One to support rtestes' advocating HIT?

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4300855

Man do I wish this is true!!! 1 set per exercise, cut my workout time by 2/3, less muscle breakdown, increased fat loss? Sign me up! :bb:

The increased fat loss was one of the factors that surprised me with this study. Although I appreciate by increasing intensity and decreasing time spent working out you can get the same effect as working out less intensely for longer, I don't understand why there would be increased fat loss.

Mind you, I never was any good at science....

The word is getting out. Look at the links given here (http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showthread.php?t=11048).

I can concur with this study for the most part and can see how it can be effective. I have been doing less and less in terms of sets and my strength has actually increased while I am losing fat.

Set after set, week after week can actually slow down the metabolism. Set after set releases cortisol, which is known to blunt metabolism.

A few weeks ago I took a week off, kept my diet the exact same as I always do, and I lost more weight that week than in the prevous weeks. Not only that, I came back stronger.

I would like to know the methodology of this study (a quick google search didn't reveal anything).

It reminds me of the oft-quoted study on HIIT that has highly flawed methodology, and on which many prescribe to.

So the guys who got HUGE doing 20-25 set per bodypart doing it wrong? It can't be all genetics... Sounds like an easy way to get those who don't work out much (aka overweight) to get into the gym.


The increased fat loss was one of the factors that surprised me with this study. Although I appreciate by increasing intensity and decreasing time spent working out you can get the same effect as working out less intensely for longer, I don't understand why there would be increased fat loss.

Mind you, I never was any good at science....

So the guys who got HUGE doing 20-25 set per bodypart doing it wrong? It can't be all genetics... Sounds like an easy way to get those who don't work out much (aka overweight) to get into the gym.

I don't care for studies, I am afraid that drugs is the largest factor in someone getting HUGE, these days, But genetics always plays a prime role, even with drugs.

I don't think someone will become mr. olympia, on 1 set per exercise.How many sets do you do?

Dont get too excited, 1 set to failure will not work for everyone but is definately the best place to start.
You need to experiment with your body as the amount of stress each person requires to stimulate growth varies, as do the goals of each trainee vary.

So the guys who got HUGE doing 20-25 set per bodypart doing it wrong? It can't be all genetics... Sounds like an easy way to get those who don't work out much (aka overweight) to get into the gym.


Nope. No accident and not just genetics. That type of training is extremely effective. But I've seen plenty of guys that are pretty damn big (though not competition big) who train exclusively with HIT. The owner of my gym, Main Line Health and Fitness, back in Phila. was a huge proponent. And many of the members followed his lead and did HIT. Some pretty impressive results. You're also right that it is great for the opposite end of the spectrum as well. there were also plenty of middle-aged soccer moms who would've never in their wildest dreams considered doing 20-25 sets per bodypart who worked with trainers using HIT and leaned out and toned up considerably.

Sounds like an easy way to get those who don't work out much (aka overweight) to get into the gym.

And I might mention it helps those that look like a small 12 year old, just taller, the skinny fat type. :bb:

I apologie for coming off cynical. I realize that everyone has different goals and backgrounds. But sometimes these "studies" give dangerous knowledge to those who are not able to think critically of these things (unlike our discussion).

But whatever will get some people in the gym, the more power to them, in my opinion. As long as they don't go at the same time I'm there...


Nope. No accident and not just genetics. That type of training is extremely effective. But I've seen plenty of guys that are pretty damn big (though not competition big) who train exclusively with HIT. The owner of my gym, Main Line Health and Fitness, back in Phila. was a huge proponent. And many of the members followed his lead and did HIT. Some pretty impressive results. You're also right that it is great for the opposite end of the spectrum as well. there were also plenty of middle-aged soccer moms who would've never in their wildest dreams considered doing 20-25 sets per bodypart who worked with trainers using HIT and leaned out and toned up considerably.

I apologie for coming off cynical. I realize that everyone has different goals and backgrounds. But sometimes these "studies" give dangerous knowledge to those who are not able to think critically of these things (unlike our discussion).

But whatever will get some people in the gym, the more power to them, in my opinion. As long as they don't go at the same time I'm there...

No problem. Yes, many people rely on studies like this to the exclusion of critical thinking and common sense. Specifically for HIT, I don't think it's the best method to get truly huge, but it can take you pretty far. I agree with you on some of the masses at the gym. The worst is the couple weeks before spring break. At least at a gym near several colleges like mine. You get people who haven't worked out in months and who never learned to work out right coming out of the woodwork. They don't know proper gym etiquette and don't know how to use the equipment. pisses me off... fortunately that time's past now. a brief respite beforethe sedentary winter desk jockeys come to get in shape for summer :lol: