Pete Sisco
- Thread starter Fausto
- Start date
jvroig
Active Member
Yeah seems like it.
Well, with all the available research on hypertrophy and weightlifting, he'd have to be a complete jack a-s-s not to read something good and then share it to his "customers".
Anyhoo, what he did fail to say is the subtle but important point of exercise selection. Yep, the fewer the better, but it also remains true that certain exercises are better than others of the same kind (that is, exercises affecting the same muscle group). Of course, he did give a good example, the bench press.
The real issue here is: What, you receive mail from Sisco? Are you a believer?! Hehehe, kidding
Regards,
-JV
Well, with all the available research on hypertrophy and weightlifting, he'd have to be a complete jack a-s-s not to read something good and then share it to his "customers".
Anyhoo, what he did fail to say is the subtle but important point of exercise selection. Yep, the fewer the better, but it also remains true that certain exercises are better than others of the same kind (that is, exercises affecting the same muscle group). Of course, he did give a good example, the bench press.
The real issue here is: What, you receive mail from Sisco? Are you a believer?! Hehehe, kidding
Regards,
-JV
I
imported_dkm1987
Guest
[b said:
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG
What studies, Fausto does he provide references for these studies? If so would you mind PM'ing me the references.
9to5lifter
New Member
I don't know, it looks like an article written only to back up his "static holds" method of training (and the accompanying book), if you've heard of it.
Fausto
HST Expert
Ok, Ok
I was just stirring the pot
I see I got a littl bity of commotion, good!
No, I'm not a convert will never be, but I often check things out just to see, and I can definitely say HST stands strong and steady, no doubt!
Dan, not worth it, but if you want the erst of the article I can send it to you, research references none, at least not in the e-mail.
I see there is a strong defence of the HST methodology, GOOD
I was just stirring the pot
I see I got a littl bity of commotion, good!
No, I'm not a convert will never be, but I often check things out just to see, and I can definitely say HST stands strong and steady, no doubt!
Dan, not worth it, but if you want the erst of the article I can send it to you, research references none, at least not in the e-mail.
I see there is a strong defence of the HST methodology, GOOD
9to5lifter
New Member
It is actually surprising how statements like this stem from famous trainers. Ok, let's see what this means.[b said:
We know from highschool physics that
work = force x distance.
Consequently,
intensity = (force x distance) / time.
Now, let's assume that the force we apply is equal to the gravitational force on the weight. In other words,
force = m x g, where m is the mass of the weights we use. So,
intensity = (m x g x distance) / time.
Since more intensity = more hypertrophy (according to his statements), we should up the intensity to get better results. We also now that our maxes aren't really that far apart, for example 5RM < 2 x 15RM (obviously). In reality, an educated estimation would be 5RM = 1.2 x 1.15 x 15RM = 1.38 x 15RM.
Then, according to his sayings, we would be better off performing 1 set of 15RM as quickly as possible (15 reps in total), instead of 2 sets of 5RM (10 reps in total), because the amount of work done is greater in the first case, since 5RM = 1.38 x 15RM, or 15 x 1 > 10 x 1.38 (note that this translates to mass, as force = m x g). Now, how does THAT sound?
Also note that I assumed that the amount of time required would be approximately equal in the above cases, although the second case would most probably require more time. Even worse, then!
I hope this has been entertaining for those of you who had the patience to follow me up to here.
Yet, it is not a game or a play with words, it is actually true!Regards,
Dimitris
Being new to the HST fold, I haven't really posted much here, but since the Sisco name appeared, I thought I might be able to add something to this discussion.
I spent about 2 years in the Sisco camp (a true waste of time). I even purchased the Explosive Fitness SCT machines (Ok, I plead temporary insanity). Since I had come from a HIT background, his arguments seemed logical (filtered through my preconceived notions).
He uses a very effective Guru-creation technique that I call "Us and Them".
This technique starts out by the would-be guru pointing out everyone else's errors; in this case, other fitness/weight lifting/bodybuilding types (and gurus, by extension). Once he has convinced his audience of the utter ignorance of "Them", he, by default becomes the all knowing expert, because he was able to point out their errors. Once his expert status has been established, he feeds his new followers a line of propaganda that is different from the line from "Them", and his audience is more than willing to accept it, because it is different from "Them" and they can become part of “Us”. It becomes a way of thinking, polluting their stream of consciousness.
Of course he is well practiced at it, so he does it a little at a time. First just casting doubts about “Them”, but eventually everything shifts into high gear and you are sucked in.
There will be many more such emails, each building the case for “Us”. The books and ebooks are even worse!
Of course, sometimes you have to point the errors in someone else's arguments to get to the truth of a matter, but this is a different beast.
I spent about 2 years in the Sisco camp (a true waste of time). I even purchased the Explosive Fitness SCT machines (Ok, I plead temporary insanity). Since I had come from a HIT background, his arguments seemed logical (filtered through my preconceived notions).
He uses a very effective Guru-creation technique that I call "Us and Them".
This technique starts out by the would-be guru pointing out everyone else's errors; in this case, other fitness/weight lifting/bodybuilding types (and gurus, by extension). Once he has convinced his audience of the utter ignorance of "Them", he, by default becomes the all knowing expert, because he was able to point out their errors. Once his expert status has been established, he feeds his new followers a line of propaganda that is different from the line from "Them", and his audience is more than willing to accept it, because it is different from "Them" and they can become part of “Us”. It becomes a way of thinking, polluting their stream of consciousness.
Of course he is well practiced at it, so he does it a little at a time. First just casting doubts about “Them”, but eventually everything shifts into high gear and you are sucked in.
There will be many more such emails, each building the case for “Us”. The books and ebooks are even worse!
Of course, sometimes you have to point the errors in someone else's arguments to get to the truth of a matter, but this is a different beast.
I
imported_epsilon
Guest
"Love the physics, reminds me of school ", as a aircraft-engineeing student,
I actually tried to make a "back of the hand" calculation of the mechanical stress in a squatting movement.
I actually tried to make a "back of the hand" calculation of the mechanical stress in a squatting movement.
jvroig
Active Member
Oops, I admit, I should have read the whole thing than just focus on the fact that he said "fewer exercises". Now that I read it again, yep, his "intensity" is far off. I can't believe it, he was about to get it right, then made a 180 and missed the train entirely.
I completely missed that intesity crap (I was so focused on theless exercises per bodypart thingy, sorry), so let me give my .02 there:
Work done per unit time? Meaning the faster you finish, the better, all other things (like load and volume) being equal. Wow, so all I have to do is finish the reps faster and I'm gonna get better hypertrophy? Better acceleration on the concentric, maybe, but saying less time is defnintely nto the case.
Like Dan said, WRONG (3x).
Regards,
-JV
I completely missed that intesity crap (I was so focused on theless exercises per bodypart thingy, sorry), so let me give my .02 there:
Work done per unit time? Meaning the faster you finish, the better, all other things (like load and volume) being equal. Wow, so all I have to do is finish the reps faster and I'm gonna get better hypertrophy? Better acceleration on the concentric, maybe, but saying less time is defnintely nto the case.
Like Dan said, WRONG (3x).
Didn't have any doubts myself.[b said:
Regards,
-JV
I
imported_dkm1987
Guest
Don't take my emphatic WRONGING the wrong
way, I do believe increasing contraction speed and or density of contractions has it's place. My remark was how he was defining intensity.
Now speaking of physics, Charles Ridgely (a master physicist in his own right), has written some really great stuff (besides his Setting up a HST Cycle Ebook) on the physics of training. Including calculating Work (Yes it is important
), Power and Progression. I have these three PDF's available on my forum and Charles has many more on his site
Now speaking of physics, Charles Ridgely (a master physicist in his own right), has written some really great stuff (besides his Setting up a HST Cycle Ebook) on the physics of training. Including calculating Work (Yes it is important
