HIT Digest #170

This digest contains the following messages:

-------------------- 1 --------------------

#1. Re: HIT Digest #167 - from Sandeep De
Top
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 12:19:02 -0400
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest #167

> 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.

What is your point? Anyone claiming to understand the exact mechanics of
muscle growth to perfection is a liar or someone too impressed with
their (lack of) knowledge. Even the many self-proclaimed gurus of
strength training solidify this point; if the true nature of optimal
training parameters were known there would never be any of these "mental
masturbation" threads as Lyle calls it as to what exactly is the best
training system to follow. 

I'm not going to get involved with the sure to follow posts about "how
my training system IS the answer you're looking for", but anyone who has
read the research and has an iota of humility WILL readily admit that
there are aspects of training that are still unknown to man. We can take
pot shots at what some of the factors are that stimulate growth
(progressive overload, etc.) BUT they are still not "perfect". If they
were perfect, the person utilizing the system in consideration would
have a totally linear rate of growth; ever expanding until they hit
their genetic potential without any kind of a rut along the way. Please
spare me from rehashed musclerag dribble. 

> 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

Telle has a downright incoherent writing style. At times you have to
reread what he says 3-4 times to get what he is saying. He is a very
intelligent coach with a sound understanding of training research but
his writing is far too distilled for most to understand. What he means
by the above is that for hypertrophy to occur; muscles have to a] be
under optimal tension, which means utilizing a load conducive towards
muscle gains (i.e. not your 100RM). and b] the set must be carried to
the point where sufficient fatigue is created in the muscles being
trained. 

> 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

I can. I define failure as concentric failure, or the point at which I
can lower the weight or hold out the weight but need assistance to
complete the concentric repetition. Assistance during the concentric for
me means that I technically do not have the capacity to complete the
repetition myself and as such have initiated some degree of failure.
Whether or not that point occurs higher or lower in the range of motion
is indicative of the degree of failure. But in my experience training to
extreme levels of failure (i.e. approaching eccentric failure) is not
absolutely necessary for growth and can even prove counterproductive. 

> 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

This phenomenon is more likely to occur in the inexperienced trainee,
who is unaccustomed to training with high levels of menta lintensity,
than in the elite lifter who is accustomed to commanding mental
intensity at will. There is a difference in understanding of perceived
limitations. 

> 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. : )

I don't see how this is a relevant point. To carry your reasoning
further why don't we all just draw smiley faces in our training journals
instead of writing anything down. Training data is highly important to
understanding our own characteristics and determining what works and
what doesn't. 

> 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??

Prioreceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation stretching done frequently to
help facilitate growth and recovery. That simple. 

--
SD
www.geocities.com/hotsprings/4039

Top

-------------------- 2 --------------------

#2. Re: HIT Digest #168 - from Sandeep De
Top
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 12:25:33 -0400
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest #168

> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 16:28:19 -0700
> From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Rest intervals
> Ahh, I see Sandeep is once again posting.  It's been a while since we heard
> from you, Sandeep!

Been busy with a lot of other things (read: life), and figured that 300
messages in my inbox from the past two weeks alone is a good hint to
start cleaning out old mail :) 


> 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.

Another pertinent issue is that of the nervous system. It is a
tremendous strain on the nervous system and its interaction with the
musculoskeletal system to innervate motor units under high loads and
velocities. As such, the following situation is highly common in
multiple set, low RM training: trainee performs well on first work set,
rest insufficiently, but physiologically "feels ready to go", i.e. heart
rate and breathing rate are not too strained, goes in to do next work
set, performs 2-3 reps less than previous performances. It becomes
obvious that factors used to discern readiness during lightER load sets
(such as heart rate, breathing rate, fatigue, level of lactic acid
buildup etc.) are NOT the limiting factors in the production of strength
during low repetition training. 


--
SD
www.geocities.com/hotsprings/4039

Top

-------------------- 3 --------------------

#3. RE: O.K. I'll ask again - from Steve Skrabak
Top
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:53:59 -0700
From: Steve Skrabak <steve@cuztom.com>
Subject: RE: O.K. I'll ask again

I too was skeptical about the gains in strength and mass reported by HIT
users, until I tried it.
My first experiment was a 6 week session using workout #30. My diet included
no supplements, just eating standard amounts from the 4 food groups. I did
however begin drinking 1 gallon of water or more throughout the day. I
lifted about every 3-4 days for about 50 min. doing 2 sets of ten with 4-2
cadence. My results after 6 weeks? 

-measurements-
5'11"
waist:32
weight:200 to 215
neck:16.5 to 16.75
chest:42 to 44
bicep:15 to 16.5
forearm:13 to 13.25
hips:40 to 40
lower quad:21.25 to 22.25
upper quad:24.25 to 26.25
calves:16.25 to 16.5

-weight gains in major lifts-
squat: +75
hammer bench: +80
shrugs: +50
curls: +25
calf raises: +30
deadlift: + 45
incline bench: +30
leg extensions: +70

Keep in mind that I had been training for some 15 years up to this point, or
should I say overtraining. I was not drinking near 1 gallon of water either.
My bodyfat has been around 12 percent for the last 10 years. Don't know what
it is now though.

Since my first experiment in Nov. 1997, i've continued HIT training and am
still making tremendous gains. My biceps are up to 17" cold now. I have been
changing my workout around every 6 weeks in different ways such as reps
10-20 and lifts that I do. I also do not have a planned rest time between
workouts. Sometimes it's 3 days and sometimes up to 10 days. I have also
added running to my off days to stay fit. I do about 8-12 miles per week,
but I also vary my speed. Somedays it's 2 miles on cruise control to get a
good sweat, somdays i'll do sprints up a half mile hill.etc; Actually I do
the running because I like to tip a few beers now and again and the running
keeps it from landing on my stomach.

The most beneficial aspect of HIT training I have received aside from all
the great gains however, is am able to spend more time with the family. I am
no longer too tired, sore, or sick, to do the things that count in life and
I look great. I am about as big as I want to be and strong as an ox. What
more can you ask for with the time spent.

Advice for you? Take measurements, log the weight used and reps performed,
drink up the water, and eat. Take it serious and give it 6 weeks of your
best. Then decide for yourself.

Good luck,
Steve

Top

-------------------- 4 --------------------

#4. RE: HIT Digest #168 - from Knapik, Mike (AZ15)
Top
Date: 01 Jul 1998 15:39:41 -0500
From: "Knapik, Mike (AZ15)" <Mike.Knapik@IAC.honeywell.com>
Subject: RE: HIT Digest #168

 --------------------  2  --------------------
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.

Whether Fred says it or you say it,  does not make it so.  For reasons 
explicated by others (e.g., Fahy, Kreiger, McDonald) over months within this 
digest, including:

 - a lack of coherent first principles WRT muscle hypertrophy causation 
(*not* just correlation!),

 - that all pertinent variables and their proper representation in an 
algorithm that associates stressors with 'maximal' or 'optimal' effects on 
adaptation, both systemic and NM, are  not known yet,

 - reports that training to failure, coupled with other Mentzerian-style 
philosophical principles  meant to buttress that paradigm, have not worked 
for some segments of the wo population,


There are a lot of people who make
progress without training to failure. However, they would probably progress
much faster if they did.

Probably?  Evidence please.  One needs ab initio arguments, not  ex post 
facto speculation.

Michael Knapik
President and Principal Investigator, Conscious Systems.




 --------------------  11  --------------------
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,

It potentially increases the TUL (another acronym) or TUT (another acronym) 
at a lessor weight than one would do a non-SS set with, if one is *still* 
going to failure.  Or, it decreases the TUL/TUT if you do the SS set with a 
weight you would normally use, using, for example, a 2-1-2-1 cadence (e.g., 
 using a 10RM weight). In either case, if you want to equate that (TUT/TUL 
increase)  with an increase in 'intensity', then please tell us what we 
should do with the other  definitions (% 1RM (another acronym), %inroad, 
etc.).

Do you mean perceived difficulty of the last rep, or the whole set, 
independent of %1RM used?
Independent of TUL/TUT?  I submit this is OK, just as long as you realize 
that *that* 'intensity increase would not necessarily provide 
reasonable/'maximal/ stressors for hypertrophy.

 For example, If I can bench 335x10, and I decide to do a SS set with 100#. 
 Now, if I can do that 10-1-10-1cadence for 30 reps, putting TUT/TUL well 
over a couple minutes, and ASSuming that 30th rep is the failure rep, would 
*that* be a maximal' or 'optimal' stressor towards a hypertrophy goal?   I 
would sure feel 'exhausted', especially considering the aerobic nature of the 
last 4 minutes!

Or,  for example, If I can bench 335x10, and I decide to do a SS set with a 
weight (say 185) such that I can do only 3 reps at a 10-1-10-1 cadence, that 
would bring my TUT/TUL to within a normal-cadenced rep TUT range and for 
funnzies, lets also ASSume here that I fail just after that 3rd rep.. Now, 
has the 'exhaustion' variable of hypertrophy stressors been taken to a 
'maximal' or 'optimal' range? Compared to the first example? Maybe the 
intensity_as_defined_by_%1RM has increased here (surely). but what about in 
terms of your definition?  Would that last rep be perceived as being as 
hard/intense as the last rep in the first example?  If so, why would the 
results differ (leading question)?  If not, which would be superior and why?

Or...

So you see, the truth values of all these statements relating best this and 
increasing optimal that , depend on what variables you include in your model 
of hypertrophy-inducing stressors, and the relative weightings you would give 
each of those.  Additionally, that model would also include other 
individual-centric parameters like training status (beginner, etc.), 
nutritional status, hormonal status/age-related factors, adaptational 
proclivities, etc.

And that is why near-absolutist statements, or even statements about some 
protocol increasing this or that have to be looked at carefully to see what 
assumptions are or are not made, and more importantly what terminology  means 
in the context of the claim.

Top

-------------------- 5 --------------------

#5. SuperSlow Deadlifts - from John Mark
Top
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 11:48:05 +0800
From: "John Mark" <john.mark@pobox.com>
Subject: SuperSlow Deadlifts

Andrew,

Thank you for your response. I have been living in Asia too long and have
forgotten that communicating with subtleties may not be appropriate for all
audiences.  Apologies for being opaque.  When I directed my query to you, I
was hoping that you would dazzle us with your knowledge of SS exercise
methodology and provide us a discourse on SS deadlift techniques.

John

Top

-------------------- 6 --------------------

#6. Re: SuperSlow Deadlifts - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 18:57:37 -0400
From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net>
Subject: Re: SuperSlow Deadlifts

> From: John Mark <john.mark@pobox.com>

> Andrew,
> 
> Thank you for your response. I have been living in Asia too long and have
> forgotten that communicating with subtleties may not be appropriate for
all
> audiences.  Apologies for being opaque.  When I directed my query to you,
I
> was hoping that you would dazzle us with your knowledge of SS exercise
> methodology and provide us a discourse on SS deadlift techniques.
> 
> John
> 

I apologize for not providing a more detailed analysis of the performance
of the exercise. I usually checkand answer my Email between appointments,
and usually do not have the time to always go into detail.

If there is enough interest in an article on the deadlift and all of the
variations of it maybe I'll write something about it for Cyberpump

Andrew M. Baye
The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc
http://www.superslow.com

Top

-------------------- 7 --------------------

#7. Response to my question on not to failure reps and sets - from JawDogs@aol.com
Top
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 09:37:12 EDT
From: JawDogs@aol.com
Subject: Response to my question on not to failure reps and sets

Dear HITers,

Thanks for all of your responses. Thanks to James Kreiger, Son of Squat, Juan
Castro and Lyle "CSCS" McDonald for taking the time. 

After reading over the responses several times, I noticed an interesting
similarity between them all -- not a single one of the responses actually
answered the questions. Most of the responses barely even addressed the issues
directly and, as per usual, went the way of personal preferance and other such
non-scientific thoughts. In addition, these responses proved to me
conclusively that most people who think they train intensively hardly ever do,
and that the use of deductive reasoning and logic escape even the very
intelligent. It's a cryin' shame.

For example (and I pick this one out of a hat), Mr. Krieger wonders why his
leg strength did not improve using a one set to failure method, and actually
decreased using this method. Since we do not know how long Mr. Krieger stayed
with this program (I'll assume, for the moment that he gave it a go for
several weeks) and since we also do not know what cadence he used, etc., for
the moment and for arguments sake, let's asume these additional details are
unimportant. 

As all of who train intensively are well aware, once strength in any given
exercise plateaus or actually decreases, what, pray tell, is going on?! You
guessed it -- overtraining. 

By simply not considering this as a possible reason why one work set to
failure did not work (supposedly), illustrates the lack of logic and reasoning
that floods this digest, and the things that have kept me from posting for so
many months. 

Don't get me wrong now -- I think the digest is important, often thought-
provoking and unique. I also do not mean to imply that Mr. Krieger is somehow
incapable of logic. I am merely trying to point out how so many of us love to
call our degrees and certifications "scientific" and then in the very same
breath make statements like "I believe what works best for the individual is
what is best." Hardly scientific. 

Mr. Krieger likes to play devils advocate. That's OK. Playing devils advocate
can be, at times, an intersting way to advance one's thinking on a particular
subject. Sometimes, however, it is a ploy used to skirt the issue at hand.
Regarding my question about the physiological basis for not training to
failure, Mr. Krieger replies "What is the physiological basis for training to
failure? I am looking for an answer using cellular physiology not philosophy
or vague, abstract logic.".

First of all, logic is never vague or abstract. If a certain logic escapes the
mental capacity of an individual, well, don't blame the logic.

Some of the greatest inventions, scientific laws and principles ever created
were derived and wrought through the use of philosophy, abstract thinking,and
dreaming (Einstein Newton, Orville and Wilbur, Edison, etc.). 

Since we know that a certain amount of reps (and sets) below a certain level
of intensity will stimulate nothing in the way of growth or strength
increases, and given that we accept the fact that that no one knows the exact
amount of intensity that is needed to spark the growth/strength increase
mechanism, LOGICALLY speaking, stopping short of maximum may get you there,
but it may not. Training to failure ensures you have arrived. It ensures that
you have covered the bases. It ensures you have HIT the homerun. 

Here is a common trainer/trainee scenario: A trainer gives his client 2 10 lb.
dumbells and asks her to do 3 sets of 10 or so reps of biceps curls. Cadence?
Non-specified as per usual. Form? Haphazard but not too awful. She acomplishes
the task. The trainer asks the client "How was that?" She says "Pretty hard.".
He says "OK, good. Let's move on.". 2 months later the client, much to her
delight, is using 20 lb. dumbells for 3 sets of ten. An amazing increase! But
is it? Clearly her high-rep, multiple set routine is working like a charm. But
in reality, because failure had never been establised, there was no way to
know what she was truly capable of from the get go.  In fact, the client was
actually capable of using more than 20 lbs. from day one! Actual strength
increases -- nil. If you follow, the multiple set scenario is very often akin
to this example. When it isn't, it is the very last few moments of intensive
work in the last set of the last rep that is producing or inducing the
strength increase. One can cut to the chase and get the same stimulus in one
set. That is why the late Dr. Pollock was able to prove in his studies that
there was no real difference between one set and three sets. But I don't think
he ever understood why. 

As for what failure is? Failure in an exercise is when you cannot stop the
resistance from lowering though applying maximum effort to try. This wipes out
the entire partial rep scenario. This also renders breakdowns literally
impossible. Sure you could wait 5 minutes and do another set, but why? (I
have, in fact tried this and upon resting 10 minutes was only capable of 1 rep
with the same weight. I believe that most of the skeptics on this digest
rarely, if ever, train as intensively as they could. 

And then, of course, there is the skill thing. 

Ever heard the saying "He's into his groove"? The body gets very good at
performing skill tasks in the most efficient, not necessarily the most
intensive manner possible. Take squats for example. Squating as little as one
inch less deeply will change the amount of reps one can do tremendously. If
one is training on his or her own, if one is not paying attention to rep
cadence, if one is not paying attention to lockout and rest in the top
position, well, is one really getting stronger? 

And would everyone please stop, I repeat stop comparing power lifters and
other athletes and their specific sporting movements to strength development.
Jimminy Crickets! Get hold of some motor learning text books and read, read,
read. Olympic lifters are human beings. (Most of them anyway.) Power lifting
is a demonstration of power. Developing muscular strength, safely and
effectively is another matter ENTIRELY. Almost all high-intensity sporting
type events will, at one point or another, become intensive enough to spark a
strength increase. Power lifting probably more than any other. How would I
increase a power lifters strength? The same way I would increase Grandma
Moses' strength -- just using more resistance. 

Lastly, Son-of-squat mentioned that injuries usually occur on the last rep.
Yeah, well, that is because once injured, no more reps are possible. I mean
c'mon!

OK that's enough for now. I want to say as a final note that if this business
of exercise is to ever become a science, we have all got to start thinking a
little more deeply and refrain from hiding out in the prison of personal
preference. 
F = ma not because I think so. You don't get a vote. It doesn't matter what
you prefer. 

To quote sir Joshua Reynolds: 

"There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to escape the real labor
of thinking."

Sincerely,

Fred Hahn
FHahn@seriousstrength.com

Top