Open letter to HIT believers, hardgainers, etc. Seminar.

[pumpster]

Vince, you know the saying "nothing is new under the sun"? Well it can be applied to everything in the world of bodybuilding; even your theory. You are not the first one to advocate super long (4-8 hours) workouts for the same body part using only 1-2 exercises.

Too lazy to make that assumption, given that there's no conclusive proof that every possibility's been explored. That's aside from the added consideration that, as VB mentioned, much of the existing/historical info's been compromised, making conclusions difficult.

Obviously there's sufficient interest here for any new possibilities. Poliquin's info is only an offshoot of existing data yet is well-received, so there is quite obviously still a lot of room for alternatives.

[CT]

pumpster, I don't disagree. I'm just saying that there is some anectodal evidence that makes it worthy to discuss this subject further. HOWEVER my second point was that it is not 100% correct to design weight lifting programs based on the results from passive stretching of dissecated muscles.

[BEAST 8692]

Plus, we could also argue that a lot of physical labour workers do not continue to add muscle mass forever despite working hard physically 8-10 hours a day. At first they do gain muscle and strength, but once their body is adapted to the work schedule their muscle growth stops (otherwise they'd all be bigger than Ronnie Coleman). So the actual time spend contracting your muscles against a resistance cannot be the sole factor responsible for growth stimulation.

give the man a cigar.

that's exactly why it fails. your body must be adapting to grow and the thing is it is going to fight you all the way.

therefore, obviously there will be a point where it will say, 'yep, seen this before, can handle this' and hey presto - no growth.

so then you've got to make the loads greater right (to keep the body adapting - anabolic). well, what you're not factoring in here basile and fellow basilidiots is that meanwhile your poor nervous and musculo skeletal systems have to somehow cope and recover from the increasingly exhaustive demands, not to mention hormonal balance and emotional stress.

now, IF (huge IF here people) basile had bothered to EXPERIMENT with his 'theory' (or whatever he calls it at the present time) he would have learned all this... or maybe not.

[Vince B]

I have no idea if my theory is original. Maybe somewhere someone has tried what I am suggesting.

I did the Rader all-day arm routine twice with a few fellows and no one made any permanent gains. Very disappointing. My idea is vastly different from that. You use a maximal load and continue to do that every 3 or 4 minutes all day. You make sure the exercises are effective and probably put the muscle in a stretched position. Superset with an opposing muscle. Eg., triceps and pulldowns. Thighs and hams. Just to be clear, you do one exercise then follow up with the other exercise and then have a minute rest then resume with the superset. It helps if the machines are close together.

The crucial part of the program is to adhere to the DOMS method whereby target muscles are kept in a perpetual state of significant sorness. You do not let the muscles recover. Keep training frequently enough to keep them sore and you must grow every session. It should be measureable. No ballistic movements and no joints rubbing on pads.

The nutrition program has to be adequate and one should avoid supplements such as vitamins. You have to eat a huge breakfast and big supper afterwards. The food and drink during the day has to be able to be digested without causing any disorder in the digestive system.

So the program really goes for a whole month and maybe two. I predict you should gain 2 inches on your arms in 2 months. Ditto with calves if you have over 16 inch calves and arms to begin with.

[CT]

Vince, the original Rader (and Poliquin's) program indeed (as you pointed out) stimulated only short term gains, mostly due to swelling and then glycogen surcompensation. I have has similar results to you. Schroedder's program was a bit better, I even applied it to the bench press with one of my clients with some success.

I don't disagree that this type of training might work. However the time constraints alone might not make it ideal for 99% of the population.

[Vince B]

Beast have you ever been to a seminar? You don't throw shit you kill false ideas with arguments and facts. Be sceptical but contribute if you have anything original there.

I have experimented and it is recorded in Ironman Magazine in the Aug 2000 issue, I think. There was a follow up article, too, in 2001. The method works. There can be no doubt about that. I haven't done the longer sessions but I don't see any problem. Once you get pumped up you will feel great and it is easy to keep going once you are have some rhythm. I think I grew about 1/10" each workout for those bodyparts over the whole month. That is not bad. All day training should do much better than that. I expect over 1/8" per training day. I averaged a workout every 3 days.

[CT]

Vince, I would think that using this approach for thw whole body would be a) unpractical (it would necessiate something like 40 hours of training a week) and b) counterproductive (might cause overtraining, especially in the overlapping muscles ... biceps being involved when you train the back and triceps being involved when you train chest and triceps, etc.).

However a case could be made for a rotation of specialization of 1-2 body parts (e.g. biceps/triceps) while the rest of the body is trained for maintenance (once a week for a total of 3-6 sets per muscle group).

Or maybe if one would perform your method for chest/back, then biceps/triceps work would become unecessary.

That having been said, I find your ideas fascinating, but I still have some problem with the possible overtraining and glycogen depletion that this approach might cause.

[BEAST 8692]

Beast have you ever been to a seminar? You don't throw shit you kill false ideas with arguments and facts. Be sceptical but contribute if you have anything original there.

I have experimented and it is recorded in Ironman Magazine in the Aug 2000 issue, I think. There was a follow up article, too, in 2001. The method works. There can be no doubt about that. I haven't done the longer sessions but I don't see any problem. Once you get pumped up you will feel great and it is easy to keep going once you are have some rhythm. I think I grew about 1/10" each workout for those bodyparts over the whole month. That is not bad. All day training should do much better than that. I expect over 1/8" per training day. I averaged a workout every 3 days.

read my last post. i did present my argument ie progression and biological recovery.

'throw shit' is exactly what you did when you started the thread. how the hell do you think you have debunked the universally accepted and PRACTISED training philosophies of hit, hst, etc.

you now state that you HAVE experimented with your 'theory'. well put a link up or post the articles indicating your results so we can all make a judgement on it's effectiveness.

exactly, i didn't think so.

[Vince B]

I am confident I am right about my theory. That is sufficient at the moment. It is up to you experts to refute it. If you cannot do that then hold your piece.

[BEAST 8692]

Plus, we could also argue that a lot of physical labour workers do not continue to add muscle mass forever despite working hard physically 8-10 hours a day. At first they do gain muscle and strength, but once their body is adapted to the work schedule their muscle growth stops (otherwise they'd all be bigger than Ronnie Coleman). So the actual time spend contracting your muscles against a resistance cannot be the sole factor responsible for growth stimulation.

give the man a cigar.

that's exactly why it fails. your body must be adapting to grow and the thing is it is going to fight you all the way.

therefore, obviously there will be a point where it will say, 'yep, seen this before, can handle this' and hey presto - no growth.

so then you've got to make the loads greater right (to keep the body adapting - anabolic). well, what you're not factoring in here basile and fellow basilidiots is that meanwhile your poor nervous and musculo skeletal systems have to somehow cope and recover from the increasingly exhaustive demands, not to mention hormonal balance and emotional stress.

now, IF (huge IF here people) basile had bothered to EXPERIMENT with his 'theory' (or whatever he calls it at the present time) he would have learned all this... or maybe not.

there, i reposted it for you. read above where i 'refute' it.

how about if YOU can't come up with shit 'hold your piece'.

[Vince B]

What refutation? Progressive resistance is built in to this program because strength will increase rapidly and more weight must be added to the maximum resistance. By the end of the month perhaps 50% increases in strength can be made. I don't buy that central nervous system stuff. You can't sustain the same number of reps with the same resistance all day but you still use the same resistance and do as many reps as you can as long as they are still about 8 minimum. Resting a little longer between sets as the day wears on won't make any difference I don't think.

[240 is Back]

Vince, can you please post what a routine would look like? monster confusing.

[Vince B]

Here are the exercises for the upperbody workout for the first month or two. You can change the exercises in the next month. The combination of exercises and muscles targetted are unlimited. Find effective exercises and do them. It really doesn't matter if you change exercises during the month as long as you keep sore and keep growing. Feedback is an essential part of this program. The legs are optional. I did calves and that was fun. I was running to the gym because growing rapidly was fun. Doing squats all day reminds me of what Arnold said he did when he was young. He and a few of his mates did that once in a while. That would be some workout. I would want to have a full medical checkup before even entertaining such a program. You could blow a gasket doing this. I think 2 to 4 hour sessions should be what most sane people should attempt first. The aim is to trigger hyperplasia and it might require the extraordinary.

[Vince B]

Chin at full stretch.

[BEAST 8692]

What refutation? Progressive resistance is built in to this program because strength will increase rapidly and more weight must be added to the maximum resistance. By the end of the month perhaps 50% increases in strength can be made. I don't buy that central nervous system stuff. You can't sustain the same number of reps with the same resistance all day but you still use the same resistance and do as many reps as you can as long as they are still about 8 minimum. Resting a little longer between sets as the day wears on won't make any difference I don't think.

alrighty then so here is subject a who started your 12 hour routine with his typical 500lb dead lifts for 8 reps and now he's doing set after set with that weight all day long? riiiiiiiiiiight.

of course he's only going to get stronger from this system so in a years time we revisit him and there he is day after day deadlifting 700lb for sets of 8 reps - 12 hrs a day....

not to mention the other exercises he's doing along with dls.

sure, his cns and his joints and muscles will do juuuust fine with this right? afterall, overtraining doesn't exist does it? and when he's doing his 12 hrs of 450lb bench press for 8 reps set after set all day every day, he'll only get stronger and thrive. no chance of fucked up rotators or pec tears because 'OVERTRAINING DOESN'T EXIST'.

won't need anabolics either. why would anyone take drugs when they're 'GROWING FROM WORKOUT TO WORKOUT'

[Vince B]

If you have read what I have written before on this forum you would know that I would never recommend deadlifts for bodybuilding. It is a stupid and dangerous exercise. I tore my right biceps doing it with 509 pounds in 1978. A sad day to be sure.

I should hope that intelligence and sense goes hand in hand with extreme training. I fear some might use their own ideas and brains and stuff themselves up completely. You have to know which exercises are dangerous. There are many. There are also many ineffective exercises but people still do them. Do as I suggest not what you think is best. Otherwise, why ask me for advice and prescriptions. I made the machines or modifications for these exercises. Maybe Adonis and Goodrum can come to Sydney for 2 months and participate in the Meadowbank Experiment to put two inches on their upper arms. Should be interesting.

[wes]

Christ,you`d have to move into a gym to train all day long.

Your theory,in essence,sucks!!


Ridiculous waste of peoples time to read this nonsense.

[ManBearPig...]

Christ,you`d have to move into a gym to train all day long.

Your theory,in essence,sucks!!


Ridiculous waste of peoples time to read this nonsense.

no kidding.

all of vince's marathon training crap could be replaced by:
a. upping the weight
b. upping the dosage

[dr.chimps]

I am confident I am right about my theory. That is sufficient at the moment. It is up to you experts to refute it. If you cannot do that then hold your p[ea]iece.

I don't think you understand how science works, Vince. Once one proposes a theory, it follows that the theorist test that theory.  Asking someone to refute/prove it false does not follow. What I mean is, I could say that I am the master of time/space but unless I can prove/demonstrate this and have such a finding reproduced by others, it is nothing but hot air.   

[McFarland]

I think Basile felt that he should have grown to look like Larry Scott eating 10mg's worth of dianabol a day and when he didn't, gained an inferiority complex.  Hey Vince, consider this quote:

"In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity."
                                               --Hunter S. Thompson

[bb doc]

Vince -

1. I concur w Dr. Chimps. It is the duty of a theorist to prove his/her theory.  You're wrong until proven right.

2. Posting a pic of yourself needing a machine to do chin-ups is a good route to getting flamed.  So is posting pics of people w/ minimal triceps developmt doing triceps exercises.  NOT saying that those flames are FAIR, just saying that they're gonna happen...

-bb doc

[Rammer]

http://veepers.budweiser.com/service/RetrieveCard?id=IjVcd6PF2XgIJ_0t9QHodG

[ManBearPig...]

I think Vince is actually John Titor trying to trick us all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor

you cannot imagine my disappintment with finding out john titor's fake.

[Samourai Pizzacat]

Vince -

1. I concur w Dr. Chimps. It is the duty of a theorist to prove his/her theory.  You're wrong until proven right.

-bb doc

Wrong, the correct way is to falsify the theory. Carl Popper (science philosopher) gave a very good example of the pitfall of trying to prove theories:
All swans are black. You can prove this every time you see a black swan but when the 121.745.876th swan is white, the theory goes bottoms up. (BTW, competing theories can coexist on the same continuum, as they might hold true under different conditions.)

That doesn't mean that someone can make any claim they want and get away with it. A study that yields certain results can be used to formulate a hypothesis or theory. New, similar research will try to emulate the results (and fail ideally) to disprove the previous study.

Where vince's logic fails is that he takes intensity as a constant. He then proceeds to say that it isn't the intensity that makes the ultimate difference. The problem is that it's impossible to measure or controll intensity. Levels of intensity and intensity perception vary hugely between subjects, so it's the intensity that would actually be something worth studying.

It simply comes down to making the muscles do something that they have not experienced before. That will require them to adjust in a couple of ways: The muscle becomes more efficient and will grow a bit. After a short period of training a muscle will be close to it's maximum efficiency and most of the adjusting will be in the form of growth. Different muscles will react differently to different stress. The calves are very much a slow-fiber aerobic muscle group. Using added weights on your normal walking can slowly build them, that is the same idea as vince's constant stress concept. The pecs are different, short but heavy workouts have greater effect here. More volume like doing a lot of pushups will grow them but only initially and not that much.
I think intensity is the key to succes. It's the last 5% of the excercise that makes the difference, the first 95% is just working your way to that point.

[alexxx]

Vince one question... Why are you so small if you claim to have found the ultimate program?