-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: HIT Digest #104 - from Sandeep De
Top
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:18:10 -0500 From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #104 > From: "Marcus C. Tate" <mtate@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> > (1) A few months ago I saw a formula for predicting 1RMs using sets with up to > 10 reps. Unfortunately, I didn't write it down. Since then a few web sources I've got a table of 1RM conversions at http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/guide.htm . ---------- Sandeep De The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/ "We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. ABCDE diet - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:13:55 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: ABCDE diet >Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:55:58 -0500 (EST) >From: "R.A. Onufer" <onuferra@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> >Subject: ABCDE diet > > I read some real positive comments about using what was called the >ABCDE diet for gaining mass. What is this diet? What does it consist of? I >haven't heard about it >Roy > >[Lyle?] The ABCDE diet was proposed in Muscle Media 2000 as the revolutionary new way to gain mass without gaining fat. It consists of 2 week cycles alternating: 1. high calories for mass gains 2. very low calories for fat loss The premise is that short cycles will keep the body from adapting to either stimulus such that constant upward progresss is made. Several studies were cited and I looked at all of them for a short review paper I did for sports nutrition newsletter. To put it mildly, I was unimpressed with the research he cited. While it's rare to find any nutritional studies on bodybuilders, the studies he cited were almost toally inapplicable. While there was some interesting data (i.e. the increase in anabolic hormones with 2 weeks of overfeeding), I still question the diet. The queston in my mind is just how quickly the body can put on muscle. As most of us know, the answer is 'too slowly'. Thing is, few studies measure actual changes in musle mass. Typically they measure changes in fat mass and lean body mass (LBM). Well, LBM includes water and glycogen. I suspect that the major changes in LBM seen with alternating periods of under and overfeeding are due to cycling on and off of glycogen and water. Admittedly, the author did make this *partially* clear but I still doubt that a natural lifter could put on 2 lbs of real muscle per 4 week cycle. Also, the dieting phase was far too low in calories suggesting 8 cal/lb which is near starvation. I consider 10-12 cal/lb as the absolute low cutoff point for calories while aiming for fat loss. Anything lower and you get loss of musle and a slowing of metabolic rate. Probably the point the author made that convinced me he was out of his mind was his ideas about stretching about sets, citing researhc showing stretch to increase growth. While this research does exist, it was in Japanese Quail who had a weight attached to their wings from 7-30 straight days. To extrapolate this to weight trainers stretching 20-30 seconds between sets is, well, stretching it. The fact that Muscle Media came out with two supplements to support this diet about a month later further leads me to believe that it was more marketing ploy than physiological fact. Lyle McDonald, CSCS
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. ACL tear - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:14:01 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: ACL tear >Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:32:49 EST >From: JawDogs@aol.com >Subject: HIT digest #101 > >RE: article #7 -- Lyle McDonald on ACL Tear >As for VMO/VL rebalancing, muscles do not go out of balance. I still disagree. Patellar mistracking can oftentimes be traced to a strength imbalance between the VMO and VL. As well, tightness of the iliotibial band/tensa fasciae latae can contribute as can biomechanical factors such as the increased Q angle in women. Cyclists are oftentimes prone to this kind of knee problem (lateral patellar mistracking) becauase VMO doesn't recruit until the final bit of knee extension. The way cyclists are positioned on the bike, their knees never reach full knee extension so the VMO is not optimally loaded and will be weaker than the VL, causing an imbalanced pull. But do not tell me they have weakened quadriceps. >They are not like >car tires that need rotating every hundred miles or so. Muscles either get >weaker or stronger, period. You cannot selectively train one or the other more >than the other. This balance the muscles stuff is totally erroneous. Either >you present the entire quadriceps muscle with a full contraction or you don't. MRI studies (by Per Tesch and I'm the first to agree that it's not a perfect methodology) call this statement into question. He showed differing blood flow (which he took to indicate as an indicator of involvement and that may be his biggest incorrect assumption) in different muscles of hte same group (i.e. the different hamstring muscles, VMO vs. VL) with different movements. I believe EMG studies have shown the same thing. >If one wants full quadriceps strengthing one must perform knee extensions. The >equipment one uses is extremely important. Most knee extension machines are >almost completely worthless for their intended purpose. The protocol one uses >is also paramount to successful results. Above, you said that you can only strengthen or weaken a muscle without selective involvement. Why then doesn't squats, which challenges the quadriceps, cause just as much strengthening to the quads (i.e. why are leg extensions suddenly necessary)? Or did I misinterpret? To say that you need leg extension to fully strengthen the quads suggests that squats do an incomplete job. Doesn't this suggest preferential strengthening (esp. consider that VMO doesn't recruit until last 20 degrees of ROM)? That is to say, obviously squats strengthen the quads but they don't meaningfully load the VMO so why wouldn't this promote a strength imbalance between VMO and VL? >For example if a pure extension exercise >cannot be considered functional (here I assume the knee joint is not all alone >in the world of non-functionality) how would one strengthen the neck extensors >"functionally?" And if, for some reason, it does only apply to the knee, why? This gets into the whole issue of open-chain vs. closed chain movements, yes? I did not say that a pure extension movement is not functional per se. Or, if I did, it was not my intended meaning. That would imply that straightening the elbow was also not a functional movement. WRT knee extensions specifically, it is a rare case indeed that the quadriceps contract in complete isolation (meaning co-contracting muscle groups are not involved). Any type of walking, climbing stairs, etc will involve integraded co-contraction of quads and hams (and other muscles but these are the two we're concentrating on). Therapists use specifically isolated movements (generally referred to as open chain although it's a far from perfect nomenclature) to correct frank muscle imbalances (i.e. a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link) before moving to more compound (i.e. closed chain) movements which integrate muscles in the movement patterns they will typcially be used in. >Every time we walk we perform knee extensions. But said extension only occurs with co-contraction of the hams. >To my mind, >saying that knee extensions are not functional indicates that the concept of >"functionality" is wholly unclear and rather muddy in the minds of the people >who say it. To me, if you can do it, whatever IT may be, it's functional. I am using functional in this context to delineate motions which at least have some relation to real world movements. For example, take lifting something heavy off the floor. Let's be reductive and say that it involves the muscles of knee extension (quads) and hip extension (glutes, hamstrings) (ignoring contributions from arms, abs, spinal extensors, etc) to simplify things. The stance that you seem to be taking is that you should just strengthen the involved muscles (in an isolated fashion?) and be done with it (allowing performance of that movement only to integrate muscle function). I imagine a therapist (after ensuring that there were no major weak links in the system) would teach a bent knee deadlift, a movement that integrates muscle function in a movement pattern identical to what you're trying to accomplish outside of the gym (and one that you can progressively overload IN the gym under controlled conditions). I know that's how I would do it. This is a semantical game (similar to arguments about the definition of intensity) we can play, but that's how I'd define 'functional', strengthening muscles in a fashion that will carry-over to everyday movements. Yes, we can debate the carry-over issue until the turn of the millenium and it's not an argument I think anyone wants to see started on this list and we can simply agree to disagree and leave it at that. This is simply my take on it. Lyle McDonald, CSCS
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. a few thoughts and questions. - from bull
Top
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 98 23:51:56 EST From: bull <STRIETPJ@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu> Subject: a few thoughts and questions. I was looking through some old hardgainer articles today and found one regardin g hardgainer measurements quite interesting. It was stated that a man with a 7 in. wrist (me, and that's generous) can expect a MAXIMUM upper arm measuremen t of about 16.5 in. I found this interesting because I have a 16.5 in. arm, an d have had one for about 1 year. Yet, I have continued to progress on my thick bar curls, handling some fairly decent poundages. Not to open a debate on how strength correlates to size, but this hardgainer theory has held true in my ca se. After I read the article, I remember reading some of the old programs of the great Louis Abele, who commented that he had reached an upper arm measureme nt of almost 19 in. with a 7 in. wrist. I suppose my question is: Should I ex pect more size gains in time, or have I reached my potential in regards to upper arm size?? A few more comments. I've seen the subject of the ABCDE diet come up quite fre quently on past digests. Yeah, I tried it, and just like Mr. Lyle McDonald had warned, I put on some unwanted body fat, not to mention the fact that I was ea ting well below maintaneance on the "cutting phase". I'm not a bodybuilder, I' m more of a strength athlete, but I like to play around with my diet. I have f ound Lyle's formulas for weight gain and loss to be fairly accurate. Right now I'm eating roughly 13 Kcals/lb. of bodyweight, and am experienceing about a 2 lb. weight loss weekly, with a bit of added cardio. Also, take anything that Bill Phillips says with a grain of salt (actually the whole salt shaker). One more thing, is a periodized form of training (HIT or otherwise) beneficial to one who is training purely for strength? More accurately, I should say is c hanging exercises all the time beneficial to the strength athlete? I can see t he validity for a bodybuilder, but in my humble opinion, I just don't see it fo r someone who is training for strength. For instance, If my goal is to someday perform a 275 lb. standing overhead press, I wouldn't think it would be benefi cial to perform some variation of a shoulder press every other week. My feelin g here is that there is a skill component to each and every exercise, and co nstantly performing a similar, yet not specific exercise, would lead to a lot o f backtracking in the "goal lift". I feel, for a strength athlete, there are other, better ways to periodize your program (for instance, I constantly like to cycle my reps, always increasing weight as reps get lower, and then coming b ack to the starting point and adding 10-15 lbs. every 6 weeks for another cycle ). I'm open to all comments-agree or disagree with what I've said here? One more thing in regards to nutrition. I think the key is finding reliable s ources who convey realistic guidelines. I think supplements are crap, eating r eal food is the way to go. For me, these reliable sources have been Lyle and Dr. Ted Lambrinidies (Hi Doc!! Go Bengals!). Sorry for being such a long wind ed bastard, because I hate reading longer posts as well. HIT it hard.
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. HD reply to James Krieger: Kiwi Pauls final words (16.1.98). - from Paul Englert
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:56:23 +1300 From: Paul Englert <Paul.Englert@vuw.ac.nz> Subject: HD reply to James Krieger: Kiwi Pauls final words (16.1.98). I apoligise for the delay in writing (holidays in all). I had not realized I had saved two HIT digest 85s and therefore had difficulty finding your letter. I realise you have stated your position further in subsequent journals. However seen your post was in response to my earlier post I feel it is only right that I should reply, if only to state my view. Please feel free to state to your final view in response to this post, ie. the last word will rest with you. To refresh your memory of your stance (it was a month ago, again apologizes). 1. Empirical evidence of training with higher freq. (after previously using HD) with enhanced results equates to the limitations of HD as a training protocol for all. ie. "The reason this individual's experience refutes HD is because he achieved much more rapid progress after he increased his training frequency and volume; Mentzer would have had him decrease it." - I argue that what this shows is that this persons base line measure for training stimulus was initially too low. Just as one can have too much stimulus the stimulus may not be enough. Mentzer, being an advocate of logic, would argue the same I would presume. The question is what is the response when training gains cease. This is when the response is to decrease freq. Setting up the base line measure is vitally important for determining the validity to the response to a a cessation in progress. 2. Why is the response to a plateau in strength gains to decrease training. ie "Please give me scientific evidence that "less is better with respect to maintaining constant progress over time."" First a discussion of the alternatives. One to train more. This leads to an escalation in training that would seemingly not end until one was training 24 hours a day (and then what!!). Secondly to train less frequently. This may have one train say every ten days as Drew has already noted previously. One alternative can be accomplished within reality one will fall victim to it ie. will not be able to satisfied within the parameters of reality. With respect to research, discussion on the quality of research has already been conducted in previous posts. Suffice to say that for every Jones expt. I bring up you may be able to counter with a Krammer so to speak. This is not to say that objective research can not be done. Rather just to say that both camps examples of research at present from my perspective are open to critique. 3. Empirical evidence is falsification of a theory. ie. "For the purpose of discussion, let me explain what a theory is. A theory is a model used to describe real world phenomena and is based upon observations made in the real world. A theory holds up as long as it can adequately explain real world phenomena and make predictions about such phenomena. A theory is not scientific fact and can never be proven correct; only one example that refutes a theory, however, will prove the theory incorrect". Why is Mentzer's theory false? It cannot adequately explain why this individual (or myself or Sandeep) achieved less to no progress while lowering training frequency and volume (according to Mentzer, progress should be better)." Your definition of a theory is correct, your supporting evidence is however not refuting a theory. What is demonstrated is the failure to identify an appropriate base line measure. 