FINALLY!!! SOMEONE RECOGNIZES MY NAME! I was beginning to think there were no punk fans anywhere on this site. I haven’t heard their latest yet, but I’ll probably order it soon. Where do you get your cds? I’ve been having a tough time lately finding good places to order from.
one name point prop, you said I hid behind a fake name when I say I do not and even give my first name you ask why I pester you about your name, don’t you think if you question me it is resonable for me to question you? you asked for a study how about; Hass et. al. (Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 32:235-242,2000) they took groups of recreationaly trained adults that were performing 1 set, they increaed one group to 3 sets and showed NO increases in strength or muscle mass. infact the one set group increased their strength in the leg extention and their 1-RM in the bench press the most in the last 6wks of the study, also note that seven in the multiple set group did not finnish the study, two because of tendonitis(an overuse injury) in their shoulders and knees. how about I suggest some reading for ya’ Carpelli and Otto(1998) Strength training: single versus multiple sets. Sports Medicine 25(2):73-84 and Carpinelli R.N. 1999. The multiple-set myth. in Maximize your training: insight from leading strength and fitness professionals, Lincolnwood, IL. Masters Press. in Carpinelli and Otto (of Adelphi University) they reviewd ALL relevant research pertaining to number of sets, 35 dateing back to 1956, they showed NO difference between single versus multiple sets in all but two studdies, Berger(1962) and Kramer and others(1997) lets look at some things about these TWO studdies, in Berger the subjects involved in the study were also involved in a wt. training class outside of the study WHILE the study was going on,ONE researcher oversaw a total of 6,372 workouts! dureing wks. 7-9 the 1x10 group had the greatest rate of improvement out of 9 groups, how can that be if more volume is needed? in wks. 10-12 the 1x6 group had the most increase in the 1-RM bench (7.2 compared to the average of 4.3 for the other groups) again if more is needed how can this be? according to the researcher the 3x6 group had the most overall progress but the second most progress out of 9 groups was the 1x6 group, how can the 1x6 group do better than 5 other groups that performed multiple sets? by the way the differance between these two groups was not deemned signifigant,the researcher stated that “improvement rates were practicaly the same dureing the last three weeks of training” as stated earlier the 1x6 group DID improve the most. lets take a quick look at Kramer and co-workers(1997) the reasercher said there were “no significant differences…between groups for initial 1-RM squat” yet the three groups varried by as much as 12.89%, the groups were split up 16 single set, 14 multiple set and 13 varied multiple set.the subjects were allowd to miss 4 out of 39 work outs, the subjects were allowd to chose their own rest periods, the single set group chose their own starting wts. and the study gave NO indication as to how wts. would be increased in the single set group, while the multiple set groups had their “initial training loads” set by the researcher and “adjusted throughout the study” again nothing was said of how the single set groups wt. would be adjusted. some of the results were that the single set group DECREASED body fat while the multiple set group INCREASED their bodyfat, the single set group INCREASED their lean mass(muscle) while the multiple set groups showd NO increase, the researcher supposedly oversaw the workouts yet used the training logs that the SUBJECTS kept for most of their info,these are the studdies that the multiple set people use to back up their argument??? oh by the way Carpinelli has updated (Carpenelli R.N. Strength Science 2000, Master Trainer, 10:13-16, April 2000) he now sites 45 studdies showing single to be ATLEAST as good as multiple. where is everyone with their science??? as always peace
What is your definition of “recreationally trained adults”? Perhaps “middle-aged softball players” would have been a better description. Wow, fantastic example. I’m convinced. I better go put together my new routine and start trying to figure out what I’m going to do with all the time I’m going to save by only working out 1-hour a week. Cool!!!
Doug et al:
HIT can be defined as “The briefest most intense training possible performed as frequently as necessary”.
Jones has done so many studies on training all sorts of people with HIT it is mind boggling. Weider published some bullshit about Casy Viator and Sergio not really following the Nautilus workouts. This is shit, you can go to iartonline.ca and read there actual testamony. Or you can go to Casy Viator’s site, send him an mail and ask him yourself. As far as spines and cores, I do 2-3 sets of crunches (on a Nuatilus machine no less) and today I did 10 stiff legged dead lifts with 350 pounds. Not even the slightest sine of injury. Think of the bodies of people you know who could last. They can be most any size. Think of what kind of body is required for doing an enourmous (metabollically) amount of work in a small amount of time, a big strong muscular one. That is why I train HIT. The Jones way mostly, so hard, little rest, bout 5 times every 2 weeks. Whole body. I have gotten some nice results. Try it, you might like it.
kevin k. I gave an example, I’m sure you would rather I not go thru 45 studdies here. I also broke down (a little atleast) the TWO studdies that anti-HITers use to “prove” their point. question, what difference does it make if they were softball players, hikers,rollerbladers,ect…? do you think YOUR body is so different? they test sups. on mice and everyone runs to the store to by it but when it comes to training you don’t want to hear about the studdies. my whole point is that it DOES WORK. you don’t have to train that way(I’m sure you will not) but the people that do have SCIENCE behind them. oh, and another thing about wether the results apply to you or not, ask JMB what he said in one of his responses to a thread, I do not remember the exact words but the point was that we ARE NOT ALL THAT DIFFERENT. why do you believe that studdies done on tens of thousands of people that consistently show the same results doesn’t apply to you? when new sups. come out do you go, “well it worked for 99% of the people in the study but I’m different so it wont work for me”?
yea simmons says all machines are bad (YES he HAS said that) I guess they are ALL BAD unless HE SELLS THEM!!! think people. when HE makes a machine its great but I thought ALL MACHINES WERE BAD LOUIE?? hetyey225 peace
Good God Almighty…!
Three sets gives you tendonitis?
I’m packing it all in.
Seriously though, doesn’t it make sense that a little bit more volume would help train the CNS, leading to greater strength and muscular stamina? Even if it doesn’t (make sense that is) why be so damn anal about it. Mr Berardi kicked your arse, so go back to your typing lessons. Oh, and didn’t Propaghandi split up?
I think I see your point. It’s true that athletes that require endurance (boxers, wrestlers, soccer players, tennis players, hockey players, etc…) come in all different sizes, and explosive athletes (sprinters, weightlifters, powerlifters) are always pretty damn big mofos. I’m not sure if that proves anything about volume or HIT, as most of these athletes train with high volume. And I have never heard of a successful powerlifter or weightlifter who uses HIT. Maybe someone will chime in with an example, but I don’t think I could imagine a strength athlete making it by training one set to failure. Either way, it’s an interesting point that I’ll look at further. But something you may be missing is the benefits of weight training that don’t have anything to do with the amount of weight you can lift or how big your pecs are. This is a healthy pursuit guys, and just because you haven’t had a heart attack yet doesn’t mean that you could be in better health by exercising more.
As for the core conditioning question, I simply disagree with you. Maybe you’ll develop some problems later on, maybe not. I had severe knee, shoulder, AND lower back problems as an athlete before I wised up and devoted a good deal of time to balanced core training. The amount of stability you require doing such low volume of big, free, compound movements may not be much. And again, it may take a while or never at all, but you are gonna be more prone to injury than if you devoted a greater amount of time to developing the core from all angles mentioned above. But damn man, if you’re doing 10 full range stiff leg deads with 350lbs, I think whatever you’re doing is working! If you want to experiment with some different abdominal routines, I’d be happy to assist, and if not, no worries and good luck with your training!
I didnt kick anyone’s ass. This forum was not designed to be a pissing contest but a place to SHARE ideas. I dont like when people think everything is a war on here. Why not express your points and MOVE ON to the next physique improvement topic!
Who gives a sheet??? Try them all and use what works for you till it doesn’t anymore and then change up.
with all due respect John my statement about over 50 is not a lie, I will list them for you, I DO have to find them so give me a little time, what about Carpinelli R.N. Strength Science 2000, Master Trainer, 10: 13-16, April 2000. and know I am sure I am not as knowledgeable than myself but my point to all is DO NOT slam those that train HIT because there IS science that says it IS just as productive
now I know I ain’t be as smart as youse guys but I do find it a little funny that you say this in my one and only post and then call me a lier. so even do i ain’t to brite i dawt i’d list some of the studdies that don’t exist for ya’ and ya’ know cause i ain’t to brite bare w/ my typeing; DeHoyos,D.V.,T.Abe,L.Garzarella,C.Hass,M.Nordman, and M.L. Pollock.1998, Medicine and science in sports and exercise, Supplement 30(5):SI65
DeHoyos,D.V.,D.Herring,L.Garzarella,G.Werber,W.F.Brechae, and M.L.Pollock. Medicice ans science in sports and exercise. Supplement.29(S):SI64
Jacobson,B.H.1896 Athletic Training. 21(4):315-318,390
Hass,C.J.,L.Garzarella,D.V.DeHayes, and M.L.Pollock.1998. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. Supplement 30(5):SII5
Jesse,C.,D.McGee,J.Gibson and M.Stone.1998. Journal of applied sports science research 2 (3):59
Larshus,J.L.,W.K.Werner, and J.R.Moore.1997. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. supplement (march):A33-A34
Leighton,J.R,D.Holmes,J.Benson,B.Wooten, and R.Schmerer.1967. Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation. 21(3) 78-81
Messier,S.P.,andM.E.Dill.1985. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 56(4):345-351
Pollock,M.L.,T.Abe,D.V.DeHoyos,L.Garzarella,C.J.Hass and G.Werber 1998. (this study was 6months). Medicine and Science in Sports and exercise. Supplement 30(5):SII6.
Reid,C.M.,R.A.Yeater and I.H.Ullrich. 1987. British Journal of Sports Medicine> 21(I):40-44.
Silvester,L.J.,C.Striggins,C.McGown, and G.R.Bryce.1982. National Strength and Conditioning Assoc. Journal 3(6):30-33
Stowers,T.,J.McMillan,D.Scala,V.Davis,D.Wilson,and M.Stone.1983. National Strength and Conditioning Assoc. Journal. 5(3):24-27
Treuth,M.S.,A.S.Ryan,R.E.Pratley,M.A.Rubin,J.P.Miller,B.J.Nicklas,J.Sorkin,S.M.Harman,A.P.Goldberg, and B.F.Hurley.1994. Journal of Applied Physiology.
Welsch,M.A.,W.F.Brechine,M.L.Pollock,D.B.Starkey,J.E.Graves 1994. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exrcise. Supplement 26(5)SI89
Cupen,E.K.1956. Research Quarterly. 27(2):132-142.
Hurley,B.F.,R.A.Redmond,R.E.Pratley,M.S.Treuth,M.A.Rogers, and A.P.Goldberg.1995. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 16(6):378-38
Pollock,M.L.,J.E.Graves,M.M.Bamman,S.H.Leggett,D.M.Carpenter,C.Carr,J.Ciculli,J.Matkozich and M.Fulton.1993. Archieves of Physical and Medical Rehabilitation 74: 1080-1086
now thats TWELVE that I guess do not exist, if you want I can keep going aaaallllll day but I do honestly think you should not call people liers(especialy when you are wrong) just a thought. I have a bunch more here so if you want just let me know and I’ll keep going. see John I think you are an exceptionaly smart man and I do enjoy reading your articles and posts on t-mag but just 'cause YOU can only find 2, well I’ll leave it at that. although you DO owe me an apology. as always peace
“question, what difference does it make if they were softball players, hikers,rollerbladers,ect…? do you think YOUR body is so different?” Have you seen a softball game lately? HELL YEAH, my body is so different.
I just have to chime in for a minute. I know JMB doesn’t need anyone defending him, but with hetyeh’s last two comments, I have to tell him, shut the f*** up! I really think that you’re the alter ego to Jason R Baran. I normally don’t say anything about your posts, because other than the brainwashed devotion to HIT, and your ridiculous claims of 48lbs of fat loss and 25lbs gains of muscle (yes, ridiculous because you even claimed you didn’t get your bodyfat checked, so how could you “guess”?) which seem to be a claim Ellington Darden would make, you sometimes make an intelligable comment. But on your last two post of you claiming that you were just showing that HIT is just as useful, well, you’re full of shit.
You started this post SCREAMING for someone to disprove HIT. And this is not the first time you’ve started a post just for that reason. You wanted to argue with someone so you can use the recent studies that you found. Well whoop-de-do if you are unemployed and can spend all day looking for positive studies on hit. Yeah for you. You call out someone that has proven himself to be intelligent and well immersed in research and real world application. Perhaps you feel threated that people respect him and Louie simmons. Perhaps your the conspiracy type and just want to always take the perpetual underdog. That’s ok, because there will always be jealous people and perhaps that is your role in the world. But don’t come on here, make a challenge, and then be blind to the fact that you can’t win it. You wanted to prove that HIT was the end-all Be-all and it’s not. It works, but not forever. Now get over yourself and move on because continuing this arguing is a test of futility.
with all due respect John my statement about over 50 is not a lie, I will list them for you, I DO have to find them so give me a little time, what about Carpinelli R.N. Strength Science 2000, Master Trainer, 10: 13-16, April 2000. and know I am sure I am not as knowledgeable than myself but my point to all is DO NOT slam those that train HIT because there IS science that says it IS just as productive
I cant believe I actually wasted time on this but you’ve totally pissed me off and people have to know how full of dung you really are. To those interested, sorry this is so long!
Oh Boy! Here we go! Have you even bothered to check the references yourself or have you just simply just started plagarizing the references from a book someone else wrote?
Either way, how many are valid to this discussion? You have no idea cause you havent read the abstracts let alone the full papers. All you have read is a book with references included to support (no matter how weakly) someone else’s perspective. But now, class is in session so listen up!
The Pollock study (Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993 Oct;74(10):1080-6) used a freakin cervical extension machine (a highly isolate back/neck machine) and had subjects do 1 set 1 day per week, 2 sets 1 day per week, 1 set 2 days per week, and 2 sets 2 days per week. Thats about 1 minute - 3 minutes of exercise each workout day! Not very applicable to what we do is it? And here are the results..."A greater increase in strength was found when the groups that trained two times a week were compared to those that trained once per week"
The Trueth study (J Appl Physiol 1994 Aug;77(2):614-20) used untrained older men (60+ years of age) as subjects and didn’t even compare training methods. There was just a trained group and a control group (and they didn’t follow HIT)!
The Hurley study (Int J Sports Med 1995 Aug;16(6):378-84) used 50-70 year old untrained males as subjects and AGAIN didn’t compare training methods. They just did a trained and control group (and they didn’t follow HIT)!
The Starkey study (Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996 Oct;28(10):1311-20) used untrained individuals and did knee extension and flexion (that’s it) for 14 weeks. They either did 1 set or 3 sets of the 2 exercises in 1 leg only 3x per week. No differences were found between groups but are either protocol a good representation of HIT or any other type of training we discuss here on t-mag? Not on your life.
The Cupen paper is too old to access except in an archive in some library since it was published in 1950-something.
The Jacobson,B.H. study…you’re citing references from 1896!!!
The Welsch study, Pollock study, DeHoyos study, Hass study, Pollock 6 month study, (all in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise supplements) were never published as full papers. They were only abstracts presented at conferences. There could be many reasons why they were never published, one of which being that the data were no good (although like I said, there could be other reasons).
The Haas ABSTRACT from above was published this year and I already cited that one in my first post.
The Jesse study is not on medline because this journal is not recognized as a top tier journal and therefore its publications may be questionable.
The Larshus study is again an abstract never published as a research paper.
The Leighton study is too old again to find on medline so you have to go to some library archive.
The Messier study is not on medline for the same reason the Jesse study isn’t.
The Reid study was a comparison that looks favorable for HIT however, again the exercise programs: Endurance (2 sets of 15 repetition maximum [RM]); Explosive (1 set of 15 RM); Strength 1 (3 sets of 6 RM); Strength 2 (1 set of 10 RM twice weekly and 1 set of 3 RM once weekly) were only done on elbow and shoulder extension and flexion on isokinetic machines. Not really what we are doing in they gym!
The Silvester paper is not on medline (see above).
And the Stowers paper is not on medline (see above)
SO, of all the references you listed:
3 were not recognized by medline (the biggest search engine around),
3 were too old to be listed on medline,
2 were done is 60+ year old men and didn’t even compare training methods,
2 used isokinetic training (no one in the gym uses this) and this training routine didn’t mimic either HIT or more typical training,
7 were never published as full papers (just as abstracts),
And only 1 shows a single set protocol equal to a multi set protocol (hass)!
However, here is a study you forgot to mention…Borst et al (Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001 Apr;33(4):648-53). 2 groups trained for 25 weeks and the authors conclude that “Increases in 1-RM strength occurred mainly during the first 13 wk of training and were significantly higher with 3-SET training compared to 1-SET”.
Look, I said that you lie when you say there are over 50+ references comparing HIT to other training programs. Shit, in these you sent, most don’t even do this comparison. Or were you just trying to tell us that there have been more than 50 references in the history of science that have used weight training?
Before you go typing in more references from the back of some book, check to be sure they are accurate and applicable to the discussion at hand and then only post references that are reliable and applicable.
Apologize, MY ASS!
In the strength and conditioning world a dividing line has been drawn between the two worlds, and a third seems to be developing. Many of those who use HIT in the large universities and pro-sports are very inteligent. They have to be to make it at that level, no matter what anyone says. The surest way to lose your job at these level is to get players hurt in training or make them unable to perform. Nothing else will hurt you more. I have worked in D1 for the last four years. I know, not very long, but long enough to know that getting players injured is more detrimental to a career than being unable to get them more athletic (both are no-no’s though). HIT seems to be a method to take some risk out of the movements and lesson the chance for potential injury. It takes more work to teach my athletes the power clean and to squat properly than to use a leg press. We can all learn from each other but my training philosophies just do not agree with HIT. This is only my opinion on the possible reasons for its use.
John…I know this isn’t a “pissing contest”…but you kicked his arse AGAIN!
Yee-haa!
I am not supporting the guy who started this thread, but I am a supporter of HIT. I do not support any claims that it is superior to other forms of training, but I do support that it can be a valid way to train and get results. For many, like me, training is just a part of life and not an end. We struggle to get in 2-3 workouts per week and the time to do those workouts is limited. For us, HIT permits some shorter, intense workouts that can yeild gains or, at least, maintain your condition. I am 6’ and 205 with 17.5" arms. Nothing great by any means, but a good body for a 36 year old. I have achieved it through using HIT and the GREAT Biotest products. I encourage people to use HIT, because it is doesn’t require the time devotion that other training regimes typically do. AND, I find that people tend to quit doing other programs, but stick with HIT because it is less time demanding.
Just my .02.
John, Remind me never to get into an argument with you!
If none of the studies quoted are relevant to the argument, isn’t it high time that someone set up a protocol that could settle the matter entirely? In support of Mr Mentzer, I do generally see the ‘uninitiated’ training beyond their recovery ability because they are locked into the ‘more is better’ mindset. But the volume/frequency requirement is a very dynamic thing isn’t it?
Well, I think this post is just about wrapped up. Hetyeh, I’m sorry we got at each others throats. Really I was just extremely pissed at the stupid claims of muscle mass and fat loss you were making, but if HIT’s what works for ya, go for it. Propaghandi out.