On the plateau?

A snowHead

Pre-Skiing training program from the Stone Clinic here. Some youth information.

I await your comments.

A snowHead

I'm going to spend all my time writing to the forum at this rate.

Mark Hunter - just for starters - certainly if I was involved I would prefer that you used the Nautilus or superslow protocols when you are on the machines.

But I would change one or two other things also. Your machine routine looks unbalanced to me although this might be in part from the machine names which vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.

When strength training you should aim for a full body workout each time and the workout should be balanced - that is you should work muscles or muscle groups which are antagonistic (opposite).

If the leg press meant a similar movement to a squat, this is a compound exercise but the muscles which you hit hardest are the quads. The knee extensor is not a description we have but it sounds like a leg extension machine whereby you sit upright on a pad and extend your lower legs from beneath you straight out to in front of you, pivotting at the knees. If this is a correct description of the machine, this is an isolation exercise again hitting the quads. You need another exercise which balances the antagonistic muscles which are the hamstrings. A leg curl machine will do this. The instructor has given you two quad exercises because you said about skiing which is hard on the quads but you really should keep your body in balance by also working the antagonistic.

In the same way you have been given two chest exercises and nothing for the back which is the antagonistic. Seated row or pulldown to the front will give some balance. What were you wanting to do here - punch through your turns? Or was the assumption by the instructor that being a fellar you wanted a big chest?

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Comprex - yes, well, not sure where to start here. I see that you are in the States so don't take this personally.

The Stone Clinic advice - probably it would be easier to try to find something that I agree with other than some of the generalized statements. You see a lot of this type of thing in the States and increasingly in the UK - either the Stone Clinic is very misguided or they are primarily interested in making money. Make it sound complex, shoot from the hip in every direction and give advice which is way out of date.

One legged squats and similar are not a good idea as this is an asymmetric exercise and can easily lead to injury. Most of the exercises advocated are a good direction to go if you want to injure yourself. Speed training in the way stated is very debateable. And plyometrics! - if you ever get a chance to talk to Ken Hutchins in Florida, ask his opinion about plyometrics but quickly stand well clear.

If you move around in the States I can recommend two of the best clubs in the world for you to visit to see quality exercising - Joe Cirulli's club in Florida, Gainsville Health and Fitness Center and Mike Arteaga's club in New York State, All Sport Racquet and Fitness Club in Poughkeepsie (I am not sure that I have the club names exactly correct but near enough)

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Thanks john, the gym has a leg curl, so I'll start on that also - seems to make sense.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Mark Hunter,

Leg curls are good: they build up the hamstring which is a very important muscle for a skier: a strong hamstring will help protect your ACL.

john wells,

Some really good stuff here. I've been a gym rat for more years than I care to think about, but I've learnt a lot from this.

You'll need to Register first of course.

I have a few minutes spare so let's stir things up a bit and annoy a few people.

Aerobics - cardiovascular training. For many this is the bulk of their training and takes the most time. So I will make a few comments for everyone to pick over.

It is very difficult / almost impossible / cann't be done (depends on the source of the opinion) to improve the function of the lungs. As long as you are breathing properly, training will not noticeably improve the ability of your lungs to put oxygen into the blood stream or take carbon dioxide out.

There is little improvement possible in the ability of the heart to pump blood. Tends to be a bias towards thinking that some improvement is possible but there are so many complicating factors that it is hard to quantify. The heart is a pusher pump, it does not suck, and therefore the limiting factor is probably the amount of blood available to the heart to pump and that is the vascular return.

So where does the improvement come from when you do cardiovascular training? Primarily from the muscles; the limiting factor is probably the ability of the muscles to take oxygen from the blood, chuck waste products back into the blood and get that blood back to the heart for the next cycle.

So how do you train the muscles to improve your cardiovascular ability. Well, bigger is a good start - bigger can process more blood, bigger can push the blood back to the heart more easily.

This is considered by some as the basic reason that long term strength exercisers who do not do any cardiovascular training can go out and run half marathons in respectable times.

All of the above is opinion which is why I have scattered 'probably' about so much; there is very little scientific research to back this up or prove it incorrect but there is some. There was a well controlled experiment done at West Point with the help of Nautilus in, I believe, the seventies which showed without any question that strength only training can substantially improve the times for running two miles.

Pick the bones out of that lot! It goes against the principles of a great deal of the coaching currently done at most gyms and in most sports. Me! a stirrer? never.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

... so what physiological process enables athletes resembling stick insects to do ultra distances at 5 minute mile pace with little or no strength training?

Yours,
Confused.

After all it is free

PG - dunno but I would guess that they have a good power to weight ratio; even though they don't have much muscle they also don't have much weight.

What muscle they do have would be predominantly Type 1 (slow twitch) and they have trained the metabolic pathways to maximise the blood processing in the muscle. Type I muscle fibres have a smaller x-sectional area than Type II fibres so these runners might have more muscle fibres than you realise.

Long distance runners have benefited from strength training.

Also they probably have beneficial levers which permits a minimum of exertion for running.

My observation is that long distance runners who don't just run on the flat tend to have more muscle - steeplechasers, fell runners, x-country runners especially the mud pluggers.

I would add that these stick people do strength training but in a very inefficient manner. If you run at a pace which you cann't sustain you will have crossed the anaerobic threshold and then you are training the Type II A & B (fast twitch) muscle fibres; well, the type IIA at least.

Don't worry I am equally confused but I am also certain that a great deal of current popular thinking on exercise is misguided.

PG:
Because muscle cells and concomitant fibre bundles develop in two primary types, simplistically, these are:

(the other muscle types are specialised and are involved in digestive and circulatory function) NB. Primary muscles contain a fixed number of fibre groups, it’s just the balance of the cell types that define how the muscle looks – that and body fat %.

Everyone has a mix of these two muscle types. Your lifestyle, exercise training, work and genetic predisposition will determine what that balance is and how well it works.

How you exercise will also determine this ratio, which is why endurance athletes tend to look ‘scrawny’ and power athletes appear ‘hale, huge and healthy’. The way you train has a fundamental influence on how muscle cells break down and repair.
If you use a muscle cell to overload (in a controlled fashion) and allow sufficient time to repair 48-72 hrs before re-stressing, it will develop into ‘type b’ becoming bulkier and more prepared for strength and power activities.
If you train with low loading and high reps, your muscles will become ‘type a’, long thin and capable of repeated loadings.

Diet can play a major role in all these processes

It’s a matter of balance and it’s your choice. Children up to 5 years post puberty should NOT be concentrating on only one type of training but must have a balanced program to avoid joint and bone deformation and endocrine imbalances.

Obviously external chemical enhancement is just plain stupid.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

If I can add to the post by Masque.

At the moment the physiologists tend to catagorise the muscle fibres as follows:

Type I - these are the slow twitch fibres which work primarily on an oxidative process.
Type IIA - these are fast twitch fibres which have both an oxidative and a glycolytic process
Type IIB - these are fast twitch fibres which have primarily a glycolytic process.

There is research which claims that through any form of training you cannot change a Type I fibre into a Type II fibre or vice-versa. It is claimed that such a change can be accomplished by surgically moving the control nerves from other fibres which does not seem to be a practical solution.

There is also research indicating that you can adjust a Type IIB fibre into a Type IIA fibre by training which is very interesting and could explain some of the phenomena which is being observed.

Getting into deep anorak country here.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

john wells, WHAT! I’ve just read your diatribe re. aerobic training – and as for no scientific background . . . jeezus man, we could fall out on this.
It’s the BLOOD man, it’s the Blood.
Muscles are fed by blood, it carries both the complex sugars and the oxygen needed to to convert them into the chemistry used by muscles to function.
In this (narrow) look at blood function, it’s red cell count and hemoglobin level that determines how well muscle cells work. Training and environment can change these enormously!

High repetitive (aerobic) training with increased blood flow triggers a red cell generation increase and continual high replenishment rate as old cells die.

Repetitive training at high loads (85% of max) and altitude, triggers an endocrine response to increase hemoglobin levels in each cell and increase the amount of oxygen available for muscle use.

High load training, can (if not supervised and nutritional poor) can lower both the above conditions.

It’s balance, with a big B, that’s important for general life. We’re not elite athletes and I doubt many here want to be. You can’t promote one highly specific form of training (though I note in your reply to PG you mention CV equipment as part of his gym project) as a panacea for all needs. Particularly when you seem unaware of some of the underlying bio-chemical physiology that governs body response.

PS: I am trying to keep it as simple as possible for the readers

PPS: Got so wound up I forgot to mention Liver function, which plays a much bigger role in all of this than most people recognise. If you can't get rid of tha waste it just builds up till the system shuts down.

snow reports

So, PG, drystone walls, eh?

Laughing

About 2km in total, x a little over 1m high x 0.8m deep, that's around 2,000 cubic metres of rock shifted by wheelbarrow. Say 1.5 ton per m3? A lot of crushed knuckles and skinned shins! Who needs the gym...

You know it makes sense.

Got a bite.

Masque - I think that it is more complex than just the blood, the chemicals and formations in the muscle cells have a major influence also and these are changed by training.

Sports such as skiing bounce the muscles in and out of the oxidative and glycolytic systems. All muscle fibre types appear to have some combination of these systems to a greater or lesser extent. Even for an aerobic activity such as steady state running the glycolytic system is still active, in some cases importantly active, and I have not seen research which digs into all of this. It is very difficult to research; athletes get very annoyed if you continually take a muscle biopsy.

Some of the statements made in sports science text books are incorrect especially about resistance training and I believe that this is because there is insufficient data and semi worked theories harden into facts.

Yes the endocrine system is important as are the haemoglobin levels but this is only part of a complex whole about which there is insufficient knowledge which leads to too many generalities. And before anyone says it, I am as good at generalities as the next person.

I agree about having a balance and keeping away from extremes, maybe I am disagreeing about what are the extremes. Resistance training done with a Nautilus protocol has a cardiovascular benefit and an endurance benefit as well as a strength benefit. As far as I can tell aerobic training does not have a strength benefit and a strength benefit is only achieved if the aerobic training is taken through the anaerobic threshold.

Most people seem to be time poor nowadays and skimp on their exercise. If they have plenty of time I would encourage them to do both resistance training and aerobic training but if they are short of time I consider that resistance training will provide a better health and lifestyle benefit than aerobic training done for the same amount of time.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

PG sounds like a lot of holes in that wall or you don't give yourself enough credit, 2600 kg/m^3 for granite.

john_wells, doesn't that also apply to duration of the training program to result? Also, if you have anything on development of mitochondrial structures, I'd like to know about it.

A snowHead

Masque, sorry, I have just re-read you post where you comment "no scientific background". I did not wish to imply that you or anyone else had no scientific background.

What I was trying to say was that I thought that there was insufficient scientific research for us to have a full picture of what is happening with exercise. Some of the research from which conclusions have been drawn appears to me to be particularly unscientific.

A snowHead

john wells, apologies I wrote 'unaware' when I meant dismissive. And I’ve not met a competitive fell runner that’s much bigger than a whippet and, the admittedly few’ muscle mary’s of my acquaintance can barely climb a flight of stairs without barfing.
If we want to get a little more targeted, the ‘gentlemen’ who rank highest in the PC evaluation for ‘Ranger’ training are invariably ‘whole body conditioned’ and not the guys who’ve spent the most time throwing iron about the gym and all these people have good mentoring and peer support to ensure proper form and safe practice.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

comprex - mitochondria development is one of those bits of data that I cannot find anywhere. The question for which I have been hunting for an answer is something like "what is the mechanism which increases the number of mitochondria in a muscle fibre in response to training". There are very full descriptions of the details of the various bits in a fibre but I cannot find anything which describes the why and how of changes. This applies to changes in a glycolytic fibre also - how is the change made to happen.

If anyone out there can point me in the right direction I would be delighted.

Sorry but I did not understand the duration comment - would you expand please.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Masque - yes I accept the comment about the type of athlete doing Ranger training but in general this does not take me forward.

For most very fit people their fitness will be as a result of a number of factors including genetics, motivation and type of fitness training. Teasing these factors apart is what causes me a problem.

For example, competitive body builders must have the right genes and given plenty of the right genes, how they train does not appear to be especially important. In practise many of them train in highly inappropriate ways and still finish massive.

Similarly someone with the correct genes for quality long distance running can train in all sorts of funny ways and still be highly competitive.

What I am interested about is how can people train with a minimum of time, effort and hazard to get the maximum modest results. This is what would be most useful for the average time-poor Joe.

Frequently style of training for a particular sport is fashion driven and therefore we get little research on alternatives. Most of the effort goes into refining the style of training being used rather than checking out other options.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

john wells, the duration comment related to my understanding that strength-specific training gives best results if either of the below is true:
- limited time per session (the primary sense of your post as I understood it)
- limited number of sessions and recovery intervals (2 weeks say, rather than 16) before expected results (my comment/question)

I had already understood you (from about a full page ago) as not completely objecting to the following statements:
strength workouts build stamina
endurance workouts do not build strength.

With all the implications that has for limited-time exercise plans.

You'll need to Register first of course.

comprex -

For strength training - limited time for two reasons - the time taken on each exercise should be less than two minutes - no more than 12 exercises should be done in one session although I would suggest a maximum of 8. If you are taking each exercise to failure even 8 can be hard work and there is a tendency to not push for the first few exercises to save yourself.

The other factor to allow for is recovery. This is high intensity training and the more effort you put into the training the longer the whole body recovery time. So fewer exercises means faster recovery.

Youngsters and other people who can recover fast can do three sessions a week, alternate days. If you are very strong already (equals more effort and longer recovery) or older you may have to reduce this to twice or even once a week. This can vary from person to person. One of the reasons for taking drugs is that many of them reduce the recovery time - drugs are a no-no anyway, daft, there is permanent damage.

How soon you notice results varies but can be within a couple of weeks depending on the person. For most people starting with new machines or a new protocol, you will notice quick improvements with the weight on the machine due to the learning curve.

Correct strength training will also improve endurance; larger muscles will fatigue at a slower rate for a given amount of work and therefore will last longer; some improvement in the metabolic pathways which improves the efficiency of the muscle. However the metabolic pathways can be improved further by interval training as an addition.

Correct strength training will improve the cardiovascular capability of the person - this was the conclusion of the West Point research.

By correct I mean high intensity training, one set to failure, short duration (not hanging about between exercises) and adequate recovery.

Endurance workouts such as interval training do improve strength but the amount of training for a given result will need to be a great deal greater.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Fascinating - can't claim to understand half of it at first read but since life is returning back to a bit of normality will try and digest so that I can a) become healthier, b) look better and c) enjoy skiing more...
Eeeek - where did I put those trainers - oh yes with the mountain bike with a puncture!
p.s. John - the only 2 linked gyms I know in Bristol are Welsh Back - is that the one you're involved in?

After all it is free

Right, time someone did an experiment. (Although not a particularly scientific one).

I've just got back from the gym, having put some of john wells theories to the test.

First some information:

I'm 52, but in good nick for my age. I'm an experienced gym user and former athlete (good, but not elite) who has maintained a regular exercise regime all my life, mostly following the general principles espoused by Masque.

Today, instead of my usual resistance work (based on relatively fast weight displacement in three sets of ten reps, with short recovery intervals) I tried the "slow repetition to failure" regime described by John and his recommended web sites.

Wow. These exercises may not have taken as long as my normal regime, but I sure as hell feel like I've been in a workout.

First off, I warmed up thoroughly with stretches followed by 10 minutes on the static bike (ALWAYS stretch off thoroughly before exercise - especially if you're my age!)

Immediately following each resistance exercise (and I've tried to follow the "complementary muscle group" strategy outlined by John) my muscles felt distinctly unwell. Immediately after the leg extensions and leg curls I went through a minute when I didn't think I'd ever walk again. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration: There was a feeling that the muscles were "solidifying" a near-cramp experience - and I certainly felt pretty wobbly walking up and down stairs). - These exercises worked my strongest muscle groups, so I managed more repetitions before failure occurred than in some of the subsequent upper-body exercises. Longer recovery restored near normal movement, and at the end of the session I was able to finish off with a gentle 10-minute jog on the treadmill and some warming down stretches. I now feel satisfactorily weary (and a bit fatigued in some of the less resilient muscle groups than those in my legs). I'm looking forward to the 48-72 hour rest period!

Some interesting observations:

On the leg extensions, the "failure" part came not in raising the weight, but in the slow return phase. I eventually got to the stage when I couldn't make a controlled return to the start position, although I could have done some more lifts.

Also, be warned. There is a difference between "exercising to failure" and "exercising to pain". I found that you could exercise to the point where you wished you could stop, because it hurt, but actually you could still carry out the task a few more times. (Note: by "pain" I don't mean actual acute pain resulting from damage, but the feeling every athlete is familiar with that you could give up now - although you don't). So although these exercises may not take as long as your regular workout routine, they are by no means an easy option.

Now, I've also taken a risk in doing this, in that I haven't been doing it under the supervison of a qualified instructor. However, I have had a lot of experience of training regimes of various types. I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone doing this who wasn't (i) reasonably experienced and (ii) reasonably fit and flexible to start with, unless they were appropriately supervised. I'm sure John would agree with this.

John, do my descriptions match up with the expected outcome of this type of training (at least in the initial recovery phase)?

How long should I continue to follow such a regime before I see a tangible benefit?

Can I intersperse these sessions with normal endurance training (I'm not a convert yet!), and with what sort of interval between the sessions? - In other words, should I assume that during the 48-72 hour recovery period I should avoid any strenuous exercise, or is it OK to take my old bones out for a run?

mountain mad, yep - Welsh Back Squash & Health Club is the original multi-activity club and the Downs we have taken over more recently for me to experiment with.

At the Downs, no free weights only MedX machines because machines are much safer which covers the statement earlier in the thread about losing good form as you get tired near the end of the exercise - in a machine it is much easier to maintain good form.

The machines are arranged in lines so you start at one end and just go from machine to machine down the line; a line of 7 isolation exercises, a line of 4 compound exercises (this is the one which can take just 12 minutes start to finish), a line of core exercises plus a few other more specific machines.

This club is me putting my money where my mouth is - time will tell whether or not I am an idiot.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Acacia, Woa woa woa!!! I don't recommend ‘fast weight displacement’ as a technique in resistance training (that’s the last f’in thing I’d ever say) and I’ve repeatedly stated that John Wells’ protocol can be highly effective! My caveat is that it requires skilled supervision and for the individual undertaking the program, a fundamental knowledge of ‘form’ and technique.
I know damm well that John would not recommend that anyone should embark on this type of training without instruction, evaluation and regular monitoring.
My argument throughout this thread is that before we begin specialised training for skiing (or any other activity) we should address our ‘base level’ fitness.
John (this is a bit funny since I’m also a John) maintains that we’re ‘time poor’ and we need a fitness protocol to suit those constraints.
I argue that we’re ‘time poor’ by our own decisions. Drop back 40 years and the predominance of occupations required manual input. When we finished work we were physically depleted, we felt the need and had the moral justification to demand rest & relaxation.
Today, the predominance of work is ‘service’ and we spend far too much of our lives on our @rse! Yet we’ve been conditioned to behave as though all work is physical and we can spend our recreational time in sedentary pursuits and we’re eating as though we’re digging ditches all day and the food we’re eating is fat and calorie enhanced beyond our parents comprehension!
We’re ‘time poor’ because we want to be. The simple fact that I’m sitting here typing this, illustrates the level of recreational idleness available. Even those of us who attend an exercise class 3 or 4 times a week are not achieving the daily calorific output of the average manual worker just after WWII.
I think where John and I differ is in the evaluation of general population fitness and that may be from our differential in age, social environment and business necessity.

Ultimately, we both have the same ideal - to enable people to enjoy the ‘hill’.
John’s acknowledged that genetic predisposition plays a role in this and as such, must render part of his argument moot, so we’re back at the point where I’m asking what’s wrong with telling this bunch of sofa spuds that they just need to get more active in their daily life to improve their skiing and their ability to get better at it?

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snow reports

Masque,

I guess my term "fast weight displacement" was a bit inaccurate: I was really trying to distinguish my usual resistance training from the ultra-slow approach that John has described.

Also I certainly agree that John's technique is not for the inexperienced and should really be practised under supervision. - I wouldn't have attempted trying this if I didn't have a pretty good idea about what I was taking on, and a good understanding of the proper techniques.

Acacia, I agree with your comments on going to failure - the point of failure is a personal decision. For some it is when it starts to hurt; there will be a training benefit but progress will be slower than if they could take it further. For some the other extreme, true failure when they are physically unable to continue; they will get fast results. Most people are between these extremes and their challange is to go just that little bit further to get better results; they will find that the pain level of the lactic acid will fade as they learn to train harder.

A muscle is weakest in the concentric movement (muscle shortening, doing positive work), middling when working isometrically (not moving, static position) and strongest in the eccentric movement (muscle lengthening, losing potential energy). Therefore you can hold a heavier weight than you can lift and can lower a heavier weight than you can hold. If you are able to go to an extreme, go to failure and this failure will occur part way through a rep, hold at the failure position for as long as you can and then lower as slowly as you can - true failure! This is a seriously tough thing to do.

The leg extension failure in the lowering rather than the raising is puzzling. Two possibilities that I can think of - you had just got to failure in the raising phase and the eccentric failure was just finishing you off (could you have raised the weight again?) - alternatively during the concentric movement you were using some other muscles to assist but in the eccentric movement you were isolating the quads.

You know it makes sense.

Acacia, I am replying to your post in sections as I am getting called away from the computer. Just stopped to open a bottle of wine so my posts this evening will deteriorate from this point onwards.

Your description of the workout sounds correct - as an experienced exerciser and athlete you can go fairly close to true failure. This is high intensity training as you found.

Pointers - try not to grip tightly with your hands as this shoots up the blood pressure disproportunately. Breath normally rather than deep long breaths, some find it helpful to be closer to shallow pants, one breath every second or less; again keeps the blood pressure down. The traditional one breath per rep is not even a good idea with traditional speed of exercise.

By all means mix it with other forms of exercise as long as you lay off for at least 48 hours after any intense training. Although why you should wish to mix in less efficient exercise I am not sure (sorry, couldn't resist that one).

Safety - here I am going to disagree with you all about the need for supervision from a trainer. Firstly find your trainer - I believe that there are only three certified Super Slow trainers in the country. Most other trainers will be encouraging multiple sets and relatively fast movements so you will need to re-train them into your requirements. If you do find an open minded trainer, he/she will be able to help you maintain good form.

This form of high intensity training is safer than the traditional training so if you do not use a trainer currently you will be no worse off with these protocols. In most exercises you will be pushing a weight which is less than the weight that you can cope with in faster movements - why should this be more hazardous? Your movements will be slower which allows your body to adjust in good time as opposed to ballistic movements where your body says stop but the weight keeps moving - why would this be more hazardous? A requirement of the protocol is that you maintain good form through out instead of cheating by twisting or arching - why should this be more hazardous?

Because the protocol appears harder does not mean that it is less safe. Supervision by a competent trainer would be a benefit for good form but this also applies to traditional weight training and with the latter you are more likely to damage yourself from other causes.

Off to eat dinner and drink more wine.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

I am EXTREMELY relieved to hear that John Wells drinks wine - phew!!

A snowHead

John,having trained,on and off,for years;I think I follow the logic of what you are saying.Indeed,I have come across a couple of people in the past who used these methods with good results.Perhaps you would care to comment on a some specific questions?

I have always been a bit concerned that my daytime activities(in the construction industry)would interfere with my "rest" period.Whilst not as intense as training,my work can be a bit physical!What in your view constitutes "rest"?

I gave up gyms long ago,sorry.Full of drama queens and wannabe Arnie's!!I train at home with free weights.As I do not have the room for a leg extender,I do my legs with weighted lunges,squats and the use of a "Skiers Edge" machine.Is there anything else I can usefully do?

Finally;have always mixed in some road bike work and swimming.I tend to fit these in when I can.As I do these with due effort,I guess they would also interfere with "rest"?Any suggestions on a suitable,but not too ridgid,mix?

Sure I speak for many;any help and guidence is much appreciated snowHead

A snowHead

John wells: I’m surprised you’ve not come across the ‘release/return’ problem as it’s been the subject of a number of industry articles. It’s become more prevalent because of the surge of gym openings and the lack of decent qualified staff.
As you know (and for the benefit of some of our readers), as a muscle contracts through it’s full range of movement, different cell/fibre groups fire off in a sequential pattern. If the muscle is loaded evenly throughout that range of movement then all the neural pathways are triggered, the complete muscle is exercised and the bio-chemistry is evenly depleted.

In today’s lousy gym environment we’re getting unskilled spotty idiots teaching people (and I’ve witnessed this on numerous occasions) to exert an initial power push into the machine, ride the inertia and catch the weight at the end of the extension and return in a release catch movement. Apart from only using a small part of the muscle they also create a chemical imbalance in it and if they start to try to slow the weight return, muscle groups fire and release in a semi-uncontrolled fashion and you get that jerky motion.

Now I’m not a convert to the ‘Super Slow’ edict, but I do/did teach that when you load a muscle it should always be consistent and slow enough for there to be no change in the perceived resistance throughout the entire range of motion in both load and release.
99% of people in my experience if asked to slow down and use the entire muscle range will fail completely at their ‘normal’ load level.

The slower the movement will also re-program (lousy analogy) the neural met in the muscle and the return will become as smooth as the load movement it’ll just take a little time.

With the protocol you’re promoting you won’t have experienced the return failure that’s been described. But it’s all too common in the real world and this is where we still differ. I still think you have a much higher opinion of people’s skill and physiological knowledge than I do (sorry folks!!!) I suggest you take some time out and observe what’s being taught as acceptable form and practice in all these new gyms that have sprung up. You’ll be horrified, but that’s what most of the people here have as their only resource. You’ll also see the huge number of gyms that do not have any attendant supervision at all! There’s a LA Fitness not 1K from me that has two staff members on at 18:30 (peak time) – both on reception!

If you don’t think it impertinent of me, might I suggest that you offer us a Snowheads training seminar date/dates? you’d have to work out a schedule and costs that didn’t impact on your business, but I’d be genuinely interested in comparing notes and styles in a real not virtual environment.

For anyone in a highly physical work environment, the muscles that are subject to repetitive tasks are much better able to recover from a set to failure, but you may find that the surrounding and connective support muscle groups will require a full rest period before re-loading at a failure level.

John, you may want to describe to these guys how to calculate a safe load for their first attempt at this.
Very Happy

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Masque, quick comment as I am packing kit for a trip tomorrow - away for 6 days so no posts from me folks.

Your description of release / return is what I would describe as the usual exercise mode in most gyms. Not just among the newcomers to fitness either - it always makes me cringe when I watch the instructors work out on the trade show floor at IHRSA - fast movements, partial reps.

To counteract the release / return problems of building inertia from an initial explosive push the Nautilus protocol on speed of movement was devised. This was the reason for slow controlled movements - super slow is just an extension of this as it has been found to be even more beneficial for some people.

Snowskisnow - the 48 hours guideline is about muscle overload. If you use your muscles at a moderate level it should not interfere too much. If you overload the muscle you halt or diminish the recover / improvement process. How much is overload? - sorry cann't be specific, this is probably a suck it and see; do you get a benefit of increased capability when you are doing physical things next day? If your week end is less physical, a really good work out friday evening might be the answer.

Help!!

On the plateau?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste