-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: I hope this is ok Rob. - from JawDogs@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 21:08:01 EDT From: JawDogs@aol.com Subject: Dear Hitters and Juan Dear Hitters and Juan, OK, OK. Keep your shirt on Juan, I'll answer your questions -- again. I am flattered, however, by your persistence. I certainly don't want to come across as a, what was it, a "troller?" Heaven forbid. First let me say that if anyone out there has been insulted by anything I have said, realize that my intentions were not to insult. My intentions have always been to stimulate thought in this rather thoughtless medium. (Not the HIT digest Rob, the world of fitness.) Very often, when reading someone else's words, people allow themselves to become insulted when no such intention was meant on the part of the writer. This happens in conversation as well. So if it at all helps, I'm sorry if there are people out there who chose to become insulted by some of the things I've said, like you Juan. My advice to those of you who do become insulted by some of the writings on this digest is - chill out. All right now. I'm going to make this short and sweet. To begin, Juan, you're missing the points. I'll give you an example. Let's take the aerobic/anaerobic scenario. It's not about the ratio or the percentage. My original reason for bringing up the issue was to highlight the role of the skeletal muscles in the usage of both the aerobic and anaerobic systems. Yes. I use both absolute amounts and relative amounts to illustrate certain points. So what's wrong with that? The actual amounts in this particular case, whether absolute or relative, are not the issue. I was attempting to point out the illogic of the prevailing concepts that the aerobic or anaerobic systems are separately trainable or even trainable at all. They merely exist and are used. How you specifically alter the skeletal muscles to adapt to a chosen activity is the issue. OK? As for the quadriceps, what is so hard to understand here Juan? Where is the contradiction? If one wants to make his quadriceps muscles as strong as possible and has a choice of only one exercise to do, he should perform leg extensions. Why? Because it works the quadriceps throughout a full range of motion. Can one make his quadriceps stronger by squatting? Yes. However, compound pressing movements for the legs do not work the quadriceps through a full range of motion due to the inherent shortcomings of these exercises. I'm not going to give a lesson here. So, if your goal is to most efficiently strengthen the quads, perform leg extensions. However, can you preferentially train the VMO over the VL? No. Clear? Can you "rebalance" muscles? No. I suppose if you want to term weak muscles as "unbalanced" muscles then, yes, you can have muscular imbalances. But this would be a serious misnomer. How come nobody ever talks about multifidus/erector spinae/quadratus lumborum imbalances? If the low back has pain, what is the common answer? Strengthen the abdominals. Sheesh! People love to ascribe their genetic limitations, their injuries due to high force activities, and their structural aches and pains due to over-fatness to "imbalances." Sounds nifty at least. Gives the physical therapists something to do. As far as neurological adaptations to specific exercises are concerned, give it a rest already! Here is my opinion for what it is worth. If a person is taught how to contract his muscles intensively and is taught how to perform a specific exercise properly, I feel that it takes only a few sessions for the motor learning/neurological adaptation process to be complete. As I said in HG magazine, it takes several sessions. On the HIT post I said a few. A few, several - so kill me. About the arm measurements, I'm still right about that. And that's my final word on these matters. Let's move on now, shall we? Sincerely, Fred Hahn Fhahn@seriousstrength.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Ben Levinson - from Gerry Pruss
Top
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:24:51 -0700 From: Gerry Pruss <gerryp@mfg.com> Subject: Ben Levinson The following excerpts from an article concerning 103-year-old Ben Levinson, who recently set the world shot put record for men 100 or older, may be of interest to members of this digest. The article appeared in The Oregionian on Wednesday, Aug 12, 1998. The complete article can be accessed online at http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/worldmasters/sp081205.html "... Levinson, of Los Angeles, attributed his performance primarily to exercise, particularly the strength training he has done the past three years with athletic trainer Dave Crawley. ... Crawley first met a frail-looking Levinson at a wellness conference three years ago. "Ben was doing what I call 'an old person's shuffle,' " Crawley said. "He was bent over, looking down at the ground, barely lifting his legs, not walking with his normal gait. I was scared for him." Crawley decided to challenge, not pity or baby, his new friend. "I can make you feel 80 again," Crawley told him. Levinson took him up on it. He began going to a health club for strength training. Within weeks, he was a changed man. "He's grown two inches, just with better posture and more confidence," Crawley said. Today, Levinson walks 20 minutes at a time on a treadmill set at 2.5 mph. He does 10 strength exercises three or four times a week, working all his major muscles by lifting weights heavy enough that he cannot do so more than 20 times. He bench-presses about 40 pounds, for example. ..."
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Ecdysterone - from Robert Graup
Top
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:06:00 -0700 From: Robert_Graup@mail.gmosf.com (Robert Graup) Subject: Ecdysterone My local supplement guy (who is a partial owner of OSMO) is pushing Ecdysterone (more specifically, 5 mg of 5a-hydroxy laxogenin bound with a bunch of sugar in a 150 mg pill), a plant sterol. The literature he gave me purports that in 30-40 mg doses per day it is a potent anabolic. "Unlike testosterone derivatives, which increase messenger RNA synthesis, ecdysterone has no effect on RNA. Rather, it increases the rate at which RNA is translated." It notes it is not andro or estrogenic; and will take 4-5 weeks of everyday use to generate an effect. Anyone have a clue on this one? As he was the first in my hood to push the prohormones, I give him more credence than most. But, a quick Medline search yielded few studies except some usage with insects. There was some Russian research, however, which is where he and his partner got the idea for this product. For example: Syrov VN; Nasyrova SS; Khushbaktova ZA, "The results of experimental study of phytoecdysteroids as erythropoiesis stimulators in laboratory animals," Eksp Klin Farmakol, 60(3):41-4 1997 May-Jun Phytoecdysteroids alpha-ecdysone, 2-desoxyecdysterone, ecdysterone, sileneoside A, and turkesterone isolated from Rhaponticum carthamoides (Willd.) IIjin, Silene brahuica Boiss and Ajuga turkestanica (Rgl.) Repeated administration of brig increased the content of erythrocytes and hemoglobin in the blood of intact rats. The most active of them--ecdysterone, sileneoside A, and, particularly turkesterone, cause also a marked effect on red blood regeneration in hemotoxic phenylhydrazine anemia. In its capacity for simulating erythropoiesis turkesterone resembles the well-known steroidal anabolic drug nerobol. "The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder" - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley during the infamous 1968 convention
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Low Force? - from Andrew M. Baye
Top
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:25:06 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Baye" <drewbaye@gdi.net> Subject: Low Force? <<< 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't force generation the name of the game? Low force exercise is a large crock. >>> When used in this context, the word 'low' is a relative term. Compared to the weight "throwing" that passes for training in most gyms, the slow, controlled repetition speeds associated with HIT expose the body to a relatively low level of force. Force generation is not the name of the game. Efficient muscular inroad is. Also, the force being produced by the muscle and the force the body is exposed to are not necessarily the same thing. Andrew M. Baye The SuperSlow Exercise Guild, Inc http://www.superslow.com
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Lactic acid - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:03:00 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Lactic acid >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 would argue with this time course. The lactic acid energy system provides proporitionally more energy from about 20 seconds to about 90 seconds (depending on your source book) but experience tells me that lactic acid doesn't start to really accumulate until about 40 seconds into a continuous set. >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? Lactic acid (more technically correct: the decrease in pH caused by an inreased buildup of H+ from the dissociation of lactic acid -> lactate + H+) buildup is known to impair muscular contraction and once lactic acid levels reach a certain point, the muscle shuts down. The thing is, for 20 rep squats, unless you were doing them in a non-lock continuous fashion, you're getting some lactic acid clearance in-between reps while you're gasping for air. Put differently, if you get the chance compare the burn in you quads for: 1. A set of 20 rep squat 2. A 20 rep set of leg presses (or a Superslow set or whatever as long as it lasts about 90 seconds) where you don't pause at the top or the bottom. #2 should burn a whole lot more than #1. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "I'm here to kick butt and chew bubblegum.....and I'm all out of bubblegum."
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Shoulder hunch during bench press lockout? - from Tino, Allen J (Al), NPG NNAD
Top
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 10:52:33 -0400 From: "Tino, Allen J (Al), NPG NNAD" <atino@att.com> Subject: Shoulder hunch during bench press lockout? I have a question about how the shoulders should move at the "lock-out" point in pressing movements (for example, bench press). Should the shoulders remain pulled back throughout the movement or should they be hunched forward at the "lock-out" point to get that extra range of motion? Al Tino atino@att.com
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Self-Defense training - from Tino, Allen J (Al), NPG NNAD
Top
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 11:26:14 -0400 From: "Tino, Allen J (Al), NPG NNAD" <atino@att.com> Subject: Self-Defense training I'm not sure how this relates to HIT, but I'll add my 2 cents to the discussion on martial arts training. I agree with Andrew Baye that light sparring that teaches you to pull punches is doing you a disservice if you are interested in building real self-defense/survival skill. However I don't think that heavy-contact sparring is all that great either. Safety requires eliminating certain moves that are essential for real fighting (biting, gouging, hacking the throat, stomping the knee); also, when you are fully padded, the reaction to various blows is very different than without padding. (Obviously!) Also, sparring, no matter how hard, is essentially sportive. It's a dynamite conditioner though! (Maybe I'm just getting old and lazy.) I think pure self-defense training requires a different mindset than sparring. It's got to be 100% focused on attacking and driving forward, without let up. It must focus on the best (by that I mean the nastiest) techniques only. The only way I've found to train effectively is by doing partner drills (controlled drills, not sparring) and by training full-force against a man dummy. I also agree with John Parry-McCulloch that grappling can be an extremely useful skill. He rightly points out that a big advantage that grappling has over striking is that grapplers can practice their craft full-force almost exactly as it would be applied in reality. (And without killing each other!) However, over the years I've become convinced that grappling has severe limitations on the street: where weapons, multiple opponents, and concrete come into play. Nonetheless, in the right context (bouncing is one) it may come in handy. Al Tino atino@att.com