This list digest contains the following message subjects:
Okay, I think an explanation is obviously in order here. I am combining Digest12 and Digest13 into one digest, which will now be called..."Bob".
No, wait, a better name would be Digest12, sorry.
There are those who did, and those who didn't receive the original Digest12. Before I left for Chicago I sent the names of all people subscribed to the alternate moderator. Unfortunately, I sent it in moonman language or something because he/she/Borg couldn't read it.
So I see we were "off" for a week. Again, we're going to try to keep the digest going smoothly while I'm away every week. The problem for me is that I don't have a local ISP I can dial in to down there. And while I love you all so much, I don't love you enough to rack up huge long distance bills to call my local ISP.
I'm currently working out the problem, but we'll try again to have the alternate moderator this week.
I apologize for all problems encountered -- Rob
[This article is kind of long. We've never set any limits on article length, and don't intend to, but can I ask that if you are reposting something of great length like this that you've seen somewhere else on the 'net, you simply post the address instead?
And be careful with cutting and pasting as this may cause formatting problems.
Thank-you -- Rob]
So here is a response by Arthur Jones to some recent articles published in IronMan. This was on the MedX site...some of you may have read it. For those who have not seen it before (it is not on Cyberpump either), enjoy!
COUNTERPOINT . . . A Response to three Recent Articles in Ironman
By Arthur Jones
One of the things I always admired about Perry Rader, the original publisher of Ironman, was the fact that he would publish anything. Which meant, of course, that many foolish opinions found their way into print; but that policy, I believe, is much better than the one used by Wieder, where only those ideas that support the "Company Line" ever get published. So the fact that I still read many foolish opinions in current Ironman articles does not disturb me; but I do believe that such statements should not be permitted to pass without challenge. This article is intended to be a response to three recent articles.
ONE: a recent article warned against the supposed "dangers" of negative exercise. What dangers? As it happens, the negative part of exercise is by far the most important part of exercise; without which, you have very little of value that is left.
All of the current crap about negative exercise was started more than twenty years ago by the people promoting the supposed "advantages" of so-called isokinetic exercise being marketed by Cybex. Their exercise machines did not provide any negative work, instead provided "positive only" resistance. Which, according to them, was supposed to be an advantage. Sure.
Until the people from Cybex first started trying to put the knock on the negative part of exercise, I had never given the subject much consideration; at the time, had no real opinion on the subject. Was it good or bad? I did not know; but I knew how to find out.
So, in 1972, we conducted a long-range, large-scale research program in an attempt to determine the benefit of the negative part of exercise . . . if any. Subjects involved in this program performed no positive exercise at all, never "lifted" the weight; instead, the weight was lifted by helpers, and then the subject slowly lowered the weight, performed only the negative part of the exercise.
Weekly workouts? At the start, three; but later only two.
Number of sets of each exercise? One.
Number of repetitions? Six to eight. When the subject could perform more than eight repetitions, the level of resistance was increased.
Style of performance? Very slow. Continued to "failure."
Failure being defined as the point where the downwards speed of movement of the weight started to increase, and when the subject could not prevent this increase in the speed of downwards movement. Results? Outstanding; without a single exception the subjects in this program increased their muscular size and strength at such a rate that we could hardly believe it.
But be advised: a very little of such exercise goes a long way; doing "more" is not "better," and doing much more is usually "worse." This being true primarily due to the fact that muscular friction "helps you" during negative work, while "hurting you" during positive work, and given this help from muscular friction during negative work it is then possible to continue the exercise far past a point where it should have been stopped. Doing so will then produce such a level of fatigue that it may take you a week or more to fully recover from it.
Having seen the outstanding results produced during this research program by the use of "negative only" exercise, coach Bill Bradford then started a high school-level weightlifting team; trained his lifters with negative only exercise, and then went on to establish a record that is probably unprecedented in any sport, competed for seven years without a loss or a tie, won more than 100 weightlifting meets in a row.
Later, in the spring of 1975, while we were conducting research at the U. S. Military Academy, West Point, the Bengals professional football team sent me one of their players to train; this man weighed nearly 300 pounds and was scheduled to start spring training only twelve days later; as part of his spring training he would have to pass certain physical tests, one of which was chinning himself. If not, then he would be fired from the team and the team would lose the signing bonus that they had already paid him.
When he arrived at West Point this man could not even perform a "negative chin;" that is, having climbed a short ladder in order to reach the top position in a chinning movement, when we removed the ladder he dropped like a stone. He was not strong enough to stop or even slow down a rapid "fall" to the bottom position.
But, twelve days later, when tested just prior to the start of spring training, he was able to perform four and three-quarters repetitions of the chinning exercise, both lifting himself to the top position and then slowly lowering himself back down to the bottom position.
And how did we train him? Negative only, what else. Initially, we had to help him by holding our hands under his ass to stop him from falling from the top position; without that help, he dropped like a rock. Which saved the Bengals an $80,000.00 signing bonus and also saved this man's football career. So I respect the author of that article's opinions about negative work, but now I have given you some "facts" that are directly in opposition to his stated "opinions."
TWO: a second article in a recent issue of Ironman supposedly provided an unbiased comparison of barbell exercises compared to exercises provided by machines; the author's conclusion being that barbell exercises were better.
That author mentioned that variable resistance is provided by barbells as well as by machines; which is true. While the actual weight of a barbell remains constant throughout the movement, it does not follow that the "resistance" remains constant; instead, the resistance varies as a result of changes in the direction of movement. During a barbell curl, for example, the resistance is ZERO at the start; is zero because the direction of movement is horizontal; in the starting position you are not "lifting" the weight, instead are "pushing" the weight forwards.
But, then, as you continue to push the weight forwards it also starts to move upwards, so then you do have resistance. After 30 degrees of movement around the axis of rotation of the elbows, the resistance will be equal to exactly half of the actual weight of the barbell; actual resistance will be equal to the weight of the barbell only after 90 degrees of movement; at that point in the movement, and only at that point, the barbell is moving straight up.
Then as movement continues beyond that position, the resistance starts to drop off; near the end of a full-range movement the resistance becomes LESS THAN ZERO, at that point the weight has started to move down.
So if we have a full-range movement of 150 degrees , the resistance provided by a 100-pound barbell will be about as follows: ZERO at the start, 50 pounds after 30 degrees of movement, 70.7 pounds after 45 degrees of movement, 100 pounds after 90 degrees of movement, and LESS THAN ZERO during the last few degrees of full-range movement.
So, yes, the actual resistance provided by the barbell certainly varies; but, no, it does not vary properly. The variation that does result is random and has no relationship to a full-range strength curve of the involved muscles. Thus, in fact, a barbell curl is actually a "limited range" exercise, and provides literally no resistance in several positions; and, no resistance means no exercise, which means no benefit in some positions.
In contrast, a properly designed machine does provide full-range resistance during a curl; resistance that varies in exact accord with changes in strength that occur as a result of changes in position.
While the author of that article did not mention the name Nautilus, it was obvious that was what he was talking about when he mentioned a supposedly scientific study which "proved" that the variable resistance provided by a Nautilus machine was "wrong." Well, the facts are somewhat different from his statement.
What happened was this: about fifteen years ago, during an annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine, a graduate student from the University of Massachusetts read a paper purported to be a comparison of Nautilus resistance curves to supposedly "correct" strength curves; and the conclusion was that the Nautilus curves were all "wrong."
Well, as it happened, the speaker was "wrong." The slides that he used to illustrate his talk were supposed to show a comparison of Nautilus curves to "proper" curves; but the resistance curves that he showed had absolutely nothing in common with actual Nautilus resistance curves, and the curves that supposedly illustrated "proper" curves had nothing in common with actual curves. The entire presentation was utter bullshit.
Following that presentation we tried to get a copy of this supposedly scientific study, but the author refused to answer our letters or accept our phone calls; but, nevertheless, it was easy to figure out his real motivation. The kid who read that phony study worked for Frank Katch, a man who tried to get me to give him money for "research;" and, when I refused to do so, he managed to find another manufacturer of exercise machines who would give him money to publish lies about my equipment.
Which raises another interesting point: just where did this kid obtain his supposedly "correct" strength curves? Did God come down and hand them to him engraved in granite slabs, as he supposedly did with Moses and the Ten Commandments? He must have, since this kid had absolutely nothing in the way of such information. At that time, and this is still true right up to this date, about fifteen years later, we were the only people in the world who had equipment that was capable of providing accurate measurements of strength curves, and this equipment was not available to this kid.
Another statement made by the author of this second article is also untrue: he said that exercise machines do not provide enough different levels of resistance, and thus it is impossible to select the exact level of resistance required. Which is a true statement, regarding MOST EXERCISE MACHINES, but is not true with all exercise machines. MedX exercise machines provide several hundred levels of resistance, rather than the usual twenty or thirty levels provided by most machines. Secondly, this resistance is provided in increments that are equal to a one-pound change in weight with a barbell. With a barbell, the smallest change in resistance is usually two and one-half pounds; but with MedX machines the resistance can be adjusted with less than half of that amount.
There is only one thing that a barbell can provide that exercise machines cannot provide: the skill required to lift a barbell during a weightlifting competition. To gain that skill you have to use a barbell; but that is a skill of no value to anybody apart from a competitive weight lifter, and is also a skill that can be produced only by the use of lifts that are very dangerous to perform.
If, instead, your interest is an increase in strength or muscular size, then a properly-designed exercise machine is "better" than a barbell, a hell of a lot safer, more convenient, and in several important cases is capable of producing benefits that cannot be produced with a barbell.
The author of this article, while presenting himself as an "expert," quite obviously has not been able to keep up with the current state of the art; so, again, while I respect his right to his opinions, it happens that his opinions are wrong.
THREE: a third article in a recent edition of Ironman supposedly established the benefits of a high volume of training; in effect, if "some is good," then "more is better." Bullshit.
The "amount" of exercise that is performed has very little to do with the results that will be produced; benefits are produced in proportion to the quality of the exercise. Problems are produced in proportion to the amount of exercise. Probably the most common mistake being made today is a result of training "too much;" too many workouts, too many exercises, too many sets of each exercise. "More exercise" is seldom the solution, and is frequently the problem.
Exercise does not "produce": increases in strength or muscular size; instead, proper exercise will "stimulate" such increases. But actual increases in strength or size are produced only during periods of rest between workouts; without enough rest between workouts, gains cannot be produced.
And, yes, it is certainly true that a long list of people have produced what appear to be good results in spite of the fact that they exercised far too much; but it is also true that the same people would almost certainly have produced even better results, and produced them much faster, if they had used a lot less exercise.
If your results are not as good as you would like, the first thing to try is a reduction in the frequency and amount of your exercise, rather than an increase.
But, it's your body, read what you like to hear, listen to who you will, do whatever you feel like; but, if so, then don't blame me for your poor results.
Personally, I now believe that two weekly workouts are best for almost anybody, and that one set of each exercise is enough (and never more than two sets of any exercise), and if that fails to produce good results then try doing even less exercise before you try anything else.
And, you might ask, just who am I to have such low opinions in regard to many of the supposed "experts" in this field? The answer to that question can best be provided, I believe, by a careful reading of the following interview on the subject of my experience in the field of exercise.
Of all the warmups you could do, a HIGH rep warmup set is arguably the worst. All you are doing is raising lactic acid levels in the muscle and lactic acid reduces force produciton capacity. If anything, do a couple of low rep warmups sets (no more than 5 reps). I can argue for a cardio warmup and not argue for a cardio warmup.
A good guideline is 0.75-1 g/protein per pound of bodyweight if you're training intensely. So, unless you only weigh 65 lbs...
>Thanks to replying to my message though. Oh, since you have a degree in >nutrition (or is it exercise physiology?) could you please tell me >whether fortified yeast is a good source of protein? What is it used in?
My degree is in ex phys (nutrition is just a passion of mine) but I have no idea if yeast has much protein in it. I'd tend to doubt it but I'm just guessing.
Something else to consider: several studies have shown vegetarian diets to lower testosterone. one study (which had some major flaws IMO) showed test levels to correlate with both total fat intake and saturated fat intake. Other studies have shown the same.
Raises an interesting philosophical question. It's fairly safe to assume that Hammer machines are mostly geared towards HIT based programs. Said HIT based programs typically decrying standard NSCA dogma (don't want to start this debate) of ground based training, specificity, etc. So why is Hammer making the Jammer except to make cash from strength coaches who want machines for football players to train on 'specifically'? I mean, if Hammer really wants to send the message that it thinks specificity is bunk, they shouldn't pander to the coaches that do.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS Q: "How many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?" A: "None, they simply define darkness as the new standard."
When I saw the advertisement for the Jammer on Hammer Strength's web site, I sent them an Email criticising their acquiescence to such NSCAesque nonsense and promoting such an obvious violation of motor learning principles as performing sports specific movements under load. The person from Hammer that responded was quite perturbed, and informed me that the Jammer was selling very well, by which I assume he was infering that it was indeed a useful piece of equipment, but which is actually nothing more than an indication of just how many utterly moronic strength coaches there are out there.
[A couple of notes here. Again, please be careful with statements like the last one. If you had mentioned someone or a group of people specifically, I would have to ask you to edit that comment out. Just a very gentle reminder.
Second, I believe we have at least one subscriber here who works for Hammer Strength. Perhaps he/she would like to give their comments on this one? -- Rob]
Andrew M. Baye
In a message dated 97-10-05 13:18:40 EDT, you write:
<< I've been wondering lately exactly how much warm-up one needs. I've been a big beleiver in working hard from the get go, and usually only include one warm-up set of about 15 reps until it starts to burn hard (ie: not to failure); and then jump straight into my work set (...or two :^) In everyone's opinion -- is this adequate warm-up? I've heard people recommend running or biking to raise one's body-temp, but frankly I *hate* that. Of course, if someone here can convince me that it will increase safety or efficacy then I will run. >>
If one performs their repetitions slowly enough, risk of injury is minimized, and no warm up sets are necessary. Not only are running or biking unnecessary, they are undesirable, as they contribute nothing of benefit to the workout, use energy that could otherwise have been used during the workout and for recovery, and expose the knee, ankle, and hip joints and spine to risk of injury.
Andrew M. Baye
Hi all!
I'm Xavi from Barcelona (Spain). I'm currently training HIT style for one year with success but due to my sched i have to train in the morning. I've sure (after trial and err) that train full body is the best for me and after stregth-train I do aerobics for 20'-30' and 10-15' of stretching..
Here my doubt. I understand that post-workout meal should be immediately after train but, after strenght-train and before aerobics or after all?. In fact due to my light breakfast prior to workout (if not light = throw up) and the intensity of the strength workout when I switch on the treadmill I'm very hungry and my energy level is so low that I hardly walk 20' at 140 bps and a post-all-workout meal would be ~45' after strength train.
I've found that drink gatorade or similar during strength training make me throw up so isn't a valid option.
What are your opinions about this? Your experiences?
Xavi
Lyle,
> Of all the warmups you could do, a HIGH rep warmup set is arguably the worst.
Thanks for responding, I'll be sure to implement your advice. I guess it is kind of foolish to take a set just far enough to hamper performance, yet not so far as to achieve any benefits :^)
Andrew,
> If one performs their repetitions slowly enough, risk of injury is minimized, > and no warm up sets are necessary.
Ya know, I'm not completly sure I agree here. I agree with the injury avoidance idea, but not that "no warm up sets are necessary". What about warmups as a means to increase performance on work sets? I'm not sure of all the possible pathways here, but I can certainly speak to "practicing" a lift. It does help me lift more - if only because it gets me "into the grove" faster. I look at it similar to basket ball players shooting around before the game starts (limitless analogies here). Point I'm trying to make is this - should we look at warm up sets as a means of increasing our "work set" performance and not as a means of preventing injury? Is there any evidence that warm ups are useful in this capacity?
[Okay, I HAVE to comment (again, sorry). Some of you are aware that there was a VERY heated debate about the value of warm-up sets on two other digests.
This got VERY nasty and led to alot of namecalling, insults, etc. This will NOT happen here. Everyone is free to debate just about anything they wish on this list. This is just a note to those who were involved/know about the other nasty debate (and I was one of them. Guilty as charged).
Just post your opinions, evidence, etc.. And respect those of others.
Yes, I know you're thinking how anal I am right now. But trust me, this topic has generated ALOT of heat before which I don't want to see repeated -- Rob]
> Not only are running or biking unnecessary, they are undesirable, as they contribute nothing of benefit to the workout, use energy that could otherwise have been used during the workout and for recovery, and expose the knee, ankle, and hip joints and spine to risk of injury.
Completely agree with this. However I would point out that similar to using proper exersice form, running and biking can be done in a manner as to *minimize* the chance of risk. Certainly the benefits of cardio work outweigh the risks IMHO- although not neccesarily in a "workout" context (ie: before or after a workout) which is really what we're talking about here anyways; so again, I completely agree.
[Off topic, I do lift slowly: I use a 2/4 cadance- okay "slowish" for the superslows :^)]
-Derek.
>> << I've been wondering lately exactly how much warm-up one needs. I've been a big beleiver in working hard from the get go, and usually only include one warm-up set of about 15 reps until it starts to burn hard (ie: not to failure); and then jump straight into my work set (...or two :^) In everyone's opinion -- is this adequate warm-up? I've heard people recommend running or biking to raise one's body-temp, but frankly I *hate* that. Of course, if someone here can convince me that it will increase safety or efficacy then I will run.>>
> < If one performs their repetitions slowly enough, risk of injury is minimized, and no warm up sets are necessary. Not only are running or biking unnecessary, they are undesirable, as they contribute nothing of benefit to the workout, use energy that could otherwise have been used during the workout and for recovery, and expose the knee, ankle, and hip joints and spine to risk of injury.
Andrew M. Baye >
As someone else noted, a 15 rep warmup is not the way to go not only because of lactic acid buildup but also because of glycogen depletion. Your warmups should be in the rep range your work set(s) will be in. For instance if your squat work set is say 300x6, a good warmup would be 135x6, 225x6, 275x3. In my experience you'll also lift more at your top set after gradual buildup rather than going cold right into it (progressive fiber recruitment?) and be less likely to injure yourself. Also, I don't see how it would be undesirable to spend 10 minutes warming up on a lifecycle to get your heart rate up and some blood into your extremeties. I'd have to say, relative to lifting heavy weights, a light jog or lifecyle session can be considered pretty safe.
Sean