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/

<This morning I was testing on the 13″ box squat. As I came off the box
about an inch or so? I felt what I believe to be my adductor tear, very
painfull. I dropped the bar on the pins and hit the floor. I thought I might
have to cut the suit off but got it off without ruining it. I had not yet
reached my top set and it did not feel too heavy. I noticed no lapse in
form. It just went. I got a prescription for a muscle relaxer and am taking
Ibupropfen until I can get to the doctor. Also using Ice packs 20 minutes on
and 20 minutes off. So far I do not see any bleeding, bulges or gaps, very
tender to the touch. Have any of you experienced this injury and what might
be ahead. I have not had this particular injury before.>

*** Many years ago, while I was jerking 325lb overhead, my front foot
slipped on baby powder left by a preceding 90kg division lifter on the
platform and I landed in a full ballet splits position. This was one of the
most painful experiences of my life and my adductor magnus was severely
ruptured, as indicated by massive bleeding and bruising that became visible
soon afterwards in all of the area from my groin down the inside of my left
leg and into the hamstring area. I could not adduct my left leg and I
couldn’t do any exercises which involved movement of my left leg for months
afterwards.

Nevertheless, several months later, without surgery, I managed to compete by
using power cleans and push presses (130kg) and power snatches (100kg)
without any sideways movement of my legs – I still don’t know how that was
possible, but you know what one becomes like when the urge to lift overcomes
one’s intelligence! I eventually returned to normal functioning within about
10 months. Since you can still voluntarily move your leg inwards and have no
extensive bleeding into the tissues, it is unlikely that you have
experienced a serious rupture, so you will probably be able to return to
action quite easily.

You may even have experienced a severe spasm, which would be even better news
for you – your medical specialist will have to determine if that is your
problem. Just avoid any loaded or rapid movement for a while, but move
gently over as full a pain-free range as is possible. Continue using ice,
but beware of rubbing DMSO on the inside of your leg, because that area is
easily irritated. Don’t massage the area and don’t use any “hot”
embrocations. You could try large doses of MSM. Vitamin C also plays a role
in connective tissue repair. Remember the old adage: “More haste, less
speed” – don’t try to train with heavier weights too soon, because this
muscle can be very easily reinjured. If you display some intelligent
patience, you will probably return quite happily to where you were before.

Remember, too, that wider powerlifting or sumo squats place great demands on
the leg adductors, so that it would be advisable to use much narrower squats
when you return to leg training. Since adductor magnus also serves as a sort
of adjunct hamstring, be cautious of executing movements which flex the knee
or extend the hip. Whatever you do, simply explore every type of leg
movement in all directions with no added loading and at slow speed before you
even consider adding any weights.

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

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

—————-

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

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

ABSTRACT

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Practical Applications

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

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

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

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

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

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

————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————————

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

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

ABSTRACT

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

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

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

Siff Formulas (sic)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ y = a special exponential of an exponential ]

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

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

Methods

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

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

Results

Relationship Between Body Weight and Weightlifting Performance

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

Model Parameterization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practical Applications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/

<I have recently had a number of clients who have been visiting a clinic in
Switzerland to drink ‘Oxygenated Water’. One client has even installed a
special ‘tank’ which provides them with a constant supply. As far as I am
aware, there has not been any conclusive evidence for this form of
treatment, but perhaps someone on the list has had some firsthand experience
of it. I would greatly appreciate any references, reading or literature in
this regard, in particular the rationale behind why one would use it.>

*** Dr Yessis wrote about “oxygenated” water on our list several months ago,
but I cannot recall having seen any peer-reviewed papers on its use.

<I am especially concerned, as the claims made (useful in Cancer treatment,
Heart Disease?) are fairly ambitious.

*** If such claims are being made, then anyone selling that sort of treatment
should provide the necessary scientific corroboration. Of course, I trust
that those extolling its virtues realise that increased oxidation in the body
may well promote the generation of more free radicals, which currently are
being regarded as being a major contributing factor in the aetiology of
cancer, heart disease and many aspects of ageing.

Anyway, suppose that you drink the recommended 8 glasses of water a day
(which I certainly can’t), the volume of dissolved oxygen is so small that
you can derive more oxygen from the air in a few hearty breaths! Did those
clinics ever inform clients that the oxygenated water doesn’t contain much
more than a fraction of 1 percent of the volume of the water being imbibed?
Did they also explain how a few extra mL (millitres) of oxygen can heal
cancer and heart disease and why it is better than inhaling oxygen via a
mask? How much oxygenated water can one drink to obtain adequate extra
oxygen that will change one’s quality of life and remove all traces of some
terminal diseases?

Incidentally, Swiss “clinics” are renowned for promoting and selling miracle
cures and outrageously unusual types of treatment to the affluent (whose
gullibility about health and age-control is often directly proportional to
their wealth!) – at one stage they were injecting embryonic sheep cells and
“glandulars” into patients because they felt that “very “young” cells will
make the body “younger”. If such treatments are ever questioned, the
frequent response is that this is because there is a conspiracy by the
medical profession to control all aspects of the health and wellness
industry.

Why not visit us here in high altitude Colorado where there is less oxygen
and less likelihood of that dreaded free radical proliferation? Combine it
with some wonderful skiing and winter sporting opportunities, a few sessions
in the Supertraining jacuzzi and pool – add a dash of training in a
weightlifting and powerlifting gym and what more do you need? But don’t
drink the city water which contains more chlorine per litre than our swimming
pool! At least the use of oxygen for purifying drinking water would be one
sensible application. Anyway, chlorine and bromine are actually used for
sanitising water because they are very powerful oxidising agents! Of course,
that bit of trivia should not encourage anyone to drink household bleach or
hydrogen peroxide!

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

Here are some extracts from an article aimed at teaching people about the
management and prevention of heart disease. As usual, any comments are
welcome.

—————

<http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?article_id=5592>

February is American Heart Month and the prevalence of heart disease in our
society is, at best, heartbreaking.

Heart disease is not just another “disease of the month” — it’s the number
one killer of Americans. The
American Heart Association estimates 60 million Americans suffer heart
disease. That’s 1 in 5! More Americans die of heart disease than of all
types of cancer combined…….

Are You At Risk?

There are two types of risk factors associated with heart disease: those you
can control and those you cannot. The good news: the list of those factors
you can control is much larger!

You cannot control your genetics. If you have a family history of heart
disease you’re at greater risk.

You cannot control your age (too bad!). If you’re over 55 you’re at greater
risk.

You cannot control your gender! If you’re a male, younger than 60, you have a
greater risk for a heart
attack. Women over 60 are equally at risk.

What You Can Control

You can control your smoking, your diet, your weight, your activity and your
stress level (to a certain extent). These major risk factors are what you
need to pay attention to, especially if you have one of the non-controllable
risk factors. The more risk factors you have, the greater your chance of
contracting heart disease.

If you smoke, stop now. Smoking is the number one risk factor for heart
disease. Smoking one pack a
day increases the risk by 70 percent. A two-pack habit hikes your risk by 200
percent!

Other risks (like high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, high
triglycerides, and type 2 diabetes) have two controllable factors in common:
diet and exercise.

Obesity in itself is not necessarily a risk factor. But obesity is definitely
associated with high blood pressure and high blood cholesterol. Type 2
diabetes is closely associated with obesity. Ninety percent of type 2
diabetics are overweight or obese. Chronic high blood sugar levels increase
the risk for coronary artery disease and high blood pressure. High
cholesterol often accompanies diabetes and these risk actors increase the
incidence of heart disease. Heart disease causes more than 76 percent of
death for diabetics….

Americans, Unite!

Americans: unite against heart disease! Choose to change lifestyle factors
that will keep you healthy. Sixty percent of adult Americans are overweight
or obese, and only about 20 percent of men and women report eating the five
recommended servings of fruit and vegetables daily. More than half of adults
in the U.S. are not exercising the recommended 30 minutes 4 to 6 times weekly
and sedentary lifestyle doubles the risk for heart disease.

Use the Team Approach

When you think healthy, think diet and think exercise… together! Use the
team approach. Separately, diet and exercise each have their benefits.
Together, the benefits are astounding.

Diet counts. Your diet needs modification, not elimination. There are no
“bad” or “good” foods. Remember, portion size counts. A healthy food can
contribute to obesity if you eat too much of it. You need to eat healthy
foods in the portion size that’s right for you as an individual. Your daily
meal plan should include good sources of complex carbohydrates, lean animal
protein and/or good sources of plant-based proteins, such as soy nuts,
legumes and grains. Healthy fats are important sources of good nutrition….

10 Measures That Could Save Your Life

Susan L. Burke, MS, RD/LD, CDE

Here are some tips that will serve you well!

1. Choose healthy fat! A no-fat diet is not necessarily the healthiest diet.
Fat is important for transport of vitamins and minerals in your body, for
hormone function, and for taste. However, avoid saturated fat and
hydrogenated fat in favor of monounsaturated fat in olive oil and canola oil.
Omega-3 fatty acids, plentiful in flaxseed and fatty fish, are beneficial.
Other good sources include wheat germ, walnuts and soybeans.

2. Soy is a healthy food. The Food and Drug Administration now allows a
health claim linking consumption of soy protein to a decreased risk for heart
disease for including at least 25 grams of soy protein in your daily diet,
(the diet should also be low in saturated fat and cholesterol.) Soy is the
only complete plant protein, containing all essential amino acids. It’s a
good source of B vitamins, essential fatty acids, zinc and iron, and it
contains phytochemicals that research suggests are beneficial to women in
lessening the symptoms of PMS and menopause. It’s also very low in saturated
fat. Soy foods have great variety, including tofu, tempeh, textured vegetable
protein, and soy powder.

3. Think green. Dark green leafy vegetables are some of the best sources of
folic acid in food and they can help reduce the level of homocysteine, an
amino acid made in the body and normally found in low levels in the blood. An
elevated homocysteine level predicts heart disease. Research shows that
reducing saturated fat and cholesterol and increasing vegetables and fruit in
your diet reduces homocysteine levels. Dark green leafy vegetables like
collard greens, kale, broccoli and turnip and beet greens are great sources
of folic acid.

4. Think color. When you choose food for health, choose color. That’s because
foods that are colorful — deep green, yellow and orange, red and gold –
have the greatest amounts of antioxidants, vitamins and minerals. Berries are
ounce-for-ounce one of the best foods, full of antioxidant vitamins C, and
have lots of potassium and fiber. Strawberries contain 60 percent more
vitamin C than grapefruit and 8 percent more than whole oranges. Cranberries,
raspberries and strawberries contain ellagic acid, which researchers have
shown to prevent some cancers.

Berries are also low in calories (only 50 to 70 per cup). If you buy canned
fruit, buy water- or juice-packed. Canned cranberry sauce has three times the
calories of fresh cranberries and 86 percent less vitamin C. Buy “in season”
for the freshest fruit. Try some superfruits like guava, papaya, and mango –
all great sources of carotenoids, antioxidants and fiber. Remember other
orange fruits like cantaloupe, apricots and peaches. Any fruit will do. Whole
fruit is still the best source of vitamin C, fiber, and potassium for less
than 100 calories per serving.

5. Think whole. When choosing foods for health, think whole grains, whole
wheat, whole fruits and vegetables. That’s because unprocessed whole foods
have all their important nutrients intact. Whole foods are rich in fiber,
which is important for digestion and elimination. Research has shown that
people who eat high-fiber diets reduce their risk for heart disease and some
cancers.

6. Think food, not pills. Supplements in pills provide you only with the
antioxidant or vitamin on the label. Other micronutrients in food have not
been fully studied. The evidence for using antioxidant vitamins to reduce
your risk for disease is yet unproven in clinical trials, and the correct
dose and long-term risk when taking more than the recommended amount daily
has not been determined. Taking a multivitamin daily for insurance is fine,
but megadosing can be dangerous.

7. Eat your veggies. Studies have shown that people who eat vegetable-rich
diets reduce their risk of colon, lung and bladder cancer. Scientists think
that phytochemicals are responsible, not just the beta-carotene that colors
the veggies. Stroke is less common among people who eat their veggies, which
may be because of the nice amount of potassium. Those who enjoy lots of leafy
greens like spinach, kale and dandelion greens will get a double dose of
lutein, which helps prevent blindness due to macular degeneration.

Of course, the deep yellow- and orange-colored sweet potatoes and carrots
provide top amounts of vitamin C and carotenoids, and the rich green broccoli
and Brussels sprouts are loaded with carotenoids, vitamin C, folate and
fiber, as well has phytochemicals that may prevent cancer. Bright red
tomatoes in tomato sauce contain lycopene, which is a cancer fighter.

All vegetables are superfoods in that they can boast good nutrition and
fiber, and they contain a frugal
number of calories (40 to 60) per serving.

8. Garlic is good. While you’re at it, add some neutral colored garlic,
sautéed a bit to release its DATS, a
compound that cancer researchers say slows human lung-cancer cell growth in
test tubes.

9. Stay active. Reduce your risk of heart disease, diabetes and obesity –
and decrease your stress levels — with regular exercise. Studies have shown
that just 30 minutes of aerobic exercise 4 to 6 times a week can help you
stay healthy. Take a walk. It’s not necessary to join a gym. Get out the door
and go quickly one way for 15 minutes, and then come back. It’s 30 minutes
before you know it. If you can’t get out, then stay in and dance! Put the
radio on and dance around your house or apartment and have some fun. Do what
you like. That way you’ll stay with it.

10. Small changes produce big results. Change what you can, and you can
change a lot! Choose healthy foods, prepared without deep-frying in
hydrogenated fat. Eat fruit and vegetables every day; watch your portion size
with a healthy meal plan as we offer here at eDiets. Stay online and get
support and motivation from your eDiets community and stay active. Do
something at least 4 to 6 times a week to get your heart rate up. Your heart
is a muscle. Make it strong. You can do it!

Did You Know?

One of the largest sources of hydrogenated fat found in most Americans’ diet
comes from crackers. We know that fast food French fries are about 40% trans
fat, while donuts are about 35-40% trans fat. But the typical cookies and
crackers in your grocery store are up to 50% trans fat!

It’s not easy to find out how much trans fat there is in food, because
manufacturers are not required to list it. If the food’s nutritional label
lists the total grams of fat, saturated fat and unsaturated fat, you can
calculate it. Add the grams of saturated and unsaturated fat, subtract from
the total fat, and the result is grams of trans fat. This only works if
saturated fat is listed, which is also not mandated. Read the label and try
to find products that say, “no trans fat added.” …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some extracts from a highly informative article on leptin, a hormone
secreted by fat cells that influences energy expenditure and food intake in
mammals. At one stage it was popular to administer leptin to obese people in
attempts to make them eat less and stimulate weight loss, but its lack of
success in these applications led to it falling into disfavour. This article
discusses ongoing research into leptin.

<http://134.174.17.116/publications/Focus/2002/Feb8_2002/endocrinology.html>

Hormone Leptin Tied to Fat Breakdown in Muscle

Findings Connect Diabetes and Obesity, Suggest New Look at Obesity Treatment

Metabolic disorders like diabetes and obesity are entangled in a complex
relationship whose ins and outs are often murky. Both stem from malfunctions
in the body’s fuel engines– a vast machinery of metabolic processes that
turn glucose and fatty acids into energy. One of the most important but least
understood parts of this engine is leptin, a hormone secreted by fat cells
that has been shown to exert influence over energy expenditure and food
intake in several neuroendocrine pathways.

In a study in the Jan 17 Nature, a team led by Barbara Kahn, HMS professor of
medicine and chief of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Yasuhiko Minokoshi, visiting
associate professor of medicine, establishes a new connection in the
metabolic machinery, tying leptin to a crucial pathway in fat metabolism in
muscle. This pathway suggests a role for leptin in clearing fat out of cells
and sheds light on the connection between diabetes and obesity……

The Stop Signal

Leptin first came to prominence as a satiety signal, a hormone that seemed to
signal to the brain how much fat was being stored and to regulate food
intake. With this discovery came the lure that administering leptin to obese
people could cause them to eat less and trigger weight loss. But in human
clinical trials, the weight loss was unspectacular, and the hormone’s flurry
of fame as a potential wonder drug petered out. Continued research has shown
that leptin is an important hormone with a hand in many metabolic processes
and undoubtedly has widespread effects that may influence diabetes as well as
obesity.

For one, leptin seems to regulate more than food intake; it has a role in how
fat is metabolized once it is in the body. Obesity is associated with insulin
resistance, and weight loss can often improve insulin’s abilities to clear
glucose from the blood. Several studies in animals suggest that excess lipid
is to blame for the insulin resistance–not the kind stored in fat cells but
lipids that accumulate in other tissues like skeletal muscle, liver, and
pancreatic beta cells. When leptin is given to mice, it helps reduce fat
tissue but also reduces intracellular lipids in these other tissues and
boosts insulin sensitivity. But why this glut of lipids impedes insulin
action is uncertain, as is leptin’s mechanism to clear it……..

Leptin’s known effects occur largely through the sympathetic nervous system.
Although direct effects have been shown in some tissues, it has been debated
whether the hormone directly affects muscle and fat. The relatively rapid
doubling of AMPK–which happens too quickly to be mediated by the central
nervous system–suggests a direct connection. When nerves in the hind legs of
the mice were severed, the muscle there still exhibited this sudden rise, but
the effects of the injection in the hypothalamus were blocked, suggesting
that leptin has two paths of action in fatty acid metabolism, a direct one on
muscle and an indirect one through the nervous system.

Both of these actions converge on the AMPK pathway, through which leptin
increases the oxidation of fatty acids in muscle tissue and keeps fat from
setting up residence in cells. “This is now giving us the molecular pathway
by which leptin may regulate fatty acid oxidation rather than fat
accumulation,” Kahn said.

Although the mechanism of leptin’s action on AMPK in the nervous system is
still unclear, her team further narrowed it down by determining that leptin
works through the system’s alpha-adrenergic arm, another revelation given
there has never been a recognized link between AMPK and this system. The
researchers found that for both routes of action, leptin activates AMPK
through phosphorylation of its alpha subunit. Only one isoform of the alpha
subunit was activated, a specificity that could be useful in drug
development.

Take Two on Obesity Treatment

In light of new knowledge about leptin’s role in fuel metabolism, it makes
sense to revisit the idea of targeting leptin’s actions to treat obesity.
Obese people develop resistance to leptin, so the ability to target a
downstream pathway and bypass leptin resistance may be more beneficial than
treating with leptin itself.

This direct path of leptin action also establishes an important link to
insulin resistance and diabetes. It is well established that the accrual of
lipid in muscle is associated with insulin resistance, and obesity is a risk
factor for type 2 diabetes. “This effect of leptin on the AMPK pathway could
be an important avenue by which it increases insulin sensitivity,” said Kahn.
If so, leptin resistance may help explain why obesity is a risk factor for
diabetes. “If we could reproduce this pathway in leptin-resistant people,
perhaps we could lower their risk of diabetes.”

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

<Any thoughts on this [squat jumps]? I would like some advice as I have a
friend who insists on doing this potentially harmful movement with heavy
weights to increase his “explosiveness”.>

*** You do not necessarily have to jump off the floor when doing “jump
squats”. You can try to produce as much vertical force as possible so that
you may rise high onto your toes without leaving the platform. Explosiveness
is not a quality which is best developed by producing large forces under very
heavy loading, but with less heavy weights which allow one to produce high
RFD (Rate of Force Development) and peak power. This means executing
stretch-shortening or prestretching exercises which have a short coupling
time between the eccentric and subsequent concentric phases of action.

One can also do push presses, push jerks or jerks off racks to achieve some
of the some benefits of squat jumps. An explosive semi squat-good
morning-heel raise hybrid can also be a useful exercise in this regard.

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