I’ve been discussing Pavel, the so-called Russian expert on sport science with one commenter on the blog, and I realized that few people now remember the real Eastern European sports scientist that started most of the PNF stretching craze — Tom Kurz. This is a man that should be noted for his contributions,so let this serve as an intro to his work.
He first came out in the ’80’s with his stretching book and video, promising that most people would be able to perform front and side splits with no warm up after three months of training. The picture above seemed to promise the results. I saw his video back in about 1997 and I was very impressed. I do believe that training his method would lead to the results he promises from many people who can pass his side split test. Bascially, you stand next to a chair that has a back that comes up just below your hip. If you can place your foot on the chair comfortably in a side kick position and keep it there, then according to Kurz you can achieve a side split.
Here he is doing the splits at the age of 50:
http://www.stadion.com/videos/1-minute_splits_01.wmv
Unlike Pavel, Kurz really is a sports scientist in Warsaw, Poland. Kurz material on stretching and sports science in general is solidly backed up by research and he goes a long way to give you the fruits of that research. His books contain numerous references to sport science journals, perhaps too many for the casual reader. But at least he’s thorough.
He also gives much away for free. He has 49 columns that he wrote for a tae kwon do magazine up on his site. Each article is troughly two-three pages long and is chock full of info that would be valuable to any martial artist, regardless of the art that they do. His thoughts on structuring an effective martial arts workout are second to none and should be required reading for any aspiring martial arts teacher. But don’t be fooled. He’s very careful to let you know that these columns are just “crumbs” and the books and DVDs contain the real meat.
Another thing that sets him apart is his insistance that flexibility must come along with strength gains. As you can tell form the pic above, attaining strength is part of his program. He actually uses leg weights combined with dynamic strteches to make you stronger in a stretched position. This is the secret to his method of kicking high with no warmups. Using his method, you actually lengthen and yet strengthen the muscles, a totally different apporach than static stretching.
I recently ordered his book again ( the original is long gone) and I’ll review it when it comes.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Q // Jan 3, 2007 at 11:58 pm
The articles are very interesting and I definitely want to check out the book, but I’m not completely sold on the uselessness of static stretches. It seems to me zhan zhuang and CW are basically static active stretches. Perhaps I should do more dynamic stretches to compare the results. When I did TKD before I did notice even w/o a lot of stretches my flexibility increased simply from doing a lot of kicks. In fact the teacher said the secret to TKD was doing tons of rising kicks.
2 tim // Jan 4, 2007 at 1:50 am
We used to do PNF stretching in hapkido/tkd. It was worth it…I was really inflexible before. Lately, since my hips have opened up from zhan zhuang, the high roundhouse has become pretty straightforward.
Of course now , after playing with Akuzawa’s material I see why the high tkd style roundhouse is not a good thing, but that’s a story for another day. I’ll look at that Kurz material, thanks.
3 Chad // Jan 4, 2007 at 6:35 am
Both Static and PNF have benefits. PNF came out of the physical therapy field back in the 70’s for the most part. It has been recognaized as a valid method of flexability among atheltic trainers since the first study was done on it back in 1985. Why it hasn’t totally caught on is a mystery but is most likely political.
Pnf is nueromuscular (which is what flexability really is) and the strength tension relatinships that underlie the ability to functally use ROM and such have been know for quite some while. When you stretch, you arent actually lengthening anything (changing the shape of the muscle) but rather changing the angles at which the Myotactic reflex kicks in and stops movement. But that is not the only charchteristic of a muscle. Muscle tissue is also visco-elastic becuase of the various membranes and connectice tissue that holds a sacomere together as well as the physical relationships between myosin and actic. Static stretching focus on this part and should npt be completely abandoned.
Also, static stretching is a very good place to start for anyone who has a low level of flexability and strength. To take a 40 yr old woman with fibromyalsia and give them PNF stretching is unwise.
Each method has it’s place. Static stretching is good as a mid work out respite to combat the increased nueromuscular feedback that occurs during high intesity activity. It also is good for gentally stretching areas of injury or in the vacinity of injury. If on eis working with a strain, it is usally unadvisable to have them contract the damaged muscle.
As far as this guy vs. Pavel, its just a matter of style and taste. Pavel is the current thing going and he writes well recieved and easy to digest books. He advocates safe, gadual practice and proper form. There is nothing “wrong” with his material. Neither of these men created PNF. The both culled excersices from varying sources into a program that they then put on the market. No big whoop.
4 chessman71 // Jan 4, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I agree that static stretching has its place. I stil do it quite a bit and it’s part of Kurz’ program as well.
But omcparing him and Pavel, the two really aren’t the same. It depends on what you’re looking for. Pavel is aimed at more of an entry level market and Kurz’ material is aimed at a mroe professional level, as least in regards to his sports science material. His stretching book and vid are obviously a bit more simple, but even that book still sites academic sources, alloing you to continue to probe deeper if you so desire. Pavel does nothing like that.
But each has their place, I guess.
5 Chad // Jan 4, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Well in point of fact, Pavel does cite a good number of actual studies and explains the scientific rationale. Most of his citations center around practioners methods and wrtings, however. Pavel has also worked with and given workshops for very prestigous organizations like NASM, NCSM, and the University of Arizona. My brother in law is a researcher in Pheonix and saw his deal with kettlebell lifting.
The only significant difference between the two men and there material that I can see is the accessability of their writing. This may have more to do with the intent of each. Pavels books are entirely geared to popularize and make available techniques and concepts to benefit the public. Whil Kurtz may be more technical and acedemic, this is not usually an assest in designing programs to be applied to the general public. Most people who have a desire to do these things do not gerenally go for highly technical, acedemic books. Rather they want something simple and direct. If Kutz’s articals are any indication of his style, I can see why his books were not as successful as Pavel’s.
I’m sure Kutz was a fine sports scientist (although I don’t know anthing about his specialization) he just seems to lack the right recipie for commercial success. I’m not putting him down, the material is the same, exactly, point for point. Commercial success is important in the health and fitness industry because you want it to be dissemminated to the greats amount of people possible. Pavel, as a writer, is concise, clear, and entertaining. His programs are explained simply and effectively. I would say, if you want scientific rationale, go to the sources directly, almost every study is available to read on the internet. One is not better than the other, objectively speaking.
This is just my opinion, I like Pavel’s books. I have no problem with Kurtz, he is presenting the same information. If you like Kurtz better, so be it, no big deal. I would most likely find the acedemic portions of his books tedious (I find most books that go into long diatribes of citation tedious.) And since I generally read the actual studies, I would rather just see discussions of rationale used to underscore program development and practical application.
But as I said, that’s just me.
Leave a Comment