-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Jeff Ventura's HIT experience - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 23:49:37 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Jeff Ventura's HIT experience > From: "Jeff Ventura" <Jeff.Ventura@ms.cmsconnect.com> > > 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. First, I want to congratulate you on your newfound gains in strength and muscle size. Second, I want to emphasize that my post here is in no way meant to undermine the importance of your gains, or suggest that HIT will not be a successful training method for you, or discourage you from using HIT. I am also not presenting skepticism about the results you have achieved. However, your personal experiment does not "prove" the superiority of HIT over higher volumes of training, even for yourself, for the following reason. You have only been training with HIT for one month, which is a very short period of time. Many people, after having trained for long periods of time on high volumes and stagnating, experience newfound gains when switching to low volume HIT protocols. They mistakenly believe that they have found the magic training method due to their newfound gains. However, many individuals that have been engaging on high volume protocols for long periods of time are chronically overtrained or are stagnated from lack of variation in training, so the new low volume protocols suddenly allow for recovery and for gains to manifest themselves. Right now, your gains are due to a sudden switch to HIT, but not necessarily due to HIT itself. Research has demonstrated that variations in training volume produce superior results to training programs that use a constant volume. My feeling is that you will continue to make gains off of HIT for a while, but these gains will eventually stagnate and plateau at some point, and a change in training volume will be necessary again. I was once in the same boat you are now; I switched to HIT after training on higher volumes and achieved tremendous gains over a long period of time. I felt that I had found the Holy Grail of training and that my mind was made up. However, these gains eventually stagnated and HIT could no longer deliver the results that I wanted. It was then that I began to advocate periodization and variations in training volume over time, not simply a constantly low training volume that HIT espouses. Again, this post is not meant to discourage you from using HIT. As long as you continue to make gains from it, then that is outstanding, and if you can continue to make gains with HIT year in and year out, then that is even more outstanding. I am simply pointing out that a protocol that causes newfound gains in muscle size and/or strength does not represent the "best" training protocol, just the best for that moment in time. What seems like the best now may not be the best later down the road, kind of like many things in life. James Krieger
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: Strength transference between training velocities - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 22:26:49 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Strength transference between training velocities > From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> > > 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. To my knowledge, no studies published in peer-reviewed journals have compared such protocols. Most research that has been done on training velocity and strength carryover has been done using isokinetic devices. The general finding of this research has been that the strength carryover decreases as the difference between the training and test velocity increases; this is the SAID principle at work. My guess would be that, if such research was performed using standard types of resistance training, then findings would probably be similar. James Krieger
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Warmups - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 02:39:29 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Warmups >Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 16:20:48 -0500 >From: ivan_and_princess@juno.com >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #137 > >>>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. YOu're still missing what I'm trying to say (since I'm not sure what you mean by 'like 135 for 15 reps'). So maybe it doesn't noticeably tire you out. Neither does it do anything physiologically for you so why do it at all? Or put a final way, what have ye to lose by trying it my way at your next workout? Keep all your warmups sets less than 5 reps (start with a nice slow 135X5 and then pyramid up to your work weights for maybe a triple than singles) and see what happens. Maybe you get an extra rep or two with your top sets, maybe you don't. That'll tell you a lot more about the best sort of warm-up than us debating it for three more digests. that is to say, if you're work weights are 500X whatever, try: 135X5, 225X3, 315X1, 365X1, 405X1, work weights (add a final warmup if you need it between 405 and your top sets, I don't remember what you said your work weights were). Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: I've got something to say - from Cook Daniel J
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 09:58:07 -0600 From: Cook Daniel J <COOKDJ13@uwwvax.uww.edu> Subject: Re: I've got something to say I agree with you about some of the lengthly digests. Sometimes I just skim through them cause I don't have enough time to sit and read all the posts. As for your question about creatine, I tried Phosphagan HP for a couple months and made some really good gains in all my exercises! I gained a solid 13 pounds in the first month (went from 172 to 185 lbs), after that, weight increases start to level off. As for dosage, I took 5 scoops a day for the first 5 days; after that, 2 scoops on non-lifting days, and 3 scoops on lifting days. I would definitely recommend trying it if you have the cash, I noticed a difference within the first 10 days. -Dan
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: HIT Digest #139 - from Beber0190
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:36:34 EDT From: Beber0190 <Beber0190@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #139 In a message dated 5/10/98 8:32:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hitdigest@geocities.com writes: << 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). >> Without much knowledge, I would say from logic and empirical observation, a stronger muscle is a stronger muscle, and there will be strength gain from any productive training in all areas.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. re:training type - from R.A. Onufer
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 19:10:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "R.A. Onufer" <onuferra@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> Subject: re:training type [Uh, what's a "chinchilla"? Is that a small dog or a Mexican dish? Please don't say both, I just ate.--Rob] Cinchillas, if I remember are raised for fur, not meat. Kind of like minks. Hey Rob, you got a coat on?<g> I began HIT exactly one month ago, and I've: ********************************************* * had my vertical leap increase by 1.25 inches(just had it measured last night) Gained 1.25" in *a month*!? I've got to know how you did this! Roy "Consider the dandelion. And while you are, I'll be over here, going through your stuff"
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Low and High Volume - from Sonofsquat
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 19:42:42 EDT From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> Subject: Re: Low and High Volume In a message dated 98-05-10 23:32:16 EDT, Eytan Koch wrote: <<....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.....I am slowly becoming convinced that low volume training can be as effective as high volume training?>> There is one point that I have firmly believed, and it is express here... Science is the best tool we have, yet it it inferior to Mother Nature and her wisdom. We can come up with studies that show plyometrics increase the vertical jump, that power cleans increase power, even that one set to failure works just as good or almost as good as 3 sets of whatever... But each of these studies would still have some faults. Furthermore, none as of yet have undoubtedly proven that any of these, even strength training alone, increases on field performance. Evidence that suggests so..., yes. Undoubtable proof, I don't think so yet! However, who is going to argue that strength training doesn't improve the quality of life or athletic excellence? I'm still searching for an answer to the question of what is considered high volume and what is low volume. Is once a week low volume and three times high volume? Is it measured in total reps? I used to squat with as little as 13 reps and as many as 36 reps (with very little assistance work and INCLUDING warm ups)... I now do up to 28 cleans and 63 squats a week (again including warm ups) as well as erg on a rowing machine up to 25000 meters a week -- which are kind of like 2500 low intensity squats!) That's pretty high volume, but not as high as some folks I've seen, and for me, it'll soon get higher! For me, it seems somewhat clear to me that each has it's part in training, depending on what your goals are. Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Too complicated? - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:11:47 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Too complicated? >Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 23:01:33 +0000 >From: jon and stacy ziegler <rutger1@jps.net> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #138 >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? Yup. I wish I saved posts I made to other lists because I made a comment to this effect over on weights-2. The basis of training, whether it's for bodybuilding, powerlifting, or whatever is progressive overload. That's it, that's the secret to the training universe. Everything else is just details. AS long as the training program you're on is balanced, doesn't get you injured, doesn't overtrain you AND provides progressive overload (such that you are lifting more in a year than you are lifting now), it will make you get stronger and bigger. Everything else is just mental masturbation. I encourage everyone to pick up at least one issue of Hardgainer magazine (you can find the ad in most muscle mags and STuart will send you a free copy). In any given issue you will find at least 5 different interpretations of rational training (i.e. not the crap that passes for training advice in the bodybuilding mags). Single sets, multiple sets, 5X5 system, singles programs, high rep programs, Superslow programs, machines, free weights, fast, slow, etc, etc. All have at their core a basic philosophy: train hard, train infrequently, add weight to the bar over time. Whatever else you do is details and debate. I think as much as anyting a given type of training has to meet a person's psychology. As an example, some people simply do NOT have the tolerance to make 1 set to failure training work. And we'll all agree (I hope) that the only way 1 set to failure will work is if you truly give your all on taht one set. But let's face it some people simply won't do it on a regular basis. So even if 1 set to failure IS the best way to train, if someone won't do it, it's not the best way to train *for them*. As I've frequently said wrt nutrition: good advice not taken is still bad advice. The best dietary approach won't do any good if hte person won't follow it. Same with training. Another example, due to a back injury, I've been constrained for the last 4-5 weeks to SS training on machines. Yes it was hard, yes I did my sets 10/5 with maximal inroading at the end of every set. And yes it bored me absolutely senseless. I don't like training on most machines, I'd rather squat any day than do leg extensions. Even if someone could show me good data that SS was the bestest, safest way to train in the known universe, I still wouldn't do it long term because the only way I'll push hard in my training is if I enjoy what I'm doing and am not bored. This is the same reason I change rep ranges and exercise selections. Sure we can debate until the end of the known universe whether variation in rep range, rep speed, exercise selection truly has an effect on gains in the gym. It's not a debate anyone ever wins so why bother? But if I'm bored with my training, I don't work as hard and that means I don't make progress. Simple as that. So even if SS is the best way to train, it's not the best way to train *for me* because I won' work hard at it consistently. And hard work and progressive overload are ultimately the key to making progress in the gym. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. slow twitch and fast twitch fibers - from Jarlo Ilano
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:04:30 -0700 From: Jarlo Ilano <jilano@ups.edu> Subject: slow twitch and fast twitch fibers -------------------- 6 -------------------- Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 20:28:30 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Inroad vs. isometric Tim <TWBruneau0@mcnet.milligan.edu> 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. lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) 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.-- I thought that slow twitch fibers are recruited first then fast twitch fibers as more force is required. The exception to this is when muscle is electrically stimulated, here fast twitch fibers are recruited first. (because of the diameter of the nerve to the fast twitch muscle fiber, I think...) If recruited first, given sufficient load and time under load, can slow twitch fibers then be fatigued first? Please tell me if my notions are incorrect. (Graduating this Sunday!!!!!! yeahhhhhhhhh) Jarlo Ilano Student University Of Puget Sound Graduate School of Physical Therapy Tacoma, Washington
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. volume - from Steve Raymond
Top
Date: 12 May 1998 00:31:35 -0800 From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com> Subject: volume Subject: Time: 1:48 PM volume Date: 5/11/98 >>>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.>>>> There is no question that low volume is an effective way to train. I have been following a low volume approach for 9 months now and have had great success. I would not go so far as to say that it is superior if your goal is "strictly physiological benefits." If I had to increase my bench 20% in the next six months as a matter of life or death I'm not sure what i would do. Low volume is vastly superior FOR ME for the following reasons: 1. It takes overtraining out of play. I've gone through periods where I would do 9-12 sets for chest 2 or 3 times a week and gotten weaker. 2. It is easier to stay motivated. For me weight training is boring if I'm doing it 10 hours a week. Now I train twice a week for 30-40 minutes a session. I rarely miss a training day and my workouts are almost always productive and energizing. I couldn't say that before - it was often drudgery. After 3 or 4 months I'd start blowing off workouts and finally give up all together. 3. I'm too busy with the rest of life to train more frequently and for long periods. My point is that low volume is the ONLY effective way for me to train because high volume is impossible from a lifestyle and motivational standpoint. If you can train consistantly and productively at high volume then more power to you. I would certainly recommend that you give low volume a try for a few months because if you are satisfied with the physiological results then you will save yourself a LOT of wasted time.
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. SuperSlow in Heavy Duty - from ZBYSZKO TARCZEWSKI
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:16:43 From: ZBYSZKO TARCZEWSKI <biniu@usa.net> Subject: SuperSlow in Heavy Duty Hi HITers ( especially Andrew M. Baye and others) Is there any point for use Superslow in Heavy Duty? I like both, I made great gains using mostly HD in winter, then switched to routines from new Big Boys site (BBB, POF, etc.) and I srank, so I switched again, this time for simple SS routine. I am making slow but solid improvement. Now I am thinking to how to make it faster, and think about using SS in HD standard routine, especially in first movements of supersets. I am working out in home gym and don't have so much weights. Thanks in advance. ****************************** * Zbyszko Tarczewski * Poland * e-mail:biniu@usa.net
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Big weights for big gains - from Daryl Wilkinson
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:45:06 +0000 From: Daryl Wilkinson <daryl@uk.ibm.com> Subject: Big weights for big gains Snipped! >My theory is, " the more weight you can move, the >bigger you'll become." Has anyone ever tried this besides me? John McKean (Hardgainer author), uses "single rep" routines. I'm not sure if he believes "the more weight you can move, the bigger you'll become", but he certainly praises his 1 rep per exercise, programs. I had a conversation with Stuart McRobert a while ago and he told me that if your getting stronger (like 30% stronger) for reps in good form, then you "just have to get bigger". This is taken out of context though and I would not want to imply that Stuart believes you just have to lift big weights and not concern yourself with anything else. He certainly suggests progressive poundage's are one of the most important considerations for size and strength gains. I do too, but who am I ! :-) I think the late John McCallum used to harp on about building a 400-500 lb squat and proportionately high poundage's for upper body movements, if you wanted get big and strong. In his "The Keys to Progress" series, published in Hoffmans "Strength and Health" magazine, John frequently quoted poundage's used by the "monsters", like Maurice Jones, Reg Park etc and I also have an amusing collection of article's describing the training of Marvin Eder (his daughters boyfriend), John would bully Marvin into squatting heavy and told him something along the lines of "You need to build a 500 lb squat if you want to look like Hercules". Marvin was measured by John at the start of his training - 34" chest, 132 lbs bodyweight. I think at his peak, Marvin could squat over 500 lbs, dip with 300 lbs around his waist and weighed around 190 lbs, not sure of his height. I know he wasn't 6' though. Changing the subject slightly....someone commented that weight-training (bodybuilding & strength training), had possibly become too complicated. I agree, but technology is the buzz in all areas these days. My personal opinion is that bodybuilding and strength training is an art, not a science. Let's not forget that we had some very big and very strong guys around before periodisation, engineered foods and other such nonsense was around. At the end of the day and as the original poster implied; train hard in a progressive fashion, eat lots of good food, rest adequately and you'll gain. Sounds simple enough...isn't that what the HIT FAQ says too and how much does that trainining manual cost ? Get my point ? Ok enough ramblings from me now. Daryl
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re: HIT Digest #140 - from Scott Renda
Top
Date: 12 May 1998 08:52:19 +0100 From: "Scott Renda" <srenda@mail.41mad.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #140 RE>HIT Digest #140 5/12/98 To Kevin Dye: Brian Johnston's book "Strength Training: Objective Principles of an Exact Discipline" sounds like a great read. Can you please post price, ordering information, etc. so I can order the book. Thanks. Scott Renda rubs@mindspring.com
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Clear as mud - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 07:44:49 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Clear as mud Alright fellow listites, I agree with the scroll down button suggestion, the list is for fun comment, yadda yadda yadda. IMO I like to think that this list is a becon for the lost soul. Think about it for a minute, I know all will not agree, but for the other HITers out there, if you started like I did, I would run to the local book store and grab up Joe Wierders magazine. I would rush to the gym and try Jim Juice's routine and poof nothing would happen. I looked high and low for some sound advice, Luckily, a friend turned me on to Mike Mentzer, presto, gains out the wazoo. Now, I would like to address these studies, these wonderful fact filled, have to be valid because they are on paper, studies. If YOU have not invested the money or the time, if you haven't provided the controlled environment. If you haven't taken part in these studies. If you have not reasearched the subjects and developed a statisticaly valid sampling plan. And all other controls that need to be concidered, then it's just like saying, "well, it must be true because THEY said so." Who is they? If I go to my garage and round up my buddies from the gym and we go to the sporting good store and buy some thigh masters and ab rollers. I take a certification program, I put a few capital letters at the end of my name, I am now going to conduct my study. I strap phil into my neigbors army surplus parachute and have him begin running while attempting to squeeze the thigh master explosively, I record his results, now I am going to add a fan to his back to provide more resistance from the parachute. Now I want him to do everything he just did but now I want him to jump up on a two foot high box with a concrete block straped to his jock strap. See what I'm getting at? Volume guys, So why stop at 5 sets per body part, with 12-15 reps and 1to 2 hours in the gym? Hell, if more is better, why not 20 sets per body part,200 reps and 7 hours in the gym? After that, go home and use the ol' DP concrete weight set and pump out 30 or 40 more sets of bicep curls? You will have 30 inch biceps in no time if throw in some creatine and Met-rx bars. Just because THEY did a study, or I saw it in a magazine, doesn't make it so. YOU must think and do for yourself. By all means, try everything out there if you must, but for God sake, YOU try it all, don't rely on what THEY say. I hope you and your joints survive, because when you finally realize HIT is the way to train, you'll need to be in good shape to withstand the INTENSITY you MUST put into each workout. I can hardly wait to see what type of response this is going to bring, but hey, it's all in good fun right? We aren't really serious about training are we? We just need to milk the suckers, er clients for their hard earned money. "Get him, he's learning on his own!" - The Simpsons DARE TO BE DIFFERENT ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. Transfer of strength from SS to 2/4 protocol - from Eric Boller
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 09:21:50 -0500 From: "Eric Boller" <edboller@fedex.com> Subject: Transfer of strength from SS to 2/4 protocol > 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. I never meant to imply that there would be an exact percentage correlation in the strength transfer from SS to 2/4. I merely meant to say that I would be stronger in the 2/4 protocol than I was before SS. By how much? I don't know. I'm positive I would not be able to do 222 x 5 so I won't try. However, you're percentage analogy is flawed. A 43% increase from 115 is equal to 50 lbs. A 43% increase from 155 (pre superslow bench) is 66 lbs. I daresay increasing my bench 50 lbs would be easier than increasing it by 66 lbs. Strength increases are not linear in terms of percentage and frankly I doubt they are linear in terms of poundage increase--otherwise we would all be lifting a million pounds in our bench! However, if I add 50 lbs to my pre-superslow bench this would be 205 lbs--which is alot more maneageble than 222 x 5. To be honest I don't know that I could to the 205 x 5--I could probably do 195 x 5. Anyway 195 is a big increase from the silly 155 I was doing before. And remember--I was stuck at 155. So if I was still trying to use the 2/4 protocol I might still be wallowing in the 165 to 175 lb area. Eric
-------------------- 16 --------------------
#16. Think for yourself - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 08:52:01 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Think for yourself Okay, I had my fun, I don't know if my last post will make it, I hope so in order to make a point. On to other things. Listites, I wish to respond to a few questions. Why low volume instead of high volume? For detailed information, check out Mentzer's web page. In short, why would you want to do more than what is necessary in order to stimulate your muscles to grow? It is only necessary to stimulate your muscles ONCE a workout, then rest. Right? Are we all in agreement that you do not grow during a workout? You grow during your rest periods right? For those of you who need a study on this, go to the library. So, why use up your body's resources by piling on more reps and sets? Why not do it all in one, gut wrenching, vomit inducing, INTENSE, set? Why work up to failure? Just do it, one set then go home and rest for 4 to 7 days and do it again. No one likes to work hard, but you HAVE to. Unless you have help from drugs or great genetics. In which case, do whatever floats your boat. Some may not like me, I can't figure out why, but I will not sugar coat anything, it's hard, nasty work to do this thing right. As far as Fred Hatfield's response about not needing to fatigue the muscle only stress it into growth. Okay, Iam going to go to the gym and stress my muscles by doing sets of light weight until I feel like I am getting tired. I'll stop after about 3 reps because I don't want to fatigue my muscles, just stress them. Now, according to Mr. Hatfield, I should grow by doing this? Any one explain this logically. THINK people, don't go around blindly spouting off the status quo, people where once certain the Earth was flat. Imagine what that would have looked like on the Earth is round digest. LEARN about YOUR body, RESEARCH how the body functions, how it repairs itself. NO, not JOE MASTER FLATULATOR certification program, or any other status quo program. LOOK for the IART or Super slow certification programs. ONE more example, In regards to the Earth is flat example, say for instance all of the FLATers were saying they had studies saying that Bill Wild ABC, PDQ definately concludes the Earth is flat, how many of you honestly would say, "well, that proves it, the Earth is flat." Would you test it by looking at the horizon and saying, "Yep, there is a straight line and if I go to the edge, I'll fall off." It isn't flat, but how would you know? Without researching, questioning, doubting, trying, HOW would YOU know without someone else telling you? The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.