RE: Strength Training versus Biomechanics?

[Guest guest]

It appears that we are arguing that apples are red and oranges are orange. I

really do not see the point of contention. I'm sorry, but it just seems like

arguing for the sake of arguing.

With proper posture/form, forces on the joints/bones are minimized. Is this

really newsworthy? Does anyone really believe that proper posture eliminates

the need for strength training?

Is there really any argument that muscles produce force, and joints

redirect/multiply/reduce said force? That 220 lbs balanced on either side of a

teeter-totter produces 440 lbs at the fulcrum? or that 220 lbs on one side, and

880 lbs on the other side, but 4 times closer to the fulcrum, will not balance

and will not produce 1100 lbs at the fulcrum?

Is there really any argument that it is harder to squat 400 lbs if you hold it

straight out in front of you rather than supporting it on your traps/rear delts?

That having the weight out away from the joint (any joint) requires more

offsetting force and also produces more force at the joint is all basic

physics/mechanics. And damn impressive, if someone could do it.

I'm just wondering how I can realign my pecs/triceps relative to my

shoulder/elbow so that I can bench more. Or when I deadlift, how can I get the

bar any closer to my L5? Many years ago, finding the " right " position on my

traps/delts in the back squat added an instant 50lbs...but I still have to train

week in and week out to get stronger. In the drop catch example, I would think

the OLY lifter would catch the weight as close to the body as possible, to

minimize the leverage on the joints, maximizing the force capacity of the

muscles.

I will ignorantly contend that the body naturally tries to put itself in its

most efficient position to lift a given weight, according to the strength of its

muscles. Obviously technique helps, and that's why I used the term " tries "

because the body doesn't always get it right. Once it is " right " though, is it

enough?

I don't usually use all the fancy initials behind my name, but this time I will.

Brett , PE (licensed mechanical engineer)

Draper, UT

________________________________

================================

Scherger wrote:

''Damien you then stated: you, john, really are the one who does not

realize the truth. The strength of a muscle does absorb force. Why

not ask one of the OLY lifters you have worked with how much force

they absorb when in the catch position of the clean.

, try this experiment. Load an olympic bar with 220lbs and do a

drop catch with it, see if you can absorb that amount of force

without the necessary muscle. Please make sure you maintain your

pelvic and superior spinal position as you seem to feel this is all

that is necessary.''

Damien lets examine this a further. The biomechanics physics study

of the musculoskeletal system as to how muscle would stop the 22O

lbs of force is termed the study of concurrent forces. Concurrent

as in the two forces acting upon the lever system, as in one is the

resistance and one is the effort.

Lets take the fifth lumbar sitting on sacrum of the pelvis. The 220

lbs is falling in front of the 5th lumbar, catching this force in

front of the body would cause the body to go into forward flexion or

cause the 5th lumbar to flex forward on sacrum, unless a muscle

effort was applied on the posterior portion portion of 5th and

sacrum. You state that the muscles that cross from the fifth lumbar

to the sacrum must absorb the force of the 220lbs.

Casler writes:

That is incorrect. A falling 220# body has greater force than 220#.

Additionally through the levered system, it is also amplified. And I might

have missed it, but I didn't see Damien state that the " muscles that cross

from the fifth lumbar

to the sacrum must absorb the force of the 220lbs " .

I think Damien recognizes that in addition to the spinal extensors, and the

discs, each and every structure " anterior " to the spine, to the outer layer

of the abdominal muscles has a possible role to play in managing that force.

Somehow, you seem unaware of the rest of the TORSO!!

Scherger wrote:

This is not real, the muscles in question produce a force (effort)

that is opposite the 220lbs of force. Its force against force. Not

force against absorbtion. If someone one was contracting the

muscles across posterior part of L5 and sacrum so the body was

extending at that joint and some one dropped 220 lbs in front of the

person and they caught it so they did not bend backwards but were

pulled back upright you would not say the 220lbs absorbed the muscle

force causing the extension.

Casler writes:

Again your total negligence of all the structures and functional systems of

the torso, cause you to loose understanding. The spine and its discs, are

not working in a vacuum.

Scherger wrote:

Absorption is essentially the transfer of force to matter. The

force of the 220 lbs is not transferring force to the muscle. The

muscle is producing its own force. What is transferring is the

force of the muscle effort and the 220lbs into physical matter of

the joint tissue. The tissue of the joint (disc, facets) absorbs

the force.

Casler write:

It is of no matter to an external force, if the " opposing forces " are from

the elastic properties of tissues or produced by muscle action, or as in

most cases, BOTH.

Scherger wrote:

Two people are sitting on teeter totter. The 220 lbs person on left

side creates a force that would cause the tetter totter to rotate in

the direction of their force. A person gets on the right hand side

of teeter totter and their 220 lbs force is offsetting the 220 lbs

force of other person. Neither person is absorbing any force from

the other person. The thing having to absorb forces of the two

people being translated into it is the fulcrum point of the teeter

totter.

Casler writes:

I thought you were a physics teacher. If each party weighs 220#, they each

have 220# of force acting against them to create a balance.

Scherger wrote:

''Damien stated: , do you understand that it is muscle that

produce motion or force and also that the muscle holds the posture.

Damien of course I understand this, I am producing here the physics

explanation and language (equilibrium of torque) of how it does it.

Casler writes:

No, you are not. You are using simple " Stick Figure, Erector Set Physics "

which is not valuable, or applicable, in real Biomechanics.

Scherger wrote:

Damien in pro football the hierarchy of physical talent is

flexibility first, endurance second and strength last. Relative to

my working with NFL and spinal training and the spine being a lever

machine we will examine this heirarchy.

Better mechanical advantage means that our guy doing same task as

opponent will be creating less forces into his discs that has to be

absorbed. Less compression means that joint is more flexible.

Compression is force that at joint locks it up like the force of

vice locks up material. It also means our guy will have less discs

injuries and therefore less pain.

Casler writes:

I fail to recognize that all the other NFL players except the ones trained

by you, are postural " messes " .

Scherger wrote:

As biomechanical thinking process we were develop the applied

training and treatment procedures for spinal posture, for putting on

field the guy with the best mechanical advantage.

This is how we progressed passed PMOS to biomechanical training.

Scherger

Ridgefield WA

Casler writes:

Sorry , but I don't think you are convincing too many with this

" strange " viewpoint.

I don't think anyone can or will argue that one of the most important areas

of sport, is to apply the most effective dynamic actions. I just feel that

you have gone a bit astray in thinking that we as a whole have not

recognized this area.

It is NOT a matter of Strength, or Posture. It is an effective application

of each.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

============