Alright, I hear the boos and hisses from the crowd, sorry.
Now, I'm going to have to play the mean guy which I hate to do, but I have
no choice. From now on I'm not reformatting anything that's sent to me in
MIME or HTML or whatever. I just don't have the time, and it's not fair to
me. PLEASE check before you send a post in, okay?
Plus again, I'm asking as well to please put the subject header to be something
relevant when you reply, instead of "RE: HIT Digest XX". It's easier on everyone
else.
I see we have a post from someone in Israel. Hey, now we've had posts from Australia, Europe, Middle East, North America, South America (I think)....all we need are Asia and Africa. Truly amazing when you think about it. People from around the world sharing info and having discussions.
...
Well, I think it's pretty cool.
-- Rob
<SVL>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 13:20:55 PST
To: "HITdigest" <cyberpump@geocities.com>
From: maddhorst@pon.net
Subject: Re: Belts and long posts
Thank you to all who have been participating in the discussion of using =
weight belts.
My lower back has given me problems for the last 6-7 years and I am consi=
dering losing
the belt in hopes of truly strengthening my mid section. I will do anyth=
ing to rid myself of
this back pain. As for the long posts that were described as 20000 word =
something or other,
I feel this digest is purposed for this type of discussion. That is why =
it is so important to title
the posts so if someone isn't interested in running and strength gains, =
they can pass that post.
I don't read half of the posts, but someone (hopefully) is gaining knowle=
dge from that 'boring'
post. Keep up the great discussions.
["Boring" is in the eyes of the beholder. Deep Thoughts from Rob]
Mike Berhorst
<SVL>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 17:22:23 -0600 (CST)
To: <cyberpump@geocities.com>
From: lylemcd@onr.com
Subject: Fat loss vs. weight gain
>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:36:32 -0800
>To: cyberpump@geocities.com
>From: SAILOR@webtv.net
>Subject: Fat Loss-vs-Weight Gain
>
>
>In response to Lyle's post in digest #40; Hasn't your own experience
>shown you that you can in fact make gains andlose body fat on the Body
>Opus diet. I know from my own experience that, despite difficulties
>going into ketosis, I lost 3% B.F. while making about 3 lbs. in actual
>gains over 5 weeks on this diet. It's grueling, boring and perfect for a
>group of masochists like weight trainers (JOKE!!!).
Man, I hate it when people catch me with my own words. I agree that it's
more *likely* to pull this off with a Cyclical Ketogenic Diet (CKD,
Bodyoups). If you're not familiar, the CKD alternates 5.5 days of low carb
eating (I swear that article is coming) which is the 'fat loss' portion of
the diet, with 1.5+ days of high carb eating which is the 'muscle gain'
portion of the diet. In theory, you can take off fat during the week and
gain a BIT of muscle on the weekend. Still, I think ultimately you'll find
faster muscle (or fat) gains by concentrating on one or the other. The CKD
makes it easier to maintain muscle while dieting but don't count on gaining
much.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
"If a mime falls in an empty forest, does he make a sound?"
<SVL>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:36:50 -0800
To: <cyberpump@geocities.com>
From: jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: Angle-specific strength
> From: rolf.sodergard@ktl.fi
>
> > _strength_gains_are_specific_to_
> > _the_range_of_motion_that_an_exercise_is_performed_in.
>
> ["Underlining" by me.]Any physiologists out there who could explain this
> phenomenon? I've heard this before, but do not know why it is so. Since
Just as different exercises for the same muscle can have different patterns
of motor unit recruitment, as can different forms of the same exercise have
different patterns of motor unit recruitment. Performing an exercise
through only a partial range of motion will change the motor unit
recruitment pattern over a full range of motion; this results in different
neural adaptations then what would occur if you were to perform an exercise
over a full range of motion.
Another problem with using limited range of motion exercise is that you actually may be severely limiting the amount of eccentric-induced muscle damage that occurs, and this eccentric-induced damage is a main mechanism behind muscle hypertrophy. For example, doing only strongest-range partials means you are performing an exercise at short muscle lengths; however, greater eccentric-induced muscle damage occurs at long muscle lengths (1). Therefore, by doing only strongest-range partials, you are severely limiting the amount of muscle hypertrophy that could take place.
A final problem with using limited ROM is that you will limit training
stress on muscle groups that are used more heavily in other areas of an
exercise's full ROM. For example, if you were to perform only
strongest-range squats, you would receive almost no training stress upon
the hamstrings and other muscles of the back of the thigh, which only are
heavily stressed during deep squats.
1. Nosaka, K., K. Sakamoto, and P.M. Clarkson. 1996. Eccentric
exercise-induced muscle damage is dependent on muscle length. Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 28(5):S113. Abstract.
James Krieger
<SVL>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:42:23 -0800
To: <cyberpump@geocities.com>
From: jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: Calves
The repetition range you are using (12-20 RM) is probably too high to achieve significant gastrocnemius development. Charles Poliquin remarks that the gastrocnemius has a very large percentage of Type II fibers, and since Type II fibers respond better to higher intensity weights, you may want to try using heavier weights, in the 5-10 RM range.
James Krieger
<SVL>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:29:04 -0800
To: cyberpump@geocities.com
From: banders2@vanstar.com
Subject: Split Training Questions
what are your ideas on splitting your training... i have been revaluating
my thinking on this topic...
the way i have always done it was:
Split 1 : Chest and triceps
split 2 : Back and Biceps
split 3 : Legs and Shoulders ( i would include my shrugs in this
workout )
this is somewhat similar to the PUSH/PULL routines,... the thinking behind
this setup was to work a bodypart completely on one day, then allow it to
rest up until that workout again... since chest involves triceps also, then
you go ahead and finish out the tri's by doing the isolations for them... i
put the shoulders on the legs days just to even it all out.. now that i
think more on the subject i might split shoulders in rear delts on the back
days and the front and medial heads with the chest workout....
now there is the variation on this of course... which is :
split 1 : chest and back
split 2a: legs
split 3 : shoulders, bi's, and tri's (arms)
split 2b : legs
this also makes since to me.. in a way that it works the tri's and the bi's
twice in one cycle... thus equaling their rest time to the rest time of the
legs... but, it doesn't make since to not give the chest and back that same
equalization... nor can i see myself doing back and chest on the same day,
they are two very large muscle groups... that would mean doing benchpresses
and deadlifts in one day, squats in another, and then no major compound
movement on the third.. it just makes more since to split the major
compound exercises up among the three days...
i have also heard, less commonly, of putting bi's on chest day, and tri's on back day, with the rationalization that that way you are always working out relatively fresh muscles... i have thought these arrangements over and over again in my head and cannot decide which is better... or why... i was wondering what you would suggest and your reasoning behind it...
i have also seen just two split days... involving upper body and lower body.. this makes since to me in the recovery state of mind, since then you can leave equal recovery days for the upper body and lower without leaving too much time in-between each muscle group getting a workout...
for instance... i am doing my setup now, but i am only working out every 4
days... and i stuck an extra leg workout in-between my two upper body ones
in order to equal out my upper and lower body... but on this schedule i am
waiting 16 days in-between chest workouts... i can't believe that no
atrophy has begun in 16 days... with a two-way split this would be cut to
8 days and would seem about right... but it seems too obvious to me that
the body consists of 3 main muscle groups, each associating with a major
compound exercise... chest ( benchpress ), back (deadlift) and legs
(squat).. if i split it up into two groups... where would the deadlift come
in? plus the fact that my leg workout only takes 15 minutes as it is
(consisting of leg extensions, leg curls and squats/leg presses) ... while
my upper body day would surpass my 1 hour window....
and of course i would surmise that the best possible way to workout would
be to do the whole body done in the same day... that way all muscles would
get the exact same rest time... you see, a lot of my thoughts stem from the
fact/theory that your individual muscles recuperate faster than your
entire body, and that your entire body must be recovered before you can
stress any part of it... i used to work out three days straight on the
above split cycle, then take a day off and start again... this allowed four
days in between each muscle group being worked and that seemed fine to
me... but now i have read that the entire body needs to rest that long...
so any program involving splits is going to have to have an accentuated
rest period for a specific muscle group... thus approaching, i have to
think, atrophy... i always used 96hrs before atrophy began... now i can
accept 8 days... but i _cannot_ accept 16 days....
now here is my theory... based on the fact that working your whole body in
one day would be the best possible scenario... would it not make since to
work your three splits in a row... and then rest for 4 or 5 days... so you
would have 3 days in a row in the gym... you would be preventing the
recovery of the muscles you worked in the previous day or two days... but
you would in effect be somewhat "catching up" the rest of your body to that
broken down state... then you could allow your entire body to rest, and
your individual muscles would recover closer to the same time that your
entire system recovers... maybe not exactly the same time... but as close
as possible... sure the 2nd two days of your "binge" you would be halting
the progress of say your chest (if you worked that the first day)... but
wouldn't it almost be like a necessary evil in order to breakdown the rest
of the muscles in your body.. then they would all get approximately the
same rest time... and your could rotate the order in which you did the
three days, so that if there were any noticeable drawbacks to doing a
certain muscle group the first day.. you would do a different one the next
time around.. and continue to rotate so that in the end you would even it
out.... and maybe since it would be such an intense three days you would
need an extra couple of days rest, but at least it would be the same for
all the muscle groups and it certainly wouldn't be a _sixteen_ day rest
period....
now i may be completely wrong.. it may be too much damage for the muscles
worked the first day... not enough recovery chemicals left for the last
muscle worked on the third day.. or things that i haven't thought of yet...
but that is why i am writing this ... i would love to hear your opinions
on these thoughts on splits... this has been the only thing troubling me
about my workout program.. i am very sure and confident about all other
aspects of the HIT theories... but this is the one issue that keeps me
awake at night... i mean obviously you are doing no harm by not working out
a certain muscle group for 16 days, but i can't help but thinking if you
could train it more often , safely, without overtraining and still working
the rest of the body... that your gains would be greater because you would
leave no room for atrophy to occur....
please feel free to give me your honest opinions on these ideas... if you
think they are flawed please explain and tell me what you think is the
optimum way to organize your splits... i would greatly appreciate your
input....
ben anderson.
<SVL>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:24:52 +0200
To: <cyberpump@geocities.com>
From: zoharyz@netvision.net.il
Subject: Re: swimming and weight training
> <MSG1>
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:46:20 -0800
> To: <cyberpump@geocities.com>
> From: jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu
> Subject: Rethinking my position on swimming and strength training
>
>
> The discussion that I have been involved in over swimming and strength
> training prompted me to do some research into the subject, and, judging
by
> what I found, the person that I was discussing with (sorry, I can't
> remember your name and I don't have any back issues to refer to)
> made some
> very good points that definitely made sense when I thought about them
more
> heavily.
> While power is extremely important in sprint swimming performance, which
I
> found by personal experience and which has also been demonstrated in the
> laboratory (1), it becomes increasingly less important with the longer
the
> distance of the swim. Distance per stroke, and not stroke rate, is a
much
> more important factor the longer the distance of the swim, and power has
> little effect on distance per stroke (2). Stroke technique and genetic
> factors (such as arm length) play the big roles in distance per stroke.
> The notion that power has little importance in longer swimming distances
> has been demonstrated in the laboratory (2).
>
> What does this mean to the competitive swimmer? In short race distances
> (specifically the 50 m, and maybe the 100 m to an extent), power plays an
> important role and increased strength in the weight room will probably
mean
> increased swim performance. At longer race distances, however, increased
> strength in the weight room will have little, if any, effect on swim
> performance, and the purpose of a strength training program for such a
> swimmer would be more for injury prevention than performance enhancement.
This fruitfull exchange that we conducted should stand as an example for
all readers. It helped both of us sharpen our thinking on the matter.
I agree with what was said here and would like to add: another reason I
don't believe in mimicking swimming movements in the weight room is that it
could actually compound a problem. A swimmers primary movers (muscles that
pull the arms down ) are overdeveloped and the antagonists (muscles that
lift the arms) are underdeveloped. Same for internal rotator as opposed to
external rotators. Swimming specific exercises only increse the inbalance
which could lead to injury.
One more word on the decisive importance stroke length: all great swimmers take less strokes than their competitors. In the 50m. final at the 1992 Olympics Alexander Popov took the gold in 21.8 with 34 strokes and Matt Biondi the silver in 22.0 with 37 strokes. Many such examples can be shown.
I highly reccommend you read the book: Total Immersion by Terry Laughlin.
He delves deeply into this subject (no pun meant).
Yehoshua (Josh) Zohar
Israel
[Shalom, Yehoshua. Mah Nishma?]
<SVL>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:48:41 -0500
To: <cyberpump@geocities.com>
From: criggs@together.net
Subject: Knee care
Does anyone have any suggestions on things a lifter should be doing to =
take care of their knees? I have been lifting for about 10 years now and =
my knees get very sore whenever I start squatting low reps over 600 =
pounds or high reps over 500 pounds. I use knee wraps whenever I"m over =
400. It's not a sharp constant pain but more of an ache around the =
"edges" of the knee. I have been cycling my lifting so that I am not =
going heavy all the time as well. So what I'm looking for are things you =
can do to help them from getting hurt in the first place, recuperation =
techniques that may work, and any supplements that may help with this. =
Thanks for your help.
Cliff