-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Static Testing and Friction/Tim Ryan - from Bob Badour
Top
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 01:22:50 -0500 From: Bob Badour <73752.1624@compuserve.com> Subject: Static Testing and Friction/Tim Ryan It looks as if the dialog on friction is about to devolve into one of those exchanges that says more about the participants' momentary moods than anything else. Before that happens, I want to interject: Tim, you listed eight factors that confound dynamic tests arguing for static tests instead. Of those eight factors, nobody is questioning seven. That, in itself, speaks very well for your argument. Ignoring the issue of friction for a moment, the first question becomes: Are those seven factors an exhaustive list of relevant factors? Corollaries are: Are there any factors that confound static tests? Are there further factors that static tests resolve? I don't have answers to these questions. You will see that as a relative newbie to the sport of bodybuilding, I have few answers and many questions. I found your original post in Digest #106 very thought-provoking and educational. Both in consideration of the factors you listed and in consideration of your points on the difference between strength and skill. I found your response to the issue of friction disappointing, yet still thought provoking. I repeat it here: >>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.<< If the muscle fibers exert any force, a tendency for motion must exist. Newton's three laws are nothing less than an expression of the definition: "Force is the tendency for objects to move at varying velocity". Every person who has studied highschool physics has conducted an experiment which not only demonstrates both static and dynamic friction but also measures the fact that static friction can greatly exceed dynamic friction. Anyone who has struggled opening or closing a "stuck" window and had it rapidly "give way", has experienced the same. Your answer regarding friction seems to indicate that you think no friction exists without movement. Friction without movement does exist and it is potentially greater than friction with movement. Thinking about the issue of static testing, I can see reason to believe that the entire measured force is equal to the force of static friction. I don't know whether that conclusion is correct, mind you. For instance, even though the joint does not move and the muscle appears motionless at a macroscopic level, individual cells or even filaments could move like crazy at a microscopic level. That's another question this digest could answer for me. It is entirely possible that I have totally misunderstood your point regarding friction. It is entirely possible that I am missing some key biological fact or concept that prevents me understanding. If that is the case, I will be very happy to learn that fact or concept. Can you think of what it might be? It is also possible, from my perspective, that you are really trying to describe some factor other than friction or are giving the wrong reason that static friction confounds less than dynamic friction. You mentioned that all of these factors are "fully documented and published by a variety of sources". Perhaps a quick look at the documentation will clarify the issue. Do you have anything handy regarding the issue of friction? As an example of what I mean above, I think the factor you call "Impact force" is the same as inertia. At least, after reading your description of "Impact force" and considering its meaning, I concluded that they are the same. Perhaps those of us who are unconvinced by your statements regarding friction will see more clearly if you used different terminology or phraseology. To speculate further on why static friction might not confound static tests, I can see reason to think that the force exerted by the muscle might equal both the static friction of the system and the force measured by the equipment. If this were so, the friction would not be zero but would not interfere with the measurement either. Again, being a newbie, I don't have enough knowledge to make a conclusion. Lastly, it is also possible that friction confounds both static and dynamic tests. If that is the case, several more questions arise: Does the confounding effect of static friction outweigh the seven factors already discussed? Which of the two types of friction confounds more? Is there any way to minimize or further compensate for the confounding effect of friction? Perhaps these questions have already been answered elsewhere. This topic will move in a much more productive direction if it answers even one of the questions I raised or any of the thousands of questons I did not think of to raise than if it continues in the direction of "friction" / "no friction" / "friction" / "no..."
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: HIT Digest #108 - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 10:26:46 PST From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #108 >From: "Timothy J. Ryan" <72263.2770@compuserve.com> >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. My degree is in physics, not exercise physiology, so I have to take your word on the biology stuff. But what you have just described is physically implausible. You first have to do a torque balance, which will explain a huge amount of the difference. If friction plays a part, it can only play a part in explaining any difference between what you measure and what the torque balance gives. > 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. If there is no way to measure it, how do you know it is changing? > This phenomenon was >demonstrated several years ago with research Do you have a reference for this? >Friction does not exist with static testing because there is no >actual sliding You don't need actual sliding to have friction. Maybe you mean something else? > of the muscle fibers against one another, nor any tendency for th= >em >to attempt to do so. This is interesting. Can anybody else tell me if this is right? Don't the fibers have to try to shorten to maintain position? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: HIT Digest #108 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 14:18:05 EST From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #108 An issue I would like to throw out: Is there research comparing the results of HIT to periodized training? Is there a way to periodize aHIT routine? I have seen better results through periodization than through anything else. Also, can anyone give me a summary of HIT philosophy?
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Blood Pressure Question.... - from Alan D. Smith
Top
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 15:05:08 -0500 (EST) From: cf051@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan D. Smith) Subject: Blood Pressure Question.... Hi, Hitters, As a student pilot I soon need to get a physical. I seem to remember reading somewhere that larger arms will throw off a BP reading. While I am not massive by any means, I am wondering if I need to be concerned about my 16 1/2 inch measurement. Thanks in advance for any and all resonses. BTW, while I do not post often, I read every word of the list, and always appreciate the great advice and ideas. Hey, any other fliers on the list who might want to converse off-list? Thanks, Alan
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: One or more sets per bodypart - from Andrzej Rosa
Top
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 10:57:31 -0800 From: Andrzej Rosa <rosa@wsrp.siedlce.pl> Subject: Re: One or more sets per bodypart I sent that massage to braggw@usa.net, but it has been returned. Maybe it is a little late, but i've decided to send it again. > I am doing 5 sets per workout every four or five >days!) . I'm afraid that going on that will be to >undertrain. What would you advise me? >I'd like hearing your opinions. My opinion is to add some volume. I did it and it worked. First I added more sets (I reduced weight on additional sets). More excercices may also help. I think, that 5 sets per every 4-5 days is undertraining. If You overtrain after some time, You can switch to stright Hit again. Actually I am planing to do so if it will happen to me. You may also concider GVT. http://www.musclemedia.com/v51/v51_gvt.html Even if it will not work, You do not have a lot to lose (few weeks). Personally, I don't think that one should do this program down to the letter, but it is still an interesting optinon. Good luck. Few other comments. Robert Lepelaar recently wrote. >I'am training heavy duty 2 now for 9 months and making great >progress. >I'am no longer overtrained and feel better than ever. >Last year training 4 times a week doing multible sets ... Maybe that is an answer. After _very_ high volume training our body has enough stimulation and additional recovery helps. After low volume training we may need additional stimulation. I do believe in variation. Also in training volume. Recently I've switched to muliset rutine with two day a week push-pull split. It works great. Maybe three days a week will do better. I will try. My conclusion is - there is no ultimate answer. -- Andrzej Rosa mailto:rosa@wsrp.wsrp.siedlce.pl
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. HIT Digest #108 - from Timothy J. Ryan
Top
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:24:44 -0500 From: "Timothy J. Ryan" <72263.2770@compuserve.com> Subject: HIT Digest #108 I would like to clear up an apparent misunderstanding regarding my past posts on strength testing and functional ability. Contrary to James Krieger's most recent comments, nowhere have I ever stated or implied that strength developed in a partial range of motion exercise (such as Power Factor training or with partial reps), will transfer to full ROM strength. In fact, I fully understand that it will NOT. Accurate tests of strength reveal that it is quite possible to develop strength in one part of the range of motion while remaining disproportionately weak in another position if that exercise was not performed throughout the full ROM. This is why the style in which you perform an exercise, the protocol used, type of equipment used, and exercises selected are all very important considerations in strength development. Specifically, a subject should perform full ROM exercise with equipment that properly tracks muscle and joint function and in fact provides balanced resistance throughout the full ROM. Tim Ryan
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Nutritionally impaired - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 01:18:30 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Nutritionally impaired >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. 12 cal/lb would be at the very low end for maintenance levels, it's the value I give people for fat loss. typically, resting metabolic rate (what you'd burn if you sat in bed all day) is roughly 9-10 cal/lb (women should use 9cal/lb, men 10cal/lb) to which an additional 30-50% is added for activity. So even at total inactivity, I'd give someone 13 cal/lb to maintain bodyweight. If they were even marginally active, I'd give 'em 15. I know of people who need 25 cal/lb to gain mass. >Like in my case my calculated maintenance level >was 2520, so your bodyweight is 2520/12 = 210 lbs. I'd set your maintenance between 13-15 cal/lb = 2730-3150 Which agrees with: >but in reality my maintenance level was around 3000. See my article on Cyberpump which talks about this for more details. It's the Nutrimuscle column. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "Oh my god!! They killed Kenny!!!" Stan
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. re: training while dieting - from Sandeep De
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 21:45:06 -0500 From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net> Subject: re: training while dieting > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:49:43 -0800 > From: Irondog <jwhite4@osf1.gmu.edu> > 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 I think this stems from the fact that most people associate gains in strength with gains in muscle mass. However, you and I both know that strength can be gained without a sizeable increase in mass or size. Hence it may very well be that given a certain set of loading parameters aimed at improving relative strength that one could improve neurological strength or motor recruitment while on a hypocaloric diet. > 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. There in lies the biggest challenge in continually gaining quality muscle mass uninterrupted. At present I feel as though a good approach is to maximize points in the training cycle where protein synthesis is likely to be greater than protein degradation through gluconeogenesis or whatever other mechanism (i.e. postworkout). One cannot expect to be "anabolic all the time", I suppose. Thoughts? Recently I've taken to experimentations in postworkout nutrition (based on the research I've read on glycogen supercompensation, protein synthesis and glycogen synthesis rates postworkout). Interesting stuff. The majority of the studies indicated that glycogen synthesis and retention was extremely high with large postworkout intakes. Not rocket science, I know. The interesting point is that even with modest training volumes (i.e. 8 sets per workout), extremely high carbohydrate intakes postworkout did not lead to fat storage but rather to glycogen supercompensation. I find this very interesting. If a large carbohydrate intake - almost 200 grams over 2 hours - results in almost whole glycogen storage and very little fat storage, this might imply that one of the reasons people simply don't put on weight is lack of enough nutrients in a postworkout meal. With higher volumes, this effect is amplified. Consequently the body goes more and more catabolic to augment blood glucose levels and as such protein degradation starts to overcome potential protein synthesis. At present I'm using 200 grams of cho from maltodextrin coupled with 30-50 grams of whey hydrolysate protein and 1-2 L of distilled water. Intake takes place over 1.5-2 hours postworkout. There is data indicating that the size of meals does not influence glycogen replenishment at all (i.e. eating a lot of carbs or spaced over time, doesn't matter) but I don't think I can let go on that one. That's why I buffer the intake...I'm still not convinced that it's impossible to store bodyfat postworkout, despite heightened ability to process nutrients. > 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 On a non-ketogenic diet, this is a bad situation - no argument. On a ketogenic diet, I don't think I can agree. Glucagon isn't necessarily a bad thing considering it is one of the primary hormones that activates lipolysis. Insulin levels are also inversely related to epinephrine levels - another critical hormone in activating lipolysis (and consequently fat oxidation). Fat oxidation rates have been shown to be higher on a ketogenic diet than a carbohydrate centered diet. > the first priority is to protect against hypoglycemia. I guess > evolution deemed a > glucose sucking brain more important than big muscles. This effect again can be manipulated on a ketogenic diet, where ketone bodies (acetoacetate and 3-hydroxybutyrate) become the main substrates for the brain. The brain can only use two substrates - glucose and ketones - hence it is possible to fuel the brain and lose fat very effectively. Nitrogen retention has been shown to be demonstrably higher on a ketogenic diet than on a low fat diet which is generally indicative of the amount of lean body mass being retained by the body. Through cyclical manipulation of macronutrient intake I feel as though you can pull off gains in LBM on a cyclical-ketogenic diet while losing bodyfat. Although the reason why this works is more due to the fact that metabolically you change the way the body processes nutrients more than anything else. Good post, Jim. ------- Sandeep De The Power Factory - http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/