RE: Productive Discussions

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the feedback group. This is starting to resemble something close to

an intelligent discussion.

Barry Ross: Thanks for some personal insight into your experience with

both methodologies. Your feedback and support is greatly appreciated.

Dan Partelly: I think you hit the problem right on the head. This

forum has driven the “explosiveness” issue so far into the ground that it is

difficult to say what readers believe anymore? I think you are right about

our expectations in knowledge. I think the focus of this group should be to

tell people what to think about and NOT what to think. Thanks for the research

insights!

Bill : Thanks for making my post concrete. What are you a

lawyer? I had to get a thesaurus out to figure out half of what you said. You

clearly sidestepped my entire post and went straight for what mattered most to

you. The point as educated respondents in this forum is that we are responsible

to guide this discussion in a direction that showcases information not boosts

our own professional egos. I think more than ever this forum is exactly where I

belong… Maybe you should ask yourself the same question? FYI – I know exactly

what I posted and what it implied. That is why I posted it.

Matt Barr: Matt thanks a great deal for stepping up to the plate and

delivering for the other side. You took an objective look at the comment and

respond as an educated person. This is exactly what the group needs to see most

from health, fitness and education professionals! You mixed personal experience

with your methodology and supported it all with solid research. This of course

is not the end of the journey but at least now a youth can take this and begin

exploring. Posts like yours facilitate thought, provide direction and show

where to look when one is done with your comments.

Too often these discussions try to tell the whole story and it dampens the

educational process. I began to notice a problem when I found myself skimming

the newsletter and deleting it. Posts are becoming too concerned with ME, with

MY view, MY post and fail to remember the audience. This forum draws many young

S & C coaches, personal trainers, H & PE teachers, and others who are curious what’s

out there? I recall those same feelings when I entered the field and I always

felt unsure of what and who to ask. Thanks again everyone for the feedback.

Rob Barrese

Pennsylvania, USA

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the feedback group. This is starting to resemble something close to

an intelligent discussion.

Barry Ross: Thanks for some personal insight into your experience with

both methodologies. Your feedback and support is greatly appreciated.

Dan Partelly: I think you hit the problem right on the head. This

forum has driven the “explosiveness” issue so far into the ground that it is

difficult to say what readers believe anymore? I think you are right about

our expectations in knowledge. I think the focus of this group should be to

tell people what to think about and NOT what to think. Thanks for the research

insights!

Bill : Thanks for making my post concrete. What are you a

lawyer? I had to get a thesaurus out to figure out half of what you said. You

clearly sidestepped my entire post and went straight for what mattered most to

you. The point as educated respondents in this forum is that we are responsible

to guide this discussion in a direction that showcases information not boosts

our own professional egos. I think more than ever this forum is exactly where I

belong… Maybe you should ask yourself the same question? FYI – I know exactly

what I posted and what it implied. That is why I posted it.

Matt Barr: Matt thanks a great deal for stepping up to the plate and

delivering for the other side. You took an objective look at the comment and

respond as an educated person. This is exactly what the group needs to see most

from health, fitness and education professionals! You mixed personal experience

with your methodology and supported it all with solid research. This of course

is not the end of the journey but at least now a youth can take this and begin

exploring. Posts like yours facilitate thought, provide direction and show

where to look when one is done with your comments.

Too often these discussions try to tell the whole story and it dampens the

educational process. I began to notice a problem when I found myself skimming

the newsletter and deleting it. Posts are becoming too concerned with ME, with

MY view, MY post and fail to remember the audience. This forum draws many young

S & C coaches, personal trainers, H & PE teachers, and others who are curious what’s

out there? I recall those same feelings when I entered the field and I always

felt unsure of what and who to ask. Thanks again everyone for the feedback.

Rob Barrese

Pennsylvania, USA

[Guest guest]

Rob Barrese wrote:

Hello Group,

I've been late getting back regarding the discussion on HIT /

Mannie / Siff. It has always been clear that the general consensus

of this group is Siff fans and probably sleeps with Supertraining

under their pillows. However, I felt compelled to ask some questions

to the group on behalf of HIT since no one else seems eager to

question both sides of the coin. I will preface my questions with

the statement that I have trained under both methodologies and I hold

no allegiance to either. I am a proponent of sound, safe,

productive, progressive, training that is appropriate to meet the

needs and goals of the individual(s).

With that said:

How was it possible that statements made by Siff were used to pick

Mannie's article apart but Mr. Casler could conclude with paragraphs

of unsupported information generalizing the methodology of " HIT? "

Casler writes:

Rob, You'll be happy to know that:

1) I don't own, or sleep with SUPERTRAINING under my pillow

2) You clearly display significant bias toward a dated version of High

Intensity Training

3) You conclude that I formed my opinions from Siff and Mannie's comments

only, which is not accurate.

4) And you suggest that you know the differences of training methodologies

and have the ability to discern what and when to use specific training yet

question the clear weaknesses of attempting to use a classic HIT

application, for something it clearly cannot satisfy

Rob Barrese wrote:

More importantly this happened and it was alright with the group. I

have been a long time follower of this discussion and it is becoming

more and more evident that one of two realities is true. 1) The

group does not care about examining all aspects of training and

seeing the value in every resource or 2) The subscribers are largely

proponents of Olympic style training and seek to eloquently smite

anything that differs from their views?

Casler writes:

Your incredulity may only be evident to those that lack the knowledge and

experience to understand the specific mechanisms which I mentioned. I am

not sure what I wrote that specifically " points " to Olympic Lifting, since

while what I wrote might include some of the Olympic movements, it is not

directed at any specific lifting actions other than those that when

performed in a manner that produces exceptional RFD, takes advantage of the

forces that accompany the SSC, and other elements of various stimuli that

produce adaptation that contribute to explosive strength and speed.

Casler wrote:

The " motor " control and strength of the motor impulse will have

significant determination on the " speed " at which a muscle can create

force. Additionally, the simplistic vision of concentric muscle

action as the key element to creating dynamic muscle actions in

sports is myopic to how the body functions in dynamic conditions.

The combination(s) of eccentric, static and concentric actions,

blended with significant motor signals strengths and the ability to

load both the hard tissues (skeleton) and soft tissues, (muscle,

ligaments, fascia and cartilages) is only a part of creating speed

and dynamic effectiveness.

Rob Barrese wrote:

Casler goes on to states the primary deficit of the HIT

philosophy is that it ignores the " realities of the above, " and that

HIT assumes that simply making the muscle tissues themselves stronger

will take care of it all. These generalized statements suggest that

HIT proponents ignore everything but using heavy loads to train to

fatigue. Now I am certainly placing words in Mr. Casler's mouth but

you may go back and read the posting to judge for yourself. If

this can be said then we can go back to Mr Scheitel's concern that

many Olympic lifting coaches are not properly trained to teach the

proper execution of Olympic lifts, therefore, Olympic lifting is too

risky and unsupervised to be used.

Casler writes:

Again, I said NOTHING of Olympic Lifting specifically. However what I DID

SAY: is that the Mannie stance seems to ignore all other elements of the

development of speed, except " muscle strength " and only supports that

element " IF " it is developed via SSTF (Single set to failure) applications,

and this include a " pseudo-isokinetic " training style that specifically

attempts to perform reps at a " timed rep speed " .

There is no evidence that the SSTF can come close to developing " maximal

strength " so it immediately fails at even the first and most basic task.

In its favor, it can be demonstrated that it can provide a " high percentage "

result to time spent training, but this is only valuable to that " very end " .

If one has the training time available and would benefit from the additional

explosive strength in their specific application, then by all means it

should be considered an option.

Rob Barrese wrote:

I am pulling very broad and general statements based upon the posts

but this is the gist of what I am seeing. Am I the only one who sees

the drive of these discussions as fundamentally wrong?

Casler writes:

The Classical form of HIT is not well accepted as a serious training model

for other than beginning and intermediate trainees, so few experienced

coaches and trainers will adopt your perspective. It is like teaching

Drivers Education classes for Formula One competitors.

As above, its only true value in Strength or Speed Sports applications is

when training time is severely truncated and in those cases, the efficiency

(if the program is modified to NOT have " timed rep speeds " ) can be valuable.

Rob Barrese wrote:

Rather than sharing successes and failures of specific activities

with others we are throwing stones? Shall we go back to the

roundtable discussions and pick on every article written 10, 20 and

30 years ago for the sake of showing off our knowledge? I imagine a

professional discussion forum would share information not drive

opinions. Additionally I feel we are doing a disservice to the

novice professionals and young people logging on to learn. All they

are learning is to draw lines like every body else which closes them

off from seeing all the tools available to them. When reading posts

like this it makes one say " well then who cares? " This stumps the

learning process early on.

Casler writes:

Looks like we agree here, and for the last 10, 20 and 30 years the empirical

evidence is clear. I thought I was very clear in stating that the HIT model

of which you speak, lacks consideration of principle elements that must be

used to acheive the best result.

To follow the assumption that truncated and controlled/timed muscle

strengthening alone (where the methodology also limits results) will work in

a superior way to one that is specifically focused on the goal is " exactly "

what this is.

Rob Barrese wrote:

Mr. Casler can you please provided me with answers to the following:

Peer reviewed research that specifically demonstrates HIT or Hard

training as a methodology:

1)Produces greater incidents of athletic injuries to non-contractile

structures?

2)Produces athletes who yeild weaker/slower strength and speed

development?

Casler writes:

You'll have to do your own educational searching, since I no longer bother

with cataloguing such to " prove " what most of my peers already know and

acknowledge.

I doubt you will be too accepting of the volumes of info available, since

your bias is clear. It is " you " who feel that there is a disparity in

training solutions. There is no controversy in the actual training world.

As far as athletes, I can only suggest that you must live in an insulated

world to not see this 24/7 all over the world, in most every sport. If you

want to be a faster and more explosive sprinter you do not train by slow

motion running.

I have been a competitive strength athlete for over 40 years, and worked

with, and around many athletes, and in particular Strength and Speed

athletes, and cannot recall " ANY " injuries specific to this training model

when incorporated with progressive and intelligent programs.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA