1. Re: HIT Digest, digest #90
by: Diesel 93 <Diesel93@aol.com>
2. Content of digest
by: Stephen Turner <smturner@golden.net>
3. Re: Force requirements and training velocity
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
4. The Debate About the Debates...
by: David and Lisa Staplin <staplin@pro-ns.net>
5. Fibre Recruitement
by: Ken Roberts <SAILOR@webtv.net>
6. Re: Aerobics = Nonsense
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
7. Re: Fiber Typing
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
8. Re: HIT Digest, digest #90
by: <DrewBaye@aol.com>
9. RE: Research
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
10. A Response to J. Kriegers Hypothetical Situations
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:16:22 EST
From: Diesel 93 <Diesel93@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #90
In a message dated 98-01-23 14:00:39 EST, you write:
> 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.
This still does not mean that the Type 1s get totally fatigued before you must finish the set. You may have to stop because your Type 2b are totally fatigued, which would be liekly when using very heavy weight/short set time. Thus the Type2b would have a better reason to hypertrophy than the Type 1.
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:51:28 -0500
From: Stephen Turner <smturner@golden.net>
Subject: Content of digest
The nice thing about this digest (or any) is that different threads of
conversation can coexist. I don't think there is a need to change the
focus of the digest, just initiate or participate in the threads you like.
I would not know a type IIab muscle fiber from a type B personality, but so
what. The discussions between James/Andrew/Lyle/Sandeep/FredII take up a
bit of space at worst, and may even provide food for thought for us
laypersons. Personally I find the empirical and even anecdotal, rather
than the theoretical info the most useful, but I won't begrudge the
presence of discussions that I don't (to say the least) understand.
Regards, Steve
P.S. And at least there is no epistemology and metaphysics to wade through!
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:41:38 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Force requirements and training velocity
> From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
>
> 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.)
Yes, force requirements dictate motor unit recruitment. Also, the velocity
of contraction does not have anything to do with fiber recruitment.
However, you are ignoring another component of force: acceleration. We
have the basic physics equation:
F=ma or Force = mass x acceleration.
To increase force requirements, we either increase mass (in weight training, this is the amount of weight) and/or we increase acceleration. Therefore, taking a light weight and accelerating it to a high velocity will result in greater motor unit recruitment then taking that same light weight and accelerating it to a slow velocity, given that the weight is traveling the same distance in both instances. In the second case, the required acceleration value will be lower, and therefore the force, and therefore the number of motor units recruited will be less.
The error that many people make is confusing velocity and acceleration.
Many individuals claim, "Moving a weight at a high velocity will not result
in greater motor unit recruitment." Here they are correct. However, they
forget that, to get the weight moving at this high velocity, it must be
accelerated, and it is this acceleration requirement which increases motor
unit recruitment.
Now, before anybody jumps to any conclusions, this comment does not mean
that I advocate ballistic lifting techniques.
James Krieger
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:14:06 -0600
From: "David and Lisa Staplin" <staplin@pro-ns.net>
Subject: The Debate About the Debates...
While I can understand how the discussions regarding fibre types, etc. can,
at times seem a bit dry, I think there is much to be learned from these.
Those people presenting their argument and supporting data must think
through and research their points, while those of us reading these debates
( ideally ) are thinking about what is being discussed, doing a little
homework of our own and as a consequence, expanding our knowledge base and
our ability to think critically. Understanding WHY a theory or idea about
training may/may not be valid can only be done by looking at the research
outlining the mechanisms ar work. Certainly our knowledge is incomplete,
but there is a higher probability it will stay that way if we confine
ourselves to anecdotal experiences about uor own or our client's training
successes/failures. Without the on-going research and discussion we would
not be in a position to know WHY we have these failures/successes as few
underlying foundational principles would ever be established. Even if such
principles turn out to be mistaken they have provided a base of sorts from
which to proceed and as we discover our mistakes we should then be able to
say WHY they were mistaken.
I believe that there is a place and value to BOTH discussions of real-world
training and the questions that both academics and experience TOGETHER can
help answer. I think one good way to get more out of all these dicussions
is:
When listening to an academically-oriented training debate, ask yourself
how this knowledge might be used to help your training and when listening
to someone's training experiences ask how we might explain this. This way
we all benefit from each other's strength's and knowledge!
Personally, I have seen more civility and intelligent dicussion on this
site than any of the other weight training sites, which I shall not bother
to even name.
Oh, my use of caps this time ( and the last ) was for emphasis only - not
shouting.
I look forward to seeing training experiences, research, spirited debate
and anything else that will help us move forward in our knowledge and
results!
Dave Staplin
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 19:50:34 -0800
From: SAILOR@webtv.net (Ken Roberts)
Subject: Fibre Recruitement
Does someone (ANYONE) want to tell me just what difference which fibres
are recruited when makes? I really think this is the gist of the recent
complaints we've been hearing r.e the more esoteric debates. Most of us
(I think) are saying "So what?" How does this information transfer over
to how I train? I, for one, do not want to see any restrictions as to
content on this site. However, I do wish the theoretical would be made
pertinent to the rest of us who don't really care so much as to why it
happens just so long as it happens.
And, by the way, I think it's pretty telling that while the other digest
is debating creatine (what the heck is there to debate?) this digest is
discussing mitochondria and organelles. Pretty cool.
Ken
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:38:40 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Aerobics = Nonsense
There are several articles on this at www.superslow.com if you are interested.
There is also a 44 page newsletter on the subject which will be posted within
the next month or so.
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 20:08:34 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Fiber Typing
James Krieger writes,
"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... etc."
There is more to it than that. For those of you who would like to read Ken
Hutchins' critique of fiber typing, it can be found at
http://www.superslow.com/es13.html
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 20:11:37 EST
From: DrewBaye@aol.com
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #90
James Krieger writes,
"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."
First, explain exactly how they claim to have measured those changes.
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 20:24:00 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: RE: Research
<< And I'd like to throw in my 2 cents about research. Lets all agree that
there
is no meaningful research out there. >>
Very well said.
I think Arthur Jones stated it best though. During one of Arthur's lectures, a researcher protested with words to the effect, "Mr. Jones, we've heard all of your analogies of Nautilus exercise philosophy using elephant hunts, airplane skills, and bull fighting. We are not interested in your experiences. Just present your data." Arthur's response in effect, "Gentlemen, I have no data. And neither do you. And if you can't use logic to derive principles from concrete knowledge in classical physics and biology, you are nowhere."
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:29:45 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: A Response to J. Kriegers 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. 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 that the real goal is a higher strength to bodyweight ratio, and
not to "gain strength without gaining muscle." The real 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 either avoid
training or NOT train hard enough to stimulate growth beyond that weight
level. Otherwise, chances are he is going to increase size along with
strength.
JK: Obviously, you want to increase strength but not stimulate growth. I cannot see how your abstract philosophies can solve a problem like this.
AB: Realize that part of training people also involves making them understand
what exercise can and can not do, and helping them form realistic
expectations.
JK: 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: It would appear so, 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, or strictly neural adaptations, which is a whole different subject, and would require more explanation that is practical for the digest.
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, 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.
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.
Unless other factors were responsible, it is highly unlikely that one would lose any actual muscular strength after such a short layoff.
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.
AB: I am not so sure of that.
JK: 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. Realize that there are many factors such as complete inactivity, insufficient sleep or nutrition, illness, psychological/motivational factors, etc can also affect a persons performance which have to be considered. 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