Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 In a message dated 1/21/2008 6:34:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, pmg68@... writes: Most machines are based off designs created by a man who was by his own admission an " amatuer " anatomists and biomechanist. We don't adovocate machines becuase nothing an athlete encounters in the real world application is fixed plane. No one here has said that free weight, or Olympic Lifting replaces sport specific training. But what it does far far far better than machines can do, is train the body to adapt to loads, and exert force in all 3 planes of motion,much like it will have to in a sport environment. **** Task/Sports performance skill is highly specific and the body adapts to proficient practice of which over time. Strength Training is general. While it is obviously important to pay close attention to specific " needs, " the all around strengthening of muscle structures regardless of plane the is key. Do the best you can with what your dealt. The vast training modalities that are introduced today provide an athlete with a severe level of over training This " choice " appears to appeal to the athlete that cannot discriminate between overkill and the exact needed supplementary training. In spite of the said training, they can then " get on the field, " where they do operate in their " real world. " My opinion......... Landau, Aventura, Florida Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Are you actually comparing using fixed plane machines, to the use of computers and cell phones. People use computers and cell phones, becuase the technology is better and more functional. Machines are not. Most machines are based off designs created by a man who was by his own admission an " amatuer " anatomists and biomechanist. We don't adovocate machines becuase nothing an athlete encounters in the real world application is fixed plane. No one here has said that free weight, or Olympic Lifting replaces sport specific training. But what it does far far far better than machines can do, is train the body to adapt to loads, and exert force in all 3 planes of motion,much like it will have to in a sport environment. Garrison Mesa Community College Mesa, AZ ============================ To: Supertraining@...: highlander89982003@...: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:34:03 -0800Subject: Training Athletes? (Was: Free weights versus machine weights) ,I am curious, have you ever trained athletes? How would you train a football lineman?Bill Havertown PaExarchives@... wrote:It is not necessarily the tool, but it is said the use of a tool. According to many here a barbell/dumbbell is a far superior tool than a machine. The fixed plain argument is always a favorite here, but try bench pressing at an angle 10 degrees either way from the norm and see what happens. Seems many in this group carry a certain bias against machines. If I took a few of your personal machines away from you, you would find life a little difficult - say for example your computer and your cell phone and replace them with an antique crank phone and a typewriter. Many machine designs are questionable, but the far most important factor is their USE as well as with " free weights. " The suggested use of Olympic Lifting (Sport) for the supplementary training of athletes is just plain silly. Teaching the skill of hurling a barbell upward for football players is akin to teaching your swimmers blocking and tackling. If the swim coach was ever seen " coaching " his or her swimmers to do so, you could be sure the coach would be carted away by the men in white coats.============================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 I would think that machines, dumbbells and barbells offer options in training an athlete. In my opinion you can certain do more with barbells and dumbbells. I'm not a big fan of machines, but I wouldn't use a barbell for a plyo bench---I would use a Machine. Machines, due to the construction offer a minimum of options. For example, a bench press machine is used for it's primary function. You might be able to use it (depending on the construction) for a controlled deadlift or shrug. But, overall it's not as versatile as a barbell. I won't argue that one is superior than the other in training every day Joe or Jane, but I would say that in training an athlete that a barbell, for instance, is capable of being used for a barbell complex as an example. That would be very difficult to do on any machine. Mark Cotton, CPT Central New Jersey, USA =============================== [Mod: Very sound post from the archives also: Plisk wrote: I think there are at least three reasons for this: The first has to do with qualities like power output and rate of force development. European sport scientists refer to this as dynamic correspondence, whereas it is commonly referred to as mechanical specificity in the West. For example, power output during Olympic-style weightlifting is the highest ever documented, and is comparable to the maximum theoretically possible for a human. As pointed out by Garhammer [J. Strength Cond. Res. 7(2): 76-89, 1993], the explosive 'jump and pull' or 'dip and drive' actions of these movements are executed in 0.2 - 0.3 sec; and peak power production is: * 4 - 5 times that of the deadlift or squat * 11 - 15 times that of the bench press The second is motor coordination. Skillful movements that challenge athletes to control, direct and stabilize the resistance have a motor control/learning effect that carries over to their coordinative abilities. The third is their systemic effect. It's important to keep in mind that this is not limited to the neuromuscular system. The greater the exertion in these movements, the higher the production of endogenous hormones as well as activity and number of tissue receptors. This has a 'knock on' effect in the tissues. The bottom line: Olympic lifts are inherently explosive and skillful, with excellent transfer to athleticism. In terms of results obtained from the time and effort invested in them, they are a very efficient way to train athletes. " - Steve Plisk, MS, CSCS] phillip g wrote: Are you actually comparing using fixed plane machines, to the use of computers and cell phones. People use computers and cell phones, becuase the technology is better and more functional. Machines are not. Most machines are based off designs created by a man who was by his own admission an " amatuer " anatomists and biomechanist. We don't adovocate machines becuase nothing an athlete encounters in the real world application is fixed plane. No one here has said that free weight, or Olympic Lifting replaces sport specific training. But what it does far far far better than machines can do, is train the body to adapt to loads, and exert force in all 3 planes of motion,much like it will have to in a sport environment. Garrison Mesa Community College Mesa, AZ ============================ To: Supertraining@...: highlander89982003@...: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:34:03 -0800Subject: Training Athletes? (Was: Free weights versus machine weights) ,I am curious, have you ever trained athletes? How would you train a football lineman?Bill Havertown PaExarchives@... wrote:It is not necessarily the tool, but it is said the use of a tool. According to many here a barbell/dumbbell is a far superior tool than a machine. The fixed plain argument is always a favorite here, but try bench pressing at an angle 10 degrees either way from the norm and see what happens. Seems many in this group carry a certain bias against machines. If I took a few of your personal machines away from you, you would find life a little difficult - say for example your computer and your cell phone and replace them with an antique crank phone and a typewriter. Many machine designs are questionable, but the far most important factor is their USE as well as with " free weights. " The suggested use of Olympic Lifting (Sport) for the supplementary training of athletes is just plain silly. Teaching the skill of hurling a barbell upward for football players is akin to teaching your swimmers blocking and tackling. If the swim coach was ever seen " coaching " his or her swimmers to do so, you could be sure the coach would be carted away by the men in white coats.============================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Mr. Landau writes: " The vast training modalities that are introduced today provide an athlete with a severe level of over training This " choice " appears to appeal to the athlete that cannot discriminate between overkill and the exact needed supplementary training. In spite of the said training, they can then " get on the field, " where they do operate in their " real world. " My opinion... 1. What " vast training modalities " are you talking about? 2. What " severe level of over training " are you referring to? 3. Why is choice in parenthesizes? What are you trying to imply? 4. What indices of over training are you using to arrive at this conclusion? 5. What " choice " are you talking about? And why does this " choice " only " appear to appeal to the athlete " ? 6. Why can't the athlete " discriminate between overkill and the exact needed supplementary training " ? 7. What are they on the field " In spite of the said training " ? And what does any of this have to do with your weak attempts to refute the superior efficacy of the use of free weights by a qualified coach as a training modality to enhance athleticism? Please attempt to explicate your position clearly and concisely. Employing paragraphs of hasty generalizations, non sequiturs and enthymems does nothing to advance your argument. W.G. Ubermensch Sports Consultancy San Diego CA. .. > > > In a message dated 1/21/2008 6:34:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > pmg68@... writes: > > Most machines are based off designs created by a man who was by his own > admission an " amatuer " anatomists and biomechanist. We don't adovocate machines > becuase nothing an athlete encounters in the real world application is fixed > plane. No one here has said that free weight, or Olympic Lifting replaces > sport specific training. But what it does far far far better than machines can > do, is train the body to adapt to loads, and exert force in all 3 planes of > motion,much like it will have to in a sport environment. > > **** > Task/Sports performance skill is highly > specific and the body adapts to proficient practice of which over time. Strength > Training is general. While it is obviously important to pay close attention to > specific " needs, " the all around strengthening of muscle structures > regardless of plane the is key. Do the best you can with what your dealt. The vast > training modalities that are introduced today provide an athlete with a severe > level of over training This " choice " appears to appeal to the athlete that > cannot discriminate between overkill and the exact needed supplementary > training. In spite of the said training, they can then " get on the field, " where > they do operate in their " real world. " My opinion......... > > Landau, > Aventura, Florida > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 I'd be interested in an answer to Bill 's question too. But first I will attempt to analyze some of your somewhat bizarre rhetoric before I refute your ridiculously weak position. Landau: " According to many here a barbell/dumbbell is a far superior tool than a machine. " Are you familiar with the NSCA? I suggest you spend some time in the NSCA archives reviewing the massive data base of research on the efficacy of free weight training. You might also consider anecdotal evidence. The vast majority of post prep school athletic development programs, in addition to Marine Recon, Navy Seals and on and on, ad infinitum ad nauseum, use free weights as their primary strength training modality. That's thousands of athletes in thousands of colleges, plus elite military organizations. Statistically, if your anecdotal evidence is running 70 plus percent in your favor, it's valid. The dominance of free weight training in these institutions is because it has the greatest efficacy. The core weight training modality of the majority of these programs is Olympic Weightlifting. Landau: " but try bench pressing at an angle 10 degrees either way from the norm and see what happens. " These are known as the incline and decline bench press. So what is your point? Any well trained athlete can do these. Bench press is the most over rated exercise in weight training. My 230 lb MMA athlete, trained almost exclusively with Weightlifting and plyos, recently benched a 3RM 350 lb flat bench in order to shut up some body building fools at the local 24 Hr Fatness. Conversely, none of them can overhead press 350 lbs 1RM or ATG squat 425 lbs for 3RM like he can. This same athlete ran a 4.7 40 in high school, an improvement of over 1 second from testing before he began Weightlifting with me. He weighed 150 lbs when he ran 5.7 and at 200 lbs 6 months later he ran a 4.7. This power was developed primarily from ATG squats and a lot of " hurling a barbell upward. " , as in Snatching and Cleaning and Jerking. This same athlete played both sides fo the ball for the next three years. My prep school football athletes experienced an average weight increase of 30 lbs in 6 months concurrent with an average 150 lbs increase in ATG squats and subsequent average half second decrease in their 40 time. The only machine used was the leg press. My two 230 lbs sophmores concluded 6 months training by leg pressing 1200 lbs for 24 reps each. Six months prior one of them weighed 265 lbs and the other only weighed 200 lbs. All my prep school kids ran sub 5 sec 40's and the fastest(and smallest) ran a 4.3. So please, keep making inane statements like " The suggested use of Olympic Lifting (Sport) for the supplementary training of athletes is just plain silly. " Excuse me? Your statement is beyond silly, its absurd. " Teaching the skill of hurling a barbell upward for football players is akin to teaching your swimmers blocking and tackling. " It's obvious from this statement that you haven't played or coached football. So I'll keep it simple and just talk about the current standard of of testing for football, the combine. # The Bench Press: We ask combine athletes to lift 185 pounds as many times as possible, while lying on a weight bench and lifting in a traditional bench-press fashion. Please note this is a free weight test. Utilizing the Principle of Specificity would indicate preparing by doing free weight bench presses. # The Short Shuttle: This tests the combine athletes coordination and lateral quickness. They are asked to first sprint sideways 5 yards they can choose whether its left or right and then touch a line. Then, they sprint 10 yards to the opposite side, again touching a line. Lastly, they sprint slightly past the original starting point. Olympic Weightlifting requires neurological adaptation and recruits fast twitch muscle fibers along with coordination of all the major muscle groups and full range of motion of the joints. An excellent foundation for developing the skills necessary to to be quick and agile. # The 10-yard and 40-yard sprints: These drills are pretty self-explanatory. We time athletes in the 40-yard sprint, but also time their speed during the first 10 yards of the sprint. While the 40-yard sprint time is considered very important for skill position players, the 10-yard time sprint time has become very useful for judging the speed of offensive and defensive linemen. The ballistic nature of Olympic Weightlifting promotes explosiveness and power. Weightlifting is the primary method used by sprinters to increase power and speed. Running sprints does not produce a significant increase in power, but improves technique and reaction time. Weightlifting increases raw sprinting ability. # The Broad Jump: Tests the combine athletes lateral burst and leg explosion. We ask athletes to jump forward from a standing, set position on a line. Nothing like ATG squats, snatches and the extremely plyometric split jerks to improve leaping ability. # The Vertical Jump: Tests the combine athletes leg explosion while leaping up. Athletes jump straight up while standing on a black mat. A vertex mat is used to calculate how high the athletes have jumped. Olympic Weightlifters are prodigious jumpers. Weightlifting is essentially jumping with an implement in your hands. Vertical jumping height is a major indices of power. Weightlifters are the most powerful athletes in the world. The USA Women's Weightlifting Team out jumped the USA Women's Volleyball Team last year in a jump off. That included super heavyweight Cheyrl Hayworth! I could continue with my experience training the Mens National Volleyball Team or Kiraly's 40 in vertical, but I think I've made my point. The rest of your screed is a completely baffling non sequitur that violates so