1. But what do I really tell my patients?
by: Raye L. Bellinger, MD <rbellin@sacheart.com>
2. Re: Baye's comments on strength increases and fiber types, and some proposed problems
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
3. Re: What can we agree on?
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
4. Re: Evolution
by: Michael Morgan <michael_morgan@hotmail.com>
5. Re: Merriman web site
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
6. Re: Response to Pokere's comments on Kraemer
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
7. Re: HIT didn't work
by: Andrzej Rosa <rosa@wsrp.siedlce.pl>
8. Power Cleans
by: Couch, Mike <couchm@DSD1POST.DAYTONOH.ncr.com>
9. Re: The Training Debate
by: Ryan Cocharne <rcochrane63@hotmail.com>
10. Re: Licensing of Trainers, Exercise Physiologists
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
11. Re: Training Debate
by: Ryan Cocharne <rcochrane63@hotmail.com>
12. split routines for HIT
by: Raymond Craig <drcraig@gte.net>
13. Training Principle Controversies
by: BobBartek <bbartek@yahoo.com>
14. Re: to James Krieger on HD
by: Peter Zappola <zappolpc@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
15. Sandeep's short lived HD routine success
by: David and Lisa Staplin <staplin@pro-ns.net>
16. Mainstream press for HIT
by: Steve Raymond <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:28:32 -0800
From: " Raye L. Bellinger, MD" <rbellin@sacheart.com>
Subject: But what do I really tell my patients?
I have enjoyed reading HIT Digest and I must say the
postings are interesting and educational. I am very glad
that so many participants are interested in the real science
of training and exercising. Now here is the real issue:
Let's say I have a 45 year old man in front of me who is 50
lbs overweight, sedentary, but willing to try to improve his
lifestyle and well-being by starting a training program.
Pretend you're his physician (or in my case, his
cardiologist) and he wants advice on exercising safely and
dieting properly. He sees your nutritionist and get's a
reasonable low fat diet. He now turns to you for advice
with training techniques including frequency, duration, and
style. He really wants to get lean and mean. As far as
other problems, you feel it would be safe to pursue an
aggressive exercise program.
So my friends, what do you suggest!
Remember that most physicians do not understand training or
the actual specifics of exercise outside of personal
experience. I have read numerous disclaimers suggesting one
should talk to their physician prior to exercise. But the
problem remains that most (physicians) are not really
qualified to give exercise or training advice. Most
recommend buying a book or joining a health club!
So what do I tell my beginner patients?!
--
Raye L. Bellinger, MD
Sacramento Heart
http://www.sacheart.com
916-733-1999 FAX 916-733-1778
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:55:45 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Baye's comments on strength increases and fiber types, and some proposed problems
> From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
>
> The notion that one can train for this aspect or that
> aspect of increased strength, independent of increasing strength, is a
large
> part of the reason for many of the ludicrous training routines being
promoted
> currently.
Please correct me if I am interpreting this statement wrong, but I receive the impression that you feel that one cannot emphasize neural adaptations over hypertrophic adapations within an individual; i.e. a strength gain is a strength gain, and that it is impossible for this gain to be different in magnitude depending upon the loading parameters of the training protocol. If this was true, then this would insinuate that there would be no difference in strength gains among different repetition brackets; i.e., a 4 RM resistance would result in exactly the same adaptations/strength gains as a 12 RM resistance. However, high intensity resistances have been shown to result in greater neural adaptations than moderate intensity resistances (1-5). Some research has demonstrated higher intensity resistances to result in greater strength gains than lower intensity resistances (1,3,7-8). Empirical evidence shows that Olympic weightlifters show much greater gains in strength than what can be established through hypertrophic gains (3); since these athletes engage in extremely high-intensity training, this gives further support for the notion that high intensity loads result in greater neural adaptations than moderate intensity loads.
If "a strength gain is a strength gain," then the optimal protocol for a
bodybuilder would be the same for a powerlifter and would also be the same
for an Olympic lifter. Simple empirical observation and common sense
dictates that this is not true in real life. In my opinion, the idea that
somehow a 4 RM resistance will result in the same neural and hypertrophic
adaptations as a 12 RM resistance doesn't even make any sense whatsoever.
Now, I'm not saying that this is the claim that you made, but it is the
impression that I got.
1. Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Kraemer. 1997. Designing Resistance Training
Programs. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
2. Butchar, J., and M.D. Becque. 1966. Effects of high and low intensity weight training on iEMG and force. Med. Sci. Sports Exer. 28(5):S1139.
3. Baechle, T.R. (ed.). 1994. Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
4. Schmidtbleicher, D., and M. Buehrle. 1987. Neuronal adaptations and
increase of cross-sectional area studying different strength training
methods. In: Biomechanics X-B. B Jonsson, ed. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics. pp. 615-620.
5. Hakkinen, K., et al. 1985. Changes in isometric force- and
relaxation-time electromyographic and muscle fiber characteristics of human
skeletal muscle during strength training and detraining. Acta Physiol.
Scand. 125:573-583.
6. B.M. Moss, et al. 1997. Effects of Maximal Effort Strength Training With Different Loads on Dynamic Strength, Cross-Sectional Area, Load-Power and Load-Velocity Relationships. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 75(3):193-199.
7. Stone, W.J., and S.P. Coulter. 1994. Strength/endurance effects from
three resistance training protocols with women. J. Strength and Cond. Res.
8(4):231-234.
8. Anderson, T., and J.T. Kearney. 1982. Effects of three resistance
training programs on muscular strength and absolute and relative endurance.
Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 53:1-7.
> You can only DIRECTLY change one thing about your muscles with training;
> they're strength, the amount of force they can produce. You can make them
> stronger, or you can grossly overtrain and make them weaker.
However, the degree by which this strength gain is induced, and the
mechanism behind these strength gains can be influenced by training
variables.
> While we're on the subject, what about training differently to address
your
> fast twitch fibers (or high threshold motor units) vs. your slow twitch
fibers
> (or low threshold motor units)? The whole idea is utter nonsense, or as
Arthur
> would say, "hogwash." Your fiber type is genetically determined, and not
> subject to change, and there is no evidence that one can selectively
stimulate
> either, and even if it was possible, there would be no evidence, since
there
> is NO practical accurate means of measuring such a thing.
Mr. Baye, there is significant real-life evidence to support the idea that
you can selectively train Type II fibers over Type I fibers. Research by
Dudley et al (9) compared a normal resistance training group performing 3
sets of 10-12 RM, a concentric-only group performing 3 sets of 10-12 RM,
and a double-volume concentric-only group performing 6 sets of 10-12 RM.
The normal resistance training group showed hypertrophy of both Type II and
Type I fibers. The double-volume concentric group showed hypertrophy of
only Type II fibers. The concentric group showed no significant
hypertrophy in either fiber type. This demonstrates that Type II fibers
can be preferentially trained depending upon the training protocol used.
Also, high threshold motor units have been shown to be recruited before low
threshold motor units during short, quick rapid concentric actions quickly
followed by relaxation (10). High threshold motor units have also been
found to be preferentially recruited during eccentric actions (10). This
evidence also supports the results of Dudley's study.
Now, Mr. Baye, your fiber type is genetically determined, but fiber types
have been found to change within there respective subtypes. Numerous
studies by many different authors have continued to demonstrate the
conversion of Type IIB to Type IIA fibers due to resistance training (1).
You can't ignore such overwhelming evidence.
9. Dudley, G.A., et al. 1991. Importance of eccentric actions in
performance adaptations to resistance training. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 62:543-50.
10. Sale, D.G. 1992. Neural adaptations to Strength Training. In:
Strength and Power In Sport, ed. P.V. Komi, 249-65. Oxford: Blackwell
Scientific.
> And another thing (I guess that wasn't the last thing) I AM one of those
> people who say that HIT is the BEST. Even if HIT wasn't more effective
than
> other training methods (and when properly applied, it IS), it is by far
safer,
> and more time efficient than anything else out there.
Mr. Baye, I present you with 4 hypothetical situations, and please explain to me, within the context of the theories that you espouse, how you would solve these problems. If your philosophies are the "BEST", as you claim, then they should be able to work for everyone and any situation:
Situation #1: A bodybuilder comes to you and wants you to design a training protocol that would optimize muscle hypertrophy for him. You place him on a Superslow protocol, and find after a number of months that he as made great gains in strength. Yet, he has had absolutely no increase in muscle size. Assuming his caloric intake is adequate, please explain to me, within the context of your philosophies, why this problem has occurred and how you would correct it. From my understanding of your philosophies, I cannot see how this can be done. Please do not claim that it could not happen, because Matt Brzycki recently added 100 lbs to his trap bar deadlift within a year with absolutely no increase in muscle size.
Situation #2: A collegiate wrestler comes to you and is interested in
increasing his strength for wrestling. However, he is very close to
jumping to a higher weight class and does not want to see this happen.
Therefore, he is very interested in relative strength; he wants to get
stronger yet see no hypertrophy whatsoever. He is interested in purely
neural adaptations. Explain to me, Mr. Baye, how you would solve this
dilemma within the context of your philosophies. Obviously, you want to
increase strength but not stimulate growth. I cannot see how your abstract
philosophies can solve a problem like this. Please do not tell me that it
is impossible to selectively increase strength without inducing hypertrophy
because it is obviously possible since it has been demonstrated both in
real life and in the laboratory.
Situation #3: An Olympic lifter comes to you and wants you to design a training protocol for him. Now, being an Olympic lifter, it is undesirable for him to train to failure since doing so would encourage bad technique on these highly technical lifts. It is also undesirable for him to do more than 5 repetitions per set since higher repetitions would create excessive metabolic fatigue which would again encourage bad technique. Please explain to me how you would design a training protocol for this individual using your philosophies. I assure you the constraints are absolutely necessary since he is an Olympic lifter. I cannot see how you could design a training protocol for an Olympic lifter using your philosophies.
Situation #4: You place an individual on an HIT protocol. He makes
excellent strength gains for a period of months. His gains begin to slow
significantly and halt in some exercises, so you have the individual take 2
weeks off and then begin on a protocol with a reduced volume and reduced
frequency to encourage further progress. However, you find that this
individual has lost some strength after this 2 week layoff. Please tell me
how your philosophy explains what has happened. Please do not claim that
this could not happen, because it happened to me during the days when I
embraced HIT just as much as you do, and definitely was not misapplying any
of the principles. Within the context of the theories that you support, I
do not see how this can be explained or how this problem can be solved,
since your theories assume that plateaus are caused by overtraining, when,
in this situation, this is obviously not the case.
>I'd like to recommend that all of you read over everything on Cyberpump!,
>particularly, Arthur Jones' classic Iron Man articles, as well as Arthur's
>articles at www.medxinc.com. I think that will clear up a lot of confusion
>regarding several issues. Also, I strongly recommend everyone read Fitness
>Testing: A Multi-Billion Dollar Sham at http:www.superslow.com/es13.html.
This
>will give everyone an idea of the quality of "research" being quoted by
many.
Mr. Baye, please explain to me the shortcomings of each individual study that I have quoted, and why each individual one is lacking in quality.
James Krieger
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:47:19 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: What can we agree on?
> From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
>
> First of all what is (Mentzer's, Jones' etc.) theoretical premises.
>
> 1. One must train intensely enough to stimulate growth.
The notion "stimulate growth" is overly simplistic. As I point out in
another post, different training protocols can produce different adapations
within muscle tissue. One study compared 3 protocols; one protocol
resulted in hypertrophy of both Type II and Type I fibers while another
resulted in hypertrophy of only Type II fibers. You must also realize that
an increase in strength can occur due to various neural adaptations and may
not be due to any hypertrophy at all.
>
> 2. Volume and
>
> 3. Frequency must be regulated to provide for growth to occur.
I agree with this, but Mentzer's philosophies claim that volume and
frequency must be constantly reduced as time progresses to ensure continued
progress. This premise alone is based on the assumption that all plateuas
are caused by overtraining, which they are not.
James Krieger
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:06:27 PST
From: "Michael Morgan" <michael_morgan@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Evolution
>Remeber that evolution is a theory, and a theory does not represent
>scientific fact.
Whoa! I just couldn't let this one go by. The problem here is the
confusion of the colloquial term, "theory," with the scientific term,
"theory."
"Theory," in the scientific sense, means a proposition that arises from
a series of scientific facts and is subject to testing via the
scientific method, or, as my dictionary has it, "a coherent group of
general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of
phenomena: Newton's theory of gravitation."
"Theory," in the colloquial sense, means "guess or conjecture."
The theory of evolution is not a guess; it is a well-considered
proposition arising out of observable facts and is grounded in as much
hard science as any other theory of science out there. It will be
evaluated and tested, and re-evaluated, because that's what the
scientific method is. So far it has held up well. (Nothing against
"scientific creationism," you understand.)
If a theory doesn't represent scientific fact, then all science is out
the window.
Okay, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of weighty matters. :)
Michael
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:46:05 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Merriman web site
> From: Stephen Turner <smturner@golden.net>
>
> Since all good would-be scientists count the data that disagrees as well
as
> the data that agrees with their favourite theory (right???), I thought I
> would have a look at the site. At this site HIT is referred to as
> pseudo-scientific pop crap. It also calls HIT the most time-efficient
> method of training. Well, I'm confused. Would this not tend to validate
> the principles, rather than refute them?
If you read further, you'll notice, though, that Barry makes the comment,
"Put in a little time, get out a little gain." This is what he means by
time-efficient. Just to make it clear, I do not agree with this opinion on
HIT.
James Krieger
-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:08:34 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Response to Pokere's comments on Kraemer
> From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
>
> Sandeep it's good to see that you have included appropriate subject
> headings. Looking at articles at
> http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/4000/robo009.html and
> http://www.mikementzer.com/scidoc.html we can see the errors in Kraemer
> and Bompa's research and propositions. It's understandable for those
> that can't or don't use reason or think that what they can't understand
> to be intelligible not to use it. It's not Andrew's fault that he
> need's a blanket to put out these fires.
The scidoc.html document that you point out points out errors in one
research study. Such errors cannot be extrapolated to all of Kraemer's
research studies. As far as Rob's criticisms of Bompa are concerned, I
think Rob did a great job of pointing out numerous problems with Bompa's
book. However, this does not mean we should discount all research done by
Bompa (actually, I am not familiar with any hard research done by Bompa.
Most of his stuff is always just theoretical and seems not to have much
basis from hard scientific evidence. Does anybody know of any actual hard
studies that Bompa participated in?).
Remember that we should not fault the researchers but fault the research on
a case-by-case basis. Everybody is human and everybody makes mistakes,
including Kraemer and Mike Mentzer.
Dave Staplin makes the following comment in this document: "The thinking individual will judge all claims on the basis of the support for such claims -- in this case, the research cited and the manner in which it is designed, conducted, and the conclusions derived from it." I completely agree with this statement. However, Andrew did not follow this advice. Rather than looking at individual studies and why each one may not support a claim, he made a blanket statement about the researchers themselves.
James Krieger
-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:43:42 -0800
From: Andrzej Rosa <rosa@wsrp.siedlce.pl>
Subject: Re: HIT didn't work
>I went through a similar situation with HIT as Sandeep did; I made
>great gains off of HIT for a long time but then hit a point where HIT
>was no longer a solution to my problems. In no way was I somehow
>misapplying HIT principles; I was a hardcore HITer that fully
>understood the principles and lived by them.
I am really curious what was exacly Your workouts that times. Like,
I don't remember who (sorry) said, Hit may be very different in
terms of volume, frequency, intensity etc.
If Sandeep could also post His Hit workouts, that would be nice.
I'm just trying to understand what is importand in that game, so
knowledge of other's experiences may be beneficial.
--
Andrzej Rosa
mailto:rosa@wsrp.wsrp.siedlce.pl
-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 07:49:49 -0500
From: "Couch, Mike" <couchm@DSD1POST.DAYTONOH.ncr.com>
Subject: Power Cleans
Please tell me how to properly and safely spot a lifter doing
cleans? Is this a lift that college coaches (football) inquire when
recruiting a new athlete? What benefit do cleans have over other similar
(safer) lifts?
Michael Couch
-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 05:31:46 PST
From: "Ryan Cocharne" <rcochrane63@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Training Debate
I mentioned to Sandeep about doing some reading to see if HIT has REALLY
changed (it hasn't). Here is a good one on the Cyberpump! site written
OVER 20 YEARS AGO by Ken Leistner.
http://geocities.datacellar.net/colosseum/4000/sense.html
It is under HIT Stuff.
Here is a quote from the article:
"How many sets of each exercise? One. Two. Certainly never more than
three, and if you are working properly, one set of most of these
exercises should be more than enough for anyone. Why are these exercises
chosen as opposed to some others? Very frankly, personal preference has
much to do with this. However, some considerations may clarify my
prejudices. "
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:21:51 EST
From: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Licensing of Trainers, Exercise Physiologists
While it certainly is important to have standards of competence and knowledge in any industry, and a means of distinguishing those who do, from those who don't, this would be a complete disaster for the fitness industry. The majority of people and organizations in this industry, including the exercise physiology community have absolutely no idea what exercise is, much less possess any real standards where exercise instruction or safety are concerned. If what currently passes for standards in any of the larger fitness organizations or the field of exercise physiology were imposed on us, then the situation would most likely get worse, much worse, not better.
If the government would stay the hell out of economics all together, things
would be a hell of a lot better all around. For more on this, I suggest
reading Capitolism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, or The Ominous Parallels,
by Leonard Piekoff.
Andrew M. Baye
-------------------- 11 --------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 07:16:15 PST
From: "Ryan Cocharne" <rcochrane63@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Training Debate
Brad wrote:
>I agree...and HIT stresses those fundamentals. Hard work, >recovery,
safety, no bull supplements, etc. Those are what I call >the
fundamentals.
Well said. In fact, I would like to add progression as well.
>sense? It takes YEARS. That is where I think Mentzer is wrong.
>Heck,
>I am still finding out I can train harder.
This has been my experience as well. Simply adding volume did not work.
I believe you can work out hard, but not LONG and HARD. And if someone
thinks they can...they don't know what HARD is.
>athletes. The have full time jobs, a family, job pressures, etc.
These aspects don't get mentioned very often...except maybe in
Hardgainer Magazine.
> Especially,
>since I am familiar with your site and your lifts, etc. You took it
>out of context. Congrats on all the email you received.
What does getting a lot email have to do with assessing someone's
"knowledge". Just curious. I get lots of spam...wonder if that
qualifies. ;)
>Yes it would actually. People can judge for themselves based on >the
source of this comment about Rob making death threats.
Hey, I can confirm the source. This was the biased moderator who
censors postings about HIT on another list.
>Explosive lifting is more dangerous...period. I tell you
>what....train
>explosively for 15 years and give me a call.
Been there...felt that. Not fun. If you want injuries, then train
explosively...they will come. Injuries that is.
Ryan
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 12 --------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 11:12:15 -0500
From: "Raymond Craig" <drcraig@gte.net>
Subject: split routines for HIT
I like training HIT style, but I also like to split my training sessions. I am looking for advice or comments about splitting up my routine but staying in the HIT style. This that I am doing right now,
Day 1 Chest and Biceps
Day 2 Back and Hamstrings
Day 3 Rest
Day 5 Quads and Calves
Day 6 Shoulders and Triceps
Day 7 Rest
Repeat
-------------------- 13 --------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 07:39:03 -0800 (PST)
From: BobBartek <bbartek@yahoo.com>
Subject: Training Principle Controversies
There has been a lot of banter back and forth as to the value of HIT
and HD style workouts versus split versus periodization and other
publicized routines.
If I reflect on my own success, it has not primarily been the result
of what I did in the gym. No matter the training style, I have always
pushed it to the limit in double progression form (as do most people I
see and who contribute to this list) I have periodized. I have used
Hatfield's high/low rep training and the Hardgainer's method. I have
done HIT and now I am experimenting with HD. With all these methods,
I have made gains for a period of time.
However, it was the realization of Hardgainer's 'less is more' and
reduced training intervals that resulted in the most benefit. It is
not how many sets, it is how much rest.
Each time I reached a long-lasting plateau (in the past), I attributed it to not enough work in the gym or not enough protein, etc. So I did more work (sets, reps, weight, etc). Guess what. I didn't work.
It wasn't till I forced myself to take more days off between workouts thath the real gains came. Body weight, muscle size, and strenghth went up fast. I could make small gains everytime I went to the gym.
Now I workout with HD priciples. Oh, I don't do just one set. I make
sure I get to the point of muscle failure (weakness). But, I am out
of the gym in one-hour or less and I only train once a week. I do
squats once every two-weeks, deadlifts every third week, and chest
once every two weeks.
In conclusion, for me, going to HIT and HD was not for the gym
training methods, but recovery. When you lift big weight, you need
more rest (period!). The rest of you who haven't realized this yet
can go on arguing about sets and reps. Weightlifting is not really a
science. It is an art. You put weight on a bar and you move the
weight. You then need to rest.
I find it amusing to read about and to view in the gym people working
out many times per week. Most are still lifting about the same amount
of weight they did the year before. No gains. I can't train more
often than once a week. Squatting or deading 475 or 6-7 reps requires
at leats two weeks recovery for me.
Bob
-------------------- 14 --------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 11:34:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Peter Zappola <zappolpc@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
Subject: Re: to James Krieger on HD
James Kriege wrote:
"I can come up with at least 4
hypothetical situations where Heavy Duty cannot deliver a solution to
problem, and if anybody wants to hear them, I'd be glad to illustrate
and that the premises behind it are irrefutable (which they are not)."
Please enlighten me.
---
ZAP
http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/6026
-------------------- 15 --------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:28:06 -0600
From: "David and Lisa Staplin" <staplin@pro-ns.net>
Subject: Sandeep's short lived HD routine success
I have watched this discussion regarding variuos results people have/have
not achieved using Mike Mentzer's HD routines. I think a fair amount of
this LACK of results comes from rigidly applying a routine(s) Mike has
stated quite clearly as a STARTING POINT for most individuals, staying with
this, and never varying it as stresses increase or if it becomes obvious
results are minimal. On page 50 of the HD1 book, Mike states "...the
general theory of productive exercize - train intensely, train breifly, and
train infrequently - is valid and will work for everyone. However, SINCE
THERE EXISTS A WIDE RANGE OF VARIATION AMONG INDIVIDUALS intheir ability to
tolerate intense exercise, I can't guarantee a universal fail-safe
perscription for everyone. IF THE LISTED ROUTINE DOESN'T YEILD IMMEDIATE
SIGNIFICANT RESULTS, WORK WITH REGULATING VOLUME AND FREQUENCY UNTIL SUCH
RESULTS ARE FORTHCOMING."
This is hardly an iron-clad or dogmatic statement about HD training! It is
important to remember that the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES guiding HD training
are broad whereas the APPLICATION is going to be SPECIFIC and dependant on
a large number of factors unique to each individual.
With Sandeep's limited progress I would make 2 observations based upon what
I have read on this dicussion site:
1) Including Negatives and/or Forced Reps with ANY frequency at all ( to
say nothing of using these with each set or even each workout ) is a recipe
for overtraining. Mike has addressed this issue REPEATEDLY.
2) Trainees in their teens have generally not yet completed the cycle
leading to physical maturation so it is unrealistic to generalize about
training methods based on the experiences of such a group. An interesting
comparison is the results achieved by experienced (YEARS - 5+) trainees who
have used volume approaches to the results these same trainees attain using
HIT. And yes, their results will vary.
I would encourage those of you who have not achieved the results you had
hoped for with the HD routines to go back and read CAREFULLY what Mike has
and is currently saying. Thien take a look at your training log and see if
there aren't some changes you can make to enhance your results. Reread the
quote above again. One of the classic logic flaws is to ascribe results to
one influence ( theory ) while ignoring other influences at work in the
same situation ( application ).
I would be happy to share my 22+ years of personal and competition results
with anyone interested. I WILL NOT, however, engage in any hair-spliiting
point- by- minor- point debates. Good luck to us all with our passion for
knowledge and results!!
Dave Staplin
-------------------- 16 --------------------
Date: 21 Jan 1998 12:41:44 -0800
From: "Steve Raymond" <Steve_Raymond@cpqm.mail.saic.com>
Subject: Mainstream press for HIT
Mark Allen, 6 time Iron Man Champ, is on the cover of the February 98 Outside magazine. The lead article is about the fitness regimen he uses to stay in shape now that he has a "normal job" and is no longer a professional endurance athelete. There are sections on endurance, strength, flexibility, rest, nutrition, and motivation. I expected to find a lot of the garbage that is normally found in magazine fitness articles (KILLER ABS!!) To my surprise, the article sounds remarkably like the HIT FAQ. The focus is more on general overall fitness than bodybuilding. In summary, 2 days of cardio and 2 days of strength training per week. Allen's trainer is named Diane Buchta, somewhere on Hawaii. Some nuggets from the strength training section:
Two full body workouts per week "If you know you're going to have a third
day, you might not give 100% on day 2"
1-2 sets "The latest research shows that there is no additional gain from a third set, and some studies show that 1 set is enough"
The following exercises are recommended:
lat pulldowns
leg extensions
bench
incline press
curls
pushdowns
squats
upright rows
calf raises
"A full body workout can be done in as little as 30 minutes"
12-15 rep range, double progression.
Unfortunately, the article writer has obviously never lifted because some
things get lost in the translation. There is some confusing phase I and phase
II stuff but don't despair: Phase I is simply the first 4 weeks for new
trainees to get used to weights. The trainer probably advocates going to
failure after a 2 week introductory period but that doesn't come through.
Also plateaus are mentioned but the article doesn't really get into how to get
past them.
All in all its a very HIT like article. There is a Q&A section at the end.
Q: What's the worst mistake you've ever made?
MA: "Training too hard too frequently" he says without hesitation.
spr