Quote:
|
Jason Casteel wrote:
One only has to look at the changes in the strength and conditioning world over the last decade or so to know that your statement is incorrect. It wasn't long ago that strength training was done body builder style. Work the biceps, triceps, shoulders, back, etc, all in isolation.
|
I probably didn't say that as well as I could have. But do you honestly think that is how Olympic lifters, powerlifters or gymnasts were training? I will not disagree that the understanding and ability to teach about the body and training of it has improved over the last 20 years.
But similar to what you said before, the human body has always been the human body, and the proper way to train it has always been the proper way to train it, regardless of our understanding or our ability to explain.
Quote:
|
John Brockington wrote:
The key (and question) in IS is: because the deltoid and biceps have a limited amount of strength available at any time, when you do something that involves those muscles, what other muscles or fascia can you use to augment or even vastly exceed what the delts and biceps can do alone. This can be accomplished in very simple terms, with some slight gain in power, or more extensive terms, with greater power gains. The more of your body you use to lift or hit or jump or run or whatever, the better you will do that.
|
Is this really the foundation of "IP/IT/IS"? How is this any different from sports performance in general?
I appreciate everyone's' contribution to this thread. I must say that contrary to the way it might sometimes appear, I am not arguing against "IP/IT/IS." I'm simply trying to draw out your explanations and maybe try to get you to think about it in a different way. I have learned a great deal from my discussion on this subject, and I am better off for it.