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: 66061" data-attributes="member: 15349"><p>First, for anyone new to the bodybuilding world, Will Brink is a legend. If you are looking for someone to set up your program he is as good as it gets. He is better than me, for sure. I want to acknowledge that fact. </p><p></p><p>However, he does not provide one shred of empirical evidence to support the claim that lower intensity higher volume style training produce better gains than lower volume higher intensity. I am sure Dorian didn't like Mike (a meth addict) but the training philosophy is similar.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It is wonderful that you were a friend of Dan (RIP...we both know why Dan died) and had dinner with Dorian, but that does not in any way prove that higher volume/lower intensity training is superior. Dorian is clearly an advocate of HIT.</p><p></p><p>The studies you posted in no way prove that higher volume training is superior. They in no way offer evidence that HIT is inferior, in fact the training is not HIT, whether it be one set or three. I read them or at least the abstracts. You made a statement that you did not read them yourself when you said "I'm not going to use additional time going through each meta and explain all that." If you in fact did read them you would agree that they offer very little evidence whatsoever to refute the claim that HIT is superior. That is what is meant when statisticians say an argument does not reject the null hypotheses. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Now if you came out and said that your personally have found higher volume to work well I would believe that. You have trained way, way more people then covered in these studies, and they probably train a lot harder.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But the studies you cite do not disprove my argument for higher intensity and less volume.</p><p></p><p>Again, I have tremendous respect for you as a person, but the empirical evidence is simply not there.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In my next post I want to address Vinces' post. There is a ton of recent literature to support his (and my) type of training.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I probably won't get it done tonight, because I need to visit the studies so I can give an accurate representation of them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The Cliff's notes version it that the type of training that Vince (and I) do has a ton of support in the academic literature.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sean Reed, post: 66061, member: 15349"] First, for anyone new to the bodybuilding world, Will Brink is a legend. If you are looking for someone to set up your program he is as good as it gets. He is better than me, for sure. I want to acknowledge that fact. However, he does not provide one shred of empirical evidence to support the claim that lower intensity higher volume style training produce better gains than lower volume higher intensity. I am sure Dorian didn't like Mike (a meth addict) but the training philosophy is similar. It is wonderful that you were a friend of Dan (RIP...we both know why Dan died) and had dinner with Dorian, but that does not in any way prove that higher volume/lower intensity training is superior. Dorian is clearly an advocate of HIT. The studies you posted in no way prove that higher volume training is superior. They in no way offer evidence that HIT is inferior, in fact the training is not HIT, whether it be one set or three. I read them or at least the abstracts. You made a statement that you did not read them yourself when you said "I'm not going to use additional time going through each meta and explain all that." If you in fact did read them you would agree that they offer very little evidence whatsoever to refute the claim that HIT is superior. That is what is meant when statisticians say an argument does not reject the null hypotheses. Now if you came out and said that your personally have found higher volume to work well I would believe that. You have trained way, way more people then covered in these studies, and they probably train a lot harder. But the studies you cite do not disprove my argument for higher intensity and less volume. Again, I have tremendous respect for you as a person, but the empirical evidence is simply not there. In my next post I want to address Vinces' post. There is a ton of recent literature to support his (and my) type of training. I probably won't get it done tonight, because I need to visit the studies so I can give an accurate representation of them. The Cliff's notes version it that the type of training that Vince (and I) do has a ton of support in the academic literature. [/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