Dr Mel Siff Blog

Since the topics of “Functional Training” and “Functional Rehabilitation”
have once again reared their heads in various conditioning circles, the
following discussion that a few of us shared about a year ago on another
group may be of interest here:

One Supertraining Contributor wrote

<< Gambetta is always making a big issue about how important it is to train
‘multi, or tri-planar’ movement (just pick up any copy of Training &
Conditioning that’s got an article by him)? I guess he teamed up with
physical therapist Gary Gray (pretty famous PT, I think) and put together a
‘revolutionary’ new training exercise designed to train this all important
quality – tri-planar movement. Gray presented it in a video at the recent
NSCA Conference in Kansas City. . .

The video was pretty long if I can remember as it illustrated a whole bunch
of variants of the ‘complex’ – some of which seemed pretty silly (i.e. like
the one where the exercisers were told to bobble their head around during the
set – very gimmicky!). One has to wonder how maximum strength and power can
be developed with a set of 30lb dumbbells!!? I’m beginning to grow tired of
watching a variety of strength and conditioning professionals/marketing
experts who exploit exercise ’science’ jargon and the limited backgrounds of
personal trainers to promote their ideas. They’ve become very proficient at
convincing the masses that their gimmicky training methods are really
‘cutting edge’. >>

Mel Siff:

***At least one of them was at one of my presentations on PNF, functional
neuromuscular training, balance and similar topics which discussed the
importance of multi-dimensional training and some very specific details about
its implementation at various NSCA conferences up to 1994. All of this
material appeared on video and audio recordings, so it is surprising that
they missed some very fundamental points, as Eric observed.

You also commented briefly on the limitations of their Functional Balance
ideas which appear on the following website: <http://www.biosolutions.net/fu
nctional-balance.htm> (now no longer there), but, since the Training &
Conditioning journal article offers the theoretical framework for that
material, we can focus on the latter here.

A recent issue of Training & Conditioning (T&C) carried precisely that sort
of article. It is called “Force & Function” and is based on a model which
Vern calls “The Performance Paradigm”.

This ‘Paradigm’ is defined in terms of the following schema (Gambetta V
‘Force & Function’ Strength & Conditioning July/Aug 1999: 36-40):

FORCE REDUCTION–<>–PROPRIOCEPTION–<>–FORCE PRODUCTION

This operation, in turn, involves the subprocesses such as the following:

FORCE REDUCTION—–STABILIZATION——–FORCE PRODUCTION

Deceleration–<>—-Proprioception—<>—-Acceleration
Pronation—–<>—-Proprioception—<>—-Supination
Eccentric—–<>—-Proprioception—<>—-Concentric

Even though this would tend to create some impression of originality and
scientific validity, this sort of scheme was used in a more complete and
thorough form in the original treatise on PNF by Knott & Voss
(‘Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation’), who were careful not to omit
the fact that it is not only proprioception which links, associates and
controls components of motor output. They stressed that other sensory factors
such as sight are also an important part of the control process, as anyone
who has worked with spinal or other sensory-impaired patients is well aware.
The original model used by Knott & Voss was based upon the following simple
and still entirely valid scheme and this new “paradigm” does not offer
anything superior to our understanding of motor control or rehabilitation.

MOBILISATION < > STABILISATION

In sport, it is well known that motosensory control is mediated by the use of
feedback and feedforward (an issue which is left completely out of the
“Performance Paradigm” but which is of central importance to all rapid and
ballistic action) and that this involves the visual and auditory senses,
besides simply proprioception.

Anyway, in feedforward situations (e.g., before pitching or kicking a ball or
striking with a bat), proprioceptive feedback is not involved in the
extremely important pre-movement stages. Instead, association processes in
the brain, based on mental models mediated by visual input, predetermine the
entire pattern of subsequent ballistic limb action. This is why simple
methods of balance training based dominantly upon proprioceptive testing and
drills can be inadequate for offering complete rehabilitation and training.

The T&C article states (p38) that: “The key to quality movement is
proprioception, which is the position sense provided by the receptors in the
joints, ligaments, and tendons.”, so it is clear that the role played by the
other senses was regarded to be of minimal importance. One simple awareness
test of the vital role played by your visual sense is to try a high jump or
Olympic snatch with a blindfold or to play basketball, tennis, squash,
racquetball while wearing earplugs.

In powerlifting, for example, the manner of fixation of one’s eyes on an
external object during the squat or deadlift or during the Olympic lifts can
account for either success or failure, as is the case in many other sports
which require high levels of visuo-motor coordination (e.g. golf, snooker,
tennis, table tennis). Among spinal patients who may have no sensory
feedback or significant proprioceptive feedback from certain parts of the
body, motor control may rely almost entirely on the visual sense. In motor
research, proprioception is regarded as just one part of overall schemes
which examine visuo-motor, audio-motor and other forms of integrated motor
coordination and balance. There are methods of “kinaesthetic manipulation”
like blindfolded training which we cover in our textbook (Siff &
Verkhoshansky “Supertraining” 1999).

Anyway, there are some very serious errors in the above scheme. For
instance, eccentric action does not necessarily mediate force reduction, but
may actually increase force production. As is well known, the force involved
during eccentric action can be as much as 40% greater than during concentric
action. Furthermore, deceleration may involve far greater forces than
acceleration. While eccentric action mediates velocity reduction, it does
not necessarily mediate force reduction. Furthermore, pronation is not
necessarily associated with force reduction, either, nor is supination
necessarily associated with force production.

Even more fundamental to this discussion is the fact that force production is
not necessarily the converse of force reduction. Force increase and force
decrease are converses of one another. Biomechanically speaking, both force
increase and decrease are forms of force production and all limb movement
really is the result of varying force production.

There are many other points which warrant revision in that article and its
underlying conceptual model, but we can leave them to others for their
attention.
Dr Mel C Siff

For more information on Facts and Fallacies of Fitness by Dr Mel Siff please click here

Tags: Audio Recordings, Circles, Contributor, Cutting Edge, Dr Mel Siff, Dumbbells, Exercisers, functional conditioning, Functional Rehabilitation, Functional Training, Fundamental Points, Gambetta, Gary Gray, Jargon, Maximum Strength, Mel Siff, Nsca Conferences, Personal Trainers, Physical Therapist, Strength And Conditioning, Supertraining, Variants