Re: Vertical Shin Squats on Heels?

[Guest guest]

Mims wrote

> > > On the vertical shins statement, I believe it is best

> > > to try and keep them vertical, even though it is

> > > really impossible. This is a coaching point that

> > > keeps the athlete back on their heels.

Casler writes:

> > Yes, as Mel pointed out, it is totally impossible to perform a

> >regular squat with vertical shins. Can you explain why you feel there is some

> > advantage to keeping the athlete " back on their heels " ?

> >

> > I regularly hear recommendations to keep the knee over the ankle

> >(which is impossible) and squat on the heels and for the life of me cannot

> >understand where this comes from.

> >

> > It would seem that for balance, stability and efficient biomechanics, one

> > would maintain balanced weight distribution on the foot based on

> > combined joint angles and COG.

> >

> > Would you mind explaining what you coach that would benefit from

> > this advice. What specifically might this produce as far as results or

advantages?

Lépine writes:

> So then, if one is careful to keep the " line of action " over the

> heels, nothing is to be considered wrong with having the knees go

> over the feet? I understand of course that this is natural when

> doing a full squat, but what is the exact argument I could use to

> show that there's also nothing wrong with the knees going over the

> feet even in lesser deep squats say, down to parallel? (I got into an

> argument over that the other day with a " personal trainer " at the gym...).

>

> Also, I know there is no arbitrary limit set on that but how much

> bending at the waist or how much " knees over the feet " could be

> considered too much (if there is such a thing...)? I've never had

> back or knee problems in training with weights and playing

> competitive basketball in over 15 years, and although this is no

> proof that what I'm doing is OK, I don't really see any need to

> worry. Come to think of it, doesn't the knee go over the foot in

> many everyday sporting movements such as running and

> jumping...

,

If you can't understand having more weight on the

heels than the the toes when you squat, you can't do a

below parallel squat with very much weight. Everyone

knows the knees stay over the feet and the shins are

therefore close to vertical. Are you a strength

coach?

I'm 38 and squat 500 drug-free at 170 lbs. without a

belt, suit, or wraps.

[if you study film of all weightlifters you will be hard pressed to

find a single one whose knees stay over the feet. This is virtually

impossible for a full squat. So, when you write " over the feet " , do you

really mean that the knees go beyond the toes during the lowest phase

of the squat? Incidentally, force plate measurements taken during the

squat do not show that there is a major relocation of loading to the heel

during all stages of the squat. If you believe that involvement of the foot

beyond the ball of the foot is irrelevant, try curling your toes and balls of

your feet up as hard as you can and see how well you squat. Mel Siff]

Mims

Dothan, AL

[Guest guest]

Mims wrote

> On the vertical shins statement, I believe it is best

> to try and keep them vertical, even though it is

> really impossible.

Casler wrote:

<Yes, it is totally impossible to perform a regular squat with vertical

shins. Can you explain why you feel there is some advantage to

keeping the athlete " back on their heels " ?

I regularly hear recommendations to keep the knee (directly) over the ankle

(which is impossible) and squat on the heels and for the life of me cannot

understand where this comes from.

It would seem that for balance, stability and efficient

biomechanics, one would maintain balanced weight distribution on the foot

based on combined joint angles and COG.>

wrote:

<So then, if one is careful to keep the " line of action " over the

heels, nothing is to be considered wrong with having the knees go

over the feet? I understand of course that this is natural when

doing a full squat, but what is the exact argument I could use to

show that there's also nothing wrong with the knees going over the

feet even in lesser deep squats say, down to parallel? (I got into an

argument over that the other day with a " personal trainer " at the gym...).>

Casler writes:

Firstly, this terminology is always confusing and I find many trainers and

exercise class teachers perpetuate this confusion. If your feet are on the

floor and you are standing then your knees are always in a relationship

above or over your feet. The assertion is somewhat meaningless, in that the

physical angles of a system of folding levers (ankles, knees, hip) cannot

maintain that kind of relationship during a squat.

Only when the knee is straight are they " directly " over the ankles and that

is also the ONLY time the shins can be " vertical " . At the moment you begin

a squat the joints involved must change their angles and relationship. As

these angular changes are taking place, the position of the joints

themselves relative to the other joints change. If the letter " I "

represents the beginning and end of a squat and the letter Z represents the

actions in between it is quite easy to see that joint and bone angles are

changing.

The assertion that there is some way to, (or for that matter, some reason

to) keep the knees in a " constant " relationship directly over the

feet/ankles has no value and furthermore is impossible.

I think the goal here is to provide a visualization for those who might lean

forward to much or have trouble maintaining COG (center of gravity) within a

biomechanically effective position.

I would challenge anyone to perform a regular full squat and " not " have the

knees move forward at all in relation to the feet/ankles. For this to happen

the

ankle joint angle cannot change. So maybe you can ask your trainer to 1)

explain just what advantage or gain can be realized and why the perfectly

natural biomechanical action should not be realized, and 2) to demonstrate a

how to perform a squat of any kind without changing the angle of the ankle,

which is the only way to keep the knee from moving forward and the shins

vertical.

Lépine wrote:

<Also, I know there is no arbitrary limit set on that but how much

bending at the waist or how much " knees over the feet " could be

considered too much (if there is such a thing...)? I've never had

back or knee problems in training with weights and playing

competitive basketball in over 15 years, and although this is no

proof that what I'm doing is OK, I don't really see any need to

worry. Come to think of it, doesn't the knee go over the foot in

many everyday sporting movements such as running and jumping...>

Casler writes:

Right you are , the amount of change of specific joint angle and their

" spatial " relationships is dependent on many factors (COG, ROM, load, body

position, force to load requirement, etc, etc)

Let me assure you, if you are standing, your knees are " always " over your

feet/ankles but not always " directly " over and I have yet to see any

compelling evidence to suggest that this is valuable or possible.

In the squat, the main concern should be efficient muscle/joint biomechanics

and Center of Gravity in relationship to the force generation capabilities.

I never cease to wonder how these " knees cannot move forward " , " tuck your

hips " , " keep your back flat " ,(what does that mean?) or " suck your abs in " ,

get started, other than some use a " perception " of how it feels, rather than

the actual biomechanical action.

Regards,

A. Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

http://summitfitness.websitegalaxy.com/index.html

[Guest guest]

Mims wrote:

> On the vertical shins statement, I believe it is best

> to try and keep them vertical, even though it is

> really impossible. This is a coaching point that

> keeps the athlete back on their heels.>>

Casler:

> <Yes, as Mel pointed out, it is totally impossible to perform a

> regular squat with vertical shins. Can you explain why you feel there

> is some advantage to keeping the athlete " back on their heels " ?

>

> I regularly hear recommendations to keep the knee over the ankle

> (which is impossible) and squat on the heels and for the life of me

> cannot understand where this comes from.

>

> It would seem that for balance, stability and efficient biomechanics,

> one would maintain balanced weight distribution on the foot based on

> combined joint angles and COG.

>

> Would you mind explaining what you coach that would benefit from

> this advice. What specifically might this produce as far as results

> or advantages?>

Mims wrote:

> > ,

> >

> > If you can't understand having more weight on the

> > heels than the the toes when you squat, you can't do a

> > below parallel squat with very much weight. Everyone

> > knows the knees stay over the feet and the shins are

> > therefore close to vertical. Are you a strength

> > coach? I'm 38 and squat 500 drug-free at 170 lbs. without a

> > belt, suit, or wraps.

Casler writes:

> , Although I am impressed with your squatting abilities, I don't

> think they change the physics and biomechanics of the squat.

>

> I'm 53, lifetime drug free, and recently squatted 445 x 10 and 500 x 5

> without belt, suit or wraps (is this supposed to have some kind of

> significance?) Do either of these qualify me to " understand " ? I can assure

> you that I did not perform these squats on my heels " or " with perfectly

> vertical shins.

>

> You maybe could also clarify what you mean by " Everyone knows the knees stay

> over the feet " . I would have to agree that " if " we are in a standing

> position the knees are always " over " the feet to some degree, but somehow I

> don't think you are referring to this generalization. It is quite obvious

> that you have some type of " acceptable parameter " to this relationship and

> it seems to be " directly over " from what I gather.

>

> I would suggest that the statement to " have more weight on the heels "

> suggests that the COG is on the heels. It is not. In general it should

> always be over the ankle but in a dynamic action will move about depending

> on various forces. The perception that it is more on the heels is no more

> correct in a squat than any other activity.

>

> Obviously, as I mentioned, in a dynamic action such as a squat, the COG

> varies slightly, but the body positions that provide the most stability, and

> power ability will provide the best result. You seem to be asserting that

> vertical shins and weight on the heels provides this.

>

> But, you still have not explained " any " biomechanical advantage or purpose

> to " vertical shins " or COG on the heels. Why, do you feel this has

> advantages and what " specifically " are these advantages?

>

> And while you are at it, maybe you can explain how:

>

> 1) you can maintain near vertical shins, with dorsiflexion of the ankle during

> the squat (or do you squat without dosiflexion?)

>

> 2) how, if the knee and hip are flexed and the ankle is dorsi flexed, (as in

> a squat) the COG does not actually move slightly forward of the ankle

>

> I'm sure if you were to draw a " force " diagram you would see that the " line

> of force " from a barbell on your shoulders during a " normal " squat does not

> drop to your heels during much of the movement.

I learned my strength training techniques from the

Nebraska Cornhuskers. I think their record speaks for

itself. My statements are exactly how they teach it.

All I was trying to do was help a young man who

couldn't do a full squat.

[Maybe then you could refer 's analysis to some of those intrepid

Cornhuskers to let them explain the biomechanics involved and why

their methods may have produced some of the strongest lifters in the

world, especially in the full depth squat. Or even better, please send

me JPG photos of some of the Cornhuskers at the bottom of a loaded

full squat and I will place them in our photo Files for all list members

to judge for themselves. Mel Siff]

Mims

Dothan, AL

[Guest guest]

Mims writes:

> I learned my strength training techniques from the

> Nebraska Cornhuskers. I think their record speaks for

> itself. My statements are exactly how they teach it.

> All I was trying to do was help a young man who

> couldn't do a full squat.

### Of what record do you speak? There impressive record on the

Football field, or their impressive squatting record? If their players

all have impressive squats, then you perhaps have an argument, but

frankly there is no correlation between squatting strength and

performance on the field. Their football record is (as I'm sure anyone

knowledgeable of either strength training or football would attest) a

result of their football coaches and the preparation they provide.

Here at the University of Southern Mississippi we went to Nebraska and

played them a couple of years ago. ly our strength and

conditioning program is nothing to right home about. I have not seen

one athelte properly instructed on how to perform a powerclean (which

is the only olympic lift variation used). Yet we nearly left Nebraska

with a win because of our speed, because our staff recruits great

athletes. We lost because (A) we played at Nebraska (the importance

of playing on your home field cannot be understated), and ( Nebraska

was a more talented football team. Not because they were better

squatters.....as I recall no one squatted during the game. But we

played them close enough that their own fans applauded us as we left

the field.

The ability to squat poundage has no correlation to on

field performance in any sport. Granted, in certain instances an

athelte may improve performance by increasing their squat, deadlift,

power snatch, lunge, chinning, or overhead pressing poundage as a

result of better strength, power, muscular endurance, etc. but unless

the exercise is directly used in the sport (e.g., powerlifting or

weightlifting) then it is only a means to *potentially* improve.

To quote Australian strength coach Ian King " ...the only sports where

training loads correlate with scoreboard success is the weightlifting

sports. The correlation to all other sports is non-existent. " I may

not agree with all of his training theory, but he hits the nail on the

head with that quote.

What could Jim Brown Squat? Probably not as much

as the weak lifters at Westside Barbell club, but he could run over

virtually anyone.....the same for Walter Payton.....how many times did

he run over Defensive Linemen and Linebackers that weighed between 230

and 270 pounds when he was barely 200? His predominant form of

training was running steps and bleachers. What about

Owens.....in college he broke 3 world records in 90 minutes, what was

his powerclean compared to today's track and field athletes? Granted

you could also ask what could it have been. But my point is.....A

great athlete does not a squat (or any other lift) make.

Todd

Hattiesburg, MS

[Guest guest]

--- todd137 <todd137@...> wrote:

> Mims writes:

>

> > I learned my strength training techniques from the

> > Nebraska Cornhuskers. I think their record speaks

> for

> > itself. My statements are exactly how they teach

> it.

> > All I was trying to do was help a young man who

> > couldn't do a full squat.

>

> ### Of what record do you speak? There impressive

> record on the

> Football field, or their impressive squatting

> record? If their players

> all have impressive squats, then you perhaps have an

> argument, but

> frankly there is no correlation between squatting

> strength and

> performance on the field. Their football record is

> (as I'm sure anyone

> knowledgeable of either strength training or

> football would attest) a

> result of their football coaches and the preparation

> they provide.

>

> Here at the University of Southern Mississippi we

> went to Nebraska and

> played them a couple of years ago. ly our

> strength and

> conditioning program is nothing to right home about.

> I have not seen

> one athelte properly instructed on how to perform a

> powerclean (which

> is the only olympic lift variation used). Yet we

> nearly left Nebraska

> with a win because of our speed, because our staff

> recruits great

> athletes. We lost because (A) we played at Nebraska

> (the importance

> of playing on your home field cannot be

> understated), and ( Nebraska

> was a more talented football team. Not because they

> were better

> squatters.....as I recall no one squatted during the

> game. But we

> played them close enough that their own fans

> applauded us as we left

> the field.

>

> The ability to squat poundage has no correlation to

> on

> field performance in any sport. Granted, in certain

> instances an

> athelte may improve performance by increasing their

> squat, deadlift,

> power snatch, lunge, chinning, or overhead pressing

> poundage as a

> result of better strength, power, muscular

> endurance, etc. but unless

> the exercise is directly used in the sport (e.g.,

> powerlifting or

> weightlifting) then it is only a means to

> *potentially* improve.

>

> To quote Australian strength coach Ian King " ...the

> only sports where

> training loads correlate with scoreboard success is

> the weightlifting

> sports. The correlation to all other sports is

> non-existent. " I may

> not agree with all of his training theory, but he

> hits the nail on the

> head with that quote.

>

> What could Jim Brown Squat? Probably not as much

> as the weak lifters at Westside Barbell club, but he

> could run over

> virtually anyone.....the same for Walter

> Payton.....how many times did

> he run over Defensive Linemen and Linebackers that

> weighed between 230

> and 270 pounds when he was barely 200? His

> predominant form of

> training was running steps and bleachers. What about

>

> Owens.....in college he broke 3 world records in 90

> minutes, what was

> his powerclean compared to today's track and field

> athletes? Granted

> you could also ask what could it have been. But my

> point is.....A

> great athlete does not a squat (or any other lift)

> make.

>

> Todd

> Hattiesburg, MS

> Todd,

In the coaching world Nebraska is regarded as having

the best strength and conditioning program in the

nation. Ask your coaches if you don't believe me.

Everybody tries to mimmick them to some degree. I

understand that great lifters are not necessarily

great football players, but it damn sure can't hurt.

Mims

Dothan, AL

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Mims wrote...

<<,

If you can't understand having more weight on the

heels than the the toes when you squat, you can't do a

below parallel squat with very much weight. Everyone

knows the knees stay over the feet and the shins are

therefore close to vertical. Are you a strength

coach?

I'm 38 and squat 500 drug-free at 170 lbs. without a

belt, suit, or wraps.>>

,

If you have ever seen a weightlifter (Olympic lifter) train in the squat,

you'd quickly notice that their shins are nowhere near vertical. I have a

picture of Mark Huster cleaning 215kg in my weight room, and his knees are

well in front of his toes, and his shins are nowhere near vertical.

Personally, I never feel like I have most of the weight on my heels. In

fact, I feel like I'm applying a large portion of the pressure through the

balls of my feet when I squat. Oh yeah, FWIW, I am a strength coach and I

squat below parallel.

Burkhardt

Strength Coach

Irvine, CA

[Guest guest]

Re: Vertical Shin Squats on Heels?

Mims wrote:

I learned my strength training techniques from the

Nebraska Cornhuskers. I think their record speaks for

itself. My statements are exactly how they teach it.

All I was trying to do was help a young man who

couldn't do a full squat.

Mel Siff wrote:

[Maybe then you could refer 's analysis to some of those intrepid

Cornhuskers to let them explain the biomechanics involved and why

their methods may have produced some of the strongest lifters in the

world, especially in the full depth squat. Or even better, please send

me JPG photos of some of the Cornhuskers at the bottom of a loaded

full squat and I will place them in our photo Files for all list members

to judge for themselves.]

Casler writes:

, I felt that your assertions were of that type. I know that over

the years we all have had various types of explanation, education,

guidance and experiences from a wealth of different sources. Some of

these " building blocks " of our present awareness are strong and stand

any type of scrutiny, others are wafer thin and soon crumble to dust.

Of course it is difficult to argue with results, but the " stimulus " to

the response may be unknown or misunderstood. That means that we should

still provide a questioning look at the " cause " of any result we may

obtain, observe or be informed of. Our field is fraught with " beliefs " ,

theories and assumptions that have yet to be proven. This list and

others like it, offer a wealth of opinion and experience, as well as

reports on research and established theory from the learned and the

novice.

It also offers a " sounding board " to question and analyze the

perceptions and beliefs of others. This is a " digestive " process. We

need to " chew " on some of the tougher parts in order for them to be

digested and assimilated into our own systems. Our maps are constantly

changing and being re-drawn.

For literally years, I advised against holding one's breath at any time

during exercise. Now I know that controlled intra-thoracic pressure is

a valuable function in many actions and explain it as such. There are

NO absolutes!

Only recently we saw a thread that listed myths in bodybuilding in a

tongue in cheek manner. We have to realize that " all " strength sports

are still in their infancy and as far as scientific conciliation there

are large gaps between the practitioners/coaches and the

researchers/scientist.

I trust my questioning was not too contentious, but as information is

passed that does not coincide with my own awareness I tend to question

it. In some instances it is a matter of clarification, in others the

information itself is inaccurate. It only makes sense to explore the

meaning and assess its validity and value.

Next time I see Boyd, I'll ask him to demonstrate a " vertical shin "

squat.

Thanks for the exchange.

Regards,

A. Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

http://summitfitness.websitegalaxy.com/index.html

[Guest guest]

OOOH, I know I'll just get another ribbing for getting into this one but

I just have to. This is something that was directly discussed by Dave

Tate.

First, you can't compare olympic style squats to powerlifting squats.

The goal of the first (in a nutshell) is to get as low as possible. The

goal of the other is to squat as much weight as possible to just below

parallel. Dave said (even though this is absolutely obvious to me, I'm

only saying this so I don't get harassed for more " scientific proof " , if

you want proof, go talk to Dave) that hamstrings, glutes and lower back

is what squats, not quadriceps.

Take two elite heavyweights from both sports. How much can the elite heavies in

OL squat? Maybe 500? 600-700

at best? Then you have 1000 lb squatting powerlifters. The powerlifter

can do the 600 olympic squat easily. Vice versa? I don't think so.

Keeping the shins vertical and leaning forward stresses the powerlifting

muscles (which is 100% possible, I can send you a video of me doing it,

or better yet, buy Westside's squatting tape and see the big guns do it,

some to WELL below parallel). That, along with a wide stance makes it

tough to go down below parallel. This is exactly what is desired for

powerlifting but is unacceptable for olympic lifting. Letting your knees

come forward and stressing the quads for maximal loads is also dangerous

for your patella tendons.

[Clinical findings do not find a higher incidence of patellar tendon or ligament

damage among Olympic weightlifters. Mel Siff]

Dmitry Voronov

Ontario, Canada

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

Mims wrote...

<<,

If you can't understand having more weight on the

heels than the the toes when you squat, you can't do a

below parallel squat with very much weight. Everyone

knows the knees stay over the feet and the shins are

therefore close to vertical. Are you a strength

coach?

I'm 38 and squat 500 drug-free at 170 lbs. without a

belt, suit, or wraps.>>

,

If you have ever seen a weightlifter (Olympic lifter) train in the

squat,

you'd quickly notice that their shins are nowhere near vertical. I

have a

picture of Mark Huster cleaning 215kg in my weight room, and his knees

are

well in front of his toes, and his shins are nowhere near vertical.

Personally, I never feel like I have most of the weight on my heels.

In

fact, I feel like I'm applying a large portion of the pressure through

the

balls of my feet when I squat. Oh yeah, FWIW, I am a strength coach

and I

squat below parallel.

Burkhardt

Strength Coach

Irvine, CA

[Guest guest]

> Take two elite heavyweights from both sports. How much can the elite

heavies in OL squat? Maybe 500? 600-700

>

Dimas [85kg] best back is 320kg.

Rigert front squatted 300kg at 90kg bodyweight.

big weights, considering they are not training for the squat per se.

Mooloolaba Aust.

[Guest guest]

Dmitry Voronov wrote: This is exactly what is desired for

> powerlifting but is unacceptable for olympic lifting. Letting your

knees

> come forward and stressing the quads for maximal loads is also

dangerous

> for your patella tendons.

>

> [Clinical findings do not find a higher incidence of patellar tendon

or ligament

> damage among Olympic weightlifters. Mel Siff]

>

### And to add to that, I've found from an empirircal standpoint that

the full squat (which so many declare is dangerous for the knees;

though this has been discussed extensively previously on the list) is

one of the best ways to ensure proper patellar tracking and correct

incorrect patellar tracking. I've personally seen it cure patellar

tendonitis in over 75 athletes in under three weeks of use, after

traditional methods of treating the problem had failed.

Todd

Hattiesburg, MS

[Guest guest]

Yep, I agree completely. I actually wanted to say that when this thread

first began. In his comments, Dr Siff sounded like he was assuming

everyone who squats does it with an OL stance and posture. In that case,

I agree that it is next to impossible to have vertical shins unless you

have abnormally short femurs and/or you are bending over almost parallel

to the floor. The powerlifting squat probably has very little real world

application (who runs or jumps while doing the splits?) other than

moving the most weight possible.

By the way, about the bench grip, that's exactly what I was saying. It

feels more natural. For someone who really wants to tuck their elbows in

(strong triceps - or in your case, while doing close grip bench) when

benching, it will be even more so. I never said anything about the thumb

being related to tricep recruitment or anything of that sort which is

how Dr Siff made it seem.

Dmitry Voronov

Ontario, Canada

Re: Vertical Shin Squats on Heels?

Dmitry Voronov wrote:

OOOH, I know I'll just get another ribbing for getting into this one

but

I just have to. This is something that was directly discussed by Dave

Tate.

<snip> Dave said (even though this is absolutely obvious to me, I'm

only saying this so I don't get harassed for more " scientific proof " ,

if

you want proof, go talk to Dave) that hamstrings, glutes and lower

back

is what squats, not quadriceps.

<snip>Keeping the shins vertical and leaning forward stresses the

powerlifting

muscles (which is 100% possible, I can send you a video of me doing

it,

or better yet, buy Westside's squatting tape and see the big guns do

it,

some to WELL below parallel). That, along with a wide stance makes it

tough to go down below parallel.

Casler writes:

I think we must acknowledge that a very specific " powerlifitng " super

wide, stance can allow the shins to remain totally vertical since the

wide stance puts the ankle well into plantar flexion before the lift

begins.. This stance however should be specific to the sport of

powerlifting and has less value in a general or sports conditioning

application. There are very few sports that place one in such a wide

stance for a dynamic or even a static application.

In giving advice for specific exercises I think we might be best

served

if we include our " biases " or proclivities. The strength sports may

in

some instances have exercise performance specifics that are less

applicable to general training or sports conditioning. Then on the

other hand, some are " VERY " applicable.

By the way Dmitry, I prefer to do " my " Close grip Bench Presses with a

" thumbless and fingerless " non-grip. That is it just rests on my

palms.

It is a " feel " thing. Anything wider that shoulder width however is

" full grip " . Go figure?

Regards,

A. Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

http://summitfitness.websitegalaxy.com/index.html

Modify or cancel your subscription here:

mygroups

Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence

if you

wish them to be published!

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry - could you explain the physics behind this? How can maximal

weights not mean maximal force? I understand how it doesn't necessarily

mean peak power or RATE of force development.

[Apply Newton II, where force F = Mass x acceleration. Even with a

modest load and a great acceleration, the force and the RFD (and " jerk " ,

or the rate of change of acceleration) can be very large indeed. Power is the

time rate of doing work, so if you move a heavy load slowly, the peak and mean

power generated may be quite modest compared with the power output during

far more explosive actions with lighter loads. There is plenty of information on

this in

" Supertraining " and many letters in our archives on this topic. Mel Siff]

On the second comment - I said:

" ...he said he has read research that found steroids making ligament

tissue brittle. But if I remember correctly, you said you weren't aware

of any such findings. "

Then you said:

" Your recollections are totally incorrect " ... " if someone stated that

steroids made tissues " brittle " I definitely would state that

histological analysis has not shown this to be true "

Ok so please explain how my " recollections are totally incorrect " . I

swear, lately it's like I'm talking to a wall. You don't read what I

write. Or maybe you just assume what I write is wrong.

[As I stated very explicitly before: " if you read various articles that I

have written on muscle and connective tissue ....... you will note that I cite

research

which suggests that steroid use may compromise the strength of the

musculotendinous

zone, possibly because connective tissue adapts more slowly to stress than

muscle

tissue. Anyway, if someone stated that steroids made tissues " brittle " I

definitely

would state that histological analysis has not shown this to be true, because

viscoelastic

soft tissues do not become " brittle " like solids. " Not so long ago I suggested

to another list

member to read more on the structure and function of connective tissues in texts

by Fung,

and el & Nordin. Dr Viidik has also written extensively on this topic, so

all I can do

is suggest that you also study more of this information to obtain the scientific

views of others.

I have also summarised a useful amount of this information in my " Supertraining

" book. Mel Siff]

Dmitry Voronov

Ontario, Canada

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

From: Dmitry Voronov

I find that very interesting. The comment about blown patellas comes

from Louie and he said it under the context that before the big switch

to wide, vertical shin squatting, he can't count how many times people

blew their patella tendons. No problems now. Matt Dimel blew both of

his. Louie I think said he blew both but it might have been just one,

I can't remember.

I suppose the reason Olympic lifters didn't see this is because they

probably don't spend nearly as much time under maximal weights (and

beyond maximal weights).

[Maximal weights do not necessarily mean maximal FORCE, and it is

force,

and RFD (Rate of Force Development) which are more fundamentally the

cause of overload injury. Biomechanical studies have shown that

greater

peak force, power and RFD occur in Weightlifting. Mel Siff]

Another possibility was a question I asked you a little while back

about

steroids and tendons. When I talked about this with my track coach, he

said he has read research that found steroids making ligament tissue

brittle. But if I remember correctly, you said you weren't aware of

any

such findings.

[Your recollections are totally incorrect - if you read various

articles that I

have written on muscle and connective tissue over the past 20 years,

you will note

that I cite research which suggests that steroid use may compromise

the strength

of the musculotendinous zone, possibly because connective tissue

adapts more

slowly to stress than muscle tissue. Anyway, if someone stated that

steroids made

tissues " brittle " I definitely would state that histological analysis

has not shown

this to be true, because viscoelastic soft tissues do not become

" brittle " like solids.

You coach was simply responding with the usual sort of popularised

answer. Mel Siff]

Dmitry Voronov

Ontario, Canada

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

Mel Siff:

<Clinical findings do not find a higher incidence of patellar tendon

or ligament damage among Olympic weightlifters. >

** Note very well that these clinical studies referred to

Weightlifters

and were published in World Weightlifting, the official IWF journal,

and

in International Olympic Lifter (IOL), not powerlifters.

[Guest guest]

Dr Siff:

<Apply Newton II, where force F = Mass x acceleration. Even with a

modest load and a great acceleration, the force and the RFD (and

" jerk " , or the rate of change of acceleration) can be very large indeed.

Power is the time rate of doing work, so if you move a heavy load slowly, the

peak

and mean power generated may be quite modest compared with the power output

during far more explosive actions with lighter loads. There is plenty of

information on this in " Supertraining " and many letters in our archives on this

topic. >

That's not what I asked though, sir. You said that maximal weight is

not necessarily maximal FORCE. I asked to see the physics behind this

(to which I'm not ignorant) because I've never studied anything that

could make any sense of this to me.

[Weight = M.g where g is the gravitational constant. My explanation could

not be clearer. Force is a function of mass and acceleration. So, if

acceleration

is very large, the resulting force produced by exercising with a submaximal load

can easily

be greater than the force produced by a maximal load being accelerated more

slowly.

If you do not understand this simple application of Newton' Second Law, I will

have to

leave it to other engineers or physicists on the list to help you. Mel Siff]

Dr Siff:

<As I stated very explicitly before: " if you read various articles that I

have written on muscle and connective tissue ....... you will note

that I cite research which suggests that steroid use may compromise the

strength of the

musculotendinous zone, possibly because connective tissue adapts more slowly to

stress

than muscle tissue. Anyway, if someone stated that steroids made tissues

" brittle " I definitely would state that histological analysis has not shown this

to be true,

because viscoelastic soft tissues do not become " brittle " like solids. " Not so

long ago I

suggested to another list member to read more on the structure and function of

connective

tissues in texts by Fung, and el & Nordin. Dr Viidik has also written

extensively on this

topic, so all I can do is suggest that you also study more of this information

to obtain the

scientific views of others. I have also summarised a useful amount of this

information in my

" Supertraining " book.>

That's not the point Dr Siff. I know most of the above because this is

what you said a while back when I asked the original question. What I'm

saying is this is another example of you saying I'm totally wrong when

you didn't read what I wrote. You said my " recollections are totally

incorrect " when in fact, they were 100% correct.

[Your response shows that you are more concerned about personal issues than

genuine learning. I can do more than summarise the scientific information with

which I am familiar and to suggest further reading, which I very much doubt you

have bothered to do. And if you knew " most of the above " , then there was no

need to

ask any questions, anyway. If it makes you happy, then you are 100% correct in

everything that you write and I, therefore, will not have to offer you any

further

comments or references. Pax vobiscum! MCS]

Dmitry Voronov

Ontario, Canada

[Guest guest]

Ken Vick:

<I mean to take nothing away from the Nebraska program or the

contributions made by Boyd Epley. Nebraska's marketing of its

program to high school athletes, coaches and programs has been done

very effectively. Good for them! Does that make it the " best " ? It

can be easily argued that the most important part of Nebraska's

success is recruiting superior athletes.

How does the perception of whats best by mostly amateur and

unknowledgable highs school coaches have to do with proper tecnique

and instruction ?

As someone earlier pointed out, many of these " technique points "

(i.e. vertical shins) may come more from corrective coaching cues

than proper biomechanical analysis.>

Ben Freeman reply:

*** Excellent points you make here, Ken, i.e. marketing and perceptions. In

our discussions regarding this thread we have unfortunately not raised the

points you have brought up here - thank you These are indeed very

important considerations when one perceives the S/C program at Nebraska to

be 'the best'.

I find it quite unfortunate that countless people 'gravitate' towards the

'best' xyz program/gyms/clubs because of marketing and/or perception rather

than finding out for yourself. However, I am sure as is often the case that

the 'real' program as you see is not realized until you have 'signed up' and

spent some time in the environment yourself. At this particular point, if

you find you are unhappy with the 'deal' you were 'sold', it is often

extremely difficult to get out and go elsewhere, usually because of some

financial commitment. A real shame I believe.

Perhaps I have touched on THE 'best' reason to have your own gym whereby you

are able to personalize the environment and not have to deal with all of

that marketing and image 'stuff' AAAGGGHHH

Ben Freeman

Melbourne, Australia

[Guest guest]

[Weight = M.g where g is the gravitational constant. My explanation

could

not be clearer. Force is a function of mass and acceleration. So, if

acceleration

is very large, the resulting force produced by exercising with a

submaximal load can easily

be greater than the force produced by a maximal load being

accelerated more slowly.

If you do not understand this simple application of Newton' Second

Law, I will have to

leave it to other engineers or physicists on the list to help you.

Mel Siff]

Actually, engineers wouldn't help too much because in the mathematical

world, that doesn't make any sense. An ideal mechanism capable of

producing force has a maximum. Mass and acceleration affect it equally.

So you either have maximal mass with minimal acceleration or vice versa.

The only thing I could see here is perhaps the human body is not ideal

and is capable of producing greater force dynamically. In other words,

static contraction is stronger than dynamic (which you haven't said, you

only referred to it in terms of pure application Newton's 2nd and with

regards to that, it makes no sense).

[Your response shows that you are more concerned about personal issues

than

genuine learning. I can do more than summarise the scientific

information with

which I am familiar and to suggest further reading, which I very much

doubt you

have bothered to do. And if you knew " most of the above " , then there

was no need to

ask any questions, anyway. If it makes you happy, then you are 100%

correct in

everything that you write and I, therefore, will not have to offer you

any further

comments or references. Pax vobiscum! MCS]

Ugh, see, you took it wrong again. This isn't what I said. I enjoy

genuine learning but the last few discussions have been genuine pains in

the neck. I know " most of the above " because you already said it when I

asked the question a few months ago. I only asked about the brittleness

issue because I wasn't sure if you said you knew any research supporting

it or not but if I remembered correctly, you didn't. This is what you

said in a nutshell: " you are totally wrong, I haven't read any research

supporting that " . That's genuine learning??? That's called " you're wrong

because I want you to be wrong " . I didn't point this out because I am

all that concerned about personal issues (I absorbed a lot of them from

you without a peep) or that I want to be 100% correct all the time. I

just want these discussions to be productive and I really don't

understand why you are giving me such a hard time. If you don't want to

answer any of my questions then just say so, you're not getting paid for

this so I'll understand.

I'm going back to University in a few days so I won't be able to

participate actively anymore and maybe it's for the best. I like reading

your posts but participating in discussions has not been the most

pleasant experience. Sidelines are safer in any sport.

Dmitry Voronov

Ontario, Canada