-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. new to HIT--WOW - from Patrick Beggs
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:01:57 -0500 From: Patrick_Beggs_at_NRDWR01P@mail.enr.state.nc.us (Patrick Beggs) Subject: new to HIT--WOW howdy folks I've just finished two weeks of high intensity training - it is fantastic. I got laid up with a bad cold about 3-4 weeks ago. I was sick for a week and thought it best to take another full week off since I was still quite tired. Just prior to getting sick I found the Cyberpump site and a few other sites related to it. I spent my time off reading/thinking, reading/thinking - it was great! I have a physiology/biology background although I no longer work in that field and never before have I read material that made so much sense. It was all I could do to not go back to the gym before I was fully recovered. I chose what I thought would be a good routine and went at the next week. Training to complete failure makes so much sense. I hate to waste time and love it when I learn something that give me more time for living life to the fullest. Back to the workout---damn, I was whooped afterwards. I thought it might be from having been ill and having taking 2 weeks off, but I soon realized over the next two weeks that it was because I had never trained my body as hard as I am now. Gosh it makes such perfect sense. Psyched to learn more from yall. Patrick Beggs
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. training progress - from Dan Yourg
Top
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:43:55 -0800 From: Dan Yourg <dyourg@acusd.edu> Subject: training progress 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. >> I would be curious as to what your progress will be regarding size and bodyfat. Despite what some people believe as fact, I am not convinced that strength increases correlate 100% to muscle size increases. It does not surprise me that people can increase their strength on "abbreviated training," but I wonder if they need more volume for size gains. Dan Yourg
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. size and strength - from Dan Yourg
Top
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:51:18 -0800 From: Dan Yourg <dyourg@acusd.edu> Subject: size and strength >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. Is it possible he gained relative strength? If one gained 10 pounds of muscle, and lost 10 pounds of fat, would not they appear bigger due to being more muscular? Could you give some examples regarding the above mentioned "average," in reference to scale weight and bodyfat%. Is this average for people only on a reduced calorie diet, who are intending to lose weight? Dan Yourg
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. less is more, Son of Squat - from Dan Yourg
Top
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:18:46 -0800 From: Dan Yourg <dyourg@acusd.edu> Subject: less is more, Son of Squat I interpreted what Son of Squat meant to be is that he is interested in not what is the least amount of work needed to make gains/progress, but how can one make the most progress. So comparing spending 10 million or 100 million with the results of making 10 million is not a good example for me. If I can spend 10 million to make 100 million great, but can I spend 20 million and make 200 million? Therefore what is required to make the best progress, without overtraining? Keeping with the example of a business, what is required to be spent to make the most money I can. How can I best capitalize on an investment, not what is the least investment I need to make to get a profit. This is more challenging, to try to find the best recipe of gains compared to effort. As opposed to finding out the smallest amount of work required to make any progress. I am curious for example if performing two sets of an exercise will get better results and not lead to overtraining, as opposed to being satisfied with one set getting some result. There are a number of factors that can be involved,including individual goals, deadlines(e.g. contests),time and effort that can be budgeted to train, etc. For some people, to gain 15 pounds in the squat per week by performing two sets, would be an advantage of gaining 10 pounds per week with one set. Dan Yourg
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: HIT Digest #117 - from Josh Salmanson
Top
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 22:49:47 -0500 From: "Josh Salmanson" <jsalmans@syssrc.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #117 6. Dinosaur Training by: Robert L.Phillips <phillips.robert@mcleodusa.net> checkout his new web site for some sample content... http://www.dinosaurtraining.com/ Josh Salmanson
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. HIT Digest#117-- "Robert L.Phillips" - from Chris White
Top
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 22:54:27 -0600 From: Chris White <cwhite@jpusa.chi.il.us> Subject: HIT Digest#117-- "Robert L.Phillips" <phillips.robert@mcleodusa.net> " Dinosaur Training" I didn't read the Kubik article in IRONMAN, but I imagine that he feels writing in that kind of mag is a chance to "spread the word" about productive training in a bigger forum. Stuart McRobert has done a similar thing with articles in mags like IRONMAN and FLEX, as has Ken Leistner. I subscribe to the DINOSAUR FILES and it's similar to his book, but also with articles by other authors, including some vintage reprints from folks like Harry Paschall and Charles Smith. The subcription is kind of pricey, but write and ask for a sample first. He's pretty generous in that way.
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Sonofsquat and Mentzer - from Adam Fahy
Top
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:24:49 -0800 From: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu> Subject: Re: Sonofsquat and Mentzer > From: JawDogs <JawDogs@aol.com> > Subject: Sonofsquat and Mentzer > 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. And? I can break your arms after a set of curls; multiple sets will become literally impossible and even a twice a week training regimen becomes non-productive and even counter productive. Do not, however, believe for an instant that this will be productive for increased muscular strength/hypertrophy. Certainly if hypertrophy is postively correlated to cellular damage, multiple attempts, not some vague notion of 'intensity' related to an inability to perform a rep, will be positively correlated to hypertrophy. > 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. An extremely poor analogy. Here is a better one: If you wish to cook a steak, you use an oven. No matter how long you have it set at a low temperature, the steak won't cook. But if you turn the oven to maximum, you'll have to quickly remove the steak before it becomes charred. Yet once you cut into the meat, you will find that only the outside has been cooked - the center may be absolutely freezing, in fact. In order to prepare the best meal [optimal size/strength gains], you must find the proper balance between heat [intensity] and cooking time [volume]. > 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. Volume (time-under-tension) is a valid concept. Variety (changing the stimulus) is a valid concept. Progressive [relative] resistance (increasing resistance session to session in order to match strength capacity) is a valid concept. If progressive resistance is a valid concept, it in turn validates variety. If exercise in general is a valid concept (in that resistance training 'works'), volume is a valid concept (a degree of TUT is necessary in order for there to be exercise). What you say here makes no sense. Your last sentence, "Just vary the routines..." does not follow at all. > 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. "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 one-set approach works well. They simply cannot understand the luck of the draw that they recieved by being born with the kind of body they did." > 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. I've done the Arthur Jones approach, HIT approach, and the SuperSlow approach. I have tried just about every training method under the sun to become larger and stronger (I find a moderate, "Hardgainer" approach to be best for most situations). Most hardcore one-set proponents have not tried many intelligent 'volume' approaches, yet have spoken against them without ever really experiencing it. > 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. A poor 'argument.' > Mike Mentzer says you can reach your genetic potential in a year or less, > right? [...] > 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 [...] > 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? What you say follows a logical progression (not that it is true), but the conclusion, "If high volume worked so well [...]," does not follow. IMO as your age progresses, you will be able to 'get away with' less and less (volume, frequency, intensity, etc), until a senario such as you suggest occurs. This in no way necessitates the validity of low-volume as the 'Ultimate' training protocol. -- "Work smarter, not harder!" Adam Fahy afahy@oitunix.oit.umass.edu
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: I'm rambling again - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:40:25 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: I'm rambling again >Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:49:54 -0500 (EST) >From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu> >Subject: PFT / ROM / "fast" lifting >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 Do you get the weights-2 list? I'm currently involved in a debate over there on exactly this topic. >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. I think, as with everything, it comes down to goal. If your goal is to improve strength only in the starting position of the movement for some reason, ignoring the injury issue for the time being, going fast out of the bottom makes sense to since strength gains are ROM specific (and moving faster will allow you to use more weight through that small portion of the movement which is actually loading the muscles). If you want the most meaningful strength gains over the full ROM, ignoring the changing biomehcanics and force requirements, it's makes more sense to use a controlled lifting speed. Either way, you're underloading some part of the movement. If you go fast out of the bottom, you underload the top position. If you go slow out of the bottom, you are using less weight, and are underloading the bottom position. Which is better? Tomato (long a), tomato (short a). Depends I think. Note that 99.9% of exercises done in the weight room do not lend themselves safely to fast lifting because you have to deal with the ultimate problem of a forceful lockout at the end ROM. Take squats for example, a lot of people like to bounce out of the bottom adn accelerate to get some momentum going to get through the sticking point. Sure, if you time it right, you might be able to quit applying force at just the right time and have the bar coast and reach velocity of zero EXACTLY as you reach full knee and hip extension. But the timing would have to be perfect. There are a few foo-foo exercises (like side, fron and rear laterals) which allow acceleration 'safely' (talking only about joint hyperextension, not joint forces) because end ROM occurs without joint hyperextension ocurring. Not recommending, just pointing out. As an aside, a couple of comments about Compensatory Acceleration Training (CAT) while we're on the topic. The premise of CAT is that, by accelerating throughout the entire movement, you can maximally load the muscle through the entire ROM. Great in principle but basic physics shows that it's impossible with 99% of traditional weight training equipment. If you tried to accelerate the movement through the entire ROM (which is impossible in 99% of exercises) as advocates of CAT argue, you'd hyperextend the joint. Wilson (see "Applied anatomy and biomechanics of sport" from Blackwell Scientific Publishing for a discussion of this) showed that a bench press with 81% of maximum, done in 1.5 seconds only involves positive acceleration of the bar for the first 48% of the movement. At that time point (just past 0.5 seconds), acceleration drops to negative (negative acceleration = decceleration to keep the terms straight) and force production by the msucles decreases by extension. This occurs so that ending velocity can be zero. The only way CAT can work is if you use an exercise or device that has a mechanical end stop (imagine doing a bench press inside a powerrack with safety pins set just below your lockout position, in this case you could accelerate throughout the movement and the pins would stop the bar before you locked out your arms) or allows you to release the implement (i.e. medicine ball stuff, plyometrics, Wilson's plyometric power system). I'm not recommending any of this, just pointing out why CAT as stated (accelerate through the entire ROM to maximize stress on the muscles) is impossible based on some basic physis. The physics of the situation (mandating starting and ending velocity of zero) says, de facto, that you cannot accelerate throughout the entire movement. here's 3 analogies to better explain: All start with you sitting in your car at a dead stop (equal to starting a bench pressing movement with the bar on your chest). 100 yards ahead of you, there is a landmine. If you cross that line, you hit the landmine and it blows you and your car up (equating the bazooka blast with hyperextending your elbows if you have a positive velocity when you hit lockout in a bench press). Situation 1: IN the situatio as described, you have to start at zero and end at zero before you hit the landmine. This is the equivalent of a standard bench press. The physics of this situation mandate that you must accelerate for some portion of the movement (you are applying gas) and deccelerate through some portion of the movement (either stop applying gas and coast or use brakes to slow you down). So you have two basic options to get from your starting position to the line. a. Accelerate as fast as possible and then slam on the brakes to avoid crossing the line. This is the equivalent of CAT. You're only actively applying the gas pedal for a small portion of the movement. And the fast you accelerate, the sooner you have to start hitting hte brakes. b. Accelerate more slowly. With a lower velocity and momentum, you don't have to start slowing down as soon as in option a. You do have to deccelerate still, just not as soon or as hard. So you apply the gas pedal more smoothly for a greater portion of the movement (although NOT 100% of it). This is any variant of HIT/Superslow/whatever that emphasizes a slow squeeze out of the bottom and controlled movement speeds. I don't want to raise the debate over whether a given speed of movement (assuming it's controlled) is inherently superior versus another speed of movement (assuming it's also controlled). Situation 2: 99 yards ahead of you is a brick wall which will keep you from hitting the landmine (which is on the other side of the wall). If you wanted to, you could accelerate throughout the entire distance and slam into the wall. The mine won't get you but slamming into the wall might. This is the equivalent of my powerrack example above. You won't hyperextend your elbows but accelerating the bar into powerrack pins might cause some damage from the sheer impact force. Situation 3: 100 yards ahead of you is a ramp that will jump you over the landmine and make you land on some nice soft cushions. In this case you can also accelerate throughout the movement (as in situation 2), flying off the ramp. This is the equivalent of doing a bench pressing movement with a medicine ball or the Plyometric power System. Once again, I'm not recommending any of this, simply explaining the situation. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I went to bed one night and I woke up stupid." Brak
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Abbreviated Routines & Credit Due - from Daryl Wilkinson
Top
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 09:40:18 +0000 From: Daryl Wilkinson <daryl@uk.ibm.com> Subject: Abbreviated Routines & Credit Due >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 popularised this concept many, many year ago. Let s give credit where >credit is truly due, shall we? Before Jones was preaching low volume training, we had John McCallum (he used to advise routines for hardgainers that consisted of just Squats, Dips and Chins). A few more names that spring to mind are Peary Rader, Joseph Hise, Mark Berry...all these guys touted the benefits of 20 rep squats (1-2 sets only), with a handful of other exercises. Roger Eells (sp) is another old-timer that preached abbreviated training and use of high rep "breathing squats" to expand the rib box - using no more than bodyweight. All these guys built impressive physiques and praised abbreviated workouts. In fact I think Peary Rader even published alot of Arthur's work in his old Iron Man magazine. I'm sure the historic trenches have many abbreviated training example's before these chaps too ! :-) Daryl
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: HIT Digest #117 - from Mike Strassburg
Top
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:15:06 -0600 From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #117 Fred II: The only reason I've chosen to go with the extreme low volume approach is that nothing else has produced the results I desire. For the past 2 years I've been doing the Mon-Wed-Fri routine. I felt run-down most of the time and obviously wasn't allowing recovery to take place, but I didn't think that less training would be enough to stimulate gains. After reading about Clarence Bass's success with the 2 sessions per week routine, I'm ready to give it a try. I feel that this will be closer to the ideal frequency "for me" than anything else I've ever tried. As you stated in another post "I'm only concerned with finding out what works best for me", and thought I'd share it so that others may consider it for themselves. I've been a loyal Hardgainer reader for the past 3+ years and have tried several different routines from the mag, but I still manage to over train on them. Fred Hahn: I'm the one who mentioned that I read the quote on Mentzer's site. I wasn't concerned with who said it, I just understood the real value of it and wanted to share it with others on the digest. Also, I do the high intensity intervals once per week as it really helps my conditioning for hockey and I don't feel that it will detract that much from my recovery ability. I will definitely video tape myself training. Thanks for the suggestions. Brad: Thanks for the words of encouragement!
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. HIT Digest #106 - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 09:46:40 PST From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: HIT Digest #106 Welcome back, Mr. Hahn. I asked you some questions in Digest #106, which remain unanswered. I include them below for your convenience. > From: JawDogs@aol.com > > Running is more Aerobic than sleeping, but not more biologically > aerobic. Running may use more anaerobic system than sleeping, so sure it uses less aerobic system *as a percentage.* But it uses a higher percentage of the available aerobic system. It stresses the aerobic system harder than does sleeping (as well as the anaerobic). >> Why don't you consider the absolute amount more important in this >> case? > Good question. (Here I assume you mean in the case of mitochondrial > density.) No, I mean why do you consider the percentage more important when comparing running to sleeping, rather than the absolute amount? > my experience indicates that after 3-5 sessions you've mastered the > exercise neurologically. Then why did you argue that it was such a terrible thing in Hardgainer? 3-5 sessions is not many. > Question: How much more massive is an 18 inch biceps than a 16 inch > biceps? > > Answer: Roughly 400% (not times) more massive. How did you get that number? In addition to my questions, I am hoping that you will give us your response to Mr. McDonald's response to you regarding quads in Digest #105.
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. The Late Philip Guarrnaccia - from Steve Skrabak
Top
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:07:19 -0800 From: Steve Skrabak <steve@cuztom.com> Subject: The Late Philip Guarrnaccia Dear Hitters, Some of you old timers out there may remember this gent for his world wide challenge of $10,000 to out work him out. He was on Thats Incredible a few years back demonstrating his outstanding strength feats, was an acclaimed bodybuilder, powerlifter, and most recently(past 30 years) bicycle race champion. He was most well known for the later, but one feat I have never seen duplicated is when he took 415lbs behind his neck in the standing position, squatted down till his glutes were on the ground, stretched his feet and legs out in front of him, leaned forward putting head to knees, then back to the standing position....hands never leaving the bar. AMAZING. Anyway I've had the priviledge of knowing this man, and working out in his backyard maze of contraptions, and wanted to pass the bad news to anyone out there who may have known him. Phil Died at home of heart attack about a week ago. Steve
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Dinosaur Training - from Daryl Wilkinson
Top
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 00:06:18 +0000 From: Daryl Wilkinson <daryl@uk.ibm.com> Subject: Dinosaur Training >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! I have the book and although I thought some of his writing was quite inspiring, on the whole I didn't (don't) think most of his advice is appropriate for someone like myself.. I am tall (6'1 1/2") and have a very small bone structure (6 3/4" wrist 8 1/2" ankle), with a body that could hardly be described as robust - I am prone to injury due to lower back problems. Most of what Brooks advocates in my opinion, is geared towards guys with a heavier bone structure and above average genetics' OR those that have already built substantial size & strength with other (safer) methods. I realise this is rather vague, but I know what I mean and hopefully you will :-) I classify much of what he teaches (rack work, heavy single's, odd object lifting etc), as advance techniques...so I think I'll how to walk before I try running...if you get my point. As for the Ironman article and his newsletter (haven't read either), can you rag a guy for trying to make some money out of what he believes in and enjoys doing ? Daryl
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Re: Dinosaur Training - from Sean Sullivan
Top
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 21:06:06 -0500 (EST) From: Sean Sullivan <sms64@ultranet.com> Subject: Re: Dinosaur Training >-------------------- 6 -------------------- >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 haven't read his book, but I've read all of Brooks articles in Hargainer and I think his training strategies are great. He pushes what is important: basic barbell exercises, small weight increases, and controlled, focused, fierce aggression during sets. For the past 6 months I've been following a routine he published in Hardgainer 4 or 5 years ago (actually, I got it from John Christy, another great Hardgainer author whose training philosophy is very similar to Brooks) and have had great success with it. It's a very basic 2 times/week 4x5 routine, but it works. Just to quantify what I mean by it works, I've added either 2 1/2 or 1 1/4 lbs to every exercise, every week, with the exception of one week when I was sick, and one week when I was injured (non-workout related). After each of these two weeks off I took 2 or 3 weeks to cycle back up to my previous weights. I've also gained 23lbs. I don't point this out to brag, but to show that the basics work. Another interesting point, during these past 6 months I didn't take one set to failure. So much for that being necessary for strenth increases and growth. > 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. I can't believe he wrote for Ironman! I don't go near the $5.00 comics, so I didn't see it, but I'm going to have to check it out. You're right, that seems totally out of character, I wish he'd start writing for Hardgainer again.