http://cbass.com/McGuff-Maffetone.htm



At this link you can see a discussion of the merits/demerits of high intensity

protocol vs low intensity protocol and some thoughts on integration.  Pretty

interesting I think.....

Interesting article.  However; to their credit, Sisco, Little, Reno, and even

Dr. McDuff have at one time or another advocated walking or regular recreational

activities on the non training day.  I am not sure that the above authors would

really disagree with the position advocated by the paper to mix in moderate

activity in between strength training sessions. Similarly, Alex and Mrkllyd are

unlikely to argue against such a position based on previous comments. I have not

read any of Shawn's comments on the subject recently, but I assume he would have

a similar position.





Michael Hefner, I am familiar with the hand grip studies. Physicians are still

debating the mechanism of why there is often a reduction in blood pressure after

one hand is clinched for several seconds and then released. Some opine that it

triggers a relaxation type of reflex by increasing blood pressure and then

reducing it after the restriction in flow is absent. I have certainly read 

theories about NO2 release.



On a different subject, if you could get your machine to give pressure readings

over a small (4 to 6" ) ROM, I think your machine could have even more uses and

deliver even more potential benefit.  Just something to think of for those who

insist on some movement and not just pure static training. It could definitely

be used by the HIT crowd. Just a thought...







--- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "James Ashby" <james_ashby@...> wrote:

>

> http://cbass.com/McGuff-Maffetone.htm

>

> At this link you can see a discussion of the merits/demerits of high intensity

protocol vs low intensity protocol and some thoughts on integration.  Pretty

interesting I think.....

>

Indeed: "Rest days" were never meant to be taken as literally resting all day!

1/McGuff builds-in at -least- one day a week when the trainee is already fully

recuperated, but doesn't yet go back to strength-training . WHY? To USE his new

strength in his daily activities, (the reason he's trying to attain more

strength in the first place). Obviously these 'daily activities' would have to

be fairly strenuous to use any new strength. 2/McGuff recommends backing off on

-training- when real life requires greater energy expenditures, not the other

way around. 3/Some -relatively- low- intensity exercise every day has a positive

effect on stress hormones without interfering with  the sparser, more intense

strength training. What level of int sity and volume achieves these goals  must

be discovered via each individual's trial and error.--- In

Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, smkyrouac <no_reply@...> wrote:

>

> Interesting article.  However; to their credit, Sisco, Little, Reno, and even

Dr. McDuff have at one time or another advocated walking or regular recreational

activities on the non training day.  I am not sure that the above authors would

really disagree with the position advocated by the paper to mix in moderate

activity in between strength training sessions. Similarly, Alex and Mrkllyd are

unlikely to argue against such a position based on previous comments. I have not

read any of Shawn's comments on the subject recently, but I assume he would have

a similar position.

>

>

> Michael Hefner, I am familiar with the hand grip studies. Physicians are still

debating the mechanism of why there is often a reduction in blood pressure after

one hand is clinched for several seconds and then released. Some opine that it

triggers a relaxation type of reflex by increasing blood pressure and then

reducing it after the restriction in flow is absent. I have certainly read 

theories about NO2 release.

>

> On a different subject, if you could get your machine to give pressure

readings over a small (4 to 6" ) ROM, I think your machine could have even more

uses and deliver even more potential benefit.  Just something to think of for

those who insist on some movement and not just pure static training. It could

definitely be used by the HIT crowd. Just a thought...

>

>

>

> --- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "James Ashby" <james_ashby@> wrote:

> >

> > http://cbass.com/McGuff-Maffetone.htm

> >

> > At this link you can see a discussion of the merits/demerits of high

intensity protocol vs low intensity protocol and some thoughts on integration. 

Pretty interesting I think.....

> >

>

Maffetone seems all about running, cycling & swimming performance. While an

unconditioned novice might acutually get faster by getting stronger,I can

certainly believe that a mid-level long distance runner or tri-athlete isn't

going to improve his times by getting stronger, especially if it adds

bodyweight. There's an underlying agreement between the two seemingly opposing

viewpoints: Don't waste time on training that doesn't concern you. Maffetone

calls it building an aerobic base, McGuff would probably call it sport-specific

skill training & conditioning.--- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "James

Ashby" <james_ashby@...> wrote:

>

> http://cbass.com/McGuff-Maffetone.htm

>

> At this link you can see a discussion of the merits/demerits of high intensity

protocol vs low intensity protocol and some thoughts on integration.  Pretty

interesting I think.....

>