This list digest contains the following message subjects:
...and we're back with another issue of the HIT Digest.
I'm your host...err, moderator, Rob Spector. We have a number of guests tonight rapping about several topics.
Thanks for tuning in, and remember we don't have any commercials.
Personal note: I've had some e-mails from people both on and off this list. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you - I am really busy right now, and dead tired at night once course is over.
Sorry.
--Rob
In a message dated 97-11-11 10:28:39 EST, you write:
<< 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. >>
The ideal repetition range for any individual depends on their genetics (neurological efficiency, fiber type) and their repetition speed, and may vary from muscle group to muscle group for each individual. Someone performing slower repetitions would require a lower repetition guide range to reach muscular failure in the same time frame as someone using a somewhat faster movement speed. Determining an ideal repetition range for any particular exercise for any particular person is mostly a matter of accurate record keeping, and experimentation.
The purpose of performing an exercise is to stimulate muscular strength gains. Increases in muscular mass come with strength increases. Definition has more to do with diet than exercise, although having more muscle will contribute to improved body composition since muscle is a very metabolically expensive tissue. In either case, the best rep range for both is the same, it is the best rep range for stimulating strength increases in a particular muscle group of a particular individual.
Andrew M. Baye
After reading the previous posts on running and weight training, I'm starting to get a little confused here. I've been lifting weights for about three months now, and I have also been trying to develop my "six pack" abs. Now, I'm not very fat, but I do have my "love handles" and a little excess fat around my midsection. Now, according to Chuck Clark in Cyberpump's Chuck's PIT, you have to lose bodyfat if you want your abs to show (makes a great deal of sense to me). In an attempt to reduce bodyfat, I've been running about a mile and a half three times a week (seems to be working, BTW), I've also been watching what I eat. My question is, if running will lessen the effectiveness of my weight training, but it seems to be working to get rid of bodyfat, then what should I do?
David
####################################################################### # i Raro Prodigio ! i Oculta Maravilla ! # "Who is General Failure, # # El pan de Dios lo tiene todo el mundo, # and why is he reading # # i Pero el agua de Dios so'lo Aguadilla ! # my disk?" # # - Jose' de Diego # # #######################################################################
I use a belt when weights get above 225. I think I am in line with most people when I say that the belt adds a degree of stability and confidence when attempting heavier poundages. Of more importance for trunk stability during squats is a strong set of abs. This will add to stability and help you maintain form to a greater extent than any belt. As to mat'l of construction, I don't think it matters -- I have noticed that multiple prong buckles are harder to deal with if pulling the belt very tight. hope this helps DH
The following are generally agreed upon rep schemes: Strength: 3-6 Size: 8-12 Definition: IMHO reps don't have anything to do with this. Lift weights for size and strength and diet will control your definition. Very high reps may burn more calories, but that is their only contribution to definition.
> > >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. >
These are common fallacies. There is not medium ground because they are fallacies. One should never go below 5 reps unless they are competing. In fact, one should not do around the 5 range unless they have impeccable form. Definition comes from losing bodyfat. Some caloric intake manipulation is necessary along with the weight training. What rep schemes? In general, I would stick to 8-12 for upper body and 10-20 for lower body. When you perform your repsyou should look like a machine. The last should look like the first. Keep your accelerations low. Keep the rep speed at a constant rate. Increased acceleration means increased force. There is no need to put undo force on the joints and muscles.
Good luck.
Brad
>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.
I am sure it could be...if the first set was not truly HIT style. A lot of people misinterpret what HIT is and what it is not. Some people claim to train HIT and they do not.
The mistake many make...and this is from PRACTICAL experience in the gym over MANY years...and not from some study...is thinking the body is not a total system. . Ok, it is from BRAD's STUDY. :) For example, separating the body into parts via many splits. The body is a whole!
I have found the more advanced I became, the less I can work out (longer recovery), and the more I had to up the intensity to continue to make gains. Simply adding volume DID NOT WORK. This is NOT a solution in my book by any means.
Also, I think that the reason people get pushed into changing rep schemes in a much shorter time period is because they are making too big a percentage of change in the weight.
HIT is damn time efficient. And, when done PROPERLY, will give you results comparable to any other scheme. Like a friend of mine pointed out (not sure if it is his or not) in an example. If you were given 1000 bucks to do a job and you could do it in 4 hours or 40 hours, which do you think people would choose?
I have too much "data" over the last 20 years....in my opinion, HIT is the best way, period. The basic exercises, common sense, pushing to the limit, keeping it simple and safe, and infrequent workouts are the ticket. HIT in a nutshell.
Brad
This is an issue that I've been tackling with lately as I've been considering weaning myself off of a belt. Some discussion has been going on about this on the Weights mailing list.
The function of a weight belt is to increase intraabdominal pressure, which helps support the spine during heavy lifting. However, this intraabdominal pressure is being supplied from an external source. Since it is, the transverse abdominus (which supplies the body with intraabdominal pressure) does not have to supply as much intraabdominal pressure, and thus may become deconditioned and weaker. Also, a weight belt can restrict the natural movement of the lumbar spine. Most of the movement in the back during a squat occurs in the L1 and L2 vertebrates, and a belt may restrict this motion causing these structures to absorb more stress.
Yes, a belt will help you lift more weight, but at the expense of the deconditioning of your trunk muscles. One can view a belt as one views knee wraps. Knee wraps will also help you lift more weight, but they do not allow the tendons and ligaments around the knee to strengthen themselves.
The NSCA recommends to use a belt only during maximal or near-maximal sets, and not use a belt during lighter warmup sets so that the transverse abdominus and other trunk muscles may receive a training stimulus. The problem I see with this approach, though, is that this is contingent upon the structure of your workout. If you only do a couple warmup sets and then jump straight to your high-intensity loads (such as if you are doing a 5x3 RM scheme or something of that nature), then the transverse abdominus is going to receive very little training stimulus.
Many Olympic lifters do there maximal lifts in competition with absolutely no belt at all, and these lifts probably place more stress upon the lumbar region than any other. I've also heard of some powerlifters (such as Fred Hatfield) completing maximal lifts without a belt.
Paul Chek, an authority on spinal rehabilitation who has worked with many athletes and holds training seminars all over the world, recommends using no belt at all, and I'm seeing more and more strength training authorities recommend the use of no belt, such as Charles Poliquin. Some people on the Weights group have said that they have less lower back problems now that they do not use a belt. I am currently doing additional research and seeking additional opinions on the subject, including from Robert Chetlin, a graduate student in exercise physiology at the University of West Virginia who writes some pretty good scientific articles in the Training-Nutrition mailing list.
While I am currently using a belt, the evidence that I'm seeing is that it may cause more harm than good, and so, if the additional research I do supports the beltless approach, then I will wean myself off of my belt. I've been recently having some pain in my spinalis thoracis, and I also have a slight case of scoliosis (this is genetic, not due to using a weight belt) which doesn't help.
I'm not giving advice either way here, but just illustrating the possible problems with using a belt so that you may decide for yourself.
James Krieger
> From: Vzsiday98@gsm.uci.edu
> > 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.
I would disagree with your opinion that theoretical debate "leads us nowhere." Theoretical debate allows us to examine the potential benefits and problems behind any training or nutritional philosophy, which can help individuals make informed decisions on what type of training or nutritional protocol they would like to try. It can also help individuals who have reached plateaus with their current protocols; it can help them examine their own protocols (such as finding out the possible physiological reasons why they are not making improvement anymore) and see how they can potentially change their protocols to reach further improvement. A problem cannot be solved unless it is indentified, and theoretical discussions allow us to help indentify problems.
I will discuss a personal example. Many years ago, I tried Power Factor Training, which espouses using extremely heavy weights in only the strongest range of motion. I bought into the theories behind the Power Factor philosophy. However, no one ever pointed out to me some of the flaws behind the philosophy, such as that strength gains are specific to the range of motion that an exercise is performed in. I tried the system and got nowhere, and ended up regressing slightly. The training system ended up being a waste of my time. If someone had pointed out the flaws behind the Power Factor philosophy before I tried it, then I would have saved myself the time and effort.
James Krieger
> Since beginning my HIT program a few months ago, I have not used a belt for lifting. 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.
Perhaps you can lift more weight with a belt, but how much can you lift without one? Are you concerned with being stronger _in the gym_ or in real life?
It is said you are only as strong as your weakst link. If your weak link is your lower-back and abdominal girdle...
If you are concerned with being strong and injury-free, it is in your own best interest not to use a belt.
Paul Chek has written a lot about this subject. If interested, there may be some articles on the use of belts at:
http://www.paulchekseminars.com
There is also an audio interview with him on the Muscle Media site:
http://www.musclemedia.com/audio/audio_main.html
***
> From: matthewko@goshen.edu
> Subject: high reps, low reps 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.
Both sides of what? Between definition and bulk? Both are determined more by diet than they manner in which you train. If you are on a calorically-restricted diet, you should gain definition (by reduction of BF). If you are on an above-maintenance diet, you should gain 'bulk' (by addition of muscle and fat). Read Lyle's articles on the Cyberpump! site for more specific info.
AFAIK (WRT # of reps) the higher the total time-under-tension the more you are developing local muscular endurance. The lower the TUT (approaching 1RM), the more you are developing intermuscular coordination. Higher TUT/reps tend to more fatigue slow-twitch fibers (ie slow-fatigue). Higher tensions (lower TUT/reps) tend to more fatigue fast-twitch fibers (ST fibers are always recruited, yet by definition may not be adequately fatigued).
***
> > 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.
Presentation of differing points of view encourages autonomous thinking.
[I personally read his statement as emphasizing TOO MUCH theoretical debate -- Rob]
-- "Assuredly all men are vain in whom there is no knowledge of God..." -St Augustine
Adam Fahy: afahy@oitunix.oit.umass.edu
> From: zoharyz@netvision.net.il
> > > > 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 ?
You are not understanding my point. There are so many other factors related to swimming speed; more power is only one of them. Comparing Yates with Popov does not work; while Yates may be able to generate more power than Popov, Popov has the advantages in every other aspect of swimming, such as relative strength (strength related to body mass), more streamlined physique (Yates sheer bulk would create a tremendous amount of drag that a lot of power would not be able to overcome), infinitely better stroke mechanics, etc. Other genetic factors such as arm length and hand size also play an important role in swimming.
My point was, if we take a swimmer, and make that swimmer 50% stronger in the weight room, will he be a faster swimmer? Of course!
> 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.
I disagree that increased strength cannot increase the distance traveled per stroke. Since you are able to generate more force against the resistance of water, you can propel yourself farther forward for each stroke. Claiming that increased strength cannot improve distance traveled per stroke is similar to claiming that increased strength (and thus increased power) cannot improve vertical jump, which is also a measure of distance.
> According to Dick Jochums (in American Swimming Coaches Association world clinic yearbook 1982) only 10% of weight room strength is transferable to the water.
Many things have changed since 1982, including training beliefs and philosophies. I am curious what research Jochums's opinion is based on. 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,
Why would using movements close to swimming patterns (or any sport pattern) cause injury or overuse? This is like saying that doing squats will increase injury rate in a basketball player (since basketball players frequently jump and squats have a biomechanical similarity to jumping). No matter what weight training exercise you use, you are placing stressful demands upon joints, ligaments, tendons, musculature, etc., whether that movement is somewhat similar or not.
> 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.
The movement of the humerus in relation to the thorax when performing a straight-arm pulldown (actually, with arms slightly bent inward) is similar to the movement of the humerus in relation to the thorax when swimming freestyle (during the underwater phase of an arm movement). Both involve extension of the humerus with hands in a pronated position. No, the movements are not exactly the same, but they do bare similarity.
The reason for using some weight training movements that are somewhat specific (notice I said somewhat. It is usually impossible to exactly mimic sport movements, especially since many sport movements are performed at high velocities, and strength training occurs at much lower velocities. It is dangerous and even counterproductive to try to mimic high velocity sport movements with weights) is because strength gains are partially neural in nature, and the less similar the movement, the less strength transference that occurs due to neural factors. For example, one can get stronger while doing chins yet see little improvement in rowing movements, despite chins using similar muscle groups. This is due to the radical difference in movement pattern when comparing a chin to a row.
If I wanted to improve my vertical jump, which exercise would I choose, barbell back squats or front squats? I obviously would choose barbell back squats, since this movement is more biomechanically similar to performing a vertical jump than front squats.
Looking at swimming, would a rowing movement or a medium pronated grip chin be better for swimming? Since swimming freestyle involved extension of the humerus, then we would want to choose a rowing movement, which also involves extension of the humerus. A chin involves adduction of the humerus, and only a slight extension. Adduction of the humerus does not occur during a freestyle swim (although it does occur during the backstroke).
James Krieger
> > >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.
The difference is that one is an inefficient way of building muscle, one is relativley more efficient. Here's essentially what you can do in the body: 1. Lose fat (good) 2. Gain fat (generally bad) 3. Gain musle (good) 4. Lose muscle (bad)
Gaining muscle is a function of applying progressive overload and stress to the body. there is no tone, no bulk, you simply add muscle. the fastest way IMO to gain muscle is to use moderate loads with moderate reps (6-20 reps is generally considered the 'growth' range but I think paying attention to set times, keeping them between 20 and 60 seconds is a bit more accurate). When you have as much muscle as you want, stop adding weight to the bar. Simple as that.
By the same token: gaining fat is a function of eating more calories than you need, losing the opposite.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS "If a mime falls in an empty forest, does he make a sound?"