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
Lifting- Many Ways That Work
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

HDLou

There is a lot of arguments or disputes on this forum and others about such things as which rep range, rep speed, exercises, sets, etc. are best to use. And if the findings in these studies are accurate, it just doesn't matter. This is actually based on science and not just someone's opinion.
http://cbass.com/...gWithEffort.htm
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

HDLou wrote:
There is a lot of arguments or disputes on this forum and others about such things as which rep range, rep speed, exercises, sets, etc. are best to use. And if the findings in these studies are accurate, it just doesn't matter. This is actually based on science and not just someone's opinion.
http://cbass.com/...ort.htm


Many ways produce some measure of overload but only a FEW are the BEST. And isn't that the point..the least amount of exercise that produce the greater gains

Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

southbeach wrote:
HDLou wrote:
There is a lot of arguments or disputes on this forum and others about such things as which rep range, rep speed, exercises, sets, etc. are best to use. And if the findings in these studies are accurate, it just doesn't matter. This is actually based on science and not just someone's opinion.
http://cbass.com/...gWithEffort.htm

Many ways produce some measure of overload but only a FEW are the BEST. And isn't that the point..the least amount of exercise that produce the greater gains



The study draws the conclusion that INTENSITY not POUNDAGE is the key to muscular growth.

But doesn't the study also at least suggest that 1RM may be as effective as 5RM or 10RM.

One problem in these studies is the variation in genetics of all the participants -- male and female.

Using identical twins to study the weight-training theories would eliminate that variable.

Tony
Tony Williams
Open User Options Menu

natemason5

Ontario, CAN

Great article. It seems perfectly logical to me!

Tony,SB..what are you guys saying? You don't agree?

I think the only consideration to take in after reading this article is deciding the safest way for YOU to train so that you can always apply maximal/near maximal effort, but have no injuries.

Nate
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

natemason5 wrote:
Great article. It seems perfectly logical to me!

Tony,SB..what are you guys saying? You don't agree?

I think the only consideration to take in after reading this article is deciding the safest way for YOU to train so that you can always apply maximal/near maximal effort, but have no injuries.

Nate


No, I agree. It makes sense to me that intensity ... effort ... trumps weight.

That is probably why those who have just started weight training make such rapid progress.

Just curious about this:

If intensity is the key to building muscle, then isn't it possible that 1 rep to failure might be as good as 5 or 10, etc.

Tony
Tony Williams
Open User Options Menu

natemason5

Ontario, CAN

Tony Williams wrote:
Just curious about this:

If intensity is the key to building muscle, then isn't it possible that 1 rep to failure might be as good as 5 or 10, etc.

Tony
Tony Williams


Your logic is sound, and I agree with that! But in reality a 1 rep max may be a good way to build strength/muscle, but is widely regarded as the best way to get injured.

Anything is possible though.

Nate
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Tony Williams wrote:
natemason5 wrote:
Great article. It seems perfectly logical to me!

Tony,SB..what are you guys saying? You don't agree?

I think the only consideration to take in after reading this article is deciding the safest way for YOU to train so that you can always apply maximal/near maximal effort, but have no injuries.

Nate

No, I agree. It makes sense to me that intensity ... effort ... trumps weight.

That is probably why those who have just started weight training make such rapid progress.

Just curious about this:

If intensity is the key to building muscle, then isn't it possible that 1 rep to failure might be as good as 5 or 10, etc.

Tony
Tony Williams


Good points Tony! Biggest mistake I've seen over my experience working out in the gym is those using too much weight leading to poor form, low EFFORT and rep counts. They try to make up for these flaws with VOLUME, however that's akin to selling smthg cheaper than you can make it but trying to make up the loss by selling MORE of it! LOL
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

natemason5 wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
Just curious about this:

If intensity is the key to building muscle, then isn't it possible that 1 rep to failure might be as good as 5 or 10, etc.

Tony
Tony Williams

Your logic is sound, and I agree with that! But in reality a 1 rep max may be a good way to build strength/muscle, but is widely regarded as the best way to get injured.

Anything is possible though.

Nate


Nate,

You so right about injuries, and to be clear I was not advocating such a workout.

Simply a theory ...

Tony
Tony Williams
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

southbeach wrote:
HDLou wrote:
There is a lot of arguments or disputes on this forum and others about such things as which rep range, rep speed, exercises, sets, etc. are best to use. And if the findings in these studies are accurate, it just doesn't matter. This is actually based on science and not just someone's opinion.
http://cbass.com/...gWithEffort.htm

Many ways produce some measure of overload but only a FEW are the BEST. And isn't that the point..the least amount of exercise that produce the greater gains



Not exactly. It's about creating the greatest stimulation within your recovery ability. 1 set within a specific intensity (RM) stimulates ribosomes (protein synthesis). 2 sets stimulates more..3 sets stimulate more..ansd so on. Repetition also creates better neuromuscular efficiency. However, you will reach a point where increasing workload and intensity will be stimulating too much cortisol. A much better philosophy would be to train as much and as hard as you can, while staying within your recovery limits. Training for the minimum stimulis will give you minimal results. Whenever I read where someone writes in a book about using more than 1 set, they always say, why not 2..why not 5..why not 50? You can always say the same thing in reverse..why not 1 set..why not 1 rep....why not 1 workout per year. That logic really isn't logical at all. All the silly why nots are meant to market what they are trying to sell you. Nobody can tell you how many sets to perform. How hard to perform your sets. How many days per week to train. Although you can always use guidelines set forth by the experience of others, the only REAL way to find all of this out is to experiment and find out for yourself.
Open User Options Menu

howard1976

But dont forget there are two forms of hypertrophy.

With low reps you are building Myofibrillar hpertrophy

And sarcoplasmic hypertrophy,with higher reps,more inroad.(fatigue)

And bodybuilders have more sarcoplasmic growth,powerlifters more Myofibrillar growth.

So if you what to LOOK bigger,you do need some sarcoplasic growth.

Thats were all this, i gained loads of strength, but hardly no size comes from.
It was Myofibrillar hypertrohy you gained,which is the actual fibres growing,so its will not show up like sarcoplasmic growth! Just remember that if do low reps.
Open User Options Menu

SteveHIT

fbcoach wrote:
Not exactly. It's about creating the greatest stimulation within your recovery ability. 1 set within a specific intensity (RM) stimulates ribosomes (protein synthesis). 2 sets stimulates more..3 sets stimulate more..ansd so on. Repetition also creates better neuromuscular efficiency. However, you will reach a point where increasing workload and intensity will be stimulating too much cortisol. A much better philosophy would be to train as much and as hard as you can, while staying within your recovery limits. Training for the minimum stimulis will give you minimal results. Whenever I read where someone writes in a book about using more than 1 set, they always say, why not 2..why not 5..why not 50? You can always say the same thing in reverse..why not 1 set..why not 1 rep....why not 1 workout per year. That logic really isn't logical at all. All the silly why nots are meant to market what they are trying to sell you. Nobody can tell you how many sets to perform. How hard to perform your sets. How many days per week to train. Although you can always use guidelines set forth by the experience of others, the only REAL way to find all of this out is to experiment and find out for yourself.


Great post. It really is about getting that balance of volume, intensity and frequency right within sensible training.
Open User Options Menu

SteveHIT

I must add if anyone is going to play around with volume don't go from doing one set per exercise straight to 5 sets or you will probably feel overtrained, your body will adapt GRADUALLY. Go from one to two stick with that for a while then add another and so on.
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

stevehit wrote:
fbcoach wrote:
Not exactly. It's about creating the greatest stimulation within your recovery ability. 1 set within a specific intensity (RM) stimulates ribosomes (protein synthesis). 2 sets stimulates more..3 sets stimulate more..ansd so on. Repetition also creates better neuromuscular efficiency. However, you will reach a point where increasing workload and intensity will be stimulating too much cortisol. A much better philosophy would be to train as much and as hard as you can, while staying within your recovery limits. Training for the minimum stimulis will give you minimal results. Whenever I read where someone writes in a book about using more than 1 set, they always say, why not 2..why not 5..why not 50? You can always say the same thing in reverse..why not 1 set..why not 1 rep....why not 1 workout per year. That logic really isn't logical at all. All the silly why nots are meant to market what they are trying to sell you. Nobody can tell you how many sets to perform. How hard to perform your sets. How many days per week to train. Although you can always use guidelines set forth by the experience of others, the only REAL way to find all of this out is to experiment and find out for yourself.

Great post. It really is about getting that balance of volume, intensity and frequency right within sensible training.


Thanks Steve. You're exactly right. Balancing all these variables in order to continue progressing in size and strength.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

fbcoach wrote:
southbeach wrote:
HDLou wrote:
There is a lot of arguments or disputes on this forum and others about such things as which rep range, rep speed, exercises, sets, etc. are best to use. And if the findings in these studies are accurate, it just doesn't matter. This is actually based on science and not just someone's opinion.
http://cbass.com/...gWithEffort.htm

Many ways produce some measure of overload but only a FEW are the BEST. And isn't that the point..the least amount of exercise that produce the greater gains



Not exactly. It's about creating the greatest stimulation within your recovery ability. 1 set within a specific intensity (RM) stimulates ribosomes (protein synthesis). 2 sets stimulates more..3 sets stimulate more..ansd so on. Repetition also creates better neuromuscular efficiency. However, you will reach a point where increasing workload and intensity will be stimulating too much cortisol. A much better philosophy would be to train as much and as hard as you can, while staying within your recovery limits. Training for the minimum stimulis will give you minimal results. Whenever I read where someone writes in a book about using more than 1 set, they always say, why not 2..why not 5..why not 50? You can always say the same thing in reverse..why not 1 set..why not 1 rep....why not 1 workout per year. That logic really isn't logical at all. All the silly why nots are meant to market what they are trying to sell you. Nobody can tell you how many sets to perform. How hard to perform your sets. How many days per week to train. Although you can always use guidelines set forth by the experience of others, the only REAL way to find all of this out is to experiment and find out for yourself.


there is NO PROOF that 3 sets NTF is better than ONE SET TTF. your post assumes that more easy sets are superior to a SINGLE extremely hard set because you are a volume kind of guy.

Let's compare apples to apples and oragnes to oranges:

Which is more productive a single set of 8RM TTF @9 reps

OR

that SAME single set 8RM stopped @6?

apples to apples, set to set is the only logical comparison because EACH SET stands in comparison to another single set on ITS OWN MERIT!

answer, please
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

southbeach wrote:
fbcoach wrote:
southbeach wrote:
HDLou wrote:
There is a lot of arguments or disputes on this forum and others about such things as which rep range, rep speed, exercises, sets, etc. are best to use. And if the findings in these studies are accurate, it just doesn't matter. This is actually based on science and not just someone's opinion.
http://cbass.com/...gWithEffort.htm

Many ways produce some measure of overload but only a FEW are the BEST. And isn't that the point..the least amount of exercise that produce the greater gains



Not exactly. It's about creating the greatest stimulation within your recovery ability. 1 set within a specific intensity (RM) stimulates ribosomes (protein synthesis). 2 sets stimulates more..3 sets stimulate more..ansd so on. Repetition also creates better neuromuscular efficiency. However, you will reach a point where increasing workload and intensity will be stimulating too much cortisol. A much better philosophy would be to train as much and as hard as you can, while staying within your recovery limits. Training for the minimum stimulis will give you minimal results. Whenever I read where someone writes in a book about using more than 1 set, they always say, why not 2..why not 5..why not 50? You can always say the same thing in reverse..why not 1 set..why not 1 rep....why not 1 workout per year. That logic really isn't logical at all. All the silly why nots are meant to market what they are trying to sell you. Nobody can tell you how many sets to perform. How hard to perform your sets. How many days per week to train. Although you can always use guidelines set forth by the experience of others, the only REAL way to find all of this out is to experiment and find out for yourself.

there is NO PROOF that 3 sets NTF is better than ONE SET TTF. your post assumes that more easy sets are superior to a SINGLE extremely hard set because you are a volume kind of guy.

Let's compare apples to apples and oragnes to oranges:

Which is more productive a single set of 8RM TTF @9 reps

OR

that SAME single set 8RM stopped @6?

apples to apples, set to set is the only logical comparison because EACH SET stands in comparison to another single set on ITS OWN MERIT!

answer, please


Volume guy???? I train 2x/week for 30-45 minutes and sometimes less.

Every time you exercise a muscle lifting weights you stimulate ribosomes (protein synthesis). If this were not true, we wouldn't be lifting weights. Again, every single time you exercise a muscle by lifting weights (specific RM) you stimulate ribosomes. These are the chemical messengers that turn on protein synthesis. There is a point of diminishing returns. This point is where the catabolic effects of training outweigh the anabolic effects (protein synthesis).
Hypertrophy and strength are directly related to intensity (not effort, but percentage of RM, in other words, tension) and workload.

As for your comparison, your analogy is not accurate. Strength and hypertrophy are a gradual process, based on hormonal and neural adaptations, not 1 set fantasies. If your analogy was correct, you could perform a set, wait for your response (growth), then take off a year of training, then come back and pick up where you left off. Results are cumulative.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

fbcoach wrote:
southbeach wrote:
fbcoach wrote:
southbeach wrote:
HDLou wrote:
There is a lot of arguments or disputes on this forum and others about such things as which rep range, rep speed, exercises, sets, etc. are best to use. And if the findings in these studies are accurate, it just doesn't matter. This is actually based on science and not just someone's opinion.
http://cbass.com/...gWithEffort.htm

Many ways produce some measure of overload but only a FEW are the BEST. And isn't that the point..the least amount of exercise that produce the greater gains



Not exactly. It's about creating the greatest stimulation within your recovery ability. 1 set within a specific intensity (RM) stimulates ribosomes (protein synthesis). 2 sets stimulates more..3 sets stimulate more..ansd so on. Repetition also creates better neuromuscular efficiency. However, you will reach a point where increasing workload and intensity will be stimulating too much cortisol. A much better philosophy would be to train as much and as hard as you can, while staying within your recovery limits. Training for the minimum stimulis will give you minimal results. Whenever I read where someone writes in a book about using more than 1 set, they always say, why not 2..why not 5..why not 50? You can always say the same thing in reverse..why not 1 set..why not 1 rep....why not 1 workout per year. That logic really isn't logical at all. All the silly why nots are meant to market what they are trying to sell you. Nobody can tell you how many sets to perform. How hard to perform your sets. How many days per week to train. Although you can always use guidelines set forth by the experience of others, the only REAL way to find all of this out is to experiment and find out for yourself.

there is NO PROOF that 3 sets NTF is better than ONE SET TTF. your post assumes that more easy sets are superior to a SINGLE extremely hard set because you are a volume kind of guy.

Let's compare apples to apples and oragnes to oranges:

Which is more productive a single set of 8RM TTF @9 reps

OR

that SAME single set 8RM stopped @6?

apples to apples, set to set is the only logical comparison because EACH SET stands in comparison to another single set on ITS OWN MERIT!

answer, please

Volume guy???? I train 2x/week for 30-45 minutes and sometimes less.

Every time you exercise a muscle lifting weights you stimulate ribosomes (protein synthesis). If this were not true, we wouldn't be lifting weights. Again, every single time you exercise a muscle by lifting weights (specific RM) you stimulate ribosomes. These are the chemical messengers that turn on protein synthesis. There is a point of diminishing returns. This point is where the catabolic effects of training outweigh the anabolic effects (protein synthesis).
Hypertrophy and strength are directly related to intensity (not effort, but percentage of RM, in other words, tension) and workload.

As for your comparison, your analogy is not accurate. Strength and hypertrophy are a gradual process, based on hormonal and neural adaptations, not 1 set fantasies. If your analogy was correct, you could perform a set, wait for your response (growth), then take off a year of training, then come back and pick up where you left off. Results are cumulative.


Of course results are a gradual process but rational training must start somewhere. that somewhere is the single set.

a routine is built from the fundamental set. why would you build your routine on an easier set? the NTF set??

You do believe Intensity or effort is fundamental to results don't you??!

When, and only when (if) you get your intensity down do you even begin to think about adding another set. agreed?
Open User Options Menu

MDieguez

Southbeach
There is no proof that ANY method is better than any other method. Just as there is no proof of you squatting the weights you said you squatted.
Train as briefly and as safely as you can while still netting yourself the best possible results. There is no one exact formula to fit that perfectly. If one trains relatively hard then I would assume a natural trainee would train relatively briefly. Again that prescription cannot be answered in some bullshit dogmatic fashion.
Mike
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

MDieguez wrote:
Southbeach
There is no proof that ANY method is better than any other method. Just as there is no proof of you squatting the weights you said you squatted.
Train as briefly and as safely as you can while still netting yourself the best possible results. There is no one exact formula to fit that perfectly. If one trains relatively hard then I would assume a natural trainee would train relatively briefly. Again that prescription cannot be answered in some bullshit dogmatic fashion.
Mike


are you actually saying there is no proof that a set of 100lbs barbell curls TTF is better than that same set and same weight NTF?

you must be kidding??! the harder set is always harder and therefore better for results than the easier set!

i mean c'mon..
Open User Options Menu

SteveHIT

southbeach wrote:
are you actually saying there is no proof that a set of 100lbs barbell curls TTF is better than that same set and same weight NTF?

you must be kidding??! the harder set is always harder and therefore better for results than the easier set!

i mean c'mon..


Lets say you do the barbell curls 9 reps to failure and it allows you to add enough strength to add 2 lbs to the bar but it takes 4 days for the biceps to recover, now what if you only did 8 reps but found you could still add 2lbs to the bar but could recover in 2 days because you didnt go to failure, then say you add a second set of curls NTF and you are able to add 2.5 lbs to the bar and still recover within 2 days. Which is best?

Im not saying this is the case, but It could be. That is why you must find the optimal amount of volume, intensity and frequency FOR YOU!
Open User Options Menu

howard1976

Like take german volume training.

You are told to take 60% of your 1RM and do 10 x10, 100 reps with a minute rest inbetween.

So at the end of your 100 reps and lets say you go to failure,you have made a inroad of 40%

But you could of just took 60% of your 1RM and did one set to failure which would have been about 20 reps.And made the SAME 40% inroad.

All volume training is doing is making a deep inroad! But you could have got the same amount of inroad with less sets and reps if you had not rested inbetween sets!!

So all you people doing more than one set,give me a good reason, WHY you chose to do a few reps then take a break then do a few more reps. INSTEAD of doing your reps without a break??
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

stevehit wrote:


Im not saying this is the case, but It could be.


Could be you are wrong too. could be a figment of your over active imagination. where is your proof.
Open User Options Menu

SanDiego

fbcoach wrote:
...Whenever I read where someone writes in a book about using more than 1 set, they always say, why not 2..why not 5..why not 50? You can always say the same thing in reverse..why not 1 set..why not 1 rep....why not 1 workout per year. That logic really isn't logical at all. All the silly why nots are meant to market what they are trying to sell you. Nobody can tell you how many sets to perform. How hard to perform your sets. How many days per week to train. Although you can always use guidelines set forth by the experience of others, the only REAL way to find all of this out is to experiment and find out for yourself.


Well said.
Open User Options Menu

SteveHIT

southbeach wrote:
Could be you are wrong too. could be a figment of your over active imagination. where is your proof.


Try it for yourself. keep an open mind.
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

stevehit wrote:
southbeach wrote:
are you actually saying there is no proof that a set of 100lbs barbell curls TTF is better than that same set and same weight NTF?

you must be kidding??! the harder set is always harder and therefore better for results than the easier set!

i mean c'mon..

Lets say you do the barbell curls 9 reps to failure and it allows you to add enough strength to add 2 lbs to the bar but it takes 4 days for the biceps to recover, now what if you only did 8 reps but found you could still add 2lbs to the bar but could recover in 2 days because you didnt go to failure, then say you add a second set of curls NTF and you are able to add 2.5 lbs to the bar and still recover within 2 days. Which is best?

Im not saying this is the case, but It could be. That is why you must find the optimal amount of volume, intensity and frequency FOR YOU!


Well put Steve. You are correct in your assumption. A set to failure causes more fatigue to the PNS, which indirectly causes more fatigue to the CNS. What does this mean? It means you have to wait longer to train again....not because the muscles haven't recovered, but because the CNS hasn't recovered. Waiting too long between sessions allows protein synthesis to begin reversing itself. AJ knew this, hence his recommendation for 3 days per week. Even at most, he never recommended more than 96 hours between workouts. This was the reason.
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

SanDiego wrote:
fbcoach wrote:
...Whenever I read where someone writes in a book about using more than 1 set, they always say, why not 2..why not 5..why not 50? You can always say the same thing in reverse..why not 1 set..why not 1 rep....why not 1 workout per year. That logic really isn't logical at all. All the silly why nots are meant to market what they are trying to sell you. Nobody can tell you how many sets to perform. How hard to perform your sets. How many days per week to train. Although you can always use guidelines set forth by the experience of others, the only REAL way to find all of this out is to experiment and find out for yourself.

Well said.


Thank you.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy