1. Re: HIT Digest, digest #68
by: JJHBowers <JJHBowers@aol.com>
2. Post for HIT Digest \ Re: Leo Costa Jr.
by: SFarrin261 <SFarrin261@aol.com>
3. HIT Digest
by: jon & stacy ziegler <rutger1@jps.net>
4. Heavy Duty II
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
5. Re: Stretching and growth
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
6. Quantifying Training Damage and Recovery Demand
by: Robert Spector <rspector@earthlink.net>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:16:21 EST
From: JJHBowers <JJHBowers@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #68
Does anyone have any suggestions for physical training for children? I am a
Superslow advocate; I know that the rigorous intensity needed in that protocal
would NOT be good for a youngster (9 years old).
I figure some controlled, light weight movements would be very beneficial to
such a child. Slow, perhaps arms-assisted bodyweight squats, hanging from a
chinning bar for time, military presses with tiny dumbells, stuff like that.
Does anyone have any experience and/or suggestions in this area?
JJHBowers
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 16:19:48 EST
From: SFarrin261 <SFarrin261@aol.com>
Subject: Post for HIT Digest \ Re: Leo Costa Jr.
I Found an advertisment in the most recent All Natural Muscular Development
making some incredible claims. The ad was for a system discovered by Leo Costa
Jr. at a Bulgarian symposium of some sort. He and his company, Optimum
Training Systems, claim "Steroid Like" results from a natural training and
diet system. He also claims to be paid six figures to train the likes of Kevin
Costner, and to have won the NABBA Mr. USA heavy weight division. What I want
to know, has anyone heard of this guy? If so can you give credence to his
claims or give evidence to debunk them? I am just trying to do some kind of
background check but have come up empty handed. Thanks in advance for your
help. - Sean
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 19:46:33 -0800
From: rutger1@jps.net (jon & stacy ziegler)
Subject: HIT Digest
This is my first contribution to this sight and my I say, I really like it. Just something real quick: in a recent issue of IRONMAN (Yes, I read IRONMAN. I like Strossen, Winett, McRoberts, and Holman.), in the "Ask the Experts" section, the question was asked if High Intensity Training was valuable. Ellington Darden, Richard Winett, and Jerry Brainum said yes (or atleast done properly it was beneficial). What was interesting were the two (who will remain nameless) who answered no. There were three basic reasons 1) it is boring and hard to sustain (any harder then set after set, or any less boring), and 2) that HIT will cause injuries. OK, we have heard that before, although boring is really stretching it, and none of this is hard hitting and scientific. But 3) really amazed me. It was answered with, and I quote, "what do we mean by `one set to failure'?" Then the individual begins to define sets with warm-ups, etc. Well I imagine that the definition of one set to failure is: one set to failure. According to this person a high intensity-abbreviated workout would be 20-30 minutes PER body part. Again nothing substantial, just opinion.
So as I close I would like to reiterate that yes, HIT is hard, yes, if the
same program is followed it will get boring (I'm glad that Einstein didn't
give up on E=MC2 because it was hard and boring), but folks, most of all
one set to failure means: ONE SET TO FAILURE!!!
Happy Holidays!
GO Nebraska!
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 15:02:34 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Heavy Duty II
In a nutshell, I got smaller, fatter and weaker using Mentzer's HD II.
My over all muscle mass decreased while my bodyfat percentage went up,
and my strength went down accordingly. I do not believe that the system
is based in sound physiological principles. The stimulus (training) is
far too little for the recovery time alotted, and while it is possible
to gain mass off of this, the quality of mass in my situation was low.
Because training influence is decreased and calories can be kept the
same or increased; a lot of the excess calories ended up being deposited
as fat. Some might say; "Well, you getting fatter was your own fault
because you did not cut back calories". That is not the case. If
Mentzer's system truly provided the optimal route for mass gains, then
the calories and nutrients should have been used for depositing NEW
muscle mass. Body fat composition tests done before and after my run
with the program showed that this was NOT the case. Muscle mass was
lower, indicating that growth had not been stimulated and furthermore
had decreased beyond previous levels.
I do not agree with the physiological design of the program at all. I
would reccomend anyone considering their program to head in another
direction and save themselves the frustration and regression that I went
through while on it. This is not an efficient routine. However, it's
applications might be somewhat effective when coming off a high volume
training cycle to help maximize recovery but maintain some small
training stimulus. In reality, this final reason is the reason why I
feel people make good gains when initially switching from high volume to
Mentzer's HD programs but after a period of time the gains begin to
diminish or halt completely.
Andrew Baye claims that his clients have gained in the vicinity of 10
lbs. on these programs. I would be curious regarding the following
questions:
1] What kind of training program were they folloiwng before?
2] What percentage of the mass gain was constituted by lean body mas?
3] What was the concurrent gain in strength?
4] What were the dietary and rest habits of the individuals?
5] How many years of training experience had they had?
The answers to these questions, I feel, will illuminate the truths
regarding Mentzer's system. Speaking from empirical evidence (which
means little but should still be considered), not one person I know has
made anywhere close to the progress that Mentzer claims is possible off
the HD II system.
----------
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 15:12:41 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: Stretching and growth
Gary Bennett wrote:
> 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
In my experience, PNF streching is the most effective method of
improving flexibility. It is far superior to static stretching for
improving flexibility. I once read (don't take this as fact) that static
stretching has been shown to limit contractile strength during strength
training. Don't know if this is true or not but I can say that I feel a
lot more "powerful" before weights using PNF stretching. It's effects
are quite rapid and I usually am "good to go" within 3-4 PNF stretches.
My chest used to pull my shoulders out of alignment because of it's
inflexibility. Within one week of PNF stretching once a day for 3-4
stretches a pop, my shoulders have realigned themselves. Lastly,
regarding your question on growth, there is a school of thought that
believes that drastically improving the ROM of a muscle stretches the
fascia; a protective sheath around the muscle and permits it to grow
more effectively.
PS. PNF can be done without a partner, it requires some kind of exercise when the body is actively stretched. For example, if you cannot find a partner for chest stretching, simply execute the stretch using light (10 lb.) dumbbells on a bench. I.E. Assume a stretched position during a dumbbell flye, isometrically contract for 15 seconds, then relax and allow the dumbbells to move your arms back as far as possible. However, this type of stretching is most effective with a partner.
More info on PNF can be found here. The stretch-contract-relax technique
is what I use:
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/papers/rma/stretching_4.html#SEC36
----------
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:34:44 -0500
From: "Robert Spector" <rspector@earthlink.net>
Subject: Quantifying Training Damage and Recovery Demand
Andrew Baye (drewbaye@aol.com) wrote:
>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,
How in the _world_ can you justify this comment? How in the world can
there be so much metabolic cost created by typical low volume "high
intensity"
training protocols (HIT, HD, Superslow) that 10 days of complete rest
would be necessitated? It does not make mathematical sense. A
proposition:
Damage Incurred = [number of sets performed] x [percentage of 1RM x
eccentric lowering time x repetitions performed]
*If loading parameters change from set to set, calculate the damage
incurred per individual set and then add them together to get a more
accurate reflection of the amount of damage incurred.
Reasoning:
1] A weight that represents a greater percentage of the athlete's one
repetition maximum will cause more damage than a lighter weight if
repetitions are constant. A person with a 300 lb. bench press, pressing
250 (83%) for 5 reps will cause more damage than if they did 185 (62%)
for the same number of reps.
2] Eccentric lowering time must be considered. While a heavier weight
has the potential to cause more damage than a lighter weight, if the
heavier weight is moved so ballistically that the muscle fibers are not
under sufficient tension during the negative portion of the rep, little
damage will be incurred. It is during the eccentric portion of the rep
where muscle fibers are disrupted.
3] The number of repetitions performed represents the number of times
that the muscle is mechanically subjected to the stimuli. More exposure
= more mechanical work = more damage.
4] The number of sets also represents the number of times that a muscle
is mechanically subjected to a stimuli. More mechanical work again =
more damage.
Problems:
1] It can be argued that the final rep to failure or any reps after
concentric failure has occurred can cause a
greater deal of damage to the muscle. The flooding of calcium ions into
the muscle cell that occurs when nearing failure
causes the actin and myosin fibers to stay in a contracted state
[sliding filament theory of muscular contraction].
Hence, any negative repetitions after that point are very difficult and
damaging due
to the fact that biochemically the muscle wishes to stay contracted but
is forced into stretching by the resistance.
2] It can be argued that each progressive set will cause more and more
damage because some damage will have been created by previous sets. For
example, one might perform two sets with identical loading parameters
(same reps, weight and eccentric lowering time), but since you will have
caused a bit of damage in the first set, the second set may amplify the
effect. Conversely, there is a point (termed point of diminishing
returns or critical drop off point) where the amount of further
damage/stimulus inflicted by a set does not enhance the rate of
improvement. As such, it is obvious that more sets may imply more damage
but not necessarily a greater stimulus. This point will vary from
individual to individual.
3] Since most people do not lift consistently from rep to rep let alone
from set to set (the latter for which the above formula is adjusted for
by the *), it may be even more accurate (albeit tedious) to calculate
metabolic cost per rep and find total damage incurred through the sum of
all metabolic costs per rep per set.
4] What amount of the damage is influenced by one loading parameter
versus another? Is the amount of weight used more influential on damage
incurred, or is eccentric lowering time? Reps? Sets performed? Or are
they all
equally influential? This is another difficult consideration to
adjust for.
Based on this formula, the metabolic costs / damage incurred of various
training
protocols BASED ON LOADING PARAMETERS PER BODYPART:
"Typical Training": 3 sets @ 80% RM x 8 reps (not to failure) with 4
second eccentric =
7680
"Typical HIT/HD": 2 sets @ 80% RM x 10 reps (to concentric failure) with
4 second eccentric =
6400
"Typical Superslow": 1 set @ 50% RM x 8 reps (to eccentric failure) with
5-10 second eccentric =
2000 or 4000 (depending on eccentric velocity)
"Typical GVT" : 10 sets @ 60% RM x 10 reps (not to failure) with 4
second eccentric =
24000
"Typical Pure Eccentric" : 4 sets @ 150% RM x 6 reps (not to failure, to
point at which negative cannot be safely controlled) with 8 second
eccentric = 28800
"Typical Powerlifting" : 6 sets x 90% RM x 3 reps (to concentric
failure) with 2 second
eccentric = 3240
I have used all of the above protocols at one time or another, and these
estimations corroborate empirical and scientific evidence. Eccentric
training is by far the most demanding training on the recovery system
that one can do. I know this from personal experience and from training
information. I need approximately 8-10 days to recover from an eccentric
workout. German Volume Training was another highly demanding program; my
bodyparts would require approximately 6-8 days to recover from those
workouts. Conventional training methods usually require 4-5 days to
recover from, when I trained pure HD style I needed about 3-4 days to
get rid of the soreness in a bodypart, and with Superslow, I found that
I was recovered within 2-3 days. The amount of soreness incurred
correlates with the estimations from the above formula. The number for
powerlifting is not to say that it is not demanding. But I was "good to
go" working a lift once a week using this protocol. It is demanding, but
that does not necessarily mean that it creates a lot of mechanical
damage. Usually, the higher the percentage the lift - the slower the
concentric portion of the rep becomes (i.e. takes more time to
"complete" a rep with weights closer to one rep max) and the faster the
negative portion - so less "tearing occurs". The East German
strength experts Hartmann and Tunnemann supported this notion decades
ago; saying that
since there is so little mechanical work occurring in high percentage
lifts, more sets are needed to provide the same level of damage or
induce hypertrophy with low rep training. This
reinforces empirical evidence; that powerlifting style training is
HIGHLY demanding but does not necessarily leave you debilitatingly sore.
This also explains why many powerlifters can have good amounts of
success by training a lift multiple times a week. High percentage
lifting is far more demanding on the nervous system than the
musculoskeletal system, IMHO.
As such, it becomes highly evident that it is not mathematically
possible for so much mechanical work to occur during a single set of
training that one's body is so obliterated that it requires ten days for
the soreness to wane and for the bodypart to recover. Remember, the days
that I gave above not only were the days needed for the soreness to wane
but also 2-3 days after it had completely gone. It's not that single set
training is not demanding or not good, per se. It's just not so
destructive that you're going to need as much time as you and "another
high intensity proponents" [you know who I'm talking about] are arguing
for.
If single set training could cause so much damage, why not just do a
single rep for a single set with 100% of your max for 5 seconds
eccentric very infrequently? This would technically sound like the most
efficient way to increase strength and size, but according to the
formula, 1 x 1 x 100 x 5 = 500. The stimulus is not as large as one may
think it may be. It becomes obvious that the cumulative amount of
mechanical work done by the muscle fiber - or the volume and number of
reps performed- is highly important to the level of damage incurred. It
is also arguable that the level of damage correlates with the rate of
strength gains, since eccentric training has been shown to be the most
effective (but demanding) form of strength development. Damage is not
always necessary for progress, but it does _usually_ correlate with a
good workout (i.e. high percentage lifting - powerlifting - does not
necessarily get you sore but you get stronger through more efficient
recruitment of motor units by the CNS...improvement of "relative"
strength (meaning strength but not necessarily size), but eccentric
training does cause a lot of damage and increases muscle mass/strength
very effectively). The body does not like being damaged from a new
stress (more
weight, more reps, more volume, less rest b/w sets, more frequency, new
exercise, slower tempo, faster tempo), so it adapts. It grows stronger
(adapts)
as a protective reflex.
Of course, other loading parameters have to be considered. If working on
a HIT/HD program where the damage level might be lower than eccentric
training, but you work a bodypart once every 5 days, whereas with
eccentric training it is once every 10 days - obviously, that will
impact the rate of development. So it becomes obvious that frequency
must suit the amount of damage incurred to ensure the most efficient
rate of development. When frequency overrides damage, overtraining
occurs. When damage overrides frequency, one might not be training as
efficiently as they could be (i.e. attaining strength gains as quickly
as possible). We can innately agree that training for ten sets of
eccentric reps once every 2 months might not be the most EFFICIENT route
to
success. Spending two weeks in utter agony, just trying to recover back
to your normal state of being, is not efficient. Growth occurs only
after this point.
Training is not black and white, it is a gray issue. Many different
manipulations of loading parameters will yield results. Adding a
"lighter" stimulus (i.e. HIT/HD, Superslow) more frequently might bring
about as effective results as using a heavier stimulus (eccentric
training) more infrequently. The basic concept is that the body will
adapt to the stressors placed on it - this is unrefutable. If this was
not the case we would have never evolved or survived 20 minutes in the
world. But the body can only adapt given enough recovery time. Another
principle of biology is that the body's ability to handle stressors is
limited; there is a certain point after which the body's effectors
cannot handle the stress of a situation. Squatting a mack truck,
training with 100 sets at 80% RM - these are both examples of overriding
the body's capacity to adapt. So the real question is finding the point
where you are "pushing enough" but not "too much". Suiting
the recovery time to the level of damage ensures continual progress no
matter what the protocol utilized, and is one method to ensure that this
is achieved.
Please feel free to comment or criticize. I do not consider this an end
all argument and would like to hear all points of view. This concept has
proved highly successful in my own training, so much so that I EXPECT
progress each and every workout. If progress does not occur then
something in my loading parameters must be adjusted. Apologies for
the long post, but I suspect it will be quite inflammatory and good for
discussion.
Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
[This post is copyright Sandeep De]