-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Volume, variety, effort, and genetic limits - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 14:41:40 -0800 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Volume, variety, effort, and genetic limits > From: JawDogs <JawDogs@aol.com> > > The very concept of progressive > resistance proves, in a sense, that multiple sets, volume and variety are not > necessary and invalid. Multiple sets, volume, and variety are simply tools to eventually achieve progession in resistance. The concept of progressive resistance does not invalidate these concepts. > If volume and variety were valid concepts, one need > never increase resistance’s right? If volume was not a valid concept, then why train at all? Even one set represents a certain level of volume. > 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. Can you read someone's mind and tell how much effort they are really expending simply because they are performing multiple sets? Training "intensively" is purely a subjective matter. Nobody can tell how hard someone is training simply by looking at their training protocol. Multiple sets can be just as hard as single sets if the effort is put forth. > 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. I was a HITer for 4 years. It's a great way to train. But it's not the answer for everyone and it may not be someone's answer at all times. > 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. I am a periodization proponent. I used to dip with only my bodyweight. I am now 30 lbs heavier and have performed dips with 115 lbs strapped to my waist. And I'm not looking to develop my strength? I'm not looking for results? A couple summers ago, my best friend embarked on a 3-day a week, high volume weight training protocol that had been used by the football team here at WSU. This protocol would be considered severe overtraining by HIT standards. My friend reached the heaviest bodyweight that he has ever been at, and also reached the highest strength levels that he has ever been at. My friend is definitely not a genetic superhuman by any means. It was an 8 week protocol, and my friend told me that he was definitely feeling overtrained by the end of the 8 weeks. If continued for any longer, then he definitely would have fallen into an overtraining syndrome. However, he made outstanding gains during this 8 week protocol despite being on the edge of overtraining. About a year ago, I corresponded with an individual who had been an HITer for a long time and had made great gains. However, his gains stagnated after a while. He switched to a high volume, 10x10 routine, and suddenly gained 10 lbs in 2 months. However, there is no way he would have been able to continue this forever, and he would have had to eventually lower his training volume again to continue to make progress. Therefore, variation in training volume is a valid concept and definitely works. > 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. The reason the body says "151 is not possible" is because you have reached your genetic limit. If you can't increase the resistance anymore, then you can't, and this has to be accepted. >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. The reason why you cannot get a one ton biceps curl is because it is a physiologic impossibility. For example, if never-ending increases in muscle mass were possible, then we would not be able to move around at all. Can you imagine a 50" bicep? You can't, because it is an impossibility. The human skeletal structure cannot support such a bicep. The human skeletal structure can also never support a one ton biceps curl. Let's view a genetic limitation as a point on a number line. Let's pick the number two as a genetic limit of strength in a particular exercise. My strength is at 1.5, and slowly increases over time to 1.6, 1.7, and so on. The closer I get to 2.0, the smaller my steps get. 1.75, 1.8, 1.82, 1.84, 1.86, etc. Finally, I get very close to my genetic limit. Let's say I'm at 1.99. I then get to 1.999. I then get to 1.9999 and then 1.99999 and 1.999999 and on to infinity. The increases become progressively smaller and smaller because 2.0 is my limit. I will never get past 2.0. >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? No. > Note how Fleck and Kraemer never video their studies. Ever wonder why? Because it is not a common practice to videotape studies in any field, including medical and nutritional sciences. James
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: High Volume, HIT, yada, yada - from Brad Collins
Top
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 04:32:26 PST From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: High Volume, HIT, yada, yada Adam wrote: > Most hardcore one-set proponents have >not tried many intelligent 'volume' approaches, yet have spoken >against >them without ever really experiencing it. Hey, I haven't tried heroin, yet I will speak out against it. ;) Actually, most hardcare one-set proponents I have talked to were made not born. They (we) tried the volume approaches. No matter how pretty you try and package it and add mumbo jumbo, what's inside the box is still the same. Brad
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. overloading/underloading, CAT - from Brian Bucher
Top
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:47:11 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu> Subject: overloading/underloading, CAT > -------------------- 8 -------------------- > 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. I get it, but don't read it. I'm archiving it for later, in case I ever find enough time to read it. Maybe this summer? [Re: using high acceleration vs. controlled movements.] > If you go slow out of the bottom, you are using less weight, and > are underloading the bottom position. "Underloading" compared to what? If I remember correctly, Fred1 said that for CAT, one used _less_ weight than for normal sets. I don't have his books with me at the moment, so I can't be sure. Now, from your statement I quoted above, it appears that you are saying that the bottom position is underloaded by going slow, but the top position is not. I don't see this. Since the same amount of force is applied through the entire ROM, how can one part of the ROM be underloaded and another part not? [For the purposes of this discussion, I'm ignoring how the force capabilities of the muscles change as the angle at the joint changes.] For the bottom to be underloaded compared to the top, there would have to be less force requirements at the bottom than the top, which is not the case with a controlled/slow rep. > 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. Anyways, if CAT were "all that and a bag of chips" as some claim, wouldn't the isokinetic equipment touted a while ago have shown significant advantages over every other type of training equipment? One can easily maximally load through the entire ROM when the speed of the resistance is forcefully limited. I've got more to say, but can't think of how to write it down, and this post has become long enough. :) Brian
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: HIT Digest #119 - from Sandeep De
Top
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:37:03 -0500 From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #119 > 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 Unfortunately all you'll get is a little break from the same arguments rehashed over and over again. Reasons why? 1] Both sides have demonstrated success despite evidence touted by proponents that would seemingly damn the other side 2] Both sides are unwilling to accept the idea that one protocol might be more appropriate in one given situation than another (i.e. HIT appropriate for overtrained athletes - those who can carefully manipulate loading parameters will employ different protocols) so there is never a perfect one size fits all solution for every circumstance 3] People love a good "shut the #$(*& up you blithering moron" fight every now and then. ------- Sandeep De The Power Factory - http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. 10 week size surge - from MSdfense51
Top
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:47:47 EST From: MSdfense51 <MSdfense51@aol.com> Subject: 10 week size surge Has anyone tried Ironman's 10 Week Size Surge program? What were your results? Thankyou Mark