weights #2389
The Weights Mailing List
Cam
by Mr. Uxo <u...@hotmail.com>
Re: Music
by Eric Burkhardt <embu...@uci.edu>
Re: lordosis terminology
by james wickham <j.wi...@latrobe.edu.au>
Re: ONE SET vs. MANY SETS
by joe strafach <j.str...@home.com>
Re: lordosis and pronation axis
by james wickham <j.wi...@latrobe.edu.au>
Palm Software?
by Bastiaan Stronks <j.j.s....@student.utwente.nl>
Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
by Loren Chiu <loren...@hotmail.com>
Re: ONE SET vs. MANY SETS
by Joseph Brown <br...@psych.stanford.edu>
Re: pseudoephedrine?
by Gregg Roberts <gre...@IAmAnIdiot.com>
Ntl Weight Control Registry; I'm 6 year member 130 lb weight loss
by J Knight <knight...@yahoo.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Cam
From: "Mr. Uxo" <u...@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:26:20 -0700
Watching the webcam in Golds I can immediatey see 3 squat racks against the
wall. My gym only got one. Golds in Venice must be a cool gym.
Anymore cams?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Music
From: "Eric Burkhardt" <embu...@uci.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:31:10 -0700
Loren Chiu wrote....
<<
During training: Silence, or quiet music (no heavy base, rhythm, etc.) at
low volume in the background. As an olympic weightlifter, I find that any
music that is too loud distracts me from the task at hand. This might not
be a problem for the bodybuilder or fitness type "going for the burn:)"
>>
I'm on the same page with Loren here. As an O. lifter, I feel no music is
best. It would be interesting to survey the successful WL gyms to see
weather they play music or not. I've lifted at a few, and most do not play
music. Has anyone viewed any of the IronMind training videos and heard
loud music playing in the background?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: lordosis terminology
From: james wickham <j.wi...@latrobe.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:30:40 -0700
Simon wrote,
> 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?
In my experience I have also seen lordosis used to describe a pathologic
condition as well as a normal curvature of the lumbar spine. In teaching
we tend to use the term "excessive lordosis" to denote a pathology or just
bad posture. This I think is the way to go. Remember there is also a
natural cervical lordosis which is to my knowledge is never referred to as
pathologic. These curves are there as a result of the upright posture and
for energy efficiency reasons; totally normal. Kyphosis on the other hand
is a pathological condition of an increased posterior convexity of the
thoracic spine. Its a pity all texts dont agree on the lordosis meaning
though.
[They still sound like ancient Egyptian gods to me. -MTS]
James Wickham.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: ONE SET vs. MANY SETS
From: joe strafach <j.str...@home.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:33:47 -0700
I will chime in here with my opinion. I have yet to gain any strength
doing 1 set versus my usual 4- 5 sets. I train to compete in strongman type
contests and have talked with others about their training. The consensus is
that you need the extra sets for the workout to do anything for you. I
don't know the physiology behind it I just know what works. In theory
perhaps the 1 set to failure is enough but in practice it does not cut it.
Joe Strafach
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: lordosis and pronation axis
From: james wickham <j.wi...@latrobe.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:29:16 -0700
Mel Siff wrote,
> ***Your interpretation of the terminology is perfectly correct. Those
> texts which use lordosis and kyphosis as terms for the "normal" curvatures
> of the spine are incorrect and are being used casually without regard to
> their linguistic origins or meaning. Paradoxically, these same texts
> never refer to a "normal" scoliosis", which betrays that they do have an
> awareness that the suffix "-osis" always is used with reference to a
> pathological condition.
>
> "Lumbar lordosis" refers to an abnormal or pathologically increased
> posterior concavity of the lumbar spine,"thoracic kyphosis" refers to an
> abnormally increased posterior convexity of the thoracic spine, and
> "scoliosis" to an abnormal deviation of the spine to either side of the
> vertical.
Interestingly Mosby's medical dictionary gives both a normal curvature
definition and also a second definition as being an abnormal curvature.
> Similar confusion exists between the use of the terms "inversion" and
> "pronation", and "eversion" and "supination" of the foot. While pronation
> and supination refer to simple rotations of the foot or hand about the
> longitudinal axis running through the hand or foot,
I would be hesitant in calling pronation and supination of the foot simple
rotations about a longitudinal axis. The axis for pronation/supination at
the foot is a triplanar axis giving triplanar movement with the axis
running from the lateral tubercle of the calcaneal tuberosity through to
the head of the talus (oblique axis) which yeilds an angle of approximately
42 degrees from the horizontal (Norkin and Levangie, 92) and also an angle
formed relative to the sagittal plane (16 degrees). Also to be totally
accurate the axis for pronation/supination of the "hand" (radioulnar joint)
is not entirely longitudinal as it actually runs between the head of the
radius to the head of the ulna (slightly oblique).
James Wickham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Palm Software?
From: "Bastiaan Stronks" <j.j.s....@student.utwente.nl>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:37:44 -0700
Hi, Maybe slightly off-topic, but I think this wil really help my
workouts: I recently bought a Palm VII palmtop, thinking it would be great
to track my workouts. But until now, i havent found any good software at
all.. Does anyone use their palm for their tracking, and if so, which
software do you use? Thanks in advance, Bas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
From: "Loren Chiu" <loren...@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:37:21 -0700
Eric Burkhardt replied
>
>Joseph Brown wrote...
>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>.
>
>Me...
>C'mon Joseph. Have you ever trained for maximum strength? Anyone who
>believes any of this crap about a single-set creating an equal adaptive
>response to that of multiple-set training need look no further than what
>competitive lifters are doing.
Those are some worldclass websites to check out. I'm sure they rank right
up there with, I don't know, say www.sportsci.org
>Joseph Brown....
>Also, in the large and very useful book MAXIMIZE YOUR TRAINING (ed. by Matt
>Brzycki),
>
>Me....
>Sure you don't mean useless book:)?
Just as HIT is a misnomer, so is this book. The book should be titled
MINIMIZE YOUR TRAINING AND RESULTS.
>Joseph...
> 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.
>Me....
>Some of his studies used "trained experienced strength athletes"? Hmmm,
>let's see if we could get any competitive weightlifters to cut their let
>training back to one set of squats per workout. Seeing as how you find
>Bryzycki's book so useful, you're probably also under the impression that
>squatting more than 2X/wk is overtraining.....Soooo, now we're down to two
>sets of squats per week. Hmmm, let's try that with some competitive
>olympic style lifters and see how long they can maintain their leg
>strength.
If I recall, very few of the studies used "trained strength athletes" and
of course we all know that doesn't mean much. If you look up A Fry on
Medline a few years back, I believe he's done a couple of studies that used
US Junior Natl weightlifters.
>Joseph...
>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".
>
>Me...
>Maybe I'll pick that one up at the library when I need good laugh.
There have been a large number of studies done and C & O didn't include
many of them in their review. I believe this is called bias. For a
critique of this review, Fred Hatfield (good ol' Dr. Squat) has some
comments at: http://www.sportsci.org Don't bother reading it Eric (or
anyone else). It's not worth lining a birdcage with.
Loren Chiu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: ONE SET vs. MANY SETS
From: Joseph Brown <br...@psych.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:35:16 -0700
>>
From: "Eric Burkhardt" <embu...@uci.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:36:22 -0700
C'mon Joseph. Have you ever trained for maximum strength? Anyone who
believes any of this crap about a single-set creating an equal adaptive
response to that of multiple-set training need look no further than what
competitive lifters are doing.
<<
Hi, Eric.
Well, a couple of studies (I know one did so) examined the hormones
produced and other responses to training and found that there were few
differencesbetween single set and multiple set approaches.
I guess my point is that as a researcher (an experimental psychologist),
when Isee a review in which all studies comparing two approaches are
reviewed and it turns out that there is a consistent finding (and I find
that at least a few of the studies use trained strength athlete rather than
novices), I feel that we can't just dismiss the findings...we have
to take them seriously and I don't think we are doing that to a sufficient
degree.
There is one caveat I do think needs to be mentioned. If you are a
competitive weightlifter (as Eric is) then the single set approach isn't
appropriate. The reason is that when you lift, you're not simply
building strength, you're also training your performance in your sport, and
need to train for one rep maxima. You can't bring that skill to its
supreme level on a single set two or three times a week. But the reason
for the multiple sets is not (IMO...that may not mean much, it's true) the
multiple sets isn't about maximum adaptation but about bringing one's skill
at throwing large poundages to the necessary level to surpass one's
competitor's...just what a Taekwondo person is doing practicing her
kicks over and over, so that during competition, she can kick faster and
better than her competitor.
But consider the rest of us, who lift for other sports, and for fitness?
I don't need my lifting technique honed to perfection for maximal single
rep lifts (a highly skilled activity). I need to be strong for my sport
(martial arts). If I can get very strong (as strong as with multiple
set routines) with one or two sets vs. three or more, then that
seems to me to be a really good thing...I can spend that time practicing
my martial arts and living life.
I thought it was important, however, to draw that distinction between
competitive lifters and others who are strength training for other
activities.
The other point is that some HITers have gone out of their way to
antagonize others and argue that HIT is superior. Well, the studies don't
show that...they show that HIT and multiple set methods seem to
produce the same results. That's it. Now, the time factor makes
HIT attractive to me, but if one has the time OR one is an Olympic
lifter or other competitive lifter, that's a different story, and
that needs to be made clear.
Joseph
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: pseudoephedrine?
From: "Gregg Roberts" <gre...@IAmAnIdiot.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:37:56 -0700
> From: "Ian Reilly" <bat...@tig.com.au>
>I am planning to "lean out" over eight
> weeks starting August 1, and I would like to include some style of
> thermogenic to aid my progress. As the common ECA stack is
> unavailable,( in Australia, ephedrine is illegal ), would the readily
> available Pseudoephedrine be any sort of substitute.
I came across a substitute for the ECA stack a while back, and I
copied it down. I can't remember where it came from, and I've never
tried it. Any opionions on this? I don't know if the ingredients are
legal outside of the U.S.
L-Tyrosine: 200 mg
Yohimbine: 2.9 mg
Caffeine: 100 mg
DL-Phenylpropanolamine: 25 mg,
or L-Phenylpropanolamine: 18 mg
Gregg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Ntl Weight Control Registry; I'm 6 year member 130 lb weight loss
From: J Knight <knight...@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:32:30 -0700
Has anyone on this list lost at least 30 lbs and
maintained this loss for over 1 year. Have you heard
of the Weight Control Registry that has been
maintained at University of Pittsburgh since 1993.
I was so excited to receive a letter from them this
week congratulating ME on completing 6 years on this
registry. I have been maintaining a now 130 lb weight
loss (my current stats 5 foot 2, 131 lb size petite 6,
weightlifting hobbyist.)I actually posted here in 1993
asking for help in losing the final 40 lbs. I lost the
first 90 lbs over 2.5 years but could NOT lose the
last 40 lbs after a year of a heavy exercise (read
total cardio protocol and clasic high carb, low fat,
low protein diet so popular then.
My entire loss used natural means focusing on healthy
eating and exercise. I had never dieted before and
been very heavy since childhood.
I subscribed and wrote to this board in 1993 asking
for advice. The suggestion that made the difference
and backed up in the findings at NWCR were to increase
strength exercise and for me advice that worked was to
stop the very high carb, low cal, low fat diet that
was so popular in early 80's. I moved to a more
moderating, higher protein program. Final weight came
off quickly and stayed off.
Here is some info from the registry.
"Successful weight losers report making substantial
changes in eating and exercise habits to lose weight
and to maintain their losses. On average, registrantsí
report consuming about 1400 kcal/day (24 percent
calories from fat) and expending about 400 kcal/day in
physical exercise. Walking is the most frequently
cited physical activity."
To enroll in the NWCR, participants must have lost at
least 30 lbs. (13.6 kg) and have maintained that loss
for at least 1 year.
http://www.uchsc.edu/nutrition/nwcr.htm to find out more
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.