-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. re:hitdigest#107, one or more sets - from Robert Lepelaar
Top
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:30:13 -0800 From: Robert Lepelaar <1robert.lepelaar@wxs.nl> Subject: re:hitdigest#107, one or more sets Don't worry about undertraining if you're doing only one set for a body-part. I cannot even think of one more set, after doing one set of deadlifts squats or leg presses, I'am out of breath for at least 5 minutes. I'am training heavy duty 2 now for 9 months and making great progress, our last training consisted of deadlifting, hammer military press and toe presses for one set to absolute failure. my gains were; deadlifting 11 febr. 185kg 4 reps. 23 febr.200kg 6 reps.!!! military press 11 febr.60kg every side 8 reps 23 febr.65kg ,, ,, 7 reps toe press 11 febr.140kg 17 reps 23 febr.150kg 15 reps So you see only one deadlifting set once every 12 days, and I'am drained after that one for at least 2days and sore as hell. I'am no longer overtrained and feel better than ever. Last year training 4 times a week doing multible sets I had the flu for at least 2 times, this winter I didn't even had a cold. The other workout consists of squats, hammer wide chest and hammer front lat pulldown and alternating with the one mentioned above. Were planning on doing only 2 sets once a week if progression is going down. greetings from the Netherlands Robert Lepelaar 1robert.lepelaar@wxs.nl
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: HIT Digest #107, training while dieting - from Irondog
Top
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:49:43 -0800 From: Irondog <jwhite4@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #107, training while dieting I feel that it is absolutely > possible to gain muscle while loosing fat and weight. Here's how it should > work: True, the body would rather not use the fuel you feed it(calories) to > build muscle(it prefer's to store it as fat). When you feed it less it will > passively lose muscle along with the stored fat that it now has to give up to > compensate for the shortfall. This issue of building muscle while losing fat was asked on an earlier digest, but I have not seen much discussion on the topic. However, I think it an important issue to address. Your assertion that it is absoulutely possible to gain muscle while losing fat seems at odds with what is known about the biological processes involved. For example, building muscle is predominantly due to anabolism brought about by (among other things) the actions of insulin. A common misconception is that when insulin is being secreted, as the result of the need to reduce blood glucose levels, then glucagon is "shut off". Recent evidence suggests this is not the case. And, glucagon is primarily responsible for the catabolic phase in which glucose substrates (including the carbon skeletons from protein) are used to return blood glucose to its required level. Stated another way, it appears that there is a basal level of gluconeogenesis occurring. Glucagon secretion appears inhibited only when blood glucose is 150 mg/dL or higher. One would have to eat alot to maintain this level. It is this muscular atrophy that slows the > metabolism. However, if you continue your weight lifting to overload the > muscles, whatever limited resources the system has will be used to repair and > rebuild the muscles. (Low, moderate or intense aerobic activity will not > provide this growth stimulus....it may, in fact contribute muscular > atrophy...just what your're trying to avoid.) Again, these statements do not coincide with what is known about the anabolic/catabolic processes. Metabolism is slowed because of the caloric decrease. Basically, less insulin means less active thyroid hormone T3 and less IGF-1. And, less calories means less insulin and more glucagon. In addition, human physiology is such that the organism is strongly geared against hypoglycemia. The brain is a glucose hog, and the body will scavage all the gluconeogenic substrates it can (pyruvate, lactate, glycerol) to continue to provide this constant needed supply of glucose. Thus, no matter what the infliction caused to the muscle during resistance training, the first priority is to protect against hypoglycemia. I guess evolution deemed a glucose sucking brain more important than big muscles. Anyway, you have created a > gradual caloric deficit(so that stored fat has to be used for energy), you > have given you body a reason to build muscle so your metabolic rate will be > maintained, therefore why shouldn't you continue to lose fat and weight???? > The only way you wouldn't lose weight is if you are capeable of building an > extaordinary amount of muscle....most of us don't have to worry about that, > especially on a reduced calorie diet. True, glucagon will (among other things) release triacylglycerol from adipose tissue. So, a calorie deficit will result in fat loss. However, I contend that the idea that one can do this and concurrently build muscle is just not possible. The processes involved in anabolism and catabolism are opposed to one another. Jim.
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. HIT Digest #107 Juan Castro's questions on strength testing - from Timothy J. Ryan
Top
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:42:41 -0500 From: "Timothy J. Ryan" <72263.2770@compuserve.com> Subject: HIT Digest #107 Juan Castro's questions on strength testing In issue #107, Juan Castro questioned how a failure to measure and remove stored energy torque from a strength test could result in errors as high as several thousand percent. Here is one example from an actual strength test performed on the muscles that rotate the torso. The results of the test when the effects of stored energy were ignored and not factored out of the test results were as follows: Measured torque at 60 degrees left -- 2424 inch-pounds Measured torque at 60 degrees right -- 1 inch-pound Difference between strongest position and weakest position -- ~ 240,000 percent; a change in strength in excess of 2,000 percent per degree of movement, on average throughout the full range of 120 degrees. When the test results were corrected for errors introduced by stored energy torque, the following "true" accurate measurements were as follows: Torque at 60 degrees left -- 2109 inch-pounds Torque at 60 degrees right -- 301 inch pounds Difference between strongest and weakest postion -- 600 percent; a change in strength of 5 percent per degree of movement. Thus, the summary of errors caused by stored energy are as follows: Error at 60 degrees left -- 315 inch-pounds or 13 percent Error at 60 degrees right -- 300 inch pounds or 30,000 percent Difference between strongest and weakest postion -- 239,400 percent total or 1,995 percent per degree of movement. It should also be noted that the level of stored energy torque involved in a test of torso rotation is relatively low; the same individual in the above example, if tested in the muscles that extend the lumbar spine, might produce 10 times as much stored energy. On the subject of intramuscular friction. As far as we know, the entire apparent difference between positive and negative strength is all an artifact caused by intramuscular friction. There is no way to measure and factor it out of a dynamic testing procedure because friction changes as a function of fatigue and speed of contraction. This phenomenon was demonstrated several years ago with research conducted on a special prototype machine capable of measuring differences between positive and negative muscle performance. This machine, also served to demonstrate several of the shortcomings and inadequacies involved with dynamic testing procedures and further lead to the conclusion that static (isometeric) testing is an absolute requirement for accurate strength testing. Friction does not exist with static testing because there is no actual sliding of the muscle fibers against one another, nor any tendency for them to attempt to do so. When the subject first initiates force production within the muscle against the testing device, there is some compression of body tissues and machine padding that may involve a low level of friction. However, once the subject reaches his/her maximum force production (at which point the actual measurement is made by the machine), all compression and any friction is non-existent. Therefore, friction is not a factor in static tests. It does not influence force production or measurement. Tim Ryan
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Trap Bar deadlifts - from Richard Winett
Top
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:57:08 -0500 From: Richard Winett <rswinett@vt.edu> Subject: Trap Bar deadlifts I was interested in the comments on regular trap bar deadlifts for a number of reasons. Some time bak Bill Piche told me he switched back to using a regular bar becasue he did not feel the muscle action in his traps, upper back or lower back. I didn't understand quite why until I saw the recent post about this. The trap bar puts you in a more upright postion so as this recent post noted, the effect is almost like doing an old fashioned hack squat with a barbell. About 18 months ago, when I started using the trap bar, I noticed that the regular deadlift was just like a squat, so I stopped doing the regular trap bar deadlift. I returned to doing a modified stiff leg deadlift ("Romanian", some bend in knees don't go below shin level) and have been quite successful with the trap bar modified stiff leg deadlift. But here's the point. Maybe these are the most effective form of the deadlift. The trap bar gives you some nice leverage and hand position but isn't it the bending down and then up that critically affects your lower back and, in fact, all the muscles in your back? Isn't the bend what's missing in the regular trap bar deadlift? Further, since the legs are not really much of the action, all the emphasis is on the back. The Romanian style given the knee bend and controlled range of motion would seem the deadlift of choice for strength and muscular development. Depending upon how you array your routine, the modified Sl trap bar deadlift would be great on either a lower body routine, upper body including upper back, or a whole body routine. Rather than a next best movement, maybe it's the best movement. Richard Winett ************************************* * Richard Winett, Ph. D. * Director, Center for Research in Health Behavior * Director, Clinical Training * * Virginia Tech * Psychology Department * Derring Hall * Blacksburg, VA 24061 * * voice: 540.231.8747 (CRHB) or 540.231.6275 (Derring) * fax: 540.231.5448 * email: rswinett@vt.edu *************************************
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: HELP SOMEBODY!!! - from Peter Diskin
Top
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 21:41:54 -0500 From: Peter Diskin <pdd@scescape.net> Subject: Re: HELP SOMEBODY!!! >I did read that a hit lifter Greg Roman, was also one of the stronger >football players while at John Carrol University and recorded some >impressive lifts. I want to do this!! Maybe my genetic potential, is >not what his is, but so far with this form of training I am not even >close to using the poundages I was using. I know I can do better and I >am not satisfied, unfortunatly I am making mistakes somewhere and I need >help to finding them. You said that you gained little strength. Did you find that you didn't gain strength in any of the exercises you do during your workout or did you just not gain strength in powerlifting lifts like your squat poundages that you talked about. The reason I ask is that doing very heavy weights in the powerlifting lifts is a combination of skill and strength. In conventional training, you get more "practice" doing the lifts in addition to the strength training. If you are interested in powerlifting and increasing your poundage on the squat and bench, I think you will need to practice lifting the heavy lifts more than the one set per workout in a HIT routine. I don't know much about training for powerlifting, but I have found HIT to be very effective for increasing strength. My main goal is to gain weight, but I have found that HIT has been the best type of training for me to continuously progress in all of my exercises. If you are going to continue with HIT, try spending one or two days a week working on the "skill" of the big lifts, in addition to your HIT workouts. Hope this helps. Pete
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Skill Development vs. Strength - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 22:00:00 -0800 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu> Subject: Skill Development vs. Strength > From: "Timothy J. Ryan" <72263.2770@compuserve.com> > > 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. If your assertion is correct, then this would mean that, if I perform only partial movements within a certain range of motion (such as advocated by the Power Factor training philosophy), the strength gains that I achieve by performing only partial movements should transfer to full range movements as well. However, it has been demonstrated both in real life (such as in myself when I engaged on a Power Factor training protocol many years ago, losing muscle mass and full-range strength despite significant improvements in my exercise performance) and in the laboratory that strength gains are highly specific to the ROM that an exercise is performed in. If I perform only quarter leg presses, my full-range leg presses will either decrease or not improve, depending upon how long I perform only quarter leg presses. This decrease in full-range strength has much more to do than simply a lack of practice of full-range leg press "skill". Both neural and morphological factors come into play here. You seem to be trying to separate neural adaptations from other types of adaptations that effect force production. However, this is not possible because neural adaptations play a significant role in a muscle's ability to produce force, even in the static testing situation that you describe. Neural adaptations encompass much more than simple skill development and motor learning, such as in learning how to squat efficiently. I cannot see how a muscle can be "improved under all conditions." What about a multifunctional muscle such as the biceps femoris, which not only flexes the forearm but also flexes the humerus and supinates the hand? Are you claiming that an increase in biceps strength will increase biceps strength under all three of these conditions? I have grave doubts about this, since these three functions result in radically different patterns of motor unit recruitment. What about a muscle with more than one point of origin, such as the pectoralis major? Different fibers in this muscle will have different lines of pull depending upon the exercise. Therefore, the exercise used will have a signficant impact on the resulting adaptive responses by various fibers and by the neuromuscular system. You are correct that "all muscles do is produce force." However, I radically disagree that increasing a muscle's ability to produce force will increase its ability to produce force under all conditions. James
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Ratios for lifts and Measurements - from Desmond Pegrum
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:45:49 +0800 From: Desmond Pegrum <Pegrumd@decaf.curtin.edu.au> Subject: Ratios for lifts and Measurements Hi everyone! Does anyone know where I can find ratios or percentages for comparing different lifts and exercises and bodymeasurements for a proportionate bodybuilder. My lower body was much bigger and stronger relative to my upper body, but my upper body is/has caught up a lot, but i would like to know how to compare say quad measurements with arm measurements, waist measurement with chest measurement etc. Also how to compare say the bench press with bicep curl (1 bench 105kg for 8 and curl 45kg for 8) Any help would be appreciated. I know i haven't really stated what i'm after that clearly Thanx Desmond Pegrumd@decaf.curtin.edu.au
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: HIT Digest #107 - from Mark Hill
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:40:23 +0200 From: Mark Hill <a51694@hepnfs01.eskom.co.za> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #107 > articles that mentioned P.O.F (position-of-flexion training). Does > anyone know what it consists of? Is it something that can be added to a > H.I.T program? Any information would be appreciated. > > STEVE POF's main premise is that a muscle should be trained by targeting 3 different positions of flexion. These are mid-range( typically your multi joint type exercises, ie. bench press, squat, press BN, BB curls, etc.),stretch (flyes, sissy squats, incline side laterals, incline DB curls, etc.)& contracted (typically cable cross overs, leg ext., lat. raises, conc. curls, etc.). The best way to get the info on this system would be to contact Steve Holman @ Ironman Mag. As to whether it is compatable with HIT, the answer is yes, IMHO. POF seems to be more targeted at exercise selection and as such is compatible with any training methodology, be it HIT, periodization, GVT, etc. Ciao Mark
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: Nutritionally Impaired; HIT #101 - from SFarrin261
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:17:38 EST From: SFarrin261 <SFarrin261@aol.com> Subject: Re: Nutritionally Impaired; HIT #101 Just a quick note regarding the response to "Nutritionally Impaired". The common equation to calculate caloric maintenance levels (body weight x 12) quite often is not accurate. Like in my case my calculated maintenance level was 2520, but in reality my maintenance level was around 3000. So I think a better way to figure your maintenance level would be the "5 day food diary" method. To do this simply write down everything you eat for 5 days. Then calculate the total caloric intake for each day add them up and divide by 5. If you have not lost or gained weight in that 5 day period, you have just figured out your maintenance level. Hope I didn't come across rude, I just wanted to lend my 2 cents worth. God Bless - Sean
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: #104 , ABCDE diet and new personal bests in strenght. - from SFarrin261
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:16:23 EST From: SFarrin261 <SFarrin261@aol.com> Subject: Re: #104 , ABCDE diet and new personal bests in strenght. Hi, James In #104 you asked if in my experience with the ABCDE diet Did I set any new personal bests in strength? I would say yes. I'm reluctant to give you actual quotes from my training journal because I'm sure I will hear laughs roaring across the net, but I will, so go easy on me and remember I'm only 5'7 so hopefully that gives me some kind of handicap (ha ha). I began the diet on 21 Nov 97 so the following are exercises that I have kept in my routine since that date. I only do 1 set to failure: Upper body - From To - Lateral Raises 90 lbs x 8 rep. 100 lbs x 10 rep. - Machine Prch Curls 50 lbs x 9 rep 95 lbs x 7 rep - Tricep Press downs 120 lbs x 11 rep 130 lbs x 13 rep - Rear Delt Machine 50 lbs x 10 rep 70 lbs x 7 rep. - Dead Lifts 250 lbs x 11rep 260 lbs x 7 rep. ( I don't really consider this an increase so instead of doing these every w/o I am going to every other w/o as suggested in M. Mentzers HDII. I dont use straps or a belt and it is my forearms that fail every time. Maybe giving them a break will help). Lower body - just a quick note here I dropped all lowerbody w/o for my crazyiest time of the year and then for a 2 week illness. The layoff began on 30 Nov 97 and resumed again on 22 jan 98 (my legs grew 1/2" during the layoff!!). From To -Leg Extensions 190 lbs x 6 rep 190 lbs x 7 rep -Toe Press (calves) 600 lbs x 11 rep 690 lbs x 10 rep - Leg Curls 110 lbs x 10 rep 150 lbs x 9 rep - Straight Leg Dead L. 130 lbs x 12 rep 150 lbs x 9 rep - Squats 225 lbs x 12 rep 245 lbs x 9 rep Well there it is don't laugh. Also I just hit 223 lbs. at the end of this ABCDE cycle thats up from 204 lbs. where I began on 21 NOV 97. Thanks for the interest. God Bless - Sean Farrington