My answer is simple: just find the article and read it before you comment on anything. Or maybe you prefer to read Dr.Laich’s Ph.D thesis: Translated: The effect of fast and slow isokinetic training on muscle fibre composition.
Too bad it wasn’t publisihed in a journal and probabby a little too technical and boring for most coaches and athletes. That’s why the article in M&F was one of the few, already then, that explained the differences in muscle fibre composition and the implications for training in simple and straight forward terms.
And at the other hand: since when does history a role in science: Apples still fall towards the centre of the earth, even if Newton’s work is very old and very few people have read it.
The most popular books, videoclips on this website, and and even the questions to this forum seem to concern historical events before 1989, in a far away places called Rome and Seoul.
Relax there Henk!
History just means: “This is what we found.” History also refers to the apple that lands on your head to start the scientific process.
My answer above was to refute Peter’s complaint about Muscle and Fitness as a source.
While I reject your attack on my site as based solely on information from before 1989, information, like the research you’ve referred to, published in 1989 can still be valid. This is the same reason you can justifiably quote your results from the 1980s, which you just did before attacking me.
I’m sure we’d hear a lot more about events later on, here and elsewhere - if the performances were better now.
You are free to post any new information here that you want (and I’ll be grateful for it).
I anticipated receiving some stick for referring to peer review but if someone is conducting muscle biopsies and publishing their findings and presumably training recommendations based thereon I would prefer some independant assessment or comment by someone with the appropriate scientific background. Of course I accept that when you are out front dealing with a subset of one such studies cannot be your guide. As an experienced and highly successful coach of world class athletes I expect you to be ahead of the published studies or “science” but if science is used to support some training approach then I would like it to be validated as far as possible.
My complaint about M&F is two fold. The first is that the articles are generally of dubious value. The second and more pertinent is that an article was cited which is all but inaccessible and Henkra’s admonition that I should find the article is misplaced as I have absolutely no idea where a 15 year old article in a bodybuilding magazine can be found.
I would be delighted to comment on the article if I ever get the opportunity to read it. In the meantime my comments are inevitably restricted to the
substance of the post.
Who cares where it appeared. The two guys are for real and the subjects are top flight. Maybe someone can re-print the article or provide a link.
You know, I wondered exactly the same thing! I wondered if Ben’s performace was the happy result of being forced to sit out for so long. Recall how, after the poor Zurich race (Ben went “only” a 10.0), Ben rested, then began speed endurance training and went 20.0’s, then a fast 80, then squatting 600 pounds for 6, then a stunning 450 pound bench press. Then a 9.79.
I’d love to hear Charlie’s take.
Sorry Charlie, it was even meant to be an attack on the site at all, it just show that events in the apst can have a tremendous impact on the present, be it widely known, like Ben’s performances or be it an article that, even being published in M&F, might well be worth reading still. W agree for 100%! And again Peter is jumping to conclusions and judging too early. Nowhere was stated that the article was written about the results of the biopsies Dr.Laich took from elite athletes. It is an overview of the different muscle fibres and its implications for weighttraining.
The muscle biopsy is a valid and often used procedure to have a closer look of how the muscle responds to training load, of course with all its pittfalls and limitations alike any other attempts to study the human organism.
I am just a lucky guy being able to work together for more almost 20 years ,with an open-minded topscientist and doctor ,so we are the interface between theory and daily practice, between science and coaching.
Your site is far beyond everthing else in this field, wish I had lots more time to visit it.
Do try ebay - there are loads of the old copies of muscle and fitness’s sold on there.
Thanks Henk. Is there any way you can post the article here?
Yes i think everyone here want to read the article, i’ve searched in vain for this old issue. Please can you try to post it here if possible?
Finally I found the time to scan the article and tried to attach it here, but unfortunately it is 1 Mb (Pdf), and even smaller attachements like the pics of the biopsies of Nelli and Merlene (jpg) were already too large, but I’ll gave it a try. Sorry.
Is there someone who’d be willing to host this article on a website? If not, henk you could e-mail it to me and I would be willing to e-mail it to whoever wants it, if you do not have the time to do so.
could you send me a copy?sorry to bother you, but it wuold be really nice from you.if so eroszag@yahoo.it, if not, tnx and sorry again.
I would but we’ll have to wait for the verdict from henk…
tnx henk, nice article…later I’ll re read it throughfully
I’m very interested to receive the article you can use this address as the file seems to be big:
silkie.tale@caramail.com
Many thanks
Henk could you send me a copy of this article to
(martey_newman the line obscures the underscore)
I have extra capacity on this email the 1mb should not be a problem.
Thanks
It would be great if the article could be posted here somehow, but failing that I’d also really appreciate having a copy sent to me at
Thank you
I hate to revive an old thread, but if someone has a copy of this article, I would appreciate a copy sent to dookie1481@gmail.com