-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Brzycki's HIT Principles - from PRSNLFTNSS
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 21:25:55 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS <PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com> Subject: Brzycki's HIT Principles Relative to Matt Brzycki’s HIT principles (in Reflections of a HITer), I have the following questions. More comments to follow at the bottom. #1. Train with a high level of Intensity Is it possible that the training volume and intensity are actually the more important variable and fatigue just a side effect? #2. Attempt to increase the resistance used or the reps preformed every workout If its unrealistic to improve every set, is it possible that attempting improvements in only half the sets of a workout would be a more efficient use of one’s physical energies relative to their recuperative powers? If its unrealistic to improve every workout, is it possible that attempting improvements every other workout or once a week would be a more efficient expenditure of one’ s limited energy relative to their recuperative powers? #3. Preform the minimum number of sets necessary to achieve an appropriate level of muscular fatigue & promote progress. Is it possible that progress can be achieved with out experiencing measurable levels of fatigue? #4. Reach concentric muscular failure within a prescribed number of repetitions (or amount of time) to increase size and strength I am intrigued with the posted recommendations on optimal time frames. What is their origin? Does altering the duration of maximal effort exercise have an effect of which fibers are overloaded? #5. Preform each repetition with proper technique. Are there any references demonstrating superior strength, power, endurance, or hypertrophy following training with slower versus faster cadences? #6. Strength train for no more than one hour per workout. Should one attempt to increase the intra set rest intervals if they would increase the total amount of weight they could lift in each set and therefore the total amount of work that can completed in a 14 set one hour workout? #8. Whenever possible, work from largest to smallest muscles. Are the smaller arms and leg musculature the weak links in every multijoint exercise? #9. Train 2 to 3 x/week on non consecutive days. Can a single set of high intensity exercise deplete an exercised muscle glycogen stores within a single 120 second set of HIT? I am not suggesting that HIT is not effective. I am just questioning if the traditional HIT methodology can be improved. Comments please. Pete LaChance, MS, CSCS prsnlftnss@aol.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: Study on variable resistance training - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:54:35 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Study on variable resistance training > From: PRSNLFTNSS <PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com> > > Even with such an impractical piece of equipment > (due to costs and availability), I do not recall a single study that has > ever > demonstrated that the strength gains derived after variable resistance > training are greater than the gains that can be achieved with free weights, > when the testing of improvements were preformed with the training apparatus. Fleck and Kraemer (1) report one 20-week study that demonstrated variable resistance training to produce superior gains to dynamic constant external resistance training in the 1-RM free weight bench press (2). Other studies have demonstrated significant test-specificity effects (1); overall, the data has been relatively equivocal, with neither method showing distinct superiority. 1. Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Kraemer. Designing Resistance Training Programs. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1997. 2. Ariel, G. Barbell vs. dynamic variable resistance. U.S. Sports Association News 1:7. 1977. James Krieger
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Study on fatigue as stimulus for strength gains - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:45:47 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Study on fatigue as stimulus for strength gains > From: PRSNLFTNSS <PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com> > > Further, while fatigue is a consequence of physical work, it is not likely to > be the key stimulus. I don't believe that there is a single study that > demonstrates that fatigue is a stimulus for either gains in strength or size. Rooney et al (1) found that fatigue, while not the primary stimulus for gains in strength, does contribute to strength gains. They compared two groups that lifted a 6 RM weight 3 times a week. The first group lifted the weight continuously until failure was reached. The second group rested 30 seconds between repetitions. While both groups made significant gains in strength, the group that did not rest between repetitions made significantly greater gains in strength. While the exact mechanisms by which fatiguing contractions bring about greater strength gains is not known (the authors suggest increased motor unit recruitment through fatiguing contractions and better activation of synergists and antagonists), the study does show that fatigue plays a role in strength gains. 1. Rooney, K.J., R.D. Herbert, and R.J. Balnave. Fatigue contributes to the strength training stimulus. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26(9):1160-1164. 1994. James Krieger
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Inrad in isometric - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:41:02 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Inrad in isometric >Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:39:49 +0300 >From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> >Subject: Inroad in isometric >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. No, just equal (meaning that force output is just equalling force requirements). Also, it's well established that isometric strength is slightly (on the order of 10%) higher than slow concentric strength. > 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. It can't be both. I've worked into a full isometric and trust me I was pushing as hard as I was able. Bar woudln't move because momentary force production equalled (for a little while) momentary force requirements. Hence net force = 0 = no change in acceleration = no change in velocity (which had already attained zero). Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: HIT Digest #142 - from PRSNLFTNSS
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:52:22 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS <PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #142 It has been said that higher training volumes do not produce greater strength or size increases. What is intriguing to me, is that their is obviously an "optimal training volume", for both the single set high intensity and lower rep shorter multiple set systems. Not enough volume limits the training stimulus and too much volume can result in unnecessary overtraining. A mistake too many have made. There are apparent differences between the single and individual sets utilized in multiple set designs in terms of training volume and time under tension. Single set super slow systems utilize 4 - 8 RM, with a 5/10 count in 80 and 160 seconds and HIT'ers' use a faster 8-12 with 2/4 count for comparable but shorter set durations. I believe that few appreciate the significance of the amount of time the muscles are under tension. It appears to me that successful multiple set programs are required for low volume low reps sets to produce comparable times-under-tension obtained from single set systems. Too few super slow or HIT reps and too few traditional heavy resistance reps provide an inadequate volume (tension-time) training stimulus. Additional reps towards the recommended HIT and SS RM's, result in what many believe to be the optimal volume and intensity stimulus. Multiple sets are required to provide an adequate volume training stimulus for these low-volume heavy resistance sets. Conversely, extra effort and reps beyond the SS and HIT RM's can result in too much volume. Prescribing too much volume is the typical error many over zealous multiple set program participants experience. Regardless of the system of training, there appears to be a theoretical optimum for training volume. Consequently a dose response curve could be theorized. (I would attach a figure if I had the skills to attach a claris works drawing to this text. Help!). As the training volume increases from "zero reps to submaximal to maximal to excessive", the response to training results in either none, positive, positive but diminishing, and negative returns, respectively. The actual shape of the dose-response curve must be affected by the exercise volume and intensity, frequency of training and one's fitness level. One could be worth their weight in gold if they were able to accurately delineate just how much is enough and when within a set to stop. Because it is apparently impossible to know how much is too much, it is obviously safer to err on the conservative lower rep lower set side. With this perspective, it is difficult to imaging tha one could argue for additional work beyond the RM. While it is necessary to attempt personal records and max out (overload) at least once a week, it might be more time and effort and energy efficient to do submaximal work on subsequent days within a week. Habitual max attempts appear futile and are apparently not necessary considering it is impossible to make gains on every set of every workout during the entire year and progress can be made with less frequent overloads. Similarly, I don't believe that multiple set programs require training to RM's on every day or every set of training. Volume is empirically an important training stimulus up to a point, even in single set regimens. Pete LaChance prsnlftnss@aol.com
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Gyms in Redwood City, CA - from Margo and Chris Walter
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 06:42:34 -0400 From: Margo and Chris Walter <cwalter@swva.net> Subject: Gyms in Redwood City, CA I will be travelling in California in July. Does anyone know of an honest iron gym where I can do heavy squats in a power rack, deadlifts, etc? Please reply to cwalter@swva.net. Thanks. Chris
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Inroad via. Isometric - from Tim
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:32:34 -0400 From: Tim <TWBruneau0@mcnet.milligan.edu> Subject: Inroad via. Isometric Tim's original post: >>>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. >>Lyle replied: >>Right, further inroad. >Erkki replied: >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. I'll assume that we agree that the definition of strength = the amount of momentary force one is able to produce. Another realated word we could use is capacity. When one begins a set they have a certain capacity to repeatedly produce a force that is greater than the weight of the bar (assuming one is not attempting a 1 RM, which I would assume would be for some a definition of maximum strength). As one's muscles fatigue through the set their capacity to produce enough force to lift the weight becomes less (i.e. their maximum momentary force potential, "strength", decreases - "fatigue".) At some point capacity to continue lifting the weight will be such that remaining strength = weight of the bar. If one takes into consideration that with most lifting movements, except those in which a machine is involved that provides a perfect strength curve (I don't know of any), there will be a sticking point. For those people who find value in lifting weights in a controlled fashion there is only one way past this sticking point - help from a training partner. Otherwise, the weight isn't going to move. It has been my experience that once I reach this sticking point my isometric begins. I agree that a person who reaches their sticking point and begins an isometric is NOT going to hold the bar perfectly still (i.e. zero velocity). Also, at the sticking point one's strength, their momentary ability to produce force, is equal to the force that the weight of the bar is pushing in the opposite direction. It doesn't take long (a second or so) before strength < weight of bar. However, below the sticking point (in the example of a bench press) one's strength IS going to be greater than the weight of the bar... for a few seconds or so. Why? Mechanical advantage. We all have a sticking point in the bench press, or in any other traditional lifting movement, because our skeletal muscles are attached to levers. In any movement a muscle has at least one point of least mechanical efficiency. The bar will lower some as the muscle's force production drops off, until the muscle is in a more efficient position to produce force. More fatigue... bar drops... etc. I have been following the theory that reaching muscle failure should involve fighting through some of the isometric phase of the lift, although I usually don't go at it for 15 seconds. And no, there is no amount of effort that I can apply at that point (short of cheating) that will get me through another rep. If one is not training to muscle failure I don't see any point in doing an isometric. Tim <TWBruneau0@mcnet.milligan.edu>
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: HIT Digest #144 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 00:39:30 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #144 In a message dated 98-05-16 00:17:33 EDT, you write: << 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. >> Interesting point...do you mean their pace is submaximal, or their HR is submaximal? I have always trained for speed at maximal pace. Eytan
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: HIT Digest #144 - from DMartin316
Top
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 11:40:33 EDT From: DMartin316 <DMartin316@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #144 This is in response to John Vormbaum, post #9, HIT Digest 144. John, I appreciate your response to my question. What I was referring to was what I think is a ridiculous extreme in training. Any stack of any kind seems to be counter productive to a healthy lifestyle. The Mountain Dew, Alleve stack you wrote about is not healthier that steroids and crank. There both bad for your health. That Mountain Dew, Alleve stack is not in violation of any law, that's all. My concern is that benefits of training are being ignored for a temporary cosmetic advantage. Strength and Health, my ass. Dan Martin
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: Lats and rows - from Zorak
Top
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 13:11:46 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Zorak) Subject: Re: Lats and rows >Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 19:49:08 PDT >From: "Berserker ." <berserker78@hotmail.com> >Subject: chins vs. rows?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? >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? The lat muscles have two major functions. 1. Adduct the upper arm: this is what happens during a medium-grip overhand chin 2. Extend the shoulder: this happens during most rowing movements (to on degree or another) and pullovers So yes rows will hit the lats to a degree. But I think you'll benefit from a growth standpoint from working the adduction function as well. Medium grip, overhand chins to the front work.
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: HIT Digest #142 - from Mike Strassburg
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 16:36:43 -0500 From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #142 First off, I just want to say that I agree with DMartin316's comments from the last digest. We all should be training for health, enjoyment, & athletic improvement. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case with many contributors to the digest, or at least they don't convey that in their writings. I still believe that many of the "pissing contests" that we're calling debates offer little useful information. Also it appears as if some of the authors just like to hear themselves "talk." Of course that's just my opinion. Next up, I had the pleasure of reading "Exercised Induced Ramblings #2" the other day, and it's even worse than the first one. Anyone who considers a HR of 120bpm to be POUNDING can't be in very good condition. I would think that all the caffeine you consume before a workout would give you a resting HR of 120. Try doing the Tabata sprint intervals, as they can push your HR over 200bpm, which is something lifting certainly can't do. Arthur Jones stating that 6 weeks of proper weight training can improve one's cardiovascular fitness level to a degree that is impossible with any number of years of aerobics is a bunch of nonsense. I measure my cardio conditioning by my ability to perform in sporting events; hockey & basketball, which both require a high degree of conditioning and strength. Weight training alone won't even come close to getting you into shape to be competitive. Circuit training will do a better job, but I feel you have to sacrifice to much of the strength aspect. That's why I do HIT workouts & high intensity cardio workouts. This has allowed be to become very conditioned, and I recommend it to anybody who trains to become a better athlete. The article also mentions a Nautilus Project at West Point Military Academy where supposedly some cadets were able to maintain HR's of 205-225bpm for a period of 35-40 minutes during a workout. What an utter bunch of bullshit. Do you know what kind of intensity/effort it takes to generate a HR of 205bpm......know try doing that for 35 minutes straight. If that was the case I'd love to have 5 of those cadets on my hockey team, and I'd only need 5 since they could skate "all out" for the entire 45 minute game without a rest. The marathon runner analogy is ridiculous. Marathon runners are no more conditioned to high-intensity training than Superslow trainers are conditioned to run a marathon. I do agree that aerobics aren't an effective way to burn calories for fat loss. You should build lean body mass & reduce calories to aid fat loss. But high-intensity aerobics are a great way of improving cardio conditioning. Now for something more positive. Currently I'm "specializing" on my legs for a few months to get them back into shape, as I've had previous knee problems that have really limited my training ability. My current leg exercise is leg presses. I do 1 set to failure, usually 18-20 reps, I stay in the machine & rest for 30 seconds, then rep out again until failure , usually 6-8 more reps. My legs are totally wiped out and shaking after this & usually sore for 2-3 days. I only leg press once every 14 days so they're well recovered for the next workout. If used sparingly this technique is awesome for really HITTING a specific muscle group. Give it a try........Mike
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. muscles that start with "S" [No need to post this] - from Josh Salmanson
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 00:09:07 -0400 From: "Josh Salmanson" <jsalmans@syssrc.com> Subject: muscles that start with "S" [No need to post this] well lets see - serratus, sternocleidomastoid, soleus, sphincter - this list is either genuflecting or the cardinal directions I'm not sure which. Josh, the network engineer
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re:ST and FT fibers - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 00:52:41 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re:ST and FT fibers -------------------- 9 -------------------- Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:04:30 -0700 From: Jarlo Ilano <jilano@ups.edu> Subject: slow twitch and fast twitch fibers >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. Rob, were you too embarassed to post this under your real name? (in-joke with the moderator). You're correct that fibers recruit from ST to FT (Hennemann's Size Principle). But looking at fatigue times, we have FTb at around 20 seconds, FTa at around 40-70 seconds (or so), and ST in the minutes to hours range. It would be a very odd set of weight training that would see ST fatigue before ST. As I posted in an addendum (don't think it has shown up yet), you can conceivably get ST fatigue before FT during extensive endurance activities like a marathon. But in any given set of weight training, I can't think of a single situation where you could fatigue ST prior to FT. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Too complicated? You bet. - from Alan D. Smith
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 09:01:24 -0400 (EDT) From: cf051@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan D. Smith) Subject: Too complicated? You bet. Hi, all, I have read and enjoyed the list for some time and would now like to toss my thoughts into the stew. I'm a 50 year old lifter who started 4 years ago in July. It was either that or die early. Have tried (at least 3-6 six months) the following: Power Factor Training, HD II, HIT, modified GVT, and now--due to a torn rotator cuff--my own program. I work out twice a week, Monday and Friday. Monday I squat 5x5 and either some Medx chest presses (shoulder can take those just fine) or some arm work. Friday I do regular DL's 5x5 and if I did arms on Monday I'll do the chest presses and vice versa. Oh...also forgot to mention I tried SS for 3 months. What I have learned is that, for me, the keep-it-simple-and-just- list-heavy weights works best. This twice a week program born from my cuff problem has been a godsend! And it has allowed me to heal my shoulder (saw the doc much times, showed him The 7 - Minute Rotator Cuff Solution and he thinks it's excellent, so I do that instead of PT) and yet gain strenght thru the torso and lower body in (for me) amazing amounts. And, interestingly, my upperbody has responded to this 2x/wk program! That is the part that shocked me. All of the programs I mentioned worked to a degree...but then they became problematic is some form or another. And what I'm doing now probably won't work forever either. So my experience tells me that my body likes change. It doesn't respond well to doing the same program over and over and over. I may try SS or HDII again (made nice gains with both) or something else, but I love the simplicity of what I'm doing now. The other night my wife kiddingly said, "Carry me upstairs," so I picked her up (she only weighs 135), carried her upstairs, set her on the bed and noticed how incredibly easy it was. THAT's why I work out, for moments like that. [Me too....wait, I never seem to get moments like that.... --Rob] Thanks to all for the great info. Alan Smith