A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Weights
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

hey curtis



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 5th 07, 09:00 AM posted to misc.fitness.weights
VinCe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 256
Default hey curtis

what do you think of this?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/wei...aining/SM00114

Doc says once you fatigue a muscle you fatigue a muscle.. meaning all
it takes is a one set to failure.. now don't get me wrong, he doesn't
mean the HIT technique.. he means one set with an all out intensity of
12 to 15 reps stopping once you can't do a rep with strict form..
and .. and .. oh, just listen to doc and kindly let me know how you
feel about his words?

thanks,
vince

p.s.: the WHAA word is all yours.. =)
peace..

  #2  
Old June 5th 07, 06:01 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights
JMW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,436
Default hey curtis

VinCe wrote:

what do you think of this?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/wei...aining/SM00114

Doc says once you fatigue a muscle you fatigue a muscle.. meaning all
it takes is a one set to failure.. now don't get me wrong, he doesn't
mean the HIT technique.. he means one set with an all out intensity of
12 to 15 reps stopping once you can't do a rep with strict form..
and .. and .. oh, just listen to doc and kindly let me know how you
feel about his words?


Last month's issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research:

"The relative improvements (%) for the 1RM were significantly higher
during the 3-set program for the biceps curl and the bench press
compared with the 1-set program." Humburg H, Baars H, Schroder J, Reer
R, Braumann KM. 1-set vs. 3-set resistance training: a crossover
study. J Strength Cond Res. 2007 May;21(2):578-82.

Same results as previous studies:

"[S]uperior strength gains occurred following 3-set strength training
compared with single-set strength training in women with basic
experience in resistance training." Schlumberger A, Stec J,
Schmidtbleicher D. Single- vs. multiple-set strength training in
women. J Strength Cond Res. 2001 Aug;15(3):284-9.

"The results demonstrate that for recreationally trained individuals
using DUP training, 3 sets of training are superior to 1 set for
eliciting maximal strength gains." Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Ball SD, Burkett
LN. Three sets of weight training superior to 1 set with equal
intensity for eliciting strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2002
Nov;16(4):525-9.

"Resistance training consisting of only single-set exercises is
sufficient to significantly enhance muscle function and physical
performance, although muscle strength and endurance gains are greater
with higher volume work." Galvao DA, Taaffe DR. Resistance exercise
dosage in older adults: single- versus multiset effects on physical
performance and body composition. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005
Dec;53(12):2090-7.
  #3  
Old June 5th 07, 10:41 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights
Curt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,888
Default hey curtis

VinCe wrote:
what do you think of this?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/wei...aining/SM00114

Doc says once you fatigue a muscle you
fatigue a muscle.. meaning all it takes is a
one set to failure.. now don't get me wrong,
he doesn't mean the HIT technique.. he means
one set with an all out intensity of 12 to 15 reps
stopping once you can't do a rep with strict form..
and .. and .. oh, just listen to doc and kindly let
me know how you feel about his words?


How do I feel about his words? I like them. Mostly.

Key among those words, however, imo, would be "shave time off your
weight training workout, while still getting results similar to those
of a longer workout."

I'll edit that bit down to "getting results *similar to* those of a
longer workout."

Interesting, too, is how the idea of results relate to genetics so far
as appearance is concerned with Prisoner at War's comments and the
Padilla quotes/interview elsewhere in this ng. By that I mean that if
PAW's comments and Padilla's statements re bodybuilding and appearance/
development are true then what difference would it make if you choose
to do the one set to failure (at 12 to 15 reps) versus multiple sets?
That is if your genetics are the determining factor in your results.

Anyway, Dr. Laskowski's first tip is to do just one set of 12 to 15.
How's that differ from HIT, btw?

He does state, however, "there are very defined goals for bodybuilders
where multiple sets may be beneficial, but really for 85 to 90 percent
of the population, a single set is all you need."

So the question is, are you a member of the 85 to 90 percent of the
population or do you count yourself in the remaining 10 to 15
percent?

Regardless, no (or very few if any) bodybuilder would argue against
split routines - the doc's second recommendation to cut down on
workout time.

What the hell is tip three? He mentions isolation exercises and
compound exercise (or integrated exercise as he calls them). As I'm
reading it the tip is to do isolation on one day and compound on
another? I guess that'd help you maintain the one set per bodypart per
workout idea. Get the most oomph as you work the muscle to its 12 to
15-rep failure.

I thought it was odd as the interviewer asked, "Would you combine, in
a compound exercise, would you combine upper and lower body at the
same time?" and the doc replied with, "You could. We're not too fond
of things like people running with weights on because that can create
some momentum effects which can actually cause a little bit of harmful
effect to the muscle tissue. So we think you should really - if you're
going to strength train, strength train; if you're going to do aerobic
exercise, do aerobic exercise."

Wtf? The interviewer wasn't asking about aerobics or cardio and
weights in the same workout. Maybe the doc had a script he wanted to
cover and just answered with info he wanted to get across rather than
sticking entirely to what the interviewer was looking for. Dunno.

Laskowski dropped the ball entirely, imo - but again, I'm just a
skinny guy who likes working out, okay? - is when he continues in NOT
answering the interviewer's question about combing upper and lower
body in one workout with these words:

"Upper and lower body exercise, the only problem is, it can be done,
but again, the technique must be impeccable. So if you're going to try
to do an upper body move with the lower body move that you're doing,
or exercise that you're doing, you just need to make sure that the
technique is as good as can be for that whole set of exercises. I
think more of the compound exercise is more of a leg press. You don't
necessarily have to integrate upper and lower body, but you can
integrate multiple muscles in a limb, rather than just using one
muscle in the limb."

What does impeccable technique have to do with working upper and lower
body compound exercises in the same workout? I mean, how does that
answer the question? Laskowski seems to be trying to explain to the
interviewer what a compound exercise is.

Or maybe I don't understand or am misinterpreting the question: "Would
you combine, in a compound exercise, would you combine upper and lower
body at the same time?"

Looks like I am. Thought he meant can you do upper and lower body in
the same workout, but as I reread that question it seems the
interviewer is looking for one exercise that combines all the frigging
bodyparts! Think you'd need that machine that costs, what, $5000 and
you can do your workout in three minutes? (Paging Cohen to the white
courtesy phone! Jason Earl to the white courtesy phone! What is that
machine?)

And, fwiw, Laskowski's "So we think you should really - if you're
going to strength train, strength train; if you're going to do aerobic
exercise, do aerobic exercise" was contradicted in the July 2007 issue
of Muscle Mag International - http://www.emusclemag.com/ - where Ron
Harris - http://www.ronharrismuscle.com/ - comments that cardio and
weights do go together, but that the weights should come first
followed by your cardio work. Somethingsomething glycogen to
somethingsomething. Heck, buy the issue. It's on your newsstand now
and you'll be helping Brink out a bit - if he has a column in the
issue. I didn't notice.

Tip four was to focus on the bodyparts you're interested in developing
rather than working a full body workout. Laskowski states, "Is your
goal just fitness? General fitness? Increasing lean muscle mass? Is it
appearance? Are you trying to get a specific area to look better than
it does or you have a certain goal in that area? Or is it a sports-
specific goal? If you're a tennis player, you'll want to emphasize
different muscle groups than you are if you play football, or maybe
soccer, or if you're a golfer." Iirc, Bill Reynolds had a sport-
specific workout book available back in the day. They're still all
over the bookshelves, of course.

Interesting or odd, imo, is that while advising the listener/reader to
work the areas where you need it the most as tip four, the doc
recommends to train for balance as tip number five:

"We really want to stress balance in your workout. So, if you think of
the lower body, the quadriceps are balanced by the hamstring muscles,
and if you think of your back and spine, the abdominal muscles are
balanced by the low back muscles."

Seems like a contradiction to me. I mean if you're sold on his first
tip. Isn't it a moot point to worry about not balancing your workout
if you're only doing one set per bodypart? There's no excuse not to
work every bodypart if you're only doing one set each, right?

thanks,
vince

p.s.: the WHAA word is all yours.. =)


heh ) Thank you.

peace..


Om's attorney, however, might be miffed at that! D

--
Curt

  #4  
Old June 5th 07, 10:58 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights
Curt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,888
Default hey PubMed (was hey curtis)

John M. Williams wrote: wrote:
VinCe wrote:
what do you think of this?


http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/wei...aining/SM00114


Doc says snip one set with an
all out intensity of 12 to 15 reps
stopping once you can't do a rep
with strict formsnip


Last month's issue of the Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research:

"The relative improvements (%) for the
1RM were significantly


Does anyone define significantly?

higher during the 3-set program for the
biceps curl and the bench press
compared with the 1-set programsnip

Same results as previous studies:

"[S]uperior


Or [S]uperior?

strength gains occurred following 3-set
strength training compared with single-set
strength training snip

"Resistance training consisting of only
single-set exercises is sufficient to significantly
enhance muscle function and physical
performance, although muscle strength
and endurance gains are greater


Or greater?

with higher volume work." snip


John, higher volume would equal a greater amount of time to complete
your workout and the point of Laskowski's interview was to state how
people could *reduce* that time.

With that in mind, as well as the included caveat of "while still
getting results similar to those of a longer workout," I'd say your
participation is this thread is beside the point.

Of course, unless you're peeking in on Google groups... no, I'll trust
that you are. I mean some might consider it odd that someone who
claims he's killfiled me would check out a post with the Subject line
of "hey curtis". No surprise for me, though. ;o)

--
Curt

  #5  
Old June 5th 07, 11:37 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights
Jason Earl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default hey curtis

VinCe writes:

what do you think of this?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/wei...aining/SM00114

Doc says once you fatigue a muscle you fatigue a muscle.. meaning
all it takes is a one set to failure.. now don't get me wrong, he
doesn't mean the HIT technique.. he means one set with an all out
intensity of 12 to 15 reps stopping once you can't do a rep with
strict form.. and .. and .. oh, just listen to doc and kindly let
me know how you feel about his words?


Actually, he probably *does* mean the HIT techniques. A lot of the
HIT ideas came out of the research around strength training. The
problem, of course, is that most of the research cited was done on
untrained college freshman, and everything works for 6 weeks with
untrained college freshman.

However, it is hard to argue that beginners shouldn't start their
weight training using single set protocols. It is also hard to argue
that single set training isn't a really good idea for people who need
to get the most bang out of their limited exercise time. Since
beginning weight trainers who are pressed for time appear to be
Dr. Laskowski's audience it is hard to fault what he has to say.

Jason
  #6  
Old June 5th 07, 11:59 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights
Curt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,888
Default hey curtis

Jason Earl wrote:
VinCe writes:
what do you think of this?


http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/wei...aining/SM00114


Doc says once you fatigue a muscle you fatigue a muscle.. meaning
all it takes is a one set to failure.. now don't get me wrong, he
doesn't mean the HIT technique.. he means one set with an all out
intensity of 12 to 15 reps stopping once you can't do a rep with
strict form.. and .. and .. oh, just listen to doc and kindly let
me know how you feel about his words?


Actually, he probably *does* mean the HIT techniques. A lot of the
HIT ideas came out of the research around strength training.


The one set to failure at 12 to 15 reps certainly reads like the
recent HIT book I purchased.

The problem, of course, is that most of the research cited was done on
untrained college freshman,


By "most of the research cited" you mean for HIT, right?

Because Laskowski states, "And, there's been multiple studies out
there that show that actually, one single set of exercises can be as
effective as multiple sets of exercise. The tradition that you'll hear
a lot in the gym is, you have to do three sets of exercise, sometimes
even four, five or six, to get the benefit, and that really isn't
true. Many studies have shown, in fact, one large what we call meta-
analysis, which looks at a lot of different studies, showed that of 35
studies, 33 out of 35 showed no difference between single- and multi-
set training, and that applies to the amount of lean muscle mass that
you gain, the type of strength gain achieved, and even the appearance,
the tone of the muscle, in the increase of lean muscle mass."

He, unfortunately, offers no specifics re those aforementioned 33
studies.

and everything works for 6 weeks with untrained college freshman.

However, it is hard to argue that beginners shouldn't start their
weight training using single set protocols. It is also hard to argue
that single set training isn't a really good idea for people who need
to get the most bang out of their limited exercise time. Since
beginning weight trainers who are pressed for time appear to be
Dr. Laskowski's audience it is hard to fault what he has to say.


And yet it seems as if some still do.

--
Curt

  #7  
Old June 6th 07, 12:25 AM posted to misc.fitness.weights
Jason Earl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default hey curtis

Curt writes:

Jason Earl wrote:
VinCe writes:
what do you think of this?


http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/wei...aining/SM00114


Doc says once you fatigue a muscle you fatigue a muscle.. meaning
all it takes is a one set to failure.. now don't get me wrong, he
doesn't mean the HIT technique.. he means one set with an all out
intensity of 12 to 15 reps stopping once you can't do a rep with
strict form.. and .. and .. oh, just listen to doc and kindly
let me know how you feel about his words?


Actually, he probably *does* mean the HIT techniques. A lot of the
HIT ideas came out of the research around strength training.


The one set to failure at 12 to 15 reps certainly reads like the
recent HIT book I purchased.


I am sure somewhere there is a supposed HIT jedi that would state that
"true HIT" is more complicated than that. Some people are simply
contrary by nature.

The problem, of course, is that most of the research cited was done
on untrained college freshman,


By "most of the research cited" you mean for HIT, right?


Precisely. If HIT was the best way to train across the board then
more actual athletes and bodybuilders would be HIT disciples.

Because Laskowski states, "And, there's been multiple studies out
there that show that actually, one single set of exercises can be as
effective as multiple sets of exercise. The tradition that you'll
hear a lot in the gym is, you have to do three sets of exercise,
sometimes even four, five or six, to get the benefit, and that
really isn't true. Many studies have shown, in fact, one large what
we call meta- analysis, which looks at a lot of different studies,
showed that of 35 studies, 33 out of 35 showed no difference between
single- and multi- set training, and that applies to the amount of
lean muscle mass that you gain, the type of strength gain achieved,
and even the appearance, the tone of the muscle, in the increase of
lean muscle mass."

He, unfortunately, offers no specifics re those aforementioned 33
studies.


I would especially be interested in a cite on the meta study. Not
that I am likely to switch my current routine based on a meta analysis
of some research. I happen to like to read.

and everything works for 6 weeks with untrained college freshman.

However, it is hard to argue that beginners shouldn't start their
weight training using single set protocols. It is also hard to
argue that single set training isn't a really good idea for people
who need to get the most bang out of their limited exercise time.
Since beginning weight trainers who are pressed for time appear to
be Dr. Laskowski's audience it is hard to fault what he has to say.


And yet it seems as if some still do.


USENET shows that some people will argue about anything. Personally I
would shorten Dr. Lakowski's recommendations for beginning weight
trainers with limited time to "twenty minutes of compound exercises
using 1 set of 8-12 reps three times a week." Here's the list of
exercises I would prescribe assuming that the person had access to a
barbell, a bench, and a power rack.

deadlifts
front squats (or another squat variant if you like)
rows
chinups
military press
bench press

Would that be the perfect routine for everyone. No. However, it
would be more effective than whatever else they are /likely/ to try on
their own, and it won't take much time.

Jason
  #8  
Old June 6th 07, 03:09 AM posted to misc.fitness.weights
Curt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,888
Default hey curtis

Jason Earl wrote:
[...]

snip Some people are simply
contrary by nature.


Hey, I resemble that remark!

[...]

re Laskowski's (unfortunately not) referenced studies

I would especially be interested
in a cite on the meta study. Not
that I am likely to switch my current
routine based on a meta analysis
of some research. I happen to like
to read.


I love to read.

[...]

USENET shows that some people
will argue about anything.


I hadn't noticed.

Personally I would shorten Dr.
Lakowski's recommendations for
beginning weight trainers with
limited time to "twenty minutes
of compound exercises using 1 set
of 8-12 reps three times a week."
Here's the list of exercises I would
prescribe assuming that the person
had access to a barbell, a bench,
and a power rack.

deadlifts
front squats (or another squat
variant if you like)
rows
chinups
military press
bench press


You'd do that routine (a beginner, not you) three times per week? The
good doctor recommended split routines.

The doc also recommended isolation exercises as well as the compounds,
however didn't really state why in the interview. And, if I read/heard
it right, he said to do say leg extensions on one day and then squats
on another day.

Okay, gotcha, you did say you'd shorten or abbreviate his tip list.

Would that be the perfect routine
for everyone. No. However, it
would be more effective than
whatever else they are /likely/
to try on their own, and it won't
take much time.


True.

--
Curt

  #9  
Old June 6th 07, 03:33 AM posted to misc.fitness.weights
JMW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,436
Default hey curtis

Jason Earl wrote:
Curt writes:

Because Laskowski states, "And, there's been multiple studies out
there that show that actually, one single set of exercises can be as
effective as multiple sets of exercise. The tradition that you'll
hear a lot in the gym is, you have to do three sets of exercise,
sometimes even four, five or six, to get the benefit, and that
really isn't true. Many studies have shown, in fact, one large what
we call meta- analysis, which looks at a lot of different studies,
showed that of 35 studies, 33 out of 35 showed no difference between
single- and multi- set training, and that applies to the amount of
lean muscle mass that you gain, the type of strength gain achieved,
and even the appearance, the tone of the muscle, in the increase of
lean muscle mass."

He, unfortunately, offers no specifics re those aforementioned 33
studies.


I would especially be interested in a cite on the meta study. Not
that I am likely to switch my current routine based on a meta analysis
of some research. I happen to like to read.


The American Society of Exercise Physiologists are big on publishing
meta-analyses, constantly insisting that a single-set protocol is as
good as a multi-set protocol:

http://www.asep.org/files/WinettV2.pdf
http://www.unm.edu/~rrobergs/JEPonline/Feb06/OttoV2.pdf

That hasn't changed the way I do things.
  #10  
Old June 6th 07, 05:41 AM posted to misc.fitness.weights
John Hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 539
Default hey curtis

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:00:31 -0000, VinCe
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

what do you think of this?

There's only one Curtis and he hangs out in rec.scuba. As a matter of
fact, I'll be diving with him at the end of the month.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Very unusual WR for Lenton David W Swimming 121 January 4th 12 02:12 AM
the videos Micheal Artindale Swimming 93 April 10th 06 01:17 AM
=> bu$h regime vs The United States of America <= Hank Weights 63 September 2nd 05 03:52 PM
Hey Steve! (Curtis) Too bad you can't apply for this job... Martin W. Smith Swimming 6 January 18th 05 11:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.