1. Mike Mentzer's HD2
by: PatChief <PatChief@aol.com>
2. RE: (post 6, dig. #63) Help, please (Alan's shoulder)
by: John Vormbaum <johnv@TRATNET.com>
3. Once again, Yates
by: <bszymanski@minolta.com>
4. Re: Chins vs. Front Grip Pulldowns
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
5. Re: Poliquin, Slow Reps, and Sports Performance
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
6. Re: HIT Digest, digest #63
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
7. Re: HIT and special populations
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
8. RE: HIT Digest, digest #63
by: Turner, Darius <dturner@anatec.com>
9. Re: HIT and the elderly
by: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com>
10. Optimum stimulus?
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:21:28 EST
From: PatChief <PatChief@aol.com>
Subject: Mike Mentzer's HD2
Has anyone out there used the HD2 system? If so with what results? If
anyone has used it and gotten exceptional results? Could you give me the
basics of his system and his routines.
Thanks in advance,
Pat Rogers
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:46:56 -0800
From: John Vormbaum <johnv@TRATNET.com>
Subject: RE: (post 6, dig. #63) Help, please (Alan's shoulder)
Alan,
I'm not a PT, MD, or any professional; however, my personal experience with damaged shoulders is vast. Here's my (long) $.02-worth:
In 1990 I retired from a 14-year competitive tennis career due to a torn
rotator cuff, a torn labrum cup, a calcinated bubble inside my joint and
horrible tendonitis/bursitis. After watching others' surgeries fail to
repair damage effectively (scope included), I decided to search for a
non-surgical alternative. That's how I ended up in the gym. Of course,
I then spent the first 5+ years doing the 107-set/4-day split/volume
approach. By adhering to strict form in my exercises, I managed to
build my shoulder back up to the point where I could lift a suitcase
without *excruciating* pain. Now, 13 months after discovering HIT and
recently SuperSlow, I am pain-free for the first time in years; I've
even improved sports performance (swimming, golf, basketball)
remarkably. Doctors say I shouldn't be able to lift my arm; I can throw
a football with no pain.
Surgeons will never tell you this because it cuts into (sorry, bad pun) their practices: You CAN recover from rotator cuff injuries with a HIT-style training regimen. After trying all customary rehab programs, I discovered that 5 basic tenets set me on the road to repair:
1) One set to failure, compound movements (heard this one before?).
Don't waste time with isolation movements (dumbell/cable laterals
etc.). They merely aggravated my shoulder.
2) Use STRICT FORM
3) increase resistance very gradually (over the course of months)
4) Use STRICT FORM (I think the slower the better)
5) Stretch carefully & maintain your flexibility
Keep in mind that on a scale of 1-10, my damage was an 11. My shoulder
felt like it was full of ground glass. I was in pain from 1987-1996.
I've fixed it in one year with no drugs, no conventional therapy, and no
surgery. Because of that, my belief in HIT/SuperSlow borders on the
fanatic. I haven't had an MRI, arthrogram, X-ray or anything else since
1993, but since I've restored full ROM, full strength, and I'm feeling
no pain, I can't see the need for one...
I hope this helps!
John Vormbaum
> -------------------- 6 --------------------
> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:52:55 -0500 (EST)
> From: cf051@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan D. Smith)
> Subject: Help, please.
>
> Hi, All,
>
> I have been getting the digest for about 3 weeks and really
> appreciate all the great information. Now, more than ever,
> I need the help of our list experts. This may be a tad long,
> so I apologize in advance.
>
> A little background: I will be 50 in April, started lifting July,
> 1994, and have only regretted not starting many, many years ago.
> I have gravitated towards the HIT/HD ideas because they work
> better for me than anything else I've tried.
>
> Hurt my right shoulder in August doing Medx laterals. I eased
> up but didn't stop using my right shoulder and things, of course,
> got worse. I went to the Doc who said it was the dreaded
> rotator cuff and got me started in PT. That was in early
> October. Twice I got the shoulder almost pain-free, and the PT
> added a new exercise which almost immediately put me back 2-3
> weeks; very frustrating.
>
> Got an MRI last week and the results today: 1) partial tear of the
> supraspinatus 2) AC arthritis 3) "stenosed coracoacromial (sp?)
> arch. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the worst, he rated the
> tear a 4-5.
>
> His plan: Stop all PT and do nothing but very light stretching
> for the rest of this month. January 1 start PT program again
> and proceed very slowly. I have an appt with him 1/21, and if
> no major improvement, he suggests going under the scope.
>
> For the record, I did rehab my left shoulder using the "7 Minute
> Rotator Cuff Solution," an excellent book, IMHO.
>
> What I am looking for is thoughts/ideas from anyone who has faced
> something similar; comments from PT's, MD's, Ph.d's, MBA's, EE's,
> AFL-CIO's, whatever are appreciated. There is a tremendous data
> base in this group and all comments welcom.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan
>
>
>
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:23:49 -0500
From: bszymanski@minolta.com
Subject: Once again, Yates
Hi.
You know, regardless of what the heavily-accented narrator might SAY
at the beginning of Dorian Yates' Blood & Guts video (probably still
available from the folks at Hammer Strength), there's a lotta heavy
weight and heavy breathing going on and a whole lotta sweat, groaning,
and growling during all those "warmup" sets. Also, Dorian is doing
multiple exercises per body part, and the only way anybody's gonna see
anything resembling a 2/4 rep speed in that video is to run the tape
in slow motion.
Happy Holidays to all you HITters! And a Heavy-Duty New Year.
Bill
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:55:32 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Chins vs. Front Grip Pulldowns
If you are performing chins properly, or if you are performing front grip pull
downs properly, on a properly designed machine, the movement is almost
identical. The same muscle groups are addressed, in almost the exact same
manner. The differences are negligable. All this talk of stabilizers and other
such notions is unfounded. There are no such thing as "stabilizing" muscles.
To refer to a muscle as a stabilizer, synergist, prime move, antagonist, etc.,
is context specific. What might be acting as a stabilizer in one movement,
might be a prime mover or a synergist in another. In any case, any muscle
which has to expend a significant amount of effort during a free weight
exercise, is also going to expend a significant amount of effort during a
machine exercise, if not a significant amount more.
If a muscle is only involved in balancing the weight, it is not working
against a significant lever, is not required to perform a meaningful level of
work, and therefore is not going to be stimulated to any particular degree
anyways. Chances are such "balancing" muscles would receive more stimulation
from a machine exercise due to indirect effect because of the greater degree
of intensity, than from working to balance the bar or dumbbell during a free
weight exercise.
If a person's goal is to be able to perform bodyweight chins, and they are not
able to do so properly with their own body weight, they have several options,
depending upon the equipment available to them. They can perform negative only
chins, front grip pull downs, assisted chins (manually or with a machine),
etc. In any case, we must remember that the primary goal is not to be able to
perform chins for the sake of performing chins, but to address the muscular
structures of the torso and upper arms, in which case any of these exercises
would be effective.
Andrew M. Baye
"Proper exercise requires at least nine different factors: full-range
resistance, automatically variable resistance, balanced resistance, resistance
in both the fully stretched and fully contracted positions and unlimited speed
of movement. Barbells provide only three of those requirements, while a
properly designed exercise machine can provide them all; so a machine is not
"as good" as a barbell, it is a hell of a lot better if it is properly
designed. If you believe otherwise you are ignorant (lack knowledge) but if
after carefully investigating the facts you still believe otherwise, then you
are stupid (beyond help)." - Arthur Jones
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:00:59 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Poliquin, Slow Reps, and Sports Performance
<< Has anyone read the latest Poliquin article in muscle media? He states
using
slow rep training is good for gaining muscle but it only stimulates the type
2a twitch fibers and not enough of the 2b fibers . Because of this he states
this will slow you down in explosive sports . Is this scientifically correct
?
Would`nt more muscle mean a stronger and faster contracting muscle ? >>
This is not scientifically correct. Since I've already addressed this point in my article, Repetition Speed: Why Slower Is Better on Cyberpump, I'll make this brief. Fiber recruitment is related to the degree of force the muscle is required to produce, not how quickly it must contract. Slower repetition speeds involve less momentum, which means that the muscles are required to produce more force to move the resistance, in which case fiber recruitment is greater. If you're training to failure, you're going to recruit every motor unit available to you, both slow and fast. There are many articles regarding this on Cyberpump, the SuperSlow web site, and the MedX web site (www.medxinc.com). I highly recommend reading them over.
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:21:22 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #63
<< What is the difference between HIT2 and plain old vanilla HIT? >>
I'm assuming you're referring to Mike Mentzer's books Heavy Duty (HD) and
Heavy Duty 2 (HD2) and the corresponding philosophy regarding training volume
and frequency. In Mike Mentzer's sequel to HD, he elaborated more on proper
regulation of these two factors, and explained his discovery that even less
volume and frequency were necessary than he previously thought. There are many
people who achieve even better results performing workouts consisting of only
2 or 3 exercises, once per week or less, than they did with the higher volume
and frequency (although still relatively low compared to the nonsense promoted
in the muscle magazines and by self proclaimed strength experts) he
recommended in HD.
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:26:42 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HIT and special populations
Ken Hutchins, who developed the SuperSlow exercise protocol, supervised the
exercise instruction of hundreds of elderly women with osteoporosis during a
Nautilus study at the University of FL from '82 till '86. HIT, specifically
SuperSlow, is the safest, and most effective exercise protocol for training
the elderly, or any population for that matter. For more information on the
Nautilus Osteoporosis Study, you can contact the SuperSlow Exercise Guild at
407-260-6204. I also suggest contacting MedX as they have produced quite a bit
of research over the last decade on the subject. MedX can be contacted at
800-876-6339.
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:47:15 -0600
From: "Turner, Darius" <dturner@anatec.com>
Subject: RE: HIT Digest, digest #63
COULD YOU PLEASE SEND ME A HIT WORKOUT THAT FOCUSES MORE ON TONING AS
OPPOSED BULK. I'M ABOUT 6 FT. 265 WITH ABOUT 17% BODY FAT. MY TARGET
WEIGHT IS 250-255 WITH A BODY FAT OF ABOUT 8%. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT
DIETING IS VERY IMPORTANT BUT, I WOULD REALLY ENJOY A GOOD HIT WORKOUT
THEN EMPHASIS TONING.
I'VE SENT THIS MESSAGE 3 PREVIOUS TIMES AND IT HAS WENT UNANSWERED.
PLEASE RESPOND;
>----------
>From: cyberpump@geocities.com[SMTP:cyberpump@geocities.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 12:53 PM
>To: HIT Digest
>Subject: HIT Digest, digest #63
>
>
>
>..and we're back.
>
>Oh man, I can't believe I just typed up a whole long paragraph this digest,
>and mistakenly deleted it <sigh>.
>
>Let me try again. First, I think I said something about how I get alot of
>e-mail messages asking the same kind of questions. And I think the best way
>to answer the same question in on the digest. So apologies to some who I
>don't e-mail back.
>
>The first question was regarding obtaining back issues of the digest. Please
>check the footer of this digest. There are two ways to obtain back issues.
>The first (and easiest) is go to the URL listed below. A kind soul has given
>us space on their page to archive past digests.
>
>The second is using the "DIR" and "GET" commands. I haven't tried that
>myself, but I bet I'm going to find out real quick if that works. I'd stick
>with the web page.
>
>Second question was about the policy of "closing" topics. For e.g., the
>"free weights vs. machines" discussion. As said last digest, we feel there
>HAS to be a point where the moderator makes the call that the discussion
>isn't moving in any meaningful direction, and participants should wrap things
>up. I think this is the most reasonable and fair thing for the readers.
