Dr. Squat - "Hit" With A "Hammer".

[webmaster]

Learn all about how high intensity training (HIT) was founded, the ten HIT commandments and the seven laws of weight training and much more...

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drsquat7.htm

HOW TO REVIEW: Post Your Review Of This Article - CLICK ON POST REPLY BELOW! You do NOT need to be a registered member to post a reply in this section!

[yeow_hwee]

Man, this article is tooooo 1 sided. HIT have its own benefits and are sometimes more effective to convectional volume training methods. Incorporating both methods into the workout by rotating them would be the best idea.

Still, i dun like the author( Dr Squat) attitude....

[EricS]

Originally posted by yeow_hwee
HIT have its own benefits and are sometimes more effective to convectional volume training methods.

Like?

[Ricky]

HIT has huge time benefits and benefits with regards to recovery.

I have tried both HIT and high volume. Due to my incredibly busy work/school/travel schedule, HIT is the way to go for me now.

What small differences I could gain with high volume are more than offset by the simple fact that I don't have as much time as I used to, to spend in the gym and complete the higher volume, more frequent splits.

[EricS]

split routines take just as long as HIT workouts. Less than one hour. They You have to realize that the time required is proportional to the amount of damage created by the work out. The amount of structural re-construction(growth) is also proportional to the amount of damage that may be created. This requires more time. which is why most splits allow for 5 or 7 days between working the same body part.

You also have to take into account that lower bodymuscle groups take nearly 2 maybe even 3 times as long to heal from an equally damaging workout than it would take upper body muscle groups.

If volume isn't needed, then why can't we just do one set of one. Go in, max out and go home. Hell that would save a LOT of time wouldn't it?

The studies that Dr. hatfield is talking about that show 1 set to be as good as 3 are shaky at best. first of all they were done on un trained individuals. of course there isn't going to be a significant difference, strength and size increases can only happen so fast. these people were maxe out.

Secondly, 9 out of 10 were not truely 1 set. The one that is sighted the most used a circuit as a set. And that circuit included numerous exercise that targeted the same muscle groups, however, the reserachers called one time around the cuircut, a "set"

The other studies, again, did not use just one set, they were taked through a complete workout that utilized exercise that overlaped in muscle activation. So it is not corrct to say that 1 set is as good as 3, because it is not. when yoou look at already trained athletes, multiple sets always comes out on top.

I am a HIT-er. In fact, I am a SuperSlow-er. However, I won't debate this article around these points.

Anyone should realise how biased this article is against HIT. This is not a historical survey. This is not an even handed approach.

Firstly, he should be careful with the biblical analogy. Aren't laws subject to commandments? :-P Anyway, in the case of this article, which ones (laws/commandments) should we believe are correct? Some basic laws of Newtonian physics are ignored in many places, so we can't take him seriously.

The "biography" of Arhur Jones is insulting. Jones made one of the biggest contributions to weight training. HIT theory aside, Jones should be most recognised for the development of exercise equipment. The pullover machine alone was a revolution in the fitness biz. Insulting this by saying the cam looks funny only serves to drag Dr Squat down to the muddy level.

"Dr Squat" Hmmm, I don't even recall seeing his real name (Frederick C. Hatfield, Ph.D) anywhere.
"Industry Guru" - well he gave everyone else names, so I suppose he may as well give himself one.

[str8flexed]

HIT is based on the misinformation spouted from the mouths of people with gym Ph.D's who offer nothing but pseudo-science theories.

all fukin rubbish.
hatfield would`ve bbeeen better off givin hardcore info on why HIT is not good n his solutions.
its full of ****.

[ZachG_85]

I love it.

Once again an article against HIT gets flamed all to hell. No one cares if volume gets ripped apart, but say HIT isn't good and the bitching starts.

[Tete]

Originally posted by ZachG_85
I love it.

Once again an article against HIT gets flamed all to hell. No one cares if volume gets ripped apart, but say HIT isn't good and the bitching starts.

I have read one of Dr. Hatfields books - it was called Bodybuilding: A Scientific Approach, I did not rate it. He advocated some dangerous practices such as squatting with heels on a board - a sure fire way to increase stress on knee cartillage. His instance on telling us what elite weightlifters do is irrelevant. He was able to squat 1014lbs - there are very few people capable of getting anywhere near that sort of lift, I don't believe Hatfield thinks in terms of the average person on the street.

Saying that cheating is sometimes necessary - that does not make sense - he may have robust joints but we are not all so blessed. His routines were also excessive for the average person.

I can see that HIT gets attacked because its strongest supporters claim it is the 'only way to train' - perhaps if they adapted a less arrogant stance they would not be attacked by volume advocates but rather an 'each to their own' attitude could be adopted.

It has never been said that HIT is one set to failure - HIT is a set of principles whereby the minimum amount of work required is performed, no one said that has to be one set.

I find it strange that Stuart McRobert is listed as someone who pushes HIT, this is simply not true. McRobert encourages abbreviated training routines based on compound movements, he also encourages intensity cycling and where appropriate, he advocates 6X6 and various other protocols (much of the things Hatfield says is wrong with HIT).

The reason HIT gets strong support is that too many people start out training too many days per week and doing too many sets, when they switch to the lower volume they make gains. Mostly the people that knock HIT are the ones that gain well on the more traditional types of routine - the exact types that fail for so many people - these people have better genetics and recovery ability (this is in no way meant to detriment their obvious hard work).

Science can be used to prove and disprove many things - at the end of the day you have to experiment to find out what your body is capable of taking - the majority of people grossly over-estimate what is neeeded and attempt to hit every muscle from every angle, too many isolation movements, too many days per week etc etc.

Why does everyone allude to 3 sets per exercise for 3-4 different movements - its what most routines seem to be based on but why? It can't be right for everyone, people with great genetics will always say underestimate what it takes for others less fortunate to gain.

I personally believe that the genetically average person i.e one that will never be good enough to compete in bb'ing comps, never squat 500lbs should be focusing on low volume routines with plenty of recovery time based on compound movements and keeping isolation work to a minimum - why do I believe this? because it works for me, I know it works for others and I see so many people in the gym month after month not making improvements - I improve week in, week out in my lifts because I allow adequate recovery - I don't do HIT, I do low volume although I do believe that parts of the HIT principles can be succesfully accomadated into most peoples routines.

[str8flexed]

HIT leaves the nervous system overworked and the muscular system underworked... there are much better alternatives

Originally posted by str8flexed
HIT leaves the nervous system overworked and the muscular system underworked... there are much better alternatives

......and so does excessive volume and too many days per week training, I don't believe the issue is black and white - there are too many individual variables.

[str8flexed]

not if volume is done correctly

[yeow_hwee]

we are starting on this whole **** debate on volume and HIT again...

dammit, just alternate both in your workout and do what makes you grow, period !

Originally posted by str8flexed
not if volume is done correctly

If HIT is done correctly then you would take adequate rest to let the CNS recover, its not possible to compare the effects of volume on CNS to HIT because there are so many variables in both definition of what constitutes what and of the people doing it.

You made a blanket statement about HIT but there are so many variations of it that your earlier post can't possibly be true, I could say volume leads to overtraining; for many people it does but that statement is full of holes due to the mass of variables.

A lot of people clearly do manage to place sufficient work on their muscular system using HIT because so many people use it and benfit from it, to say all those people must have suppressed their CNS is ridiculous because you just don't know.

I firmly believe people should try and find out what works for them because we all have different recovery abilities and tolerance for different workloads - blanket statements about any type of training that has consistently given results is a nonsense.

I hate to use the 'elite' as examples but as a natural competitor you have heard of Markus Reinhardt right, personally trained by Mentzer uses a pure HIT routine - what's wrong with his training -did he undertrain muscular system, does he have weakened CNS and immune system? Where did he go wrong? I can't see it myself.
As I said before too many variables to disregard any form of training.

[str8flexed]

many people attain great physiques in SPITE of their training... not because of superior training.

HIT advocates resting for long periods of time between workouts... why? Why rest 7-10 days between workouts for a particular bodypart? Any study I've ever seen done on recovery from lifting shows that muscle repair is completed within 72 hours. Instead of waiting an extra 4-7 days, why not hit it again.

I am by no means well schooled in the area of training so I will invite some who are more versed in it than i to contribute.

