-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. A month off and still growing? - from Peter Zappola
Top
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:33:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Zappola <zappola@yahoo.com> Subject: A month off and still growing? I have recently been in the busiest time of my life and have had little time to train. So I took some time off and I have come about some interesting discoveried I'd like to get opinions on. Here is the low down: I haven't train in nearly a month and only once in the last 6 weeks. The last session I had only consisted of deads and incline db press for 1 set each to failure, HD 2 style. And in the time off, I have mad great gains! I have to say I am the most muscular of my entire life. And above all else, I have been eating very erratically, sometimes only 1 or 2 times per day. I have also been very sleep deprived. The gains still are rolling. I wake up each morning expecting to look like crap, and I amaze myself no matter what I ate or how much I slept the previous day. I am reluctant to train even now when I can because I think I may still be growing! Boy would Mentzer love this one. Can this mean I only require training once a month for optimal gain? I recently discounted the theory of HD 2 a bit after hitting a sticking point, but I never took time off like this, time I may have needed. Any and all opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. == ZAP ZAP'S GYM http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/6026
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Two cents worth... - from Eric Deaton
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 08:44:46 -0600 From: Eric Deaton <Eric.Deaton@lmco.com> Subject: Two cents worth... I have been reading the various posts in regards to speed of motion and what SS and HIT will do to "slow" you down and would like to add my two cents worth. I would ask if anyone who has experienced a reduction in their speed of reaction has experienced a corresponding increase in lean body mass? I ask because I learned through experience that as I got bigger[:-D], I had to (re)train in other sports that I enjoy because there was more of me to move. This required going back to the basic movements of those sports and teaching my new muscle how to react in the proper manner. It strikes me that without proper training, the hand could not even feed the mouth, much less move in such a manner as to promote coordinated action. I have grown over 80 pounds of lean mass in the last 8 years and have maintained a speed of hand and body motion that has not diminished in the least. I actually think that I am faster due to the fact that when I train all my concentration is in teaching my muscles and nerves to act in concert to achieve my goals. This translates to a higher speed of motion for me, as each part of my body knows its job. HIT it for all you are worth!!! Eric Deaton Eric.Deaton@lmco.com Orlando, Fl
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. chins vs. rows?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? - from Berserker .
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 19:49:08 PDT From: "Berserker ." <berserker78@hotmail.com> Subject: chins vs. rows?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? Excuse all the exclamation points at the end of the subject header. It's just that I realize that this digest has degraded into the explosive lifting debate archives and I thought that would get some attention. Are rows a good exercise for the lats? I would normally do curl-grip chin-ups, but I am afraid that doing these will eventually lead to elbow problems. Maybe if I had access to a cambered chin-bar, then such would not be the case. Anyhow, I have access to the Hammer Hi-Row and the Hammer Row. Which is better? Would alternating the two every week work out?
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Spot reduction - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:41:12 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Spot reduction >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... >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. Pay more attention to your diet (oh yeah, and read my articles at Cyberpump on nutrition and fat loss, plug, plug). Spot reduction is impossible. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: Who quoted 7000 deg/sec? - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 22:03:16 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Who quoted 7000 deg/sec? > From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) > > 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. Wasn't me that quoted the number. I thought you did. Maybe it was a mystery man roaming this list. Maybe it was Matt Brzycki in disquise. He likes to play characters. He's also Rob Spector, you know. James
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: Rep speed - from Kevin Dye
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 14:18:24 +0930 From: "Kevin Dye" <kevind@picknowl.com.au> Subject: Re: Rep speed I have read the ongoing debate about slow v explosive rep tempos over the previous digests with a mixture of interest and confusion. While I respect all the varying contributers who have the technical advantage I haven't, I just want to add my two cents worth based upon my recent, and past experiences training myself and others. With all respect to Andrew Baye, who has been kind enough to e-mail with advice on numerous occasions and will hopefully continue to do so, I have recently slowed my reps down from a 2/4 tempo to 5/5 and found once the ego was dealt [decreasing down to my former warm-up weights] I have had some of my most productive workouts EVER! Using pulldowns as an example, a slow tempo combined with the performance advice on Mentzer's web site about pulling with the lats prior to arms has to be felt to be believed!!! In fact, I can't remember having an ache and exhaustion that even came close despite struggling away on them for years. I bounced the concept off Mike recently, and he confirmed that a slow tempo was indeed more productive, which was based upon his renewed interest in its productiveness. I had already established its validity back in the late 80's, when after being stuck at a bodyweight of 78 kgs for two years, out of desperation [and Darden's experiments] I decided to give Super Slow a try and gained 2 kgs in just two weeks!!! Eventually I tired of the tediousness of counting seconds, so I resumed the regular 2/4 tempo. But with my new tempo I find that it's perfect for the performance arc of most exercises without the need to really count seconds. Having experienced the inroad slow reps make, I can't imagine ever returning to a faster tempo. The best part being that all progress is pure muscular effort, not 1/2 and 1/2 with momentums help. Kevin Dye [Accurate knowledge is the true wealth of the world - Darwin]
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Creatine - from Kevin Dye
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 14:19:22 +0930 From: "Kevin Dye" <kevind@picknowl.com.au> Subject: Re: Creatine I read all I could on creatine three years ago, then spent money I really couldn't afford [I was a full time student] on finally getting my hands on this "magical" supplement. Well, at the end of my months trial while I was three whole kilograms heavier, I promptly lost two of those when I ended my creatine cycle. Figuring I must have done something wrong, a few months later when I researched it some more [and replenished the finances] I decided to give it another try. But despite my more effective consumption that was in accordance with Greenhoff and his latest findings I gained absolutley NOTHING, $90 wasted!!! Speaking with Jerry Brainum in America a few weeks later in an unrelated phone conversation, we compared our creatine experiences and reached similar conclusions. He knew of numerous trainee's that didn't get anything out of their second cycle, which coincides with my lack of results. Creatine gains seems to be predominantly water weight, which disappear once creatine levels returned to normal. My advice would be, keep the money, why flush it down the drain [literally]? Kevin [Accurate knowledge is the true wealth of the world - Darwin]
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Creatine - from Jeff Ventura
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 8:37 -0500 From: "Jeff Ventura" <Jeff.Ventura@ms.cmsconnect.com> Subject: Creatine Regarding the post about creatine's effectiveness: I bought BioChem's creatine monohydrate and began using it according to the directions. Within 22 days I had gained 9 lbs. of lean tissue, and, by my calculations, my strength increased on a per exercise basis by no less than 15% across the board. Best supplement I've ever taken. It is expensive, and you do have to be consistent with it (or whatever gains you make will diminish), but altogether the best place I've ever spent my supplement dollar. Tip: drink lots of water while on creatine. LOTS. Another item of possible interest: I play pro volleyball on the MPVA tour, and about 90% of the players are taking it. Why? In volleyball, explosive, short-term power is everything. And if someone out there is thinking this is one huge placebo effect, then I'm amazed, because I've never seen so many people report such excellent benefits from using a simple supplement. I'm not a huge supplement fan (I take only protein and creatine), but I can tell you the creatine is the best move you'll ever make if you are looking to gain weight. A friend of mine just began creatine about five weeks ago, and he's up 8 lbs. and is enjoying some significant strength increases as well. Your call. I can tell you it works, as I refuse to continue to take anything that doesn't. Jeff Ventura
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: Dan Martin's Question - from John Vormbaum
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:52:32 -0700 From: John Vormbaum <johnv@TRATNET.com> Subject: Re: Dan Martin's Question Dan, I may be WAY off the mark here, but I wanted to address something I've noticed pop up in a few posts that needs clarification. You mention the Aleve-Mountain Dew-caffeine issue that Andrew Baye posted earlier. I think what Andrew was trying to find was an effective alternative to the ECA stack (ephedrine-caffeine-aspirin). This is *not* an effort solely to get "wired" or to try "drug-assisted training" a-la steroids. The original intent of the ECA stack (and now the Mountain Dew etc. version) was twofold: 1) increase the trainee's metabolism in order to burn more fat (and lower total bodyfat) and 2) provide a *healthier* alternative to steroids or amphetamines; in other words, enhance the trainee's workout intensity and recovery ability. By coupling ephedrine (stimulant-to increase resting metabolic rate), caffeine (stimulant-you know what that does to most people), and aspirin (thin the blood, anti-inflammatory), one hopefully ends up with a combination that may shorten the time frame needed to reach a lower bodyfat goal while not exposing one's self to the dangers of steroids or very dangerous stimulants (of course, there's no such thing as toxic chemicals, only toxic doses--ephedrine can still be dangerous!). Somebody slap me (or maybe just correct me) if I'm very wrong. John Vormbaum "Pbthbhtphthhbthththhtbhpthbbtph" --Bill the Cat
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Training Volume - from PRSNLFTNSS
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:49:13 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS <PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com> Subject: Training Volume It has been stated by HITers and SS supporters that the concept of periodization is invalid. Yet, one must agree that the training program should be varied or modified on a regular basis (i.e., 6 to 8 weeks). I believe that it is the terminology, rather than the principle that is the problem. HIT'ers and SuperSlow'ers recommend a decrease in training volume in terms of the number of total exercise sets as fitness and training intensity increase. This decrease in total sets could be viewed as a decrease in training volume. Rob, I have been having trouble with attempted posts. I am getting them back as undeliverable. I thought about sending this returned mail as a reply. The heavy resistance multiple set'ers (i.e., 5x 5) also understand the need to vary the program as fitness level increases. It is ironic that the theory of the peaking phase in periodization also involves a reduction in training volume and an increase in intensity. It is obvious that all programs be must be updated on a periodic basis. This often results in a change in the volume and intensity of training. So what is the term used by HITers and SS to signify program variation. Pete LaChance prsnlftnss@aol.com
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: Scientific Proof - from Sonofsquat
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:57:35 EDT From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> Subject: Re: Scientific Proof Berserker wrote: <<OK. I'm starting to really get irritated. WHAT then is responsible for muscular growth?>> The several principles of training. Overload, progression, SAID, etc... None of which ever states that going to fatigue is necessary. <<And why does "research" have to be done to acknowledge to the rest of us that fatigue is partly responsible?>> Perhaps it is... I'm just stating that this notion hasn't been proven. By the way, very few athletes ever go to fatigue in their sports specific training. Take sprinters, their workouts are at a submaximal pace and certainly aren't done until they drop. Yet, they do get faster. <<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.>> You must be joking! EVERYTHING I advocate is based on research! I will admit some further research may be needed to fully support the use of a particular method, as well as perhaps I've misinterpeted science (of course, I don't think that's the case -- but I'm human, and it's happened before and a few folks on this list have proven me wrong on a few things). But it isn't just something I pulled out of a hat or field! Far too often I have heard "I works for me" and have always said, "well, good. Do it then". In fact, there are very few times I've said "that won't work at all". Superslow, HIT... Never said they didn't work and if they do work for you, knock yourself out! And now, the first time I use that line of thinking, it's questioned? Science is important. It should be the foundation of the meaning for our methods. However, field experience is very important as well. I may question field experience, but I'll never deny it. Fred Hatfield II BIGBOYS: www.colba.net/~John295
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: Koch's questions - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 21:50:04 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: Koch's questions >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? Their fiber recruitment is different but I cannot say if one of these methods has an ADVANTAGE in recruitment over the other, it depends on the objective. The explosive method fatigues IIb fibers without fatiguing much the other ones if the set is terminated when you can no longer maintain explosiveness. IMO SuperSlow mostly fatigues IIa fibers and in lesser degree the other ones. Thus SS has an "advantage" in fiber fatigue if it can be called an advantage. Erkki Turunen
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. s muscle - from Steve Raymond
Top
Date: 15 May 1998 13:44:46 -0800 From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com> Subject: s muscle Subject: Time: 1:39 PM s muscle Date: 5/15/98 <<.I can't think of a muscle that starts with 's'...damn.>> sternocleidomastoid (sp?) If I remember correctly it goes from behind your jaw to your sternum and turns your head. It is also officially the only muscle in the body that squats don't train.