1. Incline vs. Decline
by: Diesel 93 <Diesel93@aol.com>
2. Personal trainers
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
3. percentage of momentary effort (Re:#83)
by: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
4. The Training Debates
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
5. superslow
by: JCane <JCane@aol.com>
6. Re: Inroad not in the textbooks
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
7. Sore Muscles
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
8. Re: Sore Muscles
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
9. Re: Moi
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
10. Re: Baye's comments on exercise scientists
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:47:49 EST
From: Diesel 93 <Diesel93@aol.com>
Subject: Incline vs. Decline
What do you guys think is a better substitue for flat bench: incline or decline presses? I am not talking about for chest development, but rather for helping up my bench press after I start doing it again. I have worked my way up to a 235 flat bench, 250 decline (first time I tried the exercise) and 225 incline at 5'9", 135 bodyweight. Each lift has been going up except flat bench lately, so I am going to stop that exercise for awhile and pick another bench- type for my heavy chest day. Which shoud it be? Thanks!
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:58:55 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Personal trainers
>Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:51:42 -0800
>I am encouraging everyone on this list to take a stand and write to your
>congressmen and see if we can get some changes made. Right now, there's
>too many different certifications (ACE, ACSM (with its different levels),
>CSCS, NSCA PT, etc.), so some type of standard needs to be set. I think
>anyone who wants to train people in the fitness industry should be required
>to have an education as well.
>
Actually, this type of program is currently in the works. One of the
biggest areas of debate and argument in the field of personal training has
to do with the idea of Liscensure. In the same way that MD's, Pt's, ATC's,
etc have to undergo a minimum number of hours and a state liscensure exame,
Personal trainers may have to do the same in a few years.
Pros of liscensure: Would raise the standard of training to a much higher
level. The types of trainers that James describes are the norm rather than
the exception. As it stands, anyone with a big arm (or not) can call
themselves a personal trainer. And certification is not insurance of
competence. Sadly, neither is a degree in the field of exercise
physiology. I know individuals with PhD's who couldn't teach a proper
squat or bench press if their life depended on it. I see 'certified
trainers' all the time with no understanding of even basic anatomy,
biomechanics or physiology (like trainers who teach teh standing dumbbell
bench press or pec deck not realizing that gravity generally only points
down). But, a 3 hour exam does not ensure these people have any more of a
clue.
One possible liscensure scheme which has been proposed is to have varying
levels of liscensure depending on the background of the trainer. For
example, you might be liscensed to work with generally healthy individuals
but NOT injury cases or cardiac rehab. Stuff like that. I hear horror
stories about unqualified trainers having injured clients perform exercises
that exacerbate the problem.
Cons of liscensure: there are at least 2 major ones I can think of. First, all the major organizatios are currently bickering over whose guidelines should be used. As James points out, everyone has different ideas about exercise and a lot of things are quite debatable in this field. My guess is that this bickering will hold up the liscensure thing for years since there is little standardization in the field.
Second, it will vastly raise prices of personal training. Of course, you
always get what you pay for. Right now there are 'trainers' out there who
don't know a bench press from a hole in the wall. Force liscensure and
these individuals will be weeded out of the pool. But, by raising the
standard, trainers will have to charge more which may prevent many
individuals from affording training. I have a personal ethical problem
with this since I don't think it's fair to keep someone from recieving
proper exercise advice (whatever THAT is) anymore than they shouldn't get
medical help for lack of money.
Personally, I'm torn on this whole issue of liscensure. On one hand, it would definitely raise standards of the field. OTOH (there are five fingers, ha ha) it will force trainers to raise prices.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:51:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Bucher <babucher@mtu.edu>
Subject: percentage of momentary effort (Re:#83)
>
> 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.
And a 1RM cannot be accuratly measured either. How do you know it was actually their true 1RM? You don't. You have to take their word for it that they could not have done another 2lbs...or that they could have completed the lift if it was 2lbs lighter.
Neither definition of intensity (effort vs. load) is more objective
than the other.
I don't like the "% momentary ability" definition anyways.
Brian
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:55:48 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: The Training Debates
From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com>
> Questions on specific aspects of their training. These debates just take
> up bandwidth that could be used to help people who are new to the weight
> game. At the very least, present them with options from ALL sources.
The thing that irritates me most about the whole issue is the total lack
of understanding for any viewpoint alien to one's own here. The thing
that people are most often forgetting is the fact that I am not denying
the efficacy of low volume, so-called "high intensity" training without
justifiable cause. I was amongst the many of you who would say that HIT
is the only way to train. This dogmatic misconception will ultimately
limit the progress and growth of the individuals who subscribe to it;
not just physically speaking but intellectually as well. I can't help
but think that the word "balance" is out of the syntax of certain
individuals - the very balance that low volume, high intensity advocates
say should exist between volume and recovery time cannot exist between
other loading parameters? And yet, bringing up these inconsistencies
falls upon deaf ears. If people fundamentally believe that they have
found the holy grail of training, no amount of reason or patience will
undo the fault of their ignorance.
It is somewhat frustrating to hear so many good minds on either side of
the volume issue wasting their time
with childish arguments re: whose training system is best. Both sides
have equal amounts of evidence to support their claims. Both sides have
athletes who attain high levels of conditioning through their respective
systems. So you would think that by now people would have figured out
that the human body is at the very least capable of responding to many
different types of stimuli. It just seems like so much effort is wasted
when there are more pressing training issues to consider.
What's worse is that for the lay person or beginning athlete; this type
of discussion tends to force them into thinking that training success is
more dependant on a subscription to a particular dogma than it is on
principles of effective exercise fundamental to all training systems. I
fell into this trap two years ago. HIT worked so well for me that I
wanted to stop and say, "Look, this is as good as it gets". But all
goods things come to an end and eventually HIT stopped producing results
for me. Then it became apparent; the hard way, after months of grinding
my gears trying to figure out where I was going wrong in my application
of HIT - that there is no one best way to train.
I don't consider myself above those who continue to preach that one
training system "must" be the optimal approach; but I know that I have
been there and I have done that. They are more than welcome to believe
in whatever system that they wish but in claiming such misconceptions as
being fact, they do exactly the opposite of what they wish to do for
beginners - insteading of clearing the confusion to reveal the truth,
imho, they only add to it.
I think people underestimate the scientific learning process involved
with effective training - the importance of trial and error
experimentation. For me, abiding to any one training system which claims
the truth is no different from performing Bodybuilder X's precontest
program from a magazine simply because he won Competition Y. The same
level of mindless following is present, just a different grup to
subscribe to. Training is more about the discovery of one's own
characteristics than it is seeing whether or not someone's principles
apply to you.
> A couple examples were given about people who went from low volume to
> igh volume and made more gains. So what? There are probably double the
I find this statement especially ironic, since I had clearly stated that
the use of individual success to prove or disprove a theory is highly
ineffective.
> Sandeep, if your gains already dried up using
> HIT, then I suspect you became too rigid in your idea of what it was.
> especially given your age!
Firstly, I don't see how my age affects my ability to reason. Secondly, I attempted many different applications and interpretations of HIT/HD/HDII philosophy. Thirdly, I never discounted the fact that HIT/HD/HDII are excellent protocols in specific situations. This selective hearing habit seems to be something quite cancerous on this list...Fourth, had I never mentioned my age - exactly what age would you thought I have been? Surely, you can slip in some inane, childish flame here ... but the 600 or so emails I have saved from people who have visited my site and corresponded with me on the various training forums will illustrate that I am not your average teenager. Coincidentially, people who do not necessarily agree with my viewpoints such as Rob Spector, etc. will support me on this one. Your argument is invalid.
> hree times per week that is like 70 sets for the week for him (includes everything, neck etc.). I am a HITer and I do > about 15-20 sets per week. So, it appears there is a large variation in
> hat is defined as!
Interestingly enough, a periodization coach on one of the other mailing lists joked about how the definition of HIT seems to be mutating along with the increase in research support the usage of multiple set training. What will it be 5 years from now? Hmmm. I find it ironic that certain HIT proponents claim to be wholly objective, and yet are so subjective that their definitive parameters are ever changing. It's like a cup of water claiming to be as steadfast as a stone.
> A. Unsafe lifting practices. Plyometrics, power cleans, fast lifting,
One thing I can't stand is a rash generalization with little or no proof
to back it up. Olympic style weightlifting has a lower injury rate than
many other conventional sports, including soccer, rugby, badminton,
basketball and cross country running of all things.
> E. Defining intensity as a % of a one rep max.
The reason why intensity has been described as a % of 1RM is because it
is a quantitative measure of strength. "Failure" is highly qualitative.
What qualifies as "concentric failure" for a beginning trainee is highly
different from an advanced HIT'er. However, their % of 1RM is a
constant. What change something definitive into something ambiguous, I
do not know.
----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:06:47 EST
From: JCane <JCane@aol.com>
Subject: superslow
As a HIT advocate, I have always been comfortable in the knowledge that HIT
principles can be backed up by empirical evidence, rather than the anecdotes
that Bigger, Faster, Stronger advocates often rely upon. In 1996, I wrote to
the Superslow web page, asking if any scientific studies existed supporting
their protocol. At the time I the response I recieved (sorry, I don't
remember who responded) said that there was not, but there pointed out that
there were no known studies proving otherwise. Since then, Superslow
advocates have pointed to Wescott's 1994 study as evidence, despite the fact
that there was no statistical significance found between groups in the study.
(While such trends are noteworthy - they are not proof and should not be
presented as such. Wescott himself has also found statistically insignificant
trends suggesting that two sets are superior to one in terms of strength
gains, yet no self-respecting HITer would advocate multiple sets based on
this.)
If other studies exist, I would appreciate being pointed to them. While I do have questions about the efficacy of Superslow, I do not mean to suggest that I think it necessarily does not work. In fact I do not know if it does, and unless scientific proof exists I question how anyone can.
Jonathan Cane
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:03:22 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: Inroad not in the textbooks
>From drewbaye@aol.com
> There has been a lot of talk about "exercise physiologists" and their
> "research" recently. For the most part, these people are hardly scientists,
> and what they try to pass of as research usually would not receive a passing
> grade in a junior high general science class.
C'mon Drew. This is a blanket statement if I've ever heard one. Are you
trying to tell us that people such as William Kramer, Vladimir
Zatsiorsky, Mel Siff, Steven Fleck, Thomas Baechle, Tudor Bompa all got
their degrees from Devry? National Truck Driving School? These are
people who have been paying their dues in the research lab. These are
research scientists. While doctorates are not necessarily and indication
of intelligence, these people are atleast above muscle comic writers.
Anyone can lift a barbell, make a statement and call it a fact. It's
another thing when you have to justify that statement with scientific
proof. Not abstract or philosophical debate.
> There are several newsletters on the SuperSlow Exercise Guild's web site
> detailing the shortcomings, inconsistencies and contradictions in the exercise
> phys. community, as well as an entire issue on fitness testing which pretty
> much invalidates most of the "research" which people have been quoting. I urge
> you all to check it out. It's a real eye opener;
This is perhaps the first thing that I partially agree with you on. The
thing is though, that the outlet from which the information comes from
must be considered. Is something published from the Weight Watchers
research institute going to have the same scientific basis and validity
as something published from East German physiologists? No. So one cannot
generalize about this. Science is not good nor bad, people are. There
are good scientists and bad ones. Education on the part of the
individual will allow them to differentiate between the two. Reliance
upon anyone else to determine what is right and wrong for you is a
surefire recipe for a haphazard (if at all) route to success. One should
take control of their own destiny by placing the honus of education upon
themselves and not what someone else tells them.
----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:07:11 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Sore Muscles
>From sailor@webtv.net:
> addressed, could not say who was the more compelling. I did think
> Sandeep's argument from his personal experience had special merit (I do
> remember his earlier posts to his site) and that along with the Barry
> Merriman testimonial has got me thinking along the lines of at least
> trying periodisation for awhile. Heck, I've got nothing to lose.
Please do not misunderstand my statement. I think HIT is great, but
within specific situations. For beginners, I think it lays the
fundamental of effective exercise (which I went over in the last issue).
It gives them the analytical outlook on training that will allow them to
to more effectively weigh and consider training ideologies in the
future. HIT is a great protocol, but I am adamantly against the idea
that it is the only or the most effective way to train. There are many
excellent tools that an athlete has at their disposal; the more weapons
you are fluent with in your arsenal, the more lethal the warrior you
become.
A swordsman who only knows one attack but knows it inside out will have
some amount of success in battle. Likewise, the beginner who knows many
techniques but none of them effectively will meet a similar fate. You
have to be able to weigh which ones are appropriate, use them to the
best of your abilities and in their appropriate situations of demand.
Not all attacks will be effective, and not all of them should be
dismissed. Balance is key.
