-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Inroad - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:41:06 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Inroad >Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:17:33 -0400 >From: Tim <TWBruneau0@mcnet.milligan.edu> >Subject: Inroad Percentage >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. Yes, but keep in mind that growth potential for ST fibers are quite small. I would see breakdowns as a way to get FT fibers with longer fatigue times. Understand that fibers typing can be a bit vaguge. It's not as if you can look at 3 fibers and say "AHA!, this is FTb, this is FTa, and this is ST". It's all on a continuum in terms of force production, enzymes levels, and fatigue times. Ftb (Type IIb fibers) have the highest force production capacities and the shortest fatigue times (I've seen 15-40 or so seconds offered) Fta (Type Iia) have intermeidate force production capacities and medium fatigue times (have seen 40-90 seconds or so, depends on your source) ST (Type I) have the lowest force production capacities and longest fatigue times (anywhere from minutes to hours). Say you do a set that lasts 30 seocds before you hit concentric failure (say 2/4 for 5 reps) reps or so), you would expect to fatigue only those fibers with fatigue times of 30 seconds or less. Fibers with longer fatigue times, even though they were recruited (Size Principle) would not be fatigued and (if you belive that fatigue is part of hte adaptation stimulus, and I do) would not adapt. So, if you wanted to continue fatiguing fibers with longer fatigue times, you could do a drop set (breakdown) for 2-3 more reps (adding 12-18 seconds and getting fibers with a fatigue times of 42-48 seconds or so). Etc, etc. To get ST fibers will take sets that last minutes in duration, not seconds. >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?. We could roughly say that it is (Maximal strength - load used)/maximal strength (this doesn't take into account time of course). So say your max strength was 100 lbs and you used 80 lbs. Your inroad would be (100-80)/100 = 20%. meaning that at the point of failure, your body still had the capability to generate 79 lbs of force, just too little to get throuh the concentric range. >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? I can't recall EVER having seen this looked at in research. Understand that most strength training research is horribly controlled. MOst studies pay attention to reps, but few pay attention to rep speed or set time. Obviously a 5RM at 1/1 is going to be different than a 5RM at 5/5 speed. As to how to approximate this, I think it's trial and error and will be affected by fiber typing (individuals/muscle groups with a higher percentage of Type II fibers will require lower reps and higher loads; by extension, those with lots of Type I fibers will have to use long sets to grow) and a lot of other factors. I think this explains a LOT of the difference in why different methodologies work for different people. Someone with lots of Type I fibers will find that high rep work (long set times) works much better for them than low rep work. And vice versa. There are guys in Hardgainer magazine who suck at anything below 10 reps but just excel at very high rep squatting (50 reps and up). Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: Can SS decrease explosiveness??? - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 22:31:22 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Can SS decrease explosiveness??? > From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) > > And I'm still waiting for a *physiological* reason why making someone > stronger (whether through SS or 2/4 or whatever) can possibly *decrease* > their explosiveness. Are we resurrecting hte muscle-bound myth? Here's my hypothesis how making someone bigger could possibly reduce explosiveness. If a certain training method enlarges ST fibers by a large degree, while not enlarging FT fibers by a large degree (I feel that this is what SS does, although I have no proof of this whatsoever), it could hypothetically interfere with RFD since a greater mass must now be moved within the same time period. Since ST fibers have a lower RFD than FT fibers, you're not getting a very good cost/benefit ratio by significantly enlarging ST fibers. The increased mass caused by enlarged ST fibers may override any slight increase in power achieved through an enlargement of these fibers. Of course, maybe this hypothesis is full of gaping holes, so if it is, fill 'em up. James Krieger
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Isometric contraction - inroad? - from Rolf Sodergard
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:45:15 +0300 (EET DST) From: Rolf Sodergard <sodergar@cs.Helsinki.FI> Subject: Isometric contraction - inroad? Erkki kirjoitti: > 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. How about intramuscular friction? When you try to lift the weight it works against you. When you hold the weight it works for you. Aren't people generally 1.2 times as strong in an isometric contraction as in a concentric one? So, that would allow an inroad of that .2 (how exact!). To make it even more pseudo-scientific: when you lift 100 kilos, you have to generate 100kg + intra-muscular friction of force. When you hold it, you need 100kg - IMF. Anecdotally, whether that difference allows for 15 seconds of isometric varies between muscle groups. For calf raises that 15 secs is a piece of cake. For dips, around 5 secs is maximum. Hmmm... Smells like different fiber types... Rolle
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. low vs. high volume - from Berserker .
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:17:43 PDT From: "Berserker ." <berserker78@hotmail.com> Subject: low vs. high volume I'd like to butt in for a minute. Fred Hatfield thinks that so-called hardgainers would actually do better on high-volume routines because they are predominantly slow-twitch, which for some reason is supposed to mean that they can handle more work. Although it seems like almost every well-known author on the subject has said the opposite, that hardgainers need less, isn't it true that the bigger and stronger you are, the less you need? That was something Arthur Jones used to say. So wouldn't this mean that the weaker and smaller you are, the more you need? Or would it be that you need even less than a person who is bigger and stronger?! Anyone following me? Ben
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: Acceleration and RFD - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 21:49:44 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: Acceleration and RFD >From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> >Subject: Re: Acceleration and RFD >Does momentum play as big of a role in strength training as the Superslow >advocates say? I would contend that it doesn't, except for in extremely >fast lifting tempos such as 1-2 second concentric actions. What about a 4 >second concentric action? This is a relatively slow tempo, slower than >what you may see people do in most gyms, except for maybe during the use of >extremely high-intensity loads, such as 1 RM's which require very slow >movements due to the force/velocity curve. Is a 10 second concentric worth >the drastically reduced amount of weight that can be used during an >exercise, which will lower motor unit recruitment? I would disagree, if >your goal is to become as strong as possible which necessitates maximal >motor unit recruitment during training sessions. I don't even consider 1-2 second concentric action extremely fast. It's the natural lifting speed that is followed if the trainee did not think of it consciously. Even in record attempts the lift doesn't generally take 4 seconds. When making a record attempt one should try to create momentum as much as possible at the initial stage of the lift. It's needed around the sticking point. The maximal force production is less than the weight of the bar at some stage of the lift. If you don't have enough momentum when approaching that point you are not able to pass it. Erkki Turunen
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: injury and SS - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 21:50:14 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: injury and SS >From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com> >Subject: Re: injury and SS >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. Very illustrative example. The pressing distance is way too long, though. I think that the real distance is 1.5 feet or less for most lifters. By putting 1.5 feet into your calculations we get acceleration of 2 feet/s/s for a 4 second lift which corresponds to 6% force increment. Decreasing the lifting time in half will quadruple, not double, the acceleration forces so that a 2 second concentric would bring about a 24% force increment assuming that the rep pattern would remain the same (=half of the time with constant velocity with symmetrical acceleration and deceleration). Anyway, what is bothering me in this is why the tendons wouldn't stand the forces which are induced by the contracting muscles themselves. Are the tendons weaker than the muscle bellies? IMO the lowering phase is the more dangerous one because the stretch reflex is haunting there if you lower the bar quickly. Thus in order to maximize safety in SS I'd rather have the phases the other way round: 10 second eccentric and 5 second concentric. As a matter of fact I don't see a need in artificially slowing down the speed for safety's sake in the concentric phase. Erkki Turunen
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Lyle and Jim's Book - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:08:13 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Lyle and Jim's Book > [I personally think you and James should get together to do research for a book. You have > both written and researched enough material for one. I'll endorse it for you. You're guaranteed > sales then, right? > --Rob] As soon as Lyle is done with his current book, we'll start another one called "A Practical Approach to the Essentials of Designing Resistance Training Programs Based on the Science and Practice of Strength Training and Conditioning." We'll even let you write the forward, Rob. Maybe we'll include a fuzzy picture of you like the one on Cyberpump! Of course, we'll have to write underneath it, on Rob's Bottom Line (HAH!), "Rob Spector aka Matt Brzycki." When the book is published, everyone on this list is invited to come to our special book signing party, and Lyle and I will be selling pictures of ourselves for $10 a pop. And Rob will be selling his new bodybuilding clothing line called "Robbody Activewear." And then Matt Brzcyki will make a special guest-posing appearance. Oh, wait. I forgot. Rob and Matt are the same guy. James Krieger
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: HIT Digest #140 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:36:50 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #140 Re: 142 Brian writes: "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." Actually, I am trying my damndest to be objective about this whole thing despite my emotional ties to high volume. That is why I posed the question. Interesting point about which camp trains the individuals. Not sure whether I agree, but interesting. James said: "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." Out of all the studies I have seen over the last few years (probably around 30) that have shown that low volume is as good as high volume, are you saying they all had this problematic protocol (note the alliteration), of covering too short a duration and only dealing with the untrained? Frankly, I can't recall the protocol of each study that I have seen, but it is hard to imagine that so many studies would continue to choose to ignore questions that undoubtably Kraemer and others must have brought up. Nonetheless, I did notice that quite a few of them did adhere to this protocol. In any case, this conclusion seems inescapable: For untrained individuals, there is no reason to prescribe a high volume training program for the first month or two. This is actually good news, because low volume is quicker than high volume, and one of the chief companants of nonadherence to exercise is the time question. What happens after the initial phase of training is what we are debating, I believe. I personally heard someone ask Dr. Kraemer why he periodized his high volume group and left the low volume group unperiodized. I did not understand his answer. But it left me uneasy. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. eating right - from jmhendon
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:16:32 -0500 From: "jmhendon" <jmhendon@sonet.net> Subject: eating right Is there any way to make yourself hungrier? I know this sounds like a stupid question but I know I need to take in more calories but I just cant force my self to eat. Does anybody have any seggestion on how to gain eight without forcing yourself to eat food you dont want to?
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: What is meant by high volume? - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:52:25 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: What is meant by high volume? > From: Tim <TWBruneau0@mcnet.milligan.edu> > > 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. This is something that Lyle has pointed out, but often the high vs. low volume argument is dependent upon what is meant by high volume. I've heard people that are against high volume training reference training such as 20 set per bodypart routines or routines like the one you outlined (4-5 days a week, 1.5-2 hours per session). Unless someone is a genetic superhuman or using drugs (or both), or on a short-term overreaching protocol, long-term use of such routines will cause overtraining for anyone, unless the routine is periodized so that some training sessions are maximal and some are not (such as in Barry Merriman's periodized system). What is referenced as high volume in the scientific literature and what is referenced as high volume by many people on this list is very different. Let's examine some training protocols from the scientific literature so that we can see what is meant by high volume when I speak of high volume or scientific researchers speak of it. Let's look at a study that I commonly reference by Baker et al (1). This study examined the effects of manipulations of training volume and intensity. Training was performed 3 days a week, with the following exercises performed: Day 1: Squat, bench press, upper body push exercise (such as dips), upper body pull, and tricep exercise (such as pushdown). Day 2: Clean pull, power shrug, upper body push, upper body pull, triceps, biceps (such as barbell curl) Day 3: Squat, bench press, upper body push, upper body pull, biceps During the high volume cycles of these workouts, squat, bench press, and clean pulls were done for 5 x 10 RM. All other exercises were done for 3 x 10 RM. As you can see, only 5 exercises were done per workout, 19-20 total sets for the entire workout, and training was only done 3 days a week. Significant gains in LBM were obtained with this training. This training protocol is a far cry from the 4-6 day per week, 15-20 set per bodypart, 2 hour training sessions espoused by 'roided bodybuilders and referenced by people like Mike Mentzer. Everyone should have a good idea now of what is truly meant by high volume when it is spoken of by scientific researchers. This is the type of training that I'm talking about when I speak of high volume. Although it's much higher than HIT training sessions, it is definitely not what most people think. 1. 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. James Krieger
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Creatine - from Jeff Ventura
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 8:54 -0500 From: "Jeff Ventura" <Jeff.Ventura@ms.cmsconnect.com> Subject: Creatine Well forumites, I have a dilemma. I recently went to my family doctor, a young, VERY reputable guy with a real understanding for athletes (I play tournament volleyball), and after a routine physical, he began to ask me what supplements I take. I told him about the multivitamin, the MRPs, the whey protein, and the creatine. He flinched when I said creatine. He tells me that while it does work - he's a staunch believer of that - he himself had recently treated two male bodybuilders, 27 and 29 years of age respectively, who are on kidney dialysis for the rest of their lives, courtesy of creatine monohydrate. When asked if the damage could be a result of steroid abuse, he said neither of these kids had ever experimented with steroids, and their meal plans/supplementation, though very high calorically, was not unlike mine at all. They had apparently been using creatine for three years now, 25 grams/day on the loading phase, 10-15 grams/day on the maintenance dose. Blood profiles showed significantly elevated creatine levels, both before and after renal failure. Both of these guys are currently on waitlists for kidney transplantation; until their turn arrives, they get to go to dialysis and have themselves intubated every month. Their water consumption was apropos for their activity levels. He, in short, told me to stop creatine until more conclusive studies are done. He also told me the FDA is going to investigate the substance because of similar incidents reported around the country. I've stopped creatine supplementation until I can learn more about the risks and chemistry involved as it pertains to the renal system. Have any of you heard anything to this effect? All comments welcome. Jeff Ventura
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: HIT Digest #144 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 00:31:02 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #144 In a message dated 98-05-16 00:17:33 EDT, you write: << 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. >> You can train it with squats if your form sucks! Eytan
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Sub-maximal training - from Chris White
Top
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 01:21:25 -0500 From: Chris White <cwhite@jpusa.chi.il.us> Subject: Sub-maximal training Often people state that training to fatigue is unnecessary or undesirable, and use sprinters as an example of athletes who don't train to fatigue. How is this a good example? Sprinting is more of a demonstration of speed and explosiveness. How is this similar to strength training in a gym? Is their strength increasing from these submaximal sprints, or is it their speed? Or do they use weight training to increase their strength? How can you compare a sprinter to a lifter doing sets and reps? On a different note, Daryl Wilkinson mentioned John McCallum's "Keys to Progress" in HIT Digest #143. I don't think that John's daughter's dopey boyfriend Marvin was really lifting legend Marvin EDER. Chris White
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. creatine layoff - from R.A. Onufer
Top
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 22:20:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "R.A. Onufer" <onuferra@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> Subject: creatine layoff I have read a fair bit recently recently about experience with creatine. There is a very diverse array of opinions from thos who say it turbocharges their workout to those who say it all goes down the drain. What I'm wondering about, for those who have been able to benefit from it, is: any ideas what happens once you stop taking it for any length of time? Has anyone out there done this(as a cycle)? What happens to your strength? Do you lose some or just gain strength only as fast as you did before you started? How is the *change* in your strength affected by creatine and do the gains really last(when you stop)? Roy "2 secrets to success: #1 Don't tell people everything you know"