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
Consolidation - Numbers Only
Author
Rating
Options

henry_bordeaux

while something like:

"i got so strong while i got smaller on a consolidation routine"

i read here quiet often...reported honest numbers of poundages lifted or increased or decreased measurements are quiet rare

this thread is only for those who want to tell numbers with their story...

like paul marsland for example did on some threads before...

because a meaningful discussion is NOT possible with phrases like: "i got strong", "i got smaller", "i look better"...

facts (numbers) only please. thanks.

Open User Options Menu

henry_bordeaux

...where are the innumerable winners of raw drug free powerlifting contests on this board...who all trained with the consolidation routine...stayed for years at 150lbs bodyweight and then lifted their easy triple bodyweight deadlifts...
Open User Options Menu

Paul Marsland

Henry a nights wages, says you don't get many replies to this thread...most will be
"errmm,ummm, well you see its like this.."

Paul.
Open User Options Menu

Welshace13

henry_bordeaux wrote:
while something like:

"i got so strong while i got smaller on a consolidation routine"

i read here quiet often...reported honest numbers of poundages lifted or increased or decreased measurements are quiet rare

this thread is only for those who want to tell numbers with their story...

like paul marsland for example did on some threads before...

because a meaningful discussion is NOT possible with phrases like: "i got strong", "i got smaller", "i look better"...

facts (numbers) only please. thanks.



Body Weight
January 07 - 10 stone, 5foot 8

March 07 - 1stone, 5 foot 8

Dip - Bodyweight - 3months later - BW + 40kg.

Pull Ups - Bodyweight - 3months later - BW + 40kg

Dead Lift - 110kg - 3months later - MAde 160kg look easy.

I was new to training, but better results than most people get on high volume training when new to the gym.
Open User Options Menu

Welshace13

woops i meen 11 stone not 1 stone hahaaa

i did use a more of a consilidated routine when i got to a 180kg deadlift aswell, but i only wieghed a like 10stone then. so lost a bit of weight.
Open User Options Menu

howard1976

paul marsland, your a arrogant ?$?% hole!!
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

henry_bordeaux wrote:
while something like:

"i got so strong while i got smaller on a consolidation routine"

i read here quiet often...reported honest numbers of poundages lifted or increased or decreased measurements are quiet rare

this thread is only for those who want to tell numbers with their story...

Hi Henry,

Agree this is odd, and I would also like to see some evidence of it; think a picture comparison while small and stronger on the consolidation routine would be equally acceptable too (Scott, I replied to you about this on the other consolidation thread if you haven't seen the post...).



howard1976 wrote:
paul marsland, your a arrogant ?$?% hole!!

Howard,

I think Henry is asking for information on athletes who claim consolidation doesn't cause hypertrophy, that it will make you get stronger while staying the same size; I think you expect to put muscle on, right?


Paul Marsland wrote:
AND ANYWAY HOW CAN YOU GET STRONGER AND STRONGER AND STRONGER, WITHOUT GETING BIGGER!!

Its called neurological adaptation or skill proficiency, and is the bane of hit'ers who use consolidation routines.

Hi Paul,

I think it's the other way around; that neurological adaptation or skill proficiency increases correlate with greater frequency, not less.


Paul,
You're explanation of how you get stronger and stronger and stronger without getting bigger due to the consolidation training is exactly what I asked you about on the other thread; care to elucidate?
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Tomislav wrote:
...Scott, I replied to you about this on the other consolidation thread if you haven't seen the post...


I'm not ignoring you, T. I haven't been able to find any pictures from that time period. Will keep checking.
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

While I totally agree that you can go to far with consilidating I also don't understand how you can get overall smaller+stronger, giving the frequency, form and intensity is correct (for you that is).

Single muscle groups may suffer and full development of all muscles may be not happen with it but at least some muscle must be built. Like when you do only chins for upper body, at least your biceps and/or lats have to grow to improve strength significantly. Your chest, triceps may suffer but that's something else.

When I did some form of consolidation many years ago (not quite, it was Squat, Chin, Dip, SLDL 1 x week) I did not gain muscle (The frequency wasn't right for me is what i know now) but I also didn't gain strength after the initial 8 weeks, so I stopped it.

IMHO consolidation doesn't work for many rather because of too little frequency, bad form or lacking intensity and not because of the limeted number of sets/exercises.

Franco

Open User Options Menu

Paul Marsland

Tomislav wrote:
henry_bordeaux wrote:
while something like:

"i got so strong while i got smaller on a consolidation routine"

i read here quiet often...reported honest numbers of poundages lifted or increased or decreased measurements are quiet rare

this thread is only for those who want to tell numbers with their story...

Hi Henry,

Agree this is odd, and I would also like to see some evidence of it; think a picture comparison while small and stronger on the consolidation routine would be equally acceptable too (Scott, I replied to you about this on the other consolidation thread if you haven't seen the post...).



howard1976 wrote:
paul marsland, your a arrogant ?$?% hole!!

Howard,

I think Henry is asking for information on athletes who claim consolidation doesn't cause hypertrophy, that it will make you get stronger while staying the same size; I think you expect to put muscle on, right?


Paul Marsland wrote:
AND ANYWAY HOW CAN YOU GET STRONGER AND STRONGER AND STRONGER, WITHOUT GETING BIGGER!!

Its called neurological adaptation or skill proficiency, and is the bane of hit'ers who use consolidation routines.

Hi Paul,

I think it's the other way around; that neurological adaptation or skill proficiency increases correlate with greater frequency, not less.


Paul,
You're explanation of how you get stronger and stronger and stronger without getting bigger due to the consolidation training is exactly what I asked you about on the other thread; care to elucidate?


Howard, you think what you like mate, but like I said I've done enough HIT consolidation workouts to know that while they make you stronger not much is yielded in terms of size DESPITE ones best efforts, so its not arrogance, but experiecne something you are obviously lacking, go back to what you do best, quote Mentzer ad verbium.

----------------------------------


Tom, please don't think I'm dodging this issue, but I'd rather not debate this I've done it far too many times before.

I did come across this today whilst thumbing through one of my books which goes some way to explaining the concept, its from Matt Brzycki's "Guide to Home Training" and I quote " AS you get stronger, you need fewer muscle fibers to sustain a sub maximal effort...


This backs up what I said in regards to, the body becomes more efficient (ie less muscle fiber recruitment due to a more effective CNS adaptation) in lifting the same or heavier weights if demands (intensity, frequency,volume etc, alos refer to the variety article that Andrew posted for further proof) stay the same.

So what happens is you continue to get stronger, but your muscle size and overall appearance slowly decreases as per homeostasis,ie: the body will look for a way to cost effectively restore balance.

Simply put there is more than one way to skin a cat...

Anyone that thinks they can build a decent level of development on just one set per exercise once per week.
, is deluding themselves or lying. I'd like to see the documented changes if this has or is even possible and I challenge anyone here to clearly (written and photographic evidence) to document this process as validation that such a method of training can produce a level of development which is deemed acceptable.


Funny how Mentzer despite his bold claims of his ideal routine and the athletes routine, never showed any case studies of his so called results...
Open User Options Menu

Lefty26

Ok, but why you are posting then here in a HIT forum and make trouble?

I don?t go in the board of the Dodgers and tell them, how good the Yankees are.



Open User Options Menu

Lefty26

I had very great results wih Heavy Duty 1, Heavy Duty 2 and the Consolidation routine.

I am very sure, that you never would say this to Mentzer?s face and talk after dead people...like the analysis of Mel Siff?s Supertraining.

Hahahaha...just beeing "Internet- Hero"...

If you have balls, then go to the thread of Markus Reinhardt and bring arguments against his statements.
Open User Options Menu
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy