-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Final comments on power training - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 21:49:55 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: Final comments on power training >From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) >Subject: Re: Final comments on power training >Let's consider some angular velocities (and any resident physics people are >encouraged to make sure I didn't screw this up) at different concentric >lifting speeds. Let's say the total angular displacement from beginning to >end ROM for a biceps curl and is 200 degrees (probably closer to 180 but >this will make the math easier). > >200 degrees/10 second concetric = 20 deg/sec >200 deg/5 seconds = 40 deg/sec >200 deg/2 sec = 100 deg/sec >200 deg/1 sec = 200 deg/sec >200 deg/0.5 sec = 400 deg/sec > >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. Do you honestly think there will be >*significantly* greater carryover to 7000 deg/sec from either 20 deg/sec >vs. 400 deg/sec? The differences seem huge. Your comparison is not accurate, however. You namely compare the peak angular velocity of pitching motion to the AVERAGE angular velocity of biceps curl. The peak angular velocity of biceps curl may be double the average velocity. Besides, in a pitching motion you can accelerate through the entire motion but in the curl you must decelerate at the final stage. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it's useless to try to improve pitching - at least the arm moving part of it - by explosive weight training. >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? Whether getting stronger can make you less explosive depends on how explosiveness is defined. I'll illustrate it with an example. Let's say that a trainee can generate his maximal force of 100 lbs in 2 seconds. Then he trains according to SS protokoll and is able to increase his maximal force to 200 lbs but it now takes 3 seconds to attain that force. Thus his rate of force was 50 lbs/second at the beginning and 67 lbs/second at the end of the period, and we see that his rate of force is improved but on the other hand going from 0 to 100% now takes 50% more time. So I put the question: Has SS increased or decreased the trainee's explosiveness? Be it as it may, wouldn't it be better if he could obtain the strength increase with less or no increase in time requirement? Erkki Turunen
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: You better think - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 00:52:47 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: You better think >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? That is the assumption on which all HD programs are based but we have to examine if it's going to be true for everyone. There is no doubt that 1 set will stimiulate *some* growth. But we're looking at a dose response curve and lots of competing systems in the body (neural, biochemical, etc, etc). For some people, they may optimize the growth response with 3 sets taken a rep short of failure. Look at how many people DO grow on volume programs. This indicates de facto that the 'last rep taken to failure' is categorically NOT the stimulus for growth. If it were, all these guys doing 5 submax sets wouldn't be growing. NOW, is one set to failure the 'optimal' way to train? That's a question with no answer (unless you count rhetoric as an answer and I don't). It depends on the person. I prefer not to puke during my sets. Call me a wimp but the gym I train at wouldn't be too happy. In which case I"d rather do 2-3 sets which is still within the realm of rational training. I don't think anyone, as implied in your first post to this digest, EVER say that 'more was better' categorically). Everyone will have some optimal dose-respose stimulus. If for you it's 1 set to the point of puking, goody for you. Once again, pick up an isue of Hardgainer, look at the VASTLY different programs which have successfully worked for people. Few ever recommend more than 3 work sets for a given exercise and most training programs have less than 5 (and that's if you count calves and abs) exercises per training session. Some have as few as two exercises. Some of John McKEan's programs, based on 3 sets of singles for 3 exercsies (that's 9 REPS per workout total) make Heavy Duty look high volume by comparison. And before I get the de-facto (or so it seems) response that 'human physiology is identical, otherwise medicine could not exist', please consider that the same drug (dose) will yield widely varying responses in different individuals. As well there are some drugs that do NOTHING for one individual but have PROFOUND effects in others. Hence the development of different drugs to treat the same symptoms. Extrapolating to training, we can see that different individuals will show vastly differing reponses to the same dose of training (1 set in this case). AS well, some individuals may (blasphemy coming up) may require a different methodology (equivalent to different drugs) to treat teh same symptoms (in this case, I guess it would be smallness). So while we may share the same overall physiology, there is still a lot of individual variation. Said variation which tends to get ignored by many of the more dogmatic training methodologies, not gonna name any names. you know who you are. Or put differently, if the rhetoric fits, wear it. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Medium volume? - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 00:59:32 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Medium volume? >Date: 12 May 1998 00:31:35 -0800 >From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com> >Subject: volume >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. I think this post gives me a chance to make a point. The examples you gave above are at two very different extremes. The question I ahve asked (of both high-vol and low-vol types) and NEVER gotten an answer to is: Why does training ahve to fall at one extreem or the other. I personally feel this is the reason most get better results with 'low volume' than 'high volume' programs, the high volume programs they are on are stupid (this isn't meant to be taken personally, Steve). I train two bodybuilders, both have good genetics (something I take into account) but neither use steroids. When I have them in a 'volume' phase of training, the most sets they EVER do per bodypart is 8 and that'd only be with lower reps. More often they hover aroud 4-5 sets. I consdier this 'high volume' training, but it is vastly different than the 12 sets for chest you did on your 'volume' program. By the same token, you went from 10 hours per week of training to about 1.5 hours. There is some middle ground. Nobody I train spends more than 4 hours in the gym per week. It's not 'high volume' nor it is striclty speaking 'low volume'. Steve, have you ever tried some type of 3 hour/week training program, like a basic Upper/Lower split alternated: Mon: upper Wed: lower Fri: uppwer Mon: lowe Wed: upper Fri: lower You still get 4-5 days between bodyparts and no workou has to last longer than an hour (at that's at the veyr top end). It is possible, IMO of course, to do an intelligent volume program. No one ever said more is better. The people at my gym look in shock when one of my bodybuilders says he's only doing 3 set sfor arms, no more than 6 for chest. But that's considered high volume by the HD crowd, low volume by everyone else. I guess I'm just a medium volume kind of guy. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." Anon
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Muscles that start with s - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 01:27:58 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Muscles that start with s Our kick-ass moderator wrote: > But before that let's dedicate this digest to the letter 'S' for Seinfeld, Superslow, > Serenity Now, Strength, Soup Nazi...I can't think of a muscle that starts with 's'...damn. Soleus Serratus Anterior Subscapularis Supraspinatus Supinator Spinalis Sartorius Semitendinosus Semimembranosus Your welcome. James [You forgot "Smartass" --Rob]
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: HIT Digest #140 - from James Ray Smith
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:52:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "James Ray Smith" <smithj81@pilot.msu.edu> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #140 > >10/10 cadence(or there abouts) is preferable. > > That didn't adress my question. If I recall the SS manual (and various > articles I've read), SS basically uses F = ma to demonstrate both muscular > and body/joint forces. That is, a higher acceleration = higher injury > *potential*. > > Whether you lift or lower in 5 seconds, the peak accelerations (and > presumably the joint forces) are identical. So why is a 5" negative ok but > a 5" concentric is an injury waiting to happen? > > Lyle McDonald, CSCS Well, I don't know much about biomechanics, however, from simple engineering classes it is seen that a 5 second lift is much different than a 5 second negative simply because of gravity. Gravity always acts in the 'downward' direction so for a lift you are going against gravity, and for a negative it is going in the same direction of motion. Hope this helps.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: HIT Digest #141 - from James Ray Smith
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:13:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "James Ray Smith" <smithj81@pilot.msu.edu> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #141 > > no sense at all. The car must be accelerated, and to accelerate this > car, > > I have to apply a force. The more force I apply, the faster the car will > > accelerate.>>> > > > > Only up to a point, after which momentum will do most of the work, and > >the > > muscle will do little or nothing. > > Only if I have now gotten the car to a certain velocity, so acceleration is > no longer required. If I want to continue to accelerate the car to an even > higher velocity, I must continue to apply force. > > Also, a car does not have a constant force (ignoring friction) acting in > the opposite direction. A weight has gravity constantly forcing the weight > in the direction opposite from where you want to move it. This drastically > reduces the momentum in the direction that the weight is moving. Huh? Gravity doesnt act in the direction opposite to motion. Gravity ALWAYS acts in the downward direction. The only role gravity plays in the motion of a car assuming it is on a flat horizontal surface, is in the friction between the tires and the surface of contact. The friction is dependent on the weight of the car and the weight of the car is a product of mass and gravity. Jim Smith Senior Mechanical Engineering Michigan State University smithj81@pilot.msu.edu
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: HIT Digest #143 - from Mike Strassburg
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:10:38 -0500 From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #143 Very interesting digest. Lyle, your comments in "Too Complicated" were right on the money. I think that many lifters have no real idea of why they're training. Train to become stronger & healthier, and if so inclined, use that to help you be more competitive in sports outside of the gym. Not every protocol is for everyone, but there are enough productive ones to choose from, so find one that you enjoy and concentrate on progression. Steve Raymond, I totally agree with your perspectives on training. I also train 2 days per week (1 weight workout & 1 cardio workout) & it's the best routine "I've" ever tried. It easily fits into my lifestyle and I'm progressing every workout, and that's what really counts!! Two productive 30-40 minute workouts per week are much more beneficial than 3-4 longer workouts that you dread and that don't motivate you to train hard. I've been doing this routine for the past 8 weeks and all my poundages are up, I have "zero" aches & pains, and I actually look forward to my next workout. Unfortunately last weekend I reinjured my elbow (an old hockey injury), so upper body training will be on hold for awhile. I'm going to continue doing leg presses, crunches, & calf raises plus cardio work. I'm interested to see how I will progress on the leg presses, since there the only major lift I'll be doing. Mr. Intensity, I like your "no bullshit" tell it like it is attitude. I had hoped that this digest would be comprised of people "thinking" for themselves in the gym, and then offering some suggestions/ideas from what they have discovered in the gym. What works for some, can be modified to work for others. I like to discover a new twist on an exercise, or a little different way of doing a routine. I like to "fine tune" my workout on occasion, as this keeps me more motivated, and helps me to progress. Here's another of my latest discoveries. About 8 weeks ago I made a "parallel handle" bar for doing seated rows. It has a parallel grip and the handles are spaced apart so that my forearms are parallel when in the contracted position. This bar is awesome, my back & especially mid-back, has never been this sore before. I read about it in Hardgainer, and headed out to the garage. A little cutting/welding later and I had my newest toy. Happy training..........Mike
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. re:Krieger's comments on Ventura - from R.A. Onufer
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 21:25:46 -0400 (EDT) From: "R.A. Onufer" <onuferra@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> Subject: re:Krieger's comments on Ventura > 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. You're absolutely right James. Ideal growth comes from allowing enough recovery between hammering those weights with all you've got. This is why typical high volume high frequency workouts cause so much frustration. You just can't recover fast enough from such a protocol without outside help(drugs, supplements, whatever). So an ideal program would allow such a recovery time, unlike whatever high volume/high frequency program was causing Mr Ventura so much heartache.
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: HIT Digest #144 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 00:32:17 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #144 In a message dated 98-05-16 00:17:33 EDT, you write: << IMO SuperSlow mostly fatigues IIa fibers and in lesser degree the other ones. >> This is my opinion too. It got me into a bit of trouble with Lyle, though! Eytan
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: Mud ain't clear; in fact, it's pretty dirty - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 22:20:23 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Mud ain't clear; in fact, it's pretty dirty > From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> > > 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. Mr. Intensity, by the sound of your name, you must appreciate hard work. Let me ask you, if YOU have spent 9, 10, or more total years of school to pursue a PhD, and YOU have spent hundreds of hours of time, money, and effort to conduct research on some aspect of exercise (or anything else), wouldn't YOU want people to hear about the results you obtained by your research efforts? Wouldn't YOU want to show people that what you found may be of some importance? How would you feel if nobody listened to you? > And all other controls that need to be > considered, then it's just like saying, "well, it must be true because > THEY said so." Judging by this comment, and your earlier comment of "must be valid because they are on paper", are you insinuating that somehow most researchers are dishonest? Why would someone go through years of school, spending a lot of time and money, just to lie to everyone? The reasons studies are on paper for everyone to see is so that WE can see the results that THEY obtained and WE can judge the applicability of the results and WE can judge how well designed the study was and whether its conclusions are valid. All THEY are doing is saying, "We did X and found Y." And OUR responsibility is to see if X was properly done and if Y was a valid conclusion, and if Y somehow applies to US. > 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. Mr. Intensity, people that conduct scientific studies are not ACE certified personal trainers doing research out of their backyards or home garages. You don't get your PhD by taking some certification program and taking a test. I'm not saying PhD's know everything, and that someone without a PhD could teach someone with a PhD a thing or too, but don't you think that, after years of research and time spent in the field, that these people just might know some things that you don't? > 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? Hell, if less is better, why not 1 set every 4 months? Or better yet, why not one set a year? Taking logic to extremes, either way, is not an effective argument. Best results come from a proper regulation of volume and intensity, not an extreme of one or the other. > 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. Mr. Intensity, if a drug was developed to relieve sinus congestion, wouldn't you want THEM to do studies on it first to see if it was effective and if it was safe? Would YOU risk trying it before the research was done? I'd much rather rely on what THEY say first rather than potentially wasting my time, or worse, my health, by trying it on my own. If THEY came out with 3 studies that demonstrated that 5 sets of 10 RM done 3 times a week put an average of 10 lbs of muscle on people within 8 weeks (this would never happen; I'm just using it to illustrate a point), and you are only gaining about 1 lb every 3 weeks, wouldn't you be doing yourself a great disservice if you did not listen to what THEY say? I once tried Power Factor Training. THEY said that it wouldn't work. I didn't listen to THEM, and wasted money and time on a useless training program. Scientific studies are extremely important to the advancement of knowledge in all areas of science, and this includes exercise and strength training. Without THEM (the people who do the studies), we wouldn't be as far in knowledge as we are today. >I hope you and your joints survive, > because when you finally realize HIT is the way to train I used to be a HITer. I am no longer. If HIT is "the way to train", shouldn't I still be a HITer? James Krieger
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: Order of recruitment of fibers - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 21:05:57 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Order of recruitment of fibers "> From: Jarlo Ilano <jilano@ups.edu> > > 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?" You aren't using the Size Principle of Recruitment correctly. Yes, ST fibers are recruited first at low force requirements. As force requirements increase, FT fibers slowly come into play. However, remember we're talking about force requirements, not fatigue. FT fibers fatigue faster than ST fibers, so they will be fatigued first. For example, let's say my biceps has 8 ST fibers and 8 FT fibers (these are made up numbers for the sake of presenting an example). Also, for the sake of illustrating how the Size Principle works, let's say that fatigue has no effect on fiber recruitment (which is not true in real life but bear with me). Now, I take a 20 lb weight and curl it. Let's say it takes 6 ST fibers to to do this. If I increase the weight to 30 lbs, it might take all 8 ST fibers and 2 FT fibers to lift this weight. If I increase the weight to 40 lbs, it will take all 8 ST fibers and maybe 6 FT fibers to lift the weight. If I increase the weight to 50 lbs, it will take all 8 ST fibers and all 8 FT fibers to lift this weight. This is how the Size Principle works. Whether I take that 50 lb weight and do 5 reps and stop or do 10 reps to failure, the same fibers are used for every rep. The reason that I fail at 10 reps is that some fibers become too fatigued (the FT fibers), and the muscle as a unit can now no longer produce enough force to overcome the weight. James Krieger
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: I DO think for myself - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 23:12:10 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: I DO think for myself > From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> > > respond to a few questions. Why low volume instead of high volume? For > detailed information, check out Mentzer's web page. If Mike Mentzer tells you that you only need one set to failure and that will stimulate your muscles to grow, aren't you doing it because HE said so? If Mike says, do 12 reps to failure, aren't you doing it because HE said so? Why not 3 reps to failure? Why not 20 reps to failure? >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? You are making a big assumption here: that there is some growth/no growth point. How do YOU know that this exact point exists? How do you know if every fiber in your muscle was stimulated to grow? What if it is only some of the fibers? What if another set stimulated those other fibers to grow? Remember, a muscle is not one big unit; it is a bunch of small little muscle fibers all put together. >For those of > you who need a study on this, go to the library. If I go to the library, aren't I trusting what THEY say to me? Am I supposed to believe THEM if they tell me that a muscle is made up of many fibers, and each fiber is composed of many myofibrils? > one, gut wrenching, vomit inducing, INTENSE, set? Why work up to > failure? How do you know that I've produced growth at concentric failure? What if it is eccentric failure instead? If it was, and I'm only going to concentric failure, then I haven't stimulated growth, have I? Do you see the problem with the overly simplistic notion of "one set to failure and you've stimulated growth?" >RESEARCH how the body > functions, how it repairs itself. If I research how the body functions, aren't I trusting what THEY tell me on how the body functions? > 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." If Bill Wild ABC, PDQ had studies that concluded that the Earth is flat, then WE would look at these studies and analyze Bill's methodologies and see if his conclusions are valid. WE wouldn't simply take his conclusions as proof. Studies never represent "proof" of anything. They simply represent facts. "We had n people perform training program X and Y happened." This is what a study does, and we draw our own conclusions from these results, which may or may not agree with the conclusions of the researchers. Mike Mentzer's training ideas represent philosophy, not fact. Mike tells you what SHOULD happen based on abstract principles and ideas. Studies tell you what DID happen; what DID happen is real-life concrete phenomena, not vague, abstract principles. What SHOULD happen and what DID happen are sometimes two different things, and if what DID happen is different from what SHOULD happen, then the philosophy telling you what SHOULD happen is not correct. I don't know about you, but cold hard facts weigh much more heavily to me than any philosophy, no matter how logical it may seem. Mike's principles are not as sound as you may think; the validity of his principles has been debated on this digest before and you can check back issues of the digest to look at the discussions. James Krieger
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re: HIT Digest #144--CHINS - from Mike Strassburg
Top
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:17:28 -0500 From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #144--CHINS Beserker, Why don't you do chins with a parallel grip? Relieves the strain on the elbows & lets you work your lats very hard. I use my parallel bar for pulldowns & a couple pieces of chain to attach it to my chinning bar. Give these a try.......Mike -
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. CEA Danger - from Robert Graup
Top
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 14:12:55 -0700 From: Robert_Graup@mail.gmosf.com (Robert Graup) Subject: CEA Danger In regard to John Vormbaum post on Dan Martin's Question, I'm including a piece written by Dr. Bill Misner, Ph.D. (E-CAPS INC. & HAMMER NUTRITION LTD; 1-800-336-1977) on various thermogenics and stimulants. I had written him asking his opinion on use of the CEA stack. His response, "I advise against the stack, unless you have no objections to raising the excitatory adrenal hormone levels known to aggravate prostatitis or mutagenic growth cells in those predisposed. Since I also oppose the use of DHEA, Pregnenolone, etc., my views on using excitatory-inducing hormone chemistry in any way are not widely agreed on by the less conservative sports scientists." He also sent me the following article he wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------ The latest data from the FDA I have seen on harm to health from over-the-counter use of certain "energy" formulations blame 900 serious illnesses and 44 deaths on everything from ephedrine-based teas, ephedra compounds to DHEA or even Mega-dosed vitamins. What this says is not everyone may experience an immediate "positive" beneficial reaction to stimulant-type apothecary. I regard the following stimulant-class "drugs" potentially dangerous to health to certain predisposed people in the population if used long-term in high dose: Pregnenolone, DHEA, Ephedrine, Phenylpropanoline (PPA), Caffeine, Ma Huang, and Ginseng.(My opinion) What are the dangers to using stimulant-class drugs, such as caffeine and ephedra, to enhance performance? This post is meant to answer the recent question from the list regarding if the use for the stimulant combinations of ephedra. Ephedra is a "sympathomimetic" class drug which decreases intra cellular calcium, relaxes smooth muscles, and effects a bronchodilator response. Side effects from oral ephedrine at any dose include tachycardia, palpitations, GI distress, nervousness, headache, and dizziness. Aspirin is from the "methylxanthine" class drug (according to Dr.M. Colgan,1990)known to increase cAMP and block the inhibitory response to cAMP. Side effects from cAMP are agitation, hypotension, chest pain, nausea, tachycardia, palpitations, GI distress, nervousness, headache and dizziness. Aspirin by itself is safe to take as directed for non-sensitive subjects. Taken with certain other combinations such as caffeine and ephedra, certain predisposed sensitive persons may experience unwanted side-effects. The use of Caffeine-Aspirin- Ephedra "Stack" is very popular among weightlifters and body builders for increasing body fat mobilization. Caffeine, stimulates the increased rate of lipolysis during exercise (Costill, 1978). Caffeine acts probably through the actions of epinephrine antagonizing adenosine reception in adipocyte cells inhibiting lipolysis, increasing cyclic AMP promoting lipase release resulting in free fatty acid increase in plasma. Research studies show ergogenic benefit only among athletes who do not habitually use dietary caffeine. When caffeine, aspirin, and ephedra are combined in the popular "CAE Stack" technique popular among bodybuilders for cutting intramuscular stores of body fat, all the side effects may be remarkably magnified beyond safe-use estimates. NO study which has confirmed complete safety for combining a sympathomimetic with a methylxanthine without side effects. As previously mentioned over 900 illnesses and 44 deaths have been reported among people taking herbal ephedrine-stimulant concoctions ranging from diet teas to DHEA to heavy dose vitamins. Healthy college students are included among the 44 fatalities recorded to date from heart attacks using those products formulated from 1% to 9% ephedra alkaloids for recreational drug purposes, weight loss, or body building purposes. What happens is the initial use is metabolically adapted, calling for higher dose increases of each: caffeine, aspirin, or ephedra...or, all three in order to duplicate prior effect. What dose amounts may be safely tolerated is unknown since individual metabolic and genetic-predisposed cardiovascular abnormalities may not tolerate combinations of each drug class. Had an adequate warning been posted on the lethal combinations posed by mixing over-the-counter caffeine and ephedra, could we have saved a life or avoided "further harm" to a priceless commodity, our health. When an ergogenic supplement is discussed on this list for whatever reason or motive, those of us involved in that discussion should be