-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: HIT Digest #149 - from jon and stacy ziegler
Top
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 22:31:14 +0000 From: jon and stacy ziegler <rutger1@jps.net> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #149 Having read the last few journals and realizing that there was still SS (Super Slow) v. Explosive I thought it would be interesting to see how Mark McGuire trains. Atleast a few years back I believe he was mostly Nautilus. A second issue: although strengthening the upperbody would certainly increase the velocity of a fastball, I think most "good" fastball pitchers derive the power through their legs, buttocks, and hips, i.e.: Seaver, Ryan, Guidry, Richards, Maddox, Glavine, etc. Another issue about explosive strength which seems to be the lack of attributing genetics. For instance, lets use another baseball example in honor of North America's past time (Hockey for Cananda, but you do have ball teams). In the 1920's Columbia University did a physiological study of "Babe" Ruth. As most of us know the Babe did not exactly follow a fitness plan that most pro-athletes follow today. What was it, 20 hot dogs one day before a game? Anyway the study showed that Babe had the reflexs and muscle-reaction (that's what I call it) time of one-in-a-million people. He didn't do explosive training. I believe that Naim Solyamulo (spelled phonetically), the Great Alexiev, etc. were born great lifters, the genetic potential was there, and tapped into. Go may suck, but so did "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" and how many saw that? C'mon now don't be embarrassed. Jon
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: SIZE DOES MATTER!!! - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 22:24:15 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: SIZE DOES MATTER!!! >Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:48:42 +0000 >From: "justin bouchard" <jbouchard@shaw.wave.ca> >Subject: Digest #147 >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. Look in absolutely any exercise/muscular physiology book and they will discuss this. The original studies were done in the 50's and 60's and are hard to find (I haven't read the original stuff, never bothered to go look it up). >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. All the Size principle really says is this: The body will recruit fibers from smallest to largest based on current force requirements. If you only need to produce small forces, the body will only recruit ST fibers. As force production requirements go up, it will recruit FTa and finally FTb. If you want physiological rationales, it has to do with motor nerve size and conduction velocities and a bunch of other stuff. Any good physiology book will get into the nasty details. The Size Principle of Hennemann is one of the most accepted bases for human physiology and it has only been shown to not hold in a couple of situations, including: 1. Electrical stimulation which can recruit FTb fibers before FTa or ST 2. Biofeedback studies where peopl can be 'taught' to switch recruitment order 3. Certain reflex movements in animals. One particular organization (no names of course) likes to reference this one study to argue that FT fibers can be voluntarily recruited prior to ST. The study in question looked at something called the 'paw shake' reflex in cats (like if you put a piece of tape on a cat's paw). IN this movement (which is a reflex ocurring without direct input from the brain), FT fibers recruit without ST. Most exercise scientists feel, based on current data, that it is impossible to voluntarily recruit FT fibers prior to ST. You will always recruit from ST -> FTa -> FTb depending on force requirements. >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. You will only fatigue the same fibers if you allow for complete recovery. ST fibers have take the longest to fatigue but recover the fastest. FTa have medium fatigue times and medium recovery times. FTb have the shortest fatigue times and the longest recovery times. So say you do a set which ends in failure at 45 seconds. You'll have fatigued mostly fast twitch (both FTa and FTb) fibers with fatigue times of 45 seconds or less. Now you rest 1 minute. All of the fibers which you previously exhausted will NOT recover in that time period (FTb fibers can take up to 5 minutes to recover). Then you perform another set. Since some of hte fibers that you fatigued during hte first set aren't recovered (and hence won't contribute to the second set), you will fatigue a different group of fibers. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "This space for rent"
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Endurance training - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 22:49:27 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Endurance training >Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:41:59 -0700 >From: "Brian and Terri Williams" <windsortoyspaniels@ibm.net> >Subject: Fiber Recruitment - fiber conversion? >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. For the most part, there is no evidence that ST fibers can convert to FT in most regards although the opposite is true (FT fibers can take on ST fiber characteristics if they are trained incorrectly). At least two studies (both by Hickson) showed that heavy weight training (5X5 format) improved endurance training significantly in runners and cyclists (either by raising efficiency or by raising lactate threshold). My experience as an endurance athlete and training a few bears this out. A female mountain biker I train engages in heavy resistance training in the weight room. I've worked her as low as 5 reps before and she is fairly strong (185X5 squat at 150 lbs, crunches with 65 lbsX8). This shows on the race course where she regularly stomps other racers (especially on the hills) who don't strength train. A little more time on the bike to develop her skills and she'll be unstoppable. BTW, I slowed her down this year (3/3 tempo) and her performance reached a new level. Cycling in high gears is one sport where speed of movment is pretty slow, requiring more maximal strength. She can develop speed/sprinting on the bike. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "This space for rent"
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: failure isn't the stimulus for growth - from Berserker .
