-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Single progression may be the best. - from Teri Pokere
Top
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 11:35:02 +1000 From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au> Subject: Single progression may be the best. Hi, I just came across an interesting article on Time under load (aka tension). Some of you may be aware that I am interested in precise stimulus applications so I can see if there is a correlation between this and the results I've been obtaining. Well the article goes into: 1) Why recording time is more accurate than counting reps 2) That they have found that that there exists a "signature" TUL for different exercises. 3) Utilising this TUL has been found to overcome previous stagnation in performance. 4) That double progression actually handicaps performance if moving away from this ideal Tul. 5) That varying rep speed and range may prove beneficial because of chance encounters with this TUL. This not the best way to train however. It is found at http://www.x-net.net/ult_ex/tul.html I am uncertain to it's effectiveness when been used for compound movements where there is a mismatch of fibre types between the different muscle groups. If there is progress being made however where this is the case there could be enough overlap of stimulation between the muscles that the muscles are actually growing stronger. I hope others find this to be useful, as for me I'm off to buy a stop watch. Cya Teri
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. re >Targeting lat width and - from Steve Raymond
Top
Date: 3 Mar 1998 17:57:51 -0800 From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com> Subject: re >Targeting lat width and >>Im looking for a little help in the biomechanics of some exercises. = I've read for years about concentration curls increasing bicep peak and wide grip = chins/ pulldowns increasing latissimus width.>> The shape of your muscles is determined solely by genetics. Muscle "shaping" is a complete myth. If your program is producing strength/size gains keep with it. Maybe 20 years from now scientists will be able to splice some of Arnold's genes onto ours and we'll all be sculpted and talk funny. spr
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. re > Crunches - from Steve Raymond
Top
Date: 3 Mar 1998 18:15:57 -0800 From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com> Subject: re > Crunches >>I have been doing a sample HIT workout, from the FAQ, for about two weeks. I have been doing one set of each exercise, but I am confused about crunches. Should I do one set of crunches, and if so, what is a good abdominal exercise? >> About a year ago I came across an excellent article by Chuck Clark (I think that was his name) on the web dealing with with ab training. He went through all of the abdominal muscles and their functions and concluded that you could target them all with 2 exercises: crunches and side bends. I have incorporated this into my workouts with excellent results. Use the same protocol you use for your other muscles. For me its a 2/4 rep speed, 8-12 reps, 1 set to failure, double progression. My gym has a great crunch machine so I use that, but i remember Chuck saying that you could also do them on a flat bench while holding a barbell across your upper chest. For side bends I use a single dumbbell and do one side at a time. Hold the db on one side with your arm completely straight and slowly bend to that side, then straighten. This method of side bends has the added benifit of strengthening your grip. spr
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Subscribing to the Dige - from Steve Raymond
Top
Date: 3 Mar 1998 17:28:17 -0800 From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com> Subject: Re: Subscribing to the Dige >>I was wondering if you have anything on "Mike Mentzer" or "Arthur Jones" I am really interested in their type of H.I.T>> The Cyberpump site contains a number of Aurther Jones articles. http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/4000/ Mentzer has his own website. spr
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. #110: training while dieting - from Sandeep De
Top
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 21:28:21 -0500 From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net> Subject: #110: training while dieting > Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 16:18:24 -0800 > From: James White <jimwhite@erols.com> > That is indeed interesting. While it does seem obvious that we as a > biochemical environment in such a way that there is a "critical window" > in which glycogen replenishment and protein synthesis are at their > maximum. To further elaborate on my experiment: For the past two weeks I have been consuming 200grams of carbohydrate from maltodextrin + 34grams of whey protein postworkout, mixed with 1-2L of distilled water, consumed over 1.5 hours. Following that point, my meals total about 400 grams of carbohydrate, and 50-100 grams of protein. Caliper measurements have been no different than four weeks ago, yet body weight has increased +4 lbs. and 1RM's have gone up around 10-15 lbs. (dependant on lift). I am really, really surprised at how receptive the body is towards nutrients postworkout. I have thought in the past that I was consuming enough, but from what I'm eating above, it almost feels as though the capacity is infinite. Of course, it is not, but when you consider the volume of nutrients being processed, with them being devoted to strength and size gains w/o concurrent increases in fat, it is very interesting. What is more interesting that before my strength would go up but concurrent gains in weight and size would not be present. The only difference between my training now and then has been volume of postworkout nutrition. > I would certainly be interested in what that data was, exactly, and how > valid the conclusions drawn from it were. I'm not sure how well the > physiology is understood at this point, so I would also play it safe. I can't dig up the study now - I came across it while writing a research paper - and am away for the next few days. I will be happy to find it for you when I return though. ------- Sandeep De The Power Factory - http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/ ICQ - 8939260 "Beefcake, BEEEEEFFCAAAAAAKE!!!!!" - Cartman
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: HIT Digest #110 - from Sandeep De
Top
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 21:35:00 -0500 From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #110 > Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:45:49 -0500 > From: bszymanski@minolta.com > Sandeep, regarding your post-workout meal, I see you've eliminated the > high-glycemic fruit juice and use the slower-release maltodextrin > exclusively as your carb source, plus the 30 - 50 grams whey protein. > Why did you drop the juice? Isn't the high-glycemic juice necessary > for immediate replenishment? I haven't eliminated the juice. It's still in there, maltodextrin just contributes more in terms of CHO. Maltodextrin, btw, is not slow releasing. In fact, it is very high glycemic (around 130). There are different grades of maltodextrins (amyliopectins) which have slower release but to my knowledge they're all high glycemic. You can delay digestion through the addition of milk proteins or fats, but postworkout, I don't want this. I try to reciprocate the closest scenerio to an IV hookup by continually supplying carbs and protein in small amounts. Perhaps I'm horribly wrong on this issue - those with better understanding of gastric emptying and nutrient distribution could perhaps enlighten - but I think that nutrient utilization is far better when a steady stream is available over time than suddenly gulping something down and letting your body process it. It feels better at the very least. ------- Sandeep De The Power Factory - http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/ ICQ - 8939260 "Beefcake, BEEEEEFFCAAAAAAKE!!!!!" - Cartman
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Blood Pressures - from reptile
Top
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:38:06 -0500 From: "reptile" <reptile@blast.net> Subject: Re: Blood Pressures Jon & Digest Members, > The question has come up about BP and the BP monitor with a concern > toward upper arm size. > The nurse then informed me that the average BP cusp > (including the auto ones at the Supermarket) are made for arms 13 inches > and smaller. Although there are many factors that determine a correct blood pressure reading, cuff size is definitely one. A narrow cuff will result in a reading that is incorrectly high and a wide cuff will result in a reading that is low. Cuffs are marked for this very reason and is important to measure them correctly when fitting the cuff around the upper arm. The normal-sized adult (according to ACSM) uses a cuff of 12 to 14 cm in width. If a reading is high or abnormal, we usually re-take it several times, sometimes even over the course of a few days, to be sure the measurement is consistent and accurate. BP readings vary on a daily basis (in some cases more severely than others) due to many things, including human error, stress, medications, exercise, etc. Believe it or not, I have heard many many stories of nurses taking inaccurate blood pressures. It always seems to me that they are just in too much of a rush! In Good Health, Rachael = )
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: ABCDE diet - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:15:32 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: ABCDE diet >Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:38:24 EST >From: SFarrin261 <SFarrin261@aol.com> >Subject: Re: ABCDE Diet #105 > Hi just wanted to throw my 2 cents in regarding the ABCDE diet post on HD #105. First off I must say that I really like the diet for 3 reasons: 1) Its Simple as in K.I.S.S. type simple - 2 Weeks stuffing your face then 2 weeks not stuffing your face. 2) Its easy - Even I can suffer through 2 week cycles at either extreme knowing that the next cycle was just around the corner 3) It works for me - I have not gained mass this fast since I was a toddler. Question: how much were you eating on a daily basis prior to starting the ABCDE diet? I ask because I find a lot of lifters who have trouble gaining mass are not eating enough calories per day. So I wonder if it's the cycling per se that's causing you to make gains or the fact that you're getting sufficient calories during the 2 weeks of overfeeding. >In #105 you Stated that " The queston in my mind is just how quickly the body >can put on muscle." I vaguely remember a figure of 1/2 lb. of muscle per day >being quoted in the Colorado Experiment with Author Jones and Casey Viator. >Now granted it is a commonly held belief that Casey was "juicing" at that time >but we would all have to agree that juicing then is nothing in comparison to >what it means today. Also, he was coming off a layoff and was detrained. It's well established that someone will gain BACK muscle quicker than he gains it in the first place. To my knowledge, no one has examined how much muscle can be put on in a given day under normal circumstances but 1/2 lb would be extremely high in my mind. >My understanding is that muscle cells are a major storage sight for >glycogen and water and if the lean body mass keeps going up each cycle then in >order for glycogen and water to be the major reason for LBM increase wouldn't >they eventually need more places to be stored, or is my understanding flawed >as to where the glycogen and water composing the LBM are stored. I am aware >that fat cells carry an abundance of water as well but that could not be >considered LBM. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I assume that you're arguing that increasing glycogen and water in the muscle cycle to cycle would eventually mean the muscle would have to get bigger as a consequence. Sort of. Glycogen adn water is stored outside of the individual muscle fibers (in the sarcoplasm of the muscle). So increased glycogen and water will make a muscle appear larger but you haven't actually added contractile tissue. >Lastly, regarding the legitimacy of the diet, you stated " 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." While what you state could be true, I think it is more >likely that being an effective business man (and he is) he probably just >jumped on an opportunity, thus making him an opportunist as opposed to a >conspiritor. Either way If the diet is efficacious it stands on its own, if it >sucks... well it just sucks. This is always the chicken and egg question. Do individuals sell supplements that they truly believe in or do they claim to truly believe in them because they sell them. Phillips has demonstrated this behavior before with many supplements. He'll write about some amazing discovery that will revolutionize bodybuilding then, a few months later, the supplement he's been talking about will appear on the scene. I'm sure some subscribers recall when Phillips would pull the "This supplement is readily available but I konw of a small company that might have some" tactic of selling. The general feedback I've seen to the ABCDE diet has been generally negative although some people seem to do well on it. I suppose you can just chalk it up to individual differences and I'm not about to tell someone that what they're doing isn't working (if it is) based on theoretical ramblings. But based on what I saw in the cited studies for the ABCDE diet (especially some of hte truly stupid ones like the Quail stretching studies), I'm not going to be the one to try it. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "Oh my god!! They killed Kenny!!!" Stan
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: CKDanger ha ha - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:15:26 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: CKDanger ha ha >Dte: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:12:20 -0800 >From: John Vormbaum <johnv@TRATNET.com> >Subject: CKD Safety Question > >I have a question regarding the CKD: I've read that Ketogenic diets have >a potentially dangerous effect on blood potassium level. From what I >understand, the potassium level seesaws; in the early part of a CKD the >level increases dramatically--this is followed by a dive and potassium >levels get very low. The impact of low potassium levels includes severe >cramping and sometimes heart arrhythmia. I'm considering a CKD but am a >little edgy about potential dangers. Has anybody experienced adverse >side effects from following a CKD? Most of the concerns regarding lowcarb diets and potassium is unfounded. There were several (at least 20 deaths) in the 70's iwth a diet called "The Last Chance" diet that bore a passing semblance to a ketogenic diet. IT administered 300 kcal/day of a liquid collage protein (fortified with tryptophan which is the limiting amino) but contained NO vitamins or minerals. Weight loss was massive, aeraging 4-5 lbs/week and people stayed on it for months at a time. Upon autopsy, cardiac damage was seen. Later studies, which administered ketogenic diets from food (which will contain about 1 gram of potassium even at low caloreis) with a supplement of an additinal 1 gram of potassium per day showed absolutely NO problems in terms of low serum potassium or cardiac arrythmias. As always, I've got references if anyone cares. The major side effects people get from ketogenic diets is transient fatigue during the first few weeks. This might be related to the time it takes the brain to adapt to using ketone for fuel or it might simply be orthostatic hypotension which can be fixed by consuming adequate sodium (some studies have given 5 gram sodium per day as bouillon). Lyle McDonald, CSCS "Oh my god!! They killed Kenny!!!" Stan
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: HIT vs Periodization - from Brad Collins
Top
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 05:25:29 PST From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: HIT vs Periodization Fred II wrote: >As for HIT vs. Periodization studies, long ago I offered some studies >on one set to failure training vs. multiple sets.... I will re- open this >offer. >Email me a request! > And for the real deal on one of the more well known "studies", just go and read Coach Ken Mannie's letter under HIT Stuff on Cyberpump. BC
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: Jones and Mentzer - from Brad Collins
Top
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 05:28:23 PST From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Jones and Mentzer > >-------------------- 7 -------------------- >Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:52:37 -0800 (PST) >From: "Marween Y. Ibanez" <hdstud@seattleu.edu> >Subject: RE: Subscribing to the Digest > >I was wondering if you have anything on "Mike Mentzer" or "Arthur >Jones" >I am really interested in their type of H.I.T . > > Look under Training (or is it Features?) at Cyberpump! There is a whole slew of articles by Jones. For Mentzer, go to his site at www.mikementzer.com. BC
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. "High" Blood pressure in larger arms - from Charlie McGaff
Top
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:30:24 -0500 From: Charlie McGaff <Charlie_McGaff@compuserve.com> Subject: "High" Blood pressure in larger arms to: jon and stacy ziegler <rutger1@jps.net> I am a physician, and HIT fan. re. your recent medical check up: You were found to have "high" blood pressure because the nurse used too narrow a cuff when you were checked. This can happen whether your arm is large due to fat or muscle. By using a narrow cuff, you have to pump it to a higher pressure before it compresses the larger muscle (fat) and the blood flow. This makes it appear as if a higher pressure is needed to stop the blood flow (by definition, high blood pressure). BTW, most MD's would not start anyone on BP medication after a single high BP reading. Usual recommendations are weight loss, exercise, salt elimination, etc... Hope this helps. charlie_mcgaff@compuserve.com
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re: HIT Digest #110 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 18:11:51 EST From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #110 In a message dated 98-03-03 19:51:44 EST, you write: << I've read for years about concentration curls increasing bicep peak and wide grip chins/ pulldowns increasing latissimus width >> Sorry to disappoint you, my friend...genetics is what determines muscular shape. There is no way to increase the peak of your biceps, and your lats become wider and bigger overall as you work them. Let me go out on a limb here: There are no exercises that work "inner pec", "inner/outer lats", "Bicep peak", etc., although we hear about stuff like that all the time. Turning your feet in during calf raises will not isolate your outer calves. Etc. Your muscles will grow in the shape of their genetic programming. I am not even convinced that dancing gives one a "long, lean look", or that partial range of motion resistance training gives one "short, bunchy muscles". I do not believe that high reps "increase definition", either. Perhaps upper/lower pecs can be somewhat isolated, because the fibers run basically horizontally. Whether or not that results in an aesthetic difference in the muscle is a different quetstion (I doubt it). (Decline flyes, by the way, are probably the best way to isolate the chest, since they minimize anterior delt involvment by limiting horizontal adduction). More on lats: If you look at the lat's fibers, you may be able to argue (maybe) that exercises involving shoulder adduction, i.e. bringing the arms down toward the midline of the body from the position of upper arms out to the sides, (wide grip lat pulls, for example) work the lower fibers of the lats, since they bring arm down, whereas shoulder extension exercises (pullovers, seated rows, etc) work more of the the upper portion of the lats, since these fibers seem to simply work these shoulder joint mostly in the sagital plane. However, you can never truly isolate; the entire lat works in both types of activities, so the most you can do is emphasize one part over the other, if you can even do that. All of that having been said, there are games we can play to make it seem as though we are controlling the "shaping" of our muscles: Use reverse curls to build your brachialis (located on the lateral side of your upper arm under the biceps). Since most people do not even know that muscle exists, having a developed brachialis gives the appearance of a better defined biceps (it gives you a nice "cut"). All you can do is work out as hard as you can and hope for the best. Good luck. Eytan Koch And thanks to everyone who responded to my periodization/HIT training question.
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Re: HIT Digest #110 - from n_wagener
Top
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 21:29:39 GMT From: n_wagener <n_wagener@wpusd.k12.ca.us> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #110 I was interested in what Sonofsquat had to say in regard to HIT and Periodization. "This is all periodization (by my own definition) is all about: changing your routine periodically to avoid overtraining, undertraining and staleness!" My question is this, is there a prescribed length of time a lifter should use maximum effort,lifting to failure, then backing off for a period of time doing lighter lifts? I have seen plenty of HIT routines but all of them are for the maximum phase of the lift. I am fairly new to HIT and while I have made good gains after lifting hard for the past 2-3 months, I seem to have leveled out and even regressed on a few lifts this past week. Is there some guidelines or suggestions on how long the heavy lifting cycle should go? Followed by how long to go easy? Would the easy phase be a good time try and loose some fat by upping time spent on aerobics? I asked for and got some very good suggestions on rotator cuff strength/healing and have made good progress. Hope someone can point me to a good program to follow in this "changing your routine periodically" WAGGY