-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Tempo: important for the gym rat - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 09:14:29 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Tempo: important for the gym rat Obviously what I posted was a short sided statement, it was intended to be. My concerns over the ongoing debate over slow cadences vs fast cadences vs explosive training are as follows. Are the participants really trying to help others?, or are they trying to prove who is right and who is wrong? You know, the self gratification syndrome. I will state right up front that I don't have the extensive knowledge that a lot of the list members have. I do train HIT style and I believe that the fitness industry is a crock. All the crap magazines on the shelves, all the B.S. supplements floating around, it's insane. Personally, I feel it's time that a stand is taken against a lot of the so called experts. There is no substitue for a sound diet and hard, brief training. I don't do drugs, I don't have any negative feelings about people who do, it's their money, their body. I remember starting out, I looked for information everywhere trying to find good advice, eventually I gave up, most of the routines in the muscle rags were ridiculous. Commen sense dictated that those routines were not sound if you applied the laws of physics. Luckily, I met a man who trained with the Mentzer style, I follow the same basic guide lines. I recently have incorporated some of the super slow routines that I have found on the web and I tend to like those. The best advice I could give to someone, look around your gym, see what everyone is doing, do they wear knee, ankle, wrist braces? What style of training do they do? What is their physical appearence? How long have they been training? If you see a guy wearing joint braces, a pot belly, wraps tied so tight around his joints that he looks like Popeye, and he's been training for years,and you decide to follow his routine, chances are you will look the same way a few years down the road. Does this mean that following a pro body builders routine will make you look like a pro body builder? I would say no, as most pro's don't even know what they did themselves, genetics and drugs played a big part in their development. Train as safe as possible, after all, we train to be healthier and live longer right? Who wants to live to be an old, crippled person? If you train for powerlifting or some other sport, then try to minimize the potential for injury, do what you gotta do. "And that's the botom line" -Stone Cold
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Andrew Baye in #134 - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 14:55:44 PDT From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: Andrew Baye in #134 > From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> >> 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. > No. The amount of force the muscles are called upon to produce and > the amount of force the body is exposed to are two different things. The amount of force a muscle produces is the amount of force that will act on the tendons at each end of the muscle. So I wonder what you are talking about. If you are suggesting some sort of discontinuity in forces, then please explain how it arises. >> Maximal muscular force production is desirable, maximal exposure >> of the joints and connective tissue to force is not. This wasn't an issue of disagreement, and it isn't relevant to my criticism of your physics, so I'm surprised you bring it up. Since you do bring it up, I will say that I agree with you. However you should realize that with the possible exception of the start and the end of a rep, the force on a muscle and the force on the tendons on either end *must* be the same. (Of course stresses will be different, due to the different cross sectional areas.) > Take timed static contractions for example: absolutely no movement > at all > is involved, yet if a heavy enough weight is used, it is possible to > produce a deep level of inroad in a reasonably short time under > load. So much for having to move quickly to force the muscles to > contract as hard as possible. Here again this wasn't an issue of disagreement, nor is it relevant to my criticism of your physics. I have no idea why you brought this up. > 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) You still haven't explained how this can be so. Please explain why they can't contract harder and complete the rep in less time. > 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. Mr. Baye, you seem to be confusing force with effort. What you suggest as an experiment would tell nothing about force requirements. It would tell something about the ability to maintain a given output. I suggest that you review the very good explanation that Erkki Turunen gave in the last digest, which captured the essence of the physics of this correctly.
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: SuperSlow - from tbuck@ix.netcom.com
Top
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 21:33:20 -0500 (CDT) From: tbuck@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: SuperSlow >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. > >Andrew M. Baye >The SuperSlow Exercise Guild >http://www.superslow.com/ > Been lurking for weeks now, but finally had to comment on this "debate". The answer to the above is that the second set will obviously be harder. But what the heck does that prove? Raise the same weight taking 30 seconds up and 30 seconds down, does that make a difference?? What about 2 minutes?? Just because something is harder to do does not mean it is doing you any better. 100 reps of curls using 10 pounds is very tough to do, does that mean it is better than 10 reps of 50 pound curls? Not trying to pick on you Andrew, but we need to make conclusions based on facts, not conjecture or anecdotal evidence, or "common sense". This debate is growing a tad weary folks. Shall we agree to disagree until someone does an actual clinical, controlled study? Nah, I didn't think so. :) Timm Buchanan No Institue...no web page..NOTHING to sell.' "OOoohhhhhhh...they have the Internet on Computers now!" - Homer J. Simpson
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Etc, etc. - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 21:44:53 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Etc, etc. >Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 10:03:27 +0300 >From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> >Subject: Re: Didn't we just go through this... > > >>and you >>will load the full ROM much more evenly. > >...but your conclusion seems a little hasty because you left the influence >of strength curve out of consideration. At least I understand that even >loading means that the resistance is equally demanding at every point of the >ROM. I don't disagree with any of the stuff you wrote (which I snipped). Thing is, for any given exercise (whether machine or free weight) we can't do much to change the strenght curve (short of some of Jerry Telle's interesting changing body position during the set techniques). The theory behind machines is to more evenly load the full ROM with a cam. But being an average strength curve, it won't exactly fit any one person. My statement would have been more accurately phrased as "For any given exercise, a slower movement speed will moee evenly load the full ROM since we can't really do anything about the strength curve from a practical level." >Referring to my text above, slower training is superior only in certain >exercises. Exercises done in properly designed machines of variable >resistance are especially suited to slower training. I will argue that no-one will ever design any machine which will fit the biomechanics of all people. UNless you made a machine that tested your individual strength curve and then modulated resistance accordingly. Or those silly keiser air resistance things which provide pseudo-isokinetic resistance. Perhaps the ideal situation is to pick different exercises to overload different portions of the strength curve and just be done with it. Anyone for a little POF training? <sarcasm> Lyle McDonald, CSCS Do NOT send me unsolicited binary files. "RRRRRAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIHHHHHHHHHH" - GODZILLA [Phftttt!!!!! Sorry that line made me crack up.... --Rob]
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: SS - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 21:44:43 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: SS >From: "Jon Isacson" <ji@objecta.se> >Subject: Re: SuperSlow vs. Explosive training > > >Erkki Turunen wrote: > >>If you are contracting as hard as possible why doesn't the bar accelerate? >This is quite easily explained. Working out is all about creating force, we >battle gravity every time we do a rep. So if the bar doesn't accelerate (in >any direction) the force you generate is equal to the reacting force >(gravity, if you omit friction). So if it wasn't for the need for full >range motion the best and safest way would be to just train static. That wasn't what he was getting at. The point of contention had to do with full motor unit recruitment vs. percent of max capacity. Andrew commented that you get full MU recruitment regardless of % max. as long as you squeeze the muscle as hard as possible. Thing is, for any submaximal rep (i.e. the first 3 of a 4 rep Superslo set or the first 11 of a 12 rep 2/4 set), if you generate maximum force with the muscle (i.e. 'squeeze as hard as possible') the bar will accelerate faster than your goal speed. Meaning that on the first 3 reps of a 4 rep SS set, you have to consciously NOT push as hard as possible or you'd complete the rep in less than 10 seconds. On which note, something has been bugging me about the SS lifting speed and injury thing. If lifting a weight any faster than 10 (ok 8) seconds is so dangerous, why is it then ok to lower it in 5 seconds? Peak accelerations/forces (which the SS guys seem to feel is the cause of injuries) will be the same whether you lift or lower in 5 seconds. Lyle McDonald, CSCS Do NOT send me unsolicited binary files. "RRRRRAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIHHHHHHHHHH" - GODZILLA
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: HIT Digest #134 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 22:51:36 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #134 A couple issues. 1. Re: the big point: I have kind of gotten lost about what everyone thinks on the larger issue of explosive vs. superslow training. Will everyone please answer the following questions concisely: 1. Is superslow training superior, equal to, or inferior to explosive training for increased athletic performance? 2. Is superslow training superior, equal to, or inferior to explosive training for hypertrophy/general fitness? 3. Is superslow training superior, equal to, or inferior to explosive training for maximal strength development? 4. Does either of these two methods have an advantage in fiber recruitment or fiber fatigue? 5. Are plyometrics ever a good idea? As for my own answers, I believe the following (keep in mind, this is the concise answer, I am not interested in supportive evidence at this point): 1. SS is at best equal to, and probably inferior to, explosive training for athletic performance (and yes, I realize it depends how you define athletic performance...again, I am speaking in general terms). 2. SS is probably equal to, but maybe superior to explosive training for hypertrophy/general fitness. 3. Superslow training is superior to explosive training for maximal strength development. 4. Explosive training promotes sychonization of the firing of motor units (don't worry Lyle, I am not ignoring your point-by-point, I just haven't had time to address it yet), but may leave some Type I fibers unfatigued is the set is too short. 5. Plyometrics is a wonderful way for athletes to improve certain sports skills, especially since it directly replicates many sports actions. There is no issue of deceleration,so in someways, it is better than explosive weightroom training. New topic: Lyle, I know you feel that one problem with explosive training lies in the fact that speeds achieved in the weightroom are slower than those achieved on the field (please correct me if I misstated your position). However, rate of force development, which you have touched on before, is what is important here, not the actual velocities achieved. In other words, training explosively allows the athlete to develop the ability to achieve the greatest amount of force in the least amount of time. This skill carries over in the playing field. Superslow training does not develop this skill. Eytan Koch, CSCS Oh, and incidentally, Deja Groove is the name of my band (nope, not a doctor, nor do I even play one on TV).
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. bench? - from Brent Waldrop
Top
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 22:54:03 -0500 From: Brent Waldrop <brentw@DNS1.famvid.com> Subject: bench? Hi everyone. I have had a lot of trouble adding any kind of weight to my bench. I currently can bench only about 150 on a good day for 3 sets of 5. I have been lifting for about two years now. I have tried everything to get my bench up..but nothing has worked. I currently am on a hardgainer routine and do only 3 excersizes per session three times a week. I only do my three sets of bench on monday..and that is all the chest work i do for that week. I never get sore...it just have a numb feeling and i can not. Im thinking maybe the benching on the smith machine my help me a little. Is there any comment on this or any comment on what im doing wrong that i could raise my bench with. I am very happy with all my other excersizes except bench..like i can squat 200 for 3 sets of 5, and i can deadlift 300 for 3 sets of 5 but by bench has always, to put it plainly..sucked. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks Brent Waldrop brentw@famvid.com
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Huh? - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 00:18:59 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Huh? >Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:55:52 EDT >From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #133 > >To Eric and other doubters, a challenge: > >On any exercise, test your 1rm at superslow speed (10/4, right, Andrew?). >Then, once fully recovered, and wait as many hours, days or weeks as you feels >you need to, test your 1rm explosively. If you are not willing to do this, >and I know some of you worry about the risk factors of explosive training, at >least try it at typical Nautilus tempo (2-4). Umm, what are you challenging here? I don't think anyone will disagree that you can move more weight at a faster tempo. That wasn't ever the question. The question was whether this was better, worse or no different in terms of actually improve strength/sporting performance/explosiveness. Lyle McDonald, CSCS Do NOT send me unsolicited binary files. "RRRRRAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIHHHHHHHHHH" - GODZILLA
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: use the Force - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 00:19:04 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: use the Force >Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:20:45 -0400 >From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> >Subject: force >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. That's not a terribly logical example because you're comparing 2 seconds worth of work to 20 second worth of work. A better question would be whether it takes more, less or the same metabolic work to do 10 reps at 2 sec/rep (20 seconds total time under load) to 1 rep at 20 sec/rep (also 20 seconds total metabolic work). If metabolic work (scaled as area under the work-time cure) is the same, and I'm not saying it is, I bet adapatations will be the same too. What you asked is akin to asking whether it takes more gas to drive a car 20 feet really fast or 200 feet really slow. What's more important is how much total gas it takes to drive a car 200 feet really fast vs 200 feet really slowly (i.e. will area under the gas-time curve be the same). Lyle McDonald, CSCS Do NOT send me unsolicited binary files. "RRRRRAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIHHHHHHHHHH" - GODZILLA
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Reply to Dejagroove on 1RM - from Eric Boller
Top
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 10:50:41 -0500 From: "Eric Boller" <edboller@fedex.com> Subject: Reply to Dejagroove on 1RM > To Eric and other doubters, a challenge: > On any exercise, test your 1rm at superslow speed (10/4, right, Andrew?). > Then, once fully recovered, and wait as many hours, days or weeks as you feels > you need to, test your 1rm explosively. If you are not willing to do this, > and I know some of you worry about the risk factors of explosive training, at > least try it at typical Nautilus tempo (2-4). > I await your results, ladies and gentlemen. > By the way, Eric, please back up what you say. What I wrote in that post, > that "pile of BS" was paraphrasing others' research, and I even quoted the > names. If you would like the books' titles, and page numbers, I can supply > them as well, it's just that it was very late and I was very tired when I > posted last time. Dejagroove-- I'm not sure what I'm testing by doing a 1 rm at superslow and a 1rm explosively or even 2-4 speed. I simply stated in my previous post that strength gains would not be made only at the slow speed range. I would have to test my 1rm now for both speeds--then test a few months later. However, to be honest I'm not sure how you really test the 1 rm for two different speeds anyway...If I am testing my 1 rm I am going to go all out--even if I was doing my 1 rm explosively I believe the rep speed would be much slower than the typical "explosive" rep because of the increased weight when doing the 1 rm. I hope you don't feel I'm copping out by this answer. My only statement originally is that if I increase my strength in a superslow manner, my strength will also increase at a higher rep speed. My pile of B.S. statement was in reply to your statement that superslow training can only make you stronger at lower velocities. By saying this I felt that you were saying that strength increases from superslow training would not translate into strength increases at faster speeds--2/4 for instance. I don't have the studies to back up what I'm saying--I also don't have the time. I'm sure others hopefully can point out some studies...All I can go on is my own practical real world experiences. I started training superslow maybe 4 or 5 months ago and have made what I think is much better progress than with other training. I am now at the point where I lift more weight now using superslow than back when I used a typical 2/4 protocol (albeit at a lower rep count as prescribed in the superslow protocol). I'll give you some numbers--and keep in mind I'm going from memory so take it for what it is worth--but I think I am pretty accurate here--and y'all please don't laugh at some of these weights!: Excercise Pre-superslow (2/4 protocol) Superslow( 1st week) Superslow now Bench 155 lbs. x 5 reps(ha ha ha ha) 115 lbs x 5 reps 175 x 3 reps Hammer 90 lbs x 6 (OK, I'm a wuss!) 50 lbs x 6 110 x 4 reps shoulder press Tricep 65 lbs x 5 25 lbs X 6 65 x 4 reps extension Cybex 110 lbs x 6 80 lbs x 6 120 x 5 reps Pullover Preacher 55 x 8 35 lbs x 6 65 x 4 curls Leg Press 360 x 10 180 lbs x 6 450 x 6 I count a 10/5 scheme--which probably ends up being more like 8/4 in actual time. I also do feel alot of the strength gain initially could have been the adaptation to using the superslow protocol. However, you can see that I now lift more using superslow. I haven't tried a normal 2/4 protocol since the 4 to 5 months I started superslow but does anyone really believe I can't lift more weight now using a normal protocol than my pre-superslow period? If I can do more superslow now than pre-superslow--how can I not be stronger using a "normal" protocol. All I know is that I have made pretty good gains using superslow. I don't think it is a protocol for everyone--at least without a coach or trainer to motivate you. I'm able to focus pretty well so I don't feel like a need a trainer--I do have a partner though that keeps me from wussing out. Sorry for such a long post--hopefully it is worthwhile for someone. Eric
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: Several posts of HIT Digest #134 - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 19:40:38 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: Several posts of HIT Digest #134 >From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) >Subject: Re: Intensity I >realize that the focus of HIT is on intensity (nebulously defined but let's >use inroad for the time being). While everyone like to talk about maximum >intensity, no one ever really defines it. Is it maximum momentary effort, >the last rep taken to failure, what exactly? WE might draw a continuum >between an activity you could do indefinitely up until the poit of >momentary muscular failure. But when you get into momentary muscular >failure, you have to be more specific. how do you end the set? Is failure >when you can no longer maintain an arbitrary lifting speed (say your >concentric goal is 5 seconds and it takes you 6 seconds to complete the >lift) or when you can no longer move the bar at all (maximal isometric). >And when you hit that isometric, what do you do? Drop the bar? Push into >it for 2 seconds then drop the bar? push into it for 15 seconds and then >do a slow negative? If I understood you correctly the isometric starts when you can no longer move the bar. With that assumption, the remaining force production ability at the start of the isometric is equal to the weight of the bar. If you at that stage do a 15 sec isometric it means that your force production remains the same for those 15 sec. In other words 15 sec with no inroad! How can it be possible? >What I'm getting at is that there is a genral lack of definitions and we >may need to define low volume failure (hit isometric, do final 4 second >negative, set ends), medium volume failure (push into iso. for 15 seconds, >10 second negative), absolute muscular failure (concentric, isometric and >eccentric failure), etc, etc? If you take HIT doctrine to it's logical >extremes, the best method of working out would be the most intense >(absolute muscular failure) done the most infrequently. But I don't know >of anyone who trains that way. Does this mean that medium volume failure >is actually sub-intensity? Of course not, but it's not anywhere close to >maximal intensity/inroad. Sounds complicated and it reveals the drawback of defining the intensity as intensity of effort. My suggestion: let's switch from intensity of effort to intensity of contraction. In that case your examples would represent equal intensities of different duration. >From: "Jon Isacson" <ji@objecta.se> >Subject: Re: SuperSlow vs. Explosive training > > >Erkki Turunen wrote: > >>If you are contracting as hard as possible why doesn't the bar accelerate? > > >This is quite easily explained. Working out is all about creating force, we >battle gravity every time we do a rep. So if the bar doesn't accelerate (in >any direction) the force you generate is equal to the reacting force >(gravity, if you omit friction). I know that but why cannot you generate more force than the weight of the bar if the weight is, say, 70% of your 1RM as it may be in a SuperSlow set? >From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> >Subject: force > >>>>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.>>> > >No. The amount of force the muscles are called upon to produce and the >amount of force the body is exposed to are two different things. No, your body is exposed to the same force that your muscles produce whether the state of motion is constant, accelerating or decelerating. It's the law of action and reaction. >Take timed static contractions for example: absolutely no movement at all >is involved, yet if a heavy enough weight is used, it is possible to >produce a deep level of inroad in a reasonably short time under load. So >much for having to move quickly to force the muscles to contract as hard as >possible. It's true that a static contraction can produce a deep level of inroad but you don't contract as hard as possible in it, except at the moment of failure. >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 But only at the to-failure-rep. In CAT you can do it in every rep (the accelerative part of it). And that was not meant to imply the superiority of CAT. >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 Force requirements as a function of place are different but the average force output is the same regardless of the speed. >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. Of course it makes a difference because the TUT is tenfold in the latter case. But the average force output is the same. >From: Don Gwinn <dgwinn@monm.edu> >Subject: I know you're sick of rep speed, but this is new . . . Maybe momentum with good form doesn't do the work for the trainee, as someone stated in hd #133 (I have my doubts.) But what about body swing? Has no one on this list ever swung his hips into a curl and noticed that his arms got a break? Doesn't the necessity for a complete stop between reps argue for a lower speed? In my experience, a fast-moving barbell tends to either swing or bounce and is difficult to stop or control. This leads to cheating and body swing. I think explosive curls are difficult (and useless) to perform because it's difficult to keep the upper arm stationary. Explosive lifting is more suited to multiple-joint exercises where the path of the bar is pretty close to linear. >From: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu> >Subject: Tempo: important for the gym rat > But most important, IMO, the strength drop >of ~30-40% for 5-0-10 [SuperSlow] reps translates to far less ECC work >per rep for a given rate of lowering (meaning, more ECC work for 5-0-x >reps than 5-0-30 reps). Interesting point. I wonder why the SS protocol is not a 10 sec eccentric + 5 sec concentric. Erkki The best way of training is the one you believe in. (Don Ross) [R.I.P. --Rob].
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. traing program to protect joints - from bruno
Top
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 13:35:29 -0300 From: bruno <bruno98@mtec.com.br> Subject: traing program to protect joints I'm a westler and i've being doing hit for a couple months. I find it the best way for increasing both strenght and weight, but this is not what i really want. I actually don't like weightlifting but i know it's important. So i was looking for a traing program just to protect my joints(as i alredy said, i'm a westler). I would apreciate any help...
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Clarify "Force"? - from John Vormbaum
Top
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 11:02:07 -0700 From: John Vormbaum <johnv@TRATNET.com> Subject: Clarify "Force"? Hi gang, I'd like answers to the following question(s) from both sides of the debate, if possible. Andrew, Lyle, Eytan, Fred II? Please help with a clarification: I understand (basic physics) "Force" to be demonstrated by the equation F=MA. Those of us on both sides of the rep speed debate can manipulate force--just change the weight and/or rep speed. What is the major issue of contention as force relates to injury prevention and our training goals? Is force PRODUCTION different than force EXPOSURE? Is it possible for those respective values to differ greatly in a single set or repetition simply based on style of training & rep speed? What should we be aiming for? If force production is a goal, does a slower rep speed automatically maximize production while minimizing exposure? Thanks in advance, John Vormbaum johnv@tratnet.com "We're lost, but we're makin' good time!" --Yogi Berra ["Whenever you see a fork in the road you should always take it." -- Yogi Berra --Rob]
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. FW: skill=speed: Hit Mailing list - from Don Gwinn
Top
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 15:07:57 -0500 From: Don Gwinn <dgwinn@monm.edu> Subject: FW: skill=speed: Hit Mailing list In case any of you suspect that I don't know what I'm talking about . . .. well, you may have a point. I just received this from a gentleman who wanted to clear up a few things for me, and I think it can add value to the list. This is where I shut up: >Don: > >Your observations are correct. Skill=speed. As a 2nd degree black belt >Instructor (Kajukenbo), a 1st degree black belt (Tae Kwon Do) and a blue >belt (Gracie Jiu Jitsu, under Royce Gracie) as well as a boxing coach I >think I can shed some light on your post. >The problem with strength vs. speed has to do with Antagonist muscles. >They need to be stronger than the prime movers! If you punch for speed, >your triceps need to be stronger than (or at least well balanced with) your >biceps. But don't assume speed means power. >Slow punching (like in forms / katas) trains proper form and body >mechanics >until it is natural. After this, a trained fighter can use strength - hip >and leg strength - to add power to the punches. The strong triceps will >relax enough to let your whole body go into the punch, instead of >overcompensating to prevent injury. The biceps move the arm at high >velocity, this is your speed. >Of course, stretching helps strengthen the supporting tendons and >ligaments >as well, allowing them to relax more. That is another story. Look for the >Stretching FAQ on the web for more info on this, or I can send you a link >to it. >I have just recently joined the HIT mailing list, so can't post this >there >as of yet, of you feel the info is useful, you can post it to the group or >pass it on. >e-mail me if you have any (martial art related) questions I might be >able >to shed some light on. >Yours in the Arts >Dave "The Mantis" Jones [Question: Why can't he post this himself if he has joined? It's not a problem, you can post as soon as you are subscribed. As you like, though. --Rob]