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
Trentine
First | Prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

acas1959


Have you folks seen this study ?

Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...eport=printable


It appears that hypertrophy will occur even with light loads as long as the set is taking to failure.

Regards,
Open User Options Menu

Frank Scott

NWlifter

I found it at drmcguff.com where he says
welcome to the BBS blog...
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Nwlifter wrote:
Frank Scott wrote:
Doug McGuff's blog is back. Trace it from his 'ultimate exercise' site.

Site says it has been suspended?



Yesterday, when I went to the www.drmcguff.com site, I was directed to a page saying the account was suspended. It must have been a temporary glitch because it is back to normal this morning. That page has a link to his latest blog post.

I had noticed yesterday that, depending on which browser and computer I was using, if I went to the old BBS site, I sometimes would get a page to the effect that a new site was coming soon. Maybe it was just a default landing spot by the hosting company. May mean nothing at all.

Sorry for the confusion.

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

There it is, looks like he's starting 'a-fresh'.

They just need a forum or something so we can watch and see how these guys actually train and if they are getting results, that would be interesting!

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

I've seen that, I used to be pretty into that idea.... not so sure now though. Just my own results seem to show that heavier loads give more hypertrophy. Not talking super heavy RM's, but more in general, as in failure with a lighter load, slower perfect form, etc., doesn't seem to work as well as higher tension.


acas1959 wrote:

Have you folks seen this study ?

Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...eport=printable


It appears that hypertrophy will occur even with light loads as long as the set is taking to failure.

Regards,


Open User Options Menu

Average Al

acas1959 wrote:

Have you folks seen this study ?

Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...eport=printable


It appears that hypertrophy will occur even with light loads as long as the set is taking to failure.

Regards,


This paper has been discussed a lot in non-HIT strength training venues.

Fisher and Steele, who tend to favor HIT approaches, also recently published a similar study. One of their findings was that using low loads to failure (i.e., very high reps) produced more discomfort than high load training:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...pubmed/28006852

The usual argument for low load, high rep training is that it is safer and easier on the joints. But getting to 'true' momentary muscular failure with a light load may be a lot less enjoyable than using more weight and fewer reps.
Open User Options Menu

acas1959

Interesting study as well, thank you
Open User Options Menu

S.M.Punisher

Average Al wrote:
The usual argument for low load, high rep training is that it is safer and easier on the joints. But getting to 'true' momentary muscular failure with a light load may be a lot less enjoyable than using more weight and fewer reps.


Absolutely right. With high reps the feeling of approaching failure going on to actual failure is a lot more drawn out. With lower reps you might feel fatigue at say 5 reps and know that you've only got one more and then decide to do it or not. On the other hand you can feel you're about done at 20 reps and then do 5 more if you really commit to it and refuse to believe with each successive rep that you've reached failure.

And you can do this without breaking form. Because of the unpleasantness of forcing your body to keep going without allowing it recruit assisting musculature, this requires intense focus and mind-muscle or mind-movement connection.

Because of this phase of genuine uncertainty (which is as much a training of the will as the muscles) that comes before failure in a high-rep set, attempting to stop just short of failure is difficult to judge. Doing so with lower reps should be consistently repeatable without losing objectivity as to where one's true limits really are.
Open User Options Menu

acas1959

Or maybe increasing the load slightly and performing less repetitions like it is explained in this article ...

https://www.T-Nation.com/...building-method

Regards,
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

S.M.Punisher wrote:
Average Al wrote:
The usual argument for low load, high rep training is that it is safer and easier on the joints. But getting to 'true' momentary muscular failure with a light load may be a lot less enjoyable than using more weight and fewer reps.

Absolutely right. With high reps the feeling of approaching failure going on to actual failure is a lot more drawn out. With lower reps you might feel fatigue at say 5 reps and know that you've only got one more and then decide to do it or not. On the other hand you can feel you're about done at 20 reps and then do 5 more if you really commit to it and refuse to believe with each successive rep that you've reached failure.

And you can do this without breaking form. Because of the unpleasantness of forcing your body to keep going without allowing it recruit assisting musculature, this requires intense focus and mind-muscle or mind-movement connection.

Because of this phase of genuine uncertainty (which is as much a training of the will as the muscles) that comes before failure in a high-rep set, attempting to stop just short of failure is difficult to judge. Doing so with lower reps should be consistently repeatable without losing objectivity as to where one's true limits really are.


Well said. When I first tried super slow reps, one of the things I didn't care for was not being sure that I'd really reached failure. When the weight is heavier, there almost never any doubt.

Open User Options Menu

Average Al

acas1959 wrote:
Or maybe increasing the load slightly and performing less repetitions like it is explained in this article ...

https://www.T-Nation.com/...building-method

Regards,



Nice article, thanks for the link.

The idea that it is the number of hard sets (at or near failure) that matter seems to be gaining traction:

strongerbyscience.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume

Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

SS reps and weights ...
... Oh about 15 years ago when Super Slow was the State of the Art it quickly developed into an application were one's weight load would exceed the load used in conventional HIT ... if performed properly this took about three workouts. However, SS was so good and developed gains so fast one would run-outta-weight on machines and/or expose their joints to huge dynamic loads. Which is why SS only worked for 6 to 18 months for the serious trainee ... then STAGNATION. Most of you guys should have known this a long time ago as this info has been available for over ten years. Ever hear of the work of Ellington Darden and his progression of protocols?

Open User Options Menu

acas1959

Dear Mr Grant D

There is a distinct possibility you missed the point of this conversation ...

Best regards,

Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

However, SS was so good and developed gains so fast one would run-outta-weight on machines

==Scott==
Somewhere along the line I must have missed this magical Super Slow that produced gains so fast one would run out of weight on the machines? I guess that's about the same time all these Olympia bound giants suddenly appeared that were trained solely on SS.
Open User Options Menu

Frank Scott

Christian Thibaudeau's article on the importance of training to failure.
Those of us of a certain age should reflect on the fact that those last few reps, or attempts, will probably elevate your blood pressure alarmingly.
Just use a reasonable intensity
Open User Options Menu

StuKE

Frank Scott wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau's article on the importance of training to failure.
Those of us of a certain age should reflect on the fact that those last few reps, or attempts, will probably elevate your blood pressure alarmingly.
Just use a reasonable intensity


Yep, agree! We know that training to failure is not absolutely necessary to stimulate gains.
Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

Correct ... training to Failure is NOT necessary for gains. However, it does assure a threshold was achieved to trigger growth. Of course, failure implies an isolated failure of a particular muscle or group. Most so-called failure is the result of crazed demonstrationating/gaming/cheating and spiraling outroading. As one achieves gains a sure way to assure failure is with . . .
Intense Focus on a Muscle/Group
Minimal Movement Zero Momentum
Reduction in Session Volume
Extension of Recovery Time
When exercising with BBS2017 principles one can easily assure and achieve failure without a doubt ... No Doubt.

If you are confused by what amounts to complacency of no gains and no progress private message me.

Thanks to those that have ... it is very revealing to be able to exchange ideas and see your progress. No Chalk Required :)
Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

BTW Here is my last session all to failure ... meaning cannot move another millimeter or hold another second ...

Lower Back Max Pyramid: gain in 5 pounds
Chest Press Max Pyramid: added 2 steps and 10 pounds!
Chest Row: DoneInOne added 6 seconds and 2-1/2 pounds

All gains see you in two weeks!
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Grant D. wrote:
BTW Here is my last session all to failure ... meaning cannot move another millimeter or hold another second ...

Lower Back Max Pyramid: gain in 5 pounds
Chest Press Max Pyramid: added 2 steps and 10 pounds!
Chest Row: DoneInOne added 6 seconds and 2-1/2 pounds

All gains see you in two weeks!

Grant. D.

Open User Options Menu

sirloin

Grant D. wrote:
BTW Here is my last session all to failure ... meaning cannot move another millimeter or hold another second ...

Lower Back Max Pyramid: gain in 5 pounds
Chest Press Max Pyramid: added 2 steps and 10 pounds!
Chest Row: DoneInOne added 6 seconds and 2-1/2 pounds

All gains see you in two weeks!


Never really got the max pyramid protocol, I get working up to a weight that you fail on (simmer to the boil as John Little put it), but to then preform what essentially is several drop sets is completely unnecessary!
I also never really got why John Little went from promoting a system (MCT) that advocated a time under tension of 1-6 seconds on isolation exercises, to then promoting a protocol that has a trainee spend up to several mintues under tension, and like a cat he's done his best to cover up MCT ever existing...by taking down the site and video and by never talking about anymore. Its almost like hes embarrassed by it. I reckon if the publisher let him, he'd take the books off sale aswell.



Open User Options Menu

sirloin

Grant D. wrote:
Correct ... training to Failure is NOT necessary for gains. However, it does assure a threshold was achieved to trigger growth. Of course, failure implies an isolated failure of a particular muscle or group. Most so-called failure is the result of crazed demonstrationating/gaming/cheating and spiraling outroading. As one achieves gains a sure way to assure failure is with . . .
Intense Focus on a Muscle/Group
Minimal Movement Zero Momentum
Reduction in Session Volume
Extension of Recovery Time
When exercising with BBS2017 principles one can easily assure and achieve failure without a doubt ... No Doubt.

If you are confused by what amounts to complacency of no gains and no progress private message me.

Thanks to those that have ... it is very revealing to be able to exchange ideas and see your progress. No Chalk Required :)


I actually agree here, but with regards to extended recovery, yeah.. maybe a day or two, but training once every two weeks?? I dont care how advanced or strong someone is, no one requires a two week recovery period! If indeed we did need such a recovery period from a such a breif amount of intense physical stress, we'd never had made as a species.

Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Grant D. wrote:
BTW Here is my last session all to failure ... meaning cannot move another millimeter or hold another second ...

Lower Back Max Pyramid: gain in 5 pounds
Chest Press Max Pyramid: added 2 steps and 10 pounds!
Chest Row: DoneInOne added 6 seconds and 2-1/2 pounds

All gains see you in two weeks!


---Scott--
How about a video or two of you in action to back up all this talk!!
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

After completing a mid range isometric for a few seconds, I started doing mini-pulse reps mid range. I felt an instant fatigue starting to develop, much more severe than the preceding isometric.

Why I ask?

ATP or energy is more in demand the faster you move, as the more energy is used per unit time. This ATP energy is in the form of mechanical work, and is largely due to the number of reps performed before fatigue sets in. Faster movement results in more reps performed in a given time. More ATP is used during faster reps. I surmise that normal rep speeds should be better for weight loss.

https://www.researchgate.net/...stance_Training

Another nail for the SS/RenEx coffin?
Certainly NOT grist for the mill.
Open User Options Menu

S.M.Punisher

sirloin wrote:
I actually agree here, but with regards to extended recovery, yeah.. maybe a day or two, but training once every two weeks?? I dont care how advanced or strong someone is, no one requires a two week recovery period! If indeed we did need such a recovery period from a such a breif amount of intense physical stress, we'd never had made as a species.


I'm not sure about the extended recovery, but I think it's highly dependent on fiber-type make up. For the most part I don't need two weeks' recovery, but my legs and lats seem to if I train them very hard, even with low volume. I can train something like lateral raises multiple times per day and arms several times per week.

I recently did a body-weight pullover for a few low-rep sets to failure, and two weeks later I hadn't recovered my initial strength, and that was from a first-time effort doing that exercise.

On the other hand, I recently tried a lateral raise at a different angle, and besides being surprised that that slight change meant my usually stronger side was now the weaker side, I gained significant strength in a matter of hours never mind days! I'm going to continue ultra high frequency and see where I can take it.

About whether we would have survived as a species or not, you have to take into account that we are generally a high-endurance species. We can hunt for hours without burning more than a small meal's worth of calories. A much more powerful animal cannot exert itself for anywhere near as long lest it overheat and die. A female lion can run at maximum speed for something like 9 meters before she gets exhausted.

So I think that when we train highly fast-twitch muscles hard to failure we're putting demands on recovery way over and above what we're adapted to do most efficiently by nature. And maybe not everyone is going to benefit from extended recovery for any particular muscle group because some people won't even have one major muscle group particularly predominant in fast-twitch fibers.
Open User Options Menu

PTDaniel

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
After completing a mid range isometric for a few seconds, I started doing mini-pulse reps mid range. I felt an instant fatigue starting to develop, much more severe than the preceding isometric.

Why I ask?

ATP or energy is more in demand the faster you move, as the more energy is used per unit time. This ATP energy is in the form of mechanical work, and is largely due to the number of reps performed before fatigue sets in. Faster movement results in more reps performed in a given time. More ATP is used during faster reps. I surmise that normal rep speeds should be better for weight loss.

https://www.researchgate.net/...stance_Training

Another nail for the SS/RenEx coffin?
Certainly NOT grist for the mill.


I use a similar technique. I will use isometric stops of varying times within a set combined with dynamic reps. For instance I will stop for 10 seconds at midrange, then perform 5 rhythmic reps in that range. Then I will shift into another section of the ROM, hold for 10 seconds, and then perform another 10 rhythmic reps in the bottom portion of the ROM.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy