HIT for professional atheletes

[Guest guest]

So, I guess we should inform the Carolina Panthers, Tampa Bay

Buccaneers and the Oakland Raiders that they have been employing

outdated methods for their professional atheletes since they utilize

various forms of HIT training, and those are only a few. I guess

that the Bucs can give back their super bowl win and the Panthers can

give back their NFC title. Also, now that I think of it, how is it

possible for two of these teams to become champions if their methods

are so outdated?

[As mentioned in previous posts on this topic, there are a number of factors

that go into the success or failure of an individual or team. Although training

is a component of success, success is also determined by such things as

financial support for the teams, the skills and personalities of the coaching

staff, team culture, quality of the prospects, etc. Therefore, it is impossible

to say that one factor (training program) is THE principal component in their

success, since even sub-standard training methods may be overcome by excellence

in other areas. As a small example, when interviewed after winning a

championship, many athletes will attribute their success to their faith in God,

their coach, family and/or their teammates. -JRG, ST Co-Moderator]

If you would like a list of some colleges that employ similar methods I would be

willing to provide that as well if some of you truly feel that what they did in

college is what made them " great " negating that they are no longer in college.

[if they are still great after college and now no longer using HIT, then you

have just invalidated your own argument. If you are going to provide any

further information of this sort, please also include those athletes who fall

into this category. -JRG]

Also, while I am doing this bit of research would one or more of you care to

provide me with just how much faster our atheletes are today as opposed to say,

10 years ago, 15 years ago and 20 years ago, and while you are at it give me a

measure of just how much more " explosive " our professional football players, but

please refer to the teams that employ more " efficient " methods of training.

[Again referring back to this issue that this sort of cause-and-effect rationale

is frought with confounding variables and is hardly systematic (in fact, it

isn't at all), how would you be able to tell whether improvements in sports

performances were a result of training, or nutrition, or better equipment or

playing surfaces, or even that athletes started the sport at an earlier age and

are coming to college as better players to begin with? The best way to

systematically evaluate the effect of training method/mode is through scientific

investigation, which has clearly shown that explosive training has a clear

advantage over HIT style training in terms of power output, and rate of force

development - two qualities that are very important in sports such as football.

ST members may be interested in evidence-based articles by ST list members such

as Mr. Plisk, and researchers including Dr. Mike Stone, Ph.D. -JRG]

Thanks,

Mike Scarborough

Knoxville TN

[Guest guest]

---

Hi !

I would first like to applaud your and 's efforts in keeping

Supertraining alive. Granted it will never be the same without

Mel's massive contributions but we must press on.

Second I have been viewing the dialogue with Mr. Scarborough with

some interest. Generally I try to stay above such diatribes as from

past experience I find they serve no good purpose. However given my

personal and professional relationships with Mike Stone and Steve

Plisk and my involvement with the NSCA ( past president ) I will go

on the record.

Mike Stone and Steve Plisk are both " pieces of work, " in the finest

since of the phrase. While I may not always agree with them on

every topic thier personal and professional integrity is beyond

reproach. If a problem exists with any of their researach they

would be the first to want it brought to their attention.

Arthur has been involved with research. He was a co-author

on a few papers with the late Dr. Mike Pollack that involved single

set versus multiple set training and low back training that appeared

in MSSE 10-12 years ago. Most of this research was funded by MedX, a

company in which Mr. had a financial interest. Since that

time a number of papers have been published indicating that multiple

set training is superior to single set training in both novice and

especially advanced trainees. I have an article coming up in the

next issue of Pure Power Mag detailing this research. I would agree

that HIT style training has not been fully investigated however the

question of single set versus multiple set training has been

seriously explored.

The NSCA is not a perfect organization. It has grown enourmously

over the past ten years ( currently 30 K members ) and with that

growth comes some pains. The cost of everything is going up. Costs

to publish journals, build a multi-purpose building, hire additional

staff and retain current staff, and so forth. While $110.00 may

seem steep I currently pay nearly $200.00 for membership in ACSM and

over $200.00 for NATA. Just a subscription to the American Journal

of Sports Medicine costs around $150.00/year for only six issues. I

have not noticed the price of much anything going down. More than

the increase in membership cost I am distressed that could not

get anyone at the national office to explain this to her.

With respect to certifications exams again the NSCA is not perfect.

We are constantly revising the exams as new research becomes

available. The practical section is difficult to devise. Critics

have always wanted a demonstration type of section where candidates

do snatches, swiss ball exercises, ect.. I currently know of no

exam that actually does this and to do so would require a great deal

of equipment on hand and numerous trained and paid examiners to

judge the lifts. It could be done but at a cost that would make the

exam significantly more expensive. What would be accomplished?

Does my ability to do an overhead squat translate to my ability to

teach someone else to do one? Then do we critique teaching styles?

Does a from the ground approach to teaching cleans have more merit

that from the top approach? Belive me we have discussed these

issues at length for many years. We have found the video to be a

good discriminator for practical ability and are expanding that

section to make the exam a more practical applied test. Finally

remember the exam is to identify " minimally " qualified individuals

not the " elite " of the profession.

Lastly I would like to echo others in advising everyone to keep

their posts civil. Boorish behavior has no place in " Socratic "

type debates. Lets keep to the facts and keep personalities out of

this forum.

Best wishes!

Dan Wathen,

Youngstown (OH) State University

[Guest guest]

R. Gray wrote:

>>>I have yet to see ANY research conducted by the man (ARTHUR

JONES), unless his name has not appeared on the list of authors but

only in the acknowledgements. In the interests of open discussion,

then, why don't you provide us with some of those references? Then

we can discuss his work in an open forum.<<<<

If I remember rightly ' name appears on about 3-5 published

studies between 1988 and 1990. For example, Pollock et. Al.

(1990). " Effect of training frequency and specificity on

isometric lumbar extension strength " . SPINE and Pollock et. Al.

(1989). " Effect of resistance training on lumbar extension

strength " . AOSSM – though they may be the same research

rewritten, I'm not sure.

Try this link to find more if you want:

http://www.corespinalfitness.com/research/index.php

However, following this initial research deliberately avoided

being connected with any further research because he wanted MedX

technology to be accepted among the medical community and felt his

name alone would alienate certain populations (people familiar with

Mel Siff's work for starters) and prevent them from objectively

reviewing the literate based on its merits. Personally I think this

was a wise decision!

, I am surprised you are not familiar with this research since

your signature suggests you are studying for a PhD in biomechanics

of the spine, though perhaps you haven't finished conducting your

preliminary literature search quite yet.

Other research conducted by at Nautilus was not published in

peer reviewed literature or not published at all because he did not

trust the methods used to collect data (hence his research into

tools to test functional ability culminating in the invention of

MedX testing equipment which could provide consistent and reliable

results).

Happy debating,

Greg Haroldson

Brighton

UK