-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: injury and SS - from Steve Raymond
Top
Date: 12 May 1998 12:13:16 -0800 From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com> Subject: Re: injury and SS Lyle wrote: >>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?>> You are correct. The only difference is that peak forces are occuring at the end of the negative when you are stopping the weight and at the beginning of the "positive" when you are getting it moving again. One thing that both sides should consider is that for both a 5 second and a 10 second cadence the forces due to acceleration are so small that they are almost insignificant. Remember that F=ma is only the portion of the force due to motion. The actual force that you are supplying is F=ma+mg or F=m(a+g) g here on earth is about 32ft/s/s. For a bench press you move the weight about 3 feet. For the sake of argument assume that 1/4 of the duration of your lift is accelerating, 1/2 is moving at constant speed, and 1/4 is decelerating. For a four second lift thats 1 second accelerating, 2 at constant speed and 1 decelerating. This would put your peak velocity somewhere at about 1ft/s. So for the first second you are accelerating the bar on the average of 1ft/s/s. This makes the force equation: F=m(32+1) - about 103% of the force required to just hold the weight still. Even if you double the acceleration it is still only a slight increase to 106%. In neither case are you putting yourself at risk of serious injury. If your tendons are OK at 200 lbs they will be OK at 206 if you are strong enough to be lifting in that range. The acceleration portion of the equation CAN be significant if you are really jerking the weight or if impact forces are involved. Thats why bouncing the bar off your chest of jumping off of blocks are dangerous. But for slow, controlled movements the difference between 2 seconds, 4 seconds, and 10 seconds is insignificant.
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Stretching FAQ - from Dave Jones
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 22:46:20 -0500 From: "Dave Jones" <warrior71@usa.net> Subject: Stretching FAQ -------------------- 2 -------------------- 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. Try: <http://www.ncf.carleton.ca:12345/freeport/sigs/sports/martial-arts/faq/menu > That may not be the NEWEST version (I am not sure), but it is a good link It also has a copy if the martial arts FAQs there 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. Thanks, it takes a LOT of hard work, as you may imagine. Of course subscribers to the HIT Digest aren't afraid of a little hard work :-) Kajukenbo is the first truly American martial art created in 1947 in Hawaii. 5 masters combined techinques from Korean KArate, JUdo/JU jitsu, KENpo, and Chinese / Western BOxing for a pure self defense art: KA - JU - KEN - BO. This was 20 years before Bruce Lee did the same general thing with his Jeet Kune Do. Now versions of Kajukenbo include systems like Gracie Jiu Jitsu, Kali, and Wing Chun because it is still evolving to be a complete self defense system. Of course, that is a pretty broad overview, but I think you get the idea. If you need any more info or you have any other martial arts related questions, feel free to send me an e-mail. Take care and remember: Don't Block with your Face! Dave Jones
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Inroad in isometric - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:39:49 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Inroad in isometric >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 >>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. I didn't get a satisfactory answer on my original question. You both seem to be of the opinion that there IS inroad or drop of strength during the isometric. At the very moment the weight starts to descend the remaining strength goes below the weight of the bar. Thus, if we look backwards then at the start of the isometric the remaining strength had to be greater than the weight of the bar. On the other hand Lyle said that the isometric starts when he or she can not move the bar. There is a clear contradiction between the fact that the remaining strength is greater than the weight of the bar and that he or she cannot move the bar. My contention is this: when the lifter starts the isometric phase he or she just pretends of not being able to move the bar. If he or she truly pushed or pulled to the point at which the bar doesn't move anymore the bar should start falling down immediately. In other words no isometric phase would be possible. Erkki
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: HIT Digest #139 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 01:41:00 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #139 Re: #138 OK, I am certainly no expert on SS, so let me throw this into the mix as well: Erikki said: >"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?" So now my question is, why does the requirement end with 15 seconds if isometrics? There is greater eccentric strength than isometric strength, just as there is greater isometric strength than concentric strength. So after isometric failure, perhaps eccentic failure should be the next goal. Just because you can't hold the bar doesn't mean you can't lower it in a controlled fashion, so I suggest that after failing isometically, there should be a 15 second eccentric phase as well. Eytan Koch, CSCS By the way, the fact that I mentioned that I am becoming convinced that low volume training seems to be as effective as high volume training does not change my opinion of superslow vs explosive training. Just thought I'd mention that.
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: Training Volume - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 23:24:45 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Training Volume > From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> > > 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...)? The significant problems with most research comparing low volumes of training to high volumes is that the subjects were untrained and the duration of the study was too short to determine any significant differences. Stone et al (1) reported significant increases in lean body mass during the initial high volume "hypertrophy" phase of their linear periodization model. Baker et al (2) found a significant positive correlation between training volume, measured as total repetitions, and gains in lean body mass. Kraemer (3) found superior hypertrophy to occur with a periodized multiple set program versus a single set nonperiodized program. Other research has also suggested a relationship between training volume and hypertrophy (4-5). Also, higher volumes of training have been associated with larger post-training anabolic hormone responses (6); however, a relationship between the post-training anabolic hormone response and muscle hypertrophy has yet to be established, so the higher anabolic hormone response caused by higher training volume may not be meaningful. Not all research has demonstrated a relationship between training volume and hypertrophy. A well-controlled study using previously trained subjects by Ostrowski et al (7) found no significant differences between gains in muscle size between three levels of training volume (low, medium, high) with exercises performed once a week. However, this study only lasted 10 weeks, and exposure to exercises was limited (only once a week), which would account for a lack of significant differences found between groups. Also, the highest volume group experienced the greatest gains in cross-sectional area and circumference of the rectus femoris; however, this group also demonstrated a much lower starting point than the other groups, so this might be expected. Also, the majority of the subjects had been previously training on similar high volume protocols; results of this study may have been different had the majority of subjects been previously on low volume protocols. A subject's previous training experience can have significant effects on the results obtained by a new training protocol. Anecdotally, powerlifters often train with low volumes and generally display greater hypertrophy in Type II fibers than bodybuilders (8-9). However, athletes that engage in higher volumes of training tend to display more general Type I and Type II fiber hypertrophy (9). Also, prolonged period of low volume of training have been demonstrated to compromise gains in lean body mass (2). Personally, I have observed individuals who have switched from low volumes of training to high volumes of training and suddenly experienced new gains in muscle size. I have also observed the opposite (switching from high to low volume). In general, the bulk of the evidence suggests that both periods of low and high volume training need to be incorporated into an overall training protocol if the goal is maximum muscle hypertrophy. Low volume, high load training is necessary to maximally stimulate hypertrophy of high-threshold muscle fibers, and high volume, moderate load training is necessary for maximal anabolic hormone responses and hypertrophy of lower threshold muscle fibers. 1. Stone, M.H., H. O'Bryant, and J. Garhammer. A hypothetical model for strength training. J. Sports Med. 21:342-351. 1981. 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 strenth training in American football: Fact over philosophy. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 11(3):131-142. 1997. 4. Dudley, G.A., P.A. Tesch, B.J. Miller, and P. Buchanan. Importance of eccentric actions in performance adaptations to resistance training. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 62:543-50. 1991. 5. Hather, B.M., P.A. Tesch, P. Buchanan, and G.A. Dudley. Influence of eccentric actions on skeletal muscle adaptations to resistance training. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica. 143:177-85. 1992. 6. Gotshalk, L.A., C.C. Loebel, B.C. Nindl, M. Putukian, W.J. Sebastianelli, R.U. Newton, K. Hakkinen, and W.J. Kraemer. Hormonal responses of multiset versus single-set heavy resistance exercise protocols. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 22:244-255. 1997. 7. 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 and Cond. Res. 11(3):148-154. 1997. 8. Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Kraemer. Designing Resistance Training Programs. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1987. 9. Baechle, T.R. (ed.) Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1994. James Krieger
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Inroad Percentage - from Tim
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:17:33 -0400 From: Tim <TWBruneau0@mcnet.milligan.edu> Subject: Inroad Percentage >> 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. Lyle McDoanld responded: >by definition, ST fibers have longer fatigue times than FT. You couldn't >fatigue ST fibers first and then FT fibers, only the reverse. So when I'm lifting with a 2-4 protocol 10 reps to failure it's my FT fibers that fail first? If so, does that mean that doing something like breakdowns are necessary, or could be necessary, or at least are thought necessary by some for proper stimulation of ST fibers. Of course your original statement was atempting to address this whole question of what amount of inroad is necessary (20%, etc). I imagine that a statement like "I reached such and such percent level of inroad" is only an approximation, or is there a fairly accurate way to measure this percentage?. Whatever the case, what would be your opinion, whether it be from experience or the scientific literature, as to what level of inroad a person should target, and how should someone go about approximating this? Tim B. <TWBruneau0@mcnet.milligan.edu>
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: HIT Digest #140 - from DMartin316
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:04:16 EDT From: DMartin316 <DMartin316@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #140 Fellow trainees, I have read with much interest the posts about all different types of exercise styles. There are some questions I have to ask. Do you use the methods that you espouse? Do they work on you? Secondly, do you have fun and enjoy your training? There was a post a few days ago that talked about Alleve, caffeine and Mountain Dew, what the hell is going on? Has there been a shift? What happened to training for health, enjoyment and athletic improvement? Research is good, just how much (research) does somebody need to improve regularly? How did anybody improve before all the research? If weight training is so important how come so few people do it? If a person is going to train for their own enjoyment and continue over their lifetime, what would be the best way to go? I remember a quote from George Thorogood "If it's not fun, it's not worth doing". Later. Dan Martin dmartin316@aol.com
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. High vs. Low Volume - from Tim
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 13:56:47 -0400 From: Tim <TWBruneau0@mcnet.milligan.edu> Subject: High vs. Low Volume Eytan Koch writes: >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. My reply: I don't have any studies pertaining to this question that I would like to quote. However, from my own experiences I think I can at least add something. I think that whether high or low volume training techniques are successful for a person is dependent on that person's genetics. I feel that from my experiences in weight lifting that high volume training is just NOT productive for me. At one time I was on a 4-5 day a week lifting routine with training sessions lasting anywhere from 1.5 - 2 hours. I was using multiple sets (at least 3 per body part) and a split routine. I ended up having to deal with different injuries every other week. Also, I was sick all the time which I now blame on overtraining. Needless to say high volume training burnt me out. Now, I realize that there are other less "frequent" forms of high volume training, but what I'm using now has been serving me well (a HIT/Hardgainer routine). For some people, a low volume training approach (as low as mine is at least) would probably be very unproductive compared to what they could be doing with a high volume routine. I'd say that those people are genetically gifted. I don't think it's reaching too far to say that when exercise science gets out of its infancy it will become blatantly obvious that no one should train exactly like anyone else. For example: My training partner is on a similar lifting routine as I am. However, he has a better capacity for recovery than I do. Because of this he can train more often than I can. My answer then is that low volume training is FAR superior to high volume training... for me. For others this is not the case. Tim Bruneau <TWBruneau0@mcnet.milligan.edu>
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Confessions of a Tudor Bompha acolyte - for Eytan Koch (anectdotal) - from Brian and Terri Williams
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:55:33 -0700 From: "Brian and Terri Williams" <windsortoyspaniels@ibm.net> Subject: Confessions of a Tudor Bompha acolyte - for Eytan Koch (anectdotal) >>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. << Ditto, Herr Koch. I have been lifting for 6 years now, and have always been a bit of a periodization zealot. It has been how I've trained for the last 4 years, and while my gains have been fairly steady, I did a quarterly review of my training log this weekend and noticed a couple of things. My strength gains have all came from my "strength cycle" (natch) which was no surprise. What was a surprise was when I realized that my bodyfat was actually lower while on strength cycles as opposed to higher volume/low weight cycles. I think it is because it is easier to stick to a cardio program when I'm doing less volume in my weight room. Duh. What really shocked me though, is that looking into my log showed me that I've consistently veered from my scheduled 2 on 1 off 2 on cycle to working just 3 days per week. While I made progress before, since I have slacked off on day 4 my gains have increased across the board. I have been a runner for years and a bit of a masochist, so it has always been a joy to me to giant set squats hack squats and leg presses till I saw Hotei dance in front of me. This makes it difficult for me to abandon my past programs for HIT. What really hit home was reading the FAQ (which is one of the best on training I've ever read by the way - good job!!) and came on a few morsels of knowledge. 1. As we increase our strength and mass we need more recovery, not less. This is the opposite of what I've followed with the basic "start out 3 days per week then go to a split program" protocol. Makes a hell of a lot of sense - why would I need more time to recover when I was a 110 pound stripling benching on a universal since I couldn't lift an Olympic bar off of my chest as opposed to now when I'm a 160 pound (stripling) benching a hell of a lot more and deadlifting in the mid 300's? 2. We grow when we rest, not when we train. I've been mouthing this for years, and still doing my old split routines. At one point 4 years ago, I worked a double split 5 day a week program working every major and most minor muscle groups 3 times per week. Did I make gains on this program? Physique-wise, yes. Strength wise, not significantly. What all this really boils down to is if the studies show both methods show results, why bang away at my joints and increase my nutrient requirements when they will not statistically aid in gains? ------IMHO time ------ I think that more people would be inclined to investigate HIT more if it wasn't for Mentzer and Jones in the muscle rags. The problem with them, and the sticking point for me with HIT has been their continual blathering about little or nothing. In the last Arthur Jones article I read in Ironman he claimed to be the inventor of everything but the wheel. Mentzer is so fixated on Ayn Rand that his articles are about as useful for training as the Unabomber's manifesto. This comes from a political science and philosophy major - Mikey, we cease to learn from people when we create icons of them. This is a real shame, as things like rest-pause have been a great aid to me in the past. I don't want to sound cornball but quite honestly, after my training log review woke me up, James Krieger's posts on the weightsnet mailing list and Rob's fine Cyberpump page have been what really got me over to "the other side." I'd like to thank them both for that, assuming they both haven't fallen asleep while trying to read this (insert gratuitous applause). Brian Williams "Leon does vomit a lot, even for a new employee." King of the Hill
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. evidence for low vs high volume - from Brian Bucher
