This message is for all the Mentzer acolytes on this forum, limited as they may be. I will admit that up until this point, I was a high volume junkie. But I do like the extreme duress caused by brutally hard work. High volume is hard, but I heard a few things about HIT and Heavy Duty training which made my mouth water. However, my understanding of these methods is limited. Just to dabble in other areas, I would like to know more. Anyone have any suggestions a la Peary Rader, Dr. Leistner, etc? Your help is appreciated. Thanx in advance.
Go to cyberpump. The have a whole section of Dr. Ken’s stuff.
do searches (not on this site) on Matt Brzycki, Ken Mannie, and Ken Leister to start. also check out cyberpump. and look up HIT STUFF. peace
I don’t really like Cyberpump, but it’s a worthwhile place to learn beginning HIT info. After this, try i-a-r-t.com. I was training lots of volume, and eventually burnt out to the point where I needed to take tranquilizers to relax. Basically, I wasn’t training to failure, but I also wasn’t giving my body a chance to recover. If you do get into HIT style training, remember to watch your diet carefully. You won’t be burning nearly as many calories as when you were doing volume. Also, at least keep some aerobic activity in your life. Even Mentzer was using the treadmill for losing that last bit of fat(if the story is correct).
I’d recommend trying it for a while. BUT,
when results stop – when you have gone
some significant length of time with no
muscle gain – don’t stick with it. Brief
periods of HIT can often be quite effective.
In fact, that’s how Arthur Jones promoted
HIT in the first place: taking bodybuilders
who had been on high volume training for
a very long time with no rest breaks at all,
having them rest for half a week or so (which would produce size gains right there), and then give them some HIT training, and then more rest. Half an inch on the arms from one week
of training was quite typical. He touted this as proof of the effectiveness of HIT. But of course, it is no such thing: someone who has been doing HIT for the last year will not gain half an inch on his arms from another week of HIT, nor did he gain half an inch on his arms
every week he was on it. Not even a 1/20 of an inch actually. It was the combination of
high volume training, followed by rest and HIT,
that did the trick.
sorry but can you tell me ONE reason why what works short term will not work long term? in science what has worked WILL work so I realy do NOT understand what you mean. I think the easy thing to say is “it will work for awhile…” but if it DOES work why stop? why do we think BB is SO different from any other form of science. if you want to say “it won’t work” fine say it, but if it DOES work, IT WILL WORK. peace hetyey225
I tried Heavy Duty 2 with piss poor results, so I wouldn’t go that route. I was losing strength on it.
I tried it for awhile, but results stopped. I tried order changes, rep range changes, rest changes, exercise changes, and results stopped. It did work great up till that point, this was two attempts, one after a high volume binge and after a long layoff. Both times worked, both around 8 week cycles, then results stopped. I now use results of output to be my gage, utilizing cycles of periodization, using more real world exercises as my staple, deads, chins, overhead pressing, foregoing direct arm work in favor of compound moves. I read a quote that changed my thinking. I couldn’t chin, read an article in a newsgroup, its reply… you are either too fat or too weak or both.
Hetyey, you’re correct in that (all things being equal) in a controlled, scientific setting cause and effect will be reproducible. However, in the case of the body, all things are NOT equal. The body is a dynamic and ever-changing system, and what works for you in January probably won’t “work” (in terms of producing the same results) for you in May. There are other variables that confound your results, i.e. hormone levels and various biochemical factors. CNS ADAPTATION is probably the biggest of these factors; it seems (in my experience and that of many others) that once you’ve subjected your muscles to a certain protocol for x number of sessions then they adapt and stop growing on that protocol. This is why we have so many reports of people seeing great results with an HIT protocol for weeks or months and then stagnating in size gains; the body has become used to the demands and can adapt through “metabolically cheap” CNS strength gains rather than “expensive/resource-intensive” muscle size gains. Most notably, people practicing Mentzer’s “consolidation program” (and I was one of them) see size gains for a short period, then tend to keep gaining in strength but start to shrink and get sloppy muscles. This is a classic example of CNS adaptation to specific movements.
If I still haven't convinced you, think of it this way: If you could get identical results using a particular protocol time and time again, then a certain combination of exercises and intensity techniques (like Jones' formula) that put 1/8" on your arms in a two weeks could be repeated ad nauseum until your arms were 30", and beyond! Obviously this doesn't happen, because of the dynamism of the body.
Heytey
using your theory (what works in short term should also work in long term)
then why not say that since a week off can yield size gains why not then just quit training for good and reap the rewards forever
heytey fuck you can be stupid sometimes
“what works in the short term must work in the long term” if that were true there would be no need to cycle drugs
no need to change training programes
people would never die
and that toy car my mum bought me for my fifth birthday would still be working
what you said may be true for scientific laws but not for this
bill was saying that it would work as would the initial half week off because it was a form active recovery from the high volume approach
I think that what Bill says is typical of many trainers. It works for a time and then it stops. You’ve adapted. Now it’s time to change things around and give yourself more time to recover. Of course, there is a point where the negatives outweigh the positives(weeks and weeks of time between sessions). I’m starting to think that a few subfailure sets could be more productive than taking those sets to failure. Reason being, is that while 100% effort may be the only known way to leave nothing to chance, getting stronger the next session is also an indicator of a successful program. Shying away from failure and continuing to get stronger week after week would lead to impressive results without the CNS upset. Of course, once it stopped working, you’d have to take some more time off(which for guys who love training is like a near death experience).
HardCore – Lumping Mentzer, Rader, etc, is a bit of a stretch. Mentzer was the extreme end of low volume training. My understanding of HIT is simply this: very intense training (many times taken to failure), that is brief (by necessity) and infrequent (by necessity). This encompasses a wide variety of training styles, and you’ll have to find the one that works best for you. I don’t subscribe to the one-set-to-failure theory, because I believe warm-up sets are still vital to healthy, long-term lifting. I’ve posted my routine several times before, and it’s still evolving. I’ve read basically everything on Cyberpump (and still keep a pulse on it). It’s a good resource for general HIT information, but take it and use what works for you. I started weight training HIT style because it allowed me to stay in shape (and go from 155 to 202 at 5’11’), and fit into my life, time wise.
Thanks for all your valuable input, people. Sorry to have sparked another round of name calling.
G-MAN you are a genetic freak if you got stronger but got “sloppy muscles”(whats that?) any form of variation can be found in HIT I NEVER get used to my workouts (sometimes rest-pause, sometimes drop sets, sometimes negatives, sometimes forced reps, etc…)
novac, whats thats telling you is you need MORE recovery time and yes you should then relise that and make a point to work out less often but but at a higher intensity
crawford, I would waste my time and answer you but for some reason you felt the need to start name calling (when you do NOT know me) so deal with your stupidity. peace
Sloppy muscles=Muscles that look like they’ve never been trained. Seen most often in the majority of trainees using HIT programs that don’t change for weeks or months on end. A lot of people using Mentzer’s consolidation training (once-a-week workouts), or SuperSlow Protocol for example, can lift truckloads of weight on certain exercises but don’t even look like they work out. This, strength gains without concurrent mass gains, is due to CNS adaptation. No, I’m not a genetic freak, this simply happens to everyone who performs the same exercises at the same rep speed workout after workout. You can come back to the IART board (where this phenomenon is discussed regularly) if you’re interested in learning more.
You challenge Bill Roberts with the following statement: "sorry but can you tell me ONE reason why what works short term will not work long term? in science what has worked WILL work" then you go on to say in your latest post "any form of variation can be found in HIT I NEVER get used to my workouts (sometimes rest-pause, sometimes drop sets, sometimes negatives, sometimes forced reps, etc...)" Hetyey, if what works short term also works long-term as you claim, then why do you feel the need to vary your workouts?
g-man, I should have been clearer from the begining. I do believe you need variation in the exercises you use (though not to the point of changeing evey workout) I do not think you need changes in your philosophy of training. I do change things but everything I do is done HIT “style”, my sets are always low, I NEVER workout 2 days in a row, I NEVER train explosively, etc… the idea that I should change the basic protocal of what works does not make sence to me. all of the studdies I have seen that show adaptation show it within an exercise ex. M.Bernardi,et al.,Motor unit recruitment strategy changes with skill acquisition. after 6 wks of curls the subject were useing 20% LESS fibers than in the begining of the study (even though they were able to lift MORE wt.)
now I do not know how much of that was due to decreased tricep activity and how much of that was based on what I consider the muscles need for self preservation. and you could actualy make the argument that HIT training will lead to a lower rate of cns adaption because the total sets being lower. I have argued the cns thing before and I do NOT consider cns adaptation to be “real” strength. anyway I just wanted to make my opinion clear. peace