Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: oldtimer1 on July 25, 2019, 08:06:59 PM
-
I admit I have been brain washed. When Arthur Jones broke on the scene he used Ironman magazine to deliver his message. I think I still have almost everything he wrote in it. I have his original Bulletin book that was put together with staples. His message ran true with this impressionable kid back in the day. I wanted to try Nautilus machines in the worst way but they were relatively rare back then and sick expensive for the times. Some gyms might have had a machine or two but I wanted to do real Nautilus training like he recommended. My first year in college they had a weight room. I was a walk on sprinter on the track team. The coach knew me and wanted me on the team. I spend a lot of time in the weight room. Then it was closed for a week for renovations. When they opened it they had 12 pristine Nautilus machines. I didn't train pure Nautilus but a combo in the weight room. I found many of the machines were fantastic but some were just okay.
Then Mentzer broke on the scene. His first article in a Weider mag he wrote he train three days a week. Starting from the biggest body part to the smallest. While he trained with a combo of Nautilus and conventional. He used 5 sets per body part. Not 5 sets an exercise. He made quite a wave going against the usual four to five sets an exercise. He even bragged at the rate he was growing he would be better than Arnold soon.
Casey used the same three day type routine using again a combo of conventional and Nautilus prior to Mentzer using intensity methods. Casey sometimes was using pure Nautilus but usually using a combo.
Other Intensity guys like Dave Mastorakis was using almost only Nautilus and sticking to true one set to failure. Another was John Cardillo Mr. Canada was a one set to failure guy. The most famous of them all was Dorian Yates who after warm up did one work set to failure.
I have been doing one to two sets to failure for ages. Not the most pleasant way to train. When doing two work sets if the first set was terminated at 10 reps I might have been able to get 12-14 reps. The second set is a true 10 reps to failure. One set to failure when I do a routine similar to Yates is really brutal. Truly taking one set to failure is a sick way to train. It taxes the brain, spirit and body to a sick level. Many times I feel my CNS system is fried sometimes to the point of mental depression. I know guys like Danny Padilla said he tried it. His words in effect was that it was scary and he did give it his all but he didn't see the same results as volume. Bill Pearl said if you train to failure all the time you will need time off for exhaustion often. He said in effect that training longevity is an important part of training. Imagine if a coach said to a mile track runner we are going to use the Arthur Jones method. Every training day we will run a mile and we will try to beat the time each training day recorded in our training journal. Sounds like insanity. Yet, this is what is being preached by HIT fanatics for weight trainers. Another point there is no true definition of HIT. Some say one set to failure. Some say three sets to failure. There is no one accepted way to train with HIT regarding frequency either. If intensity was the magic bullet wouldn't we be training with one set of one rep?
Guys that truly follow the "religion" of Arthur Jones and intensity normally start off training three days a week with maybe 12 exercises. Then as fatigue and the hell of training gets too brutal they take it down to twice a week. Then once every 5 days. Then further reduce it to maybe 4 or 6 exercises from their original 12. Their routines are so hellish they think they have reached their genetic potential and now what they need is more rest.
Intensity is really hard on the mind. I know more than once after going to failure the owner of the gym has come up to me and asked me if I was alright as I held on to something breathing like a race horse. One slob who is a bench and curl guy accused me of being out of shape. He said after every set you look like you are about to pass out. That in a nut shell is the difference between training to failure and doing a set well within your capabilities.
One thing that drives me insane are HIT fanatics that say volume guys don't train hard. In the running world you would never hear a 100 meter track guy say the 5K runner is a slacker. It's apples to oranges and the 100 meter guys knows how hard the 5K guy trains even though it's not as intense. I speculate that's one of the reasons Arnold wasn't fond of Mentzer was he would say stuff like Arnold doesn't train hard and Arnold trained like a beast back in the day. No he didn't use low sets.
My intentions weren't to bring up a volume vs HIT debate. I think both should be used. I think a bodybuilder's muscle is best built through muscular endurance training and that's what volume is. Having said that it's important to red line the intensity from time to time too. I think since Yates left I can't name a current pro training like him. It seems all pros use volume now.
-
If you want to lift after 40 natty you better be doing mostly volume.
-
Dave Mastorakis and Tracy (and Her Dad "Red") are dear friends of mine.
Dave has a nice basement gym, he still trains people in that fashion (at home and at a local gym).
A guy from Germany came in recently to visit Dave (writing a book) to get info about Mike Mentzer (Dave & Mike were best friends).
Will be a great book...
-
There was a Nautilus gym my wife trained at pre-wedding.
They did the circuit with one set to failure. Took about 30 minutes.
Best my wife has ever looked body-wise.
32 years ago.
Those gyms are not around anymore.
-
There was a Nautilus gym my wife trained at pre-wedding.
They did the circuit with one set to failure. Took about 30 minutes.
Best my wife has ever looked body-wise.
32 years ago.
Those gyms are not around anymore.
Surprisingly there was a pure Nautilus and MedX gym in Belmar NJ as recent as 10 years ago. My job sent me and a couple of other guys there to go through a high intensity workout about 15 years ago. The guy had me do about 6 exercises to failure with many forced reps. In between each set he had me sprint on an exercise bike. I think he was trying to show how he could make in shape guys pass out. At the end I was about to puke. The guy who owned the place was a high priest of Arthur Jones. He tolerated no other method of training as being a valid way to train. He was fond of saying his way was the only scientific way to train. I think his membership was dwindling. It's gone and I think he moved to Florida. What happened to all his equipment that really was a shrine to Arthur Jones I have no idea.
-
I`ve known Dave Mastorakis since I was a kid and have seen him train daily at the Springfield Mass. YMCA back in the day.
He and the others that you`ve mentioned had all used volume training to initially build their size/physiques.
I think the few hard sets helped to just maintain their muscle that they built using volume...plus they were all on gear.
HIT is great,as is volume, but you have to find which best suits you as an individual.
-
kyomu is the local getbig expert on taking it to the failure.
-
I prefer multiple sets with the same weight, once I switched from one set to failure in the 8-10 rep range which I had done for years to 3 sets of 5 with the same weight I finally started getting somewhere. A weight you could do for eight reps to failure you could do for 3 sets of 5 approaching failure on the lat set almost doubling the volume and time under tension with the same weight and you still get to hit near failure on the last set, can even take it to failure if desired
-
I prefer multiple sets with the same weight, once I switched from one set to failure in the 8-10 rep range which I had done for years to 3 sets of 5 with the same weight I finally started getting somewhere. A weight you could do for eight reps to failure you could do for 3 sets of 5 approaching failure on the lat set almost doubling the volume and time under tension with the same weight and you still get to hit near failure on the last set, can even take it to failure if desired
Sounds good.
I was at my biggest and strongest doing a hybrid of DC training with some Mentzerisms thrown in (e.g., training each body part directly once weekly, rotating through two, not three, main exercises per body part but using the Dante-style rest-pausing, followed by a high rep "widowmaker" for said part), but the mental drain would quickly set in. Even though I have an eidetic memory, I kept detailed training logs, and knowing I had to beat the previous session (yeah, with the advantage of 250 mg. Test E and the occasional six week bout of 20 mg. of Dbol) was daunting.
I was very happy with the results. My pecs grew so much that I could literally feel gravity pulling them down. And Mentzer-style training had served me very well in my younger days, natty, but I won't go into that. Suffice to say, if someone had shown me, early on, the utility of shying back from failure to lift a bit heavier on a per-set basis, I probably would have enjoyed some fresh gains before surgery took me out of serious lifting forever.
-
Sounds good.
I was at my biggest and strongest doing a hybrid of DC training with some Mentzerisms thrown in (e.g., training each body part directly once weekly, rotating through two, not three, main exercises per body part but using the Dante-style rest-pausing, followed by a high rep "widowmaker" for said part), but the mental drain would quickly set in. Even though I have an eidetic memory, I kept detailed training logs, and knowing I had to beat the previous session (yeah, with the advantage of 250 mg. Test E and the occasional six week bout of 20 mg. of Dbol) was daunting.
I was very happy with the results. My pecs grew so much that I could literally feel gravity pulling them down. And Mentzer-style training had served me very well in my younger days, natty, but I won't go into that. Suffice to say, if someone had shown me, early on, the utility of shying back from failure to lift a bit heavier on a per-set basis, I probably would have enjoyed some fresh gains before surgery took me out of serious lifting forever.
Training logs after ten years or more of training are a hindrance to good training. How can you train knowing last week you got 8 reps and after decades you are going to get 9 reps? Why not train knowing if you have an off day still hitting the gym is a positive and not a negative. Sure train to do your best but if you get 7 reps it's still a positive. I have decades of training logs. I finally got rid of them and have made better gains. If you are new to training say your first 5 to 10 years. Yes, keep training logs. Compete against what you have done. No one can get stronger every workout or even every year. For many switching to training for muscular endurance will be a new goal rather than strength.
-
I prefer multiple sets with the same weight, once I switched from one set to failure in the 8-10 rep range which I had done for years to 3 sets of 5 with the same weight I finally started getting somewhere. A weight you could do for eight reps to failure you could do for 3 sets of 5 approaching failure on the lat set almost doubling the volume and time under tension with the same weight and you still get to hit near failure on the last set, can even take it to failure if desired
Some wisdom here. One set of failure using 10 reps or five sets of 10 reps which equals 50 reps? I think a bodybuilder's muscle is best built through muscular endurance rather than strength. If getting stronger was the magic bullet to bigger muscles we would all be training with sets of 1 rep to 3 reps. I think a guy will have better triceps and chest doing 5 sets of dips than a guy doing one set of dips to failure.
-
Have always enjoyed your posts Rich, both here and on a few other forums over the years, however, it seems you have been torn over the intensity Vs volume conundrum for a long time now.
Have you ever given cumulative fatigue type training, like Padilla's approach, an honest try for 3 or 4 months?
-
I switched from training to failure on one set to three sets of five at about 90% effort. I do this twice a week and the first day of every week I increase the weight if I can do three full sets of five. This is the old 5×5 method of Reg Park and it seems to work well- I’ve surpassed the weights I maxed out on HIT. The real advantage is mental- going to failure burns me out after a while.
-
Have always enjoyed your posts Rich, both here and on a few other forums over the years, however, it seems you have been torn over the intensity Vs volume conundrum for a long time now.
Have you ever given cumulative fatigue type training, like Padilla's approach, an honest try for 3 or 4 months?
Truth be told, no. When I was around 18 I did for a few months but that wasn't a good test. I like your description of cumulative fatigue training. We have feeder, dog crap, HST, German volume training and if you market your Cumulative fatigue training you could have a following, LOL. In all seriousness I think what my objection to volume training like Padilla, Pearl, Priest and all the rest is that the weights I would use would be pathetic. It would hurt my ego to do benches with 5 sets of 12. The weight would have to be super light. I guess training in my basement no one would be able to see the light weights. ;D Maybe lower reps would be better for me like 5 sets of 8.
-
If you want to lift after 40 natty you better be doing mostly volume.
x2
-
If you want to lift after 40 natty you better be doing mostly volume.
Nah. I'm over 50 doing variations of HIT. If you're natty you're less prone to injuries.
-
Nah. I'm over 50 doing variations of HIT. If you're natty you're less prone to injuries.
This ^.
I think Mentzer was right but with his original variation of H.I.T. wherein he did (can't exactly recall) 5 or 6 sets per bodypart. The main thing to keep in mind is that when on shitloads of drugs, pretty much anything works because you don't have to.
-
The main thing to keep in mind is that when on shitloads of drugs, pretty much anything works because you don't have to.
Bodybuilding Truth.
-
Have always enjoyed your posts Rich, both here and on a few other forums over the years, however, it seems you have been torn over the intensity Vs volume conundrum for a long time now.
Have you ever given cumulative fatigue type training, like Padilla's approach, an honest try for 3 or 4 months?
Can you give a cliffs notes version of the difference between these 3? I’d like to maybe try something different. I’ve been doing the same for nearly 20 years.
-
Training logs after ten years or more of training are a hindrance to good training. How can you train knowing last week you got 8 reps and after decades you are going to get 9 reps? Why not train knowing if you have an off day still hitting the gym is a positive and not a negative. Sure train to do your best but if you get 7 reps it's still a positive. I have decades of training logs. I finally got rid of them and have made better gains. If you are new to training say your first 5 to 10 years. Yes, keep training logs. Compete against what you have done. No one can get stronger every workout or even every year. For many switching to training for muscular endurance will be a new goal rather than strength.
That makes sense, but I don't fully agree. It seems like a false dilemma.
However, that is my fault for focusing unduly on my pre-workout anxiety, chasing strength gains and the like.
On the other hand, while no one can make quantifiable strength gains workout after workout, year in, year out, didn't you keep track of things other than sets and reps? Aches, pains, injuries? General strength/growth *trends* as opposed to looking at individual workouts? Looking back over logs to see if that brief bout of training method X was as good or bad as you remembered? How much better things were when you were getting laid regularly vs. not? :) Effect of supplements and other stuff, wink wink?
By the by, while I do love a certain brand of low volume training, I totally agree that something more endurance-oriented is a great way to train. I actually started dabbling with such things before my surgeries/subsequent hernia, like Gironda's 8x8.
But that's neither here nor there :)
-
Most important thing is progressive overload. Experiment and find what works for you. A general rule: you can do high volume or failure, but you can't do both.
-
In the old Muscle Builder and Power or maybe Ironman mag they did a feature on Dave M called
" The mechanized man" which featured his high intensity , mostly naut machine based training . I believe he won the AAU Mr New England BEFORE high intensity .
I think he won this before the HIT training BUT he claimed his new HIT training would launch him to a new level.
Not sure what happened, but I don't think he ever won another big show again.
I have that article in my basement. I clearly remember it.
-
I’ve always preferred a good mix of strength (lower reps) and high volume pump sets after until exhaustion.
-
Whatever gives me a pump and by that I mean mental and physical. Because if my mind isn't in it, nothing else will be. I remember training twice a day for six days a week and wondering why I didn't get results like the "champions". Of course visiting the original Gold's Gym provided me the answer via Robby Robinson who was the first to let me in on the truth.
It's said you can train long or you can train hard but you can't do both. Hah! When you are on drugs, you can train almost any old way and watch the results almost daily. It took me years to build my leg strength but I watched a good friend increase his bench press 50 pounds over a weekend without training but just taking 3 Dianabol a day. That was all I needed to know Robinson wasn't joking.
Seeing the champs of the 70s during their "off time" showed me their results, while not a joke, were not permanent. But they knew and accepted it like men. Robby was one of the first guys I recall trying to stay in shape year 'round. If I remember correctly, he had "heart" problems that were claimed to be "congenital".
Nothings permanent, I know. But the satisfaction of doing it as best you can is going to have to be close enough for some of us. I do not begrudge those here that take steroids as I seriously doubt they're bloated pigs like the chumps of the past couple of decades. They know it's even more temporary than what naturals build and I think that many of them are honorable men. For those on HRT, I applaud and envy you. I am still not a candidate due to health problems but from what I've been told by my doctors 1cc every two weeks is only going to make you feel and sleep better. Shit...I am an old fool that just rambles on sometimes. ;D
-
Most important thing is progressive overload. Experiment and find what works for you. A general rule: you can do high volume or failure, but you can't do both.
Very true for a new trainer. For someone with a decade or more hard training getting stronger isn't always isn't an option. Generally through volume gaining muscular endurance can be progressive for a longer period than progression in pure strength for a long time trainer. Of course drug use changes the rules.
Regarding volume and failure it becomes a cumulative fatigue situation like someone else said earlier in this thread. A hit guy might do military presses to failure for one work set after a non fatiguing warm up set. He might do that one work set and fail at say 9 reps.
Now take this example of volume and failure. A guy does 5 sets of 12 reps in the military press. The first set he gets 12 reps but could have gotten 16 or more reps. His second set after 30 seconds to 45 seconds he gets 12 reps but he could have 14 reps. Third set he gets 12 reps but could have gotten 13 reps. His fourth he gets 12 reps and that's to failure. His last set he fails at 9 reps. Failure is still a part of his training but it's more of a muscular endurance type training.
Bill Pearl was very against any training to failure. He said in effect if this tool is used too often it will lead to exhaustion and then will lead to a trainer taking time off to recover physically and mentally. He further said in effect that training longevity is a very important part of training. I interpreted this as three months of uninterrupted training is better than taking every exercise to failure then needing a week off of training after three weeks due to exhaustion.
In the end when considering "science" is that it's very hard to do studies. You can't measure a person's work ethic in terms of effort. Personal genetic potential is another problem. In the end we don't have training facts, we have training theories. If we had training facts we all would be on the same training routine because "science" says this is he optimal way to the best path to Nirvana. If anyone claims to have all the answers realize you are talking to a fool. On a side note I never dismiss empirical knowledge when it comes to training.
-
Y
Very true for a new trainer. For someone with a decade or more hard training getting stronger isn't always isn't an option. Generally through volume gaining muscular endurance can be progressive for a longer period than progression in pure strength for a long time trainer. Of course drug use changes the rules.
Regarding volume and failure it becomes a cumulative fatigue situation like someone else said earlier in this thread. A hit guy might do military presses to failure for one work set after a non fatiguing warm up set. He might do that one work set and fail at say 9 reps.
Now take this example of volume and failure. A guy does 5 sets of 12 reps in the military press. The first set he gets 12 reps but could have gotten 16 or more reps. His second set after 30 seconds to 45 seconds he gets 12 reps but he could have 14 reps. Third set he gets 12 reps but could have gotten 13 reps. His fourth he gets 12 reps and that's to failure. His last set he fails at 9 reps. Failure is still a part of his training but it's more of a muscular endurance type training.
Bill Pearl was very against any training to failure. He said in effect if this tool is used too often it will lead to exhaustion and then will lead to a trainer taking time off to recover physically and mentally. He further said in effect that training longevity is a very important part of training. I interpreted this as three months of uninterrupted training is better than taking every exercise to failure then needing a week off of training after three weeks due to exhaustion.
In the end when considering "science" is that it's very hard to do studies. You can't measure a person's work ethic in terms of effort. Personal genetic potential is another problem. In the end we don't have training facts, we have training theories. If we had training facts we all would be on the same training routine because "science" says this is he optimal way to the best path to Nirvana. If anyone claims to have all the answers realize you are talking to a fool. On a side note I never dismiss empirical knowledge when it comes to training.
doing 12 reps with only 30 second breaks will be super light training only good for calorie burning
-
Ydoing 12 reps with only 30 second breaks will be super light training only good for calorie burning
Seen some very ripped strong military and fighters who do only bodyweight exercises. High reps and little rest. They are built, ripped, explosive and if you fought them you would say they are strong.
-
If you want to lift after 40 natty you better be doing mostly volume.
Ok, but why? There is a recent study which proves that you get best results by training muscles only once per week, so why volume? Short and heavy training sessions once per week for every muscle group would be optime, regardless the age. Of course there will be some preconditions, like you have to know what you are doing, but there isn't any real reason why older guys or natty's should do volumetraining..
And what about this intensity- thing? Let me explain: years back when they start to popularize bodybuilding to be a hobby of the masses, they try to explain key factors of the sport to the people which weren't capable to understand these little details. They try to explain that for the best gains you should have mind-muscle connection, you should be able to feel the muscles and have understanding how they work. All this "futile crap" which was all over the magazines back in the day. Intensity, that frightening word, pain barrier etc. All this was labelled as futile crap by the masses of ignorant fools, and because of that it fade a way from the gyms and get overpowered by brosciense. In reality, if you want to optimize your training, you need all that futile crap and then some. You need:
1. muscle & mind connection
2. you should feel how your muscles work and know what they are ment to do
3. you have to train with intensity
4. you have to use good range of motion and good posture
5. you have work as hard as you can, and more
6. you have to be able to go beyond your pain barrier.
All this, every and all of the time, and plenty of recovery, and it adds up to great gains. Of course it is just futile crap, because you guys know things better, as you do always and every time. ;D
-
Ok, but why? There is a recent study which proves that you get best results by training muscles only once per week, so why volume? Short and heavy training sessions once per week for every muscle group would be optime, regardless the age. Of course there will be some preconditions, like you have to know what you are doing, but there isn't any real reason why older guys or natty's should do volumetraining..
And what about this intensity- thing? Let me explain: years back when they start to popularize bodybuilding to be a hobby of the masses, they try to explain key factors of the sport to the people which weren't capable to understand these little details. They try to explain that for the best gains you should have mind-muscle connection, you should be able to feel the muscles and have understanding how they work. All this "futile crap" which was all over the magazines back in the day. Intensity, that frightening word, pain barrier etc. All this was labelled as futile crap by the masses of ignorant fools, and because of that it fade a way from the gyms and get overpowered by brosciense. In reality, if you want to optimize your training, you need all that futile crap and then some. You need:
1. muscle & mind connection
2. you should feel how your muscles work and know what they are ment to do
3. you have to train with intensity
4. you have to use good range of motion and good posture
5. you have work as hard as you can, and more
6. you have to be able to go beyond your pain barrier.
All this, every and all of the time, and plenty of recovery, and it adds up to great gains. Of course it is just futile crap, because you guys know things better, as you do always and every time. ;D
Good post and I think this pretty much nails it.
I remember reading last year that lighter weight/pump type training works well for steroid users as the body is in a constant state of protein synthesis, however, when natural, you're relying on your workouts to trigger this and the higher level of tension from using heavier weights is of much greater importance.
-
Ok, but why? There is a recent study which proves that you get best results by training muscles only once per week, so why volume? Short and heavy training sessions once per week for every muscle group would be optime, regardless the age. Of course there will be some preconditions, like you have to know what you are doing, but there isn't any real reason why older guys or natty's should do volumetraining..
And what about this intensity- thing? Let me explain: years back when they start to popularize bodybuilding to be a hobby of the masses, they try to explain key factors of the sport to the people which weren't capable to understand these little details. They try to explain that for the best gains you should have mind-muscle connection, you should be able to feel the muscles and have understanding how they work. All this "futile crap" which was all over the magazines back in the day. Intensity, that frightening word, pain barrier etc. All this was labelled as futile crap by the masses of ignorant fools, and because of that it fade a way from the gyms and get overpowered by brosciense. In reality, if you want to optimize your training, you need all that futile crap and then some. You need:
1. muscle & mind connection
2. you should feel how your muscles work and know what they are ment to do
3. you have to train with intensity
4. you have to use good range of motion and good posture
5. you have work as hard as you can, and more
6. you have to be able to go beyond your pain barrier.
All this, every and all of the time, and plenty of recovery, and it adds up to great gains. Of course it is just futile crap, because you guys know things better, as you do always and every time. ;D
I have lifted with intensity and one bodypart a week for over 40 years with few exceptions. I lift with a full range of motion concentrating on the muscle worked. I train as hard as I can and I have a really good work ethic.
If intensity was the magic bullet wouldn't we train in the most intense way we possibly could? That would be sets of one rep then taking days off. We all know that won't work optimally. When someone says they have science backing their position is someone that only thinks they have the answers. We have training theories and not training facts. Again I never discount empirical knowledge. Studies are severely flawed. Often too few people involved. No way to tell the persons work ethics during workouts. On top of it the genetic potential of the individuals are different. Another factor are some experienced lifters or those new to training? So many parameters are never a concern with these bs studies.
Many have had the best muscle growth with muscular endurance training and the best results happen when the workouts are repeated often. Fans of HIT like to say incredulous stuff that Arnold, Paddilla, Dickerson would have been better if they only trained with HIT. What proof it there of this? Their hero Casey Viator had his best ever condition for the London Olympia. He was observed by many using volume of over 15 sets per body part and he repeated the body parts yes, more than once a week.
I'm old and a pure natural. No so called therapeutic testosterone even. I train body parts again once a week with a few sets to failure. Right now I'm taking a break and lifting light but using slow reps to make up for the lack of weight. I know I look muscular and way better than I should for my age and natural condition. One thing for sure. Be very wary of taking advice from drug users. Ask yourself how they would look completely clean for six months? By clean I mean even without therapeutic testosterone. I guarantee you the body they would have would not lead you to the conclusion that this is someone that you should take training advice from.
-
Seen some very ripped strong military and fighters who do only bodyweight exercises. High reps and little rest. They are built, ripped, explosive and if you fought them you would say they are strong.
this is true but u werent saying that
-
You need volume training every set to failure. Only but so much intensity u can put to a set..... The over emotional psyching out screaming level of intensity is just a drama show
-
Ok, but why? There is a recent study which proves that you get best results by training muscles only once per week, so why volume? Short and heavy training sessions once per week for every muscle group would be optime, regardless the age. Of course there will be some preconditions, like you have to know what you are doing, but there isn't any real reason why older guys or natty's should do volumetraining..
And what about this intensity- thing? Let me explain: years back when they start to popularize bodybuilding to be a hobby of the masses, they try to explain key factors of the sport to the people which weren't capable to understand these little details. They try to explain that for the best gains you should have mind-muscle connection, you should be able to feel the muscles and have understanding how they work. All this "futile crap" which was all over the magazines back in the day. Intensity, that frightening word, pain barrier etc. All this was labelled as futile crap by the masses of ignorant fools, and because of that it fade a way from the gyms and get overpowered by brosciense. In reality, if you want to optimize your training, you need all that futile crap and then some. You need:
1. muscle & mind connection
2. you should feel how your muscles work and know what they are ment to do
3. you have to train with intensity
4. you have to use good range of motion and good posture
5. you have work as hard as you can, and more
6. you have to be able to go beyond your pain barrier.
All this, every and all of the time, and plenty of recovery, and it adds up to great gains. Of course it is just futile crap, because you guys know things better, as you do always and every time. ;D
7. you need a focus
8. you need a wide variety of excersices to confuse your muscles at time to time
9. you need a drive which keep you going day after day, week after week etc.
And if you miss some of these points, you end up here arguing how useless these facts are, because you did everything right, and didn't manage to gain anything but fat.. ;D
-
I have lifted with intensity and one bodypart a week for over 40 years with few exceptions. I lift with a full range of motion concentrating on the muscle worked. I train as hard as I can and I have a really good work ethic.
If intensity was the magic bullet wouldn't we train in the most intense way we possibly could? That would be sets of one rep then taking days off. We all know that won't work optimally. When someone says they have science backing their position is someone that only thinks they have the answers. We have training theories and not training facts. Again I never discount empirical knowledge. Studies are severely flawed. Often too few people involved. No way to tell the persons work ethics during workouts. On top of it the genetic potential of the individuals are different. Another factor are some experienced lifters or those new to training? So many parameters are never a concern with these bs studies.
Many have had the best muscle growth with muscular endurance training and the best results happen when the workouts are repeated often. Fans of HIT like to say incredulous stuff that Arnold, Paddilla, Dickerson would have been better if they only trained with HIT. What proof it there of this? Their hero Casey Viator had his best ever condition for the London Olympia. He was observed by many using volume of over 15 sets per body part and he repeated the body parts yes, more than once a week.
I'm old and a pure natural. No so called therapeutic testosterone even. I train body parts again once a week with a few sets to failure. Right now I'm taking a break and lifting light but using slow reps to make up for the lack of weight. I know I look muscular and way better than I should for my age and natural condition. One thing for sure. Be very wary of taking advice from drug users. Ask yourself how they would look completely clean for six months? By clean I mean even without therapeutic testosterone. I guarantee you the body they would have would not lead you to the conclusion that this is someone that you should take training advice from.
So you say, and I can't argue with that. You are right, and there isn't any point to deny that, what comes your own life and experiences. Power to you, sir..
I know lot of bodybuilders who say just same: lot of experience, great technique and range of motion, even greater work ethic, and that intensity, ahh that is something you don't believe, oh my god is this possible at all..And at the gym, when I show them for example, some supersets for thighs and make them put all effort to these sets, they tell me that they haven't feel pain like that ever. They call me days later and tell me that they can't walk, because their thighs are so sore. I wonder how this is possible, if they are training hard etc. all the time? By any means, they should be used to feel some soreness after good workout?
Point is that there is a great difference if you decide what "doing reps to the failure" means, or if I decide it for you, and make you work bit harder. Most of us doesn't have that experience at all, so they can't understand how important it is to be able to give all you got. Most of us think that failure means that point, where you don't want do more reps because you feel some discomfort. What it really means is the point where you are sure that you die at any minute, and you see world through the red haze. Only few have been there, and that's why there is so few successful bodybuilders. Mankind has built-in hormone production accelerator, and it is called fear of dying, so how about using it for your benefit? ;D
-
So you say, and I can't argue with that. You are right, and there isn't any point to deny that, what comes your own life and experiences. Power to you, sir..
I know lot of bodybuilders who say just same: lot of experience, great technique and range of motion, even greater work ethic, and that intensity, ahh that is something you don't believe, oh my god is this possible at all..And at the gym, when I show them for example, some supersets for thighs and make them put all effort to these sets, they tell me that they haven't feel pain like that ever. They call me days later and tell me that they can't walk, because their thighs are so sore. I wonder how this is possible, if they are training hard etc. all the time? By any means, they should be used to feel some soreness after good workout?
Point is that there is a great difference if you decide what "doing reps to the failure" means, or if I decide it for you, and make you work bit harder. Most of us doesn't have that experience at all, so they can't understand how important it is to be able to give all you got. Most of us think that failure means that point, where you don't want do more reps because you feel some discomfort. What it really means is the point where you are sure that you die at any minute, and you see world through the red haze. Only few have been there, and that's why there is so few successful bodybuilders. Mankind has built-in hormone production accelerator, and it is called fear of dying, so how about using it for your benefit? ;D
Again is training to failure the magic bullet? I know I train hard. I see what the crowd is doing in the commercial gym I go to. I see the incredible delusional cheating of the mob doing partial everything so they can use a "man's" weight when in reality physics 101 dictate that a weight moved a greater distance is more work. On another side note Olympic lifters and Power lifters rarely train to failure. Normally at the end of their training cycle are their failure reps.
Gurus of HIT like Jones, Mentzer, Darden, and Viator all were adamant about training body parts three times a week. Mentzer and Viator both won the Mr. America contest doing whole body routines three times a week. Darden preached body parts three times a year for a long time. Jones eventually said as you progress twice a week is best.
In the end the whole a stronger muscle is bigger muscle is not the entire truth. Many have found including most professional bodybuilders that training for endurance in the form of muscular endurance not to be confused with aerobic endurance builds muscle the best. Is the guy doing a bench for 225lbs for failure at 8 reps doing more work than a guy using 185lbs for 5 sets of 8?
Lifting again will never be rocket science no matter how many snake oil sales men would want you to believe. It's literally picking stuff up and putting it down like the commercial says.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Gtdr3FM3/buttsile.png)
-
Not sure the whole premise of intensity as it relates to bodybuilding has ever been sound. The total work expenditure would be the same given the elementary formula of Intensity as
Δp)22ρvw I = ( Δ p ) 2 2 ρ v w .
This of course given that power would be Work/Time. Here you're using watts as a measure of energy and power however I think joules would be the same.
I think the problem is simply looking at it through displacement, where the frequency of energy changes but again the total energy(and resultant damage to the muscle) would be the same.
But the constants as far as output would remain the same we are only talking about the MEDIUM. THe medium with which the force is exerted. Look at the basic equation in terms of energy through the medium or
½(ρA)(4π2f2∆s2) = 2π2ρAf2∆s2
This idea that intensity is the sole measure of bodybuilding training just makes no sense. Even talk about mass in terms of energy output and you get
m = ρV = ρAλ
The mass would be sort of total muscle gain. So the MEDIUM of a guy 6 foot 5 ia different than a guy 5 foot 6, but muscle mass is not necessarily different.
But the macho guy with the massive weights is simply training in a different style, he is not necessarily putting more energy(or power requirements) on the muscle.
-
Not sure the whole premise of intensity as it relates to bodybuilding has ever been sound. The total work expenditure would be the same given the elementary formula of Intensity as
Δp)22ρvw I = ( Δ p ) 2 2 ρ v w .
This of course given that power would be Work/Time. Here you're using watts as a measure of energy and power however I think joules would be the same.
I think the problem is simply looking at it through displacement, where the frequency of energy changes but again the total energy(and resultant damage to the muscle) would be the same.
But the constants as far as output would remain the same we are only talking about the MEDIUM. THe medium with which the force is exerted. Look at the basic equation in terms of energy through the medium or
½(ρA)(4π2f2∆s2) = 2π2ρAf2∆s2
This idea that intensity is the sole measure of bodybuilding training just makes no sense. Even talk about mass in terms of energy output and you get
m = ρV = ρAλ
The mass would be sort of total muscle gain. So the MEDIUM of a guy 6 foot 5 ia different than a guy 5 foot 6, but muscle mass is not necessarily different.
But the macho guy with the massive weights is simply training in a different style, he is not necessarily putting more energy(or power requirements) on the muscle.
LOL, this reminds me when I was told an employee of Nautilus said the cam designs were arbitrary on the machines and do not match any muscle curve. If my memory serves me Jones hired a mathematician who came out with a lot of formulas but didn't assign a values to any of the formulas. What he put out was in effect valueless to come to any conclusion but to the clueless it appeared to be rocket science. At the time I showed all the formulas to my daughter who is a doctor in the sciences what she thought of the formulas concerning the cam. She said they were valueless because some of them couldn't apply to the question posed, does the cam match the muscle strength curve and other formulas weren't assigned any values to come to a conclusion. The Physics formula you used is one I recognized. m = ρV = ρAλ. It's used with sound waves or better shock waves. If you would have used
W = W
m2 m2
I might have been snowed because it concerns Watts per square meter concerning density. Also we must concern our self with the velocity of the rep with K = ½mv2
Nice try.
-
Not sure the whole premise of intensity as it relates to bodybuilding has ever been sound. The total work expenditure would be the same given the elementary formula of Intensity as
Δp)22ρvw I = ( Δ p ) 2 2 ρ v w .
This of course given that power would be Work/Time. Here you're using watts as a measure of energy and power however I think joules would be the same.
I think the problem is simply looking at it through displacement, where the frequency of energy changes but again the total energy(and resultant damage to the muscle) would be the same.
But the constants as far as output would remain the same we are only talking about the MEDIUM. THe medium with which the force is exerted. Look at the basic equation in terms of energy through the medium or
½(ρA)(4π2f2∆s2) = 2π2ρAf2∆s2
This idea that intensity is the sole measure of bodybuilding training just makes no sense. Even talk about mass in terms of energy output and you get
m = ρV = ρAλ
The mass would be sort of total muscle gain. So the MEDIUM of a guy 6 foot 5 ia different than a guy 5 foot 6, but muscle mass is not necessarily different.
But the macho guy with the massive weights is simply training in a different style, he is not necessarily putting more energy(or power requirements) on the muscle.
WTF ??? LOL ;D
Just fucking lift !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111
-
WTF ??? LOL ;D
Just fucking lift !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111
Formulas in physics that have no correlation to the lifting question of intensity vs volume. If they do assign values and show me the math for the conclusion. Assign a weight, distance, repetition and time needed to complete the reps to a mathematical physics formula. Then show me the objective conclusion.
-
A couple months ago, after going on vacation, I got back in the gym and hit some very big numbers both in terms of reps and weight on the bench press. But my strength has been down ever since, and that was frustrating. So what I did yesterday was I took a very long time to warm up, with just the bar, and several minutes between sets, then slowly put on 135lbs, and hit it just a couple times, waited a few minutes, hit it a few more times, etc. Then I bumped it up to 225 and just hit it 2-3 times and rested for several (5-7 minutes). I waited until I felt totally and completely rested and rejuvenated, and then I got under the bar, warmed up and cooled down at peak strength, and was able to get an easy 13 reps. I was very happy with that. From now on I will focus on taking a long time to warm up and very, very long time between sets. Maybe I wont get as pumped, maybe I wont get as fatigued as if I did otherwise, but my main goal is to get stronger and have fun doing it. I think this approach will definitely be beneficial (also, if I hadn't mentioned it in the past, I already never go to failure but always leave a couple reps in the tank).
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Gtdr3FM3/buttsile.png)
Laurie2 look like that in 1939 :-\
:D
;D
:D
Reminder: 'Safety Fat' was self proclaimed 'World Grip Groping Champion' + organiser & competitor in that contest ;D
-
Arthur Jones didn't invent the cam.
It was invented long before he came around.
-
A couple months ago, after going on vacation, I got back in the gym and hit some very big numbers both in terms of reps and weight on the bench press. But my strength has been down ever since, and that was frustrating. So what I did yesterday was I took a very long time to warm up, with just the bar, and several minutes between sets, then slowly put on 135lbs, and hit it just a couple times, waited a few minutes, hit it a few more times, etc. Then I bumped it up to 225 and just hit it 2-3 times and rested for several (5-7 minutes). I waited until I felt totally and completely rested and rejuvenated, and then I got under the bar, warmed up and cooled down at peak strength, and was able to get an easy 13 reps. I was very happy with that. From now on I will focus on taking a long time to warm up and very, very long time between sets. Maybe I wont get as pumped, maybe I wont get as fatigued as if I did otherwise, but my main goal is to get stronger and have fun doing it. I think this approach will definitely be beneficial (also, if I hadn't mentioned it in the past, I already never go to failure but always leave a couple reps in the tank).
That's the way the old time power guys did it.
I think Paul Anderson took 10 minutes between sets.
His power was great but his endurance sucked so if that's an issue include some cardio.
-
Again is training to failure the magic bullet? I know I train hard. I see what the crowd is doing in the commercial gym I go to. I see the incredible delusional cheating of the mob doing partial everything so they can use a "man's" weight when in reality physics 101 dictate that a weight moved a greater distance is more work. On another side note Olympic lifters and Power lifters rarely train to failure. Normally at the end of their training cycle are their failure reps.
Gurus of HIT like Jones, Mentzer, Darden, and Viator all were adamant about training body parts three times a week. Mentzer and Viator both won the Mr. America contest doing whole body routines three times a week. Darden preached body parts three times a year for a long time. Jones eventually said as you progress twice a week is best.
In the end the whole a stronger muscle is bigger muscle is not the entire truth. Many have found including most professional bodybuilders that training for endurance in the form of muscular endurance not to be confused with aerobic endurance builds muscle the best. Is the guy doing a bench for 225lbs for failure at 8 reps doing more work than a guy using 185lbs for 5 sets of 8?
Lifting again will never be rocket science no matter how many snake oil sales men would want you to believe. It's literally picking stuff up and putting it down like the commercial says.
Well, I believe that there is a difference if you are training just to get larger muscles, and if you are training Olympic lifts, or just strength like power lifters. I believe that whole point is that you have to choose what you want from your training, and optimize your training for that. Other thing, we are talking about natural bodybuilders, not juiced to the gills power lifters etc. These gurus were juiced so can you use them as an example for natural bodybuilders? Completely different world, you see. That's why it is so important to understand, that if you want results, you have to twise as hard than juiced guys. Most common mistake people make, is just what you say: "Lifting will never be rocket science ".. "just pick things up and putting it dow", you say. That could be the reason why you seem to be so bitter, you see, rocket science has different meaning for different people. Some understand it without any sweat, some doesn't. What I point out earlier, was a list of facts which were the guiding line for bodybuilders from Steve Reeves up to Lee Haney. I didn't invent any of this, I just point it out, because people seem to forgotten what this sport is all about. Not just lifting things, but knowing how to do it, how it should feel in the muscle, what you have to do to get best outcome from it etc. If this is too much to understand, so what? Just keep lifting up things and putting them down, and you will be all good.
You see, stronger muscle doesn't have to be bigger muscle, but there is always more strength if muscle grows larger. That's why the weight lifted doesn't really matter, but what will matter is how deep exhaustion you can deliver to the muscle. By that exhaustion your muscles grow bigger and stronger, so used weight will increase anyway by time. Also this people see other way around, they think that they have to use overload always and in every exercise. Then they use partial reps, cheats, forced reps to move it, while good reps till the end with lesser weight would give more results. Which is better: One rep with one rep max, or 15 reps with 70% of one rep max? Completely different things, and different results. By less weight & more reps you can maintain stress longer in the muscle, and therefore you can get it exhausted more completely. When muscle is completely exhausted, it need days to recovery, and therefore you cannot train it more than once per week. No rocket science, just simple facts. If you don't get your muscles completely exhausted, do you think they grow faster or slower? Just like in the mathematics, if you change some variable in the equation, the result can't be same. That's why those old time bodybuilders write those rules in every fking magazine which has published about this sport before year 2000. Then came the insulin and modern drugs, and you can build muscles just by sitting on the bench and taking grazy amount of juice. Then came the new gurus of the internet like Rich Piana etc. and they replaced the old ones, whose create this sport, not just earn money by talking about it. But if the times change, do it mean that facts of the matter change also? Modern natural human flesh needs different kind of training than before? This is where those snake oil sales men are waiting for you..They are called personal trainers, aka PT. ;D
-
If you want to lift after 40 natty you better be doing mostly volume.
At 45 I still do hit except reps are 10-20
-
WTF ??? LOL ;D
Just fucking lift !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111
Yeah I was trolling a little bit wiht the formulas to goof, but the general premise I stand behind. It just means that total energy expenditure is the same whether its 5 sets or one REALLY intense set. I don't know that more muscle fibers are recruited simply through intensity. It's like a guy that runs a really long distance vs. the guy who sprints 100m really fast. The question is hypertrophy resultant from muscle damage. If you are placing the exact same energy expenditure on your muscles, I don't know that it's been proven that one super intense set is that much better for hypertrophy than say 70% max for several sets. Certainly you can't lift a little 5 lb weight, but this idea you have to risk injury and mental health with maniac training as there is no other way for maximum hypertrophy is bullshit bro science. Dillett NEVER trained with even moderate weights, just light. And there are guys who can intensely lift MASSIVE weights for one rep who have very little muscle. Frankly none of the shit matters without gear as supraphysiologial amounts of muscle require supraphysiologial amounts of hormones. At that point, perhaps there are subtle differences in hypertrophy related to intensity.
-
Yeah I was trolling a little bit wiht the formulas to goof, but the general premise I stand behind. It just means that total energy expenditure is the same whether its 5 sets or one REALLY intense set. I don't know that more muscle fibers are recruited simply through intensity. It's like a guy that runs a really long distance vs. the guy who sprints 100m really fast. The question is hypertrophy resultant from muscle damage. If you are placing the exact same energy expenditure on your muscles, I don't know that it's been proven that one super intense set is that much better for hypertrophy than say 70% max for several sets. Certainly you can't lift a little 5 lb weight, but this idea you have to risk injury and mental health with maniac training as there is no other way for maximum hypertrophy is bullshit bro science. Dillett NEVER trained with even moderate weights, just light. And there are guys who can intensely lift MASSIVE weights for one rep who have very little muscle. Frankly none of the shit matters without gear as supraphysiologial amounts of muscle require supraphysiologial amounts of hormones. At that point, perhaps there are subtle differences in hypertrophy related to intensity.
Alright man you had me going there for a minute. LOL ;D
-
Very nice post. :)
-
Powerlifters define "intensity" as % of max.
It's not just about killing yourself in the gym so you can't train for a week.