-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. HIT and beginners - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date:Sun, 9 Aug 1998 23:39:25 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: HIT and beginners Lyle was correct. Unless I am working with someone who has been performing HIT for a significant period of time, I do not train new clients to failure until after a few weeks of practicing form and safety considerations. Once the client has become proficient in the performance of the movement and has gained some confidence in their ability, and once I am positive that a particular exercise will not irritate any physical problems they may have, I will gradually increase the resistance from workout to workout until theybegin to achieve failure within 4 to 8 reps. Nobody goes all out unless both they and I are positive that they are both mentally and physically prepared for it, and exactly how "all out" is defined depends on the individual. HIT and particularly SS are completely safe for beginners, so long as they are properly introduced. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Rich Sudusky's SS Question - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 23:45:00 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Rich Sudusky's SS Question Rich, While SS certainly does have a significant effect on cardiovascular and "metabolic" conditioning, the specific details are beyond the scope of a post in the digest. For an in depth explanation I recommend reading either SuperSlow: The Ultimate Exercise Protocol, by Ken Hutchins or Doug McGuff, M.D.'s book on the subject when it comes out. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Lactic Acid buildup - from Brant Pethick
Top
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:52:48 -0400 From: Brant Pethick <bpethick@sagus-security.com> Subject: Lactic Acid buildup Being an advocate of HIT, I recently informed my gym instructor of the fact that I was doing 20 rep squats and some very intense work and time on other muscle groups. He immediately informed me of the "major lactic acid buildup" that I must have been experiencing. He indicated that after 15 seconds the build up can become extreme and impede your weightlifting performance since the muscle would become soaked in acid. I don't recall reading any info on lactic acid and it's effects during lifting related to inroad/time...but I'm curious to know: 1) For 20 rep squats, Yes the burn is there, is this actually impeding my performance? I don't know if he was stating a point or indicating that it may be wrong to experience such a build-up of lactic acid. Either way, it's great satisfaction to feel the burn all the way until muscle failure. Anyone have thoughts on this?....Thanks Brant Pethick
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Digest Form Hard To Follow - from Hank Kearns
Top
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:04:11 -0400 From: Hank Kearns <hgkearns@bellatlantic.net> Subject: Digest Form Hard To Follow Is there anyway these postings could be sent in a non-digest form? The HIT LIST is outstanding, but IMHO, a non-digest form would be easier to follow. Hank [Actually, while it may be technically possible to send out the digest inlist form, it would take a lot more work. Plus, the moderator's life is such that the posts will be held until there are a sufficient number to send out anyway, which would defeat the purpose of having the digest in list form. Add to that that I'm thenew kid on the block, and I'm not going to mess with Rob or the powers that be here on Cyberpump (I mean, you should SEE these people -- they must lift weights or something:-)).]
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. RE: HIT Digest #179 - from William Lucke
Top
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:47:50 -0400 From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu> Subject: RE: HIT Digest #179 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 2sets >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; asin 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 themetabolic work during the set. Lyle McDonald, CSCS 'Fnord' *** Equating the two (metabolic and mechanical work) in my mind is to define an arithmetic relation between them. A non-arithmetic relationship between the two (to which my use of the word relationship referred) may be something as basic and difficult to quantify as "when you workout, your metabolic workis nonzero, your total work is nonzero, and your net work is zero." However,there is a relationship. Everything in the universe is related. The universe is a unit, just like the body. We can study different aspects of the universe just as we can study different aspects of the body. Before we pursue this discussion further, let us define this nebulous concept called "metabolic work". To me, the term "metabolic work" means chemical energy released within the body, not necessarily TUL, not necessarily exertion of the muscles. I do not have an in depth knowledge of muscle physiology, however, it is obvious to anyone that the body exerts itself during an isometric contraction (if it didn't, we would never fatigue in an isometric... thatwould be very cool, but, alas, it is not so). Perhaps Lyle could dazzle us with a description of how this occurs? *** 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: <snip> 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). <snip> 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 toa complex system of joints, levers, and organs without regard to the internal structure. Sorry about the diatribe, John Pearson *** Please diatribe! I am interested in all view points and will listen to all arguments. Yes, you are correct that the definition of net work as a change in potential energy is proper only for a conservative force, and that friction is non-conservative, and that there is friction within the body... and that the logic of my joke is dubious. But then... isn't that the premise of the joke? Coming to a counter-intuitive conclusion through the use of logic? The thing is, witha good joke of this kind, the flaw of the logic is not readily obvious. Someone finally figured out why this is wrong, instead of just saying that it is. Let's have another look at this. Let's say intramuscular friction causes ~ 17% change in muscular force (based on the 100/120/140 rule of thumb, taking the isometric as true strength). Load: 980 N (100 kg mass) Displacement: 1 m No Friction: Work ~ 980 N * 1 m Work ~ 980 J (concentric and eccentric) With Friction: Concentric: Work ~ (980 N + 0.17*980 N)*(+1 m) Work ~ 1145 J Eccentric: Work ~ (980 N - 0.17*980 N)*(-1 m) Work ~ - 815 J During the concentric, displacement is positive, frictional force isnegative, gravitational force is negative, muscular force is positive (using the coordinate system I defined in my last post on this topic). Muscular work is positive, frictional and gravitational work are negative. Muscular: +1145 Gravitational: -980 Frictional: -165 During the eccentric, displacement is negative, frictional force is positive (always of sign opposite that of displacement), gravitational force is negative, and muscular force is positive. Muscular: -815 Gravitational: +980 Frictional: -165 The sum of the muscular work in concentric and eccentric is 330 J. The sum of the frictional work in concentric and eccentric is -330 J. The entirety of the lifter's net work is against friction. Weightlifting is counter-productive: after all, you're just working against yourself. [Hey, watch it with the metric stuff. Rob II is from the good 'ole US ofA, and we don't stand for none of that forrin' measurement stuff (unless it comes from England, in which case we embrace it!)] As to HIT being low force; that claim is imprecise at best. Low *excess* force would be a better way to put it. After all, isn'tforce generation the name of the game? Low force exercise is a large crock. [This last comment is on the borderline, but since I'm new, I'll let it go.] I'll stir the pot again soon William H. Lucke IV
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Real research and popular myth - from Kirk, Malcolm
Top
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:33:41 -0600 From: "Kirk, Malcolm" <mskirk@uswest.com> Subject: Real research and popular myth Hey gang, I am frequently amazed at what is continually published in muscle wrags (including this digest), verses what I hear from my brother-in-law. He is one of the nations top heart disease researchers, and is extremely knowledgable in all the latest info related to muscle and exercise (even reviews research proposals nationwide, including for NASA). Lucky me. Though I haven't quized him in detail on various strength training research (I'll let you if there's anything uniquely new to ad), it is clear from our recent conversations that HIT and SS are necessarily always the only and best way to train (depending on your goals). Sincerely, Malcolm Kirk P.S. Evidently everyone can stop blaiming lactic acid for muscle tiredness and the like. Athletes with lactic acid injected into their muscles were able to perform just as well as when not first injected.....and that research was evidently done YEARS ago.
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. RE: HIT Digest #181 - from William Lucke
Top
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:02:25 -0400 From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu> Subject: RE: HIT Digest #181 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 willunderstand 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 todo 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 aweek, 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 oftenpains in my right plantar arch and in my knees. I use SuperSlow protocol for my twice a week training. Sportingly, Fabrice. *** Hmm. Motor Learning. I am not as well versed as some, but I will do my best. Would one of the knowledgeable elite please correct me if I am wrong? When you perform an activity (Hmm... typing for example), the brain is sending a certain pattern of impulses to the muscles. If you perform thisactivity enough, the brain gets very good at sending that particular set of signals. You could say that the brain writes itself a macro (like in MS Excel). Instead of sending out a lot of individual commands as it would the first time you ever performed an action, the brain sends a single commandor a very brief set of commands and the patterns that you have learned for that action take over from there. For instance, when I type "instance", my brain no longer has to sendthe commands "1. lift middle finger 2. move middle finger up one key's width 3. depress middle finger"; rather, my brain just issues the command"i" and the pattern required to hit the "i" key is initiated. That is motor learning as I understand it. In your examples, however, motor learning is not all that is at work. In your examples (kick, 5000m, powerlifting) you are overlooking the strength component involved. As you do your circular kick, your brain develops a motor pattern for that action. When you wear ankle weights, that motor pattern no longer describes the action as well. Your muscles must contract harder to accelerate the additional mass to the same speed in the same time as the unweighted kick. Repeating the kick with weights alters the motor patternfor the kick; when you remove the weights, you retain your altered motor pattern, at least for a while. Until your motor pattern adapts again, your muscles will naturally contract harder at the beginning of the movement and make your kick quicker than it was before you used the weights. That is called positive skill transfer. That's the motor learning component. Now for the strength component: when your muscles are forced to contract harder than normal, as they would be with a weighted kick, they will become fatigued more quickly; you probably felt this. Being more fatigued by the same effort will foster an increase of strength in the muscles involved, which will also serve to make your kick faster and morepowerful without the weights. Now for the dubious motor learning component: your leg being harder to accelerate alters your motor pattern in more subtle ways as well. In the middle and near the end of the kick, your muscles will become accustomed to aiming and directing your leg in addition to the extra mass. When the extra mass is removed, the leg is easier to aim and direct, but your muscles are still putting the same effort into directing it as they were when it was weighted, resulting in a tendency to overcompensate for initial inaccuracies, which in turn results in an overall loss of precision, though that may be much less noticeable than the increase in speed and force. Did you notice a short term loss of precision along with your increase in speed? The loss of precision is called negative skill transfer. Now for the dubious strength component: while working with ankle weights is a quick and easy way to alter your motor pattern, it is a questionable practice from a biomechanical standpoint. The extra weight on your ankle subjects your knees, ankles, and possibly even your hips to unnatural forces, i.e. hyperextension forces and side torques, greatly increasing the possibility of injury from the action. The danger is not as great with the crescent kick as it is with others: try a practicing a fierce front snap kick with ankle weights... well actually don't, but just thinkabout the hyperextensive force that your knee would experience from such an action. There are safer, more efficient ways to increase the strength of themuscles involved than to strap weights to yourself and initiate sudden movements. Your running 5000 m better after you ran it with weights is probablydue to both a strength increase and a recovery from a state of overtraining. You ran it 4 times a week and stagnated, then altered your routine and took a layoff... and improved your performance. Most HITers would probably saythat you were overtraining when your were running 4 times a week. However, running with weights subjects your joints to some of the same hyperextensive forces that doing kicks with weights would, in addition tohigher impact forces. I am sure Andrew Baye can diatribe for you about high impact forces if you ask him politely. You are right about powerlifting having a large skill component, butit also has an at least equally large strength component. Squat, Bench and Deadlift increase the strength of the involved muscles as well as increasing the lifter's skill in the movement. While doing max weights may help develop the skill of the lift, it does not develop the strength of the involved muscles as quickly as higher reps with lighter weights, combined with assistance exercises. I am not a powerlifter and do not know as much as some, but it is myunderstanding that in the weeks prior to a contest, a powerlifter will gradually drop assistance exercises in favor of extremely low rep/high weight work with only Squat, Bench, and Deadlift. I hope this helped your understanding of the concept. If not, well, hmm... I don't know... Wordier than The Man We Call Rob William H. Lucke IV
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. RE: HIT Digest #180 - from John Parry-McCulloch
Top
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:26:19 +0100 From: John Parry-McCulloch <John.Parry-McCulloch@liffe.com> Subject: RE: HIT Digest #180 I have just read Andrew Baye's most recent POst Workout Delirium Induced Ramblings. Number 11 I think. Anyway, it contained some criticisms of conventional martial arts training, saying that by practising 'pulling' a punch, you are not effectively learning how to punch properly. This is true; however, you have to balance this against the shock to the elbow caused by the arm coming to a sudden stop with the joint as a brake. Fair enough. However, Andrew goes on to describe how himself and a friend used to practice fighting by beating the living daylights out of each other for 45 minutes at a time. Now I'm not saying that the idea of beating some of my colleagues about the head doesn't appeal to me - But... Fighting does not necessarily include beating. I am only 5'5'' and I don't have the reach to hit anyone particularly well and my small and prety weak hands make it dangerous for me. Nevertheless, I am a jui-jitsu instructor and used to work as a bouncer. I always found the best way to fight was to grapple; hell, most fights end up on the floor anyway if they aren't over in the first couple of blows. Personally, as soon as someone moved against me I'd be inside their reach using my HIT developed strength (heheheheh) to tie them up in knots and stick fingers, elbows knees and stuff into soft, squidgy, vulnerable places. My point is this: by grappling you can fight extremely realistically yet still have only a small chance of actually damaging your partner. Of couse, it is always a risk - so is weight training - but it is a risk that can be reduced by doing things safely. In any event, look at it as an insurance policy against being severly hurt by some scumbag: a small risk now (in the dojo) in payment for protection against a larger risk later (in the street). Jon
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: HIT Digest #181 - from William Johndrew
Top
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:33:57 EDT From: William Johndrew <wjohndre@bidmc.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: HIT Digest #181 Howdy, As an RN for the past few years, I thought that I'd make my first posthere with some info re: ALT & AST values - what they mean, etc. ALT - necessary for tissue energy production (produced by the liver), ALTis one of two enzymes that catalyze a reversible amino group transfer reaction in the Kreb's Cycle. It provides a relatively specific indicatorof acute liver damage. When damage occurs, ALT is released into the bloodstream, resulting in elevated levels that may not return for days orweeks. AST - is the other enzyme that catalyzes the transfer of the nitrogenous portion of an amino acid to an amino acid residue. It also is released into the serum in proportion to cellular damage. With that being said, when medical people talk of damage to the liver (in this instance), they are referring to values two - five times that ofthe norm - which, coincidentally, happen to have values between 0 - 40. That is liver damage. A 49 is essentially meaningless in the real world as an indication of anything meaninful. Especially when you take into account that the both of you are lifters. These enzymes are released by everyone under arduous conditions. Take into acount a HIT/HD workout, and the values elevate further. Yes, supplements as you describe may have a deleterious effect on the liver IF taken in huge amounts; if you don't cycle; if you take 'roids; if you drink alcohol, etc. Anything in excess will harm the various organs. The key here is to cycle and is often said in articles on proper training - DRINK WATER. So, sleep easy, train hard, eat right and supplement wisely. Bill
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. RE: RE: HIT Digest #180 - from John Parry-McCulloch
Top
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:16:19 +0100 From: John Parry-McCulloch <John.Parry-McCulloch@liffe.com> Subject: RE: RE: HIT Digest #180 >Listen up! Here we have an "fitness expert" saying that HIT and SuperSlow >were not fit protocols for beginning weight lifters...However, I would like to disclose what I >have seen with my own eyes...What follows is indicative of what is possible through SuperSlow. And with no fiurther comment I include the following from a member of the mailing list I manage(*). He asked me about HIT and I sent him some stuff on it, as well as pointing him at the CyberPump! site. I have posted it edited to remove some bad language. I have also deleted his name, but if you are truly sceptical and think I'm invoking Cassingham's Law, mail me and I'll put you in touch. ----- Forwarded message from <xxx> ----- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 12:03:08 -0700 To: Jon Parry-McCulloch <jm@antipope.org> From: <xxx> Subject: <beep>' A, man! Jon: Had to tell you the results of my 2nd HIT workout. 1. I ran a mile under six minutes for the first time in my LIFE! I normally run to the gym as a warmup, and for the last bajillion runs it's taken me 6:25, give or take a couple seconds. Today it took me 5:58--and I wasn'tworking harder! 2. I upped all my weights by 10 percent and I never hit concentric muscle failure. Nope, didn't happen. Did 10 reps and needed more. This has NEVER happened to me before. When I go up again next week, I'll be working at weights that I haven't worked at since college. To say I'm ecstatic over these results is a bit of an understatement. Myworkouts have been stagnating for the last two years,and in one week I've seen more improvement than, well, ever! Expletives fail me.... If I was that kind a guy, I'd <beep> you. ----- End forwarded message ----- (*) Cult of Father darwin Mailing List. It is nothing like this list, so be warned if you are curious. Jon