Dr Mel Siff Blog

Recently an article “Toward an Understanding of Power” was written in the
NSCA’s Strength & Conditioning Journal (Oct 1999: 34-35), which contained
some curious biomechanical definitions and calculations. Here are a few of
them for your interest:

1. “For instance, in cleaning a weight, the velocity of the bar is equal to
its speed and the upward direction in which it moves.”

2. “Strength times speed equals power”

3. Work = force x distance, where Force = Mass lifted,
Distance = gravity x height of pull
Gravity = 9.8 m per sec squared

The article then used the above definitions to calculate power and hence
compare the power generated in the Weightlifting clean and the Powerlifting
deadlift, thus:

Power = Work/Time to execute lift

….but did not distinguish at all between mean power, power at any instant
and peak power during the lifts concerned (deadlifts and cleans).

Would anyone else care to comment on the material which I have quoted above?

In a letter to the editor of the journal, I stressed that one cannot casually
equate velocity (a vector) and the speed (a scalar) ,especially in
non-linear dynamic lifts, and that work is not simply Force x Distance in a
system in which force and direction of application of the force is changing
throughout the movement. I also pointed out the obvious errors in equating
Force with Mass and in defining Distance = gravity x height of pull (all of
this is nonsense).

The author of the article simply replied in the Aug 2000 issue of the same
Journal that:

” I had Dr L, chairman of the math/physics department at …….. University,
review the formula along with the comments. Dr L said that my calculations
are correct…… In trying to make the formula more understandable to
people with no background in math and physics, I had added a few extra words
for clarification purposes, which to a purist was not acceptable.”

Would anyone care to comment on this response, as well?

What concerns me is that this NSCA (National Strength & Conditioning Associati
on) publication reaches tens of thousands of its members all around the
world, many of whom do have at least 4 year degrees in physical education,
kinesiology, science, physical therapy and related fields. The NSCA
administrates and awards the CSCS (Certified Strength and Conditioning
Specialist) qualification and Personal Trainer certification. It is widely
regarded as the definitive source of strength training information for
strength coaches and includes many highly qualified scientists in its ranks,
yet it seems quite contented to allow seriously misinterpreted scientific
information to reach its members.

The NSCA is not unique in this regard. Many other certifying bodies and
training organisations in the strength and fitness realm reveal a similar
attitude that their members “are not scientists” and need not be given a
rigorous background to the simplified concepts that are taught to them.

Some lecturers on the popular fitness circuit have casually confused torque,
moments, couples, force-couples and many other standard mechanics
terminology, yet, when I have tried to point out their errors, they have
simply responded with personal attacks. In a different way, the author of
that NSCA article (a prominent strength scientist in the USA and author of
several books) totally refused to accept that his definitions were
incorrect and misleading.

It seems as if many authorities in the fitness and
strength world consider that they never make mistakes and, if they do, they
should never admit them. Their standard method of handling anyone who
comments on their errors is to attack the messenger very emotively and to
totally ignore the incorrectness of the message. And so, the status quo
continues!

While popularisation of difficult concepts is vital for the general public
and some folk, such as the late Carl Sagan were masters at this, are these
organisations and lecturers not doing their members, clients and the
strength/fitness professions a grave disservice? Is there any solution to
this problem?

Dr Mel C Siff

The topic of Science and Alternative Therapies is addressed in depth in the
book “Voodoo Science” by physicist Robert Park. His definitions of four
aspects of voodoo science are relevant to our current discussions in this
regard:

VOODOO SCIENCE

1. Pathological science – in which scientists deceive themselves with their
experiments and theories

2. Junk science – in which people try to confuse us with convoluted theories
of what could be so, rather than what is so

3. Pseudoscience – in which there is no scientific evidence, but the jargon
and symbols of science are used

4. Fraudulent science – in which genuine error has resulted from
self-delusion to fraud

Notice that these types of voodoo science do not simply apply to alternative
types, self-appointed fitness gurus and guides, and real charlatans, but also
to professional scientists.

Since we have concentrated much attention on the often exaggerated claims and
beliefs of alternative practitioners, let us now focus for a moment on
scientists, firstly by examining the experimental process. Many scientists
set up experiments with the specific intention of proving or disproving a
theory, in other words, they intentionally limit their search to what they
believe is true or what they believe cannot be true, which in many ways is a
perfectly acceptable definition of bias or prejudice (‘pre-judgement’).

‘MYSTICISM’ IN SCIENCE

It seems to be rare that scientists allow their experiments to drift off into
uncharted or vague waters on missions of discovery in the hope that
something will emerge from such ‘chaotic’ or unpredetermined expeditions. It
is not that carefully planned experiments are unscientific or unfairly
biased, for many of the greatest discoveries have been made in this
methodical, detective-like fashion. It is just that this approach often
causes us to lose sight of the fact that many other great discoveries have
emerged from the more coincidental, unplanned flights of fancy and research
(Jungian “synchronicity” or “meaningful coincidence” ?).

Many scientists have described insights or discoveries that have emerged from
reverie, day dreaming, drifting and floating off on vague speculative or
vacuous forays into the unknown. Apparently some of Einstein’s advances in
relativity theory, Kekule’s discovery of the benzene ring in chemistry and
Mendeleev’s formulation of the Periodic Table of Elements all emerged from
altered states of consciousness like this or from unplanned voyages into the
realm of thought. These and many other creations in science, art, music and
other aspects of life are covered by Arthur Koestler in his book “Act of
Creation” and maybe it is time to remind scientists that the scope of
discovery is far wider than what is classically taught in universities.

As a scientist who underwent formal training in physics, applied mathematics,
philosophy, psychology, engineering and physiology, I was never taught about
the more ‘mystical’ side of science – that simply emerged from additional
reading of the great thinkers and from personal experience. Are there any
other scientists on this group who actually were taught the possible role of
the more ‘mystical’ side to scientific discovery (and even sports training)?

The following website is devoted to the subject of ‘mystical’ experiences and
learning in science:

http://www.issc-taste.org/index.shtml

VIRTUAL REALITY SCIENCE

Another often forgotten type of scientific experiment, especially in the
world of exercise physiology and sports science is the gedanken experiment
(“thought experiment”) which has been widely used in physics. The scientist
creates virtual realities in his mind and thinks them through in many
different ways to test which alternative seems to be most logical or
concordant with the facts. In many ways, we can also use computers to
augment gedanken experiments or to simulate ‘reality’.

However, it must be noted that all types of physical and virtual experiments
ultimately have to be tested against what really happens in ‘real life’ – and
so do all alternative theories and beliefs!

Dr Mel C Siff

Someone wrote to me about the analysis of methods and techniques of training
something like this:

<<Why not just give the solution, rather than all the waffle! I don’t
disagree with whether the analysis is right or wrong, and would simply like
to know how one handles back problems. Surely the result will be the same,
whatever the theory? >>

***Some of my comments pointed out that a deeper theoretical understanding of
any process can improve one’s capabilities in using that process efficiently
and safely. I stressed that theory and research observations are not just
“waffle”, but essential steps in helping one understand human structure and
function more competently, so that practice can become more effective.

I added that the use of some very defective and bizarre theories have been
used throughout history to vindicate some outrageous therapies and training
which sometimes worked in a sufficient number of cases thanks to a strong
placebo effect to ensure that many people were satisfied much of the time -
until some new “waffling” scientists and thinkers came along to debunk the
myths! I also commented that all theories and models offer only a partial
representation of “reality” and that any deficiencies and errors in any model
can lead to problems somewhere down the line.

This reader’s views are by no means unique, because this desire for a
standardised training formula or scheme (preferably written on one little
training card!) is rife at many fitness, health and strength conferences.
Far too many instructors and clients seem to want a quick fix, a set approach
and minimal cerebration to solve any problem.

Would anyone else like to comment on this reader’s all too common remark?

Would anyone care to share with us some examples of deficient theories and
beliefs that are used to support training and therapeutic methods in the
world of sport and rehabilitation. Beliefs such as Time Under Tension (TUT),
HIT, Tempo Training, Strong Abs for Back Safety, Stretching to prevent
injury, core muscle strength improves posture and sporting performance are
but a few of the hundreds that we all come across daily.

Dr Mel C Siff

Some years ago I seem to recall an article which concluded that loaded
hyperextension of the spine was potentially less harmful to the lumbar spine
than unloaded hyperextension such as that encountered in throwing and jumping
sports. Possibly someone else can locate that reference. This might explain
why the incidence of hyperextension injuries in Olympic weightlifting appear
to be far less common than in sports such as cricket and gymnastics.

Many have militated against all spinal hyperextension, but they seem to
forget that McKenzie techniques (as variants of the ancient yoga Cobra asana)
actually comprise controlled forced hyperextension of the spine in a posture
which does not allow the lower body to sway and dissipate stress as in the
standing Olympic Press. Sure, we have pointers such as the
peripheralisation or centralisation of pain symptoms to guide us to the
suitability of McKenzie, but why are many folk adamant about avoiding all
forms of hyperextension, irrespective of such guidelines?

Then, we also must distinguish between the strictly controlled hyperextension
of the spine in the sagittal plane during the Olympic Press, compared with
the complex lumbar hyperextension, trunk rotation, lateral pelvic tilting and
asymmetric foot impact actions involved in cricket bowling, tennis serving,
gymnastics and so forth. Are we justified in comparing simple hyperextension
in one plane with complex trunk actions in several planes?

All too often, it seems to be forgotten that even small torque about the
vertebrae can produce more strain in the peripheral annulus of the disk than
far more extensive flexion or extension. This tends to reflect itself in
training and rehabilitation programs drawn up for athletes and workers – the
(often machines-controlled) movements and stretches very rarely involve
significant use of rotatory actions, especially under progressively
increasing conditions of resistance and range. Yet, all physical therapists
have been exposed to the well-known patterns, pacing, procedures and
principles of PNF with all of its emphasis on the regular use of spiral and
diagonal patterns.

This may well explain why the incidence of injuries associated with forceful,
sudden, ballistic or large range rotation of joints may be so rife in sport -
witness for instance, the mainstays of sports therapy with its epidemic of
rotator cuff, ACL and similar injuries. Machine training and even free
weight training seems to concentrate largely on linear or uniplanar actions,
and if rotation is involved in training, it takes place only in the sport
itself or in the gym via the use of gentle yoga-like stretches and warmups.

It is not only exposure to a stressful action that can cause injury, but also
religious avoidance of so-called dangerous actions (which might occur during
actual sporting conditions). One cannot expect the body to cope with the
immense structural and functional demands placed on the body in sport unless
one methodically conditions the body to cope with progressively greater
structural and functional stresses.

Dr Mel C Siff

Here is the next article from the Russian journal, “Theory and Practice of
Physical Training” on the concept of periodisation. It has been liberally
translated and adapted for Western readers from the Russian and should be
read in the light of the preceding article by Dr Verkhoshansky on the same
topic (posted here over the past few weeks). References (mainly in Russian)
have been excluded for the sake of brevity.

——————————-

ABOUT SOME PERMANENT FACTORS IN PRESENT SPORTS TRAINING

Professor T Zheljazkov
National Sports Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria

The occasion for this present article was the kind invitation of the
editorial board of magazine ‘Theory and Practice of Physical Training’ to
involve participation of foreign experts in discussing problems of sports
training.

The problem on which I focus concerns some points in Verhoshansky’s article
(‘Theory and Practice of Physical Training’, 1998, No 2) which does not seem
to have been submitted in spirit of the best traditions of scientific
criticism.

First of all it is erroneous to consider LP Matveev’s concept of
“periodization” as the complete theory of sports training. I do not accept
the judgement that it has played a negative role in the field of elite sports
preparation. The outstanding achievements of sportsmen of the former Soviet
Union vigorously disprove this point of view. Verkhoshansky’s emotional
conclusions that the theory of periodization is constructed on “primitive
methodology ” and ” scholastic demagogy ” also are bewildering. It is
entirely invalid to state that the crisis in cyclic sports and loss of
advanced positions in separate disciplines of track and field athletics also
are due to the “ill-starred” theory of periodization by Matveev.

In this regard I shall pay attention to some key features in present sports
training which provide the foundation for high level, stable sporting
performances.

It is well known that progress of the theory and a practice of sports
training historically is inextricably related to the growing social role of
sport in society. Retrospective analysis of preparation and participation of
elite of international sports in Olympic, world, European and other large
competitions shows that present record achievements in sports are the final
result of the cumulative intellectual and physical efforts of a broad group
of the experts involved the overall training process.

It follows that the intellectualization of sports training is the dominant
factor of progress in sport in the current sports preparation. High
efficiency in this respect is the result of a number of individual
components, namely:

1. The growing integration of various scientific disciplines, including
physiology, psychology, biomechanics, biochemistry, pedagogics and many others

2. The intensive use of telemetering, electronic and computing facilities in
present day training

3. The universal application of controlled scientific methods (especially
mathematical techniques in research)

4. The methodological application of integrated scientific appoaches such as
cybernetics, systems theory, and information theory.

This type of interactive communication between sports, science and technology
provides a qualitatively new dimension to current sports training.

Unlike in industrial production, where intellectualization facilitates or
completely eliminates physical work, in sports it intensifies its involvement.
With increases in sports performance, all of the physical and mental efforts
which determine record achievements also increase. It raises the problem of
the limits of training and competitive loading, as well as the problems of
psychological, moral character and health associated with them.

Analysis of the main systems of sports preparation shows, that in the area of
training there are some factors special importance that stand out.

The value of interrelation between two main principles of sports training
grows, namely “the adequacy and expediency of training loads” and “the unity
of the general and specialised preparation “. We deduce a number of priority
problems in training, especially:

1. The regular and goal-directed tasks associated with the maximal progress
of the integrated functional capabilities of the body. Centrally involved are
three components of a human mobility: aerobic, power (force) and high-speed
capabilities (in the proper proportions, depending on the specificity of the
relevant activity);

2. Scientifically proved technology for assuring peak efficiency of the
means used and the methods which shape total performance

3. The maximal transformation of functionalities in an appropriately
integrated structure, that displays high efficiency of technical skill.

The high level of functional performance represents a material basis for the
systematic, high-intensity preparation and participation in competitions
which are imposed by the present sports calendar. In this respect, typical
examples involve competition in the Olympics which for some sports continue
for 10-12 days; competitions in National Basketball Association (NBA) and
National Hockey League (NHL), where play can involve 90-100 meetings within
6-7 months, with frequent travel against a background of huge physical and
mental stress; and tennis tournaments in which competitors have to play
matches every day for many days without reduced efficiency of playing.
Similar loads are characteristic of sports gymnastics, rowing, wrestling and
many other sports. It determines the fundamentals of specialised base
preparation without which tehnical-tactical perfection is impossible.

With this information in mind, there arise qualitative variations in the
periodisation of sports training, that is, in the structure and content of
training process over time.

Classical application of periodisation, that in its basic concept describes
the phasic nature of progress in sporting form, has not lost its fundamental
importance, although in the technology of its modelling, application and
management there are serious qualitative limitations in some respects (which
may be modified in the light of modern research and sporting experience).
The problems (with simple traditional periodisation) relate to a number of
causes:

1. The commercialisation of sports offers athletes various material and moral
motivations which direct them to selectively participate in various ranked
sports competitions;

2. The accumulated theoretical and practical experience in studying the
mechanisms of adaptation (mainly in the medical, biological and psychological
fields) helps in devising effective means and methods of long-term
maintenance of training. On this basis we can determine more flexible forms
for achieving progress or managing temporary loss of sporting form;

3. The professionalisation of training and competitive activity has brought
in a number of correcting means into the training of athletes, accordingly to
each program structure and its macro-, meso- and micro-cyclic content
(especially the last). As a result of it, strongly pronounced differentiation
of scheduling and management of sports training becomes available, depending
on the specificity of each sport.

The role of goal-directed and long-term motivation for preparation for
competition and participation in it, the mobilisation of all physical and
moral efforts (and even various deprivations) in the name of achieving high
objectives raise the likelihood of maximum achievement in sport. Successful fo
rmation of these qualities depends on objective and subjective prerequisites
such as:

1. The availability of a favorable social environment for assessing and
stimulating (materially and morally) these efforts – i.e. the result of
increasing socialisation of sports in a country;

2. The development of special-purpose means, methods and forms of
influencing the intellectual, strong-willed and emotional world of the
athlete via the use of appropriate experts (psychologists, sociologists,
physicians etc.), who specialise in imparting stable behaviour and reactions
under extreme conditions of training and competition;

3. Increases in the general and specialised culture of the athlete as
prerequisites for consciously cultivated, strongly-motivated self-preparation
and self-assessment outside the world of training and competition.

The formation of long-term effective motivation is linked to a number of new
factors in big sports today. Until recently, leading in this respect were
ideological and political issues to which the Olympic Games fell victim in
Moscow in 1980 and Los Angeles in 1984. The positive change in international
relations now is also matched by the prestige, educational and integrating
functions of sport.

The systems approach to the development of sports skill has in recent years
enabled us to try to grasp not only the structural complexity of external
influences, but also the dynamics and nature of exhaustion and regenerative
processes (which may be used to modify classical periodisation). A systems
approach created indispensable scientific-methodical prerequisites for
constructing the present systems of restoration as essential components of
high achievement in sport.

These systems implicate a number of fundamental installations which determine
the means, techniques and forms of restoration, and the rational construction
of training over time.

It is known that the dynamics of regeneration, regardless of kind, have a
logistical and heterochronical character, i.e., restoration and
supercompensation of the various functions of the body do not proceed
simultaneously and linearly. Thus, the simplistic application of “classical”
principles of loading (each subsequent load is performed in phases of
continued gradual progressive overload) sharply limits the possibility for
creative training and lowers the efficiency of the training process.

Research into the process of exhaustion have revealed some of the complex
mechanisms of this phenomenon and leading factors which cause discoordinated
functioning of various organs and systems. Paying more attention to other
factors of performance (which restore faster) enables the athlete to increase
the volume of training with more creative effect.

It follows that the system of restoration should be constructed in present
sports training on a rigorous basis, with regard to the laws and mechanisms
of adaptive processes. This emphasizes the application of relevant technology
(to develop and modify different methods of ‘periodisation’). Here we note
the following:

1. The value of complex restoration which includes a wide range of sports -
pedagogical, fizikal’nyh grows, psychological, medical means, methods and
forms of accelerating regeneration over time or directly after training or
competition, as well as for preventive maintenance and treatment of trauma
and disease;

2. The technological maintenance of the body’s systems with the help of
modern (mainly portable) equipment and fully equipped laboratories that
guarantee accurate diagnostics and effective regenerative process;

3. The procedure of differential restoration in direct communication with
training and competitions is improved. For this purpose I make wide use of
sports pedagogical, psychological and medical means within the framework of
so-called regenerative microcyles.

One of main criteria of efficiency of each training system is the level of
the control of major factors of achievement in sport. Undoubtedly, it is a
subsystem in which significant progress has been made in recent years. It is
here that the applied achievements of separate sciences are focused:
electronics, biomechanics, biochemistry, computer modelling and many others.

As a matter of fact, the control includes three integrally associated
factors: measurement, assessment and optimization of permanent factors on
achievement in sport. Efficiency of this activity in present systems of
sports preparation is determined first of all by their organizational,
technological and scientific-methodical maintenance.

In the scientific organization of the controlling sports conditioning the
following activities remain:

1. Creation of special purpose links for the controlling research, education
and training in applied colleges, special-purpose laboratories, institutions
etc.) according to material and personnel maintenance;

2. Creation of indispensable coordination and collaboration of these links
with bodies which carry out the training process, such as trainers, clubs and
federations.

3. The organization of effective controls of performance involving decisions
on major corrections in the ovberall system of training

In technical maintenance of control the main attention is on three
fundamental issues:

1. Technical equipment for complex control of stationary conditions. In
essence, it involves hardware systems for the integrated assessment of the
structural-functional status and mental condition of the athlete,as well as
some fundamental biomechanical components of mobility, etc.;

2. Technical equipment for the current control in-the-field: movable
laboratories with portable maintenance and special-purpose studies on
training bases;

3. Technical equipment for control during training, including telemetering
equipment for monitoring the cardiorespiratory system, lactate analyzers of
the byproducts of metabolism, and video equipment for the biomechanical
analysis

In the scientific-methodical maintenance of control the central position is
occupied with establishing a normative basis for the assessment and
optimization of the major factors which determine achievement in sport. Its
practical cost is determined by the availability of the following components:

1. Systems of functional tests and parameters for complex or differentiating
assessment of the condition of the athlete at various stages of sports
preparation;

2. Reliable mathematical-statistical methods for processing the raw data and
appropriate criteria for assessing the results;

3. The establishment of assessment and application systems based on the above
investigated factors (scales, tables, nomogram etc.);

4. The optimization of patterns for increasing the efficiency of training
process by influencing various factors of achievement in sport.

The analysis of world experience in recent years shows the value of the
methods discussed above. It is rtelevant here to note the creation of new
special-purpose institutions for scientific and training investigation, for
example in Calgary, Canberra, Colorado Springs, Peking, the revamped Leipzig
research college, the Central Scientific Institutions of Russia and Bulgaria,
and many others.

In accepting the position that permanent factors in present sports training
are integrally connected with scientific and technical progress, logically
there is a question as to what degree experts in this area can use their
tools of computation, ergometric systems, present research procedures,
information systems and so on. In addition, progress depends on to what
degree they can propose new ideological projects, training models and
practical decisions to ensure short and long term progress. For this purpose
it is necessary to depart from the circle of narrow practical knowledge of a
specific sport and discipline. The output from this framework should take
place by unifying the differentiation and integration of cognitive process.
The further deepening and expansion of special-purpose knowledge of sports
training is impossible without acquaintance with the problems of
bioenergetics, biomechanics, ergometry, functional diagnostics, the
quantitative analysis and modelling of complex phenomena and processes.

It does not at all replace the entire concept of periodisation, but enriches
it with the theoretical and methodological advances in sports training as a
complex many-sided, pedagogical process under the extreme conditions of
training and competition.

———————————————–

Dr Mel C Siff