-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Low and High Volume - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 19:28:00 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: Low and High Volume >From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com> >Subject: Re: Low and High Volume >I'm still searching for an answer to the question of what is considered high >volume and what is low volume. I think it's impossible to draw a line between the two. Besides, it might be more appropriate to divide the volume in three: low, medium and high volume. A more essential difference between low and high volume training than the amount of work is the difference in their approaches: low volume proponents - usually accompanied with high intensity - are of the opinion that as a trainee proceeds the volume should go down whereas it's the opposite with volume proponents. Erkki Turunen
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: warmup - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 19:27:49 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: warmup >From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) >Subject: Re: Warmups >Keep all your warmups sets less than 5 reps (start with a nice slow 135X5 >and then pyramid up to your work weights for maybe a triple than singles) >and see what happens. Maybe you get an extra rep or two with your top >sets, maybe you don't. That'll tell you a lot more about the best sort of >warm-up than us debating it for three more digests. that is to say, if >you're work weights are 500X whatever, try: >135X5, 225X3, 315X1, 365X1, 405X1, work weights (add a final warmup if you >need it between 405 and your top sets, I don't remember what you said your >work weights were). Although your advice on warmup seems logical and is in line with that of Hardgainer magazine there are different opinions on proper warmup that also inspire confidence. A world-class finnish powerlifter wrote in a magazine: "It's important that you warm up your body well without weights and with very small weights. The body should be ready for hard sets when you are in medium heavy weights with which you just aim getting the feel to the weights and psyche up for the working sets. If the weight of the day is 160 kg it's useless to spend your strength with 120 kg." Then he had a suggestion for warmup if the objective of the day was a set with 160 kg. His suggestion was as follows: "After general warmup do short (5-10 seconds) stretches for quads, glutes and back muscles. Then begin the squats with an empty bar. Take a few sets of 15-20 reps searching the groove. Then do for example 50x8, 80x5, 100x4, 120x3 and 140x2." What is then the right amount of warmup? I don't know but I'd rather err on too much than too little warmup. Erkki
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Study on variable resistance training - from JOHN A. CASLER
Top
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 12:03:06 -0700 From: "JOHN A. CASLER" <bioforce@email.msn.com> Subject: Re: Study on variable resistance training >"James Krieger" writes: >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. Hi James, First let me state that I have been reading the list the last few weeks at the suggestion of a friend and I am thoroughly impressed with the number of knowledgeable members contributing on a regular basis. I have seen an enormous amount of very thoughtful and stimulating discussion. If anecdotal or research based, I find all the posts provide food for thought and of course broaden the scope of "training awareness". GREAT LIST! That said, I wanted to comment on the observation that variable resistance machines provided less in the way of strength gains and hypertrophy than free weights. This is a "pet subject" of mine because my company is currently at work developing some computer controlled machines that promise to close that gap. I have to agree whole heartedly that current machine design philosophy (the variable resistance cam) is one of the largest technological regressions in the history of exercise because it has less potential to produce overload than free weights. The idea that a bodypart (lets say single joint to keep it simple), produces the same force curve on each repetition is the main problem. All of you who exercise regularly have knowledge of the properties of the force curves produced by a muscle during successive repetitions. You know that this curve changes on a rep by rep basis. As a regular set of barbell curls or leg presses progresses, the abilities of a muscle to produce force in the "shortened" ROM deteriorates at a faster rate than the "stretched or midranges". Think of how difficult it is to finish the upper (shortened) ROM in the last few reps. Seated calf raises probably demonstrate this the best but it is evident in all single joint movements and depending on biomechanical efficiency, most multi joint movements. This reduction in contractability in this range induces early failure when performing the exercises on a machine. The machine also creates another problem; it restricts the bodies natural movement. This may be fine if your specific goal is to "isolate" a muscle in a specific position (can't imagine why you would want to do that) but it does not allow the single most important advantage that free weights have over machines.......The introduction of "biomechanical advantages" to produce overload. If we are to agree that in the quest to cause adaptation of hypertrophy and strength, we must induce overload, then machines, because they promote premature failure and inhibit biomechanical advantages, reduce the potential for this overload. What I mean by "biomechanical advantage" is that when performing a set of barbell curls we perform the initial reps in "picture perfect" style. As the force curve begins to deteriorate we (naturally) begin to introduce very slight body movements (with some exercisers these may not be "slight"). These slight movements help us to perform more reps by helping us move the weight through sticking points and help us to move the weight through a more complete range of motion. This ability of the body to assist in overloading the "target muscle or bodypart" is not available when using a machine and subsequently a lesser overload and adaptation is realized. Please don't misconstrue this observation as an advocacy of "cheating" or bad form. It should also be recognized that there are a few machines (mostly leverage) that do not suffer from this problem. It should also be noted that there are other factors that I do not have the space of time to delve into such as "gravity related force vectors" and "biomechanical efficiencies" etc., that contribute to this superiority when it comes to free weights. It may seem ironic that I plan to deliver training systems through the very thing(machines) I here am criticizing, but once you recognize the current limitations it allows you to search for ways to overcome them. Recognizing the advantages of free weights also provides input. Be aware that no machine will ever replace the plate loaded barbell as the foundational instrument to a functional resistance training program. John A. Casler BIO-FORCE Research Laboratories
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: HIT Digest #145 - from PRSNLFTNSS
Top
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 15:21:11 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS <PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #145 James Krieger & Hit Digest Thanks for the response. I agree with your conclusion that the data on variable resistance versus free weight exercise is equivalent (at best). There is little documented support for VRE. Although referenced in Fleck & Kraemer, I wouldn't base any decision on the basis of a single reference from a non refereed unscientific publication. Regarding, fatigue as a training stimulus, I missed that reference. Depending upon ones perspective, one might be able to argue that taking 30 seconds rests between each rep of three 6RM sets is of equivalent volume and significantly lower intensity than 3 x 6RM. It would appear obvious to me that the actual weight that could be lifted by the 30 seconds rest between reps 6RM group is a great deal heavier than the traditional 6RM protocol. Essentially, there may be very difficult to equate training intensity and volume in the analysis of the effects of fatigue. I will read Rooney's study. Yes under the conditions investigated, where intensity is lowered with rest, the higher intensity method produced greater fatigue. My final thoughts are that the set designs, cadences, and exercises that probably produce the greatest potential training effects are those that enable and utilize the heaviest training loads for whatever number of reps are deemed as the goal. Utilizing submaximal resistances with submaximal intensities with out periodic and progressive overloads is inefficient use of ones limited training time and a relatively ineffective training protocol. Pete LaChance, MS, CSCS
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. intramuscular friction - from M.E.B.vandeWetering
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 05:25:36 +0200 (METDST) From: "M.E.B.vandeWetering" <mvweteri@wi.leidenuniv.nl> Subject: intramuscular friction > >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 Like Erkki, I also have been wondering about the questions: 1) Why concentric strength < static strength < eccentric strength 2) How is it possible (simultaneously) to * perform an 15s isometric after reaching concentric failure * push as hard as you can * create inroad during those 15s Only if I assumed that there is a non-negligible friction within the contracting muscles, I could come up with a possible explanation. Since I'm not hindered by any knowledge of physiology this may be an easy assumption (and a totally stupid one) for me to make, so please correct me if it's wrong. If you move a weight (mass=m) and you assume a intramuscular friction f, depending on the (constant) speed you move the weight with, the force F you have to exert on the weight is: F = mg + f (during concentric part of rep) F = mg - f (during eccentric part of rep) mg - f < F < mg + f (during static part of rep) These force-requirements for each part of the rep explain 1) and 2) I think. They explain 1) because during the concentric part of the rep you are working against friction, during the eccentric part you're letting friction do some of the work and during the static part of the rep the force required obviously has to be somewhere in between. The last force-requirement explains 2) because it explains how there still can be a drop in strength without having to abort the static hold. Since it is estimated (HIT FAQ) that you are 40% stronger negatively than positively (meaning that you can handle 40% more weight when performing a negative than when performing a positive at the same speed) it is possible to get an estimate for the intramuscular friction, by solving: mg + f = 1.4mg - f for f. The intramuscular friction turns out to be about 20% of the force gravity exerts on the weight (which at least is consistent with the assumption that it was non-negligible). One (aesthetically pleasing) aspect of this simple picture is that there is no more 'magical' distinction between concentric, static and eccentric strength. This makes it IMO easier to decide to which degree of failure to train (concentric failure, concentric+static failure, total failure,...) since it's the same as deciding to which degree of inroad (=drop in strength relative to your strength at the start of the set) to train. Like I said this is only a *possible* explanation (and maybe not even that). Anybody know an other/better explanation for questions 1) and 2) ? Anybody have comments, improvements on this explanation? Elbert ------ Very funny Scotty... now beam down my pants!
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: Explosiveness - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 23:50:17 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Explosiveness >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. I didn't say make them bigger, I said make them stronger. Assume you're smart and keep set time below the range that will cause growth (~20 seconds according to some). Here are your two individuals: 1. 2 rep at 5 up/5 down (Slow) 2. 10 reps at 1up/1 down (CAT) Assuming all other things are equal, why will #2 get more explosive but #1 won't? >If a certain training method enlarges ST fibers by a large >degree, while not enlarging FT fibers by a large degree ST fibers will never enlarge to a 'large degree', they don't have the growth capacity >(I feel that this >is what SS does, although I have no proof of this whatsoever), I agree that the long set times of SS may not offer optimal stimulus for Type IIb fibers. But look at the original question. I didn't necessarily say that we were using SS, just asking how making someone stronger (through ANY means) can make them less explosive. This is implicit in the gross overgeneralization that you 'must train explosively to become explosive.'
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Sprinters - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 23:50:32 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Sprinters >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? The basic premise of HIT is that you work to maximum at each workout, allow recovery to occur and then work a bit harder at the next workout. This is basic progressive overload, sometimes also called the One Factor (or Supercompensation) theory of adaptation. This system is predicated on the belief that working ot exhaustion is THE stimulus for adaptation. The example of sprinters is to point out that working submaximally (the book "The Charlie Francis Training System" is an excellent resource for this) but doing repeated efforts (near maximum, say 80-90% of max) can cause an adaptive respons with time. This is sometimes referred to as the Two FActor (or fitness-fatigue) theory of adaptation. It poses that a given training session will generate some increase in fitness and some increase in fatigue (with the increase in fatigue being larger than the increase in fitness, which is why you see performance dropping after the workout). With rest, you allow fatigue to dissipate while maintaining fitness (hopefully) and performance increases. This is how sprinters, Olympic lifters and most athletes train.
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: High Intensity Aerobics - from Ken Roberts
Top
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 23:26:23 -0700 (PDT) From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts) Subject: Re: High Intensity Aerobics I've read now several references to Tabata's (?) high intensity interval workouts and have read both Clarence Bass's and Master Trainers' articles relating to the same but still have only a vague idea as to how to apply it. >From your posts I infer that several of you are using it succesfully. Would you mind sharing how you have implimented the program? Ken Roberts
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Marvin Eder - from Daryl Wilkinson
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 09:18:54 +0000 From: Daryl Wilkinson <daryl@uk.ibm.com> Subject: Marvin Eder >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. The "dopey" boyfriend was indeed the legendary Marvin Eder. If you read "The Keys to Progress", you will see. I also have other articles that reflect this. Why do you think otherwise ?
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Overtraining - I'm confused - from Steven Brener
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 06:41:10 PDT From: "Steven Brener" <sbrener@hotmail.com> Subject: Overtraining - I'm confused Rob, I'm confused on how many types of exercises per body part moves one into the realm of overtraining. For example, if one wants to do three exercises per body part, such as benches, dips and flys, would he risk overtraining by doing them all in one workout? Also, would it be better to split them over two workouts throughout the week? Steve
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: low vs. high volume - from Mike Strassburg
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 09:25:11 -0500 From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> Subject: Re: low vs. high volume Beserker, My interpretation is that you don't need high volume to begin with. Start with a low volume routine and then as you become stronger you will need slightly less volume than you started with. So whatever protocol that was originally productive for you will need to be reduced as you become stronger & more experienced at generating intensity in the gym. You must determine what is the proper amount of volume/stimulus for you, and then realize that as you become stronger you will need to slightly reduce it. Many Hardgainer authors recommend dropping all of the little exercises late in a cycle to keep progression going on the bigger exercises. I've taken somewhat of an extreme approach as I only lift once per week. I do a whole-body workout (5-6 exercises) and train one-set to failure. I'm able to keep progressing from workout to workout for very long periods. I've been following this protocol for 9 weeks and was making great progress, but unfortunately I injured my right elbow last week in a hockey game & will probably need surgery to fix it. After I'm done with rehab I'll definitely go back to the very low volume approach as it really worked well for me.
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. RE: HIT Digest #145 - from John Vormbaum
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 08:52:10 -0700 From: John Vormbaum <johnv@TRATNET.com> Subject: RE: HIT Digest #145 Dan, I probably neglected to mention that I tend to agree with you. I've never tried a stack of any kind, nor do I wish to. As desirable as that temporary cosmetic advantage would be, I don't think it's worth messing with your body chemistry. But I'm kinda militant about that anyway. I rarely take even aspirin... John johnv@tratnet.com
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Hit digest 146/creatine lay off - from J. Roland Wagner
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:49:23 -0700 From: "J. Roland Wagner" <jwagner@interx.net> Subject: Hit digest 146/creatine lay off Responding to R.A.Onufers question re: Creatine layoff. I've noted a definite increase in strength and endurance with Creatine. Used for 10 days and off for 7 days. During lay off I also note a drop in strength and endurance. While I'm on here--- I would like to toss out my feelings on HIT vs high reps and multiple sets. Being over 60 with past heart attack and open heart multiple bypass surgery, following years of relative inactivity, I started out with long walks and then treadmill and stationary bikes. Finally started weight lifting two and a half years ago. After two years of high reps and multiple sets I improved both strength and endurance but not proportional to the work and /or effort invested. Six months ago I started HITs one day per week for 6 weeks followed by two weeks off.. In addition I do three moderate thirty minute treadmills per week. For the first two cycles I noticed excellent gains in strength and endurance. (working alone in a home gym you never get to true failure on free weights without a spotter, on the machines its not a problem). The third cycle seemed less productive. Accordingly I went back to less weight, higher reps and multiple sets alternating body parts three days per week with excellent gains. Conclusion--both HIT and higher reps- lower weights have a definite place in my workout future. Seems the muscles adapt rather well to either program and its necessary to make the periodic change as a "wake up call". It's never to late to start working out! Regards JRW
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Re: HIT Digest #146 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:21:06 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #146 In a message dated 98-05-20 23:28:03 EDT, you write: << Subj: HIT Digest #146 >> As soon as Lyle is done with his current book, [James and Lyle will] 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." Sorry, Rob, I like the "all-inclusive" title...I think the book may have already been written in a 3 seperate volumes (or did I miss one, James?)! LOL Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. creatine - from Keith Ellis
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:33:01 -0500 From: "Keith Ellis" <irakelli@Mars.utm.edU> Subject: creatine I have been lifting for nearly 9 years, but only over the last couple of months have I experimented with creatine. I have learned two things. One, take it as directed, for if too much is consumed, then cramping is possible (I'm bad at estimating amounts, so I use a measuring device). Two, I have seen beneficial results if not from the biochemical effects, then from the placebo effect. If you plan to be a serious lifter, I would suggest trying it. If you look in some common places, you can find it very, very cheap. ike
-------------------- 16 --------------------
#16. #143 - from Keith Ellis
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:34:49 -0500 From: "Keith Ellis" <irakelli@Mars.utm.edU> Subject: #143 Saritorius(?) - a muscle that starts with "s". ike