best answer / reply yet ! thank you
That’s usually how engineers or scientists think…not always, but usually
As always, proper for what purpose? Maximizing your VO2max? (Do they offer a gold medal for that?) Winning the Boston Marathon? General fitness and health? Maybe a circuit is good enough for some purposes, for some people? You also need to distinguish between cardiovascular condition and cardiovascular health.
James, can you please elaborate a little bit what have you been doing HITwise back in a day, and what are you doing now.
Thanks a lot, I always enjoy your contribution on these forums.
There’s a lot of talk about VO2 max being the gold standard of cardiovascular conditioning. I don’t know how many of you have ever watched a VO2 max exercise testing done? Or, perhaps you participated in a test?
To begin with, it’s difficult to get all the tubes, clips, and machinery to efficiently work under resting conditions. Now, try to do so while walking, or running, on a treadmill?
Okay, if you master that, try to arrange all the equipment around a single Nautilus machine, and see how difficult that is? Next, try to get repeatable data on a single Nautilus machine, and move quickly to a second Nautilus machine, and a third, and a fourth.
The process in the paragraph above is not easy. In fact, it is very, very difficult.
Once, you understand that, perhaps VO2 max and VO2 max testing should NOT be classified in the category of Gold Standard?
6 Likes
== Scott ==
Yes , what is proper? You’ve got the couch potato who has little or no cardio conditioning and you have the rower or triathletes who have built up a extremely high level of conditioning. You’ve got both extremes. Where does proper sit among those two ? On a scale of 1 —100 the couch potato might be a 2 and a rower might be a 95. Where would the athlete trained the Darden metabolic way fit in? I’d guess he’d certainly be above average so maybe a 55? I’d think that is pretty dang good considering the Darden way you’d train 3 days a week for around a half an hour each time. That’s nothing compared to how often and long rowers train. My son rowed in college and I spent a lot of time around those guys. More than one had nick names like the horse or ox as they had lungs like a horse. They’ed train almost every day pushing their lungs and breathing to the limit quite often.
Thanks for the kind words, mate.
By way of background, while I dabbled back in my late teens (usual Weider mag rubbish) I didn’t really get into training until about 15 years later when I had become very overweight. At that time, due to my work commitments, I wanted a routine that would take up as little time as possible. I recalled Mike Mentzer’s old Heavy Duty columns and reasoned HIT was the obvious solution. I then chanced upon Ellington Darden’s “New High Intensity Training” book and pretty much followed it to a T. I later got into more of his books, including Bowflex Body Plan and New Bodybuilding for Old School Results.
As my main goal was fat loss, I did all the high carb/low calorie plans (as low as 1,200 kcals some weeks). Weight dropped significantly but I had little else to show for it. I was perpetually hungry, felt like crap and I didn’t even look as though I trained. In fact, even at something like 165lbs I had no abdominal definition.
Fast forward 2 years, I had got into higher volume routines (mainly T Nation stuff) was mainly into higher protein/low carb diets and now, while back around the 165lbs mark, I looked like an athlete instead of an underfed adult.
My point earlier was: I followed something that had ceased to work for far too long. I was reluctant because I bought into the dogma that persists around the HIT camp. That’s my fault, and mine only.
Fast forward to late last year: I have had a change in circumstances. Simply put - I need to train a lot less frequently but want best bang for buck. So it’s back to where I started with HIT. As previously mentioned, I currently follow a type of Heavy Duty style routine: two workouts (A and B) rotate them every 72-96 hours. They are full-body but I rotate the movement plane, e.g. for legs, posterior work one workout; quads the next; and horizontal push one workout, vertical the next, etc, etc. I use pre-exhaust on most exercises, one superset to failure. Also employ forced reps, negatives, rest pause on most exercises.
2 Likes
If I recall correctly, Haney said that Albert Beckels told him ,“if you want last in this business don’t be killing yourself”. Haney probably didn’t train super hard all the time. And may have stopped that procedure in later years.
1 Like
I was the worst at that, James … I kept at the ‘classic’ HIT methods that were no longer working for about 15 years. I was too dedicated to this style … just wouldn’t let it go. Too loyal to my guys who’s articles, news letters and books I devoured. What a dumb ass I was not being willing to listen and learn from others who obviously knew what they were doing.
Like you, I blame only myself for those lost years of training that could have been much more productive.
1 Like
Yes, we need to start a self-help group! 
I honestly believe things aren’t as dogmatic as they used to be. There is clearly too much anecdotal evidence now (thanks to Youtube, social media, etc) of people getting jacked using all sorts of weird and wonderful methods. To try and claim one specific method trumps them all is really an untenable position to hold. That’s why it is refreshing to see Dr D’s latest article, where he too has softened his stance on training to failure.
I suspect that lower volume HIT routines may work quite well for retaining muscle, even if you personally found it sub-optimal for building up muscle.
How is this a comeback to what I said, and why are people on this subforum so quick to yell “steroids” at people who have achieved the most success in bodybuilding? Yeah, duh, they’re on gear.
I’ll bet he was biggest and baddest when he was training his hardest.
4 Likes
Thats obviously ridiculous. You don’t win 8 Mr. Olympics against the most genetically gifted, steroid taking best of the best while not training hard.
4 Likes
Ah, I see - you thought you were saying something obvious, when you were just saying something completely wrong. Gotcha.
4 Likes
You’re not making any sense here. I provided video proof of Lee Haney training beyond failure, which is, by definition, hard. Then you’re just throwing random conspiracy theories in that have nothing to do with anything. You cannot just take steroids, not train hard, and end up winning 8 Mr. Olympia’s.
Also, why’s everyone mention Casey Viator every ten seconds in here but there’s no talk of the steroids HE was on?
3 Likes
For what it’s worth, the talk in the '70’s was that Casey was known to say he took “one blue, one white, and one pink.” Whether it was accurate or not I have no idea.
I’m confused by your point here.
Fair enough, I’ll bite. Knock a couple of those wins off so he’s no longer the (joint) most successful bodybuilder of all time. That still makes 6 more than your boys Viator and both Mentzers combined.
2 Likes
I mean - I don’t really know what or how much of anything he was on, but I just feel like steroids get shouted out a lot and his name gets mentioned without that attached to it, so I’m wondering why. I’ve read articles where people said that Casey admitted him and Mentzer were taking crazy amounts of stuff. Considering the myocardial infarction at 62, I wouldn’t be surprised. Personally, I see enormous bodybuilders and my mind already factors in steroids without having to think about it, and then I have to see who stands out above the rest on the even playing field of we’re-all-taking-gear. It’s just a silly thing to shout out when somebody points out something that a champ did.
2 Likes
Agreed. This was my biggest argument with your original post, dismissing the (joint) most successful bodybuilder of all time with a “meh, steroids, doesn’t have to train hard”.