This list digest contains the following message subjects:

Well, this is my last digest until Rob has to bail again. It looks like the digest will be archived on the Web, but with a lag as far as issues. We will announce it here once the page gets set up. Also, once Rob and I get synced up with back issues, they will also be available automatically with a "command" in the subject of an e-mail. I wanted to put this digest out because it was getting too big and I was going to be busy tomorrow. Rob will be taking back over on Friday. Adios!

Moderator Mike

<<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? >>

Whenever a client returns from a vacation or business trip after a 2 to 4 week layoff, I have them use the same weight for each exercise they used during their last workout before the layoff. They are almost always stronger. It is highly unlikely that decomposition would occur after such a short period of time.

Andrew M. Baye

<< Please explain to me why MedX tools are so superior to other testing tools and why other devices are worthless. >>

Rather than write an entire book for you on the subject, I suggest you send a request to MedX (email@medxinc.com) for their research and the book Testing and Rehabilitation for the Lumbar Spine, The Cervical Spine, and The Knee. They will send this to you free of charge. This information will answer the above question far better than I could in a small enough space to be practical in the digest.

<<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.>>

Not if that device is not an accurate testing tool, or is incapable of measuring exactly what it is supposed to. Isokinetics machines, for example, will provide completely different readings for the exact same force output at different damp settings. Most researchers using these tools are ignorant of this flaw, and fail to record and standardize these settings. This is a moot point though, because isokinetics testing equipment is worthless for several other reasons, the least of which being that it is a dynamic testing protocol, which involves too many variables which can not be factored out or standardized.

Andrew M. Baye

<< To fill you in, Baye's procedure for measuring "inroad" doesn't work at all, since it is dependent upon a rest interval. >>

First, it is not my procedure, it is MedX's fatigue response test. And where did I say anything about a rest interval? The test is performed immediately after the exercise.

<<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.>>

If a person performs a one rep maximum, they would not achieve a deep level of inroad, because a one rep max would require a weight that almost equalled their starting level of strength. Their strength would not have to be reduced much for them to fail using such a weight, and the inroad would be minimal. Assuming a particular minimal degree of inroad is necessary for growth stimulation, I doubt it could be reached in only a few seconds.

Andrew M. Baye

>I have no doubt that any endurance athlete who performs only strength training will be destroyed by any athlete who performs just their sport.

I agree completely. Strength training only complements sports specific training. I also think that there are some sports where strength training is detrimental. I would not recommend that a marathon runner do squats for instance. The squats are telling the muscles to be ready to exert a great deal of force in a short amount of time, and running is telling them to be ready to keep a much lower intensity for a long period of time. I also wouldn't advise a bodybuilder to run marathons.

spr

My view would be that we would wish to recover to a point where we can then train with higher intensity at the next wout. If this is not the case then optimal recovery has not taken place. There are so many systems in the body that are going to be shocked by HIT, eg. muscular system, nervous etc. These systems will all have differing recovery abilities. I believe that this is why a complete lay off is required to give the systems such as the nervous system a break.

It is however like the issue of nutrition in that there is going to be a law of diminishing returns to over recover between every wout. As long as you use progression as a guide then recovery should be adequate, with a lay off once and a while.

P.S. What are peoples views on the best HIT routine for regaining lost muscle in the shortest possible time? I put this ? in Digest 31 and haven't heard anything. Love to hear peoples views. Just in case people missed it 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). Auxiliary 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?????

To be ignorant of ones ignorance is the malady of the ignorant- A.B. Alcott

One of my long-standing challenges (long-standing in that, when I first read HD/HIT in about 1994, I immediately saw a couple of major assumptions embedded within the premises the Mentzerian philosophy. These assumptions involve one of his foremost 'principles', upon which much of his and A. Jones's, et al, further reasoning is based.

Assumption 1) that the body has only limited reserves of 'recuperative' capability Assumption 2) that the body's adaptive response to stress is fixed.

I contend that neither is necessarily the case. Both notions rest on the proposal that there are certain subsystems/processes that are static in their dynamics (so to speak) - i.e., no possibility of second-order or meta- or hyper-effects. For example if the dynamics of a subsystem are expressible as diffyQs/PDEs, then neither N-nd (where N>1)-order derivatives nor any changes in coefficients, nor intereffects or intra-effects (within/between subsystems) of import.

For my examples, I brushed up on the endocrine and neuromuscular subsystems, as well as the basics of protein synthesis, enzyme kinetics, steroid hormones and receptors, growth factors and cytokines, and muscle biochemistry. Between the basic bio, and my knowledge of linear and non-linear adaptive systems, I posit the following: I think nth-order effects exist, are important in support of variation as a principle in training, and are are capable of adapting, via complex feedback and feedforward mechanisms. In other, other words, it appears as though the body, given some cumulative 'stress' over time, increases its capability to respond to that stress - isn't that what happens on the gross level of 1st-order (e.g., what think is a simple stimulus (muscular 'damage')-response (protein synthesis) effect - e.g., muscle-growth?!

(Begin ASIDE: in my meanderings over the last couple months, I came across some fascinating pucky about the immune system's proclivities towards hyper and meta-mutation; this seemed relevant in that the immune system is part of the machinery that determines how we respond to stressors. FYI Refs:

Ikematsu, H., Harindranath, N, Ueki, Y., Notkins, A.L., and Casali, P. (1993) Clonal analysis of a human antibody response. II. Sequences of the VH genes of human monoclonal IgM, IgG and IgA to rabies virus reveal preferential utilization of the VHIII segments and somatic hypermutation. J. Immunol. 150: 1325-1337.

Varade WS, Insel RA. Isolation of germinal center-like events from human spleen RNA: somatic hypermutation of a clonally related VH6DJH rearrangement expressed with IgM, IgG, and IgA. J Clin Invest 1993;91:1838-1842.

Varade WS, Marin E, Kittelberger AM, Insel RA. Use of the most JH-proximal human immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene, VH6, in the expressed immune repertoire. J Immunol 1993;150:4985- 4995.

Insel RA, Marin E, Varade WS. Human splenic IgM immunoglobulin transcripts are mutated at high frequency. Molecular Immunol 1994;31:383-392.

Insel RA, Varade WS. Bias in somatic hypermutation of human VH genes. Internat Immunol, 1994;6:1437- 1443.)

End ASIDE)

For example, WRT the limited reserves notion specifically - one example I've read about extensively, lately, involves the change in reversible enzyme inhibitors as an adaptation to changes in stress ( to put in mfw context - read 'exercise variation'). )forgive the basic biochem here, but the chain of reasoning is similar over all the examples I gave). The important charateristic of reversible inhibitors is that when the inhibitor concentration falls to some level, enzyme activity is regenerated. Enzymes of intermediary metabolism are predominantly affected by phosphorylation, either positively or negatively. These covalent phosphorylations can be reversed by a separate sub-subclass of enzymes known as phosphatases. The degree to which phosphorylation of the various growth factors, for example (which, of course plays a key role in muscle protein synthesis) and hormone receptors, as well as of proteins that regulate cell division, proceeds, determine the influence these factors play in muscle growth. Now, there are obvious effects on phosphatase concentration due to changes in type/and length of muscular stress (refs available), after some relative equilibrium (relative to the time period that the concentrations are in fairly dynamic flux) has been reached. As you know, reaction kinetics can be altered by enzyme inhibition. In thus case, the *rate* of phosphorylations changes the time-sliced (during any given period) growth potential. So what?! If the body adapts to exercise by (among many other things) changing concentrations of phosphatases available, then the limited reserve notion goes out the window.

I think this is the case with another subsystem I've looked into in some detail. To elucidate one aspect of this adaptation-of-adaptive-system phenomena further, (you probably know most of this). It has to do with the calcium pump and its efficiency. The chain of events that stimulate muscle activity by raising sarcoplasmic calcium begin with neural excitation at neuromuscular junctions. Excitation induces local depolarization of the sarcolemma, which spreads to the associated T tubule system and deep into the interior of the myofiber. T tubule depolarization spreads to the sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR), with the effect of opening voltage-gated calcium channels in the SR membranes. This is followed by massive, rapid movement of cisternal calcium into the sarcoplasm close to nearby myofibrils. The appearance of calcium very close to the Tn-C subunit of troponin results in the production of multiple myosin power strokes, as long as the available calcium concentration remains greater than about 1 to 5 micromolar. (Now this concentration-dependent function is another one that is amenable to an adaptive change - but i digress). Now, as the myosin power strokes continue (as in the performance of reps), the calcium channels become susceptible to under-voltages caused by the hydrolyzation of ATP. For each ATP hydrolyzed, 2 calcium ions are moved out of the sarcoplasm, with sarcoplasmic calcium ultimately falling below 0.1 micromolar ( Notice this is below the 1-5 limit wherein the myosin power stroke, and thence muscle, functions optimally (or at all!!).)

So let us look at what regulates the buildup of calcium. (disregarding, for the moment, the glycoprotein known as calsequestrin. Calsequestrin, as you know loves to bind calcium, decreasing its concentration in the cisternae, thereby favoring calcium accumulation.) As the final repository of sarcoplasmic calcium is the mitochondrial matrix and since mitochondria have a remarkably active calcium pump, driven by the electron transport--generated chemiosmotic potential (which in turn is affected by exercise - but this also is another story), we can see a direct connection between ones routine and the efficacy of the calcium pump, as follows. Under aerobic conditions this pump uses the energy of electron transport to sequester calcium in the mitochondrial matrix, in preference to the synthesis of ATP. So the more ones workout tends away from anaerobic conditions, the less resynthesis of ATP occurs. And further, this mechanism itself is adaptive in that, the resynthesis becomes less and less productive (sortof like hysteresis), so, one should vary the pendulum of aerobic-to-anaerobic conditions of ones wo. (E.g., more to less to more rest between sets, between wos, how many reps). The adaptation occurs as the efficiency of the pump increases to clamp the calcium when overloading occurs. The system is perturbed, then relaxes at a new optimum efficiency at pumping calcium thusly raising the capability, in reverse order, of responding to the muscular stress (wo) in the first place.

There are probably hundreds of example sequence-of-events (cause-effect) scenarios like this; if one knows what the mechanisms are, what the important stressors are to the feedback portion of the mechanism, to effectively deduce what stressor or change in stressors that would have an effect on the subsystems efficiancy/efficacy. Because there is so much info in the journals, I looked at some of the obvious gross effects of different types of exercise (lactic acid buildup, ATP regen-cycles, etc, and then delved deeper into those mechanisms to the details). Now, of course, in the above simplified calcium pump example, one would also have to be able to conclude that building up calcium pumps' capability is a GOOD thing, that will concomitantly increase one's ability to do work, raise heavier weight or do more reps. That is an exercise in further, rather non-speculative deduction, as, if your muscle can last a little longer, or produce a bit more contractile capability under load, your body has obviously compensated in neuromuscular efficiency or muscle-size on the gross level as well (e.g., increased, probably, the size or number of muscle cells such that the cross-sectional area is greater thence enabling the lifting of greater weight.)

And as for phenotype gyrations (i.e., that Lamarck *may* be alive and well and living in our genes ;^) check these out.

Scientific American, September, 1997, "EVOLUTION EVOLVING" by Tim Beardsle

Nature commentary on June 12, E. Richard Moxon of John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, England, and David S. Thaler of the Rockefeller University.

Nature article on Hypermutation on June 5 1997 by Bryn A. Bridges of the University of Sussex

Given that information transfer occurs into chromosomes from the environment (soup/fields/carcinogens) and the unfolding of a chromosomes expression is dependent on the environment (gross and subtle) then feedback is, to me, a real possibility. We have to stop looking at the gene as an entity out of time and out of context. Information affecting bit jumping and the precessional mechanisms associated with expression in time, is *processed* by the chromosome, again, in time, affecting genotype (mutation & crossover proclivities) and extant phenotype.

[Moderator's note: Could you please keep the size of your posts down or maybe submit multiple posts over a few digests with your major points. I think people will be more inclined to read shorter posts as was mentioned previously by a subscriber. Thanks!]

>>>The question being raised:

>>> >>>o Is it best to minimize stimulus for adaptation, given adequate recovery?

>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)?

I don't understand what "as low as possible stimulus" could be. It refers to the "trigger" idea that you have to do at least some amount of work (reps) to trigger the growth mechanism. I think that even one rep done with a weight that activates some IIa fibers would give a small growth stimulus. Thus the question loses its meaning.

But we can re-formulate the problem: Is it better that X is near zero or near Y? My instinct says that there is some intermediate point which would be the best. If X is very small the stimulus for growth would likevise be very small albeit you could visit the gym quite often. If X is almost Y then the growth stimulus would be high but a very substantial portion of it would go to recovery and besides you would have to train quite infrequently for fatigue not to accumulate. But as we don't know where the optimal point lies I'd better err on the side of too small than too big X.

Erkki Turunen

From: LCONWAY.at.csomstudent@csom.umn.edu

Subject: 1RM?

> 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.

Not a dumb question. "RM" stands for, "Repetition Maximum;" in other words, the highest # of repetitions you can complete with a given weight.

"1RM" therefore refers to the most amount of weight with which you can perform a single in a given exercise.

"%RM" and "intensity" are often used to refer to the same thing: a percentage of one's 1RM.

Confusion arises when people define intensity differently, WRT strength training.

***

From: lylemcd@onr.com Subject: Volume and intensity

> 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.

> > [...] 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)?

Exactly. And, does more stimulus = more adaptation, if given adequate recovery (will I get more 'gains,' the closer x is to y)?

Note that the answer may not be as obvious to some as to others, especially if you believe that maximal adaptation comes from maximal intensity, and you define intensity as inroad/time, and you define inroad as intRA-set strength deficit.

***

From: lylemcd@onr.com Subject: Wet point expt.

LOL!

***

From: jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu Subject: Re: Baye's comments on studies

> 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.

Question: is strength measured coming primarily from muscular or neural adaptation?

Question: is strength measured being affected by the testing method?

> > From: DrewBaye@aol.com

> > 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.

This is not what is being questioned.

If I understand correctly, he is implying that certain protocols emphasize motor skill rehearsal more than others, and that most of these studies are of such a short duration that the majority of strength gains will inevitably be neural adaptations.

> 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.

?

> > 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.

> 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.

Yes, I don't understand this at all. He says to be critical of articles containing research abstracts, or conclusions based on research, and yet produces a dubious "abstract" to prove a point?

***

From: jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu Subject: Re: Teri's comments on Journals

> > 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.

A study is a collection of data based on a particular situation.

I believe the point was that sometimes the researchers do not come to the same conclusions, based on this data, as Teri.

Or, that people quoting studies often make grand conclusions that may or may not be the case, based on data collected (this is a problem many supplement marketers have, for example).

Teri then comes to the conclusion that, because of these problems, studies are useless.

Of course logic is subject to the exact same limitations.

Here's a reply (to James) from Teri:

From: T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au Subject: Re:James, Journals & Inroad

> [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.

The researcher's conclusions are largely irrelevant.

If someone is writing an article, it is their responsibility to provide references which support their conclusions.

It is the researcher's responsibility (those to whom the citation refers) to do a valid experiment (by this I mean, legitimate).

It is the reader's responsibility to research the research, to determine if the experiment is flawed, and if not, to see if their own conclusions correspond to those of the researchers or the article's author.

A problem can arise when any or all of the above do not 'fulfill their responsibility.'

Medline is on the web, via HealthGate: http://www.healthgate.com/HealthGate/MEDLINE/search.shtml

>From there you have access to most abstracts, and can order the full text of any article for around $25 US (or you can look for the journal in the library, or online)

People's interpretation of data will often differ; some end-up using the same reference to prove completely differing points. However, *this* does not mean that the experiment itself is invalid.

References are given as support for an argument, not as proof.

You appear to deny the significance of formal experimentation by rejecting submitted references not because the experiments *were* flawed, but because they *could* be flawed.

It seems as though before analyzing the evidence, you have already made-up your mind. You do not question whether or not the study is valid: not once, in your denial of James' conclusions, have you pointed-out an actual flaw in the procedures, or in the logic of the experimenters, or anything which would invalidate the experiment. Or what *your* conclusions are, based on the data collected.

If one does not read and analyze a given study, one cannot with intellectual honestly produce a conclusion based on that study. Take, for example, some list contributors' reactions to the West Point study.

[the following was edited for clarity]

> Wrt inroad this is how I understand it to be.

> If measured correctly and consistently one [may, for instance, have] the ability to lift maximally (or provide so much tension[...]) 100 units in the beginning [of a set.] [T]hen after a certain time ha[s] elapsed (while still contracting maximally), [one may] only [be] able to generate 80 units[.]

> [T]his 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.

Remember what I said above, about whether more stimulus = more adaptation being relevant to one's definition of intensity?

100 contractile units to whomever can explain what I'm getting at.

-- "Work smarter, not harder" -Scrooge McDuck

Adam Fahy: afahy@oitunix.oit.umass.edu

Just got a letter from the NZIFBB. One of our only New Zealand pros B.J. Johns just died. Cardic arrest. Diagnosed with advanced aortic dissection. This is really sad as I was talking with him just six weeks ago when he guest posed. He was going to retire and get married in March. He is from a small town in which I lived and I know everyone will be upset. He would have been 30 if a day.

To bring his body back to New Zealand from Australia his family have requested donations. If anyone is interested they can send them to:-

Jean Johns c/o NZFBB PO Box 5186 Wellesley st Auckland

I realize this isn't strictly HIT so I thank you for your consideration.

Paul Englert.

[No problem. This isn't strictly a HIT list. --MM]

On the West Point experiment.

I agree with Lyle's comments on my experience with swimming. However I believe that trainees are ways overtrained. I was brought up in Hungary (long live communism!!!), and we have some really great swimmers and very famous trainers (2 or 3 are considered to be among the top 10 in the world). I got the good training, as they say. There is weight training but usually only for older swimmers. We, as youngsters (between 11-14) used to swim 3-4 hours a day(12 trainings a week). Now, looking back, I believe we could have done much better with twice a week weight training and 3-4 times a week swimming. Any comments? Don't you think athletes are overtrained and weight training is undervalued? WIK

[Please don't just hit "reply" and include the whole digest in your response. I had to snip almost the whole last digest. Also, remember everyone to change the subject to what your post is about. Thanks! Moderator Mike]

> From: LCONWAY.at.csomstudent@csom.umn.edu

> > 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?

RM stands for repetition maximum. A 1 RM weight is a weight that you can lift for only one repetition in good form; a 1-rep max. A 10 RM weight would be a weight you can lift for 10 repetitions but not 11.

> Thanks for dealing with a "dumb" question.

No such thing as a "dumb" question. You simply just didn't know, and now you do.

James Krieger

[Yup, and on this list no one is going to be belittled or flamed. Everyone is equal on this list. Ok, enough preaching from me. :) MM]

Leaving the most adaptational energy would be beneficial if you assume that you will use more adaptation energy to adapt if the energy is available. However, if we assume that an adaptation will result in a constant energy usage, then it doesn't matter how much adaptation energy you have left as long as you have enough to fill the requirement for adaptation.

Say it takes Z units of adaptation energy to produce the adaptation. Therefore, as long as (Y-X) => Z, then you're fine. This is operating on the second assumption that I pointed out.

> From: T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au

> > 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.

This method is not useful at all for measuring the effectiveness of a protocol or whether I have stimulated an increase in muscle size. This is simply a measure of fatigue, which has different causes and also does not necessarily correlate to the stimulation of muscle hypertrophy.

I could create a large "inroad" with such a test by simply doing a 50 repetition set, which would create such high lactate levels that it would produce a large interference with force production. However, we all know that a 50 repetition set is not a great way to stimulate an increase in muscle hypertrophy or muscle strength.

>From: DrewBaye@aol.com

> >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.

This is operating on the assumption that some type of growth/no growth point exists, and that the magnitude of the growth response is constant. However, there is no real-world evidence to indicate that this is true at all. Let's say that the growth/no growth point does exist. Just because you've stimulated growth, though, doesn't mean that you've stimulated the maximum amount of growth possible.

A muscle can adapt to resistance training in many different ways. There are three types of muscle fibers, and hypertrophy can occur in all three, or in just one type. These different fiber types respond to different types of training. For example, for argument's sake, let's say that one-set to failure training causes an increase in Type IIB fiber hypertrophy. However, we still have Type IIA and Type I fibers to worry about. If someone is interested in maximum muscle hypertrophy, they want hypertrophy of all fiber types, which necessitates the incorporation of periods of both high volume and low volume training to induce hypertrophy of all fiber types.

Another way a muscle can possibly adapt to resistance training is hyperplasia, although considerable debate exists over whether this occurs in humans. Neural adaptations also occur due to resistance training. You can have significant increases in strength with little or no increase in muscle size. Therefore, just because one is stronger at their next workout doesn't mean that they've gotten any bigger.

Since there are so many different ways that a muscle can adapt to resistance training, this would indicate that a "growth/no growth" point does not exist at all. Training is not an exact science and never will be. Trying to narrow things down to some "growth/no growth" stimulation doesn't work. Doing one set to muscular failure will never guarantee me anything, including an increase in pure strength.

>Why perform more than one set? (Why increase volume?)

Resistance training causes Type IIB to Type IIA fiber conversion (1). Type IIA fibers have higher endurance capacities than Type IIB fibers. Therefore, they will respond better to higher volumes of training. Type I fibers also respond better to higher volumes of training.

The body often adapts to a stress due to repeated exposures to that stress, and not a single exposure. If I am a 100 m runner, I would not train for the 100 m by going out and running a single 100 m. I need to do a series of 100 m in practice to produce any sort of adaptation that will result in an increase in my performance. I would also play with my rest intervals to produce different types of adaptations. I would use short rest intervals if I'm trying to develop lactate tolerance, and long rest intervals if I'm interested in more pure speed work.

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.

>Some would argue that this allows them to stimulate muscle fibers which were not stimulated duringthe 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 .... >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.

You are correct that force requirements dictate motor unit recruitment. Therefore, a 1 RM weight will result in greater motor unit recruitment than a 10 RM weight. However, just because I've recruited a motor unit does not mean I've stressed that unit sufficiently to produce any type of adaptive response. If it did, then training with 1 RM weights would be the optimal way to train.

>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.

First of all, this is assuming that the "growth/no growth" point exists, which I previously pointed out that it doesn't. Also, if training to failure or even near failure was necessary to ensure that we've stimulated an optimal response, then Olympic lifters would have a very, very difficult time designing their training protocols. It is highly undesirable for these lifters to come even close to failure, due to the highly technical nature of their lifts. Excessive fatigue would simply cause a breakdown in their technique. However, these lifters achieve great increases in strength over the years despite never even coming close to failure..

>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.

This test is dependent upon a rest interval. If I test only 30 seconds after the exercise, I'm going to get a completely different "inroad" than if I test 8 minutes after the exercise (since phosphocreatine stores are generally completely replenished after 8 minutes). This renders the test meaningless.

>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

This statement assumes that muscle fatigue is the primary mechanism behind muscle hypertrophy. I have shown, in other posts, that it is not. The main mechanism behind hypertrophy is mechanical, not metabolic, in nature. Otherwise, concentric actions would produce superior muscle hypertrophy to eccentric actions. In the real world, the opposite is true.

James Krieger

I heard from a reliable source, that a person who uses free weight tends to have a more proportional body. What that means is that the right side of the body is going to have the same strength as the left side of the body. He went on to say that when you use machines, the stronger side will be better developed than the weaker side. I would like to know if this is true. Also I am just an amateur and so I don't know much about training. So we have this bunch of machines called Life-Circuit which I use. The reason I use this is because I don't know how to use free weights and I wouldn't want to injure myself.

Thanx