STRENGTH TRAINING METHODS...

[Guest guest]

Jay wrote:

We can all " interpret the research " exclusive to our perceptions. Each of

us can also achieve results with Volume or HIT Training.

Casler writes:

The debate " is not " that each can produce a result. It would seem that the

debate is that SSTF will always produce the SAME or better results.

Clearly that is not possible at all levels of conditioning.

Jay wrote:

Saying one is better than the other isn't really relative when logic and

reason dictate " Chaos theory " dominates in human performance improvement

over a long life of training.

Casler writes:

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.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Training Systems

Century City, CA

-II-----II-