This list digest contains the following message subjects:

Okay folx, just one comment this time. PLEASE when replying to posts do NOT just press "Reply" as on some mail readers that sends the ENTIRE digest back here. Good rule of thumb is to check your post over for things like making sure you include the subject header, formatting, etc. before you push that button.

Careful with the formatting. ONLY ASCII text please.

Thanks

--Rob

I have been training super slow HIT style for two weeks now. I lift twice a week, or every 4-5 days, full body. I do legs first, UB last. I lift at a college and have to work around other lifters. I feel I'm spending too much time in between sets, and in the gym (45-55min.). Now since waiting for equipment to open up is unavoidable, I'd like to hear comments on taking my full body program to a split routine. Legs one day, UB the next, no more than 15-20 min. max each, then take 4-6 days off. Will this take too much of my recovery ability away?

I have a question to which someone i wish can answer to me...

I have been oon creatine monohydrate for 3 months, an i have noticed some results, but i need greater enhancement, can you help me out please?

> > 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?

Decide whether your goal is to lose bodyfat or gain muscle/strength. Except for beginners, they are contradictory goals and you will not achieve both at the same time. So, you either focus on losing bodyfat (slight reduction in calories, moderate amounts of cardio if you want, weight train) and accept little to no gains in strenght/size, or you focus on gaining size/strength (incresae in calories, reduction or elimination of cardio, weight train) and accept some fat gain. In general, you can't have it both ways.

Lyle McDonald, CSCS "If a mime falls in an empty forest, does he make a sound?"

> > > 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 a belt for lifting. snip

Thanks for your response! I will for now continue to go beltless. Since I do 20 rep squats, I am nowhere near maximal anyway. That would be true even if I drop to the more traditional 10.

Don P.

> From: DrewBaye@aol.com

> > 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.

I would like to add to this that an ideal repetition range will also vary over time within the same individual, especially if your interest is in maximal muscle hypertrophy. If you want maximum muscle hypertrophy, then you want to stimulate hypertrophy of all fiber types (Type I, Type IIA, Type IIB), which necessitates the use of various repetition ranges over the long run.

In light of this, the search for an "ideal" repetition range is somewhat of a useless search. Almost all repetition ranges (except for the extremely high ones, like 50 RM) have some value in stimulating increases in muscle size.

> > The purpose of performing an exercise is to stimulate muscular strength > gains. Increases in muscular mass come with strength increases.

While an increase in muscle mass will almost always result in an increase in strength, the opposite is not always true. Significant increases in strength can be obtained with little or no muscle hypertrophy due to neural adaptations. This explains why some competitive powerlifters and Olympic lifters can continue to gain in strength yet remain in the same weight class year after year. Therefore, I would disagree with your statement that "increases in muscular mass come with strength increases."

James Krieger

> From: heffel@pipeline.com

> > 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?

Running 1 1/2 miles 3 times a week is not an excessive volume of endurance training, and will probably due little to hamper your strength development. If you are making good progress in the gym and in bodyfat loss, then continue with your program.

James Krieger

> From: bcollins@hotmail.com

> > fallacies. One should never go below 5 reps unless they are competing.

I would disagree with your statement that one should not do less than 5 RM unless they compete in powerlifting or Olympic lifting. The decision whether to use high intensity weights (1-5 RM) is dependent upon your goals. If your goals are simply to add some muscle mass and increase your strength, but not to maximal levels, then the potential injury risks of using such high intensity weights probably outweighs any benefit. However, if you are a competitive athlete in a sport which demands significant relative strength (strength related to body mass, such as is needed in wrestling or bobsledding), then training with high intensity weights is necessary to stimulate the necessary neural adaptations to achieve such increases in strength with little increases in body mass. Also, if you are a bodybuilder interested in maximum muscle hypertrophy, using high intensity weights is necessary at times to stimulate maximum size in Type IIB muscle fibers; it has been found that athletes who train primarily with high intensity loads show greater hypertrophy in the Type II fibers than athletes who train primarily with moderate intensity loads (1,2). Using high intensity loads also improves neural adaptations, which allows for better stimulation of motor units when you switch back to moderate intensity loads. Also, once you switch back to moderate intensity loads, you will be able to use heavier weights then you previously could have during your last moderate intensity cycle.

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

2. Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Kraemer. Designing Resistance Training Programs. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1987.

James Krieger

Hi guys. = )

I found a few articles in my files about weight belts.The articles support what has been mentioned so far - that they add to psychological dependency, and "take away from the responsibility of the muscles and connective tissues around the spine." What has "not" been mentioned yet though, is their affect on blood pressure (BP). "In a study, Hunter found that using a weight lifting belt while bench pressing, deadlifting and riding a stationary bicycle increased blood pressure - in some cases significantly."

I know that many people are not aware of what their blood pressures are (high BP rarely causes signs/symptoms), some do not care, and most don't realize its significance. Your blood pressure increases naturally when you exercise - but to have it raised even higher could be dangerous. Just something to keep in mind......

One of the articles is: AFQ January 1994, "Belted: A Counterpoint" by Dan Wathen. Sorry, but I don't have the reference for the other one. Both mention "Gary Hunter's" research and Wathen names Dr. Mariah Liggett, Lander, and Harman. Wathen also mentions that a powerlifting champ once had a belt buckle break and the prong punctured his abdomen, damaging internal organs - pleasant thought huh. : )

Ms. Rachael E. Picone p.s. Reminder: go get your BP checked if you don't know what it is!

> > >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.

something to consider: if you can lift more with a belt than without, what lifted that weight? That is, are you truly stronger with a belt? No, the belt is acting as a mechnical aid (as do knee wraps, supersuits, etc) to help you lift more. If you want to get truly stronger, nix the belt. Your abs and low back will thank you in the long run.

Lyle McDonald, CSCS "If a mime falls in an empty forest, does he make a sound?"

<snip>

<<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.>>

After conversing with R. Spector, I will say that since there are many "sub-camps" of HIT, it may have been unfair for me to characterize all HIT-ers as making the same two assumptions that I think are doubtful. But there is at least one camp (Mentzer), and some others professing to be of other camps that have used one or both of those assumptions to bolster their protocols. So, while there is obvious compensatory mechanisms that all agree exist( muscle does build), the "way to get there" is the point of debate. My point is that, while an absolute limit may exists WRT recovery abilities, I suggest that the curve over time is asymptotic and that variation keeps both the recovery capabilities bounding along that curve so that you can keep on gaining for you lifetime (now, before you all pounce on that one - let me acknowledge that while you main be gaining in one subsystem, you may be losing in other(s) as you age. So *net* gain may decrease as the degenerative mechanisms overpower, or negate any gains your wo protocol may be producing).

<snip>

<< The implications of unlimited recovery ability is that there are no limits to growth, >>

While the first can be true, I don't think you can lump the next two items in with the same class of potential unlimited things; one is a response of a complex bodily system, the other two

<training duration or intensity>

are the stimuli.

<<I think that this would also imply instantaneous recover ability because we wouldn't want time to be a limiting factor either.>>

I don't think the implication is there.