This list digest contains the following message subjects:
> > >My belief is that most of us are not overtraining, instead, we are "underrecovering" by not giving our bodies every opportunity to grow.
There is no doubt in my mind that the most difficult part of training takes place once you leave the gym. Eating right is almost impossible for me because I work too much and travel too much. If I had a dietician preapring every meal I ate I'm sure I'd weigh at least 10 lbs. more and be much stronger.
spr
> 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
Yes! Anything longer than a paragraph and I'm skinning. If you can't say it in 300 words or less, keep it to yourself or reply directly to the sender. Your high school english teachers would be ashamed! Great list though. Many thanks to the moderators for keeping the hotheads in line or the problem would be much worse.
spr
>Here's what we can say: A certain %1RM is needed to enlist a certain adaptation. A certain amount of time-under-tension is needed to enlist a certain adaptation. A recovery period is needed to perform the adaptation.
> > >The question being raised: Is it best to minimize stimulus for adaptation, given adequate recovery?
Could you explain more closely what you mean with your question?
Erkki Turunen
This message is about the infamous West Point expeiment, how tu run faster? I can only tell my own experience. I used to swim from the age of 8 until 14. I swam 100 meter freestyle 1:18 which is not so good, but I was only 14, and 5feet 2inches. 7 years later i did 1:22 at 5' 7'' because of loss of practice. That's when I started weight training and gained 20lbs during a year (height same). I went to swim like twice a month, just for fun (500-800 meters) at the beach. Then 3 weeks ago I asked someone to measure my 100 meters freestyle. It was 1:08!!!! My best ever-ever! I did practically no specific training (previously at 13-14 I used to swim 8-10 kilometers a day, 12 trainings a week) as you can see and this result is absolutely amazing. I believe on the basis of my own experience that weight training is really useful for any sports. WIK
On Sunday I sent a rather long post in reply to some of Andrew Baye's comments, but it hasn't appeared in either digest #31 or digest #32. The other 2 posts that I sent after that post have appeared. Was the post too long or will it appear in a different issue? I was very careful to keep it flame-free.
> From: DrewBaye@aol.com
> > 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.
Please explain to me why MedX tools are so superior to other testing tools and why other devices are worthless.
As long as the same device is used to test at the beginning of a study and at the end, then there are no problems. If someone has gained strength using that particular device, then they have gained strength, period.
> 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.
Motor learning occurs on machines (including MedX) as it does on free weights. While skill is needed to properly balance and control a free weight which is not as necessary on a machine, other types of neural factors come into play on a machine which effect strength development, such as alterations in recruitment, rate coding, synchronization of motor units, reflex potentiation, co-contraction of antagonists, and synergistic muscle activity (1). Neural adaptations occur within muscles whether free weights or machines are used.
If a subject is tested for 1 RM on the squat at the beginning of a study, and then tested at the end of the study (let's say 6 weeks later), and squats were not a regular part of the training protocol, then neural learning will not be much of a factor at all in strength development in this test exercise.
If squats are a regular part of the training protocol during the study, then some neural adaptations will occur, but this will occur with machines as well. Neural adaptations and strength development go hand-in-hand. It is impossible to separate one from the other.
Now, improvement in squatting form could be a problem in such a protocol, such as if a subject has bad squatting form at the beginning of a study and great squatting form at the end of a study, which would obviously effect testing procedures. A properly designed study would attempt to control such factors. Not all studies do this. Maybe this is what you're trying to get at.
You must also remember that, in this debate, the issue has not been necessarily about strength development. It has been more about training volume and its relationship to muscle hypertrophy. I quoted three studies which measured muscle hypertrophy in a post last week. These measurements are not subject to the problems that you have just pointed out.
1. Behm, D.G. Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance training. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 9(4):264-274. 1995.
> 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.
While I agree that one should view research with a critical eye, an overly-critical or skeptical eye will not get anyone anywhere. Taking this to the logical extreme, one could reach a point where they never learn anything because they will not be willing to believe anything they read or anybody tells them. They won't believe 2+2=4. They won't believe the Earth is round. They won't believe there was a man named Martin Luther King Jr. These are extreme examples, but I'm doing it to illustrate a point. Some skepticism is healthy, but a lot of skepticism is crippling.
I view the research you've been quoting with more of a critical eye then some other research that I've seen, for two reasons: it hasn't had to stand the test of any type of peer-review, and the researchers involved had a vested financial interest in the equipment they were researching.
> 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.
Simply because a study's conclusions differ from your own doesn't make the results of the study invalid or incorrect. For example, let's say I try out creatine monohydrate and it does nothing for me. The majority of the research out there indicates that creatine monohydrate is of benefit to strength athletes. I come to my own conclusion that the research must be bad, since creatine monohydrate didn't help me at all. However, if I were to look deeper into the research out there on creatine, I would find that there is a small percentage of individuals who do not respond at all to creatine supplementation. Therefore, it is highly likely I am one of these individuals.
While it is healthy to approach any study with some skepticism, too much skepticism will not allow you to learn from the observations of others, because you'll never be able to believe the others.
For example, why do most bodybuilders use a repetition range of approximately 6-12 for building muscle size? It's because they've observed other bodybuilders getting results from this. Now, you or I could be skeptical about this and, through trial and error, try to find what repetition range works the best, but we could spend years doing this, and we could have saved ourselves a lot of time by simply observing, and yes, trusting, others.
> 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.
I responded to Baye's procedure for measuring inroad in another post, which has yet to appear in any of the digests, which I've already addressed the moderator about.
[Never saw it...please re-submit. --MM]
To fill you in, Baye's procedure for measuring "inroad" doesn't work at all, since it is dependent upon a rest interval. For example, I could test 1 minute after performing an exercise, and get a completely different result then if I test 8 minutes after that exercise. This renders the test meaningless.
> 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 15 seconds has a greater intensity "quotient" than that of 30 seconds.
I made further comments on Baye's definitions of intensity in the same post that I was referring to. I have a problem in that Baye mixes two different definitions of intensity, one is "% momentary ability" and the other is "inroad", which are completely different and vague concepts.
Also, by your assertion, then, to "inroad" a muscle by 30% in 3 seconds has a greater intensity "quotient" than that of 15 seconds. So how do we "inroad" a muscle like this in 3 seconds? The only logical way I can think of is to increase the weight. But, aren't we now describing a 1-rep max here? The greatest "inroad" in the shortest possible time.
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
I have found that with a layoff of only 2 weeks, I can start up right where I left off. Of course, you want to be careful with the injured muscle, but otherwise, go for it!! I wound be surprised if you didn't even see some improvement in some areas. Dave H
Tom,
> What is the consensus of this group on getting back after two weeks off?
I made it a point in my most recent article to mention what to do in this case.
I've witnessed far too many people re-start their program at a level that is just too intense. I actually had a guy in the weight room tonight that had not been in consistent training since August. He over-did it and I found him sitting in the aerobics room propped up against the wall ready to pass out. : ) > Should I start back up at the same weight I was at prior to the layoff? Or should I start somewhat lighter?
My "personal consensus" is that it is always best to start off slightly lighter and progress from there. I've read different statements about the exact day strength starts to decline.....but obviously, it will vary for everyone depending on several factors. 2 weeks isn't that long off: chances are you "could" continue with the weights you were using (probably close to maintaining your previous workout but not making gains) but why risk an injury - it's simply not worth it. The fact that you've hurt your back makes me definitely recommend starting out lighter. As to 80% or whatever - don't be so scientific about it. Just do it : ) at a lighter weight, do what feels comfortable, take your time, and be patient. Having a few lighter workouts is not the end of the world contrary to popular belief. Be smart about it and you'll be back to where you were in no time! Good luck. = )
http://www.fitnesslink.com/exercise/tenlift.htm
Rachael IIII------IIII p.s.Don't forget to s-t-r-e-t-c-h your hamstrings and back.......and read my article!
*