Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

[Guest guest]

By my saying that slower controlled movements are safer I'm not

implying in anyway that its safe. Just safer. Putting a heavy

load on the back of your neck or above your head is NOT safe. Safe

is lying in your bed sleeping at 2am in beverly hills.

So injury is available to ANYONE training. My points have simply

been to minimize the opportunity for such injuries.

DMM

> 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@c...]

> 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.

>

>

>

> -

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

the injury didnt actually while i was exercising DMM.

it happened during my sleep.

now was it the " superslow action "

it was a SUPER heavey weight i was weidling that i took to momentary muscle

failure

( id crawl out of the leg press for axemple and sometimes loose my legs.

cpl that with the recent raw only eating of fruit.

and i systematically pulled my structure out of place. and pulled alot of

muscles aswell at same time

_____

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

Sent: Saturday, 1 November 2003 11:56 AM

Subject: Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

By my saying that slower controlled movements are safer I'm not

implying in anyway that its safe. Just safer. Putting a heavy

load on the back of your neck or above your head is NOT safe. Safe

is lying in your bed sleeping at 2am in beverly hills.

So injury is available to ANYONE training. My points have simply

been to minimize the opportunity for such injuries.

DMM

> 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@c...]

> 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.

>

>

>

> -

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

in saying that once im all better ( i pray to some kinda god its SOON ) lol

i will go back to superslow trainign again

however with a complete different outlook now

and a notion to never go to failure or feel tired from it

_____

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

Sent: Saturday, 1 November 2003 11:56 AM

Subject: Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

By my saying that slower controlled movements are safer I'm not

implying in anyway that its safe. Just safer. Putting a heavy

load on the back of your neck or above your head is NOT safe. Safe

is lying in your bed sleeping at 2am in beverly hills.

So injury is available to ANYONE training. My points have simply

been to minimize the opportunity for such injuries.

DMM

> 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@c...]

> 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.

>

>

>

> -

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

From: " Dr. Marasco " <mmarasco@...>

Reply-

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:49:38 -0000

Subject: Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

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

One can beat the crap out of oneself, or not, using exercises and methods

popularised by him.

For instance - one can train by doing lots of short ballistic sets with

kettlebells. If one doesn't want to train too hard, it's easy to moderate

the workout....like anything else.

I, personally, am enjoying 'beating the crap' out of myself for the first

time in my life.

[Guest guest]

> From: " Dr. Marasco " <mmarasco@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:58:03 -0000

>

> Subject: Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

>

>

> 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

Based on my experience, I'd have to say that kettlebell training would be

appropriate for most folks. Sure - you would have to be serious about

getting into shape, but I think that you are overemphasing the danger.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: " Dr. Marasco " <mmarasco@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:46:20 -0000

>

> Subject: Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

>

>

> 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.

>

But he emphasizes NOT training to failure, and prefers multiple short sets

even with ballistics. Nowhere does he say that you should do these exercises

until they hurt, unless you are training for competition (in which case the

training is much different, and his methods aren't the ones to follow

anyway). In fact he stresses that you should not do more reps than you can

do with good form.

In his book he recommends not working out with kettlebells for more than 45

minutes, and if you are doing more than say 3 days a week, to vary the

longer with much shorter workouts. He also stresses building up to do this,

etc...

[Guest guest]

Quoting Gene Schwartz <implode7@...>:

> The most common injury seems to be the ripping of callouses caused

> by one particular exercise - the snatch. This has been my most

> serious injury - I confess. But it does not seem like very many

> people are getting injured by doing the common ballistic exercises.

I have had one problem--If I try to drop out of a snatch (that is, bring it

down in an arc with my arm straight in front of me) with the 24kg bell (and

presumably with anything heavier), the inside of my elbow is sore for a few

days later. Everything's dandy if I press out and drop it from my shoulder,

though.

Have you had a chance to try Turkish getups yet?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

>

> From: Berg <bberg@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:38:12 -0800

>

> Subject: Re: Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

>

>

> 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@...

>

Exactly. The times when I've come close to injuring myself (and I've backed

off then), was when I experimented with doing exercises, say, with the 70

pound kettlebell before I was ready. But, callouses have been my most severe

injury. Them snatches can be nasty!

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: " Dr. Marasco " <mmarasco@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:44:02 -0000

>

> Subject: Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

>

>

>> 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.

This seems very wrong to me. Now, I'm not an expert, but I did pick up

kettlebells about a year and a half ago to start getting in good shape (I'm

now 51, and had never done any strength training previously to this). I also

read the Dragondoor list, so I get a pretty good sense of other people's

experience with kettlebell exercises, which dp emphasize ballistics.

I would say the following - if one pays attention to technique, and this

would be true for ANY resistance training as far as I know, and trains

sanely, it is quite safe. The advantage to non-ballistic training would be

that it can be a tremendous cardiovascular workout (which I don't think is

true for low rep weightlifting), and can build tremendous endurance. It is

not as good for developing pure limit strength, but one can combine more

traditional weightlifting movements with the ballistic exercises.

The most common injury seems to be the ripping of callouses caused by one

particular exercise - the snatch. This has been my most serious injury - I

confess. But it does not seem like very many people are getting injured by

doing the common ballistic exercises.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/1/03 8:17:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> ================No I'm not sensitive I'm demonstrating ths

> silliness and completely unsubstantiated statement you're making.

> Find me 1 study just 1 that demonstrates a 20 second rep is

> dangerous or counter productive. The other two points are your

> opinion and you clearly don't have to do slow reps if you choose not

> to.

Mike,

While I don't have any studies to back up my opinion, it seems pretty obvious

to me that with CERTAIN exercises, 20 second reps are far more dangerous

than, say, 4 second reps. If you are extending your rep duration all you're

doing

is wearing out your muscles longer. If you have an enormous amount of weight

over your shoulders as in the squat, if your back/butt/legs are going to give

out pushing the weight, you want that to happen either at the bottom or the

top-- not the MIDDLE! If you push up the weight and clearly have strength at

the beginning, and then trying to stretch the half-rep over 10 seconds your

muscles give out and hit failure right in the middle of the rep, you could

seriously hurt yourself.

On the deadlift, going back down with such a time duration seriously

increases your chances of screwing up your form and hurting your back. Your

back just

can't take all that time with 2-300 pounds hanging and it just supporting the

weight.

In other exercises while it might not be dangerous it certainly decreases the

benefit of the exercise. e.g. with the bench press, while you should lower

the weight in a controlled manner and avoid bouncing, you need some sort of

explosive push, or the weak spots in your lift will eliminate the benefit of the

entire lift, and you will be left pushing far less weight than you can

actually handle. I personally can't imagine doing a 10 or 20 second pullup

either...

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/1/03 8:45:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> What the bloody hell is the matter with you? The burden of evidence is

> on YOU, my friend. Find me one study, JUST ONE, that training to

> britney spears music is not the ultimate training technique. I double

> dare you! See how ludicrous that sounds?

Ahem. While I'm not really a Britanny Spears fan I'd rather listen to her

than Metallica. Please notify the management of my gym of this theory.

Actually, Britanny Spears offers a disadvantage over Metallica because e.g.

on the bench press you want to keep your lower body straight and you could hurt

yourself if you're listening to music that makes you move your hips around

involuntarily.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/1/03 9:42:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> Engaging in a battle of wits

> with an unarmed man is poor form I'll leave you alone now.

Just keep your back arched and avoid jerking movements and you shouldn't hurt

yourself.

Chris

[Guest guest]

1.) You are fighting a strawman. Kindly stop miscontrueing my

position; it's intellectually dishonest. My point was not to train for

the olympia. It was that 10-20 second reps are downright pointless, if

not dangerous, and numbingly boring and counterproductive.

2.) The literature concerning superslow training is NOT on your side.

The burden of proof is not on me to refute such a ludicrous practice

or to counteract your superb anecdotal evidence.

Just so you know, Olympic lifters have amongst the lowest injury rates

in all sports.

-

> > > > > 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]

>>>>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.

----->that is exactly what i do! although i think i'm ready to move up to 11

now. but i only burn about 215-225 kc. you must go faster than i do :-)

>>>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.

----->that's precisely the schedule my trainer set up for me so as to avoid

using all my energy before i lift. i tried the 10 mins before and after a

workout, but frankly never felt like i got as much out of it other than a

minor warmup (plus it's hard to get the elipitical at that time of day

anyhow), so i'm back to 20 mins on the eliptical before i lift. i feel like

i want to get something more than a warmup out of it, but if you only want

to warmup it seems like ten minutes on a treadmill (or eliptical) should do

the trick. at least that's what i had been doing as per my trainer's

instructions, initially. i know it may slow down my progress a little, but i

doubt it's enough to be concerned about. i'm not competing after all, just

trying to improve personal fitness.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> 1.) You are fighting a strawman. Kindly stop miscontrueing my

> position; it's intellectually dishonest. My point was not to train

for

> the olympia. It was that 10-20 second reps are downright

pointless, if

> not dangerous, and numbingly boring and counterproductive.

================No I'm not sensitive I'm demonstrating ths

silliness and completely unsubstantiated statement you're making.

Find me 1 study just 1 that demonstrates a 20 second rep is

dangerous or counter productive. The other two points are your

opinion and you clearly don't have to do slow reps if you choose not

to.

>

> 2.) The literature concerning superslow training is NOT on your

side.

> The burden of proof is not on me to refute such a ludicrous

practice

> or to counteract your superb anecdotal evidence.

===========There's no burden of proof anywhere here . Even if

there were no studies some simple common sense would apply. As I

asked earlier is cleaning 250 pounds above your head safer than

squatting or pressing at a slow and controlled speed. How much

research do we really need to draw a conclusion on that? As I said

your level of experience on this topic appears to be somewhere

between ZERO and NIL. Both in working with other trainees and in

the gym in general. So I'm simply going to sign off on this. You

can do whatever you want your commentary here is both pointless and

innacurate.

>

> Just so you know, Olympic lifters have amongst the lowest injury

rates

> in all sports.

============== do you have ANY CLUE how LONG it takes for one to

become a proficient Olympic lifter???? Any remote idea the level of

training and expertise an Olympic level lifter has to do these

ballistic lifts safely??? Methinks NO.

Regardless of the amount of injury they have compared to other

sports they are STILL subject to the SAME CONSTANT injury and

chronic illness status I have previously mentioned the only

difference is that most other sports happen at a high rate of speed

on a non stable base and therefore increase the risk factor. The

bottom line is that their STILL far more injured and ill than the

general populous.

I absolutely don't mind differing opinions and as is evidenced by my

history on this group I adore an enthusiastic debate but there's no

bigger waste of time that listening to someone with ZERO experience

yap about what they know to be true when on a particular topic they

are COMPLETELY CLUELESS. My suggestion would be that you should

train in whatever fashion you want and enjoy it and just ignore my

inpup but stop giving out advice about topics you know absolutely

nothing about.

DMM

>

> -

>

>

>

>

> > > > > > 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]

> Based on my experience, I'd have to say that kettlebell training

would be

> appropriate for most folks. Sure - you would have to be serious

about

> getting into shape, but I think that you are overemphasing the

danger.

=================I think what's happening Gene is that in an attempt

to clarify this point the danger IS getting overstated. I have

repeatedly stated my appreciation of Tsatsouline's thoughts and the

Kettlebells.

The point is when a " non gym rat " (most everyone) asks me about the

fastest, safest, simplest way to be strong and fit there is an

obvious answer. This person wants to be in and out of the gym as

fast as possible and wants to minimize their learning curve along

with their risk of injury. This is MOST people. Not me, possibly

not you but this is most people.

That being said the training I recommended slowed, heavy reps is

unquestionably the best fit for the above M.O. I have said

repeatedly now that this may NOT be the BEST and most effective

training. I can think of other ways that are much higher volume or

different methods that might produce a better athlete, I conceeded

that from the beginning.

Very simply as the training movements become more unstable and

faster the risk factor simply increases, whether it increases by a

factor of .5 or a factor of 25 simply depends to some degree on

who's doing it.

When considering WHO this type training is for. I think it FAR more

important that at the end of the day the person is as close to

GUARANTEED as possible that they'll be completely healthy, fit,

stronger and uninjured. What I have recommended does that. For

these people (most of the population) there is no good reason of

any kind to increase the risk factor even .1

So I am NOT saying that everyone or even lots of people using KB's

or other ballistic training methods will hurt themselves and die I'm

simply saying that compared to a slower controlled rep at reduced

repetitions with heavier weight KB's and other ballistics DO in fact

INCREASE the risk factor and most importantly UNNECESSARILY.

Unfortunately the all the people who have argued this point ARE NOT

THE TARGET of my post. You and a few others obviously have some

interest in the ballistic style of training w or wo kettlebells as I

do and that is fine. Point simply being that its NOT the simplest

NOR safest way to go about things.

Soccer Mom, construction worker, physician, lawyer, nurse, do NOT

need to develop their explosive strength. The certainly CAN if they

have that interest. But they have no good reason to do so

otherwise. So keeping their workout at the basic and fundamental

level as to insure both their best results and safety should be

paramount. If any of these folks should find ballistics interesting

I would not discourage them but I would tell them that based upon

their NEEDS that ballistic training is unnecessary except as a means

of entertaining their curiosity. For a world class athlete the

story would be different.

Enjoy your KB.

DMM

[Guest guest]

"

> ================No I'm not sensitive I'm demonstrating ths

> silliness and completely unsubstantiated statement you're making.

> Find me 1 study just 1 that demonstrates a 20 second rep is

> dangerous or counter productive. The other two points are your

> opinion and you clearly don't have to do slow reps if you choose not

> to. "

What the bloody hell is the matter with you? The burden of evidence is

on YOU, my friend. Find me one study, JUST ONE, that training to

britney spears music is not the ultimate training technique. I double

dare you! See how ludicrous that sounds?

" ===========There's no burden of proof anywhere here . Even if

> there were no studies some simple common sense would apply. As I

> asked earlier is cleaning 250 pounds above your head safer than

> squatting or pressing at a slow and controlled speed.How much

> research do we really need to draw a conclusion on that? "

Dude, cleaning is not more or less dangerous then anything else. What

you are pushing forward is little more than BLIND conjecture. BTW,

nobody 'cleans' above their head. Perhaps you meant 'snatch'?

" As I said

> your level of experience on this topic appears to be somewhere

> between ZERO and NIL. Both in working with other trainees and in

> the gym in general. So I'm simply going to sign off on this. You

> can do whatever you want your commentary here is both pointless and

> innacurate. "

Dude, the crap you're spouting is baseless conjecture. I don't give a

rat's ass how long you've been training. You're giving people on this

board bad advice that goes against the scientific literature out

there. The ad hominem attacks do little to bolster your case, I might

add.

"

> I absolutely don't mind differing opinions and as is evidenced by my

> history on this group I adore an enthusiastic debate but there's no

> bigger waste of time that listening to someone with ZERO experience

> yap about what they know to be true when on a particular topic they

> are COMPLETELY CLUELESS. My suggestion would be that you should

> train in whatever fashion you want and enjoy it and just ignore my

> inpup but stop giving out advice about topics you know absolutely

> nothing about.

> "

It doesn't surprise me that you enjoy a good 'debate', most probably

as an outlet for bottled frustrations. Listen up: if experience is the

determining factor here, then shut the hell up and advise people to

listen to Ronnie or Lee Priest. The advice you've given, under

the false pretense of being uber-knowledgeable through experience

alone, is absolute unsubstantiated baloney.

I advise anybody to look up the facts on SS training and judge for

themselves.

I don't mind heated debate. But this isn't debate. This is you getting

insecure and resorting to ad hom. attacks.

I won't even bother pressenting you with evidence against superslow

training. Evidence that it does nothing for muscular or strength

growth in comparison to normal routines. Evidence that it is DANGEROUS

because it messes up blood pressure. I won't, because you've

presented absolutely nothing worth considering. As such, your

arguments can simply dismissed off hand as the ranting of an angry man.

-

[Guest guest]

Gee you ARE sensitive. Seems the " rantings of an angry man "

would well apply to the one who threw the stone.

Obviously raptured in your " sensitivity " as you're so skilled at you

MISSED the point as usual. That being that MOST people training

like Lee Priest or Ronnie awesome as they might be would

just be plain moronic. MOST people do not want 1/10 of what these

guys have. Their methods are Niether practical nor desirable for

the " normal " person. I also believe that following Mr. or

Mr. Priests regimen would likely include a healthy dose of some

special injectibles I might add.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you belittle what you call

my " anecdotal evidence " when you have niether anecdotal nor

empirical evidence. Seems that not only the monikers of " sensitive "

and " rantings of an angry man " not only apply to you but maybe we

should add " impressively speaks of things he knows nothing about. "

You may or may not reply to this but this is MY last comment. You

may be a obnoxious, etc... as you choose. I'll be happy to discuss

this with anyone else on the board but Engaging in a battle of wits

with an unarmed man is poor form I'll leave you alone now.

DMM

> "

> > ================No I'm not sensitive I'm demonstrating ths

> > silliness and completely unsubstantiated statement you're making.

> > Find me 1 study just 1 that demonstrates a 20 second rep is

> > dangerous or counter productive. The other two points are your

> > opinion and you clearly don't have to do slow reps if you choose

not

> > to. "

>

> What the bloody hell is the matter with you? The burden of

evidence is

> on YOU, my friend. Find me one study, JUST ONE, that training to

> britney spears music is not the ultimate training technique. I

double

> dare you! See how ludicrous that sounds?

>

> " ===========There's no burden of proof anywhere here . Even

if

> > there were no studies some simple common sense would apply. As

I

> > asked earlier is cleaning 250 pounds above your head safer than

> > squatting or pressing at a slow and controlled speed.How much

> > research do we really need to draw a conclusion on that? "

>

> Dude, cleaning is not more or less dangerous then anything else.

What

> you are pushing forward is little more than BLIND conjecture. BTW,

> nobody 'cleans' above their head. Perhaps you meant 'snatch'?

>

> " As I said

> > your level of experience on this topic appears to be somewhere

> > between ZERO and NIL. Both in working with other trainees and

in

> > the gym in general. So I'm simply going to sign off on this.

You

> > can do whatever you want your commentary here is both pointless

and

> > innacurate. "

>

> Dude, the crap you're spouting is baseless conjecture. I don't

give a

> rat's ass how long you've been training. You're giving people on

this

> board bad advice that goes against the scientific literature out

> there. The ad hominem attacks do little to bolster your case, I

might

> add.

>

> "

> > I absolutely don't mind differing opinions and as is evidenced

by my

> > history on this group I adore an enthusiastic debate but there's

no

> > bigger waste of time that listening to someone with ZERO

experience

> > yap about what they know to be true when on a particular topic

they

> > are COMPLETELY CLUELESS. My suggestion would be that you should

> > train in whatever fashion you want and enjoy it and just ignore

my

> > inpup but stop giving out advice about topics you know

absolutely

> > nothing about.

> > "

>

> It doesn't surprise me that you enjoy a good 'debate', most

probably

> as an outlet for bottled frustrations. Listen up: if experience is

the

> determining factor here, then shut the hell up and advise people to

> listen to Ronnie or Lee Priest. The advice you've given,

under

> the false pretense of being uber-knowledgeable through experience

> alone, is absolute unsubstantiated baloney.

>

> I advise anybody to look up the facts on SS training and judge for

> themselves.

>

> I don't mind heated debate. But this isn't debate. This is you

getting

> insecure and resorting to ad hom. attacks.

>

> I won't even bother pressenting you with evidence against superslow

> training. Evidence that it does nothing for muscular or strength

> growth in comparison to normal routines. Evidence that it is

DANGEROUS

> because it messes up blood pressure. I won't, because you've

> presented absolutely nothing worth considering. As such, your

> arguments can simply dismissed off hand as the ranting of an angry

man.

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Again two points here;

1) is there is ZERO evidence to support ANY negative effect of

slowing rep speed down.

2) I already explained my position on rep speed and feel no need to

bolster a position for a 20 second rep considering that few if any

will do it. The take away is the rep must be slower than nearly

everyone is doing them.

DMM

> In a message dated 11/1/03 8:17:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> mmarasco@c... writes:

>

> > ================No I'm not sensitive I'm demonstrating ths

> > silliness and completely unsubstantiated statement you're making.

> > Find me 1 study just 1 that demonstrates a 20 second rep is

> > dangerous or counter productive. The other two points are your

> > opinion and you clearly don't have to do slow reps if you choose

not

> > to.

>

> Mike,

>

> While I don't have any studies to back up my opinion, it seems

pretty obvious

> to me that with CERTAIN exercises, 20 second reps are far more

dangerous

> than, say, 4 second reps. If you are extending your rep duration

all you're doing

> is wearing out your muscles longer. If you have an enormous

amount of weight

> over your shoulders as in the squat, if your back/butt/legs are

going to give

> out pushing the weight, you want that to happen either at the

bottom or the

> top-- not the MIDDLE! If you push up the weight and clearly have

strength at

> the beginning, and then trying to stretch the half-rep over 10

seconds your

> muscles give out and hit failure right in the middle of the rep,

you could

> seriously hurt yourself.

>

> On the deadlift, going back down with such a time duration

seriously

> increases your chances of screwing up your form and hurting your

back. Your back just

> can't take all that time with 2-300 pounds hanging and it just

supporting the

> weight.

>

> In other exercises while it might not be dangerous it certainly

decreases the

> benefit of the exercise. e.g. with the bench press, while you

should lower

> the weight in a controlled manner and avoid bouncing, you need

some sort of

> explosive push, or the weak spots in your lift will eliminate the

benefit of the

> entire lift, and you will be left pushing far less weight than you

can

> actually handle. I personally can't imagine doing a 10 or 20

second pullup either...

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'm not sensitive at all. I think your behavior is downright idiotic,

I will say that. You profess to know absolutely everything and

belittle everyone who disagrees with you. This doesn't offend me, it

digusts me, is all.

Again, you make it seem like I'm the one who has to offer evidence of

anything. YOU'RE the ony making ridiculous claims, buddy. I really

think you need to sit down and rethink the arrogant paradigm you've

stuck yourself into.

-

-- In , " Dr. Marasco "

<mmarasco@c...> wrote:

> Gee you ARE sensitive. Seems the " rantings of an angry man "

> would well apply to the one who threw the stone.

>

> Obviously raptured in your " sensitivity " as you're so skilled at you

> MISSED the point as usual. That being that MOST people training

> like Lee Priest or Ronnie awesome as they might be would

> just be plain moronic. MOST people do not want 1/10 of what these

> guys have. Their methods are Niether practical nor desirable for

> the " normal " person. I also believe that following Mr. or

> Mr. Priests regimen would likely include a healthy dose of some

> special injectibles I might add.

>

> I find it absolutely hilarious that you belittle what you call

> my " anecdotal evidence " when you have niether anecdotal nor

> empirical evidence. Seems that not only the monikers of " sensitive "

> and " rantings of an angry man " not only apply to you but maybe we

> should add " impressively speaks of things he knows nothing about. "

>

> You may or may not reply to this but this is MY last comment. You

> may be a obnoxious, etc... as you choose. I'll be happy to discuss

> this with anyone else on the board but Engaging in a battle of wits

> with an unarmed man is poor form I'll leave you alone now.

>

> DMM

>

>

>

> > "

> > > ================No I'm not sensitive I'm demonstrating ths

> > > silliness and completely unsubstantiated statement you're making.

> > > Find me 1 study just 1 that demonstrates a 20 second rep is

> > > dangerous or counter productive. The other two points are your

> > > opinion and you clearly don't have to do slow reps if you choose

> not

> > > to. "

> >

> > What the bloody hell is the matter with you? The burden of

> evidence is

> > on YOU, my friend. Find me one study, JUST ONE, that training to

> > britney spears music is not the ultimate training technique. I

> double

> > dare you! See how ludicrous that sounds?

> >

> > " ===========There's no burden of proof anywhere here . Even

> if

> > > there were no studies some simple common sense would apply. As

> I

> > > asked earlier is cleaning 250 pounds above your head safer than

> > > squatting or pressing at a slow and controlled speed.How much

> > > research do we really need to draw a conclusion on that? "

> >

> > Dude, cleaning is not more or less dangerous then anything else.

> What

> > you are pushing forward is little more than BLIND conjecture. BTW,

> > nobody 'cleans' above their head. Perhaps you meant 'snatch'?

> >

> > " As I said

> > > your level of experience on this topic appears to be somewhere

> > > between ZERO and NIL. Both in working with other trainees and

> in

> > > the gym in general. So I'm simply going to sign off on this.

> You

> > > can do whatever you want your commentary here is both pointless

> and

> > > innacurate. "

> >

> > Dude, the crap you're spouting is baseless conjecture. I don't

> give a

> > rat's ass how long you've been training. You're giving people on

> this

> > board bad advice that goes against the scientific literature out

> > there. The ad hominem attacks do little to bolster your case, I

> might

> > add.

> >

> > "

> > > I absolutely don't mind differing opinions and as is evidenced

> by my

> > > history on this group I adore an enthusiastic debate but there's

> no

> > > bigger waste of time that listening to someone with ZERO

> experience

> > > yap about what they know to be true when on a particular topic

> they

> > > are COMPLETELY CLUELESS. My suggestion would be that you should

> > > train in whatever fashion you want and enjoy it and just ignore

> my

> > > inpup but stop giving out advice about topics you know

> absolutely

> > > nothing about.

> > > "

> >

> > It doesn't surprise me that you enjoy a good 'debate', most

> probably

> > as an outlet for bottled frustrations. Listen up: if experience is

> the

> > determining factor here, then shut the hell up and advise people to

> > listen to Ronnie or Lee Priest. The advice you've given,

> under

> > the false pretense of being uber-knowledgeable through experience

> > alone, is absolute unsubstantiated baloney.

> >

> > I advise anybody to look up the facts on SS training and judge for

> > themselves.

> >

> > I don't mind heated debate. But this isn't debate. This is you

> getting

> > insecure and resorting to ad hom. attacks.

> >

> > I won't even bother pressenting you with evidence against superslow

> > training. Evidence that it does nothing for muscular or strength

> > growth in comparison to normal routines. Evidence that it is

> DANGEROUS

> > because it messes up blood pressure. I won't, because you've

> > presented absolutely nothing worth considering. As such, your

> > arguments can simply dismissed off hand as the ranting of an angry

> man.

> >

> > -

[Guest guest]

There IS evidence that slowing rep speed down is harmful. There is no

non-anecdotal evidence of the contrary. So until you PROVE what you're

asserting, your statements are meaningless and can safely be ignored.

-

> > In a message dated 11/1/03 8:17:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> > mmarasco@c... writes:

> >

> > > ================No I'm not sensitive I'm demonstrating ths

> > > silliness and completely unsubstantiated statement you're making.

> > > Find me 1 study just 1 that demonstrates a 20 second rep is

> > > dangerous or counter productive. The other two points are your

> > > opinion and you clearly don't have to do slow reps if you choose

> not

> > > to.

> >

> > Mike,

> >

> > While I don't have any studies to back up my opinion, it seems

> pretty obvious

> > to me that with CERTAIN exercises, 20 second reps are far more

> dangerous

> > than, say, 4 second reps. If you are extending your rep duration

> all you're doing

> > is wearing out your muscles longer. If you have an enormous

> amount of weight

> > over your shoulders as in the squat, if your back/butt/legs are

> going to give

> > out pushing the weight, you want that to happen either at the

> bottom or the

> > top-- not the MIDDLE! If you push up the weight and clearly have

> strength at

> > the beginning, and then trying to stretch the half-rep over 10

> seconds your

> > muscles give out and hit failure right in the middle of the rep,

> you could

> > seriously hurt yourself.

> >

> > On the deadlift, going back down with such a time duration

> seriously

> > increases your chances of screwing up your form and hurting your

> back. Your back just

> > can't take all that time with 2-300 pounds hanging and it just

> supporting the

> > weight.

> >

> > In other exercises while it might not be dangerous it certainly

> decreases the

> > benefit of the exercise. e.g. with the bench press, while you

> should lower

> > the weight in a controlled manner and avoid bouncing, you need

> some sort of

> > explosive push, or the weak spots in your lift will eliminate the

> benefit of the

> > entire lift, and you will be left pushing far less weight than you

> can

> > actually handle. I personally can't imagine doing a 10 or 20

> second pullup either...

> >

> > Chris

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

-

>The ad hominem attacks do little to bolster your case, I might

>add.

Saying " you don't know what you're talking about " may be rude depending on

phrasing and circumstance, but it's not an ad hominem attack. " You're a

jerk " would be an ad hominem attack.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>There IS evidence that slowing rep speed down is harmful. There is no

>non-anecdotal evidence of the contrary. So until you PROVE what you're

>asserting, your statements are meaningless and can safely be ignored.

You're the one making the assertion here -- that there's evidence that

slowing down rep speed is harmful -- so the burden of proof is (also) on you.

Furthermore, the whole 20-second rep is a phantom issue. Super Slow,

presumably the slowest standard out there, prescribes 10+5, not

10+5+slowdowns as was doing.

-

[Guest guest]

Two posts in this thread

____

In a message dated 11/1/03 9:57:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, paulthe

o2000@... writes:

> Again, you make it seem like I'm the one who has to offer evidence of

> anything. YOU'RE the ony making ridiculous claims, buddy. I really

> think you need to sit down and rethink the arrogant paradigm you've

> stuck yourself into.

I think it's amusing that neither of you have offered any evidence whatsoever

of your claims (neither have I, except personal experience) yet both are

making claims about who has a burden of proof and making excuses for not

presenting the evidence you each claim fully supports your belief.

__________

wrote:

>BTW, let me point out that there are HORDES of personal trainers,

>strength and bodybuilding coaches with FAR more knowledge and

>experience than you will ever attain. What does this show? That your

>experience in this field is irrelevant. Show us the facts. Wait... I

>forgot... you have none. I was only using professional bodybuilders by

>means of analogy. I suppose you weren't intelligent enough to grasp

>that. That's okay, idiotic Marasco.

You know I think this is the first time in the entire 1.5 years I've been on

this list where I've actually desired a moderator to come in and make some

civility rules here. USUALLY this list tends to self-regulate, but today it's

doing a particularly poor job of it.

While I usually enjoy the smoothe subtlety of Mike's sarcasm the collective

immaturity of this thread is frankly very annoying.

While it may be obvious who I'm referring to, to stay away from appearing to

attribute blame on one person I'll just generically state a few things that I

think need to be recognized as general rules for discussion that I think

aren't right now:

1) As Idol correctly pointed out, there is a fundamental difference

between " You don't know what you're talking about " and " You're an idiot. " The

first is an utterly tactless way to make a NON-PERSONAL attack, and the latter

is

an utterly tactless way to make a PERSONAL attack. The reasons why the two

should be considered to be on opposite sides of the border of civility (yet

rubbing up against the border nonetheless) should be obvious.

2) If someone makes a claim that " there is no evidence that 'x' is bad " when

'x' is opposed to 'y', this is NOT equivalent to saying " the evidence

indicates that 'y' is bad. " In many instances in life, if 'x' and 'y' are

opposed to

each other, 'x' and 'y' can both be good, both be bad, or one can be good and

one can be bad, depending on the situation. So it is not logical to for

" person 'b' " to claim that person a has a burden of proof to show that 'y' is

bad

when " person a " made the claim that " there is no evidence that 'x' is bad " , and

furthermore there IS a burden on " person b " if they make the claim that " 'x'

is bad " in response to " person a " 's original statement, for the obvious reason

that if there is no evidence, there's nothing to show, but if there is

evdience, one can show it.

Chris

______

[Guest guest]

I wouldn't mind bringing forward the facts I've seen and discuss the

issue, but the only SS proponent, 'Doctor' M, refuses to discuss

anything else other than his alledged experience. So there's nothing

to argue. I might as well walk into a thread and claim that I'm a

nutritionist with many clients and NT is bad. Surely, if somebody

disagreed, the burden would not be on them.

-

> -

>

> >There IS evidence that slowing rep speed down is harmful. There is no

> >non-anecdotal evidence of the contrary. So until you PROVE what you're

> >asserting, your statements are meaningless and can safely be ignored.

>

> You're the one making the assertion here -- that there's evidence that

> slowing down rep speed is harmful -- so the burden of proof is

(also) on you.

>

> Furthermore, the whole 20-second rep is a phantom issue. Super Slow,

> presumably the slowest standard out there, prescribes 10+5, not

> 10+5+slowdowns as was doing.

>

>

>

>

> -