Re: High Intensity Training?

[Guest guest]

The majority does what the majority does. I have used 1 set Protocol for

nearly 30 years and many of my contemporaries have done multiple sets based on

the given tradition of DeLorme's PRE and the Webster Technique and they are not

better, just more beaten up. I have gotten what I've paid for and have

spent one 20th of the time getting it. You can work out long, you can work out

hard - but you can't do both. Make your choice - less as far as I am concerned

is more.

Landau,

Aventura, Florida

=============================

-------------- Original message --------------

Cowell asked:

" Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single

set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power

or hypertrophy gains? "

In most cases, yes, if for no other reason than it will produce similar

results with less time invested. Like many things, however, it depends on

the individual.

================================

[Guest guest]

Cowell asked:

" Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single

set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power

or hypertrophy gains? "

In most cases, yes, if for no other reason than it will produce similar

results with less time invested. Like many things, however, it depends on

the individual.

Drew Baye

Orlando, FL

www.baye.com

[Guest guest]

,

Feb 07 I tried doing single set protcol for the first time in a long time. I

had not had much success with HIT or slow mo -- no gains in strength, power, fat

loss or muscle gains. Because I am 51, and started weight training when I was

30, I do not expect gains in mass very often -- and gains in strength and power

are hard to come by -- but I do get them.

Then I tried something different a 4 - 8 week period and I have had quick

gains. I should however define what the single set protocol I use is:

1. I use reps determined by my weakest rep range (that is to say, based on 1rm,

what rep range up to 20 I am furthest from the theoretical reps I should be

doing). This may mean that even in the same muscle group, I could be using

different rep ranges -- based on the specific exercises (i.e. at one point my

bench was 6 reps, while my incline bench was 12)

2. week 1 I just do straight sets -- and go through with the least rest I can

do. I use this to set a base line -- and workouts after this have to exceed the

base line. Number of exercises are deterimined by time -- this workout should

take 25 - 30 minutes.

3. for the next few weeks, when an excercise does not exceed the base line

above. I do drop sets on exercises. I try to keep this to about 1/2 the

exercises -- to keep my time down.

4. All workouts are kept under 45/50 minutes.

5. This has not worked well with a 3 day a week full body workout -- but both 4

day a week push/pull split -- and a 6 day a week legs/calf -- chest/back --

shoulder/arm split

I try lots of different programs based on what my goals of the moment are. I

used the above program after I had been working on a 1RM deadlift goal -- and

had gained significant fat in the process.

I have now done this Cycle 4 times since then. One of the times I did it back

to back with a previous time -- and it didn't do so well for me -- however, each

of the other times I experienced significant fat loss (my original goal for that

cycle), along with some of the most significant gains in strength I have seen

for some time.

" Wally " Seibel

Curtice, Ohio, USA

==================================

High Intensity Training? (Was Explosive Exercise is

pointless)

Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single

set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power

or hypertrophy gains?

==================================

[Guest guest]

I feel the same way. Reminds me of the famous Arthur stories where he'd

instruct his trainees to rest for a week before their first training session

under his guidance and they'd grow during that rest period. Way I see it, that

actually shows the efficacy of their previous training style when followed by a

layoff.

Pérez

Reynosa, Mexico

________________________________

From: Supertraining [mailto:Supertraining ] On

Behalf Of Cowell

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 2:40 PM

To: Supertraining

Subject: Re: High Intensity Training?

Pérez wrote:

<<Not over the long term, but try implementing it for a few months and

you'll likely be delighted with the results. I did, and I was.>>

In my experience, and this is very anecdotal, those who tend to get

better results from HIT types of programs are overtrained in terms of

volume. Has anyone else in the group shared this experience?

I don't doubt that good results cannot be obtained from a HIT

program. My doubts stem from the assertion that a HIT program

produces better or superior results to a multiple set program

(assuming the athlete is not volume-overtrained). I believe it was

Poliquin who wrote that if one were to look at the training

journals of the bodybuilders who benefitted from the HIT protocol,

they were doing a tremendous volume of work prior to adopting the HIT

system. The HIT system served as somewhat of a " de-load " thus

allowing adaptation.

Any thoughts?

=========================================

[Guest guest]

I feel the same way. Reminds me of the famous Arthur stories where he'd

instruct his trainees to rest for a week before their first training session

under his guidance and they'd grow during that rest period. Way I see it, that

actually shows the efficacy of their previous training style when followed by a

layoff.

Pérez

Reynosa, Mexico

________________________________

From: Supertraining [mailto:Supertraining ] On

Behalf Of Cowell

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 2:40 PM

To: Supertraining

Subject: Re: High Intensity Training?

Pérez wrote:

<<Not over the long term, but try implementing it for a few months and

you'll likely be delighted with the results. I did, and I was.>>

In my experience, and this is very anecdotal, those who tend to get

better results from HIT types of programs are overtrained in terms of

volume. Has anyone else in the group shared this experience?

I don't doubt that good results cannot be obtained from a HIT

program. My doubts stem from the assertion that a HIT program

produces better or superior results to a multiple set program

(assuming the athlete is not volume-overtrained). I believe it was

Poliquin who wrote that if one were to look at the training

journals of the bodybuilders who benefitted from the HIT protocol,

they were doing a tremendous volume of work prior to adopting the HIT

system. The HIT system served as somewhat of a " de-load " thus

allowing adaptation.

Any thoughts?

=========================================

[Guest guest]

Dogma, with no support.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

>

> Cowell asked:

>

> " Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single

> set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power

> or hypertrophy gains? "

>

>

> In most cases, yes, if for no other reason than it will produce similar

> results with less time invested. Like many things, however, it

depends on

> the individual.

>

> Drew Baye

> Orlando, FL

> www.baye.com

>

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that each of us has their own opinion on this topic. That being

the case it is obvious nobody from either side of the issue is going to change

the mind(s) of those on the other side. Why not agree to disagree and use what

works for each of us in whatever format, protocol or system whether it be 1 set,

multiple sets or HIT. If the individual is happy with the results does it really

matter if someone else feels it is not the proper type of training?

Lee Robillard

Mississauga , Ontario

Canada

==========================

Casler wrote:

The majority does what the majority does. I have used 1 set Protocol for

nearly 30 years and many of my contemporaries have done multiple sets based

on

the given tradition of DeLorme's PRE and the Webster Technique and they are

not

better, just more beaten up. I have gotten what I've paid for and have

spent one 20th of the time getting it. You can work out long, you can work

out

hard - but you can't do both. Make your choice - less as far as I am

concerned

is more.

Landau

Casler writes:

Hi ,

I would tend to disagree. Less " IS NOT " more.

The " correct and adequate " amount of stimulus is what is needed for the best

result to a goal.

To supply this, requires examination of the stimuli to create the desired

response.

=================================

[Guest guest]

I don't think anyone here disputes that HIT can give people results ( Michigan

is an excellent example). The problem most people in the industry have is the

HIT zealots who, despite lots of research against them still try to claim that

HIT is superior to all other forms of of training protocols. I think HIT is

better than nothing, and if I were advisiing for example, a high school teacher,

who also volunteered as a coach for an afternoon lifting program, I might

advocate HIT due to it's simplicity and relatively low injury risk. With trained

athletes, or a well organized and structured program how ever, I would not ever

recommend HIT

Garrison CSCS *D

Mesa,AZ

Mesa Community College

===========================

To: Supertraining@...: dan_partelly@...: Wed, 9 Jan

2008 21:12:09 +0000Subject: Re: High Intensity Training?

Dogma, with no support. Dan PartellyOradea, Romania>> Cowell

asked:> > " Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single>

set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power> or

hypertrophy gains? " > > > In most cases, yes, if for no other reason than it will

produce similar> results with less time invested. Like many things, however,

itdepends on> the individual.> > Drew Baye> Orlando, FL> www.baye.com>

================================

[Guest guest]

I agree Drew. There is a lot of literature out there on HIT. The problem is

one must really find someone who who's what they are doing to show proper

implementation. There are certain components of its methodology that are very

productive, just like many other methods. I'd often heard of S & C coaching

referred to as more of an art than a science. I think it is ones ability to

understand multiple methods and training regime's; and the ability to apply a

variety of mixed methods to suite the needs of the target population. All

research aside, some of the best I've seen employ great decision making skills

" on the fly. " Just a thought... I usually keep that quite on here because a

bias is definitely noticeable.

Rob Barrese

Pennsylvania, USA

[Guest guest]

again I am confused at your statements. First of all we are not taking

into account drug use or genetic potential of the individuals who hold world

records in powerlifting or weighlifting.

I am not an expert in either field and I definitely do not claim any special

inside knowledge this is perhaps why I am so baffled at your statements. In my

limited exposure with these populations I've seen them " Cycle " down to a single

rep, single sets... isn't this the test they are practicing for?! Again, I've

not completed, coached or had any special training but I've seen them do it and

it seems common sense to me.

Just a thought,

Rob Barrese

Pennsylvania, USA

[Guest guest]

The biggest Simpleton Copout Statement - What Champions Have you Produced?

Sorry, irreverent when it comes to the fact that Champions are born, not made.

I would not enlist the services of a racehorse to train another racehorse.

So for example and from recent first hand information, we have a change of

guard so to speak at the University of Michigan. The HIT program was changed in

favor of the new coach Rich , whereas we will see Olympic Lifting

Platforms replacing those " archaic " Machines. There going to win now! - got rid

of that crappy HIT program - yeah uhuh sure! Another example, if you have

seen the recent sports training " brilliance " of any of the athletes, such as

Clemens and Vince Young - the only apparent " science " is selection

bias/genetics and that other certain factor?

Landau

Aventura, Florida

[Guest guest]

I have never met anyone (HIT proponents) who would outright say that method

was better than the rest. This is just my experience.

I would suggest looking at with PSU Football. He has been

implementing pretty traditional HIT for decades and would anyone say PSU

football is overtrained? There are testimonials from NFL players (former PSU)

who swear by it. There are also the opposite among some former players. I

think, based on what you are asking, is that it depends on the person

implementing this training. I would also suggest you check out McGuff's chapter

9 in:

Brzycki, M. (Ed.).(2000). Maximize your training: insights from leading

strength and fitness professionals. Chicago: Masters Press.

Rob Barrese

PA, USA

[Guest guest]

The below post from the late Dr Siff seems pertinent to recent

discussions:

=================

There has been considerable discussion (if some of the hostile

exchanges may be called that!) on many lists on the issue of one vs

many set training. It is evident that, no matter what the evidence

either way, there are exceptions to the rule that will never allow

us to deduce that there is only one way for everyone.

THE ROLE OF SKILL

Sure we know that single set training has almost never been used by

any elite Olympic lifters or in any other sports which require a

high level of skill, since repetition is the way shown by

generations of neuroscientists to facilitate learning of motor

patterns. Bodybuilding is not a pursuit which requires a high

level of neuromotor skill and it should not be surprising that some

individuals may indeed achieve favourable results with one set

training.

Some might be tempted to proclaim that powerlifting is similarly

fairly unskilled, but we should note that there are definite

technical skills which distinguish the classy, elite powerlifter from

amateurs or novices. For instance, many personal trainers are

amazed to learn that there are optimal movement patterns for even

the apparently basic lifts of benching or squatting - far too many

of them think that 'any fool can teach and execute these lifts

correctly'.

However, in Olympic lifting the skillful movements are very rapid

and error correction via ongoing feedback is extremely unlikely -

the lifts are determined largely by pre-visualised, feedforward

mental and kinaesthetic 'images' formed before the actions begin.

In powerlifting and all other physique training exercises, the

movements are relatively slow, especially as the load increases, so

that ongoing correction is relatively simple.

Thus, if anyone wishes to make a fair evaluation of the

appropriateness of the different types of resistance training, the

issue of the primacy of neuromotor skill has to be raised - otherwise

we will continue to produce years of hostile, unproductive debate

which serves to divide, rather than to unite, the various

specialisations within our wonderful and unequalled Iron

Game!

PLACEBO EFFECT & INDIVIDUALITY

Moreover, we also have to consider the powerful influence of the

placebo effect - everyone eventually chooses a favourite approach to

training and establishes a mental and physical formula which suits

him/her best (not that it necessarily produces the best results).

If one does not believe in and passionately enjoy his/her training

regime, then the results will hardly be noteworthy. Thus, someone

demands silence when training, another likes Tarzan cries, others

prefer loud music and so forth. To each his own - with one proviso -

always respect another person's way, provided it is not harming

anyone else.

EXCEPTIONS, NOT AVERAGES

After all, it is not the average person who stands on the Olympic

podium or bodybuilding rostrum to receive the world's greatest

accolades - it is the exception, the idiosyncrasy, the abnormal who

gets there. This is one of the major problems which besets

scientific research. Science depends on performing experiments

with large numbers of similar subjects doing some standard set of

carefully administered things to ensure accuracy, reproducibility and

precision. The results are subjected to painstaking statistical

analysis to ascertain how the 'average' or 'mean' subject behaves

under those precise conditions.

Now this is hardly what happens in sport, where reproducibility of

results, environmental conditions, standard actions and so forth

occur predicably and simply. Average subjects never stand on the

winner's podium, never break world records or fill the top teams, so

the non-scientist quite rightly questions the relevance of it all.

The serious scientist will head straight for those exceptional

individuals, sporting mutants or whatever we wish to call them and

ascertain what makes THEM what they are. The averages are for those

who are targetted by the infomercials or those who want to gather as

many academic publications as possible in a lifetime, but they are

not often for those who aspire to elite levels of achievement.

HIDDEN FACTORS

All too often, the discussions about the superiority of some or

other training regime omits to mention the use of other regimes or

supplements that may currently be used or were used during some other

phase of training. There is no standard method that one can use at

all stages of training over a lifetime, as any experienced athlete

or bodybuilder will tell you. The secret of the stars is 'knowing

thyself' and learning to exploit some relevant intuition or inner

feeling for what is 'right' or 'wrong' about any exercise or

exercise method at a given time.

This is why highly deterministic periodisation (as opposed to the

interactively modified Cybernetic Periodisation, discussed in the

textbook Siff 'Supertraining', Ch 6) is sometimes not as

successful as its more rigid, computational proponents would have us

believe.

Another massive hidden factor is the undeclared use of AA steroids

by competitors and subjects in many scientific studies. How on

earth one can fairly and accurately compare 'clean' athletes with

steroids users is anyone's guess. I don't for one moment believe

that showing up 'clean' in steroid or doping tests means that the

subject is 'clean' or never has relied on drugs to enhance

performance. Steroid assisted gains last for many months or even

years (yes, years!), so this hidden or undisclosed factor always

lurks there to taunt the scientist.

CONCLUSION

There will never be a definitive conclusion to this entire issue -

that is why we scientists and competitors are always trying

something new or just trying. Note, however, that if anyone

advocates using a single method for all purposes forever and ever,

till death do us part, then we will recognise the average type.

Sure, adhere exclusively to HIT, Nautilus devices, power cleans, one

set workouts, non-explosive methods, sumo squats, thumbless grip

benches and so forth and you will never discover what your real

potential could have been.

Continue to deny the reality of individuality, specificity,

plasticity, inconstancy and variability and your training and

knowledge will bar you from standing on Everest, instead of nibbling

canned food in the foothills.

To borrow some concepts from Russia, let's invoke some more glasnost

and perestroika in the warring ranks of all of us in the Iron

Game! My gym at my homes in S Africa and the USA have always been

replete with Eleiko lifting bars, Schnell equipment, biomechanical

apparatus, pulley machines, benches - AND a great group of

bodybuilders, powerlifters, weightlifters and sports competitors

who all flourish in the stimulating and varied training

atmosphere. The diffferences are what help as grow, not our

samenesses - let that continue to be a theme for the great Iron

Game.

==============================

===============================

Carruthers

Wakefield, UK

[Guest guest]

****************

I agree Drew. There is a lot of literature out there on HIT. The

problem is one must really find someone who who's what they are doing

to show proper implementation.

***************

This smells of confirmation bias to me. It sounds like an ad hoc

hypothesis to explain why there is a lack of scientific literature

supporting the equivalence of single versus multiple sets.

There are dozens and dozens of studies that fail to support the

existence of ESP. The response of ESP believers? " The researchers

don't know how to design good ESP experiments " , or " The hostile

thoughts of the onlookers interfere with ESP transmission which is

why the researchers aren't getting results. " No matter how many

studies come out that fail to support any existence of ESP, this is

the response to explain away why research doesn't support ESP's

existence. Never do they consider the strong probability that ESP

just doesn't exist.

I would contend that I see the same thing coming out of the HIT

camp. No matter how many studies come out supporting a superiority

of multiple sets (quite a few have come out over the past few years,

from different research groups), this camp will find some way to

explain away why the study results don't fit their already performed

conclusions. And I suspect that, if my meta-regression gets

published, we'll see more of the same.

Krieger, M.S., M.S.

Research Associate

20/20 Lifestyles

http://www.2020lifestyles.com

Bellevue, WA

Editor, Journal of Pure Power

http://www.jopp.us

[Guest guest]

>

> Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single

> set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power

> or hypertrophy gains?

>

> Cowell

> Raleigh, NC

****

Not many. Most frustrating is the attempt to rationally discuss the

matter with HIT advocates. It seems the mold was cast in concrete when

Arthur revealed the heavenly scriptures of HIT nearly forty

years ago. Reference to seems to take precedence over the growth

of training science in the intervening four decades.

' idiosyncratic style had it's place in 1971. At that time there

was next to no science, evident in the manner under which he pulled

the wool over the eyes of a group of " exercise scientists " with the

famous uncontrolled " Colorado Experiment " . Casey Viator has since

published that he was using steroids during that time, later

retracting that claim but not in publication. Who knows? Nevertheless,

the bulk of successful HIT studies in publication concern up to 12

weeks of training by undergraduate subjects. That in no manner attests

to efficacy with long term training and no longitudinal studies have

been forthcoming. But one can say the same for published articles

concerning non-HIT training. How anyone would forge conclusions on

three scant months of training by undergrads is pause for wonder and

certainly not the basis for endorsing studies as " scientific " enough

to inform longer range training.

HIT shares in the current confusion over basic terms such as strength

and power. Power's easy once one enters the realm of physics: we have

a long used formula for that term. On the basis of power analysis

alone, one set training - especially when done to some tempo or

superslow speed, results in far less power expenditure - and generally

with lighter resistance. Strength, on the other hand, is a term

applied to a variety of methods of measurement. 1RM measures but one

type of strength. Explosive strength certainly has it's place in

training discussion.

For my part, training is client-centered. It has to be. Forcing

athletes and others into formulae and generalizations effectively

strips them of their dignity as individuals while totally ignoring

unique strengths and weaknesses. I've become convinced that

hypertrophy oriented hybrid training - especially Abel's MET

training - provide the most bang for the buck. HIT like methods

effectively ignore parameters of considerable importance to athletic

performance and metabolic enhancement needs of individuals - for

example, training density is outside of that box.

HIT has it's place, in my view. I generally make use of HIT like

programs but including non-sagital place movements as well to

facilitate all around conditioning, with beginners. One to two sets is

all most can tolerate, particularly when age is a factor. The longer

term training goal is to evolve them into higher levels of conditioning.

On the subject of HIT, does anyone know of any champions HIT has

produced? When began his version of HIT, it was as an

alternative to polypharmaceutical approaches to training; his

successor, Dr Ellington Darden, continues with that line of approach.

HIT followers claim Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates as HIT users; given

their notorious use of performance enhancing substances, like most

bodybuilders their accomplishments say more for superior genetics,

intense training, and the effects of large scale pharmaceuticals. So

the question remains can HIT prove it's claims by giving us a list of

champions who are drug free?

Ken O'Neill

Austin, Texas

[Guest guest]

Why would we take into account drug use or genetic potential? Are you

saying that people who use multiple set protocols are drug users or

have superior genetic potential? Anyone can use drugs (trust me, there

are HIT trainers using drugs) and as for genetic potential, I think that

is an enabling factor, not a limiting factor.

As for them tapering down - it depends. Generally a powerlifter will

taper to reduced reps, but they always do multiple sets. Weightlifters

may do the same, although many lifters now predominantly perfrom

singles. But the point is - always multiple sets. Always. In a

competition a powerlifter or weightlifter warms up and then normally

will make three attempts per lift. So in the squat, for example, if I

was hoping to lift 275 kgs on my third attempt I would typically do a

sets of 5 with the empty bar (20 kgs), 60 kgs, 100 kgs, then sets of 3

with 140 kgs, 160 kgs, then singles with 180, 200 and 220. I would do my

first competition attempt with 240 kgs, my second with 265 and my final

attempt at 275. 11 sets for the squat. I would do about the same for the

bench and not quite as many for the deadlift.

As a weightlifter (olympic style) I do even more sets, as I'll drop down

after getting ready and do a few power versions of the competition lifts

while waiting for my opener. I'm pretty typical in regards to how I prepare.

No decent lifter, either powerlifting or weightlifting, tapers down to a

single rep workout. No way. And that is not what they are being tested

for. They are being tested to see how much they can lift in one rep -

they get three attempts or sets. And they are allowed to do as many sets

as they want (as long as they are ready to go when it is their turn) to

prepare. They don't walk up to the bar cold and lift. (well - there are

a few who don't believe in warm-ups, but they are the exceptions)

Rob Barrese wrote:

> again I am confused at your statements. First of all we are not

> taking into account drug use or genetic potential of the individuals

> who hold world records in powerlifting or weighlifting.

> I am not an expert in either field and I definitely do not claim any

> special inside knowledge this is perhaps why I am so baffled at your

> statements. In my limited exposure with these populations I've seen

> them " Cycle " down to a single rep, single sets... isn't this the test

> they are practicing for?! Again, I've not completed, coached or had

> any special training but I've seen them do it and it seems common

> sense to me.

>

> Just a thought,

>

> Rob Barrese

> Pennsylvania, USA

>

> .

>

>

--

Hobman

Saskatoon, CANADA

[Guest guest]

Coaching is definitely an art form. On that topic, the best sources

I've read in a long, long time are Abel, Vern Gambetta, and JS

Santana. Each recognizes the variability of training both in season

and off season, as well as the real task lying in client-centered

coaching. Abel is especially articulate regarding the need to coach

individuals to become sensitive and wise with respect to their own

internal " biofeedback " in order to obtain autonomy.

Ken O'Neill

Austin, Texas

>

> I agree Drew. There is a lot of literature out there on HIT. The

problem is one must really find someone who who's what they are doing

to show proper implementation. There are certain components of its

methodology that are very productive, just like many other methods.

I'd often heard of S & C coaching referred to as more of an art than a

science. I think it is ones ability to understand multiple methods

and training regime's; and the ability to apply a variety of mixed

methods to suite the needs of the target population. All research

aside, some of the best I've seen employ great decision making skills

" on the fly. " Just a thought... I usually keep that quite on here

because a bias is definitely noticeable.

>

> Rob Barrese

> Pennsylvania, USA

>

[Guest guest]

I suggest you red Dean Radin's The Intelligent Universe for an update

on parapsychology based on application of meta-analysis to more than a

century of publications. From that read it might be possible to

conclude that parapsychology is better confirmed than HIT!

HIT devotees express another dimension of cult behavior, a sort of

" us " versus " them " conviction that the world is against them, even out

to get them. Many HITtites possess college educations, but not in

research oriented fields - most seem to hold instrumental degrees

(even graduate ones) of the newer sort that are more oriented toward

jobs and career advancement than confirmation of skills in independent

research. As such they seem ripe to kowtow to authority rather than

pose questions. Hence the kind of bias of which you speak may have

deeper rooting in an informal version of cult mind control.

Ken O'Neill

Austin, Texas

>

> ****************

> I agree Drew. There is a lot of literature out there on HIT. The

> problem is one must really find someone who who's what they are doing

> to show proper implementation.

> ***************

>

> This smells of confirmation bias to me. It sounds like an ad hoc

> hypothesis to explain why there is a lack of scientific literature

> supporting the equivalence of single versus multiple sets.

>

> There are dozens and dozens of studies that fail to support the

> existence of ESP. The response of ESP believers? " The researchers

> don't know how to design good ESP experiments " , or " The hostile

> thoughts of the onlookers interfere with ESP transmission which is

> why the researchers aren't getting results. " No matter how many

> studies come out that fail to support any existence of ESP, this is

> the response to explain away why research doesn't support ESP's

> existence. Never do they consider the strong probability that ESP

> just doesn't exist.

>

> I would contend that I see the same thing coming out of the HIT

> camp. No matter how many studies come out supporting a superiority

> of multiple sets (quite a few have come out over the past few years,

> from different research groups), this camp will find some way to

> explain away why the study results don't fit their already performed

> conclusions. And I suspect that, if my meta-regression gets

> published, we'll see more of the same.

>

> Krieger, M.S., M.S.

> Research Associate

> 20/20 Lifestyles

> http://www.2020lifestyles.com

> Bellevue, WA

> Editor, Journal of Pure Power

> http://www.jopp.us

>

[Guest guest]

I did not say multiple set users are also drug abusers. I asked if the

individual asking the question considered that some of the gains made in

professional powerlifting and weightlifting could have been due to doping and /

or genetics. It was a question, not a statement.

This whole HIT vs OL, single set vs multiple set has gotten out of hand.The

discussion began because people in this forum continually disagree with

everything posted rather than ask questions or share what works.

I enjoy coming on this forum and seeing people ask questions and receive help.

Or someone sharing success and receiving feedback. Instead I see people go

through every post and " disagree. " This started over the content of posts and

has turned not only into a HIT vs OL debate, but has branched off into single

set vs multiple sets, speed of repetitions, principle of specificity and so on.

If you go through the posts and read up it is clear which camp is making an

argument at every turn. I am not founded in any one camp.

To be clear I take a periodized, double progressive approach. Regardless of

how many sets I choose to accomplish I perform specific sets to designated

fatigue and I keep a tempo from one set to the next. I incorporate multiple

muscle groups, multiple modalities and multiple planes of movement. Some

exercises negatives are emphasized and other exercises are performed in an

" explosive " fashion. Does that sound like any one camp? This of course is a

generalization because I make adaptations to this foundation based on the target

population and desired goal. I can read research all day but it will only fine

tune what I am doing. I've been doing this long enough that I know what I hope

to accomplish within the framework of my program. Now if the goal was to use

OL's then I'd comfortable arrange that program as appropriate (i.e. proper

recovery between sets...).

If this did anything it has set the forum up for some great discussions, i.e.

Principle of specific adaptation, negative training, HIT, Olympic lifts, number

of sets... I haven't seen a great set up for discussion like this in a while so

lets take advantage of it.

Back to thank you for clarifying. I espeically like " refusal " ha ha.

That is excellent and I'm going to steal that from you. I had always tried to

get away from " failure " back in the day. It does not sound very productive.

When I think of traditional " HIT " I think of one set, machines, no rest, every

set to failure, ect... Personally I do not feel this is as productive and this

is why I generally outlined my basic protocol above. I would say the only

factors that determine what exercises I choose is safety, productivity and

efficiency. If an exercise can fit in this (and based on the goals of the

individual(s)) then I use it as needed.

Thanks for the insights into your program and the clarity from the last post.

I was not arguing your statement but simply throwing out something to consider

when looking at professional powerlifters/weightlifters.

Rob Barrese

PA, USA

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/11/2008 6:04:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

kayoneill@... writes:

We'd forgotten that polemic of the HIT camp: when HIT succeeds, it's

HIT that did it, when it fails then it's genetics. For some reason,

HIT circles are big advocates of genetic reductionism but sadly the

genome responsible has yet to be identified.

*****

Nope, never said that. Sports happen to be skill specific, and the cream

will rise to the top in spite of said training. Sorry to take any of the " so

called " science away.

Landau,

Aventura, Florida

[Guest guest]

Thanks, :

We'd forgotten that polemic of the HIT camp: when HIT succeeds, it's

HIT that did it, when it fails then it's genetics. For some reason,

HIT circles are big advocates of genetic reductionism but sadly the

genome responsible has yet to be identified.

There's something convoluted in HIT polemic Landau offers. If his

argument holds, then a born champion can train in likely any manner he

or she wishes and succeed. As such, he negates HIT as the grand

solution in a manner akin to announcing the Emperor has no new clothing.

HIT was first marketed to the bodybuilding community decades ago. It

was specifically marketed as the natural solution to physical mastery

for non-drug users. Yet it has failed to produce a bona fide champion

in forty years in bodybuilding. Viator was said to be drug free but

never tested; in later years he stated then recanted use of steroids

during the Colorado Experiment. So what's left? Mike Mentzer and

Dorian Yates? Yates was not strictly HIT, and did make use of a

plethora of drugs. The name Mentzer and drugs are synonymous,

including steroids and a host of recreational drugs which apparently

percipitated an early death. So, where's the beef? Can't name a one?

HIT devotees counter with arguments from genetics and drugs to account

for all other champs, the " volume " guys so detested. Perhaps they

haven't learned of the three or four federations for drug-free,

natural bodybuilders, the ones that do testing. Still, no HIT champs.

Ken O'Neill

Austin, Texas

>

> The biggest Simpleton Copout Statement - What Champions Have you

Produced?

> Sorry, irreverent when it comes to the fact that Champions are born,

not made.

> I would not enlist the services of a racehorse to train another

racehorse.

> So for example and from recent first hand information, we have a

change of

> guard so to speak at the University of Michigan. The HIT program was

changed in

> favor of the new coach Rich , whereas we will see Olympic

Lifting

> Platforms replacing those " archaic " Machines. There going to win

now! - got rid

> of that crappy HIT program - yeah uhuh sure! Another example, if

you have

> seen the recent sports training " brilliance " of any of the

athletes, such as

> Clemens and Vince Young - the only apparent " science " is

selection

> bias/genetics and that other certain factor?

>

> Landau

> Aventura, Florida

>

[Guest guest]

One of my co workers was an undergraduate assistant at UofM and later worked at

the Athletes Performance, doing combine prep with several UofM players. Every

single one of them, made dramatic increases in strength,power, and explosiveness

AFTER leaving Michigan and coming to API.

Garrison, CSCS*D

Mesa, AZ

Mesa Community College

To: Supertraining@...: Exarchives@...: Thu, 10 Jan 2008

18:10:40 -0500Subject: Re: High Intensity Training?

The biggest Simpleton Copout Statement - What Champions Have you Produced?

Sorry, irreverent when it comes to the fact that Champions are born, not made. I

would not enlist the services of a racehorse to train another racehorse. So for

example and from recent first hand information, we have a change of guard so to

speak at the University of Michigan. The HIT program was changed in favor of the

new coach Rich , whereas we will see Olympic Lifting Platforms

replacing those " archaic " Machines. There going to win now! - got rid of that

crappy HIT program - yeah uhuh sure! Another example, if you have seen the

recent sports training " brilliance " of any of the athletes, such as

Clemens and Vince Young - the only apparent " science " is selection bias/genetics

and that other certain factor? Landau Aventura, Florida

===========================

[Guest guest]

Bravo, ,

The genetically gifted athletes at any of the top 25 D1 football schools will

excel regardless of, or in spite of, any training protocol presented to them.

So many programs in the NFL and the big football schools are using HIT because

it's an easy, " don't F*** them up " approach. The players won't get hurt lifting

submaximal weights for 1 or 2 sets, on machines. The players natural athletic

talent will shine if they aren't tired or sore from lifting. They won't improve

optimally and may get injured due to underwork by the accessory musculature

while on the field, but they didn't get hurt in the weight room!

It's also easier to administrate if you don't have to be too concerned with

sets/ reps/ progressions that must be manipulated if you're running a Westside

or even a American Periodization program.

A brilliant strength coach said: If you want to know who's running a great S+C

program, go find the small school (or HS) coach with no budget, no resources,

limited talent base but still has players improve and excel. That's who you

want to listen to.

One more point- at the 2000 NSCA Nationals in Orlando, a former iron curtain

exercise physiologist mentioned how the Soviet/ Eastern Block scientists in

communism's heyday, were laughing at the west arguing 1 set vs. multiple sets,

here we are 20 years later still arguing, unbelievable to me.

Mark , MS, ATC, CSCS

Camillus, NY

[Guest guest]

Much of this debate ignores the fact that many athletes succeed in spite of

their training not because of it. Demonstrating that a training mode is

beneficial/harmful through anecdotal occurrence is not particularly probative.

Best,

Bill Black

Cumberland Foreside, Maine

===================

Re: High Intensity Training?

Bravo, ,

The genetically gifted athletes at any of the top 25 D1 football schools will

excel regardless of, or in spite of, any training protocol presented to them.

So many programs in the NFL and the big football schools are using HIT because

it's an easy, " don't F*** them up " approach. The players won't get hurt lifting

submaximal weights for 1 or 2 sets, on machines. The players natural athletic

talent will shine if they aren't tired or sore from lifting. They won't improve

optimally and may get injured due to underwork by the accessory musculature

while on the field, but they didn't get hurt in the weight room!

It's also easier to administrate if you don't have to be too concerned with

sets/ reps/ progressions that must be manipulated if you're running a Westside

or even a American Periodization program.

A brilliant strength coach said: If you want to know who's running a great S+C

program, go find the small school (or HS) coach with no budget, no resources,

limited talent base but still has players improve and excel. That's who you want

to listen to.

One more point- at the 2000 NSCA Nationals in Orlando, a former iron curtain

exercise physiologist mentioned how the Soviet/ Eastern Block scientists in

communism's heyday, were laughing at the west arguing 1 set vs. multiple sets,

here we are 20 years later still arguing, unbelievable to me.

=================================

[Guest guest]

Much of this debate ignores the fact that many athletes succeed in spite of

their training not because of it. Demonstrating that a training mode is

beneficial/harmful through anecdotal occurrence is not particularly probative.

Best,

Bill Black

Cumberland Foreside, Maine

===================

Re: High Intensity Training?

Bravo, ,

The genetically gifted athletes at any of the top 25 D1 football schools will

excel regardless of, or in spite of, any training protocol presented to them.

So many programs in the NFL and the big football schools are using HIT because

it's an easy, " don't F*** them up " approach. The players won't get hurt lifting

submaximal weights for 1 or 2 sets, on machines. The players natural athletic

talent will shine if they aren't tired or sore from lifting. They won't improve

optimally and may get injured due to underwork by the accessory musculature

while on the field, but they didn't get hurt in the weight room!

It's also easier to administrate if you don't have to be too concerned with

sets/ reps/ progressions that must be manipulated if you're running a Westside

or even a American Periodization program.

A brilliant strength coach said: If you want to know who's running a great S+C

program, go find the small school (or HS) coach with no budget, no resources,

limited talent base but still has players improve and excel. That's who you want

to listen to.

One more point- at the 2000 NSCA Nationals in Orlando, a former iron curtain

exercise physiologist mentioned how the Soviet/ Eastern Block scientists in

communism's heyday, were laughing at the west arguing 1 set vs. multiple sets,

here we are 20 years later still arguing, unbelievable to me.

=================================