weights #2390
The Weights Mailing List
HIT PARADOXES
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Exercise frequency?
by Paul Robinson <p...@sullivanleavitt.com>
Re: Incledon Seminar
by Paul Southern <Nutri...@home.net>
Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
by Eric Burkhardt <embu...@uci.edu>
Re: ONE SET vs. MANY SETS
by Chad Reilly <chadr...@home.com>
msm?
by lim youyuan <freakin...@hotmail.com>
Re: Palm Software?
by Al Rainey <rain...@home.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: HIT PARADOXES
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 22:52:36 -0700
The following article by one of the leading figures in the HIT and "One Set
to Failure" movement is Robert Spector. The following extracts come from
website below, and while containing some interesting and useful general
information, also warrant some critical comments. In analysing the HIT
situation, I shall rely largely on quotations from different HIT
authorities to reveal some fascinating paradoxes and contradictions in
their training model. I shall only intervene wherever some scientific
input or arithmetic addition is warranted.
http://www.elitefitness.com/articles/hit.html
HIT TRAINING by Robert E. Spector
< Essentially this principle states that in order to increase muscular size
and strength, a muscle must be stressed - or "overloaded" with a workload
that is beyond its present capacity. Your intensity of effort must be great
enough to exceed this threshold level so that a sufficient amount of
muscular fatigue is produced. . . . >
*** How does one exceed one's present capacity or threshold, since this is
what the body deems should not be exceeded if damage is not to be caused?
The following comment by another HIT man is highly relevant in this regard:
Roger Schwab (supporter of HIT)
http://www.mlhf.com/sportsmed.htm
<< Injuries in exercise are for the most part caused when force exceeds
the structural integrity of the involved musculo-skeletal system. Since the
limit of this breaking strength is an unknown until exceeded, thus too late
and producing injury, it is common sense to utilize exercise with the
minimum force necessary to stimulate the desired result. >>
***Much of the remainder of this article is devoted to attacking the ACSM
and scientists such as Dr Mike Stone. Its author then seems to contradict
what Spector says in his extensive web article. Spector advocates
progressive overload so that the Intensity in HIT continues to be kept
high, yet Schwab states:
<< My advice is that anyone who has ever considered utilizing progressive
resistance exercise as a stimulus to improving functional ability and/or
performance in sports should carefully read the July 1999 Current Comment
from the American College of Sports Medicine. Read it again and then
proceed in your own workouts to do precisely the opposite. >>
***So Spector says use overload, Schwab says don't use it. Who do we
believe? Both of them advocate working to failure and exceeding one's
current capabilities in one set, but they also decry multiple set or
explosive exercise types for trying to do the same, albeit in a different
way, as if working to a threshold in one way is universally safer than
working to a similar threshold in another way. Apparently overuse (volume)
stress is less harmful than overload (intensity) stress!
Robert E. Spector continues:
<There has often been the debate of whether to train for "size" or
"strength". There is no difference in training methodology. Training for
size leads to strength increases. Training for strength leads to size
increases (although it does not necessarily follow the % increase in one
attribute will be equal to the % increase in the other). . . . . >
***Clearly he does not seem to have noticed that there are thousands of
world class weightlifters and powerlifters who increase their strength from
year to year yet do not gain muscle mass and compete in the same bodymass
divisions for many years. He seems to forget that, while strength is
proportional to muscle cross-sectional area during the early stages of
training, subsequent increases in strength have a great more to do with
neuromuscular factors.
He might like to explain why most bodybuilders of a given bodymass
generally cannot exhibit the strength of powerlifters and weightlifters in
squats, bench press, powercleans, deadlifts and so forth - if size and
strength are just two faces of the same coin, then, with a little technical
practice, HIT trained bodybuilders should be able to lift greater loads
than their less muscular lifting colleagues.
Robert E. Spector again:
<<8. TRAIN FOR NO MORE THAN ONE HOUR PER WORKOUT.
