Thanks for the reply. I have used static holds in the past when training my legs but my results actually suffered in the following workouts, rather than me getting stronger. After thinking about it and after reading what you have said, I am beginning to think that there is a good reason for this. When you are using much heavier weights than normal (as you are in a static hold), a much greater stress is imposed upon the body and thus more recovery must be allowed. When I was using static holds I was using them in the isolation part of the pre-exhaust cycle and this may have been too much for my body to handle.
Now that I think about it, I have a good example of how much a static hold stresses the muscle. Looking back at my training journal:
On Saturday 27th March, 2004 I did the following superset for my legs:
Nautilus leg extension: 10 reps at 160lb followed immediately by
Nautilus leg press: 13 reps at 300lb
Then on my next leg workout on Saturday 24th April, 2004 (the workouts are far apart because I was on holiday) I did the following workout:
Nautilus leg extension: static hold to failure at 230lb followed immediately by
Nautilus leg press: 7 reps at 300lb
Perhaps the reason that I achieved so few reps on the leg press in the second workout when compared to my previous performance was that the static holds took so much out of my functional quadriceps strength that I had very little left to give when it came to the leg press.
Since one of the principles of HIT is trying to get maximum inroad in minimum time, perhaps static holds are of greater value than I previously thought. Taking those two workouts as an example again:
When I did 10 reps on the leg extension, that set took me approximately 70 seconds to complete. However, my static hold only lasted about 23 seconds, yet it made a far greater impression on my leg press set, leading me to believe that it made a far greater inroad.