1. Re: HIT Workout Wanted
by: Brad Collins <bcollins@hotmail.com>
2. Stabilizers & chins; rep speed (long)
by: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu>
3. Muscle Growth
by: Ian Woollard <wolfe@nortel.ca>
4. I guess I've answer my own question on ECA....
by: Mr. Negativity <zoo@seanet.com>
5. Re: HIT Digest, digest #63
by: Beber0190 <Beber0190@aol.com>
6. HIT and powerlifting
by: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E6=E4=F8_=E6=EE=E5=F8=E4?= <zoharyz@netvision.net.il>
7. Regarding EIH #2 (use this one)
by: <bszymanski@minolta.com>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 05:47:33 PST
From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Workout Wanted
>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;
Well, first off. There is no difference between "toning" and "bulk". A
common myth. If someone tells you a program emphasizes "toning" versus
"bulk" stop listening right there. Check out the workouts on the
Cyberpump! workout page. There are lots to choose from to help meet
your goal. Also, go read the articles under NutriMuscle by Lyle
McDonald. They will help cover the diet part.
Brad
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 13:38:31 -0800
From: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu>
Subject: Stabilizers & chins; rep speed (long)
cyberpump@geocities.com wrote:
> He says that this was an "auto-immune" response to working out at a really high
> intensity level (who, me?). My blood pressure was way up there, and the body was
> "protecting" itself and forcing me to stop my set.
[snip]
> Just a FYI, in case it happens to anyone else, as I've heard from others who have
> had it happen to them.
Nmm. Please take the following comment of mine out, as it does nothing
to contribute to worthwhile discussion, but the above does not seem
extremely healthy.
> Finally, people are trying to sneak in the "last word" on the free weights
> vs. machines argument. Both "sides" are guilty here. I will repeat this again,
> for the final time. Add anything new to the discussion, that's fine. But no
> more circular arguments and trying to et the last word.
Again, I am writing a comment to be edited-out: As I have been for the
last week and a half trying to make my new computer access the UMass
internet servers, I have not had the chance to respond to some responses
(which IMO display an unwillingness to read exactly what I said -
remember, please edit this foolishness I am now writing). If I add to
this conversation I will attempt to do so in order to clarify some
miscomprehension and attempt to diffuse some misinformation which I
noticed in this 'issue.'
/Begin message to digest:
> -------------------- 4 --------------------
> 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.
For whatever reason, chins are 'commonly' believed to be the more effective movement. Certainly they are believed to be the more 'functional' (real-world specific?) of the two. Personally, I dislike bodyweight-specific exercises (chins, dips), for no reason other than that my weight at any point can fluctuate +/- 5#. Andrew makes the good point (below, snipped) that for most trainees, the concentration should be on exercising the muscles, and not on performing a specific exercise [for the sake of performing that exercise]. However, there truly is a difference /in practice/ between certain similar exercises and the degree to which there is a carryover in strength specificity.
Certainly I don't think anyone will disagree that, in order to get
better at chinning-type movements, one should perform chinning-type
movements.
> All this talk of stabilizers and other
> such notions is unfounded.
Perhaps; if for no other reason than many people are either not aware of
exactly what they are arguing, or that they do not effectively convey
exactly what it is they are trying to say.
> 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
All of the above is, AFAIK, correct. Yet what the argument is over, for the most part, is the training of stabilizer function, or coordination.
This would be mostly a neural adaptation (or more specifically, the
importance is in the neural adaptation).
> 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.
This is a bizarre statement. If stabilizer function is elimited by
using a machine, due to the fact that it is unnecessary to balance the
weight, then the already limited (by your words) 'stimulation' would be
further minimized - in fact, there would be no stimulation of
stabilizers. That is the crux of the argument. So to say that
'balancing muscles' will recieve more stimulation while using a machine,
*because* a machine balances the weight for you, therefore eliminating
the necessity to recruit balancing muscles, is completely misleading and
illogical.
Certainly the more unstable the exercise, the greater the necessity of
stabilizer function; by definition this should be true. The question
'machine-users' raise is whether or not this function is specific to the
exercise in question (by this I mean, is the stability gained only
applicable to that specific exercise). 'Stability proponents' argue
that it is and it isn't; at the very least, they argue that machine
exercise reduces the ability of stabilizers to work in conjunction with
prime movers in basic movements.
Again, this would be primarily a neural adaptation. If one performs an
exercise in a stable environment, I do not think it is debatable to say
that one will become stronger in this stable environment (otherwise,
what would be the purpose). The musculature in general will become
stronger, but the strength gains will be most specific to the exercise
in question. In other words, one who performs only machine overhead
press will become stronger at machine OP [to a greater degree] than
dumbell OP (and v/v). In and of itself, this is fairly straightforward
and hardly debatable.
By extension, and this is the point of contention, if one is strongest
in doing (for instance) an overhead press without the activation of
other muscles as stabilizers, then ones' ability to activate stabilizer
function will be severely limited (the intramuscular coordination will
not be optimal) when performing an OP outside of a stable environment.
It is not so much a "Law of Specificity" issue as it is a "Law of
Facilitaiton" issue; the more one performs a movement in a certain
manner, the more one will tend to perform a movement in that manner
(grossly paraphrased).
> -------------------- 5 --------------------
> 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 ? >>
I do not think Poliquin said this will "slow you down," but rather was
implying that slow movements are not the best manner in which to recruit
Type IIb fibers.
> If you're training to failure, you're going to recruit every motor
> unit available to you, both slow and fast.
This too is a misleading statement. At no point may one recruit all
MUs. It is important to emphasize "available to you" meaning, during
that set, up until the point of failure. Remember as well that
recruitment does not necessarily mean fatigue, or optimal stimulation.
A max attempt, for instance, involves far more /recruitment/ than any
lower intensity [load] set, yet hardly delivers the best stimulus for
growth. For maximal development, MUs must be subjected to a certain
degree of tension/force for a certain amount of time.
--
"Work smarter, not harder!"
Adam Fahy
afahy@oitunix.oit.umass.edu
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: 18 Dec 1997 13:36 EST
From: "Ian Woollard" <wolfe@nortel.ca>
Subject: Muscle Growth
I read about a new (to me) theory about muscle growth a few months back in New Scientist. Apparently the current theory is that growth is caused by the machinery inside the muscle 'popping' apart during exercise (and during growth bone in adolescents.) If you'll bear with me I'll explain what it has to do with HIT at the end.
OK heres the theory:
An important type of growth, seems to be triggered by the kind of
training that tends to makes you sore.
The sort of training that makes you sore often involves lowering a
(heavy) weight near to the point where you can't go any lower. This is
about the point where some of your mysoin-actin in your muscle cells
starts to come unzipped (although it also happens when you don't go so
low). You'll know when you've done this- the weights will seem
heavier- even after a single rep.
Normal actin-myosin:
------------------ -----------------
| ---------------+------------- |
------------------ -----------------
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
overlap is where your muscle
generates its force.....
'popped' Myosin-actin:
----------------- -----------------
| -----------+---------- |
----------------- -----------------
no overlap = no strength
(Note that the actin and myosin in different cells are different lengths, so you don't usually lose all of your strength at once.)
When you contract the muscle again, a lot of the myosin-actin will
slot right back in. But some of it will get bent all up and you'll
have lost some fraction of your muscles strength until it heals. This
will make you weaker, and your muscle will get 'stiff' for atleast a
couple of days. That's the cause of delayed onset muscle
soreness. It's got nothing to do with lactic acid.
The kicker is that your body will make more myosin and actin when it
repairs it -> hypertrophy + greater strength
This theory explains a lot of things: why people get sore, why they
don't get sore when bicycling, or doing concentric
exercise... Similarly it may partially explain why some people are
hard gainers- if due to their training or the natural length of their
muscles they don't reach the point where they unzip, they may not get
much hypertrophy. Ultimately this will stop their progress.
I don't think this explains all growth- this kind of exercise doesn't increase the stores of glycogen or increase the blood supply... but it seems to correspond to the sort of growth that HIT induces.
Still, if this theory is true, and it seems to make a lot of sense,
the applications should be obvious.
Does this make any sense to anyone? Comments?
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:34:38 -0800 (PST)
From: "Mr. Negativity" <zoo@seanet.com>
Subject: I guess I've answer my own question on ECA....
Well, nevermind my question about the ECA stack (Not like anybody was in a hurry to answer me anyways :). Since starting it I've gained about 5-6 pounds and measuring my body fat today it's actually lower than it was last time I checked it (I'm just using the accutrim calipers so I don't know exactly how much). Yup, I'm a happy camper. Once I get up to 170 I'll go back to all the freaky cardio stuff and cutting my calories back.
Also, I tried one of those new MET-Rx bars (Hey, they looked good in the ad) because of the "less than 1 gram of sucrose or fructose!!!" caption and noticed some pretty freaky stuff in the nutrition information. First, what in god's name is sugar alchohol???? I thought it would be something bad but after looking at the ad again I noticed they're showing it off. Also, isn't salatrim (Or whatever it's called) that fat substitute with all the nasty side effects, i.e; really bad gas? Also, the bar was a complete rip off ($5.00!!!!!!!), but then again I bought it at GNC (Christmas shopping at the
"Says Michael Jackson of his new wife, 'she's taught me the power of imagination....' Like imagining a 32 year old woman is a 10 year old boy."
Norm McDonald
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 16:16:30 EST
From: Beber0190 <Beber0190@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #63
In a message dated 97-12-17 14:03:59 EST, you write:
<< 1. Women and HIT:
I've been recommending to women the same HIT methods suggested for men. >>
This is an interesting question. In general, women are capable of more
intensity in exercise than men, but more reluctant to train like this. They
have been brainwashed into thinking men should train heavy and they should do
20 or more reps real fast per set with a 2 pound dumbell. Sad but true. You
need to convince the women that it is proper for them to train HIT, and that
they won't end up looking like the women they see in magazines.
Josh
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 01:10:33 +0200
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E6=E4=F8_=E6=EE=E5=F8=E4?=" <zoharyz@netvision.net.il>
Subject: HIT and powerlifting
I have been doing various HIT routines with good results. I do twice a week
full body work outs. Although I doubt if I will ever compete, I have become
very interested in powerlifting training. I was wondering if anyone could
recommend a good HIT powerlifting routine ?
Thanks in advance.
Josh
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 16:46:26 -0500
From: bszymanski@minolta.com
Subject: Regarding EIH
Hi.
Just a quick note about EIH -- Exercise-Induced Headache. I, too,
have had a couple. They are extremely painful, unlike anything you
have experienced, and they are not to be taken lightly. Perhaps the
HIT digest readers would be interested in the following info.
My first EIH occurred in the late 70s. I got it while doing a set of
Nautilus leg extensions. I thought I was going to pass out, maybe
die. Really. I had absolutely no idea what was happening, but it was
terrible. The pain came on out of nowhere, in a matter of seconds.
The knowledgeable Nautilus instructor told me that it was the result
of a very rapid rise in blood pressure, and it's actually a warning.
He said: "It's either that, or a stroke. The headache is trying to
tell you to stop whatever you're doing, or you'll be very sorry."
Curiously enough, the original Nautilus Book addresses this matter in
the section on leg extensions. They say that if you get headaches
during that particular exercise, concentrate on normal breathing and
do not hold the handles too tight. But they don't warn you how severe
those headaches can be.
I got another EIH about six months ago, during the last few HIT-style
reps on a seated chest press machine. WOW! Once again, I felt like I
was going to die. I feared I blew an aneurysm or something, and then
I remembered my first EIH. You gotta go through it to know just how
bad it is. But while I was doing the chest presses, I thought I was
breathing normally, and I was not gripping too hard.
So, for a few weeks after that, I was afraid to do ANY kind of hard
sets. Even so, when I would do a pressing movement, I would feel a
little pain start to build, and I would immediately stop the set. I
noticed that I had about a one-rep warning. If I stopped in time, I
could avoid another EIH. But I'd leave the gym with a lot of anxiety,
with my tail between my legs. And I never DID go back to those seated
chest presses.
In closing, after a while everything went back to normal. I still do
not use that chest press machine. Evidently, for me, the combination
of that machine's angle and my force create some very bad medicine.
Too bad. I thought it was a really good machine.
My advice (from my own experience only) to anyone who might ever
experience an Exercise-Induced Headache is to stop working out
IMMEDIATELY, and leave the gym for the day. Then, see your doctor,
just in case it might be something worse. Afterwards, drop the
particular exercise that brought on the headache, and switch it with
another. At least until you're back to 100%. Remember, an EIH can
come on in a matter of seconds, without warning. They're serious.
You'll know if you ever get one.
Take care, Rob. You should be back to 100% soon (It took a few weeks
for me).
Bill