mentzer's HIT [Archive] - WannaBeBig Bodybuilding and Weightlifting Forums

silles

06-02-2003, 10:13 AM

I'll first address the issue of low volume.

Look, it all comes down to you, your body type, your recovery ability, your work capacity, and you general fitness. I have a feeling a lot of this so called "overtraining" results from just not being in good enough shape. That's exactly why Westside Barbell started the whole GPP thing, and now their concept has been taken to a whole new level, with Westside once again leading the way. When you're in better shape, you can just do more--but don't take shape to mean just your aerobic capacity--there is much more at work here, but it goes beyond the scope of this forum post. My point still remains, everyone's body is different, everyone is made up of different muscle fibers, has different glycogen levels, people have different hormonal responses, it would be wrong to make a blanket statement, "Everyone needs low volume," or to say "Everyone needs high volume." I do, however, think it is reasonable to say that everyone needs variation in loading parameters.

Next, this statement, and general loading parameters.

When I train intensely, 4 sets is sometimes too much. Tracking your progress and getting to know yourself is the key.

When you train "intensely," what does that mean? It got you breathing heavily? You really felt the burn? I have a feeling you're using the word intensely as representative of your momentary ability, which is complete Arthur Jones BS. Training Intensity is a function of 1RM, period, with 1RM being the most intense full rep you can do. Once you're beyond your 5RM, I think it's safe to say the training is no longer very intense. The point is, any other definition other than % of 1RM for intensity is meaningless, it's ephemeral, in other words, inconsistent. Science does not begin until you start measuring, therefore, we will start the training prescription by measure of intensity. If hypertrophy is your game, then you will probably train between 85-65% of your 1RM for reps between 6-12. If strength is the goal, the training prescription must be, at least some of the time, between 1-5RM representing 100-85% of 1RM for most people. Now, if you're training "intensely" for four sets, that means you are training above 85% for those four sets, but I'm sorry, if your reps are falling between 1-5RM for four sets, your volume is probably too low to ellicit response.

Remember, there is an inverse relationship between sets and reps. The more reps you do, the less sets, and of course the less reps, the more sets. See the repetition continuem for more detail, but generally speaking, if you're training between 1-5RM, you'll need between 6-12 sets to effectively work yourself. Why, you might ask? Several reasons. The nervous system is like that for one, just like a foreign language, as it is repeatedly exposed to the load, it learns a little bit at a time, and soon enough, the weight isn't so heavy--the more often you are exposed to a given training load--without overtraining--the strong you shall get in the long run, the law of repeated efforts. Secondly, even though this is much disputed, time under tension applies. If you are training between 1-5RM, chances are, your total time under tension will be between 5-20 seconds. Olympic lifters, despite the fact that they train largely ballistic movements, still get huge....why? Because they are repeating those movements frequently. In fact, take a look at how the strongest men in the world train, you will see them lifting big iron, for many, many sets, for low reps, barely touching failure. So to conclude, where are your elite athletes Mike Mentzer? Where are the many powerlifters and olympic lifters using HIT principles? Where are they? I don't see them. Take a look at any elite athlete, be they natural, or assisted, female, or male, you will see they all periodize, and they all take part in variety. Low volume for low volume's sake is just plain stupid, although everyone's body is different, if low volume on the whole does it for you, fine, but restricting your training is probably only going to restrict your progress.

Neil

06-02-2003, 12:28 PM

Silles, what's with all the animosity towards Mentzer? He get your sister pregnant or something?

I took a trip over to dictionary. com for you.

in·ten·si·ty
n. pl. in·ten·si·ties
Exceptionally great concentration, power, or force.

Looks like the dictionary is full of "complete Arthur Jones BS."

Now that we have that cleared up, we can get back on topic.

Give me a list of people who have made superior gains on a volume based protocol, and I will give you a list of genetic anomalies on drugs. Please. Showing me a top powerlifter or elite athlete is a waste of time. Show me regular people, who are not drug enhanced. You seem to think that people who make gains on low volume are the exception, but they are in fact, the rule. Pick up a heavy weight, lift it until you can't lift it anymore (or stop a rep or 2 short), and go home and eat and get some rest. Come back and do it again when you are recovered. It's not rocket science. A lot of people got big and strong before the age of drugs and all these training gurus, and that's how they did it. Get off the bandwagon my friend.

PowerManDL

06-02-2003, 12:32 PM

He's right.

In exercise science, "intensity" means percentage of 1RM; the subjective feeling of effort is generally referred to as "intensiveness" to differentiate the two.

As an example, I use quite a bit of volume during certain phases of training, be it to condition or to improve muscle mass. Low-volume comes into play during a good bit of the time, such as now, but even those weeks have a higher frequency.

His point about cycling of variables is quite valid.

silles

06-02-2003, 01:35 PM

You see, that's the problem with HIT Jedis. They cannot admit that success beyond themselves or their immediate family/friends exists. It is this generalization that the exceptions prove the rule. For every individual that periodizes his training, you will simply state the person in question is either:

A) On Steroids
B) Genetically Gifted
C) An Invented Internet Personality and/or Ghost Athlete

Look, that's not fair. The legitimacy of training must be determined by science, and by example. As far as I'm concerned, your argument is flawed. You state those who gain on non-low volume routines are exceptions, but I must assert that the exception is you. The majority of people can gain on various levels of volume, and intensity. Strength is not only gained in the 1-5RM zone, and muscle is not only gained in the 6-12RM zone. There exists variation. Some have gained doing two sets per body part, once a week for periods, while Jay Shcroeder has his clients train the bench 12-15 times per week! To say that there is only one way of doing things based on your experience, or those immediately around you, is unfair, unscientific, and misleading.

silles

06-02-2003, 02:13 PM

By the way, I think it is fair to mention an increase in the density of training. I believe it is incredibly difficult to overtrain if you specify a set number of sessions, and time per session that you will work out. For instance, if you have fair recovery ability, training four times per week, 50 minutes per session is reasonable, and perhaps even optimal for the majority of the training time. Now, for hypertrophy, and even strength to some degree, when one attempts to do more and more work in that specific time frame, it almost always contributes to great gains. This is the underlying principle of Charles Staley's EDT (Escalating Density Training). Do more work, in less time, and benefit from a positive neurological and hormonal response, while avoiding over-reaching. How cool is that?

ask

06-03-2003, 05:59 AM

Listen scientist, it's not me on that generalised bull****. Dorian is a well-known disciple of Mentzer's (and no, he was NOT a powerlifter, strongman), if that's what you're asking for. And don't even pull that comparison stuff in question, because you asked for an example yourself.

All I'm saying is that - as you, too, explained - that different things work for different persons. I could not handle your 12 sets with 1-5RM the way I train. And my perception of what works for me is intuitive. Like I've told cats in previous discussions, I do not know why it works so effectively, but it does, and the rest I don't care about. Continuous tension, for me, has proven to work (I know Powerman and almost everyone else will tell you it's meaningless bs), low volume, proper recuperation (perhaps my recovery ability is sluggish, then).

And we don't talk that excercise science; I meant intensity in general, what it means to me. And how come the volume, according to your super-scientific tables, is too low when I'm constantly progressing without reading that stuff? Perhaps you'd have better luck at that, too, if you spent half that time eating and sleeping, dunny.

Who, in the first place, other than Mentzer, in this thread, has suggested there's only one way to progress? I'm not dogmatic about training, at all.

Paul Stagg

06-03-2003, 07:34 AM

Dorian Yates did not train the way Mentzer suggested AT ALL.

Mentzer's dogmatism made it difficult to take the few good things he was saying and pull them out of the crap.

ask

06-03-2003, 08:49 AM

Paul, in a HIT manner, using certain HIT principles. It was the basis for him, even though he kinda overdid it. Dorian's one main set training is the key to this. That's something ya'll can't shake off.

ask

06-03-2003, 08:51 AM

And although I agree on Mentzer's dogmatism, it's the reader who should be able to pull out the stuff that seems relevant.

Paul Stagg

06-03-2003, 09:04 AM

It was not at all the basis of Yates' training.

The only similarity was that Yates' trained to failure. He also used multiple sets, used multiple lifts for various bodyparts, and trained them more frequently.

As I recall, a typical Yates' workout was 15 to 20 sets.

Mentzer used his relationship with Yates (they talked once) as a rediculous marketing ploy.

silles

06-03-2003, 09:13 AM

I'll let Ron Harris handle this one....

Mentzer keeps bringing up Dorian Yates and Aaron Baker as examples of proof that Heavy Duty works. I've watched Dorian train, and he definitely performs more than one set per exercise. It actually looked like the standard three or four to me, though all but the final one may have been termed "warmups." As for Aaron, the guy's been training for over twenty years and is a genetic freak. For Mentzer to take credit for his incredible physique after training the guy Heavy-Duty style for a few months during the days of the WBF is ludicrous!

Let's see, he won the NPC USA before then on "his own," and came damn close to beating Flex Wheeler at the Pro Ironman several years later, while in both cases, by Mike's standards, "grossly overtraining."

Things get even more outrageous in the June issue when Mike tries to make the claim that the teams in the NFL, college football, college basketball, ice hockey, and volleyball whose players were trained in HIT style won more games than teams who trained on a more traditional volume approach. Of course, he carefully words this diatribe so that he only says that each of these winning teams "trained to failure," which as we know, says nothing in regard to the actual volume of exercise performed.

But hey, whatever works for YOU. That's why I really don't care for the "upper chest" debate, or the "perfect volume" debate. If hitting inclines made you grow--GREAT! If hanging upside down in a dark closet while doing biceps curls is packing size and/or strength, by all means, keep doing it until it no longer works. What I am saying, however, is that the scientific literature available seems to point away from HIT as a valid LONG TERM system, as well, I am always highly distrought when someone claims HIT to be the one and only way to train. Mike Mentzer did nothing but berate those (he even criticized Arthur Jones and Ellington Darden, quite harshly, I might add) who didn't buy into his voodoo--he also died a pathetic man.

Now, as far as this statement goes....

And we don't talk that excercise science; I meant intensity in general, what it means to me.

This is precisely the problem. To be honest, I don't care what intensity means to you. In fact, I don't care what intensity means to me, that is, of course, unless it is determined by % of 1RM. You see, when you label intensity as intensiveness, you make it completely subjective, ephemeral, meaningless. As Dr. Hatfield says, "You like the burn? Light a match." If I'm coughing up a lung, and I'm strugging like a maniac to complete my 500th Hindu Squat, well, that is quite "intense" by the definition of momentary ability (by the way, 500 Hindu Squats was a requirement that Ken Shamrock had to meet before being allowed in the no holds barred fighting circuit). Have you ever done a Hindu Squat? Get up on your toes, drop down to a full squat, raise yourself, co-ordinate the movement with your arms--You have a Hindu Squat. My grandmother can do one. The exercise is just about as intense as doing LaBatt's curls on Superbowl day. What does it matter? Well, % of 1RM is a great factor in determining total tension (however, as Westside Barbell gleefully points out in one of their KILLER dynamic days, it certainly isn't the only). If I can do 500 reps (or 10 reps to failure), of any exercise, it becomes obvious--hey, there's not enough tension. Now, if you lift like a Powerlifter, for optimal hypertrophy, with heavy triples, with long, five minute breaks between, well, hey, you have the tension, but you're missing the fatigue. The energetic theory of muscular hyertrophy, summed up, is "Get a good pump using heavy weights. Keep the reps low, keep the rest intervals reasonably short, do as many sets as you can until your reps degrade below a target reps zone." Voila, intensity explained, and a great routine to induce hypertrophy without training to failure, or low volume, the anti-HIT routine, so to speak.

Neil

06-03-2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
It was not at all the basis of Yates' training.

The only similarity was that Yates' trained to failure. He also used multiple sets, used multiple lifts for various bodyparts, and trained them more frequently.

As I recall, a typical Yates' workout was 15 to 20 sets.

Mentzer used his relationship with Yates (they talked once) as a rediculous marketing ploy.

As far as I can tell from watching Dorian's video and reading articles about hime he did use one set to failure. The other sets were warm ups, and nowhere near his working set poundages.

ask

06-03-2003, 09:24 AM

Paul, have you read Dorian's books, interviews, or ever seen him train? I have, and he lifts heavy (although perhaps not relatively heavy, because he moves the weight so slowly), so he warms up. Perhaps you're pointing out that he uses warm-up sets - which you count - but how many guys put 400 on the bar and start lifting cold? Come on, man? No matter how you try to put it, the volume he used throughout his career, especially later - is low. It's lower than most guys here use and of course low compared to Lee Priest's 20 sets per excersise. It's also mighty low when you consider that the dude was heavy on drugs.

Typical chest workout might have consisted of 2 compound movements and flyes, later cables, too - but that's still low considering one main set. Of course this is down to interpretation - what is low? What is a warm-up set? Perhaps I've been confused all this time, while reading about ya'll guys doing 15 sets per excersise, if 10 were warm-up sets after all.

Another thing, he lifted pretty damn slowly most of the time, in a controlled fashion. And it's not Mentzer talking about Dorian (although obviously that happened a LOT) but Dorian talking about Mentzer.

And Silles, of course I'll continue to do what works for me. No amount of reading and pseudo-scientific excursions is gonna change that, or bitching. And I do not train how Mentzer suggested. If you read my first post in this thread, you might have noticed that I suggested each one pick up things that make sense to them and use things that work in practise, individually, without buying any of that pre-written garbage, be it Mentzer of Westside, anything. And no hard feelings:)

ask

06-03-2003, 09:30 AM

The reason I choose to use Dorian as an example so often are his unorthodox views on bodybuilding; they obviously worked for him. He built such an awesome physique back when everyone was dogmatic about free weights, for example (hell, still are, always been) - using a lot of machine work and cables. I respect him a lot for going his own route and succeeding without giving a eff about all that close-minded rambling.

Paul Stagg

06-03-2003, 09:34 AM

He did indeed use lower volume, and he gave a little credit to mentzer (as I do) that some of what he said was valid.

He also used multiple lifts (sets) to train bodyparts.

Bottom line - HIT folks, and Mentzer particularly, pointed to yates as an example of the success of Mentzer's training, which is not true. Yates did not train like Mentzer suggests. Neither did Mentzer when he was competing.

My issue with Mentzer has always been his contention that there is ONE right way, and his was it. (That, and his remarkable lack of understanding of logic while trying to present his arguments as logical, which they are not)

From a training standpoint, I'm all for training to failure using a limited number of sets. I'm not for using one set of leg extensions to failure every two weeks and one set of leg curls to failure every two weeks as one's leg workout.

Neil

06-03-2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg

From a training standpoint, I'm all for training to failure using a limited number of sets. I'm not for using one set of leg extensions to failure every two weeks and one set of leg curls to failure every two weeks as one's leg workout.

Who advocates that?

silles

06-03-2003, 09:42 AM

By the way, I feel it noteworthy to add that at this point in time, Dorian Yates has sought out the help of Charles Poliquin in recovering from his sustained training injuries. HIT or not, this is quite ironic, as Mike Mentzer and Charles Poliquin had a shared dislike for one another, as Mentzer constantly slandered Poliquin and his "volume methods," in Ironman, while Poliquin took a shot at Mentzer, some of them cheap, in just about, well, every page of his book Poliquin Principles, in just about every T-Mag article he ever wrote, and in generally every interview he gave. So, why would Dorian Yates be going to Charles Poliquin, the "enemy" so to speak, to get his body straightened out? This is from an interview with bodybuilding.com.

Zach Marcy: In recent days I've been involved in numerous debates on a lot of your methods vs. the methods of HIT promoted by the late Mike Mentzer. What arguments can you make for your basic methods versus some of the other philosophies in HIT?

Charles Poliquin: Dorian Yates has been and is still under the care of my clinic as often as we can meet. We have had the chance to exchange concepts in training. One cannot argue with his results, but he realizes that varying the exercises more would have given him a healthier longer career. But exercise tolerance is a very unique thing as discussed in the book I co-authored with Will Brink Muscle Building Nutrition (it is available on Charles's web site) HIT does work, but I don't think it is for every body. For example, Brian Haycock system also works. I trained that way in University and made zero progress. I am blessed with a high percentage of fast-twitch fibers, therefore I need more sets of low reps to progress.

Now, everyone is blessed with fast-twitch fibers. How many is an individual issue, but remember, these fibers have the most potential for growth, and are generally stimulated in the 1-5RM range, and by ballistic movements. Ask PowerManDL about doing a set of Power Snatches or Hang Cleans to "Total muscle failure." That is of course, assuming he doesn't run you over in his Haet Mobile first....

Neil

06-03-2003, 09:47 AM

It should be fairly obvious that the word 'intensity' in HIT does not refer to percentage of 1RM. It refers to the definition of 'intensity'.

ask

06-03-2003, 09:47 AM

Yep,

and you gotta understand this: Dorian did not train how Mentzer suggested - nobody ever said so - but he did indeed use low volume and more importantly - he did lift very slow, with controlled execution, stressing the importance of full ROM and contraction. That's enough HIT for me, something characteristic, and couple that with supersetting, pre-exhaustion and training beyond failure, and we're there.

RoidRage

06-03-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Neil
Silles, what's with all the animosity towards Mentzer? He get your sister pregnant or something?

I took a trip over to dictionary. com for you.

in·ten·si·ty
n. pl. in·ten·si·ties
Exceptionally great concentration, power, or force.

Looks like the dictionary is full of "complete Arthur Jones BS."

Now that we have that cleared up, we can get back on topic.

Give me a list of people who have made superior gains on a volume based protocol, and I will give you a list of genetic anomalies on drugs. Please. Showing me a top powerlifter or elite athlete is a waste of time. Show me regular people, who are not drug enhanced. You seem to think that people who make gains on low volume are the exception, but they are in fact, the rule. Pick up a heavy weight, lift it until you can't lift it anymore (or stop a rep or 2 short), and go home and eat and get some rest. Come back and do it again when you are recovered. It's not rocket science. A lot of people got big and strong before the age of drugs and all these training gurus, and that's how they did it. Get off the bandwagon my friend.

:withstupi

well stated!

ask

06-03-2003, 09:55 AM

Silles, that is definitely an interesting excerpt, but Dorian didn't really have an affiliation with Mentzer, only trained and exchanged ideas with him a couple of times. However, Dorian states his principles are based on Mike's to a degree. And note that after interacting with Poliquin Dorian kept training in the same but even more controlled manner, employing the same intensity as it's known in HIT. Poliquin offered him more ideas, and as he puts it, Dorian would probably have had a longer career had he done more variation, but at that point it was already too late, I guess.

The bottomline is, we can have it all, train in thousands of ways - so why not?

RoidRage

06-03-2003, 09:58 AM

silles

06-03-2003, 10:00 AM

It should be fairly obvious that the word 'intensity' in HIT does not refer to percentage of 1RM. It refers to the definition of 'intensity'.

It is, but this is exactly my point. For hyertrophy to occur, you need to hit two buttons, they are tension, and fatigue. If you curl a pink dumbbell for 1000 reps, you have the fatigue, but not the tension. If you bench press 500 pounds, you will have the tension, but not the fatigue. Although HIT can work quite well for short term strength gain, and it will hyertrophy you until you adapt to it, it will do little good if you are an athlete or powerlifter. That said, HIT is not very "intense," there are much better choices for athletes. In fact, there are much better choices for everyone, but I will not discount HIT as a valid method, until you adapt to it, then it's time for something else.

ask

06-03-2003, 10:05 AM

So...we're back to where we started... "It's all subjective, but oh, HIT methods don't work". Damn...

silles

06-03-2003, 10:13 AM

Look, as far as I'm concerned, if sticking your wang in a pizza makes you grow muscle, by all means, DO IT. But that doesn't mean powerlifters or strength athletes, who depend on explosive movement ought to stick their wangs in pizzas too, especially if useless hyertrophy SLOWS THEM DOWN. It all comes down to the individual's goals, adaptation, etc. Maybe one day, you won't make gains on HIT, then you better be able to move onto something else. A training system is only as good as the time it takes you to adapt to it....which is why pre-periodized routines like HST and West Side provide continuous stimulus, contributing to positive feedback.

RoidRage

06-03-2003, 10:33 AM

Silles what kind of gains did you get off of HIT?

PowerManDL

06-03-2003, 01:57 PM

There's something to be said about out-stripping the body's ability to gain from any protocol.

Like silles has been trying to say, there's only so long you can go before progressive overload simply won't work any more, or slows to unacceptably slow rates.

At that point, it'd be wise to drop the intensity (in its proper form) and up the volume a bit. Probably increase the frequency some as well.

Training elicits a specific response, NOT a general one. Seeing as there are more than a few components involved in a muscle fiber and its adaptation process, it would only make sense that each of those components would need to be given a specific emphasis.

That's the idea behind periodization, to provide a system that elicits specific adaptations in an order that will allow each phase to build upon the one before it.

Low-volume, intensive training is only one facet of such a system.

silles

06-03-2003, 02:16 PM

Man, PowerMan rules, hard. If you think that performing one or two sets to failure will knock off every fiber in your muscle, you are sadly mistaken. You can't do it all at once, which is one of the reasons periodizing is so importart. Also, my gains on HIT? Whenever I train to failure, I do not gain strength. Why? Because I'm still fairly new to training, I have a VERY inefficient nervous system. Take someone who has been training for three months, load up 80% of their 1RM on the bar, and watch them squat it al day long. Take someone who has been training for three years, load up 80% of their 1RM, and watch them bust about 4-7 reps. As training age increases, so does the ability to activate motor units, and the inhibitory mechanisms of the nervous system become more and more de-activated. So training age, in my opinion, largely dictates whether one should train to muscular failure. Secondly, I've always made my best progress training frequently, as in, training as muscle group at least twice a week. Now, I've made incredible gains deadlifting five days a week. Take a look at how some of the strongest weightlifters train--14 times per week some times. With all the juice the world, you woudl STILL think they would overtrain, but they don't. The sessions are kept short, the intensity cycled to an incredible degree, and big poundage leaps are ALWAYS made. It remind me of the avatar of one of the WBB members, "Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." That's exactly the case with the HIT Jedi's solution to the problem of muscular growth and strength.

Neil

06-03-2003, 05:59 PM

Well Silles, good luck with your periodization, we'll see where you are in a year. You should start a journal.

chris mason

06-03-2003, 07:14 PM

Well, here goes the old Mentzer bashing again. Mentzer made his living selling his ideas, thus he felt the need (in my opinion) to present them the way he did (the dogma referred to). He took his lessons from another very successful businessman, Arthur Jones.

In any event, Yates and Mentzer actually trained quite similarly when they both competed. Menzter, with the theories he presented later in life, unlike most bodybuilding gurus, actually took into account that he was giving training advice to drug free trainees, trainees who do not have the aid of tissue building drugs to recover from training to failure with higher volume. In that respect, if one is to train to failure, he was right to recommend lower volume (although he might have gone a bit too far). While I don't think his training methodology is optimal, it will certainly lead to a nice improvement in one's physique if followed to the T.

RoidRage

06-03-2003, 09:11 PM

Silles, what kind of gains did you personally experiance when you followed HIT to the T? Not hypothetical situations. Leave the hypothesis for the scientist trying to make a buck.

ask

06-04-2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by chris mason
Menzter, with the theories he presented later in life, unlike most bodybuilding gurus, actually took into account that he was giving training advice to drug free trainees, trainees who do not have the aid of tissue building drugs to recover from training to failure with higher volume.

This is interesting, of course, and noteworthy.

Silles, there are many was to train, many scientists and even many more businessmen. I'm well aware of what Powerman said about periodizing - 'cos that's sort of what I do (although it makes almost too much sense, kinda like HIT:)). But it's foolish, and it does not serve your purpose, to knock people off and bash them like that. No matter how many times a day you deadlift, there will always people telling you how they've made great gains with the lowest of volume, or constantly training to failure, or even using Mike's method. Lol, that's something you can't change no matter how many equations and quotes you throw in their faces.

To each his own.

noraa

06-04-2003, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Neil
Well Silles, good luck with your periodization, we'll see where you are in a year. You should start a journal.

Considering perodization has by large the majority of scientific research behind it, where would you think he would be?
All quality weightlifters follow periodized training programs, the VAST majority of bodybuilders, even professional ones use periodized programs, utilizing different levels of volume.
Strange that when somebody brings up HIT, they say look it worked for Dorian, he was good,
wow

how many professional BBrs are out there?
how many train low volume?
While Dorian may have trained 1 set to failure, it doesnt = HIT when he did 10+ different exercises (at least in the vast collection of training articles i have seen from him)

ask

06-04-2003, 05:54 AM

Noraa, Dorian is indeed a bad example, because he is more like an exception - and you probably know why professionals use that much volume: because they can. Also, perhaps we shouldn't talk about pros after all, because many of them do not give much space for periodization, either.

Did you read Mason's post at all? And please read the previous posts before commenting on what's HIT and what's not. This has all been discussed already.

silles

06-04-2003, 09:52 AM

Like I just said to you in a previous post RR, I've never made good gains training to failure, or training a body part only once a week. In fact the best progress I've ever made was when I divided my weekly volume up and trained daily, with varying levels of intensity. That's exactly what the old school strongmen used to do, Eugene Sandow, Ed Aston, they would choose a couple big exercises, probably, the deadlift and the overhead press, and they would do it every day for a couple sets and a few reps. I've always made good gains doing something similar, but the only problem is, you can't choose many lifts that way--so the compromise is to increase the volume per session, and hit the same body part, twice a week, or, every five days. That works pretty good for me, but I never HIT failure outside of the tempo I choose--in other words, I will lift the weight until my form breaks down, or until a given rep was performed way slower than the other ones. Now, I will be training to failure some time in the near future, and I'll keep a journal so you all can see how it goes. How'd your Mag-10 cycle turn out?

RoidRage

06-04-2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by silles
Like I just said to you in a previous post RR, I've never made good gains training to failure, or training a body part only once a week.
How'd your Mag-10 cycle turn out?

Come on sean your spinning my question. Answer it. When you followed HIT to the T using very low volume, no more than 2 days per week, what kinds of gains did you make? Not when you train to failure, when YOU performed HIT TO THE Twhat kind of gains did you experiance? Lets not spin this Silles, you know better.

As far as mag-10 goes, kinda off topic but i gained about 27lbs.

silles

06-04-2003, 10:49 AM

I have never tried HIT. You know that, and I'll readily admit it. But I just don't do well training to failure--since my training age is so young, my nervous system is about as efficient as a paraplegic at a track meet.

PowerManDL

06-04-2003, 10:51 AM

I've tried it before.

I did fine for about 3 weeks, then my strength went to hell.

silles

06-04-2003, 10:54 AM

There you go, but those 3 weeks were probably not wasted. In fact, I think HIT is very useful especially if you're just getting done with a volume training, maybe a 10x10 routine or a high volume strength routine. It's definetly not useles, it just shouldn't be the mainstay of anyone's training. Just as basically, nothing should be the mainstay of anyone's training. Variation is so cool.

RoidRage

06-04-2003, 11:01 AM

ok powerman did well for 3 weeks and then strength ceasted to be. Well Neil has been using it for some time now and his strength continues to progress. so?

But I agree variation is key.

Neil

06-04-2003, 11:18 AM

I think Powerman was probably overtrained when he started it. Either that or he has very limited recovery abilities.

ask

06-04-2003, 11:42 AM

True, true - variation is cool. Now we agree on something.

But I wouldn't say 3 weeks is enough, at all. Wouldn't probably be enough to be able to generate the needed intensity (the HIT intensity), or that's how I see it. Or put it this way - the mental side and agony would be too much to get the max out of the set. Takes time. Anyway...

PowerManDL

06-04-2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Neil
I think Powerman was probably overtrained when he started it. Either that or he has very limited recovery abilities.

Why would I gain *less* on extremely low volume than I do now if recovery was an issue?

(Its not with me, btw.....my recovery is actually quite good)

My thoughts on the issue were simple lack of stimulation. I wasn't getting enough work in to cause adequate adaptation.

KingJustin

06-04-2003, 12:39 PM

As far as strength training goes, take a look at someone who is average genetically and has been lifting 1-2 years "correctly" on Westside and then at the same kind of guy on HIT (no juice for either). Within 8 months time the Westside guy is going to have made much, much better gains than the guy doing HIT.

Maybe HIT works well in comparison for you if you haven't been training very long and have a poor recovery rate or you are genetically inferior, but that's not really saying a lot. We've been researching strength training for a long term and can truly say we have a good understanding of it (because it matters a lot in international competitions, sports, etc) and all science shows that Mentzer's HIT is an absolute joke..

There are next to 0 powerlifters that are any good that are going to use Mentzer's version of HIT (this is counting ones that juice and ones that don't) for a continued period of time...

PowerManDL

06-04-2003, 12:51 PM

Recovery ability and working capacity aren't static things, either.

One can train to improve both.

Neil

06-04-2003, 12:54 PM

So you believe your gains stagnated over that three week period because you were undertrained?

PowerManDL

06-04-2003, 12:55 PM

Pretty much.

Neil

06-04-2003, 01:05 PM

So why not increase your volume or frequency a tad until you found your groove?

PowerManDL

06-04-2003, 01:18 PM

I did :)

ask

06-04-2003, 01:36 PM

Bizatch, how is HIT closely associated with strength training? I don't think I've ever heard that before. As much as ya'll love Westside, I don't know too many pro bodybuilders hailing that camp, either.

Powerman, care to comment on what I said about getting used to it? Or do you imply - by not responding - that there's no way it could be an issue? I'm not really arguing for the sake of it - I just firmly believe that some of these techniques have their place in hypertrophy training (this has already been agreed on). But might I add, again, that all I have to back it up is my own experience. When I started using some of these things, my volume was relatively high for someone considering himself a HITter of any type - but as I progressed, I dropped a set here and there.

And what was it that you said about training science not yet being able to dissect the effect of the "intensity" (that means stimulation made using heavy weight in a slow controlled fashion - let's not even go to the cadence this time)? I don't recall right now.

KingJustin

06-04-2003, 01:58 PM

Are you suggesting that HIT would be ideal for bodybuilding?!?

Take a look at Neil's routine, for instance..No offense to Neil, but if he were bodybuilding with that he would be without any real size in his...
Biceps
Calves
Hamstrings
Traps
Lateral Deltoids
Obliques
Upper Chest
Wrists/Forearms
Brachialis and
Abs...among other muscles..

mon-
flat db press, 2 sets 4-8
pec dec, 1 set to failure
close grip pulldowns to front, 2 sets 4-8
pullover machine, one set to failure

thurs-
OH press 2 sets, 4-8
squats 1 set of 20

That's it. I am going to drop the pec dec next week.

How well do you think he would do in any kind of bodybuilding competition? :eek:

chris mason

06-04-2003, 02:46 PM

Bizatch, there are, and have been powerlifters that train to failure. Most powerlifters train with periodization techniques.

Of course, if you really want to look at powerlifting and how much real progress has been made in the last 30 years, you will find it is very little (as you are touting the greatness of the training methods). The progress seen in the squat and bench press are more due to training apparatus than true increases in strength.

To compare true strength we only need look at the deadlift. Suits may help a bit here, but nothing like the squat. The current record, to my best recollection, is in the 933 range by Bolton. John Kuc was pulling close to 900 in the early 70s (I will double check when I get home) and Kaz pulled over 900 in the 70s. Gee, that westside really has jacked the deadlift a lot, huh?

My point is not to deride westside, only to show that it is certainly not the be all and end all of training methodology. For that matter, Mentzer's HIT wasn't either.

KingJustin

06-04-2003, 04:15 PM

"Bizatch, there are, and have been powerlifters that train to failure. Most powerlifters train with periodization techniques."

Post edited...I put HIT instead of Mentzer's version of HIT. I'll be more careful next time :D

"Of course, if you really want to look at powerlifting and how much real progress has been made in the last 30 years, you will find it is very little (as you are touting the greatness of the training methods). The progress seen in the squat and bench press are more due to training apparatus than true increases in strength."

Well, maybe so, but even by the 70s we had a fairly good idea on what types of training methods would work best for strength gains. Here's a quote from Bryan (the HST guy)

...there is a lot more applied strength research out there than there is hypertrophy research. The reason for this is that strength research is used to help countries fair better in international competition. This has been extremely important to most of the world for many decades...especially the Eastern block countries of the 70s and 80s.

"To compare true strength we only need look at the deadlift. Suits may help a bit here, but nothing like the squat. The current record, to my best recollection, is in the 933 range by Bolton. John Kuc was pulling close to 900 in the early 70s (I will double check when I get home) and Kaz pulled over 900 in the 70s. Gee, that westside really has jacked the deadlift a lot, huh?"

I failed to explain well here, too... Though I do feel like Westside is one of the best ways to train, I was using it as an example of a reasonable volume...It's much higher volume than HIT, but it doesn't consist of 50 sets for chest or anything ridiculous as that.

Also, were these guys you mentioned training primarily for the dead lift, or were they able to bench and squat a relatively similar amount?

silles

06-04-2003, 05:16 PM

I assure you, the Kaz could bench a LOT. Either way, I think it goes without saying Chris, that Westside is certainly not the be all and end all of training. It is, however, turning average powerlifters into great powerlifters, which could be the real way to measure a strength trainin system. More people will gain strength using Westside Training Principles (not I say principles) than they will any other training method--the reason? Westside's two key principles, variation, and compensatory acceleration training, both of which are very powerful tools in the arsenal of strength training. As Dave Tate says Westside is making decent benchers, into great benchers, dudes who were okay squatters, to pistons, and they're making guys who couldn't pull for **** into human cranes--Dave Tate is living proof.

silles

06-04-2003, 05:45 PM

I thought the following interview excerpt from Bryan Haycock might also be applicable to this discussion....

T: Okay. Given the low volume, some are going to think of HIT when they see this program. What makes it different from HIT? What do you think of HIT overall?

BH: I used HIT-type training principles before I began to analyze muscle-cell research. It should be understood that HIT and Heavy Duty are not based on muscle-cell physiology. HIT and HD are actually based on Selye's GAS (General Adaptation Syndrome) more than anything. Jones and Mentzer loved to talk about philosophy and logic, but seldom ever mentioned a sarcolemma, MAPk, myogenic stem cells, or even such obvious things as intracellular IGF-1. The reasons they chose to ignore such basic principles of muscle cell physiology remain with them.

HST differs methodologically from HIT primarily in the fact that HIT uses extremely infrequent workouts and requires that the lifter always use 100% RM weight loads regardless of the condition of the muscle. Conversely, HST incorporates a training frequency based on the time course of elevated protein synthesis after training, and weight loads sufficient to induce hypertrophy based on the muscle's current condition. These types of things can't be determined without acknowledging how muscle cells respond to loading, so HIT and HD couldn't be expected to incorporate these methods.

My only other problem with HIT is its blind devotion to "intensity." Intensity as described by Jones, is based on perceived effort, and doesn't necessarily measure a set's ability to stimulate growth of the tissue itself. The authors of HIT and HIT-type routines believed fundamentally in GAS, supercompensation, and the intensity myth perpetuated by popular muscle magazines in the 80's. All three of these principles are, at best, only indirectly related to muscle growth.

T: So, you think most guys trying to gain muscle don't train muscle groups often enough? Most seem to train chest, for example, once every five to seven days.

BH: Well, it's not just a matter of not training often enough; they train with way too high volume per workout. They feel that if they can just completely exhaust the muscle (and themselves), it's gotta grow. Unfortunately, the high volume creates such a drain on their CNS that they can't train any sooner than a week or so later. Then the muscle begins to grow for about two days after their workout, but returns to normal and stays that way for the next three to four days before they train again. They never seem to get ahead and they never seem to make any progress.

The whole point of training a muscle more frequently than say, once per week, is to take advantage of the anabolic effects of resistance exercise. The anabolic effects, if we consider that to mean elevated rates of protein synthesis in the muscle, only lasts about a day and a half. Then it stops and everything is back to normal. If you go on to wait an entire week before training again, you simply won't grow as fast as you could. Training too infrequently is like taking two steps forward and one step back.

Neil

06-04-2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Bizatch
Are you suggesting that HIT would be ideal for bodybuilding?!?

Take a look at Neil's routine, for instance..No offense to Neil, but if he were bodybuilding with that he would be without any real size in his...
Biceps
Calves
Hamstrings
Traps
Lateral Deltoids
Obliques
Upper Chest
Wrists/Forearms
Brachialis and
Abs...among other muscles..

How well do you think he would do in any kind of bodybuilding competition? :eek:

Lol, are you suggesting I start directly training each of these bodyparts? My arms are my strongest part, so I don't train them directly, and since I stopped training them directly I have lost zero size. I do some grip work that I didn't mention in my routine, so my forearms are fine. I also do some ab and calf work. The brachialis gets plenty of work from back moves. Upper chest? C'mon now. Obliques get work from squats, and traps are still there from when I was doing deads. About the only bodypart I really feel I am neglecting is my hams. I don't plan on competing, so I really don't care how well I would do in a bodybuilding contest. I want to add muscle mass and strength to my whole body, using your list and apparent logic, I would have to have a routine full of isolation moves to hit all those bodyparts.

ask

06-05-2003, 01:58 AM

Neil, what Bizatch is suggesting sounds to me like th late '70s critique of HIT. The HITters were definitely big back then but were reported to lack in definition and detail although they were ripped. But this, of course, is easy to overcome by cycling excersises.

SILLES, your idea of more frequent training of a muscle group is definitely of interest. But it's something I sort of did back when I started. For example, I might have squatted, rowed ann benched 2-3 times a week. When it seemed to be taxing my system too much, I switched to lower the volume - I maxed quite often, and overall moved around the rep range of 1-6. And I did gain strength, but size? Hell no. Seems to me that variation and few sets plus - most importantly - few reps, wouldn't stimulate growth. I'm willing to try this again in the future, if you can drop a word on it. Note, I'm not arguing - I'm interested, because it's something totally opposite to my perception of growing muscle.

blowdpanis

06-05-2003, 03:58 AM

Rastaman

06-05-2003, 04:47 AM

This is the best thread I've read in Training for months. Thanks for all the info and discussion guys.

:thumbup:

ask

06-05-2003, 05:31 AM

His idea, as he brought it up. And don't pull that common sense card - 'cos that's exactly what HIT makes as was noted before. Common sense is not enough. And it does not make common sense to me, because in order to grow, efficient recuperation is needed.

But your last paragraph is, again, interesting.

mstar

06-05-2003, 07:11 AM

best thread in training for quite awhile, great commments and thoughts and facts, i learning a lot :)

silles

06-05-2003, 10:20 AM

'SILLES, your idea of more frequent training of a muscle group is definitely of interest.'

well it's obviously not HIS idea, but rather the training system Bryan Haycock espouses. Common sense alone dictates that more frequent training applies a growth stimulus to muscle more often, possibly creating more growth over time.

there's a variety of studies measuring increases over baseline protein synthesis from an acute bout of training, and the general consensus is somewhere in the 36 to 48 hour range (peaking out at about 24 hours).

research also shows that, holding equal volume, more frequent training generally beats the hell out of less frequent training in terms of hypertrophy (and strength too, i believe). eg 9 sets once per week for a muscle group vs. 3 sets 3 times per week. i believe fleck and kraemer even wound up espousing such logic, so this isn't exactly new.

insofar as we know, tension applied to the contractile elements of muscle tissue 'starts' everything. the actual magnitude of load. if it's 'enough,' a 'sufficient' level of strain will occur within those contractile elements and all the wonderful things will happen. in one sense, literally how much weight you're lifting overall is what's sort of determining whether you're going to grow or not. if i gave you 135 lbs worth of weights, how much absolute growth could you experience in the absence of more weight, no matter how many different variables you threw in? probably not a lot.

however, tension-time, that is, how LONG the 'signal' to grow is applied may have a fair amount to do with hypertrophy, at least facilitating it. lifting 'enough' weight relative to muscle tissue's conditioning will flip the hypertrophic signal 'on,' but the degree to which this will occur is still kind of an unknown. i'd say it's possible that less frequent than every other day training COULD be better depending on just HOW important tension-time is to the hypertrophic equation. that's why a lot of practical applications of all this can still exist so long as the general principles are being adhered to.

I completely agree. I've been reading a LOT of Poliquin lately, and Poliquin goes as far as to say drop sets is probably the greatest ways to gain appreciable strength fast--why? It is the way to lift more weight in less time, period. Pavel Tsatsouline has a similar program that he outlines, he named it "The Bear" and the story goes something like this....

"What is an Afghanistan-scarred commander of a Russian special forces unit going to do when a locust of an inspector descends from HQ? A big wig who joined the military through the Soviet equivalent of ROTC, worked his way up the food chain with intrigue and never tasted the sweat adn blood of the war trade? The general expects Arnold clones performing Matrix style acrobatic shootouts. The officer in charge would have as much luck convincing the moron that this is not what the special ops are about as Dilbert would trying to talk his boss out of painting a database blue. So he does exactly what every other Russian professional under incompetent management has been doing since the days of Catherine the Great. Build a 'Potemking village'.

In the eighties, when the Soviet Empire still had an iron grip on its colonies, it deployed a paratroop division in the Lithuanian city of Kaunas. It's CO developed multiple personalities to do his job right and to keep HQ happy. He organized a 'Hollywood unit' which was busy pumping iron, practicing spinning jump kicks, and leaping over moving vehicles--with the help of an expertly camouflaged trampoline--while shooting up the bad guys.

These guys were awesome! They bulged with muscle and thought nothing of having a stack of bricks smashed on their armored abs with a sledgehammer, shattering a dew with nearly any body part, or breaking a thick board struck at them, just by flexing their gorilla traps or shoulders.

A bear of a warrant officer I served with had done a stint with one of those 'Hollywood units' and shared teh secret with me. The premise behind the Russian commando muscle building workout was elegantly simple, as all solid science is. Tension increases the uptake of amino acids by the muscles. Therefore, the higher is the tension and the longer time the muscle spends under it, the better are your chances of making it big. It is like throwing a scoop of protein into your muscles with every rep. The bigger the scoop and the more scoops you throw in--the greater the results.

The logical way to meet the above requirements is to:

1) reduce the reps to 4-6 per set to allow for every weights.
2) perform many, 10-20 on average sets
3) terminate all the sets a couple reps before failure in order to avoid premature fatigue which would force reduction in weights, frequency, and/or sets.

I shall sum up the energetic theory of muscle hypertrophy without using any big words: If you get a pump with heavy weights you shall grow. You need the volume to really deplete the muscle, but you need the tension to increase the amino acid uptake. Now if you lift really heavy like a powerlifter and rest for five minutes in between sets, you have the tension but don’t have enough fatigue. If you start using the little color coded dumbbells and do a hundred reps, you have the fatigue and the pump, but not the tension. You may build some "virtual" muscles, but nothing else.

But if you set it up like this, if you use a heavy weight and do reps of five (not taken to failure) with only one or two minutes of rest for up to twenty sets, you’re going to be able to use a heavy weight and get a great pump. Every bodybuilder who’s tried this approach has reported sensational gains."

IT goes without saying, and Pavel outlines an entire program, that you cannot train like a "Bear" every day. Instead, Pavel reccomends four days per week.

Strength author Chad Waterbury also has some things to say on frequent, higher volume training in T-Mag....

"Old-time strongmen were the only people who truly revolutionized bodybuilding. Unfortunately, their methods have been largely forgotten. In exchange for infrequent, machine-laden, ineffective bodybuilding methods, many great principles have been lost.

Let me tell you a little secret — hypertrophy training and strength training don't have to be two separate entities. I've never designed a program that was based solely on "hypertrophy" training, but my clients have gained a ton of muscle over the years (if that was the goal). Let me repeat a statement from one of my previous articles: muscle growth is mainly controlled through caloric intake. Assuming all is normal with a trainee's physiology, even the best hypertrophy program won't build appreciable amounts of muscle if there are insufficient calories. Got it?

So allow me to uncover some real hypertrophy methods so you can apply them to your current program in exchange for more functional muscle. Bodybuilders beware: I'm about to barbecue a few of your sacred cows!

Five Hypertrophy Training Principles You Must Understand

1) Train More Often

First and foremost, you must drop the notion that a muscle group can only be trained once a week. Strongmen from the past didn't train that way and you shouldn't either. The more frequent the growth-stimulating sessions you can have, the better.

2) Forget about Time Under Tension

One of the things that really makes me nauseous is the assumption that hypertrophy-inducing sets must last from 40 to 70 seconds (or is it 20 to 90 seconds, or 43.5 to 68.7 seconds?) So that must mean the classic 5 x 5 method doesn't build any muscle since those sets don't last at least 40 seconds. Or maybe I'm just a dumb hillbilly and everyone who uses the 5 x 5 method is actually using a tempo where each rep takes eight seconds? (I don't think so!)

3) There's a Daily Limit to Muscle Stimulation

I can't believe I'm actually going to do this, but I must quote a bodybuilding catch-phrase from the 1980's: stimulate, don't annihilate! There's an absolute limit to the amount of hypertrophy-inducing stimuli you can apply on any given day. That's why those "one day cures" are a huge, stinkin' pile of B.S. I feel sorry for those who actually wasted an entire day attempting such a program.

4) Don't Train to Failure

You must keep the nervous system from becoming overly fatigued if you want to train frequently. Therefore, leave the grunting and screaming to the frat boys who have 13" guns and spend their entire day doing concentration curls and wasting Daddy's money.

5) Train Through Soreness

Initially, you'll probably have constant soreness on this program. That's okay! The soreness will subside once recovery increases and proper adaptation has taken place. Soreness is your body's way of saying, "I need more carbs and protein." So feed your muscles constantly!"

Bryan Haycock has a few words to add to the issue also....

"T: Okay. Given the low volume, some are going to think of HIT when they see this program. What makes it different from HIT? What do you think of HIT overall?

BH: I used HIT-type training principles before I began to analyze muscle-cell research. It should be understood that HIT and Heavy Duty are not based on muscle-cell physiology. HIT and HD are actually based on Selye's GAS (General Adaptation Syndrome) more than anything. Jones and Mentzer loved to talk about philosophy and logic, but seldom ever mentioned a sarcolemma, MAPk, myogenic stem cells, or even such obvious things as intracellular IGF-1. The reasons they chose to ignore such basic principles of muscle cell physiology remain with them.

HST differs methodologically from HIT primarily in the fact that HIT uses extremely infrequent workouts and requires that the lifter always use 100% RM weight loads regardless of the condition of the muscle. Conversely, HST incorporates a training frequency based on the time course of elevated protein synthesis after training, and weight loads sufficient to induce hypertrophy based on the muscle's current condition. These types of things can't be determined without acknowledging how muscle cells respond to loading, so HIT and HD couldn't be expected to incorporate these methods.

My only other problem with HIT is its blind devotion to "intensity." Intensity as described by Jones, is based on perceived effort, and doesn't necessarily measure a set's ability to stimulate growth of the tissue itself. The authors of HIT and HIT-type routines believed fundamentally in GAS, supercompensation, and the intensity myth perpetuated by popular muscle magazines in the 80's. All three of these principles are, at best, only indirectly related to muscle growth.

T: So, you think most guys trying to gain muscle don't train muscle groups often enough? Most seem to train chest, for example, once every five to seven days.

BH: Well, it's not just a matter of not training often enough; they train with way too high volume per workout. They feel that if they can just completely exhaust the muscle (and themselves), it's gotta grow. Unfortunately, the high volume creates such a drain on their CNS that they can't train any sooner than a week or so later. Then the muscle begins to grow for about two days after their workout, but returns to normal and stays that way for the next three to four days before they train again. They never seem to get ahead and they never seem to make any progress.

The whole point of training a muscle more frequently than say, once per week, is to take advantage of the anabolic effects of resistance exercise. The anabolic effects, if we consider that to mean elevated rates of protein synthesis in the muscle, only lasts about a day and a half. Then it stops and everything is back to normal. If you go on to wait an entire week before training again, you simply won't grow as fast as you could. Training too infrequently is like taking two steps forward and one step back."

There you have it. Although as always there will be disagreement on a particular issue, the important things are similar. Train more often, try to avoid training to failure, lift heavy weights.

KingJustin

06-05-2003, 10:46 AM

Lol, are you suggesting I start directly training each of these bodyparts?

I'm saying you can use a few more compound movements... If a person aiming at a bodybuilder physique were to train in this fashion then he would be completely underdeveloped in so many areas (not to say that it is at all realistic for a bodybuilder aiming to grow as fast as possible to do 8 sets per week).

My arms are my strongest part, so I don't train them directly, and since I stopped training them directly I have lost zero size." and "traps are still there from when I was doing deads.

Well, eventually the rest of your body will catch up and after your traps/biceps don't grow at all...then, what will you do?

Upper chest? C'mon now.
The clavicular head of the pectoralis minor...Sorry.

Obliques get work from squats
Just about as much as your biceps get worked on bench...

Anyways, you keep suggesting that muscles used as synergists are getting worked, but I gurantee they won't be gaining any real size in the long run.

Neil, what Bizatch is suggesting sounds to me like th late '70s critique of HIT. The HITters were definitely big back then but were reported to lack in definition and detail although they were ripped. But this, of course, is easy to overcome by cycling excersises.
Isn't changing up the routine completely against what Mentzer was advocating, not to mention adding in isolation exercises? Would you mind giving me an idea of how you would suggest one train to become a bodybuilder in ~5 years while using HIT?

After reading the last couple of posts, I'm assuming that you guys are using HIT as a means of gaining general LBM (I was thrown off a bit when Neil said " I have been doing low volume for a while now, and it seems like the lower it gets, the stronger I get."), though I still feel it's overall ineffective to be training a muscle only once per week. The time for a muscle to recover from doing 1-2 sets to failure is, for most people, 48 hours. Waiting any longer than that will mean that you aren't gaining as fast as you could...

Finally, here's some more from hypertrophy-specific.com:

2) Acute vs. Chronic Stimuli
In order for the loading to result in significant hypertrophy, the stimulus must be applied with sufficient frequency to create a new "environment", as opposed to seemingly random and acute assaults on the mechanical integrity of the tissue. The downside of taking a week of rest every time you load a muscle is that many of the acute responses to training like increased protein synthesis, prostaglandins, IGF-1 levels, and mRNA levels all return to normal in about 36 hours. So, you spend 2 days growing and half a week in a semi-anticatabolic state returning to normal (some people call this recovery), when research shows us that recovery can take place unabated even if a the muscle is loaded again in 48 hours. So true anabolism from loading only lasts 2 days at best once the load is removed. The rest of the time you are simply balancing nitrogen retention without adding to it.
...
• The Frequency (rest between workouts) is determined by the ability of the CNS to recover sufficiently to maintain baseline "health" indicators. It is also determined by the time course of genetic expression resultant from the previous workout.
...
Anyone who argues with these points after understanding them correctly is in error. That is a strong statement but it is true. These are principles that we "know" from research and experience. The data from this research is not theoretically based. It is based on identification, measurements, and direct microscopic observation. All future research will show us is more genetic detail, NOT that we were wrong on some sort of fundamental basis. So, anyone can with confidence apply these principles to their training and successfully induce muscular hypertrophy.

silles

06-05-2003, 11:14 AM

Bizatch, I have to tell you, I think you're off base here. Using High Tension Techniques, a recreational bodybuilder really only needs two exercises--the deadlift and the side press. Is this optimal? HELL NO. It is a minimalist approach to training, but those two exercises, if performed properly, using high tension techniques, will smoke the following muscles.

Deadlift:

Hamstrings
Quads
Glutes
Abs
Obliques
Spinal Erectors
Lats
Biceps
Forearms
Grip
Shoulders
Traps

Overhead Press:

Chest
Shoulders
Lats
Triceps
Biceps
Rhomboids
Obliques

Two exercises. Two flippin' exercises.

Holto

06-05-2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by silles

T: So, you think most guys trying to gain muscle don't train muscle groups often enough? Most seem to train chest, for example, once every five to seven days.

BH: Well, it's not just a matter of not training often enough; they train with way too high volume per workout. They feel that if they can just completely exhaust the muscle (and themselves), it's gotta grow. Unfortunately, the high volume creates such a drain on their CNS that they can't train any sooner than a week or so later.

Then the muscle begins to grow for about two days after their workout, but returns to normal and stays that way for the next three to four days before they train again. They never seem to get ahead and they never seem to make any progress.

muscle does not atrophy this fast

Here is what Brian is claiming:

7 days in a week (okay that part's established)

1) about 2 days of growth

2) *instant and malicious atrophy*

3) muscle remains for 3-4 days after atrophy occurs

perhaps I'm reading this wrong but not only is he claiming that muscle will be lost between workouts but it only takes a day or two at the maxtuttut

KingJustin

06-05-2003, 12:53 PM

"Using High Tension Techniques, a recreational bodybuilder really only needs two exercises--the deadlift and the side press. Is this optimal? HELL NO."

And for what reason is it not optimal?

Also, I sure as hell don't feel ANYTHING in my biceps after doing OH presses (and between the two exercises I feel next to nothing in anything aside from my glutes, quads and anterior delts).

Blood&Iron

06-05-2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Holto

perhaps I'm reading this wrong
Yes.

blowdpanis

06-05-2003, 02:17 PM

perhaps I'm reading this wrong but not only is he claiming that muscle will be lost between workouts but it only takes a day or two at the maxtuttut

um, you are reading this wrong, he's claiming that muscle grows for about 2 days and then there's no further signal to grow. if you're eating a ****load and generally anabolic, this isn't meaning that your muscles are shrinking (that's kind of retarded), but that you're not really capitalizing on growth potential. you're NOT capitalizing on growth potential because you're steering a hypertrophy routine around the logic of central nervous fatigue. ie 'come back when the muscle is ready to train again.' this implies 1) that it's important to train a muscle as intensively as possible (says who?) and 2) that you 'come back' only after the muscle is completely capable of at least as much force production as last time (says who?). I understand how both of these logics were introduced into bodybuilding, but that doesn't make either viable, particularly when we can find peer-reviewed evidence to indicate they're both wrong, or at least misleading.

Holto

06-05-2003, 02:22 PM

ah, he's saying the growth stops after two days

when he said the muscle returns to normal I though he meant atrophy to original size

mstar

06-06-2003, 05:58 AM

Bryans HST is intresting training ideas but before people knock it why not try it?? i am going to give it a go just wondering anyone else tried HST?????????????????/

whats ur results?

D&G

06-06-2003, 07:38 AM

I don't train HIT per se but I reduced my training to a point where I felt happy and was making good progress.

It ended up being training each muscle once every 10 days - 3-4 sets for large bodyparts, 1 for small. Squat and deadlift improved every session for several months.

I've never been able to work with volume training - never feels right - I hate to do more than 6 sets for a large bodypart

Blood&Iron

06-06-2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by mstar
Bryans HST is intresting training ideas but before people knock it why not try it?? i am going to give it a go just wondering anyone else tried HST?????????????????/

whats ur results?
Plenty of people.

Do a search.

ask

06-06-2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Bizatch

Well, eventually the rest of your body will catch up and after your traps/biceps don't grow at all...then, what will you do?

Catch up? This is inappropriate. I train biceps once every two weeks - after the back department, because they get indirect hell from rowing etc. I used to do a set or two every week, but hit the wall, reduced volume, and growth has taken place. It's a very very small muscle, you know. And I'm not one of the 13" frat boys described in that HST quote, either. LOL

BUT, I will too give it a try later, why not? It's pretty close to something I've done in the past, unintentionally, but seems a fine yet, to me, an unorthodox idea.

BTW - am I right the author does not comment on how exactly, to lift? Is there an optimal style?

KingJustin

06-06-2003, 12:05 PM

"Catch up? This is inappropriate. I train biceps once every two weeks - after the back department, because they get indirect hell from rowing etc."

That was directed towards Neil ...

"BTW - am I right the author does not comment on how exactly, to lift? Is there an optimal style?"

He talks a little bit about rep speed...Here's basically what he said:
15s - Start slow, begin moving faster when the burn begins killing strength
10s - Go slow while the weight is light, and as the weight increases pick up the tempo
Early 5s - Slow on the way down, faster on the way up
Late 5s - Just lift it the best way you can while keeping good form

ask

06-06-2003, 12:41 PM

Yep, but I cared to comment on it, since I believe we lift in somewhat similar manner.

That's great, kinda follow the weight, just to squeeze the reps. I bet that's something I'd get used to very nicely. Good general tips. But, then again, if TUT and cadence and all that talk plays no part, I wonder how he backs it up?

Thanks!:)

chris mason

06-06-2003, 07:16 PM

Brian (not sure of his last name) who invented/promotes HST claims to use a good working knowledge of physiology to create his unique system. One problem, his interpretation of current science is no better than the HIT advocates or anyone else's. His routines might work better than the average, but that isn't because they are based on better science etc. Basically what I am saying is that he, along with a lot of other bodybuilding pseudo-intellectuals, uses big words to bolster his ideas with the idea that nobody on his site has a strong enough grasp of the terms and a strong enough intellect to debate him. I suppose it may not even be a conscious thing for him.

My point here is that big words don't make a theory valid.

That being said, many of his statements are accurate, yet not necessarily a valid backup for his arguments in the context he presents them.

blowdpanis

06-06-2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
Brian (not sure of his last name) who invented/promotes HST claims to use a good working knowledge of physiology to create his unique system. One problem, his interpretation of current science is no better than the HIT advocates or anyone else's. His routines might work better than the average, but that isn't because they are based on better science etc. Basically what I am saying is that he, along with a lot of other bodybuilding pseudo-intellectuals, uses big words to bolster his ideas with the idea that nobody on his site has a strong enough grasp of the terms and a strong enough intellect to debate him. I suppose it may not even be a conscious thing for him.

My point here is that big words don't make a theory valid.

That being said, many of his statements are accurate, yet not necessarily a valid backup for his arguments in the context he presents them.

the other thing that bothers me is TRUE pseudo-intellectuals who 'hate' on people who actually are educated without specific complaints, but in a blanket fashion to condemn them without making a single relevent point :)

KingJustin

06-06-2003, 07:38 PM

blowdpanis

06-06-2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by blowdpanis

the other thing that bothers me is TRUE pseudo-intellectuals who 'hate' on people who actually are educated without specific complaints, but in a blanket fashion to condemn them without making a single relevent point :)

also, i'll have it be noted (to not start a fight with another moderator here) that i'm just being an ass because you're attacking somebody whose not here to defend themself in a shotgun approach. i really dislike that.

just because he uses 'big words' doesn't make him a charlatan. how many people consistently cite contemporary peer review in their articles? not a whole lot...

lyle mcdonald (somebody oft interviewed here) agrees with bryan on much of the physiology bryan espouses. is lyle, then, a pseudo-intellectual too because he uses big words? these are some pretty brilliant people you're disregarding with a shake of the hand :)

Neil

06-06-2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Bizatch

I'm saying you can use a few more compound movements... If a person aiming at a bodybuilder physique were to train in this fashion then he would be completely underdeveloped in so many areas (not to say that it is at all realistic for a bodybuilder aiming to grow as fast as possible to do 8 sets per week).

Well, eventually the rest of your body will catch up and after your traps/biceps don't grow at all...then, what will you do?

The clavicular head of the pectoralis minor...Sorry.

Just about as much as your biceps get worked on bench...

Anyways, you keep suggesting that muscles used as synergists are getting worked, but I gurantee they won't be gaining any real size in the long run.

Isn't changing up the routine completely against what Mentzer was advocating, not to mention adding in isolation exercises? Would you mind giving me an idea of how you would suggest one train to become a bodybuilder in ~5 years while using HIT?

After reading the last couple of posts, I'm assuming that you guys are using HIT as a means of gaining general LBM (I was thrown off a bit when Neil said " I have been doing low volume for a while now, and it seems like the lower it gets, the stronger I get."), though I still feel it's overall ineffective to be training a muscle only once per week. The time for a muscle to recover from doing 1-2 sets to failure is, for most people, 48 hours. Waiting any longer than that will mean that you aren't gaining as fast as you could...

I believe that if I add weight to the big compound moves then my whole body will grow. I'm not going to waste my time on exerting a bunch of energy on accessory movements. If I were ever to enter a bodybuilding contest I would add some isolation moves around 6-8 weeks before the contest. If I put on 15 pound then my traps/biceps will grow. You make it sound as if I can't gain LBM without directly training small muscle groups, how much muscle weight do you think you can add to a bicep, or a trap? Yes, your obliques do get worked from squats, that's why they make your waist thicker. Mentzer does not say you can never change your routine. On a side note I never said Mentzer's HIT was the only way to go, I only advocate low volume training. I personally don't think training to failure all the time is necessary, but if you can tolerate it then I think you should do it.

silles

06-07-2003, 12:14 AM

The language of complexity is often used to mask the simplicity of the mind....or something like that. That's not the case with Bryan Haycock. Chris, you like doing your homework, and you make a very good living, so I'm sure, if you haven't already, that you'd be willing to expand your knowledge and so some more homework. I know you've read a lot of books, but I have some to reccomend, so that you realize that some of those fifty cent words are more often than not plagiarized by the following works:

Supertraining - Mel C. Siff, Verkoshansky
Science and Practice of Strength Training - Vladamir Zatsiorsky
Priodization: 4th Edition (note: not the terrible Periodization for Sports) - Tudor Bompa
Serious Strength Training 2nd Edition - Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale MD, Tudor Bompa
The Poliquin Principles - Charles Poliquin
Modern Trends in Strength Training - Charles Poliquin

No one has the right to claim originality in the field of strength training, the only problem I see, is that they all do. Unique Selling Point I suppose. Charles Poliquin's TUT guidelines were ripped off of Ian King who probably ripped it off of Mel Siff who probably did the research. Westside developed their whole Westside system based on the research done by Siff, Verkoshansky, and Zatsiorsky-- as does Pavel Tsatsouline. Basically, it comes down to sound science, and trusting the literature, theories and research of those who have done their homework--as we've found out, Arthur Jones'beliefs don't seem to hold up too well under scientific scrutiny--while Bryan Haycock's and others continue to do so.

ask

06-07-2003, 12:23 AM

PowerManDL

06-07-2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by blowdpanis
also, i'll have it be noted (to not start a fight with another moderator here) that i'm just being an ass because you're attacking somebody whose not here to defend themself in a shotgun approach. i really dislike that.

Now now. No need to drag me into this just because I type and otherwise express myself better than you.

just because he uses 'big words' doesn't make him a charlatan. how many people consistently cite contemporary peer review in their articles? not a whole lot...

I don't generally unless it's called for. Sometimes quoting studies is a good thing, because it lends credence to an argument. Sometimes people just toss them out because they have a few key words that are related to the argument.

The trick is to know where they belong.

lyle mcdonald (somebody oft interviewed here) agrees with bryan on much of the physiology bryan espouses. is lyle, then, a pseudo-intellectual too because he uses big words? these are some pretty brilliant people you're disregarding with a shake of the hand :)

Brilliance is in the eye of the beholder, my friend. Not that I knock either of the two gentlemen you referred to; but Chris is entitled to his opinion, which in my thinking isn't entirely uncalled for.

Guruism in any form shouldn't be kosher.

Mystic Eric

06-07-2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by chris mason
Brian (not sure of his last name) who invented/promotes HST claims to use a good working knowledge of physiology to create his unique system. One problem, his interpretation of current science is no better than the HIT advocates or anyone else's. His routines might work better than the average, but that isn't because they are based on better science etc. Basically what I am saying is that he, along with a lot of other bodybuilding pseudo-intellectuals, uses big words to bolster his ideas with the idea that nobody on his site has a strong enough grasp of the terms and a strong enough intellect to debate him. I suppose it may not even be a conscious thing for him.

My point here is that big words don't make a theory valid.

That being said, many of his statements are accurate, yet not necessarily a valid backup for his arguments in the context he presents them.

Chris, I was just wondering if you could point to some examples or references where Bryan's use of studies don't make a valid backup for his arguments. It'd be interesting to see your point of view on the theories.

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by ask

Come on, blawd, don't be an ass either, then. I ain't heard a word from Mike Mentzer through all this.

Might I add that I was actually surprised how many people were not satisfied with their HST results in the forum. This is just to further ephasize that there's no easy, universal way to good results. And while this HST business sounds reasonable and I'm def gonna give it a shot, I don't see any of the world's bodybuilders training this way, at all (not that it was a good indicator).

Silles, what are Poliquin's TUT guidelines? Is it too long to be posted?

Thanks, guys.

Well, Mike is dead, after all...

As far as people's non-response to HST, this is the same logic of people who 'get nothing out of diet and working out.' Basically, people are remarkably ****ty at actually following directions and reporting (with honesty) what it is that they do and do not do. You can lead a horse to water...

The default HST program might not be the best application available (i think it's at least a very good one), but HST is more a body of principles than a particular routine. The actual routine Bryan came up with came AFTER detailing the physiology. I'm always open to new interpretations (hell, I used to think HIT was logical at one point), but Bryan has put forth the most comprehensive theory of hypertrophy that I've seen to date. Implementing a program to comport to this logic is going to be really hard, because there's a lot of potential to **** up between muscle fibers in the lab and weights/sets/reps in the gym.

That said, I think most people would gain reasonably well with ANY routine that was at least halfway not ****ty if they could bring themselves to actually eat well and concentrate on moving incrementally more weight in all the 'big' exercises (eg squats, deads, rows, bench, military press, chins, dips).

Even so, I agree that the 'guru' mindset can be quite dangerous. I'm not an 'HST devotee,' but rather I simply respect Bryan and what he's published thus far. People talk a lot of smack, but they never seem to be able to point out anything actually WRONG with what Bryan's said, instead cryptically hinting that 'other more educated' people could 'easily' challenge some of the premises. *shrugs*

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by PowerManDL
Originally posted by blowdpanis
also, i'll have it be noted (to not start a fight with another moderator here) that i'm just being an ass because you're attacking somebody whose not here to defend themself in a shotgun approach. i really dislike that.

Now now. No need to drag me into this just because I type and otherwise express myself better than you.

just because he uses 'big words' doesn't make him a charlatan. how many people consistently cite contemporary peer review in their articles? not a whole lot...

I don't generally unless it's called for. Sometimes quoting studies is a good thing, because it lends credence to an argument. Sometimes people just toss them out because they have a few key words that are related to the argument.

The trick is to know where they belong.

lyle mcdonald (somebody oft interviewed here) agrees with bryan on much of the physiology bryan espouses. is lyle, then, a pseudo-intellectual too because he uses big words? these are some pretty brilliant people you're disregarding with a shake of the hand :)

Brilliance is in the eye of the beholder, my friend. Not that I knock either of the two gentlemen you referred to; but Chris is entitled to his opinion, which in my thinking isn't entirely uncalled for.

Guruism in any form shouldn't be kosher.

you and chris are allowed all the skepticism in the world, and i share it. but there's a big difference between people who understand science and those who do not (any creationist website ever made, for example).

as far as the quip about me...amusing. i really thought that spread spoke for itself, particularly after you stopped posting...

PowerManDL

06-07-2003, 02:54 AM

Quite frankly, I find HST boring.

Not saying that the principles aren't good, but I don't like the application.

That said. If you've decided to make this a personal argument, that's cool. However, be aware that I can make it quite interesting.

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by PowerManDL
Quite frankly, I find HST boring.

Not saying that the principles aren't good, but I don't like the application.

That said. If you've decided to make this a personal argument, that's cool. However, be aware that I can make it quite interesting.

:help:

restless

06-07-2003, 03:53 AM

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by restless

Oh yes, and your performance at the muscle soreness thread was a clear example of that, wasn't it? ;)

i think he still fails to grasp the gist of that conversation, and would undoubtedly duck out of rehashing it point for point. i think a summary would be that he misunderstood what i said (i suppose my language or 'expression' could have been a little clearer in my initial post) and actually agreed with me. however, he is either not versed on the logic i was presenting or disagreed with it. he never really elaborated...

ask

06-07-2003, 07:16 AM

Blowd, exactly, I agree with you. I was just being provocative - an ass, if you like - myself for the hell of it. At the end of the day it's all about doing things right - eating right, sleeping enough, training reasonably - that leads to results. It's not too complicated after all.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 09:47 AM

If anyone here would like to have a discussion on physiology I would be happy.

To be a bit clearer, there is very little that is accepted to be proven fact about skeletal muscle and training (within scientific circles). Thus, someone using "science" to prove their points is often using a version that they like, not a generally accepted one or one that is absolutely proven.

As to Brian and his points, I will look at one of the other posts and see if I can come up with something for you.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 11:21 AM

BH: I used HIT-type training principles before I began to analyze muscle-cell research. It should be understood that HIT and Heavy Duty are not based on muscle-cell physiology. HIT and HD are actually based on Selye's GAS (General Adaptation Syndrome) more than anything. Jones and Mentzer loved to talk about philosophy and logic, but seldom ever mentioned a sarcolemma, MAPk, myogenic stem cells, or even such obvious things as intracellular IGF-1. The reasons they chose to ignore such basic principles of muscle cell physiology remain with them.

************Ok, here is one. Mentioning stem cells, the sarcolemma etc., what exactly is he saying? How does mentioning these words make a theory valid or invalid?

------------------------------------------------------------
HST differs methodologically from HIT primarily in the fact that HIT uses extremely infrequent workouts and requires that the lifter always use 100% RM weight loads regardless of the condition of the muscle. Conversely, HST incorporates a training frequency based on the time course of elevated protein synthesis after training, and weight loads sufficient to induce hypertrophy based on the muscle's current condition. These types of things can't be determined without acknowledging how muscle cells respond to loading, so HIT and HD couldn't be expected to incorporate these methods.

************Ok, again what studies is he referencing. How many physiologists agree with these studies? Studies are great, but who funded them? Citing one study does not a valid theory make. I suppose that is my point.

In addition, Jones recommended the trainee follow a 3 day per week program, eventually moving to less frequent training as strength increased. Brian is combining Mentzer's and Jones' ideas in places, and picking certain parts of either's ideas in others. To make a valid argument you must be consistent and specific.

As another example, Brian states that HST incorporates training frequency based upon the "time course" of elevated protein synthesis after training, and weight loads sufficient to induce hypertrophy based upon a muscle's current condition. He says this while simultaneously stating that HIT ignores basic rules of physiology etc. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. In making the above statement about HST he is ignoring a basic physiological fact about the uniqueness of the individual. How does he know exactlly what "time course" my body has for elevated protein sythesis after training. Exactly what load will induce hypertrophy (specific, not greater then 75%) at a given condition, and how did he determine this?

----------------------------------------------------------

My only other problem with HIT is its blind devotion to "intensity." Intensity as described by Jones, is based on perceived effort, and doesn't necessarily measure a set's ability to stimulate growth of the tissue itself. The authors of HIT and HIT-type routines believed fundamentally in GAS, supercompensation, and the intensity myth perpetuated by popular muscle magazines in the 80's. All three of these principles are, at best, only indirectly related to muscle growth.

***********Muscular growth is an adaptation by the body to stimulus, that much is fact. Thus to state that the intensity of exercise (as Jones defined it) is only indirectly related to muscular growth is a stupid statement. Let's use an old analogy on this one, marathoners exercise their legs at a low intensity for hours on end, what is the result? If you jogged for 30 minutes 3 times a week, would your leg muscles grow? Of course not. Intensity (as Jones defined it) is definitely a direct factor in muscular growth. Now, HIT was in error by the fact that they figured since it was essentially impossible to figure out what level of intensity would optimally stimulate growth that training to failure would cover it (so to speak). They were in error because while training to failure definitely covers the intensity base, it excessively fries the nervous system thus creating excessively long recovery periods.

-------------------------------------------------------
T: So, you think most guys trying to gain muscle don't train muscle groups often enough? Most seem to train chest, for example, once every five to seven days.

BH: Well, it's not just a matter of not training often enough; they train with way too high volume per workout. They feel that if they can just completely exhaust the muscle (and themselves), it's gotta grow. Unfortunately, the high volume creates such a drain on their CNS that they can't train any sooner than a week or so later. Then the muscle begins to grow for about two days after their workout, but returns to normal and stays that way for the next three to four days before they train again. They never seem to get ahead and they never seem to make any progress.

The whole point of training a muscle more frequently than say, once per week, is to take advantage of the anabolic effects of resistance exercise. The anabolic effects, if we consider that to mean elevated rates of protein synthesis in the muscle, only lasts about a day and a half. Then it stops and everything is back to normal. If you go on to wait an entire week before training again, you simply won't grow as fast as you could. Training too infrequently is like taking two steps forward and one step back.

*******I agree with the last sentence.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 11:26 AM

One more thing, if anyone wishes to post any of Haycock's theories for me, I will be happy to specify the problems I have with each bit of information posted (if I have one).

restless

06-07-2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by chris mason

------------------------------------------------------------

************Ok, again what studies is he referencing. How many physiologists agree with these studies? Studies are great, but who funded them? Citing one study does not a valid theory make. I suppose that is my point.

I don't understand this point in this specific context. I mean, this can really be a relevant issue if one's looking at the research that's used to support supplements, drugs or even foods but what's the concern here? That Bryan might have manipulated the research in order to support a traning system he hands out for free?

chris mason

06-07-2003, 12:03 PM

The concern that he is either getting bad information or making incorrect conclusions based upon the information he is referencing.

Now as to it being free, do you really think the guy offers his training routine and has no monetary gain from it?

restless

06-07-2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
The concern that he is either getting bad information or making incorrect conclusions based upon the information he is referencing.

Now as to it being free, do you really think the guy offers his training routine and has no monetary gain from it?

I can't see you point in the funding thing.

HE's trying to make a living with his supplement business and I see nothing wrong with that. And for the record, he was giving his HST program away for free at think muscle before he started his supplement line.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 12:22 PM

The point in the "funding thing" is that if a baised source funded research, the result of said research may be questionable. Thus, Mr. Haycock may be basing some of his ideas on research funded by people trying to promote a particular agenda. Do you now understand?

As to him making a living from his training methodologies, supplements etc., that is great. I am all for it. It also makes his statements all the more suspect. When you are promoting something you must set it apart, make is special. In weightlifting, most people do this by stretching the truth and deriding the ideas of others. That is just the way it is.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by restless

And for the record, he was giving his HST program away for free at think muscle before he started his supplement line.

You're kidding! ;)

Sorry about the sarcasm, but he isn't the first businessman to give something away to help build a following...

restless

06-07-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
The point in the "funding thing" is that if a baised source funded research, the result of said research may be questionable. Thus, Mr. Haycock may be basing some of his ideas on research funded by people trying to promote a particular agenda. Do you now understand?

I understand the concept, what I don't understand is how it applies to this particular matter. I do think it's a legit concern but then again, all researched could perfectly well be dismissed for that exact same reason and where would that leave us at? we would be condemned to forever quote sites and magazines of dubious credibility, wouldn't we?

ask

06-07-2003, 01:47 PM

restless, that is the nature of this business called science. Who's to tell? Nowadays, especially in US, most studies are funded by companies. Not exactly science at all, if you consider the the classic definition of it.

Also, how is it so hard to believe? That very same trick is, according to most people bashing Mentzer, the main reason for his "dubious and dogmatic, narrow-minded views on training".

ask

06-07-2003, 01:48 PM

= marketing.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by restless

I understand the concept, what I don't understand is how it applies to this particular matter. I do think it's a legit concern but then again, all researched could perfectly well be dismissed for that exact same reason and where would that leave us at? we would be condemned to forever quote sites and magazines of dubious credibility, wouldn't we?

Restless, your statement is actually quite inaccurate. There is a great deal of scientific information which is generally agreed upon by the vast majority of the scientific community.

There is an equal amount of information which is hotly debated.

Look, if you believe in the guy and what he says, great. All I ask is that you post some of his stuff and I will show you what I think is inaccurate or misleading.

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by chris mason

Restless, your statement is actually quite inaccurate. There is a great deal of scientific information which is generally agreed upon by the vast majority of the scientific community.

There is an equal amount of information which is hotly debated.

Look, if you believe in the guy and what he says, great. All I ask is that you post some of his stuff and I will show you what I think is inaccurate or misleading.

things bryan believes (without too many specifics):

1) muscles grow as a result of a sufficient amount of tension placed on the contractile structures in respect to the conditioning of the tissue
2) the acute, anabolic response of resistance training is elevation of protein synthesis over baseline for 36 to 48 hours
3) frequent training has generally been shown to be more favorable for hypertrophy in the lab and...
4) it makes more sense to base a cycle on the time courses of protein synthesis elevation than on the time courses for the recuperation of strength

which of these do you disagree with or find misleading?

Mystic Eric

06-07-2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by blowdpanis

things bryan believes (without too many specifics):

1) muscles grow as a result of a sufficient amount of tension placed on the contractile structures in respect to the conditioning of the tissue
2) the acute, anabolic response of resistance training is elevation of protein synthesis over baseline for 36 to 48 hours
3) frequent training has generally been shown to be more favorable for hypertrophy in the lab and...
4) it makes more sense to base a cycle on the time courses of protein synthesis elevation than on the time courses for the recuperation of strength

which of these do you disagree with or find misleading?

:withstupi

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Mystic Eric

:withstupi

if you have anything to say that's intelligent, despite the profoundly unlikely probability of that scenario, please feel free to share. you can even state, explicitly, one thing i've said which you actually find incorrect (and note, for context, i'm actually presenting somebody else's viewpoint here).

restless

06-07-2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by blowdpanis

if you have anything to say that's intelligent, despite the profoundly unlikely probability of that scenario, please feel free to share. you can even state, explicitly, one thing i've said which you actually find incorrect (and note, for context, i'm actually presenting somebody else's viewpoint here).

The "I'm with stupid sign" means he's agreeing with you......

Mystic Eric

06-07-2003, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by restless

The "I'm with stupid sign" means he's agreeing with you......

:withstupi

silles

06-07-2003, 05:40 PM

ROFL! In this whole debate, however, the topic of increasing work capacity has been completely ignored, although I think we should keep it on deck for a little while before some issues can be squared away. It is however very important to take into consideration, as I don't think anyone has the balls to deny that doing as much as possible productively will lead to the greatest gains.

Neil

06-07-2003, 05:57 PM

I think the disagreement lies in what that amount is.

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Mystic Eric

:withstupi

my apologies then! *hugs*

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by silles
ROFL! In this whole debate, however, the topic of increasing work capacity has been completely ignored, although I think we should keep it on deck for a little while before some issues can be squared away. It is however very important to take into consideration, as I don't think anyone has the balls to deny that doing as much as possible productively will lead to the greatest gains.

nope, and even bryan agrees. he recommends as much volume as you can perform A) safely and B) without ****ing up your strength such that you're not able to hit all your target weights throughout the cycle.

in experimenting with variations of HST myself, when volume goes up a little along with calories, great things happen. part of the reason i'm a huge fan...

Mystic Eric

06-07-2003, 06:31 PM

The beauty of it is that it's not a "restricting" program. You just follow the main principles (which are based on physiology) and you can have soooo many variations on your program. Higher volume, lower volume, splits with upper/lower body, 2x a day etc.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 06:33 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blowdpanis
[B]

things bryan believes (without too many specifics):

1) muscles grow as a result of a sufficient amount of tension placed on the contractile structures in respect to the conditioning of the tissue

**********This is why I asked for his words, not yours. Please expand upon the what the heck you are saying here. Tension being placed on the contractile tissues with respect to conditioning of the tissue. Exactly how do actin and myosin get "conditioned". Please be specific to what you mean by this statement.

2) the acute, anabolic response of resistance training is elevation of protein synthesis over baseline for 36 to 48 hours

***********To agree or disagree with this I would have to see some sound scientific research on the topic (note I am not disagreeing, merely stating I won't take his or your word for it).

3) frequent training has generally been shown to be more favorable for hypertrophy in the lab and...

***********First, duh! I suppose the more often you are able to train and stimulate the muscle to growth, while allowing it recover, the better your gains. Can't disagree here, although I am curious which "lab" we are speaking of.

4) it makes more sense to base a cycle on the time courses of protein synthesis elevation than on the time courses for the recuperation of strength

***********This one is tricky and riddled with assumptions. I do agree that the nervous system takes longer than the musculature to recover from a heavy session. I can't necessarily agree that this presumed elevation of protein synthsis is the be all end all to muscle recovery. In other words, if the rate of protein synthesis drops it doesn't necessarily follow that muscle recovery is complete.

which of these do you disagree with or find misleading?

Now, as to the misleading part, I think my wording is being misunderstood. What I am trying to say is that Mr. Haycock's interpretation of the "science" (as he sees it) may not be entirely accurate (I feel it very likely is not). I don't think he is out to trick the public, and I do believe he may actually feel he is presenting things entirely accurately.

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 07:22 PM

**********This is why I asked for his words, not yours. Please expand upon the what the heck you are saying here. Tension being placed on the contractile tissues with respect to conditioning of the tissue. Exactly how do actin and myosin get "conditioned". Please be specific to what you mean by this statement.

Sure. The muscle becomes resistant to a given amount of strain over time. The mechanism through which this operates is being debated (i think it's talked about in Supertraining, and I've also been shown research indicating that it's probably NOT neural, but i'd have to dig it up). I think you agree with the premise, though. It means a sufficient amount of tension has to be applied to a muscle to make it grow. Were this not the case, I would think it'd imply that a static load could perpetually induce hypertrophy. Ie do curls with 35 lbs for the rest of one's natural life. Muscle tissue is 'conditioned' or 'adapted' to a given amount of tension, which makes perfect sense. For example, being sedentary or flying in space results in atrophy as a result of 'insufficient' tension being applied to the muscles. Muscles don't know 'effort,' but they do react to physics: eg mechanical load. I don't really understand why this is hard to understand, most features exhibit homeostatic properties like this (muscle and bone being two pertinent examples).

***********To agree or disagree with this I would have to see some sound scientific research on the topic (note I am not disagreeing, merely stating I won't take his or your word for it).

Here's a couple, but more at bottom...

Chesley, A., et al. Changes in human muscle protein synthesis after
resistance exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 73(4):1383-1388, 1992

MacDougall, J.D., et al. The time course for elevated muscle protein
synthesis following heavy resistance exercise. Can. J. Appl. Physiol.
20(4):480-486, 1995

***********First, duh! I suppose the more often you are able to train and stimulate the muscle to growth, while allowing it recover, the better your gains. Can't disagree here, although I am curious which "lab" we are speaking of.

here's one:

McLester JR., Bishop P., & Guilliams M. Comparison of 1 and 3 day per week of equal volume resistance training in experienced subjects. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S117 1999

***********This one is tricky and riddled with assumptions. I do agree that the nervous system takes longer than the musculature to recover from a heavy session. I can't necessarily agree that this presumed elevation of protein synthsis is the be all end all to muscle recovery. In other words, if the rate of protein synthesis drops it doesn't necessarily follow that muscle recovery is complete.

It would imply it were 'complete' in regards to being capable of yielding hypertrophy from another bout of training, despite neural/structural factors not having 'recovered' to generate strength. i'll post some research of this and much more.

Research showing that hypertrophy isn't hindered from reloading a muscle (sorry if this is excessive), and also the logic of protein synthesis elevation as a result of muscle being loaded:
-----------------------
Nosaka K, Newton M. Repeated Eccentric Exercise Bouts Do Not Exacerbate Muscle Damage and Repair. J Strength Cond Res. 2002 Feb;16(1):117-122.

Nosaka K, Newton M. Concentric or eccentric training effect on eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Jan;34(1):63-9.

Proske U, Morgan DL. Muscle damage from eccentric exercise: mechanism, mechanical signs, adaptation and clinical applications. J Physiol. 2001 Dec 1;537(Pt 2):333-45.

Nosaka K, Newton M, Sacco P. Responses of human elbow flexor muscles to electrically stimulated forced lengthening exercise. Acta Physiol Scand. 2002 Feb;174(2):137-45.

Allen DG. Eccentric muscle damage: mechanisms of early reduction of force. Acta Physiol Scand. 2001 Mar;171(3):311-9.

Clarkson PM. Eccentric exercise and muscle damage. Int J Sports Med. 1997 Oct;18 Suppl 4:S314-7.

Paddon-Jones D, Abernethy PJ. Acute adaptation to low volume eccentric exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Jul;33(7):1213-9.

Nosaka K, Sakamoto K, Newton M, Sacco P. How long does the protective effect on eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage last? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Sep;33(9):1490-5.

McHugh MP, Connolly DA, Eston RG, Gleim GW. Exercise-induced muscle damage and potential mechanisms for the repeated bout effect. Sports Med. 1999 Mar;27(3):157-70.

Nosaka K, Sakamoto K, Newton M, Sacco P. The repeated bout effect of reduced-load eccentric exercise on elbow flexor muscle damage. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2001 Jul;85(1-2):34-40.

Rennie MJ. How muscles know how to adapt. J Physiol. 2001 Aug 15;535(Pt 1):1.

Nosaka K, Sakamoto K. Effect of elbow joint angle on the magnitude of muscle damage to the elbow flexors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Jan;33(1):22-9.

Lieber RL, Friden J. Morphologic and mechanical basis of delayed-onset muscle soreness. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002 Jan-Feb;10(1):67-73.

Nosaka K, Clarkson PM. Influence of previous concentric exercise on eccentric exercise-induced muscledamage. J Sports Sci. 1997 Oct;15(5):477-83.

Carson JA. The regulation of gene expression in hypertrophying skeletal muscle. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1997;25:301-20.

Lieber RL, Friden J. Mechanisms of muscle injury after eccentric contraction. J Sci Med Sport. 1999 Oct;2(3):253-65.

Nosaka K, Clarkson P.M. Muscle damage following repeated bouts of high force eccentric exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc., 27(9):1263-1269,1995

Smith LL., Fuylmer MG., Holbert D., McCammon MR., Houmard JA., Frazer DD., Nsien E., Isreal RG. The impact of repeated bout of eccentric exercise on muscular strength, muscle soreness and creatine kinase. Br J Sp Med 28(4):267-271, 1994

T.C. Chen, Taipei Physical Education College, and S.S. Hsieh, FACSM,. The effects of a seven-day repeated eccentric training on recovery from muscle damage. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp. S71, 1999
-------
other good stuff...

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=13;t=19

chris mason

06-07-2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by blowdpanis
**********This is why I asked for his words, not yours. Please expand upon the what the heck you are saying here. Tension being placed on the contractile tissues with respect to conditioning of the tissue. Exactly how do actin and myosin get "conditioned". Please be specific to what you mean by this statement.

Sure. The muscle becomes resistant to a given amount of strain over time. The mechanism through which this operates is being debated (i think it's talked about in Supertraining, and I've also been shown research indicating that it's probably NOT neural, but i'd have to dig it up). I think you agree with the premise, though. It means a sufficient amount of tension has to be applied to a muscle to make it grow. Were this not the case, I would think it'd imply that a static load could perpetually induce hypertrophy. Ie do curls with 35 lbs for the rest of one's natural life. Muscle tissue is 'conditioned' or 'adapted' to a given amount of tension, which makes perfect sense. For example, being sedentary or flying in space results in atrophy as a result of 'insufficient' tension being applied to the muscles. Muscles don't know 'effort,' but they do react to physics: eg mechanical load. I don't really understand why this is hard to understand, most features exhibit homeostatic properties like this (muscle and bone being two pertinent examples).

**********************Yes I do agree that overload is necessary to induce growth. Now, based upon your above statement, does Haycock think GAS and overload are important to hypertrophy or not? His own words earlier chided Jones etc. for overly relying in these principles. You just used them to make a point about HST.

***********To agree or disagree with this I would have to see some sound scientific research on the topic (note I am not disagreeing, merely stating I won't take his or your word for it).

I'll post this at the bottom.

***********First, duh! I suppose the more often you are able to train and stimulate the muscle to growth, while allowing it recover, the better your gains. Can't disagree here, although I am curious which "lab" we are speaking of.

here's one:

McLester JR., Bishop P., & Guilliams M. Comparison of 1 and 3 day per week of equal volume resistance training in experienced subjects. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S117 1999

***********This one is tricky and riddled with assumptions. I do agree that the nervous system takes longer than the musculature to recover from a heavy session. I can't necessarily agree that this presumed elevation of protein synthsis is the be all end all to muscle recovery. In other words, if the rate of protein synthesis drops it doesn't necessarily follow that muscle recovery is complete.

It would imply it were 'complete' in regards to being capable of yielding hypertrophy from another bout of training, despite neural/structural factors not having 'recovered' to generate strength. i'll post some research of this and much more.

Research showing that hypertrophy isn't hindered from reloading a muscle (sorry if this is excessive), and also the logic of protein synthesis elevation as a result of muscle being loaded:

-----------------------
Nosaka K, Newton M. Repeated Eccentric Exercise Bouts Do Not Exacerbate Muscle Damage and Repair. J Strength Cond Res. 2002 Feb;16(1):117-122.

Nosaka K, Newton M. Concentric or eccentric training effect on eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Jan;34(1):63-9.

Proske U, Morgan DL. Muscle damage from eccentric exercise: mechanism, mechanical signs, adaptation and clinical applications. J Physiol. 2001 Dec 1;537(Pt 2):333-45.

Nosaka K, Newton M, Sacco P. Responses of human elbow flexor muscles to electrically stimulated forced lengthening exercise. Acta Physiol Scand. 2002 Feb;174(2):137-45.

Allen DG. Eccentric muscle damage: mechanisms of early reduction of force. Acta Physiol Scand. 2001 Mar;171(3):311-9.

Clarkson PM. Eccentric exercise and muscle damage. Int J Sports Med. 1997 Oct;18 Suppl 4:S314-7.

Paddon-Jones D, Abernethy PJ. Acute adaptation to low volume eccentric exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Jul;33(7):1213-9.

Nosaka K, Sakamoto K, Newton M, Sacco P. How long does the protective effect on eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage last? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Sep;33(9):1490-5.

McHugh MP, Connolly DA, Eston RG, Gleim GW. Exercise-induced muscle damage and potential mechanisms for the repeated bout effect. Sports Med. 1999 Mar;27(3):157-70.

Nosaka K, Sakamoto K, Newton M, Sacco P. The repeated bout effect of reduced-load eccentric exercise on elbow flexor muscle damage. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2001 Jul;85(1-2):34-40.

Rennie MJ. How muscles know how to adapt. J Physiol. 2001 Aug 15;535(Pt 1):1.

Nosaka K, Sakamoto K. Effect of elbow joint angle on the magnitude of muscle damage to the elbow flexors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Jan;33(1):22-9.

Lieber RL, Friden J. Morphologic and mechanical basis of delayed-onset muscle soreness. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002 Jan-Feb;10(1):67-73.

Nosaka K, Clarkson PM. Influence of previous concentric exercise on eccentric exercise-induced muscledamage. J Sports Sci. 1997 Oct;15(5):477-83.

Carson JA. The regulation of gene expression in hypertrophying skeletal muscle. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1997;25:301-20.

Lieber RL, Friden J. Mechanisms of muscle injury after eccentric contraction. J Sci Med Sport. 1999 Oct;2(3):253-65.

Nosaka K, Clarkson P.M. Muscle damage following repeated bouts of high force eccentric exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc., 27(9):1263-1269,1995

Smith LL., Fuylmer MG., Holbert D., McCammon MR., Houmard JA., Frazer DD., Nsien E., Isreal RG. The impact of repeated bout of eccentric exercise on muscular strength, muscle soreness and creatine kinase. Br J Sp Med 28(4):267-271, 1994

T.C. Chen, Taipei Physical Education College, and S.S. Hsieh, FACSM,. The effects of a seven-day repeated eccentric training on recovery from muscle damage. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp. S71, 1999
-------
other good stuff...

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=13;t=19

********I like this one:

Paddon-Jones D, Abernethy PJ. Acute adaptation to low volume eccentric exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Jul;33(7):1213-9.

Please post this one, I am curious as to what it might say.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 07:35 PM

Oh, and let me see Haycock's words. You are only posting his references.

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
Oh, and let me see Haycock's words. You are only posting his references.

why don't you visit hst's website? i'm just giving a summary, i'm not gonna repaste all of his articles to you. posting references was much easier (though i have a list of aggregated studies in various areas)...for more explicit studies, look at the two i just threw in foor good measure about the elevation of protein synthesis.

also, i posted very pertinent quotes from bryan in the DOMS thread powermandl ducked out of. so feel free to refer to that, i believe it's on page '2' of the forums here.

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by chris mason

********I like this one:

Paddon-Jones D, Abernethy PJ. Acute adaptation to low volume eccentric exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Jul;33(7):1213-9.

Please post this one, I am curious as to what it might say.

i posted references that you can look up. some should be available in pub-med, but i'm not doing your homework for you.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/

chris mason

06-07-2003, 07:40 PM

Truthfully, I don't have the time.

Oh, and rat research doesn't necessarily translate to human beings;) .

Manveet

06-07-2003, 07:42 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11445771&dopt=Abstract

read up chris.

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
Truthfully, I don't have the time.

Oh, and rat research doesn't necessarily translate to human beings;) .

so basically, you question whether there's science behind what bryan is saying, but don't have the time to discuss it when it's pasted before your face?

and obviously it doesn't necessarily translate to humans, but researchers do employ animal models to aid understanding human physiology. this is extremely prevalent in medical research, for example...

chris mason

06-07-2003, 07:49 PM

Ok, I read the one I mentioned. In essence, a low intensity exercise bout can aid in recovery from a more damaging one. Nothing too new about that.

Maki Riddington

06-07-2003, 07:55 PM

Blowdpanis, do you have any other stuides on "the acute, anabolic response of resistance training is elevation of protein synthesis over baseline for 36 to 48 hours" other then the two you've posted?

Thank you.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 07:56 PM

I have the time to discuss it, or research it, but not too much of either or both.

Yes, animal studies are used extensively. It is also known that animal study results do not necesarily translate to humans and to rely on these studies (as Mr. Haycock seems to like to do) can be folly.

I really don't think you understand my position. I don't think Mr. Haycock's theories are as bulletproof as you, and others seem to believe. I think a lot of the science he uses may is really theory at best and open to interpretation. I realize science is an ever expanding and growing field. I feel that you may be "blinded" by the science thrown at you and are thus not able to see beyond it. I am trying to help you do so.

Heck, the guy may be right, but I will not blindly follow as many seem to. Again, if you wish to present some of his ideas I will be happy to debate them. You seem to have take this whole thing a bit personally. No need.

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
Ok, I read the one I mentioned. In essence, a low intensity exercise bout can aid in recovery from a more damaging one. Nothing too new about that.

*blank stare*

amongst the research i posted, the following are said/implied:

1) you can retrain a muscle repeatedly without negating the effects of hypertrophy on it, ie it doesn't need a certain amount of time to 'recover' before being loaded again. the reason you avoid loading too frequently is probably because you'll lose strength, and lose the ability to apply incrementally more load over time.

2) the acute, elevation of protein synthesis (mind you in the TRAINED) appears to be ~36 to 48 hours.

i still agree that there's room to take these items and come up with not optimal programs, but bryan's logic still appears pretty consistent to me. you are saying it's not 'necessarily' the best application of the research. i don't disagree. but i'd still appreciate more specific reasoning.

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
I have the time to discuss it, or research it, but not too much of either or both.

Yes, animal studies are used extensively. It is also known that animal study results do not necesarily translate to humans and to rely on these studies (as Mr. Haycock seems to like to do) can be folly.

I really don't think you understand my position. I don't think Mr. Haycock's theories are as bulletproof as you, and others seem to believe. I think a lot of the science he uses may is really theory at best and open to interpretation. I realize science is an ever expanding and growing field. I feel that you may be "blinded" by the science thrown at you and are thus not able to see beyond it. I am trying to help you do so.

Heck, the guy may be right, but I will not blindly follow as many seem to. Again, if you wish to present some of his ideas I will be happy to debate them. You seem to have take this whole thing a bit personally. No need.

no problem. if someone shows that the research is being misapplied and knocks bryan from his horse, i won't hesitate to follow the truth. but after having talked to bryan (and personally corresponded with him), i just think he's extremely bright and on the right track. he also knows his ****...nothing wrong with any of that, methinks :)

chris mason

06-07-2003, 07:58 PM

Oh, and one more thing, just so you know, the exact mechanisms of skeletal muscle hypertrophy are not entirely known at this time.

Read that, and then think about Mr. Haycock and his opinions on the matter and his deriding of other training methods.

blowdpanis

06-07-2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
Oh, and one more thing, just so you know, the exact mechanisms of skeletal muscle hypertrophy are not entirely known at this time.

Read that, and then think about Mr. Haycock and his opinions on the matter and his deriding of other training methods.

The link to hst's page i posted in that huge post showed discussions of the mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy. Saying it's 'unknown' is misleading; they're pretty aware of most of the major players involved and are in the process of mapping all that out, as far as i can tell. i could quote bryan addressing this concern, in which he says the important factors have pretty much been mapped out and from here on in is probably refinement of descriptions for time courses and such. having looked at the research, i can't help but agree.

i think this link in particular is pretty helpful, though complicated:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/91/2/693

chris mason

06-07-2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by blowdpanis

*blank stare*

amongst the research i posted, the following are said/implied:

1) you can retrain a muscle repeatedly without negating the effects of hypertrophy on it, ie it doesn't need a certain amount of time to 'recover' before being loaded again. the reason you avoid loading too frequently is probably because you'll lose strength, and lose the ability to apply incrementally more load over time.

2) the acute, elevation of protein synthesis (mind you in the TRAINED) appears to be ~36 to 48 hours.

i still agree that there's room to take these items and come up with not optimal programs, but bryan's logic still appears pretty consistent to me. you are saying it's not 'necessarily' the best application of the research. i don't disagree. but i'd still appreciate more specific reasoning.

Why the blank stare? First, I only read the one abstract I had asked you to post. I made a comment on it, not in relation to Haycock or anything other than the abstract.

Ok, your 2nd statement, the acute elevation of protein "appears" to be approximately 36-48 hours. Let's examine this. First, is the elevation of protein synthesis the only mechanism of muscular adaptation? When protein synthesis decreases to baseline levels is the adaptation complete? Does anyone know for sure? I say no. I say Mr. Haycock is making his own assumption about the implications of the alleged protein elevation. That is one example of my beef with his ideas. They could be correct, but they could also be incorrect. Does he indicate this on his site? I doubt it. I am willing to bet he presents his ideas as fact.

Your first statement is also not 100% fact. The relative intensity of a bout of exercise repeated will have an effect on hypertrophy. Training a muscle with a sufficient load to induce hypertrophy, in my opinion, too often will result in atrophy, not hypertrophy.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 08:20 PM

Look, I can see you have you mind set on this issue. I understand that. I do hope that in time you may consider other ideas. Keep an open mind. I too was once very close-minded concerning training methods. I have changed my ideas.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by blowdpanis

The link to hst's page i posted in that huge post showed discussions of the mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy. Saying it's 'unknown' is misleading; they're pretty aware of most of the major players involved and are in the process of mapping all that out, as far as i can tell. i could quote bryan addressing this concern, in which he says the important factors have pretty much been mapped out and from here on in is probably refinement of descriptions for time courses and such. having looked at the research, i can't help but agree.

i think this link in particular is pretty helpful, though complicated:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/91/2/693

Just thought I would post this qoute from the above link:

"The mechanism by which mechanical forces acting through skeletal muscle cells generate intracellular signaling, known as mechanotransduction, and the details of how gene expression and cell size are regulated by this signaling are poorly understood."

Maki Riddington

06-07-2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by chris mason

Your first statement is also not 100% fact. The relative intensity of a bout of exercise repeated will have an effect on hypertrophy. Training a muscle with a sufficient load to induce hypertrophy, in my opinion, too often will result in atrophy, not hypertrophy.

*** Basically you are saying then, that frequent and sufficient (meaning that the load is adequate enough to evoke a stimulus) bouts of resistance training will lead to what is known as "overtraining?"

chris mason

06-07-2003, 08:28 PM

I must be careful of semantics here. I mean that training too frequently will high loads and high intensity (Jones' definition) will result in overtraining, absolutely. I have demonstrated this to myself many a time, I don't need an abstract to verify this one;) .

Mystic Eric

06-07-2003, 08:32 PM

I don't think you're clear with many of the concepts that HST has pieced together Chris.

The idea is that after the "strategic deconditioning", muscles can respond to less stimulus as before. So when a load is lighter, it can be progessively added with frequent workouts without "overtraining".

A load doesn't have to be extremly heavy nor extremely taxing to be of enough tension to promote growth.

I'm not saying that HST is the be all end all of training, however, many of its borrowed ideas are great tools in training.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 08:34 PM

One more thing I would like to clarify. I don't know Mr. Haycock. I have no problem with him trying to make a living from the subject he loves. His love of bodybuilding is self evident. I really have no personal issue with him. I am only trying to point out that the people who think he is "it" may need to be more open minded.

Blow, maybe since you have personally corresponded with him you might wish to invite him to express his opinions on these matters here in this thread. He need not take much time. It would be nice to hear his side.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Mystic Eric
I don't think you're clear with many of the concepts that HST has pieced together Chris.

The idea is that after the "strategic deconditioning", muscles can respond to less stimulus as before. So when a load is lighter, it can be progessively added with frequent workouts without "overtraining".

A load doesn't have to be extremly heavy nor extremely taxing to be of enough tension to promote growth.

I'm not saying that HST is the be all end all of training, however, many of its borrowed ideas are great tools in training.

I will let you in on a little secret. Long before HST, there were many a drug free bodybuilder who trained every other day and made great progress (they developed great physiques). They trained hard and frequent, but they didn't train to failure. I do understand that is possible and I believe it. So, what I understand and what you might think I understand are not necessarily the same thing.

IF I DID NOT STATE IT BEFORE, I AM SURE HST HAS SOME MERITS AND SOUND IDEAS. I AM EQUALLY SURE THAT HIT HAS SOME MERITS AND SOUND IDEAS.

chris mason

06-07-2003, 08:41 PM

Oh, and I am also equally sure I must now prepare for bed:D .

Night all, and nice conversatin' with you.

silles

06-07-2003, 09:20 PM

I think there's one part of the puzzle you all fail to take into account. The argument will always come down to Experiments vs. Experience. Sometimes, regardless of what the science says, you have to run with something--only people who are afraid of the water want to understand it, the others just jump right in. Certainly I am not going to say that science doesn't matter--what I am going to say, however, is that my own experience is that the more I divide my training, and the more frequently I perform it--the better I get at it. I have never made good gains training bodypart once per week, and I have never made good gains training to failure--therefore, I don't do either. I do however, make great gains training bodyparts frequenly, with divided volume. I've found in order to do a multitude of movements, I must train on a five day split as follows:

Day 1- Chest/Back
Day 2- Legs
Day 3- Off
Day 4- Arms/Kettlebells
Day 5- Off
REPEAT

Anything less frequent than that, and the gains I make are not desirable. Anything more frequent than that, and I have to substitute movements, and get to the gym daily. This is a good compromose for an athlete, but if one were a weightlifter, I see no reason why not to train every day, or even twice a day (in fact, this is what the Bulgarian Lifters and Jay Schroeder's clients seem to be doing). Hit the muscles as often as you can, as hard as you can, with the movements you desire, and make the best gains. This is my experience....what is yours?

silles

06-07-2003, 09:22 PM

By the way, pairing antagonists with agonists is a great way to get more work done, in less time, with more strength. It's nice hitting a set of bench, then hitting a set of cable rows, with only two minutes rest between, for a strength workout! God bless the Davis Law.

Neil

06-07-2003, 09:44 PM

I have had good experiences training antogonists with agonists.

What is the Davis Law?

silles

06-07-2003, 09:55 PM

The contraction of an antagonist relaxes the agonist. So basically, if your bis are contracting, the tris are relaxing. This is the principle behind the Janda Sit-Up that the Powerlifters are raving about--the hip flexors take the brunt of the work in the situp, activate the glutes and they will relax--the hip flexors check out, the abs check in, and bam, you get a great workout. By the way, the abs are the only muscle group that need be trained like this, even then, integration techniques ought to be used to make sure they are team players, that is, you devolop the coordination to activate them along with all the other trunk musculature. But I digress, and argue that if you can pull more than 500 from the floor, you don't need to train abs.

chris mason

06-08-2003, 09:35 AM

Well, I can pull more than 500 from the floor yet I have recently begun to train my whole abdominal region. I actually found then to be weaker than I suspected they were.

Now, as to training a bodypart as hard as you can daily, if I read what you wrote correctly, that is a poor training method. To me, training as hard as I can means that I train to failure, or very close to failure. Anyone training close to failure with any sort of an appreciable load daily is not going to make optimal progress if any progress at all (training the same bodypart). I really cannot be convinced otherwise.

silles

06-08-2003, 12:05 PM

Sorry Chris, I must not have made myself clear enough. I meant the bodyparts ought to be trained as hard as possible as often as possible. If you are training chest 14 times a week like Adam Archuleta was, of course you cannot train to muscular failure, however, you can train your chest as hard as possible for the frequency, what that is, however will be variable.

FortifiedIron

06-08-2003, 12:49 PM

This is a very funny debate in the least.

I've argued with HIT people for over a year now and none have open their mind.

THe funny thing about HIT science is, its science is only HIT science, with no application to anything else in the world. They have their own insight into physics, muscle fiber recrutment and much much more. Notice how i said "their Own" cuss for years greats such as Mel Siff, Charles Staley, and others have disproved and disproved time and time again of what Jones and Brzycki preaches. I've taken my fair shot at Brzycki in the past, as i really care little about what Jones says, but Brzycki is the idiot that uses this failure training for athlete's. I think the success of his athlete's speak for themself eh?

Also, how can Mike M. consider his method a method of HIT? He oviously uses more then one set per bodypart, this is something HIT jedi's swear is inacurrate, but that would be using a Multi-set method of training which to HIT people is worthless.. Interesting. Granted his method sucks as well, it will only work for those on high amounts of AS, and those who just start out or are geneticaly gifted.

Another interesting thing is.. muscles never fail, the CNS fails. How on earth can people call it Muscular Failure?

Kc

silles

06-08-2003, 12:56 PM

I'm just going to go on record and say that FI is really, really cool.

RG570

06-08-2003, 01:50 PM

I'll second that.

FortifiedIron

06-08-2003, 03:35 PM

lol, thanks guys.

Kc

blowdpanis

06-08-2003, 03:49 PM

for reference, and my last thoughts on this thread:

saying HST and HIT stand on the same scientific grounds is a joke. HIT is extraordinarily non-scientific (if there's one universal in bodybuilding, it's that HIT is at least partially full of ****), and the only 'science' they have to back up their claims is the 1 vs. multiple set studies. But you know what those look like in aggregate? The ACSM looked over 140 of them, and found the more trained DID benefit from more volume, which fits well with our model of hypertrophy.

Jones and Mentzer's systemic adaptational reasoning was also totally flawed. Tissues adapt by and large locally, not from some general 'supercompensation.' They lacked a background in the physical sciences, and medicine in particular.

When HIT is just a default, Hardgainer-type 'get strong at the big movements without overtraining and grow' type of logic, it's fine and great for most people. When it tries to be too 'theoretical,' it starts to look silly. Fast.

chris mason

06-08-2003, 06:36 PM

Sigh.....fair enough guys, I understand it is fashionable to bash HIT these days.

Fortified, one question, in the sense that you are still able to voluntarily contract your muscles, the don't "fail", you are right, but neither does the nervous system "fail", or again, you would be unable to move.

Here is the question, without looking it up on a website (I will rely on your honor for that one), what exactly do you think causes you to be unable to get that 5th rep (for example) if you took a set to concentric failure?

blowdpanis

06-08-2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
Sigh.....fair enough guys, I understand it is fashionable to bash HIT these days.

Fortified, one question, in the sense that you are still able to voluntarily contract your muscles, the don't "fail", you are right, but neither does the nervous system "fail", or again, you would be unable to move.

Here is the question, without looking it up on a website (I will rely on your honor for that one), what exactly do you think causes you to be unable to get that 5th rep (for example) if you took a set to concentric failure?

it's always been fashionable to bash HIT. believe it or not, i love arthur jones, just some of the 'hit jedis' get on my nerves. a lot.

i TOTALLY love hardgainer (www.hardgainer.com), including the publication. great, great old fashioned strength training recommendations. i think their philosophy is really beautiful :)

FortifiedIron

06-08-2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
Sigh.....fair enough guys, I understand it is fashionable to bash HIT these days.

Fortified, one question, in the sense that you are still able to voluntarily contract your muscles, the don't "fail", you are right, but neither does the nervous system "fail", or again, you would be unable to move.

Here is the question, without looking it up on a website (I will rely on your honor for that one), what exactly do you think causes you to be unable to get that 5th rep (for example) if you took a set to concentric failure?

You where correct and my last post was missleading bout the CNS fails. The CNS can only become tired or fatigued, which is what causes a lifter to fail on the 5th or so rep. The CNS becomes weaken and does not send out adaquet impulsives to the muscles to contract forcefully enough to move the load.

With all due, if im incorrect plz correct me. I've read post by you before Chris and your knowledge is well worth it and well worth the time in reading.

Kc

Neil

06-08-2003, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by blowdpanis

it's always been fashionable to bash HIT. believe it or not, i love arthur jones, just some of the 'hit jedis' get on my nerves. a lot.

i TOTALLY love hardgainer (www.hardgainer.com), including the publication. great, great old fashioned strength training recommendations. i think their philosophy is really beautiful :)

Bashing HIT has become the "in" thing to do.

Stuart McRobert is awesome, he preaches low volume and progressive overload (something else people like to bash.) Simple, basic training. Put a few extra pounds on the bar every session, and lift in good, safe form.

silles

06-08-2003, 11:47 PM

Chris Mason,

Since you're all into old school training, I thought you might find this article interesting. I think the old timers have a lot to say on the subject of frequent training.

http://www.dragondoor.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?rm=mode2&articleid=164

Blood&Iron

06-09-2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Neil

Stuart McRobert is awesome, he preaches low volume and progressive overload (something else people like to bash.) Simple, basic training. Put a few extra pounds on the bar every session, and lift in good, safe form.
There are more than a few similarities between what is advocated by McRobert (and his less dogmatic disciples) and HST.

They are not mutually-exclusive approaches.

Personally, I have tremendous respect for both McRobert and Haycock.

silles

06-09-2003, 09:49 PM

You know Neil, I don't know why you fail to realize that progressive overload isn't all it is made out to be. It is very, very difficult to work at your true max for any appreciable period of time. The muscles must be subjected to a variety of intensities, or, a change of exercises.

silles

06-09-2003, 09:49 PM

For the record, however, I think one ought to add weight to the bar as often as productively possible.

RoidRage

06-10-2003, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by silles
You know Neil, I don't know why you fail to realize that progressive overload isn't all it is made out to be.

For the record, however, I think one ought to add weight to the bar as often as productively possible.

Huh!?

PowerManDL

06-10-2003, 12:09 AM

Those two statements are NOT contradictory.

Neil

06-10-2003, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by PowerManDL
Those two statements are NOT contradictory.

Please explain.

PowerManDL

06-10-2003, 08:12 AM

In this case he's referring to progressive overload as the incremental adding of weight with no consideration for other factors, ala HIT.

In that philosophy, if you stagnate on a lift, its because you're doing too much work or doing it too frequently.

His second statement is referring to adding weight when its needed, which in the approach he's advocating isn't necessarily a consistent, neverending process. Ie, there are times when you *don't* always push to add more weight to the bar.

chris mason

06-10-2003, 10:11 AM

Actually Silles, I have read about Saxon and others in the past. Now, were you using that reference to contradict statements I have made, or just for interest?

I have no problem with frequent training, but such training much be of a lesser intensity (Jones definition) else one will quickly overtrain. The body can only take so much work of a high intensity level. Training near limit (by bodypart) can only occur infrequently (once or twice a week or less depending on the individual). Training of a lesser intensity can be practiced much more often.

blowdpanis

06-10-2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
Actually Silles, I have read about Saxon and others in the past. Now, were you using that reference to contradict statements I have made, or just for interest?

I have no problem with frequent training, but such training much be of a lesser intensity (Jones definition) else one will quickly overtrain. The body can only take so much work of a high intensity level. Training near limit (by bodypart) can only occur infrequently (once or twice a week or less depending on the individual). Training of a lesser intensity can be practiced much more often.

which brings into question, which is more worth it? does training to failure really achieve anything special over training shy of failure? what does the research say about A) a lot of volume/intensity in one time period compared to B) the same intensity/volume spread out over multiple time periods?

i think the trend in terms of hypertrophy is definitely towards the more frequent end of the spectrum...

Neil

06-10-2003, 05:43 PM

I agree.

I think some people can handle training to failure more often than others. It's something each individual has to find their own tolerance for. If you can progress on a consistent basis without training to failure then I think you should stick with it. If you can tolerate training to failure over the long term then I think results will come faster.

ask

06-11-2003, 02:21 AM

Yep - there's no general rules. Don't stick to that dogmatic bs - stick to what works!

Mystic Eric

06-11-2003, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by ask
Yep - there's no general rules. Don't stick to that dogmatic bs - stick to what works!

Well I wouldn't say there aren't general rules... I mean, there aren't general rules in terms of "training x amount of days will lead to growth" but there are some "general rules" about physiology.

chris mason

06-11-2003, 02:58 PM

Of course there are general rules! There are no absolute rules is what you want to say.

blowdpanis

06-11-2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
Of course there are general rules! There are no absolute rules is what you want to say.

just out of curiosity, what would qualify as an 'absolute rule?' science never claims anything to be 'absolutely certain.' however, it is a virtual certainty that if you drop a rock, it will fall. being that we're all human, it is virtually certain that your body will behave in a manner characteristically similar to other humans. i would say it's an 'absolute rule,' under normal circumstances, that you must lift progressively heavier weights over time to have any chance of maximizing strength and/or muscular potential :)

chris mason

06-11-2003, 06:11 PM

I was trying to clarify his statements, not make my own. Pehaps my word choice was not optimal. What I think he was trying to say is that is no specific outline that we must all follow. Individuals must find the specifics for themselves, not have them spelled out by others. Thus, one specific program is not the absolute that everyone must follow.

I agree that progressive training is an absolute requirement for size and strength

PowerManDL

06-11-2003, 09:16 PM

I agree totally. The whole point of the argument was which way is best to go about reaching that progression.

The HIT/Hardgainer approach: Add weight consistently and regularly. Stagnation is a result of overtraining, and is remedied by reducing the frequency and/or volume of training.

The periodization approach: Add weight consistently within specific loading criteria. When this progression fails or the planned phase ends, a new combination of loading variables is implemented to counter the stagnation, within which progression continues.

Neil

06-11-2003, 11:02 PM

ask

06-12-2003, 12:14 AM

Yes, but what's "heavy"? Define "time"! That's the problematic nature of this type of discussion. We're individuals, regardless. And yeah, that's what I meant.

silles

06-12-2003, 11:58 AM

The HIT/Hardgainer approach: Add weight consistently and regularly. Stagnation is a result of overtraining, and is remedied by reducing the frequency and/or volume of training.

Does anyone see the incredible downfall with this approach? How about the human body being an incredibly adaptive organism? Certainly a HIT/Hargainer cannot believe that the stagnation is only a consequence of overtraining, can they? What will you do, lower the volume until you are no longer working out? Silly.

Now, as for progressive overload, I'll let Chad Waterbury have his shot at the story of Milo:

"There are many factors involved in making progress; adding weight to the bar is just one of them. In short, progressive overloading is overrated.

I have great admiration for the book Supertraining by Siff and Verkhoshanksy. Not only is it one of the best books ever written on strength and conditioning, but it also does an excellent job disputing some common weightlifting myths. One of my favorite parts of the book deals with progressive overloading. Basically, progressive overload refers to a need to constantly increase load in order to develop greater strength levels.

Remember the legend of Milo? He was the fella who carried around a calf everyday. As the calf grew and got heavier, Milo got stronger with each passing day carrying that sucker around. That's progressive overloading. Sounds simple, huh? But check out this excerpt from the Supertraining book:

Closer examination of the Milo tale reveals an incomplete ending. Milo, being an enterprising strongman, obviously would have sought further increase by lifting progressively heavier bulls. If he had progressed very gradually, the implications are that he should have been lifting well over 500kg after a few years. Similarly, if you began your first bench press with 60kg at the age of 16, then increased the load by only one kilogram per week, you should be lifting 580kg at the age of 26 and 1100kg at the age of 36 years. [Note: That's 2420 pounds!] That this will not happen is obvious. In other words, progressive overloading produces diminishing, and ultimately zero, returns (1).

In other words, that Milo tale might very well be a bunch of bull! I'm not saying that progressive overloading is useless and I don't think Siff and Verkhoshansky were either. Instead, the concept isn't as clear-cut and simple as it seems. Merely adding more weight to your barbell every session isn't going to turn you into a strongman. It's just not that simple."

silles

06-12-2003, 12:04 PM

Oh, and for Chris--No, I wasn't attempting to tarnish any of your previous statements, I just know that you like the old strongmen, and would find that interesting, as it is pretty pertinent in this topic.

Neil

06-12-2003, 12:14 PM

Silles, you didn't address my post, you just took another shot at progressive overload.

silles

06-13-2003, 12:33 PM

And therein lies my problem with periodizers who critisize progressive overload, they are doing the same thing, only they are doing it in a different manner. Hit/hardgainer style training and periodizing(to my knowledge) both require progressively heavier weight to gain strength and size.

You see, that's not what periodization is all about. The body and nervous system is a tricky little bastard, it will adapt to everything given the proper time period, and if you learn to out-smart it, you can make big gains in little time, so as not to plateau. You see, as previously mentioned, progressive overload ultimately delivers diminishing, and eventually zero returns--if such were not the case, one could add 52 pounds a year on their bench just by adding a pound a week. Chris Mason's been training for what, 15 years or so? I don't think he's putting up anything close to 780 pounds (no offense intended). Now, the thing is, you can play a lot of trick on your nervous system--so long as you are willing to introduce variation into the program. Take, for instance, Charles Poliquin's five percent solution, performed twice a week per body part, which operates on the principle of repetition variation:

This is an example of someone who would like to increase a given lift in the 5-7 rep bracket:

Workout 1:
4-5 sets x 7 reps at 100 pounds

Workout 2:
Increase the weight from the last workout by 4-5 percent and do 1 rep less per set: 4-5 sets x 6 reps at 105 pounds

Workout 3:
Increase the weight from the last workout by 4-5 percent and do 1 rep less per set: 4-5 sets x 5 reps at 110 pounds

Workout 4:
Use the load you used in workout #2 for the workout #1 rep target. In this case, you're shooting for: 4-5 sets x 7 reps at 105 pounds

NOTE: If you achieve your goal, it means you're already 5% stronger!

Workout 5:
Use the load used in workout #3 for the workout #2 rep target: 4-5 sets x 6 reps at 110 pounds

Workout 6:
Increase the weight from the last workout by 4-5 percent and do 1 rep less per set: 4-5 sets x 5 reps at 115 pounds

By logical extension, if you did workout 7, you'd now be able to do 7 RM with 110 pounds! That's a 10% percent increase in strength over 6 workouts, and that's excellent!

Now, making similar gains using progressive overload, without regards to variation, would be difficult. Benching once per week, you would have to be able to make a 10% strength gain in three weeks, or only three training sessions, to match the gains that I, and countless others have had using the Five Percent Solution. It goes without saying, it is easier to gain strength on a given lift, if you are peforming that lift with frequency, and loading variation.

Continuing, if you limit yourself to the progressive overload approach, you also remove yourself from making unheard of gains in both strength AND hypertrophy. Take for instance the 1-6 Program by Dragomir Cioroslan, the bronze medalist in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games. This set/rep bracket is a favorite of Hungarian and Romanian lifters:

"The system is based on the neurological post-tetanic facilitation phenomenon as first discussed in strength training circles by German strength physiologist Dietmar Schmidtbleicher from Freiburg University (in order to be a successful strength coach, you must have an exotic-sounding name). In a nutshell, if you do a 6RM (the maximum load you can lift for 6 reps) load within 3-10 minutes of doing a max single, you can use a greater weight that you could have if you hadn't done the 1RM set.

For example, let's say you can normally do 220 pounds for six reps on the incline press. However, if you do a max single four minutes prior to doing your 6 reps—which we'll say for the sake of argument is around 265—you'll be able to do six reps at 225-230 pounds. That's a significant increase.

In fact, many trainees who use this method find that their single poundages improve each wave. In fact, a typical wave for someone who can do 6 reps with 220 pounds on the incline press may look like this:

Set 1) 1 rep with 265 pounds
Set 2) 6 reps with 220 pounds
Set 3) 1 rep with 270 pounds
Set 4) 6 reps with 225 pounds
Set 5) 1 rep with 272.5 pounds
Set 6) 6 reps with 230 pounds

This isn't just a parlor trick. The basic premise is to use maximal loads to potentiate the nervous system. Because of this newly increased, more efficient neural drive, you can use a greater load for six reps which ends up building bigger and stronger muscles.

Finnish strength physiologist Keijo Häkkinen has demonstrated in many of his experiments that long-term strength gains are directly related to how much you increase intensity. Therefore, expect to reach new heights in strength gains with this routine since it makes full use of that intensity increase principle.

This method could also be used by wrestlers or practitioners of some of the grappling sports like Jiu-Jitsu. These individuals are often interested in moving up a weight class while keeping their speed up. Well, this system will not only allow you to gain functional bodyweight, but your power should also go up since the system taps into the higher threshold motor units which are responsible for the production of explosive strength/power."

It would be impossible to try a similar program using once a week, restrictive, progressive overload training.

So you see, by limiting yourself to training once per week, changing only the poundage lifted per session, you subject yourself to the diminishing returns of progressive overload, whereas by periodizing, and integrating variation, you can see large leaps in strength, in relatively short bursts of time.

chris mason

06-13-2003, 02:35 PM

One point you seem to be missing Silles, periodization will not lead to ever increasing gains either. Periodization will lead to diminishing returns as well.

I again look to powerlifters and their use of periodization. If periodization was the be all end all, guys today would be blowing away lifters or yesteryear, and yet they are not. John Kuc hit a 905 squat 30 years ago with no power suit and knee wraps that are tissue paper compared to today's wraps. Heck, his belt was a joke. The best strength comparison test, the deadlift, as equipment plays the least role, has been virtually unchanged for years. Robert Peoples did a 725 deadlift at 170 lbs in bodyweight way back in the 30s! I will get specifics for you later, but you get the point. If today's advanced periodization techniques were all of that, today's lifters wouldn't be barely outpacing a guy from 70 years ago...

silles

06-13-2003, 04:08 PM

Au contraire Chris Mason, I don't think you recognize the true power of periodization techniques. As I stated previously, I believe there is a limit to human potential, although we will always be able to push a squat a little farther, and up the bench by a few pounds, and break deadlift records occasionally, there is a point where the human body will just not get significantly stronger. HOWEVER, periodization has opened the door for the not so genetically gifted, as Dave Tate has said many a times, Westside is turning poor powerlifters, into good powerlifters, and good powerlifters, into elite powerlifters--the key is not in so much how much more the benches, squats, and deadlifts are going up, but in the number of people who are increasing their benches, squats, and deadlifts to new heights. I'm sure you could always take it up with Louie Simmons or Dave Tate--from what I hear, despite the myths, they are actually quite approachable in regards to their training techniques, and if you call EliteFTS while they are not busy, they will spend time discussing their approach. Either way Chris, you cannot argue with their results, or the results of others.

silles

06-13-2003, 04:10 PM

One point you seem to be missing Silles, periodization will not lead to ever increasing gains either. Periodization will lead to diminishing returns as well.

My apologies if it seems like I dodged this one. You're right, eventually, you will reach your natural genetic limit. But I believe very few ever come close to it, for I think it is impossible to reach without constant variation in the training.

chris mason

06-13-2003, 05:17 PM

Without having an intimate knowledge of their techniques, I think the reason they are turning good lifters into elite ones etc. is that they train people how to work with the equipment that gets used these days. I can't think of how many times I have seen people say the chest isn't all that important in the bench press, and that the lats and triceps are what should be emphasized. Is this true with the average raw lifter? Of course not. When one uses a bench shirt the chest's involvement becomes de-emphasized due to the manner in which the shirt assists the lift. When wearing a shirt the triceps become very important as they must be able to lockout what the shirt has lifted from the chest (with a bit of help from the lifter). I think the westside training system is particularly of benefit to the equipment using lifter and just average (relative to other programs) for the raw trainee.

Now, I am not saying that periodization is a waste of time. What I am saying is that westside, while a good program, is no more the ultimate solution than HIT.

One more thing, the reason you have so many more high level powerlifters today is that more people participate in the sport and the equipment is so ridiculous as to have created a need to re-define what an impressive lift is/is not. It is not the superior training methods (in my opinion).

KingJustin

06-13-2003, 05:44 PM

Chris, can you take a look at the bench record from, say, 30 years back? I have no idea where you manage to find all this info ..

I'm curious as to how he stacks up to a guy now, who benched 700 for a triple in a t-shirt.

chris mason

06-13-2003, 05:50 PM

Well, the only guy I know of now is Mendelson whom I have a video of benching 701 raw. Now, interestingly enough, when he does the lift there is virtually no pause on the chest. The referee is calling "press" before Mendelson has actually touched his chest:confused: . I have not seen other recent videos, but this surprises me.

Now, Jim Williams did 675 in a meet circa 1972, presumably with a full pause on the chest. He did this with no bench shirt. Jim was reported to have done 700 in training. I do have some picture of Williams if anyone would like to see.

KingJustin

06-13-2003, 09:04 PM

Here's a couple quotes ...

At the APF Senior Nationals at Universal City, California, Scot Mendelson did 804, and then followed with 821.

Here's what he said after that:

806 is easy for me now, I'm getting 700 for 3 reps now in just a t-shirt. I actually had my sights set on an 850 that day in Columbus but I got a 4-second press call on lift number one and then NO call on my second lift. I also was given 3 attempts to bench at my last WPO meet and the rules changed this time. I hit 805 for a double in training shortly before the meet, it just wasnt my day.

silles

06-13-2003, 10:12 PM

You know Chris, you're missing out on a huge point, that is the downfall of multi-set training, and the advantage of a Westside protocol. To be honest, I don't see Westside being as effective for Powerlifters as it is for general athletes. The emphasis on explosion, I think, is secondary to the Powerlifter, but primary to the athlete--reason being there are plenty of Powerlifters who knew how to grind, but there's not a single athlete on the grass, the ice, or the floor, who can afford to be slow, and you just won't become explosive training HIT. Even worse, it's impossible for one set to knock off the entire line of muscle fibers, it just ain't going to happen, training to failure or not. Either way, I think it's fair to say that multi-set protocol rules. If you're trying to get explosive, leave HIT in the bag, there's no way one set of five power cleans, explosive box squats, ballistic bench, band good mornings or anything else is going to elicit a sufficient training response.

jiacstrap

06-13-2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by silles
You know Chris, you're missing out on a huge point, that is the downfall of multi-set training, and the advantage of a Westside protocol. To be honest, I don't see Westside being as effective for Powerlifters as it is for general athletes. The emphasis on explosion, I think, is secondary to the Powerlifter, but primary to the athlete--reason being there are plenty of Powerlifters who knew how to grind, but there's not a single athlete on the grass, the ice, or the floor, who can afford to be slow, and you just won't become explosive training HIT. Even worse, it's impossible for one set to knock off the entire line of muscle fibers, it just ain't going to happen, training to failure or not. Either way, I think it's fair to say that multi-set protocol rules. If you're trying to get explosive, leave HIT in the bag, there's no way one set of five power cleans, explosive box squats, ballistic bench, band good mornings or anything else is going to elicit a sufficient training response.

HIT hits CNS failure before muscular failure

PowerManDL

06-14-2003, 02:27 AM

Chris, you're emphasizing a lot of the issues I have with Westside, most of which are why I don't train with it.

That said, silles does have a point; I don't think that any specific training methodology is the end-all of lifting, Westside included.

And just as a final point: CNS "failure" is a myth. That doesn't happen. The actual process is excessive fatigue of high-threshold motor units and their fibers. There's also an inhibitory effect that can occur in the CNS, but it tends to be movement-specific.

Also, I'm drunk.

chris mason

06-14-2003, 08:58 AM

I'm sorry Silles, but I just don't buy in that training westside will make an athlete more explosive on the field. Even if I were to accept that westside will make one more explosive, unless the athlete was performing deadlifts or zerchers on the field, he isn't going to be more explosive at the movements specific to his sport.

As to the thing about Mendelson, I was referring to what he had done in a meet, not in the gym. He just might get 700 for 3 without a shirt, or a pause, but how much more is that than 700 without a shirt for a single (with a full pause). Certainly not much of a change over a 30 year period in my opinion.

KingJustin

06-14-2003, 10:01 AM

Well, the upsetting part is that he isn't going to compete in a meet without a shirt. He may hit 850, 900, who knows, but with the shirt on you don't seem to respect that as a big difference over the greats of 30 years ago.

And Chris, you are honestly saying that dynamic effort lifting/olympic lifting isn't going to make one more explosive on the field? How about doing something like discus/shotput? Also, why, then, would an athlete care to weight train?

Also, my argument against Mentzer's HIT is that it's just not enough frequency given the volume. I don't care if it's strength or size you're going for in HIT, but you gain a lot faster in either or both using different training methods. I gurantee that if an average person used DC's training routine he would gan at atleast 150% of the rate that an HIT trainee would gain at (in both strength and size). Don't get me wrong, you may gain a rep or 2 1/2 lbs a week for awhile on HIT, but that's nothing compared to what you could gain on better training methods.

chris mason

06-14-2003, 10:50 AM

You have misunderstood me, let me clarify. Any type of exercise is very specific. Doing powercleans, other than the general increase in power in the involved muscles will not make you better at dunking a basketball or blocking a defensive lineman. Any form of exercise which increases the contractile strength of the involved muscles will translate equally well to the field of play.

I do think plyometrics will increase your jumping ability, but that is a direct correlation of movements.

So, yes, I think all athletes should train with weights to increase their general strength. Shot putters should get their chest and shoulders as strong as possible and then work on the put in order to maximze their skill at the movement. Maximum strength and skill = maximum throw.

Now, as to your guarantee, I would be more than happy to take you up on that. If we can find a set of identical twins who are untrained (the best particpants possible for the study, yet not perfect), I am willing to bet a lot of money I could train one of them with HIT and have them stronger than your westside person. One more time, we must also clarify what we call HIT. You say HIT training is too infrequent, yet HIT mandates training 3 times per week (per Arthur Jones). How much frequency do you need?

PowerManDL

06-14-2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by chris mason
You have misunderstood me, let me clarify. Any type of exercise is very specific. Doing powercleans, other than the general increase in power in the involved muscles will not make you better at dunking a basketball or blocking a defensive lineman. Any form of exercise which increases the contractile strength of the involved muscles will translate equally well to the field of play.

I do think plyometrics will increase your jumping ability, but that is a direct correlation of movements.

So, yes, I think all athletes should train with weights to increase their general strength. Shot putters should get their chest and shoulders as strong as possible and then work on the put in order to maximze their skill at the movement. Maximum strength and skill = maximum throw.

Yah, strength in and of itself doesn't correlate to skill. But there is something to say for the other qualities that Oly lifts and the so-called "dynamic" exercises provide, namely power, rate of force development, explosive strength, and reactive ability. These characteristics are developed independently of maximal strength, and to varying degrees will also carry over to other movements.

So that is to say, an athlete that has learned to "explode" in a power clean will find it a lot easier to translate that explosiveness to another movement, even though the exact motor pattern isn't the same.

chris mason

06-14-2003, 12:22 PM

You know, I would have to see proof of that one myself. I just don't buy into it.

PowerManDL

06-14-2003, 12:26 PM

Well, just anecdotally speaking, I notice a marked improvement in my ability to generate force quickly during periods where I use speed work and/or Olympic moves.

Though I don't have anything tangible to demonstrate to back that up.

KingJustin

06-14-2003, 08:11 PM

So, yes, I think all athletes should train with weights to increase their general strength. Shot putters should get their chest and shoulders as strong as possible and then work on the put in order to maximze their skill at the movement. Maximum strength and skill = maximum throw.

Shotput and discus is all about leg power/technique. Chest/Shoulders aren't really a big factor at all.

You have misunderstood me, let me clarify. Any type of exercise is very specific. Doing powercleans, other than the general increase in power in the involved muscles will not make you better at dunking a basketball or blocking a defensive lineman. Any form of exercise which increases the contractile strength of the involved muscles will translate equally well to the field of play.

I disagree. Studies have shown that mastering the technique and repetitively performing the technique at maximum effort (plyometrics are essentially doing this because, as you said, it's copying the movement) when paired with both ME and DE exercises will be by far the most effective -- and to me it makes sense. This is shown below:

Effect of Squats and Plyometric on Vertical Jump
Exercise Mode Vertical Jump Increase
Squats 3.30 cm
Plyometrics 3.81 cm
Squats & Plyometrics 10.67 cm

Adams, K., O'Shea, J.P., O'Shea, K.L., Climstein, M. (1992). The effect of six weeks of squat, plyometric and squat-plyometric training on power production. Journal of Applied Sports Science Research. 6(1): 36-41.

Source: http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/PowerTidbits.html

As far as personal experience, I can promise you that I can hit a hell of a lot harder in LaCrosse since I've been weight lifting, especially thanks to power cleans. I can run the 40 much faster and I went from barely being able to touch the rim to being able to easily dunk a basketball thanks to weight training and sprints/jumping.

All that said, you sort of seemed to hint on the same thing I said with the shotput thing.

Now, as to your guarantee, I would be more than happy to take you up on that. If we can find a set of identical twins who are untrained (the best particpants possible for the study, yet not perfect)

I really need to take more time in thinking out my posts and make sure I'm very specific :)
The two identical twins should be trained for at least a year with a decent program, should have average recovery ability and should have very close to equal lifts.

I am willing to bet a lot of money I could train one of them with HIT and have them stronger than your westside person.

Let's be clear here, as well...Stronger in the 3 PL lifts, or overall stronger (ie be able to perform well in 8 major lifts)? If it's the latter, I would like to use a training method that I'm going to use for myself that uses the same principles as westside.

One more time, we must also clarify what we call HIT. You say HIT training is too infrequent, yet HIT mandates training 3 times per week (per Arthur Jones). How much frequency do you need?

Yeah, again I had meant Mentzer's, but if you would give me a sample program of Arthur Jones' then I may still take you up on it.

silles

06-15-2003, 01:10 AM

One guy I'm really into right now is Charles Poliquin, for the simple reason that he has done his own studies in his own lab and facility in regards to what he calls "carryover exercises," or exercises that will determine your strength in given sports. He doesn't believe you can train "sport specific" that is if you want to hit the ball further in golf you ought to hook up rubber tubing resistance and swing it like a club. He does, however, mean that certain exercises will, for one reason or another, be directly correlated to your strength of skill in the particular movement. Here's some info....

In regards to Vertical Jump-

"Look at any Olympic lifter. They almost always have better vertical jumps than their athletic peers from all other sports do. There is simply a direct correlation between maximal strength levels of the hip and knee extensors and vertical jump height. A classic example of this occurred a few years ago at the National Strength and Conditioning Association convention. Vertec was there and they were giving away a vertical-jump-measuring device to the strength coach who had the highest vertical leap. For the first few days, I was in the lead. After all, my vertical leap had hit 36". I lost. The late Dave Passanella, World Powerlifting Champion who had power squatted over a 1,000 pounds, beat me."

In regards to producing a powerful golf swing-

"Q. I am a golfer who currently uses the Olympic lifts as part of my conditioning program for all around improved performance. I was just wanting your opinion on if I should concentrate in this area of conditioning or if I would be better targeting specific areas such as rotator cuff and lats. I know you put a big emphasis on the importance of lat strength for hitting power in other sports so I really need to know if I should go one way or the other or keep to my present happy medium.

Any help would be brilliant.

Thanks

A. The Olympic lifts even though are excellent for improving short distance sprinting power and jumping power do not transfer much to golf driving power. Strong lats coupled with a well integrated shoulder improve driving power."

In regards to baseball hitting-

"Rotational strength is rather insignificant for bat speed. It is correlated to hip and knee extensor, lat and triceps strength. Training with cords for bat speed disrupts the precise timing required in superior batting speed. I know of no single top batter that uses them, but there is plenty of great batters who can toss impressive iron in the gym. Look at how the physique transformations of McGuire, Sosa, and Bonds has done for their batting performances."

In regards to speed skating-

"Vertical jumping ability is highly correlated with skating speed for short distances. In fact, scientific has shown that vertical jump scores can predict speed-skating times in 500 meter long-track. whether your son's strength coach is qualified or not, I don't have enough clues to assess that. He could have used that test just because he used to be a strength coach for a volleyball team."

In regards to the slap shot-

"No, rotational strength is not correlated at all with a hard splat shot. You could do Russian twist with the Grand Hotel freezer and it would not predict at all your slap shot power. It is also important to know that studies showed that trunk rotators have a very low potential for strength improvement when compared to other muscles. However, increases in rotational range is correlated with power increases in the slap shot, but not initial range in trunk rotation.

I have trained enough hockey players in the last 6 years to be able to draw parametric statistics establishing correlation of certain skills with strength levels. Velocity of the slap shot is correlated to latissimus dorsi relative strength as measured with weighted chin-ups in relation to bodyweight, relative strength scores on the bench press, and grip strength. Al MacInnis certainly has one the highest lat and grip strength levels of the NHL.

A hard wrist shot is also correlated with grip strength measures. Colorado Avalanche Joe Sakic is well feared amongst opposing goalies for having a very solid "wrister". His grip strength is score at 90% of the top U.S. heavyweight weightlifter. Goalie John Grahame for the Tampa Bay Lightning has quite the kung fu grip on him, he could easily rival with top U.S. ranked strongman competitors.

Using the flavor of the month Circus exercises won't do much for shooting power. If you want to improve the power of your shots, train for maximal relative strength."

Now, I trust Charles Poliquin. The results of his athletes speak for themselves. And trust me, there are plenty of his athletes who are not "on."