1. Re: HIT Digest, digest #65
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
2. Re: HIT Digest, digest #65
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
3. Re: HIT video
by: SFarrin261 <SFarrin261@aol.com>
4. EIH, Indirect effect.
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 00:35:31 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #65
> be on exercising the muscles, and not on performing a specific exercise
> [for the sake of performing that exercise]. However, there truly is a
I think we're forgetting that some exercises are potent enough (i.e. that enough motor units are activated simply by performing the act [therefore involving more muscle mass and usually moving greater amounts of resistance) such that concentration need not be cognitively forced to perform the exercise effectively. When you get under 400+ lbs. of iron in the squat you are going to be paying attention, no matter what. That may not be the case on something like a leg extension where the demand and motor unit involvement is comparatively lower. Basic exercises tend to promote progress simply due to their simplicity - it doesn't take much other than effort to get things to work for them.
> Certainly I don't think anyone will disagree that, in order to get
> better at chinning-type movements, one should perform chinning-type
> movements.
Based on that logic, wouldn't it make sense that the closer one gets to
a chin type movement - the better the development of strength specific
to that movement? If you agree with that, you in essence agree that a
chinup is going to be far better at improving chinups than machine
assisted chinups, pulldowns, etc.
> '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.
....in agreement with your statement, the basic premise of recruiting more stabilizing muscle groups into a movement is that the movement MUST be more unstable (relatively speaking). Since there is a higher degree of stabilization on a machine, less stabilizers are involved.
> 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.
Not only that, in terms of motor unit activation, a weakness in
stabilizer muscles will lead to a shutdown in activation for
comparatively stronger prime movers. It's the classic bench press
shoulder syndrome...the prime movers (pecs, delts, tris) get so strong
in relation to the muscles of the external rotator cuff, that eventually
the rotator cuff limits the innervation of the prime movers in an effort
to protect itself. Furthermore, the point eventually comes when the
prime movers overload the shoulder joint so excessively that external
rotator cuff rupture occurs. Imbalances b/w stabilizers and prime movers
not only builds an imbalanced and disproportionate physique but also a
more injury prone and weaker body. It is common sense that performing
more unstable movements leads to greater strength gains once the
movement becomes stabilized. For example, I train with the back squat
reguarly, having worked my way beyond sets of 6+ with 500+. When I
switched to the Hammer H-Squat for a little break, I could use
significantly more weight (720) because of the higher degree of
stabilization.
>
> 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
Not necessarily. Moving from the dumbbell press to the machine press
would arguably allow a faster rate of development in the machine press.
Although stabilizer function has been removed, the body can make faster
adaptations to the prime movers involved because there is no stabilizer
strength imbalance to compensate for. However, the continuum does not
work in reverse. Moving from a machine movement to a dumbbell movement
would require more stabilizer work, and hence would be a step backwards
in terms of progress. The body would first equalize stabilizer strength
to prime mover strength before moving on. It becomes evident that a
variety of methods is the optimal approach for strength development and
injury prevention.
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 00:44:43 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #65
> 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?
Well, I think that (no offense intended) this is somewhat old news.
Think about it. Strength increases are only associated with eccentric
contractions (i.e. concentric only training hasn't been effectively
shown to develop muscle to the same extent as pure eccentric or normal
reps). Where is tearing of the actin-myosin filaments most likely to
occur (BTW - this is part of the sliding filament theory of muscular
contraction) - during the stretching part (eccentric) or contracting
part (concentric)? Obviously the eccentric portion.
Of course, this could spark a debate between the many camps as to what is the true stimulus for muscle growth. You'll hear a different answer from every place, but I strongly believe that muscular damage (to a certain extent) is the critical factor. Well, let me qualify that statement - muscular damage during eccentric repetitions and time under tension are the two main factors dictating over growth.
To keep something in perspective - it is not necessarily true that
greater amounts of soreness leads to greater amounts of growth. The past
year my training partner and I would train quite maniacally - always to
what we called "total failure" - not just concentric failure as normally
indicated by HIT but also to static and eccentric failure. Every set.
Every workout. The thing is - yes, you are pounding your ass into the
ground - but the relative stimulus that you create through training
should NEVER dominate your recovery period. The two have to be balanced
with each other. It becomes obvious that it is self defeating to train
your ass into the ground and try to lift before it is fully recovered.
Does this sound basic? Yes. But it's not, really. Sometimes it's not
just enough to have "recovered" - a little extra time can allow the body
a bit more of a compensation (i.e. why a 2-3 day layoff from training
rarely ever produces a decrease in strength). And furthermore, I don't
think that we can accurately quantify the recovery process (if we could,
we would be able to scientifically and quantitavely define overtraning -
which isn't true). Think about it. If you really have the desire to
train, sometimes your desire will overrun your rationality and you might
not perceive a certain level of muscular damage as being "enough" to
keep you out of the gym.
The real key to stimulating growth and progress on a week to week basis
is to ensure that damage is sufficient to elicit muscle growth but not
so much so that you have to be sitting on your ass for 2 weeks. The key
is to find the optimal balance between workout damage and frequency
(i.e. the stimulus you apply to your muscle) and recovery time. In that
sense, sometimes you don't need to bludgeon your muscles to death to get
them to grow, just lightly pulverize their face :)
----------
>
> -------------------- 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
> mall, what the heck).
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> -------------------- 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: <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
>
> [Thanks for the advice, Bill. I feel better already....okay, I lied. Thanks, though for providing this info for the readership
>
> --Rob]
> er. 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
>
> s
> for me).
>
> Bill
>
> ************************************************************
> 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.
> ************************************************************
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 01:48:54 EST
From: SFarrin261 <SFarrin261@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HIT video
Yes, yes, yes. I agree whole heartedly. I would like to see this video come to
pass. Especially featuring Mike Mentzer and maybe some of his many clients. I
believe it would be good to see examples of the whole gamut of HIT techniques
in action, including Super Slow. My personal preference would feature no
"juiced" freaks. Just what real people, with real budgets and real morals, can
accomplish. - Sean
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 17:56:09 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: EIH, Indirect effect.
Hi guys,
Just adding my 2c worth again. I know I said that I wouldn't add anything more to the free weights v machines but this is by way of clarification, for the most part constructive and possibly helpful .
> -------------------- 2 --------------------
> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 13:38:31 -0800
> From: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu>
> Subject: Stabilizers & chins; rep speed (long)
>
> > -------------------- 4 --------------------
> > From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
> > Subject: Re: Chins vs. Front Grip Pulldowns
> >
> > 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.
The reason Andrew stated what he did is because of the "Indirect
Effect". Many people may not be aware what this is so I'll paste an
Arthur Jones statement here.
" When one muscle grows in response to exercise, the entire muscular
structure of the body grows to a lesser degree -- even muscles that are
not being exercised at all; and the larger the muscle that is growing --
or the greater the degree of growth -- the greater this indirect effect
will be.
You can read more about it by going to
http://www.medxinc.com/medxinfo/bul1/b1c4.htm.
Adam and James you may be interested especially as this may explain why
compound movements are still quite effective even without approp
strength curves. I think even "us" stubborn HITers can appreciate that
direct work for "every" muscle is probably not effective nor practical
and would probably lead to overtraining.
Wrt EIH I have never had one and don't plan to <grin>. I'm wondering if
pre exhaustion would help reduce the blood pressure. I'm pretty certain
that training 1 limb at a time will make less systemic demands. I think
from my experience that the increased bp occurs whilst really exerting
to further the concentric contraction. It may be safer to stop at this
point and make a static hold followed by the negative. I haven't really
concentrated on exclusive eccentric contractions for a while but I think
that the bp did not feel to be raised anywhere as much. Please correct
me if I'm wrong as the above is speculative. This is intended as
possible precautionary advice and not suggested to be undertaken once
preliminary warning signs of EIH have been noticed.
Cya
Teri