It was most interesting to note in the latest issue of the NSCA’s Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research that several well-known Finnish scientists
have developed another weightlifting comparison formula after analysing those
developed by others such as Sinclair and myself. In certain places I have
considered it appropriate to comment on this paper, either to make
corrections or to simplify what was written.

I have included only the most relevant excerpts for my commentary – those who
wish to read the entire article can do so in the Journal.

—————————

Kauhanen H, Komi PV & Haekkinen K. Standardization and validation of the body
weight adjustment regression equations in Olympic weightlifting.

J of Strength & Conditioning Research: Vol 16, No 1, pp 58-74

ABSTRACT

The problems in comparing the performances of Olympic weightlifters arise
from the fact that the relationship between body weight and weightlifting
results is not linear. In the present study, this relationship was examined
by using a nonparametric curve fitting technique of robust locally weighted
regression (LOWESS) on relatively large data sets of the weightlifting
results made in top international competitions. Power function formulas were
derived from the fitted LOWESS values to represent the relationship between
the 2 variables in a way that directly compares the snatch, clean-and-jerk,
and total weightlifting results of a given athlete with those of the
world-class weightlifters (golden standards).

A residual analysis of several other parametric models derived from the
initial results showed that they all experience inconsistencies, yielding
either underestimation or overestimation of certain body weights. In
addition, the existing handicapping formulas commonly used in normalizing the
performances of Olympic weightlifters did not yield satisfactory results when
applied to the present data.

It was concluded that the devised formulas may provide objective means for
the evaluation of the performances of male weightlifters, regardless of their
body weights, ages, or performance levels.

Siff Formulas (sic)

….. Siff (33) regressed the mean values of the 10 best total results made
up to 1988 in each weight category by using this power function and found the
following parameters for men: a = 512.245, b = 146,230, and c = 1.605. Thus,
the world-class normal value for the athlete of a given body weight could be
obtained by the following formula:

R = 512.245 – 146.230*M^ -1.605 ………….. (13)

and the actual result could then be compared with this predicted result,
yielding the relative performance of the athlete.

The advantages of Siff’s power function formula are that it is easy to apply
and upward sloping for all body weights, thus giving comparable results also
for the heavier athletes. A drawback, however, is that the regression does
not pass through the origin. Hence, the formula may only be used for adult
athletes because the normal values the formula gives are unrealistically low
for the body masses less than 50 kg (and even negative if the athlete’s body
mass is less than 33.9 kg), thus favoring very light-weight athletes.

[*** Mel Siff: This comment about the formula not passing through the origin
displays a woeful ignorance of the basic fact that no lifters ever weigh
ZERO! My formulae were devised to compare the actual lifting performances
or real athletes in officially designated bodymass divisions, not virtual
humans whose bodymass is ZERO. That is why I specifically discarded any
formula which passed through the origin (0,0) and clearly restricted its use
to adult lifters in actual Weightlifting divisions from 52 kg upwards. I
deliberately devised other formulae for juveniles and women. Of course, I
knew that my formula gave unrealistic results for humans weighing less than
about 45kg - that is why I devised different equations for different ages
and genders, whose physiological differences clearly have shown that their
strength performances do not mirror that of adult males. I have never come
across any adult male lifters who weigh less than 45kg, so there was no need
to have any equation for adult males start at that unrealistically low
bodymass. ]

…..Being aware of this limitation, Siff (33) modeled the results of the
best performances of both juvenile (<18 years between the body weights of 33
and 90 kg) and senior weightlifters (between the body weights of 52 and 135
kg) using the Gompertz function. Despite its rather complex computation, the
Gompertz function is frequently used in describing biological systems,
especially growth curves, because it is thought to be advantageous in terms
of both mathematical and biological validity. Because of its multiple
exponential (exponential of an exponential) form, the Gompertz function
yields a sigmoid (S-shaped) curve that, however, does not need to be
symmetric around its point of inflection. This makes the Gompertz function
flexible to use with those data sets, which are upward sloping with varying
slopes. The original Gompertz function is of the following form:

[ y = a special exponential of an exponential ]

Siff compared the differences between the actual and predicted results
obtained with this formula and concluded that “In the case of senior
weightlifting, the Gompertz function proves to be superior to any equations
yet deduced to relate lifting strength to body mass in terms of simultaneous
mathematical accuracy and relationship to growth models used in biology
(33)”. However, no updating of the parameters has been provided since 1988….

[*** Mel Siff: The authors based their analysis of my work on publications
from 1980 and 1988 and did not check to ascertain if I had carried out any
subsequent research on the same topic. As can easily be seen form
"Supertraining" or from a simple search of several websites, they could have
discovered my more recent formulae of some 5 years later, including my
decision to no longer use the Gompertz formulae. My later work found that
simper equations produced equally good results and all highly complex
formulae were subsequently jettisoned. Consequently, these comments about my
formulae warrant some revision.]

Methods

….The data for the study were selected from the weightlifting results made
in the World Championships and the Olympic Games during 1973–1999 with the
respective body weights measured at the official weigh-in before each
competition (18) . The results of the 6 best male weightlifters in each
weight category were divided into 3 different data sets of the snatch (s),
clean-and-jerk (cj), and total (tot) results according to the respective
ranking positions in each particular lift. Descriptive statistics and
individual results for the 3 data sets are shown in Table 1 and
Figure 2 , respectively…..

[*** Mel Siff: Note that the authors without giving me any direct credit for
introducing the approach of taking the mean of 10 or 6 of the best ever
performances in every division, rather than the world records in each cases,
simply adopted the same method as if they had produced it! Nobody else in
the world had ever formulated such an approach, so I would have thought that
this offered some recognition for originality. ]

Results

Relationship Between Body Weight and Weightlifting Performance

Figure 2 shows the scatterplots of the snatch (s), clean-and-jerk (cj), and
total (tot) weightlifting results superimposed by their respective LOWESS
fits. Apparently, the results of the very heaviest athletes tend to distort
the otherwise smooth parabola-like fits in all 3 data sets. This clearly
cannot be considered to be a normal behavior of the regression model between
the 2 variables but rather an artifact that results from the small number of
athletes being heavier than 160 kg. Fortunately, the results and the body
weights of the heavier athletes (>110 kg) seem to be normally distributed,
which was also verified statistically. This gave justification to average
these values (separated by the dashed lines in Figure 2 ) to yield one
representative data point for the superheavy (+110-kg) athletes. The result
of this averaging is shown for total weightlifting in Figure 3 ……

Model Parameterization

The desired consequence of this adjustment was a smooth, upward-sloping fit
in each of the 3 data sets, suggesting that the best-fit parametric models
were most likely to be formulated by using power function (Equation 12) with
some reasonable estimates for the parameters a, b, and c. However, rather
than merely formulating the relationship between body weight and
weightlifting results, the aim was to devise formulas that could be used in
the evaluation of the weightlifting performance of a given athlete without
the need to use coefficients or to make any further comparisons. These
formulas were obtained by using Equation 18, which minimized the RSSs from
the fitted LOWESS values while using 100/fitted value as the dependent
variable. The results of this minimization are shown in Table 2 .
Substituting the parameter estimates into Equation 19 yielded the following
formulas:

Ps = Rs (0.5086 + 81.782*M^-3.0870) …………….. (20)

Pcj = Rcj (0.4196 + 70.635*M^-3.1143) …………….. (21)

Ptot = Rtot (0.2314 + 42.195*M^-3.1286) …………… (22)

where P is the percentage of a given lift (s, cj, or tot) from the golden
standard (100%), R is the actual lifting result (in kilograms), and M is the
body mass (in kilograms) of the lifter. For these formulas, the following
analogy holds:

Golden Standard GS = 100*(Ri * Pi^-1)

[*** Mel Siff: which simply means GS = 100*(Ri / Pi) ..... by the way ]

where GS is the golden standard and i is the lift (s, cj, or tot). Thus,
formulas 20-22 give direct percentage indices for the evaluation of the
relative weightlifting performance of each individual male weightlifter,
regardless of his age or performance level.

The goodness-of-fit statistics (Table 2 ) indicate that the devised formulas
follow extremely well the true nonparametric manifestations of body weight
and weightlifting results in all 3 data sets (R2 = 0.9999). The validity of
the formulas is further confirmed in Figure 4 , which shows the percentage
residuals of the total results when calculated from both the nonparametric
LOWESS and golden standard values and regressed against the respective total
results in each of the 25 weight categories, which have been used in the
history of weightlifting since 1973. In each individual weight category
(except for the heaviest ones), the values overlap perfectly and are arranged
in a linear fashion with decreasing slopes with the increase of the weight
categories. The more scattered locations and the poorer overlapping of the
values in the heaviest weight categories are due to the wide distribution of
the data and the adjustments made before the formulation as described
earlier…….

Except for the 2 formulas of Siff, the goodness-of-fit statistics yielded
relatively high R2 [correlation coefficient] values (>0.87) for all models
when calculated from the initial data (column I in Table 6 ). When regressed
against the golden standard, the R2 values even tended to rise, being higher
than 0.95 in all cases, except for the second-order polynomial (column II in
Table 6 ). However, assuming that the golden standard is the optimal model
for the data, the best goodness-of-fit indicators would be the R2 values and
the percentage prediction errors (PPEs) calculated directly from the
predicted golden standard values (column III in Table 6 ). In this case, the
mean percentage prediction errors for most of the models were less than 1%,
and, except for the second-order polynomial and the 2 formulas of Siff, the
R2 values were higher than 0.95.

