How many bb use Heavy Duty?

[HTexan]

find an old pro that had a lot of injuries. he was mostly likely a HDer.

[Smanjh]

Quoted for truth.

No bodybuilder has actually trained and succeded with heavy duty/HIT/low volume.

Your not looking at it in perspective. The routines Mike suggested at the end, just disregard those as a 'must' rule. Try em out, but if nothing really happens, you can add back if you want and remember to deload.

I said before that I believe he saw a tapering effect and confused that with a need to recover for 3 days. However the opposite-following the bullshit in the mags, that is a step backward.

Pros like Dugdale and Yates do more volume, but that is in consideration of strength being key. 6 sets for legs 1x a week is a far cry from 20 sets 3x a week.

Warm ups do count to some extent, especially the heavy one, since you only need like 85% to recruit all fibers, thus adding to the workload, but in general the first few warm up sets do not really do anything.

Example, I did 365 pounds in the squat today. I did 135x 5, 225 x 3, 315x2, and 365x10. The 315 did something stimulation wise, but the other 2 did not. In theory I did 4 sets, but in reality it was arguably 2.

[Smanjh]

find an old pro that had a lot of injuries. he was mostly likely a HDer.

LOL. Can't argue here.

Wait, so many guys hurt themselves eventually once they pass certain numbers, enhanced or natty. It just happens.

[Lion666]

Your not looking at it in perspective. The routines Mike suggested at the end, just disregard those as a 'must' rule. Try em out, but if nothing really happens, you can add back if you want and remember to deload.

I said before that I believe he saw a tapering effect and confused that with a need to recover for 3 days. However the opposite-following the bullshit in the mags, that is a step backward.

Pros like Dugdale and Yates do more volume, but that is in consideration of strength being key. 6 sets for legs 1x a week is a far cry from 20 sets 3x a week.

Warm ups do count to some extent, especially the heavy one, since you only need like 85% to recruit all fibers, thus adding to the workload, but in general the first few warm up sets do not really do anything.

Example, I did 365 pounds in the squat today. I did 135x 5, 225 x 3, 315x2, and 365x10. The 315 did something stimulation wise, but the other 2 did not. In theory I did 4 sets, but in reality it was arguably 2.

exactly,,, intensity being equal, or in other words the concentration on intent when moving the weights...
how does anyone think that 6 set per week will aloow you to look better than someone at 20 set 3x per week...
if this were true then every middle-aged 3 days per week gym jerk would be walkin around looking like mr.o...
however you can always tell the guy thats lives in the gym... he looks the part.

[dyslexic]

Didn't both Mike and his bro die kind of early-ish? Why idolize them?

[Smanjh]

exactly,,, intensity being equal, or in other words the concentration on intent when moving the weights...
how does anyone think that 6 set per week will aloow you to look better than someone at 20 set 3x per week...
if this were true then every middle-aged 3 days per week gym jerk would be walkin around looking like mr.o...
however you can always tell the guy thats lives in the gym... he looks the part.

I don't know man, most people that live in the gym don't really look the part, or like bodybuilders. You will never double take at most of them.

It comes down to matching your recovery ability with the program, causing an overload event whether it be 1 set or 50, and then deloading.

Disregarding steroids of course, notice how the strongest guys are always the biggest in relation to their 10 rep max. You will never see someone squatting 500 pounds with tiny legs for 10 reps. Hell, he won't be tiny at all.

The middle age 3 day a week guys usually train piss poor in conjunction with some crap they pulled from Flex. On and on and so forth. Look at the DCers, well, the experienced ones. They don't look like weekend panty wads at all.

I am saying to take the principles of blasting and cruising, and then apply them to whatever program your using. The blast makes you over reach, the cruise deloads you. Everything else is individual.

[Hulkotron]

Didn't both Mike and his bro die kind of early-ish? Why idolize them?

Mike was like 50 when he died.  Not sure about Ray.  They died within like a week of each other I think.

[Smanjh]

Didn't both Mike and his bro die kind of early-ish? Why idolize them?

It isn't really idolization, more like respect for what Mike did in the bodybuilding community. Without Mike, Jones, Viator, Yates and a slew of others, you would all be doing the same shit you read about without questioning it.

Yes HD is a broken and dead end system per the books out there. Mike left a lot to be desired with his work that in reality does not work. But the either/or situation of doing 'HIT' or 'volume' leaves many scratching their asses and standing in place.

[Smanjh]

Mike was like 50 when he died.  Not sure about Ray.  They died within like a week of each other I think.

Mike was 49 I believe, and Ray died within a few days. He apparently skipped his dialysis in mourning.

[Lion666]

I don't know man, most people that live in the gym don't really look the part, or like bodybuilders. You will never double take at most of them.

It comes down to matching your recovery ability with the program, causing an overload event whether it be 1 set or 50, and then deloading.

Disregarding steroids of course, notice how the strongest guys are always the biggest in relation to their 10 rep max. You will never see someone squatting 500 pounds with tiny legs for 10 reps. Hell, he won't be tiny at all.

The middle age 3 day a week guys usually train piss poor in conjunction with some crap they pulled from Flex. On and on and so forth. Look at the DCers, well, the experienced ones. They don't look like weekend panty wads at all.


I am saying to take the principles of blasting and cruising, and then apply them to whatever program your using. The blast makes you over reach, the cruise deloads you. Everything else is individual.

"Disregarding steroids of course, notice how the strongest guys are always the biggest in relation to their 10 rep max. You will never see someone squatting 500 pounds with tiny legs for 10 reps. Hell, he won't be tiny at all. "

thats true, you can get a thin dude with a 1 rep max do it but not for 10 reps etc and not be big/huge so right on with that

"The middle age 3 day a week guys usually train piss poor in conjunction with some crap they pulled from Flex. On and on and so forth. Look at the DCers, well, the experienced ones. They don't look like weekend panty wads at all."


yes roids and intensity are deciding factors, thats why i orig wrote:
intensity being equal, or in other words the concentration on intent when moving the weights...

someone that lolly gags thru lifting will certainly be beat by someone that lifts less but lifts with more intensity.

i still go by the idea of all things equal in regards to quality of training, roids diet etc...
the person that does it more will get better results,,, and yes recovery has something to do but at the same time imo i think the recovery limit outta be pushed to force the body to adapt... injury is really th danger to overtraining.... 
look at that study where they took the birds testes (now no test being produced), starved it (no calories, protein etc) and hung the weight on its wing for 30 days.... by all of gymbro logic without calories and test no way should growth occur....
but it did.
so thats why overtraining and recovery i think is overrated,,, i think its a good indicator for injury tho bc cant train then other wise
training more frequent is key,,, im my book anyway,,, only way i know to grow

[Smanjh]

"Disregarding steroids of course, notice how the strongest guys are always the biggest in relation to their 10 rep max. You will never see someone squatting 500 pounds with tiny legs for 10 reps. Hell, he won't be tiny at all. "

thats true, you can get a thin dude with a 1 rep max do it but not for 10 reps etc and not be big/huge so right on with that

"The middle age 3 day a week guys usually train piss poor in conjunction with some crap they pulled from Flex. On and on and so forth. Look at the DCers, well, the experienced ones. They don't look like weekend panty wads at all."


yes roids and intensity are deciding factors, thats why i orig wrote:
intensity being equal, or in other words the concentration on intent when moving the weights...

someone that lolly gags thru lifting will certainly be beat by someone that lifts less but lifts with more intensity.

i still go by the idea of all things equal in regards to quality of training, roids diet etc...
the person that does it more will get better results,,, and yes recovery has something to do but at the same time imo i think the recovery limit outta be pushed to force the body to adapt... injury is really th danger to overtraining.... 
look at that study where they took the birds testes (now no test being produced), starved it (no calories, protein etc) and hung the weight on its wing for 30 days.... by all of gymbro logic without calories and test no way should growth occur....
but it did.
so thats why overtraining and recovery i think is overrated,,, i think its a good indicator for injury tho bc cant train then other wise
training more frequent is key,,, im my book anyway,,, only way i know to grow

Ah, I see. I actually agree with that for a lot of people. The problem is with the few that it doesn't work for and of course for those that can go intense enough that they sort of stall out after a few sets. You won't really be physically able to repeat a set of squats that leave you on the ground vomiting uncontrollably, lol (not the goal of course).

Frequency is the biggy where HD fails unless you are a hardgainer to the extreme or using ungodly poundage plus intensity/volume extenders. Still though, the frequency issue is the one where the 3 day split sort of drops off for most unless you are making crazy gains of course.

But a lot of these guys OCD about overtraining. I did as well at one point. I took it to the logical conclusion of dips/deadlifts, squats/pulldown 2 weeks apart (add a day when progress stalls). Did not work so well.

But, his original split (more than one set sometimes, A and B workouts alternated 3-4x a week) worked much better for me.

But, I do 2 sets of some things focused on progression, maybe a lil more, and I use DC rest pause a lot combined with negatives and statics, so mine is a little different than most people. I also deload when needed or just go easy for a few workouts.

The rest pausing, I feel, allows you to get out of 1 mega set what you would need 3 to get when fully rested. 10-4-2 sees the 4 and 2 doing the damage as the most productive reps in multi set without causing the unnecessary fatigue IMO. 

[JP_RC]

Your not looking at it in perspective. The routines Mike suggested at the end, just disregard those as a 'must' rule. Try em out, but if nothing really happens, you can add back if you want and remember to deload.

I said before that I believe he saw a tapering effect and confused that with a need to recover for 3 days. However the opposite-following the bullshit in the mags, that is a step backward.

Pros like Dugdale and Yates do more volume, but that is in consideration of strength being key. 6 sets for legs 1x a week is a far cry from 20 sets 3x a week.

Warm ups do count to some extent, especially the heavy one, since you only need like 85% to recruit all fibers, thus adding to the workload, but in general the first few warm up sets do not really do anything.

Example, I did 365 pounds in the squat today. I did 135x 5, 225 x 3, 315x2, and 365x10. The 315 did something stimulation wise, but the other 2 did not. In theory I did 4 sets, but in reality it was arguably 2.

The only reason I'm against low volume/HIT/heavy duty routines is because I tried them in the past, but they never worked.

And believe me when I say I tried all of them, arthur jones, Dorian's HIT, heavy duty, max-ot, etc. I did not get results from them.

To each their own.

[Smanjh]

The only reason I'm against low volume/HIT/heavy duty routines is because I tried them in the past, but they never worked.

And believe me when I say I tried all of them, arthur jones, Dorian's HIT, heavy duty, max-ot, etc. I did not get results from them.

To each their own.

Yeah, that does happen, some people do not have the CNS or whatever for tolerating that kind of effort. Some people can not even generate it. Jones and Darden talked about how Arnold just would not go to failure despite trying to, or at least the kind of failure Viator could go through. It sure held Arnie back, lol.

What I am saying is that all of these programs are fundamentally the same. One set to just failure does not work as well for me all the time, and I am not against doing more.

I do find it hard to believe that training for 20 somewhat hard sets with heavy weight is even possible for most unless it is programmed right. 10 sets of 10 sort of overrides the fatigue generated by the one set and rest pause, but it takes longer to get to that point, however the muscles get much more stimulation across the board.

HIT is really a fast twitch predominate's wet dream. Progress is not as forth coming for general and slow fiber types with ultra low volume.

[StanZoLOL]

HIT is really a fast twitch predominate's wet dream. Progress is not as forth coming for general and slow fiber types with ultra low volume.

Good analysis, you could even break it down further that some bodyparts (ft dominant) would respond better to "HIT" and some to volume, on the same person. I've even found that front delts respond better to heavy shit and side delts volume heh.

[DK II]

Good analysis, you could even break it down further that some bodyparts (ft dominant) would respond better to "HIT" and some to volume, on the same person. I've even found that front delts respond better to heavy shit and side delts volume heh.

Milos Sarcev has said this as well about delts and i think that it is right to some extend.

Personally, i change my rep count every two weeks in a 20, 12, 6 progression and have had good results with it. I think that you should train all rep ranges to activate all muscle fibers.

[Smanjh]

Good analysis, you could even break it down further that some bodyparts (ft dominant) would respond better to "HIT" and some to volume, on the same person. I've even found that front delts respond better to heavy shit and side delts volume heh.

The main part it sort of gets away from though is the 'we must do 20 sets or it is a waste' type thing.

Remember that study where they showed 3 sets were better than 1, but 6 and one set were tied? It was a meta analysis. Well, that does not mean they tested 3 sets for flat bench, 3 for incline, flies, dips, decline, etc.

With Mentzer's 'ideal routine', you are doing 2 sets in reality for every part. The frequency is a little too low for most though.

My point is: do whatever you do to make progress. Deload. repeat and change up in accordance to what you know and not what you hope.

Like, you can take the 5x5 template (advanced) and do something like that or along the same idea, even if you are going to failure. Those deload periods along with strength gains are the final arbiter. Doing 3000 reps in a whole session with those little pink dumbells wont do a damn thing, lol.

[Smanjh]

Milos Sarcev has said this as well about delts and i think that it is right to some extend.

Personally, i change my rep count every two weeks in a 20, 12, 6 progression and have had good results with it. I think that you should train all rep ranges to activate all muscle fibers.

Full recruitment actually occurs at like the 5th rep with 80% of your 1rm. Additional sets, even in that range should 'activate' them. (not being a smart ass). The fibers is the question, and it is still up for debate (slow twitch may need tons of volume or higher reps).

More sets equals more fatigue. This is needed, but does it happen at that fifth rep, the second set? the tenth?

You know if you can come back and beat your previous best and gain SOMETHING in that session.

[DK II]

Full recruitment actually occurs at like the 5th rep with 80% of your 1rm. Additional sets, even in that range should 'activate' them. (not being a smart ass). The fibers is the question, and it is still up for debate (slow twitch may need tons of volume or higher reps).

More sets equals more fatigue. This is needed, but does it happen at that fifth rep, the second set? the tenth?

You know if you can come back and beat your previous best and gain SOMETHING in that session.

Thanks for the info, thinking about it it sounds like common sense.

But i think on the baseline we can conclude two things: Not every programme is for everybody and what is important is progression.

[suckmymuscle]

Didn't both Mike and his bro die kind of early-ish? Why idolize them?

  Ray Mentzer died at 50 of some congenital health problem. Mike died soon after due to the emotional stress of losing his brother. What has this got to do with the effectiveness of Mike Mentzer's training system?

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Figo]

I started lifting in 1973 or so.  I trained with Ray Mentzer almost everyday for about 6 months or so while I training for the World's in 86'.  I don't ever remember him mentioning HIT.  He let lift what and how I wanted.  We did do a variation of the Russian Strength workout at the time.  The one thing we didn't have was a person who would massage our muscles between sets like the original Russian workout called for.  It was to help increase blood circulation and break up any lactic acid build-up I think.  Now that would have been really nice.  We did have some guys volunteer to change the weights for me though

do share more stories, Keith
Ray was a hard-trainer too? in the early 80's he was all over the mags along with Mike, very popular.
What were the brothers like?

[Smanjh]

Thanks for the info, thinking about it it sounds like common sense.

But i think on the baseline we can conclude two things: Not every programme is for everybody and what is important is progression.

Indeed. They all follow the same basic theory sort of (if you grow from high volume and I grow from low volume, the very same thing is taking place muscle wise generally in theory).

Your right though.

[StanZoLOL]

The main part it sort of gets away from though is the 'we must do 20 sets or it is a waste' type thing.

Remember that study where they showed 3 sets were better than 1, but 6 and one set were tied? It was a meta analysis. Well, that does not mean they tested 3 sets for flat bench, 3 for incline, flies, dips, decline, etc.

With Mentzer's 'ideal routine', you are doing 2 sets in reality for every part. The frequency is a little too low for most though.

My point is: do whatever you do to make progress. Deload. repeat and change up in accordance to what you know and not what you hope.

Like, you can take the 5x5 template (advanced) and do something like that or along the same idea, even if you are going to failure. Those deload periods along with strength gains are the final arbiter. Doing 3000 reps in a whole session with those little pink dumbells wont do a damn thing, lol.

Good post.

[Smanjh]

Good post.

Why thank you.

Mike's original split:

Legs/chest/triceps and Back/Biceps/Shoulders, alternated 4x a week.

Mike himself did like 3 sets of pre exhaust, 2 sets of other things. He also warmed up which to many looked like the working sets everyone else was doing (probably was scientifically past a certain point).

I do the same split, and I use rest pause or a second and maybe a 3rd set at times. Deloading is 2 workouts with only straight sets, 1 each for a week or 2. It seems to work very well, except I do the 3 day a week para dime now, so everything gets worked 6x a month instead of four. I also rotate exercises a la DC.

This is editable as well, and I may sometimes do like a 12-10-8-6 scheme not to failure. But, I stick mainly with the big compound movements now and try to progress on those each time out.

There is nothing wrong with a higher volume approach if it is geared towards strength,  but a lot of people seem to just 'pump and pump' without really going anywhere.

I am no expert in the least, but generally you can see that the biggest guys are also the strongest in the 6-15 rep range or lower in direct comparison (hence why they have weight classes in powerlifting).
 

[JP_RC]

Why thank you.

Mike's original split:

Legs/chest/triceps and Back/Biceps/Shoulders, alternated 4x a week.

Mike himself did like 3 sets of pre exhaust, 2 sets of other things. He also warmed up which to many looked like the working sets everyone else was doing (probably was scientifically past a certain point).

I do the same split, and I use rest pause or a second and maybe a 3rd set at times. Deloading is 2 workouts with only straight sets, 1 each for a week or 2. It seems to work very well, except I do the 3 day a week para dime now, so everything gets worked 6x a month instead of four. I also rotate exercises a la DC.

This is editable as well, and I may sometimes do like a 12-10-8-6 scheme not to failure. But, I stick mainly with the big compound movements now and try to progress on those each time out.

There is nothing wrong with a higher volume approach if it is geared towards strength,  but a lot of people seem to just 'pump and pump' without really going anywhere.

I am no expert in the least, but generally you can see that the biggest guys are also the strongest in the 6-15 rep range or lower in direct comparison (hence why they have weight classes in powerlifting).
 

Don't forget that pure strength is also genetic, things like tendon thickness, tendon length, structure, etc. affect how strong someone can be.

I'm a volume trainer and I agree that every training program should be geared towards getting stronger to some degree, but unfortunately this has been misinterpreted by some that think strength is the only way to overload a muscle, which is not true.
Also, some guys try to get stronger by any means and start lifting sloppily, cheating and using too much momentum.....thus not stimulating the target muscle to its fullest.

As far as the biggest guys being the strongest, that's not always true. Actually I've seen plenty of really strong guys with no muscular development whatsoever, at least not the type they should have for their strength.

[slacker]

wow