-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re:Periodization - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:13:13 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Re:Periodization I am responding to PRSNLFTNSS and the querry about periodization. I am not certain what the Super slow guild may advocate. I personally do not like periodization. I find it difficult to track my progress if I vary my routine too often. I stick with 8 or 9 basic movements. This allows me to see if I am improving in lifts from workout to workout. If I were to vary my routine to keep from being bored, then I'd probably find a different activity all together. One routine allows me to focus my energy on the workout. I know as soon as I wake up on my training day what to expect. If you are making gains with a set program, how can you get bored? "Don't fix it if it ain't broke!" I remember my first few months in the gym, I would use all of the "mass shaping" techniques, bicep peak exercises. HAH! what a crock. Vary my grip, stand on one leg, tip toe while standing on my head, you name it, I tried it. Again, it all comes back to the same old thing I always say, it works for me, it may not work for you. That's why we are called individuals. HEY! a new topic, anyone read about these parasites that live in your body? What does that have to do with HIT or training? Well, just read up on these nasty little @#!*& and you will see. Do a web search for Parasites in humans. I tend to believe that these things may be the reason why I feel so bad on some days when I didn't do anything out of the ordinary. True to my own advice, I am going to TRY the parasite removal program MYSELF. This way, if I discover a 9 foot parasite in the toilet like some of these people claim to have "passed", then I'll know it is true. I won't need a study to prove it, I will not need an index card to reference it. I'll have, yuck, first hand experience. HEY ROB, the Earth is round. I just witnessed a scientific study that proves it. Bugs Bunny just threw a baseball, the baseball traveled forward in a linear fashion and it returned from behind Mr. Bunny with stickers from all over the world. Conclusion: if the earth was flat then the baseball would not have returned to Mr. Bunny. I know it's valid, it was on T.V.! HIDEE HO! -Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Effects of light - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:52:29 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Effects of light Hey fellow Iron heads, how's it hangin'? Listen, let's take a break from explosive lifting, volume training vs. ss, mustang GT, Z28 , etc. Has any one ever noticed the effects of lighting on their training progress or intensity? I notice that on bright, sunny days, I tend to be able to focus on my workout more than when it is overcast. Yous guys with the access to the studies, do any make mention of lighting effects on training? "Everyone knows Rock and Roll acheived greatness in 1974" Homer Simpson
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Training help - from Verbal2213
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:24:32 EDT From: Verbal2213 <Verbal2213@aol.com> Subject: Training help HI. I'm 15 years old and I just recently began weightlifting. My goals in weightlifting are to get as big as possible, and as defined as possible. So, here is my routine. My question is, will the following routine, with proper nutrition and intense training get me wher I want to be? MY ROUTINE: Sunday - Legs Squat - 3 sets Leg Press - 3 sets Knee Extension - 3 sets Hamstring curl - 5 sets Seated Calf Raise or standing - 3 sets -- i go to failure at about 6-15 reps Monday - Chest DB bench press - 4 sets Incline DB bench press - 4 sets DB flyes - 3 sets One Arm Tricep Extension - 4 sets Tuesday - Back Lat Pulldown - 3 sets DB bent - rows - 3 sets T - Bar rows - 3 sets seated rows - 3 sets Incline curls - 4 sets Wednesday - abs Thursday - Shoulders Shoulder Press - 3 sets Lateral raise - 3 sets Bent - Laterals - 3 sets Upright rows - 3 sets Shrugs - 3 sets Friday - Arms Barbell Curls - 3 sets DB curls - 3 sets Hammer curls - 3 sets Lying tricep extension - 3 sets One arm tricep extension - 3 sets rope pressdown - 3 sets Saturday - rest - I go to failure for all muscles except legs at 6 - 8 reps --sometimes i'll do pyramiding -- I haven't had any symptoms of overtraining yet Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Ian Albert (Verbal2213@aol.com)
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: HIT Digest #146 - from DejaGroove
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:45:29 EDT From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #146 Lyle (this regards several past digests): My final (yeah, right) posting on explosive vs. ss movements for increased athletic performance: First, a quick point: If one problem with explosive training is that velocities attained in sports are much higher than those attained in the weightroom, certainly this is an even greater problem with superslow. Your example of throwing a baseball is an extreme example. Certainly there are occasions in sports in which velocities attained are similar to those attained explosively in the weightroom. Nonetheless, the most current edition of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (May 1998, Volume 12, number 2, page 116) includes a study discussing "The Effect of an Upper Body Strength Program on Intercollegiate Baseball Throwing Velocity", in which the authors (Lachowetz et al) show that strength training is better than not for increased velocity. Duh. The interesting part, though is when they compare methods of strength training. The authors cite Yessis as saying that the best way to train for baseball throwing is with light weights and explosive movements. The studies refers to Young, however, who says that heavy weights are better than light, "as long as the contractions are done with the intent of an explosive movement." Either way, nowhere is superslow mentioned as an effective method for increasing baseball velocity. Zatsiorsky (p. 143) says you have to look at the goal. If you are training for pure, maximal force, do not train explosively, because explosive movements are too fast to produce max force. If you are training for rate of force development (RFD - the ability to generate maximal force in minimal time) , use explosive movements. So of course, a needs analysis must occur. But certainly, none of the research I have come across suggests that slow training is better than explosive training for developing explosive power. Zatsiorsky does refer a situation in which developing maximal force (nonexplosively) can be good (though not necessarily better than) explosive training. We know you cannot attain maximal force production at a high velocity; so says the force-velocity curve. In any given explosive movement, then, the difference between maximal force potential and actual force attained is what Zatsiorsky refers to as the explosive strength deficit (esd). When the esd is substatially less than 50%, in other words, most of the the athlete's strength is not used in the explosive movement, simply because the duration is too short, improving maximal force (through slow training) should help. If ESD is higher, however, slow training will not help. How can superslow training slow you down? Zatsirosky (p. 145): "The effects of strength training depend on meovement velocity. If exercises are performed in the high force, low velocity range of the force-velocity curve (i.e. superslow - my note), the maximal force Fm increases mainly in the trained range. On the other hand, if exercise is done in the low-force, high-velocity range (i.e. explosively - my note), performance improves primarily in this area." SAID at work, here. Kraemer and Fleck (p. 144) cite Hakkinen (in two different studies) as showing that heavy squat training does not improve maximum rate of force development (1981), "and may even reduce the muscle's ability to develop force rapidly" (1989). Another problem which you have brought up regarding explosive training is the deceleration phase of lifting a weight. Certainly, this is not desireable in sports. Fleck and Kraemer (p. 145) simply argue that this shows the need for plyometric training espcially jumping and throwing exercises, where there is no decereration phase. Hmmm...did I miss any points? I am sure I did. For those of you who automatically dismiss anything related to NSCA, this entire post is worthless. Zatsiorsky is on the editorial board of the NSCA journal. Kraemer is the editor in chief of that journal. And the study I quoted is from the journal. So if there is some type of NSCA conspiracy to debunk HIT by fudging results, or burying certain data, or whatever, all my sources are involved, and I guess my points, therefore, remain unsubstantiated. Where is Oliver Stone when you need him? (Rob, no reason to include this in the post unless you want to: You have my respect for remaining so impartial on this digest. I recently checked out cyberpump for the first time. You and I obviously disagree on quite a few matters, and you seem pretty vehement (if I may say so)! Yet you tolerate and post all viewpoints, including mine, that may differ from the cyberpump/HIT philosophy. Excellent editiorial/moderator skills!) Eytan Koch, CSCS PS: I have heard that Godzilla sucks, too. I won't spend $8.50 (NYC prices) on it!
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Krieger's comments on the HIT principles - from Berserker .
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:31:48 PDT From: "Berserker ." <berserker78@hotmail.com> Subject: Krieger's comments on the HIT principles >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> >>=20 >> #1. Train with a high level of Intensity Is it possible that the traini= >ng >> volume and intensity are actually the more important variable and fatig= >ue >just >> a side effect? > >The HIT definition of intensity is a subjective, immeasurable quantity an= >d >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. > What's so "scientific" about that? So researchers agreed that 80% of 1RM is 80% 1RM...doesn't mean you lifted it with 100% EFFORT. >> If its unrealistic to improve every workout, is it possible that >attempting >> improvements every other workout or once a week would be a more efficie= >nt >> expenditure of one=92 s limited energy relative to their recuperative >powers? > >The more advanced one becomes, the more difficult it is to make consisten= >t >progress. This is where the Hardgainer method of intensity cycling becom= >es >important. Some of the hardgainer authors have abandoned the idea of cycling. Maybe it's because they realized that someone who is chronically skinny will never grow by training with submaximal effort. This method is also known as wave loading, and is also the >basis of many periodization schemes. I don't get this wavy business. Poliquin has covered this issue and it's highly illogical. So: Week 1: 5x5@135 Week 2: 5x5@130 Week 3: 5x5@140 Week 4: 5x5@135 Week 5: 5x5@145 etc. What scientific reasoning is behind this? Clearly, no overload is being achieved by regression in progress. Nothing has been done to stimulate any growth whatsoever. > The slower one progresses, the more >consistent and more stable the progress usually is. I don't understand that. > >> #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. OK, we're talking about real people here, not genetic anomalies who could snatch 400 lbs. at age 5. We're also not talking about people with quadruple-plied squat suits and mile-long knee wraps. Not to mention some mildly repulsive amounts of performace-enhancing chemicals. >> #5. Preform each repetition with proper technique. Are there any=20 >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 wa= >s >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. If a study were any longer, wouldn't that tend to contradict what periodization proponents have been advocating? That one's program should be changed every week? Ben
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Marvin Eder & the term "dopey" - from Daryl Wilkinson
Top
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:53:32 +0000 From: Daryl Wilkinson <daryl@uk.ibm.com> Subject: Marvin Eder & the term "dopey" >>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 ? >[Enough with the "dopey" boyfriend bit, okay? Remember you never know who >is reading this....always keep that in mind. >--Rob] Rob, it's not intended to sound like an insult, if you read John McCallum's articles/stories, you would understand. Marvin was described as "dopey" in the stories and I am (maybe the other poster too), using that word as a reference to the charactor described by John. The articles are from the late 60's &70's. They're educational and very comical. Hope that clarify's things. [Okay. --Rob]
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Brzycki's HIT Principles - from Matt Brzycki
Top
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:02:07 EDT From: "Matt Brzycki" <brzycki@arelia.Princeton.EDU> Subject: Brzycki's HIT Principles You know you've arrived when your name appears in a subject header on the HIT Digest. I can't wait to put this on my resume. Oh, great moderator? Can you put one of those little apostrophe-looking things over the last "e" in resume so it's a noun not a verb? It might need one over the first "e" as well. Thank me . . . er, uh, thank you. [...sorry, what was that? I'm/we are watching Nitro now. --Rob] Pete? Pete LaChance? Is that you? Is this the same Pete LaChance that sat next to me in the Exercise Prescription class taught by Karl Stoedefalke, Ph.D., FACSM, at Penn State in the early 1980s? You were a grad student and I was an undergrad? Yeah, yeah, it is you. Small world, eh? While I'm flattered, I must say that I did not invent HIT. Nor did I originate any of the HIT guidelines I've presented. HIT was being used long before I even heard about it (in March 1980). Hell, it wasn't even called HIT when I first heard about it. What I did was merely organize 10 HIT guidelines that are used by the majority of HIT strength coaches for more than 2 decades at the scholastic, collegiate and professional levels to train thousands of athletes. While it seems as if there's as many interpretations of HIT as there are HIT practioners, the 10 guidelines I've given are -- for the most part -- used by the majority of strength coaches. Pete, help me out cuz I'm really puzzled here. You outta know this. Aren't the 10 guidelines I presented the same basic ones as the Strength Coach at Penn State (Dan Riley, now of the Washington Redskins) advocated when we were students there? Aren't the 10 guidelines I presented the same basic ones as the numerous Strength Coaches at Army (Bob Rogucki, now of the Arizona Cardinals; John Thomas, now of Penn State; Tim Swanger, now of the University of Cincinnati; and Scott Swanson, the current Strength Coach at Army) advocated when you were employed there? Aren't the 10 guidelines I presented the same basic ones as another guy in our Exercise Prescription class (Cedric Bryant, Ph.D., FACSM, now the Director of Sports Medicine at StairMaster Sports/Medical) advocated when we were students there? C'mon, Pete. Thanks for attributing the guidelines to me but they've been implemented by many others for decades. And you know that. .
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Oops.2 - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:29:11 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Oops.2 >Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 23:50:17 -0500 (CDT) >From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) >Subject: Re: Explosiveness I asked: >>> 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? James wrote: >>Here's my hypothesis how making someone bigger could possibly reduce >>explosiveness. > And I screwed it up. >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) The correct question (as I originally phrased it) is how would improving someone's strength by having them do repeat 2 rep sets at 5 up/5 down (total set time less than 20 seconds) at a slow tempo DECREASE explosiveness? This is implied in the idea that slow training will make you slow and fast training will make you fast. Now as brought up, true SS Training, because of it's long set times (60-120 seconds) are probablby not optimal for gains in maximal strength. But the same argument could be applied to any training system that uses set times longer than 20 seconds or so (often considered the 'neural' range). Lyle McDonald, CSCS "This space for rent"
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. my little study on creatine - from Par
Top
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:51:17 EDT From: Par <Par@aol.com> Subject: my little study on creatine i posted a question to everyone about creatine about a week or so ago. first of all id like to thank everyone who wrote me back. second of all, ill tell you what i found out. everyone who wrote back began pointing me in the right direction, and i began asking everyone i knew about what they knew. im on the varsity football team at school and our star running back, who made all-state, takes creatine. he told me that he has gained about 8 lbs of pure lean muscle. when i asked him about the thought of it just being water weight, he agreed. he said that the water is moved into the muscles or something like that. as for mr.ventura's post in #146, their kidney failure must have been a result of their water intake or the amount of creatine they were taking. obviously, since the creatine dehydrates you, there is a risk of kidney diseases, and kidney stones. im really surprised they were taking it for 3 years. i can imagine a sustained intake and overload of that stuff, without taking enough water would easily get you in the hospital. additionally, the coaches at my school, one of whom has been taking the stuff (and just stopped), are discouraging the use of creatine. if my opinion means anything, im going to take creatine. not for three years, but for one month. im going to bust my ass 4 days a week in the gym and build up as much muscle as i can while trying to drink atleast a gallon of water a day... might as well be on the safe side. in every story about a mishap with creatione, they're is always a catch. from everything that i can tell, you've gotta be careful, real careful. ~ryan martin (par@aol.com)
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. My experience - from Andy Wefald
Top
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:02:39 -0500 From: Andy Wefald <andyw@pro-mentoring.com> Subject: My experience Hit Digest, I just wanted to share my experiences of the past few weeks. I lift twice a week doing around 11-12 sets total each workout (total body; focusing on the major lifts, squat, bench, and deadlift). Then I try to do cardio workouts three times a week; sometimes two times a week. These consist of martial arts training similar to an extended interval training session, long slow distance running for about 3-3.5 miles at 9 minute mile pace or so, and just started the Tabata sprint program. I really like the sprinting. I've only used it for about two weeks now, but I feel great and the time it takes to do it is very minimal (three to four minutes). Last week I started doing plyometrics before the sprints. This week my knees and lower legs have been hurting. Maybe I'm trying to do too much. This week I lifted on Monday, sprinted and plyo'ed on Tuesday, and tried to do a long run Wednesday, but had to cut it short because my legs were hurting. Thursday I rested and Friday I'm going to lift again and hopefully Saturday I'll be able to sprint again depending on my legs and how they feel. I'm trying to get stronger, faster, more explosive, build my endurance, and get healthier and more athletic. Hopefully if I cut down the plyo's my legs will feel better. I think I did too much too soon. If I start slow and build up my legs, then I think they'll adapt to the work. I will post again in a few weeks and let you know how it's going. Andy
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. RE: Tabata Protocol - from John Vormbaum
Top
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:12:58 -0700 From: John Vormbaum <johnv@TRATNET.com> Subject: RE: Tabata Protocol Ken, With some helpful input from Lyle McDonald and Dr. Richard Winett (both of whom have been kind enough to return my emails) I have been doing the Tabata interval protocol twice weekly for about 3 weeks on only the Concept II rowing machine (I like the machine, hate the bike--also, 170% of VO2 max, or what feels like impending death, is much easier to reach on the Concept II). I usually warm up with 10-15 minutes of steady-state work, then set the machine for a 20s work/10s rest cycle, and try for 6-8 intervals going ALL OUT. It's amazing how difficult/taxing it is. As for my results: 1) Anaerobic Improvement: If nothing else, this protocol is evidence of the SAID principle--I have become exceptional at doing intervals. I can do 8, maybe 9 intervals in a row now, compared to only 3 when I started the protocol. I've tripled my capability in only 3 weeks!!! 2) Aerobic Improvement: I haven't had a chance to test the claimed aerobic capacity benefits; I can only say that I feel better--my resting pulse is lower, and the steady-state segments of my workouts aren't stressing me; I can jog through mall parking lots to my car without raising my body temperature or pulse; I can get my resting pulse down to 48 bpm. Of course, that could be simply due to SAID for the steady-state portion of the workouts. 3) Fat Loss: I'm not the best subject to judge that--I'm not good enough to get consistent readings twice in 60 seconds with my caliper, and once I started feeling good from the workouts, I reintroduced McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell to my diet. Until I learn some discipline, I'm going to be stuck at about 11%bf. My gut feel says it's effective, though; I've experienced dramatic fat loss on other interval programs that weren't nearly as taxing. Some caveats: 1) The muscular cost of the intervals rivals that of a set of squats. I can't do it every day; If I go all out, I need several days of recovery. I also can't do them on the day of or day following a HIT session. Consequently, it's all I can do to work it into my week in 2 places. I'm also beginning to worry that it could lead to overtraining--I seem to be plateauing on squats. 2) The systemic fatigue is amazing. I've been practically nodding off at my desk at work every day; and that's 1 HIT session per week and 2 Tabata sessions. Dr. Winett recommended not using the Concept II for all workouts; substitute one workout on an Airdyne or Lifecycle, and I think that's good advice. I may have to reduce my volume further, as I'm needing a full 5 days to recover from my Monday HIT/Wednesday Tabata cycle. I'm still (barely) fatigued the next Monday. 3) This protocol is HARD. There's nothing fun about it. Even though it's a grand total of maybe 4 minutes per workout, I find myself dreading it days in advance!!! Sticking with it is going to be difficult. Hope this helps, John Vormbaum johnv@tratnet.com > -------------------- 8 -------------------- > 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