A few administrative notes. Please do not
send me the whole previous digest with your
response -- have the curtesy to include only
the relevant portions of a prior digest
along with your comments. From here on
out whole digest responses will be returned
without further explination.
Also, If you would like to unsubscribe from
the digest (though why any rational person
would choose to do so is beyond me :-)),
please follow the simple instructions
contained on the HIT Digest section of
Cyberpump!, which consist solely of
sending a message with the word unsubscribe
as the subject and make sure that it comes
with your digest e-mail address as the
return address. Messages with "unsubscrive"
or "I hate this digest so take me off"
or "I'm sooo much better than the losers
on the digest so I don't need to read it
anymore" do not work (the same goes for
subscribing, but everyone who sees this
is already subscribed). The process
is completely automated so long
as you use the magic word.
Now, let's peer into the world of your
humble moderator for just a moment.
Here is an example of an actual message
that I received just this week.
>I would like to discontinue getting this digest. Personally, I don't
>quite understand the concept of it. Are these people asking questions
>to anyone in particular or just throwing out this lifting information
>without a leg to stand on. I am currently getting certified from CSCS,
>ACE, as well as in grad school, and find it somewhat insulting to the
>knowledgeable people in this industry to have these uneducated people
>giving advice. I think a picture should be included along with the
>comments, just to see how uneffective and flaky their advice really is.
>
>**** *******
To answer your question -- NO, I will not
reveal the person who sent this in. I am tempted,
but this person will just have to wallow in his
(or is that her?) superiority, banished to a life
of misdirected efforts. By the way, "Hercules"
did not include a picture of himself (or herself)
with the message. And I will be manually unsubscribing
"Hercules" from the digest just as soon as I can.
Apparently, this scholar can't follow directions too well.
Such a shame.
Rob O
Have trap bar, will travel
This digest contains the following messages:
1. Clarifying the Quads
by: axtomas <por1axt@por10.med.navy.mil>
2. Bench shirts
by: Dan Yourg <dyourg@mailbox.acusd.edu>
3. Ouch!
by: Ian Haines <ihaines@hotmail.com>
4. Drugs!
by: Ken Roberts <SAILOR@webtv.net>
5. world recrds
by: Ken Roberts <SAILOR@webtv.net>
6. Re: OUCH!!!
by: Richard Eastwood <rpeast@Global.Net.UK>
7. work, etc
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
8. post workout meal (longer with my responses)
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
9. My final thoughts
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
10. Join our chat session
by: Robert Graup <Robert_Graup@mail.gmosf.com>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 15:32:30 -0400
From: por1axt@por10.med.navy.mil (axtomas)
Subject: Clarifying the Quads
Dear Juan,
Your questions to my comments on the separate nerve supply to Vastus
Medialus.
>>>Does this say that there is selective training of the quads? Are leg
extensions necessary? <<<<
Very good questions.
There "can" be selective training of the quads. Let me explain the "can",
because this is where the difference between reasearch and reality is a
factor, i.e. would you want to bother and can it be done effectively.
The VM has a unique nerve supply and you might be able to learn to contract
it independantly. Can you then do it through full range? and at a high
intensity? Probably not. A good party trick to show to those who say the
VM can not contract independantly of the rest of the quads, but is it
really
useful for training purposes?
Are leg extensions necessary?
The only part of the quads that is worked through a different range when
you
compare leg extensions and let's say the squat, is rectus femoris. It has
2
insertions above the hip and its length is changed by movement of the hip.
During the squat the hip extends throughout the movement; during leg
extension the hip does not. The rest of the quads likely don't know the
difference. But that could be a whole new discussion, couldn't it?!
I'm just thinking out loud here.
Also, there was some talk about the dead lift and injuries. Over the past
15 years I have seen 3 career ending injuries from dead lifting. So, some
people do get hurt. Doing Trap Bar deadlifts might stop these people for
bending over.
Cheers,
Andrew Tomas
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 21:30:35 -0700
From: "Dan Yourg" <dyourg@mailbox.acusd.edu>
Subject: Bench shirts
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:05:40 EDT
From: Beber0190@aol.com
Subject: Re: HIT Digest #184
Powerlifters use bench shirts to increase poundage, not to cut back on injuries. They probably contribute more to injury than to safety.
There is some debate among powerlifters as to if bench shirts prevent
injuries. I have not heard
that they actually cause injuries. What are you basing this on?
Dan Yourg
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 01:09:37 PDT
From: "Ian Haines" <ihaines@hotmail.com>
Subject: "Ouch!"
>I saw a guy the other day at the gym doing stiff leg deadlifts. >Pretty
>big guy, like linebacker-big. He put about 275 on the bar, squatted
>down
>with his back rounded to pick up the bar, and quickly let the bar >hit
>the bottom of the squat rack. He then quickly reversed directions,
>paused, and leaned back so far, I could feel it myself. He repeated
>the
>process about 12 times.
Sounds familiar! I'm sure that everyone on this list has seen this on more than one occasion. One person I remember particularly well was a guy who trained in a gym I used to go to when I was at University. Didn't matter what day of the week I'd go in - he'd be in there. Hundreds of reps/sets. Terrible form. One day I saw him doing sraight leg deadlifts, whilst standing on a block about 10" off the floor, so his palms were ending up by his toes, legs straight. It made me cringe. He went on to do a number of sets of squats in the smith machine.
Every time I saw him he was smaller. Then, for some reason, he didn't come in for a long time... can't think what must have happened!
>Of course we all see guys at the gym doing stuff like this. My
>question
>is why do they seemingly never get hurt? It seems like all the talk
>about explosive lifting being dangerous is mostly paranoia. I myself
>believe that this type of training can lead to injuries in the long
>run,
>but it obviously doesn't happen to everyone immediately. I mean, >that
>guy at the gym was doing some pretty harsh stuff, right? I myself >got
>strains pretty easily doing slow dips, so common sense tells me to
>avoid
>this type of training.
How do you know that they don't get hurt? A lot of injuries don't
manifest themselves immediately.
Also, you have to remember, that some people have particularly
robust bodies. They can do almost anything and not get hurt. It
doesn't mean that the rest of us mortals can.
>On the other hand, I hear guys complaining every so often about how
>much
>their shoulders hurt. They then proceed to do wide-grip pulldowns or
>lateral raises, not to mention bouncing the bar off their chest >doing
>bench presses.
Isn't that always the way. Even very intelligent people do the stupidest things in the gym. People do exercises without stopping to think exactly what they're doing, what muscles are being involved, and whether they're putting some muscles into a compromised position.
Speaking from a personal perspective, I had a lot of problems with my
shoulders. Little did I realise when I was dipping past parallel,
shoulder pressing behind the neck, doing dumbell flies, smith machine
bench and shoulder presses. etc etc, that I was ruining my shoulders.
Fortunately, I've stopped doing these, taken a rest, visited a physio,
and now I'm OK. My advice to anyone with shoulder problems, doing any
of the above exercises. Think carefully whether they're worth the cost.
(Oh yea, and BTW, if you slam on your shoulder on ice, whilst
snow-boarding... it doesn't help!!)
Ian Haines
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 17:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts)
Subject: Drugs!
Read today in the "Bee" that Mark McGwire uses androstenedione and
creatine and that the drug that got Randy Barnes busted was the
aformentioned andro. Do ya think it really works or are these guys just
acting out of some kinda emotional subjectivity?
Ken
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 17:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts)
Subject: world recrds
The main reason world records are being set all the time (still) is
because profesional sports (like profesional body building), including
track and field, involves the use of all kinds of performance enhancing
drugs. I watchd an excellent expose' r.e. this subject on ESPN the other
night. Coaching technique hasn't gotten better, just more clever (at
covering up). Sad but true.
Ken
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 16:46:47 +0100
From: "Richard Eastwood" <rpeast@Global.Net.UK>
Subject: Re: OUCH!!!
-
>
>-------------------- 3 --------------------
>Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 19:59:40 PDT
>From: "Berserker ." <berserker78@hotmail.com>
>Subject: OUCH!!!!
