Dr Mel Siff Blog

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

I have great admiration for the book Supertraining by Siff and Verkhoshanksy. Not only is it one of the best books ever written on strength and conditioning, but it also does an excellent job disputing some common weightlifting myths.

PILATES MYTHS

Another great article by Mel Siff, from his Supertraining List at YahooGroups.

Now that the Pilates system of training has undergone a huge rebirth in the
USA and started to attain the status of culthood, its latter day
practitioners are now reviving some of the myths of strength training. Here
are a few that are now doing the rounds, taken directly from the advertising
copy that is promoting Pilates in the media:

MYTH 1.

Weight training tends to shorten the muscles, but Pilates lengthens them. All
that lifting bunches up the muscles and makes one tight and stiff.

FACT:

All muscles contract and shorten when they are activated. All muscle lengthen
when they relax. If muscles appear to lengthen and flatten with training,
then this would imply that one is losing muscle bulk, which is not a highly
desirable state for anyone. This Pilates belief is total nonsense and betrays
a sorry knowledge of muscle physiology. It would also seem to suggest that
the more Pilates work you do, the longer your muscles become. That, of
course, would mean that your muscles would develop slack and you even tually
would not be able to move your joints!

MYTH 2.

Pilates offers much more variety than weight training. It now has over 2000
exercises.

FACT:

The field of weight training, which includes free barbell and dumbbell
weights and machines, offers at least ten times that number of exercises and
exercise variations. Pilates does not even come close.

Pilates practitioners, of course, should note that the well-known Pilates
machine, the Reformer (a type of lying sled device), the Cadillac, the Spine
Corrector and various other machines were developed by Joseph Pilates from a
host of earlier weird and wonderful machines that were on the fitness and
gymnastics market of Europe and Russia during the late 19th and early 20th
century. If one examines some early patents from Germany, for example, even
some weight training devices like some made by Nautilus were derived from
these earlier innovations.

One might even state that “Pilates training” constitutes just another man’s
own range of strength training routines and machines, someone like Arthur
Jones, Bob Hoffman, Eugene Sandow, Professor Attila or Joe Weider. Those who
are “doing Pilates” thus are simply doing another type of strength training
program and they don’t even recognise that fact. If any of their instructors
think that old Joe Pilates had a totally unique approach or philosophy, then
they would do well to learn that several of the strengthening trend setters
of the past 100 years all had some fascinating philosophies and methodologies
that are not dramatically different from that of Pilates. Reading through a
book such as Webster’s “The Iron Game” or talking to Dr Terry Todd and his
wife will fill in some of the gaps in their education if anyone is unaware of
that fact.

MYTH 3.

Pilates realigns the body, corrects muscle imbalances and helps to heal
injured backs. Weight training usually causes imbalances and overstresses the
back.

FACT:

Suitably individualised Pilates and progressive weight training programs both
can be used to “correct imbalances” and improve postural alignment, which
actually have a lot more to do with motor education than what means is used
to achieve those ends. Conversely, poorly taught Pilates and weight training
both can be injurious. There are very few other methods that can develop such
great spinal strength, power and stability under loading as a well-designed
heavy weight training program.

The bottom line? Why don’t modern Pilates teachers and enthusiasts simply
state that they really prefer Pilates training to any other methods at the
moment and that other forms of training may well be more enjoyable and
productive for others? There is no scientific or clinical evidence that
Pilates is any better or worse than any other form of training for the
average population, so let it be marketed as such.

Of course, anyone who is a student of international sport knows that Pilates
training done as the sole form of conditioning has produced very few or none
of the world champions in sport, nor has it been shown to offer superior
musculoskeletal healing to any other form of therapy. That does not make it
any the less enjoyable or effective for those who feel justified in spending
thousands of dollars a year to learn it. Those people simply enjoy it because
they have found that it suits them, nothing more, nothing less.

Fortunately, when I was being taught Pilates methods more than 15 years ago
by some Pilates teachers in return for my teaching them modified forms of PNF
training which Pilates did not specifically address, we discovered that we
all had something to teach and learn from one another’s training — though we
agreed that Pilates methods of pelvic stabilisation were not intended for
lifting heavy loads in weightlifting and powerlifting. Once again, a case of
live and let live! Pilates teachers and weight trainers were getting along
just fine until the commercial marketeers came along to distort the facts
with their comparative advertising.

Dr Mel Siff

We reveal the truth behind 10 of the oldest misconceptions in fitness. Most of the ideas you hear circulating in your local weight room today have about as much basis on scientific fact as the notion that the world is flat. ...

as the late exercise scientist mel c. siff, ph.d., noted in his book facts and fallacies of fitness, “the japanese sit on the floor with their knees folded fully flexed beneath them, bearing all their body weight for prolonged periods ...