Validity of Training and Therapy?

[Guest guest]

Does HIT work? Is plyometric training useful or dangerous? Is

periodisation a waste of effort? Does TVA isolated training help? Does

'applied kinesiology' work? Is craniosacral therapy valid? Is Olympic style

lifting applicable to sports training? Does ball balancing really enhance

balance?

Realising that the placebo effect (and its concomitant faith and belief

factors) may influence almost anything in human endeavour and that there is

such individual physiological response to all therapies and training methods,

is it possible ever to find a fairly widely used therapeutic or training

technique that does NOT work in a sufficient number of instances to ensure

its continued use among some individuals?

Allied to this issue is this question: " What percentage failure rate must a

given system display before it is generally rejected by most people? " or its

converse: " What percentage success rate must a given system display or claim

to display to ensure its acceptance and continued use? "

There must be therapies and training methods which probably enjoy success in

fewer than 10 percent of cases, yet they flourish sufficiently to attract

fanatical support from those who have been givers or receivers of that low

success rate. Under such circumstances can science ever be really relevant

or convincing? Does this mean that we have to set up a more complete system

for evaluation of therapies and training methods, including the scientific

method, evidence-based approaches and 'trial by jury'? After all, if we

invoke the powers of only one analytical modality, we are almost guaranteed a

futile, never-ending debate strongly influenced by personality, commercialism

and emotion.

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

Supertraining/