[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
“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.
[/quote]
I think the whole point of this pissing match is that you can’t judge if a program is working for you or not if your nutrition, rest, and training frequency aren’t all optimal at the time of that program. If we can accept that, then we don’t need 4 posts or so making excuses for our lack of progresses.
props to prof x for calling out simon on the ‘volume doesn’t work for me’ bullshit.
if it didn’t work for you, you didn’t know what the fuck you were doing. i guarantee your technique with your exercises SUCKED, and your program design was obviously stupid.
getting zero results means one thing: you have no fucking clue how to train.
[quote]BFBullpup wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
“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.
I think the whole point of this pissing match is that you can’t judge if a program is working for you or not if your nutrition, rest, and training frequency aren’t all optimal at the time of that program. If we can accept that, then we don’t need 4 posts or so making excuses for our lack of progresses.[/quote]
the point of this pissing match is this: if ‘volume’ training didn’t work for him , it means he didn’t know what he was doing. bad technique, bad program design, etc…
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
the point of this pissing match is this: if ‘volume’ training didn’t work for him , it means he didn’t know what he was doing. bad technique, bad program design, etc…[/quote]
Dear Johnny-Come-Latelick,
It was a standard program design pulled from countless articles (though nowehere near the volume they had).
So what’s good technique, cheating the weights and using lots of momentum to use more poundage? My form is damn strict. You don’t know anything about my technique. WTF did that part come from anyway?
I guess you missed the part about me revisiting higher volumes in later, more knowledagable years and still finding no results, but quick burnout.
It doesn’t work for everyone. Period. Otherwise there’d be a lot more jacked guys running around. If it worked for everyone, you’d might actually be as jacked as you pretend to be.
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
So what’s good technique, cheating the weights and using lots of momentum to use more poundage? My form is damn strict. [/quote]
What is wrong with limited cheating? I know many people who claim to have “strict form” who make little to no progress because they are so stuck on form that they forget the goal is to challeng your muscles and test their limits. If I need to cheat a little on my last set, I do so. It works. Perhaps you have a little more to learn regardless of HIT.
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
wrong. more advanced trainees can often tolerate much more work volume and often require much more work. specifically in regards to size and strength gains.
[/quote]
No you’re wrong. Many trainees THINK they need more work and volume after many years of training but the truth is they’d be better off with more intensity and less overall sets/volume.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What is wrong with limited cheating? I know many people who claim to have “strict form” who make little to no progress because they are so stuck on form that they forget the goal is to challeng your muscles and test their limits. If I need to cheat a little on my last set, I do so. It works. Perhaps you have a little more to learn regardless of HIT.[/quote]
Geez Prof, you’re such a stickler!
Of course my form isn’t strict all the time. If I did 8 reps with X lbs last workout, I expect to make 8 reps with X+5 lbs (or whatever) this workout — if 7 reps comes and 8 ain’t happening strictly, then I use a little body english to help.
Again you miss the point by picking at minutae. The point was: Where did pile-on boy’s jab at my technique come from? Nowehere.
There’s breaking form to get the job done on occasion and then there’s cheating the weights up all the time and kidding yourself.
Progression is my goal in each and every workout. Didn’t I mention that already too? Or were you too busy deconstructing every sentence from my last post?
BTW, everybody has a lot more to learn.
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
if it didn’t work for you, you didn’t know what the fuck you were doing. i guarantee your technique with your exercises SUCKED, and your program design was obviously stupid.
getting zero results means one thing: you have no fucking clue how to train.[/quote]
Hmmm…Interesting…the majority of trainees in gyms train with high volume. These same majority of trainees never make any gains…
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
BTW, everybody has a lot more to learn.[/quote]
No argument there.
My opinion of HIT, however, has remained unchanged.
Back to the original question that began this thread.
Here is what I think of HIT, or better yet, what I think of training.
First, I think that training, for whatever reason, be it for BBuilding or for sports, HAS to include a certain amount of intensity, which I will define as the amount of effort used above and beyond normal energy expenditures. What I mean is: in order for any positive growth, progression of weight or size or athletic ability, greater than average energy must be used.
As an athletic trainer, I push my athletes to perform at higher levels of intensity so as to gain as much as possible from the workout. I do this in plyos, speed and agility,skills and technique, game sim, and strength training. Why? Because with the higher intensity comes greater gains. It seems self evident.
I have trained many HS and college athletes using, for strength training, HIT. It has produced great results when combined with other speed, agility and plyos. It is also time efficient, as are the athletes whom I train. Further, my training is very fluid and I have used strictly body weight movements and have found great success from those.
As someone who trains himself, I train with higher levels of intensity. I do not go for moderate level intensity cardio. I like what has become known as High Intensity Interval Training. I do this periodically. With respect to lifting, I train with higher levels of intensity. People don’t get bigger or stronger unless they do. When I say “people”, I mean everyone.
I have noticed, when it comes to lifting, that some do great with intense body weight exercises, others do great with weights, some using multiple sets of the same exercise and others doing well with one set per exercise but maybe hitting the same body part with multiple exercises or movements.
Over the past 3 years or so, I have read up on what is known as HIT and have found that, at it’s root, it is a fluid concept. To me, it doesn’t seem to be a dogma, though, I have found, many can be dogmatic. I like it and use it, in it’s very fluid form. Sometimes, I even use it to failure. Other times, I find myself “cheating” on reps.
Of course, there are times and situations where I use multiple sets of the same exercise. Sometimes to failure and, yes, I find myself cheating on some of those reps also.
I find it equally taxing mentally whether doing one set or multiple sets. Part of me wants to just finish because I am getting my butt kicked and am not looking forward to another rep, let alone another set.
So, what do I think of HIT? I always train in a way that is higher in energy output than normal. Sometimes the exertion is higher than others. Sometimes it takes more than one set to get the level of “intensity” that I am looking for; sometimes I go to failure, either in one set or more than one. Other times, I don’t and get just as good a workout.
I like HIT and I use it, though not exclusively, just as I use any method that is effective
Again, my training, and the way I train others is fluid. To ask which way is right is the wrong question (I know that was not the question that was asked here). Nor does it get down to which is best.
If it worked for everyone, you’d might actually be as jacked as you pretend to be.
wrong. most people don’t just have horrible program design, they have horrible technique with their exercises, as well.
there is no way you can have good technique with a relatively non-retarded ‘volume’ program and get zero results.
are you one of those guys who struggles with 185/205 pounds on bench press and thinks he’s doing it super-strict because it takes you 10 seconds to complete a repetition and you don’t know how to utilize legs drive/stabilization?
are you one of those guys who thinks arching your back on the bench is ‘cheating’ or ‘bad for you’?
[quote]greatgro wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
wrong. more advanced trainees can often tolerate much more work volume and often require much more work. specifically in regards to size and strength gains.
No you’re wrong. Many trainees THINK they need more work and volume after many years of training but the truth is they’d be better off with more intensity and less overall sets/volume.
[/quote]
ok. listen. this is a no brainer…
as you progress with training in the gym certain physiological adaptations happen.
in no particular order:
the more advanced you get, the more work volume you can tolerate. period.
[quote]greatgro wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
if it didn’t work for you, you didn’t know what the fuck you were doing. i guarantee your technique with your exercises SUCKED, and your program design was obviously stupid.
getting zero results means one thing: you have no fucking clue how to train.
Hmmm…Interesting…the majority of trainees in gyms train with high volume. These same majority of trainees never make any gains…
[/quote]
since when do most trainees use high volume? 9 sets of ‘chest’ exercises per workout constitutes high volume? not in my world. i do, let’s say, in a given week: 30-ish sets of bench press <granted, there’s a lot of low rep work in there, but this is not including warm up sets obviously>, plus 30-ish sets of other upper body pressing motions such as military press and dips.
i also do around 60 - 80 sets of chin ups every week.
etc… that’s high volume. and the term high volume is relative to the individual, anyways. i’ll agree that most trainees are overtrained in a given workout, but undertrained over longer periods of time such as months and years.
most trainees do demand more from their bodies per workout than they can deliver, i will no disagree with that. but they are also highly undertrained. they train too infrequently, and kill themselves when they actually do train.