hi, i am 20 years old, 6' tall, and 155 lbs. i started lifting a year ago, at
which point i weighed 140 lbs. my max 1rm bench is probably around 145 lbs.
pretty much all of my gains in strength and weight came in the first 3 months
of my lifting. i've done many hours of research on lifting, mostly in the HIT
school of thought (although some elsewhere too), and been reading almost all
the messages on this listserv for the past year. i'm just wondering if it's
possible that i've reached my genetic potential. i always hear people on this
list saying that you should be gaining 10 lbs per week on each exercise, but
this can't continue forever or we'd all be breaking records in no time. at what
point does this level of progress stop, and considering that i have naturally a
very skinny body type, what should i change in my workout (i've tried
everything obvious and/or subtle, like cutting sets per bodypart to as low as 1
and frequency of bodyparts to as low as 1x/week, taking plenty of time off
every once in a while...) and what should i change in my expectations for
gaining? any advice or insight would be great, thanks
dan

David,

I was a college football player and ALWAYS had a
spotter, if you will, or a trainer to take me through
my workouts.  Everything was done to failure, plus
negatives and super negatives.  That's when I got my
best results and most gains.  Our style of training
for college football was not like most, however,
because we did use the priciples of HIT, as most
schools do not.  Tim Swanger was our coach and is a
HIT guru.  I understand that the real world isn't like
that, but there has to be someone who has a similar
schedule to yours that you can lift with.

Dr. Bob
--- dmaher1232002 <DavidM289@...> wrote:
> Dear Dr. Bob,
>
> I thought the main premise of HIT was to train
> intensely (and
> briefly/infrequently), though training to (positive)
> failure was the
> best "guide" for this desired level of intensity.
>
> Anyway, I had a question regarding negative failure:
> Why not go to
> negative failure on nearly every movement?  This is
> a higher level
> of intensity, and whilst requiring a longer recovery
> period, should
> produce at least the same results.  Am I correct?
>
> I suppose the main disadvantage is the practicality
> of such
> training  -  we would probably need 2 or more
> spotters to help us
> with the weights.  In the real world, I think
> negative training can
> only be done with chins and dips.
>
> Has anyone out there had experience with
> negative-to-failure
> training for more than these two movements?
> In general, how often do any of you do negatives,
> and have you had
> any positive or adverse effects?
>
>
> Thanks,
>    David.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Coppola
> <coppolra23@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I hit failure occasionally, but I don't shoot for
> it
> > > purposely, and I actually try
> > > to avoid it.
> > >
> > The whole premise behind HIT is to train to
> failure.
> > That's one of the characteristics that separates
> this
> > style of training from others, and is the reason
> why
> > HIT is so successful. You may need to re-think
> your
> > lifting philosophy.....just an opinion.
> >
> > Dr. Bob
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness,
> live on your
> desktop!
> > http://platinum.yahoo.com
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

>    From: "Bill Gabler" <bgabler@...>
>
>Hey, Mr. Krieger! I love your posts, always logical and science-based.

Bill,

One of the beauties of living in the Information Age, especially with the
advent of the internet, is that now you too can become an instant expert on
just about any subject there is!

For the science part, you can perhaps search PubMed from the US National
Library of Medicine at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ and pull study
abstracts. Especially on the subject of exercise, often any connection
between the data produced by the investigators and the conclusions drawn are
purely coincidental (actually, sometimes they don't coincide at all).
Additionally, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, the tools they use
are quite simply bogus; they are useless for their intended purpose. The
good news is that, because of this, you can find references to support just
about any theory you wake up believing in. It doesn't have to be true, it
just has to be published in a peer-reviewed publication! This way you don't
have to bother to actually produce arguments in your discussions with other
people, you can just produce references! Pretty cool. The bad news is you
will be incurring in the fallacy of Appeal to Authority... but if you happen
to post on a list where people don’t know what that is, you’ll be just fine.
But more on that next. By the way, I really thought the Carpinelli and Otto
study had buried the single set vs. multiple set issue once and for all...
;)

To become an instant expert on "logic" you can for example go to
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm or
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/. You will quickly learn how to
dismiss other people's arguments by simply stating "you have obviously
incurred in the fallacy of [insert appropriate designation -- preferably in
Latin, if applicable, for full effect]". Perhaps it will not have quite the
same impact on this particular list anymore, but I bet you can still impress
the hell out of people in other lists.

Unfortunately the websites I mentioned will not teach you how to train
effectively or time-efficiently... On that note, you can use two quick and
very simple tests to evaluate the effectiveness and time-efficiency of your
own strength-training program. One I call the "more than two days a week for
half an hour" test. Basically, if you’re going to the gym more than twice a
week and spend more than half an hour there, you can say safely you're
training program is not the most time-efficient. Naturally the frequency
variable is not independent of the other variables, but I would say this is
a good rule of thumb. The other one is what I call the "less than 10lb a
month" test and it states that if you're not improving 10lb per month in
each and every exercise -- without constantly changing the routines to
progress artificially faster due only to skill improvement -- then your
training program is not being very effective. Of course, some individuals
are too advanced to be able to progress at this rate (they probably train
once every ten days and leg press triple or quadruple bodyweight for six 15
second reps) but they are most likely not reading this post as they have
found the answer to their problems years ago (and probably somewhere else).

Also, I'd be somewhat skeptical about the idea of following the training
regimen of people with superior genetics for strength training. Bear in mind
that the bodyweight with which one started training is a very poor indicator
of genetic potential. On the other hand, a reliable indicator of superior
genetics is the progress the person was able to make in spite of training
with a high volume, high frequency approach.

HIT is not a magic recipe... just a magic philosophy :) From an instant
expert on exercise, my two cents worth of advice to you is: study the
information on cyberpump for general guidelines and hints. This should at
the very least point you in the right direction. But as for the specifics,
I’m afraid you’ll have find out for yourself the combination of the training
variables that best suits your genetics... and the only way is using good
old trial and error and accurate record keeping (or hire a good HIT personal
trainer and he’ll do that for you). In my opinion the only variable that
should be kept constant in your experiments is intensity of effort. Stick
with 100%, not because it is absolutely necessary to make progress, but
because it is the only percentage that can be measured with some accuracy.
Anything else is pure guesswork and will introduce an unnecessary source of
noise in your records. Tinker with the rest of the variables.

Then just smile at the posts you read on this list (mine included). And
maybe write a patronizing one or two yourself :)

Good luck,
Pedro Messias

PS: In soccer Portugal beat England 4-2 (under 21 European Championship) and
Brazil 2-1 (private game)! Also FC Porto and Boavista FC, both from the city
of Porto, my hometown, made it through to the UEFA Cup semi-finals. We rule
OK!


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Dear Dr. Bob,

I thought the main premise of HIT was to train intensely (and
briefly/infrequently), though training to (positive) failure was the
best "guide" for this desired level of intensity.

Anyway, I had a question regarding negative failure: Why not go to
negative failure on nearly every movement?  This is a higher level
of intensity, and whilst requiring a longer recovery period, should
produce at least the same results.  Am I correct?

I suppose the main disadvantage is the practicality of such
training  -  we would probably need 2 or more spotters to help us
with the weights.  In the real world, I think negative training can
only be done with chins and dips.

Has anyone out there had experience with negative-to-failure
training for more than these two movements?
In general, how often do any of you do negatives, and have you had
any positive or adverse effects?


Thanks,
    David.








--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Coppola <coppolra23@y...>
wrote:
>
> I hit failure occasionally, but I don't shoot for it
> > purposely, and I actually try
> > to avoid it.
> >
> The whole premise behind HIT is to train to failure.
> That's one of the characteristics that separates this
> style of training from others, and is the reason why
> HIT is so successful. You may need to re-think your
> lifting philosophy.....just an opinion.
>
> Dr. Bob
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your
desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com

I hit failure occasionally, but I don't shoot for it
> purposely, and I actually try
> to avoid it.
>
The whole premise behind HIT is to train to failure.
That's one of the characteristics that separates this
style of training from others, and is the reason why
HIT is so successful. You may need to re-think your
lifting philosophy.....just an opinion.

Dr. Bob


>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

NOT train to failure because you don't want to work too hard?

It's been my experience that, yes, most people train too MUCH or too
FREQUENTLY, but never too HARD.  In fact, I think most people don't push
themselves hard enough.  If you have to hold back just to get an extra set
in, you are doing too much work to begin with.  That if, of course, you are
trying to grow.

Cheers,
Ron

James said:

>Right now, I'm on a standard bodybuilding
program.  3 days on, 1 day off (or sometimes I go 6 days straight beforee I
take a day off).  Multiple sets of 8-12 reps, 3 sets per exercise, 2-4
exercises per muscle group.  However, the key to making progress with this
type of training is to NOT train to failure.  A lot of people fail with this
type of training simply because they push themselves too hard.  I hit
failure occasionally, but I don't shoot for it purposely, and I actually try
to avoid it.

James,

I am glad to hear that you are progressing with your current workout design,
and actually glad you explained your reasoning for your design.  I have ran
into similar issues on endurance using a 1set, 10 reps to failure, per
bodypart.

My current workout is very similar to yours and for the same reasons, I
wasn't gaining any size (although, I was gaining strength), and I was
concerned about my ability my muscular stamina.  Has anyone else run into
something similar?  How did you correct it?  Is this an issue of not enough
rest, or is it an inherent problem with the training protocol?

Thanks,

Rich


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>    From: "Bill Gabler" <bgabler@...>
>
> Hey, Mr. Krieger! I love your posts, always logical and science-based.

Thank you for the compliment.

> Are you still using that higher-volume training that you described some
> time ago? If so, would you mind running down your program and what your
> results have been from start to present? If not, what sort of training
> have you embarked on now?

My training has varied some since then.  I've done some low-volume, high
frequency training as well.  Right now, I'm on a standard bodybuilding
program.  3 days on, 1 day off (or sometimes I go 6 days straight before I
take a day off).  Multiple sets of 8-12 reps, 3 sets per exercise, 2-4
exercises per muscle group.  However, the key to making progress with this
type of training is to NOT train to failure.  A lot of people fail with this
type of training simply because they push themselves too hard.  I hit
failure occasionally, but I don't shoot for it purposely, and I actually try
to avoid it.

During my days as a HITer, I got really strong, but could never get beyond a
bodyweight of 165 lbs (I was 130 lbs when I started lifting).  Now I weigh
close to 180.  In some instances I have surpassed my best strength records,
and in some instances I haven't.  However, I can handle more weight for
multiple sets than during my HIT days.  For example, as a HITer, I might be
able to do one set of 10 reps to failure on a certain exercise, and then
have to reduce the weight on each set.  Now, on the same exercise, I can do
multiple sets of 10.

James Krieger
Graduate Assistant, Nutrition
University of Florida
Webmaster, WSU Strength and Conditioning
http://www.wsu.edu/~strength
Science Editor, Pure Power Magazine
http://www.purepowermag.com

>>    From: "David Lewandowski, D.C." <drdave@...>
>>
>> a intelligent life force and the cadaver doesn't. Besides, there would
not
>> be enough time that has passed for evolution to be responsible for the
>> change from a single cell organism to a complex multi trillion cell life
>> form in the past 6 billion years or so.

>This is completely false.  First, observed rates of evolutionary change in
>modern populations are greater than or equal to rates observed in the
fossil
>record.  Second, rates of genetic change, as measured by nucleotide
>substitutions, are also consistent with the rate required from the time
>allowed in the fossil record and the sequence differences observed between
>species.  There has been plenty of time for the evolution of complex
>multi-trillion cell life.

From http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview2c.shtml

Rates of genetic change as estimated from speciation in the fossil record.
The two sources for estimates of rates at which genetic change takes place
are from students of the fossil record and from population geneticists.
Where the fossil record is concerned, Niles Eldredge, along with Stephen
Jay Gould, two of the most well-known modern evolutionary theorists,
estimated the time span required for "speciation events" (the time required
for a new species to arise in response to evolutionary selection pressures)
to be somewhere within the range of "five to 50,000 years." Since this
rough figure is based on the fossil record, it makes it difficult to be
much more precise than that range. Eldredge also comments that "some
evolutionary geneticists have said that the estimate of five to 50,000
years is, if anything, overly generous."

>>well my cousin is naturally dark skinned and he has skin cancer.  so that
statement isn't necessarily >>true.
>> "Chandler, Doug J" <djchandler@...> wrote:So to sum up,
>>[naturally dark skinned people] who don't wear sunglasses won't get skin
cancer?

Again, in defense of Dr. Dave, that statement was never
made. I recounted a study that found a "correlation".
The person who asked the (rhetorical?) question committed
the cardinal scientific sin of confusing "correlation"
and "causation".

Hi all,
Anyone ever tried and have stayed on Ori Hofmekler's Warrior Diet? I have
heard that it is more for people who want to get lean, it is very different
than anything out there, eating big at night. Just curious if anyone actually
experience any success with this diet(getting cut, gain strength, no energy
loss during the day).

thanks,

rick


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Questions for James Krieger:

James Krieger
Graduate Assistant, Nutrition
University of Florida
Webmaster, WSU Strength and Conditioning
http://www.wsu.edu/~strength
Science Editor, Pure Power Magazine
http://www.purepowermag.com


Hey, Mr. Krieger! I love your posts, always logical and science-based.
Are you still using that higher-volume training that you described some
time ago? If so, would you mind running down your program and what your
results have been from start to present? If not, what sort of training
have you embarked on now?

Thanks!

Shoms,
I would still call myself a beginner but me and my brother trained
HIT 2 times a week for about 8 total sets pet workout.  With no split
routine.  We both gained 20 lbs of muscle in the first two months.
It was amazing.  Whenever I hit a sticking point I try to get more
rest or eat more or workout less often and that seems to do the
trick.  Usually I will go up 10 pounds or something on an exercise
and stay the same in reps... I'm sure that will slow down eventually
but for now it's great.  The trick is that you MUST put every ounce
of intensity possible into those sets.  In my experience training HIT
is more of a mental battle than a physical one.  It is hard to loose
fat AND gain muscle except for beginners.  Bulking and cutting phase
sounds correct.  For info on cutting check out Lyle McDonalds stuff
on ketogenic diets.  Maybe try the CKD or TKD.  Not sure about
hitting the chest from different angles, sounds like the BS that all
the roid-heads talk about, presses and dips I think are all you
need.  The above is just from my experience I don't claim to be an
expert just a beginner telling what seems to work for me.

--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "Shoms" <someshw@h...> wrote:
> Hello All.
> I have been doing the 15 set training per body part for the past 2
> years, and I am stuck on the same weight and strenght. I bought
High
> Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way, and have been trying the
> workouts for the past two weeks. I am curious if people have
actually
> made strenght and mass gains using his workouts. It just seems
> incredible to me that such gains would be possible using such few
> sets. For example, a chest workout is a set of high intensity flies
> followed by a low rep high intensity bench. That is it....I was
told
> that for the chest to develop properly one has to hit it from
> different angles, therefore the incline, flat and decline.
> Any words of wisdom would be very much appreciated.
>
> Also, any suggestions on diet and aerobic excercise which would
help
> me lose fat would wihout affecting my muscle gain would be very
> helpful.  I was told that it is almost impossible to do the above,
> and that one has to go through a cutting phase in which carbs are
> reduced. Is that correct?
> Thanks,
> Shoms

Hi Shom,

Welcome to the world of Mike Mentzer.

About 6 years ago I was in the same boat with you. I
was doing high volume, and although I was making
gains, I was wearing out quick.  I happened to read
Heavy Duty II by Mike Mantzer and started using the
consolidated routine (Squats/pulldowns,
deadlift/dips).  I gained size and strength, and I was
working out every six days.  Another fellow I lifted
with about three years ago, who weighed about 135
pounds when we started, and was 5'11", made great
gains.  His weight went up 15 pounds (if I remember)
in 3 months I believe, and his strength improved quite
a bit.  I am being vague because I lost his records
that I had been keeping, and can't remember details.

Jon

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
>    Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 04:57:29 -0000
>    From: "Shoms" <someshw@...>
> Subject: Some Advice Please
>
> Hello All.
> I have been doing the 15 set training per body part for the past 2
> years, and I am stuck on the same weight and strenght. I bought High
> Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way, and have been trying the
> workouts for the past two weeks. I am curious if people have actually
> made strenght and mass gains using his workouts. It just seems
> incredible to me that such gains would be possible using such few
> sets. For example, a chest workout is a set of high intensity flies
> followed by a low rep high intensity bench.

I've been using it consistently for 5 years (albeit with a few layoffs
through laziness) and whenever I've used it, I have made consistent strength
and then size gains.


> That is it....I was told
> that for the chest to develop properly one has to hit it from
> different angles, therefore the incline, flat and decline.
> Any words of wisdom would be very much appreciated.
>

I've heard this idea disputed saying that a  muscle has a common insertion
point and that even if you could hit portions of a muscle then it would be a
step in the wrong direction as you should be trying to hit the whole muscle
in one go. I don't know if that's true but it's worth considering.

Give the program a try and see if it works.

Bruce

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    From: "David Lewandowski, D.C." <drdave@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Superslow article

At 09:20 PM 2/2/03 -0500, you wrote:

..............
>So what?  No one tries to lose a pound of fat in a day.  And again, the
>amount of activity that can be fueled by a pound of fat is dependent on the
>intensity and duration of the activity.

          Would you agree that these are factors which are inversely
proportional?<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Yes, intensity and duration are inversely proportional.

>>>>>>>>>
> >Aerobics
> >can actually cause you to lose muscle tissue!
>
>Only under extreme circumstances, such as extremely long distance running.
>Most of the moderate aerobic activity that most people engage in will not
>cause muscle tissue loss.

          What do you consider moderate aerobic activity?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Anything between 55-80% VO2 max, performed for 20 minutes to an hour would
be considered moderate.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >On the subject of metabolic rate: Every pound of
> >muscle added to the body of an adult female will
> >require an additional 75-100 calories per day just to
> >keep it alive.
>
>This is absolutely false.  If this was true, a mere 10 lbs of muscle would
>increase daily energy expenditure by a whopping 1000 calories a day.  The
>true figure is closer to around 20 calories per additional pound.  Note how
>the author provides no reference for the number provided.

          To actually gain 10lbs of muscle is quite a feat. I would imagine
that neither of the above figures are necessarily accurate. I can't
logically reason that only 200 calories more a day is all that is required
for the growth, repair, and maintenance of 10lbs of muscle.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

In a study by Bruce et al. (1990) in the International Journal of Obesity,
fasted resting energy expenditure was approximately 5.5 kJ/kg FFM/hr.  This
is 1.31 kcal/kg FFM/hr.  Thus, over a 24-hour period, this is approximately
25 kilocalories for each additional KILOGRAM of fat free mass.  This works
out to be 11.4 kcal per pound.  Thus, my figure of 20 calories per pound is
actually an overestimate and is quite generous.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>This is a non-sequitur.  Yes, the cardiovascular system supports the
>muscular system.  However, the author does not offer any explanation how
>this somehow means that an improvement in muscular strength will correlate
>with an improvement in cardiovascular function.

          I'm not convinced that the slight changes that take place in the
heart due to aerobic activity are worth the trade off of time and energy.
Besides, there is absolutely no evidence that aerobic activity increases
life span<<<<<<<<<<<<

This is false.  Paffenbarger et al. (1994) reported that older men who
expended 1,500 kcal/week or more through walking, stair climbing, or sports
and recreational activities showed an extended longetivity and delayed
mortality compared to men who expended less energy.  Sarna et al. (1993)
reported that the life expectancy of endurance athletes (long-distance
runners and cross-country skiers) was greater than the reference population.
Bronikowski et al. (2003) demonstrated that aerobic exercise in mice
prevented detrimental age-related changes in gene expression of the heart.
Wang et al. (2002) reported that, over a period of 13 years, distance
runners aged 50 and older had a death rate 3.3 times lower than controls.
This is but a fraction of the evidence that indicates that aerobic activity
does increase longetivity.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and actually in the long run decreases quality of life with
overuse injuries.
<<<<<<<<<<

Do you have statistical evidence to support this statement?  Evidence
actually indicates otherwise.  In the study by Wang (2002), distance runners
had lower rates of disability than controls.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not saying that the other extreme of being a coach
potato is any better but rather that weight training alone is superior to
the other 2 in isolation.<<<<<<<<<<<

Do you have statistical evidence to support this statement?


>>>>>>>>
> >"Aerobics" activities are dangerous!
>
>Fallacy of the appeal to emotion.

          If they constitute a danger to the safety and health of the
individual then they are in fact dangerous.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

But there is no evidence that they constitute a danger to the safety and
health of the individual.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >Running is an
> >extremely high-force activity that is damaging to
> >knees, hips, and back.
>
>There is no scientific evidence that running in moderation is "dangerous."

          What constitutes dangerous or moderation?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I think that is a question to pose to the SS Guild.  What constitutes
dangerous?  If dangerous means an increased risk of injury over a sedentary
lifestyle, then the claim is false because evidence indicates otherwise, as
I've already pointed out.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >Endurance for athletics and recreational activities is
> >primarily a result of three factors: skill, muscular
> >strength, and genetics.
>
>This is completely false.  There are specific adaptations that occur in
>skeletal muscle and in the cardiovascular system which improve endurance
>performance (for example, increases in mitochondrial density, increased
>maximal stroke volume, etc.), adaptations that do not occur with strength
>training only.

          The adaptions can occur with strength training only by performing
more work in a set(time) or decreasing amount of time.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Do you have evidence that these adaptions occur with strength training?  Has
this ever been demonstrated?  If it hasn't, then claiming that strength
training results in these adaptations is no different from claiming that
invisible elves are stealing the socks from my drawer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >Muscular strength is the single most trainable factor
> >in endurance performance. It is the muscles that
> >actually perform work.
>
>Non-sequitur.  So what if it is the muscles that perform the work?  That
>doesn't mean that strength is the single most trainable factor in endurance
>performance.

          Strength is the easiest to measure as compared to skill and
heredity.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

That is irrelevant and does not refute the fact that a non-sequitur was
committed.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >time. Even with some compromise of pulmonary function
> >(illness, injury, etc. ) the lungs can usually perform
> >their job quite adequately. It is the muscle's ability
> >to use the nutrients delivered to it that needs
> >training. This is most efficiently addressed by
> >strength training.
>
>This is completely false and shows a complete lack of knowledge of basic
>physiology.  Maximal oxygen uptake is not limited by the lungs in healthy
>lungs, which is ture.  However, it is NOT limited by the muscle's ability
to
>"use nutrients."  Maximal cardiac output is the limiting factor in maximal
>oxygen uptake, which deals with the central cardiovascular system.

          I am not so sure of this since the heart being a muscle which
cannot grow appreciably unless it is thickening of the walls. This would
actually decrease heart function by decreasing stroke volume but increasing
stroke intensity.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Strength & power activities have been demonstrated to increase left
ventricular wall thickness, with no change in left ventricular volume.
However, this does not affect stroke volume.  Aerobic activity has been
shown to increase left ventricular volume, which will increase stroke
volume, not decrease it.

James Krieger
Graduate Assistant, Nutrition
University of Florida
Webmaster, WSU Strength and Conditioning
http://www.wsu.edu/~strength
Science Editor, Pure Power Magazine
http://www.purepowermag.com

>   From: "David Lewandowski, D.C." <drdave@...>
>>>>>>
          The same organizations that promote aerobic exercise as the end
all be of fitness?<<<<<<<<

Where is the evidence that the FDA, AMA, or NAS promote aerobic exercise as
the end all be of fitness?

>>>>>Matter of fact, they like virtually every other
organization has a main purpose which is to earn a profit either for the
organization as a whole<<<<<<<<<

Every organization needs to make money to function and stay alive.  What is
so wrong with that?

>>>>So, if you are constantly in the
storage mode your cells will eventually become insulin resistant except
your arterial walls. When this happens heart disease is a given, muscle
building non existent, and fat loss near impossible.
<<<<<<<<

How is muscle-building nonexistent in a case of insulin resistance?  If that
was true, Type II diabetics would not be able to increase muscle size.

>>>>>>2) Take plant derived ionic
colloidal minerals and extra chromium and vanadium(at 500-1,000mcg and
400-600mcg, respectively), 500-750mg of magnesium,
<<<<<<<<<<<

What is the rationale for these specific dosages of these micronutrients?

>>>>>>>>>>
5) get as
much sunlight to all surface areas especially the genitals as you can
during the hours of between 10a-2p when the sun is at it's most
intense(during the winter this is a problem for many but still try to get
outdoors and in the summer just reduce exposure so you are building a tan
and not burning);
<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Where is the evidence that sunlight exposure in this manner improves insulin
sensitivity?

>>>>>>>>
6) sleep a minimum of 9.5 hrs per day(if you are an
advanced drug free trainee this should be increased to 10.5 minimum up to
14 hrs per day for peaking periods!);
<<<<<<<<<<

Where is the evidence that this amount of sleep improves insulin
sensitivity?  Where is the evidence that 10.5 hours or more of sleep are
required for advanced drug free trainees?

>>>>>>>>
8) eat red meat from grass fed
non drugged free ranging watered from glacial run off at least twice a day
<<<<<<<<<<<

Where is the evidence that eating red meat of this type will improve insulin
sensitivity?

>>>>>>>>>
9) eliminate or greatly reduce all and any aerobic activities other than
walking/sex/sleep;
<<<<<<<<

Where is the evidence that this will improve in insulin sensitivity, when
all evidence indicates that aerobic exercise of any kind actually improves
insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance?

James Krieger
Graduate Assistant, Nutrition
University of Florida
Webmaster, WSU Strength and Conditioning
http://www.wsu.edu/~strength
Science Editor, Pure Power Magazine
http://www.purepowermag.com

>    From: "David Lewandowski, D.C." <drdave@...>
>
> a intelligent life force and the cadaver doesn't. Besides, there would not
> be enough time that has passed for evolution to be responsible for the
> change from a single cell organism to a complex multi trillion cell life
> form in the past 6 billion years or so.

This is completely false.  First, observed rates of evolutionary change in
modern populations are greater than or equal to rates observed in the fossil
record.  Second, rates of genetic change, as measured by nucleotide
substitutions, are also consistent with the rate required from the time
allowed in the fossil record and the sequence differences observed between
species.  There has been plenty of time for the evolution of complex
multi-trillion cell life.

>If this were the case we would
> surely see some evolution into higher expression of life far surpassing
> humans by now.

Homo sapiens has only been around for 250,000 years or so, which is only a
speck on the evolutionary timescale.  Hominids have been around for 3-4
million years.  First, 250,000 years is not enough time to observe
appreciable speciation in humans.  Second, humans exert so much control over
their environment that they are not subjected to the process of natural
selection as much as other living organisms are.

James Krieger
Graduate Assistant, Nutrition
University of Florida
Webmaster, WSU Strength and Conditioning
http://www.wsu.edu/~strength
Science Editor, Pure Power Magazine
http://www.purepowermag.com

>    From: rontron@...
>
> Only one problem with that thought- there is not a single instance or
example
> of a "transitional animal" . If indeed there were mutations that grew into
us
> , it seems reasonable that there would be millions of examples or pieces
of
> evidence of the in between animals or beings and there are none.

This is completely false.  There are NUMEROUS examples of transitional
fossils in the fossil record.  For a very comprehensive list, go to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.  You can also see the
fossil hominids FAQ at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/.  You can also
see more discussion of transitional fossils at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

James Krieger
Graduate Assistant, Nutrition
University of Florida
Webmaster, WSU Strength and Conditioning
http://www.wsu.edu/~strength
Science Editor, Pure Power Magazine
http://www.purepowermag.com

>    From: "David Lewandowski, D.C." <drdave@...>
>
> you go about describing/explaining the existence of God? This where
logical
> deductive reasoning becomes useful. Start with a universal law or
principle
> and deduce from there.Of course the major premise would have to be correct
> 100% of the time for this to work.
>          I start with the premise that God or Universal Intelligence exist
> because of the logic behind it

For deductive reasoning to have any value in making truth claims about
reality, then the premises MUST be true.  However, where is the logic behind
the premise that a "Universal Intelligence" exists?  This is a questionable
premise, and thus any line of reasoning based on that premise will have a
questionable conclusion.


> difficult(impossible) to quantify thought/intelligence other than reduce
it
> to some part of the whole without a reflection of that whole. Let me
> explain: I can say without reservation that I am logically certain that
you
> could go to the top of a snow covered mountain and roll 10 billion
> snowballs down and not one of them would land into the shape of a finely
> carved ice sculpture. Sit on the beach and observe 10 trillion waves crash
> onto the beach without one distributing the sand into the form of a sand
> castle. Throw a hand grenade into an ink factory and "expect" an
accidental
> (ya, I know this a an oxymoron)Encyclopedia Britannica to be the outcome?
> The organization of matter speaks of a supreme intelligence as the factor
> which unifies and coordinates force and matter.You hopefully are much more
> complex than a sand castle? In our case the human form that can walk,
talk,
> think, and love is proof of intelligence.

However, humans also suffer from horrible diseases, such as AIDS.  Viruses
such as HIV, and parasites such as the malaria parasite, skillfully evade
our immune systems and wreak havoc on our bodies.  If this "universal
intelligence" designed us, then it must have designed these other things
which have outwitted our "designs."


> Our human beingness is not
> something you could ever get me to believe was a coincidence when the
> formation of even a single cell by chance is so astronomical as to be
> unimaginable by our limited educated brain.

The problem with all of your analogies provided above, like your
Encyclopedia Britannica analogy, is that they involve a highly complex
entity emerging in a single step.  However, evolutionary theory dictates
that we did NOT emerge in a single step.  We are the product of billions of
tiny, small steps, all of which can easily produce a very complex organism
from a very simple organism, given millions of years.  Natural selection,
the driving force of evolution, is NOT a random process.  It is a hereditary
sorting process that can easily result in the emergence of complexity and
the appearance of design.  Even the evolution of the first single celled
organisms did not happen in a single step, but likely involved numerous
steps.  Theories of abiogenesis (the origin of life) are not based
completely on chance.  Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely
randomly, but according to their chemical properties.  Given this, complex
chemicals can easily arise spontaneously, and then these complex molecules
can influence eachother to form even more complex molecules.  Once a
self-replicating chemical exists, natural selection (a non-random process)
will lead to the emergence of more efficient, more complex self-replicators.

James Krieger
Graduate Assistant, Nutrition
University of Florida
Webmaster, WSU Strength and Conditioning
http://www.wsu.edu/~strength
Science Editor, Pure Power Magazine
http://www.purepowermag.com

Hello All.
I have been doing the 15 set training per body part for the past 2
years, and I am stuck on the same weight and strenght. I bought High
Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way, and have been trying the
workouts for the past two weeks. I am curious if people have actually
made strenght and mass gains using his workouts. It just seems
incredible to me that such gains would be possible using such few
sets. For example, a chest workout is a set of high intensity flies
followed by a low rep high intensity bench. That is it....I was told
that for the chest to develop properly one has to hit it from
different angles, therefore the incline, flat and decline.
Any words of wisdom would be very much appreciated.

Also, any suggestions on diet and aerobic excercise which would help
me lose fat would wihout affecting my muscle gain would be very
helpful.  I was told that it is almost impossible to do the above,
and that one has to go through a cutting phase in which carbs are
reduced. Is that correct?
Thanks,
Shoms

>    From: "David Lewandowski, D.C." <drdave@...>
> >
> > > It is physiological fact that ultraviolet radiation from the sun is
> > > a stimulus for GH release.
> >
> >Evidence?  What is the biochemical pathway?
>
>          With the way you simply dismissed the following statements why
> would I spend my time explaining something to you that you have obviously
> made up your mind about?

I don't see where this individual had already made up his mind.  You made a
claim, and he was simply asking you to provide evidence to support that
claim.  In any type of debate or argumentation, the burden of proof lies on
the individual making the positive assertion.  In this case, that individual
was you when you aserted that ultraviolet radiation stimulated gH release.
The individual asked you to provide evidence to support that.  Instead, you
then tried to shift the burden of proof to him and have him prove or
disprove the statement.  Thus, you committed the logical fallacy known as
the "shifting of the burden of proof."

>          Science simply exist to increase our awareness of natural
> phenomenon. Many have made it into a religion by simply refusing to accept
> that "things" exist before science has an opportunity to quantify them.

But there has always been evidence that those "things" existed in the first
place.  Otherwise, one can make any claim and simply assert that "well, we
just don't understand or know about it yet."  For example, I often have
socks missing from my drawer, so that I don't have a complete set of
matching pairs.  I could claim that invisible elves are stealing socks from
my drawer, and that is why socks are missing.  If someone challenges me on
that claim, I could simply say, "Well, science has not had an opportunity to
quantify the invisible elves and their behavior."  Do you see the problem
with this line of reasoning?

> Holding the status quo is more important for them then understanding. For
> instance gravity was a force in the universe before science could measure
> it and it's effects. Natural laws don't require that you have belief in
> them as your belief has nary an impact on that law.

But "laws" are nothing more than accepted models developed by humans to
describe observed natural phenomena.  It was the observed natural phenomena
that was always there in the first place, not the "law".

James Krieger
Graduate Assistant, Nutrition
University of Florida
Webmaster, WSU Strength and Conditioning
http://www.wsu.edu/~strength
Science Editor, Pure Power Magazine
http://www.purepowermag.com

well my cousin is naturally dark skinned and he has skin cancer.  so that
statement isn't necessarily true.
  "Chandler, Doug J" <djchandler@...> wrote:So to sum up,

[naturally dark skinned people] who don't wear sunglasses won't get skin cancer?






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To get this in a Digest form, please go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hitdigest
and change your subscription settings.

The HIT Digest is a feature of Cyberpump! http://www.cyberpump.com

HIT Digest email addresses:
   Post message: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
   Subscribe:    Hitdigest-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
   Unsubscribe:  Hitdigest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   List owner:   Hitdigest-owner@yahoogroups.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hitdigest

Please review the Rules of the Digest at
http://www.cyberpump.com/hitdigest/rules.html
------------------------------------

Got a question, check out the HIT FAQ first.
http://www.cyberpump.com/hitfaq/
------------------------------------


Please don't forget to delete this footer when replying to the Digest!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pavel's stuff seems to work, at least for strength (rather than size),
but that's what he aims at.  Look at www.dragondoor.com for info.
(The discussion fora there have a lot.)

Seth

Good morning,

          I have to start by thanking whomever it was that recommended
Natural Hormonal Enhancement by Rob Faigin. Thanks.
          The book overall is fantastic. I disagreed with a couple of points
and was surprised that with all the references Rob made in the book that
some of the points were just status quo standard party line thinking though
these were virtually nonexistent. Nonetheless, this is a superb book which
I highly recommend. Instead of digging up the references on the
relationship between GH release and sunlight exposure I read ahead in the
book and found a chapter on sunlight.
          The following is from the above mentioned fully referenced book
Chapter 20, pg203 entitled Sunlight:

          "The sun not only makes life possible, but it is the central
organizing force in the living world exerting both daily and seasonal
influences. In animals, the sun governs reproductive, activity-rest, and
feeding patterns. Even the animals imprisoned in our homes for our
amusement and protection will establish a resting spot near a window and
will bask in the sun when let out.* In the human world, the development of
artificial light had reduced our independence on sunlight. Biologically,
however, we are still creatures of the sun.

          Until the late twentieth century, scientist believed that
activity, sleep, and social interactions controlled circadian rhythms. In
the last twenty years, however, new research has come to light. We now know
that in organisms as diverse as single-celled algae and humans, light is
the primary stimulus regulating the circadian biological clock.(158) The
mammalian circadian pacemaker, located in the suprachiasmatic nucleus(SCN)
of the hypothalamus, generates 24-hour rhythms for many physiologic
functions including body temperature and hormonal secretion.(159,160,161)

          Light enters the body via the retino-hypothalamic pathway: through
the eyes, converted to nerve impulses, and transmitted to the SCN.(162) The
SCN conveys this information to the pineal gland, a key interface between
environmental lighting and hormonal output. The pineal gland produces
melatonin which, in turn, signals activities throughout the endocrine
system via it's influence on the pituitary gland and hypothalamus.(163,164)
Pineal melatonin, in effect, "feeds back" on the SCN, thereby influencing
the SCN's activities.(165,166) Based on the independent cooperation between
the pineal and the SCN, they can be aptly described as coequal regulators
of our biological clock, sharing a position atop the hormonal chain of command.

          ........In male rodents, experimental light deprivation causes
profound testicular shrinkage and a reduction in testosterone levels to
near castrate levels.(175,176,177,178) In  a wide range of other animals,
summer to winter light changes induce decrements in reproductive hormones,
copulatory performance, and gonadal
mass.(179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189) Furthermore, breeding in
animals can be delayed or advanced by altering light availability;(190,191)
and in humans, circadian(daily) hormonal rhythms can be delayed or advanced
by the same means.(192,193) Without wishing to crassly disillusion anyone,
'hot summer nights' of love and romance may not be entirely unrelated to
animalistic seasonal breeding influences.

          .........studies showing that in both males(194,195,196) and
females(197,198) sex hormones levels are highest during the time of the
year when the sun shines the longest..............To enhance testosterone
levels in men, and increase sex drive in both sexes, maximize daylight
hours by retiring early and rising early; and get outside as much as possible.

          In addition to synchronizing biorhythms, sensational new research
demonstrates that the sun acts as hormonal catalyst-precursor. When solar
radiation in the wavelength range of 290-320 nanometers (UVB) strikes
exposed areas of the body, it chemically reacts with a type of cholesterol
present in the skin called epidermal 7-dehydrocholesterol, converting it to
vitamin D.(199)........

.......
          In a nutshell, here's what the research tells us about melanoma
risks: a suntan is protective whereas intermittent intense sunlight
exposure increases risk. Therefore, not only is melanoma incidence not
directly correlated with sunlight exposure, but in the case of construction
workers and others who work outdoors, chronic sunlight exposure inversely
corresponds with melanoma. On the other hand, individuals who spend most of
their time indoors and incur sunburn occasionally while vacationing or
during recreational activity, suffer more
melanoma.(219,220,221,222,223,224,225) Frequency of episodes of painful
sunburn during childhood is particularly associated with occurrence of
melanoma years later, so protect your children.(226,227,228) Fluorescent
lighting has not been ruled-out as a possible cause of melanoma, with at
least two studies finding a connection(229,230) (If confirmed, this would
explain why melanoma is much more prevalent among white-collar workers than
among blue-collar workers231,232). Finally, the following two
constitutional factors are associated with heightened risk of melanoma: 1)
size, number, and irregularly shaped moles, and 2) low 'tannability' (a
propensity to burn rather than tan). (233,234,235)"
............

          I would suggest getting the book and hopefully the former excerpt
spurred some to take action. Though I suppose there will be those that will
dismiss the information for some reason or another?
          I also recommend reading Lights Out by T.S. Wiley, Naked at Noon
by Krispin Sullivan
          and http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/27/schizophrenia.htm and for
how the search for a cancer cure is going:
http://www.planetc1.com/cgi-bin/n/v.cgi?c=1&id=1047997686

Dr. Dave

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

my only exposure to his work has been a very very bad summary of one of his
books in Muscle Media, where the normally bad writing was made even worse by
an apparent refusal on the part of the writer to really explain what the
theories were. i guess the article was really an ad for the book. What did
you think of the methods? Have you any commentary to make?

-----Original Message-----
From: Idontpump@... [mailto:Idontpump@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:16 PM
To: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HIT Digest] Pavel's training theories


Hi all,
A few days ago I posted a question to everyone on here to get some opinions,

comments and etc.. in regards to Pavel Tsatsouline's training theories(I
just
finished reading his book, "Power to the People") but no one responded to
it,
this is my second attempt to see if anyone out there has read his books,
tried his methods and care to comment on his methods.

rick


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=17050609
50:HM/A=1481646/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_flake/g22lp
?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1481646/rand=588659900>

To get this in a Digest form, please go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hitdigest
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hitdigest>
and change your subscription settings.

The HIT Digest is a feature of Cyberpump! http://www.cyberpump.com
<http://www.cyberpump.com>

HIT Digest email addresses:
   Post message: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
   Subscribe:    Hitdigest-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
   Unsubscribe:  Hitdigest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   List owner:   Hitdigest-owner@yahoogroups.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hitdigest
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hitdigest>

Please review the Rules of the Digest at
http://www.cyberpump.com/hitdigest/rules.html
<http://www.cyberpump.com/hitdigest/rules.html>
------------------------------------

Got a question, check out the HIT FAQ first.
http://www.cyberpump.com/hitfaq/ <http://www.cyberpump.com/hitfaq/>
------------------------------------


Please don't forget to delete this footer when replying to the Digest!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>  From: "David Lewandowski, D.C." <drdave@...>
> Subject: Re: Science, etc.

> I wrote:
>> .........
>> I'm afraid I've seen this line of thinking before and I believe it
>> owes
>> itself to life being somewhat overrated (I know, I know :-). There is
>> all this talk about the human body being "designed for" this or that,
>> the wonders of DNA, etc, (Discovery Channel-style rethoric mostly).
>          My point exactly. Your philosophy isn't conducive to any other
> view than what you can see, taste, touch, feel, hear, etc. Science
> could
> not exist if it wasn't for the "overrated rhetoric" of the that
> intangible
> thing called imagination.

Mmm, ultimately science tries to explain what we perceive of our world
via our senses, but of course its body or work includes implications
that go beyond our senses. It is just that they must fit each other:
I'd be a fool if I won't accept the bizarreness of Quantum Mechanics as
an operative theory (however long lived or provisional its current form
happens to be long term): my senses cannot perceive a delocalized
electron, but I can see that my computer, a consequence of the theory
in many ways, is working. Sometimes science has required whole paradigm
shifts, but it always has insisted that those new paradigms explain
perceived reality. Sometimes it is an improved perception of reality
what forces a reconsideration of explanations, of course.

What I meant by "rethoric" is these ways of presenting scientific data
that, while doing the commendable task of sparkling our interest in the
matter, distort in some ways its meaning. Say, the typical "…this bird
has adapted to…" which somehow suggests purpose instead of
unintentional process.

>          Junk in the DNA?
Er… yes: it seems that our DNA isn't exactly a stack of well ordered
and organized genetic code but rather a mishmash, full or redundancies
and meaningless blocks of data (well… non-data), but that should be
expected, anyway.

>> …God, omnipotent being able to do everything, is
>> an overcomplication, because, sorry, you have to explain him, too…
>          Says who? How is it you can describe someone or something
> that is
> by definition so far beyond our comprehension as a drop of water is to
> the
> ocean?…

That's the problem: it is a definition, but it doesn't provide a
mechanism of proof, a way of saying it is true or it is not, be it
theoretical or practical, achievable or nearly impossible to test. So,
in practice, it's not operative for scientific process. Of course, It
doesn't mean God doesn't exist, but then it is as if, from a practical
point of view. I'd like to say that I am not implying that God is a
meaningless concept: far from it, obviously. Just that it is not
applicable to scientific method, as it is usually defined.

>>  Scientific method tries simple first, test, if it doesn't fit
>> complicate
>> it a bit, test again, and so…
>         So, if we don't have a test for something it can't be tested
> therefore it is overcomplicated or non existent? Science definitely has
> it's limits...mostly those of the imagination.

What I mean by test is not just practical physical test but logical
theoretical test, too. For example, Black Holes are a theoretical
by-product of Relativity, and none have been seen yet actually,
although some observed phenomena is interpreted as being BH originated
and enough confirmation of their existence. What I mean by not
overcomplicating things is not doing it needlessly: if you have two
explanations that fit you usually choose the one that requires less
effort in fitting in. Curiously, Einstein's Relativity prospered
because in very important ways it was simpler: it didn't require the
concept of an "ether" medium that was difficult to integrate at best,
for example. I know I sound as if I consider science like a cold
sterile process: far from it, imagination is king there. It is just
that there is a reality check too.

> How
> do I know the sun will rise in the East tomorrow? Just because it has
> been
> scientifically proven doesn't mean that it will rise in the East but my
> belief system in the science behind it does tell me chances are this
> is the
> case.

Well, this is more a matter of philosophy. We use science's conclusions
because we asume reality is predictable, at least up to a point, or for
practical reasons.

>> ...Life force is another ambiguous metaphor for biological
>> processes.
>          Hell, you could call Life Force Bob for all I care. The common
> belief in the existence of such an entity would probably be the
> starting
> point for any meaningful dialogue though?

If it was really that common :-)  Oh, well, yes, in a level, of course,
but you see, most misunderstandings are all about lack of mutually
accepted definitions. That's why I said language distorts everything.
For example, I could be talking about life force as a metaphor but my
interlocutor be using the term as an objective physical force. We could
be yelling at each other, wondering why the conversation is going so
dislocated, until we discover what our mutual premises actually are:
then we should discuss them and agree on them first or there is no
point at all (by the way, there is this funny thing about two people
with their hands at each other's throat when they are actually saying
the same, which happens, too. Not the case here, but… :-).

>> That's why when Dr. Dave talks about sunbathing and light and the
>> retina I'd rather wish that we keep the issue into the biochemical and
>> neurological realm, using a more precise language.
>          Here again, when my belief system is questioned because it
> doesn't
> fit into the norm it is for a common understanding that I state what my
> philosophy is so those reading can have an idea of how I came about
> that
> way of thinking. If someone simply wishes to have the
> biochemical/neurological factors stated then they should say so and
> not go
> into why it's bullshit before they ask. Do you agree?

Actually, I feel there was sort of an overreaction to your first post:
even there being a strong disagreement with your first post (and I'd
belong to this camp, probably), the tone was too confrontational.
Sometimes one forgets not to confuse spontaneity in style with
aggresive bluntness when contributing to a list, I guess: it is too
much fun, until one ends up at the receiving end  :-Z

>          I suggest reading the Philosophical Scientist by David Foster.

I'll take a look. Thanks for the suggestion.


Juan Gomez Martin
Valencia, SPAIN

I have been reading the posts for the last few days
and became acquinted with all the "disagreements" that
have been going on.

As for the sun, there is nothing like a good tan, on
me, on my wife, and on the 17 year old gal at the pool
this summer who is the lifeguard.

As for God, either you believe, or you don't.

And,  I lifted this week, I went up on reps or weight
on every lift (well, not leg curls) and am really
looking forward to tomorrow.  I have been on this
cycle of Nautilus only training and it is working out
great.  Losing fat, gaining strength, and looking
forward to the hiking season.

I hope we all have a good rest of the week lifting.

Jon

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Hello rick,

Tuesday, March 18, 2003, 7:16:25 PM, you wrote:

Iac> Hi all,
Iac> A few days ago I posted a question to everyone on here to get some
opinions,
Iac> comments and etc.. in regards to Pavel Tsatsouline's training theories(I
just
Iac> finished reading his book, "Power to the People") but no one responded to
it,
Iac> this is my second attempt to see if anyone out there has read his books,
Iac> tried his methods and care to comment on his methods.

Iac> rick

After  reading  PTP  in February, I decided to give the Evil Russian's
ideas  a  try.  I  finished my first cycle Friday and will start a new
cycle  tomorrow  (Wed).  I've  gotten  pretty  lean  since  I've  been
following  NHE  since  mid Nov. I've come to realize that my goals are
strength,  tone  and being lean rather than bodybuilding per se. I was
receptive  to  Pavel's  ideas anyway...I like his logic. Anyway, one 4
week  cycle  is  only  a start, but I am making progress and I do feel
stronger  than  ever.  I  train  alone  in a spare room with a DB free
spotter  setup  (works  great BTW). I do deadlifts from the top, bench
presses,  Janda  situps (to replace my crunches), and finish up with a
bit of wrist rolling. The hardest part of my workouts has been waiting
3 minutes or so between sets. I also bought 3 other books by Pavel and
am  working  my way through them. I may try kettlebells when it's warm
enough  to work out in my yard. I don't regret changing my workouts to
Pavel's methods and I plan to continue.

--
Best regards,
  John                            mailto:johnmcde@...

At 06:20 PM 3/18/03 -0500, you wrote:
>So to sum up,
>
>[naturally dark skinned people] who don't wear sunglasses won't get skin
>cancer?

          No. Actually those with more pigment need more sunlight than those
of lesser pigment. And Fishermen in the Northwest part of the country had
virtually zero cataracts when they didn't use sunglasses in comparison to
those that used sun glasses(don't ask for the study it was so long ago I
don't have it). You would think because of the glare off the water and all
the hours spent in the sun that this wouldn't be the case?

Dr. Dave