1. Re: ACL tear
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
2. Aerobics, superslow cadence
by: Stephen Turner <smturner@golden.net>
3. Re: Exercise is (not) supposed to be fun
by: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi>
4. Re: Ball squats?!
by: Michael Morgan <michael_morgan@hotmail.com>
5. Re: Full squats and leg. ext.
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
6. Belt Question!
by: Don Pendergraft <dpendergraft@beckett.com>
7. Medicine Balls
by: Jon Ziegler <Rutger1@JPS.NET>
8. The State of the Fitness Industry (Exercise Phys. vs. Real Scientific Research)
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
9. The best of both worlds
by: Couch, Mike <couchm@DSD1POST.DAYTONOH.ncr.com>
10. Swiss balls and stablizer muscles
by: Berserker _ <berserker78@hotmail.com>
11. MY VIEW ON AEROBICS
by: Mike Strassburg <MLSTRASS@hewitt.com>
12. Strength training for lupus patient
by: Margo and Chris Walter <cwalter@swva.net>
13. Re: Swiss Ball Nonsense
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:50:13 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Re: ACL tear
>Date: 26 Jan 1998 15:47:55 -0800
>From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com>
>Subject: ARRGGHH!!
> Does anyone have any rehab advice for down the road?
stop doing leg extensions if you did them before. Contrary to popular belief, they put far MORE stress on the ACL (due to increased anterior translation of the tibia) than a properly done leg press or squat. The current trend in Physical Therapy is away from isolation/open-chain exercises to compound/closed-chain exercises for this very reason.
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:38:09 -0500
From: Stephen Turner <smturner@golden.net>
Subject: Aerobics, superslow cadence
A comment was made...
>P.S. If a guy can run 5 miles a day, and that is his style. Hats off!
I would guess a typical frequency for this would be 3 times per week. I
would also guess someone running for fitness would take at least 30 minutes
to run 5 miles. That is 90 minutes per week, to end up with distance
runners leg development. Seems very inefficient. Run to take a break from
work, or to socialize perhaps, but not for exercise. I am looking forward
to Andrew's posting on this (value of aerobics), since it is such an
important topic. we are learning that brief intense infrequent exercise is
probably superior for strength training, why not also for cardiovascular
conditioning.
James mentioned that one of the reasons he did not do Superslow was the problem with counting cadence being distracting. I would certainly agree with that. I don't even like counting reps at Nautilus cadence. I think, however, rather than a reason not do Superslow (or Nautilus), it is just a problem to be addressed. I had been thinking for some time about switching to a time based, rather than rep based method for tracking progess. For example, set your watch to beep at 90 seconds, start doing bench press at whatever cadence you prefer (doesn't even have to be constant thru the set), and if you are still moving at the beep, then you are ready for more weight next time out. Anyone out there tried this? I would appreciate comments on this idea (yes, I know I will need to get a watch).
Regards, Steve
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:14:53 +0200
From: Erkki Turunen <eraturu@mail.dlc.fi>
Subject: Re: Exercise is (not) supposed to be fun
>From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
>Subject: Aerobics is not exercise, and exercise is not supposed to be fun.
>As for SuperSlow being boring, I also have to agree. It is hardly something I
>enjoy doing. The workouts are so brutally intense that I often become nauseous
>before I even begin to work out, due to the anxiety caused by thinking about
>what I'm about to subject myself to. Why do I do it then? Because it is safer
>and more effective than anything else out there.
More accurately, you BELIEVE it to be safer and more effective. BTW,
doesn't anxiety increase cortisol production?
Your description was very revealing. The only thing that seems to matter for
you are the supposed results, and that's fine. Trouble will ensue if you try
to tell
that everyone else should evaluate matters the way you do. Training is not
solely a matter of results. How much you enjoy your training is another
matter which is exactly as important as you experience it. Still another is
time expended. For some it's the limiting factor but others - unemployed
for example - may experience it as a drawback if they are allowed to train
only infrequently with very brief sessions.
>Nothing worthwhile comes
>easy, and exercise is no exception. For exercise to be productive, it must be
>demanding. If it is demanding enough to stimulate any meaningful physical
>improvements, it is going to be uncomfortable, even painful, and therefore NOT
>fun.
You seem to be an advocate of the slogan "no pain, no gain". I prefer Steve Reeves' motto "no brain, no gain". My training is not painful, yet I've been able to accomplish meaningful progress. It's hard to say if my training is FUN but at least I look forward to each session.
Erkki Turunen
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:51:00 PST
From: "Michael Morgan" <michael_morgan@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ball squats?!
>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
>
>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?
>
>Regards, Steve
>.
Well, it looks like he's doing front squats, so he would have a better
chance of dumping the bar if he has to bail, and it doesn't look like
there's a whole lot of weight on the bar as it is, but I still have to
say that this is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. I'm sure that
Andrew Baye has some choice words about this....
I suppose that the idea is to develop balance and all those little
stabilizer muscles that are *so* important, but specificity of training
would seem to dictate that one work on one's balance by doing those
things that require balance (like beam work for gymnasts, say, or
multiple snap kicks for martial artists, or one-legged or backwards
skating drills for skaters). Can't for the life of me think of the last
time I stood on a ball.
However, I can imagine climbing on top of a ball and trying to convince
someone to hand me a bar. I probably wouldn't get too far, even if the
gym owner didn't throw me out (fearing lawsuits after I either (a) tear
my knees, destroy my back, break my neck or (b) fall and drop the weight
on someone).
Michael
PS Rob, I hope this wasn't too close to a rant. I also hope that this
isn't those "ball squats" that Matt and Bill were talking about, or else
boy have I been doing them wrong! ;)
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:50:18 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Re: Full squats and leg. ext.
>Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:51:53 -0800
>From: Andrzej Rosa <rosa@wsrp.siedlce.pl>
>Subject: Re: Full Squats and Leg Extensions
>I did some of full squats and also didn't feel any problems with my
>legs. However i felt something wrong with my lower back so i stoped
>(it was getting worse every time i tried them).
AFAIK, the debate over full vs. parallel squats comes down to this: how low can you squat WITHOUT rounding your lower back. A round back and heavy loads are a very BAD thing. this comes down to the flexibility in your hamstrings as well as some other factors. You should only squat as low as you can keeping your low back in a normal flat/slightly arched position.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 08:41:28 -0600
From: "Don Pendergraft" <dpendergraft@beckett.com>
Subject: Belt Question!
I followed the belt debate we had here some time ago, and after much thought decided to continue lifting without a belt. With one exception. I am now convinced that for deadlifts, I should wear a belt. I won't get into why, the point of my post isn't to re-ignite the debate again.
My question is: what kind of belt is best? Leather? Synthetic? Wide?
Narrow? Narrow in front but wide in the back? Two prong or three? Velcro
fastener? Cheap or expensive?
Your input is valued and appreciated. Thanks.
Don P.
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 06:22:56 -0800
From: Jon Ziegler <Rutger1@JPS.NET>
Subject: Medicine Balls
Within the last couple of days I remember reading an entry that asked
about medicine balls and how to use them? I am assuming that is what
the person wanted, so I will give a couple of ideas.
The medicine ball seems to be one of those pieces of equipment that, although I think it is very effective, seems to have lost its appeal. Probably because it takes work to use it, and it can be uncomfortable.
So here are a few ideas: 1) if you are by yourself, lie on your back, lift the medicine ball over your sternum and upper abdominal area (a short distance at first) and drop it. Eventually you will increase the distance to arms length, and add reps. You can add velocity to it by "throwing" it down. Another method is not to drop it, but hold it, and work from one side of your abdomen to the other, "hitting" yourself.
Two people is interesting. They can stand back to back and hand the
ball to each other in a rotating motion, or stand facing one another and
toss (not throw) the ball to each other. Let the ball strike your
midsection as you catch it. Don't throw it to low (again aim at the
sternum) or it can get painful. The second person can also use the
medicine ball on an individual in a manner described in the one person
explanation.
Have Fun,
Jon Ziegler
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:59:37 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: The State of the Fitness Industry (Exercise Phys. vs. Real Scientific Research)
In response to Ms. Rachael E. Picone's post in the last Digest:
First: The information presented in the newsletters on the SuperSlow site is
hardly "outdated." The reason that the most recent newsletters have not been
posted is that these are sent to Guild members, who pay a yearly membership
fee, and it would hardly be fair to expect them to pay for something that
would be posted on the internet for all to see, free of charge. Like any
organization, to be viable, we must have some source of income. If anyone is
interested in more recent issues of The Exercise Standard, you are more than
welcome to join the Guild.
Second: As for taking action and "striving for change" being necessary, I
could not agree more. BUT, if that change is being brought about by people who
have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, as is the case with
majority of people in this industry, then things are only going to continue to
get worse, not better.