The right-side graphs in Figure 6 show the behavior of the models as a
function of body weight. The ordinates are the percentage differences between
the model and golden standard for a given body weight (PPE). It should be
noted that the ordinates have different scales and, therefore, are
incomparable to the true differences between the models being far more
substantial…… Larger errors were found with the commonly used
handicapping formulas, especially with those of Siff. The Sinclair formula
yielded moderate results (±2% error), whereas both Siff formulas considerably
underestimated all body weights, with an increasing trend toward the heavier
athletes…….

[*** Mel Siff: Note very well what the authors mention: "However, assuming
that the golden standard is the optimal model for the data,...." Their
entire analysis of other weightlifting formulae is based upon this
assumption. ]

[*** At this point the authors constructed Table 3 to compare the results of
top weightlifters in different bodymass divisions using the Siff and Sinclair
formulae, but it is noteworthy that they did not include a column to show how
well their formula applied to actual world class lifts. I am sure that
readers of the journal would like to have seen their formulae as used in
practice. Maybe their formulae do represent an improvement over those
devised by others, but it certainly would be helpful to readers to see some
practical examples of those equations on all world records for all lifters,
as they state "irrespective of his age or performance level".]

An important feature that one should be aware of in these analyses (likewise
in those made by Lietzke) is that the actual body masses of the athletes were
not known, and therefore, the upper limits of the weight categories had to be
used as the independent variable. For this reason, the superheavy (unlimited)
weight category also could not be included in the analysis. There is,
however, some evidence that the exponent found by regressing the
log-transformed values decreases when including the superheavy lifters in the
analysis. Croucher, when analyzing the 1982 world records, approximated the
normal body weight for a superheavy weightlifter to be 145 kg and found the
exponents 0.584 and 0.577 for the snatch and clean-and-jerk, respectively. To
our knowledge, the only study in which both the actual body masses and the
superheavy lifters have been included in the log-linear analysis is that of
Batterham and George, who modeled the results of the medalists in the Women’s
and Men’s World Weightlifting Championships of 1995…..

[*** Mel Siff: This is also incorrect - even my early comparison formulae
were based upon the performances by the superheavy lifters for their actual
bodymasses, which I obtained from official competition sheets. As a matter
of interest, I intentionally omitted providing all details of the lifts and
actual bodymasses of the superheavies way back then, because I was aware that
other scientists might borrow that approach to produce their own "unique"
formulae.

Here is a relevant excerpt from my 1988 paper (SA Journal of Sports Sci, Phys
Ed & Recr (11)1: 81-92

"The next step was to establish a data base of these Totals for both sports
which is valid for body masses beyond the range used by all previous
researchers and which is not seriously changed every time a world record is
broken. This was achieved by obtaining the official records from the
international governing bodies for both these sports and extracting the ten
highest Totals ever achieved in every body mass division. The mean of these
ten best Totals was calculated, as world records or world best performances
over a few years can change very frequently and are sometimes set by a
'freak' (such as Bob Beamon of long-jump fame), whose lone performance does
not reflect fairly the consistent ability of the world's best competitors.

Other workers had to exclude data from the + 110 kg (over 110 kg) division in
weightlifting (125 kg in powerlifting), as a lifting Total could not be
related to a division which involved an extensive variety of body masses with
no upper limit. In this investigation it was possible to obtain the exact
body mass for the top twenty lifters in this division and regression analyses
of the Totals recorded at these body masses were performed. It emerged that
it was similarly informative to determine the mean of the top ten Totals in
the + 110 kg division and relate it to the mean of the body masses of the
lifters who achieved these results. This method immediately produced the
missing data point necessary to extend the range of validity of strength
equations beyond the former limit of 110 kg in weightlifting and 125 kg in
powerlifting. Initially a cubic spline regression was used to fit the best
possible curve through all the data points as a guideline to narrow down the
search for a suitable equation to the most likely types of mathematically
continuous regression...." ]

Why should we use such large data sets and not the results of the winners or
just the existing world records in the modeling? The main reason is to avoid
the bias caused by the heteroscedasticity in the data (the variance of the
residuals increases with the increase of body weight; Fig 2 ). Of even more
concern is the relative heteroscedasticity, suggesting wider percentage
distribution of the residuals in the light and heavy weight categories
compared with the middle weight categories. Similar observation has been made
earlier by Dooman and Vanderburgh. Thus, when using the models derived solely
for the winners, the performances of the 6 best lifters in both extremities
of the data set were found to be much lower than those in the middle of the
data set (Fig 8A ).

[*** Mel Siff: Here the authors make it sound as if they uniquely and
originally discovered the heteroscedasticity problem associated with basing
any comparison formulae on a single data point (world record) in each
bodymass division. The fact is that even my earliest publication (1980) in
the field of weightlifting formulae showed that I introduced methods based
upon the mean of the top 6 or 10 best performances ever achieved in
weightlifting. They did nothing original here, and it is rather
unprofessional that the wording of their paper implies that nobody else
preceded them by over two decades in this approach. --- see the above excerpt
from my 1988 paper ]

However, assuming that the world-class weightlifters from different weight
categories should display equal abilities and thus equal relative
distribution of the performance, the present models derived for more
extensive data sets may provide more fair criteria for the scaling, since the
relative variance remains rather constant throughout the whole range of the
weight categories (Figure 8B ). Another reason for using larger data sets
instead of the winners was to reduce the impact of exceptional results on the
model. Including the results from the extensive period in the model also
makes unnecessary the updating of the parameters regularly.

[*** Mel Siff: This once again is exactly what I stated in my earliest
papers, where I stressed that a single exceptional increase in a world record
could exert a profound impact on the equations. This was my original
approach and the authors created the impression that their work was original.
--- see the above excerpt from my 1988 paper again.]

The rather low convergence of the handicapping formulas of Siff and Sinclair
is most probably due to the different materials used in the modeling. Siff
(33) modeled the mean values of the 10 best results ever made in each weight
category up to year 1988. Obviously, these models represented a higher
ultimate performance level compared with those of the present study, leading
to the underestimation of all body weights when applied to the present data.
Still, the prediction of the Sinclair formula, even though the parameters
were derived from the recent world records, such an underestimation was not
observed probably because the baseline was adjusted according to the mean
Sinclair scores a priori (Equation 26). Still, the predicted results of the
Sinclair formula yielded ±2% error, which, with those lifters totaling 400
kg, may be as much as 8 kg. This error most likely accounts for the fact that
the Sinclair formula is constrained to be of polynomial form, which differs
from that of the present nonlinear power function derived from the
nonparametric fits of a more extensive data set. Of particular concern in
both the Siff and Sinclair formulas is the inconsistency observed in the
prediction errors throughout the different body weights (Figure 6 )……..

[*** Mel Siff: Note what was written: "The rather low convergence of the
handicapping formulas of Siff and Sinclair is most probably due to the
different materials used in the modeling. Siff modeled the mean values of the
10 best results ever made in each weight category up to year 1988. Obviously,
these models represented a higher ultimate performance level compared with
those of the present study, leading to the underestimation of all body
weights when applied to the present data." Correct, the differences lie in
the choice of different materials used in the modelling and whenever one
encounters their comments about my formulae having a low correlation
coefficient, this is because the correlations of my formulae are measured
according to the different standards chosen by the authors. All of my
formulae displayed a correlation coefficient of over 0.996 when compared with
the original means across all divisions. Similarly, I could conceivably
deduce that their formulae may not correlate well according to my selected
standards. At least the authors admitted that their analysis could have been
influenced by this fact.]

Practical Applications

The present formulas for the snatch, clean-and-jerk, and total results
(Equations 20-22) may easily be implemented on a computer or a pocket
calculator, thus providing a simple and suitable tool for the evaluation of
the relative weightlifting performance of each individual male weightlifter,
regardless of his age or performance level.

In those situations where it is not possible to calculate the indices
directly from the equations, golden standard tables may provide a quick
overview of the performance. These tables can easily be produced by the
following calculations:

Rs = P(0.5086 + 81.782*M^-3.0870)^-1 ……… (29)
Rcj = P(0.4196 + 70.635*M^-3.1143)^-1………… (30)
Rtot = P(0.2314 + 42.195*M^ -3.1286)^-1……….. (31)

where R is the required result (in kilograms) for a given lift (s, cj, or
tot), P is the normalized result (percentage of a result from the golden
standard), and M is the body mass (in kilograms). An example of such a table
is given in Figure 10 , which shows the results required for different
relative indices (65-120% of the golden standard) of the total weightlifting
performance in a selected array of body weights (50-110 kg with 1-kg
intervals). Selecting the athlete’s total result from the row corresponding
to his body mass and following the column upward yields the normalized value,
which can be read from the first row.

[*** Mel Siff: This statement of their findings is worded rather tediously.
What the authors essentially mean here is that the lifter's performance as
calculated as a percentage of the mean of the world's best 6 performances may
be determined from the following formulae (I am just showing the one for the
Total):

P = Total * (0.2314 + 42.195*M^ -3.1286)

I have already placed their formulae into Excel and, when the time permits, I
hope to compare how well their formulae work in practice alongside other
formulae, including mine. If others have the time to do the same before I
manage to do so, your efforts will be appreciated. ]

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/

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/

In response to Dr Mel Siff’s Subluxation Paradox http://www.melsiff.com/12359/subluxation-puzzle-and-paradoxes-by-mel-siff/

Here is some further discussion from another list on my subluxation paradox:

Mel Siff:

< Can you cite any scientific references which definitely relate these small
“disturbances” to any significant pathology? What you are iimplying is that
the spine is critically tuned, displays a very sharply defined range of
efficient functioning and has a negligible “safety factor”, so that even
minor perturbations will cause genuine pathology or pain. This is not a very
efficient way for the body to have developed and evolved, so I have to wonder
about the validity of such an hypothesis.>

Comment:

Your point about the evolution of the system is well taken. As you point out
there must be some safety factor. I am not trying to suggest that it is
negligible, merely susceptible to problems. For example when trunk
stabilization via muscles is especially important in neutral spine postures
due to the inherent low levels of stiffness in the “neutral zone” (a small
range about the mid-position of the joint where little resistance is offered
by passive constraints).

The multifidus has been implicated in providing much of the control in the
neutral zone. Several other mechanisms contribute to trunk stability
including muscle stiffness, co-contraction, and pre-programmed (i.e.
anticipatory contractions) contractions.

Perturbal first maintain posture (primary task) and second, perform voluntary
tasks (secondary task) when the two are presented concurrently. This makes
sense in that without adequate posture, voluntary movements do not happen.

However, the co-demand of voluntary movement and postural control can lead to
a sudden loss of balance, particularly when performing rapidly or under high
loads. Such events have been called “motor errors”. These “errors” can lead
to injury through inappropriate coordination dynamics that require different
functions out of the same muscle(s). An acute injury (eg whiplash) can
instantly impair stabilization due to tissue damage which leads to
subluxation. However, more frequently, authors view repeated motor errors
over the long term as the primary in subluxation. This last statement has
yet to be verified.

Here are a few references:

1. Burns LA. Viscero-somatic and somato-visceral spinal reflexes. J Am
Osteopath Assoc 1907; 7:51.

2. Triano J, Luttges M. Subtle intermittent mechanical irritation of the
sciatic nerves of mice. JMPT 1980; 3(2): 75-80.

3. Winsor, H., Sympathetic Segmental Disturbances- 11. The Evidence of the
Association in Dissected Cadaver of Visceral Disease with Vertebral
Deformities of the Same Sympathetic Segments, Medical Times,49 1-7 Nov. 1921.

4. Gore DR. Roentgenographic findings in the cervical spine in asymptomatic
persons – A ten-year follow-up. Spine 2001; 26: (22) 2463-2466.

5. Dishman RW. Review of the literature supporting a scientific basis for
the chiropractic subluxation complex. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1985; 8:
163-174.

6. Lantz CA. The vertebral subluxation complex part 1: an introduction to
the model and the kinesiological component. Chiropractic Research Journal
1989; 1(3):23.

7. Rydevik BL. The effects of compression on the physiology of nerve roots.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1992; 15(1):62.

8. Kirkaldy-Willis WH. The relationship of structural pathology to the
nerve root. Spine; 9(1): 49-52.

Mel Siff:

< After all, many competitive weightlifters subject the spine to very heavy
loads which surely cause many such small (and even some large) disturbances
in every training exercise and every competition, year after year, yet the
incidence of back pain and dysfunction in this cohort is considerable less
than in the general population which never imposes that magnitude and rate of
loading.>

Comment:

True, but there are studies (eg. Videman T, Battie MC, Gibbons LE, et
al.Lifetime exercise and disk degeneration: an MRI study of monozygotic twins
MED SCI SPORT EXER 29: (10) 1350-1356 OCT 1997) that show higher rates of
disc degeneration which according to ref #4 above will lead to subsequent
symptoms and dysfunction in the future. Besides, the absence of symptoms by
itself is not a good indicator of performance or physiologic function. Also,
are there studies done with weightlifters and controls on coordination
dynamics?

Mel Siff:

<The existence of these well-known structures and processes does not
necessarily suggest that they make pathology more likely. All this means is
that the spinal complex has a very extensive and efficient cybernetic system
which ensures that the spine is well controlled over a wide range of
different conditions in space and time.>

Comment:

AMEN! But when there are problems, it makes it difficult to find the source
of the problems and to find efficient solutions. Overt pathology in many
cases takes a relatively long time to develop (eg heart disease). Sure our
systems are efficient but the trick is finding the inefficiencies (subtle)
and correcting these to prevent future problems.

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

A member wrote wrote:

< …..I think this BOX SQUAT exploration is interesting and assume (excuse
the pun if you see it) that most have not analyzed it completely.

There are many reasons that those who use this squat are able to handle such
enormous weights. I mentioned that I thought the action/reaction sequence of
the compression and expansion of the hams and gluteals against the unyielding
surface of the box was more of a factor than most perceived at the very start
of the action forwards and upwards.>

Dr Mel Siff: You may recall that we both discussed this issue some months ago on this
list, when I also stressed that the contact between adjacent soft tissue
surfaces can play a useful proprioceptive facilitation role. The box squatting
action
concerns not simply the hams and glutes, because the compression-expansion here
tends to
be more viscous and damping in nature than elastic (the contact time often is
too long
to permit significant elastic energy recovery and the mechanical stiffness of
the
posterior chain muscle complexes is too low in that situation) — there can be
an even more powerful contribution between the lower abdomen and the top of
the thighs, where pneumo-elastic recoil can be quite marked.

Member:

<I have also suggested that the “lever arm” of the femur is “in contact” with
the box at a shortened and more effective leverage position during the
initial “push off” stage. This too is a substantial contributor to being
able to handle “larger” loads. An example might be if you imagine squatting
by holding the bar (in your hands) on your thigh at “hip joint” level. Then
imagine squatting again, but this time moving the bar down to just above your
knee. Which squat would be easier? In the box squat, the initial leverage
is more favorable.

Dr Mel Siff:  This is not a valid analogy – by moving the bar as you have described it,
you have changed the centre of mass of the combined bar-lifter system, not
simply shifted the fulcrum. For all list members who like challenges, try
drawing a “free body diagram” and see what that tells you about any comparison
between squatting in free space and squatting on a box. For anyone who would
like to carry out this biomechanics tutorial, go ahead and let me have your
feedback, if necessary sending me a JPG or PDF file of your resulting diagrams.

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

Here is the next episode in the saga of Russian kettlebell lifting.

Kettlebell Lifting (continued)

PART 2

Extracts from Bud Charniga’s translations of the 1984 Russian Weightlifting
Yearbook (obtainable from www.dynamic-eleiko.com).

Kettlebell lifting requires two physical qualities: strength and endurance,
the combination of which produces a new quality- strength-endurance.

Flexibility, coordination and speed are qualities that are not involved in
kettlebell lifting; one should understand however, that kettlebell lifting is
unlike gymnastics, acrobatics, figure skating and many other sports.

As is known, strength and endurance develop and are perfected over a rather
wide age-range, therefore, results in kettlebell lifting can increase over a
longer period of time and over a wider age-range.

Let’s look at the effectiveness, or in other words, the training results of
kettlebell workouts. If a means of physical education can have all of the
aforementioned positive qualities, but its training-effect is low and it does
not exert a strong influence on the body, then on the whole, the value of
such a means will be low.

One can determine the influence of various means of physical education by
testing the athletes and comparing the test results during workouts with
different types of exercises.

We studied (at the Voronezhsky Farming Institute) the influence of kettlebell
lifting on the development of fundamental physical qualities over several
years. Based on the results of the first control tests: 1,000 metre
cross-country, 100 metre run, pull-ups, standing long-jump; three study
groups were formed from the students who took part two experimental (19 men)
and one control (21 men), of equivalent capabilities. We obtained the
following data. The initial mean results in the 1000 metre cross-country, was
3 min 48 sec for the experimental groups and 3 min 45 sec for the control
group. At the end of the first year of training the results were:
experimental groups 3 min 11 sec; the control group 3 min 13 sec. After two
years of training the results were: experimental groups 3 min 2 sec; the
control group 3 min 9 sec.

The pull-up results changed in the following way. The initial mean result
over a year (in the experimental groups — 6.3 times and 6.8 times in the
control group) increased to 8.8 in the experimental groups and to 8.38 in the
control group. By the end of the second year of study the experimental
group’s results increased to 9.8 times and the control group to 9.25 times.
The standing long jump dynamics were as follows. The initial mean in the
experimental groups was 204 cm and 203.7 cm in the control group. This
increased to 211.2 cm after one year of sessions in the experimental groups
and to 207.2 cm in the control group. At the end of the second year of
training these figures increased to 213.3 cm and 210.3 cm respectively.

The results of the 100 metre tests were as follows. In the experimental
groups the initial mean result was 14.4 sec; after the first year of training
it improved to 13.62 sec and after the second to 13.44 sec. Improvement in
the control group was somewhat slower. The initial result was 14.37 sec.
After the first year of training the mean result was 13.69 sec and after the
second year 13.48 sec.

The results of the experimental groups were higher than those of the control
group in all of the tests. The absolute improvements in the tests were: 100
metre run– Kettlebell lifters, 0.96 sec; control group, 0.86 sec; in the
cross-country –experimental groups, 0.46 sec and 0.36 sec in the control
group; in the standing long jump 9.3 cm and 6.6 cm respectively; in pull-ups
3.59 times for the kettlebell lifters and 2.45 times for the control group.

As is known, the Physical Work Capacity PWC170 test [see Siff MC,
"Supertraining" for details] is an important indicator of an athlete’s
general _physical work-capacity. Athletes who participate in cyclic types of
sports usually have the highest PWC170 scores. Kettlebell exercises are
cyclic, therefore we assumed that the work-capacity of kettlebell lifters is
high.

We studied .22 athletes who were either master of sport or Class I. The
PWC170 fluctuated in the range of 1180 to 1622 Kg M/min and the group mean
was 1486 Kg M/min. The relative PWC170 was 19.5 Kg M/min per kilo of
bodyweight.

So, kettlebell lifting, is quite suitable as a means of physical education
for a wide range of sports. The appropriateness of kettlebell lifting is
associated with the possibility of individual workouts, the technical
simplicity of the exercises, the ease of obtaining equipment, and the
possibility of training and competing with people of different ages.
Kettlebell lifting develops basic physical qualities and increases physical
work capacity. All of these lead one to consider kettlebell lifting an
effective means of physical education.

——————–

Attempts to devise Universal Rules of Competition and Classification Norms in
Kettlebell Lifting

Starodubtsev M V

The growing popularity and the “mass character” of Kettlebell lifting; its
transformation from a regional small- departmental sport, to a sport which
will be included in the Unified All-Soviet Classification System makes it
necessary to devise universal rules of competition and classification norms
for kettlebell lifters. Our purpose was to answer the following questions:

1. To determine the competition program.
2. To determine the optimal number and range of weight classes..
3. To devise evaluation tables for objective team scoring.
4. To establish equivalent work classification norms for all weight classes.

The Competition Program.

At present there are two events in kettlebell lifting — the Snatch with one
kettlebell and the Clean & Jerk with two kettlebells. These can be agreed on.
We think there is reason to believe that there are more significant and
effective exercises for Candidates to Master of Sport (CMS) and Masters of
Sport (MS); namely:

1. Snatch with two kettlebells, similar to the snatch with a barbell (in a
half-squat or full squat position) or by lifting the kettlebells between the
legs. Repetition snatches, executed without losing tempo.

2. Clean and jerk with two kettlebells with multiple cleans and jerks (same
number of cleans as jerks). After jerking the kettlebells, lower them into
the hang position and without losing tempo, lift them to the shoulders for
repetition jerks.

By way of comparison, firstly, these exercises involve more muscle groups;
secondly, they have a symmetrical influence on the body; thirdly, they reduce
the possible number of repetitions, thereby lowering the probability of
injuring the hands and shortening competitions. The clean and jerk with two
kettlebells can be utilized by the other classifications and the snatch with
one kettlebell is not executed by turns, but alternately with each hand
switching the kettlebell from hand to hand in the hang position. This enables
the athlete to avoid asymmetric development and will contribute to equalizing
the number of lifts by each hand.

Quantity and Range of Weight Classes. The optimal number and range of weight
classes is determined by correlation equations expressing the dependence of
results in the competition exercises on the athlete’s bodyweight. Let’s look
at how such equations are established. We used the results of the all-Soviet
competition held April 22-24, 1983 in Klaiped as the initial data….

For the rest of the article, see 1984 Weightlifting Yearbook.

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

Some of you have expressed an interest in kettlebell lifting, so here is some
Russian information on this topic, based upon Bud Charniga’s translations of
the 1984 Russian Weightlifting Yearbook (obtainable from his website at
www.dynamic-eleiko.com). This is the first of two episodes.

PART 1

Kettlebell Lifting

From the Editors.

Weightlifting Yearbook, 1984 Fizkultura I Sport, Moscow

In September of 1981 the decree of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union “To further raise the mass character of Physical
Culture and Sport” gave new impetus to the development of all “mass” forms of
strength training; which, besides the classic Olympic type ‘of weightlifting,
folk exercises with weights, such as kettlebells, as well as other loads,
apparatus and training devices for the development of strength-athletic
gymnastics, are included.

The leaders in the development of these mass types, who at present are in the
organizational stage, have recruited many hundreds of thousands of our
citizens and have formed an Athletic Gymnastics and Kettlebell Commission
under the auspices of the USSR Weightlifting Federation. Beginning with this
issue, the editorial-board is starting a new section “Kettlebell Lifting”
which can be subsequently expanded to publications on athletic gymnastics.

The reader’s attention is directed to the following two articles, in which
objectives and methodological questions of kettlebell lifting are outlined.
Furthermore the methodology of assessing competition results of a Kettlebell
lifter in light of the scheme to prepare classification norms is presented as
part of the Unified All-Soviet sport classification of 1985-1988. These
articles are not only sources of information but they are serve to open
further discussion (therefore, it is possible that not all of the authors’
viewpoints and recommendations will be universally accepted by the readers).

Kettlebell lifting is a very old and, at the same time, a young sport. It is
very old because kettlebell exercises have been around since time immemorial.
It is young because up until the present time, there were no rules of
competition or classification norms on the all-Soviet scale. Undoubtedly, as
kettlebell lifting develops rules, classification requirements and norms will
be subjected to revision.

———————–

Kettlebell Lifting as an Effective Means of Physical Education

Voropayev V I

In recent years interest in one of the national types of sport — Kettlebell
lifting has increased significantly. The number engaged in organizing groups
and sections-in the physical culture and state-farm collectives, schools,
industries and the armed-forces, have increased. Many competitions, of
different scale, are being held. They are becoming more wide-spread.

However, along with the great number of enthusiasts of this type of sport
there are people who consider it an antiquated and ineffective means of
physical education. Over a period of several years we researched kettlebell
lifting as an effective means of physical education.

It is known that if physical exercise lacks two fundamental qualities –
accessibility and effectiveness, it loses its value as a means of physical
education. We attempted to analyze kettlebell lifting in this-light.

Accessibility implies the following:

1. The technique of the exercise is relatively simple.

There are three exercises in Kettlebell lifting competition: press one
kettlebell, clean and jerk two kettlebells and snatch one kettlebell. These
are cyclic exercises with comparatively small weights. They are mastered
rather quickly since there is no non-support phase (as in weightlifting) or
complex movement of the athlete (as in gymnastics and acrobatics).

Although the general center of mass shifts, it is identical in each phase of
the exercise. It has been demonstrated in practice that an athlete of average
physical development can acquire the technique of the Kettlebell triathlon in
4-6 months. This enables one to devote more time to the development of
physical qualities per se.

2. The Ability to train Individually or in Groups.

The best form of training organization is the study group. However, working
aboard a ship, at a field-camp, working shifts and many other occupations do
not permit one to train in a group; but one must train periodically with an
experienced coach, who controls the training plan. Training alone with
kettlebells does not require a sport hall or large area. One can lift
kettlebells in practically any place which has about 4-5 sq m of free space.

3. The Simplicity of the Training Equipment.

The training equipment for Kettlebell lifting is the least difficult to
obtain in comparison with many other sports. The training and competition
costumes are trunks, vest and any athletic shoes. It should be pointed out
that a kettlebell is a durable piece of equipment. Kettlebell practice is not
limited by large exploitation. This gives Kettlebell lifting a significant
advantage over many others, which require a large expenditure on materials
for workouts.

Everything that concerns training materials, of course, should be considered
somewhat more broadly. The Kettlebell lifter should use barbells, run, throw,
do flexibility exercises and take part in skiing and other sports that
require additional training equipment. This is also true for other types of
sports. Thus, track and field athletes lift weights, exercise with medicine
balls, play different sport games, lift kettlebells and do gymnastics.
Therefore, when one speaks of obtaining training equipment, one has to bear
in mind that this is in reference only to the equipment needed for this one
sport.

4. Small Risk of Injury.

Studies of the Kettlebell triathlon indicate the exercises are not dangerous.
These exercises are not associated with great risk when correctly executed.
Tearing of the skin on the palm of the hands due to the improper preparation
of the apparatus (the handle of the kettlebell should be smooth, carefully
polished and rust-free) is the most common injury. This type of injury can
occur even with a smooth, polished kettlebell, but this happens after a lot
of tearing in workouts, when the hands are tired. Consequently, the type of
injury associated with Kettlebell lifting is not due to the nature of the
sport itself, but to outside factors, which can be avoided.

5. The wide age-range of Participants.

The value of any means of physical education increases considerably if it can
be utilized by different age groups. As a means of physical education,
kettlebell lifting has such value. Although the age-range of kettlebell
lifters at present has not been fully researched; practice has shown, that
the ages of the participants varies over a wide range. The average age of
the. competitors at the 1980 regional tournament in Lipetsk was 26 years. The
oldest competitor was 49 and the youngest 16 years old. At the 1981 republic
tournament in Kazan, the mean age was 25.5 years. The oldest competitor was
48 and the youngest was 15 years old. At the moment, the move to expand the
age limits of the participants is one of the problems in athletics. In many
types of sports, athletes who begin at 16-17 years of age are considered to
have no prospects, and competitions in some sports are converted to
“children’s competitions”…..

END OF PART 1

TO BE CONTINUED

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