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 11:02:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu> Subject: evidence for low vs high volume WOO HOO! Guess who's done with school? Unfortunatly I have to stick around until the 23rd when we walk, but at least it'll give me a little time to contribute to the discussions, eh? That is, until the fall when I start grad school. Ahh well, maybe I can learn everything about lifting in the next 3 months. Hah! > -------------------- 6 -------------------- > Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 02:24:12 EDT > From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> > Subject: Re: HIT Digest #137 > > 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. Why? Why should you care on an emotional level whether low volume training is as effective (holy geeze, that needs quite a few qualifiers) as high volume training? If one way is more effective than the other, and it is shown conclusively to be so, then we should embrace the fact that we have learned something and have definite answers. Now, some of you on this list have seem me involved in some fairly heated debates in the past. :) I'm not saying I never get emotional. What _I_ get annoyed at is when someone refuses to accept certain facts (such as the fact that low carb diets work great for some people) or when they attempt to argue dishonestly using various techniques such as straw man arguments. We are all searching for the best way and should not be downhearted if what we believed does not turn out to be true. Disappointed? Sure. No one likes being told their wrong. But we learn, apply, and move on. > 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...)? I don't consider ANY low-volume versus high-volume studies to be valid. I've said this many times in the past. Until you put a recognized proponent of a training method in charge of that group in a study, you won't know that the training method was implemented correctly. You want a HIT group versus a NSCA high volume group? Put Leistner (or another HIT guru, take your pick of all the strength coaches) in charge of the HIT group and a high-volume guy in charge of the high volume group. Will it ever be done? Nah. Regards, Brian
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. pushing a car - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 10:43:48 PDT From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: pushing a car > 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. You still don't get it. 1) The greater the acceleration, the greater the force. To get the car up to a higher velocity, Mr. Krieger would have to apply more force. It will take more force to get the car up to 3 mph in 10 seconds block than it would to get the car up to 2 mph in 10 seconds. As Mr. Krieger stated, the more force he applies the greater the acceleration; there are no conditionals as you seem to imply. 2) During constant velocity, the force is the same, *regardless of what that velocity is.* (I am disregarding the minute changes in the coefficient of dynamic friction and in the drag force due to air resistance, since I doubt Mr. Krieger can push a car all that fast.) In other words, once up to speed, pushing the car at 2 mph and pushing the car at 3 mph require the same force. 3) *Only* when it becomes time to slow the car down will force requirements be decreased as a result of the higher velocity. If Mr. Krieger pushes harder at the beginning, he won't have to push as hard at the end. In other words, if he is going to slow down by simply pushing less on the back of the car, and he wants to finish in a certain place, then he can ease off more if he had the car going 3 mph than if he had the car going 2 mph. Finally, and I know Mr. Spector dislikes the use of all caps, but this is getting ridiculous: MOMENTUM *CANNOT* DO WORK! Kinetic energy can be converted into work (just as work can be converted into kinetic energy), but unless you have worked out the magnitude of this effect, you should not be making the kinds of semi-quantitative statements that you made above. Again I suggest that you read Erkki Turunen's post of a few issues back, in which not only is the physics correctly described, but some estimation of the magnitude of this effect you describe is made.
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: headache - from Steve Raymond
Top
Date: 11 May 1998 01:42:52 -0800 From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com> Subject: Re: headache That doesn't sound good. When you say "pressure" in your neck and head what do you mean? Did it feel like a muscle in your neck cramped? I'd be very careful, maybe even consider talking to a doctor before you lift again. Doing heavy squats elevates your blood pressure so its possible you ruptured a blood vessel. I am NOT a doctor though so I don't really know.
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. am I dreaming... - from steveblower@postmaster.co.uk
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 22:15:37 +0100 From: steveblower@postmaster.co.uk Subject: am I dreaming... Hi Rob, and the rest of the world... May I change the subject briefly? Does anyone remember Charles Atlas, you know the sand in your face man? I have a vague recollection that his program of exercises was a series of slow contractions and holding the squeeze for some time, no weights involved. Would this be an early superslow, or am I hallucinating? No, I did not just inhale. Anyway, it is illegal in England! [Super slow? --Rob] Steve.
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. re:how much is enough... - from R.A. Onufer
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 19:05:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "R.A. Onufer" <onuferra@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> Subject: re:how much is enough... 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? Personally, when I started doing single sets to failure, if I was really dissatisfied with my set(I didn't feel I had really given it my all) I would rest a minute or 2, then try the set again. If I still wasn't satisfied I left it behind and got on with my workout. That was back then, and now I find I have learned how to almost always give everything I've got every time. My concentration and determination seemed to have greatly improved. My point: if you honestly think you need to redo a set, wait a little bit and try it again. If you still can't get it don't get frustrated, try it again another day. 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? Sorry, nothing specific I can tell you. 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