weights #2384
The Weights Mailing List
Re: "The MASTER Critic Siff" Or just plain GOD
by <Alw...@aol.com>
Dumbells or Barbells?
by Jim Porter <Jimbo...@houston.rr.com>
MAGNET THERAPY
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
by Joseph Brown <br...@psych.stanford.edu>
PLATOONS OF SCIENTISTS
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
by Sherbahadur Khurshid <sku...@pop.bennington.edu>
Re: sites
by Wierman, Sandy <sawi...@davidson.edu>
Squats with pins in ankle?
by Bill Darchi <wda...@lucent.com>
Stubborn Midesection fat
by <FlexW...@aol.com>
Re: Will Heavy Lifting Stunt My Growth?
by Chad Reilly <chadr...@home.com>
Lumbar/thoracic spine terminology
by Simon Little <Sim...@torson.com>
Re: Bulgarian method
by Eric Burkhardt <embu...@uci.edu>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: "The MASTER Critic Siff" Or just plain GOD
From: Alw...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:24:44 -0700
First of all thanks to all the people who emailed me in support of my
original post.
However my point that was answered by Mr Siff :
<>
Actually you are 100% right in that regard and I deeply apologize. My whole
point is that weights.net is not the place to criticize anyone - and I
violated my own rule !!!
It's ironic in that the original point I was making has resulted in a
similar amount of posts as regards Mr Siff !!! For this I deeply apologize.
This was not my intention.
Hopefully this will be the last of ANY derogatory comments as regards ANY
coaches/physiologists and sports scientists. Especially as most of the
people criticized have helped produce several top level athletes and world
class performances.
All the criticisms as regards 'guru' and 'master' (incidentally a nickname
that Ian King's athletes came up with for him - not his own !) are perhaps
valid - but so then is any criticism as regards authoring a book on
"SUPER"training : ) (tongue-in-cheek statement - PLEASE let it drop !!!)
Hopefully the mudslinging will stop here.
Alwyn Cosgrove
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Dumbells or Barbells?
From: "Jim Porter" <Jimbo...@houston.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:24:58 -0700
hey I do alot of curls and I was wondering which is more effective,
using dumbells to curl or using a bar. thanx.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: MAGNET THERAPY
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:26:42 -0700
There has been considerable recent discussion on the use of magnets in
therapy and sport, so that this web site should be of special interest:
http://skepdic.com/magnetic.html
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcs...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
From: Joseph Brown <br...@psych.stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:28:23 -0700
Mel has basically continued a falsehood that demeans the discussion. Ralph
Carpinelli has done a review of research examining this controversy, and
there is a lot more than just one single study...suggesting that one set
work produces results indistinguishable from three or more sets. A couple
of websites have articles of his (with references, which for me are
the most important part of an article)...<www.cbass.com/newevide.htm> and
<www.mikementzer.com/moreisbet.html>.
Also, in the large and very useful book MAXIMIZE YOUR TRAINING (ed. by
Matt Brzycki), Carpinelli has an article (again with extensive references)
in which he reviews scores of studies which tested multi-set schemes
against single-set schemes. The overwhelming finding is that one set work
produces results not significantly different from multi-set work. And not
all studies use novices. Some use trained experienced strength athletes.
I understand that there is going to be continuing disagreement, but what I
can't be happy about is misleading comments. There have been a large
number of studies done now and the results are pretty consistent. And for
those who want to read about Carpinelli's review in a peer-reviewed
journal, see Carpinelli and Otto in Sports Medicine 26(2): 73-84, 1998,
"Strength Training: Single vs. Multiple Sets".
JB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: PLATOONS OF SCIENTISTS
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:30:06 -0700
Here is something that will please those who often criticise scientists and
science in its application to the so-called real world.
A few years ago, I commented on and joked about the plethora of authors
whose names are beginning to appear on very abstrusely titled research
papers. This latest one (shown below) may establish a world record number
of co-authors - has anyone encountered a more encyclopaedic list anywhere
yet? Isn't this business of academic credit points growing far too
unwieldy and possibly ridiculous nowadays? Are some scientists trying to
prove to the public that science should be taken a little less seriously
nowadays? Or is the academic system forcing some perfectly good scientists
into situations where they have to behave like weirdos in order to earn
some cash and credits for their institutions?
Suppose that a scientist in the military conducts research with whole army
divisions, many of whom make some or other contribution to the experimental
design, management, analysis, recording, discussion and computation of a
very intricate topic - should the paper contain a whole list of hundreds of
authors and co-authors?
Should journals begin to make some sort of stipulation about who should
qualify as co-authors? Has the idea of "Publish or Perish" now gone beyond
the bounds of all good sense?
---------------------------------------------------
Nature 406, 151 - 157 (2000) 13 July 2000
The genome sequence of the plant pathogen Xylella fastidiosa
A.лJ.лG.лSIMPSON, F.C.лREINACH, P.лARRUDA, F.лA.лABREU, M.лACENCIO,
R.лALVARENGA, L.лM.лC.лALVES, J.лE.лARAYA, G.лS.лBAIA,
C.лS.лBAPTISTA,
M.лH.лBARROS, E.лD.лBONACCORSI, S.лBORDIN, J.лM.лBOV댿,
M.лR.лS.лBRIONES,
M.лR.лP.лBUENO, A.лA.лCAMARGO, L.лE.лA.лCAMARGO, D.лM.лCARRARO,
H.лCARRER,
N.лB.лCOLAUTO, C.лCOLOMBO, F.лF.лCOSTA, M.лC.лR.лCOSTA,
C.лM.лCOSTA-NETO,
L.лL.лCOUTINHO, M.лCRISTOFANI, E.лDIAS-NETO, C.лDOCENA, H.лEL-DORRY,
A.лP.лFACINCANI, A.лJ.лS.лFERREIRA, V.лC.лA.лFERREIRA, J.лA.лFERRO,
J.лS.лFRAGA, S.лC.лFRAN댾A, M.лC.лFRANCO, M.лFROHME, L.лR.лFURLAN,
M.лGARNIER,
G.лH.лGOLDMAN, M.лH.лS.лGOLDMAN, S.лL.лGOMES, A.лGRUBER, P.лL.лHO,
J.лD.лHOHEISEL, M.лL.лJUNQUEIRA, E.лL.лKEMPER, J.P.лKITAJIMA,
J.лE.лKRIEGER,
E.лE.лKURAMAE, F.лLAIGRET, M.лR.лLAMBAIS, L.лC.лC.лLEITE,
E.лG.лM.лLEMOS,
M.лV.лF.лLEMOS, S.лA.лLOPES, C.лR.лLOPES, J.лA.лMACHADO,
M.лA.лMACHADO,
A.лM.лB.лN.лMADEIRA, H.лM.лF.лMADEIRA, C.лL.лMARINO, M.лV.лMARQUES,
E.лA.лL.лMARTINS, E.лM.лF.лMARTINS, A.лY.лMATSUKUMA,
C.лF.лM.лMENCK,
E.лC.лMIRACCA, C.лY.лMIYAKI, C.лB.лMONTEIRO-VITORELLO, D.лH.лMOON,
M.лA.лNAGAI, A.лL.лT.лO.лNASCIMENTO, L.лE.лS.лNETTO, A.лNHANI,
F.лG.лNOBREGA,
L.лR.лNUNES, M.лA.лOLIVEIRA, M.лC.лDEлOLIVEIRA, R.лC.лDEлOLIVEIRA,
D.лA.лPALMIERI, A.лPARIS, B.лR.лPEIXOTO, G.лA.лG.лPEREIRA,
H.лA.лPEREIRA,
J.лB.лPESQUERO, R.лB.лQUAGGIO, P.лG.лROBERTO, V.лRODRIGUES,
A.лJ.лDEлM.лROSA,
V.лE.лDEлROSA, R.лG.лDEлS댢, R.лV.лSANTELLI, H.лE.лSAWASAKI,
A.лC.лR.лDAлSILVA, A.лM.лDAлSILVA, F.лR.лDAлSILVA, W.лA.лSILVA,
J.лF.лDAлSILVEIRA, M.лL.лZ.лSILVESTRI, W.лJ.лSIQUEIRA,
A.лA.лDEлSOUZA,
A.лP.лDEлSOUZA, M.лF.лTERENZI, D.лTRUFFI, S.лM.лTSAI, M.лH.лTSUHAKO,
H.лVALLADA, M.лA.лVANлSLUYS, S.лVERJOVSKI-ALMEIDA, A.лL.лVETTORE,
M.лA.лZAGO,
M.лZATZ, J.лMEIDANIS & J.лC.лSETUBAL
Xylella fastidiosa is a fastidious, xylem-limited bacterium that causes a
range of economically important plant diseases. Here we report the complete
genome sequence of X. fastidiosa clone 9a5c, which causes citrus variegated
chlorosis뮽� serious disease of orange trees. The genome comprises a 52.7%
GC-rich 2,679,305-base-pair (bp) circular chromosome and two plasmids of
51,158лbp and 1,285 bp. We can assign putative functions to 47% of the
2,904 predicted coding regions. Efficient metabolic functions are
predicted, with sugars as the principal energy and carbon source,
supporting existence in the nutrient-poor xylem sap. The mechanisms
associated with pathogenicity and virulence involve toxins, antibiotics and
ion sequestration systems, as well as bacterium뮽�acterium and
bacterium뮽�ost interactions mediated by a range of proteins. Orthologues
of some of these proteins have only been identified in animal and human
pathogens; their presence in X. fastidiosa indicates that the molecular
basis for bacterial pathogenicity is both conserved and independent of
host. At least 83 genes are bacteriophage-derived and include
virulence-associated genes from other bacteria, providing direct evidence
of phage-mediated horizontal gene transfer.
-----------------------------------------------------
Seriously, this is not a joke - check through the latest edition of
"Nature" to see for yourselves, if you have the chance!
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcs...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
From: "Sherbahadur Khurshid" <sku...@pop.bennington.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:28:39 -0700
Hi Dr Siff,
Thank you very much for your reply.
I was fascinated by the Hettinger study
you quoted, I've never heard of anything
like it before.
-Sher
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: sites
From: "Wierman, Sandy" <sawi...@davidson.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:30:21 -0700
JUMPMAN57,
Try this site http://www.planetkc.com/exrx/Exercise.html
Go into Workout Templates, choose a workout, click on one of the body parts
listed, and then click on one of the exercises listed. It will show each
exercise in animation. Hope that helps!
Sandy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Squats with pins in ankle?
From: Bill Darchi <wda...@lucent.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:30:57 -0700
Hi,
A year and a half ago I broke my ankle skiing. I needed surgery to set the
ankle. It was my left ankle, I have a plate and screws on the outside bone
and two screws in my ankle, where the inside bone meets the ankle bone.
After a long layoff I've re-started my weight training. As part of my
routine I do squats, during the squats I've been experiencing a weird
feeling in my left ankle as I've increased the weight. This freaked me
out, I was afraid my ankle was going to snap in half. I am hoping someone
on this list has an opinion if it is safe to do squats with the injury I
had, or should I substitute different leg exercises?
--
Bill Darchi
Lucent Technologies
email: wda...@lucent.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Stubborn Midesection fat
From: FlexW...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:31:40 -0700
Help!
A male client I'm prepping for his first bodybuilding show has me
confounded. I started with him 2 years ago; then he was a typical
out-ofshape, 25-pounds overweight 36-year old white-collar worker. He's
slowly transformed himself into a decent physical specimen, with especially
well-muscled and lean limbs. In fact, looking at his arms and legs you'd
say he was fairly close to contest shape.
But his midsection is a problem.15mm skinfold at the umbillicus, 10mm at
the suprailiac and 15 mm at the kidney. I've got him up to four 30-minute
cardio sessions weekly (jogging) and have gradually lowered his calories to
about 2000 daily (He weighs 156). I've tried shifting ratios of fats and
carbs (right now he's on a 50% P, 30% F, 20% CHO eating plan, with starch
[oatmeal] at breakfast only) , but this midsection fat refuses to go. He
told me that even as a kid he had a generous roll around his middle and has
never seen his abs.
We've got 12 weeks before the show.
Anybody -- Tom Incledon especially -- have any suggestions? I'd be
grateful for your thoughts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Will Heavy Lifting Stunt My Growth?
From: Chad Reilly <chadr...@home.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:32:03 -0700
> From: "Delphene" <dhe...@interbaun.com>
> Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:17:50 -0700
>
> >From: Chad Reilly
>
> >> In fact a study involving 13-19 year old male and female athletes who
> >> strenth trained had a 26 percent lower injury rate. Not only that,
> lifters
> >> who were injured, required less tiem for rehabilitation than their
> >> teammates who did not strenth train.
> >
> >What's the reference to that study?
>
> Chad, can I get you that reference at a later date? I have lent out that
> book to a friend taking some courses and I don't have the study reference
> right at my fingertips. I will check with her about it perhaps this
> evening. Sorry about that.
Did you find it yet?
cr
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Lumbar/thoracic spine terminology
From: Simon Little <Sim...@torson.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:26:33 -0700
Through regularly referring to a number of texts to research/study the
anatomy and function of the spine there appears to be a somewhat
inconsistent use of the terms Lordosis and Kyphosis to describe spinal
curvature. My understanding of ideal/normal segmental alignment of the
spine is: cervical spine slightly convex anteriorly, thoracic spine
slightly convex posteriorly, and the lumbar spine slightly convex
anteriorly. Lordosis and kyphosis by their very name(-osis: forming,
denoting process or condition esp. pathological state(5)) seem to refer to
pathological conditions of the cervical/Lumbar and thoracic spine
respectively. Lordosis and kyphosis are often defined as pathological,
accentuated and/or poor postures (3,4) yet some very detailed texts refer
to normal lumbar curvature as "the lumbar lordosis" (1), "lordotic" (6) or
an "increased lordosis" (to describe an increase in the convex
cervical/lumbar curve anteriorly)(2). Is this an increase in a "normal"
curve or and increase in an already pathological spine? Have I
misinterpreted the use of these terms or are they being used
interchangeably as descriptors of normal spinal curvature? If so, why are
such highly respected texts perpetuating the inappropriate use of
such terminology?
Regards
Simon
Simon Little
Content Research & Development
Torson Productions Pty. Ltd.
_____________________________
t.+61 8 8357 2999
f.+61 8 8357 2988
mailto: sim...@torson.com
Level 1, 65 Greenhill Road
Wayville SA 5034
AUSTRALIA
1.Bogduk N. Clinical Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine and Sacrum. 3rd ed.
Churchill Livingstone. 1998. pg.55
2. Grant R. Physical Therapy of the Cervical and Thoracic Spine. 2nd Ed.
Clinics in Physical Therapy. Churchill Livingstone. 1998. pg. 346-350.
3. Kendall F.P., Kendall E.K. & Provance P.G. Muscles. Testing and
Function. 4th ed. Williams and Wilkins 1983. pg. 83.
4. Kent M. Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine. 2nd ed. Oxford
University Press. 1998. pg. 228-229.
5. Sykes J.B.(ed.) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 6th
ed. Clarendon Press. pg. 777
6. Williams P.L. (ed.) Grays Anatomy. 38th ed. Churchill Livingstone. 1995.
pg.535
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bulgarian method
From: "Eric Burkhardt" <embu...@uci.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:07:30 -0700
Tom wrote...
This sounds like Leo Costa's stuff. I trained like the Bulgarians years
ago. I worked out up to six times per day. My American coaches were under
the misguided belief that this type of training would improve our lifts.
It worked but my joints ached all the time and my muscles were in a
constant state of soreness. Years later, on my own, I cut back my OL
workouts to 2-3 per week total. My lifts increased so fast that my lifting
friends wanted to know what I was taking.
My response...
Personally, to achieve optimal results, I feel that a training frequency of
2 - 3 times per week is not sufficient, regardless of individual
differences. Tom, when you cut back to 2 - 3 X/wk, did your gains continue
for to make steady progress for a long time? It would be nice to only have
to train 2 - 3 days/wk, but there is no question in my mind that 4 - 6
training days/wk will stimulate better progress (assuming that appropriate
rest and nutrition is in place to facilitate recovery).
Tom...
I relay this personal account to put things into perspective. It is
possible to train like the Bulgarians, but the real question is, Is it
necessary? I think a short 2-3 week cycle may be OK at some point.
Training all the time like that is ridiculous.
My response....
Maybe 6 sessions/day, 6 days/week is ridiculous, especially for most
people, but 1, maybe 2 sessions/day, 4 - 6 days/week is reasonable for
most. I think a quick survey of the top O. lifters would reveal that none
of them train only 2 - 3 days/week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.