Strength Deficit

[Guest guest]

Carruthers posted:

Hi - there are several posts in the Supertraining archives that

are relevant to your questions. See below:

Dr Tony Shield wrote:

I believe the theoretical basis for the strength deficit as a

diagnostic tool is seriously flawed. As I understand it, it is

assumed that those who can nearly fully activate their muscles will

exhibit little difference between eccentric and isometric force while

those who activate relatively poorly will exhibit a significant

difference between these two measures of strength. Supposedly

athletes benefit more from stimulating hypertrophy when the two

measures are close and by stimulating 'neural adaptations' when the

two are far apart (see Schmidtbleicher, D, 1991, Chapter 18 in

Strength and power in sport, Komi (ed), Blackwell Scientific

Publications).

Casler writes:

From what little I have seen of this theory, I might agree with Tony. While

one might certainly be able to draw a relationship differential between the

eccentric, concentric and static muscle action tensions, I am at a loss to

see the " value " of seeking a " closer " relationship between them, and further

feel that a more reasonable goal would be to cause the maximum ability to

each action as per its mechanical properties. This, in fact would cause an

even broader distribution of their abilities.

That is, all three actions have distinct properties:

1) Concentric is a " sliding filament "

2) Static is a " locked filament "

3) Eccentric is a " forced resistance brake "

If the Concentric " could be " or is trained closer in tension creation to

that of the Eccentric, then that means the Eccentric is not being activated

to capacity.

So the goal of reducing the suggested deficit (as stated) would seem both

futile and undesirable, for it would always mean that the eccentric was

" lacking " ability or under-performing.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

Dr Tony Shield wrote:

> --------------As I understand it, it is

> assumed that those who can nearly fully activate their muscles will

> exhibit little difference between eccentric and isometric force while

> those who activate relatively poorly will exhibit a significant

> difference between these two measures of strength-------

Telle -- do we know at what speed the eccentrics were tested and what type of

isometric -- eccentric isometrics or concentric isometrics?

Jerry “madscientist†Telle

Lakewood CO USA

[Guest guest]

Dr Tony Shield wrote:

> --------------As I understand it, it is

> assumed that those who can nearly fully activate their muscles will

> exhibit little difference between eccentric and isometric force while

> those who activate relatively poorly will exhibit a significant

> difference between these two measures of strength-------

Telle -- do we know at what speed the eccentrics were tested and what type of

isometric -- eccentric isometrics or concentric isometrics?

Jerry “madscientist†Telle

Lakewood CO USA