This list digest contains the following message subjects:

I should be able to figure it out from context, but I can't; what is 1RM? %RM? Is there somewhere a dictionary of gym jargon?

Thanks for dealing with a "dumb" question.

Les

Is there a way I can access a back issue of this digest? I made an important response to some of Andrew Baye's comments in digest #30, but it got lost in the shuffle somewhere, and I deleted it from my "Sent Mail" folder. I would like to be able to "re-respond" if possible, but the only way is to be able to read this digest again.

[Back issues will be available soon through an automatic list command --MM]

I think what Adam is saying is this. Let's say a given trainee has Y units of adaptational energy (speaking figuratively here). And training requires X units of adaptational energy to recover from.

WE've got three possibilities: X>Y: overtraining since your training requires more energy than you can provide X=Y: stagnation since you're putting as much into recovery as you are into training X<Y: progress of some sort

Now, we have a situation with X<Y where X can be just below Y (You're training just below your ability to recover) or X is a LOT below Y (you're training far below your ability to recover). In the first case, you're walking the fine line of overtraining. I believe Adam is asking about the second situation. That is, given Y recovery capacity, is it ALWAYS beneficial to use the lowest X (assuming here that X is high enough to stimulate *some* progress).

Examples: If a bodybuilder is chock filled with drugs, his Y will be extremely high (artificially although he probably has great recovery). For him to use the lowest X possible, while ensuring progress, will result in slow progress than in using a X closer to his Y.

So, the question comes down to this: do you want to be training *just* below your recovery threshhold (X very close to Y) or do you want to leave the most adaptational energy (X as low as possible relative to Y)?

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

> > >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 >

I don't think the question is whether strength training is of benefit to any sports. Several studies by Hickson have documented an improvement in endurance performance with heavy (5X5) weight training. The question is whether strength training can completely replace endurance training which is the implication of the claims being made for hte West Point study. Also, swimming requires much more in the way of strength (due to resistance provided by the water) than running. Cycling is somewhere in the middle. The West Point study (while very intriguing) should have included a third group:

3. strenght training PLUS running on top of 1. strength training only 2. endurance training only

I would argue that group #3 would have improved more than groups 1 or 2. There is no doubt in my mind that adding strength training to an endurance athletes training will vastly improve performance (as clients of mine have repeatedly shown to be the case). I have no doubt that any endurance athlete who performs only strength training will be destroyed by any athlete who performs just their sport. Yes, this contradicts the results of the WEst Point study but I'd like to see more of the details than what essentially amounts to the abstract (what has been posted in various HIT literature).

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

Hi Guys,

Commenting on: James' response about relying on outside sources whether they be scientific journals or otherwise. I will have to paraphrase as I actually just deleted the last digest. MM please send again if at all possible.

[James said that because I didn't come up with the same conclusions as that of the study didn't mean that the study was invalid ]

I agree, but my evaluations using my own reasoning ability (based on the available info) is all I have at my disposal. This does not mean that one has an open mind however, but one that is actively enquiring.

[James mentioned that if my case were exxagerated I would not end up trusting anyone or anything]

If we were to go the other extreme however, James would trust everyone. We trust, based on the evidence. It appears that James is probably more accepting and I more questioning (at least in some areas). I think that the questioning approach is better as this is the only way to recognise improvements. To not question is to do so at your own peril. It's all a matter of balance.

Wrt inroad this is how I understand it to be. If measured correctly and consistently one had the ability to lift maximally (or provide so much tension over time) 100 units in the beginning, and then after a certain time had elapsed (while still contracting maximally), they were only able to generate 80 units, this exercise resulted in there being only 80% of momentary (initial) ability output. Conversely there could also be said to be a 20% reduction in momentary (initial) ability. This is known as a 20% inroad. They are both 2 different ways of saying the same thing. Please feel free to correct me if either my definition is not illustrative of this or there are some other problems with it.

FYI Both the Superslow site and Arthur Jones articles have useful information on strength measurements.

Cya Teri

Gentlemen,

I have not received a HIT digest is a few days now... Is there a problem?

Fred II

[Fred, your email address bounced like a ball at first. It seems AOL may be your culprit. Nobody else has written in about not getting the digest. MM]