More Ballistic Mythology

[Guest guest]

Someone sent us the following article to analyse. I have started the ball

rolling and leave the rest to you.

------------------

http://www.coachsos.com/mystique.html

The Mystique Associated With Russian/Eastern European Training Methodologies

Coach Asanovich gives us his take on the problems with ballistic resistance

training.

<Given the " Athletic Performance Equation, " performance outcomes are

dependent upon the sum interplay of a myriad of controllable, uncontrollable

and somewhat controllable variables. Hence, to what extent does coaching,

athletic talent, team 'chemistry,' nutritional status, psychological

readiness, weather conditions, officiating, pharmacological status, luck, or

for that matter, one's training protocols effect the sum athletic

performance? Obviously, an attempt to conclusively quantify the effects of a

single performance variable on overall performance outcomes becomes a matter

of subjective speculation.

Nevertheless, by virtue of successful athletic performance, successful

athletes, coaches, and teams are intuitively thought to possess successful

training protocols. The unspoken assumption being that if one follows the

training protocols of the champions, one will likewise evolve into a

champion. Consequently, popular opinion has led many to believe that as a

result of past International and/or Olympic success, it is logical that the

Russians must implement the most effective training protocols. To compound

this misguided perception, there are many who would also have one believe

they also harbor numerous " training secrets. "

Siff:

*** Any experienced coach today in any country knows that what suits one

athlete does not necessarily suit another athlete or what suits the same

athlete today may not suit that athlete tomorrow. Only naive or arrogant

coaches will maintain that there is only one specific method which produces

world champions.

Asanovich:

<Ironically, many athletes and teams have performed successfully without ever

having employed these Eastern European regimens into their training

programs.>

Siff:

If he spoke to some Eastern European coaches he might be surprised to hear

that some Eastern European athletes have not relied to any major extent on

alleged Eastern Europeans regimens. He is making generalisations based upon

second-hand perceptions of what Eastern training really is. Some Eastern

coaches are also profoundly critical of some methods which are popular in

their countries.

Asanovich:

<Truth be told, many athletes and teams have performed successfully without

ever having been involved in a supervised/systematic strength and

conditioning program! To this I would also add that many athletes and teams

have performed successfully in spite of, rather than because of their

training protocols. >

Mel Siff:

*** And some athletes will continue to become world leaders in the same

apparently disorganised or puzzling fashion. That is the nature of the human

body and spirit! That is also why sports scientists have a long way to go in

solving all of the problems in the weird and wonderful world of sport.

As my Russian and Eastern European colleagues have pointed out (I am

paraphrasing): " The only reason why what we do may be secret to most in the

West is that you don't understand our languages or read our publications.

Moreover there is no such thing as a universal Russian or Eastern European

system because there are as many systems here as there are coaches, just as

there are in the West. The main difference lies in our far more integrated,

strictly controlled and well-disciplined management approach. We also use

just as many Western methods as Eastern methods in our training - and your

athletes have used just as many drugs as ours have. "

Asanovich:

<However, most would assume that the end justifies the means, and if the

Russians do it, that must be why they are successful. To blindly accept this

position, one must naively support the belief that performance success (or

lack of success) is solely dependent upon one particular training

methodology. Unfortunately, this may not be the truth. Rather, as

professionals, the issue is one of unbiased scientific proof, not empirically

hyped innuendo.

Relative to muscle contractile velocity, there are four determining factors

that determine the rate at which a muscle fiber can contract (i.e.

explosiveness):

1. The degree of myosin ATPase activity.

2. The degree of sacroplasmic (sic) reticulum development.

3. The degree of troponin's affinity for calcium.

4. The degree of neural innervation size. >

Siff:

*** This oversimplifies the issue. These are not the only factors involved -

see Ch 1 of " Supertraining " for some more.

Asanovich:

<However, the fact is that any anecdotal gains resulting from Russian/Eastern

European training are PERCIEVED gains -- and are therefore no more

significant than doing absolutely nothing at all. The problem with

" perceived results " (particularly when a monetary investment is involved),

is that the subject's objectivity is biased as a result of their emotional

attachment and vested interest in the attainment of the desired results.

Unfortunately, well-intended (but not well-educated) athletes, coaches, and

parents are easy targets for such commercially hyped hocus-pocus. >

Siff:

*** The domination of a huge percentage of Olympic sports by the Russians and

Eastern Europeans for over 40 years is all PERCEIVED, not actual ??

Perceived, all in the head!? After all, there were numerous Western athletes

competing against them during that same period - why did they not accumulate

even a fraction of those perceived gains and win just a few more medals in a

few more sports?

Note, too, that Coach Asanovich himself was aware of all the alleged foreign

hype and claims, so why did he not produce numerous international stars who

could defeat the Russians and Eastern Europeans at every turn?

Asanovich:

<The fact of the matter is that ballistic resistance training is unproven

and/or unproductive at best, and potentially dangerous at worst (especially

in prepubescent athletes). >

Siff:

*** There is more than adequate research to show the benefits of ballistic

and explosive training, especially regarding specificity, but he has given no

specifics of which research publications in this regard are incorrect. He

has reiterated that same monotonous urban myth that ballistic exercise is

dangerous for prepubescent athletes, but fails to address the issue that

normal sporting and recreational activities such as running, jumping,

striking and kicking often exert far greater force on the body than so-called

ballistic strength training. If ballistic action is to be regarded as

contraindicated for prepubescents, then they should not be allowed to run,

jump, kick, hit or throw. [see our archives for many articles on this topic]

Asanovich:

<Ballistic resistance training, like any momentum-assisted movement, violates

the most fundamental principle of strength development, that being, the

Overload Principle. The Overload Principle states that muscular development

will only occur as a result of the application of a stressor that exceeds the

muscles voluntary capabilities. As such, it follows that if the application

of the stressor (or resistance) is " momentum-assisted, " the amount of stress

is lessened and muscular development is compromised. In other words,

performing exercises at maximal speeds will result in minimal muscular

effects.

Siff:

*** And Asanovich violates many of the most fundamental facts about the

biomechanics of human movement.

Momentum doesn't simply appear from nowhere - it is the result of very

powerful muscle action, especially via the use of reflex activation and

stretch-shortening which allows the muscles to produce tension beyond their

voluntary capabilities - which is precisely the opposite of what Asanovich

claims is the case His knowledge of biomechanics is profoundly impoverished

because he shows clearly that he does not adequately understand what

ballistic movement entails. Like Matt Brzycki and the HIT team, he seems to

believe that ballistic action spares the muscles and necessarily involves far

lower

levels of muscle tension than continuous or cocontractive muscle action. I

wonder

if he has ever seen the EMG of the same muscle group under ballistic vs

cocontractive conditions? I doubt it, otherwise he would never have made

this seriously incorrect remark.

The major difference between ballistic and concontractive motion is that the

former involves a very powerful initial or early spurt of " agonist "

activation followed by a quiescent phase until near the end of range of joint

action when the " antagonist " produces very strong activation to bring the

movement to a halt or to reverse it. Cocontractive muscle action involves

continuous much lower levels of muscle tension over the full range of joint

movement and far smaller activation of the terminal eccentric process.

In other words, the latter form of exercise is not eminently suited to

producing very high peak force/tension, power, rate of force development in

either the concentric or eccentric modes of action.

Asanovich:

<To make matters worse, performing exercises at maximal speeds will also

result in maximum muscular risks. Newton's second law of motion states that,

" for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. " Relative to an

individual performing an accelerated exercise movement therefore, the

magnitude of potential internal forces produced is directly proportional to

the speed at which the exercise is performed. >

Siff:

*** All of this is nonsense and non-science. Some more seriously incorrect

ideas about biomechanics are very evident here that should not be even made

by a ninth grade child who is first learning Newton's Laws. Newton's Second

law does NOT state what Asanovich claims - Asanovich is quoting the THIRD

LAW. Even if he quoted the correct law, he would have known that force is

proportional to the rate of change of momentum or acceleration, NOT SPEED.

Yet he arrogantly proclaims that " the magnitude of potential internal forces

produced is directly proportional to the speed at which the exercise is

performed. " We could be even more exact and point out that the word

" velocity " should be used, because spped is not a vector and its use in the

equation would be incorrect. With this abysmal knowledge of mechanics how

can he presume to be sufficiently equipped to critique the biomechanics of

any form of strength training, be it non-ballistic or ballistic?

Asanovich:

<Orthopedic injuries are sustained when these forces exceed the structural

integrity of the involved joint(s). If acute injuries are avoided, repeated

trauma from such biomechanical loading can predispose the muscles, fascia

(sic), bones and connective tissue to chronic injuries that are sustained

once an athlete enters competition. For this reason, Dr. Fred Allman, former

American College of Sports Medicine president has warned, " It is even

possible that many injuries...may be the result of weakened connective

tissue caused by explosive training in the weight room. " >

Siff:

Both he and Dr Allman have omitted to mention one essential fact, namely that

graded progressive explosive training causes adaptation in the entire

musculoskeletal system, with the rate of loading determining how the

different tissues are conditioned (see Chs 1 and 3 of " Supertraining " ). As

I have mentioned before, fast rates of loading are more directed at tendinous

and ligamentous conditioning, whereas slower rates are more directed at

conditioning of the tendon-bone interface. In other words, it is important

to use a wide variety of loading rates and durations to offer all-round

musculoskeletal training.

He and Allman also fail to mention that it is not simply the type of movement

which causes injury, but the manner in which any movement is prescribed.

Thus, even slow movement which involves " too much, too soon, too

unskillfully " can also cause injury. Their beliefs would be a lot more

convincing if they were backed up with valid research or comparative clinical

studies.

Asanovich:

<Unfortunately, a joint's structural limits are unknown until the damage has

already been done--and then is too late. Obviously, risk of injury is

inherent (and accepted) in sports competition. However, to suggest that

there be an inherent risk of injury in training for sports competition is

certainly unacceptable, unprofessional, and unethical. After all, the

primary objective of any training program is to enhance one's physical

potential, not endanger it! Consequently, one should be encouraged to perform

strength-training exercises in a controlled manner. To do otherwise, is to

invite musculoskeletal injury.>

Siff:

Exactly the same remarks apply to ALL forms of training. There is no proof

that controlled progressive, periodised explosive training integrated with

other forms of training (as is the case with all effective conditioning

programs)

Asanovich:

<Certainly many controversies exist relative to training methodologies,

ballistic training and Olympic lifting being a major concern. Yet,

regardless of which training protocols may be right or wrong, as

health/fitness professionals our first responsibility is to the safety of

those who have entrusted their health to us. By denying, ignoring, or

overlooking the risks involved in training protocols/devices, we do a great

disservice to the individuals we train. For these reasons, I would encourage

coaches to be very discriminating in selecting training protocols.

After all, as with anything in life that sounds too good to be true, it

probably is. Ballistic resistance training and Olympic lifting are no

exception to the rule.>

Mel Siff:

*** Unfortunately his critique betrays such a serious lack of understanding

of the biomechanics of human movement that it is of minimal value to anyone.

Of course, there are risks associated with all forms of training and all

types of sport. One can minimise the risks, but the indeterminate nature of

many injuries means that injuries will always occur. It is misleading to lay

the blame on any specific type of training; instead, he should objectively

have acknowledged that ALL forms of training improperly prescribed can be

risky. Else, he would have remarked on the fact that the incidence of back

and limb injuries in explosive sports like weightlifting is lower than in the

general population and far lower than in school level football, basketball

and baseball. He does himself or the cause of strength and conditioning any

credit by relying on prejudice, bias and emotion to decry a method of

training which doesn't meet with his liking.

-----------------

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

[Guest guest]

Plisk:

[Re: those who believe in HIT, non-weightlifting and non-explosive training]

<< I'm convinced that they're just playing a head

game to amuse themselves and irritate as many other people as possible. >>

I think " cult " is fairly operational. Isn't faith without reason their credo?

Jerry Telle

lakewood colorado USA

jrtelle@...