PDA

View Full Version : Total Gym


R P
March 13th 08, 04:28 PM
Anyone here ever tried / done a workout on a Total Gym ?

I like the "circuit-type" routine you can do & the row feature. Not to
replace free weight but to have a variety & I wonder if it might be
easier on joints ? I'm pushing 60,& some days joints are an issue.

Steve Freides
March 14th 08, 01:32 PM
"R P" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone here ever tried / done a workout on a Total Gym ?
>
> I like the "circuit-type" routine you can do & the row feature. Not
> to
> replace free weight but to have a variety & I wonder if it might be
> easier on joints ? I'm pushing 60,& some days joints are an issue.

I'm sure it will give you a good workout - it's basically a cable
machine and I think cable machines are probably the least machine-like
of these gadgets, better than your typical gym machine in that regard.
At least that's my opinion - the more freedom of range of motion you
have, the better.

That said, there are plenty of things you can do for the health of your
joints. I recommend "Super Joints" by Pavel Tsatsouline - I practice
movements from this book every morning for the purposes of both joint
health and warmup. Likewise, you will find the practice of a "soft"
Chinese art like Qigong or Tai Chi, or even an "internal" Chinese
martial art like Bagua, can be very beneficial to your joint health.
The Wild Goose Qigong is a "medical" form that is supposed to bring good
health - I recently purchased a DVD about this and, while I haven't
learned it all, I like what I've learned and have added a few of those
movements to my daily practice. The Crane Frolic is another Qigong that
is gentle and good for joint health.

A link to Pavel's "Super Joints": http://www.kbnj.com/sj.htm

I'm 53 - if you look on my web site, link below, check out the Suspended
Split page and other videos and articles - getting older doesn't
necessarily mean giving in to age.

Best of luck to you.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Andrzej Rosa
March 14th 08, 03:02 PM
Dnia 2008-03-14 Steve Freides napisał(a):
> "R P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Anyone here ever tried / done a workout on a Total Gym ?
>>
>> I like the "circuit-type" routine you can do & the row feature. Not
>> to
>> replace free weight but to have a variety & I wonder if it might be
>> easier on joints ? I'm pushing 60,& some days joints are an issue.
>
> I'm sure it will give you a good workout - it's basically a cable
> machine and I think cable machines are probably the least machine-like
> of these gadgets, better than your typical gym machine in that regard.
> At least that's my opinion - the more freedom of range of motion you
> have, the better.
>
> That said, there are plenty of things you can do for the health of your
> joints. I recommend "Super Joints" by Pavel Tsatsouline - I practice
> movements from this book every morning for the purposes of both joint
> health and warmup. Likewise, you will find the practice of a "soft"
> Chinese art like Qigong or Tai Chi, or even an "internal" Chinese
> martial art like Bagua, can be very beneficial to your joint health.
> The Wild Goose Qigong is a "medical" form that is supposed to bring good
> health - I recently purchased a DVD about this and, while I haven't
> learned it all, I like what I've learned and have added a few of those
> movements to my daily practice. The Crane Frolic is another Qigong that
> is gentle and good for joint health.

Man, you are seriously crazy. Pavel was enough, really. No need for
this internal nonsense.

That internal stuff is mostly hogwash. Really. I did it, I could do
funny stuff to my head at will, I could feel and see absolutely crazy
things and I dismiss it as playing tricks with your brain. You can have
similar effects by getting stoned, or being suspended in sal****er
chamber, or getting in a trance with a prayer, or a dance or hell knows
what else. It's still a hogwash. And I did it, so I know.

Tai Chi sucks as a martial art too. Chinese probably tried to explain
mechanics with magic, because they didn't understand mechanics, and it
went on from there, but there is no spoon.

> A link to Pavel's "Super Joints": http://www.kbnj.com/sj.htm
>
> I'm 53 - if you look on my web site, link below, check out the Suspended
> Split page

It doesn't mean that your joints are in better health than they were.
Let me give you an example. My one-armed overhead squat is way better
than what you show in the video (ass to the grass and all) but I renewed
my shoulder injury anyway. When I used to do snatches I could squat
roughly as well as you can, but my shoulder was perfectly fine.

If flexibility of a joint is what matters, why I renewed my shoulder
injury?

> and other videos and articles - getting older doesn't
> necessarily mean giving in to age.

You are supposed to get wiser as you get older.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Steve Freides
March 14th 08, 03:34 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Dnia 2008-03-14 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>> "R P" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Anyone here ever tried / done a workout on a Total Gym ?
>>>
>>> I like the "circuit-type" routine you can do & the row feature. Not
>>> to
>>> replace free weight but to have a variety & I wonder if it might be
>>> easier on joints ? I'm pushing 60,& some days joints are an issue.
>>
>> I'm sure it will give you a good workout - it's basically a cable
>> machine and I think cable machines are probably the least
>> machine-like
>> of these gadgets, better than your typical gym machine in that
>> regard.
>> At least that's my opinion - the more freedom of range of motion you
>> have, the better.
>>
>> That said, there are plenty of things you can do for the health of
>> your
>> joints. I recommend "Super Joints" by Pavel Tsatsouline - I practice
>> movements from this book every morning for the purposes of both joint
>> health and warmup. Likewise, you will find the practice of a "soft"
>> Chinese art like Qigong or Tai Chi, or even an "internal" Chinese
>> martial art like Bagua, can be very beneficial to your joint health.
>> The Wild Goose Qigong is a "medical" form that is supposed to bring
>> good
>> health - I recently purchased a DVD about this and, while I haven't
>> learned it all, I like what I've learned and have added a few of
>> those
>> movements to my daily practice. The Crane Frolic is another Qigong
>> that
>> is gentle and good for joint health.
>
> Man, you are seriously crazy. Pavel was enough, really. No need for
> this internal nonsense.
>
> That internal stuff is mostly hogwash. Really. I did it, I could do
> funny stuff to my head at will, I could feel and see absolutely crazy
> things and I dismiss it as playing tricks with your brain. You can
> have
> similar effects by getting stoned, or being suspended in sal****er
> chamber, or getting in a trance with a prayer, or a dance or hell
> knows
> what else. It's still a hogwash. And I did it, so I know.
>
> Tai Chi sucks as a martial art too. Chinese probably tried to explain
> mechanics with magic, because they didn't understand mechanics, and it
> went on from there, but there is no spoon.

Just because you don't like it, for whatever reason, doesn't make it bad
in any way. Soft martial artis practices are excellent for learning to
move one's body with minimal tension. Mastery of one's body comes
through mastering both the skill of maximizing muscle tension _and_ the
skill of using as little muscle tension as necessary. Your response is
a pretty typical Western response. It's like saying acupuncture and
acupressure don't work - tell that to the many, many people who've had
success with them.

>> A link to Pavel's "Super Joints": http://www.kbnj.com/sj.htm
>>
>> I'm 53 - if you look on my web site, link below, check out the
>> Suspended
>> Split page
>
> It doesn't mean that your joints are in better health than they were.

Unless you can do this or similar, it means that I have both a range of
motion _and_ strength throughout that range of motion that you don't
have. There are many definitions of joint health, but the most common,
and common-sense, is being able to move a joint without pain through a
full range of motion. Problems begin when part of the natural range of
motion are lost due to not being used.

> Let me give you an example. My one-armed overhead squat is way better
> than what you show in the video (ass to the grass and all) but I
> renewed
> my shoulder injury anyway.

What does that make you, my friend? Unlucky, or perhaps too hasty in
moving into a new range of motion. One ought to move into new ranges of
motion gradually and develop strength as well as flexibility. And
please post a video of your one-armed overhead squat, and I will see
what I can do to match it.

> When I used to do snatches I could squat
> roughly as well as you can, but my shoulder was perfectly fine.

OK.

> If flexibility of a joint is what matters, why I renewed my shoulder
> injury?

Those are you words, not mine. I teach this stuff, and I teach it
basically as a form of strength training, not flexibility training. My
workshop in April is entitled "flexibility without stretching" and, in a
nutshell, I teach people how to gradually move into a new range of
motion through a variety of means, but the main one is developing
strength in the small, new range of motion before going further.
Studies have shown that increasing passive ROM without increasing active
ROM raises the risk of injury. The way I teach it lowers, not raises,
the risk of injury.

>> and other videos and articles - getting older doesn't
>> necessarily mean giving in to age.
>
> You are supposed to get wiser as you get older.

Yes - are you saying my suspended split, overhead squat, or something
else I'm doing isn't wise? Before I began strength training, I had a
history of severe back problems, which are hugely improved thanks to
training the way I do.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Hobbes
March 14th 08, 03:46 PM
In article >,
Andrzej Rosa > wrote:

[snip]
>
> It doesn't mean that your joints are in better health than they were.
> Let me give you an example. My one-armed overhead squat is way better
> than what you show in the video (ass to the grass and all) but I renewed
> my shoulder injury anyway. When I used to do snatches I could squat
> roughly as well as you can, but my shoulder was perfectly fine.
>
> If flexibility of a joint is what matters, why I renewed my shoulder
> injury?

Flexibility of the joint is not what joint health is all about.
Especially in the shoulder joint, which has a huge range of motion.
Shoulder injuries result from a number of different aspects, both
chronic and acute. Inflammation of the capsule itself can be a huge
problem since it is involved in so many sporting or exercise movements.
So the fact you renewed a previous injury could be a result of a number
of different things - but as you point out it is not a matter of
flexibility.

Which is what Steve misses out on - and I think Pavel too. Pavel is
simply caught up in making money on his 'Mad Russian' exercise guru
persona. He has some good ideas, but there is nothing earth-shattering
about any of his books. If a person is really interested in joint health
than you would be better off getting Siff and Verkhoshansky's
'Supertraining' or simply copy the movement matrix from that book or a
good physiology text and then try and create some balance between
strength and ability to generate/withstand force and flexibility about
each joint.

Hmm. Maybe I'll have to write a book about 'SuperJoints'. I think I
could kick Pavel's butt on this one.

:^)

--
Keith

Hobbes
March 14th 08, 03:57 PM
In article >,
"Steve Freides" > wrote:

>
> Unless you can do this or similar, it means that I have both a range of
> motion _and_ strength throughout that range of motion that you don't
> have. There are many definitions of joint health, but the most common,
> and common-sense, is being able to move a joint without pain through a
> full range of motion. Problems begin when part of the natural range of
> motion are lost due to not being used.

Well. I guess I was too hasty in saying Steve missed out on this.

But it isn't just a matter of strength - it is about generating force
and withstanding force. So speed is an issue as well as strength and
ROM, at least in terms of athletes.

--
Keith

Andrzej Rosa
March 14th 08, 06:44 PM
Dnia 2008-03-14 Steve Freides napisał(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>>
>> Man, you are seriously crazy. Pavel was enough, really. No need for
>> this internal nonsense.
>>
>> That internal stuff is mostly hogwash. Really. I did it, I could do
>> funny stuff to my head at will, I could feel and see absolutely crazy
>> things and I dismiss it as playing tricks with your brain. You can
>> have
>> similar effects by getting stoned, or being suspended in sal****er
>> chamber, or getting in a trance with a prayer, or a dance or hell
>> knows
>> what else. It's still a hogwash. And I did it, so I know.
>>
>> Tai Chi sucks as a martial art too. Chinese probably tried to explain
>> mechanics with magic, because they didn't understand mechanics, and it
>> went on from there, but there is no spoon.
>
> Just because you don't like it,

I didn't say I don't like it. Tai Chi comes second as a martial art I'd
like to train if I had an occasion (and inclination) again.

> for whatever reason, doesn't make it bad
> in any way. Soft martial artis practices are excellent for learning to
> move one's body with minimal tension.

Or something.

> Mastery of one's body comes
> through mastering both the skill of maximizing muscle tension _and_ the
> skill of using as little muscle tension as necessary. Your response is
> a pretty typical Western response. It's like saying acupuncture and
> acupressure don't work

It doesn't. Or, to put it another way, you can put the pins in whatever
place you like and achieve similar results.

> - tell that to the many, many people who've had
> success with them.

HEAR ME! Acupuncture is a hogwash too!

>> It doesn't mean that your joints are in better health than they were.
>
> Unless you can do this or similar, it means that I have both a range of
> motion _and_ strength throughout that range of motion that you don't
> have.

I knew people with a range of motion even better than yours and joints
which were a total waste. In part *because* of excessive range of motion
they developed. Mobility comes at the cost of stability. Strength has
nothing to do with both (for the most part).

Besides, I never had a problem with a hip joint. Why do you think that
mine is in worse shape than yours? Quite honestly, I doubt it.

> There are many definitions of joint health, but the most common,
> and common-sense, is being able to move a joint without pain through a
> full range of motion. Problems begin when part of the natural range of
> motion are lost due to not being used.

Can you distinguish between an assumption and a conclusion? Because you
concluded what is an underlying assumption of the system you like using.
I bet there is some fancy Latin name for this error.

>> Let me give you an example. My one-armed overhead squat is way better
>> than what you show in the video (ass to the grass and all) but I
>> renewed
>> my shoulder injury anyway.
>
> What does that make you, my friend? Unlucky,

A bit, but not all that much. I've iffy shoulders, which I make working
anyway, until some other injury is preventing me from doing it properly.
Then I'm stuck, but it's not a tragedy.

> or perhaps too hasty in moving into a new range of motion.

My shoulder feels fine now, and I'm still training OHS as I used to. I
stopped doing dips. I can do dips if I balance them with snatches, but
not alone, it seems. Rows, pullups and OHS don't do it for me.

> One ought to move into new ranges of
> motion gradually and develop strength as well as flexibility. And
> please post a video of your one-armed overhead squat, and I will see
> what I can do to match it.

I won't post a video or a picture, but I just did OHS today. I squat
"in between" my legs and really ass to the grass. I mean, shoulder
behind a knee, elbow almost at the foot, ass to the grass. But you don't
need to believe me, of course. I'll live.

Oh, I use about thirty kilo for weight (just to show I'm not pointlessly
bragging). That's how much I can get overhead easily without snatching
the weight up or using both arms. My press is improving recently, but I
always sucked at it.

>> When I used to do snatches I could squat
>> roughly as well as you can, but my shoulder was perfectly fine.
>
> OK.

What I meant here was that I could for example do dips then, but not
pushups. Now both are out.

>> If flexibility of a joint is what matters, why I renewed my shoulder
>> injury?
>
> Those are you words, not mine. I teach this stuff, and I teach it
> basically as a form of strength training, not flexibility training. My
> workshop in April is entitled "flexibility without stretching" and, in a
> nutshell, I teach people how to gradually move into a new range of
> motion through a variety of means, but the main one is developing
> strength in the small, new range of motion before going further.
> Studies have shown that increasing passive ROM without increasing active
> ROM raises the risk of injury. The way I teach it lowers, not raises,
> the risk of injury.

You don't know if it lowers risks of injury. It might, or it might do
nothing. But I'll allow that it probably doesn't raise them.

>> You are supposed to get wiser as you get older.
>
> Yes - are you saying my suspended split, overhead squat, or something
> else I'm doing isn't wise? Before I began strength training, I had a
> history of severe back problems, which are hugely improved thanks to
> training the way I do.

Which is an inspiration. I'm not joking. But you have this tendency to
suspend criticism and kinda "go for it", don't you? It's great when one
tries things out, but after that stage one should (IMO, at least) try to
critically assess what are advantages and disadvantages of whatever
solution we tried. You don't seem to be doing it at all.

But that stuff with your back is something I'll always admire.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
March 14th 08, 07:43 PM
Dnia 2008-03-14 Hobbes napisał(a):
> In article >,
> "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>
>> Unless you can do this or similar, it means that I have both a range of
>> motion _and_ strength throughout that range of motion that you don't
>> have. There are many definitions of joint health, but the most common,
>> and common-sense, is being able to move a joint without pain through a
>> full range of motion. Problems begin when part of the natural range of
>> motion are lost due to not being used.
>
> Well. I guess I was too hasty in saying Steve missed out on this.
>
> But it isn't just a matter of strength - it is about generating force
> and withstanding force. So speed is an issue as well as strength and
> ROM, at least in terms of athletes.

An issue, if there exist an issue. And it exist if the range of motion
we happen to have isn't sufficient for whatever we like doing. If we
need high kicks, bigger range of motion there will probably prevent
tears, if we don't do high kicks, it's just for kicks. If we like
catching a bar overhead while squatting we need the range of motion in
shoulders. If we don't, it doesn't matter. Otherwise there would be
some clearer correlation between flexibility work and injury rates. It
seems to be hard to spot though.

That's how I see it today. I may be wrong, of course, and I'm prepared
to change my view if presented with new ideas or data, but I simply
don't buy into this correlation == causation attitude. I do admit that
people seem to injure their weaker and less flexible side more often,
but it doesn't mean that improving flexibility will improve strength or
that any of it will decrease injury rates in general. Actually it
doesn't seem to have that effect, so I don't need to buy into anything
here.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Hobbes
March 14th 08, 08:29 PM
In article >,
Andrzej Rosa > wrote:

> Dnia 2008-03-14 Hobbes napisał(a):
> > In article >,
> > "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> >
> >> Unless you can do this or similar, it means that I have both a range of
> >> motion _and_ strength throughout that range of motion that you don't
> >> have. There are many definitions of joint health, but the most common,
> >> and common-sense, is being able to move a joint without pain through a
> >> full range of motion. Problems begin when part of the natural range of
> >> motion are lost due to not being used.
> >
> > Well. I guess I was too hasty in saying Steve missed out on this.
> >
> > But it isn't just a matter of strength - it is about generating force
> > and withstanding force. So speed is an issue as well as strength and
> > ROM, at least in terms of athletes.
>
> An issue, if there exist an issue. And it exist if the range of motion
> we happen to have isn't sufficient for whatever we like doing. If we
> need high kicks, bigger range of motion there will probably prevent
> tears, if we don't do high kicks, it's just for kicks. If we like
> catching a bar overhead while squatting we need the range of motion in
> shoulders. If we don't, it doesn't matter. Otherwise there would be
> some clearer correlation between flexibility work and injury rates. It
> seems to be hard to spot though.
>
> That's how I see it today. I may be wrong, of course, and I'm prepared
> to change my view if presented with new ideas or data, but I simply
> don't buy into this correlation == causation attitude. I do admit that
> people seem to injure their weaker and less flexible side more often,
> but it doesn't mean that improving flexibility will improve strength or
> that any of it will decrease injury rates in general. Actually it
> doesn't seem to have that effect, so I don't need to buy into anything
> here.

Good point. Range of motion in the shoulder for an elite tennis player,
for example, is far greater than what is required by a badminton player,
because of the serve and need for external rotation to generate speed.

The idea of saying there exists a 'full range of motion' in a joint is a
little misleading. I like Andrzej idea that the range of motion depends
on the person and the activity.

So Steve - what is a 'natural' range of motion for the shoulder joint,
anyhow? Theoretically the joint is capable of far more movement than
most people would ever need and if you tried to train for that you'd
have a very unstable and injury-prone joint.

--
Keith

Steve Freides
March 14th 08, 10:42 PM
"Hobbes" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>
>>
>> Unless you can do this or similar, it means that I have both a range
>> of
>> motion _and_ strength throughout that range of motion that you don't
>> have. There are many definitions of joint health, but the most
>> common,
>> and common-sense, is being able to move a joint without pain through
>> a
>> full range of motion. Problems begin when part of the natural range
>> of
>> motion are lost due to not being used.
>
> Well. I guess I was too hasty in saying Steve missed out on this.

Keith, I think it's fair to say that 90 percent of the time, whenever we
disagree, it is a matter of how we're expressing the ideas. I use
different words than you do and I don't have your background and
training, but I think we're really on the same page the overwhelming
majority of the time.

More in reply to other messages ...

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


> But it isn't just a matter of strength - it is about generating force
> and withstanding force. So speed is an issue as well as strength and
> ROM, at least in terms of athletes.
>
> --
> Keith

David
March 14th 08, 10:49 PM
"Steve Freides" > wrote in message
...
> "Hobbes" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Unless you can do this or similar, it means that I have both a range of
>>> motion _and_ strength throughout that range of motion that you don't
>>> have. There are many definitions of joint health, but the most common,
>>> and common-sense, is being able to move a joint without pain through a
>>> full range of motion. Problems begin when part of the natural range of
>>> motion are lost due to not being used.
>>
>> Well. I guess I was too hasty in saying Steve missed out on this.
>
> Keith, I think it's fair to say that 90 percent of the time, whenever we
> disagree, it is a matter of how we're expressing the ideas. I use
> different words than you do and I don't have your background and training,
> but I think we're really on the same page the overwhelming majority of the
> time.

Just a personal view, but I would say that the main difference between you
and Keith is that you are a scammer and push a particular line for profit
whereas Keith presents objective views.

>
> More in reply to other messages ...
>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com
>
>
>> But it isn't just a matter of strength - it is about generating force
>> and withstanding force. So speed is an issue as well as strength and
>> ROM, at least in terms of athletes.
>>
>> --
>> Keith
>
>

Steve Freides
March 15th 08, 01:34 AM
"Hobbes" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>
>> Dnia 2008-03-14 Hobbes napisał(a):
>> > In article >,
>> > "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Unless you can do this or similar, it means that I have both a
>> >> range of
>> >> motion _and_ strength throughout that range of motion that you
>> >> don't
>> >> have. There are many definitions of joint health, but the most
>> >> common,
>> >> and common-sense, is being able to move a joint without pain
>> >> through a
>> >> full range of motion. Problems begin when part of the natural
>> >> range of
>> >> motion are lost due to not being used.
>> >
>> > Well. I guess I was too hasty in saying Steve missed out on this.
>> >
>> > But it isn't just a matter of strength - it is about generating
>> > force
>> > and withstanding force. So speed is an issue as well as strength
>> > and
>> > ROM, at least in terms of athletes.
>>
>> An issue, if there exist an issue. And it exist if the range of
>> motion
>> we happen to have isn't sufficient for whatever we like doing. If we
>> need high kicks, bigger range of motion there will probably prevent
>> tears, if we don't do high kicks, it's just for kicks. If we like
>> catching a bar overhead while squatting we need the range of motion
>> in
>> shoulders. If we don't, it doesn't matter. Otherwise there would be
>> some clearer correlation between flexibility work and injury rates.
>> It
>> seems to be hard to spot though.
>>
>> That's how I see it today. I may be wrong, of course, and I'm
>> prepared
>> to change my view if presented with new ideas or data, but I simply
>> don't buy into this correlation == causation attitude. I do admit
>> that
>> people seem to injure their weaker and less flexible side more often,
>> but it doesn't mean that improving flexibility will improve strength
>> or
>> that any of it will decrease injury rates in general. Actually it
>> doesn't seem to have that effect, so I don't need to buy into
>> anything
>> here.
>
> Good point. Range of motion in the shoulder for an elite tennis
> player,
> for example, is far greater than what is required by a badminton
> player,
> because of the serve and need for external rotation to generate speed.
>
> The idea of saying there exists a 'full range of motion' in a joint is
> a
> little misleading. I like Andrzej idea that the range of motion
> depends
> on the person and the activity.
>
> So Steve - what is a 'natural' range of motion for the shoulder joint,
> anyhow?

A "natural" range of motion is the one a child has - full, complete,
unencumbered.

> Theoretically the joint is capable of far more movement than
> most people would ever need and if you tried to train for that you'd
> have a very unstable and injury-prone joint.

Your point is only correct if one trains by the wrong means. FWIW, I
have greatly increased ROM of motion in my shoulders and my shoulder
flexibility is still very poor in my own opinion. I did not have the
ROM of motion to properly lock out an overhead kettlebell press while
keeping my shoulder down, so I worked on that, basically by pressing,
and now I have it on both sides, but if you look at, e.g., my gymnast's
bridge, it's terrible because of both my back and my shoulder
inflexibility. I intend to keep working on all these things. I have
been told I have a "flexion intolerant" lumbar spine - I simply refuse
to accept that.

My point is not that one need become more flexible than one's sport
requires - that's true _if_ you are training for sport. I am training
because I enjoy it, and every time I accomplish sometime in the realm of
improved range of motion, I feel better. My back always feels better
after I do splits, so I do them almost every morning. Functional
Movement Screening, Z-Health, and others have explained far better than
I can how a range of motion that is limited can be caused by problems
elsewhere in the body. One needs, IMHO, to try and find the root causes
and address them as best one can. I have been trying to follow the
history of my back injury in reverse, finding and trying to fix what I
feel are the problems that eventually led to my herniated disc. It's a
long, slow process, but I am pleased with the fact that I continue to
make progress in this, the eleventh year after my back injury. It is
the work of a lifetime, no doubt.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Steve Freides
March 15th 08, 01:39 AM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote
-snip-

> I knew people with a range of motion even better than yours and joints
> which were a total waste. In part *because* of excessive range of
> motion
> they developed. Mobility comes at the cost of stability. Strength
> has
> nothing to do with both (for the most part).

You miss my point. Mobility without strength, yes, is at the cost of
stability, but mobility through strength is what I am after. The
suspended split is a good example. The way I train splits, I got the
suspended split the first time I tried it. It's not something I had to
work up to. I make it a point to use, to demonstrate, if you will, my
strength when I practice my splits, and as the suspended split proves, I
hope, I am not unstable in that position. I am comfortable in that
position because I know I have strength in it.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Andrzej Rosa
March 15th 08, 03:34 AM
Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote
> -snip-
>
>> I knew people with a range of motion even better than yours and joints
>> which were a total waste. In part *because* of excessive range of
>> motion
>> they developed. Mobility comes at the cost of stability. Strength
>> has
>> nothing to do with both (for the most part).
>
> You miss my point. Mobility without strength, yes, is at the cost of
> stability, but mobility through strength is what I am after.

Do you think that javelin throwers have weak shoulders?

[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Hobbes
March 15th 08, 01:35 PM
In article >,
"Steve Freides" > wrote:

> "Hobbes" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
> >
> >> Dnia 2008-03-14 Hobbes napisał(a):
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Unless you can do this or similar, it means that I have both a
> >> >> range of
> >> >> motion _and_ strength throughout that range of motion that you
> >> >> don't
> >> >> have. There are many definitions of joint health, but the most
> >> >> common,
> >> >> and common-sense, is being able to move a joint without pain
> >> >> through a
> >> >> full range of motion. Problems begin when part of the natural
> >> >> range of
> >> >> motion are lost due to not being used.
> >> >
> >> > Well. I guess I was too hasty in saying Steve missed out on this.
> >> >
> >> > But it isn't just a matter of strength - it is about generating
> >> > force
> >> > and withstanding force. So speed is an issue as well as strength
> >> > and
> >> > ROM, at least in terms of athletes.
> >>
> >> An issue, if there exist an issue. And it exist if the range of
> >> motion
> >> we happen to have isn't sufficient for whatever we like doing. If we
> >> need high kicks, bigger range of motion there will probably prevent
> >> tears, if we don't do high kicks, it's just for kicks. If we like
> >> catching a bar overhead while squatting we need the range of motion
> >> in
> >> shoulders. If we don't, it doesn't matter. Otherwise there would be
> >> some clearer correlation between flexibility work and injury rates.
> >> It
> >> seems to be hard to spot though.
> >>
> >> That's how I see it today. I may be wrong, of course, and I'm
> >> prepared
> >> to change my view if presented with new ideas or data, but I simply
> >> don't buy into this correlation == causation attitude. I do admit
> >> that
> >> people seem to injure their weaker and less flexible side more often,
> >> but it doesn't mean that improving flexibility will improve strength
> >> or
> >> that any of it will decrease injury rates in general. Actually it
> >> doesn't seem to have that effect, so I don't need to buy into
> >> anything
> >> here.
> >
> > Good point. Range of motion in the shoulder for an elite tennis
> > player,
> > for example, is far greater than what is required by a badminton
> > player,
> > because of the serve and need for external rotation to generate speed.
> >
> > The idea of saying there exists a 'full range of motion' in a joint is
> > a
> > little misleading. I like Andrzej idea that the range of motion
> > depends
> > on the person and the activity.
> >
> > So Steve - what is a 'natural' range of motion for the shoulder joint,
> > anyhow?
>
> A "natural" range of motion is the one a child has - full, complete,
> unencumbered.

Different children have different range of motions. And the strength
about the joint is weak in children.

Doesn't do it for me as a working definition.

--
Keith

Steve Freides
March 15th 08, 03:17 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote
>> -snip-
>>
>>> I knew people with a range of motion even better than yours and
>>> joints
>>> which were a total waste. In part *because* of excessive range of
>>> motion
>>> they developed. Mobility comes at the cost of stability. Strength
>>> has
>>> nothing to do with both (for the most part).
>>
>> You miss my point. Mobility without strength, yes, is at the cost of
>> stability, but mobility through strength is what I am after.
>
> Do you think that javelin throwers have weak shoulders?

No, why would I? But let's allow that "weak shoulders" is a rather
vague description in the context of the rather detailed conversation
we've been having here.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


> [...]
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
March 15th 08, 03:29 PM
Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote
>>> -snip-
>>>
>>>> I knew people with a range of motion even better than yours and
>>>> joints
>>>> which were a total waste. In part *because* of excessive range of
>>>> motion
>>>> they developed. Mobility comes at the cost of stability. Strength
>>>> has
>>>> nothing to do with both (for the most part).
>>>
>>> You miss my point. Mobility without strength, yes, is at the cost of
>>> stability, but mobility through strength is what I am after.
>>
>> Do you think that javelin throwers have weak shoulders?
>
> No, why would I? But let's allow that "weak shoulders" is a rather
> vague description in the context of the rather detailed conversation
> we've been having here.

So what do you precisely mean by "mobility without strength comes at the
cost" etc.?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Steve Freides
March 15th 08, 04:37 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote
>>>> -snip-
>>>>
>>>>> I knew people with a range of motion even better than yours and
>>>>> joints
>>>>> which were a total waste. In part *because* of excessive range of
>>>>> motion
>>>>> they developed. Mobility comes at the cost of stability.
>>>>> Strength
>>>>> has
>>>>> nothing to do with both (for the most part).
>>>>
>>>> You miss my point. Mobility without strength, yes, is at the cost
>>>> of
>>>> stability, but mobility through strength is what I am after.
>>>
>>> Do you think that javelin throwers have weak shoulders?
>>
>> No, why would I? But let's allow that "weak shoulders" is a rather
>> vague description in the context of the rather detailed conversation
>> we've been having here.
>
> So what do you precisely mean by "mobility without strength comes at
> the
> cost" etc.?

If we may use the terms "active" and "passive" flexibility, the former
to mean a range of motion into which you can move yourself and
demonstrate control, the latter meaning a range of motion you can be put
into, then it is my understanding that the difference between one's
active and passive flexibility has a direct relation to one's risk of
injury. Put another way, people who simply stretch themselves into new
ranges of motion without developing strength in those ranges of motion
are increasing, not decreasing, their statistical risk of injury. I
think some difference between the two is normal, but I am also aware of
stretching strategies that focus solely on range of motion and not
strength, and I don't believe those are the best practices.

Some people use the term "flexibility" to mean passive ability of a
joint to be moved through a range of motion, and "mobility" to refer to
active flexibility. I like using the terms that way.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Steve Freides
March 15th 08, 04:40 PM
"Hobbes" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>
>> "Hobbes" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dnia 2008-03-14 Hobbes napisał(a):
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Unless you can do this or similar, it means that I have both a
>> >> >> range of
>> >> >> motion _and_ strength throughout that range of motion that you
>> >> >> don't
>> >> >> have. There are many definitions of joint health, but the most
>> >> >> common,
>> >> >> and common-sense, is being able to move a joint without pain
>> >> >> through a
>> >> >> full range of motion. Problems begin when part of the natural
>> >> >> range of
>> >> >> motion are lost due to not being used.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well. I guess I was too hasty in saying Steve missed out on
>> >> > this.
>> >> >
>> >> > But it isn't just a matter of strength - it is about generating
>> >> > force
>> >> > and withstanding force. So speed is an issue as well as strength
>> >> > and
>> >> > ROM, at least in terms of athletes.
>> >>
>> >> An issue, if there exist an issue. And it exist if the range of
>> >> motion
>> >> we happen to have isn't sufficient for whatever we like doing. If
>> >> we
>> >> need high kicks, bigger range of motion there will probably
>> >> prevent
>> >> tears, if we don't do high kicks, it's just for kicks. If we like
>> >> catching a bar overhead while squatting we need the range of
>> >> motion
>> >> in
>> >> shoulders. If we don't, it doesn't matter. Otherwise there would
>> >> be
>> >> some clearer correlation between flexibility work and injury
>> >> rates.
>> >> It
>> >> seems to be hard to spot though.
>> >>
>> >> That's how I see it today. I may be wrong, of course, and I'm
>> >> prepared
>> >> to change my view if presented with new ideas or data, but I
>> >> simply
>> >> don't buy into this correlation == causation attitude. I do admit
>> >> that
>> >> people seem to injure their weaker and less flexible side more
>> >> often,
>> >> but it doesn't mean that improving flexibility will improve
>> >> strength
>> >> or
>> >> that any of it will decrease injury rates in general. Actually it
>> >> doesn't seem to have that effect, so I don't need to buy into
>> >> anything
>> >> here.
>> >
>> > Good point. Range of motion in the shoulder for an elite tennis
>> > player,
>> > for example, is far greater than what is required by a badminton
>> > player,
>> > because of the serve and need for external rotation to generate
>> > speed.
>> >
>> > The idea of saying there exists a 'full range of motion' in a joint
>> > is
>> > a
>> > little misleading. I like Andrzej idea that the range of motion
>> > depends
>> > on the person and the activity.
>> >
>> > So Steve - what is a 'natural' range of motion for the shoulder
>> > joint,
>> > anyhow?
>>
>> A "natural" range of motion is the one a child has - full, complete,
>> unencumbered.
>
> Different children have different range of motions. And the strength
> about the joint is weak in children.
>
> Doesn't do it for me as a working definition.

Me thinks thou dost pick nits, Keith, but to answer, anyway: Ideally,
as we get older, we acquire strength but do not lose a child's range of
motion - strength of joints, of muscles, of the whole
unit/body/system/whatever.

E.g., watch a child run - no problems with heavy heel strike, always
landing with a bent knee. Those kinds of biomechanics tend to disappear
with age, and I believe they disappear not _because_ of age, but because
of the passage of time during which the body simply isn't well used and,
instead, learns new (and bad) patterns.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


>
> --
> Keith

Jim Janney
March 15th 08, 07:21 PM
Andrzej Rosa > writes:

> Dnia 2008-03-14 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
[snip]

>> Mastery of one's body comes
>> through mastering both the skill of maximizing muscle tension _and_ the
>> skill of using as little muscle tension as necessary. Your response is
>> a pretty typical Western response. It's like saying acupuncture and
>> acupressure don't work
>
> It doesn't. Or, to put it another way, you can put the pins in whatever
> place you like and achieve similar results.

I think we need to distinguish between things that don't work (have no
effect) and things that have a measurable effect even though the
explanation for them is bogus.

>> - tell that to the many, many people who've had
>> success with them.
>
> HEAR ME! Acupuncture is a hogwash too!

Now that's just silly. Next you'll be telling us that placebos don't work.

--
Jim Janney

Andrzej Rosa
March 15th 08, 08:21 PM
Dnia 2008-03-15 Jim Janney napisał(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > writes:
>
>> Dnia 2008-03-14 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
> [snip]
>
>>> Mastery of one's body comes
>>> through mastering both the skill of maximizing muscle tension _and_ the
>>> skill of using as little muscle tension as necessary. Your response is
>>> a pretty typical Western response. It's like saying acupuncture and
>>> acupressure don't work
>>
>> It doesn't. Or, to put it another way, you can put the pins in whatever
>> place you like and achieve similar results.
>
> I think we need to distinguish between things that don't work (have no
> effect) and things that have a measurable effect even though the
> explanation for them is bogus.

No, we don't need to in this case. Especially if placebo effect explains
pretty much everything in acupuncture (okay, some effects are better
explained with hypnosis; whatever).

>>> - tell that to the many, many people who've had
>>> success with them.
>>
>> HEAR ME! Acupuncture is a hogwash too!
>
> Now that's just silly. Next you'll be telling us that placebos don't work.

They do. But homeopathy is still a hogwash.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
March 15th 08, 08:31 PM
Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that javelin throwers have weak shoulders?
>>>
>>> No, why would I? But let's allow that "weak shoulders" is a rather
>>> vague description in the context of the rather detailed conversation
>>> we've been having here.
>>
>> So what do you precisely mean by "mobility without strength comes at
>> the
>> cost" etc.?
>
> If we may use the terms "active" and "passive" flexibility, the former
> to mean a range of motion into which you can move yourself and
> demonstrate control, the latter meaning a range of motion you can be put
> into, then it is my understanding that the difference between one's
> active and passive flexibility has a direct relation to one's risk of
> injury. Put another way, people who simply stretch themselves into new
> ranges of motion without developing strength in those ranges of motion
> are increasing, not decreasing, their statistical risk of injury. I
> think some difference between the two is normal, but I am also aware of
> stretching strategies that focus solely on range of motion and not
> strength, and I don't believe those are the best practices.
>
> Some people use the term "flexibility" to mean passive ability of a
> joint to be moved through a range of motion, and "mobility" to refer to
> active flexibility. I like using the terms that way.

Is your model testable at all? I mean, can you imagine some evidence
which would prove you wrong? Because it looks damn impregnable to me.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Steve Freides
March 15th 08, 10:59 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think that javelin throwers have weak shoulders?
>>>>
>>>> No, why would I? But let's allow that "weak shoulders" is a rather
>>>> vague description in the context of the rather detailed
>>>> conversation
>>>> we've been having here.
>>>
>>> So what do you precisely mean by "mobility without strength comes at
>>> the
>>> cost" etc.?
>>
>> If we may use the terms "active" and "passive" flexibility, the
>> former
>> to mean a range of motion into which you can move yourself and
>> demonstrate control, the latter meaning a range of motion you can be
>> put
>> into, then it is my understanding that the difference between one's
>> active and passive flexibility has a direct relation to one's risk of
>> injury. Put another way, people who simply stretch themselves into
>> new
>> ranges of motion without developing strength in those ranges of
>> motion
>> are increasing, not decreasing, their statistical risk of injury. I
>> think some difference between the two is normal, but I am also aware
>> of
>> stretching strategies that focus solely on range of motion and not
>> strength, and I don't believe those are the best practices.
>>
>> Some people use the term "flexibility" to mean passive ability of a
>> joint to be moved through a range of motion, and "mobility" to refer
>> to
>> active flexibility. I like using the terms that way.
>
> Is your model testable at all? I mean, can you imagine some evidence
> which would prove you wrong? Because it looks damn impregnable to
> me.

I don't recall where I heard or read the statistics, but I will try to
find the source.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
March 16th 08, 03:06 AM
Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>>> No, why would I? But let's allow that "weak shoulders" is a rather
>>>>> vague description in the context of the rather detailed
>>>>> conversation
>>>>> we've been having here.
>>>>
>>>> So what do you precisely mean by "mobility without strength comes at
>>>> the
>>>> cost" etc.?
>>>
>>> If we may use the terms "active" and "passive" flexibility, the
>>> former
>>> to mean a range of motion into which you can move yourself and
>>> demonstrate control, the latter meaning a range of motion you can be
>>> put
>>> into, then it is my understanding that the difference between one's
>>> active and passive flexibility has a direct relation to one's risk of
>>> injury. Put another way, people who simply stretch themselves into
>>> new
>>> ranges of motion without developing strength in those ranges of
>>> motion
>>> are increasing, not decreasing, their statistical risk of injury. I
>>> think some difference between the two is normal, but I am also aware
>>> of
>>> stretching strategies that focus solely on range of motion and not
>>> strength, and I don't believe those are the best practices.
>>>
>>> Some people use the term "flexibility" to mean passive ability of a
>>> joint to be moved through a range of motion, and "mobility" to refer
>>> to
>>> active flexibility. I like using the terms that way.
>>
>> Is your model testable at all? I mean, can you imagine some evidence
>> which would prove you wrong? Because it looks damn impregnable to
>> me.
>
> I don't recall where I heard or read the statistics, but I will try to
> find the source.

You don't seem to get it. I asked what kind of imaginable data would
prove your model wrong, not right.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Steve Freides
March 16th 08, 02:30 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>>>> No, why would I? But let's allow that "weak shoulders" is a
>>>>>> rather
>>>>>> vague description in the context of the rather detailed
>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>> we've been having here.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what do you precisely mean by "mobility without strength comes
>>>>> at
>>>>> the
>>>>> cost" etc.?
>>>>
>>>> If we may use the terms "active" and "passive" flexibility, the
>>>> former
>>>> to mean a range of motion into which you can move yourself and
>>>> demonstrate control, the latter meaning a range of motion you can
>>>> be
>>>> put
>>>> into, then it is my understanding that the difference between one's
>>>> active and passive flexibility has a direct relation to one's risk
>>>> of
>>>> injury. Put another way, people who simply stretch themselves into
>>>> new
>>>> ranges of motion without developing strength in those ranges of
>>>> motion
>>>> are increasing, not decreasing, their statistical risk of injury.
>>>> I
>>>> think some difference between the two is normal, but I am also
>>>> aware
>>>> of
>>>> stretching strategies that focus solely on range of motion and not
>>>> strength, and I don't believe those are the best practices.
>>>>
>>>> Some people use the term "flexibility" to mean passive ability of a
>>>> joint to be moved through a range of motion, and "mobility" to
>>>> refer
>>>> to
>>>> active flexibility. I like using the terms that way.
>>>
>>> Is your model testable at all? I mean, can you imagine some
>>> evidence
>>> which would prove you wrong? Because it looks damn impregnable to
>>> me.
>>
>> I don't recall where I heard or read the statistics, but I will try
>> to
>> find the source.
>
> You don't seem to get it. I asked what kind of imaginable data would
> prove your model wrong, not right.

I understood that first time.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Curt
March 16th 08, 03:49 PM
On Mar 13, 12:28 pm, (R P) wrote:
> Anyone here ever tried / done a workout on a Total Gym ?
>
> I like the "circuit-type" routine you can do & the row feature. Not to
> replace free weight but to have a variety & I wonder if it might be
> easier on joints ? I'm pushing 60,& some days joints are an issue.

You ever use a glucosamine chondroitin supplement?

http://orthopedics.about.com/cs/supplements/a/glucosamine.htm
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/glucosamine.html

Is 46 (in August) pushing 50? Because, yeah, some days joints are an
issue.

Best wishes to you for workout success.

--

Andrzej Rosa
March 16th 08, 06:16 PM
Dnia 2008-03-16 Steve Freides napisał(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>>
>>>> Is your model testable at all? I mean, can you imagine some
>>>> evidence
>>>> which would prove you wrong? Because it looks damn impregnable to
>>>> me.
>>>
>>> I don't recall where I heard or read the statistics, but I will try
>>> to
>>> find the source.
>>
>> You don't seem to get it. I asked what kind of imaginable data would
>> prove your model wrong, not right.
>
> I understood that first time.

So what is it? You don't need to check the references to know why you
are buying into something, do you?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Steve Freides
March 16th 08, 08:55 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Dnia 2008-03-16 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dnia 2008-03-15 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>>>
>>>>> Is your model testable at all? I mean, can you imagine some
>>>>> evidence
>>>>> which would prove you wrong? Because it looks damn impregnable
>>>>> to
>>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall where I heard or read the statistics, but I will try
>>>> to
>>>> find the source.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to get it. I asked what kind of imaginable data
>>> would
>>> prove your model wrong, not right.
>>
>> I understood that first time.
>
> So what is it? You don't need to check the references to know why you
> are buying into something, do you?

No, I was trying trying to post them for anyone else who might be
interested.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
March 16th 08, 09:20 PM
Dnia 2008-03-16 Steve Freides napisał(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dnia 2008-03-16 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>> I don't recall where I heard or read the statistics, but I will try
>>>>> to
>>>>> find the source.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to get it. I asked what kind of imaginable data
>>>> would
>>>> prove your model wrong, not right.
>>>
>>> I understood that first time.
>>
>> So what is it? You don't need to check the references to know why you
>> are buying into something, do you?
>
> No, I was trying trying to post them for anyone else who might be
> interested.

But do you understand what I'm asking you about? You say that lack of
strength causes obstructed motion, or something similar. I keep
forgetting how it goes, because it doesn't even rhyme. Can you
_imagine_ an evidence which would prove it _wrong_? I don't care about
a study which supports this view.

I'll reiterate my example (which I thought proved your model wrong, but
you keep going at it, so it maybe didn't).

I trained successfully for years using some routine while having my
range of motion restricted. When I had to change it I put emphasize on
strength building, active range of motion building and overall quite holy
Over Head Squat. I did what you say saves people's joints. It didn't
stop my injury from reoccurring.

Let's go further. You say that one should have a range of motion of a
child to have healthy joints. Children (and women too) are weaker than
middle aged men with restricted range of motion. How come? You said
something about strength and range of motion which looked to contradict
this phenomenon, but as it didn't even rhyme I might got it wrong.

In some other place you said that static stretching is almost useless in
preventing injuries. Well, weightlifters do it quite often and good
trainers won't even let you lift before you develop some useless range
of motion by doing lots of useless static stretches. It probably
doesn't contradict the writings of St. Pavel, I accept it.

So I ask what would contradict him. How you could possibly prove him
wrong? Maybe you couldn't, but if so, say so.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Steve Freides
March 17th 08, 01:48 AM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Dnia 2008-03-16 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dnia 2008-03-16 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>> I don't recall where I heard or read the statistics, but I will
>>>>>> try
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> find the source.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to get it. I asked what kind of imaginable data
>>>>> would
>>>>> prove your model wrong, not right.
>>>>
>>>> I understood that first time.
>>>
>>> So what is it? You don't need to check the references to know why
>>> you
>>> are buying into something, do you?
>>
>> No, I was trying trying to post them for anyone else who might be
>> interested.
>
> But do you understand what I'm asking you about? You say that lack of
> strength causes obstructed motion, or something similar. I keep
> forgetting how it goes, because it doesn't even rhyme. Can you
> _imagine_ an evidence which would prove it _wrong_? I don't care
> about
> a study which supports this view.

OK, there seems to be some attempt at sarcasm, irony, or some other
device that I'm not understanding.

That said, when you paraphrase my points as "or something," I'm not too
sure you're getting my point, either.

> I'll reiterate my example (which I thought proved your model wrong,
> but
> you keep going at it, so it maybe didn't).
>
> I trained successfully for years using some routine while having my
> range of motion restricted. When I had to change it I put emphasize
> on
> strength building, active range of motion building and overall quite
> holy
> Over Head Squat. I did what you say saves people's joints. It didn't
> stop my injury from reoccurring.

One example doesn't prove anything, I'm afraid. The overhead squat is a
technical lift - perhaps there is something wrong with the way you do
it. I don't know, and I can't speculate more than that. If you'd like
to post a video clip, perhaps I and others can comment. As a rule, I
don't teach it to anyone within the first few months, and sometimes the
first few years of starting lifting. I know a lot of people do it and
do it well, but as Dr. Stuart McGill describes it, many high-level
athletic activities are self-selecting - the people who can't overhead
squat just stop doing it. I am advocating a training style that will
help non-athletic, deconditioned people - it will help them become more
athletic, better conditioned, and more mobile.

> Let's go further. You say that one should have a range of motion of a
> child to have healthy joints. Children (and women too) are weaker
> than
> middle aged men with restricted range of motion. How come? You said
> something about strength and range of motion which looked to
> contradict
> this phenomenon, but as it didn't even rhyme I might got it wrong.

You don't understand what I am saying.

> In some other place you said that static stretching is almost useless
> in
> preventing injuries. Well, weightlifters do it quite often and good
> trainers won't even let you lift before you develop some useless range
> of motion by doing lots of useless static stretches. It probably
> doesn't contradict the writings of St. Pavel, I accept it.

Much of gym wisdom is wrong, either useless or downright harmful. That
someone does it doesn't prove anything. I believe I have trained
myself, and I also train others, according to sound science and sound
practice. More than that, I cannot tell you.

> So I ask what would contradict him. How you could possibly prove him
> wrong? Maybe you couldn't, but if so, say so.

Here is a nice article about posture. Perhaps this helps explain some
things, in particular why restricted range of motion is often the
beginning of vicious cycle of pain, injury, and dysfunction.

http://erikdalton.com/ArticlePerfectPosturePuzzle.pdf

Let's try taking this from the top again. It is very easy to argue with
the presumption I made - for a long time, people thought that improving
one's passive flexibility reduced the risk of injury. We now know that
this isn't true. Please also be aware that what some people call static
stretching really isn't, or is in such a limited range of motion that
it's essentially useless - not harmful and not helpful, either.

Take a Google at Functional Movement Screening and read some of what
they have to say as well.

I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to what else to say to you on this subject.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Andrzej Rosa
March 17th 08, 03:38 AM
Dnia 2008-03-17 Steve Freides napisał(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'll reiterate my example (which I thought proved your model wrong,
>> but
>> you keep going at it, so it maybe didn't).
>>
>> I trained successfully for years using some routine while having my
>> range of motion restricted. When I had to change it I put emphasize
>> on
>> strength building, active range of motion building and overall quite
>> holy
>> Over Head Squat. I did what you say saves people's joints. It didn't
>> stop my injury from reoccurring.
>
> One example doesn't prove anything, I'm afraid. The overhead squat is a
> technical lift - perhaps there is something wrong with the way you do
> it. I don't know, and I can't speculate more than that. If you'd like
> to post a video clip, perhaps I and others can comment. As a rule, I
> don't teach it to anyone within the first few months, and sometimes the
> first few years of starting lifting. I know a lot of people do it and
> do it well, but as Dr. Stuart McGill describes it, many high-level
> athletic activities are self-selecting - the people who can't overhead
> squat just stop doing it.

There is nothing wrong with my squat. It actually helps a little (but
overhead supports probably would help too). I can't handle dips without
them being properly balanced with other exercises (benches and pushups
are out of question for years already). Developing extra mobility with
squats had no substantial positive effect.

There is not a word about balanced muscular development in your writing.
Pavel didn't write about it, probably. Yet powerlifters took care of that
for ages and I'm not aware of them doing stretches much.

[...]
>> Let's go further. You say that one should have a range of motion of a
>> child to have healthy joints. Children (and women too) are weaker
>> than
>> middle aged men with restricted range of motion. How come? You said
>> something about strength and range of motion which looked to
>> contradict
>> this phenomenon, but as it didn't even rhyme I might got it wrong.
>
> You don't understand what I am saying.

You said that range of motion without strength is actually making your
joints injury prone. Kids and ladies have good range of motion and not
much strength.

[...]
>> So I ask what would contradict him. How you could possibly prove him
>> wrong? Maybe you couldn't, but if so, say so.
>
> Here is a nice article about posture. Perhaps this helps explain some
> things, in particular why restricted range of motion is often the
> beginning of vicious cycle of pain, injury, and dysfunction.
>
> http://erikdalton.com/ArticlePerfectPosturePuzzle.pdf

Where does it write about restricted range of motion causing anything?

Although they write about proprioception and compensation, which
actually makes sense. The easiest to see example is in people who carry
a heavy bag always on the same shoulder. Their body compensates by
developing stronger muscles at this side and their proprioceptive system
feeds them the wrong input, so their shoulders aren't even when they
relax themselves.

Authors of this article also say not a word about using weights for posture
control. A method I found extremely useful. They advise to "maintain a good
aerobic exercise program", though, for whatever reason. Oh, well. The
rest makes some sense.

> Let's try taking this from the top again. It is very easy to argue with
> the presumption I made - for a long time, people thought that improving
> one's passive flexibility reduced the risk of injury. We now know that
> this isn't true.

I know it actually is true. Just not *in general*.

> Please also be aware that what some people call static
> stretching really isn't, or is in such a limited range of motion that
> it's essentially useless - not harmful and not helpful, either.

Man, you need for example wrist flexibility to clean weights safely.
Without static stretching (or whatever other form of stretching which
works basically the same, even if it's called differently) you will not
develop this ability, especially if you start after thirty. That simple.

And there is nothing wrong with using static stretches to gain needed
range of motion. No matter what current fad we happen to go through.

> Take a Google at Functional Movement Screening and read some of what
> they have to say as well.

I did at one time or another. Restricted range of motion is a symptom
of underlying problem, very rarely the cause of it. And even then we
are talking about really restricted range of motion, not inability to do
splits or OHS. Besides, most kids can't do either.

> I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to what else to say to you on this subject.

Show me how your position could be proved wrong. Otherwise you are
quoting holy scripture, which can't be proved wrong.

I, for example, could be proved wrong if somebody with shoulder problems
related to horizontal pressing stopped doing rows, started doing stretches
and his shoulders would heal. Like allowing for longer rides on a trolleys
used by paraplegics, or something similar. Then my view would be proved
wrong and I'd have to adjust it somehow to make it fit the data again.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Hobbes
March 17th 08, 05:03 AM
In article >,
"Steve Freides" > wrote:

> "Hobbes" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Hobbes" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Dnia 2008-03-14 Hobbes napisał(a):
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Unless you can do this or similar, it means that I have both a
> >> >> >> range of
> >> >> >> motion _and_ strength throughout that range of motion that you
> >> >> >> don't
> >> >> >> have. There are many definitions of joint health, but the most
> >> >> >> common,
> >> >> >> and common-sense, is being able to move a joint without pain
> >> >> >> through a
> >> >> >> full range of motion. Problems begin when part of the natural
> >> >> >> range of
> >> >> >> motion are lost due to not being used.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well. I guess I was too hasty in saying Steve missed out on
> >> >> > this.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But it isn't just a matter of strength - it is about generating
> >> >> > force
> >> >> > and withstanding force. So speed is an issue as well as strength
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > ROM, at least in terms of athletes.
> >> >>
> >> >> An issue, if there exist an issue. And it exist if the range of
> >> >> motion
> >> >> we happen to have isn't sufficient for whatever we like doing. If
> >> >> we
> >> >> need high kicks, bigger range of motion there will probably
> >> >> prevent
> >> >> tears, if we don't do high kicks, it's just for kicks. If we like
> >> >> catching a bar overhead while squatting we need the range of
> >> >> motion
> >> >> in
> >> >> shoulders. If we don't, it doesn't matter. Otherwise there would
> >> >> be
> >> >> some clearer correlation between flexibility work and injury
> >> >> rates.
> >> >> It
> >> >> seems to be hard to spot though.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's how I see it today. I may be wrong, of course, and I'm
> >> >> prepared
> >> >> to change my view if presented with new ideas or data, but I
> >> >> simply
> >> >> don't buy into this correlation == causation attitude. I do admit
> >> >> that
> >> >> people seem to injure their weaker and less flexible side more
> >> >> often,
> >> >> but it doesn't mean that improving flexibility will improve
> >> >> strength
> >> >> or
> >> >> that any of it will decrease injury rates in general. Actually it
> >> >> doesn't seem to have that effect, so I don't need to buy into
> >> >> anything
> >> >> here.
> >> >
> >> > Good point. Range of motion in the shoulder for an elite tennis
> >> > player,
> >> > for example, is far greater than what is required by a badminton
> >> > player,
> >> > because of the serve and need for external rotation to generate
> >> > speed.
> >> >
> >> > The idea of saying there exists a 'full range of motion' in a joint
> >> > is
> >> > a
> >> > little misleading. I like Andrzej idea that the range of motion
> >> > depends
> >> > on the person and the activity.
> >> >
> >> > So Steve - what is a 'natural' range of motion for the shoulder
> >> > joint,
> >> > anyhow?
> >>
> >> A "natural" range of motion is the one a child has - full, complete,
> >> unencumbered.
> >
> > Different children have different range of motions. And the strength
> > about the joint is weak in children.
> >
> > Doesn't do it for me as a working definition.
>
> Me thinks thou dost pick nits, Keith, but to answer, anyway: Ideally,
> as we get older, we acquire strength but do not lose a child's range of
> motion - strength of joints, of muscles, of the whole
> unit/body/system/whatever.
>
> E.g., watch a child run - no problems with heavy heel strike, always
> landing with a bent knee. Those kinds of biomechanics tend to disappear
> with age, and I believe they disappear not _because_ of age, but because
> of the passage of time during which the body simply isn't well used and,
> instead, learns new (and bad) patterns.

Steve - this is silly. A child does not run properly. They have very
poor movement patterns for running - they run very sloppy. Ask any coach
of track and field how much work they have to do on mechanics of
children running. I have never seen a child run with good mechanics -
they simply don't have the strength to do so.

I realize a child squats deeply and naturally and we lose mobility about
the joint if we don't use it. But the reason a child can squat so easily
is explained more by biomechanics (long torso - short limbs) than some
arcane natural perfection of children.

--
Keith

Steve Freides
March 17th 08, 07:11 PM
"Hobbes" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>
>> "Hobbes" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Hobbes" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Dnia 2008-03-14 Hobbes napisał(a):
>> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> > "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Unless you can do this or similar, it means that I have both
>> >> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> range of
>> >> >> >> motion _and_ strength throughout that range of motion that
>> >> >> >> you
>> >> >> >> don't
>> >> >> >> have. There are many definitions of joint health, but the
>> >> >> >> most
>> >> >> >> common,
>> >> >> >> and common-sense, is being able to move a joint without pain
>> >> >> >> through a
>> >> >> >> full range of motion. Problems begin when part of the
>> >> >> >> natural
>> >> >> >> range of
>> >> >> >> motion are lost due to not being used.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well. I guess I was too hasty in saying Steve missed out on
>> >> >> > this.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But it isn't just a matter of strength - it is about
>> >> >> > generating
>> >> >> > force
>> >> >> > and withstanding force. So speed is an issue as well as
>> >> >> > strength
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > ROM, at least in terms of athletes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> An issue, if there exist an issue. And it exist if the range
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> motion
>> >> >> we happen to have isn't sufficient for whatever we like doing.
>> >> >> If
>> >> >> we
>> >> >> need high kicks, bigger range of motion there will probably
>> >> >> prevent
>> >> >> tears, if we don't do high kicks, it's just for kicks. If we
>> >> >> like
>> >> >> catching a bar overhead while squatting we need the range of
>> >> >> motion
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> shoulders. If we don't, it doesn't matter. Otherwise there
>> >> >> would
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> some clearer correlation between flexibility work and injury
>> >> >> rates.
>> >> >> It
>> >> >> seems to be hard to spot though.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's how I see it today. I may be wrong, of course, and I'm
>> >> >> prepared
>> >> >> to change my view if presented with new ideas or data, but I
>> >> >> simply
>> >> >> don't buy into this correlation == causation attitude. I do
>> >> >> admit
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> people seem to injure their weaker and less flexible side more
>> >> >> often,
>> >> >> but it doesn't mean that improving flexibility will improve
>> >> >> strength
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> that any of it will decrease injury rates in general. Actually
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> doesn't seem to have that effect, so I don't need to buy into
>> >> >> anything
>> >> >> here.
>> >> >
>> >> > Good point. Range of motion in the shoulder for an elite tennis
>> >> > player,
>> >> > for example, is far greater than what is required by a badminton
>> >> > player,
>> >> > because of the serve and need for external rotation to generate
>> >> > speed.
>> >> >
>> >> > The idea of saying there exists a 'full range of motion' in a
>> >> > joint
>> >> > is
>> >> > a
>> >> > little misleading. I like Andrzej idea that the range of motion
>> >> > depends
>> >> > on the person and the activity.
>> >> >
>> >> > So Steve - what is a 'natural' range of motion for the shoulder
>> >> > joint,
>> >> > anyhow?
>> >>
>> >> A "natural" range of motion is the one a child has - full,
>> >> complete,
>> >> unencumbered.
>> >
>> > Different children have different range of motions. And the
>> > strength
>> > about the joint is weak in children.
>> >
>> > Doesn't do it for me as a working definition.
>>
>> Me thinks thou dost pick nits, Keith, but to answer, anyway:
>> Ideally,
>> as we get older, we acquire strength but do not lose a child's range
>> of
>> motion - strength of joints, of muscles, of the whole
>> unit/body/system/whatever.
>>
>> E.g., watch a child run - no problems with heavy heel strike, always
>> landing with a bent knee. Those kinds of biomechanics tend to
>> disappear
>> with age, and I believe they disappear not _because_ of age, but
>> because
>> of the passage of time during which the body simply isn't well used
>> and,
>> instead, learns new (and bad) patterns.
>
> Steve - this is silly. A child does not run properly. They have very
> poor movement patterns for running - they run very sloppy. Ask any
> coach
> of track and field how much work they have to do on mechanics of
> children running. I have never seen a child run with good mechanics -
> they simply don't have the strength to do so.

I disagree, and strongly so. Most kids, especially the youngest ones
before they've been made to sit all day, run beautifully.

> I realize a child squats deeply and naturally and we lose mobility
> about
> the joint if we don't use it.

Good.

> But the reason a child can squat so easily
> is explained more by biomechanics (long torso - short limbs) than some
> arcane natural perfection of children.

I do not believe that for an instant, Keith. There are plenty of adults
who squat deeply and easily, just not most of those of us who sit in
chairs all day and get no regular use of a full range of squatting
motion in our hips.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

> --
> Keith

Curt
March 17th 08, 08:31 PM
On Mar 16, 9:48 pm, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
[...]

> That someone does it doesn't prove anything. <snip>

What was that about a suspended splits again?

And how do you compare your suggestions with "gym wisdom"? One's
better than the other? Gotcha. Everything you and Pavel offer is
golden while the rest of the population is spewing useless, even
harmful, information?

> I'm afraid I'm at a loss <snip>

No doubt.

--

Curt
March 17th 08, 08:44 PM
On Mar 17, 3:11 pm, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
[...]

> Most kids, especially the youngest ones before
> they've been made to sit all day, run beautifully.

I've never been a PubMeddy type, however I believe the above statement
aaaaalmost merits one of these: Cite, please.

[...]

Freides wrote:

"as we get older, we acquire strength but do not lose a child's range
of motion - strength of joints, of muscles, of the whole unit/body/
system/whatever."

And make the cite one that doesn't include "whatever" as part of the
text, 'kay?

Interesting how Freides swapped details of biomechanics for the more
subjective "run beautifully" as his focus. I'd want some wiggle room,
too.

--

Hobbes
March 18th 08, 12:19 AM
In article >,
"Steve Freides" > wrote:

[snip}
> >>
> >> E.g., watch a child run - no problems with heavy heel strike, always
> >> landing with a bent knee. Those kinds of biomechanics tend to
> >> disappear
> >> with age, and I believe they disappear not _because_ of age, but
> >> because
> >> of the passage of time during which the body simply isn't well used
> >> and,
> >> instead, learns new (and bad) patterns.
> >
> > Steve - this is silly. A child does not run properly. They have very
> > poor movement patterns for running - they run very sloppy. Ask any
> > coach
> > of track and field how much work they have to do on mechanics of
> > children running. I have never seen a child run with good mechanics -
> > they simply don't have the strength to do so.
>
> I disagree, and strongly so. Most kids, especially the youngest ones
> before they've been made to sit all day, run beautifully.
>
> > I realize a child squats deeply and naturally and we lose mobility
> > about
> > the joint if we don't use it.
>
> Good.
>
> > But the reason a child can squat so easily
> > is explained more by biomechanics (long torso - short limbs) than some
> > arcane natural perfection of children.
>
> I do not believe that for an instant, Keith. There are plenty of adults
> who squat deeply and easily, just not most of those of us who sit in
> chairs all day and get no regular use of a full range of squatting
> motion in our hips.
>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com
>
> > --
> > Keith


A toddler and young child is able to squat easily despite having
relatively undeveloped musculature due to biomechanics. An adult can
squat deeply and easily as well and should, but typically they have to
use relatively more strength to do so. Or more properly - to get into
and out of the deep squat. Simple levers and biomechanics. It would be
easy to take the limb length of a child compared to an adult, the muscle
insertions and demonstrate the force required.

Your answer doesn't address what I said at all. Of course an adult can
also squat deeply and easily. What does that have to do with a child
typically having shorter limbs relative to the torso and a biomechanical
advantage in the squat?

Second, I agree sitting for long periods tightens the hips. But a child
doesn't run efficiently or sprint powerfully. I have no idea what you
consider 'running beautifully', but go talk to a youth track and field
coach sometime. They simply lack the strength to do so. A typical
pre-school child waddles, they don't run.

Running beautifully to me means running efficiently and fast. A child
does neither. They thump. As they develop strength and power running
improves. Yes, you can screw up any potential for 'running beautifully'
through inactivity. So can a child. 'Beautiful running' peaks, IMO, with
power and speed in the mid-20's to mid-30'. Not at age 5 before they
start sitting a lot.

OTOH, you can believe what you want. You know what they say about
opinions...

--
Keith

Jim Janney
March 18th 08, 03:50 AM
Andrzej Rosa > writes:

> Dnia 2008-03-16 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dnia 2008-03-16 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>> I don't recall where I heard or read the statistics, but I will try
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> find the source.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to get it. I asked what kind of imaginable data
>>>>> would
>>>>> prove your model wrong, not right.
>>>>
>>>> I understood that first time.
>>>
>>> So what is it? You don't need to check the references to know why you
>>> are buying into something, do you?
>>
>> No, I was trying trying to post them for anyone else who might be
>> interested.
>
> But do you understand what I'm asking you about? You say that lack of
> strength causes obstructed motion, or something similar. I keep
> forgetting how it goes, because it doesn't even rhyme. Can you
> _imagine_ an evidence which would prove it _wrong_? I don't care about
> a study which supports this view.

It's not nearly as difficult as you're trying to make it. Lie on your
back with both legs straignt on the floor. Keep one leg on the floor
and bring the other straight leg as close to your chest as you can
without using your hands. This is your active range of motion for
this movement. Now relax as much as possible and use your hands to
pull your leg towards your chest. This is your passive range of
motion. Unless you're very unusual, this will be somewhat greater
than the active range, perhaps much greater.

The claim being made is a statistical one: that the difference between
these two ranges correlates with a greater rate of injury. The only
way to prove it wrong is to get a bunch of people who participate in
some sport or physical activity, measure their active and passive
ranges, and compare these with their injury rates over some period of
time. If you find no significant correlation or a significant
correlation in the other direction, you have proved it wrong. In
other words, you would have to duplicate the previous studies and get
different results. One guy hurting himself doesn't prove anything one
way or the other, because no one is claiming to have discovered the
secret of invulnerability.

--
Jim Janney

Andrzej Rosa
March 18th 08, 08:11 AM
Dnia 2008-03-18 Jim Janney napisał(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > writes:
>
>> Dnia 2008-03-16 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>
>>> No, I was trying trying to post them for anyone else who might be
>>> interested.
>>
>> But do you understand what I'm asking you about? You say that lack of
>> strength causes obstructed motion, or something similar. I keep
>> forgetting how it goes, because it doesn't even rhyme. Can you
>> _imagine_ an evidence which would prove it _wrong_? I don't care about
>> a study which supports this view.

I asked Steve, not you. Steve is trying to convince people, that his
approach works as an injury prevention, not you. He also does workshops
and some such, so it is only fitting if he can back it up with a bit of
understanding. I don't care if you are able to do it, at least not very
much.

But, what the hell.

> It's not nearly as difficult as you're trying to make it. Lie on your
> back with both legs straignt on the floor. Keep one leg on the floor
> and bring the other straight leg as close to your chest as you can
> without using your hands. This is your active range of motion for
> this movement. Now relax as much as possible and use your hands to
> pull your leg towards your chest. This is your passive range of
> motion. Unless you're very unusual, this will be somewhat greater
> than the active range, perhaps much greater.
>
> The claim being made is a statistical one: that the difference between
> these two ranges correlates with a greater rate of injury.

Actually it is just an assumption. The claim is, that by using sacred
Russian methods (Pavel is Lithuanian, so he is as much Russian as I am
anyway) you can decrease this deficit, and that if you decrease it, you
will lower your chances of getting injured.

But you are right. If we could prove that the difference between active
and passive mobility does not correlate with injury rates we would
overthrow the whole system.

> The only
> way to prove it wrong is to get a bunch of people who participate in
> some sport or physical activity, measure their active and passive
> ranges, and compare these with their injury rates over some period of
> time. If you find no significant correlation or a significant
> correlation in the other direction, you have proved it wrong. In
> other words, you would have to duplicate the previous studies and get
> different results.

This assumption is most probably true. Some amount of people will have
significant mobility deficit, simply because of nerve impingement. You
bet that their chances of injury are above average.

> One guy hurting himself doesn't prove anything one way or the other,

Okay. One guy hurting himself only hints, not proves. Now fine?

> because no one is claiming to have discovered the
> secret of invulnerability.

Well, not overtly.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Steve Freides
March 18th 08, 12:13 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Dnia 2008-03-18 Jim Janney napisał(a):
>> Andrzej Rosa > writes:
>>
>>> Dnia 2008-03-16 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>>
>>>> No, I was trying trying to post them for anyone else who might be
>>>> interested.
>>>
>>> But do you understand what I'm asking you about? You say that lack
>>> of
>>> strength causes obstructed motion, or something similar. I keep
>>> forgetting how it goes, because it doesn't even rhyme. Can you
>>> _imagine_ an evidence which would prove it _wrong_? I don't care
>>> about
>>> a study which supports this view.
>
> I asked Steve, not you. Steve is trying to convince people, that his
> approach works as an injury prevention, not you. He also does
> workshops
> and some such, so it is only fitting if he can back it up with a bit
> of
> understanding. I don't care if you are able to do it, at least not
> very
> much.
>
> But, what the hell.
>
>> It's not nearly as difficult as you're trying to make it. Lie on
>> your
>> back with both legs straignt on the floor. Keep one leg on the floor
>> and bring the other straight leg as close to your chest as you can
>> without using your hands. This is your active range of motion for
>> this movement. Now relax as much as possible and use your hands to
>> pull your leg towards your chest. This is your passive range of
>> motion. Unless you're very unusual, this will be somewhat greater
>> than the active range, perhaps much greater.
>>
>> The claim being made is a statistical one: that the difference
>> between
>> these two ranges correlates with a greater rate of injury.
>
> Actually it is just an assumption. The claim is, that by using sacred
> Russian methods (Pavel is Lithuanian, so he is as much Russian as I am
> anyway) you can decrease this deficit, and that if you decrease it,
> you
> will lower your chances of getting injured.
>
> But you are right. If we could prove that the difference between
> active
> and passive mobility does not correlate with injury rates we would
> overthrow the whole system.
>
>> The only
>> way to prove it wrong is to get a bunch of people who participate in
>> some sport or physical activity, measure their active and passive
>> ranges, and compare these with their injury rates over some period of
>> time. If you find no significant correlation or a significant
>> correlation in the other direction, you have proved it wrong. In
>> other words, you would have to duplicate the previous studies and get
>> different results.
>
> This assumption is most probably true. Some amount of people will
> have
> significant mobility deficit, simply because of nerve impingement.
> You
> bet that their chances of injury are above average.
>
>> One guy hurting himself doesn't prove anything one way or the other,
>
> Okay. One guy hurting himself only hints, not proves. Now fine?
>
>> because no one is claiming to have discovered the
>> secret of invulnerability.
>
> Well, not overtly.

Andrzej, you are rebel without a cause in this one. I did a bit of
review, and the places the studies were cited was in a presentation on
Functional Movement Screening, which is not a Party product or method.
Furthermore, I am not trying to convince anyone that my approach "works
as an injury prevention," only that it is better than passive
stretching. I would also like to add that I do teach a few passive
stretches - there are some places in which it can be used effectively,
but as a rule, no.

There is a good deal of what I teach that is not, ah, never mind, you
wouldn't believe me, anyway. The problem is with your perception that
what I do is some sort of "closed system" and nothing could be further
from the truth. My teaching has changed over the years and I hope it
continues to change as I learn new things. Both I and "The Party" are
open to new ideas and incorporate them on a regular basis - but like I
said, I doubt you'll accept that.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Me[_3_]
March 20th 08, 05:43 AM
DZ wrote:
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> The claim is, that by using sacred Russian methods (Pavel is
>> Lithuanian, so he is as much Russian as I am anyway) ...
>
> Are you sure? His last name is Slavic, he was born in Belarus, and
> probably lived in Russia for a good portion of his life. Anyway, I'm a
> Russian too. Have you seen my face?

Let us all see your face then.... :)

Andrzej Rosa
March 20th 08, 07:59 AM
Dnia 2008-03-20 DZ napisał(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> The claim is, that by using sacred Russian methods (Pavel is
>> Lithuanian, so he is as much Russian as I am anyway) ...
>
> Are you sure?

Not sure. You are probably right and I was wrong.

> His last name is Slavic, he was born in Belarus, and
> probably lived in Russia for a good portion of his life. Anyway, I'm a
> Russian too. Have you seen my face?

I sometimes too wonder from whence my auburn hair come. Nobody in my
family has them...

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
March 21st 08, 08:21 AM
Dnia 2008-03-21 DZ napisał(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> Dnia 2008-03-20 DZ napisał(a):
>>> His last name is Slavic, he was born in Belarus, and
>>> probably lived in Russia for a good portion of his life. Anyway, I'm a
>>> Russian too. Have you seen my face?
>>
>> I sometimes too wonder from whence my auburn hair come. Nobody in my
>> family has them...
>
> It could be hiding - it's a recessive gene.

Yeah, sure. And red hair and freckled neighbor from downstairs had
nothing to do with it. ;-) (Which he rather couldn't, taking in account
that he wasn't there at the crucial time, but you know how convincing
your recessive genes are. ;-))

> Some Neanderthals had red
> hair and a larger brain (but didn't had the urge to gather in large
> herds, and so we know how that ended).

Losing pigmentation seems to be the right thing to do, if you happen to
live in cold climate with lack of sunlight. It helps with producing
some vitamin, or something like it. I'm way to lightly built to be even
a recessive descendant of a Neanderthal.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

fred[_2_]
March 23rd 08, 07:07 PM
DZ wrote:
> Me > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>> The claim is, that by using sacred Russian methods (Pavel is
>>>> Lithuanian, so he is as much Russian as I am anyway) ...
>>>
>>> Are you sure? His last name is Slavic, he was born in Belarus, and
>>> probably lived in Russia for a good portion of his life. Anyway,
>>> I'm a Russian too. Have you seen my face?
>>
>> Let us all see your face then.... :)
>
> My face looks exactly like Steve F. Sometimes I get confused, what am
> I doing on Dragon Door, sitting in a split with a kettlebell up? So
> you can just attach Steve's head and powerlifter's legs to this and
> that would be me -
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/sc13nc3d/UntitledAlbum/photo#5180985061668150242

VEry impressive build there mate....very. All achieved using kettleballs?
How about some before and after pics?

March 23rd 08, 07:28 PM
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:46:16 -0600, Hobbes >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> It doesn't mean that your joints are in better health than they were.
>> Let me give you an example. My one-armed overhead squat is way better
>> than what you show in the video (ass to the grass and all) but I renewed
>> my shoulder injury anyway. When I used to do snatches I could squat
>> roughly as well as you can, but my shoulder was perfectly fine.
>>
>> If flexibility of a joint is what matters, why I renewed my shoulder
>> injury?
>
>Flexibility of the joint is not what joint health is all about.
>Especially in the shoulder joint, which has a huge range of motion.
>Shoulder injuries result from a number of different aspects, both
>chronic and acute. Inflammation of the capsule itself can be a huge
>problem since it is involved in so many sporting or exercise movements.
>So the fact you renewed a previous injury could be a result of a number
>of different things - but as you point out it is not a matter of
>flexibility.
>
>Which is what Steve misses out on - and I think Pavel too. Pavel is
>simply caught up in making money on his 'Mad Russian' exercise guru
>persona. He has some good ideas, but there is nothing earth-shattering
>about any of his books. If a person is really interested in joint health
>than you would be better off getting Siff and Verkhoshansky's
>'Supertraining' or simply copy the movement matrix from that book or a
>good physiology text and then try and create some balance between
>strength and ability to generate/withstand force and flexibility about
>each joint.
>
>Hmm. Maybe I'll have to write a book about 'SuperJoints'. I think I
>could kick Pavel's butt on this one.
>
>:^)

Very interesting thread. Every once in a while visiting this ng pays
off.

Andrzej Rosa
March 24th 08, 11:22 AM
Dnia 2008-03-23 DZ napisał(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> Dnia 2008-03-21 DZ napisał(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>> I sometimes too wonder from whence my auburn hair come. Nobody in my
>>>> family has them...
>>>
>>> It could be hiding - it's a recessive gene.
>>
>> Yeah, sure. And red hair and freckled neighbor from downstairs had
>> nothing to do with it. ;-) (Which he rather couldn't, taking in account
>> that he wasn't there at the crucial time, but you know how convincing
>> your recessive genes are. ;-))
>
> The proportion of fathers whose children are not theirs is much higher
> than people think. Such information comes out from linkage studies
> (which are looking for disease genes) when they check pedigrees for
> the "Mendelian inconsistencies".

IIRC it was about one in ten, wasn't it? And rock steady throughout all
cultures and geographical locations.

>> Losing pigmentation seems to be the right thing to do, if you happen to
>> live in cold climate with lack of sunlight. It helps with producing
>> some vitamin, or something like it. I'm way to lightly built to be even
>> a recessive descendant of a Neanderthal.
>
> Neanderthal's hair was of the same basic varieties as ours, blonde,
> black, brown, red. They know that because they amplified and sequenced
> these genes from the fossils.

Really? Damn impressive.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Steve Freides
March 24th 08, 02:00 PM
"DZ" > wrote in message
. ..
> fred > wrote:
>> All achieved using kettleballs?
>
> I'd use one if I had it... We used them to train and as doorstops
> too, but that was more than 15 years ago. Throwing them from a dorm
> window was fun too, I recall.

They really do make _excellent_ doorstops, among their other uses.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Jim Janney
March 24th 08, 03:38 PM
"Steve Freides" > writes:

> "DZ" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> fred > wrote:
>>> All achieved using kettleballs?
>>
>> I'd use one if I had it... We used them to train and as doorstops
>> too, but that was more than 15 years ago. Throwing them from a dorm
>> window was fun too, I recall.
>
> They really do make _excellent_ doorstops, among their other uses.

But they're just really bad as towel racks. The exercise machines
still have the advantage there.

--
Jim Janney

Andrzej Rosa
March 24th 08, 08:50 PM
Dnia 2008-03-24 DZ napisał(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> Dnia 2008-03-23 DZ napisał(a):
>>>
>>> The proportion of fathers whose children are not theirs is much higher
>>> than people think. Such information comes out from linkage studies
>>> (which are looking for disease genes) when they check pedigrees for
>>> the "Mendelian inconsistencies".
>>
>> IIRC it was about one in ten, wasn't it? And rock steady throughout all
>> cultures and geographical locations.
>
> I don't know about the constant proportion. I doubt that it is similar
> in different cultures,

That's what they used to say in the media. I didn't check myself, so I
could be deceived.

> because the proportion has very high
> variability across studies. According to my notes, the proportion of
> married couples where the male doesn't know he's not the father has
> the range 5% to as high as 25% among Caucasians in Western
> countries. This means that there are "clusters of cheaters", that
> sometimes could make it into a collection center. This clustering
> probably has cultural background.

Less surprising that what they said in the radio, but this shouldn't
surprise me.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Ted Sherman
April 3rd 08, 10:50 AM
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:32:07 -0400, Steve Freides wrote:

> I'm sure it will give you a good workout

I'm sure you can blow my dick but neither a good workout with that piece
of **** or your blowing me is EVER going to happen.

David
April 3rd 08, 02:02 PM
"Steve Freides" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dnia 2008-03-18 Jim Janney napisał(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa > writes:
>>>
>>>> Dnia 2008-03-16 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I was trying trying to post them for anyone else who might be
>>>>> interested.
>>>>
>>>> But do you understand what I'm asking you about? You say that lack of
>>>> strength causes obstructed motion, or something similar. I keep
>>>> forgetting how it goes, because it doesn't even rhyme. Can you
>>>> _imagine_ an evidence which would prove it _wrong_? I don't care about
>>>> a study which supports this view.
>>
>> I asked Steve, not you. Steve is trying to convince people, that his
>> approach works as an injury prevention, not you. He also does workshops
>> and some such, so it is only fitting if he can back it up with a bit of
>> understanding. I don't care if you are able to do it, at least not very
>> much.
>>
>> But, what the hell.
>>
>>> It's not nearly as difficult as you're trying to make it. Lie on your
>>> back with both legs straignt on the floor. Keep one leg on the floor
>>> and bring the other straight leg as close to your chest as you can
>>> without using your hands. This is your active range of motion for
>>> this movement. Now relax as much as possible and use your hands to
>>> pull your leg towards your chest. This is your passive range of
>>> motion. Unless you're very unusual, this will be somewhat greater
>>> than the active range, perhaps much greater.
>>>
>>> The claim being made is a statistical one: that the difference between
>>> these two ranges correlates with a greater rate of injury.
>>
>> Actually it is just an assumption. The claim is, that by using sacred
>> Russian methods (Pavel is Lithuanian, so he is as much Russian as I am
>> anyway) you can decrease this deficit, and that if you decrease it, you
>> will lower your chances of getting injured.
>>
>> But you are right. If we could prove that the difference between active
>> and passive mobility does not correlate with injury rates we would
>> overthrow the whole system.
>>
>>> The only
>>> way to prove it wrong is to get a bunch of people who participate in
>>> some sport or physical activity, measure their active and passive
>>> ranges, and compare these with their injury rates over some period of
>>> time. If you find no significant correlation or a significant
>>> correlation in the other direction, you have proved it wrong. In
>>> other words, you would have to duplicate the previous studies and get
>>> different results.
>>
>> This assumption is most probably true. Some amount of people will have
>> significant mobility deficit, simply because of nerve impingement. You
>> bet that their chances of injury are above average.
>>
>>> One guy hurting himself doesn't prove anything one way or the other,
>>
>> Okay. One guy hurting himself only hints, not proves. Now fine?
>>
>>> because no one is claiming to have discovered the
>>> secret of invulnerability.
>>
>> Well, not overtly.
>
> Andrzej, you are rebel without a cause in this one. I did a bit of
> review, and the places the studies were cited was in a presentation on
> Functional Movement Screening, which is not a Party product or method.
> Furthermore, I am not trying to convince anyone that my approach "works as
> an injury prevention," only that it is better than passive stretching. I
> would also like to add that I do teach a few passive stretches - there are
> some places in which it can be used effectively, but as a rule, no.
>
> There is a good deal of what I teach that is not, ah, never mind, you
> wouldn't believe me, anyway. The problem is with your perception that
> what I do is some sort of "closed system" and nothing could be further
> from the truth. My teaching has changed over the years and I hope it
> continues to change as I learn new things. Both I and "The Party" are
> open to new ideas and incorporate them on a regular basis - but like I
> said, I doubt you'll accept that.

There is an expression that is dear to my heart "if you can't do, then
teach"
Teaching assumes that you are smarter than someone else. Pardon me for being
skeptical


>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com
>
>

123[_2_]
April 3rd 08, 08:56 PM
Ted Sherman wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:32:07 -0400, Steve Freides wrote:
>
>> I'm sure it will give you a good workout
>
> I'm sure you can blow my dick but neither a good workout with that
> piece of **** or your blowing me is EVER going to happen.

dont burn your bridges ted.......lol

David
April 4th 08, 12:18 AM
"123" > wrote in message ...
> Ted Sherman wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:32:07 -0400, Steve Freides wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure it will give you a good workout
>>
>> I'm sure you can blow my dick but neither a good workout with that
>> piece of **** or your blowing me is EVER going to happen.
>
> dont burn your bridges ted.......lol

ha ha that was funny 123
>

123[_2_]
April 4th 08, 07:31 AM
David wrote:
> "123" > wrote in message ...
>> Ted Sherman wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:32:07 -0400, Steve Freides wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sure it will give you a good workout
>>>
>>> I'm sure you can blow my dick but neither a good workout with that
>>> piece of **** or your blowing me is EVER going to happen.
>>
>> dont burn your bridges ted.......lol
>
> ha ha that was funny 123

we really know what ted wants....dont we

David
April 4th 08, 10:14 AM
"123" > wrote in message ...
> David wrote:
>> "123" > wrote in message ...
>>> Ted Sherman wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:32:07 -0400, Steve Freides wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure it will give you a good workout
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you can blow my dick but neither a good workout with that
>>>> piece of **** or your blowing me is EVER going to happen.
>>>
>>> dont burn your bridges ted.......lol
>>
>> ha ha that was funny 123
>
> we really know what ted wants....dont we
not that there is anything (much) wrong with it!