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
Question about Doug McGuff
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

DAVE.L

Hi,

Does anybody know if Doug Mcguff will be releasing any new updated info soon? As I have read a few times on site that Doug now negates some of the information in his book.

I have just been watching the DVD of Doug Mcguff and Ken Hutchins discussing weight loss, in the course of the conversation, towards the end of the DVD, ken asks Doug "how is your training going, what frequency and duration do you use" Doug answers saying, training is going well and he is still gaining, he trains as often as every 5th day but sometimes he will have as long as two weeks, depending on work schedule etc.. he did not answer the question on duration, the topic changed and the conversation moved on.

I have taken a couple of things for this, one is reaching genetic potential in a year or less, as advocated by Mike Mentzer, Doug has many years training experience and is still gaining...? and two is, that someone as advanced as Doug Mcguff can on occasion train with only 4 days of rest...? by advanced I mean advanced for his own innate traits, not advanced as in a stereotypical advanced bodybuilder.

Cheers Dave.L
Open User Options Menu

David_27

Tennessee, USA

DAVE.L wrote:
I have taken a couple of things for this, one is reaching genetic potential in a year or less, as advocated by Mike Mentzer, Doug has many years training experience and is still gaining...? and two is, that someone as advanced as Doug Mcguff can on occasion train with only 4 days of rest...? by advanced I mean advanced for his own innate traits, not advanced as in a stereotypical advanced bodybuilder.


I don't know who Doug Mcguff is, but I can comment on the reflections in your last paragraph. First, it is possible to make gains even after many years of training. A lot of people on this web board have experienced this. I have a fifty year old friend who still makes gains now and then, and he has been training for more years than I've been alive ;)

It's too fixed of an idea to say that after a few years you can make no gains. Nothing is that certain. The same can be said for rest time; it's so variable that you can hardly comment on it. Looking through my journal I've noted gains on 3xweek and 1xweek. And that's the same individual--imagine the difference possible between 2 individuals!

But I also wonder about people who say they have made "gains." People are subjective; many gains could be examples of confirmation bias. Especially when they're measured in a mirror.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Dave L,

Word is he is using Johnsotns latest and greatest and is enjoying the gains it is providing.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Dave,

I believe the notion that one needs more and more rest between workouts as time goes on is a dangerous one. Certainly, a beginner may train more frequently that someone with more training time, but after you need only reduce the frequency to a certain point.

While increases in volume, poundages, or intensity variables may require more rest periods, there is a reasonable level of frequency which MUST be maintained to give your body a good reason to grow. No matter how strong the stimulation you provide, if the frequency is too low, your body will simply disregard it as not urgent enough for any muscle gains. Advanced hypertrophy is not your body's natural state, and given less urgent (i.e. frequent) demands, it will find more efficiewnt ways of meeting your workout demands.

Andrew: I seem to remember Brian and the IART having some sort of empirical data on this subject. I know he at least wrote something in one of the publications I read. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Scott
Open User Options Menu

karma50

Folks,
On another thread (I'll try and find it) somebody wrote that Dr. McGuff still works out about 1X/wk, (confirmed by the above dialog) but he apparently no longer uses strict SS protocol. He has written a lot about frequency on his web site and seems to think once a week is O.K. for most non-beginners. I think some people do fine on 1x/wk if it's intense enough, especially if they are otherwise active. Of course, genetics plays a big role.
griff
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

The frequency isn't a factor in whether muscle is stimulated to grow, but rather an issue of recovery. If the muscles are stimulated to grow, they're going to grow. They don't know when the next workout is going to be.

I think part of the problem with the recommendation for very infrequent training is that it comes from people who are working with clients, and people who work with a personal trainer or knowledgeable training partner tend to train much harder than people training on their own, and thus require more time for recovery.

Frankly, I still don't think the vast majority of people really train anywhere close to what they're really capable of if pushed properly (although I'm sure most believe they're training very hard and will insist they are). For people who do not train with a trainer or partner, frequency probably doesn't have to be quite as low, but ultimately it depends on the individual.

Keep accurate progress charts, including measurements, and adjust your volume and frequency accordingly. Experiment and find what works best for you.

I suggest picking up Brian Johnston's book on Scientific Inquiry, as the information on case studies is useful for this purpose. I also recommend picking up John Little's new book, as it has a lot of good discussion on training frequency.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

simon-hecubus wrote:
Dave,

I believe the notion that one needs more and more rest between workouts as time goes on is a dangerous one. Certainly, a beginner may train more frequently that someone with more training time, but after you need only reduce the frequency to a certain point.

While increases in volume, poundages, or intensity variables may require more rest periods, there is a reasonable level of frequency which MUST be maintained to give your body a good reason to grow. No matter how strong the stimulation you provide, if the frequency is too low, your body will simply disregard it as not urgent enough for any muscle gains. Advanced hypertrophy is not your body's natural state, and given less urgent (i.e. frequent) demands, it will find more efficiewnt ways of meeting your workout demands.

Andrew: I seem to remember Brian and the IART having some sort of empirical data on this subject. I know he at least wrote something in one of the publications I read. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Scott


Hi Scott,

Yes, Johnston has written and experimented a lot with this. When he was with Mentzer, Mike was big into reducing frequency. Johnston pointed out the principle of diminishing returns but to no avail. Mentzer could not grasp that too little is no better than too much and that you must strike a balance in between 'everything'. To little frequency leads to de conditioning, which makes it tougher to actually stimulate new gains (or even maintain).

It is (from the flip side ;^) as Drew says, most think they are training truly hard and are not. In this case, you train very infrequently and think you are really working to your max (because poundage's keep going up) but you aren't. De conditioning has you training at a lower intensity. All you can do is build skill in the lifts and go up in bodyfat %. Now mix that with consolidation style training and you have a worse recipe for failure than HVT.

Regards,
Andrew

Open User Options Menu

karma50

Drew,
Where can I find a copy of Little's book?
Thanks,
Griff
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

AShortt wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Dave,

I believe the notion that one needs more and more rest between workouts as time goes on is a dangerous one. Certainly, a beginner may train more frequently that someone with more training time, but after you need only reduce the frequency to a certain point.

While increases in volume, poundages, or intensity variables may require more rest periods, there is a reasonable level of frequency which MUST be maintained to give your body a good reason to grow. No matter how strong the stimulation you provide, if the frequency is too low, your body will simply disregard it as not urgent enough for any muscle gains. Advanced hypertrophy is not your body's natural state, and given less urgent (i.e. frequent) demands, it will find more efficiewnt ways of meeting your workout demands.

Andrew: I seem to remember Brian and the IART having some sort of empirical data on this subject. I know he at least wrote something in one of the publications I read. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Scott

Hi Scott,

Yes, Johnston has written and experimented a lot with this. When he was with Mentzer, Mike was big into reducing frequency. Johnston pointed out the principle of diminishing returns but to know avail. Mentzer could not grasp that too little is no better than too much and that you must strike a balance in between 'everything'. To little frequency leads to de conditioning, which makes it tougher to actually stimulate new gains (or even maintain). It is (from the flip side ;^) as Drew says, most think they are training truly hard and are not. In this case, you train very infrequently and think you are really working to your max (because poundage's keep going up) but you aren't. De conditioning has you training at a lower intensity. All you can do is build skill in the lifts and go up in bodyfat %. Now mix that with consolidation style training and you have a worse recipe for failure than HVT.

Regards,
Andrew




We talk about 'recovery' but does anyone know what it is? What is a good operational definition of recovery? How do YOU know when you are 'recovered' from the previous WO? What criteria do you use?
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Drew Baye wrote:
The frequency isn't a factor in whether muscle is stimulated to grow, but rather an issue of recovery. If the muscles are stimulated to grow, they're going to grow. They don't know when the next workout is going to be.


Sure, the recovery part goes without saying. Your second sentence, however, is a gross oversimplification.

If you stimulate the muscles, they may get stronger, but there's other ways for your body to compensate than hypertrophy.

