-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Size principle, adaptation - from Adam Fahy
Top
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 20:09:23 -0700 From: Adam Fahy <afahy@earthlink.net> Subject: Size principle, adaptation > From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) > Subject: Re: SIZE DOES MATTER!!! > 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. IIRC, the size principle involves the recruitment of motor units from lowest -> highest threshold accd. to force requirements. [if correct, an anal point] *** > 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. No, James is correct. If training to failure or exhaustion were "the key stimulus for a gain in strength," then by implication (reinforced by your below comments), it would be impossible to gain strength w/o training to failure. Considering that every single person on the face of the planet has gained strength w/o training to failure (indeed, w/o training!), we can see the validity of James' statement. Even if James had said, "WRT weight lifting, training to failure or exhaustion is not the key stimulus for a gain in strength," he would be correct - consider the large amount of strength athletes who, by necessity, actively avoid training to failure/exhaustion, yet experience phenomenal gains in strength. > 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. This is a bizarre statement. If you can only bench 100x10, and are unable to perform an eleventh rep ("if you can only bench 100 x 10 to failure," meaning you fail at the eleventh rep), then of course you will not be able to perform 100x11, because you are simply not strong enough -you fail after ten reps! What I think you mean is, "if you only bench 100 x 10, w/o ever attempting the eleventh rep, you will never be able to bench 100 x 11." This would be incorrect - you may well be able to perform that eleventh rep, but would not know, for you have not attempted it. None of the above has anything to do with the asserted requirement of training to failure. > If > you increase the weight to 110, you still won't get 11 reps. In fact, > you probably won't get 10 reps, either. Again, this has little to do with what you are attempting to assert. If you have the strength to perform 100 x 11, yet never do so, you still have the ability to perform at that level (ignoring detraining, were it to occur). Your example of not being able to perform 110 x 10, is irrelevant wrt your assertion that failure is a necessity for increases in strength. > So what you are saying to do is > to literally give up when things start getting difficult. No, you are putting words into James' mouth. What James is saying is, "Training to failure or exhaustion is not the key stimulus for a gain in strength." > 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. This too is a bizarre statement. If the body were not "a multi-celled organism," it would get stronger w/o a reason? What you are implying is, "failure is that reason." Which means, ONLY the inability to perform at a certain level facilitates an adaptation to perform at this level, which is completely erroneous -as well as impossible. In order for adaptation to occur, one must be able to perform at a given level -adaptation increases performance /at that level/ (at which point, weight or reps are raised in an effort to match adapted strength levels). The inability to deadlift two tons will do absolutely nothing to increase one's ability to deadlift /any/ amount, regardless of the effort expended, or the amount of attempts, across any amount of time (months, years, etc). If strength is increased by such a program, it would be specific to the stimulus - namely, a degree of isometric strength gain at the start of a DL (btw, one will adapt very quickly to such a protocol). Certainly, one will not magically be able to DL two tons. One must be able to perform a given action -no matter how poorly- in order for performance-increasing adaptation to occur (and, adaptation is specific to the performed action). > What reason are you giving > your body to change its size and strength if training submaximally? See above. What you are suggesting with this statement is the impossibility of strength increase w/o performing 1RM sets, which we all know is false (meaning, it is definitely possible to increase strength w/o performing 1RMs -indeed, strength increase is thought to be greater by cycling intensity and peaking for 1RM loads). What you _should_ be saying is, adaptation will be more significant with the performance of maximal voluntary actions (which does not mean failure, but the last fully completed action b/f an inability to sustain performance) for a given TUT/load. > >Consistently overloading a muscle with weights much greater than > >it is accustomed to is the key stimulus for a gain in strength. > > Overload=failure. No, overload cannot be failure. Overload is performance at a level greater than has been experienced* -from which, adaptation occurs in order to facilitate greater/more efficient performance at that level. [* "...the magnitude of the training load is above the habitual level" (Zatsiorsky, _Science and Practice of Strength Training_)] None of this has much direct connection to stimulation of hypertrophy. -- Adam Fahy afahy@earthlink.net
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: Size Principle of Recruitment - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 15:56:30 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Size Principle of Recruitment > From: "justin bouchard" <jbouchard@shaw.wave.ca> > > Do you have any references for the Size Principle of Recruitment > Theory. Many texts discuss the Size Principle (1-3). > Your muscle doesn't care or know how much > weight is on the barbell. Yes it does. The more weight that is on the bar, the more fibers that must be recruited to lift it. Once maximal motor unit recruitment is achieved, further increases in force generation are achieved by higher rates of firing of motor neurons (3). > 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. If this was true, then it shouldn't matter what weights I use as long as I train to failure. Therefore, a 100 RM set will produce the exact same results as a 10 RM set. This is not true at all. > 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 are ignoring a key statement that I made in my original post. I stated, "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)." Fatigue does effect fiber recruitment. Multiple sets can effect motor units that a single set may not. > 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. What happens is that as some motor units drop out due to fatigue, additional fresh motor units of the same type are called into play (2). For example, if one set involves 8 ST fibers and 6 FT, and you do a second set, 2 of those 6 FT motor units have not recovered to be able to be used on the second set, so your body recruits 2 fresh remaining FT motor units during the second set. 1. Kraemer, W.J., and S.J. Fleck. Designing Resistance Training Programs. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1997. 2. Noth, J. Motor Units. In: Strength and Power in Sport, ed. P.V. Komi., 357-369. London, UK: Blackwell Scientific. 1992. 3. Zatsiorsky, V.M. Science and Practice of Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1995. James Krieger
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: My comments on HIT principles - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 14:57:26 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: My comments on HIT principles > From: "Berserker ." <berserker78@hotmail.com> > > > >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. Proper science requires the measurement of objective quantities, not subjective quantities. This is why intensity is defined as % 1 RM in strength training and % VO2 max in endurance training, because these are objective quantities that can be measured. While effort is important in any form of exercise, it is a quantity which cannot be measured. While measures of effort have been established in the scientific literature (such as the RPE for endurance training), they still represent subjective quantities and depend upon the individual's conception of effort. I really can't see what point you are trying to make here. If 100% effort is so important, then I present you with this. I can push on a wall as hard as I can (100% effort), and that wall is not going to move. According to Mike Mentzer's philosophies, I have attempted the momentary impossible. However, is that going to increase my muscle size significantly? Highly doubtful. > 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. Hmmm. Stuart McRobert achieved outstanding increases in both muscle size and strength over the years through the use of intensity cycling, and advocates it heavily in his book Brawn. > 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. Your concept of overload is incorrect. Overload does not mean training to failure or maximal training, although these forms of training do represent a form of overload. Overload is a very broad concept and can mean many different things depending upon the type of training. Overload in the general sense means subjecting the body to a stress that it is not accustomed to. A brisk walk represents a form of overload to a person who has been previously sedentary, yet this person did not walk "to failure." However, to a distance runner, a brisk walk does not represent a form of overload. As far as strength training is concerned, training with heavy weights, whether submaximal or maximal, represents a form of overload. A set does not have to be taken to failure to present an overload stimulus. An inexperienced lifter can stop sets very far short of failure and will still be subjected to an overload stimulus, because they are not used to strength training. Maximal training becomes more important as a lifter becomes more experienced. However, even in an experienced lifter, a submaximal set will represent a form of overload, unless it is significantly submaximal (such as 3 reps with a 10 RM load). Taking a set to failure ensures that an overload stimulus has been presented, but if a set is not taken to failure it does not mean that an overload stimulus has not been presented. For example, someone who has a leg in a cast will experience muscular atrophy. When the cast has been taken off, and the person begins to walk on the leg again, hypertrophy will occur. This is because the leg musculature is now being overloaded. However, did this person walk "to failure?" No. The reason the leg musculature increased in size is because it was consistently presented with a stimulus that it was not used to (it was overloaded), and the musculature was forced to adapt. If training to failure itself was the key overload stimulus in strength training, then it shouldn't matter what weights I use as long as I train to failure, and I could do a set with a 100 RM load and achieve an increase in muscle size. However, we all know that this does not happen. Many factors play a role in the overall overload stimulus caused by a strength training program, such as volume, intensity, frequency, rest intervals, etc. The concept of overload encompasses many things, and it is a mistake to reduce it to the amount of weight used during a set or whether a set was taken to failure or not. The submaximal sets of a wave-loading protocol do represent a form of overload. Just because a set was not taken to failure does not mean a stimulus was not presented. > > The slower one progresses, the more > >consistent and more stable the progress usually is. > > I don't understand that. If I attempt to add 2.5 lbs per week to my squat to where I cannot add this amount anymore while keeping my repetitions the same, versus 1 lb per week in the same manner, who do you think is going to have more stable and longer-term progress? Not only is the person adding 2.5 lbs per week going to hit a plateau sooner, it is also likely that the person adding 1 lb a week will eventually achieve a greater level of strength in the long run, although it will take them much longer to achieve this level. > >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. Competitive powerlifters and Olympic lifters are real people. Are you saying that every person that competes in powerlifting or Olympic lifiting uses drugs or is a genetic anomaly? That's a lot of people. Hmmm. While Olympic lifting is not nearly as popular as other strength sports in the U.S., there are still many competitive Olympic lifters out there, and none of them purposely train to failure. Why? To do so encourages bad technique on these highly technical lifts. According to you, training to failure is necessary to achieve overload so that progress can be achieved. However, if this was true, then Olympic lifters would never be able to make progress. > 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? Periodization does not mean changing a program every week. A few protocols do introduce very frequent variations week to week, but most do not. Periodization doesn't mean changing a program every week just like HIT doesn't mean 1 set to failure training. James Krieger
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Failure isn't stimulus for growth - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 16:32:48 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Failure isn't stimulus for growth > From: "Berserker ." <berserker78@hotmail.com> > >From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> > > >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. Wrong. Whether you attempt the 11th rep or not doesn't mean you will never be capable of performing the 11th rep. Attempting a rep and being capable of actually doing it are completely unrelated things. A valid version of your statement would be the following: If you only bench 100 x 10, without ever attempting the 11th rep, you will never know whether you can 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. Whoa, where did I ever say that? > 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? I got news for you. Let's say that you break your leg. It's put in a cast for a long period of time and atrophies. When the cast comes off, you begin to walk on the leg again. The leg eventually hypertrophies back to its normal size. This increase in size didn't come from doing anything maximal or walking "to failure." It came because the leg was consistently subjected to a load that it was not used to. > >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. A man is an animal, but an animal is not necessarily a man. Muscular failure is a form of overload, but overload is not necessarily muscular failure. Overload comes in many different forms. Also, just because a set is submaximal doesn't mean it doesn't take effort. If I do 8 reps with a 9 RM load, are you going to tell me that those 8 reps didn't require any effort, and only the 9th does? > I personally see no evidence to suggest that training to failure is not > required to get stronger in the average, drug-free trainee. Please tell me how you would train an Olympic lifter. You wouldn't want to have him purposely take sets to failure because you would cause him to lose his technique and learn bad form. Are you saying that it would be impossible for him to achieve significant improvements given this constraint? Hmmm. >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. FYI, Mike Stone is not and has not been the president of the NSCA for quite a while now. The validity of this statement depends upon the context within what he was talking about. I was first exposed to this quote through one of Matt Brzycki's articles, but the context within what it appeared was not clear. If Mike was talking about strength training in general, then, yes, this is a ridiculous statement. Performing a maximal set of bench press is not teaching you to fail. However, if he was talking about Olympic lifters, then his statement is very valid. The success of an Olympic lifter depends upon successful attempts. If an Olympic lifter were to constantly attempt lifts that he could not complete, it would encourage bad technique and severely discourage the athlete psychologically, thus "teaching him to fail." James Krieger
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Huge Stomach! - from friendly@n-link.com
Top
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 21:38:48 -0700 From: "friendly@n-link.com" <friendly@n-link.com> Subject: Huge Stomach! I have recently started bodybuilding after "being away" for over 4 years. I have a question...What can I do about my HUGE STOMACH! There is very little fat on my stomach...but it sticks WAY OUT! I have started doing more stomach execrises to try to get it to "shrink".....Maybe I need to work on my chest some more! My chest has nice development...but I still look obese when people look at my stomach! Do you guys have ANY ideas?!!! Thanks 1,000,000!
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: Size still matters - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 21:37:37 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Size still matters >Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 16:46:52 +1200 >From: Paul Englert <Paul.Englert@vuw.ac.nz> >Subject: Size does matter (digest #151) Lyle >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). Yup. According to Digby Sale, once you get past about 80-85% of 1 rep maximum (depends on which of his papers you read) or about 6-8 rep max, you will recruit all muscle fibers (technically: motor units). So, you ask, why can you still lift more weight? The body can increase force production through two major mechanisms: a. recruit more muscle fibers. In major muscle groups (the ones we are concerned with), recruitment will occur up to about 80-85% of 1RM. In what are (strangely) called "constrained muscle groups" (such as the eye muscles), the body will only recruit more fibers up to 50% of 1RM (don't ask me how they tested 1RM in the eye). Once the body has recruited all of its fibers it can increase strength production through: b. rate coding: the body sends electric signals to the muscle at a given rate (given in signals/second or hertz, Hz). Above 80-85% or 1RM, the body will send signals at a faster rate to increase force production. One of the supposed adaptations to low rep training is to increase rate coding in the body. >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. Good question and I'm not sure I have a complete answer. I guess I'd say that recruitment during concentric actions will depend solely on force requirements. So for any given lift, assuming a constant speed throughout it (to eliminate any acceleration effect) you will have varying force requirements (of course depending on the implment you're using such as a barbell, machine, cam machine, etc) and recruitment/rate coding will vary accordingly. That is, at the sticking point where force requirements are highest, you will have maximal recruitment. At other poits of hte curve, if force requirements drop below 80-85% of 1RM, some fibers may unrecruit. During an eccentric action, things change a bit. For a given load (say 85% of 1RM), less fibers are recruited during the eccentric but MORE Type IIb fibers are recruited (I have the reference somewhere, it's by Nardone et. al.). Since less fibers are recruited for the same load, this means that there is greater force/fiber being produced. This is a bit hard to conceptualize so I'll try to explain. Say you have a force requirement of 100 lbs (spare me on the units, I know lbs isn't correct) to get through the sticking point of a concentric lift. And let's say it takes 100 muscle fibers to do it. This means that each fiber (ok, not really since Type II generate more force than Type I but I"m trying to simplify this) has to produce 100 lbs/100 fibers = 1 lb/fiber. Now on the eccentric, you only recruit say 50 fibers (I"m making up numbers). Now you have to generate 100 lbs/50 fibers so each fiber must produce 2 lb/fiber. This has been hypothesized to be why eccentric actions cause more damage than concentric actions, more stress/fiber. >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? Unless someone has data to show me otherwise, the only effect speed will have is by incresaing *momentary* force requirements of a muscle. That is, compare two reps with the same load, one complete in 1 second, the other in 2 seconds. The first rep will require a higher velocity and peak acceleration than the second rep. We can look at the net forces as Fnet = ma. If you raise a while keeping m the same, Fnet goes up. Higher force requirements mean greater recruitment. Assuming you're not already over 85% of 1RM in which case it's moot anyhow. >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:- >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". I'm not sure what you mean with this question. Basically all concentric muscle failure means is that your momentary muscular output is too low for the current force reequirements. So if you have fatigued your muscle so that it can only ouptut 100 lbs of force (again, spare me on the units) and you need to generate 101 lbs of force, you will have hit failure. This does NOT mean you have fatigued all fibers however, only that you have fatigued enough that your current force output is less than current force requirements. >If so how could you lift the same weight in a slightly fatigued state. >Surely you would not have the fibres necessary. You could lift it but you would get less reps with it. That is, say you're fresh force output is 120 lbs (1RM). You have 100 lbs on the bar. You do a set to concentric failure meaning you can only generate 99 lbs of force. You rest a minute, during which time your strength recovers to say 110 lbs (again, making up numbers). YOu take 100 lbs again. YOu can lift it but you will hit failure sooner since you will fall below the 100 lbs of force required sooner. BTW, Dr. Ken Liestner likes to train this way. Do a set to concentric failure, rest a minute than try to do the same weight for at least half as many reps. OR cut the weight in half and try to do as many reps as in your first set. So if you're squatting 300 lbs, you could do: Option 1: 300X15 (whatever, failure) rest 1' 300X8 Collapse and die Option 2: 300X15 (failure) rest 1' 150X15 Collapse and die >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. The thing is that you can't exclude central fatigue such as the nervous system (peripheral fatigue would be at the level of the musle and include (depending on a host of factors), ATP/CP depletion, lactate buildup, etc). The problem with studying fatigue is that it can occur anywhere of about 7 places from the brain to the muscle (I recommend Enoka's wonderful book "The neuromechanical basis of kinesiology" for a discussion of fatigue). Which is why I think saying "Train to the point of momentary muscualr fatigue" is a bit simplistic. A set of 2RM will most likely have a different site of fatigue than a set of 12RM than a set of 50RM. My opinion is that the site of fatigue will most likely be the site of adaptation. So if you do a set of 2RM and you fatigue because your nervous system can't send enough signals (rate coding) to your muscles, your body may improve it's ability to rate code. If you do a set of 50RM and fatigue occurs from lactic acid buildup, your body will improve it's ability to buffer lactic acid. Anyway, your original question about fibers. I've seen no strict numbers for recovery times but some general number might be: Type IIb: 3-5 minutes (also includes central fatigue) Type IIa: 2-3 minutes (guessing here) Type I: 1-2 minutes (guessing again). Whew! Is that all? Lyle McDonald, CSCS "This space for rent"
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: HIT Digest #152 - from John Mark
Top
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 08:00:09 +0800 From: "John Mark" <john.mark@pobox.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #152 Other than Sandeep, has anyone tried Telle's drop set protocol? For an overview see http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/journal.htm I just completed a four set leg work out (two alternating sets of squats and leg curls) and had a hard time walking to the locker room. Thanks, John
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. HIT Training and Super Slow - from Paul
Top
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:43:17 -0400 From: "Paul" <bulleteer@earthlink.net> Subject: HIT Training and Super Slow Hi, This is my first time posting to your digest and i just wanted to say it's really informative. There does appear to be alot of back and forth argueing going on lately though. Super slow versus explosive etc.... I'm not going to say what is best for any person. I have trained slow for the past year and experienced excellent results. Throwing in a circuit training day every week along with my normal routine has allowed me to get to 6.2% body fat with descent cuts. Different things work for different people and it's good to see everyone on this digest contributing their oppinions so that everyone can test what might work for them. I do believe that the slower you go the better. I get a really good pump on chest by doing what could best be termed concentration flat bench dumbbell flys. It hurts like hell. But it works for me. Now for my question...... I'm looking for oppinions on recuperation times and what works for everyone. With low reps heavy training i put one day in between workouts. Does anyone think there should be more time in between ? Also on the supplement front....... do you suggest Creatine for after a workout or before ? Thanks for anyone's oppinions..... Me and a few buddies are also building a web sight so keep an eye out..... http://memebers.aol.com/threeDgym/ This is just a start up page for now because we want it professional and appealing to the eye. Thanks again. Paul
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Pylometrics note - from Timothy V. Buchanan
Top
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 16:21:12 -0500 From: "Timothy V. Buchanan" <tbuck@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Pylometrics note Saw this in a NFL note: The Cincinnati Bengals may be the closest thing the NFL has to the "Three Stooges." First, they offered up the slapstick affair known as the Copeland Caper. DE John Copeland tore his Achilles tendon and is questionable for training camp. While this is no laughing manner the way he tore it is. Before working out in Alabama this off-season, the team's coaches asked Copeland to refrain from any jumping exercises, especially a technique known as plyometrics. Plyometrics is a track exercise involving steps and low hurdles where the performer tries to jump the moment impact is made from the previous leap. The Bengals were so concerned with Copeland's training methods they sent their own personal trainer to Alabama to work with him. Unfortunately, they failed to inform the trainer of their dislike of such lower body techniques. Believe it or not, the personal trainer placed Copeland on a plyometric workout, only to cringe when the solid DE tore his tendon. Ouch! Timm "OOohhh....they have the Internet on computers now!" - Homer J. Simpson
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: HIT Digest #152 - from Berserker .
Top
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 20:11:43 PDT From: "Berserker ." <berserker78@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #152 >Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 22:58:47 -0500 (CDT) >From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) >Subject: Re: Failure and growth > >Fact, people grow all the time without training to failure. >Therefore training to failure is not the stimulus for growth. What kind of proof is that? >This is basic logic. How many people have you ever seen take a set of >deadlifts or squats to true failure? Oh, gawd. Well, if you must know, I see myself taking deadlifts to failure all the time! Does that count? Or do I have to be an Olympic athlete for that to matter? It is not the highest degree of maximum effort that results in growth, or else we would be doing negative rest-pause every training session. On the other hand, sub-maximal effort, e.g., terminating the set before failure, is just as unproductive, as it doesn't give the muscles any reason to grow or become stronger. It should be that the minimum amount of stress is the key to gains, and this is, I admit, probably different for some people. Someone with an extreme intolerance to exercise *might* benefit from not training to failure, while a person who gains easily might see better gains from training to absolute failure for multiple sets. On the other hand, it might be the other way around in both cases. Either way, I see an optimum amount of stress that people should achieve, and the logical answer to this is positive failure. Very few, most keep that last do or >die rep in them to avoid injury. BAHHH! Training to failure doesn't have anything to do with injury whatsoever. Injury is caused by suddenly moving the weight too fast and bad form, e.g., rounding the back during squats. I think that claim was put to rest during the dark ages. Yet they grow as long as they keep addin= >g >weight to the bar. And how do "they" keep adding weight to the bar and still get the same reps with the same tempo? I guarantee you that if I do 100 x 10 with a 2/4 tempo, not to failure, I will not be able to do 110 x 10 with a 2/4 tempo the next week. I may be able to do 110 x 8, but this method would just lead me to a 1 RM in a few weeks, which is not my goal unless I just want to do 1RMs all the time. What if my goal is to keep adding weight for 10 reps! I do not claim to be an "expert" on this subject whatsover, especially since this field seems to be overloaded (get it? HA!) with self-contradicting "experts" who look as though they haven't touched a barbell in their lives. I would appreciate as much input on the subject of failure, but please back up your claims. Ben
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Questions for Lyle - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 07:45:34 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Questions for Lyle Before I ask my questions of Lyle, I would like to take a few moments to let everyone know a couple of things. First, we should all give a big thanks to our moderator, Rob. Rob has been keeping a close eye on things and he keeps this list on the straight and narrow. Which from what I understand, is something not found on other lists. Rob has even put his foot down with me, with me! can you believe it? Good job Rob! Hey listites and HITamaniacs, don't let me intimidate any of yous. If you want to post to this list then do so, I ain't here to blast people for posting stuff. I have had many off digest communications and you can ask some of the people yourself, I keep it civilized. It was never my intention to take over the list and intimidate those with opposing views out of their right to post. So post away yous guys. Now, back to Lyle. In your last post, on #152, you said that you like to do so many sets and then add more sets to your squats if you feel you can. That it is a fact that training to failure is not the stimulus for growth. May be, wouldn't one set of squats with heavy weights done to complete, and I do mean complete, muscular failure have the same effect rather than countless sets of submaximal lifts? Also, since the body's first and foremost "instinct" is to survive, why would it choose to recruit only a portion of its muscle fibers? If I am under a tremendous amount of weight in a squat for example, and I am right at the point of failure, it seems to me that the body would recruit all fibers in order to avoid being crushed by the weight. That strange survival instinct that we all have would seem to play a major part in this area. It plays a part up to a certain point when it comes to getting to the gym. The body don't like to do more work than necessary, that tiny voice that becons you to stay home and watch Baywatch instead of going to the gym, that's your body trying to weasel out on you. All of this is just my opinions so if I am way off the mark here, I am sure there will be plenty of people willing to set me straight here, it probably won't change my mind but it will be interesting to see what yous guys has ta say. Gotta go, I'll be kinda busy in the upcomin' weeks, gotta make a livin' and all. So I'll probably just lurk for awhile, I'll be watchin' and takin' notes. I hope to give some details of a new routine that I am working on, we'll see how it goes. I'LL BE BACK! Mr. Intensity