Patrick Zerr<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Certainly Dr Siff most of us agree more discussion needs to occur. . . . .
Again, I would like to criticize your cause and effect thinking in your last
note on
strength training as proof for periodization. You didn't give any info on the
status of the population being studied. Most strength training athletes
(advanced) are in some type of competition and that could account for the lack
of findings. They could be in a maintenance phase, perhaps they had already
reached their potential, there are many things that could effect the outcomes
that weren't discussed. This is always going to be the challenge with
physical performance when trying to isolate a cause and effect. Don't you
agree?
***I did not write that article, but provided that abstract exactly as it
appeared in the journal which I consulted:
Hakkinen K, Kallinen M, Komi PV, Kauhanen H Neuromuscular adaptations
during short-term 'normal' and reduced training periods in strength
athletes Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1991 Jan-Feb;31(1):35-42
I thought that it was obvious that that mail was a quotation - now I realise
that it would have been a good idea to have placed it all within quotation
marks or some form of parentheses.
Yes, I agree about your comments, but the subjects, scope and limitations of
that study may be judged more adequately by reading the article in its
entirety. The topic of periodisation has been covered extensively in our
textbook, Siff M C & Verkhoshansky Y V: "Supertraining" 1998, if you would
like to read my unabridged views on the subject.
Dr Mel C Siff
Colorado, USA
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|