View Single Post
Old 03-05-2003, 10:06 AM   #66
ikkainogakusei
Location: All over CA
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 137
Offline
Hello Kevin,
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:

And this has what to do with training?
It is an answer to "The body knows of movements, not muscles." "The isolation of specific muscles in weight training is actually impossible." as well as the 'cartoonish' aspersion. Remember I had said "Not only can we choose consciously to contract one muscle, but we can individuate a set of fibers within that muscle."

**********

assertion(body knows of movements, not muscles)= wrong. Where did you get this information?

**********
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
I deliberately strive to avoid unnecessary complication in explanation, and talk about training in practical terms. What was 'cartoonish' was your reduction of the whole field of supplemental and preparatory conditioning with weights to 'isolating specific muscles', not the lack of technical jargon.
You're right I did reduce this because this was not the main subject of my post. You however, took a full post and reduced it down to a cursary statement (which I'll admit I did say something that could have been worded better) and ran with it. If you deliberately aviod unnecessary complication in explanation, why do you pick a single line and label someone's statement without asking how they came about this decision, or if they'd like to clarify? What's behind this tactic?

Restatement:

Isolating specific muscles=> reducing the degrees of freedom to increase work on a smaller number of muscles.

If I wanted to discuss a completely different area of training, but still recognise the legitamacy of weight training, wouldn't it seem easier to say the first?
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
Once again, academic overload. If one is performing an elbow extension movement in a chair, with one's upper arm in a fixed position, pushing against a lever arm that can only move in one plane of motion, one cannot balance the weight nor exert any control over it, other than to merely push within the fixed track set by the machine. If one does a leg press in a machine, once again, there is nothing to the movement except pushing along a linear track. However, if one does a back squat with free weights, in addition to pressing through roughly the same range of hip, knee, and ankle motion, one must also balance the body plus the weight in two other planes of motion - which components of balance aren't important, in one exercise one is challenging one's ability to balance and stabilize, in the other, one is not.
Okay, you're preaching again. I did not discuss the differences between machines and free weights. If you wish to discuss balance, I'll be happy to clarify the oversimplification you just made, but we can do that through email.
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
No, especially since what you are saying is incorrect. <snip> 'Prime Movers' only exist in the minds of analysts - it only has utility as a description...
Okay now this is silly. The terms flexion and extension have the utility of description so that we may better understand a movement. The term 'Prime Mover' used interchangably with agonist, it is significant to the direction of a movement within a simple action. I would agree that the more complex the movement, the greater number of agonists, the less likely a prime mover is to be named...is this the point where you will again accuse me of being too academic or wait no, it's oversimplified...no wait...

(hmmm..say she's wrong...make a sermon...then when she clarifies...tell her she's saying too much)
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
In complex multi-joint movements such as a pulldown, one is only 'reducing degrees of freedom' insofar as doing any specific movement requires one to do something specific, thereby reducing movement possibilities - this has nothing to do with a taxonomical scheme of primaries vs. secondaries or isolating muscles. Virtually every muscle from the waist up is involved in the pulldown - which one stabilizes where, or generates motion where isn't of much practical import. Do the free-hanging version: the pull-up, and even more muscles come into play. Pulling something heavy down, or one's body up is not even close to 'isolationary' in any way - but it is a useful movement chain to become strong at.
Didn't you just say "I deliberately strive to avoid unnecessary complication in explanation"

?
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
I wrote what I wrote because you threw out a couple of flippant sentences that seemed to presume some very simplistic, dismissive things about training methodologies.
Uh, if you mean (by flippant)that it was disrespectful levity, you misinterpreted. I was recognising that wieghts are a legitimate area of conditioning, and so was running, but there are other possibilities as well.
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
My reply was to counter these, because too many people in Aikido seem to ignore or dismiss the usefulness of training methods that are universally used and valued in virtually every other athletic endeavor from the high school level up.
Okay now this is a sweeping generalization. Again, I'd say you tout this one program too much. There are other possibilities.
Quote:
Kevin Wilbanks wrote:
It had nothing to do with your ego or academia, which seems to be what most of what you've written here is about.
Hmmm, ego. Okay, I'll give in. I got poked in the eye with aspersion and I said "Hey!". I adressed your aspersion when I could've spent time in constructive conversation about conditioning. oops. So I'll put it to you, if you'd like to address any more of this discussion, send me an email so that we can leave the constructive discussion about many different training possibilities.
  Reply With Quote