A couple of more HIT question

[Grizzly]

See, I just can't help myself. I love to argue with you. I love reading and replying to your posts.


Yes, a PhD in sociology--which is what Hatfield HAS--will make anyone an expert on exercise.

Really? I was under the impression that it was in physiology. My mistake. Thanks for clarifying that. So, you're right and his degree doesn't have much to do with training.


Yes, and they used to, prior to Mentzer, train each bodypart 2-3x a week, doing 2-hour double splits. Oh, and by the way, Dorian has always labelled himself as a HITter, taking his lead from Mentzer's writing, and even trained under Mike for a brief time. But you knew that already.

Is there something wrong with this type of training? Let's look at some of the folks who have employed it. Frank Zane, Franco Columbo, Vince Taylor, Robby Robinson, any 70's era bodybuilder and, the biggest advocate of marathon sessions, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Can you argue with any of their physiques? Personally, I think they all looked better than Mentzer. And, included in that list, is 3 Mr. O's. Mentzer never won, now did he? Perhaps the most impressive out of that list is Vince Taylor. It impresses the shit out of me that a 47-ish year old man can take 12th in the Olympia competing against dudes in their late 20's early 30's. That there, my friend, is impressive!

 

[Grizzly]

So you incorporate some of it, but it is still "the most over-hyped, bullshit workout strategy ever employed"?

Yes, I do. I do some of it, but I do believe that the whole of it is crap. I train to absolute failure(a tenet of HIT) but I don't think that it's exclusively a HIT principle. Arnold always said to train to failure and he sure wasn't a HITer. So, that part I can agree with. It's the rest of it that I don't like.

 

[Milford Jenings]

So, if the whole of it is B/S...but some parts are good. Does that mean since part of you is anus that all of you is?

Just curious?

Seriously though, you have to take into account what is good for you and what is not. One very important thing about bodybuilding is genetics. You may respond differently to the same stimuli than I or anyone else does. Since the question was begged of people using it and if so were they having good experiences, you simply could have said "I have used it and did not like it." But to call it B/S as a whole is out of line.

MJ

 

[DaCypher]

Also, I think everyone has their own derivative of HIT. I don't think many people follow the guildelines outlined by the HIT FAQ on cyberpump.com exactly. Everyone has their own slightly different style. I would consider anyone that trains to failure each set to be doing High Intensity Training. Yet you insist that your own techniques are bullshit...

 

[Grizzly]

Milford and DaCypher-

Ok, I did say that training to failure was a tenet of HIT. So, in a sense, one could say that I use HIT. Hell, I call what I do some high intensity shit, but Joe Weider also says to train to failure. Who's principle is it? Weider put it out first. What I was saying is that I incorporate a training principle that is part of HIT, but it's not exclusive to HIT. Ok, now I'm losing myself. Let me try one more time. I say that the whole "by the book" HIT is bullshit. I'm not saying that there's not some merit to some parts of it, but, as a whole, I think it's garbage. Let's just say that I think "YatesIT" is good, but there's been a mutation in the Yates system that makes it something other than HIT. I don't know, maybe I'm being contradictory and not realizing it, but I maintain that once you've deviated from the established principles you're no longer doing strict HIT. It becomes something else.

 

[Grizzly]

So, if the whole of it is B/S...but some parts are good. Does that mean since part of you is anus that all of you is?

Just curious?

Seriously though, you have to take into account what is good for you and what is not. One very important thing about bodybuilding is genetics. You may respond differently to the same stimuli than I or anyone else does. Since the question was begged of people using it and if so were they having good experiences, you simply could have said "I have used it and did not like it." But to call it B/S as a whole is out of line.

MJ

Ok, apparently, I peeved quite a few people. I appologize. That wasn't my intent. Would I say that I was out of line? No. I was simply offering my opinion, which differs from yours. Do I really care if you people like my opinion or not? No. I'm very good at doing that. I have an opinion on everything and I'm very free with them. I'm what they call outspoken. My mother says that I should become a lawyer because I like to argue so much. But, I digress. My reason for posting was two fold. One, I was feeling semi-ornery last night, so, perhaps, I came off a little too harsh. Sorry. More importantly, I honestly believe HIT(strict HIT) to be a sub-par training methodology and I was outlining that and some of my reasons for that belief for the person who asked the question. Ok, so I didn't answer any of her questions, but that's because I was trying to disuade her from using HIT to begin with. If someone were to post a question like "I've been washing my car with sand for the past few weeks. Have any of you experienced good results with this method?" would you reply with something along the lines of "I tried that once and I didn't think it worked very well" or "What the fuck are you doing? Are you trying to ruin your paint job just like I did to mine when I washed it with sand?" Just my take on things here.

Again, I appologize for peeving you people. That was not my intention.

 

[DaCypher]

I guess I find it hard to understand that the whole thing is bullshit, yet certain parts of it are so good that you use them yourself. I can understand not following the HIT techniques exactly as they're stated because I don't follow them all religiously. However, I don't consider the things that I don't use to be bullshit, nor the whole idea of HIT to be bullshit because I only follow a few of its aspects...

 

[Grizzly]

That's what I thought. That's where we have a misunderstanding. I guess it's partially my fault because I did state it that way, but I don't consider training to failure to be exclusive to HIT. It's a simple part of bodybuilding training. I mean, sets and rep schemes are part of HIT, but you wouldn't say that anyone who uses sets and reps is using HIT, would you? I think I just mis-stated what I wanted to say or stated it in an unclear fashion. Sorry.

 

[Blood&Iron]

Jesus, I don't check the boards for a few hours and return to find enough verbiage to rival War & Peace...

Anyway, I'll try to be brief(Knowing me this is a doomed endeavor...)

Go to T-Mag. Somewhere in there there is an interview with Dorian. In it, he states that the whole "he was trained by Mentzer" thing is hogwash.

I read the article some time ago, and this is the reason I phrased what I wrote as I did. Mentzer did supervise some of Yates' workouts. This is recorded fact. He was not Yates' guru though, as has been implied by some. Both men have freely admitted that Yates' did not follow Heavy Duty to the letter. Mentzer says this is why Yates had so many injuries and was forced into retirement. But the fact remains that Yates' WAS a practitioner of HIT. The problem is that under the rubric of HIT one can list a ton of methodologies. I suppose, in some sense, if a term is not well-defined it becomes meaningless, however, there is a fundamental undercurrent to all schools of HIT, namely that intensity is the key to muscle growth and volume should not be excessive. No school of HIT recommends multiple sub-failure sets as as periodization and volume do. A pumping HIT workout is, for example, an oxymoron.

Arnold always said to train to failure and he sure wasn't a HITer.

Actually, I think he was, at least in his early days. One of my favorite HIT workouts comes from Arnold. He might have become more "refined" looking with 2-hour double splits, but he was definitely bigger when he wasn't excessive with his volume. Watch "Hercules in New York" from 1969. Arnold's mind-bogglingly big. I think he could have given the current pros a run for their money, although he was soft compared to the pharmaceutical monsters of today, and he lacks the necessary distended belly.

Is there something wrong with this type of training? Let's look at some of the folks who have employed it. Frank Zane, Franco Columbo, Vince Taylor, Robby Robinson, any 70's era bodybuilder and, the biggest advocate of marathon sessions, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Can you argue with any of their physiques? Personally, I think they all looked better than Mentzer. And, included in that list, is 3 Mr. O's. Mentzer never won, now did he?

It is nearly universally held that the 1980 Olympia was fixed for Arnold. Mentzer probably should have won by accepted judging criteria, although there were some other strong contenders. Personally, I do prefer Zane and Schwarzenegger's physiques to Mentzer, although Mike was stunning.

Ok, apparently, I peeved quite a few people. I appologize. That wasn't my intent. Would I say that I was out of line? No.
More importantly, I honestly believe HIT(strict HIT) to be a sub-par training methodology

Apology accepted, but...
I would say you WERE out of line. You are completely free to have your own opinion, even to express it. But with a discussion forum such as this comes the expectation that members obey common rules of etiquette which I think you failed to do with your initial post(Although, your subsequent posts have, for the most part, been much better in this regard. The change in tone has been noted and has done much to placate me.) Saying "HIT is a
sub-par training methodology" and "HIT is bullshit" are two entirely different things(Although, in neither case have you backed up your assertions with anything more than anecdote.)

I love reading and replying to your posts

Well, I can't really argue with that one, can I?

 

[DaCypher]

I love to argue with you. I love reading and replying to your posts.

I think he's just trying to post opinions opposite of Blood&Iron, just for argument's sake.