Supertraining

Ken,

Most of your diction confuses me in this post.  Feel like I am reading 
shakespeare.  You might not be the best one to ask this of, but you really 
stand out from your defensive position.

Do you have any "peer reviewed" literature from Dr laura?  I did a quick search 
and didn't find much.  I am not going to purchase any of his books.  
Surprisingly, none of the libraries around here carry them.

I am interested to learn specifically about the "neural-adaptive" response 
mentioned by Dr Laura's site.  I do have some background in motor control, not 
much in the humanities or the creative writing, so it would seems to me (and 
again, I know very little of this Matrix System) that most of the movements are 
done similar to a superslow style technique.  I do apologize if I am wrong 
about this.  It is just the impression I get from the website.  My graduate 
course didn't focus on contemporary literature interpretation, so maybe I am 
missing "the boat" clearly.

Sam Bretatc LAT, CSCS
Lees Summit,MO, USA

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
> With all due respect cut the arrogance and bloviating. People are asking
> honest questions in search of further knowledge, your responses are often
> shrouded in condescension. Also, you continually seem to suggest that
> "paradigms" blind many of those participating in this forum, yet by Steve
> even asking a question he is exercising skepticism and avoiding groupthink
> and your evil paradigms.
>
> _J
> [Mod: Please don't forget to sign your posts with your full name, city and 
> country of residence - thanks]
>
>
> > 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.
> >>
> >> =============================
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>