On 2/20/01, Richard... ?<[log in to unmask]> writes:

<<Lets not go into a discussion as to the pros and cons of weight lifting and
strength training. After 15 years of it, I found myself imobile and whilst I
had strong prime movers, my intersegmental muscles had gone on holiday never
to return.>

***That is not the fault of strength training per se, but usually a
consequence of an inappropriately implemented programme.  After more than 35
years of heavy competitive lifting, I remain extremely supple, strong and not
exhibiting any of those dreaded muscle "imbalances".  Research studies have
also shown that Olympic lifters are among the most supple of all Olympic
athletes (much of this sort of research into the science and practice of
strength training appears in my book, "Supertraining").

<Pilates has nothing to do with weightlifting or building large muscle mass.
It is about stimulating all components of the musculoskeletal system to work,
including the breath. I feel it is an excellent adjunct to the physiotherapy
treatment of patients, perhaps the best in many cases.>

*** Far too often, Pilates folk confuse Weightlifting with bodybuilding.
Weightlifting, an Olympic sport in which one trains to develop strength,
power, speed and suppleness,  has nothing to do with building large muscle
mass.  Increase in muscle mass will take place as a natural consequence of
strength training.  If you are familiar with lifters in all of the bodymass
classes below the "superheavies", Olympic weightlifters certainly do not look
like bodybuilders with bulging muscles, but are very athletic, explosively
quick athletes.

Certainly, Pilates can serve as a useful adjunct to therapy, but, inter alia,
 its pelvic stabilisation methods relying too much on posterior pelvic tilt
certainly would be unwise to use with serious athletes or manual labourers
who have to lift heavy loads or amongst anyone who has to control suddenly
imposed loads.  There is absolutely nothing that Pilates offers which does
not already exist in the wide world of strength training (after all, that is
where Pilates obtained many of his ideas, if one studies his history).  As I
wrote before, Pilates has never been clinically or scientifically shown to
offer any significant advantages over standard strength training methods or
PNF.  Its use remains solely a matter of preference, not proved superiority.

<Unfortunately the media always write about it and it beginnings incorrectly.
And unfortunately unless you have spent 6-12 months as a pilates client you
really cannot comment on its value. You smply can't understand its power
until you have found it in your own body.>

*** Many years ago, I spent a fair amount of time learning Pilates from a
university professor in dance kinesiology who bartered those lessons with me
(plus Bartenieff, Alexander and Laban) for lessons in biomechanics and PNF,
so I am not unfamiliar with Pilates and many other forms of movement
training.  At the same time, I happened to be a fanatical martial artist (who
did various styles of yoga) and even found that this sort of training offered
me far better overall conditioning than Pilates, especially since I devised
combinations of weight training, martial arts and yoga that really suited me.

<Sorry to open the debate, didn't mean to, but I suppose you feel yoga is of
no value as well??? Writing articles that dispell the myths created by the
media does nothing but distort the reality that is Pilates "a superior form
of core conditioning" >

*** I have practised various forms of physical and mental (raj) yoga for many
years and have even researched the effects of such disciplines during my
Masters degree in brain research.  As  a matter of fact, there is a far
greater body of research studies showing various benefits of yoga, Tai Chi
and martial arts than there is for Pilates (all evidence here so far appears
to be anecdotal).

By the way, if you have read my earlier posts on so-called "core
conditioning", you will appreciate that I regard 'core' stabilisation and
conditioning fanaticism today as being vastly overplayed, since the ability
to condition the core depends strongly on the integrated interaction of the
core with the periphery.  One can have all the core strength and stability in
the universe, but, without adequate peripheral and non-core stability,
strength, ROM and endurance, these core qualities cannot be efficiently or
safely used.  If you do not accept this, try doing the simplest daily tasks
after having a spinal block which eliminates the contribution played by
various peripheral muscles.

While an isolationist approach to conditioning or therapy may have its place
in treating some musculoskeletal  and neuromuscular pathologies, it needs to
give way to an integrated approach as soon as possible.  That having been
said,  I still await researched evidence that Pilates offers a superior form
of conditioning for anything physical.

So, the ball is back in your court - please furnish some peer reviewed
clinical and research evidence to support all the claims being made for
Pilates.  This sort of purely physical research is by no means difficult to
conduct - after all, we are not examining intangibles such as the mystical
energies of the body, changes in aura during therapy or quantum mechanical
processes during therapeutic touch or levitation.  With the tens of thousands
of people "doing" Pilates, one would think that there is just one research
study to show that it really is superior to strength training and traditional
forms of therapy.

Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/