This digest contains the following messages:

Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:41:27 EST
From: FlexWriter@aol.com
Subject: Re:  Attitude Determines Altitude


Jack Melon wrote:

<
> ...It is hardly something I enjoy doing. The workouts are so brutally
intense that I 
> often become nauseous before I even begin to work out, due to the anxiety 
> caused by thinking about what I'm about to subject myself to. >>

>> From: rselectric@mindspring.com
> My PUSH comes from stupidity and not
> knowing when to stop. It depends on my day (good/bad and health and
> partner), with out a challenge from a partner i am not much. you only see
> the side of me that does not want to fail in front of my partner so he (you)
> will not accept failure.>>

<>

I'm with you, Jack.  I absolutely love training.  The pure brute sensation of
feeling my muscles overcome a heavy weight.... the sense of accomplishment
that comes from setting a new PR... the pump... the knowledge that when I
complete a set of squats or deadlifts to failure that I've just done something
few can force themselves to do.  Training is never a chore for me (except,
maybe for the last few weeks before a contest), it's a pleasure, and I CAN'T
STAND IT when someone in the gym gives me that "poor pitiful me" look and
whines that he's glad he's almost finished or that he hates being here, or why
does he subject himself to this torture (yeah, like he's even working out
hard!), or similar sentiments. 

Top

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 15:23:20 -0800
From: "James Krieger" 
Subject: The 4 not-so hypothetical situations

I've been hanging on to this one, since I haven't had time to respond to
it.  Now I've finally gotten a break to give my response.

"ANDREW BAYE (AB): If a person's strength has increased significantly,
without any significant hypertrophy, then the only rational assumption
would be
that all the strength increases were the result of improvements in skill
and
neuromuscular adaptation. Those can only improve so much before the
subject would be training at a level of intensity high enough to stimulate
actual
muscular strength increases, which would be associated with size
increases. "

We obviously both agree on the idea of neural adaptations.  However, you
are claiming here that after a period of time, increases in size MUST
occur, and that neural adaptations can only occur to a certain extent. 
While the concept of strength gains resulting from neural adaptations early
on in a resistance training program and later on from hypertrophy is
supported in the scientific literature, it is not a hard and fast rule.  
Significant strength gains have been observed in advanced athletes with
little or no concurrent hypertrophy (1,2);  presumably, these athletes, due
to their experience, should have reached their limit as far as neural
adaptations are concerned, but they obviously have not.  Therefore, neural
adaptations can play a significant role in strength gains no matter what
the experience level.

"AB:Of course, this is truly a "hypothetical situation." I've had old women
on reduced calorie diets make obvious gains of muscle mass in periods as
short as 6 weeks. Hell, I've had one woman add 3/4 inches to her arm using
SuperSlow following Arthur's arm routine (which you can read about in one
of Rob's
article's on Cyberpump!). I have yet to train anyone who has not made
significant progress relative to their potential after only a few weeks."

There are many people in this world who have never seen snow, but that does
not mean that snow does not exist.  Just because you've never seen a client
make significant progress without a gain in muscle size does not mean that
this cannot occur.  This situation is much less "hypothetical" then you
think.

"JK: From my understanding of your philosophies, I cannot see how this can
be done. Please do not claim that it could not happen, because Matt Brzycki
recently added 100 lbs to his trap bar deadlift within a year with
absolutely
no increase in muscle size.
AB: No, that's not what he said. He said "no increase in body weight" not
"no increase in muscle size." There is a huge difference between the two."

Maybe Matt can clarify for us if he had any noticeable change in body
composition over this period.  Calling the HIT Jedi...are you out there?

"AB: He wants to be stronger, but he does not want to gain any muscle
whatsoever. Hmmmm. Hypothetical situation indeed."

Not so "hypothetical."  You just said yourself earlier that you can gain
strength without size, i.e. that neural adaptations are possible.

On a side note, someone on a Heavy Duty protocol recently emailed me,
telling me how they've gained significant strength yet muscle size has gone
nowhere over a period of months.

"AB: It would appear so, if you are not aware of the problems and
limitations of the testing tools and methods used to determine such, as
well as the
flaws inherent in this premise. There is a difference between STIMULATING
muscular strength increases, which involve an increase in the thickness of
the
actin and myosin filaments and increases in myofibrils, which of course
means
an increase in size, however slight it may be, and SKILL conditioning, or
strictly neural adaptations, which is a whole different subject, and
would require more explanation that is practical for the digest."

Neural adaptations have much more to do with strength development then
simple skill conditioning.  Even an exercise that takes very little
"skill", such as a leg extension, will result in significant complex neural
adaptations (such as alterations in patterns of motor unit recruitment)
that greatly effect strength.  The adaptive changes that occur in the
nervous system is still not well understood.

"AB:The idea that training the lifter to failure, or using more than 5
repetitions per set would cause some deterioration of form might be true IF
I were to
have him perform his competition lifts in such a fashion as part of his
strength training. Of course, understanding the distinction between
strength and
skill training, I would make no such mistake. The lifter would follow a HIT
program specifically addressing the muscular structures involved in the
Olympic
lifts, training to failure on every damn exercise, every damn workout. On a
different day, he would practice the Olympic lifts. There would be NO
negative
transfer of motor skills between the exercises he would perform in his
strength
training and the lifts he would perform for his skill training."

I must ask you, how do you have these athletes practice their Olympic
lifts?  With a dowel?  A bar?  There is a significant difference between
simply practicing Olympic lifts and actually doing them with significant
weight.

I honestly feel that your approach would not adequately prepare an Olympic
lifter for competition.  First, strength gains are HIGHLY specific to
exercises that are performed.  While you could train the muscles used in an
Olympic lift using HIT methods, these strength gains would not carry over
very efficiently to an actual Olympic lift.  Another important factor in
Olympic lifting is rate of force development, which is a trainable quality.
 Olympic lifters must produce a large amount of force in a very minimal
time (i.e. a very high power output).  Simply training a muscle to produce
more force may not adequately increase that muscle's ability to produce
maximum force in minimal time.  In light of these aspects, it is absolutely
essential for an Olympic lifter to train using Olympic lifts and their
components (such as a front squat).

"AB:Unless other factors were responsible, it is highly unlikely that one
would lose any actual muscular strength after such a short layoff."

The squat ability of Olympic lifters has been shown to decline
approximately 10% during a 4 week layoff (3).

"JK: Please tell me how your philosophy explains what has happened. 
Please do not claim that this could not happen, because it happened to me
during
the days when I embraced HIT just as much as you do, and definitely was not
misapplying any of the principles.
AB: I am not so sure of that."

Please explain to me how I was misapplying the principles.

"AB: Of course, this is a hypothetical situation, and a rather vague one
at that. Realize that there are many factors such as complete inactivity,
insufficient sleep or nutrition, illness, psychological/motivational
factors,
etc can also affect a persons performance which have to be considered. I
would first question the subject regarding these other factors."

During my layoff:

1.  I had no illness at all
2.  I was under no form of severe psychological stress at all
3.  My sleeping patterns remained the same as they had been during training
4.  My caloric intake remained the same during the detraining period

Basically, the only difference was that I was not training.  All other
variables were basically the same when comparing my training period to my
nontraining period.

Doesn't seem so hypothetical.  It actually happened.

"AB:Now, James, why don't you tell us what YOU would do in such situations,
so that we may all discuss and evaluate your solutions to these truly very
hypothetical situations?"

Situation #1:  The bodybuilder is getting stronger and not getting bigger. 
Obviously, his training protocol is adequate to induce neural adaptations
but is inadequate to produce hypertrophic adaptations.  One of the proposed
mechanisms behind muscle hypertrophy is the body's response to the muscle
damage caused by resistance training (4).   This bodybuilder's training
protocol is inadequate to produce a significant amount of protein
degradation to induce hypertrophy.  Therefore, the only answer is to
increase training volume to induce a hypertrophic stimulus (4);  research
by Baker et al (5) supports the idea of a relationship between hypertrophy
and training volume in advanced athletes.  Research by Dudley et al (6) and
Ostrowski et al (7) supports the idea of a minimal training volume needed
to induce hypertrophy.  We have all discussed the idea of a "growth/no
growth" point previously.  We could further break this down into the idea
that the minimal stimulus needed to induce neural adaptations may be
different from the minimal stimulus needed to induce significant
hypertrophic adaptations, depending upon the athlete's training level and
experience.  In this bodybuilder's case, while his training is an adequate
stimulus to induce neural adaptations, it is inadequate to produce the
level of muscle damage needed to induce significant hypertrophy.

Situation #2:  To increase this athlete's strength without increasing his
size, his training must focus around extremely high intensity weights (5 RM
or less) with extremely long rest periods, to focus training the ATP-CP
system.  The use of extremely high intensity weights keeps training volume
to a bare minimum, ensuring that protein degradation is small.  However,
the use of such heavy weights presents a significant neural stimulus to
increase this athlete's strength with having little effect on his muscle
size.

Situation #3:  Training for an Olympic lifter should focus around the
Olympic lifts themselves and their components.  Rather than establish RM
loads, loads would be prescribed as percentages of 1 RM, with loads
increasing and training volume decreasing as competition approaches. 
Technical lifts would not be prescribed with more than 5 reps per set
(preferably 3 or less).  Other lifts, such as front squats, would be done
for higher repetitions, since fatigue does not represent as much of an
obstacle to technique in these lifts.

Situation #4:  The layoff resulted in a slight regression of neural
adaptations that had been induced by training.  To avoid such problems in
the future, layoffs should be shorter, or light to moderate training could
be prescribed for part of the layoff period to help maintain neural
adaptations, if it is critical to the individual that they do not lose
strength over the layoff period.

"AB:As well as your answer to the following hypothetical situation:
"

First, someone else already adequately answered this question.

Second, I have no idea why you brought up the infamous story of Casey
Viator.  What does it have to do with this discussion?


References:

1.  Baechle, T.R. (ed.)  Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. 
Champaign, IL:  Human Kinetics.  	1994.

2.  Garhammer, J., and B. Takano.  Training for Weightlifting.  In: 
Strength and Power in Sport, ed. P.V. 	Komi, 357-369.  Oxford:  Blackwell
Scientific.  1992.

3.  Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Kraemer.  Designing Resistance Training Programs.
 Champaign, IL:  Human 	Kinetics.  1997.

4.  Behm, D.G.  Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance
training.  J. Strength and Cond. 	Res.  9(4):264-274.  1995.

5.  Baker, D., G. Wilson, and R. Carlyon.  Periodization:  The effect on
strength of manipulating volume and 	intensity.  J. Strength and Cond. Res.
 8(4):235-242.  1994.  

6.  Dudley, G.A., P.A. Tesch, B.J. Miller, and P. Buchanan.  Importance of
eccentric actions in performance 	adaptations to resistance training. 
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.  62:543-50.  1991.

7.  Ostrowski, K.J., G.J. Wilson, R. Weatherby, P.W. Murphy, and A.D.
Lyttle.  The effect of weight training 	volume on hormonal output and
muscular size and function.  J. Strength and Cond. Res.  11(3):148-	154. 
1997.


James


Top

Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:20:21 EST
From: DrewBaye@aol.com
Subject: Re: Berserker, Cybex machines

Berserker,
I could not agree more. The Cybex VR2 line is some of the worst equipment out
there. The machines do not track muscle/joint function properly, the
resistance curves are horrible, and many of the machines (particularly their
leg extension and curl machines) violate muscular sufficiency principles as
well as several other very basic considerations of exercise equipment design.
Cybex are not the only ones though. Sadly, most of the equipment out there is
crap, and even the best manufacturers like MedX and Nautilus, could still do
quite a few things to improve their current lines. For more on exercise
equipment design principles, go to http://www.superslow.com/es14.html

Andrew M. Baye
Top

Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:35:13 EST
From: DrewBaye@aol.com
Subject: Re: Swiss Balls

Regarding Sandeep's suggestion that I elaborate on my statement about swiss
balls being dangerous: it should be completely obvious why exercises performed
on these things are dangerous. Performing an exercise without a stable base
(whether that be the floor, a bench, or a seat in a machine) carries an
increased risk of losing one's balance and becoming injured. It does not take
an engineering PhD to figure this out. The notion that one must perform
exercise in an unbalanced manner to address stabilizing muscular structures is
also erroneous. See my article on Cyberpump for more on that.

Re: crunches over swiss balls. The same full ROM (range of movement) provided
by performing crunches over swiss balls can just as effectively and far more
safely be accomplished using a narrow flat bench.

Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
Top

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 19:11:44 -0500
From: Bryan Kimble 
Subject: aerobics

I have been following the HIT policy of eliminating traditional aerobic
exercise from my workout since September 1997.  Since then, I have went
from 175 lbs @ 12.5% bodyfat to now 181 lbs @ 9.5% bodyfat.  My diet and
weight training have not been significantly altered.  This is the only
thing.  But there is one problem:  I still seem to have fat stores around
the lower abdominal/oblique area ["spare tire" effect].  Upper and middle
abs are defined, but not the lower.  I have had this problem in the past
also when getting ready for contest.  Any suggestions?
Yours in Christ,
Bryan S. Kimble
Ezra 7:10
Top

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 05:29:47 PST

From: "Brad Collins" 

Subject: Arm Training



How about getting a thread going on arm routines.  Since arms are 

probably THE most worked bodypart in gyms across the world why not?



Anyone want to share some thoughts and routines on arm training?



Brad




Top

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 19:27:39 -0500
From: Sandeep De 
Subject: Re: Swiss Balls

> with the rest of the body and you will feel the burn around the ankle), but
> to go as far as squatting on a ball is kind of 'unjustified extrapolation'
> of the concepts.

Stephen;

Your opinion on the issue is soundly reasoned. Unfortunately, I think
that oversimplification of the practicality of swiss balls is an easy
trap to fall into here. There is in actuality hoardes of justification
for the training. Unfortunately it would probably be over the heads of
the majority of the lifting population (myself included at the present
time). Sure, upon first glance it does not make sense to utilize swiss
balls. But to a child, it is most probable that the practice of lifting
weights seems equally stupid! WHY? I am not likening anyone to a child
here; just that for the value of swiss ball training to be understood,
it must be argued for at the highest level of proficiency. There are
hundreds of people out there who think weightlifting is equally
pointless! When I have spoken to Chek in the past he has told me that
often his most ardent opponents turn out to be those who later become
the biggest proponents of swiss ball training. Typically people will
attack what they do not understand, and once they allow the opportunity
for that comprehension to occur - the world changes around them. Keeping
a closed mind is just as bad as keeping one so open that your brain
falls out! In any event with these people the enthusiasm is merely
redirected once the scientific basis of the training is understood. And
Chek has gone up against highly conservative university employed
exercise physiologists and researchers to more progressive and open
minded strength coaches who look for "every edge possible". So there is
merit to the training- which can easily be illustrated through
scientific proof - but might be overkill for the scope of this list.

----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"
Top

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 22:50:35 -0800
From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts)
Subject: Aerobics

I'm not sure what side of the aerobics debate I'm on but I think that I
tend to lean more to the thought that there is more to it (again) than
which can be determined by "rational" deduction.
I have only anecdotal evidence to go by but:
1)When I used to do aerobics (running and bicycling) biking on the flats
I was as fast or faster than anyone in my group. But, when we took to
the steep hills I'd get left behind. Endurance did not translate to
strength although my legs were hard as rock.
2)On one backpacking trip we took along a young football player from our
church college group. Carrying a 50# pack, near the top of the first
pass (11,000+ ft.) he was exhausted and vomiting. Strength did not
translate to endurance.
3)I have not done much aerobics for years. Befor I started working out,
my legs would start giving out after a half day of skiing. Since I
started lifting I can go all day and then some. Strength translated to
endurance.
4)one last thought. A slow heart rate indicates an efficient
cardiovascular system (excluding pathology). When I was doing aerobics
my resting  heart rate was 50/min. I consider myself to be in generally
better overall health today than at any previous time in my life yet,
after 3 yrs. of lifting, my resting rate is 60. I think aerobics does
translate over to a more efficient pump (i.e. heart).
I'm not convinced that aerobics is the total waste of time that the SSG
would indicate.

Ken  
Top

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:07:51 -0800
From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts)
Subject: Squats

I HATE squats! I am 6'1" and have long legs and feel awkward and like I
am having to move a freaking mile from standing to parallel and back
forjust one stinking rep. And the thought of having to do 20 of the
suckers makes me dizzy befor I even begin. 
On the other hand I actually kinda like dead lifts.  
My question is this (actually two questions): are there any other 6+
footers who have faced and overcome the same problem? What did you do?
Is it ok to substitute the D.L. for the squat? I guess I'm kinda asking
"Do I really haveta squat?"(sorry. didn't mean to whine).

Ken
Top

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 05:57:18 EST

From: JawDogs@aol.com

Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #98



Issue #1 -- RE: ACL Tear by Lyle McDonald



There is, in fact, nothing wrong with doing leg extension exercises for knee

rehab so long as there is no pain while doing the exercise. This goes for just

about any exercise one does. The shearing forces that Mr. McDonald talks of

can be controlled by controlling the speed of motion while performing terminal

knee extensions. I have personally rehabilitated hundreds of knees using knee

extensions (as well as leg presses, knee flexion, etc.) with tremendous

success. For the most part, it is not so much what you do, but how you do it.

I could say more, but Rob wants these posts kept short.



[Hey, I didn't mean they had to be short.  Just not "too long".  Within reason.  

--Rob]





Issue #8 -- RE Medicine Balls by Jon Ziegler



All I can say about this is if you value the health of your midsection, it is

unwise to thrash it with any object, be it a bat or a ball -- even though the

object being used to pulverize yourself is preceded with the word "medicine"

or other such smoke-screen like adjetives. Suggestion: Spinal flexion

exercises. Much safer. Much more effective.


Top

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 19:21:35 -0500
From: Bryan Kimble 
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #98

> --------------------  2  --------------------
> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:50:59 +0200
> From: 
> Subject: Re:Deadlift
> 
> In HIT Digest #97 Jeffrey Hall asked about deadlifts. I would like to
share
> my experience on this lift.
> 
> First off, there is no question in my mind that this is the most
effective
> exercise there is. The question is not what muscles the DL works, but
> rather what muscles it doesn't work. After a good DL w/o I feel my arms,
> shoulders, traps, all my back, hams and glutes. This is the most compound
> of the compound exercises. This exercise will give you great returns on
> your investment.
> 
> The most important thing to remember while doing deads is form. Never,
ever
> sacrifice form on this lift. You can seriouslly injure your back.
> I decided to deadlift about 5 months ago. I also started with the bar
only
> and experienced lower back pain. I then switched to Sumo style and the
back
> pain vanished. I am also tall (6"2) and long legged. Sumo places less
> strain on the lower back and more on the glutes.
> 
> Go slowly and deadlift only once a week. I do not reccommend  going to
> failure on this lift. It's too dangerous. Start out with 3 sets of 8 - 10
> reps. Advance cautiously.
> 
> After you have the technique down try doing two good work sets. 
> Today I can do one near failure set of 8 reps at 90kgs. Before that I do
2
> -3 warmup sets. 
> 
> Again let me stress that the real life benefits from this lift are great
> but one must progress with great caution.
> 
> Good luck.
> Y. Zohar
Some very good facts and information about deadlifts.  I only have a couple
comments.
1)  Actually, deadlifts are the second most effective exercise.  Squat
actually utilizes more muscles.
2)  I have had no problems going to failure [with good form] on deadlifts. 
On this past Tuesday, I used 225 pounds and was able to get 19 reps before
reaching failure.  I would recommend to continue to perform it until you
cannot complete one more rep in good form.
3)  I have found that higher reps [15-20] with good form produce better
results in size, not necessarily with strength.  I use wrist straps because
my grip strength will give out before that.
Yours in Christ,
Bryan S. Kimble
Ezra 7:10
Top

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:13:42 EST
From: SFarrin261@aol.com
Subject: Re: ABCDE Diet

I saw a post on an earlier digest asking about experience with the Anabolic
Burst Diet. Sorry this is so late but I've been catching up on back digests. 

I started using the ABCDE diet 21 Nov. 97. My body weight was 206, I was
struggling to get above 210 to no avail. I would stab upwards to about 208 and
then fall back comfortably to round 206.  For 2 weeks prior to starting the
diet I was sick and did no work out. I consumed approx. 1800 Cal../ day. so I
just jumped into the High Calorie portion at approx. 4265 Cal./day. Results:
for the first week and 2 days I moved up to around 209 then on day 8, I began
taking on some serious weight. I gained approx. 2 lbs./day and blew past a
long standing plateau of 3 months right to 215 with no gains the last day. My
training consisted of a HIT style, double split routine, all upper body one
day then 4 -5 days later all lower body; no more than 7 exercises per session;
1 set to failure.

I have been thru 3 cycles since (on low Cal. phase now). I have gone as low as
204 and gone up to 217 as of last Friday. I was disappointed at not reaching
220 but when I measured that same day I had gained an inch and a quarter on my
chest/lats and lost a half an inch on my gut, along with assorted other gains.

I had no noticeable benefits to the protein cycling that is detailed on the
MM2k home page so I dropped it. I believe this next high Cal. cycle I am going
to drastically increase my Cal./day above the recommended  additional100
calories/ cycle. I'm toying with the idea of adding 300+ because I believe the
"Shock" of that many calories after practically starving for 2 weeks, is what
sent my body weight skyrocketing the first time. 

My Opinion of the ABCDE diet. I like it. Reason # 1 I'm cheap so cycling my
nutritional needs up and down generally costs less money than constantly
trying to forge ahead with ever increasing caloric intakes, which don't seem
to yield big results anyway. Reason #2 it's easy. I can stay well diciplined
for 2 weeks at a time knowing that the next phase (high or low calorie, take
your pick) is just around the corner.

Just a side note. I am very interested in getting any feedback regarding this
diet and/or my training. I keep excellent records of almost everything. I am
always striving to improve. I think more discourse involving the specific
details (ie. poundages, calories...) of peoples training or nutrition could
help us all to find some pattern for success. I can be reached at SFarrin261 @
aol.com. 

God Bless - Sean
Top

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 18:47:34 -0800
From: wellworn@juno.com
Subject: Swiss Ball Spasms

Just one thought on the sometimes torrid exchanges on Swiss Ball useage.
	Perhaps Mr Chek is doing the Swiss Ball squats just to
demonstrate the development of his stabilizer conditioning. Observing two
of his videos was certainly encouraging and inspiring to me. My free
weight rack squats are safer now from what I have learned. Making gains
without injury is still important in my training. 
	Along with one of my home gym posters..."Ego out - Brain in" is
now
a new one...."No Brain - No Gain".    Thanks Erkki and Steve.    Ed

Ed Bennett
the aged gym rat
wellworn@juno.com

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Top

Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 12:08:10 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Re: Warmups

>Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:15:40 -0800
>From: YVRWFC@netcom.ca
>Subject: Warm up..how much is enough?
>
>Hi..

>I hv tried to lower the level of difficulty when doing the 36min warm up
>or sometimes i reduce the total time.. am i cheating? or i just lack of
>energy or strength?

As I'm sure others will echo, this is FAR too much warmup IMO.  While some
feel that no aerobic warm up is necessary prior to strength training, I
think a little is a good insurance policy to avoid injury.  But, as soon as
you're sweating, you're as warm as you're gonna get/need to be.  For most
people, that takes 5-10 minutes maximum (depending on a lot of factors
including gym temperature and level of conditioning).  Personally, I think
people should find the absolute minimum amount of warmup that allows them
to lift safely and effectively without tiring them out.  This means the
minimum of cardio to break a sweat.  And warmup sets (if you do them)
should be low reps, less than 5 (unless yo'ure stil working on form).
Generating lots of lactic acid with your warmups (by doing 12-15 reps) will
just detract from your real working sets.

For example, a leg workout for someone squattin 225 would be:
few minutes on the bike (until you sweat)
Stretch calves, quads and hams.
135X4
185X2
205X1
225X work sets

If you do cardio, do it after your workout.  It will act as a cooldown and,
in theory, you may use more bodyfat for fuel (since you've lowered blood
glucose and depleted muscle glycogen to some degree) which *may* (big
*may*) increase fat loss.

Lyle McDonald, CSCS


Top

Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 15:15:35 EST
From: DrewBaye@aol.com
Subject: Re: Shear Forces, or Sheer Nonsense?

<>

>From the article, "Shear Forces or Shear Nonsense"
(http://www.superslow.com/es22.html)

"...there is tremendous value in both compound and simple movements. But for
certain purposes, especially early-stage rehabilitation, simple, single joint
knee exercises -- knee extension exercises, knee flexion exercises -- are
best. The
safety crux in rehabilitation is control of the forces at the affected joint,
which control is impossible when multiple-joint, compound movements are
involved. Only with single-joint exercises can we precisely control the forces
on the affected joint
and stabilize the remainder of the body. Then, and only by moving slowly and
pinning off for pain-free arcs, coupled with detailed, hands-on attention to
the patient, can excessive and harmful forces be controlled."

Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
Top

-------------------- 16 --------------------

Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:24:48 EST
From: DrewBaye@aol.com
Subject: Re: Abbreviations, BFS

BFS is the acronym for Bigger, Faster, Stronger, and organization which
promotes high volume, ballistic, so-called sports specific training. Typical
NSCA party-line mentality.

Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
Top

-------------------- 17 --------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 19:17:28 -0500
From: "Robert Spector" 
Subject: Matt Brzycki's Reply


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Brzycki 
To: rspector@earthlink.net 
Date: February 5, 1998 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Matt called out on digest


>
>> I have no reason to reject this.  I know Krieger isn't insulting you, or
>> anyone else.
>>
>> Just to let you nWo what's going on in advance.  It's my new finishing
move
>> called
>> the Insider Edge.
>>
>> R.
>>
>> > JK: From my understanding of your philosophies, I cannot see how this
can
>> be
>> > done. Please do not claim that it could not happen, because Matt
Brzycki
>> > recently added 100 lbs to his trap bar deadlift within a year with
>> absolutely
>> > no increase in muscle size.
>> >
>> > AB: No, that's not what he said. He said "no increase in body weight"
not
>> "no
>> > increase in muscle size." There is a huge difference between the two.
>>
>> My response:
>> Maybe Matt can clarify for us if he had any noticeable change in body
>> composition over this period.  Calling the HIT Jedi...are you out there?
>
>Here!  Thank goodness for the Force -- otherwise I never would've
>gotten this message.  I haven't had a body composition measurement
>done in several years, so I have no idea what happened to my lean body
>mass during the period in question.  All I know for certain is that there
was
>no change in my bodyweight.
>
>Matt
>
>

Top