-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. amateur bodybuilding pictures - from Jason Chatoor
Top
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 19:44:11 -0400 From: "Jason Chatoor" <jakim@trinidad.net> Subject: amateur bodybuilding pictures I was wondering whether anyone knew of a www site(maybe your homepage) that had pictures of amateur bodybuilders. All the sites i've found have had pro competitors and I wanted to compare my physique with others who have not beem using ANY suppliments/steriods, I'm talking COMPLETELY natural - not creatine or even a protein suppliment... If any one know of a site like this or one that comes closest,please let me know. Also, on a different topic, a question about bench presses. In my last chest workout, after warming up on a bike for about 7 or 8 minutes, i proceded to do some streching and then went ahead with just 3 or 4 reps on the bench with 135 - each rep, i just streached out at the bottom of the movement for aobut 5 seconds or so.. then the same thing with 155... After some more streching, i went ahead with a work set of 190 (i made 5 by my self then a little help from my spot for te last 2 making 7 in all) .I try to take 2 seconds going up and 3 comming down with a 1 sec pause on the top and bottom of the motion. Now for the question... - on my work set, my arms were shaking EXTREMELY - can anyone tell me why? I don't think it is a nutrition problem - i had a full meal about 3 hours prior and about 60 grams of high glycemic carbs just before my workout... My soptter thought it might be that "my intensity was too much for me" - what the hell does tht mean?????? I think it might be that my triceps are not strong enough and thus, acting as my weak link.... Any thoughts?? Just for some background - i'm 17 yrs.About 5"10.I weigh 163# ; 14 3/4 squirt guns :-) and have been training seriously for about 1 1/2 years... Thanks in advance, Jason
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: HIT Digest #120 - from Chase K Torres
Top
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:35:00 -0000 From: "Chase K Torres" <TORRES3@prodigy.net> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #120 I heard this morning on a bodybuilding program that a study has recently been done which concludes that individuals who train at home are in overall better shape than individuals who frequent a gym. Their reasoning is that you are less likely to skip a workout if the gym is inside your home but more likely to skip if you must travel to a gym - especially if the gym is more than 10 minutes away. Now I do not want to start a heated debate between people who workout at home and those who go to a gym, I was just wondering if anyone has seen a similiar study and be willing to explain it. Thanks, Chase Torres New Orleans,Louisiana
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: HIT Digest #121 - from Sandeep De
Top
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 22:24:38 -0500 From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #121 > 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) Fat loss is a function of caloric deficit between energy taken in through diet and energy expended through activity. There are many different avenues through which this deficit can be generated. Hence the reason why so many interpretations of effective fat reduction plans exist. Is cardio a bad thing or a good thing? There is no such thing as a bad tool or a good tool in training, only tools that are appropriate for a person's particular situation in time. Myth 1: Low intensity exericse uses more body fat as fuel. This is true, a greater percentage of energy supplied to low intensity (sub 70% maximum heart rate) exercise is derived from stored bodyfat. However, the rate of total fat oxidized (burned) increases dramatically as the intensity of exercise proceeds. While the percentage of energy coming from stored bodyfat is diminished, the total amount of fat burned is too significant to ignore. The percentage of fat coming from bodyfat might be a smaller percentage, but it is a percentage of a larger number. 90% of 100 is still smaller than 70% of 200. That being said - the relative demand of the work being done is going to be the most influential factor in the amount of fat lost. The greater the deficit created, the better the benefits towards fat loss (Point 1). So in order of decreasing effectiveness per unit time: 1. High intensity sprint intervals (i.e. sprint, coast, sprint, coast) 2. moderate intensity cardio 3. low intensity cardio The problem with all of these solutions is that an effective (demanding) stimuli cannot be maintained indefinately. So harder is better, (generally). Does a better solution exist? Is there something that expends even more energy per unit time than high intensity sprint intervals and has been documented through several studies to impart an excellent conditioning effect on the heart and lungs? WEIGHT TRAINING. Over time, excessive training can impede recovery and contribute towards and overtraining syndrome. Hence excess cardio is only going to damage the effects that weight training can impart. Metabolism is far better enhanced through hard work than through long duration low intensity work. The muscle created through weight training expends energy at rest and increases the rate of energy being used (original point). My personal stance on the issue? Cardio sucks. It's boring, it's not as effective as the other forms of exercise, it contributes to muscle loss. Furthermore, since caloric deficit is ultimately the bottom line in whether or not fat loss occurs, it is MUCH easier to quantify a precise deficit primarily through diet and then supplementing this with quality weight training than adding all kinds of retarded cardio to the mix in order to generate a deficit (that you really don't even know is effective). Cardio does work in specific situations. People who don't want to track caloric intake. People who don't have access to resistance training. People with low levels of conditioning and would get a health benefit from STARING at a barbell! I was training my girlfriend the other day. When we came into her yuppie gym, some woman was spinning away on those new spinning cycles all alone (I thought they had classes for those things). When we left the gym two hours later (hold your breath, this was her first day, most of the time was spent on instruction), this woman was still spinning away. Covered in sweat. Looking like she hadn't one iota of muscularity on her body. What's the point? Will she clue in? No. She's been conditioned by society to think that cardio = lost fat. So why is it that sprinters and other athletes who train hard with weights and avoid cardio work still develop ripped physiques? It all boils down the caloric deficit created. What you choose is up to you and your specific situation, but by all means, don't believe for a second that cardio = fat loss. ------- Sandeep De The Power Factory - http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Qwadz - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 22:40:13 -0600 (CST) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Qwadz >Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 14:50:06 EST >From: JawDogs <JawDogs@aol.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #120 >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 donít know. Squats build quad strength. So do leg extensions. ëNuff >said. That wasn't the entire issue though. The issue originally had to do with my use of terminal leg extensions to preferentially strengthen the Vastus medalias over the vastus lateralis to correct patellar mistracking. You countered that the idea of preferential recruitment was a myth and that strengthening the quads was strengthening the quads. Then you said that leg extensions were necessary for full strengthening of the quads. You can't have it both ways. Basically I interpret your various comments as saying: 1. Terminal leg extensions do NOT preferentially train VM vs. VL. And please note that I am in no way suggesting that you can recruit VM without also recruiting the VL, only that you can put preferential stress on VM with this movemetn compared with something like a squat. 2. Squats and leg extensions both strengthen the quads so it's moot which one you do 3. Leg extensions are necessary for 'full strengthening' of the quads How can #3 hold true if #2 holds true? Either leg extensions are or are not necessary for strengthening the quads so which is it? My belief is that leg extensions are unnecessary if one is squatting UNLESS there is an imbalance between VM and VL. In which case I'll use terminal leg ext. to improve recruitment of the VM and then ditch leg ext. in favor of squatting once the imbalance is corrected. 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"
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. RE:My Football Workout, Is It The Best - from David Aaron Van Dyke
Top
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:46:57 -0500 From: David Aaron Van Dyke <dav109@psu.edu> Subject: RE:My Football Workout, Is It The Best The workout that Mr. Xavier refers to is not an accurate representation of a PSU football workout. I volunteer in PSU's weight room and who ever put that workout on the net is not affiliated with PSU's strength and conditioning program.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: HIT Digest #121 - from Mike Strassburg
Top
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 10:16:35 -0600 From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #121 Blues Man7: Clarence Bass has what I believe to be good advice for middle-aged trainers regarding cardio work. Check out the articles on his website, he has articles on cardio conditioning and fat loss. http://www.cbass.com Personally I've been doing the 20/10 sprints for 6 weeks now and love/hate em. They're very hard, but short and effective. Happy reading..........Mike
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. superslow impressions #4 - from Jarlo Ilano
Top
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 22:08:07 -0800 From: Jarlo Ilano <jilano@ups.edu> Subject: superslow impressions #4 Well today I had completed my 6th superslow session and just when i thought that i had figured it all out and could handle the sessions (in terms of mental preparedness), I had the naive suggestion to try some lower back work. As a student therapist I am interning at a rehab unit and transferring patients (i.e., helping them to get out of bed and into a wheelchair, walker, or to stand up.. etc.,) often requires what is called maximal or total assistance, which essentially mean doing from 75% to 100% of the work. And sometimes people are just dead weight. (Hey what can you do, these people need to stand up for weight bearing, re-learn how to walk, or simply use the toilet...) At any rate I thought it would be beneficial to do some proper low back work, many therapists have major back problems due to transferring patient, most of which could have been alleviated with proper strengthening (along with proper technique). And actually I believe that most mechanical low back pain stems from weakness, either global or due to assymmetrical strength differences, but that's another post. At any rate, this session began with upper body work as my superslow instructor informed me that the low back machine leg press sequence would be unnerving, to say the least. So the session began with overhead press, assisted chins, bench, then onto the nautilus low back, and ending with leg press. I had never seen this low back machine, I'm not sure what "generation" this nautilus machine was. It is not like most of those low back machines out there where you sit on a seat. You are essentially straddling a cylindrical pad, and when you are strapped in, the exercise begins by raising up against the belt (so you are in sort of a semi-squat position) so the pad is really not so much a "seat" as a prepartory/safety device to enable you to get in the proper position. This exercise was deadly, performing low back work in a superslow fashion is one of the most masochistic activities I had ever experienced! The pain was incredible. And immediately going to the leg press afterwards was.... well let's just say I experienced pure panic when I was close to failure. Not the type of panic in which say you are performing a maximal bench without a spotter, but the type of panic in which you think your muscles are going to tear off the bone if you keep contracting (This panic also occurs at the bottom of the superslow smith machine squat i had mentioned in a previous post) I'm ashamed to say I ceased contracting my muscles, which in superslow is a no-no simply because you have to start again until your trainer is satisfied with the final static contraction hold of 15 or so seconds. Most definitely a humbling experience... My impressions: Over the last three sessions I have learned a few things which have changed my approach to strength training. I now feel that trainees must remove our preoccupation with "lifting weight", the completion of a repetition that soothes our psyche is only a byproduct of the practice of resistance training. In superslow, and i believe in all forms of strength work, the maintaining of proper form and targeted muscular contraction should be the primary goal, not the completion of the repetition. How many of us contort, twist, squirm in our last rep because you simply must "complete" the rep! This is the wrong goal! I firmly believe that our mindset must be changed to focus upon muscular involvement rather than the usual "results oriented" mentality e.g., "I have to push this weight farther, complete this rep". Though this determination is wonderful, your determination would be better served in a focus upon form, muscular contraction, and concentration on pushing, not the weight, but beyond the limitations of pain and discomfort. Some reasons of course include safety, when you squirm around and lose form, the change in alignment can definitely cause injury. Also, as i had learned in the hospital/clinic setting, the body finds a way to complete movement and will adjust form/technique to achieve the task at hand. This is the reason why people limp without conscious awareness, it is an instinctive reaction to move away from pain, or to recruit other structures to compensate for weaker ones. Stroke patients often swing their leg forward in a circle (circumduction) simply because they cannot flex their hips (dues to weakness, spasticity....), but you gotta walk! So the body moves in the way it needs to in order to complete your goal (walk, raise food to your mouth....) I believe the same happens during the last reps before failure, your target muscle is searing with pain, getting weaker due to muscular fatigue, so in the bench you shift your elbows, shrug your shoulders etc., you are simply trying to meet your goal and move that weight... well you would truly achieve a much better exercise performance if you maintained your form thus truly achieving the best inroad possible. Deep muscular fatigue is your goal at the training session, not "lifting weights". This stimulation then leads to your ultimate goal for training, muscular development. Jarlo Ilano Student University Of Puget Sound Graduate School of Physical Therapy Tacoma, Washington
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: HIT Digest #121 - from jon and stacy ziegler
Top
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 07:45:21 +0000 From: jon and stacy ziegler <rutger1@jps.net> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #121 I don't think anyone is sidestepping the issue of "what is volume". If the volume folks need a definition then they should supply one to the HIT folks since the volume folks are the ones who do volume. So, volume folks, what is volume? I'm doing one set to failure, successfully (HD II), volume doesn't concern me. Although I don't think there is anything wrong with a 20 rep squat set. Randall Strossen really supports the brethaing squat, and having done the abbreviated Super-Squats workput in the past I can say that it does work. And last, to the fellow who was embarrassed doing a sloooooooow one rep pull-up when the female athlete walked by because you thought she thought you were struggling, there is just one solution, you should have yelled for help. That way you could have met her. I'm out of here, Jon
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: JawDogs in #121 - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 21:40:26 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: JawDogs in #121 >From: JawDogs <JawDogs@aol.com> >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. So we should stop making love, for instance. >[Just a math note. I've noticed this one trips people up a lot. If something is 400% greater in size >that means it is FIVE times larger, not four times. My comprehension: 400% greater means it's FOUR times largER or FIVE times AS large. This actually >reminds me of a math question I was asked today: if I travel to my house at 10 miles/hr from work >and return at 20miles/hr, what was my average speed? 13.3 miles/h. Another question. What must the return speed be so that the average speed would be 20 miles/h? >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 So it's not question of 18" versus 15" arm. 28% larger than 15" is 19.2". 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. I don't understand what you mean by TOTAL cross sectional area compared to cross sectional area. Anyway, the ratio of areas of the same shape is the square of the scale. The scale was 1.28:1 so the ratio of the cross sections is 1.28 x 1.28 = 1.64 which means that the cross-section of the 19.2" arm is 64% larger than that of the 15" arm. (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. Let's be generous and assume that the length of the more developed arm is also 28% greater. In that case we get the ratio of the volumes 1.64 x 1.28 = 2.10 which means that the larger arm is 110% largER than the smaller arm in volume. Of course my calculation is not exact because the shape of the arm changes a bit when it becomes larger and to be specific we have to take into account that a part of the cross section is taken by the upper arm bone which means that the difference is some more than calculated above. Anyway, your figures were so badly wrong that I suggest you to check your claims a little more carefully next time. >Anyhow, as far as I know, if something is 3 times larger than something else, it is 300 percent greater, >right? Right, but your presentation gave that it was 2 times larger or 3 times as large. >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. That's strongly put but the injury risk is substantial IMO, too. His book is a plethora of >contradictions, That can be considered as a flame against Kubik unless you prove it by specifying some contradictions in the book. >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. If this is not flaming your "review" of the book at least shows bad taste. >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. The conclusion cannot be drawn from your example without knowing the initial strength. If it's over 160 pounds then you're right. >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! It's true that it's harder to get the same rep number by using a slower cadence but is it harder per TIME UNIT? What I mean is that if Fred 2 is using 5 sec/per rep his 5 reps take 25 sec and if he manages even ONE 15/15 rep (which is 30 sec) then Fred's way is harder per TIME UNIT as he gets the same inroad in lesser time. Just wait until >you can >do the 230 in a 15 second count. Now that's strength. No, strength has nothing to do with duration. Strength is the ability to produce force, period. I admit that you are probably stronger when you can do a 15 sec rep instead of a 5 sec rep but that's a different thing. 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? I think that one's tallness has something to do, too. Erkki
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Dinousaur training - from Lars Christian "Sørlie"
Top
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 11:34:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Lars Christian "Sørlie" <l84@rocketmail.com> Subject: Dinousaur training === I just want to say that I have read "Dinosaur Training" and I feel that is is a great book about strength training. All the feats of strenghts listed is NOT gobly-gook, it is motivating to read about what people have done. It certanly gives ME a goal to train by. I even bought a sandbag and barrels which I lift every now and then, and even though I lift heavy enough for me to almost not be able to lift it, I have yet to be injured. I am not injury-proof I have been injured bfore, but that was from a Leg-press machine. Sincerely Lars-Christian Soerlie _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Superslow - from Nic Oliver
Top
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 08:32:04 +0100 From: Nic Oliver <impact@star.co.uk> Subject: Superslow I have a question about superslow training which I hope Andrew BAye or someone else can help me with. I have been using it for a while, with good size and strength gains. However, it seems to have elicited one response I had not thought of: As well as being into weigths, I play hockey in goal. I find after a cycle of superslow that, presumably because of the speed at which my muscles have adapted to training, my reactions and speed of movement, particularly leg movements, have slowed up. Is this just me? I'm guessing that it's a more general problem and that the training needs to be compensated for with faster movements. If I'm right, any ideas about the right balance of slow to fast? Would a protocol involving a set at superslow followed by dropping some weight and doing a set at a faster tempo work, or result in overtarining? -- Regards, Nic Oliver Impact Business Development Consultancy It's more important to know where you are going, than to get there quickly. Do not mistake activity for achievement. --