pls i joinded the jisc mail, it's quiet good but i want to unsubscribe for
the moment, i dont have time for it.
thanx

>From: [log in to unmask]
>Reply-To: - for physiotherapists in education and practice
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Useful Contraindicated Exercise?
>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:34:35 EDT
>
>With all of the current emphasis on increasing conditioning and therapeutic
>safety by prescribing fashionable approaches such as core training,
>stability
>training, functional training and balance training, the following article
>may
>be of interest here.
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>Contraindicated Exercise May Protect
>
>Siff M C    "Facts and Fallacies of Fitness"   2000, Ch 13
>
>Sports and medical science have been warning  us for many decades against
>the
>dangers of certain exercises because it is maintained that these can cause
>structural damage.  Thus, dire warnings about spinal flexion, deep
>squatting,
>ballistic stretching, spinal hyperextension and numerous other actions have
>been proclaimed throughout the fitness and health professions.
>
>In the case of inanimate mechanical structures, predictions concerning the
>effects of certain types of static or dynamic loading can be made with a
>fairly high degree of accuracy, but in the case of the human body, the fact
>that the body is self-repairing and self-adapting confounds the issue.
>Even
>in inanimate systems the type of loading, tempering or curing can produce
>specific advantageous effects in the given material.
>
>In other words, loading can produce beneficial or detrimental effects.  In
>engineering, this is used to great advantage in producing materials or
>structures that are far better equipped to handle higher levels of stress.
>We might be tempted to say that repetitive flexion of a given metal rod is
>dangerous and should be avoided at all costs - but that same rod, as part
>of
>a structure, may be called upon to cope with that very type of long-term
>repeated flexion for many decades or centuries.
>
>Certainly any system can be forced to deform or fail completely, depending
>on
>the precise manner of loading, but 'conditioning' and design of the
>structure
>can ensure a prolonged and failure-free lifespan.  A key issue is designing
>the system with a certain 'safety factor' to ensure that the system will
>not
>fail under certain multiples of the worst anticipated conditions. An
>engineering structure is invariably 'overdesigned' to cope with any
>unforeseen levels or directions of loading.  This means that a certain
>degree
>of 'dangerous' loading is catered for and this constitutes good engineering
>design.
>
>In the case of the human body, the principle of gradual progressive
>overload
>serves as a type of loading procedure that  allows the body to adapt to
>gradually increasing loads.  This is one of the fundamental principles of
>all
>training adaptation.
>
>Thus, if the limits of loading are not exceeded in any inanimate or animate
>system, then damage will not occur.  This must then imply that it is
>relatively safe to allow the body to be used imprecisely or  inefficiently,
>provided that certain structural limits are not exceeded.  After all, we
>know
>that a certain degree of adaptation will always strengthen the most
>stressed
>parts of the body, provided that their mechanical limits are not exceeded.
>
>We also know from the principle of gradual progressive overload that this
>repeated activity will make these stressed structures stronger and
>stronger,
>so that they will be better equipped next time to handle poor technique or
>deviations from the recommended 'norm'.
>
>In other words, it would seem that the body will adapt to certain levels of
>'harmful' exercising, provided that this is not imposed near the mechanical
>limits of the given soft tissues.  If this is done progressively in a
>controlled manner, then the body should become capable of handling all of
>the
>so-called dangerous activity.  Does this not sound reasonable and logical?
>
>This implies that the neurosis about exercise safety may be misleading and
>inaccurate in many cases.   After all, the body adapts to all types
>so-called
>neutral, natural or safe norms.   In other words, we might state that
>perfect
>training produces maladaption, while integrated, well-sequenced phases of
>perfection and imperfection produce superior functional adaptation.
>
>----------------------------
>
>Dr Mel C Siff
>Denver, USA
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.