This list digest contains the following message subjects:

Guess who's back in the house? What you don't recognize me? It's Rob. Miss me?

Okay, a few things need to be said upfront this issue. Sorry for the long preamble, but some things gotta be said.

First, I've gotten a few messages from people asking if they missed a digest in the last couple of days.

Answer: No you didn't. There hasn't been one. M^2 (Moderator Mike) had to leave on quite short notice on Wednesday (which was also my birthday, BTW. I prefer cash as a gift, thanks). I have been off the list until today as I had to write an exam as part of my course I'm taking down here in Chicago. And yes, I passed. If it means anything to anyone, I now have Basic Certification in BaaN IV. If you have any interest whatsoever in this - and some people still ask me to explain what it is I do - go to the web site www.baan.com. It's part of my job as a consultant to implement this package.

Fascinating, huh?

Enough about me, let's talk about you. No stock market updates today, sorry. Maybe next time. Just hold your positions and don't panic. Remember, think LONG-TERM.

The first message on the list today contains something I want to make some brief (no jokes please) comments upon.

Regarding the "theoretical" discussions that have been dominant on the digest vs. "practical" discussions. Okay, to reiterate, ANYTHING, as long as it has to do with strength training, is acceptable as a topic (and of course I don't need to tell anyone about the policy on flaming). PLEASE ask ANYTHING and don't hold back because you think that you are asking something that's "too basic", or "simple". People are here to learn and help others. No question is too basic or too simple. And there's no such thing as a stupid question.

Now, I haven't been able to read much of the latest digests due to my time constraints. But I do see that there has been alot of long posts (and yeah, I saw the jokes referring to me - you all lose a point for those). And they have been mostly centred around the topics of "references" if I've read this correctly.

My job as moderator is also to "steer" discussions so that the list doesn't get bogged down. Case in point, the discussion on "references". IMO, it's becoming more like a philosophical discussion. You all have valid points, but I have to ask for those involved at this time to sum up their positions in their next post.

Please understand that it isn't fair to the other readers. Sum up your position and let's move on. And besides, I only have 16Mb of RAM on my machine, and I found that I'm "running out of memory" when these digests get too long. To help you out, see if you can read any of my past posts on Cyberpump, etc. That's an example of stuff that is TOO wordy for this digest. Let's just try and stick to the main points, 'kay?

Again, if you feel I'm being unfair about this, then write me personally. I'm just trying to do what's best for the majority of readers.

Next point, posts that I've had to ask for resubmission. Understand this, and I will reiterate it again and again: Yes, I am an "HITer" in the sense that I follow that training philosophy. HOWEVER, I am first and foremost the MODERATOR here. This is NOT a digest devoted to HIT. Forget the name, "HIT Digest". By default the majority of subscribers are probably HITers as they probably read about this digest on the Cyberpump! web page.

I understand that. And some people have strong opinions on certain topics. I understand that as well, as I obviously fit in that category (which you would know by reading my stuff on Cyberpump).

But as I said, I am the moderator, and I will do my job and be unbiased. My own personal training philosophy means NOTHING in this context. I am taking this seriously, as I think this digest has incredible potential for helping people out - which is it's very reason for existence. There are many schools of thought - even within "HIT" - and all can express their thoughts/opinions/experiences here. Just respect the views of others and their experiences.

Please try using the following phrases for e.g., and I think we can avoid any problems. Use "In my opinion", "To the best of my knowledge", "I understand that ___ means that". Try and avoid absolutes and blanket statements like "always" and "never" unless you know for a FACT that's the case.

Remember, you can always e-mail a person directly to continue a discussion.

I TRY my best to read every post but it's tough. If something "gets by" me that shouldn't I apologize in advance. I'm not perfect (yet).

Lastly, if you submitted a post and don't see it in this digest, it's not because I've "censored it". If I feel there might be a problem with a post, I will ALWAYS write back to the original author and ask if something can be omitted/rephrased, etc.

Remember, I'm catching up here, so you'll see your post next digest. I'll also TRY to keep these daily, but don't fret if one day you don't get a digest. I am still on a gruelling training course schedule, and I might find I don't have time that day. I'll do my best, which is all I can do.

--Rob

Enjoy the correspondence on the list, but most of it is too theoretical for me at this stage. Perhaps the list is not intended for beginner's questions,

[As I said above, this list IS for ANY type of question as long as it's related to strength training. Whether it's an "advanced" or "beginner" topic (which is all subjective anyways) -- Rob]

but here goes:

The HIT FAQ and other readings have lead me to the following two 'interpretations' of when to increase weight on an exercise: - increase your weights by 5# each week - increase your weight when you can to 12 reps to failure on the 12th

The first leads to significant increases over a year's time. I don't know if I could keep up! (Did I mention I'm 50 ?) The second seems logical, but I could get stuck at a certain weight and therefore not induce adaptation. What do you guys do?

Next, I get heavily winded during an exercise. When doing breathing squats, I need 4 or 5 min rest to really catch my breath. (Did I mention I'm 50 ?) I generally only wait 3 to try to keep a regular pace. So I sometimes begin the next set or exercise a little winded. Will I adapt? Is it 'normal' for a HIT beginner to experience this? Or is this a 'normal' HIT experience even for the seasoned?

Lastly, did I mention I'm 50? And, more significantly, I have only been lifting for a year. I did lift for 5-6 years when I was in my 30s. I've made more progress this year than I ever did then. The reason I bring this up is to pose the question, Is HITing for me? Should I spend more time with the high volume stuff? I am enjoying and making progress in my HIT routines. I feel the 2/4 tempo and lower volume is also better for my joints and causes much fewer muscle injuries, pulls and strains. I am going ahead with the program to evaluate at a later date, but I just wanted to hear other opinions.

Thanks, Paul Claffey Mission Viejo, CA

My question pertains to running and leg training. I plan to try out for the Navy SEALs and have started a running schedule due to the amount of running that I will have to do at BUD/S. Right now I am only running 2 miles three times a week, but over the next three months I will increase that to 6 miles five times a week; possibly more. Along with this I am doing a HIT style workout three days of the week. Monday-Chest, Triceps, Shoulders; Wednesday-Legs; Friday-Back, Biceps. Would this be somewhat contradictory for my leg training? By running will I hinder my progress with the squat, or vice versa? I don't want to get real bulky, but would like to increase my strength and realize the importance of squats as a total-body builder. What would be the best training method for me to try and balance strength and endurance training?

Hi Guys,I just want to make my position very clear as Adam has obviously misinterpreted it. I say obviously because if there is one area I can consider myself an expert it is that I know what I believe. I will only leave in those points that I consider relevant for brevity's sake.

[James made the following point (ending with incorrect]

> 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.

I do not believe this was the point, as I had already made this quite clear that "sometimes" they do not. As James was responding to this I'm pretty sure that he was well aware that I had made this point.

> Teri then comes to the conclusion that, because of these problems, studies are useless. Never at any time did I say that studies are useless. This would be tantamount to saying that they were all useless. I did say however that "I don't believe everything that I read" which leaves room for everything - 1 study which would only be consistent with your assertion if there were only 1 study in existence.

> Of course logic is subject to the exact same limitations.

If you meant that the limitations are "subject to grand conclusions" (omitted by me but can be checked for reference) this is impossible using sound logic. The answer may or may not be correct but this is based on the premises. Reasoning is the only way that one can get closer to the truth short of divine revelation.[Teri below ending with enquiring]

> > 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.

The researcher's conclusions may or may not be irrelevant, this is judged according to the reasonableness of the arguments. They provide the info and it is up to every person interested to make up their own minds.

> 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.

It proves neither the validity of invalidity would be a more complete thing to say.

> 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.

What I am saying is that because we are capable of making errors we need to recognise this and make concessions accordingly. I judge the experiments through the use of reasoning and make no definitive conclusions. Any inferences that I do arrive at are valid only until proven otherwise. Because references are not easily available to the general subscribers of the HIT digest it is up to the person putting forward their argument to support it themselves.

> 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.

I don't recall ever denying James conclusions or making any specific reference to them.I am talking generally about "all" studies. It is up to those making the argument (James, You, Me, Whoever) to provide the evidence. References by themselves are an appeal to authority which just wont cut it.

> 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 my contribution and I was making no reference to the West Point study at all. The conclusion was not based on "it" because I was not addressing it at all. All I did was to tender my understanding of certain strength variables. I will leave the first couple of lines to jog memories only.

> > 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.]

regards Teri

Your points are all well taken, but what does this have to do with our workouts? Just because the body can be made more efficient over time doesn't change things. By monitoring your own progress, you should be constantly changing your workout to optimize. There is no way to easily measure changes at the cellular level.

<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.>

The reserves are still limited, but the amount of reserves change over time. You still need to recover. It seems like most anecdotal evidence says that this ability varies greatly from person to person. Some can only work out every 10 days to see results.

<And further, this mechanism itself is adaptive in that, the resynthesis becomes less and less productive (sort of 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). >

This might be the only argument for periodization that I've heard that makes the least bit of sense. It doesn't however, sound like this point has anything to do with training to failure or not. Maybe just how you get there.

spr

<<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.>>

No. If a person is performing an exercise on a machine with a fused movement arm,and they are favoring their strong side, this side will fatigue more quickly, which will result in the weaker side having to work harder towards the end of the set. It all balances out.

Andrew M. Baye

> From: DrewBaye@aol.com

> > 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.

HIT is based on the premise that the body has limited recuperative ability. Therefore, it states that whatever "inroad" that is created by a set will take a long time to recover from. Now, MedX's fatigue response test is supposedly a measure of this "inroad." However, I can almost guarantee you that, if we wait about 8 minutes or more after the exercise before we test, we will measure an "inroad" that is much, much less than if we measured one immediately after the exercise. This is due to the repletion of phosphocreatine stores which occurs after around 8 minutes. According to HIT principles, this shouldn't happen; this "inroad" is supposed to take a long time to recover from.

Mike Knapick pointed out that the assumption of the body's limited recuperative capability is false, and now I have given additional support for his statement. The body is a very dynamic organism, dynamic in its adaptive abilities, its recovery abilities, etc. HIT assumes that the body is static, which is an overly simplistic view.

James Krieger

> From: afahy@student.umass.edu

> > > 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 guess I need to clarify this point. Let's say I want to examine the effects of leg extensions on 1 RM squat strength. So, I test 1 RM squat strength at the beginning of the study. I then carry out the training protocol, which includes leg extensions, not squats. At the end of the protocol I test 1 RM squat strength again.

Motor skill rehearsal will not play a role in this strength gain, since squats were not a part of the training protocol and not regularly rehearsed.

James Krieger

> From: VZsiday98@gsm.uci.edu

> > 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

I believe that competitive swimmers, especially collegiate swimmers, are highly overtrained. While I don't have a reference, I did read about a study done on swimmers at Ball State which showed chronically depressed glycogen levels in the swimmers, a sure sign of overtraining.

The training protocols that swimmers go through goes against all principles of exercise specificity. We have swimmers that have race distances of 100 m or less that are swimming 12-15000 m a day. I believe that there probably some potentially elite swimmers out there who never make it to the elite level because they can't tolerate the enormously high volumes of training that some other swimmers can.

I also believe that strength training is underappreciated for these athletes. A common myth that goes around with some swim coaches is that weight training will "bulk" you up and slow you down in the water. I used to be a competitive swimmer and also had this belief. I quit swimming and engaged in bodybuilding after that. After two years of pure bodybuilding, I swam an intermural swim meet at the University of Washington for some fun. I ended up coming very close to my best 50 freestyle ever, despite not having been in the pool for 2 years. I was able to do this because I was so much stronger. If I had begun swimming again, I would have blown away all of my personal bests that I had ever had.

While strength training cannot replace sport-specific training, it can definitely give anyone a boost over the competition.

James Krieger

> From: afahy@student.umass.edu

> > 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?

If a study is designed to simply examine strength gains, then whether these strength gains come from hypertrophic or neural adaptations doesn't matter at all.

Of course, things can get really muddy when you've got a study comparing strength gains or hypertrophic gains between training protocols, such as single set vs. multi-set training. Were the trainees experienced or not? Was the study long enough to see significant differences between the protocols? So many factors can come into play that it can be sometimes hard to draw solid conclusions from studies like this.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

With all the talk of scientific references and Medline (which is free for AOL users), I would like to introduce you to a great site for such abstracts. Finding it will prove to be much more powerful than Medline. Follow these directions:

Go to: www.sportsci.org

Go to: Net search (it should be on the left)

Find: Journal References and scroll down until you see the search field. Type in want you want to find.

By the way, you may want to play in sportsci.org for a while... Lots of interesting stuff! Enjoy, and please let me know if you can't get there.

Kindest regards,

Fred II (and darn it, I am not Dr. Squat! I am his son. Granted, not yet as strong or knowledgeable, but much better looking!)

In response to the query posted here several issues ago(I don't remember the posters' name). I have been using several supplements over the past few weeks and couple of months. As to hard data let me give you some blood analyses done on myself both befor and some weeks after taking these various drugs (euphemistically called "supplements" to make them pollitically correct): Tribulus Terrestris: before and after values of Leutinizing Hormone were unchanged at a dosage of 1500mg. BID Adrostenedione: interestingly, Test. went from 349(units) befor, to 518(units) at peak level 1hour post ingestion. DHEA: Understand I am a man well over 40. My innitial DHEAS was 341. Several months later it was 688(units) after taking a regimen of 100mg. BID. Of special interest, it should be noted that my Test. level befor starting on the DHEA was 260(units), the lowest posible "normal" reading. A month later it was up to 349.

What this all means is anybodies guess. Do I FEEL like I'm receiving any benefit from these? Generally no. My lifts aren't improving by great leaps, my recovery is still 8-10 days, I don't walk around with a woody all the time, and my hair is not growing back or falling out (more) or getting darker. I do notice a little increase in the intensity of effort when I take the Andro. befor a workout. This may be entirely subjective. And I THINK that this is the crux of the matter. If you believe something is working then it probably is, up to a point. Is a placebo effect worth the money? Probably not if it's an expensive drug or if you don't have much money to begin with. I mean you can spend litterally as much on some "supplements" as you can on tried and true steroids. I will probably drop the Trib. but continue the DHEA (there's just too much evidence that's indicated the overall health benefit of DHEA supplementation for older men, and it's cheap).

I am undecided as to the Andro. Will the short boost in Test. ultimately help stave off the ravages of the dreaded cortisol? We'll see.

Ken

> > > On the West Point experiment. 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

> > > The value of weight training in swimming is much debated. From what I've seen in the literature it revolves around the issues of lost flexibility, lost aerobic ability and transferable power. Some coaches are concerned that weight training will hurt a swimmers flexibility and therefore slow him down and make him more injury prone. For example, the coach of world record holder 800 and 1500 m. swimmer Kieren Perkins won't let him touch weights for fear of flexibility loss. The fear of lost aerobic ability has led some coaches to reccommend weight training only in the pre and early season (Ernest W. Maglischo). Finally, there is the question of transerable power i.e., how relevant is land power to water power ? This is an interesting and complicated question. It deals with the question: should land based resistance training for swimmers mimick swimming movements ? That is the basic idea behind those $2000 swim benches.

Here is my opinion: 1. Perhaps more than any other sport, swimmers overtrain. 2. Swimming is a highly technical sport. Not enough time is spent on body allignment, hydrodynamics etc. For more on this read "Total Immersion" by Terry Laughlin. 3. There are world class swimmers who don't weight train and there are many that do. There are also many that don't train effectively. 4. The purpose of strength training in swimming should be the same as in any sport: to build core body strength and prevent injury. The best thing is to do multi-joint combination exercises: pushups, dips, chins, squats, deadlifts, etc. Forget the swim benches and other stroke specific exercises. I don't want to expand on this here but at best your wasting your time and at worst your ruining your stroke mechanics. 5. So now the biggie: will weight training help your swimming times ? Not directly and not immediately. Over a long period of time your body will strengthen and, all other factors being the same (which they rarely are), a stronger swimmer will be faster and less injury prone. 6. This all deals with integrating weight training into a swimming program. The story of improved times after only weight training and no swimming maybe accredited to a number of factors. Certainly, this is not the way for a serious swimmer to train and let's not get mystical about weight training effects. There is no doubt in my mind that if the writer had trained properly in swimming over this period and done no weight training, his times would have improved greatly.

Josh