H.I.T. training

[Guest guest]

wrote:

I have to agree with Drew here. In fact, I think I may have posted that

study some time ago as well.

Reading this, and the ACSM position paper, one would have to think that the

'pure' debate about single versus multiple sets is unresolved from a

scientific perspective, although in practise, such comparisons are never

pure.

But that's the case with so many things in the strength and conditioning

sciences.

Practical experience aside, I still don't think you can cheat 'work done'

for certain goals. If 15 exercises, 1 set to exhaustion does the trick, then

I have no problem with that.

Casler writes:

Hi ,

It is very important that no one think that it is being suggest that a TRUE

High Intensity Set, will not provide adaptive stimulus to some levels of

conditioning.

So your if it " does the trick " is applicable to much training. I think the

problem is the suggestion that it will produce the " same or superior " levels

of conditioning. That is contrary to all physiology of strength training

that we know. This is due to the restriction on the ability to create

overload via a single set model at advanced levels.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA