weights #2435
The Weights Mailing List
Threat of Drugs?
by J HARRISON <harr...@virgin.net>
Abs In, or Abs Out?
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Body For Life & EAS
by James O. Davis <fle...@jps.net>
CHEK YOUR BELTS!
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Muscle terminology
by Rod Green <Rod....@latrobe.edu.au>
Protein bar recipe?
by <Michae...@denmark.frontec.se>
Ben Johnson Dysfunction?
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
PSEUDO MECHANICS - Muscle Length
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Creatine and BV
by Eugene Wong <e....@usa.net>
training for woman?
by Daniel Jean <daniel...@sympatico.ca>
Workout
by Mr. Uxo <u...@hotmail.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Threat of Drugs?
From: "J HARRISON" <harr...@virgin.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 23:41:18 -0700
I'm doing some research into drugs in bodybuilding. I would just like
to know is there any kind of drugs which are places as illegal in
bodybuilding. And if there are what punishments are used against the
competitors. If it is also possibe! Could you say your own opinion on
the threat of drugs in your sport! Thank you! J.Harrison
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Abs In, or Abs Out?
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:05:58 -0700
Dave Tate's reply to Chek's article was posted to other groups and to T-mag:
To T-mag readers
I was going to approach this question in a very professional manor. Letting
the readers know that while Paul and myself my disagree on 5 or 10% of each
others training theories, we still will probably agree on the other 95%.
The readers always want to try to pit one writer against another and this
is the very reason why I have chosen to write for only a couple of
magazines. I have seen most of Paul's videos and agree with most of what he
says. I have even recommended many of them to several clients and coaches.
Paul and Myself do two entirely different things. I train people for
Maximal Strength Development and Paul seems to train people for
rehabilation. I may be wrong on this but that is my take.
This was how many response was going to continue, until I received Paul's
response in my inbox. I thank who ever forwarded it to me. Paul posted the
response on the weights mailing list last Friday. In the course of his
response he lead the reader to believe I had no idea what I was doing and
called me a "Dump Truck" This was the confrontation I was trying to avoid.
I have seen Paul and Mel Siff debate this subject on several lists and Paul
has always resorted to this type of name calling and setting him self up a
the supreme expert. He also could never answer Mels questions. My first
reaction was to forward this on to Mel to be answered. Mel has had a great
influence on our training and is by far the best source to go to for
detailed information. He is what I would call an EXPERT. The debates
between Mel and Paul would end with Paul sitting his results, this would
happened after he could not answer Mel questions. Well Paul that is what
you are going to get from me. While I will be the first to admit I by no
means am an expert I have learned everything I know form other people in
the form of personal communication, videos, tapes, books, journals, and as
stated before even from Paul's stuff. I now know all I will ever have to
know about Paul C.H.E.K.
This dump truck has been in the sport of power lifting for over 20 years
and have worked my self up to a very high level with moderate genetics. I
have achieved this by seeking out those who were lifting the weights I
wanted to lift. Other Dump Trucks! During my studies in college, I ran into
a five year sticking point on all lifts. At this point I went away from the
"dump trucks" and started reading all the studies I could find on training
and talking to some of the highest ranking professors I could find. After
five years of listening to the "mechanics" I went nowhere. So much for the
"mechanics". I went back to the good old "dump trucks", Louie took my
total up 300 pounds after being stuck for five years. Now the question I
ask to Paul is Who do you train in my sport? I speak with Elites in the
sport of Power lifting every day who would tell you pulling in the
abdominal is a bunch of crap. Now I guess you would say every Elite
powerlifter is wrong. If this is the case why don't you train a few and
get them on a national platform! Think of how many minds you could change
if you also had twenty three 800 pounds squatter, nine 900 pound squatters,
and one 1000 pound squatter. We don't even have a list for 700 pound
squatters because this is expected of everyone. You say you worked with a
600 pound squatter, well this is a good bench in our gym. A 600 squat in
our gym is a total joke! But hey that's pretty good for you guys. Try
teaching him how to squat and it may go up to 700.
I have read all your articles on abdominal training and see all the studies
you site. How many of these studies involve triple body weight squats under
maximal tension? For every study you site could I possibly find one to
show the opposite, or do ALL studies show the same thing? How many does it
take to form a study? We have had over 50 Elite lifters through the door
(Do you even know what a Elite total is?), And not one of them has had the
problems you say we should have. Wonder why? Maybe we haven't do it long
enough? Most of our current members have been in the gym for 8 to 10 years
and Louie is 54 and still squatting 900. What do you squat? Maybe in the
next couple years we will begin to see these problems or maybe will have
produced more 900 pound squats. Since I do not see the problems you write
about, could you have a biased opinion because all you see is the bad and
broken down. Much like the police officer who only sees the bad things in
life begins to view the world as bad.
This will be the last I will comment on Paul and this subject. This "dump
truck" has lost all respect for him! He can earn it back when either
himself or his certified CHEK group start producing the lifts we do. This
should not be hard to do since the mechanics" have all the answers. I await
their presence on the platform. He has not only insulated me but over
100,000 other power lifters "dump trucks" and I am sure they are just as
upset as I am. He better keep his " Beetle" off the road because the dump
trucks are coming through and they are pissed.
Now, I have to get back to the gym. I am presently training for the IPA
national and am in the gym twice a day training. I do not have time for
this crap! I have to learn how to better push out my abs because I have
records to break. I wonder if Paul will better there lifting or coaching?
Oh I forgot, there is a qualifying total. Maybe I will see them in the
local YMCA contest!
If the readers want to know my reasons for pushing the abs out reread the
squat article.
Dave "Dump Truck" Tate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Body For Life & EAS
From: "James O. Davis" <fle...@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:12:02 -0700
> Subject: Re: Body For Life & EAS?
> From: "Thomas Incledon" <hps...@mediaone.net>
> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:40:54 -0700
The review Tom Incledon submitted of the BodyforLIFE program seems to
express the common concerns one would have with any diet whatsoever. All
these diets seem to have one thing in common depiration: Depiration of
something. The question remains as to whether it is to be carbs, fats or
proteins or any combination. Phillips program appears quite a bit more
balanced than most. One thing I've become convinced of is that what we are
deprived of seems to be determined more by culture than biological
need.....IMHO
It will be most interesting to read a review of di Pasquali's "The
Metabolic Diet", then maybe we can take this review and just substitute a
few words and get almost the same criticisms. Diet programs always sound
like a re-wording of Newton's "Third Law of Motion" ...'for every action
there is an equal and opposite reaction'....to be ...'for every diet there
is an equally good and opposite diet'
James
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: CHEK YOUR BELTS!
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:12:53 -0700
Paul Chek:
<<
I can assure you that of the elite Olympic lifters you see on TV wearing
belts in competition, MANY of them don't wear them in training. If you
don't believe me, you can order videos from the "Iron Mind" catalog showing
Olympic lifters in preparation for World Championship meets squatting over
600 pounds easily, WITH NO BELTS! These men have very well coordinated and
conditioned core musculature. Their motor patterns are very well developed
from thousands upon thousands of lifts under guidance of elite coaches,
and, they can effectively capitalize on the periodic use of a belt and not
alter their recruitment patterns. In this case, the belt may serve as an
aid to add additional stiffness to the torso, to increase positional
awareness by increasing exteroception (surface stimulation) and may also
increase confidence; kind of like putting on war paint.
>>
***Now you are confusing me! You have written numerous articles militating
why belts are so dangerous and I have reminded you, much to your chagrin,
that belts CAN be astutely and safely used for proprioception, increase of
intra-abdominal pressure and psychological reasons (propriodeception?) when
the load and occasion may demand their use.
You have clearly come round to what many of us have been trying to tell you
from the beginning. Just admit that fact and don't regale us with excuses
that we were not really familiar with what you were trying to teach.
Welcome to the sensible Belt Users Club, Paul! That doesn't hurt, does it?
It will hurt even less if you wear a belt while you strain trying not to
admit that we were right all along :)
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://www.egroups.com/group/supertraining
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Muscle terminology
From: Rod Green <Rod....@latrobe.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:13:57 -0700
There has been much discuussion of late regarding muscle length and also
biomechanics. We use this glossary for our undergraduate students to try
to make sense of the variations in terminology between texts
SKELETAL MUSCLES AND MOVEMENT GLOSSARY
Agonist - a general term for a muscle or group of muscles that
produce the desired joint movement.
Prime Mover - a more specific term used to describe the agonist
muscle/s that play the major role in producing the desired joint movement
(gravity may act as a prime mover).
Synergist - is a muscle that contracts to neutralise (cancel
out) undesired actions of other active muscles. (note that this is a fairly
narrow old 'anatomists' definition and the term is used much more broadly
in other texts)
Antagonist - is a muscle whose action is opposite to that of an
agonist/prime mover.
=46ixator - is a muscle that stabilises a bone or body part in order
that another active muscle may have a firm base upon which to pull.=85
Concentric - a type of muscle contraction that involves a
decrease in the length of the muscle (and produces a movement).
Eccentric - a type of muscle contraction that involves an
increase in the length of the muscle (and opposes or controls a movement).
Dynamic (isotonic) contraction
- Occurs when a muscle contracts to produce joint movement
either concentrically or eccentrically.
Static (isometric) contraction
- Occurs when a muscle contracts but no visible joint
movement occurs; muscle tension is equal to the resistance.
Origin - the muscle attachment that is typically fixed during the
contraction of that particular muscle (usually the proximal attachment).
Insertion - the muscle attachment that is typically mobile
during the contraction of that particular muscle (usually the distal
attachment).
Open-chain (normal action) movements
- muscle action in which the proximal muscle attachment or
body part (end of chain) is fixed and the distal attachment or body part is
free to move (non-weight-bearing limb/s).
Closed-chain (reverse action) movements
- muscle action in which the distal muscle attachment or body
part (end of the chain) is fixed and the proximal muscle attachment or body
part is free to move (weight-bearing limb/s).
Any comments welcome!
Rod Green
Melbourne, Australia
******************************************************************
Rod Green, PhD phone: +61 3 9479 5751 (direct & voicemail)
Senior Lecturer (Anatomy) +61 3 9479 5787 (messages)
School of Human Biosciences
La Trobe University fax: +61 3 9479 5784
Bundoora Victoria
Australia 3083 email: rod....@latrobe.edu.au
******************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Protein bar recipe?
From: Michae...@denmark.frontec.se
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:14:24 -0700
Do any of you have a recipe for protein bars?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Ben Johnson Dysfunction?
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:08:23 -0700
Paul Chek<pc...@csi.com> wrote:
<<
To the trained eye, Ben (Johnson) had to laterally displace his foot in
gate (sic) to use ground reaction forces to stabilize his SI joints because
his abdominal wall was very likely completely dysfunctional secondary to
reflex inhibition from the injured discs.
>>
*** While this description may sound technically imposing, it is impossible
to draw a free body diagram that accurately describes the method which you
claim Ben used to stabilise his sacroiliac joint. Please give some more
information on the biomechanics of Ben's supposed method of SI
stabilisation - what you have written is virtually meaningless in terms of
accepted biomechanics and kinesiology.
In talking about ground reaction "forces", which other ground reaction
forces are involved other than the vertical ground reaction force? Also,
what about the fact that the ground reaction force and the point through
which the ground reaction force acts on the sole of the foot varies from
instant to instant (thereby describing a special path called a locus)? How
do such varying forces manage to stabilise the SI joints (how many does Ben
have, by the way?)
Moreover, if Ben's "abdominal wall" was completely dysfunctional, as you
state, this would mean that he could not do situps, crunches or various
other 'abdominal' exercises. I cannot recall his coach, Charlie Francis,
ever reporting that Ben had this problem. On top of that, this would
imply that his spinal muscles would not be counterbalanced by their
abdominal 'antagonist', so that Ben would have been forced into a rather
peculiar form of lumbar hypoerextension in the standing and running
postures.
Your problems in distinguishing between moments, couples and force-couples
are minor by comparison with the series of problems involved above.
Unfortunately, fastening a length of string over the umbilicus will not
resolve these problems. Maybe a bit of breath-holding while writing would
help stabilise the situation?
Paul Chek:
<<
Please understand, I would not expect an elite power lifter to understand
the intricate workings of the spine and musculature any more than I would
expect an orthopedic surgeon to be able to teach me how to squat!.
>>
***Besides knowing several orthopaedic surgeons who were national class
weightlifters and powerlifters and very capable of teaching the squat, I
wonder why you have chosen to delve so amateurishly into the world of
scientific biomechanics which you repeatedly remind us that you refused to
learn from "academics in white coats". You seem to teach some methods of
exercising and therapy that assist members of the average, non-competitive
public, so why not concentrate your efforts in areas where you feel
competent, rather than proclaiming competence in the scientific arena where
some very competent professionals can easily recognise waste material for
what it is?
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcs...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: PSEUDO MECHANICS - Muscle Length
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:15:13 -0700
Mel Siff:
<<
Yes, no muscle can voluntarily lengthen relative to its RESTING length.
>>
Erkki Turunen<era.t...@mbnet.fi> writes:
<
I was not speaking of a muscle's lengthening relative to its RESTING or
fully contracted length or any length between them. I was speaking of
muscle length as a function of time, which presumably is what's generally
understood by lengthening (or shortening) of an object. I think that we can
agree that a muscle's length l is a function of time, or l=l(t). If
l(t+dt)>l(t) then we can say that during time interval dt the muscle has
lengthened.
>
***In all mathematical situations, one adheres to a specific, officially
recognised convention defining the origin of any process and that is all
that I was stressing. If you choose to base an analysis on a moving system
or a different point of reference, then that fact must be made entirely
clear, as you now have done. I defined the resting (unexcited) state and
that is not a matter of opinion or hypothesis - it is simply a convention
that scientific bodies establish for convenience and consistenty of
discussion.
If you wish to change that convention, then you need to present a strong
case at some annual meeting of scientific bodies dedicated to formalising
definitions in science. So far, I see no need to do so with regard to what
consitutes the unexcited or resting state of a muscle. If you do, then
may the discussion trundle along and we can see where it leads! Judging
from the above, it appears as if you agree with me about what consitutes
"resting state", so such a course of events would seem to be unnecessary.
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://www.egroups.com/group/supertraining
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Creatine and BV
From: Eugene Wong <e....@usa.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:13:11 -0700
hi everyone! thanks for the advice on creatine. i bought a prolab creatine
monohydrate (pure), 600g for 45 pounds in UK. is that a good deal?
anyway, here's another question. what does biological value indicate? is
it important in foods?
that's all. TIA!!
eugene. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: training for woman?
From: Daniel Jean <daniel...@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:15:34 -0700
Could you give me adresses of web pages dedicated to weigth training for
woman, please ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Workout
From: "Mr. Uxo" <u...@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:15:55 -0700
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.
Then was thinking about Teusday - Legs (squats, Hack squats, lunge or leg
curl, calfs) Triceps (dips or french press)
Thursday - Shoulders (Press, shrugs,) Back (chins, iso back row)
This week I will do high volume work and then next week will go down to low
voulme max work.
What do you think? Not sure about it really as I really like the 4 day
split
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.