Supertraining

This is quite funny,  I was reading this and  thought to myself that Aaron 
Forbes has been around Scherger for too long as he is now writing just like 
him. I actually noticed this on a few posts following this ridiculous back talk 
again. 
 
Aaron, your post regarding the high school football team going 12-0. While that 
is a wonderful achievement it really does not provide a verification of your 
system of training the "proper spinal position". I actually chuckle at the part 
regarding the notion that no one squats over 140lbs. You have a pathetically 
weak football team. The time that is spent on trying to make a claim about 
having your or Scherger's ideal of posture and being able to produce bigger 
impacts when hitting and being able to play better in the the fourth quarter 
are funny.  The production of a powerful hit and or a driving block are first a 
matter of proper positioning of the body (technique), body mass, speed, 
power.and such. The more FUNCTIONAL MASS  that a player has the greater the 
ability to produce force and therefore coupled with proper technique the better 
able to deliver a large impact or driving block. I know that you and Mr. 
Scherger are into simple examples so here is one; Your player who
 Squats a max of 140# and lets say weighs 200# runs into a player who squats 
400# and deadlifts 400# and weighs 200# they meet without either having a 
positional advantage and share the same level of technical skills the stronger 
player will more than likely win. He is stronger, can generate more power or 
transmit greater force to the ground which in turn will produce the ability to 
drive the weaker player backwards. He most likely will be faster as he is 
stronger and that would provide the ability to move his mass at a faster rate 
of speed which in turn produces a greater impact than a player of the same 
weight who is slower. This is really simple physics. The idea of lasting well 
into the fourth quarter is a state of CONDITIONING not whether one is of proper 
spinal posture. Your argument that this would affect the players conditioning 
is poor. The human body adapts very well with what it is presented to work 
with, if a person who is not of "ideal" posture trains and
 conditions regularly with that posture the body adapts at being in condition 
with that posture. 
 
I believe you also mentioned your background as a collegiate football player 
and your lifting history. This really means nothing. Go into any gym in the 
country or for that matter some college level strength programs and , even in 
this day and age, you will see an amazing number of idiotic things being taught 
to or used by players. If  you are  aware of the strength coaching community 
you will see that there are some very successful independent strength coaches 
who are sought out by athletes of various sports to enhance their strength and 
conditioning. You would also find that  these coaches are very interested in a 
well balanced athlete who is functionally strong at all joints. They are also 
interested in making the athlete as strong as possible ie :big deadlift ( or at 
least some form of one), a big squat ( or at least some form of one) and so 
forth. 
 
Did you ever stop to think that the only thing in your program that helped was 
the fact that you made the kids lift in a complex or circuit fashion and that 
this was actually a form of conditioning that aided them to be better. 
 
It is obvious that your selling a system to parents who like to hear medical 
terminology to feel good but the fact remains that everywhere else kids are 
involved in training programs that make them tremendously strong and this leads 
to better performance on any field of play.
 
Louie Simmons said it best at a seminar " If you put eleven weak players on the 
field against eleven strong players the weak ones will get their asses kicked 
every time."
 
Damien Chiappini
Pittsburgh, PA.  


----- Original Message ----
From: Aaron Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:27:39 AM
Subject: [Supertraining] Re: Ideal Spinal Posture: Equilibrium truer then 
Balance

--- In Supertraining@ yahoogroups. com, "chris eastham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:We've surely moved a long way forward from Florence kendalls 
day, but even> then they understood that posture is about a state of 
balance. And we all know from attempting to balance a backetball on 
the tip of our finger, that it involves constant adjustment.

****
Chris your illustration of balancing a basketball relative to say 
the spine producing force to stand upright is not mechanically 
appropriate. 

It would be more truly stated this way. We all know from 
attempting to balance the person opposite us on a teeter totter how 
it involves constant adjustment. 

AS your Dr Alan Walmsley stated: " On the topic of neutral posture 
that even if the spine appears to be maintaining a stable neutral 
posture, the individual vertebrae will be moving around and 
constantly adjusting independently of one another. This constant 
adjustment will be vary widely from person to person 

When you stand upright, moving into neutral posture each vertebra 
must be extended or moved on the one below to achieve the upright 
posture. Each on these vertebra must reach not a balance but an 
equilibrium that from the outside as Dr. Walmsley said appears to be 
a stable posture but is not. 

What important about neutral spine position relative to the posture 
it can achieve is that the properly adapted S-shape posture will 
assume a neutral spine position that will possess for the human a 
better mechanical advantage to achieve and maintain upright posture 
then the poorer adapted postures. 

Both good and poor postures will have to adapt changes. The 
importance of proper posture is that when standing it will take less 
muscle effort and less strain on the discs to do it. 

Lets look at the Teeter totter again examining the difference 
between good and poor posture. 

You have a individual with a 100 lb trunk with properly adapted 
posture. When achieving upright posture their center of mass 
(relative to a vertebra being extended)is a distance of 1x from the 
fulcrum point of the teeter totter. 

Next you have a person with poor posture. When they achieve 
upright posture their center of mass (relative to a vertebra being 
extended) is a distance of 3x from the fulcrum point of the 
vertebral tetter totter. 

Both tetter totters take constant adjustments to keep in 
equilbirium. Now which tetter totter system would you want? The 
one with the weight 1x from the fulcrum or the one that has weight 
that is a 3x distance from the fulcrum?

It should be obvious or a no brainer that you want the one that can 
move the weight a distance of 1x from the fulcrum. It will take 
less weight or your force on your part to control the weight when it 
is a distance of 1x from the fulcrum then 3x. 

Their will be half the force being created at the fulcrum point in 
the good posture versus the poor posture and so your parts like the 
disc will last longer. 

John Scherger 
Ridgefield Washington 

[**Mod: Any particular reason why you have signed your message as John Scherger 
using Aaron Forbes' email?**]