intensity and progression are all you need. you don’t need complexity to get big or strong. i made the same mistake, and i probably wasted a year of training because of it.
[quote]Protoculture wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
He had 3 major changes in routine over his competitive career, each one was due to him getting stronger and bigger. He reasoned that since he was getting a lot stronger, his muscles needed moe time to recover from a specific workout (heavier lifting = more stress on the muscle, tendonds, joints and CNS).
His first routine, which he used at the beginning of his competitive career (1983-1985) was a double split (splitting the whole body into 2 different workouts). In workout 1 he trained chest, back, delts and abs (2-3 sets of 2-3 exercises per muscle group) and in workout 2 he did quads, hams, calves, biceps and triceps (again 2-3 sets of 2-3 exercises). He trained 3 times per week and alternated workouts 1 and 2.
His first change came in 1986 and it is the one he used to win his pro card. Since he got stronger and needed more recovery time between muscle groups AND needed to train less muscle groups per session to accomodate the heavier lifting he moved to a 3-ways split (3 different workouts).
Workout 1 was chest (2-3 sets of 3 exercises), biceps (2-3 sets of 2 exercises), triceps (2-3 sets of 2 exercises) and abs.
Workout 2 was quads (2-3 sets of 3 exercises), hams (2-3 sets of 1 exercise) and calves (2-3 sets of 1 exercise).
Workout 3 was back (2-3 sets of 3 exercises), delts (2-3 sets of 2 exercises), traps (2-3 sets of 1 exercise) and rear delts (2-3 sets of 1 exercise)
He trained on a 2 days on, 1 day off schedule.
Finally he moved on to his ‘‘Olympia’’ routine in which he further split his body:
Workout 1 was Delts (1 work set of 3 exercises), traps (1 work set of 1 exercise), triceps (1 work set of 3 exercises) and abs.
Workout 2 was back (1 work sets of 4 exercises), rear delts (1 work set of 2 exercises) and lower back (1 work set of 2 excercises).
Workout 3 was chest (1 work set of 4 exercises), biceps (1 work set of 3 exercises) and abs.
Workout 4 was quads (1 work set of 3 exercises), hams (1 work set of 3 exercises) and calves (1 work set of 2 exercises).
He trained on a 2 days on, 1 day off, 1 day on, 1 day off, 1 day on, 1 day off schedule.
While on a certain routine he rarely changed exercises (in part because his gym didn’t have that much fancy equipment at the time and also because he stuck to the exercises that gave him the best results).
The only time he made some minor changes was when he got injured (e.g. when he tore his quad he stopped doing squats; when he tore his biceps he switched from a suppinated to a pronated grip on his barbell rowing, etc.).
Interesting read. Thanks for posting that.
[/quote]
Yates has a mechanical engineer approach to training: the less moving parts you have, the lesser are the chances that something will go wrong.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Yates has a mechanical engineer approach to training: the less moving parts you have, the lesser are the chances that something will go wrong.
[/quote]
Yeah, I think I remember Pavel saying something similar about his programs; comparing them to AK-47s. lol
Either way, I agree with both of them in this respect.
More or less you said you were a beginner and you skipped the basics. Pretty obv why you failed.
I would not worry about my techique in shooting a basketball if I could not even get the ball to the rim.
Side Note: Trial, Error, and Failing are all part of SUCCESS in lifting weights. I would consider it a year learned more than a year wasted.
[quote]gainera2582 wrote:
Id much rather do a strength based full body routine over the bullcrap body part splits. Train movements, not muscles. [/quote]
Because squatting on leg day is training a muscle not a movement?
After squatting how much gas do you have left in the tank to do upper body?
I have done both, both have their place. I have found that splits are superior for most cases except in season work when you cannot afford to destroy yourself.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Finally he moved on to his ‘‘Olympia’’ routine in which he further split his body:
Workout 1 was Delts (1 work set of 3 exercises), traps (1 work set of 1 exercise), triceps (1 work set of 3 exercises) and abs.
Workout 2 was back (1 work sets of 4 exercises), rear delts (1 work set of 2 exercises) and lower back (1 work set of 2 excercises).
Workout 3 was chest (1 work set of 4 exercises), biceps (1 work set of 3 exercises) and abs.
Workout 4 was quads (1 work set of 3 exercises), hams (1 work set of 3 exercises) and calves (1 work set of 2 exercises).
[/quote]
1 work set? While training for the olympia? I am not really up on the lingo, but isn’t this HIT? Isn’t that what Mike Mentzer was known for?
Very interesting read, indeed.
Sorry to jack your thread.
[quote]Chickenmcnug wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Finally he moved on to his ‘‘Olympia’’ routine in which he further split his body:
Workout 1 was Delts (1 work set of 3 exercises), traps (1 work set of 1 exercise), triceps (1 work set of 3 exercises) and abs.
Workout 2 was back (1 work sets of 4 exercises), rear delts (1 work set of 2 exercises) and lower back (1 work set of 2 excercises).
Workout 3 was chest (1 work set of 4 exercises), biceps (1 work set of 3 exercises) and abs.
Workout 4 was quads (1 work set of 3 exercises), hams (1 work set of 3 exercises) and calves (1 work set of 2 exercises).
1 work set? While training for the olympia? I am not really up on the lingo, but isn’t this HIT? Isn’t that what Mike Mentzer was known for?
Very interesting read, indeed.
Sorry to jack your thread.
[/quote]
To my knowledge, and the videos I’ve seen, he trained just like many other people even though some might only be counting “worksets”…which has never made any sense to me. If someone is moving up in weight gradually after each set in order to get ready for that all out last set…they are training just like I do…only I don’t call it HIT and don’t act like those previous sets didn’t happen.
CT, are you claiming that Dorian sat down and only did ONE SET without any warm up or previous sets?
If so, I can see why he tore so many body parts.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Chickenmcnug wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Finally he moved on to his ‘‘Olympia’’ routine in which he further split his body:
Workout 1 was Delts (1 work set of 3 exercises), traps (1 work set of 1 exercise), triceps (1 work set of 3 exercises) and abs.
Workout 2 was back (1 work sets of 4 exercises), rear delts (1 work set of 2 exercises) and lower back (1 work set of 2 excercises).
Workout 3 was chest (1 work set of 4 exercises), biceps (1 work set of 3 exercises) and abs.
Workout 4 was quads (1 work set of 3 exercises), hams (1 work set of 3 exercises) and calves (1 work set of 2 exercises).
1 work set? While training for the olympia? I am not really up on the lingo, but isn’t this HIT? Isn’t that what Mike Mentzer was known for?
Very interesting read, indeed.
Sorry to jack your thread.
To my knowledge, and the videos I’ve seen, he trained just like many other people even though some might only be counting “worksets”…which has never made any sense to me. If someone is moving up in weight gradually after each set in order to get ready for that all out last set…they are training just like I do…only I don’t call it HIT and don’t act like those previous sets didn’t happen.
CT, are you claiming that Dorian sat down and only did ONE SET without any warm up or previous sets?
If so, I can see why he tore so many body parts.[/quote]
He did 1-3 progressively heavier sets on the first movements of a muscle group OR if the movement trained a different movement pattern.
For example he would do 2 progressively heavier warm-ups on the pullover machine, then perform his one work set. When he moved on on lat pulldowns he did one warm-up then on to the main set. Then barbell rowing, again, 1 warm-up then his work set. On 1-arm seated rowing he jumped right to his work set.
He said himself that the reason he tore so many muscles (always tore them 3-5 weeks prior to a show, not during the off-season) was that he continued to train past-failure (forced reps, rest/pause, negatives, etc.) right up to the show, even when he was depleted and super low in body fat.
To be honest, it looked like his warm-ups were fairly light compared to his work sets. For example on the incline press he would do 135, 225, 315 (all warm-ups) then jump right to 435 … even if the guy is strong a 120lbs jump on the incline press is a pretty big jump.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
To my knowledge, and the videos I’ve seen, he trained just like many other people even though some might only be counting “worksets”…which has never made any sense to me. If someone is moving up in weight gradually after each set in order to get ready for that all out last set…they are training just like I do…only I don’t call it HIT and don’t act like those previous sets didn’t happen.
CT, are you claiming that Dorian sat down and only did ONE SET without any warm up or previous sets?
If so, I can see why he tore so many body parts.[/quote]
Funny story… one of my good friend lived in Venice for a while and trained under Mike Mentzer and followed his ‘‘one set only dogma’’ … until he came to the gym at another time for some reason and saw Mentzer train… he performed something like 10 ‘‘warm-up’’ sets on the seated row that looked pretty darn close in intensity to his actual work set.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Professor X wrote:
To my knowledge, and the videos I’ve seen, he trained just like many other people even though some might only be counting “worksets”…which has never made any sense to me. If someone is moving up in weight gradually after each set in order to get ready for that all out last set…they are training just like I do…only I don’t call it HIT and don’t act like those previous sets didn’t happen.
CT, are you claiming that Dorian sat down and only did ONE SET without any warm up or previous sets?
If so, I can see why he tore so many body parts.
Funny story… one of my good friend lived in Venice for a while and trained under Mike Mentzer and followed his ‘‘one set only dogma’’ … until he came to the gym at another time for some reason and saw Mentzer train… he performed something like 10 ‘‘warm-up’’ sets on the seated row that looked pretty darn close in intensity to his actual work set.[/quote]
It’s funny watching HIT-ites deny this though.
if I do a set, I DID the fucking set. It doesn’t disappear from the time stream once I finish it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
It’s funny watching HIT-ites deny this though.
if I do a set, I DID the fucking set. It doesn’t disappear from the time stream once I finish it.[/quote]
Agreed, but the argument is that if your “working set” on the bench press is 495lbs for 5 reps that the 135-225-315lbs x 5 reps you warmed up with were of such low intensity that they couldn’t contribute to your growth. It’s a little different than having warmed up with say 465-475-485lbs X 5 reps, because the intensity is so close to your working set.
I don’t care either way.
[quote]Protoculture wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It’s funny watching HIT-ites deny this though.
if I do a set, I DID the fucking set. It doesn’t disappear from the time stream once I finish it.
Agreed, but the argument is that if your “working set” on the bench press is 495lbs for 5 reps that the 135-225-315lbs x 5 reps you warmed up with were of such low intensity that they couldn’t contribute to your growth. It’s a little different than having warmed up with say 465-475-485lbs X 5 reps, because the intensity is so close to your working set.
I don’t care either way.[/quote]
In my honest opinion, that is a sure-fire way to lead to an injury. If you don’t get those muscles warmed with at least a weight close to what you will be lifting at that last set, you will have a greater chance of pulling a muscle or tearing a tendon once the weight you use actually reaches those higher ranges.
It makes no sense to train that way especially when you start moving weight like Yates was moving. He also proved this by tearing SEVERAL muscle groups in the process.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Professor X wrote:
To my knowledge, and the videos I’ve seen, he trained just like many other people even though some might only be counting “worksets”…which has never made any sense to me. If someone is moving up in weight gradually after each set in order to get ready for that all out last set…they are training just like I do…only I don’t call it HIT and don’t act like those previous sets didn’t happen.
CT, are you claiming that Dorian sat down and only did ONE SET without any warm up or previous sets?
If so, I can see why he tore so many body parts.
Funny story… one of my good friend lived in Venice for a while and trained under Mike Mentzer and followed his ‘‘one set only dogma’’ … until he came to the gym at another time for some reason and saw Mentzer train… he performed something like 10 ‘‘warm-up’’ sets on the seated row that looked pretty darn close in intensity to his actual work set.
It’s funny watching HIT-ites deny this though.
if I do a set, I DID the fucking set. It doesn’t disappear from the time stream once I finish it.[/quote]
True, and honestly the only real difference between what HIT-ites and volume guys do is that the volume guys count their warm-up sets, while the HIT-ites only count the work sets (that and possibly the more prevalent use of post-failure techniques).
Personally I prefer to just count the work sets. I’m not denying that the warm-ups were performed. But, if I can bench 315x8, then the warm-up set of 135x8 that I did in preparation for my heavy set probably didn’t illicit any growth response. So, I personally only count the sets that actually are gonna cause me to grow.
I also keep a detailed log book of my workouts (I personally prefer a more regimented program) and writing down every single warm-up set for every single exercise would be much less efficient in this respect as well.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Professor X wrote:
To my knowledge, and the videos I’ve seen, he trained just like many other people even though some might only be counting “worksets”…which has never made any sense to me. If someone is moving up in weight gradually after each set in order to get ready for that all out last set…they are training just like I do…only I don’t call it HIT and don’t act like those previous sets didn’t happen.
CT, are you claiming that Dorian sat down and only did ONE SET without any warm up or previous sets?
If so, I can see why he tore so many body parts.
Funny story… one of my good friend lived in Venice for a while and trained under Mike Mentzer and followed his ‘‘one set only dogma’’ … until he came to the gym at another time for some reason and saw Mentzer train… he performed something like 10 ‘‘warm-up’’ sets on the seated row that looked pretty darn close in intensity to his actual work set.
It’s funny watching HIT-ites deny this though.
if I do a set, I DID the fucking set. It doesn’t disappear from the time stream once I finish it.
True, and honestly the only real difference between what HIT-ites and volume guys do is that the volume guys count their warm-up sets, while the HIT-ites only count the work sets (that and possibly the more prevalent use of post-failure techniques).
Personally I prefer to just count the work sets. I’m not denying that the warm-ups were performed. But, if I can bench 315x8, then the warm-up set of 135x8 that I did in preparation for my heavy set probably didn’t illicit any growth response. So, I personally only count the sets that actually are gonna cause me to grow.
I also keep a detailed log book of my workouts (I personally prefer a more regimented program) and writing down every single warm-up set for every single exercise would be much less efficient in this respect as well.[/quote]
I personally do the same as Sentoguy, and as well as what he mentioned I don’t have a plan for how my warm ups are going to go, which is part of why I don’t write them down or count them. Some days I may only need a couple of warm up sets, others it might take a lot before the joints are ready or the muscle’s warm.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
In my honest opinion, that is a sure-fire way to lead to an injury. If you don’t get those muscles warmed with at least a weight close to what you will be lifting at that last set, you will have a greater chance of pulling a muscle or tearing a tendon once the weight you use actually reaches those higher ranges.[/quote]
Again, I agree, but the argument for making such large jumps is that if you work up the load of your warm up sets close to your “working set” that it will cause residual fatigue which may compromise to load of your “working set”.
So if you performed 135-225-315-405-465 x 5 reps for warm up sets you may only be able to use 475 instead of 495 as a working set.
Who cares? Those who believe that load is the most critical factor to stimulate muscle growth. Essentially this is what HIT is all about. Conserving energy to deliver the greatest output possible.
Again, I don’t really care either way, that’s the the argument they give.
[quote]
It makes no sense to train that way especially when you start moving weight like Yates was moving. He also proved this by tearing SEVERAL muscle groups in the process.[/quote]
There you go. This is one of the downsides of the system.
Some people also perform more than 1 set at their final weight. Multiple “work sets”. Which is another difference between HIT and non-HIT.
I blame the Iraq war for his failure.
[quote]pat wrote:
I blame the Iraq war for his failure.[/quote]
And American foreign policy.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pat wrote:
I blame the Iraq war for his failure.
And American foreign policy.[/quote]
And Chad Waterbury.
[quote]Der Candy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pat wrote:
I blame the Iraq war for his failure.
And American foreign policy.
And Chad Waterbury.[/quote]
Is global warming now sooo last month?