[laugh n rolling]

No! Please! Don't ruin my dream of 1-set-can-make-me-mr.O!

(well, Dorian said he used 1 set to failure, but how many "warm-up sets" he did? and how many exercises he did for each part? 1 set or 2 per bodypart could make Dorian's torso? Think again, idiot.)

Originally posted by str8flexed
[B]many people attain great physiques in SPITE of their training... not because of superior training.

True, as I said - so many variables, many great physiques built in many different ways.

HIT advocates resting for long periods of time between workouts... why?Why rest 7-10 days between workouts for a particular bodypart?

Since when? although I don't do HIT I've read enough about it - there is no set rule on how often to train - it varies from 1 to 3 days per week, in extreme cases sometimes less. HIT is very vague - there are very few specifics to it, reps, sets, frequency are all determined to the individual - the idea is to do the minimum required and train hard.

Any study I've ever seen done on recovery from lifting shows that muscle repair is completed within 72 hours. Instead of waiting an extra 4-7 days, why not hit it again.

Because growth (adaption) happens after the repair stage and that's what we're all here for.

The CNS can still be downtrodden from the previous workout so the cumulative effect of that is taken into account, atrophy is not going to occur in a short space of time so why hack away at the CNS again? take the time to fully recover and be focused for the next workout instead. As I said its all down to the individual, you would actually be suprised as how high the volume is in some peoples 'abbreviated' routines because individuals are so different.

[str8flexed]

if one wanted to totally allow the nervous system to recover then they optimum training regime would be working the whole body once every 7-10 days. Not exactly prime for muscle growth. It's much better to hit it hard for a few weeks, and strive for optimum hypertrophy... then rest for 4-6 days to allow CNS recovery.
peace

I don't wish to sound rude - but what is that based on?

Why 4-6 days rest?, why 7-10 days frequency? - for who and why? How do you know how well that person is eating, how much rest, how much sleep - they have a major effect on the CNS.

If it was that clear cut for everyone on what is best there would be no discussion on these sorts of matters, lots of different people have grown on lots of different routines. I'm not trying to push HIT, far from it I just believe people should find what works for them - taking more rest and performing less sets as HIT entails works very well for some - so why knock it?

[ZachG_85]

I have a theory. And it's been proven pretty well thus far. It states that everyone who follows HIT (the... HIT-nazis, we'll say), will read an article and, despite how logical and even scientific it may be, will disregard it all as poorly written and biased with shaky studies. If said article gave no backup, no support, and was 100% opinion-based but in favor of HIT, it would be considered a good article by said HIT-nazis.

You know, if I'm in the gym for four days a week, 45 minutes at a time, which is better: doing a total of about 3 or 4 sets per muscle or 12? I've seen guys that follow HIT. They rest for what has to be about 10 minutes. It's just sad.

You forget, the biggest problem with HIT is that "failure" principle. That's where the CNS damage happens. Oh I'll advocate positive failure. I'll even do extreme failure on my heaviest sets of compound movements. But to be taking every set to failure, with forced reps and negatives? Well a) that's murder on the CNS, and b) that'll get cortisol flying through your system without acheiving much overload.

And the way HIT guys keep talking about CNS damage from volume training (despite the lack of information any of them hold on the subject. I've heard some stupid **** about volume come from these guys), you'd think one 15 minute full body workout would be optimal.

Remember also that the more training a person has under his belt the more work can be done. The dreaded cortisol (read: main reason to keep workouts short) shows up in about 50 minutes in individuals with little training. In individuals with five years or so behind them, it takes about 74. There's an extra 24 minutes of catabolism-free workout.

Not to mention if you get PLENTY of sleep and food, the CNS will recover. If you sleep 8+ hours a day, you'll recover more quickly than someone who sleeps under 8. Simple as that.

I don't know, I just get so fecking sick and tired of HIT vs. volume. Anyone ever noticed that volume advocates generally say "Hey, do whatever works." But HIT-nazis respond with "HIT is the best, and if you aren't using it you're wrong!"

I pop onto other boards every once in a while, and let me tell you, this is the only board that has such an HIT fanbase. It's an odd thing.

