Intensity madness

[oldtimer1]

I admit I have been brain washed. When Arthur Jones broke on the scene he used Ironman magazine to deliver his message. I think I still have almost everything he wrote in it. I have his original Bulletin book that was put together with staples. His message ran true with this impressionable kid back in the day. I wanted to try Nautilus machines in the worst way but they were relatively rare back then and sick expensive for the times. Some gyms might have had a machine or two but I wanted to do real Nautilus training like he recommended. My first year in college they had a weight room. I was a walk on sprinter on the track team. The coach knew me and wanted me on the team. I spend a lot of time in the weight room. Then it was closed for a week for renovations. When they opened it they had 12 pristine Nautilus machines. I didn't train pure Nautilus but a combo in the weight room. I found many of the machines were fantastic but some were just okay.

 Then Mentzer broke on the scene. His first article in a Weider mag he wrote he train three days a week. Starting from the biggest body part to the smallest. While he trained with a combo of Nautilus and conventional. He used 5 sets per body part. Not 5 sets an exercise. He made quite a wave going against the usual four to five sets an exercise. He even bragged at the rate he was growing he would be better than Arnold soon.

  Casey used the same three day type routine using again a combo of conventional and Nautilus prior to Mentzer using intensity methods. Casey sometimes was using pure Nautilus but usually using a combo.

  Other Intensity guys like Dave Mastorakis was using almost only Nautilus and sticking to true one set to failure. Another was John Cardillo Mr. Canada was a one set to failure guy.  The most famous of them all was Dorian Yates who after warm up did one work set to failure.

  I have been doing one to two sets to failure for ages. Not the most pleasant way to train. When doing two work sets if the first set was terminated at 10 reps I might have been able to get 12-14 reps. The second set is a true 10 reps to failure. One set to failure when I do a routine similar to Yates is really brutal. Truly taking one set to failure is a sick way to train. It taxes the brain, spirit and body to a sick level. Many times I feel my CNS system is fried sometimes to the point of mental depression. I know guys like Danny Padilla said he tried it. His words in effect was that it was scary and he did give it his all but he didn't see the same results as volume. Bill Pearl said if you train to failure all the time you will need time off for exhaustion often. He said in effect that training longevity is an important part of training. Imagine if a coach said to a mile track runner we are going to use the Arthur Jones method. Every training day we will run a mile and we will try to beat the time each training day recorded in our training journal. Sounds like insanity. Yet, this is what is being preached by HIT fanatics for weight trainers. Another point there is no true definition of HIT. Some say one set to failure. Some say three sets to failure. There is no one accepted way to train with HIT regarding frequency either. If intensity was the magic bullet wouldn't we be training with one set of one rep?

 Guys that truly follow  the "religion" of Arthur Jones and intensity normally start off training three days a week with maybe 12 exercises. Then as fatigue and the hell of training gets too brutal they take it down to twice a week. Then once every 5 days. Then further reduce it to maybe 4 or 6 exercises  from their original 12. Their routines are so hellish they think they have reached their genetic potential and now what they need is more rest.

  Intensity is really hard on the mind. I know more than once after going to failure the owner of the gym has come up to me and asked me if I was alright as I held on to something breathing like a race horse. One slob who is a bench and curl guy accused me of being out of shape. He said after every set you look like you are about to pass out. That in a nut shell is the difference between training to failure and doing a set well within your capabilities.

  One thing that drives me insane are HIT fanatics that say volume guys don't train hard. In the running world you would never hear a 100 meter track guy say the 5K runner is a slacker. It's apples to oranges and the 100 meter guys knows how hard the 5K guy trains even though it's not as intense. I speculate that's one of the reasons Arnold wasn't fond of Mentzer was he would say stuff like Arnold doesn't train hard and Arnold trained like a beast back in the day. No he didn't use low sets.

  My intentions weren't to bring up a volume vs HIT debate. I think both should be used. I think a bodybuilder's muscle is best built through muscular endurance training and that's what volume is.  Having said that it's important to red line the intensity from time to time too.  I think since Yates left I can't name a current pro training like him. It seems all pros use volume now.

  

[SOMEPARTS]

If you want to lift after 40 natty you better be doing mostly volume.

[Powerlift66]

Dave Mastorakis and Tracy (and Her Dad "Red") are dear friends of mine.
Dave has a nice basement gym, he still trains people in that fashion (at home and at a local gym).

A guy from Germany came in recently to visit Dave (writing a book) to get info about Mike Mentzer (Dave & Mike were best friends).
Will be a great book...

[IroNat]

There was a Nautilus gym my wife trained at pre-wedding.

They did the circuit with one set to failure.  Took about 30 minutes.

Best my wife has ever looked body-wise.

32 years ago.

Those gyms are not around anymore.

[oldtimer1]

There was a Nautilus gym my wife trained at pre-wedding.

They did the circuit with one set to failure.  Took about 30 minutes.

Best my wife has ever looked body-wise.

32 years ago.

Those gyms are not around anymore.

Surprisingly there was a pure Nautilus and MedX gym in Belmar NJ as recent as 10 years ago. My job sent me and a couple of other guys there to go through a high intensity workout about 15 years ago. The guy had me do about 6 exercises to failure with many forced reps. In between each set he had me sprint on an exercise bike. I think he was trying to show how he could make in shape guys pass out. At the end I was about to puke. The guy who owned the place was a  high priest of Arthur Jones.  He tolerated no other method of training as being a valid way to train. He was fond of saying his way was the only scientific way to train. I think his membership was dwindling. It's gone and I think he moved to Florida. What happened to all his equipment that really was a shrine to Arthur Jones I have no idea.

[wes]

I`ve known Dave Mastorakis since I was a kid and have seen him train daily at the Springfield Mass. YMCA back in the day.

He and the others that you`ve mentioned had all used volume training to initially build their size/physiques.

I think the few hard sets helped to just maintain their muscle that they built using volume...plus they were all on gear.

HIT is great,as is volume, but you have to find which best suits you as an individual.

[Hulkotron]

kyomu is the local getbig expert on taking it to the failure.

[Henda]

I prefer multiple sets with the same weight, once I switched from one set to failure in the 8-10 rep range which I had done for years to 3 sets of 5 with the same weight I finally started getting somewhere. A weight you could do for eight reps to failure you could do for 3 sets of 5 approaching failure on the lat set almost doubling the volume and time under tension with the same weight and you still get to hit near failure on the last set, can even take it to failure if desired

[Titus Pullo]

I prefer multiple sets with the same weight, once I switched from one set to failure in the 8-10 rep range which I had done for years to 3 sets of 5 with the same weight I finally started getting somewhere. A weight you could do for eight reps to failure you could do for 3 sets of 5 approaching failure on the lat set almost doubling the volume and time under tension with the same weight and you still get to hit near failure on the last set, can even take it to failure if desired

Sounds good.

I was at my biggest and strongest doing a hybrid of DC training with some Mentzerisms thrown in (e.g., training each body part directly once weekly, rotating through two, not three, main exercises per body part but using the Dante-style rest-pausing, followed by a high rep "widowmaker" for said part), but the mental drain would quickly set in.  Even though I have an eidetic memory, I kept detailed training logs, and knowing I had to beat the previous session (yeah, with the advantage of 250 mg. Test E and the occasional six week bout of 20 mg. of Dbol) was daunting.  

I was very happy with the results.  My pecs grew so much that I could literally feel gravity pulling them down.  And Mentzer-style training had served me very well in my younger days, natty, but I won't go into that.  Suffice to say, if someone had shown me, early on, the utility of shying back from failure to lift a bit heavier on a per-set basis, I probably would have enjoyed some fresh gains before surgery took me out of serious lifting forever.

[oldtimer1]

Sounds good.

I was at my biggest and strongest doing a hybrid of DC training with some Mentzerisms thrown in (e.g., training each body part directly once weekly, rotating through two, not three, main exercises per body part but using the Dante-style rest-pausing, followed by a high rep "widowmaker" for said part), but the mental drain would quickly set in.  Even though I have an eidetic memory, I kept detailed training logs, and knowing I had to beat the previous session (yeah, with the advantage of 250 mg. Test E and the occasional six week bout of 20 mg. of Dbol) was daunting.  

I was very happy with the results.  My pecs grew so much that I could literally feel gravity pulling them down.  And Mentzer-style training had served me very well in my younger days, natty, but I won't go into that.  Suffice to say, if someone had shown me, early on, the utility of shying back from failure to lift a bit heavier on a per-set basis, I probably would have enjoyed some fresh gains before surgery took me out of serious lifting forever.

Training logs after ten years or more of training are a hindrance to good training. How can you train knowing last week you got 8 reps and after decades you are going to get 9 reps? Why not train knowing if you have an off day still hitting the gym is a positive and not a negative. Sure train to do your best but if you get 7 reps it's still a positive. I have decades of training logs. I finally got rid of them and have made better gains. If you are new to training say your first 5 to 10 years. Yes, keep training logs. Compete against what you have done. No one can get stronger every  workout or even every year. For many switching to training for muscular endurance will be a new goal rather than strength.

[oldtimer1]

I prefer multiple sets with the same weight, once I switched from one set to failure in the 8-10 rep range which I had done for years to 3 sets of 5 with the same weight I finally started getting somewhere. A weight you could do for eight reps to failure you could do for 3 sets of 5 approaching failure on the lat set almost doubling the volume and time under tension with the same weight and you still get to hit near failure on the last set, can even take it to failure if desired

Some wisdom here. One set of failure using 10 reps or five sets of 10 reps which equals 50 reps?  I think a bodybuilder's muscle is best built through muscular endurance rather than strength.  If getting stronger was the magic bullet to bigger muscles we would all be training with sets of 1 rep to 3 reps. I think a guy will have better triceps and chest doing 5 sets of dips than a guy doing one set of dips to failure.

[NI_Muscle]

Have always enjoyed your posts Rich, both here and on a few other forums over the years, however, it seems you have been torn over the intensity Vs volume conundrum for a long time now.

Have you ever given cumulative fatigue type training, like Padilla's approach, an honest try for 3 or 4 months?

[Hypertrophy]

 I switched from training to failure on one set to three sets of five at about 90% effort. I do this twice a week and the first day of every week I increase the weight if I can do three full sets of five. This is the old 5×5 method of Reg Park and it seems to work well- I’ve surpassed the weights I maxed out on HIT. The real advantage is mental- going to failure burns me out after a while. 

[oldtimer1]

Have always enjoyed your posts Rich, both here and on a few other forums over the years, however, it seems you have been torn over the intensity Vs volume conundrum for a long time now.

Have you ever given cumulative fatigue type training, like Padilla's approach, an honest try for 3 or 4 months?

Truth be told, no. When I was around 18 I did for a few months  but that wasn't a good test. I like your description of cumulative fatigue training. We have feeder, dog crap, HST, German volume training and if you market your Cumulative fatigue training you could have a following, LOL. In all seriousness I think what my objection to volume training like Padilla, Pearl, Priest and all the rest is that the weights I would use would be pathetic. It would hurt my ego to do benches with 5 sets of 12.  The weight would have to be super light. I guess training in my basement no one would be able to see the light weights.  Maybe lower reps would be better for me like 5 sets of 8.

[Marty Champions]

If you want to lift after 40 natty you better be doing mostly volume.

x2

[YngiweRhoads]

If you want to lift after 40 natty you better be doing mostly volume.

Nah. I'm over 50 doing variations of HIT. If you're natty you're less prone to injuries.

[The Scott]

Nah. I'm over 50 doing variations of HIT. If you're natty you're less prone to injuries.

This ^.

I think Mentzer was right but with his original variation of H.I.T. wherein he did (can't exactly recall) 5 or 6 sets per bodypart.  The main thing to keep in mind is that when on shitloads of drugs, pretty much anything works because you don't have to.

[IroNat]

The main thing to keep in mind is that when on shitloads of drugs, pretty much anything works because you don't have to.

Bodybuilding Truth.

[Irongrip400]

Have always enjoyed your posts Rich, both here and on a few other forums over the years, however, it seems you have been torn over the intensity Vs volume conundrum for a long time now.

Have you ever given cumulative fatigue type training, like Padilla's approach, an honest try for 3 or 4 months?

Can you give a cliffs notes version of the difference between these 3? I’d like to maybe try something different. I’ve been doing the same for nearly 20 years.

[Titus Pullo]

Training logs after ten years or more of training are a hindrance to good training. How can you train knowing last week you got 8 reps and after decades you are going to get 9 reps? Why not train knowing if you have an off day still hitting the gym is a positive and not a negative. Sure train to do your best but if you get 7 reps it's still a positive. I have decades of training logs. I finally got rid of them and have made better gains. If you are new to training say your first 5 to 10 years. Yes, keep training logs. Compete against what you have done. No one can get stronger every  workout or even every year. For many switching to training for muscular endurance will be a new goal rather than strength.

That makes sense, but I don't fully agree.  It seems like a false dilemma.

However, that is my fault for focusing unduly on my pre-workout anxiety, chasing strength gains and the like.

On the other hand, while no one can make quantifiable strength gains workout after workout, year in, year out, didn't you keep track of things other than sets and reps?  Aches, pains, injuries?  General strength/growth *trends* as opposed to looking at individual workouts?  Looking back over logs to see if that brief bout of training method X was as good or bad as you remembered?  How much better things were when you were getting laid regularly vs. not?  Effect of supplements and other stuff, wink wink?

By the by, while I do love a certain brand of low volume training, I totally agree that something more endurance-oriented is a great way to train.  I actually started dabbling with such things before my surgeries/subsequent hernia, like Gironda's 8x8.  

But that's neither here nor there

[Tbomzisback!]

Most important thing is progressive overload. Experiment and find what works for you. A general rule: you can do high volume or failure, but you can't do both.

[oldtimer1]

In the old Muscle Builder and Power or maybe Ironman mag they did a feature on Dave M called
" The mechanized man" which featured his high intensity , mostly naut machine based training . I believe he won the AAU Mr New England BEFORE high intensity .
I think he won this before the HIT training BUT he claimed his new HIT training would launch him to a new level.
Not sure what happened, but I don't think he ever won another big show again.

I have that article in my basement.  I clearly remember it.

[TheShape.]

I’ve always preferred a good mix of strength (lower reps) and high volume pump sets after until exhaustion.

[The Scott]

Whatever gives me a pump and by that I mean mental and physical.  Because if my mind isn't in it, nothing else will be.  I remember training twice a day for six days a week and wondering why I didn't get results like the "champions". Of course visiting the original Gold's Gym provided me the answer via Robby Robinson who was the first to let  me in on the truth.  

It's said you can train long or you can train hard but you can't do both.  Hah!  When you are on drugs, you can train almost any old way and watch the results almost daily.   It took me years to build my leg strength but I watched a good friend increase his bench press 50 pounds over a weekend without training but just taking 3 Dianabol a day.  That was all I needed to know Robinson wasn't joking.

Seeing the champs of the 70s during their "off time" showed me their results, while not a joke, were not permanent.  But they knew and accepted it like men.  Robby was one of the first guys I recall trying to stay in shape year 'round.  If I remember correctly, he had "heart" problems that were claimed to be "congenital". 

Nothings permanent, I know.  But the satisfaction of doing it as best you can is going to have to be close enough for some of us. I do not begrudge those here that take steroids as I seriously doubt they're bloated pigs like the chumps of the past couple of decades.  They know it's even more temporary than what naturals build and I think that many of them are honorable men.  For those on HRT, I applaud and envy you.  I am still not a candidate due to health problems but from what I've been told by my doctors 1cc every two weeks is only going to make you feel and sleep better.  Shit...I am an old fool that just rambles on sometimes.   

[oldtimer1]

Most important thing is progressive overload. Experiment and find what works for you. A general rule: you can do high volume or failure, but you can't do both.

Very true for a new trainer. For someone with a decade or more hard training getting stronger isn't always isn't an option. Generally through volume gaining muscular endurance can be progressive for a longer period than progression in pure strength for a long time trainer. Of course drug use changes the rules.

Regarding volume and failure it becomes a cumulative fatigue situation like someone else said earlier in this thread. A hit guy might do military presses to failure for one work set after a non fatiguing warm up set. He might do that one work set and fail at say 9 reps.

Now take this example of volume and failure.  A guy does 5 sets of 12 reps in the military press.  The first set he gets 12 reps but could have gotten 16 or more reps. His second set after 30 seconds to 45 seconds he gets 12 reps but he could have 14 reps. Third set he gets 12 reps but could have gotten 13 reps.  His fourth he gets 12 reps and that's to failure. His last set he fails at 9 reps. Failure is still a part of his training but it's more of a muscular endurance type training.

Bill Pearl was very against any training to failure. He said in effect if this tool is used too often it will lead to exhaustion and then will lead to a trainer taking time off to recover physically and mentally. He further said in effect that training longevity is a very important part of training.  I interpreted this as three months of uninterrupted training is better than taking every exercise to failure then needing a week off of training after three weeks due to exhaustion.

In the end when considering "science" is that it's very hard to do studies.  You can't measure a person's work ethic in terms of effort. Personal genetic potential is another problem.  In the end we don't have training facts, we have training theories. If we had training facts we all would be on the same training routine because "science" says  this is he optimal way to the best path to Nirvana. If anyone claims to have all the answers realize you are talking to a fool. On a side note I never dismiss empirical knowledge when it comes to training.