1. Re: Mathematical Analysis of Training Stress/Intensity
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
2. Re:Fascial Stretching
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
3. Re: HIT Digest, digest #78
by: Don Pendergraft <dpendergraft@beckett.com>
4. Re: HIT Digest, digest #78
by: Don Pendergraft <dpendergraft@beckett.com>
5. Re: More defense of HD2
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
6. HIT digest
by: Jon Ziegler <Rutger1@JPS.NET>
7. Re: HIT Digest, digest #78
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
8. Re: Tricep Extensions
by: Brad Collins <bcollins@hotmail.com>
9. HIT Digest
by: Dave Huckabay <wabecdh@erols.com>
10. Workout Routine
by: Jacobs, Eric J <Eric.Jacobs@PSS.Boeing.com>
11. compensation and detraining
by: <Alessandro.Pirotta@netit.alcatel.it>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:18:20 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mathematical Analysis of Training Stress/Intensity
A few things to consider when someone tries to make all sorts of fancy
mathematical rationalizations for high volume, or ballistic training
protocols:
1.) Mechanical definitions of work and power do not apply to muscular work at a structural level, and can not be accurately measured at a molecular level.
2.) There is no way of accurately measuring metabolic work, or even making a
rough estimate.
3.) The effect of performing an exercise with any particular percentage of
one's one repetition maximum is greatly affected by factors such as fiber
type, neurological efficiency, motor skill, etc. which can not be measured
accurately, or at all in some cases.
4.) While slower repetition speeds require the use of a lower percentage of
one's one rep maximum, more muscular effort is required to move against the
resistance, due to the decrease in momentum. A greater inroad will be achieved
in a particular time frame using a relatively slower repetition speed and less
wieght as a result of this fact.
5.) Even if one could apply mechanical definitions of work and power to muscular work, to accurately compare protocols, one would also need to factor in the effects of acceleration, momentum, friction (both bodily and apparatus), and take into the account that friction changes from repetition to repetition, and during each repetition, and that blood pressure changes have an effect on friction and muscular force output during the set, as well as factor in the effects of stored energy resulting from compression and stretching of involved elastic tissues, and consider all of the leverage factors both within the body (bone length, tendon insertions and angles, etc) and in the apparatus (whether it be machine or free weight).
As you can see, any attempt at mathematical analysis of metabolic work, or
"damage" is a mess of assumptions based on assumptions, based on assumptions
ad nauseum.
This deserves an article. Count on it.
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:45:47 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re:Fascial Stretching
The idea that by stretching the fascia (connective tissue sheaths around the
muscle) you allow more room for the muscles to grow was popularized by John
Parillo, the same character who claims that there is no such thing as
overtraining, only undereating. Hah!
Anyways, there is nothing to this. Muscular size potential is ultimately
dictated by ones genetics, particularly the relative length of ones muscle
bellies, which is not subject to change. Did you have to do stretching
exercises for your skin as you grew from a baby to a toddler to a child to a
teen to an adult, etc., so that your body had room to grow? I suspect not. Did
you have to stretch your muscles and fascia as your leg and arm bones grew
longer, to allow them to reach their full potential length? It is highly
unlikely that one's lack of training progress has anything to do with
insufficient elasticity of their fascia, or that stretching it will do
anything to improve the situation.
More on this later...
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:34:32 -0600
From: "Don Pendergraft" <dpendergraft@beckett.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #78
>-------------------- 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??
I LOVE the leg press machine at the Powerhouse where I work out. It's an Icarian. I don't know about the ones you mentioned, but I have used other equipment by HS and Flex and both are very good. Good luck.
Don P.
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:39:02 -0600
From: "Don Pendergraft" <dpendergraft@beckett.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #78
>-------------------- 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
I read an excellent article by Lyle McDonald in Dave's Powerstore News. I still have the article, but I think that that it may be copyrighted. So, since Lyle is a list member, maybe he wouldn't mind posting it for everyone else to read. Basically, the article points to the shabby research that went into the ABCDE diet and that there is no support for it.
Don P.
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:55:48 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: More defense of HD2
Sandeep writes:
"<< 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?"
[This is what is called the "argument from incredulity", or the "since I do not comprehend it, or how it could be, so it must not be so" argument. Needless to say, this is not a valid argument. - A.B.]
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. >>"
[This assumes that the degree of damage done to a muscle has something to do
with the degree to which the body is stimulated to produce an increase in
muscular strength, which is not the case. If this were true, the most
effective way of increasing muscular strength would be to either constantly be
pulling or tearing one's muscles, or, to have oneself beaten on a regular
basis, in which case the "damage" done to the muscles would be significantly
greater.
More logical would be to make the association, which has already been well
established, between training intensity and growth stimulation.
