Vince,
I greatly respect your experience and knowledge... but as a scientist I must refute a couple of your claims as they say more about your limited understanding of biochemistry than reinforce your argument:
The slow training isn't the answer, either. There should be no requirement to add 'properly' after HIT.
...this is plainly idiotic. Proper implementation is a prerequisite of any training protocol. Imagine the following conversation:
Billy: "Hows the leg training going Bob?"
Bob: "Badly... my legs are even smaller than they were when I started."
Billy: "Do you squat?"
Bob: "Yeah, I've been sitting around my house all day, watching tv, playing Nintendo"
Billy: "Okay, but do you squat?"
Bob: "Yeah dude, didn't you listen to what I said... I've been doing squat for three weeks now and my legs aren't getting any bigger."
...is it fair for this guy to conclude that all leg training is bunk because everyone recommends squats?
That reeks of rationalization. In other words, that accounts for just about everyone who doesn't gain.
...Vince you simply have to accept that muscle growth is metabolically costly and is not something that the body can sustain for long periods of time. For one thing, the growth potential of muscle tissue far exceeds the maximum growth rate of connective tissue (poor blood supply). Only rare genetic freaks can gain continuously and even for them, growth is slow and incremental... the rest of us, even under the best conditions, can only gain to a certain point before we have to allow our tendons and connective tissue to catch up. This is why strength and muscle gains are cyclical for many people... it does not mean that their training is cyclically successful.
Rapid, measurable, sustained muscle growth is possible but not with HIT, etc.
...why you believe this is a mystery to me?
This has never happened in the history of the human race. In fact it is a biological impossibility... it has never been observed... anywhere... ever.
Why people still embrace those inadequate methods is a mystery. I guess most people have to believe in something.
...the same way you believe in infinite muscle growth, even though it is the biological equivalent of perpetual motion???
I prefer to discard all inadequate methods and do only what yields rapid growth. It isn't a mystery.
...on the contrary Vince, your method of generating such rapid growth is very much a mystery as you never explain it. All we have ever seen are vague, cryptic allusions.
Van Bilderass states that I am delusional. Is he the judge of who is competent in hypertrophy theory? No one has refuted my theory and I have posted it here and elsewhere on the net plus had it published in Ironman Magazine in 2000 and 2001.
...vague musings do not a theory make.
I have no obligation to post programs. I have posted protocols on Getbig and elsewhere in the past. I do not join training forums because I do not need the abuse from pseudo experts and jerks.
...I don't feel you are a jerk Vince, but your continuous hypothesizing despite your inability to comprehend the fundamental biological processes involved DOES make YOU a pseudo expert.
There is no open, honest, fair and scientific forum on line for discussing bodybuilding and hypertrophy theories and methods. Everyone who owns a site has a vested interest or appoints moderators who don't do their jobs and allow personal attacks.
...yes there is, it's at
www.drdarden.com
What amuses me is the sorry fact that bodybuilding has no academic status at universities. When has anyone been granted a PhD in maximum human hypertrophy? Where could a candidate be supervised to do such a degree? In the vacuum that exists re the philosophy of hypertrophy just about any method has some currency and believers. We see this mirrored in every gym where enthusiasts do all manner of training and seldom grow steadily at all.
...couldn't agree more. But the reason hypertrophy isn't a separate, distinct science is because it involves aspects of several different established and proven scientific disciplines... the same science that you ignore while making wild claims about infinite muscle growth.
The Luke said: "HIT beats out everything else hands down... if you are training HIT properly you may or may not make progress, but at least you can be certain that you would have made LESS progress (if any) with any other protocol."
...yes, yes I did... because it is true.
His statement is equivalent to the null set. If you are training HIT properly you may or MAY NOT make progress. Yes, that pretty well sums up the state of affairs re intermediate bodybuilding. These same guys will believe they're hardgainers, too.
...agree wholeheartedly.
If HIT is a valid method it must work if done properly.
...no.
When dealing with complex biological processes, there are several interdependent factors at play. This isn't engineering or mathematics, where identical applications always yield identical results.
Some humorous examples:
-A knife to the right of the sternum won't kill everyone, every time. For one in a million people, the heart is on the left hand side and such a wound would be pretty minor.
-A bullet in the head won't kill everyone, every time. One in a billion people have compressed brains which are flat against their brain stems and the floor of their cranial vault... the cranial cavity is filled with a fluid swollen tumour or growth.
Similarly, not every bodybuilder is even capable of responding to hypertrophic stimulus at all times. It only happens when the metabolism can allow it.
I can't explain this stuff more simply... biological responses are statistical by nature.
If it doesn't work it has to be discarded. The sooner the better as far as I am concerned. Well, I discarded that theory a long time ago. Ray Mentzer tried to convince me it was true but my own experience has shown otherwise. HIT is plainly a false theory. Arthur, Ellington and Mike merely added to the confusion.
...faulty reasoning, for the reasons stated above.
The Luke
