-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Hong Kong - from John Mark
Top
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 07:15:38 +0800 From: "John Mark" <john.mark@pobox.com> Subject: Hong Kong >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 David, Couple of assumptions (i) you are moving here and (ii) your Cantonese is a little rusty. Putonghua will not help much in Mongkok. If you are moving into an "expat" building, it will probably have a gym. The apartment building that I live in has tread mills, bikes, rowers, Cybex and a lot of free weights. If you are senior enough to get a club membership, the clubs usually have a good health club. Recommendations Aberdeen Marina Club (lots of Asians and Western members, children friendly), American Club (very American oriented, great facilities), Football Club (great facilities, but lousy for the kids). If you want a yuppie/chuppie place to work out try Californias. Lots of equipment, aerobics classes, etc. There is one in Central and another in Wanchai. Good luck, John
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: HIT Digest #169 - from Simon Fletcher
Top
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 17:28:45 +1200 From: "Simon Fletcher" <sfletcher@UNITEC.AC.NZ> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #169 Dear Rob I would prefer the digest to remain the way it is now, because i read it as part of my job and I don't like waiting! This is my first post and I just (5 mins ago) met Ted Lambrinedes, who is Believe it or not, in New Zealand doing missionary work amongst the Hammerless heathens in N.Z. for Hammer strength, sorry Life Fitness. Seems like a nice guy, He will be speaking tomorrow at a seminar they arranged, and I am really looking forward to going. He said he had seen the promoter of the Swedish meatball (Paul Chek) speak in Australia while on the way here. Mr Chek has done a wonderful job of promoting himself and his balls here and could surely teach Matt a thing or two about cha-ching!! Thanks for your time and effort. Simon Fletcher
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. last rep injuries - from KAGiles@aol.com
Top
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 05:20:46 EDT From: KAGiles@aol.com Subject: last rep injuries > >By the way, ever notice how injuries that happen during a set usually > >do so on the last rep? > Similarily, I tend to find things in the last place I look.
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. spot reduction - from KAGiles@aol.com
Top
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 05:20:47 EDT From: KAGiles@aol.com Subject: spot reduction Regarding spot reduction > Actually it is easy to understand why spot reduction "works", > or rather appears to work for many people. If it really worked wouldn't all gum chewers have thin cheeks? Wouldn't all tennis judges have skinny necks? Wouldn't data entry clerks have skinny hands or fingers?
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. What is muscle failure? - from PTDANNY@aol.com
Top
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 12:51:23 EDT From: PTDANNY@aol.com Subject: What is muscle failure? I've often posed the question "What exactly is momentary muscular failure?" to many exercise scientists. I get different answers each time. I'ved asked it of many HIT paraders too. My problems with using Momentary Muscular Failure as a measurement of intensity is that it is not an objective measurement. We measure light in wavelength, not intensity of squint. We measure sound in decibles, not how bad of a headache the sound gives us. We measure taste and smell by parts per million/thousand/whatever, not by how bad our s*** stinks or how sour the old milk is (BTW, why do they bother to put a date on sour cream?). Currently, we have no objective method of measuring the intensity of effort. We can measure strength. We can use 1RM or Medx Testing for that. We can measure inroad. Medx testing does that too (although I've argued that it is measuring the fatigue as a result of 2 sets). All of us who have trained to failure have felt that, maybe, just maybe, we could have at least tried another repetition. All of us who've trained clients noticed that what some clients percieve to be MMF is far from what other clients would call it. Or even what we'd call it. Obviouly people who do not train to failure get results. People who do train to failure also get results. So do people who train in really wacky ways. I think that we do not yet know what exactly gets results (supposing that Lean Mass increase and strength gains are the goal). We are either are overlooking a variable in the equation, or are not yet aware of a variable. The latter is probably the case. We simply do not have enough information to truly produce a definitive answer as to what works best. In the meantime, I'm going to keep lifting my spoonfuls of Peanut Butter Captain Crunch, and curling them towards my mouth. Try it! It works! My arms are already much bigger. For even better results, try washing it down the three large gulps of Surge. You have to use three gulps for maximum gains. Later...... Danny Thompson
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. FAILURE REPS AND SETS - from JOHN A. CASLER
Top
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 11:32:12 -0700 From: "JOHN A. CASLER" <bioforce@email.msn.com> Subject: FAILURE REPS AND SETS Hi Fred, I saw your post and thought I might respond to some of the points and share a couple opinions. I realize that I have isolated and taken some of your thoughts out of context and tried to address them from the whole as I saw it. Fred Hahn wrote: < not a single one of the responses actually answered the questions<snip> ***Sorry I didn't see your original questions but If you re-asked them here I tried to answer. <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. ***I have found that in the field of exercise many times what seems logical sometimes isn't. A good example is that many people thought (and some still do) that in a biceps curl the muscle is strongest at the completion of the curl, when in fact it is not. It is just that the biomechanical effectiveness of the leverage in that position causes gravity to not exert the same force as it does in the midrange of the movement. Subsequently the weight feels easier to move and the logical assumption is that you are stronger in that ROM (range of motion). This doesn't mean throw logic out the window, but we must be open minded enough to realize that many of our long held, logically deduced beliefs may be in question at any time. <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. ****I agree, but I wouldn't be so hard on degrees and certifications. They are only foundational education and skills. They are not the answer to every question. They are only tools to begin the process. As unscientific as it sounds the best advice one can give is "If it works, do it". Sometimes for reasons unknown to us someone makes progress or sets a world record in a very strange and unusual way without the generally accepted training practices. <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. <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. ***The amount of force, sets and or reps to stimulate adaptation is any segment of movement or resistive force greater than the previous performance capabilities of the trainee. That is, if your previous best performance was 10 reps with 100 lbs, then it would take an increase in either one (or both) of those to impose a demand that would cause an adaptation. I'm sure you have heard of SAID or Specific Adaptation of Imposed Demand. If your question is what causes the most effective and maximum adaptation then you are in a another area. I would say that in a trained individual, the maximum response would be illicited from creating the maximum (sub injury) stimulation and making sure that adequate nutrition and recuperation were added to the equation. There is a lot of ground between adding a few ounces (or a rep) each workout and hanging it out too the limit every set. I know I've been there. Both methods are effective, both work well when followed regularly. <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. ***I agree that stopping any set short of your most recent best performance will not produce the desired result of increased strength or size. If you perform the same rep and weight pattern then you will maintain your present condition. If you perform less then you will experience de-conditioning. <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. ***I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are saying that you continue exercising to eccentric failure then I agree. If you are saying that you perform concentric reps until you cannot maintain eccentric force then I suggest you are "not" experiencing muscle failure but mental failure. True eccentric failure comes well after concentric failure and is very very hard to achieve. Not because it requires any special rep pattern but because of the pain involved just to get to the "eccentric failure threshold". <I believe that most of the skeptics on this digest rarely, if ever, train as intensively as they could. ***Its very easy to assume that everyone else "wimps" out and we are the only ones who really go 110%. If they reach true eccentric failure they do, if not they don't. Remember though, that not everyone wants to maintain the incredible mental psych needed to train with that type of intensity. If one can achieve the same results taking over twice the time it may be enjoyable to take that path. <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. ***Actually Olympic lifting is a demonstration of power and Power lifting is more a demonstration of strength. <How would I increase a power lifters strength? The same way I would increase Grandma Moses' strength -- just using more resistance. Squats? Deadlifts? Bench Presses? for Grandma Moses or would you give Power lifters Grandma Exercises? (just joking) <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! ***Again logic would seem to dictate such, but it depends on the injury. If you are pumped full of endorphins (morphine like substances produce by the brain) , that reduce the sensation of pain, you may not have the same perception of the injury as you will after cooling down. I recently read a post from Lyle who said he finished his workout even after injuring his low back. So many muscle pulls and mild sprains do not stop the session. <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. ***Exercise is a science, but a science, still in it's infancy. Science does not mean we know all the answers. It just means we agree that we will search for the truth. I think your points are well taken but remember, everyone has educated opinions as well as "gut" feelings. Many times the feeling proves to be accurate and vice versa. Having an education or certification does not stop a person from having those gut feelings and they are intermingled into the "current conscious awareness" (i.e.: you cannot know what you don't know, but you have the ability to continue to learn) of the person at that time. Goals and lifestyles change as we go through life and even these changes cause different perspective. Different perspective will yield different opinion and view of even the same facts. John A. Casler BIO-FORCE Research Laboratories "We Strongly Recommend the Use of FORCE" BIO-FORCE@MSN.com
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Fred Hahn's response to his question on not to failure reps and sets - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 21:45:48 +0300 From: "Erkki Turunen" <erkki.turunen@kolumbus.fi> Subject: Re: Fred Hahn's response to his question on not to failure reps and sets >From: JawDogs@aol.com >Subject: Response to my question on not to failure reps and sets >In addition, these responses proved to me >conclusively that most people who think they train intensively hardly ever do, Can we draw a line between what is intensive what what is not? You probably have a different measure of what is intensive than another guy. Who has the right definition? >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. Not everything in weight training can be solved by only using logic. We also need experimenting. >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 we have to look at the other side of the coin too. There may be a certain level of intensity for some trainees beyond which the adverse effects start to increase more than the positive ones. You may have read from Hardgainer magazine about a guy who had to reduce his frequency to once a month to fully recover from his intensive (it was very low volume) training. Although I don't know for sure I have a strong suspicion that by reducing his intensity he could work out much more frequently with a greater rate of progress as a consequence. >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. You are right. > In fact, the client was >actually capable of using more than 20 lbs. from day one! You cannot draw that conclusion. For example she could have been able to use 15 lbs at the start and 25 lbs 2 months later. >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? That's a good point. It's difficult to evaluate progress if the form in exercise is altered. >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. I would rather say that power-lifting is a demonstration of strength while Olympic lifting is a demonstration of power. >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. You're right but I've seen even this simple formula misinterpreted. Erkki Turunen
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. RE: HIT Digest #170 - from William Lucke
Top
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 07:51:10 -0400 From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu> Subject: RE: HIT Digest #170 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. Hmm. Hazarding a guess, I would say that we have a lawyer in our midst. Michael Knapik President and Principal Investigator, Conscious Systems. 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. Sincerely, Fred Hahn FHahn@seriousstrength.com Took the words right out of my mouth. Enough commentary. Questions: What is the physiological mechanism by which joints pop (not a joke; I am genuinely curious)? Is it "bad" when ones joints pop? Not just major pops either, small snaps and crackles such as occur when one is warming up and bends ones knees cold. I have heard from a single source (on Cyberpump!, I think) that full squats increase pressure on a fairly small area of the patella dramatically, as compared to parallel squats. I have also inferred from the posts of various members of this list that they employ full squats. I have also heard (in the Arthur Jones articles) of flexibility benefits to be had from full squats that are greater than those of parallel squats. I would like to have access to the strength and flexibility benefits of full squats, but not at the expense of two of my favorite joints. Are full squats truly detrimental to the knees? If I change from parallel squats to full squats and stay with them, am I going to need knee replacement surgery by the time I am 65 (46 years from now)? OK maybe not surgery, but will I have arthritis, pain, or all the muscle mass I could want but hobble around with a cane because walking hurts when I am 65? Rob fears William H. Lucke IV
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Lazy people - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 15:00:13 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Lazy people In the HIT digest PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com states, "6. If we as physical educators are trying to sincerely increase the regular physical activity of inactive Americans should we expect that they will return if we tell our Mom and Dad "each exercise set will be an all out painful effort and will have no entertainment or recreational value"? " Increasing physical activity is one thing, exercise is another. Should we just let people believe that any moderately demanding activity is all they require for maximal physical benefits? 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. Everybody gets what they deserve. 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. If people are too lazy to train properly, then to Hell with them. 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. 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. 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>In the HIT digest <A href="mailto:PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com">PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com</A> states, "6. If we as physical educators are trying to sincerely increase the regular physical activity of inactive Americans should we expect that they will return if we tell our Mom and Dad "each exercise set will be an all out painful effort and will have no entertainment or recreational value"? "</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Increasing physical activity is one thing, exercise is another. Should we just let people believe that any moderately demanding activity is all they require for maximal physical benefits? 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.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Everybody gets what they deserve. 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.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>If people are too lazy to train properly, then to Hell with them. 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.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></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>In the HIT digest <A href="mailto:PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com">PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com</A> states, "6. If we as physical educators are trying to sincerely increase the regular physical activity of inactive Americans should we expect that they will return if we tell our Mom and Dad "each exercise set will be an all out painful effort and will have no entertainment or recreational value"? "</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Increasing physical activity is one thing, exercise is another. Should we just let people believe that any moderately demanding activity is all they require for maximal physical benefits? 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.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Everybody gets what they deserve. 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.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>If people are too lazy to train properly, then to Hell with them. 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.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></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>
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Trivia - from William Lucke
Top
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:25:33 -0400 From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu> Subject: Trivia Rob, (not Matt, just Rob) Just out of curiosity, about what percentage of messages sent to the digest get sent back with the infamous "unacceptable" attached? Does this fraction rise when a debate "warms up"? There can be only one-- William H Lucke IV
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Fasting - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 00:53:08 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Fasting >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? >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. Not only will you not grow, but you will lose a LOT of muscle with total fasting. For a book I'm writing, I have had the joy of reading a lot of the early starvation literature (if anyone is interested, do a Medline search on George Cahill Jr with the keyword 'starvation'. Truly fascinating papers, at least to a nerd like me. If you can't find the references, email me and I'll give 'em to you). During the first 3 weeks of complete fasting the loss of body protein is massive. I'd have to go back and look at exact numbers but you're probably looking at between 0.25 and 0.5 lbs of muscle lost PER DAY. Along with that you will be losing roughly 0.5 lbs of fat per day as well. Regardless of what benefits you feel that fasting may have (and it's not a can of worms I wish to open), I can unequivovally tell you that fasting will absolutely crucify any gains in muscle that you may have had. If you're determined to go through with fasting, at the very least consider what is called a Protein Sparing Modified Fast (PSMF). by consuming dietary protein (on the order of 0.8 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight), you can eliminate almost all of the losses of body protein. Still, I personally do not recommend either fasting or the PSMF. I am absolutely unconvinced that there is a buildup of 'toxins' in the body but, like I said, this is not a can of worms/argument I want to open/get into. simply accept that if you fast completely, you will lose a LOT of muscle even over a short day span (an interesting aspect is that body protein losses go DOWN after 3 weeks of total starvation due to the development of ketosis, adaptations in brain chemistry, etc, etc.) If that loss of hard earned muscle is acceptable to you, that's your choice but be forewarned of the possible consequences. Lyle McDonald, CSCS Back to the classics: And then the bartender says 'Hey buddy, that's not a mallard.'
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: Lack of legs - from Scott Deane
Top
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 02:02:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Deane <sdeane@lynx.dac.neu.edu> Subject: Re: Lack of legs I have to agree with Mr. Intensity... Ive seen all too many people in the gym "hammering" their upper bodies, only to completely neglect their lower bodies. Sometimes, you get the occasional person who hits their quads, but doesnt bother with their halms or calfs. Big mistake. I think they want to accentuate their "V-shaped bodies" by having toothpick legs... Serious weightlifters should ignore these bone-heads, though (and that means any HITer shouldnt waste his/her time observing these people, no offense Mr. I). All they are looking for is the pumped up arm to fill out the one-size-too-small t-shirt when they go out to drown a few beers at the latest dance club. Weightlifting at a High Intensity level means a full commitment to your entire body... not half. Scott 623 sdeane@lynx.neu.edu
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Reply to Fred Hahn's Comments - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 16:44:45 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Reply to Fred Hahn's Comments >From: JawDogs@aol.com > >non-scientific thoughts. In addition, these responses proved to me >conclusively that most people who think they train intensively hardly ever do, How can you judge how hard someone trains by what they write in a post? And what does training "intensively" have to do with this discussion? You are obviously of the opinion that how difficult a training session is perceived to be is the most important variable in a training session. However, this approach is about as "non-scientific" as you can get. The perceived difficulty of a training session is a completely subjective variable that is dependent upon many factors inherent to the individual, such as pain tolerance, training experience, etc. It is a qualitative entity that cannot be measured. It is a perception based on both physiological and psychological phenomena and has very little to do with stimulating muscle hypertrophy. Mr. Hahn, I could design a track interval workout that would feel just as "intense" as any SS workout. However, this will not be an effective method of stimulating hypertrophy. Some of the speed workouts here for the football players at WSU have made some of the players vomit. Is this an effective way to stimulate hypertrophy, though, just because it's "intense?" Remember, Mr. Hahn, that one of the main factors behind how "intense" a workout feels is due to increased proton concentration in the bloodstream, which is not a critical factor for inducing hypertrophy. Masochism and science are not the same thing. >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. <snip> >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. Mr. Hahn, you obviously did not read my post closely enough. If you did, you would have noticed that I progressed from a higher volume protocol, performing multiple sets per failure, to the HIT protocol, performing one set to failure. I was improving on the higher volume protocol. Upon the dramatic reduction in training volume, my progress stagnated. The ONLY distinct difference between the two protocols was the number of sets. There were NO changes in my diet, sleeping patterns, or other factors that may have effected my training. If my plateau was due to overtraining, then why was I progressing on the higher volume protocol? "Simple deductive logic and reasoning," which you claim that I am not using, dictates that my plateau was NOT due to overtraining. It is an absolute IMPOSSIBILITY, because I was progressing on a higher volume program. And please do not claim that I somehow was not training "intensely" enough. Failure is failure. I know when I've reached it. >breath make statements like "I believe what works best for the individual is >what is best." Hardly scientific. If Mr X. needs amoxicillin to take care of his bacterial infection, but amoxicillin won't work for Mr. Y and he needs doxycycline, is this "hardly scientific?" If Mr. X makes progress on a single set program, but Mr. Y only makes progress on higher volume programs, is this "hardly scientific?" >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.). Scientific laws such as that of Newton are well-understood and concrete phenomena that no one will doubt. Human and animal physiology is still not thoroughly well-understood and therefore you cannot compare the two. You cannot take concrete, proven laws such as that of physics and try to think of human physiology and adaptive responses of humans to stimuli in the same manner. >mechanism, LOGICALLY speaking, stopping short of maximum may get you there, >but it may not. Training to failure ensures you have arrived. It obviously doesn't, because of my situation that I pointed out. >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. First, Mr. Hahn, your answer here does not answer my question of what the stimulus is for hypertrophy, because I asked for an answer on what is going on at the cellular level. You are not describing cellular phenomena. You seem very sure of what the stimulus for muscle hypertrophy is. Let me ask you then, what causes stretch-induced hypertrophy or compensatory hypertrophy, when there is no "last rep to failure" being performed? For example, surgical ablation of the gastrocnemius in rats results in large increases in cross-sectional area of the soleus muscle. This is with no "training to failure;" it actually occurs with no exercise at all. This is called compensatory hypertrophy. A similar phenomena occurs in humans that have casts removed, and the atrophied muscles hypertrophy to normal size. Again, all without doing anything "intense." Explain such phenomena to me. It has also been demonstrated that removal of the myostatin gene in mice results in "super" mice; mice with muscles three times the muscle size of normal mice. This is all without any exercise at all. This phenomena also disproves an assertion of yours in a long-past digest, i.e. that muscles can continue to grow forever and the reason why we can't do one ton biceps curls is because we don't live long enough. It is obvious, from this research, that muscle growth is partially genetically regulated, and there truly is a genetic limit to everyone's abilities. I recall a post back in December in which you did not know the difference between a muscle fiber and a myofibril. This is a very basic fundamental of human/animal anatomy and physiology. Now, please understand that I am not attempting to insult your level of intelligence by making this comment. What I am trying to point out is that, for you to understand the advanced physiological mechanisms behind fatigue and hypertrophy, you must understand the basics of physiology first, and it appears to me that you do not understand these basics. You must walk before you can run. How can you comprehend cellular hypertrophy or fatigue when you are unsure of the basics of muscle physiology? In addition, I think it is highly unlikely that you can understand the cellular mechanisms and signals behind fatigue and hypertrophy when even the world's most advanced muscle physiologists are still trying to understand such phenomena. >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. This does not render breakdowns impossible, Mr. Hahn. I guarantee you that if you were to reduce the weight by 75%, you would be able to continue. > 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. Since SS methods involve sets lasting around 90 seconds in duration, they result in very high levels of protons building up in muscle tissue. These protons interfere with muscle contraction. Since the attraction between the myosin cross-bridges and actin is believed to be ionic in nature, protons interfere with this interaction and thus the muscle cannot produce force as effectively. The fact that you cannot reproduce a set after 10 minutes of recovery demonstrates that the ability of your muscles to buffer protons is not very good, likely due to your constant use of single set training. The ability to buffer protons is something that can be modified through training. Also, your ability to recover after 10 minutes of training is dependent upon the type of set you do. If you did a set lasting 40 seconds in duration to failure, the increases in protons would not be as high and you would be able to reproduce the effort with sufficient rest. >I believe that most of the skeptics on this digest >rarely, if ever, train as intensively as they could. See my earlier comments about the relationship between perceived difficulty and hypertrophy. Masochism doesn't mean mass. Also, NO ONE trains as intensively as they *could*. To do so would require the use of maximal eccentric-only actions with weights as heavy as possible, slowly reducing the weight as fatigue progresses to a point where one could barely lower even the lightest weights. Is this an optimal way to train, though? Not only is it impractical, it is not optimal either. The amount of cellular damage that would be caused by such a protocol would be so great that it would take MONTHS to recover from. Hardly a good way to train, but it sure is "intense." >And would everyone please stop, I repeat stop comparing power lifters and >other athletes and their specific sporting movements to strength development. Powerlifting involves generating as much force as possible from the musculature. How could Fred Hatfield squat 1000 lbs if it didn't? It takes a lot more than just "skill" to squat 1000 lbs! Strength development is of more importance to a powerlifter than anything else! >Power lifting >is a demonstration of power. Powerlifting is not a demonstration of power. It is a demonstration of maximal force generation, i.e. strength. Olympic lifting is a demonstration of power. And now for the answers to your questions... The reason that I did not answer your first question is because it is based on an assumption that is false, i.e. the assumption that some *precise* stimulus exists for hypertrophy. However, when one examines the many ways in which hypertrophy can be stimulated in human and animal muscle (stretch-induced hypertrophy, compensatory hypertrophy, and exercise-induced hypertrophy), it becomes obvious that there are multiple signals for hypertrophy, and the search for a single stimulus, either at the general or at the cellular level, is futile. You must also remember that a muscle is not a single entity; it is comprised of many muscle fibers, which all have the capacity to hypertrophy individually. Therefore, it is impossible that a single set to failure can *guarantee* me that all fibers have been stimulated to increase in size, even if those fibers have all been recruited. The reason that I did not answer your second question is because I could not comprehend what you were asking, and it seems that your second question was based upon the same fraudulent assumptions. A precise answer to your third question is not possible because even the most advanced muscle physiologists are still trying to comprehend the process of hypertrophy. The reason I stabbed back with questions of my own was because I knew that you would not be able to answer my questions. The critical mistake that you are making, Mr. Hahn, is that you are trying to apply logic to a multifaceted physiological phenomena that is still not well understood. You are trying to take something that in reality is very, very complex and reduce it to a simple X-Y relationship, i.e. "train to failure and I've stimulated growth." I'm sorry, but this simply cannot and will not work. James Krieger "If I wanted to be fashionable, I'd grow a goatee, put a sock on my head, and forget how to tune and play my guitar. No thanks." - Joe Stump
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Re: Snatches anmd Swimming - from Y. Zohar
Top
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:00:04 +0300 From: "Y. Zohar" <zoharyz@netvision.net.il> Subject: Re: Snatches anmd Swimming I am a swimmer and weight trainer. I didn't know that Amy Van Dyken was injured while doing an Olympic type snatch. All seem to agree that this is an unsuitable exercise protocol for a swimmer. It is important to mention the reasons: 1. Swimmers (especially freestylers) may suffer from shoulder problems. 2. Olympic lifts are a sport unto themselves and demand a large amount of skill work. 3. Swimmers are usually tall (I believe that Amy is 6ft.). Olympic lifts are best suited to short people, particularly with short legs and long arms. 4. The explosive element in swimming is negligeble to non-existent. Why train that way in the weight room ? 5. The entire issue of dry land strength training and it's carry over effect in swimming is still very much in debate. It is not clear if, or how much effect weight training will have on swimming times. I have heard the Israeli national swimming coach (who immigrated from Russia six years ago) say that flexibility training is of greater importance for a swimmer than strength gains. Mat B., in his debate with Squat 2, is trying to apply Amy's injury to explosive lifting in general. He also is trying to knock Fred's belief in specific training. Be that as it may, swimming starts have no connection to snatches. First off, in races over 200m. the start is of negligeble importance. Secondly, a back start is different than that used in the other styles. Lastly, assuming that the quads are doing the most work in the start, leg presses will suffice. Snatching 100k. over your head like diving into the pool ? Give me a break ! I do agree with the basic premise though, that a swimmer (or any other athlete) should train for good overall body strength and forget about the sport specific stuff. I really wish Amy Van Dycken a quick recovery. She is such a cutie - what a smile ! Sure beats those Chinese streroid women. Yehoshua Zohar
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. valsalva - from Keith Ellis
Top
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 11:24:51 -0500 From: "Keith Ellis" <irakelli@Mars.utm.edU> Subject: valsalva I work in a hospital emergency room. The other day, a lady came in with what's known as SVT (Super Ventricular Tachycardia). Essentially, her heart rate was about 200 beats per minute. She had been taught to use the Valsalva technique to slow her heart rate. The theory is that it stimulates the Vagus nerve which effects the heart, as well as, the lungs. With this in mind, you have to be careful. People have literally dropped dead from stimulating nerves that affect the heart. The shower massagers in stores use to have pictures of people letting the water hit their necks, but they don't anymore because that stimulates certain nerves to the heart, and people have passed out and died. Try to avoid the Valsalva while lifting, unless you develop SVT. In that case, please see your doctor. Keith Ellis