What is it about the faster pace of the workouts that makes them so effective at building muscle? Is it simply the deeper inroad that’s achievable because of the systematic fatigue of the central nervous system & the lower stress levels on the CNS? Or is there more to it? Is there some spillover effect similar to what breathing squats combined with dumbbell pullovers provide?
My impression has been that the primary purpose of ‘rush factor’ training was conditioning, specifically better work capacity. The idea that it amplifies the hypertrophy stimulus seems to be novel twist, rediscovered only recently.
But how much evidence exists for this? Dr Darden’s recent article mentions some good results from the West Point Study, done some 50 years ago. But then he stopped pushing that approach for a good 50 years, and only recently has he started using it again. So while he has a vast amount of experience with conventional to-failure HIT training, how many subjects has he trained using the combo of 30-10-30, 3 times per week training, and rapid paced workouts? And if it is better, how can we know if the improvement is mostly from 30-10-30 NTF, how much from increased frequency, and how much from shorter rests?
1 Like
The alactic energy lasts perhaps 10 seconds. The glycolytic cycle may last up to 2 minutes. However, the glycolytic cycle heavily involves endurance factors. Muscle strength and power comes from these 2 primary energy pathways. These 2 energy pathways are not designed for continuous high intensity strength conditioning. Saying otherwise will not change basic physiology.
I just disagree here! There must be time intervals between intense training bouts. Then and only then can maximum strength and power be displayed. Size follows strength and power.
@atp_4_me Just because it seems that way on paper doesn’t make it so. I gained All of my muscle mass as a teen through now doing a full body workout 3 days a week with no rest at all between sets and exercises. Over the years, this has been the style of training I’ve relied on most, full body work no rest periods until after the conclusion of the workout. I’m not saying the no rest was the reason I made the size gains, but the absence of rest didn’t prevent me from growing. I attached photos of me after 1 year of switching to this style of training (age 15 on the left, age 16 on the right)
1 Like
I disagree with your conclusion because I feel your thought process behind your statement is not broad enough. You seem to be only considering energy cycles. Here’s a few discussion points:
- What is the influence of fibre type? Surely someone with predominant FT muscle fibres need more time to recover between metabolic bouts than someone with predominately ST.
- What is your opinion on supporting nutrition? None of this works as efficiently as it could without that
- What about sleep… hydration?
- Why can some people get stronger but not bigger? It is not a given
- What is your view on learning a movement by making slight changes to your positioning (often without realising) to get stronger?
My practical take on this. During my earlier years of heavy HVT I always had longer breaks between sets, at least 60 secs. Even though I gained some mass over years in time, I felt a slow deconditioning affecting my number of reps. I got stronger up to a point when I hade trouble moving past 6-8 reps (even if I lowered the weight lifted).
Returning to strength training I found HIT-based excercise good for my general conditioning, as an additional effect aside of hypertrophy. I always thought the inroading was the major contributing factor, but I must admit there is something to the idea of speeding up recovery between sets. Since Dr Darden’s new meets old theory I have continued to stress short rest periods. The weights may be less, but I have yet to lose muscle mass.
Unfortunately too early to tell if this is the hypertrophic driver for me. At this stage, I may have to settle with what I’ve gained and focus on details.
That being said, I believe the problem with any strength training is adaptation. Currently attacking adaptation through great variation, combining strategies from both Dr Darden and Brian D Johnston. Yet another approach under my investigation - but it’s fun to challenge/compete with oneself - not one workout will be the same again. Diversity in excercise selection and cadences is my current goal.
If you do disagree, and you seem to wholeheartedly, please state exactly what you disagree with. If a point is valid, such as Dr. Darden’s, then it can withstand all challenges. I only brought up the 3 energy cycles as this was in obvious disagreement with Dr. Darden’s statements. I could have brought up empirical evidence which is overwhelmingly one-sided. Need I mention science and historicity.
You discussion points are not related to my discussion specifically. I suggest discussing those points with HiT aficionados.
This does not mean that I do not partake regularly of pre-exhaust and post exhaust modalities. I even like double pre exhaust. But, I utilize rest intervals before and after such ilk.
The akinetic bars on Nautilus machines such as the multi biceps, multi triceps, decline press, duo squat, pullover with split handles, would seem to be the best cardiovascular training tools of all, due to lesser blood occlusion effects. No one knows, but nothing i have seen conditions the heart and lungs like 
.
ATP’s point about energy systems is more relevant for situations where you are performing multiple sets of the same exercise, and deciding how much to rest between sets. What you have done to the working muscles in the preceding set, and how long you rest will determine what you can do in subsequent sets with the now fatigued muscle. There has been some research published on this situation, and conclusions vary as to what rest interval is optimum
But with regard to Dr. Darden’s 30-10-30 program, the rest interval in question is between different exercises. So, for example, I do a leg press, followed by a chest press or a pullup. Different working muscles are used in successive exercises - my legs may be depleted from the first exercise, but the prime movers in the chest press or pullup haven’t been stressed to a significant extent. If I don’t rest between exercises, it will feel harder. I’m starting the next exercise with heart rate elevated and maybe a little winded, and maybe psychologically stressed or drained by the effort. So what effect does this systemic fatigue have on the performance of subsequent exercises?
The theory seems to be that training with increased levels of central fatigue and aerobic stress will produce better hypertrophy in subsequent exercises. I’m not sure there is much evidence to support that theory.
This seems counterintuitive to my senses.
How can you maximize the intensity to the targeted muscle group if you are already systemically compromised?
2 Likes
I don’t think there’s any or many studies out there at the moment that can satisfy all of us as to whether this anabolic theory of jumping fast between exercises builds muscle faster than taking more time between exercises. I know from years of being in good shape from running , cycling , swimming etc that I could easily jump from one exercise to the next in 30 seconds or less but I didn’t do that because of some metabolic effect , I was just used to not wasting time between sets. Now when doing 30 10 30 I still try to go fast between out of sets out of habit but sometimes it takes more than 30 seconds to get to and on the next machine. Personally I prefer to get my cardio fitness from erging of cycling at other times than when hitting the weights. I want to take my time to catch my breath so I can perform reasonably well with my lifts. From years of being a cardio/ weight junkie I know if I try to do both at the same time , which I’ve done many times, both will suffer to some extent. For those who don’t want to spend the extra time doing cardio I think the 30 10 30 metabolic challange can be very productive! Both ways can work to a certain extent! It all depends on what you want.
1 Like
Consulted PubMed for insight.
A handful of published articles the past ten years re rest intervals and hypertrophy. Small materials with few individuals. A couple of them compared 1 min rest with 3 min or more rest.
From what I could read out, there seems to be an increase of GH associated with shorter rest intervals. Worth noting that the same study saw a decrease in testosterone as cortisol levels rise (not surprisingly). One later study claim that moderate load and shorter rest intervals provide more hypertrophy, but that the effect is short-lived compared to the control group - with no difference after 5 weeks, if I remember correctly.
What the studies doesn’t show, is the observational value of Dr Darden’s long term experiences. I would definitely rate this a more probable source, than the short-term studies above.
Also, I feel that some studies draw conclusions they actually haven’t proven. Other studies are highly advanced with MRI, muscle biopsies and hormonal testing - but still the groups investigated are small (10 people or so) and they haven’t studied long term outcome.
What is wrong with the scientific community? I suppose it’s a matter of under-financed efforts. No-one apart from a few training scientists (and us) seem to be interested in this. As long as these findings don’t sell supplements for millions of dollars, the fitness industry (the big W guys) won’t be interested. They sell their products anyway…
Isn’t most of that in connection with multiple sets of the same exercise?
I agree his observations have value. But several aspects of this new approach are very recent, appearing within the past 2 years. So his experience with the new approach has to be much less extensive than his experience with what came before.
In the academic world, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that more money is available for research that focuses on exercise advice or interventions that can have widespread impact on public health issues. Bodybuilding??? Not so much…
2 Likes
Don’t forget about Dardens experience with metabolic condition 40 years ago
Studies, smudgies, do you really need a study to decide what works for you ? Sure it’s fun to read all these studies but as some say you can find a study to support anything you want to hear. Try it , if it works it works , if it doesn’t it doesn’t .
Scott
3 Likes
Since I decided to compete in bodybuilding (1970) I have been in search of the holy grail of hypertrophy. Whether that method was diet, AAS’s, or training methods, I was in search of the “magic elixir”.
My first revelation was the Arthur Jones magic elixir, that I came to pursue after seeing the teenage phenom, Casey Viator, who guest posed at the 1970 Mr All South in Durham, NC. Our gym later acquired the Pullover Machine (plate loaded, cable driven) and Biceps and Triceps Machine. We also started to perform the Arthur Jones workout as best we could perform it. From my experience, there was no magic there. In fact, my bench press strength made no improvement using the pre-exhaust dumbbell bench flies. It even regressed slightly.
I suppose we all tried a little bit of everything throughout those “pioneering” years. Information was pretty much limited to magazines and word of mouth. The Weider workouts seemed to lack a sense of sanity. Those who made the best progress stuck with the basics for the most part (heavy weights with compound movements for sets of 5 to 10 reps, adding an isolation movement or so to every body part.)
We tried forced reps, drop sets, negative only from time to time. But it seemed the go-to workout was always back to the basics.
All that said, no one ever trained what I would label as “metabolic conditioning”. There were some who preformed circuit training that might approach the demands of “metabolic conditioning”, but none of those people had anything close to a physique that could stand on a stage.
I am up in age (72) with a reasonably bad case of sarcopenia that was noticeable starting at age 60 and gains are non-existent. I only lose size and strength yearly. I am trying some 30-10-30 and some 6 sets of 6 reps with a 10 second rest between sets on over half of my exercises. Maybe I can slow the decline
Over the years I’ve seen routines constantly changing with most adding more and more stress to the workout like drop sets or whatever but this 30 10 30 is the first in my recollection that seems to up the inroad while dropping the stress on the system. I’m used to pushing to the breaking point so I find this type of training easy compared to the old rep until you drop method. I’m thinking if anything might work for you this might be it?
Scott
1 Like
Scott is right. Many people in their 70s have told me the same thing:
“30-10-30 deepens the inroad and decreases the overall stress.”
It will help sarcopenia.
1 Like