Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist's Article On Muscular Hypertrophy

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

No you haven't. You've proved you can build muscle on it,

That's good enough for me.

just as any type of training program,

That is singularly untrue.

but you haven't compared it.

Yes and I'm not going to.

You're basing it all on your feelings, and not any objective knowledge.

My workout results are measured accurately and not by feelings.

A feeling isn't a thought.

The Pope is catholic.

Either heavy duty is based on the scientific studies lost by the ancient Aztecs,

This is both arbitrary and irrational

or it's just completely disregarding most of the hypertrophic studies done in the last few decades.

In the studies, they measured mean protein synthesis in muscular fibers, as well as fiber density through biopsies. One dosn't need to do a biopsy however, to gauge their lean body mass.

I read the theory for HST. It doesn't fit with what I have found to be true. I don't have access to equipment for measuring my lean mass. Mentzer recommends training for strength and says that size will follow. I did just that and it worked. End of story. :yarr::yarr:B):yarr:B):yarr:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's good enough for me.

Exactly why all of this is based on FEELINGS. You have no grounds whatsoever to deny the fact that other training is far superior to the Mentzer Method. You've tried one type, and one type only.

That is singularly untrue.
All training that causes microtrauma will lead to repair and regrowth in a positive nitrogen balance.

Yes and I'm not going to.

Exactly why everything you've said is based on feelings ALONE. You have nothing to say to the contrary.

My workout results are measured accurately and not by feelings.
Those are your WORKOUT RESULTS. They are not a comparison to any other type of training! If I gained muscle by sticking my finger up my nose, I still couldn't accurately say that it is a better method than something else.

This is both arbitrary and irrational

How is it arbitrary and irrational? There are little or no scientific studies that have been done to back up Mentzer training in the hypertrophic realm versus a type of training based on studies for cellular hypertrophy.

I read the theory for HST. It doesn't fit with what I have found to be true.
You havent found ANYTHING to be true! You've found that Mentzer method makes you gain muscle, but you haven't compared it to HST to see which is the superior method. All you are doing is basing this on your FEELINGS.

" I read the theory for HST. I dosn't fit in what I have found to be true, because whenever I clap my hands I gain some muscle. HST dosn't include clapping therefore it dosn't work."

I don't have access to equipment for measuring my lean mass.

Scale and callipers.

Mentzer recommends training for strength and says that size will follow. I did just that and it worked. End of story.

Of course it worked. That does not mean in any way that it is superior!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly why all of this is based on FEELINGS.

No it isn't.

You have no grounds whatsoever to deny the fact that other training is far superior to the Mentzer Method. You've tried one type, and one type only.

I do have grounds. I tried conventional volume training years (3-4 sets per exercise) and years ago and it didn't work.

All training that causes microtrauma will lead to repair and regrowth in a positive nitrogen balance.

How about gross overtraining? How about high volume, low intensity training? Does that do it?

Exactly why everything you've said is based on feelings ALONE. You have nothing to say to the contrary.

Feelings alone? My training log tells otherwise.

Those are your WORKOUT RESULTS.

Those are the only ones that count as far as I am concerned.

They are not a comparison to any other type of training!

Since I gained the square root of sod all when I was volume training, that does indeed make a fair comparison.

If I gained muscle by sticking my finger up my nose, I still couldn't accurately say that it is a better method than something else.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! :yarr::huh:

How is it arbitrary and irrational? There are little or no scientific studies that have been done to back up Mentzer training in the hypertrophic realm versus a type of training based on studies for cellular hypertrophy.

There have been 'studies' which 'proved' steroids don't work. I've seen plenty of false studies. The only studies that count are those done in the gym on yourself.

You havent found ANYTHING to be true! You've found that Mentzer method makes you gain muscle,

Indeed it does.

but you haven't compared it to HST to see which is the superior method. All you are doing is basing this on your FEELINGS.

RESULTS!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT FEELINGS.

I read the theory for HST and it is just volume training with nobs on.

" I read the theory for HST. I dosn't fit in what I have found to be true, because whenever I clap my hands I gain some muscle. HST dosn't include clapping therefore it dosn't work."

That's you that said that, not me.

Scale and callipers.

Scale? It takes weeks to gain weight and that's assuming that weight is gained evenly. My point about the 30 pound gain averaging out to slightly over one ounce a day. And what if I was on the wrong track and didn't know it? With Heavy Duty, I find out straight away. With your system, I'd could waste months spinning my wheels.

Of course it worked. That does not mean in any way that it is superior!

It's superior to those system's that don't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no grounds and no results to show that Mentzer method is superior to HST. I have grounds, all of the studies support it. What you have is evidence that the Mentzer method makes you gain muscle. Yes, it does, but so does HST, but it is based on studies that show the best methods of increasing protein synthesis, satellite cell activation, and increasing growth factor hormones. Your results do not prove that the Mentzer method is the best method, all they do is prove that you have gained muscle. You have no objective way of evaluating whether they would be better on HST without looking at studies or performing one of your own on a larger group. The results that you have gained are separate from a comparison. You have made no type of comparison in your training. You cannot say that the Mentzer method is superior based on what you know, because all you know is that it has produced SOME gains in you, but have made no comparison whatsoever to a superior type of training. For all we know HST could produce results beyond your wildest dreams, yet since your method produced "some gains" you are calling it superior.

If I were to invest money in company A and it produced a 50% profit every year, I could not say it is superior to company B just because I have produced a profit. I would have to COMPARE the rates of profit between the two. Your "results" are isolated from any comparison.

There are no objective studies that show superphysiological levels of androgens do not increase protein synthesis in normal human beings. You cannot discount the entire scientific process in many many studies sited by the HST creator by simply referring to a non-objective study. I don't even believe this study exists, show it to me then I will believe you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no grounds and no results to show that Mentzer method is superior to HST. I have grounds, all of the studies support it. What you have is evidence that the Mentzer method makes you gain muscle. <Snip>

I notice that you couldn't refute my point that Heavy Duty will tell me strtaight away if I am going wrong while, with HST, I could be going wrong for weeks or months before I found out. I'll cut through all the pseudo-science in your post and take that as an admission of defeat.

BTW I can ignore all your studies precisely because of this reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that you couldn't refute my point that Heavy Duty will tell me strtaight away if I am going wrong while, with HST, I could be going wrong for weeks or months before I found out. I'll cut through all the pseudo-science in your post and take that as an admission of defeat.

BTW I can ignore all your studies precisely because of this reason.

Yes, I can easily refute it. Heavy Duty will not tell you straight away whether you are going wrong in regards to muscular hypertrophy because central nervous system adaptions (strength) are not linear to muscular hypertrophy. One is a product of microtrauma and positive nitrogen retention while the other is directly linked to central nervous adaption.

I didn't adress it because this is completely beside the point, because with HST you would not be going in the wrong direction since it is scientifically proven to use the methods that most stimulate muscular hypertrophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I can easily refute it. Heavy Duty will not tell you straight away whether you are going wrong in regards to muscular hypertrophy because central nervous system adaptions (strength) are not linear to muscular hypertrophy. One is a product of microtrauma and positive nitrogen retention while the other is directly linked to central nervous adaption.

Who said anything about it being linear? It's still a lot quicker than your method of scales and calipers. Who said that any gains would be linear? Especially since MM said that he found that they quite often weren't and that's exactly what I found as well.

I didn't adress it because this is completely beside the point, because with HST you would not be going in the wrong direction since it is scientifically proven to use the methods that most stimulate muscular hypertrophy.

Except that it isn't scientifically proven. I have no way of verifying your studies. I am, according to you, supposed to give up the system that I found to be effective myself, using my own judgement, and start using this allegedly proven method because you say so and because you use these studies as an authority.

You truly are a mystic of muscle.

This is my last word on the subject. Your attempts at proof have not worked. You have still not provided an accurate measurement of progress since I am not going to waste my time with the scales and calipers method.

Anything further that you have to say will not be read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The square root of sod."

Man, that is funny. :)

As for HST, I've read everything thrown at me, and there is a lot that seems arbitrary. As for the 48 hours thing, that might well be, but I have not seen any PROOF so for now it's arbitrary.

Ex-Banana-eater, you always claim the mantle of "science" and "studies," but anyone can CLAIM to have done a study. That doesn't make it so. No personal offense to you, but from what I can tell, HST is just hype and "internet bs."

Also, even with the 48 hours claim, I see no reason to practice other parts of HST, such as lifting non-maximal weights for several weeks for no apparant reason. Also, the weight to lift seems arbitrary. Also, there is no reason to do more than one set.

To even try to test HST, I would have to risk 6 months of my life in which I could be achieving the slow, but quite steady progress I have with HIT. It's just not worth the risk to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said anything about it being linear? It's still a lot quicker than your method of scales and calipers.

It is not a method at all, they are totally separate physical functions. I am saying that muscular hypertrophy and strength are detached systems, so increases in strength and hypertrophy are not linear. You brought up the question as to how to gauge the effectiveness of the training method for muscle. Since you claimed you can chart this when doing HD by strength alone, I proved this false.

Except that it isn't scientifically proven. I have no way of verifying your studies.
Read them, they're peer reviewed and cited at hsthsn.com

I am, according to you, supposed to give up the system that I found to be effective myself, using my own judgement, and start using this allegedly proven method because you say so and because you use these studies as an authority.

You have no objective basis of judgement, because you aren't willing to compare the two. You do not know whether your method is superior, infact there is much evidence to the contrary. Many many peer-reviewed studies showing what type of actions lead to the most muscle growth are very reputable, especially moreso than your "guessing" that HD is better.

You truly are a mystic of muscle.
I, who base things on science, and you, who base things on feelings with no objective comparison are calling me a mystic?

This is my last word on the subject. Your attempts at  proof have not worked.

You're right, they've been ignored.

You have still not provided an accurate measurement of progress since I am not going to waste my time with the scales and calipers method.
Strength is not a measurement of progress in hypertrophy, yet you call it a measure of progress in HD. It is not. If you want you could measure your progress with HST by strength, and then you'd have equally mystical methods of gauging your gains.

Anything further that you have to say will not be read.

Seems like most of it hasn't been anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The square root of sod."

Man, that is funny.  :yarr:

As for HST, I've read everything thrown at me, and there is a lot that seems arbitrary. As for the 48 hours thing, that might well be, but I have not seen any PROOF so for now it's arbitrary.

That's because you haven't bothered to read any of the abstracts cited at the site, or have any personal discussions with Blade or Bryan Haycock, who would be more than willing to answer questions. Have you seen any PROOF that Heavy Duty is superior to HST? I guess that's just as arbitrary a belief as the next, now isn't it? :D

Ex-Banana-eater, you always claim the mantle of "science" and "studies," but anyone can CLAIM to have done a study. That doesn't make it so. No personal offense to you, but from what I can tell, HST is just hype and "internet bs."
From what you can tell? From what I can tell, you haven't reviewed any of the studies or even taken a look at the introduction available on the site.

Also, even with the 48 hours claim, I see no reason to practice other parts of HST, such as lifting non-maximal weights for several weeks for no apparant reason.

B) No apparent reason? You've done no reading on it then obviously.

Also, the weight to lift seems arbitrary.
It probably would seem arbitrary to someone who hasn't looked at the reasons behind it? You might try researching the repeated bout effect.

Also, there is no reason to do more than one set.

Why? There is only one study that shows equal muscle gain in one set vs three set training, and that was in beginners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because you haven't bothered to read any of the abstracts cited at the site,
Yes, I have. I have seen the abstracts, and those could be from anyone. I don't know those scientists so I don't know if they're loony or not.

or have any personal discussions with Blade or Bryan Haycock, who would be more than willing to answer questions.

You're saying that if I call them up, they will talk to me, without me paying them, and will explain HST?

Have you seen any PROOF that Heavy Duty is superior to HST? I guess that's just as arbitrary a belief as the next, now isn't it?  :D
I've seen that it works to increase my strength and muscles better than volume training and I've seen that it is consistant with the limited knowledge that my research and experience have taught.

From what you can tell? From what I can tell, you haven't reviewed any of the studies or even taken a look at the introduction available on the site.

That's because you can't concieve that just because a man with the word "doctor" near his name said something that I might not believe him. If their studies are so conclusive, they need to post them on their website. Citing the study is no good; I need to actually SEE it.

You might try researching the repeated bout effect.
Can you provide me with an individual who trains to failure every 48 hours who has a similar genetic profile to myself (i.e. who is far from ideal in terms of hypertrophy?) That stuff might work on genetic freaks who have the same recovery abilities as Arnold, but what about me?

Why? There is only one study that shows equal muscle gain in one set vs three set training, and that was in beginners.

Uh-huh. I was suggesting that one-set would provide superior gains. It's common sense. What would be the point of more than one set, if you do the first to failure? Explain that to me, please.

Interesting, you reject my statement on the basis that it hasn't been shown in a study? So anything NOT shown in a study is instantly false, and anything shown in a study (legitimate or not) is instantly true.

Come on, you don't seriously think like that, do you?

Honestly, you have yet to do anything but copy-and-paste technobable. I've heard a number of slick salesmen in my times and you sir sound like a slick salesman to me. There's just something about your way of pitching this that sets off my fraud alarm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't adress it because this is completely beside the point, because with HST you would not be going in the wrong direction since it is scientifically proven to use the methods that most stimulate muscular hypertrophy.

Missed this earlier.

This is the logical fallacy known as begging the question or assuming that which you are trying to prove.

Any training program can constitute gross overtraining for someone, great efficacy for another and gross undertraining for another still because of the great variations in individual recuperative powers. That is why I need an objective method to tell me straight away.

MM recommended training for strength. I did just that and gained mass in time just like MM said I would. This was EVIDENCE and not FEELINGS.

Just using the words 'scientifically' and 'proven' does not make it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no objective studies that show superphysiological levels of androgens do not increase protein synthesis in normal human beings. You cannot discount the entire scientific process in many many studies sited by the HST creator by simply referring to a non-objective study. I don't even believe this study exists, show it to me then I will believe you.

Missed this earlier.

My training log does indeed exists. It is a notepad containing my results for the last few months.

Why on earth do I need to show it to you?

Unless you live in Falkirk then I'm not showing to you so get it right round you! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a method at all, they are totally separate physical functions. I am saying that muscular hypertrophy and strength are detached systems, so increases in strength and hypertrophy are not linear. You brought up the question as to how to gauge the effectiveness of the training method for muscle. Since you claimed you can chart this when doing HD by strength alone, I proved this false.

That's not what my workouts told me. i trained for strength and gained mass in time.

You have no objective basis of judgement, because you aren't willing to compare the two. 

You have provided no reason to give it a try. I read HD I and II and understood them. I tried them out, they worked and MM described what I should be aiming for, i.e. strength. His description of what should happen matched what did happen so I stuck with it.

You recommend the scales and calipers. That would mean waiting for weeks or months to see results whereas, with HD, I can tell straight away.

I, who base things on science, and you, who base things on feelings with no objective comparison are calling me a mystic?

You use the term 'science' a lot but you beg the question.

I found that my method worked and stuck to it. Your method just says 'scientifically proven' and asks me to train away with only the scales and calipers to guide me and I will have to take this method on faith. That is why you are a mystic of muscle.

BTW, I have unsubscribed from this thread so I will not receive notification of your replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I have. I have seen the abstracts, and those could be from anyone. I don't know those scientists so I don't know if they're loony or not.

If you want to deny the scientific information then just do it. Tell me outright that peer-reviewed studies, where the results are published in reputable journals, and the muscle biopsy information does not vary from researcher to researcher, are illegitimate sources of information. While you're at it, tell me again why simply saying that your method is superior makes it superior without any evidence to the contrary.

You're saying that if I call them up, they will talk to me, without me paying them, and will explain HST?
No, you can PM them on the forum. They will not answer questions that have been answered over and over again in the forum, they'll probably just point you to where its been answered before. If you have any unique questions that especially pertain to you then I'm sure at least Blade would be open to it.

I've seen that it works to increase my strength and muscles better than volume training and I've seen that it is consistant with the limited knowledge that my research and experience have taught.

:dough:

You've seen nothing that proves it better than HST.

That's because you can't concieve that just because a man with the word "doctor" near his name said something that I might not believe him.
No, that's not the case. We're talking about muscle biopsies and measures of growth hormones and satellite cell activity which is not based on a "doctor's" subjective opinion.

If their studies are so conclusive, they need to post them on their website. Citing the study is no good; I need to actually SEE it.

They probably do not post the studies due to copyright or simplicity sake. You can see them easily by searching the name on pubmed or google.

Can you provide me with an individual who trains to failure every 48 hours who has a similar genetic profile to myself (i.e. who is far from ideal in terms of hypertrophy?) That stuff might work on genetic freaks who have the same recovery abilities as Arnold, but what about me?
Why would I? That wouldn't help me with my argument since a person like that would not be practicing HST.

Uh-huh. I was suggesting that one-set would provide superior gains. It's common sense.

It's common sense? Anyways, the multiple set training groups always do either better, or the same (as in that one case) in regards to strength gains in the randomized controlled studies.

What would be the point of more than one set, if you do the first to failure? Explain that to me, please.
Sure, to stimulate muscle fibers properly. Going to failure is largely a strong effect on the central nervous system (CNS), but failure dosn't mean more hypertrophy. The bad thing about failure is that the effect on the CNS is so overburdenning that it's like "beating a dead horse" to your CNS. That's the reason why no powerlifters use any type of failure.

Interesting, you reject my statement on the basis that it hasn't been shown in a study? So anything NOT shown in a study is instantly false, and anything shown in a study (legitimate or not) is instantly true.

Come on, you don't seriously think like that, do you?

No, I rejected your statement because it wasn't based on anything. That's why I asked "Why?" All you said was "Also, there is no reason to do more than one set." Thanks alot, but ANY type of evidence is better than none.

Honestly, you have yet to do anything but copy-and-paste technobable.
I haven't copied and pasted anything in this discussion.

I've heard a number of slick salesmen in my times and you sir sound like a slick salesman to me. There's just something about your way of pitching this that sets off my fraud alarm.

What is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missed this earlier.

This is the logical fallacy known as begging the question or assuming that which you are trying to prove.

Any training program can constitute gross overtraining for someone, great efficacy for another and gross undertraining for another still because of the great variations in individual recuperative powers. That is why I need an objective method to tell me straight away.

It is nearly impossible to overtrain actual muscle in a regular healthy person. It is only possible to overtrain the CNS

MM recommended training for strength. I did just that and gained mass in time just like MM said I would. This was EVIDENCE and not FEELINGS.

It is not evidence that HD is superior to HST. It is only evidence that HD creates gains. Any claim you have that HD is superior to HST is based on feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missed this earlier.

My training log does indeed exists. It is a notepad containing my results for the last few months.

Why on earth do I need to show it to you?

Unless you live in Falkirk then I'm not showing to you so get it right round you!  :dough:

Your training log does not constitute proof that HD is superior. It only constitutes proof that HD creates gains.

As an example:

Say I sold a product in "method one" which gave me a $500 profit every month. There was another method out there, and I haven't tried it. Even though I've tried method one and it has given me consistent profits every month, it dosn't mean that method one is the most superior method out there. My experience has only given me the knowledge that method one works to recieve some profits, not that method one is superior to the method I haven't tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what my workouts told me. i trained for strength and gained mass in time.

That dosn't mean that they are interrelated. The world looks flat from the surface, but it takes true methods whether to define if they are or not. Just as strength and size usually come at the same time from 'mixed training' routines, it took examination to discover that the central nervous system is responsible for strength and muscle fibers, glycogen, water, and other things to constitute muscle size.

You have provided no reason to give it a try. I read HD I and II and understood them. I tried them out, they worked and MM described what I should be aiming for, i.e. strength. His description of what should happen matched what did happen so I stuck with it.
The reason is to gain muscle. I'm glad to see you gained muscle, you could be gaining more on HST.

You recommend the scales and calipers.

I recommend them for all routines, since they are the only gauge of size.

That would mean waiting for weeks or months to see results whereas, with HD, I can tell straight away.
Strength does not equal size. Heck, I know teen powerlifters who deadlift over 400 when they're 140 lbs in bodyweight. You cannot tell straight away whether you are gaining muscle with HD, all you are measuring is your strength. You could measure your strength on HST too, can't you see? They're just not accurate methods of judging muscle size.

You use the term 'science' a lot but you beg the question.

No I don't. You claimed that I "beg the question" in regards to an objective approach to measuring muscle gains. Well, your method of measuring muscle gains dosn't measure muscular size, it measures strength! The only methods of measuring muscular size measure muscle size!

I found that my method worked and stuck to it. Your method just says 'scientifically proven' and asks me to train away with only the scales and calipers to guide me and I will have to take this method on faith.
You would only be taking the method of measuring muscle growth on faith just as much as you are doing now with HD. In HD you are measuring your strength gains, and those are not indicators of muscle growth. You could drop callipers and a scale altogether with HST and would be on even ground to HD as far as judging muscle growth.

That is why you are a mystic of muscle.

Quit insulting me.

BTW, I have unsubscribed from this thread so I will not receive notification of your replies.

What, no replies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said before, my goal is not size but strength. If I get bigger, all the better, but that is not the primary purpose of my activities.

Could you provide any further details into how the two are related? If you claim that HIT is training for strength and not size, then what will be the end result of doing so versus training for size and not strength?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said before, my goal is not size but strength. If I get bigger, all the better, but that is not the primary purpose of my activities.

Could you provide any further details into how the two are related? If you claim that HIT is training for strength and not size, then what will be the end result of doing so versus training for size and not strength?

If you were training for strength I'd assume you'd incorporate speed training, periodization and drop the failure sets. I don't know as much about the mechanics of strength training as compared to muscular hypertrophy, but I wouldn't qualify HIT as a strength training protocol, more as a weightlifting one. Rule number one for nearly all powerlifting or olympic lifting routines is to avoid failure. I assume your rep ranges during maximal effort cycles are 1-2 and dynamic effort cycles are about 3-5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule number one for nearly all powerlifting or olympic lifting routines is to avoid failure. I assume your rep ranges during maximal effort cycles are 1-2 and dynamic effort cycles are about 3-5?

Correct.

If you want to see major strength gains, from your core exercises, (dead lifts, squats and bench) periodization and speed are two concepts that must be utilized.

For speed, use chains and bands to accommodate resistance, and you will build explosive strength and acceleration.

If your goals for lifting are to get bigger and stronger, there is no other choice: West Side Barbell. You can waste your time with the HIT, or HST, or whatever else is popular, but the proof is in the program.

Since my last post, October 28th, I've upped my bench from 305lb to 315lb. I have yet to seen anyone here personally prove their training method. In the weightlifting field, there is an abundance of over educated, under experienced people.

If you are truly dedicated, and motivated, try http://www.elitefts.com/ and read some of the articles. Then, instead of posting new reports, post your increasing numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that HIT has inspired further development:

http://www.maxcontraction.com/

I am going to try this new method myself and I will report the results. (It should be a few months)

John Little was a colleague of Mentzer. I've read 75 pages of his new book so far, and it makes sense (unlike what I have heard about HST).

...And the idea that size and strength aren't related is daffy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that HIT has inspired further development:

http://www.maxcontraction.com/

I am going to try this new method myself and I will report the results. (It should be a few months)

John Little was a colleague of Mentzer. I've read 75 pages of his new book so far, and it makes sense (unlike what I have heard about HST).

...And the idea that size and strength aren't related is daffy.

Check out Brian Johnston's Theory of Prescribed Exercise.

IART

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am talking about real increases in strength, not the illusions presented in that well-written article.

Does he answer the question of what happens to a person who does not fall victim to any of those bugbears? What happens when that person reaches the top of his CNS adaptive ability? Will his body be then forced to adapt by getting larger? Is that in fact what is happening in a successful HIT system?

And what is his conclusion? Will an occasional blitz-and-rest do the trick if thrown into a normal HIT system, or is his solution more complex?

I also note that Max Contraction solves many of those problems by more effectively isolating muscles and controlling for time and completely eliminating momentum...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...