Body by Science Doug McGuff and John Little

Training Bodybuilding
141

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]iflyboats wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

And who could really blame them?

If I said to you, “I have this great new investment strategy. Initially it’s going to decrease the value of your investments, but from there the rate of increase will be steady, and eventually (in a few years) your investment value will reach the value that you started out with. But when you reach it this time, you’ll be using a much more “scientific” method of investing. Either that or you can continue investing with your current strategy and in the same time period increase the value of your investments by a substantial amount, albeit in a less “scientific” manner.”

Which would you choose?

Now, if this person had built an impressive amount of wealth (and reproduced that feat numerous times with other people’s wealth as well), then it might be worth giving it a shot, right? But, if this person just said “well, my method is more scientifically valid because the pythagorean theorem states that a2+b2=c2, therefore my method is superior”. Would you still listen to them?

Wouldn’t it make sense that if someone was getting better results with a different method, which had created the results they were looking for in other people’s bodies numerous times in the past, that if they tried out a method which gave them lesser results, they would stick to the first method?

And besides, what is to say that even if they stuck to the second method and eventually worked back up to the weights they were using before starting the second method, that they would notice a distinct increase in muscle size once they got there? Their muscles technically aren’t experiencing any greater magnitude in terms of loading (in fact, it would probably still be less due to the decrease in acceleration associated with SS), only a longer duration of loading. If duration was the primary component in muscle size, then athletes like marathon runners and long distance swimmers would be the most muscular among athletes because their duration of loading is the greatest. Clearly this isn’t the case.[/quote]

Bad analogy. Wealth is a product of the mind; muscle tissue a product of DNA. [/quote]

??

Your DNA may detail how big you can absolutely get, but it in no way controls any and all muscle gain…so what are you talking about? Your effort and consistency in the gym and kitchen have more to do with your muscle gain than simply your “DNA”.

That means his analogy isn’t bad. You just don’t know what you are talking about.[/quote]

Exactly.

142
143

LOL at using Dorian saying that “HIT” training is the best way as some sort of argument for the type of training being outlined in this book.

Take a look at Dorian’s training. Does that look anything like superslow training to you?

Well low and behold, he’s accelerating the weight on the concentric, just like how every other top level IFBB pro out there trains. Whodathunkit huh?

In this context “HIT” refers more so to the structuring of the workout itself (less work sets, more “intensity” techniques like static holds, rest-pause, etc…) and absolutely nothing to do with performing superslow reps or only training once a week.

Argument fail, try again.

144

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
LOL at using Dorian saying that “HIT” training is the best way as some sort of argument for the type of training being outlined in this book.

Take a look at Dorian’s training. Does that look anything like superslow training to you?

Well low and behold, he’s accelerating the weight on the concentric, just like how every other top level IFBB pro out there trains. Whodathunkit huh?

In this context “HIT” refers more so to the structuring of the workout itself (less work sets, more “intensity” techniques like static holds, rest-pause, etc…) and absolutely nothing to do with performing superslow reps or only training once a week.

Argument fail, try again.[/quote]

You’re focusing solely on speed of movement while ignoring the more important fundamentals of training philosophy. SuperSlow is first and foremost a subgenere of HIT. If you’re not doing HIT, you’re not doing SuperSlow. The speed of movement is a secondary consideration.

You heard it from the horse’s mouth: Dorian Yates, a bodybuilder light years ahead of anyone on this site, considers HIT the BEST way to train. Even if he moves fast rather than slow, he’s still philosophically closer to SS than to anything your’re doing.

145

Is there any opportunity to all agree on the enclosed:

  1. Single set resistance training IF you are increasing in weight shifted and direct correlation exists between strength and increase of lean tissue then this is a valid form of training.
  2. If you utilize all out HIT principles once a week and consistently increase poundage shifted each week continuously then this frequency of training can be substantiated as far as strength and lean tissue is concerned.
  3. If you utilize the above two methods of training however slow your cadence down to a slower pace yet still ensure an increase in poundage shifted to a level whereby your initial levels of strength are exceeded (regardless of whether you are a beginner or advanced trainer) then this again validates the protocol.

I know the majority will suggest that a new trainer will increase strength regardless of what they use (and that they may well increase in size and strength quicker with more conventional protocols) - however all I am stating is that IF increases in poundage lifted regardless of cadence used eventually exceed that of your starting strength prior to beginning a SS program, then this totally validates the program as a strength (and due to direct correlation)lean tissue building program. Please note I have not made any reference to it being ‘superior’ anywhere in my text…simply looking to validate a program which can be easily sustained (1 x per week for 15-20 mins) as long as strength gains are made.

Worst case scenario you progress in strength as a SS cadence trainer. All viable studies conducted have shown % increases in strength as long as the benchmark is based upon SS speeds…back to SAID. Lets not compare it to any other forms of training for a second and simply quantify it as an ability to increase muscular strength within the framework of SS HIT principles.

Once this is agreed then the question simply remains - how far do you have the ability and desire to take your own physical development - the path you choose is entirely your own. You can listen to others or follow the masses, but only you have to live with the outcome of the choices you make. Lift and train in a way that makes YOU content - This will always be the BEST way to train…surely no-one can argue with that:)

146

[quote]Academy wrote:
Is there any opportunity to all agree on the enclosed:

  1. Single set resistance training IF you are increasing in weight shifted and direct correlation exists between strength and increase of lean tissue then this is a valid form of training.

[/quote]
First off (because everything after this that you wrote won’t matter), let’s forget anecdotals for a moment (especially from such a genetic and GH fueled freak such as Yates)… everything I’ve ever read, CSCS and coaching texts, recent studies in peer reviewed performance journals,… everything that would be scientifically agreed upon as sound sources states that single set training is inferior in regard to traditional multi set training in terms of producing increases in hypertrophy (the goal of bodybuilding).

Your constant referrals to simply moving more weight is simply neurological adaptations, nothing more. Watch any 150 lbs Tennis Player and see how much force they generate with their backhand stroke… repeatedly performing a task makes the body become more efficient at said task. That’s all you’re doing.

I could understand this fervent adherence to such a training method if you actually looked like a professional bodybuilder for such an approach, but at some point you need to look at guys who make use of speed incorporated training methods and realize that they’re making growth gains, and you’re just improving at a specific given task.

S

147

[quote]iflyboats wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
LOL at using Dorian saying that “HIT” training is the best way as some sort of argument for the type of training being outlined in this book.

Take a look at Dorian’s training. Does that look anything like superslow training to you?

Well low and behold, he’s accelerating the weight on the concentric, just like how every other top level IFBB pro out there trains. Whodathunkit huh?

In this context “HIT” refers more so to the structuring of the workout itself (less work sets, more “intensity” techniques like static holds, rest-pause, etc…) and absolutely nothing to do with performing superslow reps or only training once a week.

Argument fail, try again.[/quote]

You’re focusing solely on speed of movement while ignoring the more important fundamentals of training philosophy. SuperSlow is first and foremost a subgenere of HIT. If you’re not doing HIT, you’re not doing SuperSlow. The speed of movement is a secondary consideration.

You heard it from the horse’s mouth: Dorian Yates, a bodybuilder light years ahead of anyone on this site, considers HIT the BEST way to train. Even if he moves fast rather than slow, he’s still philosophically closer to SS than to anything your’re doing.
[/quote]

Wow.

Ok, so let’s try to follow your line of reasoning here…

Dorian Yates used explosive concentric movements on pretty much all of his exercises and trained using a body part split (well actually several throughout his career) which had him performing several exercises per body part, but…that’s…closer…to…superslow…than what myself, other posters on this site, or the majority of professional bodybuilders do???

Logic fail, try yet again.

148

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]iflyboats wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
LOL at using Dorian saying that “HIT” training is the best way as some sort of argument for the type of training being outlined in this book.

