1. Have you installed the new JSF Mobile app? Check out all the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. One account & one avatar for all of JSF. Unified login and profile. Forum alerts on the main site, and more. Check out the details here: Forum & main site unified account feature is live!
    Dismiss Notice

How can it work?

Discussion in 'Weight Training/Bulking' started by doordude42, Jul 15, 2005.

  1. 1FastGTX

    1FastGTX Elite Member
    Lifetime Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    9,201
    Likes Received:
    2
    Nobody's arguing, I don't think anyway. Maybe I'm too optimistic? I just have not been offended, at least not yet. :) Fun and interesting discussion really, even if I don't agree with some statements.
     
  2. 1FastGTX

    1FastGTX Elite Member
    Lifetime Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    9,201
    Likes Received:
    2
    Perhaps, but maybe this thread is just getting off track. Maybe a better thread title would have been "How can it be done (I'm talking about 'Dardin-HIT,' or 'Full-Body-HIT')?"

    Since that's what I think was in question.

    (Sort of. I'm no Darden expert but I thought he pushed full body and not split-systems. Jones often argued strongly against splits; I know I know Jones and Darden are much different...)

    :)
     
  3. 1FastGTX

    1FastGTX Elite Member
    Lifetime Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    9,201
    Likes Received:
    2
    Not necessarily Glenn. Before I get into this I must stress that I too push overload and a high intensity style of training, though it's not 1 set to failure and it's not labeled "HIT" by any means. Anyway, even though I believe in such principles I find it very hard to claim that high intensity is the only way to grow stronger or bigger. There is just too much evidence to the contrary. Not to mention when drugs get put into the mix, just about anything is going to provide SOME growth. :) (Yeah I know, "who didn't know that!")

    In my early years of training, a long time ago, I had very little knowledge about this and I just basically looked at what Arnold was telling me to do in his Encyclopedia. So I worked each muscle 2 times per week and was running through tons of volume, supersets, tri-sets, drop-sets, squeezes, etc. In that time I did grow, but not at the rate I probably would have if I knew more about things. So, my point is that I DID grow stronger and bigger, but probably not AS strong and big as I could have.

    I don't know. I do believe that overload is key for the most part. And I'm absolutely with you on drop sets, they seem to be more of a fatiguing exercise rather than an overloading one. It's just a confusing situation when some people use them and see results. It's hard to argue with results, although some might say that had these people utilized a different approach (2-3 straight sets to failure, for example) then they might have seen BETTER results.... Maybe!
     
  4. 1FastGTX

    1FastGTX Elite Member
    Lifetime Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    9,201
    Likes Received:
    2
    Something else I thought of...

    Glenn you and I seem to have similar beliefs on overload, even though we might disagree on the most optimal way to achieve it (you seem to like less volume than I do, although I am NOT a high volume guy by any means; more like 4-5 working sets for large bodyparts, 3-4 for small ones).

    I have personally gone through a good few years with such techniques and seen some explosive and rediculous growth in this time. Utilizing a low-volume, heavy-weight style, getting in and out of the gym quickly, eating my butt off. :)

    However is there a point at which the same techniques become less effective? I believe that constantly trying to increase poundages and perhaps exercise selection will be beneficial. I write in my journal and try to increase weight or reps each week if I can.

    However, my biceps suck. My PT is an overload style trainer. Low volume, etc. He actually personally knew Ray Mentzer and has done a lot of work in this industry. He's the guy who helped me remove the volume mindset from my head and learn more about training with intensity. But when I told him of this problem with my biceps, he said we should try another approach. And believe it or not, it's MUCH different than I'm used to. We're currently trying out a program that has me hitting my arms 2 times per week, and I'm doing 8 sets per workout for biceps. Not only that, but I'm supersetting biceps and triceps on the first 2 exercises, and doing hammer curls on the last. It's TOTALLY OPPOSITE from what I usually do! However....I'm actually seeing growth in my biceps, and (strangely enough) I'm seeing some weird and new vascularity running through the inside of my bicep muscles.

    "Change for the sake of change" seems kind of stupid to me. But when I hit a roadblock here it seems as if deviating from the overloading, high intensity, low volume style has done me some good.

    Sorry for the long post but I thought this was an interesting point nobody has brought up yet.
     
  5. RTE

    RTE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    4
    Darden does and Jones does believe in full body. Why? because they think of body as a system not individual parts. You feed and nourish the whole body, not parts. When you sleep, you rest the whole body not parts. The system idea is the prime backing for full body.

    But lets take it further, when you do a Darden/AJ fullbody. They hold you down to about 12 exercises or sets a workout. They say don't do more than 2 sets for body part. They suggest you use 80-85% of your 1 rep max in each exercise ( most calculators say you probably can do only 8 reps with this weight) . And try to keep it in a range of 8-12 reps per set.

    Now they are holding the sets down while wanting you to use a heavy weight, which they expect you will fail in the positive portion of the exercise in the rep range which studies have found are good for size and strength.

    How else do they intensify the exercise? by slowing the action down to a slow controlled motion for safety and to make it harder. You will look long and hard to find anyone recommending fast jerky moves outside of competitive lifting but so many do them that way.

    Now they think positive failure is enough but they taught mentzer and others that you can on rare occasions for specialization bring on failure in the static and negative part of exercise also. You can use cheating reps, forced reps, breakdown sets, 1 1/4 reps, stage reps, pre-exhausion sets, negative reps, Super-slow reps, and extremely slow reps. But they have never recommended that you do these all the time.

    HIT has more concern for proper form and a fear of overtraining than nearly any exercise theory. It is built in to its design going back to the 70s. While they think 3 workouts is good to start with they think the more advanced trainees can reduce their workouts to 2 a week and Darden has introduced the idea of no failure workouts every so often.

    There is alot of flexibility to the HIT theories, people have moved out to do splits like Glenn and mentzer. But I usually recommend Darden's brand, you have his New HIT book, you know he covers and illustrates over 27 exercises and I have counted over 29 routines in his $14.00 255 page book. He has written 42 books with the vast majority on HIT. So there is some good reference material. Being one of those PHD types he talks theory as well as common sense.

    Now if you want to puke I suppose you could push it like Viator and stay under the HIT umbrella but I can recommend Darden's HIT to my grandchildren, children, and wife, as well as others here. I know if they follow the plan they will get a good workout and results with less injuries and even an old guy like me can do it.

    I have mentioned this before, I have always done full body and I have always kept my rest periods to 30-60 sec. Very little cardio. I have never been injured lifting in over 50 years, I have never warmed up or stretched before a workout. Lucky? Maybe, who knows. HIT fits me.
     
    #65 RTE, Jul 17, 2005
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2005
  6. jsbrook

    jsbrook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that this has been a good thread. And not an argument I think-everyone's just expressed their own opinions and experiences. Although I believe their are better methods, I would never tell anyone that they can't get good results with HIT-it wouldn't be true. The only statement that has bothered me was Glenn's. Because it's simply not true that you won't get bigger and stronger if you don't train with HIT. There are too many of us who have. I suspect the confusion may be coming from from his wording. Perhaps he is just saying lifting with intensity is necessary to get bigger and stronger and wasn't refering to more speicific parameters more commonly thought of as HIT. I would tend to agree with that.
     
  7. glenn_001

    glenn_001 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    No i was just trying to point out that everyone who's gaining has to be using some kind of intensity regardless of the program.
     
  8. jsbrook

    jsbrook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cool-thanks for clearing it up. I agree with you.
     
  9. glenn_001

    glenn_001 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was'nt argueing, just trying to help you understand HIT fullbody routines.
    Its not easy to get your head around as most trainers have multiple set mentality.
    I couldn't even imagine doing 3 sets of fullbody in 1 session, i had trouble with 1. :tu:
     
  10. glenn_001

    glenn_001 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Forget about labels, intensity is the key whatever the program.
    When i started training i used massive volume, doing 3 sets of 50 reps on the pecdeck of my home gym, 3 sets of ezybarcurls 20 reps everyday, i grew like a weed! after about 3 mths progress slowed so i hung some extra weight off it and trained every second day, grew some more, but all coame to an end after about 6 mths, home gym and volume just doesnt cut it for long, muscles just don't respond to something they can easily do.
    You should know, you have to force your muscles to grow, just throwing weights around only works for beginners, even those with great genetics have to put in the effort. ;)
     
  11. glenn_001

    glenn_001 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find HIT works really well for me (mentzer style without the extra days off though)
    I would never say that its the only way to train,(although defending it i can seem like i am) i know thats far from the truth.
    But i will defend it from criticism from those who dont understand it.
    So far ive seen no program thats got my curiosity enough to want to change, apart from trying fullbody for a month but im back on a split now.
     
  12. glenn_001

    glenn_001 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    I try to do the amount of volume my body can handle wthout overdoing it.
    If i feel i can do a second set, i do it.
    Usually if i hit around 8 - 10 reps i wont go to failure, i put more weight on and fail on the 4th or 5th rep on the second set.
    My TUL would be about the same as doing 2 faster sets thats why a third is not really possible, sometimes a second is not.
    Ive found my biceps respond better to higher volume than other muscle groups (must have more slow twitch fibres) so they get hit twice per week. :bb:
     
  13. doordude42

    doordude42 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    10,230
    Likes Received:
    0
    And you do 3 sets of this????
    You need an intensity lesson. :spaz:[/QUOTE]

    O.K since we're not arguing and being civil I thought i'd comment on this. I normally do around 9 sets (3X3 per) per bodypart. When I train with a spotter I go to failure on each set. The only difference is I give myself 60-90 sec. between sets. I don't think intensity can be questioned here.
     
  14. glenn_001

    glenn_001 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    O.K since we're not arguing and being civil I thought i'd comment on this. I normally do around 9 sets (3X3 per) per bodypart. When I train with a spotter I go to failure on each set. The only difference is I give myself 60-90 sec. between sets. I don't think intensity can be questioned here.[/QUOTE]

    Really?
    I usually need about 2 - 3 mins before attempting my second set, or as long as it takes my partner to finish his set, its usually about then my breathing and heart rate has come back down a bit.
    If i get around the 8th rep ok ill pull the set up short of failure and go for failure on the second set with extra weight.
    Once ive hit failure the chances of me hitting the same reps on another set is pretty slim and would only happen on the first exercise of the day where my energy levels are high.
    A third set is out of the question, thats what i mean by intensity.
    I could use less weight and a faster cadence and push out 5 sets if i wanted, but i dont see the point if you can get the job done with 1 or 2 sets.
     
  15. doordude42

    doordude42 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    10,230
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't equate intensity to the # of reps performed. On "heavy days" I believe each and every set should be done to failure. If I can get only 4 reps on my third set, so be it. That muscle is still getting maximum work.As far as form and cadenence is concerned, I never deviate from my preferred 3up, 3down count. Hey, this is my thing. It works for me.
     
  16. 1FastGTX

    1FastGTX Elite Member
    Lifetime Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    9,201
    Likes Received:
    2
    To each his own for sure. And again I say this is a fun and interesting discussion.

    But you can EITHER work out hard, or you can work out long, you can't do both. (Unless your Ronnie Coleman, lol.)

    By the very nature of high intensity you cannot do a lot of volume.

    High intensity, in this sense, means doing something that is very hard, so hard that you can only do it a few times. If you're able to do it over and over and over then it wasn't really all that hard. That's the whole point -- with the intensity level so high you are not ABLE to do more. You'd be dead, you'd fail at attempting 1 set, or maybe you'd overtrain. I don't know. (I'm hitting an interesting question here...wonder if one using anabolics could reap benefits from both volume and intensity principles...Oh Ronnie Coleman nevermind!)

    Doordude I'm not trying to say your sessions are not intense, if you say they are I have no reason to question you. But I'd bet that they are not as intense as the type of set Glenn is describing in his workouts.

    Not to say his workouts are better than yours either. You could be growing much better than he is! I'm just trying to help you understand the difference between your idea of "intensity" and his (and mine). You say "I don't think intensity can be questioned here" when describing your routine. Perhaps it cannot by your definition of "intensity," but I think it is a little bit different than Glenn's definition.

    Glenn may be better at bodybuilding than I am. He may be able to find in his mind and body the ability to get to that level of intensity where he only needs a couple sets. I admit that I cannot, so I believe it would benefit me to do more volume. That's why I am doing 3, 4, or 5 sets (again, depends on the muscle being worked). So maybe I'm in the middle of the two of you. :)

    Doordude you're not a volume guy anyway really. Most high-volume routines consist of way more sets than that, so I'd say you're intensity isn't exactly "low" either. :tucool:
     
  17. doordude42

    doordude42 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    10,230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doordude you're not a volume guy anyway really. Most high-volume routines consist of way more sets than that, so I'd say you're intensity isn't exactly "low" either. :tucool:[/QUOTE]

    You're right GTX, I don't consider myself a volume guy. I do however consider my workouts intense enough for me to get the results i'm looking for. The term "intense" is relative anyway. What's intense for me may be a "walk in the park" for the next guy or vice - versa. All I know for sure is that my technique and routine yields results for me. This cannot be debated.
     
  18. doordude42

    doordude42 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    10,230
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. Timbermiko

    Timbermiko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    2
    Time in the gym yeah, but be careful...with the exception of maybe Jones all of the above were probably on drugs.
     
  20. jsbrook

    jsbrook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since you're here and you have had good results, I'd love to hear about them. Have you kept track of size and strength increases at all during a particular length of time of doing your style of HIT?
     

Share This Page