Your thought on Heavy Duty

Discussion in 'General Training' started by Jonny, Nov 17, 2005.

  1. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    Your posting THAT?
    maybe you should quit while your behind.  becuase it is a worthless pos paper
    Besides that paper being a worthless POS, show us the link to the reduction in PS.
    did I say it was?
    So the weight has to bve heavy enough, but load isnt important?
    So they need tension?  what do they create the tension against?  a load perhaps?
    fatigue based hypertrophy follows a slightly different pathway to the tension focussed pathway.  
    So in some situations it does?
    While I have seen this study before, i will ask this again.  Who would do eccentric exercise with 80% of their concentric maximum...  what a waste of time.
     
  2. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    some of the newer meta-analyses show it all in a better light than any individual papers.

    Some of the stuff (like the JEP paper linked above) are from HIT oriented (in this case a website only journal - which is definately down hte pecking order in terms of journal quality) and contain a lot of references to old HIT hacks such as Carpilelli and Otto
     
  3. Aaron, we've discussed the Rhea's Metas as well at my site. But they are meta's looking at strength not hypertrophy specifically.

    Jester, I think you might be confusing frequency with sets as I don't remember posting anything at my site that looked at hypertrophy specifically with one set. Our articles are based on how important work is and most of the studies looking at hypertrophy specifically do not use a one set regime, most use 3 or more.
     
  4. Actarus

    Actarus New Member

    Aaron you aren't fair [​IMG]

    about SD... Bryan said it was to decondition muscular tissus and this idea is not supported.

    Bryan said the hypertrophy stimulus is directly linked to LOAD (heavier load = more microtraumas, negs > postives etc). The idea is not supported.

    The Paper I posted worthless ? So what are your references KRAEMER studies ? Studies don't support multiples sets and 'high' frequency (ie 3x per week and more).

    I'm not saying HST doesn't work I'm saying it's not as scientific as someone could believe.
     
  5. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    and so are the papers 'ripping' Rheas work apart.
     
  6. That's very true and why I haven't used the Winnett, Carpinelli/Otto stuff to justify hypertrophy.
     
  7. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    Yep, confusing the two, tx for clearing up :)
     
  8. camarosuper6

    camarosuper6 New Member

    Actually, considering the various forms of HIT theories (most of which I have used at one time or another for the past 2 years), HST actually doesnt refute many of the theories behind HIT training protocol.

    Mentzer and a few others advocated rest anywhere from 7-14 days, at least per bodypart. Now while this may seem extreme in many cases, figuring you are training at or very close to failure at the end of each HST cycle (approximately the 12th day or so) ..this failure or beyond failure workout (which is what I plan on doing a the end of each of my 2 week-cycles) conicides with some of the HIT theory... at least partially. From personal experience, some of my best strength gains come from resting this amount of time between the same bodypart.

    The newest version of HIT ( Darden's) calls for 3 workouts per week with one not-to-failure workout in the middle... and eventually to two workouts per week... and Jones advocated similar in his early HIT theories. Seems the trend lately seems to shift back to more frequent training with lower volume per workout (also simliar to HST guildlines)

    So... you are working out more frequently, with 5 of the workouts not to failure, and the final workout approximately TO failure, therefore giving you the benefits of...

    More frequency
    Less CNS stimulation
    Occasional failure training (which IMO is good for change in mental pace, and I just enjoy the overall challenge of it)...

    Seems it puts together many of the same theories into one workout.
     
  9. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    Sounds like beginner 5x5. Without the warm ups and focus on big lifts.
     
  10. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    I would take all studies comparing volume with a grain of salt. The individual, their condition, their performance of the set, yada yada makes it very hard to pin it down. I've had periods where single sets worked way better than multiple and periods where multiple sets worked better. All you have to do is get a group of people together at different stages with different tolerances to work/intensity of effort/etc. and you'll get all kinds of results.

    Ron
     

Share This Page