Has Paul Chek finally lost it???

FreeTrainers.com Forums
Strength & Powerlifting
Has Paul Chek finally lost it???

Group: Strength & Powerlifting

Created: 2012/01/01, Members: 39, Messages: 16459

Discuss the topic of Power lifting, Strength training and Strong Man training!

Join group

wrestler125 Posts: 4,619 Joined: 2004/01/27	2006/01/15, 10:01 PM I like to stay on top of things, but I can't say I check his website every morning after I drink my tea. But has anyone checked out his website lately??? Is it just me, or is it starting to look even MORE like a cult? Check out his "mission statement". Wow. -------------- Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run. ============ Quoting from 7707mutt: The squat cage is holy ground. ============

wrestler125 Posts: 4,619 Joined: 2004/01/27	2006/01/16, 04:25 PM Barely a day after I post this, an article from t-nation comes out. http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=40F324A4D7EDB046A955928F6D2BA9FA.hydra?id=885647 -------------- Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run. ============ Quoting from 7707mutt: The squat cage is holy ground. ============
	2006/01/16, 09:29 PM So let me comment on some of his points: "And the first thing they ask me every time is, "What drugs are you using?" I tell them chicken, carrots, broccoli, water, sleep, and a reason to be alive. I go into the gym and lift weights because it's a part of my spiritual practice; it's part of maintaining the temple. I don't need to go to church; I am the church." -old saying, your body is your temple...your body will only take you as far as you allow it.... "• If you don't want to have problems, eat real food. Stop eating all this cheap crap. I've had multi-millionaires and world-class professional athletes in my office tell me that organic food is too expensive. I walk them to the window and point to their $140,000 sports car and say, "Eat that fucker then! Because when you die they aren't going to bury that son of a bitch with you!" It's just a matter of getting your priorities right. The more toxic your body is, the lower your quality of life is." -excellent point we must set our priorities straight...materialism in itself is not wrong however when it begins to cloud one's judgement especially when it comes to one's health....no amount of money can buy an old person their youth and many would be willing to give away everything for just that....and often do in search of it... (gotta love plastic surgeons) "If you can't pronounce a word on the label, don't eat it." -people new to fitness are often mislead by fancy sounding names....an apple is an apple, rye bread is rye bread...when there are a bunch of crazy sounding ingredients...it's time to go for something healthier.... "• The people who say that organic food is no better then regular are what's technically known as controlbots. A controlbot is somebody whose mind has been taken over by corporate entities or religion or anybody who has an agenda • Scientific studies show that hands-down, bar none, not only is there far more nutrition in food raised organically, but there are detrimental effects to the consumption of any commercially raised food. This isn't only because the commercially raised food carries the residues of the toxic chemicals within and on them, but the soil microorganisms that are responsible for generating the nutrition to feed the plant and provide much of the immune system of the plant are rapidly killed by the application of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides One of the things commercial farmers do is they put so much salt on the ground that the plants have to suck up huge amounts of water to neutralize the salt and survive. This makes for bigger, lovely looking produce, but in reality you get big empty corn cobs and big empty carrots. One research study showed that today, to get the same nutrition from one head of lettuce as you did 50 years ago, you'd have to eat 20 heads of lettuce from the commercial farms." -I think if Paul looks hard enough he'll recognize that he's a 'controlbot' in many areas as well....driven by his own agenda....however if organic food is an option, I would lean this way to avoid many chemicals used to raise produce... " Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to look at one picture of me and know that you can't do that with just a Swiss ball! A Swiss ball is a very therapeutic and useful adjunct to add to any weight lifting program. It's a tool. I just happened to have popularized it. So people with sheep mentality immediately think that's all that I do. " -great point I think he's seen as a mad genius...but there's a method to his craziness....yes he uses it...but it's not everything....he was among first to use it...(not sure he invented or popularized it..)...so people overgeneralize this as the whole system of his training... Although his comments have made his ideology sound like integration into a cult...I will say that health and healthy living is a process of immersion...so you can't do it half way....you have to embrace it...and that's his main point...beyond his mysticism and spirituality which he espouses.... Many of his theories have been shown misleading or wrong...however....the point is not to be perfect....the point is to contribute and I think among his eccentricity....there are many valuable things to learn from him...one just has to be smart enough to see through a lot of bs...he's not the fitness mesiah....so once that is grasped....everything else follows..
nellyboy Posts: 209 Joined: 2004/07/09	2006/01/21, 05:36 PM Hey I know it's been awhile since I posted, but since you believe I'm a Chek fanatic, I figured I'd post on this topic. First off wrestler, yeah I agree with you that he has kind of gone a different direction than everyone in world seems to be heading, but hey, that's his choice. Whatever flips your bill...I guess. Secondly, he's a TEACHER, not Budda! The Institutes curriculum is like any other, it's up for interpretation regarding its validity. You should see how I can rip apart our local College curriculum for this profession...but am I completely right? Who knows. Menace, what theories have been "shown" to be misleading or wrong? You stated two paragraphs earlier that many over-generalize his theories, so if "his" theories aren't even completely understood or in most cases...read completely, then how can they be "shown" to be misleading or wrong? What I find when I discuss any of these topics with fellow health practitioners, all they've read is the information listed on his websites!
nellyboy Posts: 209 Joined: 2004/07/09	2006/01/21, 06:50 PM Another point I've wanted to make many times concerning being bashed for following theories from the Chek Institute or Charles Poliquin or Weston A Price is that: don't argue the person...ARGUE THE POINT! If you read up on propaganda, one of the first ways to spot it, is to see if they attack the person. This usually means that they cannot argue the points and therefore attempt to discredit the individual.
wrestler125 Posts: 4,619 Joined: 2004/01/27	2006/01/21, 08:04 PM sorry man, but his website looks like a cult. I have read a lot of his articles, and I do agree that most people tend to take him the wrong way and misunderstand where he is coming from. That is why I still continue to visit his website from time to time. But have you seen it lately? Is he starting a cult or something. Problem is, I don't disagree with a lot of his points, just that he takes them too far. I argue with anyone that believes in such extremes. -------------- Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run. ============ Quoting from 7707mutt: The squat cage is holy ground. ============
nellyboy Posts: 209 Joined: 2004/07/09	2006/01/21, 11:07 PM Have I seen it lately? I am a Chek Student, so of course I have. The issue you're having is with his spiritual ideology, which I personally do NOT agree with. I am a psuedo-Baptist and all that information that's on that particular subject is not for me. This does not mean that I think he's starting a cult, he just believes in something different than I and many others do. He also states...clearly...that this is not something Chek students are required to learn or buy into. Now, what extremes are you talking about? Nutrition? Motor Re-Conditioning? Strength and Conditioning? ect.
wrestler125 Posts: 4,619 Joined: 2004/01/27	2006/01/22, 12:26 AM He takes a lot of stuff too far. Nutrition (I want to see his proof that he mentions that others say doesn't exist), organic eating, motor re-conditioning, toxins, etc. I remember chek when it first came out, it was good stuff. A friend posted on a board and put it well: "I think he gives far too little credit to the basics that he practices that has kept himself in shape and gives far too much credit to the mysticism." It is this mysticism that had people walking out on him at the SWIS symposium. Of course you're a chek student. It's easy to follow when you pay thousands of dollars to do so. I know trainers that have spent thousands of dollars to become "Chek Interns" that now regret it and think he is full of BS. Not trying to take a cheap shot, but this is a reality. I prefer to follow no one particular teacher. Instead, I prefer to learn from all of them. If you were to ask me who influenced what I know, I could give you a list 2 pages long. Cosgrove, DeFranco, Waterbury, Ballantyne, Tate, Wendler, Simmons, Cressey, Robertson, Tsatsouline, Furey, Ferruggia, Berardi, Fry, King, Poliquin, Rooney, Jim Smith, James Smith, Murphy, Shugart, Even-Esh and even Chek all of the top of my head. Follow no one blindly. Chek may claim to be able to smell when his athletes are eating poorly, but I can always follow a Chek follower. Look, I of all people that Chek is capable of making some excellent points that some people tend to get a little bit to far off of. At the Swis symposium, he made a point about when one of his athletes told him eating healthy was too expensive, he walked to the window, and told him to eat his (expetive deleted) sports car. This is something todays athletes need to pay attention to. Similarly, he can push jerk a 185lb man, and from what I hear he deadlifts 400+. "Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to look at one picture of me and know that you can't do that with just a Swiss ball!" I think if he concentrated on the basics that he used to achieve this, and less on playing the mystic, then people wouldnt react so harshly to him. Off topic, but I have successfully returned to drinking milk with no problems, after having given it up for almost 10 weeks. Only thing I can say is that I have changed to skim, as that way it follows a P+C meal. -------------- Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run. ============ Quoting from 7707mutt: The squat cage is holy ground. ============
wrestler125 Posts: 4,619 Joined: 2004/01/27	2006/01/22, 11:24 PM He claims organic is more pro performance. I have seen studies that have shown that while nutritional content may be higher, it is no easier on the digestive track. I'm going to have to ask you to be a little more objective. You are attacking members of that board as "idiots", saying they are brainwashed, and attacking them saying they can not form sentences, and then YOU talk about propaganda. Re-read your post, I am sure you will realize how you come across there. You comment that guys are talking about how people live longer today than they did in the 1900's. While this is incorrect thinking, this is Chek's line of thinking. Now, you comment on the intelligence of some of the t-nation posters. It has been my experiance that many of them show a better understanding of the concepts that MATTER than many other individuals. However, I know at least 4 people that were full fledged Chek followers that now disagree with a lot of what he says. Not to mention all the people I have read talking about the same thing. I think we agree on more than you realize. Chek advocates weight lifting as the best form of activity, and he knows his kinesiology on spot. He is one of the best in his field (rehabilitive kinesiology) in the world, I do not argue with this. I believe him when he says that it takes more than a balance board to push press a 235lb man. He didn't develop this through what he promotes, he developed it through his hardcore approach to strength training. I could compare chek to Dave Tate. There are those that would follow tate blindly. Tate knows how to develop strength second to few. But I will readily argue when I disagree with him (which is about half of what he says not regarding strength development). I think you need to learn to be more discriminatory with what you choose to believe. I may be called a tate follower, as I was early on influenced by him and the westside crew, but there are interviews that I hear him in that I am like, wtf? I think you need to learn to be more discriminatory with what you choose to believe, and be a little more objective in your thinking. Question everything nelly. I don't care who says it. -------------- Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run. ============ Quoting from 7707mutt: The squat cage is holy ground. ============
	2006/01/23, 12:15 AM Generally speaking T-nation posters are quite a bit smarter than members of most other boards I have run across....also just because they make spelling mistakes....(as we all do) that doesn't take away from their arguments....you attacked each of those members without exactly showing how they are wrong....the guy who explained why Chek was way off about bacteria knew what he was talking about....Chek sounded rediculous when he says stuff that he did....and reread what you wrote....instead of disproving those posters, you simply attacked them as idiots...you even admitted that you didn't understand what one of the guys was writing but only that he corrected himself....so what?....many of them made great points..... Chek spouts a bunch of crazy concepts .....with little scientific support for it....sorry but in this day and age you do need it......double blind studies ...etc...yes some may have flaws in them that make them inapplicable but nevertheless they are the best thing to prove something as worthwhile or worthless.... Also pesticides are often not as big of a problem as it is made out to be....only some plants are significantly affected by it...there are plenty of vegetation that has been found to have only minute amounts of pesticides on them and no real need to buy organic foods instead .... Chek is definitely no fool in many areas...but blindly following every damn thing he says is a joke....no one is 100% right...and to think so is outright rediculous....I think part of his 'schtick' ise just to attract attention on to himself...good or bad.... ::::goes to measure his feces...::::::
wrestler125 Posts: 4,619 Joined: 2004/01/27	2006/01/23, 12:41 AM play nice boys. nelly, no more attacking posters... menace, no more fecal matter comments... -------------- Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run. ============ Quoting from 7707mutt: The squat cage is holy ground. ============
	2006/01/23, 01:06 AM lol....i am only too glad not to do it....on to the 'earthy smells'...lol...jk....
rev8ball Posts: 3,081 Joined: 2001/12/27	2006/01/23, 11:23 AM Don't mind the CONSTRUCTIVE arguing, gents; but let's remember to keep it civil. Otherwise, don't bother posting... -------------- Michael Powerlifters - We eat raw meat, and sleep naked in the snow...
	2006/01/24, 07:18 AM What I like about Siff is that he can take a very complex topic and simplify it....so that evena 5 yr old can understand it....Chek does the opposite....here's one of Siff's articles I found in which he breaks down some of Chek's statements and points out his fallacies...I stumbled on his Supertrainer group on yahoo and I am really enjoying his articles.....here he discusses Chek's incorrect assertion about pulling Abs in during heavy big exercises-squats/deadlifts for proper TVA activation.... Chek Ab Revision? Only 1 message in topic - view as tree Mcs...@a.. Sep 16 2001, 2:18 pm show options Mark Reifkind wrote: <It seems Dr Siff's true scientific approach has finally reached Mr Chek. In this latest article on his site he backtracks on his contention that one should consciously activate the TVA on all squatting exercises and that, if one's rectus is "activated" (bulging out), then it is a sign of inadequate TVA strength. It seems it is now possible to having a passively bulging rectus during heavy loading and healthy and functioning TVA, after all!! <http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=24> Mel Siff: * Even though it would appear that Chek has begun to acknowledge my analyses of trunk stabilisation, abdominal muscle action and so forth, if one reads his article, you will see, as Mark has intimated, that this acknowledgement is barely present and his old beliefs are still very evident. He has tried to revise his views and appease his critics by saying "Yes, my critics have been correct all along, but my beliefs are also still correct because parts of the abs are pulling in and other parts are pushing out. Therefore, we are all right - nobody is all correct and nobody is all incorrect." At least he has now accepted that the correct "spelling" for a certain muscle group is rectus abdominis and not rectus abdominus - some progress has been made! However, he hasn't quite got round to recognising that the plural is "recti abdominis". But, let's move along, for pedantry of anatomical terminology is not our objective today! Instead, let's examine his apparently revised viewpoint by applying some of the methods of science and practical experience to his latest article. ----------------------------- ABS IN, OR ABS OUT? Paul Chek <Today, there is much confusion regarding proper use of the abdominal wall, especially during resistance training or heavy lifting activities. Currently, there are numerous organizations and elite coaches who instruct their students to push their abdominals out while passing through the sticking point of a lift. This is encouraged both with, and without the use of a weight belt.> Mel Siff: * There would be no confusion if he simply acknowledged that the healthy, body with no damage or dysfunction of abdominal and trunk structures, knows what to do automatically without any need for trying to suck, push, pull, activate, deactivate and so forth. This is the reason why reflexes exist and why changes in reflex activation occur if the body is injured. Chek's article is referring the squat, so we may assume that the subject is not ina medically unsound state. Thus, as soon as the load is taken on the shoulders and the descent phase commences, the individual reflexively holds the breath and the diaphragm, abdominal and other trunk muscles all activate reflexively to suit the exact demands of each phase of the movement. According to basic biomechanics and physiology, the increase in intra-abdominal pressure associated with the reflexive breath holding against a closed glottis will also reflexively activate the abdominal structures in an attempt to oppose excessive distention of the anterior (front) and lateral abdominal walls. However, since the latter are viscoelastic in nature and not inelastically rigid, they will still tend to bulge outwards, unless all that we have learned in physics for many decades has been revised recently. Paul Chek: <The technique of pushing the abs out during a lift may be more founded in tradition than current anatomical knowledge. In this article, I will present an anatomically based explanation for proper abdominal wall function during resistance training and will use the squat to help demonstrate this.> Mel Siff: * No, as we have seen directly above, much of the outward movement of the abs in the healthy subject during squatting and other heavy load moving is produced reflexively by increases in intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). Some powerlifters indeed try to increase the IAP even further by deliberately pushing outwards against a lifting belt. As we have noted from some references posted here some months ago, this action actually can diminish stress on the spine and increase the ability to lift heavier loads, so that deliberate pushing against a belt should be regarded as a perfectly rational procedure to be used by lifters who are raising huge loads. Paul Chek: <ACTIVATION OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL A deep diaphragmatic breath should be taken prior to initiation of the squat or any other heavy lift. This results in contraction and subsequent lowering of the diaphragm into the thoracic cavity which pushes the organs down and out onto the abdominal wall. As seen in Figure 1-A, inhalation causes the diaphragm to drop from its resting position (shown in blue) to a position representative of inhalation, which causes distention of the abdominal wall. This results in the umbilicus moving away from the spinal column.> Mel Siff: * One does not actively have to think about diaphragmatic or any other specific forms of breathing when readying oneself for the squat, since the appropriate action happens quite reflexively. No matter how one holds one's breath with a heavy load on the shoulders, the resultant Valsalva manouevre will result in a large increase in IAP and reflex activation of the necessary spinal muscles - and that is ALL that is needed to stabilise and prepare the body for the subsequent squatting action. And - here we go - as Mark pointed out - Chek at last recognises that the abdominal wall distends - moves outwards, not inwards - as we have been trying to tell him for several years. But don't drop your guard, folks, here comes the counterproposal ....... Paul Chek: <After a full inhalation is achieved, the transversus abdominis (TVA) should be activated. Because the fibers of the TVA are horizontal with respect to the spine (Figure 2 - A1), when activated, it causes the umbilicus to move toward the spine. This inward movement is critical the following reasons: As you descend in the squat, the line of gravity relative to the load gradually moves forward which creates a progressively greater flexion moment on the lumbar spine. Something you may have experienced while squatting is that, as you progress toward the sticking point, there is greater load placed on your back. This requires a concomitant increase in stability to prevent unwanted compression, torsion and/or sheer of the spinal structures..........> Mel Siff: * This is where a little knowledge of biomechanics becomes an even more dangerous thing. "The line of gravity" always runs perpendicular to the surface of the earth, no matter how hard you or even Zeus try to change the state of affairs. Possibly Chek is referring to the line of action of the centre of mass (COM) of the combined lifter-load system. Even then, if this line of action gradually moves forward (which no sensible lifter will ever allow to happen), it will soon pass beyond the ball of the foot and you will topple over forwards and immediately forget about any form of pushing or pulling abs! While the trunk, hip, knee and ankle angles, plus angle of inclination of the trunk, all will change during the squat (or clean etc), the line of action of the COM has to fall well within the base of the foot closer to the heels than the toes, otherwise balance will be critically disrupted and you will have to fall forwards or take a step to halt the fall. The body of the lifter constantly adjusts to optimise joint angles so that balance and the ability to optimally exert torque persist until the lift is over. If we carry out a high speed video analysis of the squat, we see that the joint markers on the hips, shoulders and knees all describe some very characteristic curvilinear trajectories in three dimensional space, because, if they did not, the line of action of the COM would move outside the base of stabilisation formed by the feet and balance would be impossible. The comment about all of this requiring "a concomitant increase in stability to prevent unwanted compression, torsion and/or sheer of the spinal structures" is further guruspeak which describes almost everything incorrectly. The stability does not have to increase - the body simply has to remain optimally stable from beginning to end of the movement - though certain stages of the movement will require different relative controlling contributions from the different muscle groups involved, stability does not wax and wane like the phases of the moon. Chek should have avoided any attempts to apply a rudimentary knowledge of biomechanics and said something like, "If you lean forwards during the squat, you will force the back muscles to contract more powerfully in an attempt to prevent you from falling over. This increased muscle tension will tend to compress the spinal discs more strongly and if you happen to flex the lower spine at the same time, the discs will be loaded unevenly which can be especially harmful. Similarly, if you twist and flex during the squat, the resulting torsion can also impose large shearing (not sheering!) forces across and about the discs and other soft tissue around the vertebrae." American efficiency experts often say: "KISS" (Keep it Simple, Simon)! The moral is "never try to sound like an expert in any field unless you really are an expert in that field." All of us who have presented papers at learned conferences often have learned the truth of this statement with profound discomfort and humility, so that, as the years have plodded along, we have become far less enthusiastic to proclaim ourselves as experts. Others, sadly, try to solve the problem by avoiding learned encounters with peers or superiors, and that is not doing anyone any favours educationally, other than saving some face. Paul Chek: < THEORY OF ENERGY CONSERVATION Many anatomists and biomechanics consider the body to be a highly efficient and energy-conserving organism for reasons of survival during developmental times. The body’s tendency to conserve energy can been seen while performing a heavy lift, such as the squat. As described above, when the powerful diaphragm contracts to meet the progressive demand for stabilization of the spinal column and rib cage, the viscera will be forced downward and outward. This would demonstrate why many coaches and athletes have observed the abs pushing out during a lift.> Mel Siff: * While Chek has referred to the energy conserving propensities of the human body, he has not said how the diaphragm or abdominal actions actually operate in this regard during the squat. Anyway, even if one is not moving with optimal energy saving efficiency (and most machines or bodies never do), the body still will be able to produce a highly efficient and safe external movement, albeit using some more energy. That being the case, it will have cost you a few more calories and you will have to compensate by eating a little more after your workout or competition! Don't forget that the viscera are not rigid hard structures which somehow push the very tense abdominal muscles outwards. The viscera are very soft organs which are compressed and pushed about within the abdominal cavity, but it is the IAP in general which distends the abdominal region, which would happen whether or not we had any viscera. Paul Chek: <As the abs are being pushed outward under the force of contraction from the superincumbent diaphragm, the TVA will be forced to work eccentrically. Most of you know that a muscle is approximately 30-40% stronger eccentrically than concentrically. This mechanism would not only allow the body to better stabilize the spinal column, it would do it at a reduced energy cost!> Mel Siff: * Apparently, this comment is aimed at analysing how specific types of abdominal action conserve energy. Here we are being offered some unique insights into what happens when transversus abdominis (TVA) apparently is acting eccentrically. I have never come across any research which somehow has examined eccentric action of this muscle during lifting, so it would be fascinating to read any references that address this process. Even if sucha reference happens to exist, it would be even more fascinating to hear how eccentric action of TVA, which does not control torsion, flexion, extension or any other dynamic actions of the spine during heavy dynamic lifting, manages to improve movement efficiency during the squat. While the economy of eccentric muscle action has been shown in the case of antigravity muscles or in muscles which cross a joint, the role of eccentric action in TVA certainly has not been shown. I await information on this "cutting edge" activity in the near future. Paul Chek: < SO ARE THE ABS OUT OR IN? While initiating the squat, or during preparation for any heavy lift, the deep abdominal wall (inner unit) of a functional body will activate to provide segmental stabilization of the spine. This results in a visible inward motion of the umbilicus; the abs are going in. As you move through the sticking point, the relative load against the spinal column will be at a maximum and will therefore require a maximum contribution from both the inner and outer unit muscles. The inner unit muscles will act to stiffen the spinal column while the larger outer unit muscles will provide gross stability and motion. > Mel Siff: * I have EMGraphed, videod and "eye-balled" numerous squats of some reasonably competent lifters and have never ever seen the abs "go in" during any phase of the squat. I have been involved in competitive lifting for many decades now and have never observed "visible inward motion of the umbilicus" with abs "going in" during the preparatory or any other phases of any Olympic or Power lift. One simply has to watch a single lifting event to see that this statement is preposterous. I find it hard to believe that anyone can actually believe it to be true. It would be more than interesting to see any biomechanical recordings or read any research that shows it to be true. In fact, I have never even been able to find a single lifting subject who is willing to pull his abs in during any heavy lifts just for the sake of scientific research. And my own abs have always displayed this nasty tendency to bulge outwards when I squat, overhead press or jerk. Maybe I have been missing something over all these years of misguided competitive lifting and biomechanical research! Paul Chek: <To better appreciate this, one need only look at the line of gravity during the decent into a squat.> Mel Siff: * As I stated much earlier, this remark about "line of gravity" is biomechanical nonsense, even during a decent or a descent into a squat :) Paul Chek: <The progressively larger lever arm against the spine will require an increasingly greater contraction of the erector spinae muscles to move the load in concert with the leg musculature.> Mel Siff: * I also showed earlier at some length that a progressively larger lever arm is displayed during the well-executed squat and that this occurred only if the lifter incorrectly leans over more or rounds the lumbar spine. Maybe some tragically unsafe lifters would allow the line of action of the COM to move very far forwards and carry out some hair-raising squatting corrections to stay balanced, but no reasonably skilled lifter would allow the load to move further forwards in this unwise manner. Even if the spine is more heavily loaded by greater trunk inclination during some phases of deadlifting or Olympic lifting, the skilled lifter makes sure that the body is aligned at all times to minimise the imposition of any potentially risky asymmetric or torsional loading on the spinal structures. Several months ago I posted some biomechanical analyses of joint and bar (in our "Files" section) trajectories during the snatch to illustrate how this happens. Unfortunately, Chek's analyses are based entirely on hypothesis and not biomechanical analysis during actual lifts, yet he frequently accuses the "academics" for relying on theory and not on practical knowledge. Paul Chek: <The massive contraction of the back muscles can not go unchecked by the large rectus abdominis and oblique muscles, or the spine would simply colapse into extension. Therefore we could say that there is co-contraction of the outer abdominal muscles against the back muscles to provide gross stability of the torso and move the load. As this co-contraction takes place, there will be thickening of the rectus abdominis and oblique muscles, just as you would expect when contracting any skeletal muscle. Considering this along with the fact that the diaphragm can force the TVA into an eccentric contraction thus pushing the umbilicus away from the spine (while maintaining segmental stability), would make it appear to the observer or athlete looking in the mirror that the abs are moving out!> Mel Siff: * No matter how one wishes to disguise it with comments about apparent "moving out" vs "actual moving out", the fact remains that the surface of the abdomen moves OUTWARDS during the squat. This outward movement is both the result of passive outwards bulging of the abdominal wall produced by increases in IAP (as I discussed earlier and as corroborated by Basmajian's research in his book, "Muscles Alive"), as well as by thickening of the recti abdominis and obliques during contraction associated with concontraction processes AND with reflexive activation to oppose the large increase in IAP. As a matter of fact, similar bulging of the lower back muscles during the deadlift, squat and Olympic lifts sometimes creates the impression that the lower back is rounding, which is a major reason why one cannot simply rely on visual superficial analysis of spinal dynamics during any lifts. Paul Chek: <However, what I have shown here is that in a properly functioning body, the inner unit musculature remains contracted (abs in) while the outer unit contracts to act as a gross stabilizer, pushing the abdominals progressively more outward as the load and need for gross stability increases.> Mel Siff: * As I have shown by application of some standard biomechanics and muscle physiology, Chek most definitely has NOT shown what he claims to have shown. He simply has propounded a totally unsubstantiated hypothesis that, despite the clear evidence that the abdominal wall distends during the squat, the "outer" abdominal musculature pushes outwards, while the "inner" abdominal musculature pulls inwards, so that we are all correct and nobody is incorrect. Paul Chek: <CONCLUSION What is critical, with regard to stability and longevity of the spine in anyone lifting heavy loads (or loads heavy enough to require natural interruption of the respiratory cycle) is the sequence of events. In the functional body, the umbilicus will move inward as an indicator that the segmental stabilizing mechanism is activated. As the demand for greater stiffness and stabilization of the torso increases, the diaphragm will force the TVA to contract eccentrically. In concert with this action there will be an increased activation of the rectus abdominis and oblique abdominal muscles, providing gross stability by the way of co-contraction against the spinal extensors. This will be recognized as the abs moving outward, during which time the inner unit muscles will continue to be active unless the lifter is wearing a lifting belt; belt wearing may completely alter the recruitment patterns of the core musculature.> Mel Siff: * As I showed in some detail earlier, much of this hypothesizing is incorrect. He is also suggesting that belt-wearing causes the "inner unit muscles" to become inactive, but, as far as I know, I have seen no research which has ever analysed differences in activation patterns between "inner" and "outer" abdominal muscles during any heavy lifts. Yet, as a research article posted here a while ago showed, the use of a belt can enhance IAP and maximal lifting ability. If this takes place with some muscles in the trunk (like those mystical 'inner units') deactivated, then many lifters apparently are taking their spinal lives in their hands. Paul Chek: <For a much more comprehensive explanation of the core stabilizing mechanisms see my correspondence courses titled Scientific Back Training and Scientific Core Conditioning. For an in-depth review of the effects of weight belts on the back and back stability mechanisms, please see my article titled Back Strong and Beltless.> Mel Siff: * Last year I wrote a comprehensive review of that article (see our archives) and showed that it, too, contained numerous biomechanical errors. As yet, it has not been revised to take into account findings that belt usage can indeed enhance lifting efficiency and safety. Most critiques of belt usage, including Chek's, rely on studies carried out on chronic (long-term, long duration) belt usage among manual labourers and not on competitive high level lifters and these cannot be extrapolated uncritically to the world of competitive and training lifting. AN AB PUSHING SECRET What I am now about to share with you is something interesting that none of the gurus and very few others will even be aware of in the world of biomechanical analysis of the lifts. Its implications are enormous for anyone who, like Chek, believe that they really understand the mechanics of the lifts and trunk stabilisation during the lifts. Something that I have been pointing out for some years now (and teaching at my Supertraining Camps) is the fact that nobody has explained yet how the competitive lifter actually uses strong contact between the lower abdominal region and the upper thighs to stabilise the trunk and enhance force production during the power and Olympic lifts. This is very easy to show without any need for sophisticated biomechanical apparatus. Descend into a squat or assume your starting position for the pull (Power or Olympic) and keep one hand in the fold between the lower abs and the upper thigh. You will notice that this region of your body squeezes your hand strongly and ensures during the earliest stages of the lifts that the trunk receives additional stabilisation by abs pressing pneumatically against the upper thigh. In addition, the pressure exerted by the upper thighs on the abdomen reflexively increases abdominal muscle tension and, if you employ a slight ballistic bounce in that position, this facilitation becomes even greater. Some lifters like Fred Hatfield and several others actively have used this tiny ballistic bounce in the lowest position of the squat to enhance their upward drive - this little ballistic prestretch facilitates stronger contraction not only in the lower extremity muscles, but also in the abdominal musculature, because superficial pressure is also one of the facilitation methods that one can use to increase muscle tension (e.g., see Knott & Voss, "Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation" and Guyton, 'Textbook of Medical Physiology"). Now, let's move to the world of powerlifting for a peek at one of Louie Simmons' impressive party tricks. If any of you have visited his Westside Barbell Club in Columbus, Ohio, you may well have witnessed Louie pushing a broomstick into his lower abs, forcibly holding his breath and shoving his abs explosively outwards to propel the stick with unbelievable force across the room. Now, that is not simply for amusement - Louie and some of his powerlifting crew actually explosively thrust the abs outwards in the lowest squat position to utilise that special form of contact facilitation that I have described above. In a somewhat similar fashion, many of us, in the days when the standing Olympic Press was an official lift, learned how to ballistically increase abdominal muscle tension with the spine held in a powerfully prestretched back-arching. Without that explosive little "trick", we would never have been able to press such heavy loads overhead so rapidly and safely. ACADEMIA AGAIN! All of the recent analyses of trunk and abdominal mechanics and utilisation carried out by Chek regrettably are guilty of exactly what he has been accusing so many "academics" of for many years now, namely a heavy reliance on theory and little familiarity with experience in the trenches. It is time that he offered his disciples a superior product by using a dump truck (apologies to Dave Tate and Louie Simmons!) to dispose of all the academic guruspeak and clinical dogma, and bring in something far more proven and valid from the practical lifting trenches. Oh - and a little time spent with some 'academic' biomechanists wouldn't be wasted! Dr Mel C Siff Denver, USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
	2006/01/24, 07:25 AM Dr Mel C Siff Denver, USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/ Mcs...@a.. Feb 9 2002, 4:19 am show options Here is a summary of some very interesting information that was sent to me from top international researchers in the field of TVA activity and spinal stability. For obvious reasons, no names are being mentioned at this stage because their work is due to be published soon in a peer-reviewed journal. Their information, together with John Gray's recent feedback from that Spinal Congress in Montreal decisively deposes many of the current guruesque beliefs about TVA action and activation. It will be interesting to see how those promulgating all those beliefs will now respond. Will they openly admit their errors, will they subtly remove the incorrect material from their web articles, course material and lectures or will they declare that they were really saying "much the same thing, but in different words", which led to everyone misunderstanding what they actually stated? Let's wait and see! -------------------- TRANSVERSUS ABDOMINIS AND SPINAL STABILITY TVA as activated through the abdominal "sucking-in" technique may not improve spinal stability, as has been hypothesized, because reducing the moment arm of the abdominal wall reduces the potential energy of the spinal column. Furthermore, unstable behaviour occurs in the two shear directions and the 3 rotational axes, something which the TVA muscle is not really equipped to do. However, if one executes an abdominal bracing action which activates the TVA together with the obliques, this can significantly enhance stability in all 6 degrees of freedom for the lumbar joints. In fact, in terms of maintaining spinal stability through a wide variety of tasks, the most important muscles to ensure adequate stability CONTINUALLY CHANGE and no single muscle may be singled out in that regard. What does this imply? --- Train motion/motor patterns that involve all muscles rather than emphasizing only one. This having been stated, it is relevant to note that the Australian researchers in this field have shown that they can correct delayed onset times of TVA activation with hollowing training - this has merit for muscle re-education in clinical settings, which is what they have always said - it is apparent that various others have misinterpreted this to mean that this is the appropriate technique to build spine stability in general. --------- Dr Mel C Siff Denver, USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
	2006/01/24, 07:37 AM Mcs...@a.. Dec 29 2000, 2:14 am show options This virtual encounter between me and Chek probably served an instructional purpose in offering a case study about how easy it can become for a prolonged debate on some commercially lucrative projects and concepts to deviate far from the scientific path into more emotive territory, so I am going to terminate any further offerings on this topic unless they address the scientific and practical aspects of the original debate on stabilisation, back mechanics and injury. You will note from some recent posts that I have now tried to return the focus to the underlying issues, so that this will indeed be the Last Thread on the fizzled "Rumble Down Under". Please read the websites and articles that I have quoted in those posts and share your opinions on the mechanisms of stabilisation, back problems and ab involvement, rather than expending any more energy on a non-event. In a recent post from David Driscoll, I note that he referred to some material which may not have been discussed here. Reluctantly, I have to fill in some of the gaps by quoting a few more extracts from the so-called Siff vs Chek saga, otherwise those of you who wish to read the closing arguments will be left a little in the air. ------------------------------------- THE LAST THREADS On 12/27/00, Paul Chek<pchek@c...> wrote on WeightsNet: <I would like it to be very clear to Dr. Siff, and all others that read these posts, that I have NEVER changed my opinion or approach to ANYTHING I do clinically or otherwise as a result of reading anything Dr. Siff has written!> Siff: * Compare your recent writings with past ones where a few of us challenged you on many on several training issues and it requires no great imagination to see that your view has quietly become more in tune with what we have been writing and saying. However, you continue to incorrectly talk about "force couples" and "couples" in the body, even though in most cases they simply do not exist in human kinesiology, despite what the clinical references you use might state. Biomechanically, they are incorrect, and that is why one simply cannot rely on any references without being able to analyse them critically...... Chek: < I reference any and all sources that have influenced my direction, or whose work I have used as developmental to my approach in each article, course or video program I develop.....> Siff: Then why have you invariably failed to provide several of us with peer-reviewed references to support several of your claims that we have questioned on the Internet over the years? Let's start again with references to prove that a voluntary emphasis on transversus abdominis has ever been shown to offer more effective, safer production of strength during non clinical squatting and lifting. Let's also see the references which show that belt usage definitely weakens the abdominal musculature in sporting situations. Other group members have recently cited research which shows exactly the opposite - how about sorting out that dilemma? Don't forget, too, to provide references for all of those claims about dangerous bench pressing and several other remarks about powerlifters being "dump trucks"...... Would you care to fill all of those gaps now? Chek: < My position on belts, abdominal training and most any topic I have spent time investigating was well founded and often publicized long before I was even introduced to Dr. Siff's work by Kim Goss in 1995. I don't recall even reading anything other than the first edition of "Supertraining" prior to mapproximately 1997, when, if memory serves me correctly, Dr. Siff began debating with me and others on this and other lists. It may have even been 1998? > Siff: **That is very interesting! I have a note that you wrote to me bearing a postal date of 13 Sept 1994 and an address of 737 Pearl St, Suite 210, La Jolla, CA, which states: "Mel, I made a photo copy of your book for free. I want to make it up to you, so choose any video of same value and drop me a line. I will send it to you. I like your stuff! Sincerely, Paul Chek" Speaks for itself, does it not? Would you like to see a copy of that note? By the way, I never ever received my video, although I am aware that you provided several of your videos in attempts to appease other Internet critics of yours...... ----------------------------------- That is the last snippet of material on this issue here - those of you who wish to read more on the whole debate, please go to the WeightsNet discussion group . For the rest of us - over to a scientific re-examination of back, ab and postural speculations elsewhere on this forum! Dr Mel C Siff Denver, USA mcsiff@a... End of messages Functional and Stability Training Myths: Part 4 Only 1 message in topic - view as tree Mcs...@a.. Oct 15 2001, 4:31 am show options CONTINUED Recently I have had some very interesting and productive discussions with Brian Johnston, who runs the following website: http:// www.ExerciseCertification.com Like many of us on the Supertraining list, he also has a very critical approach to the seriously overmarketed concepts such functional training, ball balancing and rehabilitation and is in the process of writing a book on these topics. Meanwhile he has kindly given me permission to share some excerpts from his forthcoming book, because much of this material is directly relevant to our current discussions of Ball training and so forth. His material will be published here in a series of several episodes, with the full text being available within a few months. <Functional Training: Motor Learning Contradictions of a Misguided Training Practice By Brian D. Johnston PART 4 Paul Chek agrees with Vladimir Janda that "if we could speed the reflex response time of our bodies by 50%, we would reduce the chances of acquiring an orthopedic injury by about 80%" Chek did not explain why this would be the case (and I wonder if Janda was simply making a hypothetical point versus actually believing it could be done). Nor did Chek state or suggest that reflexes are genetically determined or that any betterment of reflex reaction is specific to the task in question and within genetic limits of the individual. This means that to increase the response to a stimulus within a specific task requires specific practice of specific skills. Regardless, Chek sets out to increase general reflexes via exercise selection. In an absurd example, Chek suggests that if a motor-cross racer has difficulty sliding through corners, but can handle straight-away riding and jumping, he can correct this through Swiss ball training. He would have the individual emphasize "the tilting aspect of an equilibrium response" by kneeling upon and balancing himself on a Swiss ball (his feet are not touching the ground). That person would then catch a medicine ball being tossed from the side (having to twist at the torso in order to catch the medicine ball). Apparently, "this would aid in improving the rider’s ability to respond more quickly to the motorcycle when sliding through corners." Hmmmm? How about practicing sliding through corners! If that is the case, that such an exercise could assist this motor-cross racer, the opposite should be true; that an individual who can easily slide through corners should be able to automatically kneel on a Swiss ball and catch a medicine ball to the side with little difficulty. However, such is not the case. Why? The motor-cross racer lacks the specific skills to do so (unless he has exceptional ability to do so). Chek also concludes that the elderly fall due to losing glute and ab tissue, resulting in the loss of reflexes. There are many reasons why an elderly person may fall. Other reasons include: Loss of bone mass (viz., osteoporosis; the bones collapse, causing the person to fall). Loss of strength (not necessarily reflexes) as a result of loss of bone mass and muscle tissue. Hence, weight-bearing exercise (regular strength training not involving Swiss balls) decreases the risk of falling by strengthening and developing more dense bones and muscles. If the muscles are particularly strong, then there won’t be any wasting of the reflexes (nothing beyond normal decompensation due to aging). Consequently, Swiss ball training is unnecessary to correct problems with reflexes due to muscle wasting. This is particularly true since Chek admitted that muscle hypertrophy is best achieved through non-FT exercises due to greater overload and specificity (viz., isolation)! That also means that non-FT exercises are not only functional’ exercises, but they produce greater functional change than FT exercises.... Paul Chek concludes that "the concept of the generalized motor program explains why so many forms of exercise simply do not improve function or serve as optimal injury prevention." This statement is misleading, particularly since he further recommends FT exercise in the manner and for the purpose described throughout this report - as if they do improve function more so than any other exercise modality. The generalized motor program is an innate neurological system. It is something we are born with. It has nothing to do with any specific skills necessary to demonstrate ability (ability being factors established by the generalized motor program)...... Next, consider any Swiss ball exercise, such as dumbbell bench pressing with your back resting on the ball (there are many more complex exercises, but they are difficult to explain without photos). The particular balancing, coordination and agility required during this movement is unique onto itself, and it does not mirror any other neuromuscular requirements. The Swiss ball dumbbell press can improve function (since you are exercising muscle groups necessary to demonstrate ability), but it does not hold any "magical" properties (despite what Chek states) simply because there is greater skill involved. Many FT exercises are executed on the basis that not only is there a noticeable or substantial transfer of one skill to another (which should seem irrational at this point), or the enhancement of genetically constrained abilities, but also that the practice of certain movements help to prevent injury. For instance, balance training on a wobble board will help prevent injury to the ankles since the trainee is exercising in an unstable environment. The same has been said about plyometrics, in that regular high-force training helps prepare the body to accept high forces (in order to prevent injury from high forces!). However, since each skill is specific and unique, and since there are so many deviances within motor patterns that could occur in athletics or everyday living, the chances of those specific motor patterns as practiced in FT exercises coming into play are highly remote..... Chek then contends that Swiss balls do not fortify faulty patterns’. What is a faulty pattern? I presume one that places the body in unnatural positions and improperly stresses the muscles. But how do traditional exercises (free weights or machines) fortify faulty patterns (which apparently lead to injury), particularly since any exercise properly performed, using any tool of application, falls in accordance to joint and muscle movement requirements? What is faulty about a machine curl that requires the elbow joint to flex?.... It should be obvious that delay in reaction (explosiveness) has everything to do with the mind’s reply to a stimulus (signaling the muscles to do something’) rather than the method of exercise (i.e., explosive movements versus very slow movements). Besides moving too fast or using weights that exceed your ability to maintain control and proper positioning/form, injury is often the result of lack of focus and confidence, causing hesitation and poorly reacting/functioning muscles...... > Brian welcomes you to visit his website at: http:// www.ExerciseCertification.com. There you will find various articles, including his Consumer Advocate section, with further warnings of fraud and incompetence in the exercise and nutrition industries. ---------------------- Dr Mel C Siff Denver, USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
	2006/01/24, 07:40 AM The Evil Bench Press? Only 1 message in topic - view as tree Mcs...@a.. Aug 28 2001, 1:28 pm show options Here is some material written by baseball coach, Dick Mills, who runs the pitching.com website. It repeats the well-worn myth that the bench press per se is a dangerous exercise and has no value to anyone except possibly some misguided powerlifters or bodybuilders. In the second article he cites Paul Chek's beliefs on this topic as providing scientific evidence for his own beliefs about the bench press. I have offered a few comments here and there. Over to the rest of you for your remarks! ---------------------------------------- <http://www.pitching.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000099.html> However, you have to be careful with your upper body lifting. Bench pressing is not going to enhance your ability to throw since throwing works most of the same muscles. You can do light dumbbell work but stay away from heavy benching. You also should stay away from upright rows, military press, lat pulls behind the neck and pullups. They are all very stressful on the shoulder. You can substitute pushups for bench press. The key is to work the whole body and to make sure you don't overwork the front of the shoulder (chest, pecs etc) and not balance by working the back of the shoulder. So you keep the front stretched and the back of the shoulder strong. That way you will keep a balance so that your arm will work within the shoulder socket the way it is supposed to do. There a thousands of pitchers who will work in the weight room this year the wrong way - like doing a lot of heavy chest or shoulder work. They are putting themselves at risk of shoulder injury and/or inflexibility. -------------------- <http://www.pitching.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/006297.html> Here's an article some of you pitchers who think that bench pressing is a great way to build strength for pitching. Guys, if benching was the way to go every big league pitcher would be doing it up big but that is not true in most cases and this article explains why. Read carefully what Paul Chek says about joint stability and you might think twice about scapula loading and forced horizontal adduction which is for the first time actually being taught to young pitchers by unqualified-non certified non-professionals out to make a buck from unsuspecting high school pitchers and even some parents. One such person never even pitched but was a high jumper. I believe time will prove that teaching this creates shoulder joint instability which means a looser shoulder joint which leads to shoulder injury and eventually surgery. Keep in mind that the shoulder is the loosest joint in the body already. There is a fine line between too much looseness and stability. Pitching creates a loose shoulder by simply going through the act of throwing a baseball over and over all by itself. To teach a high school pitcher to intensionally force his shoulder out of alignment thus stretching the soft tissue and the capsule is irresponsible. By the way Paul Chek is one of the most qualified sports performance professionals in the business. Some giving out advice on the internet have zero qualifications. As always, talk is cheap so be careful. Many of you are compromising the health of your arm just for more performance - performance that has not proven to work for pitchers at any time. And those selling the performance advice have no qualifications. That is short term thinking at best. And by doing this you will lose big in the end. Many sooner than later. For those interested here is Chek's article: <http://user.tninet.se/~ksz774p/articles/Bench.html> ------------------------------------------------- "BIG BENCH - BAD SHOULDERS!" by Paul Chek Why all the fuss over a big bench-press? What does the sheer amount of weight that someone can push whilst lying flat on their back have to do with anything? If you're sitting with a bunch of guys and someone strong walks in, it's common to hear "I wonder what he can bench?". Or when discussing sport, the same question comes up, "How much can so-and-so bench?" When I go to a party and meet people, you can be as sure as the presence of beer that someone will ask, "What can you bench?" It is always great fun to see their reaction when I tell them "Not much, but I can run 30 meters flat out with Malu Mainu'u on my back!" The bench press exercise was never intended to be a benchmark of man (or woman!) hood. It is an exercise for improving the size and/or strength of the chest, anterior deltoids and triceps, nothing else. In fact, the star player on any team is rarely the one with the biggest bench press! Unfortunately, over-emphasis on the bench press often coupled with poor technique has led to a high incidence of shoulder injuries in both athletes and non-athletes. Additionally many people are not anatomically designed to perform the exercise as it is generally taught in most strength training texts, Personal Trainer certification courses and by many strength coaches. The Problem with Traditional Technique The bar is lowered until it touches the chest and then pressed back up to the start position. Everyone is expected to lower the bar to the chest; anything less is considered poor form, sub-standard, and even wimpy by fellow lifters. However, to perform the exercise under such guidelines requires a greater range of motion (ROM) than is found in the shoulder joint of most people – particularly male athletes. Why is it so important to work within the ROM of your shoulder joint? Some simple anatomy will help to explain this. The movement-restricting factor during a bench press is not the muscles of the shoulder; it is the special connective tissue casing around the shoulder joint called the "joint capsule". This highly specialized structure is anatomically designed to not only allow just the right amount of motion to prevent joint damage, but also contains thousands of specialized nerve endings called "proprioceptors". Proprioceptors are special nerve endings that communicate with the brain to inform it of joint position and speed of movement, as well as pressure, tension and pain in and around the joint. Loading the shoulder and forcing it beyond the functional ROM limit will stretch the shoulder joint capsule. In most people this will occur by letting the bench-press bar travel until it touches the chest. Additionally, because the bench press is performed on a flat weight lifting bench, normal movement of the shoulder blades (scapulae) is disrupted. This demands that more movement must occur in the shoulder joint itself. As the bar is loaded with heavier and heavier weights, the shoulder blades are pressed into the bench harder and harder, further disrupting the normal mechanics of the shoulder girdle joints and overloading the shoulder. How far should you let the bar travel when performing a bench press? To protect the shoulder joint capsule from being stretched out or injured the exerciser must determine how far to safely lower the bar. It is essential that each person determine optimal bench press range of motion for his or her own shoulders, as each person is different. Dr Mel C Siff Denver, USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/ End of messages sorry for these long articles/posts but I found them interesting and on cue with what we were discussing about how Chek was often wrong....also what is the definitive answer of Chek's educational background? has he even got a bachelor degree?
	2006/01/24, 07:51 AM This is the last one for today, I promise...LOL.... Bench Press & Chek All 2 messages in topic - view as tree Mcs...@a.. Nov 3 2000, 8:47 pm show options Bob Forney <bobage24@a...> <<I have also recently read Paul Chek's article Big Bench, Bad Shoulders: <http://216.150.5.6/exclusive/chek/benchpress.htm> I have an opinion on the subject, but would also like to hear what everyone on the list thinks >> *Thanks for bringing this latest Chek point to our attention. This tale warranted some in-depth analysis, because it addresses several issues that are part of fitness and therapeutic folklore, so be prepared for some lengthy reading based upon a series of extracts taken from this article! ------------------------ Big Bench, Bad Shoulders By Paul Chek Chek point: The bench press exercise was never intended to be a benchmark of man (or woman!) hood. It is an exercise for improving the size and/or strength of thechest, anterior deltoids and triceps, nothing else. Siff Comment: * Historically, the bench press has long been associated with producing an impressive chest, one of the hallmarks of bodybuilding. Try excelling inany bodybuilding event with an underdeveloped chest and see how far you go! Chest size and shape is important in some sports and careers, so it is fairer to say that the bench press may play an essential role in certain situations. Chek point: The movement-restricting factor during a bench press is not the muscles of the shoulder; it is the special connective tissue casing around the shoulder joint called the "joint capsule". This highly specialized structure is anatomically designed to not only allow just right amount of motion to prevent joint damage, but also contains thousands of specialized nerve endings called "proprioceptors". Comment: * Wrong. The connective tissues also stretch and enhance the efficiencyof muscle action, especially if it is more rapid or ballistic, as in throwing and running, or if prestretch is involved. Interestingly, the shoulder joint is ballistically thrust much further back (extended) during sprinting and fast running than any form of barbell bench pressing and for many more reps at a time. The force imposed on the shoulder joint under these conditions can exceed that experienced by the average recreational bench presser, so does this mean that we should not forcefully swing the arms back when we run? This highly specialised structure is meant to manage different types of passive and active range of movement which are significantly greater than the unloaded passive range stipulated by Chek. If the shoulder is designed to allow only just the right amount of motion (i.e. display what is known as �zero safety factor� in engineering), then it would be incapable of handling any unexpectedly large or extensive loads. That is not the way in which the body is designed. Even more cleverly, the different parts of the body obey the well known principle of SAID (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands), so that progressive gradual (or fluctuating) overload will cause adaptive reconstruction and allow the trained parts of the body to cope easily with loads which were impossible at the beginning. To state that each joint permits only �just the right amount� of movement is tantamount to saying that musculoskeletal adaptation does not take place. In other words, stretching and strengthening programs cannot significantly increase the safe range of motion of any joint. Chek should have stated that it is not advisable to begin bench pressing with loads that are too demanding for you to cope with, but that it would be more sensible to progressively increase loading, range and rate of movement so that the body can adapt effectively to ultimately work over a greater range of joint motion. Chek point: Additionally, because the bench press is performed on a flat weight liftingbench, normal movement of the shoulder blades (scapulae) is disrupted. This demands that more movement must occur in the shoulder joint itself. As the bar is loaded with heavier and heavier weights, the shoulder blades are pressed into the bench harder and harder, further disrupting the normal mechanics of the shoulder girdle joints and overloading the shoulder. Comment: * The use of an inappropriate bench or position on a bench may indeed inhibit the scapula from rotating freely, but that does not mean that the shoulder joint has to produce more movement. Scapular restrainment controls the movement of the shoulder so that the connective tissues associated with the thoracoscapular �joint� and the glenohumeral joint may have to stretch to offer an alternative mode of movement under those specific conditions. This is one reason why it is incorrect to refer to certain joints as behaving like �force couples�. A couple comprises a system of two equal and opposite forces which implicate only rotation and NO element of translation, but most joints that are popularly thought to produce couples are passively restrained by various connective tissues which are there to handle translational forces. That is why all this trendy talk about joint �couples� and �force couples� needs some serious reappraisal - this misinformation is leading too many folk to understand joint action imperfectly. Chek point: Place your arm in the bench press position and allow your arm to lower to its passive end range of motion. This is the position where the arm naturally stops without being forced. At this point you have determined the exact point at which the shoulder joint capsule becomes the primary restraint to shoulder ROM. * This is suitable for unloaded, relaxed measurements of shoulder action,not the dynamic, loaded or ballistic actions of sport. This sort of relaxed test can be very misleading because normal sporting movement does not encourage the muscles to relax at the extreme end of range. Thus, under 'functional' conditions, it is not just the capsule which stabilises the joint,but also all the contracted muscles associated with the shoulder (and thatmeans not simply the adored 'rotator cuff' muscles). Chek point: Although many will argue that you must train through the "full range of motion" to be strong for sport, this concept is unfounded. It is well known among Physiotherapists and exercise scientists that there is approximately a 15� +/- carry-over of strength developed at any specific joint angle withstrength training. i.e. if you train the shoulder from 15� to 75�, thestrength gained will carry over from 0� to 90�. This is how sports medicine doctors improve strength in an injured shoulder or knee without actually ever moving the joint through the painful ROM. * Of course you have to train through full range of sports specific movement in order to produce sporting proficiency, because a large number of sports compel the joints to act over far greater ranges than those measured passively according to Chek�s guidelines. His entire article is based upon the typical model of the soft tissues behaving non-ballistically or cocontractively under conditions of predictable and smooth loading, which is thestandard model used by therapists who rely on isokinetic devices and manual muscle testing to analyse human movement. Can you imagine if a wrestler, gymnast, weightlifter, powerlifter, field athlete, judoka and many other types of athlete who throw, catch, push or manhandle objects or other people did NOT train the most relevant joints over a full range of �functional� movement? In fact, research done by Iashvili, Tumanyan and Dzhanyan have shown the importance of this type of training by thoroughly investigating the ranges of movement (ROM) and ways of enhancing ROM, as well as the relationship between unloaded and loaded active and passive ways of stretching (detailed in Siff & Verkhoshansky �Supertraining� 1999, Ch 3.5.8). The figures of approximately 15 percent carry-over were obtained under isometric loading conditions, which have nothing to do with the prestretched orballistic actions commonly involved in many sports. Physical therapists use this type of training during the early post-acute stages of rehabilitation, but these regimes of isometric holding do not condition the muscle complex to cope with ballistic loading or heavily loaded exercise over a full ROM. It is entirely invalid to extrapolate highly limited methods from the clinical setting to the world of normal physical activity and sport, especially when the biomechanics and neurophysiology involved are so very different. For example, the brain mechanisms associated with isometric and ballistic movement implicate different regions of the motor cortex, basal ganglia andcerebellum. In simple terms, Chek is trying to use screwdrivers instead of spanners to work on the machine. Chek point: What most trainers, athletes and coaches don�t seem to respect is the fact that training beyond the shoulder�s passive barrier with heavy loads will stretch the shoulder joint capsule. Once stretched, the joint capsule can no longer stabilize the shoulder joint with common arm movements such as swimming, hitting a volley ball or netball, holding power tools over head or even swinging a hammer. If these arm movements are repeated without the stability provided by a functional shoulder joint capsule, an impingement develops, resulting in inflammation and pain in the shoulder joint. * That is the very point of the whole exercise, provided that it is done in manner and rate which suits the individual and that even means using ballistic loading if appropriate for a given athlete. The fear that an activemuscle will be permanently stretched is incorrect. There are at least twoways of stretching the muscle complex: by heavy loading or sustained loading. The former usually causes partial or complete ruptures, so that the issue of gradual plastic deformation does not arise, though the possibility of cumulative microrupture may exist. This leaves us with sustained lighter loading, but it is known that plastic deformation is produced in uncontracted muscle (i.e. in its non-contracting elements), not in the ... read more » Mcs...@a.. Nov 6 2000, 5:07 pm show options Clifton Ng wrote: <<I look forward to the debate about the safety of bench presses that this post is sure to inspire. As a quick aside, however, I'd like to ask about the effectiveness of using the bench press to train for throwing or sprinting sports at all. I recently heard from a trainer that this exercise did not develop strength within the proper ROM to improve throwing, and that OLs were a much more efficient means of training for throwing/sprinting actions. When I thought about it, it did seem that the arm/shoulder motions of the bench press were not a very close match to those performed in throwing/sprinting, but perhaps I'm missing something?>> *This sort of criticism of many supplementary exercises usually is based upon various beliefs in specificity and simulation. A supplementary or general training exercise is not necessarily chosen because it is as similar as possible to the actual sporting movement being trained for or because it simulates the sporting movement, but because it can improve some of the motor qualities involved in that sport. In fact, there is some evidence which shows that using exercises that are very similar to sporting movements, though different in some respects, such as the degree of loading, the way in which force is produced or the load used, can be more problematic than using exercises that are clearly different from the sporting movements. Apparently, the similarity in the resulting neural programs causes more inter-task interference than between programs which are associated with different movements. On top of this, it is overly simplistic and misleading to condemn any exercise out of hand, because the same exercise can be done in many different ways. In the case above, is the person referring to bench press from a static start on the chest, a narrow grip BP, a wide grip BP, a ballistic BP, a BP executed using CAT (compensatory action) methods, BP with elastic bands, BP with chains, BP over a restricted range, BP using a load for maximal power generation.... etc etc. I have something like 40 variations in "Supertraining" and that by no means exhausts the possibilities! The bottom line? That trainer whom you mention above probably is rather limited in his knowledge of the science of strength training and powerlifting training. Some coaches used to endlessly criticise me for bench pressing as an Olympic lifter, because they considered that the BP "limited shoulder flexibility" and conflicted with my overhead movements. I, on the other hand, reasoned that pectoralis major plays a useful role in helping one stabilise the bar overhead, since the pecs limit abduction (backward) movement of the shoulders. I also felt that the bench press increased tricep (and anconeus) strength, which can be very helpful in locking the elbows under heavy overhead loading. Despite my "bench pressing "sin", my shoulders have always remained flexible, strong and injury free, and I can still catch a squat snatch in an extremely low position. As long as you understand what you are doing and why you are doing it, and science and practical experience appear to support your actions, then just go ahead and ignore any critics whose theories are based on belief, anecdotes, unwarranted extrapolation from the world of therapy and limited experience. Any time that you happen to be in our area of lovely Colorado, you are welcome to pop in to my gym for a free session on bench press (and other exercise) variations. It always affords me great pleasure to be able to assist like this, especially when there is so much mythology around every training corner. Already many folk from around the world have stayed with us both for formal Strength Camps and informal training sessions. Dr Mel C Siff Denver, USA mcsiff@a...
	2006/01/24, 03:50 PM Abdominal Conditioning: Chek & Siff Discussion Only 1 message in topic - view as tree Mcs...@a.. Jun 29 2001, 5:38 pm show options Some people have been commenting that Paul Chek and I some day need to have a one-on-one debate because we have never done so. On the contrary, we have had several open debates on various aspects of training and rehabilitation. Here is one of them from Oct 1998 which appeared on another listserv before our Supertraining list came into being. On this occasion we took part in what generally was a rather productive discussion, even if it became very long. Here is a copy of some of the discussion. ---------------------------------------- Paul Chek wrote: * Wow Mel! I will have to schedule time off to answer your post. I will do my best to be concise and make my counter-points. Mel: *** Me, too, but because this issue of weird and wonderful abs is such a focal point of fitness training today, it deserves a lot more clarification. BACKGROUND First of all, I must clarify one issue. You constantly comment on my input as if I am a theoretical scientist with no practical or clinical experience, which tends to give you and others a very limited view of the scope of my analysis. Actually, virtually none of my work has ever been done for solely theoretical reasons. Most of the subjects involved in my research or training programmes have been competitive athletes, fitness lovers or ordinary injured folk who have been referred to me by their doctors or physical therapists. For many years, besides my main job as professor in mechanical engineering dept, I have been involved in lecturing in biomechanics and strength rehabilitation or training to departments of physical therapy and physical education. Numerous projects in the departments of physiology, physical therapy, anatomy, orthopaedics, occupational therapy and others in the Faculty of medicine at my university and with many private physical therapists, orthopaedic surgeons and sports doctors led me to become practically involved in the rehabilitation of hundreds of subjects with many musculoskeletal disorders, including the back. This led to my being invited to lecture at several chiropractic, physical therapy and sports medicine conferences on lifting mechanics and back rehabilitation, where the emphasis was on practical methods, rather than theoretical modelling. As national coach in S African weightlifting, I worked with hundreds of competitive lifters right up to national level and I competed nationally in weightlifting, powerlifting and karate and carried out many biomechanical tests on these and many other athletes. I was deeply involved in the preparation and future training of some of the world's most successful teams in cricket and rugby. So, now may I be permitted to talk to you as a fellow practitioner and seeker who is not just sitting ensconced in some ivory tower proclaiming from a place which many coaches and clinicians think is inhabited by alien creatures in white coats waiting to dissect earthly cockroaches? Right, now on to the major discussion: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mel: ANALYTICAL DIFFICULTIES (Paul was offering his views on recruitment and control of deeper muscles of the trunk) <This is an intriguing comment. How does one definitely confirm that this is the order of events without the use of microelectrodes or needle electrodes inserted into the different components of the abdominal muscles?... ......Visual or palpatory methods are even more equivocal than EMGs, especially since transversus may be recruited in several different ways, including pulling in or rapid distention of the abdominal area - research has even indicated that transversus is one of the first muscles to become activated during forward walking.> Paul: Yes, in a laboratory setting these things are all of real importance. If I relied on such intricate mechanisms I would have a $500,000+ tool box and would need my patients to stay for days at a time to get to the bottom of thins. The fact is, most of my patients come to me after failing in the medical system where they have had extensive EMG studies, conduction velocity studies, MRI arthogram, and most every expensive and invasive test you can imagine and they are not better off! I have been in business for many years successfully rehabilitating the people that the fancy equipment couldn't help, so believe me, if you are a skilled clinician you only need this stuff to develop conceptual models and confirm or not confirm your clinical suspicions. Mel: Costly apparatus is unnecessary - all of my research apparatus was built for me personally or as part of student projects at a fraction of the commercial cost. Certainly, we found palpatory, 'eye-balling' and simple movement tests, like the standard ones used by many phyios most helpful, but when we allied that with some quickly administered laboratory tests, the results were even better. Unfortunately, reliance on being a skilled clinician is another isolationist approach which sometimes can have serious consequences. I recall some other expert who was vainly trying to rehabilitate someone with chronic back pain. Several of the tests you mentioned showed inadequate transversus and internal oblique strength, as well as a serious deficit in multifidus strength. For weeks, a series of pelvic tilting, breathing, postural realignment and other remedies, plus pain-killers were tried, but to no avail. Eventually, he was sent for a CAT scan and other conventional laboratory medical tests - lo and behold, this poor man had cancer of the spine! On other occasions, force plate tests and EMG studies have shown up pathologies which skilled clinicians have failed to detect. On the other hand, the most intricate laboratory tests have not been able to detect latent heart disease or distinguish between different neuromuscular disorders. In other words, it is a good idea to integrate the best of which both scientists and clinicians have to offer and not to throw out anyone discipline because of personal preferences. Paul: How do I do it?? The transverse abdominus ( TVA) has fibers that are in the transverse plane. By the very nature of the architecture of the muscle, if it fires it always draws the umbilicus toward the spine, exaggerates the oblique line, is accompanied by recruitment of the multifidus, pelvic floor and often the diaphragm. . . . Mel: The pulling in of the umbilicus and exaggeration of the oblique line is not observed to occur during the squat, clean, bench press, snatch or deadlift, since a reflex distension of the abdominal region occurs in all maximal lifting and pushing tasks. Paul: <When an individual loads a bar and places it upon his/her back, there is an immediate stabilization response secondary to the mechanoreceptor input from all involved joints, particularly the weight bearing joints. > Mel: ??? I don't follow what you mean here. This is a very general remark which needs to be elaborated upon to be meaningful in the context of trunk stabilisation. Recent research distinguishes between the different stabilisation processes involved if loading of the spine is compressive or shearing. Others attribute this initial acute stabilisation reflex to depend largely on increases in intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal pressure, rather than simple mechanoreception (by the way, are you regarding mechanoreception as the same as proprioception or as a more limited process involving only mechanical transduction?). Paul: <This input is combined with the conscious command to run the generalized motor program "squat" for example, which also activates all stabilizer functions tied to the engram. > Mel: Are you using the term 'engram' in the sense used in Scientology to refer to "a mental image picture which is a recording of an experience containing pain, unconsciousness and a real or fancied threat to survival. It is a recording in the reactive mind of something which actually happened to an individual in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness, both of which are recorded in the mental image picture called an engram. It must, by definition, have impact or injury as part of its content. These engrams are a complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness". Or are you using it in its original archaic sense as an "engraved memory" (hence 'engram')? Either way, what is meant by stabiliser functions being tied to an engram? Paul: <My observation begins immediately upon the decision is made to "squat" as that is when you see the body in the set-up or preparation phase. Once loaded, I will observe and palpate for recruitment of the TVA, multifidus, tension in the thoracolumbar fascia watch respiratory patterns. Although good stabilization is usually obvious immediately, I will observe the entire process of execution and return to the rack. > Mel: Of course, we know that the very act of palpation being applied during active movement can modify the kinaesthetic input to the nervous system and skew the results. This is emphasized in many books such as Knott & Voss "Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation" and is actually used by Russian coaches as a form of 'kinaesthetic manipulation' to deliberately influence patterns of muscle activation. Paul: As one passes through the sticking point (in particular) I will observe the action of the abdominal wall and associated segments. Mel: Is this just by visual observation? Which associated segments? As research given in my original post mentioned, the variations in recruitment, including left to right symmetry, are often idiosyncractic and non-repeatable, even with careful instrumented analysis, so how can eye-balling achieve more? Paul: If the TVA is contributing appropriately, the umbilicus will have moved progressively toward the spine until the stabilization threshold is crossed (a term I developed to indicate the point at which gross stabilization is observed or palpated). Mel: What is a stabilisation threshold? This idea of thresholds may apply to all-or-none processes such as action-potential firing of nerve cells, but increasing amounts of research show that traditional concepts of homeostasis and balance in the body are no longer acceptable. Even the concept of 'anaerobic' or lactate thresholds are no lonegr being applied as casually as they used to. In the case of joint and overall trunk stabilisation, there is no single finely tuned threshold of stabilisation, but a region or continuum in which the joint or body 'hunts around' for a specific moment in a dynamically changing metastable situation to ensure that the movement may continue or stop in a given way. There is no single mathematical solution to the problems of balance and stabilisation of the body - there are always several variable strategies which may be adopted to cope with a given situation. Research is showing that when the degree of variability decreases and the range of stability becomes more finely defined, then the likelihood of injury and disease (including heart attacks and epileptic seizures) tends to increase. In know that this sounds paradoxical, but this research is being found to agree with many clinical observations. Paul: If the TVA is dormant the abdominal wall gets thicker anterior to posterior right away, usually before the descent even begins. Mel: How can one be categoric about transversus being dormant while increases in intra-abdominal pressure caused by breath holding are occurring? Are your subjects performing submaximal, breathing squats? How can one ever measure the anterior to posterior thickness of the abdominal wall without invasive surgical procedures or costly MRI or PET scans? - oh, sometimes, very skilled use of certain ultrasound scanners can give a good approximation! One certainly cannot differentially palpate this from the contribution made by other tissues and muscles. If you are referring to thickening due to muscle contraction, the same comment applies, but once the recti abdominis are taut, you cannot palpate or differentiate transversus during a heavy squat (as mentioned earlier, there is a reflex distension of this region which counters any inward pull via connective tissues). Paul: Many individuals with inverted recruitment patterns have some common findings. Mel: In my earlier post I asked exactly what an inverted recruitment pattern is - I am still none the wiser. Do you mean 'inverse' recruitment or are you referring to an inverse stretch reflex or what? Where was this type of syndrome first described clinically? Paul: Many individuals with inverted recruitment patterns have some common findings: - often use weight belts - often suffer from low back pain . . . . . - there is frequently restriction of the middle thoracic spine and inability to reverse the thoracic curvature ....to name a few Mel: No doubt you have read my comments on the different ways of wearing a belt and how we must distinguish between belts as mechanical supports and belts as lightly-worn kinaesthetic devices and belts being used for maximal attempts and belts being worn all the time. No published clinical studies or research have shown that all forms of belt usage correlate significantly with the incidence of back pain or dysfunction. There are far more folk with back problems who do not wear belts or lift heavy weights. Of more concern is your remark that one can 'reverse the thoracic curvature'. The reversal of this thoracic convexity is a rare pathological condition and never occurs in normal daily life or under any sporting conditions. Reversal of this curvature means changing the thoracic convexity to concavity, so that the upper back curves inwards just like the lower back! Is this really what you mean? It is impossible voluntarily to reverse the thoracic convexity - don't even mention this concept anywhere in the medical field, because it is wrong. Mel: <Many researchers (e.g. see Basmajian "Muscles Alive") have shown that vigorous exhalation . . . or explosive tensing of the abdominal muscle complex (as often done during Olympic or power lifts) automatically activates the obliques far more than rectus abdominis, so that heavy lifting, if anyt hing, tends to delay or neglect activation of the superficial ab muscles. Paul: <The external obliques are superficial ab muscles. > Mel: The internal obliques are not superficial and invasive EMGs show that both of the obliques reflexively become far more actively involved than rectus abdominis in heavy lifting and pushing tasks. Mel: <Other material cited by Basmajian shows that apparent contraction of the recti abdominis is due more to passive bulging than electrical activation during this sort of stabilising task. In addition, several of his colleagues have confirmed that the recti are far less electrically active than the obliques during trunk stabilization in response to lifting or pushing tasks. Paul: <This is very task specific in my opinion. The fascia of the oblique muscles invests the rectus muscles, therefore any contraction of the oblique muscles would cause a palpatory tightening of what would appear to be the rectus muscles. There is a distance difference to the trained hand.> Mel: It is not possible to distinguish by palpation between passive increase in muscle tension or active contraction of muscle - one can crudely distinguish differences in tension and gross location of changes in tension. Anyway, what you have just written is almost a rephrasing of what I wrote, namely that the obliques are responsible for the primary contraction and this is associated with secondary passive involvement of rectus (along with activation caused by increases in intra-abdominal pressure produced by breath holding). So we agree that the abs are not the primary stabilisers in lifting tasks . . ? Paul : <Olympic lifts are all pulling lifts, which require only enough recruitment of the rectus abdominus to stabilize the thorax, providing an effective force generating platform for the extensors of the body. If the abdominals did not activate sufficiently to resist the force of the extensors the body would just collapse on the floor. > Mel: Olympic lifts have been shown also to be strongly similar to jumps and activation of the recti abdominis (via the passive bulging and activation caused by intra-abdominal pressure) as shown by EMG and intra-abdominal pressure recordings is greater than that recorded with any form of unloaded supine situps, crunches or leg raises. You referred to abs as stabilising the thorax in lifting - now the thorax anatomically is just the chest, so once again we are referring to the passive role of the abs, since active use of the abs as trunk flexors would cause rounding of the lumbar spine and this is dangerous during any Olympic lifting or powerlifting. Mel: < Moreover, EMG studies show that the erector spinae, hamstrings and gluteal muscles play a far more significant active role than any of the abdominal muscles (their role is more passive) during lifting (Vorobyev 'Textbook on Weightlifting' has many EMGs on weightlifters showing this), so it always intrigues me why physical therapists in particular seem to be so fanatical about the apparently overriding importance of the abdominal muscles during lifting.> Paul: Most of what I assume you are referring to is looking at pulling movements. If not, please tell me which studies to read and then I can make an intelligent response. Mel: See above - I gave the one study written by Vorobyev - you will find others in "Spine" journal, the Journal of Biomechanics, Ergonomics and several other places. I am busy collecting summaries of all these back articles at present and have so far found more than 2000 references (in the journals above and many others) - how on earth I am going to reduce them to manageable size I do not know. Anyway, as I come across relevant ones (like the one on spinal disc shrinkage), I will continue to send them to this group. Regarding your lengthy comments on the role played by passive bulging of the abs in stabilising the trunk, I can clarify the picture thus: The abdominal muscles in a role as antagonists to hyperextension of the spine, can be activated in two ways: Action 1 : bringing its distal and proximal attachments closer together to cause active flexion of the spine (as during situps or overhead throws) Action 2 : creating a very tense band of muscle-connective tissue across the front of the body which assists the actively involved deeper abdominal musculature to allow the trunk to become a much stronger pneumatically supported structure (as in pulls, squats and bench press) or to prevent the trunk from moving into dangerous hyperextension (as in standing presses). When I spoke about its role as a involuntary passive stabiliser, I was referring to the latter role. Obviously, if the abs were not electrically activated via all the nerves serving them, then they could not act as a supportive sheet of anything - I should have mentioned that, instead of just assuming that would be understood. The point I wished to stress was that Action 1 (trunk flexion) is totally inappropriate for any form of weightlifting or powerlifting, while Action 2 of the abs is what dominates during lifting and pushing. Mel wrote: EXTRA AB EXERCISE NECESSARY? <As Dr Spassov, Bulgarian weightlifting coach, and other lifting coaches have stressed, if one does lifting training which includes the weightlifting and powerlifting movements, then there is no need for additional abdominal exercise, because heavy lifting training and its accompanying stabilization processes, naturally condition the abdominal muscles. For bodybuilders, yes, but for athletes who do strength training, no supplementary abdominal training is required. Paul : I will give them a free copy of my new Core Conditioning correspondence course if you will give me their contact details. I bet you that if they can step outside their dogma they will change their mind. Mel: Don't assume that they are dogmatic - the Russian and Eastern European scientists base their methods on considerable research and translation of much Western science and they would most certainly have used additional abdominal training methods if they had found that it would have helped them dominate world sport. I can assure you that Spassov, Medvedev, Verkhoshansky, Zatsiorski, Ozolin, and others of their ilk have seen and done considerable work on trunk strengthening and stabilisation, so they are hardly ignorant of what is out there. They have no minds to change - their methods enabled their athletes to dominate Olympic sports for many decades and that speaks volumes for their methods. Paul: When I met Poliquin he was making world record holders and Gold medalists every year and I completely changed his mind and he is not an easy sell, I assure you. IF you don't believe me Mel, call him. Ask Al Vermeil of the Bulls if he thinks the abdominals are just a piece of connective tissue, and if my approach works? Mel: While these two coaches have worked with many top performing athletes, and though I have great respect for Al from my own work with the Bulls, neither of these men is a scientist or clinician who is capable of commenting definitively on the biomechanics of trunk action. In that respect, I would be more inclined to be convinced by a great scientist and practitioner such as Dr Zatsiorsky (whose knowledge Al also finds astounding). Unfortunately, I have seen too many functional anatomical errors in Charles' work for me to be guided by it yet. Mel wrote: <Do you have any references which shed more light on the abdominal muscle complex (AMC) recruitment issue during different types of movement, other than the ones which I have mentioned above? It would be most unusual for any lifters to actively recruit and not passively distend the abs during lifting, so I am fascinated about the kinesiology displayed by this particular group of athletes. As far as I know, few, if any definitive EMG studies have been carried out on the muscle recruitment patterns of the AMC of weightlifters or powerlifters. Any references yet? Unfortunately, for every one of your anecdotal successes with isolated ab training, others could produce just as many anecdotal tales of equal or greater success without specialised ab training (e.g. by Russian coaches who have produced thousands of Olympians) - I would rather like to see science direct either of us in a way which either reinforces or modifies our anecdotal experiences. Mel wrote: <Spinal injury, contrary to what is commonly believed is quite rare among Olympic lifters (about 8% of all injuries, according to a study published in the IWF Weightlifting magazine). Moreover, elite powerlifters whom I know are concerned that too many folk take part in powerlifting contests without adequate technical training, because they think that powerlifting does not require the same skill as Weightlifting. Were your 'patients' elite lifters? Paul: Your 8% is based on lifters of what caliber? I have had patients of all levels of proficiency although I have never treated a world class Olympic lifter, just competitors. I have certainly studied them though. Mel: That IWF publication referred to 'ranked' lifters; in other words, ones who competed at national and international level in Russia. They also have studies performed on athletes at all levels of proficiency, right from childhood up to Master and International Master class (some of the translated material is in Dr Yessis' "Soviet Sports Review"). We will have to stop there, Paul - I don't know how many readers will manage to read through both of our posts, but let's hope that it has been a useful exercise for those who have had the trunk endurance to do so! -------------------------- Dr Mel C Siff Denver, USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/ End of messages
	2006/01/24, 06:32 PM Neck Stabilisation, 'Tongue in Chek' Only 1 message in topic - view as tree Mcs...@a.. Feb 28 2001, 2:44 am show options Dr Mel Siff: <Other than these more mystical practices from bygone ages, has Chek offered any references or evidence for such procedures and their effect on neck muscle tension? It certainly was not his original discovery or claim, so there must be some source which led him to believe in its alleged validity. > Maki Riddington I have in front of me the book "Core Conditioning" that is used in his correspondance course. This is what it says with no references in the binder that I can find. He may have one on his videos which I will watch again. ---------------------------------------- " THE IMPORTANCE OF TONGUE PLACEMENT DURING ABDOMINAL EXERCISE Paul Chek <Proper tounge position is essential during repeated trunk flexion exercises against gravity.The physiological rest position of the tounge is the roof of the mouth just behind the front of the teeth. If the tounge not held in this position as the head (which weighs 7.5% of your total body weight) is lifted during a crunch or sit up, the only way to lift the head is with the sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscles and the deep cervical flexors. If the SCM muscles are used for this purpose they will hypertrophy just like any other muscle being exercised. Because the SCM muscles are extensors of the upper cervical spine and flexors of the lower cervical spine, hypertrophy and hypertonicity can cause a forward head posture. > Mel Siff: * Really - which anatomy texts did he quote? The physiological rest position of the tongue is NOT on the roof of the mouth - this position is never observed even during sleep or under anaesthesia. What nonsense! Moreover, since when does hypertrophy cause a forward head posture? The SCM muscles are only extensors of the neck under special conditions - see later. <Another problem with incorrect tounge position is the deep cervical flexors must play a major role in lifting the head. > Siff: * How does the tongue control the deep flexors of the neck or alter their tension to any marked extent? More opinion, no references! Chek: <These muscle are long, thin and slight. They fatigue easily, and excessive fatigue encourages spasms and hypertonicity. If shortened because of poor techniques these muscles flex the cervical spine, straightening it, thus reversing its natural curve. This creates many unwanted problems.> Siff: * Entirely opinion. No measurements have shown that muscle length from distal and proximal attachments is chronically decreased by 'poor techniques' Again it would be refreshing to see a few references. Chek: <The supra and infrahyoid muscles have tremendous mechanical advantages over the deep cervical flexors (which run along the anterior cervical spine). Also, the SCM are extensors of the upper cervical spine and are counterbalanced by the supra and infrahyoid muscles. This is a primary mechanism for maintaining normal posture of the head.> Siff: * Mechanical advantage changes with joint angle, so this point needs to be qualified a great deal. The SCM are extensors only if the neck is not flexed forwards from the start of any forward head action. Chek: <The cervical flexors should be allowed to help stabilize the head during abdominal exercises. This is a natural activity and is taught in this course. Siff: * This is contradictory. Here he says that neck muscle action is 'natural', then he says that it needs to be taught. He is quite correct in saying that neck stabilisation and mobilisation are natural processes, but fails to point out that this proves that we do not deliberately need to isolate or focus on the neck muscles to make them operate 'functionally'. With all of these gurus around telling us how defective almost all of our bodies and muscles are, it is miracle that we cannot do anything without spending our lives in intensive care wards. How have humans managed to survive without being taught how to isolate and individually training each separate muscle in the body. Thank goodness that there are still a few skeptics and dissidents around who refuse to believe the gospel according to the fitness gurus! It is a special pleasure to have many of them on our Supertraining group! Chek: <If you pull on your head while performing abdominal exercises the cervical flexors do not contract. Such inactivity makes them weak and encourages forward head posture.> Siff: * Definitely not true - how does failure to use the SCM muscles during a few minutes of situps a day decrease strength in the neck muscles and cause chronically poor neck posture? The neck muscles are exercised quite naturally in many exercises - and situps are rather trivial for increasing neck strength, anyway. Chek: <Cervical Flexors The cervical flexors affect the biomechanical and functional relationship between the trunk and the head-neck relationship complex during abdominal exercises. > Siff: * Typical use of pseudo-intellectual jargon which means little or nothing of any consequence. What is he really trying to say? See my previous letter (yesterday) on "Sokal and Siff Hoaxes". My guru terminology kit which I posted several months ago is also most relevant to this commentary - another of these guru kits appears on p184 of my "Facts & Fallacies of Fitness" book. Chek: <The supra and infrahyoid musculature are to the cervical spine what the lower abdominals are to the lumbar spine. They stabilize the head during the crunch or the situp.> Siff: * This remark implies that the 'lower' structures of the abdominals are more central to control of the lumbar spine than the abdominals as a group. Again, it would be interesting to see references which substantiate this belief. Now what have some of us been saying about a little biomechanics and functional anatomy knowledge being a dangerous thing? Dr Mel C Siff Denver, USA
wrestler125 Posts: 4,619 Joined: 2004/01/27	2006/01/24, 11:43 PM I love how chek pretends he didnt know who siff was... If you dont know the names Siff, Medvedev, Verkoskaskhy (sp), and Zatsorski (sp) then you don't belong in the strength game. Nelly, as for your comment about regular people and expanding the stomach: I can take any novice lifter and add 20lbs to their squat with this and a few other techniques. That in itself is enough. Have them suck in their abdominals, and they are setting themselves up for injury. Chek gets scrutiny not because his "sources" aren't famous, but because he is his own source, and he can't back what he says up. I am sorry to say it, but this is where Siff is absolutely correct. Chek has a tarnished reputation for a reason. As for that mills guy, someone needs to tap him upside the head. I don't even want to talk to that guy. But I would be happy for someone to put him in a ring with me. Cooling off, I disagree with everything Paul says involving TVA activation. So do most others. It is a rare occassion that I straight up disagree with someone, as I am a believer that everything is a tool, but Chek needs to go back and review his kinesiology. There is not "so much conflicting evidence" there is chek and his followers, and everyone else. BTW, most Peer reviewed citations ARE done with regular people, that is why I discriminate so highly between studies on trained vs. untrained individuals. -------------- Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run. ============ Quoting from 7707mutt: The squat cage is holy ground. ============
wrestler125 Posts: 4,619 Joined: 2004/01/27	2006/01/24, 11:52 PM Nelly, personally I think you are subscribing to the cult. I think it would do you good to expose yourself to other views a little more openly, see a few different viewpoints. This is how we learn, and learning cannot take place if you follow blindly, let alone follow one source blindly. I am not saying to disregard everything chek based, like some would have you do. Rather, I am suggesting you to expose yourself to others, to accept what can be backed up, more importantly what makes sense, and most importantly what works, and reject the heresay, and all the like that can not be proven or supported. -------------- Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run. ============ Quoting from 7707mutt: The squat cage is holy ground. ============
gatormade Posts: 1,355 Joined: 2003/10/01	2006/01/25, 10:41 AM This topic is a bit rediculous right now. Mel Siff was one of the greatest minds ever in our field. He died a few years back from heart failure. His book Supertraining is a great book filled with tons of research. He does make a great point about Paul Chek back tracking when he gets called out though. Paul was the guy telling people to draw the abs in when you squat. Then all the big squatters in the world called him out on that and now he has an article on abs in or out. He likes them both now. Not a big deal. We all adapt and change. He does not know everything. None of us do. Your chest muscles are important shoulder stabilizers. Athletes need to strengthen them properly just like their upper back muscles. Over benching is bad for anyone. 3-5 sets of bench per week will not hurt a baseball pitcher as long as their is appropriate back and rotator work done. Training a pitcher like a body builder is not a good idea. Then again training any athlete like a body builder is not a good idea. This is probably the reason benching has bad name. It has been overused. I want you all to take the overhead squat and do 10 sets of 10 3 times a week with your workouts. I bet your hips will start show signs of overuse syndrome. The overhead squat is the king exercise of all functional gurus. It, like any other exercise, if over trained will cause injury.
wrestler125 Posts: 4,619 Joined: 2004/01/27	2006/01/25, 03:59 PM I only say that because of how you reference the CHEK institute. Not only to you call it your "beliefs", but you claim it is no different than any other certification. Not only is the chek institute VERY different, but I would call you out on it even if it was any other institute. Let me explain: I hold poliquin and his certification system in high regards. However, if you were to tell me that you were a level four PICP practicioner I would give less credibility to you than if you got a kinesiology degree and studied many different people with no certification. As much faith as I put into Poliquin, I would think you were being ignorant if you followed him the way you follow Chek. Similarly, I follow a lot of the westside methodologies. However, if you told me you were taking a certification from dave tate on athletic training, then I would tell you were nuckin futs. I didn't say what I said because I disagree with Chek. I said what I said because I think it is limiting yourself to follow any one person as blindly as you do. I hope you can understand that. -------------- Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run. ============ Quoting from 7707mutt: The squat cage is holy ground. ============
nellyboy Posts: 209 Joined: 2004/07/09	2006/01/25, 07:16 PM When refering to the certifications, what I'm implying is that it's no different than other certifiers (NASM, ISSA, PACE, etc.). All of them were ORIGINATED by one of a few individuals and are a CURRICULUM, not a single source or conference or internship. You college advocates are all the same...go to college or else! So basically you're saying that if you were to go to a week long "intership" presented by Poliquin (or anyone for that matter) it's less than simply sitting through a college level class...presented by a PERSON WITH A PARTICULAR PERCEPTION. The only difference is that now you have a pretty diploma instead of a pretty certificate. What many don't realize is this is how many of the "experts, gurus and brains" learn in more detail about a particular subject once the basics are learned. What do you think the SWISS symposium is? It's a series of lectures given by "experts" about a particular subject. This is what all certifiers are: a series of lectures on health. To learn from the best, in a classroom setting is an amazing way to become better at what you do. This is the basics premise of the Chek Institute. Learn Strength and Conditioning from leaders in the field...Poliquin, Goss, Telle, Siff, etc. Learn Nutrition from leaders in the field...Fallon, Timmons, Enig, etc. Many of those that comment negatively towards certifiers usually fall into 2 types of people: gym rats or college students/graduates that feel above certified individuals. Most of the cases that I've dealt with personally fall under the gym rat title. This is where they learn for their own personal benefit and assume that if it works for them or makes sense to them, then it is the truth. This is dangerous thinking for the fact that if you've never trained a cross-section of trainees, then you are spewing acecdotal information or at the very least, or are narrow-minded in your beliefs. By the way, how many times has Siff and only Siff been referenced or mentioned in these posts?
7707mutt Posts: 7,686 Joined: 2002/06/18	2006/01/25, 07:42 PM So a gym rat could not train others? So unless I have one of your pretty useless certs I am not knowledge? I have had the blessing to train with some with a ISSA etc type of cert. Also with others with college degrees. I have found that those with a solid "gym rat" experience regardless of what additional training they now have are the best trainers. I have seen the so called experts take ave guys and gals and trott them around from machine to bench to ball and pretty much waste their time and money. Before you start throwing around statements like the above remember that there are a lot of people that are gym rats that know a LOT more than you do and quite possible will always know more. -------------- Less Talk, More Chalk! The Men and Boys are Separated by one thing: The Squat Cage! 7707mutt@freetrainers.com
	2006/01/25, 07:50 PM The reason why diplomas are superior is because they on average require much higher level of commitment...NASM and all the other certifications are an outright joke...I know plenty of trainers with them who don't know anything at all...something u learn in undera month with little effort...does not equate to a college education....just because Chek read some books on his own doesn't mean he understands what he read...he can parrot all he wants ...but as Siff pointed out he was wrong in many areas....he just plain didn't understand it...this is why a professor comes in handy whom you can ask questions or ask for clarifications....Chek was arguing/debating with a person with a PhD and a lot of experience and first hand involvement in many areas....he was outmatched and it's obvious...Until a short while back I didn't know who either was and didn't really care...but just following the debates, it's clear Chek was at a loss...he probably is still a great S&C coach and so on..but he definitely has a big gaps in many areas.... The reason that Siff has been cited consistantly is because he's a clear authority in this topic and he had first hand debates with Chek where proved him wrong or showed that Chek was merely stating his opinions... I personally have nothing against Chek...he often thinks outside the box which is often an innovative way of doing things...however it would be very interesting and productive if he started backing up his opinions with actual scientific data.....just out of pure curiosity he should start 'testing' some of his theories...
	2006/01/25, 09:54 PM Here's another Siff article pointing out very basic mistakes that Chek makes ...this article is on rehabilitation...which is one of Chek's strong points Water Therapy and Training Only 1 message in topic - view as tree Mcs...@a.. May 16 2001, 1:20 pm show options Recently someone sent me a letter asking me to critique a certain article which he referred to me. Others might also be interested in reading my comments. ---------------------------------- Dr Siff, here is an extract from an article that appeared in the April 2001 'Personal Fitness Professional', called 'The Healing Power of the Pool' (by Paul Chek). I am not out to discredit anyone, but I am not familiar with the methods written and would just like to have the facts checked before I accept them <.... As demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2, loading injured tissues increases pain, decreases circulation and fortifies the splinting response with increased spasm in surrounding tissues. Moving an injured joint in the water causes a therapeutic decompression effect, which can be enhanced by the addition of a weight distal to the injured joint structure and a flotation device above the injured joint structure. This will encourage further decompression or light traction, which is known to inhibit and relax the musc les crossing the involved joint. The result is often decreased spasm and also improved functional muscle contraction. This too facilitates venous return, mechanoreceptor stimulation and reduced pain and aids in accelerating recovery (Figure 3). The pool provides an excellent opportunity to interrupt the pain-spasm cycle via facilitated venous return, sensory modulation and therapeutic decompression. Intelligent use of the pool for its hydrotherapeutic effects will speed recovery from injury and serve as a means of naturally increasing one's training volume and work tolerance. > ------------------------------------------ *** Several issues need correction: 1. Loading tissues does not necessarily increase pain, decrease circulation or create a stronger splinting response or spasm. In fact, some modalities impose very intense, impulsive or sustained loading to break spasm or decrease pain. For example, the imposition of controlled alternate loading and unloading or traction may achieve all that the author has attributed to water therapy. Clinics even have special machines which apply this sort of patterned loading and unloading. If you don't have machines like that, then PNF offers plenty of information on how to achieve this effect manually (see Ch 7 of "Supertraining"). It is always important not to make any generalisations without stating their scope and limitations, as is standard practice in scientific and clinical circles. 2. Moving an injured joint in the water definitely does not cause a therapeutic decompression effect. Basic physics shows that immersion in water causes a COMPRESSION effect, its magnitude depending on the depth of immersion (H) and the density of water (s). The exact equation is: Pressure at depth d P(H) = P(o) + s.g.H where P(o) is pressure at the surface of the water, i.e. atmospheric pressure, and g is the acceleration due to gravity. In other words, the deeper that the limb is immersed, the greater the compression effect. When one LEAVES the water, then the pressure is once again decreased to atmospheric pressure. 3. Moving a limb at any depth in water also tends to COMPRESS the tissues in the direction of the motion, according to the laws of hydrodynamics, not decompress them. 4. The attachment of a weight below an injured joint and a flotation device above the joint to provide traction theoretically is a step in the right direction, but Archimedes Laws show that immersion in water diminishes the effective weight pulling on the limb to such an extent that it would be far more effective and less trouble to apply normal traction methods on dry land. In fact, one of the major advantages of water therapy (hydrotherapy) is the ability to move under diminished loading or gravitational conditions. 5. Venous return is facilitated primarily by the contraction and relaxation of muscles whether this is done on land or water. Nothing mystical or special about water in this regard! Even alternate submaximal isometric contraction and relaxation offers effective venous return. Physios even have local decompression/compression cylinders that they fit over limbs of subjects who are very immobile in order to enhance or simulate this natural pumping action. 6. Mention of water playing a special role in "mechanoreceptor stimulation" is pretty much redundant in this context, since enhancement of mechanoreception is provided by INCREASED loading and stress on the body or its parts. Maybe the author meant to say something else about the role played by neural activation or relaxation via mechanoreceptors (mechanical transducers or receivers) in water exercise, but what he wrote does not give any accurate or meaningful information on this subject. Note well that hydrotherapy can be a very effective and comfortable therapeutic and training modality - my comments above should not be construed to imply the opposite, because they have been provided solely to correct the pseudoscience that was obvious in parts of that article - nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who has attended my Camps will immediately know how extensively I use hot and cold water in jacuzzis and pools for training (including water 'plyometrics' and lifting, restoration and rehabilitation, but I try my best not to base my use of this excellent modality on imprecise science or deficient practice. This lack of understanding of some ancient and very basic Grecian physics makes me realise that fitness professionals need more familiarisation not only with Newton's Laws, but also what Archimedes and others said way back when. As many have already pointed out in recent posts, most certification programs are too impoverished or incomplete to offer an adequate working knowledge of applied sports and strength science. Who was it who said that formal academic training is a waste of time, because the "academics know nothing about sport" ? Dr Mel C Siff Denver, USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
nellyboy Posts: 209 Joined: 2004/07/09	2006/01/25, 10:02 PM Mutt, you've just shown why posting is ridiculous....oooh gym rats are smarter than me...oooh snap! With worthless arguments like that, it has made me realize something else about posting that I'd forgoten up until this week...this is a huge waste of time. Other than Gator, the rest of you are RESEARCHERS and from time to time, you show some seemingly lost girl at the gym how to perform her tricep pressdowns correctly. As I'm sure many of you will be happy as hell to hear about, this will be the last post, since I have more important things to do with my valuable spare time.
wrestler125 Posts: 4,619 Joined: 2004/01/27	2006/01/25, 10:32 PM someones getting a little defensive. First of all, its SWIS. Second of all, if you are going to imply that you have a basic knowledge of kinesiology while and screw up your terms more often than I do on my tests, then I think going to college would be a good idea. Third of all, menace is just posting things from the supertraining board. Tate, Poliquin, Cosgrove, Wendler, Thibedauea (sp) John, and a whole other list seemingly have concurred the same. Fourth of all, I know more about strength training than the same professors teaching kinesiology. Why? Because there is more to training than just knowing muscle groups, and I have experianced this, so I take it as a personal insult when you reference me as a "college students/graduates that feel above certified individuals" or as narrow minded, as I feel that I have done nothing but prove how I seek influence from MANY different sources. Nelly, try not to take this stuff personally. But as you said, one form of propaganda is attacking a person rather than a belief, and you have attacked me, other posters on t-nation, members of this board, and thousands of trainers around the world. I hope you are not serious when you say that you are gone, as I appreciate your insight, but it would be nice if you would post on something non-chek based once in a while. -------------- Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run. ============ Quoting from 7707mutt: The squat cage is holy ground. ============
7707mutt Posts: 7,686 Joined: 2002/06/18	2006/01/25, 10:39 PM I hopwe he does leave. Every single post he makes is intended to inflame and incite flame wars. And Yes Nelly I am totaly comfortable in saying I know more than you. I just do not try to force it on others to make myself fell important. You on the other hand take great pains to make others know that you are SO MUCH MORE EDUCATED than the rest of us. I would by far go up to a guy like me in a gym lifting real weight with great form than to a guy like you that jumps on the next great bandwangon. -------------- Less Talk, More Chalk! The Men and Boys are Separated by one thing: The Squat Cage! 7707mutt@freetrainers.com
7707mutt Posts: 7,686 Joined: 2002/06/18	2006/01/25, 10:43 PM And his reply will be somthing along the lines that Mutt does not look like he knows his shit etc etc.....LOL -------------- Less Talk, More Chalk! The Men and Boys are Separated by one thing: The Squat Cage! 7707mutt@freetrainers.com
	2006/01/26, 03:05 AM Nelly I thought u were a gym rat yourself? u were a powerlifter and so forth...so you learned a lot of things first hand...don't know why you're taking things so personally...yes posting takes time...but it is a learning opportunity as well...I just think you like 'yes-man' to agree with u and continue to perpertuate certain inaccuracies...yes many of us don't use scientific terms or complex sounding terms the way you do from time to time...but don't assume that just because you use complex terminology that you know what you're talking about or that we don't....my #1 goal always is simplicity in everything I do...I hate to complicate things needlessly....Also as Siff showed on Chek, just because you use fancy sounding terms doesn't mean that you know wtf you're talking about....even when you're one of the most well known S&C coaches... Also you seemed to have succumbed to the same things you accused others of doing...of simply attacking people instead of their arguments...or saying I am too good to argue with you...you're all wasting my time....whatever you say....Hey there's a whole club of people in this day and age numbering thousands of people I believe, that think the earth is flat...it's their right....feel free to do the same... I think you have a lot to contribute on this board and there's no need for the drama...if you choose to leave ...that is your choice ofcourse...and it would be a loss for freetrainers...however no one will lose sleep over it... best of wishes
gatormade Posts: 1,355 Joined: 2003/10/01	2006/01/26, 01:21 PM I am a huge gym rat. I have been training since I was 12. That is almost 19 years. That training experience is priceless. But, I also have undergraduate and graduate work under my belt. That is what truely makes me sharp. My training has gotten better with more and more study and personal research. There is only one certification in this country that is accredited and that is the ones through the NSCA (CSCS & CPT). Everyone on here has a different training experience. That is why it is good to post and argue. The posts I hate are the ones with recommendations that will hurt someone. Paul Chek has some good ideas. He does miss the boat sometimes though. Mel Siff knew the science inside and out. His book is awesome. He was awesome. I believe that when someone posts an arguement they shouldn't try to back it up with, "well paul chek says this," or "Mel Siff says this." Put together a well thought out arguement and back it with some personal or professional research. In my eyes that goes a lot further.
tpatpa Posts: 1 Joined: 2006/07/12	2006/07/12, 02:31 AM null - You got OWNED!
	2006/07/12, 04:58 AM good job bringing up a dead post for no reason...as your first post....
orthocarept Posts: 2 Joined: 2012/02/19	2012/02/19, 01:48 PM wrestler125 I like to stay on top of things, but I can't say I check his website every morning after I drink my tea. But has anyone checked out his website lately??? Is it just me, or is it starting to look even MORE like a cult? Check out his "mission statement". Wow. -------------- Pain is only temporary, it is in your mind. If you can still walk, then you can still run. ============ Quoting from 7707mutt: The squat cage is holy ground. ============ ---I am not sure of his qualifications. I realize he is well respected and provides much information. However, he appears to be a self help guru. I mean he claims to be a neuromuscular therapist. Does anyone know what the hell that is? As a licensed physical therapist, i don't. He gives seminars on the preventment and treatment of injuries such as low back pan. Is he even qualified to do this? His level of knowlegde seems to be based on experiences vs formal education and training and while I am not saying that he does not have knowledge, I am just putting into perspective. I think him giving talks on rehabilitation of athletic injuries is dangerous as he is most likely not aware of the current evidence based practice inthis area. any thoughts? orthocarept@aol.com