responsible to include the possible side effects of any exogenous supplement. I appreciate the studies Rich quoted, very informative. Have your caffeine in moderate amounts, but beware of what you take with it, as caffeine and other stimulant type "drugs" potentiates the action of most medications and most active herbal substances. The synergistic effect on the endocrine response must be metabolized by the liver. Over a period of time in repeated high dose "some" people may experience a metabolic response of unfavorable dimension for which their is no return...944 incidents that occurred to persons should have been avoided before the stimulant-class drug left the store-shelf, and crossed the counter at the time of sale... Now knowing may prevent irreversible regret. PS: You can find other of Dr. Misner's articles at: http://server1.hypermart.net/musclezone/nutrit.htm http://www.teleport.com/~heston/journal/archives/19980328article.htm
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. Re: Brzycki's HIT principles - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 22:36:40 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Brzycki's HIT principles > From: PRSNLFTNSS <PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com> > > #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? The HIT definition of intensity is a subjective, immeasurable quantity and is generally considered a measure of fatigue or is also often coined as "inroad." This differs from the scientific definition of intensity which is the amount of resistance as a % of 1 RM, which is completely unrelated to fatigue. > 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? The more advanced one becomes, the more difficult it is to make consistent progress. This is where the Hardgainer method of intensity cycling becomes important. This method is also known as wave loading, and is also the basis of many periodization schemes. The slower one progresses, the more consistent and more stable the progress usually is. > #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? Yes. Powerlifters often train w/o experiencing extreme levels of fatigue, as well as Olympic lifters. In Olympic lifters, high levels of fatigue are very undesirable since fatigue causes breakdown in technique. > I am intrigued with the posted recommendations on optimal time frames. What > is their origin? I have seen Fred Hatfield also give similar recommendations. To my knowledge, no research has ever been done to examine optimal TUT's for various muscle groups. > Does altering the duration of maximal effort exercise have an effect of which > fibers are overloaded? Yes. Shorter durations of maximal effort stress high-threshold motor units (Type II) more. > #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? The only study that I am familiar with is by Young et al (1). They found that, in beginning lifters, after a 7 1/2 week training program, there was no significant differences in hypertrophic gains between slow lifting and fast lifting. However, this study was extremely short and used inexperienced trainers, so it really doesn't answer any questions. There were no significant differences between groups in strength and power measures. However, the fast-lifting group showed a trend towards greater improvements in RFD, while the slow-lifting group showed a trend towards greater improvements in isometric strength. Both of these trends support the SAID principle and what Lyle has talked about earlier; faster lifting speeds focus more on RFD but slower speeds more evenly load a muscle throughout the ROM and therefore would produce greater gains in isometric strength at the various angles throughout the ROM. I do know of a study (2) that tested isokinetic, not isotonic, training and found slow-velocity training to produce superior hypertrophy. However, this study was not peer reviewed, and I actually found the abstract on the Internet, not in the actual journal, so I know very little about it. > #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? I've seen the idea tossed around that people should not train for more than 45-90 minutes, due to the idea that anabolic hormones tend to fall below baseline levels after training for this time. However, I do not know where people have gotten this idea since I am not familiar with any research examining training duration and hormone levels. I personally have performed training sessions of many different lengths (anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours), and have gotten results from all durations. Still, it is often a good idea to put some type of time limit on training sessions to keep from using excessive volume during workouts. > #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? No. Conley et al (3) report numerous studies that demonstrate reductions of muscle glycogen of 26-38% following multiple-set resistance exercise; they reference one abstract by MacDougall et al (4) that found one set of 10 RM to reduce muscle glycogen by 13%. 1. Young, W.B., and G.E. Bilby. The effect of voluntary effort to influence speed of contraction on strength, muscular power, and hypertrophy development. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 7(3):172-178. 1993. 2. Gaines, R., D. Sebolt, and R. Bos. The effects of velocity specific isokinetic training on strength, hypertrophy, and cross education. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28(5):S1143. 1996. 3. Conley, M.S., and M.H. Stone. Carbohydrate Ingestion/Supplementation for Resistance Exercise and Training. Sports Med. 21(1):7-17. 1996. 4. MacDougall, J.D., S. Ray, N. McCarteny, et al. Substrate utilization during weight lifiting. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 20(2):S66. 1988. James Krieger