Getbig Bodybuilding Boards > Training Q&A
Methods
oldtimer1:
In my way of thinking I divide training methodologies into three categories.
First is the variations of HIT characterized by low sets, heavy weights and training to failure. It's basically strength training.
Second is volume. So many variations too but a very common practice is to train with the same amount of light to moderate weight, high sets, don't train to failure until it hits you on the last set; and use a weight that allows you to train quickly. It's a form of muscular endurance training.
Third is a hybrid method where a mix is used. Heavy weight but not maximum. Training moderately fast. Maybe a pyramid is used for weight progression through the sets.
Contrary to the often used debate points volume works and no they wouldn't have gotten there quicker using HIT.
HIT has been used by Mentzer, Yates, Labrada and others. Volume has been used by Dickerson, Pearl, Padilla, Robinson and too many to list. In between has been used by Columbu, Eddie Robinson, Coleman and others. Then you have Viator who trained with HIT and looked his best when he was doing volume for the London Olympia.
What's my point in this? There is no optimal way to train. Bodybuilders contrary to what many think are not scientists. Bodybuilders who use actual science often aren't very good bodybuilders. Genetics? Valid point but my point in the words of Jeff Everson," Until pigs fly you don't have to be a scientist to be a bodybuilder."
Training to failure with low sets with heavy weights is brutal. Training with volume can be brutal too if you're pushing the muscular endurance envelope. It's like comparing a 400 meter sprinter training to 5k training. Both training is brutally hard but it's apples to oranges.
Yev33:
--- Quote from: oldtimer1 on November 14, 2014, 07:21:48 AM ---In my way of thinking I divide training methodologies into three categories.
First is the variations of HIT characterized by low sets, heavy weights and training to failure. It's basically strength training.
Second is volume. So many variations too but a very common practice is to train with the same amount of light to moderate weight, high sets, don't train to failure until it hits you on the last set; and use a weight that allows you to train quickly. It's a form of muscular endurance training.
Third is a hybrid method where a mix is used. Heavy weight but not maximum. Training moderately fast. Maybe a pyramid is used for weight progression through the sets.
Contrary to the often used debate points volume works and no they wouldn't have gotten there quicker using HIT.
HIT has been used by Mentzer, Yates, Labrada and others. Volume has been used by Dickerson, Pearl, Padilla, Robinson and too many to list. In between has been used by Columbu, Eddie Robinson, Coleman and others. Then you have Viator who trained with HIT and looked his best when he was doing volume for the London Olympia.
What's my point in this? There is no optimal way to train. Bodybuilders contrary to what many think are not scientists. Bodybuilders who use actual science often aren't very good bodybuilders. Genetics? Valid point but my point in the words of Jeff Everson," Until pigs fly you don't have to be a scientist to be a bodybuilder."
Training to failure with low sets with heavy weights is brutal. Training with volume can be brutal too if you're pushing the muscular endurance envelope. It's like comparing a 400 meter sprinter training to 5k training. Both training is brutally hard but it's apples to oranges.
--- End quote ---
This is a very good and thought provoking post. In regards to just plain BB, I think both HIT and volume can work as proven by great development in both camps. Though volume is easily the more commonly used method among BB.
IMO the key to HIT is variety, due to the tendency to burn out from going to failure and beyond on every exercise. Stagnation can set in pretty quickly unless you are changing up exercises. Volume needs variety as well but not nearly as much as HIT. This is where machines become essential to HIT training.
Obviously you don't need to be a scientist to be a bodybuilder. But you also don't need to be a scientist to be an Olympic level weightlifter or sprinter. However, the latter two have coaches who can get the most out of the genetic gifts the athletes posses. The athlete would most likely never get there on their own (at least not these days ).
Is there the most efficient way of training? I don't know. But I do know that there are some very inefficient ways to train (see it at my gym a lot). So that leads me to believe that there is at least a range between less efficient and more efficient.
I do know this, knowledge in training with the purpose of building muscle stagnated heavily due to anabolic steroids. And there is still a lot out there we do not know.
Donny:
--- Quote from: oldtimer1 on November 14, 2014, 07:21:48 AM ---In my way of thinking I divide training methodologies into three categories.
First is the variations of HIT characterized by low sets, heavy weights and training to failure. It's basically strength training.
Second is volume. So many variations too but a very common practice is to train with the same amount of light to moderate weight, high sets, don't train to failure until it hits you on the last set; and use a weight that allows you to train quickly. It's a form of muscular endurance training.
Third is a hybrid method where a mix is used. Heavy weight but not maximum. Training moderately fast. Maybe a pyramid is used for weight progression through the sets.
Contrary to the often used debate points volume works and no they wouldn't have gotten there quicker using HIT.
HIT has been used by Mentzer, Yates, Labrada and others. Volume has been used by Dickerson, Pearl, Padilla, Robinson and too many to list. In between has been used by Columbu, Eddie Robinson, Coleman and others. Then you have Viator who trained with HIT and looked his best when he was doing volume for the London Olympia.
What's my point in this? There is no optimal way to train. Bodybuilders contrary to what many think are not scientists. Bodybuilders who use actual science often aren't very good bodybuilders. Genetics? Valid point but my point in the words of Jeff Everson," Until pigs fly you don't have to be a scientist to be a bodybuilder."
Training to failure with low sets with heavy weights is brutal. Training with volume can be brutal too if you're pushing the muscular endurance envelope. It's like comparing a 400 meter sprinter training to 5k training. Both training is brutally hard but it's apples to oranges.
--- End quote ---
great post Rich...
oldtimer1:
I also think one of the most important things you can have besides genetics is a work ethic. Many don't have it in any quantity.
Regarding volume I remember a guy told me, he was doing 6 sets of 10 in an exercise. He said he thought of it as trying to get 60 reps. He said the first set was easy, the next one too. He quickly went from set to set using very moderate weights. The time he got to set 5 he was having a tough time. On set 6 he couldn't get 10 reps so essentially he did go to failure.
He did something like this for chest.
Bench press 6 x 10
Incline press 6 x 10
Flat flies 6 x 10
Now a hypothetical HIT guy's approach might be like this all to failure.
Bench 1 x 8
Incline press 1 x 8
Flat flies 1 x 10
Now both approaches are hard work but again comparing apples to oranges in their approach. If you're a HIT guy you believe the magic bullet is going to failure going for that last rep. If you're a volume guy you will point to the total poundage used and the endurance needed to race through those 6 sets and also counter that you went to failure too. Is intensity the magic trigger to growth or is pursuing increased muscular endurance? Is it a combination?
No true double blind results have been made in a truly controlled clinical study where all parameters are tightly controlled. How do you measure determination and work ethic in the math? Can you get determined identical twins and put them on different programs to test? Sounds insane but I mention it to point out scientifically no one can say without sounding like a fool that they have all answers.
What we have are theories. If a theory is proven it's a fact. We don't have facts. We have observations that are empirical knowledge.
Some general observations are most successful guys started lifting heavy in their early years. Then they moved to the moderate weight volume model.
Donny:
I am middle of the road. I mean if i say bench 3 sets and feel fatigue. Then job done. Doing say 5 sets you must rest longer or use lower weights. Rest is another important factor.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version