1. HIT Digest/Discipline
by: Jon Ziegler <Rutger1@JPS.NET>
2. Fast twitch, slow twitch - a theory
by: Rolf Sodergard <sodergar@cs.Helsinki.FI>
3. The Training Debates
by: Brad Collins <bcollins@hotmail.com>
4. Re: Couch, Mike, HIT Seminar
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
5. Re: Inroad not in the "textbooks"
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
6. Sore Muscles
by: Ken Roberts <SAILOR@webtv.net>
7. Re: Team success
by: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com>
8. Re: Baye/ Periodization
by: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com>
9. Re: Nipples
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
10. Re: Recovery
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
11. Re: HIT Digest, digest #84
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
12. Re: Re Sandeep and Stimulus
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
13. Re: Re: The Dose-Response Relationship of Exercise
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
14. Re: Pokere's comments on HD
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
15. Re: Reply to Paul Englert on HD2
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
16. Sandeep
by: bull <STRIETPJ@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu>
17. Laws and personal training
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:26:05 -0800
From: Jon Ziegler <Rutger1@JPS.NET>
Subject: HIT Digest/Discipline
I sat for eight hours today listening to Dr. Fred Jones talk about
student classroom behavior. He presented three goals, discipline,
instruction, and motivation. As people continue to misunderstand the
principles of HIT, I think these three areas stated above can be
applied. 1) Discipline: it takes discipline to workout period, but I
think it takes more discipline to stick to a program, particularly one
that contradicts the normal tennants of weight lifting and bodybuilding,
like hit that requires less time in the gym. I believe most of us have
been conditioned to want to spend more time (more is better, exercise
addiction, etc) in the gym. 2) Education: For people to be less hostile
to HIT principles I believe they need to become educated in the
different aspects and programs, and realize that muscle stimulation is
what strengthens and builds a muscle (I know we all know that), and that
the stimulation can be had in a minimum number of sets (1-3) with a
recovery time that leaves the workouts being done infrequently
(Mentzer). And 3) Motivation: All of us need motivation to exercise
period. There has to be goals set, and a plan created to reach these
goals. How many people have not reached their goals on the "magazine
prescribed volume sets" and then left the gym, not to return. It would
be interesting to see some quantified data as to how many people who
join a gym stick with it. Could this probelm be allevaited, and their
money be better spent if an abrevaited program were used that would not
take their time? or if gains were made at a faster pace? Certainly
people have tried HIT training and quit that approach, but for the
average "exerciser" it might be more prudent to train them in short,
intense, infrequent workouts, particularly after the "newness" of
workingout wears off to keep their interest.
Jon at rutger@jps.net
.
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:38:09 +0200 (EET)From: Rolf Sodergard <sodergar@cs.Helsinki.FI>Subject: Fast twitch, slow twitch - a theoryHello everyone!Now that the slow/fast twitch discussion seems to be back, I'd like tomake an observation.I used to train multi-set, with my heaviest set first and then decreasingthe weight every succeeding set. I noticed that when the weight becamelight enough my reps went up dramatically for that set. I even noticedthat this happened with drop sets. To illustrate, I might have done cablepushdowns (straight sets):6x1006x907x8012x70(Totally imaginary workout, but that's beside the point.)I thought of a possible explanation: When the weight was heavier, my slowtwitch fibres couldn't lift the weight on their own, so I had to use fasttwitchers also. Of course, they got tired pretty quickly and the set wasover. But when the weight was light enough, the fast twitchers would becalled in only when the slow ones started tiring. The set lasted a lotlonger because the slow twitch fibres started pretty fresh since theheavier weight sets never actually fatigued them. Does this make anysense?Providing I'm onto something, I conclude: Low rep sets work onlyfast twitch fibres and high reps both slow and fast twitch alike,oversimplifying somewhat. Rolle.
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:56:01 PST
From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com>
Subject: The Training Debates
I have read with interest the debate that is starting again. Same thing,
just rehashed slightly different. First off, no one is all of a sudden
going to say "I see the light" and change their opinions. I think I need
to clear some things up so we can move on. Move on to what? Well, there
are plenty of people I would suspect on this digest who want to ask
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.
With that said I will give you my take:
1. HIT is not one set to failure. People are generalizing HIT all the
time. Mike Mentzer is not the spokesperson for HIT/HD. I would guess
most HITers use FREE WEIGHTS. In fact, some like myself, use exclusively
free weights. Also, I do think Mike is talking about "minimum dose" for
response not some certain number of sets/reps.
2. There is no "one program" that will work. Or one that is "best". If
Mike says that so be it, that is his opinion. However, the majority of
HITers will disagree with Mike. Guys, quit lumping everyone in one big
opinion so it is convenient to "argue" and make sweeping
generalizations.
3. For the majority of people who train with weights, light workouts are
a waste of time. Most people don't have TIME! Most people who train with
weights are NOT competitive athletes. In fact, most of the people on
this list are not competitive athletes. So why not just rest? Besides,
for most people it is hard to hold back and that causes "inroad" into
their recovery. Yes, inroad. It is just a word people. Don't get hung up
on semantics.
4. Progression. Most people fail right here. You must use progression,
no matter what program you use. As to # of sets, if you can get it done
in 1-3, why do 15? And why not use periodization? Change your rep
schemes. I am not talking about "active rest phase" or "power phase" or
defining intensity as % of of one rep max. Vary your exercises and rep
schemes.
5. A couple examples were given about people who went from low volume to
high volume and made more gains. So what? There are probably double the
amount of examples in the other direction. In fact, most HITers I would
guess never started as HITers. Most started from the more is better
mindset. I am one of them. 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!
6. Let's look at volume again. Take Matt Brzycki for example. He is a
HITer as everyone knows. He does three workouts per week.
Three 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
what is defined as HIT. So here is what I think you DON'T have with HIT:
A. Unsafe lifting practices. Plyometrics, power cleans, fast lifting,
etc.
B. Light workouts (a waste of time like I said)
C. A regimented "phase" of workouts. Heck, everyone here I think agrees
the body is very "complex". So how can you "shove" it into pre-defined
phases anyway!?
D. Looking for a magic supplement or pill for gains
E. Defining intensity as a % of a one rep max.
F. Any knowledgeable HITer saying HIT is the "Best"
G. A true HITer doing more than 3 workouts a week (HIT is TIME
EFFICIENT).
Let me just touch on "best" and I will quit this long post (hope it
makes it in). My statement above as far as "best" had to do with
strength and muscle gained. HOWEVER, given that there is NO PROOF that
HIT (I will say it again- HIT is not one set of 10 reps) or any other
method is superior to the other as far as grass roots comparison let me
throw this out.
A working mother with two kids. She wants to keep in shape. She has a
career, a husband, yada yada yada. She has 2 hours a week to devote to
exercise. Given that there is no proof one method is superior to other
which method do you think would be the "BEST" for her for
weight-training. The answer is simple. HIT.
Most of the people who weight train are in this boat. So, when you look
at it with common sense...yes HIT IS THE "BEST" and wins hands down.
Brad
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
.
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:46:30 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Couch, Mike, HIT Seminar
Yes, Mike Mentzer and several SuperSlow instructors are currently planning a
series of seminars. When everything is finalized, I'll post the details on the
HIT Digest.
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:43:26 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Inroad not in the "textbooks"
"The funny thing is, you will NEVER find the word "inroad" in any
textbook on the face of this planet to describe the stimulus from
training."
....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.
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
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.
The major role of skeletal muscle tissue is force production. To stimulate the
body to produce an improvement in the muscles ability to perform that
function, one must impose a stress on it's ability to do so; in other words,
work the muscle in accordance with it's specific movement function against a
meaningful resistance. How much resistance? More than it's used to. How hard?
As hard as possible, since it appears that the degree of stimulation
corrolates to the intensity (percentage of momentary effort) of work, within a
minimum time, since the body has a limited reserve of energy and resources for
recovery. How much? Only enough as is necessary to stimulate growth, more than
that, and you're wasting resources and your time. How much is that? Not as
much as most people would believe, very damn little as a matter of fact. One
set. Two or three more won't make a significant difference in stimulation, but
will use more resources (considering you did it right the first time, in which
case you would not want to do another). To failure? Not necessary to stimulate
growth, BUT, the only way to be positive that everything that could have been
done to do so has been. How often? As often as you can, while still allowing
the body to fully recover and adapt between successive workouts. Depending on
several factors, this might be as little as one or two days, or as much as two
or more weeks. How do you know how long is enough? If you're not stronger each
workout, either you're not training hard enough, you're doing too much, or
you're not allowing enough recovery time. The first thing one should adjust is
recovery time though. Because even if you are training intensely enough, and
not over training, if you don't allow adequate recovery time, you're not going
to see any progress.
It's not that complicated. You don't need to do all sorts of wacky cycles or constantly change your routine, you don't need to take all sorts of bogus supplements. You simply need to train hard, don't do more than you need to, make sure you allow your body adequate time to recover in between, and try to add a little more to the bar or weight stack each time.
Have a very brutal next workout,
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:49:39 -0800
From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts)
Subject: Sore Muscles
Hey, you guys, Digest #84 was a killer! I thought everyone had some ineresting things to say and ,as one who is pretty neutral on the issues 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.
Thing is, though, Sandeep and this Merriman guy are or were youngsters compared 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?
Actually, however, I originally intended to ask a different question;
Should I train quads when my hams are still sore from my last workout.
Doing a modified GVT (allowing more recovery time between workouts) my
back routine includes stiffleg deadlifts. I am supposed to follow this
three or four days later with Hack squats. Trouble is I am still sore
from my traps to my popliteals. Should I ignore this and go ahead and
train my quads?
Thanks,
Ken
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 10:43:41 EST
From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.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.
Brad wrote:
>>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!
As a strength coach, I feel compelled to give my insights. First, as for NSCAer’s being sarcastic in their rebuttal, it works both ways, doesn’t it? I’ve seen a lot of sarcasm thrown out by HIT strength coaches as well!
What goes on in a weight room is only a fraction of a strength and
conditioning coaches’ job. Much of what we do also involves conditioning --
which involves running, agility drills and such. If two strength coaches from
different philosophies got together and discussed all training methods aside
from weight training, their would be very little difference between them. I
am happy to say we are getting away from LSD training and many teams, HIT
orientated and not-HIT orientated alike, are realizing that shorter
“explosive” running and agility drills with minimal rest periods (often less
than 30 seconds) is the way to go in football training. Weight training is
important, but a program which uses only weight training and ignores proper
conditioning techniques will be vastly inferior.
Want to know which team is the stronger and better conditioned (and then know
which team has the better strength and conditioning coach and athletes)?
Watch the 4th quarter! Look for linemen being beaten off the snap, players
down on one knee between plays, and players missing takles which they were
making earlier in the game! Of course, this won’t work if the game was a
blowout early.
Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 10:45:15 EST
From: Sonofsquat <Sonofsquat@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Baye/ Periodization
Andrew wrote:
>If you define periodization as changing training variables over time (pretty
>vague if you ask me) then HIT, in a way, qualifies,....
>I have yet to read any rational basis for any of the popular periodization
models.
I don’t know if I’m reading you correctly. My apologies if I am not. It
seems that you are inferring that periodization involves only the act of going
from high reps down to low reps and heavier weight over time. This is not the
only periodization model and not one that is widely used amongst strength
coaches.
>From the superslow web site, I see you are not a proponent of jump training or
explosive training. Please put this aside for a minute. When an athlete
takes on a program which involves lifting, running, jump training, overspeed
and the many training techniques in use, he or she cannot do all of them all
the time. An athlete must then periodize their training do develop a strong
strength foundation and then “fine tune” athletic skills. In short,
periodization (for athletes) involves much more than weight training.
Fred Hatfield II
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:58:23 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Nipples
"First, this article (as does Mentzer's theories) operates on the assumption that the human body is a logical organism and operates accordingly. However, if this was true, then why does the male human have nipples?"
I guess Embryology is not a requirement for an exercise science degree. Not
surprising, since higher level biology, chemistry, statistics, mathematics and
physics aren't either.
The human body, and every other organism out there does make sense in light of all the factors involved. Does it make sense that we have gills as embryos? Yes, if you also consider that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. All of biology makes perfect sense in the context of evolution.
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:02:04 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Recovery
"low threshold motor units recover from training faster than high
threshold motor units. This implies that, for optimal progress, low
threshold motor units should be trained more frequently than high threshold
motor units."
While you criticize Dr. McGuff for not providing support for his statement about Periodization on his article on Mike Mentzer's site, your criticism of this rests on a statement which you provide no evidence for. Where's the proof that low threshold motor units recover more quickly than faster threshold units? And exactly how was this determined? What tools and procedures were used? Or was it something fabricated in an NSCA journal?
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.cm
-------------------- 11 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:07:12 -0500From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #84> First, this article (as does Mentzer's theories) operates on the assumption> that the human body is a logical organism and operates accordingly.> However, if this was true, then why does the male human have nipples?Off topic support: whales, when born, have hair and teeth, although theyhave no use for them - indicates their mammalian ancestors wereterrestrial. But a million years later they still have them.Human babies, resemble larval amphoxious (fish) during embryonic stages,and also have gill slits - which develop into ear canals. The body doesnot always make sense :)----------Sandeep DeThe Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"[IM: Now this is getting DEEP! :)].
-------------------- 12 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 10:15:11 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: Re: Re Sandeep and Stimulus
Just making a "few" comments,
> -------------------- 3 --------------------
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:05:31 -0500
> From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
> Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #83
>
> > From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
> > Subject: Re: Stimulus
> Teri, I get the list in digest form and can only reply directly in
> Netscape. So when I hit "reply" it uses the digest name as the subject.
> I've lost the subject of the thread now so I'll just respond.
So are you unable to adjust the subject heading? The HIT digest # comes
up by default when I hit reply but I am able to modify it after I hit
reply. I use Netscape as well.
> But again - it is pointless to compare the results of one individual to
> the next. For every lifter that has achieved good amounts of success
> using Mentzer's HD, there are two that did it the high volume way.
> Empirical evidence CANNOT be used as the primary argument in a
> statement. As an addition to sound scientific reasoning and fact, sure
> thing - lump it on. Otherwise I think it's fair to say we can all find
> an "empirical" observation that supports just about any notion.
Well in my instance I don't care how many people make progress with HIT
and how many with High Volume. What I am interested in a little bit
more is the proportion of success v failures with a protocol. Even this
is limited because what I'm really interested in is what works for me.
>From my own observations I know that HD does and it is the only theory
that is consistent.
> > 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
>
> You know what? Eastern Bloc exercise physiologists have the training
> journals of thousands of olympic level athletes; and they advocate high
> volume. <snipped>
Olympic athletes, firstly would have to have some sort of genetic superiority. This is not to mention a predisposition for "supplemental aids". This can be more safely assumed to be not the case for Mentzer's clients, many of whom are MORE similar to us than they are.
> The specific situation to which a loading parameter is applied or not is
> VITAL to determining whether or not it is appropriate. Try to find one
> personal trainer who can prescribe an EFFECTIVE program without knowing
> the specific circumstances of an athlete.
Mentzer's theory of growth is just that. He gives generalised routines
from his experience that will work for most NOT all. The theory is
universal however.
We are the ones left to work it out for ourselves.
> > at http://www.mikementzer.com/doseresponse2.html to see that "within
> > reason" appears to be much narrower than you think.
>
> Based on what scientific fact?
The fact that too little or too much of a stimulus will not elicit a favourable response. This is how Doctor's prescribe medicine.
> I find that Mentzer's arguments are
> usually highly circumstantial. It is foolish to think that the body can
> respond in only specific patterns; if this were the case, the only
> people making progress at all on the planet would be Mentzer's clients.
<snipped>
Mentzer doesn't claim that his way is the only way, just the best.
"His" theory is irrefutable, it's the application that you disagree on.
Remember the theory says one must train intensely enough so that the
body is stimulated to grow and to regulate the volume and frequency so
that growth is permitted.
> > 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
>
> My friend, there are institutions and organizations where lifting
> success is so vital to their existence that it far supercedes any amount
> of importance the recreational lifter might have. Sure, lifting might be
> important for all of us, but there are people who are paid to find the
> most effective means of eliciting progress. Why on earth would they
> ignore a program so effective?
A lack of humility, prestige, money, social conditioning, ignorance, people who have great genetics, and drugs are a few I can think of.
> > 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.
>
> I find it wildly arrogant that you believe you can dip inside my head,
> know exactly what I'm thinking and say that it is different from what I
> say I am thinking. I used to actually respect Menzter a great deal...
>
You said "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". You then
when on to mention Mentzer's name leaving little doubt. You have said
that you like to make fun of Mentzer's comments and that you USED to
respect Mentzer. You are only able to be respectful, disrespectful or
apathetic and of the last this is highly doubtful.
> > The stimulus is intensity (Inroad/time) IMO given that without it no
>
> The funny thing is, you will NEVER find the word "inroad" in any
> textbook on the face of this planet to describe the stimulus from
> training.
I can't remember where but I read "The consensus on a point of view hardly confirms it's veracity" or something to that effect.
Cya
Teri
-------------------- 13 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 11:05:20 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: Re: Re: The Dose-Response Relationship of Exercise
Hi James and fellow strength dudes,
> -------------------- 8 --------------------
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:31:03 -0800
> From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
> Subject: Re: The Dose-Response Relationship of Exercise
>
> > From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> I read this article, and while I feel that it makes some good points, there
> are a few points that it makes that I would like to take issue with.
Thanks for reading, I'll check out your refs as well since you've made
it easy.
> First, this article (as does Mentzer's theories) operates on the assumption
> that the human body is a logical organism and operates accordingly.
> However, if this was true, then why does the male human have nipples?
James I take the whole world and universe to be logical and reasonable.
Just because things are not clearly apparent at this moment does not
mean that they will not be in the future. Some things may just have the
purpose of being pleasing aesthetically, I'm not sure, but just because
I don't know the reason I don't presuppose that there isn't one. Only
an omniscient being can do that.
>
> Now, I will address a few comments made in this article:
>
> "The concept of periodization does not address any real physiologic needs;
> rather it is designed to address a person's psychological needs."
>
> The author of this article gives no support for this statement. The
> concept of periodization does address real physiologic needs. For example,
> Mentzer and other Heavy Duty advocates question the idea of having "light"
> or "moderate" days (submaximal training). Why not just rest? The reason
> is as follows. Muscles are made up of motor units, which are groups of
> muscle fibers innervated by a single motor neuron. These motor units range
> from low-threshold (the slow twitch range) to high-threshold (the fast
> twitch range). Training using high-intensity weights places tremendous
> stress on the entire range of motor units. Now, just as smaller bodyparts
> (like calves) have more rapid recovery times than larger bodyparts (a
> popular and successful way to train for many bodybuilders is to train
> smaller bodyparts, like calves or biceps, more frequently than larger
> ones), low threshold motor units recover from training faster than high
> threshold motor units. This implies that, for optimal progress, low
> threshold motor units should be trained more frequently than high threshold
> motor units. How can this be accomplished? Through the use of light or
> moderate days, using lighter weights than normal. This provides a training
> stimulus for low threshold motor units while allowing high threshold motor
> units to recover from a previous heavy bout. Also, gains in strength are
> due to both neural and hypertrophic adaptations. Neural adaptations take
> place much more quickly than hypertrophic adaptations, and thus are also
> lost much more quickly. Light and moderate days can help maintain neural
> adaptations while allowing the larger window of hypertrophic adaptations to
> take place.
My understanding is that every muscle is made up of both slow and fast
twitch fibres and that the fast twitch are the ones susceptible to the
greater strength and hypertrophy increases and that slow twitch fire
before fast twitch under "normal" circumstances. I can understand that
some body parts may need or be able to be trained more frequently than
others for optimal progression however.
>
> "The test of a training technique's efficacy is not how it performs on a
> genetic freak but how well it performs on those of average or below-average
> potential. High-intensity training will win hands down every time."
>
> I agree with the first part of this statement and highly disagree with the
> second part, due to some real-life examples which show that HIT does not
> win hands down every time. I recommend that everyone check out
>
> http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/weights/
>
> or
>
> http://www.engr.mun.ca/~matthew/weights/barry.txt
>
> These articles outline the experience of Barry Merriman, who was a devoted
> HITer for 6 years. He made slow, steady gains on these protocols, but was
> not able to reach his genetic potential. He reached a bodyweight of about
> 170 and some significant strength levels while using HIT protocols. He
> then switched to a higher volume, periodized protocol, training very
> frequently but periodizing his training intensity. After only 2 years of
> training this way, he had reached a bodyweight of 208 and more significant
> strength gains. Barry was definitely not a genetic freak, and only had
> average genetics. I then direct you to
<snipped>
James these guys were on drugs, I should know because I sold them, ooops
<grin>. Seriously though HIT is a systematic approach and maybe
sometimes it's not so much the tools as the carpenter that is at fault.
This could be through ignorance in which we all are until we know
everything there is to know. Andrew Baye commented the other day on how
hard it is to measure metabolic work and if we could measure this
accurately we would be in a favourable position to see what protocols
have what effect on the body. It's our application of the protocol that
makes a difference as well.
>
> One thing about these guys is that they have absolutely no vested financial
> interest <snipped>.
I hopefully have an interest, hoping that Mike Mentzer or his colleagues
sees this digest and says what a great job Teri is doing, why don't we
send him the new 4 tape series for free <grin>.
Cya
Teri
-------------------- 14 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:44:52 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Pokere's comments on HD
> From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
> > From: "James Krieger - EECS (CPTS446)" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
>
> > Simplistic is the notion that less is better as well.
>
> James if you have read any of Mentzer's recent articles maybe in ANMD or
> even his book HDII you will see that the notion of less is better is no
> longer held by him. He is interested not in less but what is the
> precise stimulus.
This is assuming a precise stimulus exists. We must also ask what the goal
is by asking the question, "A precise stimulus for what? A gain in
strength? A gain in size (gains in strength and size are not one and the
same)? An optimal gain or just any gain?" When we begin to ask these
questions, the waters become very muddy and illustrate how vague Mentzer's
concepts really are.
>
> <snipped>
> > 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.
>
> A refutation cannot not be made unless all of the variables can be
> measured accurately.
> Basing this on what someone thinks about whether they recovered and
> overcompensated or not is not "very" exact. When or if we can measure
> this accurately prior to exercising, this will be the day when doubt is
> removed totally. Guessing is not good enough.
You must understand why this individual refutes Mentzer's principles. It
has nothing to do with guesswork; it is actually very simple. In the
framework of Mentzer's theory, if progress begins to stagnate, then
training volume and/or frequency must be reduced to achieve significant
progress again. This individual's progress was significantly better when
he was training with higher volume and greater frequency. This completely
contradicts Mentzer's theory.
James Krieger
-------------------- 15 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:35:56 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Reply to Paul Englert on HD2
> From: Paul Englert <Paul.Englert@vuw.ac.nz>
>
> James you wrote in defense of the original contributor:
>
> 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.
>
> - No, what this person has noted is that he had not yet defined the
optimal
> Hd wout for his individual genetic make up, intensity level and stage of
> development.
Please explain to me why this is true. The reason this individual's experience refutes HD is because he achieved much more rapid progress after he increased his training frequency and volume; Mentzer would have had him decrease it. Your comment here is based upon the assumption that the HD theory is unflawed and is applicable to every individual.
> Simplistic is the notion that less is better as well.
>
> -Yes, but no one is saying that less is better without first qualifying a
> base line of performance. Less is better with respect to maintaining
> constant progress over time.
Please give me scientific evidence that "less is better with respect to maintaining constant progress over time." If this was true, then people like Sandeep, Barry Merriman, myself, and the other individual that we have referred would not have achieved better results on higher frequency, higher volume protocols then we did on lower volume protocols.
> 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.
>
> - Empirical evidence does indeed provide support for a contrary view.
> However we must be careful about what we are refuting here. Is it the
> principles of HD or a particular exercise programme? From the original
post
> I believe it is the later. There are many variables that are unknown and
> therefore limit the discussion of this particular case. For example, how
> new to training is the individual, what is their recovery ability like,
> etc. Had Mentzer himself put this person on a HD wout then I think you
> would be justified in saying this. However, it is unclear whether or not
> this person grasped that HD is about the description of principles of
> training and not the prescription of a generic training regime.
For the purpose of discussion, let me explain what a theory is. A theory
is a model used to describe real world phenomena and is based upon
observations made in the real world. A theory holds up as long as it can
adequately explain real world phenomena and make predictions about such
phenomena. A theory is not scientific fact and can never be proven
correct; only one example that refutes a theory, however, will prove the
theory incorrect.
Why is Mentzer's theory false? It cannot adequately explain why this
individual (or myself or Sandeep) achieved less to no progress while
lowering training frequency and volume (according to Mentzer, progress
should be better). It also cannot explain why Olympic lifters achieve
significant gains in strength while training very frequently and not even
close to failure (how could Mentzer ever train an Olympic lifter? It is
highly undesirable for these athletes to come even remotely close to
failure). It cannot explain why Barry Merriman achieved much better
results on only 2 years of a higher volume periodized protocol then he did
on 6 years of HIT. It cannot explain why individuals get stronger but not
bigger. It cannot explain why I can come off of a 2 week layoff after a
plateau and have lost strength (according to Mentzer, plateaus are caused
by overtraining). It cannot explain why sets of 6 RM generally result in
better strength gains than sets of 15 RM.
If a theory is shown to be false, then the theory needs to be either
modified or completely rejected for a new theory.
>
> 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.
>
> - Of which you provide none.
Olympic lifters are an excellent example. It is highly undesirable for
these lifters to come close to failure since it would cause a breakdown in
their technique. Yet, these lifters achieve substantial increases in
strength.
> 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.
>
> - Everything is subject to laws. Once we define all the variables and the
> principles pertaining to those variables than yes everything is reducible
> to logic. To say otherwise is to provide no explanation for phenomena at
> all and argue that it is in the hands of God so to speak.
Then please give me the logical reason for the existence of the human
appendix.
> 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.
>
> - You are right. It should be based on a theory supported by empirical
> proof. HD fulfills both criteria. You provide no alternative that could
> cause a plateau. Nor do you provide an alternative argument other than
the
> opinion that Mentzer is wrong.
A plateau may mean that the exercise stimulus is no longer adequate to
produce any sort of adaptation. The body is basically saying, "Hey, I can
handle this now, so I don't need to respond to it anymore." If the
stimulus is no longer adequate to produce an adaptation, then no change in
training frequency is going to fix this problem. To fix this problem, the
stimulus itself must be changed.
> - James please define for me beyond opinion:-
> a. Which assumptions are incorrect ie the one you have stated on strength
> not being dependant on training to failure, and why
I did so in this post as well as in a response to Kevin Dye is issue #82.
> b. Your proposed alternative.
I assume you are asking me to propose a new theory in the realm of strength
training. But, I must ask, a new theory for what? The optimal protocol
for a bodybuilder? A powerlifter? An Olympic lifter? A basketball
player? A "one-size fits all" theory cannot be found because it is
dependent upon the individual and that individual's goals. The proper
design of a training protocol depends upon so many factors unique to an
individual that it is a mistake to come up with a theory that will be
applicable to everyone. I think this is Mentzer's biggest mistake to even
attempt to do this. Also, the realm of research in strength training is
still very young. There is really not enough scientific information out
there to allow one to base an adequate theory upon. Right now, training is
not even close to being an exact science.
James Krieger
-------------------- 16 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 98 21:55:56 ESTFrom: bull <STRIETPJ@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu>Subject: SandeepSandeep, 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? I have a question for everyone. I'm considering buying a headstrap from Ironmind so that I can do some heavy neck work. Has anyone used this tool before? Is it at all safe? I feel Ironmind is a great company. They promote the type of training I love, and their products are top notch. I just purchased the nailbending set and I'm reaping the benefits. I encourage anyone who is getting bored with their program to incorporate some unusual exercises like nailbending, odd object lifiting etc. It has really rekindled my spirit! One more comment-what more canpossibly said about Mike Mentzer on the web??? Just a little adivce for everyone: Never swear by one training program. I share the same feeling as Poliquin in that a training program is only as good as the time ittakes your body to adapt to it. Do I feel HD is a good program? Sure, for a bit. That's why I get annoyed when people swear by one particular program or philosophy all the time. I feel everyone would benefit much more by using different protocols from time to time (Yes, I suppose you could call this a casual form of periodization). For instance, I think HIT, multiple sets, heavy singles, german volume training, and heavy partials are all great. Why would anyone argue for a particular program if it didn't work? Just my two cents. By the waywhatever happened to Chuck Clark?? I thought he was great (Not saying that John Leschinski isn't, he is excellent too).[IM: Chuck is busy trying to get his career going. He is now a practicing Physical Therapist. Long hours, etc. He vill be baaaack!].
-------------------- 17 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:51:42 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Laws and personal training
Personal training is becoming a popular career among many individuals in
the fitness industry. Almost all gyms have trainers on staff to aid
members. However, there are no laws in this country requiring trainers to
have any certification or education, which allows a lot of bad trainers to
roam gyms across the country.
If I want to be a doctor, putting people's health in my hands, then I need
to obtain an education, pass board exams, and have a license to practice.
If I want to be a lawyer, I must go to law school and pass board exams. If
I want to be an A.T.C., I must pass a board exam and have 1500 hours of
experience in athletic training. If I want to drive a car, I need a
license. However, if I want to be a personal trainer (which puts people's
health in my hands), then I need nothing.
Here's an example. There is a popular gym chain here in Washington State
known as Hart's Athletic Club. Some of the trainers there are high school
students, and none of the trainers are required to have any sort of
educational background in exercise science. The trainers are educated by
the club itself, becoming "Hart's Certified." To show how little knowledge
some of these trainers have, one of them wanted to put a friend of mine
(who has had an eating disorder) on a 1000 calorie per day diet! Many of
the trainers don't even look like they know what they're talking about. If
I were to ask one of them what the ATP-CP system was (which is something
any exercise specialist should know), they would look at me dumbfounded.
However, clubs like these continue to pull in huge numbers of members
because they offer dirt cheap prices, and many of these members are naive
about proper methods of nutrition and exercise, making them very
susceptible to really bad advice. Also, the low wages offered to these
trainers can make it difficult for legitimate, knowledgeable trainers to
make money in this industry.
While some gyms do require their trainers to be at least ACE certified, this still does not alleviate the problem (I'm not knocking ACE trainers here, but the ACE is probably one of the easier certifications to obtain). There are many different certifications out there, some much tougher to get than others, and many don't require any type of educational degree.
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.
While a certification and an education does not automatically make one a
good trainer, it can make the general public more confident in trainers and
can help get rid of problems like the one I noted earlier. Right now, a
club like Hart's is more concerned with bringing in huge numbers of members
rather than actually helping those members and ensuring that their trainers
are knowledgeable.
Now, there are a lot of grey areas in the exercise industry, which is
obvious by the never-ending debate over training styles, nutritional
methods, and various other aspects. This can make setting some type of
standard difficult. However, the setting of some type of standard of
certification and education would not need to somehow eliminate the
different philosophies that exist. It would be similar to the situation of
M.D.'s who prescribe herbal remedies rather than standard drug remedies.
All M.D.'s have to go through the same steps to get where they're at, but
once they're M.D.'s, they have the freedom to go about their practice using
their particular philosophies. My main concern is ensuring that trainers
have taken some standard series of required steps to get where they're at;
my concern is not with their particular philosophies (like whether one
trainer likes to train clients using HIT while another uses a periodized
protocol. Trainers should have the freedom to embrace a particular
philosophy).
I would like everyone else's thoughts on these matters. No matter what,
I'm sure we can all agree that stories like I have given above need to be
stopped. While we probably could never eliminate the problem, we can take
steps to reduce it.
James Krieger