--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "Impy McFerguson"
<impymcferguson@m...> wrote:
> ( This is great advice, but my advice to you is if you're spending
> the Memorial Day Weekend reading or posting things in a weight
> lifting group, you need to have your head examined. So maybe this
> advice will be especially useful. ;OD  )
>
> If I Had a Time Machine
>
> by Bill Piche

Good article, especially this one:


< There were countless times that I tried to progress too fast in too
short a time. I either suffered an injury, or hit a plateau. Resist
the temptation to add weight too quickly when you're having one of
those workouts where you feel like the only thing that can stop you
is kryptonite. Be patient! >

My experience is as well that attempts for too fast progress are the
main reason for all training problems. Perhaps the best advice one
can give (because it is something beginner cannot know.) Other
advices are also good, like fractional plates.

However, if one accept that point of view, if he feels like Superman,
and intentionally use less weight or reps than he can, it is not hard
training any more, especially if only one or two sets are done.

Joshua Katz wrote:
Eat a pint a day of Hagen Daz Butternut ice cream.
Miguel Pérez comments:
Sounds good, but ice cream does contain those nasty
trans-fatty acids/hydrogenated vegetable oils. Baaad
stuff, really. Cream and full-fat yogurt do not
contain these manufactured fats, so I'd say have those
instead, Bas.

Welcome to the list Sebastien.

I would agree with Joshua's advice for the most part.  I too am naturally
very ectomorphic (started training at about 165 pounds at 6'2"... a good
body-double for Joey Ramone).  After about 3-4 years, I got up to about 220
lbs, drug free.  I basically wasted the first few months of training though,
due to misinformation.  My first mistake was to avoid anything other than
'clean' food- stocked the fridge full of egg whites, chicken breasts, tuna,
cottage cheese, etc.  Those are all wonderful sources of lean protein of
course, but hardly calorically dense.  Get over any fear of getting fat.
Just make sure your body is always running on a positive energy balance (ie.
a caloric surplus).   I wouldn't eat to the point of discomfort though, and
if you're following the diet Joshua recommends, I can't see how you wouldn't
feel sick from ingesting that much food at one sitting.  If you can though,
great!  But I know if I tried eating 24 ounces of prime rib, vegetables, AND
a chicken breast all at once, I'd likely need a spotter to help me get
through the bowel movement...

Your routine looks a little over-the-top too.  If you actually have anything
left in the tank after a set of 20-rep squats and deadlifts, you're probably
not working at a high enough degree of intensity.  Try splitting your
bodyparts up into two or three days maybe (you can still adhere to HIT
principles).  I'm all for the 'one hard set to failure' way of thinking, but
if you're still relatively new to all this, you might want to use multiple
sets, just to get some practice at coordination and to develop efficient
neural pathways.  I'm sure some on this list would disagree.  You're picking
the right exercices though- stick with the big stuff that turns your face
purple: squats, SLDL's, rows, etc.  Arm development will follow as a
by-product.  Don't worry about curls, skull crushers, etc.  That's all
two-percent stuff.

There are a couple good audio files you should check out (each about 15
minutes long and only take a couple of seconds to download) at:
http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/audio.jsp

One is called "Is bulking up better than slow growth?" and the other "How
fast can I gain muscle?".  I know some people on the list slam t-mag (yeah,
their editorials can be a bit frat boy for me sometimes too), but for the
most part, I think they offer some unorthodox advice that's at least worth
the read.

Anyway, good luck in your quest to put some meat on your bones!

-Marshall





Message: 12
    Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 16:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
    From: Joshua Katz <beber0190@...>
Subject: Re: French Ecto - training routine


1) Chin-up (Palm facing backward) 1x 8-12
2) Dips 1x 8-12
3) Pull-over (cable) 1x 8-12 + Pull-down (cable) 1x 8-12  ------------(+)
means
that it's done immediately after
4) inclined Leg press 1x 20
5) Bent-over rowing Barbell 1x 8-12
6) Fly dumbell 1x 8-12 + Bench press------------(+) means that it's done
immediately after
7) Deadlift 1x 20
8) Shrugs 1x 8-12 ------------------- 1 time per 2 sessions
9) Squat 1x 20
10) Calv on inclined leg press 1x 20

I think it's certainly on the right track, but if you're a guy who really
has
trouble gaining weight, I don't think this much volume makes sense.
Training
every 3 days is ok because you're just starting out, but within a year,
you'll
want to really scale back.  I'd say at this point train your whole body
every 3
days, then switch in about 3-4 months to a split routine, training half the
body
every 3 days.  Then, over the next few months, increase the rest days in
between, so that by the end of a year, you're doing half the body each week.
That said, I think the volume here is too high for a hardgainer.  Here's
something I'd recommend:

Squat 20 reps - do this as a breathing squat.  For a description, buy Super
Squats by Randal Stossen.  Basically, it means you use a weight you'd
normally
use for 10 reps, and at the top of each rep, take at least 3 really, really
deep
breaths.  Then do 20 reps.  Don't limit it to 3 - take as many as you need,
but
at least 3.  Do this first because the legs are the hardest body part to
train -
they make you the sickest, and this is the hardest exercise you'll do.

Straight leg deadlifts - one set of about 10-15 to failure

Bent over row, or chins, or pulldowns - pick your favorite, or alternate.
One
set of 10-15 to failure.

Bench press - 1 set of 10-15 to failure.

And that's it.  You can toss in a biceps curl, or grip work, or calf
extensions,
or whatever, but this is all you need.  When you go to a split routine, try
doing squats with chest and deadlifts with back, and add maybe 1 or 2
additional
exercises.

As for eating - doesn't sound like you have to worry about getting fat!  Eat
a
pint a day of Hagen Daz Butternut ice cream.  Drink a quart a day of milk.
Drink a gallon a day of water.  Eat big meals - eat no junk food, they just
waste hunger.  You need to take advantage of hunger.  What should you eat?
Whole grains, meats, cheeses, nuts, fruits, vegetables.  Make sure you get
plenty of protein and fat.  Make this shake in the morning and work on it
all
day:

1 cup cream

1 cup whole milk

some crushed ice

2 tablespoons peanut butter

1 serving vanilla ice cream

some whey protein - isopure is good, so is designer whey, so is bomber blend

1 banana

Sample menu:

Breakfast - 3 slices of whole wheat toast with butter, 5 eggs scrambled with
mushrooms, butter, cream, cheddar cheese, and a side of bacon
Snacks - cheese, raw vegetables, ice cream, milk, nuts

Lunch - 1 whole roasted chicken, brocolli, whole wheat pasta with parmesan
cheese, cream, and asparagus

Dinner - 24 ounce prime rib, stir fried vegetables, shrimp, and chicken
breast
with olive oil and parmesan cheese

This is much higher in carbs than the weight gain menu I wrote last week,
but
this guy isn't worried at all about gaining weight, so what the heck!

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

>From: Milo Champ <milochamp@...>
>Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 17:05:21 -0600
>
>his machines don't do what you say they do, they are variable resistance
>machines that change the contraction force of a muscle differently than
>what a barbell or dumbbell would

I'm sorry, I wrongly assumed that you knew what I was talking about and that
you had some understanding of these concepts -- my fault.

I was talking about the MedX *testing* equipment (not to be confused with
the MedX *training* equipment for health clubs) -- dynamometers, if you will
-- , and not Nautilus machines.

And by the way, no machine or barbell has the ability to change "the
contraction force of a muscle". What changes the contraction force of a
muscle are the motor impulses sent by the CNS via motor neurons (EMS also
works). What (properly designed) variable resistance machines do is to
automatically make opposing torque (resistance) vary throughout the ROM
specifically to approximate the shape of the strength curve of the subject,
with respect to the movement in question, and therefore reduce the
occurrence of sticking points. Note that barbells or dumbbells also provide
variable resistance, only it is utterly random and is almost always
incongruent with muscle/joint function. Since you admit that strength
increases being specific to the worked ROM is a "well established concept in
exercise physiology research", you of all people should understand why
proper variable resistance would be a good thing.

And it isn't I who says that the machines do what the manufacturers claim,
it's the research published in peer reviewed medical journals, not some
publication for coaches (don't get me wrong, coaching is an honorable
profession). Please see, for instance, Graves, J.E., Pollock, M.L.,
Carpenter, D.M., Leggett, S.H., Jones, A., MacMillan, M., Fulton, M.
Quantitative assessment of full range-of-motion isometric lumbar extension
strength. Spine. 1990 Apr;15(4):289-94.

Hm... I wonder who that "Jones, A." is...

Pedro

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

>From: Milo Champ <milochamp@...>
>Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 17:05:21 -0600

>Actually, Jones didn't develop any of these concepts, they have been well
>established concepts in exercise physiology research way before Jones came
>up with Nautilus.

English is not my first language, so it's quite possible that I didn't make
myself very clear. Unfortunately, I don't think I can rephrase "Arthur Jones
was the first person to identify these factors as absolute requirements for
the accurate testing of muscular strength" much better. If you read the
above quote attentively, you will notice that I didn't actually claim that
Arthur Jones had developed these concepts, rather that he had identified
them *as requirements* for accurate testing. But I will now claim that
Jones:
a) was the first person to suggest that strength gains are very much
specific to the worked ROM (hence the relevance of variable resistance);
b) was the first person to suggest that unless a joint is perfectly isolated
it becomes impossible do determine which, if any, of the muscles believed to
be involved in a certain movement are actually involved, let alone quantify
the contribution of each of those muscles;
c) was the first person to suggest that gravity acting on the involved body
parts has a meaningful effect and that may significantly distort test
results
d) was the first person to suggest that dynamic tests are inherently
inaccurate because of the effects of inertia and impact

Please refer to the studies I mentioned in my previews post. There you will
find evidence that these factors are indeed relevant for the accurate
testing of muscular strength. I understand that those studies were not
published in the "JN of str and cond res", which apparently renders them
almost invisible to your eyes, but please take the time to at least skim the
abstracts.

Surely, being a great believer in the peer review system you will want to
produce references to studies that prove that somebody else before Jones had
already identified those factors. Simply post references to studies that
address these issues but have an earlier publication date than the ones I
posted. I must warn you that the NSCA, publisher of the only journal you
seem to be aware of, was formed nearly a decade after Jones "came up with
Nautilus", so you may have some difficulty in finding those studies...

Pedro

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

----- Original Message -----
   From: Milo Champ
   To: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 12:05 AM
   Subject: Re: [HIT Digest] re: singing pigs

   Hi there,

   first it is very child like or unprofessional, to say that Arthur did not do
any research, and you mush be a fool to say that their clams have been proven
false, has it has not, remember Arthur was worth a million, well before
nautilus, i was chatting to someone from another forum whom has worked for
nautilus since the start, whom knows him personally, Arthur is a genius and 81
now. Silly saying that. However, you think its fun to TRY to wind people up, you
can try.

   I could scan (and will if you want me to its damn interesting stuff, and damn
the cam and then the negative cam WOW i would have loved to be there) pages of
the research done,

   YES I HAVE PAGES OF THE RESEARCH DONE, so please don't try and say that,

   I myself have nautilus big blue second generation, the good old ones, and the
machines do do exactly what they same they do, nautilus provides perfectly
balanced resistance that is ALWAYS right never to high never to low. There are
no sticking points and no points of little or no resistance. When you fail, you
could fail in any part of point of the rep, instead of always failing at or
before the sticking point of 95% barbell exercises,

   The curl for example the resistance is balanced only correctly ONLY in the
sticking point that is encountered halfway though the movement. and it does not
matter how long you train with a barbell, you will always encounter the same
sticking point, the first part of the curl there is not much resistance then the
midway sticking point, then final part and no resistance gravity takes over,
nautilus machines with their cams (each different for each machine) provide
continues resistance throughout the movement, damn i could talk all night on
this, its science at its best.

   In general, muscles are strongest when fully contracted. Because of the way in
which THEY function, the only position that will involve all the fibers is one
of full contraction. In almost all barbell exercises, no resistance is working
against the involved muscles in the position of full contraction. An unavoidable
result in barbell exercises, therefore, is that muscles are worked only in their
positions and are not worked at all in their strongest positions. With nautilus
machines, required variations in resistance are properly provided, as i say the
movement is as soft as a babies BOTTOM.

   OK MILO LETS SEE HOW CLEVER YOU ARE, there are at least nine requirements for
proper full range exercise. These requirements are as follows. In your own time



   THANK YOU WAYNE





   Actually, Jones didn't develop any of these concepts, they have been well
   established concepts in exercise physiology research way before Jones came
   up with Nautilus. Also, his machines don't do what you say they do, they are
   variable resistance machines that change the contraction force of a muscle
   differently than what a barbell or dumbbell would. Of course they (Nautilus
   and Jones) tried to sell that as the end-all-be-all in strength training,
   but their claims have been proven false by research out of the Univ. of KS
   (JN of str and cond res) and elsewhere. Why? Because it ain't research that
   they did, just hype to sell product.

   On 5/28/04 11:47 AM, "Pedro M." <o_messias@...> wrote:

   >> Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 20:48:45 -0600
   >> From: Milo Champ <milochamp@...>
   >> Subject: Re: Re Singing Pigs
   >>
   >> Whatever Arthur Jones did isn't research. Sheeesh.
   >
   > Arthur Jones created the only tools that can accurately measure actual
   > muscular strength. Among other things these are the only tools that provide
   > 1) complete isolation of the joint being tested; 2) correction for the
   > effect of gravity acting on the involved body parts; 3) accurate correlation
   > of joint angle with measured torque; 4) static testing to eliminate the
   > effect of inertia and impact forces; 5) correction for the effect of stored
   > elastic energy in tissues. The relevance of each and everyone of the above
   > factors has been subsequently corroborated by research published in peer
   > reviewed journals. For each of the points mentioned:
   >
   > 1) Graves, J.E., Webb, D.C., Pollock, M.L., Matkozich, J., Leggett, S.H.,
   > Carpenter, D.M., Foster, D.N., Cirulli, J. Pelvic stabilization during
   > resistance training: its effect on the development of lumbar extension
   > strength. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1994
   > Feb;75(2):210-5
   >
   > 2) Welsch, M.A., Williams, P.A., Pollock, M.L., Graves, J.E., Foster, D.N.,
   > Fulton, M.N. Quantification of full-range-of-motion unilateral and bilateral
   > knee flexion and extension torque ratios. Archives of Physical Medicine and
   > Rehabilitation.1998 Aug;79(8):971-8.
   >
   > 3) Graves, J.E., Pollock, M.L., Jones, A.E., Colvin, A.B., Leggett, S.H.
   > Specificity of limited range of motion variable resistance training.
   > Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1989 Feb;21(1):84-9.
   >
   > 4) Iossifidou, A.N., Baltzopoulos, V. Inertial effects on moment development
   > during isokinetic concentric knee extension testing. Journal of Orthopaedic
   > and Sports Physical Therapy. 2000 Jun;30(6):317-23; discussion 324-7.
   >
   > 5) Too many to mention here, but just about every study concerning the
   > stretch-shortening cycle or more generally the biomechanical properties of
   > muscle and tendons.
   >
   > Now, Arthur Jones was the first person to identify these factors as absolute
   > requirements for the accurate testing of muscular strength. How do you
   > suppose he arrived at these conclusions? Perhaps devine inspiration? Blind
   > luck?
   >
   > Pedro
   >

   --
   Milo

   The Farmer's Walk Rules

hi there,
   eating right before and after training, small carb, protein drink nothing
special, rest plenty off it, water plenty of it for recovery and well beining,
muscle=70% water, 22% protein, 7% lipids. h.i.t. popularized lots of water years
ago, now i think most know of its value, plenty of sleep,
   impy i would not recommend more volume and frequency, but your not your taking
a two to three week lay off great, every time i take a layoff i come back ALWAYS
bigger and stronger, try and eat exactly the same and take some light
activity's.
   thank you Wayne


   Impy wrote:
   I'd sure love to improve my recovery
   ability. As long
   as it's not drugs. Any good information on this?
   Maybe I should do more volume and frequency and less
   intensity for
   awhile. But I must give HD a good, honest shot. (...)
   If I had better recovery, I'd get further, faster,
   and feel better.
   So any info on this would be appreciated.
   *********************************************************

   I've heard this spoke of too. If we think of 'recovery ability' as an
   undefined mysterious thing, then it sounds logical, but if we really try
   to understand WHAT it is, then I think we really cannot improve our
   bodies genetic programming. What we CAN do though is improve our recovery
   factors and make sure were up to where we should be.

   Eating good, sleeping good, less stress, etc. Maybe improve our
   conditioning, some aerobics or high rep work for better capillarization
   (more blood = more nurtients and quicker clearing of waste products)

   One thing I do know. I practiced infrequent very low volume training for
   a while and I adapted down to where that was all I could hande. If I did
   more I felt like I was overtraining. I ended up having to suffer and
   fight to get back into better shape. Now I do routines that are still
   abbreviated, but would have killed me off a year ago, and now I finish
   with vigor and could easily train the next day as far as energy goes. :-)

Hi All:

I'm working on a book on home gym training. It strikes me as odd that
every book I've thus far seen on home gym training is illustrated
with photos taken in commercial gyms, not home gyms. While I've got
my own well equipped home gym, the point of my book is to show the
diversity of training in home gyms - and the creativity of
individuals who've shaped home gyms out of all sorts of equipment,
modifications, etc.

To that end I'm soliciting submission of photos and stories about
home gyms and the people who've put them together. If you'd like to
submit photos and your information for consideration, please email it
to me at: kayoneill@..., along with a statement giving me
permission to use your material, your name and how to contact you.

My book is aimed at the grassroots, aimed at showing how one can
enjoyh a lifetime of fitness, health, and good training results in
the comfort of their own home- with a lot of consumer advocacy
regarding what to watch for when buying equipment, how to judge good
versus inferior equipment, how to save money, how to have fun.

best regards,

Ken



[For some reason, Yahoo! doesn't let you see email addresses.  I think the only
way to send Ken photos of your home gym is to email him direct, then he can
email you back.  Btw, nice idea, Ken!


Dave M.]

( This is great advice, but my advice to you is if you're spending
the Memorial Day Weekend reading or posting things in a weight
lifting group, you need to have your head examined. So maybe this
advice will be especially useful. ;OD  )

If I Had a Time Machine

by Bill Piche

From Hardgainer #60 - May/June 99'



Every person makes mistakes. Often, we fail to learn from our
mistakes and then we repeat them. Sometimes we never learn. Once a
mistake is made, there's nothing one can do to reverse the mistake.
It's a done deal. I've made plenty of mistakes in my quest to become
bigger and stronger. What if I could do it all over again? What if I
could use a time machine and warp myself back in time? How would I do
things differently? Could I avoid making the same mistakes?

If I had the opportunity to travel back to the time when I first
started lifting weights, I would make many changes along my journey
to become bigger and stronger. Here's a list in no particular order:

1
Become a master technician of lifting technique. I can't stress
enough the importance of technique. Even if you're a genetic stud,
poor technique will eventually catch up with you and you may become
plagued by injuries. Work on your technique so every repetition looks
the same, whether it's the first rep of your first warmup set or the
last rep of a work set. Become machine-like when you lift.

2
Work out no more than two times per week. Less is definitely more.
This is a lesson that took me years to learn. If you're working hard,
two sessions per week can get the job done.

3
No explosive lifting. If you want to lift weights for a lifetime, and
have a healthy body void of injury, perform your reps with a
deliberate and constant rate. Remember that there are always people
who can lift explosively and not suffer injury. But, they are in the
minority.

4
Eat 5–6 small meals per day of good nutrient-dense food. My idea of
food used to include frozen pizza, greasy burgers, and potato chips.
Don't waste your time in the gym by not stepping up to the table and
providing the fuel necessary to pack on muscle.

5
Forget about magic potions, pills, and powders. I was constantly
looking for that magic supplement to propel me to new gains. The only
thing that happened was I got lighter—in the wallet. If any of these
supplements really did "work," they would be pulled from the shelves.
You can count on a new "wonder supplement" being pushed every year.
Someone recently asked Lyle McDonald on the internet what he thought
the best supplement was. His answer was: "Squats and food." I agree.
Spend your money on some good food instead of another fad supplement.

6
Don't perform the following exercises: press behind neck, bench press
to the neck, cambered bar bench press, stiff-legged deadlifts off
high blocks, Smith machine anything, hack squat, 45-degree plate-
loading leg press, or super-wide chins. For the majority of people,
these exercises are "body wreckers."

7
Perform the lying L-fly. I sure wish I'd performed this exercise
years ago. I started performing the lying L-fly just over a year ago,
and my shoulders have never felt better. Consult Stuart's technique
book for how to perform this exercise.

8
Don't train like you're lifting in a competition when you aren't a
competitive lifter. Too many trainees train like competitive lifters
and use low reps and heavy weights too frequently. This type of
lifting takes a toll on the body. The ramifications of this practice
may not show up for years. Even competitive lifters should limit the
use of heavy weights and low reps until just prior to a competition.

9
Do only one work set per exercise. If you can get the job done in one
set, why bother with another?

10
Perform at most 6–7 exercises at one time. Focus your effort on a few
basic exercises. Master the technique in performing these exercises.
A program doesn't have to be complicated to be effective. In fact,
some of the most productive programs are the simplest.

11
Check your ego at the door. Ego is the mortal enemy of common sense.
The macho bull being spewed by some "experts" with egos bigger than a
house will likely get you injured. Don't let your ego be your guide
in lifting.

12
Keep a detailed training log. You can't determine where you're going
if you don't know where you've been. One of my biggest mistakes was
not keeping a detailed training log. What weights did you use 12
weeks ago in your exercises? If you can't answer this question, how
do you know if you're progressing? If you can't answer the question,
start keeping a training log now!

13
When in doubt, rest more not less. Even advanced lifters will add
more sets and exercises when gains have all but dried up. If your
gains have dried up, try resting more not less.

14
Base your training on the long-term not short-term. Don't get caught
up in trying to make large gains in short periods of time. There were
countless times that I tried to progress too fast in too short a
time. I either suffered an injury, or hit a plateau. Resist the
temptation to add weight too quickly when you're having one of those
workouts where you feel like the only thing that can stop you is
kryptonite. Be patient!

