are any promoters who would be able

to arrange a tour for Dr Siff, I'm sure there would be plenty of bums on

seats.

(PGDipSportMed,BSc,BPhEd)

Nutrition & Exercise Consultant

Christchurch, New Zealand

cell. +6421 6543 42

email. jamie_scott@...

_________________________________________________________________________

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

[Guest guest]

>From: " First Line Fitness Inc. " <firstline@...>

>I'm not so concerned about Chek's content as much as I am concerned at

>a more universal level about people who blindly accept a concept because an

>apparently legitimate authority said so. If the concept is valid, it will

>hold up to scrutiny. Ask anyone on the list who successfully defended a

>doctoral dissertation or published a peer-reviewed article. We

>scrutinized;

>the concepts failed.

Which brings us round-a-bout to the question of whether Chek truly believes

in what he preaches or whether he truly knows its just glossy-fine marketing

hype.

So, is Chek unknowledgeable or unethical?

Joe Alden

Atlanta USA

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Joe wrote,

>

>Which brings us round-a-bout to the question of whether Chek truly believes

>in what he preaches or whether he truly knows its just glossy-fine marketing

>hype.

>

>So, is Chek unknowledgeable or unethical?

Or just a good marketer? Lots of people making money off of people who are

looking for help.

I don't begrudge Chek one little bit what he has done. He has helped a lot

of people who otherwise might be worse off. Chek has a lot of good ideas.

Unfortunately his negative attitude to some of his not-so-good ideas and

his somewhat scurilous attacks on Dr. Siff, among others, has left a bad

taste in my mouth. I like the very reasonable attitude taken by some of the

other experts towards Chek.

To me someone when someone like Staley merely comments that Chek's

athletic ability (such as it is - or isn't) doesn't validate his theories I

feel a little embarassed at my own earlier rant. Mr. Staley is exactly

right, and his simple and elegant way of putting the case in perspective is

something I admire.

Having said that, I don't care for the attacks on experts who have a

passion for training. People like Siff and Staley, among others, do make a

living off of this field, but I honestly don't believe they are in it for

the money.

Could say the same thing about a lot of others, including yourself Joe.

[Guest guest]

> Steve wrote,

> Why? The concept of core training is all the vogue now, but what

exactly does it do?

I have a bit of a problem with isolation exercises to develop " the

core. " I believe one of the best core exercises is the chin-up, as

the abs have to stabilize the trunk to pull yourself around the bar.

Also, simply the act of tightening the abs (and glutes) when you lift

should create some training effect for the core.

> I'm a competitive powerlifter and martial artist. Those are the two

primary things I do to stay in shape. Why would I do the slow leg to

vertical from a hanging position?

Perhaps variety, so that (as the theory goes) the strength of muscles

that flex the hip don't become proportionately stronger than the

external obliques and other muscles that posterily rotate the pelvis?

But, your martial arts training and many of the exercises you use for

powerlifting could already be taking care of this. I've found that

many of the martial artists I've assessed had excellent posture

(well, at least, static posture while standing).

>I squat while pushing my abs out against my belt.

I've cleaned 330 weighing under 200 (and for no particular reason

other than to experience what the pain of childbirth would be like

did a 540 deadlift), but I don't believe I push the abs " out. " I

tighten them for sure, but push them out? And since I haven't even

owned a belt in over a decade, I don't have anything to push out

against. Perhaps it's just me--I certainly can't argue with the

success of elite powerlifters who believe they can lift more pushing

the abs out.

> Next a 200 lb dumbbell crunch on a medicine ball.

On a medicine ball--don't you mean Swiss ball? Anyway, I like using a

Abmat or simply a towel under the lower back to increase the range of

motion for many crunch exercises--more stable. There are also some

great cable exercises to work the abs through a full range of motion.

> As a powerlifter I prefer to use the heavy bag throw. We throw a 80

lb heavy bag at the person as a powermetric type of exercise.

This sounds like a great exercise, but I wouldn't want to have to

catch it!

> The last exercise is also a useful one, although there is no need

to use a convert a ball. We do much the same thing while being struck

by a shindo-bo.

Do you have to strike someone? How about just hitting a wall, or

swinging a sledge hammer into the dirt? But I do like many of the

convert a ball exercises (although they may be impractical in a gym

setting).

>Hence the guru label and the derision of people who aren't motivated

to do this by economic gain.

Man, everyone hates the term " guru " around here, and the standards

necessarily to be worthy of such a title are so high that nobody can

be called a guru. Nevertheless, as a ghost writer for many fitness

publications, I think guru is a great term to use in marketing

products and services.

> 2. You think you know everything and don't bother really listening

or even responding to anything that doesn't have Chek's name on it.

As a former employee of Chek (1994-1995), I would like to point out

that anyone who was disappointed with 's seminars or materials

could receive a full refund. When I worked for , not only would I

give someone their money back for any materials ordered (which, by

the way, was extremely rare), but I would also reinburse them for

their postage. And on several occasions I've seen offer several

critics of his methods free attendance to his seminars and free

products for their review. I also know that would spend

countless hours on the phone at his expense (on his toll-free line)

to explain his training methods to skeptics, and I've never seen him

hostle towards those he called. Maybe 's policy or behavior has

changed since I left his business, but that's the way he operated

when I was there.

Thank you,

Kim Goss

[Guest guest]

> Hobman wrote,

>

> Why would I do the slow leg to vertical from

> a hanging position? You seem to be suggesting exercises without having any

> rationale for suggesting them.

My point was that Chek is very serious about what he presents and is capable

of demonstrating what he talks about very well.

>regarding the 200lb dumbell crunch:

> Also, what is the point? The crunch is pretty much useless IMO. I

> prefer to

> activate my abs over a range of movement. For me there are much better

> exercises, because of what my sports are.

Yes and Chek stresses the same point. Using a swiss ball the exercise works

over a greater range of movement. Also he stresses that the exercise is

overemphasized and doing 100s of them is bad. Much better to carefully

develop maximum strength with small volume and high loads. Many people use

the Rectus Abdominus in situations it is not meant to be too make upo for

lack of Oblique/TA function and/or strength.

> So in reality you have listed four very common exercises that have been

> done by people training for various activities for centuries, with slight

> twists to them so you can call them Chek exercises and put TM pending on

> them and charge ridiculous amounts of money to people to teach them to do

> this. Hence the guru label and the derision of people who aren't motivated

> to do this by economic gain.

OK good point but people have to learn them from someone and be sold that

the ideas are worthwhile. Give us all another way to learn them in such a

comprehensive way. I am a Middle Distance/ Sprint Coach and there is a real

lack of high quality Training Videos for many aspects of our Sport. I know

there are many people out there who know heaps but very very few who have

shared this knowledge by using Technology ie Internet, Video etc. Whover

does will make money but be widely criticized for maketing " everyone elses

ideas! "

>

> I see only two possibilities.

>

> 1. You know everything. In which case, welcome to the list God!

>

> 2. You think you know everything and don't bother really listening or even

> responding to anything that doesn't have Chek's name on it.

>

This was not necessary !!

I am sure that there are many on this list who know heaps more than me.

However I am also sure that Chek is being mis-represented by people not

fully familiar with his ideas. It is preety hard for him to argue without

emotion when he is misrepresented in the fisrt instance. eg

Lifting with Belts.

He has never said never use them.

He simply says use them all the time when training to improve function and

you will gradually cause functiona problems that may result in injury. I

coach athletes who need to function better ie when running , they are not

competitive powerlifters trying to get out every extra pound. If there is a

weakness in stability without the belt it is better for us to train this

area than to avoid loading this area to squeeze out lifting PBs in an

artificial functional environment.

regards

Steve

Head Coach Athletics

Western Sydney Academy of Sport.

I am happy to try to represent CHEK better as I am currently studying the

videos and trying ideas out. I will keep some and discard some and am hapy

to be convinced in these areas.

[Guest guest]

Steve replied,

>

>>

>> I see only two possibilities.

>>

>> 1. You know everything. In which case, welcome to the list God!

>>

>> 2. You think you know everything and don't bother really listening or even

>> responding to anything that doesn't have Chek's name on it.

>>

>

>This was not necessary !!

>

>I am sure that there are many on this list who know heaps more than me.

>However I am also sure that Chek is being mis-represented by people not

>fully familiar with his ideas. It is preety hard for him to argue without

>emotion when he is misrepresented in the fisrt instance. eg

Steve is right. He responded in appopropriate and very professionally to my

completely unnecessary dig. I will be sending an email to him to apologize

for these remarks, which were unnecessary, as he points out, and very rude,

which he politely refrains from mentioning.

I sincerely apologize Steve.

[Guest guest]

Kim Goss wrote:

> >Do you have to strike someone? How about just hitting a wall, or

> >swinging a sledge hammer into the dirt? But I do like many of the

> >convert a ball exercises (although they may be impractical in a gym

> >setting).

Hobman wrote:

> Actually the person get doing the sit-ups or leg raises is struck

by the stick. This causes them to contract the abs very forcefully.

We'd need to think of a different exercise, as the convert a ball

exercise we're talking about will develop strength in rotation.

Medicine ball throws or, as you suggested, throwing a heavy bag are

effective substitutes.

Thank you,

Kim Goss

[Guest guest]

>From: " First Line Fitness Inc. " <firstline@...>

>I'm not so concerned about Chek's content as much as I am concerned at

>a more universal level about people who blindly accept a concept because an

>apparently legitimate authority said so. If the concept is valid, it will

>hold up to scrutiny..... We scrutinized; the concepts failed.

Although we should never shut the door on discussing any relevant topic,

theory or concepts in training, Chek is dead in the water on ST.

Now, what makes Chek any more desirable than the supplement kings and

treadmill gurus whose prudcuts are equally invalid. What is the reason we

should cut Chek less critical scrutiny than anyone else?

I am amazed at the intelligent people who defend him with words like

" marketer " or " sincere " . He's selling processes that are either incorrect

or unnecessary when discussing physical training for athletes.

If you went to a doctor and got unsound, scientifically inaccurate advice,

people would wail about what a quack that doctor is. But if you call a scam

a scam, then the earth falls down if the criticism is of Chek.

I just don't see the differences. What respect does anyone owe this man, or

any others, that sell, hype and proliferate ideas that hold little to no

scientific value for athletes in training?

In the USA we have a saying: " Call a spade a spade " which means, simply, if

it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and has webbed feet..........you've

call it a duck.

Joe Alden

Atlanta USA

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Joe Alden wrote:

>Although we should never shut the door on discussing any relevant topic,

>theory or concepts in training, Chek is dead in the water on ST.

>If you went to a doctor and got unsound, scientifically inaccurate advice,

>people would wail about what a quack that doctor is. But if you call a

scam

>a scam, then the earth falls down if the criticism is of Chek.

It is a classic about how people have dodged my point. Many of the Chek

ideas that have been discussed on Supertraining that I have read have been

mis-represented eg Belts . Now you simply say check the archives and also

sound really emotionally attached to labelling him as a quack.

Lets discuss some of these concepts again and this time with some accuracy.

To get things started:

I have found Cheks ideas good because he focusses on Function rather than

Isolation. There are heaps of books/magazines from the Bodybuilding ethos

that all talk isolation. Most Gyms here in Australia are setup for

Isolation.

Chek goes a long way to explain a range of exercises that improve

function that provide a variety of different ideas to do.

The Rectus Abdominus is overemphasized at the expense of training Lower abs

in most people.

regards

Steve

http://www.oztrack.com

>

[Guest guest]

Steve wrote,

>Lets discuss some of these concepts again and this time with some accuracy.

>

>To get things started:

>

>I have found Cheks ideas good because he focusses on Function rather than

>Isolation. There are heaps of books/magazines from the Bodybuilding ethos

>that all talk isolation. Most Gyms here in Australia are setup for

>Isolation.

>

> Chek goes a long way to explain a range of exercises that improve

>function that provide a variety of different ideas to do.

>

>The Rectus Abdominus is overemphasized at the expense of training Lower abs

>in most people.

Steve - you talk about function versus isolation. However, Chek talks about

conscious activation of the TA. This is not function, it is isolation.

SImiliarly, why the concern with isolating the abs? I would be more

concerned with training which does focus on function (sport specific,

developing speed, strength and endurance) rather than working the lower abs.

[Guest guest]

> I am amazed at the intelligent people who defend him with words

like " marketer " or " sincere " . He's selling processes that are either

incorrect or unnecessary when discussing physical training for

athletes.

> If you went to a doctor and got unsound, scientifically inaccurate

advice, people would wail about what a quack that doctor is. But if

you call a scam a scam, then the earth falls down if the criticism is

of Chek. I just don't see the differences. What respect does

anyone owe this man, or any others, that sell, hype and proliferate

ideas that hold little to no scientific value for athletes in

training?

When I worked for , he was working under a physical therapist--

wasn't diagnosing any of the clients he worked with. I believe

this is an important point, as much of 's experience is working

in a clinical setting under the direction of a physical therapist

(who I assume was working under the direction of medical doctors).

How much of this experience is related to the training of elite

athletes is a topic of much debate, and this is where receives

much criticism as his methods may seem too conservative.

has done a remarkable job of educating himself, not just with

reading but attending countless workshops and consulting with many of

the foremost experts in the world on topics related to physical

conditioning. I agree that very little of 's work could be

considered orginal or that there is considerable debate about how he

infers information. Neverthless, has done an impressive job of

getting coaches and personal trainers interested in the wealth of

information available to them. Especially considering that he is a

self-made businessman.

Contrast this to the work of a brillant sports scientist such as

Vladimir Zatsiorsky. How many personal trainers are putting into

practical any of the information presented in " Science and Practice

of Strength Training " ? Experts (may I call them gurus?) such as

Vladimir need to follow Chek's example and find better ways to

get their information available to those who need it the most.

Thank you,

Kim Goss

[Guest guest]

Most of the exercises suggested exercises work many muscles and are not

isolation. The reason for the TA conscious activation is to re-learn what

should be happening. In most people they have faulty automatic recruitment

of the Rectus abdminus (possibly because of them isolating it and the hip

flexors in the past in isolating them doing hooked sit-ups etc or lots of

crunches).

I notice heaps of people have tight sore Psoas muscles, weak lower abs, can

do lots of crunches and have a forward head posture. It is in fixing these

existing states that we may need to consciously re-program a better

situation. This sounds like a risk but it is better than putting up with the

existing problems.

Chek has never said that powerlifters and body builders will lift more

by activating their TA. He has simply said that not activating it or having

it detrain through lack of use will cause functional problems and possibly

injury.

We need to remember there may be a big difference between improving athletic

function and being able to lift more or grow more muscle.

regards

Steve

http://www.oztrack.com

> RE: Siff vs Chek?? Let's get ready to rumble!!!

>

>

> Steve wrote,

>

> >Lets discuss some of these concepts again and this time with

> some accuracy.

> >

> >To get things started:

> >

> >I have found Cheks ideas good because he focusses on Function rather than

> >Isolation. There are heaps of books/magazines from the Bodybuilding ethos

> >that all talk isolation. Most Gyms here in Australia are setup for

> >Isolation.

> >

> > Chek goes a long way to explain a range of exercises that improve

> >function that provide a variety of different ideas to do.

> >

> >The Rectus Abdominus is overemphasized at the expense of

> training Lower abs

> >in most people.

>

> Steve - you talk about function versus isolation. However, Chek

> talks about

> conscious activation of the TA. This is not function, it is isolation.

> SImiliarly, why the concern with isolating the abs? I would be more

> concerned with training which does focus on function (sport specific,

> developing speed, strength and endurance) rather than working the

> lower abs.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

RE: Siff vs Chek?? Let's get ready to rumble!!!

> Most of the exercises suggested exercises work many muscles and are not

> isolation. The reason for the TA conscious activation is to re-learn what

> should be happening. In most people they have faulty automatic recruitment

> of the Rectus abdminus (possibly because of them isolating it and the hip

> flexors in the past in isolating them doing hooked sit-ups etc or lots of

> crunches).

Steve, can you provide some clinical evidence for this? It would be helpful

to understand this phenomenon through its exploration in the research.

>

> I notice heaps of people have tight sore Psoas muscles, weak lower abs,

can

> do lots of crunches and have a forward head posture. It is in fixing these

> existing states that we may need to consciously re-program a better

> situation. This sounds like a risk but it is better than putting up with

the

> existing problems.

>

> Chek has never said that powerlifters and body builders will lift

more

> by activating their TA. He has simply said that not activating it or

having

> it detrain through lack of use will cause functional problems and possibly

> injury.

I am confused about how one can exhibit lack of use with TA, since TA

activates along with multifidus before other actions occur. How does this

develop?

Krista

Toronto, ON

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

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

mistresskrista@...

[Guest guest]

Steve wrote:

> ... The reason for the TA conscious activation is to re-learn what

> should be happening. In most people they have faulty automatic recruitment

> of the Rectus abdminus (possibly because of them isolating it and the hip

> flexors in the past in isolating them doing hooked sit-ups etc or lots of

> crunches).

There are NO studies to date (including the ones Chek refers to that

supposedly support his opinion) that show " faulty " TrA and RA recruitment in

an average population. This is yet another example of misrepresenting the

research to support a false concept. It is also an argument based entirely

on anecdotal opinion. Have you actually diagnosed/assessed anyone with

" faulty recruitment patterns " of the TrA and RA? Exactly what is so

" faulty " about them, anyway?

I met Dr. Hides (one of the major researchers in therapeutic exercise

for segmental spinal stabilizaton) at the Pre-Olympic Congress on Sport

Science and Sport Medicine when I was visiting Australia this September, and

had a chance to speak with her about this. She mentioned that even with

hands-on training it is often very difficult for Physiotherapists to assess

adequate TrA activation - in patients with low back pain (she added that

individuals without low back pain can quite easily recruit TrA - another

example of an error in Chek's information.) Most of the time, they

rely on diagnostic ultrasound to get a visual confirmation. I seriously

doubt a correspondence course will offer a similar level of training. If

you would like to look further into the body of research on this, I'd

suggest you review her book " Therapeutic Exercise for Spinal Segmental

Stabilization in Low Back Pain. "

> Chek has never said that powerlifters and body builders will lift

more

> by activating their TA. He has simply said that not activating it or

having

> it detrain through lack of use will cause functional problems and possibly

> injury.

Which has also been shown to be a completely false statement (for example,

see Dave Tate's most recent post). You should realize by now that if you

are going to keep making unsubstantiated statements, we'll just keep batting

them right out of the park.

Steve, we are all interested in the unbiased discussion of the real issues

that you requested in your initial post to the group. Some of the most

heated (yet rewarding) debates I've ever experienced have been with my

mentors, colleagues, and friends, and even rivals, yet I've always kept an

open mind and a willingness to learn. We are all interested in expanding

our knowledge in this field, and I would hope that you are not taking these

challenges to your ideas (or your support of another's ideas) at a personal

level. But anecdotal " evidence " wears pretty thin when there is a sea of

information that completely disproves it. If you or anyone else on the list

can provide anything more substantive, I'm sure everyone would like to read

it.

> We need to remember there may be a big difference between improving

athletic

> function and being able to lift more or grow more muscle.

Yes, and as soon as Chek and his interns realize this, we'll all be the

better for it.

Sincerely,

R. Gray, M.Sc., C.S.C.S., C.K.

firstline@...

Toronto, Canada

[Guest guest]

<<By teaching the teachers, the coaches and scientists, he has had

infinitely more impact on the world of practical sport than Chek. Dr

Z hardly has the need to follow Chek - he has been eminently more

successfully on a global scale than Chek ever will be and indirectly

at all levels of the sporting chain...Quite honestly, for him to

emulate Chek would be to take a huge step backwards in the

international community.

I think we agree on this topic more than it appears, Mel.

My point is that using his own resources Chek has done an impressive

job of marketing his products and training beliefs (right or wrong)

to the general public. In addition to his seminars and internships,

he has continual been published in major fitness magazines (Muscle

Media and Muscle and Fitness, to name just two), a major bodybuilding

website (testosterone.net) and has gotten his books into the

mainstream distribution market. Go to any gym in the country and ask

the trainers (or even the general membership) if they've ever heard

of Vladimir Zatsiorsky, then ask if they've ever heard of Chek.

Please don't get me wrong about Vladimir's writing ability. I've

read " Science and Practice of Strength Training " word for word twice

(well, except for some of the math formulas), and it is outstanding

(his chapter on strength exercises is worth the cost of the entire

book). For that matter, Mike Stone's published research and personal

support has been a major positive influence on my coaching success,

and his willingness to allow me to interview and quote him has

certainly added credibility to many of my fitness articles. It's just

that it would be nice to see the work of amazing sport scientists

such as Zatsiorsky and Stone receive more recognition for their work

from the general fitness population, and one way to do this to happen

is for them to follow some of the business practices of Chek.

One more point. Members of this newsgroup argue about Chek's

training advice. Could it be that these same individuals are more

frustrated that has been so successful in getting his training

advice? If so, why don't we look first at the material published by

such " recognized experts " such as Austin and .

These experts are certainly more successful than Chek, and much

more widely known than Vladimir Zatsiorsky and Mike Stone. I saw a TV

spot in which Ophra Winfrey's personal trainer was telling Ophra to

exhale as she decended into a machine squat--how many books has

he sold? Madonna's personal trainer has also sold countless books

because he trained her and became her sperm doner--is there some

ethical issue here that needs to be addressed? is certainly

making a better effort to become educated--let's be fair.

Thank you,

Kim Goss

[Guest guest]

<<He started telling me all about his credentials, so I asked him if

he had ever heard of Zatsiorsky or Verkhoshanskey. He hadn't. So I

told him that pretty much proved my point.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Brillant Sport Scientists

such as Zatisorsky and Verkhoshanskey deserve to have their material

influencing more coaches such as the one you described to raise the

standards in their profession.

Thanks for sharing.

Kim

[Guest guest]

Steve wrote...

<<Most of the exercises suggested exercises work many muscles and are not

isolation. The reason for the TA conscious activation is to re-learn what

should be happening. In most people they have faulty automatic recruitment

of the Rectus abdminus (possibly because of them isolating it and the hip

flexors in the past in isolating them doing hooked sit-ups etc or lots of

crunches).>>

...

Steve, your paragraph above sounds exactly like some of Chek's

diatribes of a few years ago. I can't remember completely, but some of the

questions I have to the above comments were (and still are!!!):

* For individuals who have " lost " their transverse abdominis (TA) " function "

(BTW, I'm still not convinced that this is occurring with the kind of

frequency that a lot of C.H.P.E.K.s believe it is), how is the " drawing in

of the naval maneuver " going to help restore TA " function " when this is a

completely unnatural thing to do during normal movement?

* How is TA " dysfunction " being diagnosed?

* Can you define " faulty automatic recruitment of the rectus abdominis " ?

Steve wrote...

<<I notice heaps of people have tight sore Psoas muscles, weak lower abs,

can

do lots of crunches and have a forward head posture. It is in fixing these

existing states that we may need to consciously re-program a better

situation. This sounds like a risk but it is better than putting up with the

existing problems.

Chek has never said that powerlifters and body builders will lift more

by activating their TA. He has simply said that not activating it or having

it detrain through lack of use will cause functional problems and possibly

injury.>>

....

Actually, I think has said more weight could be lifted by consciously

activating the TA will increase lifting performance. Maybe he has a

different opinion now, but I am pretty sure he has said this in the past

which prompted me to ask him a few questions something to the effect of...

* Why has TA function and conscious efforts to recruit the TA during heavy

lifting ever been discuss in lifting literature?

* Even if activating a few more TA motor units cause a 0.5% improvement in

lifting performance, why wouldn't elite lifters have already discovered

this?

* How come when I have made conscious efforts to draw in my naval, my

lifting performance goes down?

BTW, these questions were never answered by .

Burkhardt

Strength and Conditioning Coach

UC Irvine