I’d have to say Old Joe has done more for the “sport” of BB, due to the publicity he gave it. Ask people in the gym, I’ll bet far more have heard Of JW than AJ and they’ll be able to tell you why the know his name.
Liked the “Croaking Principle”!
BTW Wannabee are you sure you’ve been training for 15yrs, or is that your age/IQ?
Dax
This is the stupidest thread in the history of the forums.
If Franco had been 6-1 he’d have weighed about 300 and probably totalled 2400 raw.
By the way, I said that I felt like I wasted 5 years trying to get Heavy Duty to work for me. At that point I was 5-8 180 and about 13% BF. Sounds like at 6-1 180, you’ve wasted about 15 years.
Few sets at high intensity is one thing. 1 work set per muscle per week is Lazy. I think people gravitate toward this because they are just plain lazy asses. Every single study has demonstrated that 2-3 work sets works better than 1 and muscles/tendons/nerves respond to a variety of training stimuli. Training to failure is biologically different for everyone.
Try this. Put 225 on the bench and lye down with a flat back. Take a medium grip and lower with elbows out a little. Now lower for 4 seconds, hold 1/2 inch off the chest for a second and lift. See how many you can get. Also, notice how after a few reps, your elbows shift position? Is that failure? Where do you fail? On the chest or up around the tricep zone? How come the bench and dip are the kings of chest exercises when you always fail in the tricep zone? Your chest never goes to failure.
[quote]sMorri wrote:
This is the stupidest thread in the history of the forums.[/quote]
I don’t know if its the dumbest in the history but its gotta be in the top ten…
I don’t mean to hijack, but since this thread already seems to have turned into “Why HIT sucks” I want to throw in my two cents.
I believe what Mertdawg said about one working set being laziness. Here’s why: work begets results. I don’t mean ‘working hard’ or ‘effort’ or ‘intensity’ or any of the other pseudoscientific terms people mean when they refer to work. I mean work in the physical sense of applying force to a mass over a distance. One set of some isolation exercise done for many reps doesn’t accomplish very much work, period.
I do concede that training to failure may be useful at times to develope a tolerance to lactic acid, which may be beneficial to some athletes.
Frequent sessions using sub maximal weights with high velocities and over large distances (The large distance, or range of motion only being possible with compound lifts.) accomplishes more work and gets more results, IMHO.
I haven’t read any studies correlating work with hypertrophy, although I’m sure they exist, but I do know that when the soviets talked about training volume, they often talked about weekly tonnage, implicitly referring to the work done by the lifter.
That’s my take on the issue. Feel free to disagree.
Everything works - HIT, TBT, GVT, EDT - heck you could probably make up a program just by creating a three lettered acronym ending in ‘T’, and it would work…for a while.
On the other side of the coin - nothing works…all the time. To subscribe to a single training method will set you up for stagnation, and plateaus. Long, frustrating, unproductive plateaus.
The only training program that might not fit in that box is CW’s newer stuff. But the difference between his programs and most of the others is that he builds change into the protocol whether it be how heavy or how many sets/reps.
Just my opinion.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
man I love Professor X!
But I’ve gotta ask…Franco trained with Arnold, not with Jones, yes?
[/quote]
Yeah, I knoe that. But funny lookin’ dude X-nut said that because I’m only 180lbs. that I wasn’t strong & using Jones way of training. Franco didn’t weigh much & he was strong & built.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
But the difference between his programs and most of the others is that he builds change into the protocol whether it be how heavy or how many sets/reps.[/quote]
I don’t understand why someone who has been training for years wouldn’t already be doing that. I don’t change much in my training aside from those two factors and that seems to be enough “change” to make progress. I hear these relative newbies basically switching up routines every week as if they are trying to “fool” their bodies. It doesn’t work like that. Muscle growth is adaptation. To see continued growth, you still have to be able to measure it against many of the same stimuli. While I may change exercises every once in a while, mostly because of simply feeling it is time for something new, I don’t set a time line that I must change something by because that is not one of the main factors that sees to continued growth. Weight and sets/reps are.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Everything works - HIT, TBT, GVT, EDT - heck you could probably make up a program just by creating a three lettered acronym ending in ‘T’, and it would work…for a while.
On the other side of the coin - nothing works…all the time. To subscribe to a single training method will set you up for stagnation, and plateaus. Long, frustrating, unproductive plateaus.
The only training program that might not fit in that box is CW’s newer stuff. But the difference between his programs and most of the others is that he builds change into the protocol whether it be how heavy or how many sets/reps.
Just my opinion.[/quote]
I’m going to copy and paste this post every time I see the question on these forums “what’s the best training program out there?”
[quote]BRUCELEEWANNABE wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
man I love Professor X!
But I’ve gotta ask…Franco trained with Arnold, not with Jones, yes?
Yeah, I knoe that. But funny lookin’ dude X-nut said that because I’m only 180lbs. that I wasn’t strong & using Jones way of training. Franco didn’t weigh much & he was strong & built.[/quote]
Brilliant logic. Hefty Smurf was also pretty damned strong and he was only, what, about 2lbs? Hell, I have some starvation dieting to do!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Everything works - HIT, TBT, GVT, EDT - heck you could probably make up a program just by creating a three lettered acronym ending in ‘T’, and it would work…for a while.
On the other side of the coin - nothing works…all the time. To subscribe to a single training method will set you up for stagnation, and plateaus. Long, frustrating, unproductive plateaus.
The only training program that might not fit in that box is CW’s newer stuff. But the difference between his programs and most of the others is that he builds change into the protocol whether it be how heavy or how many sets/reps.
Just my opinion.[/quote]
I’m right there with you. All I was trying to say is all out effort has given me the best results period. I do up 4-5 ssts sometimes. Not just 1 set every time I train. Mixing it up. Those against HIT ARE using HIT style workouts themselves. They think all us Jones fans use 1 set all the time. At least that’s not how it is in my case. Take what u can use & use it. If it doesn’t work, throw it out. 1 set all OUT does work though. It would work for everyone, just not every workout for the rest of your life of course. Peace out.
[quote]BRUCELEEWANNABE wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
man I love Professor X!
But I’ve gotta ask…Franco trained with Arnold, not with Jones, yes?
Yeah, I knoe that. But funny lookin’ dude X-nut said that because I’m only 180lbs. that I wasn’t strong & using Jones way of training. Franco didn’t weigh much & he was strong & built.[/quote]
Stop being slow.
Franco was 180, contest, at 5-5. You are 180 with some lesser amount of conditioning at 6-1. Franco was very big for his height. You are small for yours. If you’re into that, fine. However, ProfX reserves the right to tell you what a poor human being you are for being small, and many of us will be inclined to agree. Rule of thumb: never be in a position where a shorter man has more lean mass than your total mass. I won’t comment on what training program you need for that.
I guess you guys have never see Bruce Lee before. Enough said! Thank u very much! Ha!
[quote]BRUCELEEWANNABE wrote:
I’m right there with you. All I was trying to say is all out effort has given me the best results period.[/quote]
What “best” results? You weigh 180lbs! After 15 years in the gym! If these are the “best” results, I will gladly look elsewhere.
I’d bet my bottom dollar you don’t approach the incredibly lean, hard and grainy physique of Bruce Lee.
Not that I can either, but I didn’t make the boast!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Brilliant logic. Hefty Smurf was also pretty damned strong and he was only, what, about 2lbs? Hell, I have some starvation dieting to do!
[/quote]
I can totally understand the use of a smurf reference here. But the fact that you called one out by name - suggesting a more than casual knowledge of the little guys- disturbs me greatly.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Brilliant logic. Hefty Smurf was also pretty damned strong and he was only, what, about 2lbs? Hell, I have some starvation dieting to do!
I can totally understand the use of a smurf reference here. But the fact that you called one out by name - suggesting a more than casual knowledge of the little guys- disturbs me greatly.[/quote]
Who are you kidding? That shit came on every Saturday morning along with Spiderman and his Amazing Friends and Lazer Tag. Don’t act like you didn’t toss back Lucky Charms in front of the tv like the rest of us. I know you’re old, but damn. Then again, all you had were Lone Ranger repeats and Howdy Doody. I would run from the tv too.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Who are you kidding? That shit came on every Saturday morning along with Spiderman and his Amazing Friends and Lazer Tag. Don’t act like you didn’t toss back Lucky Charms in front of the tv like the rest of us. I know you’re old, but damn. Then again, all you had were Lone Ranger repeats and Howdy Doody. I would run from the tv too.[/quote]
Nobody - I mean NOBODY- makes fun of the ‘Masked Rider’. Take it back.
I don’t know what my problem is but in 14 years of consistent lifting I’ve only had results using single set training. And I don’t say HIT because I don’t always lift to failure. There’s nothing magical about failure.
My history is first two years of lifting made zero improvement on multiple set to failure (FLEX) training. (6’4" 185 bench 200)
Then 8 months of single set to failure every four days. (225 bench 260 squat 400) Then added 15 rep set not to failure on the other 3 days but unfortunately quit the leg training except for cleans. (230 bench 290 to 320) Then switched to multiple set training (minus the FLEX style overtraining) for almost the last ten years straight and have gone nowhere.
Just tried Stephan Korte’s 3x3 program and got the flu real bad here at the beginning of the third week. Plus I suddenly got so much weaker on the dls(despite only going for a 10 pound increase to 475) that I started rounding my back. So I finally quit and I’m going back to stupid old single set training. Yeah I know it sucks. But it’s the only damm thing that has ever worked for me at all. And I physically feel a lot better when I do it also.
[quote]Jay Sherman wrote:
I don’t know what my problem is but in 14 years of consistent lifting I’ve only had results using single set training. …
My history is first two years of lifting made zero improvement on multiple set to failure (FLEX) training. (6’4" 185 bench 200)…got the flu real bad here at the beginning of the third week. Plus I suddenly got so much weaker on the dls.[/quote]
Have you ever considered that it may be your diet that is the problem? Someone 6’4" not being able to break 200lbs is STRANGE. You either have the worse genetics out of most of the people in this country, OR, the more likely reason is that you don’t eat enough to grow or even sustain your training program. Hitting 200lbs should have been a breeze for someone that tall if they simply ate enough and trained half ass but consistantly.