1. Re: Force Requirements and Training Velocity
by: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi>
2. Re: Subscribing to the Digest
by: POWER10 <POWER10@aol.com>
3. HIT/Periodization
by: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E6=E4=F8_=E6=EE=E5=F8=E4?= <zoharyz@netvision.net.il>
4. Re: HIT Digest, digest #91
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
5. Re: A Response to J. Kriegers...
by: Sean Sullivan <sms64@ultranet.com>
6. sandbags and stairs
by: Robert Spector <rspector@earthlink.net>
7. Re: Wrestlemania
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
8. Lower back exercises
by: Robert L.Phillips <phillips.robert@mcleodusa.net>
9. Re: HIT Digest, digest #91
by: GORINSKI, ROBERT <rwg3216@sru.edu>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 11:25:41 +0200
From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi>
Subject: Re: Force Requirements and Training Velocity
>From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Force requirements and training velocity
>Many individuals claim, "Moving a weight at a high velocity will not result
>in greater motor unit recruitment." Here they are correct.
I'm not sure they are. Internal friction in muscles - or anywhere - is
dependent on velocity: the higher the velocity the greater the friction.
Thus with a high velocity you have to overcome the resistance of a weight
plus a greater internal friction. Thus higher velocity may lead to greater
motor unit recruitment.
Everything else you said in your post seems correct to me.
Erkki
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 08:44:58 EST
From: POWER10 <POWER10@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Subscribing to the Digest
Thanks for letting me on your list-digest.
I have a question re new lifters. I run a youth rowing program, and lifting with free weights is a part, although a small part, of the program. Especially for the younger kids (eg 13) but also the older ones, I would like to know if there are any videos demonstrating the basic, elementary lifts (with little wt, or just the bar) for boys and girls. We want to show them how to lift properly and safely. Any help would be appreciated (including titles of elementary wt lifting, e.g., I did buy one book that looks good: "Strength Training For Young Atheletes" (Kraemer and Fleck--Humaand Kinetics).
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Gordon L. Pizor
Head Coach and Associate Director
Wilmington Youth Rowing Association (WYRA)
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:51:21 +0200
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E6=E4=F8_=E6=EE=E5=F8=E4?=" <zoharyz@netvision.net.il>
Subject: HIT/Periodization
..
I am 44, a busy profesional, married and have 4 kids. I have stayed in
shape over the years by running and swimming. About a year ago I started to
weight trainand I got hooked. My height is 1.88m. (6"2). Last year at this
time I weighed 74 kg. I now weigh 78.6, with the weight gained being mostly
muscle. My wife and kids comment on my muscular appearance.
This was accomplished by a twice a week HIT full body routine suplemented
by twice weekly running or swimming. I usually stuck to a routine for
about 12 weeks and then rested a week before starting a new program. I got
the routines from Cyberpump! I try to keep the routines simple. I have two
basic exercises that I always do (not on the same day): Sumo D.L. and
squat.
I have had great results with the 3x3 routine. This is what
I do (all exercises 8 - 12 reps, double progression):
Monday: Sumo D.L., weighted dips, supinated pulldown.
Thursday: Squat, weighted dips, supinated pulldown.
On each day I allow myself to add 3 exercises of my choice done 1 set to
failure. I finish up with ab work (bodyweight only).
I have decided to conduct an experiment: as of this week (after a 10 day
rest) I have begun the 5x5 periodized power program of Barry Merriman. It
is a three day routine, with each day revolving around one of the power
lifts. You do 5 reps for 5 sets. When you can no longer get the fifth rep
on the last set you drop the set. I plan to go down to 1 set of 5 and then
abort. Besides the basic exercises I plan to do three assistance exercises
each day, 2 sets, nearly to failure, starting at 12 - 15 reps and going
down to 5 - 7.
I would appreciate comments by anyone who has done this, or a similair
routine. Or just wants to comment.
In a few months I can compare the results to my HIT results.
Thanks in advance,
Y. Zohar
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 10:49:49 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #91
Ken writes:
<< 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?" >>
Actually, most of this argument about fiber type, etc. is a moot point, since
the goal of performing a set of an exercise should be to recruit and stimulate
strength increases in all of the muscle fibers possible anyway (in the safest
most efficient manner of course). Even if one could selectively recruit
particular fiber types, there would be no practical means of measuring this
for the majority of people. So I agree with Ken, in that, So What? None of
this really has any bearing on how one should train. What benefit would there
be to stimulating growth in some fiber types, and not others? What would be
the advantage in NOT stimulating strength increases in all the motor units in
any particular muscle?
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 15:12:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Sean Sullivan <sms64@ultranet.com>
Subject: Re: A Response to J. Kriegers...
>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.
Just curious, but if someone hadn't trained for 6 weeks, and you're having
that person train one set to failure, how did the extra 5lbs get on the bar
(or machine I should say) in the first place? Did you just assume she would
be stronger? Or were there progressively heavier warmups that lead you to
this?
>Most clients of mine who have come back after vacations or travelling after 2
>weeks or more have been stronger.
Isn't it possible then that they were overtrained before the vacation if
they needed such a long time for an adaptation to occur? Or are you
claiming that the adaptation happened say during the first week, but no
strength was lost during subsequent weeks.
>A bodybuilder is a subject in a high profile strength training experiment
<snip>
>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.
<NSCA insult snipped>
>the only option for this bodybuilder is to sneak out
>at night and train explosively with free weights at the nearest Gold's Gym.
>
>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?
>
Trick question! The answer is he doesn't because:
a) he is a genetic mega-superior and would make significant gains using any
protocol.
b) he is coming off a loong layoff and will be re-gaining lost muscle
(muscle memory is a cool thing)
c) he is using steroids!
(That story is sooo old)
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 20:31:24 -0600
From: grubber grubbasti <grubber41@hotmail.com>
Subject: sandbags and stairs
well mike i dont know of a better way to head in your direction than to
ask you to please post what it is exactly your doing with the sandbags
and stairs.
Grubber
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 21:11:53 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Wrestlemania
> And finally, to squash all the rumours I know you've been hearing - I'm
not scheduled
> to fight Mike Tyson at Wrestlemania.
Thanks for letting me know ahead of time, Rob. I already bought tickets!
James
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 12:35:01 -0600
From: "Robert L.Phillips" <phillips.robert@mcleodusa.net>
Subject: Lower back exercises
I've been curious about the value of an exercise that I've been doing
for my lower back. I can't do squats or deadlifts because of a chronic
hip pointer that I got from a hump-backed deadlifting style that I used
during the powerlifting days of my youth. I do back extentions with my
feet held securely by several crossbracing pieces of wood. I secure the
weights via a hip squat belt that I bought from Iron Mind. I put the
belt around my chest, under my armpits and hook up to a rope tied
around the weights. It seems like a much better form of back extention
as I can feel the resistance from start to finish instead of just at the
very end of the movement when I hold the weights behind my neck. (It's
also alot more comfortable this way). Am I just kidding myself or does
this movement sound like it's worthwhile? I also frequently finish my
workouts up with a sandbag carry to further exhaust my erectors. What
does anyone out there feel about this form of exercise?
Thanks, Bob.
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:58:51 -0500
From: "GORINSKI, ROBERT" <rwg3216@sru.edu>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #91
>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
I do agree with Andrew/Arthur here, and I think the point is well-made. But
what is the difference between exercise phyiology research and bio+physics
"concrete" research (not just Newtons laws)? What about the research done
to understand and obtain concrete knowledge in classical physics and
biology? Do you feel that the same basic scientific methods(i.e. question /
hypothesis / experiment / coordinating definitions/etc...)was/is applied to
both exercise and bio.+physics research? Then again, maybey those who are
very familiar and knowledgable in those fields feel the same way
(controversial)about their respective areas, thinking they are as abstract
as strenght training. People who are not as involved, interested, or
knowledgable in the field of strength training most likely look at current
research by Kraemer,etc...as concrete evidence just because they are not as
familiar with the field. My main point here is that I do feel that what is
given as research in the field of strength training is pretty much useless
(for a variety of reasons discussed previously by others), but I don't fully
understand why this should be any different than other research taken as
concrete.