Where are the high intensity champions if HIT works?

[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.

your changing what i been saying again..im not saying that volume is everything..as intensity is imporant..(if yuo lift like a pussy nothing will happen) im just saying that mindless pursuit of failure is counter productive as it takes the number of sets you can do to a very low level.

[pumpster]

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.

I would never volume training without failure, because (1) it's just beating around the bush, which is to exhaust the muscles, and (2) it's balless. Sorry but it's true.

[pumpster]

mindless pursuit of failure is counter productive as it takes the number of sets you can do to a very low level.

No, because you're thinking in blacks & whites, as if all levels of failure are the same, which is completely untrue.

As i said, it's a continuum-train to extreme HIT failure, minimal nos. of sets can be done/are needed. Train to failure but less so than HIT standards, more sets can be done.

Hard to believe this is difficult to comprehend.

[Bluto]

I would never volume training without failure, because (1) it's just beating around the bush, which is to exhaust the muscles, and (2) it's balless. Sorry but it's true.

i bet even if there was proof everywhere that going to failure was not necessary to stimulate growth you would still hang on to it because of your macho-mentality. its obvious thats you're not interested in results, you're interested in some kind of lame macho persona that "yeah i showed that bar didnt i, i huffed and i puffed and i brought it down and caused myself a nosebleed in the progress!"

[slaveboy1980]

I would never volume training without failure, because (1) it's just beating around the bush, which is to exhaust the muscles, and (2) it's balless. Sorry but it's true.
[/quote

we will just have to agree that we disagree i think.  
 

[pumpster]

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?

Because Mike and others are not the last word, just more sources for info; exactly why Yates took his own path from it. A big problem with HIT is that guys like Mentzer & Jones always acted like they were the final word due to arrogance.

[slaveboy1980]

No, because you're thinking in blacks & whites, as if all levels of failure are the same, which is completely untrue.

As i said, it's a continuum-train to extreme HIT failure, minimal nos. of sets can be done/are needed. Train to failure but less so than HIT standards, more sets can be done.

Hard to believe this is difficult to comprehend.

actually your thinking in black in white as it was you who said intensity is polar opposite of volume..and it is you who who said you would never try higer volume without going to failure.

and i comprehend exactly what you mean.

and when i talk about failure im talking about positive failure which should be avoided most of the time..but its ok from time to time. as for other intenisty techniques they should be used even more infrequently such as forced reps, rest pause, drop sets etc.

[Bluto]

Because Mike and others are not the last word, just more sources for info; exactly why Yates took his own path from it.

but still i would say he got WAY more experience than you and he came to that conclusion. how do you figure? that mike mentzer just said "well i've observed that my hundreds of traininers, dont need a lot of rest... but i'll have them rest 14 days anyway" ?

if 2-3 days was all that was necessary then mike mentzer along with all his clients could've worked the muscles a hundred times more in a year resulting in far great result in a very short time. why wouldt he do that?

[Bluto]

going to failure makes you a failure. so hear up all losers! we know you're a failure in life, but now you can be a failure at the gym too! let the failures lead you and show them how to fail miserably! because they are the experts of failure!

[pumpster]

actually your thinking in black in white as it was you who said intensity is polar opposite of volume..and it is you who who said you would never try higer volume without going to failure.

and i comprehend exactly what you mean.

You're hopeless man.    I've trained with more volume and less, and have achieved the same effect on the muscles based on what i've explained.

[slaveboy1980]

going to failure makes you a failure. so hear up all losers! we know you're a failure in life, but now you can be a failure at the gym too! let the failures lead you and show them how to fail miserably! because they are the experts of failure!

the solution to the HIT (going to failure) vs high volume (going to failure) debate, is: avoid going to failure.

[pumpster]

but still i would say he got WAY more experience than you and he came to that conclusion. how do you figure? that mike mentzer just said "well i've observed that my hundreds of traininers, dont need a lot of rest... but i'll have them rest 14 days anyway" ?

if 2-3 days was all that was necessary then mike mentzer along with all his clients could've worked the muscles a hundred times more in a year resulting in far great result in a very short time. why wouldt he do that?

First of all, Mike didn't have way more experience than me, this is an assumption. If you don't know by know, Mentzer and Jones arrogantly walked around spouting ideas as if they were proven fact, which is not so smart. Once they did that, it's easy to realize that some of their ideas might make sense but they're not the last word. Why you wouldn't realize this is the real question.

Still waiting for your actual experiences with HIT..

[pumpster]

the solution to the HIT (going to failure) vs high volume (going to failure) debate, is: avoid going to failure.

Following that logic, i'd say don't even lift weights, rest more..

[slaveboy1980]

You're hopeless man.    I've trained with more volume and less, and have achieved the same effect on the muscles based on what i've explained.

sorry i dont mean to be an ass but...your thinking like volume is static..volume has to be changed as you become more advanced. of course there is no reason to do more sets than necessary, but failure training fries your cns (in the long run) thus preventing you from stimulating the muscles as much as possible. the failure training is acting like a bottle neck.

[Bluto]

First of all, Mike didn't have way more experience than me, this is an assumption. If you don't know by know, Mentzer and Jones walked around spouting this ideas as if they were proven fact, which is not so smart. Once they did that, it's easy to realize that some of their ideas might make sense but they're not the last word.

Still waiting for your actual experiences with HIT..

so you've got more experience than mike? thats interesting. please tell us a little about all your success as a competitive bodybuilder, personal trainer, coach, writer of hundreds of articles, books, research etc.

 

all i know is that you're working out with a bowflex and have zero ideas on your own. what exactly are you preaching, if anything?

[pumpster]

sorry i dont mean to be an ass but...your thinking like volume is static..volume has to be changed as you become more advanced. of course there is no reason to do more sets than necessary, but failure training fries your cns (in the long run) thus preventing you from stimulating the muscles as much as possible. the failure training is acting like a bottle neck.

Again you make these unproven assumptions about frying the CNS. Nice theory, which is used to justify other rationalizations.

Besides which, if frying the CNS was really an issue, marathon volume could easily do the same thing, even without going to failure.

[slaveboy1980]

Following that logic, i'd say don't even lift weights, rest more..

no following this logic it means: you can do more volume and with higher frequency without frying your cns and making faster muscular gains.

[Bluto]

sorry i dont mean to be an ass but...your thinking like volume is static..volume has to be changed as you become more advanced. of course there is no reason to do more sets than necessary, but failure training fries your cns (in the long run) thus preventing you from stimulating the muscles as much as possible. the failure training is acting like a bottle neck.

well he doesnt believe in the cns. he thinks 2-3 days rest is all that is necessary. how he came to this conclusion is a mystery. maybe he just dreamed up that number. he also is WAY more experienced than mike mentzer. im trying to search the records for this competitive lifelong bodybuilder, writer and coach to hundreds, if not thousands, but i cant find any records of "pumpster" anywhere...
 

[pumpster]

so you've got more experience than mike? thats interesting. please tell us a little about all your success as a competitive bodybuilder, personal trainer, coach, writer of hundreds of articles, books, research etc.

 

all i know is that you're working out with a bowflex and have zero ideas on your own. what exactly are you preaching, if anything?

Classic trolling:

1/ Refuses to actually supply detailed info on his supposed HIT training despite repeated requests.

2/ Tries to bend what is said, after making a false assumption about my experience. Nice try ahole.

[Bluto]

Again you make these unproven assumptions about frying the CNS. Nice theory, which is used to justify other rationalizations.

Besides which, if frying the CNS was really an issue, marathon volume could easily do the same thing, even without going to failure.

no because it wouldnt hit the cns as bad.

[slaveboy1980]

Again you make these unproven assumptions about frying the CNS. Nice theory, which is used to justify other rationalizations.

Besides which, if frying the CNS was really an issue, marathon volume could easily do the same thing, even without going to failure.

unproven? lol so why do people get "overtrained" by using too much intensity (failure training)?

[pumpster]

no because it wouldnt hit the cns as bad.

Based on what-this is crap.

[slaveboy1980]

Again you make these unproven assumptions about frying the CNS. Nice theory, which is used to justify other rationalizations.

Besides which, if frying the CNS was really an issue, marathon volume could easily do the same thing, even without going to failure.

dont twist what i was saying:
 i never said use marathon volume ...again yuor arguing a point that wasnt on the table and that i didnt say...of course doing to much volume is not good either but if you avoid failure yuo will be able to do more volume.(more growth).but that doesnt mean 120 sets.

[Bluto]

Classic trolling:

1/ Refuses to actually supply detailed info on his supposed HIT training despite repeated requests.

2/ Tries to bend what is said, after making a false assumption about my experience. Nice try ahole.

1 - ive told you my experience with hit. wether it qualitifes as hit in your opinion i dont know. this is for you to explain.

2. you're saying you got more experience than mentzer, one of the more experienced in bodybuilding history. that makes me an asshole? how the hell can you claim to have more experience than him? how can you claim him, his brother and a lot more people supporting his ideas and using them, for year and years, we're talking hundreds, if not thousands of people, would rest 7, 10 or even 14 days when they could've stuck with 2-3 days? to this question you have no answer.

[Moen]

The first serious discussion I've read on here (lol)

I myself have combined elements from all schools, being a high frequency of bodypart training, intensity and volume
I do a push-pull split 2 on-1 off, 1 compound movement per musclegroup per session, 3 sets to failure of which one for each fiber type (6-10, 3-5 and 10-15 reps)

Reason for this combination: I needed intensity to grow but not too much (so no negative failure etc, too taxing), I still needed SOME volume (this comes out to 9 sets per musclegroup every 8 days as you see) and I needed rest too ofcourse so 2 on 1 off was the way to go