-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Triceps Waster! - from Kevin Dye
Top
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:14:10 +1030 From: "Kevin Dye" <kevind@picknowl.com.au> Subject: Triceps Waster! After a twenty year search for an exercise that would destroy my triceps & not my elbows I think I've found it! Today was my first experience with Decline Tricep Extensions & they are fried to the max! Not only was there less tendon strain as you are in a mechanically stronger position & not stretching the tendon as you do with prone extensions, but I got the job done with only about 3/4's the weight I regularly use. Now, some three hours afterwards, my tri's are still DEEPLY wasted. It has been shown [in Muscle Meets Magnet I think] the decline position stresses the triceps the best. I came across it in a couple of articles, had my guinea pig friend try it first, then today I had the pleasure myself. I can honestly say, & I'm certain all those hardcore boys out there will agree, finishing a workout with blimps on the back of your arms is what bodybuildings all about! Roll on 18" arms!!! One concern I have though, is how the hell I'll be able to write all day at work tomorrow? There goes the deadlines I guess!!! Bigger is better! Kevin [kevind@picknowl.com.au]
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Creatine Information Sources - from Hank Kearns
Top
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 05:37:40 -0500 From: Hank Kearns <hgkearns@bellatlantic.net> Subject: Creatine Information Sources I am a health teacher and coach in New Jersey. I am planning on making "flyers" with my Mac on various strength training topics that students can pick-up to read. My question is there a site that has concise and **accurate** information on the topic of creatine? TIA Hank
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. High Intensity clarification? - from Teri Pokere
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:38:32 +1000 From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au> Subject: High Intensity clarification? Here are some of my thoughts on high intensity exercise that may clarify intensity and how it relates to productive strength and size gains. Knowing a little and only a little about Super Slow training I have tried to make Fred Hahn's position clearer and I hope in this attempt that I do not misrepresent him. [Adam Fahy] > 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 aninability to perform a rep, will be positively correlated > tohypertrophy. [TP] Adam you are quite aware on how Mr Hahn identifies intensity as you would have figured from the context given that he is a Super Slow proponent. In such you can see that Intensity = inroad/time both of which can be measured and are not vague at all. I know that you are aware of this as it has been previously pointed out to you. The inroad if measured correctly will measure the actual effect that the exercise has on the momentary strength of the muscle. [FH] > > 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. [AF] > 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 [optimalsize/strength gains], > you must find the proper balance between heat[intensity] and cooking time [volume]. [TP] I suppose that it may be theoretically possible that an exercise be too intense but our bodies are self regulating and we slowly start shutting down if the exercise is too intense. This is a valid point and whether exercise can be too intense from one set can be investigated by varying the TUT as far as I am aware. [AF] > Volume (time-under-tension) is a valid concept. [TP] Fred Hahn is not talking about (time under tension). He is referring to multiple time under tensions each followed by time under NO tension. [AF] >Variety (changing the stimulus) is a valid concept. [TP] FH is talking about the indiscriminate use of multiple sets, and exercises that if performed aid little in the development of muscle or stimulation but add further to systemic inroading. [AF] >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. [TP] Adam I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are not trying to apply the "straw man fallacy" to FHs points. The Super Slow site is found at http://www.superslow.com/index.html if you are unaware. [AF] > "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." [TP] Now I know at least for me that one set training works fine. Now many of the one set proponents claim that it has worked equally well for most if not all of their clients. This would suggest a universality of their approach. Maybe you might have a Super Slow facility in your area that could accommodate you in your quest. [FH] > > 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. > [AF] > 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. [TP] Intensity being identified as the stimulus as it most surely is, I think that volume in repetitive loading and unloading could be in know way a good starting point for any trainer . Think it about it for a while, if intensity were not the stimulus you would not be lifting weights but doing some activity that was not very intense at all. Whether intensity can be too intense given our self regulating body, that is a moot point. Adam you say that you have tried the high intensity approaches. I would suggest without being demeaning that you try to understand them further because even if the theory is valid (which it is) without the correct application you may not necessarily make as good as progress as you want. Cya Teri
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Fat Loss and Changes in Over-all Body Size - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:57:42 -0500 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Re: Fat Loss and Changes in Over-all Body Size > 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 Since by mass, fat has a greater volume than muscle, if one were to gain 10 pounds of muscle and lose 10 pounds of fat, they would have a lower volume, and appear smaller. This does not mean that they would appear less muscular, only smaller. They would actually appear more muscular. Size and muscularity are not necessarily the same thing. Shaq is much larger than Frank Zane, but there's no way he'd place ahead of him in a physique contest. For examples of the average fat loss and muscle gain with HIT (specifically SuperSlow) and a moderately reduced calorie diet, I recommend checking out Living Longer, Stronger and A Flat Stomach, ASAP by Ellington Darden, PhD. Both of these books contain numerous examples with before/after pictures of people who've gone through Ell's fat loss programs. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild http://www.superslow.com/
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: No Relationship Between Cell Damage and Hypertrophy - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:07:25 -0500 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Re: No Relationship Between Cell Damage and Hypertrophy In his response to Fred Hahn's post, Adam Fahy states, "Certainly if hypertrophy is postively correlated to cellular damage, multiple attempts, not some vague notion of 'intensity' related to aninability to perform a rep, will be positively correlated to hypertrophy." The notion that muscular growth stimulation has something to do with cellular damage is incorrect. Unfortunately, this is a popular myth and the premise of numerous false theories of training. Nobody knows exactly what the stimulus for muscular growth is, except for that it involves a biochemical change of some sort which is related to intense muscular work. One sign of muscle damage would be the presence of myoglobin in the urine. For several weeks I performed urinalysis every day, recording any changes in relation to diet or training. Despite brutally intense workouts, no myoglobin was present in my urine at any time over those couple of weeks, yet I regularly increased by several reps or pounds on each exercise, each workout. Considering that I'm also using the SuperSlow protocol, the chances that I've damaged anything are highly unlikely. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild http://www.superslow.com/
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: Variety - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:14:26 -0500 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Re: Variety In his response to Fred Hahn's post Adam Fahy states, "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." Exactly what about volume is valid? This is rather vague. Volume of what? What about the volume? The idea that one must change the stimulus for continuous stimulation of muscular strength increases is NOT a valid concept. It is a popular fad, nothing more. "If progressive resistance is a valid concept, it in turn validates variety." Not at all. Progressive resistance does not validate the notion that variety is necessary in any way. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild http://www.superslow.com/
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Misquote (FredII&F.Hahn) - from Sonofsquat
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:28:13 EST From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> Subject: Re: Misquote (FredII&F.Hahn) Ladies and Gentlemen: Mr. Strassburg has misquoted me in a dialect with Fred Hahn which is in HITdigest #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...>> <<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'm sure it was an honest mistake on Mr. Strassburg's part. Allow me to say I don't advocate extreme low OR high volume except in very rare cases. Furthermore, the experiences listed in this quote in no way resemble mine. Thank you for allowing me to clear this up! Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Dino Training - from Sonofsquat
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:31:10 EST From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> Subject: Re: Dino Training Ladies and Gentlemen, I wrote a book review on Dinosaur Training which can be found on the BIGBOY's page (www.colba.net/~john295) under EXPLOSIVE REFLECTIONS (it's in the old archieves). Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: HIT Digest #118 - from Mike Strassburg
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:16:38 -0600 From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #118 >From Dan Yourg: 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. Mike: While I am concerned with bodyfat (I'm trying to lose about 6-8 pounds), muscle size isn't really important to me. I'm currently about 196-198 pounds at 6' and will be "very solid" after shedding about 8#'s of fat. I don't take any measurements as I'm mostly concerned with gaining strength and improving conditioning, so that's what I'll be reporting on. 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? Mike: Daryl, I didn't quote Mentzer as saying that phrase, I just mentioned that I read it on his site. Well I did enjoy your info on some the the true pioneers of the sport, I don't understand the "confrontational" attitude of your post. This is a generic statement for everyone who reads/submits to the digest: Since very little of what we do in the weightroom is supported by scientific fact, we are basically just sharing opinions and experiences. Although everyone has a right to share their opinions (and should), they should do so in a less hostile/agressive manner. It seems as if many people on this post will argue just for the sake of arguement, and unfortunately nothing constructive ever comes from that. Can't we all just get along...........Mike
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: Misquote (FredII&F.Hahn) - from Mike Strassburg
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:25:30 -0600 From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> Subject: Re: Misquote (FredII&F.Hahn) Fred II: Possibly this was a formatting problem. I made the 2 quotes listed below, so I'm not sure how they became associated with you and Fred Hahn. After our discussions I know that you lean more towards higher volume (not extreme high volume) as that's what works for you. Sorry for any grief this may have caused........Mike From: Sonofsquat@aol.com on 03/27/98 10:28 AM EST To: hitdigest@geocities.com cc: Mike Strassburg/National/Hewitt Associates Client: Subject: Re: Misquote (FredII&F.Hahn) Ladies and Gentlemen: Mr. Strassburg has misquoted me in a dialect with Fred Hahn which is in HITdigest #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...>> <<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'm sure it was an honest mistake on Mr. Strassburg's part. Allow me to say I don't advocate extreme low OR high volume except in very rare cases. Furthermore, the experiences listed in this quote in no way resemble mine. Thank you for allowing me to clear this up! Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: HIT Digest #118 - from DMartin316
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:47:44 EST From: DMartin316 <DMartin316@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #118 Man o' man, everybody give it a rest. You guys are really splitting hairs about what training method to use. Do what works for YOU! What difference does it make who said it first. Believe me when I say that it's doubtful your muscles care. Let me ask a question - What do you spend more time doing - working out or talking and thinking about working out? Plotting and planing all your workouts to the point of obsessive behavior is a waste of time. Try this, do your workout, don't think about training until the next workout. In between do something meaningful and maintain a tranquil mind. Rest your mind and your body will follow suit. Peace. Dan Martin
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: HIT Digest #118 - from GORINSKI, ROBERT
Top
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:10:02 -0500 From: "GORINSKI, ROBERT" <rwg3216@sru.edu> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #118 >"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." I really liked Adam's "steak" analogy (don't know if he originated it or not, but great for him if he did), and I think it makes much sence and covers many facets of the volume debate at hand...I don't see all the reason for all the agruement here. Individuilized...each person needs to WORK BRUTALLY HARD in the volume of what is optimal for them..i.e.each steak is different, depending on thickness, initial temperature, etc, the proper time and heat to best apply depends on individual factors such as these. BG
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re: Sonofsquat and Mentzer - from Duane Manuel
Top
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 22:57:36 +1000 From: Duane Manuel <dmanuel@hyperlink.net.au> Subject: Re: Sonofsquat and Mentzer >Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:24:49 -0800 >From: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu> >Subject: Re: Sonofsquat and Mentzer> >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 [optimalsize/strength gains], >you must >find the proper balance between heat[intensity] and cooking time [volume]. If meat were an adaptive organism, I would reccomend starting with low doses of cooking to allow for an adaption. Then after a given period of time I would cook it with a slightly higher dose of heat. (I think I like the sun tan analogy better) > 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. >> When they compare themselves to >> the typical person it appears that their volume approach works well. >When they compare themselves to the typical person it appears that their one-set >approach works well. I agree with you and all intelligent people would agree. Unfortunately I see MFW posts making fun of the folks at Cyberpump for lacking in extra-ordinary size. >Most hardcore one-set proponents have >not tried many intelligent 'volume' approaches, yet have spoken against >them without ever really experiencing it. The first 6 months of training consisted of 4 day a week split volume approach. I gained a slightly thicker neck, negligable strength and no bodyweight increase. That summer I and a friend trained 8 weeks worth of the 6-day a week Arnold Schwarzenegger reccomended beginners program. We took multitudes of supplements and protien shakes. I gained a fraction on my bench press, and no increase in all other excercises and no bodyweight increase. My friend gained nothing at all. I then tried a 10 week hit program care of Ellington Darden. I gained 4 kilos with strength and measurement increases in all bodyparts. After a year of watching my progress, 2 friends dropped their conventional routines and tried the same methods and gained weight, size and strength. >From reading MFW I encounter a lot of anti-HIT and anti-Mentzer sentiment and derision. Read enough of it and you start to doubt, but then I remember the 3.5 inches I gained on my arms, 10 inches I gained on my torso, and 4 inches I gained on my legs. I would also like to add, that in my experience I've had effective HIT routines and in-effective HIT routines. I made a selection of the best routines from which I cycle through. Duane EMAIL: dmanuel@hyperlink.net.au WEB: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~dmanuel "Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious!" - FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Unknown - from Brian Bucher
Top
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:26:37 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu> Subject: Re: volume/intensity post (yet again!) Just a little suggestion for everyone, including Rob ;) Try and keep your lines below 75 characters in width. This is generally considered the standard length, and longer lines look bad on many of the mail readers. I believe "standard netiquette" is 72 or 75 characters. > -------------------- 7 -------------------- > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:24:49 -0800 > From: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu> > Subject: Re: Sonofsquat and Mentzer> > > Certainly if hypertrophy is postively correlated to cellular damage, > multiple attempts, not some vague notion of 'intensity' related to > aninability to perform a rep, will be positively correlated tohypertrophy. I disagree with this. How can you say that intensity(effort) (within reason) is not correlated to hypertrophy? Who is to say that multiple sets are more positively correlated (err, you know what I mean) to hypertrophy than intensity(effort)? The answer is: no one. Our knowledge of the human body is in such an infant stage that we can't make statements like these because there is no support for these statements. I think I agree with the rest of your post. There is no "Ultimate" protocol. :) Brian