-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Spinal Compression - from Robert Graup
Top
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 12:08:25 -0700 From: Robert_Graup@mail.gmosf.com (Robert Graup) Subject: Re: Spinal Compression Per the "Spinal Compression" post, I'm not sure how much force is placed during the 300 lb squat, but there's a great article in the August issue of Smithsonian about the work being done at the Vermont Back Research Center at the UofV. Martin Krag, the center's director has a great quote about force that may give you an idea, "Bend over to lift a pail of water -- the compressive force between your two bottom vertebrae is nearly a ton!...With that ton of force, if your brain screws up just a little and you contract your back muscles in the wrong sequence, you start snapping cables." If Frank Hatfield Jr doesn't respond to your post, you might want to try him or Sr at drsquat@drsquat.com. Or look for articles at their web sight: http://www.drsquat.com/ [Uh...unless there's yet another F. Hatfield I don't know about, I believe you are referring to FRED. --Rob] Good luck. Homer: "Ahh, $20 I wanted a peanut." Homer's Mind: "$20 can buy many peanuts." Homer: "Explain how?" Homer's Mind: "Money can be exchanged for goods and services." Homer: "Wohoo."
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2.- from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 16:30:53 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: <yawn> [No yawning on the digest, Lyle. You lose a point. --Rob] >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? They might have, they might have not. How does bringing up dead athletes prove anything? >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. Or maybe it's because athletes right now are SO close to the human limits of performance that no current training modalities can take them beyond that barrier. No human will ever run a 1 second 100 meter sprint either even if they do plyometrics, more proof that plyometrics don't work. Can you say 'spurious logic'? And can I ever expect an answer to MY question about how training a compound movement to failue causes growth in the muscules that DID not fail? Lyle McDonald, CSCS The three steps of scientific research: 1. test in vitro (test tube) 2. test in Beavis 3. test in vivo (in a human body, Beavis isn't human)
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. RE: HIT Digest # 179 - from John Frank
Top
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 19:19:01 -0500 From: "John Frank" <frank416@Megsinet.net> Subject: RE: HIT Digest # 179 >-------------------- 1 -------------------- >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. Casey, I experience the same thing. I can do my first set of any exercise, rest a moderate amount of time, and I end up pounding out 3 (sometimes 4) reps less on my second set. I have always been a good sprinter, but I run the 5K in 5 days. I don't know if that qualifies me as being "wired right" or a fast twitch muscle person or not, but I see the same problems you do. Maybe someone could shed some light on our dilemma. John Frank Frank416@megsinet.net
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. stock market/lifting - from Daniel Yourg
Top
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:27:48 -0700 From: Daniel Yourg <yourgd@is.acusd.edu> Subject: stock market/lifting >Here's my suggestion for debate topic for next digest: should you be getting in the stock market now or not. And somehow relate this >to strength training. I took a poll on this with a sample of 50 lifters. The question was "Should one now enter the stock market or not?" Of these 50 lifters, 10 trained superslow, 10 trained explosively and incorporated plyometrics, and the rest trained with a "typical" HIT program. 100% of the superslow style lifters thought that one should not enter the stock market at this time. 80% of these also commented that one should never enter the stock market. Half of these also do not invest in any formal banking at all. 100% of the explosive lifters thought this was the absolute best time to enter the stock market. One of them was going to sell his home to try to obtain more investment cash. Of the 30 "typical" HIT lifters, five did not know what the stock market was but had heard of it. Another five used to invest in the stock market, but do not anymore. And the remaining 20 wanted to see more research. Dan [Dan gets a point for this. You would have received two points if you had pointed out the obvious thing that SS lifter would say: "Well, timing is everything". Hah, I kill me. --Rob]
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Ma Huang and the liver. - from Daries Ng
Top
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 16:01:58 +0800 From: "Daries Ng" <dilife@pacific.net.sg> Subject: Ma Huang and the liver. My training partner just went for a blood test. In it , he was tested for blood cholesterol, glucose and liver function... His results came back astounding...He was well below the average for both cholesterol and glucose..BUT! when it came down to the liver..on a scale of 1-40 for AST and ALT He got a 49 for both! Now I don't know what these numbers mean, nor do I begin to assume, but according to his doctor, these things are affected by certain supplements and the first thing he asked was if my friend was taking Mahuang or ephedrine. Obviously my friend was! I am also on an ECA stack and I don't want to screw up my liver. My concern was what do those numbers mean and what do they stand for. The Doc also said that it may also be mildly affected by creatine. Do I have to stop both these supplements? Any suggestions? Thanks, Daries <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=2>My training partner just went for a blood test.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>In it , he was tested for blood cholesterol, glucose and liver function...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>His results came back astounding...He was well below the average for both cholesterol and glucose..BUT! when it came down to the liver..on a scale of 1-40 for AST and ALT</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>He got a 49 for both!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Now I don't know what these numbers mean, nor do I begin to assume, but according to his doctor, these things are affected by certain supplements and the first thing he asked was if my friend was taking Mahuang or ephedrine.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Obviously my friend was! I am also on an ECA stack and I don't want to screw up my liver. My concern was what do those numbers mean and what do they stand for. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>The Doc also said that it may also be mildly affected by creatine. Do I have to stop both these supplements? Any suggestions?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Thanks, </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Daries</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: HIT Digest #180 - from Kate0u812@aol.com
Top
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 06:21:02 EDT From: Kate0u812@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #180 In a message dated 98-08-07 22:37:28 EDT, you write: << The most difficult thing to overcome is the idea that only 1 set is enough. I've been fighting this for months but now it's a pleasure to be in the gym briefly and know that I'm getting more out of my workouts. That 1 set per bodypart feels even better than the 3-4 sets I used to do. Why not approach each workout thinking that you will only perform 1 set per bodypart. If you can successfully get to this point then you won't even worry about doing a 2nd set, you will give it all you can...satisfaction will come after only 1. >> I also suffer from the, "Is one set truly, absolutely all I need" genre. After 12 years of doing multiple sets it is a whole new ballgame to focus on only one complete set. I have been to Mike Mentzer's web-site, as well as Cyberpump, and Hardgainer's. So off I went on a new program for 4 months. I have gained 4 lbs. For a woman who has been stuck at 136 lbs. for 12 years, I am completely amazed! Last week though, the "old" way of thinking crept back in...what if I did 2 sets to failure..bla, bla, bla....Well, I tried it...was completely exhausted sore, and experienced a great deal of joint pain...duh... I have come to a conclusion...I cannot justify, in my own mind, going for more than one complete set to failure.. If I have failed how can I then pick up the weights to go, "for one more". It is not reasonable, and it means I am not applying the knowledge that I have searched for so diligently. Thanks for the soap box. Kate
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: HIT Digest #180 - from Duane Manuel
Top
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 18:13:23 +1000 From: Duane Manuel <dmanuel@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #180 >-------------------- 8 -------------------- >Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 12:42:09 -0700 >From: "Richard Eastwood" <rpeast@globalnet.co.uk> >Subject: Arthurs Arm Routine From Hell > >Anybody been mad enough to give this a real go? And if so, have you got any >results worth shouting about? I didn't have much sucess on it too be honest, >certainly never added an inch to my arms :( but I'd like to hear from those >of you who did. I did try it out a couple of times a long time ago. It was extremely hard and didn't produce any results. I've had a lot more success with 21s bicep curls followed by a set of negative chin-ups (That would make them chin-downs....), and 21s tricep press followed by a set of negative dips. Currently I don't do an extra set of negatives, I just do 1 long slow negative on the exercise once I reach failure. And one top ingredient is to combine some serious leg training into the arm specialisation routine. This causes an indirect growth effect that adds to the arm's growth....if all goes well. Duane EMAIL: dmanuel@ozemail.com.au WEB: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~dmanuel "Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious!" - FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: HIT Digest #180 - motor skill transfer - from Proudhon
Top
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 14:39:29 +0200 From: "Proudhon" <Jean-Pierre.Proudhon@wanadoo.fr> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #180 - motor skill transfer Dear fellows strength, First, I am a french guy and I have sometimes some difficulties to explain what I think in particular in an other language. However, I hope you will understand what I say bellow. My problem is that I don't understand the notion of motor skill transfer : lot of guys say that there is no transfer of motor skill from one activity to an other activity. And explain with this "rule", that it is useless to do powercleans or mimic mouvements with weight in order to become more efficient in your explosive sport. But : #1 When I did karate, in order to improve my circular kick, I did kicks with weigths (5 pounds) on my ankles. And when I removed them, my kick was quicker and more powerful. Moreover, I used to run 5000 metters 4 times a week, but my performances stagnated (about 20 minutes). After I ran this distance with weigths, I ran the same distance few days after and my performance was better (below 20 min). In other respects, in order to improve my punches I did my bench press explosively and I felt that they became better. Now, I am not very sure that if I have done my bench press with SuperSlow protocol I would have got this improvement. #2 I always hear that in order to improve your skill in one thing, you must do this thing. So why powerlifter don't do ONLY maxis ? And why they do assistant exercises whereas it will be better (according to motor skill transfer rule) to simply do more bench, squat and deadlift ? And, if I assume that they don't do more bench, squat and deadlift to avoid overtraining and injuries in lower back and shoulders, why do they do assistant exercises because if there is not skill transfer, it is simply useless ? Could you explain to me what is the problem with my reasoning ? Why each time I use an example this rule don't work ? Note : I now do only body-building because I lost pleasure to fight with others few years ago and I stopped jogging for I felt more and more often pains in my right plantar arch and in my knees. I use SuperSlow protocol for my twice a week training. Sportingly, Fabrice.
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. APFA article - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 12:37:38 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: APFA article >Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 17:25:22 -0400 >From: "Deaton, Eric" <eric.deaton@lmco.com> >Subject: Response to criticism of HIT/SuperSlow > >Hey, you guys! > >Listen up! Here we have an "fitness expert" saying that HIT and SuperSlow >were not fit protocols for beginning weight lifters. For this individual, I >offer the following empirical data. I have no scientific information to >back this up, I will leave that to Andrew Baye and Lyle McDonald and others >who possess more knowledge than I. However, I would like to disclose what I >have seen with my own eyes. I have a feeling that the person who wrote this article is equating HIT/SS training with maximal failure, inroading, etc. from the first day of the workout. I would agree that that is unnecessary, and potentially damaging for a potential beginning trainee *regardless of training* style. But I also recall Andrew (?) mentioning that he spends the first several workouts not training to true failure, working only on movement speed, breathing, etc, and raising the intensity gradually over that time period. I think that's the best way to go about it no matter how you're training someone. Bringing someone into the gym/studio on day 1 and beating up on them (by taking them to failure and beyond) is a good way to not only ensure that they don't come back but possibly hurt them. Rather than wrongly criticising HIT/SS, this article should have made the point tha beginning weight trainers need a period where they are eased into a routine and trained submaximally before being beaten on. Lyle McDonald, CSCS The three steps of scientific research: 1. test in vitro (test tube) 2. test in Beavis 3. test in vivo (in a human body, Beavis isn't human)
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Training to failure - from heavyduty
Top
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 09:18:59 +0930 From: "heavyduty" <KJDye@newave.net.au> Subject: Training to failure Having had the pleasure of training numerous people over the past 21 years I can say that if they give their all [and that's the important factor] then they never had any doubts whether the 'wanted' to repeat the effort. In my own workouts, being obviously advanced enough to generate some mean intensity, I could think of nothing I would enjoy less than to attempt to repeat something remotely close to the effort I just put forth. After one honest set to failure, [with 100% effort] why would anyone want another? Here's my opinion. Us bodybuilders are a funny breed, in that most of us have a more mentality. That is we want more size, more weights on the bar, more food, more money [oops, I think that applies to the non trainees as well, so maybe I skip that one], more sets, and for some of use, we want more roids. So while aiming for most of these goals may not be a bad thing, when it comes to more work the rational needs attention! Fear is the common denominator with those trainees who believe that one set is inadequate. It's usually fear that they might, just might, get that little bit more growth if they completed another set. But do they? Consider this. Say in fact that there we did reap something additional, but it took 100% extra effort for the miniscule benefit, spelling additional recuperative energy that was wasted on the second attempt that wasn't just needless, but could have sped up the recuperation process. Had trainees been honest and gave their all to just one set then I doubt that much was missed, if anything at all. This urge to do another set seems to come from isolation exercises, as rarely have I heard of anyone requesting extra squats or deadlifts where one set properly executed feels like you done something to your whole body on the level of self torture!!! Fear is the culprit, fear that that set wasn't enough to trigger the growth process. But fear is a mental process that stems from uncertainty of effort. I have no fear, as I have no doubt that the set I just finished destroyed the intended musculature, as well as depleted my whole system. How do I know, well after just three total sets per workout, [I was dying from four previously] sleep is the only thing on my mind, not additional effort! In all my years being around trainees I can honestly say that I have never seen a bodybuilder undertrain. Naturally I have seem hundreds overtrain, one I remember every single night in fact for about a month, and despite being naturally ruggedly built, and with nothing to show for his efforts, he disappeared off the face of the earth probably never to step inside a gym again. Here was a guy with better genetics than Mr. Average and even he didn't last past a hand full of weeks, and you should of seen and heard his dedication, he made the gym his life outside work due to a failed relationship. So what's the point of all this? Just that be honest with yourself fellow trainees, honest with your efforts through your set, as well as afterwards. Because if you are always thinking more, more, then it's not additional sets you really require it's mental confirmation that you've completed the job, achieved your purpose, time to move on! Kevin
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. How should one define muscular strength? - from PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com
Top
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:11:42 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com Subject: How should one define muscular strength? How do we know when we are getting stronger? What is the most valid way for one to measure strength? Is the pursuit of one's genetic limits for maximal strength a noble cause? I would appreciate feedback from as many as possible. Please contact me at prsnlftnss@aol.com or via the HIT Digest. Sincerely, Pete LaChance
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Physiological effects of SuperSlow training - from Rich & Jessica Sudusky
Top
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 11:14:21 -0400 From: "Rich & Jessica Sudusky" <rjsudusky@snet.net> Subject: Physiological effects of SuperSlow training This is a question for any SuperSlow experts out there. I've dabbled a bit with SuperSlow training, and it seems to me that it stresses your muscles (and your entire body) in a very different way than normal speed reps. For example, it seems to generate more lactic acid buildup and tax the cardiovascular system more strongly. Does anyone have a more precise explanation of the different effects on your body of slow vs. normal speed training and the different results you could expect (i.e. does slow training increase endurance more, does regular speed develop more power, which rep speed is better for muscle size, etc.) I'm not interested in a "my method is better" war, just what are the differences. Thanks, Rich Sudusky
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. calorie requirement formulas - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 12:37:47 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: calorie requirement formulas >Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 21:18:11 -0400 >From: Christopher Heer <cdheer@engmail.uwaterloo.ca> >Subject: Calorie Requirement Formulas > >Does anyone have a calorie requirement formula or estimate based on lean >mass and fat mass (with possible inclusion of height)? I'll go you one better and include age. But if youcompare this to just using 10-11 cal/lb of total bodyweight, you'll see that there isn't a huge amout of difference. Men: Resting metabolic rate = 66 + (13.8 * bodyweight) + (5* height) - (6.8 * age) Women: Resting metabolic rate = 655 + (9.5 * bodyweight) + (1.9 * height) - (4.7 * age) Bodyweight is in kilograms, height in centimeters, age in years I am male, 28 years old, 5'7", and weigh 195 lbs 5'7" = 67 inches / 0.39 = 171 centimeters 195 lbs / 2.2 = 88 kg RMR = 66 + (13.8 * 88) + (5*171) - 6.8 (28) RMR = 1944 Or if I had just multiplied bodyweight by 10-11 I would have gotten: 1950 - 2145 don't forget that this is the amount of calories needed if you lied in bed all day. For even basic activity, increase by 30%. >It seems as this would be a better estimate than just using weight since >muscle has considerably higher energy demands than fat. Although it should, in all of the equation I have it rarely makes more than a few hundred calorie/day difference. If someone were carrying an excessive amount of bodyfat, it makes more of a difference. But the difference in metabolic rate (using lean body mass) between someone who is 150 lbs, 10% bodyfat and 150 lbs, 30% bodyfat is only about 300 cal/day. Couple that with the difficulty in determining true lean body mass, and that's why I use total bodyweight in all of my articles/posts. Lyle McDonald, CSCS The three steps of scientific research: 1. test in vitro (test tube) 2. test in Beavis 3. test in vivo (in a human body, Beavis isn't human)
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. unfinished business of Mr. Hahn - from Juan Castro
Top
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 16:41:08 PDT From: "Juan Castro" <castrojuan@hotmail.com> Subject: unfinished business of Mr. Hahn Mr. Hahn: You have established quite a pattern. You come onto this list, state your opinions, but when questioned or challenged you do one of these: 1) answer a different question 2) insult the questioner or the list in general 3) disappear. One other gentleman suggested to me that you are just trolling. If so I guess this is all quite rewarding for you. If you are not trolling, then how about breaking the pattern? If you don’t break the pattern, I guess we can all then know that you are just trolling and not fall for it anymore. You have made quite a point of commenting on the logic and honesty of others. But you have a few pieces of unfinished business yourself, why don’t you hold yourself to the standards you seem to have for everybody else and finish these? In HIT Digest #102 you wrote: “As for VMO/VL rebalancing, muscles do not go out of balance. They are not like car tires that need rotating every hundred miles or so. Muscles either get weaker or stronger, period. You cannot selectively train one or the other more than the other. This balance the muscles stuff is totally erroneous. Either you present the entire quadriceps muscle with a full contraction or you don't. If we do not present a stimulus to the entire quadriceps muscle (as in squats or leg presses) than the entire quadricpes muscle will not fully strengthen. It's not that most people have recruitment problems of VMO in squats in leg presses, ALL people do. In the last 20-0 degrees in these exercises the leg bones almost completely lock thus unloading the muscles and placing the resistance over the infinite lever of the straightened femur and tibia/fibula bones. That is why walking can be performed for hours and hours on end until your feet blister. Walking requires very, very little muscular work. That is why walking isn't productive exercise. It provides nothing in the way of a positive stimulation to the muscular structures. If one walks for puposes of meaningful and productive exercise, they are wasting their time. If one wants full quadriceps strengthing one must perform knee extensions.” When you were asked to explain the above contradiction, you wrote: “Heck, I don_t know. Squats build quad strength. So do leg extensions. _Nuff said.” In response, Mr. McDonald, in #122, wrote: “That wasn't the entire issue though. The issue originally had to do with my use of terminal leg extensions to preferentially strengthen the Vastus medalias over the vastus lateralis to correct patellar mistracking. You countered that the idea of preferential recruitment was a myth and that strengthening the quads was strengthening the quads. Then you said that leg extensions were necessary for full strengthening of the quads. You can't have it both ways. Basically I interpret your various comments as saying: 1. Terminal leg extensions do NOT preferentially train VM vs. VL. And please note that I am in no way suggesting that you can recruit VM without also recruiting the VL, only that you can put preferential stress on VM with this movemetn compared with something like a squat. 2. Squats and leg extensions both strengthen the quads so it's moot which one you do 3. Leg extensions are necessary for 'full strengthening' of the quads How can #3 hold true if #2 holds true? Either leg extensions are or are not necessary for strengthening the quads so which is it?” Yes Mr. Hahn, which is it? Can part of the quads be strengthened more than another part, or do all exercises spread the load over the entire quad the same way? Either you are wrong about the selective training or you are wrong about the need for leg extensions. Which is it? In HIT Digest #104 you wrote: “As far as neuro adaptations are concerned, in my article in Hardgainer I stated that it takes “...several sessions...” to adapt neurologically. In my HIT post I said a few. A few, several -- you are right to point this out. I should be more specific. But I hardly call this a contradiction. If you are training properly (I don’t want to get into proper training now) my experience indicates that after 3-5 sessions you’ve mastered the exercise neurologically.” And in HIT Digest #106 I wrote (after having tried repeatedly with different phrasings on the question): “Then why did you argue that it was such a terrible thing in Hardgainer? 3-5 sessions is not many.” So which is it, Mr. Hahn? Did you argue it was a terrible thing in Hardgainer just to try to score points, or is taking 3-5 sessions to adapt to a different exercise a terrible thing? If it is a terrible thing, why? Now on this one you kept answering a different question than you were asked. It all started back in HIT Digest #103 when I asked: “In your analogy you are saying that relative and absolute amounts are two different things. You also imply that the absolute amount is the one to note. Yet in your aerobics article in The Master Trainer, you argued that sleeping is more aerobic than running. I can see that the *relative* amount of aerobic system vs anaerobic is greater for sleeping, but the absolute usage of both must be higher for running. Why don't you consider the absolute amount more important in this case?” In HIT Digest #121 you wrote: “As for stressing the aerobic system, running does not use a higher percentage of the aerobic system than sleeping. Sleeping is almost completely aerobic(percentage wise) compared to anything else except for maybe a coma.” In HIT Digest #124 I wrote: “I'll try this once more. I understand that sleeping uses the aerobic system for nearly all the energy sleep uses. I understand that running uses anaerobic for some of its energy, and thus for running, the fraction of the total energy coming from aerobic systems is less than that same fraction is for sleeping. To make sure this is clear, let's put it in math terms. Eo=aerobic energy usage, Ea=anaerobic energy usage, the subscript s stand for sleeping and the subscript r stands for running. (Eo/Eo+Ea)s > (Eo/Eo+Ea)r OK? I was never questioning this. This makes sense. But doesn't running use more aerobic energy than sleeping? Not as a percentage of total energy usage, but absolute amount? And hence, a higher percentage of the aerobic energy that could be used? If running *didn't* use more aerobic energy than sleeping, then running would be almost entirely anaerobic, and my understanding is we wouldn't be able to do it for very long, right? Remember, my original question was why in the comparison of running versus sleeping you thought percentage was more important than absolute numbers. This was after you made a point of showing how absolute numbers were more important than percentages or density of some part of a cell. So I ask you again why you think percentages are more important in this case than are absolute numbers.” I can only think of one more way to try to explain this. If when sleeping we use only X joules of energy from our aerobic system, then when we run we must use *more than* X joules of energy from our aerobic system. That means that we would be using a higher percentage of the available aerobic energy when running. Running must use a higher absolute amount of energy from the aerobic system than sleeping, and it must use a higher percentage of the capacity of the aerobic system than does sleeping. So why are you arguing that the ratio of energy from the aerobic system to the total energy (aerobic plus anaerobic) is more important here? It seems to me that the absolute numbers here would tell us more about the demands on the aerobic energy system than the ratio. Why is it that when discussing mitochondria density (I looked it up, it has to do with energy production in a cell) absolute numbers are more important, but here the ratio is more important? Did you pick the terms to try to score points, or is there a real reason you can give us why the ratio is more important here? Which is it, Mr. Hahn? In HIT Digest #104 you wrote: “Question: How much more massive is an 18 inch biceps than a 16 inch biceps? Answer: Roughly 400% (not times) more massive.” In HIT Digest #106 I asked how you got that number. In HIT Digest #121 you replied: “The 15inch/18 inch biceps analogy was determined by a friend if mine. (He did say approximately 400% by the by.) Remember, when a biceps is larger in diameter it is also larger in length and in cross sectional area.” And in HIT Digest #124 I wrote: “Well you might bear these numbers in mind. If the arm is considered round, an 18" arm would have a diameter of 5.73", a 16" arm would have a diameter of 4.77", and for the 18" arm to have 3 times as much muscle as the 16" arm, the bone inside each would have to be 4.22" in diameter. Does anybody reading this digest have a 16" arm and biceps and triceps muscles only 1/4" thick? I don't have a 16" arm :-( but I can feel that my muscles are bigger than that.” In HIT Digest #122 Erkki Turunen also showed how your numbers didn’t make sense. Mr. Hahn, was what you wrote obviously wrong, or can you show us how it is right?