3. Is training to failure necessary to enhance growth? ie. "Olympic lifters are an excellent example. It is highly undesirable for these lifters to come close to failure since it would cause a breakdown in their technique. Yet, these lifters achieve substantial increases in strength. - Progression is the key not failure. Here I agree with you. I don't think anything mystical happens at failure. I do not believe in mystics. In fact for many training to failure is going to result in over training. The difficulty is defining those in between measures eg. 90%. On this point we agree. Training to failure is just easier to precisely measure in terms of a stimulus. This however does not however make it right. I do not know Mentzers CURRENT view on the issue of failure , how it is defined, and how necessary it is to enhanced growth. (I know it is something I myself have thought more about recently). I will say however that progression will envitable result in training to failure, at least occassionally, unless the start weight was too light. Thus, training to failure may/is likely to occur but is not neccessarily the catalyst for grrowth, progression is. 4. Not everything is subject to laws. ie. " Then please give me the logical reason for the existence of the human appendix". - Everything is subject to laws is very different from the idea that everything has a purpose. The purpose of the appendix is to my knowledge unknown (employ doctors??) the reason it is positioned where it is in the body is the result of laws. 5. The response to a plateau is to change the stimulus. ie. "A plateau may mean that the exercise stimulus is no longer adequate to produce any sort of adaptation. The body is basically saying, "Hey, I can handle this now, so I don't need to respond to it anymore." If the stimulus is no longer adequate to produce an adaptation, then no change in training frequency is going to fix this problem. To fix this problem, the stimulus itself must be changed". - To use your example of Olympic lifters, this would be inappropriate. Eventually one has to merely lift more. Even if you just change the stimulus for a while eg. just work on pulls, the fact remains that you will eventually have to increase the weight on your clean and jerk if you want to be a better Olympic lifter. Using your logic this is not an option as the body no longer responds to that type of lift. 6. You will not find one size fits all. ie. " A "one-size fits all" theory cannot be found because it is dependent upon the individual and that individual's goals. The proper design of a training protocol depends upon so many factors unique to an individual that it is a mistake to come up with a theory that will be applicable to everyone. - I agree. That is why definition is vitally important. For my purpose I'm talking about strength gains and size increases. I have not thought about other applications. I can say however that once application is defined everyones reality is the same ie. the theories will apply consistently. 7. Exercise science is a new science and therefore a theory can not be tested. ie. "Also, the realm of research in strength training is still very young. There is really not enough scientific information out there to allow one to base an adequate theory upon. Right now, training is not even close to being an exact science." - I agree there is still work that needs to be done to refine the theory eg. establishing the starting exercise programme. However you have your theory and test order muddled up. It is the theory we test, ie. the hypothesis. HD is the only theory by default. There is no theory of high freq as it would fail at the first hurdle as discussed under point 2. HD has provided Body builders, especially, with a way out of confusion. When I think of all the anti-theories that have been promulgated by the BB fraternity over the years I can truly measure the worth of Jones, Darden, Hutchins, and Mentzer. Mentzer however is the first to provide the basis, explictly of distinguishing the falsity that has plagued this sub-discipline of exercise science, ie. reason. In the absence of contradictions HD is right. The theory may yet to be completed/refined (eg. defining that start point), but the foundation has been built. Kiwi Paul I am therefore I'll think - Ayn Rand
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: ABCDE Diet - from Brad Collins
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 03:50:00 PST From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: ABCDE Diet Go here and read the real info on this so called diet: http://www.thepowerstore.com/cgi-bin/newsarchive.pl?f_subject=349968C8.320B@essex1.com Or, if I got it wrong go to: http://www.thepowerstore.com and then click on "articles" and scroll down and find the ABCDE diet rebuttal by Lyle McDonald. BC ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Body Composition - from Sonofsquat@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 18:50:14 EST From: Sonofsquat@aol.com Subject: Re: Body Composition In a message dated 98-02-17 23:01:24 EST, you write: << Is it possible for a (relatively) TRAINED person to decrease body fat while simultaneously increasing lean body mass? >> I believe it is absolutely possible! As a strength coach for the past 5 years, I have witnessed athletes gaining weight while their body fat decreased (measured by skinfold calipers). Depending on the University I was (and therefore, their methods of testing procedures) their 1RM, 3RM or other ( )RM strength increased. I will not rival hypotheses... Increases due to pretesting meals, water weight, skinfold measurement being not as reliable as underwater weighing, etc. But I have seen too many positive results to conclude it is not possible. Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Ham/Quad ratio - from Sonofsquat@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 18:53:42 EST From: Sonofsquat@aol.com Subject: Re: Ham/Quad ratio In a message dated 98-02-17 23:01:24 EST, you write: << My leg curl is now 48% of my leg extension. I remember being told that the leg curl should be 75% of the leg extension. >> The research as I remember it claims that this is true... However, I suspect that injury will most likely occur if you are a sprinter. An overall fitness type, probably not. But it wouldn't hurt to increase your ham/quad ratio a bit more so your hamstrings are a bit closer in strength to your quadriceps. Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Response to Timothy Ryan's comments - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 21:47:07 -0800 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu> Subject: Response to Timothy Ryan's comments > From: "Timothy J. Ryan" <72263.2770@compuserve.com> > > 3.) Relative to each individual, an increase in a muscle's size ALWAYS > results in that muscle being stronger, not USUALLY stronger as Mr Krieger > states. A muscle with increased cross sectional area and more actin and > myosin cross bridges is capable of generating more force -- nothing else is > even possible. This is not subject to opinion -- physics proves this. There is nothing incorrect about my statement that a bigger muscle is usually a stronger muscle. For example, we can slightly increase muscle size through simple glycogen supercompensation (carbohydrate loading); since each gram of glycogen holds three grams of water, the increased water retention within muscle cells will result in a larger muscle. However, this will not effect strength at all. Anabolic steroids can cause fluid retention within muscle cells, increasing a muscle's size without increasing its strength. The damage caused by eccentric actions can cause muscle swelling during the recovery period, resulting in a slightly larger muscle yet with no increase in strength. Therefore, my use of the word "usually" is valid. > Mr. Krieger also states that it is possible to increasea muscle's size > without the muscle increasing in strength. Not true. This erroneous > belief results from his confusion between exercise performance, and true, > accurate strength measurement. You have misquoted what I said. I stated that hypertrophy is possible without increased strength "if the strength task is different from the trained task." I then referenced a study demonstrating this. > In summary, simply because leg extension performance did not improve to the > same degree as squat performance is not evidence of poor or no strength > increases to the quadriceps. Mr. Kriegers example for hypertophy without > strength increase is invalid. So is his conclusion. You are misinterpreting my statements. I never claimed that since "leg extension performance did not improve to the same degree as squat performance," that it is "evidence of poor or no strength increases to the quadriceps." In other words, I never made the claim that squats cannot improve quad strength. I disagree with your assertion that "true muscular strength can only be measured in an isometric fashion..." Strength can be defined as the maximal force production capability of a muscle. However, even this definition is vague since the maximal force production capability of a muscle is dependent upon many factors, such as the velocity of a movement, whether the muscle is working concentrically, isometrically, or eccentrically, the length of the muscle, etc. Since there are so many factors which contribute to strength expression, the idea of "true muscular strength" does not exist. We can only define strength given certain conditions, and can only make comparisons in strength given the same conditions. If I increase my 1 RM in the squat, I have improved my muscular strength as it applies to the squat; I have improved the maximal force production capabilities of the muscles UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF SQUATTING. However, the maximal force production capabilities of these same muscles under different conditions (such as in a different exercise, even on the MedX machine that you point out) may not necessarily improve. This is the SAID principle at work. When we look at any type of adaptations and gains caused by any type of exercise, be it resistance training, running, etc., SAID will always win. James
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Machines-vs-free weights - from Ken Roberts
Top
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:42:46 -0800 From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts) Subject: Machines-vs-free weights Drew, I just read your recent article at your site in Cyberpump! and while I appreciate your zeal I think that sometimes you tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Certainly overall strength and specificity of training are the keys to athletic performance. And "Mr. Clean's" assertions are very stupid. However, your own assertion that "performing...(sport or vocational) movements while under a load that is greater than that encountered during actual competition...does nothing to improve your skills in that movement ...may even decrease your skills...and is not an effective means of physical conditioning," is highly debatable (in my uninformed opinion). What studies or proofs do you have for this conclusion. It seems to me that (altough not necessarily applicable to all movements) the athelite who performs his specific movements under load will be stronger in that particular movement (e.g. linemen pushing the sled, boxers punching the heavy bag, baseball players swinging a heavy bat, etc.). Ken