This list digest contains the following message subjects:
See the first post below. I snipped the subscribers name. Good comments for everyone. Moderator Mike.
Good thing it is the weekend so I have time to send out another one. Lots of activity in the digest...which is now 400 strong.
Hey Mr. Moderator Mike, = )
(this is a private letter not to be posted on the list please!)
As I've said before, I really like this digest and would like to continue being a part of it. I'm wondering though if anyone else feels that the posts (replies) are just way too long?? I may be on my own here - and if that's the case, then ok, but I have deleted about the last 10 digests without even reading them because they are simply too long.
I feel that they are interesting and well written, but everyone seems to write about too many subjects/ideas/studies all in one reply. Obviously, the digests are getting much longer as time goes by (I've been here since Digest #8)......
I think that we are going to lose many subscribers over time if the list continues to be this long. My point is this: is YOU feel it necessary, please post a request for subscribers to get right to the point, stay with one topic, and keep replies as short as possible......
Thanks!
Hopefully a continued subscriber.
What do people suggest as a suitable HIT routine for regain of lost muscle. I have spent this year cutting up for my first shows and while lean I have lost 3-4 kilos of muscle. This was acheived by too longer periods of dieting ie. over 4 weeks. Furthermore my best LBW is another 3-kilos on top of that so I defientely are due for some quality regain.
Looking back over my records Lyle was so right. Four weeks is where it is all done. Sticking points in fat % loss and increased LBW drops happen in those last weeks as long as you diet well at the beggining. ie not excessive cardio, see note digest #28, low carbs (ala. Lyle and BODYOPUS) and no more than 300-500 kcal below BMR a day. This is 3500 a week =1lb.
Anyway getting back this muscle. I thought I might try some full body nautilus or Darden routines. Have obtained a copy of the Massive muscles fast (One of those corny 80's titles) by Darden and thought I may try that one out. It is an adapted traditional nautilus 12 sets whole body, routing different starting muscle groups each week 3* a week. I have been following a more trad. hardgainer routine of one day on two off (after trial and error this is the optimal recovery time for me) based around squats (DAy 1) Deadlifts (Day 4) Shoulder press (Day 7) and vertical leg press (Day 10)(ala. Mike Mentzer adapted). Auxilary exercises are done each wout with each body part, par legs trained once every 12 days.
As you can see the Nautilus training is quite up on the amount of work that will be done. However given it is just for a short period of time 10 weeks and aiming at regain I think it could be profitable. What do you think?????
> 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 > >
I agree. I believe that recovery time is a key genetic variable under rated in muscle growth. Where I live we have many Pacific Islanders who have amazing genetics for putting on mass. The thing I have noticed is the amount of training, anaerobic and aerobic they can do and still recover, i. no muscle soreness and no deprecation in strength or speed, by the next day. This means they can train again and not be over training. Expanding on this we need to look at ways of speeding recovery. The suggestions by Dr Squat are good. So is cold water swimming, excellent fat burner as well, and good for the immune system. However we need to find the optimal levels of all these things to be truly productive. For example while a certain amount of food is going to add recovery eating like there is no tomorrow will not speed it up any more. Just as you can max your genetic potential with a well designed HIT program so to can you max your genetically determined recovery time to a point with a good recovery program.
Paul Englert P.S. Dr Squat have I found your books to be highly informative. Have you seen the light though and are discarding perdiosation for hytrophy in place of our beloved HIT.
P.P.S. Sorry to the Ed of the digest for my previous entries i. no subject, whole message. I hope this format is more acceptable.
[Try to keep the parts pasted from the last digest to a minimum. Thx. See more this issue above on size of posts -- Mike]
I have been doing HIT for the last two years or so. The switch from split and periodization routines came naturally. I needed more and more time between workouts to heal. So, the progression went from 2 days off to 3 to 4 to 5 and so on until I needed 6 to 7 days off between doing squats or deads. For me, lower back recovery is (and probably will continue to be) the limiting step. Currently I workout once a week and alternate squats with deads (squat or dead once every two weeks).
I work hard in the gym, always trying to get a rep or push a little more weight than last time. I break from pure HIT by doing two heavy sets (to ensure maximum stimulation -usually get half the reps of the first). I have also lowered the rep count to the 6 - 8 region. This works better for me at the heavier weights.
My question revolves about absolute potential. What are some practical maximum weights that a normal, non-steroid assisted lifter can accomplish in the multiple rep range of 6 to 8? Median or average values would seem most reasonable. Singles are not practical for me (I tend to get hurt more frequently when doing singles). My current data are 6'2", 265 #, 14%BF, 465# Dead for 8 reps, 475# squat for 7 reps, and 405# bench for 6 reps.
At these weights, it takes me several weeks to gain a rep or put weight on the bar. I am sure that the training is sufficient, because I still do add weight. It is just less frequent than before. More frequent workouts hurts my joints, and I start loosing reps.
Thanks
Bob
The way to determine proper intensity is to again to go back to Jones. Jones, Darden and now Poliquin define an optimal drop off point at which stage optimal inroad has been reached. This ranges from 7-20% depending on the writer. As a hardgainer I go for the upper limit of 20%. The point is that this may or may not be one set to failure. For example I may put a client on one set of bench at 100lbs and stop them at 10 reps despite not being to failure, then give them 3 minutes rest (The rest interval thing is obviously equally as crucuial. Suffice to say three minutes appears sufficent to allow recovery). This time however they could only do seven reps to failure at 100lbs, then I would say that this client as a minow recovery abality and therefore should not train to failure. Progression should be aimed at more reps or increased weight, but not to failure.
Paul Englert.
>> 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 think that the important point that has to be looked at in regards to this study is the difference between the intensity and progression of the weight lifting group and the running group. For example, assume that the workout lasted for 30 minutes and consisted of twelve exercises to muscular failure with as little rest as possible between sets. This would obviously put tremendous aerobic demands on the body. Over the course of ten weeks, the subjects aerobic capacity will obviously increase.
However, is it possible for this group to improve the 2 mile run time better than the group whose training consisted solely of running? It may depend on the type of running which was done. If the group ran for 30 minutes per workout, but did not increase the intensity of the workouts by running at a progressively faster pace, then the 340% greater improvement by the weight training group is not surprising.
This study did not prove that weight training is superior to running for increasing aerobic capacity because it is difficult to correlate the intensity and progression of weight training to that of running. If this could be done, it would be interesting to see which would have the better improvement.
One reason that the results of this study seem so surprising is that the weight lifting group did no running at all, and thus, they did not improve on the skills involved in running 2 miles. However, I would argue that running is relatively unskilled (well, maybe not, after seeing the form of a lot of joggers you see around) and most people have run a considerable amount at some time in their lives. However, competitive swimming or mountain biking have much higher skill levels than endurance running. Therefore, I would argue that someone involved in the higher skill level endurance activities should spend a higher portion of their workout time in performing that skill. The key is to find the right balance between performing the endurance activity and weight training while avoiding overtraining. Lastly, the real key to success, whether it be in weight training, running, or mountain biking, is progression. Consistently pushing harder is obviously the only way to improve.
Pete Diskin
I mistakenly wrote:
>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.
And totally messed it up. Q is cardiac output (blood pumped per minute) which is defined as Stroke Volume (amount of blood pumped per beat) times heart rate. Sorry for the confusion.
So, the complete equation should properly read as:
Vo2 = (Stroke Volume * Heart rate) * (a-v)O2 difference.
Again, sorry.
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
Just wanted to thank you again for providing such an informative and valuable resource.
[Thanks! I had to include this one. :)]
Hi, Mr. Baye wrote... 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.
Is it possible (maybe "practical" would be a better word) to tell the difference between the two types of fatigue (nervous system v. muscular system)?
>From an evolutionary standpoint it would be "possible" for an organism to have a nervous system which would fatigue more quickly than it's muscular system. Evolution doesn't have to make sense, it just has to have an advantage (i.e. somehow a nervous system that fatigues quickly allows the organism to reproduce or grow quicker than other organisms).
[but then again i could be wrong, i has happened before] -Les In Vino Veritas
> From: FlexWriter@aol.com
> > 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?
While there seems to be some theoretical benefit to using supplemental L-Glutamine, this has yet to be demonstrated in the laboratory. To my knowledge, no studies have been done examining the effects of supplemental L-Glutamine on healthy weight-training athletes. Most research has been done using highly catabolic trauma patients. I would await for studies on weight trainers before spending your money on this supplement.
> Don't think vanadyl (Ultimate Nutrition and Sportpharma) does anything either, although I haven't tried the 100 mg daily doses recommended by some.
Most studies done with vanadyl have been done on diabetic rats, which cannot be extrapolated to healthy weight training humans. The only study done on weight trainers showed that vanadyl had absolutely no effect on body composition or strength (1).
1. Fawcett, J.P., S.J. Farquhar, R.J. Walker, T. Thou, G. Lowe, and A. Goulding. The effect of oral vanadyl sulfate on body composition and performance in weight-training athletes. Int. J. Sport Nutr. 6(4):382-390. 1996.
James Krieger