1. Re: Muscle growth
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
2. Re: Clarification of statement regarding "indirect effect"
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
3. Re: HIT and Powerlifting
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
4. Another Kind of Definition
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
5. EIH (HIT Digest)
by: Thighrod <miller@isn.net>
6. Re:EIH dejavu
by: n_wagener <n_wagener@wpusd.k12.ca.us>
7. Shoulder Pain
by: Aakash Ramchandani <sangs@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in>
8. Re: HIT Digest, digest #65
by: JLoftus230 <JLoftus230@aol.com>
9. Re: Muscle growth
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
10. Rest Between Sets
by: Ken Roberts <SAILOR@webtv.net>
11. heavy duty
by: Robert L.Phillips <phillips.robert@mcleodusa.net>
12. Re: Stabilizers, Indirect effect
by: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu>
13. Proper Recovery
by: Scott Garber <scottg@toad.net>
14. Rotor Cuff
by: Michael B. Harding Jr <michael@balista.com>
15. Excessive quoting
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:58:35 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Muscle growth
The "tearing" of the sarcomeres due to eccentric actions is a theory that
actually has been around for some period of time. It does explain why
eccentric actions have been shown to produce greater hypertrophy than
concentric actions. However, concentric actions have been shown to produce
significant muscle hypertrophy, so it is highly likely that there is more
than one mechanism by which muscle hypertrophy occurs. The likelyhood that
hypertrophy has more than one stimulus is important evidence supporting
periodization (defined as variations in training stimulus over time) for
bodybuilders.
James Krieger
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 15:50:48 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Clarification of statement regarding "indirect effect"
In a message dated 97-12-19 00:48:58 EST, you write:
<< 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. >>
I apologize for not stating my point in more precise language, as this has obviously lead to a misunderstanding. Muscles which would be required only to balance the barbell or dumbbells during a free weight exercise (not synergists) would not be working against a meaningful lever, and would not encounter an adequate load during the exercise to be forced to work hard enough to receive any significant growth stimulation. Of course, during a machine exercise, the muscles which would be involved exclusively in balancing the weight during the corresponding free weight exercise would encounter even less, if any meaningful resistance. The reason that I suspect these muscles might receive greater stimulation from a machine exercise than from a free weight exercise has to do with what Arthur labeled "indirect effect."
The greater the intensity of an exercise, the greater this "indirect effect,"
or the indirect stimulation of other smaller muscle groups not directly
involved in the performance of the exercise. An good example would be overall
growth stimulated by exercises which require a tremendous degree of effort
such as the squat.
Assuming that the degree of indirect effect is related to exercise intensity, then one would receive an overall greater amount of this indirect stimulation to muscular structures not directly involved in an exercise (either as prime movers or synergists) as a result of the greater intensity of training possible with a machine, due to the ability to concentrate more on contraction of the target musculature, since balancing the weight is no longer an issue. Realize that there are many other factors involved, and that this argument only considers the difference in requirements for balance vs. tracking muscle and joint function between free weights and properly designed machines.
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 15:58:47 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: 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 ? >>
Greg Anderson, a Master SuperSlow instructor who runs a training facility called Ideal Exercise (cha ching) in Seattle, WA, has had some success using SuperSlow with powerlifters. They perform one SuperSlow (a method of HIT using a slow repetition speed 10/5 or 10/10 depending on the equipment) workout per week, and one workout where they practice their lifting technique. I spoke with Greg about this in November, and although I can't remember all the details, he was very excited about how well it was working. I'll try to get the details from him, and put them into an article for Cyberpump!
(Yes, I know it's been a while since I've contributed anything. A few more
articles are on the way. Like my training, my writing tends to be intense,
brief, and infrequent.)
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 16:28:09 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Another Kind of Definition
In any discussion, it is crucial that all parties clearly define their terms,
and are in agreement regarding those definitions. To avoid misundersandings,
it is important that we all state clearly what we mean by a particular word.
Especially with words like "intensity," which people interpret in various
similar, but not exactly synonymous ways such as inroad/time, or degree of
momentary effort, or (although I disagree with this definition) a percentage
of some maximum lift; or words like "synergist" or "stabilizer," which are
context dependent.
There are also words which have similar meanings, but important differences,
such as timed static contraction (TSC). TSC can mean a technique whereby one
holds a barbell or movement arm motionless at some point or degree of the
range of motion of the target musculature (usually midway in compound
movements or the so-called fully contracted position of simple movements)
until static failure occurs, and then performs a slow negative; OR a technique
whereby the movement arm of a machine is set in a fixed position, and a person
applies force against it, gradually increasing their effort over a period of
time (one continuous contraction; moderately hard effort for 60 seconds,
almost as hard as possible for 30 seconds, then as hard as possible for 30
seconds). There are also other variations on this.
There are also words that are either so vague as to have no specific meaning,
or are simply misused, in which case an entirely different word might be
required to convey a particular concept of thought. The word "functionality"
comes to mind. Functionality as in a degree of general functional ability? as
opposed to not functioning? or pertaining to the ability to perform a specific
function? and if so, what function? As you can see, this can lead to
misunderstandings, and often unnecessary arguments.
How often do arguments arise where the involved parties eventually discover that there is no argument at all, that they are actually in agreement over the subject, but misunderstood each other due to a failure to define their terms?
Using more specific language when discussing any issue will help to prevent unnecessary misunderstandings, which can lead to unproductive arguments, and greatly improve the effectiveness of communicating any idea or concept.
Just a few thoughts,
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 19:01:31 -0400
From: Thighrod <miller@isn.net>
Subject: EIH (HIT Digest)
Just wanted to let you know of my experience with EIH. I got my first
headache after a heavy set of squats about six months ago. I posted a
message to the MFW newsgroup describing what had happened to me in the
hopes that someone could tell me why this had happened. A few theories
were posted, most of them dealing with bar position on the neck/traps,
or with having high blood pressure.
Following that episode, however, I got excruciating headaches after
doing deadlifts, bentover rows, and basically any exercise where a great
deal of intensity is required, or where large muscle groups are
involved.
These headaches still persist to this day, but I have figured out
(through nessessity) how to minimize them and how to stop them from
becoming unbearable when I feel one coming on. I have found that the
longer (reps) an intense set takes, the more intense the pain will be if
I get an EIH. This has basically turned me into a powerlifter, with most
of my sets consisting of 6 or less reps. This approach usually prevents
EIH's from developing.
When my measures of prevention fail, and I feel that pressure building
in my head, I can usually lessen the symptoms by keeping my body moving
and blood flowing by doing easy jumping jacks or jogging in place. (it
might look stupid, but trust me, how you look is a secondary concern if
you've ever had one of these).
BTW Rob, I never visited the doctor about this problem. Is the medicine
you were prescribed meant as a treatment, or just to alleviate the
symptoms? Anyway, sorry about the length, but I hope this helps anybody
who suffers the same problem.
Corey Miller
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 17:56:50 -0800
From: n_wagener <n_wagener@wpusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: Re:EIH dejavu
A couple of things:
1. Digest #64 was "too large to open with Telefinder" Any help?
2. I applaud your recent stands on keeping the digest upright. I appreciate
anyone who is willing to talk a moral stand in a world of Rodmanites and
Madonnaitus.
3. I could have writen Bill's recount of his Exercise-Induced Headache,
because I "feared I blew an aneurysm or something" also. I was doing a HIT
full body workout and I had my "headache" on the seated chest press machine
at the end of a hard workout.
I had just started the HIT program a week before, having been a more routine
lifter for several years, just doing status quo lifting to maintain. I
stopped immediately as I got dizzy and scared. I worked through it the next
several weeks by doing light lifting, and backing off when that feeling
started to reoccur, and I did have a rep to spare also.
Things have been OK since the incedent occurred 4-5 weeks ago, but the
question is, should I be more concerned? I just passed it off as over-work or
just a nerve that shot up into my brain (obviously highly educated in
neurology). I would like to hear more! Thanks.
WAGGY
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 10:57:22 +0530
From: Aakash Ramchandani <sangs@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in>
Subject: Shoulder Pain
My left shoulder starts hurting whenever I do chins, lat pulldowns, chest flyes, Upright rows, shoulder front raises. Due to this my shoulder gives in before I can exhaust the muscle I'm working. Do I have a rotator cuff problem or some other shoulder injury? I also have a very weak lower back due to which I can't do much ad work. Any specific exercise to strengthen my lower back muscles and any ab exercises that I can do without getting pain in my lower back region. Please advise
Aakash
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 08:35:56 EST
From: JLoftus230 <JLoftus230@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #65
I suffered from lower back pain off and on for since my early twenties. I am
now 39. 3 years ago I had access to a MedX Lumbar extension machine. After 10
weeks of once a week workouts my strength increased dramatically, I was pain
free. Since that time I have moved and no longer have regular access to the
MedX Lumbar machine. Now my back is giving me problems again. I have tried
SuperSlow techniqes on the old Nautilus lower back machine, and while it seems
to give some relief, I still have lower back discomfort. By the way I was
tested 3 months ago, and still can produce almost 540 punds of tourque at 72
degrees in flexion, and almost 180 at O degrees in extension, I still seem to
have lower back strength, but am still suffering discomfort. Any thoughts or
idea's would be appreciated.
Jim
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 10:46:03 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Muscle growth
The "tearing" of the sarcomeres during eccentric actions is not a new
theory behind the mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy. This theory is
supported by the evidence that eccentric actions produce greater muscle
hypertrophy than concentric actions. However, concentric actions have been
shown to produce significant muscle hypertrophy, so it is highly likely
that more than one mechanism exists by which muscle hypertrophy occurs.
Since hypertrophy can occur by multiple mechanisms, it seems wise to vary
the training stimulus over time (periodization) to tap into these different
mechanisms.
James Krieger
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 18:18:54 -0800
From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts)
Subject: Rest Between Sets
Just thought I'd take it upon myself to answer Kallie Karpinnen's
question in digest #64.
