-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. DSP--It's not really that complicated - from John Mark
Top
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 20:32:59 +0800 From: "John Mark" <john.mark@pobox.com> Subject: DSP--It's not really that complicated Rachael Picone AT&T Somerset Health Fitness Center, NJ USA wrote: >You are absolutely correct. What I was referring to was the fact that in >addition to using 6 sets, all those 'precisely' outlined variables *change* >from set to set. This would appear to make it more difficult to follow and >therefore less practical, when compared to other protocols that involve >only one or two sets, where the rep tempo remains the same, and/or the >rest period is not measured. I hope this clarified my earlier post. It's not really that complicated, but it does require a little planning. First get a watch with a pacer and a stop watch. I use an old plastic Seiko Pulsemeter. The pacer will help you with the tempo. The stop watch controls rest between sets and subsets. A notebook is also invaluable. A good partner or spotter is a must. Load the bar with small plates so that with each drop you strip off just one or two outside plates. You do not have to strip off exactly 20% with each drop. For example for my bench workout, I load the bar first with a pair of 25s (95), pair of 10s (115), pair of 10s and a pair of 5s (145), two pairs of 10s (185), two pairs of 10s (225), a pair of 25s and a pair of 5s (285). Don't forget the collars! After the first subset, I strip the 25s and 5s; after the second subset, I strip two pairs of 10s .... Give the protocol a try. I believe that you will find it very intense. John
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: By request of Rob... - from Sonofsquat@aol.com
Top
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 10:04:35 EDT From: Sonofsquat@aol.com Subject: Re: By request of Rob... While I love getting the HIT digest, my vote is for the digest to come out less often (2x per week). This will be of less benefit to folks who want training advice, but of greater benefit to folks who want to debate and discuss training. It will allow more information and opinions to be displayed each time we post our opinions which will allow us to further defend our position. To those folks who want advice, you can always email someone directly for quicker answers. Fred II
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Valsalva manoeuvre - from William Measor
Top
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 18:57:55 +0100 From: William Measor <parsifal@foobar.co.uk> Subject: Re: Valsalva manoeuvre James Krieger wrote: > Where a valsalva maneuver can become dangerous is if it is prolonged. The > increase in intrathoracic pressure caused by a valsalva maneuver decreases > venous return to the heart, which lowers cardiac output. If this decreased > venous return is prolonged, the lowered cardiac output will reduce blood > flow to the brain and possibly result in a loss of consciousness (this is > the same phenomena that occurs to jet pilots when performing high G > maneuvers, known as "blacking out."). > > 1. Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Kraemer. Designing Resistance Training Programs. > 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1997. What do you mean by prolonged? How may seconds of valsalva can cause problems? Are longer sets more dangerous? Apparently from a something I saw on TV, when awakening from this type of experience, the subject feels extreme euphoria!? Not that I want to try it!
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Training and Fun - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 15:09:02 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Training and Fun "you must make the client enjoy the fitness program and to keep them wanting to come back. " I strongly disagree. I have clients who absolutely hate the workouts, because they are brutally hard. Yet they've been training with me consistently since I've been in Orlando. They do so because they're getting results here that NOBODY else in this area is capable of producing as quickly, as safely, or as efficiently. If you explain things properly and increase the intensity gradually, you'd be surprised how many people will train in such an un-fun manner. It's results that count. That's the bottom line. Just to prevent any confusion, unless I'm training someone who I know has been using HIT previously, I DO NOT try to bury a new client on the first workout. Actually, the first week or two train a person I barely train them hard at all. Only after I am confident that they are proficient in the proper performance of all of the exercises they are doing and have learned to breath properly and follow other safety considerations do I start to increase the intensity. The first priority is safety. After I'm convinced they can perform the exercises properly, then things start getting hard. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>"you must make the client enjoy the fitness program and to<BR>keep them wanting to come back. "</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>I strongly disagree. I have clients who absolutely hate the workouts, because they are brutally hard. Yet they've been training with me consistently since I've been in Orlando. They do so because they're getting results here that NOBODY else in this area is capable of producing as quickly, as safely, or as efficiently.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>If you explain things properly and increase the intensity gradually, you'd be surprised how many people will train in such an un-fun manner. It's results that count. That's the bottom line.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Just to prevent any confusion, unless I'm training someone who I know has been using HIT previously, I DO NOT try to bury a new client on the first workout. Actually, the first week or two train a person I barely train them hard at all. Only after I am confident that they are proficient in the proper performance of all of the exercises they are doing and have learned to breath properly and follow other safety considerations do I start to increase the intensity. The first priority is safety. After I'm convinced they can perform the exercises properly, then things start getting hard.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Andrew M. Baye<BR>The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc<BR><A href="http://www.superslow.com">http://www.superslow.com</A></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>"you must make the client enjoy the fitness program and to<BR>keep them wanting to come back. "</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>I strongly disagree. I have clients who absolutely hate the workouts, because they are brutally hard. Yet they've been training with me consistently since I've been in Orlando. They do so because they're getting results here that NOBODY else in this area is capable of producing as quickly, as safely, or as efficiently.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>If you explain things properly and increase the intensity gradually, you'd be surprised how many people will train in such an un-fun manner. It's results that count. That's the bottom line.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Just to prevent any confusion, unless I'm training someone who I know has been using HIT previously, I DO NOT try to bury a new client on the first workout. Actually, the first week or two train a person I barely train them hard at all. Only after I am confident that they are proficient in the proper performance of all of the exercises they are doing and have learned to breath properly and follow other safety considerations do I start to increase the intensity. The first priority is safety. After I'm convinced they can perform the exercises properly, then things start getting hard.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Andrew M. Baye<BR>The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc<BR><A href="http://www.superslow.com">http://www.superslow.com</A></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: HIT Digest #169 - from PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com
Top
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 18:28:46 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #169 AB - Andrew Baye PL - Pete LaChance AB: Increasing physical activity is one thing, exercise is another. PL: I guess I see it as a continuum in terms of the rate of work performed (power output, %1RM or VO2max), the total amount of work done (caloric expenditure) and/or the duration of total activity. AB: Should we just let people believe that any moderately demanding activity is all they require for maximal physical benefits? PL: No, that would be erroneous. I say tell people what they really need, and if they don't have the discipline to put forth the effort required the very few times per month they need to, then let them suffer the consequences. PL: What they need is to increase their physical activity (i.e. Both aerobic & resistance exercise) and to do so on a regular basis (i.e., two to three sessions per week. More than that to start is unnecessary and likely to induce injury and or drop out. AB: Everybody gets what they deserve. PL: Only those with their hands out are under the impression that they should have other take care of them. The majority of the active and inactive appreciate the consequences of their actions and inactions. AB: At least try to educate them as to what is required, so that they are able to make an informed decision as to whether they're going to do it or not, rather than lie in an attempt to pander to all the slackers out there. PL: We appear to differ in terms of what/where they need (to start exercising). It is clear that the overwhelming majority of Americans need to do more and eat better. AB: If people are too lazy to train properly, then to Hell with them. PL: OK AB: I've got 50 and 60 year olds who come in here for 20 minutes once per week and bust their asses who are easily twice as strong as the majority of people their weight that are only 1/2 to 1/3 their age. If they believed the nonsense being spread by organizations like ACE and the ACSM that a daily stroll in the park or gardening was all they needed to maintain their functional ability, then they'd be just as weak as the rest of the population who believe that crap. PL: I've got 'em in their 60's and 80's and as strong as you mention. I can get them that way with out having them train to failure or perform isometric like exercise. AB: People need strength training, and strength training is hard work. It's not like they have to spend any significant time training either. The average person would do very well training only half an hour or less once per week. If some people don't like it, then that's just too bad. I have absolutely no sympathy or pity for lazy people. PL: I prefer to increase the minimum training time to two hours in an attempt to increase total work and caloric expenditure, and decrease the required effective training intensity (when necessary) necessary to improve their overall physical fitness. AB: Andrew M. Baye/ The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc PL: Pete LaChance, MS prsnlftnss@aol.com
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Masters training - from Ken Roberts
Top
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 16:54:22 -0700 (PDT) From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts) Subject: Masters training You know, I was wondering just how many of us out here are training and over 40 yrs. old? Personaly, I have been training for over three years now (having never actually done so befor) and have been feeling my way to discovering the best/most effective way to train for my particular needs. It seems to me that most of the posts herein have been directed to young trainees with great resillience and quick recovery. I'd like to hear from the older guys and wimmin and those who've have experience training them. Hey, old guys, have any of you actually gotten rid of your bellies and love handles? Or is this a lost cause? To Henry Jung: DON'T WORK OUT!!! You probably couldn't anyway, but you wil only succed in further tearing down and weakening your body and open yourself up to illness. Have you ever fasted for any length of time befor? Ionly ask this because it wold seem that if you had you would ralize just how weak you bcome. And I do agree with Fred ll. What is so allfired difficult about working to failure? The only time I experience any discomfort of any consequence is when I squat for 20 or do leg press and extensions for 20. Now THAT hurts! Ken Roberts
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. (Fwd) Squat2 and snatches - from Matt Brzycki
Top
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 06:22:22 EDT From: "Matt Brzycki" <brzycki@arelia.Princeton.EDU> Subject: (Fwd) Squat2 and snatches FH (Fred Hatfield II): Come on Matt, you know the answer to the first question. Your training and education should make it obvious to you that snatches are hard on the shoulders. MB: Oh, I knew all along that snatches are hard on the shoulders. Which made me wonder why any strength and fitness practioner would ever prescribe them for anyone. FH: This single point makes me wonder why you decided to bring this particular case up and to blame the explosive nature of the exercise as the culprit. MB: Well, I figured that there's 3 possibilities as to why the swimmer got injured: (1) the snatch puts a lot of stress on the shoulders because the bar is lifted over the head into a compromising position; (2) snatches are done explosively; and (3) a combination of the two. FH: Since we are on the subject of swimmers, I don't usually prescribe explosive lifting for them at all. The SAID principle (specific adaptation to imposed demands) does not warrent swimmers training in such a way because there is very little explosive about swimming. MB: No? What about the start out of the blocks? Wouldn't you classify that as being explosive? They certainly don't fall into the pool. And I don't get it. You said that you "usually don't prescribe explosive lifting for them at all" and then that the SAID Principle "does not warrant swimmers training in such a way." If you "usually don't" that means you sometimes do; if so, aren't you violating the SAID Principle which "doesn't warrant" it? And the way people throw the Principle of Specificity around -- I'm not saying you -- aren't snatches like really, really similar to the start in swimming? I mean, in both instances the hands are near the feet and then the arms are forcefully extended overhead while the legs are forcefully straightened? Seems to me that snatches are more specific to the start in swimming than a power clean is to a lineman exploding off the line of scrimmage. FH: In very few instances do I prescribe any form of snatch for other athletes (some I may prescribe are muscle snatches and snatch squats, but of course, only for folks who have the ability and proper shoulder strength -- and those instances are few and far inbetween). There are better ways to develop explosive power through explosive lifting without the snatch. MB: And how do you define "proper shoulder strength"? FB: If what you are really asking is whether or not I believe the strength coach was right or wrong in prescribing this particular exercise, the answer is he was wrong! MB: No, I wasn't asking that. I was asking whether any strength coach should prescribe snatches to any athlete since it's hard on the shoulders because the bar is lifted overhead in a compromising position. Matt
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: HIT Digest #169 on fasting - from DogofBull@aol.com
Top
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 21:00:18 EDT From: DogofBull@aol.com Subject: Re: Fasting Just a few words on fasting.........DON"T DO IT!! DB
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: Failure - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 23:07:15 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Re: Failure >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 >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. Interesting that you can critique how hard I do or don't train based on what I wrote. What was that thread about ad hominem attacks? Your questions were somewhat vaguely worded and I at least was asking for some clarification. I'll just consider your final question. "Give a physiological reason for how training short of failure can stimulate growth?" 1. With a high tension load, you recruit muscle fibers (according to the Size principle). 2. As the set progresses, those fibers fatigue (assumption which you never clarified: fatigue in a given fiber is THE stimulus for growth in THAT fiber) although the exact mechanism of fatigue has not yet been elucidated. 3. Concentric fatigue is the point at which you can no longer move a load through the full ROM (implication: you have fatigued enough muscle fibers that your momentary force capacity is less than the required force output). Physiological definition of failure (according to me): The point at which you have fatigued enough fibers such that force production < force requirements. So what happens if you trai 1 rep short of failure (ignoring for the time being that you can't know with 100% certainty where that point is). What is happening physiologically. The same points above apply. The only difference is that at 1 rep short of failure, your momentary force production capacity is still above force requirements. Implication: you have fatigued enough fibers to decrease your force production capacity but there are some (how many?) fibers which have been recruited but not fatigued. Lemme be VERY reducitve here. Le's say you have 100 fibers and each one can generate 1 lb of force (yes, this is physiologically incorrect but it's just an example). So your maximum force capacity is 100 lbs. You take 75 lbs on the bar and start doing reps. With each rep, fibers begin to fatigue and your force production falls. Failure will occur when only 26 fibers have been fatigued. At the rep before failure, your strength is at least 76 lbs, meaning that up to 24 fibers could have been fatigued, hence stimulated to adapt. In a real situation, I'd expect the differential to be greater (since Type II fibesr have higher force production capacity than Type I) but the concept is what I'm getting at. Stopping 1 rep short of failure, has still fatigued a great many fibers. Of course performing the last rep to failure will stimluate more. And doing an isometric more still. Force reps more still, eccentrics more still. Why is the point of fiailure any less arbitrary a point to pick (except from convenience) than 1 rep short of failure, or 2 reps past failure, or any other point on the intensity continuum? So how many fibers did you miss by not performing that last set? I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows. Perhaps performing that final rep will cause MAXIMAL adaptations. That's not what you asked. Is that a good enough physiological answer for you? I'll be happy to get into more detail but not until you clarify some of the above points. >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. There is a GREAT range of individual responses to anything. I'm not sure if SS uses this particular argument but it's one brought up by Mentzer over and over and applies here. The often comment is that "Human physiology is identical, otherwise medicine could not exist." If that is so, tehre should be no need for more than one form of treatment of drug for any condition. Yet there is and there HAS TO BE. some individuals show a tremendously different reponse to the same drug compared to someone else. Of course there are scientific underlying principles behind drug dosing/different drugs and treatments but it still comes down to what works best for the individual. Pray tell why should exercise be any different? The underlying principle of weight training is progressive overload. If you don't apply it, you don't get stronger/bigger. I don't think anybody would debate that. how you apply that overload OPTIMALLY will depend on the person. For some it may be one set taken to failure with maximal inroading. For others it may be to concentric failure and stop the set. For still others it may be 1 rep short. Some grow best with high TUL, others with low. Some can tolerate a higher frequency than others. ON and on it goes. >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. But you wanted a PHYSIOLOGICAL reason why training to failure could/could not work. Yet above you give a LOGICAL reason. Why couldn't we LOGICALLY conclude that TO TRULY ENSURE gains you train to failure and beyond? Or to the point of isometric or eccentric failure. Those are no more or less arbitrary points on the intensity curve than positive failure. Failure makes a convenient measuring point and nothing else. There is nothing physiological magical about it. >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. That is not a physiological explanation of failure, it is merely a description. And you might note that the SS definition of failure (maximal inroading) is very different than the definition of failure used by other HIT advocates. Please give a PHYSIOLOGICAL explanation of why the SS point (maximal inroading) on the intensity curve is superior to any other (the point of concentric failure and stop the set or keep going beyond maximal inroading with forced negatives). No logic now, only physiology. Lyle McDonald, CSCS Back to the classics: And then the bartender says 'Hey buddy, that's not a mallard.'
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Legs and stuff - from Mr. Intensity
Top
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 06:47:40 PDT From: "Mr. Intensity" <mrintensity@hotmail.com> Subject: Legs and stuff What's happenin' people? I happened to be workin' out the other night when I noticed a strange trend with some of the guys in the gym. After my workout, I hung around and drank my powerade and checked out my new observation. Who can tell me what this is.... dink, dink, dink...tink, tink, tink....dink, dink, dink....tink, dink, dink? Nope, it's these guys who never work anything but their upper body and avoid leg workouts. I call this the cartoon syndrome. Remember the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, the big muscle bound guys had massive arms and chests but little dinky legs. I've really started to notice this now since I've started looking for it. Come on guys, do you know how stupid this looks? Ya peel off yer shirt and have a decent upper body, maybe a few cuts, but ya never seem ta wear shorts. Why? cause ya got toothpicks for legs. I said ta one of these guys,..."Hey, ya got a string hangin' off a yer gym shorts, sorry..my mistake...those are your legs." Seriously, not only does this look goofy, but it looks to me like it would be hazardous......wait....I was going to say hazardous during squats....guess that wouldn't be the case because they don't work legs any way....never mind. If you happen ta be one of these guys, don't neglect your legs fellas. Nothin' worse than seein' a guy with a huge upper body and stringy legs. Sort of like the guys many, many years ago who only curled with their left arm because that was the arm that they rested on the car door when crusin' the strip. On another note, I was mysteriously invited to write for Cyberpump!, get outta here...no really, my own column. Then just as mysteriously, the offer was taken back? What's up with that? Oh well, must not be Cyberpump! caliber material. I've also noticed that a few people posting to the digest are starting to fall into semantics again. If you don't have anything intelligent to reply back with, don't waste my time, I'm sure others on the list feel the same way. Give me somethin' useful, somethin' I can take ta the gym. I don't need more junk in my trash can. Till next time, Mr Intensity
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: HIT Digest #170 - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 20:30:57 PDT From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #170 >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. Mr. Hahn: I am sorry I did not at least say that I couldn't answer the questions. I thought that since I clearly did not meet your biconditional requirement, I was exempt. And since, as I have previously acknoweldged, I have little knowledge of physiology, I could not have provided any good answer. For that matter, I could not explain in terms of physiology why I do one set to failure training. I know by experience that it works best for me, but had you been asking us to justify such training, I would have been equally incapable of answering. But aren't you really the pot calling the kettle black? You have been challenged on a couple of issues, and reminded of them, and yet you seem to avoid answering them. >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. It is interesting how this has coincided with those times when you have been called upon to answer the challenges made to you. We could well suspect you of that which you have just accused us of. >F = ma not because I think so. Given your mangling of this relationship in Hardgainer magazine, I find your using it as an example simply amazing.
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: HIT Digest #170/Sandeep & DSP - from reptile
Top
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 00:23:39 -0400 From: "reptile" <reptile@blast.net> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #170/Sandeep & DSP > -------------------- 1 -------------------- > Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 12:19:02 -0400 > From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net> > Subject: Re: HIT Digest #167 SD - > 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. 1. We were not even debating this issue at all (in the DSP discussion). > 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. 2. Thank-you but Lyle already answered that question. > 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. 3. I would agree with that. We've already mentioned it in previous posts. > 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. 4. Save the personal insults Sandeep. They are uncalled for and unprofessional. I already explained what I meant by this and won't bother everyone by repeating myself. I never said anything about not writing anything down. If you knew me as a trainer you would know that my training logs are impeccable. Nor will I apologize for attempting to have a sense of humor around here or for trying to give my e-mail "tone." [Let's just say this is a good example of how when you WRITE things people should be very careful with the use of sarcasm, as it can be misinterpreted. --Rob] > Prioreceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation stretching done frequently to > help facilitate growth and recovery. That simple. 5. Keep in mind that I just finished researching over 40 sources on stretching: I have never heard of "weight stretching." I have never heard of PNF - or any other stretching method for that matter - as being referred to as "weight stretching." I have never heard of "the translation/transcription process." I have not seen any evidence/research that demonstrates how stretching facilitates growth. So in "my" mind, and probably others as well, Jerry's statement was *anything* but simple. I suppose you are just more privileged to special DSP stretching info than I am. RP
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. An addendum for Fred re: failure - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 00:31:39 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: An addendum for Fred re: failure Oh yeah, Fred. Perhaps while you're at it you can give a physiological explanation of how training a compound exercise (bench press, pulldown) to failure (which occurs from failure in the weak link such as triceps or biceps) reliably causes growth in the muscles which DID NOT FAIL in that movement. that is, failure in a compound movement can only occur from failure in ONE of the involved muscles. For example in a supinated grip pulldown, let's be reductive and say only the lats and biceps are involved. Only one of those muscles can be the cause of failure (defined as per my last post). Does this imply that the muscle which did not fail did not recieve a growth stimulus? In one of Andrew's examples, failure during chest work occured in the biceps. Does this mean that the chest recieved NO growth stimulus because it was not trained to failure per se? Lyle McDonald, CSCS Back to the classics: And then the bartender says 'Hey buddy, that's not a mallard.'
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Re: HIT Digest #170 - from MacThai@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 05:54:48 EDT From: MacThai@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #170 Thank you, Fred Hahn!!! Jim
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. RE: HIT Digest #169 - from John Parry-McCulloch
Top
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:33:42 +0100 From: John Parry-McCulloch <John.Parry-McCulloch@liffe.com> Subject: RE: Fasting Date: Wed, 1 Jul 98 09:12:12 +0900 From: Henry Jung <hjung@jp.FCNBD.COM> Subject: Fasting >Has anyone attempted to fast during a workout (religious or otherwise)? Do >you stop lifting or what do you eat for proteins? I am not talking about >just 3 days. I am talking about 2 weeks. Should I stop lifting? Greetings, You should certainly train intensely while you are fasting. For one thing, after about the third day you are likely to be feeling pretty damned sick for a few days as your system starts to dump toxins and other accumulated crap into your bloodstream. I, for one, would not relish the prospect of lying under a barbell when I'm feeling like that. Moreover, as you seem already to have worked out, you won't be eating, period, so any recuperation would presumably have to be paid for out of your existing stores of nutrients. I am not an expert on biochemistry so I will leave it to those who are to tell you whether you are likely to grow or now under these conditions. Personally, I doubt it. According to experts of fasting, fairly gentle exercise is beneficial during a fast because it does stimulate the blood flow and helps to flush out toxins and it can encourage peristatlsis to void all this rubbish from your bowels (no one said this was going to be pleasant). My advice would be to confine your exercise to walking. Remember to drink plenty of water, too. Days 3 to 5 are usually the very worst - do not give in. The nausea will pass. However, if this is your very first fast, I wouldn't recommend 14 days. Start at 7. Actually, and the can of worms worries me not at all, diet is one area where I would take issue with Ken Hutchins. In his SuperSlow book he claims that "natural" food is no better than any other. He is, I think, wrong in this. Raw and lightly cooked foods contain far more of the natural enzmes we need to digest them than do processed foods. If we eat enzyme depleted food then it takes more energy to digest it leaving less for repair and growth. This is, I guess, analogous to digging a deeper hole than necessary by overtraining. Moreover, certain foods, like proteins and carbohydrates require different conditions for efficient digestion; if you eat them together, they tend to putrefy rather than digest. This is not mumbo jumbo and is backed up in the literature by scientific papers and the like; I am merely too dim to remember them. Anyone who's interested in learning more would do well to read Daniel Reid's _The Tao of Health, Sex, and Longevity_. I am not Mr Reid and won't make any money if you buy the book. Finally, I am not am expert. If you follow my advice and die, then that's your problem. [That's what I always tell my clients. --Rob] Jon
-------------------- 16 --------------------
#16. Hong Kong - from David Atkinson
Top
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 23:50:26 +0930 From: "David Atkinson" <datkinson@picknowl.com.au> Subject: Hong Kong Hello! I'm off to Hong Kong shortly. I was wondering if there was anyone out there from Honk Kong or has lived there that can offer me any advice on where to find a good gym over there. If so you can mail me at: datkinson@computer.org Thanks, David Atkinson
-------------------- 17 --------------------
#17. Re: Fred Hahn's questions - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 21:44:39 +0300 From: "Erkki Turunen" <erkki.turunen@kolumbus.fi> Subject: Re: Fred Hahn's questions >Dear HITer's > >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. I noticed that you complained of the thing that although some on the list responded they did not answer the questions. I must say that I did, at least partially, see the same thing. You name two conditions to the group the questions are directed to. I certainly fulfil the first condition - because I do believe that "you do not need to train to failure to increase size and strength" - but not necessarily the second condition. I believe that there are people for whom multiple set training is superior but there may also be people for whom the opposite is true. So I don't exactly belong to the group you were addressed your questions to, but as you complained that you did not get direct answers so here goes. > >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? Now that I look at your first question I notice that it's pretty vague and I'm not surprised if you did not get the answers you wanted. I've understood that the way you do it is one set to failure. In your question you don't mention the volume, just the intensity of effort. So I only vary the latter variable and assume that the issue is of training ONE set not to failure. I don't believe that the optimal intensity of effort can be determined by logic only. So I cannot give you a definite answer:-( But a trainee willing to experiment with different intensity-volume-frequency combinations will find out what works best for him. Or not quite because there are so many possible combinations of those three variables that you cannot test them all in your life-time! As for your question, to find out which rep number is best for you you should experiment with them. You could start with doing 5 reps and add weight in step with your strength gains, in other words the sets in subsequent workouts should feel equally demanding. I admit it's not easy to do but testing maximums frequently would spoil the experiment. At the end of the experiment do the test, then write down the result and then try with 7 reps. If the result with 7 reps is better than that with 5 reps then you can exclude any rep number below 6. If instead you get the better result with 5 reps then any number above 6 is out of question. If both rep numbers yielded equally good results then 6 reps would be the best rep number. These conclusions are based on the assumption that the graph of response as a function of rep number is first increasing and then decreasing. It may be possible that the decreasing part only starts beyond failure point but it does start somewhere. What I was trying to say with all this is that you don't have to try every rep number to find out what works best. One very important thing when experimenting is to adjust the frequency according to rep number because recovery rate is dependent on the intensity. >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? It seems to me that your question contains the assumption that seven sets would be the proper volume of work. For me to be able to answer the question I must go with the assumption that that assumption is correct. You can do all sets to equal rep number or do sets of descending reps. Bill Pearl who advocates multiple sets and refrains from going to failure says that the sets should be demanding but not all-out efforts. If the objective for example is to do 4 sets of 8 then you should not be afraid of decreasing weight on the last sets to obtain the pre-planned rep number. >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.) I cannot say what the PHYSIOLOGICAL basis would be but if we take the word "physiological" out of the question then I can say that the basis behind not training to failure is that "training to success" also works and it's up to the trainee which mode of training he wants to apply. I believe that better long term results are achieved with the method the trainee likes more. Erkki Turunen