Where are the high intensity champions if HIT works?

[Vince B]

I am amazed they let a guy do a heavy deadlift over a wooden floor without thick rubber mats underneath! Good effort for a low deadlift even with straps. Smart to keep both hands without palms foreward. Safer that way.

[Van_Bilderass]

I am amazed they let a guy do a heavy deadlift over a wooden floor without thick rubber mats underneath! Good effort for a low deadlift even with straps. Smart to keep both hands without palms foreward. Safer that way.

I max a bit more without straps actually. Everyone always says that Ronnie's deads aren't that impressive since he uses straps but grip is not a limiting factor for everyone. I have injured both biceps already so I don't dare use a mixed grip anymore. I hate crouching over setting the straps, would rather "grip and rip". 

[WillRiker]

I forgot about Dugdale, another great example. The stuff works.

Even though all these bodybuilders juice, I think that HIT type training is more suited for drug free trainees, because of the recovery factor. I think people freak out when they read Mentzers protocol due to the huge amounts of rest included. mentzers method is only one interpretation of HIT training, just like in the HVT camp Cutler trains differently, than Wheeler or Coleman.

HIT training is not suited for drug free trainees, the stress HIT generates (especially on the nervous system) is too much for a natural. Volume training (where one does not go to failure) is much more suited to naturals.

[slaveboy1980]

Thank you; THIS IS HOW YOU PROGRESS. Otherwise take up golf.

lol guys are telling you they progressed well without going to failure and all you do is saying take up golf. lame.
it sounds like a guy who doesnt go to failure isnt a man..even if he makes progress, that proves that your taking this shit to serious

remember people, dont go to failure..it will allow you to workout more often with more volume and thus grow more.

[Bluto]

I don't know what kind of shape "Bluto's" in but i've never felt drained from it. If i'm lucky there's some DOMS the next day, a good thing, but that's about it. I'll bet Figgs would say same.

whats makes you think you gonna feel it? you dont wake up the next day and say "ouch! i really hurt my central nervous system last night, i can feel it fo' sure!" "hey! dont touch there, it hurts, ma cns!"

you need to read more about the cns and how it works. you obivously are clueless.

[Bluto]

The funny thing about "HIT" trainees is that they all look like they've never touched a weight in their life. The only HIT-ers that have any muscle are the hardcore drug users. Sad but true.

well they got a sobbing explanation for that, they're "hardgainers" and i dont there's ever been a photo of their gurus like stuart mcrobert.

[Bluto]

Funny how quiet it gets after that pic is posted...

well the people questioning his lifts got owned. squadfather went away with his tail between his legs.

[slaveboy1980]

yeah pumpster thinks that when i mention cns  it means like im suggesting you gotta train like a pussy, actually its the other way around..because your stopping before failure and not using intensity techniques such as forced reps or rest pause reps it will allow you to train more often with more sets thus stimulating the muscles more.

[Bluto]

lol guys are telling you they progressed well without going to failure and all you do is saying take up golf. lame.
it sounds like a guy who doesnt go to failure isnt a man..even if he makes progress, that proves that your taking this shit to serious

remember people, dont go to failure..it will allow you to workout more often with more volume and thus grow more.

that's all pumpster got. he believes he's macho for training to failure. can you believe that shit? you think any greco-roman wrestler, boxer, mma-guy, powerlifter, strongman etc would give a SHIT because he lifts to failure? they laugh him off as the pussy he is. because it's no fucking big deal.
a 12 year old girl can lift to failure. so can an 80 year old.
doesnt mean shit.

[pumpster]

I think Pumpster is claiming that unless the muscles have to do something extraordinary then they won't grow. I remember reading what Arthur Jones wrote in the early 1970s. He discussed which rep actually made a difference. It seemed to make sense that the rep you failed on was the one that benefitted you the most. However, what if you stopped on the rep just before the failed rep? Would that be just as good? I can tell most of the time when I can't do another rep so I stop there. I then continue to do more sets with the maximum resistance. That is the key to hypertrophy as far as I am concerned. Lots of sets with the maximum resistance. No drop sets or forced sets. What you will find is that the reps will drop by about the 3rd maximum set. So I warm up by adding resistance and stop when I can do about 12 to 15 good reps. Then by the 3rd set with this maximum resistance the reps drop to about 8 to 10 which is still good. If you drop to about 5 reps you tend to try to cheat too much to finish the reps. When you start doing that you recruit other muscles to help you finish the set. I superset most exercises so the rest between sets is about 2 to 3 minutes. I find that about 6 maximum sets stimulates growth but I sometimes do a few more sets. I haven't tried this strategy for legs yet but it works great for calves and arms. It remains to be seen what would happen if you kept doing maximum sets for hours on end. I suspect you would grow rapidly, indeed.

Ya the belief, which i agree with (as do some volume trainers, including Schwarzenegger in PI "if you can't go through the pain..") is that the muscle will only adapt if forced to by extraordinary stress. Who can refute this-how will staying well within current abilities force the muscle to adapt? And how does progressive resistance occur while remaining firmly within the status quo?

Secondly, how can you be sure that you've trained to full potential if you consistently stop short of failure? You don't know, and can well be limiting potential growth. The only sure thing is that training intensely to failure is maximizing potential.

Third, to stop short of failure is basically being a pumper, which is one of the disparagements aimed at BBs in general over the years. It's unimpressive as well as unathletic.


 

[natural al]

HIT training is not suited for drug free trainees, the stress HIT generates (especially on the nervous system) is too much for a natural. Volume training (where one does not go to failure) is much more suited to naturals.

that' why you rest more.....

[slaveboy1980]

Third, to stop short of failure is basically being a pumper, which is one of the disparagements aimed at BBs in general over the years. It's unimpressive as well as unathletic.


 

going to failure is unathletic...as no other professional athletes go to failure (while training that is..and if they do its scheduled...for example the russians call it planned overreaching) as the human body is ment to adapt to an overload yes but its not meant to be totally crushed. if you know anything about how elite athletes train in all other sport you would know that its going to failure that is unathletic. you owned yourself.

[Bluto]

Secondly, how can you be sure that you've trained to full potential if you consistently stop short of failure? You don't know, and can well be limiting potential growth. The only sure thing is that training intensely to failure is maximizing potential.

there's a shitloads of things that may limit potential growth. maybe you need more variation. more exercises. other angles. cycling. higher reps. lower reps. 1 rep max. more protein. more rest. less rest. more rest between sets. less rest between sets. more volume. less volume. and so on and so on.
training to failure means you get less work done in a year. which if anything limits growth. it also increases the chances of injury and fucking with your cns, which could cause your immunesystem to crash making you sick.

Third, to stop short of failure is basically being a pumper, which is one of the disparagements aimed at BBs in general over the years. It's unimpressive as well as unathletic.

i bet a lot of powerlifters etc would call your training program unathletic compared to what they do. why dont you try 100 reps in the legpress, milos sarcev style, and stop at 98 reps and we'll see how unathletic it is. you obviously dont care about results. you dont care about strength. you only care about going to failure at the gym at any weight whatsoever. which means you are as athletic as a 12 year old girl with pink dumbbells - you both go to failure.
so you both athletes.

congratulations!
 


 
[/quote]

[Bluto]

the discussion has changed from whats most effective to whats most "athletic" 

[pumpster]

the discussion has changed from whats most effective to whats most "athletic" 

Clueless to the reality that training athletically does in fact impart a more athletic look.

[pumpster]

going to failure is unathletic...as no other professional athletes go to failure (while training that is..and if they do its scheduled...for example the russians call it planned overreaching) as the human body is ment to adapt to an overload yes but its not meant to be totally crushed. if you know anything about how elite athletes train in all other sport you would know that its going to failure that is unathletic. you owned yourself.

Utter, made-up nonsense. Look at sprinter's training, which is one ofj the closest analogies. The heart of sprint training is sprints, each one analogous to a set, done at 100% effort. Could not be clearer.

OWNED

[pumpster]

there's a shitloads of things that may limit potential growth. maybe you need more variation. more exercises. other angles. cycling. higher reps. lower reps. 1 rep max. more protein. more rest. less rest. more rest between sets. less rest between sets. more volume. less volume. and so on and so on.
training to failure means you get less work done in a year. which if anything limits growth. it also increases the chances of injury and fucking with your cns, which could cause your immunesystem to crash making you sick.

i bet a lot of powerlifters etc would call your training program unathletic compared to what they do. why dont you try 100 reps in the legpress, milos sarcev style, and stop at 98 reps and we'll see how unathletic it is. you obviously dont care about results. you dont care about strength. you only care about going to failure at the gym at any weight whatsoever. which means you are as athletic as a 12 year old girl with pink dumbbells - you both go to failure.
so you both athletes.

congratulations!
 


 

There are a shitload of things, exactly-and the smart ones (not Bluto, obviously) address all of them to 100% potential. Training until the muscle submits is part of that; doing otherwise falls short of 100% and is lazy.

[pumpster]

Neither of these guys has been able to directly refute my points, have only gone into tangents in efforts to deflect.

[slaveboy1980]

BS. Look at sprinter's training, which is the closest analogy. The heart of the training is sprints, analogous to sets, done at 100%..

OWNED

not even close...high intensity sure as running marathons would not do anything for sprinters. but that has nothing to do with training to failure. you can mail and ask charlie francis yourself.that he would never take anyone to failure...and how do you do that with sprints anyway lol?. i been to 2-3 seminars where has spoken.

[slaveboy1980]

Neither of these guys has been able to directly refute my points, have only gone into tangents in efforts to deflect.

lol na your describing what you have done    also its been proven already almost 50 years ago that failure training isnt necessary. and its being proved day after day...but please keep doing 3 sets to failure and call yourself athletic...

[pumpster]

not even close...high intensity sure as running marathons would not do anything for sprinters. but that has nothing to do with training to failure. you can mail and ask charlie francis yourself.that he would never take anyone to failure...and how do you do that with sprints anyway lol?. i been to 2-3 seminars where has spoken.

I've got his book. hahaahahah OWNED Sprinters and other athletes have to go at 100% some of the time to push the envelope and improve. Improvement's not happening at 60% or 80% effort. This is common sense-to some.

Next slave will inform us that racecar drivers never go 100% because it will "tax the engines". hahaahahahahaah

[slaveboy1980]

I've got his book. hahaahahah OWNED

Next slave will inform us that racecar drivers never go 100% because it will "tax the engines". hahaahahahahaah

good and yuo will see that he says nowhere that you need to go to  failure..besided sprinting isnt a correct analogy..as i never said you dont need intensity all i said is you dont need to go to failure.

[pumpster]

lol na your describing what you have done    also its been proven already almost 50 years ago that failure training isnt necessary. and its being proved day after day...but please keep doing 3 sets to failure and call yourself athletic...

Saying it isn't so with no direct proof or details just reinforces my points, which are commonsense (to some). Nothing has been irrefutably proven, especially not 50 years ago you dumbass. hahahaahahahah

[pumpster]

good and yuo will see that he says nowhere that you need to go to  failure..besided sprinting isnt a correct analogy..as i never said you dont need intensity all i said is you dont need to go to failure.

Backpeddle. An yes sprinting is an excellent analogy, you've done absolutely nothing to disprove that it is in fact a very good analogy.

[slaveboy1980]

not backpeddling..im not sure even what your discussing now. sprinters run..they dont run to failure. they run fast and?? i think everyone understand if a sprinter wants to run fast he has to do the same in training and not run marathons. but still going to failure isnt necessary for muscle building. simple as that.