weights #2391
The Weights Mailing List
Re: Palm Software?
by Enzo S Torino <enzo....@bms.com>
Re: Palm Software
by Luis E. Cerda <lu...@provus.com>
FUNCTIONAL TRAINING?
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Re: HIT PARADOXES
by mail.se-acpub.duke.edu <se...@duke.edu>
Re: Bulgarian Training
by Thomas Incledon <hps...@mediaone.net>
Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
by <Highn...@aol.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Palm Software?
From: Enzo S Torino <enzo....@bms.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:05:29 -0700
I use Workout Tracker. Shareware, $20 to regiter the software.
~Enzo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Palm Software
From: "Luis E. Cerda" <lu...@provus.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:05:09 -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
I've been using my Palm to log my workouts for the past 2 years with just
the memo feature. I have tried a piece of software
called exerlog which you may want to check out but I found it to be to
complicated.
Hope this help,
Luis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: FUNCTIONAL TRAINING?
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:39:44 -0700
The following discussion from another group may also be of interest here:
Someone wrote:
<<
So-called "core stability" is often taught in a non-functional position to
begin with, such as four point kneeling, because it helps to isolate an
easy contraction in a position where the individual can get feedback on
what they are doing (by watching the contraction). The idea is to then
progress this skill into functional positions such as standing and sitting,
then dynamic situations such as sit to stand and walking and then to
specific skilled activities such as sport.
>>
Mel Siff:
*** Periodically many of us refer to "functional" movements and
"functional" training in the scientific and therapeutic settings and I
think that we all know exactly what we mean, but it is often quite
confusing and meaningless to distinguish between "functional" and
"non-functional" actions.
After all, most movements, whether they be goal-directed or not, would
appear to serve some function while they are taking place. Under these
circumstances, can we really talk definitively about "functional" exercise,
training or movement? Or should we rather be talking about "sport
specific" or "task specific" actions or activity?
While kneeling and crawling on all fours may appear to be entirely
non-functional for most folk or for athletes, these actions may be
profoundly functional for toddlers, wrestlers and some disabled folk.
There are many other examples of apparently or superficially
"non-functional" activity.
Along the lines of our earlier discussions on "core stability", here we
have yet another situation in which terminology can be misleading and
obfuscating. In fact, the concept of "functional training" is one that is
being massively marketed and exploited in the fitness and therapeutic world
outside mainstream physiotherapy and sports science. You can hardly pick up
a current magazine or course brochure that does not extol the virtues of
the latest kid on the block, "functional training", as if there really is
something that is always truly non-functional training.
What these secular evangelists really mean is "sport specific" training,
but a newly acquired term seems to be much better for marketing an age-old
concept. So, away we merrily go, overusing, abusing and exploiting
something perfectly respectable from the world of science. Not that this
is at all "bad". Certainly, it may be selling the concept to far more
people than before, but, in doing so, it often blurs the issue with a lot
of non-science or nonsense.
Somehow, the paradoxes inherent in the marketing of "functional training"
(or "Special Physical Preparation", SPP) do not always seem to be very
apparent to those who teach or use it, because much of so-called
"non-functional training" may often be regarded as synonymous with what has
been called "General Physical Preparation" (GPP) for many decades (e.g. see
Siff & Verkhoshansky "Supertraining" 1999, Ch 6).
Then, of course, we have the issue of "functional" versus "structural"
training, something that most of us refer to at some time or another. We
often quote expressions such as "function precedes structure" (or "use
determines form"), as if function and structure are entirely separate from
one another at all times, instead of possible being intricately linked via
various feedforward and feedback mechanisms.
What can we do about the whole "functional" situation? Well, maybe what we
need to do, as is the case in all scientific and clinical articles, we must
clearly define what we mean by the term in the context of one's current
application and let it mean "nothing more and nothing less" (thank you,
Lewis Carroll!). Often we may think that this is implicit in what we say,
write or do, but maybe we need to be a lot more explicit than that.
For those who may be interested, the above discussion (of the past 2 weeks)
formed part of a fairly extensive discourse on the very overused and
overmarketed concepts of "core stability" and "core training" on one of
the physio lists. The following website provides access to the archives of
this group:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/physio/archive.html
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcs...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: HIT PARADOXES
From: "mail.se-acpub.duke.edu" <se...@duke.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:41:32 -0700
> From: <Mcs...@aol.com>
<cut out a lot>
Question--
Regarding these routines...
#1
> Robert E. Spector gives us this information from Leistner:
>
> < Another routine, suggested by Dr. Ken Leistner:
>
> 1. Full Squats - 15-20 reps
> 2. Pullovers - 10 reps
> 3. Standing Overhead Presses - 10 reps
> 4. Chins - 10 reps
> 5. Dips - 12 reps
> 6. Barbell Curls - 10 reps
> 7. Shrugs - 15 reps
> 8. Stiff-Legged Deadlifts - 15 reps
How many sets of each exercise in this routine? One. Two. Certainly never
more than three, and if you are working properly according to Leistner, one
set of most of these exercises should be more than enough for anyone. . . .
.
. >
and #2
> Brian Minogue:
>
> http://www.cyberpump.com/hit101/brian023.html
>
> << Try one workout and see what happens:
>
> 1. One-repetition chin-up (30 seconds up, 30 seconds down) immediately
> followed by:
> 2. Biceps Curl
> 3. One-repetition dip (30 up, 30 down) immediately followed by
> 4. Triceps extensions
> 5. Leg Extension
> 6. Leg Curl
> 7. Leg press
> 8. Calf Raise
> 9. Stiff-Legged Deadlift
> 10. Lateral Raise with dumbbells
> 11. Press behind Neck
> 12. Bent-over Row
> 13. Bench Press
> 14. Ab Crunch
>
How often are the routines repeated? (Did I miss this?)
And comments:
> They always claim that HIT methods are far more suitable for the average
> person because the latter does not like to carry out many reps for a
> prolonged period.
IME, the average gym woman _prefers_ to sit there all day doing endless
repetitions! Infuriating...
> Most of the average people just don't enjoy working to
> total and utter fatigue for 10-12 exercises, using minimal rest periods
> between exercises, nor do they consider more than 100 reps a low
repetition
> workout. Many average folk tend to prefer 8-10 sets of 2-3 reps with
brief
> rest intervals between these more intensive sets, especially if only about
> 4 exercises are done per session three times a week.
Well, I think they probably would prefer something like you suggest (maybe
a bit higher in reps though)...however, I've very rarely seen this
attempted. The most common things I see (at a very average gym filled
almost entirely with average people with apparently modest goals) are
poorly designed "full body workouts" (apparently aiming to avoid any
serious compound exercises) and "traditional" 3 day splits (with emphasis
on bench, leg press, curls).
If I saw someone walk in and do routine #1 above (which is pretty
reasonable IMO for a full body mix, though not what I'd select) my socks
would fly off in shock. (Yeah, I'm in a really wimpy gym) I'd say that
the "average" person (assuming you could actually convince him/her to do
these exercises) would do much better to split that work up over a week
into 2 or 3 workouts...whether or not they tried to approach each exercise
with minimal sets. Hardly anyone can be convinced to squat to the
ground...much less for 20 reps...and to follow it up with several other
exercises?
[I wouldn't think that a full squatter _could_ qualify as an "average" gym
goer in any case :-)]
#2 looks pretty bad to me wrt exercise selection and method (that chin and
dip thing!).
>How on earth can
> anyone claim that an 8-12 exercise program using over 100 reps in total is
> a low volume scheme? Simple arithmetic shows that this just is not true.
Well, I think it can't qualify as a low volume _workout_...whether it is a
low volume program overall would depend on how often it is repeated.
<< Another support for the use of one set training is time efficiency. If
one set is equal to two or three sets, then why perform the extra sets? One
set is all that is necessary. The extra work produces nothing but senseless
labor. In the busy world we live in, one of the major reasons people have
to avoid real exercise is a lack of time. They have convinced by
traditionalist exercise teachers that fitness can only be produced by a
very high volume of training over long periods of time. HIT cuts through
that notion like a razor through paper. A sensible, effective training
session can be completed in less twenty minutes or less. >>
Well...hmmmn...I'm going to disagree with this from a different perspective
than what Dr Siff argued (pointing out that, by their routines it isn't a
timesaver). The primary reason I see people fail to exercise has nothing
to do with "time"...it has to do with disliking exercise in general.
Anyway, people could save much time in the gym simply by switching to basic
exercises-- full squats, chins, overhead presses, deadlifts, cleans-- you
know, all the wildly unpopular ones. And the reason the "average" person
at the average gym ends up spending a long time in the gym usually has a
lot more to do with socializing and staring at others than # of sets.
stef
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bulgarian Training
From: "Thomas Incledon" <hps...@mediaone.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:33:37 -0700
> Tom, I enjoy your posts, but I'm going to have to call you out on this
one.
> I think you're stating that your training program is good because your
> snatch and C&J totals improved faster percentagewise than the totals of
> elite national weightlifters. By an astonishing coincidence my bench
press
> has improved faster percentagewise than any top benchpresser in the
> country. I don't think it's because of my great training program, though.
I
> think it's because it's a lot easier to make improvements when you are
> benching 250 than when you are benching 600. Likewise, a 5% improvement in
> the C&J from 220 to 230 is much more difficult than a 30% improvement in
> the C&J when you are only cleaning 120. I'm not knocking your progress,
I'm
> just saying that it's a mistake to compare the progress of an elite
> weightlifter (who is close to his genetic limits) to the progress of a
good
> weightlifter who still has plenty of room for improvement.
Piers:
You voice a logical concern above, however, consider these additional
facts. I was actually thinking of absolute increases in performance in my
original post, not relative increases. In weightlifting there are not that
many lifters (maybe 2500-3000 in the country). When you subtract out all
the kids that register for one meet and never compete after that you
actually have much less that compete on a regular basis. At least this is
what I found up to about 1998. If things have changed someone should
correct me. I competed in the American Championships and Senior Nationals
in weightlifting several times over the 3 year period I am referring to.
Each time I was beat by the same guys, if they showed up and were not
injured or did not bomb. I had more weight training experience, more years
of competition, and a greater number of competitions under my belt then
these guys. Given my background and that I was older then them, I think it
is safe that most would say I was closer to my genetic ceiling then these
other lifters. Yet during that time, my lifts improved quite a bit more
while these guys totaled around 300-330 kg each time. So whether you use
relative or absolute improvements, my progress was still greater, although
it did not earn me a higher placing in these competitions. My point that I
originally was trying to make is that I was stuck at one level for about 4
years. It was only after I changed my training (primarily by training less
frequently) that my total improved again. It's not that I am advocating a
given number of training days, rather it is that we take a step back and
realize OK I have tried thsi long enough, now I need to do something
different. As a hard core lifter, if I had to train every day 2-3 times to
make progress, I would find the time. But if after trying that I found I
didn't make any progress, I certainly wouldn't keep doing it (as I did in
the past).
Let me know how your lifts go.
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
Journal of Performance Enhancement
http://members.tripod.com/JPE_Sportscience/
Coming soon: Performance Nutrition Newsletter!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
From: Highn...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:48:53 -0700
Hi Mel:
> It is most interesting to note that a good few of the one set studies
> averaged in excess of 20 repetitions, which constitutes a greater volume
> than is used by some multiple set competitive lifting and pyramiding
> bodybuilding regimes! This sort of volume used in these Pollock and
> Cardinelli studies (around 20 reps) is equal to between 7-10 sets of 2-3
> rep regimes that are currently used by top lifters. How can they conclude
> that their one rep studies involve LESS, when they are actually carrying
> out MORE reps than the average serious lifter. The one set evangelists
> really are doing MORE reps than competitive lifters to achieve similar or
> inferior results! Somebody's arithmetic is a little defective here.
>
First, I agree with your overall conclusions and you've eloquently
articulated many of the pratfalls of the Carpinelli review. In addition to
your comments, it should be noted that most advanced bodybuilding protocols
use a split-routine approach rather than a total body workout. This
variable was not accounted for in the studies cited and has a significant
impact on total training volume in a session. The complexities of program
design are infinite and trying to simplify a one-set vs multi-set protocol
into a basic three-day, total body routine and extrapolating definitive
conclusions is completely misleading, at best.
However, IMO, your point about the number of repetitions utilized is
somewhat misguided. You simply can't equate total training volume sheerly
by number of repetitions performed. There is a *significant* difference in
the training effect of 20 sets of 1 rep vs. 1 set of 20 reps. For
instance, there are major differences in the energy systems utilized during
performance (the one rep set is almost purely ATP/CP while the 20 rep set
is a combination of glycolytic/aerobic), the neuromuscular recruitment (the
one rep set is largely IIB while the 20 rep would be mostly a combination
of I and IIA) and the hormonal response (the 20 rep set would tend to
produce greater GH secretion due to lactic acid). Ultimately, these factors
will produce vastly different training results. Thus, when examing training
volume, you need to compare "apples to apples" and use an equivalent number
of repetitions.
Overall, though, a very nice post!
Brad Schoenfeld, CSCS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.