Explosive exercise is pointless?

[Guest guest]

Dan Partelly wrote:

Ken Mannie, isn't he another HIT proponent ?

Carruthers posted:

Ken Mannie's article appeared on the list many years ago:

Casler writes:

Hi ,

I seem to remember having " contentious discussion " with Ken about this and

his other wild idea about " no warm-ups " no matter how heavy the load.

I post prolifically to the HIT forum since I am a strong believer in the

element of intensity in training, if it is observed as a quantifiable or

measurable concept, rather than a " floating " " failure based ideal.

I find many problems with the " classical " HIT which the proponents have

exacerbated by using some very strange paths.

I might comment of Ken's viewpoints and what I think should be considered or

possible short comings in his logic.

----------------------------------

Ken Mannie wrote:

The subject of explosive weight training is one that has been in the

center of a maelstrom among strength and conditioning practitioners for

quite some time. Many individuals and some associations advocate the use of

so-called explosive weight training movements, which purportedly offer

trainees a distinct advantage in speed and power development over those who

choose to incorporate more controlled movements.

It is also suggested by some that explosive weight training movements

prepare the body for the exorbitant, potentially traumatic forces of

competition more so than other strength training techniques. For the purpose

of this article, only the explosive lifts will be discussed. These

include-but are not solely restricted to-the Olympic lifts (i.e., the snatch

and clean and jerk), power clean, speed-squats, push jerks and any

variations of these movements. Basically any movement performed in a rapid,

jerky manner where momentum plays a key role in the execution and or

completion of the movement would be included.

Casler comments:

Ken immediatly looks to categorize " high force, high effort " lifts as

" jerky " and " momentum rich " . It is from this basic fundemental detriment to

understanding the goal of " high force, high effort " lifts, that causes the

disconnect. In such training with the goal to increase RFD, it is valuable

to maximize high CNS involvement (large motor impulses) and controlled, but

high force stimulus to the movement and or body areas being trained.

The fantasy of " de-loading " due to momentum is not realized at real training

load levels, and while load force vacillations certainly occur, it is the

goal of the action to create these load changes.

The HIT ideal is to have constant force loadings more similar to isokinetic

(speed controlled) forces. Life does not happen in a " same force " samples,

and certainly sporting actions do not, so it logically translates to

conditioning the transient force load areas to better condition them to

those loadings, rather than train to the limitations of loads that can be

used in " non-relative ROMs " .

Ken Mannie wrote:

The intent of this article is three-fold:

1) to elucidate the fact that ballistic weight training movements

carry with them the highest injury potential of any resistance exercises

performed in the weight room setting;

2) to dispute the erroneous notion that there exists a definitive

physiological or biomechanical mechanism by which ballistic weight

training movements result in a distinct and irrefutable advantage over

controlled, high tension resistance exercises in producingand/or enhancing

speed, power or athletic skill development; and

3) to offer safer more efficient and more productive training

alternatives.... >

Mel Siff:

*** Without writing a huge treatise on every single point in this

anti-explosive weight training evangelism let me summarise what I

have written many times before on this topic. Mannie has indulged in using a

large number of inaccuracies, non-sequiturs and misleading use of references

to draw his plausible-sounding conclusions.

For a start, Mannie's entire analysis is seriously flawed because he

never once tries to distinguish between " explosive " and " ballistic "

exercise, something that is essential to do, because the vast majority of

heavy Olympic lifting variations are not ballistic, such as the front squat,

the clean pull, the overhead squat, the snatch pull, pulls form the hang and

the 'Romanian deadlift'. Moreover, the ballistic or explosive phases in

Olympic lifting are extremely brief and are not characteristic of any entire

lifting exercise. In the Files of the Supertraining site I provided

biomechanical graphs of the snatch giving the time spent in each phase of

the lifts, so

anyone can check on this fact. The fact is that a huge number of human

activities, like weightlifting, may contain brief phases of explosive and/or

ballistic action. Maybe this doesn't happen with 'superslow' or much of HIT

type weight training, but this is not unique to Olympic lifts or their

variations.

Anyway, if one does not wish to use the Olympic lifts as supplementary

exercises, you DON'T have to use them - there are hundreds of exercise

variations based upon these lifts that do not force you to use the clean,

snatch or power clean (I have listed several hundred of these in Ch 4 of

" Supertraining " 2000). If you have the slightest concern about the actual

lifts themselves or tend to believe a little of what Mannie proclaims, just

don't do full Olympic lifts or power cleans, just use the hundreds of their

variants! Problem solved - next, Mr Mannie? Anything to say about all

of these dreadful variations?

The term " ballistic " refers to objects or body parts that are thrown

like projectiles, where the momentum produced during one stage of the

action carries the object or person to a point without any further muscle

action. Thus, throwing baseballs, basketballs, jumping, kicking, running and

similar activities involve considerable ballistic action, but near maximal

lifting does not.

Some of his references such as Westcott talk about biomechanics when

this author, who is a colleague of mine, is not a biomechanist, nor has he

done any research in this area. None of the studies has shown definite

evidence that explosive weight-training or any weight training, for that

matter is a significant cause of injury in sport. Likewise, Dr Lyle Micheli,

who is also a colleague, has studied exercise for children for many years,

but he is not a biomechanist or a researcher in strength science and his

comments that weight training contributes to spondolysis are based upon

theory, not clinical evidence.

None of these writers or Mannie addresses a vital point that I have made on

many occasions, namely that many daily activities and sporting actions

produce far greater forces, impulses, torques, stresses and strains than

heavy or explosive weight training. If he refuses to accept that, I would

suggest that he visit any biomechanics laboratory and find out personally

the magnitude of stresses and strains imposed upon the joints and all parts

of the body by basic acts like running, jumping, throwing and kicking.

Casler writes:

I didn't pre-read this, but am happy to see Mel's comments and agree with

most all he has said.

Mel Siff:

He cites Matt Brzycki's abysmal understanding of applied biomechanics to

support his thesis (I did not do this behind Brzycki's back, but posted a

full scientific critique of Brzycki's biomechanics on the HIT discussion

list for Brzycki to respond to, but he declined to do so, even though my

same comments have been fully supported by other biomechanists). For

example, Brzycki reiterates the common error that lifters use momentum to

lift weights, something that becomes increasingly difficult as the load

increases. While that may well be the case with the lighter, safer sort of

HIT training that Mannie advocates, it is not true of maximal or near

maximal attempts. Research shows that the lifter relies more on Newton III

to push himself under the bar, rather than momentum to complete important

stages of the Olympic lifts.

Casler writes:

This is VERY important to understand. At the higher levels with larger

loads, acceleration and high effort/high force actions occur, but gravity

does not abate. And these lifters do not simply accelerate during a small

portion of the lift that then allows them to then " glide under it " , while

momentum moves it into place.

It is lifted as quickly as possible, and then the lifter " jumps " as quickly

as possible under the load, before it can begin its downward motion. Any

YouTube search for world class Olympic Lifting does not demonstrate any

barbells moving without huge bodily forces being applied. And while with

broomsticks and unloaded bars this can happen, the loads are so low that

they are generally not dangerous, and are only used to " imprint " the basic

movement, and feel of the positions, (and a bit of warm up).

Mel Siff:

Similarly, Ken Leistner, who is a chiropractor, not a research scientist,

has never experimentally analysed soft tissues in human activity, and makes

statements about tissue injury that are based entirely upon hypothetical

grounds. Many other references are of this nature.

Mannie does not even consider two of the major causes of injury, namely poor

skill and poor exercise programming (which can cause " overload " and

" overuse " injuries). Many of us often lament the inadequate training of

strength coaches and personal trainers who use strength training with their

clients or athletes because we know full well how risky and

counterproductive this can be, whether one is training with weights, running

on the track or throwing a baseball. Not a single reference that he has

provided attempts to separate weights related injuries from injuries that

may have been be caused by poor technique or inappropriate exercise

prescription.