----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:09:55 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: Sore Muscles
>From sailor@webtv.net
> Thing is, though, Sandeep and this Merriman guy are or were youngsters
> cmpared to this late blooming 50 yr. old. So what changes would an
> older late commer apply to this kind of routine? And why so many
> different exercises for the same body part? Do any of you advocates of
> high volume have any experience training the anabolically challenged?
A study that you might find interesting, called "The effect of age on
hypertrophy" is located here:
http://www.medscape.com/server-java/MedPage?med96-97+52019+(resistance+training+carbohydrate)
Here is a study called the effects of age and resistance training. It's
a review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8497511&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
There are a lot of abstracts in Medline that pertain to strength
training for older athletes. Hope this helps.
----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:32:33 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: Moi
>From STRIETPJ@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu:
> Sandeep, I've read your page in the past, and as you said, you thought > HIT wasthe end all of training. What is your current philosophy?
Please don't misunderstand. I think HIT/HD is great, but it's not the
only thing that works - WELL.
It would be hard to encompass all my ideas into a nutshell. But here are
somethings I believe in.
1] The importance of personal experimentation with training ideas. It is
more important that training becomes a pursuit of knowledge of the self
rather than abiding to anyone's protocol or program.
2] Muscles never worked before they have recovered completely -
determines cycle duration, volume and frequency
3] Variance in loads utilized to achieve different effects (i.e. low
reps and high reps) between 90% and 75% of 1RM, or between 3 and 10 reps
to failure.
4] Variance in the volume utilized; usually progressing from higher
volumes to lower volumes (tapering)
5] Slower tempos of execution dependant on repetition bracket (i.e. if
trying to improve relative strength, sets lasting <20 seconds, if aiming
for hypertrophy, sets between 40-60 seconds).
6] Rest intervals based on reps executed to allow not only muscle cell
to recover but CNS as well.
7] Reliance upon compound, multijoint movements to better ensure
proportionate stabilizer development along with prime movers, therefore
increasing functional (athletic) strength and joint stability
8] Whether or not sets are to concentric failure depends on the volume
utilized. If calcium ion overload occurs; which is purely biochemical
and not necessarily an indication that the muscle cell itself is
incapable of more work - sets after that point are submaximal
performance wise. Therefore, it is possible to train with 225lbs. x 12
reps to failure for one set, with subsequent sets representing a
decrease in performance of approximately 2-3 reps. Or one could go 225
lbs. x 9-10 reps to failure across 3 sets with 240 seconds of rest in
between sets. I know, because I did it last week. The training effects
are different from either approach, and one is not necessarily better
than the other - the specific situation and goals must be considered.
9] Volume will be determined by the individual athlete's performance
capacity. The sets at which a 5-10 percent decrease in strength or a 2-3
rep drop with a given weight is where, for me, the set is over. At this
point, the sets for that exercise or bodypart are over. There is no
point tacking on set after set simply for sake of volume. If performance
cannot be equaled, beaten or slightly beneath best performance (1 rep is
acceptable) on a set, no more sets for that exercise or bodypart
(depending on point in workout). Still quality over quantity, but my
definition of where quality ceases to exist has moved somewhat.
10] Continual focus on strength development. Progress of some sort (more
reps, more weight, more time under tension, more volume, less rest in
between sets, better range of motion) should occur every time the iron
is touched. Period. If not, training is not effectively occurring.
Strength can only be compared if loading parameters are consistent i.e.
it's one thing to do calf raises with 900 very ballistically, it's
another to do the same 900 with a 2-1-3-1 pos-pause-ecc-pause tempo.
11] Training parameters changed on a regular basis - every 4-6 weeks,
change loading parameters i.e. sets, reps, loads, tempo, rest intervals,
frequency, duration, bodyparts in session, exercises
12] Sessions less than or equal to 60 min. in duration. I do not feel
work is productive after this point.
13] The employment or experimentation with a new training variable or
set of loading parameters between phases of effective loading
parameters. I.E. for 4-5 weeks, stick to a program you know works for
you, then try something different to compare it's efficacy.
14] Periodic rest phases, i.e. after high volume training phases to
allow for more complete recovery and ensure continual progres in phases
thereafter. I.E. Taking a week off completely from training after GVT,
then starting up on a moderate or low volume training program.
Can't think of much else right now.
----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:35:01 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Baye's comments on exercise scientists
> From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
>
> ...which simply goes to show just how very little the people currently
writing
> exercise phys. textbooks really know about the subject.
>
> There has been a lot of talk about "exercise physiologists" and their
> "research" recently. For the most part, these people are hardly
scientists,
> and what they try to pass of as research usually would not receive a
passing
> grade in a junior high general science class.
Mr. Baye, from the content of your post, I receive the impression (and
correct me if I am wrong) that you feel that you could do a better job of
performing research then most exercise scientists out there. If this is
true, then why don't you and your colleagues perform research yourself and
submit it to various peer-reviewed journals? There are dozens of
peer-reviewed journals, so bias should not be an issue. The reason I say
this is because you claim that most exercise physiologists are "hardly
scientists" yet you give no evidence on how you could perform better or how
this problem (if it is as much of a problem as you insinuate) can be
solved.
As far as the research in the exercise field is concerned, if we want to
criticize this research, then we should criticize the research itself and
give reasons why it is being criticized. We should examine individual
studies and why they might be flawed; we should not make broad
generalizations about studies in general. We should then come up with how
we can better design our research, come up with a plan of action to do so,
and carry this plan out. We should not criticize the vast number of
researchers or their integrity and intelligence (especially if we do not
know them personally); this is only a flame war and is simply making
broad, unfounded, meaningless generalizations.
> There are several newsletters on the SuperSlow Exercise Guild's web site
> detailing the shortcomings, inconsistencies and contradictions in the
exercise
> phys. community, as well as an entire issue on fitness testing which
pretty
> much invalidates most of the "research" which people have been quoting. I
urge
> you all to check it out. It's a real eye opener;
>
> www.superslow.com/Standard.html
I read vol. 1, issue 1 on this website, and Hutchin's argument about the lack of knowledge of an exercise physiologist begins around a fabricated, unfounded story of the origins of exercise physiology.
I feel that Hutchins is making very broad generalizations about exercise scientists with absolutely no empirical evidence to support his claims, except for a few case testimonials. Hutchins claims that exercise scientists are not required to take any sort of higher chemisty is not true, at least here at Washington State University, where organic chemistry is a requirement. Hutchins is also making a broad generalization by questioning the knowledge of physics and mathematics of exercise scientists. I am an exercise science major here at Washington State University, having already completed a minor in computer science as well as being one class away from a minor in math, so I take offense to any individual who questions my knowledge of higher mathematics or physics.
It's not that I disagree with everything Hutchins says. There are definite problems in the fitness industry that need to be taken care of. I feel that the curriculum for many exercise science programs at Universities needs serious changes. As an example, here at WSU, there is a serious lack of emphasis on strength training which definitely needs to be changed.
> As for empirical evidence and conclusions based on principles of
classical
> sciences such as biology and physics; if we can not make logical
deductions
> regarding training and other things based on current knowledge in other
> related fields, or well established scientific laws, then we are nowhere.
So
> far, the theory and related principles of HIT are the only ones
consistent
> with what we know to be true about how the body responds to stimuli from
the
> REAL sciences such as biology and physics. Every other training theory so
far
> has either been a mess of assumptions based on assumptions ad nauseum, or
a
> muscle comic fantasy dreamed up as filler for the latest collection of
bogus
> supplement advertisements.
You speak of training theories based on assumptions. HIT makes the
assumption that gains in strength and size are one and the same, which is
not true. Obviously this is an inconsistency within the theory. Please
answer for me this question (which no one has yet answered for me), Mr.
Baye, within the framework of the HIT theory: How do we know whether we've
stimulated simply an increase in strength or stimulated growth? How do we
know that the adaptations are neural in nature or both neural and
hypertrophic? Bodybuilders are interested in purely size, while
powerlifters are interested in purely strength. More importantly, how do
we create an HIT program for an individual interested in relative strength
(strength related to lean body mass)? How do we create separate HIT
protocols for all of these athletes, ensuring that each reaches their
goals?
>From my understanding of HIT theory, I cannot see how this can be done.
I have yet to see any strength training theory or model (including all periodization models) which is not based on at least one assumption or another, which makes them all problematic. The reason why all strength training models make some assumptions is because not enough is known in the field of exercise yet to create a solid theory. The other complicating factor is the vast differences in training histories, goals, and various other factors which influence the design of an individual's training protocol and the individual's response to that protocol.
James Krieger