If you are training with a high level of intensity, more than one hour is
counterproductive as it increases the probability of overtraining due to a
catabolic hormone called cortisol.. . . . . >>
*** If one examines the training of high level competitive lifters, they
tend to restrict workouts to no more than 4 exercises over a session
lasting well less than an hour. Where is the alleged time saving that HIT
fans claim? Maybe HIT folk can criticise typical high rep, many set
training of many bodybuilders as high volume training, but that sort of
training has little in common with lifting or sport specific strength
training.
Robert E. Spector:
< 16. PERFORM A PROPER WARM-UP AND COOL-DOWN
Warming up is a safeguard against injury. The change to higher temperature
also augments speed of movement and power potential. Almost any sequence
of light calisthenic movements can be used as a general warm-up preceding a
high intensity training session. . . . . >
*** Competitive lifters generally use their early sets as a sport specific
type of warmup for the exercise to follow, so that they don't devote
unnecessary time to 10-15 minutes of warming up and cooling down. This
means that HIT programs are prolonged by at least 10 minutes of warming up
and cooling down activity, while lifters use this time as part of the
actual workout.
It is very interesting that most of the articles which maintain that one
set training is shorter and more efficient do not point out this additional
activity, plus the large number of one set exercises tends to make HIT
workouts longer than dedicated four exercise competitive workouts.
Let us examine the length of HIT workouts in a little more detail, lest we
be accused of misrepresenting the HIT model. Let us allow Ken Leistner, a
prominent advocate of HIT, help us in this regard.
Robert E. Spector gives us this information from Leistner:
< Another routine, suggested by Dr. Ken Leistner:
1. Full Squats - 15-20 reps
2. Pullovers - 10 reps
3. Standing Overhead Presses - 10 reps
4. Chins - 10 reps
5. Dips - 12 reps
6. Barbell Curls - 10 reps
7. Shrugs - 15 reps
8. Stiff-Legged Deadlifts - 15 reps
How many sets of each exercise in this routine? One. Two. Certainly never
more than three, and if you are working properly according to Leistner, one
set of most of these exercises should be more than enough for anyone. . . . .
. >
*** Now let us add up the total number of reps in the above HIT routine -
it is 102. Yes, you are reading it correctly - more than one hundred reps
in a single workout - yet the HIT and One Set advocates claim that their
method of training is different from normal lifting training in that it is
a low volume, high intensity system!!
They always claim that HIT methods are far more suitable for the average
person because the latter does not like to carry out many reps for a
prolonged period. Most of the average people just don't enjoy working to
total and utter fatigue for 10-12 exercises, using minimal rest periods
between exercises, nor do they consider more than 100 reps a low repetition
workout. Many average folk tend to prefer 8-10 sets of 2-3 reps with brief
rest intervals between these more intensive sets, especially if only about
4 exercises are done per session three times a week. How on earth can
anyone claim that an 8-12 exercise program using over 100 reps in total is
a low volume scheme? Simple arithmetic shows that this just is not true.
Anyhow, ignore what I have just written and read what another HIT man has
said:
Brian Minogue:
http://www.cyberpump.com/hit101/brian023.html
<< And yet another benefit to one set training, is the minimization of over
training risks. Before a human body can stimulate one ounce of muscle
growth, the intended result of proper exercise, it must recover from the
previous training session. The longer the session, the more damage done to
the individual muscles tissues, the greater the stress on the body's
biochemical recovery system. If too much stress is applied to the body,
recovery becomes an overly long draining process similar to infectious
disease. One set workouts limit the volume of work and damage done to the
muscle masses to the minimal amount necessary to be productive . . . >>
*** Apply that to the Leistner routine and smile. Minogue, by the way,
seems to forget that the "overtraining syndrome" classically is regarded as
manifesting itself in two possible forms, namely "overload" (excessive
loading at a given moment), and "overuse" (excessive volume or workload
over a given period). Sports medics and orthopedists will readily inform
him that overuse trauma are just as common and good for business as
overload trauma.
HIT folk make the very common error of assuming that heavier or more
rapidly imposed loading causes more injury than lighter one set training to
exhaustion. If sensibly imposed and progressively applied, heavy or
ballistic training causes the musculoskeletal system to adapt to the
stresses of this type of training and the body becomes very capable of
handling the physical stresses without injury.
Maybe you thought that Ken Leistner's program was unsuitable. If so, here
is another from the same web article:
Brian Minogue:
http://www.cyberpump.com/hit101/brian023.html
<< Try one workout and see what happens:
1. One-repetition chin-up (30 seconds up, 30 seconds down) immediately
followed by:
2. Biceps Curl
3. One-repetition dip (30 up, 30 down) immediately followed by
4. Triceps extensions
5. Leg Extension
6. Leg Curl
7. Leg press
8. Calf Raise
9. Stiff-Legged Deadlift
10. Lateral Raise with dumbbells
11. Press behind Neck
12. Bent-over Row
13. Bench Press
14. Ab Crunch
*** That, we are told is another example of a low volume, high intensity
workout! A total of 14 exercises, each performed for something like 10
reps to failure, giving us a grand total of approximately 140 reps! And we
are supposed to believe that One Rep training is more efficient and concise
than competitive lifting training which comprises 10 fewer exercises with
7-8 reps less per exercise. I know that the standard of mathematics may be
dropping in our schools today, but surely it cannot be THAT bad?
Read what Brian Minogue write about the alleged brevity of One Set training:
http://www.cyberpump.com/hit101/brian023.html
<< Another support for the use of one set training is time efficiency. If
one set is equal to two or three sets, then why perform the extra sets? One
set is all that is necessary. The extra work produces nothing but senseless
labor. In the busy world we live in, one of the major reasons people have
to avoid real exercise is a lack of time. They have convinced by
traditionalist exercise teachers that fitness can only be produced by a
very high volume of training over long periods of time. HIT cuts through
that notion like a razor through paper. A sensible, effective training
session can be completed in less twenty minutes or less. >>
*** If HIT is not high volume training as we have clearly seen in the two
examples quoted earlier, then I am misreading all that our HIT men have
stated. A set of 8-12 reps is a high volume set. A workout of 8-14
exercises is a high set volume workout. A total of over 100 repetitions
per workout is a high volume workout. Where does HIT offer any time saving
or safety benefits over the typical lifting style workout of 5-8 sets of
1-3 rep training (with only 4 exercises)?
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcs...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Exercise frequency?
From: Paul Robinson <p...@sullivanleavitt.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:02:02 -0700
Assuming a person's goal is simply to enhance general fitness and
appearance, and that person is not involved in any competitive
activities, how frequently should each muscle group be worked if he uses
a single set routine of 8-12 lifts to exhaustion?
Does the answer change if a three set routine of 8-12 lifts to
exhaustion is followed?
When doing multiple lifts for the same/similar muscle group (example
straight bench, incline bench, decline bench, flys) does it make sense
to do all four variations every time you work the chest?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Incledon Seminar
From: Paul Southern <Nutri...@home.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:03:10 -0700
I recently invited Thomas Incledon out to California for a Performance
Nutrition Seminar hosted by my store Nutri-Sport. There is so much hype
out there I thought Tom might be able to offer some insight into the world
of Supplementation and the studies surrounding dietary supplements. Not
knowing Tom personally, I didn't know what to expect. Everyone that
attended the seminar, myself included, was blown away by Tom's knowledge
and his ability to address both sides of every issue. I am so pleased that
I intend to have Tom back early next year for another seminar. I would
recommend that anyone looking for a presentation on this type of material
call Tom and set something up before he's all booked-up.
Paul Southern
President,
Nutri-Sport Dublin, CA
4930 Dublin Blvd. Suite 840
Dublin, CA. 94568
(925) 560-1043
FAX (925) 560-0972
NUTRI...@home.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
From: "Eric Burkhardt" <embu...@uci.edu>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:04:45 -0700
Dr. Siff wrote...
<<
If Dr Carpinelli is even vaguely implying that one set training is
perfectly adequate for the progress of strength athletes, then he would
seriously misrepresenting the significance of the most recent one set
research. If he disagrees, then I challenge him and other of the
researchers cited in his studies to take over the training of a group of
experienced powerlifters or weightlifters and design one set regimes to see
if his such methods will produce comparable results to those produced by
multiple set (low rep) lifting regimes.
>>
Yeah like that'll happen. Any serious WL or PL would never complete such a
study because as soon as their strength started to go down the crapper with
the 1 set regimen they'd drop out of the study immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: ONE SET vs. MANY SETS
From: Chad Reilly <chadr...@home.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:04:12 -0700
> From: Joseph Brown <br...@psych.stanford.edu>
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:35:16 -0700
> I guess my point is that as a researcher (an experimental psychologist),
> when Isee a review in which all studies comparing two approaches are
> reviewed and it turns out that there is a consistent finding (and I find
> that at least a few of the studies use trained strength athlete rather than
> novices), I feel that we can't just dismiss the findings...we have
> to take them seriously and I don't think we are doing that to a sufficient
> degree.
Hey, as a psychologist you should be familiar with the bias that often
shows up in a review paper. Have you ever read Faust, "The limits of
scientific reasoning?" Anyway, IIRC the review you are discussing did
not review "all studies." In fact the several studies did find
significant differences in favor of the 3 set groups. Also if you check
out the individual studies in that review you find that the quote "no
statistical differences between groups" does not mean no difference.
Nearly all (all but one, again IIRC) found a difference in favor of the
3 set group, a difference I would think is of practical significance
(especially if somewhat compounded over the life of an athlete), who
want to be really strong vs. fit.
I would be interested in hearing your opinion of that review paper after
having checked out all the research they cited (with a calculator) and
also reading the following papers:
McGee, D. et al. Leg and hip adaptations to three weight training
programs. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research. 6(2): 92-95.
1992
Kramer, J.B., et al. Effects of single vs multiple sets of weight
training: Impact of volume, intensity, and variation. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research. 11(3): 143-
147. 1997.
Kraemer, W.J., et al. A series of studies-The physiological basis for
strength training in american football: Fact over philosophy. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research. 11(3): 131-142. 1997.
Also check out this review, and their references:
Stone, M.H. Athletic performance development: Volume load-1 set vs.
multiple sets, training velocity and training variation. Strength and
Conditioning, December 1998. 22-31.
Hopefully the concrete of confirmational bias hasn't set yet:).
Actually, it doesn't really matter that much anymore since the HIT
group now recognizes 3 sets as their own.
cr
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: msm?
From: "lim youyuan" <freakin...@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:03:42 -0700
hey, i read abt a substance called msm(methylsulfonylmethane). it is
supposed to stop pain impulses, muscle spasms, and produces powerful pain
relief, delayed muscle sorenes...anyone takes it?any opinoins?any
information gained from personal experience would be appreciated. thanks.
anz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Palm Software?
From: "Al Rainey" <rain...@home.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:05:46 -0700
Try this link:
http://hotfiles.zdnet.com/cgi-bin/texis/swlib/hotfiles/info.html?fcode=0017VZ&b=
zdpalm_subcat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of weights
Issues of the weights digest, along with a Links directory, a bookstore,
and much more, are available at WeightsNet:
To contribute to the next issue, please send email to:
mailto:wei...@WeightsNet.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to:
mailto:weights...@WeightsNet.com
For further information, contact Michael Sullivan at:
mailto:sull...@WeightsNet.com
The views expressed in weights are those of the individual authors only.