-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: HIT Digest #129 - from DMartin316
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:01:23 EDT From: DMartin316 <DMartin316@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #129 This is in regards to Michael Morgans newspaper article. Think about it. You already know the story. Plus, forget about it, the Washington Post is probably the last place for accurate training advice. Dan
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Explosive lifting, superslow, blah, blah, blah - from Berserker _
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 20:56:17 PDT From: "Berserker _" <berserker78@hotmail.com> Subject: Explosive lifting, superslow, blah, blah, blah It never ceases to amaze me how people are still hellbent on proving that explosive lifting makes me one fast and that superslow makes one slow. Let's look at it this way. HOW do you define "fast" or "slow"? And if a guy uses a 10/5 rep cadence, will he be "slower" on the football field than a guy who uses a 10/4 rep cadence? And if some linebacker at Big Time U does power cleans, will he be better and faster than Junior Seau, who doesn't do power cleans? I'm confused. Funny about this NSCA research about the wonderous benefits of explosive lifts. None of them seem to seem to focus on the fact that this type of training tends to lead to injuries. Of course Olympic athletes don't get injured as oftenl; they have incredibly strong tendons and can handle the abuse. Have the average gym rat do power cleans in proper form, whatever that is, and I guarantee he will wake up the next morning with a back ache. Ben ICQ#—9719468 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Here it goes again - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:38:35 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Here it goes again >Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:52:32 EDT >From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> >Subject: Re: Training and reaction time ><< To get fast, you must train fast! If you train slow, you will be >slow!.... Your kidding right ?.>> > >Would you tell a 100 meter sprinter he need not train fast? That all he need >do is jog 100 meters and during his race, he'd be able to outsprint the >competition? That's not what's being discussed. The point of this (neverending) discussion is whether you need to train fast *in the weight room* to improve speeds *on the playing field*. Considering that even the high vs. low speed studies are looking at angular velocities on the order of 100-300 degrees/second and the average sporting movement (like pitching) may be on the order of 7000 degrees/second, I find it a bit nebulous to think there's gonna be carryover from the weight room in terms of speed development. Now, we need to differentiate between movement speed and rate of force development (RFD) which represents the time to reach maximum tension. I think RFD can be influenced by training style. Komi demonstrated this with his comparisons of slow speed squats (which improved 1RM but didn't raise RFD) and plyometrics (which improved RFD but didn't improve 1RM). The problem being that 99% of weight training movements (excluding plyometrics, the Olympic lifts and medicine ball work) have to end with a velocity of zero. Basic physics here. Unless you can release the implement, this means that the faster you start off the bottom, the more you have to slow down the movement at the end (to avoid hyperextending). If we take specificity to it's extreme, do you wnat to train your sprinters to slow down their legs during hip extension (which is what their nervous system will 'learn' by doing fast hip extensions that result in an Vf = 0). No of course not, you have to teach them to accelerate the drive leg throughout the entire movement, something which is best accomplished with specific training modaliteis like sprinting drills and bounding type stuff. But doing it in the weight room will send their nervous systems the wrong message. Also, as I'm sure you know, sprinters DO perform slow speed work to improve technical skills since they must be mastered first at slow speeds. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "It's 200 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark. And we're wearing sunglasses. Hit it" -Jake and Elwood Blues
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Speed of movement - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:38:41 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Speed of movement >Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:49:52 EDT >From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #127 > I wrote: > And yes I'm aware that you can increase force requirements by increasing > movement velocity but that won't change the fact that, fast or slow, above > 85% of 1RM, you get all the fibers recruited. > >> >So how do the fiber types differ? If training them one way recruits them all >equally, there would seem to be no difference in the character or function of >the fiber types. Of course there's differences. Max force production, capacity to grow, glycolytic/aerobic enzymes, etc, etc. One of the biggest differences that I think people need to pay attention to is fatigue time (tied into enzyme levels and fuel choice) and recruitment thresholds, IMO. As we all know: Type I: lowest recruitment thresholds, lowest force production capacity, highest fatigue times Type IIa: medium recruitment thresholds, medium force production capacity, medium fatigue times Type IIb: highest recruitment thresholds, highest force production capacity, shortest fatigue times A lot of people (I'm one of them) feel that fatiguing a given muscle fiber is at least part of the stimulus for adaptation (see Zatsiorsky "Science and Practice of Strenght Training"). So, assuming maximum loads a set lasting 30 seconds will fatigue (and hence cause adaptation) in a different population of motor units (primarily Type IIb) than a set lasting 70 seconds (primarily Type IIa) than a set lasting 2 minutes (primarily Type I). Assuming the 30" set is at 85% of 1RM (say it's a 5RM load), you will get full recruitment of all motor units (as per Sale) from the first rep of the set. You will NOT get adaptation of all motor units since there will be populations of Type IIa and Type I fibers with longer fatigue times that won't be exhausted/adapt. This is why single rep sets don' cause as much hypertrophy as higher rep (longer time) sets. Yes you get full recruitment but the set is too short to exhaust a considerable amount of motor units. AT the other end you can use light weights and lift forever. Set time is long but recruitment of high threshold motor units is going ot be low. Somewhere in the middle (some have estimated 60-85% of 1RM as the range) you get a balance of recruitment (a function of tension/weight on bar) and fatigue (a function of set time). but the difference has little to do with speed. It has to do with changes in load relative to maximum. Fatigue will be related to tension requirements. As tension reqs. go up, fatigue goes down since the set times must be shorter. Since recruitment peaks at 85% of 1RM (or so) moving up to 90% of 1RM won't increase fiber recruitment (further increases in force production occur via rate coding) but will shorten set time and decrease fatigue in the motor units. Here's a question: people like to use the difference in contraction times between Type I and Type II fibers as an argument for slow vs. fast training. Query: what are the actual times to reach peak force for Type I vs. Type II fibers? This is in any textbook with a muscular physiology section. I'll save you the time: Type I: 100 milliseconds Type II: 50 milliseconds (I can't recall seeing a differentiation between type IIa and Type IIb with any research, we might assume that Type IIb have the shortest time, maybe 50 millisec, while Type IIa are inbetween Type I and IIB, guess it at 70 millisec). Now I've seen guys lift fast in the gym. But 50 MILLIseconds (you can't type a letter that fast, much less complete a rep)? Come on. Do you really think speed of movement will be able to have any impact (other than by momentarily increasing force requirements) on fiber type recruitment? Lyle McDonald, CSCS "It's 200 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark. And we're wearing sunglasses. Hit it" -Jake and Elwood Blues
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: Tremblay's Paper - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:50:31 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Tremblay's Paper > From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) > > I've got Tremblay's paper *somewhere* on my floor. Have been a big > proponent of interval training for fat loss for a couple of years. What do > you need to know? Hey, Lyle, could you provide a reference for the study because I'm very interested in going and digging it up here at WSU. James
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: Recruitment and speed of movement - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:17:59 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Recruitment and speed of movement > From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> > > No, this is not true. As I've stated previously, muscle fiber recruitment > is related to the amount of force the muscle is called upon to produce > during exercise, and NOT the speed of movement. The more force the muscle > is required to produce, the greater the number of motor units recruited. True. > The type IIb fibers are recruited only after all other fibers, when the > muscle is working at the highest possible intensity. True. However, this is intensity defined as force requirements or the amount of resistance, not "% momentary ability" or "inroad" as you often define it. Fatigue does not dictate Type IIb fiber recruitment; force requirements do. >Since slower rep > speeds produce a lower amount of momentum, and thus less force in the > direction of movement, the muscles must produce more force, and thus > contract harder to move the resistance, in which case more fibers are > recruited. SuperSlow allows for greater recruitment of ALL muscle fiber > types, including the type IIb. Your statement reveals a flaw in the premises behind Superslow. According to the force/velocity curve, a muscle is capable of producing more force at a slower velocity of movement. This is why 1 RM's take a long time to complete; since the force requirements are so high, the resulting velocity of contraction is low. However, the force/velocity curve does not mean that simply by moving slower that a muscle will automatically produce more force as you are insinuating. Let's say I take a weight of 50% of 1 RM in the bench press. I perform repetitions in a controlled manner; let's say a 4/4 tempo. Slowing the tempo down to a 10/5 Superslow tempo does not change the force requirements. They are still the same, and therefore motor unit recruitment will be the same. Since Superslow increases time under tension per repetition, it decreases the amount of weight that is able to be used due to fatigue, assuming we want to keep TUT within a certain range. This decreases the force requirements, hence decreasing motor unit recruitment. Therefore, Superslow will result in less motor unit recruitment than more standard forms of resistance training, and definitely will not access Type IIb fibers since these fibers are only activated at MVC's of over 85% as Lyle McDonald pointed out earlier. James Krieger