>
>I saw a guy the other day at the gym doing stiff leg deadlifts. Pretty
>big guy, like linebacker-big. He put about 275 on the bar, squatted down
>with his back rounded to pick up the bar, and quickly let the bar hit
>the bottom of the squat rack. He then quickly reversed directions,
>paused, and leaned back so far, I could feel it myself. He repeated the
>process about 12 times.
>
>Of course we all see guys at the gym doing stuff like this. My question
>is why do they seemingly never get hurt? It seems like all the talk
>about explosive lifting being dangerous is mostly paranoia. I myself
>believe that this type of training can lead to injuries in the long run,
>but it obviously doesn't happen to everyone immediately. I mean, that
>guy at the gym was doing some pretty harsh stuff, right?
And my grandad's lived to be 82 even though he smokes 20 roll-ups a day. Even though he seems alright (coughing fits aside), I'm not thinking about taking up smoking. Some people can get away with doing the most insane things in the gym, for now at least, because they have unusually robust joints and connective tissues. Because most of these guys are well built meso-morphs who would look impressive even if they didn't train, we've reached a point where thousands of 'ordinary Joe' trainees are destroying their bodies by training the same way as the 'big guys'... the idea being that what works for them must also work for us. Nonsense.
Make no mistake about it, most of the old-time strongmen or bodybuilders
who
trained with loose form on dangerous exercises are now virtual cripples. If
supermen like Yates or Mentzer can injure themselves using sloppy form,
even
when training on a low volume, imagine the damage a trainee could inflict
on
himslef using a high volume, explosive approach. I see this all the time
when I train, and have long since given up trying to explain to these
idiots
the damage they are causing themselves; let them find out the hard way
through bitter experience. 'Explosive', sloppy form is not only ugly to
watch but inefficient and dangerous.. if for some reason you disagree with
the efficiency of slow reps, at least it's better to be paranoid and err on
the side of caution than spend 6 months recovering from a spinal injury.
RichE
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 17:27:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: work, etc
>>Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 08:01:36 -0400
>>From: "William Lucke" <wlucke@vt.edu>
>>Subject: RE: HIT Digest #175
>
>re: work, etc
>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 work
is
>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.
I agree. What I was feebly trying to get at is that you can't linearly
equate mechanical work with metabolic work. That is, someone performing a
5 rep max in 30 seconds may not be doing half the metabolic work of someone
performing a 10 rep max in 60 seconds even if all other things (rep speed,
relative proportion of time spent on concentric, isometric, eccentric are
equal, etc). Your dealing with different energy systems, different rates
of energy production, and Grog knows what else. But obviously there is a
relationship.
> 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.
Agreed. This could be measured roughly by heat production (a unit of energy although I'm not sure it would be enough to register by most techniques of measurement) or oxygen uptake, or whatever.
> 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... that
>would be very cool, but, alas, it is not so). Perhaps Lyle could dazzle us
>with a description of how this occurs?
I'm not sure if you're looking for a physics answer (i.e. force balance) or
a physiological answer. I'll assume the latter and spare everyone my
attempts to mangle physics since it's been a really long time since I've
had to think about it. Sufficed to say that in an isometric action, the
force output of the muscle is equal to the force requirements (given by mg)
such that the net force (given by F = ma) is zero.
>From a physiological standpoint, one thing to notice is that the lack of
movement at the joint does not preclude a shortening of the muscle itself.
There will be a small shortening of the muscle (implication: some cross
bridge cycling will occur) as slack is removed from the tendon. So there
will be some cross bridge cycling even during an isometric. Once the slack
is taken out of hte tendon, obviously the muscle must still generate force
to prevent the weight from moving and that force will be equal to the force
mg, which is the mass of the bar times gravity.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
This space for lease
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 17:27:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: post workout meal (longer with my responses)
>Date: Wed, 19 Aug 98 17:53:16 +0200
>From: Alessandro.Pirotta@netit.alcatel.it
>Subject: post workout meal (long)
>I understood one should first get a glicemic peak as soon
>as the workout is over and trigger the insulin release in
>order to replenish the muscles. After that event the body
>will excrete some quantity of growth hormone that triggers
>muscle cells to absorb the aminoacids present in the blood;
>so having a good level of them there is crucial.
>Is all that right?
Yup. Additionally, a recent abstract (meaning that it hasn't been
published in peer review yet) found that consuming a low concentration carb
drink (5-7%) during training helps to maintain insulin levels and decreae
cortisol and there was a significantly greater gain in lean body mass over
the length of the study.
>- might the digestion of the shake affect negatively the
> HIT or viceversa?
this seems to be highly variable. Some people get sick at their stomach if
they've got food in their gut during training (esp. on leg day). Other do
not. My feeling is this: the workout is the more critical aspect of your
progress in this case because no amount of nutrition will make you grow if
your workouts are bad.
If eating before your workout makes it a worse workout, that is not a good
dietary strategy *for you* (this also applies to the debate over whether to
eat before a morning workout). AS far as performance is concerned, most of
the research on pre-workout carbs and weight training has shown little
effect. This is because weight training (esp. low volume, HIT) is
generally NOT limited by muscle glycogen and shouldn't be limited by liver
glycogen unless your workout is over 90 minutes. Blood glucose could
become an issue in that it might affect something called 'central drive'
which refers to the body's ability to send signals to the muscles in the
first place. A lot of peopl who do lowcarb diets find that their
performance in the weight room is enhanced by consuming as little as 5
grams of carbs before workout. Obviously this isn't affecting msucle
glycogen, but it would raise blood glucose.
>- I guess the best carbs for the pre-WO are low glicemic
> indexed ones for slow digestion and steady blood level;
> which kind should I choose? Fructose should be ok but I
> remember our body cannot synthesize more than some qty (?)
> (yes, probably I will end buying a commercial powder);
I'm not aware of any low GI carb powders and it would be a very strange
substance to make. The general purpose of hte various carb drinks is to
get carbs into the bloodstream as fast as possible. so a low GI carb drink
would be a contradiction. That leaves you with various food based carbs.
The lowest GI are beans and such but then you have to deal with undigested
food in you gut. I think the best strategy would be to eat a normal mixed
meal about 3-4 hours prior to training. Then if you want to ensure that
blood glucose is at it's peak, have a small carb drink either right before
or during your workout.
>- to trigger the insuline release I thought of drinking some
> of a cost effective popular sweet beverage - but how much
> is it the minimum quantity?
The general rule of thumb for post-workout carbs is 1-1.5 grams of carbs/kg
lean body mass. So someone with 80 kg of lean body mass (~176 lbs) would
need 80-120 grams of carbs.
>- which kind of protein? complete proteins require a lot of
> time to get broken down? predigested protein? like whey
> hydrolizated ones? probably their aminoacids would go in
> the blood too early. If whey proteins, I mean those pre-
> digested, are really worth comparing to the classic ones,
> one may decide to take a shake of them after the WO and
> only carbs before. This way may also facilitate the digestion
> while training hard.
I think the ideal is to use a quickly digested protein right after
training, in which case any protein powder is probably as good as any
other. If you're talking about taking in protein prior to training, any
protein from that mixed meal 3-4 hours before training should still be
hitting the bloodstream during the workout.
>[OK, OK, We all know it's Lyle -- not Lile.
>
>Rob O]
Been called worse.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
This space for lease
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 17:27:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: My final thoughts
Even though our moderator has not asked for an end to this debate, here are
my final comments. I feel as if I have made my stance clear on this topic,
and further discussion will just go around in circles. In case anybody has
missed earlier posts, I am in no way opposed to training to failure. I
simple disagree that training to failure is THE stimulus for growth or that
training to failure is ALWAYS the best way to train.
>Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:42:15 EDT
>From: JawDogs@aol.com
>Subject: HIT
>
>You asked (and I believe you were referring to a "lat pull down"
exercise):
Well, compound exercises in general but this is as good of an example as
anything else.
>"And can I ever expect an answer to MY question about how training a
compound
>movement to failure causes growth in the muscles that DID not fail?"
>
>Let me first say that this is all the more reason for training to
failure. To
>not do so would result in even less stimulation to the muscles you claim
are
>not failing. Fact is we don't know what fails exactly. It is not always
the
>biceps. Perhaps, the way in which some people perform this exercise (all
that
>yanking and heaving), causes their biceps and forearms to fail first. If
this
>exercise is performed correctly (I'm not going to get into that now) you
will
>not fail because of your biceps. In fact, I'm not sure exactly what
muscles
>are failing at the point of muscular failure when this exercise is done
>properly.
Ok, so you're *not* sure what muscles are failing but you *are* sure that
it's not the biceps? Am I the only one who sees a contradiction there?
The fact is that you're right, we can't know what muscle fails. But that
wasn't my point. My point was that in any compound movement, when failure
occurs, only the weak link has failed, the other muscles which are involved
have NOT failed. Yet they grow.
>The point is, Lyle (and I don't yet understand why you and so many others
like
>you cannot understand this), is achieving anything less than muscular
failure
>is, well, LESS muscular work.
I do understand that and I'm not debating that. But by that token, 2 sets of 50 seconds a piece is more muscular work than 1 set of 70 seconds. And 3 sets of 50 seconds is more work still. I thought the basic tenet of SS/HIT was that 'Less is ALWAYS' better but now you're saying that more is better. If less is ALWAYS better, then we should all train like John McKean, performing 1 set of 1 rep, since that would be the LEAST amount of muscular work above baseline that one could do. Of course if more were ALWAYS better, we should all train like Arnold and do 30 sets per bodypart.
So of course, more is not ALWAYS better and less is not ALWAYS better. Rather, what we are looking for is an OPTIMUM. And there is no evidence of which I am aware that suggests that ANY protocol corresponds to any optimum, much less that any protocol corresponds to an optimum for all people. What are you unable to understand about that point?
>No one is saying that muscles have to experience
>failure (whatever that is) to grow stronger. Let me repeat. No one is
saying
>that muscles have to experience failure to grow stronger.
Do you remember how this discussion started?
1. You initially asked for a physiological explanation for how growth could
occur without training to failure. I took this to imply your belief that
failure is THE growth stimulus.
2. Several of us asked for clarification on your questions and you
responded by telling us that we didn't train hard. (-5 points for
non-sequitur)
3. I offered a schema by which stopping one rep short of failure may
stimulate growth, based on what we do know about recruitment, metabolic
work, and fatigue. This was not meant to be a judgement that it was
necessarily better, worse or no different to train this way compared to
training to failure, it was meant to offer a possible answer to your
question.
4. I asked you for a physiological explanation of why growth *can't* occur
(again, implied from your initial post) when training short of failure. As
a corrolary question (this was in regards to someone posting that their
biceps failed during a SS flye exercise), I asked if the muscle which did
not fail during a compound movement experiences no growth stimulus (which
is implied in the stance that one MUST train a muscle to failure for it to
grow).
Based on your previous posts, it sure seems as if you and others have been
arguing for quite some time that training to failure is THE stimulus for
growth, a stance which you seem to be retracting since logical evidence
shows it not to be the case. Now if you want to make an argument that
training to failure is the only way to ensure that you have surpassed the
growth threshold, that's a different issue. But if you're going to argue
that physiologically one must train to failure to grow, I don't think you
have a leg to stand on.
Of course even then, I don't think anyone can say that training to failure
will de facto result in growth. Considering how little we actually know
about the growth stimulus, the concept of 'train to failure = growth' is
awfully simplistic. As I've mentioned before training to failure at 3 reps
will not have the same physiolgical effects as training to failure at 30
reps.
The human body is not a simple machine. In any individual we are dealing with a variety of competing rate processes in terms of hormones, the nervous system, etc, etc. For some individuals it may well be that 1 set to failure gives the optimal stimulus. For others this will not be the case and 2 sets taken 1 rep short of failure may be a better choice. Some individiuals will respond best to higher reps/TUL, others to low (may be based on gross recruitment, fiber typing, who knows) and it's conceivable that someone will do better stopping short of failure than by training to failure and beyond (I offered as an example previously an individual in Hardgainer who had to wait 30 days between bodyparts, which suggets to me he is using *too much* intensity). For example, when I do compound pushing or pulling movements, with high reps my arms tend to fatigue far before my chest or back and I get a sub-optimal workout for chest or back. But when I do lower reps, arms are not as limiting and my chest/back get more of a stimulus. So I may benefit (from the standpoint of stimulating pec growth) from doing 2 sets of low reps than 1 set to failure of high reps.
I agree with you that, if you are only doing one set, you are more likely
to surpass whatever growth threshold exists, by training to failure. But
there may be cases where training to failure is not appropriate and other
methods of stimulating growth will be necessary.
>They have to
>experience something, however. And there is a certain minimum level of
effort
>that is required to stimulate the growth mechanism. Do you know what that
>minimum level is? I don't. Can you provide me with studies that show that
>training to failure impedes the muscle building process? (Don't say yes
>because you won't find them. I've already tried. But try if you like.)
I don't recall EVER having said that training to failure will impede the
muscle process. I was simply pointing out that training to failure is not
a pre-requisite for growth. Now that you have appeared to change your
opinion, I guess we are in agreement.
>Q: (This is directed at Lyle but anyone can chime in): If you were
training me
>and I was performing a lat pulldown with a resistance that would bring
about
>muscular failure in approx. 70 seconds, when would you stop me from
exercising
>during the set? At 50 seconds? 60? How is it better, Lyle, to be
arbitrary?
Assuming that there wasn't any explicit reason why you couldn't go to
failure or any specific reason that I didn't want to take you to failure, I
would not only push you to the 70 second mark but attempt to get your past
there in good form. But that wasn't really the point of this original
discussion.
Also how is it any less arbitrary to define failure as THE optimal time to
stop a set? Especially since no one wants to define what is happening
physiologically at failure. Remember, I asked you for clarification about
this and you came back on the list and insulted everyone. Then you offered
a description of failure (when the bar won't move any more). Failure is a
convenient marking point and that's it. But it is just as arbitrary as
any other measure.
As long as I am consistent in my training (performing say 50 seconds of
time under load per set) and I apply progressive overload, I will grow
regardless of whether that 50 seconds is to failure or not. As I mentioned
before, the SS definition of 'failure' (maximal inroad + eccentric) is
quite different than other HIT advocates definition of failure. Why is
*your* definition any less arbitrary than theirs or mine? The answer (IMO)
is that it's not. Which is fine, you use your arbitrary measure of when to
stop a set and I'll use mine. And as long as we are both consistent in
applying that measure AND apply progressive overload over time, we will
both grow.
And I think everyone has had just about enough of this thread for this
year.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
This space for lease
[This thread has been put out of its misery, but Lyle is entitled to a
summary of his
thoughts. If anyone wishes to continue with these concepts, you will
have tostart a new discussion.
Rob O.]
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:32:24 -0700
From: Robert_Graup@mail.gmosf.com (Robert Graup)
Subject: Join our chat session
FYI. Balance is a electronic journal whose subtitle is "Strength,
Endurance, Flexibility." The chat might be interesting.
Hi Balance members
We are holding a chat session on Tuesday 1st September in the Balance Chat
rooms at 1600 hrs BST (GMT +1). Writers from Balance and professionals in
the fitness and health industry will be joining us, so please come along
and join in the debate.
The URL is:
http://balance.net/chat/index.htm
The topic for debate will be:
Is it good to eat your carbohydrates and proteins separately?
The floor will also be open for your questions to our professionals
See you there!!
************************************************************
List/Digest Commands
SUBSCRIBE - subscribes you to the digest.
UNSUBSCRIBE - unsubscribes you from the digest.
DIR - gives a directory of past digests
GET - retrieves files from digest directory
To issue a command/request to the server:
Send a message with the command you wish executed as the
subject of the message to hitdigest@geocities.com
To post to the list, send a message to hitdigest@geocities.com
All posts that are deemed unacceptable in current format will be
returned to sender with "Unacceptable" attached.
If you have any problems contact the moderator Rob
Spector at rspector@earthlink.net
Archive of past digests is available at
No liability is assumed for the information provided on the HIT Digest. The opinions are those of the contributors to the digest.