-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: HIT Digest #170 - from DejaGroove@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 20:09:28 EDT From: DejaGroove@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #170 Fred Hahn's post in Hit Digest #170 was enough to bring me back in to the fray. I hardly know where to begin in responding to this attack. In general, the self righteous, smug, and sometimes insulting tone of the post was a true surprise in what is general otherwise a rather civil digest. Let me only comment on two points: First of all, responding to James Kreiger's claim that HIT training decreased his leg strength, Fred said, "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." Why is this a more compelling reason than to simply assume that one set to failure did not work? There are other symptoms of overtraining, for example, disruption of sleep patterns, general fatigue, loss of appetite, elevated resting heart rate, increased frequency of injuries, decreased motivation to train, and others. James did not report these symptoms, which does not mean that he did not experience them. (care to comment, James?) But a decrease in strength is no more logically derived from overtraining than from a staleness of a system (i.e. one set to failure), and in fact, absent the other symptoms, overtraining seems a much less likely a scenario. Moreover, the fact that he was doing one set to failure would further decrease the likelihood of overtraining as the culprit. James' logic was sound. Second, Fred Hahn says, "I believe that most of the skeptics on this digest rarely, if ever, train as intensively as they could. " Evidence, please! Hardly scientific. Besides, this "belief" was entire irrelvant to the post, and could have (should have) been omitted with no loss of clarity to your point. No need to insult us, Fred. Eytan Koch, CSCS
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Snatches - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 00:53:01 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Snatches >Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 06:22:22 EDT >From: "Matt Brzycki" <brzycki@arelia.Princeton.EDU> >Subject: (Fwd) Squat2 and snatches > >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. how about (4): It's well known that swimmers are notoriously overtrained doing thousands of meters per week, twice daily sessions. Couple that with the fact that swimming is highly repetitive and puts a lot of stress through the shoulder girdle and you get problems. This further raises the question of why a S&C coach would provide an exercise that is hard on the shoulders but you can't simply conclue that snatches was THE cause of the injury. Not saying it didn't contribute, just that you can in no way say it was the cause without more information. Lyle McDonald, CSCS Back to the classics: And then the bartender says 'Hey buddy, that's not a mallard.'
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: HIT Digest #171 - from Sandeep De
Top
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 02:02:21 -0400 From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #171 > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 00:23:39 -0400 > From: "reptile" <reptile@blast.net> > Subject: Re: HIT Digest #170/Sandeep & DSP > 1. We were not even debating this issue at all (in the DSP discussion). Incorrect; the question of whether or not Telle proposed a sound model for the stimulation of hypertrophy was asked. > 4. Save the personal insults Sandeep. They are uncalled for and > unprofessional. I already That was *hardly* a personal insult and I'm sorry that you took it the wrong way. > 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." Consider your statements and then review your ideas of my "personal insult". > translation/transcription process." I have not seen any evidence/research > that demonstrates how stretching facilitates growth. So in "my" mind, and Well; wouldn't the most logical first move be to first ask what proof one is using to back up their claims rather than shoot them down entirely? -- SD www.geocities.com/hotsprings/4039/
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. RE: Masters training - from reptile
Top
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 00:37:47 -0400 From: "reptile" <reptile@blast.net> Subject: RE: Masters training > -------------------- 6 -------------------- > Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 16:54:22 -0700 (PDT) > From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts) > Subject: Masters training Ken - > 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. You answered part of the question yourself. Your lifestyle, interests, fitness goals, recovery time, etc. will change through the years. Discovering your "best/most effective way to train" is an ongoing process, ok – battle, for most, no matter what the age. Although trainers can guide you in the right direction, *you* will ultimately find what method of training suits you and your needs best during each stage of life. > 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? Well, I fit the "wimmin" and the 'training the 40+ crowd', so I'll give it a shot. The training guidelines are not much different – just a l-i-t-t-l-e more "tailored" to fit your needs. Though I don't know your goals, I can offer some simple advice: have a medical check-up if you haven't had one recently – including BP/Cholesterol. Health screening becomes more important at your age. The reason is because there *are* special exercise guidelines to follow if you have any medical/other conditions or are on any meds. Also, and not to scare anyone, but certain problems may not present physical symptoms (i.e. high BP, diabetes, heart disease). It is usually the 50+ people where I see the most (serious) problems. It is so sad to know that these people never took care of themselves until they were diagnosed with a disease that would have been more treatable had they caught it earlier. It doesn't have to be that way. (I'll never understand why people think they can live on cigarettes and McDonalds and ignore obvious symptoms, yet somehow remain invincible.) I would suggest starting a medical file with copies of all your records – it's great for baseline info and peace of mind. Don't neglect a proper warm-up and cool-down and include lots of post-workout stretching to stay flexible. Don't be afraid to workout hard – just monitor your intensity level and use common sense. Pay special attention to your diet – adequate hydration is a must. Bonus suggestion: try a new class/video/activity that you think would be within your physical capacity: yoga? mountain biking? martial arts? gymnastics? 5K? volleyball? Doesn't have to be competitive – just fun (uh oh, not the "fun" discussion again!) I think it adds a lot to life, mentally and physically. If you enjoy the social aspects of training, workout with a friend. Obviously you are discovering the benefits of exercise and are continuing to self-educate yourself. I give you credit just for that. I know that sometimes it becomes more difficult as you get older, but stay consistent with your program and hang in there – it's never a lost cause! At AT&T we have a yearly national rowing competition. Last year the older guys beat the younger guys, hands down – pot bellies and all. = ) I know this was basic info but I hope it was helpful in some way. Be well. Stay young. Rachael Picone
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: Response to my question on not to failure reps and sets - from Bob Badour
Top
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 14:17:19 -0400 From: Bob Badour <73752.1624@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Response to my question on not to failure reps and sets >Digest #170 >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 >First of all, logic is never vague or abstract. Fred, You have contributed many thought-provoking posts to this list, which I really appreciate. I do not intend the following as a personal attack of any kind, and I only include this preface because I am going to directly contradict both points you asserted in the above sentence. Some folks wrongly assume that direct contradiction is a personal attack. The following relates to bodybuilding in as much as logical arguments form the basis of much content on this list and often justify training protocols. While the following might help some folks separate the valid arguments from the invalid arguments, it does not provide any information regarding supplementation, workout frequency, effective protocols etc. 1. Logic is often abstract. Boolean algebra and first- and second-order predicate calculus are abstractions of logical arguments. They are also the foundational material for what I do at work on a daily basis. While some people seem to hold the opinion that abstract logic weakens an argument or is somehow 'invalid', quite the opposite is true. The use of abstract logic strengthens an argument. Ironically, while it strengthens the argument it weakens the persuasiveness by losing the audience. 2. Logic, as presented on this list, in the bodybuilding media and in other media, is very often vague. Every logical system must start with certain axioms, which are assumed to be true. For instance, euclidean geometry, which most people study in highschool, assumes that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. Nobody proves the sum of angles axiom. Everyone assumes its apparent truth -- usually after measuring the interior angles of many triangles with a protractor. Einstein's relativity makes a different assumption regarding the sum of angles axiom, and other evidence suggests that Einstein is correct. Because nobody on this list or in the bodybuilding media lists the axioms of their logical systems, any logical arguments presented are 'vague'. Precision requires an explicit understanding of all pertinent axioms because any attempt to 'prove' an axiom is invalid. All such proofs are just complex ways of stating that TRUE = TRUE (a tautology). If one starts with the axiom: "muscle gains require training to failure", one can construct all kinds of meaningless arguments to demonstrate the point. Likewise, if one starts with the axiom: "muscle gains require multiple set training", one can construct all kinds of meaningless arguments to demonstrate that point instead. To further tie this post into bodybuilding I will consider certain Mentzerian arguments. As was mentioned by someone else in an earlier digest, a common method of formal proof involves the following: "To prove a premise, assume the opposite of the premise and demonstrate that the opposite implies a contradiction." In abstract terms, to prove P assume ~P and demonstrate that: ~P -> ( FALSE = TRUE ) One Mentzerian argument seems to follow this pattern. Mentzer presents the reasoning that "since 100 sets not to failure is ineffective, 1 set to failure is the optimum training protocol" as a logical argument. When I deconstruct this argument, I see that it starts by assuming "multiple sets not to failure is always effective". Let's call this ~P. He then demonstrates that ~P leads to a contradiction because 100 sets not to failure is ineffective. What does this prove? It proves the opposite of ~P, which is P = "multiple sets not to failure is sometimes ineffective". Does it prove that multiple sets are never effective? No. Does it prove that training to failure is always effective? No, it does not. The Mentzerian argument takes an unsupported leap somewhere along the way. It is a fallacious argument. Does this prove that one set to failure is a sub-optimal training protocol? No, I have not demonstrated that either. It might be optimal and it might not. The argument used to prove the superiority of one set to failure, though, is fallacious. Others have properly used the above method of proof to demonstrate that growth does not require training to failure. Assume ~P = "growth requires muscular failure". Observe that individuals achieve growth without training to failure. This proves P = "growth does not require muscular failure". Note that Mentzer, himself, has never stated that growth requires training to failure -- only that it guarantees sufficient stimulation. Mentzer suggests that one set to failure assures sufficient stimulation and prevents overtraining. This brings up an interesting question: "Can one set to failure cause overtraining?" One of the unstated axioms of Mentzer's argument is "A single set to failure can never cause overtraining." It is an interesting question because a couple of people have suggested on this list that training to failure overstresses at least some individuals. In summary, I find it ironic that those who most adamantly insist that only logic will lead to optimal training are the same people who most frequently submit fallacious arguments to support their belief. In fact, those -- on this list -- who show the greatest skepticism to the use of logic have also demonstrated the greatest understanding of it to me. In the end, if a seemingly logical argument contradicts your training log, believe your training log. Your log is as trustworthy as the person who wrote it.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Question re HD - from Jeff Ventura
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 9:45 -0500 From: "Jeff Ventura" <Jeff.Ventura@ms.cmsconnect.com> Subject: Question re HD Realizing this may very well start another debate, I'll still ask: Anyone out there experienced with Heavy Duty training as it's outlined in Mentzer's Heavy Duty II? I've been using various HIT programs for some time now, with good gains, and I just took a two-week layoff and I'm looking to change the routine up. I like what I've read thus far in HDII, and I'm simply curious as to whether or not anybody can provide some insight into his training methodology. Gobs o' thanks. Jeff "You couldn't fool your mother on the foolingest day of your life if you had an electrified fooling machine." -- Homer Simpson
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: HIT Digest #168 - from Mike Strassburg
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:37:02 -0500 From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #168 In response to Adam Fahy's questions/comments about my post about rest intervals: Adam, personally I'm not concerned with what powerlifters do. My post was only my opinion on what I've found to be effective for me. "By making your workouts as hard as possible" I mean you want to work the muscles as hard as possible; no belts, wraps, exaggerated rest periods, or other artificial ways of letting yourself demonstrate strength (although, since I do play ice hockey your suggestion of being beaten with a stick while lifting might be beneficial for me). I don't have any references pertaining to conditioning, I only know what works for me and helps me to be a better athlete. Thanks for your comments James. Progressive overload while maintaining the same brief rest period between exercises is the key for me. Has anyone on the digest ever had arthroscopic surgery? I'm having my elbow "scoped" next week and would like some feedback on this procedure. Thanks......Mike
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Determining the Rep Number - from Petko Mikhailov
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:26:29 +0300 From: "Petko Mikhailov" <petkom@geocities.com> Subject: Re: Determining the Rep Number -----Original Message----- >From: "Erkki Turunen" <erkki.turunen@kolumbus.fi> >Subject: Re: Fred Hahn's questions >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. -----End Original Message----- You could easily get misleading results if try to apply the suggested testing approach: 1. It is well known that the longer you stick with a program, the closer you get to a plateau. And you have to stick with one and the same exercise, set number and rest (both between the sets and between the sessions) period in order to get comparable results. Thus you will never know weather strength gains decrease because of the improper inroad or because of plateauing. 2. The stronger you get with this program, the greater span of time your body will need in order to recover. Thus the decrease in your strength gains at some point of the program may due to increased rest requirements and not to improper number of reps. On the contrary, if you increase your rest periods at some stage of the program and after that your strength gains increase, how would you determine if it is because of the improved recovery and not the rep number and vice versa? 3. It is well known that variations in your training protocol can serve as renewed stimulus for growth. Since you will be varying your rep numbers now and then how can you be sure that it is the RIGHT rep number and not just the DIFFERENT rep number that has elicited better strength gains? 4. You assume that there is only one peak for every individual in the rep number that may stimulate maximum gains, but is that so? For example, a person that gets better results at 5 reps than at 7 may also get much better results at 12 reps but with your system he will never find this out. 5. How are you going to measure your strength gains? Using 1RM, 5RM, 10RM or something else? Depending on what your test is, some repetition ranges will seem to work better than other - e.g. if your test is 10RM, your 10-reps-per set training may work the best, but this is for the test only and not for your optimal training protocol. And, if you perform strength testing periodically, how can you differentiate the strength increase component from skill improvement component in the test results? Maybe you should not do strength testing at all, but measure muscle mass gain, but muscle gains are harder to be determined accurately. 6. How justified is it to determine the rep number factor separately from other factors relevant to training, like number of sets, rest between sets, rest between workouts, beyond-positive-failure techniques, speed, TUL? Let me give an example how your rep number may affect your training frequency. Workouts with different rep numbers may require different amount of time for recovery between workouts. While testing, this is not an issue because you will do your test in only one exercise and perhaps in only one set, but when you get back your regular training it may become important. I am not at all sure that a 16-set, 5-reps-per-set session will have the same recovery requirements as a 16-set, 20-reps-per-set workout. So, in real life, your best rep scheme may not work the best because of other factors. Let's assume, for the sake of this example, that the 5-rep session requires two days rest between the workouts and the 20-rep workout requires three days rest each. Let's also say that the 20-rep sets has shown to be slightly more productive than 5-rep sets during your tests, i.e. the 20-rep sets has shown some higher percentage of strength increase. Now: because you will be able to do 5-rep workouts more often than 20-rep workouts, wouldn't even the lower strength gain per workout sum up at a larger cumulative gain eventually? So, in this example, it would be to your benefit not to perform your best repetition scheme but a scheme that will perform the best together with the recovery factor. Also, how soon are you going to reach plateau with different repetition schemes? Would you plateau sooner at 5-rep workouts or at 10-rep ones? Also, it may turn out that different rep schemes work best with different speeds of movement. Now it should be obvious that we cannot perform any reliable "research" on our own bodies. Our best bet is to look for scientific researches (statistically valid ones!) and to apply their findings in our training. In MHO, information here is more important than logic because there are a lot of factors we do not know so we could easily fall into erratic conclusions as it has happened many times in this digest. Sincerely, Petko Mikhailov (Mr.) tel: +3592 543 055 (W) tel: +3592 881 483 (H) fax: +3592 580 814 voice: +3590 179 252 765 e-mail: petkom@bigfoot.com web-to-page: http://mobikom.com/page.html#252765 http://www.bol.bg/page/252765 ICQ#: 9014001 web-to-ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/9014001 e-mail-to-ICQ: 9014001@pager.mirabilis.com Snail mail: P.O.Box 26 Sofia - 1404 Bulgaria
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. HIT Digest #171: Biomechanical and Physiological Explanations - from PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:28:28 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com Subject: HIT Digest #171: Biomechanical and Physiological Explanations Relative to discussion on Physiological Explanation, I have enclosed a portion of a text which was prepared for publication. Figures and tables are not included. Fast versus Slow Exercise? A number of studies have indicated that fast speed exercise (speed loading) is at least equivalent to more conventional forms of "isotonic" exercise in developing strength (Berger and Harris, 1966; Clayton, 1978; Ikai and Fukinaga 1973; and Weiland, 1964). Historically, Hellebrandt and Houtz (1956) have advocated progressive pacing as an effective way to enhance the training stimulus. In support of Table 4, Ikai (1973) has suggested that "the training be arranged specifically to the athlete according to his purpose...". Kaneko and Ikai (1964) and Ikai et.al. (1973) isotonic training studies as well as isokinetic studies by Coyle et.al. (1981), Kanehisa and Miyashita (1983), Lesmes and Coyle (1978), and Moffroid and Whipple (1970), have similarly indicated that improvements in muscle force- output occur as a function of the speed of exercise. In contrast to the specificity concept, there has been commercial promotion the use of super slow (Nautilus, 1973; 2/4 cadences) and even "super super- slow" exercise (Hutchins, 1989; e.g., 4/10 cadences) for the development of maximal muscle size, strength, endurance, and power output. Because these components of fitness are independent measures, their development appears to require a different set of conditions in terms of force (load), velocity (cadence), and duration (repetitions) of exercise. Therefore, it is counterintuitive to expect simultaneous or optimal improvement in all components of fitness as a result of one specific resistance exercise load- cadence-repetition condition. Such an expectation is in direct contrast with the specificity principle. Load-Cadence Relationship Traditionally, the force-velocity and load-cadence relationships illustrate that increasing the external force (load) during maximal effort exercise results in voluntary actions being completed at progressively slower movement speeds. However, the notion that "the slower the speed of exercise, the greater the load that can be lifted" does not apply when submaximal activation rates are utilized (i.e., 2/2, 2/4, or 4/10 cadences). This is because, protracting the duration of a repetition results in fatigue (i.e., a reduction in the maximal load that can be lifted). Perrine and Edgerton (1978) have even indicated that muscular force output (across the latter portion of the range of motion) is lower during slow-speed full versus partial ROM isokinetic exercise. As illustrated in Figure 2, the load-cadence relationship should be viewed as containing two descending portions; one where the load is increased (e.g., 0.5, 1, and 2.0 second repetitions, respectively) and the other where the cadence is protracted during submaximal rates of activation (e.g., 2/2, 2/4, and 4/10 repetition cadences, respectively). The differences in performance observed in this study may be partially explained by the fact that increasing muscular activation and tension during resistance exercise induces progressive mechanical occlusion of blood flow to and from muscles (see Edwards et. al., 1972; Simonson and Lind, 1971). During multiple repetitions of slow speed exercise this "nipping of the arteries" limits both O2 delivery and lactate and H+ removal. Occlusion can occur during concentric and to a lesser extent eccentric actions, due to the fact that fewer motor units are activated. Occlusion can also be exacerbated if the exerciser pauses isometrically before full extension to maintain muscle tension between concentric and eccentric actions/repetitions. Thus, prolonging the duration of muscle activation appears to promote intramuscular hypoxia and elevated lactate and H+ levels, which subsequently impare rate limiting steps in the energy delivery systems. While the aforementioned conditions may be ideal for the stimulation of a body builder's hypertrophy, such conditions are not likely to be universally effective for the development of all other components of muscular fitness (i.e., maximum muscular strength, speed, endurance, and power output). Stretch-Shortening and Eccentric Exercise Although the majority of movements in sports and normal activity incorporate an eccentric phase, it is generally at a rate and sequence permitting the transfer of stored elastic energy. The potential performance enhancing effects of slow eccentric actions may be further diminished during moderate to long duration exercise involving moderate to high repetitions per set (see Figure 2). Because, moderate to high repetition, slow-speed exercise necessitates a reduction in the training load that can be used. Although, for example, a single set of slow-speed 12 repetition maximum (12RM) exercise has been termed "high intensity training", high intensity or maximal efforts are only achieved during the latter/terminal portion of any RM set. As illustrated in Figure 1 and Table 5, high intensity exercise can be achieved with any load-RM combination. Further, intensity is a nebulus term, unless measures of relative effort should be quantified in terms of the exercise load, repetition, and cadence. Work and Energy Expenditure The implications from the work values are that caloric expenditures and potential "metabolic adaptations" are influenced by the the exercise cadence. Although there is a direct and positive relationship between external work and caloric expenditure, absolute differences in energy expenditures between cadences can only be confirmed by gas analysis, direct calorimetry, etc. Even when assuming large contributions from stored elastic energy during fast self paced push-up exercise, the calculated values for energy expenditure would result in greater expenditures per unit time than during slow and super slow cadences, respectively. These differences could be of considerable significance if the goals of training are either enhanced metabolic conditioning (i.e., alactic and lactacid anaerobic power) or reduction in body weight and fat loss (i.e., body composition enhancement). Specificity of Volume/Impulse Overloads Although "tension-time" (impulse or work volume) appears to be an important "training stimulus variable", the quality of the impulse affects the type of fibers that are involved and subsequently developed during training. This is supported by direct (Schmidtbleicher and Harlambie, 1981) and empirical observations (Tesh and Larsson, 1982). As illustrated by a force-duration continuum (see Figure 1), a negative relationship exists between maximal muscle tension output (load) and the duration (or repetitions) that the force output can be maintained. Accordingly, repetitions during sets with lighter loads can be maintained for proportionately longer periods of time than repetitions during heavy- resistance (low-repetition), short-duration exercise. Therefore, sets with lighter loads can result in greater impulses. The effort during a set can be further increased, at the expense of power output, if the cadence reduced inconjunction with the training load (see Table 5). The product of force * distance * time is "action", which equals the impulse * distance. However, sets of resistance exercise with diametrically opposed conditions stress and develop different muscle fiber types (Schmidtbleicher and Harlambie, 1981; Tesh and Larsson, 1982), and energy delivery systems (McCafferty and Horvath, 1976). The significance of the resistance exercise conditions on the specificity of contribution and therefore adaptation within the fiber types is proposed in Figure 4. This figure provides an illustration of how the force, velocity, and duration of exercise influences fiber type contribution to movement. Thus, it is apparent that optimal action/volume overloads should be obtained from exercise of specific loads, repetitions, and cadences (Table 4). The aforementioned considerations support the use of "multiple set" routines when specific volume overloads are desired. Rate of Tension Development The fears of, and potential for, injury during fast/ballistic exercise relative to other activities have been discussed (see Brzycki, 1989; Kearns, 1990) and appear to have been inflated. When evaluated as force deviations across a range of motion (ROM), "ballistic" lifts can involve forces three to four times greater than the minimal force required to lift a given mass (Weiland, 1964; Hay, 1981). However, forces 2 to 4 times that required to lift a load are only a fraction of that encountered during normal physical activity (Burkhardt and Garhammer, 1990; Cavanaugh, et. al., 1990). Cavanaugh et.al. (1990) analysis of ground reaction forces during various jumping maneuvers reveals peak forces up to 14 times body weight. Burkhardt and Garhammer (1990) contrasted Olympic lifts with various jumps and reported greater impulse and propulsion forces during jumping versus ballistic weight lifting. However, as Weiland (1964) has reported slowing the cadence beyond a 2/2 count does not further enhance the "force-ROM relationship" (i.e., further diminish variations in force output). Thus, there appears to be little rationale for further protracting of the duration of the contraction from a safety or loading standpoint. The magnitude of forces during jumping and ballistic lifting are only be a fraction of that experienced during contact-collision sports. Thus, integration of faster exercise may be the only safe or "controllable" opportunity an athlete has to expose and prepare the "trainable" muscles, bones, ligaments, and bones for the inherent stress of physical activity (see Stone, 1988). Thus, it appears that the impulse (or action) and propulsion forces encountered during fast speed exercise are not as "high risk" as has been suggested (e.g., Brzycki, 1989; Kearns, 1990).
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: HIT Digest #171 - from PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com
Top
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 19:18:25 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #171 Response to Fred Hann on Scientific Training Theory PL: I enjoyed reading your comments in the previous Digest and was amazed by the apparent confidence in your statements. Regarding, “deductive reasoning and logic”, you state that: FH: Once strength in any given exercise plateaus or actually decreases, what, pray tell, is going on?! You guessed it -- overtraining. PL: Perhaps it is equally possible that at some point the volume and intensity of the training stimulus is insufficient to elicit additional improvements in specific components of muscular fitness, i.e., strength- endurance. FH: Regarding the question about the physiological basis for not training to failure, I am looking for an answer using cellular physiology not philosophy or vague, abstract logic." PL: I don’t believe that you are likely to obtain this information from a practitioner in the field or a short discourse. Any credible evidence would have to be supported with the current understanding of cellular, neuromuscular, and exercise physiology, from peer reviewed scientific journals and a large body of quantifiable empirical evidence. FH: Training to failure ensures you have arrived. It ensures that you have covered the bases. It ensures you have HIT the homerun. PL: If we were talking about sport and you only needed one hit and score to have a statistic or 4 total bases, OK. But if you are competing against someone who's training is equivalent to 5 total bases or a grand slam, on a regular basist, a home run isn’t enough. Considering the complexity of the neuromuscular system, perhaps, not all of the components of fitness are improved by hitting a home run. It is more likely that training for power, speed, strength & endurance are as different as a 1 point conversion, 2 point safety, 3 point field goal, and touchdown. FH: One can cut to the chase and get the same stimulus in one set. PL: What do you mean by “same stimulus” . FH: And then, of course, there is the skill thing. .... PL: With out the CNS recruitment and integrated use of feedback from the Peripheral nervous system, the muscles are useless. When it comes to expressing/generating muscular force output, there are limiting and contributing size factors and neural factors. Skill is needed to control the muscles. FH: Power lifting is a demonstration of power.... PL: Power lifting is a better demonstration of strength than power. Unlike sport and competition where movement speeds are very fast and implement and ground contact times are measured in fractions of a second, there are no time constraints used when measuring one’s strength. From a physics standpoint, the term power is used to denote a work rate over a given period of time. Power may be measured instantaneously as the product of the force generated and the velocity of movement (power in Watts = F in Newtons x V in meters per second). Equivalently, power may be measured as the average force times the distance the force is exerted divided by the time of the event (i.e., Power = force x distance/time). FH: Almost all high-intensity sporting type events will, at one point or another, become intensive enough to spark a strength increase. PL: Perhaps in the weakest of candidates. Ironically, one of the limitations of physically demanding sports with prolonged seasons is that the (football and basketball) athletes generally loose strength during the season rather than gain it thru competition. FH: How would I increase a power lifters strength? The same way I would increase Grandma Moses' strength -- just using more resistance. PL: Your statement suggests that the training design you would recommend (in terms of rep ranges, sets, etc ) would be identical for individuals, regardless of their age, years of experience, or conditioning status (i.e., no annual variation in the training stimulus). That is not what I observe in the empirical world of powerlifting. FH: Fred Hahn/ FHahn@seriousstrength.com PL: Fred, Can I ask, how do you define maximal muscular strength relative to a repetition maximum? PL: Pete LaChance/ Prsnlftnss@aol.com
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Training to Failure - from Duncan & Michelle
Top
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 22:25:36 +1000 From: "Duncan & Michelle" <defmlf@netlink.com.au> Subject: Training to Failure Hello All If we accept that training to concentric failure is training to failure, then how long should one spend in this isometric position, ie the bar is immovable past a point? 1, 3, 10 seconds? Should one continue to exert force to try and raise it or simply hold it at the sticking point? If it is to be held in the one position for some seconds, then why wouldn't we train isometrically to start with (I'm not advocating this, just posing a question)? Come on all, I have seen plenty of opinion and justification, try this one! By the way, why don't we all put the spell check through our emails before we send them? Thank you Duncan Feder
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Over the Hill @ 40 - from PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com
Top
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:47:13 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com Subject: Over the Hill @ 40 I saw the message from one of our colleagues inquiring about training beyond 40. There are many plusses and minuses to being 40. Regarding the minuses, one generally has a great deal more on their social, emotional, and financial plate. Spending quality tome with the kids, running a few businesses, maintaining the house and commercial facility, etc, are time demanding, leaving less time and energy to get properly psyched up to train at the intensity available way back when. The biggest concern one can have is the interference the playing one to 2 hours of non stop basketball one to three times a week has on leg fatigue. Difficult to get under a bar after playing. Especially, when you have missed a workout or more during the previous weeks. Regarding some of the plusses; You (we) should be smarter, and not likely to make the mistakes we made in our youth (i.e., overtraining whether it be with either high intensity or high volume workouts). Most importantly, we know what we have to do to get in shape and stay in shape. All it takes is pushing ourselves back to the top of the personal priority list two to three times a week so that we get in the gym with a purpose. I would like to hear other perspectives. Best wishes, Pete LaChance/prsnlftnss@aol.com
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Intervals - from William Lucke
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 07:17:18 -0400 From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu> Subject: Intervals I like the digest the way it is now, with the interval between mailing 2-3 days. It serves to spice up an otherwise bland working morning, but out of consideration for poor overworked Rob, I don't think we should ask him to do it more often. I do, however, object to less frequent mailings. Less frequent digests would take what little joy which inhabits my mornings away, and owing to the larger digests which longer intervals would bring about, would become excessively time consuming on the days which they would come out. William H Lucke IV "To secure peace you must prepare for war" --Metallica (oh yeah, George Washington, too but Metallica has a better beat)