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

[Hedgehog]

From what I have read about DOMS it seems it is associated with repairing damaged tissue in the muscle. If that is so then all DOMS is indicative of growth. If you do a light resistance and it causes DOMS then some growth is occurring. It is a simple matter to increase the resistance and keep the DOMS and you should grow. If you start with ridiculously light resistances then of course the growth will not be large. If you use significant resistance as suggested the growth will be rapid.

Evidence? Well, I did the DOMS training for a month. Arms and calves. Gained 1 inch on arms and over 1 inch on calves. That was over about 10 workouts so the gain was 1 inch divided by 10 which is pretty good going. I could measure increases the day after training. When you can do that you really get enthusiastic. I am confident that others should also gain rapidly. Of course you must be gaining bodyweight, too. If you don't then you might find you won't grow. Abandon all that stuff about protein and eating healthy. Most of that information is nonsense or not important. Eat a balanced diet and perhaps 4 meals a day. Don't use supplements. Hey, I must be the first bodybuilder in history to say this. Well, I don't lie or bs about training. That is what I believe. Sure, if you read the nutrition research you might be persuaded to do this and that. All a waste of time. Eat what your mum cooked for you but a little more of each serving. Don't eat too much protein because it is too hard on your system to digest. If you eat too much protein it gets converted into energy. That really is dumb and a waste of money and resources.

Someone asked about overtraining. I don't believe it happens in ordinary programs. I heard of a guy who was running in really hot weather and kept going even though he was dehydrated. His muscles sort of fused or something. Very sad. No one lifting weights has to worry about that. I agree with Lee Priest that it is not worth worrying about. I think that idea was supposed to explain why so many are not growing. You were supposed to be overtraining. What a joke. If anything you are undertraining but doing too many body parts. Why do all the body parts twice or three times a week? Do you think they will all grow? Nope. You won't get anywhere like that. That is one of those beliefs you have to abandon.

You know, Hedgehog, the sum of my posts in this thread is original and could easily have been published in a magazine. Yet I have knuckleheads knocking me for no good reason. Do you think anyone with something original to offer here would put up with this crap? I enjoy the responses of CT who is a recognized writer and thinker. Look at his responses and compare them to board heroes who try to dismiss someone instead of refute them. What a pity more people here aren't educated.

Anyway, I have persisted because I expect some to post that distracting stuff. What is the test of truth in this discussion? Results. It has nothing to do with opinions. I have told you I am ready to abandon my theories if they don't work. So instead of blasting me with nonsense go out and prove to yourself that I am all hot air. Try this training on a target muscle like calves. Do anything at all to get them sore. Then keep them sore for a month and see if they grow. You have to gain weight over the month or you are wasting your time. Report your results here.

Impressive results from that DOMS training. What did those workouts look like?

And please, add any reflections on what could've been done different if you would.

Now we're getting somewhere bro.

Thanks,

YIP
Zack

[CT]

Vince, first of all I do appreciate your answers. While I don't agree with everything you say I can recognize that your are passionate about your beliefs and you obviously had some decent results with it. I find it childish that some peoples would attack your theory based on how you look; obviously at 64 years of age and with some tendon/joint problems it's obviously hard to turn into a Mr.Olympia overnight Heck, some guys who attack your theory by stating the way you look as an example are also the ones who put Sergio Oliva or Arnold up to demi-God status... yet nowadays they don't look all that good; aging and injuries can take its toll on a body. The appearance of someone, especially when he has a lot of experience in the field shouldn't be the sole basis for refuting a theory/training methodology. Heck, most NFL coaches look like fat out of shape slobs who couldn't sprint more than 5 yards, yet their knowledge and experience make them true experts in the game of pro football.

Ok, that having been said, regarding the DOMS I can see your point. However not everybody gets super sore. Take me for example, I rarely get severe DOMS, even when I was competing in Olympic lifting and training 4 hours a day I wouldn't get sore... the muscles I work hard do become stiff for a few days but that's pretty much it. And I do train very hard (I know I know 99% of the peoples claim that they train hard... so you'll just have to take my word for it   ). The thing is that DOMS is not even entirely understood at this point in time. We know that it is the result of induced muscle micro-trauma, but we do not know yet the exact reason for the stiffness/pain.

I will say that DOMS is indeed a sign that the micro-trauma imposed on the muscles is sufficient to stimulate the hypertrophic response. However in some individuals, and once the body becomes better conditionned the same (sufficient) micro-trauma could only lead to some stiffness but no DOMS, still it is sufficient to elicit the same muscle growth response.

Basically DOMS induced by strength training is an indication that a sufficient stimulus was imposed on the muscles but I do not think that the absence of DOMS means that the stimulus was sub-optimal. I find that super conditionned athletes really don't get sore much. I work with a lot of ice hockey players who are in superb physical shape as they train all their physical capacities: they have great endurance, speed, power, strength, tolerance for lactic acid, etc. And besides the first 1-2 weeks upon re-starting their off-season program they hardly ever get sore despite a pretty high volume of work. And on average they do gain 10-15lbs of mass in a 3-4 months period of training, so we know that the stimulus for growth is sufficient.

We could use an illness as an analogy: while coughing and sneezing is a sure indication that you are suffering a cold; it is still possible to have that same illness without exibiting these two symptoms.

[pumpster]

Let's clarify:

-Fairly irrelevant that there is variance in soreness from one individual to the next. The obvious consideration is actually soreness relative to the individual's norms. Easy stuff.

-The absence of DOMS in every workout in no way contradicts the proposition.

[CT]

Let's clarify:

-Some get more soreness than others. The next logical step is to look at soress relative to what is the norm for the individual.

-The absence of DOMS in every workout in no way contradicts the proposition.

Agreed. However I do think that individuals can get desensitized to muscle soreness, so I would say that it's hard to establish a "scale of soreness" for one individual as it would have to evolve in time.

I think that Vince's proposition that there should be measurable progress on a weekly basis is a better indication of the efficacy of a program. Still, sometimes changes are so minute that they might be impossible to measure.

[pumpster]

Agreed. However I do think that individualized can get desensitized to muscle soreness, so I would say that it's hard to establish a "scale of soreness" for one individual as it would have to evolve in time.

Desentization occurs but i've found that the frequency of workouts in which soreness occurs has increased measurably by (1) finding the most effective exercises and (2) switching some of the variables from time to time to shock the system, and (3) combining them to achieve considerably better mind-muscle connections.

All true, thus soreness and superior tissue stimulation have resulted on a more frequent basis.

[CT]

Obviously changing exercises every 3-4 weeks will somewhat prevent habituation. Probably because of the theory of neurological compartmentalization of the muscle fibers which indicate that a muscle has more level of division than the gross anatomy of a muscle shows. So changing exercises could probably switch more growth stimulus to different muscle fiber compartments (all compartments in a muscle will receive some stimulation, but the focus can be placed on certain regions). The new exercises would thus hit less habituated muscle fibers and that would lead to renewed soreness (and probably growth).

I'm currently working on an article on that topic and I had to review over 50 research papers on neurological compartmentalization and it's quite fascinating.

[SteelePegasus]

Vince, in one of your long rants many pages ago you advocated doing 10 reps for 10 sets. Ofcourse decreasing the weight as needed to keep the reps up.  In the case of dumbell presses after 5 sets or so the triceps would be start to do more work than intended.   You also recommended supersetting with tricep press down...care to elaborate?

[dr.chimps]

You know, Hedgehog, the sum of my posts in this thread is original and could easily have been published in a magazine. Yet I have knuckleheads knocking me for no good reason. Do you think anyone with something original to offer here would put up with this crap? I enjoy the responses of CT who is a recognized writer and thinker. Look at his responses and compare them to board heroes who try to dismiss someone instead of refute them. What a pity more people here aren't educated.

Quickly now, Vince. This thread has gone on for as long as it has because people are genuinely interested in new methods of training, protocols you call them. You have offered up half-theory, which was rightfully pooh-poohed. I am younger than you, but even I have heard enough theory on bb training that to not be skeptical a new 'super' one would be foolish. People, like myself and others here at GB, are looking for something a bit more meaty than this. I think you fully know this. You then offered to do the training yourself, or with someone else 'smart' enough to have read a certain Karl Popper book. I would be willing to bet that more people on this board than you would acknowledge are familiar with him/his ideas. Intellectual snobbery is for the small minded at groups like Mensa who believe that intelligence is an absolute, to hold/lord over other people rather than a quality to be respected and humbled by. Don't be one of those people. Lastly, you have thrown what little you have synthesized to the masses here at GB and indicated that they can do it themselves. Unlikely to happen, as you well know, for many reasons, laziness and inertia being but two. You are an  exasperating man, Vince, wanting to be respected for something and lashing out when these wishes are not realized. You must remember that philosophers (and perhaps bbs like yourself), in their latter years, usually always strive for what is referred to as 'grand theory,' all-encompassing ideas that try to tie up all loose ends. Don't feel badly, Einstein, Newton and even, I think, a fellow named Popper fell short of doing so. 


/As for being published in a magazine, I think you really first need to polish your writing a bit more, particularly with regards to flow. One idea/thought must follow a like one or introduce a new one, and here I am noting your paragraph blocking which seems, at best, to be arbitrary. Very confusing for the reader to follow and may have contributed to more than the normal amount of disparaging comments from 'knuckleheads.'           

[pumpster]

People, like myself and others here at GB, are looking for something a bit more meaty than this.

Free of charge? 


$$$ talk, beggars walk..

[BEAST 8692]

providing myself as a case study.

i am not a pure bodybuilder, but i love doing it and use it for effective strength gain.

my sport also involves a lot of stress on the calves eg. skipping, running, sprint intervals, plyos, etc.

i spend a lot of time on the toes, especially whilst training for comp.

considering that i weigh about 230lbs when in peak shape there is obviously a great deal of stress on my calves every day in training camp.

i have doms every day during this period. sometimes i can't even walk in the morning until some blood gets in there.

guess what happens when i train like this? my calves get smaller.

what happens when i do less and continue weight training them about once a week very briefly? they get bigger.

oh, btw, if i eat more than i need whilst in training camp i just get fatter. so much for the doms plus 'eat more' theory.

recovery is a huge part of the picture and every athlete and trainer knows this. for some 66yr old fat man that can't even chin his own bodyweight to say that overtraining doesn't exist just proves he's talking out of his ass. to say that one can gain CONTINUOUSLY on his program without any regard for size, sex, hormones, mindset, musculo skeletal system, genetics, recovery is beyond ignorant. the man is obtuse.

he has made the statement earlier that doms plus extra food = anabolism. that's his 'theory' there is absolutely no scientific/anecdotal evidence at all to back that up (i challenge ANYONE to prove otherwise) and, in fact, neither he or any subject has actually tested it.

[dr.chimps]

Free of charge? 


$$$ talk, beggars walk..

True. But I didn't get the drift that Vince was spamming. Maybe a little ego-massage, but not spam. 

[pumpster]

spend a lot of time on the toes, especially whilst training for comp.

considering that i weigh about 230lbs when in peak shape there is obviously a great deal of stress on my calves every day in training camp.

i have doms every day during this period. sometimes i can't even walk in the morning until some blood gets in there.

guess what happens when i train like this? my calves get smaller.

what happens when i do less and continue weight training them about once a week very briefly? they get bigger.

Too easy to poke holes in this. I've already pointed out that non-weight/resistance DOMS likely differ in effect.

Secondly, i doubt the calves are actually getting smaller and if they are, it's because of the extra lard paired off from the rigorous exercise.

if i eat more than i need whilst in training camp i just get fatter. so much for the doms plus 'eat more' theory.

Yet another example of poor comprehension. He was talking about eating in regards to gaining muscle whilst using progressive resistance. In addition, it is a prerequisite for making gains but doesn't mean that it will always work.

[BEAST 8692]

Too easy to poke holes in this. I've already pointed out that non-weight/resistance DOMS likely differ in effect.

Secondly, i doubt the calves are actually getting smaller and if they are, it's because of the extra lard paired off from the rigorous exercise.
Yet another example of poor comprehension. He was talking about eating in regards to gaining muscle whilst using progressive resistance. In addition, it is a prerequisite for making gains but doesn't mean that it will always work.

no. calves were bigger and more muscular with less work.

sorry, but you'e the one with poor comprehension. he says eat more with doms. he doesn't believe in any specific muscle building foods/supplements ie protein, etc and i can't really refute that.

[Vince B]

To reply to CT. You state that experienced trainees seldom experience DOMS. Yes, most of us consider DOMS to be a nuisance phenomenon and when we are introducing novices to weight training often give them only one or two sets so that they don't end up sore. After a week or two trainees no longer get sore. You state that you don't get sore even though you consider that you train hard and often long. If you did Olympic lifting this wouldn't surprise me because you rest a long time between sets or lifts. Now, if what I claim is true then you weren't making rapid size progress. Had you been able to induce DOMS then you would have grown rapidly, and assuming you were gaining weight. That is my claim. I acknowledge that most people do not experience DOMS and I say that is what explains why so many are on plateaus. For most bodybuilders they have to train hard just to stay the same which is still a good result but hardly progress. Like I said, others explain the lack of results by claiming people overtrain. I say rubbish to that. I seldom see anyone training very hard in my gym and I have been there for 35 years. Everyone thinks they are training hard but that is wishful thinking.

Another problem is that some exercises will not be effective enough to trigger DOMS. I discovered that for myself when I was training triceps. No matter what I did on triceps pressdowns or how much mechanical tension I thought I was putting on them they wouldn't grow beyond a certain size. It took the lying triceps extensions with arms on pads to cause DOMS and the next day my arms were measurably larger. A light went on in my head and I thought I had discovered something important. So I tested that theory and found that keeping the muscles sore did lead to rapid growth and also rapid strength and muscular endurance, too. It also explained why so many were not growing. No DOMS no growth. Well, if you don't experience pronounced DOMS you won't be growing much at all.

[Max_Rep]

You mean this worthless thread is still going on.

Here's an idea. Step 1 go to the gym. Step 2 train. Step 3 go home.

[Vince B]

SteelePegasus. One of the things Doug Hepburn taught me when he trained me back in 1969 was not to reduce the resistance. He gave me a program for arms. 20 sets of 5 reps with the same maximum resistance. We were using his personal exercise machine that he invented and it had resistance in one direction only. That protocol using concentric reps generated 1/2 inch on my arms in two weeks. I was very impressed. Doug had to lend the machine to someone he was trying to sell the design to so I stopped going there. Shortly afterwards Arthur Jones started writing in magazines and he told us 20 sets was stupid. Why do volume when one or two sets is sufficient. I also believed that Larry Scott was onto something when he encouraged us to always try to exceed our maximum pump size. Grimek said 100 sets of presses didn't do anything for his shoulders. So I ended up compromising and did 7 or 8 total sets, including warmup for bodyparts. That was how many sets I needed to get a maximum pump. I knew that Sergio did volume training and got a muscle pumped then kept doing more sets to keep it pumped. You can't ignor what you read about how the biggest guys trained.

Keep the resistance at the maximum and rest longer between sets so that you can still do about 8 reps. The maximum resistance done set after set after set is the basic requirement for hypertrophy. That is what big muscles are for!

[Vince B]

Pumpster. Always try to induce as much DOMS as you can. The kind that lasts for 5 days is better than the level that is gone after 2 days. If you can't induce severe DOMS you won't be growing rapidly.

[Fatpanda]

First off, I cannot believe I have wasted around 2 hours reading through this shit. Vince surely for such an intelligent man who has read the Karl popper book for clever people, it wouldn't have been too much trouble to say 'my theory is:

To lift the heaviest weight you can for 8-15 reps, for as many sets in a day as you can, as many days a week as you can  = bigger muscles.?

Now what amazes me is the fact, you claim that this is new, and could be potentially the biggest thing to hit bodybuilding since biotests myostatin blockers? (why ct, why?? )

You have criticized HST, but seem to have totally missed the point that the routine you propose falls exactly in line with the science Bryan Haydock used to come up with HST. In short owning yourself.

high frequency + progressive load, with the only exclusion the absence of a deconditioning/deloading period, which in your system would leave you feeling dead after a week through, what you call myth, overtraining

Also your belief on diet is utterly ridiculous, and the only thing you would get from these mad workouts you propose with the lack of increase in protein, is smaller muscles in every body part not getting the constant training, and I include the maintenance trained muscles in that group too, as the muscles that are getting constantly tore down would need protein from somewhere, and if its not from diet, it'll be from the muscles used the least.

Is it is my theory that your theory is the nonsensical ramblings of an attention whore, and simply put I am angry I gave your nonsense the time of day.
 

[Vince B]

Max Rep. People are criticizing me for contributing to this board as an Ironager. I decided to offer my theories about training on the Gossip and Opinion board and others are interested and that is why this thread is still going. I think this is the first time a training thread has been taken seriously on the Getbig G&O board. I don't think it is an accident. I am doing my best to answer questions and so on.

[davidpaul]

Max Rep. People are criticizing me for contributing to this board as an Ironager. I decided to offer my theories about training on the Gossip and Opinion board and others are interested and that is why this thread is still going. I think this is the first time a training thread has been taken seriously on the Getbig G&O board. I don't think it is an accident. I am doing my best to answer questions and so on.

stoneager more like old man, do you even know what an ipod is?

keep blogging granp's.

[Vince B]

dr chimps. I know you are an intelligent and educated person. So are several of the lads here on Getbig. I don't see anyone else presenting an original theory about hypertrophy on Getbig and defending it. Does it take intelligence to get big? No, but a person has to either be smart enough to find the right method or listen to someone else who is. The point is if you are not growing then there is something wrong with your method. What do people do when they stop growing? They should abandon what they are doing and try something else. Nope. Everyone assumes growth happens mysteriously and over time. It may not be perceptible. I say hogwash to that. It is observable and gains should be made from each workout that triggers or sustains intense DOMS. If you do get sore as hell and don't grow then something is wrong with my theory. I have heard of some who say they get sore all the time but are not growing. If they are gaining weight while sore then that is a problem for the theory. I would have to look into what those individuals are doing. So far from my own experience severe DOMS = rapid growth.

[Fatpanda]

so what about that study that shows fatigue is not needed for strength gains?

while this study is based on strength,

there is a unrefutable corelation that stronger muscles can lift more weight, and more weight = more micro trauma = more growth/protein synthisis.

[pumpster]

It would be interesting to trace back the growth spurts that occurred during one's lifting career to see if there were any commonalities that could be replicated, aside from the advantages that sometimes accrue early on in training.

Also interesting whether severe DOMS would be desirable over mild DOMS every workout, which is in itself an accomplishment once the body's aclimated to the protcol.

[Vince B]

Fatpanda.  I do not recommend training as often as one can. I suggest training every 3rd day. It may well be that daily training is best but I rather doubt that.

Bryan Haycock used scientific research to get his HST method. The method itself is not scientific because it has not been tested and from what I have read the success is modest at best. Where are the giants from using HST? There are none and there can be none because that is a submaximal program. Haycock said he can't get any bigger than he was two years ago. In the language of Getbig he self-owned himself! He knows about the 8 and 4 hour requirements for maximum  and 50% hypertrophy respectively. Why does he think he can't grow any more? Tell him to come to my gym and I will get his arms an inch bigger in a month.

[SteelePegasus]

SteelePegasus. One of the things Doug Hepburn taught me when he trained me back in 1969 was not to reduce the resistance. He gave me a program for arms. 20 sets of 5 reps with the same maximum resistance. We were using his personal exercise machine that he invented and it had resistance in one direction only. That protocol using concentric reps generated 1/2 inch on my arms in two weeks. I was very impressed. Doug had to lend the machine to someone he was trying to sell the design to so I stopped going there. Shortly afterwards Arthur Jones started writing in magazines and he told us 20 sets was stupid. Why do volume when one or two sets is sufficient. I also believed that Larry Scott was onto something when he encouraged us to always try to exceed our maximum pump size. Grimek said 100 sets of presses didn't do anything for his shoulders. So I ended up compromising and did 7 or 8 total sets, including warmup for bodyparts. That was how many sets I needed to get a maximum pump. I knew that Sergio did volume training and got a muscle pumped then kept doing more sets to keep it pumped. You can't ignor what you read about how the biggest guys trained.

Keep the resistance at the maximum and rest longer between sets so that you can still do about 8 reps. The maximum resistance done set after set after set is the basic requirement for hypertrophy. That is what big muscles are for!

Vince, maybe I am missing something.  If you are lifting at maximum resistance for 8-10 reps, I don't see how on the after 4 sets you can still push that kind of weight.  Especially if you superset it with tris as you recommended. The rest period would have to be extremely long. 

You mentioned not going too heavy on the tricep push downs as to not invoke other push groups. good tip