1. re:James Krieger, Re: Aerobics=Nonsense
by: LFeld49371 <LFeld49371@aol.com>
2. SV: HIT Digest, digest #93
by: DAVID DIALECTUS AB <dialectus@swipnet.se>
3. Re: ARRGGHH!!
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
4. Re: Swiss Balls
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
5. Re: Swiss Ball Nonsense
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
6. Whether to do Aerobic Training or not
by: <robartw@FTC-I.NET>
7. Superslow confusion
by: Berserker _ <berserker78@hotmail.com>
8. Paul Chek
by: bull <STRIETPJ@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu>
9. On The Ball
by: FlexWriter <FlexWriter@aol.com>
10. Re: Aerobics
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:13:28 EST
From: LFeld49371 <LFeld49371@aol.com>
Subject: re:James Krieger, Re: Aerobics=Nonsense
I would like to preface my response to Mr. Krieger’s posting(#93, Jan, 26
Aerobics=nonsense)with a bit of information about myself. I am a personal
trainer. My clients are not power lifters, football players, bodybuilders,
or cardiac rehab patients. For the
most part they are women in their 30’s-40’s-50’s who can’t understand why,
after spending hours a week doing ‘fat burning’ activities(treadmill,
Stairmaster, step aerobics), and additional hours in ‘body sculpting’ classes
(to tighten and tone)they are still
gaining weight and are still lacking ‘tone’. Over the past year, I have
become a convert to the Superslow method of resistance training. It is in
this context that I feel compelled to challenge Mr. Krieger on the following
points:
<<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.>>
I would submit for this very reason, exercise should be taken out of the
category of something one does for enjoyment. People who tend to be
sedentary, enjoy being sedentary. Is there a better argument for making
exercise sessions brief, intense, and infrequent?
>>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.>>
If you are speaking of an adult population, isn’t this a bit patronizing?
Proper dental hygiene may have to be disguised as entertainment for a child,
but adults realize that brushing and flossing is important if you want to keep
your teeth. Couldn’t
e same be said of exercise? Also, steady state aerobic activities by their
nature tend to be monotonous, which is why people tend not to adhere to such
programs
<<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.>>
Is there something wrong this? If you have a product that you feel is superior, why not try to convince others??? It’s called the free market.
<<Discouraging people from doing
activities that they may enjoy and receive health benefits from seems
self-serving to me.>>
Superslow doesn’t discourage people from engaging in activities that they
truly enjoy. But the key words are “truly enjoy”. What Superslow discourages
are activities that people don't enjoy, but do anyway, without understanding
the risk/benefit equation.
<<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 don’t have any hard facts, but I do have quite a few clients with chronic problems from a variety of sports related and overuse injuries.
<<Sure, Superslow is safer then other forms of
exercise due to the extremely sloooooow movements, but so what>>
So What????? Wow, I’ll leave that one for DrewBaye.
<<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?>>
No, if you understand the injury potential of step aerobics and weigh that against the benefits(including enjoyment), and if stepping is as important a part of your life as driving, then, by all means, continue to step away.
<<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?" >>
No, I wouldn’t discourage him from hang-gliding or bowling either. I would,
however try to make him aware of the efficiency factor of high intensity
resistance training as exercise and how such training would serve to make him
a better runner(or
hang glider, or bowler).
<<. 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.
On this, Mr. Krieger, you are correct.....and when a prospective client comes
to me and states that his/her goal is to: maintain or loose muscle mass,
increase or maintain body fat, put 12 hours a week or more into their fitness
program, and run as high
a risk of injury as possible in doing so, I will be more than willing to
1)tell this person that SuperSlow is not for them and 2) recommend another
trainer.
L. Feldman
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:07:32 +0100
From: "DAVID DIALECTUS AB" <dialectus@swipnet.se>
Subject: SV: HIT Digest, digest #93
I am 64 years, have been training Nautilus for the past 14 years, very
regularly and mostly in a srict manner. I have done some nice progress,
weighs more and am considerably stronger than before. I would like to know
whether cardiovascular training on a rowing machine, where you engage your
arms quite intensely, interferes with the progress of the strength training
program in corresponding muscle groups,mainly upper body. I find the rowing
machine much more interesting and efficient than bicycles, different kinds
of stair machines, etc. But maybe there is a behind to it, too?
Would very much appreciate your points of view.
David
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:49:08 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: ARRGGHH!!
> From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com>
> Subject: ARRGGHH!!
>
> I blew out (tore) my ACL and MCL skiing this weekend. Frustrating as hell. I
> was in the best condition of my life going into the season and really in top
> form. The accident happened so fast I can't even say what happened. One
Sorry to hear about your knee injury. I hope that you recover quickly and pound the iron as soon as possible. Something that you might be interested in ... shearing forces are forces that travel perpindicular to the design of a joint or bone, whereas compressive forces obviously run along the length of the bone (parallel). Several studies have indicated that shearing forces on the ACL (i.e. perpindicular, not along) are much higher with leg extensions and lunges than with squats. Hence squats seem more effective towards ACL stability and strength than leg extensions, contrary to typical usage of leg extensions in knee rehabilitation protocols. Functionally, the hamstrings do not co-contract during leg extensions (which is why your foot can rotate all over the damned place) and this further adds to the damage to the knees by adding rotational forces to ligaments that are not designed to work that way. Hamstring co-contraction might seem like a counteractive process but in reality it balances forces on either side of the knee joint making it more stable. I strongly believe that imbalances in strength on either side of the spine are responsible for the majority of training and sports related injuries. Weak hamstrings to quads results in knee hyperextensions. Weak external rotators to pecs result in "gorilla backed" lifters and unstable shoulder joints. Make sure to put an emphasis on strengthening the knee joint through all possible mediums, not just through typical quadricep work. Best wishes,
----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:02:22 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: Swiss Balls
> From: Stephen Turner <smturner@golden.net>
> Subject: Paul Chek web site
>
> I was reading the Cyberpump Hardgainer QA, and one of the responses
> mentioned using a medicine ball, and references the following site for more
> info
>
> http://www.paulchekseminars.com
Stephen,
Medicine balls and "swiss balls" are entirely different animals.
Medicine balls are weighted balls utilized by periodization types for
plyometric work for the upper body and abdominals. Swiss balls, however,
are a new force in the training sciences. Due to their unstable nature
they bring into play many more stabilizing muscle groups that would
otherwise not be involved in training. More stable the movement = less
stabilizer involvement. Less stabilizer involvement = less functional
strength and joint stability. The transfer of unstable strength to
stable strength is possible but not the other way around. Chek's
favourite illustration of this fact is that you can train heaviest with
a Hammer Strength type machine - where stabilization is highest - train
moderately heavy with barbells - where stabilization occurs in a lateral
sense (i.e. weights done fall left or right necessitating your body to
hold them in place) and you can move the least amount of weight with
dumbbells since north/south and east/west stabilization is necessary to
effectively execute the movement. But as we all know, a stronger
dumbbell bench will most probably result in stronger barbell benches and
machine benches. But the other way does not necessarily hold true. I
have seen this in too many people and this effect corroborated through
too much study to believe otherwise.
Swiss balls are an excellent tool for abdominal work; since conventional
crunches only permit a certain range of spinal flexion before your torso
hits the ground. The abdominals are not unlike any other muscles -
crunches on the floor are akin to half a bench press or barbell curl.
Partials are not the most effective route to muscular development.
Furthermore, Swiss balls permit a better support for the body than do
devices that allow full range of motion for the abdominals. For example;
doing situps on a roman chair only involves your hip flexors to a
greater extent - not your abs. Doing full range crunches off a bench can
result in segmental hypermobility of the spine - basically meaning that
parts of your back bone can move when they shouldn't!
Because of their unstable nature, Swiss balls permit greater gains
through neuromuscular efficiency enhancement. The body learns to recruit
more motor units, more efficiently and effectively, to produce strength.
Hence the picture of Paul Chek - neurologically incredibly strong -
squatting 135 lbs. on the swiss ball where most people would not be able
to squat their own bodyweight!
Chek certainly knows a great deal - he is highly respected by many strength authorities and as one strength coach put it "he can make even the most educated coach feel stupid". I am willing to bet there will be a tonne of armchair trainers and "strength experts" jumping out and dismissing the swiss ball as a training aid, but I would LOVE to see them go head to head with Chek and disprove the usage of the Swiss Ball in training through SOLID FACTS and not speculative garbage.
As a side note; I've considered asking Marty at Popeye's re: getting a Swiss Ball, but I think most gyms would be reluctant to venture into something so cutting edge. People like conformity and the security associated with it. Besides, unprepared trainees could injure themselves on the device, just as they could on any training device. Once it's usage becomes more mainstream - knowledge spreads - likelihood of injury decreases - reluctance to accept new ideas decreases - the beauty of swiss ball training pops up in hardcore gyms everywhere.
More devices I'd like to see in our gym? Plate mates, manta and sting ray squat devices, trap bars, reverse hyperextension benches.
> the bar down at the end of a set, let alone avoid doing a face plant on top
> of or underneath a barbell? Do any of our contributors to this digest try
Supreme neurological efficiency and coordination. We're talking about
highly advanced athletes here. Swiss ball strength, as it is unstable by
nature, is functional strength. Functional strength rarely occurs in a
totally stabilized situation. In athletics, you can never tell a
linebacker "Just hold on a sec, while I dig in my cleats, brace myself,
put my back against this wall so I can block you just like this was a
bench press". Actions are dynamic and unstable, the most athletic
individuals are often referred to as having a level of "grace" that the
average individual does not. This is simply the ability to perform
strength endeavours in an unstable situation. We marvel at Michael
Jordan's fluidity and agility, the way that he can turn nothing into
something and explode into a gorilla dunk from the weirdest positions.
We stand in awe at Evander Holyfield's ability to strike from any
position. Basically, the more varied the conditions under which you can
apply strength, the more effective you will be in competition situations
where no stabilization occurs whatsoever.
----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:03:08 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Swiss Ball Nonsense
"I went to have a look at this site, and there is an animation of a guy
doing squats while standing on a medicine ball! I'm no exercise authority
of course, but that just looked way beyond brain-dead. How do you even put
the bar down at the end of a set, let alone avoid doing a face plant on top
of or underneath a barbell? Do any of our contributors to this digest try
to do this stuff, or see any merit in it?"
If I were Swiss, I'd be embarrased that such a dangerous and useless training implement was named after my country. Maybe the Swiss government should sue.
Unless you are a circus performer, and part of your act includes performing
barbell squats while balancing on a swiss ball (which seems like the only
appropriate place for such an activity), there is absolutely no sane reason to
perform such a dangerous activity. This Swiss Ball, "stabilizer" training
nonsense is going to end up hurting a lot of people. I am appalled that people
actually recommend such a thing, especially P.T.'s, who should (but apparently
don't) know better. If I were a lawyer, I'd bet I could get filthy rich just
suing therapists and trainers who recommend such a thing for either
malpractice or gross negligence.
Andrew M. Baye
www.superslow.com
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:25:05 -0500
From: robartw@FTC-I.NET
Subject: Whether to do Aerobic Training or not
I have read the posts in the past few digests regarding aerobic's place, if there is any at all, in a weight training program. I believe that Mr. Baye, Mr. Zappola, and Mr. Krieger are all right about aerobic training. I believe the main issue on whether or not an athlete should do aerobic training completely depends on what they are training for. One should train specifically to improve in a skill or area they want to improve in. If I am a marathon runner, then I will have to do long runs. There is no exception to that. I can do as many squats as I want, but there is no way that having a 400lb squat will mean that I can complete a 26+ mile run.
The converse is also true. Just because I can run a marothon doesn't mean I
could squat 400lbs. Why? Because the two athletes have conditioned their
muscles for two different activities. The squater trains for maximum power,
while the marathoner trains for endurance. Now as far as which protocol
better strengthens the cardiovascular system I don't think I am qualified to
say. But I can say that weight training definitely does strengthen the
heart and lungs. I think just about everyone who has ever done a heavy set
of squats has his, or her, heart ready to pound out of their chest and
starts sucking wind at the end of the set.
The same is also true of someone who does intense cardio. It has to be
intense though. For example,at a 8-9 minute a mile pace, I can run
forever(or atleast it seems like it)without getting really winded. But if I
go run a mile as fast as I can, then I will be ready to pass out at the
finish.
Basically what I am getting at with this long, rambling post is to say that
you need train for what you are trying to improve. You want to squat
400lbs, then train to squat 400lbs. You want to be able to run 26 miles,
then train to run 26 miles. Endurance has more to do with muscle function
than with your cardiovascular system . You may be able to run 5 miles in 30
minutes, but that doesn't mean that you can then drop and do 300 pushups,
and 600 situps; simply because you have trained your upperbody for that
degree of endurance. You basically get what you pay for, so decide what you
want and then train to get it.
Robert
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:28:47 PST
From: "Berserker _" <berserker78@hotmail.com>
Subject: Superslow confusion
I'm confused about superslow training. Maybe Andrew Baye can clear
things up for me here.
1. First of all, if one wants to do things slowly, than why not do only
one rep, at say, a 15/15 cadence?
2. What does one do when momentary failure is near? With regular
training, you push against the weight to complete the rep, disregarding
the rep tempo. But with SS, you can't speed up, because then you will
defeat the purpose of superslow exercise in the first place, right? So,
if say, the 5th positive rep takes longer than 10 seconds to complete,
should the set be terminated?
Berserker
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 98 22:40:36 EST
From: bull <STRIETPJ@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu>
Subject: Paul Chek
I'm responding to the list member that asked about Paul Chek. He, and now L
ou Simmons have made it popular in the Iron Game. The belief behind it is that
it builds the stabilizers. I have one, and I believe it does. Try a set of D
umbbell benches on the damn thing and you'll see what I mean. Also great for a
b work. Why anyone would want to squat on it is beyond me. If you can do tha
t sort of thing, you might belong in a circus or sanitarium (or more likely, th
e hospital). I wonder what guys like Louis Abele and Paul Anderson think about
the Iron Game evolution. They trained with a barbell, now we are laying on bi
g blue balls to do our presses...crazy world
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:01:01 EST
From: FlexWriter <FlexWriter@aol.com>
Subject: On The Ball
<<I went to have a look at this site, and there is an animation of a guy
doing squats while standing on a medicine ball! I'm no exercise authority
of course, but that just looked way beyond brain-dead. How do you even put
the bar down at the end of a set, let alone avoid doing a face plant on top
of or underneath a barbell? Do any of our contributors to this digest try
to do this stuff, or see any merit in it?>>
On another weight-training list they endlessly debate the alleged merits of this ball, also known as a swiss ball. Now, the ball does have some legitimate exercise/rehab applications. And, while I've never tried it, crunches done on the ball are supposed to be superior for ab development. But to do weight-training exercises on the ball, as some "authorities" advocate is just plain idiotic. The risk of injury skyrockets. As a personal trainer, I'd make sure my liability insurance was paid up before I even considered having a client do a free-weight exercise on the ball. It is certainly an impressive feat of balance and coordination to be able to squat while on a ball. I couldn't do it -- nor do I have any desire to do so. I want straight, solid ground beneath me when I squat. So should you.
If you're strictly a strength/physique athlete, forget about the ball except
for possibly ab work.
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:15:49 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: Aerobics
> strength training. By convincing a person that all they need to do is go to
> step aerobics, or use their "cardioglide" or some other piece of garbage, and
> that they do not need to strength train, is doing them a great disservice. Not
> that I give a damn about the rest of humanity, but I can't stand liars, even
> if they don't know any better.
Blanket statements abound!
1] Bodyfat can be stored subcutaneously and intramuscularly.
Intramuscular fat is closer to the mitochondria of the cell and hence is
a more efficient source of energy under demand than is subcutaneous fat.
Intramusuclar fat, because it is located in the body of the muscle
considered, does contribute to net muscle size. A decrease in
intramuscular fat would have a net decrease on muscle size. But have
strength and contractile proteins (i.e. MUSCLE MASS) been diminished?
HELL NO! The average person has about 3x more intramuscular fat than
they do glycogen storage - hence, this is a signficant energy store that
is specifically target through moderately high V02 max exercise. NOT
ANAEROBIC.
2] Fat lipolysis (breakdown) and fat oxidation (burning) are two seperate functions. Lipolysis can occur without oxidation necessarily occuring - it has been demonstrated time and time again that if V02 max is not sufficient, broken down fats (triglycerides) are simply recreted into new triglycerides! The POINT?! The rate of lipolysis is relatively unaffected through training. But several studies have demonstrated that the rate of fat oxidation can be thoroughly improved through endurance exercise! What does this mean? That you can break down fats effectively whether you train or not, but you can only burn fats effectively if you engage in demanding v02 max exercise! Fat oxidation efficiency is of GREAT relevance to any athlete or bodybuilder - if you can functionally make your engine burn more fat than normal, why the hell wouldn't you?
3] Yes, the percentage of energy obtained from bodyfat is larger with
lower intensity work, but the TOTAL AMOUNT OF FAT OXIDIZED is much
greater with higher intensities of V02 max! A study compared the effects
of low v02 max training with 85% v02 max - approximately what you could
sustain for 20 minutes or so. Although more bodyfat was expended with
the low intensity cardio (% wise), more total energy was expended with
the higher intensity work. Hence, although the percentage coming from
fat was lower, the percentage was of a greater number. It's better to
have 60% of 200 than 90% of 50. V02 max is not sufficiently taxed in
glycolytic, anaerobic endeavours!
4] Net energy deficit is more functional towards bodyfat reduction than is weight training + diet, weight training alone, weight training + cardio + diet or any other permutation. As long as there is an acceptable energy deficit, the net effect on fat loss will be the same! So arguing whether or not one needs cardio is a personal issue. One might find greater results using cardio, an appropriate diet and weight training. Another person might choose to lower calories further, cut out the cardio and keep the weight training but achieve the same effect! This is arguing a gray issue, not a black and white one.
5] Marathoners do not qualify as adequate representatives for the cardio
population, just as olympic weightlifters do not define how all people
who touch weights lift. Marathoners are the extreme case. Most studies
which have correlated positive results with aerobic activity have used
moderate # of sessions of moderate length (i.e. 2-3x weekly, 20-30 min.
in duration)
References to medical studies and not Art Jones' available on request.
----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"