Originally Posted by Iron

Thanks for the amicable reply. Maybe we could both lighten up some.

I use a lot of what creative writers call facetious hyperbole. When I say you worship Doctors I don't mean that literally and it sure isn't meant to insult. I don't seek to win by insulting anyone. We learn nothing by that. I say it this way to stress my point and frankly for a little jab of humor. Can't take that? That's why I think you've enjoyed too long everyone agreeing with you so you get frustrated where you're not used to this. I've not noticed you're not on other boards which tells me you feel in your comfort zone here where you're maybe overly revered??

You say I rely WAY too much on science. That doesn't offend me. I do put more emphasis on science than anecdotes. We disagree here. So? I know you're making a point. I'm cool with that. Debates are more fun with a little good-natured jab now and then. Don't be quite so sensitive.

When I say you I often mean people with your view. When I say taking the lazy way out I don't mean to offend and call you lazy personally. I mean I believe that people of that persuasion use the in conflicting science studies to give up and feel they don't have to try to figure it out because they're all unreliable. That's all I meant by lazy, ok? There may even be some validity to that. I happen to not think so but that's me.

I was taught in writing classes that it's unecessary to always say, "Im my opinion." That's assumed by the reader. So maybe that helps explain why I write like I do.

By the same token I wasn't offended when you said I don't like Doctors. Of course I know you didn't mean that literally. You were being hyperbolic to make a point. No offense here. It actually adds to the spirit of the debate in my view. Nothing to apologize for. Don't I make my stance clear when I start most of my posts with a little humor to context what I'm about to say??

As far as filling my posts with the evidence that supports my view..well yeah I will. You're doing the same, giving me evidence that supports your view. Again there's nothing offensive about it??

On the contrary you've forced me to dig deeper than I would have into our subjects. I think you do as well. The net result is that we learn from ourselves and each other. Cool, huh?

I know I've said things you disagree with.. well duh! that's why it's called a debate. And yeah, forgive me but I do think my view is correct and yes I think some of your views are wrong. Isn't that assumed. Maybe I should star adding "IMO" all the time. It doesn't offend me and it shouldn't you. I said you haven't read the research that is against what you said. Yeah, no problem. That's when I show you what I think supports what I said. If I thought you knew what I have read I wouldn't post anything. When we show each other evidence isn't that because we feel the other hasn't seen it???Why is this personally offensive??

I think some of your aggravation comes from not being able to convince me. Well sorry. I have the same problem with you. That's part of debating. Assuming this continues, I'll keep on throwing things at you to support what I think and the way I choose to arrive at answers. If we disagree, so what? That's how we both learn.

You may have for the first time run into someone who disagrees with a lot of what you say and has a different way of coming up with opinions. Sorry. Get over it. Quit being sensitive. Nothing is meant personal. I'm afraid the aggravation will continue for both of us. But at least I haven't felt the least bit insulted. It's called spirited debate. Ever listen to Congressmen debate and rip each other's head's off than go to lunch together?

I'm frankly enjoying this and am learning from it. There's nothing to be gained from debating with people who agree with everything you say. What the hell fun is that???

Lighten up some. Let's have fun sparing and debating. I respect you as a worthy opponent and I hope you do me as well.

-----------

Now let me show you where you're wrong! ;) (did you notice the wink? I'm being facetious OK? Just trying to keep things light without having to be so damn careful and politically correct about everything I say so as not to offend Allright? Damn, I have to be that way at home, ;)I don't need it here!!!)

QUOTE: To say that someone can develop max strength at intensities of less than 70% on a consistent basis, meaning despite changes in training status is to say they can do it at rep ranges more than 12.

I agree with you here, I only mentioned that it's posible (I've said this before) but NOT optimal..

QUOTE: No I don't think there is a study proving that consistent progress in strength can be made at these low intensities. I have seen studies suggesting that 60% is endurance. And then that ranges of 70% or higher is necessary for maximal strength development. I don't know what they though of the range in between but I would venture to say that there are some people who can make progress in strength within this range but it is outside the average range.

Completely agree (as much as I hate to admit it ;) kidding here OK?)
-------------
Here's one for you.

You mentioned reps go down as weights go up. True. That's a basic tenant of HST. However, and I'm asking for your view here, what is gained if you simply drop the reps so you can handle more weight? I know you need to progress (that's the basic we all agree with whether you're looking for strength or size). But is this progressing? We can all handle more weight with less reps, so are you really progressing? Seems like false progress.

HST says that's why they're different. They don't like to wait till they're stronger to add more weight. But does your muscle know a difference if you're simply handling more weight because you're doing less reps less reps??

There's a lot of conflicting evidence both scientifically and from experience (I do value both actually). I'm still trying to put it all together in my own mind. I think perhaps for hypertrophy 10-12-even 15 reps 3 times a week and for strength as low as 4-6 rep sets no more than 2 X and maybe even for bodyparts like legs 1 X week even. If your goal though is strictly hypertrophy can't you gain optimally by a mixture of both? Certainly strength adds to size as well as pure higher rep "hypertrophy only" sets.

HST strives to do this by going from blocks of two weeks of 15, 12, 10, 8, 6 and so on. But while you're concentrating on for example 12-15 reps work isn't the lower rep work suffering in the meantime and vice versa??

Why not combine the two something like this:

Assume for sake of argument only 4 body parts, over 4 workouts. Why not low rep strength work on day one for say chest and shoulders and in the same workout higher rep work for back and legs? Say for workout 1 do 2 X 12-15 rep sets for chest and 1 set of 6-8 reps. You get both rep ranges but the 1st workout concentrates on high rep work for chest and shoulders. For back and legs do 2 X 6-8 reps and 1 12-15 rep set. Then next workout reverse it. I would do no more than 2 strength workouts a week per bodypart and 3 high rep workouts a week per body part.

Any of this make any sense?