Rather than rewrite Mike Mentzer's entire HD2 book for everyone, allow me to
suggest that all of you read his books and articles and try it for yourself
and decide. Mike's web site is www.mikementzer.com. -
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com]
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 20:02:26 -0800
From: Jon Ziegler <Rutger1@JPS.NET>
Subject: HIT digest
I would like to thank Andrew Baye for his information on used Nautilus. Have called the appropriate spots, and getting info. I will ask again though, if anyone knows of a place in Northern California or the Reno area that has old Nautilus for sale I'd apprciate a lead.
Thanks,
Jon Ziegler
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 23:08:44 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #78
> 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.
If switching from a high volume to low volume program, this technique is known as "tapering" and is a well known technique utilized in stimulating gains. It is coincidentially one of the fundamental principles of certain periodization protocols= gradually moving towards less and less training volume while maximizing the loads utilized. Higher training volumes allow for greater overall stimulus on the musclebeing worked. However,higher volume training cannot be sustained indefinately. Switching to a low volume training program might not provide the same magnitude of stimuli but allows for the body to actively recover and supercompensate in strength. Refer to Kraemer's endocrinological comparison of anabolic hormones produced by 1 set and 3 set protocols. Here is the study on the effects of tapering:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=7890463&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
IT IS NOT THAT ONE SET IS BETTER THAN THREE SETS OR THAT THREE SETS IS
BETTER THAN ONE. Each protocol is appropriate within a given situation.
Low volume training was more appropriate in the case of your clients. In
the cases of other athletes, higher volumes may be necessary. This is
not a blanket statement; knowledgeable strength coaches manipulate
volume along with intensity (% of 1RM), repetition performed, time under
tension, inter set rest intervals, workout duration, workout frequency
and exercises on a goal specific basis. Different manipulations of these
loading parameters will elicit different results.
> 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
Getting stronger every time an athlete trains SHOULD be a given fact in
a properly designed program. Progressive strength gains can occur in
many different manipulations of loading parameters and is not exclusive
to single set or low volume protocols. It's not that Super Slow or HD
doesn't work; it's just not the only thing that does.
> "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.
Bad question, more appropriately, how many years of productive and well
designed training had they had.
The point I'm trying to outline in all of this is that each person has
their own specific situation and characteristics to which loading
parameters must be adjusted to it. It's not that low volume training is
worthless; it is highly effective. However, it is not the only part of
the solution. For example, hypertrophy has long been correlated by the
overall volume of work performed within a certain intensity. However, as
the study above indicates, reductions in volume after training with
higher volumes does produce jumps in strength. The real key to effective
strength training is not whether one performs a single set for the rest
of their training career or whether they perform several, it is
understanding training physiology well enough such that loading
parameters can be intelligently and properly manipulated for their
specific situations and goals.
NOTHING works forever.
> Exactly what is it about the "physiological design" of HD2 that you do not
> agree with, and why? What's your rationale for this?
I will keep this brief and try not to go off on a tangent here. Mentzer
doesn't really use a lot of physiological principles nor accepted
concepts in rationalizing his program; instead he uses metaphors,
empircal evidence (alledged) and common sense arguments. There is
nothing wrong with this. But that does not necessarily mean it is right.
As military intelligence officers will tell you any action can be
rationalized. The question of whether or not the rationalization is in
accordance with physiological fact is another story.
I do not believe that one can adequately create a training stimulus so great in a single set that they will necessitate in upwards of 10 days worth of recovery. Keep in mind I am not refuting the system w/o fair trial: I gave this program a 2 and 1/2 month testing phase. Failure occurred within 8-10 reps in all exercises, and this was not just "concentric" failure, but total failiure- which for me at the time meant concentric, static AND negative failure. Strength and size gains were negligible. But everyone can say "well this happened to me". So I don't consider my personal experience as scientific proof, although Mentzer does use the "experiences" he claims to have had with trainees to be proof. The trainees may very well be making the type of gains Mentzer talks of. Who knows. But no one that I have met or talked to have been able to substantiate the claims of "attainment of genetic potential" using the system. Not a single person. In so far as your clients, Andrew, well, I think my above statements speak for themselves.
I do not wish to argue what training protocol is "best". I have utilized
HIT/ HD I with some degree of success. So I am not against these low
volume, "high intensity" systems. However, I am against the notion that
they are the "final answer" to training altogether. There are many
manipulations of loading parameters that will elicit successful results.
Proper execution of these manipulations depends more on understanding
the physiological basis of training more than subscribing to a
particular training protocol. There are many pathways to success; the
real key to sustaining continual progress is finding which roads are
best for you and to run like hell.
----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory - http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"The beatings will continue until morale around here improves."
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 05:15:59 PST
From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tricep Extensions
>
>> Chuck the tricep extensions. Do Close Grip benches instead.
>
SanDeep wrote:
>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.
>
Yeah? So? Is there supposed to be some proof that higher EMG (in this
case 13%) is going to be more effective in building muscle? Tricep
extensions are elbow wreckers (skull crushers) in my opinion. Damage
now will show up later -- trust me. Most can't stand to do those. It
is awful hard to build up to significant poundages without wrecking your
elbows. You should ask Ted Arcidi about tricep extensions. He used to
do them big time for assitance for his bench. His elbow operation and
recovery was profiled in IronMan I think.
Brad
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 16:57:42 -0500
From: Dave Huckabay <wabecdh@erols.com>
Subject: HIT Digest
> 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.
The above may be true. However, CGBPresses are easier to control,
especially as you approach failure, and in my case at least, just plain
feel better. (I refer to free weight Barbell movements) . I wonder if we
don't worry a bit much about the esoteric details and not enough about
enjoying the workout.
dh
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:19:04 -0800
From: "Jacobs, Eric J" <Eric.Jacobs@PSS.Boeing.com>
Subject: Workout Routine
I have a question regarding my current "HIT" style workout routine which
I have been using for the past 3 months with moderate success. My
routine is as follows:
Squats 1x15-20
Overhead Press 1x8-10
Plate Row 1x8-10
Bench Press(barbell) 1x8-10
Incline Press(barbell) 1x8-10
Barbell Curls 1x8-10
Triceps Extension 1x8-10
Pull-ups(supinated) 1x8-10 bodyweight
Dips 1x8-10 bodyweight
Seated Calf Raise 1x15-20
Abs
I normally workout 2x a week with anywhere from 3-5 days between
workouts....my question is am I doing too many exercises and should I
cut
out some of the exercises I'm doing. Any help/opinions you could give
would be greatly appreciated. And thanks to the "moderator" for such a
great website.
EJJ
Everett SRC/PSM
425-294-1810
-------------------- 11 --------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 98 18:46:48 +0100
From: Alessandro.Pirotta@netit.alcatel.it
Subject: compensation and detraining
Hi
I have some thoughts about the mechanism of developing greater strength
level I wish to submit to the HIT-digest people in order to understand
if I learned something of meaningful from experience and from last
months readings.
Before I have anyway to annoy you with some personal facts but they are
part of what lead to me to think that way. I'll try to be succint.
I am used to train in a gym only during Fall and Winter for a total of about 4-5 months since 6 years. I have to say that only during last two years I took it seriously and applied HIT common sense principles. I was so able to get a progressive satisfactory strenght and conditioning level.
During Spring and Summer I prefer open air sports which contribute to
keep me in a pretty good shape (btw I'm 185cm x 84Kg, low bodyfat, high
percentage of fast types fibres - high power/low resistance) and
perform twice per month only some BW pullups, dips and situps just for
maintainance purposes. In deed I was never able to improve
significantly my rep range over the whole period (eg if I started
p-upping with 10-12 I then finished with 11-13).
So I've re-started my gym season on last October, had a break in of 2
weeks training three times a week splitting in chest/tris/shoulders,
back/bis while neglecting legs as they are always ready to work heavy
anytime. After such a break in I added a leg/lowback/ab day keeping the
pace of three times/week. I had been training hard in this fashion for
two weeks when I had to suspend for a week due to a light flu. When I
returned to the gym I noticed an unexpected (for me) overcompensation:
half a pound of overall bodyweight more (I believe the most of lean
mass) and an impressive improvement in strenght.
I have always believed (due to experience) my muscles would have had to
grow very slowly after reaching max recruitment efficiency (I've set a
goal of two pounds of lean mass every season) and the fact of making
good gains even when sick made me think to allow for some time more of
recovery/compensation cutting down to a twice/week - upper/lower body -
program. And so I did until Christmas holidays when I decided to take
two weeks free of weights. During that period I continued to make
progressive gains either in reps or weight and increased my BW of one
pound. Right before Christmas I reached a plateau in the bench press,
so I thought the rest period would have been of benefit by allowing for
a full supercompensation and a mind refreshness. Well, during vacation
I've put in one more pound (I suppose the most of fat :( guess why? Yes
a lot of Panettone, the typical Christmas cake we eat in Milan, and
other good sweet friends) and when returned in the gym, even not going
to pos failure I could realize a decrease in my strenght level. So
what ? Is it what is called detraining? Although I'm not used to keep
record of my measures I don't think of having lost muscle size; in two
weeks? No I don't think so.
Here are some thoughts :
- short term overcompensation consists in neurological (I miss the
right word) adaptation;
- my increase in strength is mainly due to an improvement of fibres
recruitment;
- my recruitment efficiency begins to fall after 7-10 days
- my muscle grow slowly but even on a two weeks layoff (perhaps after
14 days free of stress they begin to shrink);
- I can have less strength while having more muscles;
- within a few workouts I can reach max recruitment again so I could
improve a lot my strength (more muscles + more recruitment).
I will appreciate very much some comment from you well educated and
experienced people. However I'll come back with what I will have
experienced in the next months.
Thanks in advance,
Alex
p.s. I did not mention anything about my diet : it was the first thing I have tuned and do believe to have reached a good balance.