Mel Siff Blog

.Dr Mel Siff and a Supertraining Yahoogroup member going back and forth

<If you hit bounce off the box correctly you will not experience any problems
with the lower back. The bounce needs to be make on the hamstrings and not
directly with your butt. If you perform it correctly you will the hamstrings
and to some extent the gluts will absorb the impact.

If you perform it incorrectly, you will experience some pressure in the
spine. Sitting back on the box places a lot of pressure on the lower back.
If you perform the bounce correctly, this is no more loading on the
spine…maybe even less that sitting back on the box. >

*** It certainly is useful advice to make most of the contact with the back
of the thighs rather than ever sitting with any significant pressure on the
glutes. However, cases have occurred where poorly understood and
technically hazardous bouncing off a box has caused fractures of area such as
the lumbosacral region of the lower spine, while back pain is also not
uncommon among those who use a definite bounce — and that is the problem
with novice users of the box squat. One cannot emphasize Kenny’s advice
strongly enough that the exercise be done with a correct, very light touching
bounce which does not longitudinally impose impact along the spinal column or
cause the spine to lose its lumbar concavity

Remember that the act of sitting down tends to elicit a relaxation of the
lumbar spine and posterior tilting of the pelvis, which leads to flattening
of the lumbar concavity. If you sit down on a box, you have to make very
definite actions to prevent these spinal relaxing processes from happening,
as is constantly stressed by the Westsiders.

<Bouncing off the box provides a greater stretch reflex. Minimize the risk
by performing it correctly and you’ll illicit a greater training effect in
the stretch reflex.

*** Bouncing off the prestretched muscle complex stimulates the myotatic
stretch reflex more strongly if you do not sit on a box at all. Any
superficial contact with the skin that you sit on will tend to diminish the
intensity of this reflex, plus any delay incurred while you are sitting (even
for less than a second) will diminish it further. Advocates of the box
squat do not even advocate “bouncing” off the box, especially under heavy
loading with a weight or a weight and bands combination.

If you wish to retain enough of the stretch reflex in the muscles of the
“posterior chain”, you should not use the box to offer anything more than a
slight brief touch to the backs of the thighs to enhance proprioceptive
awareness of the position at which you wish to commence your upward drive.
You can gain a good awareness of the prestretch in that position by using a
“Romanian” deadlift — i.e., by lowering and raising the bar from upper thigh
to below the knees by pushing your rear end backwards. Bent-knee good
mornings with glutes thrust back (rather than relying solely on hip flexion
or simple “leaning forwards”) will also enhance one’s awareness of that same
prestretch process.

<You should ease into ballistic box squatting. Once you learn to do it
you’ll illicit a greater training effect in the stretch reflex.>

*** See above – ballistic box squatting will not elicit a greater “training
effect in the stretch reflex”. If you are using box squats to enhance
performance in the squat, the reason is not mainly because you are trying to
“train” the stretch reflex, especially since the competition squat has to be
done without a box and methods of acquiring specific neural programmes tend
to be rather specific to the way in which they were learned. Anyway, I am
sure that this is what Kenny is advising – namely not using the box to sit
upon, but to serve as just a gentle warning system to offer tactile contact
so that you know exactly when to begin your upward drive in the squat. In
this way, you will retain the necessary prestretch and manage to execute the
movement explosively.

There are several reasons why one may use some forms of box squatting, but
“training the stretch reflex” is not one of them. However, the main problem
here is more a matter of scientific correctness and differences in phrasing
the advice more accurately. Some of the box squatting and Westside fans out
there might like to list some of their reasons for using box squats with and
without the added effect of bands for those who have never used box squats.

Mel Siff

For newcomers, these P&Ps are Propositions, not facts or dogmatic
proclamations. They are intended to stimulate interaction among users
working in different fields, to re-examine traditional concepts, foster
distance education, question our beliefs and suggest new lines of research
or approaches to training. We look forward to responses from anyone who has
views or relevant information on the topics.

PUZZLE & PARADOX 72

The effects of joint manipulation or mobilisation may not be as clearly
related to traditional explanations of their underlying mechanisms as
suggested by various therapists.

Most sports scientists, physiotherapists and athletes are very aware of the
various classes of mechanical ‘realignment’ of joints (including
manipulation and mobilisation) that are applied by physical therapists or
chiropractors. These twists, thrust, pulls or pushes of the spinal column,
in particular, are often accompanied by an audible ‘click’ or ‘pop’.

