MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Critique of a Critique
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

A response to Carpinelli's critique of a Meta-analysis comparing single-set to multi-set training.

weightology.net/?p=925

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

farhad wrote:
A response to Carpinelli's critique of a Meta-analysis comparing single-set to multi-set training.

weightology.net/?p=925



Thanks.

I already knew from my personal experience that multiple sets work. Even the best of the best HIT routine "BIG" used multiple sets.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

The next time someone asks "Where's the studies backing this up?", we need to send them to this link so they can realize just how ridiculous and convoluted the whole 'study' issue can get.

Who studies the studiers? Carpinelli and Krieger could be any 2 numbskulls on this forum, the way they go back and forth.
Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

Agreed. It also shows how deluded studies and their reviews can get. There are always 2 or 3 or 10 sides to every issue and dropping or ignoring the context is one of the most prevalent mistakes made.

Perfect example: IART's Synergy 2004. Brian Johnston had an article, more of a back and forth between Dave Smith and Richard Berger about single vs. multiple sets. At the end, it was pointed out by Brian that Mr. Smith was debating in the context of 1 set per exercise and Mr. Berger, 1 set per muscle group.Basically made the whole debate almost pointless.

Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

The fallacy about research that favors multiple-sets, many people develop OVERTRAINING, which is not going to be discovered in the time-frame of many of those studies. How many? That is what should be studied, instead of trying to disprove single-set. And, DOPING distorts multiple-sets as being better, which may not have to do with most of these studies, but it certainly does affect why single-set advocates are shouted-down.

Aside from steroids, H.I.T. was devloped at a time when CREATINE didn't exist, and I consider that doping, just legal doping; but, how many young athletes could have been spared trouble with their kidneys, and prevented from the localized swelling of "entrapment syndrome", if their insane routines hadn't eroded their RECOVERY-ABILITY to the point that 5-HOUR ENERGY wasn't the only thing they were consuming????!
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

But Benny, couldn't the same be said of HIT? How long can one keep pounding away to failure before systematic fatigue sets in without intensity reduction? Yes, one can use ultra consolidated training almost infinitely to escape intensity regulation/cycling, but most of us know the downfall of that training when taken to extremes.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
But Benny, couldn't the same be said of HIT? How long can one keep pounding away to failure before systematic fatigue sets in without intensity reduction? Yes, one can use ultra consolidated training almost infinitely to escape intensity regulation/cycling, but most of us know the downfall of that training when taken to extremes.


Believe me......I tried.
Open User Options Menu

kulitsa

New York, USA

marcrph wrote:
farhad wrote:
A response to Carpinelli's critique of a Meta-analysis comparing single-set to multi-set training.

weightology.net/?p=925



Thanks.

I already knew from my personal experience that multiple sets work. Even the best of the best HIT routine "BIG" used multiple sets.


"BIG" was the only HIT routine that worked for me in its original (unmodified) form.
Open User Options Menu

kulitsa

New York, USA

BennyAnthonyOfKC wrote:
The fallacy about research that favors multiple-sets, many people develop OVERTRAINING, which is not going to be discovered in the time-frame of many of those studies. How many? That is what should be studied, instead of trying to disprove single-set. And, DOPING distorts multiple-sets as being better, which may not have to do with most of these studies, but it certainly does affect why single-set advocates are shouted-down.

Aside from steroids, H.I.T. was devloped at a time when CREATINE didn't exist, and I consider that doping, just legal doping; but, how many young athletes could have been spared trouble with their kidneys, and prevented from the localized swelling of "entrapment syndrome", if their insane routines hadn't eroded their RECOVERY-ABILITY to the point that 5-HOUR ENERGY wasn't the only thing they were consuming????!


Surprising all the poster boys for HIT were on steroids.
Open User Options Menu

sonny153

Just a suggestion but why not just add or subtract sets and see what happens?
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

I have written articles about how HITters often fall into OVERTRAINING; also, not too many months, here on the DrDarden.com website, I did an article how & why SuperSlow particularly resulted into overtraining.

Also, I have many times discussed the possibility that (emphasis on possiility) that.....

pulldowns + low-rowing = a second set that violates "continous loading", as well as overtraining.

Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

TO: kulitsa

SUBJECT: steroids


Eddie Mueller didn't appear to be, no "moon face" and etc.
Open User Options Menu

kulitsa

New York, USA

BennyAnthonyOfKC wrote:
TO: kulitsa

SUBJECT: steroids


Eddie Mueller didn't appear to be, no "moon face" and etc.


Obviously, for someone like yourself, the fact that I have been ignoring your posts and personal messages does not mean anything.

So, let me tell you once again:

1. I do not care about what you think or have to say.
2. Do not address me.
3. Get a life.
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

FOR THE RECORD, I MIGHT'VE SENT A SINGLE POLITE MESSAGE.

AND, FOR SOMEONE TO WRITE WHAT YOU WROTE, WHEN I'VE NEVER INSULTED YOU, I CANNOT IMAGINE THE DEPTHS OF YOUR RUDENESS.

YOUR OFFER IS ACCEPTED, I'LL GLADLY IGNORE YOU.
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

THE SINGLE, SOLE, MESSAGE THAT I SENT TO KULITSA, BECAUSE HE RESPONDED TO MY POSTING.


QUOTING MYSELF:

What I wrote was summarized from PBS NOVA's episode on Neanderthals, altough I was merely mentioning the T-Nation article in order to explain that the DrDarden.com website is bigger than mere weight-training. T-Nation owns, and operates, the DrDarden.com website, although I suspect that Darden could pull his name and the website would end, except T-Nation & Darden have been doing online business together since the late 1990s.

I don't believe that I know you, or have at least not taken notice of your postings, but I wanted to message you because sometimes I don't respond well to nitpicky type criticism on this site too well in that I have been SUCKERED PUNCHED too many times to take too much crap. Some private messages have been way over the top insulting. Anyway, I'm not an arrogant person, and I enjoy information of all kinds. And, I just thought that I would say hello to you.

God Bless.
Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

James Krieger does make several credible criticisms of Carpinelli's critique.

I am not sure if Dr. Carpinelli will have the opportunity to read Krieger's article, but it would be nice to see his response. I am not so much interested in the 1 set vs multiple set debate per se, but more in people's methodology and methods of thinking and debating technical topics.
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

TO: Farhad

I agree with you, in that I'm not interested in the one-set versus multiple-set debate. What I'm most interested in the preservation of the recovery-system, for not just my own training, but also for the sickly people that I've known in my time.

The reason being, as even with the one set, intensity-levels can easily be ramped-up to toxic levels that cross over into OVERTRAINING, because I will readily admit that this has been my biggest downfall, but I'm also very concerned about all those people that could really benefit from weight-training, but they have trouble with EXERCISE COMPLIANCE that I blame the pretty & popular people atmosphere of many gyms, which is also why I see merit in home-training and single client studios.

Of course, there's not much profit in single client studios, as the lack of volume of trainees per hour dictates the limit of income. Anyway, "NO PAIN, NO GAIN" might have a limited place in training, but I believe the general-public have also been hurt by it, in the longterm sense.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

The whole if-it-doesn't-make-you-puke- it-isn't-intense-enough school of thought is:
1. Just Silly
2. Potentially Dangerous
3. Offputting to those who might give HIT a try.

and most importantly:
4. Totally Fucking Unnecessary

That over-the-top BS just digs a big hole that one has to dig out of before recovery & growth can happen.

Plus, as I always ask: Where or how do you progress when the knob is always set at 11?
Open User Options Menu

natemason5

Ontario, CAN

simon-hecubus wrote:
The whole if-it-doesn't-make-you-puke- it-isn't-intense-enough school of thought is:
1. Just Silly
2. Potentially Dangerous
3. Offputting to those who might give HIT a try.

and most importantly:
4. Totally Fucking Unnecessary

That over-the-top BS just digs a big whole that one has to dig out of before recovery & growth can happen.

Plus, as I always ask: Where or how do you progress when the knob is always set at 11?


The older/wiser I get, the more I agree with you. I've had enough puke sessions in my time, and although it was certainly an indicator that my intensity was high, it was not enjoyable. I was, however, my biggest and strongest during those intense sessions. I was also 10 years younger, had more independent time, and ate everything in sight.

Times change, and so do goals.

Nate
Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
The whole if-it-doesn't-make-you-puke- it-isn't-intense-enough school of thought is:
1. Just Silly
2. Potentially Dangerous
3. Offputting to those who might give HIT a try.

and most importantly:
4. Totally Fucking Unnecessary

That over-the-top BS just digs a big whole that one has to dig out of before recovery & growth can happen.

Plus, as I always ask: Where or how do you progress when the knob is always set at 11?


Amen.

Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

simon-hecubus wrote:
The whole if-it-doesn't-make-you-puke- it-isn't-intense-enough school of thought is:
1. Just Silly
2. Potentially Dangerous
3. Offputting to those who might give HIT a try.

and most importantly:
4. Totally Fucking Unnecessary

That over-the-top BS just digs a big whole that one has to dig out of before recovery & growth can happen.

Plus, as I always ask: Where or how do you progress when the knob is always set at 11?


Spot on.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

I was reading on one HIT trainer's forum about going to positive failure - and then make sure you fight the weight for 5-10 seconds after! Talk about CNS frying. There is no benefit to that sort of training in my opinion.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
The whole if-it-doesn't-make-you-puke- it-isn't-intense-enough school of thought is:
1. Just Silly
2. Potentially Dangerous
3. Offputting to those who might give HIT a try.

and most importantly:
4. Totally Fucking Unnecessary

That over-the-top BS just digs a big whole that one has to dig out of before recovery & growth can happen.

Plus, as I always ask: Where or how do you progress when the knob is always set at 11?

Spot on.


And....Not based on sound science.
Open User Options Menu

kulitsa

New York, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
The whole if-it-doesn't-make-you-puke- it-isn't-intense-enough school of thought is:
1. Just Silly
2. Potentially Dangerous
3. Offputting to those who might give HIT a try.

and most importantly:
4. Totally Fucking Unnecessary

That over-the-top BS just digs a big hole that one has to dig out of before recovery & growth can happen.

Plus, as I always ask: Where or how do you progress when the knob is always set at 11?


Exactly!
Open User Options Menu

Hitit

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
I was reading on one HIT trainer's forum about going to positive failure - and then make sure you fight the weight for 5-10 seconds after! Talk about CNS frying. There is no benefit to that sort of training in my opinion.


I believe they are simply following Dr. Darden's readings where he discusses going to true failure.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy