1. Re: Aerobics
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
2. Re: Force production and velocity
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
3. Re: Fiber types
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
4. Re: Strength increases
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
5. Training debates.
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
6. Re: Fiber Typing
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
7. Training Protocols
by: Nic Oliver <impact@star.co.uk>
8. Re: Selective Recruitment of Fiber Types, Half-Nonsense
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
9. Response to James Krieger's 4 Hypothetical Situations
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
10. Re: HIT digest content change
by: CoryZ 212 <CoryZ212@aol.com>
11. Re: HIT Digest
by: Steve Raymond <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:19:34 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Aerobics
> From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
>
> particular program to their patients. This is completely understandable,
since
> many MDs are probably all to familiar with the injuries and conditions
which
> result from much of the nonsense being passed off as exercise, such as
> aerobics and plyometrics. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of options.
Please explain to me why aerobics are "nonsense" and cannot be considered
exercise.
James Krieger
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:35:17 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Force production and velocity
> From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
>
> The idea that one must train differently to develop different aspects of
> strength such as "power," "speed-strength," "explosive-strength," etc. is
> nonsense. Muscles produce force. You can increase the amount of force the
> muscles can produce, or you can not train or overtrain and cause a
decrease in
> the amount of force the muscles can produce. Plain and simple.
This comment ignores the principle of specificity, or the SAID principle
(Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands), which is applicable to all forms
of exercise. A muscle trained to develop maximum force at slow velocities
will not transfer as well to fast velocities; otherwise, the best
squatters in the world would also be the best vertical jumpers. Likewise,
a muscle trained to develop maximum force at high velocities does not
transfer as well to slow velocities. It's not that transfer does not
occur, but the further away you get from the training velocity, the less
the transference. This is no different from the specificity of strength
gains to the range of motion an exercise is performed in; if one were to
perform only partial repetitions in the strongest range of motion, for
example, the further away you get from that range of motion, the less the
strength transference. This is where the Power Factor Training philosophy
falls short.
James Krieger
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:42:44 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Re: Fiber types
>Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:02:57 EST
>From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
>Subject: Re: Fiber Type and Exercise
>
>James Krieger writes,
>
>"Mr. Baye, there is significant real-life evidence to support the idea that
>you can selectively train Type II fibers over Type I fibers."
>
>Apparently, you did not read the information on fiber typing in the Fitness
>Testing article at www.superslow.com/es13.html. [T]here is no
>accurate means of testing such a thing, and, since according to the size
>principle of fiber recruitment you mentioned in a previous post, type II
>fibers are only recruited AFTER all others have been, selective recruitment of
>these during exercise is a myth.
I agree that selective recruitment is generally impossible. But I don't
belive that what James said. He's talking about selective adaptation.
That is to say, Type II (a and b) have differing recruitment thresholds as
well as times to fatigue (Type IIb fatigue requring higher tension
thresholds and fatiguing more quickly than Type IIa which have lower
tension thresholds). I've seen varying times given along the lines of Type
IIb require in excess of 80-85% of 1RM (see any paper by Sale) and fatigue
in roughly 20 seconds. Type IIa begin to recruit aroudn 60% of 1RM or so
up to about 75-80%) fatiging in 60-90 seconds.
So a set of 80% of 1RM (roughly 5-8 reps depending on a host of factors)
but only lasting 30-40 seocds (at a non-superslow but controlled speed)
would recruit all fiber types but would NOT fatigue all recruited fibers.
If we take the assumption that fiber adapation is related to fatigue, you
wouldn't get maximal adaptation this way.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:42:37 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Re: Strength increases
>Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:56:09 EST
>From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
>Subject: Re: Strength increases
>
>James Krieger writes,
>
>"If "a strength gain is a strength gain," then the optimal protocol for a
>bodybuilder would be the same for a powerlifter and would also be the same for
>an Olympic lifter."
>The idea that one must train differently to develop different aspects of
>strength such as "power," "speed-strength," "explosive-strength," etc. is
>nonsense. Muscles produce force. You can increase the amount of force the
>muscles can produce, or you can not train or overtrain and cause a decrease in
>the amount of force the muscles can produce. Plain and simple.
So we shold completely ignore the effect of the nervous system or the several studies (by researchers like Komi) showing that Rate of Force Development (an index of 'explosive strength', how long it takes to reach peak force or 1/2 of peak force) can be developed differentially than maximal strength (defined here as Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction)?
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 11:47:32 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: Training debates.
Hi Guys,
I see that some are not too appreciative about the training debates.
They are not too interested in them and want to enjoy the journey and
don't care too much for the destination. While I too find them tiresome
even though I contribute to them I think there needs to be a balance
between the journey and the destination. If one merely enjoys the
stimulus the training gives without looking further down the track they
may run into a few undesirable obstacles.
Is it more the tone of the "discussions" rather than the content or is
it the content that people object to as well?
Now if you saw something that you thought was BS, that could potentially
cause harm, retard another's progression, would you be willing to let it
slide? With "two" camps with little in common you can come to realise
that there is going to be disagreements on many issues. What can we do
about it apart from becoming a little more civil or ignoring some of the
less injurious ideas. I take it that James and Co are just as sincere
in their beliefs unless shown otherwise.
Rob wrt cautioning Dave Staplin about using caps, don't you think that
was a little harsh considering it is way to emphasise something
important and make it distinctive. Shouting to make a point is
something a little different to continual shouting with no specific
emphasis. Delete this from the digest if you want to because I'm in no
way trying to embarrass you.
Peace
Teri
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:20:53 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Fiber Typing
> From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
>
> James Krieger writes,
>
> "Mr. Baye, there is significant real-life evidence to support the idea
that
> you can selectively train Type II fibers over Type I fibers."
>
> Apparently, you did not read the information on fiber typing in the
Fitness
> Testing article at www.superslow.com/es13.html.
Mr. Baye, I have read this article, and Hutchins argument against fiber
typing is weak at best. His argument mainly revolves around the idea that
the counting of mitochondria can be inaccurate. There are four main
classification methods of muscle fibers; two of these involve staining
techniques (Type I and Type II classification and the classification of
slow oxidative, fast oxidative glycolytic, and fast glycolytic); one
involves fiber color (red and white fibers, with red fibers containing more
myoglobin); the final one involves stimulation, measuring the twitch rate
(fast twitch vs. slow twitch). Hutchins generalizes that they all rely on
staining techniques, which they do not.
To my knowledge, only the slow oxidative/fast oxidative glycolytic/fast
glycolytic classification method involves counting of organelles. The
popular Type I/Type II classification scheme involves the myosin ATPase
staining method, where the muscle fibers are subject to different pH
conditions and therefore will stain differently, since myosin ATPase has
different forms under different pH conditions. As far as I know, this
method does not involve the counting of organelles.
> [T]here is no
> accurate means of testing such a thing, and, since according to the size
> principle of fiber recruitment you mentioned in a previous post, type II
> fibers are only recruited AFTER all others have been, selective
recruitment of
> these during exercise is a myth.
Then how do you explain the two exceptions that I pointed out in another
post? In general, yes, the size principle of recruitment applies, but
there are specific situations (such as during eccentric actions) where it
does not.
Mr. Baye, if Type II fibers cannot be selectively hypertrophied over Type I
fibers, then please explain the results of the study that I pointed out
where the double-volume concentric-only group increased Type II fiber size
while the concentric/eccentric group increased both Type II and Type I
fiber size.
James Krieger
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 10:09:15 +0000
From: Nic Oliver <impact@star.co.uk>
Subject: Training Protocols
Following the posting from "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com in HIT
Digest, I can only share his concern about the way the list appears to
be heading towards a succession of personal vendettas rather than an
informative and entertaining forum for the exchange of ideas about
training.
I've just spent a couple of weeks going back over 22 years of training
logs to look at what worked for me - I thought it might give me a clue
about effective training protocols.
What strikes me is that at different times during that period I have followed a number of approaches : HIT, traditional 'Arnold' 3 x 8, superslow, abbreviated routines, high reps, low reps etc to name but a few - and you know what? At some time or other I gained from all of them and i also plateaud in all of them. But I believe that each has played its part in helping me get from 135 lbs to 220 lbs, from a 70 lbs squatter to a 450lbs squatter etc. (and still growing!)
Perhaps instead of seeing things as 'either/or', defending one approach against another, we should see each as potentially able to make a contribution and look at the fit betwee the different approaches.
--
Regards,
Nic Oliver
Impact Business Development Consultancy
It's more important to know where you are going,
than to get there quickly. Do not mistake
activity for achievement.
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:24:54 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Selective Recruitment of Fiber Types, Half-Nonsense
Maybe I've already responded to this. In any case, I'll respond again.
James Krieger writes,
"Mr. Baye, there is significant real-life evidence to support the idea that you can selectively train Type II fibers over Type I fibers"
No, Jim. There isn't. You can selectively train type I fibers by training at extremely low intensity, which would be pointless, unless you're not training for physical reasons, in which case it's not exercise either, it's recreation.
Your body only recruits the type II fibers after the type I have been recruited, and the force requirements exceed the amount of force that can be produced by the type I fibers. First the type I are recruited, then IIa, IIab, and as a last resort, your body will recruit the type IIb.
Actually, there is one exception. Selective recruitment of type IIb fibers has
been demonstrated in cats during extremely high speed, low force contractions.
Of course, hyperplasia has also been demonstrated in cats. Neither of these,
however, have been demonstrated in humans. (Don't get the idea from the cat
comment that you have to "train fast to address the fast twitch fibers." That
is more utter nonsense. Speed of contraction has nothing to do with fiber
recruitment. Recruitment depends on the force requirements of the muscle,
period.)
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 17:23:25 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Response to James Krieger's 4 Hypothetical Situations
JAMES KRIEGER (JK): Mr. Baye, I present you with 4 hypothetical situations, and please explain to me, within the context of the theories that you espouse, how you would solve these problems. If your philosophies are the "BEST", as you claim, then they should be able to work for everyone and any situation:
JK: Situation #1: A bodybuilder comes to you and wants you to design a
training protocol that would optimize muscle hypertrophy for him. You
place him on a Superslow protocol, and find after a number of months that
he as made great gains in strength. Yet, he has had absolutely no increase
in muscle size. Assuming his caloric intake is adequate, please explain to
me, within the context of your philosophies, why this problem has occurred
and how you would correct it.
ANDREW BAYE (AB): If a person's strength has increased significantly, without any significant hypertrophy, then the only rational assumption would be that all the strength increases were the result of improvements in skill and neuromuscular adaptation. Those can only improve so much before the subject would be training at a level of intensity high enough to stimulate actual muscular strength increases, which would be associated with size increases. If "strength" is increasing, but muscular size is not, then that "strength" is related to neurological, and not strictly muscular adaptations.
Of course, this is truly a "hypothetical situation." I've had old women on reduced calorie diets make obvious gains of muscle mass in periods as short as 6 weeks. Hell, I've had one woman add 3/4 inches to her arm using SuperSlow following Arthur's arm routine (which you can read about in one of Rob's article's on Cyberpump!). I have yet to train anyone who has not made significant progress relative to their potential after only a few weeks.
JK: From my understanding of your philosophies, I cannot see how this can be
done.
AB: That's because you have no understanding of my philosophies.
JK: Please do not claim that it could not happen, because Matt Brzycki
recently added 100 lbs to his trap bar deadlift within a year with absolutely
no increase in muscle size.
AB: No, that's not what he said. He said "no increase in body weight" not "no increase in muscle size." There is a huge difference between the two.
JK: Situation #2: A collegiate wrestler comes to you and is interested in
increasing his strength for wrestling. However, he is very close to jumping
to a higher weight class and does not want to see this happen. Therefore, he
is very interested in relative strength; he wants to get stronger yet see no
hypertrophy whatsoever.
AB: He wants to be stronger, but he does not want to gain any muscle
whatsoever. Hmmmm. Hypothetical situation indeed.
JK: He is interested in purely neural adaptations.
AB: Then he should just be practicing his wrestling skills. If you strength train, you're going to stimulate strength and size increases.
JK: Explain to me, Mr. Baye, how you would solve this dilemma within the
context of your philosophies.
AB: First, I would explain proper exercise to the wrestler, so that he would
understand how ridiculous this goal is. If the goal is a higher strength to
bodyweight ratio, then the goal is to become as strong and as lean as
possible. If he does not want to go over a certain body weight, then he would
either need to lose enough fat to keep him under that weight, or if this is
not practical, then he would simply need to NOT train hard enough to stimulate
growth beyond that weight level.
JK: Obviously, you want to increase strength but not stimulate growth. I cannot see how your abstract philosophies can solve a problem like this. Please do not tell me that it is impossible to selectively increase strength without inducing hypertrophy because it is obviously possible since it has been demonstrated both in real life and in the laboratory.
AB: Obviously, if you are not aware of the problems and limitations of the
testing tools and methods used to determine such, as well as the flaws
inherent in this premise. There is a difference between STIMULATING muscular
strength increases, which involve an increase in the thickness of the actin
and myosin filaments and increases in myofibrils, which of course means an
increase in size, however slight it may be, and SKILL conditioning. Even if
neuromuscular adaptations are occuring, the intensity of training required
(however slight) to produce these would have some minimal effect on the
muscle.
JK: Situation #3: An Olympic lifter comes to you and wants you to design a training protocol for him. Now, being an Olympic lifter, it is undesirable for him to train to failure since doing so would encourage bad technique on these highly technical lifts. It is also undesirable for him to do more than 5 repetitions per set since higher repetitions would create excessive metabolic fatigue which would again encourage bad technique. Please explain to me how you would design a training protocol for this individual using your philosophies. I assure you the constraints are absolutely necessary since he is an Olympic lifter. I cannot see how you could design a training protocol for an Olympic lifter using your philosophies.
AB: First, you need to understand that there is a difference between strength
training, and the rehearsal of the skills involved in Olympic lifting and
power lifting. Since the implement used in these sports is also one of the
implements that may be used in conditioning for the sport, many people have
difficulty making this distinction.
The idea that training the lifter to failure, or using more than 5 repetitions
per set would cause some deterioration of form might be true IF I were to have
him perform his competition lifts in such a fashion as part of his strength
training. Of course, being knowledgable in these matters and understanding the
distinction between strength and skill training, I would make no such mistake.
The lifter would follow a HIT program specifically addressing the muscular
structures involved in the Olympic lifts, training to failure on every damn
exercise, every damn workout. On a different day, he would practice the
Olympic lifts. There would be NO negative transfer of motor skills between the
exercises he would perform in his strength training and the lifts he would
perform for his skill training. As competition drew closer, I would gradually
cut back on his strength training, and have him increase his skill training.
The reason some people apparently don't understand how one can create a strict
HIT strength training routine for an Olympic lifter is your lack of
understanding of motor learning principles.
JK: Situation #4: You place an individual on an HIT protocol. He makes excellent strength gains for a period of months. His gains begin to slow significantly and halt in some exercises, so you have the individual take 2 weeks off and then begin on a protocol with a reduced volume and reduced frequency to encourage further progress. However, you find that this individual has lost some strength after this 2 week layoff.
AB: Just as a note: I've had a woman come back after 6 weeks vacation and do 5
more pounds in every exercise, as well as more repetitions. I have some people
who only train once every two weeks, and make consistent progress. It is
highly unlikely that the body would produce any adaptation which it would
allow to be lost in such a short period of time, as that would be a tremendous
waste of resources.
Most clients of mine who have come back after vacations or travelling after 2
weeks or more have been stronger. The only exceptions were athletes who spent
the entire time they went away practicing their sport or in competition, in
which case they came back slighly weaker, due in part to just plain being
exhausted.
JK: Please tell me how your philosophy explains what has happened. Please do
not claim that this could not happen, because it happened to me during the
days when I embraced HIT just as much as you do, and definitely was not
misapplying any of the principles. Within the context of the theories that
you support, I
do not see how this can be explained or how this problem can be solved,
since your theories assume that plateaus are caused by overtraining, when,
in this situation, this is obviously not the case.
AB: Of course, this is a hypothetical situation, and a rather vague one at
that. Don't forget that factors such as complete inactivity, insufficient
sleep or nutrition, illness, psychological/motivational factors, etc can also
affect a persons performance. There are a lot of reasons why a person MIGHT
not be as strong or perform as well after a few weeks off, all of which must
be taken into consideration. If such a situation should occur, I would first
question the subject regarding these other factors.
Now, James, why don't you tell us what YOU would do in such situations, so
that we may all discuss and evaluate your solutions to these truly very
hypothetical situations? As well as your answer to the following hypothetical
situation:
A bodybuilder is a subject in a high profile strength training experiment at a
university in the southwest. There are some very high expectations of the
bodybuilder, and it is imperative that he gain a significant amount of muscle
over the next 28 days. He is going to be performing a low volume of high
intensity training (HIT) on Nautilus equipment during that time. Since, as all
NSCA strength "experts" know, you can't make any real gains using HIT or
training with Nautilus, the only option for this bodybuilder is to sneak out
at night and train explosively with free weights at the nearest Gold's Gym.
The problem is, the nearest Gold's Gym is over a thousand miles away, and the
bodybuilder does not have any transportation, since he flew in with the other
subject of this experiment. Also, the bodybuilder happens to be sharing a room
with the other subject in the experiment, who always has a .45 caliber pistol
with him, and is not afraid to use it. This subject would not be very pleased
if the bodybuilder tried to sneak out.
So the question is this, exactly how does this bodybuilder sneak out each
night to train at the nearest Gold's Gym, which is over a thousand miles a
way, without being caught and possibly shot by the other subject, and with
absolutely no transportation?
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 10:54:05 EST
From: CoryZ 212 <CoryZ212@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HIT digest content change
<<Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:39:37 -0600
<<From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com>
<<Subject: HIT DIGEST
<<Is it just me or do others also dislike the way this digest seems to be
<<heading. Originally I thought it would be a great source for training info,
<<such as; new exercises to try, some great HIT style workouts that
<<subscribers have tried, maybe some new equipment that has made your
<<workouts more productive, etc....
I agree whole heartedly with Mike!! While at first these debates proved quite
interesting and informative, now they all seem like an endless circle. Let's
share more information about how we train our clients, success stories,
equipment tips, etc. There were several posts like this in HIT Digest #89 and
even though I didn't agree 100% with the training methods, I found them far
more interesting, and yes, informative than an endless fast twitch/slow twitch
debate.
-------------------- 11 --------------------
Date: 23 Jan 1998 10:11:07 -0800
From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest
Mike Strassburg wrote:
Is it just me or do others also dislike the way this digest seems to be
heading. Originally I thought it would be a great source for training
info,such as; new exercises to try, some great HIT style workouts that
subscribers have tried, maybe some new equipment that has made your workouts
more productive, etc....
Instead, 90% of the contents are never-ending debates about the benefits/pitfalls of HIT, periodization, slow twitch/fast twitch, machines/free weights, HD, HDII, Superslow, inroads, Mentzer's theories, hypothetical training situations, etc....ad naseum!! Who the hell cares.
I agree. It seems like some people like to hear themselves talk. Lets focus on tools for helping us keep motivated, new exercises, etc. Btw Mike, my routine is almost exactly the same as yours, except you are a little more hardcore with the cardio. I just run (read: jog) the hills of San Francisco. Maybe I'll try to pick it up a notch. Like you I workout for general fitness and to improve my performance in my REAL sports - skiing, mountain biking, and rugby. I also like to work out in the afternoon because I need to have a substantial lunch before I feel energized enough to give 100% in the gym.
And I'd like to throw in my 2 cents about research. Lets all agree that there
is no meaningful research out there. Why don't we do our own? There are 80+
people on this list last I heard. Why don't we compare routines, goals,
results etc. It'd be a good motivating tool and we just might learn
something. Even anecdotal evidence from people who train is more valuable to
me than some BS test performed by a pseudoscientist.
Stephen Raymond