-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: ABCDE - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:50:14 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: ABCDE >Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 01:48:55 EST >From: SFarrin261 <SFarrin261@aol.com> >Subject: Re ABCDE, Lyle McDonald questions from #111 >That's what I was getting at and your response makes sense. My question would >then be, with strength gains and increased size and weight, could both be >attained with out an increase in contractile tissue. I qualify this by >stating that I only perform the same exercises for one set every 16 or more >days (HDII) so could the increases in strength and size be due solely to skill >increases? Well, individuals who use a lot of androgens tend to store a lot of water in their muscle and, anecdotally at least, they report being stronger (but you have to wonder how much of that is just increased agression in the gym). It's prety well established that dehydration will lower strenght potential but I don't know if anyone has establihsed a relationshiop between hyperhydration and strenght increases. I would expect a muscle that's full of water to be mechanically stronger and being stronger in the gym should mean greater weights or more reps which *might* mean faster progress. too many maybes. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I went to bed one night and I woke up stupid." Brak
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: Special pops - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:50:19 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Special pops >Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 12:57:17 EST >From: LFeld49371 <LFeld49371@aol.com> >Subject: Hit for Special Populations > >Does anyone out there have any opinions on/experience with High Intensity >Training on people with: 1)mild hypertension 2)type 1(insulin >dependent)diabetes? There has been a shift in opinion about weight training and hypertension. Assuming you don't allow a client to perform a Valsalva maneuver (exhalation against a close glottis) or death grip the handles during a set, there should be no complicatiosn with blood pressure. As to diabetes, weight training improves insulin sensitivity (how well the muscle cell can accept insulin) so I'd expect weight training to alter hwo much insulin is needed. This is something tha'ts potentially veyr dangerous, I would have a Type I diabetic discuss this with his MD. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I went to bed one night and I woke up stupid." Brak
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Squat form - from Michael Morgan
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:47:27 PST From: "Michael Morgan" <michael_morgan@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Squat form Gary Bennett wrote: >After finishing squats last night, a rather large guy came up to me and >explained that I was doing them incorrectly. The guy may be right, but I >know he works out about 12 days a week, so his opinion on exercise to me = >is >suspect. Hopefully someone here can help me out. > >The guy said that squats done in a rack should be done with your feet way >out in front of your body, so that your basically leaning back against th= >e >bar. He said your knees, when bent, should not extend beyond your toes. >This form, of course, could only be done with a rack because you'd fall >backward. He claimed this is the way to avoid injury and that the movemen= >t >simulates a leg-press. > >I was doing them with my feet about shoulder-width apart, and I keep my >feet flat on the ground throughout the movement. Also, I only go down to >parallel. I've only done squats a few times, but I just don't see much >risk of injury the way I've been doing them. > >Can anyone tell me where I can see pictures of squats done properly? Or c= >an >you describe the proper form? > >Thanks, >Gary The absolute best, ne plus ultra manual I've found on technique is Stuart MacRobert's book, "The Insider's Tell-All Handbook on Weight-Training Technique." (I receive no compensation from him or his publisher, by the way. I didn't even get a discount on Amazon.com, since it was a special order. $29.95, but well worth it.) He devotes 16 pages, and 14 photos, to the squat alone. I've read about the technique the big guy told you, I think in the book "Secrets of Advanced Bodybuilders." I never could do it, though. After some thought I decided that it was trying to put the body into an unnatural groove, so I dropped it. By the way, Stuart MacRobert says that a trainee should never squat in a Smith machine, because of the unnatural posture and injury potential. The photos illustrating this point look an awful lot like the big guy's advice. Michael
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Squat form, message 6 HIT Digest #112 - from William Measor
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:46:56 +0000 From: William Measor <wil1@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Squat form, message 6 HIT Digest #112 Gary wrote: " Can anyone tell me where I can see pictures of squats done properly? Or can you describe the proper form? " An article that I have found helpful can be found at: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/squats.htm
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. RE: Time Under Load - from John Vormbaum
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:32:41 -0800 From: John Vormbaum <johnv@TRATNET.com> Subject: RE: Time Under Load >I just came across an interesting article on Time under load (aka >tension). > >It is found at http://www.x-net.net/ult_ex/tul.html On one point this article did not go into enough detail: Does anybody know how to figure their optimal Time Under Load? Occasionally I get sloppy with my stopwatch, or forget to bring it, and have a super workout--I'm thinking this could be because I've changed my TUL slightly. Any help would be appreciated! John Vormbaum
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Fiber Types and time under tension - from gus.karageorgos@utoronto.ca
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:22:26 -0500 From: <gus.karageorgos@utoronto.ca> Subject: Fiber Types and time under tension I guess the first question is directed to traditional HIT and SS advocates(ie. Baye, Ryan, Hahn)but I would also be very interested in any criticisms of this position from others who are less supportive of this position. The second question is directed to those individuals are more supportive of the periodized protocol. 1. Doug McGuff (of the SS guild) and Terry Carter have argued that there may exist an "optimal time" under tension or load (TUL) for each exercise where your musculature receives maximum growth stimulation. Once this optimal time is found, one will find that one can progressively overload the muscles by adding weight and not adding any reps or time. To paraphrase McGuff, "We know believe the concept of double progression (increasing weight and reps) is actually mistaken. Instead one should find the signature TUL for a given person in that movement and then carry out SINGLE progression. That is, progress weight at a fixed TUL as is determined by a particular fiber type and motor unit recruitment pattern. Once you know the ideal TUL single progression (increasing resistance) appears to be the way to rapid gains"(see www.x-net.net/ult_ex/tul.html). I have also heard that as one grows progressively stronger, not only does one need to downregulate volume and frequency but also downregulate optimal TUL. I suppose this is consistent with the MedX research which argues that as individuals get progressively stronger the total muscle area taken up by the FT (fast-twitch)fibers increases. Since people with a higher percentage of FT fibers seem to show little muscle endurance (greater fatigue)and/or create more inroad with each rep then one would presumably need to decrease the TUL. What are your opinions on this topic? P.S. McGuff claims that males can continually add 8-10 lbs. every workout (up to a point, of course)on upper body exercises and 14-20lb. jumps on Leg Press. 2. It has been argued that variety in training parameters is needed to insure optimal hypertrophy of all the different fiber types. Typically,it is argued that a lower intensity, higher volume of training is required to optimally stimulate the lower-threshold ST and FOG. Alternatively, a more intense, lower volume of training (since it is believed that FG fibers are quite sensitive to high volumes/frequency and prone to overtraining) is required to optimally stimulate the FG fibers for maximal strength. First, if this is the case, why wouldn't the corresponding fiber elements not trained for up to 6 weeks (or so) in each cycle not atrophy? Even if you employ a weekly variation in cycles to prevent this from happening (as some periodizers advocate), why is it that a prolonged set duration (say 2-3 minutes), employing a relatively lower % of 1-RM (say 50-60% of 1-RM) and carried to concentric failure or close to failure, which will conceivably recruit as many muscle fibers and for longer duration as using a higher % of 1-RM carried to failure, not usually result in greater hypertrophy? This wold seem to imply that the simultaneous hypertrophy of ALL muscle fibers is a physiological impossibility. Even if one accepts fiber-type conversions, this would only seem to strengthen this argument. Thanks you in advance, gus.karageorgos@utoronto.ca