Re: Request for comments

[Guest guest]

I agree. Most pro-HIT studies that I have read tend to skew research

data or use odd test movements to show that HIT or machine training

is just ast affective as using free weights and one set workouts. If

a (less than scientific) person who wants to find research to support

their philosophy, they will find it. Or they will set up test

paramaters to fit their desired findings. HIT and machine training

can be big money. There are many manufacturers of machines that stand

to make a lot of money if they can find enough experts and studies to

support what they are selling. Again, I say results speak for

themselves. If a group of people or a person has great results

following a HIT program using machines or freeweights then I

say " great, more power to them " . The odds are (and valid research

shows this) that they will see better results - depending on their

goals - utilizing free weight exercises and multiple set routines.

Casey Gallagher CSCS

Mukilteo, WA

>

> Two " studies " published in the questionable online Journal of

Exercise

> Physiology have come to my attention today. I'm posting links in the

> hope of stimulating discussion on both:

>

> http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/OttoV2.pdf

>

> http://www.asep.org/files/OttoV4.pdf

>

> HITtites desperately cling to the fantasy illusion those studies

> somehow validate HIT as the miracle panacea the world's been looking

> for, along with comforting their paranoia that Volume Training is

out

> to get them, yet the studies seem only to validate one point:

> statistics is akin to a light post for a drunk: while providing some

> light, no illumination occurs.

>

> It seems to me this material is pretty easy to pick apart as

childish,

> and the publication an embarrassment to the field - if we were

coming

> from an industrial standard. Academic standards are quite a

different

> matter, and we await proof forthcoming that a century of

bodybuilding

> never occurred, nor has man really walked on the moon.

>

> I'm simply aghast that such crap can be published, let alone anyone

> would be gullible enough to give it consideration - it's all

> sophomoric smoke and mirrors, a strip tease done by what turns to

be a

> drag queen in disguise.

>

> best

>

> Ken O'Neill

> Austin, Texas

>

[Guest guest]

First, the two documents are " reviews " , not " studies " .

I actually was present at the NSCA National Meeting in 2004 when the

meta-analysis was presented, the one reviewed by Otto and

Carpinelli. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the 2005 meeting

when they did the point/counterpoint presentation.

After lots of slides, blue smoke and mirrors, the 2004 meta-analysis

presenters ultimately were forced to acknowledge a couple facts:

1. Not every exerciser's goal is " maximal strength " ; indeed, not

every athlete's goal is " maximal strength " .

2. Strength exercise programming boils down to what is the person's

goal, how much time does he/she have available for strength exercise,

and what is the best use of that time to serve the goal? Single- or

multiple-sets can each serve the goal.

Indeed, unless a person is in a strength-demonstrating sport--

powerlifting (like me), Olympic lifting, etc--where practicing the

motor patterns and skills multiple times is necessary, strength

exercise plays a supporting role to improve force production or

economy, help harden against injury, and even out imbalances. Single

sets can serve as well as multiple.

In addition, for bone remodelling, single sets of different exercises

would provide a better stimulus than multiple sets of the same

exercise due to the varying angles of pull on the bones and resulting

stresses (Wolff's law).

Don't be so quick to condemn what they have published. See the

editorial in Volume 7 Number 3 June 2004 of the same journal by

Robergs (http://www.asep.org/files/Editorial.pdf). No peer

reviewers of their material for three previous attempts at submission

of their 2004 article had any quarrel with their work; the reviews

were rejected based on unrelated editorial decisions.

Merrick, M.A.

ACSM HFI, NSCS-CPT/CSCS, NASM CPT

Bellevue, NE

>

> Two " studies " published in the questionable online Journal of

Exercise Physiology have come to my attention today. I'm posting

links in the hope of stimulating discussion on both:

>

> http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/OttoV2.pdf

>

> http://www.asep.org/files/OttoV4.pdf

>

> HITtites desperately cling to the fantasy illusion those studies

> somehow validate HIT as the miracle panacea the world's been looking

> for, along with comforting their paranoia that Volume Training is

out to get them, yet the studies seem only to validate one point:

> statistics is akin to a light post for a drunk: while providing some

> light, no illumination occurs.

>

> It seems to me this material is pretty easy to pick apart as

childish, and the from an industrial standard. Academic standards are

quite a different matter, and we await proof forthcoming that a

century of bodybuilding never occurred, nor has man really walked on

the moon.

