This list digest contains the following message subjects:

Okay, I've just been dropped a note by the Cyberpump! web dude guy/whatever. Geocities just changed providers so that is why the site seems intermittent right now.

Also, I was asked to mention the two year birthday of Cyberpump! Wow, three days after my birthday? Coincidence? Watch the latest X-Files? There ya go.

Anyways, since I'm one of the co-founders of Cyberpump! on behalf of everyone involved with the site over the last two years we'd like to say thanks alot to the readership.

Finallly, check out the footer of the digest - we know have past digests available on the web archived.

You asked, we did it. Don't let anyone say Rob doesn't love ya.

I have been reading posts, web site articles, etc. for the last year or so on this subject. It's an interesting debate, but one which, for me at least, has taken on the feel of intellectual masturbation. Apparently, one can take either side and come up with any number of studies, trials, etc. I will settle this issue, for myself at least, once and for all over the next several months. In the past, I have trained primarily in HIT style, and have made decent gains. HIT, and especially HD appealed to me because I am a businessman putting in ~50-60 hrs / week, plus juggling family responsibilities. Time is hard to come by, and HD w/outs are nothing if not quick. It didn't hurt that I am also an Objectivist, like MMentzer. So, how well has HIT worked for me? I am currently 43 and have been training on and off for about 5 years. When I started, I weighed 217 lbs @ 5'11" and was shaped like a big pear. In the time I have been training, I have pulled my weight down to 180 with no loss of muscle and have achieved some (for me, at least) impressive lifts. It is worth noting that all my personal bests were achieved in 96 using HD1: Squat:325x20; 405x2 Deadlift:380x3 Bench:210x1 (Sucks, will always(?)suck, oh well) Currently, I am at 189 and coming off of an extended (2 months) layoff period. The roll is back around the middle, and it is time to hit it hard. It occurs to me that this is a prime opportunity to do some experimentation. I am using the General Fitness periodization model in "Periodization Breakthrough". This will require a lot more time than HIT, but when I am done, I will know what works best, at least for me! A brief word on my gym and past training. I am no stranger to hard workouts, and have puked after squats, for whatever that is worth. Heavy squats can be a problem, due to the lack of spotters. I train at home, with the following equipment: Power rack Lat Machine Adjustable Bench Oly Set, 410 lbs. 5 sets adj. dumbbells ~200 lbs. std plates Various Lat Machine bars Trap Bar My intention is to post monthly updates, and at the end of the 4 month cycle, post the results, i.e. changes in measurements, weight, max lifts, etc. The experiment will provide closure on this issue for me, and at the very least, give everyone else something to argue about. DH

If you become stuck at a particular level of resistance for a particular exercise, and an increase in rest days does not help it, it sometimes works to just increase in smaller increments at a lower upper guide number of repetitions. For example, rather than increasing resistance by %5 whenever you can perform 12 reps, increase by 2.5% when you can perform 8.

As for being winded, this is natural at first, especially with exercises such as squats and deadlifts which place a tremendous demand on your entire body. As well as recording your repetitions and resistance, you might also want to record your rest intervals between exercises as a guage of progress. Try to gradually decrease them as you become better adapted and are able to recover more quickly between exercises.

Andrew M. Baye

<<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.>>

No, this is a misinterpretation of HIT principles. It is obvious, that despite the fact that certain systems return to their normal state within a very short period of time after the workout, a certain amount of time is necessary for the body to be able to fully recover from the total effects of the workout on the body, and then produce an adaptation. It is not the inroad which takes a long time to recover from. It is the stress on the muscles and the body as a whole.

Andrew M. Baye

> From: claffp@ix.netcom.com

> > 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.

While I have made it well known on this list that I don't agree with the premises behind HIT, and that I am "anti-HIT all the time" and "pro-HIT some of the time (as a part of an undulating periodization protocol)", if you are enjoying your routines and making progress, then keep doing them. Don't turn training into something that you may not like, especially if you're making progress. Keep your training fun, and whether that's high volume, low volume, long rest, short rest, HIT, ABC, 123, then so it be.

James Krieger

> From: robartw@FTC-I.NET

> > for my leg training? By running will I hinder my progress with the squat, or vice versa?

While the squat shouldn't hinder your running performance (and will probably help it to a degree), running 6 miles a day 5 times a week may hinder your gains in the gym. Excess endurance training has been shown to hamper strength and power development (1). Strength training and endurance training are different activities; the adaptations that each one causes tend to be opposite of eachother. While you can still make strength gains while on an intense endurance program, they will not be nearly of the same magnitude that they would be if endurance training was minimized or eliminated.

1. Baechle, T.R., ed. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1994.

James Krieger

> > 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. >

That's correct, the inroad does change wrt time. The whole metabolic overcompensation does indeed take a "long" time even if momentary fatigue is readily compensated for in the main. If overcompensation could occur within even 1 hour without drugs etc. please fill me in as I would be very interested.

> 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. >

I think HITers do view the body as being dynamic or else there would be no compensation ever. Now the body can become more efficient wrt stress. However I think we have to part company here, because if the bodies recuperative capabilities were not limited they are infinite by definition. If they are infinite they are capable of adapting to any stress, and wrt hypertrophy and strength the best approach would be to train 24 hrs around the clock forever.

I don't know what your genetics are but I'd be willing to wager that even if you started out with those of Arnold with the above training protocol (24*7) I'd be in a better position than you after 3 months of training. The implications of unlimited recovery ability is that there are no limits to growth, training duration or intensity. I think that this would also imply instantaneous recover ability because we wouldn't want time to be a limiting factor either.

Cya Teri

I am a 49 year old beginner. Just finished 30 day layoff for rib injury caused by lifting belt. The posts on lifting heavy with lots of recover time are right! My deadlift PR went from 280 to 310 the first day back. Thanks! Keep up the good work for us beginners.

Chris Walter

>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 This is Single Progression. - increase your weight when you can to 12 reps to failure on the 12th This is Double Progression.

With single progression you make small lb increases each week and always try and hit the same number of reps. With double progression you make a larger lb increase and try to get at least one more rep each week until you hit a number (like 12) then increase the weight so you're back down to 6 or 8 reps. Personally, I prefer single progression for a couple of reasons. The first is that for me I have a much harder time getting stronger using 10 or 12 reps than I do 6. So if I'm trying to get from 11 to 12 reps it takes a lot longer than if I were adding 1 or 2 lbs and getting 6 reps (did that make sense?) The other reason is that with single progression and small increases your mind becomes very used to the fact that you will make your reps each week. This continuous positive feedback can go a long way towards your success.

>The first leads to significant increases over a year's time. I don't know if I could keep up!

You're right! 5 lbs per week is too much. You'd plateau real quick and not reach the strength levels you would if you made smaller increases over a longer period of time. Your body just isn't going to give you 5 new lbs of strength in a week unless you're a rank beginner or using drugs. A more realistic approach would be the following:

Squats, Deadlifts : 2 1/2 lbs per week Bench, Pulldowns, Shoulder Press, curls : 1 1/4 lbs per week.

This doesn't sound like much, but project this over 6 months, 1 yr, 2yrs and you're handling some impressive weights. And because your increases are more in line with what your bodys adaptation is, you're less likely to get hurt.

>Next, I get heavily winded during an exercise. When doing breathing squats, I need 4 or 5 min rest to really catch my breath.

So take 4 or 5 minutes! There's no rule that says you need to wait 3. I've found that 3 minutes between warmups and 4 minutues between work sets works well for me.

>Should I spend more time with the high volume stuff?

NO!!!!!

One other recommendation. If you don't have it already, buy a copy of Brawn by Stuart McRobert. I promise it will be money well spent.

> From: zoharyz@netvision.net.il >

> > 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 belief that weight training will hurt a swimmers flexibility is unfounded. Loss of flexibility occurs due to disuse of joints. For example, lack of exercise (such as weight training) through a full range of motion can cause a loss of flexibility. Increases in muscle mass can in no way harm flexibility. I have seen competitive bodybuilders (such as Flex Wheeler) who can do full splits up on stage. Male gymnasts show tremendous flexibility while also displaying tremendous amounts of muscle size.

> > The fear of lost aerobic ability has led some coaches to reccommend > weight training only in the pre and early season (Ernest W. Maglischo).

The belief that weight training will harm aerobic ability is also a common myth. No adverse effects on aerobic power have ever been observed due to weight training (1).

1. Baechle, T.R., ed. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1994.

> 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.

I am not familiar with any research done to test the transferability of land power to water power (maybe someone else on this list does and can point it out). However, we can look at it theoretically.

Power = (Force x Distance) / Time

or

Power = Force x Velocity

Resistance training enhances the amount of force a muscle can generate. By the above equations, increasing the force variable will result in an increase in power. Therefore, weight training will result in an increase in power.

Can this power transfer to a different medium? I don't see why it couldn't. Water is simply a form of resistance, and a person who can generate more force against this resistance will generate greater power. Therefore, I believe that land power can transfer to water power.

> 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.

I agree here, although I feel the muscles that should be emphasized are the ones mainly used by swimmers. Adding mass to little-used swimming muscles will not enhance performance and simply be useless weight that the swimmer needs to drag along.

While I also feel that multi-joint exercises should be emphasized, some lifts that come close to mimicking swimming movements (such as a straight-arm pulldown) can also be included.

> 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.

I would have to disagree with your statement that weight training will not directly improve one's swimming times. I was a competitive swimmer for 7 years, and then moved on to strength training and bodybuilding which I have been involved in for the past 5 years. After my first 2 years off of swimming, I competed in an intramural swim competition just to see how fast I could swim. At this point, I was much more physically stronger than I had been when I was a swimmer, along with additional muscle mass. I swam a 50 freestyle within 4 tenths of a second of my best ever 50 freestyle time. This was after no swimming for 2 years, having lost some of my "feel" for the water, and having my stroke mechanics and start and turn timing slightly off. I am absolutely positive that, if I had begun swim training again, I would have blown away my personal bests. This personal experience also gives supporting evidence for my earlier statement that weight training can enhance in-water power.

I also have a slight disagreement with your statement of "all other factors being the same (which they rarely are)." While all factors are never the same, they can often be close, especially the more advanced and older the swimmer. I'm mainly referring to stroke mechanics and other technicalities of the sport. While I am not sure if you have ever had competitive swimming experience, but I can tell you that, over the years, it is very difficult to make major changes to stroke mechanics in any experienced competitive swimmer. The more experienced the swimmer, the more difficult it is. This is because the motor patterns that were developed when the swimmer was younger have become highly engrained. From personal experience, I found it nearly impossible to make major changes to my stroke mechanics during my latter competitive years, although minor changes were possible.

> 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.

I am curious what factors these may be. The only factor I can think of is improved strength, which means improved power, which means being faster in the water.

> 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.

I agree that no serious swimmer should replace swimming with weight training. No amount of weight training can replace sport-specific training. However, no amount of swimming can produce the type of strength gains that resistance training can produce. I feel that any swimmer who excludes weight training from their overall program (such as due to some of the irrational fears that some coaches or swimmers have, such as the ones you pointed out) may not be reaching their maximum potential. I really wish that I had cut back on some of my swim training when I was competing and engaged in a strength training program. I would have been a much, much better swimmer than I ever was. Just as many myths are tossed around the gym (like "high reps for definition" and "low reps for mass"), myths are also tossed around from one swim coach or swimmer to the next (like weight training will bulk you up and slow you down in the water), and I was a victim of some of these myths.

James Krieger