-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Thoughts and questions re slow/fast etc. - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 10:03:42 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: Thoughts and questions re slow/fast etc. >From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts) >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? Yes, it does. The weight experienced can be calculated from the formula W = mg + ma = m(g + a) where m is the mass of the bar, g the gravity acceleration (about 10 m/s^2) and a the acceleration of the bar. For instance, if a = 1 m/s^2 then you experience 10% increase in the weight (1 m/s^2 is 10% of g). >It seems to me that if I curl 100# >slowly then I am moving 100#, To get that effect, you don't have to curl slowly but with constant velocity >yet, the weight of that bar should increase >exponentially the faster I move it, Velocity has nothing to do with it (if we omit air resistance or possible muscular friction); it's a question of acceleration, and the weight increase is not exponential but linear (in relation to a) which can be seen from the formula above. > 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? I don't know if it's more effective but you can get the same effect with a lighter weight by compensatory acceleration. >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 You don't have to move a heavy weight quickly to hit the fast twitch fibers. then a lighter weight for higher reps moved more >slowly? That way one would be assured of maixmal inroad? Your idea of first fatiguing IIb fibers and then the other fibers sounds interesting. >Which leads me to ask, why the 20% rule? What's the 20% rule? >Wouldn't one be able to make >better gains in muscle size with greater inroad (given adequate >nutrition and recovery)? Can be, I don't know. Erkki
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. POST-WORKOUT RAMBLINGS - from Mike Strassburg
Top
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:34:24 -0500 From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> Subject: POST-WORKOUT RAMBLINGS Has anyone read either of the "Post-Workout-Delirium Induced Ramblings" on the Cyberpump web site? I'd like to make a few comments on them, as maybe this will give us something to debate, other then "rep speed", which apparently will never end. If it looks like a dead horse, smells like a dead horse, well then, it's a dead horse already! Just my opinion....of course. So after reading the first "Ramblings", several points caught my attention, and I'd like to hear what others have to say. the author has been "experimenting" with a combination of 2- Aleve, 1- NoDoz, and 20oz. Mountain Dew before working out. To quote the author,"by the time I'm ready to train, I'm absolutely wired." He also says,"about 1 to 1 1/2 hours before I plan to workout, I tend to become somewhat anxious & tense, and have to try to get my mind off of it." He also states that he "dreads" his workouts, and that if exercise is effective, it isn't going to be fun. Possibly my favorite quote of his is,"they should be exercising to produce results, and if their program is producing results, then that should be motivation enough to continue training." he ends the article by saying that after a workout he either lays on the floor or goes to his office and sleeps for about an hour. If "results" should be motivation enough to continue training, then why the need for pain relievers and lots of caffeine. It seems a shame that you need to take all this stuff to become "wired", so you can have a good workout. Using ergogenic aids, especially during training, is the wrong approach. Consider reading some of Leistner's opinions on this. Basically you want to make the training as hard as possible, and only save the "crutches" for a competition, or whatever. Why does he "dread" his workouts? I personally feel a great sense of accomplishment when I train. Knowing that I went into the gym and busted my ass, and did more then I did last workout, is a great feeling. I push as hard in the gym as anyone else, but I also have "fun." Yes I said the "F" word. I love feeling the iron in my hands, or pushing out more reps than I've ever done before. It's an awesome feeling, and one that I truly enjoy and look forward to. As for laying on the floor or sleeping in your office for an hour. Obviously you have that luxury, while many others don't. But who the hell wants to sleep after a workout. I want to enjoy the "high" that I get from a good workout. I lift at 6:00am and I go to work with an endorphin high that can't be stopped. I feel very alive and exhilarated for most of the day, and usually start to come down in the early afternoon. HIT workouts definitely do take their toll on the body. For many trainers the author's approach might be a little to extreme or unrealistic. I personally don't have the time to let working out consume that much of my life. I simply use it as a tool to help me be a better athlete, and have fun along the way!
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Superslow vs. explosive training - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 15:09:42 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Superslow vs. explosive training Other people have adequately addressed issues brought up by Andrew Baye, so I will not repeat them. I will, however, add a few new comments to the discussion. > From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> > > 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 statement is similar to saying that, if I have a car in neutral at rest, the slower I try to push it to a certain velocity, the more force that is required by me to push it to get it to that velocity. This makes no sense at all. The car must be accelerated, and to accelerate this car, I have to apply a force. The more force I apply, the faster the car will accelerate. According to your argument, the optimal way to train, then, would be to simply do isometric actions at each position throughout the ROM rather than using dynamic actions. This would be the only way to completely eliminate momentum. However, I'm sure that most people on this list would agree that isometric training at each position is an inferior way to train over dynamic methods, and research has corroborated this notion. > 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. In my example, I compared a 4/4 tempo to a Superslow 10/5 tempo. A 4/4 tempo is hardly a ballistic movement. And, to let everyone know, I do support the use of ballistic movements in cases where the weight can be released (medicine ball training, plyometrics, power cleans, etc.). However, I only support the use of such movements in specific situations (some types of athletes); I do not advocate such movements for general fitness purposes. I also do not advocate "speed reps" in things such as bench press for reasons that Lyle has pointed out. Narrowing the discussion to the types of ballistic movements that I support, please provide scientific evidence for your assertion that ballistic movements are not effective. Such movements are necessary to help an athlete with maximal power generation, which cannot be provided by maximal strength training alone, since maximal strength training does not improve RFD as Lyle pointed out in a separate post. James Krieger
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Explosive training - from Rolf Sodergard
Top
Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 11:22:02 +0300 (EET DST) From: Rolf Sodergard <sodergar@cs.Helsinki.FI> Subject: Re: Explosive training > From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> > > 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'll have to second you on this non-sport-specificity, on a purely anecdotal basis. I started weight-training in high school. At the time I could run 50 m in 8.8 seconds (I know, I'm a sucky runner) and jump 254 cm from place. After two years of just lifting weights (no other sports) my 50 m time was 8.0 and my jumping distance 289. This was done with no kind of sport specific training. It was also done without plyometrics or eplosive training. I only grew 2 cm during that time so no actual length advantage there. I was lifting in a horrible form, so no superslow either. Just doing everything wrong. On the other hand, my 2000 m time improved a less spectacular 3 seconds. Rolle
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: Plyometrics - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 17:48:47 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Plyometrics > From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> > > And if you value your safety you'll avoid plyometrics. The only thing they > produce is injury. Your assertion that "the only thing they (plyometrics) produce is injury" is not supported in the scientific literature. Studies performed on plyometric exercise have not reported injury in subjects, even untrained subjects who have not been adequately prepared for a plyometric program through resistance training (1). As Lyle pointed out in a separate post, plyometrics improve RFD, which cannot be maximally improved through conventional strength training. RFD is extremely important in activities that require power, such as lower body power in jumping activities. Research has demonstrated that a combination of strength training and plyometrics improves motor performance over either performed by itself (1). > Unless you want to improve you skill in performing a > particular plyometric drill, which skill will not transfer to improvements > in any other movements. This assertion is also not supported in the scientific literature. Studies on plyometric training have demonstrated improvements in vertical jump ability, standing long jump ability, and even strength tasks such as 1 RM leg press (1). >For more on this read > http://www.superslow.com/plyometrics.html A few excerpts from that article: Ken Hutchins: "Recently, I have seen several sports equipment catalogs selling devices to apply plyometrically. There are the plyo boxes, the plyo hurdles, the weight-adjustable anklets and vests, the plyo sled and so forth. If you are interested in developing an explosive skill that has direct application only to one of these devices with maximum probability of injury and no benefits whatsoever to any sport known, then you should seek out one of these catalogs." As I stated earlier, such activities do not just have direct application to such devices, and have shown improvements in motor tasks such as vertical jump. There are many sports where an improved vertical jump can have a significant impact on an individual's performance in that sport. Therefore, Hutchin's assertion of "no benefits...to any sport known" is not supported. Fred Hahn: "Plyometrics are extremely dangerous and violate motor learning principles." Mr. Hahn provides no scientific support for this statement. How do plyometrics "violate motor learning principles?" How are they "extremely dangerous?" If plyometrics were "extremely dangerous", then the majority of individuals performing plyometrics would be getting injured. However, the scientific literature does not support this. Fred Hahn: "injury is caused by excessive force" Excessive force is only one cause of injury. Overuse and overtraining, biomechanical abnormalities, improper equipment or technique, and various other factors all may play a role in the occurrence of injury (2). Fred Hahn: "What is the difference, pray tell, between high-impact aerobics and plyometrics? " The number of foot impacts during high-impact aerobics greatly exceeds the number of foot impacts during a plyometric training session. Therefore, the two cannot be compared due to the differences in the volume of training. Fred Hahn: "What is it specifically that plyometric activity contributes to an exercise program that proper strength training cannot? Explosive power? Nonsense. Skeletal muscles are the force-producing engines of our body. If a muscle is made stronger it will be capable of producing more force." Power is defined as (Force x Distance) / Time. Maximal strength training can improve force generation capability and therefore increase power. However, the only way to maximally improve power is to decrease the amount of time that is needed for a force to be applied (RFD). Strength training cannot improve this. Only explosive activities such as plyometrics can. Fred Hahn: "the Guild has presented sound, scientific advice against plyometrics" I have not seen the Guild reference any research that backs its assertions. 1. Fleck. S.J., and W.J. Kraemer. Designing Resistance Training Programs. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1997. 2. Arnheim, D.D., and W.E. Prentice. Principles of Athletic Training. 9th ed. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark. 1997. James Krieger
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. The explosive debate - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 18:13:50 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: The explosive debate I read Matt Brzycki's latest "Reflections...", and one thing that I've noticed about this entire discussion is the notion of the purpose of strength training and conditioning. There are presently two schools of thought on the purpose of strength training: 1. Strength training is for increasing muscular strength and preventing injury. This is the primary school of thought by HITers and is reflected in Brzycki's article. If one views this as the purpose of strength training, then it is understandable why one would be against training methods such as plyometrics, power cleans, or other power movements. Controlled strength training is definitely a more efficient way to increase muscular strength, and is also a much better way to prevent injury. 2. Strength training is for helping to improve athletic performance. This is how I view strength training, at least for serious athletes. Research has demonstrated that "explosive" activities improve motor performance in activities such as vertical jump (which is an extremely important factor in the performance of many sports). Such improvement have been found to be greater than with strength training alone. Therefore, an athlete looking for maximal performance in a sport may need to perform explosive activities to maximally tap into their potential. However, along with such activities comes an increased potential for injury. An increased potential for injury, though, is often an accepted risk in athletes who are looking for an edge over their competition. A properly designed power training program minimizes the risk of injury, which I feel has been overblown by the HIT community. Yes, an increased potential of injury exists with activities such as power cleans or plyometrics; however, a potential increase in performance also exists. It is a tradeoff that must be carefully weighed depending upon the goals of the individual. The slight increase in power provided by explosive training may mean the difference between winning and losing; for example, a slight increase in vertical jump may be the difference whether an athlete blocks the game-winning shot in a basketball game or misses the block. Overall, the appropriateness of a power-training program depends upon your goals. If your goal is to simply increase strength and prevent injury, than a power-training program should be avoided. If your goal is to improve performance, then a power-training program may be appropriate if the program fits the specific sport. James Krieger
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: HIT Digest #134 - from jon and stacy ziegler
Top
Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 21:18:00 +0000 From: jon and stacy ziegler <rutger1@jps.net> Subject: Fastball Question This is in response to Pete and the fastball question. I believe any increase in leg strength, as brought on by the squat, and overall body strength, achieved through the deadlift, would increase your fastball. Looking at some of the pitchers from decades past: Fred Nolan, Tom Seaver, and Ron Guidry would indicate that a smaller pitcher, with increased leg strength would be able to throw a ball at a greater velocity. The key to utilizing the leg strength would be to developing a wind up that would emphasize leg, buttock, and hip strength as opposed to just throwing. Few pitchers today (Roger Clemens is an exception) appear to use the lower part of their bodies to increase their pitching velocity effectively. If you have access to the Classic Sports Channel keep an eye open for guys like Whitey Ford, Tom Seaver, Ron Guidry, and even Don Gullett. Watch how they use the legs to push. Even some of the outstanding big pitchers used a good lower body approach, i.e. Nolan Ryan, J.R. Richards, and others used great leg strength to facilitate pitching. For current pitchers Clemens has already been mentioned, but Tommy Glavine and Greg Maddox of the Braves are good examples. I'm out of here! Jon Ziegler 4 weeks to "Godzilla"!
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Force requirements and movement speed - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 22:09:14 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Force requirements and movement speed > From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> > > As for the idea that force requirements are the same for moving a given > amount of weight a given distance regardless of the movement speed, this is > nonsense, as anyone who cares to try the following will realize: > > Take the amount of weight you currently use for a set during a particular > exercise. Lift it 1 second and lower it in 1 second. Make a note of how > demanding the repetition was. Rest for 10 minutes or so. Using the same > amount of weight, lift it in 10 seconds, and lower it in 10. Then see how > much of a difference it makes. In this example, you are confusing fatigue with force requirements. The slower repetition is more difficult not due to increased force requirements but simply due to the fact that a muscle must apply a certain force for a longer period of time, which is more fatiguing. Your example is not valid because you are comparing completely different TUT's. What if I lift the weight in 30 seconds and lower it in 30? Does that mean my force requirements are even higher? This makes no sense at all. Actually, in the faster rep, the force requirements are higher; the bar is being moved much faster in the same distance, which indicates that the acceleration value is much higher, which would in turn indicate a higher force. The slower rep only feels more difficult due to fatigue. Fatigue and how hard an exercise feels do not dictate motor unit recruitment or force requirements. If I do a drop set on bicep curls and keep dropping to where I am using ridiculously low poundages, have I increased force requirements? No, I've actually lowered them. What I have done is increase fatigue and lactate accumulation. The high lactate concentrations that are produced by such training interfere with muscular force production, making the exercise feel very difficult. However, just because the exercise feels difficult does not mean it's going to make me stronger and bigger. James Krieger
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. TUL - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 22:42:13 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: TUL Another factor that people should remember about TUL is that two performances of an exercise at the same TUL does not necessarily mean the same types of adaptations are stimulated. For example, if I do 5 reps at a 2-0-4 tempo and 5 reps at a 4-0-2 tempo, the TUL of 30 sec is the same for both sets. However, the physiologic responses are going to be different due to differing TUL's during the concentric action and during the eccentric action. James Krieger
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: Force - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 22:33:22 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Force > From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> > > If a person is using the heaviest weight they can handle for a reasonable > amount of repetitions during an exercise using a 10 second positive > repetition speed, they are going to be contracting as hard as they can > (maximal muscular force production) yet minimizing the amount of force the > body is exposed to, thus reducing their risk of injury. A 10 second positive does not mean maximal muscular force production since it does not represent the highest amount of force that a muscle can produce. Only in situations where force requirements are the highest represent maximal muscular force production. Since F=ma, this represents two situations: 1. A situation where m is as high as possible. This means the maximal amount of weight that can be lifted, or a 1 RM. 2. A situation where a is as high as possible. The weight is being accelerated as quickly as possible, such as in a vertical jump. Anything less would represent submaximal force generation. James Krieger
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: Are "light" 1 RM's still dangerous? - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 22:52:43 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Are "light" 1 RM's still dangerous? > From: "Berserker _" <berserker78@hotmail.com> > > with be dangerous? I mean, the body can't tell the difference, can it? > The weight will "feel" just as heavy as a 1RM. How a weight "feels" does not dictate force requirements. A maximal effort does not necessarily correlate with maximal force production. Fatigue inhibits maximal muscular force production, but does not inhibit effort; effort is a subjective quantity. Only the exerciser knows how much effort is being put forth, but how much force an individual is generating is a measurable quantity. > Another thing. If one did one thousand drop sets, he would eventually > come to the point of only being to do one rep with one pound. Would that > be considered dangerous, since that would be a 1RM? This is not generally considered a 1 RM. A 1 RM represents the maximal amount of weight an individual can lift for 1 repetition, assuming no fatigue is present. Your drop set example does not represent the same injury potential as a true 1 RM, since it does not represent maximal force production. It only represents maximal effort. James Krieger
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Any good PhD programs? - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 22:37:03 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Any good PhD programs? I am considering pursuing a PhD in exercise science after I graduate next year. Does anyone on this list have any recommendations for good schools? James Krieger
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. 135X15 - from ivan_and_princess@juno.com
Top
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 07:35:20 -0500 From: ivan_and_princess@juno.com Subject: 135X15 >>I would ask what benefit the 135X15 set had other than to tire you out. >>Unless you've got a weird injury you need to warmup, I think you're better >>off with low rep warmup sets. I squat over 550, so 135 for 15 reps is quite easy. If I am tired from that then I really suck. STB
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. RE: An apology - from Don Gwinn
Top
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 10:04:46 -0500 From: Don Gwinn <dgwinn@monm.edu> Subject: RE: An apology Just a quick note: I just read through hd #134 and realized how my post might be misinterpreted. When I say "Dr. (?) Koch," I don't mean to be insulting or to imply anything about the man's degrees. Actually, I was just too dumb and tired to be able to remember whether Mr. Koch does hold a Ph.d. I apologize for any offense in advance. 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.
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. Re: HIT Digest #134 - from DMartin316
Top
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 11:37:50 EDT From: DMartin316 <DMartin316@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #134 Post #14, regarding pitching and weights, there is no correlation between an increase in body weight and pitching skills improvement. Improving your squat and dead lift will increase your over all strength but will not guarantee a pitching improvement. Develop and improve your pitching mechanics, in conjunction with a sound strength/fitness program. Pitching a baseball is a highly skilled athletic feat and pitching correctly, will do more for you than any amount of squatting and dead lifting. First things first, do you want to be a pitcher who lifts weights or a weight lifter who pitches? When in doubt, work on your pitching skills. Check out this site, www.pitching.com. Good Luck.