Your body may not "know" when the next workout is coming, but if the workouts come too infrequently, your body is more likely to resort to a compensatory response that is more efficient than hypertrophy.

For instance, one of the the problems with decreasing frequency is increased soreness --- a side effect of the de-conditioning mentioned by Andrew. The more rest days you put between your workouts, the longer your body stays sore. It's an effect that can easily lead to a viscious cycle if you don't "read" it properly.

You can keep accurate progress charts, but if you follow the paradigm(s) promulgated in Mike Mentzer's later works (HDII) and McGuff's UE Protocol, then you're going to wind-up with a strong, yet visually underwhelming physique.

Stimulation does NOT always equal growth.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

karma50 wrote:
Drew,
Where can I find a copy of Little's book?
Thanks,
Griff


It is in bookstores now. Barnes and Noble had it on shelves as of this Saturday, and it's available from their web site and Amazon.com
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:

Stimulation does NOT always equal growth.

Scott


True, stimulation does not always equal growth. After the growth is stimulated other conditions must exist to allow for it to occur, and one of these conditions is adequate, quality rest of an appropriate amount for the individual. One should train as frequently as recovery allows. Training more frequently will eventually lead to overtraining. Training less frequently will result in less than optimal rate of progress.

To answer Cherry's question, it is complex, and it isn't as simple as stimulus > recovery > response. Recovery involves many factors, as does response, and there is much overlap. From a practical standpoint, the best thing to do is simply track your progress both in exercise performance and in size gains (regular, standardized measurements) and adjust your training accordingly.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

simon-hecubus wrote:
Drew Baye wrote:
The frequency isn't a factor in whether muscle is stimulated to grow, but rather an issue of recovery. If the muscles are stimulated to grow, they're going to grow. They don't know when the next workout is going to be.

Sure, the recovery part goes without saying. Your second sentence, however, is a gross oversimplification.

If you stimulate the muscles, they may get stronger, but there's other ways for your body to compensate than hypertrophy.

Your body may not "know" when the next workout is coming, but if the workouts come too infrequently, your body is more likely to resort to a compensatory response that is more efficient than hypertrophy.

For instance, one of the the problems with decreasing frequency is increased soreness --- a side effect of the de-conditioning mentioned by Andrew. The more rest days you put between your workouts, the longer your body stays sore. It's an effect that can easily lead to a viscious cycle if you don't "read" it properly.

You can keep accurate progress charts, but if you follow the paradigm(s) promulgated in Mike Mentzer's later works (HDII) and McGuff's UE Protocol, then you're going to wind-up with a strong, yet visually underwhelming physique.

Stimulation does NOT always equal growth.

Scott



I think much of early progress in inexperienced trainees is skill development and learning to create a stronger neural stim to the muscle. But from day one protein anabolism kicks in too. A popular conception is to think of the muscle as seperate and distinct from the nervous system but in reality they do not function seperately.

The muscle is an extension of the nerves, motor and sensory, and don't discount the sensory (proprioception) side of the neural loop. It's all an INTEGRATED functional unit.

As soon as you pick up a weight tension on muscles and connective tissue kicks in the protein synthesis. At SAME time the nerves are taught to produce a 'stronger' signal, and the brain learns little ways to make that exercise all more skilled and efficient.

So, I really never understood the distinction some make b/w strength and size. They are inseperable, each a different side of same coin.

Of course, if you are LOOKING for ways to become more skilled at a particular movement, as they are with O-Lifting or powerlifting, then you can train for this. You practice to find little ways to make 'getting the weight up' with more efficiency and LESS effort. But that's different than trying to produce the optimum stim for more forceful contraction and subsequent size. That's what we do.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

Drew Baye wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:

Stimulation does NOT always equal growth.

Scott


True, stimulation does not always equal growth. After the growth is stimulated other conditions must exist to allow for it to occur, and one of these conditions is adequate, quality rest of an appropriate amount for the individual. One should train as frequently as recovery allows. Training more frequently will eventually lead to overtraining. Training less frequently will result in less than optimal rate of progress.

To answer Cherry's question, it is complex, and it isn't as simple as stimulus > recovery > response. Recovery involves many factors, as does response, and there is much overlap. From a practical standpoint, the best thing to do is simply track your progress both in exercise performance and in size gains (regular, standardized measurements) and adjust your training accordingly.



drew isn't part of the problem one of measurement? We don't yet have a method that's sensitive enough to detect recovery from one WO to the next. In the absence of that it's trial and error over weeks or even months before we realize that we need to make some change due to a lack of progress. And then what do we change?

We are faced with a myriad of things we could change in our methods and diet, and good reliable experimentation dictates that we should alter only ONE variable at a time :) It could take 'forever' to find out what works for us. And then that may (will) change too eventually as our bodies adapt and then become more recalcitrant about further adaptation.

It's a difficult problem to solve efficiently, hence all the [endless] discussion on boards like this one, and books written.

It boils down to one of MEASUREMENT. You can't solve what you can't measure. It all comes down to stabs in the dark.

:)
Open User Options Menu

TheSofaKing

Manitoba, CAN

AShortt wrote:
Mentzer could not grasp that too little is no better than too much and that you must strike a balance in between 'everything'. To little frequency leads to de conditioning, which makes it tougher to actually stimulate new gains (or even maintain).




"The principle that I am advocating, the one that makes it possible for the bodybuilder to actualize his potential in a very short time, is that neither "more is better" nor "less is better," but "precise is best."
--- Mike Mentzer

Mike's idea of what the precise amount was, obviously differs from yours.... or should I say Brian's. But to say that he couldn't "grasp the concept" makes you sound like a condescending, patronizing, pretentious blow hard.
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

I don't believe Mike grasped the concept. That quote came about after discussions we've had, whereby we were talking about exercise prescription and that medical doctors need to be precise in the dose of medication prescribed.

However, consider that Mike recommended very little activity... as little as possible for everyone without reference to a person's individuality (I know this for a fact since I'm aware of dozens of his phone consultations... unique individuals who all were told to do the exact same things). He also concluded that since intensity was as high as possible, that volume had to be as low as possible, which has nothing to do with precision. No idea where he made that connection, but he did.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

TheSofaKing wrote:

"The principle that I am advocating, the one that makes it possible for the bodybuilder to actualize his potential in a very short time, is that neither "more is better" nor "less is better," but "precise is best."
--- Mike Mentzer

Mike's idea of what the precise amount was obviously differs from yours.... or should I say Brian's. But to say that he couldn't "grasp the concept" makes you sound like a condescending, patronizing, pretentious blow hard.


Please sofaking don't turn into nasty a troll. Your darn tooting my definition is different than Mikes was. That after becoming educated through the IART yes and after years of working with people one-on-one. But from the horses mouth:
________________________________________
"To my knowledge he said something along those lines when we were together, when we were discussing prescribed exercise. What is weird is that he said precise is best, and yet advocated the least amount of volume without any consideration for what was optimal relative to the individual."

"Conversely, I stated that the least amount necessary to achieve the greatest response relative to an individuals goals and abilities is best. This was necessary to clarify since what does 'precise' mean? Obviously it means a precise amount of exercise strain, but if that is the case, why even recommend what he does in his books? That is why I was not into giving routines, but methods to think about exercise in order to discover what is precise or best."

- Brian D. Johnston
________________________________________

Regards,
Andrew

P.S. I luved old M.M. as well ;^)
Open User Options Menu

TheSofaKing

Manitoba, CAN

AShortt wrote:
Please sofaking don't turn into nasty a troll. Your darn tooting my definition is different than Mikes was. That after becoming educated through the IART ...
________________________________________
"To my knowledge he said something along those lines when we were together, when we were discussing prescribed exercise. What is weird is that he said precise is best, and yet advocated the least amount of volume without any consideration for what was optimal relative to the individual."

"Conversely, I stated that the least amount necessary to achieve the greatest response relative to an individuals goals and abilities is best. This was necessary to clarify since what does 'precise' mean? Obviously it means a precise amount of exercise strain, but if that is the case, why even recommend what he does in his books? That is why I was not into giving routines, but methods to think about exercise in order to discover what is precise or best."

