Heavy Duty

Training Bodybuilding
21

[quote]Mastermind wrote:
Konstantine wrote:
I have tried HD but realized it does nothing for functional strength.

I’m not sure what you mean by “functional strength” but I tried HD a few times (3) and I noticed that my strength kept going up while my size only did for a couple of weeks.

I believe it was a super compensation effect similar to the intensification phase after an accumulation phase.

In the end I believe the nervous system got a training effect by going to failure, hence the strength increases, but the volume was to low to promote hypertrophy. Again, the hypertrophy that I gained was probably due to super compensation after accumulation.

Rolo.[/quote]
GOOD POINT -WHAT IS FUNCTIONAL STRENGTH?
I realise I getting off topic here
Years ago , I worked at the local YMCA. I d often tell the house wife cliental to do two circuit on the Nautilus station and some running .( I know Mentzer didnt like the circuit training thing).i tried to teach them the concept of training to failure . Some did a pretty good job . i suggested the Nautilus station becuase they ; house wives, were afraid to get big with the free weights. I realise that a free weight circuit would have had better results.
Anyways , my point is , that after a month or so , the house wives told me they had a noticeble increase in strength. Daily household chores were much easier .
Was that functional training?

22

Hi Guy’s
IMO one of the best muscle building routines ever could be described as HIT, the 20 rep squat programme. And it builds functional strength because you end up doing a belly dance from the 11th rep onwards. A belly dance with 3-400 lbs on your back is interesting.

Regards Youch

23

[quote]Youch wrote:
Hi Guy’s
IMO one of the best muscle building routines ever could be described as HIT, the 20 rep squat programme. And it builds functional strength because you end up doing a belly dance from the 11th rep onwards. A belly dance with 3-400 lbs on your back is interesting.

Regards Youch[/quote]

AMEN! That is one kick ass routine… I start it again Monday!

24

[quote]Mastermind wrote:
I believe it was a super compensation effect similar to the intensification phase after an accumulation phase.

In the end I believe the nervous system got a training effect by going to failure, hence the strength increases, but the volume was to low to promote hypertrophy. Again, the hypertrophy that I gained was probably due to super compensation after accumulation.

Rolo.[/quote]

Exactly my opinion and expirience!

25

Functional strength varies from individual to individual. What is functional for a track athlete is different from an outdoor climber. One thing for sure is that HD is not the best way to train for developing power, but for someone who wants to improve size and loves pain, its a good method especially all those supersets and intensity methods that go beyond failure

26

Its actually a “relative” of HIT since they all belong to one lineage which is abbreviated training

[quote]Youch wrote:
Hi Guy’s
IMO one of the best muscle building routines ever could be described as HIT, the 20 rep squat programme. And it builds functional strength because you end up doing a belly dance from the 11th rep onwards. A belly dance with 3-400 lbs on your back is interesting.

Regards Youch[/quote]

27

[quote]Youch wrote:
Hi Guy’s
IMO one of the best muscle building routines ever could be described as HIT, the 20 rep squat programme. And it builds functional strength because you end up doing a belly dance from the 11th rep onwards. A belly dance with 3-400 lbs on your back is interesting.

Regards Youch[/quote]

20 rep squats is a demanding routine, but:

  1. You could hardly consider that those 20 rep are one set, since you are rest-pausing from 11 to 20. It’s more like you do 11 sets: one set of 10 reps, and 10 sets of 1 rep with 5-20 sec rest.

  2. Unlike HIT, you are actually avoiding failure (by rest-pausing), so you can do more reps. Which means you’re adding volume. So, why not just do more regular sets?

  3. In my exripience, it’s cost/benefit ratio is poor. I had much better progress going heavier (5x5 or 8x3) while not almost puking every workout.

  4. The origin of 20 rep squat is that it used to be a backdown set after doing heavy 3x5 or 3x3. Now that’s a real killer, and something you need to work up over a few workouts.

28

[quote]slotan wrote:
Youch wrote:
Hi Guy’s
IMO one of the best muscle building routines ever could be described as HIT, the 20 rep squat programme. And it builds functional strength because you end up doing a belly dance from the 11th rep onwards. A belly dance with 3-400 lbs on your back is interesting.

Regards Youch

20 rep squats is a demanding routine, but:

  1. You could hardly consider that those 20 rep are one set, since you are rest-pausing from 11 to 20. It’s more like you do 11 sets: one set of 10 reps, and 10 sets of 1 rep with 5-20 sec rest.

  2. Unlike HIT, you are actually avoiding failure (by rest-pausing), so you can do more reps. Which means you’re adding volume. So, why not just do more regular sets?

  3. In my exripience, it’s cost/benefit ratio is poor. I had much better progress going heavier (5x5 or 8x3) while not almost puking every workout.

  4. The origin of 20 rep squat is that it used to be a backdown set after doing heavy 3x5 or 3x3. Now that’s a real killer, and something you need to work up over a few workouts.[/quote]

Hi Slotan
Your First Point
I understand what you mean but I still consider it 1 set; you are always loaded unless of course you rack the bar but that would defeat the object of the exercise.

Second Point
When the weight increases during the course of a 20 rep squat cycle you will regularly fail; 20 reps is the maximum you’ll do.

Third Point
They are both excellent training systems but will only work for so long, just like the 20 rep squat programme. I agree with what you insinuate; it’s not about the pain but about the progress.

Forth Point
I can’t remember reading that, it’s been a few years since I read Randy Strossen’s book and any related material, but using 20 reps as a back off would be impressive if the loads were high! I couldn’t/wouldn’t do it.

Nice talking to you

Youch

29

The 20 reps to failure is bullshit IMO. People will say “Yeah but it’s effective…” But have they tried taking the same weight and just do 19 reps avoiding failure? No! You’ll be able to do another set of 12-15 in three minutes or so AND you’ll recover for another leg workout that same week, drastically increasing the benefits.
Yes you could ‘shock’ the system with failure, but what’s the point? You think you’ll just go back to your old programme and it’ll start working like brand new? No, you’ll still have to change the damn thing. So why not just change the program and cut the middleman?

There’s nothing about muscle failure that promotes growth. Take any programme that recommends training to failure and follow it to the letter but remove the failure part. I’ve found it to be a good way to find new training regimens to try. Just go back to some of the old dumbass routines where you’re supposed to take every set to failure and do the same thing without the failure - works wonders.

30

[quote]Majin wrote:
The 20 reps to failure is bullshit IMO. [/quote]

There’s NO WAY you are talking from experience. If you were you would never have writen that.

I may be wrong and if I am, tell us when exactly you gave the 20 rep squat routine (ala Randall Strossen) a chance.

Also, if you knew what it was you were talking about, you’d know that the origin of that routine is NOT as a finisher or back-off set. It originated back 60 years ago when men trained HARD and ate big and got HUGE and strong without drugs, PWO shakes, creatine or even real squat racks. In fact Joseph Curtis Hise squatted this way using tree limbs braced against his shed as squat racks.

It was a two or three times weekly workout with presses, rows and RDLs along with the squats as the prototypical routine.

Reading up on the history of the Iron Game would do you a world of good.

31

20 rep squats are BRUTAL!! I remember just crashing down as if I got hit by a good left by Mike Tyson after one set of those.

[quote]derek wrote:
Majin wrote:
The 20 reps to failure is bullshit IMO.

There’s NO WAY you are talking from experience. If you were you would never have writen that.

I may be wrong and if I am, tell us when exactly you gave the 20 rep squat routine (ala Randall Strossen) a chance.

Also, if you knew what it was you were talking about, you’d know that the origin of that routine is NOT as a finisher or back-off set. It originated back 60 years ago when men trained HARD and ate big and got HUGE and strong without drugs, PWO shakes, creatine or even real squat racks. In fact Joseph Curtis Hise squatted this way using tree limbs braced against his shed as squat racks.

It was a two or three times weekly workout with presses, rows and RDLs along with the squats as the prototypical routine.

Reading up on the history of the Iron Game would do you a world of good.

[/quote]

32

[quote]derek wrote:
Also, if you knew what it was you were talking about, you’d know that the origin of that routine is NOT as a finisher or back-off set. It originated back 60 years ago when men trained HARD and ate big and got HUGE and strong without drugs, PWO shakes, creatine or even real squat racks. In fact Joseph Curtis Hise squatted this way using tree limbs braced against his shed as squat racks.
[/quote]

I don’t know who actually started doing them first. Maybe Strossen, maybe Rader or Hoffman. I read about it in an article on old John Sanchez’s site www.americanpowerliftingevoulution.net, which unfortunately went down. It can still be accessed through the Wayback machine (www.archive.org). The articles are actually scans on old magazines, and I’m on dial-up, which makes searching very hard. But, I sure as hell didn’t make that up. It should be somewhere around here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040826151030/www.americanpowerliftevolution.net/SQarticles.html

It was 3 heavy sets of 5, then 20 reps, rest-paused from rep 10; which is even HARDER.

However, at least for me, that kind of work (I did just the 20 rep set, 1x a week) generates an EXTRAORDINARY amounts of fatigue, both mental and physical. After more than 3 weeks, it became impossible for me to recover, and I dreaded going to to gym. Another issue was my low back giving out very soon in the set, after 12-13 reps or so, and my form going to hell. So, after 4 weeks I did add, I think, 5kg to that set, but I also wasn’t able to train remotely hard for another 2-3 weeks; feeling sluggish, sleepy and not motivated.

That’s why I think the cost/benefit ratio of this routine isn’t very good. Too much strain for something that can be accomplished better with other means. Maybe I used it too soon it my training, as I used just about 70-75kg, and I was squatting just for 7-8 months on HIT program. Maybe I expected too much of that routine, but I don’t think it’s magical. If it worked better for you, than that’s great.

33

Yeah, it’s an old scheme… Strossen is only responsible for bringing it back to life (or keeping it from being forgotten). Like I said, JC Hise was doing this stuff back, I believe in the 40’s and some earlier than him. In fact, Much before that, squats (deep knee bends) were performed on the toes with very light weights. It wasn’t until the early 1900’s that people started squatting heavy and flat-footed.

34

[quote]derek wrote:
There’s NO WAY you are talking from experience. If you were you would never have writen that.

I may be wrong and if I am, tell us when exactly you gave the 20 rep squat routine (ala Randall Strossen) a chance.

Also, if you knew what it was you were talking about, you’d know that the origin of that routine is NOT as a finisher or back-off set. It originated back 60 years ago when men trained HARD and ate big and got HUGE and strong without drugs, PWO shakes, creatine or even real squat racks. In fact Joseph Curtis Hise squatted this way using tree limbs braced against his shed as squat racks.

It was a two or three times weekly workout with presses, rows and RDLs along with the squats as the prototypical routine.

Reading up on the history of the Iron Game would do you a world of good.
[/quote]

Ok, calm down. Yes I’ve tried 20 rep squats to failure. I don’t know where it originated from, I just read about it and tried it. Did it work? Yes it did. But at the time when I tried it training to failure was all I knew. I now know that you can take the same damn 20 reps to failure squat and perform it the exact same way minus the last rep(and with it the failure). There is nothing magical about going to failure, it doesn’t produce any additional benefit. Removing that last rep(or reducing the weight a tad) will allow your cns and muscles to recover much quicker, allowing for more work in that same week.

And I do not assume that this scheme was a finisher. I just think it would become the finish of that week’s leg training, as doing more work while the CNS is in shambles is simply not productive. By the way 60 years ago failure training wasn’t very popular. I don’t remember, but I think failure training was introduced after the advent of steroids. And Hise, even though strong, was not big as much as fat. Not a physique to brag about.

35

How can you take a predetermined number of reps to failure? You either do your reps until your set is done or you go to failure.

How can you guess that 20 reps will bring failure? Maybe you could actually do 21 reps or more.

36

[quote]Majin wrote:
And Hise, even though strong, was not big as much as fat. Not a physique to brag about.[/quote]

I guess it was that 20th rep that got him fat!

By the way, the 10th rep is supposed to bring about failure, you then stand with the bar on your traps until you recover enough to make another rep. And another… So that is 10 reps beyond failure. Shit it’d NEVER work!

It’s possible that he ate loads of food while training this way. Sometimes over-eating really packs on the weight! I could be wrong.

Anyway, I’m the calm one here. You are the one who called it bullshit and it needed defending! That’s all.

37

[quote]Zap wrote:
How can you take a predetermined number of reps to failure?[/quote]

I’m talking about the program and it’s principles. And yes, technically you can calculate a 19 or 20 rep max.

[quote]derek wrote:

By the way, the 10th rep is supposed to bring about failure, you then stand with the bar on your traps until you recover enough to make another rep. And another… So that is 10 reps beyond failure. Shit it’d NEVER work!

It’s possible that he ate loads of food while training this way. Sometimes over-eating really packs on the weight! I could be wrong.
[/quote]

I didn’t know THAT. Now I completely don’t understand how you can defend it because if you think 10 reps beyond failure is a good way to train…

38

[quote]
I didn’t know THAT. Now I completely don’t understand how you can defend it because if you think 10 reps beyond failure is a good way to train…[/quote]

I’m sure it’s long history of it’s wild success at promoting enormous increases in lean muscle kind of speaks for itself… It’s not like I invented the thing!

I suppose you might get over the fact that failure wont kill you… unless your talking about a parachute failure or something.

39

I’ve trained to failure for years. My argument is that it’s not an efficient way to train. After training to failure, that muscle group and the cns need 5 days to recoupe. That’s a very low work capacity.

40

[quote]Majin wrote:
I’ve trained to failure for years. My argument is that it’s not an efficient way to train. After training to failure, that muscle group and the cns need 5 days to recoupe. That’s a very low work capacity.[/quote]

Yes, I agree with your premise about the need (or the need NOT to) to reach MMF often or perhaps at all to reach your goals.

But we can agree I’m sure, that the Westside style which includes not only 1rm sets but talks at length about the STRAINING involved with missed attempts and the fact that missed attemps are OK seems to work as well. (missed attemps are really beyond failure, right?)

But to argue w/ myself, the people that can recover easily from that are few and dare I say may be “using” advanced recovery methods. And may I also say I am NOT disparraging those that do “use”. It’s cool w/ me.

OK, now I’m getting tired of my own writing… I can imagine the rest of you.