-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Injuries, principles, rest pe - from Adam Fahy
Top
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:01:22 -0700 From: Adam Fahy <afahy@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Injuries, principles, rest pe > From: "Matt Brzycki" <brzycki@arelia.Princeton.EDU> > Subject: "Weight Room Mishap 12C" > In Van Dyken's terms, a shoulder that was already showing wear > and tear from years of training got worse "probably because I > was doing something stupid." > "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. Of course, what you should be asking is, "Where was the strength coach at that point?" (drunk?) Does anyone suggest doing such an exercise w/o supervision (they should be shot)? I've been injured performing exercises to failure -does this somehow defy reality because 'nobody has ever seen an injury resulting from exercising to failure'? No, it's because "I was doing something stupid," and "wasn't doing it right" and didn't have supervision. Selective arguments mean nothing. *** > From: JawDogs@aol.com > Subject: Re: HIT Digest #165 > 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. <sigh> I just wanted to point-out that it is not just us 'geeky bookworm ignorant multisetters' who start these pointless debates. > 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? Why not ten? Why not, "it depends?" > 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? However you need? [Why seven? Why one?] > 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.) What's the physiological basis behind only training to failure, especially considering the fact that not training to failure works? In terms of accepted principles: specificity, law of repeated effort, overload principle... What's the point of bringing-up this argument? *** > From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> > Subject: Re: HIT Digest #164 > I don't see any value in elongating the rest period so one is able to > duplicate the performance of the previous set. Perhaps you could tell me why, say, a powerlifter, or an olympic lifter, would not wish to train in such a manner as you describe (short rest periods)? -and how such could therefore influence non-'lift' athletes as well? > What you should do > is attempt to make your workout as hard as possible to stimulate gains. There are many methods I could use to make a workout 'as hard as possible' -for instance, I could hide the dumbells/machines, or start beating you with a stick while you're doing squats. Do you claim that this will somehow better "stimulate gains" than if you were left in peace? Attack each set with maximum arousal -that's what you really mean (perverts, settle down) > 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. Perhaps your position would change if you were using multiple sets? -and if you were using different intensities? Rest period, and consequentially specific adaptation, should be quite different in such cases (see above Q re: power/olympic lifters). > The shorter rest periods > will also have a favorable affect on over-all conditioning References? Meaning what? "Conditioning" specific to what? *** > From: "Kevin" <KJDye@newave.net.au> > Subject: Andrew Baye > you have to appreciate that eliminating momentum is the ultimate muscle > stimulator, as the effort involved to lift the weight is 100% muscular. But a 10-0-10 (or 10-0-5, or whatever) tempo does not eliminate momentum, therefore does not mean, "effort involved to lift the weight is 100% muscular." Perhaps isometric exercise would be the "ultimate muscle stimulator," if such were true? Perhaps most-even force output of the musculature during the CC phase has little to do with all necessary adaptations (resulting in maximal hypertrophy/etc gain)? Perhaps the intention to purposefully not contract as hard as possible (limiting yourself to a slow rep tempo) facilitates the drastic drop in load used rather than lack of excessive momentum? References? See past digests for lengthy discussions on rep tempo... -- "Work smarter, not harder!" -Scrooge McDuck Adam Fahy afahy@earthlink.net
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Training to Failure - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 08:40:04 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Training to Failure In response to Fred Hahn's questions, Juan states: "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. " I think what Fred was saying was that training to failure is the only way to ensure MAXIMAL growth stimulation. There are a lot of people who make progress without training to failure. However, they would probably progress much faster if they did. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. SuperSlow Deadlifts - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 08:48:12 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: SuperSlow Deadlifts In response to John's question as to whether or not I perform SuperSlow deadlifts, no. I do stiff legged deadlifts, but not deadlifts. Do I recommend SuperSlow deadlifts? Yes. If a person is going to perform deadlifts, I wouldn't recommend doing them any other way. Rob was right about skill being a problem with some people though. Those who have poor motor ability may find the exercise difficult to learn to perform properly. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. (EAL) Exercise Acronym Lexicon - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 08:56:31 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: (EAL) Exercise Acronym Lexicon I'm volunteering to put together a list of acronyms for an EAL (Exercise Acronym Lexicon) for Cyberpump! web site, to be used as a reference for people new to the digest and the world of TLA's (Three Letter Acronyms) I'll need some assistance though, from you Non-HITers (High Intensity Trainers) with all of the acronyms specific to other protocols, that may not be quite as common. Send your acronyms to me at drewbaye@gdi.net, and I'll put them in an alphabetized list to be posted on Cyberpump! Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: HIT Digest #167 - from Matt Brzycki
Top
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 06:53:09 EDT From: "Matt Brzycki" <brzycki@arelia.Princeton.EDU> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #167 > Subject: Re: Swimmer's injury Fred said: > The snatch itself is very hard on the shoulders because the bar ends up over > your head and is in a compromising position. I just want to make sure I understand this: Are you saying that snatches are hard on the shoulders because the bar is in a compromising position over your head? If it's "hard on the shoulders," should coaches recommend the snatch to any athlete? Matt
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. RE: DSP Protocol - from Diesel93@aol.com
Top
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 11:02:22 EDT From: Diesel93@aol.com Subject: RE: DSP Protocol Somerset Fitness Center <hfc290@hrmail.ims.att.com> wrote: >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. I think it's pretty easy to determine if you will fail on the next rep or not. If the nar goes up without a hitch, you will most likely get another rep. However, once you get stuck in your main sticking point (the bar stops moving or barely moves) once you squeeze out the rep, there is no way you will get another. >It also seems impractical; there is a LOT of information to keep track >of (sets, weight, rep speed, rest time, etc.) Seems to me that all those things are very practical in any training program. --Eric Adolph http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/Field/9311
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. O.K. I'll ask again - from kdraw
Top
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:37:18 -0400 From: "kdraw" <kdraw@email.msn.com> Subject: O.K. I'll ask again A couple a weeks ago I asked this same question and received no responses. I'll ask again: I noticed a couple of people posting that they gained anywhere from 10-30 lbs by using HIT training regimens. My questions are as follows: 1. What exactly are your workouts? Please post or e-mail privately. 2. What exactly did your diet consist of? I would be lying if I said I wasn't skeptical. However, I will give it a shot and be the judge myself. I have been lifting for about 3 years, and I have tried almost everything (legal) under the sun and I have found nothing that will put 30 lbs on me---fat or LBM---in 3 years, let alone 30 days. Please reply--thank you, Kevin
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: DSP and stretching - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:15:48 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: DSP and stretching >Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:08:46 -0400 >From: Somerset Fitness Center <hfc290@hrmail.ims.att.com> >Subject: RE: DSP Protocol >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). The basic premise is that a given muscle fiber will be optimally stimulated by being recruited/fatigued at *it's* optimal level of tension and time under load. That is, we have a continuum of fibers from Type IIb (which have very short fatigue times) to Type I (which have very long fatigue time). Let's say you have a group of Type IIb fibers which will fatigue (and I'm equating fatigue with adaptation here) in 10 seconds. To optimally fatigue these fibers would require teh use of a load heavy enough to cause fatigue in 10 seconds. The problem being that a set so short would NOT fatigue any fibers with fatigue times of more than 10 seconds. So by performing drop sets and reducing hte weight, you can fatigue/adapt not only those fibers with fatigue times of 10 seconds but also fibers that have fatigue times longer than that. This fatigue can occur wihthout performing more sets (which owuld be another option). Ok, rereading this it still doesn't make any sense. Let's say I want to fatigue three groups of muscle fibers. One group will fatigue in 10 seconds. The second will fatigue in 30 seconds. The third will fatigue in 60 seconds There are two ways I could go about fatiguing these fibers. Assumes that the weight causes fatigue after the reps are completed. Set 1: 1 rep at 5 up/5 down with a near maximal weight rest Set 2: 3 reps at 5up/5 down rest Set 3: 6 reps at 5up/5 down What Telle proposes is to do: 1 rep at 5 up/5 down with a weight which causes fatigue at this point rest 10" and lower weight 2 more reps at 5up/5 down with a weight causing fatigue at this point rest 10" and lower weight 3 mor reps at 5 up/5 down with a weight causing fatigue at this point HIs method is more efficient but is an attempt to optimize the load/time under tension through one long set. Basically he's using cumulative fatigue from the first set (10 seconds worth) and carrying it over into the first drop (which adds 20 more seconds of fatigue to the 10 already generated). The third drop takes the 30" of fatigue already generated and adds 30" more. >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. Being able to predict when you will hit fatigue mandates that you have spent some time truly training to failure. A buddy of mine just wrote a great article on this which is on the Cyberpump "HIT stuff" page. Two parts, read both of them. Until you've learned what failure is, I agree that you can't know for sure when you're '1 rep short of failure' or whatever. >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?? There is research (in animals) that putting a muscle on stretch increases protein synthesis and growth. Thing is, this was done in an animal model (Japanese quail mainly) for excessive periods of time (14-30 days of continuous stretch). I am *extremely* dubious that any of the stretching we can do under normal circumstances will have a meaningful effect on growth. That is, stretching for a few minutes every day (or even between sets/after a workout as suggested in Muscle Media in the ABCDE article) is NOT going to have the same effect as stretching a bird's wing for 30 days straight. I believe they do use this technique for individuals who are immobilized (i.e. broken limb). BY putting the muscle on stretch while the bone is healing, the muscle won't atrophy as much. 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)
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Response to Andrew - from Daryl Wilkinson
Top
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:09:30 +0000 From: Daryl Wilkinson <daryl@uk.ibm.com> Subject: Response to Andrew >First, yes, I am highly opinionated and have absolutely no reservations >about it. I have no problem with that, sincerely. >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. Exactly. I do think some people (like me, sometimes) enjoy the pain of a tough workout, as it happens. Having said that I do reach a point where I stop enjoying that pain, especially on squats and deadlifts - guess that was your point about dreading workouts. I am dreading some exercises now I use a 4/4 speed. I do enjoy it afterwards though, very exhilerating ! >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. I agree with that. I have been nagging my parents to start a "proper" exercise program so they can lose fat and improve their health. My mother keeps telling me how the "experts" say it isn't necessary to train "hard". It's very frustrating. I know what she is doing won't even make her sweat. >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. I didn't think you were accusing me of anything Andrew, but thanks for clarifying. One last thing though and this isn't to stir trouble, hope you understand that; I didn't and don't TRY to make my exercise fun, it is fun, but not 100% of the time...oh those squats ! hehe. For more on this, read the article Exercise vs. Recreation on the SuperSlow web site. Thanks for the url and to sum things up, I still say "each to their own" and "fun", has a broad meaning. Daryl
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Creatine & ESPN - from Duncan & Michelle
Top
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 21:55:41 +1000 From: "Duncan & Michelle" <defmlf@netlink.com.au> Subject: Creatine & ESPN Hello Fellow Digesters I live in Australia and just watched an interesting program on ESPN called "Between the Lines". It basically discussed Creatine and who supported it and who did not. It mentioned at least two NFL teams that had written to their players saying do not consume, one was the Jaguars. They had "everyone" saying that it was the best since meat was invented (!) and others with a negative response. Some players said that it helped them recover faster!! It seemed to depend on whether you were receiving a financial gain from mentioning the product. I just thought it was interesting given recent discussions on this digest and does anyone have any comments or updates re NFL footballers and Creatine. Regards Duncan Feder Melbourne, Australia
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Ramblings - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 08:23:07 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Ramblings Hey fellas, I'm back! I was busy gettin' the Intensity mobile serviced and tryin' ta get outta the Intensity cave. Uh...ya know...fightin' the injustices of weight training is a full time job. So any way, I was readin' some of the digests, and I have to throw my two cents in here about Drew and Super slow. I have tried the 10/5 routine for some time now. I kinda like it, it sure increases the INTENSITY, I haven't made up my mind if it's any better than a 2/4 cadence but it sure makes your eyes water. Cut Drew some slack, I have to agree with him about training. To do it right, to make the gains, you have to get ugly. Now that don't mean mess up your hair and whack yourself wit da ugly stick a few times. It is hard, nasty work if you intend to get the most out of your training. if your goals are to play around and tie up equipment that serious lifters are trying to use, you really need to find a new activity. Why train to failure? Is it really beneficial? Ask the guys on the list who have served in the Armed Forces, how many times in boot camp did the Drill Instructor say, " Ok you bunch a pukes, drop and give me 50, unless yer about ta fail, then just do 5 sets a ten." personal story, last week of basic training, we were happy to be graduating and taking a few days off. We were on our way to evening chow, that's supper for those who don't know, and it was pouring rain, so we get to the mess hall and the D.I. said, " I have really had fun with you guys, and as a parting gift.....DROP!" So the whole time we're doin' push ups in the rain, the D.I. is standing in the window eating, well, after we all reached muscular failure and laid on the rain soaked ground, he came out and asked us if we enjoyed our last meal together. We then proceeded back to the barracks. I'm positive that every member on the list with a military background, has stories similar to mine. Everything we did was an all out effort, not rest pause, not micro or macro cycle, none of that crap. So, I stand beside Drew on this one. As far as Super slow and the claim to be the ultimate protocol, well...I suppose time will tell, I haven't been through an official super slow workout so I don't feel right saying too much about it. Ya know, I thought I'd check in ta that Mackerel cycle thing, so I went fishin' and caught me some of those mackerels, then I went to the pet shop, dey never heard of of a bike for fish before. So I got me one of those Barbie bikes, obviously my fish weren't fitness oriented because all dey did was lay on their sides and twitch a few times, dey had dat stupid stare on their faces, kinda like when ya ask a power lifter why dey need dat knee brace benchin' shirt and squash, er squat suit. Anyway, da Mackerel cycle don't work, all I got was a bunch a smelly dead fish and some stupid barbie Bike, my bench didn't improve after that either, maybe I shoulda feed them some creatine and Androstendione first? Mr. Intensity [Can someone get me a New Jerseyeze translator please? Like Brzycki isn't bad enough.... --Rob]
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: Strength measurements and 1 RM - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 15:43:55 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Strength measurements and 1 RM >From: "Erkki Turunen" <erkki.turunen@kolumbus.fi> > >If you only test the subjects' 1RM:s you cannot extrapolate it to other rep numbers. > In the above case the difference in improvement between subjects A and B is too clear >to believe otherwise but what if at the end of the experiment A's 1 RM were 210 lbs and B's 1 RM 212 lbs? You're correct about this. However, I would contend that in such a case as you point out, the difference between improvements in 8 RM between the two individuals will not be significantly different. In your example, Subject A may have had a better improvement in his 8 RM load despite a lesser improvement in his 1 RM load, but his degree in improvement in his 8 RM load won't be much more than subject B. The significance of this difference is also dependent upon the experience level of the subjects. In beginners or intermediates, such a difference won't mean much. However, in advanced lifters, such a difference can be very significant. James Krieger
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Re: Dictionary terms - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 15:57:17 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Dictionary terms >From: "Kirk, Malcolm" <mskirk@uswest.com> > > Once again I am reading HIT Digest without the apropriate >dictionary. > > What is "SSC training?" SSC: Stretch Shortening Cycle. A stretch shortening cycle is a rapid eccentric action, or stretch, followed immediately by a concentric action. The resulting force of the concentric action is greater than if the concentric action had been performed without a stretch due to a recoil or elastic effect of the musculature. You can examine this effect for yourself by performing a vertical jump, and then performing a vertical jump with a countermovement (i.e., an approach step). The vertical jump with the countermovement will be higher because of a more rapid stretch that occurs, which allows for a more powerful recoil of the muscle and thus allowing you to achieve greater height. > What are "polymetrics?" Not sure what polymetrics are, but plyometrics are exercises that utilize the stretch-shortening cycle in order to achieve improvements in unloaded muscular power. Examples include standing triple jumps and double leg hops. James Krieger
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Re: Rob's questions on weight belts - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 16:49:11 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Rob's questions on weight belts Rob's Bottom Line: >[Wow, just by coincidence I was browsing thru this, and I see that I've actually read that >study before by Lander et al. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the one where the conclusion >is that a weight lifting belt is only useful when using more than 80% of your 1RM in the squat. >Am I right? Whatta memory...I remember these things, but can't remember anything important. Lander et al (1) comment that "The safest method may be to use a weight-belt during heavy (80% + 1 RM) lifts or if the athletes has a history of low back pain or previous injury." While the authors utilized loads of 70%, 80%, and 90% 1 RM, they did not compare across loads; they compared across groups using a heavy belt, a light belt, and no belt. They only present data for the 90% 1 RM trials since they comment that "most differences were observed during the 90% 1 RM condition," which is probably why they state that belts are best at loads above 80% 1 RM. They found that a weight belt reduced spinal compression forces by 2.8-6.2%, but decreased activity of trunk muscles by up to 44%, indicating that the use of a weight belt may not allow the trunk musculature to receive as much of a training stimulus. [See, I knew my memory wasn't all bad. --Rob] 1. Lander, J.E., R.L. Simonton, and J.K.F. Giacobbe. The effectiveness of weight-belts during the squat exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 22(1):117-126. 1990. James Krieger
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. Re: Rest intervals - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 16:28:19 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Rest intervals >From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #164 > > >In regards to Sandeep De's viewpoints on Set Intervals. > >Sandeep De said: "I suggest gauging your rest time by your performance >decrease. For >example, I find that for sets involving 4-6RM in the hang clean and >press, 3 minute rest intervals mean a 1 rep decrease in performance from >set to set. Elongating that rest period to 4-5 minutes between sets >means that I can reciprocate the performance in the previous set. Ahh, I see Sandeep is once again posting. It's been a while since we heard from you, Sandeep! Then Mike said: >I don't see any value in elongating the rest period so one is able to >duplicate the performance of the previous set. For individuals who regularly engage in low-rep, multiple set training, which include powerlifters and Olympic lifters, long rest periods are extremely important because it allows for the regeneration of ATP and phosphocreatine stores in muscle tissue. Complete regeneration of ATP can take 3-5 minutes and regeneration of phosphocreatine can take up to 8 minutes. The ATP-PC system is the main system of energy utilized by Olympic lifters, powerlifters, or bodybuilders who like to engage in low-rep training. The only way to effectively train this energy system is to utilize long rest periods. Since the sets that you perform, Mike, are fueled mainly by anaerobic glycolysis (such as 20-rep leg presses), then the use of long rest periods is not important. >What you should do >is attempt to make your workout as hard as possible to stimulate gains. Powerlifters and Olympic lifters are just as interested in stimulating gains, yet they don't use short rest periods. From a metabolic standpoint, their training is easier, but from a strength development standpoint, their training is not any worse, and is probably better as far as maximal development of force generation is concerned. The reason shorter rest periods feel so "hard" is due to decreased blood pH. However, as I pointed out in a previous post, lowered blood pH has little to do with achieving strength gains. Ultimately, progressive overload is the only factor that really matters, whether you train with short or long rest periods, or low or high reps. James Krieger