The professional therapists who apply this form of treatment attribute any
subsequent relief from pain or mobility symptoms to processes such as the
reduction of subluxations, stretching of connective tissue, the release of
nitrogen bubbles within the joint fluids, the realignment of joint surfaces,
nerve release and so forth.

This type of procedure is the central foundation of chiropractic and to
manipulative therapy in physiotherapy, with its users totally committed to
its effectiveness. Some long-term studies, however, indicate that joint
manipulation or mobilisation makes no statistically significant difference to
the rate or degree of recovery of the client from pain or malfunction. In
some cases, these procedures have resulted in far greater damage to the
patient, with periodic reports of hemiplegia, quadriplegia or exacerbation
of existing spinal damage appearing (frequently a result of inadequate
collaboration with medical, radiographic or surgical experts).

While the controversy between the merits and demerits of manipulative
procedures will no doubt continue to rage, this is not the main thrust of
this P&P. What appears to remain uncertain is the reason why these
procedures are successful in certain instances. All of the reasons
mentioned above need to be examined carefully before we can state
scientifically that there is a cause-effect relationship between any of them
and rehabilitation from back pain and/or dysfunction.

For instance, let us examine the contention that a quick, sharp thrust of
certain vertebrae will stretch the ligaments in that region and produce
greater mobility at that level. This presumes that a rapid movement will
cause permanent plastic deformation of the connective tissue, which happens
to be viscoelastic in nature. This means that rapid thrusts should evoke a
more elastic response from the appropriate vertebral ligaments, rather than
plastic deformation, which usually is a result of prolonged stretching above
a certain threshold level of strain in the tissues. So, if plastic
deformation is unlikely, this leaves only one other alternative, namely
tissue rupture, which is the last thing that any therapist wants.

However, all of this presumes that the therapist can produce sufficient
manual force to deform ligamentous tissue, which is highly unlikely, because
of its enormous mechanical tensile strength.

This immediately leads us to the hypothesis that many ‘back problems’ are
due to subluxations (small dislocations) of the vertebrae relative to one
another. We immediately have to ask if normal daily activities can
temporarily stretch enormously strong ligaments sufficiently to permit these
subluxations to persist for prolonged periods until the therapist
intervenes.

We have to examine the proof for the existence of these temporary
subluxations such as MRIs or CAT scans – is there unequivocal evidence to
show that ligaments (which are extremely inextensible) can be temporarily
stretched to allow adjacent vertebrae to stay dislocated relative to one
another? If so, then it will be interesting to carry out a biomechanical
analysis of the stresses and strains involved. It will be even more
interesting to understand how the slightly, but powerfully stretched,
ligaments manage to return to their original length along an hysteresis path
that shows no residual strain after prolonged stretching.

Even if one suggests that the subluxation or displacement that is reduced by
manipulation is the sum of tiny contributions from many vertebrae, it does
not eliminate the fact that ligament is very difficult to deform, especially
if subjected to a single sharp thrust.

What then of traction, that is probably used as widely as manipulation? Can
one state that traction stretches ligaments as well and relieves pressure on
nerves? Or is the idea of traction simply to overcome a persistent myotatic
stretch reflex which has temporarily forgotten to become inoperative or a
Golgi tendon reflex that has omitted becoming involved?

Possibly this would then offer a more rational approach to explain why
manipulation might relieve back pain or dysfunction. Such an hypothesis
would suggest that the muscles cause the ligaments to be pulled in a certain
direction, thereby producing and sustaining a subluxation. Of course, we
then have to examine how long a stretch reflex can remain operative and how
long a muscle can remain submaximally contracted. In the case of some back
pain sufferers, we might have to wonder at the impressive local muscle
endurance involved.

There are several other questions remaining regarding manipulation, such as
the cause of the ‘pop’ or click’. If it is indeed produced by the release
of air or nitrogen bubbles into the joints, then this would imply the
occurrence of cavitation, which is known to produce very detrimental shock
waves in engineering systems. If gas bubbles are released in the
cerebrospinal fluid, does this not imply the possibility of micro-shock wave
damage to structures in the spine, especially if manipulation is applied
regularly? Is there any evidence for the release of gas bubbles with
manipulation and, if so, are there any studies to show that they are
harmless artifacts?

Maybe the acute relief afforded in certain cases is more a consequence of
neural stimulation rather than mechanical realignment, caused by stimulation
of the nerves passing from the foramina of the spine. Would this also be a
reasonable hypothesis? Naturally, this would give us the opportunity of
invoking the ubiquitous placebo effect!

This P&P could be extended into the broader territory of deep transverse
friction, structural integration (‘Rolfing’) and so on to create a broader
base for examining the mechanical manipulation of the entire musculoskeletal
system. Indeed, this would probably be of enormous value in removing some
of the controversy associated with all of these procedures.

Comment on any of the issues raised by the above focus on manipulation and
mobilisation as currently practised by various therapists, quoting any
scientific studies which appear to support or disprove the value of these
procedures and the explanations presently given to validate them. Regarding
the mechanisms involved – Is it in the back or is it all in the head?

——————

Mel Siff

Here is an interesting paper which investigates that old problem of the
sticking point in the bench press. However, the same analysis is also
relevant to the sticking point in any other non-ballistic movements.

Note the conclusion that the sticking region does not appear to be caused by
worse leverage (“an increase in the moment arm of the weight about the
shoulder or elbow joints”) or by a significant decrease in muscle activity
during this region. The authors suggest that the problem may lie in the
possibility that the sticking region represents a force-reduced transition
zone between the earlier stretch-assisted acceleration-strength phase and the
later mechanically efficient maximum strength region. The use of limited
range elastic band and chain training (e.g. by Louie Simmons and the Westside
team) may play a useful role in attending to this specific deficit in the
transition zone referred to in this paper.

The relevance of analysing the force-time curve in terms of strength
qualities such as starting strength, acceleration-strength, maximal strength,
explosive strength then becomes more obvious, as discussed in Ch 2 of
“Supertraining”. A better understanding of these fundamental biomechanical
factors then enables one to plan one’s training more effectively.

————————

Elliott BC, Wilson GJ, Kerr GK.

A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the Bench Press

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 21(4):450-62, Aug 1989.

The performance of ten elite powerlifters were analyzed in a simulated
competition environment using three-dimensional cinematography and surface
electromyography while bench pressing approximately 80% of maximum, a maximal
load, and an unsuccessful supramaximal attempt.

The resultant moment arm (from the sagittal and transverse planes) of the
weight about the shoulder axis decreased throughout the upward movement of
the bar. The resultant moment arm of the weight about the elbow axis
decreased throughout the initial portion of the ascent of the bar, recording
a minimum value during the sticking region, and subsequently increased
throughout the remainder of the ascent of the bar.

The electromyograms produced by the prime mover muscles (sternal portion of
pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, long head of triceps brachii) achieved
maximal activation at the beginning of the ascent phase of the lift and
maintained this level essentially unchanged throughout the upward movement of
the bar.

The sticking region, therefore, did not appear to be caused by an increase in
the moment arm of the weight about the shoulder or elbow joints or by a
minimization of muscular activity during this region.

A possible mechanism which envisages the sticking region as a force-reduced
transition phase between a strain energy-assisted *acceleration phase* and a
mechanically advantageous *maximum strength* region is postulated.

—————-

Mel Siff

THE VERTICAL JUMP TEST

Siff MC “Supertraining” 2000 Ch 8

This well-known test may be applied in several different ways. Invariably it
requires the subject to leap from a standing position with a preliminary dip
and touch a measuring device sideways with one’s dominant hand. Recalling
the specificity of training, it is important to note that the results of this
test correlate best with conditions which are most similar to that of the
test. Therefore, it is useful to repeat the test with the non-dominant hand
or in the frontal plane with the athlete using both hands to reach for the
target. Moreover, there are several different initial conditions for
executing this test:

1. Starting statically from an optimum knee flexed position using no arm
swing
2. Starting statically from an optimum knee flexed position using arm swing
3. Starting statically from sitting on a low seat using (a) no arm swing, or
(b) arm swing
4. Starting dynamically with an optimal knee dip using no arm swing
5. Starting dynamically with an optimal knee dip using arm swing.

The major difference between the first two methods is that jumping without
armswing is intended to focus primarily on the role played by extension of
the lower extremity and trunk, without the picture being confounded by the
use of arm momentum. The major difference between the static and dynamic
starts is that the absence of an initial sharp dip allows one to focus more
on starting strength and the role played by the contractile (actin-myosin)
component of the muscle complex, instead of the more plyometric rebound
action encouraged by the use of the dip. This can sometimes assist one in
ascertaining whether the athlete needs more strength (or functional
hypertrophy) training or more rebound, nervous system training.

It can also be helpful to perform the static tests from different initial
knee angles to obtain a profile of individual jumping characteristics. For
example, if the maximum vertical jump is attained for a fairly large knee
angle, which is generally associated with a slower overall jumping time from
start to finish of the action, then it is obvious that the athlete needs to
concentrate on modifying his range and speed of maximal strength production.

Table 8.12 provides guidelines concerning the depth of loaded knee dips.
This reveals that the dip characteristically is deeper for heavier loads or
persons and that in all cases the pause during the dip should not last longer
than 0.25 second. Herein lies the benefit of performing push jerks or jerks
off racks with different weights as a form of supplementary plyometric
training. After all, plyometric training is of little value if it fails to
enhance adequately explosive strength or power over the range required in a
given activity. The use of drills which do not correlate strongly with the
functional needs of a given sport constitute one of the most common errors in
popular plyometric training…..

———————

Mel Siff

All too often, personal trainers and coaches seem to regard “cheating” as
some sort of heinous crime against the ethics and laws of strength training.
This attitude unfortunately disguises the fact that cheating can be carried
out usefully or dangerously. For example, bouncing a bar directly off the
sternum during the bench press or bouncing off relaxed knees at the bottom of
a full squat are both unwise and potentially dangerous ways of “cheating”.
We are all familiar with many such examples of inadvisable and unsafe ways of
cheating, so let us rather examine the possible merits of more intelligent
“cheating”.

For example, cheating allows one to operate in a different way over one’s
strength curve and actually produces a different strength curve to achieve a
certain activity goal. The manufacturers of variable resistance machines
would have you believe that the use of cams, hydraulic systems and levers is
the only way to enable you to adjust to the varying leverages of a given
joint action. However, one can use cheating to take you past a weaker region
and enable you to load the stronger region, if you wish to overload
eccentrically or concentrically in a given region.

Contrary to what so many average personal trainers often believe, cheating is
not necessarily counterproductive or unsafe – it may actually produce
superior results, if one knows how and when to cheat over the full range of
joint action.

Cheating can permit one to produce a very different and more appropriate
’strength’ (torque, power or force) curve to enable one to overcome a load
more competently and safely. Very often, adherents of the slow training
philosophies militate against the power clean or derivates of it, and even
refer to such movements as ‘cheating’ movements which make allegedly
‘unsafe’ use of momentum and ballistic activity.

In fact, this type of ‘cleaning’ movement is a far more efficient way of
lifting a bar from the ground to the chest compared with the crude sort of
deadlift, reverse curl, upright row combination that so many folk use.
There are several other so-called ‘cheating’ movements which offer safer,
stronger and more efficient ways of overcoming a load.

A brief aside — If HIT or ‘Superslow’ methods are indeed ‘better’ than
Olympic and other ballistic methods, can one explain how SIB adherents raise
a heavy bar from the ground to the shoulders? Do they always unload the bar,
slowly raise it with a reverse curl to the shoulders, place it on a rack,
add more weights and only then perform the exercise?)

In other words, the term ‘cheating’ may well have to be redefined.
Bodybuilders know that the term really means using a movement which
deviates from the traditional or classical form in some way such as
swinging the weights or moving parts of the body to assist one in overcoming
’sticking points’. Unfortunately, many other folk believe that cheating is a
breaking of some training law, a serious crime against the body or the unfair
use of some method that is frowned upon by the purists.

In Powerlifting and Olympic Weightlifting, the rules of competition DO
legislate against certain types of ‘cheating’ or illegal lifting techniques,
such as uneven extension of the elbows, not completing the movement, allowing
the bar to stop during a lift, and using series of up-and-down bounces to
complete some lifts.

In the common world of resistance training, no such laws exist, only
guidelines – ’strict’ movements are defined as such, but they are not the
only way of doing any given lift. Variations very soon become the lifeblood
of the trainee who moves out of novice ranks, so cheating is a highly
acceptable technique in the training compendium of anyone who is serious
about progressing.

However, cheating does not necessarily produce better results by allowing one
to use his/her ’strength curve’ more effectively – it may simply be that
cheating allows one to use a heavier load over a certain part of the
movement, especially during the eccentric lowering phase, which is often
implicated in enhanced hypertrophy and strength production (though not so if
used for too long or too frequently). Ballistic forms of ‘cheating’ can
elicit a more powerful myotatic stretch reflex and produce greater muscle
tension with greater potential for enhancing strength and RFD (Rate of Force
Development).

It is really interesting to see how much more can lie in an apparently
simple and time-worn concept such as cheating – no wonder the world of
strength conditioning is so fascinating! There is always something new
lurking under the surface of everything that we often take for granted, even
after years of training and research. Thank goodness we now have the
Internet to allow ideas to be tested and disseminated far more rapidly than
ever before!

Mel Siff