Anoop | Sun August 15, 2010 
Hi DH,
You have to remember that they only did one exercise per muscle group. Usually, HIT proponents do more exercises for a muscle group for 1 set. So in reality they are doing multiple sets for a muscle group.
And the type 2 activation level goes down as the sets increase. So I guess the effectiveness of sets are diminishing with more sets.
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the study. I was about to write one about the intensity and effort of training. I think the design of the study is kind of screwed up. Maybe one reason why they didn’t get published in a good journal.
| Sat September 04, 2010 
The public library of Science (PLoSone), is actually a superior journal than JPhysiol!
I think the est. impact factor of plos is ~4.5 whereas Jphysiol is ~3.5
I have no idea where all this confusion is coming from… the open access status? The university pays to make this available to the public.
Anoop | Sun September 05, 2010 
You are right, Tyswift. I check their rank and it seems to be high for a new journal(at least for exercise journals). I haven’t come across that journal since is started in Dec 2006 and it’s been growing ever since.
They have a whole new way of peer review. They don’t reject any unless there is technical or reporting problems.
And mind you, part of the PLos one impact factor is because it covers science and medicine and there are more studies and more chances of getting referenced. And journal of Physiol 2009 impact factors is 4.7 not 3.5.
| Mon September 06, 2010 
Wow, it has been a while since i checked JPhysiol. It is climbing. Thats great.
I think PLoSOne, may be a downward spiral as they are accepting and publishing more and more studies.
But the open access status is certainly nice for the general public.
Anoop | Sun September 19, 2010 
What a surprise! I am almost done readng the book “: “The art and politics of Science” by Harold Varmus (fmr. NIH director) and there he talks about how he started the concept of open access publishing and PLos was his brain child.
He was basically sick of authors writing articles and giving copyright to journals who makes a ton of money and pay nothing for the research. If researchers use tax payers money to find research, why should they pay again to read it. Now there is a new ruling that if NIH money was used to fund the study, the article will be available freely in Pubmed Central.
I will write an article about Impact Factor soon. Not many people are aware of this, even the experts.
| Mon August 08, 2011 
I would like to know more info about the study. If you do one set, you can stimulate the muscles to grow, because you broke the muscle down. If you do another set, you just made a 100% increase in the “in-road” you had created from the 1st set and so on for the next. I can see that protein synthesis is higher at 29H but is that because the body is still repairing the long in-road you had created? If there was only one set done, then the body would fill the “hole” and then use its remaining recovery ability to “build the mountain” on top wouldn’t it? There needs to be a long term study done with trained individuals on muscle CSA. If you have any information regarding a similar study, please enlighten me!
I only have an undergrad in Exercise Science and I would love to know what you think since you have many more letters after your name than mine! haha