Re: Re: Comparison of MedX, back concept and other strengthening equipments

[Guest guest]

Jsscherger 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.

chiappini:

A strength coach who is worth anything views both aspects when working with a

client/athlete.

Jsscherger wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong but you agree with the mechanical rationale

that the muscles-bones- joints of the body are a lever system and

they produce force by the act of producing leverage. I think that

this is now common knowledge in strength and conditioning world.

Chiappini: Yes I agree that it is a lever system. The muscles produce force

that is transferred through the lever system to move, lift, run, talk, etc.

Jsscherger wrote:

Relative to the understanding of leverage the proof that muscle

effort is indeed required and to certain measured degree is found by

the application of equilibrium of torque to the musculoskeletal

system. Both PMOT and BM are subject to this physics. I stated

equilibrium of torque is a 2 step process. 1st requiring the

resistance force and then 2nd finding out the muscle force.

When you have the amount of resistance force you next in a

given " snap shot " (john Casler calls it snap shot which is a good as

any way I have heard it simply stated) find out the effective

resistance arm length, which is the perpendicular distance from the

line of action of the resistance back to the joint or fulcrum. Next

you determine which muscle or muscles is the supplying the force of

effort and find out their effective effort arm length. This is the

perpendicular distance back from its or their collective line of

effort to the joint or fulcrum. When you have these findings then

you apply the math to determine the muscle force requirement. When

you or anyone states that it takes muscle to produce force this is

the physics formulae used that demonstrates that indeed your are

telling the truth and that as lever machine it requires source of

force production (muscle).

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.

What the above means in the body is as far as finding the resultant

force it is how the force of resistance and force of effort combine

to create a force on the bone being the site of insertion of muscle

being forced back into the bone of site of origin of muscle. So if

you are doing leg extension for instance the resultant force will

reveal with how much force and its direction the lower leg is being

pulled back into the upper leg at their fulcurm point or knee joint.

As you examine further you will be able to determine how much the

lower leg articular surface is compressed into the articular surface

of the upper leg. Or how the much the lower leg is being sheared

away at the joint and must be stabilized by the ACL.

Chiappini:

I really do not feel that your example as it relates to your spinal view and

athletics fit. You can measure the forces over your lever arms and such but

you do not take into account the CONSTANT changes of mechanics that go on during

lifting or athletics. Casler put it very well when he stated that you have

an erector set view as to mechanics and that this does not fit the when applied

to the human body. Your example of a leg extension has many variables and forces

changes over the range of motion. It really is not a simple as you state.

Jsscherger wrote:

The first step revealed the muscle requirement for production of

force in the lever system. The second step reveals the requirement

of the joint (fulcrum) tissue to absorb or stabilize the forces

created by the muscle and resistance. Now you stated that I had no

idea about NFL football or trainers at that level, but the Olympic

and NFL trainers I worked with were not concerned at all with PMOT

they were concerned with " the safe absorption of forces by the joint

tissue " . They were not concerned with PMOT they were concerned

with no joint injuries.

Chiappini:

I questioned whether you have actually worked with any well conditioned athlete.

Are you actually trying to say that NFL and Olympic strength coaches are not

concerned with getting athletes stronger? While I am very aware that ALL good

strength coaches are concerned with reducing injuries. The increasing of

strength can effect the stability of a joint. You have to be kidding that they

had no concern with increasing an athletes strength. There are many factors to

look at when training an athlete and these factors are sport specific. The

Strength coach working in the NFL has many concerns. Strength, speed,

maintaining or increasing flexibility, conditioning and so forth. I think you

really are way off the mark with this assumption.

Jsscherger 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.

Chiappini: You are so completely off base with this comment. I would hope that

strength coaches and trainers would take offense to this.

Jsscherger 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.

Chiappini:

It is known that a stronger muscle can help to provide stability to a joint. It

is also known that the articulating surfaces do suffer wear and tear from

something as simple as walking. Please examine the joints of an over weight

individual whose body mass is made up mostly of fat. This population has a high

incidence of hip and knee problems. The same thing cannot be said for muscular

individuals. There was a study posted here quite a while back of olympic weight

lifters and they had no higher incidence of knee pain than the general

population, kind of throws of a lot of myths regarding weightlifting and knees.

I would also say that you would see no higher incidence of LBP or hip pain than

the general population. This then would also lead me to believe that being

bigger and stronger due to muscular hypertrophy would not impact the joints as

much as you seem to believe. It is also well known that bone density increases

with weightlifting this leads to stronger

bones.

Jsscherger 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.

chiappini:

I never said anything about the fifth lumbar to sacrum absorbing forces. Those

are your words.

Jsscherger 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.

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.

Chiappini:

You seem to be very focused on the L5 vertebrae and the sacrum in the drop catch

example. Do you actually look at the body as a whole? There are so many more

muscles involved in " transferring " this force than what you seem to think.

Jsscherger 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.

''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.

Damien you did the following abridge quote. Scherger stated <When

you build a lever machine you strive for the best mechanical

advantage. That means less muscle on you machine means you tire

less. It means less force required on all the parts the longer your

machines parts (discs etc) last.>

They you said the following: Where do you come up with this stuff?

The less muscle the less you tire??Have you ever actually worked

with a well conditioned athlete involved in a sport that requires

explosive strength, relative strength, absolute strength or

any degree of strength, size and conditioning? I can just imagine the

converstion between you and a NFL linebacker. You really do not need

to be big,strong and fast that will just tire you out faster. You

should just work on your pelvic tilt, this will provide you the

mechanical advantage that you need to absorb the impact from say a

315lb lineman. It is all in the leverage of your spine not the

muscle strength and size. (Damien just by your comments I can tell

you never talked with a pro football player, that actually

experienced the world of power you are trying to talk about)

chiappini:

Yes I have experience with pro football players. every thing on the field

of play is about leverage and the ability to transfer force. Your writings seem

to say that size and strength are not important and that just by having " your

idea of ideal spinal posture " that an individual can compete. You can have

your " idea of ideal posture " and when your athlete who is not concerned with

strength and size runs into the athlete who has a tremendous deadlift and squat

and maybe not your idea of ideal posture and they meet at the exact same angle

( no advantage of leverage) your guy is going to get run over.

Jsscherger 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.

chiappini:

Are you telling me that they are more concerned with flexibility than any other

aspect. The college level and pro level are concerned with speed, size,

strength. They test the forty, vertical jump, bench press, shuttle run, and

such. These are tests of speed, explosiveness, strength, acceleration, direction

change. They are really not concerned with how flexible the guy is or if he can

run forever as football is not a sport of endurance per say. Most plays last 6

seconds and are followed by a 10 to 20 second rest. You need a level of

conditioning to achieve this, however I would not consider this endurance.

Jsscherger wrote:

When I say less muscle I mean this. Two linemen go head to head for

4 quarters. I want our lineman to win. I want our line to possess

better mechanical advantage over other lineman. That means he will

require less muscle effort during game to play game then other

lineman. When he stands up between plays he is using less muscle

effort to maintain his posture then his opponent, so all things

being equal he will be less fatigued as game wears on. In head to

head contact he is using less muscle then is required of his

opponent all things being equal to overpower him. This means all

things being equal our guy will be less tired then other guy and as

game wears on our guy will begin to overpower the other guy. Since

the are involved in same task with same amount of muscle, but our

guy requires less muscle to perform same task our guy will

possess " more " muscle then opponent.

Chiappini:

your reasoning here is flawed. When a player practices and does his

conditioning work he develops a level of conditioning appropriate to his body

regardless of his spinal position. When he takes this conditioning to a football

game his body is used to working with the skeletal position he has so it does

not require him any extra effort to maintain his upright posture between plays.

Your ideal spinal position means nothing if the opponent gets a lower or better

position of leverage when you meet.

Jsscherger wrote:

Football is a fourth quarter game, he who is physically dominating

the fourth quarter usually wins. This was philosophy with Patriots

when I was working with them. I remember lineman with Dallas when

they won superbowl. He stated it was a close game until the fourth

quarter and then they got tired and then it got fun for me.

Chiappini: this is called CONDITIONING. This is not about " your idea of

ideal spinal position "

Jsscherger wrote:

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.

chiappini:

You are really reaching with this one. Did you ever think that a certain amount

of compression aids in the stability of a joint. Your words " compression is a

force that locks up like the force of a vice locks up material. " When trying to

use leverage the compressive forces that lock the facets together may allow one

to exhibit better transfer of force throught the " solid " lever arm.

Jsscherger 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.

chiappini:

Fast, big, strong and conditioned will win in most situations. The leverage you

speak of regarding the segmental spine and your training method have no real

advantage. While you like to use terminology that sounds impressive and may

impress the parents of kids that you present to, your system has no apparent

advantage over a well designed program from top level strength coach.

Train hard and smart

Damien Chiappini

Pittsburgh PA

[Guest guest]

Damien said:

“Fast, big, strong and conditioned will win in most situations. The leverage

you speak of regarding the segmental spine and your training method have no

real advantage. While you like to use terminology that sounds impressive and

may impress the parents of kids that you present to, your system has no

apparent advantage over a well designed program from top level strength

coach.”

***

Amen to that.

Drew Baye

Winter Park, FL