Good to know. Glad to see that you are making an effort to keep this focused on Darden’s advice.
Most trainees eventually fall to the plight of over-training, and may not even realize they are extremely inefficient. This is why (I believe) HIT evolved. The most recent evolution is 303030 and Max Pyramid … and even 600, 120120. No injuries, no system overload, and steady and assured progress. As loads increase one MUST compensate to allow recovery, safety, and growth.
I have NEVER ever done a squat and/or deadlift. Somehow I was fortunate to “enter” the strength-training arena right around the times of Jones’ and Darden’s revelatory works. That said I did use the “wall plate cable” in my college sports training. Just like Jerry Lewis!
I was able to understand the extreme off-loading and re-loading in squats and deadlifts, and able to get improved inroads in the Nautilus machines. When the duo squat came along it assumed I would reach new levels. However, the standard stack was quickly overtaken and even the extra stack version was quickly rendered “maxed”. This was all in the “daze” of 4-2, 8-10 exercises 3 days a week. No one until Sisco and Little promoted a balance approach of volume reduction and extended recovery.
In addition to NEVER ever doing a squat or deadlift I have NEVER been “injured” by moving or holding extreme weights.
I think both work. I have done Darden’s programs before with success. Just saying it isn’t the only way.
Offloading and reloading in squats and deadlifts are 100% dependent on how you perform those exercises. I would never presume to “understand” anything about two exercises I’ve never done.
1 Like
Funny you should mention Sisco and Little, Sisco advocates using only the exercises the allow the greatest amount of overload, including strongest range squats, leg presses, deadlifts, power shrugs, bench presses etc
Little came up with max contraction training (based on the work of the German physiologist A.E Mueller, whos findings later where found to be “overstated” and could not be replicated). Max contraction of course, involved having a training partner/s helping the trainee lift a resistance they couldnt actually lift into the contraction position of an exercise and hold it (after being assisted) there for 1-6 seconds.
You stated on the old site, you switched from max contraction to max pyramid, because you’d “maxed out the machines”. So you have held (by your own admission) heavy weights, the fact that you werent injured tells me you where just lucky, and you where forced to switch systems out of necessity, not want.
One should not have to rely how how one performs an exercise. When a motion/hold is controlled, performance issues are non-existent, and so is injury and off-loading. I have described these exercises “PERFORMANCES” as opposed to focused high intensity inroad. A static hold via Max Pyramid and a near-static such as 303030, 6060, 120120 are superior forms of inroad, safer forms of inroad, healthier forms of inroad, better forms of inroad and will generate more strength, mass and future loading … when effectively balanced with volume reduction and recovery times.
And yet, we do. If you dive-bomb the negative on a squat, bounce, and good-morning the positive, you will get a different effect than bracing, lowering slowly, and shooting upwards. If you do dead-stop deadlifts with 0 negative, you’ll get a different effect than touch-and-go deadlifts with a light touch at the bottom.
Let’s talk about this in the context of Dr. Darden’s 30-10-30. If we’re doing them on barbell curls, for example, are the 10 reps supposed to be lean-back cheat curls with a swing and a dip at the top while grunting and yelling “LIGHT WEIGHT BABAYYYYY”? No? No matter what we do, what we get out of an exercise is reliant on how we perform it.
My point is, people squat and deadlift for YEARS while honing technique. You don’t understand “extreme off-loading and re-loading in squats and deadlifts” because you haven’t done them, and you’re basing that observation off of dive-bomb squats and dead-stop deadlifts with 0 negative resistance. If you’ve never done a squat or a deadlift, you aren’t qualified to speak on their efficacy.
3 Likes
IMO and experience. The advanced techniques were further developed into today’s best practice. Here is the progression of knowledge that I followed … starting with Ken Hutchins …
Super Slow
Slo Burn
Static Contraction
Max Contraction
Advanced Max Contraction (Omega)
Max Pyramid
6060
303030
The only techniques that allow me to still progress are 303030 and Max Pyramid. However, I have incorporated a balancing approach of Session Volume Reduction and Extending Recovery. I believe these are elements that Darden and Little have not fully developed. I have applied this in detail to allow continuing progress with their protocols … perhaps better (for me) than they even expected. Recall, that the effectiveness of these protocols is first predicated on the inherent safety, lack of off-loading and overall systemic health. With less than 5 minutes TUL per week one’s system and CNS are "protected.
I do not do 301030 nor even considered it since in my experience and application I was able to utilize 303030. I believe (and read) that 301030 was developed as a compromise since 303030 was relatively very very hard to handle the extreme inroad for many trainees (especially newbies). In my experience the intense (aka too hard) intensity is easily abrogated by starting the 303030 protocol at knowingly light weight and building up to a 303030 TUL lock-in of 90 seconds TUL and then just adding weight per session.
Concurrently many trainees miss out on Max Pyramid because it also can be extreme … but if one purposely starts at a lower weight the initial sessions can easily go 9, 11, 13, 15 pyramid steppes, and progressively get to perhaps 7 and/or 5 steppes after a few sessions. The initial “dial in” is crucial.
Add that to the list of stuff you know all about without doing it, huh.
1 Like
I have found that when one begins to make progress on dynamic exercise, and 301030 is quite dynamic, one will be able to handle/perform the motion (the middles 10 reps) through skill acquisition as opposed to the intent of inroading and subsequent strength gain. Since 303030 is better than 301030 at building muscle it should be preferred … if one can handle the intensity. In my experience the best way to fully utilize and benefit from 303030 is to start relatively light … that way one can “ease” into this protocol without the possibility of off-roading the weight. Following is how I’ve done it … typically it will take two to three sessions (with full recovery periods in between).
Session One: start too light on a Leg Press 150 pounds 30 down, 30 up, 30 down. If you make it to 90, then add 10% rounded down … 160 pounds 30 down, 30 up, 30 down. If you make it to 90 and then add 10% rounded down. Once you cannot get the 90 stop and wait until next session (week). Stay at this weight until you can get to 90. Once that occurs you add minimal weight next session (about 5% but still round down). You will be assured of achieving the full 90 at these weight increases IF you rest enough which will be one week for a few months.
This is how make make 303030 achievable and tolerable and progressive.
You CANNOT train hard if you are doing 40 sets per workout, that’s why hvt is all about fluff and puff. Come on… if people like Shoenfeld and others that do those studies really believe that volume is the primary driver for growth then they are morons! Period.
I don’t necessarily think you need to do 40 sets for it to be high volume training. 6-8 sets of squats, deads, bench, ohp is high volume by my definition if the sets are 5+ reps.
I’m not saying hit doesn’t work. I’ve done it successfully. I’ve also been successful with high volume. I’ve gotten progress with high volume after seeming to be stalled on hit protocols.
Alot of talking without much to show. I don’t think everyone has to show the results of their work, unless you post like your some kind of authority on a subject, then you most certainly do.
1 Like
Not sure how much time it is worth to respond to Planet_Healh (a.k.a., Grant D) given his track record on the earlier forum. I’ll give it one post:
-
You are twisting yourself in knots trying claim that a slow rep is the same as a static. That is nonsense. If you are moving, even slowly, it isn’t static. Of course, one can turn a slow movement into a series of static holds. It is called ratcheting, and it falls into the bad execution category that you are always warning about (gaming, twisting, heaving, outroading, etc.) Also, slow reps take the muscle through a full range of motion using both eccentric and concentric contractions, static holds don’t. So completely different kind of muscle action.
-
Your progression of knowledge starts with slow full range of motion reps, switches to static holds of various kinds, and then flips back to very slow full range reps. Looks to me more like the history of low volume/HIT inspired fads. Notably, many of those early methods were touted as the ultimate exercise protocol (they weren’t). I’ll exclude Darden’s contributions since he isn’t dogmatic, still advocates for use of “normal” reps, and is more focused on negative emphasized, an feature that you seem to minimize in favor of moving very very slowly. I think you are taking advantage of his promotion of some very slow rep protocols to hijack his platform for promoting your own training ideas.
-
I’m surprised that you didn’t include any of Mentzer’s ultraconsolidated routines in your progression of knowledge. Didn’t you used to include him? It would have fit with your previous claims of only needing to train a body part once every 6 weeks, and your regular mantra of reducing volume and frequency. (Perhaps that was reductio ad absurdum, employed for trolling purposes?) Or have you now decided that was an unproductive dead end? Kind of like when, after claiming for years that you were 5% body fat, you suddenly acknowledge that you were actually more like 20% body fat.
-
You focus constantly on intense inroad as if it were the only thing that mattered. That hasn’t been established. Inroad is something that happens whenever anyone does anaerobic work against significant resistance, the same kind of work that is typically needed to trigger adaptations. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is the trigger for anything. The existence of an association between two things doesn’t prove a causal link. If deep inroad were the key to limitless gains, then drop sets to exhaustion, or resistance against motorized isokinetic devices to exhaustion would be the ultimate way to train.
-
Amusing that you would warn about the off loading and reloading associated with squats and deadlifts, since the same thing happens with Max Pyramid: you set the weight stack down every twenty seconds to change the location of the weight pin. That is complete unloading and reloading regularly every twenty seconds. Quite a difference from 30/30/30 where tension is continuous. Again, to equate MP and 30/30/30 in terms of continuity of tension is an example of your inconsistency.
-
You are entitled to have an opinion about how to train yourself. But there are a lot of people here who have just as much experience as you do, and have good results to show for their efforts. They are also entitled to have an opinion about how to train themselves. Many of these people have a lot more credibility than you do, because they demonstrate their results by posting pictures, or by having competed in body building and power lifting. So stop lecturing the rest of us about the alleged superiority of your way of training.
1 Like
TY for your opinions
In the case of Mentzer. He was perhaps “revolutionary” at that point in time, but did not incorporate momentum free movements which, in my experience and analysis, his routines fell short … since while the intensity was high it was uncontrolled. His consolidation routine was perhaps an attempted solution to the systemic overload that would occur with heaving immense weights. Perhaps he would have progressed his ideasa (I’m sure he would have). Much of his ideas were further developed and branched by John Little.
In the case of ratcheting. I first heard it in the Super Slow Exercise Manual (Ken Hutchins), but this issue can be overcome at ULTRA Super Slow speeds since when one is very very slow (approaching zero speed) the positive and negative essentially morph into a virtual static hold. I refer to this concept as “constant backloading”. IMO at ultra slow speeds all loading is a virtual static.
In the case of my own exercise selection. At my stature I eventually “max” out all machines, and am unable to perform the best protocol: Max Pyramid. 303030 came along after Max Pyramid, and it was a welcome addition since I was/am able to further inroad. However, with proper machine sizes (or a partner) Max Pyramid can be applied across several “Pendulum” style plate machines. I do feel that 303030 is superior to 6060 or 120120 since it is easier to select and apply the proper weight.
In the case of Max Pyramid. I consider it far superior since all a trainee must do is “get/hoist/position” a weight stack into position and move a pin. This can be done within five seconds or less; though ten seconds may be required when handling smaller incremental weights.
In the case of my experience. I am a student, learner, searcher, and practitioner of the progressive works of the experts. I am quite sure, I am one of a few who have understood all forms of resistive weight exercises these 45 years (and preyond (sic)). I also believe that I have taken the current 303030 and Max Pyramid (and 6060, 120120) protocols beyond the expectations of their developers (Darden/Little) by incorporating the concept of VOLUME REDUCTION and RECOVERY TIME EXTENSION since it will allow one’s system NOT to overwhelm itself and the muscles to “heal” and grow to better serve our bodies.
In the case of the “spark” of idealized cognitive awareness that I had (aka epiphany). It came from Tim Ryan who once said (paraphrased), “Super Slow is high volume since when one adds the TUL for several reps across many exercises three times a week it is comparable to multiple sets at high speeds”. He also said (paraphrased) “NONE of my clients show any noticeable gains in size or even strength after many months or years”. I do recall what Fred Hahn did about the same time … a) reduced reps to one or two. b) increased weight load significantly, and was able to “handle” it. Look at Fred now btw.
Really?
I’m not saying your methods don’t have a value, but this is an absolutely ludicrous statement.
1 Like
“I am quite sure, i am one of a few who have understood all forms of resistive weight exercises these 45 years”
Supreme leader Grant D
My research of mid-position statics.
Extensive mid-position statics on my Nautilus Leverage Leg Press led to decreased strength in the lower range (legs nearer to the chest). I was extremely disappointed in my discovery. Arthur Jones was correct about a full range of motion. I should have listened. Experience comes at an expense!