An understanding of "sets and reps" will be our first undertaking. I assume that this subject is basically superfluous since you all know these terms. I will start with them anyway, just because. Repetitions (reps) are pretty obvious, they are the number of times that a selected exercise will be repeated. Sets are the number of times that a group of repetitions of an exercise will be performed. For example, this month you may decide to do barbell arm curls in three sets of 10 repetitions. Rest periods between sets is variable according to present fitness level and goal(s), and maybe time available for your exercise session.
There is a standard for selection of number of reps that is based on one's goal(s) for exercising at all:
REPS GOAL
a- 1-5 Strength
b- 6-10 Muscle growth
c- 11-20 Muscle endurance
TABLE 1-1 Reps for Specific Goals
Note that "strength," as shown in Table 1-1, is relative to power lifters, and is irrelative to body shaping. It's goal is sheer strength. "Muscle growth" relates to the classic meaning of body building, but it also results in strength increases, and may be a general fitness goal - either cosmetic or to improve strength for either athletic or daily living pursuits. "Muscle endurance" may also be thought of as "muscle tone" ("tone" being a state where the muscles are in a constant, mild contraction) the muscles, where either term relates more to weight training for fitness. Understand that there is some overlap between these groups, and, of course, the ubiquitous, genetic X-factor is present.As long as we are talking about sets and reps, we should also talk about selecting an appropriate weight. A common method is to use a percentage of your 1RM. 1RM is the maximum weight one can lift one time for any given exercise. This is all right for someone who is in good condition and an experienced weight trainer, but for those who are inexperienced weight trainers, or who are not in very good physical condition, I prefer them to start light and learn proper technique before using heavy weight. Experiment to find a weight that can be lifted about 10 or 12 times, and increase the weight as it becomes easier to lift. Be conservative, but put out some effort, or you're wasting your time. I have observed people exercising with so little intensity that their main concern seems to be to go through the motions, but not to sweat - this applies mostly to women - maybe they're afraid they will mess up their hair, or something equally disgusting. Males, on the other hand, tend to want to impress themselves or their friends with how much weight they can throw around - the operative word being "throw." Mutt says to Jeff, "if you can use that weight, so can I." And he goes on to throw, swing, sway, drop, anything to get that weight moving. Momentum becomes paramount; the muscles to be trained are forgotten; the weight becomes the objective. But it isn't. Think about your goal and the muscle(s) being worked, not getting the last rep completed, and not what you are going to do that night. Use good form.
Okay, lets talk training systems. There are dozens, so only a few will be addressed here. But first let's order the body parts the way they ought to be trained. A weight training philosophy is that larger muscles should be trained before smaller ones so they can be attacked while still fresh; for example, if you train your arms before your chest, your arms will be too tired (pre-exhausted) to allow a high-level chest workout. This "pre-exhaustion" concept was designed for maximal intensity workouts for serious body builders, but there is no reason to abandon it no matter what your goal might be. Use the following order:
1- abdominals,
2- legs,
3- chest,
4- back,
5- shoulders,
6- triceps,
7- biceps.
Note the following exceptions: abdominals and legs. Abdominals may be done either first or last. If they are done first, they can be considered to be part of your general warm-up, which should precede every workout session. Some prefer to do them last because they are major support muscles for every exercise we do. I do them last, but only because that is what I want. It is a fairly arbitrary decision to be made by most of us. Legs are pretty much "stand alone," and can be done anywhere in your routine. Some people do a legs-only workout. Again, it's your choice. I do mine first because I don't like legwork, and want to get it over. An important aspect of one's training program is recovery time. Progress from weight training comes during recovery time, not during the actual training time, therefore, it is crucial to the success of any exercise program that adequate rest is factored in. The training results in abuse of muscle; during rest, rebuilding goes on - that is when our muscles grow in strength and size. It is not an uncommon reaction to early gains for an individual to say: "Wow," look at my quick progress. I'm going to work twice as hard and really make some progress." Or an experienced exerciser might reach a plateau, and decide that more exercise is necessary to stimulate further progress. Often the more-is-better syndrome leads to a decline, rather than progress. More rest may be the answer. There has to be enough time for the repair processes to be completed. About 48 hours is the normal repair time that is bandied about. But (yes, another one), too much rest leads to decline, just as overtraining does. After about 72 hours without exercise, our condition starts to decline. The resultant prescription for weight training sessions is three times per week with a day in between each session. Of course there are variations depending on the sport and its intensity. For instance, distance runners might train every day, but using a hard-easy approach - an intense day followed by a gentler day - a recovery day, as it were. Of course, a top athlete's easy day may be more intense than most of us could imagine. The same goes for weight training; rest may be watching TV, or it may be "active rest," like easy swimming, or a gentle bicycle ride.
Where are we? Oh, I remember - training systems. Here are a few of the main ones:
A final weight training introductory topic is cautions during training. It is important to pay attention to the following issues:
It is very clear to me that no actual exercises are going to make it into this issue. There is simply too much intro material which I feel compelled to provide, and this document is simply getting too big, but next issue will get to the good stuff.
_______________________________
Note 1 - Neutral posture is the normal body position maintained while a person is standing - the head is up with eyes looking straight ahead (the neck is aligned with the rest of the spine (i.e., if you are bent over at the hips so that your upper body is parallel to the floor, you should be looking at the floor), keep your chin off of your chest, and, if you are in a prone position (as on a leg curl machine), your face should be looking at the table (i.e., your neck should not be bent back so that you are looking forward). It is also crucial that you maintain the slight inward curve at your lower back (slight lordosis) - this is what is normally meant when a trainer says: "keep your back flat." It is helpful to achieve this "flat" back position by projecting your buttocks rearward. Also keep your shoulders above your hips when lifting anything - your back will thank you.
Q Have you heard anything new on the arthritis warfare front?
y.m.k.f., mtn vw, ca
A Surprisingly, yes, but I can't find my notes. Ah, here they are. Maybe I should be looking into Alzheimer's. Anyway, there is a compound called glucosamine sulfate, a supplement which is designed to stimulate joint cartilage. Study of this supplement is ongoing, but at this point seems relatively safe, and has a high absorptive rate. It is considered to be both therapeutic and preventative. For anyone with an interest in pursuing this Œstuff," contact :
Victor Peletajev, D.C.
P.O. 1788
Fairmont, WV 26554
Q I recently read that high cholesterol levels in the elderly are relatively risk free. Is that correct?
C.H., Palo Alto, CA
A Yes, more or less. There is some evidence that high cholesterol levels (>239) in the very elderly (>79 years of age) is irrelevant as a Coronary Heart Disease risk factor. In fact, there seems to be a lowering of the risk factor after age 40, and especially after age 60. But there is appreciable room for considering the applicable studies as very much open to question. In other words, don't bet your life on these studies. The over 80 group (maybe the over 70 group), however, does seem relatively safe from high cholesterol. At this age, however, who cares? Note that this elderly population also seems not to need to worry about low HDL either.
Q Are there any new theories on preventing Low Back Pain? I didn't like your old ones. Ugh - exercise.
m.n.f., overthebridge, ca
A I'm sorry to report that a review of interventions for Low Back Pain, as reported in JAMA Oct 26, 1994, concluded that only exercise seems to prevent this condition. Other options studied were mechanical supports, education, and modification of risk factors: obesity, smoking history, and psychological factors.
Q A year ago, there were no effective drugs to delay the progression of autoimmune nerve demyelination2, but, since then, three drugs have shown promise: interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a, and copolymer1. Do you have any further information? G.B., somewhere, minn
A Only that study of these drugs is ongoing, and that anyone who might want to use any of them had better have a hefty health insurance policy, because I have read that interferon beta-1b, the first of these drugs to be available, cost something like $10,000 - for how much, I don't know. But there is no doubt about its desirability, if it works.
Q What is high density LDL?
d.f., Palo Alto, PA
A Low amounts of LDL have long been recognized as an atherosclorosis precursor. It turns out, though, that there are a number of subtypes of LDL based on density. High density LDL is a more significant risk factor. I put this in the "who cares" category. It just adds to the confusion of an already confusing issue. I think that the bottom line is that we should keep a high ratio of HDL:LDL, and not worry much about the rest. I'll try not to mention this subject again.
Q All right, what's the deal on butter versus margarine, who is better?
s.m., san jose, ca
A Believe it or not, there is an answer to this question. There was a time when margarine was thought to be healthier than butter because it had less saturated fat , which is thought to be the biggest health risk as far as fat goes. But recently, the brouhaha about trans fat made people (scientists-dieticians?) rethink this issue. Trans fat is a product of hydrogenation, which makes food stuffs more solid, unfortunately it seems to be at least as bad as saturated fat itself. It is contained in block types of margarine; however, the healthiest of these fat producers (butter and margarine) is diet tub margarine. Tub margarine obviously doesn't need to be thickened because it's contained in its own private tub. Of course none of these products fall in the health food category, but try to select the best of the bad. Happy shopping.
Q In your October issue, you said that new evidence had shown that women's muscles responded to exercise the same as men's do. Are you saying that I'll get lumpy muscles if I train with weights?
n.m.k.f., mtn vw, ca
A No, at least I didn't mean to. My interpretation of the new findings doesn't change a thing, as far as I can tell. Most women respond to weight training by getting stronger, and their muscles remain relatively long and smooth. There have always been some women who could develop a muscular body. This would be the type of woman who started weight training for some reason, and immediately discovered that her body responded quickly and dramatically. There has be a genetic predisposition to grow significant muscle size - for both women and men. Even if you have the genes that would allow you to look like a linebacker for the 49ers, you can train not to - high reps, light weight produces muscle tone, muscle endurance, and some strength increase3, but not increased muscle size. The addition of a significant amount of aerobic exercise also counteracts any tendency toward increased muscle size. How many big, muscular marathoners have you seen? And most distance runners also do some weight training, in addition to running all over creation. Anyway, women can benefit hugely from weight training. They should all do it, rather than settling for a weak body. A person should not have to call 911 to get help taking a lid off a jar, or lifting a container of milk.
Q Can women run faster than men?
y.m.k.f., mtn vw
A "Yes", if it's FloJo against, say, Bill Clinton; however, on average, the answer is "no." But if it's Leslie running with the old, slow guys; again, the answer is "yes." Is that an equivocal enough answer?
Q According to an article I recently read in an issue of JAMA, decreased bone mineral density (BMD) has been associated with older women who don't drink milk, but have drunk the equivalent of two cups of caffeinated coffee for their lifetime. This BMD loss was not found in women who drank milk - a glass a day during most of their lives. Is this just another potshot at coffee drinkers?
H.M.F., Yuma, AZ
A If one erased the coffee component from this question, we would have essentially what happens during natural aging for women (at least without any mitigating therapy). But, even with the insertion of the coffee issue, I haven't seen many one year old coffee drinkers. For that reason, one would have to have drunk massive amounts of caffeinated coffee before giving any thought to the study referred to. I think this is remotely similar to the "rats and saccharine" issue. If you are a coffee fiend, this study might be of interest to you. The milk drinking aspect of this study; however, should be of interest. Milk, or some other good calcium source should be ingested when one is young (to help maximise BMD), and continued into old age to help maintain BMD.
Q Someone told me that eating potassium-rich foods, along with some lowering of sodium intake, acts as a non-pharmacological treatment for hypertension.
Y.M.K.F., Mtn Vw, CA
A I read the same information in the Sept 24, 1994 issue of "The Lancet." The only thing I can add is that this scheme may or may not be effective, but it can't hurt to try. A list of high-potassium foods might be helpful. The best sources are fresh fruits, vegetables, and legumes. Potassium is present in all living cells, and is therefore found most abundantly in unprocessed foods. Actually fresh meat contains potassium, but us humans don't eat a lot of raw meat - Jeffry Daumer excepted. Some specifics are: peaches, winter squash, beans, potatoes, non-fat yogurt, cantaloupe, zucchini - you get the idea. Obviously we don't eat all of this stuff raw, but we don't cook it to pieces either.
Q I read a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine, Feb 24, 1994, that had to do with Lorenzo's Oil - did you see the movie? The letter was full of medi-babble, but the upshot seemed to be that anyone using Lorenzo's Oil should be closely monitored by their physician because of the possibility of serious side-affects after long term use. Note that a letter in the June 30, 1994, issue makes a distinction between prevention of relevant diseases in children (like in the movie) - Lorenzo's Oil may be a miracle-worker for them - and ongoing therapy for adults who already have one of the relevant diseases (I forget the names, but if you've got one, you'll know), and who may be at some risk. Comments?
M.A.F., Portland, OR
A Yes - good movie.
_______________________________
Note 2 - Multiple Sclerosis is one of these conditions where the myelin (a "sheath," if you will, that covers major nerves and provides them with a "path" to follow) is progressively destroyed, and the nerve impulses get "lost," resulting in dysfunction in affected areas.
Note 3 - The initial strength gains resulting from weight training are largely neuromuscular, in women or men. There are a bunch of "things" called motor units in our muscles. They are muscle fibers connected to a nerve. Some have very few fibers, and some have a lot. When the brain perceives that it is going to have to stimulate some musclar action, it recruits specific motor units - maybe to brush your teeth, or to lift a 100 lb barbell. Initial weight training is when your brain and your muskles get this all worked out. The result is increased strength without increased muscle size. After this initial peeriod, strength increases are slower, and more difficult to achieve.
FLASH !!!!! I am embarrassed to admit that an egregious error was made in the December Œ94 issue of the MAF FITNESS NEWSLETTER. It was stated that muscle atrophy - as from disuse caused by a broken bone - was the result of loss of muscle fibers. That is incorrect. Atrophy resulting from disuse is caused by the loss of sarcomeres and myofibrils (components of muscle fibers). This is the direct opposite of muscle hypertrophy, which is the increase in a muscle's size. The increase results from an increase of sarcomeres and myofibrils - a normal response to exercise. There actually is a kind of muscle atrophy which involves fiber loss, but it is caused by degenerative disease, not disuse. The significant fact here is that a muscle fiber, once lost, is gone forever; but a lost myofibril can be regenerated.
For questions, call (408) 739-0501, or write to:
MAF, 964 Ponderosa Ave., Suite 25, Sunnyvale, CA
94086-8931.
Email to Mike_Fenner@netcom.com