-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Power Factor Training - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:05:13 -0800 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Power Factor Training > From: Orjan Leirheim <oeleir@online.no> > > I just purchased the book "Power Factor Training" by Pete Sisco and John > Little, and have just finished reading it. It all seems very logical, and > I`d like to give it a try. However, I`d like to hear if anyone here has > tried it, and if so, what were your experiences with the system? Don't let the supposed logic behind the Power Factor Training (PFT) philosophy fool you. The PFT philosophy is riddled with many flaws. PFT advocates the exclusive use of partial training in the strongest ROM. However, strength gains are specific to the range of motion performed during an exercise (1). Performing an exercise in only a partial ROM will not result in strength gains over the entire ROM. Strongest-range partials usually occur at short muscle lengths. However, greater eccentric-induced muscle damage tends to occur at long muscle lengths (2); this damage plays a role in muscle hypertrophy (3). Therefore, exclusive use of strongest-range partials will limit muscle damage and muscle hypertrophy. Full-range movements are necesssary for optimal muscle hypertrophy (3). Little and Sisco define work as: (weight x repetitions)/time However, work is actually defined as: (weight x distance) When you use only strongest-range partials, the distance that the weight is moved is much less. This nullifies the increased amount of weight made possible by partial movements. Therefore, contrary to the authors' assertions, you are not performing more work when you use strongest-range partials. Exclusive use of strongest-range partials can result in a loss of sarcomeres at the ends of a muscle, which will reduce the overall length of the muscle. This is not good for your flexibility or your joints. Strongest-range partials will also ignore muscle groups that are more heavily involved at other points of the full ROM of an exercise. For example, performing only strongest-range squats severely limits hamstring involvement that would otherwise occur during full squats. On top of all of this scientific evidence that breaks down the PFT philosophy, I have also had personal experience with the protocol. During my earlier days of training, I experimented with PFT, buying into the logic of the program at the time. I gained strenght on all of my partial exercises; however, I lost significant full-range strength on those same exercises, as well as losing muscle mass in the process. My recommendation is to avoid PFT. 1. Graves, J.E., M.L. Pollock, A.E. Jones, A.B. Colvin, and S.H. Leggett. 1989. Specificity of limited range of motion variable resistance training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 21(1):84-89.\ 2. Nosaka, K., K. Sakamoto, and P.M. Clarkson. 1996. Eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage is dependent on muscle length. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28(5):S113. Abstract. 3. Behm, D.G. 1995. Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance training. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 9(4):254-274. 4. Leiber, R.L. 1992. Skeletal Muscle Structure and Function. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins. James
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: Mentzer - from Brad Collins
Top
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 03:58:30 PST From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Mentzer >Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:27:08 EST >From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> >Subject: Re: Mentzer > > >I haven't read the whole quote, but this quite different from my training >philosophy. I want to know how much will provide optimal growth, not how >little do I require. If "more is better", I'm going to do more! > How about "How little you require for optimum growth?". Well, I would guess the majority on this list don't have the time to do MORE. There is no proof that MORE is better and I believe LESS is MORE. Good thing the company I work for doesn't have that mentality. I would be out of a job. [Obviously you've never been "reengineered". ---Rob] How about this analogy: Companies want best results, i.e., make the most money, right? How do you measure that? Maximize profit...analogy to maximizing gains. But who is doing better, the company that invests 10 million and gets 1 million in profit, or the one that invests 100 million and makes 1 million in profit? How about Return On Investment (ROI)? An analogy could be Return On Time. BC
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Looking smaller after fat loss - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 09:11:28 -0500 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Re: Looking smaller after fat loss Adrian, The density of fat is much lower than that of muscle tissue. A pound of muscle only equals approximately 60% the volume of a pound of fat. If you were to gain 10 pounds of muscle, and lose 10 pounds of fat, you'd obviously weigh the same, but would appear a bit smaller. Considering that you haven't lost any strength, chances are you did not lose any muscle tissue. Next time you try to cut weight though, I'd recommend doing it without the aerobics. The average fat loss for male clients over the first 6 weeks is over 20 pounds, with an average muscle gain of 3 to 4 pounds, doing two brief SuperSlow workouts and following a moderately reduced calorie diet only. They do absolutely no aerobics. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild http://www.superslow.com/
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Super Squats - from Margo and Chris Walter
Top
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:53:30 -0500 From: Margo and Chris Walter <cwalter@swva.net> Subject: Super Squats If anyone has experience with "Super Squats," the program advocated by Randall Strossen in his book of the same name, please e-mail me. Thanks. Chris Walter, cwalter@swva.net
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: HIT Digest #115 - from Mike Strassburg
Top
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:30:30 -0600 From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #115 Mike: I just want to share something I recently read on the Mentzer website... Here it is: "The question you should be asking yourself is not how much exercise do I need, but how little do I require" >> Fred II: I haven't read the whole quote, but this quite different from my training philosophy. I want to know how much will provide optimal growth, not how little do I require. If "more is better", I'm going to do more! Mike: I've followed the "more is better" philosophy for my entire training career, and I've got little to show for it. Inevitably I start adding more exercises and training sessions. For me, the "more is better" mentality ALWAYS lead to overtraining and burnout. My new philosophy is based on the idea that: since I've wasted so many years over-training and making little progress, why not try leaning towards under-training and see what results I can achieve. What have I got to lose. Since we both know that no one knows what is the "optimal" amount of training to provide maximum growth, I feel it will be better to err on the side of "not enough" vs. "too much". Mike: I'm going to do a 6 month experiment using the 2 days a week program. I'll be tracking poundages, reps, Heartbeat during cardio, and any other info I feel relevant. Each month I'll submit a short post to chart my progress (or lack of), and any info I learn along the way. >> Fred II: Sounds great and I look forward to your updates! Just one suggestion... Cut it down to a 2 or 3 month experiment. My two reasons are: 1. By then your training will probably need a change of pace to continue results; 2. Mentzer claims you can reach your genetic well before then. It would be interesting to find out if this is true... No? Mike: I've chosen 6 months for 3 reasons: 1) Due to my over-training on the higher frequency of my previous routine, I believe that the lower frequency will allow me to initially progress for quite some time (also the "placebo" effect needs to be considered, since I have GREAT enthusiasm towards this routine) 2) Personally, I'm not concerned with reaching my "genetic potential". My training is based on the "journey" not the "destination". I truly enjoy working out (why else would I train for so many years with so little to show for it). While,I do have better strength & conditioning than the average person, but it just doesn't justify spending so much time in the gym. 3) I plan on using this protocol for the rest of my training career, so I want to go past the 2-3 month point to make sure that my "initial enthusiasm" wears off. Then I can better assess if it's providing the progress I want. Also, since I play ice hockey 1-2 times per week, year round, my recovery ability is already limited compared to many others. I'm not really a Mentzer proponent, I just found that quote from his website to be very eye opening. I tend to lean towards Clarence Bass and Richard Winett. While I'm only about half their ages, I feel their "lessons learned" and views on training can benefit almost everybody. Eventually we'll all be at the point in our lives when we realize that a 400# bench press really doesn't matter. I realized that a long time ago. Personally, I hope to maintain enough strength and conditioning to play competitive ice hockey into my 50's. While I feel our views & goals probably differ, I appreciate your feedback, as different perspectives allow the opportunity to learn something new. P.S. Something I've already noticed with the 2-day a week training. Much like the way multiple sets can cause you to subconsciously hold back, I think that multiple workouts per week were doing the same thing. Knowing that I only have 1 weight workout & 1 cardio workout per week, I'm totally focused on making it as hard and productive as possible. The soreness and systematic fatigue have been incredible. Just something to consider..........Mike
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. HIT sort of in the news... - from Josh Salmanson
Top
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:28:31 -0500 From: "Josh Salmanson" <jsalmans@syssrc.com> Subject: HIT sort of in the news... Friday, March 20th episode of "Politically Incorrect" featured Henry Rollins of MTV Rollins band fame as a panelist. He was wearing a Dr. Ken's (Leistner) Strength Training T-Shirt. I'm sick of all the current politics but waited to see if maybe he'd rip out a set of death squats. ["Death squats"? Must be the ultimate in "failure", HAH! --Rob] He didn't, but Ken must have him doing something right, his forearms looked huge. It would have made Brooks Kubik and John Brookfield very proud indeed. Josh Salmanson jsalmans@syssrc.com