Mel Siff:

<If one could Press a heavy load, then one could easily jerk at least that
same amount and usually about 20kg more, so that many big pressers could
defeat a lifter who had a good snatch, but a weak jerk.>

A member wrote:

<<Not necessarily, in my humble opinion. A jerk and the press aren’t that
closely related as they seem to be.

Obviously if your press is larger, so is your jerk. But superior technique is
a must for a big jerk. My current 1RM press is 65 kilos and my 1RM jerk is
75. Obviously technique has a lot to do with it. I have a relatively strong
press considering my experience in weightlifting but as you can see, the jerk
is a lot about technique and agility in the legs. As an example is a lifter
in the gym where I train who has a 80 kilo press for 2-3 reps and has a max
jerk of 135 kilos. His massive load in the jerk comes from technique.>>

Mel Siff:

*** Note that I stated “usually”, not “always”. My remark was based on many
years of competitive and refereeing experience with the Press. And to back
this up, here are some randomly chosen Presses and C&Js of a few top lifters
from the good old Pressing days up to 1972:

M Nassiri (56kg) 112.5 — 150.0
Y Miyake (60kg) 122.5 — 152.5
W Baszanowski (67.5kg) 140.0 — 170.0
Pete George (75kg) 120.0 — 157.5
Tommy Kono (82.5kg) 142.5 — 165.0
A Vorobyev (90kg) 145.0 — 170.0
Yuri Vlasov (90kg) 187.5 — 210.0
David Rigert (90kg) 185.0 — 207.5
Louis Martin (90kg) 150.0 — 185.0
L Zhabotinsky (Superh) 187.5 — 217.5
V Alexeyev (Superh) 230.0 — 235.0

In fact, in most divisions below Superheavy, there was at least a 20-25kg
difference between Press and C&J. One simply cannot base one’s opinions on
observations made on gym presses and jerks outside the competitive setting.
As I have stressed several times before, the Olympic Press is very different
from the Military Press and any other types of press, so what you consider to
be a typical Olympic Press might not resemble that movement at all.

Your comment about superior technique being “a must for a big jerk” seems to
corroborate this conclusion, because you are implying that the jerk involves
more technical skill than a legitimate Olympic Press. This could not be
further from the truth, since a genuine, explosive Olympic Press can easily
involve more skill than a Jerk.

If you have not been coached by someone who has competed in the Pressing days
(up to 1972), it is very unlikely that you or your heavier lifting
colleague in the gym have mastered the correct way of doing the Olympic
Press. One can Olympic Press far more than one can military press.

That could well explain the difference between his 135kg jerk and his
apparently miserable Press of 80kg – he might be executing a rather slow
military style press without using pretensed back extension and body sway.
If that is the case, then his press is not at all bad, but if he is using
proper Olympic pressing technique, then something must be seriously amiss.
That large difference between his press and jerk may also be due to a weak
press, not necessarily a strong jerk. What is his bodymass, by the way?
What about his snatch?

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

Periodically some list members ask for advice about which certification to
seek – well, the following research study showed that NSCA and ACSM appeared
to be the best options and recommended that higher levels of formal
educational training should be regarded as highly advisable for all fitness
certification schemes.

—————-

J of Strength & Conditioning Research: Vol 16, No 1, pp. 19–24

Malek, MH, Nalbone DP, Berger DE, Coburn JW Importance of health science
education for personal fitness trainers.

ABSTRACT

Using a questionnaire developed for the current study, the Fitness
Instructors Knowledge Assessment (FIKA©), we examined relations between
commonly used indicators of knowledge (training and experience) and actual
knowledge in the five areas of (a) nutrition, (b) health screening, (c)
testing protocols, (d) exercise prescription, and (e) general training
knowledge regarding special populations. FIKA provided reliable measures of
knowledge in these areas, which are of critical importance in developing an
optimal fitness program for the client and for avoiding unnecessary injuries.
A survey of 115 health fitness professionals revealed that a bachelor’s
degree in the field of exercise science and possession of American College of
Sports Medicine or the National Strength and Conditioning Association
certifications as opposed to other certifications were strong predictors of a
personal trainer’s knowledge, whereas years of experience was not related to
knowledge. These findings suggest that personal fitness trainers should have
licensing requirements, such as a bachelor’s degree in exercise science and
certification by an organization whose criteria are extensive and widely
accepted, before being allowed to practice their craft…….

Discussion

The findings of this study address a number of issues raised by the ACSM Code
of Ethics. The health fitness professional, by definition, is a professional
who uses an individualized approach to assess, motivate, educate, and train
clients regarding their health and fitness needs. However, to realize these
objectives, the personal trainer must have a strong foundation in exercise
science. This can best be accomplished through formal education.

The fact that an individual has worked for years as a personal trainer or has
met a minimum standard for passing a certification exam should not be
misconstrued as proof of competence in designing a safe and optimal fitness
program. As such, using years of experience as a barometer of the
capabilities of potential hires in the health fitness industry may need to be
reconsidered. Although many in the health fitness industry believe that
practical experience is key, the results of this study show that formal
education is a far better predictor of personal trainers’ health fitness
knowledge than years of experience.

In addition, when it comes to certifying organizations, all certificates are
not created equal. Certification by ACSM or NSCA was associated with much
higher levels of health fitness knowledge than certification by any other
certifying organization, or even certifications from several other certifying
organizations.

Most certifying organizations do not require a personal trainer candidate to
possess a college degree, or even to have completed college courses in
exercise science. In fact, many organizations promote 7-day or weekend
workshops in preparation for their examination. It seems unlikely that an
individual will learn even the basics of this discipline in such a short
time. Perhaps, in an effort to bring more credibility to the profession,
certifying organizations should require a minimal number of core
college-level courses completed, as identified by Fuller et al. (4) , for
their personal trainer certification.

At McGill University’s athletic department, in Quebec, Canada, a 14-week
course that covers topics in anatomy, biomechanics, exercise physiology,
exercise design and analysis, injury prevention, nutrition, and weight
training has been offered to those who want to pursue a career in personal
training; perhaps such a program should be implemented by 2- or 4-year
colleges throughout the United States….

Practical Applications

Individuals seeking the assistance of personal trainers deserve to have a
health fitness professional who possesses a proper level of knowledge,
skills, and abilities in exercise science to design a safe, injury-free, and
optimal fitness program. The results of the current study suggest that a
person or health fitness club seeking to hire a personal trainer would do
well to ask 2 key questions: (a) “Do you have a college degree in exercise
science?”; (b) “Are you certified by ACSM or NSCA?” In our sample,
respondents who answered ‘yes’ to both of these questions scored an average
of 85% on the FIKA questionnaire, compared with only 36% for those who
answered ‘no’ to both questions, and 55% for those who answered ‘yes’ to only
1 of the 2 questions. These findings suggest that personal fitness trainers
should have requirements such as a bachelor’s degree in exercise science and
certification by an organization whose criteria are extensive and widely
accepted.

In 1994, California Assembly member Vivian Bronshavag (D-Haywood) proposed a
bill that would require fitness instructors in California to pass an
examination issued by the state to train clients. However, given a lack of
statistical data (e.g., injury rates) and lack of support from professional
associations (e.g., ACSM) on the effectiveness such a measure might have, the
proposed bill was defeated.

Many other health-related professionals (e.g., nutritionists, certified
athletic trainers) are required to earn a degree that imparts necessary
health-related knowledge and an appropriately rigorous certification before
practicing their craft. It is the authors’ contention that such standards
should be given serious consideration for personal fitness trainers as well.
In recent years, the number of lawsuits brought forth as a result of alleged
negligence on the part of fitness professionals has dramatically risen.
Inadequate screening and premature certification of unqualified candidates
can expose both health clubs and certifying organizations to liability should
clients suffer injuries due to the negligence of an unqualified personal
fitness trainer. Thus, it is in the best interest of all parties involved -
clients, personal trainers, health clubs, certifying organizations, and
society as a whole – to implement standards that may reduce the incidence of
such injuries and the resulting legal entanglements….

*** One further comment is necessary – many degrees in exercise science,
kinesiology, exercise physiology, physical therapy, chiropractic and even
medicine do not provide sufficient, in-depth formal education in strength
science or its applications, so that any accreditation scheme also has to
take into account the curriculum covered by any graduate.

While I fully agree that many years of practical experience is no substitute
for a combination of appropriate university education and practical
experience, I have encountered numerous graduates (even PhDs) in exercise
science, medicine, physical therapy and kinesiology who cannot demonstrate
some of the most basic strength training exercises or who do not know the
difference between a deadlift and a clean, between the different types of
squat and between the different types of standing press (mind you, I have
come across many personal trainers who also demonstrate similar ignorance).

It is clear that we have fingers to point in both directions and that a far
better certification approach needs to be created by all parties who are
involved in the profession. For example, very few certifying organisations
apply a thorough hands-on practical examination. Imagine awarding
qualifications in surgery to a doctor or a mechanic who has never attempted
the relevant procedure in person!

————–

*** Another comment in response to the input that McGill University’s
athletic department in Canada, offers a 14-week course covering topics in
anatomy, biomechanics, exercise physiology, exercise design and analysis,
injury prevention, nutrition, and weight training to those who want to
pursue a career in personal training:

At the University of the Witwatersrand (“Wits”) in Johannesburg, S Africa,
where I taught all of my adult life, I ran similar certification courses like
that for many years in all of those subjects, plus much more, over a period
of 6 months. In fact, through the Centre for Continuing Education there, we
offered certification in strength & conditioning, personal training, aerobics
instruction, sports restoration & massage, and seated fitness (for special
populations, with my disabled wife as course manager). All courses were
offered at Basic (6-month), Intermediate (6-month) and Advanced (12 month)
levels, with practical training every Saturday (4 hours) in all aspects of
the strength training world. My “Supertraining”, “Facts & Fallacies of
Fitness” and “Sports Restoration & Massage” (with Dr Yessis) books all were
born as part of the input for those courses, so that you may gather some idea
of the level of input by paging through those texts.

At one stage I even coordinated and offered S African membership of the NSCA,
but that came to a rapid halt when the Executive stated that I could not do
offer that sort of service in any formal way because I “was not a CSCS”. As
a result several dozen S African NSCA members just faded into history.

As part of their formal evaluation, my students all had to execute two major
written projects analysing and designing fitness or strength programs (50-100
pages long), pass a multiple choice and short essay examination, pass a “viva
voce” (oral examination) on all course content, attend all practical sessions
(only excuse was a valid medical certificate) and pass a 4 hour long group
practical examination. In the aerobics course, students had to design and
teach a condensed 20-30 minute class. In the Sports Massage course, I had a
few Romanian and Bulgarian graduates and top coaches as guest teachers.

All academic input was offered only by those with a PhD and 10 years of
teaching experience, with medical related topics being handled by well-known
medical practitioners and physiotherapists who had been in practice for many
years. At one stage I also had well-known Russian scientist, Dr
Verkhoshansky, stay with me for about 5 weeks and teach on the course. Another
one of my overseas expert guest lecturers was Dr Michael Yessis. I
even had TaiChi and other martial arts experts, as well as dance
professionals, as guests to teach human movement and motor control from other
points of view. I also required that delegates from the worlds of strength
training, aerobics, special fitness and massage attended at least one basic
class in one another’s disciplines.

Unfortunately, all of those Wits University Fitness Certification courses
ended when I moved to the USA and American universities do not really seem to
be all that interested in running that sort of extensive certification
scheme, so I have chosen to offer some of the same input via my current
Supertraining Camps. Those who attend these will now understand why I may
end up teaching for over 18 hours a day on those Camps – there is just so
much to learn! Anyway, who knows if something will materialise so that I can
facilitate offering the same sort of high level training in all aspects of
strength training? The market needs it, but as the above research paper
shows, many fitness organisations are offering inadequate training in this
regard.

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

The following resources were cited on the Biomechanics list as useful ones
for supplying useful information on soccer biomechanics, in particular the
action of kicking. Would anyone care to add other references on this topic?

Anderson DI & Sidaway B. (1994) Coordination changes associated with practice
of a soccer kick. Res Q Exerc Sport, 65, (2): 93-9

Barfield WR. (1998) The biomechanics of kicking in soccer. Clin Sports Med,
17 (4):711-28

Davids K, Lees A, Burwitz L. (2000) Understanding and measuring coordination
and control in kicking skills in soccer: implications for talent
identification and skill acquisition. J Sports Sci, 18 (9): 703-14

Lees A, Nolan L. (1998) The biomechanics of soccer: a review. J Sports Sci,
16,(3):211-34

Levanon J, Dapena J. (1998) Comparison of the kinematics of the full-instep
and pass kicks in soccer. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 30 (6): 917-27

Teixeira LA. (1999) Kinematics of kicking as a function of different sources
of constraint on accuracy. Percept Mot Skills, 88 (3 Pt 1): 785-9

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

The following article discusses use in weightlifting of the mental
preparation technique known as “autogenic training”.

Autogenic Training in the Heavy Training of Elite Weightlifters

Semuk A, Arkhangorodsky Z & Zaitsev Y

Weightlifting Yearbook 1982 (translated by Bud Charniga and available at
www.dynamic-eleiko.com)

It has been shown (AV Alexseyev, 1968, 1969, 1978; Zakharov, 1971; Filatova,
1975, 1979) that autogenic training (AT) is an important means of
restoration, a psychoprophylactic and a psychohygenic to the athlete’s body.
However, up to now few studies have investigated the effect of prophylactic
measures on the lifter’s body during training with large loads. Elite
weightlifters seldom utilize autogenic training.

The purpose of our work was to study the influence of modified (AT) on elite
weightlifters training with large loads.

Three Masters of Sport International Class (MSIC), 8 MS, and 3 candidates to
Master of Sport (CMS) in weightlifting ages 19-29 did autogenic training 2-3
times a day. They utilized the following verbal auto-suggestion scheme:

1. Introductory drills — tuning in to a state of impending rest or calm.
2. Relaxation, feeling heat and relaxation in arms, legs, pelvis, back,
stomach, chest, neck and face.
3. Regulation of respiratory and cardiovascular processes
4. Building confidence, a feeling of satisfaction and a positive attitude
towards heavy loads.
5. Mobilization and working-out of aims in the execution of the planned
training tasks.
6. Arousal.

After workouts, each athlete did autogenic training for a period of 17-21
minutes (depending upon the athlete’s individual state). Special attention
was given to the muscles which did the most work in executing the exercises.

We compared the effect of the autogenic training (AT) method in two 4-week
cycles [one cycle executed without (AT) and the other with (AT)] with
practical equivalently planned load volumes prior to two of the most
important competitions. The athletes’ trainability was approximately equal in
both periods of preparation.

The following tests were done on all the subjects before and after training
(at 1, 20, and 25 minutes) with those who were using and those who were not
using AT: heart rate (HR) – with a pulso-tachometer, palpating the radial
artery of the left wrist (70 measurements per subject); blood pressure (BP)
via the Korotkov method (56 measurements per subject); skin temperature – on
the back of the hand, in the same place with equal force using the Datchik
medical electrothermometer (70 measurements per subject); sensitivity,
activeness, mood (SAM) according to Doskin’s method (1973) (56
self-assessments).

With the usual restoration time (25 min) the indices measured did not return
to the initial levels. This is indicated by tracing the reaction in the
athletes’ body (Vinogradov, 1941; Krestovnikov, 1951; Yakovlev, 1969;
Vorobyev, 1977; Volkov, 1977).

It is obvious from the table (not shown here) that heart rate returns to the
initial level by the 25th minute when AT was utilized and is 12 beats above
this level when AT was not used. No significant difference was discovered in
maximal (BP) after relaxation with AT or without use of AT. The minimal BP
value after AT decreased to the initial level and was 4.3 mm of mercury
higher without it. Skin temperature was higher than the initial level with or
without AT. At 20 minutes heart rate was lower than initial levels with AT
and averaged 68.7 ± 1.7 beats/min and was 92.4 ± 2.2 without AT. Skin
temperature with AT was 35.7 ± 0.5 deg C and without it, 33.0 ± 0.60 deg C.

Based upon the data obtained it can be assumed that the restoration processes
in the athletes’ body is strengthened with the use of autogenic training

Sensitivity, activeness and mood significantly improved after workouts when
AT was utilized. Restoration of heart rate and minimal BP occurs faster after
resting with AT. It should also be noted that the training load executed with
the use of autogenic training was 11% larger than the one without it.

The effectiveness of our modified autogenic training is indicative of the
appropriateness of its use in the contemporary training process.

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

The following extracts from a Russian text on metabolism and nutrition for
weightlifters will provide some useful information for those who recently
have been asking about the Russian approach to these topics.

Metabolic Changes in Weightlifting

K Korovnikov, N Yalovaya, G Azizbekyan, V Belyaev, R Bolkhovsky

[Tables excluded - for the full text, see 1984 Russian Yearbook translated by
Bud Charniga, www.dynamic-eleiko.com]

Essential reconstruction of the metabolic exchange processes designed for
economising the functions of physiological systems and raising of the body’s
stability to extreme influences takes place during adaptation to large
physical loads. Sharp metabolic changes in response to training loads of
large volume and intensity and insufficient recovery of the important
functions of the body’s systems can be factors which limit an athlete’s work
capacity and the effectiveness of his training. In connection with this it is
extremely important to reveal the metabolic peculiarities and the possibility
of affecting certain metabolic processes which are important for increasing
the rate of recuperation after workouts.

Findings obtained from studying some aspects of a weightlifter’s metabolic
status is presented in this study. 43 athletes, ages 19-22 years; bodyweights
of 55-113 kg, took part in the study. It was established that small (volume
of 2-5 tons primarily utilizing 65%) and moderate (volume 5-8 tons using
75-85%) training loads did not provoke significant changes in urinary
excretion of acid, urea, amino acids and creatinine in comparison with the
resting state. Renal excretion of acid, urea, amino acids and creatinine
increased significantly (Table 1) under the influence of larger training
loads; the volume of which were in excess of 8 tons and in which exercises of
high intensities (90-100%) were utilized. 70% of the athletes studied had
creatinuria (0-01-0.019 gm/ml); 32% had proteinuria. There was also an
increase in general acidity after large physical loads. The acid content of
the sweat taken from the upper half of the athlete’s torso during a 11 hour
workout was 0.4 grams.

The results are indicative of the rise in the excretion of the end products
of acid exchange, during large and intense training loads.

A study of the affect of small, average and large training loads on
electrolytes established, that the daily urinary excretion of potassium
increases and the excretion of sodium decreases with the increase in the
volume and intensity of the load. Renal excretion of calcium and phosphorus
does not change significantly (Table 2) under the influence of physical loads
of various magnitude. The excretion of potassium and sodium in response to
large training loads was somewhat less the higher the sportsmen’s mastery and
trainability. An increase in the vitamin requirements of Bl, B2, PP, B6 and
ascorbic acid were noticed when the vitamin status of the athletes,
undergoing large training loads, was studied (Table 3).

Coupled with the study of protein, vitamin, and electrolytic exchange, we
determined a number of indicators which reflect the state of strain, fatigue,
restoration and adaptation: urinary excretion of catecholamines (adrenalin,
noradrenalin, DOFA, dopamine), ketone bodies, acidic mucopolysaccharides,
urea content of the blood serum, acid-base balance of the blood, etc. The
results of these biochemical tests showed that in a number of cases
restoration was incomplete after the preceding large training loads. This is.
indicated by the presence of metabolic acidosis, a rise in the volume of urea
in the morning, at rest), low urinary excretion of dopamine and DOFA,
mirroring the reserve potential of the sympathetic-adrenal system, high
volumes of ketone bodies and acidic mucopolysaccharides in the urine, etc.

The established changes in the metabolic indicators studied, were conditioned
by the general intensity of the exchange processes; caused by the large
physical and neuro-emotional strain on the body. At the same time, the
character of the metabolic displacements and the speed of restoration in
these conditions depends to certain degree on alimentary factors (N.
Yakovlev, 1957; A. A. Minkh, 1976, et al.).

Associated with the aforementioned changes in the indicators of the
organism’s metabolic status (under the influence of training loads) one ought
to turn more attention to calculating actual nourishment. our research
established that the actual weightlifter’s diet does not always fully respond
to the requirements of a rational diet and does not sufficiently secure the
organism’s increased requirements of individual food substances. A rational
diet, by its chemical composition, is seldom characterized by specific
imbalances. We found the protein, fat and carbohydrate ratio in the diet to
be 1: 1.2: 1.7, which does not conform to existing recommendations (1: 0.8
:4).

[Tables here]

In this case the amount of protein (14% of the total calories) was below the
16-18% which is the protein requirement for lifters executing large training
loads (Schneider, 1979, et al). There was a deficiency of the amino acid
methionine and a number of replaceable amino acids which were apparently
connected to the predominance of animal protein in the diet (80-90%) and an
insufficient quantity of vegetable protein. An excessive amount of fat in the
diet (46% of the total caloric intake) is typical. There is also a low
polyunsaturated to saturated fat ratio. An irrational aspect of the lifters’
diets was the extraordinary low consumption of carbohydrates — the energy
component of the diet (40% of the calories).

An assessment of the mineral contents of the diet revealed that the amount of
potassium, sodium and calcium were significantly below recommended allowances
for athletes (Polrovsky, 1975; N. Yakovlev, 1975, Schneider, 1979, et al).
The amount of phosphorus corresponded to existing recommendations. Certain
vitamins in the amounts required for athletes and utilized for the synthesis
of various coenzyme systems were lacking in the lifters’ diet. The amount of
thiamine, niacin, pyrodoxine, pantothenic acid folacin and biotin were found
to be in the lower range for adult males. The amount of ascorbic acid in the
diet was extremely low (12.5 ± 0.9 mg per 1000 Kcal; the norm is 35).

One can assume that the imbalance of a number of food substances in the
lifter’s diet, mineral elements and vitamins in amounts that do not satisfy
the sportsman’s requirements for a hard training period, play a specific role
in the alterations of the metabolic indicators. Insufficient consumption of
the vitamin “B” group and ascorbic acid as well as incomplete assimilation is
associated with an imbalance in the chemical composition of the diet; this
disrupts the optimal ratio between the individual vitamins and other
nutrients.

The excessive amount of fat and an insufficient amount of carbohydrates in
the diet of the athletes studied is the reason for the high content of ketone
bodies in the urine of certain athletes (80-180 mg/day; the norm is 20-50
mg/day) during hard training. The amounts of potassium and protein in the
diet were not in the optimal ratio (Grebenyuk, 1975; Azizbekyan, 1981; Anand
et al, 1974; Margen, et al, 1974); this could be the reason for the higher
loss of potassium during heavy training.

In order to shorten the restoration period of the metabolic functions and
preserve the athlete’s high work-capacity during hard training, it is
necessary, first of all, to correctly organize the diet. It is appropriate to
include special nutritional products in the diet, which have a number of
advantages over traditional products. The use of special products which are
easily assimilable, proportionally high in calories and small in volume; and
owing to their specific chemical composition, effect alterations in the
athlete’s diet; guarantee an adequate expenditure of the energy and food
substances provided to the body.

The use of traditional products in quantities that satisfy the organism’s
nutrient requirements; in protein for example, during multiple daily
workouts, can cause discomfort to the lifter during training, a feeling of
heaviness in the stomach, difficulty breathing and a dispeptic syndrome
because of the large amounts consumed and the relatively slow digestion
(Centenzo, 1976; Rogozkin, 1973; Laricheva, Yalovaya, et al, 1978).

An acidophilus [yoghurt-like] product, designed to accelerate the restoration
of the sportsman’s work-capacity after large training loads was developed at
the AMN USSR Institute of Nutrition; based on studies of the metabolic status
of the organism, diet, and the training regimen. Each 100 grams of this
product contains 30-35 grams of protein, 45-50 grams of carbohydrate and
10-15 grams of fat. The product is balanced in amino acid content. The
polyunsaturated to saturated fatty acid ratio component of the product is
0.5, this conforms to physiological requirements.

The carbohydrate component of the product is made up of glucose, fructose,
sucrose, lactose, maltose, dextrin and starch. The product also contains
organic acids and a large spectrum of vitamins and minerals. Use of the
special product as a dietary supplement, enables one to correct the chemical
composition of the diet. An increase in the amount of protein, carbohydrates,
supplementing vitamins (C, Bl, B2, B6, PP), minerals (K, Na, Ca, P, Mg, Fe,
Zn, Cu, etc.) will have a favorable affect on the metabolic status, the
athlete’s sense of well-being and workcapacity.

A daily supplementation of 100 grams of this product contributes to the
activation of the anabolic processes in the exchange of acids, decreases
renal excretion of amino acids and creatinine and decreases the intensity of
potassium, sodium, calcium and phosphorus exchange. The athletes who used the
special product had smaller losses of organic potassium during periods of
hard training. Use of the product improved the vitamin status of the
organism.

The results of a number of biochemical tests (blood urea, acid-base balance
of the blood, mucopolysacharide acids, ketone bodies in the urine)
established that recuperation after hard training was accelerated with the
use of the special product. Thus, the athletes who used the product had a
decrease in urinary excretion of ketone bodies, mucopolysaccharide acids,
less urea in the blood (determined in the morning on an empty stomach), a
decrease in acid-base changes due to training and a quicker restoration of
the acid-base balance. Use of the special product contributed to an increased
effectiveness of training; an increase in sport results. Barbell velocity
recorded in six zones of intensity (60, 65, 75, 85, 90, 95%) increased an
average of 0.7-1.5 m/sec on the snatch and 0.71-1.1 m/s in the clean and jerk
for the athletes who used the special product in comparison with the control
group of athletes.

Our study demonstrates the necessity of controlling the metabolic status of
the body during hard training and the importance of timeously correcting
metabolic displacement with nutritional supplementation.

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

This ACSM article which summarises some of the history of sports science and
exercise physiology in the USA may be of interest to list members. If anyone
has come across a comparable resource on sports science in Europe and other
parts of the world, please share them with us. I have provided some of the
history of strength science and training in Ch 1 of my “Supertraining” book
and David Webster has given extensive information in his “Iron Game”. Dr
Terry Todd in Texas has also written a great deal about the history of
strength training and competition.

—————

http://www.css.edu/users/tboone2/asep/jan11.htm#10.

ACSM and Exercise Physiology
Past, Present, and Future

Roberts A Robergs, PhD

The Historical Development of Exercise Physiology in the United States

A historical perspective on the interaction between ACSM and exercise
physiology provides a developmental scheme that clearly justifies the
professionalization of exercise physiology. History has also clearly
documented the original mission of ACSM, and therefore provides an
interesting comparison to present functions; a comparison that shows how and
why disciplines who contribute to sports medicine must independently pursue
steps towards professionalization.

The Origins of Exercise Physiology in the United States

There is no single widely accepted definition of exercise physiology.
However, a satisfactory definition would be the study of how exercise
influences the structure and function of the human body, both during
exercise, as well as after long term exposure to repeated exercise
participation. It is difficult to state a specific date where one can
recognize the combining of the scientific knowledge of human physiological
adaptation to exercise into the science of exercise physiology. However,
thanks to excellent texts on the history of the ACSM (6), and the history of
exercise science and exercise physiology (9,18), there are sources that
provide answers to this query.

The study of exercise physiology has a long history (5-9,11,12,18). It is
impressive that one of the first monographs written on exercise physiology
occurred as early as 1855 in the American Journal of Medical Sciences (10).
The first textbook on exercise physiology was published in 1888 (Table 1)
(8,9). Many additional monographs followed, and during the 1890s George W.
Fitz had established probably the first exercise physiology laboratory in the
United States within Harvard University’s Department of Anatomy, Physiology
and Physical Training (6). By the 20th century, there was a solid framework
in place for exercise physiology to be a branch of physiology focused on
understanding the body’s physiological responses to exercise stress (8,9).

When reading of the history of exercise physiology, the work and life of R.
Tait McKenzie stand out as pivotal features. McKenzie was trained as a
physical educator (1891) and physician (1892), and became the Chair of the
Department of Physical Education at the University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia in 1904. McKenzie was influenced by the anthropometry work of
Dudley Sargent, and applied his interests in exercise by implementing
physical examinations before and after exercise training to quantify the
beneficial effects of regular physical activity on the human body (5,6).
McKenzie recognized very early the important connection between medicine and
physital education. Therefore, it is fitting that the founders of ACSM stated
in many of their initial speeches that they owe credit to McKenzie for
cementing a strong belief in their lives for the role of exercise in disease
prevention and health promotion (6).

Apart from the life of McKenzie, another landmark event in the recognition
and future development of exercise physiology was the appointment of
Archibald V. Hill as the Joddrell Professor of Physiology at University
College, London in 1923. Hill chose to express the importance of exercise
physiology on normal, healthy individuals in his inaugural address. Hill’s
support of the discipline of exercise physiology impressed Ernest Jokl, a
physical educator and one of the founding members of ACSM, who noted in 1925
that because of Hill, exercise physiology was now an academic topic in its
own right (6,8). Note that these events occurred prior to 1930, over 75 years
ago, and despite this time as a recognized academic topic exercise physiology
is still not a profession.

Pioneering research in exercise physiology occurred at the Carnegie Nutrition
Laboratory during the period between 1910 – 1945. The formation of the
Harvard Fatigue Laboratory in 1927 was also instrumental in adding to
exercise physiology research, and continued until 1947 (6,12). However, the
legacy of the Harvard Fatigue Laboratory continued in the lives of the
researchers who gained experience under its founder Lawrence J. Henderson and
director D. Bruce Dill. Due to the researchers of the Harvard Fatigue
Laboratory, exercise physiology laboratories were developed at the University
of Minnesota (Ancel Keys and Henry L. Taylor), at navy and army military
bases (D. Bruce Dill, Steven Horvath), the University of Southern California
(Laurence Morehouse), and Indiana University (Sid Robinson). By 1950, of the
16 United States universities who had physical education programs with a
laboratory, 15 used the laboratory for exercise physiology teaching and
research (6,12).

In these early years, the discipline of exercise physiology was a component
of the field of physical education, and as such was represented by the
American Physical Education Association (APE), formed in 1919. The APE
eventually combined with what is now recognized as the American Alliance for
Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) (Table 2).

References:

5. Berryman, J.W. The tradition of the ’six things non-natural’: Exercise and
medicine from
Hippocrates through Ante-Bellum. In Pandolph, K.B. (Ed). Exerc Sports Sci
Rev. 17:515-559,
1989.

6. Berryman, J.W. Out of many, one: A history of the American College of
Sports Medicine. Human Kinetics, Champaign, Illinois, 1995.

7. Books, G.A. The exercise physiology paradigm in contemporary biology: To
molbiol or not to molbiol – That is the question. Quest. 39:232, 1987.

8. Buskirk, E.R. The emergence of exercise physiology. P. 55-74, In Brooks,
G.R. (Ed). Perspectives on the academic discipline of physical education.
Human Kinetics, 1981.

9. Buskirk, E.R. Exercise physiology, Part I: Early history in the United
States. p. 367-396. In Massengale, J.D. & R.A. Swanson. The history of
exercise and sports science. Human Kinetics. 1997.

10. Byford, W.H. On the physiology of exercise. Am J Med Sci. 30:32-42, 1855.

11. Carter, L & C. Bentley. The licensing of exercise physiologists. Fitness
Management. Feb: 36-38, 1997.

12. Chapman, C.B. The long reach of Harvard’s Fatigue Laboratory, 1926-1947.
Persp Biol Med. 34:17-33, 1990.

13. Dill, D.B. The economy of muscular exercise. Physiol Rev. 16:263-291,
1936.

14. Hartwell, E.M. On the physiology of exercise. Boston Med Surg J.
116:297-301, 1887.

15. Jaszeczak, S. (Ed). Encyclopedia of Associations. 32nd Ed’n, Vol.1,
National Organizations of the US. Gale Research, Detroit, MI, 1997.

16. MacFarlane, T.J. (Ed’r). Encyclopedia of International Organizations.
31st Ed, Gale Research, Detroit, MI, 1997.

17. Steinhaus, A.H. Chronic effects of exercise. Physiol Rev. 13:103-147,
1933.

18. Tipton, C.M. Exercise physiology, Part II: A contemporary historical
perspective. p. 396-438 In Massengale, J.D. & R.A. Swanson. The history of
exercise and sports science. Human Kinetics, 1997.

—————

Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

The discussion on weightlifting pulling styles that I have been enjoying with
Istvan Javorek on IWF list continues:

Istvan Javorek:

In addition, I would like to share some of my ideas from my upcoming book:

The Step-by-step phases of the classical Snatch and Clean & Jerk exercise are:

- Start
- Pull to squat or split:
- First phase of pull with leg extension
- First phase of pull with trunk extension
- Second phase of pull: spontaneous knees bent
- Second phase of pull: straight-arms, elbows turned out
- Second phase of pull: final leg-trunk extension
- Second phase of pull: central of gravity on straight vertical line, body
weight between balls of the feet and heels, slightly more toward the heels

- Second phase of pull: hit the barbell on flat foot

- Second phase of pull: due to the inertia the barbell and the athlete’s body
is in weightless ” in suspension” stage

- Second phase of pull: trapezius action
- Second phase of pull: arms action (flexion- extension for snatch:
flexion-elbows’ rotation forward under the barbell) and preparation of
pressing under the barbell

- Squat or Split:
- Legs’ displacement

- Legs’ action (flexion or split) under the bar
- Pressing the body under the barbell
- Recovery:
- Legs’ extension
- Legs’ replacement: from split the front leg first; from squat one leg at a
time

The first and very important thing to figure out for every individual athlete
is the optimal grip as well as the body balance in the different phases of an
exercise. It is easy to measure the athlete’s body segment and to find out
the most efficient body alignment.

In the starting position the arm’s musculature should be relaxed, just holding
the barbell with a firm hook grip. The elbow-shoulders-head position is the
most favorable position to let the trapezius musculature act during the
shrugging movement. Usually the big technical error is a chain reaction from
this phase of the pull.

The common center of gravity in the start should be balanced in the mid
section of the feet, between the balls of the feet and the heels. During the
first phase of the pull the center of gravity should be shifted back more
toward the heels, but the balls of the feet should never lose contact with
the platform.

The first phase of the Pull: – The athlete contracts his/her extensor muscles
and starts the first phase of the pull. The body weight has already been
shifted toward the heels, and simultaneously is opening the ankles’, knees’,
and hip’s (coxo-femoral) joints. In this way the hip and the shoulders are
doing an upward and simultaneous movement, lifting the weight up from the
platform and up to the knees’ level. From this point the knees are extended
slightly. (In weightlifting never extend the knees to a complete extension
during a pull or a jerk. A little flexion must be in the knees’ joint,
permitting to the athlete to distribute the barbell’s weight equally on the
whole osteo-muscular system, finding the perfect balance on the middle of the
feet, holding the center of gravity between the balls’ of the feet and
gradually more toward the heels.) The athlete’s torso still should be over
the barbell, with a straight, tight back. The elbows turned out, and the
shoulders turned in.

In the beginning of this first phase of the pull it is very important to
extend the barbell and just after that to start the lift, because of the
barbell’s elasticity and the spaces between the holes in the plates and the
barbell’s sleeves. This is the first time when we can apply in weightlifting
Newton’s First law of physics: “Every action has an equal and opposite
reaction”.

The start of the pull has to begin slowly (in any case slower than the next
phase of the pull), similar to the action of a rocket propelling from the
surface. The motion is initiated gradually, and then increased in velocity.
With a fast start, the rocket would fall down because it could not increase
the velocity anymore. This same situation also occurs in weightlifting. In
this phase the common center of gravity is balanced between the balls of the
feet and heels with a tendency more toward the heels. The first phase of the
pull should be executed in this body balance, gradually extending the knees
and holding the trunk with an extended (concave) back straight and over the
bar.

The head position is still in continuation of the back, looking forward down
on the platform. The shoulders are still turned in, elbows turned out and
straight. Further into this phase the athlete straightens his/her knees and
lifts the barbell up to his/her knee level, making a very opened knees angle
and a 90 – 94 degree hip-trunk angle. The most important part of the pull is
the following: the athlete starts to straighten his/her trunk upward, pushing
his/her knees involuntarily forward, shifting the center of gravity back in
the middle of the feet. The athlete is doing an inherent, automatic
movement, bending his/her knees slightly and straightening the back
completely. His/her bodyweight is still flatfooted but shifted more toward
the balls of the feet, with the toes free to move, without any body weight on
them. This is the phase which we refer to incorrectly as the
second knee bend phase.

During the complete motion of the first phase which is actually two different
sub phases (“Up” to the knees, and then “Up” to the upper part of the
“thighs”), it is very important to find the optimal counter-balance position.
When the athlete finishes the so-called “double knee bend” motion he/she is
in the strongest osteo- muscular correlation. This phase is the so-called
“hit” position. In this position the athlete “hits” the barbell with his/her
legs’ and scapular muscles at the same time, and gives to the barbell the
biggest possible upward action . The athlete, with this perfect movement
gives the barbell a projection so that it conforms to the physical laws of
matter in suspension.

On this point is the biggest technical misconception. Several coaches are
teaching the athletes intentionally shifting the body weight all the way
forward onto the toes and to rise up onto the toes. This movement onto the
toes will cause the athlete to swing the bar forward, shifting from its
position of up and behind the vertical line. The barbell’s distance of
travel will be lengthened and will give a false forward trajectory, which is
harmful to the athlete’s knees’, hip’s and shoulders’ joints.

Mel Siff:

*** Neither video analysis or free body diagram analysis shows that
plantarflexed pulling necessarily results in a marked horizontal force
component away from the body. If that happens it is due to deficient
technique or imperfect use of the “hitting” of the bar (often against the
body), as described below in your next comments.

Istvan Javorek:

For maximum efficiency it is best to perform this phase of the pull
flatfooted with the center of gravity in the middle of the foot with a slight
inclination toward and gradually more on the balls of the feet, but not in
any case on the toes. During this phase, the athlete is imitating a
standing and backward acting, double leg bounce, with the knees very slightly
flexed. Actually, when utilizing the combined forces of the legs and
trapezius sufficient power and speed are developed for a maximum and
efficient lift.

To be more understandable I would like to go into more depth in explanation
of this part of the pulling phase. When the athlete “hits” the bar with an
optimal strength in an optimal position, sufficient inertia and velocity can
be developed to be capable of executing the pressing motion under the barbell
with maximum efficiency. (Due to the inertia of the weight, the whole
barbell with the plates becomes suspended and its weight 0.00 kg). On this
weightless in suspension phase of the barbell the athlete body is in
suspension also, because when an athlete “hits” the barbell on a perfect
vertical line, with straight, turned out elbows, and turned in shoulders,
his/her body forms a compact object with the barbell. This is why when the
barbell becomes suspended due to the inertia; the athlete’s body becomes
weightless also.

The athlete, being a human who has learned from an early age to walk on two
feet in a vertical position, the first conditioned reflex, which acts on an
athlete in this weightless stage, is trying to find the platform, (the
supporting surface) for balance. This is the phase when the majority of the
pictures of world champions show the athletes in the “toward the toes”
position. If someone looks more closely at these pictures, they will see
that the athlete actually is not on his toes, and that the balls of his feet
are closer to the platform than his toes.

Mel Siff:

*** No matter what description is offered of what one sees on slow motion or
freeze frame video, the fact is that ANY degree of plantarflexion is revealed
by the heels being raised. Let’s forget whether the lifter is actually
rising to the toes or the balls of the feet – the fact is that some degree of
plantarflexion is taking place, with the extent being determined by the
magnitude of the load and individual characteristics of the lifter. Analysis
certainly shows that premature plantarflexion before the bar reaches a level
nearer the hips tends to be a less efficient way of pulling, but, so far, I
have seen no similar scientific analysis which categorically shows that
well-timed or simply reflexive plantarflexion is inferior to flatfooted
pulling.

Istvan Javorek:

During the “hitting” phase, if the athlete intentionally is getting on
his/her toes, the athlete will project the barbell forward losing the
verticality of the barbell and wasting its benefit. Secondly for this reason
and as an effect of it, the athlete will lose the benefit of being a compact
object with the barbell, which is not possible when the bar is mowing
forward.

Mel Siff:

*** As I have noted before, this is not necessarily true. It is usually a
result of poor technique. If it is, let’s see even a very basic free body
diagram analysis which corroborates this point of view. By the way, some of
the world’s top lifters also jump backwards with the bar, an action which a
lso lengthens the trajectory followed by the bar – is this method also
inadvisable, even though some coaches actually teach it?

Finally, if an athlete gets on his/her toes intentionally, he/she will ruin
this weightless, “in suspension” momentum (phase). Consequently, it becomes
difficult and potentially dangerous to accomplish the next phase of the
exercise, because the law of gravity, which attracts all objects toward the
center of the earth, will influence the motion further. This phase in our
situation is the squatting or splitting and pressing under the barbell
(squat, split and power snatch, squat, split or power clean).

Mel Siff:

*** Aha! Since you are now adding the word “intentionally” to the discussion,
you seem to be heading more in the direction of my Alternative #3 stated in
my original letter on pulling, namely: “Alternative # 3. Most lifters don’t
really concern themselves with what happens to their heels during the pull
and that they simply focus on pulling as powerfully as possible, no matter
whether this involves plantarflexion or not.” Would this be correct?

Istvan Javorek:

I do not contest that results can be achieved in this phase by an athlete,
when he/she finishes the movement with the center of gravity more toward the
balls of the feet, with a slight heel raise, (due to the before-mentioned
weightless stage, but not intentionally). But I do believe and state, that
rising intentionally on toes is not correct. Actually I consider, balancing
on the side edges and flat foot with a slight heel raise better, with an easy
shifting of the center of gravity toward the balls of the feet. See Nicu Vlad
1984 Olympic champion’s 220 kg clean and jerk and Pavel Kuznetsov’s world
record clean and jerk photo sequences. (Photos by Bruce Klemens). This style
of displacing the feet is much more, efficient, beneficial and advantageous
in my opinion for placing the body in the proper position for the next phase
(replacing the feet). Also if you look at Vardanian sequences you see what I
mean the adaptation of perfect technique to a particular athlete.

The first phase of the pull should be slower in comparison with the vertical
“hitting” phase, which requires the most explosive motion of a snatch or
clean exercise. The barbell must be continuously in the closest possible
position to the athlete’s body. In this phase the athlete is pushing his
feet into the platform, like driving a nail into the platform with his/her
heel. As a confirmation of the previously mentioned Newtonian law of
physics, the barbell will action upward due to the plates’ opposite reaction
and at the same time due to the tremendous, continuation action of the
trapezius musculature. This is the “momentum” when the athlete must press
his/her body under the bar for a perfect clean or snatch. On this phase it is
so important to “meet” the bar on its maximal position during that
weightless situation. This is the so-called “momentum” of a lift.

My good friend Bud Charniga, told me a year ago, that he was analyzing since
I had a clinics at USAWL Federation in 1984 or 1985 my statements about flat
footed technique, and year by year became more convinced the correctness of
my technique and Bud took hundreds of photos at the major international
events).

Mel Siff:

*** Interestingly, Bud also tends to go along more with the suggestion
offered in my Alternative #3. Does this mean that we are heading towards
some sort of consensus or is there still some merit in my other alternatives?

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

Here is some discussion from the IWF list between Istvan Javorek and myself
on the weightlifting pull:

Mel Siff wrote:

<I have just completed several hours of normal and slow motion viewing of
video tapes of several recent weightlifting championships, including the
European and World Championships from 1999 onwards in an attempt to assess if
most of the world’s top lifters indeed use the allegedly more efficient
pulling with little or no plantarflexion (heel raise) method vs the style of
pulling with prominent plantarflexion, as has been claimed by some present
day coaches. What I saw was that most lifters still pull with a significant
degree of plantarflexion, so it would be interesting to know why this is so,
assuming that this method should be regarded as archaic and inefficient.

This suggests one of several things:

Alternative # 1 The majority of modern lifters are lifting in an inefficient
manner and would improve their totals if they changed to the more flatfooted
pulling style?>

Istvan Javorek:

It would not help changing a consecrated athlete’s technique, but would be
more detrimental to his/her performance, due to “confusion” in neuromuscular
coordination (pathways). After Ivan Bosko , former Soviet Union head coach,
arrived in Romania and we started implementing the flat footed technique we
did correct as much as possible any technical errors of the “old ” lifters,
but mostly, we were teaching the flatfooted technique with the new generation
of athletes from the beginning .

Mel Siff:

<Alternative # 2. Those lifters have found that the plantarflexed pulling
style produces better results for them. In other words, different pulling
styles suit different individuals, but that the plantarflexed style suits
most lifters.

Istvan Javorek:

How I mentioned, if an athlete learned with plantarflexion, would be pretty
hard and time-consuming changing into flatfooted technique. It is obvious
that all of them feel more comfortable with the already-formed pathways- and
so will lift more with their technique. But this statement does not mean that
his/her plantarflexion technique is more beneficial than the flatfooted and
does not exclude the he/she would not lift more (in case of learning from the
beginning) with the flatfooted technique.

[Mel Siff: Not does it mean that the flatfooted technique is universally
superior - I am still trying to find some published biomechanical studies
which have shown that the flatfooted style is more efficient than any other
style of pulling.]

So forget about those “already formed” athletes. Start with the young ones,
from the beginning with the right technique. I have been coaching
weightlifting since 1968 and I have not met any beginning athlete to consider
suiting more plantarflexion versus flatfooted technique. It is the coach’s
duty and knowledge to adopt the right methods of finding out how to modulate
an athlete’s individual physical characteristics into the right technique. In
case of taller athletes for example, it could be a higher start position,
etc. But with a young beginner the most important to develop the right
musculature with the perfect technique and form. Then every athlete will
feel obviously easier with flatfooted technique.

[Mel Siff: Why is this "obvious"? It is obvious that any athlete will feel
that any well-established technique is easier than any attempts at trying a
novel style. So far, if one compares lifts of plantarflexed vs flatfooted
pulling style lifters across the bodymass divisions and over the years, there
does not appear to be any trend showing that either style of pulling produces
superior totals or safer lifting. Once again, I am seeking scientific or
biomechanically models which show that one of the two styles is suprior or
inferior to the other, but nobody has yet supplied the requested evidence.
Does it exist or do we simply have to rely on opinion and subjective
experience until such evidence one day emerges?]

Mel Siff:

<Alternative # 3. Most lifters don’t really concern themselves with what
happens to their heels during the pull and that they simply focus on pulling
as powerfully as possible, no matter whether this involves plantarflexion or
not.>

Istvan Javorek:

A lot of athletes are taught with bad technique at their clubs. Coming up to
the national teams, a national team coach can do just one thing: try to
correct small technical mistakes, but in the long run let the athlete to
perform how he/she learned .

Conclusion: An athlete who learned with plantarflexion, or let’s say with
improper technique, probably never will be able of correcting his/her habit)
and especially with heavy weight will act with his/her) very well formed
conditioning reflex way(pathway).

