HIT Digest #57

This digest contains the following messages:

1. Re: The Myth of The Superiority of Free Weights
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
2. Re: More about Machines and Free Weights
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
3. Re: Response to J Krieger, Machines, Free weights and skills by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
4. Bench Press Safety
by: John W. Jomp <jjomp@ibm.net>
5. shoulder horn
by: Tom <tomb@golden.net>
6. Re: Functional Strength
by: Brad Collins <bcollins@hotmail.com>
7. Muscle gain/fat loss
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
8. Muscle Gain on Reduced Calories?
by: FlexWriter <FlexWriter@aol.com>

-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:45:53 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Myth of The Superiority of Free Weights

In a message dated 97-12-07 08:00:50 EST, you write:

<< 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. >>

While additional muscular structures would be required to work to balance the weight or stabilize the body during free weight exercises, the degree of effort required to do so would be minimal, hardly enough to stimulate growth in such muscles. For example, when was the last time you even felt your lats during a barbell bench press? They assist in balancing the weight (preventing the shoulders from extending past somewhat vertical), but, like the rest of the muscles which are involved in balancing the weight, they work against a minimal lever, and are not required to produce a significant amount of force. AND, the muscles which would act as stabilizers in one exercise, are most often directly involved in the performance of others, in which case you'd be better off just performing other exercises for those muscle groups which address them directly if you're concerned about their development.

The ONLY things a barbell provides which can not be provided by a properly designed machine are a much lower cost, and by performing barbell exercises one will improve their skills in the performance of those particular barbell exercises, for whatever that is worth.

Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com

-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:59:19 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: More about Machines and Free Weights

In a message dated 97-12-07 08:00:50 EST, you write:

<< 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.>>

Strength curves do not vary significantly among healthy individuals. A properly designed machine with a cam which provides a strength curve which closely matches the average will still be far superior than a barbell exercise which provides a strength curve which in no way resembles the proper one for any particular exercise.

<<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.>>

Which machines? Most of the machines currently on the market are not worth half their weight in scrap metal, and do have totally incorrect resistance curves. I am referring to a properly designed machine. Since most of what is being marketed as exercise equipment is complete garbage, so poorly designed it would not receive a passing grade in a high school shop class, it is important that we distinguish between such junk and PROPERLY DESIGNED machines when discussing this issue. I agree, that compared to most of the crap out there, barbells are much better, BUT, compared to a properly designed machine, such as many of those sold by MedX and the new Nautilus 2ST line, barbells have to take 2nd place.

<<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). >>

The machine which you refer to is one of the oldest models. The Nautilus Next Generation and 2ST Leg Curls both have positive cams which provide a logarithmic resistance decrease.

Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com

-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 00:16:12 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Response to J Krieger, Machines, Free weights and skills

> -------------------- 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>

> 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.
>
While a "machine" will never be able to match the strength curve of ALL individuals or maybe not even one of them, the variable resistance is light years more in tune with the strength curve than a barbell for nearly every exercise.
>
> > position. This means the machines offer the benefit of making the
> > exercise intense over the whole exercise.
>
> 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.
>
Remember James I'm the guy that listens to reason, not studies and we've both covered that territory more than enough for most peoples satisfaction. I take it that the Authors also advocate Periodisation.

> 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.
>
Stabilisers are muscles and are not something unique to the human body. What may be a "stabiliser" in one exercise may be the one directly targeted in another. Wrt the above it's the skill component that makes the dumbbell exercise more difficult and the others easier. Now it's possible to become more proficient in dumbbell presses and not not have increased one's strength at all. I'm willing to bet that if the "stabilisers", the ones of the torso minus the chest muscles and not the ones directly used by the movement (shoulders, chest, triceps) were fully supported that there would still be the same inequalities in strength performance.

> > 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.
>
What has any of that got to do with the fact that someone who does not bend forward much is not placing as much resistance on their lower back than one that is. We are always balancing when we do any exercise, therefore there is always a lack of balance that according to our skill levels requires more or less adjustments. To squat with the torso COMPLETELY upright leaves no room for error.

> 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.
>
I on the other hand want it known that because of the rotary , variable, balanced and direct resistance, combined with resistance in the position of full muscular contraction and unrestricted speed of movement that the machines are the most safe and effective tools that we have. I only believe this to be the case for Nautilus, Medx and Hammer however. No hard feelings James but we tend to disagree on many things.

Cya
Teri

-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 08:47:51 -0600
From: "John W. Jomp" <jjomp@ibm.net>
Subject: Bench Press Safety

Hi!

I've been training only 2 months HIT style and would like to know
which is the safest way to do bench presses.....elbows all the way out at 90 deg to the body or a more conservative elbows in somewhat-at about 45 degrees. At the present time I have my elbows tucked in a little because I felt that the elbows out gave me too much of a stretch. I'm doing the benches on a Universal bench machine...

John

-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 09:53:52 -0500
From: "Tom" <tomb@golden.net>
Subject: shoulder horn

Does anyone on the list use a shoulderhorn? Is it worth while to get one? If so where would be a good place to get one and how much do they sell for? None of the places around my area seem to carry them. IF anyone is from Ontario Canada on the list and they are aware of a place you can get one please let me know.

Thanks
Tom Ball

tomb@golden.net
http://www.golden.net/~tomb

[please turn off the HTML if possible please. Iron Mike]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content='"MSHTML 4.71.2016.0"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Does anyone on the list use a shoulderhorn? Is it worth while to get one? If so where would be a good place to get one and how much do they sell for? None of the places around my area seem to carry them. IF anyone is from Ontario Canada on the list and they are aware of a place you can get one please let me know. </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Thanks </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Tom Ball </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><BR><A
href="mailto:tomb@golden.net";>tomb@golden.net</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><A
href="http://www.golden.net/~tomb";>http://www.golden.net/~tomb</A></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 11:00:46 PST
From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Functional Strength

>-------------------- 5 --------------------
>Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 22:28:51 -0800
>From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Functional strength
James wrote:

>
>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?

No, that is not what I am saying. Of course an athlete will be stronger by weight training. :) I was saying that nonsense like "ground based training" is just that...nonsense. For example, doing power cleans because it is *similar* to blocking. Ever see the Hammer Jammer? Stupid in my opinion.

I read what Maximum Bob Whelan said about "ground based" training (I think he was quoting someone else).

Ground based training is "ending up on the ground" after a hard set, and has nothing to do with having your feet on the ground.

HAHAHAHAHAH!

Carry over was in doing "similar" movements in the weight room that would somehow make the sport skill improved. Again, stupid in my opinion. A good "overall" strength training program where nothing is neglected will do the trick.

Brad

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 16:30:35 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Muscle gain/fat loss

>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.

At what training stage are most of your clients? In the part of my message that was snipped, I commented that I have repeatedly seen this in NOVICE trainees. I highly, highly doubt this could be replicated in any advanced trainee. the hormonal mileu necessary for muscle growth is the opposite of that for fat loss. Westcott works with primarily untrained invididuals. In *many* of Darden's books, he's working with untrained inviduals. I cannot speak for Hutchins. Overfeeding most definitely increases anabolic hormone levels (insulin, IGF-1, etc) while underfeeding most definitely decreases those same hormones. So, a hypocaloric situation will NOT be ideal for msucle growth. By the same token, a hypercaloric situation will NOT be ideal for fat loss.

I suggest the following paper:

Katarina Borer "Neurohumoral mediation of exercise-induced growth" Med Sci Sports Exerc (1994) 26:741-754.

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

-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:49:42 EST
From: FlexWriter <FlexWriter@aol.com>
Subject: Muscle Gain on Reduced Calories?

In a message dated 12/7/97 12:50:36 PM, you wrote:

<<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.>>

My experience as an advanced trainee and as a trainer is that this is possible ONLY for beginners or advanced trainees returning from a prolonged layoff, or for people using steroids.