Where are the high intensity champions if HIT works?

[slaveboy1980]

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.

who the fuck do you think you are, some kind of training god? if your methods are so great show us some results then and please specify what your methods consist of? otherwise shut the fuck up.

as for HIT vs high volume the debate is silly as there exists no magic workout plan, the human body adapts and thus the training stimulus has to be changed every so often. in general doing more volume is better tho, as the east german scientists back in the 60s already showed that for an experienced trainer you need a certain volume to induce further hypertrophy. the problem is tho that most fuckheads dont understand that training to failure isnt necessary..of course no one with normal genetics is gonna be able to do 20 sets to failure per workout...they key is raising volume as you get more experienced and the muscle needs more stimulus..but avoid failure most of the time. thats why mentzer and the HIT proponents came up with the system because no one could do 20 life and death sets per workout without burning out so they started to rag on arnold and make into somekind of battle between training styles. the thing is they were all wrong the ultimate system is high volume but without going to failure, but even that isnt magic. between periods of higher volume training you have to add in higher intensity training (can be to failure but doesnt have to be, as it can consist of just lifting closer to your one rep max, but it can also be lifting in the 3-4 rep range with forced reps etc). but this should only be done for limited periods of time then its back to higher volume training. but remember to avoid failure 90% of the time, as this will spare you cns and allow you do more total reps in the workout (=high enough volume).

[pumpster]

Good example of the variation in beliefs.

-Uncertain whether volume really is necessary, very hard to say. Because  the majority of BBs follow conventional approaches, it's easy to assume that it must be part of the equation when in fact it's only one of the variables. How much each variable matters is where it gets confusing. IMO overload is the key; overload that can be achieved in any number of programs.

-Overload is brought about by pushing the envelope in any format = going to failure, the more the better. Stopping short of failure is preventing the realization of some potential IMO, but if some gains are gotten anyway this fact is overlooked.


Just opinions, but the idea of avoiding overload by stopping short of failure's ludicrous to me.

[slaveboy1980]

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  necessary for (further) growth (most of the time, as training has to be varied to some degree)

[pumpster]

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, 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.

[slaveboy1980]

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).

[pumpster]

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).

There is "proof" that all protocols work, which effectively renders all of it moot.

[Bluto]

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.

I find HIT easier than volume training. Too bad I don't believe it's optimal for building mass.

[Bluto]

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.

actually stuart mcrobert is pretty clueless and has changed his theories during the years.

[pumpster]

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?

[slaveboy1980]

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).

but all being said in the long run, if you have a program A that is 15% better than program B and you work out for several years the differences of effectivness in workout routines wont matter that much (for non pro athletec), as everyone has a genetic max (natural). for the non pro athelete it doesnt matter that much if you reach it in 11 years or 9 and a half. the message is to enjoy the journey (workouts) and make sure your moving in the right direction, not necessarily at "max speed", just enough speed.

[pumpster]

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.

Oliva gained both size and conditioning on HIT why? Because of overload; in the case of HIT extreme overload over low numbers of sets. He could've achieved same using more sets with lesser but still high intensity.

One thing's sure: only by going to at least positive failure is it certain that full potential's realized, without which it's viable that some potential's been left on the table.


The problem is that with all the variables mixed together it's easy to draw the wrong conclusions.

[slaveboy1980]

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.

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.

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 (-12 reps per set.

[Bluto]

What were your experiences with HIT?

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.

[Bluto]

One could say that going to failure is what would cheat you out of gains since that would means you would have to rest more and because of that the total number of training days per year would be less.

[pumpster]

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.

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 (-12 reps per set.

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.

If you don't train to failure, you're (1) potentially leaving gains unrealized, which you'll never know for sure because the envelope hasn't been pushed, and (2) using the sliding continuum between volume and intensity, it's less efficient to waste time with more sets to arrive at the same point.

[slaveboy1980]

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.

[pumpster]

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?

[Bluto]

Ya but what was your actual experience?

I've done 1-2 sets per musclegroup going to failure type training, short training times (30 minuts max) once a week, focusing on the big exercises (chins, bench, squats etc)
And in my opinion it works better for strength, than size. And no, it's not just about eating more calories.

Stuart McRobert USED to have the opinion that "well when you bench so and so much weight your chest WILL be 'big enough'" but in later years he started preaching about adding MORE sets and PUMP sets in Ironman articles that went totally against his previous preachings that he had for year and years in his artciles and books.

Apparantely after 20+ years Stuart McRobert realized there's some truth in more sets, more variation of exercises and even getting pump. At least if you wanna build mass.

[Bluto]

im the same way HIT is easier for me  actually, but i dont believe in mindlessly going to fauilure.

me neither. 

[slaveboy1980]

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.


as for your oliva example: i think he made good gains because the change from higher volume to lower volume with more intensity..exactly the same thing i was talking about before (use lower volume higher intensity for limited time periods). the thing is that oliva had done higher volume..then he did lower volume more intense workouts and what happened? his body had to adapt to the new stress on his body, but if he would have done that for longer periods of time..adaptation would have stopped and he would have burned out..intensity and volume have to be varied. the human body is about adaptation. the magic is in change not in one training protocol or an another. (but still failure traininig isnt necessary at all)

[pumpster]

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 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.

[Bluto]

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 days between each musclegroup trained because his clients needed all that time to rest.

so if you compare a client from mike mentzer and that kind of training to a volume trainer it would look like this:

mike mentzer client training legs = once every 2 weeks = 26 times a year.
volume training client = 2 times a week = 104 times a year.

does anyone believe that mike mentzer and his training is so superior that it would bring more muscle growth on just 26 times a year, compared to 104 times a year training?

i dont.

you could possibly train your leg 3 times a week on a full body, or half body program and then it would be a total number of leg training a year = 156 times.

[pumpster]

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.

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.

[slaveboy1980]

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 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.

[Bluto]

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.

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?