-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. My lowback - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:35:06 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: My lowback >Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 11:32:12 -0700 >From: "JOHN A. CASLER" <bioforce@email.msn.com> >Subject: FAILURE REPS AND SETS ><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. I wanna point out that, in hindsight, it was an incredibly foolish thing for me to have done. For anyone who missed the story, I let my form slip on my last rep of deadlifts because I was too fatigued to maintain good form. The injury ending up being fairly minor (strained ligament) but for all I knew it could ahve been a blown disc or something much more serious. For me to have continued my workout instead of getting some ice on it was a truly stupid thing to do. I am very luck that I didn't compound the injury and make it worse. Lyle McDonald, CSCS Back to the classics: And then the bartender says 'Hey buddy, that's not a mallard.'
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Snap, crackle, pop - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:35:11 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Snap, crackle, pop >Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 07:51:10 -0400 >From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu> >Subject: RE: HIT Digest #170 > >Questions: >What is the physiological mechanism by which joints pop (not a joke; I am >genuinely curious)? It's a release of trapped gas inside the joint. >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. My general feeling is that, as long as there is no pain, it's not a problem. It's normal to see some joint degeneration with age (called crepitus) which contributes to this kind of crackeling. Lyle McDonald, CSCS Back to the classics: And then the bartender says 'Hey buddy, that's not a mallard.'
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. of protons and buffering - from William Lucke
Top
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:15:43 -0400 From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu> Subject: of protons and buffering James Krieger wrote, in his reply to Fred Hahn's comments: The ability to buffer protons is something that can be modified through training. <snip> Is this as simple as doing many sets, as opposed to the single set you cite as the reason Mr. Hahn perhaps has poor proton buffering ability? I would much appreciate it if you could elaborate. (stretch-induced hypertrophy, compensatory hypertrophy, and exercise-induced hypertrophy)<snip> I have not heard of stretch induced or compensatory hypertrophy. Could you please define these as well? On genetic limitations: I agree that there is a genetic limitation to ability to become strong/big out there somewhere, but how much does it vary from individual to individual? What prevents any person from achieving the size of, say, a very large bodybuilder of the same frame size (similar skeletal characterisitcs)? The voice of the ignorant populace William H Lucke IV (Why does every spell checker I have ever run across think my name is misspelled?)
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Great correspondence - from PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 12:29:41 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com Subject: Great correspondence Fred, As you know, I submitted a copy of my follow-up to your post to the digest. I am not sure that you did the same in your rebuttal. If you didn't, you should. I have just now had time to review your rebuttal and have penned out some thoughts. I will get to the keyboard ASA time permits. Regards, Pete PS, We did attend the Princeton Clinic together. I came down with Mark Iossa.
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Slow and sports practice - from Wefald, Andy
Top
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:50:10 -0600 From: "Wefald, Andy" <AWefald@qwest.net> Subject: Slow and sports practice I have a question about HIT and/or Super Slow weight training and practicing sports. Anyone can respond either on the list or to me privately. Both HIT and SS advise lifting only once (maybe twice) per week. I've also read on the Cyberpump web site and on the digest that no other exercise is needed and may in fact be detrimental to improving your physical condition. But, I've also read there is no carryover from weight training to sports. Well, if someone is weight training only once or twice per week and then practices a sport two or three other days, then they are violating what HIT and SS say to do. They are engaging in cardio exercise and it may be explosive. If someone plays basketball three nights a week, then they are probably getting a cardio workout in and doing a lot of explosive jumping. Wouldn't this be detrimental to gains made in the gym and therefore not recommended? Or, is it not recommended at all because of the explosive nature of any particular sport. If that's the case, then are only non-explosive sports recommended (I have no idea what would be considered an explosive sport and what wouldn't). I don't know and I am just trying to better understand HIT and SS. Example: Two people follow the same weight routine (either HIT or SS) once a week. #1 plays basketball three times a week as well. #2 does nothing else besides the once a week lifting routine. After a given time period and all else being equal, who will be more physically fit, stronger, in better shape, or whatever. Thank you for your input. Andy awefald@qwest.net
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Valsalva - from EWitteMD@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:31:22 EDT From: EWitteMD@aol.com Subject: Valsalva Regarding Keith Ellis' (irakelli@Mars.utm.edu) post: >I work in a hospital emergency room. The other day, a lady came in with what's >known as SVT (Super Ventricular Tachycardia). Well, no biggie, but SVT is actually supraventricular 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. The vagus nerve actually innervates the entire GI tract, adrenal glands, heart, pancreas....you name it, the vagus has fibers there. "Vagus" means "wanderer." >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'tanymore >because that stimulates certain nerves to the heart, and people have passed out >and died. This is BS. Your vagus nerve stmulates your heart and your other viscera constantly. Everytime you evacuate your bowels you are doing one helluva Valsalva maneuver. Do people occasionally die while moving their bowels? I suppose so. Is it as a result of vagal stimulation. No. The vagus simply slows the heart. It doesn't stop it. A slightly slower heart is not a terminal event. >Try to avoid the Valsalva while lifting, unless you develop SVT. In that case, >please see your doctor. You can no more easily avoid doing a Valsalva maneuver while lifting than avoid having your neck veins remain flaccid while lifting. Eric Witte, MD
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Response - from JawDogs@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:58:26 EDT From: JawDogs@aol.com Subject: Response From: Fred Hahn Response to HIT 171, 172 Thank you, James Kreiger, for proving my points all the more. Sincerely, Fred
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. A plea - from EWitteMD@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:31:23 EDT From: EWitteMD@aol.com Subject: A plea Can we please get off this interminable, mind-numbing debate about training to failure? No one knows the answer. Some days I delete this thing without reading it because I'm so sick of reading endless points of view put forward. Let's move on to some topics that the muscle rags put forth more often and which are probably of more interest to most of us, and let's devote some energy to providing literature references for some topics where we can actually incorporate the results into our training. Specifically, I'm talking about things like cortisol antagonists, evidence (if any exists) as to which whey/soy/egg products are best, BCAAs, glutamine, and so forth. I think an awful lot of the silent majority out there would love to know more about these specific supplements in particular and a few others re: if there is any semi- firm evidence for taking them. Surely the more scholarly among you out there can shed some light on some of these areas. Eric H. Witte, MD [As I've said before, it's YOUR choice what you want to talk about. I will only stop a debate if it is getting out of hand (i.e., I can see it's getting personal...which in this case it's unfortunately doing...again), or it simply is not adding any value, and it becomes "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too not!" You catch my drift. You brought up certain topics in your post, and now people will reply if they wish. I can't control what topics people wish to post about. I can SUGGEST things at times. Point is, if you say nothing, don't wait for someone to get around to what topic you want to hear about. You have to speak up. --Rob]
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: Lazy People - from CoryZ212@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:55:46 EDT From: CoryZ212@aol.com Subject: Re: Lazy People >From Andrew Baye's post in digest #172: <<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.>> While I do strongly agree with Andrew that strength training is key to maintaining functional ability, I find nothing wrong with the ACE and ACSM attempts to at least get people moving. It can have benefits, as documented in a recent study by Thomas Gill and colleagues at Yale University School of Medicine: "(They) conducted a two-year study on more than 200 men and women aged 72 years and older who reported needing help with bathing, dressing, eating or getting around at home. Subjects who later recuperated had certain characteristics at the beginning of the study: Those who had been eating well enough to maintain a healthy weight and those who were best able to WALK AROUND THE BLOCK or CLIMB A FLIGHT OF STAIRS EACH DAY were almost twice as likely to regain function as the other subjects." The above citation came from the July/August 1998 issue of IDEA Personal Trainer magazine.
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. gym costs - from Chad Niichel
Top
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:53:52 PDT From: "Chad Niichel" <cniichel@hotmail.com> Subject: gym costs I am currently attempting to gather information on start up costs for a medium size gym. I am planning on opening one in Oct. of 2000. Does anyone have a breakdown of costs that they would be willing to give me or be able to point me in the right direction? Thanks.
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Bench Press - from Rexford Semrad
Top
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:25:06 PDT From: "Rexford Semrad" <rexandmarion@hotmail.com> Subject: Bench Press I am a new subscriber to hitdigest, but I am finding it very helpful. (I work out in my garage with free weights and a smith machine with my wife, so I don't get the interaction with other lifters that I would get in a gym.) Maybe somebody out there can help me with these two problems. I have lifted seriously for a total of one and a half years using Dr. Ellington Darden's books. In my first year I went from 138 to 188 pounds with no significant fat gains! I then laid off for about three years because of the bad advice of some quacks for a lower back problem. I have now been back at it for six months, and even though I am gaining, my gains are not as great as they were before. I know that this has a lot to do with the fact that I used to get 9 or 10 hours of sleep every night, but now I can rarely squeeze in more than 5 or 6! How much more time between workouts do I need? My biggest problem (which probably keeps me in the garage and out of the gym) has to do with my bench press. Even though my strength has increased tremendously in every other exercise, by bench press just doesn't budge. I even go 3 weeks at times with a one rep increase! I have tried benching first, last, or in the middle of the workout. I have tried high and low rep schemes. And I have used moderate to super slow rep speeds. What do I need to do? I have tried different form too, but my arms seem to do all the work and my pecks stay tiny! Can anybody help me? Rexford Semrad
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: HIT stuff - from Y. Zohar
Top
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 18:20:29 +0300 From: "Y. Zohar" <zoharyz@netvision.net.il> Subject: Re: HIT stuff I have been subscribed to this list almost from the begining and I've noticed that a number of subjects are frequently discussed. I would like to add my thoughts. Let me just say that I am a layman with no degree in any related field. 1) The term intensity is not scientific. It is subjective. There is no equation for intensity. 2) Training to failure: I cannot accept statements made here that this is the only effective way to train. We see athletes getting results with other methods. I feel, however, that this is the most time efficient method and this is the big plus in HIT training. I also run and swim and don't have the time for volume weight training. The results for me are good, although I can't rule out the possibility that other methods may bring better results if I was willing to put in more time or if my goals were different. I do feel, however, that if I trained too much more my gains would stop due to overtraining. I think that two intensive weight sessions per week is optimal for me. 3) Super Slow: I can't accept their basic premise that cardio work is detrimental. One SS w/o a week to stay in shape ? Sounds like fantasty to me and I don't care how intense it is. I want to see one of these trainees play a little soccer. He would be gasping for breath after a few minutes ! 4) free weights vs. machines: I started out with classical HIT using machines. I have moved to a Hardgainers program with emphasis on compound movements with free weights. I still do a few machine exercises and I do 1 set to concentric failure with a static hold at the end.On the free weight exercises I do 1 -3 sets to near failure and as the routine progresses I do 1 set to very close to failure. I try to add weight in small increments or a rep each exercise. When I stop making gains I abort and rest a week or two before starting a new routine. I feel that classical HIT emphasiszes machines because it is more applicable to training to failure. 5) Plyometrics: I can't understand how anyone can say that they don't work ! Every jumper uses them in his training. The point is this: plyometrics may be potentially dangerous. Therefore why use them if you are not a competitve jumper, basketball/volleyball player, etc. ? Well, I guess I'm kind of a neo-HITter. Yehoshua Zohar
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Pete LaChance-Fred Hahn Debate Hit Digest #173 - from PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 01:48:02 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com Subject: Pete LaChance-Fred Hahn Debate Hit Digest #173 Pete LaChance-Fred Hahn Debate Hit Digest #173 FH: Dear Pete, Thanks for your reply. I have read several of your comments over the past few months and appreciate much of what you have to say. By the way -- didn't we meet at a Princeton seminar a couple of years back? PL: Dear Fred, I have been compelled to address your comments because your training style and posts are so very foreign from the training systems I have come to understand from empirical observations (from track & field, weightlifting, powerlifting, body building, and swimming to name a few), personal observations, refereed research and publications, and classical “sports medicine doctrine (i.e., a BS worth of 125 credits at Rutgers in Bio/Nutrition, a MS worth of 50 credits in Physiology at PSU, and another 50 towards a PhD. at UMass in Exercise Science. What is remarkable, is that many of your statements and ideas are actually in direct contradiction to what I perceive as “truth”. This is not to say part of what I believe to be “true” may actually be found to in error. A Bio prof said, “he had good news and some bad; the good news was that half of what he was teaching was going to be found to be true in a decade; the bad news was that he didn’t know what half”. So with me, this digest is an opportunity to explore other ways of thinking that has come from outside my ever widening envelope and scope of thinking. Ask better questions and get better answers. Further, I am excited to address these questions, its 11:30pm an I am on a roll. And yes we met at Matt Brzycki’s 1996 Conference at Princeton. FH: Anyhow, regarding your comments. What I'll do here is run down your statements point by point and comment upon each. Yes. It is equally possible the intensity of the training stimulus was insufficient for continued strength gains to occur. Especially when so few people train intensively. But keep in mind that Krieger said his strength decreased. I am assuming that he meant in his single set exercises. (He isn't very clear on this point.) The only way to become weaker in your exercises is too much training (overtraining). Had I been training him, he would not have lost strength. No way, no how. PL: Lets take a 25 year old 170 pound powerlifter who had just peaked and competed in a meet where he had recorded personal best (lets say near his genetic potential at this point in age) in the 1RM squat (400#), bench (300#), and deadlift (500#). He had spent the last 8 months preparing for the meet, varying his training volume and intensity thru a simple regime that decreased the number of reps every month (from 12 to 15’s down to singles and triples), and increased the total number of sets (from 1 to 9 including warm-up and work sets), and increased the poundages on selected sets to permit the achievement and establishment of a new RM once a week for each week. The powerlifter normally trains three to four time a week for a total training time of three to hours a week to accomplish 16 to 24 total sets in the hour. Then after the big meet, he initiates a single set, 14 different exercise, 2/4 count 12RM HIT program with only one set each for the squat bench, and deadlift. The new HIT regimen involves to two to three sessions a week for a total weekly training time of 1.5 to 2.25 hrs per week. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the new program was less specific in terms of overloading and developing the neuromuscular mechanisms necessary to express maximal strength levels. Conversely, the newer HIT program would enable him to reach personal best in the 12RM 2/4 count Squat, bench, and deadlift; but not at levels that would predict equivalent levels of strength with the 1RM predicting equations like the highly respected and referenced Brzycki equation. FH: If he meant that he lost strength in his multiple set routine when he returned to it, and if he was training truly intensively during his single set experiment, then I am certain he was not recovered sufficiently. I've seen this scenario multiple times. I've experienced it myself. I am fairly certain that if Krieger came to my gym and demonstrated his level of intensity exactly as he trains at home or wherever, he would not be training as intensively as possible. How do I know this? Because I've seen it with many, many people. PL: I don’t believe that it is more a matter of training specificity, and that even training with the level of intensity you are able to get a client to elicit would be insufficient to adequately or optimally train the neuromuscular system for such an extreme activity. FH: As far as volume is concerned, what in the world does volume mean? PL: Here is my executive summary attempt at defining intensity and volume of exercise. Intensity is a nebulous term, therefore, measures of relative effort must be quantified and prescribed in terms of the exercise F (force/load), V (velocity/cadence), and D (duration/reps) (or their corresponding derivatives). Training volume may be estimated for any exercise and workout as the product of load (weight) and total reps (consideration must be made for the range-of-motion and/or total time under tension). I think you would agree with this. Specific volume overloads for strength, power, and speed are achieved by performing F, V, D specific exercise in the form of multiple sets. Exercise for protracted durations necessitate lighter training loads and are very dependent upon and limited by lactate versus CP metabolism. Further, these low-inertia, relatively moderate-resistance, endurance exercise and MMF are more specific to ST fiber involvement/hypertrophy and endurance development, rather than either high threshold FT overloading and strength/power development. FH: Not enough volume? PL: Do the math, i.e., weight, X reps X ROM X time per rep (and sum for each set). The multiple set program provides less volume per set but in total provides significantly greater volume of a “more specific nature from a strength development standpoint”. FH: How much volume can occur training intensively? PL: Not that I recommend it, but one could (after a warm-up) do bench press strip sets (ala multiple sets of 1RM’s with rest intervals involving lower intensity exercise for other body parts (quads, abdominals, lats) or “the ultimate HIT set with no rest (other than than required to change the resistance. FH: And again, isn't intensity of effort the key to stimulating an adaptive response? PL: Both training volume and intensity are important. With volume being the foundation for higher intensity peaking exercise. FH: You simply can't have both (high volume & intensity). PL: I agree. There is a limit to both volume and intensity with any additional exercise resulting in diminishing returns, negative returns if excessive, and overtraining if too damn excessive. FH: , Again, I've experimented with athletes, powerlifters, regular people and no one has ever been able to perform multiple sets after their first set wiped them out. No one. PL: Who’s arguing that point? In test and measurements, that call that a measurement schedule effect, FH: If increasing volume was necessary after the trainee became more "conditioned" (whatever that word means) then overtraining wouldn't exist.. PL: Two points, first it is clear that the more deconditioned on is the less volume and intensity of exercise they need to improve their strength fitness, i.e., 10RM. Look at other examples, the total training volume of elementary school, college, and Olympic athletes increases as the level of performance increases. Running a mile all out will only get you so far, sooner or later, you work on more mileage, sprinting, and your kick. How about the 220 or 440yd sprint, pretty exhausting total body work at 25 to 60 seconds of all out vomit inducing work. No body is setting world record marks with on set. Second, and most importantly, I repeat, there is a limit to both volume and intensity with any additional exercise beyond one recuperative abilities resulting in diminishing returns, negative returns and ultimately overtraining as the volume gets excessive. FH: The concept of more volume is completely illogical. And though it seems to work for people who use it, I am certain it works only because the advocates don't really know their true level of strength. They are duped into believing true gains are being made when they are not. And again, when they are, it wasn't because of the volume, it was because the fatigue at some point along the way that was sufficient enough to stimulate growth. PL: I have attempted to discuss the concept of fatigue in earlier posts. It is clear one can develop size and strength with out experiencing appreciable inroads. However, when one is attempting to maximize hypertrophy, one is concerned with acreting as much protein within the muscle, regardless of the physiological function, FT or ST contractile, structural, enzymatic, etc. FH: But you do not need volume to do this. PL: You have stated your self (or others in your camp) that TUT and TUL (i.e., training volume) are important considerations, and if so, we agree a certain amount of volume is essential. FH: You do, however, need a certain level of intensity. PL: I agree again. However, I believe that HIT on each set every workout year round, (year in and year out if one has ever trained that long this way uninterrupted, and I doubt it) would lead to unnecessary intensity overloading (an abuse of the overload principle). FH: And maybe Krieger reached his genetic limit. And, maybe while training intensively, his gym was too hot. And maybe he was doing the exercises incorrectly. And maybe... PL: Yes, maybe..... FH: As far as muscular fitness is concerned, let me state for the record that there is no such thing as "muscular fitness." There is no such thing as fitness for that matter. Fit? Fit for what? PL: A discussion for another day. FH: Muscles are simply force producing engines. They contract and uncontract. That's it. If a muscle and all of its components becomes stronger through exercise they automatically become more enduring. (This is one of the reasons why runners have begun to realize how important strength training is for improved performance.) If a muscle isn't becoming stronger, it is actively becoming, however slightly, weaker. There is no such thing in life as stasis. PL: This is where I think we really diverge in terms of our understanding and of muscle anatomy and physiology and neuromuscular physiology. I have addressed the issue of muscle function as well in previous a post.. I understand, your reservation with the concept of rate of tension development and activities/exercise involving near maximal power outputs.. But I don’t and never have understood the statement Arthur Jones, Dan Riley, and others there after make which suggests HIT not only makes a muscle the strongest possible, but more powerful, faster, and more enduring. It seems to me that elite sprinters aren’t the best middle distance runners, marathoners or powerlifters or Olympiclifters. FH : If, for example, an athlete is about to perform a skill and is suddenly stripped of 40% of his muscular strength, he will not be able to perform that skill as well. Even if he did, it would require a much greater effort. If the opposite was to occur, the athlete would perform better. Or, if the same, with greater ease. To be fit for something requires practice -- perfect practice. To be fit for chess is to know the game and to practice. To be fit for swimming one must know the particular stroke and swim. Stronger muscles will help the swimmer in any stroke he chooses to practice. Weaker ones will hinder. (I doubt stronger muscles will help the chess player though.) The entire concept of fitness (as it is commonly known), is faulty. It doesn't make any sense. PL: I disagree, there is a point (strength level), and probably earlier than I understand, at which increasing absolute strength has no additional positive impact on performance. A subject on it self. FH: I think you got one of my statements mixed up with one of Kreiger's quotes. You quote me as asking to for an answer regarding the mechanisms of failure from a cellular physiology standpoint and not using vague and abstract logic. I didn't ask for an answer using cellular physiology. Krieger did. I was politely mocking Krieger. It was he who asked about cellular physiology and abstract logic. I wanted to know what a reason might be for not training to failure on a medical physiology level due to the fact that, comparatively, exercise physiology is extremely watered down. (But I'm sure you are aware of that.) Krieger took it to the childish level and realizing he could not answer the question, responded with a counter question. PL: It appears that I was in error. I did however, just submit a post that addressed some physiology and biomechanics. FH: I asked about medical physiology not necessarily to get a hard fast text book answer, but to make a point. The point being that since no one knows for sure what causes a growth response within the skeletal muscles, the very best chance one has to cause a response is to train as intensively as humanly possible. PL: I disagree. Take a look at some of the new research which specifically implicates the eccentric portion of the rep cycle as the key mechanism for hypertrophy. I will attempt to forward some reference by Dr T.T.. Hortobagyi, a UMASS Colleague/Associate. This is not to say the slowing or protracting the duration of eccentric is the key, but it is the absolute level of the eccentric force that is important. Lift it and lower it under control. Protracting the duration of the rep only limits the magnitude of the load that can be lifted and as I see the potential benefits of intermittent and progressive overloading. FH: Again if one is capable of 200X10 (an 11th complete rep being impossible) in a bench press and, when training to become stronger, only performs one rep, nothing in the way of increased strength will occur. Neither will 2 reps work. Somewhere along this line, however, a certain rep number (time under load) will sufficiently stimulate the muscles to become stronger or at least maintain the current level of strength. Where along this path one must travel to minimally in order to stimulate an increase in strength is unknown. I have seen no evidence to prove that a 100% effort will thwart the process. I have, however, witnessed and experienced the contrary countless times. PL: This is the quintessential question. How much is enough and what is too much. Both camp error when they get in to the excess. It is far better to err on the conservative side, rather than investing one’s limited physiological recuperative reserves. Obviously more sets has its problems at some point and too much intensity work with the myriad type of post fatigue work has its problems, even in fostering strength-endurance. The key point that we disagree on, is the nature of the stimulus, with you suggesting that it does not matter, one single training design/method can lead to all of the possible measurable muscle contractile characteristics as well as maximal hypertrophy. FH: Over the past 10 years I have administered thousands of one on one training sessions, training people of all shapes and sizes to extremely deep levels of fatigue and have never seen it fail. My clients, at least the ones who train consistently, never experience a plateau. I have, on the other hand, witnessed loads of trainers training their clients with multiple sets, not pushing them even close to failure and these people experience plateaus all the time. Their bodies hardly ever change, they spend triple the time in the gym than my clients, experience a much higher rate of overuse injuries and spend a lot more money. As far as peer reviewed scientific journals are concerned in the field of exercise, they are worthless. Completely worthless. My advice to anyone who asks me is forget 99.9% of any study on exercise you read. Almost everyone in this field (the field of exercise research) is misinformed, incapable of logic (seemingly) and close-minded. I mean, have you ever seen a rep cadence listed in the methodology section of a study on strength training? Neither have I. And it is extremely important. PL: As much as you appear to despise peer reviewed scientific journals, I believe that you could contribute to the literature by attempting to publish your observations. I would like to sincerely assist you in this endeavor. I am relatively proficient in preparing documents for publication. I am sincere and more than willing to work with you. However, I agree with your observations about the lack of control in most studies. However, when not stated, it is likely that the user is performing a self selected cadence enabling them the ability to use greatest weight for the prescribed/goal repetition. FH: Your critique of my homerun analogy is a bit odd. I really do not understand what you are trying to say here. I was using a homerun as an analogy of success. That's all. Again, there is no such thing as fitness per se. Also, you continue to mix up sport and strength. Now don't get me wrong -- I ask this question honestly with no bad intentions -- can you truly not understand the difference between demonstrating power and developing strength? PL: It is not the first time that I have not been understood. My essential point was that while a home run my be the goal, I may not cover all the basis (i.e., adequately stress all of the possible mechanisms involved in the wide array of physical abilities that we can develop). FH: Look at it this way. Muscles are engines. They produce force by volitional contraction. If a muscle becomes stronger (regardless of how you make it stronger) it will be capable of producing more force. Force output is needed for all movement to occur. Whether your hand is attached to a barbell, canoe paddle, tennis racquet or chess piece makes no difference. Powerlifting is a specific skill. It requires a certain body type neurological efficiency, and level of muscular strength for a person to excel at it. Power, speed, quickness, are one and the same.. If a muscle is stronger it will be able to move quicker, endure longer, hold heavier, etc. There is skill and their is muscular strength. These two components are the only trainable aspects of physical "fitness" if you will. The rest is genetically predetermined (i.e., bodily proportions, neurological efficiency). Cardiovascular efficiency and joint flexibility are both enhanced and augmented by increasing muscular strength and are also largely influenced by genetics. Do you really not know what I mean by "same stimulus" or are you being trite? By same stimulus I mean a growth response. I think you knew that. As for the "skill thing" you write as if I meant to say skill is unimportant. I think I answered this above but to reiterate, skill proficiency is trainable. It is a requirement for perfect execution ofwhatever it is one is trying to do and do well. Increased muscular strength is another matter entirely. Within an hour I can teach almost anyone how to snatch 100 pounds over their head when within the first 5 minutes of the lesson they are incapable of 50. Big deal. They didn't actually become twice as strong in an hour. Follow? PL: Muscle don’t work with out a combination of CNS and PNS motor control. On one hand you state that you can double ones strength in one session by teaching them a new skill. No one would disagree. Then in another breath you down play the physiological abilities of a powerlifter suggesting that his strength is just a specific skill. As I see/understand it, HIT neither develops the skill, proficiency, and more importantly the contractile machinery developed thru heavy resistance lower rep, moderate speed exercise. FH: Strength cannot be measured dynamically. If you believe that it can be, well, I'm not going to change your mind in this letter. Work rate over time is elusive when exercising because work output is not necessarily a measure of what the muscles are experiencing. PL: I can and have measure strength reliably during isometric, eccentric, and under concentric actions at various velocities of contraction. There are also length-tension relationships effecting the force-velocity relationship reported by AV Hills earlier this century. FH Example: As an experiment you perform 200 X 12 (failure not reached) in a bench press. Your cadence 2/2. Time under load 50 seconds. A week later you perform 200X4. Cadence this time 10/10. Time under load 80 seconds. (Positive failure achieved.) In which case did the muscles experience greater work? PL: I thought the concept of volume, I mean work, was something that you did not understand. Yet it appears that it is an easily quantifiable muscle contractile characteristic. Strength-endurance work begets strength-endurance development and to a lesser degree increases in maximal strength. FH: As for power, you contradict yourself by saying that power lifting is a demonstration of strength and then proceed to type out the formula for power. Is this not what power lifters do -- produce as much force as they can to send aloft an object over a certain distance in the shortest time possible? PL: Time is not measured during powerlifting, only the amount of weight lifted. If maximal power out put was the goal, then the lifter would decrease the load to somewhere between 40 and 60 % of the 1RM to enable him to express maximal power outputs. Power output is maximal during maximal muscle efforts with moderate resistances moved and moderate speeds, relative to the maximal speed possible and the 1RM. FH: Two people can have very different strength levels yet demonstrate the same amount of power due to skill differences and bodily proportions. I may produce more static torque (force) output than you on a MedX knee extension testing device but if you play soccer and I never kicked a soccer ball in my life, you'll kick it much farther than I will. That is, until I gain the same skill you do. Why do you think it's called "power" lifting? PL: More often, and more to the point, one can observe individuals of equivalent strength levels and even the same individual expressing different levels of power output. FH: I'm glad you admit that sporting events do not increase muscular strength in already trained individuals. All the more reason for strength training to failure. I've gone on bike rides and rafting trips that were more physically demanding than multiple set, not to failure training techniques. The light days of a periodization sequence is far easier than some mountain climbing I've done. If sporting type events cannot do the trick, neither can easy strength training. PL: However, I may never understand the rationale to train to failure with a less specific HIT endurance like set, in an attempt to maximize strength levels, which requires both neuro and muscular specificity. FH: The annual variation in training stimulus is achieved by the the consistent (and, might I add, fractional) increase in the resistance -- period. That is all a muscle needs. It's just a muscle. Not a bored trainee. The empirical world of powerlifting is not the world of strength training!! Egads and gadzooks Pete! PL: I am unable to interpret Egads and gadzooks. I was unable to find it in the three letter HIT acronym list (a little 1am humor). I guess the analogy I gain from you statement would be equivalent to saying that the time tested training principles/methodology used by world class sprinters world be of no significance to individuals attempting to move faster. FH: Repetition maximums are worthless. Muscular strength can only be measured statically. It is, of course, useful to know that you are not lagging behind someone's true level of strength when training them. In other words, sometimes determining resistances for trainees can be very elusive. It seems that there is a large window open to the failure mechanism. Again, if I am capable of 200X10 in a bench press if I choose instead 180 I'll only get 11 or 12. I have put people on the bench press, arbitrarily chosen 60 lbs. and they proceed to perform 5 reps to failure. I then bump it to 70 the next time. 5 reps. 90 the next. 5 reps. 120. 5 reps again. However if I drop it to 45 they can get 25 reps. Beats me. PL: RM’s are worthless, yet your system is based on 2/4 count 8 to 12RM’s and 5/10 count 4 to 6RMs. FH: Maximums are dangerous. You never know how much someone is holding back. They are very skill dependent. Maximums tell us nothing worth knowing for health purposes. PL: I agree that training to an RM’s necessarily increases the training intensity and that the risks associated with exercise increase as intensity increases. I am not an advocate for habitual training to failure or 12RM’s on each set day in and day out. FH: Let's continue corresponding. Best regards, Fred Hahn/FHahn@seriousstrength.com PL: My pleasure, Pete LaChance, Prsnlftnss@aol.com
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. RE: HIT Digest #172 - from Kirk, Malcolm
Top
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 10:08:43 -0600 From: "Kirk, Malcolm" <mskirk@uswest.com> Subject: RE: HIT Digest #172 Reply to KAGiles@aol.com My point exactly. Hence APPEARS to work. Gum chewing is a bad example because our facial muscles are regularly exercised, and so are our hands. It should be obvious that anyone who takes the time to firm and grow muscles that they haven't been using (your abs, for instance) that spot reduction will APPEAR to work at first. Thereafter you'll have to face the real struggle of fat loss with much slower results. Anyone, including myself, who has gotten somewhat out of shape and then starts to work out again, can tell you that it's easier to fit in their pants when you're doing a regular ab workout. Likewise my triceps are less jiggly, though they still have about the same ammount of fat on them. I can also tell you that at 38 years old getting rid of actual fat is much harder than it used to be (due to metabolic changes). Heck, in college I could eat a couple of pounds of peanut m&m's and not gain an ounce.......Regretably, those days are long gone. I get the feeling that sometimes HIT readers are so fervent and anal that they entirely miss the point of what is being said. -Malcolm
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. RE: HIT Digest #173/Sandeep - from Somerset Fitness Center
Top
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:44:15 -0400 From: Somerset Fitness Center <hfc290@hrmail.ims.att.com> Subject: RE: HIT Digest #173/Sandeep -------------------- 3 -------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 02:02:21 -0400 From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #171 RP:...translation/transcription process." I have not seen any evidence/research that demonstrates how stretching facilitates growth. So in "my" mind, and SD: 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? Well; in most cases, yes. Certainly I'd be quite interested in proof and claims and logical moves. And I'm 100% all for learning about the effects of stretching on muscle growth. BUT, when you respond to my questions with sarcasm and attitude, no, I'm not interested. This is my professional time. I don't have time to waste with those who can't contribute to my learning in a productive, honest, professional manner when there are others who can. If you are interested in a Digest correspondence, that would be great. Just do it minus the attitude next time and I'll be happy to reply with questions about your claims and the research you are familiar with that I am not. Rachael Picone AT&T Somerset Health Fitness Center, NJ USA
-------------------- 16 --------------------
#16. Re: Fred Hahn's questions - from Sonofsquat@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:03:17 EDT From: Sonofsquat@aol.com Subject: Re: Fred Hahn's questions I only hope that Rob will accept this post on a subject that is far too old! I ask him to accept my comments only because of Bill Gates conspiracy has somewhat prevented me from answering sooner (in other words... I made the mistake of downloading Windows 98!) [Get a Mac. --Rob] Fred Hahn asked some pretty specific questions which I felt inclined to answer. I did answer them, but I wish to analyze the questions a bit: Fred Hahn wrote: <<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. >> First off, is this addressed to HITer’s or those who don’t believe training to failure is necessary? Are some of us the same? <<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?>> This is the tone of the whole questioning. It is utterly ridiculous. It does not directly ask me about my points of view nor does it ask for any scientific evidence. <<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? >> Another ridiculous question.... How many non- HITers do 7 sets. Ask me how many sets to do and how hard to push on each set.... <<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.)>> The physiological basis is that there is absolutely NO research that dictates that training to failure is necessary for growth. The bottom line is that none of these questions specifically ask me for my scientific reasoning behind what why I prescribe the training I do. I seriously doubt that Fred Hahn even knows what that is! Folks, everything I say is based not only on science, but on practical experience! I don’t know what the motivation was behind Fred Hahn asking these questions. So... Let me ask some questions: Where is the scientific evidence that states that training to failure is necessary? Why is it that when HITer’s plateau, they say simply take a week off or try different reps or sets, yet they blast periodization (which is what THAT is!)? [My comment: To EVERYONE. Be careful about labels and generalizations about people or groups of people, like "____ Group of people all believe that ____ is true". Don't do that, unless you KNOW that it's true. --Rob] Why is it that some (and a VERY FEW) scientific studies say training one set to failure is “as good” or “almost as good” as training multiple sets, yet non of them state that training one set to failure is better? And with that in mind... Why do so many studies suggest that training one set to failure is inferior to multiple sets? [Argh. I feel a barrage of studies coming on from both "sides" here....I request that for people like Matt and Fred2 who have tons of studies mentioned on their columns on their respective websites, to use website references rather than repost the same studies on the digest. Makes it easier for the reader to look things up. Thank-you. --Rob] And WITH THAT in mind, why do folks who believe one set to failure is as good (or almost as good) as multiple sets immediately discard any evidence that states otherwise? Why should I even settle for “almost as good”? I get so tired of “welllll.... It’s the only way to insure blah blah blah....” BULL! Furthermore, am I correct in assuming that Fred Hahn believes that if you don’t train to failure, you are not training intensity? Ahem.... Rob ain’t going to allow my comments on this one! [Why? I've (regrettably) let some things go recently that I shouldn't have. You haven't said anything that is INSULTING, Fred. That *I* can see. Therefore you pass. --Rob] Folks, I have nothing against HIT... I have read the HIT faq as well as articles by Mannie, Bryzcki, Thomas, and Riley (in fact, I have seen his son train... Pitcher for James Madison and not only a helluva guy, he’s a helluva baseball pitcher!) and I can honestly say I agree with about 90 percent of it. Ask me how I train athletes... Not about how you believe I train athletes! Fred Hahn was totally out of line in his questions. Especially when he can’t muster one inkling of scientific information that suggests his training is better! Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 17 --------------------
#17. Re: Determining the Rep Number - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 19:12:26 +0300 From: "Erkki Turunen" <erkki.turunen@kolumbus.fi> Subject: Re: Determining the Rep Number >-------------------- 8 -------------------- >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. What you say is generally assumed indeed. It's true that the closer to your potential you get the slower the progress is but plateauing can also be a result of mild overtraining that doesn't become visible before it accumulates over a long enough time period. >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. >The intention of my post was to reply to Fred's question "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?". I felt the question somewhat vague so in order to be able to give a decent answer I made some further suppositions. I started from the supposition that Fred trains one set to failure and that now he wants to know what the proper intensity is if training to failure is questioned. To study the effect of intensity (of effort) I wanted to keep other variables intact "in order to get comparable results" which led to the following test situation: one set with 10RM weight varying rep number ALONG WITH frequency. IMO intensity of effort and proper frequency are dependent on each other so I cannot stick with the same rest between the sessions for different rep numbers but for each rep number its optimal frequency should be used. >Thus you will never >know weather strength gains decrease because of the improper inroad or >because of plateauing. Adjusting frequency should significantly reduce the likelihood of plateauing. >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? Of course I don't change rest periods and rep number simultaneously. > 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? By leaving the first four weeks (or whatever is sufficient) for each rep number trial out of results. > 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. Keep in mind that I'm looking for the optimal rep number for a 10RM weight. Therefore I assume that anything below that rep number constitutes "undereffort" and past that rep number "overeffort". Your suggestion of 12 reps refers to the possibility that you think of the optimal rep number in general and not related to a 10RM weight. > 5. How are you going to measure your strength gains? >Using 1RM, 5RM, 10RM or something else? Using 10RM weight would seem natural to me unless the trainee's objective is 1RM. >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? I don't think that skill improvement is an issue in Fred's case as he is an experienced trainee. Maybe you should not do strength testing at all, but measure muscle >mass gain, but muscle gains are harder to be determined accurately. That's a relevant point. Measuring should be choosed according to the objective; if it's hypertrophy then the right measure would be muscle mass gain but if it's improving strength then progress should be measured by strength gains. > 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? That seems to contradict what you said in point 1. >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. Please note that I didn't define the best repetition number as the one giving the best gain per workout. When I talked about results I meant the rates of progress. Besides, 20-rep sets don't apply in this case. >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. All this is irrelevant. The objective was to isolate the effect of intensity of effort as well as possible. > Now it should be obvious that we cannot perform any reliable >"research" on our own bodies. Quite the contrary. No matter how unscientific the "research" is all that matters is the end result. For each individual the "best" way of training can only be found through experimenting. >Our best bet is to look for scientific >researches (statistically valid ones!) and to apply their findings in our >training. I think that the results of scientific studies can only be used as starting points for further personal experimenting. Let's suppose that Fred's problem would indeed have been studied and the result would have been that 8 reps yielded the greatest rate of progress. Should then every trainee who wants to apply one set training and 10RM weight do 8 rep sets? No, because there's individual varying and that number (8 reps) represents only the average. But 8 reps would be the most logical starting point for finding one's personal optimum. Erkki
-------------------- 18 --------------------
#18. Response to Explosive Lifting - from Matt Brzycki
Top
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 08:19:40 EDT From: "Matt Brzycki" <brzycki@arelia.Princeton.EDU> Subject: Response to Explosive Lifting It's difficult to comment on everything but here's a few excerpts from a Pete LaChance (PL) post to HIT Digest #173 and my (MB) comments: PL: 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. MB: I'm familiar with most of those studies. BTW, there's no period between "et" and "al." And it's usually not used in the middle of a sentence like that. Rather, it's preferred that an author use "and his colleagues" or "and her associates." Perhaps you can pass this suggestion on to the author of this "text." At any rate, I don't know how old this "text" is but the most recent study listed here is from 1983 and one of the studies was published nearly 35 years ago. That's older than bell bottoms. Surely there's research more recent to prove this point. Aw, whatever. I just wanted to make a few quick comments about two of these specific studies: 1. I believe that the Kanehisa and Miyashita (1983) reference showed that a group who trained with low-velocity repetitions demonstrated significant increases in power at all velocities tested. In addition, a higher average gain in power was made by the group who trained at the lower velocity (12%) than by the group who trained at the higher velocity (8%). 2. The use of the nearly 3-decade-old Moffroid and Whipple study is especially curious though not unusual. In fact, their research has been referenced HUNDREDS of times as evidence that weight training should occur at high speeds. However, their research has been criticized since at least 1982. My understanding is that the authors violated a basic principle of statistical analysis and experimental design. As a result, their conclusions were unsupported by their data. In reality, their study actually indicated that slow training speeds increased strength at both slow and fast lifting speeds. So, I hope this that "text" from which you've quoted excerpts isn't destined for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. And if this does end up in such a publication then I'd really distrust the peer-review process. Although I'm generally suspicious of it anyway. I wrote an article once for a "soft" peer-reviewed journal and they sent it back to me asking for a reference for the Overload Principle. Unbelievable. That's arguably the most oft-used principle in the exercise sciences. Hey, why not just ask "Uh, excuse us, but we'll also need a reference for gravity." And when there's a study published in a supposed "peer-reviewed journal" that has design flaws so obvious that even a non-research guy like me with only a bachelor of science degree in health and physical education can spot them then, well, it makes me wonder. And while on the subject of studies, Garnica (1986) showed that a group who trained at 60 degrees/second (d/sec) had significantly greater power increases than a group who trained at 180 d/sec. Other studies have demonstrated that improvements in torque and power were greatest at slow angular velocities (Caizzo, Perrine and Edgerton 1981; Nobbs and Rhodes 1986; Petersen 1988; Colliander and Tesch 1990). I got more studies laying around but I gotta cut this short. Well, okay, one more. But only because we go back to 1983. Petersen and colleagues (1989) showed that a group who trained at 60 d/sec had statistically significant strength increases of 7% or more at 7 different speeds (60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210 and 240 d/sec) while a group who trained at 180 d/sec -- 3 times as fast -- had strength increases of 4% or more at 4 different speeds (150, 180, 210 and 240 d/sec). PL: 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). MB: To paraphrase Ken Mannie, Strength and Conditioning Coach at Michigan State University, "Using potentially dangerous activities to 'expose and prepare' athletes for 'contact-collision sports' is like banging your head against the wall to prepare for a concussion" (see Mannie, 1994). PL: 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). MB: Ya know, you make this sound as if there were these 2 guys from New Jersey more than 8 years ago who tried to lead people to believe that explosive lifting was "high risk." BTW, I read the Brzycki 1989 reference and it was horrible. Take it outside and burn it. That's assuming, of course, that you already haven't. You'll be better off reading the third edition published in 1995. At any rate, it always amazes me whenever it's suggested that I'm like this lone wolf or loose cannon running around saying that explosive lifting is "high risk" and there's nobody else on the planet who feels that way. Though I guess it's easier for people to advance their point of view if they make it sound as if there's only one critic. The truth of the matter is that there are DOZENS . . . sorry, I accidentally HIT my "Caps Lock" key on purpose . . . there are dozens of prominent strength and fitness practioners who believe that explosive lifting is dangerous. Off the top of my head -- which I gotta stop doing cuz it's not helping my bald spot -- a short list of prominent strength and fitness professionals who think that explosive lifting is dangerous would include Wayne Westcott, PhD; Ted Lambrinides, PhD; Jim Peterson, PhD, FACSM; Cedric Bryant, PhD, FACSM; Ralph Carpinelli, PhD; Tom Pipes, PhD; Richard Winett, PhD; Fred Allman, MD, FACSM; the late Michael Pollock, PhD, FACSM; Doug McGuff, MD; Michael Fulton, MD; Ken Leistner, DC; Brian Johnston; Jamie LaBelle; Ken Hutchins; Mike Mentzer; and the American Academy of Pediatrics as well as the following strength coaches: John Thomas and Chip Harrison (Penn State); Tim Swanger (U of Cincinnati); Ken Mannie and Tim Wakeham (Michigan State); Jim Kielbaso (U of Detroit); Mike Gittleson and Jim Plocki (U of Michigan); Tom Boyd (U of Kentucky); Mickey Marotti (U of Notre Dame); Scott Swanson (Army); Mike Bradley and Mark Wateska (Stanford); Jeff Watson (Villanova); Tom Kelso (Southeast Missouri State U); Shawn Cooley (Drexel U); Steve Murray (U of Toledo); Kevin Tolbert (U of Miami, FL); Sam Giannelli (San Diego Padres); Brad Andress (Detroit Tigers); John Welday (Pittsburgh Penguins); Shaun Brown (Boston Celtics); Dan Riley and Jason Arapoff (Washington Redskins); Mark Asanovich and Aaron Komarek (Tampa Bay Bucs); Chet Fuhrman (Pittsburgh Steelers); Mike Wolf and Tom Kanaby (Philadelphia Eagles); Steve Wetzel and Jeff Friday (Minnesota Vikings); Chip Morton and Greg Roman (Carolina Panthers); John Dunn and Craig Stoddard (New York Giants); Kim Wood (Cincinnati Bengals); and Bob Rogucki and Martin Streight (Arizona Cardinals). And these individuals aren't the only ones who believe that explosive lifting is unsafe. I've met scores of high school coaches over the years who also that explosive lifting is dangerous. Hey, there's plenty of individuals on this digest alone who have the same belief including Andrew Baye, Fred Hahn, Ed Cicale, Rachael Piconer and the mysterious Et Al to name but a few. Despite the fact that you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition, I'm certain there's many others that I'm unaware of. So, please don't make it sound like it's just me and Hank Kearns. We're far from alone. I'm sorry fans but we're outta time. Matt