Mel Siff Blog

Periodically we read about references to so-called “drop sets”. Once upon a
time, the same concept (or was it really the same concept?) was referred to
as “stripping sets”. Here, for example, you worked up to a 1RM or 3RM
(often by following a few pyramid sets), then stripped off about 5-10kg,
forced out as many reps to failure, stripped off another 5-10kg and again
worked to failure, and continued this process until you were left with little
or no load on the bar. The pyramiding up to a max was good for strength,
while the progressive unloading to repeated failure was good for muscle
endurance, “definition” and energy expenditure.

Why does it appear as if the wheel has been re-invented? What was wrong with
the former name? Is it because the new generation of bodybuilders have become
more prudish in not wanting to be associated with “stripping” (unlikely!) or
does the “drop set” really offer something entirely distinct from all the
different types of stripping, or Diminishing Load to Failure (DLF), sets?

So, to resolve this issue, let’s have some meticulous definitions of the
different types of “drop” and “stripping” sets. Maybe a more technically
adequate alternative name should be proposed (like DLF or ‘Progressively
Diminishing Load’ sets) instead of either of these terms. Any suggestions?

The terms ‘Compensatory Acceleration Training’ (CAT) term has a nice
technical ring to it, but “drop sets” or “stripping” really do nothing for
the scientific and artistic world of resistance training. Sometimes it is
not surprising that other athletes may think of all of us weights types as
being somewhat sub-intellectual.

Of course, they are making a most unfortunate stereotype of us and those
terms do in some simplistic way describe how an exercise should be done, but
are these the best possible terms to use? What do others think?

Mel Siff

Here are some extracts from the latest NSCA Performance Training journal on a
topic which attracts our attention from time to time – can one gain strength
without gaining muscle bulk? For anyone who may be interested in reading
other such articles, go to the special free journal service of the NSCA at:

http://www.nsca-lift.org/perform/

For more information on the different ways in which one can gain strength and
hypertrophy, as well as on the different types of hypertrophy and strength,
see many chapters of “Supertraining” (Siff, 2000), which studies these topics
in considerable depth.

———————-

Increase Strength without an Increase in Size?

http://www.nsca-lift.org/perform/article.asp?ArticleID=8

By Lee E. Brown, Ed.D., CSCS*D

Resistance training results in strength gains. This has been known since
early Greek times when Milo lifted cows. Since then, hundreds of experimental
studies have agreed that gains in strength are the primary result of an
increase in muscular size, referred to as hypertrophy.

When a muscle gains size it also gains strength. What is less well known is
the phenomenon that results in increased strength after only a few resistance
training sessions. This has been observed in people without a long history of
resistance training. It has been speculated that these “short-term effects”
are the result of changes in neural factors rather than hypertrophy (Komi,
1992). Experimental studies have shown that short-term resistance training
can increase strength production in the absence of hypertrophy or muscle
size. These early strength gains are largely attributed to an increase in the
maximal muscle activation level. In other words, the untrained human system
becomes more efficient at both sending and receiving the brain signals that
cause muscles to contract prior to initiating growth of muscle.

De Lorme and Watkins (1951) were the first to suggest that the initial
changes in strength following resistance exercise in untrained individuals
occurs at a rate too fast to be accounted for by hypertrophy. In later work
by Moritani and deVries (1979), they measured untrained subject’s elbow
strength in conjunction with neural signals from the brain. After the
subjects trained for eight weeks in a progressive resistance, dumbbell
exercise program, all of them had significantly increased their maximal
strength. More importantly, the neural measurements indicated that changes in
electrical activity at the elbow were primarily responsible for early
strength increases while hypertrophy responses gradually increased over time.
That is, the first factor that influences strength gains in untrained
subjects is not size but brain signal efficiency.

A recent study (Akima, 1999) also demonstrated short-term improvements in leg
strength-speed can occur by increasing the amount of resistance training
performed during the training time. This study increased the training volume
and this increase in the amount of exercise performed contributed to the
strength changes demonstrated by the subjects. However, when the muscle of
the upper leg was measured via MRI at the conclusion of training, muscle
fiber area revealed no changes. In contrast, the neural activity of the leg
increased significantly. These results again point to a learned neural
efficiency in untrained subjects as a function of resistance training….

———————

Mel Siff

< Kathy and Peter Vergile are advertising the Fastabs product on TV. I
purchased this product from the TV advertisement . I did not get what the TV
said I was going to get and also the TV ads do not mention that you should
not use this machine if you have had or have heart problems. Now, I wanted to
return this but have not been able to talk with a human being about it. Is
this a scam or are Kathy and Peter advertising for honest people? I assume
someone must be paying them. Please give a little help here! >>

***Before buying any ab training product, just remember that it has never
been shown that any of them produce results which are superior in terms of
physique or strength conditioning to the well known collection of standard ab
training exercises done without machines or gimmicks. Most ab products at
the very least are a waste of money, time and space. If they worked as well
as claimed, you would be sure that the best bodybuilders in the world would
be relying widely on them, which definitely is not the case.

A recent article on ediets is relevant to the discussion that we have all had
concerning fat loss. Here are a few short extracts from it. Read the entire
article and share any comments that you may have on it.

——————————

< REVEALED: The Great Weight Loss Lie!

The reason that so many people gain and lose so much weight is that they are
victims of The Great Weight Loss Lie: Thin is Happy.

By Dr Matthew Anderson

http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?article_id=2558

Many weight-loss programs promise something they cannot deliver: You will be
happier — much happier — once you get to what you believe is your ‘ideal’
weight.” This is an exciting proposition… particularly if you hate being
overweight.

Here is the truth. You hate being overweight. It doesn’t matter if you are 10
or 100 pounds overweight — the issue is how you feel about it. If you hate
it, you are going to take the bait: ‘Lose weight and love yourself.’
Who could pass up such a wonderful promise? Exchanging fat for love… it’s the
deal of a lifetime!

So you almost kill yourself to lose that vile poundage. You starve yourself.
You deprive yourself. You torture yourself for a month… six months… a
year… even longer. When you finally reach your goal you are excited, proud,
even thrilled with yourself — for a while. Then something happens. It may be
subtle and slow or it may be explosive. You begin to gain weight all over
again. . . . . >

———————————–

Mel Siff

Here is Mel Siff’s response to someone relating a story of cutting calories and not losing bodyfat/weight – a common anecdotal claim!

*** This is something that we hear so often. Let’s examine this assertion
logically. What are the possible explanations?

1. The body slows down its metabolism so that it can function quite normally
without drawing on stored fat.

2. The reduction in calorie intake is insufficient to cause loss in excess
bodyfat.

3. The lower calorie intake makes the person feel lethargic, so she
decreases her expenditure of energy (either obviously or very subtly
throughout the day) to match the available fuel. There was a research
article which showed that thinner people tend to fidget and move around a lot
more than fatter people, so possibly the dieter tends to fidget or generally
move less, even while asleep.

4. The person is nibbling outside the diet or not taking account of
incidental snacks between meals that add to the overall calorie intake.

5. The body is creating more energy from nowhere.

Obviously, the last named item contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, so
this leaves the preceding items. In all probability, the answer lies not in
one factor, but in a combination of several.

Some folk even maintain that if they do not eat anything for a few days, they
do not lose adipose tissue. Scientifically, this is impossible – if you
starve the body, it has to draw on some form of stored fuel and this has to
cause a drop in weight. The problem here, as is well known, that dieting
with inactivity causes a pronounced loss of muscle mass – observe anyone who
has spent a prolonged period in a hospital bed.

This means that reduction in calorie intake must be balanced by adequate
physical stress, not just to “burn off” calories, but to ensure that the body
does not lose muscle bulk. Note the paradox created by many experts who
maintain that it is essential for a fatter person to do plenty of cardio
exercise to “burn off” excess fat. Research and experience show that this
sort of regime tends to DECREASE strength and muscle mass, or at best keeps
them constant. And that is not what a dieting fatter person wants!

On the other hand, progressively more demanding resistance training increases
muscle mass and strength, factors which are exactly what the fatter person
needs to handle greater body mass, prevent muscle wastage and to move a
heavier mass around. To me, that is simple logic, so why the great
overemphasis on cardio work?

If I were a fatter person, the last thing I would feel like is raising my
large mass from a chair and try to work up some enthusiasm to move around,
let alone jog for between 30-60 minutes a day, exposing my already wobbly
joints to some serious impact loading. Being very heavy means that it
requires a great deal of effort even to rise from a chair or bed – are the
cardio evangelists unable to empathise with fatter folk? I can certainly
imagine a fatter person doing 5-10 minutes of several sets of brief interval
work (or recreational sport) with adequate rest spread out in modular fashion
throughout the day, but to embark on what is tantamount to a military style
forced march, little else is so uninspiring.

Ah, but there are those who say that it just requires “willpower”. Indeed it
does, but to work up the enthusiasm day after day is far too daunting if one
has to jog a heavier body around on a calorie depleted diet. It is better to
develop the strength in small manageable modules which do not intimidate one
and which let the gain in strength help to make all movement a lot easier.
Motivating oneself under those conditions is much easier, so in this case,
the body may initially lead the mind until later when the mind can lead the
body.

Maybe far too many exercise physiologists tend to be “string-bean” ectomorphs
and cannot even vaguely role-play being an endomorph. Cardio certainly plays a
vital role in general health but nowhere near the extent implied by the “cardio
doctrine” prescription for all health and fitness.

Where did my insights into this problem come from? Nowhere else other than
the time that I spent recovering after quadruple bypass surgery following a
near fatal heart attack. Just as in the case of obesity management, the
cardio experts recommended cardio exercise and I worked on sheer willpower to
do even a little. I was so weak that even standing without feeling dizzy was
a major achievement – just like many obese folk.

To cut a long story short, I devised my own modular approach using small
episodes of quick exercise several times a day and that scheme was much
easier to adhere to, both physically and mentally. Now that I am back to
normal strength again, I use much the same approach (mixed with swimming and
walking on alternate days when I am not using weights), because it works very
well and requires far less mental effort and time to do a workout. If many
fatter people feel as overpowered as I was by the very thought of prolonged
exercise, then I am sure that they, too, would enjoy this interval modular
approach far more.

Mel Siff