>

> I'm simply aghast that such crap can be published, let alone anyone

> would be gullible enough to give it consideration - it's all

> sophomoric smoke and mirrors, a strip tease done by what turns to

be a drag queen in disguise.

>

> best

>

> Ken O'Neill

> Austin, Texas

>

[Guest guest]

> Two " studies " published in the questionable online Journal of Exercise

> Physiology have come to my attention today. I'm posting links in the

> hope of stimulating discussion on both:

>

Hi ken,

I fast glanced the rather involved articles and am amazed how anyone can

ascertain much of anything from said expressions.

I didn't see enough of a significant replication of experimental designs to

say much about any of it. Perhaps if I had taken the requisite hours to peruse

the mountains of information -- critically analyzing all of the " significant "

protocols -- I would gratefully be wrong. At this point I would agree with my

ole college statistics professor -- " one can prove anything statistically. "

I cannot even begin to imagine that 1 set of anything will result in either a

maximal hypertrophic and or maximal hypertrophic strength or neural strength

response! One set training is great for the vast majority of chrome and mirror

trainers but not for the serious athlete.

Jerry

Telle

Lakewood CO USA

[Guest guest]

HIT training has a lot more problems then just their low volume approach.  I was

recently reading some of the certification materials that was put out by

I.A.R.T. (I had a client that had ordered them a long time ago and he gave them

to me to look at because we had talked about it in the past)  and I noticed some

huge flaws in their philosophy.  First off, it is mainly only philosophy based

and bad philosophy at that.  There biggest philosophical problem is that they

try to avoid " impact forces. "   (This is kind of funny, because the training I

employ seeks out " impact forces " ). They say that " impact forces " are what cause

injury, and they are right.  We get injured when when we are not capable of

asorbing force properly.  But if you running or playing any sport what is your

body doing??  Absorbing force!! (6-8 times your bodyweight on each leg if you

are running fast).  So you need to train your body to be able to absorb more

force,

not avoid it.  That is like you going to the doctor and telling him that it

hurts you when you try and lift your arm up off your side, so he tells you

to just not lift your arm up. 

 

But do I believe that they are somewhat correct in the " high intensity " part of

their programming (except for the fact that they don't truly understand " high

intensity " ).  Lets just use this as an example:  If you are training to run 100m

in track and with the goal of improving your speed for a one time bout to what

good will it do to run slowe?  The problem with running a high volume of sprints

in a given workout is that without ample rest periods, the last 3 or even 4 sets

will possibly be slower and thus a waste of your time because you are training

your nervous system to run at a slower pace and possibly with improper

position.  This is not how you get faster.  Of course being on the track and

trying to run to get faster, in and of itself is a bit of an issue, but that

is a whole other subject.   

I am not suggesting that a low volume approach to training is the way to go,

especially not for bodybuilders and especially not for someone whose sport

requires numerous high velocity efforts.  The low volume-high volume debate is

stupid.  Nearly every program fails in the fact that none of them can maintain

both high intensity and high volume.  The HIT people are somewhat right in that

degree, if your program is high volume you will not be able to maintain your

maximal performance and this will result in a program that is as they state

" more aerobic. "   So I would say, concerning these articles that the JEP stuff is

right to a large degree, both the ACSM and NSCA have some major issues when it

comes to their " recommendations. "   But I would say that the volume thing is not

the only issue, nor the most important one at that.

 

Chad Scheitel, MA, CSCS

Minneapolis, MN  

=======================================

 

Subject: Re: Request for comments

To: Supertraining

Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 2:45 PM

Ken,

Im sorry, but Im not even gonna read such studies, because I think

there are much more valuable things to study.

All those HIT Jedis have to do to convince me is to create a 100m

sprint champ using their delusional methodologies. This would end the

discussion, but you and me both know that the sun will go nova before

that is gonna happen.

Dan Partelly

Oradea Romania

>

> Two " studies " published in the questionable online Journal of Exercise

> Physiology have come to my attention today. I'm posting links in the

> hope of stimulating discussion on both:

>

> http://faculty. css.edu/tboone2/ asep/OttoV2. pdf

>

> http://www.asep. org/files/ OttoV4.pdf

>

> HITtites desperately cling to the fantasy illusion those studies

> somehow validate HIT as the miracle panacea the world's been looking

> for, along with comforting their paranoia that Volume Training is out

> to get them, yet the studies seem only to validate one point:

> statistics is akin to a light post for a drunk: while providing some

> light, no illumination occurs.

>

> It seems to me this material is pretty easy to pick apart as childish,

> and the publication an embarrassment to the field - if we were coming

> from an industrial standard. Academic standards are quite a different

> matter, and we await proof forthcoming that a century of bodybuilding

> never occurred, nor has man really walked on the moon.

>

> I'm simply aghast that such crap can be published, let alone anyone

> would be gullible enough to give it consideration - it's all

> sophomoric smoke and mirrors, a strip tease done by what turns to be a

> drag queen in disguise.

>

> best

>

> Ken O'Neill

> Austin, Texas

>

[Guest guest]

In *any* situation, I would suggest that if we are ladies and gentlemen,

then we act like ladies and gentlemen rather than bringing ourselves down to

the level of morons to deal with morons (some of whom have Ph.Ds). You used

the word " genteel, " but when I refer to " ladies " and " gentlemen, " those

terms do not have a " pinkies up " connotation to me at all. Some of the

finest gentlemen I have ever known never finished elementary school. When

we are polite to others, even when exasperated, we don't do it for the sake

of others. We do it because that's who we are, regardless of education,

wealth, or any other external characteristic. I don't always live up to

that. I just think it's worth trying.

Pitruzzello, Ph.D.

Chicago, IL

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 5:27 AM, W.G. 'Bill' <

ubermenschsports@...> wrote:

> To answer your question, , it's because some of us who've been

> dealing with these issues for many years are exasperated from trying

> to explain it to people who are frankly not too well grounded in

> reason, logic and science, or simply refuse to do their homework.

> There is a distinct lack of critical and reflective thinking on the

> forum. Much of the discourse is at the sophomore level. If you can

> improve the level of discourse, then by all means, weigh in. If

> everyone we were dealing with were PhDs, people who should know how to

> read and analyze a research paper perhaps we would not have nearly as

> much disagreement. Of course it helps if you've actually read the

> research being discussed.

> It is difficult enough to try to explain things to folks who are ill

> informed without having to deal with bad science too. The field of

> human performance is complex enough without having " hand grenades " of

> poor or deliberately misleading research randomly tossed in for good

> measure.

> What I consider more pertinent and of far greater concern is the

> people on the forum who doggedly insist that their position is valid

> in spite of being presented with a rational, cogent argument supported

> by dozens of studies showing their position is quite irrational.

> Genteel polite scientific discourse doesn't get through to those

> people. In such a situation, what would you suggest?

>

> Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent,

> common sense rounded out and minutely articulated.

> - Santayana

>

> W.G.

> Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

> San Diego, CA

>

>

> >

> > > Two " studies " published in the questionable online Journal of

> Exercise

> > > Physiology have come to my attention today. I'm posting links in the

> > > hope of stimulating discussion on both:

> > >

> > > http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/OttoV2.pdf

> > >

> > > http://www.asep.org/files/OttoV4.pdf

> > >

> > > HITtites desperately cling to the fantasy illusion those studies

> > > somehow validate HIT as the miracle panacea the world's been looking

> > > for, along with comforting their paranoia that Volume Training is out

> > > to get them, yet the studies seem only to validate one point:

> > > statistics is akin to a light post for a drunk: while providing some

> > > light, no illumination occurs.

> > >

> > > It seems to me this material is pretty easy to pick apart as childish,

> > > and the publication an embarrassment to the field - if we were coming

> > > from an industrial standard. Academic standards are quite a different

> > > matter, and we await proof forthcoming that a century of bodybuilding

> > > never occurred, nor has man really walked on the moon.

> > >

> > > I'm simply aghast that such crap can be published, let alone anyone

> > > would be gullible enough to give it consideration - it's all

> > > sophomoric smoke and mirrors, a strip tease done by what turns to be a

> > > drag queen in disguise.

> > >

> > > best

> > >

> > > Ken O'Neill

> > > Austin, Texas

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dan: Sorry - It will not reach the masses. There are far greater threats to

the field of Strength/Exercise, than someone suggesting less dosage. Ask

99.99999% of athletic trainers, exercise physiologists, strength coaches, and

PTs

who Carpinelli and Otto is - they won't know. So why do you guys obsess and

worry over something that is not an eminent threat to your well being? Quit

pounding your chests and go after the real Fraud. Clue - its all around you.

Landau,

Aventura, Florida

[Guest guest]

But really, they dont need to know who Carpinelli and Otto are, only

that when training for sports HIT is less than ideal.

Unquam suade mihi vana

Sunt mala quae libas

Ipse venena bibas

I agree with you that there are more serious things to worry in SC

industry than HIT.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

>

> Dan: Sorry - It will not reach the masses. There are far greater

threats to

> the field of Strength/Exercise, than someone suggesting less dosage.

Ask

> 99.99999% of athletic trainers, exercise physiologists, strength

coaches, and PTs

> who Carpinelli and Otto is - they won't know. So why do you guys

obsess and

> worry over something that is not an eminent threat to your well

being? Quit

> pounding your chests and go after the real Fraud. Clue - its all

around you.

>

> Landau,

> Aventura, Florida

>

[Guest guest]

Ken: Define normative training, or what you mean by such.

Landau,

Aventura, Florida

[Guest guest]

Bill:

Very well stated. Pardon me for adding a few comments of my own to

amplify your well taken position.

From a cultural history perspective, exercise science only began to

emerge as a discipline in its own right from around the 1960s, and

rather slowly at first. No doubt that reflects its place in a broader

context of emerging scientific knowledge and specializations at that

time, not to forget the incredible effects of rapidly developing

technologies supporting new scientific findings.

One hallmark of 1971 was the revolutionary effect of Arthur

publications advocating what, in time, Ellington Darden renamed HIT

during the course of one of ' outrageous exhibitions of peurility

and poor taste demonstrating his narcistic personality at Duke

University in the early 70s. HIT/ seriously called into question

the presuppositions and standards of weight training as they were

known at that time. He seemed to offer revelations for that time. No

doubt those revelations spurred further research. That his Colorado

" experiment " made a group of exercise scientists a group of fools

before their peers surely was a catalyst as well. As we all know (or

should know), HIT has not withstood the test of time and experience

save for a small marginal group of luddite adherents.

Outside the peer review process of publication to ensure job security

for those civil service workers otherwise known as academics and

coaches, it seems the real grist for the mill regarding what works in

fact has remained in the gyms, clinics, and sports palaces of the

world. That is to say, the casual observer will immediately recognize

an immense gap between academically oriented training publications and

the daily practices turning boys and girls into champion athletes.

Academics continue, in the best spirit of modernity, to ignore the

role of mind in training for one thing.

I still find there's not a concrete answer to training. My recent

publications, all in Iron Man Magazine, have featured coach/athletes

who are mavericks and who produce results rather than rationalizations

or theories. As is said in Zen, " if you want to know the taste of

water, drink it. " At my stage of life, theory remains rather boorish

and disconnected from practical, solid outcomes.

As a suggestion, we might all find incredible cross fertilization by

focusing on that curve of strengths (see part II of my Abel

artilce in August 2008 Iron Man, or JC Santana's books) applied to

developing strategic agendas embodied as training programs for real

time, real world athletic outcomes. That model sure helps establish

context for a variety of training types, HIT included - a model in

which HIT has it's place, but one in which Progressive Intensity

Training is much bigger than ' 1971 worldview facilitates.

best

Ken O'Neill

Austin, Texas

> >

> > > Two " studies " published in the questionable online Journal of

> Exercise

> > > Physiology have come to my attention today. I'm posting links in the

> > > hope of stimulating discussion on both:

> > >

> > > http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/OttoV2.pdf

> > >

> > > http://www.asep.org/files/OttoV4.pdf

> > >

> > > HITtites desperately cling to the fantasy illusion those studies

> > > somehow validate HIT as the miracle panacea the world's been looking

> > > for, along with comforting their paranoia that Volume Training

is out

> > > to get them, yet the studies seem only to validate one point:

> > > statistics is akin to a light post for a drunk: while providing some

> > > light, no illumination occurs.

> > >

> > > It seems to me this material is pretty easy to pick apart as

childish,

> > > and the publication an embarrassment to the field - if we were

coming

> > > from an industrial standard. Academic standards are quite a

different

> > > matter, and we await proof forthcoming that a century of

bodybuilding

> > > never occurred, nor has man really walked on the moon.

> > >

> > > I'm simply aghast that such crap can be published, let alone anyone

> > > would be gullible enough to give it consideration - it's all

> > > sophomoric smoke and mirrors, a strip tease done by what turns

to be a

> > > drag queen in disguise.

> > >

> > > best

> > >

> > > Ken O'Neill

> > > Austin, Texas

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >