1. Re: Functional Strength
by: Brad Collins <bcollins@hotmail.com>
2. Request some clarification
by: Nicholas L. Marsan <nlmarsan@python.cameron.edu>
3. Super Squats - help
by: Manuel António Tavares Silva Ferreira <manant@mail.telepac.pt>
4. Stabilizer function...
by: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu>
5. Creatine Article
by: David Atkinson <datkinson@picknowl.com.au>
6. Re: Shoulder Horn
by: David Atkinson <datkinson@picknowl.com.au>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 10:12:49 PST
From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Functional Strength
James wrote:
>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?
As someone pointed out to me...hopefully, but not necessarily. You've
increased his or her POTENTIAL but improvement isn't guaranteed. Will a
basketball player increase his free throw
percentage if he gets 50% stronger? Will a quarterback improve his
accuracy if he gets 50% stronger?
Brad
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 15:18:25 -0600 (CST)
From: "Nicholas L. Marsan" <nlmarsan@python.cameron.edu>
Subject: Request some clarification
I am fairly new to this list; in fact I have only been a
subscriber for the past 8 digests. When I first subscribed, I had asked a
question concerning a good HIT program with which I can build a solid
foundation for good gains. Anyhow, since then I have realized that nothing
can take the place of doing my homework on the subject, I have been trying
to do just that. This has led me to some general questions. Does HIT
training have to consist of only one set of an exercise? Would it be
beneficial to complement a total body workout with an emphasis on a
specific body part once per week (ie., Mon: total body, chest and tri;
Weds: total body, back and bi; Fri: total body, shoulder and legs)? And,
finally, Should progress occur every workout or once per week (either rep
or weights.
When I was in high school, playing football, my routine was low
reps/high weights with a progressive increase in weight, usually in 5 lb
increments. How similar to HIT was this?
Finally, I just wanted to say that it is good to be in the company
of well informed people. Your suggestions, opinions, and arguments have
been enjoyable and insightful. Keep up the good work!!!!
Nick Marsan
nlmarsan@wolverine.cameron.edu
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 22:35:25 +0100
From: "Manuel António Tavares Silva Ferreira" <manant@mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Super Squats - help
Hello,
Sorry by my English i am from Portugal.
My name is Manuel and i have been using the HIT principles for quite
some time and i have been making awesome gains.
I have been doing one set of 20 rep breathing squats every week. It's
hard but i love it.
Is it enough one set per week ?
I have heard a book called "Super Squats - How to Gain 30# of Muscle in
6 weeks " by RandallJ.Strossen , is it good ?
I can't find the book in Portugal.
I have some family in Toronto - Canada but they can't find to.
Can someone tel me is program ? (sets, reps...)
Help me please, i want to try the routine.
Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Manuel António Ferreira
manant@mail.telepac.pt
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 00:19:28 -0500
From: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu>
Subject: LONG - Stabilizer function...
> From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [...] The Superiority of Free Weights
>
> In a message dated 97-12-07 08:00:50 EST, [it was written]:
>
> << 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 [...]
If the degree of 'effort' (whatever this is supposed to quantify) is so
insignificant, then you should with no problem be able to dumbell bench
press say, 90% of your [say] smith machine press after a short
acclimation period (to get used to the new recruitment pattern, say six
weeks). [I assume that to make such a statement, you have done personal
experimentation, or have references to such studies in some form or
another...]
> 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.
Actually, many people have mentioned feeling the lats stimulated by
bench pressing. I have not.
> 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.
I agree. If you want your lats, say, to grow optimally, it is better to do a compound movement with the lats as its' prime mover.
> 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.
Well, it's worth exercising the prime movers in coordination with the
stabilizer and neutralizer functions of other muscles, something which
will not occur when performing exercises with machines. Explained by
the Law of Facilitation, this (desparity while working with machines
only) will in create a negative skill transfer WRT basic movement
patterns...
As this helps reduce injuries, I think it is fairly worthwhile.
***
> From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: More about Machines and Free Weights
>
> In a message dated 97-12-07 08:00:50 EST, [it was written]:
>
> << 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.
The strength curve of free weights do, however, resemble the manner in
which weights behave in a free environment (ie 'real life'). [Do they
not?]
I think that, considering the fact that one can alter the strength curve
(see partial repetitions, and just about every article Fred Hatfield has
written), such variances may be more important than are [above] given
credit.
> <<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.
So therefore your advice WRT machines is worthless for the majority of
trainees! [please note that this is not a flame, but a necessary, and
important, evaluation of what has been stated above]
> 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 myself think it is quite worthwhile to talk about these machines,
since "most of what is being marketed as exercise equipment [and
therefore in most gyms] is complete garbage [etc]..."
> 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
Please state exactly which machines you endorse, so that the readers of
this list may know which machines to avoid.
***
> From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: Response to J Krieger, Machines, Free weights and skills
> > From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
> > 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.
The difference is, in a situation where a muscle is 'targeted,' it is
being asked to function as a prime mover [correct?]. In a situation
where a muscle has a stabilizer function, it is being asked to function
as a stabilizer [also correct?]
> Wrt the above it's the skill component that makes
> the dumbbell exercise more difficult and the others easier.
Yes, it is the fact that you are asking muscles to function as
stabilizers and neutralizers. Since you may or may not be used to this
requirement, under such loads, you will likely find it more difficult to
perform such exercises. This will be much moreso for the individual who
has primarily used machines for the majority of their training. Again,
it has to do with facilitation; machines build prime movers w/o
coordinating stabilizer and neutralizer functions *in the nervous
system*, which must be done in order to work with those muscles. If
such is not done, if basic movements are performed in a stable
environment, stabilizer function will diminish due to the new demands of
such exercises.
> Now it's
> possible to become more proficient in dumbbell presses and not not have
> increased one's strength at all.
I don't have the foggiest idea what you are trying to say here. I think it means the same as, "Now, it's possible to become more proficient in machine presses and not have increased one's strength at all."
Let us return to productive comments. As long as you are adding reps
and or weight to an exercise, you are gaining strength. Most people
return far stronger in more stable exercises after a period of more
unstable training. This is why, for instance, Simmons has implemented
swiss ball training in his PL programs...
> > 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'm not quite sure that in all cases you will achieve 'better progress;' this is an individual thing, IMO, how one responds to certain exercises.
Certainly, however, I will agree that free weight and "unstable"
movements will make one's joints more resistant to injury (more
specifically, those injuries related to joint stabilization). This is
supported by the great success of such movements (incliding
swiss/stability balls, etc) in rehab situations.
> 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.
If machines are clearly so much better (light years ahead, according to
what I snipped from your post), then obviously you will be able to
point-out those athletes who do and do not use machines, in the NFL or
the NBA or whatever sport another poster suggested.
Unfortunately, without being informed beforehand, I do not think you will be able to perform such a task. So clearly the difference is quite minute (and considering the fact that squats, deadlifts, and benches all directly oppose the definition of the most 'effective tools' as you detailed above, and are all considered the most productive movements, I think your proposition had very little going for it from the outset)...
***
> From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Functional Strength
> 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.
[...]
> 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.
I agree. However...
You are not arguing against anything anyone has said in this list. I
think you are more posting a rant than anything else.
--
Adam Fahy:
afahy@oitunix.oit.umass.edu
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 20:32:47 +1030
From: "David Atkinson" <datkinson@picknowl.com.au>
Subject: Creatine Article
For those interested in creatine usage there is an interesting article on Clarence Bass's web site http://www.cbass.com/creatine.htm
David Atkinson
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 20:42:34 +1030
From: "David Atkinson" <datkinson@picknowl.com.au>
Subject: Re: Shoulder Horn
>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
>
I've never used one but there's any advert in Mike Mentzer's / IART's heavy
duty bulletin. Apparently they're $67.45 from SAS Marketing, Box 260500,
Highlands Ranch CO 80163. Phone 1-800-448-8333 Dept MD5.
David Atkinson