And you quote Periodization, Eccentric Overload, Bloodflow Restriction Training (aka Occlusion training). All of them have been practiced since 1960s, at least, with Arthur Jones pioneering research on eccentric/negative training, including in the West Point study.
Go train like your Mike Israetel wants you with to train which is nothing new as well: Arnold and his gang trained the same way, although they mostly trained each body part twice a week.
It’s cute that you didn’t accept my challenge to short-list training ideas of AJ. I can help you listing just one, but which is of utmost importance: “Rather than trying to determine just how much exercise you can tolerate, you should be trying to find out just how little exercise you actually need. And, if you are trying to increase muscular size and/or strength, then you actually need very little exercise; providing only that your exercise is proper, is properly chosen and properly conducted; which, in practice, is damned rare”.
I will stop here, because everything is clear to me now.
I am convinced you did not read my whole response.
I don’t train like Mike Israetel suggests (which I already said), but I listen to his explanation of many aspects regarding trainng. I am currently running Fortitude, which is a derivative of DC, which is a derivative of HIT.
I have done excessive volume for most of my training time, and am working to unlearn some of those bad habits - but it is wrong to say everything in th HVT camp is garbage; the same could be said for HIT. The truth of “which method works best” entirely revolves around the individual… with a little science to back it up.
What I don’t understand is how you’re willing to go out and separate yourself from the dogmatic HIT crowd, but caste me into some other dogma-ridden category without understanding what my ‘category’ even is.
To think that no one has made significant improvements to the science that is bodybuilding since the passing of AJ is the utmost pinnacle of the HIT subforum. If there haven’t been any meaningful contributions to bodybuilding since 2007, I have to wonder how pro bodybuilders are still getting bigger…
Now that is truly the common ground in between HIT and HVT - and I really appreciate it. Being a HIT responder I do not always tolerate too much volume, but the best with FT is you make your own selection. And - truly backed by science. Hell, even coach Thibaudeau (who seems to be a very balanced person) has positive thoughts about it.
I alternate HIT by Darden with Brian Johnston’s ideas and FT - currently into FT, again. It’s just great!
@borisv: Go have a look at Fortitude Training. My guess is you may find it interesting, as @Andrewgen_Receptors appearantly does. You guys are not that far from each other…
This is what I was trying to get at, but I don’t think the other party was listening
I’ve found the best progress by taking the best of both worlds between HVT and HIT. I like Rest-Pause progression, but I like training with more volume. Together, they have worked out pretty well!
When I see people taking sides at to which training method is the best, I am reminded that there are very few stimuli that the human body doesn’t down regulate. The very best training method will eventually become relatively ineffective.
IMO, the most successful bodybuilders can sense the inevitable plateau, and adjust their training method for what could be a completely different stimulus to get past the plateau.
What i get a kick out of, people will criticize Jones and his claims, i.e. colorado experiment and/or the west point study…where in each case has before and after photos have been provided along with detailed exercises performed on which machine, including the poundage and reps performed and i believe the time it took to do the workout and on the date of each workout
but, those same individuals never call out the claims that Weider used to make in each magazine about gaining muscle i.e, 60 inch chest, 24" arms, tree trunk quads…or burning fat, or all the claims of supplements he was trying to sell…no detailed study of any of his claims
or how about, has anyone duplicated arnolds physique by training 6 days a weeks, each bodypart 2 or 3 times a week…performing almost 30 sets for each bodypart…where is arnolds detailed regiment documented?
and they call HIT dogmatic…i would say its the other way around
If you want to limit yourself to an extremely narrow definition, specifically how the body responds to different kinds of training stimulus, then I’d agree that there have been no breakthroughs. The human body hasn’t evolved since Jones died, and it still exhibits a limited set of adaptations to a fairly broad range of stimulus. Everything works to a certain extent, people respond differently depending on genetics, and it is very difficult to prove the superiority of any particular training idea. You still have budding academics and graduate students building resumes with pretty routine studied that typically don’t provide a lot of insight.
But there has been a lot of progress in understanding the biochemical underpinnings of how muscles respond to training. The whole area of myokine signaling has developed considerably since Jones died (and maybe was unknown entirely during his lifetime). Likewise there seems to a be a lot of new, fundamental information on things like how fatigue develops mechanistically, how muscle tissue responds to eccentric loading, how satellite cells and muscle nuclei work to build new muscle. As that fundamental understanding grows, some of the ideas that Jones had about how muscles work are starting to look pretty dated.
I’d say that modern exercise physiologists have much better and more accurate ways to describe what is happening at a fundamental level when people exercise. But that hasn’t allowed anyone to fundamentally alter what those responses are, because they are hardwired by genetics and evolution. Unless, of course, you open the door for PED’s, because they do allow some alteration of how muscles respond.
I disagree, we must be able to divide people and things into neat categories so that we can know whether we like them or not without having to think. How are we going to do that without dogma?
Either Arthur Jones was the muscle-building messiah or a total fraud and charlatan, there can be no middle ground. Either the Colarado experiment was the pinacle of bodybuilding, or a total sham cooked up with smoke, mirrors and a metric tonne of dbol. To suggest anything else frankly makes me confused and angry.
Your command over satire is quite admirable, really.
I agree though. Only through superfluous division of what is - and is not - true HIT, can we achieve ultimate happiness.
I propose we segregate our forums! We’ll have the HIT bathroom over here and the HVT laundromat over there. Also, any mingling between the HIT and HVT crowd shall be punishable by HIT lynch mob.
If one were to achieve it their bones would explode into stellar meconium from the cosmological event that transpired which resulted in the formation of the universe, returning the practitioner to a state of oneness with it that is built into our existence and yearned for by our souls.
To me HIT is the solution when you are unable to train more than twice a week. No matter how you put it, you need to raise the intensity (and also a bit of volume) when to frequency is so low. Much to my surprise, the progress and results speak for themselves. Is this for anyone? I seriously doubt so.
But isn’t it provoking to imagine someone thought that less training would provide ANY result? Say what you will about Arthur Jones, but he was an inventor when it came to this theory. This is analogue with the question how little training is necessary? I find this thought provoking - and therefore attracting in its awkwardness.
What/where is the HVT equivalent? Are there any extremes concerning HVT?
I would argue that the ‘extreme’ equivalent for HVT in comparison to HIT is the question “how much volume can you recover from without impacting your next training session?”
Or perhaps “how often can I train these primary movements without impacting the next session?”
The most basic version of these questions is “how much volume is too much volume?”
And the answer is different from one person to the next
I think the issue comes when high intensity training becomes High Intensity Training. In other words, when it becomes Gospel rather than guidance. I don’t think this is a unique thing to HIT or even weightlifting by the way, it’s a human impulse.
Agree. I also believe this point stands with high volume training turning into High Volume Training (although not quite as sermon-esque). Under this guidance, the answer is almost always “more volume” to correct deficiencies - when the true guidance that should be provided would actually align more with traditional HIT notions… Remove some junk volume and add some Intensity.
Well, there’s fresh dirt underneath all that shit we’re slinging at each other. So when we’ve run out of shit to ball up and throw, we have some new dirt to talk about.
