-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Guitar Tutor to the Stars??? - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 21:30:11 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Guitar Tutor to the Stars??? >From: jason.morgan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Jay) > > JAY MORGAN > "Guitar Tutor to the Stars" Guitar Tutor to the Stars? So does that mean you were the teacher of Yngwie Malmsteen, Chris Impellitteri, and Joe Stump? That would mean you would be Guitar Tutor to the Shredders! Seriously, though, muscle shape is genetically determined for the most part. Since different exercises can have different patterns of motor unit recruitment, one could speculate that it might be remotely possibly that one might be able to *slightly* alter muscle shape, but I would contend that if this is possible, the ability to alter muscle shape would be extremely minimal at best and probaby not noticeable. It is best to simply concentrate on the basics of getting bigger and stronger and not worry about "shape". Arnold S. is a perfect example. I've seen pictures of him when he was in his early teens and pics of him during his competitive heydays. He looks exactly the same, except he's bigger during his competitive days. I am also simply a bigger version of myself than I was a number of years ago; shapewise, I'm not any different. Take what you got and do the best you can with it. James
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Latest 'Ramblings Column - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:28:47 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Latest 'Ramblings Column Re: Mike's and Daryl's comments: "It's another dose of highly opinionated musings from one of the SS proponents" First, yes, I am highly opinionated and have absolutely no reservations about it. Second, I'd like to clear up any confusion anyone might have on my position regarding exercise being not-fun vs. fun. I am not at all concerned with whether or not anybody enjoys their exercise program. I don't care if it's entertaining or not. If you enjoy working out, however you happen to work out, that's nice. I have no idea what your training is like, so I am not in a position to comment on it. As Daryl said, to each his own. What I am adamantly opposed to is the popular notion that a person should choose an activity which they enjoy for exercise. One should design an exercise program to be safe, effective, and efficient. Entertainment or recreational value is irrelevant. And since proper training requires a tremendous physical effort, which causes some rather uncomfortable sensations, the majority of people will not find it fun. Strength training is extremely important for people of all ages and fitness levels, and I don't want some idiot aerobics bunnies or fitness "guru" types telling people that they should find "fun" exercise "activities" because this might send the message out to people that they don't need to perform "un-fun" activities that require hard work. And unlike us HITers, I believe the majority of people in this country would be inclined to take the easy way out. Mike and Daryl, just so you don't misunderstand, I am NOT accusing you of promoting any such thing, or of not training hard. I have no idea how you train. I only wish to clarify my position. Exercise is for physical conditioning, not recreation. If you enjoy it, fine, but that's not it's purpose. Don't try to make exercise fun, and don't try to make your recreational activities exercise. Mixing the two compromises the value of both for their respective purposes. For more on this, read the article Exercise vs. Recreation on the SuperSlow web site. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Spot reduction - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:37:36 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Spot reduction >Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 18:27:17 +0300 >From: "Erkki Turunen" <erkki.turunen@kolumbus.fi> >Subject: Re: Spot reduction > > >> by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com> > > >>Studies have been done examining spot reduction, working >>people up to hundreds of crunches per day with no changes in skinfolds. > >Are you sure that they were crunches and not situps? I'm not sure of anything that I didn't read this week, too much data, too little memory. >Fred Koch (author of Ironman training system) once critisized spot >reduction studies in that they had used situps (isometric ab exercise) >and not crunches (dynamic ab exercise). Yes, I recall his criticisms of the studies, I also recall laughing outloud when I read them. I felt that he was reaching for a rationale for doing ridiculously high reps (50-150) for muscular definition rather than looking honestly at the physiology involved. The fact is that there is NO direct link between a muscle and the fat which sits on top of it. It may be possible to burn intramusucular triglycerides (which are droplets of fat located within the muscle) with such a strategy but this still won't have any impact on the subcutaneous fat sitting on top of that muscle (which will be mobilized by systemic hormonal factors). I'll provide more ostensible evidence of the myth of spot reducing. Go find one of these silly abs/glutes classes at your gym (we have them all over the place in the US). Pick out a few people. Come back in 6 months. See if you notice ANY change in the appearance of the abs/glutes of the class members. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I woke up the next morning and shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know." Groucho Marx (not to be confused with Karl)
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Muscle shape - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:37:42 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Muscle shape >Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:33:57 +1200 (NZST) >From: jason.morgan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Jay) >Subject: Motor Recruitment and muscle shape? > >You will often see articles in mags or hear guys at the gym talking about >changing the shape of their muscles by using specific exercises (ie a >preacher curl to gain a higher peak on their bicep for example). >Can anyone out there clafify this... You are 100% right, muscle shaping is a myth. It is impossible to recruit specific motor units (say lower vs. upper) in a given individual musle (say the biceps long head). However in muscles with multiple heads (i.e. quads, hamstrings, biceps, triceps) you can get *somewhat* differential recruitment by changing length-tension relationships. That is, performing a biceps curl with the elbow behind the body will put more stress on the long head than it will on the short head. Training with the elbow in front of the body will do the opposite. But a preacher curl can not develop the 'lower' biceps more than the 'upper' biceps. If it could, you could build a muscle that was an inverted camel's hump (by building only the upper and lower parts but not building the middle). Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I woke up the next morning and shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know." Groucho Marx (not to be confused with Karl)
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: HIT Digest #166 - from JJHBowers@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 23:29:58 EDT From: JJHBowers@aol.com Subject: Bowflex Machine Has anyone had any experience training on the Bowflex machine? I'd be interested in hearing your experiences- I just bought one for my wife! (She had great results from our free weights on the Power Rack in the basement, but disliked how "dirty and loud" it was down there...) Just set it up, and it does work really smooth. Versatile, too.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Fred Hahn - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:43:40 PDT From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: Fred Hahn >From: JawDogs@aol.com >The following questions are to all Mr. Hahn. Before you get too involved in your challenge to the readers of this list, I remind you that you have a couple of challenges unanswered yourself. See Digest issue #124. You can see a copy at http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/Spa/7780/. >who believe that you do not need to train >to failure to increase size and strength and that multiple sets are >superior somehow to single set training. While you wrote this as a biconditional, and are no doubt challenging a select subset of this list, I am going to comment. I train one set to failure. It is what works best for me. But I have friends who never train to failure and yet they grow. The negative of your first condition, which would be that one must train to failure to increase size and strength, is obviously wrong.
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Amy Van Dyken - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:26:35 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Amy Van Dyken I'm surprised that they had swimmers doing Olympic lifts at all, especially snatch drops. The swimmers here at WSU also do Olympic lifts, which seems pointless for such athletes to do. Research has demonstrated that land power does not transfer to water power. Also, the Olympic lifts do not develop power that is of any use to swimmers anyway! I wonder what the coach's rationale was for the use of Olympic lifts in the swimmers. I've also wondered why the WSU swim coach Rocco Aceto (yep, he's Chris Aceto's brother. For those of you who don't know who Chris Aceto is, he's the husband of the pro bodybuilder Laura Creavalle, and he writes numerous articles in the muscle rags) has his swimmers do Olympic lifts, since he is a coach who is very interested in using science to help the performance of his swimmers; I can't see any valid scientific reason for using Olympic lifting to aid swimming performance. Speaking of the Varsity weight room here at WSU, I see Dan O'Brien just about every day in there when I'm either working or working out. Talk about an injury waiting to happen! The guy does rapid, ballistic lifing in everything from bench press to curls to lat pulldowns, using as much swing, momentum, and everything else that you could possibly do to get a weight to move. Everything is a speed rep. James Krieger
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Fred Hahn's Q&A - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:31:43 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Fred Hahn's Q&A >From: JawDogs@aol.com > >Q: How far not to failure should I train? If, for example, I am capable of >bench pressing 200 lbs. for 10 reps to failure, meaning, an 11th rep is not >possible, should I to do 5 reps? 7? 2? 9.5? Just to play devil's advocate here, how far to failure should I train? If an 11th rep is not possible, I might be able to do a half rep. So, is failure the point where I can't do another full rep or is it where I can't do a half rep? After doing that half rep, I might be able to do a quarter rep. Should I do the quarter rep? Is failure where I can't do another rep in good form or another rep of any kind? Of course, at positive failure, I can still do negatives. Should I continue to eccentric failure? And even then, I could reduce the weight and continue to lift. So where should I stop and why? Failure simply means that enough fibers in a muscle have fatigued to a point where the muscle as a whole cannot produce enough force to overcome the restistance at a certain point in the exercise's ROM. That's all. There's nothing magical about this. Training to failure is a *measure* of progress, not necessarily a *cause* of progress. Training to failure is necessary to know what your limits are and whether you are progressing. But it is not needed to cause this progress to occur. >My second question is: If multiple sets are indeed better, how do I adjust my >not to failure reps in order to perform my 7th set not to failure? I'm not sure about other people on this list, but I do not believe multiple sets are always better, but I also don't believe that single sets are always better. I believe what works best for the individual is what is best, and the proper protocol is going to depend upon the goals of that individual and the individual's genetic makeup, previous training experience, and numerous other factors. >My third and last question is: What is the physiological basis behind not >training to failure, especially considering the fact that training to failure >works? (Here I am looking for an answer from the medical physiology realm.) Again, playing devil's advocate. What is the physiological basis behind training to failure? I am looking for an answer using cellular physiology and not philosophy or vague abstract logic. Are you sure that training to failure works all the time? I'm going to illustrate a personal example of what is going on in my training right now. Being a former HITer, I still incorporate phases of HIT into my overall training program. I recently started a HIT program, one work set per exercise, sets of 5-8 RM on heavy compound exercises and sets of 10-13 RM on isolation movements. My upper body strength was (and still is) improving, but my leg strength, notably my performance on front squats, actually began to decline upon switching to this program. So, I switched my leg routine to a twice per week, 5x5 routine on front squats. No sets are purposely to failure; I simply choose a weight and attempt 5 sets of 5 with 3 minutes rest. If I can perform all 5 sets of 5, I increase the weight. My strength is improving again. If training to failure works, why did this happen? I will also present a question that I have previously proposed to must-reach-failure-all-the-time people but has not been answered. How would you train an Olympic lifter? It is essential that these lifters don't perform sets to failure for technical reasons. I think that too many people are looking for some cookbook, precise stimulus that is going to achieve maximal gains in muscle growth. The problem is, though, is that no one yet knows the exact mechanisms behind muscular hypertrophy and what signals it, i.e. what is going on at the cellular level to induce cellular hypertrophy. If no one has yet pinpointed these exact mechanisms, how can we have an exact training routine, or exact number of sets to do? Look at the training programs for other sports. How does a track sprinter know how many 200's to do in a workout? Should it be only 1? Should it be 3? Should it be 6? Should it be 8? The fact is, a precise number is difficult to pinpoint; the best that can be done is to make educated guesses based mainly on observation and go from there. What do we know for sure? Muscle requires overload to grow; it needs to be subjected to a load that it does not regularly encounter. The main argument between HITers and proponents of other protocols is how this overload is achieved. Really, though, such arguing is useless, because what causes sufficient overload for adaptation in one individual will not cause overload for another. The whole issue of designing an appropriate training protocol is extremely complex and dependent upon numerous factors, such as genetics, training experience, previous training protocols, yadda, yadda, yadda. For example, right now, one-set to failure is detrimental as far as my legs are concerned. However, single set training works great for legs of some other people out there. So who is right? Both! Also, what might work for a while for someone may not work forever. I have found this in my own personal experience. I have had times when I was younger where HIT *did* work for my legs. James Krieger
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Has anybody tried Jerry Telle's DSP Protocol? - from John Mark
Top
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 18:30:52 +0800 From: "John Mark" <john.mark@pobox.com> Subject: Has anybody tried Jerry Telle's DSP Protocol? -------------------- 10 -------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 22:00:57 -0500 From: "jmhendon" <jmhendon@sonet.net> Subject: DSP Protocol Has anybody tried Jerry Telle's DSP Protocol? ***************** Kyle, As far as I know the only subscribers that have used (or admit to using) this protocol is Sandeep De (see his web site at http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/journal.htm ) and me. Sandeep thinks this is a great program. If you follow Telle's program, you will find that it's very intense. I am currently using a variation of the protocol as described by Sandeep, but the principles are the same: Monday: two alternating sets of bench presses and front pull downs; Wednesday: two alternating sets of squats and leg curls; Friday: two alternating sets of tri-overhead extensions (Larry Scott style) and cable preacher curls; one set of military presses using Telle's drop set protocol; and Saturday: two sets (with triple drops) of dead lifts. 90 seconds rest between alternating sets. Except for deads, I use Telle's loading parameters and tempo recommendations. I have a very difficult time doing dead lifts with a tempo other than X/1/2/1 tempo. I do not know how much muscle I've gained from using the protocol, but I my 1RM shot up on the big three--squats, deads and benches. I thoroughly enjoy this style of training, as it reminds me of my more youthful days. See my previous post in #164. Sandeep, have you used another cycle of this protocol? Andrew Baye, do you do super slow dead lifts? Your thoughts and help would be greatly appreciated. [I'll just add a quick tidbit. I spoke once with another SS "Master". Very nice, helpful guy. He told me that he doesn't recommend doing SS deaadlifts. SS stiff-leggeed, yes, but not regular. I think it has something to do with the skill component, but Andrew can explain better than I, obviously. --Rob] Train hard, John
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: Swimmer's injury - from Sonofsquat@aol.com
Top
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 10:48:18 EDT From: Sonofsquat@aol.com Subject: Re: Swimmer's injury Matt wrote: <<The first blow came the second week of May when Van Dyken was in the weight room at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs doing an exercise called snatch drops. "I maybe wasn't doing it right, but I was going at it and I felt something pop," she said. "That exercise is out of the swimmer's program now." Injured while doing snatches, eh? Gee, that's really odd seeing as how nobody has ever seen an injury resulting from explosive lifting.>> While I didn't read the article, I am positive this injury didn't happen due the the explosive nature of the lift. Two things to consider: 1) Swimmers are notorious for having chronic shoulder problems due to their overuse. 2) The snatch itself is very hard on the shoulders because the bar ends up over your head and is in a compromising position. She would not have injured her shoulder if she were doing cleans or pulls. The fact of the matter is that she shouldn't have been doing snatches, but other explosive lifting wouldn't have hurt her if done correctly. Anyone who has trained swimmers and done the Olympic lifts should be able to figure this out. Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: Hahn's questions - from Sonofsquat@aol.com
Top
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 11:05:03 EDT From: Sonofsquat@aol.com Subject: Re: Hahn's questions Fred Hahn wrote: <<The following questions are to all who believe that you do not need to train to failure to increase size and strength and that multiple sets are superior somehow to single set training. Q: How far not to failure should I train? If, for example, I am capable of bench pressing 200 lbs. for 10 reps to failure, meaning, an 11th rep is not possible, should I to do 5 reps? 7? 2? 9.5?>> This is not an easy question to answer for the simple notion that some of us train using percentages of one's 1RM. I don't see many HITer's doing this... It comparing apples to oranges. Furthermore, those of us who use compensatory acceleration make every rep a 100% effort, not just the last one in a set to fatigue. My question to you is why folks who don't train to fatigue still make gains if training to fatigue is required for growth? By the way, ever notice how injuries that happen during a set usually do so on the last rep? <<My second question is: If multiple sets are indeed better, how do I adjust my not to failure reps in order to perform my 7th set not to failure? >> I wouldn't know... I don't do seven sets! Usually only 2 to 4... I rarely need to decrease the weight and usually, my last set is to failure, but not by design. <<My third and last question is: What is the physiological basis behind not training to failure, especially considering the fact that training to failure works? (Here I am looking for an answer from the medical physiology realm.)>> When one trains to failure, several things possibly happen. One theory on why one reaches failure is that the K/Na balance in the neuromuscular junction is thrown off balance and the nuero stimulus is too weak to cause further contraction. While I believe this is possible, a rival theory is simply too much lactic acid has built up and cannot be flushed out quick enough. It is also possible that the creatine phosphate shuttle cannot convert adenosine diphosphate to adenosine triphosphate. Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: Set intervals - from William Measor
Top
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:29:45 +0100 From: William Measor <parsifal@foobar.co.uk> Subject: Re: Set intervals Mike Strassburg said: > Personally I have a hard time staying focused if I rest to long between > sets. I've tried 15-30 seconds and that was to little, as I was never > mentally prepared for the next exercise. I stay between 60-90 seconds > between exercises (I train one-set to failure), and this lets me push very > hard without feeling rushed or sitting to long. The shorter rest periods > will also have a favorable affect on over-all conditioning. Happy > training.......Mike When training one set to failure I personally find that I am far too dizzy after 90 seconds to even stand! I find that to put in maximum intensity every exercise I have to rest several minutes. Is this because my nervous system does not recover as quickly as Mike's? What does "favorable" mean re: over-all conditioning? Cheers, Wil
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re: Failure/NOT to failure - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 12:00:16 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Failure/NOT to failure >Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:55:27 EDT >From: JawDogs@aol.com >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #165 >Q: How far not to failure should I train? If, for example, I am capable of >bench pressing 200 lbs. for 10 reps to failure, meaning, an 11th rep is not >possible, should I to do 5 reps? 7? 2? 9.5? I think it obviously depends, and ties in to your next question. The further away from failure you go, the more sets you will need. For examnple, I have used a protocol called German Volume Training (aka 10 sets of 10) which has you use a weight that you *could* do for 20 reps but you only do 10 reps with it. So you use 10 sets and short rest periods to get enough cumulative fatigue to stimulate growth. >My second question is: If multiple sets are indeed better, how do I adjust my >not to failure reps in order to perform my 7th set not to failure? I'm not sure anyone has said that multiple sets are 'better'. As soon as you start using words like 'best', 'better', 'worst' you get into problems because it's all context specific. Within *some* contexts, multiple sets NOT to failure may be better than a single set to failure. Within *other* contexts, the opposite is true. >My third and last question is: What is the physiological basis behind not >training to failure, especially considering the fact that training to failure >works? (Here I am looking for an answer from the medical physiology realm.) Well the first thing that is needed for a discussion of this sort is an agreement of what is happening physiologically at the point of failure. Until that has been agreed upon, no meaningful discussion can be had. Here are my thoughts. The point of concentric momentary muscular failure will occur when a muscle's momentary force production capacity is below the momentary force requirements. That is, let's say your maximum force capacity (essentially 1 rep max) is 120 lbs. And you put 90 lbs on the bar (75%) and that weight will cause momentary muscular failure to occur on the 10th rep. On the first rep, you could lift 120 lbs but you only lift 90 lbs. on the second rep, your maximum force potential has dropped (from fatigue) to 116 lbs (whatever), still only 90 lbs on the bar. By rep 10, as muscle fibers fatigue your momentary force production capacity is less than 90 lbs, not enough to move the bar through a full ROM. That would be the point of concentric failure. do you agree with that conceptual definition of momentary muscular failure? Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I woke up the next morning and shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know." Groucho Marx (not to be confused with Karl)
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. RE: Kevin's comments re: Andrew Baye - from John Vormbaum
Top
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 11:29:27 -0700 From: John Vormbaum <johnv@TRATNET.com> Subject: RE: Kevin's comments re: Andrew Baye I have been following a Superslow regimen for 12 months. That's 1 year of incredible pain and discomfort in the gym, albeit only for about 40-45 min. per week. It was originally a 2-month experiment, but my gains were so great that I'm still on the program. I've reached personal bests in all exercises--with no injury. My "fun component" has reoriented itself to show up when I see the results of Extreme HIT. While Andrew may appear militant in his portrayal of SS, it's people like him, in ALL training protocols, that break new ground in resistance training--whether by experiencing an injury/lack of progress/overtraining, or by finding a program that allows gains in leaps & bounds with no injury. So while his presentation may be a little jagged, the effort he puts out, right or wrong, has the potential to benefit us all--even if you strongly disagree with him. Keep it up, Andrew. John Vormbaum johnv@tratnet.com "Pain is just weakness leaving your body!" ---Any Marine Drill Sergeant
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. RE: DSP Protocol - from Somerset Fitness Center
Top
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:08:46 -0400 From: Somerset Fitness Center <hfc290@hrmail.ims.att.com> Subject: RE: DSP Protocol -------------------- 10 -------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 22:00:57 -0500 From: "jmhendon" <jmhendon@sonet.net> Subject: DSP Protocol >Has anybody tried Jerry Telle's DSP Protocol? Kyle - I wish I could help you out on this one but I don't know of anyone who has ever used the DSP protocol (uh oh, there's another one for our acronym dictionary) - nor have I ever heard of it. I do agree with Rob though that he (Jerry) didn't even answer the question about the mechanism regarding muscle growth. I do not completely understand the argument for his protocol about "max relative tension to optimal fatigue" (if anyone out there would like to translate it into English for me I'd be grateful). Regardless of his theories though, the protocol calls for "1 rep short of failure" for sets 1, 2, and 3. I'm not sure if you are considering the program, but my question is: how can you possibly know when you are 1 rep "short" of failure? IMO I don't think you can accurately predict that. For those of you that don't train to failure, try and predict when you will fail - and then watch yourself do another 2 or 3 (maybe even more) reps - happens that way all the time. I think you are selling yourself (and your possible gains) short with a program where you have to "predict" the point when you are going to stop. It also seems impractical; there is a LOT of information to keep track of (sets, weight, rep speed, rest time, etc.). I think it was designed for mathematicians or something. : ) One last thing: I can take an educated guess, but what does "light weight stretching performed every 2-3 days - to enhance the translation/transcription process" mean??? Anyone?? Rachael Picone AT&T Somerset Health Fitness Center, NJ USA
-------------------- 16 --------------------
#16. intraabd pressure, powerlifting query - from Jarlo Ilano
Top
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 14:28:29 -0700 From: Jarlo Ilano <jilano@ups.edu> Subject: intraabd pressure, powerlifting query Thanks for furthering this discussion, the references are especially helpful, and i'll try to look up as many as I can. (Wow, you sure do read alot!). James Krieger wrote: > I'm not sure if you've ever squatted with maximal or near-maximal loads, or > performed Olympic lifts, but I guarantee that you will feel a difference > between performing a valsalva maneuver and not when lifting such loads; I > personally feel very uncomfortable not performing a valsalva maneuver when > ascending with large amounts of weight on my back. You will also find a > difference in the amount of weight you can lift, because a valsalva maneuver > contributes to force generation during these lifts. Yeah, I have not squatted maximally since starting superslow training in March, and I agree with you wholeheartedly about feeling more comfortable (or I guess as comfortable as it gets when hundreds of pounds are threatening to crush you to the ground!) holding my breath during squatting. Hell, before i started training superslow i probably held my breath through the whole set of squats and deadlifts! Which was totally hypocritical since at the same time I'd be telling patients to not hold their breath during exertion... Anyway, the reason I am so interested in this discussion is because I plan to resume training for the powerlifts, incorporating skill training with heavy singles once a week, while performing strength training in superslow once a week. Doug Holland, a master superslow instructor from Louisiana remarked he was outdoing previous PR's utilizing this method and , I think, plans to enter a master's national meet sometime (I'm not sure what organization). And I'm excited to start power lifting again... I was just wondering if there may be a better way to ensure stability and maintain good force generation without holding of the breath. Because trunk stability notwithstanding, it really isn't very safe. (Then again, of course putting 400+ pounds on your back, bending your knees, and trying to stand up isn't very safe either, but oh well, it's my chosen recreational activity!) What do you (and anyone else who is reading this) about Paul Chek's assertion that you should contract your abdominals, and by this I think he means transverse abdominus to improve stability as oppossed to using a belt. I don't use a belt until I perform singles anyway... Also has anyone on this list incorporated their HIT training in order to powerlift? (Superslow or whatever variant of HIT). I'm aware of the many different "periodized" variations I was just wondering if anyone has an especially unique way, or maybe not so unique. > Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that proper form is paramount in > these situations; where we seem to disagree is the importance of IAP. Yeah, I'm not sure if the increased IAP from engaging in valsalva can significantly contribute to less injury enough to offset its danger. Because as you well know, even seemingly "healthy looking" individuals can have an unyet manifest vascular or other such problem. Again, I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. Jarlo Ilano Graduate Physical Therapist University of Puget Sound