-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Confusion - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:22:21 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Confusion >Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:12:49 -0700 (PDT) >From: Greg German <greenman27@yahoo.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #124 > >Help! The amount of material I am reading and the contradictions >between authors have left me quite confused. I would appreciate any >help with this problem: I want to get in shape without the assisstance >of a personal trainer (which I cannot afford) and without injury. I am >a 46 yo male 5'10'' and 230 lbs that aren't anywhere near consisting >of mostly lean muscle mass. My goal is to weigh 185lbs of hard and >defined muscle mass with between 8-10% fat. Am I asking for too much >here? I am familiar with HIT and Superslow and Heavy Duty and Jones >and Darden and Mentzer and Hutchins and . . . cannot figure out where >a beginner starts. What routines are best? How much cardio---really? >Some or none or...? If anyone would like to offer me some advice my >mind and ears (eyes) are open! I really could use some help fast! >Thanks, Greg the best advice I can give you is don't get hung up in the details. When you get right down to it, productive training coes down to one thing and one thing only: progressive overload. As long as you're lifting more in a month than you are now, you're moving in the right direction. The first requirement for ANY training system is overload. The second is that you and don't get injured. That leave a LOT of room for interpretation. The superslow guys will tell you that nayhint faster than a 10 second positive will injure you. I see guys in my gym day in day out lifting quickly with nary an injury to be found. An guys were lifting faster than that for decades without killing themselves. Of course this isn't an encouragement to move as fast as possible and see how much your body can take. keep it under control so that you work the muscle and don't just lift the weight. Try a 10/5 cadence, it may work wonderfully for you or it may not. In which case try 4/4 or 2/4 or some other controlled lifting speed. The third is that you don't overtrain. This is also open to interpretation. IMO, no natural lifter shuld be able to train a bodyaprt more than once every 4-7 days if they're working honesty in the gym. If you train hard, get at least within a rep or two of failure (talk about a debate with no end) and add weight on a consistent basis, you'll be fine. I think people should stick with the basic exercises, like squats, benches, pulldowns, rows. Other like isolation stuff. Try 'em both, find out what works FOR YOU. That's more important. Lyle McDonald, CSCS The 4 stages of human development or Who, Why, Where, What. Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going? What time is lunch?
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Lat Exercises - Comments Required - from Duncan & Michelle
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:22:08 +1000 From: "Duncan & Michelle" <defmlf@netlink.com.au> Subject: Lat Exercises - Comments Required This is my first input to this forum, I'm from Melbourne Australia and train at home using a cable type gym (yes I know that is not ideal, but better than nothing and it gives me great focus, ie being at home). My question is regarding Lat exercises, in particular the Biceps grip (palm toward the body) pulldown. As Mentzer says "...begin with a shrug type movement..." I find it extremely difficult to do so. Am I losing effectiveness? My grip gives out before my lats do, should I use hooks or wraps to give a proper workout to the lat? Has anyone tried the pulldown with palms facing away, it seems to use little bicep and be more like the pullover machines, and again hooks or wraps to assist??? I'm sure someone will say that hooks and wraps are no good, and I am inclined to agree, but I am trying make my exercising as effective as possible. Also on a related topic, one set or two. How long should one use single sets, before trying two to compare?? Thankyou Duncan Feder defmlf@netlink.com.au
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: HIT Digest #125 - from Kalle Karppinen
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:06:07 +0300 From: Kalle Karppinen <k24567@kyyppari.hkkk.fi> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #125 > From: "Matthew K Overly" <matthewko@goshen.edu> > Does a stronger muscle allow for quicker reactions? >Even if the stronger > muscle is bulkier? I've been taught the more >muscleyou have the stronger > you are. But does more strength mean >quiker reflexes? If you have more > "stuff" (muscle) to move, would it be harder to >move it? Or does having > more mucle move quicker because it is muscle and >it was made to move? I'm > trying to state the same question in a number of >different ways so that [I] > understand what I'm asking. Not that I know anything very scientifical about the issue, but to me it would seem obvious that reflex time is dependent on the neural pathways, not the amount of muscle. Neural system can be developed by training the movement that needs to be improved, without extra recistance, like pitching or whatever you want to practice. -- ******************************************************************* * Kalle Karppinen * * ********************************** "The difference between a * * Mankkaanmalmi 6 B * succesful person and others * * 02180 ESPOO * is not a lack of strength * * FINLAND * not a lack of knowledge * ********************************** but rather in a lack of will" * * Email: k24567@kyyppari.hkkk.fi * -Vince Lombardi * * p. (09) 523 618 * * *******************************************************************
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Body composition - from R.A. Onufer
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 12:25:35 -0400 (EDT) From: "R.A. Onufer" <onuferra@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> Subject: Body composition Does anybody out there know a simple way to determine your lean body mass? I don't need anything too complicated like water immersion. I'm just looking for a simple, fairly accurate way to gauge my lean body mass by measuring and weighing myself. Once I know this I'll be much better able to determine my gains in lean body mass. Roy
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Cycle End & Two Work Sets? - from Paul Claffey
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:13:13 -0700 From: "Paul Claffey" <claffp@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Cycle End & Two Work Sets? I have been working HIT style for the last four months following a cycle plan outlined in Brawn. Except for nearly three weeks down with the flu (did light exercises during this time) I have progressed well. The cycle began with two sets per exercise and progressed to one set per exercise when the weight got heavier. I've been using a single progression and have been able to add weight each week with a few exceptions now at the end of the cycle. I've been lifting for only the past 15 months. Question: When doing one work set, occasionally I did not get the reps (15-20 lower body, 8 upper body) at the particular weight. I did and extra set that day and used the same weight the next time I did that exercise. I feel that I personally make bigger inroads on the targeted muscle with two sets and want try using two sets on a regular basis. Assuming two work sets, should I use a weight and rep scheme to go to failure on each set or just the second set? Question: when to end the cycle? I've been going for 15 weeks (minus time lost to the flu) and am beginning to see signs that may mean it is time to take a break. For example, I just learned how to do squats in Dec and started this cycle at 155x2x12 and progressed to 225x1x20. Last week, I had a hard time with 230#. Stopped at 7 reps as my form broke down. I did some more 5 rep sets and noticed that I'm using too much back. Should I take a week off, drop down in weight and start another cycle (with better form) per the plan laid out in Brawn? Thanks for your help! Paul Claffey
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: HIT Digest #125 - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:25:49 PDT From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #125 >From: Bob Badour <73752.1624@compuserve.com> >>...In HIT Digest #109 Mr. Badour and myself >>raise some questions about your friction arguments. > >I raised a lot of questions, Juan, and you raised even more. >It would not surprize me if nobody has answers to those questions >yet. What little I know of biology tells me that every question >answered raises dozens of new questions. I agree with you on the biology issues. But the friction discussion that Mr. Ryan gave was suspect. >Tim Ryan gave eight reasons arguing for static strength tests and >against dynamic tests. I am interested in your opinion regarding >strength measurements since you have a physics background: > >Do you believe that static friction confounds static measurements by >such a wide margin that it completely overshadows the seven other >factors Tim identified? Are you arguing that dynamic tests provide >greater precision and accuracy? I haven't done such testing, and most of what he wrote seemed reasonable to me. But most of it also seemed like little more than standard lab procedure. If I took you into any physics lab and showed you how basic tests were conducted, you would see an analogous list of experimental checks. If written out they would make even the most basic test seem like something only an expert could do. In reality we can train somebody to do such tests accurately after a short period of training. This also struck me in the one answer he gave me about stored energy; it sounded like he was describing the error which would result if basic experimental procedures weren't followed. I think his listing of the factors was good because it gives us some ideas about the testing, at least the mechanical issues. And based on that, it seems to me that most of the mechanical factors can be minimized or accounted for easily enough. I am referring specifically to the machine factors, gravity acting on limbs, etc. So to answer your questions now, it seems to me that static friction could be large relative to the other machine factors with a bad machine. With a good machine it should be minimal. If there is friction within the muscle, then either the coefficient of static friction is higher than the coefficient of dynamic friction, or there would have to be some other supercompensating factor affected dynamic output. If the former is true, then the effect of friction on testing would be worse for static testing, but that is only a single factor. If the latter is true then everything becomes more complicated. Of course we should not propose factors without evidence for their existence. It seems to me that the factors unique to dynamic testing are rather transitory, and that they too could be accounted for after conducting a series of tests. I really don't know whether static or dynamic testing is more accurate, but I think static tests would offer greater precision. >Perhaps you could answer one of the questions I raised in HIT Digest >#109. I think it is the question most like to have a quick answer: >Are the eight factors given by Time an exhaustive list of confounding >factors for strength measurement? If other factors affect strength >measurements, what are they? I haven't thought of any yet. I don't know. >On the subject of strength measurements, my opinions so far are: > >1. Precise, accurate measurements are extremely difficult to make. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, because I don't know, but some of your perception may be from the descriptions given. >2. Uncompensated friction errors limit the meaningful precision of >both dynamic and static tests. All errors limit precision, but until we are provided with the evidence or references we have requested, I think we should not take a position on this. >3. Static tests limit or eliminate the error contribution of seven >confounding factors. So would good experiemtnal procedures, I think. >I still do not have any idea what precisions are meaningful in >different settings. For instance, in tests of bench-press strength, >what is the meaningful precision? +/- 1lb? +/- 5lbs? +/- 10lbs? A very good question. - Juan ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: HIT Digest #124: Training Confusion - from Ken Roberts
Top
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:56:26 -0700 From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts) Subject: Re: HIT Digest #124: Training Confusion Chuck, The way to look like the guys inthe magazines is to take 6 inches off your stature. No, actually at 230lbs., if your b.f. is <10%, you probably DO look like those guys but just don't appreciate it. Have someone take a photo of you posing and see what you look like. I think that alot of us get caught up in a "It's not quite enough," atttude and need to step back a little and try to be more objective. Ken Roberts; "If a man does his best, what else is there?" Gen. George S. Patton
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Jim Fixx - from Michael Morgan
Top
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 04:58:22 PDT From: "Michael Morgan" <michael_morgan@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Jim Fixx LFeld said: <<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.>> If I remember correctly, Jim Fixx died at around age 52 of a massive coronary that happened to occur while he was running. He had a terrible medical history (extremely overweight early in his life, father dropped dead of a coronary at age 42 or so (I don't have the actual data in front of me, so this is from memory), smoked for a while, sedentary job up until he became the "running author," etc.). His father's death prompted Fixx to "get in shape." Fixx also believed that running was a panacea; that he could eat any way he liked and a few miles (or 15) on the road would prevent any coronary disease (this was not an uncommon thought in the running community at that time). So he would scarf down huge cuts of meat, desserts, etc., and then hit the roads. He also refused to see a doctor and refused to take a stress test. According to his friends, he'd been complaining of chest pains for a few days before he died. So perhaps it is more appropriate to say that he died of denial. Since his coronary arteries were found to be in terrible shape after he died, and he lived to his early fifties, some made the argument that running actually prolonged his life for about ten years. So, agreed, exceptions don't prove the rule. Fixx was an extreme case, in just the same way that bodybuilders that drop dead of steroid and diuretic abuse are another extreme. I've followed the "aerobics vs. weights" thread with interest. I've been at both ends: from 60 to 70 miles of running a week (about 20 years ago, in my younger days) to a strict superslow regimen with no cardio work at all (a few years ago). I only *know* what works for me, and it turns out to be a combination of disciplines. The middle path, let's say. Moderation in all things, and all that. Now I spend two days a week lifting and two days rowing. Works for me. Michael
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Workouts per week question - from Andy Wefald
Top
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 09:09:46 -0500 From: Andy Wefald <andyw@pro-mentoring.com> Subject: Workouts per week question Hit Digest List, I have a question regarding the recent thread of posts. The first question was from the policeman who wanted to know about cardio workouts. Many list members responded that cardio work was not necessary. From what I have read about HIT training and from this list, we only need to work out once, twice, and at most three times a week. Does that include cardio workouts? Should you run, bike, stair, etc. on off days? If I lift twice a week using a HIT workout from the many posted on the Cyberpump site and run or do other cardio three times a week, is that too much training? I've been trying to exercise five times a week, usually M-F. If I follow the HIT philosophy, I would only exercise two or three times a week. It's just my feeling that I would be sedentary way too much. Especially since I have an office job. This whole post boils down to how many days in a week should I be active? I appreciate everyone's input on this. Andy
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: HIT Digest #124 - from n_wagener
Top
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 06:32:34 GMT From: n_wagener <n_wagener@wpusd.k12.ca.us> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #124 I pulled a hamstring a couple days ago well into my leg routine when muscles should have been plenty warm. I did some pre strech as well. Pull was after a warm-up set and on the end of the work set of Stiff Legged Deadlifts. I had done 2-3 sets each of Squats, single leg presses, leg extensions, machine leg curls, calves raises, then last was the Stiff Legged Deadlifts. Was I overextended/overworked? Should I not have spaced the leg curls and deads? The pull was minor and with heat packs, rest, and plenty of herbs and suppliments, the discomfort is gone after 3 days, but I would imagine I will need to lay off any leg movement that works the hamstrings. Any suggestions on rehabilitation and future avoidance! Waggy
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: HIT Digest #125 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:38:16 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #125 In a message dated 98-04-13 23:15:51 EDT, you write: << Does a stronger muscle allow for quicker reactions? Even if the stronger muscle is bulkier? I've been taught the more muscleyou have the stronger you are. But does more strength mean quiker reflexes? If you have more "stuff" (muscle) to move, would it be harder to move it? Or does having more mucle move quicker because it is muscle and it was made to move? I'm trying to state the same question in a number of different ways so that [I] understand what I'm asking. >> More strength does not imply better reflexes. Reflexes come from more neurological a source than pure strength. The type of training necessary to become quick, as Mr. Hatfield stated, is very different from strength training. To gain quickness, you must train for quickness. More bulk can slow you down, if it is an extreme amount of bulk. But with proper training, and good genetics, even big guys can be very quick. Generally, a really, really big guy may be slower than a not so big guy. Look at running backs in pro football. Excellent quickness. To me, these guys are huge. Then compare them to linebackers. See what I mean? If you need to know how to train for quickness, I'd be happy to give you some pointers. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: HIT Digest #125 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:53:04 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #125 In a message dated 98-04-13 23:15:51 EDT, you write: << Doesn't skill have everything to do with it??? You can't MAKE someone fast nor will they be slow by training slow. I hope you are kidding? >> Not that Mr. Hatfield needs my help here, but of course you can make someone faster or slower depending on the type of training. I myself have made athletes faster. Obviously, even the best training program is limited by the genetic ceiling. I believe that is what he meant when he refered to skill. You can never take someone beyond their genetic potential. The famous truism applies here: "If you want to be an Olympic champion, choose your parents wisely." So given the SAID principle, I think you are asking, why train at all beyond the specific skill you want to develop...? Well, often times the musculature is too weak to support the level of training necessary for success (especially high level success) at that skill. For example, a woman at my health club who was training for a marathon recently tore her something in her groin. I asked her if she ever did adduction work (inner thigh). She said no, and that is what I assumed she would say. Injuries generally come from body parts that are weak. So to strengthen them, you must, strangely enough, do strength training. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re: HIT Digest #123 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:03:53 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #123 In a message dated 98-04-07 00:06:28 EDT, you write: << As an interesting anecdote on this, a real common thing I've seen (and dealt with myself) is that road cyclists tend to get imbalances between vastus lateralis and vastus medialis. Since VM doesn't recruit until last 20 degrees of leg extension, and since cyclists don't lock out their knees on the bike, they tend to overdevelop the VL relative to the VM. That coupled with a tight iliotibial band/tensa fasciae latae predisposes them to patellar mistracking. I got it when I was cycling 20 hours per week and I was doing some major strength training too so it wasn't just a function of quad weakness in general, it was most definitely an imbalance. however, I train a female mountain biker who's husband is an ex-moto cross racer. Both sports require the racer to squeeze the bike between the knees while holding a half squat position. Both of these individuals have a teardrop that most bodybuilders would kill for. >> Personal note here: My VMO is at least as good as my VL, and I believe that came from doing lots of cycling in the standing position, going up hills. In fact, my VMO may be a bit overdeveloped. All of which has not led to particularly large quad size over all, unfortunately. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Re: HIT Digest #123 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:13:39 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #123 In a message dated 98-04-07 00:06:28 EDT, you write: << t is a physiologic impossiblity and a complete contradiction of the laws of physics that SuperSlow made you slower. >> My goodness! This level of confidence is certainly impressive, but I fear that it may not quite correspond to numerous studies regarding training athletes. Superslow training simply does not recruit the power fibers (Type IIb). The only way these fibers are activated is through explosive movements. If these fibers atrophy (because superslow ignores them), the result will likely be a decrease in explosive ability. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. Re: HIT Digest #125 - from Steven Brener
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:10:59 PDT From: "Steven Brener" <sbrener@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #125 Rob, Just a few questions, but first I would like to thank you for all the good work and solid responses. I've got a few questions that I would appreciate your perspective on: 1. Given that the ab muscles are muscles like any another, would one be overtraining if they did ab work say four or more times per week? 2. I know that the pros and cons of aerobics have been run through a number of times here, but is it counterproductive to do aerobics about four times a week if you are weight lifting to gain size? If so, just what kind of 'damage' does it do? 3. Can anyone recommend a good exercise that they would add to their routine to build up shoulder width, beyond the seated press? Thanks again. Steve B.
-------------------- 16 --------------------
#16. Re: HIT Digest #125 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:56:08 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #125 In a message dated 98-04-13 23:15:51 EDT, you write: << I recently began studying Shorin-Ryu Karate with a friend. She is capable of punching with such speed that I am unable to block even when I know where to expect the punch, because she has built great speed and skill in that movement. However, she spends only about 1/3 of her basics practice time (30 of her 90 punches) punching at anything near full speed and almost never spars at that speed. The other 60 repetitions are done carefully at slow speeds in order to build skill. If training slow makes you slow, why is my friend not slow? >> LOL...Imagine how much trouble you would be in if she trained for speed!