1. Bodybuilding 'Myths'
by: Beber0190 <Beber0190@aol.com>
2. Re: EIH
by: Brady Bagwell <bab8@Ra.MsState.Edu>
3. Revisiting - fast-twitch before slow-twitch?
by: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
4. HIT and low carbs
by: FlexWriter <FlexWriter@aol.com>
5. Anabolic/Bodyopus diets
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
6. HD
by: Paul Englert <Paul.Englert@vuw.ac.nz>
7. HIT DIGEST
by: Jon Ziegler <Rutger1@JPS.NET>
8. Re: Quantifying Training Damage and Recovery Demand
by: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi>
9. Recovery Period After Flu
by: Jacobs, Eric J <Eric.Jacobs@PSS.Boeing.com>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 18:09:31 EST
From: Beber0190 <Beber0190@aol.com>
Subject: Bodybuilding 'Myths'
I would like to bring to your attention a quote from the February 1998 issue
of Muscle and Fitness. An article starting on page 80 entitled "Pump Fiction"
set out to correct 20 bodybuilding 'myths.' While many sensible statements
were made, one statement was so outlandish that it invalidated the entire
article. On page 84, 'myth' number 19 stated-"The Nautilus or High-Intensity
Training Principle of only one set to failure is highly effective." The
paragraph following said"Wrong! Not only is it inappropriate for serious
bodybuilders, but it isnt good for even the casual fitness enthusiast. Your
body simple needs more stimulation to grow and get strong than you can get out
of one set to failure. Research galore has proven this fact." The author was
the Dr. Fred C. Hatfield PhD himself. First of all, there were
absolutely no refrences on the entire article. Not one! Where is this
'research galore'? How come I've made more gains in one year of HIT training
than in 3 years of training as Fred reccommends? If I was a serious
competitive bodybuilder, I would throw myself fully in support of Fred's
statements, so I could be the winner on the platform! This quote was absolute
nonsense. Fred, if you wish to respond to
this, go right ahead. I'll be waiting.
r software Fred Hatfield made, promising "Abs like Hatfield!" Give me
a break. I can tell you how to get abs like that without a program-lets see,
plenty of beer, no squats, lots of sets of all exercises, lots of starches and
ice cream-you get the picture.
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 23:08:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Brady Bagwell <bab8@Ra.MsState.Edu>
Subject: Re: EIH
Just a little line or two about my experiences w/ EIH. I had
experienced them several years ago during squats (pre-HIT). When I
started HIT a few weeks ago, I started to have them again (on leg day).
Since, then, I only had one day off between workouts, I would "re-injure"
my head again. The only way I've found that I can keep them from
reoccurring is to have several days of recovery before working out again.
I now think that it's something that the body must adjust to-the heavy
intensity. I did switch to 2 days/wk, and havn't had one in about 3
weeks. Appreciate any more info on the subject.
Bagwell
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 00:35:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
Subject: Revisiting - fast-twitch before slow-twitch?
I'd like to start (restart?) some discussion on muscle fiber types and the
effects of weight training on them. I'll begin by quoting some passages
from previous digests and then commenting on each.
In Digest #24, MSG3, James Krieger wrote:
>The eccentric action provides numerous benefits to an athlete. Despite the
>size principle of orderly recruitment of motor units, it has been found
>that during eccentric actions, fast twitch motor units sometimes fire
>before slow twitch ones (1). This is an important implication for strength
>athletes and bodybuilders since fast twitch fibers create more force and
>have more potential for hypertrophy than slow twitch fibers.
>
>1. Behm, D.G. Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance
>training. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 9(4):264-274. 1995.
Krieger, J., "Re: Why eccentric exercise is so beneficial?", HIT Digest #24,
MSG3, Sun, 26 Oct 1997
James, you say "fast twitch motor units sometimes fire before slow twitch
ones" What exactly is meant by this? That some fast-twitch fibers fire
before 100% of the slow-twitch fibers do? Does this imply that,
during concentric contractions, 100% of the slow-twitch fibers
fire before a single fast-twitch fiber does? If not, could you explain
what idea(s) stand behind the wording of the above quote? The only other
meaning I can see would be that some fast-twitch fibers fire before
ANY slow-twitch fibers do.
Thanks,
Brian
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 00:31:41 EST
From: FlexWriter <FlexWriter@aol.com>
Subject: HIT and low carbs
In a message dated 12/29/97 4:51:10 AM, Chris wrote:
<<I was just wondering if anyone out there has tried a HIT-type program with a low carb/high fat diet such as the Anabolic Diet or the BodyOpus diet. I have had great results with HIT training, but now I am wanting to cut up, so I thought I would experiment with one of these diets. Any tips, experiences, suggestions, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Chris>>
I've had great success combining the Anabolic Diet (or something similar) with
HIT-type training. I finally, finally, FINALLY achieved decent contest shape
three years ago using those methods and I've improved since. Feel free to e-
mail me if you have specific questions.
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 00:03:22 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Anabolic/Bodyopus diets
>Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:44:58 -0600
>From: JazmanX@webtv.net (Chris Gore)
>Subject: HIT & Anabolic/BodyOpus diets
>
>Greetings!
>
>I was just wondering if anyone out there has tried a HIT-type program
>with a low carb/high fat diet such as the Anabolic Diet or the BodyOpus
>diet. I have had great results with HIT training, but now I am wanting
>to cut up, so I thought I would experiment with one of these diets. Any
>tips, experiences, suggestions, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
>
I'll take this one for reasons a lot of people know. I've read (for a book
I'm writing) roughly ALL the research on lowcarb diets, weight lifting
(yay, both studies), glycogen depletion/repletion, etc, etc. Let's just
say my reference list has roughly 500 studies in it right now.
HIT is not the ideal training system for the Bodyopus type diets (I"ll use
the term Cyclical Ketogenic Diet or CKD more generally). For those who
don't know, a CKD alternates 5-6 days of lowcarb (less than 30 grams/day)
eating with 1-2 days of very high carb eating. It's a metabolic trick to
lose bodyfat and spare muscle loss while dieting. A few people actually
gain muscle while dieting but don't count on it.
Thing is, to deplete glycogen sufficiently in the span of 5 days take a
decently high volume of training. Assuming a 45 second long set, I've
estimated that it will take 4-6 sets/bodypart on Mon/Tue to get into
maximal fat burning range. Before the carb-up, you have to do another 2-3
sets per bodypart. So, yo'ure looking at 6-9 sets per bodypart in the span
of 5 days (smaller muscle groups need less sets since they get hit by major
movements). As an example, a leg workout would be:
Mon: squats, 4 sets of 8-10 reps
Leg extensions: 2 sets of 10-12 reps
Fri: Deadlifts (indirect leg hit): 2-3 sets of 8-10 reps
Then you have to repeat it the next MOnday. For someone with poor recovery, that'll be too much work. This is the biggest problem I've found with the CKD, it absolutely requires a high volume of training.
Two solutions:
1. ONly carb every other weekend (so you can stretch the volume across more
days)
2. Do your normal number of heavy sets on Mon (say you do 2-3 sets for
quads or whatever) and depelte glycogen with a few high rep, light pump
sets (like 15-20 reps with about 50-60% of max).
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
Will be offline from Dec 19th to Dec 28th. Have a good holiday.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 21:17:07 +1300
From: Paul Englert <Paul.Englert@vuw.ac.nz>
Subject: HD
In reply to Scotts letter Sun 28/12 and my own thoughts on HD.
I and everybody else I know have had the same results (or lack of results)
with Mike Mentzers HD2 system.
- What is his HD system? Mike Mentzer (MM) defines a conceptual framework for the systematic approach to training. It is not a reactionary theory against volume training it exsists independent as an objective approach to training. All concepts are defined and contradiction within the theory is eliminated. With this in mind the only argument against HD can be the truth of one of the foundation premises ie the concept of overload.
I have tried several times with little success with his HD1 also, the
amount of strength gained on a workout to workout was considerably less,
than the higher volume/frequency program I was on.
- This implies that you were gaining. If this is the case what is the problem? If You have a wout that is increasing your strength levels each wout then you are following the principle of progressive overload. HD is about defining the best way to achieve progressive overload.
For example on my existing program I may have been able to put my weight up
2.5 kgs and maintain the same amount of reps, or keep the same amount of
weight and increase the reps 2-3. This was while training each bodypart
every 3-4 days.
- Body weight, squat weight. What weight do you refer to?
With HD1 I was training each bodypart less frequently, with a higher amount of intensity per work set, and yet the strength gains were at best negligible, and after several weeks were almost reversing as it was getting harder to even make the same amount as the workout before.
- Almost reversing?? Were they reversing or not? Reversing is not grey it is black or white. Also how to you define intensity is a subjective feeling of trying harder or more objectively an increase in stimuli.
If I was to look at it from Mentzers over simplistic point of view, I would
take it to mean that I had reached a point of overtraining, and should
reduce training volume and freq. even more.
- MM is far from being simplistic. Simplistic is to mystically rely on instinct. Simplistic is to prescribe a training regime rather than define principles. Simplistic is the notion that more is better.
While I am not an advocate of High volume training (10 sets+ per B/P) I do
think that Mentzers system has several major flaws:
1. According to him overtraining is the reason most BBuilders don't get the
results they desire, yet why, following that logic, could someone be losing
strength on a low volume program, and then gain it far quicker on a higher
volume program, if according to Mentzer the reason I would have not been
gaining was due to overtraining. Things should have got worse.
- MM talks of overtraining as a reflection of the current reality of most
trainers. MM also talks in terms of appropriate stimuli. Like the sun tan
example he uses often the issue is individualizing the intensity.
Undertraining is also an issue otherwise he would advocate training once a
year. Overtraining is also dependant on under recovery. Check out Sonof
squats page at the big boy page for comment on this
http://www.goheavy.com/bigboys/
He also claims that as you get stronger the stresses on your body get more,
so therefore you need to rest more. The problem is though, that your body
is an adaptive organism, and the reason it is able to lift more is that it
has already "adapted" and is able to now handle a higher load, with no
extra stress.
- Muscle needs to recover (as do other systems in the body).
As you get stronger you obtain more muscle (eventually).
More muscle, more muscle to recover.
therefore increased rest time.
If you were to put the 50 extra kilos on your
"original" legs it would be more stress as they have not adapted to
increased loads. If 100kg for 6 reps was your maximum and it took you 4
days to recover, when you progress to 150kgs it will also take you 4 days
to recover, as your body has adapted to take the increased load.
- There are other systems in your body eg the nervous system. As the load
increases the load on these systems is greater hence further the need for
increased rest. The cummulative effect of stress on these systems is also
the reason for lay offs.
Also just of interest has anybody out there been able to increase their
poundages 10-20% once they reached the 12 rep limit?. I know that right now
I can squat 180kgs for 12 reps, but if I put the weight up to 200kgs (10%
increase) it knocks me back to 2 reps, not the 6-8 it is supposed to. I
have yet to find anybody, even drug users who can increase their poundages
like that.
- I may have missed this but my understanding is that the principle is
progressive overload. For example Stuart McRobert talks of washers. The
amount of increase is not as important as the fact that progress is being
made.
* The principles of HD are the only way to train. This sounds arrogant. It
is not. It is the manifestion of my epistemology, reason, to the
application of Body building. I'm parroting Mentzer only with respect that
I believe in an objective reality and therefore agree with him in that we
both observe the reality as it truely is. Have I gained on HD ie do I have
empirical proof. Yes, as my knowledge has increased I have been able to
define and redefine my programs. Each time the strength gains continue.
Body weight for the year is up 12 lbs (this is my measure of sucess. My
clients, all of whom, are on HD have made great improvements and have
gained or are gaining the required knowledge to independantly evaluate for
themselves their own training.
The onus of proof is on those who dispute the principles of HD to define clearly how they suppose that muscle grow in response to training.
- What is the stimulus.
- How does the body respond to this stimulus.
As I said early the only way to dispute Mentzer would be refute a
foundation premise. To do this we need to falsify the premise (eg. Popper).
If we falsify a premise the theory is not supported.
With respect to training this would involve refuting the principles of:-
1. GAS. ie that the stimulus for growth is progressive overload.
If you continue to gain strength with 1 set or fifty set training this is
progressive overload.
2. The next question becomes what do you do when the gains stop? How do you continue to make gains? You can increase (train more) or decrease the amount of work (train less). This dilemma will continue at every sticking point. To increase work load in response to plateaus theoretically would see you training every sec of every day. To take the opposite approach will see you slowly decreasing the amount of work in response to plateaus.
The issue of an optimal training method, ie the straightest line to a goal,
is secondary to these two questions. One set to failure, exercise selection
etc
become the individual manifestion of the principles above. The reality is
that everyone has their own perfect HD routine, based on the premises
discussed. It just so happens that this is closer to what Mentzer has
described (not prescribed) than most are willing to accept.
Paul Englert.
I'am therefore I'll think - Ayn Rand
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 02:33:48 -0800
From: Jon Ziegler <Rutger1@JPS.NET>
Subject: HIT DIGEST
Hello Folks.
I have tried HDI and found it beneficial. A few years back I trained
someone with HDI and he made very good progress. Then one day he showed
up, said he met a powerlifter who said he was lifting wrong, and he
never returned, but he was definitely making strength and aesthetic
gains.
Recently I told someone about HIT and he said, "Why would you lift like that? It wouldn't be any fun, you couldn't socialize." No kidding.
Jon Ziegler
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 12:38:54 +0200
From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi>
Subject: Re: Quantifying Training Damage and Recovery Demand
>From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
>Subject: Quantifying Training Damage and Recovery Demand
>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.
In short, your proposition for damage incurred = total eccentric impulse in
relation to one's 1RM. (Impulse I = F x t)
>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.
It can be even supposed that EACH subsequent rep in a set will bring greater
damage than the previous rep, but the first rep in the next set will
probably cause smaller damage than the last rep in the previous set - and
presumably this drop of damage is bigger if the resting period between the
sets is longer. On the other hand the first rep in the second set must cause
more damage than the first rep in the first set.
>2] 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.
Or maybe there's more stimulus but it gets totally lost in damage repair.
This point will vary from
>individual to individual.
That's right. One set to failure is not the optimal dose for everyone.
>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.
This is totally opposite to your formula. Metabolic cost in eccentric is
much smaller than in concentric.
>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.
Your formula supposes linear dependence which doesn't hold true in every
case. For example if I do one set of 8 reps with 80% of 1RM or one set of 16
reps with 40% of 1RM with the same eccentric rep speed I'd get the same
damage with your formula. Thus at least damage is not directly proportional
to resistance. Likewise, damage per identical rep or set is an increasing
function as was discussed above. Another thing I'd criticize is that you're
using resistance percentages. If my 1RM at one stage was 200 lbs and some
years later 400 lbs the damage would not be the same if I did a percentually
identical set in both cases.
One deficiency is that you don't take concentric or isometric work into consideration. Although the damage incurred per time unit in tension is smaller in those modes it should not be omitted. My proposition is to use appropriate evaluation factors for eccentric, concentric and isometric impulses. Thus the formula would become more generally applicable. Another variable that is omitted are rest periods between sets or even reps. It would be very difficult to include them to the formula, though.
>
>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
Is a 4 sec eccentric "typical"?
>"Typical GVT" : 10 sets @ 60% RM x 10 reps (not to failure) with 4
>second eccentric =
>24000
I wonder if this is "typical". I may be an exception but, for example, I
hardly can do 10 x 10 in the bench press with 60% even with 2 sec eccentric
and 2 min rests between sets.
>"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
Sounds impossible to me.
>I have used all of the above protocols at one time or another, and these
>estimations corroborate empirical and scientific evidence.
This is good. There are too many "experts" who haven't tried or will try
anything else than what they promote. Personal experience gives broader
perspective, and what really matters is how different interpretations work
for the person in question, not for anybody else.
>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.
What you are speaking applies to YOU but not necessarily for somebody else.
Maybe there are guys who need ten days of rest but I dare to claim that they
are in minority. On the other hand it's misleading to speak of exceptions as
the rule.
Apologies for
>the long post
Don't apologize for substance. Your posts are interesting reading.
Erkki Turunen
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 13:04:57 -0800
From: "Jacobs, Eric J" <Eric.Jacobs@PSS.Boeing.com>
Subject: Recovery Period After Flu
Can anyone provide some general guidelines on when to return to working
out after being sick with the flu? I just recently spent 3days battling
a flu virus and have 9 fewer pounds to show for it. Thanks in advance
for your help.