1. success story
by: Steve Skrabak <steve@cuztom.com>
2. Drey Baye "High Intensity Training" and "Periodization"
by: Daniel Yourg <dyourg@teetot.acusd.edu>
3. Re: HIT Digest, digest #68
by: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu>
4. sandbags and strength
by: Robert L.Phillips <phillips.robert@mcleodusa.net>
5. Heavy Duty 1
by: Bill Bagwell <bagwell@meta3.net>
6. First post
by: Elliot Schwarz <eschwarz@hotmail.com>
7. Re: Drew on intensity(effort) & frequency (Re:#68)
by: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
8. Re: Clarification of statement regarding "indirect effect" (#67)
by: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
9. Re: Muscle growth (#67)
by: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 06:53:14 -0800
From: Steve Skrabak <steve@cuztom.com>
Subject: success story
Dear HIT moderators,
I'm sure you've heard enough of these stories but I want to
personally thank you and all the people involved with developing and
maintaining this wonderful site. I stumbled upon your page at work one
day about 8 weeks ago and got excited about lifting again. Briefly, I
played footbal at the Univ. of Utah in 1992 and have been lifting hard
for about 15 years. I have experimented with many philosophies along the
way and have been able to stay in shape but not make any significant
gains. As soon as i'd be making moderate gains i'd get injured or sick
and therefore be back where I started. Anyway when I began the
experiment I had been very strong and healthy. I was 200 lbs at 5'11'
just 8 weeks ago and am currently 215 lbs. I gained in size as follows:
calves .25", quads 2", waist 0, chest 2", biceps 1.5", forearms .25" and
neck .25". My lifts have skyrocketed from 15lbs to 80lbs in my lifts
(the big boy workout) and I have not had any injuries or aggrevations of
old ones. So thanks for rescuing me from my own ignorant devices. Until
I found this site I was one of those believers of the MYTHS.
Steve
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:46:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Yourg <dyourg@teetot.acusd.edu>
Subject: Drey Baye "High Intensity Training" and "Periodization"
"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."
What scientific studies are you basing this on? To state the above and
then add that anyone entering the gym more than once a week is doing so
based on "unscientific or illogical" rationale, and/or "social reasons"
seems to be very argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, or to
be
using extremely rigid thinking. In the areas of strength training and
hypertrophy there seems to be a lot yet that we are still uncovering.
I thought in digest #67 I read something from you about defining terms, to
insure we are not arguing over semantics. How do you define
"periodization"? In the post you contested, Krieger defined it "as
variations in training stimulus over time." You state "No, this does not
support periodization in any way. (regarding the reference that
hypertrophy has more than one stimulus) "This does not in any way suggest
that one must "periodize" their training."
So you are stating that there should be no variations in training stimulus
over time?
Dan Yourg
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 18:59:00 -0800
From: Adam Fahy <afahy@student.umass.edu>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #68
> -------------------- 1 --------------------
> 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?
Why are you asking this question? I don't think anyone would advise
someone to perform an exercise protocol which for the trainee gives less
than optimal results [were this known as fact before such a suggestion
was given].
This is, after all, what we are all after, is it not? Optimal results?
By 'optimal results' I mean, the greatest amount of increased strength
in a given amount of time.
If, for instance, one were training for a specific event at a specific time, such a protocol - one which requires an enormous amount of time in which to recover - would not at all be the best choice [were full recovery not accomplished by the given date]. While true, in such a senario as you detail the strength gains may ultimately be greater, the trainee will find that when asked to perform their strength will have diminished, as they have not yet recovered from your demanding workout.
However, if we are working within an effectively infinite timeframe,
then when one sees results is largely irrelevent, if those results are
ultimately greater than which could have been achieved by any other
program. So I would say, 'it depends.' It depends on when exactly one
needs to display an increase in strength.
> 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.
If by 'periodization' you mean, the practice of alternating 'light' (&
low intensity [effort]) and 'heavy' workout days, then I agree with you
wholeheartedly. Such a program never made one whit of a positive
difference [for me], nor does it IMO make any sense in terms of
maximizing progress.
Remember, however, that 'periodization' should refer to the
periodic/planned manipulation of training variables to fit both the
immediate and ultimate needs of the trainee.
> 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.
Here is where I must step in and again question your motivation behind writing this message. Clearly you are attempting to restart a debate about whether or not intensity [effort] is the most important factor relating to growth. Yet you are not doing this, as far as I can tell, in order to facilitate useful discussion, or as an honest question.
This prompts me to ask, Rob, why this message was not rejected? The
tone of this paragraph alone shows that it is more an accusatory
editorial than anything useful for the purposes of this digest (being
open-minded, non-judgemental discussion).
[Adam, the message was accepted because in my opinion it does not violate any of the rules of the digest. Nobody was insulted, no flames, etc. If someone has a viewpoint on something that is not insulting to any specific person or group, it is okay with me. I can't ask people to be robots and have no opinion at all. I only ask that - especially since I see another heated discussion probably coming - that people THINK before they submit and don't get personal. Andrew is welcome to his opinion. As far as being "judgemental" w.r.t. tone of posts, it's a judgement call...hey, a pun and I didn't even realize it.
If someone is not being "open-minded" - and I'm NOT saying Andrew isn't open-minded - that's not my business. The way I view these discussions is two-fold. First, between the individuals posting. Second, and what I think is far more important, is the people who simply read but do not post which is obviously the majority. For them, they can decide what they will based on the points of a discussion.
There are always people who will NEVER change their minds. You cannot change someone who doesn't want to be changed. However, think of the many others who are reading these posts. They will make their decisions on what is "right" for themselves.
Again, I am NOT saying anyone here is "close-minded" or anything of the sort. Just to let you and everyone know that I see these discussions from the perspective of how it will benefit the majority of people, rather than perhaps two people trying to convince each other that they are "right" and the other is "wrong".
Finally note that you have the right to respond to Andrew's assertion as you have.
I am allowing some leeway in this discussion. But I think I've also made it quite clear recently, that I won't tolerate any nonsense and any personal stuff is left off this digest or you will force me to be the mean guy again which I hate.
--Rob]
Yet given the fact that this message was indeed allowed to be posted, I
will do my best to respond:
Andrew is questioning those who back-off on intensity, and perform more
sets, because they tend to overtrain on a one-set to 'hard' failure,
high intensity [effort] protocol. He is assuming that all trainees will
respond identically to exercise: that in all cases better results will
ultimately occur when more effort is given. Yet it is clear to me that
in believing this, he falls into the exact same 'trap' that very
high-volume proponents fall into, the erroneous belief that "more is
better." I can very easily detail a training program in which a trainee
performs such a great amount of volume that it will take weeks to
recover from, a program that will make one overtrain if performed with
great frequency. In no way does this mean better results will be
achieved from following such a program. It only means that frequency of
workouts will need to be drastically reduced in order to see any
results. Andrew is working under the erroneous assumption that
intensity [effort] is either the only or is the most effective means
through which growth is achieved. Yet there is absolutely no reason,
either logically or 'scientifically,' for one to come to such a
conclusion. The most logical and supported position would be that
optimal growth is achieved from the proper balancing of the _wide
variety of factors_ responsible for or contributing to the growth
response.
Andrew is working purely in a theoretical model, one which is
fundamentally flawed in that he attempts to reduce a multifaceted
process into a black-and-white issue. In doing so he is subject to the
same criticisms HIT, and Andrew himself, very rightly inflict upon
certain other training ideologies.
***
> -------------------- 4 --------------------
> From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
> Subject: Definitions, Rep ranges and Indirect Effect
>
> 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.
Yes, this of course should be kept in mind when reading any article by
Arthur Jones, but I mentioned it because implications != support. In
any case, the article is working only in logical deduction, not from any
sort of controlled testing (although studies may well have been done; I
am speaking w/in the context of the article). I am disappointed that no
one responded to my own logical deduction, or rather extension, from the
premise of the article, that the most 'indirect response' occurs from
those exercises which stimulate the most muscle groups (and which enlist
the greatest hormonal response). Surely we can see that intensity
[effort] alone != greatest response, WRT exercise choice (as I
implied). For example, if greater intensity arises from isolation (an
extension of the logic that greater intensity is possible by eliminating
the necessity to enlist balancing function), then clearly one would see
better results from performing 'isolation' exercises, such as flys
(conventional spelling). Of course, we all know this is not the case -
'compound' exercises tend to be associated with greater results (even if
for no other reason than a reduction of total volume and greater
hormonal response).
Clearly if you mean 'indirect effect' is greatest through those
exercises which 'focus' upon a given muscle group, the squat or bench
press would lose-out, as it were. If you mean those exercises which are
'most difficult,' then power cleans and the snatch would be the most
productive exercises, and enlist the greatest 'indirect response.'
While some would agree with such a statement, I do not, due to the
overpowering value of momentum/speed and skill in the performance of
these movements.
I don't think it unreasonable to believe that the most productive exercises are not those which most 'isolate' muscle groups, nor those which are the most technically 'difficult,' but exercises which involve the most muscle groups while remaining simple, basic movements.
--
Adam Fahy
afahy@oitunix.oit.umass.edu
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 06:51:27 -0600
From: "Robert L.Phillips" <phillips.robert@mcleodusa.net>
Subject: sandbags and strength
To Andrew Baye.
How do you Super Slow trainers feel about the use of sandbags in
training. I use them to build strength in the trunk muscles by either
carrying them on the shoulder or in a bearhug. Since using them for the
last year my ability to lift and carry in the "real world" has been
enhanced tremendously, much more so than when I did just weight
training. Plus the conditioning benefits have been in nice bonus. Also
I 've been doing grip work at the end of my workouts for the past year
so that I can now almost close the #2 Iron Mind gripper. I think that
grip training makes very little inroad into one's overall recovery
ability and enhances one's "useful strength" a great deal. What do you
say about it Andrew?
Merry Christmas,Bob.
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 17:09:54 -0600
From: "Bill Bagwell" <bagwell@meta3.net>
Subject: Heavy Duty 1
I hope this is going to the HIT Digest, since this is the first mail I've
sent to it and I'm not sure how to go about doing so.
My question is, Does anyone know of a source that carries/sells Heavy Duty.
I assume it's out of printing since I cannot order it through Barnes/Noble
and other book stores like that. Thanks.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 16:11:07 PST
From: "Elliot Schwarz" <eschwarz@hotmail.com>
Subject: First post
Hi all:
My first posting to this digest. I don't want to come off as being
controversial or adversarial so I'll leave it up to the moderator to
take anything out (as long he tells me) that is not appropriate.
I also want to comment on a few things, so if this is too long I'm sure
the moderator will tell me, right Rob? :)
First I want to publically apologize to Rob Spector. Awhile ago I
slammed him on the weights digest. I got caught up in the "anti-HITer"
stuff, and I shouldn't have. I don't know if this will get posted or
not, but I think I recently just learned my lesson on what the truth is
with that lists moderator and Rob.
My last post there got censored. If anyone wants a copy of that post,
e-mail me and I'll send it to you. I know it is not appropriate for this
digest so I won't even try to post it here although I did send it to
Rob.
It was questioned on the other list whether the moderators here really
are unbiased or not. In my post I only ASKED Tom a few questions. I
asked him also not to call me a "HITer" or "Jedi" just because I don't
agree with him. I think I embarassed him with that post and he hasn't
posted it. Not only that, but I tried to ask him why and he "blocked" me
from e-mailing him.
So now I think I know where things stand. If this sounds like a rant I'm
sorry. But I want to let people know publically that I'm sorry for what
I said about Rob. I also want to let people know that I want to thank
Bill Piche for teaching me that HIT is NOT the "Jones/Darden/Mentzer"
stuff that we are told in muscle mags and even on the 'net. It's alot
more than that.
I would recommend to anyone to read anything you can by Stuart McRobert.
His Hardgainer newsletter is excellent. And Milo is also good. Ken
Leistner has had a big influence on my training.
I'm not an "HITer" or "Jedi" as I don't like labels. I also asked not to be called that on the other digest, but that request was denied.
With that aside, I want to contribute my $.02 on a few issues I've read
about in this digest.
1. Machines vs. free weights. I know the debate is over but the
moderator said if anyone had anything to add that's not a rebuttal to do
so. My opinion is that neither is superior. I think in THEORY you
should be able to make a superior machine. But it hasn't been done and
there's no proof there has.
I use mostly free weights but machines as well. Dorian Yates uses alot
of machines. I don't think he's suffered. Others have used mostly free
weights. All the anecdotal stuff, and as far as I know all the "studies"
say there's no difference in results.
And how come nobody talks about other tools like manual resistance? Or lifting wood logs, sand bags and the stuff you read about in Milo?
It's all the same. Whatever best suits you.
2. Smith machine squats. If you are a normal person who can squat safely then I say do so. Smith machine squats can play havoc with your knees, moreso than regular squats. It's REALLY difficult to get into the right "groove". That's my opinion. Leg presses vs. squats? Whatever you do better on. Some people just can't squat properly although I think some use that as an excuse not to squat. But those who have bad balance or other leverage disadvantages, get a GOOD leg press machine.
As someone said, so much out there is crap and will kill your knees. The
ones I've found to be good are Hammer and Nautilus. Maybe there are
others, but I haven't seen them.
3. Rep speed. I said so on the other digest and I'll say so here. The
idea that there is an "optimal" rep speed is ludicrous to me. If anyone
can show me a shred of evidence or logic to support this claim go ahead
please. But before you do so be kind enough to please read up on
something called force-velocity curves.
My rep speed is CONTROLLED. Meaning on the first easy reps, I'm not
pushing to try and push the bar through the roof! That's explosive
liting, and that's dangerous. It hurt my joints when I tried it, and
slower movements are safer.
But on the other hand, I see no reason why going so slow like 10 seconds on the lifting is any "better" than any other controlled lifting speed. I agree with Ken Leistner 100% on that one. Super slow seems like a nice variation and I've used it sometimes but it's only that. It's not "superior" and there's no evidence to show that it is.
Studies with elderly women don't prove anything.
4. "Periodization". I also suggest people read up on what Leistner has said about periodization. He did a good review of the IronMan training system which I read once I think on Cyberpump. Good website by the way.
Some people will overtrain, but also some will undertrain. The theory that intensity is based on a %ge of your 1Rm is bunk to me!
There's a bit on periodization in the HIT faq which I obviously can't
post here because of length. I think it sums it up.
If you aren't a competitive lifter, periodization merely means changin things up to avoid going stale. Not that complicated to me.
Bill Piche had a good system I use as well. I stick with low reps around 5 for awhile. Then every couple of months I switch to higher reps, like around 10-12. I've never tried a 20 rep squat but I will someday.
Works for me. Plus changing the exercises around, or taking some time
off or just a friggin CHANGE.
If you are competitive lifter, I would recommend Bill's powerlifting FAQ. Periodization there for powerlifting means peaking for a contest.
But don't worry about that if you aren't a competitive lifter!
I also gotta agree with Leistner's review of the Ironman system. It's alot better than the standard nonsense you read that the champs supposedly do. As someone who's SEEN some of these guys train, I can tell you they don't train like that, and they don't train very hard.
5. Training frequency. I definitely think most people spend FAR too much time in the gym. But I also think if what you are doing is working for you, I'm not gonna knock it and say "you should do less" or "you should do more"! I split my upper and lower body up, workout twice/week. Deadlift once every two weeks. Sometime I take a day off, sometimes I come back to the gym sooner when I feel I'm ready.
It comes with experience that you just KNOW when it's time. I've gone to the gym and then gone right home after my first set! Because I could "feel" I hadn't recovered yet. You can't explain this in words, sorry.
Experienced lifters know what I mean.
Sorry about the length. I know Rob will snip it down anyways if it's too
long. Once again, sorry for that stuff Rob. I was ignorant of alot of
things and I guess that causes alot of stupid comments. No excuse
though.
And thanks to Bill! Hope to see you back competing on the platform one
day again bud! Congrats on that state record you set in the barbell
curl!
Ell
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:17:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
Subject: Re: Drew on intensity(effort) & frequency (Re:#68)
> -------------------- 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?
If higher intensity(effort) and less frequency gives greater results, then
do it.
> 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?
For possibly better growth.
> 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.
Obviously? Uhhh, no. This is neither obvious, nor is it even true.
I'd suggest for this discussion that we use the term "achieve" instead
of "stimulate" growth, since the achievement is what we are after.
Since you say "is the whole reason...", I'll assume you meant to
"achieve" growth.
I believe that the point has been clearly made before, but a higher level of intensity(effort) does not necessarily lead to greater growth.
I believe that a person should use a very high level of intensity(effort) in their work sets, but I am not prepared to rule out the "subtle rationalization" you describe above. It quite possibly (and probably at certain times) could lead to greater achieved growth.
This is one of those discussions that leads to an agree-to-disagree
situation. I'd suggest using the phrase "In my opinion" when discussing
what you do above, since you have no proof that using a lesser intensity
and greater volume shows less growth, and there's no proof that using a
lesser intensity and greater volume shows more growth. It's just not
that simple.
Brian
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:29:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
Subject: Re: Clarification of statement regarding "indirect effect" (#67)
> -------------------- 2 --------------------
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 15:50:48 EST
> From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Clarification of statement regarding "indirect effect"
>
>
> 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.
I disagree. These "balancing" muscles will adapt over time to be able to support higher and higher weights. If they did not, this would imply the same muscles that balance 45lbs when a beginner starts squatting would be strong enough to balance 700lbs when the person reaches a seriously advanced stage. I don't believe this to be the case at all.
Maybe not so much "growth" stimulation, but "strength" stimulation?
> [Well, could be worse. Your writing could be intense, and high volume like me
> --Rob]
Intense? I thought it was just hi...uhh, nevermind. (heh heh)
Brian
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:33:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
Subject: Re: Muscle growth (#67)
> -------------------- 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.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the "routines should be varied over time" theme. This is all you are saying right? Nothing about _specific_ variation, such as "volume has to be varied" or "exercise selection has to be varied" or things related to the clearly defined periodization models?
Brian