This list digest contains the following message subjects:
> From: afahy@student.umass.edu
> > Does it then follow from the evidence that the optimal manner in which to train is maximal intensity and minimal volume, or is it indeed the proper balance of both volume and intensity, kept within the function of recovery ability?
Adam makes an excellent point here. Optimal results comes from proper balance of both intensity and volume. Maximal intensity and minimal volume will not bring optimal results, and neither will maximal volume and minimal intensity. The proper balance will vary between individuals, and also will vary over time within the same individual, and will also vary according to goals.
> From: DrewBaye@aol.com
> > 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.
Is it possible for you to provide references to this work?
> > 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?
By this assertion, you must also consider that intensity is also a negative, i.e. a stress. Therefore, whether you maximize intensity or maximize volume, you are maximizing a stress. Efficient training results from proper regulation of both variables, not striving to minimize one or the other. Both variables play an important role in achieving results. Too much or too little of one or the other will result in a lack of progress.
> From: T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au
> > 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,
This is why references are provided so that you may read the study and analyze its methodology, results, and conclusions.
> 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.
You must realize that many of the things (especially the human body) that we know about in this world are based upon observation, not reason.
The purpose of a scientific study is to test a particular hypothesis for its validity. For example, let's say that, after studying the function of creatine in the body, you hypothesize that supplemental creatine monohydrate may be of benefit to the strength athlete. However, no amount of reason is going to provide you with an answer here. The only way to test your hypothesis is through trial and error, i.e. scientific studies.
> > 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
Your definition of "inroad" is a very vague concept and an immeasurable quantity. How can you have an equation if one of the variables cannot be measured and thus not have a value?
How can one fit running into the superslow training, especially for sports? Is it necessary? Also what would you say for training during the season when you need to keep what you have obtained, and still be able to give 110% on the field?
"However, thanks to J. Krieger, we see that volume too is an important factor. One cannot, in light of this, come to the above conclusion (that reduction of volume is the 'key') "
This assumes that the study being referred to was properly designed, performed and accurately and honestly reported. Most studies regarding exercise are not, and one study is hardly anything to base a persons conclusions on.
Without exception, everyone I have trained and everyone I know who performs HIT have made significant strength and size increases on an extremely low volume of training, even by HIT standards. And, whenever their progress began to slow, a reduction in training frequency and/or volume has always brought it back up to pace. In light of this, I am highly skeptical of anyone who advocates the notion that "more is better."
Andrew M. Baye
<<<I see some flaws in your assertion that training to muscular failure is necessary for optimal growth stimulation. First of all, your are making the assumption that fatigue is the main mechanism behind muscle hypertrophy. If it was, then simply picking any light weight and training to muscular failure should elicit muscle hypertrophy. Therefore, it shouldn't matter whether it is a 10 RM weight or a 100 RM weight. Yet, we all know that this is not the case.">>>
<<<You are making a vague generalization here that it is simply effort that is the mechanism behind muscle hypertrophy. Again, if this was true, then it shouldn't matter what weights I use as long as I train to muscular failure. Actually, it shouldn't matter what type of exercise I do, as long as it is difficult. Any type of "intense" exercise should elicit substantial muscle hypertrophy as long as it is "hard". But this is simply not true.>>>
I never stated that fatigue was the only factor. Degree of effort, or muscular tension, may also be significant contributing factors. In any case, intensity is not simply defined by a degree of fatigue, but the the degree of fatige (inroad) produced within a particular time frame, or Intensity = inroad/time. Intensity is also defined as momentary effort, and the only time during which the momentary effort expended is 100% is the time at which and after which concentric failure is achieved.
While deep muscular fatigue may very well be a key factor in growth stimulation, it is obvious that exercise should be performed with enough resistance to allow failure to occur within a relatively short time to avoid wasting valuable energy and resources for recovery and adaptation. Again, muscular tension during the exercise may also play a role in stimulation, which would also require the use of a relatively heavy weight.
<<<Olympic lifters do not train to failure and achieve substantial increases in muscle size and strength. If training to failure was as necessary as you claim, then these athletes shouldn't be achieving what they achieve.>>>
Most Olympic lifters are not large because of the way they lift, they happen to be Olympic lifters due to the fact that they are genetically predisposed to a high degree of muscular strength and size. People are drawn to activities at which they excell. The above statement is the logical equivelent of "basketball players are tall because they play basketball." And I repeat, training to failure is not necessary to stimulate growth, it merely ensures the highest possible degree of intensity, which appears to be required to stimulate the maximal possible adaptive response.
<<<Reaching concentric muscular failure means that the muscle can no longer produce enough force to overcome the weight. It does not mean that any type of adaptation has been stimulated.>>>
You're saying that training to concentric failure does not mean the muscle has been stimulated, yet, you argue that training to a lesser degree (not to failure) will stimulate growth. Exactly how do you explain this? ANY amount of stress will stimulate some degree of adaptation. What we are interested in here is the intensity of stress necessary to stimulate the absolute maximal degree of strength and size gains possible. It could be 80%, 90%, 100%, and although it makes sense that it should be 100%, nobody really knows. But, since the only degrees of intensity we can accurately measure are 0% (sleeping) and 100% (effort expended at and past the point of concentric failure), it makes sense to train to 100%. This is the only way to know for sure that one has done all they can to stimulate the body to produce the desired increases in strength and size.
<<<"If a person is not making satisfactory progress on a HIT program, they either need to decrease the frequency, or volume of their workouts." -AB
This is assuming that progress has stalled due to overtraining. However, overtraining is not always the cause of stalled progress. Many factors may be involved in stalled progress. Sometimes an increase in training volume may be necessary, not a decrease. Sometimes a modification in exercise selection or the entire training protocol may be necessary.>>>
Which other factors may be involved in stalled progress? If it's not overtraining (too much volume, or too little recovery time), and if it's not a lack of intensity, what would it be? Why do you believe an increase in volume would be necessary?
As for a modification in exercise selection, this is not the answer either. All this does is cause a person to appear to progress as they work their way up to a baseline level of resistance for the exercise, and as a result of skill related performance improvements (neuromuscular adaptation).
Andrew M. Baye
I read this article, and to sum it up, it basically makes the claim that endurance training doesn't result in much adaptation, and that the main reason for such training is to improve skill and economy. Endurance training results in more than this. Endurance training can improve an athlete's aerobic power by 5-30% (1). It can also result in increased respiratory capacity, lower blood lactate at a given exercise intensity, increased mitochondrial and capillary densities, improved enzyme activity, increased maximal cardiac output, a decreased RHR, and an improved oxygen cost of the given activity (1).
Aerobic power? If by this you are referring to VO2max, then it is a moot point, since VO2max is a worthless test. As for the rest, these other changes are also produced by high intensity strength training. (Chapter 22, Muscle, by Michael Pollock, Ph.D., James E. Graves, Ph.D., David M. Carpenter, M.S., Daniel Foster, M.S., Scott H. Leggett, M.S., and Michael N. Fulton, M.D. in the book Rehabilitation of the Spine, edited by Stephen H Hochschuler, Richard D. Guyer, and Howard B. Cotler. Mosby-Year Book Inc. 1993)
During Nautilus research at West Point Military Academy, the changes in 2 mile run times of two groups were compared after 10 weeks of training. One group performed only HIT (the original Nautilus 10 to 12 exercises 3 times per week style), the other group ran (I am not sure what the distance or time, only that they ran). At the end of the 10 weeks, when the two groups were retested, the running group had improved their 2 mile run time by an average of 20 seconds. The strength training group had improved their 2 mile run time by an average of 88 seconds, a 340% greater improvement. Again, they did this without any running.
<<<1. Baechle, T.R., ed. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1994.>>>
Yes, the NSCA's Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. I read it.
Andrew M. Baye
<<<I try to have perfect form on each set, but sometimes half way through a set I'll start having trouble and I'll have to pause for a few seconds before I complete the set. Is this bad?
My training log shows I am still making forward progress.>>>
It is preferrable not to rest during the set, as this unloads the muscle (decreasing the intensity of the exercise somewhat), but if you're experiencing continuous progress, and you're happy with your results, that's what counts.
Andrew M. Baye
Regarding the comments regarding this in the last two HIT digests, I thought I would share my thoughts on the subject.
An instructors job is to get their clients the best results possible, in the safest, most time efficient manner. It is the clients goals that count.
If a particular clients goal is to learn the fundamental and derivative principles of exercise and the application of those principles to their workouts so that they might eventually learn to train themselves, then it's your job to teach them that. That's what they're paying you for. Although these people will eventually not be training with you on a regular basis, if you suggest it, many will come in once every few weeks for a follow-up, so that you can check their progress and form, take measurements, and go over any questions that they might have. By doing this, you open yourself up to an entirely new market. There are a lot of people who can not afford to purchase personal training on a long-term, ongoing basis, but who would be willing to buy a few weeks of training to learn about exercise and have a program designed for them, and occasional follow up sessions for the above mentioned reasons. Many of these people end up being an excellent source of referrals.
Andrew M. Baye
If you are training intensely enough, which it sounds like you are if you are "wiped out" for as long as 4 days afterwards, you should be able to make significant progress training only once per week. I own and operate a SuperSlow training facility, and have several clients who train only once per week for financial reasons. They are all able to make very good progress at this frequency of training.
The reason that many people start out at 3 times per week is not so much for exercise itself, but to learn how to properly perform the exercises, and so that the instructor can establish a baseline resistance level for you in each of the exercises you are performing. It is usually after one has become proficient in this respect that their instructor decreases their frequency of training. Don't worry about trying to train more frequently, just make each workout you do perform count, and you'll be surprised at how quickly you progress.
Andrew M. Baye
This board is interesting but I'd like to suggest the possibility of numbering the body of the messages to correspond with your intro. It's great to have a "table of contents" at the beginning. But it would be doubly helpful if the answers were numbered too. That way when we see a topic of interest in the intro., we can go directly to the inspired answers. Thanks for listening. Les
[Moderator Mike here...they will be numbered soon. I am in the process of helping Beta test a new version of the program we use. It will be much improved, especially for the moderator (Yay!). Right now there are too many bugs to chance the switch over and have wild and crazy things happen. :)] Thanks for the input. See, I told you we listen...we also have ESP.]