Re: H.I.T./H.I.I.T training

[Guest guest]

HI and ,

Would anyone care to speculate whether 3 sets of 5 is better for

hypertrophy than 1 set of 5 then 2 drop sets of 5 reps each?

Jerry

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA

> wrote:

>

> My example of 15 exercises was a subtle rearrangement of the

> exercises/sets

> paradigm. In the context of my statement that " work done " was

> important for

> many of the general fitness and bodybuilding outcomes, I was hinting

> that,

> say, 6 exercises, 3 sets at X reps might be replicated by 15

> exercises, 1

> set, X reps, HIT style. You could arrange the exercise progression

> so that

> overload of specific target muscles occurred to some extent. Still

> one set,

> but of course, work is comparable. Just an example, but you get the

> idea.

>

> Casler writes:

>

> Yep.

>

> Such is the " flaw " in the single set versus multiple set argument.

>

> If one is performing a " single set " of multiple exercises for the same

> bodypart then it is the equivalent of performing " multiple sets " .

>

> In traditional HIT training this is a contradiction. The argument is

> that a

> SSTF (Single Set to Failure)of an exercise is the " OPTIMAL "

> stimulus. Yet

> in most of the training programs there are multiple exercises for

> the same

> or overlapping bodyparts.

>

> Multiple Exercises for the same bodypart is equivalent to " multiple

> sets " .

>

> For a true SSTF system where you train say the PowerLifts, and train

> Benches, Squats, and DL's each on their own days and each for a

> SSTF. It

> doesn't take much experience, education or logic to see that it is

> virtually

> impossible to attain the best results by simply using a single set

> of each

> of those exercises. In fact I can confidently state that it would be

> impossible to reach anywhere close to maximum potential via such

> attempts

> for multiple reasons.

>

> Regards,

>

> Casler

> TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

> Century City, CA