Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

[Guest guest]

Jafa,

In a message dated 10/31/03 2:10:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jafasum@... writes:

> Thanks for your response. I take it that Max. Muscle Min. Fat is Ori's new

> book. Are you in total agreement with it or do you have any disagreements?

> Anyone else have any comments on this book?

Yes, it's Ori's new book. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only one here

who's read it, since I pre-ordered it and it just came out a couple weeks ago

and I read it in two days. If other people have, I'd be interested in their

comments. I can't think of a single disagreeable thing in it.

> I have been following the weight posts and will be changing what I have

> been doing, which has been a mod. weight higher rep plan at about a 4 sec.

> interval.

>

> On the superslow site, it was stated that a 10 sec positive and negative is

> done. But, DMM said that superslow is 20 sec. Maybe you meant 10 pos. 10

> neg.=20.

Right, 10 + 10 is 20.

Could you please explain again what you recommended. I actually find a 10

sec.

> movement to be difficult and tedious. The 4 sec. seems most natural.

> Should I try to work up to 10 sec, though for optimum results?

I'm not familiar with the Superslow theory, but I don't agree with it.

Granted, I'm the least expert here on the subject, but I tried it once and found

it

very hard to coordinate my breathing with it. got seriously injured

with it. Pavel Tsoutsouline who seems like a fantastic authority on the

subject has explicitly said that he does not endorse it. It furthermore seems

more

boring, less conducive to steroid production, and less conducive to pushing

more weight.

I never ever actually count how many seconds I take for a rep, which I think

would be awfully distracting, but just push the weight as fast as I can while

keeping good form and not jerking. If the weight is as heavy as it should be,

this should probably take more than four seconds for exercises like the

squat, if you count going down in addition to coming up.

> Also, a slow movement I was told only activates the slow twitch fibers, not

> the fast twitch. Because of this the trainers recommend to vary your

> exercise time from session to session. Do you know this to be true?

Unless your only goal is fat loss this is the exact opposite of what you want

to do. In general, if you are interested in getting strong you want fast

twitch muscle fibers. Slow twitch have more mitochondria so will raise your

resting metabolism more, if you are interested in weight loss.

However, they are newly discovering that there is a third type of muscle

fiber that is sort of a cross-breed between fast-twitch and slow-twitch, which

exists in modern humans at extremely small quantities. Some people including

Ori

believe the frequency of their occurence can be modified environmentally,

which is why he suggests training for both strength and endurance (and velocity

and other aspects of power) in the SAME workout.

> Also, do you also do aerobics? For how long at a time and how many times

> per week?

I usually do 20 minutes on the eliptical on setting 10 at somewhere between

75 and 85 RPM which is roughly 2.5 miles and burns 300 calories. I usually do

this as a warmup before my weight training sessions, and occasionally if I go

in just for cardio I go a half hour instead of 20 minutes.

However, I just read that it has been shown that people gain more muscle when

they minimize the cardio they do before weight training so as to warm up but

not exhaust themselves. While I never feel exhausted from the cardio I do but

rather just warmed up, I'm currently experimenting with cutting my cardio to

10 minutes and reserving a half hour once or twice a week for extra cardio by

itself.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/31/03 3:11:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> ============Sorry but I can't control myself this is BULLsh#^ & .

> Yes it can be beneficial for high end athletes to do high rate of

> speed ballistic reps. For mere mortals and people who just want to

> be healthy and in shape ballistic training is nothing short of pure

> 100% unadulterated stupidity. The risk of injury dramatically

> increases as the exercise becomes more ballistic and the benefits

> for the average person are marginal at best. Don't listen to this

> drivel. If you were training hours a day and trying to make the

> olympic team in '04 some ballistic training would be valuable and

> the risk reward would be worth while. Outside of this context there

> is NO reason to do ballistic training. And the statement that

> slower reps only activate slow twitch muscles is simply wrong.

Mike,

While the above is true, what does that have to do with muscle fibers?

Normal weight training works fast-twitch fibers primarily, not slow twitch. I

personally think rep duration should be measured according to the individual's

breathing capacity. If you can only inhale for 3 seconds, it would be silly to

let the weight down for four, or else you screw up your breathing pattern.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/31/03 3:12:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> For whatever its worth Tsatsouline (if his hype is true) is an

> awesome resource regarding combat training and the like. For normal

> people who simply want to be fit and healthy I can't think of anyone

> more inappropriate or absurd. His training is high risk and high

> reward. I certainly won't say it won't be effective however his

> methods are allegedly adapted from his training of combat forces.

> Soccer mom and dad nor NON paid athletes do NOT need such abusive

> and high risk/reward type training. Obviously you're free to do as

> you choose but I see little point in beating the ever living crap

> out of oneself in an effort to become healthy and fit. These two

> things to not coincide as far as I've seen.

I haven't read any of his books, but I get the information you are not

familiar with his advice to ordinary people. He runs a column in a popular gym

mag,

and continually addresses advice to " regular " folks. The advice he offers is

not remotely esoteric.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/31/03 5:02:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> I am familiar with the products he sells and the seminars he does

> and these are marketed to said " regular " folk. An example of this

> would be his whole hearted belief that kettlebell training is

> appropriate for most folks especially women. As I said his

> instruction may in fact be very effective however at a cost I think

> most people cannot afford to pay physically.

I've never used a kettlebell, nor have I known anyone who has, so I have no

idea how likely they are to produce injury. But I'm referring to his

information about regular weight training with barbells, in particular, and

calisthenics. Judging by the titles of his books, he doesn't seem to be

marketing them

at the average, weak, clueless person, but that's an entirely different story.

The question is whether he has knowledge or not about how to produce

efficient and quality gains in power using these types of exercises, and he has

specific theories that stand out, which can be judged on their own merits. For

example, he is an opponent of training to failure, and the correctness of this

view has nothing to do with his advocation of kettlebells.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/31/03 5:03:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> As for breathing for cadence, this is painfully subjective in that

> you can make a single breath last 10 seconds as much as you can make

> it last three. There's no problem with this of course but most folk

> can easily slowly breath in for 8-10 seconds no problem and the same

> goes for exhale. But as I said, the exact length of the rep is

> immaterial really the take home lesson is simply that it should be

> slow for most folk.

I don't think this is true at all. If you can meditate or do yoga with 2 or

300 pounds over your shoulders kudos to you, but for me, just having the

weight on my shoulders when I'm standing up decreases my breathing capacity

significantly (I don't have as much room to expand my lungs), and moreover,

exercising increases your breathing rate! So while it's pretty easy for me to

stretch

my breath out over 8 to 10 seconds normally, I can't possibly do that while

I'm weight training.

While I agree (as does Tsoutsouline) that ballistic explosive techniques are

not appropriate for most people (myself included, right now anyway), it's kind

of a stretch to say that reps should be 10 seconds minimum, as there is

plenty of middle ground. As long as you aren't rushing the movement, aren't

cheating and making jerking motions, and are maintiaining focus and good form, I

don't see the benefit of going any slower than you need to to do the above.

Moreover, going slow with some exercises, such as coming down on a deadlift,

increases your risk of injury.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/31/03 6:08:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> Consider that I give advice on this topic to

> lots of folk and next time you're in a gym check out the herk jerk

> methods most people use in their 2-4 second " full " rep and you'll

> see why such a guideline is necessary.

Oh, I definitely see people using the " herk jerk " method more often than not,

but my squat reps are about five seconds total and I don't jerk it at all.

People especially jerk arm exercises, but my method is simply to hold my torso

straight and move my arms instead of my whole body, though arm curls are my

lowest priority.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your response. I take it that Max. Muscle Min. Fat is Ori's new

book. Are you in total agreement with it or do you have any disagreements?

Anyone else have any comments on this book?

I have been following the weight posts and will be changing what I have been

doing, which has been a mod. weight higher rep plan at about a 4 sec. interval.

On the superslow site, it was stated that a 10 sec positive and negative is

done. But, DMM said that superslow is 20 sec. Maybe you meant 10 pos. 10

neg.=20. Could you please explain again what you recommended. I actually find

a 10 sec. movement to be difficult and tedious. The 4 sec. seems most natural.

Should I try to work up to 10 sec, though for optimum results?

Also, a slow movement I was told only activates the slow twitch fibers, not the

fast twitch. Because of this the trainers recommend to vary your exercise time

from session to session. Do you know this to be true?

Also, do you also do aerobics? For how long at a time and how many times per

week?

Thanks in advance,

Jafa

ADVERTISEMENT

[Guest guest]

> On the superslow site, it was stated that a 10 sec positive and

negative is done. But, DMM said that superslow is 20 sec. Maybe

you meant 10 pos. 10 neg.=20. Could you please explain again what

you recommended.

=================10 sec - 10sec +

This is just a guideline I am not a superslow zealot.

However I would not recommend anything less than a 10 sec rep

5+ 5-.

> Also, a slow movement I was told only activates the slow twitch

fibers, not the fast twitch. Because of this the trainers

recommend to vary your exercise time from session to session. Do

you know this to be true?

============Sorry but I can't control myself this is BULLsh#^ & .

Yes it can be beneficial for high end athletes to do high rate of

speed ballistic reps. For mere mortals and people who just want to

be healthy and in shape ballistic training is nothing short of pure

100% unadulterated stupidity. The risk of injury dramatically

increases as the exercise becomes more ballistic and the benefits

for the average person are marginal at best. Don't listen to this

drivel. If you were training hours a day and trying to make the

olympic team in '04 some ballistic training would be valuable and

the risk reward would be worth while. Outside of this context there

is NO reason to do ballistic training. And the statement that

slower reps only activate slow twitch muscles is simply wrong.

>

> Also, do you also do aerobics? For how long at a time and how

many times per week?

===============Aerobic training is somewhat controversial some say

yay some say nay. I fall somewhere in the middle. There is a very

large body of evidence that small amounts of cardio impact many

health risk factors however at some point beyond a mere few minutes

the risks and negative effects of cardio begin to rack up rapidly.

I tend to be in agreement with Winett,PhD and Dr. Ralph

Carpinelli on this one. Cardio is 1-2 times per week 5min easy

warmup 3-10 min at 70-85% maximum heart rate 10-20 minutes easy cool

down. So for those who hate cardio its 20min total for those who

really enjoy it its 35 min total. No more than 2/week. Certainly

more research needs to be done on this but it appears that this

minimal amount of cardio will provide the health protection factors

attributed to cardio and will avoid the deleterious effects most

often ignored about cardio. If you want to read more then go to

www.ageless-athletes.com Which is Winetts site and there are several

articles touching on this there.

The Superslow folks have tried to completely debunk cardio and while

most of their points are correct in that NOBODY needs to be doing

hours of cardio every week and more importantly the shouldn't be.

There are benefits that have in fact been clearly demonstrated that

they have conveniently overlooked in there excited attempts to

erradicate cardio completely. I typically find the truth somewhere

in the middle and I believe Carpinelli and Winett have done this

well by simultaneously and clearly identifying the very real

negatives involved in excessive cardio and also understanding the

window of benefit.

DMM

>

> Thanks in advance,

>

> Jafa

>

>

> ADVERTISEMENT

>

>

[Guest guest]

For whatever its worth Tsatsouline (if his hype is true) is an

awesome resource regarding combat training and the like. For normal

people who simply want to be fit and healthy I can't think of anyone

more inappropriate or absurd. His training is high risk and high

reward. I certainly won't say it won't be effective however his

methods are allegedly adapted from his training of combat forces.

Soccer mom and dad nor NON paid athletes do NOT need such abusive

and high risk/reward type training. Obviously you're free to do as

you choose but I see little point in beating the ever living crap

out of oneself in an effort to become healthy and fit. These two

things to not coincide as far as I've seen.

DMM

[Guest guest]

The point is much less about adhering to a religiously bound rep

cadence and more about the fact that it should be slow. People can

do their own research and pick their own flavor of rep duration.

Point is ballistic movements are inappropriate for most " regular "

folk.

As for breathing for cadence, this is painfully subjective in that

you can make a single breath last 10 seconds as much as you can make

it last three. There's no problem with this of course but most folk

can easily slowly breath in for 8-10 seconds no problem and the same

goes for exhale. But as I said, the exact length of the rep is

immaterial really the take home lesson is simply that it should be

slow for most folk.

DMM

> In a message dated 10/31/03 3:11:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> mmarasco@c... writes:

>

> > ============Sorry but I can't control myself this is BULLsh#^ & .

> > Yes it can be beneficial for high end athletes to do high rate

of

> > speed ballistic reps. For mere mortals and people who just want

to

> > be healthy and in shape ballistic training is nothing short of

pure

> > 100% unadulterated stupidity. The risk of injury dramatically

> > increases as the exercise becomes more ballistic and the

benefits

> > for the average person are marginal at best. Don't listen to

this

> > drivel. If you were training hours a day and trying to make the

> > olympic team in '04 some ballistic training would be valuable

and

> > the risk reward would be worth while. Outside of this context

there

> > is NO reason to do ballistic training. And the statement that

> > slower reps only activate slow twitch muscles is simply wrong.

>

> Mike,

>

> While the above is true, what does that have to do with muscle

fibers?

> Normal weight training works fast-twitch fibers primarily, not

slow twitch. I

> personally think rep duration should be measured according to the

individual's

> breathing capacity. If you can only inhale for 3 seconds, it

would be silly to

> let the weight down for four, or else you screw up your breathing

pattern.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I am familiar with the products he sells and the seminars he does

and these are marketed to said " regular " folk. An example of this

would be his whole hearted belief that kettlebell training is

appropriate for most folks especially women. As I said his

instruction may in fact be very effective however at a cost I think

most people cannot afford to pay physically.

DMM

> In a message dated 10/31/03 3:12:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> mmarasco@c... writes:

>

> > For whatever its worth Tsatsouline (if his hype is true) is an

> > awesome resource regarding combat training and the like. For

normal

> > people who simply want to be fit and healthy I can't think of

anyone

> > more inappropriate or absurd. His training is high risk and

high

> > reward. I certainly won't say it won't be effective however his

> > methods are allegedly adapted from his training of combat

forces.

> > Soccer mom and dad nor NON paid athletes do NOT need such

abusive

> > and high risk/reward type training. Obviously you're free to do

as

> > you choose but I see little point in beating the ever living

crap

> > out of oneself in an effort to become healthy and fit. These

two

> > things to not coincide as far as I've seen.

>

> I haven't read any of his books, but I get the information you are

not

> familiar with his advice to ordinary people. He runs a column in

a popular gym mag,

> and continually addresses advice to " regular " folks. The advice

he offers is

> not remotely esoteric.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

As I said I don't necessarily think he is wrong in any way.

And while I'm not opposed to using kettlebells (I have one)

generally speaking it is far more ballistic than most folks should

need or desire. His theories do stand on their own however feeling

like I have some sense of his overall perspective I see his methods

as excessive in the area of punishing the follower of said methods

more than is necessary. If his theories were ONLY presented in the

perspective of bodyweight exercises (calisthenics) I might have a

different view but I see his work he promotes in addition to

bodyweight training and simply see it as a good way for most folks

to either overtrain and or hurt themselves. I've known quite a few

accomplished martial and combat artists and generally the training

and life M.O. is survival. This is a poor model for lifelong

training and fitness. Again I think Tsatsouline may bring a very

fresh perspective to a many times stale conversation I just don't

see the body of his work applying to healthy and fit individuals as

a whole.

DMM

> In a message dated 10/31/03 5:02:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> mmarasco@c... writes:

>

> > I am familiar with the products he sells and the seminars he

does

> > and these are marketed to said " regular " folk. An example of

this

> > would be his whole hearted belief that kettlebell training is

> > appropriate for most folks especially women. As I said his

> > instruction may in fact be very effective however at a cost I

think

> > most people cannot afford to pay physically.

>

> I've never used a kettlebell, nor have I known anyone who has, so

I have no

> idea how likely they are to produce injury. But I'm referring to

his

> information about regular weight training with barbells, in

particular, and

> calisthenics. Judging by the titles of his books, he doesn't seem

to be marketing them

> at the average, weak, clueless person, but that's an entirely

different story.

> The question is whether he has knowledge or not about how to

produce

> efficient and quality gains in power using these types of

exercises, and he has

> specific theories that stand out, which can be judged on their own

merits. For

> example, he is an opponent of training to failure, and the

correctness of this

> view has nothing to do with his advocation of kettlebells.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 10/31/03 5:03:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> mmarasco@c... writes:

>

> > As for breathing for cadence, this is painfully subjective in

that

> > you can make a single breath last 10 seconds as much as you can

make

> > it last three. There's no problem with this of course but most

folk

> > can easily slowly breath in for 8-10 seconds no problem and the

same

> > goes for exhale. But as I said, the exact length of the rep is

> > immaterial really the take home lesson is simply that it should

be

> > slow for most folk.

>

> I don't think this is true at all. If you can meditate or do yoga

with 2 or

> 300 pounds over your shoulders kudos to you, but for me, just

having the

> weight on my shoulders when I'm standing up decreases my breathing

capacity

> significantly (I don't have as much room to expand my lungs), and

moreover,

> exercising increases your breathing rate! So while it's pretty

easy for me to stretch

> my breath out over 8 to 10 seconds normally, I can't possibly do

that while

> I'm weight training.

--------This is true for you and like for at least some others and

you again should simply adjust accordingly. Also keep in mind that

much of the superslow school of thought is never under weight its

almost always on a machine which completely alters the dynamic.

Again the cadence is not a religion to adhere to, as I see it it is

a guideline to adjust accordingly that simply insures a slow

controlled cadence. Consider that I give advice on this topic to

lots of folk and next time you're in a gym check out the herk jerk

methods most people use in their 2-4 second " full " rep and you'll

see why such a guideline is necessary.

>

> While I agree (as does Tsoutsouline) that ballistic explosive

techniques are

> not appropriate for most people (myself included, right now

anyway), it's kind

> of a stretch to say that reps should be 10 seconds minimum, as

there is

> plenty of middle ground. As long as you aren't rushing the

movement, aren't

> cheating and making jerking motions, and are maintiaining focus

and good form, I

> don't see the benefit of going any slower than you need to to do

the above.

> Moreover, going slow with some exercises, such as coming down on a

deadlift,

> increases your risk of injury.

===========Two things chris first you'd 100% wrong about coming down

slow on a deadlift. This is the negative aspect and is no less

important than any negative aspect of any other exercise. Risk of

injury is FAR higher coming down anything less than slow. Anyone

who'd say otherwise needs to study their lumbopelvic physiology.

Second is just see my comments above. Consider that I am giving

advice to individuals I've never met and likely will never coach in

person. Also consider the fact that they'll likely never do a full

10 second rep. If they do its all the safer and just as effective

however the mass of people will never have the patience to do a 10

sec rep as I believe Jafa or someone has already stated. It is

simply a guide and not a religious prophecy. Most folks are moving

MUCH faster during their workouts than they are aware I have ZERO

worries of someone going too slow. You are a somewhat experienced

weight trainer most are not. One of my biggest concerns is they are

going too fast so anything I can do to slow them down is a plus.

Consider that as I said few if any will follow the instruction to

the letter and those that do will benefit greatly and those that

don't and yet will go much slower than they would have will also

benefit greatly. There is ZERO evidence that slow would have ANY

negative outcome where as there is a BOATLOAD that too fast would.

If I was training the person in person I'd have their cadence match

their own natural rhythm a bit better however with this as the venue

that is impossible.

dMM

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mike-

I believe you're confusing his kettle bell training routines (which are

high risk and perhaps very high reward) with his more general purpose

weight training recommendations -- deadlift, squat, side press, performed

in the best possible form and at what seems like optimum speed. From the

looks of it the janda situp is probably pretty good too, but it's not part

of the basic program.

>For whatever its worth Tsatsouline (if his hype is true) is an

>awesome resource regarding combat training and the like. For normal

>people who simply want to be fit and healthy I can't think of anyone

>more inappropriate or absurd. His training is high risk and high

>reward.

-

[Guest guest]

(While maintaing proper form, naturally) I think it's downright

pointless to purposely limit the speed of both concentric and

eccentric action. Superslow, or any variation thereof, is completely

misguided IMHO.

-

> In a message dated 10/31/03 6:08:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> mmarasco@c... writes:

>

> > Consider that I give advice on this topic to

> > lots of folk and next time you're in a gym check out the herk jerk

> > methods most people use in their 2-4 second " full " rep and you'll

> > see why such a guideline is necessary.

>

> Oh, I definitely see people using the " herk jerk " method more often

than not,

> but my squat reps are about five seconds total and I don't jerk it

at all.

> People especially jerk arm exercises, but my method is simply to

hold my torso

> straight and move my arms instead of my whole body, though arm curls

are my

> lowest priority.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Again I am looking at Tsatouline's approach as a body of work. As I

have REPEATEDLY said his approach absolutely has merit. However he

is very fond of ballistic style training and training that is geared

towards combative arts. I have NO problem with the merits of what

he teaches, I simply find his body of work as a whole to be

unreasonable for most folk. Certainly the parts that you and Chris

have isolated are fine.

DMM

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Mike-

>

> I believe you're confusing his kettle bell training routines

(which are

> high risk and perhaps very high reward) with his more general

purpose

> weight training recommendations -- deadlift, squat, side press,

performed

> in the best possible form and at what seems like optimum speed.

From the

> looks of it the janda situp is probably pretty good too, but it's

not part

> of the basic program.

>

> >For whatever its worth Tsatsouline (if his hype is true) is an

> >awesome resource regarding combat training and the like. For

normal

> >people who simply want to be fit and healthy I can't think of

anyone

> >more inappropriate or absurd. His training is high risk and high

> >reward.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> I've never used a kettlebell, nor have I known anyone who has, so I have

> no idea how likely they are to produce injury.

I <heart> my kettlebells. Which I guess means that I'm in an abusive

relationship.

Anyway, my experience so far has been that you're not likely to get injured

if you don't try to use a bell that's too heavy for you (this is sometimes

hard to avoid, since they come in sixteen-pound increments) or push

yourself too hard when your endurance is waning and your form is

deteriorating.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

you're certainly entitled to your HO however the " while

maintaining proper form " caveat is in fact THE POINT. Its NOT a

sidebar. Are you suggesting that in a fast repetition cadence

(ie.4sec 2+1-) one could actually maintain proper form and not be

lifting via primarily momentum.

The speed of the rep is slowed down to do EXACTLY what your caveat

sites. I'd suggest that it near impossible to maintain your caveat

at anything less than a bare minimum 6 second rep 3+,3-.Certainly

someone will suggest otherwise and there are in fact a handful of

such talented folk but again considering MOST people in MOST

settings this is a true, factual and accurate statement. And before

you dispute it I suggest spending a few dozen hours in a gym

watching people prove this statement 100% accurate.

Once again I want to repeat for at least the 5th time, my

recommendation of the slowed down rep is NOT for religous worship,

it is as a guideline to insure that the reps being done are done

slow ENOUGH which will vary from person to person. I'm not certain

what you mean by " misguided " but as I've also said there is an

ENORMOUS amount of evidence that too fast a rep is dangerous and

provides ZERO extra benefit an equal ENORMOUS LACK of evidence that

there is ANY negative effect to doing an exceptionally slow rep.

When this is considered there is no reason to be concerned that

someone is doing their reps too slow while there is ABSOLUTE reason

to be concerned that they are being done too fast. Also to repeat

the cadence would be more tailored to the individual were I present

to help. In this format that is impossible. And having worked with

people on this countless times, even if they take my advice

literally and do full 10+ 10- reps for a few weeks or months I

guarantee they will break from it and find their VERY OWN cadence

that will still heed my advice of not too fast and yet will not be

as extended. Its not an ideal setting to give advice in but this

recommendation at this distance in this setting is perfect and works

exceptionally well. I've never corrected a client for lifting too

slow, I've corrected near 100% for lifting too fast. While lifting

very slow may not be as convenient or mindless it is the most

effective and safe way for an non-instructed individual to train

injury free and successfully.

DMM

> (While maintaing proper form, naturally) I think it's downright

> pointless to purposely limit the speed of both concentric and

> eccentric action. Superslow, or any variation thereof, is

completely

> misguided IMHO.

>

> -

>

> --- In , ChrisMasterjohn@a...

wrote:

> > In a message dated 10/31/03 6:08:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> > mmarasco@c... writes:

> >

> > > Consider that I give advice on this topic to

> > > lots of folk and next time you're in a gym check out the herk

jerk

> > > methods most people use in their 2-4 second " full " rep and

you'll

> > > see why such a guideline is necessary.

> >

> > Oh, I definitely see people using the " herk jerk " method more

often

> than not,

> > but my squat reps are about five seconds total and I don't jerk

it

> at all.

> > People especially jerk arm exercises, but my method is simply to

> hold my torso

> > straight and move my arms instead of my whole body, though arm

curls

> are my

> > lowest priority.

> >

> > Chris

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

,

Kettlebells like any other piece of equipment are not inherently bad.

You speak of one certain problem in poor weight options but besides

that MOST people want to go, hit the weights and be done. They

don't find working out interesting, they aren't interested in new

and complex movements. For those who are that's fine. As I said,

I'm a gym rat and I have a KB and like it. However I know how to

use it in a safe way. It doesn't take any special skills other than

to receive the appropriate instruction.

That being said, these type of ballistic movements are simply

unnecessary for someone who just wants to get in shape. That's all.

For someone like me or or possibly even you, the gym holds a

certain allure. I enjoy the sweat and the work and the new training

etc... MOST people simply don't.

For these folks there's just no need for ballistic movements as a

matter of fact for these the majority of folks in the world who work

out they provide zero benefit that most folks would need that they

can't simply get in 20-30 minutes lifting heavy and slow in a gym 3

times a week. Yes you can accomplish more by adding ballistic

movements and higher training volumes but at a cost that is simply

unnecessary and impractical for most people. Most people don't need

to increase their time in the 40 yard dash or increase their

vertical leap, etc... they just want to be able to lift a garbage

can or wheel barrow or their kids and feel good while doing it.

This everyday strength and fitness is acheived safest and easiest

with the least amount of risk, wear and tear lifting low reps heavy

and slow.

This is NOT to say all other methods are wrong or bad, simply that

for the majority of folk heavy low and slow is best considering

their desired outcome. Less time in the gym, healthy and fit.

DMM

--- In , Berg <bberg@c...>

wrote:

> Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@a...:

> > I've never used a kettlebell, nor have I known anyone who has,

so I have

> > no idea how likely they are to produce injury.

>

> I <heart> my kettlebells. Which I guess means that I'm in an

abusive

> relationship.

>

> Anyway, my experience so far has been that you're not likely to

get injured

> if you don't try to use a bell that's too heavy for you (this is

sometimes

> hard to avoid, since they come in sixteen-pound increments) or

push

> yourself too hard when your endurance is waning and your form is

> deteriorating.

>

> --

> Berg

> bberg@c...

[Guest guest]

What is wrong with momentum? Have you heard compensatory acceleration?

Weight lifting and generating force, by definition, deals with

acceleration and momentum. You want to generate maximal force while

maintaining proper form. Saying that proper form is defined by a slow

rep speed is absolutely ludicrous and ad hoc.

There's really nothing unsafe about training quickly. Powerlifters and

olympic athletes do it all the time.

I don't think there's anything wrong with 6-8 second reps, but I

wouldn't consider it ideal. You're just slowing yourself down in an

unnatural fashion. Just because the average trainee jerks in dangerous

ways, doesn't make fast lifting a dangerous or unproductive endeavor.

-

> > > In a message dated 10/31/03 6:08:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> > > mmarasco@c... writes:

> > >

> > > > Consider that I give advice on this topic to

> > > > lots of folk and next time you're in a gym check out the herk

> jerk

> > > > methods most people use in their 2-4 second " full " rep and

> you'll

> > > > see why such a guideline is necessary.

> > >

> > > Oh, I definitely see people using the " herk jerk " method more

> often

> > than not,

> > > but my squat reps are about five seconds total and I don't jerk

> it

> > at all.

> > > People especially jerk arm exercises, but my method is simply to

> > hold my torso

> > > straight and move my arms instead of my whole body, though arm

> curls

> > are my

> > > lowest priority.

> > >

> > > Chris

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

hey jafa i used to do superslow.

it was 10 seconds for the pressing movement and 5 seconds back. however each

rep woudl last 20 seconds because at the begi8nnign and teh end of each

movmeent you woudl slow down to avoid any extra movement.

unfortunatly i pushed myself to the brink of breakign point in goign to all

out failure doing it

and gave myself soem bad injury.

_____

From: jafa [mailto:jafasum@...]

Sent: Saturday, 1 November 2003 4:56 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

Thanks for your response. I take it that Max. Muscle Min. Fat is Ori's new

book. Are you in total agreement with it or do you have any disagreements?

Anyone else have any comments on this book?

I have been following the weight posts and will be changing what I have been

doing, which has been a mod. weight higher rep plan at about a 4 sec.

interval.

On the superslow site, it was stated that a 10 sec positive and negative is

done. But, DMM said that superslow is 20 sec. Maybe you meant 10 pos. 10

neg.=20. Could you please explain again what you recommended. I actually

find a 10 sec. movement to be difficult and tedious. The 4 sec. seems most

natural. Should I try to work up to 10 sec, though for optimum results?

Also, a slow movement I was told only activates the slow twitch fibers, not

the fast twitch. Because of this the trainers recommend to vary your

exercise time from session to session. Do you know this to be true?

Also, do you also do aerobics? For how long at a time and how many times

per week?

Thanks in advance,

Jafa

ADVERTISEMENT

[Guest guest]

-

Weren't you a vegetarian (or something like that) at that point,

though? Not to overly defend Super Slow or anything, but nutrition plays a

huge role in injury.

>unfortunatly i pushed myself to the brink of breakign point in goign to all

>out failure doing it

>

>and gave myself soem bad injury.

-

[Guest guest]

the old time guys from the maxalding site ( 1800's to 1930's )

1 of the first things they stress is rep count and throw it out of the

window

becuase different days what will make you hit failure might be 8 reps but on

another could be 6.

so if you push to failure and do 8 you will stifle progress and or injure

yourself.

/me makes mental note of that to self.

_____

From: Dr. Marasco [mailto:mmarasco@...]

Sent: Saturday, 1 November 2003 7:52 AM

Subject: Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

The point is much less about adhering to a religiously bound rep

cadence and more about the fact that it should be slow. People can

do their own research and pick their own flavor of rep duration.

Point is ballistic movements are inappropriate for most " regular "

folk.

As for breathing for cadence, this is painfully subjective in that

you can make a single breath last 10 seconds as much as you can make

it last three. There's no problem with this of course but most folk

can easily slowly breath in for 8-10 seconds no problem and the same

goes for exhale. But as I said, the exact length of the rep is

immaterial really the take home lesson is simply that it should be

slow for most folk.

DMM

> In a message dated 10/31/03 3:11:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> mmarasco@c... writes:

>

> > ============Sorry but I can't control myself this is BULLsh#^ & .

> > Yes it can be beneficial for high end athletes to do high rate

of

> > speed ballistic reps. For mere mortals and people who just want

to

> > be healthy and in shape ballistic training is nothing short of

pure

> > 100% unadulterated stupidity. The risk of injury dramatically

> > increases as the exercise becomes more ballistic and the

benefits

> > for the average person are marginal at best. Don't listen to

this

> > drivel. If you were training hours a day and trying to make the

> > olympic team in '04 some ballistic training would be valuable

and

> > the risk reward would be worth while. Outside of this context

there

> > is NO reason to do ballistic training. And the statement that

> > slower reps only activate slow twitch muscles is simply wrong.

>

> Mike,

>

> While the above is true, what does that have to do with muscle

fibers?

> Normal weight training works fast-twitch fibers primarily, not

slow twitch. I

> personally think rep duration should be measured according to the

individual's

> breathing capacity. If you can only inhale for 3 seconds, it

would be silly to

> let the weight down for four, or else you screw up your breathing

pattern.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

let's just put it this way. I believe this thread began with

Jafa asking for training help. Last time I checked SHE'S NOT AN

OLYMPIC ATHLETE. Why would she want to train like one?

You obviously have NEVER spent any time with a world class athlete

and have no clue how they train. Athletes who train for their

livelyhood are fighting injuries NONSTOP. There's not ONE

professional or olympic powerlifter, football player, swimmer,

runner, etc... who by MID not even end of season that is not

suffering from some moderate to significant injury that they are

trying to compete thru. This is the nature of this type of

training, does it produce superior performance YES, but at a massive

cost. I could be wrong but I'm willing to bet that Jafa couldn't

give a crap about being able to clean 350 pounds. She wants feel

good and function well day to day not live on pain killing

pharmaceuticals and constantl be nursing injuries. Yes olympic

athletes train this way all the time just like you said. If you're

not getting compensated well for it then its an awfully stupid way

to train.

Slower reps are NOT ideal for MAXIMUM performance like an olympic

athlete as I've stated in this thread a bunch of time (you should

try reading them) however it is IDEAL for regular people who want

to safely and effectively be strong and fit in their daily life.

I have bitten my tongue in half here not ripping you for the

absolutely ridiculous statement that " There's really nothing unsafe

about training quickly " All I'm going to say is simply that you

need to do your homework and you obviously have spent little time

with athletes who train ballistically. One of the reason that

ballistic weight training is MORE effective than slow training is

because of the significantly great stress placed on bones, joints,

ligs, muscles and the neurology. The whole point of doing high

speed ballistic training is this. By its nature you up the anti and

bombard the physiology HARD in order to DEMAND its greater

adaptation, to suggest that there's nothing unsafe about it is

bordering on irrational. That's like saying that running full speed

on a side walk is not more unsafe than walking. Even if the risk of

failure was the same (and its not) the impact upon falling will

cause MUCH greater injury. Much the same for ballistic training,

the opportunity for a TRAINED athlete (never mind an untrained non

athlete) to over stress either via micro, macro or acute trauma is

astronomically higher than the same person using slow and controlled

movements.

When compared one against the other in

RESULTS: You could make a marginal case for faster more ballistic

training. (That could easily be countered but the case can be made)

SAFETY: The only case for safety is clearly slow and controlled.

Find me 1 single study to refute that. Just one.

The bottom line is both RESULTS and SAFETY cuz if Jafa is hurt not

only is she not getting any results but life sucks cuz what she

wanted to do better via working out she now can't do at all. So

Results and Safety must coincide at least for the everyday person.

The risk/reward is different for the elite athlete and different

choices may be made.

the point of this thread is not to debate what weight training

method is best. I don't think you nor I nor anyone else knows the

answer to that and we could debate until the cows come home. The

point is practcality for the everyday person to be strong and fit.

Are you seriously telling me that explosively cleaning a barbell

above your head is as safe as squatting in a slow and controlled

motion. Deadlifting in an explosive ballistic rep style is as safe

as moving the weight in a slow and controlled fashion?

Both my experience directly and professionally and the literature

clearly demonstrates the answer to this unequivocally. This doesn't

mean that fast reps are bad it just means their unnecessary and

impractical for most people. Last time I checked there were very

few world class athletes working out at the neighborhood gym.

DMM

> There's really nothing unsafe about training quickly. Powerlifters

and

> olympic athletes do it all the time.

>

> I don't think there's anything wrong with 6-8 second reps, but I

> wouldn't consider it ideal. You're just slowing yourself down in an

> unnatural fashion. Just because the average trainee jerks in

dangerous

> ways, doesn't make fast lifting a dangerous or unproductive

endeavor.

>

> -

>

>

> > > > In a message dated 10/31/03 6:08:05 PM Eastern Standard

Time,

> > > > mmarasco@c... writes:

> > > >

> > > > > Consider that I give advice on this topic to

> > > > > lots of folk and next time you're in a gym check out the

herk

> > jerk

> > > > > methods most people use in their 2-4 second " full " rep and

> > you'll

> > > > > see why such a guideline is necessary.

> > > >

> > > > Oh, I definitely see people using the " herk jerk " method

more

> > often

> > > than not,

> > > > but my squat reps are about five seconds total and I don't

jerk

> > it

> > > at all.

> > > > People especially jerk arm exercises, but my method is

simply to

> > > hold my torso

> > > > straight and move my arms instead of my whole body, though

arm

> > curls

> > > are my

> > > > lowest priority.

> > > >

> > > > Chris

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

initially i wasnt then for a time i was yes.

however that only came about only like a month or 2 MAX before the bad

injury.

Still waiting for it to heal

been year and a half now

_____

From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

Sent: Saturday, 1 November 2003 11:42 AM

Subject: RE: Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

-

Weren't you a vegetarian (or something like that) at that point,

though? Not to overly defend Super Slow or anything, but nutrition plays a

huge role in injury.

>unfortunatly i pushed myself to the brink of breakign point in goign to all

>out failure doing it

>

>and gave myself soem bad injury.

-