-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. HIT Digest 104 - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:56:31 PST From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: HIT Digest 104 > From: JawDogs@aol.com > Running is more Aerobic than sleeping, but not more biologically > aerobic. Running may use more anaerobic system than sleeping, so sure it uses less aerobic system *as a percentage.* But it uses a higher percentage of the available aerobic system. It stresses the aerobic system harder than does sleeping (as well as the anaerobic). >> Why don’t you consider the absolute amount more important in this >> case? > Good question. (Here I assume you mean in the case of mitochondrial > density.) No, I mean why do you consider the percentage more important when comparing running to sleeping, rather than the absolute amount? > my experience indicates that after 3-5 sessions you’ve mastered the > exercise neurologically. Then why did you argue that it was such a terrible thing in Hardgainer? 3-5 sessions is not many. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. bicep mass - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:28:03 PST From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: bicep mass > From: JawDogs@aol.com > Question: How much more massive is an 18 inch biceps than a 16 inch > biceps? > Answer: Roughly 400% (not times) more massive. How did you get that number?
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. FYI - A supplement website - from bszymanski@minolta.com
Top
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:52:21 -0500 From: bszymanski@minolta.com Subject: FYI - A supplement website Hi. FYI, in case you're into some of the more popular supplements, I just found a website with fantastic prices if you buy in bulk. Check out the specials, and the general price list. http://www.kilosports.com/index.html Enjoy! Bill
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Response to Paul Englert's comments on training frequency - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:57:39 -0800 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Response to Paul Englert's comments on training frequency > From: Paul Englert <Paul.Englert@vuw.ac.nz> > > 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. The problem I see with your discussion of alternatives is that you have taken the first alternative to the extreme but you have not done this with the second alternative. I could just as easily take the second alternative to the extreme and have an individual training once a year or even less. In my opinion, taking logic to the extreme is not an effective argument since anyone can present an argument against just about anything by taking logic to the extreme. For example, it is well known that eating more frequently is more beneficial than eating less frequently. However, why not take this to its limits? Instead of eating 6 times a day, how about 15 times a day, or 24 times a day? I could easily provide an argument against frequent eating by presenting this extremism. My final viewpoint on alterations in training frequency: The appropriate adjustments in training frequency are going to depend upon the individual and their particular training protocol. I do not believe in hard and fast rules such as "once you plateau, reduce training volume and frequency" or vice versa. Both are valid options and will depend upon the situation and the individual. James
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Training program while dieting; cardiovascular health - from Robert Ohlhausen
Top
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:44:34 -0600 From: Robert Ohlhausen <rao@sprynet.com> Subject: Training program while dieting; cardiovascular health This is my first post, so go easy. I have been training for about 12 years, the last 2 of which I have used a HIT program consisting of a full body workout (compound movements only) 1 day per week, 1 set to absolute falure. This program has worked great for me and I continue to make solid progress, plus it's fun (the time savings are really great with two small kids, a job, etc.). I stopped doing endurance training (my term for "aerobics") about six months ago after studying all that I could find on the subject, and I have been real happy with that decision. On to my questions: 1. I have decided to lose a few pounds. I plan on doing this by reducing my caloric intake by about 500 calaries per day. so far .. so good. Since I can't lose fat and build muscle mass at the same time, I need to alter my program. The question is what do I need to do to maintain my muscle mass while dieting? 2. I understand everyone's position on endurance training, and I must say that I am in the "it's not really useful" camp. However, noone has addressed the issue as to whether endurance training is necessary to get the benefits of reduced levels of cholesterol. I have fairly low levels of over cholesterol (180), but also levels of hdl ("good") cholesterol, which makes my ratio of "bad" ldl to "good" hdl fairly high, which is not a good thing. So, the question is whether endurance training would be of benefit to me, or are the cholesterol reducing effects of endurance training also served by weight training and having a larger muscle mass to support? I hope these questions are not silly. Thanks in advance for your help. Robert Ohlhausen rao@sprynet.com
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Measurement of Muscular Strength - from Timothy J. Ryan
Top
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 18:39:23 -0500 From: "Timothy J. Ryan" <72263.2770@compuserve.com> Subject: Measurement of Muscular Strength In a recent post I stated that a true, accurate measurement of muscular strength requires an isometeric (static), testing procedure. Though the limited space of this digest does not allow a complete discussion of the topic, I will briefly outline why static testing is an absolute requirement for an accurate assessment of muscular strength. First, let it be clearly understood that in essence, muscles can do only one thing -- produce a pulling force. The only way to truly measure the exact amount of force produced by the muscle would be to insert a strain gauge (force measuring device), inside the muscle tissue between the muscle fibers and the tendon attachment. Obviously, this is not feasable with a live human being. As a result, we are forced to measure the usable output of the force of muscular contraction acting upon the bones to which the muscle is attatched. This force is measured as torgue (a force acting upon a lever to cause rotation around an axis). Actual force produced by a muscle internally, and the usable output of that force, torque, are two very different things. This is due to several mechanical factors relating to the physics of levers, angle of pull, direction of force, etc. For example, due to an extreme mechanical DISADVANTAGE in the knee, the quadriceps must produce approximately 1200 pounds of force internally in order to produce a measured output of force upon the lower leg of 100 pounds. The muscles which extend the lumbar spine have nearly an opposite situation. In some positions, the muscle have approximately a 4 to 1 mechanical ADVANTAGE so that a force of 100 pounds internally by the muscles produces 400 pounds of measured output of torque. In order to accurately measure the torque produced by the force of muscular contraction, we must be clearly aware of several factors apart from the force of muscular contraction that also produce force. These factors must either be removed, or measured and factored into the the test results in order to determine the true level of muscular strength. Removing and/or measuring all of these factors can ONLY be accomplished by a static testing procedure performed on a properly designed machine. The following briefly outlines the factors involved in accurate tests of muscular strength. 1.) Total isolation of the joint being tested; without this it is impossible to determine the actual source of the torque that is measured (i.e. which muscle). 2.) Measurement of position. The strength of a muscle varies throughout a full range of motion. Strength may be several hundred percent higher in some positions than in others. Therefore, the measured torque must be correlated to the exact joint position at which it was produced. 3.) Gravity. The force of gravity acting upon the mass of the involved body parts produces torque. The amount of torque varies from individual to individual based upon the relative mass/weight of the body parts. This forced must be measured and factored out of the test results. 4.) Stored Energy. Movement of a body part away from the neutral position causes compression of tissues on one side of the joint and stretching of tissues on the other side of the joint; compression and stretching of the tissues that stores energy; stored energy that will produce torque that will tend to move the involved body parts back towards the neutral position. This torque produced by stretching and compressing of tissues must be measured and removed form the test results; a measurement that can only be achieved with a static testing procedure. A failure to measure and remove stored energy torque can cause errors of several thousand percent in strength tests. 5.) Friction. Everything that has both mass and movement also has friction, and muscles are no exception. During positive work (concentric contraction), friction in the muscle works against the muscle, thus reducing the output of torque; during negative work (eccentric contraction), friction helps the muscle, thus increasing the output of torque. The unavoidable result being that measured torque is artificially too low in a test of positive strength and artificially too high in a test of negative strength. In reality, muscles are not actually stronger eccentrically than concentrically, it just appears that way due to the effects of friction within the muscles. Adding to the problem is the fact that friction is not constant, it varies according to speed of motion and as a results of muscular fatigue and fluid build up. Due to the fact that friction is constantly changing, there is no way to simply measure it and factor it out of the test results. In any dynamic testing procedure it is always present and always creating errors in the test results. However, friction does not exist in static testing procedures because there is no movement. Therefore static tests are free from the error caused by friction. 6.) Impact forces. Due to the nature of mass and acceleration and the forces resultant, dynamic testing procedures unavoidably produce impact forces which directly cause artifact in the measured output of torque. What appears to be torque produced by muscular contraction is really the force of impact of the accelerated body part against the machine's resistance. Additionally, this impact force unnecessarily exposes the subject to excessive levels of force which may cause injury. In a properly performed static test, influence of impact forces is completely removed. 7.) Time to recruit all available muscle fibers. It is not possible for a muscle to go from a resting state to a point of maximum force production instantaneously. The recruitment of a maximum number of muscle fibers, and therefore a measurement of the true capabilities of a muscle, requires several seconds of sustained muscular contraction. Dynamic testing procedures, due to the speed of movement does not allow for maximum fiber recruitment. This is borne out in the Force/Velocity relationship phenomenon. The faster the velocity of muscular contraction, the less force can be produced by the muscle. This is because the faster the velocity, the fewer muscle fibers recruited. Static testing allows a sustained contraction and opportunity for maximum fiber recruitment and thus maximum torque output by the muscle. 8.) Machine/testing tool considerations. There exist several other factors relating to the testing tool itself that are required to produce accurate strength tests. Some of these are: counterbalancing of all moving machine parts to eliminate random torque that would otherwise result from the influence of gravity acting upon these parts; counterweighting of moving body parts for the same reason listed above; certain material properties of the machine's components and it's ability to resist flexing under load etc; ability to coaxially align machine and joint axis; and accuracy of the machines force measuring devices. Until very recently the tools necessary for accurate measurement of muscle strength and other performance capabilties did not exist. The tools used in the past, and in some circles still used today, were/are grossly inadequate and possess errors in measurement upwards of several thousand percent. They were and are simply incapable of performing any of their intended functions. Research conducted with these tools unavoidably results in not only meaningless data, but also erroneous conclusions. This is the primary reason for the widespread confusion in the field of exercise. A good example of this confusion is the SAID principle. Most, if not all, of the so called differences in adapations made by the body in response to various training conditions are not really different types of adaptations at all, but rather a reflection of the unreliablity and inadequacies of the testing tools used to assess the results of exercise programs. Additional erroneous conclusions are formed because researchers also do not understand the basic principles of motor learning and functional ability. There is no such thing as "squat strength", "leg extension strength", "bench press strength", or any other specific type of strength relative to a given exercise or skill. There is simply muscular strength -- period! Remember, all muscles do is produce force. The differences in performance abilties between the various exercises are a result of a combination of skill, bodily proportions, neurological ability, strength, and flexibility -- not different types of strength that were developed by the different exercises. So there may be "squat SKILL", and "leg extension SKILL", and "bench press SKILL", but strength is strength. When a particular muscle's strength increases, that strength increase transfers to any and every activity that muscle participates in. What doesn't transfer are the skills acquired in one activity to the other. Therefore it may be possible to improve in squatting ability and increase the strength of the muscles involved in squatting, yet not necessarily experience an equal improvement in leg extension performance or vice versa. This does not translate to mean that the muscles were only improved under conditions of squatting. Just like you may increase pectoral strength with isolated chest flys though not improve equally in bench press performance. This doesn't mean you only developed your pectoral muscles under conditions of chest fly, the skills between the two exercise are simply different. . The muscles were improved under all conditions, its just that the factors associated with functional ability and motor learning affected performance. All of the information presented herein is fully documented and published by a variety of sources. The University of Florida and The University of California at San Diego also provide seminars, workshops, and certification programs which teach this information. If anyone would like to know where they can obtain detailed articles and reference materials please e-mail me. Tim Ryan
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: HIT Digest #104 - from DejaGroove@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:34:42 EST From: DejaGroove@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #104 Although I am new to the digest, I would like to intervene here with a few points. In a message dated 98-02-17 22:53:08 EST, you write: << This is not necessarily true. If muscle hypertophy occurs concurrently with the increase in total number of mitochondria then density may rermain the same, decrease, or increase depending upon exactly how much hypertophy occurs relative to the total increase in mitochondria. An increase in mitochondria is no guarantee of increase density. >> 1. At this point, (and as reflected by the various views here at HIT digest), there is much disagreement in the scientific literature as to whether hypertrophy or hyperplasia occurs as a result of strength training. I am not convinced, by the way, that hyperplasia is even a form of hypertrophy, as suggested by at least one poster. Hypertrophy describes the thickening of a single muscle fiber, not the entire muscle. Hyperplasia refers to an increase in the number of muscle fibers. Either way, the controversy stems from the difficulty in measuring what is going on inside the muscle through the biopsy method. Basically, to properly test what is happening, a biopsy must be performed prior to strength training. Then, strength training must occur, to create either hypertrophy/plasia. Then, another biopsy must be taken from the exact same spot. Not easy to do. 2. "As far as I know, when muscles experience hypertrophy, all of the components that make up the muscle fiber increase in volume or thickness (not number). It would stand to reason that if the muscle increases in thickness or size the muscle must have been supplied with an increased amount of muscle cells." THis quote came from Mr. Hahn. This is simply not true. Hypertrophy occurs when a single myofibril develops additional actin and myosin myofilaments. The new actin and myosin strands actually attach to the perimeter of the myofibril, thus increasing its volume. Again, hyperplasia refers to an increased number of muscle fibers. But we do not really know which occurs. Although most models seem to be based on hypertrophy, Canadian scientists (whose names escape me, I will unscientifically admit) are now leaning towards hyperplasia as the major cause of increases in overall muscle size. If anyone wishes to know who the candians are, I will look it up. 3. According to the Essentials of Strength and Conditioning Symposium Workbook, published by NSCA, one of the specific adaptations that occurs with aerobic training is "...increased number, size, and membrane surface area of skeletal muscle mitochondria." Another adaptation is "selective hypertrophy of Type I muscle fibers". This seems to directly support the idea that total mitochondria is increased. This does not address whether the density is increased. However, my question is, if the size of mitochondria increases, how does that affect the density question? is density defined as the number of mitochondria per unit of muscle, or the total volume of mitochondrial material per unit of muscle? 4. Neural adaptations take place not only in the initial stages of training. As highly trained elite athletes reach their genetic potential in muscle size, strength may nonetheless continue to increase, attributable to neural factors. Eytan Koch
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Reply to Paul Englert - from Adam Fahy
Top
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:31:31 -0800 From: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu> Subject: Reply to Paul Englert > From: Paul Englert <Paul.Englert@vuw.ac.nz> > Subject: HD reply to James Krieger: Kiwi Pauls final words (16.1.98). > "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. I don't understand, "this persons base line measure for training stimulus was initially too low." To me this statement implies that the amount, or intensity, or whatever, of training was not enough for this individual to produce an adaptive response - for I believe MM suggests performing only that amount of exercise from which one can see an adaptive response (eg the minimum to see gains), which cannot be more than one set if they experience any degree (decline) of interset strength differential (and if such a strength differential is experienced that last set did not increase the adaptive stimulus, but only depleted recovery levels). If this is so, if this is an accurate description of MM's ideas, then no amount of increased volume from which one will experience such a strength differential should benefit this individual. Yet if indeed the minimum amount of stimulus is not the ideal, or the optimal, or will bring maximal gains, but neither will increased volume creating-strength-differential (again, this is my understanding of MM/one-set philosophy), then the only option available [that should increase this individual's gains] would be one-set eccentric training - nothing else should work, as nothing else (supposedly) increases the "growth stimulus." Yet if this trainee did indeed see gains on a one-set program, yet saw better gains after volume was increased (even if an interset strength differential was experienced), then IMO increased volume creating-strength-differential does in fact increase the growth stimulus, and MM needs to check his premises. > 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. ??? Why is it that you take one 'alternative,' apparently the one opposed to your own personal beliefs, to some bizarre conclusion, while that alternative to which you apparently subscribe is taken to a reasonable conclusion [and no further]? Clearly if you abstract the 'train less' ideology to an absurd level, it "leads to an escalation in rest days that would seemingly not end until one was training once a year (and then what!!)." As well, why are there only two 'alternatives' (I assume you really mean, 'options') listed here? I can think of numerous reasons for which one may experience a halt in strength gains [from a specific program], and therefore numerous methods from which one may 'break' such plateaus... IMO neither of the 'alternatives' listed in your above quoted section are Ultimate solutions to a plateau in strength gains from a given program - they are merely 'band-aids.' -- "Work smarter, not harder!" - Scrooge McDuck Adam Fahy afahy@oitunix.oit.umass.edu
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Training during military service - from Kalle Karppinen
Top
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:16:57 +0200 From: Kalle Karppinen <k24567@kyyppari.hkkk.fi> Subject: Training during military service I just begun my military service (compulsory in Finland) a month ago and haven't been able to lift once since that because of being so tired and short of time. The service schedule should be easier from now on, so I'll get back to the gym. I was thinking about what kind of routine I should follow. The biggest constraint is the lack of recovery. The daily service is physical and sleep is 4-7 hours per night. Under these conditions, I don't think it's possible to train very often or with great volume, so I was thinking about a very abbreviated HIT routine once or twice a week. Any suggestions? -- ******************************************************************* * Kalle Karppinen * * ********************************** The difference between a * * Mankkaanmalmi 6 B * successful person and others * * 02180 ESPOO * is not a lack of strength, * * FINLAND * not a lack of knowledge, * ********************************** but rather in a lack of will. * * Email: k24567@kyyppari.hkkk.fi * -Vince Lombardi * * p. (09) 523 618 * * *******************************************************************