-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. i've got something to say/ask - from Par
Top
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 22:11:30 EDT From: Par <Par@aol.com> Subject: i've got something to say/ask ok, i've got a little something to say this time. i really never read the digest because it's so long and i don't even get it. i tried a couple times but the responses just don't make sense. would anyone mind telling me what all the talk is about? everything is "Re:" something and i don't know what the initial question was. help me out here guys. [I have to concur with Ryan here. I have asked several times for people to put proper subject headers in your replies as courtesy to other readers. I'm not going to do it for you. Also, there are people who tend to reply with a post PLUS include the WHOLE digest you are replying to. I simply delete the unwanted stuff, as it's not a big deal, but please try and remember to do this and save me some time. I need it. --Rob] also, i've got a question. ok, here's the situation. to tell you the truth, i'm 17. i've been lifting weights pretty seriously for about a year, and am getting ready to really bulk up beginning in a few weeks (i'm waiting until after my exams). i have pretty good size, about 193 lbs. with 7% body fat. ive been hearing a lot of hype about this creatine monohydrate and have done some research myself. all i hear is bad stuff but all i find from research is good stuff. does anybody out there take this stuff? because id really like to try it and if its just a waste of my money and will kill me, id like to know. so, anybody that can help me out here i'd really appreciate it. and dont blow me off for being a little kid here, help me out. ~ryan
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: Effort - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 22:32:08 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Effort > From: Don Gwinn <dgwinn@monm.edu> > > "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." While effort is always important in one's training, it is not the sole goal of a training program. I can do a 100 RM set, which would require an extreme amount of discomfort and effort, and definitely fatigue my muscles. However, this would do little for me as far as strength gains are concerned. The entire point that I have been making is that if you lower the weight to a lower % of 1 RM, thus lowing the force requirements, you will generally reduce motor unit recruitment, no matter how fatiguing the set is or how much effort is required. Suboptimal motor unit recruitment is not always desirable if you are training for maximal strength. James Krieger
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: HIT Digest #137 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 01:35:47 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #137 In a message dated 98-05-08 00:40:01 EDT, you write: << 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 >> LOL, James...I asked the questions in very specific ways in order to try to circumvent just such answers...but you eloquently and (even better) concisely expressed a good point. Thanks for being the first to answer the questions. I hope, however, that not everyone answers the questions the same way! Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: HIT Digest #137 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 01:45:28 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #137 In a message dated 98-05-08 00:40:01 EDT, you write: << The people who do not find value in the debates don't have to read them. >> Another excellent point. I agree with James. This forum allows expression of all types of viewpoint, regardless of how wrong they are. After all, everyone has the right to be wrong (I, of course, never choose to exercise that right). But in all seriousness, there is stuff in this digest that I only skim, or even skip, and those bored with the debates can do the same thing. In the meantime, even if, in a worst-case scenario, we are helping no one through this debate, and it all boils down to a matter of academic, impractical scientific knowlege, or even worse, ego (I don't think that is what this is, but I will grant it for the sake of my next point), so what? It's just fun, and in the short time that I have been a part of this, it has never exploded into any real nastiness. Eytan Koch, CSCS, NDR (Nondoctor)
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: HIT Digest #137 - from Sonofsquat
Top
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 02:22:35 EDT From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #137 In a message dated 98-05-08 00:44:34 EDT, Don Gwinn wrote: << Acceleration moves more weight farther, but that's only important in a weightlifting competition--in training, stressing and fatiguing muscles is the goal. >> Stressing yes, fatiguing, no.... No research has ever stated fatigue has anything to do with muscular growth. Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: HIT Digest #137 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 02:24:12 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #137 "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." My point was that strength gained through SS training does not translate into explosiveness. Maybe Lyle or James or Andrew or someone else could comment on studies comparing tranference of strength from SS to 2/4...I personally imagine that SAID holds true here and the tranference is less than complete, but I have not seen any studies on this. But certainly the ability to generate as much force as possible in as little time as possible (explosiveness) is a seperate skill from the ability to generate as much force as possible in (can I phrase it this way) as much time as possible (SS). The transferrence is limited at best. Both Drs. Kraemer and Zatsiorsky have pointed out that training for maximal strength as opposed to RFD (rate of force development) is not a good idea for athletes. As far as whether or not you quote studies, I think that in our search for the truth, scientific evidence, while certainly not perfect, is the best method we have. I certainly don't want to downplay your own experiences, but think of a study as the experiences of a whole bunch of people, closely monitored and controlled. At this point, I have not seen any research that shows explosive training is a bad method for increasing athletic performance, or that superslow is a good method. If anyone has seen these studies, please direct me to them. A new point: While I hate to admit this, I am slowly becoming convinced that low volume training can be as effective as high volume training, kicking and screaming all the way. While there is evidence both ways, there seem to be far more studies showing that low volume is as effective as high volume for strength and hypertrophy gains. Can anyone offer convincing evidence either way (especially non-HIT guys...I would love to believe that high volume is better...)? Despite the above, I feel that strictly in terms of physiological benefits (strength, power, hypertrophy, etc), high volume is certainly no worse than low volume. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: HIT Digest #137 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 02:42:12 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #137 "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?" I am not sure I understand your question, but I can certainly say this: I cannot determine your goal for you. I honestly don't know whether SS or explosive lifting is more risky. You need to decide what the risks are associated with each, and what you are aiming for, and then perform a cost/benefit analysis. For example, if you feel SS is safer, and if you are simply attempting to lift as much weight as you can, you should use SS. If you feel that SS is safer, but you need to develop rate of force, then you need to decide how badly you need to increase your rate of force development. Are you a pro athlete, with millions of dollars on the line? Or do you simply play basketball once a week with your office buddies? And so on. I hope this addressed your question. If not, then maybe the other guys will do a better job! Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. How much is enough, and the love handle dilemma - from Steven Brener
Top
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 06:15:30 PDT From: "Steven Brener" <sbrener@hotmail.com> Subject: How much is enough, and the love handle dilemma Folks, I've been trying HIT for about the last three months and really am impressed with the system. I have a question though that I would appreciate some feedback on. A minute or two after I do my one set to failure I find that I am able to squeeze out a few more reps. Should I do a second set just to make sure I really squeezed out all I can? Or will it lead to the dreaded overtraining? Also, I do crunches, but would like to firm up those little love handles I have (not bad really, but I notice them). Got any suggestions? Thanks. Steve
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Training type - from Jeff Ventura
Top
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 9:50 -0500 From: "Jeff Ventura" <Jeff.Ventura@ms.cmsconnect.com> Subject: Training type Despite all the debate about explosive v. HIT v. SuperSlow v. volume v. small shaved chinchillas [Uh, what's a "chinchilla"? Is that a small dog or a Mexican dish? Please don't say both, I just ate. --Rob] I can offer this: I began HIT exactly one month ago, and I've: * put on 4 lbs. of lean weight * dropped bodyfat by .4% * increased maximum weight on EVERY exercise * had my vertical leap increase by 1.25 inches (just had it measured last night) All this comes from a sudden a complete switch to HIT, after five solid months of zero gains on a volume/explosive training regimen. So - debate all you want, but my mind's made up. The proof's in the results. And Dwayne Wimmer, if you're reading this, thanks again for all your help. Jeff Ventura
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: HIT Digest #137 - from ivan_and_princess@juno.com
Top
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 16:20:48 -0500 From: ivan_and_princess@juno.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #137 >>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 But that was your point. At least I read it as such. I could warm up with 315 I suppose, but I like 135 for 15 reps. And I don't get even slightly tired from it. My conditioning is such that it doesn't bother me. Shawn