Take a look at Dorian’s training. Does that look anything like superslow training to you?

Well low and behold, he’s accelerating the weight on the concentric, just like how every other top level IFBB pro out there trains. Whodathunkit huh?

In this context “HIT” refers more so to the structuring of the workout itself (less work sets, more “intensity” techniques like static holds, rest-pause, etc…) and absolutely nothing to do with performing superslow reps or only training once a week.

Argument fail, try again.[/quote]

You’re focusing solely on speed of movement while ignoring the more important fundamentals of training philosophy. SuperSlow is first and foremost a subgenere of HIT. If you’re not doing HIT, you’re not doing SuperSlow. The speed of movement is a secondary consideration.

You heard it from the horse’s mouth: Dorian Yates, a bodybuilder light years ahead of anyone on this site, considers HIT the BEST way to train. Even if he moves fast rather than slow, he’s still philosophically closer to SS than to anything your’re doing.
[/quote]

Wow.

Ok, so let’s try to follow your line of reasoning here…

Dorian Yates used explosive concentric movements on pretty much all of his exercises and trained using a body part split (well actually several throughout his career) which had him performing several exercises per body part, but…that’s…closer…to…superslow…than what myself, other posters on this site, or the majority of professional bodybuilders do???

Logic fail, try yet again.[/quote]

LOL.

If some of these guys aren’t in high school…it really makes me wonder how they get through a day with thinking like that.

Going at green lights must be difficult.

149

[quote]Academy wrote:
Is there any opportunity to all agree on the enclosed:

  1. Single set resistance training IF you are increasing in weight shifted and direct correlation exists between strength and increase of lean tissue then this is a valid form of training.
  2. If you utilize all out HIT principles once a week and consistently increase poundage shifted each week continuously then this frequency of training can be substantiated as far as strength and lean tissue is concerned.
  3. If you utilize the above two methods of training however slow your cadence down to a slower pace yet still ensure an increase in poundage shifted to a level whereby your initial levels of strength are exceeded (regardless of whether you are a beginner or advanced trainer) then this again validates the protocol.
    [/quote]

Here is the thing. Changing the speed of movement changes the weight, since weight is a measure of force, not mass and force has an accelerational variable. Therefore the slower you move a resistance implement (whether it be barbell, dumbbell, kettlebell, etc…) the less weight you are lifting and the faster you lift it, the more weight you are lifting.

So, even if you one day reached the same number of plates on the barbell, dumbbell, cable stack, etc… using the superslow cadence that you were previously using with more traditional lifting methods, the actual weight that you would be shifting would still be less than what you were previously shifting.

I will concede that an increase in the body’s need to overcome the forces placed upon it will result in adaptation (in this case an increase in skeletal muscle, assuming that sufficient fuel is provided to do so). But, again, superslow does not represent an increase in the forces placed upon the muscles. Even if one were to someday surpass their previous bests (which could have been close to their genetic limitations for strength, or very far away), they would have to substantially surpass them in order for them to be lifting even the same weight, let alone more weight (thus requiring more adaptation).

See above.

If someone began training with SS right out of the gate (meaning that it was the first training program they ever did) and progressed strengthwise, then yes I do believe that they would see an increase in strength and lean tissue as a result of it. But, I also believe that they would be way, way behind where they would have been had they trained with a program which had them trying to accelerate the bar as fast as they could on the concentric portion of the lift.

And, yes, we do have to compare them because neither exists in a bubble and most of us don’t want to take unnecessarily long to reach out destination(s). I could theoretically walk from the east coast of the United States to the west coast, but personally I’d rather fly because in the same time it would take me to walk there I could have been there, seen everything I wanted to see, come back, maybe take a trip to another destination, seen everything I wanted to see there, and come back yet again. If not even more.

But hey, that’s just me and I’m not trying to force you or anyone else who likes this type of training or wants to do it to stop.

I’d rather that someone stick to and give their effort to what I believe is a less effective training program than to not train at all; or even put less effort into what I believe is a more effective training program. So, if training like this is what keeps you training, go for it.

150

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]iflyboats wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
LOL at using Dorian saying that “HIT” training is the best way as some sort of argument for the type of training being outlined in this book.

Take a look at Dorian’s training. Does that look anything like superslow training to you?

Well low and behold, he’s accelerating the weight on the concentric, just like how every other top level IFBB pro out there trains. Whodathunkit huh?

In this context “HIT” refers more so to the structuring of the workout itself (less work sets, more “intensity” techniques like static holds, rest-pause, etc…) and absolutely nothing to do with performing superslow reps or only training once a week.

Argument fail, try again.[/quote]

You’re focusing solely on speed of movement while ignoring the more important fundamentals of training philosophy. SuperSlow is first and foremost a subgenere of HIT. If you’re not doing HIT, you’re not doing SuperSlow. The speed of movement is a secondary consideration.

You heard it from the horse’s mouth: Dorian Yates, a bodybuilder light years ahead of anyone on this site, considers HIT the BEST way to train. Even if he moves fast rather than slow, he’s still philosophically closer to SS than to anything your’re doing.
[/quote]

Wow.

Ok, so let’s try to follow your line of reasoning here…

Dorian Yates used explosive concentric movements on pretty much all of his exercises and trained using a body part split (well actually several throughout his career) which had him performing several exercises per body part, but…that’s…closer…to…superslow…than what myself, other posters on this site, or the majority of professional bodybuilders do???

Logic fail, try yet again.[/quote]

LOL.

If some of these guys aren’t in high school…it really makes me wonder how they get through a day with thinking like that.

Going at green lights must be difficult.[/quote]

Green means go?!

Crap, that’s why all those people are constantly honking at me. :wink:

151

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Wow.

Ok, so let’s try to follow your line of reasoning here…

Dorian Yates used explosive concentric movements on pretty much all of his exercises and trained using a body part split (well actually several throughout his career) which had him performing several exercises per body part, but…that’s…closer…to…superslow…than what myself, other posters on this site, or the majority of professional bodybuilders do???

Logic fail, try yet again.[/quote]

I’ll try this once more and then I’m out.

The point of my posting that video was to defend HIT in general, not superslow specifically.

Dorian may have used many different methods throughout his career, and he may not even be an HIT purist, but he still concedes that HARD, BRIEF, INFREQUENT is the best training philosophy.

You guys ridicule HIT because supposedly no major bodybuilders use it. Well here you have it from one of the greatest of all time that he has trained that way and it did work for him. You continue dancing around the issue by focusing on trivialities like how fast he lifts.

152

[quote]iflyboats wrote:
You continue dancing around the issue by focusing on trivialities like how fast he lifts.[/quote]

It’s not a triviality when 99.9% of the people training in gyms understand the importance of it, but yet a few individuals with no progress worth noting seem willing to defend it’s triviality to the death.

S

153

[quote]
iflyboats wrote"
You continue dancing around the issue by focusing on trivialities like how fast he lifts[/quote]

That’s trivial, really? I’m pretty damn sure that’s the main point of this whole stinkin’ thread man. And I would find it VERY hard to believe that Dorian trained infrequently as you seem to be claiming.

154

[quote]iflyboats wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Wow.

Ok, so let’s try to follow your line of reasoning here…

Dorian Yates used explosive concentric movements on pretty much all of his exercises and trained using a body part split (well actually several throughout his career) which had him performing several exercises per body part, but…that’s…closer…to…superslow…than what myself, other posters on this site, or the majority of professional bodybuilders do???

Logic fail, try yet again.[/quote]

I’ll try this once more and then I’m out.

The point of my posting that video was to defend HIT in general, not superslow specifically.

Dorian may have used many different methods throughout his career, and he may not even be an HIT purist, but he still concedes that HARD, BRIEF, INFREQUENT is the best training philosophy.

You guys ridicule HIT because supposedly no major bodybuilders use it. Well here you have it from one of the greatest of all time that he has trained that way and it did work for him. You continue dancing around the issue by focusing on trivialities like how fast he lifts.[/quote]

The fact that you think how fast he lifts is trivial speaks volumes about your understanding of kinesiology, or bodybuilding in general. And, it is actually THE main point of discussion in this thread, so in this context it’s an even more relevant point.

Also, what we are discussing is the training protocol being advocated in this book, not all “HIT” in general. Did you even bother to read the thread?

Besides, like I said before, Yate’s version of “HIT” was vastly different from Arthur Jones’ version of HIT, which was different from Mentzer’s version of HIT, which is different than Dr. Darden’s version of HIT, etc… Dorian’s training style is not in question in this thread, clearly it worked well for him. But his training style is also much, much closer to traditional bodybuilding training than it is to what is in this book or Jones’ original HIT workouts. And he sure as hell didn’t use superslow lifting to develop his physique.

155

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]iflyboats wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Wow.

Ok, so let’s try to follow your line of reasoning here…

Dorian Yates used explosive concentric movements on pretty much all of his exercises and trained using a body part split (well actually several throughout his career) which had him performing several exercises per body part, but…that’s…closer…to…superslow…than what myself, other posters on this site, or the majority of professional bodybuilders do???

Logic fail, try yet again.[/quote]

I’ll try this once more and then I’m out.

The point of my posting that video was to defend HIT in general, not superslow specifically.

Dorian may have used many different methods throughout his career, and he may not even be an HIT purist, but he still concedes that HARD, BRIEF, INFREQUENT is the best training philosophy.

You guys ridicule HIT because supposedly no major bodybuilders use it. Well here you have it from one of the greatest of all time that he has trained that way and it did work for him. You continue dancing around the issue by focusing on trivialities like how fast he lifts.[/quote]

The fact that you think how fast he lifts is trivial speaks volumes about your understanding of kinesiology, or bodybuilding in general. And, it is actually THE main point of discussion in this thread, so in this context it’s an even more relevant point.

Also, what we are discussing is the training protocol being advocated in this book, not all “HIT” in general. Did you even bother to read the thread?

Besides, like I said before, Yate’s version of “HIT” was vastly different from Arthur Jones’ version of HIT, which was different from Mentzer’s version of HIT, which is different than Dr. Darden’s version of HIT, etc… Dorian’s training style is not in question in this thread, clearly it worked well for him. But his training style is also much, much closer to traditional bodybuilding training than it is to what is in this book or Jones’ original HIT workouts. And he sure as hell didn’t use superslow lifting to develop his physique.[/quote]

Dammit you SOB, you beat me by seconds.

156

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]
iflyboats wrote"
You continue dancing around the issue by focusing on trivialities like how fast he lifts[/quote]

That’s trivial, really? I’m pretty damn sure that’s the main point of this whole stinkin’ thread man. And I would find it VERY hard to believe that Dorian trained infrequently as you seem to be claiming. [/quote]

From what I can find he trained 4x per week (at least during his final program, Bricknyce would know exactly, he’s the resident Yates authority). Not exactly “infrequently”, but also not super high frequency. Definitely within standard frequency ranges for traditional body part splits.

Heck, Arthur Jones’ original HIT routines had his trainees training 3x per week with full body workouts, meaning that they were actually training their body parts more frequently than most modern day bodybuilders. Yet we’re supposed to believe that all HIT programs involve “infrequent” training.

157

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]iflyboats wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Wow.

Ok, so let’s try to follow your line of reasoning here…

Dorian Yates used explosive concentric movements on pretty much all of his exercises and trained using a body part split (well actually several throughout his career) which had him performing several exercises per body part, but…that’s…closer…to…superslow…than what myself, other posters on this site, or the majority of professional bodybuilders do???

Logic fail, try yet again.[/quote]

I’ll try this once more and then I’m out.

The point of my posting that video was to defend HIT in general, not superslow specifically.

Dorian may have used many different methods throughout his career, and he may not even be an HIT purist, but he still concedes that HARD, BRIEF, INFREQUENT is the best training philosophy.

You guys ridicule HIT because supposedly no major bodybuilders use it. Well here you have it from one of the greatest of all time that he has trained that way and it did work for him. You continue dancing around the issue by focusing on trivialities like how fast he lifts.[/quote]

The fact that you think how fast he lifts is trivial speaks volumes about your understanding of kinesiology, or bodybuilding in general. And, it is actually THE main point of discussion in this thread, so in this context it’s an even more relevant point.

Also, what we are discussing is the training protocol being advocated in this book, not all “HIT” in general. Did you even bother to read the thread?

Besides, like I said before, Yate’s version of “HIT” was vastly different from Arthur Jones’ version of HIT, which was different from Mentzer’s version of HIT, which is different than Dr. Darden’s version of HIT, etc… Dorian’s training style is not in question in this thread, clearly it worked well for him. But his training style is also much, much closer to traditional bodybuilding training than it is to what is in this book or Jones’ original HIT workouts. And he sure as hell didn’t use superslow lifting to develop his physique.[/quote]

Dammit you SOB, you beat me by seconds. [/quote]

LOL. Looks like you, myself, and Stu had basically the same idea. Good to know I’m in good company.

158

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]
iflyboats wrote"
You continue dancing around the issue by focusing on trivialities like how fast he lifts[/quote]

That’s trivial, really? I’m pretty damn sure that’s the main point of this whole stinkin’ thread man. And I would find it VERY hard to believe that Dorian trained infrequently as you seem to be claiming. [/quote]

From what I can find he trained 4x per week (at least during his final program, Bricknyce would know exactly, he’s the resident Yates authority). Not exactly “infrequently”, but also not super high frequency. Definitely within standard frequency ranges for traditional body part splits.

Heck, Arthur Jones’ original HIT routines had his trainees training 3x per week with full body workouts, meaning that they were actually training their body parts more frequently than most modern day bodybuilders. Yet we’re supposed to believe that all HIT programs involve “infrequent” training.[/quote]

4x per week I could believe definitely. These SS guys are claiming shit like 1-2x per week. I don’t even know what to say to that. It’s just…silly. Better than 0x per week, but to claim it’s superior to traditional BBing splits and programs…what a joke.

159

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]
iflyboats wrote"
You continue dancing around the issue by focusing on trivialities like how fast he lifts[/quote]

That’s trivial, really? I’m pretty damn sure that’s the main point of this whole stinkin’ thread man. And I would find it VERY hard to believe that Dorian trained infrequently as you seem to be claiming. [/quote]

From what I can find he trained 4x per week (at least during his final program, Bricknyce would know exactly, he’s the resident Yates authority). Not exactly “infrequently”, but also not super high frequency. Definitely within standard frequency ranges for traditional body part splits.

Heck, Arthur Jones’ original HIT routines had his trainees training 3x per week with full body workouts, meaning that they were actually training their body parts more frequently than most modern day bodybuilders. Yet we’re supposed to believe that all HIT programs involve “infrequent” training.[/quote]

4x per week I could believe definitely. These SS guys are claiming shit like 1-2x per week. I don’t even know what to say to that. It’s just…silly. Better than 0x per week, but to claim it’s superior to traditional BBing splits and programs…what a joke. [/quote]

Yeah, nobody has trained only 1-2x per week on any kind of consistent basis and built a championship caliber physique, that I know of anyhow. If someone can provide even one name (that was verifiable) I’d be impressed.

160

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Yeah, nobody has trained only 1-2x per week on any kind of consistent basis and built a championship caliber physique, that I know of anyhow. If someone can provide even one name (that was verifiable) I’d be impressed.[/quote]

Naw bro, it’s all about the theoretical studies man!