Dr. Darden,
Your new article is fantastic…thanks
2 Likes
where is it?
On the main page.
This article is fantastic! It sure is giving me a lot to think about! I think everything I do from here out will involve 30-10-30 in my training. I need to follow the program first to know for sure, but I’m certainly motivated and excited! The chin-dip-run cycle seems like a super fun workout. I want To implement that as a wrestling coach for the team, seems so perfect.
Thanks Dr Darden,
Yet another brilliant article, with a great story, that I really enjoyed reading and digesting! Old is new.
The chin, dip and run combination, as well as the concept of metabolic conditioning - makes me think about how much I appreciated the group workouts at the gym - which featured strength intervals at several different stations/tasks (maybe 10 stations of various free weights, barbells and bodyweight excercises). 60-45-30 seconds of activity, followed by 15-30-45 seconds of rest - in three (or even four) rounds. I did this two-three times a week for about 3 years. This concept did not build mass on me, but it sure made me hard and fit.
Your concept is the bodybuilding equivalent of this, and something I will seriously consider sometime soon. Currently implementing short rest intervals, (and I think I made my last workout in 20 mins). I will just have to come up with a plan on when to make it possible at one of my gyms due to accessability and space required (but yes, chins and dips and running is easier logistically - but not in practice…)
I guess a few questions I have would be, do we repeat this same cycle over again after the week off and is training not to failure now What Darden recommends for all programs at this point?
Poor exercise form and training to failure sadly remained the only mainstays of the original Nautilus principles. It was a painful and tedious protocol that produced minimal results.
Wow! That is a pretty harsh assessment…
2 Likes
Really Harsh! With a great amount of respect, I respectfully disagree. I believe a
lot of coaches and trainees still use(d) a number of the principles to produce some very positive results. But, it deteriorated over time as the definition of HIT became so varied and interpreted differently by so many who used it and those who ridiculed it. There are so many ways to train, but the original HIT is still a solid approach (but not for everyone). I’m open to new approaches and different methods, but personally have gotten what I consider to be good results over a long haul primarily with many of the original principles.
3 Likes
How were you measuring progress?
1 Like
What happened to my post?? I don’t think I deleted it??
Scott
Almost every workout for at least 3 months I was adding reps and now and then a little weight. I felt good and recovered very quickly from my workouts. The best part is I think I can actually see a smidgen of improvement in my lats! That’s never happened before that I can recall! Instead of when adding a little weight when I thought it was time I just added another plate which was way to much so I’d try and power through it. As Arnold would say, “ big mistake”. I should have added just 5 or 10 ounces, instead of 10 pounds. My workout logs show I started to plateau a little after I upped the weight too much on several exercises.
Scott
== Scott==
Especially when I think of how painful and tedious 30 30 30 was , at least to me. It might produce good results but from what I remember of it it was very painful and I couldn’t wait to end the workout , on the same order as Superslow.
What’s kind of funny to me is if you’ve been into this for as long as I have, you’ll remember not training to failure and ‘leaving a rep or two in the tank’ is the way it was done before Arthur Jones and Nautilus hit the scene ( no pun intended ).
Criticising those who trained in a not-to-failure manner and pushing ’ brutally hard work ’ were selling points of Nautilus. Things that Jones said like " … if you’ve never vomited as the result of one set of barbell curls, you don’t know what hard work is " drew a lot of us in. It did me ! Those who didn’t train ‘all out to failure’ were pointed to as not being willing to work hard enough in the gym to bring about results they desired. Dr. Ken was especially adamant about this.
Now 50 years later , falling on your face and throwing up in a bucket after a set of squats doesn’t seem like such a good idea after all, lol.
Haney I guess said it best " stimulate , not annihilate " .
1 Like
what you mean ? did "the best " 
training method is not for everyone ?
A "best training method for everyone " does not exist , nor will it ever exist.
Mark
8 Likes
I still have the BIG book where I tried Super Slow. Not a fan. Was fun for a bit. But the lighter weights and controlled slow effort felt like a lot of almost pretending, holding back to be so slow. The effort was focused on the count. I didn’t gain any faster. Instead of being that slow I try to do controlled reps, sometimes slowing down, sometimes faster. I won’t try a 30 second technique. It was the one workout in the Massive Muscles in 10 weeks that produced no results. I could measure changes in my back and legs etc. But arms never budged with that routine.
I owe Darden everything for the progress I made…shorter workouts, recovery etc. But it was his routines with intensity techniques like 21s, partials, dropsets, pre-exhaustion that worked for me. Not straight single sets to failure. But also recognizing I need to rotate to other body parts after exhausting the intensity techniques after a few weeks.
Nautilus had some great machines (Pulllover), Medx I got to use…but a boring old dumbbell or cable machine delivers just fine. The body doesn’t know or care.
Variation and techniques that stimulate a change are what worked for me. Also not annihilating. Finding that sweet spot, and varying what you do.
Having been around the HIT scene for more than a decade now, my two cents worth is this: one of the most annoying aspects of the forums was how dogmatic folks could be. The “one set to failure” mantra was set in stone (Moses himself had it on a smaller tablet when he descended from Mount Sinai). As a result, warm-ups were frequently frowned upon because you were verging on HVT. Similar dogma applied to full-body versus split training, diet, etc. The issue then becomes, if said principles are not working for you then they either are not the optimum stimulus for you or you are not trying hard enough! Too many folks would be convincing you it’s the latter, since it’s gospel and all that.
I personally painted myself into a hole early on with HIT. Felt like crap, and worse still - looked like crap! The moment I moved away from it positive changes happened. Now, more than a decade later, I have gone 360 degrees. I am older, wiser (hopefully) and know I can give systems a proper trial period to see if I will respond. And while it’s only been a few months back in HIT-land with its infrequent, low volume training to failure, DOMS that last days, getting a real buzz from the grinding, contorting, etc! I am loving it. But make no mistake. Once it stops delivering, I will move onto something else that works.
5 Likes
- Planned Variety. The body is designed to adapt, and you have to stay ahead of adaptation to avoid stagnation. You need to follow a plan designed with optimal variety for keeping the body adapting. Switching loading methods is the best variety component. Exercises can remain the same.
== Scott==
Dr Darden , I’m not clear on this part? Perhaps you could elaborate how to switch loading methods doing 30 10 30 while keeping the same exercises?
30-10-30 is a loading method. So is 10-30 and 30-10. Then, there’s negative only, negative accentuated, and holds. Plus, regular, pre-exhaustion, double pre-exhaustion, drop sets, and rest pause. There are others.
The idea is to change the loading method periodically, especially if you are advanced.
2 Likes