many aspects of reasonable and rational argument I won't waste the forums time with analysis, except to say this, in order to be sound, an argument must be valid and have all true premises, and you sir, are not even close. " Validity guarantees that, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Sitting at home, we check the validity of an argument. We then go out into the real world, discover that the premises are in fact true, and claim that the argument is sound. This is also just to say that we've checked the world correctly (i.e., that we know for certain that each of our premises true) and that we've checked validity correctly. " - UCI website Obviously Mr. Landau, you have not done this. W.G. Ubermensch Sports Consultancy San Diego CA. In Supertraining , Bill wrote: > > , > > I am curious, have you ever trained athletes? How would you train a football lineman? > > Bill > Havertown Pa > > Exarchives@... wrote: > It is not necessarily the tool, but it is said the use of a tool. According > to many here a barbell/dumbbell is a far superior tool than a machine. The > fixed plain argument is always a favorite here, but try bench pressing at an > angle 10 degrees either way from the norm and see what happens. Seems many in > this group carry a certain bias against machines. If I took a few of your > personal machines away from you, you would find life a little difficult - say for > example your computer and your cell phone and replace them with an antique > crank phone and a typewriter. Many machine designs are questionable, but the > far most important factor is their USE as well as with " free weights. " > The suggested use of Olympic Lifting (Sport) for the supplementary > training of athletes is just plain silly. Teaching the skill of hurling a > barbell upward for football players is akin to teaching your swimmers blocking > and tackling. If the swim coach was ever seen " coaching " his or her swimmers to > do so, you could be sure the coach would be carted away by the men in white > coats. > ============================ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I'd have to question where the evidence is of the overtrained athlete as well. Records continue to fall, athletes get faster and bigger. I don't see a bunch of overtrained athletes, myself. I do agree that supplementary training should be just that and the vast majority of training should be sport specific - I believe 80% is pretty much accepted as minimum amount sport specific. Which most athletes I know adhere to. So what athletes exactly is Mr. Landau referring to? Is he seeing this in a particular sport. Football? Baseball? Track? > Mr. Landau writes: > " The vast training modalities that are introduced today provide an > athlete with a severe level of over training This " choice " appears to > appeal to the athlete that cannot discriminate between overkill and > the exact needed supplementary training. In spite of the said > training, they can then " get on the field, " where they do operate in > their " real world. " My opinion... > > 1. What " vast training modalities " are you talking about? > 2. What " severe level of over training " are you referring to? > 3. Why is choice in parenthesizes? What are you trying to imply? > 4. What indices of over training are you using to arrive at this > conclusion? > 5. What " choice " are you talking about? And why does this " choice " > only " appear to appeal to the athlete " ? > 6. Why can't the athlete " discriminate between overkill and the exact > needed supplementary training " ? > 7. What are they on the field " In spite of the said training " ? > > And what does any of this have to do with your weak attempts to refute > the superior efficacy of the use of free weights by a qualified coach > as a training modality to enhance athleticism? > > Please attempt to explicate your position clearly and concisely. > Employing paragraphs of hasty generalizations, non sequiturs and > enthymems does nothing to advance your argument. > > W.G. > Ubermensch Sports Consultancy > San Diego CA. > > . > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/21/2008 6:34:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > > pmg68@... writes: > > > > Most machines are based off designs created by a man who was by his > own > > admission an " amatuer " anatomists and biomechanist. We don't > adovocate machines > > becuase nothing an athlete encounters in the real world application > is fixed > > plane. No one here has said that free weight, or Olympic Lifting > replaces > > sport specific training. But what it does far far far better than > machines can > > do, is train the body to adapt to loads, and exert force in all 3 > planes of > > motion,much like it will have to in a sport environment. > > > > **** > > Task/Sports performance skill is highly > > specific and the body adapts to proficient practice of which over > time. Strength > > Training is general. While it is obviously important to pay close > attention to > > specific " needs, " the all around strengthening of muscle structures > > regardless of plane the is key. Do the best you can with what your > dealt. The vast > > training modalities that are introduced today provide an athlete > with a severe > > level of over training This " choice " appears to appeal to the > athlete that > > cannot discriminate between overkill and the exact needed > supplementary > > training. In spite of the said training, they can then " get on the > field, " where > > they do operate in their " real world. " My opinion......... > > > > Landau, > > Aventura, Florida > > > > > Hobman Saskatoon, Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.