Mel Siff Blog

Someone on another user group responded to my letter on making medicine balls
like this:

<< Someone posted before and I have tried with success a way to make your own
medicine balls. Take a kickball or soccer ball. Carefully pull out the
piece where the air goes in. It is just a rubber seal. Fill the ball with
sand or water and put the rubber seal back in. It really works! I filled a
small one with water and it doesn’t leak, it can bounce and it only costs a
few bucks! >>

Mel Siff:

***Yes, I posted that information a while ago. I have been making my own
medicine and “plyo” balls for many years from old basketball, water polo,
volleyball, soccer and other used balls and saved a fortune in the process.
When I used sand for making heavier medicine balls, I filled the balls with
very fine (river type) sand from the gold mines in South Africa (where I used
to live), so it was very easy to pour through an enlarged hole made in the
ball or even into the original bladder of the ball. In the USA, you can buy
some of the very fine construction sand to serve the same purpose. If I had
to make a larger hole instead of using the existing hole, I simply covered
the enlarged hole with a rubber patch.

To make balancing devices, I simply used a variety of used inner tubes from
cars, trucks and tractors inflated to a suitable pressure – again the cost is
little or nothing and one does not have stabilise the base, as one has to for
some physio ball routines. In using them as an unstable surface for standing
exercises, I simply place a large wood rectangular piece across the top of
the tube. Just another cash saving device for you! If you visit my gym in
Denver, you will come across many other such home-made training devices.

Mel Siff
Denver, USA

.

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

Some people periodically asked me what the best way is to learn from overseas
scientists or coaches, especially when you are visiting them or they may be
visiting us. I have compiled a brief list of hints in this regard:

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

Milk advertisements have so long proclaimed that milk is a healthy food, that
it is a “complete food”, that it provides an excellent source of calcium, and
that one should drink it for preventing osteoporosis that most people believe
all of this to be true. On one side, we have been exposed to endless TV
commercials with healthy-looking people displaying parts of their faces
smothered with milk, and parents have come to believe the dairy industry
marketing claims to such as extent that most children are forced to drink
milk or have it on their morning cereals. Bodybuilders and many athletes
have been convinced that various milk derivatives such as whey serve as an
unrivalled source of highly concentrated protein.

On the other side, from the anti-milk lobby, we have heard that milk
consumption is associated with a great increase in the incidence of allergy,
stomach disorders, heart disease, cancer and various other diseases.

Who is correct? Can we really accept the biased proof of the healthful
aspects of milk from the huge dairy industry with its vested interests
everywhere? Equally well, can we trust that the anti-milk activists have not
grossly exaggerated the dangers of milk? Haven’t many of us, especially in
the strength and sporting world consumed huge quantities of milk since our
earliest years, without any obvious ill-effects? Isn’t the greater incidence
of heart disease and allergy among those who drink milk not due to other
possible factors?

As a dedicated and passionate milk product lover, I was convinced for much of
my life that the anti-milk lobbyists were way off track and were probably a
bunch of skinny runts who never drank large quantities of milk to help in
their quest for size and strength. However, more recently I began to
discover that both factions may be correct. Yes, milk may be both good and
bad for you, whether you are “lactose intolerant” or not!

My first clues came when I noticed how differently I responded to drinking
raw milk and pasteurised milk back in S Africa, then later when I drank milk
in the USA. I always found that certified raw milk tasted better, was very
easily digested even in large volume, and never putrefied when left
unrefrigerated, but simply became pleasantly sour, like a good yoghurt. I
simply could not understand why I consistently could not tolerate milk in
amounts greater than a cupful in the USA, until I noticed that the milk that
I drank in S Africa separated into a thick creamy layer at the top, unlike
the far less palatable milk in the USA. Then I noticed that all the milk
that I bought in the USA was “homogenized” and also found out that the
pasteurization process here may not be carried out under the same heating
conditions as my sources in S Africa.

I also noted that the milk here does not and cannot go sour, but putrefies
and becomes impossible to drink after a few days out of the refrigerator,
suggesting that it contains none of the natural bacteria which allow it to
become sour and palatable.

My feint suspicions grew far stronger that milk of itself may not be the
problem. Instead the way in which it is prepared may be the real problem, as
is the case with all other foods. That would explain quite simply why and
others have responded so differently to raw milk, pasteurised milk and
*pasteurised and homogenized* milk – clearly the processing involved must be
playing a central role in the whole affair. That should be not at all
surprising, since we all know that other foods can be overcooked, dried out
when reheating after storage in the refrigerator, become tough by poor
preparation or marinating, taste very different when microwaved compared with
roasted, and so forth. Often the digestibility can also be profoundly
affected by the manner of preparation. Why should milk be any different?

Before I go any further, here are some technical details about pasteurisation
and homogenization:

<http://www.howstuffworks.com/question147.htm>
<http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/homogenization.html>

Now, the major rationale behind pasteurisation is that it eliminates the risk
of contracting TB (tuberculosis), but the statistics have never shown that
pasteurised milk is any safer than certified raw milk. On the contrary,
studies have shown that pasteurised milk often contains a percentage of pus
from the cow’s udders (at least it is pasteurised!).

If one wishes to use certified raw milk in many States in the USA, you just
do not have that freedom of choice, because it is often legislated against on
the grounds of health risk. I cannot begin to understand or accept this
reasoning at all, because if the milk is certified, then it is TESTED for any
harmful bacteria. On the other hand, every single batch of pasteurised milk
is not tested, but merely ASSUMED to be bacteria-free after its heat
treatment. In the light of this, legislation against the sale of certified,
tested raw milk is illogical and suspect.

To help you understand more about the pros and cons of milk consumption, here
is a random collection of resources presenting myths and facts about milk in
its various forms:

———————————

Review of book Cohen “Milk the Deadly Poison”

<http://www.vegsource.com/books/milk_poison.htm>

Enter Robert Cohen, with rich experience in biological research and a risk
taker–one of his pursuits is mountain climbing. …….. Cohen divulged his
suspicions that the FDA’s approval of the bovine growth hormone represented
not only collusion between Monsanto and the FDA, but a cover-up of epic
proportions by the scientific establishment. His three-year fact-finding
journey proved him chillingly right.

Reading this book, you will learn that milk contributes to heart disease and
increases your risk of breast cancer. You will learn that milk is a poor
source of calcium and why, and that milk is a prime cause of allergies and
much more. You will learn that milk can even kill your infant.

Cohen doesn’t expect you to accept these shocking findings on faith. He
takes you by the hand as he uncovers layers of scientific fraud perpetuated
by the FDA, with assistance from JAMA, Science News, and even the Cadillac of
scientific publications, Science. In digging for scientific facts, Cohen
found that the web of deception concerning the bovine growth hormone involved
not only key players– FDA and Monsanto –but reached members of Congress as
well as a respected medical authority turned Monsanto lobbyist. At times
this book reads like a detective story…….

———————–

The Effect of Processed Milk on Calves

<http://www.karlloren.com/aajonus/p17.htm>

I am a retired Veterinarian; I doctored horses and cattle for 25 years and
then I did only the Small Animals. The article I read in Discover Magazine
on milk brought back many memories. When the farmers kept a milk cow on the
farm to feed the weaner calves, there were few digestive problems. But when
no dairy cows were available they went to the local store and got “Store
Bought” milk for the calves to drink. Soon the calves died with diarrhea. I
thought milk was milk but I soon found out that the Pasteurized and
Homogenized milk could not be digested by these calves. Homogenization broke
the fat globule into such a small bit that it wouldn’t curd in the stomach
and passed directly into the small intestine where it created severe
inflammation. I called it toxic enteritis. I learned to treat these cases
with Goats milk which has the largest fat globule of any milk found on the
farm. The calves made a quick recovery if the patient hadn’t gotten too
debilitated.

I too drank a lot of milk when we milked cows on the farm. I never Had any
adverse effects from drinking a quart or more at one time. When I went on to
college and I was using “store bought milk” I got so I drank very little milk
and what I did drink reacted in my system like a poison. I was told I was
allergic to milk. Now 50 years later, a friend, who has a milk cow out in
the country, asked me if I could use some milk. I accepted and for three
years now I can drink milk like I did when I lived on the farm. I have no
adverse side effects. This milk is raw milk, also not Homogenized. The only
other question I have to answer has to do with the effect pasteurization has
on the natural enzymes. The destruction of these during the pasteurization
process could effect the digestibility of milk.

————–

Myths and Deceptions about Raw Milk:

<http://www.realmilk.com/realmilk.html>

Research and Other Articles on Raw Milk:

<http://www.realmilk.com/indexpage.html>

The Crime against Raw Milk

<http://www.realmilk.com/Summer2000.html>

The Dangers of Processed Milk:

<http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20000208.htm>

Milk – The Perfect Food?

<http://www.lammd.com/A3R_brief_in_doc_format/2003-No2-Milk.cfm>

————————–

MILK DECREASES HEART ATTACKS?

<http://www.realmilk.com/heart_disease.htm>

<England– Some data just released by the Medical Research Council (MRC)
should create some interesting controversy among medical circles during the
next several months. Peter Elwood, director of the Epidemiology Unit at
Landough Hospital in Penarth, South Glamorgan, dropped a bombshell. His
ongoing life-style study of 5000 men produced some startling and very
unpopular findings. He discovered that men who drank the most full-fat milk
and ate butter (rather than margarine) had a lower risk of suffering from
heart attacks! (New Scientist 1991; 129(1759):17) ……..

In 1929, Dr. J.E. Crewe with the Mayo Foundation reported “uniformly
excellent” success using raw milk in treatment programs for high blood
pressure, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, prostate problems and
tuberculosis. He later stated that the only problem with using raw milk to
treat these ailments was that it was too simple. As such, it didn’t appeal to
the medical profession. Only raw milk seemed to be of benefit. Pasteurized
forms seemed to make most conditions worse…>

——————

Top Ten Reasons why Milk is not the Perfect food:

<http://www.ivillage.com/diet/experts/wlcoach/qas/0,5090,221846_65386,00.html>

1. It’s a great source of unwanted antibiotics.

2. Ditto for recombinant bovine growth hormone.

3. Eighty percent or more of the world’s people are lactose-sensitive or
-intolerant.

4. The homogenization process (which allows the fat to stay in suspension, so
that the cream, for example, doesn’t rise to the top) makes the fat and the
cholesterol more subject to oxidation (and therefore free-radical
generation).

5. The nations that consume the most milk also, incidentally, have the
highest rates of oesteoporosis.

6. The top 10 reasons why you should drink it have been brought to you by the
dairy industry, not by independent assessors.

7. It is very high in phosphorus, which is a calcium antagonist, so the
calcium in it is not particularly well absorbed.

8. The calcium-magnesium ratio is not particularly good.

9. It is one of the top allergens, probably the number one allergen for
children, and it is filled with (milk) sugar.

10. Calcium is not as well absorbed in the absence of some fat; hence skim
milk is an even worse choice…..

————————-

FDA Cover-up about certain aspects of Milk Industry

<http://www.hungerstrike.com/4613rbut.html>

————————

This and many other sources have convinced me that the effects of milk on the
body are very significantly altered by pasteurisation and homogenization, and
that the understanding of and consumption of milk simply on the basis of its
macronutrient and micronutrient analysis can be seriously misleading. It is
high time that the public were educated about the difference between safe
certified raw milk and the highly processed product that they buy from the
average supermarket. It would appear that many of the adverse side-effects
of milk consumption, even with a full fat content, have far more to do with
the aggressive processing of the product than any inherent ‘unhealthiness’.

Mel Siff

Some of you may have read about the claims made that a form of mantra (“magic
word”) chanting meditation known as TM (Transcendental Meditation) will
improve physical and mental health and performance, as well as enable you to
“levitate” physically as a more advanced practitioner and create world peace
by action at a distance.

Here is a collection of web resources which analyse the claims and myths
proliferated by this commercially very successful venture by the Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi, who first catapulted onto the Western stage when the singing
group, The Beatles, briefly became his devotees in India.

<http://minet.org/>

<http://www.trancenet.org/index2.shtml>

<http://www.unstress4less.org/>

———————-

While research shows that TM may have relaxation benefits comparable to
self-hypnosis or sitting with eyes closed, other relaxation practices have not
demonstrated the negative effects
reported by TM practitioners – which range from headaches and muscle twitches to
anxiety, depression and m
ental breakdown. This information is provided so that you may make an informed
decision regarding
Transcendental Meditation.

<http://www.unstress4less.org/transcendental_meditation-harmful-abstracts.htm>

—————–

Metabolic Rate, Respiratory Exchange Ratio and Apneas During [TM] Meditation.
John Kesterson
and Noah F. Clinch. American J of Physiology, March 1989, R637.

A careful, in-depth investigation into the effects of TM practice on
respiration and metabolism, revealing that TM produces no deeper state of
rest than from just sitting with eyes closed, even in advanced practitioners,
and thatthe TM practice does not produce a hypometabolic state as claimed by
MIU’s Robert Keith Wallace.

—————–

One of the TM Organization research claims is that TM practice induces a
unique fourth major state of consciousness: “These findings led researcher
Dr. Keith Wallace to conclude that restful alertness is a fourth major state
of consciousness, termed transcendental consciousness, that is physi
ologically distinct from ordinary waking, dreaming, and deep sleep.” A
related claim is that TM practice “increased EEG coherence”.

However the evidence reflected in objective research is that TM practice does
not produce increased EEG coherence nor does it induce a unique state of
consciousness “beyond that produced by muscle relaxation and there was no
evidence that the EEG changes were different from those observed in stage
‘onset’ sleep. No support was found for the idea that transcendental
meditation is a fourth stage of consciousness.

Reference:

Metabolic and EEG changes during transcendental meditation: an explanation.

Fenwick PB, Donaldson S, Gillis L, Bushman J, Fenton GW, Perry I, Tilsley C,
Serafinowicz H Biol Psychol 1977 Jun; 5(2): 101-18

——————-

Research Showing No Unique Benefits of TM

<http://www.unstress4less.org/transcendental_meditation-tmresearch-unique.htm>

More Resources Analysing TM

<http://www.unstress4less.org/transcendental_meditation-helpful.htm>