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
Which is Best for Growth?
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Carlos.Molina

Just about being at intermediate level now. Here's my question. If working out every 3 days I am able to icrease reps every workout and also on every 4 days reps increase every workout, is it best to go with the more days of of the two, being 4 days because they both allow me to recover enough to get stronger every workout,but 4 days would be better because maybee I can also grow on 4 days rest where as 3 days rest I only get stronger but not growth because not enough time for growth recover?

Why I ask? I tried 14 days straight and got stronger every day but no growth? So let's say down the road working out evry 4 days and also every 5 days , every workout I can increase reps. Would it be better to go with the longer rest of these 2 being 5 days because I increase strength every workout and is also enough days off for growth where as 4 moght not be enough fot that? I know If I rest more days I wiil lose strength.
C M
Open User Options Menu

Sesame

Have you tried: FIVE TOTAL SETS (no more; THREE may be better!)...

@~3 minutes TUL! (90 secs concentric failure; 90 secs eccentric failure)...

@EVERY OTHER DAY!

Well, let me clue you! YOU'LL GROW LIKE A FREAKIN' WEED ON A DUNG PILE!!!

Here's the math:
Low low sets + intense longer TULs + more frequent = Awesome growth!

Don't knock it till you've tried it!
:)

Open User Options Menu

chaos138

Florida, USA

Sesame
What are you talking about?
After 5 years as a trainer I still have so much to learn. I do however know a few things...and your math is off.
"Intense longer sets" equals aerobics!!
The exact amount of rep's or TUL is still debated, however, if your goal is to make your muscles grow, higher reps/higher TUL is the wrong direction!

Every other day training is also a bad suggestion.
If you have properly stimulated your muscles, they are not going to recover in one day! If they havent recovered, they have obliously not overcompensated and grown larger.


Brian
Open User Options Menu

DTS

Sesame,

If this is true, why do you think others don't do this?

Are you saying that your recomendation is a blanket prescription for everyone?

What makes you so sure that others, besides yourself will grow like a weed?

DTS
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

How about using stage repititions for the first set that will fatigue you much faster and reduce the TUL for the same inroad. Then do forced negatives the same way.




Open User Options Menu

Ryan Sergent

Indiana, USA

Sesame..Are you kidding dude?

Ryan
Open User Options Menu

Sesame

chaos138 wrote:
Sesame
What are you talking about?
After 5 years as a trainer I still have so much to learn. I do however know a few things...and your math is off.
"Intense longer sets" equals aerobics!!
The exact amount of rep's or TUL is still debated, however, if your goal is to make your muscles grow, higher reps/higher TUL is the wrong direction!

Every other day training is also a bad suggestion.

If you have properly stimulated your muscles, they are not going to recover in one day! If they havent recovered, they have obliously not overcompensated and grown larger.


Brian


I've been training with 3 min TUL's for so long i tried one of your 40 sec TUL. I took a barbell curl, added a little more weight to it and failed concentrically @ 40 secs and set the weight down. Compared to MY 3 min set, YOUR 40 sec was so much easier! That's the truth! And if the perception of effort is that it is easier it likely IS easier! And if it's easier then it stands to reason it's not as hard. And if it's not as hard then it's likely less result producing. I'm sticking to 3 min TULs. Don't knock it till you've tried it! The focus on the contracting muscle during the set in incredible! Way more with mine than the 40 secs. And way more painful! My opinion stands unfettered! Try it is all the more I can say!
:)
Open User Options Menu

Sesame

DTS wrote:
Sesame,

If this is true, why do you think others don't do this?


the truth is i don't think anyone does it because it's too hard. they start looking for reasons why it won't work.

Are you saying that your recomendation is a blanket prescription for everyone?

yes. virtually everyone will gain on this routine, and gain quickly!

What makes you so sure that others, besides yourself will grow like a weed?

DTS


Because an adaptive reaction to a training stimulus is more or less universal. it's like 'sprints'. if everyone did hard and fast sprints wouldn't EVERYONE increase their level of fitness and VO2 levels? Obviously, the answer is yes!

Open User Options Menu

Sesame

Ryan Sergent wrote:
Sesame..Are you kidding dude?


Ryan


Nope. I am dead serious.
:|

Open User Options Menu

Ryan Sergent

Indiana, USA

Sesame I don't agree but I'll give it some thought.

You said"Because an adaptive reaction to a training stimulus is more or less universal. it's like 'sprints'. if everyone did hard and fast sprints wouldn't EVERYONE increase their level of fitness and VO2 levels? Obviously, the answer is yes!"

I read a study one time that seemed to prove that V02 max was almost 100% geneticly determined

Ryan




Open User Options Menu

Carlos.Molina

Guys. Can you please help. I think you forgot what I posted. Which is best. My post is at the very top.
Thanks

C Molina
Open User Options Menu

jrholt

Tennessee, USA

chaos138 wrote:
Sesame
What are you talking about?
After 5 years as a trainer I still have so much to learn. I do however know a few things...and your math is off.
"Intense longer sets" equals aerobics!!
The exact amount of rep's or TUL is still debated, however, if your goal is to make your muscles grow, higher reps/higher TUL is the wrong direction!

Every other day training is also a bad suggestion.
If you have properly stimulated your muscles, they are not going to recover in one day! If they havent recovered, they have obliously not overcompensated and grown larger.


Brian

Incorrect. If you are working at the proper intensity it would actually be anaerobic. And yes, it will stimulate muscle growth. You still have much to learn. Get out of those muscle mags, that is where that 'aerobic' crap comes from.
Jeff
Open User Options Menu

glenn_001

New Zealand

Carlos.Molina wrote:
Just about being at intermediate level now. Here's my question. If working out every 3 days I am able to icrease reps every workout and also on every 4 days reps increase every workout, is it best to go with the more days of of the two, being 4 days because they both allow me to recover enough to get stronger every workout,but 4 days would be better because maybee I can also grow on 4 days rest where as 3 days rest I only get stronger but not growth because not enough time for growth recover?

Why I ask? I tried 14 days straight and got stronger every day but no growth? So let's say down the road working out evry 4 days and also every 5 days , every workout I can increase reps. Would it be better to go with the longer rest of these 2 being 5 days because I increase strength every workout and is also enough days off for growth where as 4 moght not be enough fot that? I know If I rest more days I wiil lose strength.
C M


Your post is a little confusing,
Why dont you try working out one day then have the next day off.
Workout every second day, if your not recovering have two days off inbetween workouts.

Glenn

Open User Options Menu

a.adams

South Africa

Something that might just help your growth, because it help my minor problem with squats, is break-downs. Do training as normal but with areas you feel have been lacking in growth the most. Do the set as normal but when you reach failure quickly cut some weight off and do as many reps as possible. Remember there is absolutely no rest and you only cut about 10% weight off. This does however put an increased demand on the recuvery system sok don't do it too often and try to do it on days that you will have the greatest rest.
Open User Options Menu

bill1

California, USA

Carlos.Molina wrote:
Guys. Can you please help. I think you forgot what I posted. Which is best. My post is at the very top.
Thanks

C Molina


Go with the four days if you are seeing comperable increases from the three day schedule. If you are advancing just as well with the 4 day routine, you will be giving yourself added time for growth, with the extra day of rest.

Bill
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Sesame wrote:
Have you tried: FIVE TOTAL SETS (no more; THREE may be better!)...

@~3 minutes TUL! (90 secs concentric failure; 90 secs eccentric failure)...

@EVERY OTHER DAY!

Well, let me clue you! YOU'LL GROW LIKE A FREAKIN' WEED ON A DUNG PILE!!!

Here's the math:
Low low sets + intense longer TULs + more frequent = Awesome growth!


Sesame,

You should submit yourself to scientific scrutiny ASAP, because you apparently must have the most ST muscles on the planet.

Though at 6'4.5" 208 lbs, you sound like you're a little on the stringy side.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

Sesame

simon-hecubus wrote:
Sesame wrote:
Have you tried: FIVE TOTAL SETS (no more; THREE may be better!)...

@~3 minutes TUL! (90 secs concentric failure; 90 secs eccentric failure)...

@EVERY OTHER DAY!

Well, let me clue you! YOU'LL GROW LIKE A FREAKIN' WEED ON A DUNG PILE!!!

Here's the math:
Low low sets + intense longer TULs + more frequent = Awesome growth!


Sesame,

You should submit yourself to scientific scrutiny ASAP, because you apparently must have the most ST muscles on the planet.

Though at 6'4.5" 208 lbs, you sound like you're a little on the stringy side.

Scott



Get this "fast-twitch" or slow-twitch" nonsense out of your head. Muscle fiber typing is in it's infancy and no one can really know what fiber type they have and or if it even matters when it comes to resistance traing routines. Ya you can spec all you want that your bicep is fast twitch and needs this rep scheme but your hamstrings are slow twitch so blah blah blah.. PURE SPEC, too simplistic and you're going to be more WRONG than right with these assumptions.

A hard stimulus creates an adaptive response. That's all anyone can really assume at this point. My routine is HARRRD! Very hard! Very intense stimulus. My job is to provide an intense stimulus; the body's job is to adapt to what i do. That is a truism and all anyone can really be sure of. So, stop assuming knowledge and understanding where none exists. All this fiber typing stuff is too speculative at this point in time and drawing conclusions about what rep and set scheme is best for this muscle and that muscle is even worse.

Make it hard! Make it long enough! make it brief! That's all you need to know and that's what MY routine and training does!!

As far as being stringy, I could gain 20 lbs in a heartbeat but i don't kid myself that fat is lean muscle. I'll bet YOU got 40lbs of fat on you right now. I'll bet you'd be surprised at just how much fat you have (intramuscular fat is very deceiving!)

My routine is THE hardest I've EVER done (and I've been doing this for awhile), and that the only thing that makes any sense today in the exercise science! HARD! LONGER! BRIEF!! The rest is pure spec and will lead you astray if you try to assume much more than that!
:)
Open User Options Menu

iep

I hope this helps, but I find that at least three days between workouts along with each set worked from 20-35 sec.is necessary for growth. However, keep in mind this is the rest and TUL protocols that I have found to be optimal for me.
Open User Options Menu

Sesame

rburton wrote:
I hope this helps, but I find that at least three days between workouts along with each set worked from 20-35 sec.is necessary for growth. However, keep in mind this is the rest and TUL protocols that I have found to be optimal for me.


20secs?? ok, ;D whatever you say..

but bet you never even tried a 3 min TUL?

(warning: very difficult!)

Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Sesame wrote:
A hard stimulus creates an adaptive response. That's all anyone can really assume at this point. My routine is HARRRD! Very hard! Very intense stimulus. My job is to provide an intense stimulus; the body's job is to adapt to what i do. That is a truism and all anyone can really be sure of. So, stop assuming knowledge and understanding where none exists. All this fiber typing stuff is too speculative at this point in time and drawing conclusions about what rep and set scheme is best for this muscle and that muscle is even worse.

Make it hard! Make it long enough! make it brief! That's all you need to know and that's what MY routine and training does!!

As far as being stringy, I could gain 20 lbs in a heartbeat but i don't kid myself that fat is lean muscle. I'll bet YOU got 40lbs of fat on you right now. I'll bet you'd be surprised at just how much fat you have (intramuscular fat is very deceiving!)

My routine is THE hardest I've EVER done (and I've been doing this for awhile), and that the only thing that makes any sense today in the exercise science! HARD! LONGER! BRIEF!! The rest is pure spec and will lead you astray if you try to assume much more than that!
:)


Yow! I guess I hit a nerve. Let's go through this:
1. I have no doubt in my mind that your routine is hard. I've done 2-minute TULs and thought I was gonna collapse. I just think it's too much to take on, except for occasional short bouts. No one's saying that you are anything BUT an absolute, bonifide, dyed-in-the-wool, tough-as-nails hardass --- it's just that we feel you're wasting valuble energy with your "3 minutes to Nirvana" workout style. You may look pumped as shit right after you do these sets, but you're kidding yourself if you relate that to any sort of permanent effect.

2. Assuming knowledge where none exists? I guess you missed the multiple mentions of SuperSlow practioners with 2 to 3 minute TULs with strength gains, but (very) limited hypertrophy. I guess any arguments I could make regarding enormous amounts of empirical data would be lost on you, so I'll save my breath.

3. Yes guessed pretty good: I probably do have 40 lbs of fat right now. I'm 5'11" and 221 lbs right now. I know for a fact that I would be quite lean at about 180 lbs. That's only 25-30 lbs difference between my lean weight and yours. What's the rule-of-thumb, about 7 to 9 lbs per inch? That means if you were as musclur as me at your height, you should weigh 220 to 230 lbs! ---- and at 5'11" 180 lbs, I wouldn't be considered herculean by anyone's standards!

4. HARD! LONGER! BRIEF!! All I can say is: Longer and Brief in the same sentence MAKES! NO!! SENSE!!!

Scott

Open User Options Menu

Sesame

simon-hecubus wrote:
Sesame wrote:
A hard stimulus creates an adaptive response. That's all anyone can really assume at this point. My routine is HARRRD! Very hard! Very intense stimulus. My job is to provide an intense stimulus; the body's job is to adapt to what i do. That is a truism and all anyone can really be sure of. So, stop assuming knowledge and understanding where none exists. All this fiber typing stuff is too speculative at this point in time and drawing conclusions about what rep and set scheme is best for this muscle and that muscle is even worse.

Make it hard! Make it long enough! make it brief! That's all you need to know and that's what MY routine and training does!!

As far as being stringy, I could gain 20 lbs in a heartbeat but i don't kid myself that fat is lean muscle. I'll bet YOU got 40lbs of fat on you right now. I'll bet you'd be surprised at just how much fat you have (intramuscular fat is very deceiving!)

My routine is THE hardest I've EVER done (and I've been doing this for awhile), and that the only thing that makes any sense today in the exercise science! HARD! LONGER! BRIEF!! The rest is pure spec and will lead you astray if you try to assume much more than that!
:)

Yow! I guess I hit a nerve. Let's go through this:
1. I have no doubt in my mind that your routine is hard. I've done 2-minute TULs and thought I was gonna collapse. I just think it's too much to take on, except for occasional short bouts. No one's saying that you are anything BUT an absolute, bonifide, dyed-in-the-wool, tough-as-nails hardass --- it's just that we feel you're wasting valuble energy with your "3 minutes to Nirvana" workout style. You may look pumped as shit right after you do these sets, but you're kidding yourself if you relate that to any sort of permanent effect.

2. Assuming knowledge where none exists? I guess you missed the multiple mentions of SuperSlow practioners with 2 to 3 minute TULs with strength gains, but (very) limited hypertrophy. I guess any arguments I could make regarding enormous amounts of empirical data would be lost on you, so I'll save my breath.

3. Yes guessed pretty good: I probably do have 40 lbs of fat right now. I'm 5'11" and 221 lbs right now. I know for a fact that I would be quite lean at about 180 lbs. That's only 25-30 lbs difference between my lean weight and yours. What's the rule-of-thumb, about 7 to 9 lbs per inch? That means if you were as musclur as me at your height, you should weigh 220 to 230 lbs! ---- and at 5'11" 180 lbs, I wouldn't be considered herculean by anyone's standards!

4. HARD! LONGER! BRIEF!! All I can say is: Longer and Brief in the same sentence MAKES! NO!! SENSE!!!

Scott




Probably fat 5'11" @221??? Do ya think? LOL! Ok, maybe [rolling eyes} try 160 on for 'size"!
:)
Open User Options Menu

bill1

California, USA

Here is my 2 cents. I am convinced that the concept concerning the fatigueability of differing muscle fiber types is real. A 3 minute tul could be very productive for someone with a predominance of a muscle type that fatigues slowly and recovers rapidly. However a tul of 3 minutes would be completely innapropriate for somone with a fiber type that fatigues quickly and recovers slowly.
Make sense?

Bill
Open User Options Menu

Sesame

bill1 wrote:
Here is my 2 cents. I am convinced that the concept concerning the fatigueability of differing muscle fiber types is real. A 3 minute tul could be very productive for someone with a predominance of a muscle type that fatigues slowly and recovers rapidly. However a tul of 3 minutes would be completely innapropriate for somone with a fiber type that fatigues quickly and recovers slowly.
Make sense?

Bill


the point IS such predominate fiber type individuals are entirely speculative and unproven. Show me ONE STUDY demonstrating such a disparate difference in fiber type of the biceps brachii b/w individuals that necessitated vastly different rep schemes. ONE, just ONE!
:)
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Sesame wrote:
the point IS such predominate fiber type individuals are entirely speculative and unproven. Show me ONE STUDY demonstrating such a disparate difference in fiber type of the biceps brachii b/w individuals that necessitated vastly different rep schemes. ONE, just ONE!
:)


Again with the studies! This is the point I was making in #2 before.

I'll take the empirical data from the experienced folks on this site over ANY study I've seen.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

bill1

California, USA

On what Sesame wrote:

It is a speculation with good , solid data and reasoning to back it up. MedX computerized machines can measure the degree of fatigue produced by several different exercises, performed for different muscular structures. This is done by comparing the static levels of strength, over several degrees of full rom; just prior to and immediatley following dynamic exercise.

It is no great leap to conclude that a certain degree of fatigue will correspond to a preponderance of a very specific fiber type , as the fatigue charateristics of differing fiber type is well known and understood.

Simply put , slow twitch fiber relies more on oxygen consumption to produce work than fast twitch and fast twitch utilizes glycogen primarily. Oxygen ,in a healthy individual , can be rapidly delivered and utilized , however, glycogen takes a much longer time to replenish. And this is probably the reason for the differing recover rates between the two types , and the reason why different fiber types require different tul.


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