1. Re: Exercise Physiology vs. REAL Scientific Research
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
2. Re: Aerobics=Nonsense
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
3. Re: Youth Weight Training
by: Brad Collins <bcollins@hotmail.com>
4. Y. Zohar's Comparison Experiment...
by: David and Lisa Staplin <staplin@pro-ns.net>
5. Re: HIT Digest, digest #90
by: Mike Strassburg <MLSTRASS@hewitt.com>
6. power program
by: Tom <tomb@golden.net>
7. Full Squats and Leg Extensions
by: Tom <tomb@golden.net>
8. Movie Reviews
by: Daniel Yourg <dyourg@teetot.acusd.edu>
9. Re: HIT Digest, digest #92
by: Mike Strassburg <MLSTRASS@hewitt.com>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:33:43 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Exercise Physiology vs. REAL Scientific Research
In response to Robert Gorinski's question regarding the distinction between
exercise physiology "research" and research in the classical sciences
performed by real scientists, I recommend reading Vol. 1, Issues 1,2 and 3 of
The Exercise Standard, which can be found at
http://www.superslow.com/Standard.html. There are also two newsletters which
outline specifically the requirements for proper scientific research, and
explain how most exercise physiology studies fail to meet these requirements.
They are available through Media Support (407) 260-6204. Critiques of several
key studies on strength training and cardiac rehab will be posted on the
SuperSlow web site sometime within the next few months also.
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:23:22 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Aerobics=Nonsense
Time for my opinion on "Aerobics = Nonsense." I want to make this very
clear: While I am not attacking the Superslow Guild as an organization nor
am I personally attacking
the members, I am taking issue with their anti-aerobics and anti-exercise
science
attitude.
I am very familiar with the anti-aerobics mentality of the Superslow Guild.
However, I feel this anti-aerobics attitude will only hinder the need to
encourage an ever-increasing sedentary population into engaging in regular
exercise programs.
Part of the problem with a lack of adherence to regular exercise programs
is that many people find exercise monotonous and unenjoyable. The
availability of many different forms of aerobic exercise from which people
can choose increases the chances that people can enjoy exercise and incur
health benefits from it at the same time. The enjoyment of exercise will
then create an adherence to it.
The constant attacks by the Superslow Guild on aerobic exercise are
unfounded. I am purely speaking for myself here, but I view these attacks
as ploys to convert people to Superslow. Discouraging people from doing
activities that they may enjoy and receive health benefits from seems
self-serving to me.
The Superslow Guild overblows the injury potential of other forms of
exercise. I consider these scare tactics that have little basis in hard
facts. I see it similar to the Alar scare that occurred in the 80's; the
Alar scare (which had little basis in hard evidence) severely hurt the
apple industry here in Washington State (but nobody complained how Alar was
being used on other fruits). Sure, Superslow is safer then other forms of
exercise due to the extremely sloooooow movements, but so what? If I go
out and drive in my car, I have the potential of dying or becoming more
seriously injured then I could ever be in a step aerobics class. Should I
stop driving?
The Superslow Guild claims that they have the "Ultimate Exercise Protocol."
It claims that its form of exercise will produce all the benefits of any
combination of other exercise protocols. However, it does not offer any
hard evidence to back this claim up. It then unjustly criticizes the
exercise science community (which offers hard evidence to back up the
claims of the benefits of aerobic exercise), making unfounded
generalizations about exercise scientists. The Guild tells people, "all
the research out there is bad, so you should come to us because we have the
answers." Hmmmm.
I am familiar with the Guild's anti-NSCA stance. I have heard complaints
of the NSCA unjustly attacking HIT ("my way or the highway"), which I feel
have validity. However, I see the actions of the Superslow Guild as being
no different. The Guild's criticisms of other forms of exercise
(particularly aerobic exercise) is exactly the same mentality, i.e. "my way
or the highway."
I have seen the testimonials on the Superslow web page. These testimonials are no better then the testimonials that I've seen for other forms of exercise. If Superslow was the "Ultimate" protocol, shouldn't these individuals be getting radically better results than other protocols?
Many of the claims of the Superslow Guild are based upon philosophy, not
facts. To me, philosophy is meaningless when it comes to exercise; what
we see in real life is what really matters (what you see is what you get).
Marxism was supposed to be great philisophically, but its real-life
application of communism eventually failed miserably. Philosophy can never
convince me of anything.
In another post, Andrew Baye commented that brisk walking can produce no
physical conditioning benefits. Well, maybe from athletic point of view,
no. But brisk walking can produce significant health benefits to a
previously sedentary person. Remember, one person's underload is another
person's overload. It is all relative to a person's former condition. The
benefits of even moderate exercise significantly outweighs the health risks
of being sedentary.
I present you with some comments from long-time Runner's World columnist
George Sheehan:
"The person I am, my productivity, my creativity, my pursuit of happiness -
all are conditioned and determined by my hours on the road...When I began
running, my coronary risk factors practically disappeared. I stopped
smoking, my weight returned to what it had been in college, and my blood
pressure didn't rise as I got older. Running also added hours to my day.
My physical work capacity is far greater than it was when I was 38 years
old and (presumably) in my prime. Clearly, my body benefits from fitness.
But my mind does, too."
This is only a small segment of how George Sheehan describes the personal benefits that he derived from running. I now direct a question to the Superslow instructors out there: Would you discourage this person from running, when he clearly has achieved significant physical and psychological health benefits from it? Would you say, "Oh, you'll injure yourself. You shouldn't be doing this activity?" Would you claim that he is participating in "nonsense?" I doubt George Sheehan sees it as "nonsense." Running, a dangerous and nonsensical activity according to the Superslow Guild, changed George's life for the better, and it has the potential to change other people's lives as well if they enjoy running. Yes, there is an injury potential that goes along with running, but an injury potential goes along with almost any activity known to mankind, and the health benefits of running outweigh the injury potential.
Getting back to the idea of adherence and enjoyment of physical activity, I
would never adhere to Superslow. Is it because I think it doesn't work?
No, although I do feel it is not the best method for me (notice I said me.
There are probably people out there who possibly have reached their
potential with Superslow, and if they have, then more power to them) to
reach my genetic potential in muscle size or strength. The main reason
that I do not participate in Superslow is simply because I dislike training
that way! The extremely slow tempos makes training monotonous and boring
to me; it makes training a counting affair (in my mind, at least), and
disrupts my concentration on more important factors, such as form and
simply training hard. There are many training protocols out there that
will give me the exact same health and strength benefits as Superslow, and
there are many training protocols out there that have the potential to
bring me closer to my own potential. I would take offense to someone if
they claimed I was participating in "nonsense" if it was producing great
results. Barry Merriman trained on a high volume periodized protocol using
typical training tempos, and allegedly gained 38 drug free lbs in 2 years.
Was he
participating in "nonsense?"
The Guild believes that endurance exercise produces no physiological
adaptations to enhance endurance, and that Superslow can produce all the
benefits that an endurance exercise protocol would. To the members out
there, I present this situation. Let's say we take a pair of twins. We
put one on an endurance training protocol (let's say distance running) for
a number of years, and the other on a Superslow protocol for the same time
period. We then place them both on stationary bikes and test who can ride
the farthest in an hour (stationary bikes have electronic meters to display
the distance traveled). Now, we're on stationary bikes, so "skill
development" is not a factor (it doesn't take much skill to pedal a
stationary bike, and both individuals participated in activities completely
different from it anyway). Now, I ask, who's going to ride the farthest in
an hour? My money would be on the trained endurance athlete. To me, the
idea that endurance exercise cannot produce physiological (such as
cardiorespiratory) adaptations to enhance overall endurance is "nonsense."
It ignores the SAID principle; you train your body what you want it to be.
If you want to be strong, then train to be strong. If you want to last
long, then train to last long.
Am I attacking Superslow or the members of the Guild? No. I am not trying
to discredit Superslow as an effective form of exercise, nor am I claiming
that it cannot produce significant health benefits, nor am I insinuating
that the Guild's members cannot help many individuals out there. I am also
not saying that someone cannot enjoy participating in Superslow. I am
criticizing the Guild's anti-aerobics attitude and their idea of having the
"Ultimate" protocol, of which there is no such thing. The "Ultimate"
protocol depends upon the individual and his/her goals. What is
appropriate for one person is not appropriate for another. Superslow
definitely would never be appropriate for George Sheehan, or myself, so how
can it be the "Ultimate" protocol?
James Krieger
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 05:50:30 PST
From: "Brad Collins" <bcollins@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Youth Weight Training
>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 Athletes" (Kraemer and Fleck--Human
Kinetics).
>
>Thanks for any help you can provide.
>
>Gordon L. Pizor
>Head Coach and Associate Director
>Wilmington Youth Rowing Association (WYRA)
>
Try
Youth Strength and Conditioning (Spalding Sports Library)
Matt Brzycki, Matt Bryzcki / Paperback / Published 1996
Synopsis:
A widely recognized authority on strength training now turns his
expertise to young athletes with a book that takes the special needs of
growing bodies into consideration. Bryzcki shows parents, coaches, and
kids how to safely improve muscular strength. Photos & illustrations.
Notice safe is even in the Synopsis. This consideration may not be
taken as seriously in other books.....
Brad
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:52:41 -0600
From: "David and Lisa Staplin" <staplin@pro-ns.net>
Subject: Y. Zohar's Comparison Experiment...
In his post Mr. Zohar describes a proposal for comparing the 5x5
Periodization routine of Merriman with the HIT program he has been on.
When making such comparisons it is important to be able to distinguish
between whether one is actually comparing the 2 protocols OR whether what
is actually being demonstrated are the results of a CHANGE in protocols.
This would, of course, involve the same considerations were the order of
the comparisons reversed.
Ideally, in making comparisons between 2 quite different protocols, an
investigator would have:
1) experienced subjects ( NOT previously untrained ones )
2) matched subjects according to muscle fibre type, age, lifestyle and a
host of other factors in order to have a group as homogenous as possible
3) have this group divided such that one subgroup performs one of the
protocols and another subgroup performs the other
4) the experiment run long enough and with statistically significant group
size to yield meaningfull data
This is but the barest procedural outline but illustrates just some of the
necessary considerations and, to my knowledge, few studies comparing
protocols have used such an experimental design. Interestingly, Arthur
Jones conducted a similar experiment using 12 sets of identical twins, and
their results included some outcomes that could not, at the time, be
explained.
The take-home message is: Be very carefull when designing, conducting and
evaluating training ( or surgical, etc. ) comparison experiments or you may
end up with results which have measured something OTHER than what you think
they have!
Dave Staplin
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:48:23 -0600
From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #90
In response to Teri's remarks:
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 11:47:32 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: Training debates.
Hi Guys,
Teri:I see that some are not too appreciative about the training debates.
Mike: I don't consider myself unappreciative, I just don't see any real
value in spinning your wheels about factors that I don't feel affect my
training. "The only thing certain, is that nothing is certain". Especially
when it comes to exercising. There is very little to none, in the way of
definitive exercise research. So instead of debating "theories", I chose to
focus upon the factors that I can control.
Teri: 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.
Mike: I didn't mean to imply that I don't care about the "destination". As
I stated later in my post, personally I feel that I have found the ideal
routine for me, that is taking me closer every workout. My conditioning
level has improved dramatically, which has allowed me to be a better
athlete. That is "my" destination. And along the way I have discovered what
works best for me and have had some wonderful workouts.
Teri: Is it more the tone of the "discussions" rather than the content or
is
it the content that people object to as well?
Mike: Both. The tone almost always deteriorates to nothing more than
"polite" verbal jabs and insults. If there were "concrete" facts to
validate the theories that would be one thing, but almost all of what is
debated is just speculation.
The content definitely becomes tiresome, and provides no "useful"
information for 90% of the people who read it.
To summarize my viewpoint. I feel we would all be better off if we spent
more time trying to help each other. Everyone who reads this digest has
some positive feedback to offer. Whether it be a new exercise, a new piece
of equipment, or a new routine that has worked particularly well for them.
This is what the digest should offer. I personally like to read about
training not only to learn about what has worked for others, but as a
motivational tool.
P.S. I just got through my 4th super-high intensity cardio workout this
morning. What a killer! I read about it at Richard Winnet's great site,
"Master Trainer". The 2 articles are about "The Essence of Cardiovascular
Training". For anyone who wants to push their cardio system to the max,
give the 20/10 interval routine a try!!
Gotta run, between the Ironmind Grippers and all this typing, my forearms
are gonna be overtrained.........Mike
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:57:27 -0500
From: "Tom" <tomb@golden.net>
Subject: power program
<<<<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 also have followed a HIT routine like the one you did and then after 4
months I tried superslow for 2 months and now I am doing a program like the
one above.
I stopped doing HIT due to I felt I was no longer making gains as fast as I
was. Then when I tried superslow I don't think I was making any gains
however I sure had the DOMS a lot more then I ever did with HIT and had to
take more time off between workouts. I might add that I had Bronchitis for 6
weeks over the period of trying superslow and this would have slowed down
progress. I will try superslow again for a change up and see how it goes.
Now I am doing with each exercise 1 set of 15 then 1 set of 12 , 1 set of 8
, 1 set of 4 and 1 set of 2 increasing weight each time. I really like this
because mentally I just think with each weight increase that hey it is only
another 10 or 20lbs no big deal and seem to be able to make more gains each
week. On the set of 8, 4, 2, I always try to do more then the number I am
trying for and if I am able to next week I increase the weight for that set.
I have 3 workouts that I get done in about 8 or 9 days depending on how my
body feels. After I have done each workout twice I change all exercises
except for Squats, Deadlifts, Chins. I do change the rep speed on those for
variety though. Basically if I don't get the DOMS 1 or 2 days after a
workout then I change the routine.
tomb@golden.net
http://www.golden.net/~tomb
"Attack every rep with enthusiasm...
as if your survival depended upon it."
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:19:48 -0500
From: "Tom" <tomb@golden.net>
Subject: Full Squats and Leg Extensions
I was reading an article on how to do squats
http://www.strengthtek.com/strtek/squat.htm I have always done squats only
to parallel. I usually do 15 X 115, 12 X 185, 8 X 225, 4 X 235, 3 X 245.
That was last Squat day going to parallel. I tried doing the full squat the
way the article describes. I even pulled in my grip on the bar so that my
elbows where pointing in on the motion. I found that I was able to do 15 X
95 , 12 X 135, 7 X 155, 3 X 185. I enjoyed doing these so much. I can tell
you my legs where so pumped when I was done. My roommates eyes popped out of
his head when he said to me look at the pump on your legs. I have never had
any knee or back problems. I have always been one of these people that heard
so many people say that you will blow your knees out doing full squats so I
have never even tried them before.
So here are the questions? What do others on the list think about full squats and who does them? How do you feel about them? My goal before was to reach 300lbs for the summer in squats and now I have changed that goal to get back up to my 245lbs doing full squats. I can imagine how much weight I will be able to do on parallel squats if I reach 245lbs on full squats.
This brings me to another exercise that I have not done due to people saying
it is a real knee killer and that is Leg Extensions. I wonder if I have been
missing out on another good exercise. I would like to hear what people think
about them. As well it would be nice to here a good description of how to do
them correctly like the article I found on Squats.
Tom
tomb@golden.net
http://www.golden.net/~tomb
"Attack every rep with enthusiasm...
as if your survival depended upon it."
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:59:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Yourg <dyourg@teetot.acusd.edu>
Subject: Movie Reviews
What happened to the moderators movie reviews? I appreciate the reviewers
real world perspective due in part to his being a fellow lifter. Due to
my busy schedule (family,work) I need to be very selective regarding
attending the theatre. Due to this digest I have not seen "Boogie
Nights," but have not noticed any other reviews since the one about U.S.
spacemen fighting giant Canadian ants.
Please give us more,
Dan Yourg
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:08:36 -0600
From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #92
In reply to:
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
Mike: I'd be glad to Grubber. At the end of a brief HIT workout I carry a
heavy sandbag up and down the stairs for several minutes. This stresses not
only your cardio system, but most of your muscular system also. Here's the
details: I took a 110# heavy bag (used for boxing) and tied two 25# plates
to the top for 160#'s total. I then bear-hug the bag and walk up and down
the 3 sets of stairs in my house. It takes me about 45 seconds to go up and
down once (this counts as one set). I then rest 30-45 seconds and do
another "set". I repeat this for 4-6 sets total. Your heart will feel like
it wants to come through your chest, your forearms and lower back will be
screaming, and if done on leg-day, your quads will hate you too. This
exercise definitely takes "mental toughness" as well as physical
conditioning. Give it a try!
Good luck......Mike
P.S. If anyone is interested in heavy bag workouts and other unique
exercises/workouts, I recommend you read "Dinosaur Training" by Brooks D.
Kubik.