-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. 19-Nor, sounds like more of the same muscle comic nonsense - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:31:24 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: 19-Nor, sounds like more of the same muscle comic nonsense 19-Nor? Sounds like more muscle comic nonsense to me. Maybe Lyle can shed some light on the subject? Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Plyometrics: Just Say NO! - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:27:57 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Plyometrics: Just Say NO! "I have read a lot about hit / superslow training and the word is plyometrics are not to be done at any time. I'm currently training my 15 year daughter for highschool sports basketball, volleyball and track and field. She has been weightlifting using a 4/4 12 to 15 rep workout. So far she is making good progress. My question is how is she to train to increase her vertical jump if plyometrics are not to be used?" To this I would respond: how is she even going to be able to jump if she ruins her knees or ankles doing plyometrics? The jumping involved in practice for the sport is more than adequate to improve her skill in performing that particular movement, and proper strength training will do far more to improve the strength of the muscles involved, and it will do so without ruining her joints or predisposing her to greater risk of injury during practice. It is insanity to even consider plyometrics. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. SNAP, CRACKLE, POP - from Keith Ellis
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:25:52 -0500 From: Keith Ellis <irakelli@Mars.utm.edU> Subject: SNAP, CRACKLE, POP I am only 23 and have been lifting for about 9 years. Poping and cracking in my knees and shoulders has been going on for years. Sometimes, the sound is accompanied by minor discomfort, I wouldn't even call it pain. I can rotate my ankles at anytime through the day and it sounds like a Steven Segal "arm breaking" scene, but it doesn't hurt. I think that warming up and doing some light stretching before working out or when you first get out of bed in the morning usually gets all this out of you. If it doesn't hurt and doesn't effect your lifestyle, don't worry. If you feel pain, see a doctor. irakelli@mars.utm.edu
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Intensity? - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:48:46 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Intensity? >Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 22:14:08 -0400 >From: "Mark S. Shotts" <mshotts@cantv.net> >Subject: Son of Squat questions Fred Hahn's questions > >First of all, most HITters would never entertain changing the amount of >sets performed. One would suffice. Secondly, whether a HITter changes >his rep scheme or TUL for any or all of his exercises, MOST HITters, >still would take each and every exercise to at least concentric failure >which hardly compares to periodization where the main idea is to >rollercoaster with intensity. That is only one form of periodization in my book. If I have someone do 3 weeks of 12-15 reps to failure, 3 weeks of 6-8 reps to failure, and 3 weeks of 8-10 reps to failue, I am changing volume (number of reps) and intensity (see below) in terms of rep range. I would consider that a periodized HIT program. It's no more accurate to equate periodization with lots of submaximal loading and varying % of 1RM than it is to equate HIT with 1 set of 8-12 to failure. >This further goes to demonstrate that >there seems to be this lack communication between HITters and >non-HITters as to what intensity means. I seem to get this idea from >non-HITters that intensity means how close they come to their 1RM >percentage-wise whether they go to failure or not, whereas for us >HITters it means some form of muscular failure regardless of 1RM >percentages. A good example is that of an SS workout where one might >only use 40 to 50% of 1RM- but if you do an SS workout, you'll have >first hand knowledge of what intensity means, regardless of which camp >you belong to!!!!! Brings up a thought I had a few weeks back. Someone a while back on the list pointed out that intensity was defined only as momentary effort. That is, 100% intensity means that you are incapable of another rep. That is a typical HIT definition of intensity. But it we take that as the proper definition of intensity, that means that ANY set to failure, regardless of rep number/TUL is indistinguishable from ANY other. Or put differently, if 100% intensity is defined by training to failure, there is no qualitative difference between a 3RM, a 5RM, a 10RM, and a 25RM (or 50RM or whatever). Obviously this makes very little sense as anyone who has worked at different rep ranges can tell you that there is a *significant* qualitative difference in training to failure at those rep ranges. The 3RM will be the heaviest but the set will end before there is any significant buildup of lactic acid. The 50RM will leave you gasping for breath and lying on the floor. Both are to failure, both are VERY different in terms of energy systems, possible site of fatigue, possible site of adaptations. so if we do take the HIT definition of 100% intensity simply as 'training to failure', how do you propose we differentiate between training to failure at different rep ranges/TUL? Lyle McDonald, CSCS 'Fnord'
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. POP! - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:48:52 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: POP! >Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 08:52:16 -0400 >From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu> >Subject: RE: Snap, crackle, pop Re: popping of joints >Gas released from what structures? Gas produced by what process? The joint. I'm not 100% sure, have to try and track down an answer. >It's normal to see some joint degeneration with age... > >I'll be nineteen (19) in three weeks. Does the fact that my knees crackle >now warrant worry (apprehension? concern? awareness?) about the future >condition of these joints? Does it hurt when it crackles? This may just be the way your joint is put together. You'd have to ask a sports minded orthopedist if there is any concern in terms of joint longevity or anything else. Lyle McDonald, CSCS 'Fnord'
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Length of Vasalva Maneuver - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:36:43 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Length of Vasalva Maneuver Someone in a past digest asked me what I meant by a prolonged valsalva maneuver, i.e. how long is too long. I don't have any specific numbers. A vasalva maneuver should not occur long enough to where blood flow to the brain is severely restricted due to reduced venous return to the right atrium. I recently saw a strongman competition on ESPN2 where one of the competitors was attempting to deadlift an object and performed a vasalva maneuver of around 10 seconds (I'm estimating here because I wasn't counting; I just remember that it was a prolonged period of time). He nearly passed out. However, the 1-3 seconds that a vasalva maneuver is normally implemented during heavy lifting will not interfere with blood brain flow and will not cause someone to pass out. James Krieger "1.21 GIGAWATTS?????!!!!!!!!!!!" - Doctor Emmett Brown
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Baye's Comments on Aerobics - from Sonofsquat@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:09:11 EDT From: Sonofsquat@aol.com Subject: Re: Baye's Comments on Aerobics Andrew Baye has made some comments both on this digest as well as on his web page columns concerning aerobics... I must say I have to agree with him. I may repeat some info he has shared, but here are my experiences, thoughts and comments: I once used a heart rate monitor during a regular workout (squats, benches, some dumbell movements, etc...) to see if where my heart rate was during the workout... Rest time: about 90 seconds betweens sets. Science dictates that one must stay in the target heart rate zone (220 - age x .6 - .9) and I must say it did just that. HITers and SS folks (those who keep rest time below 90 seconds) may have done even better. Cardiac output is measured by heart rate x stroke volume. In at least one case study, the stroke volume of a weightlifter was far greater than any aerobic athlete (including elite marathon runners) the tester has ever seen. I fully suspect that weight training is far better in increasing stroke volume (especially ejection fraction which is how much blood is pumped out in each beat) than aerobics is. It also must be noted that aerobics is not the preferred method of fat loss -- increasing lean body mass is! That is something aerobic exercise will not do effeciently. More muscle means more units burning more calories and more fat when you are in the aerobic pathway. Furthermore, if lean muscle mass goes up and fat mass stays the same (and it usually will go down), percent bodyfat will decrease. Even aerobic experts like Ken Cooper and Covert Bailey now realize this. Still, aerobic training is still good for the ole ticker! the aerobic experts recommend 3 times a week for 20 - 30 minutes... Fine, do that if you must, but realize that the benefits of aerobics will be enhanced with weight training as well! Fred II
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: HIT Digest #175 - from Martin Thoma
Top
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:15:59 -0500 From: "Martin Thoma" <mar-t@lse.fullfeed.com> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #175 I have a few questions regarding explosive lifting and plyometrics. First let me say that I am a newly reformed HITter (3 months) and have found that it works. I am also a personal trainer and going to school for my bachelor's in fitness with a concentration in strength training. HIT has worked for me thus far and it makes sense to me but I would like to post a few questions about the above topics. Excuse me if I get long winded. 1) You say that doing Olympic lifting is bad because it is dangerous. I agree there are a number of safety issues due to the complexity of the lifts, but that's present in any lift. Squats for example, you take a weight sometimes two to three times you body weight across your back (traps and shoulders) and "squat" down until you legs are parallel and then stand back up. In the down position your back has to support all the weight and not an advantageous position either. If the vertebrae were stacked on top of each other so the weight was directly over the hips there would be no problem, but the forward lean (in most cases) required to keep the weight over the heels puts and extreme amount of torque on the lower back muscles, does it not? I am not saying by any means that people should not do squats, I am merely pointing out the potential dangers of them. Now explosive lifting, when done properly and under correct supervision, could possibly be safe. Bear with me for a moment as I break down a full clean. It begins with a slow and controlled deadlift that accelerates to a standing position where the lifter performs a hard fast shrug. The shrug, I understand, could be potentially damaging to the shoulder girdle, but the pull from the floor to the shrug is no more than an accelerating deadlift, if done properly. From the point of the shrug the bar should have enough momentum to carry itself to the lifters chest height through no help of the lifter at which point the lifter "scoops" his elbows under the bar and drops down to a front squat position to merely catch the bar across the front of his/her delts and then proceeds to stand with the bar in that position. If the lift is done properly the lifter should catch the bar at the exact point where it comes to a stop (in mid-air) allowing the bar to rest gently on the delts causing no down force (save that of the weight) on the lifters body. 2) The big debate with HIT and explosive lifting is that it is not necessary for sports because the motor learning pattern is specific to only explosive lifting and has no positive carryover into sports. I am not saying this is false. I fully agree with it as a matter of fact. But do we not all agree that stronger athletes perform better on the playing field than they would if they were not? I am assuming we do. Now what is the best way to measure strength, the squat, bench press, vertical jump, power clean? Someone who has an outstanding vertical jump may have a weak bench press, does this make him any less productive at game time? Possibly, possibly not. It may only mean that he is better suited for a different position or sport than someone with a massive chest or huge squat. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't football a game of overpowering your opponent. You cannot merely overcome the force of that person or runningbacks would never be able to "run over" a linebacker who weighs 50 pounds more. The size of the linebacker would dictate how much force he would be able to produce. But if the smaller RB can come into the collision with more speed thus producing the same amount of force in a shorter period of time he would produce more power and win the battle. Since this is the same concept as explosive lifting (to move a given force at a higher speed thus producing more power) would it not make sense that someone who is more powerful in the weight room would be more powerful on the field. I am not saying you would develop any muscle memory or that explosive lifts are "Sports Specific," I am saying that just as squats have a positive transfer into sports (stronger athlete = better athlete) could not also explosive lifts do the same (more powerful athlete = better athlete). I already know what some responses to this will be but to save space I will respond to those as they come. 3) As far as plyometrics, it seems one of the biggest arguments against it is that they produce more force on the body than it can handle and this could lead to injury. Well is this not the very idea on which all resistance training is based AKA. the OVERLOAD PRINCIPLE. Aren't we as athletes and lifters continuously putting more force on the body than it can handle and forcing it to adapt. Who is to say that when we are doing a 10RM effort of squats that on the tenth or even eleventh effort or fatigued muscles will not be able to hold the stress put upon them and give out in the form of a tear or stop supporting a joint causing a ligament rupture or tear. My point being that how can you say to stress your muscles and joints their limit by training to failure and then fighting for that last rep for ten to fifteen seconds is safe and then turn around and say that plyometrics are dangerous because they put more stress on the body than it can handle. I have a good understanding of Exercise physiology, Biomechanics, and Physics so please do not talk down to me because I am only a student. No, I'm not a doctor but I will understand basic concepts. If you would like to reply to me in person my email address is: mar-t@lse.fullfeed.com Thanks Martin Thoma newborn HITter
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: Protons and buffering - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:44:10 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Protons and buffering >From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu> > > 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. The body has numerous mechanisms by which it can buffer protons. Intracellular proteins, intracellular phosphocreatine, weak phophoric acids, and bicarbonate in muscle all can buffer intramuscular protons. Such buffering mechanisms can be improved through training, and thus this training must produce extremely high levels of lactic acid to improve the body's buffering mechanisms. It is the total amount of work and the duration that force must be applied that determines lactic acid production. Thus, training to improve the body's ability to buffer protons that dissociate from lactic acid must include a high total amount of work, which cannot be achieved through single set training. > I have not heard of stretch induced or compensatory hypertrophy. Could >you please define these as well? Stretch-induced hypertrophy has been thoroughly studied in birds (quail and chickens) where the muscles of the wing are chronically or intermittently stretched for a long period of time (up to 40 days). This chronic stretch overload results in significant muscle hypertrophy, due to hyperplasia of muscle fibers. For obvious ethical reasons, such research could never be performed on humans because of the extreme stretch overload and the length of time that this overload is applied. Compensatory hypertrophy has been demonstrated in rats and other mammalian species. It is where certain muscles are removed so that other muscles must bear a much greater load. For example, surgical removal of the gastrocnemius muscle in rats causes a dramatic increase in size of the soleus muscle. Because the gastrocnemius is no longer present to help bear the weight of the animal, the soleus must bear much more weight than it is accustomed to (it is overloaded). It must now compensate (hence the term compensatory hypertrophy) for the missing gastrocnemius by increasing in size. This occurs without any "intense" training, muscular failure, or extreme fatigue. Again, this research cannot be performed on humans due to ethical reasons; I don't know of anyone who is willing to have his/her gastrocnemius removed in the name of science! However, one can compare this phenomena to individuals who have legs in casts. Since the leg can no longer bear weight (it is now underloaded), it decreases in size. Upon removal of the cast and once the individual begins to walk again, the muscle is now overloaded and hypertrophies back to its original size. >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)? I'm not familiar with any research examining genetic limitations from individual to individual; I really don't know how such research could be done. However, there are factors that play a role in the maximum amount of muscle size that an individual can achieve. Take your bodybuilder example for instance. If this individual has the same frame size as someone else and we assume that the size of their muscle fibers is basically the same, the person with a greater total number of muscle fibers will have larger muscles as well as a greater genetic potential in overall muscle hypertrophy. James Krieger "1.21 GIGAWATTS?????!!!!!!!!!!!" - Doctor Emmett Brown
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: Athletic training and definition of intensity - from Erkki Turunen
Top
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 08:29:21 +0300 From: "Erkki Turunen" <erkki.turunen@kolumbus.fi> Subject: Re: Athletic training and definition of intensity >Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 20:50:22 -0400 >From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> > >You need to figure out what your priorities are. If you're only concerned >with becoming as strong and as muscular as possible and don't mind not doing >other things that you might enjoy, then don't do anything during your >recovery periods between workouts. Personally, I don't think one should >allow their training to control their life. It should be something to >improve it. > >For example, if you were to discover that frequent vigorous sexual activity >was cutting into your recovery ability and slowing your progress, would you >quit having sex for another pound or so of muscle per month? What for? Not being able to refrain from sex for maximizing gains means that you are not serious. >"1) The term intensity is not scientific. It is subjective. There is no >equation for intensity." > >While common usage of the term tends to be vague reference to muscular >effort, we are now able to define it as Intensity = Inroad/Time, due to the >advances in testing equipment by MedX How practical and descriptive is that definition? Can you for example measure the intensity of a set done to non-failure with the formula? One example: Let's suppose that a person's fresh strength in a given exercise is 100 lbs and that using 70 lbs leads to concentric failure in 60 s. According to the definition, the intensity of that set would have been (100 lbs - 70 lbs)/60 s = 0.5 lbs/s. Instead he decides to terminate the set after 30 s. We don't know his remaining strength at that moment but let's suppose it to be 85 lbs. By doing the math we find out that the intensity is 0.5 lbs/s again. So the intensity of both sets was the same! Another example: Let's call the person in the above example person A and suppose that person B's fresh strength in the same exercise is also 100 lbs but his muscle fiber distribution is more on the side of fast-twitch fibers resulting in his failing with 70 lbs already in 50 s. Thus B's intensity in to-failure set would be (100 lbs - 70 lbs)/50 s = 0.6 lbs/s. In other words the intensity of person B is higher than the intensity of person A. On the other hand the time under load is longer on person A meaning probably more metabolic work in the set. Can we then really claim that the set done by person B was more intense? Thus it seems that the above definition of intensity leads to irrational results in some cases. No matter how intensity is defined I don't believe that it alone can fully describe how demanding a set is. For example, if intensity is defined as the percentage of till-failure effort then doing 5 reps with 6RM is less intense than taking a set with 20RM to failure. On the other hand, if intensity is defined as the percentage of the weight used of 1RM then even one rep with 6RM is more intense than a till-failure set with 20RM. Erkki Turunen
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Weight training does not build muscle! - from =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F6derg=E5rd_Rolf?=
Top
Date: 23 Jul 98 12:08:04 +0200 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F6derg=E5rd_Rolf?=" <rolf.sodergard@mmm.fi> Subject: Weight training does not build muscle! Got your attention, didn't I? I know we have some people on the list who seem to love references for every claim made. I might actually be one of them. Now, I haven't seen a single reference to any article that states that weight training - of any kind - builds muscle. I've seen scores of articles referenced that compare multi-set against single-set training etc. The authors usually conclude that one or the other (or neither) produced better results. For all we know (stretching it a little - make that a lot), the only result caused by training could have been that (minute?) difference. The rest of the results could have been just a coincidence. Isn't this what scientific reasoning should be like? Can we really conclude that weight training caused all of the gains? This all being just speculation, now to the point: Has anyone ever conducted a study *just to* investigate if weight training builds muscle? Or is muscle building just an underlying postulate of a hyped up weight training scam? Are we all getting ripped off? I have to make clear that I'm not making any claims here. You get the point. Rolle Ps. I read about a study that suggests that just thinking about exercising your finger muscles makes them grow stronger (I'm not kidding). I have a question: Does it make a difference if you imagine training them HIT or multi-set? Anyone?