ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Workouts & Routines
High Intensity Training: HIT
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sean Reed" data-source="post: 66042" data-attributes="member: 15349"><p>Thank you for your contruibutions, Will. If I argue with you it means I respect you and your opinions. </p><p></p><p>4. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, and Burkett, LN. Single versus multiple sets for strength: a meta-analysis to address the controversy. Res Q Exerc Sport 73: 485–488, 2002. </p><p></p><p>Single versus multiple sets for strength: a meta-analysis to address the controversy</p><p></p><p>First, this study compares one set to multiple sets. The correct concept is two all out working sets. I made it clear early on that it is two, unless there are techniques like drop sets employed. </p><p></p><p>For those who are not familiar with the technique, a meta analysis is a study of other studies. Meta studies can be very valuable, but they are vulnerable to many weaknesses regarding analysis of variance. Reah et al (1999) admits that his study is in fact vulnerable to type 2 errors (IE failing to reject the null hypothesis). </p><p></p><p>Reah admits that the findings were based upon small sample sizes, which are the case with all the studies favoring higher volume. The same is true of Reah et. al 2003. The large variances and small samples do not generate reliable conclusions. This is a somewhat fancy way of saying they are Bro Science. Personally, I have seen many people benefit from HIT, and my claim has about the same amount of statistical quality as these studies.</p><p></p><p>I am running short on time, but all these studies have one thing in common: They compare 1 set to 3 sets. </p><p></p><p>IN NEARLY NONE OF THESE STUDIES DID THEY COMPARE ONE ALL OUT SET TO THREE LOWER INTENSITY SETS.</p><p></p><p>That is why they have very little to extrapolate to bodybuilders.</p><p></p><p>In fact the 3 set protocol is similar to a one set all out protocol. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I am not a fan of the bench press, but lets look at a bench work out. The first set is nice and easy 15 reps. The next set is a moderate intensity, keeping the rep around 10. The third set is your all out set. You go to failure and do one forced rep.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We can see that in this scenario, your really are doing 3 sets. Furthermore, I (and Dorian) advocate 2 all out sets.</p><p></p><p>After the first all out set you do one more all out set with a forced rep at the end. That is 2 all out sets. Plus the 2 warm ups = 4 sets. </p><p></p><p>My argument, and I am holding it, is that anymore volume will do more harm than good. Move on to upper or lower chest.</p><p> </p><p>At the end, you have your typical trainee doing a total of 5-6 sets without HIT. I conclude that the HIT way (which uses 4 sets) produces superior gains.</p><p></p><p>Finally, I can find numerous studies that support the HIT approach.</p><p></p><p>Reah et al examined is Carpinelly et al (1999), who found that one set produced superior gains to multiples. Pollak et al confirmed Carpinelly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sean Reed, post: 66042, member: 15349"] Thank you for your contruibutions, Will. If I argue with you it means I respect you and your opinions. 4. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, and Burkett, LN. Single versus multiple sets for strength: a meta-analysis to address the controversy. Res Q Exerc Sport 73: 485–488, 2002. Single versus multiple sets for strength: a meta-analysis to address the controversy First, this study compares one set to multiple sets. The correct concept is two all out working sets. I made it clear early on that it is two, unless there are techniques like drop sets employed. For those who are not familiar with the technique, a meta analysis is a study of other studies. Meta studies can be very valuable, but they are vulnerable to many weaknesses regarding analysis of variance. Reah et al (1999) admits that his study is in fact vulnerable to type 2 errors (IE failing to reject the null hypothesis). Reah admits that the findings were based upon small sample sizes, which are the case with all the studies favoring higher volume. The same is true of Reah et. al 2003. The large variances and small samples do not generate reliable conclusions. This is a somewhat fancy way of saying they are Bro Science. Personally, I have seen many people benefit from HIT, and my claim has about the same amount of statistical quality as these studies. I am running short on time, but all these studies have one thing in common: They compare 1 set to 3 sets. IN NEARLY NONE OF THESE STUDIES DID THEY COMPARE ONE ALL OUT SET TO THREE LOWER INTENSITY SETS. That is why they have very little to extrapolate to bodybuilders. In fact the 3 set protocol is similar to a one set all out protocol. I am not a fan of the bench press, but lets look at a bench work out. The first set is nice and easy 15 reps. The next set is a moderate intensity, keeping the rep around 10. The third set is your all out set. You go to failure and do one forced rep. We can see that in this scenario, your really are doing 3 sets. Furthermore, I (and Dorian) advocate 2 all out sets. After the first all out set you do one more all out set with a forced rep at the end. That is 2 all out sets. Plus the 2 warm ups = 4 sets. My argument, and I am holding it, is that anymore volume will do more harm than good. Move on to upper or lower chest. At the end, you have your typical trainee doing a total of 5-6 sets without HIT. I conclude that the HIT way (which uses 4 sets) produces superior gains. Finally, I can find numerous studies that support the HIT approach. Reah et al examined is Carpinelly et al (1999), who found that one set produced superior gains to multiples. Pollak et al confirmed Carpinelly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Workouts & Routines
High Intensity Training: HIT
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top