Rippetoe on T-Nation

[SumDumGoi]

They were published in the JSCR, V22 #1, pp88-94, and SCJ V29, #6, pp10-13. While you're there, JSCR V23 #1, pp284-292 is fun too. And the quote above was incorrect; the review article stated that there was "minimal activity in the hamstring muscles", and my comment was, how was this possible since the squat involves hip extension and the hamstrings are primary hip extensors. The citations merely indict the quality of the literature.

I will have to request copies of the articles to read them fully, however, to be honest your critique of the NSCA regarding them publishing a research article which says there was "minimal activity in the hamstring muscle" seems to be unfounded.

If you were to go to the NSCA's website they quote numerous times that the hamstrings are activated during a squat. Since that is there official position, why would you denounce the organization for it?

Your beef appears to be more with the researchers of the study. These researchers are by no means employed by the NSCA to write up research articles. This research is being published by independent researchers who "submit" their research to the NSCA. During the studies that were performed it could be entirely possible that the individuals performing the squats were predominantly "quad squatters". In other words, the exercise could have been performed imperfectly. This is a common problem as people do not sit back into their squat, which could explain the cited references ( I still haven't had a chance to look at the study so I can't be sure).

Given this I would have to ask a few questions. First you mentioned that this study cited 8-9 other references in regards to hamstring activity. Were all of the cited studies published in NSCA journals? If not, then your complaint is not with the NSCA, but rather with multiple organizations.

Also, and more importantly, should you only publish data in which you agree with? have acted as a reviewer for several articles. A few of them reported results which I personally disagreed with. As a reviewer your job is not to agree/disagree with the results of the research. Your job is to review the methodology and then make certain that no erroneous conclusions are made based from the results of the study. The results are simply the results.

Given that, despite the results of the study the NSCA still maintains that the hamstrings are activated during hip extension. Why is it that you would disagree with the organization regarding this particular issue given that their current stance is that the hamstrings are activated to a large extent during squats?

[minadi26]

You can read the abstract to the articles here:

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Ab...Muscle.14.aspx

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Ab..._Front.41.aspx

[Mark Rippetoe]

I will have to request copies of the articles to read them fully, however, to be honest your critique of the NSCA regarding them publishing a research article which says there was "minimal activity in the hamstring muscle" seems to be unfounded.

If you were to go to the NSCA's website they quote numerous times that the hamstrings are activated during a squat. Since that is there official position, why would you denounce the organization for it?

Your beef appears to be more with the researchers of the study. These researchers are by no means employed by the NSCA to write up research articles. This research is being published by independent researchers who "submit" their research to the NSCA. During the studies that were performed it could be entirely possible that the individuals performing the squats were predominantly "quad squatters". In other words, the exercise could have been performed imperfectly. This is a common problem as people do not sit back into their squat, which could explain the cited references ( I still haven't had a chance to look at the study so I can't be sure).

Given this I would have to ask a few questions. First you mentioned that this study cited 8-9 other references in regards to hamstring activity. Were all of the cited studies published in NSCA journals? If not, then your complaint is not with the NSCA, but rather with multiple organizations.

Also, and more importantly, should you only publish data in which you agree with? have acted as a reviewer for several articles. A few of them reported results which I personally disagreed with. As a reviewer your job is not to agree/disagree with the results of the research. Your job is to review the methodology and then make certain that no erroneous conclusions are made based from the results of the study. The results are simply the results.

Given that, despite the results of the study the NSCA still maintains that the hamstrings are activated during hip extension. Why is it that you would disagree with the organization regarding this particular issue given that their current stance is that the hamstrings are activated to a large extent during squats?

The article in question was not a study, it was a review article. When you obtain the copy you will see that I have indeed quoted directly from it on page 12. And my beef is not entirely with the NSCA, since the cited studies were from all over the place, and since you'll note in my comment above that I did not say "the NSCA literature". It is nearly all shit, and this is the general situation in the "exercise sciences". My beef is with the conventional wisdom as it pertains to my profession. The NSCA just happened to be the only exercise science-based certifying organization I could quit. My problems with it were obviously more that just these three articles. I have written at length on this board about it, and if you're curious the SEARCH FUNCTION will reveal more.

[rpbrown]

Given that, despite the results of the study the NSCA still maintains that the hamstrings are activated during hip extension. Why is it that you would disagree with the organization regarding this particular issue given that their current stance is that the hamstrings are activated to a large extent during squats?

Maybe they finally bought SS:BBT and read it. "Current" stance could say a lot relative to what they used to believe.

[Mark Rippetoe]

It is highly unlikely that anybody in the upper reaches of the NSCA gives a shit about my little books. This is not offensive to me.

[Kincain]

very good interview, you passed the sniff test :-)

[drewcarroll2]

As Andy says: If you plan on working for somebody else (gym, health club, university, etc), don't start dropping all your certs just yet. You generally still need them to get hired somewhere, and the CSCS is still the industry gold standard. Aspiring S&C coaches will need a job, the job will require that they have insurance, and to have insurance you need a certification. Shitty as it is, CSCS is, as he says, still the industry standard. Standards are low, but they are in place.

This might sound completely ignorant, and if it does its just my true colors so don't mind me, but would a Starting Strength coaches cert from a seminar count because while my Tuition Assistance will cover the CSCS I would rather give my money to you and get something usefull for it.

[MarcH]

It is highly unlikely that anybody in the upper reaches of the NSCA gives a shit about my little books. This is not offensive to me.

More room in the squat rack for us then. Fk em.

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

I disagree with the last part, mainly as I dont believe there is anyting that could be meaningfully be called an industry standard.

The CSCS is a decent resource for learning and trouble shooting the BB and main accessory lifts. However, even the DVD is not much different from what is available on Youtube these days, and certainly not as usefull as a two-day, hands on SS seminar. It was the first that was both academic (differentiating from the NASM, ACE etc) and performance focused (differentiating it from ACSMs various ones. However, my experience is that neither clients nor employers give a crap what your exact cert is.

You need A cert to get in the door, it helps with liability insurance rates, but overall it doesnt matter which one (presuming that little of what you use in your vocation is learned from the Cert study materials, or even validated by the tests).

Notice that I didn't say anything about the practicality of the CSCS. But you are mistaken if you think that an AFAA or ACE certification holds as much weight as a CSCS to an employer. Maybe not to Lady of America Fitness, but to most gyms, especially on the more athletic side of things....a CSCS is better for the resume. I'm not here to defend the CSCS, I just don't want some 19 year old kid who wants a good job in the industry to do something stupid and miss opportunities because of some shit he read on this message board.

If I was gonna apply for a Strength Coaching job with the Texans or Astros I don't think I would put on my resume...."2 day barbell cert and watched a bunch of stuff on Youtube." You may in fact learn more from this than the CSCS....but you won't get to apply that knowledge if you can't get hired. Its a check in the box for a young guy in the industry.

[Will Morris]

"The article in question was not a study, it was a review article. When you obtain the copy you will see that I have indeed quoted directly from it on page 12. And my beef is not entirely with the NSCA, since the cited studies were from all over the place, and since you'll note in my comment above that I did not say "the NSCA literature". It is nearly all shit, and this is the general situation in the "exercise sciences". My beef is with the conventional wisdom as it pertains to my profession. The NSCA just happened to be the only exercise science-based certifying organization I could quit. My problems with it were obviously more that just these three articles. I have written at length on this board about it, and if you're curious the SEARCH FUNCTION will reveal more. "

As someone with a degree in Exercise Science, with the majority of my "specialized" curriculum coming from NSCA publications (Principals of Strength and Conditioning, etc.) I can say all the above is true as it pertains to the NSCA merely perpetuating the conventional wisdom. Anectdotal evidence seems to be completely disregarded by the majority of the exercise science education, however, I can say that after four years of undergraduate work in exercise science and 14 years of weight lifting, I learned more in two hours of working out at WFAC and reading SS than I had in all those years before. Now I just have to come to grips with the fact that I spent $40,000 pursuing a degree that I could have been better suited with spending $650 on a SS seminar and spending the other $39,350 on groceries and milk.