I have reviewed thousands of student and learned papers in my professional

life and, if I apply the usual standards of reviewing to this paper by

Mannie, I would be compelled to ask him to revise his unbalanced review and

furnish some far more relevant, authoritative references. His repetition of

well-known material on strength, hypertrophy, muscle fibre types and other

aspects of muscle physiology are quite acceptable, but his extrapolation of

that information to prove the excessive risks of " explosive " weight

training, as it stands, is invalid.

Casler writes:

This is vintage Mel at his best, and I take my hat off to him since he did

have a way to cut through the BS that is so prevalent in the Weight and

Strength Training Worlds. While I could care less of someone's educational

qualifications, and degrees, one has to present valid arguments in order to

be taken seriously.

Mel Siff:

This Mannie remark is especially irrelevant and misleading:

<As once stated by Dr. Lyle Micheli, " ...strength training has the

potential to improve size and strength; skill development is something

different " (25). That brief, candid statement says it all. >

***Nobody has ever stated that strength training was meant to replace skill

training or to improve motor skills. He is really " putting words into the

mouths " of those who advocate the use of " explosive " weight training. Only a

strength training ignoramus would even vaguely suggest that! This brief,

candid statement says it all about Mannie's frequent illegitimate use of

pseudo-scientific argumentation! Several of us have written letters on

critical thinking and methods of persuasion. This may be a very good time to

go back to our archives and apply the information there to see how Mannie is

trying to persuade his readers using many of the well-known tricks of the

propaganda and marketing trade.

If he ever reads this brief commentary of mine, let him answer a few

questions:

1. Is it rational and reasonable to condemn " explosive " weight training

methods when scientific analysis has repeatedly shown that greater stresses

and strains are produced in many normal exercise and sports activities?

Surely one should then discourage all such stressful activities?

2. Has he ever distinguished between the effects of weight training on its

own and the interaction of weight training with sports practice in causing

injury or facilitating improvement in performance?

3. Can he furnish a large list of studies that have clearly shown that

specific injuries have definitely been caused by specific " explosive "

weights exercises and NOT due to poor technique or inappropriate use of such

exercises (e.g., too great a volume, intensity or density)?

Casler writes:

It would seem that the HIT idea is based on logic at its foundation, and

that is as I understand it, that " an increase in strength is a precursor to

the muscle having the ability to create a faster response simply due to the

fact that a greater force has the potential to increase the ability to move

faster or move a weight faster " .

This fundamental concept cannot be totally disagreed with.

However speed and acceleration are FAR MORE complicated than simply being

stronger.

While a muscle can have a " capacity " for a certain tensioning, that is not

the complete picture. The " motor " control and strength of the motor impulse

will have significant determination on the " speed " at which a muscle can

create force.

Additionally, the simplistic vision of concentric muscle action as the key

element to creating dynamic muscle actions in sports is myopic to how the

body functions in dynamic conditions.

The combination(s) of eccentric, static, and concentric actions, blended

with significant motor signals strengths, and the ability to load both the

hard tissues (skeleton) and soft tissues,( muscles, ligaments, fascia, and

cartilages) is only a part of creating speed and dynamic effectiveness.

The primary deficit to the HIT philosophy is that it ignores the realities

of the above, and assumes that simply making the muscle tissues themselves

stronger will in a tidy way take care of all the other tissue conditioning

and CNS motor needs, and it will not.

In fact the use of isolated muscle actions in machines, substantially

retards the conditioning of the skeletal and soft tissues (except the

muscles) and places them into a relational deficit to that muscle strength.

This then is a " recipe " to injure oneself, since many athletic injuries are

to the ligaments, tendons, cartilages, fascia and other tissues that will

receive less conditioning in a " slow controlled reps " model.

Progressively training the SSC, and the focusing on RFD is valuable and

essential to safe, sports strength training. To ignore those elements is

inviting relational weaknesses to develop between the systems. and contrary

to claims of " safety " they are creating the fertile injury potentiating

applications, and not the opposite.

On top of that, the lower and smooth (and longer in duration) Motor Impulses

have far less potential to produce RFD (Rate of Force Development) which is

likely the KEY component to Speed in sports.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA