Berry De Mey at 55
- Thread starter Pekelo
- Start date
Interesting. But I really don't like moving from one exercise to the next without sufficient rest because I don't want the weak link to be aerobic during anaerobic exercise. I have my HIIT for that. Personal preference, I guess.
That's actually the key to fitness though. HIT or HIIT and PHA are different methods with different results.
PHA develops the circulatory system while not building up lactic acid in a muscle. Lactic acid buildup is what makes you cry uncle at the end of a set. PHA allows more muscle to be stimulated while developing circulation.
What different results can I expect from HIT+HIIT vs. PHA?
Is there any scientific support to the claim that PHA is superior in any way?
"Study Reviewed: Piras, A., Persiani, M., Damiani, N. et al. (2015). Peripheral heart action (PHA) training as a valid substitute to high intensity interval training to improve resting cardiovascular changes and autonomic adaptation. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 115, 763-773."
From what I understand, I can see that PHA is a valid substitute for HIIT and better than HIIT alone. But what about the HIT part? Please bear in mind that I do HIT+HIIT. I do HIT to maximize anaerobic output and then I do HIIT to maximize aerobic output.
You may get a butt-kicking workout with PHA and substantial systemic fatigue, but more than medium intensity is required for motor unit recruitment of all fast twitch muscle fibers:
"...The PHA concept of alternating upper and lower body exercises, performed at a medium exercise intensity (with no rest between exercises), stimulates several variables of cardiovascular function..."
From the same author:
https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Exercise Phys/motorunitrecruit.html
That's my rationale for HIT+HIIT.
Last edited:
It is definitely a personal choice for sure.
The guys who espouse HIT-Yates, Mentzer, Arthur Jones- were never believable to me. The guys who knew and trained with Yates and Mentzer know that they used quite a bit of volume training and didn't rely on HIT for their gains.
Jones and his Colorado experiment with Viator was a total bunch of crap.
Gajda DID use PHA to win Mr. A and Mr. U so for me that's enough proof.
The guys who espouse HIT-Yates, Mentzer, Arthur Jones- were never believable to me. The guys who knew and trained with Yates and Mentzer know that they used quite a bit of volume training and didn't rely on HIT for their gains.
Jones and his Colorado experiment with Viator was a total bunch of crap.
Gajda DID use PHA to win Mr. A and Mr. U so for me that's enough proof.
I agree that the so-called Colorado Experiment doesn't pass the smell test. But there is valid study after valid study that shows single sets taken to failure are just as effective as multiple sets, and that lower frequency is just as effective as higher frequency. Were it not for those studies and my having communicated with a couple of the researchers about the findings, I would not have given it a try and proven it for myself.
Ahem:
I agree that the so-called Colorado Experiment doesn't pass the smell test. But there is valid study after valid study that shows single sets taken to failure are just as effective as multiple sets, and that lower frequency is just as effective as higher frequency. Were it not for those studies and my having communicated with a couple of the researchers about the findings, I would not have given it a try and proven it for myself.
Ahem:
I personally have known Gajda for decades, he was totally natural and the reason he "retired" was he couldn't hold off the roid guys any longer.
The man is a genius regarding human body and training. He has put many pro athletes back together to be able to compete in their sports.
I am not a fan of HIT, if it works for you that's all that counts. I do not know of a single disciple of HIT to have achieved the top in physical development.
If it were the most effective way, the guys taking God knows what PEDs would all be training HIT style, right?
To have beaten Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sergio Oliva, I'd have to guess he was an "natural" as they were, whatever he may have told you notwithstanding.
Not necessarily. People, especially men, define themselves by what they do. If a guy is a bodybuilder, he'll fill up his time with bodybuilding "stuff." Because that's who he is. While I agree that sport-specific training requires a fair amount of training time, strength training arguably does not. In fact, too much is counterproductive for purposes of strength and hypertrophy. But guys on steroids can get away with a lot of mistakes that they otherwise couldn't.
Most people who recommend 3 sets do so either because someone else told them to or because of "research" that often cites a 1962 poorly conducted and poorly interpreted study by Richard Berger. Here is an assessment of that study:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/36/5/319.full
Please read the piece and then consider the cross referencing by "experts" who recommend multiple sets, relying either directly or indirectly on Berger's study:
Fascinating, isn't it? I've posted this link in the past but I thought I'd do so again because it bears repeating.
The difference in outcome that Berger cited from doing 3 sets instead of one is about a 3% improvement. Are you willing to do 300% more work for an incremental ~3% improvement, if that? I'm not. And even if you were, and went all out, which one of us would tax our recuperative ability first, all else being equal? But the bottom line, as I see it, is this: you can pay $10,000 for a $10,000 car, or you can pay $30,000 for a $10,300 car. Choice is yours.
Last edited: