-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: HIT Digest #136 - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 23:29:52 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: HIT Digest #136 >Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 22:51:36 EDT >From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #134 >1. Is superslow training superior, equal to, or inferior to explosive training >for increased athletic performance? I don't think there's any ONE answer to this (although everyone wishes training were as simple as "Do this!"). It will obviously depend on a host of factors including how you define athletic performance. Obviously different athletes have different needs for optimal performance. I think that one of the most important of which is the trainee's status. When you train a beginner, any program no matter how stupid will work (this lulls a lot of coaches into thinking they are MUCH better than they are). As you reach higher levels of performance, assuming that your sport requires explosive efforts, I think that slow training (and I NEVER said that I was arguing for SS training, only controled vs. explosive movements, there IS a difference) will have proportionally less impact on Rate of Force Development. I also think that the current technology we have *in the weight room* is insufficient to optimally and safely develop RFD. >2. Is superslow training superior, equal to, or inferior to explosive training >for hypertrophy/general fitness? Again, you have to define your terms. What's general fitness? It will vary depending on the person. My 90 year old grandmother will define fitness much differently than my mom. I think for the general public, who tends to be quite inattentive to proper training safety, slower movement speeds will be safer. More effective? That's a debate with no answer. >3. Is superslow training superior, equal to, or inferior to explosive training >for maximal strength development? Slower training by all means. AT least if you're talking about developing maximal strength across the full ROM. If you need to develop strenght only in the starting position of a movement, use explosive training. But if you want strength acros the full ROM, at some point you have to overload the middle and end ranges of that movement through *some* means. >4. Does either of these two methods have an advantage in fiber recruitment or >fiber fatigue? Fiber recruitment is a function of force requirements. As others have pointed out, you can inresae force requirements in two ways: a. Incresae load on bar: this is traditional strenght training b. Increase speed of movement: explosive training/plyometrics Which one has the 'advantage' will depend on which one is more appropriate. For a powerlifter, I'd use option a. For an Olympic lifter, I'd use b. this isn't necessarily an absolute case of what's *right* but rather what's *appropriate*. As far as fatigue, I think slower speeds will be more advantageous because it will increase time under load. Of course more reps can do the same thing. >5. Are plyometrics ever a good idea? Depends on the context. do I think they are necessary for a lineman? not really. Do I think they are appropriate for a high jumper? Most definitely. But I also think that most coaches (and I don't necessarily exclude myself from this) have NO idea how to properly work plyometrics into training without hurting their athletes (that is, it's not so much taht plyometrics are dangeros per se, just that the way they are applied in this country is moronic). American coaches seem to take things out of context from what they read about the Russians. There's a HUGE difference in training an athlete from age 5, building them up into depth jumps over a period of YEARS and taking a lineman and trying to get them into depth jumps over a period of WEEKS. I think plyometrics are primarily dangerous in that they are improperly applied. But it's no different than some moron coach reading that a Russian high jumper squatted triple bodyweight and trying to work an unprepared athlete into that level of performance quickly. And then concluding that weight training is inherently dangerous. I think properly applied, plyometrics can be useful. I just don't think we have enough concrete guidelines or experience in this country yet to use them properly. But the same can be said about how most approach weight training. Lyle McDonald, CSCS Do NOT send me unsolicited binary files. "RRRRRAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIHHHHHHHHHH" - GODZILLA
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Ramblings - from Dan Yourg
Top
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 22:39:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Yourg <dyourg@acusd.edu> Subject: 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, I thought I had read this, then I realized what I read was called "Reflections of a Hitter." :) The new "Delirium Ramblings", I mean "Reflections", gives us a topic for debate in that the movie review of "Lost in Space" was given a "white light." This was a much different review from that of our moderators who seemed to give it two red lights, and a white light for kids (he took his little sister and she liked it). I have faith in the moderator, and will pass on "Lost In Space", unless my two kids (four and three year old boys) drag me there. I wonder how much Matt LeBlanc benches? Dan
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Contradictions - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 08:49:16 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Contradictions I am having trouble understanding the last couple of digests. In 135 Mr. Krieger is replying to Mr. Baye regarding Ployometrics. Mr. Krieger states: Your assertion that "the only thing they (Plyometrics) produce is injury" is not supported in the scientific literature What Literature? He continues, 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. In Mr. Krieger's post regarding the explosive debate in item number two, midway through the paragraph, Mr. krieger states: " Therefore, an athelete 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 atheletes who are looking for an edge over their competion. 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; ....." Now, maybe I am misunderstanding what is being said here, or Mr. Krieger has made the same statements as Mr. Baye and Mr. Hahn about injury potential with plyometrics and explosive training. Perhaps Mr. Baye and Mr. Hahn used harsher words but IMO Mr. Krieger has said the same thing. Not looking for a fight, just some clairification. " Having more fun than a human should be allowed to have"
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: bench? - from Steve Raymond
Top
Date: 5 May 1998 21:28:46 -0800 From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com> Subject: Re: bench? Subject: Time: 8:11 AM RE>bench? Date: 5/6/98 >>I have tried everything >>to get my bench up..but nothing has worked. Some things to think about... How is your diet? Are you getting enough calories? Try eating more frequently. Get more sleep. Try varying the weight/rep/rep speed combination. See if you can make gains by doing 8-12 reps with a 2/4 cadence. Try doing only 1 or 2 work sets. Try increasing weight in smaller increments. A 5 lb. increase may be too much. This can be dome by attaching ankle weights to the middle of the bar. Some people also use large washers attached by small belts or velcro. Another option is to use double progression. Pick a weight that allows you to get 8 good reps in your top set. Next workout try to get 9. Or 8.5, then 9 the next time. Only increase weight when you get 11 or 12 in good form. Try a new chest exercise. Do dips or find a good machine. Come back to bench in 3 mos. Get a genetic splice from Arnold. spr
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: Etc, etc. - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 19:35:10 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: Etc, etc. >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... 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." My purpose was not to try to change the strength curve but vary the force output according to the curve. This occurs by accelerating in the region of the curve where one is strong and decelerating in the area where one is weak. It could be called CAT in a broader sense where deceleration stands for negative acceleration. The strength curve itself determines the optimal speed: slower than that and you are emphasizing the end-range, quicker than that and you are emphasizing the beginning part of the exercise. The idea of proper CAT is thus to "change" a constant resistance movement to a variable-resistant one (without using a cam). > >>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. True, but the resistance of a properly designed machine would anyway match closer to the form of one's strength curve than a pure barbell. >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> I consider POF (positions of flexion) a worthwhile idea for bodybuilding purposes if one can stand the increase of volume it brings compared to a pure hardgainer routine. BTW, IMO POF is about ROM, SS about TUT and CAT about MVC;-) Erkki
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: Subject: bench? - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 19:35:24 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: Subject: bench? >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'd suggest you to take another bench day on Friday. You can do close grip benches on that day or do a lighter bench session. My point is anyway that usually once a week at your level is too little. Another option is to do bench on Mon-Fri-Wed basis, in other words three times in two weeks. In that case you have to rearrange your split, though. Erkki
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: DejaGroove in HIT Digest #136 - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 19:35:34 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: DejaGroove in HIT Digest #136 >Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 22:51:36 EDT >From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #134 >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: I'll try but I don't claim my answers to be facts, just my opinions. >1. Is superslow training superior, equal to, or inferior to explosive training >for increased athletic performance? Inferior. >2. Is superslow training superior, equal to, or inferior to explosive training >for hypertrophy/general fitness? Superior for hypertrophy/can't say for general fitness. >3. Is superslow training superior, equal to, or inferior to explosive training >for maximal strength development? Equal or inferior. >4. Does either of these two methods have an advantage in fiber recruitment or >fiber fatigue? Yes. >5. Are plyometrics ever a good idea? Yes. >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. Seems a logical point, but the unclear issue is that with weights you are training rate of force at the upper part of the time-force curve while in athletic movements you often operate at the lower part of the curve. It's a question of how much transfer there will be. Erkki
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Reply to DejaGroove on 1RM - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 19:35:43 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: Reply to DejaGroove on 1RM >Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 10:50:41 -0500 >From: "Eric Boller" <edboller@fedex.com> >Subject: Reply to Dejagroove on 1RM >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 <snip> > >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? I agree that you must be stronger now but that's not the point. I'll analyze your bench press. You did 115 x 5 at the start and 175 x 3 now in SS. Your progress cannot be measured accurately because of the different rep numbers but let's suppose that you could now do 165 x 5 (you may better estimate it). Thus your strength increase in SS style is 43.5% (165/115 = 1.435). If the strength increase is independent of rep speed then you should be 43.5% stronger also in 2/4 protocoll which means that you should be able to perform 222 x 5 in that style. I ask you to try if you can do it and tell us how you did. Erkki
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Inroad via. Isometric - from Tim
Top
Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 15:49:20 -0400 From: Tim <TWBruneau0@mcnet.milligan.edu> Subject: Inroad via. Isometric Lyle McDonald wrote regarding 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? Erkki Turunen replied: >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? I hate to butt-in here, but I don't think that Lyle was implying that there would be no inroad at this point. Granted, I'm not exactly sure how muscle fibers are recruited (does anyone for sure?) but I assume from what I've learned that the point of lifting is to recruit as many muscle fibers as possible through lifting weights, and then to fatigue them during that time (i.e. stimulate them) so they will respond via an adaptation. So, during the isometric part of the lift, yes, force remains the same. However, during that 15 seconds (as is implied in the above example) muscle fibers are going to continue to experience an increased level of fatigue. As your ST muscle fibers (which were the first muscle fibers to be recruited during the first rep of the set) reach a deeper and deeper level of fatigue something else (like FT muscle fibers) must be working harder (i.e. being recruited) to keep that weight from moving in the negative direction. When one is no longer able to keep a weight from moving in the negative direction, I would assume this means that all, if not most, muscle fibers are fatigued. I would also assume that there would be some variables in there that one would have to consider such as TUT, the rep scheme, and the proper amount of weight to achieve the greatest level of muscle fatigue (stimulation). In other words, I imagine one could fatigue their ST muscle fibers too quickly (too early) in a set so that they would not have enough capacity at the end of the set to work in conjunction with FT fibers, providing the FT fibers enough time to reach an optiaml level of fatigue. Tim - TWBruneau0@mcnet.milligan.edu
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Super Squats - from jmhendon
Top
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 16:01:44 -0500 From: "jmhendon" <jmhendon@sonet.net> Subject: Super Squats What is the super squats routine that everybody talks about?Could anybody give me a copy of it?
