Strength Training versus Biomechanics?

[Guest guest]

Scherger wrote:

Damien you are obviously well educated and avid proponent of

Progressive Muscle Overload Training (PMOT). Where as I am

Biomechanics orientated. Looking at the musculoskeletal system as

machinery, I am proponent of Mechanical Advantage training first

(especially as how spinal postures produce good to poor mechanical

advantage) and once all parts of machinery our what they should be

then for icing on cake do PMOT.

Casler writes:

Again , there is no such " Science " as your termed Progressive Muscle

Overload Training (PMOT).

In fact, the term itself is worded in such a strange way as to make one

wonder what you are trying to imply.

Why don't you simply call it " Strength Training " like we all do?

Scherger wrote:

But this is the point that PMOT stops. It does not proceed to the

next logical leverage physics step leading to understanding

mechanical advantage, the next step of resolving the Force of

resistance with the force of effort to discover their resultant

force and how the resultant force is impacting the tissues of the

joint. Solving for the resultant force or true resistance arm leads

to sovling for equilibrium of translation.

Casler writes:

And this is where you miss the boat in your simple " invitro analysis " of

force mechanics.

Scherger wrote:

You stated my reasoning just does not have application when looking at the

body as a whole. To this statement of yours I would just say to the PMOT

person this would appear babble but not to biomechanics

person. And the PMOT does not look beyond the body as whole but

stops at muscle only in the examination of the all the tissue

invovled in the muscle-bone-joint movement.

Casler write:

This is incorrect. Strength Training observes all the forces at play in its

applications.

Scherger wrote:

But lets us examine further. I stated: Because PMOT does not

consider translation they say things like " Strong muscles make the

joint Strong " " Strong muscles take the

stress of the joint " . Because they only look at equilibrium of

torque and not translation they do not realize the statements they

ake like the ones above are not true.

Casler writes:

your characterization is incorrect, as well as your assertion. Muscle

actions DO offer joint support. Just examine the knee joint, and you will

see that most of the ligaments are " tensioned and supportive " as the knee is

straight, and become more lax as the knee is flexed.

In sport, when the knee is straight (as in standing around) the muscle

produce the least stabilizing force. But, as the athlete begins to cut,

run, and crouch, the tensions of the muscles work in a modulated synergy to

offer the best combination of stabilization and joint freedom.

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