15
Use fractional weight plates. The use of fractional weight plates is
related directly related to #14. For example, how can you expect to
increase 5 pounds every week in the squat for a year? Five pounds a
week for 52 weeks is 260 pounds! If you were squatting 240x20 today,
can you really expect to be squatting 500x20 in one year? Of course
not. Don't let your ego get in the way of using small plates (one
pound or less). Small increases add up to big gains over time.

16
Don't arch when performing the bench press. Arching the back when
bench pressing will only help to demonstrate strength, not build it.
It's dangerous to the lower back as well.

17
Get as much sleep as possible. Sleep is a very important element of
recovery. Staying up and watching the late show should not take
priority over the health benefits of good night's rest. Where I work,
most people's engines are running on the caffeine that they consume
by the gallon when they drink coffee each day to stay awake. If you
don't get enough sleep, you're sure to short circuit your efforts in
the gym.

18
Never buy a muscle comic book. Since you're reading this magazine,
you probably have this point covered. The muscle comics provide
unrealistic expectations. The physiques attained by the bodybuilders
in these magazines are obtainable by only a select few individuals,
and the training routines advocated would likely kill an elephant.

19
Never round your back in squats or deadlifts. "I don't care if my
lower back is rounding when I perform squats or deadlifts—I just
humped up a new PR!" If you have this attitude about rounding your
lower back in the squat or deadlift, I can almost guarantee that
lower-back pain will exist in your future; possibly, for a lifetime.
Again, work on technique and make it a priority, not an afterthought.
Become a master technician!

20
Never rotate and flare your elbows when performing the bench press.
When performing the bench press, keep your elbows from rotating at
the sticking point such that they are no longer directly beneath your
wrists. This rotation puts a tremendous strain on the shoulders. Add
in some explosive lifting and you have an explosive combination for
shoulder injuries.

21
Never wear a belt, knee wraps, or tight lifting suit. Belts, knee
wraps and lifting suits are nothing but aids to demonstrate strength,
not build it. If you're a competitive lifter and feel you must use
this equipment to be on a level playing ground, then limit their use
to just before the contest. And don't buy into the philosophy that
this equipment "prevents injuries." See #11 for another reason that
probably hits closer to the truth.

22
Squat. If you can squat, and do it consistently, you'll gain muscle
all over your body.  Once I started squatting, I grew all over.

23
Limit the use of SHIM (super high-intensity methods). Forced reps and
negatives are two examples of what I would consider SHIM. Use them
sparingly. Most trainees cannot tolerate such high-intensity methods
every single workout without burning out.

24
Deadlift every other week. The lower back is easily overtrained. The
deadlift is a total body blaster. The higher the poundages used, the
more rest is needed, especially if you're squatting hard as well.

25
Forget about gadgets, gimmicks and gizmos. There are no special
machines, techniques or training routines that are "magic." Adding
weight to the bar little by little consistently over time is the real
magic.

26
Never work out when sore. If your muscles are sore, you're not
recovered in my opinion. In fact, just because you didn't get sore,
or the soreness has subsided, doesn't mean you're ready to hit the
weights again. Experiment with recovery time. Depending on what you
did in your last workout, it could be significant period before
you're truly recovered even after soreness has subsided.

27
Focus on the basic compound exercises. Squats, deadlifts, Trap Bar
deadlifts, presses, rows, chins and bench presses are all examples of
exercises with a definite bang for the buck for building muscle and
strength. Leg extensions, triceps pushdowns, concentration curls,
shoulder laterals and pec flyes are not.

28
Use a range-of-motion in your exercises suitable to your body
structure and flexibility without exaggeration. Don't perform
exercises with exaggeration in the stretch positions. This will
likely lead to injury and you don't get any benefit from the extra
stretch.

29
Pack it in when necessary. If you begin a workout and everything
seems to be going wrong, don't be afraid to pack it in and come back
another day.  Maybe your lower back starts to stiffen up, your mind
is wandering because of other distractions in your life, and you've a
cold to boot. Remember, it's just one workout, and missing one
workout or simply returning to work out the following day will not
kill your progress. In fact, you may save yourself from injury or
falling into a bigger rut.

30
Put training in the proper perspective in life. Your life should not
revolve around your training. There are plenty of other elements in
life that should take precedence over training. Don't get your
priorities mixed up!

For every one of the thirty items in this list, I used to do the
exact opposite. Unfortunately, there's no machine to send me back in
time to start over. Don't be afraid to admit that you've made a
mistake in your training. If you get injured, you've made a mistake.
Try and determine what led to the mistake, and make sure you write it
down so you can avoid repeating it. Hopefully, by reflecting on my
errors and presenting the appropriate changes to make, this article
will help you to avoid making mistakes in your training.

<clintmichels23@y...> wrote:

> i wnt from 315-325-350-365-385-405-425 ...

Interesting and very rare case. Would you mind to give us more
details: you said that your previous record was 315 before you
started climbing, how many reps you was able to do with that 315
before adjusting your routine. On which way, how seriously and how
long did you train deadlift before. Did you trained some similar
exercise - like squat or SLDL - more seriously and progressed better
in previous training than you did in deadlift?

I'm asking because such cases of fast progress in experienced
trainees are extremely rare, and I'm trying to figure out what
happened.

Congratulation on more than excelent progress.

>Pedro,
>
>As Robert DeNiro said, "You're good, You!"
>
>Pappy

Thanks, Pappy! Nobody trashes AJ in this digest and gets away with it! ;)

Pedro

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Actually, Jones didn't develop any of these concepts, they have been well
established concepts in exercise physiology research way before Jones came
up with Nautilus. Also, his machines don't do what you say they do, they are
variable resistance machines that change the contraction force of a muscle
differently than what a barbell or dumbbell would. Of course they (Nautilus
and Jones) tried to sell that as the end-all-be-all in strength training,
but their claims have been proven false by research out of the Univ. of KS
(JN of str and cond res) and elsewhere. Why? Because it ain't research that
they did, just hype to sell product.

On 5/28/04 11:47 AM, "Pedro M." <o_messias@...> wrote:

>> Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 20:48:45 -0600
>> From: Milo Champ <milochamp@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re Singing Pigs
>>
>> Whatever Arthur Jones did isn't research. Sheeesh.
>
> Arthur Jones created the only tools that can accurately measure actual
> muscular strength. Among other things these are the only tools that provide
> 1) complete isolation of the joint being tested; 2) correction for the
> effect of gravity acting on the involved body parts; 3) accurate correlation
> of joint angle with measured torque; 4) static testing to eliminate the
> effect of inertia and impact forces; 5) correction for the effect of stored
> elastic energy in tissues. The relevance of each and everyone of the above
> factors has been subsequently corroborated by research published in peer
> reviewed journals. For each of the points mentioned:
>
> 1) Graves, J.E., Webb, D.C., Pollock, M.L., Matkozich, J., Leggett, S.H.,
> Carpenter, D.M., Foster, D.N., Cirulli, J. Pelvic stabilization during
> resistance training: its effect on the development of lumbar extension
> strength. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1994
> Feb;75(2):210-5
>
> 2) Welsch, M.A., Williams, P.A., Pollock, M.L., Graves, J.E., Foster, D.N.,
> Fulton, M.N. Quantification of full-range-of-motion unilateral and bilateral
> knee flexion and extension torque ratios. Archives of Physical Medicine and
> Rehabilitation.1998 Aug;79(8):971-8.
>
> 3) Graves, J.E., Pollock, M.L., Jones, A.E., Colvin, A.B., Leggett, S.H.
> Specificity of limited range of motion variable resistance training.
> Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1989 Feb;21(1):84-9.
>
> 4) Iossifidou, A.N., Baltzopoulos, V. Inertial effects on moment development
> during isokinetic concentric knee extension testing. Journal of Orthopaedic
> and Sports Physical Therapy. 2000 Jun;30(6):317-23; discussion 324-7.
>
> 5) Too many to mention here, but just about every study concerning the
> stretch-shortening cycle or more generally the biomechanical properties of
> muscle and tendons.
>
> Now, Arthur Jones was the first person to identify these factors as absolute
> requirements for the accurate testing of muscular strength. How do you
> suppose he arrived at these conclusions? Perhaps devine inspiration? Blind
> luck?
>
> Pedro
>

--
Milo

The Farmer's Walk Rules

1) Chin-up (Palm facing backward) 1x 8-12
2) Dips 1x 8-12
3) Pull-over (cable) 1x 8-12 + Pull-down (cable) 1x 8-12  ------------(+) means
that it's done immediately after
4) inclined Leg press 1x 20
5) Bent-over rowing Barbell 1x 8-12
6) Fly dumbell 1x 8-12 + Bench press------------(+) means that it's done
immediately after
7) Deadlift 1x 20
8) Shrugs 1x 8-12 ------------------- 1 time per 2 sessions
9) Squat 1x 20
10) Calv on inclined leg press 1x 20

I think it's certainly on the right track, but if you're a guy who really has
trouble gaining weight, I don't think this much volume makes sense.  Training
every 3 days is ok because you're just starting out, but within a year, you'll
want to really scale back.  I'd say at this point train your whole body every 3
days, then switch in about 3-4 months to a split routine, training half the body
every 3 days.  Then, over the next few months, increase the rest days in
between, so that by the end of a year, you're doing half the body each week. 
That said, I think the volume here is too high for a hardgainer.  Here's
something I'd recommend:

Squat 20 reps - do this as a breathing squat.  For a description, buy Super
Squats by Randal Stossen.  Basically, it means you use a weight you'd normally
use for 10 reps, and at the top of each rep, take at least 3 really, really deep
breaths.  Then do 20 reps.  Don't limit it to 3 - take as many as you need, but
at least 3.  Do this first because the legs are the hardest body part to train -
they make you the sickest, and this is the hardest exercise you'll do.

Straight leg deadlifts - one set of about 10-15 to failure

Bent over row, or chins, or pulldowns - pick your favorite, or alternate.  One
set of 10-15 to failure.

Bench press - 1 set of 10-15 to failure.

And that's it.  You can toss in a biceps curl, or grip work, or calf extensions,
or whatever, but this is all you need.  When you go to a split routine, try
doing squats with chest and deadlifts with back, and add maybe 1 or 2 additional
exercises.

As for eating - doesn't sound like you have to worry about getting fat!  Eat a
pint a day of Hagen Daz Butternut ice cream.  Drink a quart a day of milk. 
Drink a gallon a day of water.  Eat big meals - eat no junk food, they just
waste hunger.  You need to take advantage of hunger.  What should you eat? 
Whole grains, meats, cheeses, nuts, fruits, vegetables.  Make sure you get
plenty of protein and fat.  Make this shake in the morning and work on it all
day:

1 cup cream

1 cup whole milk

some crushed ice

2 tablespoons peanut butter

1 serving vanilla ice cream

some whey protein - isopure is good, so is designer whey, so is bomber blend

1 banana

Sample menu:

Breakfast - 3 slices of whole wheat toast with butter, 5 eggs scrambled with
mushrooms, butter, cream, cheddar cheese, and a side of bacon
Snacks - cheese, raw vegetables, ice cream, milk, nuts

Lunch - 1 whole roasted chicken, brocolli, whole wheat pasta with parmesan
cheese, cream, and asparagus

Dinner - 24 ounce prime rib, stir fried vegetables, shrimp, and chicken breast
with olive oil and parmesan cheese

This is much higher in carbs than the weight gain menu I wrote last week, but
this guy isn't worried at all about gaining weight, so what the heck!



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

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

Well hi there,

As I said, I am h.i.t. to the core well !!!

I have damn defended h.i.t. a very lot recently, wasted to much time to be
honest, and have yet to see a study, that proves multi set, periodization are
better lower sets, as all these study's are a shambles, they are very biest,
they give little detail, like how long did each rep last, how many reps, did the
rep go to failure, did it have forced reps, then negs???

I think Arthur Jones and Ellington Darden are the masters of the iron by far,
they dedicated their lives to it, and Ellington has a new book out over 25 years
after his first,

The other styles come and go.

as Ellington said don't Knox it till you tried it, but do people try it right,
well if they don't get results, they definitely have not understood the
principles.

In addition, when I look at strongmen sites and power lifting they are all for
less is better,



I have trained a very long time using h.i.t. and DO not recommend this kind of
training to a beginner or intermediate trainer, beginners should start their
training each bodypart three times a week and intermediate I would say train
each body part two times pre week.



My training is not always like this sometimes I specialise on a certain body
part, and I always have at least two ten day layoffs.

And I use periodization in my training, always have even before I came on the
web and never even new it was called that, as far as I can see its part of
h.i.t. PLEASE READ REP. RANGE BELOW OK.

For six training set ions I work in the 2 sec up 4 sec down range for 6 to 12
reps = 36sec. to 72 sec. then for the next six training set ions I work the
4sec. up 4 sec. down in the 10 to 12 rep range = 80sec to 96 sec range, then for
the next six training set ions I work super slow working in the 6 to 8 rep range
= 90sec. to 120sec range,

I also alternate this like say legs are doing super slow and arms are doing 2
sec. up 4 sec. down in the same week if you get my jest,

In addition, I train with a watch, which bleeps out the seconds.

And yes, you definitely need a training log to look back on,

I work now mostly on nautilus machines, the big blue ones the second-generation
ones, they are as smooth as a baby's bottom, and I call it pain in pure comfort



Tues. morning, shoulders, nautilus duo shoulder.

Not a real pre-exhaustion but I move from each exercise to the next in exactly
ten sec. and that applies on all my training exercises unless stated,

Set 1, nautilus lateral raise 1 and a ¼ looking for 12 reps,

Set 2, nautilus lateral raise normal reps looking for 8 reps,

Set 3, nautilus shoulder press normal reps looking for 8 reps.



At this moment in time I workout on my own, so I work to failure the try and
hold the weight in the contracted position for 10 sec. then a 20 sec. negative.



Tues. night triceps,

Set 1. Nautilus multi triceps set 1 super slow looking for 8 reps,

Set 2. Nautilus multi triceps reduce the weight normal reps looking for ten
reps,

Set 3. Nautilus shoulder press, normal reps looking for 8 reps,

Set 4. Lat pressdown on pulley superslow looking for 8 reps,



thur. Night legs

Set 1. Nautilus leg ext. 4x4 looking for 8 reps,

Set 2. Nautilus leg ext. reduce weight normal looking for 6 reps,

Set 3. Leg press 4x4 looking for 12 reps,

One min. rest

Set 4. Nautilus leg ext. normal looking for 12 reps,

Set 5. Hack squat normal looking for 8 reps



Fri morning biceps

Set 1. Nautilus multi biceps normal looking for 10 reps,

Set 2. Nautilus multi biceps sr looking for 30sec. in each stage

I might add a set of pull-ups to this all depends.



Fri night forearm, traps

Set 1. Decline wrist curl normal looking for 12 reps

Set 2. Forward wrist roller on pulley machine once up

Set 3. Reverse wrist roller once up

Set 4. One armed shrugs on pulley machine 4x4 looking for 12 reps



Sun morning lower back

Set1. Dead lift super slow looking for 5 reps

Set 2. One min rest add weight dead lift normal looking for 6 reps



Sun night lats

Set 1. Nautilus super pullover normal looking for 10 reps

Set 2. Parallel grip lat pulldowns sr looking for 20 sec. in each stage

I add a set of rows every other week to this,



When I say looking for so and so reps I usually get them,

And yes I know all about one set to failure, and I should be training all my
body in one training day and rest the rest of the week, and I am doing to many
sets, but in the last year I have changed from 80% free weights 20% machines to
80% machines and 20% free weight I am progressing great and not meet a sticking
point, and I know this and that, but as I said its not written in stone only in
books, and this is the way I can put all my intensity into my workouts and
really look forward and enjoy my workouts.

It's similar to how d.y. works out.



I might change this routine I might say specialise on a certain bodypart for a
couple of weeks.

Its late here I might have forgotten something.





Hope this helps people,

Any questions please.



all the below is from ellingtons books, stick to the basics but use veriaty, i
know that contradicks itself but i think most of you know what i mean,

did someone say periodization was better than h.i.t. please see the below,
periodization is part of h.i.t.



First for any new comers, 2 x 4 = 2 seconds lifting the weight 4 seconds
lowering, (we will call that style normal reps) working in the 6 to 12 rep range
6 reps = 36sec. 12 reps = 72sec.

  4 x 4 = 4 seconds lifting the weight 4 seconds lowering, working again in the 6
to 12 rep range

But now 6 reps = 48sec. 12 reps = 96sec.

ss = (super slow) 10 seconds lifting the weight 5 seconds lowering, working in
the 4 to 8 rep range 4 reps = 60sec. 8 reps = 120sec.

Sr = (stage reps) work 20 sec. in each stage of a lift, divide the lift into 1/3
segments working up to 30 sec. in each stage, you work from the hardest stage
first to the easiest, working in the 60sec. to 90sec. range,

1 and a ¼ = once your in the fully contracted position of a lift lower 1 ¼ back
down again then return to the contracted position, working in the 6 to 12 rep
range,

neg. (negative only) pick a weight that is 40% heavier than you normally use and
just lower it for a count of 10 sec. for 6 to 12 reps,

breakdowns = after you have gone to failure, immediately have a breakdown (nor
not a mental one hehehe) reduce the weight by say 20% 40% or even 60% so you can
keep the reps going on to another failure sets in (then you can have a mental
breakdown hehehe)

Most people find higher rep range better for the legs.



thank you wayne






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

So on average, I'd need to quadruple the sets to double the results.  Doesn't
sound like much gain in the way of efficiency - more like a huge loss.  Assuming
this holds, of course.  In my personal experience, my gains have been far better
with low volume than ever before.  And, of course, I've left out the opportunity
costs of high volume.  So, and in the end I think this settles it - you train
your way, I train mine.  I don't come here to argue and show that my way is best
- I come to answer questions and provide suggestions to those interested.

Milo Champ <milochamp@...> wrote:Rich, let me first tell you that this
isn't about "my way is best." Frankly,
I don't exactly know what "my way" is because I'm constantly changing stuff.
What I do know, however, is that after doing HIT for a while, and now being
back on track with a periodized approach, THAT'S what I do. Now, I don't
know that the Volume people know any better what that means than Hit people
know what HIT means, I follow a periodized approach.

But you have a good question. A new study looked at a total of 37 studies
that could be compared to each other statistically (refer back to Krieger's
posts a few months ago on that) and essentially found that volumes of 1-3
sets per exercise were the same and about half as effective as volumes of
4-8 sets. Also, training intensities of 85% were optimal were intensities
between 50-70% resulted in minimal improvements.

[Jn of Strength & Cond Res. 377-382, 18(2), 2004.]

So to answer your question, it seems that we're talking about something like
up to 50% of a difference.

Look, let's get right to the heart of the matter. If you're an athlete you
need to train in a way that gives you the most results, at least if you want
to win. NO STUDY has found low-volume and training to failure to deliver as
well as a periodized approach.

Second, if you're not an athlete but still want to get the most out of your
training, HIT ain't the way to go. If you just want to train to have fun and
to be fit, go for it because even HIT does result in training gains. Just
not optimal gains.

These are the facts and let's leave the ego and "training my way" out of it.




On 5/27/04 9:38 AM, "Rich" <tenncjed@...> wrote:

> Mylo,
>
> I am curious how much difference you beileve there is between HIT, and I use
> that term to designate a protocol of low volumn (usually one working set and
> possible one or two warm-up sets) limited exercises, and limited workouts
> (usually only one or maybe two per week), and your volumn approach?
>
> Are we talking 5%, 15%, 25%, what?
>
> All this effort being spent defending the "my way is best" approach, misses
> the point.  I can't speak for everyone here, but I know why I gravitated to
> HIT; it is more efficient in time (1.5 hrs per week versus 4-6 hrs per week)
> and produced better results for me.  Even if the resulfs were the same, I
> would stay with the HIT approach since it isn't worth the extra time
> committment.  Now if you told me that I was leaving 20% gains on the table by
> not using your approach, I might decide that the committment is worth it.
>
> But that is my question...how much more efficient do you believe your approach
> is?  If I were to spend a year working my routine and was able to expect a
> given percentage of improvement of my 1RM on my squat (lets say 5% for
> arguements sake), how much more should I expect with your approach?
>
> Give me a good reason to spend that much more time in the gym.  :-)
>
> Rich
>
>
> OK, Impy, you've got a point. I think that the research is quite clear
> that
> single set training to failure does result in training gains, just not as
> much as multiple sets and not training to failure.
>
> So it seems to me that your training should be tailored to suit your needs
> and just doing whatever you have fun doing. I think a lot of times we,
> including myself, get wrapped up in training for maximal gains and the way
> the stars do. But you know, training just to train is OK, too.
>
> On 5/26/04 4:24 PM, "Impy McFerguson" <impymcferguson@...> wrote:
>
>> --- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, Milo Champ <milochamp@e...> wrote:
>>> The way I see it is even simpler than Impy.
>>>
>>> What does the research say?
>>>
>>> I have yet to see any study that finds HIT to be a hit in trained
>> athletes.
>>
>> What about the rest of us, the untrained athletes? The people who's
>> lives don't revolve around training? Athletes schmathletes. I ain't
>> got the genes, time or ability to be an athlete. But I get your drift.
>>
>

Impy wrote:
I'd sure love to improve my recovery
ability. As long
as it's not drugs. Any good information on this?
Maybe I should do more volume and frequency and less
intensity for
awhile. But I must give HD a good, honest shot. (...)
If I had better recovery, I'd get further, faster,
and feel better.
So any info on this would be appreciated.
*********************************************************

I've heard this spoke of too. If we think of 'recovery ability' as an
undefined mysterious thing, then it sounds logical, but if we really try
to understand WHAT it is, then I think we really cannot improve our
bodies genetic programming. What we CAN do though is improve our recovery
factors and make sure were up to where we should be.

Eating good, sleeping good, less stress, etc. Maybe improve our
conditioning, some aerobics or high rep work for better capillarization
(more blood = more nurtients and quicker clearing of waste products)

One thing I do know. I practiced infrequent very low volume training for
a while and I adapted down to where that was all I could hande. If I did
more I felt like I was overtraining. I ended up having to suffer and
fight to get back into better shape. Now I do routines that are still
abbreviated, but would have killed me off a year ago, and now I finish
with vigor and could easily train the next day as far as energy goes. :-)

Ron

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Hi there,

   Nice one Pedro,

   i think for people to come here to our h.i.t. forum, is ok but to put h.i.t.
down that's another matter, i think most people know that h.v. is not the way to
train, and after the initial gains after about three months stop no progress ok
progress but very slow, so lets forget about h.v. ok it works if your a genetic
freak, or will work after say ten years of training, not for me,



   and as Pedro said REAL research" is grossly biased in favor of periodized
systems PLEASE COULD I SEE SOME OF THESE STUDYS,as i have yet to find a detailed
study, which holds,

   Funny thing i always thought periodized, i will explain in my traing log post.



   Pedro said again

   Now, Arthur Jones was the first person to identify these factors as absolute
requirements for the accurate testing of muscular strength. How do you
   suppose he arrived at these conclusions? Perhaps devine inspiration? Blind
luck?



   I really wish people would read some Arthur Jones and Ellington Darden before
they make assessments,



   i might have said this before, but i myself until recently owned my own gym,
and trained 1000's on h.i.t. with great results, and was lucky to travel the
world and trained 100's with great results, the only problem i found that its to
hard for most people mentally and physically,

   i myself think Arthur Jones is a genius stop, and Ellington Darden has sold
over 4 million books in about 25 years, and has another one coming out i think
that sums up the susses of h.i.t.



   Thank you Wayne





   >
   >Whatever Arthur Jones did isn't research. Sheeesh.

   Arthur Jones created the only tools that can accurately measure actual
   muscular strength. Among other things these are the only tools that provide
   1) complete isolation of the joint being tested; 2) correction for the
   effect of gravity acting on the involved body parts; 3) accurate correlation
   of joint angle with measured torque; 4) static testing to eliminate the
   effect of inertia and impact forces; 5) correction for the effect of stored
   elastic energy in tissues. The relevance of each and everyone of the above
   factors has been subsequently corroborated by research published in peer
   reviewed journals. For each of the points mentioned:

   1) Graves, J.E., Webb, D.C., Pollock, M.L., Matkozich, J., Leggett, S.H.,
   Carpenter, D.M., Foster, D.N., Cirulli, J. Pelvic stabilization during
   resistance training: its effect on the development of lumbar extension
   strength. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1994
   Feb;75(2):210-5

   2) Welsch, M.A., Williams, P.A., Pollock, M.L., Graves, J.E., Foster, D.N.,
   Fulton, M.N. Quantification of full-range-of-motion unilateral and bilateral
   knee flexion and extension torque ratios. Archives of Physical Medicine and
   Rehabilitation.1998 Aug;79(8):971-8.

   3) Graves, J.E., Pollock, M.L., Jones, A.E., Colvin, A.B., Leggett, S.H.
   Specificity of limited range of motion variable resistance training.
   Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1989 Feb;21(1):84-9.

   4) Iossifidou, A.N., Baltzopoulos, V. Inertial effects on moment development
   during isokinetic concentric knee extension testing. Journal of Orthopaedic
   and Sports Physical Therapy. 2000 Jun;30(6):317-23; discussion 324-7.

   5) Too many to mention here, but just about every study concerning the
   stretch-shortening cycle or more generally the biomechanical properties of
   muscle and tendons.

   Now, Arthur Jones was the first person to identify these factors as absolute
   requirements for the accurate testing of muscular strength. How do you
   suppose he arrived at these conclusions? Perhaps devine inspiration? Blind
   luck?

   Pedro

For the past week:

Thursday:  20 rep deadlifts, alternating between sldl and sumo, breathing on
each rep

Rader Chest Pull, 20 times, at least 10 seconds each

Bent row, 2 sets of 10

20 weighted pushups

Tuesday:  10 "combo lifts"=1 clean, 1 front squat, 1 military press, 1 overhead
squat, 1 front squat, 1 push press, 1 overhead squat=1 rep

3X3 SLDL

Rader Chest Pull

Bent Rows, 2 sets of 12

Weighted pushups



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

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

On 5/28/04 8:42 AM, "Rich" <tenncjed@...> wrote:

> The question is, is 10-20lbs in yearly increase worth
> the additional 182 +- hours in the gym for that
> increase?

Yes, that's absolutely correct!

Again, I never argued that a typical HIT approach won't give you gains. I
DID argue that it won't give you as much as a periodized approach. It's
entirely up to you to decide what you're happy with. I just hope that you're
having fun with training and that you stick to it. Isn't that what it's all
about (unless your income or scholarship depends on your performance)?


--
Milo

The Farmer's Walk Rules

Hehehe, I love how the Farmer's Walk kicks my ass.

But seriously, I'm just arguing what the research says, not trying to
convince anyone how to train.

It's like this, ALL of the research says that smoking will kill you. You've
got the information. But it's up to you to decide if you want to start or
quit smoking. Similarly, ALL of the research says that multiple sets are
superior to single sets. It's up to each individual to decide what they want
to do.

It's not like I care how anyone trains. But I do care when people say that
single sets work, that smoking won't kill you ("Iv'e been smoking for 40
years and I'm fine), and that the Holocaust never happened.

On 5/28/04 7:58 AM, "Greg Parker" <Greg.Parker@...> wrote:

> Milo,
>
> I am surprised about your questions regarding HIT vs Volume etc -
> especially when at the end of your posts you have "The Farmers Walk Rules".
> I would have to assume that anyone who performs the Farmers Walk would not
> be doing it in a "typical volume fashion"
>
>


Milo

The Farmer's Walk Rules

Simple, periodization incorporates various different training phases that
manipulate the athletes training volume, intensity, frequency, duration,
density, etc. HIT, by some definitions, is just training to failure for one
set; there's no manipulation.

On 5/28/04 7:43 AM, "Greg Parker" <Greg.Parker@...> wrote:

>
> What makes you think that you can't apply HIT principles to periodization
> ??
>
>
> Message: 11
>  Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 20:48:45 -0600
>  From: Milo Champ <milochamp@...>
> Subject: Re: Re Singing Pigs
>
> Whatever Arthur Jones did isn't research. Sheeesh. And just because there
> are some coaches out there that use it "successfully" doesn't mean they
> couldn't do better. In fact, if you reviewed REAL research you would know
> that HIT does work; it just doesn't work as well as periodized systems. But
> of course that's sort of limited because the HIT people don't agree on what
> HIT is, despite your views, so the research can only look at one particular
> concept, which tends to be single sets vs multiple sets and training to
> failure vs not training to failure. But again, HIT can't really be
> researched all that well because HIT isn't clearly defined. Do some
> research. :)
>
> On 5/26/04 7:20 AM, ""Pappy" Palazzo" <ppalazzo@...> wrote:
>
>> HA!  Arthur Jones was doing research with athletes at West Point 30 years
>> ago......In addition, how can you make a blanket statement regarding HIT
> as
>> a non-factor for trained athletes when a percentage of Strength Coaches
> in
>> the NFL use that system very successfully?
>>
>> The reason there is no exact definition for HIT is because no governing
> body
>> has created an official definition, yet the basics are the same, no
> matter
>> how it is defined.  Do some research.
>>
>> Pappy
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Milo Champ [mailto:milochamp@...]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 6:44 PM
>> To: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [HIT Digest] Re Singing Pigs
>>
>>
>> The way I see it is even simpler than Impy.
>>
>> What does the research say?
>>
>> I have yet to see any study that finds HIT to be a hit in trained
>> athletes.
>> And I also have yet to see a definition of HIT that all the hitters agree
>> on. If you don't even know what it is you subscribe to, how can you
> defend
>> it - or test it, for that matter.
>
>
>
>


--
Milo

The Farmer's Walk Rules

Actually, I'm quoting research that encompasses nearly 40 studies and
analyzed them. This is way more powerful than just picking one study. What
you quote means nothing, PARTICULARLY in light of it SUPPORTING what I've
been saying all along: single sets and training to failure does result in
training gains - just not as much as multiple sets and not training to
failure.

Dude, pay attention!

On 5/28/04 6:37 AM, ""Pappy"" <ppalazzo@...> wrote:

> Milo,
>
> It's interesting how you quote only the facts that support your view...I
> just cut and pasted the first report that came out of my web search:
>
> Pappy
>
> Single Set vs. Multiple Sets for Adult Fitness
> By Diego de Hoyos, MS, and Michael L. Pollock, PhD
>
>
> Both competitive athletes and fitness enthusiasts report improvements in
> muscular strength and size (hypertrophy) with resistance training programs
> that require multiple sets (often three to six) per exercise. At the same
> time, many individuals do not have the time, energy or recuperative power to
> include a multiple-set-per-muscle-group resistance training program in their
> overall fitness regimen. Over the last 15 years, several research studies
> have been published that support the use of low-volume resistance training
> (one set per exercise) as an effective and efficient alternative to a
> high-volume program for adult fitness (overall health and physical fitness).
>
>
> Origin of the Multiple-Set Recommendation
> The end of World War II marked the beginning of the modern resistance
> training era. Thomas DeLorme, MD, an Army rehabilitation expert,
> experimented with resistance training for the rehabilitation of paratroopers
> and other soldiers recovering from leg injuries. His early training programs
> consisted of 10 sets of 10 or more repetitions of leg extensions. These
> programs produced tremendous increases in leg strength, but many of his
> patients had difficulty completing the prescribed workouts. Through trial
> and error, DeLorme and Watkins (1948) found that for increasing leg
> strength, performing three sets of 10 repetitions was as effective as, and
> more time efficient than, performing 10 sets. Their decision to recommend
> three sets of 10 repetitions for a resistance training program was based
> largely on their observation that individuals could successfully complete
> the three-set workout.
>
>
> A study by Berger in 1962 was the first published report to show that three
> sets per exercise were better for improving strength than one or two sets.
> (See the chart "Strength Gains with 1 Set, 2 Sets or 3 Sets of Resistance
> Training.") In Berger's study, the three-set training group achieved
> significantly greater one-repetition maximum (1 RM) bench press strength
> after 12 weeks of training, but the 1 RM difference among the one-, two- and
> three-set training groups was less than four pounds.
>
>
> Effects of Low-Volume Training on Muscle Strength
> In the 1980s, emphasis shifted toward establishing a "well-rounded" training
> program that included the three exercise components of endurance,
> flexibility and strength. Each component had to be streamlined to fit into
> the total training time most adults had available for exercise. While
> low-volume, one-set-per-exercise resistance training was clearly more time
> efficient than multiple-set training, the effectiveness of a low-volume
> program was not clear.
>
>
> Seven of the eight studies summarized in the chart on the following pages
> show similar training adaptations to one-, two- and three-set-per-exercise
> training programs. The Berger study (1962) is the exception. Subjects for
> all these studies were adults who were either sedentary or were training for
> overall fitness prior to the study.
>
>
> First, it is clear from the chart that one-set training promotes significant
> increases in strength for both upper- and lower-body muscle groups, as well
> as postural muscles. Second, overall and per-workout strength increases are
> similar for one-, two- and three-set training.
>
>
> Change in muscle strength was the primary focus of these studies, but what
> about the effect of different training volumes on muscular hypertrophy and
> endurance? Recent studies show that one-set and three-set training groups
> show equal improvements in muscular hypertrophy and endurance. Pollock et
> al. (in press) and Starkey et al. (1996) measured upper- and lower-body
> muscle thickness, using B-mode ultrasound, and found that both one-set and
> three-set training groups had similar amounts of hypertrophy after six
> months (Pollock) and 14 weeks (Starkey) of training. Studies by de Hoyos et
> al. (1997) and Hass et al. (in press) found that 10 to 13 weeks of training
> at 8 to 15 RM stimulated large increases in muscular endurance-increases
> that were similar for both training groups.
>
>
>
>
> Changes Based on Length of Training
> Although the research results show very convincingly that one set is
> generally as effective as three sets per exercise, all these studies were
> short-term and conducted with individuals who had not previously done
> resistance training. Studies have recently examined the impact of
> longer-term training programs and more intense weight loads.
>
>
> Two studies (de Hoyos et al. in press; Kraemer et al. 1995) compared six to
> nine months of one-set and multiple-set training. Neither study showed a
> significant difference between groups after three to four months of
> training. However, in collegiate tennis players, Kraemer et al. found that
> only the multiple-set training group continued to significantly increase
> strength during five additional months of training. For the multiple-set
> group only, the training program was periodized after the initial four
> months and included higher-intensity exercise (3-5 RM training loads), which
> may have stimulated the continued strength gains. In contrast, de Hoyos et
> al, found continued increases in muscular strength, endurance and
> hypertrophy in both one-set and three-set training groups during three to
> six months of training. Improvements were similar for both groups except for
> chest press endurance, which was greater in the three-set group.
>
>
> In a third study, Hass et al. (in press) measured training adaptations in 42
> experienced resistance trainers. These individuals had been resistance
> training for an average of six years and had been using one set per exercise
> for at least one year. Training was closely monitored for 13 weeks, and 21
> of these individuals were randomized into a three-set-per-exercise training
> group. Both groups had similar increases in muscle strength and endurance.
> Thus, the results showed that even in experienced lifters, additional sets
> may not improve training results. More research is needed to confirm these
> findings and to determine which factors are the most effective in
> stimulating muscular strength, endurance and hypertrophy in long-term
> programs conducted in the adult fitness setting.
>
>
> Summary and Recommendations
> One-set resistance training has been shown to be an effective and efficient
> means of increasing muscular strength, endurance and hypertrophy in both
> novice and experienced resistance trainers. Multiple-set training has not
> been shown to provide additional benefits in the adult fitness setting. This
> is consistent with the American College of Sports Medicine's resistance
> training recommendations for adult fitness: one set of eight to 12
> repetitions of eight to 10 exercises that involve all major muscle groups.
>
>
> Since many adults interested in general fitness cite lack of time to train
> as the primary reason for discontinuing a program, one-set training may
> allow for better program adherence. Most of the reviewed studies used the
> adult fitness training model, which emphasizes a moderate repetition range
> (eight to 15 reps) to stimulate a balanced improvement in muscular strength
> and endurance. This type of training program may also prove safer for
> middle-aged and older adults by reducing the risk of both an acute
> cardiovascular event and musculoskeletal injury. For the more serious weight
> lifter or competitive athlete, a periodized, multiple-set program
> incorporating heavier loads (e.g., 3-6 RM) usually elicits greater gains in
> strength and power.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milo Champ [mailto:milochamp@...]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:34 PM
> To: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [HIT Digest] Re Singing Pigs
>
>
> Rich, let me first tell you that this isn't about "my way is best."
> Frankly,
> I don't exactly know what "my way" is because I'm constantly changing
> stuff.
> What I do know, however, is that after doing HIT for a while, and now
> being
> back on track with a periodized approach, THAT'S what I do. Now, I don't
> know that the Volume people know any better what that means than Hit
> people
> know what HIT means, I follow a periodized approach.
>
> But you have a good question. A new study looked at a total of 37 studies
> that could be compared to each other statistically (refer back to
> Krieger's
> posts a few months ago on that) and essentially found that volumes of 1-3
> sets per exercise were the same and about half as effective as volumes of
> 4-8 sets. Also, training intensities of 85% were optimal were intensities
> between 50-70% resulted in minimal improvements.
>
> [Jn of Strength & Cond Res. 377-382, 18(2), 2004.]
>
> So to answer your question, it seems that we're talking about something
> like
> up to 50% of a difference.
>
> Look, let's get right to the heart of the matter. If you're an athlete you
> need to train in a way that gives you the most results, at least if you
> want
> to win. NO STUDY has found low-volume and training to failure to deliver
> as
> well as a periodized approach.
>
> Second, if you're not an athlete but still want to get the most out of
> your
> training, HIT ain't the way to go. If you just want to train to have fun
> and
> to be fit, go for it because even HIT does result in training gains. Just
> not optimal gains.
>
> These are the facts and let's leave the ego and "training my way" out of
> it.
>
>
>
>
> On 5/27/04 9:38 AM, "Rich" <tenncjed@...> wrote:
>
>> Mylo,
>>
>> I am curious how much difference you beileve there is between HIT, and I
> use
>> that term to designate a protocol of low volumn (usually one working set
> and
>> possible one or two warm-up sets) limited exercises, and limited
> workouts
>> (usually only one or maybe two per week), and your volumn approach?
>>
>> Are we talking 5%, 15%, 25%, what?
>>
>> All this effort being spent defending the "my way is best" approach,
> misses
>> the point.  I can't speak for everyone here, but I know why I gravitated
> to
>> HIT; it is more efficient in time (1.5 hrs per week versus 4-6 hrs per
> week)
>> and produced better results for me.  Even if the resulfs were the same,
> I
>> would stay with the HIT approach since it isn't worth the extra time
>> committment.  Now if you told me that I was leaving 20% gains on the
> table by
>> not using your approach, I might decide that the committment is worth
> it.
>>
>> But that is my question...how much more efficient do you believe your
> approach
>> is?  If I were to spend a year working my routine and was able to expect
> a
>> given percentage of improvement of my 1RM on my squat (lets say 5% for
>> arguements sake), how much more should I expect with your approach?
>>
>> Give me a good reason to spend that much more time in the gym.  :-)
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> OK, Impy, you've got a point. I think that the research is quite clear
>> that
>> single set training to failure does result in training gains, just not
> as
>> much as multiple sets and not training to failure.
>>
>> So it seems to me that your training should be tailored to suit your
> needs
>> and just doing whatever you have fun doing. I think a lot of times we,
>> including myself, get wrapped up in training for maximal gains and the
> way
>> the stars do. But you know, training just to train is OK, too.
>>
>> On 5/26/04 4:24 PM, "Impy McFerguson" <impymcferguson@...> wrote:
>>
>>> --- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, Milo Champ <milochamp@e...> wrote:
>>>> The way I see it is even simpler than Impy.
>>>>
>>>> What does the research say?
>>>>
>>>> I have yet to see any study that finds HIT to be a hit in trained
>>> athletes.
>>>
>>> What about the rest of us, the untrained athletes? The people who's
>>> lives don't revolve around training? Athletes schmathletes. I ain't
>>> got the genes, time or ability to be an athlete. But I get your drift.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--
Milo

The Farmer's Walk Rules

ACTUALLY, what you describe is a case study that has little, if any
application to the real world in the sense that you could generalize the
findings to other people.

And that's the main problem with all of the gurus out there. They take their
own experiences, gathered in THE most unscientific way, and apply it to
everyone else. Research, on the other hand, controls for all sorts of
variables that could mess with the outcome, uses a broad spectrum of
subjects, and the results can therefore be applied to a similar population
with a minimal margin of error (usually 5%, though this can differ dependent
on how the scientists set up their research). THAT'S something you can hang
your hat on. NOT what Jones did or how you, I, or Impy train.

On 5/28/04 6:11 AM, ""Pappy"" <ppalazzo@...> wrote:

> Milo,
>
> You know I can't let this one slide.....Maybe I used too many multi-syllable
> words for you...Let me explain it more plainly for you...The application of
> a method of training practiced or viewed and recorded over an extended
> period of time by individuals training (such as you, or Impy, or myself,
> etc.) will produce results that can be  evaluated with a scholarly or
> scientific approach.  I.E. THE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCES THAT WE ALL HAVE AND
> SHARE ON THE HITDIGEST.  That is what I refer to in my personal quotation of
> "Real Research".  AND, the reason I quoted the definition of "research" is
> because you said what Arthur Jones did was not real research....But, maybe
> that went over your head, too.  Nevertheless, I would like you to explain
> the difference.
>
> If you prefer to stick to "Published Research Only" training, that is your
> prerogative, but I certainly won't stoop to calling you names.
>
> Enjoy the Day,
>
> Pappy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milo Champ [mailto:milochamp@...]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:15 PM
> To: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [HIT Digest] Re Singing Pigs
>
>
> Yeah, this is fun.
>
> I'll just take what YOU wrote to let YOU (and everybody else) see how
> clueless you really are.
>
> "re.search    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-surch, rsurch) n.
> 1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry."
>
> "To me "REAL RESEARCH" is what reality yields in the application of a
> method..."
>
> Dhaaaa.
>
>
>
> --
> Milo
>
> The Farmer's Walk Rules
>
>
>
>
> [Now, now . . . settle down everyone!! :-D
>
>
> David.]
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--
Milo

The Farmer's Walk Rules

Actually, his definition of volume is wrong. Volume is scientifically
defined as the total number of reps (for an exercise, for a body part, or in
sum). Another method accepted by scientists is to express volume by the
total amount of weight lifted (100 pounds x 10 reps = 1,000 pounds). The
most accurate way of determining volume in scientific investigations is to
include the amount of work. Total work includes the distance the weight
travels. Example: 100 pounds over 3 feet per rep = 300 foot pounds. You can
therefore see that the volume of work done with 100 pounds for 10 reps in
the squat would be considerably more than in the standing curl.

  On 5/27/04 6:43 PM, "Ross Clark" <warval@...> wrote:

> kevindill2001 wrote:
>
>> In my own training, the times I have used a periodized approach have
>> shown results which were not objectively different than when I used HIT.
>>
>> I still say consistant hard work, plenty of food and rest, and you
>> will get what ever results your genetically capable of regardless of
>> whether you use HIT, or something else.
>>
>>
> In the June 2003 edition of "Master Trainer" Richard Winett PhD
> discussed the paper "A Meta-Analysis to Determine the Dose Response for
> Strenght Development" by Rhea, et. al. originally published in /Medicine
> and Science in Sports and Exercise /2003; 35: 456-464.  This
> meta-analysis covered four decades of published and unpublished studies
> on strength training.  Here are some excerpts from Winett's discussion:
>
> "Overall, the meta-anlysis indicated that for trained participants the
> most effective parameters for producing strength gains were training at
> 80% of 1 RM (about 8 reps using a conventional repetition duration),
> training muscles groups twice per week (three times was less effective),
> and performing four sets per muscle group.  Untrained people got better
> results training at 60% 1 RM, three times per week, and for four sets
> per muscle group.
>
> /There simply is no scientific evidence for extremes of training, /e.g.
> doing a handful of sets once per week or doing 20 sets per mucsle groups
> two to three times per week.  Further, it is important to point out that
> volume is defined as sets per muscle group and not as sets per
> exercise.  This means that some single set protocols do provide several
> sets per muscle group especially when  /overlap/ of muscle goups for
> various compound movements is considered."
>
> Bottom line is that, as you said, a variety of reasonable protocols
> work.  What is optimum will vary depending on the individual and his
> training goals.  Some of this just comes down to personal preference.
> The volume difference in HIT is often overstated since warmup sets
> aren't counted and overlap isn't taken into account.  I like to do one
> work set on each of four different Hammer back machines but I wouldn't
> claim this is better than doing four sets of a single back exercise.  I
> just like it better.  When I lift twice a week my sessions are over an
> hour.   When I lift three times a week the work sets are done in under
> 45 minutes.  Probably no difference.  Since I have a sedentary job I try
> to exercise daily for both health reasons and weight control.  Lifting 3
> times weekly with doing cardio on the other days seems more balanced to
> me right now but if I were looking for maximum time efficiency I would
> probably do HIT twice weekly.
>
> Regards
> Ross
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--
Milo

The Farmer's Walk Rules

I guess that means anyone can be da man even if they don't spend all day in
the gym.....HA!

Regards,

Pappy
   -----Original Message-----
   From: Rich [mailto:tenncjed@...]
   Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 2:01 PM
   To: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: RE: [HIT Digest] Re Singing Pigs


   Pappy,

   Nah, you da man, I'm just some guy who doesn't have
   enough time in the day...

   Rich
   --- "\"Pappy\"" <ppalazzo@...> wrote:
   > Rich,
   >
   > You da man!
   >
   > Pappy
   >   -----Original Message-----
   >   From: Rich [mailto:tenncjed@...]
   >   Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:42 AM
   >   To: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
   >   Subject: Re: [HIT Digest] Re Singing Pigs
   >
   >
   >   Milo,
   >
   >   Okay, I don't have access to your study, but lets
   > use
   >   the top end of your "up to 50% of a difference".
   > That
   >   means that with my 1RM squat of 400lb and a 5%
   > (round
   >   number for sake of arguement) expected yearly
   >   increase, I can assume the following:
   >
   >   After 1 year of HIT, I will have progressed to
   > 420lb,
   >   but if I had used the increased volume I would
   > have
   >   either increased it to either 430 or 440
   > (depending on
   >   the direction of the 50% - 50% more effective then
   > my
   >   5% or my 5% was 50% less effective then the 10%
   >   expected).  Since we all know that there is no way
   > you
   >   are going to continue to get increases in the
   > 5-10%
   >   range, we are probably talking significantly less
   >   percentages, but we will use these numbers.
   >
   >   The question is, is 10-20lbs in yearly increase
   > worth
   >   the additional 182 +- hours in the gym for that
   >   increase?
   >
   >   If we use 2.5% as my realistic goal (which is much
   >   more realistic goal for anyone who has been
   > training
   >   for a while), now we are talking a significiantly
   > less
   >   increase for the same amount of time spent.
   >
   >   I don't train just for fun, I am very serious
   > about
   >   the time that I spend in the gym.  Your implied
   > insult
   >   that you are serious about this and the rest of us
   > are
   >   just having fun is annoying and juvinial.  I do
   >   however have a wife, children and a career and
   >   spending 182 extra hours in the gym yearly isn't
   > worth
   >   an additional 10 lbs in gain.
   >
   >   Rich
   >
   >
   >   --- Milo Champ <milochamp@...> wrote:
   >   > Rich, let me first tell you that this isn't
   > about
   >   > "my way is best." Frankly,
   >   > I don't exactly know what "my way" is because
   > I'm
   >   > constantly changing stuff.
   >   > What I do know, however, is that after doing HIT
   > for
   >   > a while, and now being
   >   > back on track with a periodized approach, THAT'S
   >   > what I do. Now, I don't
   >   > know that the Volume people know any better what
   >   > that means than Hit people
   >   > know what HIT means, I follow a periodized
   > approach.
   >   >
   >   > But you have a good question. A new study looked
   > at
   >   > a total of 37 studies
   >   > that could be compared to each other
   > statistically
   >   > (refer back to Krieger's
   >   > posts a few months ago on that) and essentially
   >   > found that volumes of 1-3
   >   > sets per exercise were the same and about half
   > as
   >   > effective as volumes of
   >   > 4-8 sets. Also, training intensities of 85% were
   >   > optimal were intensities
   >   > between 50-70% resulted in minimal improvements.
   >   >
   >   > [Jn of Strength & Cond Res. 377-382, 18(2),
   > 2004.]
   >   >
   >   > So to answer your question, it seems that we're
   >   > talking about something like
   >   > up to 50% of a difference.
   >   >
   >   > Look, let's get right to the heart of the
   > matter. If
   >   > you're an athlete you
   >   > need to train in a way that gives you the most
   >   > results, at least if you want
   >   > to win. NO STUDY has found low-volume and
   > training
   >   > to failure to deliver as
   >   > well as a periodized approach.
   >   >
   >   > Second, if you're not an athlete but still want
   > to
   >   > get the most out of your
   >   > training, HIT ain't the way to go. If you just
   > want
   >   > to train to have fun and
   >   > to be fit, go for it because even HIT does
   > result in
   >   > training gains. Just
   >   > not optimal gains.
   >   >
   >   > These are the facts and let's leave the ego and
   >   > "training my way" out of it.
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >  On 5/27/04 9:38 AM, "Rich" <tenncjed@...>
   >   > wrote:
   >   >
   >   > > Mylo,
   >   > >
   >   > > I am curious how much difference you beileve
   > there
   >   > is between HIT, and I use
   >   > > that term to designate a protocol of low
   > volumn
   >   > (usually one working set and
   >   > > possible one or two warm-up sets) limited
   >   > exercises, and limited workouts
   >   > > (usually only one or maybe two per week), and
   > your
   >   > volumn approach?
   >   > >
   >   > > Are we talking 5%, 15%, 25%, what?
   >   > >
   >   > > All this effort being spent defending the "my
   > way
   >   > is best" approach, misses
   >   > > the point.  I can't speak for everyone here,
   > but I
   >   > know why I gravitated to
   >   > > HIT; it is more efficient in time (1.5 hrs per
   >   > week versus 4-6 hrs per week)
   >   > > and produced better results for me.  Even if
   > the
   >   > resulfs were the same, I
   >   > > would stay with the HIT approach since it
   > isn't
   >   > worth the extra time
   >   > > committment.  Now if you told me that I was
   >   > leaving 20% gains on the table by
   >   > > not using your approach, I might decide that
   > the
   >   > committment is worth it.
   >   > >
   >   > > But that is my question...how much more
   > efficient
   >   > do you believe your approach
   >   > > is?  If I were to spend a year working my
   > routine
   >   > and was able to expect a
   >   > > given percentage of improvement of my 1RM on
   > my
   >   > squat (lets say 5% for
   >   > > arguements sake), how much more should I
   > expect
   >   > with your approach?
   >   > >
   >   > > Give me a good reason to spend that much more
   > time
   >   > in the gym.  :-)
   >   > >
   >   > > Rich
   >   > >
   >   > >
   >   > > OK, Impy, you've got a point. I think that the
   >   > research is quite clear
   >   > > that
   >   > > single set training to failure does result in
   >   > training gains, just not as
   >   > > much as multiple sets and not training to
   > failure.
   >   > >
   >   > > So it seems to me that your training should be
   >   > tailored to suit your needs
   >
   === message truncated ===





   __________________________________
   Do you Yahoo!?
   Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
   http://messenger.yahoo.com/



   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/
   ------------------------------------



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hitdigest/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     Hitdigest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



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

Pedro,

As Robert DeNiro said, "You're good, You!"

Pappy
   -----Original Message-----
   From: Pedro M. [mailto:o_messias@...]
   Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:56 PM
   To: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: RE: [HIT Digest] re: singing pigs


   >Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 20:48:45 -0600
   >From: Milo Champ <milochamp@...>
   >Subject: Re: Re Singing Pigs
   >
   >And just because there are some coaches out there that use it
   >"successfully" doesn't mean they couldn't do better. In fact, if you
   >reviewed REAL research you would know that HIT does work; it just doesn't
   >work as well as periodized systems.

   "REAL research" is grossly biased in favor of periodized systems because
the
   "strength" tests used in the vast majority of cases are performed with 1RM
   lifts, in themselves very grossly inaccurate strength tests to begin with,
   but in any case requiring very specific skills that need to be developed
for
   optimal performance. Subjects using periodized training usually get to
   practice 1RMs or very similar repetition schemes often several times
during
   those studies, whereas subjects performing single set, non-periodized
   training are confined to use only relatively high reps for the entire
study.
   In some cases, the periodized training group is (conveniently) made to
peak
   at the time of testing.

   Precisely because they recognize the importance -- for powerlifters -- of
   practicing the specific skills required for the sport of powerlifting,
   people like Ken Leistner or Bill Piche (how much more HIT can you get?)
   recommend doing traditional HIT workouts of one or two sets to failure
with
   moderate to high reps during the "off-season" and then gradually
decreasing
   the number of repetitions as the meet approaches, "peaking" at the time of
   competition. Volume, as defined by the number os sets will concomitantly
   increase, both because warm-ups are much more vital and also because more
   opportunities to practice the lifts will be afforded. Incidentally the
total
   number of actual repetitions performed will probably not change that much
   and in any case most will be performed at lower intensities. But perhaps
   that's periodizing...

   >But of course that's sort of limited because the HIT people don't agree
on
   >what HIT is, despite your views, so the research can only look at one
   >particular concept, which tends to be single sets vs multiple sets and
   >training to failure vs not training to failure. But again, HIT can't
really
   >be researched all that well because HIT isn't clearly defined. Do some
   >research. :)

   Please define "periodized system" for us in terms of number of sets,
number
   of reps, intensity, sequence and length of cycles, etc. Thanks

   Pedro

   _________________________________________________________________
   Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
   http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail




   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/
   ------------------------------------



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hitdigest/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     Hitdigest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



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

..."You're really really, good!"
   -----Original Message-----
   From: Pedro M. [mailto:o_messias@...]
   Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:48 PM
   To: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: RE: [HIT Digest] re: singing pigs


   >Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 20:48:45 -0600
   >From: Milo Champ <milochamp@...>
   >Subject: Re: Re Singing Pigs
   >
   >Whatever Arthur Jones did isn't research. Sheeesh.

   Arthur Jones created the only tools that can accurately measure actual
   muscular strength. Among other things these are the only tools that
provide
   1) complete isolation of the joint being tested; 2) correction for the
   effect of gravity acting on the involved body parts; 3) accurate
correlation
   of joint angle with measured torque; 4) static testing to eliminate the
   effect of inertia and impact forces; 5) correction for the effect of
stored
   elastic energy in tissues. The relevance of each and everyone of the above
   factors has been subsequently corroborated by research published in peer
   reviewed journals. For each of the points mentioned:

   1) Graves, J.E., Webb, D.C., Pollock, M.L., Matkozich, J., Leggett, S.H.,
   Carpenter, D.M., Foster, D.N., Cirulli, J. Pelvic stabilization during
   resistance training: its effect on the development of lumbar extension
   strength. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1994
   Feb;75(2):210-5

   2) Welsch, M.A., Williams, P.A., Pollock, M.L., Graves, J.E., Foster,
D.N.,
   Fulton, M.N. Quantification of full-range-of-motion unilateral and
bilateral
   knee flexion and extension torque ratios. Archives of Physical Medicine
and
   Rehabilitation.1998 Aug;79(8):971-8.

   3) Graves, J.E., Pollock, M.L., Jones, A.E., Colvin, A.B., Leggett, S.H.
   Specificity of limited range of motion variable resistance training.
   Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1989 Feb;21(1):84-9.

   4) Iossifidou, A.N., Baltzopoulos, V. Inertial effects on moment
development
   during isokinetic concentric knee extension testing. Journal of
Orthopaedic
   and Sports Physical Therapy. 2000 Jun;30(6):317-23; discussion 324-7.

   5) Too many to mention here, but just about every study concerning the
   stretch-shortening cycle or more generally the biomechanical properties of
   muscle and tendons.

   Now, Arthur Jones was the first person to identify these factors as
absolute
   requirements for the accurate testing of muscular strength. How do you
   suppose he arrived at these conclusions? Perhaps devine inspiration? Blind
   luck?

   Pedro

   _________________________________________________________________


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

Pappy,

Nah, you da man, I'm just some guy who doesn't have
enough time in the day...

Rich
--- "\"Pappy\"" <ppalazzo@...> wrote:
> Rich,
>
> You da man!
>
> Pappy
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Rich [mailto:tenncjed@...]
>   Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:42 AM
>   To: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: Re: [HIT Digest] Re Singing Pigs
>
>
>   Milo,
>
>   Okay, I don't have access to your study, but lets
> use
>   the top end of your "up to 50% of a difference".
> That
>   means that with my 1RM squat of 400lb and a 5%
> (round
>   number for sake of arguement) expected yearly
>   increase, I can assume the following:
>
>   After 1 year of HIT, I will have progressed to
> 420lb,
>   but if I had used the increased volume I would
> have
>   either increased it to either 430 or 440
> (depending on
>   the direction of the 50% - 50% more effective then
> my
>   5% or my 5% was 50% less effective then the 10%
>   expected).  Since we all know that there is no way
> you
>   are going to continue to get increases in the
> 5-10%
>   range, we are probably talking significantly less
>   percentages, but we will use these numbers.
>
>   The question is, is 10-20lbs in yearly increase
> worth
>   the additional 182 +- hours in the gym for that
>   increase?
>
>   If we use 2.5% as my realistic goal (which is much
>   more realistic goal for anyone who has been
> training
>   for a while), now we are talking a significiantly
> less
>   increase for the same amount of time spent.
>
>   I don't train just for fun, I am very serious
> about
>   the time that I spend in the gym.  Your implied
> insult
>   that you are serious about this and the rest of us
> are
>   just having fun is annoying and juvinial.  I do
>   however have a wife, children and a career and
>   spending 182 extra hours in the gym yearly isn't
> worth
>   an additional 10 lbs in gain.
>
>   Rich
>
>
>   --- Milo Champ <milochamp@...> wrote:
>   > Rich, let me first tell you that this isn't
> about
>   > "my way is best." Frankly,
>   > I don't exactly know what "my way" is because
> I'm
>   > constantly changing stuff.
>   > What I do know, however, is that after doing HIT
> for
>   > a while, and now being
>   > back on track with a periodized approach, THAT'S
>   > what I do. Now, I don't
>   > know that the Volume people know any better what
>   > that means than Hit people
>   > know what HIT means, I follow a periodized
> approach.
>   >
>   > But you have a good question. A new study looked
> at
>   > a total of 37 studies
>   > that could be compared to each other
> statistically
>   > (refer back to Krieger's
>   > posts a few months ago on that) and essentially
>   > found that volumes of 1-3
>   > sets per exercise were the same and about half
> as
>   > effective as volumes of
>   > 4-8 sets. Also, training intensities of 85% were
>   > optimal were intensities
>   > between 50-70% resulted in minimal improvements.
>   >
>   > [Jn of Strength & Cond Res. 377-382, 18(2),
> 2004.]
>   >
>   > So to answer your question, it seems that we're
>   > talking about something like
>   > up to 50% of a difference.
>   >
>   > Look, let's get right to the heart of the
> matter. If
>   > you're an athlete you
>   > need to train in a way that gives you the most
>   > results, at least if you want
>   > to win. NO STUDY has found low-volume and
> training
>   > to failure to deliver as
>   > well as a periodized approach.
>   >
>   > Second, if you're not an athlete but still want
> to
>   > get the most out of your
>   > training, HIT ain't the way to go. If you just
> want
>   > to train to have fun and
>   > to be fit, go for it because even HIT does
> result in
>   > training gains. Just
>   > not optimal gains.
>   >
>   > These are the facts and let's leave the ego and
>   > "training my way" out of it.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >  On 5/27/04 9:38 AM, "Rich" <tenncjed@...>
>   > wrote:
>   >
>   > > Mylo,
>   > >
>   > > I am curious how much difference you beileve
> there
>   > is between HIT, and I use
>   > > that term to designate a protocol of low
> volumn
>   > (usually one working set and
>   > > possible one or two warm-up sets) limited
>   > exercises, and limited workouts
>   > > (usually only one or maybe two per week), and
> your
>   > volumn approach?
>   > >
>   > > Are we talking 5%, 15%, 25%, what?
>   > >
>   > > All this effort being spent defending the "my
> way
>   > is best" approach, misses
>   > > the point.  I can't speak for everyone here,
> but I
>   > know why I gravitated to
>   > > HIT; it is more efficient in time (1.5 hrs per
>   > week versus 4-6 hrs per week)
>   > > and produced better results for me.  Even if
> the
>   > resulfs were the same, I
>   > > would stay with the HIT approach since it
> isn't
>   > worth the extra time
>   > > committment.  Now if you told me that I was
>   > leaving 20% gains on the table by
>   > > not using your approach, I might decide that
> the
>   > committment is worth it.
>   > >
>   > > But that is my question...how much more
> efficient
>   > do you believe your approach
>   > > is?  If I were to spend a year working my
> routine
>   > and was able to expect a
>   > > given percentage of improvement of my 1RM on
> my
>   > squat (lets say 5% for
>   > > arguements sake), how much more should I
> expect
>   > with your approach?
>   > >
>   > > Give me a good reason to spend that much more
> time
>   > in the gym.  :-)
>   > >
>   > > Rich
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > OK, Impy, you've got a point. I think that the
>   > research is quite clear
>   > > that
>   > > single set training to failure does result in
>   > training gains, just not as
>   > > much as multiple sets and not training to
> failure.
>   > >
>   > > So it seems to me that your training should be
>   > tailored to suit your needs
>
=== message truncated ===





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/

>Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 20:48:45 -0600
>From: Milo Champ <milochamp@...>
>Subject: Re: Re Singing Pigs
>
>Whatever Arthur Jones did isn't research. Sheeesh.

Arthur Jones created the only tools that can accurately measure actual
muscular strength. Among other things these are the only tools that provide
1) complete isolation of the joint being tested; 2) correction for the
effect of gravity acting on the involved body parts; 3) accurate correlation
of joint angle with measured torque; 4) static testing to eliminate the
effect of inertia and impact forces; 5) correction for the effect of stored
elastic energy in tissues. The relevance of each and everyone of the above
factors has been subsequently corroborated by research published in peer
reviewed journals. For each of the points mentioned:

1) Graves, J.E., Webb, D.C., Pollock, M.L., Matkozich, J., Leggett, S.H.,
Carpenter, D.M., Foster, D.N., Cirulli, J. Pelvic stabilization during
resistance training: its effect on the development of lumbar extension
strength. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1994
Feb;75(2):210-5

2) Welsch, M.A., Williams, P.A., Pollock, M.L., Graves, J.E., Foster, D.N.,
Fulton, M.N. Quantification of full-range-of-motion unilateral and bilateral
knee flexion and extension torque ratios. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation.1998 Aug;79(8):971-8.

3) Graves, J.E., Pollock, M.L., Jones, A.E., Colvin, A.B., Leggett, S.H.
Specificity of limited range of motion variable resistance training.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1989 Feb;21(1):84-9.

4) Iossifidou, A.N., Baltzopoulos, V. Inertial effects on moment development
during isokinetic concentric knee extension testing. Journal of Orthopaedic
and Sports Physical Therapy. 2000 Jun;30(6):317-23; discussion 324-7.

5) Too many to mention here, but just about every study concerning the
stretch-shortening cycle or more generally the biomechanical properties of
muscle and tendons.

Now, Arthur Jones was the first person to identify these factors as absolute
requirements for the accurate testing of muscular strength. How do you
suppose he arrived at these conclusions? Perhaps devine inspiration? Blind
luck?

Pedro

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

>Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 20:48:45 -0600
>From: Milo Champ <milochamp@...>
>Subject: Re: Re Singing Pigs
>
>And just because there are some coaches out there that use it
>"successfully" doesn't mean they couldn't do better. In fact, if you
>reviewed REAL research you would know that HIT does work; it just doesn't
>work as well as periodized systems.

"REAL research" is grossly biased in favor of periodized systems because the
"strength" tests used in the vast majority of cases are performed with 1RM
lifts, in themselves very grossly inaccurate strength tests to begin with,
but in any case requiring very specific skills that need to be developed for
optimal performance. Subjects using periodized training usually get to
practice 1RMs or very similar repetition schemes often several times during
those studies, whereas subjects performing single set, non-periodized
training are confined to use only relatively high reps for the entire study.
In some cases, the periodized training group is (conveniently) made to peak
at the time of testing.

Precisely because they recognize the importance -- for powerlifters -- of
practicing the specific skills required for the sport of powerlifting,
people like Ken Leistner or Bill Piche (how much more HIT can you get?)
recommend doing traditional HIT workouts of one or two sets to failure with
moderate to high reps during the "off-season" and then gradually decreasing
the number of repetitions as the meet approaches, "peaking" at the time of
competition. Volume, as defined by the number os sets will concomitantly
increase, both because warm-ups are much more vital and also because more
opportunities to practice the lifts will be afforded. Incidentally the total
number of actual repetitions performed will probably not change that much
and in any case most will be performed at lower intensities. But perhaps
that's periodizing...

>But of course that's sort of limited because the HIT people don't agree on
>what HIT is, despite your views, so the research can only look at one
>particular concept, which tends to be single sets vs multiple sets and
>training to failure vs not training to failure. But again, HIT can't really
>be researched all that well because HIT isn't clearly defined. Do some
>research. :)

Please define "periodized system" for us in terms of number of sets, number
of reps, intensity, sequence and length of cycles, etc. Thanks

Pedro

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail