Hi there all.


John could we have you full weeks workout please, I think you have all seen
mine, but if not I will pop it in.

> Crazeejz: There's no need to measure failure. Failure is not when
> you mentally stop, it's when you physically stop. If you stop
> mentally, then you didn't go to failure.



John Casler writes:

I agree there is no "need" to measure failure, and it is impossible anyway,
but I think you would be surprised how often you "fail" to perform another
rep due to mental limitations.

If that is not true in your case, then you must train with "unbelievable"
intensity, and still make regular progress.  Is that the case?

I agree to there is no "need" to measure failure, and it is impossible anyway,
we all train hard, and to some sort of failure, that's why we are here in the
HIT group.

> John: Failure is not "THE" stimulus to progress, overload is.
>
> Crazeejz: But you can attain more overload by going to failure.


John Casler writes:

Overload can be achieved in four basic ways:

1) greater load
2) more reps
3) more power generation = moving a load faster
4) more volume (additional sets)

And there are many subsets of other variables.

Others might argue that there are three parameters:

1) load
2) volume
3) speed

This too is correct and a simplification.

Failure can be reached every set of every workout, but if it does not
improve on one of these parameters, the stimulus will likely be insufficient
to produce a progressive result.  The example I gave of 200# x 10 being the
area of failure.  If failure always occurs at 200# x 10 no progress will
result, until you find a way to provide additional "overload".

This is the "failure" of single set "to failure" training.


>> John: If you fail a 200#  X 10 reps each time, no progress will
> result (in a trained individual)
>
> Crazeejz: Of course not, but NO ONE is going to fail with the same
> weight for the same reps EACH time. Progress will result as a result
> of going to failure.


John writes:

I think you are wrong.  As you extract ability from capacity, you will reach
a level that will require other levels of intensity to the target, to
achieve additional results.

As an example maybe you could list your progress in a specific exercise
(squat, bench, pulldown, or such) over the last 6 months.  Then we can check
in 6 months from now and see how well your progressing by going to single
set failure each workout.  If you only workout a bodypart once a week, that
would only be 24 sets to report on up till now and 24 sets for the next 6
months.

Could offer a little motivation to your training.


>>John: If you perform 200# x 11 or a second set of 200# X 9, then
> you have created an
>> overload stimulus, beyond the previous ability and progress is
> likely.
>
> Crazeejz: How have you created an overload stimulus with a second
> set of less reps when you haven't increased in weight or reps from
> the first set? By doing a second set of less reps, you're just doing
> something you're already able to do, thereby, not creating an
> overload stimulus, rather, an endurance stimulus.


John Casler writes:

Read above methods to "overload".  And I just used a set with a lesser rep
schedule as an example.  If you can fail at 200# x 10 or 200# x 11 on the
second set then so much the better.


>>John: If you think you train at 100% of your ability on each and
> every set, then
>> good for you.  I'd like to train with you some day.
>
> Crazeejz: The point is to train as close to 100% of your ability as
> possible by going to failure each time. That's the best you can do.

John Casler writes:

I don't disagree with that, but you will reach a level (if you train
seriously) that requires more than a single set to failure if you wish to
continue making progress.

I have trained with Mentzer, and been training in Gold's back when Dorian
was in his prime.  Neither did single sets to failure, when training
seriously.

Yes you are right there John, I had both at my gym, and many more big
bodybuilding name, lots of Olympic stars, film stars to, any way, people with
fame do not impress me much, a human being is a human being, well sort of, back
on topic, but why these top people do not train singles to failure, all the time
but sometimes they very well do, is because they are advanced bodybuilders, and
can train more because of roids, and because they are very genetically gifted,
which means, far longer muscle bellies, also, neuromuscular efficiency,
endrocrine system, fiber composition, AND ONLY TRAIN EACH BODYPART ONE TIME PER
WEEK, but I  would think they once trained, very much different, and three times
per week, and not so many same, sets of the same exercise to failure, and maybe
singles to failure, but it's not really one set to failure anyway, the below is
why you can never put HIT up in a study's on single sets v multi sets, it would
be like taking HIT apart, HIT is meant to be done as a whole, and it is not HIT
if you take it apart.

(1)   To clear the one set to failure, but its not always one set for each
muscle group to failure, but it is mostly one set to failure per exercise, but
not always.

(2)   IT'S NOT ONLY ONE EXERCISE PER BODYPART TO FAILURE, IT IS A COUPLE OF
DIFFERENT EXERCISES FOR THE SAME BODYPART TO FAILURE


(3) below is a typical h.i.t. mass building routine, taken from Ellington
Darden's super high intensity book, and you will find routines similar with all
h.i.t. training, with higher volume and lower, there are also cycles lasting
from 4 to 10 weeks, which are a mixture of full mass building routines and
certain body part specialization.

Alternatively, you can specialize on a certain body part from 1 week to up to
three weeks, but you would not specialise on the same muscle group until another
three months.

When starting this routine or any cycle, you would first take a rest from
exercising for ten days,



Leg ext. 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Leg curl 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Donkey calf raise with partner 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Squat 1 set x 12 to 15 reps

Pullover on machine 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Press behind neck 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Behind neck chin up 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Bench press 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Bent over row 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Dips 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Curl 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Triceps ext. or pressdown 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Upright rows, or lateral raise 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

S.L.D.L. x 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Reverse curl with thick handled bar 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

Trunk curl 1 set x 8 to 12 reps



About that one set to failure, as I said it does not mean one set per muscle
group, in the above do you see something. Its 5 exercises for the legs, about 2
direct for the shoulders and about 5 indirect for shoulders, about 3 for chest,
4 for biceps, 4 for triceps, 6 for lats, and a lot for forearms and ab's, see
what i am getting at.






>> John Casler writes:
>>
>> The point IS, it cannot be proven, so my "ramble" was to convey
> how
>> pointless it is to try.  My other point was that a single set to
> a "high
>> intensity" conclusion, will achieve a very high percentage
> result.  (but
>> "not the maximum result" in a trained/conditioned/mature
> individual)
>
> Crazeejz: NOTHING will achieve the "maximum" result.



John Casler writes:

No doubt something will, but in a mature, well conditioned trainee, a single
set to failure will not (IMO)



> Crazeejz: What do you think is a good way to train for bodybuilding?
> What is your training like?



John Casler writes:

For Muscular Hypertrophy, you need to focus on two primary areas:

1) Stressing the muscle fiber structure itself to stimulate the maximum
fiber recruitment and size
2) Stress the Metabolic Support System (mitochondria, circulatory
structures, etc)

To address these areas you need attempt to do the following:

1) create significant moment of MMMT.  That is Momentary Maximum Muscle
Tension.

This will stimulate the fibers to develop maximal thickness and structure

2) Perform reps and sets to stimulate the Metabolic Support System

This will cause the internal muscle support structures to increase in size
to support the "metabolic needs" of the muscle or group targeted.

In order to provide this type of "dual" stimulation in a High Intensity
Program, let me give a personal example of a 3 set system that accomplishes
it all.

I use this type of program for my Lat Pulldowns.

Set One = 250# x 20-30 reps  - This set acts as a warm up, and maximally
stresses the musculature and all the support systems as a warm up.  Pump
after the first set is pretty incredible.  Reps are perfromed with a rather
fast pace (but are full range) and the last 5 reps are "dead stop", that is,
I completely stop (1 sec) at the full stretch before performing the next
rep.  The first 15-25 reps are "preparation" for those last 5 targets.
While this is a "very" high intensity set, it may not always be to failure.
Most would stop here and call it a HIGH INTENSITY day.  : )

Set Two = 300# x 15-20 reps (my record is 30reps and yes that WAS to
concentric failure) - This is a maximal effort set, and the last two reps
are "dead stops".  While this is generally a difficult set, failure is not
always the goal.  If I am in a "progress" phase, I only look for a rep or
couple pound increase every session.

Set Three = 360# x 10-15 reps.  This set is to failure but the overload rep
or weight goal is more important.  Each rep is attacked with the intension
of moving the weight as fast as possible.  Intensity is at the level that I
have to sit at the end for a few seconds and regain orientation.  It is a
violent, intense effort and the first two sets are staging to prepare for
it.

There would be NO WAY to get here in a single set.

(please note these are for example purposes only and I have been heavier,
with the last set being 400# x 8-10 and lighter when enjoying a little R&R)

If I feel like I have a bit more left, I drop to 310# or 320#, and perform
10 dead stop slow reps to harvest the "post tetanic potentiation" of the
Central Nervous System.

Each of these sets is alternated with a "pushing" set.  Generally a
similarly perfromed type of Bench Press.

I rest to full recuperation between each set to allow "maximum effort" and
this session is perfromed once a week.

You say you rest to full recuperation, how long is that John.

That is what I would do for High Intensity Hypertrophy.

My routine is similar, but different.

This is my routine I do now, and for six weeks, I work at high reps, med reps,
low reps and super slow each for six weeks.

I will sometimes do 2 to 3 sets of the same exercise, but as a breakdown set,
drop set, example, curl 100 pounds 1 x 15, take off  30% 1 x 10, take off 30% 1
x 8.

I never do a warm up, I like to first isolate a muscle, and use the muscle prime
function, first I do nautilus pullover, 1 and a 1/4 system, 4 sec. pos. pause
briefly in the contracted position 1/4 way back up, then back to full stop in
the contracted position, then return to the top position, each rep takes 10 sec,
I do 10 reps to failure, at failure I jerk the weight down to contracted
position, now I try for Eccentric Failure, and try to hold for 10 sec. then
slowly lower the weight back to the top position, in 50 sec. now and again
pushing back down on the movement arm.

This as you might imagine is a very hard set.

I have a 20 sec. rest and do rows, with my head supported to take the strain off
the lower back and put the weight more on the lats, where I want it, and the
rows which provide work in the position of the contraction for the secondary
function of the lats, and to take advantage of my rested biceps to force my lats
into a deeper level of failure ( not want to get into that agreement with you
again John ok, but I think you will agree, that the biceps have been rested in
the pullover, and come into play in the rows far more than the pullover) here I
do fast reps up but slower on the way down, I aim for 15, to failure, at failure
pulling up for 10 sec.

30 sec. rest.

Pulldowns, with parallel grip, on rope attachment ( rope attachment is a sort of
triceps pressdown rope attached to the pulldown ) with the rope attachment, you
arms move in a free line, and you get a couple more inches, about 6 in the full
contracted position, stage reps, divide the full rep into 3 stages and work in
the hardest stage to the easiest 20 to 30 sec. in each, moving the weight as
fast as possible, at first, then the pain should make you slow down.

This lat cycle sounds complicated, but is not, IT'S THE DAMMED HARDEST I HAVE
EVER DONE, I URGE ANYBODY, IF THEY THINK THEY WORK HARD TO TRY IT.

I can work to maximum effort, and total failure as, this routine is only done
one time per week, ( not at all for a beginner ) and I split the rest of my
routine over the rest of the week, so only this routine, and calf's are worked
on this particular day, so I am all geared up for this mega cycle.

Late here 2.33, was going to write more, but to sleepy.

Thank you Wayne






>>John: This list is a great place to ask questions, and discuss the
> answers.  I really
>> don't see it as a church.
>>
>> If I question some of the accepted ideas, so be it.
>
> Crazeejz: I agree. But I don't believe in, what seems to me, as over-
> complicating things.

John Casler writes:

Harvesting a "High Percentage" result "can" be complicated.

Training a single set to failure, will give a good result for most general
goals, but when more is needed, it might take a little homework.  Work at
your own level, don't be restricted by what others say, (including me) and
attack your training with intelligence and enthusiasm.  Not to mention,
enjoy your results.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA







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

Hello HITTERS!

I went today down to my local gym, CLUB PHYSICAL, and the gym under current
discussion has the most wounderful friendly atmosphere, they are always pleased
to see you, they can't do enough to help you....

I took down my number 2 Captains-of-Crush grippers, and displayed them, I did
actually ALMOST, and yes, we're talking 1mm away from it, ALMOST manage to close
the handles of the grippers, albeit by pinching the handles shut with the thumb
and the forefinger of my untrained hand.

In other words, I did the concentric work portion, and ALMOST managed to keep
the handles shut unassisted.

Nothing gets people's attention like an ACTUAL physical item, to be scrutinized
and to be used.

I have a doctor's referall to a physio-therapist, goodness knows what they will
do.

Have you heard of a method of training called "stutter reps", whereby you'd
raise the bar up a certain amount, then lower it a fraction of this amount, then
raise the bar up another measurement of this amount, then lower the bar a
fraction of this amount, until, a repition in a zig-zag fashion is completed?

I am taking a 17 day layoff, until 10/1/2005, at which time, I resume training.

More to follow,

---Sarn.



---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.


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

> John Casler writes:
>
> Harvesting a "High Percentage" result "can" be complicated.
>
> Training a single set to failure, will give a good result for most
general
> goals, but when more is needed, it might take a little homework.
Work at
> your own level, don't be restricted by what others say, (including
me) and
> attack your training with intelligence and enthusiasm.  Not to
mention,
> enjoy your results.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Casler
> TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
> Century City, CA

This is very interesting. I'd love to see what Darden might add to
this discussion of 'failure'.

In "The New High Intensity Training" book Darden prescribes most
sessions as 'to failure' (his definition of failure). On page 85
Darden says that "Continuing to do what you can already do won't help
you make improvements" which is what I think I understand you are
saying. Darden says too that "For each workout you want to do more
repetitions on each exercise than you did in the previous workout.
When you get to 12, add more resistance."
Darden points out that Schwarzenegger was an example of someone who
couldn't work 'to failure' (or wouldn't work to failure - whichever).

So I'm switching from a pyramid, of sorts... four strength days (M-T-
TH-F) and two aerobic days (W-Sa) with Sunday off, to HIT Beginning
Routine 1 - just to give this thing a fair shake.  I plan to work to
failure, using Darden's definition of working an exercise until I can
no longer perform the positive motion in good form despite my best
efforts. I'm going to take measurements as Jones might have done
(before and after).  Anything I'm missing?
Thanks.
Thomas

> Crazeejz: There's no need to measure failure. Failure is not when
> you mentally stop, it's when you physically stop. If you stop
> mentally, then you didn't go to failure.



John Casler writes:

I agree there is no "need" to measure failure, and it is impossible anyway,
but I think you would be surprised how often you "fail" to perform another
rep due to mental limitations.

If that is not true in your case, then you must train with "unbelievable"
intensity, and still make regular progress.  Is that the case?



> John: Failure is not "THE" stimulus to progress, overload is.
>
> Crazeejz: But you can attain more overload by going to failure.


John Casler writes:

Overload can be achieved in four basic ways:

1) greater load
2) more reps
3) more power generation = moving a load faster
4) more volume (additional sets)

And there are many subsets of other variables.

Others might argue that there are three parameters:

1) load
2) volume
3) speed

This too is correct and a simplification.

Failure can be reached every set of every workout, but if it does not
improve on one of these parameters, the stimulus will likely be insufficient
to produce a progressive result.  The example I gave of 200# x 10 being the
area of failure.  If failure always occurs at 200# x 10 no progress will
result, until you find a way to provide additional "overload".

This is the "failure" of single set "to failure" training.


>> John: If you fail a 200#  X 10 reps each time, no progress will
> result (in a trained individual)
>
> Crazeejz: Of course not, but NO ONE is going to fail with the same
> weight for the same reps EACH time. Progress will result as a result
> of going to failure.


John writes:

I think you are wrong.  As you extract ability from capacity, you will reach
a level that will require other levels of intensity to the target, to
achieve additional results.

As an example maybe you could list your progress in a specific exercise
(squat, bench, pulldown, or such) over the last 6 months.  Then we can check
in 6 months from now and see how well your progressing by going to single
set failure each workout.  If you only workout a bodypart once a week, that
would only be 24 sets to report on up till now and 24 sets for the next 6
months.

Could offer a little motivation to your training.


>>John: If you perform 200# x 11 or a second set of 200# X 9, then
> you have created an
>> overload stimulus, beyond the previous ability and progress is
> likely.
>
> Crazeejz: How have you created an overload stimulus with a second
> set of less reps when you haven't increased in weight or reps from
> the first set? By doing a second set of less reps, you're just doing
> something you're already able to do, thereby, not creating an
> overload stimulus, rather, an endurance stimulus.


John Casler writes:

Read above methods to "overload".  And I just used a set with a lesser rep
schedule as an example.  If you can fail at 200# x 10 or 200# x 11 on the
second set then so much the better.


>>John: If you think you train at 100% of your ability on each and
> every set, then
>> good for you.  I'd like to train with you some day.
>
> Crazeejz: The point is to train as close to 100% of your ability as
> possible by going to failure each time. That's the best you can do.

John Casler writes:

I don't disagree with that, but you will reach a level (if you train
seriously) that requires more than a single set to failure if you wish to
continue making progress.

I have trained with Mentzer, and been training in Gold's back when Dorian
was in his prime.  Neither did single sets to failure, when training
seriously.


>> John Casler writes:
>>
>> The point IS, it cannot be proven, so my "ramble" was to convey
> how
>> pointless it is to try.  My other point was that a single set to
> a "high
>> intensity" conclusion, will achieve a very high percentage
> result.  (but
>> "not the maximum result" in a trained/conditioned/mature
> individual)
>
> Crazeejz: NOTHING will achieve the "maximum" result.



John Casler writes:

No doubt something will, but in a mature, well conditioned trainee, a single
set to failure will not (IMO)



> Crazeejz: What do you think is a good way to train for bodybuilding?
> What is your training like?



John Casler writes:

For Muscular Hypertrophy, you need to focus on two primary areas:

1) Stressing the muscle fiber structure itself to stimulate the maximum
fiber recruitment and size
2) Stress the Metabolic Support System (mitochondria, circulatory
structures, etc)

To address these areas you need attempt to do the following:

1) create significant moment of MMMT.  That is Momentary Maximum Muscle
Tension.

This will stimulate the fibers to develop maximal thickness and structure

2) Perform reps and sets to stimulate the Metabolic Support System

This will cause the internal muscle support structures to increase in size
to support the "metabolic needs" of the muscle or group targeted.

In order to provide this type of "dual" stimulation in a High Intensity
Program, let me give a personal example of a 3 set system that accomplishes
it all.

I use this type of program for my Lat Pulldowns.

Set One = 250# x 20-30 reps  - This set acts as a warm up, and maximally
stresses the musculature and all the support systems as a warm up.  Pump
after the first set is pretty incredible.  Reps are perfromed with a rather
fast pace (but are full range) and the last 5 reps are "dead stop", that is,
I completely stop (1 sec) at the full stretch before performing the next
rep.  The first 15-25 reps are "preparation" for those last 5 targets.
While this is a "very" high intensity set, it may not always be to failure.
Most would stop here and call it a HIGH INTENSITY day.  : )

Set Two = 300# x 15-20 reps (my record is 30reps and yes that WAS to
concentric failure) - This is a maximal effort set, and the last two reps
are "dead stops".  While this is generally a difficult set, failure is not
always the goal.  If I am in a "progress" phase, I only look for a rep or
couple pound increase every session.

Set Three = 360# x 10-15 reps.  This set is to failure but the overload rep
or weight goal is more important.  Each rep is attacked with the intension
of moving the weight as fast as possible.  Intensity is at the level that I
have to sit at the end for a few seconds and regain orientation.  It is a
violent, intense effort and the first two sets are staging to prepare for
it.

There would be NO WAY to get here in a single set.

(please note these are for example purposes only and I have been heavier,
with the last set being 400# x 8-10 and lighter when enjoying a little R&R)

If I feel like I have a bit more left, I drop to 310# or 320#, and perform
10 dead stop slow reps to harvest the "post tetanic potentiation" of the
Central Nervous System.

Each of these sets is alternated with a "pushing" set.  Generally a
similarly perfromed type of Bench Press.

I rest to full recuperation between each set to allow "maximum effort" and
this session is perfromed once a week.

That is what I would do for High Intensity Hypertrophy.


>>John: This list is a great place to ask questions, and discuss the
> answers.  I really
>> don't see it as a church.
>>
>> If I question some of the accepted ideas, so be it.
>
> Crazeejz: I agree. But I don't believe in, what seems to me, as over-
> complicating things.

John Casler writes:

Harvesting a "High Percentage" result "can" be complicated.

Training a single set to failure, will give a good result for most general
goals, but when more is needed, it might take a little homework.  Work at
your own level, don't be restricted by what others say, (including me) and
attack your training with intelligence and enthusiasm.  Not to mention,
enjoy your results.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

John Casler writes:
> I support High Intensity Training, but feel it needs to develop more.  It
is
> not complete in its current state.  In fact it is not really well defined
at
> all, and it may take some time to fully acquire adequate definition. This
> list is a great place to ask questions, and discuss the answers.  I really
> don't see it as a church.
>
> If I question some of the accepted ideas, so be it.
>
> Even the Main Icons (Darden, Mentzer, SS guys, etc.) don't even agree much
> of the time, with the main "glue" being High Intensity Effort.  Because
that
> works.
I snipped quite a bit of what John had to say, and am in agreement. It
should be added that a sweeping generalization contrary to the spirit of
robust science has been made: the header should read "Jones vindicated in a
singular scientific report". Science as a whole, whatever that might mean,
has not vindicated Jones autodidactic outlook.

And there is lack of agreement among the major Icons of HIT. Newcomers John
Little and Pete Sisco each have their versions, further compounding the
field.

In my own case, I've put all of their ideas to work since 1972. And in all
cases the results were meager, sufficient to move on to other approaches.

About a year ago I decided to go back to the early, pre-Jones York/Ironman
system of isometronic training on a power rack.  Remembering how well that
had worked for me around 1964, I gave it another shot. Behold: it worked.
Then I began reading Steve Hollman's articles in earnest, doing still more
result producing experimentation.

In August of this year Hollman produced his first "x-reps" article. Reading
it and trying it I was really impressed. I next read his book. At 60 and
somewhat set in my ways, it took another month and a half to get it right -
to train per his instructions. In all honesty, nothing has ever worked so
well for me. Hollman has been on to something for more than a decade,
probably two - since his days at the University of Texas. He's modified
those systems based on constant review of scientific publications along with
practical application in the gym.
x-reps is a form of HIT, modified along the lines of the old power rack
wisdom - and principles Jones articulated from that training, then modified
with the rotary cam. Point of Flexion is another way of talking about
training a muscle taking into account fully flexed, fully stretched, and
full range of motion - usually resulting in three movements per muscle
group, and including both isolation and compound movements for desired
results. x-reps, and POF, however, advocate training five days weekly -
again based on science and experimentation. My first reaction was that would
lead to overtraining: it has not, surprisingly enough.

i'm a few weeks away from 60.5 years, while my condition and poundages are
consistent with what I did at 35-40. however, I have more muscle mass than
every before. at my age I wonder what I could have done had I known of this
system of training half a lifetime ago! regrets of sorts,but the road goes
on.

x-reps take over when point of failure has been met - a nervous system
condition. depending on the movement, x-reps are small range movements done
in a rapid pulsing manner. be careful: the pain and the pumps resulting are
dramatic. so is the growth of strength and size.

i train at home. set up and break down time enter into how long a training
session lasts. in a commercial gym they'd take much less time - or with more
equipment. i'm in the gym upwards of 8 hours weekly, but am learning to cut
that down with better planning and equipment set up.

x-reps is somewhat staggering to the imagination, hence requiring some
adjustments to the mind - simply because the strength increases are
unprecedented. it takes a while to catch up with how quickly the gains come.
I'd wondered if they wouldn't diminish after six or eight weeks. four months
later there's little end in sight. i do increment with 1.25 plates in most
cases.

best

Ken O'Neill
Wimberley, Texas Hill Country

--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "John Casler" <bioforce.inc@g...>
wrote:
> crazeejz wrote:
>
>  What is 90% failure anyway?
>
> John Casler writes:
>
> How do YOU "measure" failure?  At what point, physically and
mentally do YOU
> fail?

Crazeejz: I measure failure as the point at which the weight stops.



> John: It is not a measurable phenomena like overload.  Failure is
simply a point
> where you mentally or physically stop.  The greater possibility is
that you
> stopped "mentally".

Crazeejz: There's no need to measure failure. Failure is not when
you mentally stop, it's when you physically stop. If you stop
mentally, then you didn't go to failure.



> John: Failure is not "THE" stimulus to progress, overload is.

Crazeejz: But you can attain more overload by going to failure.



> John: If you fail a 200#  X 10 reps each time, no progress will
result (in a trained individual)

Crazeejz: Of course not, but NO ONE is going to fail with the same
weight for the same reps EACH time. Progress will result as a result
of going to failure.


>John: If you perform 200# x 11 or a second set of 200# X 9, then
you have created an
> overload stimulus, beyond the previous ability and progress is
likely.

Crazeejz: How have you created an overload stimulus with a second
set of less reps when you haven't increased in weight or reps from
the first set? By doing a second set of less reps, you're just doing
something you're already able to do, thereby, not creating an
overload stimulus, rather, an endurance stimulus.



>John: While 90% failure was just an example, it is just as
nebulous.  That was the
> point.

Crazeejz: 90% failure is nebulous. Failure is physical, so it is
clear. Again, if you fail mentally, then you didn't go to failure.



> crazeejz wrote:
>
> You say failure is too subjective, then you throw out the 90%
failure
> figure.
>
> John Casler writes:
>
> Read above.  However "if" you do have a reference, such as a 10
rep maximum,
> 90% would either be 9 reps with that weight or 90% of that weight
for 10
> reps.  But Reps to Failure is a "transient" ability contingent on
numerous
> factors.
>
>John: If you think you train at 100% of your ability on each and
every set, then
> good for you.  I'd like to train with you some day.

Crazeejz: The point is to train as close to 100% of your ability as
possible by going to failure each time. That's the best you can do.



> crazeejz wrote:
>
> If you're tired of the "best way to train" attitude,
> > PROVE it wrong, don't ramble on about it.
>
> John Casler writes:
>
> The point IS, it cannot be proven, so my "ramble" was to convey
how
> pointless it is to try.  My other point was that a single set to
a "high
> intensity" conclusion, will achieve a very high percentage
result.  (but
> "not the maximum result" in a trained/conditioned/mature
individual)

Crazeejz: NOTHING will achieve the "maximum" result.



>John: I support High Intensity Training, but feel it needs to
develop more.  It is
> not complete in its current state.  In fact it is not really well
defined at
> all, and it may take some time to fully acquire adequate
definition.

Crazeejz: What do you think is a good way to train for bodybuilding?
What is your training like?



>John: This list is a great place to ask questions, and discuss the
answers.  I really
> don't see it as a church.
>
> If I question some of the accepted ideas, so be it.

Crazeejz: I agree. But I don't believe in, what seems to me, as over-
complicating things.



>John: Even the Main Icons (Darden, Mentzer, SS guys, etc.) don't
even agree much
> of the time, with the main "glue" being High Intensity Effort.
Because that
> works.

Crazeejz: The main icons are Arthur Jones and Ellington Darden(not
that that makes them infallible). The others have their own training.

Further more, failurehas so many levels and definitions that there is
no "definable" and repeatable line or measure of such a condition,
since the mind is involved and motivation becomes a viable partner in
its achievement.  It is much like pornography, it might be different
for every individual.
++++++++++++++++

WOO HOO! PORNOGRAPHY!!! Ummm.... what were we talking about again? Oh
yeah, doing something to failure with pornography. Might try some
Viagra there dude!

I need one of them posters of a gal in a workout outfit, man, that
would  inspire me to lift a little harder, no pun intended, or WAS
IT!!!???

Heh heh heh... pornography.... (simple minds find simple pleasures)

Good post though Mr. Cassler!

Impy

>> I didn't realize you did superslow for that long, just out of curiosity,
>> What were you results as far as strength and size?

>Strength doubled or a bit more.  Size went up, not measured.

Sheesh, I asked this like months ago, how do you keep finding these old posts to
comment on?
How do you know size actually went up without measuring?
What your saying then, is that only 'appeared' to go up.

>> What caused you to cease that form of training?

>I moved.

To where superslow is banned? LOL

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

Thomas wrote:

> Hi Folks.
> First time poster to this group, just wanted to say hello, and ask
> this question if I may....
>  In Ellington Darden's the New High Intensity Training book he
> defines 'momentary muscular failure' as "... when you can't continue
> the positive movement - the lifting portion - despite your best
> effort".  I'm confused by the phrase "90% failure" in the post below -
> how would you determine what is ninety percent?  Darden also points
> out that there is a 'positive failure' and a 'negative failure' and
> that these two are not necessarily going to occur in the same
> repetition. Is ninety percent failure the positive part only?

John Casler writes:

Hi Thomas,

Welcome.

My 90% of failure is loosely based on a rep maximum set.  That is, if you
can do 200# x 10 reps maximum, then 90% of that would be 200# x 9 reps.

As far as "failure", that is the hard to define element, since it is a
combination of mental and physical limitations that cannot be separated.
Let me assure you I have searched for failure in many places and it is as
hard. or easy to find, as you make it.

Generally failure is a mental limit.  I used to think I failed with 240# x
10 in the pulldown.  That was until I went to 360# x 15.  Now that (at the
moment) was failure. But again it was only concentric failure and I would
say it was more mental than physical.

My improvement however was not driven by "failure" per se, but by
"overload".  That is, I always made sure to perform some element of training
that was "beyond" my previous performance.  That increased load (overload)
caused a "compensation" (result) and progress was realized.

While "overload" and "failure" are generally close partners, they are not
always the same, and one can be had without the other.

You can fail on every set, of every workout, and not make progress, if you
reach a level where a single set does not produce overload.

And there are two major areas where one can approach failure.  They are
Concentric Failure and Eccentric Failure, and as Darden may point out, they
"are not" tied together.  Eccentric Failure can occur much later than
concentric.  In fact, for those willing to explore, the limits of searching
for failure, the eccentric limits are well beyond the expectations of many.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

crazeejz wrote:

> Nice ramble.

John Casler writes:

Thanks, it was a good cup of coffee

crazeejz wrote:

Too bad it didn't prove or disprove anything.

John Casler writes:

That was the point.  The claims cannot be proven.

crazeejz wrote:

  What is 90% failure anyway?

John Casler writes:

How do YOU "measure" failure?  At what point, physically and mentally do YOU
fail?

It is not a measurable phenomena like overload.  Failure is simply a point
where you mentally or physically stop.  The greater possibility is that you
stopped "mentally".

Failure is not "THE" stimulus to progress, overload is.  If you fail a 200#
X 10 reps each time, no progress will result (in a trained individual)  If
you perform 200# x 11 or a second set of 200# X 9, then you have created an
overload stimulus, beyond the previous ability and progress is likely.

While 90% failure was just an example, it is just as nebulous.  That was the
point.

crazeejz wrote:

You say failure is too subjective, then you throw out the 90% failure
figure. Good one.

John Casler writes:

Read above.  However "if" you do have a reference, such as a 10 rep maximum,
90% would either be 9 reps with that weight or 90% of that weight for 10
reps.  But Reps to Failure is a "transient" ability contingent on numerous
factors.

If you think you train at 100% of your ability on each and every set, then
good for you.  I'd like to train with you some day.

I'd also be interested in your progress in the last few years. (as well as
the next few)

crazeejz wrote:

The list goes on. If you're tired of the "best way to train" attitude,
> PROVE it wrong, don't ramble on about it.

John Casler writes:

The point IS, it cannot be proven, so my "ramble" was to convey how
pointless it is to try.  My other point was that a single set to a "high
intensity" conclusion, will achieve a very high percentage result.  (but
"not the maximum result" in a trained/conditioned/mature individual)


crazeejz wrote:

I can easily ramble on about being tired of those who are tired of the "best
way to train" attitude, without proving anything, but what good does that
do?

John Casler writes:

Exactly.  You are a HIT (High Intensity Typer) while I on the other hand,
might use a bit more Volume......

Again my message is that those who practice HIT methods must realize that it
is a "type" of training that achieves very high effort to result percentage.
This result can be harvested or applied to many applications, but cannot be
proven to achieve the "maximum" results in all situations.

If you have ever met a true Karate Master, they do not "beat people up" to
prove how good they are.  They are content to let their accomplishments
speak for them, for they can be no better than their "external
manifestation" in the real world.  Their "peace of mind" is brought about by
the inward "knowing" of what their real abilities are, and not their
forceful arguments of how good they are.

If you are content, then continue on your path.  If you have doubt, explore.
Neither are wrong.  Those who question you are not your enemies, but your
teachers, for questions beg for "real" answers, not dogma.

Truth will ultimately be seen by those who have their eyes open.  No reason
to try and bend it or shape it.  The idea is to "find" it.

If you know all the answers, then questions will not cause harm, but offer
opportunity for you to enlighten others.

I support High Intensity Training, but feel it needs to develop more.  It is
not complete in its current state.  In fact it is not really well defined at
all, and it may take some time to fully acquire adequate definition. This
list is a great place to ask questions, and discuss the answers.  I really
don't see it as a church.

If I question some of the accepted ideas, so be it.

Even the Main Icons (Darden, Mentzer, SS guys, etc.) don't even agree much
of the time, with the main "glue" being High Intensity Effort.  Because that
works.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

Hi Folks.
  First time poster to this group, just wanted to say hello, and ask
this question if I may....
   In Ellington Darden's the New High Intensity Training book he
defines 'momentary muscular failure' as "... when you can't continue
the positive movement - the lifting portion - despite your best
effort".  I'm confused by the phrase "90% failure" in the post below -
  how would you determine what is ninety percent?  Darden also points
out that there is a 'positive failure' and a 'negative failure' and
that these two are not necessarily going to occur in the same
repetition. Is ninety percent failure the positive part only?
Thanks.
Thomas
-- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "crazeejz" <crazeejz@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Nice ramble. Too bad it didn't prove or disprove anything. Arthur
> Jones never said he invented anything. The best you can hope for IS
> a higher percentage result. NO training will give you a maximum
> result. What is 90% failure anyway? You say failure is too
> subjective, then you throw out the 90% failure figure. Good one.
The
> list goes on. If you're tired of the "best way to train" attitude,
> PROVE it wrong, don't ramble on about it. I can easily ramble on
> about being tired of those who are tired of the "best way to train"
> attitude, without proving anything, but what good does that do?
>
> --- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "John Casler" <bioforce.inc@g...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Pedro M. posted quotes from the site stating:
> >
> > > "STRENGTH TRAINING METHODS AND THE WORK OF ARTHUR JONES.
> > > Smith D, Bruce-Low S. JEPonline. 2004;7(6):52-68.
> > >
> > > This paper reviews research evidence relating to the strength
> training
> > > advice offered by Arthur Jones, founder and retired Chairman of
> Nautilus
> > > Sports/Medical Industries and MedX Corporation. Jones advocated
> that those
> > > interested in improving their muscular size, strength, power
> and/or
> > > endurance should perform one set of each exercise to muscular
> failure
> > > (volitional fatigue), train each muscle group no more than once
> (or, in
> > > some
> > > cases, twice) per week, perform each exercise in a slow,
> controlled manner
> > > and perform a moderate number of repetitions (for most people,
> ~8-12).
> > > This
> > > advice is very different to the strength training guidelines
> offered by
> > > the
> > > National Strength and Conditioning Association, the American
> College of
> > > Sports Medicine and most exercise physiology textbooks.
However,
> in
> > > contrast
> > > to the lack of scientific support for most of the
> recommendations made by
> > > such bodies and in such books, Jones' training advice is
strongly
> > > supported
> > > by the peer-reviewed scientific literature, a statement that
has
> recently
> > > been supported by a review of American College of Sports
Medicine
> > > resistance
> > > training guidelines. Therefore, we strongly recommend Jones'
> methods to
> > > athletes and coaches, as they are time-efficient and optimally
> > > efficacious,
> > > and note that, given his considerable contribution to the field
> of
> > > strength
> > > training, academic recognition of this contribution is long
> overdue."
> >
> > John Casler writes:
> >
> > While I have extreme respect for some of Jones' advocations he
> didn't
> > "invent" them, he only assembled them into his training
philosophy.
> >
> > It seems that the controversy regarding the % efficiency of the
> HIT training
> > fundamentals will not be proven, nor can it be proven, since
there
> are too
> > many variables and training goals/applications.
> >
> > What is the "BEST" way to train?  Train for what, and train WHO
> for what?
> >
> > From 12-100 years of age, most every age group will find a
> hormonal profile
> > that will affect the results available from training including a
> > substantially variable recovery cycle (even within an age group
> due to
> > genetic differences).
> >
> > What RESULTS??? More muscle? More strength?  More ability? More
> performance?
> > These goals have multifaceted training aspects that are not
> answerable in a
> > "what is the best way" question.
> >
> > To be sure, the initial stimulus to the muscle (which might be a
> single set)
> > will surely cause the "greatest" result % wise, but a single
> effort or set
> > "WILL NOT" cause the MAXIMUM result in all populations.
> >
> > To claim that it will is totally ignoring the successful training
> results of
> > millions of trainees.
> >
> > In fact, a 90% effort (that is 90% of the way to failure) will
> stimulate a
> > result so close to that of a set to failure, that it cannot be
> conclusively
> > proven to be any more valuable to go to failure.  Further more,
> failure
> > has so many levels and definitions that there is no "definable"
and
> > repeatable line or measure of such a condition, since the mind is
> involved
> > and motivation becomes a viable partner in its achievement.  It
is
> much like
> > pornography, it might be different for every individual.
> >
> > The other fact is that there is NO provable research that
> demonstrates that
> > a body, muscle group, muscle, or part of a muscle "must" fully
> recover in
> > order to maintain progress for any significant period of time.
> Again, the
> > "level" of recovery cannot be "defined" or measured.  While we
> might be able
> > to assume that all muscle damage is "repaired" within a specific
> amount of
> > time for a "specific" individual, the exact level of recovery
> required
> > before we introduce another stimulus to achieve the maximum
result
> again is
> > a "total unknown".
> >
> > It might be that keeping a muscle in a slightly "torn down" state
> might
> > allow us to create a greater overload stimulus and achieve an
even
> greater
> > level of conditioning.  There is no research that shows
> that "full" recovery
> > can produce a quicker or better result than 3/4, 1/2, or even 1/4
> recovered.
> > It is impossible to find these "specific" answers.
> >
> > There is no credible way to prove that either method will produce
> the
> > maximum result, since it is impossible to take all factors and
> reproduce
> > them, exactly.  Even with a set of twins.
> >
> > Let me assure you my comments are as much in support of HIT as
any
> other
> > method of training.  I simply find the "my way is better" dogma
> and attitude
> > tiring.
> >
> > I also find the "Hit doesn't work" refutes by some, equally as
> tiring.
> >
> > Plain and simple, higher intensity effort will yield a "higher
> percentage"
> > result, of potential result, but..... In a young, highly
> conditioned
> > trainee, a single set every 36 or 72 hours does not, and will
not,
> produce
> > the maximum
> > result.  Sorry Arthur, but that is not provable, nor can it be,
> since it is
> > not true.
> >
> > So how do I know that a greater result can be achieved?  I have
> done it, and
> > I have seen it done.  The physiology and the logic of adaptation
> demonstrate
> > that a single set can provide a "high percentage" result, but it
> cannot be
> > claimed or proven that it provides the "maximum" result.
> >
> > There is this very common term called "SuperCompensation".
> Interestingly
> > enough, it is probably the Santa Claus of muscle terms.  What I
> mean, it is
> > only works for the "young".  Once you become a mature trainee,
> there is no
> > such thing as "SuperCompensation".  That is, if you don't perform
> a specific
> > "extra" stimulation, no compensation will take place.
> >
> > There are many stages in your early training life when "any"
> stimulus will
> > bring about a response "beyond" the stimulus.
> >
> > Think about it.  If you never do any exercise at all, from the
> time you are
> > 12, until you are 20, you will probably have developed
significant
> increases
> > in strength.  Now that is SuperCompensation.  No stimulation and
> strength
> > gains!!!
> >
> > So if this is possible, how can you begin to calculate what
> training
> > protocol will produce the best result?
> >
> > A single set can extract a large percentage of "potential"
> and "ability"
> > from your total capacity, but it cannot harvest "all" of it.
> >
> > Don't worry, be happy!
> >
> > Be happy that your method of training can give you, by a wide
> margin, the
> > greater percentage result to effort ratio.  Don't try to make it
> the
> > "Ultimate Result Argument" because that argument cannot be won.
> >
> > Also don't try to expand into "most strength gains" and "greatest
> athletic
> > gains", since that too is ridiculous.  While strength is a
> component of
> > athleticism, the hypertrophy and strength brought about by single
> joint
> > muscular improvements of machine exercise is not the paramount
> path to
> > athletic excellence.  There is no credible argument to prove
that,
> so why
> > try?
> >
> > Who cares?  Will it help?  To the degree that individually
trained
> muscle
> > strength can be "integrated" into a full kinetic chain activity,
> Yes.  But,
> > is it superior to some other more specific methods of training?
> No! not in
> > my opinion.
> >
> > Again Who cares?  Why not just take the best method for the goal
> and use it.
> > Don't argue over some dogma and philosophy because the "leader"
> wished it to
> > be so.
> >
> > Arthur can tell all the tales he wishes and spin all the "they
are
> all
> > stupid" yarns he can, for those who will "fall in line" to
blindly
> follow,
> > but if you wish to really train your self, your clients, or your
> friends to
> > get the best results, open your eyes and brains and get out of
> the "follow
> > the leader" routine.
> >
> > I could be wrong but I think I read where even Darden (chief
> disciple) is
> > softening on "failure", "multiple sets", "cheating" and such"!!!
> Its about
> > time.  HIT should embrace the tools that can make it work
better.
> Rigidity
> > is "OUT"!
> >
> > Training for a particular goal is "MUCH" more complex than rocket
> science.
> > The variables alone make "specifics" absolutely impossible.  To
> fully
> > understand the paths to reach training goals is a special gift
> that only a
> > few I have met in my lifetime posses, and even then the reason
> they posses
> > the awareness, is that they understood that they "didn't"
> comprehend it all,
> > and constantly searched for "better" methods, rather than
gloating
> a self
> > satisfied sense, that they "did" know the answers.
> >
> > So while Arthur might have articles "vindicating" him, his
> philosophy is
> > simply a framework (and flawed at that) for a "high percentage
> result" from
> > training.
> >
> > Is it the best for everyone?   NO!
> >
> > Is it the best for every situation and training goal?   NO!
> >
> > Will it result in a "high percentage" result to effort if
> implemented
> > correctly?  YES IT WILL, but implementation must be goal driven
and
> > structured.
> >
> > Hey, who can ask for something better than that.
> >
> > So, rest easy that if you follow HIT, you will receive a very high
> > percentage result to your effort.  Know that you will not
maximize
> your
> > total percentage, but for the effort spent your likely strength
> and growth
> > will be quite impressive, within your capacity.  Don't get caught
> up in the
> > "Mine is better than yours" pipeline that confines you to stay
> within the
> > lines.
> >
> > Hit is a good foundation, if it is not taken too seriously as
> an "end all"
> > and "be all".  In fact, it can not be the "end" at all...it can
be
> the
> > beginning for you "being" all you can be.
> >
> > Will this attitude "destroy" HIT?
> >
> > I don't think so.  It will only help it grow stronger.    Reach
> for answers,
> > don't beat loud drums, to drown out others.
> >
> > Don't worry, performing more than one set to failure "will not"
> turn you
> > into a "multiset volume junkie".
> >
> > No one likes a "know it all" and let me assure you that I am not
> one.  That
> > makes me even more sure, that others are not either.
> >
> > HIT is good, and its strength lies in its real truths, and not
> its "pumped
> > up" claims.
> >
> > Happy Holidays
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Casler
> > TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
> > Century City, CA

Nice ramble. Too bad it didn't prove or disprove anything. Arthur
Jones never said he invented anything. The best you can hope for IS
a higher percentage result. NO training will give you a maximum
result. What is 90% failure anyway? You say failure is too
subjective, then you throw out the 90% failure figure. Good one. The
list goes on. If you're tired of the "best way to train" attitude,
PROVE it wrong, don't ramble on about it. I can easily ramble on
about being tired of those who are tired of the "best way to train"
attitude, without proving anything, but what good does that do?

--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "John Casler" <bioforce.inc@g...>
wrote:
>
> Pedro M. posted quotes from the site stating:
>
> > "STRENGTH TRAINING METHODS AND THE WORK OF ARTHUR JONES.
> > Smith D, Bruce-Low S. JEPonline. 2004;7(6):52-68.
> >
> > This paper reviews research evidence relating to the strength
training
> > advice offered by Arthur Jones, founder and retired Chairman of
Nautilus
> > Sports/Medical Industries and MedX Corporation. Jones advocated
that those
> > interested in improving their muscular size, strength, power
and/or
> > endurance should perform one set of each exercise to muscular
failure
> > (volitional fatigue), train each muscle group no more than once
(or, in
> > some
> > cases, twice) per week, perform each exercise in a slow,
controlled manner
> > and perform a moderate number of repetitions (for most people,
~8-12).
> > This
> > advice is very different to the strength training guidelines
offered by
> > the
> > National Strength and Conditioning Association, the American
College of
> > Sports Medicine and most exercise physiology textbooks. However,
in
> > contrast
> > to the lack of scientific support for most of the
recommendations made by
> > such bodies and in such books, Jones' training advice is strongly
> > supported
> > by the peer-reviewed scientific literature, a statement that has
recently
> > been supported by a review of American College of Sports Medicine
> > resistance
> > training guidelines. Therefore, we strongly recommend Jones'
methods to
> > athletes and coaches, as they are time-efficient and optimally
> > efficacious,
> > and note that, given his considerable contribution to the field
of
> > strength
> > training, academic recognition of this contribution is long
overdue."
>
> John Casler writes:
>
> While I have extreme respect for some of Jones' advocations he
didn't
> "invent" them, he only assembled them into his training philosophy.
>
> It seems that the controversy regarding the % efficiency of the
HIT training
> fundamentals will not be proven, nor can it be proven, since there
are too
> many variables and training goals/applications.
>
> What is the "BEST" way to train?  Train for what, and train WHO
for what?
>
> From 12-100 years of age, most every age group will find a
hormonal profile
> that will affect the results available from training including a
> substantially variable recovery cycle (even within an age group
due to
> genetic differences).
>
> What RESULTS??? More muscle? More strength?  More ability? More
performance?
> These goals have multifaceted training aspects that are not
answerable in a
> "what is the best way" question.
>
> To be sure, the initial stimulus to the muscle (which might be a
single set)
> will surely cause the "greatest" result % wise, but a single
effort or set
> "WILL NOT" cause the MAXIMUM result in all populations.
>
> To claim that it will is totally ignoring the successful training
results of
> millions of trainees.
>
> In fact, a 90% effort (that is 90% of the way to failure) will
stimulate a
> result so close to that of a set to failure, that it cannot be
conclusively
> proven to be any more valuable to go to failure.  Further more,
failure
> has so many levels and definitions that there is no "definable" and
> repeatable line or measure of such a condition, since the mind is
involved
> and motivation becomes a viable partner in its achievement.  It is
much like
> pornography, it might be different for every individual.
>
> The other fact is that there is NO provable research that
demonstrates that
> a body, muscle group, muscle, or part of a muscle "must" fully
recover in
> order to maintain progress for any significant period of time.
Again, the
> "level" of recovery cannot be "defined" or measured.  While we
might be able
> to assume that all muscle damage is "repaired" within a specific
amount of
> time for a "specific" individual, the exact level of recovery
required
> before we introduce another stimulus to achieve the maximum result
again is
> a "total unknown".
>
> It might be that keeping a muscle in a slightly "torn down" state
might
> allow us to create a greater overload stimulus and achieve an even
greater
> level of conditioning.  There is no research that shows
that "full" recovery
> can produce a quicker or better result than 3/4, 1/2, or even 1/4
recovered.
> It is impossible to find these "specific" answers.
>
> There is no credible way to prove that either method will produce
the
> maximum result, since it is impossible to take all factors and
reproduce
> them, exactly.  Even with a set of twins.
>
> Let me assure you my comments are as much in support of HIT as any
other
> method of training.  I simply find the "my way is better" dogma
and attitude
> tiring.
>
> I also find the "Hit doesn't work" refutes by some, equally as
tiring.
>
> Plain and simple, higher intensity effort will yield a "higher
percentage"
> result, of potential result, but..... In a young, highly
conditioned
> trainee, a single set every 36 or 72 hours does not, and will not,
produce
> the maximum
> result.  Sorry Arthur, but that is not provable, nor can it be,
since it is
> not true.
>
> So how do I know that a greater result can be achieved?  I have
done it, and
> I have seen it done.  The physiology and the logic of adaptation
demonstrate
> that a single set can provide a "high percentage" result, but it
cannot be
> claimed or proven that it provides the "maximum" result.
>
> There is this very common term called "SuperCompensation".
Interestingly
> enough, it is probably the Santa Claus of muscle terms.  What I
mean, it is
> only works for the "young".  Once you become a mature trainee,
there is no
> such thing as "SuperCompensation".  That is, if you don't perform
a specific
> "extra" stimulation, no compensation will take place.
>
> There are many stages in your early training life when "any"
stimulus will
> bring about a response "beyond" the stimulus.
>
> Think about it.  If you never do any exercise at all, from the
time you are
> 12, until you are 20, you will probably have developed significant
increases
> in strength.  Now that is SuperCompensation.  No stimulation and
strength
> gains!!!
>
> So if this is possible, how can you begin to calculate what
training
> protocol will produce the best result?
>
> A single set can extract a large percentage of "potential"
and "ability"
> from your total capacity, but it cannot harvest "all" of it.
>
> Don't worry, be happy!
>
> Be happy that your method of training can give you, by a wide
margin, the
> greater percentage result to effort ratio.  Don't try to make it
the
> "Ultimate Result Argument" because that argument cannot be won.
>
> Also don't try to expand into "most strength gains" and "greatest
athletic
> gains", since that too is ridiculous.  While strength is a
component of
> athleticism, the hypertrophy and strength brought about by single
joint
> muscular improvements of machine exercise is not the paramount
path to
> athletic excellence.  There is no credible argument to prove that,
so why
> try?
>
> Who cares?  Will it help?  To the degree that individually trained
muscle
> strength can be "integrated" into a full kinetic chain activity,
Yes.  But,
> is it superior to some other more specific methods of training?
No! not in
> my opinion.
>
> Again Who cares?  Why not just take the best method for the goal
and use it.
> Don't argue over some dogma and philosophy because the "leader"
wished it to
> be so.
>
> Arthur can tell all the tales he wishes and spin all the "they are
all
> stupid" yarns he can, for those who will "fall in line" to blindly
follow,
> but if you wish to really train your self, your clients, or your
friends to
> get the best results, open your eyes and brains and get out of
the "follow
> the leader" routine.
>
> I could be wrong but I think I read where even Darden (chief
disciple) is
> softening on "failure", "multiple sets", "cheating" and such"!!!
Its about
> time.  HIT should embrace the tools that can make it work better.
Rigidity
> is "OUT"!
>
> Training for a particular goal is "MUCH" more complex than rocket
science.
> The variables alone make "specifics" absolutely impossible.  To
fully
> understand the paths to reach training goals is a special gift
that only a
> few I have met in my lifetime posses, and even then the reason
they posses
> the awareness, is that they understood that they "didn't"
comprehend it all,
> and constantly searched for "better" methods, rather than gloating
a self
> satisfied sense, that they "did" know the answers.
>
> So while Arthur might have articles "vindicating" him, his
philosophy is
> simply a framework (and flawed at that) for a "high percentage
result" from
> training.
>
> Is it the best for everyone?   NO!
>
> Is it the best for every situation and training goal?   NO!
>
> Will it result in a "high percentage" result to effort if
implemented
> correctly?  YES IT WILL, but implementation must be goal driven and
> structured.
>
> Hey, who can ask for something better than that.
>
> So, rest easy that if you follow HIT, you will receive a very high
> percentage result to your effort.  Know that you will not maximize
your
> total percentage, but for the effort spent your likely strength
and growth
> will be quite impressive, within your capacity.  Don't get caught
up in the
> "Mine is better than yours" pipeline that confines you to stay
within the
> lines.
>
> Hit is a good foundation, if it is not taken too seriously as
an "end all"
> and "be all".  In fact, it can not be the "end" at all...it can be
the
> beginning for you "being" all you can be.
>
> Will this attitude "destroy" HIT?
>
> I don't think so.  It will only help it grow stronger.    Reach
for answers,
> don't beat loud drums, to drown out others.
>
> Don't worry, performing more than one set to failure "will not"
turn you
> into a "multiset volume junkie".
>
> No one likes a "know it all" and let me assure you that I am not
one.  That
> makes me even more sure, that others are not either.
>
> HIT is good, and its strength lies in its real truths, and not
its "pumped
> up" claims.
>
> Happy Holidays
>
> Regards,
>
> John Casler
> TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
> Century City, CA

Dave says:

Sarn,
     The purpose of your spine is to protect your nerves and the
information pathway between your brain and body. If your spine is degenerating
so
is the life force coming from your brain to your body.
Sarn says:This is nothin that I din't already know...

Dave says: Eventually this will lead to
symptoms and disease but your problems are not the symptoms but rather
the nerve interference which most likely started at birth from trauma to
the
cervical spine due to the way obstetricians are trained to deliver
babies.
     The nerves that come out of your upper cervical spine control blood
flow
to the brain, blood sugar, the sympathetic nervous system, hearing, eye
sight, balance, etc. Misalignments of the bones/joints with hyper or
hypo
mobility called subluxation causes interference to the nerves that can
lead
to symptoms such headaches, memory problems, insomnia, vertigo,
personality
disorders, etc.

Sarn says:This is starting to make me worried...

How can I treat this then, I mean, would this mean powerful anti-inflamitory
drugs, or surgury???

Dave says:Chiropractors are the only doctors trained to detect, locate, and
correct these vertebral subluxation complexes. If you train a
subluxated
neck you are accelerating the spinal decay NOT correcting it! Do
yourself  a
favor and get checked by a chiropractor for subluxations.

Sarn says:I will follow this, as I was just about to rush off an urgent order to
IRONMIND ENTERPRISES and buy a neck harness and get a training...

Dave says: If you want
to correct the cause of your problems instead of treat symptoms with drugs
and
surgery then it is imperative that the system that gives you life(the
nervous system) is working at it best so you can express your Innate
potential for greatness.

Dr. Dave

["life force"  ??
Rob O]

Sarn says:So what do I DO NOW then???

I'll keep you updates.

----Sarn.



---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.


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

Pedro M. posted quotes from the site stating:

> "STRENGTH TRAINING METHODS AND THE WORK OF ARTHUR JONES.
> Smith D, Bruce-Low S. JEPonline. 2004;7(6):52-68.
>
> This paper reviews research evidence relating to the strength training
> advice offered by Arthur Jones, founder and retired Chairman of Nautilus
> Sports/Medical Industries and MedX Corporation. Jones advocated that those
> interested in improving their muscular size, strength, power and/or
> endurance should perform one set of each exercise to muscular failure
> (volitional fatigue), train each muscle group no more than once (or, in
> some
> cases, twice) per week, perform each exercise in a slow, controlled manner
> and perform a moderate number of repetitions (for most people, ~8-12).
> This
> advice is very different to the strength training guidelines offered by
> the
> National Strength and Conditioning Association, the American College of
> Sports Medicine and most exercise physiology textbooks. However, in
> contrast
> to the lack of scientific support for most of the recommendations made by
> such bodies and in such books, Jones' training advice is strongly
> supported
> by the peer-reviewed scientific literature, a statement that has recently
> been supported by a review of American College of Sports Medicine
> resistance
> training guidelines. Therefore, we strongly recommend Jones' methods to
> athletes and coaches, as they are time-efficient and optimally
> efficacious,
> and note that, given his considerable contribution to the field of
> strength
> training, academic recognition of this contribution is long overdue."

John Casler writes:

While I have extreme respect for some of Jones' advocations he didn't
"invent" them, he only assembled them into his training philosophy.

It seems that the controversy regarding the % efficiency of the HIT training
fundamentals will not be proven, nor can it be proven, since there are too
many variables and training goals/applications.

What is the "BEST" way to train?  Train for what, and train WHO for what?

From 12-100 years of age, most every age group will find a hormonal profile
that will affect the results available from training including a
substantially variable recovery cycle (even within an age group due to
genetic differences).

What RESULTS??? More muscle? More strength?  More ability? More performance?
These goals have multifaceted training aspects that are not answerable in a
"what is the best way" question.

To be sure, the initial stimulus to the muscle (which might be a single set)
will surely cause the "greatest" result % wise, but a single effort or set
"WILL NOT" cause the MAXIMUM result in all populations.

To claim that it will is totally ignoring the successful training results of
millions of trainees.

In fact, a 90% effort (that is 90% of the way to failure) will stimulate a
result so close to that of a set to failure, that it cannot be conclusively
proven to be any more valuable to go to failure.  Further more, failure
has so many levels and definitions that there is no "definable" and
repeatable line or measure of such a condition, since the mind is involved
and motivation becomes a viable partner in its achievement.  It is much like
pornography, it might be different for every individual.

The other fact is that there is NO provable research that demonstrates that
a body, muscle group, muscle, or part of a muscle "must" fully recover in
order to maintain progress for any significant period of time.  Again, the
"level" of recovery cannot be "defined" or measured.  While we might be able
to assume that all muscle damage is "repaired" within a specific amount of
time for a "specific" individual, the exact level of recovery required
before we introduce another stimulus to achieve the maximum result again is
a "total unknown".

It might be that keeping a muscle in a slightly "torn down" state might
allow us to create a greater overload stimulus and achieve an even greater
level of conditioning.  There is no research that shows that "full" recovery
can produce a quicker or better result than 3/4, 1/2, or even 1/4 recovered.
It is impossible to find these "specific" answers.

There is no credible way to prove that either method will produce the
maximum result, since it is impossible to take all factors and reproduce
them, exactly.  Even with a set of twins.

Let me assure you my comments are as much in support of HIT as any other
method of training.  I simply find the "my way is better" dogma and attitude
tiring.

I also find the "Hit doesn't work" refutes by some, equally as tiring.

Plain and simple, higher intensity effort will yield a "higher percentage"
result, of potential result, but..... In a young, highly conditioned
trainee, a single set every 36 or 72 hours does not, and will not, produce
the maximum
result.  Sorry Arthur, but that is not provable, nor can it be, since it is
not true.

So how do I know that a greater result can be achieved?  I have done it, and
I have seen it done.  The physiology and the logic of adaptation demonstrate
that a single set can provide a "high percentage" result, but it cannot be
claimed or proven that it provides the "maximum" result.

There is this very common term called "SuperCompensation".  Interestingly
enough, it is probably the Santa Claus of muscle terms.  What I mean, it is
only works for the "young".  Once you become a mature trainee, there is no
such thing as "SuperCompensation".  That is, if you don't perform a specific
"extra" stimulation, no compensation will take place.

There are many stages in your early training life when "any" stimulus will
bring about a response "beyond" the stimulus.

Think about it.  If you never do any exercise at all, from the time you are
12, until you are 20, you will probably have developed significant increases
in strength.  Now that is SuperCompensation.  No stimulation and strength
gains!!!

So if this is possible, how can you begin to calculate what training
protocol will produce the best result?

A single set can extract a large percentage of "potential" and "ability"
from your total capacity, but it cannot harvest "all" of it.

Don't worry, be happy!

Be happy that your method of training can give you, by a wide margin, the
greater percentage result to effort ratio.  Don't try to make it the
"Ultimate Result Argument" because that argument cannot be won.

Also don't try to expand into "most strength gains" and "greatest athletic
gains", since that too is ridiculous.  While strength is a component of
athleticism, the hypertrophy and strength brought about by single joint
muscular improvements of machine exercise is not the paramount path to
athletic excellence.  There is no credible argument to prove that, so why
try?

Who cares?  Will it help?  To the degree that individually trained muscle
strength can be "integrated" into a full kinetic chain activity, Yes.  But,
is it superior to some other more specific methods of training?  No! not in
my opinion.

Again Who cares?  Why not just take the best method for the goal and use it.
Don't argue over some dogma and philosophy because the "leader" wished it to
be so.

Arthur can tell all the tales he wishes and spin all the "they are all
stupid" yarns he can, for those who will "fall in line" to blindly follow,
but if you wish to really train your self, your clients, or your friends to
get the best results, open your eyes and brains and get out of the "follow
the leader" routine.

I could be wrong but I think I read where even Darden (chief disciple) is
softening on "failure", "multiple sets", "cheating" and such"!!!  Its about
time.  HIT should embrace the tools that can make it work better.  Rigidity
is "OUT"!

Training for a particular goal is "MUCH" more complex than rocket science.
The variables alone make "specifics" absolutely impossible.  To fully
understand the paths to reach training goals is a special gift that only a
few I have met in my lifetime posses, and even then the reason they posses
the awareness, is that they understood that they "didn't" comprehend it all,
and constantly searched for "better" methods, rather than gloating a self
satisfied sense, that they "did" know the answers.

So while Arthur might have articles "vindicating" him, his philosophy is
simply a framework (and flawed at that) for a "high percentage result" from
training.

Is it the best for everyone?   NO!

Is it the best for every situation and training goal?   NO!

Will it result in a "high percentage" result to effort if implemented
correctly?  YES IT WILL, but implementation must be goal driven and
structured.

Hey, who can ask for something better than that.

So, rest easy that if you follow HIT, you will receive a very high
percentage result to your effort.  Know that you will not maximize your
total percentage, but for the effort spent your likely strength and growth
will be quite impressive, within your capacity.  Don't get caught up in the
"Mine is better than yours" pipeline that confines you to stay within the
lines.

Hit is a good foundation, if it is not taken too seriously as an "end all"
and "be all".  In fact, it can not be the "end" at all...it can be the
beginning for you "being" all you can be.

Will this attitude "destroy" HIT?

I don't think so.  It will only help it grow stronger.    Reach for answers,
don't beat loud drums, to drown out others.

Don't worry, performing more than one set to failure "will not" turn you
into a "multiset volume junkie".

No one likes a "know it all" and let me assure you that I am not one.  That
makes me even more sure, that others are not either.

HIT is good, and its strength lies in its real truths, and not its "pumped
up" claims.

Happy Holidays

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

ronatwork2@... wrote:
> Hey Seth,...
>
>>I did SuperSlow for several years.  The goal is 60 to 90 seconds
>>(typically), not that different from "standard Nautilus" which was 48
>>to 72 seconds (when I read the Nautilus books).
>
> I didn't realize you did superslow for that long, just out of curiosity,
> What were you results as far as strength and size?

Strength doubled or a bit more.  Size went up, not measured.

> What caused you to cease that form of training?

I moved.

Seth

>1. Anti-HIT meta-analyses debunked
            From: "Pedro M." <o_messias@...>
       2. Jones vindicated in the scientific literature
            From: "Pedro M." <o_messias@...><

So tell me, Pedro ... are you trying to stir up trouble around here? ;)

P.S. For extra credit, you all, who said the following?

"The lesson to be learned here is, if you are not making gains on your
present course, simplify it by cutting it down to one exercise per muscle, cut
back
your sets and reps and start using better form. You notice that I did not say
cut down on weight. Just use slower movement and do every set as if it were
the last set you could do!"

Answer coming soon ...


Mike Reese

The world of books is the most remarkable creation of man. Nothing else
that he builds ever lasts. Monuments fall; nations perish; civilizations
grow old and die out; and, after an era of darkness, new races build
others. -Clarence Day, writer, (1874-1935)



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

Sarn,

     The purpose of your spine is to protect your nerves and the information
pathway between your brain and body. If your spine is degenerating so is the
life force coming from your brain to your body. Eventually this will lead to
symptoms and disease but your problems are not the symptoms but rather the
nerve interference which most likely started at birth from trauma to the
cervical spine due to the way obstetricians are trained to deliver babies.

     The nerves that come out of your upper cervical spine control blood flow
to the brain, blood sugar, the sympathetic nervous system, hearing, eye
sight, balance, etc. Misalignments of the bones/joints with hyper or hypo
mobility called subluxation causes interference to the nerves that can lead
to symptoms such headaches, memory problems, insomnia, vertigo, personality
disorders, etc.

     Chiropractors are the only doctors trained to detect, locate, and
correct these vertebral subluxation complexes. If you train a subluxated
neck you are accelerating the spinal decay NOT correcting it! Do yourself  a
favor and get checked by a chiropractor for subluxations. If you want to
correct the cause of your problems instead of treat symptoms with drugs and
surgery then it is imperative that the system that gives you life(the
nervous system) is working at it best so you can express your Innate
potential for greatness.

Dr. Dave


["life force"  ??

Rob O]

> Message: 1
>   Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:17:09 +1100 (EST)
>   From: Sarn Ursell <polyverse2002@...>
> Subject: New Zealand medical system, and neck degeneration
>
>
> Hello HITTERS,
>
> Sarn here, and I am just letting you know that I have had my X-ray results
> back, and the doctor claims that there is nothing wrong with my spine, in
> the mid-thorax region, but, there IS degeneration in my neck.

Hello HITTERS,

Sarn here, and I am just letting you know that I have had my X-ray results back,
and the doctor claims that there is nothing wrong with my spine, in the
mid-thorax region, but, there IS degeneration in my neck.

The spine, and the muscles in my neck are wasteing away, and I need to do
something, FAST.

Initially, when I first heard about this, I was both shocked and amazed, as the
pain that I was suffering was in my right shoulder, and my mid thorax.

But, NOT in my neck.....

But, the more that I thought about it, the less amazed that I became, as I do
not actually train my neck, and it is, in fact, the only muscle group that I do
not train, DIRECTLY.

So, what am I to do????

Should I consult a physio-therapist, and work on the muscle???

I do  know some good exercises for the neck, one of these is to kneel doggy
style, under the leg extension machine, and raise you're head back, and the
other is a neck harness from IRONMIND ENTERPRISES.

The trouble with a lot of doctors from our medical system, is that they are,
what I can only call "semi-corrupt".

The reason that I say that I feel this, is because, what they do is NOT actually
illegal, but is dishonest, and malevelant.

They will WITHOLD information from you, as to a medications side effects, and
contra-indications, so, it is kind of like trying to squeeze blood out of a
stone, as to trying to get information from doctors, or at least some of them in
New Zealand.

It's just that they don't actually SAY.

For example, when I was actively participateing as a patient in the psychiatric
system, on anti-depressants, I met a woman doctor from England who did not like
me, and conveiniently withheld information about an anti-anxiety drug called
clonadine that I was on.

It has a paradox effect with some people, and I was one of those people with
those genetics.

ANd, this woman who didn't like me, didn't, tell me, of course, about these side
effects, and people told me that I was acting crazy, and ranting and raving.

The next psychiatric doctor who I'd met, who liked me, he, told me IMMEDIATELY
about the side effects, and withdrew this drug.

So, it is almost as if I have to go through the eternity, and infinite number of
side effects of a particular drug until I get a "yes" responce, as to what a
drugs side effect is.

If anybody else has any similar storys about getting mucked around by their
doctor, I'd like to hear.

But, back to the origional story, -I feel no pain in my neck, just my mid
thorax, and yet, I'm told that I have NO spinal damage in this area, JUST the
neck.

So, what do I do???

I have to fact the doctor tomorrow thursday, and I have to get an analysis of
ALL the damage done.

There is also the possibility of some imbicilic lab technician misreading the
X-Rays, and getting the story wrong.

People in New Zealand are incompetant.

Many are.

What exercises do I and don't I do for the neck????

HOW should I do them?

---Very Sincerely,

Mr.Sarn RIchard URsell.



---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.


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

"STRENGTH TRAINING METHODS AND THE WORK OF ARTHUR JONES.
Smith D, Bruce-Low S. JEPonline. 2004;7(6):52-68.

This paper reviews research evidence relating to the strength training
advice offered by Arthur Jones, founder and retired Chairman of Nautilus
Sports/Medical Industries and MedX Corporation. Jones advocated that those
interested in improving their muscular size, strength, power and/or
endurance should perform one set of each exercise to muscular failure
(volitional fatigue), train each muscle group no more than once (or, in some
cases, twice) per week, perform each exercise in a slow, controlled manner
and perform a moderate number of repetitions (for most people, ~8-12). This
advice is very different to the strength training guidelines offered by the
National Strength and Conditioning Association, the American College of
Sports Medicine and most exercise physiology textbooks. However, in contrast
to the lack of scientific support for most of the recommendations made by
such bodies and in such books, Jones’ training advice is strongly supported
by the peer-reviewed scientific literature, a statement that has recently
been supported by a review of American College of Sports Medicine resistance
training guidelines. Therefore, we strongly recommend Jones’ methods to
athletes and coaches, as they are time-efficient and optimally efficacious,
and note that, given his considerable contribution to the field of strength
training, academic recognition of this contribution is long overdue."

:')

You can (and should) read the full text at:
http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/Dec2004/Smith.pdf

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Sorry about the sensationalistic subject titles hehe

"META-ANALYSES DO NOT SUPPORT PERFORMANCE OF MULTIPLE SETS OR HIGH VOLUME
RESISTANCE TRAINING.
Richard A. Winett  JEPonline. 2004;7(5):10-20.

Four recently published meta-analyses claim their results show that
multiple-set resistance training protocols (higher volume) are superior to a
single set of each exercise (lower volume) for producing strength gains in
experienced trainees.  This critique examines the framework, logic,
procedures, statistics, results and interpretations of the four
meta-analyses and shows that these studies did not follow many of the
recognized guidelines for meta-analysis.  There was very little support for
any of the purported claims or conclusions.  In fact, this critique suggests
that simple, time efficient, single-set, lower volume protocols appear to be
just as effective as multiple-set, higher volume protocols for increasing
muscular strength regardless of goals or training status."

Full text:
http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/Oct2004/WinettV2.pdf

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

I have lost about 30 pounds since last spring, so that's super. And
since I started doing my exercise bike again in November, I've lost
about 8 pounds of that 30 in that time. Once I started biking again,
it just seems to be melting off, albeit slowly. Prior to that I did
little cardio, rode my bike around town, walked, but that was it. So
cool but I realized I needed to do more cardio, but how much?

I have settled on about 3 times a week, 30 minutes including a couple
minutes of warm up, and a couple cool down after the 30. And I am
lifting once a week, full body and 1 or 2 work sets mostly. Though on
dips, for instance, I do them until I get enough reps, sometimes
getting more reps on the second or third set than the first. I seem to
be maintaining or gaining in my lifts too.

I am in a good zone as far as diet goes, very focused and determined,
though my sweet tooth wins quite a few battles, I AM WINNING THE FAT
WAR! And to LOSE 8 pounds over the HOLIDAYS???!!! *Impy pats self on
back* Nothing tastes better than thin feels (who said that?)

So, do the folks here think cardio 3 times a week is about right? I
could shoot for 4. And I hear some advocate cardio daily. But I am
going to see how 3x does first, plus Stuart McRobert agrees with 3,
and he seems reasonable. 4+ seemed a bit too often, but maybe it would
be good for fat loss, and if you built up to that frequency it would
also be tolerable, in the short-term for fat loss.

Guess I'll just stick with 3x30 and see how it goes, keep watching my
caloric intake, and kick it up to 4x30 if it seems necessary. Of
course, once spring comes I'll be outside and walking and whatnot
more, but until then...



Happy Holidays
Impy McFerguson

Chris,

Do you know what the name of that machine is?  I've used a number of the old
Nautilus Biceps machines, and I'm curious as to which one you are using.

Regards,

Pappy
   -----Original Message-----
   From: Chris [mailto:chrisrobinson44@...]
   Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 11:19 PM
   To: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: [HIT Digest] My new favorite bicep exercise




   My gym bought some old nautilus bicep curl machine. When you get on
   it it seems weird but man , im getting better growth then ever
   before, especially on my peek. The key on this exerice is using the
   full range of motion and doing a static hold and slow negative.


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

Hi there,
Yep I have nautilus multi bicep curl machines, in my home gyms, I love them, as
you said they are strange at first. What I like is the machine, then twisting
(supination) curls with dumbbell, this uses the prime function of the biceps,
supination, twisting of the hand, forearm, as well as the secondary. Is the
machine a multi biceps ???
Thank you Wayne

My gym bought some old nautilus bicep curl machine. When you get on
it it seems weird but man , im getting better growth then ever
before, especially on my peek. The key on this exerice is using the
full range of motion and doing a static hold and slow negative.









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









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

My gym bought some old nautilus bicep curl machine. When you get on
it it seems weird but man , im getting better growth then ever
before, especially on my peek. The key on this exerice is using the
full range of motion and doing a static hold and slow negative.

Kayo,

I noticed that Ironman published your letter this
month in their reader feedback section.  I read the
first few lines and immediately I knew who it was, so
I looked to the bottom and sure enough it was a Ken
O'Neill from Texas.  Small world!

Miguel

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

Hi there,

Yep I agree with the sleep, but I am not a very good sleeper,but I like as well
to do other things than sleep, I average about 7 1/2 a day.

Thank you Wayne


10 hours huh? Ill have to try that. First Ill have to try getting a
solid 8. It's hard for me to sleep 8 hours. O weekends I want to get
up and do stuff other than sleep. And on weekdays I dont go to bed
early enough to get 8.

--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "David Lewandowski" <drdave@c...> wrote:
>
>  I've been recommending for over 20 years that those wanting to gain
muslce
> weight sleep 10+hrs/day. To get lean and muscular requires hormonal
rthym
> that only deep long sleep brings. I once did an experiment on myself
long
> ago sleeping 11-14 a day for eight weeks. I lost 4 inches off my waist,
> gained 1 1/2in on my arms, and gained 11lbs. My strength rose
exponentially.
> When I returned back to school I was asked if I had taken steriods. I
> figured that sleep was the great balancer for recovering my body from
> intense workouts so to gain at a steriod like pace without the
negative side
> effects I simply planned to eat every 2-3hrs I was awake, train
breifly 3
> times per week, and sleep like I was in a coma. It worked wonders. Only
> problem is life gets in the way.
>
> Dr. Dave
>
> >Message: 1
>  > Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:46:25 -0000
>  > From: "eleven_11_bravo" <11b@e...>
> >Subject: The secret to weight gain is...
>
>
>
> >sleep less. According to a new study. Amazing aint it. lol. But
> >wait...which is better? Sleep more for better recovery but less weight
> >gain or sleep less for more weight gain and less recovery.... IM SO
> >CONFUSED!! :D So those of you who want to lose weight, JUST SLEEP MORE!



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

OK. So once again we have opposite theories regarding the exact same
subject. Or, is the difference that in one case you gain muscles and in the
other fat?

Regarding the "study", I have to wonder if it's because less sleep just
naturally alows more time for eating. I know I tend to snack a lot when I
stay up late at night...... If I drop off early, then of course I can't be
eating......

>  I've been recommending for over 20 years that those wanting to gain
muslce
> weight sleep 10+hrs/day. To get lean and muscular requires hormonal rthym

>

> >sleep less. According to a new study. Amazing aint it. lol. But

Doctor,

I typically get six hours only!  I'm so used to it,
it's not even uncomfortable any more, but I'm sure
it's holding me back to some degree.  Your reported
results are mind-blowing.  Think I'm going to try and
get eight or nine is the few weeks left before my son
is born.  After that, heaven help me.

Anyway, I’ve noticed that the reason I don’t feel I’m
in a permanent sleep deficit is that at this point in
my life I get up at six or six-thirty instead of five
o’ clock in the morning like I used to.  If I go to
bed at 11 pm and rise at 5am, it’s really hard to get
up and I feel more tired all week; if I go to bed at
midnight and rise at 6am I feel much better even
though I slept the same six hours.  Seems it’s the
getting up that early that’s so stressful, not so much
the amount of hours I get.

Miguel

  --- David Lewandowski <drdave@...> escribió:
>
>
>  I've been recommending for over 20 years that those
> wanting to gain muslce
> weight sleep 10+hrs/day. To get lean and muscular
> requires hormonal rthym
> that only deep long sleep brings. I once did an
> experiment on myself long
> ago sleeping 11-14 a day for eight weeks. I lost 4
> inches off my waist,
> gained 1 1/2in on my arms, and gained 11lbs. My
> strength rose exponentially.
> When I returned back to school I was asked if I had
> taken steriods. I
> figured that sleep was the great balancer for
> recovering my body from
> intense workouts so to gain at a steriod like pace
> without the negative side
> effects I simply planned to eat every 2-3hrs I was
> awake, train breifly 3
> times per week, and sleep like I was in a coma. It
> worked wonders. Only
> problem is life gets in the way.
>
> Dr. Dave
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion
> Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/WpSolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> 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
>
>
>     Hitdigest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

David writes:
>
>  I've been recommending for over 20 years that those wanting to gain
muslce
> weight sleep 10+hrs/day. To get lean and muscular requires hormonal rthym
> that only deep long sleep brings. I once did an experiment on myself long
> ago sleeping 11-14 a day for eight weeks. I lost 4 inches off my waist,
> gained 1 1/2in on my arms, and gained 11lbs. My strength rose
exponentially.
> When I returned back to school I was asked if I had taken steriods. I
> figured that sleep was the great balancer for recovering my body from
> intense workouts so to gain at a steriod like pace without the negative
side
> effects I simply planned to eat every 2-3hrs I was awake, train breifly 3
> times per week, and sleep like I was in a coma. It worked wonders. Only
> problem is life gets in the way.
>
David:
You've characterized both overtaining and its antidote. gracias. perhaps
cutting back on the training would lead to cutting back on abnormally large
amounts of sleep. If you do the math on such sleeping, you'll find that over
a lifetime you've spent close to half of it asleep. what's the point of
missing out on life?

Hans Seyle's book on stress deals with various stressors leading to being
stressed out, then requiring healing sleep.

being in a coma is close to being on life support rather immersed in life.
with that kind of fatique one would miss out on having the  joys of sharing
the bed with women, being instead "too tired tonight".

10 hours huh? Ill have to try that. First Ill have to try getting a
solid 8. It's hard for me to sleep 8 hours. O weekends I want to get
up and do stuff other than sleep. And on weekdays I dont go to bed
early enough to get 8.

--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "David Lewandowski" <drdave@c...> wrote:
>
>  I've been recommending for over 20 years that those wanting to gain
muslce
> weight sleep 10+hrs/day. To get lean and muscular requires hormonal
rthym
> that only deep long sleep brings. I once did an experiment on myself
long
> ago sleeping 11-14 a day for eight weeks. I lost 4 inches off my waist,
> gained 1 1/2in on my arms, and gained 11lbs. My strength rose
exponentially.
> When I returned back to school I was asked if I had taken steriods. I
> figured that sleep was the great balancer for recovering my body from
> intense workouts so to gain at a steriod like pace without the
negative side
> effects I simply planned to eat every 2-3hrs I was awake, train
breifly 3
> times per week, and sleep like I was in a coma. It worked wonders. Only
> problem is life gets in the way.
>
> Dr. Dave
>
> >Message: 1
>  > Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:46:25 -0000
>  > From: "eleven_11_bravo" <11b@e...>
> >Subject: The secret to weight gain is...
>
>
>
> >sleep less. According to a new study. Amazing aint it. lol. But
> >wait...which is better? Sleep more for better recovery but less weight
> >gain or sleep less for more weight gain and less recovery.... IM SO
> >CONFUSED!! :D So those of you who want to lose weight, JUST SLEEP MORE!
>
> .............