HIT Digest #188

AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Sorry, I just checked my portfolio.

We have hit another milestone -- 1300+ members! The
subscriptions have been coming in at a constant rate and we just keep growing.

The techno-wizards at Cyberpump! have added a new search engine so that you can search prior verisons of the HIT Digest. The new search engine is a major step forward, so go check it out. And, it's just like the digest itself, the search engine is FREE!

There are a lot of, shall we say, interesting signatures and e-mail address in this digest. After reading this digest, you'll all know why I don't use hotmail -- my preferred e-mail address was taken.

As always, if you have any comments, send them to the digest address, or directly to me (rao-mail@usa.net).

Rob O
Have trap bar, will travel

This digest contains the following messages:

1. Re: work ,etc.
by: Master of Disaster <wlucke@vt.edu>
2. Re: Game !
by: Chris Thibaudeau <gestion.thima@marche.com>
3. Quads & Softball
by: Kevin Crooks <kcrooks@terraworld.net>
4. Re:Robert Wolf's Get ready for BUD school work out question by: <SFarrin261@aol.com>
5. VM/quads
by: Ken Roberts <SAILOR@webtv.net>
6. Failure vs Almost to Failure
by: heavyduty <KJDye@newave.net.au>
7. Training while sore
by: Adam <freik_tfa@yahoo.com>
8. Exercise Pill
by: Robert Graup <Robert_Graup@mail.gmosf.com>
9. Re: HIT Digest #186
by: <Kate0u812@aol.com>
10. F=ma
by: Tino, Allen J (Al), NPG NNAD <atino@att.com>
11. getting huge
by: Your Worst Nightmare <sexking___69@hotmail.com>

-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 01:59:38 -0400
From: Master of Disaster <wlucke@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: work ,etc.

>Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 17:27:26 -0500 (CDT)
>From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
>Subject: work, etc

>

>> 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.

Heat production? Your body makes a lot of heat while you're working out (else you wouldn't sweat). Ever check out the mechanical equivalent of heat? It's impressive: The specific heat capacity of water is 4190 J/kgK (4190 Joules to raise the temperature of one kg of water by one Kelvin (a Kelvin is the same size as a Celcius degree)) The body is mostly water, but has a lower specific heat capacity (about 3480 J/kgK I read somewhere) because the proteins and what-not in it have a lower heat capacity than water (most everything does).
So, approximating my bodyweight at 100 kg and a Fahrenheit degree as
half of a Kelvin, means that to raise my body temperature by one degree Fahrenheit requires

100 kg * 3480 J/kgK * 0.5 K = 174,000 J

174,000 J will raise a 1000 Newton weight 174 meters above its starting point.
1000 Newtons ~ 225 lbs; 174 meters ~ 571 ft.

This is probably more work than I do in my entire workout (overcoming muscular friction included). That much energy is just to raise my body temperature once. The actual heat the body puts out is much greater than this: your body temperature is likely to rise more than 1 degree Fahrenheit, and a rate of heat production must be maintained, as the body is constantly losing heat through radiation and conduction to air and evaporating sweat. Overall, the amount of mechanical work you do during a workout is insignificant compared to the amount of heat your body generates during that workout.
That puts the human body in the same efficiency bracket as the average
internal combustion engine.
>

>

>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
>

I know that the body must exert force equal but opposite the weight of the bar to maintain an isometric, but how does this exhaust the muscle? Once slack is out of the tendon and the links between cross-bridges are established, why does their maintenance require energy? If you and I are even on the same frequency when we say "cross-bridge".

William H. Lucke IV

Kill! Kill! Kill!
Blood makes the grass grow!

-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:43:08 -0400
From: "Chris Thibaudeau" <gestion.thima@marche.com>
Subject: Re: Game !

***Proudhon wrote:

A) Intensity :
- Intensity = inroad / time (Andrew Baye)
- Intensity = percentage of possible momentary muscular effort being
exerted. (Mike Mentzer/Arthur Jones)
- Intensity = percentage of your maxi (some writers from
Muscle&Fitness)
***

Actually the 3rd one is the correct one. It IS NOT a Muscle Mag thing. It is the recognized *scientific* definition of intensity (1,2,3,4,5).

The first two ones are only *unscientific*, unrecognized interpretation of a physiological phenemenon called ''specific (or muscular) fatigue'' (2).

They define valid phenemonons but not the one called intensity.

However, I like the Andrew Baye's definition (not as the definition of intensity though). It is an interesting concept, even if it is almost impossible to measure (the precise amount of inroad cannot be precisely pinpointed).

References

1.Fleck, S.J., & Kraemer, W.J., Designing resistance training programs 2nd ed, Champaign, Human Kinetics, 1997

2. Wilmore, J.H., & Costill, D.L., Physiology of sport and exercise, Champaign, Human Kinetics, 1995

3. Viru, A., Adaptation in sports training, Boca Raton, CRC press, 1995

4. Moran. J.T. & McGlynn. P., Cross-Training for sports, Champaign, Human KInetics, 1996

5. Zatsiorsky, V., Science and Practice of strength training, Champaign, Human Kinetics, 1995

===============================
Chris Thibaudeau

The BIGBOYS page!
http://www.colba.net/~john295/bigboys

Author of THE STEEL MILL

http://www.colba.net/~john295/steel.html

-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 17:26:15 -0500
From: "Kevin Crooks" <kcrooks@terraworld.net>
Subject: Quads & Softball

At the tender age of 44 & after a twenty year lay off I found myself playing
softball this fall. First game I pulled a quad pretty bad. Any suggestions? I currently do sqauts, calf raises, deadlifts for my lower body
workout 1x week. Do upper body 1x week. Ride a bike 2x a week on Tabata protocol.

Kevin Crooks

-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 13:50:01 EDT
From: SFarrin261@aol.com
Subject: Re:Robert Wolf's Get ready for BUD school work out question

Robert, Maybe I can help since I have recently grappled with this problem also. I was recently called back into the Army after 5 years and needed to be
able perform well in three events (Pushups, Situps and a 2 mile run) in order
to pass Army Physical Fitness Tests. I had done no running for 5 years and had
been lifting (mostly HDII and HIT style) for only 2 years. I had only two months to get ready. Here is what worked for me. For the run I ran no more than three times/ week and didn't go into the gym more than once every 4 - 6
days depending on how I was recovering. I Improved my run by over 3 minutes in
the 2 mile during a period of 2 months with this type of system. My routine consisted of Interval training one day a week then one easy 2 or 3 mile run then one long easy run all on non consecutive days. To get my distance up I would set out for say 5 miles on the last long easy run of the week and run for a distance and walk 1\2 that distance then run some then walk some what ever it took to complete the 5 miles, this really worked. When I was going this heavy on the running schedule my weight training would really suffer so I
would just skip weight training days when needed, at times I would be weight
training only once every 8-12 days.

For upperbody performance, I only did weight training (HIT/ HDIIstyle) and I
passed the pushups at the 18 year old level no problem (I am 30). In the Sit
ups department I was guided to do only 2 exercises, each to failure, 1) "elbows to knees" - lie on you back and crunch your torso up and pedal your feet while touching your elbow to the opposite knee, 2) flutter kicks- lie on
your back, keep your legs straight and off the ground, alternatly move them as
if kicking with flippers in water. This protocol alone increased my max sit ups by 27 reps in only one month.

Hope this info helps you.

Hooaah - Sean Farrington

-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 18:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts)
Subject: VM/quads

Esp. as pertains to Lyle's post in #187. I know for a fact that when I do extensions (after either leg press or squats) I feel the burn almost exclusively in the VM whereas during the squat I feel it mostly in the upper thigh, hips and (toward the end of the exercise) my glutes. I do the extensions entirely to hit my VM.

Ken

-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 22:54:32 +0930
From: "heavyduty" <KJDye@newave.net.au>
Subject: Failure vs Almost to Failure

One of the major debates throughout bodybuilding history has been whether training to failure is necessary or if stopping short of failure is beneficial. Likewise this seems to be a hot topic that resurfaces every so often on the digest. Well I want to enlighten trainees to something I heard recently that should give a lot of trainees food for thought, especially as it comes from the man who started the whole high intensity ball rolling; Arthur Jones.

Apparently Jones told Doug McGuff and Terry Carter a year or two ago that if
he had it to do all over again, he'd train once per week, whole body, and train to positive failure only every other session ! I found this amazing as
if anyone has a handle on the importance of the intensity factor it has to be this man, having been involved with high intensity exercise for such a long time. Arthur's understanding and appreciation of intensity is probably unparalled, so if he thinks regulation is important then it's worth evaluation!

While this information initially startled me it was not bewildering as it was something I had been toying with in my head for the past few months. I'd
experienced the effects of stopping one rep shy of failure for a month back in April and gained 1" on my chest for my efforts [or lack of]! Unfortunately the mental turmoil I endured stopped me dead in my tracks as having been a high-intensity / Heavy Duty enthusiast all my training life I'd found it hard to come to terms with anything other than an all out effort. I'd usually question whether I'd done 'enough' in each workout, which made me doubt its worth. But seeing what I achieved I began to quietly
debate the subject over in my mind knowing that there must be some merit to regulating intensity. This statement was the clincher!

In the next couple of weeks I'm going to implement this theory so I can appraise its effectiveness firsthand. Alternating the intensity on a weekly basis should sooth the nagging doubts that plagued me when I was avoiding failure as my reassurance will be that a week later I'll be resuming my all out intensity assault once again. John Christy [Hardgainer] uses short of failure training will all his trainees and they achieve some remarkable success, [which is where my interest initially started]. As I'm becoming more and more advanced, climbing to higher levels of intensity, my tolerance
levels are correspondingly decreasing, as the depletion is immediate and totally debilitating. Regulation seems my only choice to offset its crippling effects. It's definitely food for thought!!!

Kevin

-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam <freik_tfa@yahoo.com>
Subject: Training while sore

I am caught in a dilemma, i am inviolved in the marching band at school and we march every day for 3 hours, and when i get home my legs are sore. Is it ok for me to continue to train my upper body and let up a little with the heavy weights on my legs?

Thanks

_________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:21:29 -0700
From: Robert_Graup@mail.gmosf.com (Robert Graup)
Subject: Exercise Pill

Maybe I should drop the whole lifting thing and wait for the pill.....

UT Southwestern researchers find genetic switch that explains effect
of exercise on muscles

DALLAS. Aug. 20, 1998: The creation of a drug that would mimic some
of the health-promoting benefits of regular exercise could be possible
because UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas researchers have
found a genetic switch that tells muscles how to behave.

UT Southwestern scientists have found the molecular pathway that tells
muscle fiber to be either the fast strength muscle seen in weight
lifters or the slow endurance muscle developed by aerobic enthusiasts.
Using cultured muscle cells, investigators, led by Dr. R. Sanders
Williams, chief of cardiology and director of the Frank M. Ryburn Jr.
Cardiac Center, delineated a biochemical-signaling mechanism that
converts one muscle-fiber type to another. The findings were reported
today in the journal of Genes and Development.

This discovery could make it possible to restore endurance muscle
tissue in people who have lost it due to congestive heart
failure. People with diabetes might also benefit from a drug that
would enhance slow endurance-promoting muscle, which is more sensitive
to insulin.

"We believe this pathway provides a molecular explanation for the
important effects of aerobic exercise in increasing physical endurance
and reducing risk for cardiovascular disease," Williams said. "When
people go jogging, molecular events happen in the muscles they are
exercising that both enhance their capability to exercise further and
improve their health.

"We have shown both in cultured cells and in animals that there is a
signaling pathway we can modify to stimulate or reverse what exercise
does naturally. We believe it is possible to design a drug which would
have this effect."

The study provides evidence that three proteins called calcineurin,
NFAT (Nuclear Factor of Activated T cells) and MEF2 (Myocyte Enhancer
Factor 2) participate in a pathway that activates a specific subset of
genes. These regulatory factors act in concert to control the
abundance of proteins found in slow, oxidative skeletal-muscle fibers
characteristic of highly fit endurance athletes. When a muscle is
tonically active, during jogging for example, the concentration of
calcium ions is increased within the muscle cell. When the calcium
level stays high for a sustained period of time it turns on
calcineurin, which modifies NFAT so that it moves from the cytoplasm
to the cell nucleus. Once NFAT reaches the nucleus, it partners with
MEF2 and other proteins to turn on the genes specific for slow,
oxidative muscle fibers.

The scientists will investigate further to clarify how this
calcium-regulated, calcineurin-dependent pathway affects other muscle
types and how it interacts with other cellular activities. This will
help them learn if this molecular pathway for converting fast
muscle cells to slow muscle cells works the same in humans and if it
can be used for a pharmaceutical solution for those unable to
exercise.

Other researchers involved in the study were internal medicine
postdoctoral fellows, Dr. Eva Chin and Dr. Weiguang Zhu; Dr.
Eric Olson, chairman of molecular biology and oncology, director of
the Nancy B. and Jake L. Hamon Center for Basic Research in Cancer,
and holder of the Nancy B. and Jake L. Hamon Distinguished Chair in
Basic Cancer Research; Dr. James Richardson, associate professor of
pathology; Dr. Rhonda Bassel-Duby, associate professor of internal
medicine; cell and molecular biology graduate student Hai Wu; and
internal medicine researcher scientists Caroline Humphries and John
Shelton. Williams also holds the James T. Willerson, M.D.,
Distinguished Chair in Cardiovascular Diseases.

-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 06:25:18 EDT
From: Kate0u812@aol.com
Subject: Re: HIT Digest #186

>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.

Bonjourno:

If all these exercises are bad for the shoulders, and I know I have had some
serious pain in this area, what do you recommend for shoulders?

Thanks,
Kate0U812@aol.com

-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:24:24 -0400
From: "Tino, Allen J (Al), NPG NNAD" <atino@att.com>
Subject: F=ma

> Lyle McDonald, in discussing mechanical and metabolic work (in HIT Digest
> #186), made the following comment:
>
> 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.
>
Lyle is, of course, perfectly correct, but that won't stop me from pointing out the obvious (my specialty): As long as the acceleration is zero, the net force on an object (for example, a barbell) is zero. The barbell doesn't have to be motionless for the forces to balance. I only state this because I've read some real nonsense in Hardgainer (not from Lyle!!) misapplying basic physics.

For example, let's look at an idealized bench press (pretend the bar goes straight up and down). The forces on the bar are 1) it's weight (mg) pulling down, and 2) my hand pushing up. Assuming I lift and lower smoothly
at a constant speed, the net force is zero: the force I exert equals the weight of the bar. At the "turnarounds" the bar must accelerate, so there must be a net force on the bar during the turnaround. At the top turnaround, I exert a force less than mg; at the bottom, more than mg.

Al Tino
atino@att.com

-------------------- 11 --------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 03:29:30 PDT
From: "Your Worst Nightmare" <sexking___69@hotmail.com>
Subject: getting huge

G'day
I'm a 14 year old Australian Ectomorph who wants to put on some big muscle mass as quick as possible. Could you please help me out by telling me a program that would be best suited to me. I'm really confused as I've seen so many programs that are all just so different and I don't not what to beleive and what not to.

Any help would be greatly appreciated

Thanks

Travis

______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

************************************************************ 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

http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/Spa/7780/

Copyright 1997 HIT Digest
All rights reserved. No part of this digest may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including but not limited to any information storage and retrieval system, except as may be permitted by the copyright act as amended or in writing by HIT Digest.

No liability is assumed for the information provided on the HIT Digest. The opinions are those of the contributors to the digest. 1