-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Diet - from Wally Day
Top
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:49:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Wally Day <wday@yahoo.com> Subject: Diet Has anyone on this list experimented with the anabolic blast diet that MM2K (Ooops - MM) ran in three consecutive issues earlier this year. Did you get the results they were talkin' about? Also, are there any vegetarian bodybuilders out there? _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. intensity - from Brian Bucher
Top
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 00:14:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu> Subject: "intensity" > -------------------- 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 %1RM is the definition used in scientific literature, but this does not mean that it is "the correct one". It is only a definition. As long as one is clear about the context, intensity CAN be defined in other ways, such as 9 reps of a 10RM being 90% intensity. > The first two ones are only *unscientific*, unrecognized interpretation of > a physiological phenemenon called ''specific (or muscular) fatigue'' (2). Well, I wouldn't say they are "unscientific" anymore than %1RM would be "unscientific". They are not the definition listed in the scientific literature, but that doesn't mean they're unscientific (or scientific!). Can you really truly know that it was your 10RM that you did 9 reps at? no Can you really truly ever know what your 1RM is? no Neither can be determined with any real certainty over the other, since neither is static. > They define valid phenemonons but not the one called intensity. Depending on the context, again. > 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). It is an interesting concept to think about. Dunno why I even responded to this. I guess I just wanted to "discuss" a little bit. A long, long time ago I made a recommendation that people use this type of format when discussing intensity: intensity(load) --------------- %1RM intensity(effort) --------------- 9 reps of 10RM is 90% intensity(inroad) --------------- "inroad"/time but it never seemed to catch on except with a couple of ppl. (Adam?) Oh well. Brian
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Quads and Softball - from Sonofsquat@aol.com
Top
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 10:19:41 EDT From: Sonofsquat@aol.com Subject: Re: Quads and Softball In a message dated 98-09-04 15:58:13 EDT, you write: << t 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.... Kevin Crooks >> Kevin, With a twenty year lay off, you must reverse the effects of disuse first. This is so for much shorter lay offs as well. It also is in regards to specific activity. For instance, as a weight lifter and a rower, if I went out and tried to sprint, I would be a good candidate for an injury as well because I can't remember the last time I actually did any sprinting of any kind. Weight training will help and will do some wonders, but the best thing for you to do if you want to play softball is to engage in a specific running program. Run short sprints at 2/3 speed and slowly over a few weeks, build up to full speed. Some agility work will help as well. Frederick C. Hatfield II www.colba.net/~john295/bigboy
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. A phantom quote? - from James Krieger
Top
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 09:07:32 -0700 From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@wsu.edu> Subject: A phantom quote? In the latest ANMD, Mike Mentzer states that, in his book Science and Practice of Strength Training, Vladimir Zatsiorsky advocates up to 60 sets daily for individuals looking to gain muscle size, and Mike states that V.Z. gained this knowledge "from observations of competitive bodybuilders." I own this book, and I could not find anywhere where V.Z. makes such recommendations, nor could I find the quote "from observations of competitive bodybuilders." Does anyone else on this list own this book? Have you seen this quote? James Krieger "Al Di Meola really concentrated on playing fast when he was young, I think his main prerogative was to burn. He even openly admitted it in his early stages. He said, 'I wanna be the fastest player in the world.' And that's the same attitude I have right now, 'cause I'm still young. I have years to color my playing. I know I hear certain things now that I will eventually color it with. But for now, I'll burn." - Chris Impellitteri
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. neck work, let's go deep! - from Brian Bucher
Top
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:26:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu> Subject: neck work, let's go deep! In my training, I include manual exercises for the neck. I'm wondering if anyone has opinions on the performance of the exercises. When pushing to the side (pushing against hand on side of head) it is possible to bend either only at the base of the head (top of the neck) or bend both at the base of the head and base of the neck, giving a larger ROM. Right now I'm bending at both the base of the head and base of the neck. Any reason not to? Should I include rotation of the head or is side, front, and back enough? Shoulders relaxed, retracted, raised, ...? Should my head be held straight up (err, "neutral position") or bent forward/backward for the side-to-side movements? I am VERY thankful that I do neck work, since I've needed a strong neck a couple of times when I've gone water skiing. Last time I tried to Go Big and had some serious whiplash. Some contract-relax stretching and a visit to the massage therapist helped that one! Sorry if you had to see this message from more than one mailing list. Thanks, Brian cc: Weights-2 cc: Strength list cc: HIT Digest
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. He got game - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:45:57 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: He got game >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). But here we have a problem, not only with Stone et. al.'s definition but the other two as well. All three are using an external marker to model an internal process. As I have commented before, a 2RM and a 10RM are operating in different energy systems (ATP vs. lactic acid), have different rate limiting processes (that may differ from individual to individual depending on genetics, previous training history, etc) and may have a different locus of fatigue which may cause a different locus of adaptation. so saying that a 2RM is more intense than a 10RM is kind of meaningless. A 10RM may be far more metabolically intense (greater buildup of lactic acid, more glycogen depleted, greater perturbations in acid/base balance) and a 2RM more neurally intense (requiring greater rate coding, MU syncronization, inter/intra muscular coordination). But I don't think you can say that the 2RM is more intense than a 10RM (or vice versa) on any absolute scale, although that's what a lot of people try to do. Beyond that, with higher loads, changes in posture may affect muscular recruitment which may mean that a more intense set (by % of 1RM) is less intense for a given muscle group. Take the squat or example. As the loads get heavier (greater intensity by definition 1), there is a tendency for greater forward lean. So you are changing length tension relationships in glutes, hamstrings, rectus femoris. As a personal example, I get a much more severe quad workout with higher reps than I do with lower reps. Even beyond the various metabolic issues. Simply put, the more upright torso prevents the glutes/hams from contributing as much. So while a 5RM squat may be more 'intense' (by definition 1) than a 10RM (which may be more intense by definitions 2 and 3), my quads have received a much better workout with the 10RM. so which was a more intense workout for my quads? Finally, we all know that a 10RM in the squat puts far more of a strain on the body than a 10RM in the calf raise, changing different internal markers (i.e. squats will generate more lactic acid total because of the larger muscle mass used). So even though both sets are equally intense by definition 1, it does not unambiguosly define intensity or allow a comparison to be made strictly on intensity as a % of 1RM. Lyle McDonald, CSCS This space for lease