weights #2436
The Weights Mailing List
Re: GYMNASTICS PYOMETRICS and POWER CLEANS
by Carnahan, Andrew B <carn...@jmu.edu>
German Volume Training???
by Michael G. Osofsky <Michael.G...@nd.edu>
Re: Workout
by <re...@cornell.edu>
Re: Protein bar recipe?
by Cindy McCoy <ci...@drucin.com>
Workout planning and tracking software?
by Neil Hodge <nho...@yahoo.com>
Re: Protein bar recipe?
by Enzo S Torino <enzo....@bms.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: GYMNASTICS PYOMETRICS and POWER CLEANS
From: "Carnahan, Andrew B" <carn...@jmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:32:25 -0700
> From: Chad Reilly <chadr...@home.com>
> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 07:01:22 -0700
> > > > It's true, both HIT and SuperSlow (which is really an outgrowth of
> > > > HIT) in general use one or a low number of sets per exercise, and both
> > > > agree on controlled movements as a safe and effective way to build
> > > > strength.
> > >
> > > If you agree it's true, what did you get bent over Mel's generalization
> > > for?
> >
> > I hate to see people polarize the issue, make one side the bad guy,
> > and then disagree with everything that the other side says just out of
> > habit. I'm not saying that Mel was guilty of this, but it comes from
> > generalizations.
>
> Again if Mel was not guilty of this then what are you getting bent
> about. Mel made a generalization that was for the most part true, you
> stated that this was an over generalization and then with my prompting
> pretty much agreed with Mels point.
I assure you that I'm not bent. Even if Mel isn't doing it, some
people will see someone who practices what they call HIT do or say
something stupid and think "those HIT people were wrong about that, so
they are wrong about everything", when in fact not everybody within
that group necessarily agrees with that person, nor are they wrong
about everything. That kind of inductive thinking comes from
generalizations like that.
> > > > I'll dig a few up for you if necessary, but you've probably
> > > > already heard of them.
> > >
> > > Probably have. Many studies done on beginners have trouble showing
> > > statistical significant differences between groups and many of those
> > > that failed to show statistical significance did show differences in
> > > favor of the multiset groups that many would consider of practical
> > > significance. If you read the research done on trained athletes
> > > (football players) the differences in improvement have been shown
> > > to be quite large and statistically significant. Quote all the
> > > studies you want just be sure to read them first.
> >
> > Some of the studies that failed to show statistical significance also
> > showed slightly better progress for the one set groups. This is why
> > it is not considered significant.
>
> A couple years ago I did a pretty extensive search on the subject and
> I only found one study in beginners that didn't show at least a slight
> edge to the multi-set groups. Now what makes for statistical
> significance is whether the differences were big enough that we can
> have probability on our side when we attribute the differences to
> something other than chance.
Are we agreeing that the results were not significant? If they are
not significant, than you can't draw any kind of conclusion from them,
except maybe that the people performing the extra sets were wasting
their time.
> > Many people would say that the
> > research done on the football players (I think we're talking about the
> > same studies) were biased in their method. An example would be having
> > the volume group do power cleans, the HIT group not do power cleans,
> > and then testing both groups on power cleans. I haven't read these
> > myself, but I'm skeptical.
>
> I would suggest that you read the studies for yourself. Regarding
> football players we are talking about:
>
> Kraemer, W.J. A series of studies-the physiological basis for strength
> training in american football: fact over philosophy. Journal of
> Strength and Conditioning Research. 11(3) 131-142. 1997.
>
> Regarding the power cleans, I think you are talking about the findings
> of experiment 3 and it was hang cleans, not power cleans and yes I think
> with specificity the test was stacked against the one set group. On
> bench press specificity was stacked the other way with specificity in
> favor of the single set group but the multi-set group still won with
> a statistically significant difference. I bet you didn't read about
> that in your second hand info. I would really suggest you read the real
> version rather than having someone else interpret it for you.
Actually, I did read that. It still leads me to believe that it was a
poorly conducted study, since both groups weren't doing the same
exercises. Where's the control?
> > There have been other studies done with
> > experienced trainees (who have lifted for a few years) that showed no
> > significant difference in progress.
>
> I only know of one other study and the we were talking about long time
> members of is:
>
> Hass, C.J. et. al. Single versus multiple sets in long-term
> recreational lifters. Medicine & Science in Sport and Exercise. 32(1):
> 235-242. 2000.
>
> The average age of the subjects was 39.7 year old active members of the
> Gainesville Health and Fitness Center who had done one set of circuit
> training in the last year. I'll let you be the judge of whether they
> should be considered to be as highly trained as the collegiate football
> players in the Kraemer study.
So are you now qualifying your posisition to say that HIT is only
inferior for advanced trainees?
> Anyway, the Hass study demonstrates the phenomenon I earlier described
> about differences in favor of the multiset group that did not reach
> significance. In 13 weeks of training the one set group averaged 10.34
> percent increase in dynamic strength across various exercises while the
> multiset group improved 12.2 percent. The single set group improved
> muscular endurance an average of 48.8 percent across exercises while the
> multiset group improved 62.6 percent. Isometric torque improved 6.3
> percent in the single set group and 6.8 percent in the multiset group.
> The single set group improved isometric torque significantly only in 2
> out of 6 angles, while the multi-set group improved significantly in
> all six angles.
>
> Unfortunately they don't give the actual p-values so we can't see
> precisely how likely these results were due to chance. Considering the
> vast vast vast majority of anecdotal evidence supports the multiset
> trainers and that all of Hass' measures indicated a trend towards the
> multiset group, which would be collaborated by Kraemer's study, I doubt
> that they are due to chance. Still none of this will show up in a test of
> statistical significance, which gives you room to believe what you want
> with regards to this study.
So, even if there were any greater improvements for the multi-set
groups, they were so small that they weren't even considered
statistically significant. Do you think the average person in the
gym would spend three times as much time for a chance of an almost
negligible increase in improvement, when they are improving either
way?
> > It's funny how there are
> > supposedly scientific studies to support both sides of the argument.
> > Either none of these results are significant, or one or both sides are
> > conducting biased experiments.
>
> Or showing differences big enough to be considered significant hard hard
> to show in a short term study. That can lead to some statistical error
> without any conspiratory theories.
Show me the long term study that shows significant improvement for
either group, then. For all we know, the one-set group might do
better in the long run than the three-set group.
> > > I don't put much credence in rumors. Try documented meet results at the
> > > national and international level.
> >
> > To be honest, I don't feel like bothering to look up all of the meet
> > results for the past decade and then trying to figure who was trained
> > by who. If you want documentation of Dr. Leistner squatting, here's
> > the video: http://www.cyberpump.com/steeltip/video.html
>
> Sorry for the bother but I repeat, I want documented meet results at the
> national or international level. If one set training is as good as
> three I would expect the evidence you to come up with a great multitude of
> names and totals. If you train for muscular endurance you are going to end
> up looking pretty good compared to guys who don't train for it. I guess
> that is why you have a video of Lestinger doing 407 twenty something
> rather than a video of him winning a major meet with a max of 700 plus.
The reason that I have a video of Leistner doing 20 rep squats is
because that is what he does. The point isn't whether it's absolute
strength or some form of endurance strength, the point is that it is
impressive and he got that way from training in an HIT fashion. And
he still improves that way, inspite of being an "advanced trainee". I
still don't know how I'm supposed to cross-reference meet results with
how those people trained. Even if I did, you would just call their
training habits "rumors", so what's the point?
Besides, since far fewer trainees start using HIT than other methods,
you can't expect as many of them to make it to the top, only an equal
percentage. And since many people who believe in HIT started with
other methods and switched because they weren't making progress, you
might be able to deduce that the average guy at the gym using an HIT
workout has less genetic potential, since they were overtraining on
the conventional method before the switch. It might also be the case
(I'm going out on a limb here for the sake of the argument) that HIT
practitioners have a predisposition against chemical assistance than
other trainess. Basically, I'm trying to say that there could be other
factors that account for the lack of prominence of HIT compared to
more conventional training practices.
> > > More rumors. Since you like rumors, have you heard of all the one's
> > > where Viator used to do extra sets on the side in a local gym during
> > > Jones' "experiment". How about all of Mentzer's warm-ups as cited by
> > > Bob Kennedy in his book "Cuts". A few years back Paul Dillet used
> > > to be on these user groups and he said when he trained with Yates,
> > > Yates wasn't doing one set.
> >
> > These people did win national and international competitions.
>
> But did they train the way they are said to have trained. Witnesses
> have all said no.
Other witnesses have said yes. Other people have also said that many
pro bodybuilders don't train as much as they say that they do.
> > If you
> > want to come up with rumors, I could say that your mom was secretly
> > doing one set to failure on nautilus machines and that was how she was
> > successful.
>
> Do you believe that to be so? You are more than welcome to come witness
> a training session.
My point was that calling stuff rumors adds zero validity to your
argument.
> > Also, note again that the definition of HIT that I'm
> > working with here says nothing about only one set.
>
> Arthur Jones used to use only one set, reportedly with his "experiment"
> with Viator. Mentzer claimed to only do one set. Not sure about Yates
> personal claims but if its multiple sets and multiple exercises, then
> what makes it HIT? You'll may tell me they train hard, duh, everyone
> at that level trains hard.
Actually, Arthur Jones used to work with more than one set, and
changed his view when he discovered that people would continue making
progress longer while using only one set. Even then, it wasn't truly
only one set per bodypart, just one set per exercise. I don't think
Yates claimed to use only one set; I've heard that he tended to use a
couple sets with low reps. Of course everyone at the highest levels
trains hard. Some people train more intensely in a shorter period of
time than others, these are the high intensity people.
> > In that case, the Cardinals are a bad example of HIT, since they are
> > missing the entire point: high intensity. I don't think anyone says
> > that one set a couple times a week is all that you need if you don't
> > work hard. Besides, just because they do extra work on their own
> > doesn't mean that they are benefiting from it.
>
> Objective evidence would suggest that they do.
What evidence?
> > I wish I had something
> > to say about the Kramer study that you're talking about, but I haven't
> > read it. And once again, three sets can fall within my definition of
> > HIT.
>
> Until a couple years ago 3 sets did not fall within "the official HIT
> faq" definition of HIT. Apparently they saw the writing on the wall
> and amended it without admitting any error. Now if you accept
> multiple sets as being ok, and you acknowledge that power cleans
> aren't dangerous I don't see what associates your beliefs with that
> of the HIT folks. Once the HITers accept explosive training (which
> research is very strong in favor of) they will be like everybody else.
I don't really try to associate myself with HIT. This is the kind of
generalization that I was trying to avoid up above. I don't think
explosive movements are inherently evil, and I hardly ever train on
machines. I also don't think mainstream HIT will ever except
explosive movements, nor do I think that you will ever except that
sometimes one set is as good as three.
By the way, where is this overwhelming research in favor of explosive
training? Seriously, I'm interested in reading it. I understand that
practicing a particular movement explosively may help you perform
that movement explosively, but is there any evindence of exploding on
an olympic lift carrying over to, for example, sprinting faster?
Other than, of course, the increase in absolute strength?
> > > > If we're talking about other types of lifting, the reason so that so
> > > > few people are injured doing Olympic lifts is that they are usually
> > > > being trained by a coach and are paying close attention to their form.
> > >
> > > I'm fascinated how you can come up with a reason for the results, while
> > > you still have to ask what the study was about. Yes, the lifters were
> > > coached, that's how you learn the lifts. There was no data given
> > > regarding the amount of supervision between the weightlifters and any
> > > of the other groups so your argument is from a vacuum. I would suggest
> > > that the reason so few weightlifters were injured was because the lifts
> > > just aren't inherently dangerous. If you have evidence to the contrary
> > > I would love to see it.
> >
> > My argument is perfectly valid: there is a variable in the study that
> > was not controlled, namely the training in the lifts. What's wrong
> > with that?
>
> What is wrong is that you are continuing to argue in favor of your
> predisposed opinion in the face of absolutely no evidence.
My opinion isn't anymore predisposed than yours. I explained myself
pretty clearly here. Lot's of factors besides the independent
variable (type of lifting) were not controlled, which make it hard to
draw any conclusion from it.
If you're still talking about the HIT thing, I consider the multitude
of studies that show no significant difference in results between one
set and three sets to be evidence. I also consider the anecdotal
evidence of successful bodybuilders and sports teams, as well as a lot
of strong people who don't compete, to support HIT.
> > I never said that the lifts are dangerous when performed
> > correctly. Do you think the other (non-olympic) exercises are
> > inherently dangerous?
>
> For the most part no.
What are the exceptions?
> > If not, how do you explain the injuries in
> > these groups?
>
> My top 3 guesses would be too much too soon of some variable, a lapse
> in technique, or bad luck. Basically the same as I would guess in the
> weightlifters.
Then why did this happen more among the non-O-lifters?
> > > Do you have any data to suggest that those in the weight training group
> > > of Hamill's study know less than those in the weightlifter group? For
> > > all we know the weightlifter coaches could have been morons.
> >
> > You're right, we don't how much the lifters knew what they were doing.
> > That's exactly the problem that I have with the study.
>
> The problem you have with the study is that it didn't fit with your
> prestated bias.
No, I stated quite clearly the problem that I had with the study.
THERE WERE OTHER FACTORS BESIDES SELECTION OF LIFTS, THEREFORE YOU
CANNOT ATTRIBUTE THE RESULTS TO THE SELECTION OF LIFTS. It's a matter
of correlation versus cause and effect.
> > > And yes I do think that one study entirely refutes your argument.
> > > Especially since you cited zero studies in support of your own.
> >
> > I don't think any one study refutes anything on the subject of lifting
> > weights, since it seems that you can always find another study to the
> > contrary.
>
> Take the pepsi challenge, give me one to the contrary.
>
> > And I did cite studies; I just gave you the short hand. :)
>
> You cited nothing.
I was making a joke because you told me that you gave me the short
hand for studies earlier in the debate, before you had cited anything.
For every study that shows a tiny advantage for the three set group,
there are a bunch that show no advantage. And here are some citations
for you, (my answer to the Pepsi challenge) all of which were
presented to the American College of Sports Medicine by Dr. Michael
Pollock:
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S115,
1998
This is the one you were talking about where the trainees only had to
have trained for one year for one set to failure in order to qualify.
Still, the average experience of the lifters was 6 years, which I
consider fairly experienced. Both groups increased their 1RM and
muscular endurance about equally.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S163,
1998
This one, which was six-months long, which is at least significantly
longer the twelve-week studies that you critiqued for being too short,
showed pretty similar results to almost all of the others: no
significant difference (a pattern here?). I guess I should note,
since you keep noting insignificant differences, that the one-set
group actually increased their strength slightly more than the
three-set group in this study (1RM increased by 33.3% as apposed to
31.6% for for the volume group, isometric strength increased by 35.4%
for the one set group and only 32.1% for the three set group, and
training weights went up by 25.6% as opposed to 14.7%.)
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement30(5); 116 &
165, 1998
These two studies were also six months long, and tested 1RM as well as
number of reps at 75% of pre-study max. Interestingly enough, there
wasn't really any difference in the 1RM between the different groups,
BUT the endurance of the three set group increased significantly on
their bench press, repping out an average of 27 reps with their
previous 75% of max, while the one-set people only got an average of
22. This would suggest that people training for endurance might
benefit more from more volume, but people training strictly for
absolute strength would do just as well with less volume. It makes
logical sense to me from a specifity point of view.
All of the above studies randomly picked the one set and three set
groups from those participating, all of them performed the same
exercises the same number of times per week. The only thing that
changed was the number of sets, which was not the case with the
football player study that you mentioned.
> > > > If you've got a heavy, fast-moving bar in your hands and
> > > > you don't know how to control it, you could get hurt.
> > >
> > > If you have a heavy slow moving bar in your hands and you don't know
> > > how to move it, you could be hurt. The faster you move a bar
> > > (relatively
> > > speaking) the lighter is is. It has to be due to the force velocity
> > > curve. That's why the the worlds best deadlift is about 350 pounds
> > > heavier than the worlds best clean. Things tend to equal out, such
> > > that the incidence of injury is pretty similar between weightlifters
> > > and powerlifters, as documented in the above research.
>
> > When you say that the
> > faster you move a bar, the lighter it is, do you mean that the faster
> > movement necessitates using a lighter weight, or that moving the bar
> > faster actually makes the bar lighter?
>
> To move the bar faster it necessitates the use of a lighter weight,
> relative to your max weight. That's why I used the words "relatively
> speaking.
That makes sense, but the momentary force that is being exerted on
your body can still be greater than with a slow moving bar, even if it
has less mass.
> > If everybody I saw doing power cleans was doing them
> > correctly, I would probably be more likely to recommend the exercise.
>
> If you hadn't read cyberpump you would probably be more likely to
> recommend them. If you had read the research on training for power
> you would too.
Here goes the HIT generalization thing again. I don't get all of my
info from cyberpump, which you seem to be assuming. I've read a fair
amount of stuff on "training for power", too. I've got Dreschler's
Encyclopedia of Weightlifting, which I've read cover to cover. I've
got a book or two by Chu on the subject, although I admit I never read
them all the way through. I started to read Zatsiorsky's Science and
Practice of Strength Training, but didn't get too far. I still mean
to trudge through the whole thing when I get the time. I've also read
a lot of stuff on the web on the subject.
> > But seriously, I'm not saying that high
> > pulls and jump squats don't work, but I'm not going to tell my friend
> > who's never worked out before he needs to do them. There are plenty
> > of other ways to build strength and muscle that I'm more familiar
> > with. If there's one thing I know about lifting weights, its that
> > there are a lot of different approaches that work. Some are better
> > than others, some are better for certain people or certain purposes,
> > but there is never one way for ever person or every situation.
>
> If your situation is that you work with athletes who need to train a
> lot of muscles in a short time period, while at the same time increasing
> power output, you might want to think about learning how to do it.
I'd also think about doing fewer sets than most, if I can get about
the same results either way.
> > Some people make great progress training one set to failure a couple
> > of times a week. I put on about fifteen pounds of muscle and gained
> > strength on all of my lifts without gaining a noticeable amount of fat
> > by training this way for a couple months. If you think I'm defending
> > HIT, it's because I've seen it work.
>
> Nobody has said it don't work, at least for those who are not highly
> trained, the question is what works best.
The majority of the evidence says that neither one really works
better, but one of them takes a lot less time.
> > ps: I'm enjoying this argument.
>
> I enjoyed the argument the first dozen or so times I had it, now I'm
> bored. Please read some of the mentioned research for yourself before
> you reply.
I think you're the one who is bent. I've had this argument before,
too, and watched other people have this argument, and everybody always
brings up the same evidence. I guess it can get monotonous. I still
enjoy it, to a degree.
--
Carnahan, Andrew B
carn...@jmu.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: German Volume Training???
From: "Michael G. Osofsky" <Michael.G...@nd.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:34:03 -0700
Anyone ever try Charles Poliquin's GVT Training, which can be viewed
at http://homepages.together.net/~twilbur/gvt.htm? I have just started it
and am following it exactly. However, after one cycle in the beginner's
phase I already have some doubts. I have been lifting for about a year
and am a devout heavy deadlifter (LOVE MY DEADLIFTS) and squatter. I felt
more drained after my regular training than the GVT (who knows, maybe I
was overtraining but I don't think so?). So for anyone who has followed
it or known someone who did, how'd it work? Any particular changes that
you would suggest to GVT? Do you lose strength when following GVT since
you're using lighter weight? Thanks. -Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Workout
From: re...@cornell.edu
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:35:49 -0700
Mr. Uxo wrote:
>Today I did the following workout in about 45 mins.
>
>1)Bench press - (2 warmup sets), 225 3x10 (speed work), 225 3x5 (1 sec
>pauses)
>2)Incline press 165 3x8
>3)Barbell Curls - 5 sets.
>5)Crunches - 1x50
>
>I dont really like any chest exercise other then bench cause everything
>else causes too much strain on my shoulders.So I dont realy know what to
>do.
I have the same problem with my shoulders. Flat bench is great but if
you want to really work your chest, you need more. Inclines are good,
just make sure you keep good form and go slow so you don't hit your
shoulders with any sharp movements. Another exercise that I really like
is cable crossovers. Do them slightly modified though; rather than
extending your arms all the way out, keep your elbows bent, and only
bring your arms back about halfway, then extend them forward and really
squeeze your pecs.
Good luck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Protein bar recipe?
From: "Cindy McCoy" <ci...@drucin.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:34:58 -0700
It's not quite a bar but my favorite is to mix a scoop of protein, 2 tbsp
natural peanut butter, 2 tbsp raisins, and add milk to form a creamy
mixture. I eat it with a spoon but I guess you could roll it in won ton
wrappers or something along those lines. Vanilla protein works best but I
have used strawberry. It may seem high in fat but it is the good fat and
fat is essential in the diet. The natural peanut butter is lower in carbs
and has no sugar.
Cindy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Workout planning and tracking software?
From: Neil Hodge <nho...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:36:25 -0700
All:
I have been doing research lately to try to find "the" premier workout
software. However, most seem to be lacking a major feature or two. And
Excel is becoming more inadequate by the day. What I am looking for is as
follows:
* Planner: allows flexible workout planning, with respect macro
(intra-week) and micro (inter-week/inter-day) schedule, and all training
factors. Maybe with some pre-fab workouts, that can be semi-customized.
* Tracker: generally self explanatory. Places for lots of little extra
notes, like workout time of day, misc text notes, supplements taken, etc.
* Some reconciliation between the planner and the tracker, to
determine/display the difference between what I PLAN to do and what I
ACTUALLY do.
* Lots of reports/output of historical data, to review results in almost
any useful way.
You all are my last hope. Barring a good answer here, I may end up writing
my own software . . . Thanks for the input.
Neil Hodge
www.supplementsavvy.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Protein bar recipe?
From: Enzo S Torino <enzo....@bms.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:34:26 -0700
Do a search on the back postings...there was a thread on some recipes. I
believe Doc Siff, Rosemary and some other regular contributors posted some
tasty recipes.
~E
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of weights
Issues of the weights digest, along with a Links directory, a bookstore,
and much more, are available at WeightsNet:
To contribute to the next issue, please send email to:
mailto:wei...@WeightsNet.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to:
mailto:weights...@WeightsNet.com
For further information, contact Michael Sullivan at:
mailto:sull...@WeightsNet.com
The views expressed in weights are those of the individual authors only.