Re: HIT Q&A - Matt Brzycki

[Guest guest]

Dr. Siff: Is there a certain protocol/protocols that you follow for your own

training? I would love to have an example. You have been around, and with

your experience, just a nutshell would be appreciated. It still sounds like

there is a personal issue involved when there is a H.I.T. advocate (ie. Matt

Brzycki, Ken Hutchins, Dr. Doug McGuff, Ellington Darden, and Arthur ).

[if you would like to gather some idea about my training methods (which change

from time to time), then reading this Supertraining list and my " Supertraining "

book will help. Attending one of my Supertraining Camps or one of our joint

Westside-Supertraining Camps will provide even more details.

Whenever any of us make provide any in-depth searching scientific and logical

critiques of any fitness material, especially by certain gurus, we are

invariably

accused of having some sort of personal agenda. This is total and utter

nonsense

-- as scientists, we have learned that critical analysis, constant questioning

and

genuine proof were necessary if any theories or claims are presented as being

fact or law. My criticism is of the information, the claims, the hype - in

short,

what is known as the " message " in communication - NOT the messenger. Quite

frankly, it makes no difference to me if a family member, the Pope, the Queen

of England or Isaac Newton puts forth any dubious claims -- I will apply the

same

rules of critical analysis. I have evaluated certain HIT ideas, but not the

messengers,

-- how could I? I haven't even met most of them or spoken to them? The only

one of

the above people whom I have met is Ellington and he is a very pleasant and

likeable

man. Mel Siff]

We (H.I.T.) advocates, I'd have to say, are a very small percentage of a

small percentage of the total " weight training " population. H.I.T. is much

closer to the Olympic Lifting/ Powerlifting set that many realize.

[since all HIT Jedi are vehemently opposed to ballistic, explosive and

Weightlifting

methods, please explain how HIT methods are that close to Weightlifting and

Powerlifting. For a start, it is totally impossible to execute either of the

'Olympic'

lifts without use of ballistic or explosive actions. Next, lifters very

rarely, if ever,

would feel inclined to do multiple rep sets to failure. The average set length

among

'Olympic' lifters is between 2-3 (according to studies of programs of thousands

of lifters at all levels above novice). I haven't noticed that any HIT programs

rely

on sets that are between 1-3 reps long and never done to fatigue. Mel Siff]

There was a parallel of both at York back in the early 60's and even before

that. Both

were Olympic Style Lifts and early H.I.T. were both practised simultaneously

at York since its inception in the late 1920's. I'd have to say producing

world champions (sport elite)? has far more to do with being born with those

freakish advantages, rather than being made. It is easy for one to make

statements to that effect, but the variables being what they are, reliability

of definitions, observations, and controls, well are just too elusive.

[All athletes in all sports require certain genetic features and potential to

be able to become excellent performers, but, without appropriate training,

all the potential in the universe will not make you a winner! Mel Siff]

Being that I am new to these posts, from what I gather, the world champions that

you speak of have been widely exposed to protocols that you are in favor of -

which is Olympic Style Lifting - which in practice has delivered more " agony

of defeat " injuries, than any can ever realize. Again, correct me if I am

wrong, because I am not sure of your given strength training protocol. Maybe

you can clear this up. Your writings are always brilliant.

[Even if I showed you my training journal, it would be of no special value to

you

or anyone else, because it has been designed to suit me and nobody else. Just

as

it is inappropriate to judge all bodybuilding by Arnie's methods, Bill Pearl's

or any other specific bodybuilder, it is equally inappropriate to judge

weightlifting

or martial arts training by what I do at any given stage of my life. That is

why

I have written books on strength training to provide a fairly broad scientific

and practical

framework for anyone who would like to devise his/her own program.

You simply will have to read " Supertraining " - no serious lifters ever rely on

one

regime over any extended period, but change the content, intensity, volume,

density,

supplementary exercises to suit each microcycle, mesocycle, macrocycle and

Olympic

cycle. Then, as the lifter progresses to a higher level of qualification, the

intensity

(i.e. mean percentage of 1RM) has to increase and different complexes and

combinations

have to be applied to suit each individual. If you read what I have written

about HIT,

plyometrics, isometrics, accentuated eccentrics, yoga, flexibility training,

etc, you

should have noticed that I have commented that each one of these methods may

play a

valid role at certain stages of the long-term training programme, but none of

them

is universally most appropriate at all stages. Unlike HIT Jedi, I do not simply

proclaim

that certain methods are totally useless, but that the well-balanced coach has

the ability

to select a variety of methods to optimally suit a given athlete at a given

time.

I am not quite sure what you mean by " Olympic Style Lifting - which in practice

has

delivered more " agony of defeat " injuries, than any can ever realize. " If you

are stating

that OL is responsible for huge numbers of injuries, this is not borne out by

epidemiological

studies (see " World Weightlifting " and " International Olympic Lifter "

magazines). Mel Siff]

Landau

Aventura, Florida

[Guest guest]

Dr. Siff: Is there a certain protocol/protocols that you follow for your own

training? I would love to have an example. You have been around, and with

your experience, just a nutshell would be appreciated. It still sounds like

there is a personal issue involved when there is a H.I.T. advocate (ie. Matt

Brzycki, Ken Hutchins, Dr. Doug McGuff, Ellington Darden, and Arthur ).

[if you would like to gather some idea about my training methods (which change

from time to time), then reading this Supertraining list and my " Supertraining "

book will help. Attending one of my Supertraining Camps or one of our joint

Westside-Supertraining Camps will provide even more details.

Whenever any of us make provide any in-depth searching scientific and logical

critiques of any fitness material, especially by certain gurus, we are

invariably

accused of having some sort of personal agenda. This is total and utter

nonsense

-- as scientists, we have learned that critical analysis, constant questioning

and

genuine proof were necessary if any theories or claims are presented as being

fact or law. My criticism is of the information, the claims, the hype - in

short,

what is known as the " message " in communication - NOT the messenger. Quite

frankly, it makes no difference to me if a family member, the Pope, the Queen

of England or Isaac Newton puts forth any dubious claims -- I will apply the

same

rules of critical analysis. I have evaluated certain HIT ideas, but not the

messengers,

-- how could I? I haven't even met most of them or spoken to them? The only

one of

the above people whom I have met is Ellington and he is a very pleasant and

likeable

man. Mel Siff]

We (H.I.T.) advocates, I'd have to say, are a very small percentage of a

small percentage of the total " weight training " population. H.I.T. is much

closer to the Olympic Lifting/ Powerlifting set that many realize.

[since all HIT Jedi are vehemently opposed to ballistic, explosive and

Weightlifting

methods, please explain how HIT methods are that close to Weightlifting and

Powerlifting. For a start, it is totally impossible to execute either of the

'Olympic'

lifts without use of ballistic or explosive actions. Next, lifters very

rarely, if ever,

would feel inclined to do multiple rep sets to failure. The average set length

among

'Olympic' lifters is between 2-3 (according to studies of programs of thousands

of lifters at all levels above novice). I haven't noticed that any HIT programs

rely

on sets that are between 1-3 reps long and never done to fatigue. Mel Siff]

There was a parallel of both at York back in the early 60's and even before

that. Both

were Olympic Style Lifts and early H.I.T. were both practised simultaneously

at York since its inception in the late 1920's. I'd have to say producing

world champions (sport elite)? has far more to do with being born with those

freakish advantages, rather than being made. It is easy for one to make

statements to that effect, but the variables being what they are, reliability

of definitions, observations, and controls, well are just too elusive.

[All athletes in all sports require certain genetic features and potential to

be able to become excellent performers, but, without appropriate training,

all the potential in the universe will not make you a winner! Mel Siff]

Being that I am new to these posts, from what I gather, the world champions that

you speak of have been widely exposed to protocols that you are in favor of -

which is Olympic Style Lifting - which in practice has delivered more " agony

of defeat " injuries, than any can ever realize. Again, correct me if I am

wrong, because I am not sure of your given strength training protocol. Maybe

you can clear this up. Your writings are always brilliant.

[Even if I showed you my training journal, it would be of no special value to

you

or anyone else, because it has been designed to suit me and nobody else. Just

as

it is inappropriate to judge all bodybuilding by Arnie's methods, Bill Pearl's

or any other specific bodybuilder, it is equally inappropriate to judge

weightlifting

or martial arts training by what I do at any given stage of my life. That is

why

I have written books on strength training to provide a fairly broad scientific

and practical

framework for anyone who would like to devise his/her own program.

You simply will have to read " Supertraining " - no serious lifters ever rely on

one

regime over any extended period, but change the content, intensity, volume,

density,

supplementary exercises to suit each microcycle, mesocycle, macrocycle and

Olympic

cycle. Then, as the lifter progresses to a higher level of qualification, the

intensity

(i.e. mean percentage of 1RM) has to increase and different complexes and

combinations

have to be applied to suit each individual. If you read what I have written

about HIT,

plyometrics, isometrics, accentuated eccentrics, yoga, flexibility training,

etc, you

should have noticed that I have commented that each one of these methods may

play a

valid role at certain stages of the long-term training programme, but none of

them

is universally most appropriate at all stages. Unlike HIT Jedi, I do not simply

proclaim

that certain methods are totally useless, but that the well-balanced coach has

the ability

to select a variety of methods to optimally suit a given athlete at a given

time.

I am not quite sure what you mean by " Olympic Style Lifting - which in practice

has

delivered more " agony of defeat " injuries, than any can ever realize. " If you

are stating

that OL is responsible for huge numbers of injuries, this is not borne out by

epidemiological

studies (see " World Weightlifting " and " International Olympic Lifter "

magazines). Mel Siff]

Landau

Aventura, Florida

[Guest guest]

Brzycki:

While HIT may have evolved since first becoming popular in the

early 1970s, the fundamental principles have remained the same.

That said, HIT is not and has never been " one set of 8-12 reps on a

Nautilus machine. " There are countless interpretations, variations

and applications of HIT, with many strength and fitness

professionals incorporating their own personal twists and

perspectives. Any type of weight training - including HIT -

will be effective provided that it encourages progressive overload

of the muscles and provides for adequate recovery.

** I may be misinformed here, but according to Matt, due to the

various " interpretations, variations and applications of HIT " ,

it would seem that HIT can be approached through high volume, sub

maximal repetitions, high repetitions, periodization etc. - just as

long as progressive overload is achieved.

Since there are so many variations and he hasn't accurately defined what HIT is

really about, would it not be fair to say that it's in the eye of the beholder?

Does an entirely separate, distinct regime like HIT even really exist?

Maki Riddington

Vancouver, B.C.

www.wannabebig.com

---------------

Carruthers sited this article from MD:

Brzycki:

> One of the many misconceptions about HIT is that it is " one set and only one

> set. " While most versions of HIT involve one set of each exercise, there

> are multiple-set applications (although the multiple sets are of much lower

> volume than found in traditional programming). Since 1982, I've had the

> opportunity to oversee the training of thousands of Division I collegiate

> athletes who competed in almost every sport imaginable from football and

> basketball to lacrosse and squash. Without exception, the programs that I

> prescribed for all of them involved HIT methods.

>

> Mel Siff:

>

> *** Note the word " involved " . This implies that other methods of training

> were also involved, which is something that many HIT folk have ever been

> unwilling to appreciate. Almost every athlete thus may attribute a major

> part of improvement in performance to some or other favourite component of

> the overall training process. For some, it will be HIT, for others it will

> be plyos, fartlek, Pilates, yoga, dropping bench presses, ball training and

> so forth. If HIT is to be identified as the best way of training for any

> sport, then proof has to be furnished that other adjunct training methods

> have not played any significant role in the overall conditioning process.

>

> MD: Do you follow the HIT principles in your general conditioning of athletes

> (i.e., one sprint rather than repetitive sprinting/drills)?

Brzycki:

> The training variables used in conditioning aren't necessarily identical to

> those used in strength training. My approach to conditioning -- both

> aerobic and anaerobic does employ basic concepts and applications similar

> to that of HIT. However, attempting to compare or equate one set of an

> exercise to one repetition of a sprint/drill as suggested by this question

> is ridiculous. In order to produce improvement, it is essential that any

> type of physical training whether it is for strength, conditioning, skill

> or flexibility incorporate the Overload Principle. Similar to HIT, the

> conditioning workouts that I advocate are relatively brief in the case of

> conditioning, usually 20 -30 minutes per workout -- and involve highly

> aggressive, all-out efforts for a designated duration or distance.....

Mel Siff:

> *** This is indeed a valid criticism about the use of an exclusive exercise,

> a situation which occurs in many of the one vs many set studies. So far, all

> of the reviews and later studies comparing these two mini-approaches to

> training simply emphasize one thing - namely that the subtle and gross

> differences which are found in almost all cases do not allow one to reach any

> definitive performance conclusions. The one set studies are suggestive that

> this style of training, like any other system of abbreviated training, can

> produce improvements in non-competitive strength and hypertrophy in the

> short-term. They certainly have never show that they are equally effective

> for all levels of person for long periods of time, especially for elite

> athletes, where empirically these athletes have long ago discovered that such

> trivial levels of stress will never be adequate to significantly enhance top

> level performance.............

Brzycki:

> First, legitimate scientific evidence should be peer-reviewed, not

> pal-reviewed. Indeed, some studies have design flaws that would not be

> worthy of a passing grade in a high school science project yet they somehow

> passed the supposed peer-review process of a scientific journal. Second, I

> don't know of any HIT proponent who has said that HIT is " more effective "

> than traditional methods of training. Any study that has been conducted in

> a scientifically acceptable manner and is void of any researcher bias has

> shown that -- without exception -- there are no significant differences

> between single-set (or low-volume) training and multiple-set (or

> high-volume) training.

Siff:

> *** Brzycki has had most of us fooled - HIT folk certainly have created the

> impression that no other method of training is comparable and they almost

> unanimously condemn the use of any method which involves fast, ballistic or

> explosive methods, especially any movement which may be even vaguely related

> to the 'Olympic' style lifts and their variations. He, for one, has

> categorically stated that the latter methods are inherently inferior and more

> dangerous than HIT - stating that something or someone is inferior is the

> same as staying that another thing or person is superior. Whom does he think

> he is fooling?

>

> His remark about studies being " peer-reviewed, not pal-reviewed " suggests

> that he knows little about the peer-review process - the studies are sent

> without name or any identifying clues about the author to a collection of

> people from different institutions, often in different countries. Often, the

> journal concerned makes a point of sending your paper to others who have

> diametrically different views on the subject. The first time that you know

> who wrote a paper that you reviewed is when it actually appears in print.

>

> In stating that " there are no significant differences between single-set (or

> low-volume) training and multiple-set (or high-volume) training " , he is very

> conveniently forgetting that " volume " is not necessarily an accurate

> determinant in comparing any studies, because volume is meant to be an

> indicator of total work done. Thus, if studies are to be compared, then one

> needs to examine factors such as intensity (maximum and mean load or force

> involved) and 'volume' (total work done).........

>

> I am the first to agree with Brzycki about the many flaws or weaknesses in

> academic studies, so I will then have to stress the evidence which so far is

> apparent in competitive quantitative sports. In elite sport, the clear

> evidence is that the vast majority of international athletes rely to any

> significant extent on HIT methods for their training, especially in those

> countries which have dominated these sports for many decades.

>

> Despite his vociferous condemnation of ballistic, explosive, 'Olympic' style

> or 'periodised' strength training methods, the facts speak very clearly for

> themselves - those athletes who have placed large reliance on such methods

> have by far dominated international sport, especially in quantitative and

> individual sports. The other very important fact is this - if HIT were

> really that especially effective in enhancing the motor and fitness qualities

> required for top-level sport, you can be sure that the Eastern Europeans and

> Russians would have experimented with it and implemented it post haste in

> their efforts to rule world sport - but they did not. To any competitive

> athlete, coach or sports executive committee, this speaks louder than any

> laboratory studies, marketing claims or beliefs.

>

> Here is one useful review study that HIT proponents could carry out without

> the need for any sophisticated or costly laboratory equipment - just let them

> run through a list of the world champions and record holders in a selection

> of quantitative sports over the past 20 years and let us know which ones

> relied heavily on HIT methods to reach the top.

>

> It is very easy to make all sorts of claims about footballers, basketballers,

> baseballers, hockey players and other team sport players as examples of HIT

> success, but we all know that their training relies on several methods of

> conditioning, changes over time, personal preferences and so on, so that

> performances from those examples can hardly be deemed to be scientific or

> accurate.

>

> So, let's stop arguing about our favourite and most detested scientists,

> studies and coaches -- let's see those results from the world of sport where

> superiority is incontrovertibly measured in terms of times, loads and

> distances. Since HIT and other methods of strength training are centrally

> concerned with strength conditioning, why don't we even focus our initial

> attention on the sports in which measurable strength output plays the

> dominant role in success or failure - namely Weightlifting and Powerlifting?

> How many world champions and world record holders in these sports have used

> HIT training as their main form of conditioning? We can then move onto

> sports which require speed and power, like track and field, but let's not

> challenge the HIT gurus that much to start the ball rolling!.........

>

> Let's simply see the results without all the emotive and often insulting

> commentaries! As the old sage once said: " Actions speak louder than words. "

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote:

<I am not quite sure what you mean by " Olympic Style Lifting - which in

practice has delivered more " agony of defeat " injuries, than any can ever

realize. " If

you are stating that OL is responsible for huge numbers of injuries, this is not

borne out

by epidemiological studies (see " World Weightlifting " and " International Olympic

Lifter "

magazines). >

** Having trained many athletes and regular people, I would suggest that this

makes a good area for study. Most injuries I experienced were not due to the

use of explosive exercise. In gymnastics and strength and conditioning for

power sports like Rugby I have used not only Olympic style lifts or

powerlifting exercises done explosively but plyometrics and very demanding

depth landings. None of these has ever caused any injury.

The injuries I have seen have usually come from not following sound

progression or the use of too much machine training. In the former cases it

stems from not doing the base conditioning. One doesn't do depth landing

from a large height without starting with small steps and, when one teaches

Olympic Lifts, there is also a gradual process before they start doing maximal

efforts.

I too would like further explanation of these injuries, with either some good

research to back up an argument or some well-explained case studies that

clearly show that choice of exercise or training protocol was the main

factor in causing the injury.

Hamish Ferguson

Christchurch, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

Dr Siff --I was indicating that early H.I.T. techniques and Olympic Lifting

were used together back at York in the 1960's and even before that. See the

book Functional Isometric Contraction written by Bob Hoffman 1962. I

understand the value of your personal records and they may be of no value

outside of you, but I will eventually add your book to my Archives and there

I can get a better idea of where you are coming from.

I have seen the structural damage and effects of " Weightlifting " in the

observation

of former world champs on occasion, need no convincing that injuries are eminent

- as

they are in a variety of sports. I won't quit playing either. The object of

Strength Training (the old timers told me this) is to improve physiological

function, not to destroy the skeleton. Some can, some can't - roll the dice

and see.

The Jedi comments lead me on to believe that the mere existence of

H.I.T. training (mentality), somewhat bothers you. You are a true

professional I do respect, and I have read about you long before I ever knew

of this site. Dr. Mel, save the Jedi comments for after you ever get a chance

to visit a certain H.I.T. headquarters in Orlando, Florida. Thanks again for

having this great Supertraining site.

Landau

Aventura, Florida

* Please sign all letters with full name and city if you wish them to

be published *

[Guest guest]

> Does an entirely separate, distinct regime like HIT even really

exist?

Good point. If you read Mr. Brzycki's article in the latest online

issue of Strength and Health at http://www.yorkbarbell.com you can

see that he finds a way to be as " tactfully ambiguous " as possible.

For example, there's no mention by Matt about the extreme dangers of

explosive lifting. Funny how vague these guys get when writing for a

more mainstream publication. They're not so confident once you get

them off their little cyberpump web site.

Burkhardt

Irvine, CA

[Guest guest]

Re: Observations of injuries among top weightlifters

Observation of Weightlifters at a gathering about 3 years ago at York. I will

not be specific about what and whom I saw. There was a VAST difference based

on memory of those " Supermen " in their prime and what I observed then. Read

the book Functional Isometric Contraction by Bob Hoffman, chapter 36, there is

a definite early H.I.T. protocol.

[This remark is rather misleading - it should more accurately have read

something

like this " Ch 36 describes a method which today might be described as being like

HIT " -- there was no such regime called specifically " HIT " back in Bob's early

days. In my " Supertraining " textbook, I quoted a passage from Ecclesiastes 3 in

the Bible which described rather succinctly the fundamentals of " periodisation " ,

but it would have been grossly misleading had I stated that the Bible described

a

" definite early periodisation protocol " Mel Siff]

Landau

Aventura, Florida

[Guest guest]

Landau wrote:

>Dr Siff --I was indicating that early H.I.T. techniques and Olympic Lifting

>were used together back at York in the 1960's and even before that. See the

>book Functional Isometric Contraction written by Bob Hoffman 1962. I

>understand the value of your personal records and they may be of no value

>outside of you, but I will eventually add your book to my Archives and there

>I can get a better idea of where you are coming from.

>

>I have seen the structural damage and effects of " Weightlifting " in the

>observation of former world champs on occasion, need no convincing that

injuries are

>eminent - as they are in a variety of sports.

** This seems highly unlikely. Are you suggesting you have 'treated'

structural damage in world champion weightlifters or are you simply making

a diagnosis based on observation? Such observations, especially when you

make claims of exercise-induced structural pathologies, are suspect.

Either way, please name some names or references.

While I haven't read Hoffman's book on isometric training, one must stress that

isometrics and H.I.T. are not the same thing.

Hobman

Saskatoon, CANADA

[Guest guest]

I think HIT can be described as this:

1. All out effort with enough weight that it's taxing to the nervous system and

enough reps to ensure

it's fatiguing to the muscles that way you make sure you did all you could to

stimulate growth.

2. Minimal overall work to be sure that you don't burn out mentally or

physically.

3. Plenty of rest between workouts to make sure you recover and grow.

Somewhere along the line people have inserted super slow movements and

ridiculously untaxing workloads,

but I don't believe that they should be grouped together into the system at all.

When high intensity first became

popular it was back in the early 80's when Tom Platz was going to failure and

using set extension techniques

to totally torture his muscles. We (yes I was there in the gym during many of

his sessions) called it high

intensity and defined it as 100% effort. In other words we put every last ounce

of energy both physical and

mental in to doing every last rep possible at the time.

Mentzer just said if you train like that you can only do one set or you'll burn

out and you better not do it often

or you won't be able to recover and grow. Then labelled it " Heavy Duty " . I'm not

saying Platz invented it or that it

started then. I'm sure many people trained strenuously like that long before we

could even spell " Golds Gym " .

It just seemed to gain popularity at that time in the magazines and we all tryed

to train like that. At the time very

few people trained slo-mo. Everyone training at Gold's Venice at that time was

using controlled negatives and explosive

positives.

I feel that is the essence of HIT regardless of what today's " Jedi's " say.

Besides, I thought Darth Vader killed them

all off during the clone wars, anyway.

Mike Westerling

Natick MA

----------

From: macsloan2001

Brzycki:

While HIT may have evolved since first becoming popular in the

early 1970s, the fundamental principles have remained the same.

That said, HIT is not and has never been " one set of 8-12 reps on a

Nautilus machine. " There are countless interpretations, variations

and applications of HIT, with many strength and fitness

professionals incorporating their own personal twists and

perspectives. Any type of weight training - including HIT -

will be effective provided that it encourages progressive overload

of the muscles and provides for adequate recovery.

** I may be misinformed here, but according to Matt, due to the

various " interpretations, variations and applications of HIT " ,

it would seem that HIT can be approached through high volume, sub

maximal repetitions, high repetitions, periodization etc. - just as

long as progressive overload is achieved.

Since there are so many variations and he hasn't accurately defined what HIT

is

really about, would it not be fair to say that it's in the eye of the

beholder?

Does an entirely separate, distinct regime like HIT even really exist?

Maki Riddington

Vancouver, B.C.

www.wannabebig.com

---------------

* Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you

wish them to be published!

[Guest guest]

Brzycki:

<Incidentally, it is important to note that the Berger and

Kramer studies were contaminated with numerous design flaws that

renders their results to be questionable at best and meaningless at

worst. In all fairness, the quality of research that does not seem

to support HIT should also be discussed. The studies that have been

cited as evidence for multiple-set training and/or periodization

contain design flaws and researcher bias that are so blatant and

widespread that they would be amusing if they weren't so alarming.>

: Its amazing how much time and effort Brzycki spends critically

analysing the research papers which do not support to one set to

failure theory. I am sure if he spent, as much time reading and

critically analysing ALL of the papers he may change is mind.

Mel Siff wrote:

<Carpinelli 's study or the " exhaustive study " by

Carpinelli and Otto did not involve any comparison of elite

weightlifters or powerlifters - in other words, in two sports whose

progress is quantitatively assessed under very controlled conditions

among athletes who are equally motivated and willing to execute a

1RM, not some submaximal measure, often carried out on laboratory

apparatus. >

: Yet Carpinelli and Otto (1998) still provide recommendations

for weightlifters and powerlifters? Have they gone mad? This is

what they wrote:

" If a low number of repetitions, such as 3 to 5, is desired for

training, or if a competitive power-lifter or Olympic weight-lifter

is attempting a 1RM, then a single warm-up set with a lighter

resistance may be appropriate. Fitness enthusiasts, as well as

recreational and competitive athletes, should attempt to attain the

benefits of resistance exercise training by undertaking the minimal

volume; that is, the minimal volume to achieve the desired response. "

[One should always be suspicious of anyone who claims to know

something about Weightlifting and Powerlifting when he writes about

these sports using the hyphenated words " weight-lifting " and " powerlifting " .

Imagine another scientist writing about foot-ball, volley-ball, base-ball and

basket-ball! That sort of ignorant use of terminology, though it

may appear trivial to some, offers a useful clue about the

author's lack of intimate involvement with a given sport. Mel Siff]

(Brzycki:

I am especially impressed by the research that has been

done by the late Dr. Pollock and his colleagues at the

University of Florida. Their studies have been exceptionally well

designed and meticulously administered.)

: Pollock (1997) recognises that multiple sets are more

appropriate for competitive athletes. However, Pollock (1997)

believes that multiple set programmes " are usually not appropriate

for the average adult, elderly person, cardiac patient, or person

with orthopedic limitations. " Pollock believes that one set to

failure is sufficient for these groups of individuals. Nevertheless,

I don't agree, my reasons being:

1. Most first time trainers, elderly, cardiac patients, will not

wish to and will not be able to bear the pain associated with the one

set to failure type of training. Adherence is the key, not how quickly

you can fly them round the gym!

2. Untrained individuals can make substantial gains lifting loads as

small as 40% of 1 repetition maximum (Siff, 2000). Based on the one

set to failure theory (8-12 reps) the % 1 RM the individuals will be

exposed to are as high as 80 to 67 % (Baechle and Earle, 2000).

3. The one set to failure training can produce really sustained

increases in blood pressure. A cardiac patient training one set to

failure?

[see my earlier letters critiquing HIT methods regarding this issue,

especially since over 25% of adults in the USA are suffering from

some form of cardiocirculatory disease. Mel Siff]

4. In a number of the studies completed, the one set to failure

group include warm-up sets before the one set to failure, hence

technically they are not single sets.

I welcome criticism

Cheers

Carruthers

Wakefield

UK

[Guest guest]

wrote,

>Observation of Weightlifters at a gathering about 3 years ago at York. I will

>not be specific about what and whom I saw. There was a VAST difference based

>on memory of those " Supermen " in their prime and what I observed then. Read

>the book Functional Isometric Contraction by Bob Hoffman, chapter 36,

>there is a definite early H.I.T. protocol.

Mel Siff:

>[This remark is rather misleading - it should more accurately have read

something

>like this " Ch 36 describes a method which today might be described as being

like

>HIT " -- there was no such regime called specifically " HIT " back in Bob's early

>days. In my " Supertraining " textbook, I quoted a passage from Ecclesiastes 3

in

>the Bible which described rather succinctly the fundamentals of

" periodisation " ,

>but it would have been grossly misleading had I stated that the Bible described

a

> " definite early periodisation protocol " ]

The reason I made my comment that 's observation can be misleading was that

I had a lower-back 'expert' tell me that I had " lordosis " a couple of years

back. At the

time I was having some pain in my hips caused by a compressed nerve, but

the compression, as it turns out, was in the glute, not in the spinal column.

Naturally, I was all worried and rushed to the doctor. The doctor took a

number of x-rays and other things and then basically told me that my spinal

column would make a great model of excellent structure.

The 'expert' wasn't used to competitive powerlifters and confused my

well-developed glute and upper back musculature with lordosis. Dr. Siff

later confirmed the doctors opinion to some degree when he demonstrated

that I was unable to 'curve' my lower back voluntarily -- due to years of

training it was conditioned to stay arched.

Observation can be misleading. I can't give a lot of credibility to this

kind of observation or statement.

Hobman

Saskatoon, CANADA