From: James Krieger Subject: Re: HIT to failure with squats? Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 19:18:43 GMT babucher@mtu.edu (Brian Bucher) writes: > crg@slayer.raleigh.ibm.com wrote: > : > : : >I don't have any studies to point to (sorry) but one of the reasons > : : >that periodization in general is more successful than strict HIT > : > : : Uh, no. Sorry Chuck, I don't buy that claim. Where is the evidence > : : that periodization is "more successful" than HIT? > : > : The vast majority of anecdotal evidence supports this. Notice I didn't > : say *all* anecdotal evidence... > > I'd say the reason that not-training-to-failure might have more anecdotal > evidence than training-to-failure routines would be that the vast majority > of routines performed are not-training-to-failure routines. How many > people have I ever seen that used a HIT type workout and took all sets > to failure? Zero. > > How many of the other types of training have I seen? Thousands. > > So, with such a huge number of lifters following periodiztion-type > routines doesn't it follow that we should see a lot more of these > people having great numbers than see members of such a small minority > (training-to-failure) having great numbers? > > > Excellent points about there being no/few 'good' studies on this stuff. > I have one to propose. :) > > Take 2 groups of 50 ppl, give 50 to a HIT Guru, and give 50 to a > "Periodization" guru. Let both groups train under supervision for > 5-10 years and look at the results. > > Unfortunatly it's not a viable solution. :) > Brian's correct in this assertion. Very long term studies done on training protocols are pretty much impossible, due to time, money, etc. It's difficult to look at any studies that compare training methods. Many studies are too short in duration (usually around 10 weeks). Also, there are so many different ways to train one study comparing two methods really won't mean much. For example, could a study ever be designed comparing training to failure vs. not training to failure? A direct comparison of the two methods is practically impossible, since workload would have to be equalized. The best we can do is to take the data that's out there and make educated guesses on efficient methods of training. The problem with making educated guesses is that people will come up with different conclusions. For example, Rob Spector, Brian Bucher, and I have all come up with different conclusions despite reading much of the same literature. There's some similarities between our conclusions, and there's some differences. I think the best conclusions we can come up with right now and all agree upon are: 1. Heavy weights MUST be used to gain significant increases in muscle size and strength. Light weights never got anybody anywhere (unless they're on drugs). 2. Whether you're training to failure or not, some type of gradual progression in weights MUST be employed if one is to see increases in muscle size. 3. Adequate recovery MUST be employed between workouts and bodyparts if one is to make progress. Now, whether this recovery comes from days off or from light and moderate days doesn't really matter, as long as the recovery is employed. It may very well be that days off vs. light/moderate days may have different, but both beneficial, training effects and one may want to use both methods at some point in one's training career. 4. The eccentric component of an exercise MUST be emphasized since it plays a role in muscular hypertrophy. Thus, weights should be lowered slowly. 5. Some type of training variation MUST occur over time. There are many training methods that will work, but nothing will work forever. Where this variation comes from (whether its in intensity changes, volume changes, exercise changes, etc.) is up to the individual, and changes of all kinds may be necessary over the long run. 6. Heavy compound movements should be emphasized in one's training program for best results. Isolation movements are not a waste of time, but if you're program consists of nothing but isolation movements, your progress will probably not be as good as if you were incorporating at least SOME heavy compound movements. 7. Heavy days should never be easy. You don't necessarily have to be exhausted to make progress, but if heavy days offer no challenge, than you're not training hard enough. From: JRTELLE@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:32:08 -0600 (MDT) Subject: (Weights-2) Re: GROWTH FACTORS DEMONSTRATED **NBAF WEIGHTS-2** You wrote "NOBODY knows the exact mechanisms regarding muscle growth. Tell me who does" I do----max RELATIVE tension to optimal fatigue. RELATIVE TENSION is an estimate of the relationship between manifest strength and momemtary max potential(isometric?) strength--80% relative tension would then be a tension equal to 80% 0f max isometric tension--at that point in time!!! Nobody believes that fibers develop tension on an "all-or-nothing " basis do they? Check the research--a great deal of supposition is required--but when you tease out the relative tension Xs time of any given fiber population--contractle hypertrophy is directly related to %tension and time. Thats why slow twitch need so much time under tension to show contractile hypertrophic results. These fibers take from 4 minutes to forever to fatigue! high number of sets (Kraemer ?)slow twitch hypertrophy--may be largely energy substrate or accumulated waste product(dysfunctional hypertrophy--Siff) size. IIB fibers take 20 secs to fatigue and and IIB converted to IIA and IIA take up to 90 secs to fatigue AT max relative tension. following is a hypertrophic workout for an advanced athlete projected to fatigue a large population of fibers at a high relative tension. set 1. 85-90 % of max at a rep tempo of 3-0-x (3 down-0 pause at bottom-up as fast as possible). go to 1 rep short of failure.10 secs rest set 2. reduce weight 20 % (of that, not original weight), rep tempo of 3-1-1 ..go to 1 rep short of failure, 10 secs rest set 3. reduce weight 20 %, rep tempo of 3-2-1 .go to 1 rep short of failure, 10 secs rest set 4. reduce weight 20 %, rep tempo of 5-1-5 .go to failure, no rest set 5. reduce weight 20 %, rep tempo of 7-0-7 .go to failure, 10 secs rest. set 6. reduce weight 20 % , rep tempo of 10-0-10 .go to failure. once every 7- 9 days with light weight stretching performed every 2-3 days--to enhance the translation/transcription process. This routine anecdotally works slightly better than 10 sets of 6-12 reps.--about a 2% muscular weight difference!! Jerry