HIT and

[Guest guest]

I know this article is long, but I thought the group would find it

amusing. Again, HIT is trying to prove itself and this time attacking

Louie . If anyone can withstand the length of the article and

comment, please do so.

Josh Henkin

Phoenix, AZ

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

HIT or Miss? . . . Way Off Target!

by Matt Brzycki

" High Intensity Training " or " HIT " is currently enjoying

unprecedented popularity. While there are numerous interpretations of

HIT, the term can be used to describe any type of strength training

that is intense, brief and infrequent. There are many misconceptions

and inaccuracies associated with HIT which are often advanced by a

number of individuals who have absolutely no first-hand knowledge of

a proper application of this type of training.

Numerous misconceptions and inaccuracies were circulated as facts in

an article that appeared in the October 1998 issue of Powerlifting

USA magazine and later on the internet. The article was called " HIT

or Miss? " and was written by Louie . According to " The

Official Louie Westside Barbell Home Page, " Mr. " is

world renowned as a 'tinkerer' of powerlifting. " The following are

some of the more outrageous comments made by Mr. (LS) in his

article along with my rebuttal (MB).

LS: Linemen are entering the National Football League (NFL) from HIT

schools " that can't vertical jump 19 inches or squat 300 pounds. "

MB: Actually, this statement was attributed to a " head strength coach

that has been affiliated with a winning tradition in the NFL. "

(Though not named, I'm fairly certain that I know his identity.)

Nevertheless, the strength coach's statement was noted by Mr.

and is laughable for several reasons.

First of all, how many linemen from HIT schools is he referring to? Is it all

linemen " from HIT

schools " or -- since the noun is plural -- is it just two?

Second, does this mean that every single lineman from non-HIT schools can

vertical jump more than 19 inches and squat more than 300 pounds? I think not.

Third, some HIT strength coaches at the collegiate level

do not incorporate barbell squats in their program.

Perhaps the most common reason that the strength coaches do not include barbell

squats

in their programs is because they feel that most of their players

cannot perform the movement without experiencing an unreasonable

amount of orthopedic stress. In this case, a player may go 4 - 5

years without ever doing this movement. Anyone who has ever done

barbell squats knows that the exercise requires a certain degree of

skill. A person who does not practice barbell squats on a regular

basis will not perform the movement to the utmost of his or her

capability.

Fourth, weren't the linemen " from HIT schools " referred

to by the unnamed strength coach tested by NFL scouts at some point

prior to being drafted? I don't believe that players are tested in

the squat at the NFL Scouting Combine -- which makes you wonder about

the importance of this exercise -- but they are certainly tested in

the vertical jump. And if these players were known to have such a

poor vertical jump -- and/or barbell squat -- why were they drafted

in the first place? Answer: Because they are outstanding football players.

An athlete's vertical jump and maximum barbell squat are only

important if you are forming a vertical jump club or barbell squat

team. They have absolutely nothing to do with an athlete's ability to

play football -- or any other sport, for that matter. Football

rosters at all levels of play -- high school, college and

professional -- are loaded with athletes who have a great vertical

jump and barbell squat. In many instances, however, the players with

the best vertical jumps and barbell squats reside deep down on the

depth chart because their football skills are inferior to those of

their teammates.

In a study to determine the correlation between physical tests and

football skills, Komarek -- the Assistant Strength and

Conditioning Coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- researched data

from five NFL Combines (1993-97). For each of the five years, he

looked specifically at the fastest players in the 40-yard dash at

each position (excluding quarterbacks, punters and kickers) and the

top three bench pressers at each position (excluding quarterbacks,

wide receivers, punters and kickers).

Of the 105 players with the fastest time in the 40-yard dash during that 5-year

period, Coach

Komarek found that 20 (19%) weren't even drafted. Moreover, an

examination of their playing status during the 1997 playing season

revealed that only 31 (29.5%) were starters while 31 (29.5%) were no

longer playing in the NFL. Of the 95 top bench pressers during that 5-

year period, he found that 28 (29%) went undrafted. Additionally, an

examination of their playing status during the 1997 playing season

showed that only 22 (23%) were starters while 41 (43%) were no longer

playing in the NFL.

Why is there little correlation between football skills and physical

testing such as a vertical jump or a maximum barbell squat? Answer:

Because they're different types of skills with different types of

requirements. Football is largely composed of " open " skills that are

done in an environment that is variable and unpredictable.

Essentially, the athlete must react and make proper adjustments to an

opponent. Conversely, a vertical jump and barbell squat are " closed "

skills that are done in an environment that is stable and

predictable. In this case, there's no need to react or make

adjustments since an object is waiting to be acted upon.

To summarize: In terms of predicting athletic ability, the vertical

jump and barbell squat -- as well as the 40-yard dash and bench

press -- are meaningless.

LS: " Machines and HIT [are] useless. "

MB: This remark was attributed to an anonymous NFL lineman but it is

a common misconception about machines and HIT. According to the

article, the lineman " was placed on a HIT program in college " and

played on a team that was in the Top 5 during his senior year.

According to the article, the player " made a remark that machines and

HIT were useless " which " got back to his old college team, who

immediately banned him for life from their weight room. "

Well, the fact that the unnamed NFL lineman played for a top-5 team

in college which used a HIT program certainly narrows the

possibilities as to his identity. Actually, Mr. may have

inadvertently provided another clue as to the player's identity. Mr.

wrote that he, himself, is " involved in the training of pro-

football teams " and then noted two of those teams as the Green Bay

Packers and the New England Patriots.

I'm virtually certain that I know the identity of this nameless player and, if

it's who I think it

is, he's an offensive lineman -- more specifically, a left guard --

who was drafted in the sixth round in the mid 1990s. And he also

presently plays for one of the teams with which Mr.

is " involved in the training. " If my suspicions are correct, there is

another version of this story. According to the player's college

strength coach, it goes something like this: The publisher of a

quarterly magazine -- a publication that essentially serves as a

vehicle to hype his training methodologies -- was in the weight room

of a certain NFL team looking to write a feature. The lineman was in

the room lifting weights and was noted as having played at a

university which has incorporated a HIT program for a very long time

(and also has, by the way, quite a " winning tradition " ).

The player was photographed doing barbell squats -- specifically " box " squats --

and was " interviewed " for the magazine. The player jokingly made a

comment to the effect that his college strength coach would probably

ban him from the weight room for life when he saw the article. The

player was not " immediately banned for life from their weight room. "

As a matter of fact, I'm told by his college strength coach that the

player has been -- and will always be -- welcome in their weight room.

Furthermore, it is also interesting to note that Mr. advances

the notion that machines are " useless, " yet " The Official Louie

Westside Barbell Home Page " sells a glute/ham machine for

$460, a reverse hyperextension machine for $995 that is " great for

strength and rehabilitation " and a belt squat/deadlift machine for

$2,000 that is a " Westside exclusive for building explosive power "

and " a great addition to any gym. " Perhaps all machines

are " useless " -- except for those sold by Mr. which

are " great for strength " and " for building explosive power. "

And Mr. offered absolutely no proof whatsoever in his article

to back up the assertion that HIT is " useless. "

LS: " HIT views [intensity] as a feeling, like a pump, a term

bodybuilders made popular. "

MB: This is unbelievably ridiculous. From whom did Mr.

acquire this information? I've known about HIT since 1980 and I've

never heard or read that intensity was likened to " a feeling, like a

pump. " Never. The most popular definition of intensity that is used

by HIT enthusiasts is probably " a percentage of momentary ability " --

a definition which, incidentally, is often cited in this publication.

Intensity has nothing to do with " a feeling, like a pump. "

If anything, HIT proponents devalue the significance of a pump. In

his recent audiotape series, Mike Mentzer states unequivocally that a

pump is temporary and has nothing to do with muscular growth.

LS: " Is a bodybuilder quick or explosive? No. "

MB: This is simply another preposterous comment by Mr. that

is based upon wild speculation, not factual evidence. Indeed, does

Mr. know for a fact that every single bodybuilder currently

on the planet -- which must number in the tens of thousands -- is not

quick or explosive? Or is he simply making this statement with the

hope that it will be accepted by readers as fact? Besides, what do

specific comments about bodybuilders have to do with an analysis of HIT?

LS: " Strength endurance is basically all the HIT program can possibly build. "

MB: This inaccurate claim is based upon the notion that there are

several different " forms " or " elements " of strength which are

independent of each other and must be worked separately. In his

article, Mr. stated that " Most authors who have studied

strength as a physical quality examine it in four forms: absolute,

speed, explosive and strength endurance. " Yet, elsewhere in his

article he curiously mentions three other types of strength: reversal

strength, starting strength and accelerating strength. At any rate,

these and other " elements " of strength are all directly related. If

you improve your muscular strength, for example, you will improve

your muscular endurance. If your muscle fibers become stronger, fewer

are needed to sustain a submaximal work output.

Additionally, a greater reserve is now available to extend the submaximal

effort. So,

increase muscular strength and you increase muscular endurance.

Likewise, if you improve your muscular strength, you will improve

your explosive power. If your muscle fibers become stronger, they can

produce more force; if they can produce more force, you can move with

less effort and do so more quickly/explosively.

LS: " HIT may increase endurance, but it does not promote great strength. "

MB: This comment by Mr. is especially interesting in that it

is a blatant contradiction of an earlier claim that he made. In the

paragraph immediately prior to this statement in his article, he

wrote that " Strength endurance is basically all the HIT program can

possibly build. Strength endurance is characterized by a combination

of great strength and significant endurance. " If a HIT program can

only build " strength endurance " and " strength endurance " is " a

combination of great strength and significant endurance, " doesn't it

follow that a HIT program can build " great strength " ? But here, Mr.

claims that HIT " does not promote great strength. "

Regardless, what exactly is meant by " great strength " ? Is it the

ability to bench press 400 pounds? 500 pounds? And how do various

genetic traits -- such as limb length -- factor into this? For

example, compare a person who bench presses 400 pounds a distance of

25 inches to a person who bench presses 335 pounds a distance of 30

inches. Obviously, the individual with the 400-pound bench press can

lift more weight. However, what about the fact that shorter limbs

give this person a distinct biomechanical advantage in the bench

press? In this example, the 335-pound bench press is actually more

impressive since the lifter performed more " work " (10,050 inch-pounds

compared to 10,000 inch-pounds).

Strength is increased by a proper application of the Overload

Principle -- that is, by providing increasingly greater demands on

the muscles from one workout to the next. This can be accomplished by

either doing more repetitions or by increasing the amount of weight

used. Any strength training program will be successful provided that

it involves progressive overload and adequate recovery.

LS: " HIT proponents use a lot of machines. "

MB: Really? What exactly constitutes " a lot " ? Further, has Mr.

or any other HIT naysayers ever done any research to

determine precisely what type of equipment is used by " HIT

proponents " ? Or is this yet another belief that's been repeated for

so long by the detractors of HIT that it's been accepted as fact? Dr.

Ken Leistner would certainly be categorized as a " HIT proponent " but

the overwhelming majority of the exercises he typically prescribes

are done with barbells and dumbbells.

It is also interesting to note that more than a few HIT strength coaches trained

predominantly with

barbells and were reasonably successful as competitive powerlifters

including Steve Wetzel, the Strength and Conditioning Coach of the

Minnesota Vikings. The truth of the matter is that a wide variety of

equipment modalities are incorporated in HIT programs to supply the

resistance to build muscular strength including selectorized

machines, plate-loaded machines, barbells, dumbbells, sandbags,

Goodyear tires, other human beings and even the lifter's bodyweight

(during dips and chins).

Besides, what would be so bad with using " a lot of machines " ? Many

productive exercises can be performed with machines that simply

cannot be done in a practical fashion with barbells and dumbbells

including the leg extension, leg curl, calf raise, lat pulldown and

movements for the neck area (i.e., flexion, extension and lateral

flexion). Other exercises offer significant improvements over their

free weight counterparts in terms of providing proper resistance over

greater range of motion such as the arm cross (i.e., a " pec deck "

or " pec machine " ), pullover and seated row.

As long as the muscles are progressively overloaded with increasing

demands and they receive adequate recovery between workouts, a person

will get stronger -- regardless of the type of equipment that is

utilized. Funny how some " experts " believe that if athletes increase

the resistance that they use on a machine bench press over a period

of time, they did so because they became better skilled at the

movement. But if athletes increase the resistance that they use on a

barbell bench press over a period of time, they did so because they

got stronger.

LS: " If you load a pec machine to the max, starting the movement

requires a max effort, which is very difficult and dangerous. "

MB: It is very difficult to understand exactly what Mr. is

trying to say here. By writing " If you load a pec machine to the

max, " does he mean loading it with the maximum weight that can be

lifted for one repetition? If so, it would be extremely unusual for

anyone to attempt a one-repetition maximum (1-RM) on a pec machine.

Or does he mean loading it with the maximum weight that can be lifted

for multiple repetitions? If so, why would " starting the movement

require a max effort " ? At any rate, wouldn't his claim also be true

of a barbell? That is, substituting the word " barbell " for " pec

machine " yields the following: If you load a barbell to the max,

starting the movement requires a max effort, which is very difficult

and dangerous.

Or -- as his next claim implies -- is he suggesting that the strength

curves of pec machines are such that there's far too much resistance

in the starting position? If so, Mr. is assuming that all pec

machines are designed poorly -- an assumption that isn't necessarily

true.

LS: " Yet at the finish, where the most weight can be lifted because

of accommodating resistance, machines show their downfall. "

MB: Again, it's hard to understand what Mr. is trying to say.

However, I think he's suggesting that the strength curves of pec

machines are such that there's far too little resistance in the mid-

range position. If so, Mr. is again assuming that all pec

machines are designed poorly -- an assumption that isn't necessarily true.

Mr. also appears to be confusing " accommodating resistance "

with " variable resistance. " Machines in which the resistance is

controlled by gears, friction, hydraulics or pneumatics provide

accommodating resistance, which generates a load that is equal and

opposite to the force exerted by a lifter; for the most part,

machines in which the resistance comes from a selectorized weight

stack provide variable resistance. The overwhelming majority of " pec

machines " provide resistance that is variable, not accommodating.

LS: " HIT proponents for some reason think that explosive weight

training is dangerous. "

MB: Well, I agree with Mr. on this as it is really what most

HIT proponents think. Are fast speeds of movement more dangerous than

slow lifting speeds? Only three things are possible: (1) the faster

you lift a weight the safer it becomes; (2) the faster you lift a

weight the more dangerous it becomes; or (3) a change in the speed of

movement has absolutely no effect in terms of the risk potential. Of

the three, the first possibility defies common sense. Actually, it's

completely absurd. And it's highly unlikely that there would be no

difference between fast speeds and slow speeds in terms of potential

risk. The only logical possibility is #2: The faster you lift a

weight the more dangerous it becomes.

True, the viscoelastic properties of tissues are a variable in all

this. Despite the viscoelastic nature, however, tissue failure will

still occur at some point. Unfortunately, there's only one way to

determine the precise tensile strength of tissue: when the structural

limits have been surpassed. Then, of course, it's too late.

LS: " Finally I ask, is anything more dangerous than football itself? "

MB: For shame. Is Mr. suggesting that because football is a

dangerous sport, the performance of dangerous activities is

justifiable? To paraphrase Ken Mannie, the Strength and Conditioning

Coach at Michigan State, " Using potentially dangerous movements in

the weight room to prepare for potentially dangerous activities is

like banging your head against the wall to prepare for a concussion. "

[i wonder how Mannie trains wrestlers, boxers, martial artists and

the Marines - in cotton wool padding in front of computer simulations?

Has Mannie not even noticed how rough and realistic football practice is outside

the

weight room? Maybe he needs to speak to all of those football coaches

out there to get their acts together! Mel Siff]

LS: " HIT proponents also think that if you exercise slow, you won't

become slow. "

MB: Again, I'll agree with Mr. on this since it is what HIT

proponents do believe. For the moment, however, suppose that lifting

weights with slow speeds did make you slow. It would be safe, then,

to presume that the slower you lift a weight the slower you become.

Stated otherwise, in order to become as fast as possible you should

lift weights as fast as possible. And the only way to do that is not

to use any resistance whatsoever when lifting weights. None. After

all, isn't it true that the speed of your limbs will always be faster

when using no resistance as compared to any resistance, no matter how

little?

But why, then, do some " experts " encourage athletes to run

while dragging a parachute or wearing a weighted vest or pulling a

sled? Won't you run slower when pulling added resistance as compared

to no resistance? Then aren't you training yourself to run slower?

So, why don't the " experts " who claim that lifting weights at slower

speeds will make you slower also tell you that running at slower

speeds -- such as when using a parachute or pulling a sled -- will

make you slower? Is it because a few of these people can profit from

the sale of parachutes, weighted vests, harnesses, tether cords,

sleds and other " speed " paraphernalia?

The same is true for the use of weighted implements. If lifting

weights at slower speeds trains you to become slower, what happens

when athletes practice their sport skills with weighted objects such

as baseball players who swing weighted bats, shot putters who toss

heavier-than-normal shot puts, golfers who swing weighted clubs,

boxers who throw punches while holding dumbbells and so on? Isn't

your speed of movement slower when using weighted equipment as

compared to regulation equipment? Why is it that many of the

same " experts " who tell you not to lift slowly because it will train

you to become slow don't tell you that you shouldn't practice

athletic skills with weighted objects? In fact, many of them endorse

the use of weighted objects.

The truth is that you won't get slower by lifting weights with slow

speeds of movement. By practicing skilled movements with added

resistance, however, it is possible that athletes may be training

their neuromuscular systems to move slower. In addition, the added

resistance will result in a movement pattern that differs from the

original skill when done without the added resistance -- essentially

it is a new movement pattern -- thereby temporarily confusing the

previously established neuromuscular pathways of the intended skill.

LS: " Wouldn't it be more beneficial to exercise for 7 to 8 seconds

and repeat a set of weights? That's how the game [of football] is

played, right? "

MB: Using this reasoning, cross-country runners should perform each

set in the weight room for at least 20 minutes. And pitchers should

do each set for no more than about 0.46 seconds since that's how long

it takes a fastball fired at 90 miles per hour to travel 60 feet, 6

inches. Further, they should perform about 100 sets -- each lasting

about 0.46 seconds -- with about 20 seconds of recovery between sets.

That's how the " game " is played, right?

The same twisted logic is also used by those who endlessly butcher

the Principle of Specificity by reasoning that since athletes play

football on their feet then they should exercise on their feet --

thus the fetish for the so-called ground-based training. It is

ridiculous to think that athletes cannot improve their strength while

sitting or laying down. It is interesting to note that while this

misguided notion has caused many to condemn the leg press, the same

individuals continue to endorse the bench press -- despite the fact

that neither movement is done in a standing position. No

contradiction there. And on a related note, why advocate split

routines since sports require the integrated effort of the entire

musculature at once not in parts?

LS: " Using our program, [a coach] currently has over 68 men who can

power clean 300 pounds or more, out of 90. "

MB: Well, I sincerely hope that the person coaches 90 Olympic-style

weightlifters. Otherwise, this information is meaningless. Like the

vertical jump and the barbell squat, the power clean is not an

indicator -- or a facilitator -- of athletic ability.

While on the subject, there is exactly no scientific research that

shows the power clean -- or any other form of explosive lifting --

improves performance on the athletic field. Studies have demonstrated

improvements in the vertical jump, force production and

other " closed " skills that were accomplished in a controlled, stable

and predictable environment in a nice, neat little laboratory.

However, no studies have proven that the power clean produced

improvement in specific " open " skills that are performed in the " real

world " environment of athletics -- which is uncontrolled, unstable

and unpredictable -- such as a lineman's ability to explode out of

his stance DURING A FOOTBALL GAME or a forward's ability to rebound

DURING A BASKETBALL GAME or a catcher's ability to throw out a runner

DURING A BASEBALL GAME or a goalie's ability to react to a shot

DURING A HOCKEY GAME or any athlete's ability to perform any other

specific " open " skill used DURING ANY ATHLETIC CONTEST. Such " open "

skills are totally different from some performance in a " closed "

skill that was registered in a lab like improvement in a vertical

jump where someone might imply or suggest or speculate or wish or

pray that this betterment will somehow " transfer " to the

explosiveness in other sport skills performed on an athletic field.

Simply, there's no study that shows the power clean produces an

honest-to-goodness, full-fledged improvement in explosiveness in a

specific " open " skill during game conditions. And if there is no

scientific evidence then there is only wild speculation, anecdotal

evidence and wishful thinking about how the power clean can improve

explosiveness or specific skills on the athletic field.

LS: " [Recruiters for teams who use HIT] pick skilled people who can

sometimes survive HIT, but the linemen cannot survive. "

MB: This statement contains several unfounded beliefs that have

absolutely no factual basis whatsoever. The first relates to the

outrageous belief that when HIT schools/programs are successful, it

is because they've RECRUITED highly skilled athletes; when non-HIT

schools/programs are successful, it is because they DEVELOPED highly

skilled athletes. What an incredible coincidence that HIT schools

somehow manage to get all the highly skilled athletes and the non-HIT

schools somehow manage to get all the relatively unskilled athletes.

Further, this is insulting to the sport coaches at HIT schools: It

suggests that they cannot coach/develop unskilled athletes. And it is

equally insulting to the recruiters at non-HIT schools: It suggests

that they cannot recruit skilled athletes.

Saying that skilled people " can sometimes survive HIT " and " linemen

cannot survive HIT " are truly bizarre remarks. And, as usual, Mr.

offered exactly nothing in the way of evidence to support his

position. What does it mean to " survive HIT " ? When " linemen cannot

survive HIT, " does it mean that they literally died as a result of

the training? Or when " linemen cannot survive HIT, " does it mean that

they were not mentally and physically capable of completing such a

challenging type of strength training in a highly aggressive fashion?

Finally, why is it that " linemen cannot survive HIT " while players of

the so-called skilled positions " can sometimes survive HIT " ? Is it

because of their relatively larger size? Is it because they begin

each play in a 3-point stance?

Is it true that " linemen cannot survive HIT " ? Does the name "

Munoz " ring a bell? Mr. Munoz -- widely regarded as the greatest

offensive lineman in the history of the NFL -- was somehow able

to " survive HIT " for 13 years with the Cincinnati Bengals. Despite

suffering 3 knee injuries in 4 years as a college player -- including

one in his senior year which caused him to miss all but one game --

Mr. Munoz missed exactly 4 games in 13 years with the Bengals. As a

result, it's no surprise that he was once described in the media as

being " an indestructible offensive lineman. " But according to Mr.

, " linemen cannot survive HIT. " How did Mr. Munoz

ever " survive " 13 years of doing HIT let alone get elected into the

NFL Hall of Fame?

Another Cincinnati lineman who was able to " survive " HIT was Bruce

Kozerski. Though not as celebrated as his Hall of Fame teammate, Mr.

Kozerski somehow managed to " survive " HIT for 12 years with the

Bengals (1984-95).

In reality, scores of other linemen have not only been able

to " survive " HIT, but they've done so for rather long periods of

time. Simply consider the Washington Redskins -- a team that has been

using HIT from 1982 to the present. A list of their linemen -- who

somehow managed to " survive " HIT for many years -- reads like a Who's

Who of NFL greats: Jeff Bostic (C, 1980-93), Ray Brown (G, 1989-95),

Dave Butz (DT, 1975-88), Russ Grimm (G, 1981-91), Joe y (T/G,

1981-93), Tre' (G, 1994-98), Jim Lachey (T, 1988-95), Dexter

Manley (DE, 1981-89), Mann (DE, 1983-93), Mark May (T/1981-

89), Raleigh McKenzie (G, 1985-94), Mark Schlereth (G, 1989-94),

Starke (T, 1973-84) and Ed (T, 1987-95).

As a tight end, has also played a position on the line of

scrimmage and was able to " survive " HIT enough to play in 103 games

in 8 years for the Redskins (from 1991-98). Interestingly, he also

used a HIT program in college (at Rutgers University) for 4 years.

Recent examples of long-term survival of HIT by linemen? Look at the

Minnesota Vikings -- a team that has been using HIT from 1992 to the

present. Since 1992, the following 10 linemen have somehow managed

to " survive " HIT while playing in a total of 788 regular-season games

in the NFL: Derrick (DE, 1995-98), Jeff Christy (C, 1993-

98), Dixon (G, 1994-98), Fisk (DT, 1995-98), Everett

(G/C, 1993, 1995, 1997-98), Randall Mc (G, 1992-98),

Mike (C, 1992-98), Randall (DE, 1992-98), Todd Steussie

(G/T, 1994-98) and Korey Stringer (T, 1995-98).

There are many other examples of linemen who were able to " survive "

HIT but these miracles are far too numerous to mention. However,

consider one more: 6'4 " 300+-pound Shaw. The Michigan State

lineman managed to " survive " HIT long enough to bench press 225

pounds 38 times (with a barbell) at the 1998 NFL Scouting Combine --

the most by any college player that year.

LS: " If you watch the Heisman Trophy winner who was on the HIT

program as a college athlete and is drafted by a pro-team who uses

HIT, invariably he is nonproductive or injury-prone. "

MB: Well, this description narrows it down to exactly one athlete:

Desmond who won the Heisman Trophy at the University of

Michigan (a " HIT program " ) in 1992 and was drafted by the Washington

Redskins ( " a pro-team who uses HIT " ). He played 3 seasons for

Washington (from 1992-94) and has since played 4 seasons for several

teams who don't use HIT (ville, Green Bay and Oakland). An

examination of Mr. 's statistics as a professional football

player should prove whether Mr. is right or wrong.

In 7 NFL seasons, Mr. had his best year for receptions (43) as

well as his two best years in total yardage (727 and 286) and yards

per catch (18.2 and 12.4) while playing for " a pro-team who uses

HIT. " Mr. also had career highs for receptions in a game (7)

and receiving yardage in a game (130) while on " a pro-team who uses

HIT. " Playing 3 seasons for " a pro-team who uses HIT, " Mr. 's

annual averages were 22 receptions, 344.3 yards and 15.65 yards per

catch; playing 4 seasons for " non-HIT " teams, Mr. 's annual

averages have been 11.25 receptions, 104.25 yards and 9.27 yards per

catch. If anything, Mr. became " nonproductive " as a receiver

after leaving " a pro-team who uses HIT. "

Mr. also returns kickoffs and punts -- and is very good at it,

I might add. Playing 3 seasons for " a pro-team who uses HIT, " Mr.

returned 43 kickoffs for 867 yards (20.16 yards per kickoff

return) and 10 punts for 109 yards (10.9 yards per punt return);

playing 4 seasons for " non-HIT " teams, Mr. has returned 142

kickoffs for 2,996 yards (21.10 yards per kickoff return) and 154

punts for 1,872 yards (12.16 yards per punt return). While Mr.

certainly has had more opportunities to return kickoffs and punts

while playing for " non-HIT teams, " his averages per return are very

similar. Based upon Mr. 's career statistics in these key

categories -- that is, receptions and returns -- it would seem to be

quite a stretch of the imagination to conclude that he

was " nonproductive " while playing for " a pro-team who uses HIT. "

What about the notion advanced by Mr. that Mr.

was " injury-prone " while playing for " a pro-team who uses HIT " ? The

term " injury-prone " suggests a tendency of being injured. From 1992-

94, the Washington Redskins played 48 regular-season games. Mr.

played in all 48. If he was truly " injury-prone " as Mr.

suggests, wouldn't it be expected that Mr. would miss

at least one game -- particularly with the violent collisions that

routinely occur in the sport of football? After leaving " a pro-team

who uses HIT, " Mr. did miss one regular-season game due to an

injury (in 1997). For reasons that are unclear, Mr. has also

missed 4 other regular-season games since leaving " a pro-team who

uses HIT. "

Well, one thing is for sure: At least Mr. is consistent in

presenting inaccuracies.

LS: " The truth is the HIT philosophy comes from companies that sell

machines. "

MB: The truth is that HIT philosophy comes from strength and

conditioning professionals who refuse to blindly lock-step with

traditional party-line thinking and realize that proper strength

training should be -- above all else -- practical, efficient and safe.

LS: " Even Arthur realized that doing one set to failure was a

mistake and retracted his statements years ago. "

MB: His statements were misquoted and taken out of context. In 1986,

Mr. wrote that he " realized that [his] advice may have been

wrong " and that " it is at least possible that a high intensity of

exercise is not even needed. " He speculated that he might have been

mistaken about his recommendation of training to fatigue. Further,

his comments were directed at certain populations -- specifically

those with a high percentage of slow-twitch muscle fibers. To the

best of my knowledge, he never " retracted " his recommendation of

training to fatigue. Approximately a decade after Mr.

supposedly made " a mistake " and " retracted his statements " about

doing one set to fatigue, he wrote: " Stopping one or two repetitions

short of failure may stimulate growth, but not to the degree that

going to failure will. "

LS: " [Mike Mentzer's] claim to fame was the one set-to-failure

system. He was, I might add, the only [bodybuilder] to use it

successfully. "

MB: Mike Mentzer's claim to fame is that he is a voice of

information, logic and sanity in a murky sea of misinformation,

illogic and insanity. As far as Mr. Menzter being " the only

[bodybuilder] to use the one set-to-failure system

successfully, " can you say " Dorian Yates " ?

[if he examines Dorian's programmes, he may have noticed that he

did not rely solely on that type of training. Anyway, even if this were true,

being able to add the name of only ONE more top bodybuilder who uses HIT

exclusively must tell us something about HIT! And where is Mike today,

compared with Arnie, Draper, Zane, Ferrigno, Pearl etc? Mel Siff]

LS: " It's not a good idea to try to be the exception to the rule. "

MB: I disagree. If the rule is to (1) lift weights explosively such

that the exercise is less efficient and more dangerous; (2) perform

marathon workouts in the weight room; and (3) overcomplicate strength

training by periodizing workouts; then I want to try to be the

exception to the rule.

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

Other than the aforementioned statements by Mr. , the

remainder of his article was mostly a collection of unintelligible,

illogical and disjointed sentences and assertions. So, is " HIT or

Miss? " a hit or a miss? I'd say that the article by Mr. is

way off target. In summation and to quote Mr. : " If you're

going to criticize something, you should understand it first. "

This article was first published in Exercise Protocol.

[Guest guest]

I like using the Squat, Incline Bench, and Cleans in our program dealing with

high school. Football players. I do not think HIT is the way to go! But if

you are winning and your keeping injury rate low that you program is good.I

do not like box squats for youg kids as well.

Joe Hallman D-Town,Pa

[Guest guest]

I agree with Dr. Siff in that too many people try to cite the accomplishments of

American football players that use their philosophy of weight training. Louie

is also somewhat guilty of this when he speaks of the accomplishments of NFL

teams

that have utilized Westside methods. I say " somewhat guilty " because, instead

of saying

that the Westside lifting style has been responsible for " Westside teams having

better

records than HIT teams, " he states that those teams using Westside have seen

greater

increases in strength versus other programs.

In speaking with Mr. , he directed me to contact the strength coaches of

Clemson

and the University of Washington to hear their experiences from switching to

Westside.

For example, the Clemson strength coach told me that 5 years ago, when they were

practising a standard eastern style of periodization, they had one athlete on

the team who

could bench press over 400 pounds. After incorporating the Westside style of

training,

that number has risen to 17 athletes.

As many posters on the list have pointed out, an athlete's success in his or her

sport is

not solely dependent on the workout style they follow, but on a variety of

factors.

Ken Manning

Scranton, PA

[Guest guest]

To Joe Hallman:

What kind of a training philosophy(ies) do you use? If I am correct, you are

the

strength coach for Central Bucks West High School in southeastern PA. And, as I

understand it, CB-West has had some football players who have posted some

excellent

numbers in the weight room for high school level athletes. And for list

memebers,

aside from weightroom numbers, CB West is a perennial powerhouse in AAAA

football

in Pennsylvania. There has been discussion on the list in the recent past

regarding

the design of strength programs for high school football teams. Would you care

to

discuss the details of your training program?

[Ken, please change the wrap-around feature on your email to 72 characters -

your

letters are arriving with each line hundreds of letters long and this is taking

a lot more

editing time! Mel Siff]

Ken Manning

Scranton, PA