Clarity comments on Optimal Exercise - Less Wrong

50 Post author: RomeoStevens 10 March 2014 03:37AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (141)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Clarity 28 June 2015 06:29:54AM *  0 points [-]

sets

set

sets

set

Hold up. What's going on here? We, of all people, are buying into the fitness hype and woo? Look, forget everything you know. Say you're going for optimal strength, set's are superfluous - an artifact of professional sports associations self-servicing. Check out the research:

''...muscular strength and endurance adaptations can be attained by performing a signle set of ~8-12 repetitions to >momentary muscular failure, at a repetition duration that maintains muscular tension throughout the entire range of >motion, for most major muscle groups once or twice each week. All resistance types (e.g. free-weights, resistance >machines, body weight, etc.) show potential for increases in strength, with no significant difference between them, >although resistance machines appear to pose a lower risk of injury ^p There is a lack lf evidence to suggest that >balance from free weights....show any transference to greater sporting improvement, and explosive movements not >recommended...high injury risk...no greater benefit than slow, controlled weight training.'

Comment author: RomeoStevens 28 June 2015 09:06:14AM 0 points [-]

I'm familiar with the article you linked. I and the rest of the fitness community will believe that TUT (time under tension) is valid when it is actually shown to work. I've looked into the Body by Science methods which use this as a basis and have yet to find a single example of reasonable performance gains from it vs traditional techniques. If you have any pointers I'd be happy to check it out.