STRENGTH TRAINING METHODS...

[Guest guest]

Plisk wrote:

Colleagues,

I've been lurking with interest during this thread.

My question: if Nautilus training methods and related approaches (like HIT)

are sound, then do all the 'literature reviews' that try to justify them do

so by flagrantly misrepresenting and omitting evidence?

Casler writes:

Hi ,

I am not sure the problem is " flagrant " , but more a biased filtering of

clear evidence.

If we take the first pillar or general premise that a training stimulus of a

" higher intensity " is more likely to cause a greater adaptation over a

stimulus of a lesser intensity, then we are on the way to recognizing the

" role " of intensity level in conditioning. However, the problem begins when

this begins to be interpreted as a STF (Set to Failure) as the definition of

the HIGHEST LEVEL of intensity.

HIT as promoted initially by and then afterwards by others, including

my old pals Mike Mentzer and Boyer Coe, is a very simplistic and

unscientific view of what causes various stimuli and what is required for

adaptation. Combine this with any number of short term studies that last

3-12 weeks or so and you have confusion.

The second pillar to the confusion is the " theory " of SuperCompensation.

While this is generally accepted as scientific fact, the truth (IMHO) is

that the perception of SuperCompensation is based on the " initial gains " of

mostly untrained or deconditioned trainees (you know the easy ones, where

you get a little stronger most every workout) that soon level off to

virtually nothing (Plateau). This type of accelerated adaptation is also

observed in the deconditioned trainee and the speedy gains are often

attributed to " Muscle Memory " . After these initial gains, we move to a

level of conditioning that requires what I call DIRECT COMPENSATION. That

is, the adaptation is in DIRECT Correspondence to the sum of the stimulus

package (number and level of each stimulus) The adaptation will also relate

to the LEVEL of overload (meaning the quantity of loading stimulus beyond

previous loading)

If we then follow the PILLAR of the ean HIT (even though he himself did

not adhere to the assertion) that the Maximum Stimulus to a muscle is

available in a High Intensity SSTF (single set to failure) and ANY work

performed beyond that single set is not only non-productive, but counter

productive we see that we have a failed theory. While it might be highly

productive initially in the unconditioned or de-conditioned, the SSTF will

quite quickly reach a level of circularity. That is the Single Set will

fail at the same place, and the stimulus will not have sufficiency to

cause/create overload.

The SSTF crowd will certainly then claim, that the PILLAR is NOT actually

meant to mean that additional exercises for the same bodypart or muscle, and

that they perform other exercises for the same areas. This then

defeats/fails the original premise where stated that " any further work

would be counterproductive " .

himself did not follow his own edict, and this further confuses the

argument to his followers, since they have only known Multiple Exercises per

Body Area, and seem to ignore, the " counterproductive " portion, while still

holding to the Maximal Stimulus portion.

IT CANNOT BE BOTH WAYS.

Since there are then MANY other PILLARS and props to the system that have

been placed into it over the years, and since many unconditioned or

de-conditioned make relatively rapid and very similar adaptations initially

(and in reality the majority of people who train do not do so consistently

for years like Strength Athletes, or persons on this list) the perception is

that SSTF and Multi-Set training achieve the same results.

Couple that with a number of short term studies, and you have the " mistaken

certainty " that SSTF works as well as Multi-Set stimulus when it is simply a

lack of total comprehension to the complete picture. You might also mate

that with the promoters of such training methods who assure the followers

that if they do not see significant adaptations, the deficiency is due to:

1)Lack of Genetic Potential

2)Insuficient Intensity

3)Overtraining (when it is really undertraining)

4)They are Natural Hard Gainers, and everyone who achieves a greater

adaptation is using pharmaceuticals

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Training Systems

Century City, CA

-II-----II-