Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: High-repetition leg training and HIT

  1. #1
    Wannabebig Member medevac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    41

    High-repetition leg training and HIT

    On another thread we were discussing the HIT (Mentzer) program and his advice to use higher repetitions when training legs. I have searched all of his books and cannot find any other evidence of him mentioning this (only on a video I saw). He also never quantified the term "higher number"- such as 15, 20, or 2000. In the video the subject did around 16-17, with the weight adjusted for failure at that point, but with obviously a longer TUL.

    This made me wonder so I did some searching here and through my books and I came up empty handed. The only thing that I can think of that would dictate a higher TUL would be muscle fiber type, other than that - why not high reps for pecs or biceps and every other muscle...why only legs?

    I'm not so interest in "what works for you" or routines you may know of (20 rep squats). What I was wondering was if any one has come across any physiological reason for such a statement. Mentzer was (unusually) silent on it from what I have read so far.

    Any insight into Mentzer/ Jones or physiology on this topic would be very appreciated.

    Thanks,
    David

  2. #2
    As I Am Paul Stagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Baltimore, MD, USA
    Posts
    8,668
    Menzer didn't back much of anything with physiology.

    To be honest, I don't know there IS any phyiological reason for suggesting high rep squats, other than they are an excellent tool to see how hard you can push yourself.

    McCallum used them that way. His 20 rep squat suggestion was not because 20 is some magical number, but because most trainees had no idea how hard they could work... forcing 20 reps with what you would normally do for 10 taught the trainee what hard work felt like, and that they could indeed push harder than they thought.

    More than likely, another factor was perceived safety of using the smaller load for more reps, vs bigger loads for less reps.
    Squats work better than supplements.
    "You know, if I thought like that, I'd never put more than one plate on the bar for anything, I'd never use bands or chains, I'd never squat to parallel or below, and I'd never let out the slightest grunt when I lift. At some point in your lifting career (assuming you're planning on getting reasonably strong and big), you're going to have to accept that most people think you are some kind of freak." -Sensei
    "You're wrong, and I have a completely irrelevant pubmed abstract that may or may not say so." - Belial
    I has a blog.
    I has a facebook.

  3. #3
    fat and small Blood&Iron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    On the Night Train
    Posts
    3,336
    Usually, the answer given by HIT folks, e.g., Jones, Bryzcki, etc, is, is nothing more than 'the legs are the biggest muscles in the body', and hence have more muscle glycogen. Hence, they require a longer TUL to deplete energy stores. They also argue that the legs are more endurance-oriented due to the demands of running, etc (meaning proportionately more type I fibers (which isn't really the case except for the soleus--and, in fact, it's the opposite for the hamstring)

    Usually, they don't bother with any of this stuff, though, as HIT generally ignores physiological fact in favor of dogma. Like Paul said, I think the reason they like the high-rep leg stuff is that it's about the toughest thing you can do in the gym, though not necessarily the most productive. HITters tend to care more about vomiting/passing out/proving their 'toughness' than the actual results, IMO.
    Last edited by Blood&Iron; 03-12-2003 at 11:10 AM.

    We tend to think of Sisyphus as a tragic hero, condemned by the gods to shoulder his rock sweatily up the mountain, and again up the mountain, forever. The truth is that Sisyphus is in love with the rock. He cherishes every roughness and every ounce of it. He talks to it, sings to it. It has become the mysterious Other. He even dreams of it as he sleepwalks upward. Life is unimaginable without it, looming always above him like a huge gray moon. He doesn’t realize that at any moment he is permitted to step aside, let the rock hurtle to the bottom, and go home.

    Parables and Portraits, Stephen Mitchell

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    173
    if this is the case should i continue doing 20 rep squat and 20 rep leg press via wanna be big 2 routine.. im seeing good results... and strength in legs is going up a lot but if i could see better with say 10 reps then id give it a shot...

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gavan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    586
    High build size and it's why Arthur Jones said that if you want fastest possible size gains you should use a rep range of 6-20 reps (IN PERFECT FORM, 2 sec up, 4 sec down).

    Empirical facts show that high reps are better for legs growth. Arthur Jones noticed that and it's why he advocates high reps (12-20 for legs). If something works it works regardless of what can say the "experts".

    Casey Viator did a giant set : Leg Press 20 reps Leg Extension 15 reps Full Squat 20 reps. That's 60 reps (nearly) without rest.

    20s Squat made a lot of people grow and it will ever build size faster than sets of 1-2 reps and probably even faster than sets of 6-12 for a majority of people.

    I would like to see a TEXT of Arthur Jones arguing about glycogen... and high reps...
    Last edited by Gavan; 03-12-2003 at 12:08 PM.
    Gain Muscles ? Overload !
    Lose Fat ? Input < Output
    Genetic determines your potential
    Chins : 10x106kg Dips 10x109kg

  6. #6
    fat and small Blood&Iron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    On the Night Train
    Posts
    3,336
    Originally posted by Gavan
    High build size and it's why Arthur Jones said that if you want fastest possible size gains you should use a rep range of 6-20 reps (IN PERFECT FORM, 2 sec up, 4 sec down).
    Actually, there is good reason to use a faster negative than this. Slower cadences (anything more than 2-3s) end up causing less microtrauma, and begin to resemble an isometric contraction in effect.


    Empirical facts show that high reps are better for legs growth. Arthur Jones noticed that and it's why he advocates high reps. If something works it works regardless of what can say the "experts".


    The 'experts' don't matter; science does. Jones, while good at logical deduction, never paid very careful attention to actual science. He did make a great many contributions to the field, which should be noted.


    20s Squat made a lot of people grow and it will ever build size faster than sets of 1-2 reps and probably even faster than sets of 6-12 for a majority of people.
    I think they'd work better than singles. But I in my own observations and experience, as well as know physiological fact, 6-12 rep sets will be more effective. At 20 reps (unless you're talking about something like breathing squats which is still sort of a 10-rep max) the tension is simply not going to be as high as is optimal for hypertrophy.


    I would like to see a TEXT of Arthur Jones arguing about glycogen... and high reps...
    You'll have to find it yourself. I could be mistaken. I doubt he even makes that much effort to explain himself. For him, once he decreed something it somehow magically became 'fact' (e.g., one must reach failure to stimulate muscle growth) irrespective of whether it had any basis in reality.

    We tend to think of Sisyphus as a tragic hero, condemned by the gods to shoulder his rock sweatily up the mountain, and again up the mountain, forever. The truth is that Sisyphus is in love with the rock. He cherishes every roughness and every ounce of it. He talks to it, sings to it. It has become the mysterious Other. He even dreams of it as he sleepwalks upward. Life is unimaginable without it, looming always above him like a huge gray moon. He doesn’t realize that at any moment he is permitted to step aside, let the rock hurtle to the bottom, and go home.

    Parables and Portraits, Stephen Mitchell

  7. #7
    Senior Member Gavan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    586
    Yes when you speak about THE 20s Squat, it's the breathing Squat.

    About cadence, yes Arthur said something like 3-4 secondes, but he never realy instisted on the numbers because each exercise has a different ROM. 4 sec on the negative part of a Squat or a Full Squat is not the same thing. The key word is "controlled" movements.

    "The 'experts' don't matter; science does."

    Who tells what's the science ???! The "experts". "Experts" can make the science says everything they want. For example you can find some studies demonstrating that burns/acid lactic build up blababla make you grow and that one should train to "burn".

    "Science", at least scientific studies say that one set = X sets for both size and strength but some scientists experts say that the more you do the better as long as you can handle it.

    Scientist A don't agree with Scientist B and both have their own science. So what's THE real science... the truth ?

    I would like to know where you read that Arthur Jones said growth = failure, maybe it was Mike Mentzer. To my knowledge (bulletin 1-2 and Iron Game articles) Arthur never said something like that but Mentzer did even if in his latest book he said failure is not necessary, only if you want maximum results.

    Arthur said that Intensity of effort is the stimulus and that if you want the MAXIMUM possible results you should train with High Intensity !! Because we don't know how much intensity is optimal and how to measure intensity of effort we should train with 0% or 100%... so we don't have the choice, let's go for 100%

    Years later in his latest book he said that for muscles who have a predominance of slow fibers one should avoid failure, stay short to failure.
    Gain Muscles ? Overload !
    Lose Fat ? Input < Output
    Genetic determines your potential
    Chins : 10x106kg Dips 10x109kg

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •