Serious Discussion On HIT/Heavy Duty/Abbreviated Training

[N@tural1]

Did you find going to failure on every set to be very taxing on the body, more so than NTF training?

I find going to failure to limit the amount of workload I can handle, I seem to do well on multiple sets taken close but not to failure.

Failure isn't the stimulas for growth, ok yes it does make sure you got the best from 1 set you possibly could fair enough, but it then limits further stimulas caused by performing more sets.

[GerryHitman]

I find going to failure to limit the amount of workload I can handle, I seem to do well on multiple sets taken close but not to failure.

Failure isn't the stimulas for growth, ok yes it does make sure you got the best from 1 set you possibly could fair enough, but it then limits further stimulas caused by performing more sets.

That was not the question I asked here it is again:
Did you find going to failure on every set to be very taxing on the body, more so than NTF training?

[N@tural1]

That was not the question I asked here it is again:
Did you find going to failure on every set to be very taxing on the body, more so than NTF training?

Isn't that obvious?

[GerryHitman]

Isn't that obvious?

My question is simple, I want to get your personal view on this as you claimed to have tried HIT.

Please answer:
Did you find going to failure on every set to be very taxing on the body, more so than NTF training?

[N@tural1]

Please answer:
Did you find going to failure on every set to be very taxing on the body, more so than NTF training?

Yes I find failure more taxing than NTF, I thought that was obvious.

[coomo]

Ummm, all-pro is a well respected member on these forums who happens to be very knowledgable. I would take his advice over yours anyday. Most people do low volume without upping their intensity, so in reality, most HIT practitioners are lazy.

All pro is an armchair expert.Hes bitter nad twisted and ha no concept of hard , work, so he would rather cruise through a pleasant volume workout, if he actually did workout which he doesnt anyway.expert? my arse.

[N@tural1]

All pro is an armchair expert.Hes bitter nad twisted and ha no concept of hard , work, so he would rather cruise through a pleasant volume workout, if he actually did workout which he doesnt anyway.expert? my arse.

^^Another classic tactic of the jedi, one which is used alot on Dardens board.

When owned, and when cornered with nothing to say, attack the person that owned you with personal insults by accusing them of not even working out based on absoloutely no proof or evidence what so ever.

(Kinda like all their beliefs really)

[GerryHitman]

Yes I find failure more taxing than NTF, I thought that was obvious.

OK now you can see why I do not believe someone when they say they trained HIT for 2 years and it is lazy training.

[N@tural1]

OK now you can see why I do not believe someone when they say they trained HIT for 2 years and it is lazy training.

What you say doesnt follow.

Going to failure is taxing on the CNS

Multi sets NTF are more taxing on the muscle

Multi set training = more muscular workload which = harder workout

[all pro]

Right. I figured you would respond with your standard response - no actual evidence, just repeat the claim.

If you ever do come across any evidence showing recovery rates for slow twitch fibers in comparison to other types of fibers, please post it up. It will be some fascinating research. Hopefully someone, somewhere, is already working on it.

As D1 as already stated, one of the sources was Arthur Jones. I don't feel like digging through all that stuff to find it. Do you?

[all pro]

That was not the question I asked here it is again:
Did you find going to failure on every set to be very taxing on the body, more so than NTF training?

I found it to be more taxing on the CNS than the muscles. Most of the time I didn't even get DOMS.

[all pro]

All pro is an armchair expert.Hes bitter nad twisted and ha no concept of hard , work, so he would rather cruise through a pleasant volume workout, if he actually did workout which he doesnt anyway.expert? my arse.

Poor little coomo. He got spanked on Darden's board again. Worse still. I rubbed his god, Landau's nose in it using Jone's own writings.

I didn't see you trying to dispute what Jones said and what Jones said PROVED me right. You people need to get over it.

[Richard99]

As D1 as already stated, one of the sources was Arthur Jones. I don't feel like digging through all that stuff to find it. Do you?

I didn't make the claim, so there is no need for me to try to prove it.

When you make a claim of physiological fact and someone asks you to support that claim, then you should support it. If you don't actually have any clue if the claim is factual - i.e. you don't know of any research supporting the claim and research is the only thing that would prove whether slow twitch fibers recover the same as or differently than other fiber types - perhaps you should not claim it as fact (and, when asked about it, be honest and state you don't have any proof).

[all pro]

I didn't make the claim, so there is no need for me to try to prove it.)

And you can't prove me wrong either. May be because I'm right.

When you make a claim of physiological fact and someone asks you to support that claim, then you should support it. If you don't actually have any clue if the claim is factual - i.e. you don't know of any research supporting the claim and research is the only thing that would prove whether slow twitch fibers recover the same as or differently than other fiber types - perhaps you should not claim it as fact (and, when asked about it, be honest and state you don't have any proof).

I don't know what's worse, the aerobahead know nothings or the HIT Jedi.
I don't need to prove a damn thing. Common sense would tell you that it takes less time to recover from a small cut then it takes to recover from a large one. Type 1 endurance fibers are smaller than type 2A, and 2As are smaller than 2Xs.

When you make a claim of physiological fact and someone asks you to support that claim, then you should support it.

Done!
You can do a hundred push ups everyday, no problem. You can't do even 20 rep bench presses everyday. That would be a BIG problem.

[N@tural1]

Richard makes me laugh, can you imagine him at the doctors?

Doctor:
Well Richard you have a condition and we need to treat you with the pill, take one three times a day with meals.

Richard:
Well doc, I know you're the one with the years of experiance and knowledge in matters medicinal however I want to see the full research on this pill Im taking. I want to see how its made, any tests it was invloved in, I want to read the original research papers and if they should be in a foreign language, I will be needed full english translation.

Doctor:
I can asure you these are safe pills to take that will help you. Iv been doing this a long time.

Richard:
Sorry doc you shouldnt claim this pill will help me unless you can provide its full study papers and research.

Doctor:
Suit yourself... NEXT!

[Richard99]

And you can't prove me wrong either. May be because I'm right.

Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. Until we have any reasonable, credible data it can't be authoritatively claimed either way. I'm unaware of any evidence that shows slow twitch fibers to recover at a different rate than other fibers.

Common sense would tell you that it takes less time to recover from a small cut then it takes to recover from a large one.

So, you are claiming that strength training and endurance training are the same, physiologically, as cutting your skin? Can you provide any evidence comparing the damage to muscle cells from weight lifting to the damage from cutting a muscle cell with a knife?

Done!
You can do a hundred push ups everyday, no problem. You can't do even 20 rep bench presses everyday. That would be a BIG problem.

In order to prove that being able to perform a task daily indicates faster recovery, you would have to show that the damage done during the daily task = the same level of damage done during more strenuous exercise. Using your small cut / big cut example (as flawed as it is), you would have to show that 100 pushups creates as big of a "cut" in the body as a heavy set of bench presses. If the daily task (pushups in your example) creates the same level of damage in the body as more strenuous tasks, then you would have proof supporting your claim. If the daily task is well within the capacity of the person and, therefore, produces little damage, then your "proof" would not be proof at all.

What evidence do you have that compares and contrasts the level of damage caused by a set of pushups to the damage done by a heavy set of bench presses?

[N@tural1]

Richard what evidence (thats not flawed) do you actualy have about anything

Any respectable person claiming what you do would have taken that ridiculously flawed 1 v 3 set "study" off their website by now!

Thats is, if you were genuine about valid research.

[Richard99]

naturalbrit,

That's funny.

Here's one for you:

Doctor:
naturalbrit you have a serious condition and need to take this medicine.

naturalbrit:
Doctor, were the clinical trials on this drug done by Russians?

Doctor:
No, they were done jointly in England, the US, and Canada.

naturalbrit:
Well, I can't take them. Only Russian research is valid. Everything else is bogus.

Doctor:
Suit yourself. Next.

[N@tural1]

Ricky boy nice attempt at a comeback but please show me where have I ever stated that il only accept Soviet research?

Show us all exactly where.

[Richard99]

Any respectable person claiming what you do would have taken that ridiculously flawed 1 v 3 set "study" off their website by now!

If you truly believe the study is ridiculously flawed, here is what I suggest.

First, write up your criticism of the study. Point out the flaws, explain why they are flaws, and, when appropriate, cite relevant research supporting your claim (it's not enough to just claim "flaw", you actually have to make a reasonable, intelligent, fact-supported case).

Then, submit your criticism to the journal the study was published in. While all published studies go through a vetting process prior to being published (peer-review and editorial-review), it is possible that "flawed" studies slip through time-to-time. If your criticism of the study has merit, the editors will publish it, so that the word gets out.

Once you do that, the study authors will likely review your criticism and then respond.

Based on the results of all that, I will then take the appropriate action in regards to that study.

In the meantime, I certainly wouldn't delete or dismiss a study based on some anonymous person on the internet claiming "flaw", especially if that person basically claims "flaw" on every non-Russian study.

[Richard99]

Ricky boy nice attempt at a comeback but please show me where have I ever stated that il only accept Soviet research?

Show us all exactly where.

Right after you show where I ever stated I would only take drugs after personally reviewing the research.

[Defiant1]

There are many examples, I will post one here; the claim that HIT is a lazy way to train. When someone says that I know they have NEVER actually trained HIT. It is the most brutal way to train there is; which is why the longer recovery time is required. And do you honestly believe someone would train in a way for 2 years and it was not working.

Brainwashed is the reason? LOL come on Brit please.

Lol at you calling me a liar over the net.

Having played many sports, including wrestling, I assure you training to failure for 1 set vs doing 40-60 sets per workout is not brutal.

[N@tural1]

If you truly believe the study is ridiculously flawed, here is what I suggest.

First, write up your criticism of the study. Point out the flaws, explain why they are flaws, and, when appropriate, cite relevant research supporting your claim (it's not enough to just claim "flaw", you actually have to make a reasonable, intelligent, fact-supported case).

Then, submit your criticism to the journal the study was published in. While all published studies go through a vetting process prior to being published (peer-review and editorial-review), it is possible that "flawed" studies slip through time-to-time. If your criticism of the study has merit, the editors will publish it, so that the word gets out.

Dont need to Ricky, I have explained already on this board whats wrong with that study and the frightening reality is yes, even this anonymous internet user can see and tell you its flaws.

You love research so much go research my previous posts on said "study"

In the meantime, I certainly wouldn't delete or dismiss a study based on some anonymous person on the internet claiming "flaw", especially if that person basically claims "flaw" on every non-Russian study.

1/ Who said I claim flaw on every non-Russian study?

2/ Im glad you mentioned the fact that I am "some anonymous person" to you. Because to us thats exactly what you are!

So with that in mind, do you seriously expect us to belive you've made a new revolutionary training program, with no evidence what so ever?

[Defiant1]

OK now you can see why I do not believe someone when they say they trained HIT for 2 years and it is lazy training.

Face it Gerry, you have been owned so much you now have to result to ad hominem.


It must be tough to be so stupid at your age.

At least I had youth as an excuse.

You have no excuse.

[all pro]

Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. Until we have any reasonable, credible data it can't be authoritatively claimed either way. I'm unaware of any evidence that shows slow twitch fibers to recover at a different rate than other fibers.

I've just provided the evidence. No studies required. You can perform calastetics every single day and recover from them. They're all slow twitch and aerobic. You can't do that with fast twitch anaerobic. There you go, I've just proved it again. Unless you run glycogen levels way down, you can do aerobics every single day and recover from them.

So, you are claiming that strength training and endurance training are the same, physiologically, as cutting your skin? Can you provide any evidence comparing the damage to muscle cells from weight lifting to the damage from cutting a muscle cell with a knife?

The evidence is free radical damage. Ever cut an apple in half and watch it turn brown. You've damaged the cells. The same thing happens when you damage muscle fibers. The larger the fiber, the more damage and free radicals there will be. 2X fibers are the largest.

In order to prove that being able to perform a task daily indicates faster recovery, you would have to show that the damage done during the daily task = the same level of damage done during more strenuous exercise. Using your small cut / big cut example (as flawed as it is), you would have to show that 100 push ups creates as big of a "cut" in the body as a heavy set of bench presses. If the daily task (pushups in your example) creates the same level of damage in the body as more strenuous tasks, then you would have proof supporting your claim. If the daily task is well within the capacity of the person and, therefore, produces little damage, then your "proof" would not be proof at all.

100 Push ups DO NOT create the same level of damage as 20 bench presses do. THAT WAS MY POINT. The push ups would only damage type1 slow twitch endurance fibers. You will recover very quickly from them.

What evidence do you have that compares and contrasts the level of damage caused by a set of push ups to the damage done by a heavy set of bench presses?

The evidence is the fact that you can do 100 push ups every single day. You can't do 20 rep bench presses every single day with out over training.
Now let it be clear that if you use ANY of what I've told you to earn a profit I will sue you. ANY QUESTIONS aerobahead?

[GerryHitman]

In the meantime, I certainly wouldn't delete or dismiss a study based on some anonymous person on the internet claiming "flaw", especially if that person basically claims "flaw" on every non-Russian study.

Especially when that person believes in internet fantasy cartoon training advice.

[N@tural1]

Right after you show where I ever stated I would only take drugs after personally reviewing the research.

Im glad you've said this too, so you'd trust your very life and take a pill into your body and trust the word of a doctor that never had a hand in any research of the drug, and yet anything training related that comes from highly experianced and respected strength trainers and coaches, you demand the research.

Makes no sense to me.

[Defiant1]

Right after you show where I ever stated I would only take drugs after personally reviewing the research.

Richard, you repeatedly make statements, but draw no conclusion.


You IMPLY you have some "answer" (your "muscle factor model") but you refuse to elaborate.

Basically, all we have seen are elaborate explanations AGREEING with the current state of bodybuilding.

Can you collate your statements into a practical statement?

[Defiant1]

Especially when that person believes in internet fantasy cartoon training advice.

Thanks for acknowledging you are defeated Gerry, by resorting to ad hominem.



Victory is sweet.

[N@tural1]

Especially when that person believes in internet fantasy cartoon training advice.

Gerry Hitman

Internet "hard man"