Re: Productive Discussions (Was Explosive Exercise is pointless)

[Guest guest]

Rob Barrese writes:

" 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. "

Rob,

Your statement of Scheitel's position, which is based on a hasty

generalization, and then trying to develop an argument based on it is

problematic at best. Your statement is inconsistent and full of

fallacies. An " Olympic (Weight)'lifting coach " by definition is

qualified to coach Weightlifting. Therefore the position that " many

Olympic lifting coaches are not properly trained " is a non sequitur,

and the conclusion that " Olympic lifting is too risky and unsupervised

to be used. " , commits several fallacies of logic. In addition to being

a non sequitur, your statement is also guilty of " post hoc, ergo

propter hoc, " which translates as " after this, therefore because of

this. " , in addition to another fallacy, slippery slope, along with the

fallacy of begging the question. There's more but I trust you get my

drift.

If I remember correctly, Scheitel's reasonable concern was unqualified

personnel trying to coach Weightlifting, and that this problem

extended far up the educational hierarchy. That may very well be the

case. However, isn't your essential position that you want an evidence

based argument leading to a conclusion about which training method has

the greater efficacy in developing athletic ability, HIT training or

Olympic Weightlifting? If that is what you are trying to determine,

then I suggest that you put forward a more carefully thought out

question to that effect or more accurately posit your own position on

the subject.

However, you are not going to generate a very productive discourse in

response to this question and will likely waste a great deal of the

forums time and energy. A modest perusal of the literature, (try the

NSCA archives) will provide you with an overwhelming preponderance of

evidence proving the efficacy of Olympic Weightlifting in developing

power, joint integrity, joint range of motion and increased

athleticism in athletes.

Even a perfunctory read of the latest issue of the NSCA Journal will

provide you with considerable evidence. You'll find no research

supporting HIT training but a great deal about the benefits of

Weightlifting training for numerous sports, from Rugby to Volleyball.

Now to indulge myself in another aspect of logical argument, " Arguing

from authority " . If Professor Siff's science based position in this

matter is insufficient to convince you, perhaps you are in the wrong

place.

W.G.

Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

San Diego CA.

Supertraining

>

> 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? "

> 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:

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

> 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?

>

> 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.

>

> With that said:

> 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?

>

> Thank you,

> Rob Barrese

> Pennsylvania, USA

>

[Guest guest]

W.G. writes:

" Even a perfunctory read of the latest issue of the NSCA Journal will

provide you with considerable evidence. You'll find no research

supporting HIT training... "

The only thing this provides " considerable evidence " of is the NSCA's

anti-HIT bias.

Drew Baye

Orlando, FL

www.baye.com

[Guest guest]

W.G. writes:

" Even a perfunctory read of the latest issue of the NSCA Journal will

provide you with considerable evidence. You'll find no research

supporting HIT training... "

The only thing this provides " considerable evidence " of is the NSCA's

anti-HIT bias.

Drew Baye

Orlando, FL

www.baye.com

[Guest guest]

W.G. writes:

" Even a perfunctory read of the latest issue of the NSCA Journal will

provide you with considerable evidence. You'll find no research

supporting HIT training... "

Drew Baye

The only thing this provides " considerable evidence " of is the NSCA's

anti-HIT bias.

Casler writes:

Drew, I would have to disagree with you. Just because someone or some group

has concluded that " no " singular and general training application can

provide the best stimulus for more specific adaptations does not display

" bias " . It more displays reasonable understanding and awareness of the

stimulus response process rather than attempting to " force " a less

applicable model to be what it is not.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

W.G. writes:

" Even a perfunctory read of the latest issue of the NSCA Journal will

provide you with considerable evidence. You'll find no research

supporting HIT training... "

Drew Baye

The only thing this provides " considerable evidence " of is the NSCA's

anti-HIT bias.

Casler writes:

Drew, I would have to disagree with you. Just because someone or some group

has concluded that " no " singular and general training application can

provide the best stimulus for more specific adaptations does not display

" bias " . It more displays reasonable understanding and awareness of the

stimulus response process rather than attempting to " force " a less

applicable model to be what it is not.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA