-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Volume and definitions - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:22:26 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Volume and definitions >Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 04:32:26 PST >From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com> >Subject: Re: High Volume, HIT, yada, yada >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. You're still sidestepping the issue here. How are you defining 'volume approach'? Anything over 1 set? 2 sets? 10 sets? Please define you terms. I don't think anyone will rationally defend 20 sets per bodypart. But why can't I do 4 sets per bodypart or 6 and not overtrain. Oldtime lifters did this all the time. They didn't have D-bol (breakfast of today's champions) and weren't all genetic superment. They trained infrequently (3 days per week generally), with lowish volume (typically less than 5 exercises per workout and generally not more than 10-15 work sets/workout which equates to 3-5 work sets per exercise) and did just fine. So please define what you mean by 'volume approach'. I have one horrible book that says anything less than 20-30 sets per bodypart won't be enough. The other extreme of course is the one-set of an exercise is enough. So what if my workout is this: Day 1: Monday Squat: 2X12-15 or 1X20 (If I'm in the mood to hurt) Incline bench press: 2X8-10 Undergrip pulldown: 2X8-10 Abs: whatever Calf raise: 2X12-15 Day 2: Friday Deadlift: 5X5 Shoulder press: 2X8-10 Hammer <cha-ching> hi-row: 2X8-10 Abs: whatever but something different than on MOnday Rotator cuff: 2X10-12 I'm doing more than 1 set but it's surely not high volume. I've gone as high as 4 sets per exercise but rarely do more than that (and generally only when I use low reps like the 5X5 system). I add weight whenever possible in small amounts (to adress the comment that volume obviates the need for progressive resistance in this digest). ONce again, please define what you mean by 'volume training'. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "The ketogenic diet simulates the metabolism of a fasting body....As a fasting body burns it own fat for energy, so a person on a ketogenic diet derives energy principally by burning fat rather than from the more common energy source, carbohydrate." John Freeman M.D. in "The Epilepsy Diet Treatment- An Introduction to the Ketogenic Diet"
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: speed of movement - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:22:35 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: speed of movement >> >Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:49:54 -0500 (EST) >> >From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu> >> >Subject: PFT / ROM / "fast" lifting > [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. >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.] Actually, I got this backwards. If you look at force-time curves, you will see that force will be higher than bar weight for some point of time (acceleration phase) and lower than bar weight for some point in time (decceleration phase). So, if the bar has a weight of 1600N, the initial movement might see an applied bar force of 1800N until you start deccelerating at which time applied force is 1500N or so (making up numbers). Wilson examined a bench press at 81% of 1RM done in 1.5 seconds. Bar was at 1600N. The peak force was 1800N ocurring at roughly 0.2 seconds (peak acceleration), dropping to 1600N at about 0.5 seconds (peak velocity), dropping to about 1400N aroudn 1.1 seconds or so, coming back up to bar force at the end of the movement. unfortunately, I already trashed the weights-2 digest where I drew this out in ASCII but if you plot the numbers above, you'll get an S-shaped curve which goes up initially, comes back down, past the X-axis, hits some low point, and then comes back up. The acceleration curve is identically shaped. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "The ketogenic diet simulates the metabolism of a fasting body....As a fasting body burns it own fat for energy, so a person on a ketogenic diet derives energy principally by burning fat rather than from the more common energy source, carbohydrate." John Freeman M.D. in "The Epilepsy Diet Treatment- An Introduction to the Ketogenic Diet"
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Size surge - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:22:42 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Size surge >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? Nearly killed my lowback. Having to Squat on Mon/Fri and deadlift on Wed was too much. If I were to repeat something like it, I'd probably squat Monday, DL Wednesday and leg press Friday. Or, better yet, squat Mon, DL Friday and leg press Wed to give my lowback a break. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "The ketogenic diet simulates the metabolism of a fasting body....As a fasting body burns it own fat for energy, so a person on a ketogenic diet derives energy principally by burning fat rather than from the more common energy source, carbohydrate." John Freeman M.D. in "The Epilepsy Diet Treatment- An Introduction to the Ketogenic Diet"
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Cardio Work / Pros and Cons - from Blues man7
Top
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 07:47:25 EST From: Blues man7 <Bluesman7@aol.com> Subject: Cardio Work / Pros and Cons First post to this list, though I have corresponded privately with the likes of Matt Brzycki and Andrew Baye, just to drop a couple of names. <g> As an aside, Rob, you are doing a great job and this list is a great resource. I would like to hear the pros and cons of cardio work in a training program. I have read some comments here, as well as having received the thoughts of Matt Brzycki and Drew Baye on this subject in the past. I would like to see the concensus from some of the other folks that populate this list as well. (Lyle, James, etc., you guys know who you are <g>) Reason I ask is that I basically hate doing cardio, though have trudged through it, but I enjoy my weight training much more, and progress a bit more rapidly without the added stress of additional cardio work. My present routine is two full body HIT workouts per week, one set to muscle fatigue/failure. Additional reps/weight are added at each workout. As a 45 year old federal law enforcement officer, it is important to me to determine whether or not cardio work is necessary for me to keep the old ticker going, and/or for weight control. (I could stand to drop about 15 lbs to get to a very desirable weight) Thanks for your opinions. Elliott Pitilon Miami, FL
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: Sanddeep's comments - from Sonofsquat
Top
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:21:06 EST From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> Subject: Re: Sanddeep's comments In a message dated 98-03-31 23:54:17 EST, Sanddeep De wrote: << 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....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. >> For the purpose of clearifying my position on the subject, Point one is correct, but point two is not my belief... I fully accept and have advocated that there is no one size fits all solution to every circumstance! This has been my stance all along. I even do acknowledge that from time to time, a HIT routine may be suitable for the job at hand! Even used the methods from time to time... As for point three... I do enjoy a good debate! Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: CAT - from Sonofsquat
Top
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:35:58 EST From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> Subject: Re: CAT In a message dated 98-03-31 23:54:17 EST, Brian Bucher wrote: <<"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.>> >From "POWER" a scientific approach by Fred Hatfield I, "The fact that you are able to achieve sufficient overload to force the desired adaptive process to occur in the muscles and tissues of the body even on the first few reps and sets means that you can use lighter weights than what was heretofore considered conventional or necessary. The use of moderately heavy weights (e.g. around 60% to 80% of your maximum capacity) is sufficient, providing you are compensatorily accelerating the weight throughout the movement." <<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?>> Also from Dr. Squat, "Compensatory acceleration is similar to isokinetics, except that rather than controlling the speed of movement so that total effort can be applied throughout the range of motion, one compensatorily speeds up his own movement in such a way that increased leverage is accommodated for." Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Is this HIT done properly ? - from JOHN MORIN
Top
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:02:49 -0500 From: JOHN MORIN <JMZIM@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Is this HIT done properly ? Some months ago I gave Mentzer's HDII routine a try.I followed it exactly for 3 months.The results were practically zip,e.g. no gains to speak of and no losses either.Currently I'm training on alt. days 3 times per week,each W.O. lasts no more than 45 min.Rep speed is 5-7 sec.each pos. and neg,I average 19 sets per W.O.and perform 4-8 reps each set.I do not use a split routine.Rest between set's is minimal,that is only enough time to get to the next machine.I'm not really concerned with the amount of weight I lift,my goal is to train to momentary muscular failure within the designated rep range.Lastly,the final rep is followed by a static contraction lasting 15 sec. per the Super Slow protocol. So far my results have been impressive,body fat is dropping significantly with no change in diet and I'm looking like a "Bodybuilder" wich is my goal. I'm interested in feedback from other HIT Proponents especially Drew Bay. Sincerely John M.
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: HIT Digest #120 - from DMartin316
Top
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 11:41:35 EST From: DMartin316 <DMartin316@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #120 What a crew we are! I know I act like a gad fly but think about this. We all train for different reasons. Most of us want a level of strength and fitness that comes from training. For most of us we train ourselves and that's it. Maybe follow this protocol. 1. Do what you like and enjoy. 2. Do something that works for you. 3. Do something that does not injure you. I know that leaves a lot of room and that's my point. We all can quote a lot of noted experts (self proclaimed or not) and we will try something because our guru said so. How many times have you injured yourself following a recommendation, healed, gone back and tried it again, with the same results? And still thought that was the way to go? I always felt that if you were able to do what you enjoyed you would well off. Peace, Dan Martin
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: HIT Digest #120 - from JawDogs
Top
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 14:50:06 EST From: JawDogs <JawDogs@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #120 4/1/98 FR: Fred Hahn (Jawdogs) RE: Response to HIT 118&119 -- Juan Castro, Son-of-squat, Thanks to Teri, and other misc. thoughts: Boy oh boy, did I ever stir up some stuff, eh?! Firstly, I’d like to say to Mr. Castro that I thought I had already answered most, if not all of the questions you put to me in HIT 118. If not, my gray cells must really be going. So as not to take up too much air time, I will try to answer you as precisely as I can. As for stressing the aerobic system, running does not use a higher percentage of the aerobic system than sleeping. Sleeping is almost completely aerobic (percentage wise) compared to anything else except for maybe a coma. HIT strength training is maybe, (here I totally guess) 2% aerobic. Anything in-between is just that -- in- between. And besides, no one needs to perform aerobic exercises for any reason whatsoever -- none. My advice to everyone is to ignore aerobic-type exercises completely for the rest of your life. They are simply not necessary for health and longevity; they cannot fix a sick heart, and they definitely thwart strength hence size gains. As for neurological adapttionm to exercise, I hold fast to the idea that if you are employing proper strength training techniques, it only takes a few sessions to master an exercise neurologically. In HG magazine I said several. A few, several -- so sue me. The 15 inch/18 inch biceps analogy was determined by a friend if mine. (He did say approximately 400% by the by.) Remember, when a biceps is larger in diameter it is also larger in length and in cross sectional area. As I stated in my earlier posting, I hope you are not confusing times with percentage. An 18 inch biceps is not 400 times larger (obviously) than a 15 inch biceps (did I say 16? I meant 15), but the percentage in terms of cross sectional area, width and length gives it a huge percentage increase. One of Arthur Jones’ articles in Ironman magazine compares his sons 15 inch arm (yes this includes the triceps, I know) to a bodybuilders 18 inch arm. (I believe it is the Nov. 1993 issue in Ironman “My first half century...” part VI) In it is a comparison photo. Enormous difference! It does say in the issue that the bodybuilder’s arm (Boyer Coe) was 28% larger in circumference but the width was 43% greater, while the total cross sectional area was twice as large and the cross sectional area was 3 times as large. (He does not mention length, but this must obviously be factored in as well.) I suppose a good mathematician could figure out the answer exactly. Anyhow, as far as I know, if something is 3 times larger than something else, it is 300 percent greater, right? Right. 300%, 400% -- so sue me. As far as the quads go, Tim Ryan answered that question as good as I could have. I forget the HIT digest number he answered it in, sorry Juan. But in short, if you get stronger in the squat, you will get stronger in leg extension as well and vice versa. How much more? Heck, I don’t know. Squats build quad strength. So do leg extensions. ‘Nuff said. A note on the book Dinosaur Training, by Brooks Kubick, the lawyer (not physiologist). Some of the things he says are quite correct. Training less often, training to failure, etc. Most of what he says, however, is strength-feat oriented, Cro-Magnon, ego boosting gobbledy-gook. Follow Mr. Kubik’s recommendation’s and you’ll get stronger, no doubt about it, but you’ll also get injured for sure. His book is a plethora of contradictions, insults, goof-ball techniques and good-ol-boy camaraderie. After a training session with Brook, I suppose there’d be a hog slaughter that evening, a monster truck race after that, and then maybe a WWF TV beer fest. (Hmmn, kinda sounds fun, right?) Not. Most of Kubik’s “dinosaur” ideas should remain in the LaBrea tarpits (along with the other fossilized, extinct, instinct-based exercise notions), where they belong. To Teri P, thanks for explaining that which was already, I thought, self explanatory. You did a good job of dumbing down basic concepts even further than I did. I appreciate the effort sincerely! To sonofaquat I say this -- OK, OK already! I didn’t mean to imply that you train everyday, 80 sets, etc. I was using that as an EXAMPLE. I exaggerated on purpose. Also sports conditioning is not the issue -- strength training is. Please do not confuse the two. And please do not take things so personally, jeez-louise! You asked me for a definition of intensity. OK, here it is: INTENSITY = INROAD/TIME It can also be expressed as the degree of momentary effort, but the above equation should suffice. Example: A military press of 100 pounds for 90 seconds to positive failure is less muscularly intense than 120 for 60 seconds to positive failure. You say you have done pulldowns using 230 for 5 reps, eh? How fast were the reps performed? It doesn’t matter you might say? Try doing the reps in a 15/15 count and see how many you get. I’ll bet you dimes to doughnuts that you won’t raise the weight an inch. Why? ‘Cause it’s HARDER to move it slower, that’s why! Just wait until you can do the 230 in a 15 second count. Now that’s strength. Also, not everybody is designed for hefting massive poundage’s just like not everyone is designed for competition time marathon running. Squatting 500 pounds, benching 400 and deadlifting 700 is not, let me repeat NOT something all people can achieve. If it was, why would there be weight classes in power lifting championships? Why can’t everyone be a heavyweight? More later. Regards to all, Fred Hahn
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. My Football Workout, Is It The Best? - from Xavier Motley
Top
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 15:20:07 -0500 From: Xavier Motley <xcm100@psu.edu> Subject: My Football Workout, Is It The Best? I got this off of the web @ Cyberpump and I also spoke with the man whom sent this from my school (PSU) to Cyberpump. My question is as a wide receiver/defensive back do you think this workout is sufficient? I do one set of each except for the exercise w/ the drop set, then I do that also. I do this workout three times a week: Monday, Wednesday, Friday; I also 2 - 3 miles on these days. On Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday I do sprints. If anyone has any info that would better prepare me for Big Ten Football. Please post or if you can PLEASE email me at xcm100@psu.edu. Thanks. Workout 45 - From the Penn State Weight Room MR Neck Flexion / Extension MR Upright Row Leg Extension (12-15reps) Tru-Squat (30 Reps) Walking Lunges (Until you can move) Leg Curl (12-15 reps) BB Bench Press (6-10 reps/ drop set) N Lat Row ( 6-10 reps / drop set) N Seated Press (6-10 reps/ drop set) Weighted Chins (6-10) Weighted Dips (6-10) Negative Chins (# of chins from 1st set) Negative Dips (# of dips from 1st set) Leg Press (20 reps)
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. one rep chin - from Dan Yourg
Top
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 15:22:01 -0800 From: Dan Yourg <dyourg@acusd.edu> Subject: one rep chin Experimented with performing my first one rep chin today, and had someone time me. Went up as slow as possible, and down as slow as possible without stopping completely at any point.(Felt a little self-conscious as a female athlete walking by stopped to glance at me as I was on my way up, probably thinking "he sure is struggling just to get one rep!") Any thoughts on trying to time the ascent and descent so that they are equivalent? Or just try to make the whole rep as long as possible? Any feedback on tips/experience with this exercise appreciated. Thanks, Dan Yourg
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Gyms in San Diego - from Margo and Chris Walter
Top
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 18:45:28 -0500 From: Margo and Chris Walter <cwalter@swva.net> Subject: Gyms in San Diego Anybody know of any good iron gyms in the San Diego area? Please reply to cwalter@swva.net. Thanks. Chris Walter