Disgusted - tell us about your training strategies

[The_Leafy_Bug]

Yep, I've seen  them all and while it looks cool to throw around big weight in the end by the time you are 45 you are a complete mess of injuries. Extreme size comes from hormones anyway so why not enjoy training till you are old.

Jim, would you say that that extreme size comes from the length of time you have been training and on hormones or from the amount of hormones you take?

[oldtimer1]

 &guy guys in their teens and twenties should train for strength.  Doing routines like three to four exercises per body part with two work sets per exercise. Reps around 6 to 8 with legs getting higher reps. So a chest workout could look something like this: Flat bench 2 x 6; Incline barbell 2 x 6; and flat flies 2 x 10.  Use a warm up set as needed but 2 work sets per exercise. Try to get stronger in every workout. When you burn out take a week off and maybe change around exercises like using dumbbell inclines instead of barbell. One body part every 5 to 7 days.

The problem with using a high intensity type of routine is that you can't get strong forever. You can't go up in a linear fashion. High intensity trainer should attempt an extra rep or adding weight every workout. High intensity leads to burn out but quick results.  I can't count how many times through my life I've gotten into great shape in three weeks using high intensity.

The problem with high intensity is burning out from hitting your head so to speak against the wall. No one can train forever using HIT.  That's why you got some HIT nuts saying they just train twice a week for 20 minutes.  They made their training so hard that it's all they can stand.  

Having said all this stuff about HIT and trying to gain strength, a long term strategy is to use volume.  I call volume endurance training.  Using 4 to 6 sets per exercise with moderate weights will keep you gaining for a long time because your adaptation to volume has a longer threshold ceiling compared to HIT.

One way I found to use volume is this example. If your are doing Bench for 5 x 12 reps; the first set you could get 20 but you do 12. The second maybe you could get 15 but you do 12.  Third maybe 13 but do 12. Forth you hit 12 which is about failure.  On the fifth you reach a failure at 8 reps. When you can get all 5 sets of 12 you up the weight or try to do the 5 sets quicker.  Your second chest exercise inclines you follow the same system. Obviously this quick volume training will severely limit the weight used but many HIT guys find themselves rapidly growing again using this type training.

Lastly Bill Pearl says on this site don't train to failure.  He said it leads to burn out then to many lost training days. I understand what Pearl is saying. Heavy slow brutal training leads to quick results but quick burn out.

[lesaucer]

''do not train to failure''... every time i hear this i which i could punch the shit out of the dumbass who said that

[oldtimer1]

If you did one set to real failure say one set of benches for 8 reps you couldn't do a second set for 8 reps.  If you could do another 8 reps in your second set you didn't truly train to failure in the first.

[pellius]

I agree with Jones when he said that you should do the absolute minimum the will give you OPTIMAL results. Anything more is wasted effort at best and counter productive at worse. The question is what is the absolute minimum required? What is optimal? It is my belief, for the recreational trainee, it is better to err on the side of under training rather than over training. With under training results come slower or not at all. With over training you are putting in extra effort to regress. When it gets to the point where you dread going to the gym you are going too much. You should think in terms of the long haul. I've been training with weights non stop for 39 years straight. I've stuck to a 3x/wk schedule for around the last 20 years. There's been times when I bump it up to 4x/wk (instead of chest/delts/tris I'd break it up to chest one day then delts/tris the next) but I'd soon get burnt out in a few weeks. I know that sounds strange and I'm not really doing more exercises as such. Just breaking a one day routine into a two day routine. But it seems to make a difference. With 3x/wk I can always grind through a workout because I know I get the next day off. And those two day rest after legs is always welcome.

I posted these in another thread as they were taken a couple of days ago. There was no prepping, dialing it in, dieting, pumping up, elaborate photo session. Just a couple of pics of my everyday walk around condition while I was debating with Basile in another thread.  I'm 51 years old now.

[oldtimer1]

Somehow I knew this would lead to a volume vs hit debate.

I believe you need both heavy training and volume endurance type training.

[pellius]

''do not train to failure''... every time i hear this i which i could punch the shit out of the dumbass who said that

It is my belief, and I got this from A. Jones, that as long as you are doing something that is already easy it will do very little or nothing to stimulate and adaptive response. To me that makes intuitive sense. As long as you do 8 reps at 205lbs never trying for the 9th rep what reason does your body have to adapt and get stronger and therefore bigger.

Tbombz doesn't even believes this as he believes in progressive over load. It doesn't matter if that over load is an additional rep at the same weight or the same reps at a heavier weight.  

[pellius]

Somehow I knew this would lead to a volume vs hit debate.

I believe you need both heavy training and volume endurance type training.

Doesn't have to be all or nothing. One set versus fifteen sets. There's a middle ground. Two sets versus fourteen sets.

[lesaucer]

If you did one set to real failure say one set of benches for 8 reps you couldn't do a second set for 8 reps.  If you could do another 8 reps in your second set you didn't truly train to failure in the first.

your way; 1st set:8 reps, 2nd set: 8reps.   my way: 1st set: 9reps  2nd sets:7.    total reps for both ways are 16, but with my way, you stimulate your body to ADAPT to what he FAILED to achieve, therefore coming back stronger next time, if proper rest was included

[pellius]

your way; 1st set:8 reps, 2nd set: 8reps.   my way: 1st set: 9reps  2nd sets:7.    total reps for both ways are 16, but with my way, you stimulate your body to ADAPT to what he FAILED to achieve, therefore coming back stronger next time, if proper rest was included

Exactly. After a warm up and beginning your work set, if you can do the same number of reps with the same weight on the second set as you did on the first it just tells me you didn't really push yourself on the first set. I mean, I guess if you push the first set to failure and rest ten minutes maybe you can duplicate the performance. But what's the point?

[oldtimer1]

Jones always seemed to me to be out of shape to me.  He has that one picture of him doing a most muscular but most pictures he looks like a 145lb out of shape guy. All that bs about him weighing 200lbs back in the day is something I don't believe.


I have heard the Jones rhetoric for ever.  I'm 52 and I have read almost everything he as written. I have his original training books and every article he has ever written in Ironman. I have been a hit trainer most of my life.  

Volume training isn't easy and it does lead to adaptation.  Try doing 5 sets of squats.  

Could you imagine a sprinter saying a marathoner doesn't train hard because he runs all those sub maximal miles? I hear low set trainers say this all the time about volume trainers.  5 sets of chins is tough just as one set of chins to failure is tough but you are comparing apples to oranges.

[pellius]

Jones always seemed to me to be out of shape to me.  He has that one picture of him doing a most muscular but most pictures he looks like a 145lb out of shape guy. All that bs about him weighing 200lbs back in the day is something I don't believe.


I have heard the Jones rhetoric for ever.  I'm 52 and I have read almost everything he as written. I have his original training books and every article he has ever written in Ironman. I have been a hit trainer most of my life.  

Volume training isn't easy and it does lead to adaptation.  Try doing 5 sets of squats.  

Could you imagine a sprinter saying a marathoner doesn't train hard because he runs all those sub maximal miles? I hear low set trainers say this all the time about volume trainers.  5 sets of chins is tough just as one set of chins to failure is tough but you are comparing apples to oranges.

I've certainly done fives sets and more of squats during in my time. It depends solely on intensity. If I can do, say, 12 reps at 225 lbs failing on the 13th rep but, instead of 12 reps, I decided to do just 6 reps. I could easily preform 5 or more sets no problem. About a month ago, after being stuck at a certain rep range forever (19 reps), I decided I was going to break that plateau or die trying (lol) which was 20 reps. I did those 20 reps but immediately collapsed on the floor and laid on my back for a full ten minutes. I couldn't continue with the rest of my training. I just went home and was on the couch for the rest of the day and evening just drinking Up Your Mass drink as I really didn't feel like eating. By around 10 pm I was beginning to feel better and at least took a shower. My workout that day consisted of just that one work set of squats.

Nobody said that marathoners don't work hard. But don't conflate hard work with intensity. Jones was very clear about that and claimed that for the purpose of increasing strength and muscle mass intensity was the most important factor in preforming an exercise. It is like comparing apples to oranges. Just like the physiques of a sprinter compared to a long distance runner is apples to oranges. I prefer to look and perform like a sprinter. 

[pellius]

Jones always seemed to me to be out of shape to me.  He has that one picture of him doing a most muscular but most pictures he looks like a 145lb out of shape guy. All that bs about him weighing 200lbs back in the day is something I don't believe.


I have heard the Jones rhetoric for ever.  I'm 52 and I have read almost everything he as written. I have his original training books and every article he has ever written in Ironman. I have been a hit trainer most of my life.  

Volume training isn't easy and it does lead to adaptation.  Try doing 5 sets of squats.  

Could you imagine a sprinter saying a marathoner doesn't train hard because he runs all those sub maximal miles? I hear low set trainers say this all the time about volume trainers.  5 sets of chins is tough just as one set of chins to failure is tough but you are comparing apples to oranges.

BTW, what type of routine are you doing these days? Not specifically: but frequency, duration and intensity? How many sessions/wk? How long/session? How intense?

[oldtimer1]

I don't believe Jones was right about the magic bullet being the intensity of one set.  The overwhelming amount of bodybuilders, power lifters, Olympic lifters and athletes using weight use mulitple sets.  If doing one set was all that was needed to exhaustion was the magic trigger all would be doing that.  I do believe two sets is better than one.  Three sets is better than two but the gains diminish with each set.

I currently use a four way split.  Monday is chest. Tuesday is back.  Wednesday is off.  Thursday is legs. Friday is delts and arms. Weekend is off. I also use cardio using biking and running.  I use three to four exercises per body part and two work sets per exercise not counting warm ups. So biceps could be 2 x8 for barbell curls. 2 x 8 alternate dubbell curls and 2 x10 of concentration curls.  This is similar to the type routine Dorian Yates used prior to him going to his one work set per exercise.  

I do change up my routines a lot.  

 

[cephissus]

I like reading the advice in this thread, but I feel like people use the same word to mean different things.

For instance "failure".  I remember reading something Arnold wrote in his encyclopedia along the lines of: "Many trainers tell me they cant squat another rep, but I force them to and guess what, they always can!"

I took this sentence very seriously and would take my squat sets to excruciating extremes.  I would feel terrified of doing another rep, but I always forced myself to get one or two more... and then another one or two, until I couldn't even do a rep with bad form and collapsed onto the pins.  This is what I think of when I think of going to failure.

And now people will probably say, "well of course stupid, you broke form to get those extra reps."  But doesn't everyone?  After all, if you absolutely refuse to budge on form at all, going "to failure" is actually pretty easy.  Where do you draw the line on this?  Do you go all out, and do anything to get the extra reps?  Do you stop as soon as you can't accelerate the weight perfectly smoothly?  Or somewhere in between?

The more I watch professional bbers actual training vids (not the DVD performances) and pay attention to these things, the more it seems like they stop almost just as soon as the going gets a little tough.  If this is "failure" then I had quite the wrong impression for many years...  

[pellius]

I don't believe Jones was right about the magic bullet being the intensity of one set.  The overwhelming amount of bodybuilders, power lifters, Olympic lifters and athletes using weight use mulitple sets.  If doing one set was all that was needed to exhaustion was the magic trigger all would be doing that.  I do believe two sets is better than one.  Three sets is better than two but the gains diminish with each set.

I currently use a four way split.  Monday is chest. Tuesday is back.  Wednesday is off.  Thursday is legs. Friday is delts and arms. Weekend is off. I also use cardio using biking and running.  I use three to four exercises per body part and two work sets per exercise not counting warm ups. So biceps could be 2 x8 for barbell curls. 2 x 8 alternate dubbell curls and 2 x10 of concentration curls.  This is similar to the type routine Dorian Yates used prior to him going to his one work set per exercise.  

I do change up my routines a lot.  

 

I don't believe that either. But there is a difference between once set per exercise and one set per body part. But the principles of intensity vs duration are sound and they are inversely proportional. The harder you train the less you can train. You can jog for an hour or more. How long can you full all out sprint? That is measures in seconds.

So if two is better than one, three is better than two is four better than three? How about twenty better than three? Or thirty? Fourty? Fifty?

[pellius]

I like reading the advice in this thread, but I feel like people use the same word to mean different things.

For instance "failure".  I remember reading something Arnold wrote in his encyclopedia along the lines of: "Many trainers tell me they cant squat another rep, but I force them to and guess what, they always can!"

I took this sentence very seriously and would take my squat sets to excruciating extremes.  I would feel terrified of doing another rep, but I always forced myself to get one or two more... and then another one or two, until I couldn't even do a rep with bad form and collapsed onto the pins.  This is what I think of when I think of going to failure.

And now people will probably say, "well of course stupid, you broke form to get those extra reps."  But doesn't everyone?  After all, if you absolutely refuse to budge on form at all, going "to failure" is actually pretty easy.  Where do you draw the line on this?  Do you go all out, and do anything to get the extra reps?  Do you stop as soon as you can't accelerate the weight perfectly smoothly?  Or somewhere in between?

The more I watch professional bbers actual training vids (not the DVD performances) and pay attention to these things, the more it seems like they stop almost just as soon as the going gets a little tough.  If this is "failure" then I had quite the wrong impression for many years...  

Jones formally defined training to failure as unable to do another rep in good form. It was Mentzer that started introducing (not creating or inventing) intensity variables such as forced reps, drop sets, rest pause... It was Mentzer's belief that just because you couldn't do that 9th rep at 200lbs doesn't mean you had nothing left. You can still generate, say, 190lbs, and then 175 lbs... hence the force reps. And when you can no longer generate the positive portion of a rep (concentric contraction) you still can generate force via the negative portion of the rep (eccentric contraction). I guess when you can no longer initiate any movement whatsoever, when muscle is completelyunable to contract, I guess that would be total failure.

Don't know if that is even possible or sustainable let alone necessary but I would think the scanty minimum would be Jone's original definition.
 

[Disgusted]

Jim, would you say that that extreme size comes from the length of time you have been training and on hormones or from the amount of hormones you take?

Leaf that is an excellent question. I have always said that people never give themselves time to GROW INTO THEIR CYCLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So many people will get on 500 mgs of whatever and then after 12 weeks when they stop putting on "scale weight" they think they have to up the dose. Hell doing it this way one is going to be using 3000 mgs a week and then wonder why they don't look like Mr Pro.

Leaf if I were you I would pick 5 or 6 of my favorite supps and rotate 3 on at a time. I personally would not go above 1000 mgs per week and just use the basics.  I don't like test, but that is a personal choice. Be consistant!! There is a lot to be said for the effectives of EQ, Deca, Dbol, Winny, Anadrol. Be careful though cause you might end up looking like this.

[pellius]

I like reading the advice in this thread, but I feel like people use the same word to mean different things.

For instance "failure".  I remember reading something Arnold wrote in his encyclopedia along the lines of: "Many trainers tell me they cant squat another rep, but I force them to and guess what, they always can!"

I took this sentence very seriously and would take my squat sets to excruciating extremes.  I would feel terrified of doing another rep, but I always forced myself to get one or two more... and then another one or two, until I couldn't even do a rep with bad form and collapsed onto the pins.  This is what I think of when I think of going to failure.

And now people will probably say, "well of course stupid, you broke form to get those extra reps."  But doesn't everyone?  After all, if you absolutely refuse to budge on form at all, going "to failure" is actually pretty easy.  Where do you draw the line on this?  Do you go all out, and do anything to get the extra reps?  Do you stop as soon as you can't accelerate the weight perfectly smoothly?  Or somewhere in between?

The more I watch professional bbers actual training vids (not the DVD performances) and pay attention to these things, the more it seems like they stop almost just as soon as the going gets a little tough.  If this is "failure" then I had quite the wrong impression for many years...  

BTW, did you see Jay's latest Chest workout that was posted here? I thought he was training pretty hard and intensely. Took every set to positive failure along with some partials and even drop sets. Just because you aren't screaming and swearing and making contorted facial expressions doesn't mean you aren't training hard.

I consider Ed Corney's set of squats in Pumping Iron to be high intensity and about as hard as you want to go on squats. I don't believe he could have done many more sets with that type of effort so it would have been pointless.

[LittleJ]

Leaf that is an excellent question. I have always said that people never give themselves time to GROW INTO THEIR CYCLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So many people will get on 500 mgs of whatever and then after 12 weeks when they stop putting on "scale weight" they think they have to up the dose. Hell doing it this way one is going to be using 3000 mgs a week and then wonder why they don't look like Mr Pro.

Leaf if I were you I would pick 5 or 6 of my favorite supps and rotate 3 on at a time. I personally would not go above 1000 mgs per week and just use the basics.  I don't like test, but that is a personal choice. Be consistant!! There is a lot to be said for the effectives of EQ, Deca, Dbol, Winny, Anadrol. Be careful though cause you might end up looking like this.

How do you feel about hgh? What dosages do you think is good?

[pellius]

Leaf that is an excellent question. I have always said that people never give themselves time to GROW INTO THEIR CYCLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So many people will get on 500 mgs of whatever and then after 12 weeks when they stop putting on "scale weight" they think they have to up the dose. Hell doing it this way one is going to be using 3000 mgs a week and then wonder why they don't look like Mr Pro.

Leaf if I were you I would pick 5 or 6 of my favorite supps and rotate 3 on at a time. I personally would not go above 1000 mgs per week and just use the basics.  I don't like test, but that is a personal choice. Be consistant!! There is a lot to be said for the effectives of EQ, Deca, Dbol, Winny, Anadrol. Be careful though cause you might end up looking like this.

You sound like Dr. Walczak from back in the 1980s. Didn't even believed in cycling like you don't cycle calories. It's a long term gradual thing. He started at 200mgs deca every two weeks along with 3 tabs of dbol. And just like you gradually increase calories you gradually increase  the dose. And he didn't believe in using testosterone. He said the whole reason AAS was developed in the first place was as a refinement of testosterone. To minimize the androgenic properties (defined then as the primary and secondary sexual characteristics) while maintaining or enhancing the anabolic (muscle building) properties. He considered steroids to be much safer with less sides than testosterone.
 

[cephissus]

BTW, did you see Jay's latest Chest workout that was posted here? I thought he was training pretty hard and intensely. Took every set to positive failure along with some partials and even drop sets. Just because you aren't screaming and swearing and making contorted facial expressions doesn't mean you aren't training hard.

Can't find it, would you mind posting the link?

[slaveboy1980]

You sound like Dr. Walczak from back in the 1980s. Didn't even believed in cycling like you don't cycle calories. It's a long term gradual thing. He started at 200mgs deca every two weeks along with 3 tabs of dbol. And just like you gradually increase calories you gradually increase  the dose. And he didn't believe in using testosterone. He said the whole reason AAS was developed in the first place was as a refinement of testosterone. To minimize the androgenic properties (defined then as the primary and secondary sexual characteristics) while maintaining or enhancing the anabolic (muscle building) properties. He considered steroids to be much safer with less sides than testosterone.
 

i have read about that guy...he knew his shit...he said that as a natural you wont grow much more after 3-5 years of proper training. and it's pretty much spot on...IF you have been training somewhat seriously. you can keep getting stronger but you will hardly grow after that. alot of people fool themselves tho by simply becoming fatter.

[pellius]

Can't find it, would you mind posting the link?

I tired. The search engine sucks. I'm sure it's on one of his sites or on MD. I think it's 4 weeks out. It was posted by Muscle Center whom I'm sure would repost it for you or give you the link.

[Disgusted]

How do you feel about hgh? What dosages do you think is good?

OK here's the thing. There are tons of guys from years ago walking around huge with out GH. Most guys on this board complain about how shitty the guys of today look, but they all want to take the drugs like they do? You can't have both. You got guys who weigh 190 and think they need to get on 6 iu's of GH 1000 mgs of test and insulin to get big. Go ahead and see how you look at 6 months. Pellius is right as I don't like test. If you want to use it go ahead, but I laugh when I hear about people using 2 to 3 grams a week. I feel sorry for some of these guys who are spending their last dime on all this GH. Look at the pic of Robby I posted. Do you think he was taking Gh, tons of test and slin? Hell no, there was lots of Deca and Dbol back then with some winny and primo. Yeah there were some other things, but deca and dbol built most of what you see in the 70's and early 80's.