-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Acceleration and RFD - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 00:03:40 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Acceleration and RFD > From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> > > 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. Only if I have now gotten the car to a certain velocity, so acceleration is no longer required. If I want to continue to accelerate the car to an even higher velocity, I must continue to apply force. Also, a car does not have a constant force (ignoring friction) acting in the opposite direction. A weight has gravity constantly forcing the weight in the direction opposite from where you want to move it. This drastically reduces the momentum in the direction that the weight is moving. Does momentum play as big of a role in strength training as the Superslow advocates say? I would contend that it doesn't, except for in extremely fast lifting tempos such as 1-2 second concentric actions. What about a 4 second concentric action? This is a relatively slow tempo, slower than what you may see people do in most gyms, except for maybe during the use of extremely high-intensity loads, such as 1 RM's which require very slow movements due to the force/velocity curve. Is a 10 second concentric worth the drastically reduced amount of weight that can be used during an exercise, which will lower motor unit recruitment? I would disagree, if your goal is to become as strong as possible which necessitates maximal motor unit recruitment during training sessions. In a 1-2 second concentric action, the inital point of the ROM is going to be overloaded more than with a slower lifting tempo due to a higher acceleration requirement. Now we start to get into Lyle's comments about tempo and how slower tempos will more evenly load throughout the ROM, but will not load beginning points of the ROM as much as a faster tempo. So, basically what it comes down to is that the choice of lifting tempo is going to depend upon your goals. > >>> 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 this statement was true, then please explain why the following occurred: a. Masterson et al (1) found weighted rope jump training 3 times per week to significantly improve 1 RM leg press, a completely unrelated motor skill. They also found increases in vertical jump ability and 30-sec power output on a stationary bike, also unrelated motor skills. b. Baker et al (2) found the strength training programs that they compared, which each included a power exercise (the clean pull) which emphasizes power development in the hip and thigh musculature, to significantly improve vertical jump performance, despite no practice of vertical jump "skill". Also, this increase in vertical jump was not due to an increase in strength because no correlation (r=0.11) was found between 1 RM squat improvement and improvement in vertical jump. c. Kraemer (3) found a strength training program that included power exercises (hang cleans or power cleans) significantly improved vertical jump greater than one that did not. Vertical jump was not practiced by either group. d. Wilson et al (5) found that explosive weight training with a load that maximized mechanical power output (weighted squat jumps) significantly improved nonspecific measures of dynamic athletic performance (30 m sprint, vertical jump with and without countermovement, maximal cycle test, isokinetic leg extension test, and maximal isometric test). One more side note, on the idea espoused by some individuals that maximal strength training is good enough to improve power. Ostrowski et al (4) found no improvements in vertical jump despite significant improvements in maximal squat strength in all groups tested. Their training protocol included no power exercises. However, this lack of improvement in vertical jump was not simply due to a lack of practice in vertical jump since other studies that used power exercises have demonstrated improvements in vertical jump without specifically practicing vertical jump. 1. Masterson, G.L, and S.P. Brown. Effects of weighted rope jump training on power performance tests in collegians. J. Strength Cond. Res. 7:108-14. 1993. 2. Baker, D., G. Wilson, and R. Carlyon. Periodization: The effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 8(4):235-242. 1994. 3. Kraemer, W.J. A series of studies. The physiological basis for strength training in American football: Fact over philosophy. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 11(3):131-142. 1997. 4. Ostrowski, K.J., G.J. Wilson, R. Weatherby, P.W. Murphy, and A.D. Lyttle. The effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. J. Strength Cond Res. 11(3):148-154. 1997. 5. Wilson, G.J., R.U. Newton, A.J. Murphy, and B.J. Humphries. The optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 25(11): 1279-86. 1993. James Krieger
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: Contradictions - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 21:24:24 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Contradictions > From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> > Mr. Krieger states: > Your assertion that "the only thing they (Plyometrics) > produce is injury" is not supported in the scientific literature > > What Literature? Peer-reviewed scientific research journals such as the Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Research Quarterly, and others. > 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. Fred Hahn and Andrew Baye have commented that plyometrics are extremely dangerous and produce nothing but injury. I made the statement that plyometrics have a higher potential for injury than controlled strength training. This does not mean that plyometrics are "extremely dangerous." If we define danger as a potential for injury, then plyometrics are more dangerous than controlled strength training. This would also mean that Superslow training is more dangerous than remaining sedentary. Does this mean that Superslow training is "extremely dangerous?" It is all relative and depends upon what you are comparing it too. The whole discussion boils down to what is meant by "extremely" dangerous. >From my knowledge of studies on plyometrics, not one has reported an injury. If we define an activity as "extremely dangerous" if it carries a high likelihood of injury among participants, then these studies should have reported at least some injuries. James Krieger
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. scientific - from R.A. Onufer
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 16:22:53 -0400 (EDT) From: "R.A. Onufer" <onuferra@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> Subject: scientific I a previous post, Andrew Baye wrote: >>> 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. To Andrew I say: if you disqualify everyone who studys plyometrics as "unscientific", this debate will be short, narrow, and limited strictly to opinion and heresay. If you could disqualify just those whose studies support plyometrics, this debate would be one-sided and over. No one will do any good trying to exclude anyone else for disagreeing with them. Roy "Clothes do Make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society"-Mark Twain Expose yourself to millions. Free! Not spam. Ask how at onuferra@mailcity.com
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Inroad vs. isometric - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 16:23:05 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Inroad vs. isometric At 8:29 AM 5/10/98, Lyle McDonald wrote: Someone wrote: >> 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. I incorrectly wrote: >by definition, ST fibers have longer fatigue times than FT. You couldn't >fatigue ST fibers first and then FT fibers, only the reverse. This isn't 100% true. In very long duration endurance activites (like a marathathon) it's conceivable to fatigue ST fibers (over a period of hours) which then forces FT to be recruited. For any weight lifting task, the pattern of fatigue will be FT before ST. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: HIT Digest #139 - from PAUL ORNER
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 20:57:09 -0700 From: PBOrner@webtv.net (PAUL ORNER) Subject: Re: HIT Digest #139 IN REGARD REP. SPEED, IT THAT IT IS BETTER, IT IS THAT I HAVE TO USE SLOW SPEEDS. I TRAIN ALONE. I DON'T HAVE MUCH EQUIPMENT. AND, I AM 57.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: HIT Digest #139 - from Berserker .
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:27:35 PDT From: "Berserker ." <berserker78@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #139 >Stressing yes, fatiguing, no.... No research has ever stated fatigue >has >anything to do with muscular growth. > >Fred Hatfield II OK. I'm starting to really get irritated. WHAT then is responsible for muscular growth? And why does "research" have to be done to acknowledge to the rest of us that fatigue (I won't say "training to failure!" because I know that offends some people) is partly responsible? BTW, no research has ever proved what you've often steadfastly advocated, yet as I recall your last words in that debate were that you and others have seen it work, so that's good enough for you. Ben
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Final comments on power training - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 00:07:28 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Final comments on power training >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... As you well konw, there are few studies which control lifting speed in the first place, much less compare SS to 2/4 or any other arbitrary speed you can come up with. However, I did comment on the supposed isokinetic studies (comparing angular velocities on the order of 100 adn 300 deg/second) showing speed specificity and asked (a still unanswered) question of how much carryover *either* will have to an activity at 7000 degrees/second. Sure, if you could train safely at 7000 dgrees/second in the weight room, I have NO doubt that it would show more carryover compared to SS or 2/4 or anything else. But we can't, we don't have the technology to do it without killing an athlete. So we are left with developing maximal strength in the weight room and explosiveness/RFD/etc on the field. Let's consider some angular velocities (and any resident physics people are encouraged to make sure I didn't screw this up) at different concentric lifting speeds. Let's say the total angular displacement from beginning to end ROM for a biceps curl and is 200 degrees (probably closer to 180 but this will make the math easier). 200 degrees/10 second concetric = 20 deg/sec 200 deg/5 seconds = 40 deg/sec 200 deg/2 sec = 100 deg/sec 200 deg/1 sec = 200 deg/sec 200 deg/0.5 sec = 400 deg/sec I wasn't able to find the numbers I was looking for but I believe James cited values around 7000 (count the zeros there) deg/sec as peak angular velocities in a pitching motion. Do you honestly think there will be *significantly* greater carryover to 7000 deg/sec from either 20 deg/sec vs. 400 deg/sec? here's a great quote I tracked down from Greg Wilson who has done a *lot* of power and plyometric research in the land down under (anyone for a vegemite sandwich). "Maximal explosive power training involves the performance of dynamic weight training at the load which maximizes mechanical power output......One extremely important point to realize when considering the application of maximal power training is that the exercises used must not be standard weight training exercises such as bench press or squats, where the bar must achieve zero velocity at the end of the movement range. In such instances maximal power training is relatively ineffective, bacause of the existence of a particularly large decceleration phase." ("Applied anatomy and biomechanics in sport" Ed. J Bloomfield et. al., Blackwell Scientific Publications, pg 149). This is an excellent book and Wilson's chapter on strength training is one of the best reviews I've read. No one is arguing that RFD training is important. What's at question is whether traditional weight training methods are appropriate or effective or safe. And I'm still waiting for a *physiological* reason why making someone stronger (whether through SS or 2/4 or whatever) can possibly *decrease* their explosiveness. Are we resurrecting hte muscle-bound myth? >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. Zatsiorsky also makes the point that maximal strength will improve performance up to a point (pg. 37). ONce an athlete has reached an optimal level of maximal strength, further increases will have relatively less impact on performance and RFD methods should be emphasized. The question (which I will state for the last time because I know everyone on the list is sick of this argument) is whether traiditional weight training methods like squats and benches are appropriate for such training. Based on the physics of the situation, and the simple fact that we can't even *begin* to approximate the speeds seen in sport in the weight room, I absolutely do not feel that the current weight training equipment is appropriate for this type of training. And (and I mean it this time), that's all I have to say about that. - Forrest Gump Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: HIT Digest #139 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 01:11:13 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #139 In a message dated 98-05-10 23:38:30 EDT, you write: << Stressing yes, fatiguing, no.... No research has ever stated fatigue has anything to do with muscular growth. Fred Hatfield II >> I am pretty sure that Zatsiorsky says that a recruited but unfatigued muscle fiber, or motor unit, is an untrained one. Whatever adaptation takes place, at least according to him, it only takes place with fatigue, and no less. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: HIT Digest #139 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 01:19:42 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #139 Re: HD 138: Eriikki answered this question "4. Does either of these two methods [superslow or explosive] have an advantage in fiber recruitment or >fiber fatigue?" ....with this gem: "Yes." LOL...My fault for demanding concision, Erikki, but could you at least answer the following question which I thought I implied: Which training system, and is the advantage in recruitment, or is it in fatigue? Thanks. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: HIT Digest #139 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 01:25:50 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #139 In a message dated 98-05-10 23:38:30 EDT, you write: << All this comes from a sudden a complete switch to HIT, after five solid months of zero gains on a volume/explosive training regimen. >> Of course, it is possible that if you had begun with HIT, you may have had no gains, and suddenly increasing the volume/velocity would have sparked similar results. I contend that your results prove the need for periodization, not superiority of one system over another. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: HIT Digest #139 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 01:29:44 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #139 Re #138 Erikki, responding to Eric's post about his SS strength transferring over at any rep speed,said: "...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." Very well put, and I look forward to your results, Eric. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. creatine - from nafradiz@ln.matav.hu
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 12:41:21 +0100 From: nafradiz@ln.matav.hu Subject: creatine Ryan wrote: >>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.<< I have tried creatine. Took it for six weeks. It made no difference. Never experienced any effect, good or bad. Maybe, I am not sensitive to it or I digest creatine before it reaches the muscles or whatever. One thing is sure: I will never waste my money on it again. Hope that helps. Zoltan
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re: Ryan's creatine monohydrate question - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:47:09 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Ryan's creatine monohydrate question I have been using creatine monohydrate for 2 years now with no ill effects whatsoever, and have received benefits from supplementation. Creatine monohydrate is one of the few ergogenic aids to be backed by solid peer-reviewed research. Numerous studies have pointed to benefits for athletes, and studies continue to be performed. No evidence exists in the scientific literature of any harmful side effects of creatine supplementation. There have been some anecdotal reports of cramping in some athletes using creatine. However, correlation does not equal causation and this does not mean that creatine causes cramping. No studies done on creatine have reported cramping as a side effect. I personally have never suffered a single cramp since using creatine. Also, a maintenance dose of approximately 3 g per day, which has been shown to be adequate for maintaining saturated tissue stores, is not much more than some people obtain normally in their diets, if they eat large amounts of red meat. Creatine monohydrate has become the most heavily researched dietary supplement in history, and all of the scientific evidence indicates that it is a very safe dietary supplement. Look to the science and not rumors or media hype. If someone tells you that creatine is unsafe, ask them to prove it to you with scientific research. They will come up empty handed. James Krieger