Here is an extract from “Supertraining” that we discussed on some clinically
oriented groups a while ago. I felt it appropriate to repeat here, because
we often encounter spectacular claims about the magical power of some rather
dogmatic methods of ‘muscle testing’.

MUSCLE TESTING

Standard anatomical textbook approaches describing the action of certain
muscle groups in controlling isolated joint actions, such as flexion,
extension and rotation, frequently are used to identify which muscles should
be trained to enhance performance in sport. Virtually every bodybuilding
and sports training publication invokes this approach in describing how a
given exercise or machine ‘works’ a given muscle group, as do most of the
clinical texts on muscle testing and rehabilitation.

The appropriateness of this tradition, however, recently has been questioned
on the basis of biomechanical analysis of multi-articular joint actions
(Zajac & Gordon, 1989). This classical method of functional anatomy defines
a given muscle, for instance, as a flexor or extensor, on the basis of the
torque that it produces around a single joint, but the nature of the body as
a linked system of many joints means that muscles which do not span other
joints can still produce acceleration about those joints.

The anatomical approach implies that complex multi-articular movement is
simply the linear superimposition of the actions of the individual joints
which are involved in that movement. However, the mechanical systems of the
body are nonlinear and superposition does not apply, since there is no
simple relationship between velocity, angle and torque about a single joint
in a complex sporting movement. Besides the fact that a single muscle group
can simultaneously perform several different stabilising and moving actions
about one joint, there is also a fundamental difference between the dynamics
of single and multiple joint movements, namely that forces on one segment can
be caused by motion of other segments. In the case of uniarticular muscles
or even biarticular muscles (like the biceps or triceps), where only one of
the joints is constrained to move, the standard approach is acceptable, but not
if several joints are free to move concurrently.

Because joint acceleration and individual joint torque are linearly related,
Zajac and Gordon (1989) consider it more accurate to rephrase a statement
such as “muscle X flexes joint A” as “muscle X acts to accelerate joint A
into flexion”. Superficially, this may seem a matter of trivial semantics,
but the fact that muscles certainly do act to accelerate all joints has
profound implications for the analysis of movement. For instance, muscles
which cross the ankle joint can extend and flex the knee joint much more
than they do the ankle.

Biomechanical analysis reveals that multiarticular muscles may even
accelerate a spanned joint in a direction opposite to that of the joint to
which it is applying torque.

In the apparently simple action of standing, soleus, usually labelled as an
extensor of the ankle, accelerates the knee (which it does not span) into
extension twice as much as it acts to accelerate the ankle (which it spans)
into extension for positions near upright posture (Zajac & Gordon, 1989).
In work derived from “Lombard’s Paradox” (‘Antagonist muscles can act in the
same contraction mode as their agonists’), Andrews (1985, 1987) found that
the rectus femoris of the quadriceps and all the hamstrings act in three
different ways during cycling, emphasizing that biarticular muscles are
considered enigmatic.

This paradox originally became apparent when it was noticed that in actions
such as cycling and squatting, extension of the knee and the hip occurs
simultaneously, so that the quadriceps and hamstrings are both operating
concentrically at the same time. Theoretically, according to the concept of
concurrent muscle antagonism, the hamstrings should contract eccentrically
while the quadriceps are contracting concentrically, and vice versa, since
they are regarded as opposing muscles.

Others have shown that a muscle which is capable of carrying out several
different joint actions, does not necessarily do so in every movement
(Andrews, 1982, 1985). For instance, gluteus maximus, which can extend and
abduct the hip, will not necessarily accelerate the hip simultaneously into
extension and abduction, but its extensor torque may even accelerate the hip
into adduction (Mansour & Pereira, 1987).

Gastrocnemius, which is generally recognised as a flexor of the knee and an
extensor of the ankle, actually can carry out the following complex tasks:

(a) flex the knee and extend the ankle
(b) flex the knee and flex the ankle
(c) extend the knee and extend the ankle

During the standing press, which used to be part of Olympic Weightlifting,
the back bending action of the trunk is due not only to a Newton III
reaction to the overhead pressing action, but also due to acceleration
caused by the thrusting backwards of the triceps muscle which crosses the
shoulder joint, as well as the elbow joint. This same action of the triceps
also occurs during several gymnastic moves on the parallel, horizontal and
uneven bars.

This back extending action of the triceps is counteracted by the expected
trunk flexing action of rectus abdominis and the hip exension action of the
hip flexors, accompanied by acceleration of the trunk by the hip flexors.

Appreciation of this frequently ignored type of action by many
multiarticular muscles enables us to select and use resistance training
exercises far more effectively to meet an athlete’s specific sporting needs
and to offer superior rehabilitation of the injured athlete.

Finally, because of this multiplicity of actions associated with
multiarticular complex movement, Zajac and Gordon stress a point made by
Basmajian (1978), namely that it may be more useful to examine muscle action
in terms of synergism rather than agonism and antagonism. This is especially
important, since a generalised approach to understanding human movement on
the basis of breaking down all movement into a series of single joint
actions fails to take into account that muscle action is task dependent.

References:

Andrews J G (1982) On the relationship between resultant joint torques and
muscular activity Med Sci Sports Exerc 14: 361-367

Andrews J G (1985) A general method for determining the functional role of
a muscle J Biomech Eng 107: 348-353

Andrews J G (1987) The functional role of the hamstrings and quadriceps
during cycling: Lombard’s paradox revisited J Biomech 20: 565-575

Basmajian J (1978) Muscles Alive Williams & Wilkins Co, Baltimore

Mansour J M & Pereira J M (1987) Quantitative functional anatomy of the
lower limb with application to human gait J Biomech 20: 51-58

Zajac F E & Gordon M F (1989) Determining muscle’s force and action in
multi-articular movement Exerc Sport Sci Revs 17: 187-230

Mel Siff
Denver, USA
Mel Siff Dot Com
Supertraining Twitter Feed

<http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Snewton.htm>

Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation:

<http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm>

General Information on Mechanics and Astronomy, including a basic summary of
useful mathematics relating to some of this work:

<http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/#q3>

————-

Mel Siff

So, let me draw on some biomechanics to offer you some standard definitions
that are essential for understanding strength science (see Chs 1 and 2 of
“Supertraining” for further details):

1. Strength is the ability of a living system (or a muscle or a person) to
exert force (in a given action)

2. Maximum strength is the ability of a person to produce maximal force in a
specific action or exercise.

3. Power is the rate of doing work (P = work/time)

4. Peak power is the maximum power produced at any instant in a specific
movement under specific conditions

5. Mean power is the average power exerted over a given range of movement in
a specific exercise

6. Rate of Force Development (RFD) is the rate at which force is produced in
a given action. It is described by the slope of the force vs time curve.
The maximum value of RFD describes explosive strength (see below).

7. Explosive strength is the ability to exert strength or force as rapidly
as possible in a given action. A measure that is used to describe it is the
“Index of Explosive Strength” (IES), which is the maximum value reached by
the Rate of Force development in that action.

Mel Siff

1. Establish good, mutually respectful relations which do not create the
impression that you or your culture are superior to that of others, no matter
how true that may appear to be.

2. Show that you are genuinely interested in knowing more about their ideas
and demonstrate that you have gone to great lengths to learn as much as you
can, culturally and technically about their ’system’. Learning just a few
words or customs about their countries is often well appreciated and do try
to pronounce personal and country names correctly (for example, it is not
Packeestann, but Pukkistahn; not Melborn, but Melbin; not Eesreel, but
Is-ray-el; not Will-helm, but Villhelmm; not Vann Nice, but Funn Nays, etc).
If you don’t know, just ask what is correct and most people will be delighted
to help.

3. If possible, share your findings and ideas with them. Don’t just take
and expect to receive.

4. Don’t turn every lunch, dinner and casual meeting into a journalistic
nightmare for them by asking endless questions. Put yourself in their
position – how would you like to talk to someone who is always taking notes,
asking questions, videotaping and prying into matters which ensure their
living? Do you do this very time you go out with a friend who is a lawyer,
doctor or architect?

5. Don’t talk about yourself. In many countries, talking about one’s
achievements is regarded as being in extremely poor taste – in fact, outside
North America, most countries have this attitude. If you do talk about what
you are doing, make very sure that you have real substance which equals or
surpasses in some respects what they are working on. Don’t just talk because
of egotistical reasons – others may have far more success stories than any of
us will ever have in sport. They find it especially arrogant when they see Wes
terners promoting their own books or ideas as coming from ‘the world’s
greatest coach’, the ‘world’s leading expert’, ‘coach to the world’s top
athletes’ and so on. Say this and you may convince some fans in the West,
but it can be an instant cut-off from real respect and collaboration
elsewhere.

6. Always be willing to admit that your own ideas, upbringing and training
may be wrong or incomplete. Thank others for showing you where you may have
been incorrect.

7. Be generous with your hospitality, ideas, feelings and appreciation. Show
that you are also human and be prepared to delve into one another psyches
with all the pain and pleasure that it might bring. Don’t always “talk shop.”

8. Collaborate with others rather than working against them or taking their
ideas, wrapping them in another package, giving them other names and offering
them as your own.

9. As with any other ‘cross-cultural’ encounter, learn as much as you can
about their culture and etiquette and never expect local standards and faci
lities if you stay in Russia, China, Italy, Africa or any other foreign
country. Whatever you do, do not complain constantly about things that you
may not like or find familiar. Always be an ambassador of the highest quality
and prepare well for your trip in that role.

10. Unusual gifts from your country are very much appreciated as symbols of
your friendship and appreciation.

11. Use very formal, polite modes of address until such time that others
invite you to use first names. Never interrupt, as is often the case on
North American chat shows. Not allowing others to finish what they are
saying is regarded as very bad manners, but virtually every TV interviewer
totally ignores this rule and makes it appear as if it is universally
acceptable.

12. Write to your new colleagues after you have parted, offering thanks or
any friendly words to show how much you appreciated the time that you spent
together.

13. In some countries (especially in the Far East) it is regarded as rude
and uncultured to simply shove a colleague’s business card into one’s wallet
without studying it carefully and offering some remarks of approval or
recognition for its contents.

14. This is old, but still valid advice – do not discuss politics, religion
or race. If you do so, then broach these subjects in a very genuine way
which enhances closeness and understanding.

Others may wish to add their favourites to the above list – over to you!

Mel Siff

Far too many studies purporting to be studies of strength or weight training
happen to be based on low intensity, muscle endurance exercises.
Unfortunately, the generally unaware medical population latches onto these
conceptions of ‘weight training’ as the definitive word in exercise science.
Do some of you also suspect that any positive effects of strength training
tend to be glossed over or suppressed by the general fitness and sports
medical worlds?

I wonder if many of the medical authorities know the real difference between
weightlifting, powerlifting and bodybuilding. Books by Covert Bailey and
other leading conditioning lights certainly reveal that they don’t really
know what constitutes weightlifting.

At several fitness conventions during my presentations to gatherings of
aerobics instructors and personal trainers (at IDEA etc), a show of hands
generally has revealed to me that the vast majority have never ever attended
a weightlifting or powerlifting event or even know what the Olympic and Power
lifts are or what the difference between weightlifting and powerlifting
squats is. How on earth they can presume to be knowledgeable in the world of
weight training or claim to be fitness or personal training “experts” is
beyond me and says something about the level of their certification!

You don’t have to become a competitive lifter, but, for heaven’s sake, please
learn some of the basics if you are going to try to communicate across the
broad spectrum of weight training! Lest some degreed medical folk feel a
bit superior about all this, many sports medics also do not know the
difference between weightlifting, powerlifting and bodybuilding, least of all
about their different ways and objectives of training.

What is the relevance of all this? The Fitness Reformation, of course! How
can we reach a balanced view of the benefits and dangers of different types
of exercise if many of the scientists, doctors and fitness professionals do
not know every much about the enormous world of strength training?

Free the Radicals, Free the Anaerobes, Chain the Aerobes! Put the Aerobics
Institutes in their place! Open the New Anaerobics Institutes! Power to the
Power People!

Mel Siff

Now and again we discuss criitical and creative thinking. Here are a few
extracts from an article that relates directly to these topics:

———————-

< http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/sturrock/1.html>

Curious, Creative and Critical Thinking

Sturrock PA

J of Scientific Exploration Vol 11:2, p 225, 1997.

Center for Space Science and Astrophysics, Varian 302G, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305-4060

Edward Ginzton, one of the founders of Varian Associates, once remarked
concerning his colleague Russell Varian that “he had many modes of thought,
of which logic was only a special case.” So it is, most likely, with all
great inventors and so it is, I believe, with all truly productive
scientists. In this essay, I will argue that scientists need at least three
modes of thought that I call “curious,” “creative” and “critical.”

These requirements, though they may be quite general in their applicability,
come sharply into focus when one deals with anomalies within mainstream
science or with anomalous phenomena that seem to reside outside of science as
we know it.

Let us take just one example from within mainstream science. It has been
claimed for some years by Halton Arp of The Max-Planck Institute for
Astrophysics in Garching, Germany and by William Tifft of the Steward
Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, that there is evidence indicating that our
interpretation of the redshifts of astronomical objects is incomplete. Their
results, if taken at face value, contradict the usual assumption that the
redshift of distant objects (such as distant galaxies and quasars) is due
almost entirely to the expansion of the universe. Arp and Tifft have been
curious in examining strange patterns that arose in their early observations;
they have also been creative in trying to seek an interpretation of their
results; and they have been critical of their own work by seeking new
observations and encouraging others to make their independent observations.

Then what is the problem? It is that the astronomical community has, by and
large, applied only critical thinking to the same problem. There have been
some attempts to reproduce Tifft’s results, with mixed success, but the
general attitude has been “It cannot happen, therefore it does not happen,”
just the opposite of good advice once given by the great physicist Robert
Leighton of the California Institute of Technology, “If it does happen, it
can happen.” As a result of this attitude, Arp and Tifft have come to be
regarded somewhat as heretics. Indeed, Arp lost his observing privileges at
the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories, forcing him to leave the United
States to go to his present home in Germany. An even more disturbing and
challenging situation arises if a scientist takes an interest in a topic that
is outside of mainstream science and is believed by the scientific community
to represent “pseudoscience,” the “paranormal,” or “pathological science.”

Some of the best known examples that are regarded in this light are
“parapsychology,” “ufology” (the study of UFO reports) and “cryptozoology”
(the search for zoological anomalies, including “Big Foot” and the so-called
“Loch Ness Monster” ). Even the mention of such terms will send a shudder
through the frame of almost any self-respecting scientist. Why is this so?

Typical responses to this question are in fact indicated by the terms I have
just used. If I assert that a subject is “pseudoscience,” I am stating that
the activity is not truly scientific but merely pretends to be scientific.
However, such an assertion is indefensible. A “subject” is neither scientific
nor nonscientific. It is only the study carried out by a particular person or
group of persons that can be so described. One may be able to make a
legitimate case that this person who studies parapsychology is being
pseudo-scientific, but that does not mean that it is impossible for some
other person to carry out a study in the same field that meets the highest
standards of the scientific enterprise.

There is a similar problem connected with the term “paranormal.” If I assert
that a subject is “paranormal,” I am implying that I know what is “normal.” I
am further implying that any subject that is not “normal,” according to my
definition of the term, does not accord with scientific knowledge and must be
rejected as bogus. This would be a huge responsibility to take on. If pressed
on this issue, most scientists would agree that science is incomplete. They
would agree with Isaac Newton who stated that he felt like a boy “finding a
smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of
truth lay all undiscovered before me.” If we do not know all there is to know
about the universe (including human beings and everything else in the
universe), then clearly we cannot claim to know what is “normal,” and it is
therefore foolish to use the term “paranormal.”

On the other hand, the term “pathological science” is somewhat more useful.
It refers to poor, slipshod and misleading research that yields results that
turn out to be false. However, the term was originally coined by the Nobel
Laureate Irving Langmuir to imply that certain fields are made up only of bad
science. If this were the case (an assertion that is in itself debatable), it
would prove only that better work needs to be done, not that such fields
should be placed off-limits to scientific research.

In thinking about such questions over the years, I have come to the
conclusion that the problem with such topics is not a purely intellectual
difficulty in trying to understand the nature of the phenomenon or to assess
the quality and conclusions of the research. I have concluded that the key to
the puzzle is to be found in non-scientific and non-intellectual
considerations. Although the prototype of a scientist is that of a lone
researcher following the truth according to his own light, with little heed
to the world around him, such is not the scientist that we know today, and
perhaps the image was never more than a myth. Science today is a collective
enterprise. Much of the work is done in groups. Even an individual scientist
is dependent upon the good will and support of his fellow scientists for the
wherewithall to continue his work…..

Of course, some important challenges are not regarded as heresies at all. For
instance, it was a major intellectual challenge to try to understand the
nature of pulsars or of quasars when they were first discovered. However,
these discoveries were made by world-class scientists, at prestigious
universities, who were already members of the scientific establishment. Far
from being perceived as a demonstration of the shortcomings of the
establishment, they were hailed as shining examples of what the establishment
does that is right. Far from weakening organized science, these discoveries
help to cement the power of those organizations and of science in
general……

Any scientist who jeopardizes the good standing of these important scientific
organizations may, knowingly or unknowingly, weaken organized science and
thereby hurt his fellow scientists. In this way, the issue is converted from
one that is purely intellectual to one that has sociological and political
consequences. Such issues are perceived as heretical precisely because they
involve a combination of intellectual and political considerations.

My understanding of the term “heresy” is the following: A heresy is a
proposition that is, at the same time, a challenge to understanding and a
challenge to power. Galileo faced the investigators of the Holy Inquisition
in 1633 as a result of his assertion that the Ptolemaic model of the solar
system, in which the Earth is at rest and all bodies revolve around the
Earth, is wrong, and that the Copernican model (the creation of a
Protestant!), that places the Sun at the center and has the Earth revolve
around the Sun, is correct. Perhaps more important was his implicit assertion
that we may discover truth about the universe by observation rather than
through the reading of Holy Scripture. In addition to the purely intellectual
challenge of offering a new model of the solar system, Galileo was
challenging the Church as the ultimate arbiter of truth. Galileo was thereby
challenging the status and power of the Church.

Similarly, in their assertions, Arp and Tifft are challenging the status and
power of astronomers who have based their study of the structure of the
universe on the assumption that the redshift of galaxies and quasars is a
measure of their distance. These astronomers may legitimately fear that, if
Arp and Tifft prove to be correct, much of present-day astronomical
research–including their own research–will be destined for the dustbin……

In summary, I claim that in trying to understand topics that get an emotional
reaction from scientists, it is first essential that we understand the reason
for the emotional reaction. Only when one is past that point can one move on
to a more rational consideration of these topics: the way to advance curious,
creative and critical thinking is to remove the subtle (and perhaps
subliminal) obstacles to such thinking.

Even when the nonintellectual barriers are removed, there can still be some
confusion about the nature of scientific investigation. One may detect in
some discussions the implicit assumption that scientific knowledge is
absolute. The term “law” promotes such a belief, but a scientific “law” is
not an absolute and immutable truth; indeed, it may be more accurate to
regard it simply as a short-hand summary of the results of observations and
experiments carried out to date. Further observation or new experiments may
show that the “law” must be revised if not rescinded.

Science advances by trial and error. Linda Pauling, daughter of the famous
chemist Linus Pauling, once asked her father “How is it you had so many good
ideas?” to which he replied, “I had many more ideas, and threw away all the
bad ones.” With luck, a scientist can recognize a bad idea very quickly,
hopefully before he or she publishes. However, some ideas prove to be wrong
or, expressed more charitably, “less than universal in their applicability,”
only after centuries of research. It took 300 years for Newtonian dynamics to
be superseded by relativity and quantum mechanics. Who is to say that
relativity and quantum mechanics will not, in their turn, at some time be
superseded by a more intricate and subtle theory of which we now have no
conception?

It is obvious that, if we wish to learn something new, we should be curious.
However, curiosity is not enough. To conceive of a pattern or law or theory,
one must make an unjustified leap beyond the evidence. Newton’s proposal of a
universal law of gravity was simply a guess – but an inspired guess, one that
was confirmed by many subsequent observations and analyses. Even so, the
guess proved eventually to be not quite right and to require modification by
Einstein and others. “Creation” is simply inspired guesswork.

It is only after curiosity and creativity have done their work that critical
thinking should come into play. At this stage, it is essential to cast a
stern critical eye on one’s latest act of creation. (We may count upon our
colleagues to help us wholeheartedly in this activity.) However, it is
essential that criticism be even-handed: it should be applied to old ideas as
well as to new ideas. As the astrophysicist Tommy Gold once remarked, “Old
ideas are not right simply because they are old, and new ideas are not wrong
simply because they are new.” In facing any new proposition, one brings to it
years of observation, learning – and perhaps indoctrination. As a human
being, one may feel “this idea is so preposterous that I do not even want to
consider the evidence,” but as a scientist one should state “this proposition
seems very unlikely, and it will take a lot of evidence to persuade me to
take it seriously.”

Carl Sagan was correct in asserting that “extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence,” but that does not mean that anything less than
extraordinary evidence may be ignored. We learn from the study of scientific
inference that a strong case for a new proposition can be built either from
one very strong piece of evidence or from the combination of a number of
independent and less spectacular pieces of evidence. In science, as in real
life, one may get from point A to point B either in one giant leap or by a
number of small steps – either by flying or by walking…

Mel Siff