This list digest contains the following message subjects:
Moderator Mike here...make sure you read to the end of the digest today. Again, some setting of the "tone" for the list was necessary.
> 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.
I find this very dificult to accept. It goes against the very basic and self evident idea of sport specifity. Any athlete knows that if you want to improve at a certain activity, you must do that activity. For example, running will improve your aerobic capacity and strengthen your legs, and so will make you better at cycling. But if your goal is to improve at cycling your time is better spent actually cycling.(I am not advocating sport specific movements in weight training.) What about swimming ? Will HIT improve your swimming times more than training in the pool ? Anyone would reject this thought a priori.
Josh
>Aerobic power? If by this you are referring to VO2max, then it is a moot >point, since VO2max is a worthless test.
Could you please explain exactly why Vo2 Max is a worthless test. Endurance performance correlates very highly with Vo2 max (although lactate threshold is equally important. In terms of endurance performance, VO2 max essentially indicates the maximal performance capabilities of the athlete. Lactate threshold indicates how much of that capability they can use for a long period of time in the race (which is typically between 50-95% of VO2 max).
Vo2 = Q * (a-v)O2
Where Q = Cardiac output times heart rate (a-v) O2 difference is the difference between oxygen in the arterial blood and the venous blood.
Heart rate is essentially unchangeable, it is determined by genetics. Cardiac output represents the amount of blood the heart can pump per beat, it IS changeable with aerobic training (a-v) O2 difference represents the body's capacity to remove oxygen from the blood. It is trainable both by aerobic training (which improves levels of aerobic enzymes, mitochondrial density, capillary density something that weight training has NOT been shown to do) and somewhat by strength training (which increases strength potential of the muscles such that less fibers are needed for the same force output, increasing efficiency of movement).
Vo2 max will be achieved at some optimal combinatin (maxima) of the above factors.
>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.
Did the strength group lose bodyfat? Were these individuals untrained to begin with?
Perhaps a 3rd group, performing both aerobic AND strength training would have improved even more (and studies by Hickson et. al. have shown that adding high intensity strength training to well trained endurance athletes WILL improve performance and raise lactate threshold). I'd be willing to bet money on it. Endurance perofrmance is based on both central (heart, lungs) and peripheral adaptations (in the muscle). See the equation above, Q represents central factors, (a-v)O2 difference peripheral. Aerobic training tends to improve central factors, strength training, peripheral.
I train a mountain biker who trains quite intensely in the weight room AND does a significant amount of aerobic training. She is destroying her competition (who are not doing weights. Are you telling me she would do just as well by only weight training? If this is the case (and I can assure you it's not) we have a lot of elite endurance athletes wasting a lot of time practicing their sport.
Look, I agree that aerobics is wholly overrated as a form of exercise since life is inherently anaerobic. But to ignore it completely.....
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
Andrew M. Baye <DrewBaye@aol.com> wrote in Digest #29, Re: High Volume?:
> 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 [...]
Andrew M. Baye <DrewBaye@aol.com> wrote in Digest #29, Endurance Training:
> 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. [...]
How may one know that the research at West Point was accurately and honestly reported? Are we to trust personal experience as reported in the HIT Digest more than peer-reviewed research reports, and if so, why?
I am a beginning weightlifter. My initial reading of FAQs, postings, books and articles leads me to conclude that little is known for sure about the mechanisms of muscular growth and the most efficient procedures for inducing it. It is a field in which personal agendas, sometimes based on commercial interests, often dominate discourse. Thus I, for one, am more likely to be attentive to a spirit of inquiry than to adamant assertion.
-- steve@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This being my first post to this list, I would like to take a moment to congradulate the moderators on a job well done. They had a vision of a discussion list that was free of “flames” and other nonsense, and have stuck to their guns and therefore, achieved what they set out to do.
Many of you who recognize my name will know that I have a different philosophy of training than the good folks at Cyberpump (although if you look at it from a different angle, I believe you’ll see we have more in common than we have differences). For example, while I believe explosive lifting does have some merit, as does plyometrics (or jump training, as I would prefer to call it), as well as the fact that I don’t believe there is any scientific backing for going to failure, we do believe that training must be progressive and that ample rest time is needed for recovery. This latter theory (and I believe it can be called more of “fact” than “theory”) is what I would like to focus on.
It is rumored that the Russians have said that muscle tissue begins to atrophy after 96 hours of disuse. I have tried to look into the scientific rationale behind this, however, I am not in the former Soviet Union! I have not found such literature. However, I suspect this research was done of patients who were bed ridden and were totally immobile. I can accept the notion that when a muscle is totally immobile, it will begin to atrophy that soon. However, most of us at least do something inbetween workouts. We walk around which gives our legs work, we pick up things which gives our upper bodies activity. So the “Use-Disuse” principle does hold true, but we are indeed “using” our muscles at all times unless you are a total couch potato inbetween workouts. Clearly, most of us won’t begin to atrophy within 96 hours, if my notion is correct.
The muscle do indeed need time to rest, and the GAS principle suggests that such supercompensation can take up to 20 days to complete. However, this cannot be taken at face value for several reasons which stem from individual differences between not only ourselves, but from each muscle in our body. Small muscles will heal quicker than large muscles, for example. At any rate, it is somewhat safe to say that a muscle can supercompensate in around 10 to 20 days depending on muscle size, capillarization and fiber makeup (as slow twitch muscles tend to heal quicker than fast twitch).
Incidently, it is common practice for weightlifters, and powerlifters (as well as many other athletes such as swimmers and track athletes) to do no training whatsoever before a meet. This practice (as science has suggested) allows for type IIB fibers to form. If the fibers did indeed atrophy within 96 hours, this practice would’ve been discarded long ago!
With that background out of the way, I would like to make this statement: I do not believe we are bound to wait 10 to 20 days before compensation takes place. In otherwords, we can do things to help the muscle recover quicker. Such practices as deep fiber massage, ensuring we are getting enough protein (and I’m convinced that many of us do not), getting enough sleep (again, I don’t believe many trainees get enough) as well as many herbal supplements can drasically cut down on the amount of rest needed between workouts. My belief is that most of us are not overtraining, instead, we are “under recovering” by not giving our bodies every opportunity to grow.
Thoughts and comments from my “Brothers and Sisters in Iron” please!
Frederick C. Hatfield II, MS, MSS
>> 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?
I have been having the same discussion on another site. I must agree that scientific journals have serious limitations for expanding knowledge in this area. Research restrictions, such as ethical considerations, obtaining subjects etc. limit what can be done. Secondly the need for consistency does not take into account individual variation within a paradigm, for example designing the most appropriate training scheme for a each individual subject while staying with in the confines of HIT training.
Reasoning is the foundation of science. This is why the work of Jones, Darden, and Mentzer is so valuable. However it does not exclude the need for empirical evidence. Many things do not obey the laws of logic ie chaos thory. This is why forums like these are so useful as reseach constraints are removed and if reported honestly we have case studies from which to explorate information from and test theory.
Paul Englert P.S. Hope my replie to how much cardio was useful.
[Moderator Mike here...there was so much above your post (including all the subjects from the last digest, I did not know what you were referring to so I had to clip most of it because it looked like you might have just done a "reply". I also had to change the subject to my "guess" since it had the last digest # People on the digest, please do not send back the whole digest in your reply. Only relevant parts to your points. Thanks.]
A few days ago I wrote the piece "one set to failure". I suggested in it that continuing even one set until failure must be too much for some trainees and for them holding back a little would therefore yield better progress. I was short-spoken on purpose because I was curious to see what reactions such a claim would arouse among other members. But this time I'm going to discuss the intensity/volume issue in greater detail.
According to Mentzer, training is intented to stimulate growth and rest to recover and let that growth happen. According to him, growth stimulus occurs through a "trigger mechanism", in other words there is some "break-over" point (BOP) below which growth is not stimulated and above which growth will be stimulated. When that BOP has been exceeded it's useless to continue because the growth mechanism has already been turned on. What this means is that the growth stimulus has only two values: no stimulus and stimulus.
I don't believe in this idea but let's suppose for a moment that it be true. Let's suppose you can do 10 reps in an exercise before failure happens. For the set being productive the BOP must lie at some rep of the set. If it's the last rep then you have done exactly the right amount of work by taking the set to failure but if the BOP is, say, on the seventh rep, then by doing 10 reps you have done three unnecessary reps. And they are not only unnecessary but also counter-productive because by doing 10 reps there's less left for growth because you made greater inroad into your recovery ability without getting a greater growth stimulus in exchange. But that's not all; by doing more work than necessary you caused the need for a longer recovery time. The drawback is thus twofold: first, smaller response to work and second, necessity to more infrequent training which slows down the rate of progress.
Mentzer says that working to a point of failure ensures that you pass through the BOP. But how does he know that? Training to failure is not even near of bringing a muscle to the ground, so to speak. For example with a weight of 70% of 1RM only 30% of fresh strength has been used up. Thus it may be possible that the BOP doesn't lie until in the second set or the third set or the 100th set (sounds familiar?). It is true that Mike suggests to start your experiment with one set and if it works then the BOP has been exceeded but why not continue experimenting by decreasing reps and try to find out how many reps short of failure already triggers the growth mechanism in motion, especially if progress with to failure-training has not yielded satisfactory results?
As I mentioned earlier I don't believe in the "trigger-mechanism", however. Real life tells otherwise. It is not phantasy that with some trainees two sets to failure yield better progress than one set to failure although according to the trigger idea it would be impossible.
Now we come to what I think growth stimulus is and how it's interrelated with the growth response. I start from the supposition that stimulus is a function of intensity and volume. By intensity I mean the amount of the weight or it's percentage of 1RM and by volume the duration of muscular tension. I chose duration for two reasons: first, it can also be used in isometric work and second, duration of a set reflects better than reps the metabolic work which is a better measure of the work done than mechanical work. With low intensities - like 20% of 1RM maximum - there is hardly any GROWTH stimulus but over some threshold point the stimulus per time unit increases with increase in intensity. Thus for example 8 reps done with 75% of 1RM constitutes greater stimulus than 8 reps with 50% of 1RM with a given rep speed and one rep with 1RM constitutes greater stimulus than one rep with 80% of 1RM. Likewise, stimulus with a given intensity is the greater the longer the duration of the set . In short, stimulus increases with increase of intensity and increase of time. Some of you may now think that I'm a proponent of volume training but note that what I talked about was stimulus and not the response. I didn't claim that the greater the stimulus the bigger the response.
The body reacts to a stimulus in a certain way which leads to some response. And this reaction is individual in that a given stimulus does not provide the same response with everyone. In sun-taking, the response is the darker tan the intenser the light and the longer you are exposed to it up to the point you get burnt. Is it the same with weight-training? I believe that the greater the stimulus the more potential for growth there is. It's the question of how well the body can "convert" that stimulus into growth. But this is just one side of the coin. The other side, the negative one, is that the stimulus also brings about an inroad into recovery ability. Thus a portion of the stimulus for growth will be lost in "filling the hole" and only the rest remains for growth. We get the decriptive equation
net growth = stimulus - recovery.
But doesn't that lead to the conclusion that the more work the more growth? No. And here's why. The recovery ability is limited and the more work is done the more difficult it's for the body to recover from further work. Thus from every additional rep, less is left for growth. This may not hold true right from the beginning but from some point on it does.
I'll illustrate this with a concrete example. A trainee does a set of an exercise with a certain weight. The growth stimulus per rep is 5u (u stands for an imaginary unit of growth). From the first rep 2u is used to recovery and 3u is left for growth. When the trainee proceeds it gets increasingly difficult to do the reps, in other words it takes more intensity of EFFORT (here we have it!) and it takes more and more of recovery ability per rep. Let's say that on the 7th rep 4u goes to recovery so the net growth is now only 1u. On the 10th rep the need to recovery has increased to 5u so that nothing is left to growth. If the trainee is nevertheless able to proceed just a few reps the recovery need is more than 5u per rep and thus those reps will rob of the growth response he gathered from the first ten reps.
This represented a case of a trainee for whom even one set to failure was too much. I used rep as volume unit here instead of time to make the example simpler to explain. A constant growth stimulus per rep was assumed. In reality it is not exactly so but the essential thing is that there was a point in the set for that trainee where all of the succeeding reps' growth stimuli and more would have been used up for recovery.
Now we come to the "right" intensity (of effort): you do all and only those reps for which the net growth (the left side of the above equation) is greater than zero. Those reps can be called growth producing reps and the reps with negative net growth growth robbing reps. A trainee with a better recovery ability could have been done all the reps until failure in a productive way. It has been often said that the last rep is the most productive one because the intensity of effort is highest but I think that the explanation is simply that the DURATION of the "impossible" rep is longer, not that the growth stimulus per time unit is any greater. The tension in the muscle is in the last rep not greater than in the first rep. The tension only feels greater due to fatigue.
Let's say that the trainee did only those nine growth producing reps in the first set (the 10th rep would have been neither growth producing nor growth robbing one). Is this now the "right" volume for him or her? Perhaps, but not necessarily. If he or she does another set the amount used for recovery is greater with every rep than the amount for the same rep in the first set, because of the inroad to recovery ability from the first set. But a couple of reps could still be growth producing ones. In theory the trainee could proceed with sets as long as he can extract growth producing reps from them. But even then it may not be the best strategy; the succeeding reps would produce smaller and smaller net growth per rep and though the response from that session would be maximized it might take so much longer to recover from it that the rate of growth would not necessarily become the quickest possible.
If we drew a curve of the relationship of stimulus and response with horizontal axis representing the duration of tension and vertical axis the response, the graph would be something like below. The essential thing is that the curve is first increasing and then decreasing. Response ! ---- ! / \ ! / \ ! / \ ! / \ ! / \ ___> ! / \ > !/__________________________\________________\ Time ! \ / ! \
Each intensity (resistance) has it's own curve and each individual has his or her own response curves, of course. From the diagram we see that first more work means greater response but when the vertex of the curve has been passed more work means smaller response. The trainee is in the latter case overtraining. In this context it's suitable to bring forth the adage: If you are gaining you are not overtraining. Now we can immediately see that it's not true. By mild overtraining you can still gain, albeit at a slower rate. If overtraining is severe the result would be muscle shrinking (the curve goes below horizontal axis).
As you see the problem of proper intensity and volume is a complicated one. But one thing seems certain to me: no one has any ground of claiming that his way is the best way of training.
Erkki Turunen
P.S. I'm sorry that this became so long.
[You been hanging out with Rob? :)]
<< 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. >>
Any more exercise (volume) than is minimally required to stimulate growth is too much. Once growth has been stimulated, any additional exercise will only waste energy and resources that the body could have otherwise utilized for recovery and adaptation.
Why perform more than one set? (Why increase volume?) Some would argue that this allows them to stimulate muscle fibers which were not stimulated during the first set. This is not the case. Since motor units are recruited in order of size, from smallest to largest, depending upon the amount of force the muscle is called upon to produce, a second set of an exercise would merely retrace the same motor unit recruitment sequence as the first. Since one would have less energy during a second, third, or fourth, etc. set of an exercise than they did during the first, it is unlikely that they will recruit all of the motor units they did during the first set, much less additional units.
Regarding intensity: If we define intensity as momentary percentage of effort, and, since the greater the muscular effort the greater the amount of force the muscle is called on to produce, it would make sense that the higher the intensity of effort, the greater the number of motor units recruited, and stimulated by the exercise. In this case, it would appear that the higher the intensity of the exercise, the more effective a stimulus it is.
In any case, even if we were to hypothesize that 100% intensity is not necessary to stimulate growth, there is no way of determining the necessary degree of intensity which is, or any way of knowing when one has reached such a degree during an exercise. It would only make sense then, to at least train to positive muscular failure (the point at which intensity is 100%) to ensure that whatever the threshold percentage is, it has been crossed.
As far as there being a such thing as too much intensity, while I doubt most people are capable of pushing themselves to such a point, it very well may exist. For example, if a person performed a set of deadlifts to static failure, followed by forced reps, negatives, etc., and then were forced (and they would have to be forced) do perform squats, chins, and dips in a similar manner, they very well might produce a degree of inroad which would require several weeks or months of complete rest to fully recover from. This would hardly be practical, as it would most certainly interfere with a persons other daily activities.
And regarding the comment that the nervous system might not recover as quickly as the muscles, this is simply not true. In response to exposure to any type of stress, it is the nervous system which is most resilient. While the nervous system is most definitely affected by high intensity training, it is hardly affected to a greater degree than, and would hardly take longer to recover than the muscles. If the nervous system were more fatigued than the muscular during intense training, than one would become completely paralyzed before they would hit failure due to muscular fatigue. It makes absolutely no evolutionary sense that an organism would have a nervous system which would fatigue more quickly than it's muscular system.
Andrew M. Baye
In a message dated 97-11-01 06:40:50 EST, you write:
<< 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? >>
Inroad is the degree to which a muscle is fatigued during an exercise. For example, if you can produce 100 pounds of torque at a particular joint angle before an exercise, and only 70 pounds of torque at that same joint angle after an exercise, you have produced a 30% inroad. Such measurements are possible with MedX testing equipment.
Intensity, being defined as inroad/time, means the deepest amount of fatigue produced within a particular time frame. The goal is not to simply deeply fatigue the muscle, but to do so within a minimal amount of time, as to limit the amount (volume) of stress the body is exposed to. So reaching muscular failure after hundreds of reps with a very light resistance is hardly the same as reaching failure within a minute or two with a relatively demanding level of resistance, as someone has earlier suggested.
Andrew M. Baye
In a message dated 97-11-01 06:40:50 EST, you write:
<< 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? >>
From a conditioning standpoint, SuperSlow (a method of HIT using a 10/10 or 10/5 rep cadence) would provide all the benefits possible with running, without the injuries. If your sport involves a high degree of running though, you will need to run in order to rehearse the skills necessary for the sport. Keep accurate records of your progress, and if your progress begins to slow, then add more rest days between workouts. During season you should probably be training with less frequency than usual anyways to account for the effects of practice and competition on recovery time.
Andrew M. Baye
In a message dated 97-11-01 06:40:50 EST, you write:
<< 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. >>
My mistake, it was not 10 weeks. It was 6.
Andrew M. Baye
Sorry Rob I screwed up on the ettique thing. I have sent a message through before reading this one so it may have happened again. I will make sure that it does not happen again. Flowers, chocolates are in the post.
Paul Englert
[Better send some to me as well. I just had to clip out the whole last digest again! :)]
Would like to initiate a dialogue regarding readers' response to supplements, including brand names used.
For example, I noticed nothing using Eclipse 2000 creatine, but got some results with AST creatine, although not nearly of the magnitude other people report. Anyone have ideas for maximizing creatine's effect, other than taking it with hi-GI carbos. (I eat low carbs most days - under 100 grams)
L-Glutamine (AST and Jarrow) has seemingly done nothing for me. The mags make it out to be the current big thing. Anybody out there getting the massive pumps and other benefits attributable to L-Glutamine?
Don't think vanadyl (Ultimate Nutrition and Sportpharma) does anything either, although I haven't tried the 100 mg daily doses recommended by some.
Anybody use GABA? I think it (Ultimate Nutrition) helps with sleep, although sometimes it gives me a tingly sensation.
Haven't yet done the Andro-Trib-DHEA stack. What are people experiencing?
Would like to know what supplements and brands people recommend, including supplements I haven't mentioned.
Thanks for the input. We should all benefit from this.
> From: DrewBaye@aol.com > > 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.
First of all, I reported three studies, not one, that demonstrated that total work may play a role in muscle hypertrophy, and there's other work that I've seen that either directly or indirectly suggests that higher volumes of training may have a signicant impact on muscle hypertrophy over lower volumes.
You offer no evidence to back up your claim that "most studies regarding exercise are not...properly designed, performed and accurately and honestly reported." While studies are not perfect, and can be subject to flaws or biases, this does NOT mean that most studies are not valid and that we cannot learn from them.
[In this paragraph...for the readers benefit...first part of the sentence can start flame wars..up to "that". Putting the word NOT in cap's starts flame wars. With those left out, it's very likely no one would get mad in response. Since it is a good example how subtle things can sometimes start flame wars as well, I will leave it in -- Moderator Mike]
I quoted three studies from three different peer-reviewed journals, and all of these studies had completely different researchers involved. It's very easy to want to discredit a study if it does not support one's theories.
[Sorry, had to snip. With the new software, we can send back posts for modification and re-submission. You used "one", but it is easy to figure out "who" on the list]
[Again...paragraph snipped! This is just a paragraph to provoke a response and it not adding anything to the discussion. People! State your views and let people come to their own conclusions. No need to bait people with questions. Questions can be asked in many ways. Sorry James, that para was flame bait. -- Mike]
[more snipped...sheesh..this is ranting...please send to Cyberpump! RANT]
The peer-review system is an attempt to ensure quality research in the area of science. Now, notice I said "attempt". The system is definitely not perfect and has flaws. However, it's the best we can do. We live in an imperfect world and we will never find a perfect way of ensuring quality research, just as we cannot have a perfect judicial system (our judicial system is basically a peer-review process, in a way). So, we do the best we can do.
> 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."
First of all, in no way have I ever made the broad generalization that "more is better." I am simply making the claim that constant avoidance of higher volumes of training may not result in optimal progress in gains in muscle size. Training volume is not as bad as so many HITers believe. I do believe that "more is better" only at certain times; I endorse the model of "undulating periodization", a training model also advocated by Charles Poliquin. Undulating periodization is simply cycling your training between periods of higher volume and lower volume. An example would be to train HIT for 12 weeks and then up the training volume for another 12 weeks, and then come back to an HIT protocol.
In no way do I feel that HIT or low training volumes do not "work", and that you cannot make "significant size and strength gains" on a low-volume protocol. I do feel, though, that constantly training low-volume throughout the year will not result in maximum gains in muscle hypertrophy.
[See, this is just your opinion and is acceptable]
> 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.
This equation Intensity=inroad/time seems somewhat useless to me. How do we measure "inroad"? This concept of "inroad" is very vague and is a quantity that cannot be measured. Why have an equation if one of the variables cannot be measured?
Also, fatigue can occur for various reasons in a muscle. It may be due to depletion of phosphocreatine stores. It may be due to decrease in muscle pH. It may be due to glycogen depletion. These different types of fatigue can be considered different stimuli and will result in different types of adaptation. Simply saying "fatigue" or "degree of fatigue" is very vague.
You also define intensity as "momentary effort". Momentary effort to do what? You say that momentary effort is 100% when concentric failure has been achieved. Why is not when static or eccentric failure has been achieved?
If momentary effort is so important, then I should be able to go out and run a single 200 m dash as hard as I can (hey, my momentary effort is 100% for the entire 200 m) and that should be a signicant stimulus for an increase in muscle strength and size. Then why doesn't this work?
Also, if momentary effort is so important, then concentric actions should produce superior results in achieving muscle hypertrophy than eccentric actions, since concentric actions with the same weight require more effort. Yet, as I pointed out in a previous post, eccentric actions produce superior results.
There is nothing magical about reaching a point of concentric muscular failure. It only means that enough motor units within a muscle have fatigued to a point that the muscle, as a whole, can temporarily no longer produce enough force to move the weight concentrically. It does not mean that any type of adaptation has been stimulated. Actually, one can perform a set to concentric failure, and, after an extremely long rest (8 minutes or more to ensure repletion of phosphocreatine stores), one can repeat the same set for as many or almost as many repetitions. If a big "inroad" was made into recovery ability by performing a set to failure, then this shouldn't be possible. Yet, it is. How come Olympic lifters and powerlifters can repeat maximal lifts during competitions, sometimes doing more and more weight on successive attempts? Shouldn't each maximal lift represent some type of "inroad" into their recovery? Their "momentary effort" is definitely 100%. According to HIT principles, these lifters should not be able to repeat maximal attempts within such short periods of time. Yet, they do.
Reaching failure is simply a tool for measuring progress. It is not the cause of that progress. If I do 6 repetitions to failure with 150, then 3 weeks later can do 6 repetitions to failure with 160, then I have progressed. Was it training to failure that caused this progression? No.
Let's look at HIT principles and apply them to other sports. I used to be a competitive swimmer, so let's look at that. Let's say I get in the pool and do a 50 m freestyle. My "momentary effort" is 100% throughout the event; I'm swimming as fast as I can. Now, let's say I swim it in 24.0 seconds. To illustrate a point, let's ignore factors such as pool conditions, variances in stroke patterns, etc. Now, according to HIT principles, this swim was a stimulus for adaptation, since my "momentary effort", or intensity, was 100%. Also, this swim was an "inroad" into my recovery ability. Now, before I can adapt, I must recover, so I give myself some time to recover. Let's say I take a day off. I then adapt. Let's say this process takes another day. I should be a faster swimmer now after that single 50 m freestyle (for example, be able to swim it in 23.9 seconds). Now, this all looks fine and dandy on paper, but in real life, we all know that it doesn't work this way. It can take weeks or months of continuous training to achieve improvements in swim speed. From personal experience, these improvements also seem to occur in "spurts", not in a constant linear fashion. I have noticed the same in weight training (in myself and in others); that, while linear progression can be maintained for periods of time, it will always come to a halt sooner or later, and seems to occur in "spurts" over the long run.
I used this example of swimming because I believe that HIT takes an overly simplistic view of the human body and the way that it adapts to exercise. The human body is a very complex organism. If the human body really took the simple "stress, recover, adapt" cycle that HIT insinuates, then powerlifters and Olympic lifters should be able to make constant linear progressions in their maximum weights from one workout to the next; this means that they should be able to do personal bests all of the time. We all know that this doesn't happen in real life, though.
> <<<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."
First, read my statement more closely. I said "substantial increases." While Olympic lifters are genetically predisposed to their sport, this does not mean that the sport that they are involved in did not result in significant increases in muscle size and strength. If it didn't, then that would mean that training doesn't matter at all and only genetics does. So, Olympic lifters don't need to train, since training won't result in improvements in muscle size and strength. Only genetics determines this. This is what you seem to be claiming here.
"Basketball players are tall because they play basketball" is not the logical equivalent of my statement. "Basketball players achieve substantial increases in their ability to play basketball, such as shooting or dribbling" is the logical equivalent.
> 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.
Also, you offer no data to support your assertion that "the highest possible degree of intensity...appears to be required to stimulated the maximal possible adaptive response." I have already shown that eccentric actions result in a greater adaptive response (when looking at muscle hypertrophy) then concentric actions, yet concentric actions are more "intense" in nature (by your definition of intensity as "momentary effort").
> > <<<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?
One of the main mechanisms behind muscle hypertrophy is the damage caused by the lengthening of a muscle when it is under high tension, i.e. the eccentric action during heavy resistance exercise. This is a mechanical process that is not dependent upon fatigue or training to muscular failure. It is caused by the repeated eccentric actions. Therefore, multiple sets with heavy weights, whether taken to failure or not, will result in significant muscle hypertrophy.
> ANY amount of stress will stimulate some degree of adaptation.
Actually, its any amount of stress that exceeds a certain threshold, not just any amount of stress. Stress below a certain threshold will not stimulate any type of adaptation at all.
<<<"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?
It has been established that heavy resistance training causes Type IIB to Type IIA fiber conversion (1). Since Type IIA fibers have greater endurance capacity than Type IIB's, then this also indicates that higher volumes of training would be necessary to adequately stimulate these fibers. Also, higher volumes of training are necessary to adequately stimulate Type I fibers, which are not adequately stimulated by low volume, high intensity training. Someone interested in maximal muscle hypertrophy is interested in gaining hypertrophy of ALL fiber types, thus the necessity to incorporate periods of both low volume and high volume training over time.
I will give a personal example. I used to be a devoted HITer and embraced HIT philosophies. I hit a plateau on my HIT program, so I took a week off, and then followed HIT principles by reducing my training volume to ensure continued progress. Reducing training volume actually made things worse, though; PB's that I had set on the higher volume program I could not reach after lowering my volume. Only when I upped my training volume significantly and radically change my training routine did I begin to make progress again.
I have also conversed over email with some other individuals who had the same experience. Some of you who read this list may be familiar with Barry Merriman, who posts periodized routines on the Internet. He used to be a HITer, but didn't achieve much on such low training volumes. Only when he started to periodize his training volume did he finally achieve the results he had always wanted.
Hitting a plateau does not necessarily mean that you are overtrained. It may just mean that your body has adapted to whatever training protocol you are using, which necessitates a change to get your body to continue to adapt again. This change may mean an increase or decrease in training volume, a change in exercises, a change in set/rep combinations, a change in exercise tempo, etc., etc.
How can a reduction in training volume or frequency always be the answer? Let's say I start out training once a month, and I'm not making progress. Is a reduction to once every two months the answer? No.
1. Abernethy, P.J., J. Jurimae, P.A. Logan, A.W. Taylor, and R.E. Thayer. Acute and Chronic Response of Skeletal Muscle to Resistance Exercise. Sports Med. 17(1):22-38. 1994.
> > 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).
Actually, a change in exercise selection may be beneficial. Different exercises can have different patterns of motor unit recruitment. Some exercises may involve motor units that others don't. Sticking with the same exercises for long periods of time may result in a lack of training of motor units that that exercise does not involve. If you are interested in maximal muscle hypertrophy, then you want to tap into as many motor units as possible. Hence, the need for variation in exercise selection over time.
> > 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.
Is it? If it is, then you should provide evidence indicating this.
>As for the rest, these other changes are also produced by high intensity strength training.
Basically, you are saying that endurance training and strength training result in the same types of adaptations. This is not true at all. If it was, then endurance and strength training would be compatible activities. However, it is well known that endurance training can hamper strength development.
One of the adaptations provided by endurance exercise is increased mitochondrial and capillary densities, as I noted. Strength training reduces mitochondrial and capillary densities (1,2). Yet, you have just made the claim that it increases these densities. How can this be?
What about decreased RHR? I'll give a personal example. I used to be a competitive swimmer; my training was highly aerobic in nature. Now, strength training is my only consistent activity and has been now for 5 years. Yet, my RHR is higher now. I become much more easily winded when performing endurance activities as well. How can this be if strength training is better than aerobics for inducing endurance adaptations, as you claim?
1. Luthi, J.M., H. Howald, H. Classen, K. Rosler, P. Vock, and H. Hoppeler. Structural changes in skeletal muscle tissue with heavy-resistance exercise. Int. J. Sports Med. 5:232-236. 1984.
2. MacDougall, J.D., D.G. Sale, J.R. Moroz, G.C.B. Eider, J.R. Sutton, and H. Howald. Mitochondrial volume density in human skeletal muscle following heavy resistance training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 11:164-166. 1979.
> 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.
I'm going to use your own words here. "This assumes that the study being referred to was properly designed, performed and accurately and honestly reported...one study is hardly anything to base a persons conclusions on."
Also, let's look closer at this research. First, it was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, at least to my knowledge. If it was, then maybe you can clarify that for me. Also, it was done by Nautilus researchers, who had a vested financial interest in their one-set-to-failure philosophy, since Nautilus was marketed around this concept. Obviously, this study supports their views that using Nautilus equipment would be better than standard endurance exercise.
I'm not saying the research they did was bad. I really don't know. I'm just bringing up some points that indicate the possibility of some extreme bias.
You always have to be careful when the researchers involved in a project have a vested financial interest in what they are researching. A perfect example is a recent study on HMB (1). This study demonstrated that HMB can be of signicant benefit to strength athletes. However, when you take a look at the names of the researchers, you'll notice two names that stand out. One is A.S. Connelly, the developer of MET-Rx, and MET-Rx just happens to sell a version of MET-Rx with HMB. The other is Steve Nissen, who has worked for Metabolic Technologies Inc., the patent holders on HMB. Both of these researchers have financial interests in HMB.
This does not mean that this was a bad study, or that HMB is of no benefit to strength athletes. It indicates, though, the possibility of some extreme bias and the need for more research by other researchers to verify whether HMB is for real or not.
1. Nissen, S., R. Sharp, M. Ray, J.A. Rathmacher, D. Rice, J.C. Fuller, Jr., A.S. Connelly, and N. Abumrad. Effect of leucine metabolite beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate on muscle metabolism during resistance-exercise training. J. Appl. Physiol. 81(5):2095-2104. 1996.
<<<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.
I am familiar the anti-NSCAism common among HITers. Yes, this book is by the NSCA, but that does not mean that it is a worthless book or does not have good information in it. I don't think all of the info in it is good, and it definitely has some bias and some contradictory info in it. However, it does have information in it that is useful to ALL exercise scientists, HITers and non-HITers alike.
Let's clarify where my stance is on HIT so everyone on this list knows. I am not "anti-HIT", and I am also not "pro-HIT." You could say that I am "anti-HIT all of the time" or "pro-HIT some of the time." I am also not a "NSCAer". I believe in periodization, but not the NSCA's method of linear periodization. I advocate undulating periodization as I stated earlier. I also advocate all sorts of variations in training over time, much like Charles Poliquin or Charles Staley (a comment from Charles Staley that I liked was, "The best training program is the one you're not using."). A lot of my philosophies on resistance training have been developed through my own personal experience and research (for example, last semester I did a semester-long class research project entitled "Training Strategies for Bodybuilders and Other Athletes Seeking Maximum Gains in Muscle Mass"). I also have no financial interest whatsoever in any training or nutritional philosophy. I am an undergraduate student here at Washington State University majoring in exercise science, having already completed a minor in computer science (I changed my major since I decided that I liked exercise science a whole lot better).
One thing I definitely like about this list is its openness to all viewpoints despite being run by individuals endorsing the HIT methods. I want to thank Rob Spector and others involved for keeping this list unbiased and unflamed, which is a common problem on other lists.
I think it is important to everyone reading this list to keep an open mind to all viewpoints. For example, even though I am no longer a "HITer", I still read Cyberpump! everyday. While I don't agree with everything on the site, I still think it's a great site that everyone should read. The same goes with the NSCA's "Essentials..." While I don't agree with everything in this book, and I could definitely say that many HITers would probably agree with a lot less, I still think it is important for EVERYONE, including HITers, to read and make up their own minds.
My advice to everyone out there is to read all you can. Books, mags, websites, etc. Check out the good and the bad. Make your own decisions on training, nutrition, etc. My opinion is, if you limit yourself to few sources of information, then you limit yourself to few ways to train. Avoid close-mindedness as much as possible. However, you also don't want to have such an open mind that your brains fall out.
James Krieger
[Not to pick on James, I will SQUASH any parts of posts that may not have been intended to be flame bait, but will incite flames. I probably let some stuff go I should not have. Please be careful when asking "questions" about other posts. State your case WITHOUT saying things like "You didn't prove it. NOT in any case". That does not add anything to the discussion. I WILL NOT TOLERATE statements like that in a post. Like I said, new software will be coming so we don't have to just snip them and you can re-submit it -- Moderator Mike]