1. A Comment on Extremely High Intensity Training and Very Long Recovery Periods
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
2. Re: Multiple Factors Contributing to Growth Stimulation
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
3. Re: Mentzer's Extremely Abbreviated Routines
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
4. Definitions, Rep ranges and Indirect Effect
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
5. Optimal breathing
by: Steve Skrabak <steve@cuztom.com>
6. stretching
by: Gary Bennett <74663.2777@compuserve.com>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 23:28:41 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: A Comment on Extremely High Intensity Training and Very Long Recovery Periods
If a person is capable of training at such a high degree of intensity that
they require a week, 10 days, even two or more weeks of recovery, but their
overall strength increases are greater than if they were to train at a lower
(some might say more "tolerable") level of intensity and higher frequency,
then why not just train harder and less often? Is it that hard to be away from
the gym for longer than a few days at a time?
A large number of people, I would even go as far as to say the majority of
people, would probably make significantly greater progress by training only
once per week or less. It seems though that there are many people, who for
various psychological reasons, can not or will not bring themselves to reduce
their training frequency, but instead, make up some rationale for training
more frequently than they need for physical reasons. Periodization is one
example of such a rationale. It gives a person some rationale (however
unscientific or illogical) to spend more time in the gym, despite the fact
that they are overtraining.
Another, more subtle rationalization for this, is the idea that one should
train less intensely, for the purpose of decreasing the inroad made into their
recovery ability thus allowing them to train more frequently. Train more
frequently for what reason? Obviously not a physical one, since if you're
training less intensely, chances are you're also stimulating less growth,
which, from a physical standpoint, is the whole reason for training in the
first place.
If you're training more frequently than you should from a recovery standpoint,
and you're doing so for psychological reasons, then I recommend some serious
introspection and reflection regarding your priorities. Do you want larger,
stronger muscles? or do you want to spend time in the gym, perhaps for social
reasons, or to clear your mind? If you're training for stronger muscles, than
train as hard as you can, and if that means you have to allow your body more
time to recover, than so be it. If, on the other hand, you're only training
for some psychological benefit, stress relief, or whatever, then train as
leisurely as you like, as often as you wish, just as long as you do so in a
safe manner, and stay out of the way of those of us who are in the gym for a
more serious reason.
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 23:59:07 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Multiple Factors Contributing to Growth Stimulation
"The likelyhood that hypertrophy has more than one stimulus is important
evidence supporting periodization (defined as variations in training stimulus
over time) for
bodybuilders."
No, this does not support periodization in any way. It merely means that more
than one factor may be responsible for muscular growth stimulation, such as
time under tension, inroad, sarcomere damage during eccentric contractions,
etc. This does not in any way suggest that one must "periodize" their
training.
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 00:14:11 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mentzer's Extremely Abbreviated Routines
Bob (and anyone else interested, of course)
I have been using a variation of Mentzer's newest abbreviated routine (calve
raises, leg presses and pull downs in one workout, lower back machine, dips,
and shrugs in the other) with myself as well as several clients, all training
once per week or less, using SuperSlow rep speeds, and the results have been
excellent. One subject gained 10 pounds in about 6 weeks. I've also spoken
with one of Mentzer's clients who gained 12 pounds in his first 6 weeks
training with Mike using that routine. I'd recommend it.
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 18:27:23 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: Definitions, Rep ranges and Indirect Effect
Hi once again,
I agree with Andrew that we have to become more specific and be very
precise with our terminology. Sometimes we assume that others share our
same definition and it is more difficult to clarify in writing than in
person. Even to be a HITer, What does that mean? I would consider
myself one, a kind of a Mentzer Super Slow Arthur Jones One set
fundamentalist. Then there are others who are HITers but don't know
about or even care that much about theoretical ideas and don't follow
the practices that I employ. And I'm never going to try to defend the
break over point for intensity because I think things exist more on a
contimumn than being dichotomies. In saying this however I don't give
equal weighting to each rep of a set. I've said it I don't agree with
Mike Mentzer on this issue. Are you going to throw me off this list Rob
:)?
[What do you think? BTW, to answer one of your questions I haven't answered yet, Canadians do spell "realize" with a "z". Put that one down in your amazing but true facts. We also use the British spelling for things like "colour". So no, I don't make as many spelling mistakes on the digest as you may have thought.
--Rob]
Now for those that write in for suggestions about the correct way to
train, its often best to understand some of the fundamentals and apply
them to yourselves. E.g. Ellington Darden, Arthur Jones etc. lead many
(including me) up the garden path recommending that we train 3 whole
body w/os per week.
Based upon my max. lift and the reps using a 2-4 protocol for 80% (max)
it looks like I will be more suited to doing 3-5 reps for at least the
body parts that I have tested. Now I have been training using at least
6 and usually 8 reps to be the lower range delimiter. I'll try heavier
weights and lower reps and they may be well suited to me. Time and a
consistent record keeping will soon tell. If they do work out to be
more productive I would have wasted quite a bit of time using figures
that the "average" trainee requires. Try this test for yourself, it may
save you a good deal of time. These 2 articles should be useful.
http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/4000/hitfaq20.html#Q32 under "Optimal
range"
http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/4000/mfh42.html starting at 14th
parargraph.
I wrote. = >>
> > You can read more about it by going to
> > http://www.medxinc.com/medxinfo/bul1/b1c4.htm.
Adam wrote. = >
> I read this article. It says nothing about intensity [effort]
> increasing this 'indirect effect.' <snipped following >
I'm pretty sure that Andrew means that one will be able to generate
greater intensity while using a machine. In the context that Arthur
Jones wrote the article I think we can be pretty sure that while it is
not directly addressed it can be tacitly assumed that he impies that all
muscles worked intensely will stimulate a greater effect than ones
worked less. The last paragraph actually addresses the intensity issue.
>
> > 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.
>
I'm sure that some do. I EVEN use free weights sometimes. I've even
thrown it a second set of a exercise before, but I want this to remain
completely confidential :).
Cyall
Teri
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 06:31:17 -0800
From: Steve Skrabak <steve@cuztom.com>
Subject: Optimal breathing
I'd like to touch on the subject of breathing during a HIT workout. I'm
into my 8th week of my first HIT experiment and have had the best
success and gains in my life. However, (hope this does'nt sound stupid)
I cannot seem to establish a rythmn of breathing for my 4/2 reps. On my
first few reps I can breath fine, but when I get near failure I seem to
be holding my breath. I don't think its a healthy practice as I have
also experienced EIH and I think this is a cause of it. It worked fine
when I was training in the explosive manner, which i've abandoned, but
it is a concern of mine since I'm getting up into some serious weight.
I'd like some feedback in this area cause I believe it is one of those
subjects that is often overlooked, and taken for granted.
Thanks,
Steve
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:39:45 -0500
From: Gary Bennett <74663.2777@compuserve.com>
Subject: stretching
Does anyone have any information regarding stretching and any effect it may
have on recovery and/or growth? I would like to be very flexible. At this
time, I stretch the days of my HIT workouts (before working out), and I
completely rest on off days (no aerobics or stretching). Is there any
problem with doing light, or even heavy, stretching on off days? Since I
only workout every 3 or 4 days, how about complete rest the day after a
workout and stretching on other days?
Thanks for your reply,
Gary