HIT Digest #179

This digest contains the following messages:

-------------------- 1 --------------------

#1. Unknown - from Casey Simon
Top
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:38:40 -0400
From: CSimon@L2.lonet.ca (Casey Simon)
Subject: Unknown

I have been doing a form of HIT/HD for about the past 5  years and although
I stray from time to time I would say my overall philosophy is that of a
HITer.  My question is does anyone else notice a large performance drop
between the first and second set taken to concentric failure of the same
exercise.  For example, I performed a chest workout yesterday and on my
first work set of the bench press  I squeezed out 9 reps, after a 3 minute
rest I was only able to do 5 reps (with the same weight).  I believe that
the rest period is sufficient but should it be longer.  Also, does a
person's  muscle fiber makeup play a role in how effective a HIT program
is? I mean does an individual like a sprinter or football player who has
primarily fast twitch fibers and is wired "right" respond better to a HIT
program.  I have wondered about this for a while and am interested in
hearing your responses.

Thanks
Have a take and don't suck
KC 

Casey Simon
csimon@lonet.ca

Top

-------------------- 2 --------------------

#2. Spinal Compression - from fish_ml@students.uwlax.edu
Top
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 19:41:23 -0500
From: fish_ml@students.uwlax.edu
Subject: Spinal Compression

If someone squats with 300 lbs, how much force is placed on the lumbar
spine?  How does that compare with deadlifting with 300 lbs?  I'm not
looking for an exact number.  I know it varies with everyone depending on
bar placement, body structure, etc.  I would just like to know the basic
biomechanical principles involved.  

Top

-------------------- 3 --------------------

#3. Mentzer Claims? - from Scott Hopgood
Top
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:32:59 +1200
From: Scott Hopgood <woozer@southnet.co.nz>
Subject: Mentzer Claims?

I sure we have all heard Mentzers "results" he says are typical in
following his golden routines that exercise scientists and the general
public are to stupid to comprehend.
I'm talking about the claims that it is "not the exception, but the
rule" that his clients now gain 10-20 pounds per month, or 30-40 pounds
in three to four months.
Now given that Mentzer trains out of Golds in Venice, without doubt the
worlds greatest concentration of physique talent, isn't it odd that
while Mentzer is packing muscle onto his clients quicker than you could
ever hope to with drugs, that pro and amateur bodybuilders and strength
athletes alike are not queuing to train with him?
Now I'm sure he would probably argue that they don't have the
intellectual capability to accept his ideas, hell I'm sure if there was
another trainer in my gym packing pound after pound of solid muscle onto
his clients, I would be keen as mustard to train with him, regardless of
whether or not I agreed with his exercise protocols.
Now Mentzer is pretty quick to criticize the idea of other strength
coaches, coaches who are putting out world class athletes, which in my
mind anyway validates the fact that they might know just a little about
the theory of exercise science. Something Mentzer seems to think he has
an exclusive grasp on.
So while he seems to make a valid argument on paper, I say show us the
PROOF.
Lets see some valid "before and after" photos, lets see some world class
strength athletes, after all those Bulgarians should be easy to beat as
they train about 75 times more often than they should.
Hell it should only take Mr. Mentzer a couple of months to get one of
his athletes up to their standards as they must be so chronically over
trained it's a wonder they can even tie their shoelaces. Can't wait for
the 2000 Olympics. Mentzers athletes break all world records, despite
only performing 4 workouts per year.
I'm sure we would all be happy to see some VISIBLE proof of these gains
Mr. Mentzer is claiming
Anyone can claim anything, without proof it means nothing.

Scott

Top

-------------------- 4 --------------------

#4. work - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:10:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: work

>Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 08:01:36 -0400
>From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu>
>Subject: RE: HIT Digest #175

I wrote:
>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.

>     It shows a relationship between mechanical work (energy imparted to an
>object) and metabolic effort (energy expended by the body), but was not
>intended to equate the two.

But there may be no relationshiop.  In an isometric, there is no mechanical
work done but there is plenty of metabolic work.

>     Also, if you will please take note, I used the term NET work; as in not
>gross, not total. If you summed the amount of work from each concentric, and
>reported that as TOTAL work done by the weightlifter, then, yes, he will
>have accomplished quite a bit. (Eccentrics are not work done by the
>weightlifter; gravity does the work there).

But the weightlifter is still performing metabolic work during the
eccentric, even in the equations say that the bar is performing mechanical
work on the lifter.  Though the concentric is responsible for most of the
metabolic work during the set.


Lyle McDonald, CSCS
'Fnord'

Top

-------------------- 5 --------------------

#5. Re: HIT Digest #178 - from John Pearson
Top
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:46:00 -0400
From: John Pearson <jmpear0@pop.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest #178

As for the work joke/controversy, I'm a physics student and here's the
deal:  The metabolic energy you're generating has to be doing work on
something (energy is conserved), and it would seem that the bar's energy
change (and thus work) is zero for the workout, since it's been returned to
the same height.  However, this formula of work=energy change / time is
only valid for conservative forces, i.e. forces which have an associated
potential energy.  Gravity fits the bill, but frictional forces do not.
The energy your body is generating metabolically is providing energy for
muscular contraction and sliding your joints across each other.  This work
must be added at every point of the motion, so the total is cumulative:
you're working against these forces both up and down, and we can all now
feel that our gym efforts have been validated.

Another little peeve of mine, though I consider HIT to be a valid training
method, is the claim of various proponents that HIT is naturally "low
force" if done correctly (slowly and under control).  These proponents
correctly claim that moving the bar faster makes the exercise easier, as
we've all, no doubt, experienced, and they also claim that the "low force"
distinction results from Newton's second law Force=Mass*Acceleration.  The
logic is that the bar is barely accelerating and thus that the force
involved is very small.  What's being forgotten here is Newton's third law:
for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.  There are two
sets of forces at play here, those you exert on the bar and those the bar
exerts ON YOU.  The correct interpretation of F=ma is that the force you
are exerting on the bar is just greater than the force gravity is exerting
on the bar and acceleration is very small.  For preventing injuries,
though, these forces are irrelevant: the force the bar puts on you is what
causes damage, and this force is roughly constant and equal to the weight
on the bar.  Even when you hold a bar still, your body must exert a
tremendous force to balance the bar's weight, and it's this force that
taxes the body and that the body cannot always safely produce.
Furthermore, if they were asked to think hard about it, most lifters would
admit that the vast majority of injuries result from heavy torques (pulling
a deadlift entirely with the back, too much sway on shoulder presses,
etc.).  Since the torque is proportional to the size of the lever arm, a
moderately weighted dumbbell held at arm's length poses quite a threat if
used improperly.  

In short, the best guarantees for safety in exercise are still good form
and a competent spotter, and it's dubious logic to apply basic physics to a
complex system of joints, levers, and organs without regard to the internal
structure.

Sorry about the diatribe,
John Pearson

Top

-------------------- 6 --------------------

#6. RE: Pushing yourself to failure - from Jeff Ventura
Top
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998  9:53 -0500
From: "Jeff Ventura" <Jeff.Ventura@ms.cmsconnect.com>
Subject: RE: Pushing yourself to failure

I, too, have wondered if my failure is really failure.  I train with a
partner, and when I can no longer concentrically move the weight anymore,
I ask that he force a rep or two just to polish things off.  Invariably,
though, I wind up wondering if my effort was enough.

I've finally resolved this.

As simple as this sounds, as utterly straightforward as this sounds, I
simply ask myself if I could have completed the rep on which I failed
without any help.  If I know I was toast, totally cooked, then yes, I've
gone to failure.  I've failed.  I'm at peace with myself then.

OTOH, and since I'm a Heavy Duty II advocate, I realize that with brief
workouts, I MUST force myself to go to absolute failure.  Some days it
seems my pain threshold is higher than others, making some days downright
painful.  But since the HDII program has no volume to fall back upon in
the case of submaximal efforts, I simply remind myself that this is the
hardest thirty minutes of my day, that I don't have much more to do, so I
have to make this count.  This sort of hooey self-talk hasn't failed me
yet.

Seems to help my partner, too.  When he's struggling, and I can tell he's
ready to call it quits after the next rep, when I can tell he can go
longer, I say, "C'mon Jimmy, this is all we've got for chest.  No more
for another ten days.  Make this count."  It seems to work.

And that's my three cents (inflation, you know).

Jeff Ventura

"Step aside everyone!  Sensitive love letters are my specialty.  'Dear
Baby,
Welcome to Dumpsville.  Population: you.'"

   --  Homer Simpson

Top

-------------------- 7 --------------------

#7. Back Extensions - from William Lucke
Top
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:01:33 -0400
From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu>
Subject: Back Extensions

Hello, All!
     I am curious (Happens a lot doesn't it? Guess it's an indication of how
ignorant I am). What I have read on CyberPump! (Brzycki comes to mind first)
says that the proper range of motion for back extensions is to come to
horizontal but not further.
     My question is: why? Why should someone not go as high as they can on
that exercise? Not having heard a good reason not to, I go as high as I can,
and get a great sense of working my back, as well as an awesome burn in my
glutes and hamstrings; both are usually shaking by the time I am done..
     What is bad about going as high as you can?

For the beneficial application of knowledge
And an awesome workout


William H. Lucke IV
"For his hand did burn like fire, and thus fell Gil-galad"
  --J.R.R. Tolkien   from "The Fellowship of the Ring"

Top

-------------------- 8 --------------------

#8. Re: Training to failure - from Steven Brener
Top
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:42:58 EDT
From: "Steven Brener" <sbrener@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Training to failure


>--------------------  2  --------------------
>Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:50:38 +0000
>From: Daryl Wilkinson <daryl@uk.ibm.com>
>Subject: 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
>
>
>>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 
failur=
>e.
>>Dumb question. But I feel as if I can do another set, but I push 
myself
>>till I can't do one more rep.
>
>If you end a set only when you can no longer complete another rep in
>good form, then you can rest assured that you have done "enough" to
>*stimulate* growth. You could add a 10-15 second isometric and forced
>reps / negative's etc etc, but IMO it is not required. Remember that
>intensity is just one tool in your training arsenal.
>
>>Am I doing something wrong? I am getting results, but I have just 
starte=
>d.
>
>If you have just started, then you really need to stop worrying and 
just
>follow a basic program (choose one from cyberpump if your unsure). I 
don'=
>t
>even train to failure (just like others don't) but results still come.
>Progressive resistance, good nutrition and adequate rest - that's what 
I
>think you should focus on.
>
>Daryl


So, if you train to failure on the first set, do you feel it is 
productive to wait a minute or two and do a second set, or move on to 
the next excercise?

Steve

_

Top

-------------------- 9 --------------------

#9. Tabata Protocol - from Ian Haines
Top
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:05:41 PDT
From: "Ian Haines" <ihaines@hotmail.com>
Subject: Tabata Protocol

>If my mind does not play tricks on me again, this is what a Tabata 
>protocol
>workout would look like:

>Warm up at a moderate tempo to get your muscles and heart working. 
>Then
>increase speed until you reach your maximum heart rate(or as close >as 
you
>can get). Sustain this level of effort for 5 minutes. 
>After this do intervals of 20 sec sprints with 10 sec rest in >between.
>Do as many as you can, which in the beginning probaly won`t be a >lot, 
and
>increase the number as you go along. You should be able to perform >at 
least
>10-12 intervals after a while of steady training.

I don't know about anyone else, but 10 - 12 sounds rather a lot to me.  
I personally think that if you hit them hard enough, you wouldn't want 
to do many more that 6 or 7.  I think I remember reading that Izumi 
Tabata recomends 6 to 8 very hard intervals.

If you can do more than that, I reckon you need to up the intensity (in 
this circumstance, speed or resistance) on each interval.

Ian

Top

-------------------- 10 --------------------

#10. Diet - from Ian Haines
Top
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:20:38 PDT
From: "Ian Haines" <ihaines@hotmail.com>
Subject: Diet

>Daryl Wilkinson:
>Mark,

>These are basic guidelines for diet...

>Water  - Drink enough so you have 5 clear urination's a day >(2 of
>which will be in the
>  evening.

Should one keep a record of this?  If one was to apply the
priciples of progressive overload, would this mean that I could get this 
figure down to 4, or maybe less, as my bladder gets stronger?

Your advice would be appreciated.

Ian

Top

-------------------- 11 --------------------

#11. Re: Training to failure - same concern - from Jim White
Top
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:04:15 -0400
From: Jim White <jimwhite@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Training to failure - same concern

> --------------------  5  --------------------
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:50:41 EDT
> From: "Steven Brener" <sbrener@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Training to failure - same concern
>
> >--------------------  3  --------------------
> >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
> >
>
> I feel the same way!  I wonder what the more experienced HIT-ers have to
> say about this...
>
> Steve


    Though I probably do NOT qualify as an experienced HIT-er, here is my "acid test" to find out if my "one set to failure" has been enough
(for me).  Lets say I do a set of incline dumbell presses, making sure my form is as perfect as possible and monitoring my tempo.  When I
have gone to positive failure, lets say I did 9 reps.  Then, I rest for 90 sec, then repeat the same procedure EXACTLY as before.  If I do
less reps (esp. 2 or more less) than I did before, I conclude that the first set was "enough" (again, for me).  It is given, here, that I am
working with a weight that I will fail lifting between 8-10 reps, and that all extraneous variables (nutrition, rest, nerves, etc) are
optimum for a weight lifting session.

Hope this helps.

--
James White
Center For Bioresource Development
Dept. of Psychology, George Mason University

Top

-------------------- 12 --------------------

#12. low frequency training - from vebjorn
Top
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:39:15 +0200
From: "vebjorn" <vebjorn@funcom.com>
Subject: low frequency training

okay..All that have had great results using HD2 consolidation routine raise your hands...

I hear about great results, but I`d like to hear it from other than Mr.Mentzer. For all I know,
he might just lie.

2 months ago, I weighted 65kg(in the morning, evenings at th gym were like 68kg) at heigth of 5"3"arms measured above 14,6" sometimes even 15"( I started with 11" 3 years ago..)
Well after a slight before the holidays diet to sharpen my abs, I went down to 60.5kg , lost I guess 3kg fat and 1.5 kg muscle, and and feeling really small, but atleast I was hard. My arms were now slighty less than 14"

After a few weeks after my vacation(where I also trained) I got weakerm even thoug I ate normally again, I could not gain back weight or strength. 
 I went to a doctor just in case...but all he could say was: I was overtrained! 
So I took 2,5 weeksoff.....my weigth has gone up to 61kg ,BUT arms down to 13.7" !!! I started the HD2 consolidation routine(I have tried the normal HD2 routine previous years, but it work that well.) I thought I`d give it a try..instead of my normal HIT routine.

Done my first HD cons. of squats and reversgrip pulldowns. on monday. 
Weigth up to 62 kg today(thursday), but arms down to 13.4"!!!!
My next workout is next monday :inclinebenches and deadlifts.

I want to ask if anybody who has tried this, experienced similar losses to begin with? Should I have the patience to go through a complete cycle to see if size comes slowly back with strengh gains  or just go back to normal training(which yielded no great results lately either)?

Anybody ever tried training this seldom? 

-The incredibly shrinking man!

Top

-------------------- 13 --------------------

#13. RE: HIT Digest #178 - from William Lucke
Top
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:33:17 -0400
From: "Jason Chatoor" <jakim@trinidad.net>
Subject: Work output

--------------------  3  --------------------
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



Actually, IF we define work done as a product of the force used and the
distance the force is translated through,
then the work doen by the lifter is nowhere near zero.

Take for example, for simplicity, a lifter benching 100kilos whose arms
extend a distance of 1 metre.

The force produced to lift the bar 1 metre will be 980Newtons (taking
acceleration due to gravity as 9.8 m/s^2 ).
The lifter will lower the weight under control, therefore he will produce a
further 1000N to lower it.
Total WORK done for 1 rep is 2000N, not zero...
You are correct however stating the POTENTIAL ENERGY change is zero...

Laters,
Jason.

Hmm. Allow me to draw a force diagram... oops, my pencil won't write on the
screen.
     First, the Newton (N) is a unit of force; the Joule (J) is the SI unit
of work, being equivalent to a force of one N exerted through a distance of
one meter.
     Yes, the work for the concentric portion of the rep is 980 J; however,
the work of the eccentric portion of the rep is -980 J.
     I will now elaborate. How do we measure displacement (the distance the
bar has moved)? In meters. Relative to what? The gym floor; the center of
the earth; something directly below us. Displacement away from this
reference (upward) is positive, toward it is negative. Likewise, force
directed away from this reference is positive, toward it is negative.
     When the lifter pushes the bar up, displacement and force are both
positive; hence, work done is also positive.

+force x +displacement = +work

     When the lifter lowers the bar, the force exerted by the lifter remains
positive, but the displacement is negative; work done by the lifter is also
negative.

+force x --displacement = --work

    However, the work done by gravity during the eccentric is positive.
Gravity is force downward; negative in this particular instance. Since the
displacement is also negative, work done is positive

--force x --displacement = +work

     Work done by the system (lifter and bar) that is negative is equivalent
to work done on the system (by something outside the system - the earth)
that is positive.
     Where am I going with all of this? Down the page.
    Since the concentric and eccentric portions of the movement represent
equal amounts of work by the lifter, but with opposite sign, their sum is
zero.
     If you sum in the manner you described all the work done by the lifter
during his workout, the result would still be zero. It is just easier to
think about it in terms of potential energy.

     Sum (bad pun) of the readers of the Digest may now be wondering "Huh?
How can work be negative? Less than zero?"
     As I said before, work is a change in energy. Negative work means that
energy has left the system under consideration (lifter and bar). Positive
work means that the system has increased its internal energy. (height of the
weight defines the potential energy of the system).
     However, I think that positive work done on the system is easier to
think about than negative work done by the system. Positive work done on the
system means that whatever does the positive work gains the energy that left
the system. Positive work done by the system means that the system increased
the energy within it.

     So, as I said in my post in Digest 178, the sum of the work done by the
lifter (concentrics) will be greater than zero, but the eccentrics can not
be included, as the work there is by gravity on the lifter, not by the
lifter.
     The change in energy of the weight room resulting from the lifter's
visit is still 0 however.

And now to AutoCAD
(You know, AutoCAD could be construed to mean
"Self-Computer-Assured-Destruction"  I think that meaning fits better.)


William H. Lucke IV
"We must away, ere break of day
To retrieve our long forgotten gold"     --J.R.R. Tolkien   from "The
Hobbit"

Top

-------------------- 14 --------------------

#14. Re: HIT Digest #175 - from JawDogs@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 09:01:20 EDT
From: JawDogs@aol.com
Subject: Re: HIT Digest #175

Dear Hitters,

For those of you who advocate plyometrics and believe that they are necessary
to create explosive athletes, are you seriously suggesting that if Mickey
Mantle or Willie Mays had known about plyometrics and tried it they would have
become even faster, hit the ball farther, and stuff like that?

If, in fact, plyometrics are so great how come the athletes that use them
today never seem to get any better? I don't see any records being broken
(though I do see toes and feet and other body parts broken) through the use of
plyometrics. 

Want to know what plometrics really are? Just another boredom buffer for
coaches who need something to administer to anxious athletes in order to keep
their sanity -- and their jobs. 

According to Doug McGuff MD, plyometrics do the exact opposit of what its
proponants think it does. It does not, in fact, condition the stretch reflex
response, it damages it. The blinking of the eyes is somewhat involuntary. Any
one with contacts knows that it takes a while to retrain the blink reflex when
putting contacts in. After a while, it becomes very easy and you no longer
blink when putting contacts in. The repeated act of sticking your finger in
your eyes detrains the blink reflex. The same thing happens when plyometrics
are performed. The constant voluntary abuse of the involuntary reflex system
(which is set up to be involuntary for a very good reason) is dulled and
detrained setting an athlete up for more injury. When that reflex is needed it
may not come. For more technical info on this call Dr. McGuff at Ultimate
Exercise (864) 886-0200. 

In short, no one needs plyometrics to be a good athlete. Babe Ruth would have
laughed Donald Chu all the way back to Chu-land.

More to come.

Sincerely,

Fred Hahn

Top