-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. programs - from MSdfense51
Top
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 23:22:45 EST From: MSdfense51 <MSdfense51@aol.com> Subject: programs I have a few programs lined up that im considering using, alternating each. They are as follows: super-slow traning german volume training 10 week size surge dinosaur training Does anyone have any experience or comments on any of these programs? Any advice is much appreciated. Thankyou, Mark msdfense51@aol.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re:Huh? - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:36:38 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re:Huh? >Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 03:58:30 PST >From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com> >Subject: Re: Mentzer >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? This analogy assumes that the return will be the same in both cases which is most likely not a safe assumption (how could both companies possibly get the same return with such a different investment level). NOW, if a company invested 100 million (10 times the investment of company 1) and only got 9 million in return (only 9 times the return of company 1), they'd be wasting money. >How about Return On Investment (ROI)? An analogy could be Return On >Time. In this case, company 1 has made a return of 1/10 (1 million return/10 million investment) and company 2 has a return of 9/100 or 0.9/10. Obviously company 1 made the better ROI. but what if both companies were under pressure to produce 9 million dollars in a limited amount of time (make up some lurid reason why)? Then company 2 is validated for the worse ROI. Let's say that 1 set will yield a 10lb increase in 8 weeks (I'm making up the numbers here). This takes 1 minute to perform. Let's say that 3 sets will yield a 15 lb increase in 8 weeks. This takes 6 minutes to perform (including 1 minute for each set, 1' for the rest periods). The return on time is 10/1 in the first example (10 lbs for 1' work) The return on time is 15/6 in the second example (it could be argued that the true return is 15/3 if you look at the amoutn of work done but I imagine most also look at how long you're in the gym at a given workout). The return on time for example 1 is 10 lbs/', example 2 is a little over 2lbs/'. Question: Let's say I have to increase this lift by 15 lbs in 8 weeks or I'll lose my job. Which program do I have to choose? So the question of return of time is (as with everything else) totally context specific and there is no one correct answer. >Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:30:30 -0600 >From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #115 >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. I asked this question over on the weights-2 list and I'll ask it again: why does training always have to fall at one extreme or the other? It seems that most of the extreme low volume (1 set to failure) proponents are arguing against the standard 20 sets/bodypart stuff that passes for training advice. I agree that that type of training is useless unless you're on drugs. But why can't a trainee with an abbreviated exercise selection do 3-5 sets per bodypart (authors in Hardgainer do it all the time) depending on the rep range being used. Same question for frequency, why does training either have to be 'once every 10-14 days' (Mentzer) or 'three times per week' (drug users)? What if I train a bodypart once every 5 days or three times every 2 weeks (a lot of HG authors do well on a Mon/Fri/Wed spacing)? Again, why does training have to be at one extreme or the other? Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I went to bed one night and I woke up stupid." Brak
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Aerobics and fat loss - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 23:13:14 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Aerobics and fat loss >Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 09:11:28 -0500 >From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> >Subject: Re: Looking smaller after fat loss >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. I want to second Andrew's comments here with regards to aerobics and fat loss. If there truly is one area that aerobics are vastly over-rated, it's for fat loss. Look at the multitudes of individuals doing aerobic classes and the rat (err, tread) mill for hours each day. Come back in 6 months, if they aren't weight training to some degree or another, they won't have gotten any results. However, I have run into some peopl who simply will not monitor their diet. While I agree that weight training plus a slight caloric restriction (never more than 20% below maintenance or roughly 11-12 cal/lb in my opinion) is the most efficient way to lose bodyfat, if someone won't monitor their calories (or has a past history of eating disorders or something that would contraindicate them becoming that obsessive about caloric intake), aerobic exercise will suffice as a method to create a caloric deficit. But, the studies show that, as long as you're weight training, the caloric deficit from eating 300 calories less will yield the same fat loss as from burning 300 calories with aerobics. So it ultimately becomes a question of whether you want to spend 30-45' on the rat mill or just eat a little less, a personal choice to be sure. If you're just hell-bent on doing aerobics for fat loss, I don't recommend more than 40' done four times weekly (and I generally suggest doing it on weight training days after your weights so that the in-between days are complete days off). More than that and you will get into problems with muscle loss, hormone depression, increased injury potential, etc. Also, a non-impact interval training method (such as cycling or the Stairmaster) where you alternate short periods of maximal intensity with short periods of lower intensity, will cause far more fat loss than any amount of low intensity work. Don't believe me, look at sprinters. They never work in their 'fat burning zone' (ha ha, another fitness misconception that needs to die) and have lower bodyfat levels than marathon runners. FWIW, Richard Winett (sp?) who writes the Master Trainer newsletter is a big proponent of interval training, as is Clarence Bass (Mr. Ripped from Muscle and Fitness magazine). Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I went to bed one night and I woke up stupid." Brak
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: HIT Digest #116 - from Sonofsquat
Top
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 00:54:11 EST From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #116 Sonofsquat writes: << 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!>> Brad writes: <How about "How little you require for optimum growth?".>> Ok, you win... How little do you require for optimum growth... Any less than "optimum growth" and I won't concern myself with it... < There is no proof that MORE is better and I believe LESS is MORE.> No proof that more is better than what? What is "more" defined as in this statement and what is "less" defined as? Is LESS "MORE"? Depends how much "MORE" was before it was LESS! Follow me??? Me neither! Bottom line: Some of us need more and some need less. Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: MORE IS BETTER! (More or less...) - from Sonofsquat
Top
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:13:08 EST From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> Subject: Re: MORE IS BETTER! (More or less...) Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe I gave a wrong impression of my philosophies on training. I do not believe more always better; I believe "better" is better whether it be with more or less. Even better than "better" is best. And since we more or less don't know what's "Best", we do know that more is "better" for some and "less" is better for some.... I realize I'm starting to sound like Bobby "The Brain" Heenan... Sorry! All I want to know for myself is what is "best" for me. As for others I train, I want to know what is "best" for them and while I may not find the answers to these questions, I believe I will undoubtedly find some programs better for others in some situations. For me HDII and HIT are not the best options for me! Tried them... didn't work! Fred II
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Dinosaur Training - from Robert L.Phillips
Top
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 08:23:51 -0600 From: "Robert L.Phillips" <phillips.robert@mcleodusa.net> Subject: Dinosaur Training I'm curious about how many out there have read Brooks Kubik's Dinosaur Training and how many have tried some of the training strategies? I've used it with great success except for a few injuries from some of the sandbag lifting. I also wonder what readers of the book think about his article in Ironman, as he really puts down that sort of publication in his book. Plus, has anyone subscribed to to his Dinosaur training newsletter? I'm curious about the content. I'd subscribe, but I'm feeling burned after subscribing to Mentzer's newsletter. He's got to be kidding!
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Sonofsquat and Mentzer - from JawDogs
Top
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:18:33 EST From: JawDogs <JawDogs@aol.com> Subject: Sonofsquat and Mentzer 3/23/98 FR: Jawdogs (Fred Hahn) RE: HIT #115 Article #3 Sonofsquat and Mentzer OK everyone, let’s get it straight. Mentzer did not invent the concept of less is more nor did he coin the phrase “The question you should ask yourself is not how much exercise do I need, but how little do I require.” Arthur Jones first popularized this concept many, many year ago. Let’s give credit where credit is truly due, shall we? In fact, almost everything Mentzer says and preaches is Jonesian training philosophy (albeit with a mound of Ayn Rand piled on top. But hey, why not -- she was a good writer). I suppose someone before Jones may have thought up the idea of less is more in weight lifting, but who knows. Let’s be clear though -- it sure wasn’t Mentzer. To you Mr. Hatfield I say congratulations! It appears you understand the concept of less is more. Now, you may assume that by stating in HIT #115 that you want to know how much strength training will provide optimal growth, and that if more is better you’ll do more that this automatically means you would gladly do 80 sets of every exercise one could think of keeping yourself in the gymnasium for 4 hours 7 days per week in order to put an inch or so on your biceps, two inches or so on your chest, etc., but it doesn’t. What you are essentially admitting to yourself is that in wanting to become bigger and stronger, if more of anything including exercise intensity (that ever elusive concept) is better, then you are ready, willing and able, am I right? I put to you FH2 (as I put to FH1 at a Club Industry lecture he gave a couple of years back) that if one truly understands how to train intensively, multiple sets are literally impossible and even a twice a week training regimen becomes non-productive and even counter productive. Yes more can be better. The question is more of what. More sun won’t make an already dark tan darker. But a more intense sun will. The very concept of progressive resistance proves, in a sense, that multiple sets, volume and variety are not necessary and invalid. If volume and variety were valid concepts, one need never increase resistance’s right? Just vary the routines constantly and do more reps and sets. One of the biggest problems with this whole volume/less is more thing is that those who possess above average genetics and neurologically efficient systems have the inferior to compare themselves to. When they compare themselves to the typical person it appears that their volume approach works well. They simply cannot understand the luck of the draw that they received by being born with the kind of body they did. (It’s sort of like being the only handsome guy at a party and all the women, mostly by default, are rapping with you. Then a Paul Newman look alike walks in. How handsome are you now?) One must only compare themselves with themselves. Most of the genetically superior people I speak with and see train never get much stronger or larger as the months roll by. Look at pictures of Arnold when he was 20 years old or so. Then look at pictures when he was 30. (Compare like photos please. Don’t compare a candid beach shot with an oiled Olympia pump shot.) What you will see is that he looks EXACTLY the same. (Actually his calves do look better at 30, but it has been gossiped that he had implants.) Here is a major difference between the volume/periodization people, the HIT people and the Super Slow people (some at least.) The HIT proponents (at least the older ones) have already tried the volume approach. They have already done just about every training method under the sun to become larger and stronger. Many, however, have not tried super slow and have spoken out against it without ever really experiencing it. The super slow proponents (again the older ones) have also tried the volume approach. They have also done the HIT thing (Arthur Jones) and feel that training in a super slow fashion augments Jonsian philosophy, which it does. Alas the poor volume people. They haven’t the slightest idea what it means to train intensively. They feel that hard, long, drawn out manual labor strength training bouts equal intensive training. But they have not done the HIT thing. They have not done the super slow thing. They have no foundation on which to stand to judge between the three. The few that have tried the other approaches and have gone back to the volume approach are not looking for results. They are looking to pal around in the gym and demonstrate their power, not develop their strength -- which is fine if this is the goal. Mr. Hatfield, I’d like to see your training records. I’d like to see just how much stronger you are today than you were one year ago. I’d be glad to show anyone my records. Here is a question for everyone. If one is 20 years of age and is currently barbell biceps curling, say, 70 pounds in a 10/10 count for 90 seconds time under load, and increases the resistance by only one pound each training session and trains only once per week, (assuming no injuries or illnesses, just for the sake of argument) how much will he be biceps curling when he is 60? The answer 2150 pounds. Of course, this is not possible. Mike Mentzer says you can reach your genetic potential in a year or less, right? But at what rate of progress? Why would our muscles suddenly, at 150 pounds in a biceps curl, say “Sorry 151 is not possible.” If this did happen, what would you do? Just keep training using the same resistance’s? Seems odd to me. I’ll tell you what I think. And I’ll tell you now that what I theorize to be true is the proof for low volume, extremely infrequent training. The reason why you cannot get to a one ton biceps curl is that we simply do not live long enough to keep getting stronger. After maybe one or two years of intensive training it becomes necessary to train ever more infrequently, maybe only one session every 2 or 3 months and adding only a single pound or half pound at each session. By this time one is so strong that the amount of energy it takes to exercise is enormous. If high volume worked so well, one would be curling a ton in couple of years. Make sense? To the guy who is going to do the strength study on himself using low volume, high intensity training I make these suggestions: Keep all cardio work out of your experiment. It will take away from recovery and is not necessary for health purposes. Keep the study to six months. Don’t vary your routines If you can, video tape yourself training! Very important! Note how Fleck and Kraemer never video their studies. Ever wonder why? Regards, Fred Hahn
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. PFT / ROM / "fast" lifting - from Brian Bucher
Top
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:49:54 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu> Subject: PFT / ROM / "fast" lifting > -------------------- 1 -------------------- > Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:05:13 -0800 > From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu> > Subject: Re: Power Factor Training > > 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. Hey James, Here's something I've been pondering for a while, but I don't think I've ever seen it discussed. One of the general arguments against fast lifting (high acceleration) is that during the last 1/2 of a movement, momentum is used to move the weight, therefore the exercise is less effective. The pro-fast group then usually claims that even though less force is required in the latter half, more force is required in the first half in order to achieve the momentum. At this point, I've never seen the discussion go any further. AFAIK, both sides ignore each other at this point. heh Now, wouldn't the fact that strength gains are specific to a ROM be an argument against fast lifting? Yes, more force may be required in the first half, but since much less is required for the second half, the latter half of the ROM is neglected and will not gain as much strength as in a controlled lift. As for this discussion, I'm thinking in terms of single-joint movements such as a curl or tricep press, where no trade-off between muscle groups occurs during the lift. What does everything think? Brian
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. fat loss - from Tom
Top
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:02:14 -0800 From: "Tom" <tomb@golden.net> Subject: fat loss >>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.>> I totally agree that you don't need to do cardio to loose the fat. I started on a 2600 calorie a day diet lifting weights 3 times a week for 60 minutes each time (sometimes 2 times) and in 8 weeks went from 11%bf to 6% bf. My weight dropped from 157lbs to 155lbs. My weight over the time was as low as 152.5lbs but has come back up. (It came back up fast when I cheated on my diet for 3 days but it all came in lean body mass) I never did any cardio. I stopped totally. I do stretch for 20 minutes before every workout. I have made good gains during the time I lowered my bf% to 6%. I have learned that I loose .66 pounds a week on 2600 calories. Tom Tom's Gym! http://weightlifting.net "Attack every rep with enthusiasm... as if your survival depended upon it."
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. superslow impressions #2 - from Jarlo Ilano
Top
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 22:57:56 -0800 From: Jarlo Ilano <jilano@ups.edu> Subject: superslow impressions #2 Today in my superslow session I performed: Squats (on a smith machine), chin ups (nautilus machine which takes away some of your body weight), pushups (utilizing a "push up" apparatus which allows for a greater range of motion), compound row, and nautilus ab machine. This workout really took a lot out of me as I really focused on pushing as much as I possibly could. The squats and pushups were devastating. The technique on the squat involved placing your feet pretty far in front of you so that your back remained upright through the entire range. This exercise was really distressing because there was only 30 pounds placed on the bar (the last time i did free weight squats I could do 225 for a slow 5/1/5 tempo for a good 6-8 reps) very hard on the ego! Nonetheless I could only squeeze out a few reps before I went to rock bottom and could not budge the weight for the life of me. And of course the trainer expected 15 more seconds... let me tell you that 15 seconds felt like an eternity and I pushed more out of rage and spite that someone would do this to me than I would like to admit. =) I would definitely recommend superslow tempos for squats for those that truly enjoy high intensity style training. Pushups were also great and again humbling, the ab machine was performed at the end and I could barely concentrate as I was breathing quite heavily... a very difficult exercise to perform without wishing you'd simply pass out! My impressions: Another nuance of training that I had often heard but again neglected was the principle of not locking out your movements. What the superslow advocates call the "turnaround" involves simply reversing the direction of motion (without jerking of course) and not allowing your structure (bones) to remove the tension on the muscles. I had not realized how much of a rest that that fraction of a second of lockout gives you. The trainer's instruction to turnaround was maddening as I knew it meant I would be given no respite. This technique, for all its simplicity, is an incredible intensity technique. I had trained quite strictly before but this simple change adds a nice dimension to training without boldly restructuring your workout. Try this continuous loading if you have not already. As I had mentioned previously, it is also advocated to take no rest between exercises, you should walk/stumble to the next exercise and begin the performance as soon as possible. Needless to say this so termed "metabolic conditioning" effect definitely takes the workout to another level of work. I cannot say I enjoy it, but I definitely feel that this work can provide benefits that i had not experienced with my previous method of taking breaks between exercises. The level of mental concentration and effort that must be exerted in this type of training is immense. To truly push yourself and not give into the discomfort and anxiety of engaging against a resistance that is just not budging, is a quality that I hope improves with sessions. You truly cannot go through the motions with this type of training and if you do I believe you are most certainly not getting the most you can out of it. And I think this is true for any system of training, you must provide a level of involvement and concentration that is commensurate with the type of progress you would like to make, thus the cliche "you get out what you put into it". Thus an argument can be made against this type of training for some people as they may simply be unable to sustain this type of effort. However, if one wishes to progress and gain you need to be able to apply sincere effort at some point. I feel that this type of effort does much in the way of developing your character as much as it develops your muscular development. It certainly is not "teaching (people) to fail". more to follow... Jarlo Ilano Student University Of Puget Sound Graduate School of Physical Therapy Tacoma, Washington
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Routine - from Zbyszko Tarczewski
Top
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:17:27 +0100 From: Zbyszko Tarczewski <biniu@usa.net> Subject: Routine Hello guys What do you think about this routine All movements done with super slow protocol (10s pos/10s neg) to failure Day 1 Flat flies superset with incline press Nosebreaker drop set Stiff-legged deadlift drop set Day 2 rest Day 3 Leg extension superset with squat Lateral raise superset with shoulder press Calf raise drop set Day 4 rest Day 5 Pulldowns to front Bent over row Bent over row (shallow) Arm curl drop set Day 6 rest Day 7 repeat Thanks ****************************** * Zbyszko Tarczewski * Poland * e-mail:biniu@usa.net
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: Mentzer - from Brad Collins
Top
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:46:17 PST From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Mentzer Mike wrote in response to Fred II >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 exercises and training sessions. For me, the "more is >better" mentality ALWAYS lead to overtraining and burnout. I have noticed this is almost always the case unless the lifter started using...well...other means. >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 Bravo! I have been trying to get this across to certain people for awhile now when these "discussions" come up about which methods are better. You won't find the majority of people who lift weights spewing Muscle Comic rhetoric like "Think Big, Eat Big, blah blah blah". >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. Again, well put. Training can be part of your life, but there are other priorities as well. There are some people who never realize this. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re: HIT Digest #116 - from FNTSYBBALL
Top
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 19:41:00 EST From: FNTSYBBALL <FNTSYBBALL@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #116 I have been a subscriber to this digest for a couple of months now and have really enjoyed most of the posts herein. I would like to contribute my 2 cents now for what it may be worth. I have trained on and off for over twenty years with various degrees of success. I have tried many diets and many supplements. I have tried many different routines and at times ran myself into the ground with aerobics. I have read muscle mags from four decades. I have read books on stregnth training, aerobics, and nutrition....tons of them. In the end the protocol of choice for me is Super Slow HIT training. I have had the best success following the super slow methods, and have found it to be the most demanding. I now train less than 1 hour a week and have been able to maintain my lean body mass over the last 5 months. You say so what, but over those same 5 months I have lost 33 lbs of bodyfat and lost no muscle mass while consuming on the average 1300 calories a day. To me that is quite impressive. I know the limitations placed on me by my genetics and readily accept it. I know that I can be healthy lean and strong without aerobics, and expensive supplements. Common sense and the truth rules. Suggested reading for common sense and the truth, I recommend the following authors: Ellington Darden , Mike Mentzer, Ken Hutchins. In their works you will find what you are looking for, that is if you wish to maximize you gains in the shortest possible time, up to your potential.