[Mel Siff: Are you stating categorically that plantarflexed lifting is
universally inferior to flatfooted pulling? If so, once again I respectfully
request seeing research which shows this to be true in terms of biomechanics,
thermodynamics or superior results for a large population of lifters of
different bodymass and different anthropometrics. Do you consider
Alternative # 3 also to be incorrect? Is there no room for individual choice
of pulling style? ]

When we tried in Romania, (after Ivan Bosko’s arrival) to correct or change
the old lifters’ technique, we learned that it is almost impossible, because
of the very strong pathways. So we better started with the young athletes to
teach very successfully.

Lifting very heavy weight with plantarflexion does not mean that the
respective athlete has good technique!! I’m sure if he or she would learn
(as a young beginner) the right technique he/she would be able to lift more.
Several times great coaches also do not pay too much time changing an
athlete’s technique for two reason: a)they are already successful with the
plantarflexion technique b)would make more damage than good to their
improvement.

[Mel Siff: Lifting very heavy weights or winning a world event with a
flatfooted style also does not mean that the lifter has good technique. Both
styles of pulling produce exceptional results - can we prove scientifically
that one style is universally superior to the other? Even in the absence of
laboratory biomechanical analysis, we can certainly use basic free body
diagram (theoretical) methods to show that premature plantarflexion is less
efficient than late stage plantarflexion, but I have not yet seen similar
free body analysis which shows that flatfooted pulling produces a more
efficient overall lift than plantarflexed pulling. So, even if nobody can
produce the required laboratory analysis comparing the two styles of pulling,
can anyone please produce some basic free body or other theoretical analyses
to take this comparison beyond the subjective level of commentary that we
have seen so far? Any offers from anyone? ]

As an example: In Romania in the late 1930s there was a young man from a
mountain village who, without too much preparation jumped over 7.50 cm in the
long jump using the grouping style and became Balkan champion. So, all of
the coaches from the national team became over excited and they were trying
to teach him Jesse Owens’s hitch kicking technique. So, after torturing the
poor guy for more than a year, he jumped 7.20 or so!!!

CONCLUSION : ** Never try to change a high performance athlete’s Technique!!
But make corrections and adjustments!! **

5. My main point is how Newton stated in his famous third law of physics:
“every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. Now. If your action is
forward (up on toes, moving the common center of gravity of body forward, the
reaction will be the athlete’s body will move in other direction and the bar
gets away from the torso.

[Mel Siff: Neither video studies nor biomechanical analyses show that
plantarflexion necessarily results in an accentuated horizontal force
component away from the body. The brushing or hitting of the bar against the
body in either style of pulling will produce that sort of horizontal force
component very easily. If the bar swings away from the body during
plantarflexed pulling that is more a consequence of poor technqiue than any
inherent weakness in that pulling style.]

And what is the most important: ** Never mix up a biomechanically correct
technique with any individual athlete’s technique. It does not matter if an
athlete is a world champion, still could have several technical mistakes,
which if are corrected could improve his/her performance.**

[Mel Siff: I fully agree with all of what you have written in this paragraph,
but both the flatfooted and plantarflexed styles may be executed efficiently
or inefficiently. ]

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

For those who may not yet have studied some photographs of the flatfooted and
plantarflexed pulling styles as used by some of the world’s top lifters, go
to the following files in our Supertraining Files section:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/files/Pulls1.jpg

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/files/Pulls2.jpg
It was written:

> Also pulling is not as big a problem as other matters of technique,
> such as the jerk. Although clean and jerk performances have fallen
> since the 1980s, there are two two snatch records that have exceeded
> the old world records and lifters on average seem to have a higher
> snatch: C&J ration than before. As for the C&J, it is rare to see a
> lifter fail to rack the bar so the pull is rarely the limiting factor
> in the C&J.

Mel Siff:

> [The pull is a crucial aspect of lifting, especially in the snatch, since
> it decrees where and when you are able to drop under the bar to
> catch it and stabilise most efficiently. One cannot compare the lifts today
> with those of several years ago because the IWF idiotically altered the
> bodymass divisions. Incidentally, to which snatch records are you
> referring? ]

Someone anonymously wrote:

The comments above include Mutlu’s 138.5 kg@56 and Markov’s 165 kg@69 snatches
versus the old records in the 56 and 67.5 kg categories (135 & 160).
As you well know, lifts done in today’s bodyweight classes can be
compared to lifts in the old weight classes using the various formula
methods, if not by inspection alone.
Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

Here is some discussion that I have been having on the IWF list with the
well-known Denis Reno, long-time producer of Denis Reno’s Weightlifting
Newsletter regarding my weightlifting pull letter.

Denis Reno writes:

<< Dr. Mel — Here is my 10 second answer. I have been coaching over 30
years, writing about it for almost as long, and am a usaw International
coach. Top lifters work very hard to get the bar to their crotch while
keeping their shoulders above or in front of the bar. Then they work hard
and fast to get their hips under the bar on the pull/screw under. They don’t
worry during that max lift about the details. However, solid foot
contact makes a lot of sense from very many perspectives! And I hope that
their coaches drill them in proper technique (which I guess is very similar
for most competant coaches). I’ve never heard a coach tell a lifter to get
to their toes early in the pull (before it gets to their crotch) but I’ve
seen those heels raise off of the platform in a
number of record lifts by world caliber lifters before the bar was above the
hips. >>

*** I am very familiar with your well-known Newsletter and am very pleased
that you responded to this question, something that very few top coaches and
lifters have done.

My original letter was not referring to the obviously unwise premature rising
to the toes, but the fact that many lifters do rise to the toes during the
last stages of the pull before the drop and thrust under the bar. Solid foot
contact is indeed sensible for most of the lift right until the final stage
directly preceding the thrust under the bar — I certainly was not suggesting
some sort of “calf raising” during the earlier stages of pulling. I have
raised this topic again because many new lifters and coaches are becoming
thoroughly confused about the apparently contradictory views about the pull.
And all the responses that I have received so far have been based entirely
upon opinion and empirical observation, not on actual biomechanical studies.

Some have even expressed annoyance and frustration that I cannot grasp the
“obvious”, because “all top lifters today use the flatfooted style” (which a
videographic analysis shows to be patently untrue). Well, as a scientist who
enjoys Weightlifting, I cannot simply accept the obvious or the opinions
without something a little more substantial to answer all the questions that
arise. So far, I lean more towards the view that one needs to simply produce
a well timed very powerful pull following a suitable trajectory, without
stressing either flat feet or heel raising — so that the body will
reflexively and naturally produce the appropriate ankle action as part of the
whole linked kinematic system.

So, in short, has ANYONE out there seen any studies on the different styles
of ankle action pulling? There have been many studies of weightlifting
technique up to the stage when some coaches started proclaiming that one
should not allow the heels to rise during any stage of the pull. Some
coaches have remarked that the foot tends to supinate and rise to the toes
only to allow the lifter to shift the feet a little outwards for the squat
under, but not to actually raise the body or bar any higher. Any comments
on that point of view?

Denis, if you or anyone else would care to join this discussion on my
Supertraining forum, where many lifters and coaches have already offered
their opinions, it would be a pleasure to have you there. Your views are
most important to us. Our home page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA