-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Warmups - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 21:23:48 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Warmups >Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 07:35:20 -0500 >From: ivan_and_princess@juno.com >Subject: 135X15 I asked: >>>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. That wasn't my point. A 15 rep set is going to generate some lactic acid which will cause early fatigue. Let me rephrase comment as "What do 15 reps at 135 provide you that 5 reps at 135, which uses far less energy and generates far less lactic acid doesn't?" Of course, as a 550+ squatter, why bother with a set at 135 anyhow, that's less than 50% of your max? Lyle McDonald, CSCS Do NOT send me unsolicited binary files. "RRRRRAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIHHHHHHHHHH" - GODZILLA
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Lifting and expectations - from Jay Morgan
Top
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 02:57:21 +1300 From: jason.morgan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Jay Morgan) Subject: Lifting and expectations I am looking at the role of expectations or beliefs in maximal lifting. Briefly Mahoney (1979) notes that European lifters plateau at metric intervals (100kg, 200kg) while lifters from the United States tend to plateau at imperial marks (100lbs, 200lbs etc). Also power lifters may be tricked into lifting more if they are inaccurately informed by their coach of the weight on the bar. Basically Dishman (1980) differentiates between a maximal exertion (MVC) and 'all out effort', pointing out that they are not necessarily the same (eg some CNS inhibition). A number of studies have shown the strong influence of expectations (Nelson & Furst 1972; Ness & Patton 1979; see Biddle 1986 for a review) I am presently investigating two different interventions aimed at cognitive restructuring of expectations. I am looking for some feedback from lifters regarding expectations. Does anyone who is still counting reps project in advance the number of repetitions and weight they expect to be able to lift for an exercise? Basically I want to examine the common experience that people fatigue at a predetermined point eg expect to get 6 reps at 100kg for incline bench...feel fine until the 5th rep when the task is almost completed and just manage to squeeze out the last rep. Any q's, comments, stories or anecdotes would be greatly appreciated and can be directed to me off list at: jmorgan@pooka.otago.ac.nz Many thanks and happy training, Jay Morgan School of Physical Education University of Otago New Zealand
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Deja Groove's Questions about Superiority - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:13:48 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Deja Groove's Questions about Superiority I do not view any training method as inherently superior overall to another. The appropriate training method depends completely upon the goals of an individual. Most training methods have some appropriateness or validity depending upon the situation. James Krieger
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Brent's Bench Problems - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:25:12 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Brent's Bench Problems You may want to try what is called a wave loading scheme to help get your bench up. I know Dan Wagman, PhD, CSCS, advocates this type of loading scheme. If you're only benching once a week, here's the progression. Do 5 sets of bench after you have finished warming up. Each set is a maximal effort set (RM load). Start with a 10-12 RM load on each set. The next week, add 10 lbs to the bar and do as many reps as possible. The following week, go back to your original starting poundage. The next week, add another 10 lbs to the bar and so as many reps as possible again. Keep doing this in wavelike fashion until you can't get at least 4 reps with a weight. Once you have reached this point, begin the cycle again, but starting with a weight 5-10 lbs heavier than you began the entire cycle with. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, then here's an example. The following list is the poundages for your first maximal set of bench: Week 1: 10 RM @ 130 lbs Week 2: 7 RM @ 140 lbs Week 3: 10 @ 130 Week 4: 5 RM @ 150 Week 5: 10 @ 130 Week 6: 3 RM @ 160 Didn't get 5 reps, so the cycle begins again, with a slightly heavier starting poundage Week 7: 10 RM @ 140 Week 8: 7 RM @ 150 Week 9: 10 @ 140 Week 10: 5 RM @ 160 Week 11: 10 @ 140 Week 12: 3 RM @ 170 Didn't get 5 reps, so begin cycle again, with slightly heavier starting poundage (145 or 150). The progression outlined here is how you might progress. Your cycles may last longer or may be shorter. I'm guessing on how your repetitions might go. Just remember to cycle the poundages as outlined. James Krieger
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: Value of debates - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:08:26 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Value of debates > From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> > > 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? Yes. Someone else on this list once said, "The presentation of different viewpoints encourages autonomous thinking." There are probably many people on this list who are not sure exactly how they want to train or whether certain types of training may fit their goals. Seeing different viewpoints on training philosophies allows people to make up their minds on what they may feel is going to be their best course of action. For example, Andrew Baye and I obviously disagree on many things. However, it would be wrong for someone to be "censored" from either Andrew's opinion or mine. [I agree....well, you should know that by now. ALL viewpoints are encouraged here. Within the guidelines of course. --Rob] For example, it would be wrong for me to tell someone, "Don't even bother listening to the Superslow advocates." It is best for people to hear my side as well as Andrew's side and let them decide for themselves on whose theories and ideas hold the most water. If you've only been exposed to one viewpoint for your entire training career, your training and your progress are probably going to reflect this. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If someone on this list is struggling, they may find insight through these debates on why they are struggling and may be encouraged to try something new. These debates arise because the field of strength training research and philosophies is still in its infancy. Much still needs to be learned. The field basically is one big gray area rather than a black and white issue. >, or are they trying to prove who is right > and who is wrong? This forum allows me to test my ideas as well as test the ideas of others. This is extremely important for me since I am considering pursuing a PhD in exercise science. I also end up learning much through the comments of others during the debate. I solidify my own knowledge and theories as well as form opinions about the theories of others. I also come up with future research ideas. These debates present tremendous value to me. The people who do not find value in the debates don't have to read them. James Krieger
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. RE: HIT Digest #135 - from Don Gwinn
Top
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 22:26:14 -0500 From: Don Gwinn <dgwinn@monm.edu> Subject: RE: HIT Digest #135 A note to the omnivorous moderator: My post to #136 got spliced in with somebody else's comments--just a little note. Thanks. [Sorry. I just downloaded a new text editor to replace that !@#$!@#$! Wordpad I was using. Should cause me less grief...and thus you less grief. --Rob] 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. IMHO this analogy misses the point of training. The weight does NOT have to accelerate, except to the speed at which one wishes to lift it. Effort is the goal, not acceleration, because effort produces gains. Acceleration moves more weight farther, but that's only important in a weightlifting competition--in training, stressing and fatiguinjg muscles is the goal. 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.