STRENGTH TRAINING METHODS...

[Guest guest]

, that isn't what I said. Not am I trying to incite people who use HIT or

support the modality. I was merely observing that there doesn't appear to be

rigorous and unbiased studies on HIT. There should be.

I think you need to review any kind of research with discernment and, yes, a

recognition of your own bias. Literature review is something I enjoy and I read

a lot of it.

Do you have to dig to get good research? Of course, but that doesn't make it a

crapshoot.

HIT isn't my favourite target. I personally think there is a time and a place

for training with HIT principles. What I haven't seen is good research on HIT -

it tends to be very biased.

I think you can find some research that validates some HIT principles (often

using HIIT research), but the important thing is that virtually any modality has

a place. Certainly for hypertrophy it is very hard to refute the training effect

people like Yates achieved with this type of training. There is a need for good

research into HIT - and I haven't seen it yet. My initial comment was that this

is regrettable.

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

On 1/31/11 12:37 PM, Exarchives@... wrote:

> In Summary, you're basically saying that " Exercise " Research is a Crap

> Shoot, regardless of the " Modalities, " but your Favorite Target is " HIT. "

>

> Landau

> Aventura, Florida

> www.exercisefraud.com

>

>

> In a message dated 1/31/2011 12:29:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> keith.hobman@... writes:

>

> 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]

: Having never met you, this is what I read in your posts. Strict

definitions of words and origins must be understood, and solid foundational

thought is a start - at face value the mainstream gets the aforementioned

wrong every time I've seen. As I casually read the journals, that is always

evident. There is clever pseudo phraseology, but it can be seen through.

Landau

Aventura, Florida

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

In a message dated 2/2/2011 1:55:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

keith.hobman@... writes:

, that isn't what I said. Not am I trying to incite people who use

HIT or support the modality. I was merely observing that there doesn't appear

to be rigorous and unbiased studies on HIT. There should be.

I think you need to review any kind of research with discernment and, yes,

a recognition of your own bias. Literature review is something I enjoy and

I read a lot of it.

Do you have to dig to get good research? Of course, but that doesn't make

it a crapshoot.

HIT isn't my favourite target. I personally think there is a time and a

place for training with HIT principles. What I haven't seen is good research

on HIT - it tends to be very biased.

I think you can find some research that validates some HIT principles

(often using HIIT research), but the important thing is that virtually any

modality has a place. Certainly for hypertrophy it is very hard to refute the

training effect people like Yates achieved with this type of training. There

is a need for good research into HIT - and I haven't seen it yet. My

initial comment was that this is regrettable.

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

On 1/31/11 12:37 PM, Exarchives@... wrote:

> In Summary, you're basically saying that " Exercise " Research is a Crap

> Shoot, regardless of the " Modalities, " but your Favorite Target is

" HIT. "

>

> Landau

> Aventura, Florida

> www.exercisefraud.com

>

>

> In a message dated 1/31/2011 12:29:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> keith.hobman@... writes:

>

> 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]

Colleagues:

I find the course of this discussion distressing if not counter-productive to

coming to grips with a number of issues which solidly entrench exercise science

in the culture of modernity: reductionism and scientism rather than postmodern,

whole systems modeling.

Several weeks ago I posted an inquiry aimed at gaining information which I could

not find by myself; however, I did not intend precipitating a war of words! The

article in question is:

JEPonline. 2004;7(6):52-68.

STRENGTH TRAINING METHODS AND THE WORK OF ARTHUR JONES. D, Bruce-Low S.

Having read it carefully several times in pure astonishment by the absence of

rigorous scholarship and analysis on the part of two university professors in an

article intended to validate the work of Arthur I found it to be an

embarrassment to HIT and an afrontry to scholarship. Knowing of similar events

in other fields, I next searched for critical responses from the academy. None

were found, in my experience very strange. So I decided the problem must be a

lacuna in my research skills, seeking erudite input from this knowledgable

group. I'm convinced if those authors had written an anti- pro-standard

training article, HIT advocates would have reasonably torn it apart. Most

laughable, the article ends with a listing of pro-bodybuilders who succeed with

HIT - going through the listing, it's apparent another list of bodybuilders NOT

using HIT could be constructed, while the inescapable conclusion of what they

shared in common is reliance on polypharmaceutical doping - which would 'prove'

doping is the standard among the drug inflated blimps who've co-opted

bodybuilding.

Of those replying, I have known Landau, Drew Brey, and Cassler for

years through this forum, holding each in highest regard as experts in their

respective fields and as men of unquestionable integrity and courage of

investigation. Others participating I don't know, however likewise respect their

insights. Having said that, I'm suggesting a redirection of our energies and

thoughts: differing opinions, paradigms, and theories in postmodern context

should be a cause for rejoicing and dialogue: obviously we all have methods

which work best for ourselves and those we train. As such, something bigger is

at play - something we're missing until we focus attention on healthy dialogue -

which will also expose some the the gimicks 's website so enjoyably

deconstructs.

In my opinion, the academic approach to training has standarized essentially a

limited number of training protocols, marginalizing if not invalidating anything

outside it's pale ken. Those of us who've trained, competed, even won, as well

as coached likely comprehend success is more art than science - because a

'science' so narrowly defined is an ideology unworthy of the appellation

'science.'

Just so no misunderstandings arise: I'm pro-HIT, pro-standard, pro-kaatsu,

pro-powerlifting, pro-Olympic lifting - hell, pro-Physical Culture, pro-Iron

Game.

Some of you have referred to publications on both sides of the fence which

pretend to prove a case. Please provide references - I want to compile a

collection entitled Specious Science!

Please cut the infighting in favor of banding together to push the boundaries of

understanding of our sport - no body else is going to do that - and we have more

in common than different.

best regards,

Ken O'Neill

[Guest guest]

I must protest: probodybuilders simply aren't evidence for training methods

other than polypharmaceuticals: with doping you can pretty much look at weights

and grow. What's more, my review of Yate's training autobiography published

years ago observed the simple truth that his training was essentially

masochistic - going from year to year inducing more injuries, to the point in

his final competition one of his triceps was barely connected.

I say that with deep respect to Arthur : not only did he eschew steroids

(Yates is said not only to be dosing HGH, but likely the first to be shooting

insulin for its profound anabolic characteristics), but also held that

Nautilus/HIT would optimize physique development unlike any other training

method. The obvious question is has anyone in the tested, drug-free associations

triumphed with HIT? Only one caveat: there's no assurance of tested, drug free

being drug free. Especially with the NPC!

All the more need for rigorous studies.

> > > 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]

Ken O'Neil wrote:

I must protest: probodybuilders simply aren't evidence for training methods

other than polypharmaceuticals: with doping you can pretty much look at

weights and grow.

Casler writes:

While we need not support illegal drug use, or competitive advantage, one

would think that if a SSTF stimulated the maximal/optimal stimulus to

adaptation, that it would do so no matter what the genetics or pharmacology.

The extension of boundaries enhanced by drugs should not effect the efficacy

of the protocol.

That is, it should work to its full purported potential in ALL cases of

application.

And the actual dosage is a function of load/reps/work to ANY individual.

The fact that there are NO true SSTF HIT champions in over 35 years is quite

a large amount of empirical proof.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Training Systems

Century City, CA

-II-----II-