Top
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 21:15:45 PDT From: "Berserker ." <berserker78@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: failure isn't the stimulus for growth >From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> >Subject: Re: Submaximal training >Training to failure or exhaustion is not the key stimulus for a gain in >strength. Wrong. If you can only bench 100 x 10 to failure, without ever attempting the 11th rep, you will never be able to bench 100 x 11. If you increase the weight to 110, you still won't get 11 reps. In fact, you probably won't get 10 reps, either. So what you are saying to do is to literally give up when things start getting difficult. I got news for you. The body is a multi-celled organism like any other and in order to get stronger, you have to give it a reason. What reason are you giving your body to change its size and strength if training submaximally? >Consistently overloading a muscle with weights much greater th= >an >it is accustomed to is the key stimulus for a gain in strength. Overload=failure. Increasing the weight without ever putting effort into a single set is like warming up for a 1 RM over several weeks. I personally see no evidence to suggest that training to failure is not required to get stronger in the average, drug-free trainee. The head of the NSCA apparently said that "training to failure is teaching athletes to fail". Now this is coming from the head honcho sports scientist. If he had real evidence that failure was either detrimental or had no effect at all on progress, then why would he resort to saying such a thing? Ben
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Will the real Marvin Eder step forward please - from Daryl Wilkinson
Top
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 08:48:24 +0000 From: Daryl Wilkinson <daryl@uk.ibm.com> Subject: Will the real Marvin Eder step forward please >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 That is interesting and I see your point...I doubt she would date someone 5 years younger than her dad, hehe. I'll dig out the old articles I have and see if I can find the reference that says Marvin EDER, as opposed to just Marvin. You have me thinking twice now, I'm at work with my brain running full blast...for a change ! I have THE COMPLETE KEYS TO PROGRESS, compiled by Randy Strossen and SUPER SQUATS and HARDGAINER. What's MILO like ? Any good ? ________________________________________________________________________ SDM1 Opennet Service Owner IBM Global Services, Network Services North Harbour, Portsmouth. Telephone (Int) 253430 (Ext) 44 0 1705 563430
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Creatine again - from Jeff Ventura
Top
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 9:22 -0500 From: "Jeff Ventura" <Jeff.Ventura@ms.cmsconnect.com> Subject: Creatine again HITers, Dan Yourg nailed my creatine philosophy exactly, especially in light of a MD in my neck of the woods telling me that he is treating two bodybuilders whose kidneys have failed as a result of creatine. He put the scare into me, to some extent, because he told me that creatine "very probably" played a part in the onset of renal failure for these two bodybuilders. Did it for sure? Would he stake his career on that conjecture? Who knows. A second conversation with him, however, revealed these facts: 1. They tested negative for any traces of anabolic steroids, which is NOT to say that they haven't used them in the past and simply had the traces removed before the time of testing. However, both of them claim - in the face of life-altering disease, where truth and unabashed fact are most critical - that they've never used steroids in any capacity. 2. They used creatine for over three years regularly, with dosages somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 grams/day. Whether they cycled the loading is uncertain. 3. Here's the killer: hydration may have been an issue. Both of these guys claim to drink a "decent" amount of water, but presumably nowhere near the one gallon per day recommendation that is indicated while supplementing with creatine monohydrate. So my conclusions? One, if you're going to use creatine, then drink more water than you can handle. Tons and tons of clean, pure water, and then some more. Second, use it only for precontest purposes, as I feel that sustained use can be dangerous. Third, don't OD. 25-30 grams/day is high when used faithfully, as that seems to be more the loading dose amount instead of the maintenance dose. I'll consider using creatine before a tournament or similar event, but I'm not sure I'll ever go back to regular use. If I do, I'll stick to a low dosage and drink an inland lake each day. That should take care of it. My .02 worth. Jeff Ventura
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. rebuilding after weight loss - from =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=F8rjan_leirheim?=
Top
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 16:49:58 +0200 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=F8rjan_leirheim?=" <oeleir@online.no> Subject: rebuilding after weight loss Hi! I`m a cadet at the Norwegian Military Academy. Next week we`re going on a 6- 10 day battle course in which the average cadet loses between 8- 12 kilos (15-25 lbs). I`m currently weighing 215 lbs in relatively good shape. (not much jiggling when I jump!). I`ve been through something similar before, and the only thing I did for two months afterwards was to eat. I don`t intend to make the same mistake again. This time I want to use this as a way of shedding some fat and then keep it off. So, what I`m interested in is an efficient way of putting the muscle back on, and to continue growing. My current routine is a two day split in which I work chest, shoulders and triceps day one, and back, legs and biceps day two. In addition I perform some kind of aerobic exercise at least to days a week to pass my running tests (3000m in 13 mins, and 8 km in 39 mins). Here`s the program I`m thinking of using: Squats 2 * 10 Bench press 2* 8 Chins 2*8 Shoulder press 2*10 French presses 1*10 Dumbbell curls 2*10 Rope crunch 2*12 Toe raises 2*12 I`d like to do this two times a week, altough I might not be able to squat in every workout. I`m also planning to implement some short interval running once a week (20-10 like the Tabbata protocol mentioned in other digests) but I plan on being careful with aerobics until I see how my muscle is returning. Now, to the point (finally, I hear you sighing), if anyone has any suggestions as to how I should do this, please, please mail me any thoughts you have on this. Sincerely Ørjan Leirheim oeleir@online.no
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: HIT Digest #150 - from DejaGroove@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 19:46:50 EDT From: DejaGroove@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #150 These questions are for everyone, but I would particulary like to hear Andrew's opinion, since they regard superslow training. First, I know that the duration of each rep should be 10 seconds on the concentric, and 4 on the eccentric (at least so says Darden in the old Nautilus handbook). Now, is this slow duration supposed to occur automatically because the weight is so heavy, or is it a deliberate slowing down of the lifting? In other words, should the weight be so heavy that he could not physically lift it any faster (the high force production requirements cause him automatically to be on the low velocity side of the force/velocity curve), or should the lifter deliberately be slowing down the rep (he could do a 2-4 rep if he wanted, but he drags it out to 10 seconds)? Second, when the final reps in a superslow set are being executed, should the trainer assist on the concentric to assure a 10-second positive, and assist on the eccentric to assure a 4 second negative? Or should the trainer just let nature take her course (i.e. the concentric will slow down, and the eccentric will speed up, as fatigue sets in). Also, what are the adaptational consequences of the two different approaches?
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. First Trip to SS - from Eric Deaton
Top
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 07:02:15 -0600 From: Eric Deaton <Eric.Deaton@lmco.com> Subject: First Trip to SS Ladies and Gentlemen, The jury has returned from a SS training session. If you will, a dose of Intensity Baye's Way. I am sold! having trained w/periodization for 8 yrs, HIT for the last 6 years, I thought I had something going on! I was WRONG! In 20 minutes(maybe), Andrew had me down on my knees! That was the most grueling workout I have ever been through. Thanx, Andrew! For the first time, I truly understand the reality of SS. For example, I put 1/4" on my biceps in one workout! I know that part of that is from initial shock but it was still there 3 days later. Means growth!!!!! YYYYEEEEEHHHHHAAAAAA! I never would have believed that my biceps would fail during a chest movement but Andrew made that one happen. What an eye-opener. I am a true believer now. I will be sticking with SS from now on. No ifs, ands, or buts. Regards, Eric Deaton Eric.Deaton@lmco.com