- Brian D. Johnston
________________________________________



Claiming a pretty intelligent guy couldn't grasp a fairly simple concept that he himself wrote and mentioned on several occasions, seems like a troll to me. I am simply trying to defend someone who I feel deserves to be defended. Mike's last book contained a principled workout, a consolidated workout, numerous substitute exercises, methods to increase and vary intensity, as well as specific intructions on varying rest periods to suit your progress. Now, I have no personal knowledge of any of Mike's phone consultations, but his book pretty clearly does not look to me like a "one workout for everybody" method.

Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

And that book was released months after Mike's death... co-authored by a person who knew what the holes were in Mike's recommendations. I worked with Mike for nearly 2 years and I am well aware of his thoughts on exercise, having conversed with him dozens of times... and, as stated, knowing dozens of his phone consults (who later became members or supporters of the IART).

Your argument is moot. A person can write about logic, for example, and not be very logical, e.g., Kant.
Open User Options Menu

howard1976

Well said sofaking!you other guys,can not remember your names and care not too!shows mike was right,as so many people have attacked him personally and his ideas,other one being fred hatfield whos name i do recall! and all the rubbish making out john little covered up for mike in his last book!and the other guy saying mike did not understand the concept of precise amount of volume makes me laugh!!
Open User Options Menu

karma50

Andrew, Brian,
"Conversely, I stated that the least amount necessary to achieve the greatest response relative to an individuals goals and abilities is best".

Excellent. This is why I will politely decline Andrew's suggestion to try 4 full body workouts per week, in another thread. Maybe Andrew didn't know they were FB.

In any event, McGuff has stated on his website in articles that he experimented with very infrequent training and found decreased metabolic conditioning. He stated 1X/wk or more was necessary to maintain conditioning.

On the other hand, if you goals are met, whether it's 3 times per week or 1, who cares? If you have good conditioning and body comp that you are happy with, why do more? Shouldn't the purpose be to optimize your benefit, and not time spent? Unless you are a bb or have some specific athletic goal, why do more? I also think Drew's practical rules of thumb for measuring progress make sense.

Finally, I suspect Dr. McGuff is experimenting, and doesn't want to make waves in the SS comunnity. In the end, we have to find out what works for us.
Griff
Open User Options Menu

Paul25

Hi

I very much doubt that John Little would tarnish Mike Mentzers memory with writting something that Mike didn't see or know about before he sadly died.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

karma50 wrote:

Excellent. This is why I will politely decline Andrew's suggestion to try 4 full body workouts per week, in another thread. Maybe Andrew didn't know they were FB.

Finally, I suspect Dr. McGuff is experimenting, and doesn't want to make waves in the SS comunnity. In the end, we have to find out what works for us.
Griff


Griff, My point was that with JReps the overall systematic fatigue verse local fatigue equation was different. Full body or not you will do better with Zone Training if you make your ups higher and your downs further down.

My rec. was a example to try 4 days one week, then go all the next week to the end without training then do 1 session. Or 3 and 2, or even 5 and none for 12 days.

On the net I can only say so much. I offer examples to illustrate the point and the balancing needed not a hard fast rule to stick with. I am glad you think for yourself though ;^)

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

karma50

Andrew,
Thanks for the input. What you are suggesting is somewhat like "evolutionary fitness" or chaotic style training. I think you may have a point. It seems to be what McGuff is doing by default, and he is making gains. (however he deterinmines that)

I'm more active these days, getting outdoors for hikes daily, as well as outdoor chores, so I may experiment a bit, and space my workouts more randomly, but keep records of performance, TUT, etc. I'm doing jreps (halves)on specific exercises, and I plan on periodically testing my performance on "normal" FROM versions.
Anyway, it's fun, and that counts, too.
Griff
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

All I have to say is that this forum kicks ass!

Never on any other BB forum online have I ever seen so many intelligent arguments which provide such insight into the scientific realms of Bodybuilding.

To shamefully borrow a phrase from Paris Hilton; "It's Hot." and I look forward to reading these kinds of discussions daily!
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy