-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: Dan Riley - from Sonofsquat@aol.com
Top
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:31:43 EDT From: Sonofsquat@aol.com Subject: Re: Dan Riley In a message dated 98-10-11 18:24:10 EDT, you write: << Sonofsquat@aol.com, I agree with your thoughts about Dan being a gentleman. I had a chance to visit with Dan at Redskin Park about 5 or 6 years ago. I have also had the opportunity to follow him at PSU and USMA. To address the original question about Dan's "theory and practice", did you get a chance to watch him train any players??. >> I did not... We chatted privately and I gave you the run-down... For the rest of you, Dan's still using machines and he still doesn't like free weight squats. I disagree with him on the latter account (contrary to some belief, I'm not totally against the use of machines!) Sorry, I can't give any more details because I don't know.... Anyone care to fill in?
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Squat and Bench - from Gwinn, Don M.
Top
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:31:28 -0500 From: "Gwinn, Don M." <DGWINN@monm.edu> Subject: Squat and Bench Two questions: 1. I'm about two weeks into a 20-rep squat routine, and I'm going deeper than ever before (I used to do partials--though I didn't call them that! :) Now I go rock bottom but I still feel most of the pain in the quads, not glutes or hams. I currently use a shoulder width stance but I'm not flexible enough to stay flat-footed at the bottom--my heels still pop up. To involve the hamstrings and glutes more, should I widen the stance, simply wait till I'm flexible enough to push through the heels at the bottom, or what? Also, I tend to bend forward slightly, which makes me come up hips first. Should I alternate one set of squats per week with a set of good mornings or deadlifts? In other words, would that improve my squatting? 2. I'm making some progress on my bench, but I don't feel my pecs are the main push. Most of the soreness is in the area where the pecs meet the anterior delts. Could I change this by narrowing my grip? I've tried keeping the elbows at different angles but it doesn't seem to help. Would it help to pre-exhaust the pecs on flies or something similar? I appreciate any help someone can give me.
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. In reply to Anthony Rielage - from Pjsgym@aol.com
Top
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 20:18:04 EDT From: Pjsgym@aol.com Subject: In reply to Anthony Rielage Not working your legs is BIG mistake, and I think everyone else will agree with me here. Heavy leg work will stimulate gains all over the body. Many old timers emphasized heavy squating, sometimes doing little else besides this. Peary Rader and J. C. Hise are two examples. Hise did little else but squat and gained 29 lbs. in a month. Now, I'm not saying that you will, but you see what I'm getting at-leg work is very important and very beneficial. Once a trainee can squat 400 lbs. for 20-30 reps, that person will be very large and very strong, and will have added many pounds of bodyweight. If your legs are huge, this is great, but keep them that way. Just trying to help you avoid these pitfalls that I've seen so many others fall into. Good luck.
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Women's Volleyball - from MOOSEBACH@aol.com
Top
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:05:57 EDT From: MOOSEBACH@aol.com Subject: Women's Volleyball Can anyone tell me which college women's volleyball teams use HIT methods. I'm tiring to convince my daughters highschool coach to try Hit. Thanks
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Cable Bicep curls - from Duncan & Michelle
Top
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:38:49 +1000 From: "Duncan & Michelle" <defmlf@netlink.com.au> Subject: Cable Bicep curls A slightly technical question... What is the difference between curling with a straight bar and an ez curl bar. My experience is that ez curl is easier, you are able to lift more and most importantly it feels anatomically better especially for wrists and elbow joint. Does anyone have any experience/knowledge? Regards Duncan Feder Melbourne, Australia
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Food combining - from Lyle McDonald
Top
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:28:14 -0500 (CDT) From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald) Subject: Food combining >Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:58:17 -0700 >From: Rob Wolf <robartw@FTC-I.NET> >Subject: Don Lemmon's KNOW HOW > >To >understand the effectiveness of the diet, first you must realize that your >body can only digest certain foods at any given meal. Why? Becuase when >you consume a meal, your body realizes certain enzymes that break down the >food you consume for nourishment. Since your body can only realease certain >enzymes at any given time, you must only consume certain foods at any given >time. I have trudged through my nutrition and biochemistry books and found no evidence that this selective release of digestive enzymes is the case. Nor would it make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. If the body truly worked this way, we'd be extremely inefficient beings and would never have survived this long. However if someone has access to evidence that only one 'set' of enzymes can be released at a time, please send it my way. Along those lines please name one unrefined carb source (that's marginally useful nutritionally) that doesn't contain some protein in it. Let's see: legumes contain carbs and protein, grains contain carbs and protein, bread contains carbs and protein. Sure some types of flour are very low in protein but they aren't particularly helpful nutritionally. Fruit even contains a little protein even if it's a tiny amount. The only carb that contains no protein are simple sugars (sucrose and fructose) and I don't think they are a big part of this diet. If carbs and protein required different 'conditions' for digestion, none of those foods could be digested and we'd have died out long ago. Yes it's true that carbs require different enzymes than protein (alpha-amylase, sucrase, etc for carbs and various peptidases for protein like trypsin and chymotripsin) but I've NEVER seen anything to indicate that only one set of enzymes or another can be released and that said release is mutually exclusive. Again, if you've got pointers to references, send 'em my way. Now before someone gives me the pH argument, I did a little digging. It is true that the release of hydrocholoric acid (in the stomach) lowers pH to a level (below 3.5) which inactivates alpha-amylase (one of the enzymes which breaks down carbs). I imagine this is where the idea that carbs and protein require a different pH level for digestion came from. Thing is, this happens in the stomach, and most of the carb-breakdown/digestion/absorption occurs further down the digestive tract where pH isn't an issue. The same holds true for protein. Very little of the digestion of protein occurs in the stomach, except for a small amount stimulated by the hormone pepsin. Most occurs later down the digestive tract. So even if pH levels must be different in the stomach for the digestion of protein or carbs, it's moot since little digestion occurs there anyhow. > So now you are wondering what these will mean for you. It will >allow you to get rid of all your unwanted fat a lot faster than you ever >thought possible. Like any other diet, fat loss is a function of calories in versus calories out. Food combining, like most diets, is a peculiar set of rules that tricks individuals into eating less (without thinking about it that hard), and they lose fat. No biochemical magic, just basic thermodynamics. >You will have to give yourself a few days to get adjusted >to the eating plan, but will find it easy to follow. Don even has a guide >to show you how many calories you should eat to lose fat but NOT muscle. Big whoop, I can tell you the answer to that: don't create more than a 1000 calorie/day total deficit, including restriction in food intake, or addition of exercise (i.e. if you add 400 cal/day of exercise, only reduce food by 600 cal/day). For some lifters, even 1000 calories is too large of a deficit and will cause muscle loss. >The >diet promotes protein synthesis. Something we are all trying to increase. You'll have to forgive me for taking issue with you next to last sentence. I've read a lot of protein synthesis studies (a couple dozen at this point and I have another couple dozen to go) for an article I'm writing and to suggest that a food combining diet promotes protein synthesis moreso than any other dietary approach which is adequate in protein and calories is both incorrect and misleading. But it does pander to what athletes/bodybuilders want to hear which is a key to selling any diet. Lyle McDonald, CSCS "Chemical warfare, chemical warfare, chemical warfare, warfare, WARFARE!" - The Dead Kennedys
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Don Lemmon's KNOW HOW - from Jim White
Top
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:11:48 -0400 From: Jim White <jimwhite@erols.com> Subject: Re: Don Lemmon's KNOW HOW > -------------------- 5 -------------------- > Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:58:17 -0700 > From: Rob Wolf <robartw@FTC-I.NET> > Subject: Don Lemmon's KNOW HOW > > <snip> > first you must realize that your > body can only digest certain foods at any given meal. Why? Becuase when > you consume a meal, your body realizes certain enzymes that break down the > food you consume for nourishment. Since your body can only realease certain > enzymes at any given time, you must only consume certain foods at any given > time. References??????AFAIK, upon food consumption most of the necessary enzymes either will be secreted or are already present. For example, pepsin (a protease) is already present in the stomach and there exists a small amount of amylase in your saliva. From there, once food passes through the duodenum into the small intestine trypsin, chymotrypsin, and many others (can't remember off the top of my head) are secreted in order to deal with digesting what the pepsin and amylase haven't already digested. If there is research that supports your claim (or Don's claim, whoever) that only certain enzymes are "realized" at any given time, then I am unaware of it and I apologize for my ignorance and invite you (or anyone else to educate me). At this juncture, however, the only thing I might be inclined to believe is that enzyme efficiency is heightened (for example, a protein only meal would increase the amount of total enzyme thereby raising percent saturation as well as promote changes in the chemical environment that might effect binding efficacy -- allosteric effectors, etc.). The major mistake made by most dieticians (whether official or lay, and I don't know where Don L. fits in here) is conceptualization of the biochemistry of the human body as a linear phenomenon when in fact it is not. As an aside, I believe this will prove out when computational efforts to model biochemical processes fail. The myriad of downstream and upstream effects in addition to the many feedback loops (both positive and negative) make simple statements about physiochemical processes invalid. Of course, the caveat here is: If it works for you and you are satisfied, then who cares what mechanisms are involved. But, I tend to be obsessive :^O Jim White
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. RE: HIT Digest #198 - Lemmon's Fad Diet - from John Parry-McCulloch
Top
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:24:45 +0100 From: John Parry-McCulloch <John.Parry-McCulloch@liffe.com> Subject: RE: HIT Digest #198 - Lemmon's Fad Diet >You are the second person to inquire about the diet, so I figured >that I would go ahead and post my response on the digest. First off, I will >not give you the diet. I will, however, tell you more about it. OK. In which case I'll give anyone who wants it "the diet" for free. Whilst you, yourself, are under no obligation to anyone to say anything about anything, I'd be interested to learn the reason for all of the secrecy. >What this diet teaches you is how to properly combine foods so that >they are all used by your body to nourish you. You aren't restricted on >carbs, fat, or protein. You need them all in order to ensure optimum health >and performance. So I was right. Food comining is an old technique and information is freely available from many sources. I fail to see how Lemmon's book can be anything more than an attempt to turn a well established dietary regime into yet another fad. I'll repeat my points: don't mix carbs and proteins. That's the crux of it. There are a few rules regarding acid fruits and the like, and the reasons for eating fresh, unprocessed foods, but it is all simple and the information is freely available. If anyone is interested email me and I'll send you a table of compatible foods. Better still, point your browser at www.antipope.org/~jm/food-combining.html in a day or two and I'll have the information there for you. Other resources on line are many and varied: a good intro is at http://www.suite101.com/articles/article.cfm/3093.A few articles argue against the validity of food combining, but I have noticed that it works very well for _me_,and that is really all that counts as far as I am concerned. If you don't want to trust me, and there is no reason why you should, the book "Food Combining for Health: Get Fit with Foods That Don't Fight" by Doris Grant and Jean Joice is a good choice. Seach the net under "food combining" and you'll find lots of different titles. Reid's book ( The Tao of Health, Sex, and Longevity, ISBN: 067164811X), the one I mentioned earlier, is even better. Added bonus is that it goes into other aspects of health and fitness, too. Note that I am not Daniel Reid, Doris Grant or Jean Joice, and I am not related to any of them in any way. Moreover, I make nothing out of the sales of their books. >Don even has a guide to show you how many calories you should eat to lose fat but >NOT muscle. The diet promotes protein synthesis." Well, anyone can work out the number of calories expended in a day and take it from there, and combining (heh) this knowledge with the food-combining rules is a doddle. As for the protein synthesis businsess, I'd guess once more that he is referring to so called "alkali" meals, yes? Save your $45 people: I'll stick it all on the antipope site for free. Unfortunately my pages won't be adorned with testamonials from infeasibly large-breasted females, either. But you get what you pay for. > I honestly feel that if you are seriously considering trying to get > shredded, you need to pick up the book. I have a question for you: are you making money out of this book or its promotion? Are you connected in any way with Mr Lemmon or the "Know How" company or products? I honestly think that if you want to save yourself $5 you should look at the antipope site, or pick up a $10 paperback from your local health store. Jon
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: Don Lemmon's KNOW HOW - from Steve Brecher
Top
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 17:07:36 -0700 From: Steve Brecher <steve@brecher.reno.nv.us> Subject: Re: Don Lemmon's KNOW HOW Rob Wolf <robartw@FTC-I.NET> wrote in Hit Digest #198: > ... get rid of all your unwanted fat a lot faster than you ever > thought possible. ... easy to follow. ... diet will have you looking > good and feeling good in no time. ... you owe it to yourself to get this > book. ... you will have no problem applying and sticking to the plan. Sounds pretty impressive. Now that we've got the fast, easy fat loss problem solved, all we need is a technique that will enable us to MAKE MONEY FAST.
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: HIT Digest #198 - from PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com
Top
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:13:24 EDT From: PRSNLFTNSS@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #198 Back to the question about Dan's "theory and practice", did any body take Dan up on his offer to Visit him at Redskin Park???? Pete
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Weigth training injuries - from axtomas
Top
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:00:08 -0400 From: por1axt@por10.med.navy.mil (axtomas) Subject: Weigth training injuries Sorry Pete, How rude of me not to reference the article. Lombardi, Troxel "Recreational weight training injuries for 1995 and 1996" presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine, Orlando, 1998; as yet unpublished Powell KE et al "Injury rates from walking, gardening, weightlifting, outdoor bicycling and aerobics" Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1998, 30(8):1246-9 Cheers, Andrew Tomas
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Creatine-induced insomnia? - from G Paulsen
Top
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:09:44 -0500 (CDT) From: holstein@webtv.net (G Paulsen) Subject: Creatine-induced insomnia? My roommate recently started using creatine. While loading during the first week, he started having difficulty falling asleep at night. While I assumed this was coincidental, his personal trainer mentioned that this was not an uncommon side-effect of creatine use, and he recommended using the supplement only early in the day. Has anyone else noticed this effect? Is there any research or documentation on this issue? Does the trainer know what he's talking about?