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: HIT Digest #136 - from LFeld49371
Top
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 19:21:47 EDT From: LFeld49371 <LFeld49371@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #136 re:Hitdigest #136 Lyle MacDonald writes: <<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.>> The Superslow 10/5 cadence, for the most part, assumes and compensates for the presence of machine friction and/or an uneven resistance curve. Under these conditions, a 10 second negative would be giving the muscles an undesireable respite. As far as safety is concerned, since muscles are up to 40% stronger in the negative phase, the likelihood of injury due is decreased accordingly as long as the resistance is lowered in a controlled manner. In exercises using body weight, barbells, manual resistance, or friction-free equiptment, a 10/10 cadence(or there abouts) is preferable. LCF
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: Mike's comments on ...Ramblings - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 21:13:09 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Re: Mike's comments on ...Ramblings The reason I "dread" working out sometimes is because it is brutally hard, and often leaves me feeling nauseous and faint. This is the same reason I often sleep immediately after my workouts, as fatigued as my legs are, there isn't much else I can do. Why the Aleve and Caffeine? I don't see it as a crutch. Like I said, it's an experiment. If something might make it possible to train harder, and thus produce better results, it's worth looking into. When I go back to training without it for a few weeks, I'll compare the results. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild http://www.superslow.com/
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. acceleration - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 21:20:07 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: acceleration J. Krieger writes >>>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.>>> Only up to a point, after which momentum will do most of the work, and the muscle will do little or nothing. >>>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. <<< I never said it was necessary to eliminate momentum, just to minimize it as much as is practical. >>> 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. <<< Ballistic movements during exercise will improve the RFD one is capable of during those specific exercises, but since RFD is largely a matter of motor skill, which is highly specific, this would do little to improve it in other movements. If one wants to improve their RFD in shot putting for example, they must practice shot putting in as fast a manner as possible. Exercising fast will not make you fast, and exercising slow will not make you slow, or vice versa. If you want to become faster or more explosive in the performance of a particular movement, then practice performing that movement in such a manner. Unless your goal is to be able to perform an exercise explosively for the sake of performing that exercise explosively, then you should move slowly during exercise, because it is safer, and more effective. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild http://www.superslow.com/
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Plyometrics - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 21:24:56 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Plyometrics J. Krieger writes >>> 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). <<< The very fact that these researchers even considered studying plyometrics disqualifies them for consideration as "scientific". There is NO scientific literature which supports the notion of plyometrics, and anyone who understands reflexes knows why. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild http://www.superslow.com/
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. Headaches - from Mike Kilen
Top
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 07:03:54 -0500 From: Mike Kilen <infinity@isd.net> Subject: Headaches I've had a problem during my last three workout and I thought someone might be able to give me a recommendation on how to proceed. First some background. I have been doing a hardgainer routine for the last three months. During that time I have been able to increase weight in all lifts at almost every workout. Now here is the problem: during my lower body workout last week when I was doing my 20 rep squat (my first exercise of the workout) at about rep 12 I started to feel pressure on the right-rear side of my neck. As I continued the reps the pressure basically exploded throughout the right side of my head and by the time I was done the right side of my head was pounding. The headache stuck around a good five hours after the workout. During my next workout, I was doing my first set of bench press and it happened again, this time I stopped the workout immediately. I performed the upper body workout the next and got the headache but not as severe, I think this was in part because I warmed up and stretched a lot more before the workout. Yesterday, I was going to do my lower body workout again. I warmed up properly and then did a few warm-up reps of squats. During my work set at about rep 10 the pressure started building again and by rep 12 I had to stop and did not finish the workout. At this point I plan to take a week or two off and then begin a new cycle. I plan on starting at about 85% of where I left off on each exercise. Sorry for the long post, but does anyone have any idea of what might have happened or how I should proceed? Thanks in advance, Mike