This list digest contains the following message subjects:
Hi kids. I'm in a better mood today, as the market made a nice comeback. Now I don't have to work til age 120 to retire - back to age 70, yaaay!
A couple of comments. First, this is one LONG digest. Just letting you know in advance.
Second, I must thank all posters for some really well-thought out posts. I'm really impressed by the quality, people. You have done a great job of presenting your advice/observations/opinions/etc., without even a hint of a flame.
This shows that you CAN carry on constructive discussions on strength training, and I'm very happy to see it. It's why we created this digest.
So, my thanks to all of you. You all get bonus points. If I could wire you all Canadian Tire money, I would. Sorry, that's a Canadian joke.
--Rob
> From: DrewBaye@aol.com
> existing supply of adaptive resources. Of course, you want to increase the positive factor (training intensity) and decrease the negative factor (training volume, or the amount of work performed) as much as possible.
I find this comment interesting. If this comment was correct, then shouldn't performing 1 RM training be the most optimal way to train? The training intensity (in terms of effort) is extremely high during a 1-rep max, and the training volume is extremely low. Yet, we all know that this is NOT the most optimal way to train, especially if your goal is muscle hypertrophy.
In my opinion, training volume is NOT a negative factor. Total work DOES play a role if your goal is maximum muscle hypertrophy. Baker et al (1) compared three different models of strength training. One of the models was a linear periodization model (the model espoused by Stone and O'Bryant and adopted by the NSCA). Baker noticed a trend in the linear periodization group; as training volume decreased, so did gains in lean body mass. Stone et al also found this (2). Baker et al incorporated a set of 10 repetitions during the low volume period to try to maintain hypertrophic adaptations, but this still did not result in continued gains in LBM.
Another study from the European Journal of Applied Physiology was recently reported by Eliot Jordan in Ironman. I have yet to see this study for myself, so for now, I am going solely off Eliot Jordan's description of the protocol. Three groups (90% 1 RM, 35% 1 RM, and 15% 1 RM) were compared. To make a long story short, the 90% 1 RM group had the lowest training volume and the greatest gains in maximal strength. However, the 35% 1 RM group performed about 70% more work than the other two groups, and also was the only group that showed an increase in muscle size. The authors of the study concluded that total work does play a role in muscle hypertrophy.
In that same issue, an intriguing debate is presented between Richard Winett and the authors of Periodization Breakthrough!, William Kraemer and Steven Fleck. Winett believes that Fleck and Kraemer imply that volume is the key overload stimulus, while they point out that it is not. It is a combination of both intensity and volume that provide the exercise stimulus, not one or the other, and different combinations of these will provide different stimuli. Manipulations of both these variables are necessary in the long run to achieve optimal long-term results.
In a study by McCall et al (3), 12 males completes 12 weeks of training. The forearm flexors were emphasized, with a total of 12 sets for them, done 3 times a week. So, their training volume was very high. The individuals achieved a 17% increase in Type II fiber area and a 10% increase in Type I fiber area in their forearm flexors. While the purpose of this study was not to demonstrate the efficacy of higher volumes of training, I am using it to simply point out that training volume is not a negative factor. If it was, then these individuals would not have achieved the results that they did.
1. Baker, D., G. Wilson, and R. Carlyon. Periodization: The effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 8(4):235-242. 1994.
2. Stone, M.H., H. O'Bryant, and J. Garhammer. A theoretical model for strength training. NSCA Journal 4(4):36-39. 1982.
3. McCall, G.E., W.C. Byrnes, A. Dickinson, P.M. Pattany, and S.J. Fleck. Muscle fiber hypertrophy, hyperplasia, and capillary density in college men after resistance training. J. Appl. Physiol. 81(5):2004-2012. 1996.
> near as quickly as was once thought. The average person who does not strength train only loses half a pound of muscle per year after the mid 20's, so I
I find this comment interesting. Where are you getting this data?
>Sounds contradictory to me. If one has a bad lockout, shouldn't benches overload just that position? There's something else, too. If intensity of effort is the key to progress then why wouldn't strength differences even out with time as the intensity around the weak range is the highest? It indicates that intensity is not everything.
Hmm, good point. STill, even if tris are limiting factor, it doesn't change the biomechanical factors involved in a bench (i.e. your ultimately limited in how much you can lockout by how much you canget off your chest). But, by the time weight passes through the biomechanical sticking point, triceps are fatigued and may be the limiting factor in lockout. Whereas rack lockouts (or functional isometrics or whatever) can truly overload triceps without fatigue from previous work (i.e. getting the damn bar off your chest) becoming involved.
FWIW, Louie Simmons trains people this way. Analyzes the weak point of the movement and targets the muscles involved. Figures you should attack the weak point since it will ultimately limit performance in the rest of hte movement (chain is only as strong as it's weakest link) at which time something else becomes the weak link at which time you target that.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS "Just remember: we all come into life the same way: terrified, screaming and covered with blood......And it doesn't have to end there if you know how to live." Some comedian
> > One Set to Failure
> > If one set to failure is the right dose for many then there must be trainees to whom even one set to failure IS TOO MUCH. Not that one set to failure would mean gross
Training intensity (= inroad /time) is in my opinion and I'll take it as fact until shown otherwise the stimulus required for strength and size increases. Inroad is measured by the percentage reduction in initial maximal strength performance a given "set" of exercise would accomplish. Now if someone was not to recover by their next workout, (ie show strength or size increases) they have the option of resting further until overcompensation was accomplished. Another way would be to decrease optimal intensity by playing around with the inroad and time variables so that they were not maximising intensity(as calculated above). They would still train to failure and be able to measure accurately what type of inroad was made.
> overtraining but by decreasing the intensity by a bit the rate of progress
> could be increased with these individuals. Please note that failure point >has nothing magical in it; it just represents the situation where the muscular force has dropped below the resistance of the load. Why would that point have to be the right one?
It's only important for measurement and for ensuring the most effective and efficient stimulus was supplied. Now you might be able to measure time under tension and never go to failure ever but this type of equipment would probably not be at any commercial gyms. Maximal efforts need to be performed sometimes otherwise how can strength increases be measured.
> Mike Mentzer writes in the November ANMD: "The fact that there are only two accurate measures of intensity - 0%, when at complete rest, and 100%, when exerting oneself maximally - makes it necessary that you train to failure". This seems leaky logic to me. If the optimum intensity for someone was less than 100%, say 80%, then should he or she bring the set until failure only for the sake of being able to say what the intensity of the set was? Why not try to find by experimenting what degree of intensity would yield the greatest progress? Of course if the set is not taken to failure it cannot be said what the exact intensity was, but if a trainee has experience of to failure-training he or she can estimate with sufficient accuracy how many reps short of failure the set was taken.
> > Personally I feel that the more one is increases precision in their measurements the clearer the picture will become.
thanxTeri
Hi guys,
Thanks to those that replied to my last question. In reference to the responses that I received I now know some of the reasons why eccentric exercise is so effective. I've heard that Arthur Jones had success with eccentric training, I think with a Mr Tom Laputka. Now if this type of exercise was too intense for most trainees who utilised it on a regular basis on a fixed training timetable, can it now be resurrected with those who vary their recovery wrt intensity? I plan on soon implementing it with only one repetition being performed, that may take anywhere from 15-45 seconds. Only negatives will be performed exclusively, probably 1 limb at a time. Are there some problems in eating my dessert before my main course? I hope not, I'm getting hungry.
Cya Teri
>One Set to Failure
> >Several HIT proponents say that one set is usually all you need if it's done to failure. But people are not alike. Thus there may be some trainees who can benefit from more training be it then another set or the set extended beyond failure. But have you ever thought of the other side? If one set to >ailure is the right dose for many then there must be trainees to whom even >ne set to failure IS TOO MUCH. Not that one set to failure would mean gross overtraining but by decreasing the intensity by a bit the rate of progress could be increased with these individuals. [snip]
This is a real good point, in fact I had asked Mentzer about this on Faith Sloans (old) message board when he was 'dispensing advice' there but unfortunately he never actually answered the question. Anyhow, I'm currently a client of the one the Hardgainer authors and one of the things he had me do was to stop going to complete concentric muscle failure, but rather to stop one rep short or when my target reps are made, because taking every set to failure can be so hard on the CNS. Since doing this I'm still working very hard and am wiped out from the workouts, but I don't have that 'totally f*&#ing exhausted can barely function' feeling the next day or two. Also, I'm getting stronger every week and gaining weight. If you are adding a few pounds to the bar on every exercise every workout and gaining muscular weight, your body is adapting to the stress of your workout. For some people that level stress may need to be complete failure, for many it is not.
My suggestion would be to cut back what you are doing by about 75%. That many sets is overtraining in my opinion. With lots of aerobic activity it will be hard to maintain muscle. When I was in high school many years ago, it was the reason why I quit Track. I was turning back into a skinny runner. No way -- not for me! All my hard earned gains were getting sucked off my body from Track. Of course, I didn't know what the heck I was doing as far as weight training, but being that young, the muscle was coming on nicely.
Brad
____________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
The degree to which an organism is stimulated to respond to any particular stress is proportional to the intensity of the stress, thus the necessity to train as intensely as possible (i.e. to momentary muscular failure) for optimal growth stimulation.
While there does exist tremendous variation between individuals in regards to tolerance to intense physical stress (the volume they can tolerate) and ability to recover from and adapt to physical stress (optimal training frequency), the relationship between training intensity and growth stimulation is constant. The harder you train, the greater the degree to which your body is stimulated to adapt.
If a person is not making satisfactory progress on a HIT program, they either need to decrease the frequency, or volume of their workouts.
Andrew M. Baye
Hello,
Can anyone help me with trying to keep accurate measurements? I have just started Body Building, and stumbled upon the excellent Cyberpump site quite early on. I've read alot of the site, and that took a long time. One of the most sensible things I've read on there is to keep accurate measurements of progress etc, but I need advice on how to do this.
Here is my idea:
* Measure upper-arms, lower arms, legs etc, every day. * Record my daily calorie intake. * Daily weight, and resting heart beat.
Unfortunately, I find it very hard to work out my calorie intake, even with a calorie book. Like, how many calories in that sandwich I just ate? It didn't come in a packet, so I don't know.
How many body size measurements are necessary? Am I going over the top on this, or should I measure as many as possible? Is daily measurement important?
I want to experiment with different numbers of reps in my single sets, and maybe with doing 2 sets to see if 1 set really does work better than 2. But hold on, when I do bicep curls, tricep extensions, bench press and chin-ups, how can I know which exercise resulted in which muscle increase? There is obviously some overlap here. So, if I try changing my reps in the bicep curls, how long do I have to analyse the data for, before I can conclude that this rep change was a benefit or not?
I suppose what I'm saying is, I can only try changing one part of my routine at a time, otherwise I'll confuse my findings. But after I change a part of it, how long will it be before I notice the change?
Any help from all you experienced HITers is greatly appreciated!
------------------------------------------------------------------ John Squires JOHNS @ EUMERSC.MHS.COMPUSERVE.COM United Bible Societies Phone +44 1293 553821 Crawley U.K. Fax +44 1293 553839
<< > The average person who does not strength train only loses half a pound of muscle per year after the mid 20's, so I hardly think that a person who is strength training would lose a significant amount of muscle after only a week or two off. I've heard this also, but whenever I try to explain this to anyone they ask me to prove it. Do you have references for this statement?>>
Not that I can think of offhand, although I know that MedX has done a lot of research on this with regards to lumbar extension and cervical extension strength.
However, I have many clients who train once per week or less, and all of them continue to make significant progress from workout to workout, even in cases where they have been gone for 2 or more weeks (vacation, business, etc.) and have not trained during that time. As a recent example, one female client I train worked out last evening for the first time in over 3 weeks (26 days). Despite not having trained for this amount of time, she was able to perform each exercise with a heavier weight, and only performed one less repetition on each one than she had during her last workout at the previous weights. This is not at all uncommon.
Starting in November, I am cutting back the training frequency of several of my clients to once every two weeks, as well as myself, and I will report the results in an article on Cyberpump! after a few months have passed.
[Please do, Andrew, this should prove to be interesting -- Rob]
Andrew M. Baye
In a message dated 97-10-27 21:03:32 EST, you write:
<< My questions concern workouts. Using HIT or SuperSlow HIT would it be better to pick 4-6 multi-joint exercises and repeat them twice a week or every 4-5 days depending on recovery, or would it be better to pick two groups of 4-6 exercises and alternate them twice a week or every 4-5 days? If I were to workout just one day per week, is it better to stick with certain exercises for several weeks before changing them or do one group of exercises one week and another group the second week? Doing squats or deadlifts twice a week is too much but the thought of doing them once every other week "seems" like too little. Any thoughts? >>
Before you start splitting up your workouts, I suggest picking 4 to 6 compound exercises and sticking to that workout until you determine your optimal training frequency. As long as you are making good progress on this, I see no reason to split your routines, unless you want to cut the volume of your training back to the absolute minimal.
Don't worry about doing too little, worry about not allowing your body enough recovery time between workouts. The only way to find out is to keep accurate records of your progress, and use them to evaluate and adjust your workout volume and frequency.
Andrew M. Baye
In a message dated 97-10-27 21:03:32 EST, you write:
<< I am currently doing cardio everyday in order to get ready for the back to back seasons of swimming and lacrosse. I am looking for any help or suggestions in ways that I can still retain and even build muscle mass while doing cardio everyday. I was planning on upping my protein to about 200g per day, while keeping the calories at maintenance( 2200-2300 cals/day). >>
A proper HIT program is capable of producing a level of cardiovascular improvements in a matter of weeks that woud be impossible to equal with any number of years of aerobics. Forget the "cardio" entirely. Concentrate on strength training and practicing the skills of your sport.
I realize the above statement requires a bit of explanation, which I will provide in the form of an article on Cyberpump. Also, there is info on this at http://www.superslow.com/why_not_aerobics_faq.html
Andrew M. Baye
>you wrote:
>Well what do you suggest I should do? I'm only 18 and everyone's saying how they wish they had my recovering abilities,but just lately, I've begun to stay sore for up to 6 or 7 days after each workout, no matter what the body part. If I don't train during that time, then I only get in the gym once a week!! That's not enough!! Any suggestions?
Because you are sore means you may not be warmin up correctly. I can't recommend 'Stretching' enough. Before you start your workout, try stretching every muscle you are about to train. Stretch and flex your muscles between sets as hard as your can and make sure you do a good deal of stretching and flexing at the end. Of course it doesn't stop there! Stretch your body, especially your arm and back muscles as much as possible the next day, from then you get up to going to bed. Your muscles may be tired but they should not be sore.
Erkki wrote:
>One Set to Failure
>Several HIT proponents say that one set is usually all you need if it's done to failure. But people are not alike. Thus there may be some trainees who can benefit from more training be it then another set or the set extended beyond failure. But have you ever thought of the other side? If one set to failure is the right dose for many then there must be trainees to whom even >one set to failure IS TOO MUCH.
Why not just decrease frequency? Then, you would not have to guess about level of intensity. Frequency is another variable in there. If one does one set every three weeks, I bet for most it would not be too much. The more advanced I get, the higher intensity I must use to continue to gain, and workout frequency has to decrease. That's the way it is for me.
Bill
>My questions concern workouts. Using HIT or SuperSlow HIT would it be better to pick 4-6 multi-joint exercises and repeat them twice a week or every 4-5 days depending on recovery, or would it be better to pick two groups of 4-6 exercises and alternate them twice a week or every 4-5 days? If I were to workout just one day per week, is it better to stick with certain exercises for several weeks before changing them or do one group of exercises one week and another group the second week? Doing squats or deadlifts twice a week is too much but the thought of doing them once every other week "seems" like too little. Any thoughts?
Either strategy will yield results, full body or split (usually upper body/lower body) routine. A full body workout allows you to make fewer trips to the gym, a split routine allows you to work out more frequently, and maybe devote more time to things like neck work and grip work.. Depends on your lifestyle and your goals. You have to use trial and error to see how your body responds. Using a split routine once a week sounds a little extreme and might be submaximal, but there are some people who can only gain that way. If you're going to work out once a week, you probably should design a full body workout that HITs every muscle group and give that a try before you go to a split routine. Don't try to cram too many exercises into the one workout or your intensity will suffer towards the end of the workout and you'll burn out. The last time I used a full body workout I alternated squats and SL deadlifts every fourth day and that worked well. Doing them both and then working the rest of my body was too much for one workout.
spr
> > >My stats: >17 1/2 years old 5' 8" 144 10% bodyfat maintenance intake is around 2200-2300 calories per day. I eat approx 40% carb, 30% protein, and 30% fat. I play lacrosse, hockey, and swim team for my high school. I am a volume lifter( ex: chest-- 4 sets dumbell press, 4 sets freeweight butterfly, and 4 sets dips, every monday.) I am currently doing cardio everyday in order to get ready for the back to back seasons of swimming and lacrosse. I am looking for any help or suggestions in ways that I can still retain and even build muscle mass while doing cardio everyday. I was planning on upping my protein to about 200g per day, while keeping the >calories at maintenance( 2200-2300 cals/day).
> >Thank you
> >alex funk
>hockeyboss@aol.com
First off Alex, lets talk about your weight training. H.I.T. belives that volume is an inefficient way to train. Efficient trainings means doing the least amount of exercise to stimulate strength increase. You can stimulate a strenght increase by doing much less than you describe, and from the sound of it, stop overtraining. I suggest you download the H.I.T. faq for more about this.
[Before I forget, just FYI, I will be updating the HIT FAQ over the next few months...whenever I get time -- Rob]
Secondly, your calories are way to low. You need to increase calories in order to increase your weight (muscle mass). A quick way to do this is to multiply your height by 14 or 16 depending on how active you are; the more active the higher the multiplyer. Don't get too hung up on protien intake vs. fat intake vs. carb intake. Just eat a balanced diet and your body will take care of itself.
Finally, are you doing more cardio than what you are doing in practice? If so, stop now. H.I.T. training will produce an aerobic training session along with it's anaerobic stimulation.