1. Re: Evolution
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
2. Re: Recovery
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
3. Re: Multiple exercises and soreness
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
4. What can we agree on?
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
5. Re: James Krieger's comments on HD and precision
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
6. Re:#85 (Merriman web site)
by: Stephen Turner <smturner@golden.net>
7. Unknown
by: Matt Brzycki <brzycki@arelia.Princeton.EDU>
8. Re: OL's and injuries
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
9. Re: Merriman
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
10. HIT Digest/ Love
by: Jon Ziegler <Rutger1@JPS.NET>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:21:27 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution
> From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
>
> 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.
Remeber that evolution is a theory, and a theory does not represent scientific fact. Yes, nipples make perfect sense in the context of evolutionary theory. However, I was operating on the premise of function, i.e. that all structures within the human organism serve a logical purpose or function, of which the nipple (in a male) serves absolutely none.
James Krieger
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:30:10 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Recovery
> 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?
The Size Principle of Recruitment states that motor unit recruitment is
dictated by force requirements; activities with high force requirements
will recruit more motor units than activities with low force requirements,
and only high-threshold motor units will be recruited during activities
with high force requirements. Exercise activities with low force
requirements, such as distance running, recruit only low threshold motor
units. Now, if low threshold motor units took just as long or longer to
recover from activity than high threshold motor units, then distance
runners would train with the same frequency as powerlifters. Simple
observation dictates that, since distance runners can successfully train
with much higher frequencies than powerlifters, this also dictates that low
threshold motor units recover from physical activity faster than high
threshold motor units. Like I said, if they didn't, then a distance runner
would not be able to successfully run every day.
My tools? The Size Principle of Recruitment, simple observation, and
common sense.
James Krieger
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 21:06:07 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Multiple exercises and soreness
> From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts)
>
> 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?
Different exercises for the same bodypart have different patterns of motor unit recruitment (1-2). An individual interested in maximum muscle hypertrophy is interested in training as many motor units as possible. This is the rationale behind the use of multiple exercises per bodypart to attempt to provide a maximal training stimulus to all motor units.
My main recommendation with Merriman's system (which is the one I am currently following) is to keep workouts to under an hour (with 45 minutes being even better), since I am a big believer in short workouts. I keep my rest intervals at 2 minutes to accomplish this. I also recommend to stay away from any exercises that cause you any sort of unusual pain (other than the normal pain that may come from lactic acid). What I like about Merriman's system over other periodized protocols is that the macrocycles are self-regulating in length and not of a pre-planned length.
1. Grimby, L., and J. Hannerz. Firing rate and recruitment order of toe
extensor motor units in different modes of voluntary contraction. Journal
of Physiology (London) 264:867-79. 1977.
2. Harr Romeny, B.M., J.J. Denier Van Der Gon, and C.C. Gielen. Changes
in recruitment order of motor units in the human biceps muscle.
Experimental Neurology 78:360-68. 1982.
> 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?
>
If this soreness does not interfere with your quad workout, and you are
making adequate progress, then it shouldn't be anything to worry about.
However, if you find that it is interfering with your quad workout or your
progress, then adjustments should be made, such as inserting more rest days
between workouts.
James Krieger
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 20:37:01 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: What can we agree on?
Hi James and others,
First of all what is (Mentzer's, Jones' etc.) theoretical premises.
1. One must train intensely enough to stimulate growth.
2. Volume and
3. Frequency must be regulated to provide for growth to occur.
What I would like to ask is this. Is it possible to not train intensely
enough, to train with too much volume or to train too frequently? The
theory I think you will agree upon, it's just the application you
don't. Do you agree and if not why?
Man, this is a short post for me and it could have been even shorter
except for this redundant sentence. Oh No, I'm a closet Hi Vol
proponent <grin>.
Cya
Teri
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:48:44 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: James Krieger's comments on HD and precision
"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)?"
The only thing that one can train for is strengh. Increases in muscular size,
endurance, tonus, and a whole host of other adaptations are all corrolaries of
increased strength. The notion that one can train for this aspect or that
aspect of increased strength, independent of increasing strength, is a large
part of the reason for many of the ludicrous training routines being promoted
currently.
You can only DIRECTLY change one thing about your muscles with training; they're strength, the amount of force they can produce. You can make them stronger, or you can grossly overtrain and make them weaker.
If you want to increase muscular size, you must increase strength. Although
you can increase strength w/o size, you can not do the opposite. Want to
increase muscular endurance, you need to increase the strength of the muscles.
Muscular endurance simply refers to the ability of the muscles to perform
submaximal contractions for an extended period of time, and the stronger your
muscles are, the less the relative intensity of any given task. Want to
improve any of these things? Then you must stimulate the body to produce an
increase in the strength of your muscles.
How do you determine the precise volume and frequency of training required for any particular individual? (Actually, you can't, but you can make a practical estimate.) Accurate record keeping. For more on this, I recommend reading Dr. McGuff's articles regarding dose-response curves on Mike Mentzer's site.
While we're on the subject, what about training differently to address your
fast twitch fibers (or high threshold motor units) vs. your slow twitch fibers
(or low threshold motor units)? The whole idea is utter nonsense, or as Arthur
would say, "hogwash." Your fiber type is genetically determined, and not
subject to change, and there is no evidence that one can selectively stimulate
either, and even if it was possible, there would be no evidence, since there
is NO practical accurate means of measuring such a thing . If you train at
all, you'll at least stimulate your slow twitch fibers, if you train intensely
enough, you'll stimulate everything that you can possibly stimulate. As for
the notion that you have to train with fast speeds to address the fast twitch
motor units, more nonsense.
And, one last thing, the idea that there is no BEST way to train is also
absolute nonsense. Some methods are safer, more effective, and more time
efficient, thus BETTER than others. And you have to have one which is better
than all of the rest, thus being the BEST. The theory who's application
produces the best or desired results (remember, the ONLY factor you can
DIRECTLY address through training is muscular strength) is the BEST. Now some
people don't want to admit that, some people want to say that just to avoid
confrontation and argument, but it's true. If it weren't, if HIT and
Periodization, and all those goofy Weider Principles all had somewhat equal
validity (which is hardly the case) then why would there be such heated debate
over the subject?
And another thing (I guess that wasn't the last thing) I AM one of those
people who say that HIT is the BEST. Even if HIT wasn't more effective than
other training methods (and when properly applied, it IS), it is by far safer,
and more time efficient than anything else out there.
I'd like to recommend that all of you read over everything on Cyberpump!, particularly, Arthur Jones' classic Iron Man articles, as well as Arthur's articles at www.medxinc.com. I think that will clear up a lot of confusion regarding several issues. Also, I strongly recommend everyone read Fitness Testing: A Multi-Billion Dollar Sham at http:www.superslow.com/es13.html. This will give everyone an idea of the quality of "research" being quoted by many.
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:43:09 -0500
From: Stephen Turner <smturner@golden.net>
Subject: Re:#85 (Merriman web site)
The last couple of digests have referred to this web site, as perhaps containing a counter example to the HIT/heavy duty principles.
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/weights/
Since all good would-be scientists count the data that disagrees as well as
the data that agrees with their favourite theory (right???), I thought I
would have a look at the site. At this site HIT is referred to as
pseudo-scientific pop crap. It also calls HIT the most time-efficient
method of training. Well, I'm confused. Would this not tend to validate
the principles, rather than refute them?
Regards, Steve
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 07:15:57 EST
From: "Matt Brzycki" <brzycki@arelia.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Unknown
First of all, puh-leez don't throw me off this list -- it's the only one where I haven't been tossed off for one reason or another.
Someone asked for info on HIT seminars. The University of Michigan
puts on an annual seminar in conjunction with their football coach's
clinic. I don't know the exact dates but I'd imagine it's either in
late March or early April. The cost is either free or something
stoopid like 10 bucks. And from what I hear they've drawn more than
600 coaches for it. Another one that comes to mind is the one held
by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. This year will be their second clinic
and I believe it will take place sometime in March. It is also
important to note that in March, the weather is much nicer in Tampa
Bay than in Ann Arbor (whoever she is). For more information,
contact the HIT strength coach -- I hadda say that -- at those
organizations (Mike Gittleson at Michigan and Mark Asanovich at
Tampa).
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:44:06 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Re: OL's and injuries
At 12:58 AM 1/19/98, cyberpump@geocities.com wrote:
>Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:55:48 -0500
>From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
>Subject: The Training Debates
>> 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.
I've been hoping this would come up since I wanted to maeka comment on the
study (Hamill et. al.) that is cited to 'prove' Olympic lifting is less
dangerous than other sports. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that
the study gave injury rates as # injuries/1000 hours of activity (something
like that). This is misleading (if I'm recalling it correctly). There are
FAR fewer Olympic lifters in the US than there are soccer players, rugby,
etc. In that there are more people playing other sports, there will be
more injuries ocurring. A more useful measure of injury rate would be #
injuries in terms of percentages of people involved. That is, if 1% of
soccer players are getting hurt (even though that 1% may represent 10,000
people) but 20% of Olympic lifters (which may only represent several
hundred people and I am making up these numbers to make the point), then
Olympic lifting is far more dangerous on a per participant (not per hour of
activity) basis.
I also think most people should try to track down the book "how to lie with statistics". It was written in the 50's but is just as pertinent today. With teh above numbers I made up, I could conclue several different things.
1.10,000 soccer players got hurt last year compared to only 300 OL's so
soccer is more dangerous.
2. 20% of OL's get injured compared to only 1% of soccer players so OL is
more dangerous.
Anyone want to tell me which interpretation is 'right'?
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:44:13 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Re: Merriman
>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.
>
>[Sorry, me again. I'm having a flashback...my old friend Barry Merriman?
>Out of curiousity, what ever happened to him? Anybody know?
>--Rob]
I think he tried to BASE jump with a sports parachute or something like that.
Sorry, bit of a misc.fitness.weights in-joke.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:16:11 -0800
From: Jon Ziegler <Rutger1@JPS.NET>
Subject: HIT Digest/ Love
Well after reading journal number 85, I must say everyone seems to be getting a bit surly. There wasn't a lot of love in the room.
First Comment. Arthur Jones, and later Mike Mentzer have always stated
that muscular gains will follow strength gains, or it might be possible
that the reverse happens- strength gains follow muscular gains. So to
those that argue that strength gains and muscle gains are not related,
what is the other option? Can I lift weights and not get stronger? Can
I gain muscle without a strength increase? Can I get strength increases
without an increase in muscle? The big fallacy is, is that bodybuilders
are not strong. What? Sure they are. Some have used Olympic Lifters as
a model. Yet I would be willing to bet that many Olympic lifters are
much more muscular now than when they started lifting. If looked at,
the muscle-strength "ratio" (for the lack of a better word) is a valid
process.
Second Comment. When everyone is feeling a bit up tight, turn on the stereo, put in your "Boston" CD, go to "Peace of Mind", and listen.
Good lifting,
Jon