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
Turpins Log
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Turpin

hddc wrote:
Turpin,

Your posts aren't narcissistic. You say that the circumference is up slightly, but your arm looks much fuller, especially the long head of the triceps.

Your findings are similar to my experiences with consolidation training. You don't need isolation movements, but the intensity has to be very high. I pick a weight that allows about 3-4 reps to failure and then follow that up with about 3 rest pause reps.

You are doing more pure rest pause like Mike Mentzer recommended. I am doing a few reps first followed by rest pause. I burn out on pure rest pause after a couple months, but have continued to get stronger from workout to workout for the last several months I've been doing it. I have found that rest pause is the most productive way for me to train. Have you found the same?


Hi hddc , Ive tried `rest pause` as you describe ( 3 or so reps TF , then rest followed by attempting a couple of single rest pause reps ) however Im almost spent by the time Ive reached the few reps to failure , thus negating the benefit of the `rest pause` , unless I reduce the resistance substantially.
Instead I use the single rep method , working up ( warm ups ) in singles to a 1RM , then proceed for 3 further single reps ( with 10 sec rest between ) with a slight reduction in weight or assist where neccessary to complete. You could say each exercise is performed in a `pyramid` fashion of single repetitions.
I have found this to be very productive of late , and my son ( 20 yrs old ) likewise loves the challenge of increasing resistance workout to workout.
I believe ( & always have done , despite somes belief in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy ) that realisation of gains in strength precedes muscular hypertrophy.

Best wishes , T.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Hi Turpin very interesting study. I would definitely be interested in seeing a relaxed front pose if you didn't mind? Also may I ask what's the circumference of your flexed bicep?
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

N@tural1 wrote:
Hi Turpin very interesting study. I would definitely be interested in seeing a relaxed front pose if you didn't mind?


Not the best pic , but its the most recent one ( May 10 )

T.



Open User Options Menu

Turpin

N@tural1 wrote:
Hi Turpin very interesting study. I would definitely be interested in seeing a relaxed front pose if you didn't mind? Also may I ask what's the circumference of your flexed bicep?


My flexed bicep ? .... R/arm just over 16 3/4" , L/arm 16 1/2" @ 170lb 5`6".

Im not really into measuring ( but its interesting to know I feel ) , and at times I feel my arms looked bigger especially when at a lower bodyweight. I`ll dig out/post a pic from some 20 or more years ago as an example.

T.



Open User Options Menu

Turpin


A shot from 1987 , where I weighed around 155lb and my arms were around 15 1/2" ( but I believe looked considerably bigger due to definition ) , I was doing a lot of boxing around this time too , outwith powerlifting.

Best wishes , T.

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Thanks Turpin. Very decent arm size. You are very lean in that old photo and you're right, it does add an illusion to muscle mass.

Have you tried increasing the frequency of your workouts? eg performing 2 workouts per week and hitting the whole body every 7 days?
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

N@tural1 wrote:
Thanks Turpin. Very decent arm size. You are very lean in that old photo and you're right, it does add an illusion to muscle mass.

Have you tried increasing the frequency of your workouts? eg performing 2 workouts per week and hitting the whole body every 7 days?


Thankyou N1 , My x 1 weekly workouts are as a result of my ongoing study/experience ( of some 25 yrs ) of training , recuperation and adaptation. I previously had tried consolidation/strength training x 2 weekly back when I was powerlifting as an off season routine and made considerable strength gains from it ( my goal has never really been physique orientated ) .
I find that x 1 weekly suits myself fine ( training each exercise x 1 every 14 days ) , in fact I do at times extend my recovery & miss a scheduled workout when I feel fatigue setting in , and I have always came back stronger.
In fact my son ( 20 yrs ) who is my training partner quite often misses workouts sometimes taking 2/3 weeks between and ALWAYS comes back stronger again.

Best wishes , T.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

I am of the opinion that lower frequency workouts can work well for sheer strength, obviously you've proven that. I do however think that for hypertrophy.. that is optimal hypertrophy ie bodybuilding, that more volume and/or frequency is usually required beyond a certain stage.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

N@tural1 wrote:
I am of the opinion that lower frequency workouts can work well for sheer strength, obviously you've proven that. I do however think that for hypertrophy.. that is optimal hypertrophy ie bodybuilding, that more volume and/or frequency is usually required beyond a certain stage.


As I said previously N1 , Ive never really trained with physique purposes ( certainly not competition ) in mind , more for strength and well being. And I have always been of the mind that hypertrophy is a direct result of strength gain , and have always trained with this premise in mind. And as one grows progressively stronger the subsequent stresses on ones physiological state become greater as a result and neccessitate more time to recuperate. And I believe such to be true even if one trains NTF. as 200lb NTF ( whether 1, 2 , or 3 sets ) still takes more from one physiologically than a lesser previous effort from some weeks previous. Something has to give in order to accomodate new strength gain in order to realise further progress , whether that be in the form of reduction in volume and/or reps or increased recuperative days. The former is ideal for powerlifting to reach a new 1RM , the latter ideal for those with health/well being and a muscular physique.

T.



Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Turpin wrote:
And as one grows progressively stronger the subsequent stresses on ones physiological state become greater as a result and neccessitate more time to recuperate. And I believe such to be true even if one trains NTF. as 200lb NTF ( whether 1, 2 , or 3 sets ) still takes more from one physiologically than a lesser previous effort from some weeks previous. Something has to give in order to accomodate new strength gain in order to realise further progress , whether that be in the form of reduction in volume and/or reps or increased recuperative days.


I definitely agree. The last six weeks I have been using NFT with 2 sets per exercise and gained 70 pounds on my Chest Press and 65 pounds on the Pulldown (some of it re-gained from previously). I had no choice but to compensate with volume reduction and freq. as the demands have really been growing on me. A couple of times I even took a week off from training (was training twice per week), but still resumed with the same poundages and grew tried once again. Now, I could have come back with reduced poundages and built my way back up. However, history as always forced me to reduce training once I hit that level of strength again.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Guys.

Yes typically that is what we see. beginners are usually best performing full body workouts low volume greater frequency and as they advance we typically see volume going up while frequency going down.

I am not a huge believer in reducing frequency per lift or muscle group to anything beyond 7 days

I much prefer a form of periodization, cycling volume and/or intensity (DFT) as opposed to a permanent reduction in frequency. Many testify to this.
Open User Options Menu

hddc

Turpin wrote

In fact my son ( 20 yrs ) who is my training partner quite often misses workouts sometimes taking 2/3 weeks between and ALWAYS comes back stronger again.


It sounds like you have been doing rest pause on an ongoing basis for a long time. How long have you been doing your current routine? I'm thinking maybe I should get a little more hard core, go to pure rest pause, and extend my recovery days until I am gaining each workout.
Open User Options Menu

dcshores

California, USA

N@tural1 wrote:
I am of the opinion that lower frequency workouts can work well for sheer strength, obviously you've proven that. I do however think that for hypertrophy.. that is optimal hypertrophy ie bodybuilding, that more volume and/or frequency is usually required beyond a certain stage.


I understand that this is your opinion. However, the proof is in the pudding. T looks better than 99% percent of the posters here. 170 lbs at 5'5" is huge. I would bet that if T. were to drop his body fat a few % he could win many natural bodybuilding shows. His consolidation training is producing hypertrophy for him. Period! To say that NTF, periodization would work better is a mute point. I believe he has posted here many time that it does not work for him.


All this talk about what works better is driving me nuts. Just because it works for you does not mean that it works for everyone. The argument formula here seem to be:

1) Choose the type of training method that is preferred.
2) Selectively choose the research that conforms to your opinion.
3) Interject your opinion on every thread here even when it is unrelated.


Finding out what works for you is valuable. Making sweeping statements that it works for everyone is not.

Whew! I feel better.

David

Open User Options Menu

Turpin

hddc wrote:
Turpin wrote

In fact my son ( 20 yrs ) who is my training partner quite often misses workouts sometimes taking 2/3 weeks between and ALWAYS comes back stronger again.

It sounds like you have been doing rest pause on an ongoing basis for a long time. How long have you been doing your current routine? I'm thinking maybe I should get a little more hard core, go to pure rest pause, and extend my recovery days until I am gaining each workout.


Coming from a powerlifting background I find focus on 1RM very easy , and have practiced RP on a fairly regular basis for around 10 yrs now , interspersed with cycles of 5RM ( 5 reps being the mainstay of my training )

I have trained with some who cannot get to grips with RP , these are usually individuals who are used to more volume ( even in HIT circles ), and the lack of `pump` leaves them feeling somewhat unworked. However if the trainee embraces the strength = hypertrophy ethos then I believe RP is a great way of making gains.

T.

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

dcshores wrote:
I understand that this is your opinion.


For the most part by far it's fact. Sorry but that's just the way it is. For every "Turpin" there are numerous others right here on this board that testify to needing more volume and/or frequency.

dcshores wrote:
However, the proof is in the pudding. T looks better than 99% percent of the posters here.


That's because there's very few higher volume lifters here. On bb.com there are loads, most all impressive physiques are lifters using more conventional routines.

dcshores wrote:
His consolidation training is producing hypertrophy for him. Period! To say that NTF, periodization would work better is a mute point.


Its not mute, it's fact. Look at the world of strength training and bodybuilding, there is a reason that this type of extreme low volume infrequent training has died a death.

dcshores wrote:
I believe he has posted here many time that it does not work for him.


I don't know how he implemented other training styles, but to imply that increasing a muscles work capacity will not result in an adaptation is utter nonsense.

dcshores wrote:
Selectively choose the research that conforms to your opinion.


Research is not selective. Muscle protein synthesis is over in 48-72 hours in natural non drug assisted lifters following a hard session. After this time the muscle is just sitting there...

dcshores wrote:
Finding out what works for you is valuable. Making sweeping statements that it works for everyone is not.


Does this also apply to extreme low volume/frequency training? or to HIT in general? may I ask you.. what if HIT doesn't work for a individual?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

The following curve is based on the research and diagrams of Tudor Bompa in his book Perdioization.

Stage I, Stimulus then fatigue: You go to the gym and train to total failure. This creates a stimulus followed by a fatigue effect, temporarily dropping your performance ability. If you quickly re-train them the same way, you would feel sluggish, motivation would be low. The muscle itself would not have recovered its energy stores, let alone able to rebuild itself to become stronger.

Stage II, Compensation: At this point, your body begins to repair and return to normal homeostasis. It begins recovery. If you lift hard and heavy everyday with full intensity but not enough rest, you can be stuck at this stage indefinitely with no progress.

Stage III, Overcompensation: This is where the magic happens. The system will overcompensate to allow more ATP/CP energy stores and increased performance ability. Hitting the highest peak of this supercompensation before re-training is the ultimate goal.

Stage IV, Involution followed by a return to homeostasis: If you decide to take too much time off and neglect sending your system the stimulus it needs to retain gains, it will return to normal levels and detraining begins.
Open User Options Menu

Mark S

N@tural1 wrote:

For the most part by far it's fact. Sorry but that's just the way it is........


And on it goes!

Natural,
This thread isn't about your opinion is it? It is about T's excellent results and his comparison pictures.

Instead of trying to start an argument with anybody and everybody,why not, either ask T some relevant questions pertaining to his training, or leave it alone?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

LOYD GROSSMAN wrote:
Instead of trying to start an argument with anybody and everybody,why not, either ask T some relevant questions pertaining to his training, or leave it alone


Can you show me one single study that shows protein synthesis to elevated 14 days after training a muscle?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Turpin wrote:
As I said previously N1 , Ive never really trained with physique purposes ( certainly not competition ) in mind , more for strength and well being.


How would you alter your training if you wished to enter a competition Turpin and had to maximise hypertrophy/protein synthesis?
Open User Options Menu

coomo

N@tural1 wrote:
The following curve is based on the research and diagrams of Tudor Bompa in his book Perdioization.

Stage I, Stimulus then fatigue: You go to the gym and train to total failure. This creates a stimulus followed by a fatigue effect, temporarily dropping your performance ability. If you quickly re-train them the same way, you would feel sluggish, motivation would be low. The muscle itself would not have recovered its energy stores, let alone able to rebuild itself to become stronger.

Stage II, Compensation: At this point, your body begins to repair and return to normal homeostasis. It begins recovery. If you lift hard and heavy everyday with full intensity but not enough rest, you can be stuck at this stage indefinitely with no progress.

Stage III, Overcompensation: This is where the magic happens. The system will overcompensate to allow more ATP/CP energy stores and increased performance ability. Hitting the highest peak of this supercompensation before re-training is the ultimate goal.

Stage IV, Involution followed by a return to homeostasis: If you decide to take too much time off and neglect sending your system the stimulus it needs to retain gains, it will return to normal levels and detraining begins.


yet more trolling from the resident twat.If you know the "facts" how come you look like youve never lifted more than your mums skirt?

Open User Options Menu

dcshores

California, USA

N@tural1 wrote:
dcshores wrote:
I understand that this is your opinion.

For the most part by far it's fact. Sorry but that's just the way it is. For every "Turpin" there are numerous others right here on this board that testify to needing more volume and/or frequency.

You talk like this if fact. Only a multitude of double blind studies comparing volume to consolidation would prove your point. You are making a huge sweeping statement that is not fact. A theory maybe.

dcshores wrote:
However, the proof is in the pudding. T looks better than 99% percent of the posters here.

That's because there's very few higher volume lifters here. On bb.com there are loads, most all impressive physiques are lifters using more conventional routines.

Do you deny that T. made progress with his approach? I've seen a lot of poor physiques on BB.com. Again with the sweeping statements?

dcshores wrote:
His consolidation training is producing hypertrophy for him. Period! To say that NTF, periodization would work better is a mute point.

Its not mute, it's fact. Look at the world of strength training and bodybuilding, there is a reason that this type of extreme low volume infrequent training has died a death.

Have you aver taken a course in Logic. These are the worst arguments I have ever heard. Just because everyone thinks so does not make it so. Everyone (including the medical researchers) thought antibiotics were harmless until only a few years ago. I could go on and on with examples where everyone thought one way and they were wrong. This is not a logical support for your argument.

dcshores wrote:
I believe he has posted here many time that it does not work for him.

I don't know how he implemented other training styles, but to imply that increasing a muscles work capacity will not result in an adaptation is utter nonsense.

You are the one talking nonsense. All exercise causes adaption that is specific to the demand. Look at a marathon athlete. I do not buy into the belief that increasing volume increases muscle size. Show me the studies that back up your opinion. I would be happy to read them.

dcshores wrote:
Selectively choose the research that conforms to your opinion.

Research is not selective. Muscle protein synthesis is over in 48-72 hours in natural non drug assisted lifters following a hard session. After this time the muscle is just sitting there...

You are correct, research is not selective. But people choose the research they agree with to support their beliefs and ignore the research that contradicts. For example, there are studies comparing 1 set to three sets. Some show better results with one set, some three and some about the same. Depending on your viewpoint just pick the one you like.

Has the research shown that protein synthesis correlates to muscle growth? No, it correlates to recovery only. Can you show me the research when growth occurs?

dcshores wrote:
Finding out what works for you is valuable. Making sweeping statements that it works for everyone is not.

Does this also apply to extreme low volume/frequency training? or to HIT in general? may I ask you.. what if HIT doesn't work for a individual?


It implies nothing. You have to find out what works. The theory of HIT is rather simple. The correct application is not.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

dcshores wrote:
You talk like this if fact. Only a multitude of double blind studies comparing volume to consolidation would prove your point. You are making a huge sweeping statement that is not fact. A theory maybe.


Elevated protein synthesis... I rest my case. Sorry but science/physiology and empiricism all testify to the same thing. Higher volume and/or frequency is superior than EXTREME HIT routines.

dcshores wrote:
Do you deny that T. made progress with his approach?


I do not deny it, I see a lot of difference in his legs mostly but yes, if he's gotten stronger, and the strength gains are not neural then then why wouldn't he get bigger? The question is, would it be optimal for hypertrophy as in competition preparation.

dcshores wrote:
I've seen a lot of poor physiques on BB.com. Again with the sweeping statements?


Straw man argument.

dcshores wrote:
Have you aver taken a course in Logic. These are the worst arguments I have ever heard. Just because everyone thinks so does not make it so. Everyone (including the medical researchers) thought antibiotics were harmless until only a few years ago. I could go on and on with examples where everyone thought one way and they were wrong. This is not a logical support for your argument.


Logic? Seriously? Ok, Logic state that a single set causes overload to the muscle for one reason.. it's greater VOLUME than it was previously exposed to (that last failure rep is irrelevant). What logic tells you that increased volume and/or frequency would do nothing to add to the stimulus?

Why does the outright obvious need explaining so often on this board?

dcshores wrote:
You are the one talking nonsense. All exercise causes adaption that is specific to the demand.


BINGO! yet your assertion is that increased demand will result in zero adaptation? C'mon..

dcshores wrote:
Look at a marathon athlete. I do not buy into the belief that increasing volume increases muscle size.


Another straw man argument. Apples and oranges. In context of weight training we're talking volume as in working the higher threshold motor units. When I say increase volume, I'm am NOT talking about endurance training.

dcshores wrote:
Show me the studies that back up your opinion. I would be happy to read them.


There are too many to mention, use google scholar and search for 'single set versus multi sets'. The research is clear.

dcshores wrote:
You are correct, research is not selective. But people choose the research they agree with to support their beliefs and ignore the research that contradicts. For example, there are studies comparing 1 set to three sets. Some show better results with one set, some three and some about the same. Depending on your viewpoint just pick the one you like.


Protein synthesis (protein degregation/remapping) is elevated up to 24-72 hours beyond that it drops drastically. So regardless of single or multi-sets, one will not reach optimal hypertrophy at too low a frequency.

dcshores wrote:
Has the research shown that protein synthesis correlates to muscle growth? No, it correlates to recovery only. Can you show me the research when growth occurs?


LOL.. hypertrophy is a result of elevated protein synthesis. Read my post above with the diagram.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

coomo wrote:
yet more trolling from the resident twat.If you know the "facts" how come you look like youve never lifted more than your mums skirt?


Yet isn't it funny how Im bigger than you!

Open User Options Menu

dcshores

California, USA

N@tural1 wrote:
dcshores wrote:
You talk like this if fact. Only a multitude of double blind studies comparing volume to consolidation would prove your point. You are making a huge sweeping statement that is not fact. A theory maybe.

Elevated protein synthesis... I rest my case. Sorry but science/physiology and empiricism all testify to the same thing. Higher volume and/or frequency is superior than EXTREME HIT routines.

dcshores wrote:
Do you deny that T. made progress with his approach?

I do not deny it, I see a lot of difference in his legs mostly but yes, if he's gotten stronger, and the strength gains are not neural then then why wouldn't he get bigger? The question is, would it be optimal for hypertrophy as in competition preparation.

dcshores wrote:
I've seen a lot of poor physiques on BB.com. Again with the sweeping statements?

Straw man argument.

dcshores wrote:
Have you aver taken a course in Logic. These are the worst arguments I have ever heard. Just because everyone thinks so does not make it so. Everyone (including the medical researchers) thought antibiotics were harmless until only a few years ago. I could go on and on with examples where everyone thought one way and they were wrong. This is not a logical support for your argument.

Logic? Seriously? Ok, Logic state that a single set causes overload to the muscle for one reason.. it's greater VOLUME than it was previously exposed to (that last failure rep is irrelevant). What logic tells you that increased volume and/or frequency would do nothing to add to the stimulus?

Why does the outright obvious need explaining so often on this board?

dcshores wrote:
You are the one talking nonsense. All exercise causes adaption that is specific to the demand.

BINGO! yet your assertion is that increased demand will result in zero adaptation? C'mon..

dcshores wrote:
Look at a marathon athlete. I do not buy into the belief that increasing volume increases muscle size.

Another straw man argument. Apples and oranges. In context of weight training we're talking volume as in working the higher threshold motor units. When I say increase volume, I'm am NOT talking about endurance training.

dcshores wrote:
Show me the studies that back up your opinion. I would be happy to read them.

There are too many to mention, use google scholar and search for 'single set versus multi sets'. The research is clear.

dcshores wrote:
You are correct, research is not selective. But people choose the research they agree with to support their beliefs and ignore the research that contradicts. For example, there are studies comparing 1 set to three sets. Some show better results with one set, some three and some about the same. Depending on your viewpoint just pick the one you like.

Protein synthesis (protein degregation/remapping) is elevated up to 24-72 hours beyond that it drops drastically. So regardless of single or multi-sets, one will not reach optimal hypertrophy at too low a frequency.

dcshores wrote:
Has the research shown that protein synthesis correlates to muscle growth? No, it correlates to recovery only. Can you show me the research when growth occurs?

LOL.. hypertrophy is a result of elevated protein synthesis. Read my post above with the diagram.


Where is the research to support your claims? You did not answer a single response I made.

Good luck to you. You want to debate but don't bring the facts.

Open User Options Menu

Turpin

N@tural1 wrote:
Turpin wrote:
As I said previously N1 , Ive never really trained with physique purposes ( certainly not competition ) in mind , more for strength and well being.

How would you alter your training if you wished to enter a competition Turpin and had to maximise hypertrophy/protein synthesis?


N1 , I have no wish to compare my physique to others ( compete ) , and TBH I feel I am at present making best of what I am genetically predisposed to in terms of `natural` gains in strength and subsequent hypertrophy.
Such Gains in strength and hypertrophy are extremely hard to come by in a `natural` trainee and I am sure ( no Im positive ) that by training more frequently such gains would not come any quicker , if at all thru time.
If I ever thought about competition ( which I wont ) then I would look to something like Mentzers `ideal` routine again , with special emphasis on recovery ie; x 1 weekly at most whilst I restricted my calories. Such routine and the inclusion of pre-exhaust using isolation movements would refine areas that perhaps exercises contained within consolidated training does not.
For me my upper/inner pec were better using pre-exhaust ( flye/ bench press ) than simply the Dips I use at present ( see above pic ) ... but I am happier simply gaining strength on a regular basis.

Best wishes , T.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy