This list digest contains the following message subjects:
All,
Unfortunately my time constraints have left me..well, constrained for time. I'm sending this one out in a hurry as I've got an exam for this course I'm taking and it's a prerequisite for my job, so what can ya do.
Moderator "Mike" (nice handle, BTW) will be taking over duties until probably next Thursday. Sorry, I've just been busier than a one-eyed cat watching three mouseholes.
Oh, and I had to reject a "love" chain letter. Why we got that, I don't know...maybe someone found out I'm still single. Somehow women just don't seem to be impressed when I say I wrote the HIT FAQ.
Be good to "Mike". I'll be reading still, just no time to moderate.
See you all in about a week.
-- Rob
The RANT's that were pulled from this digest are not posted under Cyberpump! RANT:
http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/4000/rant.html
HOWEVER, don't pull anything said over there back onto the list. :)
The Cyberpump! Webmaster
We are all familiar with the old gym lore of "don't eat more than 50 grams of protein in one sitting since that is all your body can use". While I am unsure of the accuracy of this statement, I would certainly not argue that there is a point *some My question is: can anybody on this list suggest a similar "threshold" for other biologically important substances. I'm thinking specifically of anti-oxidants - take vit. C as an example. Since it's water soluble, we can pretty much consume it wi
[I don't know if this is a mail error or not. If you want to resubmit, go ahead -- Rob]
> With this in mind, I know that many favor the chin-up for the back. I've noticed that I feel the effects in the lats from chins, but I feel the effects in the middle back from rows. Chins do not seem to hit my middle back, and rows don't seem to hit the outer back. Am I correct in this observation? And should I be doing both chins AND rows in a HIT workout? Or alternating them in workouts?
You are correct that rows and chins work the back in fundamentally different ways. However, much of it depends on arm position relative to the torso and, more importantly, how to upper arm moves relative to the torso. This will be very hard to explain verbally (I suggest chuck clark's article on back training in Chuck's Pit on Cyberpump if it's still there).
Stand upright, raise arms out in front like doing a front raise (worthless exercise). Now bring them back down. This movement is called shoulder extension. The prime mover is the lats.
Stand upright, raise arm to side like a side raise (another worthless exercise). now bring them back down. this is called shoulder aDDuction. The prime mover is also the lats.
Stand upright, arms out in front with palms facing floor (as if finishing another front raise). Pull shoulders straight back (like a reverse bench press). This is horizontal aBDuction and you should feel your shoulder blades squeezing together which is scapular retraction. The prime mover is the midback (Traps III,IV, teres group, rhomboids).
If you do a row with your elbows down by your sides (parallel grip V-handle), the movement at the shoulder is actually shoulder extension (what happens at the elbow is irrelevant, what matters is what's happening at the shoulder) so the prime mover is THE LATS. The midback also contributes in that you should be retracting your scapulae at the same time.
If you do a row with your elbows up (you need a fairly long bar for this or I like to use a tricep rope) such that upper arm stays parallel to the floor throughout the movement, you're using primarily midback with a bit of lat involvement.
Personally, I think a good back workout should include one movement for both midback and lats.
> Also, are dips with the elbows out to the sides sufficient for chest work, or should I add (or alternate workouts with) a bench press movement (barbell or dumbbell)?
Assuming you're hollowing your chest (your body should look like a crescent), I think this is one of the best movements for chest.
I'm no gonna adress the Superslow questions since it's not my area of expertise (Andrew should be able to handle it better).
>It's too awkward to ask an instructor "Now teach me how to not >need you anymore" but that is exactly where I need to do!
As a trainer, this type of statement kind of bothers me. My goal (AFAIK) is to get my clients so that they DON'T need me to hold their hands. I see too many trainers make their clients dependent on them (because the trainers needs to make money too), never educating them about what they are doing. They take a "just do this because I said so attitude" towards their clients. I think this is criminal. Not only should you be able to ask your trainer to give a rationale for ANYTHING he has you do, he should be willing to give it so that you can understand why you're doing something. Otherwise, you should get a new trainer.
Hope this doesn't qualify as ranting, I already got my hand slapped once by Bill.
[That Bill, he's so judgemental. I often condemn him for that (hah, pun. This passes as you are obviously free to have your own opinion on subjects like this as long as we don't make it PERSONAL -- Rob]
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
[Please try and put the correct subject header in as I mentioned last digest. Also, please try and only quote what you have to from the last post. Just to help the other readers out when reading. Thanks -- Rob]
> > >While we're on the subject of cardio (digest 26 - article 6), I'll submit my simple question.
> >I am looking to add some cardio routines to my weight program. While I'm not trying to become a hulk, I'd like to continue to realize some level of HIT results that I've seen in the past (10 lbs in 3 months!). How much cardio is safe to add, without slowing down the HIT progress to 0? I understand this varies somewhat from person to person, program to program, but I'm looking for some feedback based on your collective experiences. If it helps, my current program is split into three days as follows:
> >Day 1: Back (5 sets), Shoulders (5 sets), Bis (4 sets) Day 2: Legs (10 sets), Abs (6 sets) Day 3: Chest (7 sets), Tris (4 sets), Forearms (5 sets)
> > No individual exercise accounts for more than 2 sets. Sets within a muscle group are often done in superset fashion. It generally takes 7-9 days to complete the three days >(more often a work limitation) > > >Thanks in advance.....
> >-David > I'm a new boy to this page but I have some advice that may help. Your question on cardio is dependant on factors such as intensity level, current fitness or recovery capacity, nutrition and sleep. Suffice to say that if any of these factors are deficient than the level of cardio may be too much.
Also what are you doing cardio for? General fitness or weight loss?
Like good HIT training you need to individualize the program for yourself. Start at a minimal amount say twice a week for 1/2 an hour at 60% of your max heart rate. Use your lifting capacity as your criterion. If you are still continuing to improve on your lifts then you can up the cardio. If you aren't then drop the cardio all together.
Keep upping the cardio intensity as long as your weights continue to improve. If it is for fitness work up to 3-4 times a week at 75% max heart rate for 45 minutes. If it is for fat loss drop the intensity a little and increase the volume.
this list is very exciting in that we see honest, structured discussion about strength training topics that really aren't seen elsewhere... whereas before i thought Hit/HG training has been explained thoroughly and exhaustively, the specific comments/questions here are quite interesting. especially: the discussion that perhaps one set to failure is too much (i have seen this myself when i followed stuart mcroberts recommendation to try to "gain momentum" by choosing a rep target and adding weight each time) this doesn't seem to conflict with HIT too much in that it acknowledges that this particular person's inroad can be too much with failure training... would I be wrong in thinking that muscular failure would better act as a gauge of progress for this type of person? and also the discussion of how to adjust volume within the parameters of a HIT program... the HIT faq states 1-3 sets as a guide perhaps varying volume with this guidline would be helpful? Or is that too much like periodization (which seems to be like a dirty word around cyberpump *hehehe* )
[Actually it isn't. And it definitely isn't here. -- Rob]
thank you to rob and bill for this fine site and intriguing digest
[You're welcome. Now send cash -- Rob]
Jarlo Ilano student physical therapist (for what seems like forever..)
Hi, Adam and others,
I just want to make some comments on your post. I will make the following points with reference to this, but will only include those things that I consider relevant. In doing this I may only use 1 example as I think that it may be sufficient.
> > > > In my opinion, training volume is NOT a negative factor. Total work DOES >play a role if your goal is maximum muscle hypertrophy.
> > > > [examples, with references, snipped] > >
With respect to the above you state the opinion of another but without providing his supporting evidence which to my mind is important. I think what I have a problem with is, the use of references which are not meaningful to me (studies in influential "scientific" journals included) . I'm pretty sure that we could find conflicting evidence for just about anything if we wished. You see I was not at any of the studies when they were conducted and do not know of the type of methodology utilised, etc. Being a fairly suspicious person I would rather follow reason, at one time people thought the earth was flat and it may be, but most of the evidence and our own deductions suggest to us that this is not so. The conclusion of have come to is that the only thing one should rely on is our own reason. If you could show me the errors of my ways in being a HITer I would definitely change.
Wrt jkrieger's reference to 1RM's being intense, they are not using the formula Intensity = Inroad/time. Even though the weight is heavy and it certainly feels like it too, it does not give a very high intensity value. The inroad made with a conventional 1RM is minimal. Now intensity may or may not be defined as by all HITers as such and this may provide some confusion. You are able to read more about this on the SuperSlow site. Andrew Baye also can provide you with much valuable information. I make these suggestions with the intent to be constructive and hope that you take them in this manner. One last thing, if you can not understand the reasoning behind some concept ,question it until either you do or you judge the answers to be logically flawed etc. You may have noticed that this is the approach that I have been employing.
regards Teri
Hi all, just a few thoughts (i.e. newbie alert ) doesn't the old general adaptation syndrome (GAS) say that after the first reaction to something new (e.g. you start a new workout and can't walk the next day), adaptation occurs. This "adaptation" leads to increased performance unless "total stress" is too great and overtraining occurs. The whole idea of "periodization" is based on the GAS.
Any exercise program that allows for progression (and incites adaptation) and avoids overtraining will result in positive gains.
My understanding of HIT has always been that the 'one set to failure' methodology was intended to avoid overtraining. You should do just enough exercise to induce a response, then stop to avoid overtraining. If you have done enough exercise to induce an "optimal response" then anything more is wasted effort.
To quote Vince Lombardi "Athletes go mentally stale before they go physically flat."
-Les In Vino Veritas
The statement regarding the rate of muscle loss in adults beginning in the early 20's is based on what I have read of the work being done at Tuft's University regarding aging and sarcopenia as well as some of Dr. Darden's books.
As far as volume of training goes, it is a negative thing. It is a stress, and it uses a certain amount of energy and resources. The very reason the body is stimulated to respond to it results from this fact. If it were not negative, why would the body be stimulated to produce an adaptation to it?
The body has a limited reserve of resources for recovery and adaptation. The more that is used during the workout, the less the body is left with afterwards to recover and respond with. As Arthur has stated, "It is only rational to use as economically as possible that which exists in limited amount."
Andrew M. Baye
>Now in thinking about compound exercises especially wrt free weights, will all body parts recover by the next training session? For example a bench press will fatigue the triceps and shoulders in advance of the chest and therefore require less frequency of training. [...] This may result in the chest being trained on a different >frequency to the shoulders.
Well, if you're really interested in reading about this check out Fred Hatfields book 'Hardcore Bodybuilding' or his web page. He provides a bunch of charts for how often you should train each bodypart based on it's recovery ability etc... However, I personally think this is complete overkill and yet another case of making something that should be simple (bodybuilding/strength training) more complicated than it needs to be, or is. Being a proponent of the Hargainer approach, I don't think in terms of working individual body parts, I think in terms of working individual lifts ie; squats, deads, bench, military press, etc. Taking the bench press example, if you're working hard and adding 1 or 2 lbs to it each week, your chest, shoulders and tri's are going to get bigger. Period. You don't have to worry about 'degree of inroad' for each part.
> I know that many favor the chin-up for the back. I've noticed that I feel the effects in the lats from chins, but I feel the effects in the middle back from rows. Chins do not seem to hit my middle back, and rows don't seem to hit the outer back. Am I correct in this observation?
Chins and rows work both the middle back and the outer back. But you are right in that rows emphasize the middle back while chins stress more the outer back.
> And should I be doing both chins AND rows in a HIT workout? Or alternating them in workouts?
It's your choice but to get a complete back development you should do both at some stage. On the other hand deadlifts work the middle back quite hard, although isometrically, so that you maybe don't have to do so much rowing as chinning/pulldowns to get balanced development. > Also, are dips with the elbows out to the sides sufficient for chest > work,
This is a suggestion of Vince Gironda and it does work a large area of the chest (but in my mind not the clavicular portion). A more unfortunate thing is that the groove is unnatural and hard for the shoulders. So I would refrain from dips as done with elbows out.
> or should I add (or alternate workouts with) a bench press movement (barbell or dumbbell)?
Variety is refreshing. They are all good movements. They don't have to be done all at the same period, though.
Erkki Turunen