1. Workout Routine
by: Brian Worthey <bworthey@hotmail.com>
2. Re: HIT Digest, digest #72
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
3. Revisited - Fiber conversion (IIb --> IIa)
by: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
4. Re: HIT Digest, digest #71
by: Jack Darkes, Ph.D. <darkes@luna.cas.usf.edu>
5. Volume Training
by: Ken Roberts <SAILOR@webtv.net>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:24:47 PST
From: "Brian Worthey" <bworthey@hotmail.com>
Subject: Workout Routine
Hi! I am a 20 year old ex-football player and weight lifter. I've been
out of the weight room now for about 2 years, and I was wondering
if anyone could give me any suggestions on a good workout routine.
I'm not wanting to gain a lot of muscle mass, just maintain what I have,
well, and maybe add a little. Ya know! Or in anyone can tell me a good
way to determine the amount of weight I should be doing, would be great.
Any suggestions would be great. Thanks for the help!!
B-Worthey
bworthey@hotmail.com
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:38:49 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #72
> 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
Excellent point.
> 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.
This was what I was referring to before - however, I do not know how
this can be adjusted for mathematically.
> Or maybe there's more stimulus but it gets totally lost in damage repair.
Well, biologically speaking, there is a certain point at which an
effector in a negative feedback loop cannot minimize the damage incurred
from a stimulus. There is only so little that the body can adapt to at
one time (perhaps this is the basis for the discussion of single set
protocols vs. multiple set protocols). In my opinion, volume isn't a
straight black and white issue; it is dependant on the recovery time
alotted and other loading parameters as well. I think that there is a
finite limit to the amount of mathematical damage a person can incur
realistically speaking- not that further work creates further damage
that simply cannot be undone in reasonable time.
> 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
It was my hope that utilizing the %RM instead of relative weights would
account for this, but I understand the point that you are making. By
nature the formula is linear since it is (x)(y)(z). This assumes that
one set does the same amount of damage as one rep that does the same
amount of damage as one percent of one's RM. Since I'm only a high
school student, I don't know how this can be mathematically accounted
for.
But within reason - we are not going to simply look at the numbers and make decision from there. Obviously more factors have to be considered; but I'm still thinking that this is a somewhat accurate representation of the "demand" a training system will make on recovery. Of course, it can be argued that the majority of society accepts "scientific fact" no matter what the credibility is once it is thrown in their face.
> 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.
That's another excellent point; but I am supposing that people will take
that into consideration.
> variable that is omitted are rest periods between sets or even reps. It
> would be very difficult to include them to the formula, though.
True, and that is why I omitted it. For example, the ischemia associated
with chemical overload in the muscle as we approach failure can be
dissipated as time progresses. Hence, two sets to failure performed
immediately after each other will perhaps create more muscular trauma
than two sets to failure performed 1 hour apart.
> >"Typical Training": 3 sets @ 80% RM x 8 reps (not to failure) with 4
> >second eccentric =
> >7680
>
> Is a 4 sec eccentric "typical"?
It's typical for me. I utilize a program with the above loading parameters when cycling off higher volume training programs. I find that it is a little better to "coast downwards" from high volume training rather than immediately switch to a contrasting protocol such as HIT. The gains are retained a little better in this fashion, from experience.
> 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.
In so far as GVT, that is exactly the loading parameters I used. Of
course, fatigue WILL occur as you approach set 6 and the sets
thereafter. As such, I now realize that the calculation is not accurate
(not due to incorrect loading parameters, but just the fact that sets
beyond set 6 consist of performance decreases).
> 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.
It's interesting that you say this; this is essentially the same
philosophy with which I intend to serve as the basis for my site in the
future. I haven't had the time to reflect my beliefs and experiments in
the information on my site in the past year.
> What you are speaking applies to YOU but not necessarily for somebody else.
I have found the following observation to hold true with many lifters.
Tolerance to volume is a relative issue. This makes as much sense
through logic as it does through practice. A lifter who is constantly
exposed to high volume training will not be as devastated from a single
set to failure as a beginner or lifter who utilizes moderate volume
might be. However, if someone "downgrades" their capacity for tolerating
volume by training for a long period with low volume, switching to
higher volumes will be temporarily more disruptive until the body
adapts. Furthermore, I strongly believe that the damaging effects of a
new training protocol (i.e. varied loading parameters) diminish as the
subject uses the protocol more. Advanced athletes, I have noticed, adapt
very quickly to programs. The first 2-3 cycles of a program might leave
them debiltatingly sore, whereas if they stick to it for 5-6 cycles
their bodies adapt and become better at tolerating the specific stress
created by the manipulation of loading parameters.
> 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
Ten days of rest in regards to what? Their specific situation. If one
set is so disruptive to them that it requires ten days of recovery time,
I'd argue that they either did not move very high poundages, or training
with too little tension on the muscles, or did not train very hard at
all before. However, over time, their bodies WILL grow more efficient at
tolerating this stress. I personally believe that the key to ensuring
continual progress is to put the body in this state as much as possible
- i.e. varying the stressors. HIT works, volume works, it's just a
question of when they will OPTIMALLY work. They are appropriate in some
situations and not in others. Once the trainee has adapted to a single
set training system implementing more volume into their program is one
way of changing the stress. They can switch back when the same occurs
for higher volume training. This adaptation, this point at which the
body becomes more efficient at handling a stress, is inevitable. If this
were not so the human race as a whole would have never survived any kind
of environmental stressor.
----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory - http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"The beatings will continue until morale around here improves."
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 02:31:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
Subject: Revisited - Fiber conversion (IIb --> IIa)
Hey, it's me again. Time for another "revisitation" of old stuff...
In Digest 30, MSG13, James Krieger wrote:
>It has been established that heavy resistance training causes Type IIB to
>Type IIA fiber conversion (1).
>1. Abernethy, P.J., J. Jurimae, P.A. Logan, A.W. Taylor, and R.E. Thayer.
>Acute and Chronic Response of Skeletal Muscle to Resistance Exercise.
>Sports Med. 17(1):22-38. 1994.
Krieger, J., "Re: Volume, studies, endurance training, etc.", HIT Digest #30,
MSG13, Sat, 1 Nov 1997
I'd like to dig a little deeper in this statement. First, what is meant by
"heavy" resistance training? Does this mean >90% intensity(load), or does
it just mean something besides those pumping-exercises we often see
aerobics instructors have their clients do?
Unfortunatly I don't have his books with me (they're at my school address), but I believe that Dr. Hatfield says that Type IIb fibers are destroyed when called upon to fire, and if high intensity(load) weights are used _frequently_, then they are not given a chance to regenerate. HOWEVER, if high intensity(load) weights are used _infrequently_, then the destroyed IIb types can be fully recovered along with additional IIb fibers created (from other fiber types?). This would contradict the statement you made above.
To Fred Hatfield:
If you could refresh my memory, I'd appreciate it. Also, (can't remember again)
did you give this (the destroying/recreation of IIb's) as a reason to avoid
frequent usage of eccentric exercise, regardless of intensity(load)?
Thanks,
Brian
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 11:24:07 -0800
From: "Jack Darkes, Ph.D." <darkes@luna.cas.usf.edu>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #71
Scott wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
As to your question number 1, who can say? There are individual differences to be
considered. I would have to agree that MM can be too dogmatic in some of his
recommendations. It should be accepted that there are certain physical commonalities and
that we all share basic physiology, or else there could be no medical field. However, due
to many different variables (e.g., lifestyle, genetics, drugs) there are individual
variations that must be considered. His absolute, one size fits all approach is a little
too simplistic. I could say more, but.....
A point of clarification here. You are calling the external stimulus "stress," and calling
the internal response "stress" in a later portion. Technically, the external stimulus is a
"stressor" and stress is defined as "the nonspecific response of the body to any demand
made up on it" (Selye, 1974, p. 14). Hans Selye is, btw, the most renowned stress
researcher around.
> For example: if when you started lifting the maximum stress your legs could
> handle for an all out set was 100kg for 6 reps in the squat.
That would be the maximal stressor, or maximal training stimulus.
> After 6 months
> you can now handle 150kg for an all out set, that does not mean that your
> legs are 50%more stressed, it means that your legs have adapted and now
> their maximum is 50% more.
Your idea that the legs have adapted not withstanding, you will note again that the
definition refers to a nonspecific reaction of the body. Whether your legs can "adapt" (I
suppose we are talking about muscle growth as adaptation) or not may have little to do with
you body's ability to, nonspecifically, adapt to increased stimulation. There are specific
and nonspecific effects of stimulation. Muscle growth is a specific local adaptation.
This may also involve neural adaptation, as in more effective neural activation of the
pathways involved. But, this is specific, while stress is, by definition, nonspecific.
Stress is, in essence, dependent on the demand made on the adaptive capacity of the body
(as a whole). The finite nature of the body's adaptive energy is another issue that is
important here. As is the possibility of life changes that will increase or decrease total
stimulation over 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.
Has your body (e.g., the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis) adapted or have your legs
become stronger? Again, it is necessary to be sure what and where we are talking about.
You are equating being stronger (a specific, local event to a large degree) with the body
becoming more resistant to stress. If this is the case, then the body's adaptation should
be against any stressor, not specifically weight training. I don't know that such is the
case, but doubt that training causes an increased resistance to stressors in other
domains. Besides, this is a speculative and not universally accepted idea..that the body
can be trained to train..that recuperative ability (adaptation energy) can be increased or
trained up. There are certain exogenous means for enhancing recovery ability (ranging from
reducing stress related to other events, to eating well, to taking steroids). But can the
body be trained to recuperate? Dunno!
> Also the issue of detraining comes into play. The more conditioned an
> athlete the quicker they will recover from an intense session, but he body
> will also revert to it's previous state quicker, in an effort to preserve
> equilibrium. Your body does not want to have to feed extra kilos of muscle,
> and the muscle is not stimulated regularly.
Conditioned? Pretty ambiguous concept? You assume that the more conditioned athlete
recovers more quickly. I don't know whether that is a valid assumption. And you seem to be
making an argument that contradicts your previous assertion. If there has been some
adaptation that facilitates more intense training, then you are implying that there has
been a new homeostatic level attained. Why then would the body revert so quickly? And why
would this "detraining" occur more quickly in a body that has been "conditioned" to expect
to need it's muscle? And this contradicts a lot of anecdotal evidence I have heard about
the fact that a short period of lay off usually results in positive changes in both
physique and strength.
Just my thouhgts on the issue,
Jack
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 12:48:20 -0800
From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts)
Subject: Volume Training
For whatever reasons, I wasn't making the kind of gains I wanted using
HIT so I have switched over to German Volume Training as a way of just
"seeing for myself". I'm entering my fourth cycle and am still reserving
judgement. But I have a question for any of you who know the system
better than I.
I have divided the routine into a 3 way split with about 10(+)
daysrecovery between body parts. am doing o.k. in all but my chest
exercise. Using a machine press I am failing in my 8th set. I have
continued on for 10 sets going to failure with each, with diminishing
number of reps in each succeeding set. I'm wondering if this is
incorrect. Should I just quit when I fail and decrease the weight the
next time or... what?
Ken