1. Good leg press machine???
by: Boxcar6969 <Boxcar6969@aol.com>
2. Re: HIT Digest, digest #77
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
3. Re: Training to Failure
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
4. Re:Optimal Set Duration, Repetition Speed
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
5. ABCDE Program
by: Arul Selvarayan <arul@empire-isp.com>
6. Post from 'Chatoor' jakim@trinidad.net
by: David and Lisa Staplin <staplin@pro-ns.net>
7. Re: SuperSlow Training for young children
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
8. Re: Mentzer's HD 2
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 20:03:56 EST
From: Boxcar6969 <Boxcar6969@aol.com>
Subject: Good leg press machine???
I saw someone post something that said leg pressing is ok is you have a good
leg press machine.. What exactly is a good leg press machine?? My gym has a
cybex one and also a flex systems one. Are they good? Either one? How bout the
hammer strength H Squat machine? Is that one good??
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 20:44:42 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #77
> Chuck the tricep extensions. Do Close Grip benches instead.
Triceps extensions have a higher rate of motor unit activation as
illustrated by EMG study than close grip bench presses. 87% versus 75% I
believe.
----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory - http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"The beatings will continue until morale around here improves."
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 20:59:13 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Training to Failure
Regarding a question of training to failure:
Training to failure is typically defined as performing an exercise to the point at which it is impossible to produce any further positive movement in good form. Of course, you could get technical and talk of concentric, static, and eccentric failure, but that's for another post (or maybe an article?).
There degree to which the body is stimulated to produce an adaptation to or
protective mechanism against a particular stress is proportional to the
intensity of that stress. In the case of training, the greater the stress
imposed, the greater the degree to which the body is stimulated to produce a
response. All other factors being equal, the harder, or more intensely one
trains, the better results they will experience.
If we define intensity as percentage of momentary effort (this definition
serves as a far better example for this purpose than the inroad/time
definition, although both are related), then the only time during a set of an
exercise at which a person can be sure that they are training at the highest
possible level of intensity, a 100?% effort, is when they achieve positive
failure.
Suppose, for the sake of example, you can bench press a maximum of 400 pounds,
one time, at a particular repetition speed. Let's further suppose that during
the performance of a set of bench presses at that speed your strength is
reduced by approximately 2% per repetition. If you perform a set of bench
presses with 320 pounds, the first repetition represents only an 80% effort,
or 80% intensity, so to speak. By the start of the second repetition, you're
strength will have been reduced to a maximum output of 392 pounds, so about an
81.6% effort is required to lift the weight. By the start of the third
repetition, you're strength will have been reduced to a maximum output of 384
pounds, so about an 83.3% effort is required to lift it. After performing the
tenth repetition, your momentary strength has been reduced by approximately
20% (2% per rep), or a 20% inroad has been achieved. As you begin to perform
the eleventh repetition, the maximal amount of force you can produce equals
the amount of weight you're using, in which case you will be putting forth a
100% effort in your attempt to move the resistance, although you will not be
able to move it: muscular failure.
Even if, as some suggest, 100% intensity is not required to stimulate strength
increases, since there is no objective means of measuring training intensity,
one would not know if or when they had reached any particular level. The only
two levels of intensity which we can measure with some degree of accuracy are
0% (absolute rest) and 100% (maximal effort at muscular failure). One would
still need to train to failure to be positive that growth has been stimulated.
Otherwise, it's just hit or miss at best.
One more note: while it might be possible to overstress the body by training
too intensely, I highly doubt that more than a handful of extremely rare
genetic freaks exist who have the requisite neurological efficiency, motor
ability, and will do perform such a feat. Most people do not train anywhere
near as intensely as they believe they do. Not even close. Not even in the
ballpark. Maybe not even in the same country for that matter. I do not believe
that 99.99% of the people are capable of training intensely enough to
overstress their body if they are properly regulating their training volume
and frequency.
Overstressing the body is caused by overtraining, by performing too much work,
too often, NOT by training too hard. As Arthur Jones has stated numerous times
and in numerous articles, the single biggest mistake that people make in
regards to their training is to train too long, too often, and not nearly hard
enough.
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:05:32 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re:Optimal Set Duration, Repetition Speed
<< Finally, if 45 - 70 seconds is the optimal time for a set, how do we
know that 6 reps at 5 seconds up and 5 seconds down with, for sake of
example 100kg is any better or worse than 10 reps at 2 seconds up and 4
seconds down with the same weight? >>
The optimal set duration may vary considerably between individuals, and from muscle group to muscle group in an individual, depending on neurological efficiency, muscle fiber type, etc. 45 to 70 is only an average. The set must be minimally long enough to allow for a significant degree of muscular inroad, and not so long that the set is terminated due to cardiovascular fatigue, and wastes an inordinate amount of recovery energy and resources.
As for repetition speed, slower is more effective. For more on this, see my
article Repetition Speed: Why Slower Is Better on Cyberpump! or visit
www.superslow.com.
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 21:17:59 -0800
From: "Arul Selvarayan" <arul@empire-isp.com>
Subject: ABCDE Program
Hi, I'm going the start Torbjorn Akerfeldt's program ABCDE on Monday, I
was wondering if anyone here has tried it, and if so what were the
results?
Arul Selvarayan
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:35:05 -0600
From: "David and Lisa Staplin" <staplin@pro-ns.net>
Subject: Post from 'Chatoor' jakim@trinidad.net
Regarding the post by 'Chatoor' jakim@trinidad.net and New Routine ideas:
Yuor routine is a step in the right direction but with a few changes it
should REALLY move you forward! First, the idea of using compound
movements is a good one. Since you are young, try the 2 workouts below:
1) Squats, Chins, then Dips
2) Deadlifts with a Shrug at the top of the move, Incline or Bench and
Bicep curls
You will notice that each workout works ALL the major muscles. PERFORM
CHINS USING AN UNDERHAND (palms facing you) GRIP.
Most of the talk about NUMBERS of reps is meaningless since the intensity
of contraction is influenced GREATLY by the SPEED of the rep - faster =
less stress on the muscle. Strive for 30-60 seconds TOTAL SET TIME moving
NO faster than 2 seconds raising and 4 seconds lowering. Slower than this
is generally better.
Now as to FREQUENCY, your idea about using SORENESS as a guide is VERY
good!
Soreness is caused by inflammation which is in turn caused by DAMAGE to the
muscle cell. The point at which you can no longer FEEL soreness is merely
the point where the inflammation has been reduced below your perception.
IT IS NOT THE POINT BY WHICH THE MUSCLE HAS RECOVERED OR THEN AFTER
RECOVERY HAD A CHANCE TO GROW!!! A rule of thumb that has worked well is:
The first day you are not sore, you are about 35% of the way to your next
workout. So, in your post you state that it takes you 4-5 days after a
hard workout for hte soreness to be gone. This means you should be taking
12-14 days between workouts! Don't forget you are healing what is truly a
WOUND to your muscles caused by training. How long does it take your body
to heal a cut on your finger?
Try this for 6 months, eat 8-10% above maintainance and I am sure you will
be pleased with the results! Good luck!
Dave S
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:18:16 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: SuperSlow Training for young children
In a message dated 97-12-27 15:23:36 EST, you write:
<< 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 >>
I have trained children as young as 7 using the SuperSlow protocol, and have
had no problems with it. A few basic compound movements are all that I had
them do, bodyweight only squats, chins, push ups, one legged calf raises, for
example. Best to get them started out right.
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:38:09 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mentzer's HD 2
Sandeep writes:
"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?"
It varies from client to client. Some were following high volume programs, some were previously untrained clients, some used to jog, you name it.
"2] What percentage of the mass gain was constituted by lean body mas?"
In all of the cases where I kept records of regular measurements, the majority of the gains were lean tissue. I've seen some people gain over 10 pounds of muscle while LOSING bodyfat. These were NOT previously untrained subjects.
" 3] What was the concurrent gain in strength?"
Again, this varies from individual to individual, and depends on the time
frame you're talking about. Some people gained the 10 pounds in as little as 6
to 8 weeks, some people took 6 months or more. In any case, the strength
increases are significant and consistent. These people are stronger on every
exercise every time they train. It's not uncommon for a new subject to
increase their strength in some exercises by as much as 50% (after the initial
6 weeks during which part of performance improvements can be attributed to
neuromuscular adaptation, motor skill rehearsal, etc.) in as little as two or
three months.
"4] What were the dietary and rest habits of the individuals?"
This varies greatly from subject to subject. Most of these clients do not have exceptional genetics, and perform office work. Some were on strict, moderately reduced calorie diets, some just at a regular well balanced diet, some didn't eat so healthy (hey, I can't follow them around all day and do their cooking).
"5] How many years of training experience had they had?"
Some had several years of training experience, with little or nothing to show
for it. Some were untrained subjects. Again, it varies greatly between
subjects.
The fact that several people, all under unique circumstances, all gained a
significant amount of muscle mass using very abbreviated and infrequent
training routines must say something for HD2. Of course, they all were also
using SuperSlow rep speeds.
Sandeep, you say you "...do not agree with the physiological design of the
program (HD2) at all..."
Exactly what is it about the "physiological design" of HD2 that you do not
agree with, and why? What's your rationale for this?
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com