1. Caffine
by: Scott Garber <scottg@toad.net>
2. Re: Fast twitch before slow twitch
by: James Krieger - EECS (CPTS446) <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
3. Re: Fast twitch before slow twitch
by: James Krieger - EECS (CPTS446) <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
4. Re: HD in Digest #72
by: James Krieger - EECS (CPTS446) <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
5. Re: Fiber conversion (IIb --> IIa)
by: James Krieger - EECS (CPTS446) <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
6. Re: Stimulus
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
7. Re: Periodisation
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
8. Heavy Duty doubter!
by: Kevin Dye <kevind@picknowl.com.au>
9. Re: Team Success
by: Brad Collins <bcollins@hotmail.com>
10. machines vs. free weights
by: Dave Huckabay <wabecdh@erols.com>
11. Re: Properly designed machines
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
12. Re: Periodization, Loosely defined.
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:57:04 -0500
From: "Scott Garber" <scottg@toad.net>
Subject: Caffine
What effect does coffee or caffine have on a person weightlifting? Also does
it make gaining mass harder?
Scott Garber
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:23:50 -0800 (PST)
From: "James Krieger - EECS (CPTS446)" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Fast twitch before slow twitch
> 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
>
> [I have a question. I have this study, and I'm searching for where it says this
> about recruitment during eccentric actions. I see one paragraph on page 271 relating
> to eccentric training. Can you please refer to specifically where you saw this?
> Thanks.
> --Rob]
See the section called "Practical Neural Applications." In the second
paragraph, work by Nardone is discussed, where it was found that some high
threshold motor units would fire prior to low threshold ones during
eccentric actions.
James Krieger
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:31:55 -0800 (PST)
From: "James Krieger - EECS (CPTS446)" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Fast twitch before slow twitch
> From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
>
> 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.
>
I don't think I'm qualified to answer this question. I'll give you the
full paragraph from the review article that I quoted:
"Nardone et al reported that during eccentric or lengthening contractions of the triceps surae, there were alterations in the normal recruitment of motor units. Unlike Henneman et al.'s size principle with the orderly recruitment of motor units, Nardone et al. found some high threshold (fast twitch) motor units firing prior to low threshold (slow twitch) ones with eccentric contractions. Therefore an emphasis on both eccentric and concentric contractions should ensure the utilization of the high threshold motor units and stress maximal muscle activation."
James Krieger
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:07:24 -0800 (PST)
From: "James Krieger - EECS (CPTS446)" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: HD in Digest #72
> From: Paul Englert <Paul.Englert@vuw.ac.nz>
>
> 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.
What this individual is pointing out is that HD did not result in the best way for progressive overload for him. He achieved better workout to workout gains while on a higher volume, higher frequency protocol.
> 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?
He is referring to training poundage, not bodyweight.
> 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.
>
Mentzer defines intensity as "% momentary ability", which is a level of effort. However, effort is partially a subjective quantity. If someone tells you they trained with 100% intensity (maximal effort), you have to take their word for it. Whether they actually did or not cannot be measured, making it a subjective rather than objective quantity.
> 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.
Simplistic is the notion that less is better as well.
> 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.
We can also falsify a theory by providing real-life examples that refute it, not just by refuting the foundation premises. This individual provides a real-life example that refutes what Mentzer is trying to say.
I have often heard Mentzer make the claim that if you can perform 10 reps
of an exercise to failure, but never attempt the 11th, then the body has
no reason to enlarge on its existing capacities and therefore will not
produce an increase in size or strength. This insinuates that an athlete
that never trains to failure will not achieve increases in strength.
However, in the real world, there are numerous examples of athletes
increasing in strength despite not training to failure. I'm not arguing
for/against training to failure here, but I am arguing the premise that
training to failure is a requirement for an increase in strength, which is
what Mentzer insinuates.
The human body is a very complex organism which I feel cannot be reduced
to simple logic and mathematics. There are so many systems within the
body with highly complex interactions.
>
> 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.
>
This premise alone is based on assumption that a plateau is caused by
either overtraining or undertraining. A solid theory should not be based
on assumptions.
> 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.
This is assuming these principles are correct and valid. However, as I
pointed out, one of these principles which you refer to is based on an
assumption which may very well be incorrect (I definitely believe that it
is incorrect).
James Krieger
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:31:13 -0800 (PST)
From: "James Krieger - EECS (CPTS446)" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Fiber conversion (IIb --> IIa)
> From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
>
> 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?
Staron et al (1) found total Type IIB muscle fibers in men and women to
decrease from 21% of total fibers to only 7% after 8 weeks of training.
This training involved multiple sets of 6-12 RM with 2 minute rest
periods. Changes were observed within as little as 2 weeks in women and 4
weeks in men.
1. Staron, R.S.; Karapondo, DL.; Kraemer, W.J.; Fry, A.C.; Gordon, S.E.;
Falkel, J.E.; Hagerman, F.C.; and Hikida, R.S. 1994. Skeletal muscle
adaptations during the early phase of heavy-resistance training in men and
women. J. Appl. Physiol. 76:1247-55.
James Krieger
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:42:32 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: Re: Stimulus
Hi Guys,
First thing I want to say is, Sandeep PLEASE include a proper subject heading so we know in advance what you going to talk about. I will edit quite heavily for brevity's sake and for yours as well :).
> -------------------- 1 --------------------
> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 22:43:50 -0500
> From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
> Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #80
<snipped>
> Personally, I think empirical evidence is worthless if used as the only
> argument one has. Used in conjunction with sound scientific proof, sure,
> icing on the cake. But as an entire argument; I think we can all find
> "some lifter" to prove a theory. University of Nebraska uses
> disgustingly high volume periodization protocols, traditional tapering
> programs. University of Michigan uses single set training throughout the
> season, multiple times a week. Both of these systems boast stellar
> athletes (i.e. Charles Woodson and Ahman Green) with tremendous
> strength, speed and relative size. Both teams were rated #1 at one time
> or another this season. What does it say about training methodologies
> and success? Nothing, except that there are many routes to it.
What Mike Mentzer does is give illustrations of an individual's progress
compared against themselves. By utilising this method we can see the
difference a training protocol makes rather than see differences between
individuals or groups.
> #1 rule of statistics: a small population does not necessarily reflect
> the issue well. <snipped>
While a small "sample" does not necessarily reflect the issue, Mike
Mentzer has trained thousands of clients and should have a fair idea of
what works and what doesn't. If he gives us only a small sample of his
"population" to illustrate a point then questions need to be asked.
>From all accounts at least the ones that have been given the trainees
did not seem to be easy gainers at all.
<snipped>
> Implication for training? A wide variety of
> stimuli, WITHIN REASON, will provide results.
Please read the article THE DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP OF
EXERCISE: Part II
(The Narrow Therapeutic Window)
at http://www.mikementzer.com/doseresponse2.html to see that "within
reason" appears to be much narrower than you think.
<snipped> That suddenly a class of
> superhuman men and women develop, all with similar gains in strength and
> size and differentiated only upon the basis of genetic predisposition to
> success?
>
> Why has this not happened if the "ultimate training program has been
> found"?
People do not change because it is comfortable to stay exactly where
they are. That's why people will work harder to stop a loss than to
accomplish a gain. They don't wish to leave their comfort zone.
>
> My point is this. Anyone claiming to have found the holy grail of
> training is a huckster who wishes to dispel their own frustrations and
> misunderstandings by lying to themselves and others as having found the
> truth. Trial and error experimentation in training is BLOODY
> FRUSTRATING. But it is worth it in the end. It's VERY easy to find
> something that works relatively well, stop right there and say "I'm
> done. Here's the answer!" There are a lot of things that work! I'm not
> insulting anyone here (Mentzer).
By insulting and then saying you're not does not change the facts at
all. Seeing your posts on other newsgroups I would tend to think that
is exactly what you are doing considering that this unmoderated
behaviour to be a more accurate reflection.
> > Most trainees fail to realise the workout is only the START of the muscle building process, rest & >recuperation actually DELIVERS the results. The more you short change recuperation time, the more >you hamper the growth mechanism. All steroid
>
<snipped>
> The problem, I think, with training progress, is more a lack of
> knowledge in the fundamentals than subscribing to a pariticular protocol
> or dogma. People want to jump into training and start making gains.
> "Hell, if I curl this weight, I should automatically grow, shouldn't I?"
> When that doesn't happen, they think more weight. When they still aren't
> gaining, they add calories. When they still aren't gaining, they resort
> to the muscle rags for enlightenment. When they still aren't gaining,
> hell, they use whatever works for someone else. The point of all of this
> is that fundamentally they still lack a prerequisite knowledge in the
> principles of effective training and THAT over all things is what is
> disarming them. Sometimes it is a lack of intensity, sometimes it is a
> lack of proper form, sometimes an ineffective rest interval, too much
> volume FOR THE GIVEN RECOVERY PERIOD, too much frequency, too little of
> this and that. But without the proper understanding of training
> principles they can never properly and intelligently assess and correct
> their training errors.
I agree.
<snipped>
The stimulus is intensity (Inroad/time) IMO given that without it no
growth is possible. Whether there is an actual break over point I'm not
sure.
Cya
Teri
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 19:29:16 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: Re: Periodisation
A few thoughts.
> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:25:46 -0800
> From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Football teams and strength training protocols
>
> I would like to add to Sandeep's comments here. I have seen many
> references on Cyberpump! to successful college football teams, like
> Michigan and Penn State, that use HIT. My point is that the success of
> these teams is not due to HIT, but due to the athletes that these programs
> are able to recruit since they are top level programs. These schools would
> still be top level programs if they used higher volume protocols. Just the
> same, Nebraska would still be a top level school if it used HIT protocols.
> Their strength training protocols have very little, if anything, to do with
> their success.
I agree. To say that HIT is superior because of Dorian Yates' success
is also silly given that genetic potential and many other factors (e.g.
drugs) cloud the issues. The success of a training protocol can only be
compared when the administered to one person and using them with another
training protocol. Even with this there are problems because any
improvements with a method puts one closer to their genetic potential.
We all realise that the closer one gets to their potential the harder it
is to make further gains. Even trying to lose the size and strength
will not take into account "Muscle Memory".
The "best" although not perfect method is to use identical twins and
train them differently and compare the results. The only person I know
of who has done this with changing only one variable and that was rep
range was Arthur Jones.
>
> For every training program out there, you'll find a group of people who
> will get results from it. It's very tough, though, to find someone who
> will get long-term, year-in/year-out, consistent results from a single
> training protocol. Hence, the need for periodization (defined as
> variations in training stimuli over time), even for HITers. Periodization
> can come in many forms: changes in exercise selection, changes in rest
> intervals, changes in training volume, changes in training intensity,
> changes in training frequency, etc. It is likely that all of these factors
> will need to be modified in an individual's training program at some point
> in the training career.
I find this definition (Periodisation) to be too encompassing, not to represent anything in particular and therefore meaningless. I know of no protocol where at least one of the variables is not altered. One of Mike Mentzer's Chapter headings says it all "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed". The changes must reflect the current reality. They can not be arbitrarily given hoping that reality will somehow change.
Change in of itself is meaningless if it does not take into account the current reality. If I changed from squatting 2 kg for 3 reps to 5kg for 6 reps there will be no growth associated with either protocol even though change was definitely evident. The stimulus elicits the response and given sufficient rest, overcompensation will occur. Change is merely a way of COMPARING the stimulus wrt another and is not the stimulus itself. Change is not and never will be a stimulus and therefore will never be promote growth. The correct stimulus at a given moment is what is required. Now the stimulus will change because the body adapts but it is only a stimuli that is now intense relative to the body's new homeostasis that will elicit further adaptation. If one reduces intensity to what one can manage comfortably their will be no further growth provided that one is not overtrained. Rest is required not a reduction as this still takes up valuable resources.
Cya
Teri
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:43:04 +1030
From: "Kevin Dye" <kevind@picknowl.com.au>
Subject: Heavy Duty doubter!
Sandeep,
While I respect your knowledge & insight, [especially for one so young] I feel that your [mis] understanding of effective training [ie. Heavy Duty] is a shade off. Firstly, point taken that one trainee is not proof enough to validate a theory as THE best way. But when ALL the success's HD has produced is taken into consideration, including the reigning Mr.. Olympia, [who, drugs aside, is the ONLY contender to noticeably improve each year] then how can such overwhelming evidence be ignored?
Recently I have had an onslaught of trainees contact me, ALL using the SAME approach with substantial success!!!! These are intelligent, logical individuals who have regulated their training down to the MINIMAL stimulus required to grow, & grow they most certainly have / are. Even Pete Sisco, who is as dedicated to research & determining the exact ratio of high intensity exercise as anyone, has found that 4 total sets repeated every 2-3 weeks has delivered some substantial gains!
To argue whether Mentzer's principles are 'perfect' is a mute point, because when you compare his theory to all the others, it's the closest [if not the most exact] we currently have. Why? Because its basis is supported by rational, science, & experience. Therefore, there is little that anyone who uses common sense as their guide can fault.
Yes, the human body reacts to different stresses by compensating & trying to reach a state of homeostatis, that is what human physiology is all about. Likewise, we are all basically biologically similar, for if we were not, each individual would require their own doctor tuned into their own unique needs. What most trainees overlook in their search for the 'right' routine is the fact that the whole name of the game is to 'get the most from the least', & considering the unique stress high intensity training places on the WHOLE body, it isn't very much at all.
Life does have certainties, & it is these dependable entities that we rely upon to guide us in our endeavors. Does each person have their own unique set of math rules? Physic equations? Of course not. Then how can we all be in need of our own training guidelines that are VASTLY separate from the rest of the population???
In answer to one of your examples that reflects a misunderstanding of concepts -
>training in low repetition, high intensity (I.e. %RM) ranges improves this neuromuscular efficiency - which is WHY powerlifters and weightlifters usually improve their relative strength (i.e. strength per pound bodyweight) and not necessarily size. You have these 132 lb. powerlifters who can outbench their 200 lb. bodybuilder counterparts.<
I don't / can't agree with this statement at all. Everything being equal, a stronger a trainee gets, the larger they become. What about powerlifters who HAVE to move up to a higher weight division because they have increased their muscle mass, despite their training? Saying; their muscles got bigger though they were training solely for strength. It is obvious that tendon length, amongst other variables, would account for one person being stronger than another. That isn't to say that if the 'weaker' trainee focused on increasing his strength levels he wouldn't increase his former size. He would.
If you don't use strength levels as a guide to your efforts, then what can you use to determine the effectiveness of your workouts? This is the only immediate, noticeable guage we have to reflect upon. It stands to reason that if you improve your squat, deadlift, & bench 100lbs over what you are presently handling, how could you not be substantally larger? This the cornerstone of bodybuilding, & the fundamental principle that [nearly] every system or theory has as its base. It's unfortunate that rest & recuperation aren't given similar respect, as these variables hold the key to each persons ultimate success. Remember; it's not rocket science!
Mentzer has probably done more for bodybuilding, in terms of solidifying the principles, than anyone, & if one chose's to ignore what he has tried to save us from [namely, wasted years of our own research], then one is simply refusing to see. While I'd like to think that I am unique & different from the other 2000 trainees Mentzer has helped over the years, biologically, I am not. Then again, neither are you or anyone else for that matter. As a race [humans], we all have a similarities that only exceed a certain parameter in our physiological make-up, & while their might be exceptions to the rule that do in fact tolerate high intensity stress better than others, the variance isn't that vast that it makes their training requirements totally unique from the rest.
The answer, at least for me, after twenty years of dedication & research is so EXACT, it is as certain as tomorrow. Trying to fault Mentzer's research findings, is like trying to re-invent the wheel. Sure you might find your own unique style, but I refuse to accept that it will be anything but a similar entity. We can only learn from what we have available, IF we want to listen. If you do not, then that is your choice. But rational would dictate that Heavy Duty is sound in theory, effective for those that follow the guidelines [even if it means slight adjustments], & has delivered some substantial gains for so many trainees [including Mr.. Yates]. How can you perfect this system? I don't think you can. Still, if you want to dedicate your training efforts around proving Mike wrong, best of luck!
Regards
Kevin Dye [kevind@picknowl.com.au]
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 05:28:48 PST
From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Team Success
James wrote:
>
>I would like to add to Sandeep's comments here. I have seen many
>references on Cyberpump! to successful college football teams, like
>Michigan and Penn State, that use HIT. My point is that the success of
>these teams is not due to HIT, but due to the athletes that these
programs
>are able to recruit since they are top level programs. These schools
would
>still be top level programs if they used higher volume protocols. Just
the
>same, Nebraska would still be a top level school if it used HIT
protocols.
>Their strength training protocols have very little, if anything, to do
with
>their success
James,
I don't think you understand WHY that was written. It was written
BECAUSE the NSCAer's (and others) always throw out that HIT does not
work. They are sarcastic remarks in rebuttal!
The people who have thrown out those remarks KNOW that the success of the teams is NOT due to their workouts in the weight room.
I have never got ONE indication from anything on Cyberpump! that any of
the writers think the HIT workouts are responsible for the success of
the teams. It is called sarcasm. It can be effective when used in
writing. Maybe sometimes too effective. Someone might start taking it
literally!
Brad
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:53:35 -0500
From: Dave Huckabay <wabecdh@erols.com>
Subject: machines vs. free weights
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 01:39:42 -0500
From: "Raymond Craig" <drcraig@gte.net>
Subject: machines vs. free weights
I found the articles about machines vs.. free weights on Cyberpump very
interesting. I noticed Mr. Bayne stated that well designed machines could
be superior to free weights. I was wondering what the well designed
machines are? I'm sure Hammer is one of them but what are the others
Nautilus? Cybex? Flex? Icarian?
Take a look at the "Reflections of a HITTER" section on Cyberpump. Opinions
on which machines are best vary widely, and apparently you can't always go
by name. I work out at home with free weights, but when I travel, it is a
special treat for me to try out the various machines at the local gyms. I
have found the Hammer vertical press machine (I may have the name wrong
--it is a seated bench press) to be excellent. The feel, range of movement,
and the arc that your arms follow combine to give me a much better workout
than I could ever get with free weights.
dh
-------------------- 11 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:29:25 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Properly designed machines
<< I found the articles about machines vs.. free weights on Cyberpump very
interesting. I noticed Mr. Bayne stated that well designed machines could be
superior to free weights. I was wondering what the well designed machines are?
I'm sure Hammer is one of them but what are the others Nautilus? Cybex? Flex?
Icarian? >>
Unfortunately, there is no single major exercise equipment company which
designs all of it's machines properly. Some simply do a much better job than
others. There are over 20 basic exercise equipment design principles, and
numerous requirements for the design of particular exercise machines, many of
which are virtually unknown to most exercise equipment companies design
engineers (judging by their machines). The few companies who do a very good
job of exercise equipment design are MedX, Nautilus, SuperSlow Systems, Hammer
(they're as good as plate loaded leverage machines can be), and a few smaller
companies, David Fitness Equipment and Lamb. While Cybex is currently probably
the most popular equipment company, many of their pieces suffer from serious
design flaws.
For more on this, I suggest reading the article on Exercise Equipment Design
Principles in the Newsletters at the SuperSlow Exercise Guild web site,
www.superslow.com.
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 12 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:36:24 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Periodization, Loosely defined.
If you define periodization as changing training variables over time (pretty
vague if you ask me) then HIT, in a way, qualifies, since one must change
certain training variables (reducing volume and frequency) over time, to
compensate for increases in training intensity, and the effects of training
with a greater muscle mass (the more muscle you have, the greater a demand is
placed on the body as a whole during training). Of course, the stimulus one
requires remains the same; high intensity muscular work, and the principle
remains the same; progression.
I have yet to read any rational basis for any of the popular periodization
models.
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com