Lee Labrada was another HIT proponent.
(http://pesas.org/imagenes/lee-labrada.jpg)
Not HIT as advocated by Jones, Mentzer, Yates and Darden, but a form of abbreviated training, that seemed a blend of volume and heavy-duty.
lets see their actual lifting schedules first. yates was supposedly HIT but in blood and guts he was doing a 2-on 2-off schedule (too high frequency for HIT), and he pyramided everything up to a heaviest set. hell that's how ronnie lifts if you ignore the few pump-out sets he'll do on a few lifts.
and most of those guys didn't turn to HIT until way late in their careers. on mentzer's end he was evolving his theory of how it should work as he went. it wasn't until he was almost finished that he was down to 2-3 workouts a week that were so short.
if you loosen the definition of HIT to be "any training that involves working up to a max effort set" then if you pyramid you do HIT, and then lots of people do. but i'd bet most anything that IF any of those guys actually did the 2-3 workouts a week that never go over 45 minutes, they built themselves on volume and later switched.
myseone do you use hit?
i've browed through you website a bit but still dont know
All those "champs" where built on volume training after they started hit it worked for a little while because it allowed them to recover.
Nowadays the people that do hit are just lazy and want a shortcut but they will not get optimum results training that way.
All those "champs" where built on volume training after they started hit it worked for a little while because it allowed them to recover.you better watch out Alexxx, "myesone" squats 900 for 10 on the Smith Machine. ::)
Nowadays the people that do hit are just lazy and want a shortcut but they will not get optimum results training that way.
you better watch out Alexxx, "myesone" squats 900 for 10 on the Smith Machine. ::)
you better watch out Alexxx, "myesone" squats 900 for 10 on the Smith Machine. ::)
You don't know your history, read and ask those men you'll learn. It would be good to put you through an HIT work out I think that you'd change your opinion.
LMAO!! You're not serious are you?hahahaha, that's what he claims, he also claims to shoulder press 405 for 10 on the Smith as well, looks like we've got another Matt Duvall on board. ::)
Sure I would do your hit workout and then do it 10 more times so that I could get some decent stimulation.
hahahaha, that's what he claims, he also claims to shoulder press 405 for 10 on the Smith as well, looks like we've got another Matt Duvall on board. ::)
What state do you live in? If you were close to NYC I'd put you through a leg work out.
Oh man you gotta love those guys that use the smith machine! haha funniest thing! I was training with another guy when I was 16 years old and he would get me to do 225 pound closegrip benches on the smith. Thing is I could probably barely get that with 135 pounds free weight!hahahaha, exactly, the funny thing is that he never challenges it when i call him on his claims, he's either full of shit or he's way stronger than Ronnie Coleman. ::)
I am in montreal my little friend. If I ever pass by there I will make sure to pm me and own you in the gym.
hahahaha, exactly, the funny thing is that he never challenges it when i call him on his claims, he's either full of shit or he's way stronger than Ronnie Coleman. ::)
Oh man you gotta love those guys that use the smith machine! haha funniest thing! I was training with another guy when I was 16 years old and he would get me to do 225 pound closegrip benches on the smith. Thing is I could probably barely get that with 135 pounds free weight!
I am in montreal my little friend. If I ever pass by there I will make sure to pm me and own you in the gym.
hahahaha, exactly, the funny thing is that he never challenges it when i call him on his claims, he's either full of shit or he's way stronger than Ronnie Coleman. ::)
Yeah we can end legs with your favorite machinei'm calling you a liar "myesone", what do you say to that?
Yeah we can end legs with your favorite machine
i'm calling you a liar "myesone", what do you say to that?
haha your insecurities are showing. I own you on legs. ;)
You have good quad shape, but I would destroy you in leg training.
I gotta admit I have never tried 900 pound machine squats but if its anything like the leg press then consider yourself owned.
Answer me this myseone.. when you gained the most size was it throught hit or volume?
HIT definitely. I can't say I ever used HVT for very long.
HIT definitely. I can't say I ever used HVT for very long.
With hit training your muscles seem one dimensional. With volume you can give that dramatic effect. Example: Arnold vs Franco
Franco's muscles are always there there is no big surprise when he flexes.
Arnold on the other hand is has a showman's body. His muscles would exploded and freak out the crowd. His arms went from 19" unflexed to 22 inches flexed!
I think that is the main difference between hit and volume.
High Intensity is the way to go. 4 years in and workouts dont get any easier. Dugdale is another HIT trainer.
I don't agree fully,
When Sergio, Casey and Mentzer were using these techniques their muscles looked totally 3D.
I think gentically some peoples muscles come alive when posed, others not much, I'm not sure if training has much to do with that.
I will say that higher volume training will increase glycogen stores when married with higher carbs, hence giving the muscle a fuller look. For building hard granite muscle (aka. Yates and Casey [include drugs and genetics) then to failure and beyond training with heavy weight is neccessary.
I forgot about Dugdale, another great example. The stuff works.Everyone is truly different as trainers. Yates was a lot different than Mentzer. Dugdale is a whole world different than Yates b/c he supersets and so on. Labradas style of HIT is what I lean more towards. 8-10 reps, 2-3 all out sets with forced reps, rest pause, beyond failure, etc. Thats the great thing about training theories. They all work. Doggcrapp, HIT, HVT. Everyone can benefit from trying them all or incorporating them into their training every so often. (When gains start to disappear)
Even though all these bodybuilders juice, I think that HIT type training is more suited for drug free trainees, because of the recovery factor. I think people freak out when they read Mentzers protocol due to the huge amounts of rest included. mentzers method is only one interpretation of HIT training, just like in the HVT camp Cutler trains differently, than Wheeler or Coleman.
Sergio used the techniques for a short period of time. Casey never improved after turning to hit. Mentzer has some good arms but they are always there if he flexes them they are the same size. Nothing surprising happens.
Everyone is truly different as trainers. Yates was a lot different than Mentzer. Dugdale is a whole world different than Yates b/c he supersets and so on. Labradas style of HIT is what I lean more towards. 8-10 reps, 2-3 all out sets with forced reps, rest pause, beyond failure, etc. Thats the great thing about training theories. They all work. Doggcrapp, HIT, HVT. Everyone can benefit from trying them all or incorporating them into their training every so often. (When gains start to disappear)
there are no other athletes on the planet who think that training for an hour a day five days a week is too much. olympic lifters outlift your favorite bodybuilders and they'll train 2-3 hours a day every day. powerlifters have marathon sessions with nonstop heavy lifting.
Curiously, however, those Olympic lifters don't have the muscle BBers do. For every O lifter you could show me with great trap development, erectors or quads, I could show you many more that look like average, fairly thin men. Far more often than not, BBers will be much more muscular than O lifters of similar height and weight. Slowly getting ever-more proficient at a handful of lifts and training for hypertrophy would seem counterindicated. When the pursuit's size, overtraining is a very real concern.
And it's quite a stretch to say all, or even most, powerlifters all employ "marathon" sessions. Some do. Many don't.
Curiously, however, those Olympic lifters don't have the muscle BBers do. For every O lifter you could show me with great trap development, erectors or quads, I could show you many more that look like average, fairly thin men. Far more often than not, BBers will be much more muscular than O lifters of similar height and weight. Slowly getting ever-more proficient at a handful of lifts and training for hypertrophy would seem counterindicated. When the pursuit's size, overtraining is a very real concern.
And it's quite a stretch to say all, or even most, powerlifters all employ "marathon" sessions. Some do. Many don't.
think that has anything to do with the fact olympic lifters are rigorously tested for compounds ranging from steroids down to ingredients found in cold medicines? and bodybuilders are constantly on mega doses of every drug known to man?
Nope, because I'm not talking about juiced-up bodybuilders.
But Mr. Magoo: I understand what you mean about the HIT people. Some of them do take the "you'll overtrain, woooooo!" stuff to a silly extreme.
Lee Labrada was another HIT proponent.
(http://pesas.org/imagenes/lee-labrada.jpg)
that's probably because the oly lifters are training for a sport, and as said above they are tested year round. my point is that they aren't overtraining despite lifting for hours a day with much heavier weights than bb'ers use. if you listen to the HIT acolytes if you workout for more than 45 minutes and are stupid enough to lift two days in a row you'll fall apart.
I'm more convinced right now than any other time in my life that the majority of guys in the gym today are doing 2 things that are totally stopping them from progressing as they could:
1-overtraining, in this I mean half the guys out there could cut down from training 5 times a week to 3, cut thier sets in half up the intesity and take the rest of the week to recover and they would probably get better results, they're not really "overtrained" in the classical sense but they are running along the lines of overtraining.
2-doing useless movements. c'mon, I see dudes who weigh 160lbs soaking wet and they're doing cable side laterals and dumbbell kickbacks......suck it up pile the plates on a bar and start doing some close grip bench presses as heavy as you can and you'll get alot more out of your workouts, everytime I do cardio I can watch guys train and it's like "why in the hell are you doing that?" I just don't get it.
i always liked this analogy with HIT training: if you want a tan, do you sit out in the sun with lotion on for an hour or so a day, or do you lay in a fire for 30 seconds once a week?
i powerlift now, and here's the most interesting part. i don't do any forced reps, no negatives, no supersets, no drop sets. if i need any help on a rep the set is over. i do more sets than i ever did before. the end result was all of my lifts shooting up. i used to internalize the "intensity" mantra and did massive amounts of drop sets, burnouts, anything i could to make it hurt. i stagnated like crazy.
these days i leave the gym pretty clear-headed. after a squat workout i can walk around just fine and the next day i'm not screaming in pain. while it may strike some that i'm not "intense" enough any more and i know some people are going to think my workouts are too long (usually the main lift of the day takes me over a half hour all by itself), i'm stronger than i've ever been.
stuart mcroberts books and articles makes good toilet paper.
I agree intensity can be abused, something that many HIT advocates don't understand. If you sit in front of the sun at 12 noon, on a clear day, at the equator, with oil on and put a large magnifying glass in front of you that would be very intense, and it would'nt take long to hurt yourself. The higher the intensity of effort the less volume is neccessary, but it does'nt prove that training to failure or beyond is neccessary, I don't think it is all the time.
The bottom line is progression.
Law
you're right, but growth isn't simple addition. it's not like for intensity x and volume y, x + y = growth, where dropping the intensity means upping the volume and vice versa. otherwise you could drop the volume to near zero and go retardedly high intensity or drop the intensity to nothing and lift for 10 hours.
intensity is good, but everything i've read about the HIT principles is just taking it too far. the principles would never work for another sport, i have no idea why people think bodybuilding is so unique. imagine a shotputter going out onto the field and doing three throws with a 40 pound medicine ball then going home.
I agree, never said it was, nothing exists in absolute form. In a gym context I do think that most people waste volume and don't train hard enough, my point being most. In your case I think you have found something that works well.
In my own training I don't max out all the time, and do bring my volume up to the moderate range every now and then.
i think one thing that needs to go away is calling it HIT. progression is good, lifting hard is also good. so is knowing how long to stick around in the gym. but let's be honest here. if you're in the gym for around an hour and you're putting your all into it, there aren't really enough factors going on for any one training method to be so vastly different from another. we're basically talking the difference between doing one balls-out set of 8 or two sets of 5 or 6.
do the one you like, chances are you'll get nearly identical results. the thing that kills me with HIT acolytes is their dogmatic clinging to "intensity" and the evils of overtraining.
How do you currently train?
plenty of volume but rarely going to failure
that's probably because the oly lifters are training for a sport, and as said above they are tested year round. my point is that they aren't overtraining despite lifting for hours a day with much heavier weights than bb'ers use. if you listen to the HIT acolytes if you workout for more than 45 minutes and are stupid enough to lift two days in a row you'll fall apart.The reason they aren't overtraining lies in the nature of olympic lifts. They aren't grinding lifts and there is no negative portion. Compare a snatch to a deadlift. A deadlift is comparatively a very slow grinding movement that is a hell of a lot more taxing. Even a maximal olympic lift is a very quick movement with no negative portion.
The reason they aren't overtraining lies in the nature of olympic lifts. They aren't grinding lifts and there is no negative portion. Compare a snatch to a deadlift. A deadlift is comparatively a very slow grinding movement that is a hell of a lot more taxing. Even a maximal olympic lift is a very quick movement with no negative portion.
i always liked this analogy with HIT training: if you want a tan, do you sit out in the sun with lotion on for an hour or so a day, or do you lay in a fire for 30 seconds once a week?Who came up with that lame analogy? Pathetic and incorrect.
sounds good. intensity is WAY overrated.Let's see some pics of those guns to back up this wisdom! ::)
In my opinion this thread is intellectually dishonest. Sergio is not an example of HIT. Stuart McRobert's theories are false. There is so much crap re training that it is disgraceful. HIT is false as a theory. Jones is highly intelligent but his influence has not been a good one for training. He is responsible for encouraging brief workouts when in fact the major requirement of large muscles is endurance with heavy resistance. One might be able to build some muscle using various methods but HIT and HST are not ones that will generate much in the way of maximum size. Drugs have just confused everyone completely. What is the test of the truth of these theories? Well, do they work? Answer: for most people they don't work. If people knew how to keep muscles growing they would be growing rapidly. The truth is most of you guys have stopped growing a long time ago.
Sergio used both HIT and HVT training to build his body from what I've read. In fact he has stated in interviews that he found HIT effective. Of course his HVT was effective as well, leading me to beleive that his genetic capacity and drug use made a huge difference.
You say that HVT is the way to go, if this were so Serge Nubret would be one of the hugest guys because his use of volume was legendary (3-5 hours a day of working out). I recently read your thread concerning training, and you seem to advocate training for hours on end, most people will not be able to do this, so it is'nt pratical.
The proof is always in the pudding, there are many HV successes but there a lot of failures, and the same thing can be said about the HIT camp.
What do you suggest?
With volume you need weight. Serge trained too light. Arnold knew it took heavy weights to build a championship physique.I'd like to think "Alexx" is kidding but each time i realize he's dead serious. Oliva used to be an Olympic weight lifter.
With volume you need weight. Serge trained too light. Arnold knew it took heavy weights to build a championship physique.
I'd like to think "Alexx" is kidding but each time i realize he's dead serious. Oliva used to be an Olympic weight lifter.
Funny stuff...
Ladies and gentlemen with have a bright one here! Who ever mentioned Sergio??????I should post the pic of Serge benching 400 lb. for this genius.
I should post the pic of Serge benching 400 lb. for this genius.
;D
Sure I would do your hit workout and then do it 10 more times so that I could get some decent stimulation.
He did that 3 times a year. Now tell me how many times a year did he do heavy deads or weighted chins?More importantly what's the point in considering the views of "Alexxx" with 17" guns? :-\
More importantly what's the point in considering the views of "Alexxx" with 17" guns? :-\
With hit training your muscles seem one dimensional. With volume you can give that dramatic effect. Example: Arnold vs Franco
Franco's muscles are always there there is no big surprise when he flexes.
Arnold on the other hand is has a showman's body. His muscles would exploded and freak out the crowd. His arms went from 19" unflexed to 22 inches flexed!
I think that is the main difference between hit and volume.
He did that 3 times a year. Now tell me how many times a year did he do heavy deads or weighted chins?
How is your bowflex working for you?Given the obsession, it's obvious he wants one for xmas. :-*
Sergio used the techniques for a short period of time. Casey never improved after turning to hit. Mentzer has some good arms but they are always there if he flexes them they are the same size. Nothing surprising happens.
Alexxx, you forget that both Casey and Sergio were by far at their personal bests training under Arthur Jones.
In my opinion this thread is intellectually dishonest. Sergio is not an example of HIT.
Endless argument that is very hard to gauge without controlling the long-term environment. There are various good programs that if properly followed will produce results, IMO. Main question is the emotional viability, if the program appeals it's far more likely to produce results, if it's considered unpleasant as HIT is to many, it likely won't be done long or seriously enough to work.
You have been reading Education of a Bodybuilder too much. Look at the way todays guys look. Nothing at all happens when Jay Cutler flexes.
Given the obsession, it's obvious he wants one for xmas. :-*
In my opinion this thread is intellectually dishonest. Sergio is not an example of HIT. Stuart McRobert's theories are false. There is so much crap re training that it is disgraceful. HIT is false as a theory. Jones is highly intelligent but his influence has not been a good one for training. He is responsible for encouraging brief workouts when in fact the major requirement of large muscles is endurance with heavy resistance. One might be able to build some muscle using various methods but HIT and HST are not ones that will generate much in the way of maximum size. Drugs have just confused everyone completely. What is the test of the truth of these theories? Well, do they work? Answer: for most people they don't work. If people knew how to keep muscles growing they would be growing rapidly. The truth is most of you guys have stopped growing a long time ago.WTF, are you EVER going to state what YOU think is the correct way to train instead of dancing around the issue?
Cutler is like Franco. He is big all over but nothing impressive happens when he flexes. Drugs and lack of volume training.
Look at Ronnie Coleman on the other hand. Phil Heath also has the ability to showcase his muscles that way.
Cutler is like Franco. He is big all over but nothing impressive happens when he flexes. Drugs and lack of volume training.This is a poor argument; you have no basis for assuming that either guy would look different if they'd used different programs.
Look at Ronnie Coleman on the other hand. Phil Heath also has the ability to showcase his muscles that way.
Franco trained with Arnold on the same program.
This is a poor argument; you have no basis for assuming that either guy would look different if they'd used different programs.
WTF, are you EVER going to state what YOU think is the correct way to train instead of dancing around the issue?He's mentioned it elsewhere. Heavy weight using moderate reps, and fairly high volume.
That's what you think. Arnold himself mentioned that Franco was doing more powerlifting in his program in "the education of a bodybuilder".
He's mentioned it elsewhere. Heavy weight using moderate reps. Sets I can't remember, either high or moderate volume.Exactly, add weight when you can. Adjust volume according to recovery capacity, performance. Volume is really secondary IMO as long as you get stronger. I know you can grow on really low volume from personal experience. Increasing the volume of sarcoplasm is where "pump" training and volume comes in.
I don't know why he's against HIT though; the fundamentals don't change-subject the muscle to ever-increasing loads.
more
I have the book Alexxx I'll have to recheck. I still think what you describe is a gentic fator not a training one.
Law
Apparently it wasn't so "evident" to the judges, as Pearl beat Oliva at the 1971 NABBA Universe.
It seems that for every one HIT success story, there appears to be several more burnouts and more who use such briefly, before returning to more traditional training methods.
Arnold: The education of a bodybuilder
Page 70-71
"One point in my favor was that my body has always been dramatic and spectacular, more than the average bodybuilder's. The main reason for this is a trait I share with Reg Park. I look very symmetrical when I stand relaxed, without the too-wide, squared shoulders and the arms that appear propped away from the ribs by a surplus of muscle that characterize most bodybuilders. I've never minded that my body doesn't look massive when I'm standing relaxed. It has always had a nice muscular look, but nothing freaky or unusual. I never tried to tense it up, to get musclebound. However, when I posed my whole physique would change radically. My body would open up like an accordion and my muscles would appear. Even in terms of measurements the difference was phenomenal. Hanging, my arm would measure 19 inches; when I flexed, it would balloon to 22 inches. The same thing was true of my chest. I could make my chest expand so dramatically it shocked people; tthey didn't know where it came from. My thighs always looked thin, too, but when I flexed they exploded. It was a direct result of working with more repetitions and less weights. Because if you always train with heavy weights you get to look like Franco Colombo; your muscles are always there. Then when you pose there's no real surprise. I don't want to knock that look. For myself, I prefer the more dramatic body, the showman's body."
Make your own judgement. To me there is no shortcut. Champions are built with volume, sweat and blood!
I have been around gyms so long I look like a dumbbell. Now I hang around wannabe experts online. Nothing has changed in over 47 years. Still a bunch of nonsense that most believe and hardly anyone is growing. Don't give me that stuff about McRobert. HIT is false, end of story. Believing something doesn't make it true.
I suspect that part of the reason there is so much confusion is because growth occurs sporadically for most trainees and most systems generate some growth. The trick is to keep finding something that keeps one growing. To everyone here that solution is drugs. The pursuit of a theory of hypertrophy ended about 1970. I haven't read anything worthwhile since. If you truly know how to generate hypertrophy you should be able to put two inches on your already big arms (17 1/2") in 2 months, and do it drug and supplement free.
Thanks, Arnolds educated opinion, but a respected one. What about a bodybuilder such as Dorian Yates whos muscles were huge, but popped out more when posed, particularly his back, calves, hamstrings.
Law
I argued my theory here before and don't care to rehash that stuff. Lots of people here know stuff about getting results. However, few know how to sustain rapid growth. That is what I was talking about. I wasn't talking about being practical or sensible like Stuart McRobert.
I argued my theory here before and don't care to rehash that stuff. Lots of people here know stuff about getting results. However, few know how to sustain rapid growth. That is what I was talking about. I wasn't talking about being practical or sensible like Stuart McRobert.
Calves and hams are always there. Back you have to move to expand. It is imposible for it to remain the same size throughout the different ranges of motion.
Come to Sydney to train in my gym under my supervision and let's see how big I can make your arms grow in 30 days.
Have you been able to produce sustained grow in yourself or people you have trained?No he has not, by his own admission. He is still searching for the elusive formula LOL. He just does not get it, never will. You can teach an old guy, he is set in his ways.
I agree with the importance of DOMS, if for no other reason than the anecdotal evidence it provides of effectively stimulating tissue. However I don't agree with the premise of working the muscle again before all previous DOMs is gone, since recovery seems essential to growth.DOMS means nothing in itself. Some people NEVER get DOMS and grow amazingly well. Case in point: Mentzer himself. Personally I can easily get DOMS training with light weights but I will not grow unless I increase the loads over time. It's the same for everyone; if there is no progression in the loads and/or volume there is no growth - DOMS or not. Focusing on it is a blind alley.
I have been around gyms so long I look like a dumbbell. Now I hang around wannabe experts online. Nothing has changed in over 47 years. Still a bunch of nonsense that most believe and hardly anyone is growing. Don't give me that stuff about McRobert. HIT is false, end of story. Believing something doesn't make it true.
I suspect that part of the reason there is so much confusion is because growth occurs sporadically for most trainees and most systems generate some growth. The trick is to keep finding something that keeps one growing. To everyone here that solution is drugs. The pursuit of a theory of hypertrophy ended about 1970. I haven't read anything worthwhile since. If you truly know how to generate hypertrophy you should be able to put two inches on your already big arms (17 1/2") in 2 months, and do it drug and supplement free.
I think that this is the major flaw of HIT, that it is down right uncomfortable to perform. It definitely a certain psychological outlook to do it on a ongoing basis. With that said, mental and physical toughness are attributes for building good physiques particularly when training drug free.
I agree intensity can be abused, something that many HIT advocates don't understand. If you sit in front of the sun at 12 noon, on a clear day, at the equator, with oil on and put a large magnifying glass in front of you that would be very intense, and it would'nt take long to hurt yourself. The higher the intensity of effort the less volume is neccessary, but it does'nt prove that training to failure or beyond is neccessary, I don't think it is all the time.
The bottom line is progression.
Law
DOMS means nothing in itself. Some people NEVER get DOMS and grow amazingly well. Case in point: Mentzer himself. Personally I can easily get DOMS training with light weights but I will not grow unless I increase the loads over time. It's the same for everyone; if there is no progression in the loads and/or volume there is no growth - DOMS or not. Focusing on it is a blind alley.Again just opinions. I believe that DOMS gained in the context of substantial weight & moderate reps is important.
Regarding DOMS, you can train before it has dissipated. The body will adapt and you'll get less DOMS when you adjust to the routine. There are different aspects to recovery as well which is a longer discussion but basically DOMS doesn't always mean you're not ready to train and benefit from it again. There is nothing that says DOMS doesn't allow you to stimulate protein synthesis again. Again, if your program allows you to get stronger it will work.
Yes, HIT is crazy. The work involved could really stress some guys out. This type of training is not for everyone.The motivation required of HIT appeals to certain personas; different personality types will be drawn to every form of training. Part of it's conditioning: those who grow up with volume training consider this the norm, have trouble getting their minds around a different format.
I've always wondered what it is required of a person's personality to be able to train this way. hmm
The endless authorities arrive to speak their minds. Congratulations. If if it so easy why are we debating it endlessly on the internet? Surely old men who have been around should have gotten it by now? I never mentioned formulae. It may be that the complete method might involve several strategies.
Let us do a thought experiment. It must be possible to grow maximally each and every training day. If that is so then let us suppose one can measure the daily growth when training upper arms. Suppose that growth is 1/8" per training day. Well, if one does not grow that 1/8 inch then he is doing something wrong and must change something so that he is always growing maximally. It is possible to write all this down but I prefer a theory from which one can derive what to do at any time.
Alexxx suggested that volume is important. Yes, but how much is necessary and how much sufficient? Also, I would bet it makes all the difference in the world which exercises are used. Some exercises are useless beyond a certain size. I see countless sheep in gyms blasting away to no effect. I can talk to these guys but they refuse to listen. That is the way it has always been in bodybuilding. We have had a fatal invasion of knuckleheads and they are here to stay. Every single one of them believes he knows how to get big. It really is an amazing activity when so many know so much about rather unproductive workouts.
I doubt I have the drive to show you all that my ideas have some value. The idea that I blast away day after day just to appease some muscleheads online just doesn't do it for me. I will stand by and watch while the rest of you deafen in the din of your own ignorance.
Good example of the variation in beliefs.
-Uncertain whether volume really is necessary - it's overload that is key IMO.
-Overload is brought about by pushing the envelope in any format = going to failure, the more the better.
Just opinions, but the idea of avoiding overload by stopping short of failure's ludicrous to me.
failure training isnt necessary, and it stops people from doing enough volume. "high" (relative term of course) volume is the best for growth (most of the time, as training has to be varied to some degree)
Your opinions only; i completely disagree no matter what the protocol.
what you say is as much just opinions as what I say . also there is real life proof that volume works ( i wont say high volume as the volume has to be changed as training progresses and its a relative term).
Let's see some pics of those guns to back up this wisdom! ::)
IMO there are various programs including HIT that if done as prescribed will work for a while. No reason to assume HIT wouldn't work. The biggest difference between good programs is psychological appeal IMO; what someone likes better and thus will continue to use plays a big part in long-term efficacy. Really HIT requires a rigour that most can't stomach-nothing to do with results just the turn-off of the training itself.
WTF, are you EVER going to state what YOU think is the correct way to train instead of dancing around the issue?
The fact of the matter is that HIT and especially Stuart McRoberts' theories work. Whatever program lets you get strong on moderate rep ranges is going to add muscle. Very low volume may not be ideal but it will work as long as you get stronger and feed your body. It ain't that complicated. You act like there is some secret mathematical formula that once uncovered will let everyone grow every workout until they reach their potential. Face the facts: EVERYTHING has been done, nothing new will be revealed. Go to the gym, bust some heavy poundage, go home and eat and shut the f**k up! This mental masturbation leads nowhere.
I find HIT easier than volume training. Too bad I don't believe it's optimal for building mass.What were your experiences with HIT?
also overload can be achieved in different ways, i believe its better in the long run to do lift short of failure for more sets than doing 1-2 sets to total failure (failure will reduce the volume you can do).The way i see it, one sure things is that lifting short of failure there's no way of knowing what potential's been left unrealized. You'll never know, even if gains are made. Volume training without failure can fool one into thinking that going short of failure makes sense, because some gains might be made despite training incorrectly. As i said it's all part of a continuum-the greater the intensity per set, the less sets are needed to batter the muscles into submission.
Your opinions only; i completely disagree no matter what the protocol, and have done both high-volume and now moderate volume training. In both cases, the muscle reach the same point, with resulting DOMS. This can be done with less sets if the training is more efficient = better exercises + intensity.
As i said, most BBs are very conventional in their thinking, therefore volume will be part of the winning formula, which doesn't mean it's necessarily an essential ingredient. Not the same thing.
Overload, baby. That means intensity, either exaggerated intensity as in HIT because there are very few sets to spread it out over, or intensity spread over more sets, within volume. It's a continuum, based on numbers of sets.
What were your experiences with HIT?
your twisting what i was saying: your making it sound like its and either or situation. also instensity can be defined in different ways..for example try doing 5 sets of squats stoping before failure (maybe 1-2 reps before) with 80% of max and compare it to 1 set to failure..i have tried both and let me telll you doing more sets close to failure instead of 1-2 max sets is harder.Wrong right out of the box-i've said it's a continuum, with a sliding scale, the opposite of either/or. Volume and intensity are polar opposites that work in inverse proportion, all in the name of overload using those two. Simple.
also saying high vs moderate volume is being to general..as it varies between people and their experience level..a guy who has trained for many years has built up to a certain volume. problem if you use too high intensity is that your gonna burn out (intensity in this case failure training +forced reps) pretty quick unless you lower the volume to the exreme (maybe just doing 2-3 sets for a body part per week). thats why extreme intensity should only be used for brief periods of time. could be used for example to push weights up and then use the new strenghth doing a higher volume program with reps between 6 (8)-12 reps per set.
My opinion on HIT and other styles like that is that it would build more strength than mass. And that there is a difference between the two. Mentally I find HIT easier because I don't mind training hard, in fact that itself can be very rewarding, and also I prefer both lower reps and fewer sets compared to being in the gym for 1-1,5 hours.im the same way HIT is easier for me actually, but i dont believe in mindlessly going to fauilure.
My opinion on HIT and other styles like that is that it would build more strength than mass. And that there is a difference between the two. Mentally I find HIT easier because I don't mind training hard, in fact that itself can be very rewarding, and also I prefer both lower reps and fewer sets compared to being in the gym for 1-1,5 hours.
Ya but what was your actual experience?
im the same way HIT is easier for me actually, but i dont believe in mindlessly going to fauilure.
Wrong right out of the box-i've said it's a continuum, with a sliding scale, the opposite of either/or. Volume and intensity are polar opposites that work in inverse proportion, all in the name of overload using those two. Simple.
volume and intensity arent total opposits but.. that wasnt what i was talking about..i was talking about that you need a certain volume to keep adding muscle and too high intensity all the time will stop you from using high enough volume. also im not sugessting to lift like a pussy with weights 50% of max...im talking about weights over 70% of one rep max weights being used for multiple sets taken to 1-2 reps before failure. spare the cns to lift higher total kg loads per time unit.Personally i think you've got it ass-backwards, in fact i'm sure of it having used high volume extensively. Bottom line for me is frying the muscle, that is what achieves results. I've done that with higher volume and moderate volume, and i know it can also be done on low volume.
volume and intensity arent total opposits but.. that wasnt what i was talking about..i was talking about that you need a certain volume to keep adding muscle and too high intensity all the time will stop you from using high enough volume. also im not sugessting to lift like a pussy with weights 50% of max...im talking about weights over 70% of one rep max weights being used for multiple sets taken to 1-2 reps before failure. spare the cns to lift higher total kg loads per time unit.
yes and too high intensity will also interfer and f**k with your frequency as it would add more rest days = days on which you otherwise would be able to train. thats why mike mentzer had to recommend 7, 10 or even 14 weeks between each musclegroup trained because his clients needed all that time to rest.This idea of CNS probs is a nice theory only. Others believe as i do that 2-3 days rest is sufficient in most cases, it's that simple.
Personally i think you've got it ass-backwards, in fact i'm sure of it having used high volume extensively. Bottom line for me is frying the muscle, that is what achieves results. I've done that with higher volume and moderate volume, and i know it can also be done on low volume.
Volume is a means to an end, not the end in itself, which is to fatigue the muscle. You've convinced yourself that one avenue to that, volume, is the answer when in fact it's only one route. Something like believing that the sun revolves around the earth when it's the opposite.
This idea of CNS probs is a nice theory only. Others believe as i do that 2-3 days rest is sufficient in most cases, it's that simple.
Long marathon volume sessions are wearing as well, and wearing only in terms of endurance, which is not about muscle building it's more like long-distance running.
Personally i think you've got it ass-backwards, in fact i'm sure of it having used high volume extensively. Bottom line for me is frying the muscle, that is what achieves results. I've done that with higher volume and moderate volume, and i know it can also be done on low volume.
Volume is a means to an end, not the end in itself, which is to fatigue the muscle. You've convinced yourself that one avenue to that, volume, is the answer when in fact it's only one route. Something like believing that the sun revolves around the earth when it's the opposite.
I would never volume training without failure, because (1) it's just beating around the bush, which is to exhaust the muscles, and (2) it's balless. Sorry but it's true. ;D
i dont agree but hey its all about exchanging ideas and learning ;)..also have you tried higher volume without going to failure on every set? i did high volume failure training didnt work well..i did low volume very intense ..worked for short period of time (adaptation)..i found the key is to do higher (again a relative term..im not so fond of the term high..i prefer "enough" volume") volume training but no failure.
mindless pursuit of failure is counter productive as it takes the number of sets you can do to a very low level.No, because you're thinking in blacks & whites, as if all levels of failure are the same, which is completely untrue.
I would never volume training without failure, because (1) it's just beating around the bush, which is to exhaust the muscles, and (2) it's balless. Sorry but it's true. ;D
I would never volume training without failure, because (1) it's just beating around the bush, which is to exhaust the muscles, and (2) it's balless. Sorry but it's true. ;D
[/quote
we will just have to agree that we disagree i think. ;)
so basically you think that mike mentzers clients, who he had resting up to 14 days, could have rested only 2-3 days, so the question is why didnt mike came to the same conclusion? considering he preached that for year and year and years and had probably hundreds of clients?
No, because you're thinking in blacks & whites, as if all levels of failure are the same, which is completely untrue.
As i said, it's a continuum-train to extreme HIT failure, minimal nos. of sets can be done/are needed. Train to failure but less so than HIT standards, more sets can be done.
Hard to believe this is difficult to comprehend. ???
Because Mike and others are not the last word, just more sources for info; exactly why Yates took his own path from it.
actually your thinking in black in white as it was you who said intensity is polar opposite of volume..and it is you who who said you would never try higer volume without going to failure.
and i comprehend exactly what you mean.
going to failure makes you a failure. so hear up all losers! we know you're a failure in life, but now you can be a failure at the gym too! let the failures lead you and show them how to fail miserably! because they are the experts of failure!
but still i would say he got WAY more experience than you and he came to that conclusion. how do you figure? that mike mentzer just said "well i've observed that my hundreds of traininers, dont need a lot of rest... but i'll have them rest 14 days anyway" ?
if 2-3 days was all that was necessary then mike mentzer along with all his clients could've worked the muscles a hundred times more in a year resulting in far great result in a very short time. why wouldt he do that?
the solution to the HIT (going to failure) vs high volume (going to failure) debate, is: avoid going to failure.
You're hopeless man. ;D I've trained with more volume and less, and have achieved the same effect on the muscles based on what i've explained.
First of all, Mike didn't have way more experience than me, this is an assumption. If you don't know by know, Mentzer and Jones walked around spouting this ideas as if they were proven fact, which is not so smart. Once they did that, it's easy to realize that some of their ideas might make sense but they're not the last word.
Still waiting for your actual experiences with HIT..
sorry i dont mean to be an ass but...your thinking like volume is static..volume has to be changed as you become more advanced. of course there is no reason to do more sets than necessary, but failure training fries your cns (in the long run) thus preventing you from stimulating the muscles as much as possible. the failure training is acting like a bottle neck.
Following that logic, i'd say don't even lift weights, rest more..
sorry i dont mean to be an ass but...your thinking like volume is static..volume has to be changed as you become more advanced. of course there is no reason to do more sets than necessary, but failure training fries your cns (in the long run) thus preventing you from stimulating the muscles as much as possible. the failure training is acting like a bottle neck.
so you've got more experience than mike? thats interesting. please tell us a little about all your success as a competitive bodybuilder, personal trainer, coach, writer of hundreds of articles, books, research etc.
::)
all i know is that you're working out with a bowflex and have zero ideas on your own. what exactly are you preaching, if anything?
Again you make these unproven assumptions about frying the CNS. Nice theory, which is used to justify other rationalizations.
Besides which, if frying the CNS was really an issue, marathon volume could easily do the same thing, even without going to failure.
Again you make these unproven assumptions about frying the CNS. Nice theory, which is used to justify other rationalizations.
Besides which, if frying the CNS was really an issue, marathon volume could easily do the same thing, even without going to failure.
no because it wouldnt hit the cns as bad.
Again you make these unproven assumptions about frying the CNS. Nice theory, which is used to justify other rationalizations.
Besides which, if frying the CNS was really an issue, marathon volume could easily do the same thing, even without going to failure.
Classic trolling:
1/ Refuses to actually supply detailed info on his supposed HIT training despite repeated requests.
2/ Tries to bend what is said, after making a false assumption about my experience. Nice try ahole.
I never said that, you are trying desperately to create this impression because you get off on being a troll.
2. you're saying you got more experience than mentzer, one of the more experienced in bodybuilding history. that makes me an asshole? how the hell can you claim to have more experience than him? how can you claim him, his brother and a lot more people supporting his ideas and using them, for year and years, we're talking hundreds, if not thousands of people, would rest 7, 10 or even 14 days when they could've stuck with 2-3 days? to this question you have no answer.
I never said that, you are trying desperately to say this in lieu of content, because you get off on being a troll.
Expand in great detail on your HIT training..
"First of all, Mike didn't have way more experience than me,"
This is an actual quote.
Not only do you say that Mike doesn't have way more experience, you also claim that he was wrong in ordering his clients to more rest as the intensity went up, you claim that that extra rest was totally unecessary.
The first serious discussion I've read on here (lol)
I myself have combined elements from all schools, being a high frequency of bodypart training, intensity and volume
I do a push-pull split 2 on-1 off, 1 compound movement per musclegroup per session, 3 sets to failure of which one for each fiber type (6-10, 3-5 and 10-15 reps)
Reason for this combination: I needed intensity to grow but not too much (so no negative failure etc, too taxing), I still needed SOME volume (this comes out to 9 sets per musclegroup every 8 days as you see) and I needed rest too ofcourse so 2 on 1 off was the way to go
You're boring and have nothing of substance to contribute.
I want details of "Bluto's" HIT training..not "i don't think it's optimal" which by itself is as empty as all of his other posts.
Go into detail..no need for me to spell it out.guys come on drop the prestige shit..lets go back to discussing training theory. its not about winning the argument its about bringing opinions to the table.
guys come on drop the prestige shit..lets go back to discussing training theory. its not about winning the argument its about bringing opinions to the table.What planet are you from? I'm asking him for training specifics. DUH!
What planet are you from? I'm asking him for training specifics. DUH!
What planet are you from? I'm asking him for training specifics. DUH!
Slaveboy is quite something. He admonishes me about being a know it all and then pontificates about training like he is a bona fide expert.
The debate between Slaveboy and Pumpster is going nowhere because the terms used are not defined or they might have different meanings. If we reduce this discussion to time under tension then we might be able to come to some agreement about how much tension is required. Intensity is a word that should be discarded when discussing training. It is almost meaningless in most gyms. How much resistance is needed and for how long and then when is it optimal to retrain that muscle? The basics are quite simple yet look at the heated discussions that occur on these boards.
What exactly does training to failure mean? I rather doubt that Jones was right about this requirement but it seemed logical. It appears that just because a theory seems to make sense is no guarantee that it is true.
Let me demonstrate something. Some guys train so 'hard' that they recruit spotters to assist them lift a weight. If this was a requirement of getting huge then no one would be able to get really big without a spotter. That is plainly absurd so it follows that spotters are not necessary. I think this business of training to failure is also probably mistaken. What is required is that the target muscles be stimulated to grow. Whatever is sufficient to stimulate the muscles is adequate. I doubt absolute failure is necessary but it could well be sufficient. Experience suggests that one set will not keep a muscle growing ever bigger. That is a pipedream and a mighty dangerous one, too.
We also have to consider safety when choosing training methods. Some extreme methods are too dangerous because they can lead to muscle tears, etc. I suspect that HIT is probably dangerous for advanced trainees and that is probably why most have discarded such a method.
bluto: what do you think about freqeuncy...i think that once a week is probably not optimal but some guys are taking high frequency too far and wanan do 2 sets of bench press per week 4 days aweek. in my opinion that is taking it to far if your a bodybuilder yuo should have enough volume per training session but not so much that you gotta wait 10 days before training it again. id say working a muscle 2 times aweek with some volume would be good advice to most people. (no failure)
if you wanna keep it simple you can do once a week (per muscle group) but you gotta increase the volume then and really pump the muscle
lol well im a slut but sometimes cock inflamed and you have to use the other head instead:
as for freqeuncy..frequency cant be taken to the absurd. also (same as intensity).i know some people say workout a muscle 3 times a week with low volume and avoid failure. sure im against failure training most of the time too..but..if you try to use too high freqeuncy you will have to lower the volume per training session too much which isnt good either so i think you have to find a happy medium: high enough volume to break down muscle fibers and do it often enough..i personally think once a week training isnt optimal but i dont think one set of bench press per day mon to friday is good eitehr. hope you understand what i mean.
Calves must be contracted as well as hams so their not always there.
Do you currently train with Arnolds system, if so have you noticed your muscles coming alive when you contract them?
Law
ive touched on the subject before that going to failure means the risk of injury increases:ummm.....that's why you rest more if you're doing any type of HIT training, higher intesity=lower volume, more rest, more time to recover. If anyone is stupid enough to train using any of the accepted HIT protocols, like max-ot, BFT, DC or even pure HIT as perscribed by Arthur Jones and don't be mindfull of recovery then of course you're gong to overtrain and get hurt.
"In a recent review Stone et al. (1998) noted that training to failure produces considerable fatigue. Fatigue increases the risk of injury, probably through changes in movement patterns. Additionally, the work of Nimmons et al. (1995) suggests that training to failure and beyond (e.g., forced reps) on a consistent basis can lead to overtraining."
Yes, HIT is crazy. The work involved could really stress some guys out. This type of training is not for everyone.
I've always wondered what it is required of a person's personality to be able to train this way. hmm
Figgs, I have been a fan of Mentzer and his ideas about training since I started lifting in my friend Gaetano's basement in his house in Brooklyn in 1978.did you ever train at that gym that Ferrigno trained at in Pumping Iron, bmacys?
did you ever train at that gym that Ferrigno trained at in Pumping Iron, bmacys?
Figgs, I have been a fan of Mentzer and his ideas about training since I started lifting in my friend Gaetano's basement in his house in Brooklyn in 1978.
He was the guy in the background curling the 10 pounders! 8)i don't think so, Bmacys seems like a fairly strong guy.
i don't think so, Bmacys seems like a fairly strong guy.
that should give you nearly 30 years of experience training mentzer-style, hows that been working out for you? and how many days of rest between training different musclegroups are you up to know?
that should give you nearly 30 years of experience training mentzer-style, hows that been working out for you? and how many days of rest between training different musclegroups are you up to know?
did you ever train at that gym that Ferrigno trained at in Pumping Iron, bmacys?
If you are doing 20 sets per body part and are natural I think you have to be coasting for a few sets. These are sets you could eliminate.
did you ever train at that gym that Ferrigno trained at in Pumping Iron, bmacys?R&J Health Club was just a hole in the wall-Ferrigno only returned there from Gold's to train at the request of George Butler.
depends on what you count by "sets". i usually do around 10 sets of my main lift, but at least seven of them could be called warmups. and if you add up what i do during the week you'd probably tell me i'm overtraining my triceps but you'd be wrong. wednesday i'll do those sets of bench, then incline or some dumbells, then some kind of shoulder pressing. saturday it's close-grip bench, rack lockouts or board presses, sometimes some shirt work, usually standing shoulder presses if i did seated on wednesday, then pressdowns to finish up.
yet, so far i haven't overtrained. amazing.
It is always interesting that guys who look like they don't workout are concerned about over training. They should more concerned with under training.That would possibly mean admitting that it's really about laziness, not "resting the CNS". ::)
It is always interesting that guys who look like they don't workout are concerned about over training. They should more concerned with under training.
Here's the fucking secret motherfuckers: PROGRESSION!!! There is research that shows clearly that the load is the prime factor in hypertrophy. PRIME factor! Not the only factor but the most important factor.You've tried to separate out symbiotic relationships that aren't divisible. Optimal progression & overload require & are enhanced by intensity and failure. They're not separate, which is exactly why the classic term is progressive overload (both words, not one or the other)..
Forget about failure, DOMS, and everything else... do a routine that allows you to increase loads over time using a reasonable volume.
You've got part of it while neglecting other keys. Like the fact that progression & overload require & are enhanced by intensity and failure. They're not separate and divisible, exactly why the classic term is progressive overload (both words, not one or the other)..I go to failure frequently. I do not think something magical happens when you hit that point though. If you get good progression hitting failure frequently then keep doing that. Some may not need to or even start to regress by training too "hard". That's the point.
It ain't happening by going through the motions taking it easy, it requires that the muscles be forced to do more work they're not used to, after which adaptation occurs, called growth.
I go to failure frequently. I do not think something magical happens when you hit that point though. If you get good progression hitting failure frequently then keep doing that. Some may not need to or even start to regress by training too "hard". That's the point.Disagree, because the whole point is to subject the muscles to increasing stress to create adaptation, which isn't happening by going through the motions. Failure is in fact the existing point the muscles can already handle, which must be exceeded to force adaptation. Something like the 20 minute threshold point of cardio, after which time the body starts serious fat-burning.
If you deadlift 500 x 5 and progress to 700 x 5, even if you never hit failure during that period you'll grow just fine.
That point can be argued, though i wouldn't, for the simple fact that it's only through maximal effort that you're absolutely sure that full potential's being realized.Well I can be sure if I start to regress every time I hit absolute failure. If a maximal set always leaves me drained and makes my poundages go down next workout I know it's not a system that allows me to grow the fastest way possible. And don't give me that Mentzer crap about having to lengthen the rest period between workouts if progress slows.
Besides which, it's only through maximal effort that you're absolutely sure that full potential's being realized. Without max. effort, there's no assurance of max. gains, is there? ;DNo you are making an error in thinking here. More efforts doesn't always mean more results.
Well I can be sure if I start to regress every time I hit absolute failure. If a maximal set always leaves me drained and makes my poundages go down next workout I know it's not a system that allows me to grow the fastest way possible. And don't give me that Mentzer crap about having to lengthen the rest period between workouts if progress slows.
If you're really that drained by maxing out take up golf. Others with balls don't have this problem & actually embrace the pain, seriously. Going through the motions with minimal-effort with pumping sets is LAME as well as unathletic.Dude I bet I'm WAY stronger than you and train much harder. I KNOW what hard training is. I'll give an example my deadlift has progressed from 600 x 5 to 660 x 5 the last few months and I only hit failure once, by mistake, during this period. That set where I hit failure was too draining and it set me back 2 weeks.
Dude I bet I'm WAY stronger than you and train much harder. I KNOW what hard training is. I'll give an example my deadlift has progressed from 600 x 5 to 660 x 5 the last few months and I only hit failure once, by mistake, during this period. That set where I hit failure was too draining and it set me back 2 weeks.oh brother, another internet strength god. ::)
i agree. positive failure is my thing. if i miss a lift, that's when the set ends. trying to grind out partials, forced reps, or drop setting had always destroyed me. i can do heavy singles and triples all week long, but it's the whole "absolute failure" thing that's hurt me.Thank you; THIS IS HOW YOU PROGRESS. Otherwise take up golf.
oh brother, another internet strength god. ::)It's true though in my case. ;D If I could trust you I'd even send pics.
It's true though in my case. ;D If I could trust you I'd even send pics.just post them in this thread, block out your face if you need to.
seconded. what could we do that's so terrible with a picture with the face blocked out?Well I had this, which is dark enough to conceal my face. Doing some deficit deads with roughly 600, september 21. The starting point when I was doing 600 x 5 off the floor.
Well I had this, which is dark enough to conceal my face. Doing some deficit deads with roughly 600, september 21. The starting point when I was doing 600 x 5 off the floor.
http://i16.tinypic.com/47aoc3n.jpg
what are those plates? the inner four are all the same and the last one on the end is a 45. so unless those are all goofy weights it isn't 600. still, definitely awesome work pulling 5 plates with that kind of a deficit.They are all 25kg plates (red=25kg, standard color for 25kg, you can see the 25kg marking if you look closely), the outer ones are of a different make. Some no name brand, this is not a hardcore gym so we don't have Eleiko plates etc. So it's 270kg total.
They are all 25kg plates (red=25kg, standard color for 25kg, you can see the 25kg marking if you look closely), the outer ones are of a different make. Some no name brand, this is not a hardcore gym so we don't have Eleiko plates etc. So it's 270kg total.270kg.=595lbs.
270kg.=595lbs.Yes, right. This is a deficit dead though standing on a thick 50kg + 25kg plate, a bit harder than floor pulls. :D
this is a good thread. pumpster getting attacked from all angles. and all he can come up with is that he trains with a bowflex ;DHard to believe that a troll with no life would post more nothingness.
and then we have squadfather using up his 'show a picture'-card and getting owned.
good stuff.
oh brother, another internet strength god. ::)
Myseone, I live in Queens, NY. Shall I challenge you to a leg workout? ;D
Very nice pull bilderass!
Agreed completely abt stopping short of failure also. If increasing the amt of weight lifted is the biggest factor in the long run(or the only thing that matters in a powerlifters case), then I don't see how going after that last rep affects anything except drain out the CNS more. And in your case the opposing argument fails simply because u were able to progress very well on your deadlift without training to failure. IMO, sparing yourself of failure played a part in your incredible progress.
But pumpster doesn't believe in draining out the CNS, he thinks it only takes a couple of days to recover, regardless of how hard you trained or what you did at the gym.I don't know what kind of shape "Bluto's" in but i've never felt drained from it. If i'm lucky there's some DOMS the next day, a good thing, but that's about it. I'll bet Figgs would say same.
Well I had this, which is dark enough to conceal my face. Doing some deficit deads with roughly 600, september 21. The starting point when I was doing 600 x 5 off the floor.
http://i16.tinypic.com/47aoc3n.jpg
The funny thing about "HIT" trainees is that they all look like they've never touched a weight in their life. The only HIT-ers that have any muscle are the hardcore drug users. Sad but true.wow true ownage... so true yet so harsh ;)
The funny thing about "HIT" trainees is that they all look like they've never touched a weight in their life. The only HIT-ers that have any muscle are the hardcore drug users. Sad but true.
I am amazed they let a guy do a heavy deadlift over a wooden floor without thick rubber mats underneath! Good effort for a low deadlift even with straps. Smart to keep both hands without palms foreward. Safer that way.I max a bit more without straps actually. Everyone always says that Ronnie's deads aren't that impressive since he uses straps but grip is not a limiting factor for everyone. I have injured both biceps already so I don't dare use a mixed grip anymore. I hate crouching over setting the straps, would rather "grip and rip". :D
I forgot about Dugdale, another great example. The stuff works.
Even though all these bodybuilders juice, I think that HIT type training is more suited for drug free trainees, because of the recovery factor. I think people freak out when they read Mentzers protocol due to the huge amounts of rest included. mentzers method is only one interpretation of HIT training, just like in the HVT camp Cutler trains differently, than Wheeler or Coleman.
Thank you; THIS IS HOW YOU PROGRESS. Otherwise take up golf.
I don't know what kind of shape "Bluto's" in but i've never felt drained from it. If i'm lucky there's some DOMS the next day, a good thing, but that's about it. I'll bet Figgs would say same.
The funny thing about "HIT" trainees is that they all look like they've never touched a weight in their life. The only HIT-ers that have any muscle are the hardcore drug users. Sad but true.
Funny how quiet it gets after that pic is posted...
lol guys are telling you they progressed well without going to failure and all you do is saying take up golf. lame.
it sounds like a guy who doesnt go to failure isnt a man..even if he makes progress, that proves that your taking this shit to serious ::)
remember people, dont go to failure..it will allow you to workout more often with more volume and thus grow more.
I think Pumpster is claiming that unless the muscles have to do something extraordinary then they won't grow. I remember reading what Arthur Jones wrote in the early 1970s. He discussed which rep actually made a difference. It seemed to make sense that the rep you failed on was the one that benefitted you the most. However, what if you stopped on the rep just before the failed rep? Would that be just as good? I can tell most of the time when I can't do another rep so I stop there. I then continue to do more sets with the maximum resistance. That is the key to hypertrophy as far as I am concerned. Lots of sets with the maximum resistance. No drop sets or forced sets. What you will find is that the reps will drop by about the 3rd maximum set. So I warm up by adding resistance and stop when I can do about 12 to 15 good reps. Then by the 3rd set with this maximum resistance the reps drop to about 8 to 10 which is still good. If you drop to about 5 reps you tend to try to cheat too much to finish the reps. When you start doing that you recruit other muscles to help you finish the set. I superset most exercises so the rest between sets is about 2 to 3 minutes. I find that about 6 maximum sets stimulates growth but I sometimes do a few more sets. I haven't tried this strategy for legs yet but it works great for calves and arms. It remains to be seen what would happen if you kept doing maximum sets for hours on end. I suspect you would grow rapidly, indeed.
HIT training is not suited for drug free trainees, the stress HIT generates (especially on the nervous system) is too much for a natural. Volume training (where one does not go to failure) is much more suited to naturals.
Third, to stop short of failure is basically being a pumper, which is one of the disparagements aimed at BBs in general over the years. It's unimpressive as well as unathletic.
Secondly, how can you be sure that you've trained to full potential if you consistently stop short of failure? You don't know, and can well be limiting potential growth. The only sure thing is that training intensely to failure is maximizing potential.
Third, to stop short of failure is basically being a pumper, which is one of the disparagements aimed at BBs in general over the years. It's unimpressive as well as unathletic.
the discussion has changed from whats most effective to whats most "athletic" ::)Clueless to the reality that training athletically does in fact impart a more athletic look.
Utter, made-up nonsense. Look at sprinter's training, which is one ofj the closest analogies. The heart of sprint training is sprints, each one analogous to a set, done at 100% effort. Could not be clearer.
going to failure is unathletic...as no other professional athletes go to failure (while training that is..and if they do its scheduled...for example the russians call it planned overreaching) as the human body is ment to adapt to an overload yes but its not meant to be totally crushed. if you know anything about how elite athletes train in all other sport you would know that its going to failure that is unathletic. you owned yourself.
there's a shitloads of things that may limit potential growth. maybe you need more variation. more exercises. other angles. cycling. higher reps. lower reps. 1 rep max. more protein. more rest. less rest. more rest between sets. less rest between sets. more volume. less volume. and so on and so on.There are a shitload of things, exactly-and the smart ones (not Bluto, obviously) address all of them to 100% potential. Training until the muscle submits is part of that; doing otherwise falls short of 100% and is lazy.
training to failure means you get less work done in a year. which if anything limits growth. it also increases the chances of injury and fucking with your cns, which could cause your immunesystem to crash making you sick.
i bet a lot of powerlifters etc would call your training program unathletic compared to what they do. why dont you try 100 reps in the legpress, milos sarcev style, and stop at 98 reps and we'll see how unathletic it is. you obviously dont care about results. you dont care about strength. you only care about going to failure at the gym at any weight whatsoever. which means you are as athletic as a 12 year old girl with pink dumbbells - you both go to failure.
so you both athletes.
congratulations!
::)
BS. Look at sprinter's training, which is the closest analogy. The heart of the training is sprints, analogous to sets, done at 100%..not even close...high intensity sure as running marathons would not do anything for sprinters. but that has nothing to do with training to failure. you can mail and ask charlie francis yourself.that he would never take anyone to failure...and how do you do that with sprints anyway lol?. ;D i been to 2-3 seminars where has spoken.OWNED
Neither of these guys has been able to directly refute my points, have only gone into tangents in efforts to deflect. ;)
not even close...high intensity sure as running marathons would not do anything for sprinters. but that has nothing to do with training to failure. you can mail and ask charlie francis yourself.that he would never take anyone to failure...and how do you do that with sprints anyway lol?. ;D i been to 2-3 seminars where has spoken.I've got his book. hahaahahah OWNED Sprinters and other athletes have to go at 100% some of the time to push the envelope and improve. Improvement's not happening at 60% or 80% effort. This is common sense-to some. ::)
I've got his book. hahaahahah OWNED
Next slave will inform us that racecar drivers never go 100% because it will "tax the engines". hahaahahahahaah
Saying it isn't so with no direct proof or details just reinforces my points, which are commonsense (to some). Nothing has been irrefutably proven, especially not 50 years ago you dumbass. hahahaahahahah
lol na your describing what you have done ;) also its been proven already almost 50 years ago that failure training isnt necessary. and its being proved day after day...but please keep doing 3 sets to failure and call yourself athletic...
good and yuo will see that he says nowhere that you need to go to failure..besided sprinting isnt a correct analogy..as i never said you dont need intensity all i said is you dont need to go to failure.Backpeddle. An yes sprinting is an excellent analogy, you've done absolutely nothing to disprove that it is in fact a very good analogy.
not backpeddling..im not sure even what your discussing now. sprinters run..they dont run to failure. they run fast and?? i think everyone understand if a sprinter wants to run fast he has to do the same in training and not run marathons. but still going to failure isnt necessary for muscle building. simple as that.No, you're missing it. The core part of sprint training after warmup is 100% effort sprints-they're not stopping before maximum effort is expended, in fact they're doing everything possible to go beyond 100%.
Clueless to the reality that training athletically does in fact impart a more athletic look.
There are a shitload of things, exactly-and the smart ones (not Bluto, obviously) address all of them to 100% potential. Training until the muscle submits is part of that; doing otherwise falls short of 100% and is lazy.
youre looking for an athletic look? so people can think you actually participate in sports, when in reality all you do is work to failure like any other gym member ::)
lol, he spends all day in the gym lifting weights to look like he doesn't spend all day in the gym lifting weights
classic
pumpster is a freakin' weirdo
i think he changed his goals when he realized working to failure doesnt work so he settled for trying to achieve an "athletic" look instead of adding mass (avoiding failure.). i believe pumpster prefers the famous macho train to failure athletic look. as you can see his results are stunning:
ok we are getting side tracked here...they arent training to failure or total exhaustion or they would be spent fairly quickly and wouldnt be able to train several hours per day (which they do). to get back to bodybuilding lifting to failure isnt necessary to induce growth. not saying that failure training doenst induce growth as it does just saying it smarter no to train to failure as it keeps the cns fresh and allows you to train more often and with more volume. its like widening the opening of a bottle..you can get more water in if you have a wider opening. if you crush the cns with prolonged failure training you will have a real small bottle opening and thus slow the muscle building process. but yes going to failure during planned periods can be good..to push strenght up and "shock" (dont like that expression so much) muscles..but majority of training should be non failure training.
This from a nerd who doesn't like Venice, the place all the greats hung out and loved. haahahahahaahahah
I'm seeing a pattern in these post-lots of the guys here really have nothing of value to say, resort to lame posts about nothing. BORING. ;D
I personally believe that there is much to learn from both HIT and HVT camps, and some one like Labrada or Yates modified the technique in the best way. I use a hybrid form myself currently but I have trained with pure HIT style at various points in my lifting career.
Right now I train about three times a week on non-consecutive days. Each workout takes about 30-35 minutes in length (this is not counting the stretching, 5 minutes of bike that I do before training)
I'll do a couple of warm up sets for my first exercise of a muscle group, to aclimate my body to the heavy work. I'll then set up three exercises for a muscle group. I'll perform the first one with drop sets, negatives, forced reps, etc.. then move to my next exercise immediately do the same there minus the warm up, then move to the next one and do the same thing minus the warm up. So it usually takes only 10-15 minutes to bust up a muscle group. I'll then rest 2 minutes warm up the next muscle group for a set or 2 then hit that.
I don't do many sets, for chest 2-3 warm up sets, then 3 work sets with drops total. For biceps 1 warm up set, 2 work sets total.
For the typical drug free advanced trainee this will work well, for the beginner and intermediate (those with less than 3 years of foundation training) I suggest a straight sets, 2 basic exercises for large muscles and 1 exercise for smaller muscle groups, 1-2 warm ups for each movement, then 1-2 work sets per exercise; training primarily to build strength in the squat, deadlift, chin, dip, chest press, row, and overhead press. Married with rest days, lots of nutritous food, intensity this will make anyone bigger....of course how big you eventually get depends upon your genetics and discipline.
Lawrence
No, you're missing it. The core part of sprint training after warmup is 100% effort sprints-they're not stopping before maximum effort is expended, in fact they're doing everything possible to go beyond 100%.
Before and after those sprints, there will be other sprints at a percentage of full effort, almost like pyramid sets in weight training.
I hear you,
There is a lot of confusion regarding what HIT is, many people confuse what Mentzer was doing later on for HIT taught by Art Jones. Jones tended to advocate higher sets for muscle groups, particualry when a muscle group was being specialized on, up to 5-6 sets. HIT means...brief, brutal, intense, to failure training done infrequently.
Wrong, if you read Arthur Jones Nautilus Bulletins he NEVER advocated more than two sets per exercize.is there a website with these bulletins?
that' why you rest more.....
the guru
I don't understand the limited rest between sets.
Why not rest until the whole muscle is able to perform again? IMO, that makes more sense than rushing between sets.
Few sets, long rests, that's what I like. ;D
-Hedge
Wrong, if you read Arthur Jones Nautilus Bulletins he NEVER advocated more than two sets per exercize.
ok we are getting side tracked here...they arent training to failure or total exhaustion or they would be spent fairly quickly and wouldnt be able to train several hours per day (which they do). to get back to bodybuilding lifting to failure isnt necessary to induce growth. not saying that failure training doenst induce growth as it does just saying it smarter no to train to failure as it keeps the cns fresh and allows you to train more often and with more volume. its like widening the opening of a bottle..you can get more water in if you have a wider opening. if you crush the cns with prolonged failure training you will have a real small bottle opening and thus slow the muscle building process. but yes going to failure during planned periods can be good..to push strenght up and "shock" (dont like that expression so much) muscles..but majority of training should be non failure training.
HIT theory is applied by extreme logic. Lots of things in this life are based on extreme logic. Problem is, life isn't based on logic. It works of some things and not others.
None of these bastards built their solid muscle by starting off with a 100%, non-waivering, exclusive HIT program. They already had their base. At that point, with the right amount of "assistance" just showing up to the gym would work. I don't give a shit what rep scheme you worked out.
There are so many, and they all work to some extent. Ironically enough, nobody can prove anything objectively, hence, the un-ending, un-exhaustible subjects and books.
Get u dumbass to the gym. Do it consistently. Stop flappin your lips and faggin off. Eat, sleep and shit. It will all work out, eventually.
Mentzer and his Jones-like theories are great for reading entertainment. For everyone of his logical factoids, there is someone in direct opposition to him and his "theories" that is huge and ripped.
STFU on this conversation already. He's dead. He's not even here to change his fucking mind.
I would never be so bold (or ignorant) as to insinuate that Mike Mentzer did not have a huge and positive (no pun intended) impact on the bodybuilding world by way of an "exacting" science.
The question was: "How far would you take it?"
He eventually (as stated) had his (short-term) lab rats doing next to nothing and coming back for their next sessions almost a month later. He became to extreme, fanatical, and dogmatic in his approach.
I have never met a big and ripped up Pro BB who follows his advice as it was written. Most logical and realistic folks have pulled what wisdom they could from his theories (or "science" as he called it)- and they have added what they know works; which is basically: more volume.
Combined volume, consistency and intensity are a good combination. Add some emphasis on the eccentric portion of the rep, and I think you've got a recipe for success.
Regardless of all the reality; someone is still making a shitload of money off of his writings and philosophies.