-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. 19 nor-andro - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:19:05 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: 19 nor-andro >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? Well, if you insist. 19-norandrostenedione (or was it diol, no matter) is the newest in the line of hormonal precursors. The first was androstenedione which was shown (in an OLD study using 2 women) to raise testosterone by like 300% for about 3 hours. and we all know what testosterone is good for, right? first point, women respond MUCH more to testosterone boosters (and anabolic steroids) because they are starting out with 1/10 to 1/30th the testosterone levels of men. So if an ad claims a 300% boost in testosterone without clarifying that it was in women only, they are bs'ing you. This 300% boost has NOT been shown to occur in men. The second hormone was androstenediol (note the different ending) which converts to testosterone through a different enzyme pathway. The idea then became that you could use androstenedione and androstenediol and get more testosterone since they used different pathways to convert. Then came the nor-andros. These convert to nor-testosterone in the liver (according to my biochem nerd friend, 'nor' means a removal of a methyl group on one of the carbons). There is some debate over whether the nor-testosterone form is better, worse or no different than straight testosterone. so 19-norandrostenediol/one should raise levels of nor-testosterone for about 3 hours. Second point, NO ONE has shown whether a transient increase in testosoterone will have an impact on muscle mass gains or fat loss. Yes, we know that anabolic steroids incresae muscle mass but there is a HUGE difference between a chronic increase in testosterone and a small spike. Now one solution would be to dose with one of these hormones every 3 hours (which might allow one to keep testosterone elevated all day, assuming you didn't run out of the converting enzyme). the problem is that you then run into problems with the same side effects associated with using anabolic steroids. I used androstenedione for about a month, dosing only before workouts. I was more agressive, got a better pump (for what little that's worth) and was more libidinous so I think it's more than a placebo. But I can't say that it's gonna make you gain more muscle or lose more fat as is being claimed in the ads. Nor (ha ha) can anyone with a shred of honesty but we are talking about supplement companies now. I have a feeling that women stand to benefit far more from the hormone precursors than men do but the side effects (in terms of virilization: deepening voice, hair growth, etc) will also be higher. Lyle McDonald, CSCS 'Fnord'
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Huh? - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:19:22 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Huh? >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! >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? That's why statistics (good or bad) exist. Using statistics, you can examine whether a given protocol gives significantly greater results than the other. That is, you might do a 1set vs. 3 set study and the 1 set group gains 10lbs on their 1RM and hte 3 set gains 20 lbs on their 1RM. But by statistics that might not be significant (depends on the variance). That is, you might ahve had one guy who gained 15 lbs doing 1 set and another who gained only 5 lbs. But when you average them, it only comes out to 10 lbs. In the 3 set group, one guy might have incresed by 30 lbs, another who only gained 10 lbs so the average is 40 lbs. so you've got one guy in the 1 set group (15 lbs) who gained more than 1 guy in the 3 set group (10 lbs) and vice versa. meaning that you can't say there is a statistically significant difference between the two protocols (too much variation). The real statistics are much more complicated than this of course. Now if you had two guys in the 1 set group who both gained 10 lbs, and 2 guys in the 3 set group who gained 30 lbs, you could be fairly certain that the 3 set group was better. Additionally, you can determine (can't recall what this test is called) within a certain range what the probability that a given result that you got was due to chance. After statistical analyses in studies you'll see something like (p<0.05) which means that there is only a 5% chance that the results ocurred from chance, 95% confidence that the results you got ocurred due to your intervention. >This all being just speculation, now to the point: Has anyone ever conducted a >study *just to* investigate if weight training builds muscle? Not even sure what you're asking here? How do the 1-set vs. multi-set studies NOT measure this? If I take two groups of people, and match them for activity, diet (as best as can be done), etc and have one weight train and the other not weight train but the weight training group gains muscle and the non-weight training group doesn't, that suggests that wieght training causes muscle gain (assuming the statistics back that up). Of course one paper doesn't mean jack diddly so we do it a bunch more times and now we have 5 studies where only the weight training group gained muscle. At that point we can pretty positively say that weight training builds muscle. >Ps. I read about a study that suggests that just thinking about exercising >your >finger muscles makes them grow stronger (I'm not kidding). Right, neural adaptations. The same thing happens if you only train one arm. That is, if you did bicep curls to failure with your right arm and did nothing for your left arm, your left arm would still get a bit stronger. This is called a cross-training effect (not to be confused with teh more popular use of the term cross-training). Lyle McDonald, CSCS 'Fnord'
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Pushing yourself to failure - from Henry Jung
Top
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 98 17:54:54 +0900 From: Henry Jung <hjung@jp.FCNBD.COM> Subject: Pushing yourself to failure Hi all, The idea of going to failure is great. But everytime I lift I swear I'm pushing myself to failure for 1 set, but I feel as if I didn't go "hard" enough. Is there a way to insure (I lift alone) that I'm going to failure. Dumb question. But I feel as if I can do another set, but I push myself till I can't do one more rep. Am I doing something wrong? I am getting results, but I have just started. HJ
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. RE: Erkle Turunen, Inroad, etc. - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:15:45 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: RE: Erkle Turunen, Inroad, etc. Inroad is not a measure of the decrease in pounds of force produced, it is the percentage to which the muscles force producing capacity has been reduced. And yes, with MedX equipment it is possible to measure inroad after a set not performed to failure. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. RE: HIT Digest #176 - from William Lucke
Top
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:21:53 -0400 From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu> Subject: RE: HIT Digest #176 >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 Thanks for your response! Hmm. 23 and lifting for 9 yrs. That means... um, err, lemme get some paper...<scratch,scribble> you were 14 when you started. I started when I was 12, when my dad bought a weight bench to try to get into shape (since then I have quadrupled my bench press-pretty cool, huh?). I wonder if all lifters who started this young share our condition; anyone know of any studies of crepitus as related to individuals who began weightlifting at an early age? >Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:09:11 EDT >From: Sonofsquat@aol.com >Subject: Re: Baye's Comments on Aerobics > >... >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. COOL! >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 Seems like a waste of time to me. Try a Tabata protocol sprint workout once (1ce) a week. Probably better for the ole ticker. >Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:15:59 -0500 >From: "Martin Thoma" <mar-t@lse.fullfeed.com> >Subject: Re: HIT Digest #175 >... >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). The running back can bowl over a lineman because he has more momentum. Momentum and power production are different animals Would someone knowledgeable please correct me if I'm talking around my foot here... Power is defined as the rate of doing work (total work divided by time required for said work). The stronger muscle can exert a greater amount of force, thus doing more work, however, the time component of power is related to RFD, which, as I understand it, is more a neurological characteristic than a muscular one. The definition of work leads to an interesting conundrum for weightlifters: Work can be defined a change in energy. When you lift the bar from the rack, and do your set, you will eventually end up putting the bar back on the rack. The bar is at the same height as it was at the beginning of the set; thus the bar's potential energy at the end of the set is the same as it was at the beginning of a set. Change in energy ~ 0; Net work for that set ~ 0. In fact, an entire workout workout can be characterized this way; practically zero net work. Divide this by the time it takes you to workout, and your power output for that period is remarkably low. Just something to think about. >... >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. I personally see nothing wrong with plyometrics, as long as one excercises a little common sense (remember the "long distance looking bloke" in Mr. I's post a while back: took a barbell and jumped up and down with it - an example of what not to do). Common sense would also seem to dictate that you do your plyometrics outside. Gym and weightroom floors generally do not have much give (weightroom floors certainly shouldn't!); pavement probably has less, BUUUT soft earth has more. Conclusion: do your sprinting and plyometrics on dirt, rather than pavement or floors. If you have jumped and are coming back down, you will have a certain velocity when you impact the earth. If you land on pavement, you rapidly decelerate, and there will be a certain impulse (force x time) imparted to your body. Since soft earth has more give, it will deform more under your feet as you land, increasing both time and distance through which deceleration occurs. Since you body has the same velocity in either case, the impulse required to stop it is the same, however, when landing on soft earth, the time of the impulse is greater, dictating that force is, in fact, lower. I reiterate: if you do plyometrics, and sprinting, do them on soft earth, rather than pavement or gym or weightroom floors. > 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. Read the Arthur Jones articles on CyberPump! At the beginning of a set, the force requirement is essentially the weight of the barbell. At the end of the set, the force requirement has not changed. Provided you maintain your rep cadence, the force on connective tissues stays the same throughout the set as well. What changes is the force production capacity of the muscle: it goes down. In terms of overstressing joints and ligaments, you are less capable of injuring yourself at the end of a set than at the beginning. Injuries during this do or die effort almost always come from form breakdown. The exceptions usually being sets in which the weight is a high percentage of 1RM (singles, doubles, triples, and even quads and fives is you are fresh). >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 >Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 08:29:21 +0300 >From: "Erkki Turunen" <erkki.turunen@kolumbus.fi> >Subject: Re: Athletic training and definition of intensity >... >Not being able to refrain from sex for maximizing gains means that you are not serious. I SINCERELY HOPE YOU ARE JOKING! >... >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! You are assuming that fatigue is a linear function of TUL. I personally do not know if it is or not, but I am curious. Do any of the illustrious readers of the Digest know if fatigue is a linear function of TUL or a progressive/exponential function. But this argument calls attention to the fact that HITers are not unified in their definition of what makes their system work. Some say intensity is inroad/time, while others say intensity is achieved when you hit failure. I believe that a good definition is somewhere in between. HIGH INTENSITY: A HIGH DEGREE OF FATIGUE IN A SHORT TIME RESULTING IN THE INABILITY OF THE MUSCLES TO SUPPORT (MOVE.. whatever) THE LOAD WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE FATIGUE. >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? Do we really care if B's set was more intense? They both HIT failure within one rep of each other: the fatigue is the same; the both failed, so the force capacity is below the force requirement; the only difference is the time. I guess if you split hairs, B's set was more intense, but both sets meet the criteria for high intensity, and both sets (probably) accomplished the growth stimulus that A and B set out to accomplish. Does is matter which set was more intense? I believe examples like this serve to show that intensity, due to individual variation, among other factors, is not readily quantifiable. In demonstration of this, I point out that most of us would probably agree that, from a practical standpoint, A and B's sets were equally 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 Thank you for your time. I apologize for my long-windedness. Now I must go do something that is actually productive. William H. Lucke IV DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! --Homer Simpson
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. The bigger the stronger? - from Gad C.
Top
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 18:12:02 -0700 From: "Gad C." <gadco@inter.net.il> Subject: The bigger the stronger? Hi HITters, I'm quite confused here: Is the definition to muscle trength could be described in "qualitative" manner or merely in "quantitative" mannner? Could it be that x "unit" of muscle tissue "perfom" differently in different people, or there are absolute measure to describe the "output" of a muscle unit? What do you think? Anything will help here (including any references to articles). Regards, Gad
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. RE: Hit Digest #175/Rolle & SVT - from Somerset Fitness Center
Top
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 18:40:13 -0400 From: Somerset Fitness Center <hfc290@hrmail.ims.att.com> Subject: RE: Hit Digest #175/Rolle & SVT -------------------- 8 -------------------- Date: 20 Jul 98 15:19:15 +0200 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F6derg=E5rd_Rolf?=" <rolf.sodergard@mmm.fi> Subject: Supraventricular tachycardia > If SVT is that when your heart pumps really fast but sort of weak, >I have that sometimes (haven't had for six months, though). It typically >happens in the gym.....Am I being a deathwish here? Rolle - First of all, let me give *everyone* a phonetic version of SVT: "soup-ra-ven-TRICK-u-lar tack-a-CAR-dee-ahh." Does that help at all with pronunciation and spelling? I don't think a complete explanation of SVT is necessary here. Understand that the heart rhythm is controlled by an electrical signal. When the signal is disturbed, the heart rhythm changes - sometimes for the worst. This is why, for example, you can die from being struck by lightning because the electrical signal of the heart is altered. Heart disturbances should be taken seriously. I certainly can not diagnose your condition from your description. Many people have rhythm disturbances - skipped beats are pretty common and aren't usually cause for alarm. "Tachycardia," or rapid heart beat (tachy = greek "rapid" and cardia = "heart") - can be caused from a number of problems and results in several different conditions. > When I get up, my heart goes nuts, clocking in about 150-170 BPM. Do you know this from a pulse check? SVT can clock in at about 150 to 250. >Sometimes it lasts for a couple of hours, though. This is what concerns me. A "couple of hours" is quite a long time to still be feeling such a rapid heart beat. I'm not sure if that's a common symptom of SVT or not. I would assume you have never been diagnosed with MVP or other heart problems or would have mentioned it. Though I'm not familiar enough with it to know if it causes tachycardia, Marfan's Syndrome (I think in people over 6' tall) also causes problems. My personal stand on health is better safe than sorry. The best thing to do would be to see your personal physician first to discuss your symptoms. He or she may suggest an EKG and/or stress test which gives a picture of the electrical activity of the heart. (Check with your insurance company first before scheduling one. And unless you want everyone to think you've been run over by a lawnmower, wait until after beach season since they sometimes shave your chest for proper electrode placement.) Since there are a number of possibilities here, I think a medical check is in your best interest. (Dr. Witte - am I correct to also suspect AFib here?) Disrhythmias can be caused from stress and may be temporary. Sometimes they are even misdiagnosed as panic disorders. Keep in mind that even if you *do* have a problem, it may not be anything you will need to worry about. Medications are also available and many people live with these conditions everyday. Best of luck. Rachael E. Picone Assistant Supervisor, AT&T Health Fitness Center, Somerset New Jersey, USA
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Intensity? - from Mark S. Shotts
Top
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 19:52:02 -0400 From: "Mark S. Shotts" <mshotts@cantv.net> Subject: Re: Intensity? >Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:48:46 -0500 (CDT) >From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) >Subject: Intensity? >>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. After writing this I did get a chance to back and read some of the previous HIT digests and I believe in HIT Digest #47 there was a post concerning the issue. There someone had noted that there was a difference between intensity of load and intensity of effort and I guess what I meant was that HITters usually prefer to do all their sets to at least positive failure. >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? I would call this (this is my own off the wall invention, mind you) "cycling of fiber-type targetting". But NEVER periodization. That "P" word shouldn't be in a HITters vocabulary; we should substitute it with "cycling" because the "P" word has connotations of lots of mileage (multiple sets) and little intensity (whimping-out before the set is finished). P.S.- By the way Lyle, "You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish." -REO Speedwagon
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Case Study: Very Low Volume/Frequency Training - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 21:03:00 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Case Study: Very Low Volume/Frequency Training I am working on an article for Cyberpump! which will be somewhat of a case study/survey of people using very low volume and frequency routines (training only once per week or less). I'm interested in the following information: How many and which exercises you perform during your workouts How frequently you workout Examples of improvements in both major exercises and measurements Comments on your progress using reduced volume and frequency of training or any other information relevant to your particular case. If you would like to participate please Email your information to drewbaye@gdi.net and place the words HIT Case Study in the subject line. thank you to everybody who contributes Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. re: Weight training does not build muscle! - from R.A. Onufer
Top
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 22:01:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "R.A. Onufer" <onuferra@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> Subject: re: Weight training does not build muscle! 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? Seriously, I'm not sure whether or not this is true, but this technique can help you build skill. Visualising yourself performing an action such as hitting a baseball, taking a foulshot, or performing a specific excercise or tecnique correctly can help you develop your form or accuracy almost as much as physically doing it. Perhaps a safe alternative to building a vertical jump for those who worry about the effect of plyometrics. I personally don't believe this will build strength, however, even if using it to help your weight training form could help you gain more strength with that excercise. If it does, I would suggest visualising your finger muscles already warmed up, and "do" 1 really good set for perfect form as intense as you want it to be. But don't think about it to often lest you visualise yourself into overtraining. "In case you didn't notice, I was being sarcastic"-Homer Simpson
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: Shotts's comments on periodization - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 21:24:26 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Shotts's comments on periodization >From: "Mark S. Shotts" <mshotts@cantv.net> > >which hardly compares to periodization where the main idea is to >rollercoaster with intensity. This is not necessarily the main idea behind periodization. Some periodization schemes rollercoaster intensity (I'm assuming here we're defining it as the effort put forth during a training sessions, i.e. maximal sessions interspersed with submaximal sessions). Some do not. I've seen some periodization schemes that Bill Kraemer has designed where no submaximal training was prescribed (with the exception of Olympic lifts). >periodization, which would probably call for something referred to as >"active rest" The "active rest" phase is only present in some periodization schemes, such as the linear model espoused by the NSCA. It is not present in all schemes. James Krieger "1.21 GIGAWATTS?????!!!!!!!!!!!" - Doctor Emmett Brown
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: Stroke Volume - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 22:08:53 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: Re: Stroke Volume >From: Sonofsquat@aol.com > >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. Do you have a reference for this study? How was stroke volume in this study determined? Were they measuring absolute stroke volume or relative stroke volume? Were they measuring resting stroke volume or stroke volume during strength training? It wouldn't be suprising for a weightlifter to have a higher resting absolute stroke volume than an elite endurance athlete simply due to the tremendously higher bodyweight of the weightlifter. Relative stroke volume, on the other hand... Also, by your description, this study is not measuring changes in stroke volume due to training. It is simply measuring what the athlete's stroke volume is. This cannot indicate, however, what method of training is better for increasing stroke volume. To do this, a study must be done comparing endurance training and strength training and measuring changes over time in resting stroke volume. The other immediate problem that I see with this study is that it is a case study, which has little application to the general population, since the sample size is only one. A study with a representative sample size is needed to get a definitive answer. >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. I'm not familiar with any research directly comparing improvements in stroke volume with strength training as compared to endurance training. The data on strength training alone is equivocal (1). Relative to lean body mass, no differences have been demonstrated between athletes and controls (1). One study found no significant changes in any measure of cardiovascular function as the result of strength training, despite significant elevations of heart rate throughout the training session and high perceived rates of exertion (2). The training protocol was a Nautilus HIT protocol, and was supervised by Nautilus instructors. One set of 8-12 RM of each exercise was performed with little or no rest between sets. The tempo was 2 second concentric and 4 second eccentric. 14 total exercises were performed. The protocol resulted in dramatic increases in muscular strength, but that was it. The authors also note other research showing no changes in cardiovascular function as a result of strength training despite HR being elevated above 80% max HR for an adequate duration and frequency to produce a training effect. 1. Fleck, S.J. Cardiovascular Response to Strength Training. In: Strength and Power In Sport, ed. P.V. Komi. London, UK: Blackwell Scientific. 1992. 2. Hurley, B.F., et al. Effects of high-intensity strength training on cardiovascular function. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 16(5):483-488. 1984. James Krieger "1.21 GIGAWATTS?????!!!!!!!!!!!" - Doctor Emmett Brown
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. Unknown - from Steenholdt
Top
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 17:14:26 +1000 From: "Steenholdt" <steenh@atinet.com.au> Subject: Unknown Hey . I was wondering if anyone could give me ideas for my training routines and diet. Basically the story is I have barbells and dumbbells, at home. And these are the weights I plan to use. Long story short- I only have access to a weights gym on Wednesdays for about an hour. I'm 16 and not currently having a job, I don't have much money to spend . I weigh about 70 kilograms ( I don't know what that is in pounds) and im 5'11. A guy told me to buy some weight gain powder. But it's 40 bucks a month and I don't have that type of money. Anyway at the moment everyone is going "so whats your point". so here it is: Im aiming for a bigger body mass and to get reasonably shaped. What reps/sets/ how much weight would you suggest with barbells ? I have exercises - shoulder press, squats, shoulder shrug ( for trapezius muscles), dead lift, 2 arm curl (biceps), 2 arm press behind neck (deltoids,tricpes), side exercise ( for external oblique muscles) , 2 arm pull over for rib box, front lateral raise (deltoids), bench press, 2 arm rowing ( for latissimus dorsi). Plus a heap of work outs for abdominals. I have about an hour and a half , to do all this in. I can do it 3 days a week maximum. I KNOW, I KNOW . I've got a lot of restrictions. Ok to diet- I need to put on a bit of weight. How much I don't know ? I wouldn't mind putting on 10 kilograms or so. Anyway my diet is basically. for breakfast- Cornflakes ( A guy told me to eat 8-10 weetbiks ). If I have time a bit of toast. Recess - lately 2 apples. Lunch- a sandwich, and chips, after school - usually more cereal. Dinner- some type of meat, potatoes carrots, peas. I drink mainly milk and water. Anyway I'm sure your all so happy you just found out what I eat =). I know it's not a good diet. What food do you suggest for breakfast, recess and lunch. I have no choice in what I eat for dinner, my mums the one cooking =). Anyway something that's not super expensive to buy. Ok well all apologies , if I have put everyone to sleep. But any suggestions will help. Such as different exercises,and if dumbbells and barbells actually help much at all compared to machines ? how much food etc etc etc. Thanks Mark