>
>But don't misunderstand this as meaning the topic is "closed" permanently.
>We are referring to a specific discussion or "thread". If you have something
>new to add - go ahead and post it! We are just trying to avoid "I need to
>get the last word" discussions, and circular arguments.
>
>Again, if you have any questions/comments about this or any other topics,
>please first e-mail me personally at rspector@earthlink.net. If Iron Mike is
>the moderator, use this address.
>
>Lastly, there was a bit of sarcasm in some of the posts this issue. I let it
>go this time, but please try and refrain from that when it comes to referring
>to others. You can make your point without doing that.
>
>Now, eat, drink, be merry or do whatever you do on the holidays. And you can
>always write me if you are a lonely, single woman (hey, doesn't hurt to try,
>right?).
>
>
>WAIT! I almost forgot. I have a request from the Cyberpump Webdude to mention
>that there's a new article coming out soon that's been hyped for awhile, re:
>Coach X's response to Dr. W. Kraemer. And no, Coach X is not Matt Brzycki.
>He's Coach Z.
>
>And also Cyberpump is going thru year end cleaning, so that's why there
>hasn't been any updates for 10 days. Since Cyberpump sponsors this digest
>(with gummy bears) and the Web Dude is alot bigger and stronger than me, I
>must do as he requests or he will crush me with his 19 1/2" bicep that set a
>state record in the strict bicep curl.
>
>--Rob
>
>
>This digest contains the following messages:
>
> 1. Re: Dorian Yates and HITting
> by: Kdragon9 <Kdragon9@aol.com>
> 2. Re: HIT Digest, digest #62
> by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
> 3. (HIT digest ) Do Slow Reps decrease sports performance ?
> by: UDONNOJACK <UDONNOJACK@aol.com>
> 4. Rest between sets
> by: Kalle Karppinen <k24567@kyyppari.hkkk.fi>
> 5. HIT #62
> by: Gary Bennett <74663.2777@compuserve.com>
> 6. Help, please.
> by: Alan D. Smith <cf051@cleveland.Freenet.Edu>
> 7. Difference between HIT2 and HIT?
> by: Jon Parry-McCulloch <jm@public.antipope.org>
> 8. Special Populations
> by: Amtmann John <JAMTMANN@po1.mtech.edu>
>
>-------------------- 1 --------------------
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:00:22 EST
>From: Kdragon9 <Kdragon9@aol.com>
>Subject: Re: Dorian Yates and HITting
>
> What do Arthur Jones, Mike Mentzer, Ray Mentzer, Dr(s) Ellington Darden,
>Ralph Carpenelli, Ken Huchins and last but not least Dorian Yates have in
>common? Everyone of the afforementioned inviduals without exception utilize
>the HIT philosophy in their training and clearly state the HIT philosophy in
>their writings. All of those individuals adhere to the basic HIT principal
>that exercise must be Intense, Brief and Infrequent to be productive. In
>this
>context I am referring to strength training. This concept seems to be harder
>to grasp than the Theory of Relativity and Nuclear Physics all wrapped up in
>one. Whatever name you decide to call this type of training be it Heavy
>Duty,
>Super Slow, Blood and Guts etc. all refer time and time again back to the
>ABC's of HIT (Intense, Brief and Infrequent).
> As Far as BLOOD AND GUTS the video Dorian uses 1 WORK set to failure on
>all exercises. All the sets preceeding his 1 set (as stated in the beginning
>of the video by the heavily accented British narrator) are used as warm-ups.
>And if Dorian worked out for more than an hour during his workouts the tape
>should have been over 4hrs long not 90 mins. Another desperate attempt to
>point out HIT isnt used by "Elite athletes". By the way Bill u want to see
>pictures of people who use HIT check out the Rose Bowl. Michigan and their
>second Heisman winner Charles Woodson utilize HIT (oh yeah I forgot only old
>people training on machines use 1 set) as well as 40 % of the NFL, and UFC
>champ Ken Shamrock.
>
>
>
> S
>e
>nior Airman Ben Aldrich
> U
>S
>AF
>
>
>
>
>-------------------- 2 --------------------
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 23:08:10 -0500
>From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
>Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #62
>
>> From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts)
>> Subject: Chins
>>
>> Right on Andrew Bay! If someone is having trouble doing one chin up then
>> the answer is for that person to do machine assisted chins or (supinated
>> grip) pulldowns until he/she aproaches a weight equalling their own.
>> Worked for me.
>> Ken
>
>But not necessarily for everyone. Doing a chinup on two metal guide rods
>is not the same as functionally moving your body through space. I'm sure
>if someone cared enough the EMG activity of the muscles of the upper
>back and upper arm would be far more active in the free chinup. The
>muscles neglected in the machine chinup would therefore be a weakness in
>the kinetic chain of the free chinup - consequently, your strength is
>limited (i.e. strength of prime movers is always limited by
>stabilizers). In my own experience, machine chins overload my biceps and
>rear delts more than my lats and upper back muscles. My chin up strength
>improved by doing chins, not machine chins. Furthermore, a female friend
>of mine who could not perform a single body weight chinup subsisted
>regularly on machine chinups - but when we started doing negative only
>chins with her body weight with significant time under tension, after
>only 2 weeks of training, she could perform 2 full repetitions with her
>body weight during free chins. This was after she had plodded away for 3
>months on end with the machine chins with no visible progress at all. I
>think specificity has to be considered, in that one has to address
>whether or not their inability to perform a free chin is due to a lack
>of stabilizer strength, a lack of prime mover strength, or a combination
>of both. All three, imho, are improved most effectively with unstable,
>compound movements where stabilizer involvement is maximized.
>
>Sandeep De
>The Power Factory - http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
>"Pain is weakness leaving the body." - Unknown
>
>-------------------- 3 --------------------
>Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 03:41:55 EST
>From: UDONNOJACK <UDONNOJACK@aol.com>
>Subject: (HIT digest ) Do Slow Reps decrease sports performance ?
>
>Has anyone read the latest Poliquin article in muscle media? He states using
>slow rep training is good for gaining muscle but it only stimulates the type
>2a twitch fibers and not enough of the 2b fibers . Because of this he states
>this will slow you down in explosive sports . Is this scientifically correct
>?
>Would`nt more muscle mean a stronger and faster contracting muscle ?
>
>-------------------- 4 --------------------
>Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:41:36 +0200
>From: Kalle Karppinen <k24567@kyyppari.hkkk.fi>
>Subject: Rest between sets
>
>I know that HIT advocates short (30-90 secs) rest between sets. Now
>why do you think is that. I don't think I can go all out on a set (as
>required by HIT) if I don't take at least 3 minutes off. What are the
>disadvantages in a program like mine? Of course, it doesn't develop my
>endurance but that's not why I'm in the gym.
>--
>*******************************************************************
>* Email: k24567@kyyppari.hkkk.fi * *
>********************************** Gonna live when I'm alive *
>* Kalle Karppinen * I'll sleep when I'm dead *
>* Mankkaanmalmi 6 b * Seven days of Saturday *
>* 02180 ESPOO * is all that I need *
>* FINLAND * -Bon Jovi *
>* p. (09) 523 618 * *
>*******************************************************************
> Go San Fransisco 49ers
>
>
>
>-------------------- 5 --------------------
>Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:41:35 -0500
>From: Gary Bennett <74663.2777@compuserve.com>
>Subject: HIT #62
>
>Response to "Mr. Negativity", HIT Digest #62.
>Hey, have you checked out the Zone web page (www.enterthezone.com)? There
>is a section in there called Zone Central where people exchange info about
>the Zone and their experiences with it. There are two sections in ZC that
>deal with bodybuilding. These aren't necessarily people who use HIT, of
>course.
>
>As for me, I used to be 157 lbs with 21% body fat. Today, I'm 156 lbs with
>13.5% body fat. I'm not where I want to be, but I don't look anything
>nearly as pathetic as I used to. I've used a cyclical approach to gaining
>muscle and loosing fat: while bulking, I loosely follow the zone with more
>starchy carbs; while cutting, I follow the zone closely. It's the only
>method for losing fat I've ever tried in which I didn't feel lousy and
>wasn't losing too much muscle. I believe a person could just follow the
>zone and gain muscle while losing fat, but it would be a very slow process.
>This may actually be what you want, because you'll feel great all the time.
>
>Best wishes,
>Gary
>
>
>-------------------- 6 --------------------
>Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:52:55 -0500 (EST)
>From: cf051@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan D. Smith)
>Subject: Help, please.
>
>Hi, All,
>
>I have been getting the digest for about 3 weeks and really
>appreciate all the great information. Now, more than ever,
>I need the help of our list experts. This may be a tad long,
>so I apologize in advance.
>
>A little background: I will be 50 in April, started lifting July,
>1994, and have only regretted not starting many, many years ago.
>I have gravitated towards the HIT/HD ideas because they work
>better for me than anything else I've tried.
>
>Hurt my right shoulder in August doing Medx laterals. I eased
>up but didn't stop using my right shoulder and things, of course,
>got worse. I went to the Doc who said it was the dreaded
>rotator cuff and got me started in PT. That was in early
>October. Twice I got the shoulder almost pain-free, and the PT
>added a new exercise which almost immediately put me back 2-3
>weeks; very frustrating.
>
>Got an MRI last week and the results today: 1) partial tear of the
>supraspinatus 2) AC arthritis 3) "stenosed coracoacromial (sp?)
>arch. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the worst, he rated the
>tear a 4-5.
>
>His plan: Stop all PT and do nothing but very light stretching
>for the rest of this month. January 1 start PT program again
>and proceed very slowly. I have an appt with him 1/21, and if
>no major improvement, he suggests going under the scope.
>
>For the record, I did rehab my left shoulder using the "7 Minute
>Rotator Cuff Solution," an excellent book, IMHO.
>
>What I am looking for is thoughts/ideas from anyone who has faced
>something similar; comments from PT's, MD's, Ph.d's, MBA's, EE's,
>AFL-CIO's, whatever are appreciated. There is a tremendous data
>base in this group and all comments welcom.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alan
>
>
>-------------------- 7 --------------------
>Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:16:47 +0000
>From: Jon Parry-McCulloch <jm@public.antipope.org>
>Subject: Difference between HIT2 and HIT?
>
>Greetings,
>
>What is the difference between HIT2 and plain old vanilla HIT?
>
>Jon
>
>--
>
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> From: "R. D. Basso" <jsmith171@juno.com>
>
> Whoever "R.D. Basso" is, you're obviously very obsessed
> with him. Must be the murderous jealousy of a typical
> inane and insane loser.... Oh well, so you anti-Christian
> Darwinians need a "Jew" to skew (sic) to feel good about
> yourselves. That seems pretty much the essence of your
> nothing existence here on Earth...
>
> John Smith
>
> email : at public stop antipope stop org, jm you'll find
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>-------------------- 8 --------------------
>Date: Tue, 16 Dec 97 14:13:00 M
>From: Amtmann John <JAMTMANN@po1.mtech.edu>
>Subject: Special Populations
>
>
>Hello! This is my first interaction with the HIT Mailing Digest. My topics
>of discussion would include:
> 1. Women and HIT:
>I've been recommending to women the same HIT methods suggested for men.
> Some of the women i've been working with are 40-50 years of age and have
>been cleared by their Doctors for exercise. Are there any recommendations
>or specific workouts any of you would like to share?
>
> 2. HIT and the elderly:
>Has there been any research concerning the elderly and HIT? I'm aware of
>numerous studies which support improved strength, balance, bone mineral
>density, cardiovascular changes. However, i don't know of any research done
>on HIT specifically (one set to failure, 4-8 exercises). Any suggestions?
>
>
>
>
>************************************************************
>List/Digest Commands
>SUBSCRIBE - subscribes you to the digest.
>UNSUBSCRIBE - unsubscribes you from the digest.
>DIR - gives a directory of past digests
>GET - retrieves files from digest directory
>
>Archived past issues of the HIT digest are located at:
>
>http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~drewnutz/archive.htm
>
>To post to the list, send a message to cyberpump@geocities.com
>
>To issue a command/request to the server:
>
>Send a message with the command you wish executed as the
>subject of the message to cyberpump@geocities.com
>
>If you have any problems with the digest contact the moderator Rob
>Spector at rspector@earthlink.net
>
>************************************************************
>Copyright 1997 Cyberpump!
>All rights reserved. No part of this digest may be reproduced or
>transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical
>including but not limited to any information storage and
>retrieval system, except as may be permitted by the copyright act
>as amended or in writing by Cyberpump.
>
>No liability is assumed for the information provided on the HIT Digest.
>The opinions are those of the contributors to the digest.
>************************************************************
>
>
>
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:22:54 EST
From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HIT and the elderly
<< 2. HIT and the elderly:
Has there been any research concerning the elderly and HIT? I'm aware of
numerous studies which support improved strength, balance, bone mineral
density, cardiovascular changes. However, i don't know of any research done
on HIT specifically (one set to failure, 4-8 exercises). Any suggestions? >>
There have been numerous studies on weight training and the elderly with
positive results. Most of the studies use a program which is one set per
bodypart for upper body and two sets for the lower body (8 - 10 reps, some
noted going to failure, others didn't). While no one has done a study using a
program they called "High Intensity Training", many of the exercise protocols
they used are pretty close. Perhaps you could try a Medline search for
references?
Fred II
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:03:59 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: Optimum stimulus?
Hi guys,
I've just been thinking about the stimulus required for growth after
checking out a few sites. Wrt rep speed why go slower? Safer yes.
Makes the exercise harder. Well that depends if your increase in speed
helps you unload the muscles and require less muscular force. In some
activities like running for example it takes more effort to run fast but
for weights on the easy initial reps its harder to do them slow but the
last ones it's harder to do them fast when you are already fatigued. I
think it depends on momentary strength compared to the resistance
encountered.
Now some of you may be familiar with static contractions where the
muscle is held in the most fully "possible" position of ultimate
contraction and works against resistance isometrically. I think Mike
Mentzer applies this technique based upon Arthur Jones ideas about
muscle shape and function which can be found on the Cyberpump site under
training or at http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/4000/mfh44.html.
People like myself who are after the most efficient and effective method
of weight training may find some of these ideas useful in this article.
Now Little and Sisco found that their subjects could gain up to 60% in
static strength but only about 27% in dynamic performance for 1 reps.
Why this is so and there are a few possible reasons why, Sisco's answer
can be found at http://www.precisiontraining.com/no01008.htm. This is
also interesting and basically says that although a muscle may gain the
most at the angle it's stimulated intensely, it is not the only position
that strength gains can be found. Now for those who think that this may
not be possible it appears that it has already occurred and I have
experienced it first hand myself. BTW using a search engine will not
take you directly to the Little's Power Factor site so if you trying to
get to it later on remove the last part of the address given by the
engine.
For those interested, applying statics and negatives will make for a
more intense and therefore according to HIT more productive w/o.
Remember because of this the frequency will have to be reduced, maybe
dramatically . Another word of warning it appears that most people
don't have so much a problem of generating enough intensity for growth
to occur but fail to regulate vol and freq right down according to what
I have found out by visiting Mike Mentzer's site.
happy training
Teri