You are confusing reality with research.
BTW, Disproving and failing to prove are not interchangeable.
Yours is a ‘Brodignagian’ argument straight out of Gulliver’s Travels: “This is my court physician and what he doesn’t know, doesn’t exist!”
Even though research lags behind observation, the research has been out there for many years for anyone interested in looking for it (NOT ME!)
If you have some deeper need, look yourself for papers on EMS work on Muscular Dystrophy.
ur right, wrong choice of words. i ment failed 2 prove.
i always thought that the purpose of research was 2 discover what the reality is.
i don’t c the link between medical treatment and athletic resistance training, i am looking 4 proof that resistance training causes this adaption because as far as i’m concerned that is beyond all logic. there is no reason 4 the muscles 2 adapt 4 endurance unless u r doing strength endurance training.
the law specifity says: a specific training stimulis will produce a specific adaption.
i believe what has been proven, tried and tested.
Fast fiber are ballistic in nature only turning on for fractions of a second under normal loads (resistance training IS NOT a normal load for a fast fiber). They are needed for infrequent activity, and for emergency hence they do not require endurance. Resistance training forces these fibers to generate alot of heat and to turn on and stay on for longer periods than normal. The solution to the increased demand? To become more endurance based and increase in size to cope with the imposed demand. Thermodynamics will force fast fiber to become more endurance based. If the strength training is frequent and long enough then a marked transformation to the left occurs where after a PROTRACTED period of time (example bodybuilders) there will be more slow fiber and almost no real fast fiber.
Research tends to occur long after thing have been tried and found useful or not but I see where you’re headed with this now- IIb to IIa.
Experience has shown me that it’s VERY possible to turn a silk purse into a sow’s ear, so I wouldn’t be so sure things don’t just keep on going if the training’s bad enough.
The specificity law is something I find quite interesting because it came about due to the isometric vs dynamic studies that showed isometric exercises did not transfer to dynamic strength. But now we have vibration which seems to lead to isometric actions leading to improvements in jumping! So where does that leave the law of specificity? Perhaps we need new definitions?
PERHAPS…
is’nt an isometric exercise and an isometric exercise with vibration two different stimulies and therefore give different adaptions.
so then the law of specifity is sill valid.
About the isometric vs. dynamic, wouldn’t they have some carryover? I realise that being able to hold a weight isometrically is different than performing a dynamic movement but surely there is a positive correlation. Maybe the law of specificity is, in fact, too specific(no pun intended). There are many things that have some positive correlation to one another, it is usually just to what degree, and maybe in conjunction with what other work is being performed. Thoughts?
And about the vibration platforms, is it possible that the isometric contraction in that case is more similar to the isometric contraction of plyometics, for example a depth drop, than it would be to a yielding iso? And if so might this explain why it has a carryover to dynamic work? I don’t have much experience or knowledge of the vibration platforms so if I am off feel free to correct.
I think you are on the money with the isometric vibrations being similar to the isometric contractions that couple the eccentric concentric actions of a jump.