weights #2381
The Weights Mailing List
Tribulus: Save your money
by Thomas Incledon <hps...@mediaone.net>
Re: Delphene's Protein Bars
by David White <david...@netscape.net>
"The MASTER Critic Siff" Or just plain GOD
by <Raym...@aol.com>
Bad Service-'Health for Life'
by Clarke and Leslie Stanley <stan...@ix.netcom.com>
fitness after childbirth question
by Donna & Roger <dks...@cub.kcnet.org>
Re: Dislocated Patella (Knee-Cap)
by Karn Trisophon <hr...@chmai.loxinfo.co.th>
Bulgarian Workout?
by Eric Couch <pasto...@cleanweb.net>
HIT & OTHER METHODS
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Just getting started
by Edd, The Alexander <edd...@jetlink.net>
Re: muscular dysmorphia/bigorexia
by Brian Williams <winds...@earthlink.net>
Lasix Surgery?
by Paul Robinson <p...@sullivanleavitt.com>
Re: one set vs many sets
by Loren Chiu <loren...@hotmail.com>
Re: one set vs many sets
by Thomas Incledon <hps...@mediaone.net>
ONE VS MANY SETS
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Re: Pre- cooling?
by Bernie Hayden <hay...@xkl.com>
Radical New Chest Training Needed.
by Mr. Uxo <u...@hotmail.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Tribulus: Save your money
From: "Thomas Incledon" <hps...@mediaone.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:53:17 -0700
Here is a recent abstract that may interest some.
Later,
Tom
Thomas Incledon, MS, RD, LD, LN, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
Director of Sports Nutrition
Human Performance Specialists, Inc.
619 NW 90th Terrace
Plantation, FL 33324
954-577-0689
hps...@mediaone.net
Journal of Performance Enhancement
http://members.tripod.com/JPE_Sportscience/
Coming soon: Performance Nutrition Newsletter!
Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2000 Jun;10(2):208-15
The effects of tribulus terrestris on body composition and exercise
performance in resistance-trained males.
Antonio J, Uelmen J, Rodriguez R, Earnest C
Human Performance Laboratory, University of Nebraska, Kearney, NE
68849-3101,
USA.
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the herbal
preparation Tribulus terrestris (tribulus) on body composition and exercise
performance in resistance-trained males. Fifteen subjects were randomly
assigned to a placebo or tribulus (3.21 mg per kg body weight daily) group.
Body weight, body composition, maximal strength, dietary intake, and mood
states were determined before and after an 8-week exercise (periodized
resistance training) and supplementation period. There were no changes in
body weight, percentage fat, total body water, dietary intake, or mood
states in either group. Muscle endurance (determined by the maximal number
of repetitions at 100-200% of body weight) increased for the bench and leg
press exercises in the placebo group (p <.05; bench press +/-28.4%, leg
press +/-28.6%), while the tribulus group experienced an increase in leg
press strength only (bench press +/-3.1%, not significant; leg press
+/-28.6%, p <.05). Supplementation with tribulus does not enhance body
composition or exercise performance in resistance-trained males.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Delphene's Protein Bars
From: David White <david...@netscape.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:48:01 -0700
> From: "J.K. Crawford" <jkcra...@musclemail.com>
> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:42:07 -0700
>
> The body is able to take in around 40g of protein at one time
Please explaing what you mean. If you try to "take in" 50g do you gag or
throw up. I know I have taken in more than 40g at a time with no ill
effects. This protein limit myth just won't go away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: "The MASTER Critic Siff" Or just plain GOD
From: Raym...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:59:12 -0700
Can I just say after reading your site for a long time I have become
discouraged by your attacks on other strength coaches? Another reader
Alwnyn Cosgrove hit it on the head in his response to your "MASTER "
complaint. It is funny to me that these other guys you tend to rag on have
written some very interesting stuff. STUFF I HAVE TRIED AND HAS WORKED. I
have tried various routines from Staley, Poliquin and King. I have to tell
you I have made my best progress with these guys stuff and I have been at
it for 20 years.
[Mel's site? I need a PR firm ;-). -MTS]
Mel, why have I never seen you write "HEY that sounds interesting that
might work" I have none of your degrees or experience. So this is all just
my humble opinion. You call these guys "Masters" and Guru's but for some
reason you come across as seeming as you think you are the God of
resistance training. Do us a favor write out a routine for us avarage guys.
Instead of sitting back and taking shots at what others have written. Write
something I can do and understand. Write me a routine for gaining size with
limited fat naturally. All these other guys can so can you with out delving
into all sorts of studies. Remember KISS keep it simple stupid. Well that
works for me
We who read these sites do not need to know the theory's of math, or
abstratc algabra but only that 2+2 = 4. Thank God for King, Check, Staley
and Poliquin they have got me into the best shape in my life. I guess I
could sit back and say it wont work because of this or that study so I will
just stay on the couch.
Please Print this Mel
Ray McCarthy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Bad Service-'Health for Life'
From: Clarke and Leslie Stanley <stan...@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:59:20 -0700
I ordered three items from HFL on May 12. (Ab hanging straps, a Swiss
Ball, and a book).
My visa statement arrived four days later, and I saw I had been charged
for all items. I started phoning May 25 to inquire about delivery.
Every time I called I'd get a different story. Two items arrived June
5. (Two weeks after I was told it had "been shipped") Further calls
about the third item kept getting me assurances that it would be here
"within two days".
The third item (Swiss ball) finally arrived July 12, exactly TWO MONTHS
after my order was placed. (I had called to cancel the order, but that
had no effect either.)
In short, an aggravating experience, and I won't be ordering anything
from them again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: fitness after childbirth question
From: "Donna & Roger" <dks...@cub.kcnet.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:00:43 -0700
I was looking at your website and I have a fitness question...I had a
baby and I'm back at my goal weight and size...but I can't seem to get the
skin on my stomache as tight as it once was...it looks flabby. Can you
help??? What can I use or do to tighten skin???...Please help!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Dislocated Patella (Knee-Cap)
From: Karn Trisophon <hr...@chmai.loxinfo.co.th>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:59:57 -0700
Dear Jacob,
I had similar injury once while I was playing rugby. And It was 20 years
ago. My suggestion is to forget about your routine exercise for a while
and stick to the P.T pescribed by your doctor.
This kind of injury takes months to recover fully. Be patient. If you try
rush back to your exercise routine, you will have to pay dearly when you
get older.
Sincerely.
Karn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Bulgarian Workout?
From: "Eric Couch" <pasto...@cleanweb.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:59:33 -0700
I was talking to some friends at the gym the other day, and this one
guy there has starting working out to what he called "The Bulgarian
Workout". It is a book and I would like to buy this book. Have you ever
heard of this book or workout? Sincerely, Eric Couch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: HIT & OTHER METHODS
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 05:45:25 -0700
On 7/12/00, Brian Gearity<bgea...@JCVAXA.jcu.edu> wrote:
<<
Excuse me for running of a bit, but here is an additional point. I went to
the NSCA Ohio clinic this year and all of the speakers were HIT.
>>
***This can be problematic, because the interaction between different
training philosophies generally produces abroader, more balanced approach
to conditioning.
<<
Previous to this clinic, I was only exposed to Periodization, but I was
aware of.HIT, but I've never seen it used.
>>
***A major problem is that dogmatic popularisers of the classic Matveyev
model of periodisation seem to think that periodisation is an exact
quantitative science in which calculation of precise numerical measures of
volume and intensity via some or other handy computer program unequivocally
leads to greater progress than far more subjective types of training
organisation. Even my Russian colleagues who have used several different
types of periodisation for many decades point out that periodisation is
just as much art as it is science.
By the way, it is relevant to point out that one can easily design
periodised HIT programs, as well as Olympic lifting style periodisation
schemes, something that is not often pointed out by "purist" HIT fans.
Periodisation schemes at best offer an approximate set of guidelines that
have to be modified and adapted at all stages from the single session to
the mesocycle. If one relies on computerised training plans, then at best
one can expect average results; if one invokes something like "Cybernetic
Periodisation" (using regular subjective and objective feedback), then this
type of far more dynamic schema offers more effective and safer progress.
I think that my earlier comments on this system of periodisation should be
on the Weights List archives - if not, please let me know.
<<
After hearing several Division I S&C coaches speak at the clinic about HIT,
and describe their program, I was
somewhat disappointed. For me then, and still now, HIT is the program (I
know others can/will disagree) I would use.
>>
***Another error is to dismiss all forms of HIT out of hand. Like many
other training techniques or variations, some variants of HIT may play a
relevant role in the training of a given individual at a given time, but if
it is not combined with or replaced periodically with other techniques,
long term progress over many years will not be as effective as if more
ballistic and skilled types of loading are also used.
One of the most confusing aspects of so-called HIT training (High Intensity
Training) is that it is not really high intensity training, but moderate
level training done under muscle endurance conditions of exhaustion, as
opposed to the truly high intensity (i.e. large percentage of one 1RM),
which is done under near maximal effort conditions of momentary failure
(not necessarily exhaustion).
This is why I prefer to call HIT "Highly Intensive Training" - it is very
strenuous, but it is not anything like circa-maximal or maximal training.
Training INTENSIVELY to momentary failure is not the same metabolically or
neurally as training EXTENSIVELY to muscle exhaustion.
Believing that the training effects of extensive and intensive training are
comparable is scientifically and practically incorrect. They are different
types of training to be used to achieve different effects or different
types of adaptation, so it is misleading and inappropriate to compare the
two methods within the same context or in the same situation. One does not
have to choose universally between the two methods as if one is trying to
reconcile two different religions. One has to have the wisdom, knowledge
and understanding to be able to be able to use elements of each (as well as
other methods) so as to help the athlete efficiently and safely. The
typical religious fervour that many HITters use, sometimes backed by some
peripherally relevant research, does no credit to the various HIT methods.
Remember that any training method also lays down certain neural command
patterns that facilitate the production of specific motor qualities such as
starting strength, acceleration strength, explosive strength,
speed-strength, strength-speed and so forth, so it is important to be able
to dip into a reservoir of different techniques and methods to suit a given
athlete at a given time. The fact that few if any of the world's elite
Olympic athletes have ever relied exclusively on HIT like methods must also
mean something.
The ideal training plan is not one that relies exclusively on any single
approach, be it HIT, Olympic lifting, plyometrics, extensive circuit
training, maximal effort training etc. The ideal plan is a blend or
"conjugation" of several different methods, which, like the gears in a car,
enable the athlete to best overcome conditions at a given time for a given
sport.
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcs...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Just getting started
From: "Edd, The Alexander" <edd...@jetlink.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 05:45:45 -0700
I've been lifting weights for just about 2 months. Still new at
it. I'm an old fart, about half a century old.
Since I'm just starting out and it's still sort of an experiment, I
wanted to try it with the minimum of equipment and expense so I'm just
working out with dumbbells. I'm following a book by Joyce Vedral, Ph.D.
called _Total Fitness_. It's a bit low key, but it's okay for for my
needs at present, since I'm coming from a very out of shape condition.
I'm doing this at home and really don't know anyone else who's doing
this and discuss questions, which is why I've joined this list.
The book recommends doing three sets of reps for each body part.
Reps decrease with each rep, 12, 10, 8. She also recommends increasing
the dumbbell weights with each rep. I've built up gradually to the
weights she recommends, 10#, 15#, 20#.
My question is about knowing when to increase the weights.
I guess I'm getting stronger. The 20# weights are easier to work
with, but still have a good heft to them. However, the 10# weights now
feel so light that I'm thinking it might be good to increase those.
One of the Schwartzenegger books said don't increase reps, increase
weights. He says increase the weights so that you can just barely
complete the number of reps you're aiming for.
If I increase the 10# for the first reps, does that mean I also need
to increase weights for the subsequent reps? Or should I just increase
the 10# reps and leave the others alone for now?
E
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: muscular dysmorphia/bigorexia
From: "Brian Williams" <winds...@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 05:48:30 -0700
Thanks for the links Mel - I had heard that muscular dysmorphia was to be
added in some form to DSM in the next edition, but this is the most recent
I've seen. As an aside, I wonder how this one will be applied by the
mainstream. The primary forms of dysmorphia that the public is aware of
are those associated with thinness. The examples of anorexia nervosa and
bulimia in particular have received much media attention, particularly
since Karen Carpenter's untimely death. The attention paid to these
disorders has made them a part of our pop culture, and this attention has
both positive and negative connotations. Nowadays people who are very thin
are often referred to as anorexic and/or bulimic without regard to whether
it may be a natural body type - witness the media attention Calista
Floxhart has received on this very issue.
What I foresee is the potential for over-zealous application of bigorexia
as an excuse to explain and/or exploit people who are passionate about
fitness. Remember that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder in
the first half of the twentieth century, and was fairly recently removed
from the DSM. The article by Ms. Cavalko demonstrates this blanket
application of the term "disorder." A mental health professional needs to
be cautious about determining what exactly construes a disruption in a
patient's life that could be defined as a disorder - with overly loose
application, the definition Dr. Pope refers to could apply to many of us.
Things like interference with social life are up to wide variation -
imagine the example of a weightlifter who dissociates him/herself from
family members who lead unhealthy lifestyles. The family members may see
the "obsession" with training as disruptive while it is perfectly healthy
behavior on the part of the trainer. The sociological context is that
often repeated precept that "what is normal behavior is not necessarily
what is healthy." I feel that the focus on diagnosis of these disorders
must hinge on whether there is degradation of physical health and/or manic
behaviors that effect the other aspects targeted, such as social
interaction. If the individual becomes agoraphobic, that should be dealt
with directly, not as a symptom of the bigorexic. Treatment of the patient
as agoraphobic would allow for behavior modification allowing the
individual to remain comfortable with a predominately healthy lifestyle,
without a greater disruption of other aspects of his/her life.
At the extreme end of things, imagine the potential impact on the industry.
It is a short step to saying that supplements should be regulated or
banned, since only the "hard-core" athletes are using them, and they are
more likely to comprise many of the bigorexic crowd. While this is
certainly a slippery-slope argument at best and is logically flawed, it was
one of the arguments successfully used in the regulation of the gambling
industry and prohibition. Imagine having to obtain a license to by a squat
rack. Surgeon's general warnings may need to be posted at the entrance to
all gyms. Internment of anyone who has visible triceps. The horror! I
don't really think that this would happen (at least I hope not...) but it
is at least food for thought. Perhaps greasy fast-food, but food
nonetheless.
Regards,
Brian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Lasix Surgery?
From: Paul Robinson <p...@sullivanleavitt.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 05:46:08 -0700
Has anyone had Lasix Surgery? I have heard conflicts as to
whethe there are lifting restrictions imposed
post-surgery. One Opthamologist told me there is not, just
be certain not to let perspiration in your eyes. The second
said to drop my weight to 60% of my current routine for a
period of 4-6 weeks. Does anyone have a definite answer or
personal history to share?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: one set vs many sets
From: "Loren Chiu" <loren...@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 05:49:46 -0700
>From: "Sherbahadur Khurshid" <sku...@pop.bennington.edu>
>Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:44:03 -0700
>
>I've been thinking about the "one set vs many sets per exercise"
>debate and was wondering if any research has been performed
>which uses each side of the body for each type of training protocol.
>For example, instead of assigning a particular training protocol
>to a certain number of people and a different protocol to different
>people, why not use one set per exercise for the left side of the
>body and many sets per exercise for the right side of the body.
>This would keep the number of variables down, and might also
>show that some people respond better to each type of training.
>
>I have no medical background. I'm just curious if such research
>has been conducted and, if not, then why.
>Has anyone had personal experience experimenting this way ?
On paper, this might sound like a good idea, but when we consider the
multiple factors tested in SS vs MS experiments, it just doesn't work out.
Some of the factors tested are:
- change in strength, lean bodymass, fat mass, total mass
- changes in endocrine profiles, eg. testosterone, IGF-1
- changes in other metabolic pathways eg. lactate
The last two especially cannot be considered when the control group is the
contra-lateral side.
Having said this, for some reason, your suggestion brings to mind a couple
of studies that may have done this, but I really don't remember which ones
they are.
Loren Chiu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: one set vs many sets
From: "Thomas Incledon" <hps...@mediaone.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 05:49:14 -0700
> I've been thinking about the "one set vs many sets per exercise"
> debate and was wondering if any research has been performed
> which uses each side of the body for each type of training protocol.
> For example, instead of assigning a particular training protocol
> to a certain number of people and a different protocol to different
> people, why not use one set per exercise for the left side of the
> body and many sets per exercise for the right side of the body.
> This would keep the number of variables down, and might also
> show that some people respond better to each type of training.
>
> I have no medical background. I'm just curious if such research
> has been conducted and, if not, then why.
> Has anyone had personal experience experimenting this way ?
Sher:
This idea has some merit to it. I don't recall seeing anything like this.
Unfortunately, the effects of each training program would stimulate
hormonal and local factors that could get into circulation and impact other
tissues (ie the opposite limbs). You would not be able to separate out the
hormonal effects from the mechanical effects, although you could argue that
the whole system would get the same hormonal effects and any differences
are due to mechanical/local effects. I have though about doing a study
similar to what you describe while using hormone blocking agents. This
would certainly minimize the effects of T and GH. I also thought about
using twins for a single set vs multiset training study, where training and
other factors are controlled for. One control often overlooked with
training studies is a standard diet.
later,
Tom
Thomas Incledon, MS, RD, LD, LN, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
Adjunct Professor of Kinesiology and Nutrition
Math, Science, and Technology
Nova Southeastern University
and
Research Scientist
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Department of Exercise and Sport Science
University of Miami
Mailing address:
619 NW 90th Terrace
Plantation, FL 33324
954-577-0689
hps...@mediaone.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: ONE VS MANY SETS
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 05:51:08 -0700
On 7/14/00, Sher Kurshid<sku...@pop.bennington.edu> wrote:
<<
I've been thinking about the "one set vs many sets per exercise"
debate and was wondering if any research has been performed
which uses each side of the body for each type of training protocol.
For example, instead of assigning a particular training protocol
to a certain number of people and a different protocol to different
people, why not use one set per exercise for the left side of the
body and many sets per exercise for the right side of the body.
This would keep the number of variables down, and might also
show that some people respond better to each type of training.
I have no medical background. I'm just curious if such research has been
conducted and, if not, then why.
Has anyone had personal experience experimenting this way ?
>>
***Research has shown that a certain degree of "cross training" takes place
if only one side of the body is exercised, with some transfer taking place
from the ipsilateral (same side) to the contralateral (opposite) side
limbs. This is mediated by the nervous system and the extent to which this
takes place depends on the individual and training procedure. This
cross-training effect is used fairly commonly in physical therapy.
However, it is important to note that the degree of cross-training effect
differs between exercises that require fairly gross skill versus those that
require more complex skills. This effect also differs with type of muscle
action (isometric, quasi-isometric, auxotonic).
Besides this neural (and structural) training effect, even training one
side of the body can produce metabolic effects that can benefit the entire
body, so that it is very difficult to set up an experiment that can offer
truly "one-sided" exercise.
The merits of the whole one set regime have been based largely upon a
single very limited study on a small group of 'average' persons and not
competitive athletes of different levels of excellence, so they can hardly
be extrapolated casually to anything more than the type of sample that was
used for that initial study. When several other more extensive studies of
different types of one rep program on people of different levels of fitness
and skill, then we may begin to take them more seriously.
Anyway, it has been well known since the days of the original work done in
the 1950s by Hettinger and Muller (see Hettinger TW The Physiology of
Strength 1961) that even a single isometric training stimulus (not even
one set!) above a certain minimum per day is adequate to produce a
significant training effect in a given individual over a given period.
In fact, Hettinger's studies possibly were more extensive than the (Pollock
et al) one set research, since they examined the minimum training intensity
that was necessary to produce a measurable training effect. This minimum
was identified at about one-third of one's isometric maximum, with a
maximum effect being produced with an intensity of 40-50% of one's maximum.
Hettinger's work showed that it was unnecessary to maintain tension to a
point of fatigue to obtain maximal training effect, but that working for a
period of up to 20 percent of one's time to fatigue was more than adequate
to elicit a useful strengthening effect.
Interestingly, his research showed that muscle tension, rather than time
under tension (TUT) appeared to be the most important variable in muscle
strength training. He cited other work which showed that, even in cardiac
muscle, it is increase in cardiac muscle tension which provides the
primary training effect, rather than simply increase in cardiac volume.
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcs...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Pre- cooling?
From: "Bernie Hayden" <hay...@xkl.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 05:51:44 -0700
>> Does anyone have any information on the effect of using of
>> ice vests to precool athletes before competition in hot climates?
I don't know if this is really "pre" cooling but the US cycling team at the
Atlanta Olypics used "Camelback" type hydration systems under their jerseys
filled with ice water to help keep them cool. This had the added benifit
of making them more aerodynamic.
-Bernie-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Radical New Chest Training Needed.
From: "Mr. Uxo" <u...@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 05:52:22 -0700
My chest training days have gone more sour then sourdough bread.
I do train my shoulders early in the week so I know my chest will suffer,
but, its plain awful. Its been on a downward crash ever since I peaked out
at new high 325 bench almost year ago, but not quite that long. Currently
I do bench, incline, maybe some dumbell benches and flies to finish. I
just get a feeling I have no power to drive the lift up from the bottom
portion of the lift. I'll lower the weight to my chest and then just hit
the sticking point and it feels like all the weight and pressure lies on my
shoulders portion of the chest and I just have no drive in the tri's or
chest to drive the weight through the sticking point and back up to
starting position. I've tried changing my grip width to everything from
wide to close, but can't find anything that works. I'm looking for
something radical to get my chest training back up to respectability again,
anything from new training techniques for chest, to whole new chest
workout, new exercises, whatever. In this case, I know change will be
good. Thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.