Re: High Intensity Training?

[Guest guest]

Mark,

You're right on. It's amazing, isn't it? No wonder the S & C profession is still

struggling for respect.

Clearly the people advocating HIT nonsense aren't going to stop in this

lifetime. What I keep wondering is why they expect to be taken seriously, and

why anyone does? The only thing it accomplishes is to dignify the noise they're

making.

Plisk

Excelsior Sports • Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

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

Mark wrote:

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]

Ken,

I agree, traditional HIT in and of itself is lacking. This is of course

MY opinion. In my mid 20's I was introduced to this method of training and at

the time I probably would have fought someone over disagreements in styles.

Since this time I continue to polish an alternative style that incorporates

multiple methods. If I understand you it is important that we need to first

consider WHO we are training and WHY? Very often I see young professionals in

the field doing things. When questioned on their goals, then on the approach

selected, they do not always match up. I think we need to assess the person and

the goal before we consider writing a program.

As far as the genetic / doping statements... who would not consider this? If

we did not consider genetics a factor then anyone has the potential to be an

olympic athlete or even a professional athlete. Wouldn't you agree this is a

considerable component? I am certainly NOT saying that when a program of method

fails I would blame genetics or claim fame for success. In contrast when things

go well I feel lucky and when things fail I consider what I did wrong, or could

have done better?! With internal conflicts like this it is a wonder I've

remained in this field! What are your thoughts?

Rob Barrese

PA, USA

[Guest guest]

Ken,

I agree, traditional HIT in and of itself is lacking. This is of course

MY opinion. In my mid 20's I was introduced to this method of training and at

the time I probably would have fought someone over disagreements in styles.

Since this time I continue to polish an alternative style that incorporates

multiple methods. If I understand you it is important that we need to first

consider WHO we are training and WHY? Very often I see young professionals in

the field doing things. When questioned on their goals, then on the approach

selected, they do not always match up. I think we need to assess the person and

the goal before we consider writing a program.

As far as the genetic / doping statements... who would not consider this? If

we did not consider genetics a factor then anyone has the potential to be an

olympic athlete or even a professional athlete. Wouldn't you agree this is a

considerable component? I am certainly NOT saying that when a program of method

fails I would blame genetics or claim fame for success. In contrast when things

go well I feel lucky and when things fail I consider what I did wrong, or could

have done better?! With internal conflicts like this it is a wonder I've

remained in this field! What are your thoughts?

Rob Barrese

PA, USA

[Guest guest]

Rob,

A perusal of the archives and a lot of what Mel left us in postings shows we've

been over this several times already. The notion that this is the first time

this discussion has come up AND that it's the only time it's been of interest to

this varied and quite well thought group is false.

You seem to take this group in a fashion that perhaps says it is not to your

general liking, having complained about the quality of discussions? And by the

way, having read your postings on the other threads, it appears that you take a

side and defend it without sufficient backing in your own right? No offense

meant, but you have taken the critical stance on postings of others without

maintaining the " quality " requirement for your own work here? Acceptable

arguments on this forum being both those of academia and of actual field

experience...and at times, medical commentary.

I disagree with you about both the quality and the tendencies of this excellent

group AGAIN and I give a nod to the moderators who maintain it in Mel's absence.

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

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

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.

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

[Guest guest]

Rob,

A perusal of the archives and a lot of what Mel left us in postings shows we've

been over this several times already. The notion that this is the first time

this discussion has come up AND that it's the only time it's been of interest to

this varied and quite well thought group is false.

You seem to take this group in a fashion that perhaps says it is not to your

general liking, having complained about the quality of discussions? And by the

way, having read your postings on the other threads, it appears that you take a

side and defend it without sufficient backing in your own right? No offense

meant, but you have taken the critical stance on postings of others without

maintaining the " quality " requirement for your own work here? Acceptable

arguments on this forum being both those of academia and of actual field

experience...and at times, medical commentary.

I disagree with you about both the quality and the tendencies of this excellent

group AGAIN and I give a nod to the moderators who maintain it in Mel's absence.

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

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

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.

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

[Guest guest]

-

I think part of the problem is still what is used to make money in gyms, that

is, the faddish nature of " what's popular " with various " solutions " for the ever

increasing girth and weakness that's walking around in the USA.

The contrast in the athletic world vs what's being sold to newbie gymrats this

time of year is quite a gulf.... you have to put blinders on to avoid seeing

and trying not to laugh at what's being taught to people by PT's across the

country while you work at your barbell and chalk exercises...

I'd hate to take that lot into any commercial gym right now and walk them

around, they're going to be rolling in the aisles in a short duration of time.

Perhaps that's really what's at the base of the respect question? the

commercial product in the average gym environment vs the performance/athletic

" hard core " coaching/research base? The fads vs the meat and potatoes of it

all?

I don't think they've devolved enough in the former eastern bloc to have this

divergence of situations quite yet...and that may be the reason they laugh.

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

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

> Mark,

>

> You're right on. It's amazing, isn't it? No wonder the S & C profession is still

> struggling for respect.

>

> Clearly the people advocating HIT nonsense aren't going to stop in this

> lifetime. What I keep wondering is why they expect to be taken seriously, and

> why anyone does? The only thing it accomplishes is to dignify the noise

they're

> making.

>

> Plisk

> Excelsior Sports • Shelton CT

> www.excelsiorsports.com

> Prepare To Be A Champion!

>

> =========================

>

> Mark wrote:

>

> 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]

-

I think part of the problem is still what is used to make money in gyms, that

is, the faddish nature of " what's popular " with various " solutions " for the ever

increasing girth and weakness that's walking around in the USA.

The contrast in the athletic world vs what's being sold to newbie gymrats this

time of year is quite a gulf.... you have to put blinders on to avoid seeing

and trying not to laugh at what's being taught to people by PT's across the

country while you work at your barbell and chalk exercises...

I'd hate to take that lot into any commercial gym right now and walk them

around, they're going to be rolling in the aisles in a short duration of time.

Perhaps that's really what's at the base of the respect question? the

commercial product in the average gym environment vs the performance/athletic

" hard core " coaching/research base? The fads vs the meat and potatoes of it

all?

I don't think they've devolved enough in the former eastern bloc to have this

divergence of situations quite yet...and that may be the reason they laugh.

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

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

> Mark,

>

> You're right on. It's amazing, isn't it? No wonder the S & C profession is still

> struggling for respect.

>

> Clearly the people advocating HIT nonsense aren't going to stop in this

> lifetime. What I keep wondering is why they expect to be taken seriously, and

> why anyone does? The only thing it accomplishes is to dignify the noise

they're

> making.

>

> Plisk

> Excelsior Sports • Shelton CT

> www.excelsiorsports.com

> Prepare To Be A Champion!

>

> =========================

>

> Mark wrote:

>

> 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]

Hi ,

No doubt about it, the commercial industry has a big influence on peoples'

beliefs. In the gyms, most would rather feel than think their way through

training. The problem arises when a method like HIT - advocated by people who

deliberately misrepresent evidence, misinterpret scientific principles, doing

one nonsensical thing with everyone regardless of population - is applied in

athletics. Many coaches perceive it is just another philosophy (not realizing

that it's fundamentally unsound) and get altogether the wrong idea about S & C.

They get lousy results, their athletes pay the price, and it kills the

credibility of the profession.

Anyway these days I just try to tune most of it out and focus on what matters.

Best regards,

SP

Plisk

Excelsior Sports

70 Ridge • Shelton, CT 06484-4641

203 215-2710 • www.excelsiorsports.com

Re: High Intensity Training?

-

I think part of the problem is still what is used to make money in gyms, that

is, the faddish nature of " what's popular " with various " solutions " for the

ever increasing girth and weakness that's walking around in the USA.

The contrast in the athletic world vs what's being sold to newbie gymrats this

time of year is quite a gulf.... you have to put blinders on to avoid seeing

and trying not to laugh at what's being taught to people by PT's across the

country while you work at your barbell and chalk exercises...

I'd hate to take that lot into any commercial gym right now and walk them

around, they're going to be rolling in the aisles in a short duration of time.

Perhaps that's really what's at the base of the respect question? the

commercial product in the average gym environment vs the performance/athletic

" hard core " coaching/research base? The fads vs the meat and potatoes of it

all?

I don't think they've devolved enough in the former eastern bloc to have this

divergence of situations quite yet...and that may be the reason they laugh.

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

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

> Mark,

>

> You're right on. It's amazing, isn't it? No wonder the S & C profession is

still

> struggling for respect.

>

> Clearly the people advocating HIT nonsense aren't going to stop in this

> lifetime. What I keep wondering is why they expect to be taken seriously, and

> why anyone does? The only thing it accomplishes is to dignify the noise

they're

> making.

>

> Plisk

> Excelsior Sports • Shelton CT

> www.excelsiorsports.com

> Prepare To Be A Champion!

>

> =========================

>

> Mark wrote:

>

> 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]

Is it possible for someone to define what exactly we are discussing when

referring to High Intensity Training? I have always thought that HIT could come

in various forms but I get the idea from some the posts here that there is one

specific type that is causing so much division amongst the members here. Sorry

if I seem a little out of touch here but I am a bit confused.

Lee Robillard

Mississauga, Ontario

Canada