Read this to find out WHY MUSCLE GROWS! Important! SHOCKERS INSIDE!

[Blood&Iron]

Blood and Iron, your POV is very interesting, and I'm curious as to specificially why you think that way. I've always considered Fred Hatfield as one of the weightlifting greats.

My opinion of Hatfield as a person comes from several things I have read. Of course these were written by Jones, and others in the HIT community, and certainly are prone to be a bit tendentious. Of course, I have never met Hatfield myself, so I can only judge him based on his writing and those of his enemies. I may be incorrect. His training theories, though, are poor science, if one can even use that word, and are not backed by any sort of reliable evidence.

SSAlexSS, you've ignored the most important factor when strength training: the nervous system. This will make you stronger but not make your muscles look any bigger.

As for bodybuilding.... going to failure IS the way to go. You're looking for hypertrophy, and it's those last few reps which stress fast twitch fibers the most and thus lead to the most growth.
-Zulu

I agree completely.

 

[Abbaddon]

Remember, more strenth (in good rep range) = MORE SIZE.

Plus going to failure stressess your body too much and it doesnt give you real results... Progressive resistance, yes... Muscle overload, yes...

I have said it before and I will say it again until you spend some time in the gym and can actually push some weight please do not give people advice on training or even worse is what your doing in this thread. You are trying to tell people what they are doing wrong because you read it in some book. There are thousands of case studies that contradict each other, and for some reason you have chosen one to think as correct. I really hope you actually start listening to people instead of trying to tell people what they are doing wrong. You should still be in the listen and learn phase from what you have put about your training.

 

[Blood&Iron]

Here is at least one article by Arthur Jones on his dealings with Hatfield:

http://www.cyberpump.com/training/arthur/mfh33.html

There may well be a number of others on Cyberpump, both by Jones and others, but I would have to spend some time looking. I think there is a great deal of value in Jones' writing, so I highly recommend taking a look for yourself.

 

[Belial]

but I have seen no evidence that periodization is the best way to train for strength.

I'm glad someone else agrees with me on that point.

 

[ZZuluZ]

Blood and Iron,

Seems like our opinions are complete opposites. Most of what I have read by fred Hatfield seems completely legit and backed by other greats like Louis Simmons, Dave Tate, Charles Poliquin, Ian King, Pavel Tsatsouline....

Not the same for Arthur Jones, and though he had several innovations, a lot of the crap seen in gyms today is in large parts thanks to him.

I read part of the article you posted and it seemed awfully biased. Maybe we could discuss specifically where you think Hatfield is wrong.... I always enjoy learning new things.

Cheers man, (I like your sig btw)

-Zulu

 

[Godly1]

good article ALEX. but you can't tell these guys anything. they already know everything there is to possibly know and no one can teach them anything. don't worry though. that's what makes some people stand still while the others that are always open to new ideas will keep driving on. good post bro.

 

[Blood&Iron]

Blood and Iron,

Seems like our opinions are complete opposites. Most of what I have read by fred Hatfield seems completely legit and backed by other greats like Louis Simmons, Dave Tate, Charles Poliquin, Ian King, Pavel Tsatsouline....

Not the same for Arthur Jones, and though he had several innovations, a lot of the crap seen in gyms today is in large parts thanks to him.

As I stated previously, I'm not a fan of periodization and I consider much of it to be poor science. I'm am somewhat familiar with several of the above listed men--Poliquin, Tsatsouline, and King--and think some of what they have written is valid and useful. Much else, though, I find wrong, or simply stupid. I believe, for example, plyometrics to be idiotic, and performing heavy DB flyes on a Swiss-ball, as suggested by Poliquin, is an invitation to injury. Of course one cannot deny the successes these men have had with their trainees, but many who have followed, or built upon, Jones' theories have also done stunningly well(I think what influence Jones' did have in gyms was wonderful, and people would be wise to follow his teachings more closely. I find some of his theories flawed, but overall he is to me one of the most intelligent exercise theorists the world has seen.) HIT and periodization have a long history of enmity, and the discussions, or rather feuds, have produced a substantial amount of literature. I can add little to the debate that has not already been eloquently stated by those far more knowledgable than myself. Unfortunately, as Lyle McDonald once stated, most people simply choose one side of the debate and the discussions have at this point become nothing more than exchanges of dogmatic catch phrases. I don't agree with everything proposed under HIT, but I think as a whole it is backed up by far better science that periodization. Any approach which involves consistently hard work will produce results, however.

I read part of the article you posted and it seemed awfully biased.

Of course, it was written by Jones. But I think it was truthful. Hatfield's assertions are biased and untruthful(IMO). There is a key difference.

Maybe we could discuss specifically where you think Hatfield is wrong.... I always enjoy learning new things.

It's been quite some time since I read anything by Hatfield and I was unimpressed and subsequently forgot it all. Nor do I own any of his books, so I'd have to go out and buy one, or see if my library has any of his books(I doubt this.) If at some point I happen to do this I'll post my opinion.

Cheers man, (I like your sig btw)

-Zulu

Take it easy.

 

[Blood&Iron]

good article ALEX. but you can't tell these guys anything. they already know everything there is to possibly know and no one can teach them anything. don't worry though. that's what makes some people stand still while the others that are always open to new ideas will keep driving on. good post bro.

Yes, you're right. We don't listen to anyone and simply like to look at our own words on the screen. Many on these boards--I don't even include myself here--are a great deal more experienced and knowledgable than either of you, whom as far as I remember are both relative newcomers to lifting. There is a common period among new trainees, when upon achieving good results they suddenly consider themselves experts. I myself just left this stage, and after several years of being completely sure I knew the secrets of bodybuilding only recently realized I know very little. I am open to good, new ideas, but patently stupid ones? No.

 

[bignate73]

As I stated previously, I'm not a fan of periodization and I consider much of it to be poor science. Much else, though, I find wrong, or simply stupid. I believe, for example, plyometrics to be idiotic, and performing heavy DB flyes on a Swiss-ball, as suggested by Poliquin, is an invitation to injury.

plyos and stability training have their purposes, which are beyond mere strength training. proprioception and neural adaptation probably have more of a place in strength training than you may be aware of. its not an invitation to injury if done under supervision, it actually prevents injury.

 

[Blood&Iron]

plyos and stability training have their purposes, which are beyond mere strength training. proprioception and neural adaptation probably have more of a place in strength training than you may be aware of. its not an invitation to injury if done under supervision, it actually prevents injury.

I am well aware of the arguments Poliquin and others make for these activities. I still hold these are unnecessarily dangerous techniques, inproperly OR properly performed, which confer no advantages commensurate with their inherent potential to cause injury.