Powermetrics and Other Terms

[Guest guest]

It is interesting to see how one's own terms are misdefined by various other

professionals who do not give credit to the original source. Here is one

example taken from the Speed Quest website which tries to define the term,

" powermetrics " which I coined a good few years ago (see Siff M C

" Supertraining " ).

This is how they define my term or neologism:

<http://www.speedquest.net/newsletter/terms.html>

" Powermetric - greater range of motion exercises that enlist maximal effort

and intensity. Powermetrics generally put much greater stress on the

muscular system. "

Actually, this is how I formally defined and discussed what I call

" Powermetrics " in my " Supertraining " textbook (Ch 1.6), so you will see how

little resemblance there is between their borrowing and my formal definition:

<Recently, varieties of jumping drills have been introduced to Western

aerobics classes (e.g. in the form of 'step aerobics') and athletics

training as 'plyometrics'. Invariably, the exercises referred to as being

plyometric in these contexts are fairly conventional jumps which do not

produce the characteristics of true 'shock' training. Russian scientists

prefer to retain the term 'shock method' when referring to general explosive

rebound methods and 'depth jumps' for lower limb rebound methods. If

confusion with electric shock is to be avoided, then it might be preferable

to refer to explosive reactive methods as " impulsive training " . However, the

persuasive appeal of popular usage will no doubt ensure that the term

" plyometrics " is retained in preference to any other word, no matter how

inappropriate. For instance, despite the inaccuracy of the term " aerobics "

in describing exercise to music and cross training to describe supplementary

sports training, the commercial market has decreed that these popular terms

should be the definitive words to use.

All that the scientist can do is to accept the situation, but to redefine

such words to the highest level of accuracy. Thus, the term " plyometrics "

(as opposed to " pliometric " contraction) should be used to refer to methods

in which an eccentric muscle contraction is suddenly terminated in an

explosive isometric contraction, thereby producing a powerful myotatic

reflex, a sharp extension of the passive components of the muscle complex and

a subsequent explosive concentric contraction. Although associated with

jumping, it should not refer to ordinary jumping in which there may be a

significant delay and dissipation of elastic energy during a longer isometric

phase between the eccentric and concentric contractions (see Ch 5.2).

To prevent any confusion between the historical and popular usage of the

words " pliometrics " and " plyometrics " , it would be preferable to apply the

term " powermetrics " to that entire collection of jumping, 'shock method',

rebound drills and all other methods formely casually named plyometric

training (Siff, 1998).>

Later, in Ch 5.2.4, I added:

<In recognising that plyometric actions are widespread in most sport,

Verkhoshansky has always consistently favoured the use of the term 'shock

method' instead of " plyometrics " to distinguish between naturally occurring

plyometric actions in sport and the formal discipline he devised as a

discrete training system to develop speed-strength in particular. This is

why the term " powermetrics " has been suggested elsewhere in this text to

refer to plyometric training, as opposed to plyometric actions which occur

quite naturally in many natural ballistic movements. The earliest published

use of the word " plyometrics " seems to have been in a Soviet publication

(Zanon, 1966).

Popular adoption of the term " plyometrics " in the place of " shock method " has

produced this confusion, just as popular use of the term " aerobics " has

caused widespread confusion between aerobic (cardiovascular) conditioning and

aerobics as a form of exercise to music. Consequently, it is probably

better to refer to plyometric action as " stretch-shortening action " , as has

been done in much of the scientific literature, and to redefine " plyometrics "

as a specific training system in its own right, or, " powermetrics. " >

Why they simply did not quote the original source eludes me!

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

Let us move on a little and see how Speed Quest defines " biomechanics " on the

same page:

" Biomechanics - most efficient movement skills possible to produce and

generate force. These can be general or sport specific. "

This is definitely NOT " biomechanics " . No wonder they appear to have

problem in defining " powermetrics " correctly - they cannot even define with

modest accuracy a very fundamental discipline in exercise science, yet their

website describes them as experts.

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

Here is their definition of " impulse " , which is a very specific term that is

used in mechanics and which we have discussed in earlier letters. It refers

to the action of a very large force over an extremely small time interval and

its definition is derived from the differential form of Newton II, namely F

= M.dv/dt, so that M.dv = F.dt, where the product F.dt is called the

" impulse. "

Impulse - the moment of change of muscle contraction from eccentric to

concentric or the reverse.

This is another guru " howler " to assume a worthy place of dishonour beside a

host of " school howlers " that the English have been collecting for many

years. What on earth is meant by " the moment of change of muscle

contraction " ??

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

This is what their website says about themselves:

<http://www.speedquest.net/aboutus.html>

<Speed Quest exists to provide coaches and athletes with the most cutting

edge training information available. Our work with Professional and Olympic

programs helps us develop and continually improve the strength of our

training methods and the integrity of our information. As we mesh our

expertise in the field of speed and movement training with the sport-specific

needs of the elite athlete, the combination is a powerful and well-equipped

player....>

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

Oh and yes, I have already contacted the group concerned to correct the

misuse of my term!

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

Supertraining/