[quote]belligerent wrote:
Not to take sides in HIT debate but that Pete Sisco bit is the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard. I don’t even know where to start other than by saying that he is a fucking moron.
[/quote]
Is this the same Pete Sisco that came up with the all-Static training program?
The all-out efforts that he prescribes are just this side of a to-failure type program.
Try this on for size: The to-failure part of this debate is a moot point. IMO, going to failure is not an essential requirement of HIT anyway.
I have made some execllent gains in the past 18 months with the following program:
7-8 exercises per workout
A and B workouts (Mon and Thu) that are rotated every 3-4 weeks.
One set of each exercise (after brief warm-ups).
Only go to-failure on 3 or so exercises each workout. The rest are NTF (usually 1, maybe 2 reps shy of failure). BTW, I worked up to this after several months of doing NTF-only workouts — still with the single sets.
My main emphasis is on progression in either weights and/or reps.
I do periodic specialization routines of 2-4 back-to-back exercises for a target bodypart.
History:
I did to-failure on every set for a number of years and no matter what “version” I tried (whole-body, heavy duty, super-slow, etc.), no matter what frequency or volume I did, I was sore off my ass ALL THE TIME. Since I’ve backed off to the program above, everything’s been peachy — let me emphasize that the above program was all NTF for the first 6 months of last year. I naturally gravitated to having at least a few all-out sets in the program.
Any higher volume programs I’ve tried in the past have resulted in zero, nothing, zilch, nada, niets. If they work for you, hey that’s coolio — or as BF Bullpup said: High-Five.
Parting Shot:
I really don’t understand where all these hateful attitudes come from about HIT and Dr. Darden.
Higher volumes or traditoinal strength programs didn’t do jack shit for me, but I’m willing to respect those who choose and enjoy such regimens.
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
Higher volumes or traditoinal strength programs didn’t do jack shit for me, but I’m willing to respect those who choose and enjoy such regimens.
Later,
Scott[/quote]
Statements like this are what produces some hostility. I find it very hard to believe that someone can claim they simply can’t make any progress whatsoever and the specific training routine was the problem. I could care less what exact number of sets and reps someone chooses, to claim no gains can be made leads to questioning what that person is eating and how much focus and consistancy goes into their training.
You are saying you are huge now? You were skinny as hell no matter what you ate but simply doing HIT caused you to look like a bodybuilder? Claims like that are what bring the entire idea into question.
I make gains because I work hard and eat enough to do so. The specific routine is not the most important factor. My own drive and determination is. The majority of the people I have seen who latch onto HIT in the way you just did don’t seem to match the physical development of the majority using more traditional training methods who are serious.
That doesn’t mean that HIT is completely ineffective…it means perhaps many who latch onto it are.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Statements like this are what produces some hostility. I find it very hard to believe that someone can claim they simply can’t make any progress whatsoever and the specific training routine was the problem. I could care less what exact number of sets and reps someone chooses, to claim no gains can be made leads to questioning what that person is eating and how much focus and consistancy goes into their training.[/quote]
During the time I did HVT I ate like a horse and was extremely enthusisatic. Lifting was ALL I thought about at the time.
Claims? I didn’t make any such claims. Stop putting words in my mouth.
With HIT, I have made gains and I look like I lift weights. I never looked like anything but “wiry” when I did HVT.
[quote]
I make gains because I work hard and eat enough to do so. The specific routine is not the most important factor. My own drive and determination is.[/quote]
Excellent point.
I would admit that part of my success in the last year and a half came from improving my workout journaling — really studying what the workouts results were telling and me and making adjustments.
I’ve also incorporated things like arousal techniques to get the most out of each workout.
Oh so. You had me and then you lost me.
There was no latching, pally. This all came from years and years of trial and error — lots of error.
I never said HIT was my panacea. I thought I clearly indicated that I tried several versions of HIT with just as crappy of results as HVT.
In that time frame, I tried higher volume routines a few times too. These were not haphazard dabbles in this and that, but dedicated trials for periods of months.
I got to “full-body” and gained well for a while and then hit the same walls. It was only when I went to NTF workouts that I started to see a steady increase in poundages and SOME hypertrophy — I ain’t ever gonna win a BB contest, but I’m improving.
[quote]
That doesn’t mean that HIT is completely ineffective…it means perhaps many who latch onto it are.[/quote]
It’s statements like your last one that lead to hostility.
In your arguements you made use of generalizations, taking words out of context, and amateur psychoanalysis —and then you wonder why HIT people get defensive.
P.S. Some of the main reasons I prefer HIT these days involve not getting enough sleep and not always eating what I should. I realize that these two factors alone could account for the reasons why I had to drop back to NTF. I have no delusions about that.
I added this part to convey the fact that my posts are always honest to a fault.
In your arguements you made use of generalizations, taking words out of context, and amateur psychoanalysis —and then you wonder why HIT people get defensive.[/quote]
No, people are hostile to that way of thinking because you wrote:
[quote]
During the time I did HVT I ate like a horse and was extremely enthusisatic. Lifting was ALL I thought about at the time.[/quote]
First, I am not sure what you consider “high volume training” because I have never called my training that. This terminology seems to only be used by HIT enthusiasts. That is the first clue that you may have been completely turned around as far as your training in the beginning and that training with more volume than HIT may not be the problem.
Second, how does someone “eat like a horse” and not gain weight? Doesn’t that imply you weren’t eating enough?
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
P.S. Some of the main reasons I prefer HIT these days involve not getting enough sleep and not always eating what I should. I realize that these two factors alone could account for the reasons why I had to drop back to NTF. I have no delusions about that.
I added this part to convey the fact that my posts are always honest to a fault.[/quote]
Holy Crip it’s a Crapple.
-Family Guy
Don’t you think that fixing THAT may have solved the damn problem? You claimed before that bodybuilding was ALL you thought about. I am picturing you staying up late contemplating all that is weight training. Now you say you didn’t really try to eat enough or rest enough? But the problem was “high volume training”(whateverthefuck that is)?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Don’t you think that fixing THAT may have solved the damn problem? You claimed before that bodybuilding was ALL you thought about. I am picturing you staying up late contemplating all that is weight training. Now you say you didn’t really try to eat enough or rest enough?[/quote]
“Holy ass, it’s a shithole!”
Me
I ate plenty. I gained fat around the middle but not muscle. I never put much stock in the “you aren’t gaining muscle because you’re not eating 5,000, 6,000, whatever calories a day” arguement. I overtrained on higher volumes. Undernourishment was never a problem for this hearty eater.
The not-enough-sleep part is more of a factor now than then. In fact, in the days of my high-volume experiences I was getting 7-8 hours per night. Right now here in THIS millenium, I get about 5.5-6 hours. Sorry I didn’t include my whole life story to clarify my original post for you. You do understand the concept of ‘then’ and ‘now’ don’t you?
As far as picturing me, you can stop. I don’t pay enough rent to be allowed to spend that much time in your head.
[quote] But the problem was “high volume training”(whateverthefuck that is)?
Brother please.
[/quote]
When did I ever say higher volume was a problem? Again with putting words in my mouth. All I can say is that higher volume did not work for me. Any more than that would be unfair.
The diet is nobody’s fault but mine. The sleep part is not changeable at this time with my current family life. Again I have chosen to leave my life story out.
I’m sorry this has degenerated to a match of who can manipulate the other guy’s words more — You win that one, hands down.
Maybe I should’ve just said this: I currently do one set each of 7 or 8 exercises, twice a week and am experiencing some of the best gains of my life. I usually only take 3 or 4 of those sets to failure. The rest are stopped 1 or 2 reps shy of failure. The driving parameter for my workouts is progression.
There. How’s that? No back story elements to confuse or intimidate you.
The original intention with my first post was to explain that the whole “to-failure or not to failure” core of much of the HIT vs. HVT debate was itself debatable.
I’m with you on the “labelling” thing. It just an easy (read: lazy) way of differentiating Them from Us.
Do you do multiple sets of all your exerises? Do you like it? Is it working? Great. More power to you. Call that training whatever you like.
For me, I prefer to use one work set per exercise to get the message across to my body. In the end, however, all I can do is speak for me.
I ate plenty. I gained fat around the middle but not muscle. I never put much stock in the “you aren’t gaining muscle because you’re not eating 5,000, 6,000, whatever calories a day” arguement. I overtrained on higher volumes. Undernourishment was never a problem for this hearty eater. [/quote]
I will leave my personal opinion of HIT out of this other than to say that it probably attracts its fair share of those who are either clueless beginners or those who are looking for ways to avoid regular training. I am, however, very interested in the training program that caused you to overtrain so easily without gaining any muscle mass. Also, how are you gaining now?
Overload causes adaptation.
Adaptation = gains in strength, size or both.
HIT (failure) is one way to create oveload.
HIT can and does work, for some.
HIT is not the best way nor the only way.
Is there a best way?
Everything works for a while, nothing works forever.
I like HIT (actually more HG, a la Stuart McRobert) style workouts sometimes when I am short on time or in the summer when I’d rather be out doing stuff rather than being in the gym.
HIT f’ing works. But then again so does almost everything else. I’ve been training for over 20 years and tried just about everything. I’ve done various version of HIT and various versions of HVT. Darden, Leistner, Mentzer, etc. to EDT, Waterbury, etc. I made my best gains with HIT but did well with HVT. And I’ve had training partners who were just the opposite. Everything works, everyone is different and will respond to different training in different ways. So I just don’t understand why people have to argue about this crap.
Personally the best mass training program I’ve ever used is Doggcrapp. While Dante doesn’t want to call it HIT or be associated with HIT, it is HIT. But I understand why he doesn’t want to be labeled that. The HIT “jedi’s” can be jackasses. But then again, as evidenced by this thread, so can those who oppose it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I will leave my personal opinion of HIT out of this other than to say that it probably attracts its fair share of those who are either clueless beginners or those who are looking for ways to avoid regular training. I am, however, very interested in the training program that caused you to overtrain so easily without gaining any muscle mass. Also, how are you gaining now?[/quote]
I’m not sure which part you’re asking about. The higher volume stuff from way back or my higher intensity workouts?
I’m not sure that the early stuff was overtraining, but I wasn’t growing. Maybe it was undertraining?
I agree with the sentiments expressed above that most people make this stuff way too complicated.
Instead of arguing over which program is the best or trying to find the perfect program, those who train should focus upon gaining strength over time and eating commensurate with their physique goals.
People bounce around too much trying to find the “ultimate” program when it is really all about providing your muscles with progressive resistance. You do not have to rely upon a brand name program to accomplish this.
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I’m not sure which part you’re asking about. The higher volume stuff from way back or my higher intensity workouts?
I’m not sure that the early stuff was overtraining, but I wasn’t growing. Maybe it was undertraining?
Please clarify your question.
Scott[/quote]
Now you don’t know whether it was overtraining? So, let’s recap. You claim to have been eating enough but gained nothing but body fat. You then thought the problem was “overtraining” but now you think it could have been “undertraining”. You sure seemed to have been turned around even as far as basic understanding of what your body was supposed to do.
I am asking what kinds of gains you are making now. I am wondering how someone so turned around previously believes that HIT is what is best for them when it is pretty clear that you were doing quite a bit wrong previously when not training with HIT.
In most people’s minds, if they are eating so much that they are simply gaining body fat, that implies you ARE NOT TRAINING HARD ENOUGH. You are either not using enough weight or your overall intensity is subpar. Otherwise, you would be gaining some muscle. That is as simple as it gets. Overtraining isn’t some murky state of being where you can’t tell whether you are training enough or not. There are generally other signs that “overtraining” is truly the cause, and in my honest opinion, way more people use that term than ever actually need to.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Now you don’t know whether it was overtraining? So, let’s recap. You claim to have been eating enough but gained nothing but body fat. You then thought the problem was “overtraining” but now you think it could have been “undertraining”. You sure seemed to have been turned around even as far as basic understanding of what your body was supposed to do.[/quote]
Dude this was up to 25 fucking years ago, okay?!
It was pretty standard stuff. Probably not that high of a volume compared to some.
12 sets for back, 9 for delts, 6-9 for chest, 6 each for bis and tris, 6 for quads, 3 for hams, 3 for calves (3 sets of each exercise).
Mon,Tue,Thu,Friday or every other day. Push-Pull split on upper. Legs usually by themselves, or sometimes worked into upper body (quads with push, hams & calves with pull).
I wish I kept decent journals that far back. It would be interesting to see what they really looked like. My progression was probably not that great — I’d just up the weights a bit when it got too easy (a true but telling point I know). I just thought that if I showed up at the gym regularly and ate like a horse, I’d get there. But I didn’t.
After that, I got into HD and other types of to-failure training. I always gained well for a while, but then I would get to the point of being sore as hell all the time.
Once I’d done HI for a long time, any other tries I had with higher volumes were not the same. Even when I did the multiple sets, it seems I couldn’t hold back and the plateaus came more quickly.
In retrospect, all I can say is that higher volumes did not work for me (I’ve already made this statement once before). Was I doing them wrong? Quite probably. I was a teenager. You’d think I’d grow on any program wouldn’t you?
Sorry if I impugned your preciuous multiple set training, based only on my faulty 25-yr old memories. Are you happy now?
Turned around? Screw you. How intuitive were your training methods as a teenager?
I’ve gained about 9-10 lbs of muscle in the last 18 months. I’ve put about a 1/2"-5/8" on my arms. This time period includes about 3 months after a tumor was removed from my right wrist in October. My training pretty much “marched in place” for that time period (I did legs and a lot of gripless upper body work). I lost some arm size, but made extra efforts to come back since then.
Not astounding numbers by anyone’s measure but it’s better than what I did in the last 10-12 years. If I’d gained at that rate for 10 years I’d be huge.
I turned 44 a few months ago and HIT is working well for me. It fits my needs and current work schedule well. Am I going to switch any time soon? Not only no, but hell no.
I really look forward to going to the gym and seeing what improvements I can make from my last workout or what new combinations I can try. That’s the most important thing — even if someone gave you the “perfect routine”, it won’t mean shit if you you don’t look forward to your workouts. Is it ok to say that I prefer HIT simply because I like doing it more than other types of training?
Obviously it’s not that simple, otherwise there would not be a whole “I’m gaining strength, but not muscle” issue that is being debated in another thread right now! I’ve experienced that plenty during my HI times.
At a certain advanced stage, you have to do more than advance in poundages to squeeze out more hypertrophy. That’s a whole new can of worms that I’m not going to get into here.
Other signs? No shit. Tiredness, poor sleep, and irritability — I see those well before my increases stagnate.
You are exactly right about the term being overused. Perhaps I even used it wrong when describing my higher volume experiences. Again, are you happy now?
Dude this was up to 25 fucking years ago, okay?! [/quote]
So, you’ve been HIT for over 2 decades? When do you compete?
[quote]
Sorry if I impugned your preciuous multiple set training, based only on my faulty 25-yr old memories. Are you happy now?[/quote]
This isn’t about “impugning” multiple set training. It is about claiming a routine (which similar constructs have produced more competitive bodybuilders and athletes than any other) didn’t work when it seems pretty clear you had no clue what you were doing.
[quote]
Turned around? Screw you. How intuitive were your training methods as a teenager?[/quote]
Apparently, better than this.
[quote]
I’ve gained about 9-10 lbs of muscle in the last 18 months. I’ve put about a 1/2"-5/8" on my arms. This time period includes about 3 months after a tumor was removed from my right wrist in October. My training pretty much “marched in place” for that time period (I did legs and a lot of gripless upper body work). I lost some arm size, but made extra efforts to come back since then.
Not astounding numbers by anyone’s measure but it’s better than what I did in the last 10-12 years. If I’d gained at that rate for 10 years I’d be huge.
I turned 44 a few months ago and HIT is working well for me. It fits my needs and current work schedule well. Am I going to switch any time soon? Not only no, but hell no.[/quote]
I’m glad you are finally making progress. I am still wondering at how you come to the conclusion that because you trained wrong 25 years ago, that training with higher volume would produce less gains than what you are doing now.
Perhaps I made the mistake in assuming you have been serious about training for all of these years. If this is about someone who basically quit training for years and is now returning to it, then that also changes the field drastically.
You can like whatever you want to like. If, however, you claim that a different training system that you didn’t perform correctly 25 years ago didn’t work, then someone may say something about your exclusion of the obvious.
[quote]
Obviously it’s not that simple, otherwise there would not be a whole “I’m gaining strength, but not muscle” issue that is being debated in another thread right now! I’ve experienced that plenty during my HI times.[/quote]
I think it very much is that simple. Your body can not gain strength beyond neural adaptation and technique without any gain in muscle size for very long. Muscle size is not some useless factor in terms of strength.
[quote]
At a certain advanced stage, you have to do more than advance in poundages to squeeze out more hypertrophy. That’s a whole new can of worms that I’m not going to get into here.[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Perhaps I made the mistake in assuming you have been serious about training for all of these years. If this is about someone who basically quit training for years and is now returning to it, then that also changes the field drastically…[/quote]
You’ve ben putting the “ass” in assume throughout this discussion.
“This program works for ME” or “that program didn’t work for ME”. That’s all I need to say. That’s all I owe you.
In fact, that’s all you or anyone can say about what works and what doesn’t. I’ve you’ve gained all along, even since a teenager, then bravo for you for finding what works for you early — but how do you know that something else wouldn’t have got you there faster?
There’s a whole lot of other factors in the whole story that I don’t have the time to go into and folks don’t have the patience to listen to or care about.
