1. Volume training
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
2. Re: Damage Incurred...
by: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi>
3. HIT Journal/RANT?
by: Jon Ziegler <Rutger1@JPS.NET>
4. Heavy Duty Precision
by: Kevin Dye <kevind@picknowl.com.au>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 22:02:40 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Volume training
>Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 12:48:20 -0800
>From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts)
>Subject: Volume Training
>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?
first, 10 days between bodyparts is WAYYYY too long. Poliquin designed it
originally with 5 days rest between bodyparts. That is:
Day 1: chest/back
Day 2: legs/abs
Day 3: off
Day 4: delts/arms
Day 5: off
Repeat cycle
As to your failure question, when you hit positive failure, stop the set
but do the remainder of your sets with teh same weight. At the next
workout, try to impove that. For example, let's say at 1 leg workout you
get:
Squat: 185X10,10,10,10,10,10,10,8,6,5
5 days later, try to get at least set number 8 up a few reps. It might
look like:
Squat: 185X10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10 (whatever). Then raise the weight 5%.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 20:55:26 +0200
From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi>
Subject: Re: Damage Incurred...
>Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:38:49 -0500
>From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
>> 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.
Instead of using weight (W) directly you can use factor W^c where c is an
appropriate figure >1. The greater c the more the formula emphasizes damage
with heavy loads over light loads.
>> 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.
It's difficult to say because you are changing TWO variables simultaneously
in your example: time AND impulse.
Erkki Turunen
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 00:09:29 -0800
From: Jon Ziegler <Rutger1@JPS.NET>
Subject: HIT Journal/RANT?
I have three questions:
1. What is the "bodybuilding lifestyle" exactly? I have been reading
that term for years, but what is it? Is there actually a place in the
world where I can go, sleep until 10 a.m., get up go to the gym, do my
split routine leg workout (8 exercises in sets of ten), go to the beach
and tan, checkout fitness babes, date fitness babes and. . .?, go back
to the gym and do cardio, and a photo shoot. Where is this place,
Venice? I have a college education, a job, family, and responsibility.
Obviouisly, I went wrong somewhere.
2. Why is it that suddenly "writers" in the fitness magazines are
writing like John McCallum (he was great wasn't he!)?
& 3. Does ANYONE know where the graveyard for old Nautilus machines is
located. Preferably A spot in Northern California/Northern Nevada. I
would be interested in purchasing a used pullover machine, the old plate
loading kind is fine.
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 23:23:00 +1030
From: "Kevin Dye" <kevind@picknowl.com.au>
Subject: Heavy Duty Precision
Hi,
I have used Heavy Duty virtually all my training life [nearly 20 years],
yet I still have trouble determining the 'precise' amount of exrcise &
frequency required. I would like to discuss with other Heavy Duty trainees
what they are using & experiencing with HD.
I totally believe in Mike Mentzer's concepts as they are scientifically
sound and have more rational behind them than any other system I have ever
heard about. But the issue remains; what is the 'exact' [minimal] amount
required to gain the most mass?
At present I train on a basic Heavy Duty type program 1-2 times a week for 5-10 minutes. Having had success in 97' with Static Contraction training , I might soon resume one maximal static per muscle. With this I gained 1" on my chest in just two workouts!!! Then Little & Sisco's Static Contraction booklet arrived & I changed to two 'reps' but gain very little to nothing!
Personally, I appreciate the effort & research both Peter Sisco & Mentzer are doing to establish what stimulus gives the best results. If not for their work, we would all need another 100 years added to our lives to reach similar conclusions. Having such accurate measurements to direct our efforts is a privelage that we all should take advantage of. But unfortunately, numerous volume trainees will never see the light.
Feel free to e-mail me with any experiences or comments.
Regards
Kevin Dye [kevind@picknowl.net.au]