-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. RE: HIT Digest #131 - from Don Gwinn
Top
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:53:02 -0500 From: Don Gwinn <dgwinn@monm.edu> Subject: RE: HIT Digest #131 A small addition to the point made by the gentleman who wanted practical applications for the "average Joe." Being another average Joe, I'd like to expand his request. All you knowledgeable types, please explain your acronyms the first time you use them, because a lot of us don't know them the way you do. Mr. Paul Englert in particular, please let us (or maybe it's just me?) know what GVT is. An alternative would be for the omnivorous moderator . . . oops. . . close enough . . .to insert explanations when he notices unexplained acronyms, but being in the midst of much studying myself I know that may not be possible. Thanks for your time. 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.
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: SuperSlow vs. Explosive training - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 18:50:18 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: SuperSlow vs. Explosive training >From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> >Subject: Re: SuperSlow vs. Explosive training >Wrong. Moving slower does increase the amount of force required to raise >the weight, because the slower you move, the less force momentum is >producing in the direction of movement, and the more force the muscle is >required to produce. This seems to be a confusing thing. If we think of a positive rep that begins from zero velocity and ends in zero velocity then the AVERAGE force output on the bar is independent on the rep speed, being the weight of the bar. If the rep speed is greater then the force requirement at the final part of the rep is indeed smaller. On the other hand the force output at the initial part of the rep is greater because of greater average acceleration at that stage. Let's say a person is lifting a 100 lb barbell with SS speed. His force output may vary between 98 lbs and 102 lbs. If he instead lifts the bar in 2 sec then his force output may vary between 90 lbs and 110 lbs but the average force output is 100 lbs in both cases. The speed itself doesn't determine the force output but the CHANGE of speed or acceleration (deceleration). Thus, if a person is lifting the bar with CONSTANT velocity, be it 0.1 m/s or 1.0 m/s, the force output is the same, in this case 100 lbs. Put in another way, the more momentum a bar has at a certain point the less force is required to lift the bar from that point on. But the momentum doesn't come out of nothing, it has to be created. And at the stage where you are generating that momentum you have to work harder i.e. use more force. The end result is that the amount of momentum you create at the initial part of a rep you will use up during the final part of the rep because momentum at the start and at the end of the rep is zero. Thus there must be at least two stages in a rep: 1) the stage where you accelerate the bar or generate the momentum and 2) the stage where you decelerate the bar or use the momentum you "earned". Then there may be a third stage where the bar is moving at constant velocity and where you don't either generate or use momentum. IMO, the significance of momentum is often exaggerated, it's said that the momentum will carry you through the rep. Let's suppose that the peak velocity during a rep is 0.5 m/s. Guess how much higher would the momentum at that point carry the weight. Answer: ONE HALF OF AN INCH! So much for momentum taking care of the rep of reasonable speed. >As for SuperSlow requiring a lower percentage of one's one rep maximum, you >forget to consider that one's one rep maximum is speed dependent. Of course the maximum weight one can lift in a movement is velocity-dependent but I've thought that when we speak of 1RM we mean the weight one can lift without any speed restrictions. Thus a 1RM is unequivocal. >Also consider that whatever percentage of one's MVC one uses is, to a >degree, irrelevant. If you are contracting as hard as you possibly can, >your body is going to recruit every single motor unit available. If you are contracting as hard as possible why doesn't the bar accelerate? > >And, even more importantly, don't forget the safety issue. Even IF >ballistic movements were relatively effective, (which they are not) they're >still dangerous, and anyone who is concerned with their safety and long >term health should avoid them like the plague. I have thought that tendons are created to enable ballistic movements. One of their properties is to store and release energy. I admit that using connective tissues as springs adds to the risk of getting hurt but I think that a happy medium can be found in this matter. If the muscles are properly warmed I don't see any point in totally avoiding elasticity in a movement. Erkki Turunen
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: HIT Digest #131 - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:16:46 PDT From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #131 > From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> James Kreiger wrote: >> 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. > Wrong. Moving slower does increase the amount of force required to > raise the weight, because the slower you move, the less force > momentum is producing in the direction of movement, and the more > force the muscle is required to produce. This is not correct, it takes more force to produce the higher velocity. But in the example which Mr. Kreiger presented, the difference is less than 1%. And sorry, but as a physicist I take exception to something else here - momentum does not produce force, it is a result of force. > As for SuperSlow requiring a lower percentage of one's one rep > maximum, you forget to consider that one's one rep maximum is speed > dependent. One's one rep max using a 10 second lifting speed will > not be as high as one's one rep max using a 2 second lifting speed. > > Also consider that whatever percentage of one's MVC one uses is, to > a degree, irrelevant. If you are contracting as hard as you possibly > can, your body is going to recruit every single motor unit > available. But if you are doing a 10 second one rep max, which you claim will be be with a lower weight than for a 2 second one rep max, then how can you possibly be contracting as hard as you possibly can? For you *could* contract harder and complete the rep in less time. Also, aren't you saying that very fast reps with light weights can use every motor unit available? The force requirements are higher to move the weight faster; if the forces weren't higher, then there would be no safety advantage in going slower. The faster the reps, the higher the force requirements, the higher the forces that could cause injury. The slower the reps, the lower the force requirements, the lower the forces that could cause injury.
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Gyms in Glasgow - from Raynham, Mike
Top
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:44:14 +0100 From: "Raynham, Mike" <MD-Raynham@bdp.co.uk> Subject: Gyms in Glasgow I am going to Glasgow on business, Wednesday 6th May through Friday 8th May. Does anyone out there know of any good gyms in the area? I shall be working / staying around the Blythswood Square area (G2 postal area). I have a list of a few in that area, but would appreciate any advice on good / bad gyms. Thanks in advance for any advice, Mike Raynham Building Design Partnership Manchester England
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: SS and TUT - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:32:33 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: SS and TUT >Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 21:49:59 +0300 >From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> >Subject: Re: Recruitment and speed of movement >I understand that you cannot get as many reps with a certain weight with a >slower cadence but why would you have to decrease weight in SS for a certain >TUT? If a trainee can get 10 reps with 2/4 speed why couldn't he get 4 reps >with 10/5 cadence with the same weight? The TUT would be 1 min in both >cases. Thus it seems that even Superslow would enable substantial weights if >the rep number is kept low. You would think this the case but it's far from true. The change in movement speed from a 2 to 10 second concentric drops how much weight you can get through the sticking point vastly. I've seen various numbers in the SS literature, anywhere from 30-40% drop in how much weight you can put on the bar. Lyle McDonald, CSCS Do NOT send me unsolicited binary files. "Your kung-fu is no good! Now you must fight.....ME!" - Any guy on Kung Fu Theatre
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: Zatsiorsky - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:32:40 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Zatsiorsky >Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 01:28:20 EDT >From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #131 > >In a message dated 98-04-26 22:59:00 EDT, you write: > ><< I was considering a super slow type program, but I am afraid of losing > quickness. Could i compromise for the lack of speed in my lifting with > regular bi-weekly plyometrics and sprint training? > >> >You all probably know how I will answer this one, but here it is: the plyos >and sprints will help, but the superslow will hinder. Please explain from a physiological standpoint how superslow training will decrease quickness (which is primary a nervous system mediated event anyhow). >According to Zatsiorsky, there are three important factors in force >development (regarding motor units (MUs) and muscle fibers, excepting >psychological, neuroendocrinological, hormonal, and other such factors). > >We have discussed the number of motor units firing. I now agree with Lyle >that a slow 1 rep max recruits 100% of muscle fibers. And, as Zatsiorsky explicity says (pg. 78) "In large proximal muscles... the recruitment of additional Motor Units appears to be the main mechanism for incrasing force development up to 80% of Fmm (my note: this represents maximum force capacity) and even higher. In the force range between 80% and 100%, force is increased almost exclusively by intensification of the firing rate (my note: this is rate coding, the number of signals sent to the muscle per second, measured in Hz)." >Also, the synchronization of motor unit firing is important. Highly developed >power athletes fire their MUs in synchronicity to develop even great forces. >Most of us do not do this. What he actually said was (pg 78) "...there is some evidence that, in elite power and strength athletes, MU's are activated synchronously during maximal voluntary efforts." >While he does not explicitly state this, Zatsriorsky seems to imply that only >through explosive training can all three of these factors exist. Where? I read through this particular section (have it in my lap right now) and he never states that explosive training is the key. He says 'maximal voluntary efforts'. Would you agree that a 2RM done slowly against maximal loads is a max voluntary effort? If you look at his suggestions for training methods, he offers maximal load training (1-3RM) and dynamic training (explosive training) as ways to improve inter/intramuscular coordination and rate coding. Nowhere does he say or imply that movement speed must be fast. >Kraemer believes that slow training does not increase one's ability to >generate force rapidly. Maximal force development in sports is often less >important than high speed maximal force development. Superslow training can >make one stronger, but this strength can only occur at very low velocities. You need to define your terms here. The Isokinetic speed studies I've seen generally compare velocities on the order of 100 and 300 degrees/second. And they find that there is specificty of training as would be expected. Slow speed isokinetic training tends ot improve performance at that speed and vice versa. But most sporting events occur in the range of several thousand degrees/second. How much difference in carryover is there really going to be between 100/300 deg/sec and 7000 deg/second. We're talking an order of magnitude here. >As many have already pointed out in this forum, you can move more weight when >you slow down the rep. But what athlete has the time to generate this type of >maximum strength? It is simply not practical. But now you're talking about something entirely differet: Rate of Force Development (RFD) which I already adressed in my post in this digest. Lyle McDonald, CSCS Do NOT send me unsolicited binary files. "Your kung-fu is no good! Now you must fight.....ME!" - Any guy on Kung Fu Theatre
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Didn't we just go through this over on weights-2? - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:32:46 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Didn't we just go through this over on weights-2? >Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:31:02 EDT >From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #131 > > <<Also consider that whatever percentage of one's MVC one uses is, to a > degree, irrelevant. If you are contracting as hard as you possibly can, > your body is going to recruit every single motor unit available.>> > >In super slow are you contracting as hard as possible on every rep? I believe >you are only in the last one or two reps. The major differences in our >philosophies is that superslow uses time under tension. I believe a better >way is time under maximum tension. Compensatory acceleration will do this, as >will Olympic lifting. Super slow will only do it in the last couple of reps. You might wnat to look at some of Greg Wilson's work on bench pressing and force time curves. he showed quite well that even a 1.5 second bench press movement (81% of 1RM) has over 1/2 of hte movement as a decceleration. The physical fact of a necessity for ending velocity of zero (Vf = 0) in most weight training movement (Olympic lifts are an exception as is work on the Plyometric Power System and others) means that there will be a significant decceleration phase. The implications of which being that the faster you start out of the bottom, the sooner and the harder you have to slow down. So while you will show a higher peak force this way, you will spend a considerable amount of time (over half of the movement) applying a force which is less than what's on the bar. I agree that slower movements start to approximate an isometric but that means that the average applied force will be much closer to what's on the bar (since peak accelerations will be minimized) and you will load the full ROM much more evenly. With CAT you only load the initial part of the movement unless you have some very non-traditional training methods (like Louie Simmon's chains and a few others). So if you want to develop maximal strength across the fullest ROM, slower training makes sense. If you want to improve the start of a movement (coming out of the hole in a squat) use CAT. But at some point, individuals using CAT will have to train the endrange movement since it will be underloaded with a CAT style rep. This isn't a question of which is right, it's a question of which is appropriate for a given situation. Sadly the distinction of what type of program is appropriate for a given athlete in a given situation with a given goal is lost on those who want training to be a 'one size fits all affair.' Lyle McDonald, CSCS Do NOT send me unsolicited binary files. "Your kung-fu is no good! Now you must fight.....ME!" - Any guy on Kung Fu Theatre
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: HIT Digest #132 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:27:14 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #132 In a message dated 98-04-28 22:30:09 EDT, you write: << ncreased explosiveness in any activity is a combination of two things, increased muscular strength, which allows one to generate more force, and improved skill in performing the movement quickly. SuperSlow is safer and more effective than explosive exercise movements for the purpose of increasing strength. One must practice a particular movement explosively to become faster at performing the particular movement. >> Andrew, while I appreciate your response, I would love to see some studies that corroborate what you say. But my last post (referring to Kraemer and Zatsiorsky) I believes helps to explain why superslow training is not the best avenue for improving explosive power. However, I will grant you that superslow IS the best method for improving superslow strength, and maybe even isometric strength. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: HIT Digest #132 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:33:42 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #132 In a message dated 98-04-28 22:30:09 EDT, you write: << And if you value your safety you'll avoid plyometrics. The only thing they produce is injury. Unless you want to improve you skill in performing a particular plyometric drill, which skill will not transfer to improvements in any other movements. >> The work of Donald Chu should help anyone understand that plyos are valuable tools in improving athletic performance. In addition, although this evidence is purely anecdotal, I have improved the athletic performance of clients through plyometrics, and my own performance as well. Plyos, performed properly, can be safe as well as effective. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Routine - from ivan_and_princess@juno.com
Top
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 05:39:05 -0500 From: ivan_and_princess@juno.com Subject: Routine IS this any good? Monday: Squats- 135x15, 325x19, 325x13 Pullovers- 180x12 Dips- bwt+45x12, 10 Pushdowns- 200/130x8,15 21's- 20x21x2 This was my first HIT routine. I pucked on my first set of squats!!! I'll let you know how my training is. Currently I squat 550 raw, bench 315 raw, deadlift 590 raw @ 213 bwt. Ciao, Shawn "The_Future" Be'llon ICQ NAme: The_Future
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: Explosive training... - from Sonofsquat
Top
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:48:37 EDT From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> Subject: Re: Explosive training... In a message dated 98-04-28 22:38:08 EDT, you write: << Re: fast - slow. Training fast in the weight room WILL not make FASTER on the field.. Training slower in the weight room (with Super Slow, or H.I.T.) WILL not make make you slower on the field. Training slower is safer. You pick the one you want to follow. Can we end this discussion now? >> No we can't... I am going to offer one (and ONLY one) more piece... I know a strength coach who doesn't have his football players do plyometrics. He understands that they can be beneficial, but he doesn't include them in his program. He does include the Olympic lifts (high pulls and cleans). With this training, the vertical jumps of his players went up -- even without practicing the skill of jumping. I include plyometrics in my programs and have witnessed the same type of results. Furthermore, the athletes I trained became faster in a 5 yard sprint (timed with an electronic timing devise), again without practicing the skill of a 5 yard sprint. I've always made it a point to question head coaches of the sports I was training if the training was effective and if he or she could see differences on the court or field. Always a yes response. Injuries during this type of training are so scarce it's not worth mentioning. I've seen close to 1500 athletes train and can count the injuries on one hand (all which are due to freak accidents). Research says explosive training and plyometrics work, personal experience from myself and other strength coaches says it works. The only ones who say it doesn't work are those who don't use it (and chances are, don't have a clue as to how to use it). Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: Superslow and Eytan - from Eric Boller
Top
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:15:02 -0500 From: "Eric Boller" <edboller@fedex.com> Subject: Re: Superslow and Eytan > Superslow training can make one stronger, but this strength can only occur at very low > velocities. As many have already pointed out in this forum, you can move more weight > when you slow down the rep. But what athlete has the time to generate this type of > maximum strength? It is simply not practical. I doubt anyone has said you can move more weight when you slow down the rep. People have said that lifting more weight will slow down the rep *automatically* because of the extra force. For instance if you do your 1RM, this rep will probably be a lot slower than if you were doing a rep at 85% of 1RM (unless you are trying to do the latter superslow). And what the heck do you mean by saying that superslow training only increase strength at low velocities? Are you saying that if I do a set of curls at 65 lbs superslow, that I wouldn't be able to do 75 lbs at a normal speed? That is a pile of B.S. Strength increase is strength increase. Eric B
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re: My training for 29APR98 - from Shawn Thomas Be'llon
Top
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:53:41 -0500 From: "Shawn Thomas Be'llon" <sbellon@mci2000.com> Subject: Re: My training for 29APR98 Well, it is Wednesday morning. My workout was great. Deadlift- 135x15, 405x18 (conventional) Chins- 5x6, 45x19 secs(negative) Pullovers-170x12 supersetted w/ Close Grip Pulldowns- 120x6 Incline Dumbell Press- 80x7, 60x5 (super slow: 7-, 5+) Dips- BWTx5,4 (superslow) Pushdowns- 150x5 Preacher Dumbell Curl- 25x7, 25x4 (super slow) It was a great workout! I haven't deadlifted in about 2 months so I was thrilled to nearly get my mid-summers goal of 20 reps! Maybe 455 for 20? I am pumped about this training!!! STB "The_Future"
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Re: HIT Digest #132; Thoughts and questions r.e. slow/fast etc. - from Ken Roberts
Top
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:10:18 -0700 (PDT) From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts) Subject: Re: HIT Digest #132; Thoughts and questions r.e. slow/fast etc. #132 was the best digest yet! It actually looks as though you have developed the forum you wanted, Rob. Congratulations. I've been following the fast-vs-slow discssion with increasing interest, especially as I ave come to understand the difference between te ideas of simple recruitment and fatigue. And so the following thoughts/questions for those of you more knowledgeable than I. Certainly a slower movement will recruit 100% of the muscle fibres through the movement. But wont a more "explosive" movement actually increase the amount of weight one must move at the beginning of the movement due to the laws of innertia? It seems to me that if I curl 100# slowly then I am moving 100#,yet, the weight of that bar should increase exponentially the faster I move it, albeit only through the inital phase of the movemnt. However, wouldn't that be enough to recruit 100% of the fibres and secondarily, fatigue the IIB fibres more effectively? Assuming that being the case, wouldn't it be more effective to combine fast with slow? I.E. fatigue the fast twitch fibres first with a heavier weight moved quickly then a lighter weight for higher reps moved more slowly? That way one would be assured of maixmal inroad? Which leads me to ask, why the 20% rule? Wouldn't one be able to make better gains in muscle size with greater inroad (given adequate nutrition and recovery)? Now, does anyone know if there is an optimal exercise level for calorie expenditure? What I'm driving at is this. If I wan't to burn cal's. optimally I want to exercise a certain ammount. One utilizes cal's. by increasing work. I can do this by exercising over time or I can increase the intensity of the exercise and threby increase the ammount of work (cal. expenditure). So, if my one rep max is 100# in an exercise am I doing the same amount of work by lifting 100# once or 80# 10 times? I think the answer is obviously the latter, however, is there a more efficient way to use more cal's. over time (please asume all other factors, time per rep. etc. are the same)? Which kinda brings me full circle. If TUT remains the same, and I can lift heavier weights "explosively", might I not be better off using a more "explosive" movement for the purpose of energy use? Ken
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. Re: HIT Digest #132 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:17:54 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #132 In a message dated 98-04-28 22:30:09 EDT, you write: << Re: fast - slow. Training fast in the weight room WILL not make FASTER on the field.. Training slower in the weight room (with Super Slow, or H.I.T.) WILL not make make you slower on the field. Training slower is safer. You pick the one you want to follow. Can we end this discussion now? >> LOL...I'm glad this is all so clear to you. I personally still have some questions. For example, how do you know? Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 16 --------------------
#16. Explosive vs slow - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:05:44 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Explosive vs slow While I admit that the current debate about slow training vs explosive or plymetrics training is interesting. It is also getting out of hand. What value does this discussion provide to a body builder or some one who is interested in optimum exercises for general health. The average gym rat could care less about type x fibers or how quick he could sprint to the water fountain. This list seems to be degrading into the High Intensity Debating list. Mr. Intensity