-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. The man with the golden Qwadz - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 00:05:00 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: The man with the golden Qwadz >>Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 22:40:13 -0600 (CST) >>From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) >>Subject: Re: Qwadz > >Our near omnipotent moderator Rob asked: > >[Hmmm...which would be better, to be omnipotent or omniscient? >--Rob] Good question. I wouldn't seen any reason to be all powerful if you didn't know how to use it. Of course, if you were all powerful, why couldn't you just MAKE yourself omniscient? >[Sheesh, poor Chuck. Well, it's better than electroshock therapy....not >that I would know of course. --Rob] Got a story to tell, Rob? >Squats or leg presses with a big ball between your knees. >[Curiousity again. First, I hesitate to look stupid in the gym.....well, >since it's just a community centre and most people I see train do some >really stupid looking things, I guess I can live with that. Second, I >would like to know what other personal trainers think of this technique - >even if they have heard of it. Any success stories? --Rob] To be honest, I've never used this technique for exactly this reason. My clients do enough odd stuff in the gym (i.e. use correct form and move slowly which is wierd to most of the other members) without this one. Were I in a more clinical setting, like a physical therapy clinic, I'd be more apt to use this method. I also remembered another therapist telling me about doing a front lunge while 'trying' to adduct the knee to bring the vastus medialis into play as well. Thing is I hate lunges as an exercise. The ball between the knees squat is soething I'd be more likely to do myself at home on off days and I'd never do it with a ton of weight. It's just a 'teaching' exercise to improve recruitment patterns. >[Don't worry, I lost mine awhile ago. After reading your stuff, Lyle, I >did try terminal leg extensions at the gym. Observations: you can't use >NEARLY as much weight as you use for regular extensions. Try 50% less >weight. I did higher reps as you suggested, and I feel a strange soreness >today in my quads that is a bit unusual....one other thing. Since this is >a "rehab" exercise should it be done more often than "regular" strength >training? I think you are aware I'm only doing one strength training >session/week. Thank you for your advice to me and the group. --Rob] I think like anything, the frequency of this exercise would depend on how intensely you're working it. a lot of rehab stuff is so low intensity that you can do it daily or more often. If you were working terminal leg ext. even close to failure, I'd stick with a 'typical' training frequency of once every 4-7 days or so (most of my cliens train 2-3 days per week so the frequency on this one is the same. When they move to a split routine, at about week 5-6 or so, and I use a basic upper/lower split, it will obviously get worked less frequently). Of course, since you only train once a week, Rob, that doesn't help you much. Another method that you could do more often as another 'teaching' exercise is seated terminal leg extensions. Go sit with your back against a wall. Now tense your entire quad (you'll have to check with your fingers to make sure your VM recruits). Hold it tensed and lift the leg off the floor. Technically this is a hip flexor exercise but it can still help improve recruitment somewhat. This one is so low intensity you could do it on off days without cutting into recovery. This would probably be a good one to try the 'extension-adduction thing' I mentioned. I'd think you could put a tenis ball between your knees to get some adduction of the knees to see if it helps your VM recruit or not, maybe do it sitting in a chair so you could extend both knees at the same time. A little less goofy looking than squatting with a beach ball between your knees at the gym. 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: HIT Digest #123 - from LFeld49371
Top
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 08:05:22 EDT From: LFeld49371 <LFeld49371@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #123 In a message dated 98-04-06 23:55:38 EDT, you write: << So why do some rather famous bodybuilders with massive ripped physiques make the news by dropping dead from heart failure?>> An UNeducated guess?? They were probably on steroids and had enlarged hearts. If I wanted to be snide, I could go on a rip about Jim Fixe...I don't think he used steroids...he just ran himself to death. Just a reminder that exceptions don't necessarily prove the rule, on either side. LCF
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Submission for HIT digest - from cpetko@notes.cc.bellcore.com
Top
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 11:38:36 -0400 From: cpetko@notes.cc.bellcore.com Subject: Submission for HIT digest To: Fred Hatfield II Re: "To get fast, you must train fast." Train "fast" with weights? Are you serious? >From a height of 4 ft., slowly lower a 25 lb. plate on to your foot. >From the same height, drop the same plate on to your foot. A different response? You bet! Those same accelerative forces, to a lesser or greater extent, are exerted on your body when you train "fast" with weights. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Iron obeys the laws of physics, not any person's training theory. Will it cause injury every time? No. Is it more dangerous than more controlled weight training? Yes. Unless you are a competitive weightlifter, is there any valid, proven reason to train "fast" with weights? No. This is the worst advice given by the BFS crowd because it can actually be dangerous. Give this one up already! To: Everyone engaged in the endless "What is HIT/What isn't HIT?" debate In the Fall 1988 issue of the HIT Newsletter, Ken Leistner's article "High Intensity Training: More Than Words" summed up, to my mind, the whole debate in a succinct and no-nonsense way. To quote: "It is not a training methodology designed by Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones, nor any other one individual. It is not a method of training the necessarily limits the athlete to doing one, and only one set of any particular exercise, nor must it be done only three days per week. It is not, to the exclusion of other concepts, those routines dictated by the writings of Ellington Darden, PhD, or any other one author. It is not a program that limits itself to the use of machines only, or any other one exercise modality." "No, a proper, high intensity program is going all-out, not almost all-out; it is taking each set to one's absolute limit, not almost to the limit; it is using whatever piece of equipment is available, not just a machine or group of machines; it is not the words of two or three men, but a commitment to work as hard as possible while in the gym or weight room...without socializing, resting excessively between sets, or falling prey to the "this isn't going to work so I'll copy the star attitude.""
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: HIT Digest #121 - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 09:11:13 PDT From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #121 > From: JawDogs <JawDogs@aol.com> > > 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. I'll try this once more. I understand that sleeping uses the aerobic system for nearly all the energy sleep uses. I understand that running uses anaerobic for some of its energy, and thus for running, the fraction of the total energy coming from aerobic systems is less than that same fraction is for sleeping. To make sure this is clear, let's put it in math terms. Eo=aerobic energy usage, Ea=anaerobic energy usage, the subscript s stand for sleeping and the subscript r stands for running. (Eo/Eo+Ea)s > (Eo/Eo+Ea)r OK? I was never questioning this. This makes sense. But doesn't running use more aerobic energy than sleeping? Not as a percentage of total energy usage, but absolute amount? And hence, a higher percentage of the aerobic energy that could be used? If running *didn't* use more aerobic energy than sleeping, then running would be almost entirely anaerobic, and my understanding is we wouldn't be able to do it for very long, right? Remember, my original question was why in the comparison of running versus sleeping you thought percentage was more important than absolute numbers. This was after you made a point of showing how absolute numbers were more important than percentages or density of some part of a cell. So I ask you again why you think percentages are more important in this case than are absolute numbers. > 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. I'll try this one again too. I'm not asking whether 3-5 sessions (as you named in your last post on this) is a few or several. I'm asking why you think (wrote) that it is such a bad thing. Even with once per week training, it would only take a month. > The 15inch/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. Well you might bear these numbers in mind. If the arm is considered round, an 18" arm would have a diameter of 5.73", a 16" arm would have a diameter of 4.77", and for the 18" arm to have 3 times as much muscle as the 16" arm, the bone inside each would have to be 4.22" in diameter. Does anybody reading this digest have a 16" arm and biceps and triceps muscles only 1/4" thick? I don't have a 16" arm :-( but I can feel that my muscles are bigger than that. As I said before my degree is in physics, not anything biological, so this one might sound foolish. How can the muscle get longer? Wouldn't this require that the tendon got shorter? > 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....Squats build > quad strength. So do leg extensions. Nuff said. Mr. Hahn, you wrote before that leg extensions were required. You also wrote that different parts of the quads could not develop at different rates. These two statements do not seem consistent to me. And what you said in #121 does not seem consistent with what you wrote back in #101. This inconsistency is what Mr. McDonald pointed out back in #105, and again in #122. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Tim Ryan and HIT Digest #109 - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 09:21:58 PDT From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: Tim Ryan and HIT Digest #109 Welcome back Mr. Ryan. In HIT Digest #109 Mr. Badour and myself raise some questions about your friction arguments. I don't think Rob wants me to repost them, so maybe you could take a look at that issue in the archives. I am still hoping that you will address these questions here.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: HIT Digest #123 - from Brian Bucher
Top
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 14:03:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #123 > -------------------- 4 -------------------- > Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 02:20:48 EDT > From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> > Subject: Re: Superslow > > Nic Oliver wrote: > > <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.> > > The SAID principle (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands) states that you > will gain strength in the paths you train in. To get fast, you must train > fast! If you train slow, you will be slow! Of course, skill has a lot to do > with it. I agree with the above, and will go further and say that since training with slow reps and training with "fast" reps are both so slow compared to velocity of limbs (or around joints) in athletic activities that both methods should be catagorized as "training slow." If you disagree with this, please explain how a "fast" lifting of a weight can be only 10% of a movement performed in some activity and be so much more effective for training this "speed" than a rep speed of 5% of the movement performed in the athletic activity. Gee, that sentence wasn't long and awkward at all. Oh, that reminds me, congrats on finishing your project Rob! Actually, I'll make my position a little more clear concerning the "If you train slow, you will be slow!" statement. If you never train "fast" then you will never become "fast", but training "slow" will not _hinder_ you from becoming "fast". > Superslow may indeed cause some strength gain, but it will not help your > reflexes or speed as a goal tender! Increasing the strength of muscles increases the potential for improvements in speed. Therefore, whatever produces the strength gain (no matter the repetition speed) will help improve speed. [If you don't believe that movements performed in athletic movements are that much faster than movements in the weight room, consider the following: "Approximately 30 msec before release' the arm internally rotates 80 degrees' reaching peak angular velocities near 7'000 degrees/sec." Dillman CJ; Fleisig GS; Andrews JR Biomechanics of pitching with emphasis upon shoulder kinematics. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 18(2):402-8 1993 Aug You may want to read the abstract, but it looks to me like the movement in the shoulder is pretty darn fast. To tell you the truth, this probably isn't a good example, as 7000 degrees/sec doesn't seem like a "normal" angular velocity, but I'm not qualified enough to make that judgement. However... "The hip segment rotates to a maximum speed of 714 degrees/sec followed by a maximum shoulder segment velocity of 937 degrees/sec." Welch CM; Banks SA; Cook FF; Draovitch P Hitting a baseball: a biomechanical description. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 22(5):193-201 1995 Nov That does seem fast AND reasonable.] As always, these are my opinions. All responses happily considered. All flames cheerfully deleted. ;) Brian
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. RE: Superslow - from Steve Raymond
Top
Date: 7 Apr 1998 09:37:30 -0800 From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com> Subject: RE: Superslow <Superslow may indeed cause some strength gain, but it will not help your reflexes or speed as a goal tender!> According to the SAID principle, neither will "explosive weightlifting". If you want to improve your reflexes in goal have a few of your friends fire shots at you for an hour a week. I would be careful about using a slump in a particular sport to rate a strength training protocol. Way too subjective. How do you know it isn't something you ate? Lift weights to be stronger and healthier, practice sports to be better at sports.
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: HIT Digest #123 - from Sandeep De
Top
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 15:44:43 -0400 From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #123 > Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 10:43:43 -0400 > From: Bob Badour <73752.1624@compuserve.com> > Subject: cardio retarded? > >>There is no such thing as a bad tool or a good tool in training<< > > Fine. Thanks for the acceptance. I was waiting until now for some kind of peer approval! My life is so complete. > >>all kinds of retarded cardio << > > Isn't this a little contradictory? How exactly is cardio retarded? Is > 'retarded' neither good nor bad? Or does the adjective apply more to the > athlete? The "retarded" adjective is in reference to the "all kinds" part. I take offense when people do six different forms of cardio thinking that they're pushing the envelope of fat oxidation. > >>Will she clue in? No.<< > > Did I hear you call the woman clueless? Is she a relative of yours? Otherwise I don't see why this is pertinent. But I'm glad to see list space being used on pertinent training issues. > >>So why is it that sprinters and other athletes who train hard with > weights and avoid cardio work still develop ripped physiques?<< > > So why do some rather famous bodybuilders with massive ripped physiques > make the news by dropping dead from heart failure? There's this new thing. It's called drugs. I hear that some bodybuilders use it. For what, I don't know. I'll just take my smilax and maybe some day I'll look like Dorian. > Sandeep, you often have a lot of good points that I seldom read because I > find your posts too long. I had an english teacher in highschool who .... > recommended editing everything to 1/3 its length. I suggest you start by > cutting out anything that anyone could take as inflammatory, derogatory or > hostile. Nope. I tend to be hostile, derogatory and inflammatory towards things I don't think make sense or are soundly reasoned. You will never get a tolerant approach from me towards ignorance. Go ahead and skip my posts if this causes disdain to you. My feelings will not be hurt. Thanks for the english tip - I dropped out of school in kindergarten because that coloring between the lines thing was just too hard to manage! > You will gain a wider audience with more effective prose. My intention in posting is to educate myself and discuss pertinent training issues with my peers. Winning a popularity contest does not rank amongst my goals in posting. I find it ironic that someone with a 97% average in english is having their writing skills questioned on a training discussion forum. Sigh. ------- Sandeep De The Power Factory - http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: Superslow and Slowness - from Berserker _
Top
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 12:51:39 PDT From: "Berserker _" <berserker78@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Superslow and Slowness Fred, please explain why training slow would make someone slow outside of the gym, like on the football field. Is there any research that tends to support this premise? And could you show me non-NSCA/ISSA studies? Thanks in advance, Berserker
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Training confusion - from Raymond, Charles E. x1280
Top
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 98 16:24:00 EST From: "Raymond, Charles E. x1280" <CRAYMOND@essc.com> Subject: Training confusion OK, I've got to thank Lyle McDonald and Fred Hahn for their advice, I really appreciate it. To the list, I have been weight training for about 10 years. Most of my training has consisted of workouts that lasted around 90 minutes and had me doing as many as 16 sets or more per body part. If you were to see me in person, I doubt you would know I had been training so long. I've used most all the programs, Cybergenics, EAS, ICOPRO, etc. I am really dissatisfied with my development. I really love to workout, but if I don't start making some progress soon, I'm afraid I'll burn out on weight training. I intend to embark on a HIT type program to see if my body responds better to this type of training. So lets hear it guys and gals, what are your recommendations for putting together a program. Basic stats are, Height: 6 feet Weight : 230 Lbs. Age: 28 What's the secret to looking like the natural guys in some of the magazines? Feel free to respond to me in private at craymond@essc.com. Thanks in advance. Chuck Raymond
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Training slow makes you slow ? - from Daryl Wilkinson
Top
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 23:05:31 +0000 From: Daryl Wilkinson <daryl@uk.ibm.com> Subject: Training slow makes you slow ? >The SAID principle (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands) states that you >will gain strength in the paths you train in. To get fast, you must train >fast! If you train slow, you will be slow! Of course, skill has a lot to do >with it. Fred, Your kidding right ? This sounds as daft "training to failure, is teaching your atheletes to fail." Forgive me if this sounds like a flame, it is not intended as such. I'm just surprised you would say this. Daryl