Ok, I'll bite.

Ken is a friend who I have interacted with offlist.  So I hope he  
does not take my humble disagreement personally.  And apologies to  
Trish, who is just trying to get some practical exercise advice!

As hard as it is to imagine, exercise science is even more confused  
than nutritional science.  Remember how hard it was to unlearn your  
dietary assumptions?  This discarding of that which "just ain't so"  
may ultimately be more difficult with what we think we know about  
exercise.  (It's interesting to me that Gary Taubes has made a  
valiant, if partial, effort to right both ships).

Ken:
> HIT was developed by Arthur Jones 40 years ago, at a time when  
> exercise physiology
> barely existed

Our notions of what constitutes proper exercise have taken a many  
steps backward in the last forty years, mirroring almost exactly our  
misguided notions of proper nutrition during that same period.

Ken:
> HIT remains fashionable among men of a certain age - aging
> and old, guys who believed Jones' autodidactic, often crackpot, ideas.

LOL, Jones certainly did come across as a crackpot.  He had a very  
odd, even offputting personality that tended to alienate  
simultaneously both the bodybuilding and newly emerging aerobics  
crowds.  But here's the real and only question: Were his ideas  
valid?  For the most part astoundingly so.  As this 2004 article  
points out, recognition of Jones' ideas are long overdue: http:// 
www.asep.org/files/Smith.pdf

Were Jones' ideas perfect?  No.  Here is what is, to me, the single  
best criticism (revision) of his ideas: http://www.sszrc.com/articles/ 
guild/es23c.html


Jim Swayze