text:
Enter your Email address:
Wolters Kluwer Health may email you for journal alerts and information, but is committed
to maintaining your privacy and will not share your personal information without
your express consent. For more information, please refer to our Privacy Policy.
McCARTHY, JOHN P.; POZNIAK, MYRON A.; AGRE, JAMES C.
Departments of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation, Kinesiology, and Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
Submitted for publication January 2001.
Accepted for publication July 2001.
McCARTHY, J. P., M. A. POZNIAK, and J. C. AGRE. Neuromuscular adaptations to concurrent strength and endurance training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 511–519, 2002.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine muscle morphological and neural activation adaptations resulting from the interaction between concurrent strength and endurance training.
Methods: Thirty sedentary healthy male subjects were randomly assigned to one of three training groups that performed 10 wk of 3-d·wk−1 high-intensity strength training (S), cycle endurance training (E), or concurrent strength and endurance training (CC). Strength, quadriceps-muscle biopsies, computed tomography scans at mid-thigh, and surface electromyogram (EMG) assessments were made before and after training.
Results: S and CC groups demonstrated similar increases (P < 0.0001) in both thigh extensor (12 and 14%) and flexor/adductor (7 and 6%) muscle areas. Type II myofiber areas similarly increased (P < 0.002) in both S (24%) and CC (28%) groups, whereas the increase (P < 0.004) in Type I area with S training (19%) was also similar to the nonsignificant (P = 0.041) increase with CC training (13%). Significant increases (P < 0.005) in maximal isometric knee-extension torque were accompanied by nonsignificant (P ≤ 0.07) increases in root mean squared EMG amplitude of the quadriceps musculature for both S and C groups. No changes (P > 0.38) in the EMG/torque relation across 20 to 100% maximal voluntary contractions occurred in any group. A small 3% increase (P < 0.01) in thigh extensor area was the only change in any of the above variables with E training.
Conclusions: Findings indicate 3-d·wk−1 concurrent performance of both strength and endurance training does not impair adaptations in strength, muscle hypertrophy, and neural activation induced by strength training alone. Results provide a physiological basis to support several performance studies that consistently indicate 3-d·wk−1 concurrent training does not impair strength development over the short term.
Strength and power development has been impaired when endurance training is added to strength training (4,11,21–23,25). Other investigators, however, report no interference in strength development with concurrent strength and endurance training over a short term (1,14,27,31,34,38). Studies investigating the interaction of these two diverse types of training, however, provide strong evidence that concurrent training does not impair endurance development as measured by maximal aerobic power (21,22,25,27,34). It thus appears, that with concurrent strength and endurance training, the major consideration is that of endurance training possibly interfering with the neuromuscular system's ability to generate maximal force.
Although a considerable number of studies have addressed performance adaptations with concurrent training, only a few have attempted to address underlying physiological mechanisms responsible for impairment in strength development. Muscle hypertrophy and changes in motor unit recruitment are two of the most salient factors associated with strength development (16). Kraemer et al. (25) indicate an impairment in hypertrophy of Type I fibers when endurance training is added to strength training. Bell et al. (4) reported no increase in Type I fiber area with concurrent strength and endurance training, but there were no differences in fiber type area adaptations (both Type I and II) compared with the same type of strength training performed alone. With concurrent training, Nelson et al. (31) reported hypertrophy in Type I, IIa, and IIb fibers, whereas the strength-only training employed in this study resulted in hypertrophy of only the Type IIb fibers. None of these studies considered muscle adaptations at the macroscopic or whole muscle level as may be assessed with imaging technology. Sale et al. (34) reported similar muscle area increases with both strength-only and concurrent training as measured at both the microscopic (Type I and II fibers) and macroscopic (quadriceps area as assessed using computed tomography) levels. It is evident that the pattern of specific fiber type hypertrophy with concurrent training is inconsistent in the few investigations addressing this question and little is known about adaptations at the whole muscle level (26).
With strength training there are several different lines of evidence that indicate adaptations within the nervous system occur that are related to strength development (33). One of the major areas of investigation with strength training focuses on adaptations in motor unit activation in prime movers as measured by electromyography (EMG) (30,33). The integrated EMG signal attained during a maximal isometric contraction has been shown to increase in several longitudinal strength-training studies (16,17,29), although other investigations report no change in this measure (13,30,37). It has been suggested that an impairment in force development with concurrent training, as compared with strength-only training, may be related to altered neural activation associated with maximal voluntary contractions (6,25,26). The relatively small number of maximal or near maximal contractions involved in strength training demand different patterns of motor unit activation than the fairly continuous low level contractions involved with endurance training. No studies to date have investigated the effects of concurrent training on neural activation of prime movers.
To investigate major mechanisms associated with changes in strength performance, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of 3-d·wk−1 concurrent strength and endurance training on muscle morphology and neural activation in previously sedentary individuals. We tested hypotheses that the diversity of demands of traditional endurance and strength training on skeletal muscle would limit muscle hypertrophy at the macroscopic (whole muscle) and microscopic (myofiber) levels. In addition, we tested the hypothesis that concurrent-training adaptations are different than any changes that may occur with strength-only training in neural activation of muscle.
The data were collected as part of a larger study that also examined the effect of concurrent training on body composition, V̇O2peak, and strength performance (27). Thirty sedentary healthy men, who had not exercised regularly for at least 3 months before the start of the study, served as subjects. After approval from the Health Sciences Human Subject Committee at University of Wisconsin-Madison, all subjects were informed of the procedures, risks, and benefits, and provided written consent before participation. Each subject was screened via a medical history questionnaire and a physical evaluation given by a physician. Measures of vastus lateralis fiber area and type distribution (from muscle biopsies), thigh cross-sectional muscle area (from computerized tomography [CT] scans), knee-extension isometric torque and associated quadriceps RMS-EMG amplitude across 20–100% maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) were taken before and after 10 wk of training. After all pretraining measurements, subjects were randomly assigned to either a strength-only (S), an endurance-only (E), or a concurrent (CC) strength- and endurance-training program. Characteristics of subjects in the three groups are presented in Table 1. Sample size was estimated as described by Cohen (7) for paired t-tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) (see Statistical Analysis section) by using the variable of maximal isometric torque and data from a pilot study (27). To detect an effect size difference of 15 N·m for paired t-tests with α = 0.0167, the power (1-β) = 81; and for ANOVA with α = 0.05, the power = 76. All subjects proceeded through all testing procedures with one exception. One subject in the CC group did not have muscle-biopsy samples taken.
Conventional high-intensity strength- and continuous-endurance-training regimens were employed in this study and have been previously described in detail (27). All subjects completed 10 wk of 3-d·wk−1 exercise training on alternate days. The S group performed eight weight-training exercises for one warm-up set and three maximal-effort sets. The goal for number of repetitions throughout the training was six (range 5–7). After the warm-up set in each exercise, subjects performed as many repetitions as possible until muscular failure (could not perform another full repetition). If a set was performed outside of the range of 5–7 reps, the load of subsequent sets was adjusted accordingly. The goal was always to perform a 6-repetition maximum (6RM); thus, progression was always incorporated into this program. Warm-up sets were performed with two-thirds of the load used to perform a 6RM. During the first week of training, starting weights were determined by trial and error. Each exercise utilized low contraction velocities with subjects performing concentric and eccentric phases of repetitions in approximately 1–2 s each, with the last repetition of a set generally the slowest with subjects close to muscular failure. Rest between maximal sets was approximately 75 s (60–90 s). All sets of each exercise were performed in succession before moving to another exercise. Exercises performed using barbells included parallel squats, bench presses, and standing curls. Exercises performed using plate loaded machines (Badger Fitness Equipment, South Milwaukee, WI) included knee extensions, leg curls, wide-grip lat pull-downs, overhead presses, and heel raises.
The E group performed 50 min of continuous cycle ergometry at an intensity of 70% heart rate reserve. The first 5 min of exercise served as a warm-up and was performed at two-thirds of the normal training workload of the following 45 min. S and E programs were designed to elicit substantial improvements in either strength or aerobic capacity, and both were designed to require substantial involvement of the knee extensor muscle group. The CC group completed both S and E programs in the same training session. Order of S and E training was rotated each training day with a 10- to 20-min rest period between training modes. S training was performed in its entirety before proceeding to endurance training and vice versa. All training was closely supervised and monitored by investigators. Compliance to training was high with subjects in each training group completing an average of 30 of 31 training sessions. No more than two training sessions were missed by any of the subjects.
Cross-sectional area (CSA) of the dominant knee extensor and flexor/adductor muscles were measured using a computed tomographic (CT) technique. Scans were obtained on a DR3 CT scanner (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). Scans were taken while subjects were in the supine position with the thighs relaxed. Radiation exposure was minimized by low-exposure factors (125 kVp, 3 s, 180 mAs). A single-axial transverse image was obtained through the thigh at a level 18 cm above the superior border of the patella.
All CT scans were blinded and analyzed by the same individual. Cross-sectional areas were digitized using an image processing and analysis system. A COHU video camera (no. 6415-2000) with a Javelin 18- to 108-mm macro zoom lens was interfaced with a Sony 1343 monitor and a microcomputer equipped with a PC Vision Plus frame grabber board (Jandel Scientific, Corte Madera, CA). JAVA (Jandel Video Analysis Software; Jandel Scientific) computer-enhanced tracing and digitizing software was used for the analysis. From CT images, thigh muscles were divided into extensor and flexor/adductor compartments as follows. On the lateral side, the dividing line was between the vasti anteriorly, and the hamstrings and adductor magnus posteriorly, extending to the posterior border of the femur. From the posterior border of the femur, the line was extended on the medial side between the vastus medialis anteriorly, and adductor longus and sartorius posteriorly. The femur bone was included in the initial extensor area but was measured separately and subtracted out to yield only the muscle area within the extensor compartment. Muscles included in the extensor area were limited to the four quadriceps. The flexor/adductor area contained the hamstrings, sartorius, gracilis, and adductor magnus and longus muscles. Coefficients of variation were calculated on 16 random samples redigitized for extensor, flexor/adductor, and bone areas. The coefficient of variation was less than 1% for each of these areas.
Biopsy specimens were removed from the vastus lateralis muscle of the dominant leg by percutaneous needle biopsy as previously described (10). Muscle samples were oriented cross-sectionally using a dissecting microscope, mounted on cork by using Gum Tragacanth, and then quickly frozen in isopentane cooled with liquid nitrogen. Tissue was stored at −70°C until analyzed.
Frozen muscle tissue was serial sectioned in 10-μm sections on a Reichert Histostat cryostat microtome at −20°C. Myofibers were classified as slow twitch (ST, or Type I) or fast twitch (FT, or Type II) by the myofibrillar adenosine triphosphatase reaction at pH 9.4, after preincubation at pH 10.4 (15). Pre- and post-experimental muscle samples on the same subject were processed simultaneously to avoid differences attributable to the procedure.
For planimetric measurements of the cross-sectional myofiber area, a Houston Instruments computerized digitizing tablet was attached to an IBM microcomputer. Muscle sections were projected at 200 times original size on a Nikon Optiphot microscope, equipped with a zoom drawing tube. A Lovins Micro-slide Field Finder (Teledyne Gurley, Troy, NY) was used to verify projection accuracy. Myofiber perimeters were manually traced and Bioquant software (Biometrics, Nashville, TN) was used to calculate fiber areas. Myofibers selected for area measurement were without longitudinal tendencies, had distinct cell borders, were free of artifacts, and were centrally located in the sample. Samples were blinded to protect the investigator from knowledge of treatment group and initial or final biopsy status.
Myofiber distribution (% fiber types) was determined from samples containing an average (±SD) of 718 ± 153 fibers (range 402–1045). From the samples, 152 ± 2 fibers (range 146–158) were traced to measure fiber area. There were 64 ± 13 (range 51–100) ST and 87 ± 12 (range 51–100) FT fibers used to compute mean areas. In addition to the areas for Type I and Type II fibers, mean fiber area (MFA) was calculated to account for fiber distribution as follows: MFA = [(area of Type I fibers × percent of Type I fibers) + (area of Type II fibers × percent of Type II fibers)]/100. FT/ST area ratio was calculated by dividing FT fiber area by ST fiber area.
After submaximal warm-ups, maximal voluntary isometric knee-extension torque in the dominant leg was determined at a 0.52 rad angle below horizontal using a LIDO Active isokinetic loading dynamometer (Loredan Biomedical, Inc., Davis, CA) as previously described (27). Three maximal 5-s isometric contractions were performed with 3-min rest intervals between each contraction to prevent fatigue. The contraction with the highest torque value was used in data analysis. We have previously shown this method to be highly reliable with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 between different days (27). For determining the EMG/torque relation, submaximal isometric torque levels were then registered in random order at 20% intervals between 20 and 80% of MVC. For posttesting, the same relative (i.e., same percentages of post MVC) submaximal torques were used in assessments. The same order of performing the submaximal contractions was maintained pre- to posttesting for each subject. Each submaximal contraction was held at the desired torque level for 5 s with 2-min rest intervals between each contraction. To maintain torque at the required level, each subject matched his generated torque to the target level imposed on a computer screen linked with the dynamometer.
During isometric knee-extension contractions electromyographic (EMG) activity was recorded from the vastus medialis muscle by using bipolar skin surface electrodes by methods we have previously described (32). Consistency in electrode placement was maintained pre- to post-test for each subject (32). Skin impedance was kept below 5000 Ω for all tests by standard skin preparation. Raw EMG was full-wave rectified and converted to root mean squared (RMS) by a microprocessor linked to the electromyograph (Tracor Northern, Middleton, WI) and then to a strip chart recorder (Gould TA 550 Strip Chart Recorder, Eastlake, OH) to record the RMS-EMG signal. We have previously shown measures of maximal RMS-EMG amplitude to be reliable with this method with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.82 as assessed with repeated tests over a 12-month interval (32). In recording only from the vastus medialis, we are assuming that the behavior of RMS-EMG amplitude in this muscle is representative of all knee extensors. The EMG/torque relation was investigated by measuring the RMS-EMG amplitude during isometric contractions at 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of MVC.
Group scores are reported as means ± SE. Magnitude of changes produced by training in the three groups was compared using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the difference (post minus pre) scores. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05. Post hoc Fisher least significant difference tests were employed to locate specific significant differences between groups. Effects of training within each group were assessed using Dunn's multiple comparison procedure incorporating the Bonferroni correction to maintain the family-wise Type I error rate at 0.05 (24). By using the Bonferroni correction, the 0.05 significance level was divided by three (three t-tests), yielding a Type I error rate of 0.0167 for each t-test.
Statistical analysis for the EMG/torque relation for the five levels of isometric torque (20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% MVC) was investigated via linear trend analysis across EMG/torque data points (20). Relevant planned comparisons were tested among the six trends (pre- and post-training for each of the three group).
Thigh extensor area increased (P < 0.0001) after training in both S (12%) and CC (14%) groups (Fig. 1). A smaller increase (P < 0.011) occurred with E (3%) training, which was significantly smaller (P < 0.0001) than changes in the S and CC groups. Thigh flexor/adductor area increased (P < 0.01) in both S (7%) and CC (6%) groups but did not change in E (0%, P = 0.924). Femur bone cross-sectional areas did not change (P > 0.307) pre- to post-training in any group (S: 8.8 ± 0.3 to 8.9 ± 0.3 cm2; E: 9.0 ± 0.4 to 9.0 ± 0.3 cm2; and CC: 9.2 ± 0.4 to 9.3 ± 0.5 cm2).
Myofiber areas and distribution results are presented in Table 2. For muscle fiber distribution, there were no changes (P > 0.273) pre- to post-training. The only significant finding in Type I fiber area was a pre to post increase in the S group (18.5%, P = 0.004). The pre to post increase in the CC group (12.5%) approached significance (P = 0.041). The reader is reminded that due to the application of the Bonferroni procedure (to maintain Type I error rate at 0.05), the criterion for finding a difference within a group was more stringent than the criterion for finding a difference between groups. The same pattern of findings occurred in both Type II fiber area and in mean fiber area. Both S and CC groups had similar increases (P < 0.002) in Type II fiber area (24 and 28%) and in mean fiber area (21 and 23%). These increases were significantly greater than the nonsignificant increases seen in the E group (Type II fiber area = 4.5%, P = 0.186; and mean fiber area = 3.9%, P = 0.167). Increases in FT/ST area ratio approached significance in S (5%, P = 0.066) and CC (15%, P = 0.044) groups. FT/ST area ratio showed no change in the E group (0%). There were no significant differences in changes in FT/ST area ratio between groups (P = 0.081).
Knee-extension isometric torque results across 20–100% MVC are paired with associated quadriceps RMS-EMG amplitudes in the EMG/torque relation curves presented in Figure 2. There were no significant differences among linear trends pre to post training (P > 0.384) or between groups (P = 0.776). This indicates that for a given level of torque output there was no change in level of neural activation. Training-induced increases in maximal RMS-EMG amplitude approached significance in the S (13.5%, P = 0.044) and CC (10.6%, P = 0.073) groups (Fig. 2). The smaller nonsignificant (P = 0.639) increase in the E group (5.0%) was not significantly different than changes in the other groups. As we reported previously, maximal knee-extension isometric torque increased similarly in both S (12%, P = 0.004) and CC (7%, P = 0.003) groups but did not change with E (−2%, P = 0.223) training (27). Increases in S and CC groups were significantly greater (P = 0.0006) than changes in the E group.
Our focus on investigating neuromuscular mechanisms related to strength development with 3-d·wk−1 concurrent strength and endurance training revealed similar findings in all variables in both S and CC groups. Maximal isometric torque increased in both groups (S = 22 and CC = 14 N·m) without an accompanying significant increase in maximal RMS-EMG amplitude. No changes in the EMG/torque relation across 20–100% MVC occurred indicating the level of neural activation remained the same for a given level of torque output in all groups. At the gross muscle level, quadriceps area (11.4 and 12.6 cm2) and flexor/adductor area (6.2 and 5.2 cm2) increased similarly in both S and CC groups. At the myofiber level, there was no change in fiber type distribution or in the FT/ST area ratio in any group. Substantial and similar levels of hypertrophy occurred in Type II fibers (1205 and 1228 μm2) in both S and CC groups. Although significant Type I fiber hypertrophy occurred only in the S group (820 μm2), this change was not different than the nonsignificant increase seen in the CC group (537 μm2). With the exception of a small increase (3%) in quadriceps cross-sectional area, there were no changes in any of the above variables in the E group. We have previously shown that the E-training regimen, as employed in the current study, substantially increases (18%) V̇O2peak (27). Our findings indicate that 3-d·wk−1 concurrent training for both strength and endurance, in sedentary subjects, does not impair the magnitude of muscle hypertrophy induced by S training alone. Results of the concurrent strength and endurance training were similar to the strength-only training in all neuromuscular measures. These findings provide a physiological basis to support a number of studies addressing performance adaptations that indicate concurrent training does not impair strength development over the short term with 3-d·wk−1 training (1,9,14,27,34,38).
Why strength development is attenuated in only some concurrent-training studies has generally been attributed to differences in training-design variables (26,34). These include training volume, duration, frequency, intensity, mode or type of S and E training, and initial training status of subjects. However, few if any guidelines for designing concurrent-training programs for preventing or minimizing strength development impairment have been proposed (12,26). A striking contrast in concurrent-training regimens that induce impairment in strength development with regimens that do not induce impairment involves the frequency of training. When both strength and endurance training is performed on the same day and for only 3 d·wk−1 on alternate days, as in the current study, strength development is not compromised as compared with performing the strength training only (1,9,14,27,34,38). The similar increases in isometric strength performance in our S and CC groups agree with the similar strength increases in S and CC groups of all other concurrent-training studies we know of employing 3-d·wk−1 CC training (1,9,14,27,34,38). Four of these studies involved untrained or sedentary subjects (9,27,34,38), and two of these studies involved physically fit subjects who regularly exercised (details limited) (1,14). In our previous study (27), we also reported almost identical increases in one repetition maximum (1RM) barbell squats (S = 24 kg [23%], CC = 23 kg [22%]) and maximum vertical jump height (S = 3 cm [6%], CC = 4 cm [9%]) employing the same training regimens as in the current study. Due to specificity of training, we expected smaller increases in isometric strength and maximum vertical jump height than in 1RM squat strength, because barbell squats were used in the training (27,30). Although Craig et al. (9) reported a significant 5.8% (7.9-kg) increase in leg strength with S training, the CC group in this study did not significantly increase strength. These authors concluded that leg strength does not increase to the same degree when endurance training is added to strength training. We disagree with this conclusion in that there was no statistical analysis performed comparing between group changes and little actual difference between the two groups in strength improvement existed (the CC group showed a similar level change of 4.6% [6.5 kg], although this was not statistically significant from pre to post training within the group). Thus, we are assuming similar strength adaptations in both S and CC groups for the Craig et al. (9) investigation.
The similar strength gains seen in both S and CC groups with 3-d·wk−1 training are in sharp contrast to concurrent training that takes place 5 or 6 d·.wk−1. Concurrent-training investigations that employ a CC group, with some type of training (S, E, or both) being performed 5 (21) or 6 d·wk−1 (2,4,11,22,23), report impairment in some type of strength performance measure with CC training compared with S training. The initial training status of subject groups in these studies varied considerably from untrained (11,22,23), to athletes out of training for at least 4 wk (21), to experienced rowers or experienced weight trainers (2), to physically active subjects who were not formally training to develop strength or endurance at the time of entry into the study (4). In another study, Bell et al. (3) report similar strength increases in S and CC groups with the CC group training 6 d·wk−1. But the group labeled S in this study was also allowed to perform one E-training session per wk. Thus, as indicated by Leveritt et al.(26), in this investigation, two CC-training protocols were really being compared. Equivocal results have been reported in whether an impairment in strength development occurs when endurance training is added to strength training in studies that employ 4-d·wk−1 CC training. Whereas Kraemer et al. (25) conclude impairment in strength development occurs, Nelson et al. (31) report similar increases in strength in both S and CC groups over 20 wk of training. It thus appears that at least over the short term (the longest duration of training in a study employing 3-d·wk−1 CC training was 22 wk (34)), designing CC-training regimens that will not impair strength develop may need to limit training to no more than 3 d·wk−1. In contrast, if some type of S or E training is performed for the same muscle group 5 or 6 d·wk−1, some type of strength impairment is likely to occur with CC training. Whereas frequency of training may be an important factor in influencing outcomes with concurrent training, it appears no clear pattern of results are obtained when other training-design variables (including initial training status of subjects) are compared across studies (1,14,26). Our current findings provide a physiological basis to support the consistency across studies that indicate the same level of strength improvements can be achieved using 3-d·wk−1 concurrent training as that which occurs with 3-d·wk−1 strength-only training.
The current investigation indicates substantial similar muscle hypertrophy occurred in both S and CC groups as assessed at the macroscopic and microscopic levels. Our whole muscle and fiber area S training results are similar in magnitude with results reported in the literature employing similar resistance-training regimens in young adults (4,18,19,28). Hakkinen et al.(19), employing a very similar strength-training regimen for the quadriceps (10 wk of 3-d·wk−1 barbell squat and machine leg-extension training) as in the current study, reported increases in vastus lateralis Type I, IIa, and IIb fiber areas of 23%, 26%, and 14%, which are similar in magnitude to increases in our S group of 19% and 24% in Type I and II fiber areas. Identical increases in quadriceps CSA of 12.2% were found in our S group subjects and in similar age subjects in the Hakkinen et al. (19) investigation. With a similar 12-wk strength-training regimen, we previously reported a 14.4% increase in quadriceps volume (28).
Muscle morphology adaptations have only been considered in a few concurrent-training investigations. At the whole muscle level, our findings are in agreement with Sale et al. (34), who report similar increases in quadriceps CSA with both S (13%) and CC (11%) 3-d·wk−1 training. Similar strength improvements from both S and CC training are also accompanied with similar increases in both Type I and II fiber areas for both these training conditions. Although our results are consistent with these findings, there are substantial differences in the design of the Sale et al. (34) study that appear to limit appropriate comparisons with other concurrent-training investigations. The endurance-only training (3-min bouts at 90–100% VO2max) employed in this study produced substantial increases in strength (20%) and substantial increases in quadriceps cross-sectional area (14%). Also, their results may be affected in employing a unilateral-leg–training model where potential cross-over adaptations may occur in the comparative (control) contralateral limb (40).
In adding endurance training to strength training, a limitation in muscle hypertrophy has been suggested as a mechanism for an interference in strength gains with concurrent training (4,26). Bell et al. (4) and Kraemer et al. (25) both report some type of impairment in strength development with 12 wk of CC training compared with S training, and both implicate an underlying factor may be a limitation in hypertrophy of Type I fibers. Bell et al. (4) reported very similar fiber type adaptations as in our current findings. In their study, both Type I (27%) and II (28%) fiber areas increased with S training, whereas in their CC group, only a significant within group increase occurred in Type II (14%) fiber area (Type I fiber area increased 11%, which was not statistically significant). Although the within-group increases resulting from the S training appear to be about twice as large as changes within the CC group, there were no significant differences in the increases between the groups in both Type I and II fiber areas. The critical criterion in determining whether an impairment occurs with concurrent training is whether there is a difference in adaptations between groups. Failure in the Bell et al. (4) investigation not to find a significant difference between groups could be due to low statistical power for this test, which may relate to the fair amount of variability with fiber type area measures (35).
Kraemer et al. (25), employing 4-d·wk−1 training programs in physically active soldiers, found similar adaptations in Type IIa fiber areas in both S (24%) and CC (20%) trained subjects. In contrast, the S training induced a 12% increase in Type I fiber area, which was greater than the change seen with CC training (a nonsignificant within group decreased of 5%). We are not considering changes in Type IIb and IIc fibers from the Kraemer et al. investigation (25), because after training their percentage distributions were 2% or less in both S and CC groups. Also of interest in the Kraemer et al. (25) study was that the running type endurance-only training employed in the study induced an 11% decrease in Type I fiber area. This finding was different from our current results and all other E-training regimens used in concurrent-training investigations that assessed fiber areas (4,31,34). Combining an E-training program that induces a reduction in muscle fiber size with a strength-training program would account for the attenuation in fiber hypertrophy produced by the strength training alone. Other concurrent-training investigations that have combined running E training with strength training have found no impairment in strength development compared with the strength training alone (9,38).
Nelson et al. (31) also reported that concurrent S and E training produces different fiber hypertrophy patterns than S training. However, they report significant hypertrophy occurred in response to both E and CC training in all fiber type areas (I, IIa, IIb). Their knee-extension isokinetic S training, performed at 0.52 rad·s−1, only induced hypertrophy in Type IIb fibers. With both S and E training producing increases in strength, there was no impairment in strength development when the E training was added to the S training. The apparent training effects of the individual S and E protocols employed by Nelson et al. (31) were substantially different that ours and other individual protocols employed by other investigations considering fiber type adaptations. The eclectic array of training-design variables, and somewhat limited descriptions of protocols employed in the different concurrent-training investigations, makes it difficult to compare studies directly.
It has been proposed that an impairment in strength development with concurrent training may be due to increases in Type I fiber composition, with concomitant decreases in Type II fiber percentage (6,12). In response to training in the present study, fiber distribution remained the same across all three groups. Studies reporting similar strength improvements with S and CC training (31,34), and a study reporting an impairment in strength development with concurrent training (25), have indicated little difference in fiber type change between S and CC training. Bell et al. (4) did not report fiber-type distribution despite reporting fiber-area results. In the few studies to date, none have indicated that CC training alters the fiber distribution pattern seen with strength training alone.
Results of the current investigation do not give any credence to the hypothesis that an interference in strength development with concurrent training may be related to neural activation. In response to S training in the current study, maximal RMS-EMG amplitude was not significantly different (P = 0.044) from that before training, possibly due to rather large methodological error of this measure (30). Again, the reader is reminded that due to the application of the Bonferroni procedure (to maintain family-wise Type I error at 0.05), the criterion for finding a difference within a group (level of statistical significance = 0.0167, for each t-test for the three groups) was more stringent than the criterion for finding a difference between groups (level of significance = 0.05). Although a number of studies report an enhancement in maximal EMG amplitude with strength training (16,17,29), our results are in agreement with several other investigations that report no change in maximal EMG amplitude with strength training (5,13,30,37,39). The 13.5% nonsignificant increase in our S group is similar in magnitude to significant 11.8 and 12.5% increases reported in other strength-training regimens by Moritani and deVries (29) and Hakkinen and Komi (17). Very similar nonsignificant increases within our S (272 μV) and CC (258 μV) groups indicate no interference in maximal neural activation is likely when E training is added to S training in 3-d·wk−1 concurrent training. Further, the closeness of EMG/torque relation changes (across 20–100% MVC), in both S and CC groups, indicate RMS-EMG amplitude as an unlikely mechanism related to strength impairment with 3-d·wk−1 training (Fig. 2). We are unaware of any research investigating neural activation changes due to endurance training. As indicated earlier, the E training in the present study did not affect strength, but did substantially increase V̇O2peak. No change in maximal RMS-EMG amplitude with E training, and the closeness of the pre- and post-EMG/torque relation curves, indicates little effect of the continuous cycling E training on neural activation. We cannot rule out, however, that other possibly more intense, or other modes of E training, may influence neural activation and could potentially interfere with strength development when added to S training.
In the current study, although we have investigated some major mechanisms that may account for the possibility of strength impairment occurring when endurance training is added to strength training, other mechanisms may also be involved. Concurrent-training investigations compare CC training with other individual training regimens that are performed less frequently or with much less volume. This argues that overtraining and/or chronic muscle glycogen depletion, which may occur with consecutive days of training (8,36), may be other mechanisms that negatively influence strength adaptations with concurrent training (12,25,26). Although inconsistent in the literature, there is evidence that a catabolic state related to increased cortisol levels, combined with little change in concentrations of anabolic hormones (i.e., testosterone, growth hormone), may indicate an overtrained state with concurrent training (2,4,25). It appears future investigations should consider examining indices of overtraining and compare concurrent-training protocols that are more similar in volumes to individual S and E regimens. It should be noted, however, that no strength development impairment has been reported with CC training performed 6 d·wk−1 (2), whereas fairly low volume training (11) has produced significant strength development impairments in CC versus S training. In the Bell et al. (2) study where CC training was performed 6 d·wk−1, there was nonrandom assignment of college students to two groups of S and CC training. A group of experienced rowers performed CC training 6 d·wk−1 (3-d·wk−1 endurance and 3-d·wk−1 strength training), and a group of experienced strength trainers (nonrowers) performed the same S training 3 d·wk−1. In this study, only female subjects showed an impairment in strength development with CC training as compared with S training, whereas male subjects did not show any impairment. For the present study, we chose a training model to help control for potential overtraining effects by stressing the same muscle group (quadriceps) only 3 d·wk−1 with concurrent training.
In summary, our findings indicate that, in sedentary subjects, 3-d·wk−1 concurrent training for both strength and endurance does not impair the magnitude of muscle hypertrophy induced by strength training alone. The S training employed induced increases in maximal knee extensor torque that was accompanied by substantial muscle hypertrophy of the quadriceps as measured at both the macroscopic and microscopic levels, whereas maximal neural activation of the quadriceps was not significantly increased. With S training, no changes were seen in fiber-type distribution or in the EMG/torque relation across 20–100% MVC. With the exception of a small 3% increase in quadriceps cross-sectional area, there were no changes in any of the above variables with E training. Results in our study of the concurrent strength and endurance training were similar to the strength-only training in all neuromuscular measures. Our findings provide a physiological basis to support a number of studies addressing performance adaptations that consistently indicate concurrent training does not impair strength development over the short term with 3-d·wk−1 training (1,9,14,27,34,38).
The authors express thanks to John Jones and Jones Barbell Ltd. and to UW-Hospital Sports Medicine and Fitness Center, which donated use of all free-weight training equipment; Dr. Ann Wertz Garvin, Joel Curt, and Jim Augustine for their assistance with training and testing; Dr. Dick Calkins for statistical consultation; and subjects for their participation. This work was partially supported through a grant from the Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA (N66001-88-CO276).
Address for correspondence: John P. McCarthy, Ph.D., P.T., University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation, Program in Physical Therapy, 4190 Medical Sciences Center, 1300 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706; E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com.
This article has been cited 5 time(s).
©2002The American College of Sports Medicine
Colleague's E-mail is Invalid
Your Name: (optional)
Your Email:
Colleague's Email:
Separate multiple e-mails with a (;).
Thought you might appreciate this item(s) I saw at Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.
Send a copy to your email
Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.
Some error has occurred while processing your request. Please try after some time.
An Existing Folder
A New Folder
Folder Name:
The item(s) has been successfully added to "".
Login with your LWW Journals username and password.
Username or Email:
Forgot Password?
Enter and submit the email address you registered with. An email with instructions to reset your password will be sent to that address.
Link to reset your password has been sent to specified email address.
What does "Remember me" mean?
By checking this box, you'll stay logged in until you logout. You'll get easier access to your articles, collections,
media, and all your other content, even if you close your browser or shut down your
To protect your most sensitive data and activities (like changing your password),
we'll ask you to re-enter your password when you access these services.
What if I'm on a computer that I share with others?
If you're using a public computer or you share this computer with others, we recommend
that you uncheck the "Remember me" box.
Save my selection
Article Level Metrics
Keyword Highlighting
Highlight selected keywords in the article text.
Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may
modify the keyword list to augment your search.


text: Due to a staining issue (caused by carrying in an official HTC leather case) on the front of my 2 week old white Teflon-coated HTC Hero (bought sim-free from Mobile Fun - Mobile Accessories, Bluetooth Headsets, SIM Free Mobiles, Ringtones, Games & more! and who didn't want to know and palmed me off to the phone manufacturer HTC...even though they advertise a "30 day no quibble return guarantee" that's another story worth a thread of it's own) HTC agreed to replace the phone housing...I asked them if they could replace the white phone housing with a brown one and they arranged for it to be collected by UPS to get this done... They told me they couldn't fit a brown housing as it was an Orange exclusive colour (not true) Said they'd fit a new "Silver" (Graphite) housing. Used UPS "Standard" courier service which takes 2/3 days. Returned my repaired phone after a week with its new housing...White (not Graphite as agreed) but minus the white rear cover When I immediately phoned them to report this (4pm on a Wed) was told that dept was closed for the day but someone from the "Escalations" dept would phone me the following day (Thurs)...no one phoned me that day. The following day (Fri) I got a call late PM from someone at HTC apologising profusely and telling me a brand-new white rear cover would be sent out to me on the following Monday. Meanwhile over the weekend since my Hero had been in for a "service" I received an automated "Customer service Excellence Survey" email with around a dozen questions on how I found their service with answers to be ticked on a scale of 1 where I was "very satisfied" and 10 being "very dissatisfied"...needless to say I answered this survey truthfully giving just about all questions a 10 and the reasons why in the user comments section. This must have rung alarm bells when they received it as the following day (Monday) I received a phone call at work on my mobile from someone of senior authority at HTC who went over the events as described and again apologised and asked me if I wanted to return it (to be arranged by them) to get the housing replaced by the graphite one...or was I happy just to keep it in white and they'd post a new white rear cover...I had now just made up my mind to keep it in white as I didn't want to return it again and be without it over Xmas so I told him someone from HTC had already told me they were posting out the new white cover that day. He then said if the new white cover hadn't arrived by Monday afternoon (odd as this was Monday morning) or Tuesday at the latest for me to phone him and gave me his name (at my insistence). Tuesday no UPS delivery, but considering it took 2 days for UPS to pick it up orginally and deliver to HTC I thought I'd give it one more day. Wednesday 16th Dec no UPS delivery so far (2:30pm) so I decided to phone HTC and asked to speak to this person of senior authority, needless to say he wasn't in that day and the person on the end of the phone asked if it was something he could help me with so I told him I was disgusted with the service I'd received so far from HTC and I related the chain of events. He was aghast and told me he would now "take charge" of my problem and see it through and would keep me informed of what was happening all the way through, he gave me his name and said he would take it up with the service manager. I asked him given the chain of events could HTC not just replace my Hero with a brand new one and he said he would run it by the service manager and phone me back. He phoned me back in 10 mins and said due to no stock (Aye right ) they couldn't send me a new one but they would arrange for it to be picked up the following day and fit a new housing, I asked if they could fit a brown one and he agreed to this and would arrange the UPS pickup for the following day. 5 mins later he phoned me back...no, he says apologising, the brown colour is a Vodaphone exclusive I told him the Hero is available sim-free in Brown, Pink or White at all online retailers in the UK but he wasn't having it and said the Hero in brown was an East European model (not true) and it would need to be graphite...I agreed to this and asked him if I'd have it back before Xmas (this is Wed 16th Dec), yes he said "I'm pretty sure it will be". 10 mins later UPS arrive at my door with a package, I sign and open it, it's a brand new rear cover...brown I don't bother phoning HTC. Thurs 17th Dec. UPS collect my Hero which I package with a postit note attached to it's front body stating what's to happen to it and Mr X and Mr Y know what's to be done if in any doubt to check with them and the software has not to be touched as it has the most up-to-date and Mr X has agreed to this. Mon 21st Dec. Automated email from HTC acknowledging receipt of phone. I phone Mr X and remind him of what's to be done etc and he reassures me. Wed 23rd Dec. Mr X phones me in the morning at my work and proudly reminds me of how he promised to take charge of my problem and keep me informed every step of the way, good news, he says "you know how you wanted a brown housing, well, guess what...we've managed to get one and it's getting fitted as we speak", "great" I said and thanked him and asked if he thought I'd get it back before Xmas, "I'm sure you will" he says. Now, given the time of year and the worst wintry conditions we've had in the last 20 years up here (Lanarkshire, Central Scotland) I wasn't holding my breath and thought. okay, if they courior it today I'll probably get it around Tues 29th/Wed 30th Dec and just resigned myself to that hope. Wed 30th Dec. Late morning, no UPS delivery so I phoned HTC and asked to speak to Mr X. After being put on hold for a while I was told Mr X wasn't at his extension so I asked to be put through to Mr Y, I can't talk to him either, I'm told he's in at a meeting so I give the call centre operative my job number and ask if it's been posted, no, it hasn't I'm told and there will be no deliveries going out before Monday 4th Jan I relate my story to her and ask given the circumstances couldn't they send it that day using the next day delivery service, 'no' I'm told, 'that's not possible, there's no deliveries going out that day at all"... I tell her I want to make an official complaint of extremely poor service and could she put me through to someone senior, "no they're all in at a meeting" she says I can go to their website and use the "contact us" button which will bring up a Tel and Fax number...I do this and phone the number and it goes to voicemail stating they're closed for the Xmas/New Year holidays until Monday 4th Jan Later that day I get an email from Mr Y at HTC... "I am sorry to hear the device has not yet been returned. The cover swap has already been approved and agreed through the Customer Service manager during a review meeting I had with him last week. I will endeavour to have the device shipped today, however if the tesing is not completed then it will not be possible to return the device to you until next week as there are no shipments from the repair centre tomorrow. Please note, C*****N (Mr X) is not in today and I will be in meetings all afternoon and unable to come ot the phone. I will update you once more when I have further informaiton" What testing? , what's the bets they've wiped it. 18 bloody days to remove 4 screws, remove the innards and screw them onto a new housing Mon 4th Jan. Got an automated email stating Hero despatched for next working day delivery by UPS...logged on to UPS tracking and phone is scheduled for delivery Wed 6th...The email has the wrong serial and IMEI nos Today Wed 6th Jan. Logged on to UPS tracking and discovered phone rescheduled for delivery tomorrow...there has been no attempt at delivery today, probably just wintry road conditions to blame. I'm incensed by this level of service from a major player in the mobile phone world. They're either very understaffed, inefficient or, more likely just plain disorganised. I'm pretty sure their main customers (O2, Orange, T-Mob, Vodaphone etc) repairs get precedence, it's just us little minnows who pay a lot of money for their products who get treated abysmally. I'll update this if/when I receive it back and if it's complete and let you know what colour I get

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Living in a community managed by EMB Management means living in one of the best places to call home. As an association resident, there are a variety of ways to stay apprised of the latest information, local events and changes within our community.
The website offers many ways to connect with your friends and neighbors too! Be sure to check out the online calendar for events, minutes, reports and forums.
Important phone numbers and information to have on hand:


text:
Having picked up J.R. Smith on a one-year deal following the completion of his season in the Chinese Basketball Association, one of the biggest questions for the New York Knicks this offseason was whether or not Smith would choose to accept his player option to keep him in New York for a second season.
As Howard Beck of the New York Times reports, Smith has decided to decline his player option but intends to re-sign with the Knicks long-term.
If Smith does as expected and follows through with his plan to stay with the Knicks, he has himself two options contract-wise.
First, Smtih could decide to sign a one-year deal worth 20 percent of what he was slated to earn this coming season ($2.8 million in total, which wouldn't count against the mid-level exception), and could then re-sign with the team long-term for a value closer to $5 million-per-year prior to the 2013-14 season, by which time the Knicks will have his early-Bird rights.
Alternatively, Smith could choose to sign his long-term contract now, giving him the chance to earn a total of $12.2 million over the duration of a four-year contract.
Whichever route Smith chooses to take, the Knicks should be happy to have him back for the long-haul, and I'm going to take you through eight reasons why.


text:
Bodega Bay Vacation Rentals |
Pacific Dream |
Vista Del Mar |
Almost Paradise |
Ocean Waves |
Sea Nest |
Rivers Bend |
The Dunes
Bodega Bay Bungalow |
Contact Us
ALMOST PARADISE is a 3 bedroom, 2 full bathroom home located at Sereno Del Mar about 2/10 of a mile from Portuguese Beach. There is a good ocean view from this home. It has one king bedroom, one queen bedroom, and one bedroom with a queen and a full size bed. There are 2 TVs with cable (located in the bedrooms), a DVD, a VCR and a CD player as well as a free standing air tight propane fireplace. There is a patio with a BBQ. It has a fully equipped kitchen and all linens are provided. There is a washer and dryer. We have a two night minimum, with the exception of certain holiday dates.
TOT Certificate #1827


text:
You must be a voting member to participate in Section policy development and decision-making. Take your committee membership to the next level and sign up to become a voting member of your chosen committees today! Please note: only Lawyer members of the ABA-IPL Section are eligible to vote on policy initiatives. There is no limit on the amount of committees for which you may register to vote.
Practice before the USPTO with respect to inter partes proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, including
(1) the administration of the Board and its fees and services;
(2) Board procedure; and
(3) changes to the TBMP and the Trademark Rules of Practice.
- Join Our Committee
- Join The ABA
Committee Roster
Connect with and follow the activities of the ABA-IPL online in a variety of manners:more...
Upcoming events, conferences, and CLEs:more...
Modified by LaVaughn Haynes on August 10, 2016
Back to Top


text:
Sterling Lea of Lawton, Okla., announces the engagement of her daughter, Hope Ann, to Jeffrey Chad Farmer.
Farmer is the son of Karen Barnes of Amarillo and the late Ronnie Farmer.
The couple plan to wed June 9 at Joseph A. Hill Memorial Chapel on West Texas A&M University Campus in Canyon.
The bride-elect is a 1994 graduate of Palo Duro High School. She graduated from Amarillo College with an associate degree in applied science. She works in Amarillo as a licensed physical therapist assistant.
The prospective groom is a 1995 graduate of Idalou High School in Idalou. He graduated from AC and works as a licensed vocational nurse.
Amarillo Globe-News, May 1, 2007
© 2016. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us


text:
Shark tale
Happy feet
Naruto bonds
Disney's princess movies
Toy story
Non here
Originally Posted by Redemption
i really liked How to train your dragon.Awsome
AGreed, Its awesome!!
Originally Posted by Youngshift
I loved Toy Story and Bugs Life! Still do :D
Originally Posted by SasoriOfTheRedSaand
Lion king and monsters inc.
Agree :D
Originally Posted by SeriouslyNO
Where is ICE AGE?!?!?!?! IM SO MAD
Yeah , ice age is awesome...
Originally Posted by Ishan Hokage
Lion king was awesome.. agreed guys
I like the naruto movies
I also want to add alvin and the chipmunks O.o
2)Pokemon the first movie
4)Lion King
Naruto Shippuuden Movie 2.
Walle-E :D
Naruto of course.. Not bias =)
I'm a huge disney fan but my all-time favourite animated movie has to be The Incredibles, that movie is a freaking masterpiece.
out of what you've written i'd say shark tale
Originally Posted by Redemption
i really liked How to train your dragon.Awsome
Agree! I love How to train your dragon!
I also love Toy Story and Kung Fu Panda!!!:D
None there !
I liked
No spirited away?
Kara no Kyoukai! It's an exelent mind****
Forum Rules


text:
Nicole Scherzinger Wears Nothing But A Trenchcoat For Her Latest London Fog Ads
Nicole Scherzinger may be out on The X Factor, but as far as her latest London Fog photo shoot goes - well, we might as well call it the sex factor!
The former Pussycat Dolls singer signed on to replace Christina Hendricks as the company's spokesperson last fall; and for her second campaign for the raincoat retailer she dons a trio of khaki coats and very little else.
"I <3 my new London Fog campaign photos! Get a sneak peek here: http://on.fb.me/wW7zL4" she posted to her Facebook page earlier this week.
A spokesperson for the brand explained that the firm decided to replace Hendricks after only a season of repping them because Nicole is "a little more modern and contemporary" and has a "fierce sense of style."
Nicole, who also follows Gisele Bundchen and Eva Longoria as spokeswomen for the brand, says, "I love trenchcoats, and London Fog coats are timeless."
She also explains how her own sense of style fits in with the direction the brand is headed.
"My style has evolved into being a little bit more grown up. It's rock 'n' roll inspired, but chic. Glam rock. If I wear a lace dress, I throw on a leather jacket to toughen things up, or I wear some crazy boots."
Check out more pics of Nicole's London Fog campaign below, including a few of her modeling the fall collection that were released last October.
See pics from Christina Hendricks' London Fog campaign here
See pics from Gisele Bundchen's London Fog campaign here


text:
HOUSTON Luby's Inc., the 123-unit cafeteria operator based here, gave the nod to Instill Corp.'s Spend Management technology and services in an effort to bolster purchasing controls and administration of supplier contracts. "Instill is a critical component in our initiatives to build scalable systems and processes that support our strategic growth plan over the next five years," said Janet Duckham, Luby's vice president of operations services. "We have a lot on our plates preparing ...
Register to view this article
It's free but we need to know a little about you to continually improve our content.
Why Register?
Registering allows you to unlock a portion of our premium online content. You can access more in-depth stories and analysis, as well as news not found on any other website or any other media outlet. You also get free eNewsletters, blogs, real-time polls, archives and more.
Attention Print Subscribers: While you have already been granted free access to NRN we ask that you register now. We promise it will only take a few minutes!
Questions about your account or how to access content?
Contact: Desiree Torres firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Special to The Monitor-Herald
CALHOUN CITY – The Mississippi Youth ChalleNGe Academy selected "2008 Best Overall Program" is now accepting applications for class #31 starting July 18, 2009.
The Youth ChalleNGe Academy is the premier high school alternative for Mississippi youth who have been unsuccessful in the traditional educational environment.
Offering students 16 to 19 years of age the opportunity to earn an Adult High School Diploma, and if qualified up to 15 semester hours of college through a local university, Nationally Certified Construction skills, Microsoft and OSHA Certifications.
Both males and females are encouraged to apply. There is no cost to the applicant, with the exception of senior portraits, class rings, yearbooks, etc. that are optional.
Call 1-800-507-6253 or visit our website at www.ngycp.org/state/ms.
Lisa Voyles


text:
14 February 2010
In praising a meritorious film, there are a lot of words that we can bandy about, and while ultimately all of them mean something similar, i.e. "Watching this movie was an experience that made me feel like I had spent time well and was better for for it", they aren't all the same. I can and have referred to movies I found tremendously worthwhile as "important", "interesting" or "the best/good", without much thought. But what exactly is a "good" movie? There are a lot of good movies. Most (not all!) of the movies fêted with Oscar nominations are good movies, in that they are built according to an agreed-upon set of rules which make the establishment of narrative and character easy for the viewer to understand, and that according to these rules they are entirely functional and unproblematic. There are other ways we could call a movie "good", of course: it breaks the rules in a way that is coherent and driven towards an end which is achieved successfully; or it furthers a theme which is desirable and satisfying, and it does so without specifically violating any standards of aesthetic.
Now, like I said, a film can also be "interesting", which I personally use in the broadest sense to mean that it does something which is compelling and worthy of further consideration, because it seems like what has happened within the confines of the film is not easily classified or ignored (it is probably a more subjective thing to judge than "goodness"). An interesting film doesn't have to be "good", and a lot of them aren't. But interesting, I think, is generally a more valuable quality to possess, for any thinking viewer: it demands more of the mind and generally leads to more fulfilling thoughts later on, once the initial flush of seeing the movie is gone. Michael Clayton, by any yardstick, is a good movie, that in the main is not very interesting. From the same year, Across the Universe is fantastically interesting, although I'm not uncomfortable with the claim that it's nowhere near as good as the Best Picture nominee.
"Important" would simply mean that a film demands attention and must be grappled with, because understanding what it does promises to unlock not just itself but significant truths about the art form as a whole (in an historical context, "important" can also mean "influential", but that's not what concerns us here).
All of this is a roundabout way of apologising for a lie I've been perpetrating for a while now: I've put together a list that I called "The 100 Best Films of the Decade", and any normal person would take that to mean "The 100 Most-Good Films of the Decade"- because that's exactly what it does mean. In fact, I have really put together a list of "My 100 Favorite Films of the Decade", or better yet, "The 100 Films from the Decade That Had the Greatest Effect on Me, Ranked from Most to Least Affecting". It's a combination of interesting and good and simply how much I liked watching the movie, combined more or less arbitrarily. Which makes the list more personal for a certainty, and hopefully more stimulating.
But, don't think for a moment that I don't know this to be the truth: the 2001 science-fiction fantasy A.I. Artificial Intelligence, which I am brazenly calling one of the best films of the 2000s, isn't. It is a massively broken film; a film that walks up to the edge of outright fiasco, leans its head over, and waves. And by the way, there is absolutely nothing in this life that I adore as much as movies that almost completely fail, but don't actually fail in any one way - for they are by far the most interesting. And A.I. is so particularly interesting given some particulars of its creation, that I shall happily call it "important", maybe even the single most important film of the last ten years. But good, I just don't know, and I just don't care; because a "good" A.I. would be of infinitely less value than the A.I that we have.
(Though I think the claims of the movie's badness are readily overstated; especially the claim that the last act of the film somehow invalidates the rest, or comes after a "false ending", or worst of all, that it's sickly Spielberg sentimentality, a view that is based on on a widespread and totally indefensible misreading of the last scene and nothing else).
Let us revisit the details of this film's origin, because it has been a long time and though the story was everywhere in 2001, not everybody was paying attention: the great Stanley Kubrick had an idea to make a film adapted from Brian Aldiss's story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long", with story adaptation done by a number of people, of whom only Ian Watson was credited. There were significant practical reasons why Kubrick wasn't entirely prepared to take on this project, though, and here enters a filmmaker who had at some point met and befriended Kubrick, Steven Spielberg. The collaboration of one of cinema's great cynics and Hollywood's most eager-to-please showman is hard to believe, all these years later, but it obviously worked for the two men: Kubrick eventually suggested that Spielberg himself take over the Aldiss adaptation, since his rapid shooting schedules, rapport with child actors, and understanding of gooey emotion all seemed necessary to the project's successful execution. When Kubrick died unexpectedly in 1999, Spielberg immediately put the film, which had (I think) by now picked up the name A.I. (Artificial Intelligence came later), as his tribute to the late master. And that gives you enough to go on.
Love or hate either one of the men, it's fair to say that Kubrick and Spielberg are two of the most instantly identifiable auteurs in all the history of cinema; certainly, no collaboration between two filmmakers of such distinctive and antithetical concerns had ever been attempted in all my knowledge. The common idea that A.I. was a Kubrick project that Spielberg took over seems well-contradicted by the known history, and if Kubrick had lived, I think that the film would have ended up being a fairly unambiguous Spielberg movie, with some Kubrickian insights. But he didn't live, and Spielberg, in what was doubtlessly a fit of sentiment, decided not to make a Spielberg movie: he made a Kubrick movie instead, except that he was, at the end of the day, still Spielberg. The result is a profoundly fascinating movie that has, in a sense, no author, although it comes about this by being one of the most author-driven of all Spielberg's films (it is one of only three films for which he received a screenplay credit: the others are Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Poltergeist). It shares elements of both Kubrick's style and Spielberg's; however it is not at all the film that either of them would have, in any normal situation, created. And it's not "the average" of the two directors, either, but an unshapely hybrid that keeps trying to achieve a certain iconic Kubrick-ness that Kubrick himself would surely have avoided in such bald terms, while constantly undercutting itself with flashes of the actual director's panic that he was making something more mature, darker, inhumane, or whatever, than he was comfortable with. It very nearly tears itself apart; but the fact that it doesn't, that in fact it is a coherent and whole story with a thematic arc that can be tracked from first frame to last without a single skip, is in and of itself what makes it such a staggering creation - a staggering achievement, I nearly said, but who really achieved anything? There is my tale.
The fragmentary and highly episodic nature of A.I dictates that one can either give its situation in broad strokes, or in point by point detail, but little else; yet I'm going to try to split the difference: a narrator (Ben Kingsley) tells that a man-made climate catastrophe has left much of the world's coastlines drowned in water, and the governments of the world instituted strict population-control efforts to keep the much-reduced resources in check. As a result, many of society's basic functions are now performed by human-simulacrum robots, called mechas. The film opens with the president of Cybertronics, Professor Hobby (William Hurt), declaring that the need is now obvious for mechas with the ability to mimic familial love, which would of necessity also be mechas which can adapt, learn, and develop self-guided behavior, so far an impossible feat. Months later, his company has created a prototype named David (Haley Joel Osment), designed to look like an eleven-year-old boy. David is given to Cybertronics employee Henry Swinton (Sam Robards) and his wife Monica (Frances O'Connor), whose own child Martin (Jake Thomas) is in an irreversible coma. After much thought, Monica activates David's irreversible love program, shortly before Martin miraculously recovers. The subsequent trauma in the Swinton family leaves Monica to abandon David in the woods, knowing that if she brings him back to Cybertronics, he will be destroyed.
David's only goal is to prove himself worthy of Monica's love, and so, inspired by Collodi's The Adventures of Pinocchio, he embarks on a quest to find the Blue Fairy and become a real boy, aided by the prostitute mecha Gigolo Joe (Jude Law), framed for murder. David and Joe flee a Flesh Fair, where conservative humans destroy mechas as abominations, and eventually track down the possible location of the Blue Fairy, leading them to Cybertronics, where Hobby is ecstatic over David's development, and unwisely allows David to discover a roomful of perfect replicas of himself. He flees Cybertronics and ends up in the submerged ruins of Coney Island, where he finds himself face to face with a statue of the Blue Fairy in the park's Pinocchio garden. For 2000 years he stares at her, entreating, and eventually he is rescued by super-advanced mechas that have been looking through the arctic wastes of the Earth for any traces of the long-lost human civilization.
The simple meaning is that this is a film about love driving an individual to quixotic ends. That's the easy part. The exact nature of that story, including what it means specifically, is a real mess to figure out, because of the inherent tension between the Kubrick-meaning of the story and the Spielberg-meaning. Sentiment dictates that we read David as a tragic hero, beautifully pursuing the only thing that matters, love; and this is a reading borne out by several incidental details throughout the movie, but it also simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The darkest possible reading of A.I., and not for that reason the one that I tend to favor, is that it is a story about determinism, because as much as Spielberg apparently wants it to be otherwise, David is not a free agent. He does not love Monica and pursue her approval because it is his will to do so; he is compelled to love Monica for reasons that he cannot control, and by the same token he cannot ever allow another impulse to trump his love for Monica. He is, in effect, a purely obsessed being, and this is the one point, oddly enough, where Kubrick and Spielberg overlap; both of them show a healthy tradition of obsessed protagonists, though Spielberg seems to forgive or not even notice this trait, particularly in Close Encounters, in which the "hero" is so obsessed that he terrorises and then abandons his family in pursuit of a childish whim (to be fair, in later years Spielberg came to recognise this as the "accurate" reading of that film).
What looks like it ought to be a tribute to filial piety is absolutely nothing of the sort: it is a faintly horrifying tale of self-destruction as complete as anything in either director's canon, and I think the best way to sum up David's arc is that, for all the times I've watched the movie, I still don't know which of three possible moments is the one where he has his irrevocable psychotic break with reality - the possibility that he doesn't have a psychotic break is almost not worth mentioning. My tendency is to favor the scene where he discovers the only other functioning David in the movie, and goes positively apeshit, destroying the other mecha in a violent, shocking scene that is much the most disturbing moment in a film; it encapsulates the pure rage of a being whose sense of identity, based on his perfect uniqueness, has been shattered, and shows how his response that realisation is to attempt what amounts to a form of suicide (in this scene, it must be noted, "our" David keeps swinging his weapon in the air long after the other David has been decimated, attacking- what? The way the scene reads to me is that he's swinging so energetically and wickedly that it's as though he's hoping that he'll fly apart himself).
The film's insistence on the horrifying conundrum David faces, that he is a thinking, feeling entity that cannot ever get away from that single, unfulfillable emotional need, is a constant, and not even very subtle; and that brings me to the final scene, probably the most contentious moment in the film. The future mechas explain in some unfathomable technobabble that they can bring Monica back to life, with her memories and personality intact, for one day; at the end of that time, she will die again, permanently and the essence of her being lost to the cosmos. They propose this as a means to placate David, so that he will help them in their anthropological efforts; he just wants, badly, to see his Mommy again. They bring Monica to life, and she and David have the perfect day, that seems to give him the feeling of being a real boy, and this is often read as Spielberg's forced happy ending (it was, by all accounts, present in Kubrick's treatments). Despite the fact that: David is probably quite insane by now; Monica is going to die; the whole sequence pushes every last creepy Oedipal button possible it can, right up to the fact that when Monica dies, she's lying in bed next to David. There are no comforting overtones to this scene other than the narrator's puffy statement about "the place where dreams are born", which reads something like irony given the rest of his speech, which describes Monica's death in storybook terms and implies that David is either dead or completely shattered as a personality. I genuinely don't think Spielberg intended for this reading, but that doesn't mean it's not there, and there seems to be no possible way around the conclusion that we've just watch a man plunge finally into the abyss, with only his appearance as a child (a fake child, at that) to distract us from the nihilistic urgency of this fact. This ending, in which David's obsession finally obliterates his self, is the proper ending to the story that has been building all along, not the potentially trendy, rather more playfully nasty ending where he's trapped forever on the bottom of the ocean, that several people seem to think would be the best place to stop to movie.
Incidentally, about those future mechas and their plans for David; it's a fact that doesn't seem to get enough attention that every figure who interacts with the boy does so for their own ends. Henry and Monica want a son, and while Monica plainly feels a lot of guilt about what she does later, they don't seem to waste a lot of time discarding him when he becomes difficult, rather than spending time trying to understand his needs, like you would with an actual child. Gigolo Joe uses David as a ward to keep off the police. Hobby is so pleased by David's functional achievements that he completely fails to realise that as a direct result of those achievements, the mecha has become a sentient entity to be counseled, not a machine to be exploited. The future mechas pretty much just view him as a walking, interactive museum exhibit, and they're willing to grant him what is clearly the unhealthiest wish in the world in order to get what they want out of him. The whole universe is lined up to objectify and exploit David, in essence; that's a level of fatalist cynicism that even Kubrick didn't ordinarily wallow in, more the territory of Ingmar Bergman in his really dark moods.
In contrast to all this bleak nihilism, Spielberg (I assume noticing that his material was getting away from him: nobody can be quite that unaware) keeps ducking back to his comfort zone, trying to find ways to add sentiment to a brutally unsentimental story. In keeping with his most characteristic work, the Swinton's home (I'd call it suburban, except that word seems to lack meaning in the A.I. universe) is a beacon of domestic peace that is quite literally equated with heaven, as an object of the pilgrim's progress and then at the end as the place where he ends up after he dies. The final act keeps placing odd notions about human beings as great dreamers and achievers into the mouths of the future mechas, sentiments that the film apparently agrees with, but which stands at stark odds to every last frame of the middle act (what we might call the "Gigolo Joe" portion of the story, since it is almost precisely defined by his entrance and exit). And in keeping with his treatment of child actors all the way back to the 1970s, Spielberg seems hellbent on making David seem a perfect innocent, framing him like a delicate, sympathetic, lovable being - thankfully, Osment seems much more aware of the needs of the material than his director and gives a performance that mostly scuttles Spielberg's sentimental attachment to childhood. Indeed, Osment's performance not only seems impossibly complex for even the most precocious of twelve-year-olds, I'd hesitate not one instant in calling it one of the finest performances, male or female, of the whole decade. It's physical flawless - there's not a single moment when he doesn't remind us in some subtle way that he's playing a robot - and pitched at exactly the right level, so that even David's sweetest, most affectionate moments have a somewhat indescribable aura of uncanniness and dread about them.
Now, this inherent tension between the way that Spielberg wants to tell the story (as Kubrick reincarnated) and the way that all his instincts as a commercial filmmaker demand that he tells the story (I didn't really delve into that enough, sorry - but Christ, this is a long review, don't you think?) could certainly mean that it's a failure and a wreck that doesn't know if it's coming or going, and if someone watched the film - really watched it, in good faith - and still felt that it was those things, I would concede that I can't really argue against matters of taste. But this tension could also mean that A.I. is the single most fascinating case study in 115 years of cinema on exactly what "authorship" means - a film made by one of the strongest proofs of auteur theory currently working that paradoxically seems to knock all the pins out from underneath the mere idea of auteur theory. Kubrick obviously didn't make A.I., but in a very real sense Spielberg didn't either; he shepherded it, and it clearly got away from him quite often.
Still, the film is not at all as dark as I've probably made it out: for all that Spielberg eschews the usual tricks of his trade, the warm glows and awe-filled onlookers that make his movies such friendly spectacles (there aren't but a dozen or so quintessentially Spielbergian shots, and the director's collaboration with the endlessly experimenting Janusz Kaminski here yielded some frames with enough objective chilliness that they might even fit in a Kubrick film - indeed, a goodly number of images seem to be deliberate quotes of Kubrick), he can't embrace the dark contours of this cruel utilitarian universe - not though Osment clearly jumps right in, and not though the reliably Romantic John Williams graced A.I. with the least typical score of his career, a jerky, borderline-atonal soundscape that leaves one feeling hollow far more often than comforted. He pulls back, constantly, and the one time he fully embraces the terrifying potential of the story, the result is the horror film-inflected Flesh Fair - by far the film's worst scene, jangling, loud and mostly pointless, with Holocaust overtones that are breathtakingly inappropriate, especially from this filmmaker of all filmmakers. Though, for what it's worth, I think without pushing himself into the darkness of this story, and try as he might to keep from allowing his sentiment to gush out, was the act of personal discipline necessary to permit Spielberg to make the run of such intriguingly mature films as he did throughout the rest of the decade.
The insistent Spielbergian overtones that keep butting in are what makes A.I. a mess, but its messiness is what makes it absolutely essential. Damning it for its failings is sufficient, I guess, if you just wanted to read it as a sci-fi narrative about the moral nature of artificial life, because superficially, that's exactly what A.I. is and how it has been read; but honestly, even as a lover of sci-fi, I can't call it particularly groundbreaking in that regard (David is plainly little more than HAL-9000's grandson). I don't agree that it's a failed sci-fi movie, mind you. But its generic concerns are secondary to that thing I mentioned up top - that "interesting" thing - precisely because it is such a patchwork quilt, A.I. almost can't be exhausted: its revelations about the intentional fallacy give way to its troubling narrative of free will which in turn raises questions about the interaction of script and the visual and from there we have to wonder whether lighting or framing or POV is the "key" element of a shot and thence...
Of all the films of this decade, and by all means there are plenty that I like watching a great deal more, there's probably not another one that I've found so perfectly rewarding to watch and re-watch. Ultimately, it's impossible to make sense of it, but it so woozy and rich with possibilities, both narrative and extra-narrative, that it always feels like that very next try is the one that's going to do it; it is the one film of the decade that completely, if accidentally, averts any possibility of a solution. It is itself; hypnotic and draining and frustrating and like nothing else ever made.
11 comments:
- The Caustic Ignostic said...
I considered this film an utter failure when I saw it theatrically, and have had no desire to revisit it. However, it has appeared on so many Best of the 2000s lists, I feel strangely compelled to seek it out again, finally.
It does have, I should say, a quite awesome poster tagline.
- Chris at Curve Productions Inc. said...
Thank you Tim. Thank you! You've managed to articulate what I've long felt about this film. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to defend A.I., and this crystallizes exactly what it is about the film (which, next to Empire of the Sun, is probably my favourite Spielberg film) that makes it so great!
- Stephen said...
I've wanted to revisit this film for some time, since I was 13 when it came out and not really capable of viewing it in the terms you say it requires, and this review solidifies that desire.
- KingKubrick said...
Spot on review! Of course I loved this movie (read the name-its my favourite spielberg and in my top ten of the decade). But you hit on something that i never thought of before spielberg's work on A.I. definitely influenced his latter films, which I like them infinitely more (not kingdom though...never kingdom. Excellent review. Kubrick was a genius!
- Zev Valancy said...
I'd have added "Incredibly Unpleasant Films" to the tags for this story--when I saw this film on its initial release ( I was 15), it absolutely ruined my day, and several after. The film's view of love as destructive to the one loving, and its success at making me like David, made it utterly wrenching for me to watch then. I might have to watch it again to see it as a film; at the time I hated it for how awful it made me feel.
- Aye-K said...
Tim, I think you have just written your best ever review...
I watched A.I many times over (one of my favorite 'interesting' movies) and have never been able to explain, with your level of eloquence, why I like it so much.
Now, I'll just send them this link:)
- javi75 said...
I remember the first time I watched this, on dvd. I thought it was like nothing Spielberg had done before, and I liked it a lot. It was a pleasant surprise. Although I didn't grasp half the story ideas and interpretations you do.
- Densua said...
At the (one and only) time I watched this movie, I sensed subconsciously more than recognised consciously its dark meaning. I walked out of the cinema thinking 'Man, that boy was creeeeeepy' and my mind kept turning over and over again at the thought of him never really quite getting what he wanted even though he superficially and momentarily sort of did. How sad, I thought. How utterly tragic. How miserable and not at all like ET! And then I forgot all about the movie until just now, when you so eloquently crystalised my thoughts in black and white. Christ, that was long indeed, but Christ that was a satisfying read!
- the22on said...
Great, thoughtful review of the great movie, A.I. I grew up with 2001, so I'm hyper-aware of the HAL9000 connection. I consider those 2 movies to be my favs of all time. I take issue with just one point - is David an obsessed computer? If you study 2001, you learn that HAL went mad because of a defense department programming change made on him just before the Jupiter mission. (He was programmed to lie to the crew about the real purpose of the mission. This conflicted with his core program to "never distort information"). David, however, had no such program change or conflict. His purpose was to love (at least simulate love). Remember what Prof. Hobby said: that David would achieve self-awareness similar to a person through "an inner world of metaphor". In short, David is the first robot to think like a human and have free will. Hobby is even amazed that David achieved this goal. David attacks the other David, not in a 'psychotic break', but in an ego-defense of his own identity. (to get a bit Freudian). David acted like most any child would who thought he was being marginalized or replaced - with rage. Therefore, I think David fulfilled his objective at the end. Ge went through his own Star Gate and emerged exactly as Hobby wanted him - a happy, fulfilled child 0 more human that he ever thought possible.
- Scott said...
Well, it certainly is a film that deserves a long review.
I think a key characteristic of Spielberg is not sentimentality but empathy, and its the combination of rigour (heading to some very dark conclusions) with empathy that makes this film so affecting.
Like Zev, I found watching this the first time completely devastating, and it took quite a few years before I felt up to facing it again! I'm still not sure if I "like" AI, but it certainly fulfils the criteria of "interesting", and even "important".
- absolutezero said...
Great piece!! I agree with every single thing you've written here. Although the "typical ending" should have been at the Blue Fairy, I'm also a big fan of the "epilogue". Having said that, I could easily go in and trim 30 minutes from the entire thing. I'm not sure we need the entire "Gigolo Joe" story. Does it matter that he's a sex robot framed for murder? Could he not have been simply the mecha that David attached himself to (or vice versa)? I would also lose the narration at the very end.


text:
HYATTSVILLE, Md. -- DeMatha's Deonte Holden is a 'tweener' linebacker/defensive end. With an handful of offers he still hopes to get one from Terps.
VIDEO: DeMathas Holden working towards UMD offer
Premium Content
Subscribe today to read the full article and get everything Rivals has to offer.
- Member-only message boards
- Exclusive highlights and recruiting interviews
- Exclusive coverage of Rivals Camp Series
- Breaking recruiting news


text:
Did you miss me?
OK, time for true confessions. I've been off being lazy and partying all through Mardi Gras and the parties that followed. It all started with the bo-bo finger and just slid into all out sloth. But, hey, it's LENT and now I'm back! Time to fess up and get back on the 'straight and narrow' (whatever the heck that means).
So, last Sunday was one of the great events of the year in my family: the Old Metairie St. Patrick's Day parade. We used to ride in it when I was a child with our great friends (might as well be cousins) the McGregor family. My dad, Red Brennan, and my parran, Mr. Mac, would lead the party which usually resulted in my Dad rolling on the floor - literally - of our homemade float and all of us "rolling on the floor" laughing. Great times.
My parents also used to have a great St. Patrick's Day party, here at the house in which I live - in which The Brennan family lived. There would be plenty of booze and food and live Irish music by 'Nick Benninati & The Leprechauns.' Picture Louis Prima singing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling." Capiche?
So, Friday, we're throwing a big "St. Patty meets St. Joseph" party over here. It works out because Friday is actually the day AFTER St. Patrick's and the day BEFORE St. Joseph's. It really works because Italian food is much tastier than Irish. Oatmeal or Lasagna - you decide.
Actually, I was going to do Shepherd's Pie for the party but then my husband pointed out that it's a Friday in Lent so, no meat. Nevermind. So, I'm going to make my Mamma's Baked Spaghetti, a nice green salad, garlic bread and cheese pizza for the kids. Everybody eats well, and nobody has to go to confession.
Mamma's Baked Spaghetti
1 pound of boiled spaghetti
6 eggs
Milk (or cream if you want to be decadent)
grated cheddar cheese
My mom would make this with leftover spaghetti and it was awesome. It's great on its own with a veggie or as a side dish to something like sliced roast beef with rich brown gravy or anything in red sauce. Anyway, take a large oven-proof casserole (9x12 at least), spray with cooking spray. Now put the spaghetti in and spread it out evenly. In a bowl, crack the eggs and add milk to double the egg volume. In other words, same amount of milk as your eggs. Whisk that all together. Now add your seasonings. My mom kept it simple with salt and lots of pepper (the way I like it!). I always add a pinch or two of nutmeg - not enough to really taste but enough to give it depth. You can also add your favorite seasoning blend and/or herbs. Dill would be delicious! Whisk again. Now pour that all over your spaghetti till it's almost to the top but leave some room to put a layer of cheese. First, take a spoon and make little holes here and there throughout the dish and 'poke' some cheese down in those so you get cheese throughout. Finally top the whole thing off with another layer of grated cheese over the top. Bake at 350 for about 45 minutes - checking it once around 30 minutes. You want the custard to be 'set' but not dried out.
So our party's on the 18th of March - smack in the middle of St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) and St. Joseph's Day (March 19th). It's no wonder Irish and Italians party together so much! And it's a good match: we've got the drinking thing covered and they've got the food.
We'll think of you all on Friday night: The McConnells, The Brennans and The McGregors - when we're singing along with Bing Crosby or Louis Prima, dressed in our finest shamrocks with a glass of green beer in one hand and red wine in the other!
Questions? Comments? Please email me at email@example.com
Please pray for the people of Japan.


text:
The head of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, Ahmed Jabri, was killed by an Israeli missile.
Jabri and a passenger were killed late Wednesday afternoon when the car in which they were driving in Gaza was hit in what Israeli military officials called a "surgical strike." The passenger was Jabri's son, according to Yediot Achronot, though it was not confirmed by other sources.
Jabri was directly responsible for carrying out terrorist attacks against Israel for the past several years, the Israel Defense Forces said in a statement.
"The purpose of this operation was to severely impair the command and control chain of the Hamas leadership, as well as its terrorist infrastructure," the statement said. "This was a surgical operation in cooperation with the Israeli Security Agency that was implemented on the basis of concrete intelligence and using advanced capabilities."
Hamas' armed wing, the Izz al-Dinn Al-Qassam Brigades, reportedly said in a statement following the attack, "The occupation has opened the gates of hell on itself."
The strike came after four days of rocket fire from Gaza terrorist groups on southern Israel. More than 150 rockets are reported to have been fired from Gaza, causing damage to homes and factories.
Jabri was filmed escorting captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who was held hostage in Gaza for more than five years, when he was handed over to Egypt last year on his way back to Israel.
Last Update:
Comment Guidelines
The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.


text:
Standard License
Small JPEG
700 x 700 pixels
Medium JPEG
1400 x 1400 pixels
Large JPEG
3900 x 3900 pixels
Vector EPS
Editable Vector File
Extended License
Merchandise License
Use in items for resale
Up to 10,000 copies
Ultimate License
Use in items for resale
Unlimited copies
Image Information
Vector illustration with schoolchildren and school elements. Question marks, sun and clouds on background.
book, boy, cheerful, child, childhood, children, classroom, cute, education, elementary, friendship, fun, girl, group, happiness, human, knowledge, laughing, lecture, lesson, little, people, person, preschool, reading, school, schoolboy, schoolgirl, small, smiling, student, studying, subject, teenagers
By Oliycka
Image ID: 1694052
Added: August 15, 2012
This item is in the GL Collection.


text:
Tesla To Release 'Twisted Wires & The Acoustic Sessions' On July 12
Rock group Tesla will be releasing Twisted Wires and The Acoustic Sessions on July 12th.
The album will feature 6 tracks that were recorded back in 2005 at bassist Brian Wheat's J STREET RECORDERS studio (which are the last recordings with original member Tommy Skeoch) and 6 newly recorded tracks which include acoustic remakes of songs from their entire catalog and two brand new songs called "Second Street" and "Better Off Without You." Twisted Wires and The Acoustic Sessions is the follow up to 2008's Forever More.
2011 also marks the 25th anniversary of the band! To stay updated on everything Tesla visit their Official Site and Facebook page.
Official site: www.teslatheband.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/teslatheband
Youtube: www.youtube.com/teslatheband


text:
- {{matchup.date.fullday}}{{matchup.date.month + ' ' + matchup.date.day}}
Miami vs San Diego Game Final 4-1 - Mark Buehrle Earns Win
Miami got a 4-1 victory over San Diego on Saturday, with Mark Buehrle earning the victory and helping Marlins moneyline bettors cash out.
The Marlins were a -118 favorite in the win. The combined score dipped UNDER the total, which closed at 6.5.
Mark Buehrle earned the victory for the Marlins, throwing 9 innings of work, striking out 3, walking 2, and allowing 5 hits and 1 earned run. That effort was supported by 2 RBIs from Omar Infante in the win.
San Diego got a 7-inning outing from Clayton Richard in the loss. He gave up 3 earned runs, 1 walk and 9 hits in his time on the mound, while Jesus Guzman had 2 hits in the loss for the Padres.
Miami outhit their counterparts 11-5 in the game.