The purpose of the SuperSlow Exercise Guild is to IMPROVE standards in the
fitness industry. To do so, there is obviously going to have to be some heavy
criticism of the current standards, and the people responsible for them. If
they can't take the criticism, if they're feelings are hurt, if they're
insulted by what we have to say, then that is their problem, and I have
absolutely no concern for them. The health of millions of people is at stake,
and there is no room for anyone's ego's in this field, except for that of the
patients/clients.
Third: Is the SuperSlow Exercise Guild guilty of "bashing" the fitness industry? Damn right we are, and it's about time somebody did. Are the articles written in a somewhat inflammatory tone? Yes, and understandably so. As many of you are well aware, there is an overwhelming amount of misinformation being published, produced, and promoted regarding health in general, and especially exercise. And if you are one of the people who doesn't think that there is anything wrong with the current state of the fitness industry, then [ it is my opinon that] you are simply misinformed.
If any of you out there are dissatisfied with the current standards in this
industry, and you should be, then I invite you to visit the SuperSlow Exercise
Guild's web site at www.superslow.com, and read the information there. Then we
can talk about "striving for change."
Andrew M. Baye
.
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:21:06 -0500
From: "Couch, Mike" <couchm@DSD1POST.DAYTONOH.ncr.com>
Subject: The best of both worlds
Since you can great results by working out with BFS or HIT philosophies, how can you combine them into one? One requirement is NO Olympic type lifts (i.e. cleans, snatch) . Need to know rep, set and rep count requirements.
Michael Couch
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:28:34 PST
From: "Berserker _" <berserker78@hotmail.com>
Subject: Swiss balls and stablizer muscles
Why on earth would someone want to squat on a rubber ball? What benefits does this have over squatting on dry land? If I am not mistaken, stabilizing oneself on a ball is called a circus act. If one wants instability to exercise stabilizer muscles (a contradiction), why doesn't he do power cleans on a rope over Niagara Falls?
I am NOT trying to provoke a another war between
HIT and periodization, but I feel such advise is not only irresponsible but
completely illogical.
Arthur Jones once stated in response to criticism about about his
advocacy of machines over free weights that the stabilizer muscles were
usually the first to get hurt anyway. So how would training them in an
even more unstable environment help this situation?
So can somebody tell me that these methods have contributed to any
noticable, if any, strength or size increases?
By the way, does anyone know where I could get a copy of Fred Hatfield's article called "The HIT Squad", which was about the Cyberpump website?
Oh yeah, and I've know Swiss people. I don't think they know what a
Swiss ball is.
Berserker
-------------------- 11 --------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:54:25 -0600
From: "Mike Strassburg"<MLSTRASS@hewitt.com>
Subject: MY VIEW ON AEROBICS
Let me preface this by saying that this is only my opinion, and what I feel
works best for me. It seems to me that the anti-aerobic side is comparing
low intensity long duration aerobics to high intensity short duration
weight training. Does this make sense? We all agree that short duration HIT
training is the way to go.
Don't we ; ) Then why should aerobic training be any different. I also
believe that jogging for countless miles or doing any aerobic activity for
hours at a time has little benefit. But what about doing your aerobics HIT
style. It's the perfect compliment to a HIT workout. My main purpose for
training is to be better conditioned to play ice hockey. I need strength,
but also aerobic conditioning. In the 3rd period of a game, the players in
the best shape will be able to out play more skilled players who aren't as
conditioned.
I really detested logging time on the treadmill, but I felt it gave me an advantage over other players. Then when I discovered HIT I felt this style of training would give me the best of both worlds. I do a whole body workout of 4-6 exercises to positive failure with 30-45 seconds rest between sets. It got my heart beating and had me short of breath. I also started doing some HeavyHands interval training and the 20/10 sprint program on the treadmill. This seems to be the ideal routine for me.
Now for the unscientific research part. I recently bought a Polar heart
rate monitor. I really wanted to see what my heart rate was like during the
easy part of my intervals on the treadmill. I was surprised to find out
that I was hitting around 150+ bpm on the hard part and around 140bpm on
the easy part. I had always thought that my heart rate really dropped off
on the easy intervals, guess I was wrong. So I am actually working harder
than I thought. Then I did the 20/10 sprints for 4 minutes. On the hard
interval I reach 192+bpm and on the 10 second rest it drops back to about
176bpm. Just for the record 192bpm feels like your heart wants to come
through your chest, much like it does after a long shift during a hockey
game.
Now for the interesting (I hope this isn't to boring) part. I strapped on heart rate monitor for a HIT workout. At the time I was doing a 3x3 workout consisting of the following: leg press, dips, and chins. The first cycle is stopped 1-2 reps short of failure. The 2nd and 3rd cycles are taken to positive failure. I rest 30 seconds between exercises and 1 minute between cycles. So what did I find out. After the leg presses ( I normally fail at 16-18 reps) my heart rate was 140+. After 30 seconds it was down to 120. After the dips it was 130. It was back down to 118 before the chins and went to 126 during the chins. The 3rd cycle my heart rate was up a few beats more for each exercise. My conclusion is that training HIT style doesn't tax the cardio system like high intensity aerobics does, at least for me. Anyone who has ever done a 3x3 workout knows that this is one of the most brutal ways to train and also one of the most demanding on the respiratory system. But it still didn't come close to the interval training or the sprint workout in terms of stressing my heart rate.
I feel that you are only kidding yourself if you think weightlifting alone
is enough to improve your cardiovascular conditioning. In my own crude
experiment it definitely wasn't. Squats, leg presses, and SLDL's: if done
for high reps, were the only exercises that actually stressed my cardio
system.
I hope this info will be of value to someone. Happy training.......Mike
-------------------- 12 --------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:14:45 -0500
From: Margo and Chris Walter <cwalter@swva.net>
Subject: Strength training for lupus patient
My wife is in remission from systemic lupus erythematosis. She also has
significant bursitis in her back and had lower back surgery in 1984.
She has been able to play golf, hike, swim and do normal physical
activities but still has significant pain and weakness, including
fibromyalgia, especially in her upper body and legs. The weakness is
compounded by the inability and, sometimes, the pain induced
unwillingness, to exercise. She wants to go beyond physical therapy and
become stronger so that she will have a powerful physical base that will
see her through the "down time" caused by the lupus. Does anyone have
any web resources and suggestions on exercises, strengthening and the
like? Thanks in advance for your help.
Chris Walter
-------------------- 13 --------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:41:19 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: Swiss Ball Nonsense
> 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
Andrew,
I don't mind the fact that your opinions regarding training are usually
quite different from mine. Yale philosopher Isiah Burden once said that
"the extremist's opinion should always be considered, because it is
always rooted somehow in reality". I am not calling you an extremist,
please don't be insulted. Although our opinions differ significantly
your arguments are rooted in some obvious facts.
Yes, swiss ball training is apparently "dangerous" but all training devices have some level of risk to them. The advanced athlete would benefit most from swiss ball training - would it make sense to put a rank beginner on a device designed to improve neuromuscular efficiency and recruitment patterns and improve stabilizer strength? No, it would not. Simply saying that swiss balls are dangerous is akin to the gym myth that squats are bad for your knees. Clearly, an exercise has no intentions or biases. It simply exists. It is up to us to determine whether or not the execution of said exercise is in an effective and safe manner. The only person to blame should an injury result is ourselves. We often wish to turn the tables upon someone else because it is very difficult to accept the fact that one had control over something very displeasing! It's easy to blame squats for a blown out knee rather than saying "Well, I'm not competant enough to perform the exercise since I am relying upon knee wraps, bouncing out of the bottom position, using far too heavy a weight, moving with far too much momentum, etc."
Furthermore, Andrew, I appreciate the fact that you awknowledge that
Swiss Ball training is POSSIBLY dangerous. But as with everything in
life there is a certain risk. One has to weigh the associated risk
against the possible benefits. And this is where my point lies. I don't
feel that you are properly awknowledging the benefits of Swiss Ball
Training. Unfortuntaely, I am incapable of explaining the value of the
tool to the depth and degree that Paul Chek, the industry's largest
proponent of Swiss Balls, would be able to. His scientific understanding
of the issue is tremendous.
If you could, Andrew, please illustrate the failings of swiss ball training on the same level of scientific assessment as Paul uses to encourage the use of the Swiss Ball. I am only asking for a "fair fight" here, that if something is going to be attacked, that it atleast be on the same level of detail and depth to which it is encouraged.
I will forward your post to Paul Chek and see if he is willing to address the issue on the list. I think that a fair discussion, involving scientific fact, is required to fully explore this issue, and I am hoping that you are willing to continue through to defend your stance.
Again, I am not personally attacking you or challenging you, but I think
that this discussion re: the pro's and con's of Swiss Ball training
should be taken up by only the most ardent and knowledgeable proponents
- on either side of the issue.
I will readily admit that my understanding of the science behind the
issue is child-like in comparison to Chek's! As such I do not feel that
I can as adequately defend the training tool as well as he could. I am
hoping that he is willing to participate in this discussion, from which
we all can benefit.
----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"