-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: HIT Digest #137 - from PRSNLFTNSS
Top
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:23:06 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS <PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #137 It is erroneous to conclude or state: <<-in training, stressing and fatiguing muscles is the goal. Don Gwinn, dgwinn@monm.edu, HIT Digest #137 It has been said, many years ago in a green ergonomics or physiology text I saw while in Grad school by a Doctor/PhD Simonson that" there are as many different types of fatigue as there as work methods to induce fatigue. Simply inducing fatigue does not guarantee that the appropriate stress has been induced. Endurance stress begets endurance development, and less bodily strain from comparable stressors. Further, while fatigue is a consequence of physical work, it is not likely to be the key stimulus. I don't believe that there is a single study that demonstrates that fatigue is a stimulus for either gains in strength or size. One might have a better argument stating the actual amount and intensity overload of the work done, relative to ones physical abilities is the key and the goals of training to improve any component of fitness; that is provided that the overload is able to stress and develop the specific neuromuscular mechanisms limiting the goal component of fitness. -in training, overloading of the specific neuromuscular mechanisms limiting muscular performance is the goal. Pete LaChance prsnlftnss@aol.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. RE: FW: skill=speed: Hit Mailing List - from One
Top
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 19:05:50 -0400 From: One <wlucke@vt.edu> Subject: RE: FW: skill=speed: Hit Mailing List >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. > > Could you please post that link to the list (or e-mail me personally if you don't want to post)? I found the stretching FAQ once, but lost my bookmark file, and have not been able to get back to it. Thank you. 2nd degree Kajukenbo, 1st degree Taekwondo, Boxing coach, and Gracie Jiu Jitsu? Quite a list of credentials. I am impressed. I have never even heard of Kajukenbo, though. I would appreciate the enlightenment. William H. Lucke IV
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Hack squats - from Y. Zohar
Top
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 17:31:01 +0300 From: "Y. Zohar" <zoharyz@netvision.net.il> Subject: Re: Hack squats In my gym there is no power rack or squat cage. In fact, I am just about the only person who does any free weight barbell work other than the bench press or curl. I train twice a week, full body, Hardgainer program. I am constantly progressing. Right now I am doing the 20 rep routine. On day 1 I do 20 Sumo deadlifts immediately followed by pullovers. The rest of the routine is 2 sets with less reps. On day 2 I do leg presses, since I feel Smith Squats are bad for my knees. I recentlly read about hack squats with a barbell held behind the rear. I could do this at my gym. How does the Hack squat measure up to the conventional squat ? Should I relace the leg press with this exercise ? Yehoshua Zohar
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Machines vs. Free weights - from Robert Spector
Top
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 15:42:43 -0400 From: "Robert Spector" <rspector@earthlink.net> Subject: Machines vs. Free weights I understand thru my readings at Cyberpump that there is some disagreement amongst HIT'ers and SuperSlow colleagues about the use of machine versus free weights, relative to variable resistance. The notion often advertised is that some well designed machines which are able to "match machine resistive torque to human torque potential" are superior to resistance provided during free weight exercise because they are able to optimally load the involved muscles over the entire range of motion. I find this argument to be insignificant. If one is performing the typical HIT protocol with lets say 12 down to 6 slow speed reps, they are using a resistance that is somewhere between 70 to 80% of their max (i.e., estimated 1RM). That being the case, that the majority of the initial repetitions of the set being performed with a submaximal resistance. That is every rep but the last rep underloads the muscle. If lets say all but the last rep is near maximal, is their really any significance of the resistance curve over the ROM. My laboratory experience is that the only place that one can assume the theoretical optimum is when doing exercise on the Ariel 2000 or related computer interfaced mode which enable slow speed Isokenetic exercise (e.g., bench presses, squats, etc.) with a multi-purpose leverarm. Even with such an impractical piece of equipment (due to costs and availability), I do not recall a single study that has ever demonstrated that the strength gains derived after variable resistance training are greater than the gains that can be achieved with free weights, when the testing of improvements were preformed with the training apparatus. Ironically, the cam designs are typically designed from isometric measurements across the ROM. Further, muscles do not even appear able to sustain force outputs across the entire ROM, relative to isometric predictions, as one can reliably observe greater force outputs at the later portions of the ROM with partial ROM movements than during maximal effort full ROM movements. Is their any proof that variable resistance produces superior results? Does it really matter what the resultant resistance to the muscle looks like? When a muscle fiber is activated, it shortens concentrically,isometrical ly or eccentrically to generate tension from one end of the fiber to the other (i.e., origin towards insertion). It is erroneous to say that a partial range exercise only works one portion of the muscle. It might be better to say that partial range overloading only stresses the sarcomere at a specific point in their length tension relationship. One might even question this absolute conclusion considering a phenomena called "sarcomere length non uniformity". It would be intriguing to "find out " from God above, if there are different adaptations within the sarcomere (i.e., components of the actin and myosin) in response to exercise of either the first, middle, or latter portion of the ROM. On the basis of these perspectives, for the targeted muscles involved, the training design appears to have more to do with the resultant training effects than do the resistance curve experienced during machine or free weight exercise. Additional Thoughts: If there are "angle specific gains" in muscular strength as a result of limited range of motion training, and typical sporting activities (i.e., sprinting, jumping) only feature movement over the latter "stronger" portions of the exercise range of motion, an athlete might be justified in complementing a full ROM exercise routine with partial range heavier resistance exercise. Athempts to limit training loads to that which can only be lifted thru a complete range of motion might unnecessarily limit the potential training stimulus applicable/transferable to sport and normal physical activity. Pete LaChance prsnlftnss@aol.com
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Pure Power - from Tim Croft
Top
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 19:27:14 -0500 From: Yamaraja@webtv.net (Tim Croft) Subject: Pure Power My first Post. I've seen alot about whether super-slow or explosive traing is best. Personaly, having experimented with both, I've found for me, if it's strength and mass I want, to follow this routine: One basic power excercis for major bodypart, like Bench for chest, Rows for lats etc., and ONE rep, full force. Thats it, write down your poundage and do it again THE NEXT DAY, upping the max lbs. and again THE NEXT DAY. This intense workout of course will lead to burn-out, so I do this for three days (in a row) and then take the rest of the week off. Your max's will jump through the roof. My theory is, " the more weight you can move, the bigger you'll become." Has anyone ever tried this besides me?
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Inroad vs. isometric - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 20:28:30 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Inroad vs. isometric >Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 15:49:20 -0400 >From: Tim <TWBruneau0@mcnet.milligan.edu> >Subject: Inroad via. Isometric > >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?) All the data says that it's by force requirements. >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. Right, further inroad. >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. Not necessarily. For example, the inability to complete a concentric rep with 100 lbs of force required, doesn't mean that you have fatigued all fibers, only that you are incapable of generating 100 lbs of force. by the same token, just because an isometric starts to come backwards (negative), only means that your momentary muscular force productions are lower than momentary force requirements, not that ou've gotten 100% fiber fatigue. Which was sort of what I was trying to get with my little ranting paragraph. We've got levels of inroad from 0% (sitting on one's butt) to perhaps 25% (a set with 75% of max taken to fatigue) to absolute muscular failure (a complete inability to generate any force whatsoever). And a given style of training (none, typical HIT set taken to momentary failure and then stopped, typical HIT set taken to failure + 10 second isometric + 10 second negative, drop set form hellw here you keep stripping off weights until you can't even lift the limb) will fall somewhere on that continuum. The original question was "Why a 20% inroad?" Well, because certain HIT luminaries said so basically. Why not 50% inroad? Or absolute muscular failure (100% inroad)? Becaus at some point you surpass an individual's ability to recover in any reasonable amount of time. That ability being quite individual (diet, sleep pattersn, anaboli status, genetics, etc) making it a bit simplistic to give any kind of absolute statements like "20% inroad but no more." Without defining terms, any comments about volume (and I note that the person who across the board condemnded 'volume programs' didn't bother to answer my queries about what constituted 'high volume') and intenisty kind of meaningless except as an exchange of rhetoric. > 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. by definition, ST fibers have longer fatigue times than FT. You couldn't fatigue ST fibers first and then FT fibers, only the reverse. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Injury and SS - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 20:28:40 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Injury and SS >Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 19:21:47 EDT >From: LFeld49371 <LFeld49371@aol.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #136 >Lyle McDonald 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. That didn't adress my question. If I recall the SS manual (and various articles I've read), SS basically uses F = ma to demonstrate both muscular and body/joint forces. That is, a higher acceleration = higher injury *potential*. Whether you lift or lower in 5 seconds, the peak accelerations (and presumably the joint forces) are identical. So why is a 5" negative ok but a 5" concentric is an injury waiting to happen? Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Circular logic, see logic, circular - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 20:28:46 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Circular logic, see logic, circular >Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 21:24:56 -0400 >From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> >Subject: Plyometrics >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. > I'm sorry but that's a totally spurious answer. Basically you've defined anyone who researches plyometrics as non-scientific and then used that to cnclude that there is no scientific research on plyometrics. That's circular reasoning, no different than the 15th century when scientists defined anyone who had evidence of meteors as insane and then concluded that, for lack of any data, there were no such things as meteors. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. New Question Reaised by Debate! - from Robert Ohlhausen
Top
Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 21:02:41 -0500 From: Robert Ohlhausen <rao@sprynet.com> Subject: New Question Reaised by Debate! I've been following the debate regarding superslow vs. polymetric (please excuse all misspellings), fiber recruitment, et.al. I must admit that I don't understand most of it and it's not too relevant to my training needs, but while reading one of the posts a question did pop into my head, which you all may be able to answer. Someone mentioned that at some point the lactic acid buildup in the muscle(s) being trained will be too great for you to overcome -- and anyone who has trained hard has certainly been there. To finally get to the point, the question that this raises for me is this -- Is there any benefit to continuing to push (or hold a negative) once you start to get the "lactic rush", or in other words, once the acid takes over can there be any additional useful stimulation of the muscle? The more I think about this, the more I think that I may have been banging my head against this wall all these years for no good reason. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Robert Ohlhausen ro@sprynet.com
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Valuable Information - from Kevin Dye
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 13:29:15 +0930 From: "Kevin Dye" <kevind@picknowl.com.au> Subject: Valuable Information For all those trainee's seeking valuable weight training knowledge I highly recommend Brian Johnston's "Strength Training: Objective Principles of an Exact Discipline". After weighing up the value of this manual [considering the expense ordering from Australia], two weeks ago I finally decided to order a copy. The way I looked at it was, considering what a years worth of Muscle rags would cost me, and how much actual information they contained that would be of benefit, this seemed a bargain. While eagerly waiting its arrival, Mike [Mentzer] was kind enough to e-mail me and inform me of its dispatch date, [which boosted my enthusiasm immensely]. It arrived this week and I was delighted to discover that it was very thorough in content, explaining extremely complex issues in a easy to read and understandable manner. Brian tackles every factor that is responsible for effective training, and one read was definitely not enough as each chapter contained a wealth of information to digest. Having purchased books for the past twenty years, there has barely been anything worth buying over the past year, but since this investment I consider this book one of my best purchases, it has helped me understand aspects of working out that I had a rough idea about but never truly understood. My one disappointment is, "why wasn't this damn thing available when I first started"??? Kevin Dye [Accurate knowledge is the true wealth of the world - Darwin]
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: HIT Digest #138 - from jon and stacy ziegler
Top
Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 23:01:33 +0000 From: jon and stacy ziegler <rutger1@jps.net> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #138 After having followed the arguments and counter arguments concerning the pros and cons of various exercise philosophies I'm beginning to wonder how weightlifters and bodybuilders of the past ever made any strength and muscular progress without the wisdom of today's "gurus". I have noticed that the word "guru" is really starting to pop up more and more in today's publications. According to "Ironman" everyone in their magazine is a "guru". Well anyway I am digressing. Could it be that we are really making weight training, whether it is for bodybuilding or competetive lifting, to complicated? I have read some programs from powerlifting Guru's and you almost need to be a statistician to figure out what the heck they're talking about, let alone being independently wealthy so you could have the time to get those workouts in and then sleep because you'd be to tired to do anything else (I believe "grossly overtrained" is the term we are looking for.). Well anyway I don't believe that weightlifting or bodybuilding, or whatever everyone is into now, needs to be so complicated, lift intensely and infrequently, eat right, take creatine monohydrate, and spend the rest of the day doing something else. Spend time with your significant other! Oh no, there goes Tokyo, go go Godzilla! Jon
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Plyometrics: Extremely dangerous??? - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 00:11:01 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Plyometrics: Extremely dangerous??? On the notion that plyometrics are "extremely dangerous", Hewett et al (1) found a plyometric training program to actually decrease peak landing forces from a volleyball block jump by 22% and decrease knee adduction and abduction moments by around 50%. By these results, they concluded that "this training may have a significant effect on knee stabilization and prevention of serious knee injury among female athletes." According to this research, plyometrics can decrease the potential for injury, not increase it. 1. Hewett, T.E., A.L. Stroupe, T.A. Nance, and F.R. Noyes. Plyometric training in female athletes. Decreased impact forces and increased hamstring torques. Am J Sports Med. 24(6):765-773. 1996. James Krieger
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re: Plyometrics and science - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 00:49:15 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Plyometrics and science > From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> > > 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. Please explain your assertion. The basis of plyometric training is a rapid eccentric action followed by a rapid concentric action. The rapid eccentric action causes the myotatic stretch reflex to occur, which results in a greater concentric force than what could occur without the rapid stretch. For people that don't believe this, try doing a vertical jump by squatting down and holding the static position for a short period, and then jumping. Now do a vertical jump in the normal fashion with a quick reversal of movement at the bottom of the jump position. The latter type of jump will be higher because more force is developed since a rapid stretch occurs in the latter movement; this rapid stretch invokes the stretch reflex, resulting in greater force development and a higher vertical jump. Now do an approach jump with several steps. The vertical height achieved will be even greater. This is due to a more forceful and rapid eccentric action (also called a countermovement) achieved by the approaching step. The main explanation behind the stretch-shortening cycle is that connective tissue stores elastic energy when slightly stretched; this stored elastic energy increases forces output. Your assertion that "there is NO scientific literature which supports (plyometrics)" is not supported; Kraemer and Fleck (1) have referenced several studies that support the idea of stored elastic energy (2-4). If plyometrics were somehow ineffective or were not based on sound physiological principles as you are insinuating, then they would simply not produce results. However, numerous studies have demonstrated signficant improvements in various jumping tasks and even strength tasks (1). Also, if the idea of plyometrics was somehow invalid, then there would be no difference between the 3 types of vertical jumps that I outlined earlier. 1. Kraemer, W.J., and S.J. Fleck. Designing Resistance Training Programs. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1997. 2. Bosco, C., I. Tarkka, and P.V. Komi. Effects of elastic energy and myoelectrical potentiation of triceps surae during stretch-shortening cycle exercises. Sports Med. 3:137-140. 1982. 3. Bosco, C., G. Montanari, R. Ribacchi, P. Giovenali, F. Latteri, G. Iachelli, M. Faina, R. Colli, A. Dal Monte, M. La Rosa, G. Cortili, and F. Saibene. Relationship between the efficiency of muscular work during jumping and the nergetics of running. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 56:138-43. 1987. 4. Farley, C.T., R. Blickhan, J. Saito, and C.R. Taylor. Hopping frequency in humans: A test of how springs set stride frequency in bouncing gaits. J. Appl. Physiol. 71:2127-2132. 1991. James Krieger