Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
N
nclifter6feet6
Guest
i think that is the pussiest way to train. and i bet your fuckin small too 
that one set per bodypart aint cuttin it
that one set per bodypart aint cuttin it
ANABOLICK1
New member
HIT style works for me. Get stronger and stronger from week to week. All it takes is one heavy set to stimulate growth, if you give it your all. I used to train with higher volume and got nowhere fast (overtraining). It's all about executing that one set with intensity. Don't believe it will work for you? Try it.
ANABOLICK1
New member
DaPimp said:
When you trained HIT style, how often did you train each body part? You shouldn't lose size from it. You were burnt out performing one set?
ANABOLICK1
New member
DaPimp said:
Sounds like you were overtraining. Try training each body part once a week.
I have been training this way for prolly 8 months now, and have nothing but good things to say about it. I do my own variation of it tho. I warm up for 1-3 sets and do 2-4 sets to failure(depending on bodypart). I have been getting stronger at practically every workout too. I will continue to do this till I stop progressing.
c3bodybuilding
New member
Some of you guys need to talk to Realgains (5'11 I believe, and got to a lean 250 or so. Never did volume). He will tell you all about HIT and HeavyDuty.
And Mike Mentzer never did one set only per body part, not while he was competing. He would do 2-6 work sets per part. You must remember this was at a time when most were training 6 days a week, sometimes twice a day, with up to 20 sets a body part. Mike's routines were a breath of fresh air.
I've always trained low volume, and Have gone from 144.5lbs at nearly 6'4 to 260lbs at a high point all within 4 years. The most I've done for a bodypart is 4-6 working sets. If anyone wants to call those type of gains, pussy, then so be it.
I'd like some people to tell Dorian Yates that HIT is pussy. Perhaps Casey Viator, or Tom Platz. Those guys along with Mike Mentzer trained with incredible intensity. They were HARD workers. Dante who does no more than one set per body part, a session, and is 300lbs, would laugh at such a statement.
Different strokes for different folks, but don't make such outlandish statements.
And Mike Mentzer never did one set only per body part, not while he was competing. He would do 2-6 work sets per part. You must remember this was at a time when most were training 6 days a week, sometimes twice a day, with up to 20 sets a body part. Mike's routines were a breath of fresh air.
I've always trained low volume, and Have gone from 144.5lbs at nearly 6'4 to 260lbs at a high point all within 4 years. The most I've done for a bodypart is 4-6 working sets. If anyone wants to call those type of gains, pussy, then so be it.
I'd like some people to tell Dorian Yates that HIT is pussy. Perhaps Casey Viator, or Tom Platz. Those guys along with Mike Mentzer trained with incredible intensity. They were HARD workers. Dante who does no more than one set per body part, a session, and is 300lbs, would laugh at such a statement.
Different strokes for different folks, but don't make such outlandish statements.
louden_swain
New member
I use one all-out set per exercise. . .thats all I need to stimulate growth and develop strength.
I would rather run a 400m flat out and fall flat at the end not able to stand for several minutes than walk around a 10k and then walk off afterwards.
That's extreme, and I know HST works, but each person prefers their own way and even ones own way will change over time. To knock what someone does when they are getting results doesn't seem the most bright thing to do.
I do mostly one working rest paused set for most body parts, sometimes I do a couple sets i.e. squats. This isn't HIT but it isn't a million miles away.
I just say, If it works it works.
That's extreme, and I know HST works, but each person prefers their own way and even ones own way will change over time. To knock what someone does when they are getting results doesn't seem the most bright thing to do.
I do mostly one working rest paused set for most body parts, sometimes I do a couple sets i.e. squats. This isn't HIT but it isn't a million miles away.
I just say, If it works it works.
vinylgroover
New member
I think there is a big misconception out there on what HIT is.
Even Dorian Yates used to do up to 7 sets (sometimes more) per bodypart. The only difference is he called his sets warm up sets while others called them working sets......just a difference in interpretation, that's all.
I really don't think anyone out there does one set per bodypart.
Even Dorian Yates used to do up to 7 sets (sometimes more) per bodypart. The only difference is he called his sets warm up sets while others called them working sets......just a difference in interpretation, that's all.
I really don't think anyone out there does one set per bodypart.
louden_swain
New member
vinylgroover said:
No, it is important to warm up first. Warmups are not building sets.
c3bodybuilding
New member
Vinyl, what may seem like heavy working sets to some, were light warm up sets to Dorian. He was very strong, and some of his warm up sets are what some people use for working sets, and then some. He never did volume. You have guys like Lee Priest who do 20 sets for arms, Dorian was never about that.
And yes, some people do only one set, and get great progress. Some on this very board. Myself, Louden, Debaser, etc. Just about anyone following DC.
Just trying to keep things in perspective. Like I typed earlier, different strokes for different folk.
And yes, some people do only one set, and get great progress. Some on this very board. Myself, Louden, Debaser, etc. Just about anyone following DC.
Just trying to keep things in perspective. Like I typed earlier, different strokes for different folk.
louden_swain
New member
Dorian did use only one set at maximum intensity
He would warmup up with 3 sets, then go beyond failure on his las set. Here was an example of his routine:
Warmups:
135lbs x 10, 245lbs x 10, 335lbs x 8
Max All-Out Set:
425lbs x 7 with forced reps from Leroy Davis (training partner)
This is also my method of training. . .
He would warmup up with 3 sets, then go beyond failure on his las set. Here was an example of his routine:
Warmups:
135lbs x 10, 245lbs x 10, 335lbs x 8
Max All-Out Set:
425lbs x 7 with forced reps from Leroy Davis (training partner)
This is also my method of training. . .
Dorian (on the video anyway) did three warmup sets for each exercise. On Mentzer's HIT video, he had the guy do 1 warmup set for each superset (all the exercises were done with supersets using pre-exhaustion).
In my opinion, that is too many warm up sets....it's like they are doing a 1/2 pyramid method. In my case, I do 3 warm up sets for only the first bodypart trained that day (Chest, Back, or legs), and don't do any other warm up sets. I just feel like it's a waste of energy.
My routine is 5 sets per major bodypart, and 3 sets for arms......all to failure or beyond (partials, drop sets, etc.).
I've seen like dozens of training videos over the years and the hardest working guy out there is definately Tom Platz. He did this training video for Leo Costas "Big Beyond Belief" system that is outstanding. Keep in mind this was in the mid 90s, way past his competing years, but as he's doing leg curls and Leo is is holding on to the leg pad trying to add extra resistance on the negative, Platz who is dripping with sweat is yelling "kill me" at the top of his lungs..........F'in AWESOME!!!!
In my opinion, that is too many warm up sets....it's like they are doing a 1/2 pyramid method. In my case, I do 3 warm up sets for only the first bodypart trained that day (Chest, Back, or legs), and don't do any other warm up sets. I just feel like it's a waste of energy.
My routine is 5 sets per major bodypart, and 3 sets for arms......all to failure or beyond (partials, drop sets, etc.).
I've seen like dozens of training videos over the years and the hardest working guy out there is definately Tom Platz. He did this training video for Leo Costas "Big Beyond Belief" system that is outstanding. Keep in mind this was in the mid 90s, way past his competing years, but as he's doing leg curls and Leo is is holding on to the leg pad trying to add extra resistance on the negative, Platz who is dripping with sweat is yelling "kill me" at the top of his lungs..........F'in AWESOME!!!!
c3bodybuilding
New member
You really got to admire Dorian. He never mouthed off, never bragged. He just let his hard work do all the talking. He was a true champion.
louden_swain
New member
C3bodybuilding said:
I agree!! Dorian had incredible muscular density. Outside the gym he was a nice person.
B
Baoh
Guest
I don't. Failure does not go well with my training. I'm interested in strength and power.
louden_swain
New member
Baoh said:
me too, but I am interested in size as well
vinylgroover
New member
C3bodybuilding said:
That's what i'm saying. What some people call working sets, others call warm up sets.
Lee Priest is an extreme example, i grant you.
For example, a set progression for me on Barbell rows looks like this
1 x 12 reps
1 x 8-10 reps
1 x 6 reps
If describing to someone how many sets i do, i would say 3, when in fact only the last set is a 'working' set. Dorian would describe it as only doing 1 set.
I really don't think any of us train all that differently at all.......just a difference in interpretation.
B
Baoh
Guest
louden_swain said:
me too, but I am interested in size as well
That's wonderful, but has nothing to do with failure.
louden_swain
New member
Baoh said:
You are absolutely correct. . .its about food intake and rest outside the gym
.
c3bodybuilding
New member
Yep, never underestimate the power of food!
I wish I lived near some of you bros. I would love to train with guys like Bfold, Louden, etc and our very own superwoman, Spatts.
I wish I lived near some of you bros. I would love to train with guys like Bfold, Louden, etc and our very own superwoman, Spatts.
louden_swain
New member
C3bodybuilding said:Yep, never underestimate the power of food!
I wish I lived near some of you bros. I would love to train with guys like Bfold, Louden, etc and our very own superwoman, Spatts.
he he he. . .B Fold would make us all pay!!
c3bodybuilding
New member
He sure as hell would. He would have both of us flipping tires all around town, really, really big ones. Sounds like fun lol. Wait wait, hell no, I'm hiding under my bed!
c3bodybuilding
New member
Speaking of training with others. Who would some of you like to train with? Bodybuilders, Powerlifters, Strongmen, etc...
I would have loved to train with Mike Mentzer at least once. Around 1979 or so. I also would have loved to train with Arnold (around 73/74 when he was in his prime). Although I feel Arnold would screw around with me, to mix me up. He just seems like he would really get off on doing that to someone.
It's odd, I view Arnold as an idol. I look up to him, and all he has done. I aspire for that greatness. I view Mike more as that friend who is always there, trying to help you out. His books, especially his last one really inspire me. I wish I would have at least gotten a phone consultation off of him before he passed on.
I would have loved to train with Mike Mentzer at least once. Around 1979 or so. I also would have loved to train with Arnold (around 73/74 when he was in his prime). Although I feel Arnold would screw around with me, to mix me up. He just seems like he would really get off on doing that to someone.
It's odd, I view Arnold as an idol. I look up to him, and all he has done. I aspire for that greatness. I view Mike more as that friend who is always there, trying to help you out. His books, especially his last one really inspire me. I wish I would have at least gotten a phone consultation off of him before he passed on.
louden_swain
New member
C3bodybuilding said:
The stones, sled drag, and conans wheel look like torture. . .everything he does it torture.
Thats what makes you a machine!
D
Debaser
Guest
nclifter6feet6 said:i bet your fuckin small too
Agreed.
Oh yeah I didn't hear you saying that "fuckin small" shit when you "called out" doggcrapp and he made you look like a girlscout.
DaPimp said:
Here's what I'm currently doing;
Monday-chest, anterior delts, tri's
flat bbl
incline dbl or bbl
shoulder presses
close grip bench
Wednesday- low back, quads, hams, calves, medial delts
weighted back extensions
squats
leg curls
standing/seated calve raises
side raises
Friday-back, traps, bi's forearms
rows
pulldowns
shrugs
bbl curls
hammer or wrist curls
abs-whenever I feel like adding them
1-3 warm up sets, followed by 2-4 sets to failure(depending on bodypart)
Every so often I change a few excercises, but work the same bodypart.
I know it's not perfect, but it works for me. I consistantly get stronger at almost every workout.
c3bodybuilding
New member
LMAO Debaser. Thats CLASSIC! Mike looks like he carved from stone there. I have that whole series of pics of him that day, just awesome. Dorian was/is a beast!
I bet next thing you know, he will be calling all of us out for pics. I try to be as nice as possible to people. But it's getting out of hand lately. I'm not here to talk smack on what NC does when he trains. If it works for him, great. But for him to call anyone who trains HIT style pussy, thats just wrong.
I bet next thing you know, he will be calling all of us out for pics. I try to be as nice as possible to people. But it's getting out of hand lately. I'm not here to talk smack on what NC does when he trains. If it works for him, great. But for him to call anyone who trains HIT style pussy, thats just wrong.
louden_swain
New member
Thaibox said:
uh oh. . .Thaibox has been unleased. . . . . .evacuate the women and children!!! Quick!!
D
Debaser
Guest
Thaibox said:
Thai I say if you see him in real life you should give him a brief demonstration of muay thai...
ANABOLICK1
New member
DaPimp said:
No, use like a triple split routine (one third of your body) in one workout. 3 workouts a week.
You can't undertrain if you go to failure (or beyond) on your exercises. It's all about intensity.
PolishHammer1977
New member
Debaser said:
not a good idea
ANABOLICK1
New member
HIT style, heavy duty(Mentzer), DC's routine...is all the same.
Only thing that differs how each of us uses it is up to the individuals recuperative abilities(how long it takes to recover from each workout)
I strongly believe EVERYONE only needs one solid working set per exercise(adding higher intensity methods if you're more advanced or have high recup ability), and no more than 2 exercises for bodypart.
Only thing that differs how each of us uses it is up to the individuals recuperative abilities(how long it takes to recover from each workout)
I strongly believe EVERYONE only needs one solid working set per exercise(adding higher intensity methods if you're more advanced or have high recup ability), and no more than 2 exercises for bodypart.
spatts said:Let's try to bring it back around, please?
I disagree with HIT (Mike Mentzer style training) on general principle. The basis of the program is to do the LEAST amount of work and see gains. This is BS!! My way of thinking is this...we only have so many training days in a lifetime...why not do the MOST training that our body can handle and get the most gains.
Mike always bragged that when he put someone on his program they always gained size and strength. Well forgive me but....DUH!! You take someone that is on a moderate to high volume training schedule and put him on a "almost no volume" training schedule and he is going to gain like crazy. It's no magic bullet...just common sense.
My question has always been...what happens when you overtrain on this "one set per" training method...the only place to go is "no sets" and that is just wasted time. Miss a training session or two a month...and over the course of a couple years you are going to be a long way behind someone that was doing 4, 5 or even 10 sets...when they felt overtrained they just reduced the sets but didn't stop working.
ANABOLICK1
New member
vinylgroover said:
2 sets per bodypart is optimal (2 diff. exercises, 1 set per)
ANABOLICK1
New member
Hannibal said:
You don't seem to understand the principle at all.
You need to do some serious research.
You CAN'T overtrain on one set, IF you allow enough time to recover from it..
C3bodybuilding said:
There was an interview with Dorian Yates in Ironman a couple of years ago where he said that he was NEVER trained by Mentzer and that he NEVER followed the HD/HIT program. He basically said that he always used lower volume than most bodybuilders but that he didn't belive one set to failure was enough.
And you are correct, Mentzer himself never followed the 1 set protocol while he was competing.
The bottom line is that a lot of what Mentzer said was just plain WRONG. Now, it may be true that for some people at certain times in their training programs, that 1 set to failure is optimal. But to say that it is always optimal for all people during every workout during all phases of the training program is simply incorrect, it's so absurd as to not even be worth debating.
Furthermore, as an example of Mentzer's complete lack of knowledge regarding physiology and exercise science, in a reprint of one of his articles in the current issue of Ironman he states that there's really no difference between fast twitch and slow twitch fibers and that even if there were a difference that it is widely known that individual fibers can change from fast twitch to slow twitch and back and vice versa within hours. He then went on to say that stretching and aerobics should never be part of a serious bodybuilding program because they deplete energy that could be otherwise used for taking sets to failure.
ANABOLICK1
New member
Rich_S said:
Do yourself a favor. Go buy Mike Mentzer's 'Heavy DutyII : Mind and Body' and save your breath. Seriously, you'll learn a lot.
Check out pg. 87. Great pic of Mentzer training Yates !
And do yourself another favor and stop reading bs articles.
Here's where you're wrong. You compare yourself to genetic freaks that the pros are. They will get huge no matter how they train ! because they have super recuperative abilities, and are genetically predisposed. In all likelihood, you are no freak. So don't compare your training to their's.
Reprint in a current issue? The man's been dead for a few years now ! Who's talking for him now? It's no secret that before he died he had a fallout with Ironman magazine, as he use to write columns for them, and the editors did not like him because he was speaking the truth about every facet of BBing...
Mentzer devoted many years to the science of BBing after retiring from the sport, and his training principles apply to EVERYONE. No matter what your genetics are. The only difference between you and everybody else is the time it takes to recover from a workout..
Mentzer really was just wrong on a few fundamental things. Here's one: He believed that the body had some limit of "recuperative abilities" that needed to be regenerated before growth could occur. That's just physiologically wrong. It's been demonstrated time and time again that further training doesn't interrupt the repair process even if performed before repair is complete.
Also, with his "genetically challenged" individuals, those who weren't making strength or size gains on once a week, he would do as infrequently as once a month! That's ridiculous! Since thealready ultra-low frequency isn't working, he decided to try and make it even lower. He never really considered that perhaps the low frequency itself was the reason for lack of progress.
Let me change gears for a sec. Of course HIT and HD work. Everything works to some extent. There isn't a program that won't grow SOME muscle and gain SOME strength. I really think, though, that science can point to a quicker way to achieve both.
-casualbb
Also, with his "genetically challenged" individuals, those who weren't making strength or size gains on once a week, he would do as infrequently as once a month! That's ridiculous! Since thealready ultra-low frequency isn't working, he decided to try and make it even lower. He never really considered that perhaps the low frequency itself was the reason for lack of progress.
Let me change gears for a sec. Of course HIT and HD work. Everything works to some extent. There isn't a program that won't grow SOME muscle and gain SOME strength. I really think, though, that science can point to a quicker way to achieve both.
-casualbb
ANABOLICK1
New member
casualbb said:
Mentzer trained many individuals, all having various recuperative abilities. Yes, for some it took a month to recover after a workout (though very rare). He's proven that. They come back stronger after that time, and that's how you gauge progress.
And yes, you will short-circuit the growth process if you train the same bodypart before you give it a chance to recover form the previous workout. That's exercise physiology 101 .
ANABOLICK1
New member
casualbb said:
I don't think you understand what overtraining actually is. It's usually not something you feel. You don't necessarily have to feel burnt out. If that weight you put on was lbm and you're getting stronger you DID recover.
As you know roids enhances rocovery.
ANABOLICK1 said:
I think I'll pass. I prefer reading books and articles by Charles Poliquin, Fred Hatfield, Dave Tate, Louie Simmons, Ian King, etc. You know, guys who are big and strong, actually have degrees in exercise science related fields, and get paid to train professional and olympic athletes.
http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/156yates.html
"T: Earlier in your career Mike Mentzer was taking a great deal of credit for putting you on the road to "Heavy Duty" training. Did you ever train with Mentzer, and was he ever really associated with you in any way?"
"Dorian: When I first started training, I read as much as possible; it was trial and error in the gym. I read a lot of stuff by Arthur Jones [Nautilus inventor], and Mentzer was in the magazines at the time. Through trial and error I noticed that if I went over a certain amount of volume in the gym, my progress would come to a stop. I'd become overtrained. I was always training with a lot of volume, high intensity, along those lines.
I met Mike Mentzer after I won my first Olympia in '92. I was at Gold's Gym in Venice doing photo shoots and met Mike. Of course he was someone I'd admired when I started training, and we were talking about training principles and so on. He had a personal training business and felt that when he was still competing he still overtrained, even though he was doing a lot less than everybody else. He felt it was possible to do even less, in terms of volume, and get even better results.
So yes, I did a few workouts with Mike and we exchanged ideas. He did have some input in my training at that time. I tried to reduce the volume a little bit more, but it was a minor adjustment because I was already training like that. So it's not correct to say Mike trained me. We did maybe three workouts together in Gold's Gym."
Rich_S said:
That isn't what you quoted later.
Yates: "So yes, I did a few workouts with Mike and we exchanged ideas."
I've seen the photos of Mike training Yates. I talked to Mike at length about how strong Dorian was, and what he had Dorian do in the gym.
That's right.
Tell that to Doggcrapp.
Michael's most problematic idea was NOT doing a single set to failure. It was his solution to avoid overtraining; i.e., adding more and more rest days until one was only training a bodypart once every couple of weeks (or whatever).
Give the guy a fucking break. He's DEAD, and he was not himself in the last 15 years or so of life.
Rich_S said:
That's funny. Mentzer was way more muscular than all of those guys...what he looks like is a red herring anyway. Either his ideas have merit, or they don't; what he looks like has spit to do with the point.
While I agree that most of his ideas post '93 or so were...off the wall, please don't make that crummy appeal to authority of, "Well, so and so has a degree." Too often that simply means they're so indoctrinated that they're unwilling to think outside the box.
As far as the glamour of your clients, who cares? That sounds like something that would float at MFW. It's not a great path for those of anti-HIT persuasion to follow anyhow; check into the training programs of any ten pro football clubs and you'll see at least 30% exclusively train their professional athletes with methods very much unlike Charles "Stabilizers" Poliquin or Ian "side press" King.
T-Mag?! LOL. You want to talk about untrustworthy people...
Maybe big D was hit on the head or that was edited...how could Mike NOT train the guy if he "had some input in [his] training at that time"?
Even THREE WORKOUTS qualifies as "training," and yeah, Mike was telling him what to do. Only a Martian would think that's not "training" someone. After all, Mentzer wasn't just wandering around after Dorian, wondering, "What'cha gonna do next big man?"
Bunch of semantic bullshit. Disappointing too, coming from Dorian, who knows better.
Why is this thread not locked, anyway? NC666 is just trolling. He was conspicuously silent about "pussy one set guys" in the DC thread.
louden_swain
New member
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
louden_swain said:
Indeed. And in my opinion, the HIT guys would get more respect if they didn't insult every other training method in every single article they write. I don't think I've ever read a HIT article that didn't waste half the page by talking about how every other training system is worthless, dangerous, and stupid, how there is only one right way to train and that right way is HIT, how everyone who disagrees is an indoctrinated moron, and then go on to talk about Ayn Rand and objectivist philosophy and how it proves that HIT is the only sound way to train.
louden_swain
New member
Rich_S said:
Chill out man. . .you are getting a little worked up
.
vinylgroover
New member
Anabolik,
Does it not stand to reason that someone who is on steroids has a far greater ability to recover from a given workout volume than a natural trainee, and hence, the natural trainee would be the one most likely to benefit from the HIT approach.
If the main premise of HIT is to minimise the risk of overtraining while maximising muscle gain, then it stands to reason that those who juice will have a better capacity to lift their 'overtraining threshold' as defined by the volume of work or number of sets performed.
Say you use 2 sets by 2 exercises as the minimum requirement to stimulate muscle growth......then that minimum requirement should be say 4 sets by 2 exercises for a bodybuilder who uses steroids to pick an arbitrary number of sets.
This is where the strict interpretation of HIT doesn't seem to make sense to me. Personally, i adhere to the low volume approach, but i couldn't imagine going as low as 2 x 2.
Does it not stand to reason that someone who is on steroids has a far greater ability to recover from a given workout volume than a natural trainee, and hence, the natural trainee would be the one most likely to benefit from the HIT approach.
If the main premise of HIT is to minimise the risk of overtraining while maximising muscle gain, then it stands to reason that those who juice will have a better capacity to lift their 'overtraining threshold' as defined by the volume of work or number of sets performed.
Say you use 2 sets by 2 exercises as the minimum requirement to stimulate muscle growth......then that minimum requirement should be say 4 sets by 2 exercises for a bodybuilder who uses steroids to pick an arbitrary number of sets.
This is where the strict interpretation of HIT doesn't seem to make sense to me. Personally, i adhere to the low volume approach, but i couldn't imagine going as low as 2 x 2.
ANABOLICK1
New member
Rich_S said:
You're the one who came on here attacking the HIT principles and saying Mentzer is flat out wrong, and his theories are flawed..blah blah blah. You were just spouting ignorance, not knowing anything about the whole principle behind it..
Rich_S said:
Rich,
I tend to be a bit defensive about Mike because he was a friend. I know a lot of his training recommendations were a bit whacked out, but you're right: he, or other HITers, did sometimes go out of their way to bash other training methods.
Lots of volume guys bashed Mentzer first, just as NC666 did in this thread ("one set guys are pussies," when in fact the OPPOSITE is true: if you can do one death set of 20 w/ your 10 rep squat max, for instance, a pussy you ain't).
But that's no reason for Michael and others to start indiscriminately bashing back...though he wasn't religious, figuratively turning the other cheek might've been better in some circumstances.
You have a point there.
Michael's objectivism was okay by me, but I got a bit annoyed when I read the same recycled articles again and again, all talking about the exaltation of man, heroism, and the evils of skeptics, mystics, Kant, et al. I didn't give a shit what the volume guys were doing...if they wanted to think they were so awesome, that's fine by me; I'd let my body set them straight, if for whatever reason it came to that.
I often think his role in "modernizing" training is somewhat underrated. But as I said, Mike's reasoning did start to veer off in odd directions, and I can't help but to confess I knew, from first-hand experience, he was very paranoid when it came to defending his theory.
And I think deep down he knew it was flawed, but he himself was too indoctrinated to see a way out. Perhaps worse, many of his more vocal critics were rather stupid in the way they went about picking at him; e.g., Dan Duchaine's ad hominemizing.
Still, Michael should've known better. Instead of recognizing all the holes in his take on training, he let himself believe that the extent of his detractors' arguments were strictly limited to his behavior prior to being committed (drinking piss, streaking, talking about Arthur Jones as a god who could turn men into whales). It didn't help that lots of idiots perpetuated this instead of addressing Heavy Duty's actual problems. But those who did were largely ignored...Michael but them in the same category with the retards who couldn't get beyond the piss-drinking jokes.
Anyway, sorry to jump on you; nothing you really said warranted that response. I suppose I lament what Mike represented, what he could've been, and stick up for that almost as much as I do the person, a good man with some rather curious notions about bodybuilding
ANABOLICK1
New member
vinylgroover said:
Great point. That's where the frequency of workouts factor in. Knowing your recovery is enhanced by AAS, you may therefore (as an example) train every bodypart 2 times a week instead on once. But still only doing the 1 working set per exercise. Training that way gives you more growth phases per week.
But it's up to you to determine how long it takes to recover from your workout.
Dogg Crapp's routine outlines it perfectly. Wish I had the link.
casualbb said:
This is really interesting. Care to elaborate on your routine?
I believe you posted somewhere that you had put on .0.5 inches on your thighs in two weeks by squatting 5x2@5RM every other day. How did you (would you) handle progression? Go to 5x3@5RM for another 2 weeks maybe?
I'd like to beg everyone out there to experiment a while with a routine like this one, if only for two weeks. At the end of my first freshman semester I was desperate on finding a way to make myself bigger and stronger. I searched the net and found some information on this guy named 'Paul Anderson' who was 'supposedly' extremely strong and big in the 60's or so. They said he got so strong by squatting all day every other day. Sound familiar?
Actually I think I'm gonna pull the actual text from the net...
There you go:
A typical Anderson workout usually required three to four hours to complete.
Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday
Full squat - 600 - 2x10
825 - 2 reps
845 - 2 reps
900 - 2 reps
Half squats - 1200 - 2 reps
Quarter squats - 1800 - 2 reps
Deadlift - 650 - 4x6-8 reps.[I/]
It said that he rested about 30 minutes between sets and he sipped milk between sets too.
Now, I only rested for 15-20 minutes (which I still felt was excessive) and had to slightly adjust the poundages
(try 205 instead of 900; hey I was 150). I can tell you that my biggest obstacle in putting on size was extreme lack of appetite. I hated eating. The only increase in calories I had during that month was not in the form of food but in decrease of expenditure as I didn't have to walk all over the campus to get to classes. Maybe 350-400 calories a day. I can also tell you that I put on 12lbs. of which probably 7-8 were muscle put on 60-70 lbs. on my squat and I finally found out what it feels like to have to squeeze your thighs into the leg of your pants (w/o being a woman ).I guess I stopped because as I increased poundages session to session I eventually felt drained and weak. This could have been easily avoided, I know now. Also, I was getting stretch marks on my upper thighs.
Eventually went on to WSB where I increased my lifts incredibly but put on a lot less muscle.
Thinking about trying it again this summer.
ANABOLICK1
New member
guldukat said:
Rich,
I tend to be a bit defensive about Mike because he was a friend. I know a lot of his training recommendations were a bit whacked out, but you're right: he, or other HITers, did sometimes go out of their way to bash other training methods.
Lots of volume guys bashed Mentzer first, just as NC666 did in this thread ("one set guys are pussies," when in fact the OPPOSITE is true: if you can do one death set of 20 w/ your 10 rep squat max, for instance, a pussy you ain't).
But that's no reason for Michael and others to start indiscriminately bashing back...though he wasn't religious, figuratively turning the other cheek might've been better in some circumstances.
You have a point there.
Michael's objectivism was okay by me, but I got a bit annoyed when I read the same recycled articles again and again, all talking about the exaltation of man, heroism, and the evils of skeptics, mystics, Kant, et al. I didn't give a shit what the volume guys were doing...if they wanted to think they were so awesome, that's fine by me; I'd let my body set them straight, if for whatever reason it came to that.
I often think his role in "modernizing" training is somewhat underrated. But as I said, Mike's reasoning did start to veer off in odd directions, and I can't help but to confess I knew, from first-hand experience, he was very paranoid when it came to defending his theory.
And I think deep down he knew it was flawed, but he himself was too indoctrinated to see a way out. Perhaps worse, many of his more vocal critics were rather stupid in the way they went about picking at him; e.g., Dan Duchaine's ad hominemizing.
Still, Michael should've known better. Instead of recognizing all the holes in his take on training, he let himself believe that the extent of his detractors' arguments were strictly limited to his behavior prior to being committed (drinking piss, streaking, talking about Arthur Jones as a god who could turn men into whales). It didn't help that lots of idiots perpetuated this instead of addressing Heavy Duty's actual problems. But those who did were largely ignored...Michael but them in the same category with the retards who couldn't get beyond the piss-drinking jokes.
Anyway, sorry to jump on you; nothing you really said warranted that response. I suppose I lament what Mike represented, what he could've been, and stick up for that almost as much as I do the person, a good man with some rather curious notions about bodybuilding
If I may inquire, what were Mike's holes in his take on training?
ANABOLICK1
New member
VG, just read the sticky at the top of this forum..DC's training method..
Nothing fancy, just straight-up HST. Actually, I didn't bring it up to extoll my gains. I brought it up because as it exists it violates a few main HIT principles (submaximal training, low frequency). Basically, I want to pose the question: how can a training philosophy be correct if doing the exact opposite produces awesome gains?
-casualbb
ANABOLICK1
New member
casualbb said:
A training phylosophy can be correct, but doesn't mean nothing else works.
louden_swain
New member
I am suprised that nclifter6feet6,
hasn't attacked anyone on this thread .
hasn't attacked anyone on this thread
.louden_swain
New member
JOKER47 said:
I know. . .I was rubbing it in
ANABOLICK1
New member
I do miss his avatar though
Kid Dynamite
New member
Hmmm...
I do a rest pause method. Only one working set, but it's basically done to failure 3 times. 3 sets of 10 to warm up, then a set of like 10 - 12, rest 15 sec, then like 2 sets of 4 - 6 with a 15 sec rest between those 2. Very slow on the negative, explosive on the up and up. It ain't "pussy", that's for sure. Though I might look like one when I cry afterwards.
I do a rest pause method. Only one working set, but it's basically done to failure 3 times. 3 sets of 10 to warm up, then a set of like 10 - 12, rest 15 sec, then like 2 sets of 4 - 6 with a 15 sec rest between those 2. Very slow on the negative, explosive on the up and up. It ain't "pussy", that's for sure. Though I might look like one when I cry afterwards.
louden_swain
New member
JOKER47 said:
Ahhhh...gotcha.
He came onto the C&C board under a different handle. It was deleted quite quickly......
How did the mods find out he resigned? Did he admit who he once was?
ANABOLICK1
New member
Kid Dynamite said:Hmmm...
I do a rest pause method. Only one working set, but it's basically done to failure 3 times. 3 sets of 10 to warm up, then a set of like 10 - 12, rest 15 sec, then like 2 sets of 4 - 6 with a 15 sec rest between those 2. Very slow on the negative, explosive on the up and up. It ain't "pussy", that's for sure. Though I might look like one when I cry afterwards.
LOL
That's the way to do it brother. My workouts last only 45mins training this way. By far the best routine I've tried in my 12yrs lifting
Kid Dynamite
New member
I just started last week, so I can't say if it's the best yet. I know it makes you aware of the weights, almost angry at them because of the pain they're about to inflict on you. When I'm going through the warm up sets I really start to focus, then for that work set I'm in a different, painful world.
Similar threads
