MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Study: Genetic Response to Single Set vs Multiple Sets
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Nwlifter

Another study found that people with a particular variant of the ACE gene gain strength just as well with single-set training programs as with multi-set training programs, whereas people with the other (more common) variant tend to do their best training with multiple sets.


http://www.geneqol-consortium....


Open User Options Menu

Average Al

You might be interested in this article, which is based on a pair of studies by Beaven. It supports the idea that strength training programs need to be tailored to an individual's response. One size does not fit all:

metaboliceffect.com/expert-advice-on-building-muscle-why-it-is-usually-wrong/

Also take a look at these recent articles:

bretcontreras.com/individual-differences-important-consideration-fitness-results-science-doesnt-tell/

strongerbyscience.com/genetics-and-strength-training-just-different/



Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Average Al wrote:
You might be interested in this article, which is based on a pair of studies by Beaven. It supports the idea that strength training programs need to be tailored to an individual's response. One size does not fit all:

metaboliceffect.com/expert-advice-on-building-muscle-why-it-is-usually-wrong/

Also take a look at these recent articles:

bretcontreras.com/individual-differences-important-consideration-fitness-results-science-doesnt-tell/

strongerbyscience.com/genetics-and-strength-training-just-different/





Good articles, I had found a couple of those in the meantime since posting thanks for the links!



Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

Bret Contreras on Heavy Duty..

"I'm a huge fan of HFT. But is it absolutely necessary?

Some of the best gains I ever made were from a HIT program. Every five days, I performed a full-body workout consisting of big basic movements such as squats or front squats, deadlifts or sumo deadlifts, bench presses or close grip bench presses, and chins or rows. I got incredibly strong and gained a lot of muscle. Mike Mentzer saw great success from infrequent, full-body, intense training, as have plenty of other strong lifters.

One of the biggest misconceptions out there is that you have to be in the gym all day long in order to see results. If more aspiring lifters knew that they could in fact see incredible gains from lifting just six days per month, they'd probably embark on a resistance training regimen.

The caveat is that you have to do it right ? no wimpy isolation lifts allowed. Hammer the big basic movements every five days and you'll see great results."

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

good post, love reading that type of info. !

sgb2112 wrote:
Bret Contreras on Heavy Duty..

"I'm a huge fan of HFT. But is it absolutely necessary?

Some of the best gains I ever made were from a HIT program. Every five days, I performed a full-body workout consisting of big basic movements such as squats or front squats, deadlifts or sumo deadlifts, bench presses or close grip bench presses, and chins or rows. I got incredibly strong and gained a lot of muscle. Mike Mentzer saw great success from infrequent, full-body, intense training, as have plenty of other strong lifters.

One of the biggest misconceptions out there is that you have to be in the gym all day long in order to see results. If more aspiring lifters knew that they could in fact see incredible gains from lifting just six days per month, they'd probably embark on a resistance training regimen.

The caveat is that you have to do it right ? no wimpy isolation lifts allowed. Hammer the big basic movements every five days and you'll see great results."



Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

That's great for Brent. I've proven for myself (and reproven) that Compound-Only workouts are not optimal for my growth.

Goes back to that 'One Size NOT Fitting All' thing Al was talking about.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

simon-hecubus wrote:
That's great for Brent. I've proven for myself (and reproven) that Compound-Only workouts are not optimal for my growth.

Goes back to that 'One Size NOT Fitting All' thing Al was talking about.


Oh yeah the compound part., I liked the general idea of good old basic 'type' routines, but not compound only, but.. me too. My arms shrink without isolation and my side delts don't keep up with anterior, so I'm that way too. I think it's a lot about joint leverages and tendon attachments, some are lucky and when they do compounds, most of the muscles get evenly stimulated, me, my arms get very little from bench, or back work.



Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

I've always found compound exercises optimal for the large muscle groups but isolation exercises necessary for smaller muscles such as side delts, arms, and calves.

Also, my midsection has definitely developed better with hanging leg raises and crunches.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Nwlifter wrote:
...I liked the general idea of good old basic 'type' routines, but not compound only, but.. me too. My arms shrink without isolation and my side delts don't keep up with anterior, so I'm that way too. I think it's a lot about joint leverages and tendon attachments...


Ditto that. I think my long arms work against me on compound moves. My arms did shrink on Compound-Only routines.

Even my best bodypart, calves, shrunk when I dropped direct work for them.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

I am exactly the same, long arms,and same thing with arms, even with calves!


simon-hecubus wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
...I liked the general idea of good old basic 'type' routines, but not compound only, but.. me too. My arms shrink without isolation and my side delts don't keep up with anterior, so I'm that way too. I think it's a lot about joint leverages and tendon attachments...


Ditto that. I think my long arms work against me on compound moves. My arms did shrink on Compound-Only routines.

Even my best bodypart, calves, shrunk when I dropped direct work for them.


Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

https://www.T-Nation.com/...like-an-athlete

Read, then discuss..

1. "Since the chest, anterior/mid delts, and triceps are involved in most pressing movements, I've found it's not beneficial to include isolation work for them. In fact, if your goal is to build a lot of mass, power, and strength, not only are isolation exercises not needed, they can actually diminish your overall mass gains.

How much of your training reserves do you want to spend on isolation exercises knowing that it's cutting into the big exercises that build the most mass?

It's all about where you want to spend your training budget, because you can't do it all."

2. "Nothing drains a lifter more than doing too much lat work. It just kills the nervous system and really kills your drive to train.

3. "If you want to pile on as much muscle mass as humanly possible ? like I do ? 80 percent of your workouts should NOT include direct hamstrings work." Not only is it unnecessary, it will often hinder overall leg development.

"I don't train calves at all. I mean, never, as in never in my life. I've actually never done a single set of any calf raises and my calves are not lacking. I train several clients who have monstrous calves and they never trains them, either. Again, my point is, if you do a lot of heavy squats, deadlifts, and the right kind of sled work, your calves will receive all the stimulation required to blow up."

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

sgb2112 wrote:
https://www.T-Nation.com/...like-an-athlete

Read, then discuss..


OK...

1. "Since the chest, anterior/mid delts, and triceps are involved in most pressing movements, I've found it's not beneficial to include isolation work for them. In fact, if your goal is to build a lot of mass, power, and strength, not only are isolation exercises not needed, they can actually diminish your overall mass gains.


I've never found that, skipping them just diminishes my gains.

How much of your training reserves do you want to spend on isolation exercises knowing that it's cutting into the big exercises that build the most mass?

I don't think there is anything that actually is a training reserve, where is that stored in my body? ;)

8 calories for a set of tricep presses I really am sure won't hinder gains, if that were the case, I'd lose muscle carrying groceries in the house, working on my car,...

It's all about where you want to spend your training budget, because you can't do it all."

All as in, all muscles properly yes
All as in, mass volume high frequency, right that's too much for most

2. "Nothing drains a lifter more than doing too much lat work. It just kills the nervous system and really kills your drive to train.

Weird, not me, my back is one area I can nuke and feel fine after.

3. "If you want to pile on as much muscle mass as humanly possible ? like I do ? 80 percent of your workouts should NOT include direct hamstrings work." Not only is it unnecessary, it will often hinder overall leg development.

Huh???? weird!

"I don't train calves at all. I mean, never, as in never in my life. I've actually never done a single set of any calf raises and my calves are not lacking. I train several clients who have monstrous calves and they never trains them, either. Again, my point is, if you do a lot of heavy squats, deadlifts, and the right kind of sled work, your calves will receive all the stimulation required to blow up."



Man I do and need to!
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

That's this month. I've seen plenty of his routines with Lat and Calf work. Never listen to a mesomorph --- unless you're one too.

I've done compound-only with plenty of presses. My triceps still suffered. You shorter-armed characters may have a different result than me.

I already talked about my calves, though I must say, if I hit them with only 1-3 sets every 2 weeks they do just fine.

Direct hamstring moves (i.e. non-DL work) every 2-3 weeks too.

I sort of like what he says about legs, other than the No Hams & Calves part. On the 'Upper Body Pressing' emphasis, what he's describing sounds like a surefire recipe for RC imbalances.
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Another 'One size fits all' deal .

I feel that is/was HIT's main flaw - saying that HIT style is the best for everyone , every reason and all other don't work , are 'too much' and/or 'too dangerous'.

I followed that for way too long .... avoiding direct arm work and all isolation movement except for calves. Definite mistake.

For what I wanted to accomplish , this was not way to go about it but I just got too caught up in the Dr. Ken style " ... being progressive in handful of compound movements is all you need ..." training.



Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Hey they fixed my thread title, that's a better title :)

I also think an issue is all the sub-categories/versions and their definition of HIT. Some are super abbreviated basic exercises, some are more encompassing with exercise selection, some are super low volume, some allow more than one set, some are high frequency, some are low frequency... it's just like any training, some people say 'volume training didn't work' well what exact type did they try? Same with HIT, trying one version and not adapting it to yourself doesn't mean the whole concept doesn't work, this applies to all training styles. HIT can have a big variance of prescription, contrast Darden's BIG routine with 2 sets of squats 3x a week to Mentzer's ideas with one set of squats 2 weeks apart, both are 'HIT' but huge difference in application. HIT is high intensity training, that's all it is by definition.

Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Nwlifter wrote:
Same with HIT, trying one version and not adapting it to yourself doesn't mean the whole concept doesn't work


Agree . HIT does work ... though a lot of 'old school' HIT guys don't buy that it can be done in a number of ways.

For years now I have split my routine, usually use two sets per exercise, two/three exercises for muscle, added isolation exercises, use Zones, cluster sets , break downs , pre exhaust, train three days a week and still train to failure within 30 minutes or under each workout.

I still say I train in HIT fashion , others don't see it that way because I'm outside of the original concept by doing many of those things I mentioned.

Do what Jones said ... that a lot of people forgot he said ;

" Take what works and throw the rest out ".
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

don't care what any articles say, just rather follow someone who is performing the HIT method and getting results

check out youtube of Stephen Deininger, great physique...not huge but inshape
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Yes, right on. gotta make it fit 'us', too many people succeed on what other's fail on and visa versa. Humans are all similar but we sure ain't all clones!


Crotalus wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Same with HIT, trying one version and not adapting it to yourself doesn't mean the whole concept doesn't work


Agree . HIT does work ... though a lot of 'old school' HIT guys don't buy that it can be done in a number of ways.

For years now I have split my routine, usually use two sets per exercise, two/three exercises for muscle, added isolation exercises, use Zones, cluster sets , break downs , pre exhaust, train three days a week and still train to failure within 30 minutes or under each workout.

I still say I train in HIT fashion , others don't see it that way because I'm outside of the original concept by doing many of those things I mentioned.

Do what Jones said ... that a lot of people forgot he said ;

" Take what works and throw the rest out ".


Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Nwlifter wrote:
Hey they fixed my thread title, that's a better title :)

I also think an issue is all the sub-categories/versions and their definition of HIT. Some are super abbreviated basic exercises, some are more encompassing with exercise selection, some are super low volume, some allow more than one set, some are high frequency, some are low frequency... it's just like any training, some people say 'volume training didn't work' well what exact type did they try? Same with HIT, trying one version and not adapting it to yourself doesn't mean the whole concept doesn't work, this applies to all training styles. HIT can have a big variance of prescription, contrast Darden's BIG routine with 2 sets of squats 3x a week to Mentzer's ideas with one set of squats 2 weeks apart, both are 'HIT' but huge difference in application. HIT is high intensity training, that's all it is by definition.



---Scott--
Yes, it's high intensity training. I wish people would get off the broken record band wagon that it has to be only one set once every two weeks or whatever. It can take many forms as Dr. Darden has illustrated through out the years.
Open User Options Menu

DSears

I've always seen HIT as being a great way to train for sports. I always combined it with basketball. In my experience sticking to the big compounds makes sense in terms of the time invested and results but when I trained that way I always had trouble with pulled muscles. If I mixed in some single joint work for hamstrings, calves, abductor, etc. I didn't have any problems. I didn't have to work them that often but a few sets mixed in seemed to be worth it in terms of injury prevention.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Here's a counterpoint to Thibaudeau's take, by someone who actually cares about your shoulders:

"SHOULDER SHOCKER
By Joe DeFranco / 02/07/11

Here's what you need to know...
1. The shoulder is one of the most commonly injured body parts among athletes.
2. Triple H avoided shoulder surgery and built big, healthy delts by replacing the overhead press with more recuperative delt work.
3. Bench press like a powerlifter and train back like a bodybuilder with a higher volume and more isometrics.
4. "Shoulder Shocker" a delt circuit consisting of a front plate raise, a dumbbell lateral raise, and a seated clean part of his rehab.
5. Perform 100 band pull-aparts throughout the day at any time. This is especially good for those with desk jobs.

BIG HEALTHY SHOULDERS
Paul is in trouble. His body was already banged up from years in the ring, and now this: an injury while filming a movie. The doctor said what Paul already knew. He was going to have to go under the knife. Was his career over? Was his comeback doomed?

After the surgery, Paul got in contact with me because he knew I had experience with high-performance, high-impact athletes. My task was to not only make Paul's shoulders look massive, but also make them feel great again.

Big, strong shoulders must be healthy if they're going to stay that way. If my methods work for Paul (Triple H), they'll probably work for you.

TIME BOMB SHOULDERS
The shoulder is the most mobile, most injured, and most dysfunctional joint in the human body.

If you're an athlete, or if you train like one, your shoulders are a ticking time bomb. I rarely deal with any athlete from any high-level sport, from football to MMA to hockey, who has healthy shoulders when he first walks into my facility.

Rotator cuff tears, AC joint problems, separations, biceps tendon tears that affect the shoulder greatly... you name it. When I get these big-moneyed athletes coming in, I refuse to contribute to the damage by prescribing the wrong exercises.

That's probably why some sport coaches say not to train the delts directly at all. I'm not that conservative. I like a more balanced approach, leaving no stone unturned when it comes to training the body for elite performance.
Plus there's the psychological aspect of shoulder training. Even my NFL athletes like to look good. It gives them a psychological edge. So, we don't leave out the direct shoulder work. We just have a very specific way of doing it.

BAG THE OVERHEAD PRESS!
When you think of shoulder training, you probably think first of the overhead press or military press. Well, brace yourself. I bagged heavy overhead pressing years ago ? removing them from 99% of my athletes' programs. I've seen great improvements in shoulder health and strength since ditching the heavy overhead presses.

Only one in 50 athletes I see can overhead press without risk, but they're the genetic outliers, born with more "room" in there than most of us have. And even then, we'll only work in 2-week cycles of light to moderate push presses, Bradford presses, and neutral-grip strongman log presses.

Visually strip the skin off the shoulders so you can see the internal anatomy: When you press overhead you're basically driving the head of the humorous into the acromion, causing impingements. Repetitive use of overhead presses can easily lead to tearing of the muscle and tendons involved.

It's simply a high-risk exercise, both for my athletes and for bodybuilders who rely on heavy overhead presses.

POWERLIFTER BENCH, BODYBUILDER BACK
Another way we solve the shoulder problem? Train the bench press like a powerlifter and the back like a bodybuilder.

For the bench press (which my Combine guys get tested in) we're after maximal weight and explosive power. We use powerlifter form: shoulder blades pinched together, chest high, elbows tucked under, and placing the bar a little lower on the chest.

The upper back will always get twice the volume of our pressing muscles. We use bodybuilding form and technique, moderate weights, super-strict form, and more isometric holds at the top of the movements. We use lots of row variations instead of pulldowns (which are mostly biceps and forearms anyway) --- movements that really retract the scapula.

You do that, bag the overhead press, change your form on the bench press, and train the upper back like a bodybuilder, and in just a couple of weeks your wrecked shoulders will start to feel strong and rejuvenated..."
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

I read about ditching over head presses and finally decide to try it last year. It was hard to do as it always one of those 'basic' exercises you were supposed to get strong at. Dr. Ken even considered it more important that any chest presses.

My right shoulder had an injury about 15 years ago and would feel it when doing hard sets of over head presses.

So I finally eliminated the overhead presses and my shoulders never felt better. I sometimes still feel like a puss training them with just raises as I still suffer a bit from 'Dr. Ken Syndrome' , lol, but they feel a lot better and even look better, so I'm sticking with it.


Open User Options Menu

EricRamos

Yeah, Ken wasn't the only one though. David Maurice all sound smart guy was big on the press too. In his foundational routine he had it above the bench and if time was an issue, ditch the latter.

But yes, I've heard from numerous people that the press bothers their shoulders. All are big benchers. I wonder if the imbalance is created by the bench. This is what DM had to say:

Keep in mind that leaving out pectoral training is low risk towards causing a postural imbalance.

Having an overhead as your only pressing movement would be very unlikely to cause a postural joint imbalance.

So long as rows, or even chin-ups/pulldowns with an arch (almost a high row) are kept in line with or better than a chosen press, a postural joint imbalance is unlikely
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

I don't think Bill DeSimone was a big fan of the shoulder press.

I never saw any benefit from them...haven't done them consistently in years now. Shoulders are one area of my body where I've never had a problem.
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

I was always really impressed when hearing of someone very strong at OH presses. Much more impressive than seeing a big bench.

It might have started with me when I saw Tom Platz doing neg only PBN in Darden's book High Intensity Bodybuilding with 315 lbs. I couldn't believe my fuckin eyes !!!

Years later I spotted for a guy in a gym who did 4-5 reps with 225 in a seated PBN ... I think he said he weighed 210-215. Blew me away because I knew I'd never get close to that - ever.

Then reading stories by Dr. Ken reporting of guys who were very strong at it, Bill Pearl for one who he said used 315 and Bill Goldberg ( wrestler ) who also used 315 for seated presses !!

In Dr. Kens video he was using a lot more than his body weight of 165 for standing presses and that was after squatting 407 for 23 and doing SLD !

And all these years I was chasing Jones's guideline of ;

" ... when you can Press 12 reps with one and a half times your body weight ... "

LOL !

Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy