Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

[Guest guest]

Thanks for clearing that up Mr. Idol I thought it was " eminem " just

mis spelled.

DMM

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

wrote:

> -

>

> >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]

are you questioning the legitimacy of my credentials now?

> 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.

>

> -

>

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

wrote:

> > -

> >

> > >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]

>

>

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

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 13:11:27 -0000

>

> Subject: Re: Weightlifting-Chris/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.

>

>

>

>

> =================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.

>

Thanks for taking the time to make such a thoughtful response. I'm still not

sure that I agree with everything you're saying, though. You obviously have

more experience than me in the subject, so I'll try not to appear to

'uppity'.

> 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.

>

ok. So, we're going to then set a goal for this average person - get strong

AND fit, minimize injury, and make the workout as efficient as possible.

> 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.

>

Now, don't you think that by saying that this is 'unquestionably' the best

method is perhaps overstating the case? I won't be able to provide

references like you might want here, but I do recall reading some well known

trainers question the safety of very slow reps. I might be wrong on that

one, but what I recall is that the claim was that the increased time under

tension increased the chance of injury.

But, one factor that I think that you neglect is the fun factor. Lots of

people start on weight lifting programs, but often they quit. I tried a few

times in my life (before kettlebells), and always found it to be

excruciatingly boring. When I have tried doing very slow reps, I did not

find it fun at all. On the other hand, kettlebells are FUN, for instance.

> 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.

>

That does not seem illogical, but does it actually work that way? A

kettlebell jerk, for instance, just doesn't feel very dangerous to me,

especially if I constrain the reps to those I can do with good form, and

choose a weight that isn't too heavy. Now, I guess what you mean is that if

I used poor form, then the chances of injury would be much higher - and I

suppose that's true, but wouldn't it be true for, say, squatting slowly

also?

IN addition, does doing very slow reps contribute to cardiovascular

conditioning? Do you consider someone fit without it? One of the

efficiencies of kettlebell training is that it is very effective in this

area.

> 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.

>

I guess I'm unconvinced that the injury probability is higher. I'm also

unconvinced that even if it were, that a SMALL increased chance of injury

wouldn't be worth the advantages of another type of training, if that other

training was more fun (increasing the chances that the person will continue,

and increasing the chances that they will get in better shape), and also

offered other components of fitness (e.g. greater cardiovascular benefits).

> 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

I DO enjoy it, and that is part of my point. I am very far from a world

class athlete.

[Guest guest]

I have no clue what your credentials are. But they are irrelevant to

this discussion unless you actually present some evidence for your

point of view. Or perhaps you trust people on this board to believe

you blindly...which I hope nobody is gullible enough to do.

-

> > > -

> > >

> > > >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]

The crap about sensitivity was clearly ad hominem and completely

irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not surprised he found a way to

weasel that into the discussion (the reason why he would beats me

though).

-

> -

>

> >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]

-

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

>issue, but the only SS proponent,

First, Mike hasn't advocated SS, just slower, more controlled

reps. Second, you even objected to a 3+3 cadence, which is way faster than

Super Slow and is, in fact, on the short end of Tstatsouline's recommended

cadence range IIRC. Third, other people on this list, such as

advocate cadences that are well in line with that one you objected

to. Fourth, I'd be interested to see the facts you've seen brought forward.

-

[Guest guest]

> Thanks for taking the time to make such a thoughtful response. I'm

still not

> sure that I agree with everything you're saying, though. You

obviously have

> more experience than me in the subject, so I'll try not to appear

to

> 'uppity'.

============Gene you're welcome. Keep in mind that if you agreed

with everything I said you'd be one weird dude.

>

>

> > 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.

> >

>

> ok. So, we're going to then set a goal for this average person -

get strong

> AND fit, minimize injury, and make the workout as efficient as

possible.

>

> > 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.

> >

>

===========Its only overstating the case in that someone is likely

to have a different opinion. I MY experience of which this is the

only one I can speak this IS the " unquestionable " best way to

accomplish ALL of what I have listed above. Its not the ONLY way to

do it however I have not seen ANY other approaches able to

simultaneously minimize risk, shorten learning curve, speed up

workouts and deliver the practical results most folks desire. So in

the regard that certainly someone may disagree sure it could be

conceived as overstated. I don't have any illusions about the fact

that someone somewhere will disagree. That's ok.

As for the TUT with slow reps. Keep this in mind first as I've said

I do NOT use 20 second reps and when I recomend them in this context

I know for a fact they won't be used but instead the notion of a

slowed and controlled rep will be accomplished. There is certainly

ZERO research regarding any " dangers " involving a rep even as long

as 20 sec but no matter, there are plenty of opinions on both sides

and that's just what they are. As I've said I'm not a zealot for 20

second reps I am simply a zealot for regular folk (as described)

using safe and controlled movements that could be as little as a 4

second + as I've stated previously. Unfortunately on my end I NEVER

expect someone to follow my advice to the letter in that it rarely

if ever happens so that's why my advice has the range that it does.

The folks on this group are well researched and will find their way

in the range I recommend, I won't have my feelings hurt if the rep

is faster just as long as its slow enough to be controlled and

deliberate which translates to safe.

I really find it funny that I am viewed now as the Super Slow

advocate in that I think that aspect pretty immaterial. However

those jumping over the fence to scream how " unsafe " it is is just

silly. You'll find that outside the realm of ballistic training

instruction most rep cadences do involve at least a 4 sec + this is

pretty much standard and one of the few things than many in the

weight training game agree on.

> Now, don't you think that by saying that this is 'unquestionably'

the best

> method is perhaps overstating the case? I won't be able to provide

> references like you might want here, but I do recall reading some

well known

> trainers question the safety of very slow reps. I might be wrong

on that

> one, but what I recall is that the claim was that the increased

time under

> tension increased the chance of injury.

>

> But, one factor that I think that you neglect is the fun factor.

Lots of

> people start on weight lifting programs, but often they quit. I

tried a few

> times in my life (before kettlebells), and always found it to be

> excruciatingly boring. When I have tried doing very slow reps, I

did not

> find it fun at all. On the other hand, kettlebells are FUN, for

instance.

>

===============Then you should use them. Remember that this all

started with one or two women asking questions about not wasting

time in the gym and getting more effective workouts. I appreciate

the benefits and intrigue provided by kettle bells and training like

it. If you are able and willing to learn to do this properly and

you feel the " fun factor " is worth the mild to moderately

increased " risk factor " then by all means do it.

This all somehow has degenerated into the Marasco method being

the " ONLY way to get big fast and ugly in 10 minutes or less " ;-)

My way is absolutely NOT the only way nor necessarily the BEST way

however in the context I described above for most folks who don't

want to be in the gym but train cuz of the benefits and their

feeling of obligation to do so (which is in the millions of people)

they can safely be in and out of a workout in 20-30 minutes 3 times

a week and reap the benefits of being strong and fit. Will this

turn them into Mr. Olympia NO! And in all honesty bodybuilders are

some of the UNHEALTHIEST " athletes " I've been able to be around. So

I don't mean to imply my way is the only way I simply mean to imply

that my way has separated the junk that's found in most workouts

designed for these regular folk and it can provide them with what

they want better than anything else I've seen out there. And best

of all they don't have to make 6 payments of $49.95 to do it. ;-)

>

> > 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.

> >

>

============Again Gene its relative. what you describe is NOT a

highly dangerous act. Simply by increasing the velocity of movement

and moving a KB through the air you simply up the risk factor. In

some cases a lot and in the instance you describe a small amount.

> That does not seem illogical, but does it actually work that way? A

> kettlebell jerk, for instance, just doesn't feel very dangerous to

me,

> especially if I constrain the reps to those I can do with good

form, and

> choose a weight that isn't too heavy. Now, I guess what you mean

is that if

> I used poor form, then the chances of injury would be much higher -

and I

> suppose that's true, but wouldn't it be true for, say, squatting

slowly

> also?

>

> IN addition, does doing very slow reps contribute to cardiovascular

> conditioning? Do you consider someone fit without it? One of the

> efficiencies of kettlebell training is that it is very effective

in this

> area.

=================It should but that depends upon the structure of

the workout. In addition the minimal amount of cardio needed for

maximal CV benefits is pretty small anyway.

>

> > 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.

> >

>

============Gene I'm not trying to convince you. Again this all

began with me answering someones question. Your the best judge of

you training and you should guide it, not me. While I am in

agreement with you on the benefits of KB type training Tsatsouline

and others " overstate " (to use a phrase) the benefits. Its

beneficial but it really is just another way to train. In some ways

better than others and some ways not. Bottom line is if you like it

and you can manage safely go for it. You don't need convincing

either way.

> I guess I'm unconvinced that the injury probability is higher. I'm

also

> unconvinced that even if it were, that a SMALL increased chance of

injury

> wouldn't be worth the advantages of another type of training, if

that other

> training was more fun (increasing the chances that the person will

continue,

> and increasing the chances that they will get in better shape),

and also

> offered other components of fitness (e.g. greater cardiovascular

benefits).

>

> > 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

>

> I DO enjoy it, and that is part of my point. I am very far from a

world

> class athlete.

=============Again Gene I at no time have said people shouldn't use

KB's or the like. I simply do not find the benefits of KBs to be

much if any better than any other type of training and the extra

learning curve along with the mild to moderate risk factor increase

I find unnecessary. THIS DOES NOT MEAN DON'T USE THEM. It just

means for someone who approaches me as I described above I think

KB's are unnecessary and a waste of hype for them. As I see it, for

you they provide no more benefits than any another training method

but You seem to love them and thus you'll likely keep using them so

in YOUR specific case its a great fit. Again remember this all

began with specific answers for specific people in a specific

situation. It would be as if I ordered a Peanut Butter and Jelly

sandwich for lunch and everyone assumed that I was saying that

turkey sandwiches are bad for you. I'm not I just wanted pbj at

that particular time. Same thing here someone asked a specific

question I made specific suggestions based on that circumstance.

That doesn't imply in any way that anything outside my suggestion is

bad or wrong.

DMM

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sensitive ,

I honestly don't expect anyone on this list to blindly believe

ANYTHING I say. Generally speaking if someone asks a question as

they did at the begining of this thread (that you've turned into the

20 second rep debate) I answer it as best I can. Sometimes I have

something to say and sometimes I don't and I post accordingly.

Sometimes what I have to say is based upon my experience (which by

the way personal experience is just as if not more valuable that the

dreck that passes for research in 2003) and sometimes its based upon

research and sometimes its based upon both.

I don't find many " gullible " folks on this list, folks are generally

well read and well studied and ask good questions. and

(not sensitive paul)and others have taken me to task on more than

one occasion as I have with them.

You are allowed to disagree with me I'm sure there are plenty others

who do, heck even I do sometimes. However you come to this

conversation about working out and rep cadence with nothing but

blanket criticism for my advice and site absolutely NOTHING. Not

your own experience, not a study, NOTHING. The only thing you offer

is Lee Priest and Ron (Mr. Olympia). As I've told you in

the past, to use professional bodybuilders as a guide for a healthy

person is oh I don't know ... CRAZY? You don't have to believe me,

try it yourself, write a letter or make a phone call to Mr. Priest

or Ronnie as just ask them how many injuries they have to deal with

during a training season, ask them how often they get sick. No need

to confirm their use of the jungle juice (steroids for those who

don't know). Don't believe me and my experience, have your own,

contact them and find out what the nightmare of being a bodybuilder

really is. These guys eat a horrible yet selective diet tons of

chemical supplements and injectibles and yet you are suggesting that

I should ignore my own experience and instead blindy follow the

advice of these individuals as models. Sorry pal, you can do that

and you can tell others how wacked I may be but I think in the final

equation what's whacked is clear.

I love lee priest and Ron both. I am unbelievably impressed

with them and others with the level of dedication and pure guts it

takes to do what they've done. But I'm these are NOT models for

regular normal people who get up and go to work everyday. This

doesn't deminish their accomplishment it just doesn't make them a

model to follow.

DMM

> > > > -

> > > >

> > > > >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]

You guys should discuss this on the weight lifting forum. There are a lot

of old salts out there who have been doing it for 40+ years and have seen

and done it all. You'll get real pros input for free.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Balbach " <stephen@...>

> You guys should discuss this on the weight lifting forum. There are a

lot

> of old salts out there who have been doing it for 40+ years and have

seen

> and done it all. You'll get real pros input for free.

Which weight lifting forum? There are hundreds, if not thousands.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

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

> I love lee priest and Ron both. I am unbelievably impressed

> with them and others with the level of dedication and pure guts it

> takes to do what they've done.

For some reason I doubt that " pure " guts would be sufficient to put them

where they are today.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> 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.

To say nothing of hula squatting.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

> >>>>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

:-)

Not necessarily. Energy expended in exercise is proportional to weight.

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the redundant usage

of the term 'sensititive'... If you want this to be an insulted

directed towards me, then state it as such. Be blunt with your

insults, at the very least.

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.

-Sensitive

-- In , " Dr. Marasco "

<mmarasco@c...> wrote:

> Dear Sensitive ,

>

> I honestly don't expect anyone on this list to blindly believe

> ANYTHING I say. Generally speaking if someone asks a question as

> they did at the begining of this thread (that you've turned into the

> 20 second rep debate) I answer it as best I can. Sometimes I have

> something to say and sometimes I don't and I post accordingly.

> Sometimes what I have to say is based upon my experience (which by

> the way personal experience is just as if not more valuable that the

> dreck that passes for research in 2003) and sometimes its based upon

> research and sometimes its based upon both.

>

> I don't find many " gullible " folks on this list, folks are generally

> well read and well studied and ask good questions. and

> (not sensitive paul)and others have taken me to task on more than

> one occasion as I have with them.

>

> You are allowed to disagree with me I'm sure there are plenty others

> who do, heck even I do sometimes. However you come to this

> conversation about working out and rep cadence with nothing but

> blanket criticism for my advice and site absolutely NOTHING. Not

> your own experience, not a study, NOTHING. The only thing you offer

> is Lee Priest and Ron (Mr. Olympia). As I've told you in

> the past, to use professional bodybuilders as a guide for a healthy

> person is oh I don't know ... CRAZY? You don't have to believe me,

> try it yourself, write a letter or make a phone call to Mr. Priest

> or Ronnie as just ask them how many injuries they have to deal with

> during a training season, ask them how often they get sick. No need

> to confirm their use of the jungle juice (steroids for those who

> don't know). Don't believe me and my experience, have your own,

> contact them and find out what the nightmare of being a bodybuilder

> really is. These guys eat a horrible yet selective diet tons of

> chemical supplements and injectibles and yet you are suggesting that

> I should ignore my own experience and instead blindy follow the

> advice of these individuals as models. Sorry pal, you can do that

> and you can tell others how wacked I may be but I think in the final

> equation what's whacked is clear.

>

> I love lee priest and Ron both. I am unbelievably impressed

> with them and others with the level of dedication and pure guts it

> takes to do what they've done. But I'm these are NOT models for

> regular normal people who get up and go to work everyday. This

> doesn't deminish their accomplishment it just doesn't make them a

> model to follow.

>

> DMM

>

>

> > > > > -

> > > > >

> > > > > >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]

;-) maybe so . Still even with the junk these guys live in

the gym you don't get like that by sitting poolside.

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

wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----

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

> > I love lee priest and Ron both. I am unbelievably

impressed

> > with them and others with the level of dedication and pure guts

it

> > takes to do what they've done.

>

> For some reason I doubt that " pure " guts would be sufficient to

put them

> where they are today.

[Guest guest]

> Which weight lifting forum?

misc.fitness.weights

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en & lr= & ie=UTF-8 & c2coff=1 & group=misc.fitness.w\

eights

this forum has been been around for 15+ years and is very active and has a

great archive of material to search on.

[Guest guest]

Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

>

> > Which weight lifting forum?

>

> misc.fitness.weights

I thought I recognized your name from elsewhere. Anyway, I second the

recommendation, though it's not for the overly sensitive, and they do

tend to be a bit hard on clueless newbies. I highly recommend reading

for a while before posting.

[Guest guest]

paul i was taught by a reputable superslow trainer ( fully qualified )

_____

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

Sent: Sunday, 2 November 2003 2:18 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

-

>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.

-