Yeah, as a fellow UCF student and fitness training minor (completed), I do feel as if I’m lacking in the knowledge department. But I honestly can’t blame the instructors because they’re teaching us what they were taught and their own studies/reports simply go along that same road, thereby not looking outside the box.

With the general public being taught the way they have it’s going to be difficult to break out of that mindset and model, especially in the capitalistic world we live in. You’re right; we have to keep searching because, in all honesty, we haven’t even skimmed the tip of the iceburg of proper exercise knowledge. I look forward to reading more from you on your findings.

First, I am in no way trying to discredit HIT. I believe it has just as much merit as any other training approach and is optimal for some people. I also feel that for others it is not optimal. You obviously feel that it is optimal for everyone so we disagree there, but as I pointed out before, we agree more than we disagree.

Second, when I spoke about seeing no results with myself or clients I was saying that hypothetically. When I tried HIT it was only for about 6 weeks before I decided to do a powerlifting meet which obviously caused me to drastically change my training. Six weeks wasn’t enough time to accurately gauge my progress so I can’t say whether it did or didn’t work for me. I’ve also never tried it with clients, for reasons I’ll explain.

The reason I don’t think it is optimal for everyone (including the majority of clients that come through the UCF gym) is because most people simply are not willing to push themselves to an intensity that is high enough to see results with HIT. Yes, most people could be pushed hard enough by a trainer to perform it properly, but clients at the UCF gym are very different from most personal training clients. Since the majority of clients at our gym are students, they can only afford 1-5 sessions on average before having to train on their own. Because of this my main focus with all clients is that they learn how to perform exercises properly and learn a training style that I know they are able and willing to perform on their own. I would say about 50% of the clients never set foot in the gym after their last session simply because of a lack of motivation. If they can’t even find the motivation to show up, how could they be expected to push themselves as hard as HIT requires? I know what you are thinking, and no I don’t send them off with some ridiculous 5 or 6 day a week routine. I tell almost all clients to train no more than 2-3 times per week with a routine that lasts 30-45 min. This could hardly be considered high volume or high frequency and could easily fit into the schedule of 99% of students. In addition, many clients complain about the pain involved with sets that aren’t even taken to failure. How would they fare with HIT? Your inflexibility in training philosophy would be a huge problem simply because some would not be willing to perform it and most would not stick with it on their own.

The last thing I want to touch on is the safety of exercise. Using improper form and using momentum to lift weights can definitely be very hazardous. In my opinion, this does not mean that a super slow cadence must be used. There is a huge difference between using momentum or bouncing and using the stretch reflex. The stretch reflex is something our body does naturally and is perfectly safe. Taking advantage of it (while maintaining proper form) allows more weight to be used. More weight = more tension and more tension = more training stimulus. When bouncing of the weight or body momentum is used, the stretch reflex is no longer being used exclusively and the exercise then becomes unsafe. This is where people get in trouble with plyometrics as well because they try to use the stretch reflex from heights that are much too high. Once the height becomes too high the force is no longer absorbed by the muscles, it is absorbed by the bones and joints.

I do believe that a slow (2-4 sec), controlled eccentric is optimal for muscle growth, but that an explosive concentric is superior to a slow concentric. More muscle fibers will be recruited in the first few reps when using an explosive concentric (Drew is correct that explosive concentrics are not required to recruit IIb fibers, but this allows them to be recruited on all reps, not just when type I and IIa fibers have become fatigued) and the heavier weight will produce more tension on the eccentric. This will also improve rate of force development which IMO (contrary to Drew’s opinion) is a strength quality that can most definitely be improved. I have seen firsthand powerlifters improve their competition lifts simply by performing explosive concentric reps with 50-60% of their 1RM. I have also had my squat and deadlift strength improve significantly while training with a goal to be able to dunk a basketball. This training consisted almost entirely of plyometrics and explosive exercises, with very little traditional weight training. I was also focusing on lowering bodyweight at the time, obviously something not favorable for increasing strength levels. I wouldn’t say the max force created by muscles increased at all. In fact it probably decreased. But in a compound lift such as the squat or deadlift, the ability to produce maximal force in a shorter amount of time (rate of force development) will allow more weight to be lifted.

So to sum up my view on exercise safety: as long as the body remains in proper alignment, is not being used to create momentum, and the weight is not being bounced, the exercise will pose very little risk. Yes, performing the reps with a super slow cadence ultimately has the lowest risk, but in my opinion you are sacrificing measurable results for maybe a 1-2% decrease in chance of injury (contrary to your view that a slow cadence will increase safety significantly and only sacrifice a 1-2% decrease in results). This goes back to my example of stepping out of the house in the morning. You are taking a small risk but the reward is well worth it.

Before I get to your most recent comment I want to backtrack a bit to the first one.

Again, >>> will be used for my responses.

__________________________________________

It is a way for us to know that someone understands *basic* anatomy and would be able to tell me what muscles are responsible for scapular retraction, hip extension, etc. as well as what exercises can be used to train those joint actions. If the certifications were not required, what other way would you suggest for verifying that someone knows this basic information? Having a potential trainer simply tell me that they have a superior knowledge of proper exercise and everyone else is absurd, an idiot, and living in a fantasy land isn’t exactly a good method.

>>>>Couple points of interest here. One, I am currently an AFAA certified group exercise instructor. I passed the test in one sitting, without any idea of what was going to be on the test beforehand (so of course, no studying was done). What boggles my mind now is how I am allowed to teach such classes as “washboard abs”, jump rope, 20-20-20, and so on (and I was repeatedly encouraged to do all of those things and not just jump rope), when they are all INCREDIBLY unsafe as a form of exercise, and I am not allowed to train people on resistance machines and free weights (which are infinitely MORE safe than group ex). I have no recollection of what was on the AFAA group ex test, but if there was any anatomy based questions they obviously weren’t very complicated (outside the bounds of common knowledge). It seems to me that since group ex is so much more hazardous, the “basic anatomy questions” on that test would be significantly more taxing so as to accommodate for the drastic reduction in safety- at least that’s what common sense tells me.

>>>Going even further, I am not just a random “potential trainer with superior knowledge calling everyone an idiot”. I have worked, technically, as a “trainer” at the UCF gym for over 1 year leading up to this current situation. Not once in my ridiculously more hazardous (in comparison to weight training, lacking momentum and valsalva no less) jump rope class with hundreds of students was their even an injury. To think that there was a high probability of me hurting someone based on a lack of understanding with how the body functions through compound movements under a moderate to heavy resistance seems a bit silly- at the very least.

>>>>As for a solution, I think the idea behind having an exercise certification (I think CPR/First aid is perfectly acceptable) is well intentioned and “looks” good on paper, but has little to no value in real world application. A better solution- and I realize this isnt perfect- is to make sure the PT lead understands exercise and allow him to make judgment calls rather than the “Aerobics and Fitness Association of America” (which does little more than hand out worthless yet expensive certifications). I think you would be a fine person to do this, although I realize this actually happening is a slim to none chance.

The same can be said with exercise. I promise you, if you follow nothing but HIT you will never see more than modest results and won’t have more than an average physique or athletic abilities.

>>>>Kenny, 2 days ago I performed 7 reps on a MedX leg press of 800 pounds in 61 seconds (the weight stack modified to move about 16 inches through a full range of motion) to positive failure. My legs are by far stronger than they have ever been (significantly stronger than when I did HVT). My chest, back, and arms, are also stronger than they have ever been (my chest and triceps were however nearly as strong as they are now when I did HVT back in high school, long before I got into “cardio”). I think the fact that I could recreate, or dramatically imrpove my results, with 1/10th of the time involved is a testament to HIT- at least for me personally. To discredit it when you have never- and correct me if I’m wrong- given it a “fair” shot is a little short sighted. I believe you would be very surprised at your results if you were to train your entire body to positive failure once or twice a week, one set per exercise, and using 50-80 seconds as a time under load (lets say using 5/7 as a cadence).

Also, I’d be more than happy to discuss why your approach would not be appropriate for dealing with personal training clients if you are so inclined.

>>>Kenny, the reason I am interested in hearing your argument is that there are hundreds- if not thousands- of high intensity trainers around the world who have BEEN training clients for decades successfully. To say that my approach is not appropriate for dealing with PT clients seems to ignore that basic statistical fact that Im not positive you were aware of.

I think the point both of you are missing is that no matter what you want to prove, you can always find scientific articles (whether experiments or meta-analyses) to support your viewpoint.

>>>I understand this, as does Drew… It can be said for any field. There will always be studies to back up someones opinion, hence I’ve never cared much about studies and citations. Overrated/valued by a long shot. What works and makes the most sense long term for my health has got my vote thus far.

The review that Drew mentioned (Carpinelli, et. al) selectively chose studies to use in their analysis that supported their viewpoint. I also found a similar review that selectively chose studies specifically to disprove that same viewpoint. It works both ways and neither side is completely right or completely wrong. Both have valid points and taking either extreme side leads to cookie cutter type routines that are FAR from optimal.

>>>A friend read this comment and sent me the following text
***
“and the problem is, for the lay reader, they wont criticize him for taking the oft stance that “there is no best one, everyone is unique and different, and need different approaches. People like to hear you don’t use a “cookie cutter approach” because it has a negative connotation. For the same reason “functional training” sounds good.”
***

>>> I would have to agree with him, only I would add that people are individual in some areas- such as recovery ability and fiber profile. This however does not interfere with the sound principles (that work for everyone) involved with HIT. Details differ from person to person, but the underlying theme of HIT does not. I think because a less than 100% effort and open mind that you may be discrediting HIT and avoiding the extreme that works (which then begs the question, is it really so extreme if it works?).

If I told you that I had tried HIT and saw no progress with myself or clients, you would tell me that I was not properly trained to utilize it and was not under proper supervision.

>>>>I already have. Also, again, there are thousands of HIT trainers around the world that have produced incredible results in their clients for decades, and across a grand scale. So yes, if you or your clients were not seeing ANY results (or even sub par) I would question your application/methods immediately.

Instead of focusing on where we disagree, I am going to focus on where we do agree. Even though most of the time I use an approach vastly different from yours, you will see that there is much more in common than you might think.

>>>Im glad you took the time to focus on the positive, this is something that is all to rare in any field. As for your specific points, I do agree, only adding that I believe “cardio” is an entirely false notion and for the most part doesnt exist- or more specifically trying to improve cardiovascular function through steady state low inensity exercise is a complete bastardization of the human body and what it is capable of. It is not necessary or even favorable for any positive physiological adaptations.

Unless you would tell me that there are no other effective forms of training, in which case I’ll just say good luck to you because you have drowned in the kool-aid.

>>>>lol, brings the fat kool aid guy to mind. Yeah I do believe you can achieve results through other means than HIT, but the cons outweigh the pros. HIT is a brutally effective way to train, is something damn near everyone can physically perform (my kid brother, me, you, and our grand parents), and is therefore sustainable unlike other training modalities. Combine this with the fact that minimum time is required alongside minimum wear and tear damage, and IMO HIT kicks ass. I find it redundant to train for 2-10 times the time (and useage of the joints), for 2% better results. Then again, Im not a competitive body builder and I believe exercise should primarily be used to enhance my life, not shorten it (or my capabilities long term) or take up so much time as to be a full fledged hobby/daily activity like it once was for me.

I’m not here to defend the ACSM, NSCA, NASM, etc. I’ve always said and will be the first to tell you that they have their major flaws. It doesn’t mean that everything they have to say is completely wrong, however. I’m also not here to discredit HIT. I never said there was anything inherently wrong with it, but it is not optimal for everyone and dismissing all other training styles is a poor choice. There is no approach to training that is optimal for everyone. This is why I stress that you must learn to think with an open mind. Saying that your method is the only proper form of exercise and referring to all other methods as “exercise” and calling them idiotic is not thinking with an open mind. As I said before, HIT definitely has its benefits and drawbacks just like every other training approach. A well-read trainer is able to know when certain approaches are appropriate and warranted over other approaches. If I have a client that cannot even hold a plank position for 10 seconds or perform a pushup, I am not going to write them a program consisting mostly of machines and I am certainly not going to have them train to failure (talking about muscular failure, not a breakdown in form).

If I told you that I had tried HIT and saw no progress with myself or clients, you would tell me that I was not properly trained to utilize it and was not under proper supervision. When you try to refute other training methodologies the exact same thing can be said. Plyometrics are a perfect example. Most people do not even understand what plyometrics are, what their purpose is, or how to properly utilize them. Most people perform plyometrics at a volume that is too high, a frequency that is too often, and from heights that are inappropriate for them. So of course plyometrics will produce poor results and injuries in the majority of people that try them. I’ve even seen plyometrics used as a form of “cardio”. That thought makes me shudder. I’m not saying either of you necessarily have a poor understanding of plyometrics, but you must understand that your arguments work both ways and you cannot pick and choose when to use them.

Instead of focusing on where we disagree, I am going to focus on where we do agree. Even though most of the time I use an approach vastly different from yours, you will see that there is much more in common than you might think. First, we all agree that resistance training is many times more effective than any form of cardio when looking to change body composition. We agree that the average gym goer spends far too much time performing cardio and not nearly enough time on resistance training. We agree that the ones who do focus on resistance training often perform too high of a volume on too frequent a basis. We agree that a trainee needs to work hard during the time he is in the gym and that simply going through the motions is very ineffective. We agree that the vast majority of training programs are lacking in one or more areas. I’m sure we’d also agree that when fat loss is the goal, diet is paramount to anything else. If you take the time to objectively look at other effective forms of training, you will see that they all have these things in common. Unless you would tell me that there are no other effective forms of training, in which case I’ll just say good luck to you because you have drowned in the kool-aid.

“To compare an endeavor like running marathons to participating in a group exercise class for an hour 2 times a week is absolutely idiotic. Someone who does some form of exercise (not taken to extremes, i.e. marathons), no matter how far from optimal it is, will be better off than someone that is sedentary.”

While group exercise classes may not be as harmful as typical marathon training regiments, most provide little or no real physical benefit (with exceptions being strength-focused classes like Body Pump, but even those are relatively inefficient), and do, in fact, contribute to injuries. It doesn’t have to be taken to extremes to do so – some activities by nature pose a greater risk of injury.

If participation in such an activity results in an injury or condition which leads to a reduction in functional ability earlier in life than might otherwise occurred due to normal aging, then that activity was definitely not better than nothing.

“What about rate of force development, activating type IIb fibers, improving the body’s reactive ability to use the stretch reflex, or supercompensation that can be brought on by periodization?”

A stronger muscle is capable of developing force more rapidly during any activity – improvements in rate of force development do not require rapid lifting movements.

Type IIB fibers, and every other available motor unit in a muscle, will be recruited within a few reps even at more moderate loads regardless of the speed of contraction. Fast movement speeds are not necessary to recruit type IIb fibers. This is a myth.

You can not improve the stretch reflex through training. Any benefit from plyometrics comes from what little strength it produces, strength which could be more safely improved with other methods. You can’t train a reflex like a skill. Skill is improved through repetition, but repetitively eliciting a reflex can actually reduce sensitivity to the stimulus for it.

There is nothing special about periodization. In a review of the literature Otto et al found NO special benefits to periodization over linear training protocols (Carpinelli RN, Otto RM, Winett RA. A Critical Analysis of the ACSM Position Stand on Resistance Training: Insufficient Evidence to Support Recommended Training Protocols. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online 2004;7(3):1-60)

As for exercise recreation, perhaps Kenny missed the point of the article – while recreational exercises can have physical benefits, if a person’s goal is to achieve the greatest degree of physical improvement as safely and efficiently as possible, they should exercise (strength training, specifically) rather than attempt to perform recreational activities as physical conditioning.

While the position may sound extreme to some, the fitness industry certainly is full of misinformation and outright nonsense. If you look through most organizations CEU offerings, articles in publications for fitness professionals, or exercise equipment catalogues you’ll find all sorts of things that are a waste of time at best, harmful at worst, and mostly just plain ineffective compared to basic, hard strength training.

you fight the fitness certification, but you are going to university to be “certified” and you pay a handsome fee for it to boot.

>>>I understand the argument you are making, and agree for the most part. However I do not pay a lot to go to school at UCF, and there is a high probability I will not be paying anything this coming school year due to the stupidity of our federal government on this subject.

I realized at age 15 school was a worthless scam and dropped out, I educated myself and im more knowledgeable then all my degreed friends, usually even in their chosen majors, yeah, I know more about history then my history major friend. school is a baby sitting factory and propaganda indoctrination centre, i would pay -NOT- to attend. You are smart enough to make it on your own, the degree you are trying to buy is increasingly worth very little in the marketplace, cut your losses and drop out.

>>>>Again, I agree to an extent. I have considered dropping out many times after consecutive “this is total bullshit” moments hit me square in the face. However the current degree I am majoring in focuses primarily on entrepreneurship, and is not intended to “land me a big bucks job” (as my nutrition teacher says) by any means.

I also attend ucf for other reasons (warranting an entire post in itself).

thanks for the comment, and feel free to elaborate further or send me an e-mail (perhaps we can work on a co-authored post?).

thanks

-Anthony

Kenny, your response is quite long (and I appreciate your time) so I’m going to cut and paste it, then reply throughout /w >>> for ease of reading.

______________________

As the personal training lead you are referring to in this post, I was directed to this site because I was mentioned in it.

>>> I thought I e-mailed the link to you directly but I must have had the wrong e-mail address. I’m glad that you became aware of the post and decided to take the time to read and comment on it though.

I read this post as well as a few others and would simply like to provide a counter opinion. You seem to be a person who thinks in extremes so disagreeing with you is probably about as productive as arguing with a doorknob, but I will try nonetheless.

>>>LOL, no argument there. “Extremes” (the counter intuitive and unconventional) have thus far worked well for me in life, or IOW “everything popular is wrong” has rung quite true with me over the years. As for being thickheaded…you hit the nail on the head =).

First, as far as requiring certifications for personal trainers… as I stated in the meeting, the certification course (no matter what organization it is offered by) is not a good source of information on training philosophy. It is a way for us to know that someone understands *basic* anatomy and would be able to tell me what muscles are responsible for scapular retraction, hip extension, etc. as well as what exercises can be used to train those joint actions.

>>>Unfortunately passing a test administered and created by people who lack a thorough understanding of exercise physiology themselves does not constitute understanding “basic anatomy”. It’s a sad truth, but true none the less. This same dushbaggery goes on in our school system as well in the form of standardized testing- (nearly) all children are taught is how to pass tests, not understand- and retain- content, that is itself already in question.

>>>As for knowing what exercises train XYZ muscle groups, this seems redundant since the certifications promote the use of gimmicky crap such as the ab balls, giant rubber bands (for a healthy individual without joint problems), “cardio” specific equipment, and so on. For example, as far as I’m concerned direct abdominal work is entirely unnecessary, let alone an entire class dedicated to splitting abs up into separate exercises, or using (explosive?) ab balls and various other machines that lack resistance. These notions are so ridiculous I don’t even know where to begin.

>>>Furthermore, what good is knowing how to work the muscles of the hip (which specific movement) if fundamentals on how to “actually” produce a positive physiological adaptation are missing- things such as going to positive failure, reps, sets, proper form, breathing, and a major safety concern: eliminating momentum (rep speed) and other external assists that can overload the selected muscle group with too much force (enough to damage it, either through trauma or long term damage unknown to the client until it disables or pains them).

If the certifications were not required, what other way would you suggest for verifying that someone knows this basic information? Having a potential trainer simply tell me that they have a superior knowledge of proper exercise and everyone else is absurd, an idiot, and living in a fantasy land isn’t exactly a good method. When you come up with that better method, feel free to present it to SGA and go through all the red tape involved with getting it approved. Once you’ve done all that, then we’ll talk about not requiring certifications

>>>>I did not offer a solution in the post. My point is, what use is knowing this “basic information” if the trainer is absolutely clueless when it comes to practical use for a client(or themselves)? I can read all the books in the world on XYZ subject, but this provides little or no help in actually *doing* something useful with that information (assuming it was correct in the first place and not surrounded with bad science and untested assumptions that will provide more damaging information than a simple understanding of basic anatomy will ever provide in benefits) and learning through experience. The cons heavily outweigh the pros.

Second… I definitely take offense to you wanting to scream, “IM IN A ROOM FULL OF IDIOTS THAT KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EXERCISE.” This statement also got to me a little as well… “Although I still greatly doubt that he understands a whole lot about exercise, only that group exercise is downright silly, ridiculous, and unsafe.”

>>>>As I stated in early in the post nothing written was meant to offend or personally attack anyone, although I knew very well it was unlikely that wouldn’t occur due to the abrasive nature of my writing and the post itself. It was a thought that crossed my mind and honestly had infinitely more to due with the ignorance floating around the room from others present than yourself.

I never said group exercise is silly, ridiculous, or unsafe. I did say that you’d never see me in one of those classes because it would provide next to zero benefit for me.

>>>>I apologize for misquoting you but the obviously I didn’t have a tape recorder and had to write about the meeting from memory- subject to my interpretations, judgments, and opinions. I should have made a note that I was paraphrasing. If you would like this changed in the original post let me know.

I also said that if it wasn’t for those classes, many people would never set foot in a gym and live completely sedentary lives.

>>>>The assumption here being that living a sedentary lifestyle is worse than one including group fitness, which sad to say, it’s not. IOW, if I had the choice- based on my current understandings of exercise and my body- between performing ONLY “group exercise” multiple days per week (for 30-60 minutes per session and I had to do exactly as the instructor did), and never exercising again my entire life in any way shape or form, I would choose the latter. Group fitness is absolutely a waste of time and outright absurd. Now, this is not taking into consideration the fact that this person is actually stepping foot inside of a gym, but how beneficial is that? It’s a topic of opinion, is someone better off exposing themselves to idiots walking around a gym mouthing off horrible advice, or staying away from that kind of negative influence. Considering how damaging most conventional forms of exercise are, I would have to go with the latter (again).

Hey… it got you interested in fitness, didn’t it?

>>>No. I have been working out with weights for over 7 years, long before I had ever heard of “cardio” “aerobics” or “group fitness”. I will admit though that it helped me lead me in the right direction, AFTER my results had steadily declined performing that type of exercise for years alongside weight training. It left “cracks” in my mind as my results progressively went down the drain, leaving me quesitoning the notion of “cardio” and such. As soon as I found some real information on exercise, it was like throwing a match into a gas tank.

I also read Drew Bayes’ post about why something isn’t always better than nothing. It seems he also likes to think in extremes. Yes, training for marathons and running multiple miles on hard pavement every day will wreak havoc on your joints.

>>>Yet many people run miles and miles every day BECAUSE they have joint issues. Food for thought, but I’m glad that you understand this.

If someone finds enjoyment in it, then more power to them.

>>>>I agree, as I believe Drew did as well. However how many people *really* enjoy running 10 mils in the florida heat? I’m doubting its more than a single digit percent of current chronic cardio addicts. Also, it’s such a damaging form of recreation that I believe if more people knew JUST HOW BAD IT IS for your body, people would be much less inclined to perform those types of activities. Walking is easily as peaceful as jogging last time I checked, and doesn’t carry all the negatives. So the question to ask is, how many people would be “casual joggers” if they KNEW how horrible it was for their health and musculature? Again, my guess is a tiny minority. People do those kinds of activities because they believe it to be a positive action they are taking for their health, fitness (specifically the cardiovascular system), and then rationalize the repetitive steady state activity they hate later with “yeah, I enjoy it, I really do”.

Nobody said playing in the NFL was safe, but how many millions of men would kill for that chance? To compare an endeavor like running marathons to participating in a group exercise class for an hour 2 times a week is absolutely idiotic.

>>>>I equate group exercise (for any amount of time) with bashing my head into a curb in terms of productivity. So, is bashing your head into a curb for 2 hours a week really much safer than running a marathon? Humor aside, if you understood just how ridiculous group exercise was I doubt you would be trying to make this argument. It literally does nothing more than eat up your time, and provides LESS than nothing in the way of benefits. You’d be better off walking 2 hours a week for your health than doing kickbox cardio or ab class (not a joke).

Someone who does some form of exercise (not taken to extremes, i.e. marathons), no matter how far from optimal it is, will be better off than someone that is sedentary.

>>>This is a matter of opinion. I strongly disagree.

Third… you may want to open your mind a little when it comes to training modalities. Upon reading your posts on this site and judging by the fact that you almost religiously follow a book whose website is an internet version of a bad infomercial makes me question your ability to discern useful information.

>>>=), lol. This makes me laugh, because I can see exactly how you would come to this conclusion (and don’t blame you one bit). I do not follow Body by Science to the T, I believe its just a great introduction to proper exercise and points you in the right direction (damn near the exact opposite to what everyone else is doing). I urge you to give it a quick look through next time you’re in Barns and Noble on campus or in WL, I believe you would be quite surprised at what you find. Also, I know what I do isn’t perfect, high intensity training as a field isn’t perfect, but then again what is? As far as I’m concerned it’s currently as close as anyone can get to exercising properly.

I’d even go so far as to say that I’ve probably forgotten more information about exercise than you’ve even been exposed to. I’ve researched and tried many various training philosophies over the last several years, including your beloved HIT.

>>>Im curious about the details of your experience with HIT. Im assuming it wasn’t recently, or under the supervision of an experienced trainer. Pushing to true muscular failure in a handful of exercises (around 50-80 seconds a pop), back to back, is quite an intense experience, one that would have taken me far longer to understand (if ever) had I not been helped by guys like Patrick Diver and Drew Baye (and Body by Science for providing an excellent introduction and the latest research, such as the most productive TUL).

To assume that my knowledge base is limited to the “fallacies taught by AFAA” is a poor assumption. I’ve read enough to know that anything that promises superior results or completely dismisses other training philosophies as idiotic is something that should be questioned.

>>>Everything should be questioned. If you were wondering, I’ve read counter arguments to the type of training I employ, and all of them fall short of dismantling the fundamentals behind HIT (read: proper exercise). That said, again, HIT is not perfect. I believe it provides the most bang for your buck though- incredible results, minimum time invested, and absolutely minimal wear and tear on the joints.

The best strength and performance coaches in the world all use techniques from different areas and will be the first to tell you that.

>>>>Strength and performance coaches receive the genetic “cream of the crop”. 99% of these people lack a basic understanding of proper exercise- or at least everyone I have ever met or heard about face to face.

Considering that exercise causes adaptation by your body,

>>>Correct, exercise causes, but does not directly produce positive adaptations.

any form of training modality will work… for a while.

>>>And if you understand the principles behind what works, you will continue to enjoy the benefits of your exercise program “working”. If you do not, you are simply enjoying the benefits (or lack there of) of above average genetics that respond to damn near anything (Tony Horton for example of P90X does not have the body he does because of his program).

I’m sure all that jumping rope even caused your calves to hypertrophy a little.

>>>>Possibly once I got the motor skill down enough to go ridiculously fast, but even then it would have been minor and not worth the shock produced by that repetitive motion.

The modest gains that you have seen thus far are not due to HIT. They are due to you dropping the hours of cardio and focusing on weight training. You would have seen similar (and in many cases better) results following a multitude of other training philosophies.

>>>Possibly, but again, are 2% better gains worth 98% more time invested (and the damage produced by this dramatic increase in duration/volume)? IMO, no, not even close. I may not live to 60, but if I do I’d like to have the same physiologic headroom (or more) than I do now, and high volume training does not appear sustainable (look at Arnold). HIT is something 15 year olds can do, I can do, and my grandma can do.

I implore you to research other methods with an open mind.

“Absorb what is useful, discard what is not” – Bruce Lee. While HIT does have its benefits, it also has its drawbacks. What about rate of force development, activating type IIb fibers, improving the body’s reactive ability to use the stretch reflex, or supercompensation that can be brought on by periodization? The typical HIT follower’s answer to this is that other forms of exercise are unsafe because they do not eliminate momentum (performing an exercise with an explosive cadence) and can expose the body to high impacts (plyometrics). Are you not taking a small risk by leaving your house in the morning? You may be hit by a car on your way to school or work but you have to go to these places if you want to improve yourself. The same can be said with exercise. I promise you, if you follow nothing but HIT you will never see more than modest results and won’t have more than an average physique or athletic abilities. Hopefully you take this information to heart and realize that I really am trying to help you, but you probably won’t. You’ll eventually figure it out on your own, but sometimes that’s what it takes to truly learn something.

>>>I’m not going to pretend that I’m qualified to answer your questions about the drawbacks- although I have read about some of them before. I’ll see if I can direct Drew to this part for his input which is far more than I could provide.

>>>>As for trying to help me, I definitely get that vibe (I think it’s glaringly obious by the length of your response and the thought that went into it) and appreciate it big time. Who knows? Maybe you’re 100% right and Ill abandon HIT tomorrow for something better, but thus far it makes the most sense by leaps and bounds. Again, the details are not perfect (or even agreed upon in the HIT community), but the principles are sound.

Also, I’d be more than happy to discuss why your approach would not be appropriate for dealing with personal training clients if you are so inclined.

>>>>I’m interested to hear this argument.

thanks again for the time you spent reading and commenting, wish you well bro

-Anthony

First, as far as requiring certifications for personal trainers… as I stated in the meeting, the certification course (no matter what organization it is offered by) is not a good source of information on training philosophy. It is a way for us to know that someone understands *basic* anatomy and would be able to tell me what muscles are responsible for scapular retraction, hip extension, etc. as well as what exercises can be used to train those joint actions. If the certifications were not required, what other way would you suggest for verifying that someone knows this basic information? Having a potential trainer simply tell me that they have a superior knowledge of proper exercise and everyone else is absurd, an idiot, and living in a fantasy land isn’t exactly a good method. When you come up with that better method, feel free to present it to SGA and go through all the red tape involved with getting it approved. Once you’ve done all that, then we’ll talk about not requiring certifications

Second… I definitely take offense to you wanting to scream, “IM IN A ROOM FULL OF IDIOTS THAT KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EXERCISE.” This statement also got to me a little as well… “Although I still greatly doubt that he understands a whole lot about exercise, only that group exercise is downright silly, ridiculous, and unsafe.” I never said group exercise is silly, ridiculous, or unsafe. I did say that you’d never see me in one of those classes because it would provide next to zero benefit for me. I also said that if it wasn’t for those classes, many people would never set foot in a gym and live completely sedentary lives. Hey… it got you interested in fitness, didn’t it? I also read Drew Bayes’ post about why something isn’t always better than nothing. It seems he also likes to think in extremes. Yes, training for marathons and running multiple miles on hard pavement every day will wreak havoc on your joints. If someone finds enjoyment in it, then more power to them. Nobody said playing in the NFL was safe, but how many millions of men would kill for that chance? To compare an endeavor like running marathons to participating in a group exercise class for an hour 2 times a week is absolutely idiotic. Someone who does some form of exercise (not taken to extremes, i.e. marathons), no matter how far from optimal it is, will be better off than someone that is sedentary.

Third… you may want to open your mind a little when it comes to training modalities. Upon reading your posts on this site and judging by the fact that you almost religiously follow a book whose website is an internet version of a bad infomercial makes me question your ability to discern useful information. I’d even go so far as to say that I’ve probably forgotten more information about exercise than you’ve even been exposed to. I’ve researched and tried many various training philosophies over the last several years, including your beloved HIT. To assume that my knowledge base is limited to the “fallacies taught by AFAA” is a poor assumption. I’ve read enough to know that anything that promises superior results or completely dismisses other training philosophies as idiotic is something that should be questioned. The best strength and performance coaches in the world all use techniques from different areas and will be the first to tell you that. Considering that exercise causes adaptation by your body, any form of training modality will work… for a while. I’m sure all that jumping rope even caused your calves to hypertrophy a little. The modest gains that you have seen thus far are not due to HIT. They are due to you dropping the hours of cardio and focusing on weight training. You would have seen similar (and in many cases better) results following a multitude of other training philosophies. I implore you to research other methods with an open mind.

“Absorb what is useful, discard what is not” – Bruce Lee. While HIT does have its benefits, it also has its drawbacks. What about rate of force development, activating type IIb fibers, improving the body’s reactive ability to use the stretch reflex, or supercompensation that can be brought on by periodization? The typical HIT follower’s answer to this is that other forms of exercise are unsafe because they do not eliminate momentum (performing an exercise with an explosive cadence) and can expose the body to high impacts (plyometrics). Are you not taking a small risk by leaving your house in the morning? You may be hit by a car on your way to school or work but you have to go to these places if you want to improve yourself. The same can be said with exercise. I promise you, if you follow nothing but HIT you will never see more than modest results and won’t have more than an average physique or athletic abilities. Hopefully you take this information to heart and realize that I really am trying to help you, but you probably won’t. You’ll eventually figure it out on your own, but sometimes that’s what it takes to truly learn something.

Also, I’d be more than happy to discuss why your approach would not be appropriate for dealing with personal training clients if you are so inclined.