-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: HIT Digest #177 / SVT - from Dag Řivind Madsen
Top
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 21:51:36 +0200 From: Dag Řivind Madsen <domadsen@online.no> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #177 / SVT > -------------------- 7 -------------------- > 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 > > 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. I've had paroxysmal tachycardia and SVT for a little bit more than three years (I'm 20 now). I first experienced this condition during a workout. It scared the hell out of me. My heart went nuts for a couple of minutes. Going from let's say 140-150 bpm (normal pulse during a workout) to 210-220 bpm. After a while I went to a heart specialist. I performed a stress test on an erg. SVT with a rate of 224 bpm was recorded. The doctors says my condition is harmless. I only get SVT while exercising, and it only lasts for a couple of minutes. However, in 1996 I had an operation in which the doctors an electrophysiologic study with programmed stimulation and mapping was performed. There were some complications, and I didn't accept any risk of pacemaker dependence, and hence we refrained from doing the planned radiofrequency ablation. Over 90% of these operations are successful, mine wasn't. Today I really don't care if I get SVT. I know that it is not going to kill me. But I know that there are several top athletes that have quit sports because of arythmias. > 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 have heard about several people that have been experiencing SVT over long periods. I would also be concerned if I got SVT for hours. > 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.) Especially an operation can be very expensive. Luckily, in Norway health care is free, so I didn't have to pay the 7000$ bill. Dag Madsen
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Alias - from William Measor
Top
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 21:26:01 +0100 From: William Measor <parsifal@foobar.co.uk> Subject: Alias William H. Lucke IV(?!) wrote: > 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). NO SA! You're getting me mixed up with Mr Intensity. I'm not him. Honest. That geezer still looks like a marathon runner. Plyometrics don't seem to have made his muscles grow. Nice one. Mr Intensity "I KICKASS!!"
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Power Output - from William Measor
Top
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 21:26:07 +0100 From: William Measor <parsifal@foobar.co.uk> Subject: Power Output I could be wrong about this, I haven't done physics for years. > Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:21:53 -0400 > From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu> > Subject: RE: HIT Digest #176 > > >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. I believe that you are mistaken, I think you're talking about the power output of the bar. Perhaps someone can explain the power output of the lifter? Remember that the lifter is exerting some force on the bar on the negative too. Later, Wil
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Tabata protocol sprint workout - from Bill, Arlene, and Jade
Top
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 14:01:31 -0700 From: "Bill, Arlene, and Jade" <arlenebill@msn.com> Subject: Tabata protocol sprint workout Please submit details on the Tabata protocol sprint workout. Thanks, Bill
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Diet - from Henry Caldwell
Top
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 12:30:44 -0700 From: Henry Caldwell <hcaldwell@bc.sympatico.ca> Subject: Diet Has anyone tried calorie cycling for fat loss? In other words using low, medium, and high calorie days in order to prevent a stable BMR.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Nautilus books? Any body got any? - from John
Top
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:40:57 +0100 From: "John" <johnny_a1@email.msn.com> Subject: Nautilus books? Any body got any? I am totally convinced that HIT works and works very very well. it works better that any multi set routines. But my demand for knowalage is never ending. I have a small libuary of "Nautilus" books and was looking to expand this ever further, do your readers have any they would like to sell? Send me the title,ISBN nunber ( so i can check if i have already got it) and price ( can you check the shipping cost to England) ? Thanks john
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. work - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 13:17:02 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: work >Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:21:53 -0400 >From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu> >Subject: RE: HIT Digest #176 > > 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. the problem is that you can't equate mechanical work (which is what you described) with metabolic work. nor is it necessarily accurate to integrate work (or power) over the entire workout. If you did only 2 sets and rested 30' between them, your work over time is going to be very low but those 2 sets might have nearly killed you. This is the mistake the the PowerFactor guys make repeatedly in their writings. Lyle McDonald, CSCS 'Fnord'
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. intensity - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 13:17:07 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: intensity >Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 19:52:02 -0400 >From: "Mark S. Shotts" <mshotts@cantv.net> >Subject: Re: Intensity? >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. Yes but, if I recall, you were equating that with the word 'intensity'. Some people simply like to use a different definition of intensity and the implication seems to be that the definition of intensity as % 1RM was *wrong*. I agree that it's more accurate to define intensity of effort (% of max effort, i.e. doing 9 reps when you could have done 10 is 90% intensity) and intensity of load (% of 1RM). I would further suggest that we may need to differentiate between neural intensity and metabolic intensity. Hence my example of a 3RM vs. a 50RM. Both have 100% effort intensity, but they have very different load intensity (might be 90% vs. 50% of 1RM), both have very different metabolic vs. neural intensity. >>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). And to a lot of people, HIT either has connotations of books written by a particular person in ALL CAPS or of guys puking after every workout. Perhaps instead of ignoring the word because we don't like it (and let's face it, as soon as one person says 'periodization' or another says 'HIT' certain individuals get their hackles way up) we can redefine it. Even intensity cycling has different meanings to different people (Hardgainer authors use it to describe a 3-5 weeks buildup period before hitting maximum weights, Ironman magazine uses it to describe 2 weeks of a buildup folowed by 6 weeks training to failure). no one definition of intensity cycling is inherently any better than the other (they are just words after all). The problem comes about since no-one will agree on a definition of intensity (and the exchange of rhetoric by those on all sides of the debate doesn't help) so confusion ensues. Lyle McDonald, CSCS 'Fnord'
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. The unknown lifter - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 13:17:12 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: The unknown lifter >Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 17:14:26 +1000 >From: "Steenholdt" <steenh@atinet.com.au> >Subject: Unknown > 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) About 154 lbs. Multiply kg by 2.2 to get lbs. >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. Eat food, it's cheaper. If you can digest it, get some nonfat milk powder (very cheap but good quality protein). Throw a scoop or two in either milk or juice. Throw in some peanut butter, a banana or whatever (ice cream if you really need more calories) and you've got a weight gain shake that's 10 times as nutritious and tastes better than any weight gain powder. If you need good BASIC information on nutrition for training go over to Cyberpump and read my articles (http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/4000/nutrimuscle.html). Also, my special article for the 500,000 Cyberpump HIT is going to deal with eating for mass gains (and training and a few other topics). Sorry couldn't resist the plug for the 'Pump. >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. That will be more than enough. Hike over to Cyberpump (http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/4000/) and read stuff there. You will have more ideas on training than you will be able to use in a lifetime. Don't obsess over the details, just keep it basic, keep it low volume, keep the weight under control, add weight in small increments when you can. Since you're just starting, a well balanced routine like this may work well (work all exercises for 1 set of 10 reps for the first 8 weeks of training, use PERFECT form, if you learn bad form now, you will be hurting in a couple of years): squat, bench press, some type of row, shoulder press (to the front, not behind the head), barbell curl, close grip bench press (hands just outside of chest at the bottom of the movement), a calf raise, some type of ab work (you don't need much, one exercise is plenty), and deadlifts. Note: not everybody can work deadlifts and squats inthe same workout, especially as their strenght starts to increase. If you feel your lower back getting hit too much, only do deadlifts maybe every other workout and do them in place of squats. Start doing this three times pre week and start LIGHT (like with the bar) and practice perfect form. As long as you get all 10 reps perfectly, you can add 2.5 kg (~5 lbs) to the bar each workout (on movements like curls you may only be able to add 2.5 lbs (~1.1 kg). If you didn't get all 10 or they weren't perfect, stay with the same weight at the next workout. After 8 weeks of this, you should have good form and be working fairly hard and it will be time to move to an intermediate type of workout. And you will have probably gained 3-4 lbs of muscle (~2kg, maybe more). Not a ton but you gotta start somewhere and muscle gain is fairly slow. And never forget that 99% (probably more) of the stuff that you read (or are told by guys at the gym) about how to train and eat to gain muscle are total bs. If you can't gain mass with three days per week of training, you won't gain mass by doing more. And you might need less. Lyle McDonald, CSCS 'Fnord'
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: Pushing yourself to failure - from William Measor
Top
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 01:32:45 +0100 From: William Measor <parsifal@foobar.co.uk> Subject: Re: Pushing yourself to failure > 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. I don't see how you can reach concentric failure and rack up the weight safely when lifting alone without a power rack or cage of some kind (that is, when performing bench press or squat). > 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. I sometimes feel that way too. I end up doing several forced reps and/or a static contraction (sometimes to failure) and/or a few superlow negatives. This may not help with progress and could impede it according to some stuff I have read. I suppose that the frequency of training is a factor here. I suggest going past concentric failure only occasionally (although I seem to do it nearly every workout). Alternatively you could do another set or two to concentric failure. When I do a set and fail before the 6th rep I always do another set to failure (either high or low reps). The HIT/Heavy Duty idea of performing just one set to concentric failure may be preferable if your intention is to do a low volume cycle. Since you have just started and are getting results, you are obviously working hard enough. Bottom line is that if you're making progress, stick with what you're doing. Wil