STRENGTH TRAINING METHODS...

[Guest guest]

's position in well taken. While STRENGTH TRAINING METHODS AND THE WORK OF

ARTHUR JONES. D, Bruce-Low S. does not prove the case for it sets

out to do, instead resulting in being a profound embarrassment to the HIT

community for sloppy work unacceptable for freshman composition, it does a good

review of non-HIT literature with regard to a seeming lack of generally accepted

standards: the authors set out to do meta-analaysis of both HIT and non-HIT but

could not meaningfully do so with non-HIT.

I'm reminded of the lack of epistemological concerns in Exercise Physiology in

reading Lily Kay's Whoe Wrote the Book of Life? - A history of the genetic code

(btw, she shows there's no genetic code, nothing encrypted, hence no code - a

misnomer). From 1953 genetics has sailed along contentedly using an information

systems model of the universe, a standard made possible with the advent of

mainframe technology and systems modeling, general systems theory &

communications originating in the 40s, coming to life in the 50s. As an

historian of science, Kay brings about sobering accounting rendered by digging

into a substratum of long-ago established guiding ideas, then exposes them as

relative - not absolute - truths. Does that invalidate genetic research? No, but

it opens it up for other useful models.

This HIT v non-HIT debate has nothing to do with science: were there science in

it, it would be resolved by a model incorporating both modalities. Keeping it a

debate outside of science makes both sides lose. We're witnessing emergence of a

Post-/Post-Darden HIT anyway, a syncreticism of HIT/non-HIT suggesting

(hopefully) emergence of a more robust science of exercise. Current science

isn't going to help that emergence; instead, current coaching know-how, the art

side of things, is forcing it since coaching reveals a spectrum of training

choices, not an artificial dilemma, much less straw men.

We might also look to some of the origins of HIT: Bill Starr's articles on Mark

Rippetoe's Starting Strength about training isotonic-isometrics at the old York

Barbell Club indicates to workouts weekly on the rack, maximum intensity,

ongoing strength and size results - as in Mr America Vern Weaver's 1962 375 lb

power clean at under 200 lbs.

Ken ONeill

kayoneill@...

Austin, Texas

> From a scientific perspective it is very important for the researcher to

> recognize their own bias and try to reduce the effect. Many of the HIT

> studies

> I've read ... do exactly the opposite. They tailor the research to prove

> their

> bias - well, at least their perspective.

> -----

>

> Hi ,

>

> Amen. You absolutely nailed it with that statement.

>

> I can only imagine how many pro-HIT flames the moderators are getting

> peppered

> withalready...

[Guest guest]

Sure , it is debatable. You just don't think so because of your

assumptions.

What I don't get is why you always seem to feel the need to bash HIT, yet

you refer to your training method as " Rogue HIT " on Ell Darden's forum?

--

Drew Baye

Orlando, FL

High Intensity Training

www.baye.com

[Guest guest]

No question there is way too much poor research out there, and it certainly

isn't restricted to HIT. But I still stand by my statement in regards to HIT -

there appears to be no objectivity at all.

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

On 1/30/11 10:49 AM, Exarchives@... wrote:

> Well doesn't that happen with mostly all " Exercise Physiology Research. "

> There is a Hidden Agenda with Just about all of it. It commonly lacks Rigid

> Control, and with Human Physiology, its a Crap Shoot at best, a

> Demonstration. If if it is any indication, the " so called " Pro Conditioning

" Experts "

> seen at NBA Fit, are Worse than Useless - Strengthening or Worthless

> Skills? - Do you really need " studies " to see the forest for the trees -

> Selection Bias Anyone?

>

> Landau

> Aventura, Florida

> _www.exercisefraud.com_ (http://www.exercisefraud.com)

>

>

> In a message dated 1/30/2011 9:26:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> ssp67047@... writes:

>

> Hobman wrote:

> From a scientific perspective it is very important for the researcher to

> recognize their own bias and try to reduce the effect. Many of the HIT

> studies

> I've read ... do exactly the opposite. They tailor the research to prove

> their

> bias - well, at least their perspective.

> -----

>

> Hi ,

>

> Amen. You absolutely nailed it with that statement.

>

> I can only imagine how many pro-HIT flames the moderators are getting

> peppered

> withalready...

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Plisk

> Excelsior Sports

> Derby CT

> Prepare To Be A Champion!

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Modify/cancel your subscription at:

>

> mygroups

>

> Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you

> wish them to be published!

>

>

[Guest guest]

This discussion might benefit from a posting of " Chaos in the Brickyard " .

Interesting how 50-some years ago that research was already headed in the wrong

direction. Hasn't gotten much better from where I am sitting.

http://www.castonline.ilstu.edu/mccaw/chaos_in_the_brickyard.htm

K. Schilling, PhD

Associate Professor, Exercise Neuromechanics Lab Director

http://www.memphis.edu/hss/enl/

901-678-3475

The University of Memphis

314 Roane Fieldhouse

Memphis, TN 38152

[Guest guest]

Arthur preached pre-fatigue. I distinctly remember reading about his

training with Casey Viator about how he would start with heavy leg extensions,

move on to heavy leg press and then finish up with heavy squats. Every exercise

done to failure and then stripping weight off as each goes to failure.

Even still, I find it amazing that we are discussing HIT so long after it has

been found to be almost worthless for performance.

Jay Ashman

Gorilla Pit Athletics

North Ridgeville, OH

>

> The early Nautilus machines were even constructed so you could complete the

> isolation exercise followed by the compound exercise without the need to get

> out of the machine.

>  

> Why would we focus only on the HIT section of the philosophy while ignoring

> the pre fatigue component? Pre fatigue would have a huge impact on this

> discussion.

>

> Casler writes:

>

> Because that was one of the primary elements of the PAPER and there was no

> mention of " Pre-Exhaustion " .

>

> http://www.asep.org/files/.pdf

>

> Regards,

>

> Casler

> TRI-VECTOR 3-D Training Systems

> Century City, CA

> -II-----II-

>

[Guest guest]

Casler wrote:

If the definition of better is that one provides a higher level of

adaptation, or continued adaptation then it is relative.

For the casual fitness trainee the difference is likely negligible, but for

the serious Strength Athlete, it is significant.

This is where the debate loses traction. A young cyclist can get fit by

riding a few miles as fast as possible. A Tour de France competitor

requires a greater stimulus. This is basic Physiology 101. To think that a

single short training ride at FULL EFFORT will provide the same stimulus and

adaptation as a protocol of advanced training is beyond simplistic.

So I think all would agree that for FITNESS and even lower level athletic

needs, much can be gained by upping intensity and keeping volume rather low,

but when you pass a certain conditioning level it is not debatable.

Drew Baye wrote

Sure , it is debatable. You just don't think so because of your

assumptions.

Casler writes:

Hi Drew,

If you feel that a SSTF has the potential to cause and present overload

equal or greater than a Multiple Set protocol, then please explain.

Maybe we can use PowerLifting as an example. If you are a PowerLifter, what

would your training routine be for say the Deadlift, where you could perform

but a SSTF of the Deadlift and reach your " highest " potential in that

exercise?

After producing such a routine, then maybe you can point out examples of all

the Strength Athletes who have trained in that manner and the levels of

strength they achieved.

Drew Baye wrote

What I don't get is why you always seem to feel the need to bash HIT, yet

you refer to your training method as " Rogue HIT " on Ell Darden's forum?

Casler writes:

Firstly, engaging in contentious exchange over a topic " is not " bashing, but

only to those sensitive to criticism of errors or weaknesses to a belief.

If a training protocol, philosophy or system is sound and based in science,

debate will only strengthen its value, and should be welcomed, not

complained about. When you have relevant and reasonable answers to the

questions then the protocol benefits. If many elements are found to be

questionable or even incorrect, then they need to be adjusted, not

maintained. Holding to the weaker elements, in the face of overwhelming

evidence is more a religion and less a science.

Secondly, I have not suggested I am against High Levels of INTENSITY in

exercise, and quite the opposite, have promoted it as an effective and

valuable training element.

Third, the training protocol you are referring to is jokingly termed ROGUE

(as in outside the classical) HIT, since it doesn't adhere to the standards

of what is often called Classical HIT by its followers. However, it is

based on High Intensity (Each set is a Rep Maximum Effort) to the extreme,

so why not use the modifier and acronym.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Training Systems

Century City, CA

-II-----II-