1. Re: Whereabouts of Barry Merriman
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
2. Re: The Training Debate
by: Brad Collins <bcollins@hotmail.com>
3. Responce to James Kreiger's Laws and Personal Training Post
by: GORINSKI, ROBERT <rwg3216@sru.edu>
4. Re: Training Debates
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
5. personal trainers, licensure, again...
by: GORINSKI, ROBERT <rwg3216@sru.edu>
6. "failure", HD2, multi-sets, et.al
by: Berserker _ <berserker78@hotmail.com>
7. Re: Re: Inroad not in the textbooks
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
8. Does Dilbert Pump Iron?
by: Brad Collins <bcollins@hotmail.com>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:10:18 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Whereabouts of Barry Merriman
>
> [Sorry, me again. I'm having a flashback...my old friend Barry Merriman?
> Out of curiousity, what ever happened to him? Anybody know?
> --Rob]
>
Barry is a math professor at UCLA. You can find his website at
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry
James Krieger
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 06:05:32 PST
From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Training Debate
Sandeep wrote:
>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.
Well, I found this to be untrue. And, after 22+ years of training. And, for the record, AGAIN...AGAIN...AGAIN....as George Bush said "Read my lips".....I never said other programs would not work.
> 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.
Again, you should not lump me with others who say "This is the holy
grail".
> It just seems like so much effort is wasted
>when there are more pressing training issues to consider.
I agree.
>
>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 agree...and HIT stresses those fundamentals. Hard work, recovery,
safety, no bull supplements, etc. Those are what I call the
fundamentals.
>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
Maybe your expectations were too high? Do you expect your bench press
to go up every week, month, year? Do you use progression in the true
sense? It takes YEARS. That is where I think Mentzer is wrong. Heck,
I am still finding out I can train harder.
>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.
I beg to differ here. You have plenty of upcoming experiences. At 17,
you have hardly been there and done that. And, don't take this as a
flame, it is not. The older trainees on this list will likely agree.
AGAIN, I will say it again. I don't say MUST about any optimal
approach.
>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.
There are no misconceptions about the philosophy of HIT. Just like you said, it works. Is it the holy grail? Heck no! But, like I said in the other post (which you snipped), most people are not trying to be elite athletes. The have full time jobs, a family, job pressures, etc. Take that in day to day life and see how recovery is effected. Then, given they can get the same results with HIT as other systems which one should they choose? Maybe they should add some volume and another workout and blow off the wife and kids? Maybe they should tell their boss that they can't travel all week because they have all of their workouts scheduled? Sorry Son I can't help you, I have a hard squat workout...it will take me two hours with 10 minutes between sets.
HAH!
>
>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
I agree. And you have just begun right?
>> 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.
Well, you took this out of context. It had nothing to do with your
ability to reason or intellect. You are 17. It is likely test is
pulsating through you like crazy (it was for me at 17). Recovery is
super at this age. Like I said, maybe your expectations were too high?
But, I wasn't last in line for genetics and certainly not first, but I
could do basically anything and still make gains at that age. However,
the gains started to dry up when I started to overtrain and NOT provide
enough variability in my training. I had to cut volume to continue to
make gains, not increase it. I was no longer getting the newbie gains.
I also found I had to train HARDER.
>. Thirdly, I never discounted the fact that
>HIT/HD/HDII are excellent protocols in specific situations.
And my last post pointed out that the specific situations are more the
NORM...not just some small percentage of people.
>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.
See above comment on age. I was referring to my surprise that gains dried up given the recovery, etc. of most 17 year olds. Especially, since I am familiar with your site and your lifts, etc. You took it out of context. Congrats on all the email you received.
>
>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.
Actually, it has not. It has in their minds for their convenience to
help to try and discredit it. I am sure Rob has the original HIT FAQ
from a couple years ago...before these "studies" came out. You need to
do some comparison reading and decide for yourself.
>
>[This wouldn't happen to be that special someone who thinks I issue
death
>threats would it?
>--Rob]
Yes it would actually. People can judge for themselves based on the
source of this comment about Rob making death threats. You should too
Sandeep.
>
> 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.
No they are NOT. Again, you need to do some comparision reading here
and point out in print where things have changed. And, don't quote
Mentzer...like I said...he does not count with me.
>
>> 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.
Sorry, but this is like the pot calling the kettle black. How many
people are (or want to be) Olympic lifters? I am sure there are plenty
of qualified people in gyms everywhere who are teaching the day to day
person the proper and complex Olympic movements.
Explosive lifting is more dangerous...period. I tell you what....train explosively for 15 years and give me a call. Ever notice how many powerlifters stay around competing non-stop for their whole lives?
Good luck in your future years of training Sandeep. And I mean that
sincerely.
Brad
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 14:23:34 -0500
From: "GORINSKI, ROBERT" <rwg3216@sru.edu>
Subject: Responce to James Kreiger's Laws and Personal Training Post
James brings up a very good topic. The problem James points out does need
some serious consideration. Although my goal is to become a licensed
Physial Therapist, this problem has come up many times as I go through my
undergraduate studies as an exercise science major. This problem is that
there is no such licensure in existance to show that somebody has the
qualifications to practice, and set them apart from the rest who may have no
formal education in the field of health and fitness (Denise Austin:
"Exercise Physiologist"). I realize that there are many out there with no
formal education that really have much knowledge and a vast understanding of
the field, and there are others with an Exercise Physiology degree who may
offer much less in terms of helping people achieve their goals (body comp,
strength gains, general health, etc...). But then again, like James pointed
out, there are those (uneducated) who claim to be what they are not, or may
hold certifications that mean nothing more than they paid a certain
organization to send a nice looking document to hang on the wall. These are
the ones operating at the low costs, causing the misunderstandings, and many
problems in general for the rest of the "legit" individuals in the industry.
I'm not sure, myself, exactly what the point here is/should be. I feel that
a licensure (standard) required for practice would do much for the field of
exercise science. How to go about actually bringing this about? Pitfalls
and drawbacks to this??
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:41:11 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Training Debates
> From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
>
> 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 went through a similar situation with HIT as Sandeep did; I made great
gains off of HIT for a long time but then hit a point where HIT was no
longer a solution to my problems. In no way was I somehow misapplying HIT
principles; I was a hardcore HITer that fully understood the principles
and lived by them.
I want to make it clear that I have the same viewpoint as Sandeep; I am not against HIT in any way whatsoever. I think it's a great way to train, especially for individuals who lack time. I can think of many situations where I would use HIT if I were training a client or group of athletes. What I like about HITers like Matt Brzycki or Rob Spector is that they make no claims that HIT is the best and is universally applicable to every individual; they simply say, "Hey, we've got a great way to train here and come try it out! A lot of people have great success with this method of training!" I totally agree with them on this premise. I would never discourage someone from reading Cyberpump!; in fact, I would encourage them to read it. I am of the opinion that people should be exposed to all points of view and let them decide for themselves how they want to train.
What leads me to attack some Heavy Duty principles is when some individuals
begin to claim that the philosophy is universally applicable to every
individual (which it is obviously not; I can come up with at least 4
hypothetical situations where Heavy Duty cannot deliver a solution to a
problem, and if anybody wants to hear them, I'd be glad to illustrate them)
and that the premises behind it are irrefutable (which they are not). I
myself would never make such claims about any training method, because the
optimal training method for an individual depends upon the individual and
his/her goals, and will vary as time goes on.
To sum things up: HIT and its offshoot Heavy Duty are really great tools,
but no tool can be used for all applications.
James Krieger
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 14:39:23 -0500
From: "GORINSKI, ROBERT" <rwg3216@sru.edu>
Subject: personal trainers, licensure, again...
Sorry, I had responded to the post in issue # 84 before I had gotten a chance to read Lyle's post in # 85...his remarks provide a good look at what we're dealing with and clear some things up...'er show more complications.
Bob G.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:12:34 PST
From: "Berserker _" <berserker78@hotmail.com>
Subject: "failure", HD2, multi-sets, et.al
For about a year now I have been reading the testimonials of people who
have followed Heavy Duty 2. Most have claimed instant results and the
best gains of their lives. Some even go so far as to say that it is the
only "system" you will ever need, granted that you apply the principles
of HD/HIT correctly, as some people do not know what failure "really"
is.
After reading Sandeep's posts about his own success with GVT and
dissatisfaction with sticking with the same system all the time, I have
been wondering about something. That is, what would happen if indeed all
your body required was one set of squats every 6-7 days? If you are not
seeing results from one-set-to-failure, is this the product of faulty
regulation of frequency, because your body simply needs more stress, or
because you were only training to sub-failure? Sandeep said that he was
training to concentric, static, and eccentric failure within the same
set. According to HD wisdom, the said techniques prolonged his sets way
too long or it was simply too much stress and he didn't regulate
frequency properly. But what I really want to know is if there truly is
merit to training once every 2 weeks if the stress is so enormous. (By
the way, Mentzer doesn't believe in total failure.)
So how does one know if he has adequedtly induced enough stimulus?
Should you literally collapse during squats and puke all over the leg
press (not because you dislike machines) or what?
So did you, Sandeep, see any results from GVT? I read your article about
it but it was a little vague as far as the outcome goes. I'm about to
start it today.
Berserker
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:14:13 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: Re: Re: Inroad not in the textbooks
> -------------------- 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 at least 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.
Sandeep it's good to see that you have included appropriate subject
headings. Looking at articles at
http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/4000/robo009.html and
http://www.mikementzer.com/scidoc.html we can see the errors in Kraemer
and Bompa's research and propositions. It's understandable for those
that can't or don't use reason or think that what they can't understand
to be intelligible not to use it. It's not Andrew's fault that he
need's a blanket to put out these fires.
> > 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.
>
You not appealing to Authority by claiming that because these faults
were not found by other lab coat boys they are invalid. Are we to judge
by reason or by who makes the claim.
Cya
Teri
> ----------
> Sandeep De
> The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
> "We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"
>
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:51:46 PST
From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com>
Subject: Does Dilbert Pump Iron?
I saw a Dilbert today that struck a familiar cord. Here is the dialog
from the cartoon:
New guy addressing woman in Dilbert: "Hi I'm Dan the illogical
scientist"
Dan again: " That idea won't work because I've read many reports about
ideas that didn't work."
Woman in Dilbert: "You haven't even looked at my idea."
Dan: "Oh, I get it; you're one of those religious nuts."
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com