There are no set rules r.e. rest time between sets. Your recovery time
is up to you. I suppose "classic" HIT would have you doing one set to
failure per bodypart and moving without a rest (or with a minimal one)
to the next exercise until you collapse in a heap after you've done. But
if you will go to the Cyberpump home page you will find this subject
covered pretty much completely.
Ken
-------------------- 11 --------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 20:17:44 -0600
From: "Robert L.Phillips" <phillips.robert@mcleodusa.net>
Subject: heavy duty
Is there anyone out there who has tried the ultra abbreviated training
now advocated by Mike Mentzer these days. I correspond with someone who
has built up from 120 to 240 lbs. at 5 ft. 6 inches on a training diet
of squats and underhand pulldowns at one workout followed by deadlifts
and incline presses at a workout a week later. Each workout lasts about
10-15 minutes. I've shrunk my workouts down to a single set of dips,
underhand rows, harness squats, back extentions, sandbag carry on the
shoulder for 1/4 mile repeats, plus a single set of grip and neck work
that I repeat about every 10-12 days. And I've made splendid gains. I
train for strength more than appearance but have still gotten much
bigger as a result and I've stayed very balanced looking. Any feedback
on this trainig style would be appreciated.
Thanks, Bob Phillips
-------------------- 12 --------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 02:30:55 -0800
From: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu>
Subject: Re: Stabilizers, Indirect effect
> -------------------- 1 --------------------
> 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 [...]
> such that concentration need not be cognitively forced to
> perform the exercise effectively. [...]
> 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.
The point I was trying to make was, it is important to exercise *for the sake of 'improving' the musculature,* rather than for the sake of performing a specific exercise. Perhaps if you are an olympic or power-lifter the situation changes, but for other trainees the focus should be on getting stronger/bigger, not better at a specific exercise.
> > 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.
Yes, this is what I was implying.
> > '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.
Yes - if a weight is already stabilized, there is no longer a necessity for other muscle groups to be recruited and funciton as stabilizers.
Again, I do not believe anyone contests this point.
> > 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. [...]
Yes, but in some instances what is a stabilizer in one exercise may be a
prime mover in another. This point has come-up recently on the list,
and I wished to go beyond the limited amount of stimulation [in terms of
fatigue, as opposed to direct stimulation via an exercise in which the
concerned muscles are prime movers - eg doing xt rotation work for the
rotator cuff] these muscles may recieve in their function as
stabilizers. I argue that the importance is not so much a strengthening
of stabilizer muscles (although this is a factor) as it is the increased
coordination between stabilizers and prime movers (particularly in
reference to the Law of Facilitation).
> It is common sense that performing
> more unstable movements leads to greater strength gains once the
> movement becomes stabilized.
It may be true, but IMO it's not common sense.
Overhead squats are a very 'unstable' exercise. I propose that they are
more useful to olympic lifters than to one who wants to improve their
squat or their overhead press [for which either squats or overhead
presses would be a better choice].
***
> -------------------- 4 --------------------
> From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
> Subject: EIH, Indirect effect.
> The reason Andrew stated what he did is because of the "Indirect
> Effect". [...]
> You can read more about it by going to
> http://www.medxinc.com/medxinfo/bul1/b1c4.htm.
I read this article. It says nothing about intensity [effort]
increasing this 'indirect effect.' It does say that the larger the
muscle groups being trained, the greater this effect (mostly a logical
deduction from the effecacy of squats). IMO (as an extension of this)
the effect is proportionate to the amount of muscle mass being trained
(mostly a logical deduction from the effecacy of squats and bench press
as opposed to leg xt and flys), and the hormonal response from the
exercise protocol.
> 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.
AFAIK you can still be a HITer and do multiple sets and use freeweights.
--
Adam Fahy
afahy@oitunix.oit.umass.edu
-------------------- 13 --------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 09:40:55 -0500
From: "Scott Garber" <scottg@toad.net>
Subject: Proper Recovery
This is to anyone who works in the construction feild and is using the HIT
lifting program. My question is this, is 7days recovery to long between
bodyparts? My job is demanding physically, i think from past expirience i
stay sore for 2 -3 days after lifting. I've been trying 1 bodypart in 7 days
rest and have not seen loss in strength. Does anyone have advice on
indivduals with this type of situation. Thanks
Scott Garber
-------------------- 14 --------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 15:03:05 -0600
From: "Michael B. Harding Jr" <michael@balista.com>
Subject: Rotor Cuff
Does anyone have experience with a "shoulder horn" bar. The type with claims to strengthen the rotor cuff muscles. My left rotor cuff is painful at times, and it does keep me from trying 100% on free weights, and to a lesser extent, on machines. Is the bar a worthy investment? Thanks in advance.
michael
-------------------- 15 --------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:39:50 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Excessive quoting
Ladies and gentlmen;
Please, when replying to a message, edit out the parts that don't
pertain to your reply (i.e. other messages in the digest). I've noticed
that people just hit reply, quoting the entire previous digest and not
just the message they are talking about.