Here is some discussion from the IWF list between Istvan Javorek and myself
on the weightlifting pull:
Mel Siff wrote:
<I have just completed several hours of normal and slow motion viewing of
video tapes of several recent weightlifting championships, including the
European and World Championships from 1999 onwards in an attempt to assess if
most of the world’s top lifters indeed use the allegedly more efficient
pulling with little or no plantarflexion (heel raise) method vs the style of
pulling with prominent plantarflexion, as has been claimed by some present
day coaches. What I saw was that most lifters still pull with a significant
degree of plantarflexion, so it would be interesting to know why this is so,
assuming that this method should be regarded as archaic and inefficient.
This suggests one of several things:
Alternative # 1 The majority of modern lifters are lifting in an inefficient
manner and would improve their totals if they changed to the more flatfooted
pulling style?>
Istvan Javorek:
It would not help changing a consecrated athlete’s technique, but would be
more detrimental to his/her performance, due to “confusion” in neuromuscular
coordination (pathways). After Ivan Bosko , former Soviet Union head coach,
arrived in Romania and we started implementing the flat footed technique we
did correct as much as possible any technical errors of the “old ” lifters,
but mostly, we were teaching the flatfooted technique with the new generation
of athletes from the beginning .
Mel Siff:
<Alternative # 2. Those lifters have found that the plantarflexed pulling
style produces better results for them. In other words, different pulling
styles suit different individuals, but that the plantarflexed style suits
most lifters.
Istvan Javorek:
How I mentioned, if an athlete learned with plantarflexion, would be pretty
hard and time-consuming changing into flatfooted technique. It is obvious
that all of them feel more comfortable with the already-formed pathways- and
so will lift more with their technique. But this statement does not mean that
his/her plantarflexion technique is more beneficial than the flatfooted and
does not exclude the he/she would not lift more (in case of learning from the
beginning) with the flatfooted technique.
[Mel Siff: Not does it mean that the flatfooted technique is universally
superior - I am still trying to find some published biomechanical studies
which have shown that the flatfooted style is more efficient than any other
style of pulling.]
So forget about those “already formed” athletes. Start with the young ones,
from the beginning with the right technique. I have been coaching
weightlifting since 1968 and I have not met any beginning athlete to consider
suiting more plantarflexion versus flatfooted technique. It is the coach’s
duty and knowledge to adopt the right methods of finding out how to modulate
an athlete’s individual physical characteristics into the right technique. In
case of taller athletes for example, it could be a higher start position,
etc. But with a young beginner the most important to develop the right
musculature with the perfect technique and form. Then every athlete will
feel obviously easier with flatfooted technique.
[Mel Siff: Why is this "obvious"? It is obvious that any athlete will feel
that any well-established technique is easier than any attempts at trying a
novel style. So far, if one compares lifts of plantarflexed vs flatfooted
pulling style lifters across the bodymass divisions and over the years, there
does not appear to be any trend showing that either style of pulling produces
superior totals or safer lifting. Once again, I am seeking scientific or
biomechanically models which show that one of the two styles is suprior or
inferior to the other, but nobody has yet supplied the requested evidence.
Does it exist or do we simply have to rely on opinion and subjective
experience until such evidence one day emerges?]
Mel Siff:
<Alternative # 3. Most lifters don’t really concern themselves with what
happens to their heels during the pull and that they simply focus on pulling
as powerfully as possible, no matter whether this involves plantarflexion or
not.>
Istvan Javorek:
A lot of athletes are taught with bad technique at their clubs. Coming up to
the national teams, a national team coach can do just one thing: try to
correct small technical mistakes, but in the long run let the athlete to
perform how he/she learned .
Conclusion: An athlete who learned with plantarflexion, or let’s say with
improper technique, probably never will be able of correcting his/her habit)
and especially with heavy weight will act with his/her) very well formed
conditioning reflex way(pathway).
[Mel Siff: Are you stating categorically that plantarflexed lifting is
universally inferior to flatfooted pulling? If so, once again I respectfully
request seeing research which shows this to be true in terms of biomechanics,
thermodynamics or superior results for a large population of lifters of
different bodymass and different anthropometrics. Do you consider
Alternative # 3 also to be incorrect? Is there no room for individual choice
of pulling style? ]
When we tried in Romania, (after Ivan Bosko’s arrival) to correct or change
the old lifters’ technique, we learned that it is almost impossible, because
of the very strong pathways. So we better started with the young athletes to
teach very successfully.
Lifting very heavy weight with plantarflexion does not mean that the
respective athlete has good technique!! I’m sure if he or she would learn
(as a young beginner) the right technique he/she would be able to lift more.
Several times great coaches also do not pay too much time changing an
athlete’s technique for two reason: a)they are already successful with the
plantarflexion technique b)would make more damage than good to their
improvement.
[Mel Siff: Lifting very heavy weights or winning a world event with a
flatfooted style also does not mean that the lifter has good technique. Both
styles of pulling produce exceptional results - can we prove scientifically
that one style is universally superior to the other? Even in the absence of
laboratory biomechanical analysis, we can certainly use basic free body
diagram (theoretical) methods to show that premature plantarflexion is less
efficient than late stage plantarflexion, but I have not yet seen similar
free body analysis which shows that flatfooted pulling produces a more
efficient overall lift than plantarflexed pulling. So, even if nobody can
produce the required laboratory analysis comparing the two styles of pulling,
can anyone please produce some basic free body or other theoretical analyses
to take this comparison beyond the subjective level of commentary that we
have seen so far? Any offers from anyone? ]
As an example: In Romania in the late 1930s there was a young man from a
mountain village who, without too much preparation jumped over 7.50 cm in the
long jump using the grouping style and became Balkan champion. So, all of
the coaches from the national team became over excited and they were trying
to teach him Jesse Owens’s hitch kicking technique. So, after torturing the
poor guy for more than a year, he jumped 7.20 or so!!!
CONCLUSION : ** Never try to change a high performance athlete’s Technique!!
But make corrections and adjustments!! **
5. My main point is how Newton stated in his famous third law of physics:
“every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. Now. If your action is
forward (up on toes, moving the common center of gravity of body forward, the
reaction will be the athlete’s body will move in other direction and the bar
gets away from the torso.
[Mel Siff: Neither video studies nor biomechanical analyses show that
plantarflexion necessarily results in an accentuated horizontal force
component away from the body. The brushing or hitting of the bar against the
body in either style of pulling will produce that sort of horizontal force
component very easily. If the bar swings away from the body during
plantarflexed pulling that is more a consequence of poor technqiue than any
inherent weakness in that pulling style.]
And what is the most important: ** Never mix up a biomechanically correct
technique with any individual athlete’s technique. It does not matter if an
athlete is a world champion, still could have several technical mistakes,
which if are corrected could improve his/her performance.**
[Mel Siff: I fully agree with all of what you have written in this paragraph,
but both the flatfooted and plantarflexed styles may be executed efficiently
or inefficiently. ]
Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
Member 1:
<<Even if you do not consider technique or differences in lifting styles
(flat-footed vs. plantarflexed), you have to agree that the extra 2-3 inches
of bar height you will gain just by extending onto the balls of the feet
could be paramount to a successful max lift.>>
Member 2:
<This is only true if the peak velocity occurs following the plantarflexion
(and before the squat under). If peak velocity occurs prior to
plantarflexion, and the lifter continues to rise onto the toes, they lose
valuable time that could be used to get under the bar because the bar has
begun to decelerate.>
Dr Mel Siff: True, but no experienced lifter who uses some degree of plantarflexion
times the plantarflexion action in that inefficient manner.
Member 1:
<<Also, from a biomechanical perspective, it does not make sense that one can
get a more powerful pull by NOT extending the ankles. Considering that the
force applied to the bar during the lift is proportionately related to the
sum of all joint torques, if you have more joints generating extension
torques, you will obviously have higher totals (assuming technique is not a
factor).>>
Member 2:
<But if plantarflexion occurs subsequent to full hip and knee extension, the
hip and knee extensor musculature can no longer apply force to raise the
barbell (or the barbell/lifter system). Therefore, can plantarflexion apply
force greater than that already applied by the hip and knee extensors to
continue to (postively) accelerate the barbell? It is not simply a matter of
applying greater force, or having greater power, the timing of these
variables is equally important (Enoka, MSSE, 1979).>
Dr Mel Siff:
*** Of course, you will have noticed in Enoka’s 1979 paper that two velocity
peaks were identified: one before the bar reached knee level and the next, of
slightly greater magnitude, after the “double knee-bend” action. Moreover,
the lifters in his study were using the “old” plantarflexed style, so we
cannot judge which kinesiological differences occur when a flatfooted pull is
used. Anyway, it is extremely difficult to produce any degree of forceful
plantarflexion after full hip and knee extension, because the body
reflexively integrates plantarflexion into a linked chain of joint extending
actions involving an optimal sequence of knee, hip and ankle extending
actions. A simple experiment – lock your knee and hips, and do not extend
your trunk and see how high you can jump off the ground using ankle
plantarflexion alone.
Member 2:
<This is not to suggest that lifters should not ALLOW plantarflexion to
occur. However, it should be considered that plantarflexion may be a
function or artifact of the vertical momentum of the lifter/barbell system
created by the hip and knee extensors (from Newton, an object in motion …),
rather than consequence of a conscious effort to rise onto the toes.>
Dr Mel Siff:
*** In other words, this comment supports alternative #3 in my original
letter on this topic. Yet, there are some coaches who vehemently militate
against allowing the heels to leave the platform. Just to remind those who
may not have read my original letter, here is its closing statement:
<What I saw was that most lifters still pull with a significant degree of
plantarflexion, so it would be interesting to know why this is so, assuming
that this method should be regarded as archaic and inefficient.
This suggests one of several things:
1. The majority of modern lifters are lifting in an inefficient manner and
would improve their totals if they changed to the more flatfooted pulling
style.
2. Those lifters have found that the plantarflexed pulling style produces
better results for them. In other words, different pulling styles suit
different individuals, but that the plantarflexed style suits most lifters.
3. Most lifters don’t really concern themselves with what happens to their
heels during the pull and that they simply focus on pulling as powerfully as
possible, no matter whether this involves plantarflexion or not.
Which of the above possibilities is correct? Or are there other alternatives?
>
Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
Several months ago I posted in the Supertraining “Files” a series of
photographs on the different pulling styles used by the world’s top
weightlifters during the snatch and clean:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/files
I have just completed several hours of normal and slow motion viewing of
video tapes of several recent weightlifting championships, including the
European and World Championships from 1999 onwards in an attempt to assess if
most of the world’s top lifters indeed use the allegedly more efficient
pulling with little or no plantarflexion (heel raise) method vs the style of
pulling with prominent plantarflexion, as has been claimed by some present
day coaches. What I saw was that most lifters still pull with a significant
degree of plantarflexion, so it would be interesting to know why this is so,
assuming that this method should be regarded as archaic and inefficient.
This suggests one of several things:
1. The majority of modern lifters are lifting in an inefficient manner and
would improve their totals if they changed to the more flatfooted pulling
style?
2. Those lifters have found that the plantarflexed pulling style produces
better results for them. In other words, different pulling styles suit
different individuals, but that the plantarflexed style suits most lifters.
3. Most lifters don’t really concern themselves with what happens to their
heels during the pull and that they simply focus on pulling as powerfully as
possible, no matter whether this involves plantarflexion or not.
Which of the above possibilities is correct? Or are there other alternatives?
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
Here is some continued discussion from the IWF list on the weightlifting
pulling questions which I posed recently:
One Supertraining Member contributed the following:
<< After reviewing many videos and digitizing many others it appears that
many of the best technicians in the pull (e.g. Petrov) pull flat footed as
long as possible until they begin the transition pull from the knee to the
high chest position. At that point they seem to shift to the balls of their
feet before they go into the final extension of the pull.>
Mel Siff:
*** But that is exactly what was taught in Weightlifting several decades ago
and is not the much vaunted “flatfooted” style whose merits are so widely
extolled nowadays. Way back then some lifters displayed a high heel raise,
others less, as appears to be the case with most lifters today. There does
not seem to be anything novel, original or revolutionary about that. Nobody
back then ever advised pulling with early plantarflexion, especially because
this can easily result in pulling off the obviously unstable and
biomechanically inefficient on the balls of the feet base. The delayed
plantarflexing action is similar to the situation which occurs when one is
jumping, a process which is necessary to allow gastrocnemius to optimally
contribute to the knee, hip and trunk extension action. If you try to jump
with minimal plantarflexion you will produce less take-off force.
Thus, it appears that some degree of optimally-timed plantarflexion is
necessary if one wishes to rely on this muscle to enhance its tension and
augment the vertical force generated by knee, hip and trunk extension. If
one remains flatfooted throughout, then any activity of gastrocnemius would
appear to be aimed primarily at flexion of the knee (ostensibly for the
“double knee-bend” action).
<Ideally, if would be best if they could maintain a flat foot posture during
the transition but when you get 200 + Kg on the bar this become increasingly
difficult as the lever arm from the rotation point of the hip to the weight
arm is at its greatest. Look at Petrov’s clean pulls at the 1996 Olympics;
as his attempts become heavier, he shifts more to the balls of the foot at the
end of the transition and before the final extension.>>
Mel Siff:
***Why would this be “ideal”, i.e., biomechanically optimal in the light of
the analysis that I have discussed above? So far, those who are advising the
“flatfooted” pull are rather emphatic about the heels not leaving the
platform AT ALL. I still remain curious about the biomechanics behind the
alleged universal advantage of this for all lifters. Are there any
biomechanical research studies which have shown that the flatfooted pull is
significantly more efficient and more effective than the more traditional
pulling style or does the issue still depend largely on empirical experience?
If I am to coach in a particular style, I prefer to rely on a combination of
art and science and not simply on art and opinion. All that I am requesting
is to see the scientific evidence to guide coaches in a far more logical and
solid direction.
Petrov’s method seems to be pretty much the same as what was used traditionally
many
years ago – he used a degree and timing of plantarflexion which suited him. It
certainly
is not “flatfooted” throughout the pull.
Any more comments? Better still – any relevant references?
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
Someone asked him in his column which he calls “Ask the Master” :
JUMP WITHOUT PLANTARFLEXION
—————————————————-
<In the seminar you did near Boston you mentioned during jump training, to
jump without plantar flexing the feet. What is the purpose of that? . . .
. . . >
King’s reply was as follows:
<< The technique of actually dorsi flexing in the jump has a number of
purposes, including:
* decreasing ground contact time
* therefore increasing elastic energy utilization
* teaches focus on air time, not toe time
* greater specificity with the sprint technique I teach
* reduces hamstring flex in sprint leg cycle >>
—————————-
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
Issues such as the following immediately spring to mind:
1. If one really wishes to jump without plantarflexion, one has to begin
from a static start way back on the heels, with no contact whatsoever between
any other part of the foot and the ground. After you have read this, try it
for yourself and experience how one needs to balance on the tip of the heel
before one even attempts this drill. Any ground contact with other parts of
the sole besides the heel will elicit a reflex tendency to plantarflex the
ankle.
2. One needs to stress that there can be dorsiflexion of the toes, as well
as the ankle. The correct phasing of contributions from each is central to
all jumping and running efficiency.
3. In referring to elastic energy utilization, it is essential to identify
in which exact tissues the elastic energy storage and release is occurring.
Regarding increased utilisation of elastic energy processes in the all of the
soft tissues involved in jumping and running, it is essential to understand
the central role played by plantarflexion.
Anyway, no scientists have yet managed to determine how much of rebounding
efficiency is due to contributions from stored elastic energy and how much is
due to facilitation of stretch and related nervous processes. To claim that
any training method will increase elastic energy usage in isolation from
other mechanisms implies that one knows the answer to a problem that science
has not yet managed to resolve.
4. Once you left the ground, air time is unaffected by anything that your
driving leg can do. Long jumpers use specific running techniques in the air
before they land, but the ability to execute them depends on a very powerful
take-off facilitated by processes including ankle and toe plantarflexion.
5. Whatever exact meaning is attributed to the obscure phrase, “reduces
hamstring flex in sprint leg cycle”, it needs to be pointed out that the
hamstrings do not “flex”. Muscles contract and relax, while joints flex or
extend. The deflection of bones under the effect of strong transverse
loading might also be regarded as a form of flexion, but “hamstring flex” is
a new one to me.
Would anyone be interested in commenting further on the validity and accuracy
of these statements, regarding either the biomechanics or the practical
issues involved?
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA