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
Negative Only Training?
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Ciccio

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Ciccio wrote:
Sure, bouncing out of the bottom squat position makes you look stronger but you aren't. And it has nothing to do with a "switch". It's just cheating. Same for bench.

And you really want to state here that we can't use more weight on NO then we can on a standard pos./neg.set? Ridiculous!

Thanks for teaching us again.


Hi Franco,

You can't change muscle physiology, and biomechanics.

The body has evolved to work in a dynamic fashion.

Surely, if you are a SS advocate, then you may not be able to use more weight load dynamically, but I'm not sure why you would want to use less stimulus, and get reduced results.





I'm not a SS advocate (anyway, what has this to do with your false statements?) and your assumptions about biomechanics are wrong and not worth commenting.

Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Franco,

While you might think what I suggest is speculation, it is not. It may be that I am just not explaining it in a way you can understand.

Regarding High Intensity Training, and what constitutes it, I can only say that the term "intensity" is a common one. It designates a "magnitude or density" of power or energy output. The program I suggested is true to that common definition, and not restricted by other assumptions.

Regarding "single set" being enough for maximum strength and hypertrophy; I can only state, that given the fact that I don't think there truly is any such thing as Super Compensation, and that no strength athlete in the history of the world has reached maximum potential via a single set system, then it would be hard to believe it can be that way.

The single set training system was developed to accompany lines of machines, with the promise that a single set to momentary failure would give one the best result. And for general fitness and even slightly beyond, that can be true.

For serious Strength Athletes, BodyBuilders, PowerLifters, and such, it is not. There is no harm in recognizing the realities of life. The harm comes from attempting to get the world to adapt to your paradigm, if it is not accurate.

Calling it nonsense, does not offer substance to an argument.


You can repeat your opinions here as much as you want but it doesn't change the fact that they are just that, opinions(and speculations). Nothing more!
So please, refrain from hyping your training "system" as the ultimative answer for maximum hypertrophy which it is not!

Franco



Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Ciccio wrote:

I'm not a SS advocate (anyway, what has this to do with your false statements?) and your assumptions about biomechanics are wrong and not worth commenting.



If you would like to list my "false statements" and explain precisely why they are false, maybe I can help clarify them for you.

And while you are at it, I would certainly like to know what "wrong assumptions" I have made about Biomechanics.

I am always interested in opposing viewpoints.

Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Ciccio wrote:

I'm not a SS advocate (anyway, what has this to do with your false statements?) and your assumptions about biomechanics are wrong and not worth commenting.



If you would like to list my "false statements" and explain precisely why they are false, maybe I can help clarify them for you.

And while you are at it, I would certainly like to know what "wrong assumptions" I have made about Biomechanics.

I am always interested in opposing viewpoints.



I have neither the time nor the desire to list all your wrong assumptions.
Some I pointed out before in this very thread.
Ellington has helped thousands of people to develop a muscular physique in the last 30years with his HIT. People who couldn't get or barely get results with multiple sets.
That's by far enough evidence that single set training to failure(his style!) works, and works very well.
If YOU can't cut it with all your experience and "knowledge", it's your personal problem, not mine.
Just don't distract others from the benefits of HIT for which they come to this place.

Have a nice day,

Franco



Open User Options Menu

spud

I have to support Franco on this.

Two of the most fundamental principles of Dr Darden's HIT are:

1 set per exercise

Controlled, smooth reps somewhere in the region of 3/3 or 4/4 for most movements.

Also.......The definition of intensity that Dr Darden uses is intensity of effort. Basically, how close do work to failure? Could you get another rep?

It's not about % of 1 RM or anything like that.

Bioforce goes against these principles:

Multiple sets per exercise

High reps 15, 20 even 30 reps = faster reps, assuming that Bioforce doesn't advocate sets that last as long as 4 minutes. To keep the length of the set down to 60-90 seconds, more reps in the same time frame (as Dr D's 8-12 at 4/4) means fast reps. This goes against what Dr Darden recommends as far as proper rep performance is concerned.

Bioforce has said on a number of occasions that to him, intensity is about power density. This is not the same as Dr Darden's take on intensity.

I'm convinced by any of it. It's contrary to everything I follow. Sorry.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Ciccio wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:

If you would like to list my "false statements" and explain precisely why they are false, maybe I can help clarify them for you.

And while you are at it, I would certainly like to know what "wrong assumptions" I have made about Biomechanics.

I am always interested in opposing viewpoints.



I have neither the time nor the desire to list all your wrong assumptions.
Some I pointed out before in this very thread.
Ellington has helped thousands of people to develop a muscular physique in the last 30years with his HIT. People who couldn't get or barely get results with multiple sets.
That's by far enough evidence that single set training to failure(his style!) works, and works very well.
If YOU can't cut it with all your experience and "knowledge", it's your personal problem, not mine.
Just don't distract others from the benefits of HIT for which they come to this place.

Have a nice day,

Franco


Hi Franco,

I did not state that trainees could not achieve good results with High Intensity single sets.

I said they could not acheive their maximum potential.

Creating a "schism" between single set and multiple set advocates serves neither.

While there is no doubt that there may be some cases of trainees who were either over trained or not training correctly, there is absolutely no evidence of any type that shows "Maximum" potential can be achieved via a single set system.

There is evidence to demonstrate that a single set can stimulate a "high percentage" result, but as with most things in life, those final percentage points, cannot be achieved via that system.

Now you mentioned scientific errors in my suggestions but can't find the time to mention a couple.

There is little reason to be emotional or denigrating, since this is simply a discussion. If your subscription to a system is sound, it will withstand suggestions to the contrary of its tenets.

If it has areas of question, then it will simply strengthen the system to make adjustments to improve its accuracy and ability.
Open User Options Menu

shlevon

YOU GUYS ARE DERAILING MY THREAD >:0
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

spud wrote:
I have to support Franco on this.

Two of the most fundamental principles of Dr Darden's HIT are:

1 set per exercise

Controlled, smooth reps somewhere in the region of 3/3 or 4/4 for most movements.


Hi Spud,

Let me make it perfectly clear. I have not, and do not suggest that anything Ellington has offered is less than result producing.

However the restraints or rules of "conventional" HIT training will not provide the stimulus for attainment of Maximum Potential.

What percentage you can attain with a single set to failure is not measurable.

HIT in its conventional form can be valuable for working with "large populations" such as the general public. It can also be extremely valuable for those with "time restraints" such as athletes who must spend most of their time practicing their sports, and need a "high percentage" training modality.

The strange requisite to "conventional HIT" is that has been "boxed" or packaged to have qualities and abilities that it does not have and cannot have inside such a small box.

spud wrote:
Also.......The definition of intensity that Dr Darden uses is intensity of effort. Basically, how close do work to failure? Could you get another rep?

It's not about % of 1 RM or anything like that.

Bioforce goes against these principles:

Multiple sets per exercise

High reps 15, 20 even 30 reps = faster reps, assuming that Bioforce doesn't advocate sets that last as long as 4 minutes. To keep the length of the set down to 60-90 seconds, more reps in the same time frame (as Dr D's 8-12 at 4/4) means fast reps. This goes against what Dr Darden recommends as far as proper rep performance is concerned.

Bioforce has said on a number of occasions that to him, intensity is about power density. This is not the same as Dr Darden's take on intensity.

I'm convinced by any of it. It's contrary to everything I follow. Sorry.


No need to apologize. What seems to be missing here is the program I have suggested does not reduce the effectiveness of what you have been practicing. And as long as what you have been doing provides progress, then it is still a viable system for you.

True HIT, as an umbrella to encompass all training of High Intensity, will allow those who wish to continue beyond the restraints of the "general system" and with adjustments and modifications (not dissimilar to adding weight) to move thru a system that will provide that.

I have trained either with or in the same gym with some of the HIT Icons, and I can only assure you that they used much of what I am suggesting. Mike Mentzer was a friend of mine and while he embraced the HIT style training rather late in his career, his adoption, and subsequent adaptation of the system was NOT, how he trained when he made his greatest progress.

So my position is not to "bury" HIT nor deify it. It is simply a system of training where the "key" element is INTENSITY.

I define intensity like the rest of the scientific world, and provide reasonable ways to employ it in a measurable way. This is important to making progressive and measurable adjustments to a program.

I think Ellington knows that I provide reasonable arguments and suggestions to some of the areas of HIT that may need consideration. The idea is to "broaden" the appeal, and include the elements that have been excluded due to some wrong turns, or bad decisions.

I would also suggest that there is no reason to consider such discussions as "blasphemous rhetoric". HIT is not a religion, that requires "belief". It is simply a very valuable element to training, and in my opinion to LIFE, that can make the difference, between doing well, and achieving greatness.

Don't worry, you won't be assimilated by the Volume BORG. Resistance is Futile..... Yeah right. Resistance is everything!!
Open User Options Menu

Gazz

The one set argument rages on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, for every study that says one set is best, I'll show you one that says multiple sets are best.

My opinion is that both systems work for certain people for a certain length of time.

HIT is an effective method of training but not the only method of training. Open your minds a bit.

Mentzer makes the analagy of training one set of switching on a light. You only switch it one once. Sounds logical, but delve deeper.

HIT was originally sold as the training technique with "nothing to sell", no supplements, no magazines etc. But the birth of HIT coincided with the birth of Nautilus machines which were expensive, often single station. If Nautilus was sold to gym owners on the basis of a multi set system, to replace the cheaper barbell/dumbell alternatives, I would hazard a guess that their immediate vision would be one of queues at each machine while someone hogged it for 10 sets, and many disatisfied gym members unable to get through their workouts. I my be being unfairly cynical here, I don't know, but its a coincidence.

I'll now probably be accused of some some sort of blasphemy, however I do believe that one set has it's place, and equally multi sets have their place. I don't believe in miracle workouts producing fantastic short term gains, I'm too long in the tooth for that.

I know that the cry is that one set works for naturals and the multi set guys are all steroid freaks. Bear in mind that some of the best known one set advocates were self confessed steroid users. Also how would you explain the likes of Grimek (multiple sets often training each bodypart 5-6 times a week), Reeves (3 exercises, 3 sets each), Park (5X5) & co.

Bioforces system questions the rules of HIT. Does it question basic overload/progression principles, I don't think so. Is it really high volume, I would say far from it.

If you don't like the look of it, don't do it. The guy is only making available (for free) an alternative suggestion to the norm.

All the best
Gazz



Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

shlevon wrote:
YOU GUYS ARE DERAILING MY THREAD >:0


Your right, sorry!!

Maybe if I get time tomorrow (its 3:30 AM here) I'll post some ideas about methods for eccentric training.

Or maybe others will also offer you some suggestions about their NA, and NO training tips.

Good night.

Open User Options Menu

shlevon

BIO-FORCE wrote:
shlevon wrote:
YOU GUYS ARE DERAILING MY THREAD >:0

Your right, sorry!!

Maybe if I get time tomorrow (its 3:30 AM here) I'll post some ideas about methods for eccentric training.

Or maybe others will also offer you some suggestions about their NA, and NO training tips.

Good night.



Haha, I don't honestly care. I'm all for interesting discussion.

Of course, I'd prefer the bickering stuff be left out of threads like these, simply because I think it's a wiser investment of time to share some useful training ideas/theory.

P.S. You've got mail =0
Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

Ciccio wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
Ciccio wrote:

I'm not a SS advocate (anyway, what has this to do with your false statements?) and your assumptions about biomechanics are wrong and not worth commenting.

If you would like to list my "false statements" and explain precisely why they are false, maybe I can help clarify them for you.

And while you are at it, I would certainly like to know what "wrong assumptions" I have made about Biomechanics.

I am always interested in opposing viewpoints.

I have neither the time nor the desire to list all your wrong assumptions.
Some I pointed out before in this very thread.
Ellington has helped thousands of people to develop a muscular physique in the last 30years with his HIT. People who couldn't get or barely get results with multiple sets.
That's by far enough evidence that single set training to failure(his style!) works, and works very well.
If YOU can't cut it with all your experience and "knowledge", it's your personal problem, not mine.
Just don't distract others from the benefits of HIT for which they come to this place.

Have a nice day,

Franco


I have often heard people think and say that HIT is one set to failure, and say things like; there is far enough evidence that single set training to failure(his style!) works, and works very well.

However if you look in all, yes all of Ellington?s books, he fist uses a basic routine for say two weeks, then starts the trainee on some sort of specialisation, and bodypart cycle of some sort, that uses more than one set to failure. Take the book big, on the first two weeks there are two sets of squats, two sets of pullovers, two sets of dips and two sets of chin ups, then there are similar specialisations for weeks 3,4,5 and 6, and at the end of the book there are a list of 12 various specialized routines, one is for the shoulders; upright row, immediately do lateral raise, immediately do shoulder press, rest several minutes, upright row, immediately do lateral raise, immediately do shoulder press.

To me HIT is more like doing a basic routine for a few weeks, then specialise very hard, ease of and use the basic routine and rest, then repeat.

I also years ago varied this up with three lots of four weeks of different rep speeds, first four, 2/4 then 4x4 and then S/S, and used many other things to add variety.

Then even if you look at the basic routine,

Leg ext. 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Leg curl 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Donkey calf raise with partner 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Squat 1 set x 12 to 15 reps
Pullover on machine 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Press behind neck 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Behind neck chin up 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Bench press 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Bent over row 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Dips 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Curl 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Triceps ext. or pressdown 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Upright rows or lateral raise 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
S.L.D.L. x 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Reverse curl with thick handled bar 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Trunk curl 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

About that one set to failure, as I said it does not mean one set per muscle group, in the above do you see something. Its 5 exercises for the legs, about 2 direct for the shoulders and about 5 indirect for shoulders, about 5 for lats, about 3 for chest, 4 for biceps, 4 for triceps, and a lot for forearms and ab?s, see what I am getting at.

To me the heart of HIT is the intensity and the specialization, and that is what bio-force is system is about, as I said, I am now using the same weight for 30 reps that I was only using for ten, and that is totally amazing, when I think of the first gruelling set of 30 reps I did.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

I find negative only, only very effective after say a pre-exhaustion, or after a normal set where the muscles are totally warmed up, if you try it this way you will have a hell of a shock, if the weight is heavy enough, I do 5 seconds reps (unsure on this mind you, will have to put more thought into it) for ten reps, it will burn and pump like no other.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Note: Negative Only Training was experimented with in the late 1960s by a Phys Ed teacher named Carl Miller who saw at least as good as if not better results in his research with his high school students.

HIT vs HVT or whatever. HIT GENERALLY is done with a strategized/focused plan of training, whilst HVT is (GENERALLY) popularly done in social gym settings. Maybe HIT needs more social? Get more conditioned/muscular as a result?

HIT will not attract the obsession of more work, the hours in the gym for "success" mentality of the vast majority that is exposed as such to athletes.

It takes away from the comradarie of the gym setting, therefore if all people/athletes did was focused, brutal one set to failure, it would take away from the fun escape atmosphere of most gymnasiums that cater to this. HIT therefore "does not work" because it is hardly ever prescribed, and possibly can be masked in the many set dogma.

I have the prejudging for the 1982 Olympia and many of the bodybuilders were training as much as 10 hours a day as per the interviews. Recently I believe Dexter Jackson was said to have trained minimally as a comparison - HIT style - maybe not, but remember that the marathon training era spawned much of today's thinking - Post Pumping Iron.

So do we see HIT Strength Athletes, likely we do, but read between the lines - (sets). These are just a few observations from this end from a non addict.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Bob Peoples, in 1949, at the weight of 181 pounds, deadlifted 725 & 3/4 pounds (drug-free) at 40 years of age!

Before that time period, (long before Nautilus and Arthur Jones), Bob Peoples, a rural farmer from eastern Tennessee Smoky Mountains used a Ford tractor with a lift to place huge weights at certain heights at which he lowered. He rigged a long stick to operate this tractor lift. He stated that the weights got so heavy, that he had to help the tractor pick the heavy weights up in order to lower them by himself. That my friends is what HiTers call eccentric training today!
Open User Options Menu

STanner

Texas, USA

marcrph wrote:
*Old Man banging on about a time long past*



We've missed your passive-aggressive posts. Good to see you back!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

STanner wrote:
marcrph wrote:
*Old Man banging on about a time long past*



We've missed your passive-aggressive posts. Good to see you back!


Thanks

I've been doing plenty of volunteer work lately! I've missed many of the posts on this forum.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

This is my experiences of eccentric training experiments over more years than I would care to state:

1) eccentric training quickly leads to staleness.

2) Taking eccentric training to failure results in tremendous soreness in the trained tissues.

3) eccentric training is not as enjoyable as concentric/eccentric.

4) eccentric training does not carryover to concentric as much as I thought it might.

5) eccentric training to failure "seems" to cause total motor neuron output decreases. As one goes to failure, the nervous system seems to resist more than the muscle tissues. This is hard for me to explain exactly. Perhaps others have sensed similiar feeling of nervous shutdown, as if the nervous system is shutting down muscular contractions in order for self-protection.

6) With the above said, I have used NO multiple sets (3-5) of (2-5 reps)NTF-style on the Nautilus Decline to good success. The only problem is the weight stack limit of 250 lbs is rather quickly used up, and pinning of weights becomes problematic. The soreness of NTF/NO is much less than NO/TF.

7) Only use 1 exercise at a time for NO, as this has helped limit staleness.

8) No more than 3 continual weeks of any particular exercise for NO will help limit staleness.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

I have found that if you have regular partner(s) eccentric accurate training can be relatively easy to do.

I find the best method is to creatively find ways to have partners "add" sufficient eccentric load.

This is far superior to having them help with the concentric while you try and struggle with a heavier eccentric.

Why?

Because, of several reasons:

1) Your eccentric motor drive is folded back into the concentric rep, and strangely enough the concentric gets easier due to hyper-motor potentiation.

2) The eccentric is more of a "speed controlled" braking action, which is not dependent on ratcheting crossbridge action, and partners can learn to add just the right load to maintain the speed where you get the best results.

3) The actions work with each other and the benefits of the transitions are too valuable to do away with. Of particular importance is the eccentric to concentric transition. The concentric to eccentric is a slightly different story, and you will find that it is best to let the trainee reach the full range of concentric action, and even do a pause or "set" and then the partners "SMOOTHLY"!!!! add load until the correct eccentric speed is produced.

I have used this technique on:

Pulldowns - Partners stand by the stack and push/pull it down
Leg Extensions - Partners apply load to the movement arm
Leg Curls - same
Cable or machine Curls - many ways
Tricep Press downs - same
Seated Dip machines - Partners pull up on the lever arms
Squats - Partner (single) stands behind and presses down on the BAR
Leg Presses Plate loaded - Multiple partners apply load to weight sled
Hammer Machines - in most cases these machines led themselves to eccentric actions
Pullover Machines - my Partners set a bench behind the machine and stood on the full stack on the eccentric
Barbell Benches - A single partner presses down on the center of the bar
Machine presses (Flat/Incline/Overhead) - no direction needed, you just add at the movement arm
Pec Decs - to get even loading the weight stack needs to be addressed
And the list goes on.

Please know that machines have weight guards, cables, pulleys, gears, and other moving parts that need to be well understood before attempting to apply these loads. Be safe when applying them!!!!!

It will take a few sets for you and the trainee to "synch". That is where you develop a consistent load and speed that accommodates the trainees needs.

PAY ATTENTION!!! These are large loads and it is important from a safety standpoint that you are TOTALLY aware of your partner every second.

That said, the results and strength increases can be phenomenal.

The thing I found so unusual, was that when you "focus" on performing a well loaded eccentric action and you get to the transition, and your partner(s) release the extra load, your concentric BLASTS up like a feather even though it may be a really heavy weight.

I used these types of actions quite regularly for a few years of very serious training and it cemented my thoughts on the value of eccentric actions when loaded to their potential.

And one other thing.

DON'T GO OVERBOARD!!!! Start this type of training with a single set and gradually expand it as you feel necessary. If you jump in and do a single set to all out eccentric failure, you will experience significant DOMS. Multiple set should not be attempted until that DOMs has subsided, then add as needed or desired.
Open User Options Menu

shlevon

Just out of curiosity, what tempo do people use on NO's?

I tend to use ~3-5 seconds if I had to guess per rep. Longer than this it starts to feel like a bizarre series of isometric holds, imho.

I know some people will do 10 second negatives, but I think the transfer to 'normal' movements will be less the more extreme one gets on that end.

Also, Ellington, if you're reading this, I'm curious about the sort of cadence/tempo Jones used back for stuff like the Colorado experiment, the early days :P
Open User Options Menu

spud

The only movements I have performed in NO fashion are chins and dips. I don't have access to any fancy equipment to allow me to do anything else.

I would use 8-10 seconds for chins and 6-8 seconds for dips.

You don't have to worry about going too slow with NO training as the weight should be too heavy for you to lift through the positive anyway. It's not like the negatives in a SuperSlow set that are actually "rest periods". It should be properly heavy stuff.

We need to here from Charlie Haire again. He's the only one with any real experience when it comes to NO training.
Open User Options Menu

shlevon

spud wrote:
The only movements I have performed in NO fashion are chins and dips. I don't have access to any fancy equipment to allow me to do anything else.

I would use 8-10 seconds for chins and 6-8 seconds for dips.

You don't have to worry about going too slow with NO training as the weight should be too heavy for you to lift through the positive anyway. It's not like the negatives in a SuperSlow set that are actually "rest periods". It should be properly heavy stuff.

We need to here from Charlie Haire again. He's the only one with any real experience when it comes to NO training.


Two counter-points to taking that long on NO's (both my opinions, of course):

1) It will be a lot more neurally draining, making overtraining a lot easier to incur.

2) Adaptations to very slow movements start to resemble those for isometrics, adaptations which are generally inferior to isotonics in respect to hypertrophy potential.

Now, I'm not saying it wouldn't "work" to use a slower cadence. I'd just think it'd work at least as well to go a bit faster (as it's hard for me to consider 3-5 seconds "too fast").
Open User Options Menu

chaire

North Carolina, USA

spud,
I have been training no for the past 2 years and still enjoy it. My gains have been very good. In all of the studies I have conducted all subjects gained in strength, muscle size, and lost fat. Negative training does transfer to positive strength. In my studies all no reps were 10-6 seconds, with a max of 6 reps. The number of exercises was 5-6. Normally only 2 workouts per week, and sometimes only 1.

The study I did on high school football players is on the IART web site. I will conduct a study on myself using NO and max contraction for the next 2 months. I am coming off a 14 day layoff after competing in an over 50 bodybuilding contest.
I do not know if NO is the best way to train but it is more productive than than regular hit workouts and it is much briefer.
God Bless,
Charlie
Open User Options Menu

spud

Cheers for that Charlie.

Can I just ask - how many compound, and how many isolation movements do you perform in each session?
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

All good comments above.

A couple things that should be more defined.

1) Because the eccentric action has a greater ability to "resist" external load, a larger load is required.

Perfroming NO or NA reps with a load that is not accurate to the ability is pretty much a waste of time.

The advantages to NA and NO training are to:

a) create greater muscle tensions
b) create larger motor impulses

Without these elements ther is little value in Negative or Eccentric Action training, except endurance.

Strangely enough and most are not aware, that while there is a 50/50 balance between eccentric to concentric actions in all activities, including weight training, the eccentric is the action that dominates when speed and strength are needed.

All speed, jumping, and lifting actions are "preceded" by an eccentric loading that will determine their effectiveness.

Without this loading they are severely reduced. Simply try a vertical jump, from a dead stop (like from sitting on a chair)

2) The best eccentric training (for strength) is rather brief,(1-2 reps) since the stimulus needs to create the above mentioned tensions and impulses.

3) Hypertrophy via eccentric can be more in a higher rep area,(3+)if the reps are well loaded and slowed.

I found that having partner(s) add load on the last 5-6 worked best for Hypertrophy, and using and all out slow "tug of war" on a single rep (at the end of a set) provided the best strength results.

I also found that the eccentric abilities "FAR" outstrip concnetric when it comes to failure.

There were many "very long sets" where on a leg extension, I would do 20-40 reps with a huge weight in a conventional fashion, then start adding eccentric actions till I reached concentric failure. I would have my partners lift the arm into the extended position, and have them continue giving me eccentric load until I failed eccentrically.

Beleive it or not, if you could get past the pain, the eccentric was VERY viable even after volitional concentric failure.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy