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 | 10 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

cmg

Great job Turpin!!

Keep up the good work.

Regards,

Ron
Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

fbcoach wrote:

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.


come on now fb you hypocrite we know you mean classic HIT with the low volume high intensity infrequent workouts...

wont hurt our feelings go ahead spew out you shit.. make my day
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

gerry-hitman wrote:
fbcoach wrote:

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.

come on now fb you hypocrite we know you mean classic HIT with the low volume high intensity infrequent workouts...

wont hurt our feelings go ahead spew out you shit.. make my day


Just because it stimulates the most catabolism through cortisol or whatever does not necessarily mean it is bad or even not as good as another method.

They know what things do, and they know what it looks like, but they can not find one best method to prove conclusively all the time. It isn't like comparing the effectiveness of antibiotics to no antibiotics or hydrocodone to aspirin.

For all we know, that huge amount of cortisol may actually prompt the body to respond with more anabolic hormones. No one knows.

Doggcrapp works for just about everyone. I know he likes to stay away from the HIT label, but that is exactly what it is really outside of the deloads used (HIT just uses plain rest which is fine).

Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Been restricting my calories over the past month in an attempt to lower my bodyfat levels a little , whilst continuing with my consolidated training x 1 weekly .

Usually ( or previously ) this made the resistance used in my workouts extremely difficult at times , but to date I have seen increase almost workout to workout in either reps or resistance used with a reduction in visible bodyfat levels and no loss of lean muscle. I am currently around 168lb .

My present routine ( over the past 8 weeks ) has been.

W/O 1; Chins/or pulldowns (rest pause )
Dips ( rest pause )
Shrugs ( alternated with deadlifts on occasion )

W/O 2; Leg press
OHP
Weighted Leg raise ( abdominals )

The inclusion of the deadlift ( albeit infrequently .... x1 monthly ) I feel has brought a better degree of mid/lower back muscularity , but I am ever mindful of my long standing low back problem .

T.
Open User Options Menu

thebiggfella

Looking good there T, nice work. A quick question: do you think that direct abdominal work is necessary? I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's not but that's just me. I find that the big compounds work them sufficiently, especially chins. I did them in Saturdays workout and my abs are pretty sore!

Anybody else who has an opinion on this, please feel free to comment.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

thebiggfella wrote:
Looking good there T, nice work. A quick question: do you think that direct abdominal work is necessary? I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's not but that's just me. I find that the big compounds work them sufficiently, especially chins. I did them in Saturdays workout and my abs are pretty sore!

Anybody else who has an opinion on this, please feel free to comment.


Cheers Glynn , ... NO I dont believe direct abdominal work is neccessary when performing basics such as chins , dips , leg press etc
However the inclusion in my routine was as an adjunct to the infrequent inclusion of the deadlift in my present routine in order to provide adequate stimuli to the corresponding/secondary musculature ( hip flexors / psoas ) , which in my case due to my low back injury is/would be most beneficial.

T.

Open User Options Menu

Hitit

thebiggfella wrote:
Looking good there T, nice work. A quick question: do you think that direct abdominal work is necessary? I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's not but that's just me. I find that the big compounds work them sufficiently, especially chins. I did them in Saturdays workout and my abs are pretty sore!

Anybody else who has an opinion on this, please feel free to comment.


I agree that Mr. T looks great and am amazed at his routines.

I also agree that direct ab does not appear to be necessary when doing intense exercises that still work them indirectly. I currently do not do direct ab work in my routines.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Hitit wrote:
thebiggfella wrote:
Looking good there T, nice work. A quick question: do you think that direct abdominal work is necessary? I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's not but that's just me. I find that the big compounds work them sufficiently, especially chins. I did them in Saturdays workout and my abs are pretty sore!

Anybody else who has an opinion on this, please feel free to comment.

I agree that Mr. T looks great and am amazed at his routines.

I also agree that direct ab does not appear to be necessary when doing intense exercises that still work them indirectly. I currently do not do direct ab work in my routines.


Cheers Hitit , I very much agree in regards to indirect work ( hence I perform no direct arm work at all ) , however the rehabilitative effects of the leg raise on tight psoas musculature ( stretch and strengthening ) is more my aim than merely working the abdominals.


Best wishes , T.
Open User Options Menu

natemason5

Ontario, CAN

Turpin wrote:
Hitit wrote:
thebiggfella wrote:
Looking good there T, nice work. A quick question: do you think that direct abdominal work is necessary? I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's not but that's just me. I find that the big compounds work them sufficiently, especially chins. I did them in Saturdays workout and my abs are pretty sore!

Anybody else who has an opinion on this, please feel free to comment.

I agree that Mr. T looks great and am amazed at his routines.

I also agree that direct ab does not appear to be necessary when doing intense exercises that still work them indirectly. I currently do not do direct ab work in my routines.


Cheers Hitit , I very much agree in regards to indirect work ( hence I perform no direct arm work at all ) , however the rehabilitative effects of the leg raise on tight psoas musculature ( stretch and strengthening ) is more my aim than merely working the abdominals.


Best wishes , T.


I don't do direct ab work, but I'm pretty sure that if we were all training for a BB competition we'd be doing direct work for everything. I do think fat% is the biggest key. I like to eat, so that creates a bit of a problem.


Great job Turpin. I'm honestly surprised to see you making strength gains on so few workouts. Whatever works for you.

Nate
Open User Options Menu

thebiggfella

Turpin wrote:
Cheers Glynn , ... NO I dont believe direct abdominal work is neccessary when performing basics such as chins , dips , leg press etc
However the inclusion in my routine was as an adjunct to the infrequent inclusion of the deadlift in my present routine in order to provide adequate stimuli to the corresponding/secondary musculature ( hip flexors / psoas ) , which in my case due to my low back injury is/would be most beneficial.

T.



Thanks for the reply T. It's hard to drop something but I think in my case, the lack of any direct abdominal work hasn't had any negative affects. They're still rock hard. ;)

Open User Options Menu

Turpin

natemason5 wrote; Great job Turpin. I'm honestly surprised to see you making strength gains on so few workouts. Whatever works for you.

Nate

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

Thankyou Nate , Over the years I have tried increasing the frequency of my workouts but never more than x 2 weekly and have always trained in an abbreviated fashion . I simply cannot tolerate such frequency that I see/hear other guys doing , even on the TUL study that I completed earlier in the year where I trained the same 4 exercises ( whole body ) x 1 weekly , I found after 6-8 workouts this was too much and even extended recuperation ( 9-12 days between W/O ) was not allowing full recuperation.
A split of the exercises affording 2 weeks recuperation between similar exercise performance , but x1 weekly workouts has put me back on track again with progress in resistance and/or reps almost every workout.
With such infrequent and very abbreviated training I do have to watch my calories as I do gain weight very easily , hence my efforts at present in attempting to lower my bodyfat levels by restricting calories , and thus far with no detriment to my strength or lean tissue.

Best wishes , T.
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

thebiggfella wrote:
Looking good there T, nice work. A quick question: do you think that direct abdominal work is necessary? I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's not but that's just me. I find that the big compounds work them sufficiently, especially chins. I did them in Saturdays workout and my abs are pretty sore!

Anybody else who has an opinion on this, please feel free to comment.

Hi Glynn,
Judging from your Avatar abdominal work is not necessary for you, but this is not necessarily a good thing depending upon what your goals are; IMO you are not eating enough to continue gaining muscle but may be quite satisfied with what you've gained already as your results are very good.

If you are primarily interested in a stronger core the full hanging leg lift builds tremendous functional strength; it can also help keep your abs visible as you gain weight.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Last of my comparison pics from Jan -June ( 6 months ) during which I have incorporated a TUL study over 8 weeks which proved very good for both conditioning and strength ( but very taxing with inclusion of `rush factor` ) , followed by 3-4 weeks of de-load/active recovery ( straight sets to MMF , no intensifying methods employed )
Then to date , a 2 way split x 1 weekly , consolidated training concentrating primarily on rest pause on upper body ( this being my most productive period of training to date .... without doubt ! )

Discernable differences are ; My arms are up in measurement ( bicep and tricep ) and my bodyfat has decreased considerably since January ( first pic ).
At 44 yrs I have no delusions of being a competitive bodybuilder ( or anything near it ! ... I train for health/strength & well being ) , but if my training and/or pics provided as a consequence can serve as a source of reference ( or avoidance ) of the method employed for `natural` trainees of my age group then at least it has been 6 months gone unwasted.
I intend to continue with the `rest pause` for the time being , ( at least until I reach a plateau ) , thereafter I shall again re-evaluate my training and diet ( the latter being a constant burden in my life ) and hopefully improve still further over the next 6 months.

Best wishes , T.
Open User Options Menu

cmg

Turpin wrote:
Last of my comparison pics from Jan -June ( 6 months ) during which I have incorporated a TUL study over 8 weeks which proved very good for both conditioning and strength ( but very taxing with inclusion of `rush factor` ) , followed by 3-4 weeks of de-load/active recovery ( straight sets to MMF , no intensifying methods employed )
Then to date , a 2 way split x 1 weekly , consolidated training concentrating primarily on rest pause on upper body ( this being my most productive period of training to date .... without doubt ! )

Discernable differences are ; My arms are up in measurement ( bicep and tricep ) and my bodyfat has decreased considerably since January ( first pic ).
At 44 yrs I have no delusions of being a competitive bodybuilder ( or anything near it ! ... I train for health/strength & well being ) , but if my training and/or pics provided as a consequence can serve as a source of reference ( or avoidance ) of the method employed for `natural` trainees of my age group then at least it has been 6 months gone unwasted.
I intend to continue with the `rest pause` for the time being , ( at least until I reach a plateau ) , thereafter I shall again re-evaluate my training and diet ( the latter being a constant burden in my life ) and hopefully improve still further over the next 6 months.

Best wishes , T.


Hello Turpin,

Thank you for your updates and honesty. You really are an inspiration. No name calling or non-sense.

I have been experimenting a bit with volume, frequency and NTF. I have been going probably 2 months now and will report my findings in another month.

Best regards,

Ron

Open User Options Menu

Turpin

cmg wrote:
Turpin wrote:
Last of my comparison pics from Jan -June ( 6 months ) during which I have incorporated a TUL study over 8 weeks which proved very good for both conditioning and strength ( but very taxing with inclusion of `rush factor` ) , followed by 3-4 weeks of de-load/active recovery ( straight sets to MMF , no intensifying methods employed )
Then to date , a 2 way split x 1 weekly , consolidated training concentrating primarily on rest pause on upper body ( this being my most productive period of training to date .... without doubt ! )

Discernable differences are ; My arms are up in measurement ( bicep and tricep ) and my bodyfat has decreased considerably since January ( first pic ).
At 44 yrs I have no delusions of being a competitive bodybuilder ( or anything near it ! ... I train for health/strength & well being ) , but if my training and/or pics provided as a consequence can serve as a source of reference ( or avoidance ) of the method employed for `natural` trainees of my age group then at least it has been 6 months gone unwasted.
I intend to continue with the `rest pause` for the time being , ( at least until I reach a plateau ) , thereafter I shall again re-evaluate my training and diet ( the latter being a constant burden in my life ) and hopefully improve still further over the next 6 months.

Best wishes , T.

Hello Turpin,

Thank you for your updates and honesty. You really are an inspiration. No name calling or non-sense.

I have been experimenting a bit with volume, frequency and NTF. I have been going probably 2 months now and will report my findings in another month.

Best regards,

Ron



Thankyou Ron ,
Can I ask , why the volume approach to your training ? were you unhappy with progress otherwise ?

I really enjoy my training ( obviously moreso if progress is forthcoming ) and often wish I could train more frequently , but I gave the volume approach a try some years back I liked and thought I saw reason in Gironda`s approach , but just could not hack either the frequency nor the volume especially when I tried upping the intensity by way of heavier weight and/or taking a set near failure.
I have since ( for many years ) resigned myself as being either of poor recovery or of a physiological makeup that is contrary to such method of training and have since persevered with the abbreviated and infrequent style of training , but I still hold Gironda and his ideals of the `natural` physique in high regard.

Best wishes , T.



Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Turpin wrote:
I have since ( for many years ) resigned myself as being either of poor recovery or of a physiological makeup that is contrary to such method of training and have since persevered with the abbreviated and infrequent style of training , but I still hold Gironda and his ideals of the `natural` physique in high regard.

Best wishes , T.




I've recently switched over to a 5X5 (sometimes 6X6) program which I know Gironda recommended. I've only done a few workouts, but I am impressed so far.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
Turpin wrote:
I have since ( for many years ) resigned myself as being either of poor recovery or of a physiological makeup that is contrary to such method of training and have since persevered with the abbreviated and infrequent style of training , but I still hold Gironda and his ideals of the `natural` physique in high regard.

Best wishes , T.




I've recently switched over to a 5X5 (sometimes 6X6) program which I know Gironda recommended. I've only done a few workouts, but I am impressed so far.


I read ( quite extensively ) a lot of Gironda`s works and still find them fascinating ( & very interesting ) , but neither his diet approach ( low carb ) nor his training approach suited me at all , whereas Mentzers approach to training and nutrition seemed completely rational/simplistic and seemed to accomodate my training/physiological needs.

T.

Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Turpin wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
Turpin wrote:
I have since ( for many years ) resigned myself as being either of poor recovery or of a physiological makeup that is contrary to such method of training and have since persevered with the abbreviated and infrequent style of training , but I still hold Gironda and his ideals of the `natural` physique in high regard.

Best wishes , T.




I've recently switched over to a 5X5 (sometimes 6X6) program which I know Gironda recommended. I've only done a few workouts, but I am impressed so far.


I read ( quite extensively ) a lot of Gironda`s works and still find them fascinating ( & very interesting ) , but neither his diet approach ( low carb ) nor his training approach suited me at all , whereas Mentzers approach to training and nutrition seemed completely rational/simplistic and seemed to accomodate my training/physiological needs.

T.



I recently began reading some of his stuff and it is fascinating as you say although a lot of it I cannot really agree with. However, this 5X5 I'm doing is very interesting.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Shit ! .... now I feel old LOL.

Just as I thought my training is/was going well and I was getting back into some semblance of shape , I come across a pic of me from some 20yrs ago that makes me feel every bit my 44yrs !

TBH the comparison kinda highlights the smaller details of musculature that perhaps consolidated training ( whilst providing tremendous strength/hypertrophy gain ) does tend to neglect.
But then Im not getting any younger nor am I a competitive bodybuilder , and I do think that years of heavy lifting have thickened areas that detract somewhat from aesthetic appeal and my now seeming lack of flexibility to even mimick the pose is somewhat evident too !

Best wishes T.



Open User Options Menu

Hitit

I would not say you look worse if that's your thoughts, I think you simply look thicker and stronger IMO.

Brian
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Turpin,

What was your bodyweight then compared to now?
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
Turpin,

What was your bodyweight then compared to now?


Probably some 10 lbs lighter back then than I am in the second pic .

72kg then v`s 76-78kg now .


T.

Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Hitit wrote:
I would not say you look worse if that's your thoughts, I think you simply look thicker and stronger IMO.

Brian


Cheers Brian , Im quite content/secure with myself TBH.
Although the pics do highlight ( perhaps ) the effects of age , strength training and inflexibility has on the mature lifter LOL.

Best wishes , T.

Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Hitit wrote:
I would not say you look worse if that's your thoughts, I think you simply look thicker and stronger IMO.

Brian


I agree, it looks like more muscle and more fat if anything, but the fat is negligible.

I wish my dad, who is 47, would pay as much attention to his body. His pictures from 20 years ago look like 2 different people.

I mean, as lean as Turpin is now, if he lost like 10 pounds he would probably look better now. I saw where he said there was a 10 pound difference, and that would seem like he stayed the same, but I am not too sure it would look exactly like that. He would probably look better now.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

T,

Congratulations!

One suggestion:

SMILE! You should be quite pleased.

Seriously, what was your plan to reduce body fat?

Tony
Tony Lyndell Williams
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy