Ball and Balance discussions

[Guest guest]

Hamish wrote:

<Flamed is pretty strong. Challenged is more the word.>

Mark:

I agree Hamish. I was challenged. I'm getting used to

to the tone of the list and don't take it personally

anymore(well I try!LOL)

wrote:

> He got a whole lot of aggressively challenging

> responses, including

> folks who, in effect, pointed out (a) that he had

> provided no studies showing

> improved functioning from such methods, >

wrote:

> <( a general claim that he had not shown that

> there were not " other methods that may be more time

> and resource efficient " , >

>

> Fair call. OTOH if I think something can be done

> better I try it. I also think

> any coach should aim to experiment. However, must

> people would agree that a coach

> should spend 80% of the time working on the

> fundamentals, 10% working on new

> skills and 10% experimenting.

Mark:

I agree Hamish. One thing I think I should clarify. I

am not their primary gymnastics coach but a personal

coach who was called into deal with acute and chronic

injuries ,flexibility ,strength and postural deficits

brought on by their gymnastics training( or lack of).

Hamish wrote:

> and © a general sense that the methods he was

> using just couldn't be working as well as he thought, because

> his athletes either wouldn't have time, or wouldn't stand for the

> training.

Mark :

Now that is an unwarranted assumption, in my opinion.

How could you possible know or assume that given you

know virtually nothing about the situation or the

kids? They are training upwards of forty hours per

week. They have the time, and since they are athletes,

used to taking coaches instruction they " stand " for

what is presented to them as their " mission " .

wrote:

> None of the challengers provided any contradictory

> evidence, i.e., as far as I know, no one pointed to studies that showed such

> methods did NOT improve functioning toward the goals that Mark was seeking

> in training his gymnasts (stability on landing dismounts, etc.). Nor did

> anyone provide studies that showed a clearly superior, more efficacious, more

> time-efficient method of training toward those objectives. >

Hamish wrote:

> Because the studies haven't been done (well not in English). I do believe I

did

> contend that gymnastics based exercises were more effective.

Mark:

My point was with forty plus hours of gymnastics

instruction WEEKLY more of the same was not likely(

and in fact was not) dealing with the injuries and

imbalances(sorry Mel) that were present.The same is

true in powerlifting. Only so much powersquatting will

get you stronger. You must vary the exercise and

approach, especially once you reach an advanced state.

Hamish wrote:

<Perhaps further discussion will elaborate on this. >

wrote:

> Would it not have been possible to at least

> acknowledge that the question is

> open, and be a little more respectful of someone who

> is willing to both try

> something different from what was being done in that

> area before, and talk

> about it in a semi-public forum such as this? >

Mark:

Well I have to agree with on this. I've gotten

virtually no respect or validation for the years of

coaching and experimenting I've done, which has

produced many positive results, on my athletes, clients

and self.No one(until of late) has seem interested at

all whether these methods actually worked, as opposed

to COULD they work(theoretically). Thank you, .

Hamish:

<I questioned Mark's approach because I am in a similar situation as him.

I work with gymnasts, I must contend with injuries, I must produce results,

I have a desire to stay competitive in gymnastics myself. I NEED RESULTS NOW! >

Mark:

See above. It sound s like you are a competitive

coach. I am not. we have different missions with these

kids. I, like you, need results now, but the result

needed is different.I want to make sure they don't end

up like me( and MOST former advanced level

competitive gymnasts!)after there competitive days are

over.Injuries are forever,especially bad joint damage.

Hamish:

> Hence before I make decisions about using my valuable

> training time and even more limited coaching time I need to be 100% of the

> rationale behind what I do. Hence I don't pussyfoot around and I ask the hard

> questions straight up.

Mark:

No problem, just keep an open mind to experience and

results.

Hamish:

> I might also add that my own experimentation has led

> me to believe that weight

> training is important for the gymnast. Not to

> improve performance (I still believe

> that skill training is the real key here)

Mark:

I fully agree, but would also add that postural

strengthening (especially the deep back musculature and

the antagonistic muscles that gymnastics doesn't

target can lead to better health of the joints, less

pain and better performance as well. there are many

methods for this(i.e yoga) but they traditionally would

take even more time than the methods I use now. They

are not perfect by any means, and should be

incorporated into their regular strength and

conditioning( that as well needs a serious

overhaul)but have kept the girls I work with the least

injured on the team! How is that for results?

Mark reifkind

San jose usa

[Guest guest]

Hamish:

<I do have four years experience of using Swiss Balls and for every

Swiss Ball exercise for strength or balance I could think of, or saw, I

could think of a better weight training or gymnastics conditioning exercise.

In gymnastics the skills are ranked from A to H. People who are

learning skills will general do conditioning exercises using skills 1-2 ranks

down.>

Mark:

Using gymnastics skills is fine, but what about those areas that are

harder to target with gymnatics skills, alone, even if they are one

to two levels down? Especially hamstrings, adductors,rotator cuff

muscles.What about the concept of special exercises,especially for

advanced gymnasts?

Hamish:

<In my case (if you read the posts) I did give examples of exercises

I felt were better. One arm push ups instead of any ball exercise. I

even have beginners practising variations of these. >

Mark:

I see this all the time with the gymnasts, especially the younger

ones.Many times they are trying to do skills that are too difficult

before they have developed the ability to maintain that total body

tightness so necessary for sucessful gymnastics practice.

Again,I am NOT saying that ball and board practice should supplant

gymnastics skillsor condtitioning. just be a part of it.

Hamish:

<I have been trying, but everyone seems to be getting down on me cus

they feel I must have hurt Mark's feelings!

Mark:

Now don't go there Hamish! My feelings are fine, especially after

they have forged in the Dr Siff fire!

From: " mark reifkind " <rifstonian@y...>

<<I believe they do indeed have value for decondtioned

people, but they also have a great value for athletes

and highly conditioned people as the potential for

progressive skills is limited only by the imagination.

Doing multiple ball balances and ROM exercises on the

balls can overload static strength and postural muscles

almost as much as many gymnastics type moves. Advanced

ball work is VERY challenging. >>

Hamish:

<I disagree. Lay some ball exercises on us and I will try and show

you a better and more challenging gymnastics exercise! >

Mark:

How about forward ball rolls on two balls? How about three

ball pushups on your toes (ankle dorsi flexed). How about handstands on

small balls? How about prone kneepulls in between two balls, How

about pushups on a wobble board with your feet on a ball?

I'm not saying elite gymnasts can't do these, but they are very hard

for the average person. the fact that an elite gymnast can do them

easily just proves how strong and balance oriented gymnasts are, not

that they dont have value!Especially male gymnasts Hamsih. You know

how differently the females are trained than the males> I agree that

most of this work would be very simple for an elite male gymnast. it

is not the same case for a female gymnast.

Mark:

<<The ability to really " feel " the contractions in many

muscles previously " unfelt " is an advantage in ball

training. Simple hip extensions, done supine on one

the ball with one leg, and held for any length of

time, set the glutes and hamstrings burning seriously. >>

Hamish:

<At last year's World Aerobics Champs there was the IDEA convention

on and at one booth this guy was extolling the virtues of a half Swiss Ball

with a base. He was getting people doing all types of exercises which they

swore felt harder than anything they had done before. I tried it and

totally wound this guy up. He had me doing all types of balances and strength

moves that were easy because of my gymnastics training. >

Mark:

Exactly - Hamish, you are proving my above point.

The situation is different for female gymnats and your average

trainee. Again, just because you can do them does not make them easy!

Hamish:

<He reckoned that I must have had elite Swiss Ball training. I hardly touch a

Swiss Ball (except

the one I sit on at the computer and when practising exercises people tell me

about till I figure out a better one using gymnastics apparatus). >

Mark:

<<Many report being able to feel muscles contract that

they never could get to before (especially glutes). >>

Hamish:

<Sorry, Mark, but that sounds like something Chek would say. I

have been to a few of his lectures, seen him in the gym and so far only see

someone who markets himself really well.>

Mark:

So what if it sounds like Chek? This is what I've found in the gym

with my clients.If it works it works. I don't really care where it

came from. The bottom line, as you so eloquently put it, is RESULTS.

Although I no longer believe that Chek understands as much as he

promotes himself as knowing, it does not mean the exercises that he

demonstrates have no value. Quite the opposite. I use those types of ball

exercises every day with clients and have excellent results. After all,

ball exercises have been around before they became popular in the fitness world.

and have been used effectively by therapists for many years.

Mark wrote:

<< on the balls- the resemblance to what doing gymnastics

used to feel like, especially the strength moves.

The average trainee, especially the decondtionied ones,

have very little opportunity to train static strength

and balance like this in conventional ways. >>

Hamish:

< Say what??? You mean someone can't sit on the floor and press

themself off the ground? How does a ball make it easier? BTW I tried doing pike

and straddle supports using the ball. Hard work for the shoulders on

the ball but I don't see how relevant this is when most people have to

develop their abs, hip flexor, quad strength and lower back flexibility.>

Mark:

I dont know who you are training, Hamish, but my average fifty year old

client who is thirty pounds overweight cannot do this at all. The

balls allow a much more gradual progression into static strength and

balance.Again, for the gymnasts it allows a therapeutic approach to

working weak points and developing balance in their bodies.

Mark wrote:

<< Advanced ball training does impart a feeling of " being one

piece " that another on the list spoke of when referring to overhead squats

with a snatch grip. >>

Hamish:

<So does a one arm, one leg push up. I know which exercise gets me

points when competing or which helps me manage demanding daily tasks more

easily.>

Mark:

Again Hamish, my studio cleints cannot manage this and my gymnasts

can do this and other work. One DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE OTHER!!!

Again, with forty five hour training weeks for these kids, there is

plenty of time.

Mark wrote:

<<Why are the two methods assumed to be mutually

exclusive? What is stopping us from using all these

methods? The gymnasts do gymnastics, lift weights(Soon

to be olympic lifts)do extra stretching,static and

trunk work with me as well as use a variety of

recovery(ice, massage, chiropractic,hydrotherapy,supplements,etc)

modalities. >>

Hamish:

<This discussion started when someone made the comment that the US

Men's Gymnastics team did NOT train with weights. I added the comment

that it was unlikely that even more successful teams (Russia, China and

Romania) did as well.

Many of the Russian coaches I have encountered don't even know what

a Swiss Ball is. Our local Russian import thought they were something

that had we had got out of the childcare centre! >

Mark:

So? If the Russians and Romanians don't do it we shouldn't even

attempt it? I don't believe that. The Russians and Romanians throw away

kids as if they had an endless supply(which they seem to!). Most of

the ballwork I do with the kids is therapeutic in nature and meant to

help balance them and prevent injuries, which it seems to be doing.

Mark Reifkind

San USA

[Guest guest]

AMEN, Mike!!! I too have been promoting breath holding forever. The people who

talk about never holding your breath generally don't know the difference between

a Valsalva Maneuver and simple breath holding accompanied by abdominal, glute

(and whole body flexing and the relationship to stability, capacity for

force/torque production, and safety). Similarly, none of them has ever been

under a 600-lb squat and experienced what it might be like to release the breath

and have that weight compress the spine and torso. They likewise apparently fail

to understand the most fundamental autonomic relationship between exhalation and

muscle tension and vice versa. Keep on telling it like it is and illegitimus

non carborundum.

All the best,

Jim

USA

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

Dr Mike Yessis wrote:

This is a response to the post by Wood on 6-9-01.

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by . Too often

peoplewant to discredit particular methods before they examine or try the

methods in question to see if they work. It's easy to be a Monday morning

quarterback and criticize what the teams have done on the weekend. But if

one is truly an expert, why not get the accurate information out to the

public. Only then will you be able to determine if his information can

withstand the test of time.

Over the years, I have had many college students write negative comments in

regard to my articles published in Muscle and Fitness. Most of the letters

said I used terms incorrectly or what I said was wrong, according to their

professors. My response to these people was that if their professors are

such experts why don't they get this information into mainstream. If they

know so much then they should expose this information to others for possible

criticism and/or agreement. But it is rare to see such experts write

articles for publication in lay magazines, many of which are looking for

expert writers.. It is easier to merely sit back and criticize. I believe

that it is because of such arm-chair quarterbacking that the door was opened

for all the pseudo experts to have free reign.

For example, as far as I know, I am one of very few who states (in the lay

press) that you must hold the breath on an exertion and exhale on the return

or after you have passed the sticking point. I have been making such

statements for well over 20 years and get tremendous pressure from not only

the magazine (depending upon who the editors are), but also from many

readers, especially personal trainers, who were taught that this was

incorrect. I have yet to see support in a form of letters to the editor or

articles written on this topic. In addition, I must constantly prove my

point as opposed to having them prove that it is incorrect (as rightfully

stated by ). In fact, I have had college professors refuse to use my

book, " Kinesiology of Exercise " , because each exercise is described with the

breathing pattern mentioned.

In regard to most of the comments regarding ball and balance training - I am

in total agreement, especially as it relates to the athletic world. For lay

people completely out of condition, they may have some value. In regard to

their use by Mark Reifkind with mostly young gymnasts, it may play a very

valuable role (although it certainly may not be the best). With very young

individuals, most any type of training to improve their strength will

improve their performance.

What I believe we have failed to distinguish is the use of certain methods

with certain populations and comparison of different methods with different

populations. For example, if you take a youngster who is weak and has never

trained, it matters little what type of training program you put him on

since most any type of training will help him or her gain some strength

which in turn will improve their ability to do various things. When one is

in serious training, however, the exact methods used become critical. This

is where we should distinguish which methods are best for different

populations at certain times in the annual training cycle. For example,

when you have a good athlete who has trained with full ROM, abdominal and

lower back exercises, together with various hip exercises depending upon the

sport, he will far outdo the athlete who has trained with difference balance

and ball routines that are presently in vogue.

But again, rather than merely criticizing them, it is important to get some

of this information out to the public. For example, I wrote a letter to the

editor of 'Fitness Management' in regard to a published article, " Training for

Proprioception and Function " . I tore the article apart and the editor

relayed to me that she would have the writer and some of the experts quoted

(which included Chek) to respond to my comments. However, no responses

were ever made, which indicated that they didn't have a leg to stand on with

their methods when exposed to detailed scrutiny (the article appeared in

February 2001 and my response was in May 2001). I hope my comments helped

some gyms and trainers to back off on using these methods.

[Guest guest]

Hamish:

<I do have four years experience of using Swiss Balls and for every

Swiss Ball exercise for strength or balance I could think of, or

saw, I could think of a better weight training or gymnastics conditioning

exercise. In gymnastics the skills are ranked from A to H. People who are

learning skills will general do conditioning exercises using skills

1-2 ranks down.>

Hamish, I forgot to add my favorite swiss ball exercise: squatting on the

ball! Also, med ball catch front and sideways while kneeling on the ball.

One of the best reasons for gymnasts to use swiss balls (I feel) is

that in gymnastics so often we find ourselves inverted with neither

trunk nor pelvis anchored. ALmost no other training exercise(outside

of gymnastics or trampoline) can replicate the instability one gets

in this condition. Doing two ball work requires the gymnast to

stabilize the upper and lower body simultaneously while maintaining a

solid trunk position.

Doing pushups on the floor(one or two arms and legs, whatever) does

not replicate this.

In Kendall and Kendall the actions of the obliques, when neither

trunk nor pelvis were anchored were labeled " paradoxic " , meaning that they

don't know. I think ball training, especially the multi ball variety

for advanced users, helps to solidify the gymnast's body when in

these " paradoxic " positions.

[Recent research has been revealing that the Kendall book didn't

know many different things about muscle action, especially if it is

multi-articular or 'functionally' dynamic, as in real world activities.

Are the trunk and pelvis anchored in the Olympic lifts or in many sporting

actions? What really is meant by 'anchoring'? Did the Kendalls really

know what 'anchoring' is? Finally, what is mean by 'solidifying' the body?

Mel Siff]

Trying to do planche and press type movements when both the lower and

upper body are moving individually is very difficult, yet easy on the

overworked gymnasts' joints.

Mark Reifkind

San

USA

[Guest guest]

Burkhardt wrote:

<Dr. Yessis, Is there any way we could get that article posted to

Supertraining? Sounds like a fun one we'd all like to tear apart.

,

No offense, but just my observation - it seems that virtually the only times

we seem to hear from you is when you have something negative to say and

want to " tear something apart " . Do you have any constructive advice for

us other than doing nothing but the Olympic lifts?

[Anyway, it would still be interesting to see that article, so that we can know

exactly what was written. Mike? Mel Siif ]

Mark Reifkind

San

USA

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff:

<Recent research has been revealing that the Kendall

book didn't know many different things about muscle action,

especially if it is multi-articular or 'functionally' dynamic, as in

real world activities. Are the trunk and pelvis anchored in the Olympic

lifts or in many sporting actions? >

Mark:

Good points, but wouldn't you agree that the twisting

motions of gymnasts and divers, with neither arms nor

feet in contact with the earth would produce different

types of muscle actions than twisting motions with the

feet anchored to the ground, at least part of the

time (tennis, weightlifting, throwing, etc.)?

Again, this is just my " feeling " on the subject based

on my years experience as a gymnast and as a coach

and what certain maneuvers and body positions " felt " like.

[Research shows that, even with the feet anchored to the ground,

different muscle activity can produce essentially the same external

movement pattern. Movements in free space, such as saltos and twists,

are very different from movements on a ball, which does offer some form

of proprioceptive feedback from the parts of the body that are in contact

with the ball. Mel Siff ]

Mel Siff:

<What really is meant by 'anchoring'? >

Mark:

I took it to mean when either the feet, hands or

shoulders (supine)were in contact with a stable

surface(ground or apparatus). Standing on the feet

would provide and anchor the pelvis for the transfer

of forces from and through the legs and trunk, into

the arms, and standing on one's hands the shoulders

would be more " fixed " and the pelvis free to move more

multi-directionally (pushing off the vaulting horse,

pole vault,pommel horse, etc.)

This is from a competitor/coach interested in research

-but- not-formally trained in science person.

[Contact with a solid surface does not necessarily mean

anchoring or fixation to a fixed point. If your hands or feet

are in contact with a surface, they can still be shifted to

another position of balance, but if they are anchored, they

cannot be shifted and balance has to be achieved by actions

not involving movements of the hands or feet. Mel Siff]

Mel Siff:

<Did the Kendalls really know what 'anchoring' is? >

Mark:

Geez Mel, when I first found Kendall and Kendall, I

thought I had found a pot of gold, considering whats

in the lay press!! I went to school in the seventies

and they weren't translating Russian texts back

then(although I read Soviet sports review as soon as I

discovered it! Thanks Dr Yessis!).

[That remark of mine was a little lighthearted, but it also

had a serious side in suggesting that maybe the Kendalls

were not all that aware of biomechanics, because their

text relied heavily on an isolationist approach to fairly

simple actions which did not mirror what happens in

dynamic activities in space and time. Mel Siff ]

We were reading Muscle and Fitness and Iron Man and

Powerlifting USA, and Dr Hatfield's books and thought

we were way ahead of the game! Heck, I was writing for

Iron Man and Muscle Mag international. How would I

know and why would I presume to think they DIDN'T know

what anchoring meant?

[No blaming you at all. So few people dare to question the

current authorities that the status quo of incomplete, inaccurate

or misleading information continues for years. Today, it tends

to be worse in some respects because in bygone times, that sort

of information tended to stay safely in therapeutic quarters. Now,

various fitness gurus who also believe in these forebears of the

fitness commandments are trying to adapt the same information

to train and repair the general public and top athletes. That is

a major reason why I started this Supertraining group - so we

could encourage a civilised, critical thinking approach to what is

being done in the world of strength, fitness, rehab and health.

That is why everyone's comments are so valuable. Mel Siff]

Mel Siff:

<Finally, what is mean by 'solidifying' the body?>

Mark:

What someone said about the overhead squat in the snatch

position. Feeling of " one pieceness " . This, as you

know, is vital for good gymnastic performance; the

ability to make rigid and segment the body into

perfect levers so that motion through the air is as easy as

possible.

Mark Reifkind

San USA

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

All three of Mark's Posts are answered here...

From Mark Reifkind:

> Using gymnastics skills is fine, but what about those areas that are

> harder to target with gymnatics skills, alone, even if they are one

> to two levels down? Especially hamstrings, adductors,rotator cuff

> muscles.

How have you determined that these areas are weak points? A best thing that I

have learned from Supertraining is that compound movements are better than

isolation. Do we have to isolate these muscle groups?

>What about the concept of special exercises,especially for

> advanced gymnasts?

All advanced skill moves can be broken down into easier moves, part moves or

partner assisted moves.

> I see this all the time with the gymnasts, especially the younger

> ones.Many times they are trying to do skills that are too difficult

> before they have developed the ability to maintain that total body

> tightness so necessary for sucessful gymnastics practice.

I repeat I have beginners with zero experience practising one arm one leg

balances, as well as push ups.

> Again,I am NOT saying that ball and board practice should supplant

> gymnastics skillsor condtitioning. just be a part of it.

I say why add extra exercises when one can use more specific exercises?

> How about forward ball rolls on two balls?

One arm push ups.

> How about three ball pushups on your toes (ankle dorsi flexed).

One arm push ups.

> How about handstands on small balls?

When most gymnasts I see can't do good normal push ups? When they can, what

about walking around in push up position, Up and down stairs in push up

position. Straddle support to push up. L Suport to Push Up. Plyo

handstands with a beat board.

> How about prone kneepulls in between two balls,

V, L or Straddle Support.

> How about pushups on a wobble board with your feet on a ball?

Do they compete on a wobbly floor?

> I'm not saying elite gymnasts can't do these, but they are very hard

> for the average person. the fact that an elite gymnast can do them

> easily just proves how strong and balance oriented gymnasts are, not

> that they dont have value! Especially male gymnasts, Hamish.

When I personal trained people I got them to do deadlift, squats, bench,

rows and pull downs (till they could do chins) and lo and behold: knees got

stronger, backs felt better, mobility improved, people lost weight and

clients were happy. Damn I'm starting to sound like Chek:-)

> You know how differently the females are trained than the males I agree that

> most of this work would be very simple for an elite male gymnast. it

> is not the same case for a female gymnast.

I take it this is based on a specific situation. I know our local girls

train better (not longer) than most of the guys and certainly take on a

heavy workload.

> So what if it sounds like Chek? This is what I've found in the gym

> with my clients.If it works it works. I don't really care where it

> came from.

Im just saying I think there is an better option. It's just my opinion. No

studies to back it up.

>The bottom line, as you so eloquently put it, is RESULTS.

The US teams get results and don't use weights. The Russians, Chinese and

Romanians get even better results and I suspect they don't use weights (Mel or

anyone??) either.

> I dont know who you are training, Hamish, but my average fifty year old

> client who is thirty pounds overweight cannot do this at all. The

> balls allow a much more gradual progression into static strength and

> balance.

I used to train people with injuries or of an age that I really should have

a Physiotherapy degree to train. They could all do some form of squat and

other compound exercises and developed pretty good balance. How much balance

does someone need?

A familiar thread was from people who were concerned that as they grew older

they didn't want to rely on walking sticks or frames and didn't want to

spend 5 minutes getting in and out of cars or climbing stairs. Seems like

more of a strength issue than balance.

>Again, for the gymnasts it allows a therapeutic approach to

> working weak points and developing balance in their bodies.

What weak points?

> Again Hamish, my studio cleints cannot manage this and my gymnasts

> can do this and other work. One DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE OTHER!!!

> Again, with forty five hour training weeks for these kids, there is

> plenty of time.

Then why don't the US male gymnasts do this?

> So? If the Russians and Romanians don't do it we shouldn't even

> attempt it? I don't believe that. The Russians and Romanians throw away

> kids as if they had an endless supply(which they seem to!).

They can't afford to do that now. Gone are the days when they had buckets of

cash to throw at sport. Now and also then they tested people to see if they

had the right attributes for any sport and channelled people into areas they

would excel at. Is that bad? Maybe if you wanted to be a gymnast but had

the attribute required for swimming. On the other hand, it would be years of

frustration

trying to be something you were not.

>Most of the ballwork I do with the kids is therapeutic in nature and meant to

> help balance them and prevent injuries, which it seems to be doing.

Yes, but the balance required in gymnastics is dynamic and Swiss Ball

balancing is static. You can't move as fast on the ball as you do in

Gymnastics.

> Hamish, I forgot to add my favourite swiss ball exercise: squatting on

the ball!

Landing from a high object ?

>Also, med ball catch front and sideways while kneeling on the ball.

One arm push ups and any static strength move, prone or supine.

> One of the best reasons for gymnasts to use Swiss balls (I feel) is

> that in gymnastics so often we find ourselves inverted with neither

> trunk nor pelvis anchored. Almost no other training exercise(outside

> of gymnastics or trampoline) can replicate the instability one gets

> in this condition. Doing two ball work requires the gymnast to

> stabilize the upper and lower body simultaneously while maintaining a

> solid trunk position.

At a far slower rate than one does when spinning or moving in mid air. I

prefer to spend time getting people practising moves and giving verbal and

video feedback.

> Doing pushups on the floor(one or two arms and legs, whatever) does

> not replicate this.

No, it doesn't.

> In Kendall and Kendall the actions of the obliques, when neither

> trunk nor pelvis were anchored were labelled " paradoxic " , meaning that

> they don't know. I think ball training, especially the multi ball variety

> for advanced users, helps to solidify the gymnast's body when in

> these " paradoxic " positions.

You think; I disagree.

> Trying to do planche and press type movements when both the lower and

> upper body are moving individually is very difficult, yet easy on the

> overworked gymnasts' joints.

Overworked joints can spend time on the trampoline or using the pit to

practise jumps, leaps and rotational work with less stress on the joints.

Yet, even this can be detrimental if it takes up too much training time.

> Good points, but wouldn't you agree that the twisting

> motions of gymnasts and divers, with neither arms nor

> feet in contact with the earth would produce different

> types of muscle actions than twisting motions with the

> feet anchored to the ground, at least part of the

> time (tennis, weightlifting, throwing, etc.)?

Well, yes.

> Again, this is just my " feeling " on the subject based

> on my years experience as a gymnast and as a coach

> and what certain maneuvers and body positions " felt " like.

Big difference between how one feels in the air and how one feels when

anchored by either a ball or the floor. The real trick is teaching people

how to jump higher to be able to be able to do a lot of shape movements.

> What someone said about the overhead squat in the snatch

> position. Feeling of " one pieceness " . This, as you

> know, is vital for good gymnastic performance; the

> ability to make rigid and segment the body into

> perfect levers so that motion through the air is as easy as

> possible.

I am not sure about this. Many yoga poses can achieve this. I do think the

overhead squat is a great rehab exercise. I certainly need to use it more to

get my hip and lower back function working better.

Cheers

Hamish Ferguson

Christchurch, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

Burkhardt wrote:

<Dr. Yessis, Is there any way we could get that article posted to

Supertraining? Sounds like a fun one we'd all like to tear apart.

Mark Reifkind wrote....

<<,

No offense, but just my observation - it seems that virtually the only times

we seem to hear from you is when you have something negative to say and

want to " tear something apart " . Do you have any constructive advice for

us other than doing nothing but the Olympic lifts?>>

Hi Mark, no offence taken. I will explain why I sometimes appear to have a

negative attitude later, but let me preface that with my general philosophy

on the use of strength/power training for the development of athletic

" fitness " . This should help explain why I sometime make the comments I do.

My philosophy can be summed up with two concepts:

1) Training efforts should focus on the most productive forms of exercise.

This really comes down to a time issue. I would rather see an athlete do

something else (i.e. rest, study, partake in a social life or anything else

that has nothing to do with sports) than spend time on trivial exercise(s)

that is of little or no value to them athletically.

It just so happens that the Olympic lifts and related assistance exercises

fits in nicely with this philosophy. As a group, they (OLers) are the

strongest most powerful athletes on earth and I'm sure they devote little if

any of their training time outside of a small, rather " potent " group of

exercises. This type of a program can easily be adapted to address the

specific needs of other sports by simply adding in a handful of additional

exercises. Also to consider is that the OLs and their assistant exercises

develop " core stability " (can't believe I used that term:)) far better and

efficiently than most of the exercises (including Swiss Ball ex.) being

promoted for this purpose, but that's getting into my second point......

2) Training efforts should be focused on those exercises that provide " the

most bang for your buck " . Perhaps a cheesy cliche' so allow me to explain.

If you had only time for one exercise and had the following three to choose

from, which would you choose?

Leg press

back squat

clean & jerk

First off, the leg press losses as it does not present nearly the kind of

stress (because of guided movement and it supports the body from the hips

up) that a back squat does. The clean & jerk wins over the back squat

because the speed, ballistic movement and coordination qualities required

make it a superior exercise to the back squat. Not that the other two

exercises are bad, they just have less to offer. Time is critical - choose

the best, leave the rest.

So, in response to your original comment, I guess I just don't have much

tolerance for gurus who latch onto the latest exercise craze and publish

jargon filled articles that do nothing but confuse the lay-person and

entry-level personal trainer. I think it's important that these people are

exposed for the phonies that they are especially when they are making

ridiculous amounts of money misleading the public while there are plenty of

honest, much more highly qualified strength coaches and fitness instructors

that are struggling to make a living.

I know of a " speed coach/guru " who makes $115.00/hour because parents of

athletes think he has some secret training method that'll make little ny

run faster and hopefully get a scholarship. This guy is a scam artist and I

feel the public should be aware he and others like him. Hope this helps

explain my negative attitude at times.

Burkhardt

Strength and Conditioning Coach

UC Irvine

[Guest guest]

From: " mark reifkind " <rifstonian@...>

> Let me tell you that standing,as well as squatting on

> ball can really help a gymnasts ability to stick

> dismountsas well as their ability to land moves on

> the balance beam.

For most athletes the problem is not how they land. The problem is where

they are coming from. I can easily do jumps to push up without any wrist or

back problems. As soon as I add twisting like half turn straddle jump to

push up the problems start occurring.

Same with dismounts. Most people can be taught easily how to land but the

real effort is to teach them how to do the move to end up in a position that

they can land safely.

> Landing dismounts with the feet

> almost touching( as is the position on the ball), on

> an unstable crash or landing matis extremely

> difficult.

Landings are easy if the athlete perform the move well enough. Hence the use

of pits in gymnastics. Then mats in the pit, then mats then finally the

floor. All the time practicing jumping from high objects to learn landing

technique and develop the strength and form to land safely.

> Standing,balancing and squatting on the ball seems to

> help the gymnasts quite a lot.No studies but

> observational experience and feedback from the

> athletes.

Again it appears that this will require the athlete to learn another skill

when they should have their hands full learning gymnastics skills.

Hamish Ferguson

Christchurch, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

Hi group,

I'm Ron and I'm new here. I've been going through older messages and see that

this is THE group. Kudos to all of you!

I'm not a trainer, PT or scientist - just an average guy who loves to work with

weights and reads a lot to learn as much as I can. This is why I'm puzzled

about this debate on ball/balance and stability training. I wish to discuss

several puzzles which concern me.

Puzzle 1: I thought that balance and stability are inherent motor properties

and that the brain is responsible for operating this system mostly via what is

known as the inner ear complex, nerves and sensors all over our body. To

elaborate on this, let's look at 2 special groups: little children and elderly.

The former is known for not being able to stand and walk until a certain age and

the latter is known for falling and stumbling more. So everyone can agree

that, for healthy age groups, these two groups have the least stability and

balance - but one group (the elderly) has muscles and strength, while the other

doesn't have a fully operational system, yet they have the same " problem " .

For kids it's not a true problem that needs doctors, etc, so what do they

possibly have in common to share this problem?

IMO, in the brains of one group the brain has just started to operate but

doesn't function 100% and for the other, brain function has started to weaken.

It's obvious that for the other age groups(as long as they are healthy) the

brain function as far as it concerns balance and stability is 100%, so how can

ball training, stability training etc cause changes in the brain and especially

on its nerves complex and various cells to enable it to become more effective in

handling specific motor tasks in sport and daily life?

If, like some of you say, all of these training methods help the average Joe,

can we say it will work on kids (using light weights) or on those that have

brain damage or inner ear disease?, IMO - not more than any standard methods of

therapy or the execution of normal daily functions under carefully regulated

conditions.

BTW - some of you stated that on some elderly this approach worked, and my

theory is that in the elderly it can help cause the brain to remember this

property, so if you stimulate it enough, there is the possibility to restore

some of its function, but it will deteriorate as the person will get older. More

important than a few minutes or sessions of ball etc training a day is the

regular execution of as many daily activities as possible.

To sum this puzzle up, let me raise one more point: if the method for stability

and balance works, does this mean that applying them (accordingly)to kids will

result in these kids learning to stand and walk faster than non-ball trained

kids? Also, will they stand and walk BETTER then the non-ball trained kids?

Any research?

Puzzle 2: It is my humble opinion that, as long as I have my two feet in

contact with the ground while the other parts of my body aren't limited to move

around when my balance is disturbed, I'm stable. How can working on a ball make

me stand better on my two feet in non-ball situations? How can this transfer

to walking better in a straight line or in any specific paths or to operate more

effectively in all daily tasks? Any research?

Furthermore, if someone is running against me and bumps me, how can ball

training help me? It is my experience that when two objects meet the one with

the more mass and or speed will remain standing up, while the lesser mass/speed

will full down? Agility in that sort of encounter requires specific training in

that sort of very demanding and unpredictable situation, not some drills on a

ball. Do you mean that training on the ball will enable me to stop Shaq

moving? I'm betting whatever you want, it won't help me stop him. On the

other hand, lifting heavy weights and having the strength to push back the mass

and power of Shaq certainly will.

Now, all I'm saying is in regard to the healthy, average person, so please don't

answer by quoting unhealthy or clinical examples.

Puzzle 3: If balance and stability work helps the average Joe, then why Joe

can't walk straight and sometimes can't even stand in different situations such

as after spinning around or after a few beers/tequila/etc after all that

training?

Puzzle 4: If I'm lying on my back, what muscles work to stabilize?; if I'm on

all fours (as in wrestling), what then stabilizes me? If I'm on my knees what

helps me stabilize ? If I'm in free space(like when jumping in the air), what

are the stabilizers? How can ball training on my feet or my seat help me

improve my balance and agility in many such real situations? Any research

available?

To sum it up - I don't mean to disrespect or make fun of this or other

person/method here - all I want is to understand the mechanisms of balance and

stability and why working with a ball will make me or other average healthy

person more balance stable than if I simply relied on free weight training and

other sports training. IMO - if someone can stand and walk or run straight,

ride a bicycle, lift weights in free space or take part in different sports

without losing balance, what more can the ball do for them?.

Also - I believe that Dr Siff is educating us that there are no stabilizing core

muscles per se, that the body is a linked dynamic system which reacts to

feedback. Thus to know what the stabilizers, core muscles, etc actually do in

sport and daily life, we need to analyze all aspects of the movement or

situation, not simply some isolated groups of muscles or parts of the body (Dr

Siff, please correct me if I'm wrong) - and I certainly see the logic and

science behind this reasoning - so could those individuals who don't think this

way, kindly explain why they don't think so and how the body works in their

opinion?

Sorry for the length of this letter, but this debate really raised a lot of

questions in me.

Ron Man..

(im no fitness guru)

Israel

[Guest guest]

ironny2002@... wrote:

> To elaborate on this, let's look at 2 special groups: little

> children and elderly. The former is known for not being able to

> stand and walk until a certain age and the latter is known for

> falling and stumbling more. So everyone can agree that, for

> healthy age groups, these two groups have the least stability and

> balance - but one group (the elderly) has muscles and strength,

> while the other doesn't have a fully operational system, yet

> they have the same " problem " .

The elderly do NOT have " muscles and strength " ; that's a big part of

their problem. Children, on the other hand, may not have the

absolute strength of their much larger grandparents, but they do have

reasonable relative strength (strength per unit body mass).

Matt Madsen

....... USA