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/

Here is some more feedback from various experts on weightlifting pulling
style (some names have temporarily been withheld until such time that the
persons concerned join our list):

1. This letter was sent to me by one of the most famous Eastern European
lifters, a legendary world champion and one of the few in the world who ever
managed to snatch twice bodyweight in the heavier divisions:

The topic of the week [on the weightlifting pull] was very interesting to me.
I do have only one problem with the flatfooted pull. As they say, “the
flatfooted pull will give you flatfooted results”. We certainly don’t want to
get that. We do know for a fact that the lifters are trying their best to get
to fully extended position before get under the bar. I do not see it
happening, by staying on your heels. Another small detail – if you go to an
extended position of your legs (on your toes), even before you start pulling
with the arms to direct the bar towards the final fixed position, you
will.gain 6-9 cm in height. In my opinion, at a max lift, this will give you
the winning edge. Try a vertical jump off your heels!!!

I was a little bit offended by anyone calling this technique archaic. After
the 2+2=4 [basic method of pulling] was discovered, we haven’t seen any other
[proven] options. Looks like it was good enough [for most of the world's top
lifters].

—————–

2. Bud Charniga, former top US lifter and translator of many Russian books
and articles:

< Mel: I think your alternative # 3 is the closest.>

—————-

3. One of the world’s best-known biomechanists working in the field of
weightlifting wrote:

Although I have not done any research directly related to this issue, I can
say that I have watch and analyzed 100’s of national and world champions
competing using film and or video. This includes many (100+) national and
world records — the most recent videos at the world level include the 1998
Worlds and 1999 Jr. Worlds. I have also watched in person and or on film /
video 1000s of lifts. I would estimate that 99% of successful national and
world level lifts (in competition) that I have seen were done using moderate
to maximal plantarflexion during SN and CL pulls.

I know of no biomechanical reason how NOT using the powerful plantarflexion
muscles through the full range of ankle joint movement could increase pulling
force or duration. I would be interested to see some theoretical explanation
as to how this might be possible. Obviously the elite athletes know by
experience how to pull with maximal force, and they use the ankle joint!!

A simple experiment is to try to pedal a bicycle or jump off the ground with
heel contact only (eliminating plantarflexion)

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

A member wrote:

<Dr Siff, the information on the kettlebell training was informative. Many of
the studies and techniques can be found in Pavel Tsatsouline’s ‘The Russian
Kettlebell Challenge.’ I purchased a solid kettlebell (KB) from
www.dragondoor.com after previously purchasing kettlebell handles from
www.ironmind.com . The benefit of the handles is that weight can be added to
any amount versus the fixed weight of the solid KBs (16 kg, 24 kg, and 32 kg).

The disadvantage, for myself, of the handles is that for cleans, presses,
jerks, etc (overhead movements) the plates slide around and are not too
stable. The handles are great for pulls, swings, extended pulls from blocks
while the solid kbs are more stable for overhead movements.

Dr Mel Siff:  Are there actual studies or references to Russian scientific journals in
Pavel’s book? If so, please cite some of them here for our interest.

A Member wrote:

<As one gentleman stated in a past post, it is easy to overtrain with the kbs
as the tonnage mounts very rapidly especially in high rep swings, cleans,
and snatches. A simple calculation for volume of reps x weight, i.e., 16kg
x 25 swings= 400kg (880lb) so you can see that even though the intensity (%
of 1RM) is low, the volume can mount rapidly.

KB training is fun and is a throwback to the early days of weight training
before machines. I take my KB and a jump rope while I travel and get a great
training session anywhere – last trip I trained in the hotel parking lot.

For anyone who has not tried them, they are fun, will definitely increase
your work capacity
and there are an infinite variety of exercise for the whole body to be
discovered. >

Dr Mel Siff: Our Scots training instructor at my former university had some
kettlebells in our early university gym about 40 years ago and we enjoyed
using them for many exercises, and found that they can be useful in offering
one form of general physical preparation (GPP), alongside various gymnastics
and rope climbing drills. However, their novelty often means that one can
spend far too much time with them, time that could produce greater
competitive improvement if devoted to the competitive lifts and their
variants. The solid variety also allows one to impose more stress on the
wrist flexors and extensors (which also can be a negative feature for some
people who overuse KBs).
A Member wrote:

<Exercises I currently do or am working toward with KBs (can be one or two
arms)-cleans, clean and jerk, snatch, swings, high pulls, squat pulls, side
press, bent press, Turkish get ups, leg circles and figure eights, tri
extensions, curls, rowing motion, pullovers, floor press, pullups (with
bells on feet and release to complete set), press, pistols. I am sure there
are a lot more out there to be discovered.

Dr Mel Siff: Note that it very simple to devise exercises for KB training – just begin
with the realisation that all you can do with dumbbells, you can do with KBs.
Then, remember that the handles allow you to grip above the load and, if you
are using solid KBs, you can add variations which involve wrist flexion and
extension.

A Member wrote:

<Pavel quotes that in Prof Medvedev weightlifting book there are 24 exercise
for arms and shoulders and 29 for legs and torso! Russian KB Challenge, p
28.>

Dr Mel Siff: I have Dr Medvedev’s Weightlifting book (and a few others by him) and do
not recall seeing any routines being given for kettlebell training – there
were over 100 exercises based upon the Olympic lifts, but none on kettlebell
training for weightlifters – did Pavel quote exactly which of Dr Medvedev’s
books featured those KB exercises?

While we are discussing this topic. Would any of you care to list some of the
KB exercises that you enjoy or have found to be useful?

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/

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/

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/

We periodically have discussed on this list the possible role of hypnosis and
self-hypnosis in human performance and managing pain. The following website
gives some useful information on this subject. Some of the clinical
hypnotists on our list may like to add their comments.

Here are some excerpts:

——————-

The Truth and Hype of Hypnosis

< http://www.sciam.com/2001/0701issue/0701nash.html>

Though often denigrated as fakery or wishful thinking, hypnosis has been
shown to be a real phenomenon
with a variety of therapeutic uses — especially in controlling pain

……. is hypnosis a real phenomenon? If so, what is it useful for? Over the
past few years, researchers have found that hypnotized individuals actively
respond to suggestions even though they sometimes perceive the dramatic
changes in thought and behavior they experience as happening “by themselves.”
During hypnosis, it is as though the brain temporarily suspends its attempts
to authenticate incoming sensory information. Some people are more
hypnotizable than others, although scientists still don’t know why.
Nevertheless, hypnosis is finding medical uses in controlling chronic pain,
in countering anxiety and even–in combination with
conventional operating-room procedures–in helping patients to recover more
quickly from outpatient surgery….

What Hypnosis Is

…….. researchers with very different theoretical perspectives now agree
on several fundamental principles of hypnosis. The first is that a person’s
ability to respond to hypnosis is remarkably stable during adulthood…..
Studies have shown that an individual’s Stanford score remains as consistent
over time as his or her IQ score–if not more so. In addition, evidence
indicates that hypnotic responsiveness may have a hereditary component:
identical twins are more likely than same-sex fraternal twins to have similar
Stanford scores.

A person’s responsiveness to hypnosis also remains fairly consistent
regardless of the characteristics of the hypnotist: the practitioner’s
gender, age and experience have little or no effect on a subject’s ability to
be hypnotized. Similarly, the success of hypnosis does not depend on whether
a subject is highly motivated or especially willing. A very responsive
subject will become hypnotized under a variety of experimental conditions and
therapeutic settings, whereas a less susceptible person will not, despite his
or her sincere efforts. (Negative attitudes and expectations can, however,
interfere with hypnosis.)

Several studies have also shown that hypnotizability is unrelated to
personality characteristics such as gullibility, hysteria, psychopathology,
trust, aggressiveness, submissiveness, imagination or social compliance. The
trait has, however, been linked tantalizingly with an individual’s ability to
become absorbed in activities such as reading, listening to music or
daydreaming.

Under hypnosis, subjects do not behave as passive automatons but instead are
active problem solvers who incorporate their moral and cultural ideas into
their behavior while remaining exquisitely responsive to the expectations
expressed by the experimenter. Nevertheless, the subject does not experience
hypnotically suggested behavior as something that is actively achieved. To
the contrary, it is typically deemed as effortless–as something that just
happens. People who have been hypnotized often say things like “My hand
became heavy and moved down by itself” or “Suddenly I found myself feeling no
pain.”

Many researchers now believe that these types of disconnections are at the
heart of hypnosis. In response to suggestion, subjects make movements without
conscious intent, fail to detect exceedingly painful stimulation or
temporarily forget a familiar fact. Of course, these kinds of things also
happen outside hypnosis–occasionally in day-to-day life and more
dramatically in certain psychiatric and neurological disorders.

Using hypnosis, scientists have temporarily created hallucinations,
compulsions, certain types of memory loss, false memories, and delusions in
the laboratory so that these phenomena can be studied in a controlled
environment…

What Hypnosis Isn’t

As scientists discover more about hypnosis, they are also uncovering evidence
that counters some of the skepticism about the technique. One such objection
is that hypnosis is simply a matter of having an especially vivid
imagination. In fact, this does not seem to be the case. Many imaginative
people are not good hypnotic subjects, and no relation between the two
abilities has surfaced….

In 1998 Henry Szechtman of McMaster University in Ontario and his co-workers
used PET to image the brain activity of hypnotized subjects who were invited
to imagine a scenario and who then experienced a hallucination. The
researchers noted that an auditory hallucination and the act of imagining a
sound are both self-generated and that, like real hearing, a hallucination is
experienced as coming from an external source. By monitoring regional blood
flow in areas activated during both hearing and auditory hallucination but
not during simple imagining, the investigators sought to determine where in
the brain a hallucinated sound is mistakenly “tagged” as authentic and
originating in the outside world.

Szechtman and his colleagues imaged the brain activity of eight very
hypnotizable subjects who had been prescreened for their ability to
hallucinate under hypnosis. During the session, the subjects were under
hypnosis and lay in the PET scanner with their eyes covered. Their brain
activity was monitored under four conditions: at rest; while hearing an
audiotape of a voice saying, “The man did not speak often, but when he did,
it was worth hearing what he had to say”; while imagining hearing the voice
again; and during the auditory hallucination they experienced after being
told that the tape was playing once more, although it was not.

The tests showed that a region of the brain called the right anterior
cingulate cortex was just as active while the volunteers were hallucinating
as it was while they were actually hearing the stimulus. In contrast, that
brain area was not active while the subjects were imagining that they heard
the stimulus. Somehow hypnosis had tricked this area of the brain into
registering the hallucinated voice as real.

Another objection raised by critics of hypnosis concerns its ability to blunt
pain. Skeptics have argued that this effect results from either simple
relaxation or a placebo response. But a number of experiments have ruled out
these explanations. In a classic 1969 report, Thomas H. McGlashan and his
colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania found that for poorly
hypnotizable people, hypnosis was as effective in reducing pain as a sugar
pill that the subjects had been told was a powerful painkiller. But highly
hypnotizable subjects benefited three times more from hypnosis than from the
placebo. In another study, in 1976, Hilgard and Stanford colleague Éva I.
Bányai observed that subjects who were vigorously riding stationary bicycles
were just as responsive to hypnotic suggestions as when they were hypnotized
in a relaxing setting.

In 1997 Pierre Rainville of the University of Montreal and his colleagues set
out to determine which brain structures are involved in pain relief during
hypnosis. They attempted to locate the brain structures associated with the
suffering component of pain, as distinct from its sensory aspects. Using PET,
the scientists found that hypnosis reduced the activity of the anterior
cingulate cortex — an area known to be involved in pain — but did not
affect the activity of the somatosensory cortex, where the sensations of pain
are processed.

Despite these findings, however, the mechanisms underlying hypnotic pain
relief are still poorly understood. The model favored by most researchers is
that the analgesic effect of hypnosis occurs in higher brain centers than
those involved in registering the painful sensation. This would account for
the fact that most autonomic responses that routinely accompany pain — such
as increased heart rate — are relatively unaffected by hypnotic suggestions
of analgesia. ….

Hypnosis and Memory

Perhaps nowhere has hypnosis engendered more controversy than over the issue
of “recovered” memory. Cognitive science has established that people are
fairly adept at discerning whether an event actually occurred or whether they
only imagined it. But under some circumstances, we falter. We can come to
believe (or can be led to believe) that something happened to us when, in
fact, it did not. One of the key cues humans appear to use in making the
distinction between reality and imagination is the experience of effort.
Apparently, at the time of encoding a memory, a “tag” cues us as to the
amount of effort we expended: if the event is tagged as having involved a
good deal of mental effort on our part, we tend to interpret it as something
we imagined. If it is tagged as having involved relatively little mental
effort, we tend to interpret it as something that actually happened to us.
Given that the calling card of hypnosis is precisely the feeling of
effortlessness, we can see why hypnotized people can so easily mistake an
imagined past event for something that happened long ago. Hence, something
that is merely imagined can become ingrained as an episode in our life story.

A host of studies verify this effect. Readily hypnotized subjects, for
instance, can routinely be led to produce detailed and dramatic accounts of
their first few months of life even though those events did not in fact occur
and even though adults simply do not have the capacity to remember early
infancy. Similarly, when given suggestions to regress to childhood, highly
hypnotizable subjects behave in a roughly childlike manner, are often quite
emotional and may later insist that they were genuinely reliving childhood.
But research confirms that these responses are in no way authentically
childlike–not in speech, behavior, emotion, perception, vocabulary or
thought patterns. These performances are no more childlike than those of
adults playacting as children. In short, nothing about hypnosis enables a
subject to transcend the fundamental nature and limitations of human memory.
It does not allow someone to exhume memories that are decades old or to
retrace or undo human development.

What It’s Good For

So what are the medical benefits of hypnosis? A 1996 National Institutes of
Health technology assessment panel judged hypnosis to be an effective
intervention for alleviating pain from cancer and other chronic conditions.
Voluminous clinical studies also indicate that hypnosis can reduce the acute
pain experienced by patients undergoing burn-wound debridement, children
enduring bone marrow aspirations and women in labor. A meta-analysis
published in a recent special issue of the International Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis, for example, found that hypnotic suggestions
relieved the pain of 75% of 933 subjects participating in 27 different
experiments. The pain-relieving effect of hypnosis is often substantial, and
in a few cases the degree of relief matches or exceeds that provided by
morphine…

Hypnosis can boost the effectiveness of psychotherapy for some conditions.
Another meta-analysis that examined the outcomes of people in 18 separate
studies found that patients who received cognitive behavioral therapy plus
hypnosis for disorders such as obesity, insomnia, anxiety and hypertension
showed greater improvement than 70 percent of the patients who received
psychotherapy alone. After publication of these findings, a task force of the
American Psychological Association validated hypnosis as an adjunct procedure
for the treatment of obesity. But the jury is still out on other disorders
with a behavioral component. Drug addiction and alcoholism do not respond
well to hypnosis, and the evidence for hypnosis as an aid in quitting smoking
is equivocal.

That said, there is strong, but not yet definitive, evidence that hypnosis
can be an effective component in the broader treatment of other conditions.
Listed in rough order of tractability by hypnosis, these include a subgroup
of asthmas; some dermatological disorders, including warts; irritable bowel
syndrome; hemophilia; and nausea associated with chemotherapy. The mechanism
by which hypnosis alleviates these disorders is unknown, and claims that
hypnosis increases immune function in any clinically important way are at
this time unsubstantiated….

————

The following website offers a great deal of information on the history,
applications and theories of hypnosis:

<http://www.institute-shot.com/hypnosis_and_health.htm>

————–

Dr Mel  Siff