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
Tip: 30/10/30
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
Author
Rating
Options

oldbutsteady

Avg. Al,

Carpinelli's paper is a meta analysis and fair enough on the single vs multi sets.

There is scant evidence for what you propose as well, that a single rep can't provide enough stimulus to maximize growth. If you have evidence, please direct me to it.

I will say that you make a lot of absolute judgements based on "science" in an area where they don't even know how the muscle works i.e. "The Sliding Filament Theory".

I don't want to seem needlessly argumentative but a lot of what is offered on this forum seems short on science and out of sync with reality. When leaps of faith are taken we wind up with BS like Superslow...

OBS

Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Avg. Al,

If I came off a bit strong, I apologize, I will try my best to moderate myself. I meant no offense. I tend to be a bit cranky before coffee in the morning.

I would like to continue this conversation.

OBS


Open User Options Menu

Average Al

oldbutsteady wrote:
Avg. Al,

Carpinelli's paper is a meta analysis and fair enough on the single vs multi sets.



OK - I didn't look closely enough and assumed you linked to Carpinelli's original position paper on multiple sets.

The more recent one that you actually linked to was Carpinelli's critique of Krieger's meta analysis, which I also saw when it was published. I'm not sufficiently versed in statistics to have an opinion on the validity of a meta analysis. I'm just aware that professional researchers who do this kind of stuff for a living clearly have differences of opinion on the value of a meta analysis when it comes to single vs multiple sets.



There is scant evidence for what you propose as well, that a single rep can't provide enough stimulus to maximize growth. If you have evidence and not speculation, please direct me to it.




Well... since you seem to believe that one rep to failure should be enough, what is your evidence?

So leave science aside and just look at experience....

Consider the protocols that Darden has suggested over the years:

- Standard Nautilus at 2/4 cadence for 8-12 reps = 48 to 72 seconds total.

- One and done = 60 seconds total.

- 30-30-30 = 90 seconds total.

- 30-10-30 = 90 seconds total.

Or other HIT protocols such a RENEX 10/10 cadence for 3-5 reps = 60-100 seconds.

Now the old style super slow was perhaps excessive at 10/10 cadence for 8-12 reps for 160 to 240 seconds.

What about John Little with his most abbreviate program, Max Contraction? Wasn't that something like 4 reps of 5 seconds duration = 20 seconds total?

So who in the HIT community has ever recommended one short duration repetition to failure as adequate?

Almost everyone (even the barbell guys using conventional set/rep schemes) seem to end up using or accumulating at least 40 seconds of muscle tension.




Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

Average Al wrote:
oldbutsteady wrote:
Avg. Al,

Carpinelli's paper is a meta analysis and fair enough on the single vs multi sets.



OK - I didn't look closely enough and assumed you linked to Carpinelli's original position paper on multiple sets.

The more recent one that you actually linked to was Carpinelli's critique of Krieger's meta analysis, which I also saw when it was published. I'm not sufficiently versed in statistics to have an opinion on the validity of a meta analysis. I'm just aware that professional researchers who do this kind of stuff for a living clearly have differences of opinion on the value of a meta analysis when it comes to single vs multiple sets.



There is scant evidence for what you propose as well, that a single rep can't provide enough stimulus to maximize growth. If you have evidence and not speculation, please direct me to it.




Well... since you seem to believe that one rep to failure should be enough, what is your evidence?

So leave science aside and just look at experience....

Consider the protocols that Darden has suggested over the years:

- Standard Nautilus at 2/4 cadence for 8-12 reps = 48 to 72 seconds total.

- One and done = 60 seconds total.

- 30-30-30 = 90 seconds total.

- 30-10-30 = 90 seconds total.

Or other HIT protocols such a RENEX 10/10 cadence for 3-5 reps = 60-100 seconds.

Now the old style super slow was perhaps excessive at 10/10 cadence for 8-12 reps for 160 to 240 seconds.

What about John Little with his most abbreviate program, Max Contraction? Wasn't that something like 4 reps of 5 seconds duration = 20 seconds total?

So who in the HIT community has ever recommended one short duration repetition to failure as adequate?

Almost everyone (even the barbell guys using conventional set/rep schemes) seem to end up using or accumulating at least 40 seconds of muscle tension.



I used to use higher TUL upwards of 90-120 seconds. It increased my tolerance to pain and perhaps some muscular endurance, but I stagnated. When I dropped my TUL down to 40-80 seconds I started showing slow improvement again. 80 seconds even is a bit much for me. My sweet spot on most exercises seems to be 60ish seconds. Some people do require higher TUL. I'm not hung up on 10/10, I have used 5/5, 4/2/4, 3/3 2/2. As long as its smooth and controlled and not done like an Olympic lifter thats what you are after (unless you are an Olympic lifter lol). Military presses and weighted chins are weird for me. I can keep adding 1/4 pound fractional plates every few workouts if I stay in my signature TUL. Adding another rep with the same weight almost seems impossible.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Average Al wrote:
To give you an idea of what I am talking about, here is a link to a paper where the authors determined the percentage of muscle fibers that could be voluntarily recruited in the quadriceps muscle using maximal eccentric, concentric, and isometric contractions:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...pubmed/11717228

Basically, they found that an isometric contraction recruited 95%, an eccentric contraction recruited about 89%, and a concentric contraction recruited 88%. That isn't 100%, so some fibers were held in reserve. But 88-95% is a lot higher level of recruitment than the 33% mentioned earlier.

Note that these results were determined using the Interpolated Twitch Technique: the subject contracts a muscle to the extent possible, and then an electrical stimulation is superimposed on the contracted muscle, to activate any un-recruited muscle fiber. The percentage not recruited is estimated by how much extra force is generated when the external stimulation is applied.

It appears that there is some uncertainty and/or controversy about just how accurate or reliable the standard Interpolated Twitch Technique is for such estimates. If the critics of ITT are correct, then maybe we just can't accurately determine the percentage of muscle fiber than can be voluntarily recruited when contracting against very heavy or maximal loads. Perhaps more is held in reserve than ITT studies have suggested? Sometimes, 'we just don't know' is the best answer.

In any case, I'm still not sure what the basis for the 1/3rd number is.


this thread got interesting... hadn't been here for a while...

Yes, quads are the odd one, hard to fully recruit. Other studies show even at100% MVC, most can, but not all, full recruit. Yet other muscles in the body fully recruit way before that level. Biceps around 65% of max effort, so long before failure.
Of course, just recruiting isn't the end, there is still rate coding, where maybe we reach a fully tetanic contraction of the fibers in that motor unit.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

plebian wrote:
Average Al wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:

The human body just short of breaking in two is capable of doing a lot more than we think. Most people have a "central governator" that stops them well short of harming themselves. Not just for strength, but resistance to pain and endurance.


I think there is a fair amount of research on the central governor idea, especially as it applies to fatigue in endurance sports.

.




I dont think there is much research on the central governor hypothesis at all. Almost all of it is original research from tim noakes who while he has enjoyed much popularity in the running community and in fad "health" circles (hes a ketogenic diet proponent, statin/cholesterol denialist, antivax etc) is regarded as a bit of a quack by his academic peers (one example: https://www.synapses.co.za/...im-noakes-samj/ more recently there is a bunch of twitter spats going on because Noakes got banned from facebook for pushing antivax talking points or something like this) at least thats my read of the situation. I'll admit I'm not very familiar as its well out of my lane.


there is research, read Enoka's Neuromechanics of human movement. For most muscles, trained people can not only fully recruit, but fully activate their muscles.

"The relative contribution of motor unit recruitment to muscle force varies between muscles. In some hand muscles for example, all motor units are recruited at around 50% of maximum. In other muscles, such as the bicep brachii, deltoid, and tiblias anterior, motor unit recuitment continues upto 85% of the maximum force (Deluca, LeFever, McCue & Xenakis, 1982a; Kukulka & Clamann, 1981; Van Cutsem et al,. 1997)"
>From p290, Neuromechanics of Human Movement 3rd Edition. Roger M. Enoka

Also, more info. on this.
1. Yeu et al. (2000) in (p.376) writes:
"a majority of studies using the TI technique have concluded that
healthy subjects, regardless of their age, gender, or physical
condition, can fully activate most of the limb muscles."
2. Garfinkel and Cafarelli (1992) also write:
"Although there have been occassional reports of a few subjects who are not able to fully activate a particular muscle these are usually small differences that can be overcome with practice."
3. Behm (1995) (p. 265) in another review writes "The TI was first used by Merton, who described full activation of the adductor pollicis muscle with fatigue. Full activation of the tibialis anterior (Bellanger and McComas, 1981) , elbow flexors , abductor digiti minimi (Gandevia and McKenzie, 1988) quadriceps (Chapman et al., 1985; Rice et al., 1992), adductor pollicis, and soleus (Bellemare et al., 1983) have been reported in untrained individuals."
4. Sale (1987) in another review in (p.121) writes:
"in the majority of studies, subjects were able to produce voluntary contractions equal in force to contractions evoked by tetanic stimulation."
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Average Al wrote:
oldbutsteady wrote:
Avg.Al,

Seems you didn't look too hard for a single set vs multiple set studies...


OBS



I'm quite familiar with this paper. I read it when it was first published.

I have no interest in debating the the single vs multiple set issue again.

If it pleases you to take Carpinelli's paper as the final word on the subject, fine. Or you could also read Krieger's meta analysis. Read Fisher's work on the subject, as well as that by Schoenfeld. Maybe the answer is less clear than you think.


In any case, the point I was making earlier has nothing to do with single vs multiple sets. I was addressing the idea that a single repetition, even one very short in duration, could be enough to recruit and exhaust every muscle fiber sufficiently to trigger maximum adaptations in strength and hypertrophy. The evidence for that is, I think, very scant.


Agree, and I'd say, not just scant, but not there. A single rep as maximum hypertrophic stimulus? That is so preposterous even...
Not even a single SET can be maximum for hypertrophy. It can be enough in light of frequency and other factors, but 'maximum' for a muscle's hypertrophic response? Nah,otherwise people wouldn't have to do 'other things' to get more stimulation (rest pause, drop sets, 30-10-20, pre exhaust, back to back sets like curls then chins.. etc.)
Open User Options Menu

ron33

tensionstrength wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
Average Al wrote:
The evidence for so called "hysterical strength" seems thin and mostly anecdotal.

Here is a Scientific American paper that addresses the phenomenon.

https://www.scientificamerican...



Great article! Seems a stretch to go from a 700lb deadlift to lifting a 3000lb car unless it was just the top end only of the movement ie kind of like a hip lift where its capable of lifting thousands of pounds. Not sure where everyones spiritual beliefs are at and I'm not preaching at you, but divine intervention is another thought. Having read some of the background story of Samson in the Bible, he was not an extraordinary muscular guy, just a normal looking dude with supernaturally enhanced power which was lost when his hair was cut which went against his vow.

Regarding both posts here. This is a large part of the type of stuff that motivated me to start lifting weights in the first place.


Has everyone been in a situation , where u sort of go blank and just react. I have had a couple times in life where this happened, and I moved so fast and free and did nt remember every detail ? ? ?
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Avg Al,

Your view assumes there is a time component required to recruit all the muscle motor units. I have not found any study that has tested this hypothesis (I will say here I don't have access to every database and if someone has seen one please let me know so I can read it), yet everyone assumes there is a time requirement and I don't know why.

The only factor involved in motor recruitment is effort or intensity. The reason one uses multiple repetitions and/or TUL is one is not using anywhere near their max. weight for the exercise and therefore, recruitment is intentionally slowed.

Using less than max weight for multiple reps is creating an accumulated fatigue where only the last rep (the one of failure/form breakdown) is the one that activates the most/majority of motor units.

Again this is for safety, it is not advisable to train in a manner where all one does is one max. lift for each exercise in a training routine.

I keep seeing posters say this is not true but no one has posted any scientific fact proving what I'm stating is wrong. It is possible I'm wrong but until it is proven one way or the other, we will have to respectfully disagree.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

nwlifter,

You've posted conflicting studies and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Please clearly state your argument so I can respond.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Agree, and I'd say, not just scant, but not there. A single rep as maximum hypertrophic stimulus? That is so preposterous even...
Not even a single SET can be maximum for hypertrophy. It can be enough in light of frequency and other factors, but 'maximum' for a muscle's hypertrophic response? Nah,otherwise people wouldn't have to do 'other things' to get more stimulation (rest pause, drop sets, 30-10-20, pre exhaust, back to back sets like curls then chins.. etc.)

==Scott==
I'm not saying this but you know on here the response is going to be that's because you don't know how to push that one set hard enough. Oh god, this brings us back to that never ending around and around and around discussion of how many sets or whatever then do we need to stimulate hypertrophy.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

ron33 wrote:
tensionstrength wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
Average Al wrote:
The evidence for so called "hysterical strength" seems thin and mostly anecdotal.

Here is a Scientific American paper that addresses the phenomenon.

https://www.scientificamerican...



Great article! Seems a stretch to go from a 700lb deadlift to lifting a 3000lb car unless it was just the top end only of the movement ie kind of like a hip lift where its capable of lifting thousands of pounds. Not sure where everyones spiritual beliefs are at and I'm not preaching at you, but divine intervention is another thought. Having read some of the background story of Samson in the Bible, he was not an extraordinary muscular guy, just a normal looking dude with supernaturally enhanced power which was lost when his hair was cut which went against his vow.

Regarding both posts here. This is a large part of the type of stuff that motivated me to start lifting weights in the first place.

Has everyone been in a situation , where u sort of go blank and just react. I have had a couple times in life where this happened, and I moved so fast and free and did nt remember every detail ? ? ?


Last weekend. I had run a torturous half marathon the day before. It was 95 degrees, 89% humidity and extremely hilly. It had totally kicked my ass. Major over all fatigue. Very hard to just do basic every day things. The next day I was looking at my garden and I heard my dogs barking frantically so I walked over to see what was going on. There was a large copperhead in my yard and the dogs were lunging at it and it was lunging at them. I yelled at them to come to me, ran over and got my shovel and sprinted across the yard over to where the snake was and in one motion decapitated the head off the snake. I didn't know I could move that fast anymore. Especially with all the soreness and fatigue I was feeling. I had a major adrenaline dump afterwards. I must of looked like a Viking sprinting across a battlefield with a sword lol. I love my dogs to pieces and felt like I had to protect them. I didn't think, I just reacted.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

epdavis7 wrote:
ron33 wrote:
tensionstrength wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
Average Al wrote:
The evidence for so called "hysterical strength" seems thin and mostly anecdotal.

Here is a Scientific American paper that addresses the phenomenon.

https://www.scientificamerican...



Great article! Seems a stretch to go from a 700lb deadlift to lifting a 3000lb car unless it was just the top end only of the movement ie kind of like a hip lift where its capable of lifting thousands of pounds. Not sure where everyones spiritual beliefs are at and I'm not preaching at you, but divine intervention is another thought. Having read some of the background story of Samson in the Bible, he was not an extraordinary muscular guy, just a normal looking dude with supernaturally enhanced power which was lost when his hair was cut which went against his vow.

Regarding both posts here. This is a large part of the type of stuff that motivated me to start lifting weights in the first place.

Has everyone been in a situation , where u sort of go blank and just react. I have had a couple times in life where this happened, and I moved so fast and free and did nt remember every detail ? ? ?

Last weekend. I had run a torturous half marathon the day before. It was 95 degrees, 89% humidity and extremely hilly. It had totally kicked my ass. Major over all fatigue. Very hard to just do basic every day things. The next day I was looking at my garden and I heard my dogs barking frantically so I walked over to see what was going on. There was a large copperhead in my yard and the dogs were lunging at it and it was lunging at them. I yelled at them to come to me, ran over and got my shovel and sprinted across the yard over to where the snake was and in one motion decapitated the head off the snake. I didn't know I could move that fast anymore. Especially with all the soreness and fatigue I was feeling. I had a major adrenaline dump afterwards. I must of looked like a Viking sprinting across a battlefield with a sword lol. I love my dogs to pieces and felt like I had to protect them. I didn't think, I just reacted.


Wow!
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

oldbutsteady wrote:
nwlifter,

You've posted conflicting studies and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Please clearly state your argument so I can respond.

OBS


Recruitment and activation are based on supraspinal output, which is 'effort', so yes, we can fully activate with a single rep, aka 1Rm, etc., but that is not the highest or max level of hypertrophic stimulation. Hypertrophic stimulation seems to require repeated activation, and possibly fatigue.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

entsminger wrote:
Agree, and I'd say, not just scant, but not there. A single rep as maximum hypertrophic stimulus? That is so preposterous even...
Not even a single SET can be maximum for hypertrophy. It can be enough in light of frequency and other factors, but 'maximum' for a muscle's hypertrophic response? Nah,otherwise people wouldn't have to do 'other things' to get more stimulation (rest pause, drop sets, 30-10-20, pre exhaust, back to back sets like curls then chins.. etc.)

==Scott==
I'm not saying this but you know on here the response is going to be that's because you don't know how to push that one set hard enough. Oh god, this brings us back to that never ending around and around and around discussion of how many sets or whatever then do we need to stimulate hypertrophy.


Yes, some will think that, true!
Open User Options Menu

Chris H

entsminger wrote:
Agree, and I'd say, not just scant, but not there. A single rep as maximum hypertrophic stimulus? That is so preposterous even...
Not even a single SET can be maximum for hypertrophy. It can be enough in light of frequency and other factors, but 'maximum' for a muscle's hypertrophic response? Nah,otherwise people wouldn't have to do 'other things' to get more stimulation (rest pause, drop sets, 30-10-20, pre exhaust, back to back sets like curls then chins.. etc.)

==Scott==
I'm not saying this but you know on here the response is going to be that's because you don't know how to push that one set hard enough. Oh god, this brings us back to that never ending around and around and around discussion of how many sets or whatever then do we need to stimulate hypertrophy.


That's because every-bodies right, at least some of the time.
Everything works for a while, and everything that stops working, will work again, given time.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Nwlifter wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Agree, and I'd say, not just scant, but not there. A single rep as maximum hypertrophic stimulus? That is so preposterous even...
Not even a single SET can be maximum for hypertrophy. It can be enough in light of frequency and other factors, but 'maximum' for a muscle's hypertrophic response? Nah,otherwise people wouldn't have to do 'other things' to get more stimulation (rest pause, drop sets, 30-10-20, pre exhaust, back to back sets like curls then chins.. etc.)

==Scott==
I'm not saying this but you know on here the response is going to be that's because you don't know how to push that one set hard enough. Oh god, this brings us back to that never ending around and around and around discussion of how many sets or whatever then do we need to stimulate hypertrophy.

Yes, some will think that, true!


==Scott==
And then the same discussion/argument that's happened on here 2497 times will start all over again !! How many sets, how many reps. etc etc. Spock !! Beam me up!!
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Nwlifter,

"...seems to require..." is not science. Please post something that is empirical or I'll have to scratch this up as your opinion.

Once one is exhausted becoming more exhausted has no affect other than risking injury and increasing recovery time.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

entsminger wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Agree, and I'd say, not just scant, but not there. A single rep as maximum hypertrophic stimulus? That is so preposterous even...
Not even a single SET can be maximum for hypertrophy. It can be enough in light of frequency and other factors, but 'maximum' for a muscle's hypertrophic response? Nah,otherwise people wouldn't have to do 'other things' to get more stimulation (rest pause, drop sets, 30-10-20, pre exhaust, back to back sets like curls then chins.. etc.)

==Scott==
I'm not saying this but you know on here the response is going to be that's because you don't know how to push that one set hard enough. Oh god, this brings us back to that never ending around and around and around discussion of how many sets or whatever then do we need to stimulate hypertrophy.

Yes, some will think that, true!

==Scott==
And then the same discussion/argument that's happened on here 2497 times will start all over again !! How many sets, how many reps. etc etc. Spock !! Beam me up!!


well man, we gotta have it 3 more times then, make it an even 2500 lol
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Nwlifter,

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion based on what I've read. What I understand is that you are less efficient at activating the muscles when fatigued not once fatigued you activate more.

Am I missing something?

OBS
Open User Options Menu

ron33

epdavis7 wrote:
ron33 wrote:
tensionstrength wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
Average Al wrote:
The evidence for so called "hysterical strength" seems thin and mostly anecdotal.

Here is a Scientific American paper that addresses the phenomenon.

https://www.scientificamerican...



Great article! Seems a stretch to go from a 700lb deadlift to lifting a 3000lb car unless it was just the top end only of the movement ie kind of like a hip lift where its capable of lifting thousands of pounds. Not sure where everyones spiritual beliefs are at and I'm not preaching at you, but divine intervention is another thought. Having read some of the background story of Samson in the Bible, he was not an extraordinary muscular guy, just a normal looking dude with supernaturally enhanced power which was lost when his hair was cut which went against his vow.

Regarding both posts here. This is a large part of the type of stuff that motivated me to start lifting weights in the first place.

Has everyone been in a situation , where u sort of go blank and just react. I have had a couple times in life where this happened, and I moved so fast and free and did nt remember every detail ? ? ?

Last weekend. I had run a torturous half marathon the day before. It was 95 degrees, 89% humidity and extremely hilly. It had totally kicked my ass. Major over all fatigue. Very hard to just do basic every day things. The next day I was looking at my garden and I heard my dogs barking frantically so I walked over to see what was going on. There was a large copperhead in my yard and the dogs were lunging at it and it was lunging at them. I yelled at them to come to me, ran over and got my shovel and sprinted across the yard over to where the snake was and in one motion decapitated the head off the snake. I didn't know I could move that fast anymore. Especially with all the soreness and fatigue I was feeling. I had a major adrenaline dump afterwards. I must of looked like a Viking sprinting across a battlefield with a sword lol. I love my dogs to pieces and felt like I had to protect them. I didn't think, I just reacted.

Do you think this happens to everyone, or just certain individuals ?
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy