This list digest contains the following message subjects:
Studies can be used as points of information. That's all. One should not let their training ride on the results of a study. And that includes any study...whether by Arthur Jones or whoever. I have learned through my own experimentation the last 20 years. I know what works for me. And I think I have a good idea what will work for most people. I would rather use information from a practitioner and their years of experience. HOWEVER, you should beware of the background of the practitioner. And with that point, I invite you to read on Cyberpump, Stuart McRobert's post entitled "Sound Out Your Instructors".
Brad
____________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
"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."
Valid research requires, among other things, accurate tools with which to measure the unknown variables. With the exception of MedX testing tools, the majority of devices being used to attempt to measure strength are absolutely worthless for that purpose. Also consider that many performance tests are skill related (1 rep max), and that motor skill rehearsal has a considerable effect on their performace. Most studies are of too short a duration to rule out motor learning as a factor in improved test performance.
During the Nautilus study at West Point, Project Total Conditioning, subjects were not given the first battery of tests until 2 weeks after they had begun their training, in an attempt to prevent just such a thing from affecting the tests. Although I think 2 months would have been a more appropriate time to wait before administering the first tests, this is at least a step that very few others have taken.
I made the original statement to point out that one should be very critical of anything they read regarding this subject, particularly research abstracts or articles based on research findings.
Andrew M. Baye
Andrew M. Baye
"Could you please explain exactly why Vo2 Max is a worthless test?"
Gladly.
Here are only a few sections from an article on the subject in Vol 1, Issue 3 of the SuperSlow Exercise Standard....
"Most fitness testing involves tools and methods taken from other, more proper disciplines. For instance, the Beckman Cart was originally intended to measure VO2min (minimum volume of oxygen) to assess basal metabolism in comatose patients. It was not intended as a performance test as VO2max (maximum volume of oxygen). (Note that performance is nil with a comatose patient.) Regarding this, please refer to The Nautilus Book by Ellington Darden, PhD. Therein are sections where Keith Johnson, MD criticizes VO2max testing as innappropriate."
"On January 13, 1995, Michael Pollock, PhD, admitted to Ellington Darden PhD that VO2max testing is no test of anything and almost totally a genetically dependent variable. This is outrageous, since Pollock, more than Kenneth Cooper or any other one person, has done more work in this country to set up exercise physiology degree programs, certification programs with the ACSM, and cardiac rehabilitation programs with VO2max testing as thier basis."
"VO2max is not documented to be almost completely genetic and can vary only slightly due to training effect. A Klissouras, V. was the first name on "Hereditability of Adaptive Variation" in the Journal of Applied Physiology (Vol.31, No.3 pp.338-344, 1971) as well as "Genetic Limits of Functional Adaptability in Int. Z. Angew Physiology (Vol.30 pp.85-94, 1972). In these papers, and over 20 years ago, Klissouras documented that VO2max is 93.4% genetically determined in males and 95.9% genetically determined in males and females together. The fact that we can expect only a 4-6% improvement due to environmental control strongly suggests that VO2max, if a reliable test, is not an appropriate test to study human health."
"Other authorities condemn the futility of VO2max testing, Ted Lambrinides, PhD, and George Sheehan, MD, (cardiologist) have made bountiful arguments against it."
I do not bring up this point as an argument from authority, but to give suggestions as to sources for more arguments against this test.
"A more extreme stretch is made when -- in the absence of a Beckman Cart -- VO2max is measured indirectly with a bicycle ergometer based on a protocol that correlates perfomance (metabolic work units termed metabolic equivalents => Mets) on the bicycle to oxygen consumed (Mets) with a known VO2max calibration. Since metabolic work can not be measured -- a la Arthur -- this is horribly sloppy, although widely accepted and taught in exercise physiology and certification courses. (Note that the word ergometry implies that metabolic work can be measured.)"
Andrew M. Baye
In a message dated 97-11-02 16:43:54 EST,Englert write:
<< Subject: Re: Fred Hatfield recovery.
< < 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
<<snipped irrelevant Englert stuff>>
> 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. >>
Hey! Hey!! This is NOT my post. It's Fred2's post. And, of COURSE my books are informative! So is my home page at www.ipf.com/fredhome.htm. Furtheremore, I agree with Fred2. This thing of trainIng at low volume because training is "noxious" to the body is nonsense! First, training is NOT noxious to the body, it's STIMULATING. Second, it is OK to lift often, provided you're RECOVERING. Train HARD, train OFTEN, move the weight FAST, and train HEAVY!! In order to do these things, ya goota PERIODIZE your training CAREFULLY! YEAH!!!!!!
Fred Hatfield, Ph.D., FISSA
[Fred, I am filling in for Rob right now. My name is Moderator Mike. I had to snip a couple statements that were OBVIOUSLY flame bait. Most people on the list know how you feel on certain subjects. You have to behave on this list. Doesn't matter who you are. Flames and other nonsense, no matter WHO the person is will NOT be tolerated. I should have snipped that PS above, but missed it. I think he was actually joking after re-reading it. My apology on that one.]
> 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
I actually enjoy reading the long posts, but maybe that's just me (being one who writes long posts as well. Did I learn that from Rob? :) ). When debating on topics such as exercise science, sometimes detail is necessary.
A possible suggestion to the moderator may be, if there is a very long post or two, include these in a separate issue of the digest on their own, rather than along with 7 or so shorter posts. This would keep the overall length of the complete digest down, and people not interested in reading longer posts can simply not read the "long-post" digest. The moderator could even include a warning at the beginning, like, "James is at it again! If you don't want to spend the next hour reading this digest, delete it!" :)
> > >> 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 3times 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.
Dear Friends in Lifting:
RE: the endurance study at the U. S. Military Academy (West Point). Does anyone have a citation for the research? I graduated from the Coast Guard Academy, one brother from West Point and the other from the Air Force Academy. In my experience, the cadets are in such good cardiovascular shape that extra running time might not lead to better running time in the short run (six weeks) whereas strength training might help in some way. Think about it -- these are not average people -- they all take required, rigorous PE classes and, in my case, had to participate in two intramural or intercollegiate sports a year and pass a difficult fitness test twice yearly. They are more active in one day than almost all humans are in a week or more. Anyway, I am just guessing that the sample population itself might lead to unexpected results. I sure would appreciate a citation on the research so I can check it myself.
Chris Walter cwalter@swva.net
What is the consensus of this group on getting back after two weeks off. When I used the Hardgainer Method and started back at 80%, it just did not seem right. Should I start back up at the same weight I was at prior to the layoff? Or should I start somewhat lighter? The layoff was due to a slight muscle pull in my lower back, not caused by lifting.
Tom Monroe
From: Sonofsquat@aol.com Subject: Re: HIT Digest #29
> 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 forum seems to be a good facilitator of debate (I think we've been debating since the second edition). I personally would like to see more comments regarding exactly these subjects (explosive lifting, jump training, strength-curve manipulation, etc).
> I do not believe we are bound to wait 10 to 20 days before compensation takes place. In other words, 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 drastically 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.
Whether or not most strength trainees get enough protein is highly debatable, IMO. More often than not, it's either "far too much" or "too little."
<Do I sense a theme in my work?>
I realize you are implying that, although one factor may not be the end-all-be-all, the combination of a bunch of small things may equal a significant improvement, but...
I am curious as to whether or not there have been any studies WRT strength training and sleep deprivation. While I am quite ignorant of hormonal patters during sleep, is there any evidence which implies a certain amount (and how much?) is necessary for enhanced recovery (and why)?
Supplements (herbal or not should make little difference) in general are disappointing. However, this may be just because the claims are always completely overblown and unsubstantiated; marketers often use very twisted and incomplete logic in their claims. Off the top of my head, I can think of only one instance in which the relevant studies were shown, and the claims made were accurate conclusions from those studies; no more, no less (PA's Androstenedione FAQ; of course, marketers took this and ran).
In mfw about a week ago, Bill Roberts used training for recovery as a reason to alternate between periods of high and low volume; this could explain why greater gains are seen by tapering or switching to LV training after a period of HVT.
***
From: eraturu@mail.dlc.fi Subject: Proper Intensity, Proper Volume
> 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.
<fifty pages later>
Man, you reached the break-over point! =P
Unfortunately, I had to snip a bunch of really good stuff you wrote.
Here's what we can say:
o A certain %1RM is needed to enlist a certain adaptation.
o A certain amount of time-under-tension is needed to enlist a certain adaptation.
o A recovery period is needed to perform the adaptation.
The question being raised:
o Is it best to minimize stimulus for adaptation, given adequate recovery?
***
From: DrewBaye@aol.com Subject: Intensity, Volume, Fatigue, etc.
> << 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.
I don't think this is an adequate conclusion, based on what you were responding to.
I think it is far more likely that, given adequate recovery and frequency, more time under [substantial] tension = more size and strength gains. Clearly if the increase in volume had you recovering in 14 days or whatever, it will probably be far from useful, but take steroid users for example. The reason AS are so effective is, they allow the user to train at both higher volumes and with greater frequency.
Maybe we should ask Duchaine, or Rob Schuh (or whomever).
> 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.
Your question really is, "why increase time-under-tension?"
Because stimulation is different than fatigue.
Because a certain level of fatigue may be necessary for optimal progression (spec. Type I fibers).
> Regarding intensity: If [...] [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.
Exactly correct, up until your conclusion.
Stimulus for what? Recruiting motor units?
You are describing 1RM lifts.
[...] > It would only make sense then, to at least train > to positive muscular failure (the point at which intensity is 100%) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Is it?
> 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. [irrelevant example snipped]
> And regarding the comment that the nervous system might not recover as quickly as the muscles, this is simply not true. [...]
> [T]he nervous system is most definitely affected by high intensity training, [but] 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.
<needless sarcasm> Yes, this is exactly what I am saying.
<sigh>
Paralyzed? Why do you say this? I think you are taking my statement and abstracting it to a bizarre level.
Do people always reach failure due to muscular fatigue? Provide a reference.
If "[T]he nervous system is most definitely affected by high intensity training," then how does this correlate to the sentiment that any stimulation must be recovered from, and that the greater the stimulation, the more recovery needed?
Hmm. Maybe you're right and one cannot have too much neural stimulation.
In fact, this shows why when I take a bunch of amphetamines + the E/C/A stack, I feel right as rain the next morning.
Hmm. Maybe this explains my wonderful penmanship after an intense set of squats.
I don't care if you say it's "neural" or "metabolic" or the "x-factor;" clearly there is something other than muscular stimulation we must recover from.
> It makes absolutely no evolutionary sense that an organism would have a nervous system which would fatigue more quickly than it's muscular system.
Of course it does; it makes sure your arm doesn't fall off.
***
From: FlexWriter@aol.com Subject: Supplement Responses
> 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)
Carbs could be your problem. Also, people report good results by completely dissolving creatine in warm liquids before consumption.
> 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?
Carbs could be your problem here, too. Are you following Duchaine's glutamine protocol?
> Don't think vanadyl (Ultimate Nutrition and Sportpharma) does anything either, >although I haven't tried the 100 mg daily doses recommended by some.
Carbs again! And, it's IMO useless.
Why are you eating so few carbs if you want to gain mass?
> Haven't yet done the Andro-Trib-DHEA stack. What are people experiencing?
IMO Andro is probably a good stimulant, and Tri/DHEA are probably useless.
Androdiol (+ Androstene) seems somewhat promising via anecdotal reports, but frankly I don't have enough money to try it.
> Would like to know what supplements and brands people recommend, including supplements I haven't mentioned.
Post-workout carbs + protein.
***
From: jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu Subject: Re: Volume, studies, endurance training, etc.
> 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.
I would like to say that I was questioned for snipping the studies, but I did so in order to limit my already too long responses. I assumed that interested parties would either have saved the original post, or e-mail a request.
> 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.
Poliquin's "critical drop-off point" principle is interesting as well.
> 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?
Actually, if "inroad" refers to inter-set strength differential, as I inferred from something snipped, it may be quite close to Poliquin's critical drop-off.
> 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.
Exactly.
> 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?
When you reach concentric failure, you can always reach isometric failure. When you reach isometric failure, you can always reach negative failure. When you reach negative failure, you can always do a drop set. Then superset into another exercise. Then drop set. Then do manual resistance exercise. And even after all that, if I put a gun to your head, you'd be able to do another few reps.
> 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.
Good point. It would also reduce the time under tension, apparently the better way to train. In this case I guess we should throw-out SuperSlow reps too...
-- "Work smarter, not harder." - Scrooge McDuck
Adam Fahy afahy@oitunix.oit.umass.edu
Hi, I think it is James and others,
I've recently caught up with these newsletters as I have moved in the weekend. Things certainly change at a rapid rate of knots. This is in response to James' response to my estimation on relying on external sources.
> [validity of scientific journals] This is why references are provided so that you may read the study and analyze its methodology, results, and conclusions. >
I guess that I am sceptical, in that I don't believe everything I read, for one why should I trust the sources motivation. I have seen studies that draw conclusions that would differ from my own and that is not even taking into account the design, in which they may or may not have followed the protocol stated.
[I said that the only thing is to rely on ones's 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. > > [snipped further elaboration on above comment]
>
To observe is to use one's reasoning abilities. The whole experience of observing requires the raw data to be transformed to something meaningful through the our perception. Not everything that comes to us can be said to be logically derived however as many useful things are stumbled on by chance. When this happens however we ask ourselves, how does this relate to me. The more something relates to other things, and it's explanatory value, the greater do I believe in it's possible validity. This is often the best starting point as we are finite beings, (at least on this earth) with limited resources.[I used the Intensity formula, Intensity = inroad/time
> 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? > >
Wrt to inroad I believe Andrew Baye covered it very well. It can be measured even if with some difficulty but a little easier using static contractions. Now I believe this formula if understood properly to provide immense support for those training. There will be no I did 2 reps at 1RM and this proves HIT doesn't work. How do you know something doesn't work properly when it's not measured properly, consistently or there is a supposition that intensity is something it is not. Now intensity is on a continum so there are relative degrees even if failure does occur. To inroad a muscle by 30% in 15seconds has a greater intensity "quotient" than that of 30 seconds.
Cya
Teri