Where are the high intensity champions if HIT works?

[Van_Bilderass]

He's mentioned it elsewhere. Heavy weight using moderate reps. Sets I can't remember, either high or moderate volume.

I don't know why he's against HIT though; the fundamentals don't change-subject the muscle to ever-increasing loads.

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 never got a clear picture of what Vince advocates. He mentions DOMS a lot. He suspects it has SOMETHING to do with growth LOL.

[MCWAY]

more

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.

[pumpster]

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.

[Vince B]

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.

[alexxx]

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

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!

[myseone]

And we all know that no IFBB competition was ever fixed..

There are plenty of people who have burned out from HVT as well, a lot of shoulder, knee, lower back issues as well. I'll mention Yates as someone who got injured on HIT.

Heavy training is risky, volume training is risky, it's all stressful, but high levels of achievement has its risks.

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.

[myseone]

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

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!

[myseone]

Has the training method that you propose been able to produce superior results and physiques?

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.

[alexxx]

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

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.

[Vince B]

You have to feel for Oliva. Gajda beat him in the Mr America back in 1966. That upset Sergio no end and he left the AAU and signed up with Joe Weider and did win a Mr America but upset all the other guys who felt Sergio was too good. Sergio won the IFBB Mr Universe that night, too. Then Sergio started losing to many of the top guys. Arnold in the 1970 Mr Olympia. That was a close one. It wasn't close in 1971 and one judge favoured Pearl because he said Sergio's head was too small for his arms. Pearl has never had much in the way of cuts on his thighs. 1972 saw Sergio prepare with Arthur Jones and he enterred the Olympia but lost to Arnold. Ah, what a career. Arnold was a political animal in those days and he befriended most of the judges who were Weider men. When I talked to Arnold at my place in 1974 he admitted Sergio was superior. "If I had Sergio's body I would have won!"

[Vince B]

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.

[myseone]

I'll have to read your past material to get a clear view on you stance then.

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.

[myseone]

Have you been able to produce sustained grow in yourself or people you have trained?

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.

[myseone]

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

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.

[Vince B]

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.

[myseone]

Thank you for the invite, unfortunately I can't go at this time.

This is not an attack; but I still would like to know if you have been successful in producing ongoing results in your trainees?

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.

[Van_Bilderass]

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.

There is no formula, there are so many bodily systems that have to be considered, everyone has different recovery abilities etc etc. How anyone would think you can discover a formula that will produce continuous results in each and every individual is beyond me. He has taken this stuff from Mentzer though, Mentzer said "if we can put the man on the moon we can discover the one proper method of training" or something like that LOL.

[Van_Bilderass]

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.

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.

[figgs]

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'm convinced you both have never tried HIT and have never taken the time to learn anything about it. It works and there's proof of that all over this thread.

After experimenting with all kind of workout programs, I found HIT to work better than all the others. Read my HIT log if you decide to open your mind a little.

[figgs]

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.



 

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 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

That's really interesting because I've started to suspect that my level of intensity has become too high! I started going to ABSOLUTE muscular failure, in which I continue a set until I can no longer complete a positive rep, static hold or a negative. I think I'm just testing the limits here, because I've learned that, according to Mentzer, going to failure means to carry a set until a positive rep can no longer be completed on your own, despite your greatest efforts.

These workouts are crazy, but now I'm finishing a workout, even 1 set workouts, with numb muscles. No more burn, no more pump. It nearly goes numb, with only some tingles.

Too much? 

[figgs]

Myseone, I live in Queens, NY. Shall I challenge you to a leg workout? 

[Vince B]

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.

[pumpster]

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.

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.

Again just opinions. I believe that DOMS gained in the context of substantial weight & moderate reps is important.

[pumpster]

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

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.