[FortifiedIron]

BWAHAHAHAHA.. have no fear Im here in this thread. Whats this I hear about HIT with benefits? lol for 2yrars i've proved the HIT panzy media wrong and I shall do it once again.

Why dont you like Hatfield? Cuss he has an opion on HIT, which once again believe it or not his bias opion seems to be correct none the less. Why is that you ask? Cuss.. not only does hatfield prove things wrong from his practical purpose of training he also proves them wrong backing them up with very valuable scientific studies. Studies my friend is something Jones, Brzycki (god I hate this know it all who tries to train athletes) and Mentzer (probably the smartest of the 3, yet still in his own world).

I dont see really why everyone is so up tight about this article, its Fred Hatfield... sure he is a powerlifter.. ex olympic lifter. Has competed both levels. First man to squat 1000lbs and also holds a 4yr BA degree in Exercise and Sports medicine. Dont get me wrong what he says is good about HIT, but its nothing compared to Mel Siff.

Mel made a huge name for himself for ripping this method. The whole time Siff attacked this type of training not a single HIT guy had balls enough to counter the argument. Which is pretty funny considering their dogmatic approach to multi-set training and heavy tonage (volume). Which yet once again, HITer's cannot supply one studie or one bodybuilder that uses this method 100% to its full effectivness to prove its a proven factor. Im not talking about your juice monkey sanding on stage in your bbing showes today. What a joke! Lets see the methods work for an average joe that has trained for up to 2 yrs. Why 2years you ask? Beacasue our body are organisms and we adapt to training. During the being of our training we compete several neuromuscular processes that make increasing in performance/desired goals more achivable for younger athletes. WOW guess. what.. find this in Mentzers books, Jones or Bryzcki at cycberpump.... You wont. oo Back tot he processes btw.. Intermuscular coordinaton takes place over the first few weeks, intramuscular coodination then takes place for up to six weeks, hypertrophy phase for up to tweleve weeks. So really with any program it will work for a set amount of time, but I forget thats what HIT is about. QUick results int he sortest amont of time. **** the long term ****.


Well I better not make this so long some of you HIT guys cant read it. I know you are very impatient and cant stand to do things for very long... like train proper, read proper work on training.. etc.. cuss it doesnt have small words and big pictures, yet big words and small print.

Till we meet again.. This is FI saying good fight, good night. I shall return here once again to disprove these panzy no want to lifting wannabe's just like Fred and Siff had done for years.



Kc

[BigKazWSM747]

From Brzycki one of the HIT Gurus:

Matt Brzycki:
Furthermore, whenever you lift a weight explosively momentum is introduced to overcome inertia and provide impetus to the weight or resistance. After the initial explosive movement, little or no resistance is encountered by the muscles throughout the emaining ranges of motion. In simple terms, the weight is practically moving under its own power. To illustrate the effects of momentum on muscular tension, imagine that you pushed a 100 pound cart a distance of 50 yards at a deliberate, steady pace.
In this instance, you maintained a constant tension on your muscles for the entire 50 yards. Now, suppose that you were to push the same cart another 50 yards. This time, however, you accelerated your pace to the point where you were running as fast as possible. If you were to stop pushing the cart after
35 yards, the cart would continue to move by itself because you gave it momentum. So, your muscles had resistance for the first 35 yards . . . but not for the final 15 yards. The same effect occurs in the weight room. When weights are lifted explosively, there is tension on the muscles for the initial part of the movement . . . but not for the last part. In effect, the requirement for muscular force is lessened and the potential strength gains are reduced accordingly.

Now, here's where we get to the good stuff. Using momentum to lift a weight increases the internal forces encountered by a given joint; the faster a weight is lifted, the greater these forces are amplified. These high forces are created at the point of explosion. When the forces exceed the structural limits of a joint, an injury occurs in the muscles, bones or connective tissue .....

Assuming that an object's mass (or weight) does not change, the amount of potential force is then directly related to the object's acceleration. In other words, as the speed of movement increases so does its potential force. That's not merely my opinion or observation -- it's a fundamental law of physics. Something new? Nope. In fact, it was first proposed about 300 years ago by a dude named Isaac Newton and is referred to as his Second Law of Motion.

I will now follow what was stated w/ a response written by Mel Siff.

[FortifiedIron]

Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
From Brzycki one of the HIT Gurus:

Matt Brzycki:
Furthermore, whenever you lift a weight explosively momentum is introduced to overcome inertia and provide impetus to the weight or resistance. After the initial explosive movement, little or no resistance is encountered by the muscles throughout the emaining ranges of motion. In simple terms, the weight is practically moving under its own power. To illustrate the effects of momentum on muscular tension, imagine that you pushed a 100 pound cart a distance of 50 yards at a deliberate, steady pace.
In this instance, you maintained a constant tension on your muscles for the entire 50 yards. Now, suppose that you were to push the same cart another 50 yards. This time, however, you accelerated your pace to the point where you were running as fast as possible. If you were to stop pushing the cart after
35 yards, the cart would continue to move by itself because you gave it momentum. So, your muscles had resistance for the first 35 yards . . . but not for the final 15 yards. The same effect occurs in the weight room. When weights are lifted explosively, there is tension on the muscles for the initial part of the movement . . . but not for the last part. In effect, the requirement for muscular force is lessened and the potential strength gains are reduced accordingly.

Now, here's where we get to the good stuff. Using momentum to lift a weight increases the internal forces encountered by a given joint; the faster a weight is lifted, the greater these forces are amplified. These high forces are created at the point of explosion. When the forces exceed the structural limits of a joint, an injury occurs in the muscles, bones or connective tissue .....

Assuming that an object's mass (or weight) does not change, the amount of potential force is then directly related to the object's acceleration. In other words, as the speed of movement increases so does its potential force. That's not merely my opinion or observation -- it's a fundamental law of physics. Something new? Nope. In fact, it was first proposed about 300 years ago by a dude named Isaac Newton and is referred to as his Second Law of Motion.

I will now follow what was stated w/ a response written by Mel Siff.

what a joke hehe.. he has no common sense at all with biomechanics and physics.


http://www.fortifiediron.com/invisio...showtopic=2172


Plz.. brzycki needs to quit his day job.


Kc

[BigKazWSM747]

Mel Siff:
*** Since most HIT material tends to be supported on very emotional and personal grounds, I shall not address their philosophy or beliefs, which have no bearing at all on the problem, but will confine myself to the alleged science which is used to support their material. Here are a few comments in
this regard:

1. How it is possible to lift a weight WITHOUT the use of momentum? Momentum is defined as the product of mass x velocity (p = M.V) for a mass M moving at a constant velocity V, so that movement at ANY velocity creates momentum. Some change of momentum is necessary to change the existing state of a body at rest or constant velocity - at least that is what Newton's First Law implies.

2. One does not use momentum to lift a weight. One uses FORCE to overcome the weight exerted by a load being kept on the surface of the Earth by the pull of gravity. Momentum is the result of force being exerted on the body. Since Brzycki quoted Newton's 2nd Law, then he should surely remember the 1st
Law by the same 'dude', which ran something like this:

"A body will remain in its original state of rest or movement at constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force."

Note that Newton wrote about force and not momentum - he only wrote about momentum in his 2nd Law, which was not really stated as F = Mass x Acceleration. What Newton actually wrote was close to this:

"The force (implied by the 1st Law) acting on a body is proportional to the rate of change of momentum".

This, of course, emphasizes that it is not momentum, but rate of momentum change which gives rise to a force, but if one has received a rather limited exposure to biomechanics and physics during formal training, some of the precise subtleties of these subjects may be missed.

3. What is meant by "potential force"? Potential refers to something that has not really happened, not something that is in progress, as in the situation above. This redundant terminology adds no understanding to the problem, but possibly has been employed in some attempt to impress with jargon, like some other gurus whom we know!

4. In stating that "whenever you lift a weight explosively momentum is introduced to overcome inertia and provide impetus to the weight or resistance", Brzycki failed to point out the underlying equation which applies to the motion of the load and the lifter. This equation would have shown his readers that, if one is lifting a load against gravity and then ceases to apply force, then there will be no upward acceleration and the load
will be decelerated and slowed down by gravity. Even if the load is fairly light (say, about equal to bodymass), the moment imparted by the initial pull is insufficient to lift the bar very far without continued application of force, as has been shown in many biomechanical studies.

If the load is closer to a typical weightlifting training load of over 80% of 1RM, the momentum does not endlessly keep moving the load upwards, since it is rapidly decelerated. Here are some interesting biomechanics results that totally demolish Brzycki's argument about the risks of allegedly large terminal momentum:

Parameters of the Pull during the Clean

Force at start of pull = 140-160% of weight on bar
Force during the double-knee bend phase = 160-180% of weight
Force near catch of load = 100-70% of weight (near end of movement)

Similar results are obtained from analysis of the jerk and the snatch. In other words, the force near the end of the movement is LESS than during earlier stages of the pull, so how can Brzycki condemn explosive movements on the basis of what momentum does near the end of the action?

Of course, it appears to the untutored observer that the bar actually is moving very rapidly in the Olympic lifts, but research shows that it is the RELATIVE velocity of the bar which is large, not necessarily the ABSOLUTE velocity of the bar which is large. The relative velocity is large because of that Newton dude's 3rd Law which states that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". How is this law involved in lifting? Well,
during the drop phase under the bar, the lifter actively thrusts against the bar to propel himself into the final catch position.

Brzycki continues to say: "After the initial explosive movement, little or no resistance is encountered by the muscles throughout the remaining ranges of motion. In simple terms, the weight is practically moving under its own power." By focusing his attention on the muscles, he has ignored the concurrent dynamics of the external load and the lifter's body. Had he done so, he would have realised that, although there is no significant resistance,
there was still plenty of inertia involved and that gravity would have a major say in determining the ultimate fate of the upward moving bar. Vertically projected loads on planet Earth generally tend to be slowed down by the effects of gravity, whether they encounter other resistance or not, as everyone knows.

5. It is incorrect to state that the Olympic lifter does not apply continued force throughout the Olympic lifts. This reveals a serious lack of understanding of the mechanics of the Olympic lifts. As discussed above, the ever-present force of gravity is acting on the bar tending to slow it down and the lifter applies varying degrees of force at every different stage of the movement in response to proprioceptive feedback from various parts of the body in an attempt to ensure that there is adequate force present to move the bar as high as possible.

EMGs have frequently been taken during all of the lifts and show that considerable activity of many muscle groups occurs throughout the lifting (and jerking) movement (see Vorobyev "Textbook on Weightlifting 1978, for example). Lifters do not depend on a single ballistic pull or thrust to move a load overhead; they rely on a combination of momentum and ontinued
application of muscular force (or in other words, on a combination of kinetic and potential elastic energy).

Now for the really bad news for Brzycki - what he says about the risks of momentum and imposition of large terminal forces applies more accurately to situations when the unloaded body or very light loads are involved in sport and training. Thus the accelerations and very often, the joint and muscle forces experienced in activities such as running, jumping, hitting and
throwing can far exceed those of Olympic lifting. For instance, sprinting and jumping can easily impose impact forces on the body which exceed 8 times bodyweight. Biomechanics studies of the Olympic lifts generally show that even the most powerful lifters do not exert a maximum pulling or jerking force that exceeds about 1.8 times the weight on the bar (about 4 times the bodymass of the lifter).

In simple terms this means that Brzycki should condemn sports such as track and field, basketball, football, tennis, hockey, baseball and almost all other sports which involve running and jumping - if, of course, we apply his principle of the dangers posed by momentum.

6. Brzycki's comments suggest that the use of ballistic action is inherently dangerous and inefficient. If he read some of the outstanding early texts by scientists such as McNeil Alexander, he might learn that the use of ballistic actions actually enhances the efficiency and safety of animal motion. What can be dangerous is the inappropriate application of forces and the production of inappropriate motor patterns. What also needs to be pointed
out that no research has ever shown that ballistic or rapid movements are any more likely to cause injury than slower or static actions. In fact, some of the most debilitating injury or dysfunction involves prolonged sitting without movement. Very serious muscle ruptures have also taken place during intense isometric and very slow loaded movements.

7. Bryzcki states that "These high forces are created at the point of explosion". This is correct, but the production of these forces is not in the form of a "step function" in which the force starts from zero and immediately reaches a peak value. Force is always developed according to a specific ramping or building up pattern. The ability of the body to produce force rapidly is controlled by proprioceptive and cognitive feedback processes which rarely allow the lifter to voluntarily produce forces that will exceed the tensile limit strength of the soft tissues.

As a safeguard, these tissues have built into them what is known in engineering as a "Safety Factor" which provides a large safety margin that is rarely reached, except under unexpectedly demanding situations (such as during accidents or sudden tackles), or if the muscles are activating in inefficient patterns or if the integrity of the tissues has already been compromised by disease, inflammation, injury or other pathology.

8. Brzycki casually stated that "the faster a weight is lifted, the greater these forces are amplified." What is meant by force amplification? Is he talking about amplification scientifically as the increase in the magnitude of a motor output by means of some active intervention of certain magnifying processes within the 'black box' of the body? This implies the action of further ongoing forces, but this cannot be, since he was referring to momentum-driven action in which no ongoing force application is taking place.

9. Brzycki states that "When weights are lifted explosively, there is tension on the muscles for the initial part of the movement . . . but not for the last part". This is not necessarily correct, because numerous EMGs of various movements show that the so-called "antagonistic" muscles contract near the end of a movement to ensure that joints are not extended unsafely
beyond their maximum range of movement (e.g. seeB asmajian "Muscles Alive" and Vorobyev's "Textbook on Weightlifting").

[BigKazWSM747]

continued response by Mel Siff...

It would have been more accurate if Brzycki had restrained his prejudice against rapid training and Olympic lifts and stated more objectively that any form of static, dynamic or ballistic activity carried out with poor motor skill carries with it an increased risk of injury.

He might have stated, too, that virtually all types of training may play a useful role at some stage of training an individual athlete, and that safety and efficiency depend more on knowing how and when to use each of those different training methods than the exercises on their own. I would not condemn HIT out of hand because it may play some role in training. Similarly, one might even rule out plyometric training for some individual athlete since it may be unproductive in that case. A good coach, like a good chef, knows how to mix the ingredients for the best results! He does not throw out the vinegar because it is sour; he uses it where it is most appropriate to enhance the flavour of the gourmet meal.

His total lack of peer-reviewed clinical evidence and his flawed
biomechanical analysis of lifting do not offer logical scientific proof of his case. It is regrettable that one can taint his undoubted practical experience with far too much prejudice. While I certainly agree that plyometric training is often massively misunderstood, misapplied and overused by certain gurus in the USA, one should rather return some more sanity to the situation by means of valid theory and research, not simply emotive prejudice and pseudo-science. Sadly, Brzycki often does far more harm to the cause
than do many of his opponents, simply because of his lack of objectivity.

Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA

[BigKazWSM747]

Originally posted by FortifiedIron
what a joke hehe.. he has no common sense at all with biomechanics and physics.


http://www.fortifiediron.com/invisio...showtopic=2172


Plz.. brzycki needs to quit his day job.


Kc

heh, glad to see you also posted the same thing as me. I also must give your website www.fortifiediron.com credit for where i took this from.

[FortifiedIron]

Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
heh, glad to see you also posted the same thing as me. I also must give your website www.fortifiediron.com credit for where i took this from.

Haha, thanks for the info. i have plenty more Siff stuff on HIT.



Kc

[JamesBarlow]

The thing that I find most impressive about this seemingly never ending debate or HIT vs. Volume, is how much effort is always spent in trying to prove something else wrong.

It's one thing to just explain your position on why you train the way you do. It's another thing to spend more energy trying to bash the other ways. This would have to be my main complaint with this article, or any article that does nothing to further anyones training, but instead tries to belittle those with differeing views.

The amazing part is that no matter how heated, or long, these threads become, the simple, and most often overlooked fact, is that these different programs work.

I have always held the view that I should spend my time working to improve what I am doing. If some one asks I will tell them, but I will only worry about what is working for me. No amount of research, or scientific debate, will ever take away from what I have done.

You can't intelectually dis-prove something which has already been experimentally proven. This goes for both sides.

In the end I will just see these threads for what they are. A bunch of people who are unwilling to admit that what they have always believed to be true, may only be true for them. That despite all the effort and time they have spent, or wasted, they will never find the universal truth that they are looking for.