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Gym feedback required - from Daryl Wilkinson
Top
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:31:16 +0000 From: Daryl Wilkinson <daryl@uk.ibm.com> Subject: Gym feedback required I've been thinking about opening my own gym (the one I train at is going down the fitness path and the only other *real* gym in the area is full of home-made / dangerous equipment. I'm cautious about acting on my idea as I'm not convinced that people in England have much interest in bodybuilding and strength training. Ideally I'd like to do this in the USA, but visa's block that hope at the moment. Anyway if anyone has some experiences that they could share, please contact me.. I'm trying to figure out what equipment would be the best buy to start off and how much this would cost. General feedback is what I'm after - what would you like to see in a gym ? How much would you pay, that kind of thing. If you own your own gym, or have tried to set one up before, I'd like to hear what you did and what you learnt and where you got your equipment from etc.
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Speed of movement - from Sonofsquat
Top
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:16:18 EDT From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> Subject: Re: Speed of movement Andrew Baye wrote: <<No, this is not true. As I've stated previously, muscle fiber recruitment is related to the amount of force the muscle is called upon to produce during exercise, and NOT the speed of movement.>> Some sports scientists would tend to disagree with this notion as well as the notion that slow speed training can produce the same results as higher speed training: Schneider, Hageloch, and Weicker (1988) studied several track athletes (sprinters and middle distance runners, as well as a control group) and noted the load - dependant ammonia levels during 200, 1000 meter tests as well as ergometer tests. Through these tests, the researchers noted that the sprinters did indeed use higher percentages of type IIB fibers: “The determination of ammonia can therefore be helpful for training recommedations to runners since it reveals the recruitment and relative distribution of muscle fiber types...” Armstrong (1987), and Connelly, 1992) noted that the mechanisms by which power, size and limit strength are reduced as a result of endurance training most probably are 1) mechanical destruction of existing white (fast-twitch) fibers, particularly from the eccentric portion of the repetitive movements, 2) their replacement by red (slow-twitch) fibers, and 3) enzymatic and neuromuscular changes more appropriate for slow, endurance types of movements. Smith and Melton (1981) conducted at study which used 4 groups: control, isotonic variable-resistance training, low-speed isokinetic, and high speed isokinetic training. The researchers report: “All exercised groups showed good gains in strength when tested isometrically, isotonically, and isokinetically. However, when the individuals were tested for motor performance, the high- speed isokinetic group dominated. This article emphasizes specificity in training.” Stone and Kroll (1978) state: “In most athletic activities high speed is a very important factor. The strength training for athletics should therefore be performed at high speed if the skill is performed at high speed. The slow speed strength developed by resistance training is primarily transferable to athletic movement only at the slower speed at which it was developed.” Newton et al (1996) conducted an experiment using a modified bench press machine which eliminated ballistic forces on the subjects and allowed compensatory acceleration throughout the entire range of movement. The subjects were tested during two sessions separated by four day’s of rest. It was found that the throw movements were significantly higher in average concentric velocity (27%), peak concentric velocity (36%) , average concentric force (35%), average power output (70%) and peak power output (67%) than that of the conventional bench press movement. Personally, I believe all types of speeds at one time or another should be used for athletic training. In a nut shell, an athlete should start with the speeds which are nonspecific to their training (almost always slower speeds with higher weight) and move towards the speeds in which they train as their competition grows closer. I wouldn’t say one should squat with 35% of their 1 RM and do speed squats though... Speed that fast is better used in agility drills, plyometric training and sprints. I would say that 55 - 65% for sets of 6 - 12 using compensatory acceleration towards the beginning of the competitive season will produce far better results than, say, a 10/10 cadence rep.
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Super slow - from Raymond, Charles E. x1280
Top
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 98 09:48:00 EST From: "Raymond, Charles E. x1280" <CRAYMOND@essc.com> Subject: Super slow Let me begin by saying that I do not hold any type of a degree related to exercise, just personal experiences. I do not intend to engage in an argument, I will post my experiences and you can take them for what they are worth. I have weight trained for the past 10 years using high volumes of training, it was not uncommon for me to spend 2 hours plus in the gym 6-7 days a week. I also engage in Kung Fu and I belonged to a combat unit in the military. I used to be tired all of the time. I now realize that I was grossly over training. In my old methods of training, I ached in every joint I have, I eventually had to have knee reconstruction on my left knee. I subscribed to this list and started listening to the Super slow advocates. I have now had three workouts using the Super slow techniques that have been suggested to me. My joint pains have subsided, my workout intensity is unreal. In all honesty, if you truly use the Super slow methods, if you truly focus mentally, there is no other intense weight training experience like this one. I used to throw around heavy weights, I had probably a 1/1 cadence 2/2 at best, before. Now I use 10/5 and an additional 15 seconds after I fail. I don't mean just holding the weight for 15 seconds, I push and in my minds eye, I believe the weight is moving, in reality it isn't. My spotter is really unnerved with my new routine, it is brief and intense. I used to use close to 750 lbs on leg presses, my one rep max in the bench was 425 lbs. Now I am down to 180 Lbs on the leg press, now I have to have help getting off the machine and another few seconds to wipe tears from my eyes from the intense experience. My military experience had its share of intense moments, we didn't train explosively, if any thing our training closely aligned a super slow cadence ( not talking about combat drills). In my Kung Fu training, we practice our movements in a very slow manner. I dare say I am not slow. These are my experiences, If it is one thing I have learned, what works for me may not work for others. My new weight training routine has allowed me to become a bit more flexible, I am not as tired as I used to be, I feel like I am actually doing something in the gym now. I used to feel like I was just going through the motions, workouts became a chore rather than something I wanted to do. Now, I look forward to HITting the gym,(pun intended), mentally it is a whole new experience. I know it is going to hurt, to burn, but I am willing to go through this experience in order to make the gains that I have never made with my old style of training. Chuck Craymond@essc.com
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Body composition method - from Raymond, Charles E. x1280
Top
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 98 10:14:00 EST From: "Raymond, Charles E. x1280" <CRAYMOND@essc.com> Subject: Body composition method Does any one know the reliability of a method to determine body fat percentages by standing on a scale with bare metal plates while you are barefooted? I would assume that it takes a resistivity reading through your body and determines your body fat percentage. Chuck Craymond@essc.com
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Bruce Lee - from Raymond, Charles E. x1280
Top
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 98 10:14:00 EST From: "Raymond, Charles E. x1280" <CRAYMOND@essc.com> Subject: Bruce Lee I am sure just about everyone knows who Bruce Lee was. I have often heard that he was probably the strongest and fastest person who ever lived. I am curious to know if any one knows what his training methods consisted of? Reality, not Hollywood. Chuck Craymond@essc.com
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. More explosive ramblings - from Jeff Ventura
Top
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:16 -0500 From: "Jeff Ventura" <Jeff.Ventura@ms.cmsconnect.com> Subject: More explosive ramblings I just recently posted my volleyball/vertical leap dilemmas to this digest, and many have been very helpful and responsive, sending various opinions and citations of science to back up their contentions. Unfortunately, as it seems HIT v. Explosive training is a major issue among us, I received diametrically opposed viewpoints and am therefore still a bit confused. I can give some more info, however. I have mild, sporadic quadriceps tendonitis (from the jumping) in my left superpatellar region, and, up until two weeks ago, followed a volume program that emphasized concentric, explosive speed. As my earlier post indicated, I have since switched to a HIT (not SuperSlow - yet) protocol. My knee was quite tender after performing the so-called "explosive" routines, but with HIT, there is minimal - very minimal - resultant soreness. Listening to my body, as the old adage prescribes, I can only assume this is better and more therapeutic for my condition. I have tried plyometrics before, but that was an ill-fated outing. Why? Because I was duped, at a much younger age when I thought beer was a solid dinnertime meal, into buying some "Strength shoes" to "enhance" plyo training. For those who are unfamiliar with the infamous Strength shoe, they are basically low-grade athletic shoes with a 4" platform molded onto the ball of the sole, which, when worn, support only the forefoot and leave the heel to hang below the forefoot. This is somehow supposed to hyper-train the calf and add two miles (or so it seems from the dumbass propaganda) to your vertical leap. I used these things about three years ago. To this day, they are solely (no pun intended) responsible for a mild case of achilles tendonitis (which, in the interest of equity, has since been treated successfully) and a rather acute case of plantar faciitis (which remains with me today, and boy, let me tell you how much I just love it). University of Michigan orthopedes have told me to, under no circumstances, ever use those again, as they have caused many an injury. So no, I have really never done plyometrics outside of the Strength shoe. When I was on that program, the jumping never really seemed to inflame the knees or anything else, so I remain unsold on the safety and/or hazards of plyo training. The jury's still out. So I suppose I'll return to my original question and stoke the fires of debate once more: will my current HIT training (2/4 tempo) aid and abet my volleyball cause or detract from it? Like I mentioned before, the workouts suck, they're very, very hard, and I push myself to the point of nausea. I'm wasted the day after, so again, being the newbie I am to this, I can only deduct, based on the way I feel, that my body's being stressed considerably. Now, is this stress beneficial for my chosen sport? Hey, and thanks to all those who responded to my first post. Cool forum, even amidst debate. Jeff S. Ventura Jventura@ms.cmsconnect.com
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. RE: Speed stuff in #129 - from Don Gwinn
Top
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:49:20 -0500 From: Don Gwinn <dgwinn@monm.edu> Subject: RE: Speed stuff in #129 Sonofsquat sez: << paraphrasing: someone asked why their friend is so fast in the martial arts, yet trains slow. pardon me if I mis - paraphrased... The answer is that your friend doesn't really train that slow! How fast are her movements? Bet they are at least 80% of her top speed! A far cry from "superslow"!>> Actually, no. I'd estimate about 60-65% of her top speed IMAO. A far cry from SuperSlow, perhaps, but much further from "explosive" training. I'm not a SuperSlow proponent; as I said before, I use 8-second, 4/4 timing, and I'd bet I'm not the only one who's found a happy medium between dangerous speeds and SuperSlow. Don Gwinn dgwinn@monm.edu http://geocities.datacellar.net/Athens/Olympus/6297/ Author of the Five Words. 4-time UFFC (Ultimate Fake Fighting Championship) Superfight Champion.
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. High Intensity Interval training ( John V.) - from Master Trainer
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:01:40 -0400 From: Master Trainer <ageless.athletes@pcr-inc.com> Subject: High Intensity Interval training ( John V.) John: I have been doing the very brief, very high intensity interval training protocol for about 10 months. I've made steady gains during that time. I think this type of protocol is a perfect complement to weight training given it's brevity and reliance on very high intensity effort. The principle of the approach is the same as high intensity weight training. Provide the correct stimulus ( in this case a very high level of oxygen consumption)in a precise way and you will improve if you allow enough recovery time and can progress over time. I do the Tabata protocol three times per week. On the day I work chest and back, I take a 10 minute break and then do the protocol on the Air Dyne. On legs and lower back day, I use the Life Cycle. On shoulders and arms day, I use the Concept ll Rower or the Versa Climber. I also, by the way, walk quickly on my off days for up to an hour. Rather than hindering recovery, fast walking seems to help my overall mood and aid recovery plus it's a perfect antidote for a basically sedentary life style. The Tremblay protocol designed for fat loss is still in an early research stage. It does appear that high intensity stimuli set in motion a number of profound physiological responses that require quite a bit of energy expenditure post workouts, and hence fat loss. Whether or not the Tabata protocol or weight training does that also and promotes fat loss is an open question. To find out more about these protocols, see my www site: www.ageless-athletes.com Richard Winett Dr. Richard Winett, Ph. D. Publisher The Master Trainer voice: 540.951.3237 fax: 540.951.2435 email: ageless.athletes@pcr-inc.com WWW: http://ageless-athletes.com