Supertraining

Ken, 

There were good questions asked by steve yet you decide to berate him and 
suggest courses in philosophy and humanities. Why? Steve asks are there merits 
(data to support) to Dr. Laura's sytem or is he using this system to sell more 
books? There are authors who I have read and followed that do well to support 
their following book. It also seems that your post is rather defensive of the 
matrix program Why?

In my years of coaching, I have had athletes question or not follow my 
particular program. Two instances come to mind:

A college wrestler told me that his sister, who was in her final year at Rice 
University and working towards a degree in this field, didn't agree with my 
style of training power - an adaptation of Westside Barbells system. I didn't 
berate him and I didn't force him to follow my program. Although he did 
eventually follow my program. 

While coaching a major junior hockey team, I had a defenseman who's older 
brother was playing for an eastern conference NHL team. He followed his 
brother's program, which was a bit different from mine. I never forced him to 
follow my system and found some good success - he was drafted by his brother's 
team and played with him for a couple years. 

The point that I am making is that there are a number of styles and systems 
that can be effective in strength, power, fitness and so on. Where I begin to 
question a programs validity is when it makes claims to be new and innovative 
when it is not either. Some quotes from Dr. Laura's web site:

'Matrix Training is a highly innovative and unique form of weight resistance 
exercise created by Dr. Ronald Laura, Professor in Education of The University 
of Newcastle."

"The Matrix System is based on a patterned series of partial movements, 
designed to activate muscle fibres at multiple points not otherwise worked very 
effectively in conventional exercise."

"As incredible as it sounds, anyone pressed for time can complete a highly 
effective workout in just ten to twenty minutes a day, depending upon fitness 
levels, either in a gym or at home."



 "The physiology of Matrix training has been described in detail in a number of 
my books published since 1991. 

Put simply, Matrix stimulates muscle fibre intensively by patterns of full and 
partial movements which inhibit the use of momentum in the `up-phase' of a lift 
and resist gravity in the `down-phase'. 

The peculiar patterns of movement are also designed to confuse what is known as 
the `neural adaptive effect', thereby encouraging muscle responses which 
deliver maximum effort even with the use of a light weight."

Matrix training isn't new. Partial movement pattern traiing isn't "new". 
Momentum is an often misused or designed expression to explain this particular 
exercise system. 

"Although no other system of exercise, apart from Matrix has so effectively 
exploited the concept of neural adaptation, there is no 'mystery' about the 
science of the process."

This last claim is quite interesting because there have been many training 
programs that have focused on neural adaptation. Any training program that 
increases motor unit recruitment effectively - lifting heavy, plyometrics, 
lifting explosively with light weight (training for power) focus on "neural 
adaptation". 

Casey Gallagher CSCS
Snohomish, WA USA





 


--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "kendaiganoneill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Your question presupposes there's a philsophical basis for progressing 
> through 36 matrix patterns, suggesting you never completed a philosophy 
> course based on misapplication of the word.
> 
> why would there be a deconditioning or unloading? some colonialist bias from 
> a specious 'exercise science'? or a magical pill in the form of a 
> programmatic approach to training nested in some 19th century notion of 
> 'evolutionary progression' rooted in obsolete scientism? as for magic pills, 
> i'm want to recommend ex-lax to most folks up to their ears in scientist 
> models.
> 
> All kidding aside, Laura's very challenging to those rooted in fragmented, 
> reductionist scientism. His patterns are based on neurological models of 
> adaptive responses to training, hence calling for rather repeatedly rapid 
> interventions with challenging new patterns. In that respect, he keeps 
> training alive rather than having it succumb to boredom both mental and 
> physical (for those still stuck in Cartesian dualism, a form of intellectual 
> constipation). 
> 
> As far as equating Matrix with Weider principles, I'd suggest you take a 
> first semester graduate school course in research methods and analysis, 
> preferably in a humanities department stressing reading comprehension - 
> you've obviously done literally no textual analysis, relying on a singular 
> webpage, as such embarrassing yourself with shoddy, peurile research. In that 
> respect, it seems evident you've not read the Laura/Dutton triology, so have 
> no point except for foolishness.
> 
> best regards 
> 
> Ken O'Neill
> Austin, Texas
> 
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "KlineS" <klines@> wrote:
> >
> > Ignoring the "infomercialism" of website.......does anyone care to discuss
> > the philosophy of progressing through 36 "matrixes"?  Is there any
> > deconditioning/unloading/whatever or is it a continuous progression through
> > the increasingly "intense" matrixes?
> > 
> > Many so called systems or programs consist of 6-8 weeks 10x10/5x5/whatever
> > and then the guru pulls another magical program from the hat and tells the
> > trainee to do 6-8 weeks of (insert Weider priniciple) training. Is there
> > merit to the system or is it just a reason to sell you books #2 and 3?
> > 
> > Steve Kline
> > OKC,OK 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of JRTELLE@
> > Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 7:35 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [Supertraining] More Matrix Training Questions
> > 
> > In a message dated 6/20/09 1:01:03 AM, tonypit45@ writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > To me, that sounds hokey. But, reading some of the other posts (e.g., by
> > > Ken and by Ed), I think it's probably inaccurate to evaluate the 
> > > credibility
> > > of matrix training by focusing on that quote.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Tony,
> > 
> > In the past(far) some subscrupled Arthur Jones type would advertise that 
> > all you needed was 15 minutes a week for ?XYZ?  results! The 15 mintes 
> > stood for actual time-under-tension time! That's obviously 30 sets of 30 
> > second sets -- not much for 1 week but much more than the 15 minutes a week.
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe the 15 minute quote is a semantic/neural overlap -- maybe its from an 
> > aerobic claim -- that is 3 X's 5 minutes a week provides great??? CV 
> > results (for some population) which I think is viable -- come to think of it
> > was 
> > Jones who originated this commercialized BS.
> > 
> > =============================
> >
>