Psychoanalysis and the Bible: a psychoanalytic study of six Biblical personalities in the early history of Israel
INTRODUCTION
The Bible has played such a unique role in the history of western civilization that any study which might possibly add, in a small measure, to the undertones or overtones of its meaning, has a reason for being.
This inquiry started in a mood of curiosity about one incident in the Bible, JacobÆs dream, which had a special interest psychoanalytically. The wish for a fuller understanding of this episode led to an exploration which involved all the biblical material dealing with JacobÆs life history. The personality that emerged seemd to have impressive psychological validity, not only in terms of the isolated stories of his life, but also in the totality of behavior and character structure. The same method of study was then employed for five other biblical personalities in the early history of Israel. The character of Moses was not included because this great leader has already been the subject of psychoanalytic research, and that, by Freud himself.
The specific objective of this undertaking was to determine whether these six leaders of Israel have psychological validity as real people. That is, do they have a basic core of unity in their character structure which reveals itself throughout all the material dealing with their lives? Do the motivations and behavior patterns of each of these individuals show a consistency of response in many different situations, as we find in real people? In other words, do these personalities each have a clearly defined character structure?
It is not the purpose of this study to prove or disprove the historical authenticity of these biblical characters. Literary figures can also be real in the psychological senses.
The parts of the Bible that will be under consideration here are found in Genesis, First Samuel, Second Samuel, and the first six chapters of First Kings. The specific version upon which this analysis is based is an English translation, The Holy Scriptures, ôAccording to the Masoretic Text,ö published by The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1917. It is based on earlier versions and makes use of the scholarship of outstanding authorities in the field. When compared to the King James Bible, the translation used in this study was found to be more literal, sacrificing, at times, the smoothness of phraseology for the exactness of meaning.
The Method of the Study
The method that was used in this study was that of applied psychoanalysis, basically along Freudian lines. Psychoanalysis as an instrument of research is playing an increasingly significant role. Freud considered this function of psychoanalysis even more important than its clinical aspects. He utilized it in a number of studies in related fields, particularly in religion, the Bible, literature, and art.
The growth of this method of research is indicated by the large place given to applied psychoanalysis in such volumes as The Annual Survey of Psychoanalysis, an authoritative yearbook which was started in 1950. Of the three volumes now in existence, a large proportion of each is devoted to this area of the field. Impressive, too, from the same viewpoint are such works as the four volumes of Psychoanalysis and the Social Sciences, a series which was begun by Dr. Geza Roheim, anthropologist and psychoanalyst.
Psychoanalysis as a method of research is different in certain respects from its use as a therapy. In the latter situation, the chief goal is therapeutic and the interpretation of observed facts is limited by certain rules of technique, in which timing and the nature of the transference are of paramount importance. In therapy, also, the material dealt with is different, since it constitutes not only the attempted free associations of the patient, but the totality of his behavior.
Psychoanalysis, when used as an instrument of research, has a different goal. It can make full use of its psychological observations without regard for therapeutic consequences, but it is more limited in the area and scope of the material which is under observation because the patient himself is not present.
It is not the purpose of this study to ôproveö the validity of psychoanalysis as an applied method of research. Obviously, studies in this field have a different kind of validity from those of the so-called pure sciences. At the present time, a certain element of the subjective and the intuitive enters into such studies. On the other hand, such factors as the apparent universality of symbolism and the principles of psychic determinism make it possible to generalize on the basis of the subjective, contradictory though such an expression may seem. Most basic of all, a method of research must be evaluated on the ground of how well it is suited to the nature of the material with which it deals.
Divergent Points of View
It might be appropriate to indicate here that while this study accepts as its premise certain psychological concepts basic to the Freudian orientation, there are other schools of thought that differ in regard to some of the theories and hypotheses involved here. For example, the Freudian viewpoint accepts the idea of the universality of the Oedipus complex, regarding this phase of development as a genetic aspect, occurring regardless of the cultural climate.
Among those that take exception to this point of view are the so-called cultural psychoanalysts, such as the Horney group, who feel that cultural conditions rather than biological processes determine the characteristics of psychic growth and expression. Another school, founded by Harry Stack Sullivan, puts the emphasis on the element of interpersonal relationships, and feels that this factor is the basic one in deciding the patterns of personality development and growth.
Because of the recent books which deal at great length with these and other schools of psychoanalytic thought, it seems unnecessary to enter here into a comparative consideration of the varying points of view they represent.
Cultural anthropologists also differ in their opinions about the universality of certain psychological processes and phases of psychic growth. They tend to emphasize the importance of the specific cultures as the determining factors in the psychological development of the individual. They also question, for example, the validity of such a concept as a universal Oedipal complex.
Thus Kardiner believes that he has proved in his study of the Marquesan people that no Oedipus complex exists among them. One of the facts on which he bases his theory is that this matrilineal society practices polyandry. Utilizing LintonÆs field observations, Kardiner declares, ôFrom the arrangements of institutions we can safely rule out the element of father hatred.ö
Malinowski, the English anthropologist, came to similar conclusions in his study of the Trobriand Islanders, another matrilineal society.
However, Geza Roheim, anthropologist and psychoanalyst, on the basis of his own studies, refuted the findings of both Kardiner and Malinowski, thus supporting the Freudian point of view.
Muensterberger says in this connection, ôWhat the opponents of Freudian theory seem to undervalue is the biological basis of human needs and drives.ö
The Method and the Material
As a work of literature, the biblical narrative lends itself with a certain degree of readiness to the psychoanalytic process, for verbal expression facilitates a ready synthesis of conscious and unconscious elements. It also makes the use of symbolism easily available, not only on an individual level, but by providing a path of communication with what may be called the group psyche, or the collective unconscious.
The Bible presents the stories of its heroes in a manner and style quite peculiar to itself. This style can be compared to the way an analysand will frequently portray his life story. The latter contains a manifest content, the events and incidents as the patient has experienced them consciously, and a subterranean level, containing unconscious motivations and defenses of which the patient is unaware.
In the Bible, too, such separate currents are discernible. Frequently, incidents about the same personality are related as separate stories without any explanation of causal connections. What, for example, was the relationship between JacobÆs dream and the fact that he had deceived his father and run away from home? Viewed psychologically, we can see these connections and fit them into place. But the Bible does not make them explicit. It does not tell us that JacobÆs act of deception, which caused Isaac to give him the blessing of the first-born and thus made him the potential head of the family, may have stirred up feelings and fears of an unconscious nature, as well as the emotions that would logically belong to behavior of this kind. But it is the conflict aroused by these unconscious factors and the spiritual resources which Jacob mobilizes to deal with the struggle that come out in the dream. Again, no interpretation of the dream is given in the Bible. Its content is described, as well as the effect it had in strengthening JacobÆs courage and resolution. But the undercurrent of fear and guilt, and the nature of the attempted solution are not explained. They could not be because they were no doubt unconscious also in the minds of those who reproduced the story. But because the narrative deals with a basic human problem that touches a responsive chord in many people, whether it be with feelings of approval or disapproval, the main facts of the incident have remained intact as a psychological unity.
The analytic procedure in these studies utilizes the text in two ways. It uses the actual content of the narratives, its subject matter, to construct a picture of the personality involved. This content material is, of course, interpreted, the causal connections between separate incidents are established, hidden motivations are revealed, symbolic passages are analyzed, and other processes common to psychoanalytic procedure are carried out.
To a much lesser degree, but nevertheless significantly, the textual form also becomes the subject of study. It was not the purpose of this study to attempt a new approach to the problems of the biblical text. But when confronted with puzzling aspects in the material under scrutiny, it seemed necessary to deal with them. The biblical text, as is well-known, is full of baffling features. It contains passages that do not seem to make sense on a rational basis, sentences that seem to be out of context, words or phrases that are omitted, corrupt forms of words, repetitions of incidents that are often contradictory, and so forth.
Some of these inconsistencies give the impression of being errors made by scribes and editors who had a hand in the work. The repetitions are believed by many critics to be the result of compilations of different documents by zealous editors who were more concerned about preserving as much of the material as possible than about logic or consistency, although an effort was made to secure the latter also.
Many attempts have been made over the years by biblical students to unravel these mysteries of the text. In the face of so much effort along other lines, it does not seem too presumptious to attempt a different approach to some of these textual puzzles, this time based on psychoanalytic thinking and techniques. The results of this investigation were often rather surprising. The hidden meanings that came to light generally fitted in convincingly with the context in which they were found, helping to explain the motivation or behavior of the person under consideration. The textual puzzles, on occasion, seemed to serve the same purpose that resistances and defenses serve in hindering the flow of free associations in an analysand, occurring at times when repressed material is involved.
The Bible as a Product of the Group Mind
It seems reasonable to describe the Bible as a product of the group mind, expressive of the Hebrew people at a certain period of its development. In this respect, it can be compared to the myth and the folk-tale, which are also psychic products of the group.
It is generally assumed that oral tradition preceded the written word in Jewish historical life and in the making of the Bible. There are some rather fascinating aspects to the problem of group creativity, the process of the group mind, and how the product which evolves is transmitted through the generations. We shall not enter into this complex area except to observe that strong conservative forces can be at work in this process. We know how much emphasis both children and primitive people put upon exact repetition of words in stories and games as well as in the formula of rituals. Thus, when the narratives of the Bible were put into writing, it does not appear unlikely that the myth-makers and the story-tellers, who were probably also the first historians and scribes, put into writing large segments of oral tradition in the very form in which it grew up among the people.
Dr. Ezekiel Kaufman, a well-known authority, says in regard to the Pentateuchal Canon that although it ômight not date back earlier than the age of Ezra, he is convinced that the documents it comprises stem not alone in part or general content but in actuality of composition, in style, and in their very letters from remotest antiquity.ö
Even though individual story-tellers and scribes have done the actual work of writing down the biblical text, this body of literature is unquestionably a group literature, written for group use. The fact that it was treasured, preserved, and canonized by the group is indicative of its role.
Perhaps the most convincing aspect of the group spirit which dominates the Bible is the purpose which runs through it. Although this literature was hundreds of years in the making, although the many books which compose it are rich in variety of form and content, the theme which dominates this entire body of writing is the same. The tenor of the biblical story, as is well-known, is the relationship between man and God, and how this relationship and its moral implications effects the course of both individual and group history.
A number of writers in the fields of social science and psychoanalysis point out that groups tend to have dominant ideals that may be specific for them, and that there is an important reciprocal influence between the individual and the group in the development and maintenance of such ideals. Erik Erikson declares that ôMen who share an ethnic area, a historical area, or an economic pursuit, are guided by common images of good and evil.ö
Appraching the problem from the psychological viewpoint, Raymond De Saussure writes, ôPeople who have similar ways of sub-limation or defense mechanisms have a similar investment system and form cultural groups.ö He says at another point, ôSimilar affects will give predominant value to certain items of a civilization.ö
In view of these concepts we should be prepared to find what may prove to be a rather monotonous repetition of theme and psychological content in this study of six biblical leaders of early Israel. This theme, as the reader will soon discover, proves to be the Oedipal conflict and its relation to a specific type of group culture and religion.
Perhaps the basic thought with which this segment of the introduction should end is the query of why the history of this particular group of people, with its particular goal-oriented culture, as portrayed in the Bible, should continue to exert the kind of interest and fascination that it has done through the centuries. It may be that an effort to see the psychic reality these narratives contain will offer some clue to this question.
A Brief View of Biblical Exegesis
The content material to which the process of psychoanalytic investigation was applied consists of certain portions of the Bible. The period of Hebrew history involved is approximately from the eighteenth to the middle of the tenth centuries, B.C. This study will consider the material from the viewpoint of its present form, which is basically as we have known it for two thousand years. This is the content which has influenced the history and culture of the Judeo-Christian world. It is therefore a legitimate object of interest and study, in and of itself, apart from how it came to be. The Bible as we know it now has been a psychic reality for many hundreds of years. We shall consider its meaning and influence in this light.
However, for the purposes of background material, some brief facts about biblical exegesis may be appropriate here.
As one reviews the complex history of the efforts to probe into the obscure origins of the Bible, one fact stands out impressively - how little we know with certainty about the true birth pangs of this priceless literature. Not only its beginnings, but even the exact time of its final canonization, is indefinite.
Tradition ascribes this final compilation to a synod of Jewish scholars, the Men of the Great Assembly, at some time around the end of the first Christian century. Their motivation evidently was to preserve this literature during the period of turmoil following the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. Modern scholars, however, vary in their opinion regarding the time of this event, some placing it as far back as the middle of the second century, B.C., while others put it as far forward as the latter part of the second century of the Christian era, almost four hundred years later.
The same uncertainty prevails about the dates of authorship and the period when separate parts of the Bible were canonized, such as the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Writings. We will not enter into detail regarding these problems, for they have been the subject of many volumes. We shall, rather, present briefly some data that seem to be more or less acceptable to a number of scholars. The Pentateuch, or Five Books of Moses, came down to us as a unit, according to Dr. Solomon Goldman, a respected authority in this field. He says that if these books were ever known as separate scrolls, apart from each other, we have no record of such a time. Some scholars, however, believe that the book of Deuteronomy does have such a distinction and is synonymous with the book of laws discovered by King Josiah in the royal palace in 621 B.C.
We have known the Pentateuch in its present form from the time of its canonization, which was approximately three or four hundred years before the Christian era.
What we know with certainty about that part of the Bible called the Prophets is that it was obviously made up of independent scrolls and that it existed pretty much in its present order by the middle of the second century B.C. The third division of the Scriptures, the Writings, was probably a long time in the process of formation. Its canonization date is indefinite, opinion about the time of this event ranging from the second century B.C. to a period two hundred years later.
Suffice it to say that the Bible has been known in its present form for about two thousand years. The actual period of time covered by the Old Testament is from the days of Abraham to the period of the Maccabean revolt against the Syrian tyrant, Antiochus Epipanes, in the middle of the second century before the Christian era.
Critical approaches to the study of the biblical text were not wanting even among the rabbis of Talmudic days, nor was this attitude lacking during the Middle Ages. However, it was during the past two hundred years that the so-called school of modern biblical criticism produced a tremendous amount of painstaking research and a body of theory that has influenced the thinking of biblical scholars to the present time. This movement began in the middle of the eighteenth century but reached its peak among the German theologians of the middle nineteenth century. On the basis of what seemed like convincing internal evidence of various kinds, the material of the Bible, particularly the Pentateuch and Joshua, was divided into what looked like original separate documents. One of the major conclusions of this Documentary Hypothesis was that these first six books of the Bible, now called the Hexateuch, were mainly the work of four writers, each of whom had produced his material at widely separated periods of history. These accounts were later combined into one narrative by various redactors or editors. This theory of composite authorship reached further proportions in which each of the four chief sources was subdivided again and again, indicating a much larger number of original authors and editors. At one period in this development, the Hexateuch was divided into thirty-nine different strands, supposedly written at different periods and put together by various editors. In some instances even a single verse of the Bible was divided into parts and attributed to two different sources. This process became known as the fragmentation theory. The composite nature of the biblical narrative was used to explain various discrepancies, repetitions, and anachronisms of the text, problems which have puzzled biblical students throughout the ages.
Some of the more basic assumptions of the Documentary Hypothesis, such as its division into four major sources, were widely accepted during the better part of the past two hundred years and are still in vogue at the present time, although to a lesser degree. It might be stated, however, that at no time was there unanimous agreement on any of the theories, even in regard to its major premises, while concerning details, disagreement was continuously rife. In fact, a group of neo-critics grew up, who pointed out the ever-present loopholes and discrepancies of the earlier scholars. But as some of the problems seemed to yield to solution, others sprang up or remained as a stubborn hindrance to the general application of a principle.
The zeal for this so-called scientific approach to the understanding of the biblical text led to other departures. There was a reformulation of early Hebrew history, one of the chief proponents of which was Wellhausen, a German scholar of the nineteenth century. He perceived the ancient Hebrews as a group that had a long evolutionary history, beginning as an illiterate, semi-nomadic tribe with a polytheistic religion. He questioned the historical value of the Pentateuch, declaring that the early history of the Hebrews which it described was legendary, made up at a later date and projected backward in time to provide a suitable background for their history. This point of view, usually modified in terms of the length of the period thus treated, was widely accepted. The age of the Patriarchs, particularly, was regarded as legendary, a position maintained by many people to this day.
Within the past few decades, the previously popular theories of modern biblical criticism have lost some prestige. The foundations on which it rested were shaken by archeological findings which transformed the lands of the Bible from shadowy backgrounds to a reanimated world of vivid and indisputable realities. This new knowledge offered conclusive proof that the land of Canaan, connecting the two oldest centers of world culture, Babylonia and Egypt, was itself the home of a high degree of civilization at the time when the Hebrews became a distinctive group with a distinctive religion. Revisions were therefore necessary in the earlier concepts held by many adherents of modern biblical criticism that the Hebrews started life as a primitive, polytheistic group and that their evolution as a people was a very gradual one. One of the most important findings in terms of a new approach to the Bible was the fact that writing was a well-known and common skill at a far earlier time than the scholars of modern biblical criticism had believed. This means that the early history of the Hebrews, such as the period of the Patriarchs, could have been written down in a time almost contemporaneous with the events described in the Bible. Archeology, however, has done much more than this. It has made the whole background of the Patriarchal narratives a highly convincing one, for the spade has unearthed material evidence of the colorful social life so clearly described in the Bible.
Dr. Solomon Goldman, author of a scholarly survey of the whole field of biblical exegesis, points out the growing trend away from the theories of modern biblical criticism. He indicates that in many cases arguments for the Documentary Hypothesis were based on tenuous foundations. Dr. Goldman concludes ôIf events can be transformed into legends, why not men into myths? And what is exactly what Wellhausen and some of his followers did. They made of all Jewish heroes, from the Patriarchs to Solomon, humanized deities, or myths, or reflection of the life and customs of the monarchial period.ö
In his summary about the authorship of Genesis, Dr. Goldman expresses the opinion that ôThere is nothing in history, logic, common sense, or in what we know of the ancient Near East generally and Canaan particularly to compel us to doubt the historical authenticity of the Patriarchs. Every bit of information that the archeologistsÆ spade has brought to light has tended to confirm the reality of their existence and to convince us that the vivid portrayal of them in Genesis had its origin in life and not in legend.ö
In a somewhat milder tone, the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge observes, ôIn contrast to the general agreement on most major critical issues which obtained a generation ago, the whole field (of biblical criticism) today exhibits a remarkable fluidity. Many conclusions, once regarded as assured, have been called into question. As regards the Hexateuch, the Documentary Hypothesis continues to find wide acceptance. àThere is, however, a tendency to a decidedly less skeptical attitude regarding the historical value of the various traditions than was formerly the case. As knowledge of the ancient Orient has increased, not a few scholars have broken completely with the developmental pattern in which the Wellhausen criticism sought to explain the origins of IsraelÆs religion.
Sir Frederic Kenyon, a British archeologist, quotes in his book of recent date from Prof. S. H. Hooke in the latterÆs volume, Record and Revelation, ôThe outstanding result of recent archeological research has been the reconstruction, in far fuller detail than has hitherto been possible, of the whole background of Hebrew history from the fourteenth century to the sixth. It is safe to say that the general effect of the discoveries of the last decade has been to confirm the substantial accuracy of the picture of life in Canaan in the second millennium B.C., as described in the patriarchal narratives of Genesis, and to provide some ground for the view that written sources for this period may have existed at a much earlier date than has been commonly supposed.ö
Sir Frederic then states that the views he quoted are ôthe opinion of a scholar who will not be suspected of undue adherence to traditional views.ö
Another authority on biblical archeology, Dr. W. F. Albright, declares, ôAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob no longer seem isolated figures, much less reflections of later Israelite history; they now appear as true children of their age, bearing the same names, moving about the same territory, visiting the same towns (especially Harran and Nahor), practicing the same customs as their contemporaries. In other words, the patriarchal narratives have a historical nucleus throughout, though it is likely that long oral transmission of the original poems and later prose sagas which underlie the present text of Genesis has considerably refracted the original events. This process of handing down the ancient tradition by word of mouth from generation to generation led to the omission of many details which would have interested a modern historian, but it also brought about a recasting of tradition in more dramatic form, emphasizing its religious and pedagogical values. Our gain is thus far greater than any possible loss.ö
View original story : part+two
Feed : Dorothy Freda Zeligs
Accommodating Resistance with Tubes & Bands (Part 1) -- A Novel Approach to Improve a Serious Flaw!
By John Paul Catanzaro
Today, there are more training tools available for personal trainers than ever. How do you decide what equipment is best to use? Well, that really depends on the situation.
Let’s take resistance training, for example.
As far as I’m concerned, free weights reign supreme! Every time I’m asked what I think of this machine or that machine, my response is always the same: get yourself a simple barbell and dumbbell set with an adjustable bench and forget the rest. Period.
Many trainers find themselves in a situation where space and budget are limited, though, and free weights may not be the best option. Remember, resistance can come from many different sources.
Pros and Cons of Resistance Tubing and Bands
One such source that is quite popular in the field of personal training involves resistance tubing and bands.
These are portable devices that are relatively inexpensive and quite versatile. You can perform just about any exercise with a tube and they even come in different resistances (they are usually color-coded for this reason.)
With so many benefits, resistance tubes seem like the perfect training tool…except for a slight problem: If using elastics and one end is fixed, it creates resistance patterns that do not ideally match the torque-joint angle curves of your body because the bands increase resistance fairly linearly throughout the range.
The following two charts show the difference in muscle tension between free weight resistance and resistance tubing.
Adapted from Hartmann & Tunnemann, Fitness and Strength Training for All Sports, 1995, pg. 51
Fig. 1 -- Bell-shaped ascending-descending strength curve displayed with free weight resistance.
Fig. 2 -- Linear ascending strength curve displayed with resistance tubing.
Alright, so what’s the big deal if resistance tubing causes a linear ascending strength curve?
Well, the answer to that is simple: tubing encourages the disproportionate development of accelerators versus decelerators, and that my friends, can lead to injury (for a visual demonstration visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LysSUBMqKnc).
In fact, out of 16 cases of rotator cuff tendonitis reported by the national synchronized swim team of Canada, all but one case were corrected by eliminating tubing and using dumbbells instead.
Tubing exercises are quite popular in the rehabilitative setting to train the rotator cuff muscles, but obviously, there is a big difference between using dumbbells and elastics.
To take it one step further, when performing shoulder external or internal rotations for example, dumbbells provide a greater overload in the bottom position and tubes provide a greater overload in the top position. You can combine the two during a set (i.e. hold onto both a dumbbell and tube) or use a cable to provide a relatively even overload throughout; however, two problems exist with these methods:
Assuming that you have access to a cable apparatus (many home gyms do not), most weight stacks start at 10 pounds, which is far too heavy for the average person.
It is difficult to adjust for individual leverages and fatigue, but there is a way…
This is where the concept of accommodating resistance applies, and it is so versatile with a tube or band -- it can be used on almost any exercise!
The Concept of Accomodating Resistance to the Rescue
Here is a little trick I learned from the late Dr. Mel Siff. Basically, the concept is simple: use an exercise tube or band and have a partner follow the movement pattern to accommodate strength (i.e. give more or less resistance when needed.) Just remember to keep the movement smooth. When applying passive resistance, it’s not a competition!
That’s all there is to it.
With this novel technique, a serious flaw of training with elastics is rectified. All of a sudden, more pros and less cons!
Pros
No sophisticated equipment is required.
Can produce a more even strength curve.
Can increase time-under-tension (TUT) to desired length – terminate set once particular TUT is achieved.
Cons
Requires a training partner.
Lack of objectivity (this can be offset somewhat by recording size of tube and distance of hand position.)
Examples
Let’s examine some shoulder movements using accommodating resistance with tubes.
Holistic Health Practitioner and Neuromuscular Therapist, Paul Chek, has a famous motto: “First Isolate, Then Integrate!” So with that said, let’s start with some isolation exercises.
Isolation Exercise for the Subcapularis Muscle
Some authorities feel that the subcapularis is the missing link to unlocking true strength of the upper extremities and improving shoulder strength and health. Many therapists often claim that this muscle tests weak and should be subsequently trained.
Well, the reason for this is due primarily to poor posture, or more specifically, rounded shoulders (i.e. a kyphotic posture) that is so prevalent in today’s society. This is a case of a tight and weak muscle.
Due to an extreme amount of internal rotation, the subscap (an internal rotator of the humerus) becomes extremely tight and facilitated. Since the sarcomeres (actin and myosin) experience full interdigitation, it becomes difficult to contract any further.
Therefore, in order to strengthen these fibers, they must first be placed in an optimum position to contract effectively – you accomplish that goal with appropriate stretching and myofascial release (e.g. A.R.T.)
Only after this is accomplished should the subscapularis be trained with resistance.
Isolation Exercise for the Infraspinatus Muscle
Another muscle that tests weak is the infraspinatus, an external rotator of the humerus, but for different reasons than above. It is usually long and weak – the actin and myosin filaments are not in optimum position for maximum force output. This particular rotator cuff muscle has appeared often in recent literature due to the lack of shoulder external rotation in many strength training programs creating a muscle imbalance.
Robert Lardner, a European Physical Therapist trained by among others Janda, reveals an interesting concept for rotator cuff exercises:
“To grab a dumbbell requires flexion of the arm muscles. The flexion muscles are so strong that these phasic (flexion) muscles will override the extensor (tonic) muscles. So all the guys lying on their sides are really doing mostly a bicep/brachia movement.So, what is the proper way to exercise these muscles?The best way is to have your hand open with your fingers spread and have the resistance strapped to your wrist, either through a rubber band or a cable. Then go through the extending motion that you wish to exercise."
It may indeed be more effective to perform many of the exercises listed in this article with an open hand. Try it and see if you can notice a difference.
Proper Execution of the ‘Pullover’ Exercise
Let’s move on to another common shoulder movement, the pullover. Many trainers prescribe this exercise to correct a winging scapulae.
Guess what? That is the wrong approach!
In order to remedy this situation, the serratus anterior, rhomboids and middle/lower trapezuis should be trained.
The pullover does not effectively target these muscles; in fact, it hits the specific muscles (particularly the latissmus dorsi and subscapularis) that cause winging scapulae (Polquin, 1997).
Furthermore, the dumbbell pullover is often performed over a bench. This method is inviting an abdominal hernia as well as overstressing the shoulder joint (especially if the trainee has tight shoulders!)
A far better approach is to perform the exercise on a decline bench or on the floor as depicted below to avoid maximum overload on the shoulder joint in extreme extension. In other words, by shortening the range of motion, it is safer for your shoulders. Also, avoid excessively arching your back by pressing your spine into the bench or floor and keeping your core tight throughout. Hence, your abdominals must act as stabilizers during the movement.
Integration Exercises
Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) patterns are a series of movements developed by Herman Kabat and featured in a classic text by Knott & Voss. Although many trainers and therapists perceive PNF as a form of stretching, it is much more than that – it involves a series of spiral movements that cross the midline of the body. In doing so, all planes are crossed: vertical/horizontal extension/flexion, abduction/adduction, and internal/external rotation occur in one movement.
By using accommodating resistance with bands and tubes, you remove a major flaw associated with elastic resistance to provide a more even strength curve throughout the range of motion.
Instead of a rather inferior training tool, you now have a potent weapon at your disposal!
About the Author
John Paul Catanzaro, B.Sc., C.K., C.E.P., is a Certified Kinesiologist and Certified Exercise Physiologist with a Specialized Honours Bachelor of Science degree in Kinesiology and Health Science. He owns and operates a private gym in Richmond Hill, Ontario providing training and nutritional consulting services. For additional information, visit his website at www.BodyEssence.ca or call 905-780-9908.
Check out John Paul’s DVD, Warm-Up to Strength Training, for some powerful techniques to increase strength and improve performance. It has received a thumbs-up from many experts including Drs. Eric Serrano, Mark Lindsay, and Ken Kinakin as well as Olympic strength coach, Charles Poliquin. Visit www.StrengthWarmUp.com for more information.
References
Chek, P. Program Design: Choosing Reps, Sets, Loads, Tempo, and Rest Periods. Paul Chek Seminars, 1995.
Korfist, C. Weakest Link Theory. Intensity Magazine, 2002. http://www.intensitymagazine.com/05-14-02/chris_korfist.html
Poliquin, C. The Poliquin Principles. Napa, CA: Dayton Writers Group, 1997.
Siff, MC., Verkhoshansky, YV. Supertraining 4th Edition. Denver, CO: Supertraining International, 1999.
View original story : part+two
Feed : Natural Health Articles on Dr. Mercola’s Members Only Blog
