-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Posts past/present - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 06:22:27 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Posts past/present I am removing my "Attitude" on this one. Look people, I tend to come across pretty harsh at times. Some days I tend to let my emotions run wild at times. Understand that military life and police experience tend to spill over into other aspects of life. I like all yous guys, I don't tend to think anyone on this list is a "wimp" as Lyle stated. I give everyone credit for doing something other than warming a couch cushion. We may tend to disagree on training philosophies, that is what makes us who we are as individuals. James, I can't debate you on specifics, I do not like studies, on weight training, medications, unleaded gas, whatever. Research is important I agree, we wouldn't have some of the great things we have today without someones research. IMHO studies can be slanted to prove a persons point, I do not put much faith in ANY study. I was once stationed in Missouri, so I guess "show me" has rubbed off on me. My posts tend to drip with sarcasm, I believe that is why our omnipresent moderator has problems, it gums up his server. Mike Mentzer isn't a good person to listen to? Well, that is your opinion, I disagree, sure, people may debate over his methods, people debate over everything. Look at how many people dog Arthur Jones and Ken Hutchins, Ellington Darden, Brian J. up there in Canada. That doesn't make his philosophy flawed. It may not be wrapped up in a scientific format with those dreaded studies splashed all over the place. As far as my time and research, well guys, I have put in my years, my money, my blood sweat and tears, on myself. I don't really care what a guy in Sweden discovered when he tested 20 subjects who ate rocks for 6 months, or some other study. I know what works for me and my gym buddies. If you play semantics with everything I post then we are in big trouble, because this is how it goes. Someone reads what I post, they get all worked up and start picking my posts apart showing how unscientific they are, while this may make this person happy, it is a waste of time. Because when I read the next digest and see the trouble that they went through, I laugh hysterically for a long time, why try and denounce what I say? Don't take my posts to heart and think I'm picking on any one person. I read most everything on the digest, when I read something that doesn't jive with what I've experienced, I tend to go after it. Lyle, I like that guy, I agree with you about individuality, what works for some won't work for all, period, deal with it, pray about it, get over it. Alright listites, I'm putting the "Attitude" back on. For the other HITers, Super slowers, HD warriors, keep HITting those weights men/ladies, we are a rare breed. Mike S., oh hell yeah. Intensity is the key to immensity!
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Fiber Recruitment - fiber conversion? - from Brian and Terri Williams
Top
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:41:59 -0700 From: "Brian and Terri Williams" <windsortoyspaniels@ibm.net> Subject: Fiber Recruitment - fiber conversion? The good Mr. Krieger said - ".......If I increase the weight to 50 lbs, it will take all 8 ST fibers and all 8 FT fibers to lift this weight...." Just out of curiosity, could this be where ST/FT fiber conversion sets in, and how or should this guide an endurance athlete who weight trains or vice versa. What I'm wondering is if I am a runner for instance, would this mean it would be more beneficial to lift at a lower %RM at higher rep sets to avoid muscle fibers changing from ST to FT, and likewise as a lifter avoid long distance running for the same and opposite reason. When I was in the army I was a 10k/2 mile/half marathoner and found for myself and many of my privates that weight training actually improved performance in the PT test (push ups, sit ups and 2 mile run) in all events, and even showed some improvement in 4 mile run times. These improvements levelled off or disappeared in the 10k and half-marathons although there seemed to be no real detriment to our times in either. >From a weight trainers perspective would this be why we should avoid long cardio sessions? "Leon does vomit a lot, even for a new employee." King of the Hill
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Creatine - from Dan Yourg
Top
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:47:10 -0700 From: Dan Yourg <dyourg@acusd.edu> Subject: Creatine > 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)? > > 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. > Regarding the above two posts from hit digest 146, I did one cycle with creatine and was impressed by my weight gain and strength gain. I experienced cramping, which is often reported. I have not had cramps before or since creatine. My creatnine blood level increased out of of the "normal" range. An M.D. verified for me that ingesting creatine effects the creatinine level, which is an indicator of kidney function. So he commented that this can confuse doctors. Being 39 and noticing that ingesting large amounts of protein also raises my BUN level, another indicator of kidney function, I am motivated to be careful what I put into my system for the sake of strength or size gains. Though it is hard to believe that creatine usage could cause someone to need kidney transplants. I just choose not to use it. The gains were temporary for me, and disappeared when I stopped taking creatine. (My creatinine level also went back into the normal range). I could see taking creatine short-term to prepare for a contest or some other goal/event, but not long-term or continuous. Dan Yourg
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Effectiveness of High vs Low Volume Training - from PRSNLFTNSS
Top
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:29:01 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS <PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com> Subject: Effectiveness of High vs Low Volume Training The effectiveness of any program can be assessed by at least three measurements. That is (1) Can a person improve in some measurable capacity (i.e., size or strength), (2) how strong can one get with moderate exposure to the system?, and can one train with out excessive or minimal risk of injury. I Having had an opportunity to train and assess Cadets from both athletic and "non athletic backgrounds at USMA, West Point, I have put together the following data. I have tested Army varsity and lightweight football players and some of the smartest and weakest cadets at the Academy. This reference data can be used to measure one's overall strength-endurance levels. So if your doing 18 set per body part or are doing one set HIT and are unable to demonstrate average strength endurance fitness levels, your probably doing something wrong and your program is not optimal. The following Text is excerpted from "The Theory & Practice of Strength Development, Chapter 28" [Pete, just for everyone's benefit, and maybe I missed it I'm sorry, but when you reference a book, can you please list the author(s) name and any other pertinent details so others who are interested can do a search themselves. Thanks. --Rob] .....An individual's strength to weight ratio provides a relatively good predictor of one's current fitness level. A simple four-exercise evaluation can be used to assess your relative fitness level. These four exercises, which have been termed the "Big 4", involves a test of maximal effort chin- ups, squats, benches, and ankles to the bar. The testing session can occur in one session and should only be considered if medically fit and after a warm- up. The entire diagnostic procedure, which can be completed with-in a 20 minute period, is not advised for untrained individuals. a. Chin-ups. The chin-ups assess pulling strength emphasizing the latissimus dorsi, rear deltoids, biceps, and forearm musculature (and long head of the triceps). The test is executed from a full extension position with palms are facing the exerciser. The Nautilus seated compound row may substituted for the chin-up test. b. Barbell squats in a safety rack with a lifting belt. Squats, with a load equal to body weight, are performed to a depth where the thighs parallel to the ground. The test can be preformed within a power/safety rack to assure safety. Lifting belts may be used and the exerciser can carry the bar at the most comfortable "legal" location on the back. Barbell squats assess leg, hip, and low back strength. The Hammer and Nautilus leg press may be substituted for the barbell squat, provided the seat is adjusted so that the knees are allowed to pass above the center of the hips in the bottom portion of the press. c. Medium grip barbell bench press. Barbell bench presses are performed with a load equal to body weight with at least one trained spotter. This test can also be executed within a safety rack. The Nautilus chest press may be substituted for the barbell bench press. d. Medium/pronated grip Ankles to the Bar. Ankles to the bar are performed last from a pull-up or any high-bar. Ankles to the bar are performed from a full hanging position. The exerciser executes a quarter pull-up and attempts pull their hips up, above the level of the elbows while touching the toes to the bar and pauses a second before returning to the starting position. There is no escaping gravity with this test. Find and use a pull-up bar. Although no one on over seven years of testing and training has lost their grip, exercise over a safety mat and have a spotter assure that you land on your feet if your grip should peel of the bar. In any event, come down before you fall down. The standards presented in Tables 28-1 below are based upon exercises that are done with strict form, with a pause between repetitions, and executed at a moderate cadence (3 to 5 seconds a repetition). This test should only be preformed after a warm-up and conducted with one or more spotters present. Table 28-1. Standardized Strength-Endurance Scores for Relative Fitness Classification. RM = repetition maximum attempts. (Based upon observations at USMA, West Point, LaChance, 1991) Exercise Maximal Repetitions RM Chin-ups 0 1 3+ 5+ 10+ 15+ 20+ RM Squat @ BW 0 1 5+ 10+ 20+ 30+ 40+ RM Bench @ BW 0 1 5+ 10+ 15+ 20+ 25+ RM Ankles to the Bar 0 1 3+ 5+ 10+ 15+ 20+ Total Repetitions 0 4 12+ 20+ 40+ 60+ 80+ Relative fitness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Classification 7 = elite 1 = poor Note: similar tables are available for machine exercises with different % of body Another test for those with a strong backbone is RM hang cleans at 100% body weight. On average you should be able to complete at least one rep. The highest reported hang clean total was 11. Pete LaChance, MS, CSCS
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Digest #147 - from justin bouchard
Top
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:48:42 +0000 From: "justin bouchard" <jbouchard@shaw.wave.ca> Subject: Digest #147 James Krieger wrote "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." Do you have any references for the Size Principle of Recruitment Theory. I would be interested in reading some information regarding this theory because at first glance, this theory, in my opinion is counter-intuitive. A muscle is a force producing engine. It's purpose is to produce a linear force by contracting many muscle fibers. You state that only a certain number of muscle fibers will be recruited based on the percentage of 1RM on the barbell - regardless of whether you perform one repetition, or go to failure. As you near muscular failure, I seriously doubt that your muscle will say "Oh I only have 40 lbs on the barbell, so I can only use 8ST and 6FT fibers to try to lift this weight" Your muscle doesn't care or know how much weight is on the barbell. As you approach muscle failure, your muscle will recruit any and all available fibers it can to produce the necessary force - regardless of how much weight is on the barbell. Your example also begs the question "What could multiple sets offer that one set to failure cannot offer ?" Following the logic of your example, If you perform multiple sets, you are simply fatiguing the same muscle fibers again and again and agian. With one set to failure, the selected fibers have already been fatigued - to concentric failure. Now I doubt that the body will recruit the exact same fibers on two subsequent sets of an identical exercise with the same weight. Then, if on a subsequent set, you are in fact using entirely new fibers (but still 8ST and 6FT) - then how come two subsequent sets of the same exercise using the same weight can recruit different muscle fibers but when training one set to failure, your body is restricted to the original 8ST and 6FT fibers. Why can't the muscle recruit the fibers as they are required to produce the desired force? This defies all logic. Please elaborate on your example or point out if I have misunderstood your arguments. Justin Bouchard
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: Study on variable resistance training - from Kevin Dye
Top
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 05:46:14 +0930 From: "Kevin Dye" <kevind@picknowl.com.au> Subject: Re: Study on variable resistance training I think John A. Casler [#148] should be commended for his honest and frank post regarding machine training vs free weights. As he has a vested interest in machines, it is rare indeed to hear such open expression on an often overlooked subject; the body's adaptation to the changing strength curves encountered during training. In his post, he summed up the need for bb training, and doing so, made many home trainees [void of the "luxury"] feel better about their [often called] "inferior tools"! We've all been duped at one time or another about the superiority of the machine age, and how they are the best thing since sliced bread! But how many of us use these "must haves", and how many of us, really need them? My estimation would be that those who are injuried, or the aged would fair [maybe] better? As a former Nautilus employee, I rarely saw anyone use the machines as they should anyway, and having worked in both environments [free weights and machines] I would can safely say the free weight people have it over the "machinees" in terms of effort. I'm not 100% sure, but I would say it was due to the primative nature that free weight training demands, that is severly lacking while sitting in a comfortable "state-of-the-art" device that [if it had wheels] could be the perfect car! There's no risks with machines, if you fail the stopper will catch the weight, so I feel it's easier to become lax in your efforts. Now these are my observations, not hard and fast facts. But we have to agree that there's something about putting your life on the line with a set of squats that can NEVER be duplicated with any machine, no matter the technology!!! Kevin [Accurate knowledge is the true wealth of the world - Darwin]
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Research on training volume - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 16:01:55 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Research on training volume > From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> > > 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) 30 studies comparing low volume to high volume? I would contend that the amount of research doesn't nearly come to this number, at least from what I've seen. Ostrowski et al (1) state, "there is little research as to the effect of volume manipulation on muscle size or function." They reference only 4 studies comparing different training volumes. Kraemer (2) references only 7 studies comparing single set to multiple set protocols. Starkey et al (3) reference 7 studies comparing single set to multiple set protocols that ranged from 4-14 weeks; they comment that they "were surprised to discover the lack of well-controlled studies comparing single versus multiple set resistance training programs." >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? Out of studies directly comparing a single-set protocol to a multiple set protocol, there are only two that I am familiar with that lasted longer than 10 weeks and used trained subjects (2,4). Every other one that I know of used untrained subjects or lasted 10 weeks or less; most of them satisfy both of these conditions. > 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. The structure of a scientific study depends upon what the study intends to compare. If a study's intent is to only compare single vs. multiple sets, than both groups need to be periodized or neither group should be periodized. In the real world, like in football strength and conditioning programs, most SS programs are not periodized, while most MS programs are. Therefore, a study comparing a nonperiodized SS group to a periodized MS group has more applicability to real life. In Kraemer's research (2), he states that "the primary purpose of the study was to compare two distinctly different training programs over a long-term training period to determine the pattern of changes in various strength, power, and body composition variables." Therefore, the way his study was constructed is valid; his purpose was not simply to compare single sets to multiple sets. The intent is to compare radically different programs. 1. Ostrowski, K.J., G.J. Wilson, R. Weatherby, P.W. Murphy, and A.D. Lyttle. The effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 11(3):148-154. 1997. 2. Kraemer, W.J. A series of studies: The physiological basis for strength training in American football: Fact over philosophy. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 11(3):131-142. 1997. 3. Starkey, D.B., M.L. Pollock, Y. Ishida, M.A. Welsch, W.F. Brechue, J.E. Graves, and M.S. Feigenbaum. Effect of resistance training volume on strength and muscle thickness. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28(10):1311-1320. 1996. 4. Kramer, J.B., M.H. Stone, H.S. O'Bryant, M.S. Conley, R.L. Johnson, D.C. Nieman, D.R. Honeycutt, and T.P. Hoke. Effects of single vs. multiple sets of weight training: Impact of volume, intensity, and variation. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 11(3):143-147. 1997. James Krieger
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Creatine - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 16:24:07 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Creatine > From: "Jeff Ventura" <Jeff.Ventura@ms.cmsconnect.com> > > 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. I'm curious how the doctor knows that creatine monohydrate was responsible for renal failure in these two athletes. Elevated creatinine levels are often used as a marker of kidney function. It is well known that creatine supplementation can result in elevated creatinine levels. However, this elevation in urinary creatinine is not due to abnormal kidney functioning but due to an increased muscle degradation of creatine to creatinine. I've been using creatine for 2 years now nonstop; 5 g a day every day. My bloodwork has showed no problems at all. Thousands of athletes have been using creatine daily for a very long time now; I would think that, if creatine supplementation caused adverse changes in renal function, than a significant percentage of athletes would be experiencing renal failure. > 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 never heard of such incidents. I do know that the FDA was going to investigate creatine in the recent deaths of 3 collegiate wrestlers; however, it was found that creatine played no role at all in their deaths. Their deaths were the result of the extreme dehydration practices that they undertook. > I've stopped creatine supplementation until I can learn more about the > risks and chemistry involved as it pertains to the renal system. I am not familiar with any long-term studies on creatine's effects on the renal system. I am familiar with two shorter term studies that showed no adverse effects on renal function. James Krieger
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Response to Berserker: More or Less? - from marlin koch
Top
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT) From: marlin koch <hbpsy116@email.csun.edu> Subject: Response to Berserker: More or Less? > 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?! I think that Arthur's meaning was taken out of context. He related how many "champion" bodybuilders would start off on a relatively low volume program, then as they progressed, would add more sets and reps; Arthur believed that as they got bigger, they should be doing less. This same principle applies to us "normal" people. As we get bigger and stronger, we should be doing less sets and less frequent workouts. Meaningful comparisons can only be made to oneself. Marlin G. Koch
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: Marvin Eder - from Chris White
Top
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 21:41:05 -0500 From: Chris White <cwhite@jpusa.chi.il.us> Subject: Re: Marvin Eder >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 ? > There are a few reasons. Marvin Eder was born in Brooklyn in 1931. McCallum, a Canadian, was born in 1926. Would his young daughter have a boyfriend only 5 years younger than her father? Eder started weight training in 1946, then almost 15, and performed his legendary 434# dip in 1951. In 1968 McCallum wrote that he "started Marvin on weights a couple years ago on a bet." This doesn't sound like the same Marvin who in a 1953 competition pressed 330#, 14# higher than the official world record at the time. Also, although Marvin the boyfriend is mentioned numerous times in Keys to Progress, I can't find any columns where he is referred to as, or implied to be Marvin Eder. If there is such a column, could you point it out by title? My information about McCallum and Eder is from HARDGAINER, MILO, SUPER SQUATS and IronMind's THE COMPLETE KEYS TO PROGRESS. Chris White
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: The All Encompassing Book Title - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 17:14:57 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: The All Encompassing Book Title > From: DejaGroove <DejaGroove@aol.com> > > 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 The 4 titles encompassed in the book that Lyle and I are going to write: A Practical Approach to Strength Training by Matt Brzycki (i.e. Rob Spector) Designing Resistance Training Programs by Fleck and Kraemer Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning edited by T.R. Baechle The Science and Practice of Strength Training by V. Zatsiorsky James
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: Gravity - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 17:00:32 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Gravity > From: "James Ray Smith" <smithj81@pilot.msu.edu> > > > 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. You misunderstood my post. During weight lifting, you are always lifting the weight from a lower altitude to a higher altitude, in some way or another (unless you're working with Keiser compressed air equipment or something like that). Therefore, gravity is always acting in the opposite direction of the weight that you are lifting. However, gravity is not pulling the car in the opposite direction that you want to move the car. I never made the comment that gravity is doing this. If you pull on the car's bumper, then you applying a force in the opposite direction that the car is moving, just like gravity applies a force on a weight in the opposite direction that the weight is moving (assuming you are performing a concentric action). This is the type of comparison I was making. James Krieger
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re: FT fiber vs. ST fiber hypertrophy - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 17:08:39 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: FT fiber vs. ST fiber hypertrophy > From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) > > >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 That's not what I meant. I was talking about the ratio of hypertrophy of FT fibers to ST fibers. While FT fibers always have a greater potential for hypertrophy than ST fibers, I would contend that this ratio can be effected by the type of training protocol used. James Krieger
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Re: Submaximal training - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 16:44:20 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Submaximal training > From: Chris White <cwhite@jpusa.chi.il.us> > > 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? Both a sprinter and someone who strength trains are looking for an improvement in a measure of performance. The reasons many people point to other types of athletes is to demonstrate that training to exhaustion is not necessary to achieve increases in performance, which is what some people (like Mike Mentzer) insinuate when they refer to strength training. Training to failure or exhaustion is not the key stimulus for a gain in strength. Consistently overloading a muscle with weights much greater than it is accustomed to is the key stimulus for a gain in strength. Fatigue is simply a byproduct of this process, just as fatigue can be a byproduct, not the main goal, of a sprinter's training. James Krieger