-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Lifting Get's a National Plug...but will it be HIT or - from Shawn T Be'llon
Top
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:50:32 -0500 From: ivan_and_princess@juno.com (Shawn T Be'llon) Subject: Lifting Get's a National Plug...but will it be HIT or Periodization? :-) New National Guidelines Make Pumping Iron and Aerobic Activities An Easier "Fit" Into Daily Life By Nancy Dohn GAINESVILLE, Fla.---Fitting aerobic exercise and weight training into busy schedules may have just gotten easier. Updated national exercise guidelines released by the American College of Sports Medicine Wednesday (June 3) in Orlando show breaking up aerobic exercise into three 10-minute sessions throughout the day can be just as effective as one 30-minute session. In addition, performing one set of weight lifting exercises (eight to 12 repetitions) will build the same muscle endurance and strength as doing multiple sets, said University of Florida exercise physiologist Michael L. Pollock. New to the national guidelines, last updated in 1990, is the recommendation to perform weekly stretches to increase muscle and tendon flexibility, which reduces potential injury and maintains function as people age, Pollock said. "The first guidelines established in 1978 looked mainly at the importance of cardiovascular exercise. In 1990, strength training exercises were added as part of an overall fitness program," Pollock said. "These current guidelines include flexibility exercises and modifications to aerobic and weight training based on current research that will help the average person adhere to a fitness program." Pollock has served as chair of this ACSM-sponsored group since the first guidelines were announced 20 years ago. The committee is made up of a select group of professionals representing a wide range of exercise expertise. The national guidelines are updated every 10 to 12 years based on the committee's review of published scientific research. Formerly, the guidelines recommended 20 to 60 consecutive minutes of aerobic activity three to five days per week. This included a broad range of activities such as walking, hiking, cross-country skiing, jogging and aerobic dance. "The literature review now shows that you can break up aerobic exercise into shorter sessions repeated throughout the day and achieve the same benefits as if you've done one consecutive session. This is very helpful for adherence to a fitness program because the No.1 reason people drop out of an exercise program is because of lack of time, " Pollock said. Also helpful to adherence is the recommendation that one repetition of weight exercises two to three times a week will achieve the same benefits as performing multiple sets. This is a suggested exercise approach for an average person interested in building muscle strength and endurance but who is not interested in becoming a bodybuilder. "There is more research to support this statement now than there was in 1990, when it was first recommended. Eight to 12 exercises of one set each hitting the major muscle groups in the upper and lower body can be done in 20 minutes---it's a very efficient program," Pollock said. Increasing muscle and tendon flexibility is new to the national exercise guidelines to maintain range of motion and function throughout life. For example, the guidelines recommend doing static stretches held 10 to 30 seconds to the point of mild discomfort, repeating them four times per muscle group, 2 to 3 days per week. "We're also trying to create a well-rounded, streamlined exercise guidelines that help show people what is needed and that provides advice on how to customize an exercise program to fit individual needs while achieving maximum benefits," Pollock said. ----------------------------------------- Recent UF Health Science Center news releases also are available on the UF Health Science Center Office of Public Information home page. Point your browser to http://www.vpha.health.ufl.edu/hscc/index.html For the UF Health Science Center topic/expert list, point your browser to http://www.health.ufl.edu/hscc/experts.html More information about Shands HealthCare is available by pointing your browser to http://www.shands.org
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Yelling at Rob - from Berserker .
Top
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 20:21:02 PDT From: "Berserker ." <berserker78@hotmail.com> Subject: "Yelling at Rob" Actually, what I meant by "not wanting to argue" about training to failure was that I realized that I was incorrect and shouldn't have insisted I was. Simple as that. I do disagree about training to failure being dangerous. You have to apply common sense. If you're rounding your back, that's due to bad form, not because you're failing. People lift with bad form even before they get tired. If you keep good form throughout the set, you should fail with good form. I'm sure you could use momentum and so forth in aiding you to get that do-or-die rep, but then that would defeat the purpose of the exercise. I do agree that training with dumbbells to failure is dangerous, but again, it's not due to failure, it's due to the fact that there is no where to drop the dumbbells safely when you fail, unexpected or not. I also gotta give Lyle a plug. From the posts I've read and through e-mail, he seems like he tries to be as impartial as possible and can admit that he's not infallible, unlike many in the field on both sides of these debates. Ben ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Failure and growth - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 19:58:53 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: Failure and growth >From: "Berserker ." <berserker78@hotmail.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #152 >>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? A flawless proof. Assumption: training to failure is the stimulus for growth. One does not train to failure, thus he doesn't grow. Contradiction with the fact that he grows anyway. So the assumption was false. Period. > >>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? That's just one example. How many others do you have? >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. You should express that as your opinion and not as a fact because experience tells otherwise. It should be that the minimum amount >of stress is the key to gains, and this is, I admit, probably different >for some people. Why minimum and not optimum? As a comparison, you can take the minimum amount of vitamin C to not get scurvy but it would definitely not be the optimal amount. 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. I didn't see the logic in your coming to that conclusion. > >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. IMO it does. If you do that do or die rep how can you make sure that your form remains perfect? If/as the stabilizing muscles get fatigued before the prime movers they cannot take care of the form properly. >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. If you DID do 100x10 to failure could you then get 110x10 the next week? Because if you could it would mean about 500 lb increase at the annual basis. Whatever the method, a 10 lb increase per week is unrealistic. The trick is to use "little gems" or very light weight plates to enable very small increases from workout to workout. Returning to your example, you could make a one pound increment and next time you could get 101x10 and then 102x10 and so on. You may be able to keep this rate of progress for quite a long period. If you could continue that way for a year it would mean about 50 more pounds. Quite an improvement for an average trainee! But it needs patience and consistency. BTW, skull crusher is about the only exercise I suggest one to do to failure. Erkki Turunen
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. A comment on Post-Workout Delirium Induced Ramblings - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:48:56 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: A comment on Post-Workout Delirium Induced Ramblings I am a regular reader of Cyberpump! While I do not agree with everything that is said on the site, I must say that it is an excellent, well-done site and I commend the people who put this site together; I enjoy browsing this site. Kudos to the designers of Cyberpump! And now for my word of the day: ad hominem. For the people on this list who do not know what this term means, it is defined in The American Heritage College Dictionary as, "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason." An ad hominem attack would be an attack on a person's character, intelligence, or other personal trait. Ad hominem attacks are often used in many areas of debate based on the idea that, if you denigrate one's character, anything that the person says will lose its validity. Rather than attacking the idea, the person giving the idea is attacked to make the idea seem less valid, even if it may be a great idea. In the political field, ad hominem attacks are known as mudslinging. Rather than saying, "Mr. X would not be a good president because his tax plan will make things too difficult for middle-income families", a political candidate says, "Mr. X would not be a good president because he smoked marijuana when he was 21 years old." Rob has done a great job of keeping ad hominem attacks off of this list. While the envelope has been pushed at times, overall Rob has kept everyone in line. Kudos, Rob! Now you're probably saying, "What's this all about? We've heard this stuff before." I was reading the latest Post-Workout Delirium Induced Ramblings by Andrew Baye on Cyberpump! Now, everyone on this list knows that Andrew and I disagree on many issues, and these issues have been debated heavily by everyone on this list and I am not looking here to start another debate. I think everything that needs to be said has been said. However, there was one comment in Andrew's article that really jumped out at me and seemed very contradictory and therefore I would like to comment on it. In this article, Drew speaks of ad hominem attacks made in the Heavy Duty Bulletin towards Superslow. He writes, "And we’re not the one’s publishing profane rants consisting of ad hominum attacks and death threats in our newsletter and then calling it an "Objectivist" publication." This statement seems very contradictory. I have read the newsletters on the SS website, and have seen numerous ad hominem attacks on exercise scientists, such as frequent comparisons of exercise scientists to "dumb jocks" and phrases such as "nerdish water boy" or "the Academic Perverts" or "they embody the same dumb football coach that they ignored thirty years before." These are perfect examples of ad hominem attacks, which suprises me from a publication that claims to be objectivist. Many comments that I have seen in the newsletter are far from being objectivist. I am curious if Andrew Baye or other Guild members have any comments on this. James Krieger
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: Fiber Conversion - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:18:26 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Fiber Conversion > From: "Brian and Terri Williams" <windsortoyspaniels@ibm.net> > "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." ST fibers cannot convert to FT fibers and vice versa. What happens is that ST fibers can take on more FT fiber type characterisitcs (conversion of Type I to Type IC), and an FT fiber can take on more ST fiber type characteristics (conversion from Type IIB to Type IIA to Type IIC). FT fibers will tend to adapt to an aerobic stimulus by improving its oxidative function, although FT fibers are less oxidative in nature than ST fibers. What is interesting and surprising is that almost all the research examining fiber type conversion has demonstrated a conversion of FT fibers to the slower oxidative form (Type IIB to Type IIA) due to resistance training (1-2). This has even occurred in low volume, high intensity protocols (2). What this means is that you have nothing to worry about if you are a distance runner and are training with high intensity loads. 1. Kraemer, W.J., and S.J. Fleck. Designing Resistance Training Programs. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1997. 2. Abernethy, P.J., J. Jurimae, P.A. Logan, A.W. Taylor, and R.E. Thayer. Acute and Chronic Response of Skeletal Muscle to Resistance Exercise. Sports Med. 17(1):22-38. 1994. James Krieger
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: More fibres (love that Aussie spelling) - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:39:55 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: More fibres (love that Aussie spelling) >Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 19:27:01 +1200 >From: Paul Englert <Paul.Englert@vuw.ac.nz> >Subject: Fibres still > >1. Is there any correlation between increase rate coding and growth. My >understanding is the amount of muscle fibres one has is genetic, bar GH, >therefore there is a limitation on how strong one can get if fibreb number >was the only guide. If this is the case is rate code a more crucial >criteria of success at a later stage in a training career nearing genetic >potential. If there is *any* effect of rate coding on growth it would be terribly indirect at best. All rate coding represents is the number of signals sent per second to a group of muscle fibers, which makes them contract harder. In theory, improving the ability to rate code (and hence maximal strength capacity) might improve the ability to handle heavier weights at higher reps. Heavier weights + higher reps = more growth. That is to say, I've seen lifters who plateau on high reps and quit growing. A short strength cycle (even using say a 5X5 system) ramps up whatever neural components contribute to maximal strength development and you can use heavier weights when you return to a more traditional rep range (set time). >2. What is the maximum load a fibre can take? Using your example, >"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". > >There must be a limit to the amount of force one fibre can take. With this >in mind, taking into account the rate coding speed can you estimate upper >limits of strength, ignoring other factors such as leverage, of course. I'm not 100% sure of what you'e asking here and realize that the whole issue with why eccentric strength is greater than concentric strength hasn't been figured out. I'm sure somebody has measured the maximum force production potential of individual muscle fibers under electro stim but I don't have the vales handy. >Lyle wrote:- >BTW, Dr. Ken Leistner 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. > >Not to hassle a man that does not sleep, especially not one that strong, >but wouldn't this mean that you were flogging a dead horse so to speak, ie. >causing failure of the same fibres. No because you won't be fatiguing the same fibers, you will be fatiguing others. I know I gave this example once but here it is again. Say your fresh maximum strength is 120 lbs. Now you take 100 lbs to the point of concentric failure which only means that you are incapable of generating the necessary 100 lbs (implication: you can generate 100 lbs). NOw you rest a minute or so and maybe your fresh strength potential comes back up to 110 lbs (implication, all of the fibers you fatigued with the first set to failure did NOT recover in taht time period) and you take out 100 lbs again. When you hit failure (again, means you can generate only 99 lbs but not 100) you have fatigued another set of muscle fibers (since the ones you fatigued in the first set didn't recover to generate force). Also realize that, since we have no idea what the specific stimulus is for growth (whether it be neural, biochemical, mechanical, little gremlins), it is concievable that a second set might trigger whatever response (or more of that same response) is necessary to stimulate growth. Or in some people it might push them over the edge into overtraining. That is, there's obviously some threshold level of *whatever* (whatever being the specific growth signal to the muscle) which must be passed to stimulate growth. One set might cross that threshold or it might not (if someone quits early). A second set (with a short rest period) may increase the potential of crossing that threshold. Dr. Ken also uses single 50 rep death-march sets of squats to do the same thing. >Lyle wrote:- >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). > >OK so after five minutes you should be able to do the same set again, if >not for other fatigue eg. nervous system? It depends. For a low rep set, I would say yes. If you've done a very high rep set where you generated a ton of lactic acid (say a set of 20 in the squat) and exhausted yourself, you might not be able to repeat that effort for 30 minutes. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "GOTTA LOVE ME!" Baby Sinclair
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: The bimers (An homage to Body by Jake) - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:40:03 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: The bimers (An homage to Body by Jake) >Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:45:04 EDT >From: Diesel93@aol.com >Subject: Re: My First Trip To SS > >Eric Deaton <Eric.Deaton@lmco.com> writes: > >> I never would have believed that my biceps would fail during a chest >> movement > >Uh, that's impossible, so don't beleive it. There is no way that your bis >could fail during a chest movement. Your bis aren't even activated at all >during a pressing movement. > >[Betcha Lyle will say something here...just a hunch.--Rob] Well, I wasn't going to until the moderator dragged me into it. Biceps are involved in some chest movements to stabilize around the elbow. Eric didn't say what chest movement he was doing. If it was flyes, then I could conceivably see biceps failing. Bench presses, less likely. As per my last post, this raises the following question: If we take the statement that you MUST train a muscle to failure for it to grow. And Eric's biceps were the site of failure in this exercise. Does this mean that only his biceps will grow from the effort and his chest did not benefit from it at all? I think we would all agree that the answer is no, that his chest will grow from such a profound effort. Kind of makes you wonder about the idea that you MUST train a muscle to failure to grow. And, since this is coming up so soon again, I want to make the following comment ********** I've found that many people take my playing of devil's advocate (on whatever topic) as a personal attack on their preferred method of training (and by extension a personal attack on them for choosing to train that way). The above comments (and my other posts about failure) are not meant as a judgement call as to whether one should or should not train to failure, that's not a debate with an answer. Training to failure is appropriate in some situations but not in others (my example of learning proper form was one of them, someone rehabbing an injury shouldn't be training to failure either but this doesn't mean they won't make progress as long as they apply progressive overload, I'm sure I could think of others but two will suffice). Sure, if you've got an otherwise healthy individual with the discipline to do it without breaking form, I think I could make a good argument for training to failure stimulating more gains than not training to failure but that's a different discussion altogether. But is training to failure an absolutely necessary component of making progress? Absolutely not. Will it cause faster progress than not training to failure? No comment, not yet. My comment about doing multiple submaximal sets of squats and growing was not meant to say that I preferred to train that way, or advocated training that way, or was suggesting training that way (which is how it was interpreted by some). I was simply making an observation about something that happened to me personally in a feeble attempt to make a point. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "GOTTA LOVE ME!" Baby Sinclair
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Creatine and the kidney - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 00:58:37 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Creatine and the kidney >Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 17:51:50 -0700 >From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> >Subject: Re: Creatine > >While it is not certain that creatine monohydrate was responsible for the >renal failure in these athletes, it is certain that the doses they were >taking were excessive, especially for such a long period of time. Just a note. I spoke to someone who knows from kidney failure (denizens of mfw should know who I'm talking about) and he commented that no way could the creatine supplementation have caused the failure. Now, I was an idiot and forgot to mention the ridiculous amoutns of creatine that these guys were taking (more is better, right guys) but still. You gotta understand that the body is an incredibly resilient organism (esp. the kidneys and liver, you can lose like 70% of liver function and still be fine). Hell, a healthy patellar tendon won't rupture until you load it to about 19 times bodyweight or so. So there is a HUGE safety margin built in for this stuff. Still, take enough of anything and it will kill you. But I can't see any way that using creatine intelligently (meaning a loading phase of 5 days with the occasinoal maintenance dose) is going to be a problem. I can't begin to imagine how many thousands of athletes have used creatine without problem. But three guys do something dumb (and I"m sorry but taking 30 grams of creatine per day every day for 2-3 years is not terribly bright,it'd be like taking 6 times the recommended dose of aspirin for every day for 3 years and being surprised that you got an ulcer), and suddenly creatine causes renal failure? I think not. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "GOTTA LOVE ME!" Baby Sinclair
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Training to failure is failing to train...or something - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 00:58:42 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Training to failure is failing to train...or something The man known as Matt (err, Rob) asked: [You know, it would really freak me out if one day someone came up to me in the "real world" and said, "Hey Matt". Somehow I don't see that happening though. I got my TN-VISA to work in the U.S., and the officer didn't say anything about being a strength coach, so I guess I'm clear. --Rob] >Training to failure IN AND OF ITSELF, >does that have a direct correlation to injuries? I think only in that individuals are more likely to let form slip at the end of a set. As long as someone has the discipline and skill to take an exercise to failure without letting form deteriorate, I see nothing inherently dangerous about training to the point of failure. [And remember, I only said that to "steer" the discussion. I have no opinion on this digest about anything....well, except for that horrible hotel I got stuck at in Montreal, bad movies, bad stock picks, y'know. --Rob] Lyle McDonald, CSCS "GOTTA LOVE ME!" Baby Sinclair
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: "FAILURE IS GOOD" (Matt Brzycki) - from Sebastian Ohm
Top
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:04:27 +0200 From: sebastian.ohm@t-online.de (Sebastian Ohm) Subject: Re: "FAILURE IS GOOD" (Matt Brzycki) If "failing in the last rep" was the only thing to pay attention to, wouldn't any kind of lifting regimen "work" as long as one of your sets is carried to failure? For example: a) HIT - failure because of heavy load b) GVT - failure because of volume Sebastian
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. muscular function - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:03:39 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: muscular function Diesel, Also, the biceps play a role in shoulder flexion, which occurs during a chest press. Considering that Eric performed front grip pull downs and arm curls immediately prior to chest press, with no rest in between any of the exercises, and considering the role the biceps play in shoulder flexion and horizontal adduction, it is not surprising that he would have felt them to a significant degree during that exercise. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re:First Trip To SS - from STEVE ZORN
Top
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 10:27:54 -0500 From: szorn@webtv.net (STEVE ZORN) Subject: Re:First Trip To SS Mr. Krieger, I hate to burst your bubble but the gains Eric made were probably legitimate gains and not inflamation. I used the Super Slow protocol for a four week period. I gained 11 solid pounds of muscle, added 1" to my arms, 3" to my legs, and 1/4" to every other bodypart. My bodyfat percentage was measured at 11.4% so I know it was muscle and not fat. That was about 3 months ago and I still have those gains today. STEVE [Okay, I'm only going to refer to my comments on the last digest about questioning someone's gains. I'm not going over it again. This is another "preventive" message not aimed at Steve or anyone in particular. --Rob]
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. RE: highschool training - from Par@aol.com
Top
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 17:09:13 EDT From: Par@aol.com Subject: RE: highschool training Hey Bryan. I know exactly what you're feeling because I'm in high school too. I've gone to different trainers and have had different routines drawn up for me, but I still haven't found them to work as well as the one I have molded myself. I workout four to five days a week, and cycle between upper body and lower body. The problem with the workout is that you need tons of sleep. If you're out everynight until midnight, it doesn't work, trust me. If that's the case, cut it down to fewer days per week. But, as the way it works is that I work out my lower body, say, on Monday. I then work out my upper body on Tuesday, not including by biceps, triceps, and forearms (do those on lower body days because doing them on upper body days stresses them too much and you can pull off many sets). I take a break on Wednesday, and hit the lower body again on Thursday, and the upper body once again on Friday. Saturday is another rest day. I've found that it's better to workout lower body right before upper body because when you work out your legs, your body produces more testosterone. You get better gains both on the top and bottom this way. When I go into the weightroom, I have a general idea of what muscle I want to focus on. I still work everything else out, but i focus on one main muscle group. Right now, it's my chest (and the upper part of my back between my shoulder blades). To kill my chest, I do 5 sets of 10 reps (with a weight that takes me to near exhaustion at 10 reps). I then move to cable rows and do 5 sets there. I then move on to dumbell flys, 3 or 4 sets. And then I do a lift I learned from Men's Health, and I LOVE it. I lean over, almost at a 90 degree angle, and place my head on an upright bench. I take a weighted bar (80lbs.) and pull the bar up to my chest. If that not quite clear, it's supposed to work the muscle inside your shoulder blades, and it targets it extremely well. Later on in the workout, I might do 3 or so sets of incline flys just to be safe, but it isn't always necessary. I do a regular 4 sets of all the other muscles: lats, delts, shrugs (trapezius), lower back, etc. This workout has brought me tremendous results if you take every set to exhaustion. It's tiring and take 1 1/2 hours a day, but it works, I guarantee it. E-Mail me if you need more info.
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Re: HIT Digest #154 - from DejaGroove@aol.com
Top
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:22:28 EDT From: DejaGroove@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #154 I am not a big advocate of Superslow training. But I must step in here. When that newly converted SS advocate made the following statement: I never would have believed that my biceps would fail during a chest > movement Eric responded, "Uh, that's impossible, so don't beleive it. There is no way that your bis could fail during a chest movement. Your bis aren't even activated at all during a pressing movement." First, the SS advocate did not say that he performed a press, but a chest movement. If the movement was some type of flye, the biceps is most certainly used to stabilize the elbow joint. In order to keep the elbow from hyperextending, the biceps is what keeps the elbow slightly flexed. Second, the biceps can also be a stabilizer during a press too, especially with dumbbells. If the forearms are not perfectly straight (at 90 degrees), the bis and tris contract from time to time to straighten out the forearms. If the forearms slip out (the angle at the elbow is greater than 90), the bis contract. If the forearms start to fall in (the angle at the elbow is less than 90), the tris contract to bring the forearms straight up). Eric then wrote: "Maybe he can cause your chest to fail during lat pulldowns too????" Actually the chest is often involved during a lat pulldown as well, especially at the top of the movement. Keep in mind the pecs assist the lats in adducting the shoulder joint. Eric then said, "You can say this just because you made gains after one workout? Have you ever made any gains before? Of course you are going to make some initial gains after radically changing your workout to something to like SuperSlow -- it will happen on radical switch to any protocol. Take someone that's been doing SS for a # of years exclusively and switch them to a tempo like: 0-1-0-X (top pause, eccentric, bottom pause, concentric) and they will make some quick gains as well. This is one reason why variety in a training program. SuperSlow is definetly not the end all, be all of training just because you made gains after one workout (especially in a bodypart that you didn't even work!)" I agree that switching protocols could have been the cause of the SS trainee's fairly extreme results. I must say also that vasoconstriction could have been the cause of the biceps staying pumped for so long. This happened once to a friend of mine. It took her a week to lose the pump in her biceps once. A doctor explained to me (I think I have this right, but I may be totally off) that blood vessels can seriously constricted within a muscle. Should this happen after blood has been pumped into a muscle, as during a "pump" from a workout, the blood may sort of get stuck in there, with no way to get out. My friend's pump eventually dwindled. But the doc told me that (and Rob, I hope this is OK...guys, read with caution) this sometimes occurs with an erect penis. The erection can stay for days, and drugs must be injected into the penis to allow the blood to get out. Bizzare, I know. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. Power Racks - from PViola4565@aol.com
Top
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 11:55:22 EDT From: PViola4565@aol.com Subject: Power Racks I was wondering if anyone had any information on where I could find a good quality power rack for my home. Any feedback would be appreciated. Pete Viola PViola4565@aol.com
-------------------- 16 --------------------
#16. thoughts about the stomach - from Par@aol.com
Top
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:54:01 EDT From: Par@aol.com Subject: thoughts about the stomach Lyle, in response to your "huge stomach," I have just one thought. Although you may not have much fat in your abdominal area, the muscle may not be toned, which is understandable because you haven't worked out in a while. To tone it up, be sure you work on your back too. Weightlifting is all assbackwards, and if you don't work your lower back, your abs won't build up. Additionally, only working your abs may make the matter worse. So, what I do is: 20 regular crunches. Then I flip over and do what I call a reverse crunch (where you just lift up the upper half of your body a little way off the ground. Don't go too far up or you'll hurt your back.) Then I lie flat on the ground with my hands and arms straight out in front of me like superman. Raise your right hand (and arm) and left leg slightly off the ground (to a point where you feel some good pressure, not too high). Then do the same with your left arm and right leg. This exercise work your lower back and middle back. I have found wonderful results doing these exercises together. Just be sure to keep it equal. You may even want to favor your back for a while and do more reverse crunches, just to make up for what you missed.