Mel Siff's book

[DOMS]

Does anyone know where I can purchase a copy of this book? It's out-of-print and not available on all the sites I've looked at.

Thanks.

 

[P-funk]

Does anyone know where I can purchase a copy of this book? It's out-of-print and not available on all the sites I've looked at.

Thanks.

etlitefts.com has both of his books...supertraining and Facts and Fallicies of training.

 

[DOMS]

Thanks P-funk.

 

[shiznit2169]

you've been purchasing a lot of books lately ..

slow down and read them slowly one by one

 

[DOMS]

I purchase when the budget allows. Don't worry though, I always check the expiration date.

 

[Duncans Donuts]

There is a critique of his book Supertraining in the 10th edition of synergy here:

http://www.exercisecertification.com/books/Library/Synergy%202005/synergy%202005.html

For those of you who are curious about opposing viewpoints to his method.

 

[DOMS]

Is your viewpoint the same as the one you linked to?

 

[Dale Mabry]

The way I look at it, if you look at any work by one author and consider it to be exactly the right way, you should kill yourself.

I read Supertraining and thought it was a good book. I looked at it as Siff's theories and inferences based on what was available at the time. I haven't read the critique, but my guess is that the author offers up some of his own theories, which I am also sure are not backed by any credible research since there is very little research out there. Not saying he is wrong, but if you are going to say this is not fact, where is the research backing it, you are setting yourself up to be critiqued even more thoroughly.

I am sure that attacking what some consider a training bible is a very good way to attract attention to yourself. More power to him, any way competing theories can get out into the mainstream is a good thing in my book.

 

[Duncans Donuts]

I am sure that attacking what some consider a training bible is a very good way to attract attention to yourself. More power to him, any way competing theories can get out into the mainstream is a good thing in my book.

The group has been publishing exercise related material for the last decade. They also publish a fantastic 1200 page volume called Exercise Science: Theory & Practice, which is how I've developed most of my routines. The critique is excellent, he also has published critiques of Mike Mentzer, Joe Weider, Periodilzation, etcetera. I don't agree with everything but they're very much into publishing excellent, well thought out work.

 

[Duncans Donuts]

Is your viewpoint the same as the one you linked to?

Absolutely, yes, I'm not a fan of Siff. Though my opinions came at least a year before the critique was published.

 

[DOMS]

Absolutely, yes, I'm not a fan of Siff. Though my opinions came at least a year before the critique was published.

Could you provide an example of a flaw in Mel's training methodology?

Thanks.

 

[P-funk]

The way I look at it, if you look at any work by one author and consider it to be exactly the right way, you should kill yourself.

I agree. Like Cosgrove said, "I have never read a book that didn't enhance my knowledge in some way." Or, Mike Bolye, "Like what you read. but defenitly don't only read what you like."

I try and read everything. There is always something that you can learn. Even if you don't agree with the information 100%.

I read Supertraining and thought it was a good book. I looked at it as Siff's theories and inferences based on what was available at the time. I haven't read the critique, but my guess is that the author offers up some of his own theories, which I am also sure are not backed by any credible research since there is very little research out there. Not saying he is wrong, but if you are going to say this is not fact, where is the research backing it, you are setting yourself up to be critiqued even more thoroughly.

I agree. In this industry, as far as training athletes goes, it is almost all opinion. Very few stuff is set in stone. One guy might get great results with his athletes doing one thing and another may get great results doing something completely different. It is important to see both sides of the coin. To often trainers/coaches choose focus on one method exclisively....explosive lifting, HIT, functional training, etc...

 

[ag-guys]

Does anyone know where I can purchase a copy of this book? It's out-of-print and not available on all the sites I've looked at.

Thanks.

Ever see some of the pictures he did on how to not spot someone? Funny stuff.

AG
www.ag-guys.com

 

[Duncans Donuts]

Integration of philosophies is usually the best route to take. Because people respond more beneficially and less beneficially to certain methods, it really is a CUSTOMIZATION deal. Anyone who reads a "do this, then do this, and do that" and does so blindly is kidding themselves. If a training routine is designed and published, it is being used by how many thousands or millions of people - anyone who understands bell-curve averages will tell you it is impossible to optimize something this way.

What IS needed are a list of guidelines, ability to test an individuals response, variability and UNDERSTANDING that can be applied to a person as an individual that are less specific. What we do know are physiological reactions to exercise, signs of them being optimized, and signs of this optimzation leveling off. To make the best workout, the keyword is always CHANGE the variables to impose a harsh environment the muscles are operating in - without OVERTRAINING or undertraining. There are probably 20 or so variables that can be adjusted in any way (long reps, slow reps, X number of reps, Y number of reps, exercise rest interval, set rest interval, exercises performed, sets performed, exercises, workout order, sequence of exercises, hand placement, workout volume, weight used, etc etc) Again, one size fits all (aka Doggcrap training) methodology that can be viewed on the internet will work well but not optimally for everyone, and not optimally permanently.

In any case, read the critique of Siff if you want to recognize the logical flaws he's incorporated. I don't have time for it, honestly.

 

[P-funk]

What IS needed are a list of guidelines, ability to test an individuals response, variability and UNDERSTANDING that can be applied to a person as an individual that are less specific. What we do know are physiological reactions to exercise, signs of them being optimized, and signs of this optimzation leveling off. To make the best workout, the keyword is always CHANGE the variables to impose a harsh environment the muscles are operating in - without OVERTRAINING or undertraining. There are probably 20 or so variables that can be adjusted in any way (long reps, slow reps, X number of reps, Y number of reps, exercise rest interval, set rest interval, exercises performed, sets performed, exercises, workout order, sequence of exercises, hand placement, workout volume, weight used, etc etc) Again, one size fits all (aka Doggcrap training) methodology that can be viewed on the internet will work well but not optimally for everyone, and not optimally permanently.

this is good advice.