1. HIT / Periodization Experiment -- 1st Report
by: Dave Huckabay <wabecdh@erols.com>
2. Simultaneous Muscle Gain and Fat Loss IS possible.
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
3. Football and freeweights
by: Jason McClarin <jasonam@wwa.com>
4. Re: Rob's Bottom Line, Periodization I and II
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
5. Re: Functional strength
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
6. Re: To Strap or Not to Strap
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
7. Unknown
by: Kevin Knoop <kevin@ct.lia.net>
8. Re: Machines, skills, and free weights
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 11:56:43 -0500
From: Dave Huckabay <wabecdh@erols.com>
Subject: HIT / Periodization Experiment -- 1st Report
HIt / Periodization Experiment -- 1st Report
About a month ago I sent in a post concerning my intention to settle the
HIT vs periodization debate (at least for myself) through experimentation.
I decided to use a cycle from the new Kraemer & Fleck book. I also said I
would update the list once a month, as the cycle has 4 one month phases. My
observations thus far:
1. Only two weeks in I had to change from their 3 or 4 whole body
workouts/week to a split routine. Now I do upper body twice a week and
lower body twice a week, with 2 heavy and 2 light workouts. No way can I do
as many sets as they specify, with rest times as per the plan, and get done
in a reasonable amount of time. In my experience, if I train for more than
45 min or so, form and performance deteriorate drastically, and I am better
off saving my juice for the next workout.
2. Sets are done with 15R/max for sets of 15, 12R/max for sets of 12, etc.
Obviously, 2nd and 3rd sets don't make it to 15 reps. Heavy days I go to
failure on all sets, light days use 80% of weight from last heavy day.
Multiple sets at these rep ranges, done to failure f-ing hurt! Last heavy
day my shoulders were really aching during the 3rd set of benches. Pec
soreness took 3 days to fade.
3. Light days are actually fun. I get a great pump from the multiple sets
w/ short rest periods. Even if this turns out to be less productive than
HIT, I can see myself using this as a break from time to time, or to come
back from a layoff.
4. Pumps are much better than any HIT routine (duh), but thus far I don't
see any measurement changes. Then again, it's only been 4 weeks. I spend at
least twice as much time working out. The only real change so far is that I
can tolerate the longer workouts better.
Phase 2 starts today. Sets go to 4 / exercise, and exercises get added as
well. I will post again in a month.
If an idea doesn't work in practice, that doesn't mean that "It's a good
idea in theory" it means it's a crappy idea. I'll know in 3 months.
DH
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:17:29 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Simultaneous Muscle Gain and Fat Loss IS possible.
<< You can not loose fat and at the same time build muscle >>
This is not true. Muscle can be gained while on a moderately reduced calorie
diet, as has been demonstrated numerous times by Ellington Darden, PhD, Wayne
Westcott, PhD, Ken Hutchins, numerous SuperSlow training facilities, etc. I
have numerous clients who have gained muscle while on a moderately reduced
calorie diet.
Paraphrased from "Proper Exercise and its Role in Reducing Fat," by Ken
Hutchins,
"A study was published regarding this in Medicine and Science in Sports, Vol.
7, No. 4, pp. 248-261, 1975. Following is a synopsis:
Dr. Alfred L. Goldberg and his colleagues cut the tendon of the gastrocnemius
muscle of one leg of each of a group of rats. Ankle extension in that leg was
then borne entirely by the soleus muscle. The rats were then run on a
treadmill (Unfortunately, you're limited when working with animals to using
treadmills, imagine trying to teach a group of rats to perform calf raises)
and the soleus of the tenotomized legs grew dramatically compared to their
contralateral controls.
Eventually, many research groups of rats underwent unilateral tenotomies of
the gastrocnemius, but some groups recieved simultaneous and various
additional handicaps. Once group was hypophysectomized (the hypophysis of
their pituitary removed so they could not produce growth hormone), another
group received alloxan, which produces a diabetic state (a lack of insulin),
another group was placed on a starvation diet of only water, other groups had
various combinations of the same procedures.
All of the animals were run on treadmills, and in all of the animals, the soleus muscle in the tenotonized leg overcompensated. It grew, apparently at the expense of other body tissues, on a starvation diet, without insulin, and without growth hormone. It grew in spite of the fact that its growth and consumption of resources meant hastened demise of the organism."
If you're training intensely enough to stimulate muscular growth, if you don't
overtrain to prevent the body from being able to produce the growth, and if
you allow adequate time between workouts for your body to produce an increase
in muscle tissue, you are going to grow.
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 05:51:42 -0600
From: Jason McClarin <jasonam@wwa.com>
Subject: Football and freeweights
I would like to know is there anyone who can tell me how to train
for football in the offseason? My football coach has retired and we have
a coach but he won't be here until the summer of '98, so we have been
let here to fend for ourselves for the offseason. My parameters for my
body are improving strength, speed, and agility. I'm 6'1 3/4, 231lbs(on
muscular side, little chubby), and I can bench a max of
225lbs(freeweights) or 252(machine). I only have access to machine
weights. Those machines are(description or exact name) the rowing
machine, bench press, leg curl, leg extension, leg press, and some
machine I can do curls or triceps extensions with. I also have access to
a treadmill. I'm in good condition and I run pretty fast(not opinion). I
play left tackle on offense but I'm going to play fullback or linebacker
because I've lost too much weight to be really effective at that
postion(40lbs). I'm pretty strong but I think I should be able to bench
more than just some 225lbs. Can somebody give me some intensity tips or
training tips to get some strength? If you think you can help please
email ASAP!!!!! Thanks
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 22:14:52 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Rob's Bottom Line, Periodization I and II
> From: "GORINSKI, ROBERT" <rwg3216@sru.edu>
>
> have read them, read them again. Some of the statements made are as
close
> as being THE END-ALL ANSWER to this discussion as we are going to get
> <snip>
> understand that. The writings I am encouraging you to review are found
> under "Robs Bottom Line" ;Periodization Cycles I and II. Cycle II is
> especially informative, pay special attention to the quotes given by Dr.
C.
I critiqued both of these articles in a recent post which was understandably not accepted since it would bog this list down with another periodization/HIT debate. However, for anyone interested in my opinion, you can email me a request directly and I will send you my responses to some of Rob Spector's and Dr. C's comments. This way, we keep everyone happy by keeping the list free of another HIT/periodization discussion yet still allowing myself to get my opinion out there if anyone is interested in hearing it. To sum it up, I agree with some of Rob's comments (especially some of his criticisms of Tudor Bompa's book), but disagree with others, and I point out the comments that I disagree with.
James Krieger
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 22:28:51 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Functional strength
> From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com>
>
> James wrote:
>
> >weights. I'm not saying that machine strength cannot carry over to
> real
> >life activities, but I am claiming that free weights are superior for
> this
> >purpose.
>
> How do you know this to be true?
I don't "know" this to be true no more than an HITer "knows" that one set to failure is enough for stimulating an optimal increase in muscle strength or size. The reasoning behind my opinion of the superiority of free weights over machines when carrying over to real-life activities is that real-life activities require the use of small stabilizing muscle groups which are not effectively trained by a machine, but are effectively trained by free weights. This will also mean better stability in joints and therefore better injury prevention during real-life activities.
> The idea of a significant amount of carry over of SPECIFIC movements to
> others in the weight room is utter nonsense in my opinion. And more
> ridiculous when saying there is carry over of "weight training" to sport
> specific movements.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you claiming that weight training cannot enhance performance of an athlete on the field? If we take two athletes of equal ability on the field, and make one 50% stronger in the weight room, who's going to be the better athlete?
James Krieger
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 22:41:08 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: To Strap or Not to Strap
> From: FlexWriter <FlexWriter@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: To Strap or Not to Strap
>
> James, I've found many of your posts, plus your guest editorial in the
latest
> Muscle Mag,
Nice for them to publish that article when I submitted it OVER THREE YEARS
AGO! They paid me $300 for it, so I can't complain. I can't even remember
what it said; I think it was an article covering 10 bodybuilding myths.
Thanks for letting me know that it finally showed up. I had given up on it
2 years ago. I'll have to check it out.
> right on, but I take issue with you here. It makes no sense to
> let a weak grip limit your strength in heavy back work. I say train the
grip
> separately until it catches up. And, in fact, if your back is really
strong
> your grip may never catch up.
I would disagree that grip can't catch up with your back. If this were
true, then many I think many powerlifters would have trouble training
effectively; deadlifts require tremendous grip strength. The key to
getting the grip to catch up is to simply lighten up the weights and then
undergo a progression again, this time without the straps. It may take
some time, especially for individuals with very weak grips, but grip will
eventually catch up and will not be a hinderance.
In my opinion, grip is also partially a psychological thing. I think many people may be surprised how long they can really hold on.
I have become against using any type of apparel which, while allowing you
to use more weight, will create a weakness at the same time, which includes
straps, knee wraps, and lifting belts.
James Krieger
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:54:36 -0800
From: "Kevin Knoop" <kevin@ct.lia.net>
Subject: Creatine
I have a client taking creatine that I distribute here in South Africa. He
is supposed to know a lot about creatine. He says that while on his loading
phase he got flatter and blames it on something called " creatine spillage
". He has stopped taking it now. Has anyone ever heard of this?
Kevin@ct.lia.net
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 23:22:00 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Machines, skills, and free weights
> From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
>
> I just want to make some comments on the value of machines (Medx,
> Nautilus and Hammer) vs free weights. Firstly in their favour they
> match strength curves in that they are designing to "feel" heavy in all
> positions of the exercise.
It is impossible for a machine to match the strength curve of every individual out there; there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all when it comes to any machine. Strength curves can vary widely from individual to individual, making variable resistance machines not as practical as one might think. No variable-resistance machines examined in two studies (1-2) could match the strength curve of any of the subjects. Some machines even have totally incorrect force curves on them. For example, the hamstrings have a strength curve of a descending shape, but the Nautilus leg curl has one of an ascending shape (by the way, some Nautilus leg curls have flat benches rather than humped ones which can predispose you to back injury).
1. Garhammer, J. Equipment for the development of athletic strength and
power. NSCA Journal 3(6):24-26. 1981.
2. Harman, E. Resistive torque analysis of 5 Nautilus exercise machines.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 15:113. 1983.
> position. This means the machines offer the benefit of making the
> exercise intense over the whole exercise.
This is the main idea behind variable-resistance machines. However, any benefit of them over conventional resistance training remains to be demonstrated in the laboratory. All research that has been done comparing the two types of training have demonstrated equivocal results (3).
3. Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Kraemer. Designing Resistance Training Programs.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1987.
> The benefits of utilising the stabiliser muscles is for most exercises
> negligible in my estimation. They are used mainly for balancing and in
> most instances are not worked intensely.
I disagree with your assertion that stabilizers are not adequately trained
by a free weight movement. If you were to perform a set of dumbbell bench
presses to failure, you would find that you could move to a barbell loaded
up with a good amount of weight and be able to continue. After hitting
failure with the barbell, you could get on a Smith machine and continue for
even longer. If stabilizers were not worked intensely, then this would not
be possible.
> Now they may be if you bend
> quite forward in the squat but the reason one would bend forward is that
> it is easier to correct balance by shifting the weight backwards. If
> one was quite skilful in balancing, the torso could remain almost
> upright through the entire squat and therefore receive little
> stimulation. Balancing is a skill that is non-transferrable and only
> gets in the way of proper exercise. We have all had the experience of
> worrying about whether the weight is balanced correctly (safely) and
> this can lead to stopping the exercise shy of failure, because no one
> wants the barbell to kiss their foreheads to the floor.
Lack of balance during any exercise is due to improper exercise form; if
you know how to perform the lift properly, then balance will not be a
problem and you won't have anything to worry about. I've never worried
about whether a weight is balanced correctly; I know that it is because I
know that my form is correct. I am not afraid to train to failure because
of balance reasons. If I was, then I would know that something is wrong
with my form and I need to work on it. The only fear that I would have of
training to failure with free weights would be being trapped under a bar,
such as doing barbell bench w/o a spotter, or my triceps giving out on me
during a set of dumbbell inclines and the dumbbells come crashing down on
my face. In these situations, machines are much more useful and convenient
if you do not have a spotter.
I want to make it clear that I am not against machine use, but I am against
the emphasis of machines over free weights, except for in some types of
special populations (such as the elderly). My feeling is, if you can
handle learning the free weight movement, then don't be lazy and do it.
You'll achieve better progress in the long run, just as the guy on this
list who said how he switched from leg press to squats and now has bigger
legs because of it.
James Krieger