-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Points made conclusion - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 09:19:58 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Points made conclusion Me and Lyle had a interesting session the other day. He brought up a most excellent point. So I need to check it out with you guys. Are you guys paying attention to what the other sides are saying? Or are you just trying to win points and other people over to your way of thinkin'? I like the term "Mental Masturbation", cause that's what we have here with this back and forth debate. Lyle points out that if a guy tries to seriously discuss sumthin', it is usually responded to with semantics or some other conditioned response. To which I gotta say, "THINK FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE!" Think about what a person posts. Then look at it some more. Read it again. Understand it, comprehend it. Read it again, THINK about it. THEN, if it still don't jive with what you believe, fine say so in your own words. Don't explosively power clean yourself up from your computer, recruit some but not all your type 1,2a,3z fibers, to wind sprint to the library in order to look up a study and start quoting everything in print. If you truely believe in what you post, you should have no trouble in defending your stance on a subject, instead of repeating someone elses words. MAN, I JUST FIGURED IT OUT! Some of you guys aint even guys at all are you? There is a lab out there somewhere conducting a study. I can see it now, there are a line of computers with a bird cage next to each one. There are trained parrots in each cage. I suppose the researchers are trying to determine if the birds actually understand the phrases they repeat. Watch this, Polleys want a cracker? Pretty birds, come on, ring the bell, No, that's the delete key. Ya know, I've yet to see a bird move in a slow, controlled motion. They drop hundreds of feet outta the air, hit the ground briefly, and rebound right back up into the air. They always move move explosively and spasticly, when taking off and stuff. Coincidence here? I don't think so. Mr. intensity
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Points made part1 - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 08:59:35 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Points made part1 Dag gone it people.Stop the madness! No, not Randy macho man Savage. Lets look at the points made on the digest as well as some made off the digest. 1. Properly performed, multi set per body part workouts in the 3-5 set range, can be productive i.e. stimulate growth. 2. HIT properly performed will provide you with,IMO, the safest, quickest method for acheiving gains. 3. Plyometrics, Explosive lifting, 20 sets per body part, setting yourself on fire, are counter productive. They are dangerous. However, they do provide hours of entertainment for the HIT community. Consider them as the "Funniest Bloopers" segment of weight training. 4. The Earth is round! 5. Dan Riley promotes training to failure 100% of the time. 6. Some people tend to believe that other muscles are not involved when you work different muscle groups. 7. Drink lots of water if you feel you just have to use Creatine. Use it in moderation. 8. People like to do crunches with Swedish Meatballs. 9. Gravity works 100% of the time 24/7. 10. 1RM lifts are for those needing an ego boost. Otherwise they are completely useless. IMO! 11. Individual muscle fibers fatigue and fail during your workout which leads to recruitment of other fibers. Failure is THE stimulas for growth. 12. If you insist on using free weights and performing HIT, NEVER,EVER train alone! Always have a spotter, common sense here. 13. DO NOT make huge increases in weight on your lifts. Progress with 1, 1.5, or 2 lb increments. Otherwise you expose yourself to the risk of injury, expending valuable energy that could have been used to perform proper lifts, and worst of all, getting laughed at by the really hot chick who is performing proper HIT. 14. Plyometrics are bad, hence not good. In other words don't do them. Let me point out..danger looming on the horizon. Bottom line is that they are hazardous to your health. As a wise man once said, "hey, don't do that!" Stop it, cut it out, leave them alone, go west young man, get outta Dodge. Finally, Friends don't let friends do plyometrics. Mr. Intensity
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Power Cleans - from jmhendon
Top
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:10:49 -0500 From: "jmhendon" <jmhendon@sonet.net> Subject: Power Cleans I know Cyberpump is agaisnt doing power cleans or lifting explosively, but in my opinon power cleans and hang cleans are the upper body equivilent of the squat. If the Olympic lifts suck so much, why do strength coaching miracle workers such as Charles Poliquin and Paul Chek use them so heavily? Olympic lifts demand tremendous speed, strength and skill. Since every joint in the body is involved in the clean, it forces the body to work the same way as it does in athletic environments - as a system. The power clean involves close to every muscle there is in the body. Some of the major muscles involved include the quadriceps, hamstrings, glutes, calves, biceps, brachialis, lats, rhomboids, traps, deltoid complex, rotator cuff, forearms, abdominal wall and lower back, and even the small muscles around your ankle. One of the major rules of HIT is to use basic compound movements. The power clean and hang clean are basic compound movements so why wouldn't you add them to a HIT routine? [Note: Cyberpump!, the web page is not for or against anything SPECIFIC. As the disclaimer says, the opinions are that of the writers. You will find points that you will see differing points of view. HIT on the other hand - the training philosophy is "against" power cleans and "explosive" lifting. Me? As Hillel said many centuries ago, "If I am not for me who will be?". Or something like that. --Rob]
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. re:muscle function - from Jarlo Ilano
Top
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:13:34 -0700 From: Jarlo Ilano <jilano@ups.edu> Subject: re:muscle function > > 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. The long head of the biceps is a shoulder flexor (it attaches past the shoulder joint) and thus is involved in "pressing movements". > Wow, the man can change the laws of physics!!! ;-) Maybe he can cause your > chest to fail during lat pulldowns too???? Be sure to let us know. The chest (or more properly) pectoralis major has a function (generally) of horizontal adduction (arms coming in to midline) and glenohumeral (shoulder) internal rotation. This interestingly corresponds to the latissimus dorsi muscles, though they of course differ in that your "chest" can act as a shoulder flexor, while your latissimus extend the shoulder (bring your arm back behind you). Thus what is commonly called a "lat pulldown" also works your "chest" as well, albeit indirectly. Also if you practice the technique of shoulder depression ("shrug" your shoulders down) as you perform a "lat pulldown", this also involves the small pectoralis minor). > > > For example, I put 1/4" on my biceps in one workout! I know that part > > of that is from initial shock but it was still there 3 days later. > > Means growth!!!!! YYYYEEEEEHHHHHAAAAAA! > > And a chest workout at that, wow!! Superslow workouts are generally full body workouts. I thought sarcasm was discouraged in this forum? [Sarcasm in and of itself is fine. If sarcasm is meant in a negative way, i.e., to mock or insult an individual, then yes it is discouraged. I have allowed some people some leeway in the past such as the quote above. I am leaning away from admonishing people as I am finding that regular digest readers are overall very civil and that "peer pressure" - like your quote - will discourage any problems from occuring, or should I say, re-occuring. --Rob] > > > I am a true believer now. I will be sticking with SS from now on. No > > ifs, ands, or buts. > > 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!) > > --Eric This statement is very correct, although maybe not for the reasons that you think. Of course this person should not say this after a single workout with superslow protocol, just as anyone should not gauge gains with the abrupt change to from one protocol to another, such as superslow to compensatory acceleration. The "quick gains" that you mention with the "radical switch" to a different protocol is a result of skill changes/improvements. As you improve with adaptation to the protocol you will be able to engage more weight, or get "less tired", or anything which can be interpreted as "progress". It is my opinion that this is what happens when people are encouraged to introduce "variety" in their programs. I believe they are actually seeing skill changes, which may very well be the goal of that particular person. I am not so sure, however that "muscle growth" (a really nebulous term) in terms of hypertrophy is a result of such "variety". But i could be wrong. >--Eric > >http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/Field/9311 -- Powerlifting/Bodybuilding Page You have a nice website, by the way. Answered some questions I had about deciding/ preparing for a powerlifting competition. -- Jarlo Ilano University Of Puget Sound Graduate School of Physical Therapy Tacoma, Washington
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: superslow and breathing - from Jarlo Ilano
Top
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 15:02:26 -0700 From: Jarlo Ilano <jilano@ups.edu> Subject: Re: superslow and breathing > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 21:16:36 -0400 > From: "Michael Meadows" <meadows@mvps.org> > Subject: Slow, SS, and Breathing > > I recently started lifting at the advanced age of 49. I quickly discovered > HIT, and found it easy to synchronize my breathing with the reps...2 seconds > to exhale and 4 seconds to inhale seems to work well. > > Since joining this list I've been hearing a lot about SuperSlow, so I > thought I would give it a try. I started out with a 5-1-5 pace and I > couldn't get any air! I can't imagine doing 10-1-5 or 10-1-10 unless the > breathing is synchronized differently. Would someone please clue me in > about breathing with a SuperSlow routine. > > Michael Meadows > A tenet in superslow philosophy is that breathing should not be synchronized, breathing should be natural with great effort made to not hold the breath. The implementation of valsalva, will cause a large, albeit temporary, increase in blood pressure, which is very dangerous. An attempt to synchronize breathing takes away from concentration on form and control. Also, aside from the various techniques, as in powerlifting, to move maximal weight. I doubt if there is any real reason for synchronization of breath in strength training, as opposed to strength demonstration. (Anyone please tell me if this is incorrect.) In addition as you have figured out it would be very hard to synchronize breath at a 10 second pace. If thinking of anything about breath, short shallow breaths, much like (don't laugh) lamaze training (ok you can probably laugh). A person I was training even remarked that my encouragement of her breathing and to exert more effort sounded like a birth coach. So that's my opinion of synchronizing breath. -- Jarlo Ilano University Of Puget Sound Graduate School of Physical Therapy Tacoma, Washington
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. fiber recruitment, yadda, yadda, yadda - from OnkieDonky@aol.com
Top
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 21:22:35 EDT From: OnkieDonky@aol.com Subject: fiber recruitment, yadda, yadda, yadda I'm going to quote some stuff I read in a Anatomy and Physiology textbook and ask some questions that I want everybody to answer. Sorry if you guys already touched on this stuff, but I'm still confused (I know, I know, I'm a slow learner). [Join the club. I have a friend getting really frustrated with me as he's trying to teach me "basics" of investing. As I alawys tell people, what can I say, I never said I was that bright. --Rob] Here goes: "...if only the motor neurons with low thresholds are stimulated, few motor units contract. At higher intensities of stimulation, other motor neurons respond and more motor units are activated. Such an increase in the number of motor units being activated is called recruitment. As the intensity of stimulation increases, recruitment of motor units increases until finally all possible motor units are activated and the muscle contracts with maximal tension." My questions are: At what point are all fibers recruited? concentric failure? isometric? eccentric? Let's assume that all fibers are recruited at concentric failure. Okay, now does that mean that all the fibers will be stimulated, or fatigued, or overloaded enough to provide an adequate stimulus for growth? If so, then wouldn't it be logical to do only one set to failure because of the All-or-None Response which states "Increasing the strength of the stimulus does not affect the degree to which teh fiber contracts."? Maybe I'm interpreting it the wrong way, though. I look forward to reading your responses, especially Lyle's, who seems to be the only one who completely thinks things out. BTW, when is your book coming out, and what will it be titled, Lyle? Thanks for any help clearing this stuff up, Adrian
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Plyometrics - from Joe Venier
Top
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 20:25:05 -0700 From: "Joe Venier" <jvenier@zdnetmail.com> Subject: Re: Plyometrics >From: "Joe Venier" <jvenier@zdnetmail.com> >Subject: Re: Plyometrics > > >>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 > >Well, Timm he didn't build his foundation! After all, if he did, he would not have gotten injured >Plyometrics are just as safe as controlled lifting. Did I say that? I think I need to see a doctor! Can anyone recommend a good brain surgeon? A frontal labotomy might be in order... Thanks. JV
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: First trip to SS - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:25:51 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: First trip to SS >Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 10:27:54 -0500 >From: szorn@webtv.net (STEVE ZORN) >Subject: Re:First Trip To SS >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. Question: What was your lifting program prior to starting SS? I"m not questioning your results since it would be dumb of me to do so. But, it seems that a majority of the individuals who report near-magical gains from switching to a given low-volume/high intensity program (whether SS or HD or whatever) are coming from a high volume type of background. I see this all the time in Hardgainer magazine. Som guy moves from doign 20 sets per bodypart and training every day to 3 sets per bodyaprt and training twice a week. There is research showing that taking a week off of training causes higher levels of anabolic hormones (basically, test goes up, cortisol comes down) and I'm willing to put good money that the effect is even greater if you were slightly overtrained to begin with. Hell, most athletes (who tend to overtrain as a general rule) will report amazing jumps in performance if you get them to take a week off. All I"m saying is that I wonder if the gains being attributed to a given training protocol don't have as much to do with stopping a stupid training program (super high volume idiocy) as they do to switching to a smarter training protocol. Or put differently, I wonder if you wouldn't have seen some of the same size/weight increases by just sitting on your butt for a week. My initial hunch is yes (didn't Arthur jones used to do this, inrease people's arm size by makig them rest for a week and then do one workout or something). [Yes, he did. This was part of the "guaranteed to put 1/4" on your arms in one workout" deal he used to do with pro-bodybuilders and the like. That was in the '70s I believe. So he'd take a bodybuilder who had typically been training as you said, with really high volume. Then he'd force them NOT to train for several days, then put them through a really intense workout. I believe it's the same arm workout I put on Cyberpump! awhile back. --Historian Rob] Or put even differently, have you kept up these sort of amazing initial gains? Lyle McDonald, CSCS "GOTTA LOVE ME!" Baby Sinclair
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: I'm losing it, I'm totally losing it - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:25:57 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: I'm losing it, I'm totally losing it >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. Huh? I must be losing my mind, when did I say I had a huge stomach. My waist is a trim 32" thank you very much. ;) Now if you wanna talk skinfolds, that's a different issue because I carry most of my bodyfat on my ab skinfold but most of that is genetic. >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. The last time I took any time off was at Christmas, all of a week. And I have done crunches over both a swiss ball and a curved bench with a 65 lb dumbbell for sets of 8 on a 3/0/3 tempo. My abs are plenty hard (muscularly) just covered by a little too much fat. So I honestly have NO idea what you're talking about. >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. So deadlifts won't strengthen my back? Or squatting without a belt? Not that I don't do direct low back work as well (weighted back extensions on the same curved bench). Now, if you wanna talk about my huge ego..... Lyle McDonald, CSCS "GOTTA LOVE ME!" Baby Sinclair
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: Joe Venier's comments - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:26:10 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Joe Venier's comments > From: "Joe Venier" <jvenier@zdnetmail.com> "The "studies" that compare a cycling down in reps in a lift and then comparing them to someone doing sets of 8 with the test being a 1-RM are bull." Why? 1 RM is a test of maximal strength. I conduct a study that compares a protocol of 3 x 8 RM to a protocol that implements a gradual increase in intensity (let's say, 10 RM down to 1 RM) over 12 weeks. I test 1 RM before the protocol begins and then after it is done. If the second group makes a better improvement in 1 RM over the first group, then the second group had better strength gains, period. I don't see what is so "bull" about that. "Subject: Measuring Intensity The use of percent of 1-RM as a level of intensity is poor IMO. Just because someone uses 85% of their 1-RM, this does NOT mean their intensity is high. If someone does 400x20 in the deadlift, is their intensity low? Because of the 20 rep range, the % of 1-RMis obviously not high, so their intensity is not high? Think about that! Common Sense!" So what's your point? Simply because intensity is defined in the scientific literature as % 1 RM doesn't somehow discount the importance of effort in training, or somehow invalidate the HITer's idea of intensity. What's so wrong with a word having more than one meaning? It really doesn't matter as long as you know what type of intensity the person is talking about. Take a look in your dictionary. Many words have numerous definitions, sometimes 15 or more. In the American Heritage College dictionary, "intensity" has 3 definitions, and "intense" has 4. One of the definitions of "intensity" is "Exceptionally great concentration, power, or force." By this definition, both the HITers idea of intensity and the scientific definition fits. HIT takes a lot of concentration. A 1 RM takes a lot of concentration and a lot of force. Look at the word power. Power, in the scientific literature, is defined as work/time. However, there are many, many other definitions to the word power. The dictionary has 16 definitions. Is one any worse than the other? Of course not. Having two different definitions of intensity is just as valid as having someone named Rob Spector call himself Matt Brzycki. [Ummm....I don't think that's a good analogy. --Rob] Jim Krieger
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: muscular function - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 19:40:07 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: muscular function >From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> >Subject: muscular function >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. If that's the reason for Eric's biceps failure in a chest movement then I must question the order of the exercises. Why not do the chest exercise first, pull-down second and arm curl third? Isn't a chest movement's purpose to primarily fatigue pecs and not biceps? Erkki
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: highschool training - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 19:40:15 +0300 From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi> Subject: Re: highschool training >From: Par@aol.com >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 don't doubt that this routine works for you but you may have a better than average recuperative ability. Your routine has you to work your arms four to five days a week, directly or indirectly. It certainly is too much and too frequent for many. > 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. You can only guarantee that it works for you. I bet it's too much for many others. Erkki
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Skull Crusher - from William Measor
Top
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 18:29:08 +0100 From: William Measor <parsifal@foobar.co.uk> Subject: Skull Crusher Erkki Turunen wrote: > BTW, skull crusher is about the only exercise I suggest one to do to failure. Why is this? Do you mean lying tricep extension with a barbell? I find that this exercise hurts my elbows (anyone know why?) [I assume Erkki was making a joke with this one. I'm assuming of course. --Rob]