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 | 9 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

smanjh

dcshores wrote:
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.



He is summarizing a bunch of it, and there are tons of it, but it would take awhile to find.

If anything, he is summing up the general scientific opinion, and it would now be up to you to disprove that.

Not trying to be a jerk, but what he is saying bodes in accordance to general beliefs.

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

dcshores wrote:
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.


I'm not doing your homework for you. I've given you enough for you to research.

Open User Options Menu

SteveHIT

Turpin wrote:
( injury permitting )


Would you not go for a trap bar? Powerlifter Al Gerard actually invented the trap bar because he had back problems.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

stevehit wrote:
Turpin wrote:
( injury permitting )

Would you not go for a trap bar? Powerlifter Al Gerard actually invented the trap bar because he had back problems.


My workplace has one on order Steve , and I will put such to good use in time.

Best wishes , T.

Open User Options Menu

SteveHIT

Turpin wrote:
My workplace has one on order Steve , and I will put such to good use in time.

Best wishes , T.


Good stuff. I've got one ordered myself it should be here next week.
Open User Options Menu

dcshores

California, USA

N@tural1 wrote:
dcshores wrote:
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.

I'm not doing your homework for you. I've given you enough for you to research.


I have not come here and stated my opinion as fact.You have given me nothing other than that protein synthesis study. The burdon of proof is on you. I will state it again. Bring the evidence that volume is better. Show me a literature review a double blind study. Something. You guys can't just make claims and not back them up. My feeling is that you don't have it.

Now if I were here stating that all you guys are wrong and I have the answers then the burdon of proof would be on me. I have done none of the such.

Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Smanjh wrote; If anything, he ( N@tural 1 ) is summing up the general scientific opinion, and it would now be up to you to disprove that.

.....................................

To disprove would be to forsake a routine that has afforded me gain and partake in one that perhaps /or most likely would not IMO.
I`ll watch N1`s ( fresh start ) study with interest , moreso once he has reached his previous best & his subsequent progression over several months thereafter , that would be a barometer of proof ( at least for those akin to his physiological makeup ) .

Best wishes , T.
Open User Options Menu

thebiggfella

dcshores wrote:
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.



Well said David.

Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

dcshores wrote:
N@tural1 wrote:
dcshores wrote:
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.

I'm not doing your homework for you. I've given you enough for you to research.
I have not come here and stated my opinion as fact.You have given me nothing other than that protein synthesis study. The burdon of proof is on you. I will state it again. Bring the evidence that volume is better.

Show me a literature review a double blind study. Something. You guys can't just make claims and not back them up. My feeling is that you don't have it.

Now if I were here stating that all you guys are wrong and I have the answers then the burdon of proof would be on me. I have done none of the such.



Your 100% correct but that wont make a difference to -un-natural. He will keep spewing out his mindless nonsense regardless of what you or anyone else say.

Talking sense to someone with the intelligence level of un-natural has been proven many times here to be a total waste of time.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Turpin wrote:
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 ) ...
Best wishes , T.


You did look impressive back then Turpin. And clearly natural, nice work.
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

Turpin,
Excellent results! I agree with hddc on the visible increase in the long head of the triceps; the dips are working.

But from the pic of your arms in the side shot (huge at your height btw, a 6 foot athlete would require 18" arms to compare proportionately) it looks to me like although the dipping has hypertrophied the LH, your development is predominately in the lateral and medial heads of the triceps; I think this suggests you have the potential to build a larger LH as it has the most size potential.

It would be interesting to see the result if you added a set of skull crushers; when I experimented with dropping them from my consolidation routine last year, my triceps development shifted predominately to the lateral and medial heads, stimulated by pressing.

Open User Options Menu

hddc

Turpin wrote:
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.


I don't mean to question you to death on this topic, but I'm trying to formulate a new approach to RP training. What is the longest time period you would estimate you have used RP exclusively?

For me, RP doesn't give much of a pump, but it does leave the area feeling very much worked. While I'm no exercise scientist, and don't want to get into a debate about the pump and the other components of muscle growth, gaining strength has always been the key for me getting bigger.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

hddc wrote:
Turpin wrote:
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.

I don't mean to question you to death on this topic, but I'm trying to formulate a new approach to RP training. What is the longest time period you would estimate you have used RP exclusively?

For me, RP doesn't give much of a pump, but it does leave the area feeling very much worked. While I'm no exercise scientist, and don't want to get into a debate about the pump and the other components of muscle growth, gaining strength has always been the key for me getting bigger.


Hi hddc , I have used rest pause exclusively for upperbody work for 6-8 weeks before returning to my normal rep/set scheme for a similar period in order to ensure full recuperation ( in mind and body ) before another 6-8 week cycle again perhaps using another higher intensity protocol.
You are correct re; lack of pump using rest pause , in fact at times I leave the gym feeling rather unworked only to wake the next day ( and day after ) with tender musculature in the areas worked. And the progression in strength workout to workout is evidence that something positive IS happening.


Best wishes , T.

Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Tomislav wrote:
Turpin,
Excellent results! I agree with hddc on the visible increase in the long head of the triceps; the dips are working.

But from the pic of your arms in the side shot (huge at your height btw, a 6 foot athlete would require 18" arms to compare proportionately) it looks to me like although the dipping has hypertrophied the LH, your development is predominately in the lateral and medial heads of the triceps; I think this suggests you have the potential to build a larger LH as it has the most size potential.

It would be interesting to see the result if you added a set of skull crushers; when I experimented with dropping them from my consolidation routine last year, my triceps development shifted predominately to the lateral and medial heads, stimulated by pressing.



Thanks Tom , I am considering splitting my training into 3 workouts and including a few isolation movements in the coming weeks ( perhaps inc lying tricep ext ) , meaning each compound movement will be trained x 1 every 3 weeks with isolation work adding a different angle to my training that the present compound only work is perhaps neglecting somewhat.

T.

Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Turpin
Thanks Tom , I am considering splitting my training into 3 workouts and including a few isolation movements in the coming weeks ( perhaps inc lying tricep ext ) , meaning each compound movement will be trained x 1 every 3 weeks with isolation work adding a different angle to my training that the present compound only work is perhaps neglecting somewhat.

T.



So, are you thinking of a three way split similar to a structure like Heavy Duty I?
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Turpin wrote:
Smanjh wrote; If anything, he ( N@tural 1 ) is summing up the general scientific opinion, and it would now be up to you to disprove that.

.....................................

To disprove would be to forsake a routine that has afforded me gain and partake in one that perhaps /or most likely would not IMO.
I`ll watch N1`s ( fresh start ) study with interest , moreso once he has reached his previous best & his subsequent progression over several months thereafter , that would be a barometer of proof ( at least for those akin to his physiological makeup ) .

Best wishes , T.


In all honesty, if I had the equipment available and was not restricted to barbells, I would love to try out what you did.

Is there a way to do it with barbells and possibly an alternative frequency available in case it turns out to be too little?

My only point in that post was that Natural is representing a universal opinion on stuff. He is not arguing anything of his own but merely stuff he read or learned elsewhere.

Then other people here will seemingly refute it and ignore all sorts of scientific and anecdotal evidence.

Believe it or not, I love HIT and all of the people involved, especially Mentzer, Jones, and Doc Darden.

I wanted so much to disprove the naysayers with a lot of added muscle eventually.

Then, when more volume and frequency resulted in gains, I felt betrayed really. That isn't the right choice of words, but in a context where weightlifting is just a hobby and not a job, it sort of felt like that.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

thebiggfella wrote:
dcshores wrote:
Just because it works for you does not mean that it works for everyone.

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

Well said David.


That's interesting Glynn does this also apply to HIT? Should rush factor SSTF training be optimal for everybody?
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
Turpin
Thanks Tom , I am considering splitting my training into 3 workouts and including a few isolation movements in the coming weeks ( perhaps inc lying tricep ext ) , meaning each compound movement will be trained x 1 every 3 weeks with isolation work adding a different angle to my training that the present compound only work is perhaps neglecting somewhat.

T.



So, are you thinking of a three way split similar to a structure like Heavy Duty I?



something like ;

W/O 1;
LEG PRESS
LATERAL RAISES/or upright row
TRICEP EXT

W/O 2;
PULLDOWN
PEC DEC
OHP

W/O 3;
DIP
SEATED ROW
SHRUG ( alternated infrequently with deadlifts )

Such a routine is almost an abbreviated whole body workout each time out , but with an emphasis on recovery by way of the inclusion of a few less demanding isolation/single joint movements.

Best wishes , T.




Open User Options Menu

thebiggfella

N@tural1 wrote:

That's interesting Glynn does this also apply to HIT? Should rush factor SSTF training be optimal for everybody?


Try it yourself if you've not already done so.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

thebiggfella wrote:
Try it yourself if you've not already done so.


Thats not what I asked Glynn. Can you not answer a simple question?

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


I asked you if the same applies to HIT?

The answer is either yes.. or no..??
Open User Options Menu

thebiggfella

N@tural1 wrote:
thebiggfella wrote:
Try it yourself if you've not already done so.

Thats not what I asked Glynn. Can you not answer a simple question?

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



I didn't say that, David Shores did. You're quoting what he said as I've said it. I just agreed with him.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

thebiggfella wrote:
I didn't say that, David Shores did. You're quoting what he said as I've said it. I just agreed with him.


Ok but whether you said it or agreed to it fact is you believe that making sweeping statements that a training method works for everyone is wrong.. correct?

Why do you have such difficulty answering if the same also applies to HIT?

And please don't respond with "I'm not debating with you" I'm not looking for a debate, I just want your opinion to a very simple question.
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

N@tural1 wrote:
thebiggfella wrote:
I didn't say that, David Shores did. You're quoting what he said as I've said it. I just agreed with him.

Ok but whether you said it or agreed to it fact is you believe that making sweeping statements that a training method works for everyone is wrong.. correct?

Why do you have such difficulty answering if the same also applies to HIT?

And please don't respond with "I'm not debating with you" I'm not looking for a debate, I just want your opinion to a very simple question.



Why? What will it do if you get the answer you want?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Mr. Strong wrote:
Why? What will it do if you get the answer you want?


I would prefer he simply answered the simple question one way or another. I don't understand the complexity of the question.

Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

smanjh wrote:
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.


This is correct. Protein synthesis drops off shortly after exercise. This is why many HIT theorists have gone back to adding a little more frequency and volume. This is what AJ mentioned when he first began writing about HIT, and insisted everyone train 3x/week. I realize he changed his opinions on this, but the science behind it didn't change.
This happens on a cellualr level in the mitochondria of the cell. Ribosomes are these little chemical messengers that dictate protein synthesis and degradation. They drop off in a wave-like fashion.

Another fact is every set of exercise, within a specific intensity, stimulates ribosomes. This means that 2 sets stimulate more than 1 set, and 3 sets stimulate more than 2 sets and so on. That doesn't necessarily mean that 2 sets is better than 1 set or 3 sets are better than 2 sets, because exercise also stimulates some catabolic hormones. So, the idea would be to find out how much you can train without stimulating too much catabolism.
I don't even want to get into which type of training stimulates the most catabolism, because this may hurt feelings and cause unnecessary insults. But the fact is Strength and Hypertrophy are the result of INTENSITY and WORKLOAD. One without the other is not optimal.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy