From: cyberpump@geocities.com
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997
Subject: HIT Digest #19
To: HIT.Digest@geocities.com
Reply-To: <cyberpump@geocities.com>

This list digest contains the following message subjects:

  1. Re: Smith Squats and aerobics- comments on replys
  2. Optimal stimuls
  3. Rack Work


<MSG1>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997
From: zoharyz@netvision.net.il
Subject: Re: Smith Squats and aerobics- comments on replys
---------- > From: æäø æîåøä <zoharyz@netvision.net.il>
To: cyberpump@geocities.com
> Subject: Smith Squats and aerobics
> Date: ùáú 18 àå÷èåáø 1997 08:38

> > 1) I have been regularly doing Smith squats in my routine with good results. The use of the Smith machine enables me to work safely, using good form and without a spotter. I stress good, deep technique. However, I know that some guys oppose Smith squats. Can anybody tell me why ? I would like to hear any opinions on Smith squats.

> > 2) I have been doing powerlifting routines and decided to eliminate aerobics (as recommended by F. Hatfield). However, I seem to have gained some fat and I feel less fit. I would like to hear some opinions on: should a trainee going for strength gains do aerobics? If so then what kind and how much.

> > Thanks.

Glad that these two questions solicited some replies. Would like to comment on the replies:

1) Smith squats - Wow! Is this a religous issue ? I don't want to anger squatters. There is only one reason I started on Smith squats, and it's not an ideological one. The facility I use is mostly geared towards aerobics and weight machines. The free weight area is very limited and there is no squat rack. So my choice was (is) leg press or Smith squat. I feel the latter is more beneficial.

2) Aerobics - Just as I thought, there are many opinions. Let me add two more: a. Dr. Richard A. Winett: Supports high intensity aerobics at about 90% MHR. Opposes steady state aerobics and opts for intrval training. b. My opinion - Some form of aerobics are important for total fitness (though may hinder maximum strength). I hate aerobic machines. They are boring even when put up in front of a TV. So here is my suggestion - get out of the gym and do some form of unstructured aerobics. My favourites are weekend hikes and soccer games. I find these great for my health, my spirit, my family ties and social connections. This is great for all that are used to working out in a closed gym by themselves. Since we are not aerobic athletes there is no need to be structured in this type of exercise.


<MSG2>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997
From: lylemcd@onr.com
Subject: Optimal stimuls
>Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:21:33 +1000
>To: cyberpump@geocities.com
>From: T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au
>Subject: Optimal Stimulus

> > >Hi folks,

> >Did I say Power = Total weight/Total time when I meant to say Intensity = Inroad /Time. I am a naughty boy and for this I will perform one exercise right down to eccentric failure (OH THE PAIN!!, sorry about that, I'm back again). My problem is this, we all differ according to muscle fibre distribution. Now what I would like to know is this, is it better to increase time of contraction which will increase inroad but will/ may decrease intensity? Is it something like this where 1 rep x max or 1000 x 500g prove to be both not optimal. I think that Little and Sisco for all of their failures were on to something when they said that there is a combination of reps and weight that will generate the optimum stimulus. This is read as force and time to give optimum stimulus. Does anyone know how to go about doing this using some nifty formula etc. rather than have me do some actual work and try it out? Does someone know of anything better? Patience is a virtue that I can't wait to acquire.

I think this is a VERY interesting conceptual question. We know that high muscle tension is part of hte growth stimulus. If you put a bird's wing on stretch (which generates tension), it grows. But, if tension were the ONLY determinant of growth, then repeat singles (or, better yet, maximal negatives ALL the time) would be the best growth workout since it provides maximal (which does no equal optimal) tension. But we know this NOT to be the case.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have to consider fatigue (or inroad). This has also shown to be part of hte growth stimulus. We can generate maximal fatigue through the use of light weights and lots of reps (or running). But, we know that this doesn't give optimal growth.

I tend to look at training as an interplay of tension (essentially load on the bar) and fatigue (reps/set time/inroad). If we limit ourselves to rep counts between 1 and 20 reps (approx 60-100% of 1RM or so), we can see a lot of different schemas for 'growth' workouts. Let's assume 5 seconds per rep and go from there.

1 rep @ 100%1RM = 5 seconds. 5 reps@ 85% 1RM = 25 seconds 10 reps@70% 1RM = 50 seconds 15 reps@65% 1RM = 75 seconds 20 reps@60% 1RM = 100 seconds

I would argue that somewhere in this range the optimal combination of fatigue and tension will be achieved. The choice of one or the other *might* depend on fiber typing (someone who is Type IIb dominant would likely grow with more tension and less fatigue) and a whole host of other factors. The typical 'growth' range is often considered from 6-20RM (about 82.5%-60% 1RM and set times of roughly 30-100 seconds). Anecdotally, if you look at the set/time schemas presented, most of hte intelligent ones are in this range.

Jones HIT: 8-12 reps@6 sec/rep = 48-72 seconds Superslow: 4 reps at 15sec/rep = 60 sec Poliquin: 20-60 seconds per set Some European training books I have: 20-60 seconds per set Holman in Ironman: 7-9 reps @ 4 sec/rep = 28-36 seconds

etc, etc.

I think a lot of the reason this range works is that you are: a. getting recruitment of Type II fibers with high tension b. getting fatigue with long set times

That is, 1RM gets all muscle fibers but set time is too short to fatigue most of htem. Low RM sets don't get all the muscle fibers (at least not until the end of the set) but generate mucho fatigue. Somewhere between 6-20RM, you optimize both the recruitment (Type II fibers) an fatigue levels (long set times).

As to a simple equation to determine your optimal range, it don't exist. I think more valuable is trying different rep ranges/set times and seeing where you make the most progress.

Lyle McDonald, CSCS "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate." Anon


<MSG3>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 97
From: STRIETPJ@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu
Subject: Rack Work

I recently went wild at Cincinnati's public library and photocopied a number of old PLUSA articles (Leister's are classics). I found one of interest by Bill Starr regarding Rack Work. I've implemented it into my program because I'm loo king to do my first powerlifting meet in the near future. My squat is skyrocke ting. I found I was quite weak at the bottom posistion. Without going into gr eat detail, it basically involves holding the bar aganist the pins at various h eigths for a predetermined amount of time. Anyway, has anyone used rack work, or more specifically Starr's program? How was it? Any precautions? Thanx.

1