6:13 PM High Intensity Training Can Work for Anyone |
In September of 2007, Paul Rogers, of about.com, wrote an article entitled, "High-Intensity Weight Training (HIT) Can HIT Work for Anyone? In this piece, he erroneously ascribes to HIT Training a number of misinformed statements that reflect either an inept gathering of proper information or a profoundly rigid stance with most of the fitness industry or both. One such statement is the following, "If you reach complete failure at the last repetition of just one set, further sets may not be required. I take this to mean genuine failure at which point you are completely unable to move the weight to the desired position with good form --even with the most focused effort.” I’m not sure where he received this information in reference to "good form” but High Intensity Training actually emphasizes good form by performing a slower than normal cadence during the course of the repetition. Any HIT trainer worth his salt will tell you this. He then produces this de facto statement, "I know of no scientific studies that support the somewhat vague instructions used in this HIT training.” It is as if his lack of research should suffice in order to conclude that this sort of weight training is inadequate. The name, High Intensity Training, is merely a popularized term. If his "research” was led under the assumption that all scientific information could only be found under the popular term, then it is no wonder that his "research” came up empty. As for his use of the word "vague”, I am completely at a loss to understand. His previous bullet points seemed informative enough with the exception of the aforementioned quote. The full text can be found here: High Intensity Training Can Work for Anyone. In scientific research, it can be characterized by the following attributes: 1)brief workouts 2)muscular effort must reach absolute failure and 3)workouts are performed on non-consecutive days to allow for greater recovery. These are the basic fundamentals when examined in the scientific community. For a more extensive perspective, I would suggest the notes section of Dr. Doug McGuff’s book, Body by Science, in which he provides an incredible amount of prestigious scientific literature that supports High Intensity Training. He then states, "My view is that HIT is a nice promotional term, but the fundamentals are confusing and indistinct. When it comes to bodybuilding and weight training -- like many other pursuits in life-- the harder you work, the luckier you get. Still, not everyone can work this hard without getting hurt. Can you get hurt practicing high-intensity training? Yes you can.” This is wrong on multiple levels. You can get hurt doing anything. How can Rogers come to the conclusion that the "fundamentals are confusing and indistinct?” This more than likely either reflects Roger’s profound lack of understanding what are very simplistic principles or a patchwork of "research” in order to meet a deadline or, again, both. HIT is radically different from traditional weight training due to its low volume approach and length of time spent for recovery. Nothing is confusing. Simply review what is stated on any number of sites. They are clear. Maybe Rogers should have actually phoned an authority on the subject and produced an interview in order to eliminate some of his confusion. As for this notion of getting "hurt”, again, this sort of de facto statement without any substantiation is just plain bad journalism. You can get hurt doing anything. I’ve known several runners who seem to incur injuries fairly regularly because of its repetitive pounding of joints and surrounding tissue yet there is no cry from the fitness world to abort such an activity. Again, HIT has probably found itself more on the overly cautious side of the equation by promoting a slower cadence not only for adequate muscular stimulation but for safety also. |
|
Category: High Intensity Training 101 |
Views: 165 |
Added by: Ironman
| Rating: 0.0/0 |
| Total comments: 0 | |