This list digest contains the following message subjects:

Hey.

Sorry about releasing the digest later than normal, but I was at a banquet last night and it only took two HOURS to get served.

Anyways, I want to address the issue of "too much theoretical vs. practical" discussion. The problem is we have to be fair to EVERYBODY. So I can't say, "Your post is too long and too theoretical". However, I DID say that regarding the studies thread that you should wrap up any points you have. TRY to avoid reposting what others have said, as that takes up alot of space. Also, as a favour to me, PLEASE put the subject header in your post, don't just reply.

So here's my interim solution to this. I will continue to make the call when I think that we've gone as far as we can go on a topic. Again, if you believe I'm making a bad call, and enough people feel that way, I will obviously bow to the wishes of the group.

Now, what I have done, and will try to continue to do is post the "practical" (and shorter) posts at the BEGINNING of the digest. This should make things easier to read. This way, you won't have to search around for what you are looking for.

I hope this solution is satisfactory to you people. I'm welcome to suggestions of course.

And PLEASE watch the formatting. I sometimes get strange character symbols, and also try to keep the line length to around 80 characters or so. I think that should help.

Last thing - not all posts submitted are in this digest. I don't want to post anything til I've read it first, and I've been short on time here. Remember, if their is a problem with your post I WILL talk to you via private e-mail, so if you don't see your post in this digest, don't fret. Fretting is a bad thing.

--Rob

I don't have any studies, but do have my own experience. If you want maximum strength, then any running will effect it. You have to weigh the cost/benefits and your goals. Also, running is very jarring to the body. I used to jog a couple of miles a week...low intensity. It severely cut into my recovery. I stopped and my squat went up 50lbs almost immediately.

Just my 2 cents.

Brad

As a former competitive swimmer and tennis player (14 years of tennis), I believe there is a bias against strength training in these sports due to a common misconception; that strength training *reduces* flexibility and *increases* the potential for injury. After training under a somewhat progressive coach (who believed in strength training) while at college in southern California , our entire tennis team of 12 individuals experienced drastic reductions in muscle pulls, muscle tears and joint pain as well as greatly *increased* flexibility. Even now, 8 years after retiring from comptetitive tennis, I am more flexible than I have ever been as a result of resistance training. Aside from all the other (often subjective, as is mine) arguments for or against concurrent strength and sport-specific training, efforts to continue to educate people about *all* benefits of strength training as well as combating long-standing myths and misconceptions should be a priority. Come to think of it, this list seems to be a darn effective tool for just that purpose.

Best regards,

John Vormbaum

I am fairly new to this list and this is my first post. I have lurked until now. I have something that I would like to run past all of you. Since beginning my HIT program a few months ago, I have not used a belt for lifting. I know that many do wear a belt, particularly when squatting. I read before I started (Darden, I believe) that the belt did not protect your back and inhibited proper breathing. However, I have read that you can lift more weight with a belt. My concern is with getting bigger and stronger, so I will do what is best that keeps me injury free. What are your opinions on using a belt? If you are pro-belt, which is best: leather or synthetic; narrow, medium or wide width. Thanks in advance for your replies.

Don P.

If high reps will not give you definition and low reps will not bulk you up, then what is the difference between the two? What is the best way to maintain a medium ground? The best of both sides.

I would like to express a similar view than one in the last Digest: there is too much theoretical debate which leads us to nowhere. Let people try different routines and post mesurements, etc. on these different routines, together with the routine. It'd be much more useful than the present 20000 word intellectual vomittings (sorry, don't want to hurt anyone, but i had to say that).

[You're right on the borderline with that one -- Rob]

I tried HIT a la A. Jones for 3 months, result: overtraining, (2-3 times a week full body workout). Then I tooka layoff and have been doing a abbreviated version of HD2 for almost three months (3 exercises/5 days) and making good progress. gained about 50% leg strength, 20% upperb. and 10 lbs. Post your results, and try different things, I only trust empirical methods. WIK

At bodyweight of 222 pounds I did a loading phase for five days with "Natures Best" Creatine for 25 grams per day, then down to 5 grams for an additional 7 weeks. I gained five pounds in the first week even though I was ingesting maintenance calories at best, and had immediate strength increases. Taking creatine seemed to boost my creatnine blood level above the "normal" range. I also experienced some cramping. During the 7 week period I eventually lost the temporary size and strength. Since being off creatine my creatnine level has gone back to the high normal range. Poliquin on an audio interview suggests for someone at around 200 pounds to load with about 45 grams, and then stay at 25 grams. The 5 grams did not maintain my initial surges of size and strength. If the increased weight is water, and temporary, I am not sure what the point is unless one is using for a competition. Tried "Twin Lab" HMB for four weeks while off creatine, at doses of 2 to 3 grams, and got nothing out of it except for smaller wallet.

> 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. >

The view expressed here typifies a certain school of swimming thought: more strength = more power = more velocity. If that is the case let's get Dorian Yates to cream Alexander Popov. What about Dr. Squat against Janet Evans ?

The above equation is not the proper one for really understanding swimming. The proper equation for understanding swimming speed is:

Velocity(V) = Stroke Length(SL)xStroke Rate(SR)

SL= how far one travels on each stroke SR= how fast you take each stroke

So if you want to swim faster either lengthen your stroke or stroke faster or preferably, both. Unfortunately, the faster you stroke the shorter your strokes.

Weight training does not lengthen your stroke - at most it may help you generate more pushing power against the water and therefore increase your SR.

Water is about 1000 times denser than air. Therefore there are great drag forces working against you that don't exist on land. I don't want to get into very technical things like different types of drag. Suffice to say that we are dealing with very complicated physics. Just consider this: to swim twice as fast you would have to generate 8 times as much power ! A lot more practical to improve your stroke mechanics.

According to Dick Jochums (in American Swimming Coaches Association world clinic yearbook 1982) only 10% of weight room strength is transferable to the water.

> > 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. >

I disagree. In the weight room the swimmer should strengthen his body and not mimick swimming movements. These can cause injury and over use. Also, they won't help your swimming. The neuro - muscular pattern is so complicated that these "similiar" movements have no direct training effect. How is a straight arm pulldown beneficial to any swimming stroke ? A freestyle stroke has no similarity to this movement. Better to do chin ups and strengthen the area. See Cyberpump.

> > 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.

Yes your time was improved because your power increased. Since in the 50m. free power plays a more important role than in any other swim. This is the least technical swim. That explains your progress. Try swimming 100m or 200m. and see what happens (not to mention a technical style like breaststroke).

You're right about stroke mechanics. That's why many swimmers cease to progress.

I am not anti - weight training for swimmers. Weight training is beneficial for everyone including swimmers. My only point is that there is no direct link between weight training and improved swimming times.

DrewBaye@aol.com wrote:

<<Any more exercise (volume) than is minimally required to stimulate grow this 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.>>

Unfortunately, "growth" is neither single-valued, nor is the relationship between stimulus and growth a monotonic function. Indeed, growth f(x,y,z .), where x, y, z are variable themselves affected by body subsystems with nTH-order effects, where n>1.

<<Why perform more than one set? (Why increase volume?) Some would argue that this allows them to stimulate muscle fibers which were not stimulated during the 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. >>

But the subsystem of muscle fibers is not the only one being stimulated/stressed; and the inintereffects between the subsystems are dynamic and precessional. I.e., % motor-recruitment is not the only fact= or, nor necessarily the most important factor in growth determination.

<<Since one would have less energy during a second, third, or fourth, etc. set of an exercise than they did during the first, it is unlikely that they will recruit all of the motor units they did during the first set, much less additional units.>>

This is contrary to my, and others' experience; there are data that dispute the notion that a second set cannot or is not more intense both in terms of loading, same number of reps with the greater weight, or more reps with same weight.

<<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 ignoring negative feedback mechanisms (e.g., calcium pump via over-voltages, prostaglandin release (short and long-term), other immune subsystem responses that mitigate the rather simple relationship you posit.

<<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. >>

No, this does not necessarily make sense, as, again, you ignore other effects on other body subsystems affecting growth that are negatively affected by intensity, depending on the status of lifters other physiological attributes (neuromuscular efficiency, nutritional status, immune system, enzymatic pathways)

<snip>

<<And regarding the comment that the nervous system might not recover as quickly as the muscles, this is simply not true. In response to exposure to any type of stress, it is the nervous system which is most resilient. While the nervous system is most definitely affected by high intensity training, it is hardly affected to a greater degree than, and would hardly take longer to recover than the muscles.>>

This blanket assertion is simply not true. The muscular subsystem is embedded in a complex 'soup' of chemicals and fields, all of which have feedforward and feedback compensatory mechanisms affecting growth and recovery from stress.

<<If the nervous system were more fatigued than the muscular during intense training, than one would become completely paralyzed before they would hit failure due to muscular fatigue. >>

Not true at all! First the statement confuses apples and oranges - you make a logical typing error. Second, it is not necessarily the case that, given some measure of fatigue of the nervous system (e.g., Resistance to impulse transfer/time, nerve-bundle shutdown, conductivity, ion depletion, vesicle-transmitter depletion ), and a different (of course they need to be different - using just a percentage of total potential would be meaningless) measure for muscle fatigue (e.g., lactic acid buildup, ATP decrease, calcium pump efficiency), that if the values were very high on the 'fatigue' scale for the nervous system compared to the values for the muscular system, that the result is paralysis. This is the apples-oranges problem.

<<It makes absolutely no evolutionary sense that an organism would have a nervous system which would fatigue more quickly than it's muscular system.>>

Hmmm! It can, and is argued by a certain camp of neuroscientists (in which camp I am not!), that consciousness (certainly the most apparent manifestation of our CNS) does not make evolutionary sense. The assertion that would make no evolutionary sense that a nervous system cannot reach '0', operationally, before a muscular system, is, IMHO, an assertion grounded less in fact or philosophical soundness than in a desire to bolster previous arguments aimed at defending HIT/Mentzerian-type philosophies of working out.

As I presented in another post, the two main assertions of said camp: 1) that the body has only limited reserves of 'recuperative' capability and 2) that the body's adaptive response to stress is fixed are demonstrably not the case. Both of these premises ignore meta-, hyper- adaptive mechanisms; i=2Ee., = that complex adaptive systems - especially ones whose interconnected subsystems exhibit non-linear dynamics - have a way of - well - adapting to the very kinds of things Mentzer posits as fixed.

I think, therefore that since I have argued that there is reasonable doubt as to the validity of two of the main premises of Mentzer's version of HIT (and other versions of HIT as well), the conclusions - which are the various wo protocols - based on those premises, should be subjected to scrutiny as well.

Further, claiming knowledge of a negative is fraught with problems. It hints at a positive knowledge of 'the' reason for our existence or a knowledge of how the subsystems of the body came to be interrelated the way they are. I do not believe that even the best minds in the sciences have these answers.

Michael Don Knapik