-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Who am I? Various inputs - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 07:43:13 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Who am I? Various inputs Are there any Charlie Brown fans on the list? Do you remember the one that showed Snoopy with his hair all messed up and a mean look on his face? Charlie Brown said to Linus, "You're rubbing him the wrong way". That's what I see in my minds eye with a lot of guys on this list since I've started posting stuff. Their hair is all pushed up from the back, their glasses are lopsided on their faces. I tend to be a lot like James Bond, I like my issues shaken not stirred. I tend to be controversial, confrontational, in other words, "I get under your skin" [I will interject here. Controversial is fine. "Confrontational"....well, we draw a line in the sand here on this digest. You want to be direct? Fine. But you do NOT insult anyone. This is a gentle reminder to everyone, not just Mr. I. RESPECT the views of others. If anyone feels too intimidated to post because things are too "confrontational" then this digest is not serving it's purpose. I hope this is very clear. I think it is. --Rob] Sorry Rob about the tasteless post in the last digest. I was just wanting a different topic other than plyometric training socks and explosive lifting underwire bras versus everything under the sun. I am not Matt Brzycki, I like his Reflections stuff on Cyberpump though. I am not Drew Baye, I am not Fred Hahn, I am not Ken Hutchins, I am not Ellington Darden Phd., I am your worst nightmare, Sorry, Stallone Flash back, I am just an ordinary, average guy, Like Joe Walsh. I know what I've seen work and what I've seen fail time and time again. I don't lift for any reason other than personal happiness. I tend to observe a lot of activity in the gym before my sets and after I finish my workout. I do give some training advice to people who ASK me. I do not run up to a guy who is pumping weights with a .5/2 cadence and say, "Hey man, that's wrong, go do some HIT and read Mentzer and be Super slow..." The guy would think I was nuts telling him to try a new drug, read some modern philosophy and become stupid. I let my appearance speak for itself, if people are interested, they ask, hey man, what do you do for arms? I begin to explain my routine and the reasoning behind it. I have helped guys who have come in off the street all fired up about weight training, they have just watched AHHNOLD hold a guy over a cliff with one hand, so with the help of Joe Weirder and his flying circus, this person is now going to train to hold his wife over the kitchen sink with one hand the next time she switches the football game off. After about two months, this same guy will come in and go through the motions of a workout that would kill a thorough bred race horse, then they say, hey man, what do you do for legs? After some explanations and an offer to try it, these guys liven up at having a life again, their workouts are productive, they don't complain about their shoulder, knee, wrist, ankles hurting anymore. So you tell me, do I believe in HIT and the programs aligned with HIT? You bet! I don't rely on a study for this information, I have invested (wasted) my time and money on things such as supplements, magazines, worthless routines in books, yadda yadda yadda. Has every person I have tried to help benefited from my advice? I don't know, some people work out for a while, then they disappear for a while only to turn up at a later date. This is how it is in the real world of the local gym. I get a lot of questions, after a set of squats usually, mostly it is looks of disbelief. They say, "Man, how can you stand to go so slow?" Doesn't that hurt or burn like hell? Yep it sure does. Some guys quit because they can't stand the mental focus it takes to go to true failure. So be it, it is truely grueling to do it right. Don't ask me what my lifts are, I won't tell you, it has no bearing on anything. Knowing how much I bench will not end world hunger or repair the ozone layer, therefore it will not make my training advice more potent. Mr. Intensity Phd (Pretty Heavy Dude)
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Get a grip! - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:16:08 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Get a grip! Hey listites, I know all you little HITamaniacs are trying to figure out who I am. Well let me tell ya brother, you don't want to know who Mr. I really is. You can't handle the truth. Well, lets say that the current trends in the fitness industry are riddled with nonsense. Any one who tends to believe Dr. Spock and his study on how many myoplexyfiberthingies are recruitted during a 1 rep max to not quite failure so as not to fatigue the muscles in order to grow, must me mad. I know I am, just trying to figure out the utter nonsense that shows up on this list disguised as fact. Oh, I forgot, it's on paper by someone who has no financial interests whatsoever. So it is highly reputable or reputa-BULL. I tried a new twist on training last night. I want to share with all yous guys and gals if any are on the list. I gots ta thinkin' Ya know Mr. I, maybe you was doin' it AALLL wrong before. Maybe you should Give plyometrics and powder cleans a try one more time. So off I goes, ugh ugh ugh, I dig out some old ace bandages a pair of my wifes underwear (best I could do for explosive squat short thingies on short notice) . I have Bluto help me wrap up and squeeze into the make do explosive lifting shorts thingies. I waddle over to the powder clean station and guess what? I can't freakin' bend over enough to grab the bar. NOT a problem! At this point I have the strange urge to eats some spinach, ugh ugh ugh. I has it all under control, I have Bluto hit on the top of me head, the force of the blow causes me to do the splits, explosively I reach out and grap the bar, I can feel all my type 1, 2, 3 and possibly 4 myoplexiousfiberosises contract and WHAMO, the explosive lifting shorts thingies explosively toss my silly self back into the mirror, the bar crashed down on my big toe, I recruited all my myoplexiously fiberously things to help me grab my toe, the explosive wife shorts thingies rebounded with it's type 1 and 2a stuff and I proceeded to look like a giant slinky all the way out to the parking lot. Talk about an intense workout, working against all of those wraps and dodging flying barbells, man, that's an intense workout. It even hit my cardio system so I got my aerobics in at the same time. Hey Matt, Rob, Drew, Ken, Ellington, Mike, lets switch to this style of training, we were obviously wrong. I felt totally safe during this entire workout. NOT!* * This workout depicted is completely ficticious, any resemblence to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental. No liablity on the part of the Author will be accepted. Mr. Intensity ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. how often - from Geoffrey Phipps
Top
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 22:55:43 -0400 From: "Geoffrey Phipps" <gphipps@tcs.on.ca> Subject: how often Using the HIT program, how often should I work each body part? I am doing... BenchPress 1x9,1x7,1x6 Bicep Curlbar 1x10,1x8,1x6 SHoulder press,- same sets as above tricep pulldown -same sets lat pulldown-same trap bar-1x12,1x10,1x8 I am 6'0" 185 lbs, and I have a very fast metabolism After Benching, or arms how many days should I wait? Geoff
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: HIT Digest #151 - from DejaGroove@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:53:08 EDT From: DejaGroove@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #151 Re HD 149: Andy wrote: I'm trying to get stronger, faster, more explosive, build my endurance, and get healthier and more athletic. Admirable goals, Andy, and it's great that you have designed a goal-oriented program....far too many trainees never know what their goals are, and their mish mash programs reflect that. They get mish mash results (mish mash is the physioligical term, by the way. Zatsiorsky uses it frequently). In my humble opinion, though, trying to accomplish all these goals at the same time is counter-productive. For example, it is difficult to get max strength and max endurance at the same time. It is difficult (damn near impossible, I think) to get max strength and max explosiveness. And to attempt to do them all at the same time may well make you less athletic, and less healthy. Decide what you need and when you need it. Then develop a program that, over time, addresses these goals individually, or at least not all at the same time! Yes, I think you are working too hard. What types of plyos are you doing? Can you squat 1.5 times your weight? If not, plyos may not be the safest avenue for you right now. Good luck in your program! I hope I have been some help. Eytan Koch, CSCS, NDR
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: Failure and growth - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 22:58:47 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Failure and growth >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. Fact, people grow all the time without training to failure. Therefore training to failure is not the stimulus for growth. This is basic logic. How many people have you ever seen take a set of deadlifts or squats to true failure? Very few, most keep that last do or die rep in them to avoid injury. Yet they grow as long as they keep adding weight to the bar. Side note: last year, to correct some form problems, I had to lower my squat weights considerably. For 6 weeks I stayed with the same weight on the bar. Since I got bored, I added sets instead. When I could do a set of 10 perfect reps, I'd add another set at that workout. As soon as I felt my form slipping, I'd stop the set and end the squat workout. So a series of Monday workouts might look like: Workou 1: 10 reps, 8 reps, stop squatting Workout 2: 10 reps, 10 reps, 8 reps, stop squatting Workout 3: 10 reps, 10 reps, 10 reps, 6 reps, stop squatting Again, same weight on the bar for 6 weeks. My legs grew during this time period. There are other ways to overload the musculature and stimulate adaptation without going to failure. >What reason are you giving >your body to change its size and strength if training submaximally? Failure ensures that you maximize metabolic work within a set, nothing more. If you are capable of doing 11 reps and you only do 10, you have performed 91% of the metaboli work as if you did that last rep. That will stimulate growth in all likelihood. You should read Hardgainer and any of John Christy's articles. >Overload=failure. Increasing the weight without ever putting effort into >a single set is like warming up for a 1 RM over several weeks. Overload does not equal failure. Failure is one method of providing overload. It's not the only one. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "This space for rent"
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: HIT Digest #151 - from DejaGroove@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:59:12 EDT From: DejaGroove@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #151 Re: HD 151, concerning HD 149 In a message dated 98-05-27 22:32:05 EDT, John and Stacy Ziegler write: << 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. >> Excellent point. The study could have been improved any number of ways. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: HIT Digest #151 - from DejaGroove@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 00:05:56 EDT From: DejaGroove@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #151 In a message dated 98-05-27 22:32:05 EDT, John and Stacy Ziegler write: << 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. >> Yes, of course genetics plays an important part in every aspect of training. Fiber type distribution, for example, can be a huge factor in someone's ability to develop explosive power. Yet, imagine if Babe had trained explosively. Would he have been that much better? Nonetheless: if you want to be a professional athlete, choose your parents wisely. Eytan Koch, CSCS, NDR
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Size does matter (digest #151) Lyle - from Paul Englert
Top
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 16:46:52 +1200 From: Paul Englert <Paul.Englert@vuw.ac.nz> Subject: Size does matter (digest #151) Lyle Lyle Your discussion on fibre types has raised some questions in my mind. If you have previously answered this in other posts sorry. However I couldn't resist finally getting my head around this fibre stuff. 1. If fibre recruitment is solely dependant on force does this mean a 1 rpm recruits all fibres? (I have a feeling the answer to this is yes and has been posted previously). 2. How is fibre recruitment effected by the eccentric, concentric portions of a lift. For example do I start at inertia requiring all fibre types and utilise less fibres at different portions of the lift. 3. I don't really want to ask this in light of the discussions in previous digests but in less than 250 words how does speed effect fibre recruitment? 4. The question was raised" >Your example also begs the question "What could multiple sets offer that one set to failure cannot offer ?" You replied:- "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". My question: "Is a set to failure dependant on fatigue" ie. Given that you have already completed at least one rep will you fail when one of the fibres required to lift a weight is fatigued therefore not providing the body with the necessary resource to lift the weight". If so how could you lift the same weight in a slightly fatigued state. Surely you would not have the fibres necessary. 5. James in an early post noted that 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. This is reiterated by the definition of the size principle you quote. Hence I take from this that fatigue and force (or fibre recruitment) are separate entities. Nothing revealing there. 6. How fast do the different fibre types recover. My question then is 'is a workable definition of in-road=fibre recruitment*fibre fatigue. I'm deliberately excluding peripheral fatigue such as nervous system, etc. Any help appreciated!!! KiwiPaul
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Tabata interval protocol - from BenchMasta@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 03:23:11 EDT From: BenchMasta@aol.com Subject: Tabata interval protocol Hey everybody, I'm a 17 year-old senior in high school, been lifting for a while now. Up to the 300-400-500 level now. I've tried lots of different programs now, currently doing Superslow. My question was, what's the Tabata interval protocol? I've heard lots of great stuff about it, but I still am not sure what it is. I've tried doing web searches on it but have come up with nothing. Please send all information about the Tabata interval protocol to me at my e- mail address. Thanks a bunch, ~Mike~ BenchMasta@aol.com
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: HIT Digest #151 - from Sean Sullivan
Top
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 20:33:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Sean Sullivan <sms64@ultranet.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #151 >> James said: >>Training to failure or exhaustion is not the key stimulus for a gain in >>strength. > Then Berserker said: >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. No, right. Assume you bench 100 x 10, and you just get the 10th rep but don't go for the 11th rep (also assume your nutrition and rest are in decent order). Your body will compensate and give you a little more strength. So, the next week you put 101 lbs on the bar and do 10 reps, then the next week do 102 x 10 and so on each time working real hard and just getting the 10th rep, but not going to failure. Eventually, you'll be able to go back to 100 lbs and do 11 or more reps. I know this to be true because it's exactly what I (and many others) do. When I stopped going to failure and always pushing through that last rep and simply made sure I put a little more weight on the bar each week and got the planned reps my strength gains took off and I've seen weekly progression for many many months on end. Sean
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Response to Brzycki from LaChance - from PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 20:40:55 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com Subject: Response to Brzycki from LaChance Questions about HIT Principles Presented by Brzycki Matt, Thanks for the belated response. I had hoped that you would have returned my call and email earlier this month to address the following questions I had forwarded to you: #1. Train with a high level of Intensity Is it possible that the training volume and intensity are actually the more important variable and fatigue just a side effect? #2. Attempt to increase the resistance used or the reps preformed every workout If its unrealistic to improve every set of every workout, is it possible that attempting improvements in only half the sets of a workout would be a more efficient use of one’s physical energies relative to their recuperative powers? If its unrealistic to improve every workout, is it possible that attempting improvements every other workout or once a week would be a more efficient expenditure of one’ s limited energy relative to their recuperative powers? #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? #4. Reach concentric muscular failure within a prescribed number of repetitions (or amount of time) to increase size and strength I am intrigued with the posted recommendations on optimal time frames. What is their origin? Does altering the duration of maximal effort exercise have an effect of which fibers are overloaded on a relative and absolute basis? #5. Preform each repetition with proper technique. Are there any references demonstrating superior strength, power, endurance, or hypertrophy following training with slower versus faster cadences? #6. Strength train for no more than one hour per workout. Should one attempt to increase the intra set rest intervals if they would increase the total amount of weight they could lift in each set and therefore the total amount of work that can completed in a 14 set one hour workout? #8. Whenever possible, work from largest to smallest muscles. Are the smaller arms and leg musculature the weak links in every multijoint exercise? #9. Train 2 to 3 x/week on non consecutive days. Can a single set of high intensity exercise deplete an exercised muscle glycogen stores within a single 120 second set of HIT? As I had mentioned in two earlier phone calls to you last month, I was preparing for a conference presentation on HIT, for the 2nd annual ACSM/NSCA state clinic at Hunter College, May 9th, 1998. As usual, I attempted to research HIT with the latest available resources. I had three great discussions with Ken Mannie and had hoped to have the same with you. Regarding your question “Aren't the 10 guidelines...presented the same basic ones used ... (elsewhere)”. The answer is yes, yes, yes. Yes.. However, in Reflections of a HITer # 24 thru 33, where you organized 10 HIT guidelines was referenced because of its accessibility to anyone interested in the topic. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that any of the professionals you sited are likely to address the aforementioned questions. Conversely, and please help me if I am incorrect, very little has changed on paper since the original Nautilus (HIT) training principles were synthesized by Jone’s and associates back in the mid to early 70’s. From my meeting and discussions with the very distinguished Coach Riley at Redskin Park, I don’t believe that Dan is an avid promoter of training to failure 100% of the time. So I respectfully await your response. Finally, regarding your question, “Is this the same Pete LaChance .. at Penn State in the early 1980’s.. ? The answer is no, no, no. NO (60 graduate credits in biomechanics, neuromuscular physiology, nutrition/biochemistry, cell biology, ergonomics, EMG kinesiology and sports medicine in general has influenced my perspectives). Work at the USOTC in Colorado Springs, doctoral research at UMASS, 7 years as an assistant professor and director of strength development at USMA West Point and Army Lightweight football head strength coach has also changed me. I am also married, with three beautiful girls (ages 4, 5, and 10), I have a new gymnastics school/personal training building/business, I am a better basketball player, and I have a hell of a lot less hair. PS: I will follow-up with some of my conclusions from High Intensity Training: a HIT or an Error.
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Explosive training? - from Rick Reo
Top
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 00:13:49 -0400 From: "Rick Reo" <rreo@remc11.k12.mi.us> Subject: Explosive training? I've been reading the digest religiously for the past few months and have been most interested in all of the debating going on regarding explosive weight lifting. As a high school football coach I am most interested in finding the most effective way to strength train high school athletes. It gets pretty frustrating when someone claims their method has been shown to be the best in research studies and in practice. Then someone else from an opposing viewpoint claims research and practice has shown their method to be best, Etc. And the debate continues. I've resigned myself to using an EFFECTIVE method of training. Science has shown us that, as of yet, their is no miracle cure for cancer. Their are various methods that have been shown to be effective treatments in different cases. What type of doctor would a cancer patient prefer to have? One that, for some reason, only promotes and supports one method of treatment, or one that presents all the treatment options, recognizing that for different individuals different methods have been shown to be more effective. Has science shown us the same thing with regard to weight training? This is not a rhetorical question. I don't know. If someone does develop a miracle cure for cancer, I hope that there will not be a group of doctors foolish enough to reject it because of conflicts with their current "beliefs/scientific knowledge". Many people claim to have the answers, yet the answers are all so different. There seems to be a lot of intelligent people debating the weight training issues. I wish they would stop arguing and start working together to arrive at a consensus - Given current scientific knowlede, what is the best way to train? My current thoughts on training my athletes: Explosive weight training has been shown to be effective in training football players (Nebraska Cornhuskers). High intensity training has been shown to be effective in training football players (Penn State and Michigan State). So which do I choose? >From personal experience, I was taught to lift explosively when I was young. I pushed the weight up as quickly as I could on the bench and squat, probably coming close to hyperextending my elbows or knees on every rep. Then my college strength coach said "Hey, that's probably not very good for your joints." Then I later had my knee scoped to remove some cartilage that had been torn in an injury I sustained on the football field, and the doctor told me I had a stretched AC ligament. Was this the result of repeatedly slamming my knees into the locked position with hundreds of pounds on my shoulders in the squat rack? I don't know, but it's certainly possible. Six months later the ACL tore and had to be replaced. I've shied away from teaching my players to train explosively because of this experience. I would be curious to hear from others who accelerate through their lifts - do you continue to the locked position? I think this is an important point that needs to be addressed by those that advocate explosive training. I'm not saying that I would not consider teaching this method to my players (assuming you stop short of lockout) if I was convinced it was more effective than a more controlled lift. Some say it is, some say it isn't. Who am I to believe? Rick Reo "Egotism is the anesthetic that lulls the pain of stupidity." - Frank Leahy
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Marvin who ? - from Daryl Wilkinson
Top
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 11:47:48 +0000 From: Daryl Wilkinson <daryl@uk.ibm.com> Subject: Marvin who ? Chris, I've been trying to find the article that refers to Marvin (the boyfriend), as Marvin Eder. Not having much luck, I'm absolutely positive I have seen this reference in at least 2 articles that I have somewhere. After reading your factual post about Marvin Eder's place and time of birth, I'm inclined to agree with you though, it can't be the same person. When I find those articles I'll have to check with the author, it sounds like he was mistaken. Bit depressing really...ruined my dream of this skinny kid turned into a lifting champion, so they're must be hope for me yet !! :-) Just kidding...I know I know I'm monster already with these biceps from toys r us hehe. Seen any photo's of Marvin Eder ? Looks great doesn't he, I used to wonder if he might have had access to growth drugs, his physique was so impressive. I wonder how attainable steroids were back then, alot of great physiques existed and I'd like to believe anything before the 50's would be natural, but can't be sure anymore. Too skeptical now.
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Reply to James Krieger - from justin bouchard
Top
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 23:00:12 +0000 From: "justin bouchard" <jbouchard@shaw.wave.ca> Subject: Reply to James Krieger James Krieger wrote: "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." Gravity does not always act in the opposite direction of the weight you are lifting if you are using barbells or dumbbells. Gravity acts ALWAYS downward !!! This is not a theory but a scientific fact !!! I refer you to arm curls, leg extensions, leg curls, tricep pulldowns and lateral raises to name a few. When performing these exercises with free weights, the trajectory of the weights transcribes an arc. Since gravity always acts downward (towards the center of the Earth), gravity does not act in the opposite direction of the weight you are lifting except for a very limited portion of the entire range of motion. At the beginning of a barbell curl, the weight is actually moving parallel to the ground, and only when you are at a 90 degree angle does gravity act in the opposite direction of the weight you are lifting. This is one of the main factors which contributed to the development of early machines which used pulleys and cables to redirect the forces so they became colinear. Justin Bouchard