Author Topic: Open letter to HIT believers, hardgainers, etc. Seminar. (Read 66320 times)

Vince B · « **Reply #225 on:** October 19, 2006, 04:21:57 PM »

It is refreshing to read that someone has read Karl Popper's work. That is a start to having a clue about the philosophy of science. Even false theories, if good approximations to the truth, can be useful. Newton's theory of gravity is false but using it predicted and found new planets. It had a huge problem with Mercury's orbit and was eventually replaced by the ideas of Einstein.

What is also important is to come up with bold theories that explain all the phenomena in a particular domain and then conjecture about new things that explain things better. No one has adequately explained why so many train hard but do not grow. That is probably the biggest problem in bodybuilding. Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer thought they explained this by claiming people trained too long and too frequently. Nope, that doesn't hold up to inspection.

My theory is bold and it also allows for why so many are not growing. They are simply not making their muscles sore enough on a regular basis. If you rest too long the muscles recover and then you have to overcome the repeated bout effect. Essentially I am proposing that we do the opposite of what everyone has been saying about how muscles grow. Either I am right or I am mistaken. It is also possible I am partly right.

There are lots of competing theories in bodybuilding because thinkers feel they alone can explain hypertrophy. If others did what we believe they should grow. There is another problem and that is the incommensurability of various theories. Often we have the same words for different phenomena. The concept 'intensity' is one such word. In HIT intensity is about going close to what you can lift for one complete, maximum repetition. Intensity for Larry Scott was using burns to get the maximum pump. The general usage means to train hard. Clearly it can't mean all of these things. When the very vocabularies mean different things is it any wonder that confusion and misunderstanding exist in bodybuilding?

In my theory all that is important is the resultant growth from each workout. That is the constant test of the theory's truth. That is the feedback that is important. No growth and you are not doing something right. I use DOMS as the best feedback mechanism to guage growth occurring in muscles. So far no one has refuted my suggestion that DOMS is associated with muscle hypertrophy as long as sufficient nutrition is provided so that growth can occur. I also require that the DOMS be induced by using programs where one repeatedly does sets with the maximum resistance possible for 8 or more reps.

So far I believe my theory is internally consistent and all that remains is to demonstrate that it works. I anticipate all manner of contingent problems occurring and it may be that the theory has to be fine tuned or ad hoc clauses created to accommodate unusual populations.

A simple experiment will settle the issue so it is easy to falsify. I rather doubt anyone can dismiss my theory unless they have vast personal and scientific experience.

Vince B · « **Reply #226 on:** October 19, 2006, 04:27:12 PM »

Alexxx, your question is a foolish one, indeed. Look at photos of Arthur Jones and you won't see a huge guy. Yet his mind was vast and his ideas jolted the very foundations of exercise science. Jones even called all exercise scientists idiots! That was how confident he was right and they were wrong.

I have demonstrated that I can grow rapidly. At my age I do not have the motivation or connective tissue health to proceed with such an extreme program. Why you younger guys can't seize the opportunity to transcend yourselves without drugs is one of the mysteries of humans. Clearly, everyone who has some muscular development considers themselves to be experts. I give as evidence our very own board experts. In fact, who is not an expert here?

alexxx · « **Reply #227 on:** October 19, 2006, 04:34:20 PM »

Quote from: Vince Basile on October 19, 2006, 04:27:12 PM

Alexxx, your question is a foolish one, indeed. Look at photos of Arthur Jones and you won't see a huge guy. Yet his mind was vast and his ideas jolted the very foundations of exercise science. Jones even called all exercise scientists idiots! That was how confident he was right and they were wrong.

I have demonstrated that I can grow rapidly. At my age I do not have the motivation or connective tissue health to proceed with such an extreme program. Why you younger guys can't seize the opportunity to transcend yourselves without drugs is one of the mysteries of humans. Clearly, everyone who has some muscular development considers themselves to be experts. I give as evidence our very own board experts. In fact, who is not an expert here?

Vince I am a natural for life. You have some very waky ideas so how about putting them to the test? Make a Journal and prove to us your own theories work.

Vince B · « **Reply #228 on:** October 19, 2006, 04:35:23 PM »

The Bud spoof is funny. Why don't guys have the guts to put their own names there instead of trying to make it look like I did?

Vince B · « **Reply #229 on:** October 19, 2006, 04:40:33 PM »

I am recruiting subjects as we speak. If all fails I will demonstrate my ideas on myself. I fear no man so will boldly tread where ordinary mortals tremble with fear!

alexxx · « **Reply #230 on:** October 19, 2006, 04:43:48 PM »

Quote from: Vince Basile on October 19, 2006, 04:40:33 PM

I am recruiting subjects as we speak. If all fails I will demonstrate my ideas on myself. I fear no man so will boldly tread where ordinary mortals tremble with fear!

Believe you me their is not one training program that scares me least of all your own laughable 2-4 hour routine pfff! I have done full bodyworkouts everyday with some good results. A real champion will learn self control and instead of indulging into a pump for how many hours you train, he will opt for the ultimate program proven to put on mass faster than any other even if it means training only 3 times a week with weights.

SteelePegasus · « **Reply #231 on:** October 19, 2006, 04:45:40 PM »

Quote from: alexxx on October 19, 2006, 04:43:48 PM

Believe you me their is not one training program that scares me least of all your own laughable 2-4 hour routine pfff! I have done full bodyworkouts everyday with some good results. A real champion will learn self control and instead of indulging into a pump for how many hours you train, he will opt for the ultimate program proven to put on mass faster than any other even if it means training only 3 times a week with weights.

lol, are you interviewing for the job Alexxx?

maybe now you won't finish next to last in the mr.getbig

McFarland · « **Reply #232 on:** October 19, 2006, 04:48:31 PM »

Quote from: Vince Basile on October 19, 2006, 04:40:33 PM

I am recruiting subjects as we speak. If all fails I will demonstrate my ideas on myself. I fear no man so will boldly tread where ordinary mortals tremble with fear!

SOMEBODY GO OVER THERE! Adonis go over there! Ha ha ha! Holy shit, Getbig Gold!

CT · « **Reply #233 on:** October 19, 2006, 04:51:32 PM »

Vince, as I mentionned earlier your ideas sound interesting. However I find them too impractical to be applied. Ok, training 8 hours once a week is probably doable (on a weekend day when you are not working) but for most this kind of schedule as a complete training system would be iimpossible to apply (job, family, studies, etc.).

Furthermore there is also the aspect of building the complete body... if you recommend training a muscle group for 4-8 hours, 3 times per week how is it possible to train your whole body? I could see performing two muscle groups per session, but that would mean limiting your training for something like 20% of the muscle mass of your body. Obviously if one were to use only compound movements (e.g. a rowing movement + a pressing movement) it would be somewhat possible to overcome that shortcoming as the whole upper body would receive some stimulation. But that still leaves the leg out of the equation. What are we to do, add more training sessions? I think that for 99% of the population training 3x for 4-8 hours a day would be impossible, imagine 6 workouts per week.

On a strictly intellectual point of view I would really be interested in seeing the results from your protocol and if it works I'll be the first to acknowledge your success. HOWEVER even if it works (which has not been established yet) since it's not applicable for 99% of the population I would have to class this protocol in the same category as myostatin inhibitor (knocking the gene that limits muscle growth): interesting results but that are doomed to stay outside the reach of most.

In other word on an intellectual standpoint a theory that would prove to be the best way to stimulate hypertrophy without fail would be super interesting; but if it requires a schedule that none can apply, it remains an intellectual curiosity.

Vince B · « **Reply #234 on:** October 19, 2006, 05:08:41 PM »

HST came up with a practical program but it cannot lead to maximum hypertrophy. No one using that program has demonstrated huge size. End of story.

HIT cannot demonstrate that it applies to everyone. Anecdotal experience suggests HIT doesn't work for everyone. No one has started using HIT and ended up huge. Not one single person. Not promising and perhaps intellectually dishonest to boot.

The problem I had was to speculate if it was possible to be huge naturally. I believe most bodybuilders would say this is not possible without drugs. How would they know this? I conjecture it is possible and have proposed a method to do it. Sub-maximal programs might be sufficient to do the same thing but take longer. It would be an easy thing to demonstrate if this works. If it does then it will be practical because bodybuilders can get huge quickly and do not need to take years and years to do so. I agree that one has to have all his time to devote to this program.

The question about total body development is an interesting one. From my experience I would say that one of the factors that contributes to so many training and not growing is that we do too many bodyparts. If we can induce parts of our body to grow then adjoining muscles will also benefit. If we combine exercise that are complementary then it is possible to stimulate much of the body to grow at the same time. I agree that MHT cannot be done on all the muscles at the same time. If you can get your arms to grow 2 inches on the program I have outlined I am sure your back will be much bigger, too. Chins are not just for lats. That is part of the fallacy of bodybuilding lore. Analyse a chin and you will see that most of the muscles in the upper body are involved in that exercise. I think this is a minor problem and one easily solved with MHT.

alexxx · « **Reply #235 on:** October 19, 2006, 05:10:05 PM »

I wasn't talking about either one of those programs Vince!

SteelePegasus · « **Reply #236 on:** October 19, 2006, 05:12:29 PM »

so Vince, lets say that we send Alexxx over there to train with you. How long will the training last?

Alexxx, are you ready to pack up and move there for several months to train?

dav-bol · « **Reply #237 on:** October 19, 2006, 05:16:11 PM »

CRACKPOT

CT · « **Reply #238 on:** October 19, 2006, 05:22:53 PM »

I agree with you Vince, this is why I said that using only compound movements would partially resolve this problem as any pulling exercises will involve the lats, rhomboids, teres, traps, rear delt, biceps, brachialis, forearms, etc while all pushing exercises will involve the chest, anterior and lateral delts, triceps, serratus, etc.

Regarding specialization, or not training equally all muscle groups, I also agree with you on that subject. In fact many of my articles deal with that subject. In my articles I propose training the specialized muscle(s) 3x per week and only performing maintenance work for the rest of the body; rotating the spec muscles every 4-6 weeks.

But I feel that the time constraint of the program might sill pose a significant problem. BTW, I'm not a HIT nor HST advocate so I don't necessarily think that low-volume is the solution.

alexxx · « **Reply #239 on:** October 19, 2006, 05:25:06 PM »

Quote from: SteelePegasus on October 19, 2006, 05:12:29 PM

so Vince, lets say that we send Alexxx over there to train with you. How long will the training last?

Alexxx, are you ready to pack up and move there for several months to train?

I am willing to test it.

Vince B · « **Reply #240 on:** October 19, 2006, 05:29:34 PM »

Alexxx, you do not have the vocabulary to succeed. A pity.

alexxx · « **Reply #241 on:** October 19, 2006, 05:42:19 PM »

Quote from: Vince Basile on October 19, 2006, 05:29:34 PM

Alexxx, you do not have the vocabulary to succeed. A pity.

You are a bitter old fool who never fullfilled his potential.

dr.chimps · « **Reply #242 on:** October 19, 2006, 05:48:31 PM »

Quote from: Vince Basile on October 19, 2006, 04:40:33 PM

I am recruiting subjects as we speak. If all fails I will demonstrate my ideas on myself. I fear no man so will boldly tread where ordinary mortals tremble with fear![/color]

Wow, Vince. I can see why you use purple for your words. This sounds more promising as you are moving away from airy theory towards empiricism. Any idea of your sample size? Large enough for any kind of conclusions or will they be of an anecdotal nature? Controls? Variance? Very interesting. Keep us posted. Maybe you could make a thread in the training section?

Vince B · « **Reply #243 on:** October 19, 2006, 05:50:15 PM »

Well, Alexxx, demonstrate that you have read the philosophy of science and can relate with educated people. Why should I waste my time of wannabes and fools? I encounter hundreds of those all the time. If you want to be outstanding you will have to transcend what you are doing now. Or don't you realise this?

Vince B · « **Reply #244 on:** October 19, 2006, 05:52:23 PM »

A sample of one will be sufficient to demonstrate the effectiveness of the program. If I can get larger than I ever was in the past and do it at the age of 64 it will be nothing short of astonishing. No one will be able to deny that it works.

TheGoldenPrince · « **Reply #245 on:** October 19, 2006, 06:15:24 PM »

Do it then ASAP; you're not exactly getting any younger. Get a good natural test booster too.

Vince B · « **Reply #246 on:** October 19, 2006, 06:25:46 PM »

I am confident that stimulating some muscles to continuously grow will make for a positive chemical environment. There is no need to supplement what nature will provide. The whole point is to do this completely naturally. Any drugs at all will be cheating. I don't want this experiment contaminated. That is why I have to select disciples who are true believers and also independent thinkers. If someone wants to qualify they have to read Karl Popper's 'Conjectures and Refutations' and discuss that book with me. I will then know if I have someone with sufficient intelligence to invest my time with. If guys like Alexxx go around insulting people then that is hardly promising. Naturally, many are sceptical and that is fine. However, I require an intellectually honest person to be the guinea pig. There is nothing stopping anyone out there from testing the method themselves. Good luck.

The Luke · « **Reply #247 on:** October 19, 2006, 06:30:34 PM »

Vince,

Animal studies don't always correlate well with human trials... different Hox genes controling muscle physiology.

I think your program is a mistake... I wouldn't even try it at my age (30ish), let alone in my sixties. My reasoning is that you are most probably unaware of the MRI studies done a few years ago on negative-failure training.

Long story short: the biceps need 80 (yes, eighty) days to recover from a single rep of bicep curls done to complete negative failure (electrodes were used to force the muscle contraction).

Sorry, but as we scientists say.... your theory, (while interesting) is what we call N.E.W. (NOT EVEN WRONG).

No offence, but you should have seen this when you started considering doing continuous maximal load sets. The sets would deteriorate thusly:

Set one: X weight for 10 reps (rest a minute)
Set two: X weight for 5ish reps (rest a minute)
Set three: X weight for 2ish reps (rest a minute)
Set four: X weight for 1 rep maybe (rest a minute)
Set five: X weight for a bit of a rep
etc etc

If this doesn't happen then the load wasn't maximal to begin with, or true failure wasn't achieved.

Again, no offence Vince,
The Luke

Bast000 · « **Reply #248 on:** October 19, 2006, 06:32:18 PM »

Quote from: The Luke on October 19, 2006, 06:30:34 PM

Long story short: the biceps need 80 (yes, eighty) days to recover from a single rep of bicep curls

Are you Retarded?

alexxx · « **Reply #249 on:** October 19, 2006, 06:37:04 PM »

Quote from: Bast000 on October 19, 2006, 06:32:18 PM

Are you Retarded?

Yes, yes he is and he gives Vince a good run for the money.