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
Heavy Duty, The New H.I.T., BBS
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Tony Williams

Of the three exercise philosophies, how many of you adhere most closely to:

1. Heavy Duty

2. The New H.I.T.

3. Body by Science

4. Others

Best wishes,

Tony
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

please summarize each..as you know them to be thanks
Open User Options Menu

lildrummerboy80

best results were from the mike mentzer ideal routine, but following a 3 day a week split. Haven't spent too much time with the new H.I.T (full body routines) but it seems to me, that 24 hrs between workouts, is not close to enough time to recover, and adding 1-2 reps per workout 3x per week, seems unrealistic. I'm going to play around with dorian yates blood and guts training, hes got an awesome video series over on bb . com
Open User Options Menu

crazeeJZ

Probably a little BBS with a big 5 exercises and calf raises, and a little The New HIT, with frequency being twice a week to almost failure.
Open User Options Menu

crazeeJZ

lildrummerboy80 wrote:
best results were from the mike mentzer ideal routine, but following a 3 day a week split. Haven't spent too much time with the new H.I.T (full body routines) but it seems to me, that 24 hrs between workouts, is not close to enough time to recover, and adding 1-2 reps per workout 3x per week, seems unrealistic. I'm going to play around with dorian yates blood and guts training, hes got an awesome video series over on bb . com


Twenty-four hours between workouts is working out everyday, The New HIT doesn't recommend that. It recommends 3 times a week, and reducing from there as recovery dictates.

Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Heavy Duty for sure, but only for the love of split routines.

However Mentzer's last conclusion was a full body routine or pretty darn close to it.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Ive always found Mentzers `common sense` approach to training and diet very hard to fault ... and at times when I tried otherwise I found it was I who was at fault for attempting to fix ( but negated ) something that was already working , finding that it was my application thereof that needed the adjustment !

Heavy duty and CR for me all the way !

T.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

this is going to end one of the best threads ...let get the training philosophiy out in open! i welcome the challenge anyone else
Open User Options Menu

lildrummerboy80

24 hours rest, my apologies, 3x a week, every other day, seems too much, maybe every 3-4 days, but i was going to give the 6 month body transformation a fair shake coming up, i've been struggling for years to put on size.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

southbeach wrote:
this is going to end one of the best threads ...let get the training philosophiy out in open! i welcome the challenge anyone else



They are all the same, the debate really doesn't come from discussing these three.

Darden=full body workouts, multitude of different techniques, super hydration, and recovery. 1-2x a week.

Mentzer: Just enough to stimulate growth, and enough time to fully recover. 1-2x in 8 days or less.

Mcguff BBS (I refuse to give Little any credit here): Superslow, Full body consolidation routines, the same as the other two.

All three are just about in line with each other, the only issue is who got the byline.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

smanjh wrote:
They are all the same, the debate really doesn't come from discussing these three.


Exactly.

None of these are defined by a particular routine or exercise for that matter. All they do is offer starting points or "examples" of routines which are NOT set in stone like many followers believe.

It's all really about finding the right amount of intensity, volume, and frequency in order to make optimal gains. This is the goal of HIT, HD, BBS, etc.

Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Heavy Duty evolved, but I am primarily referring to his core beliefs near the time of his death in 2001:

Generally, one set per exercise.

Maximum intensity training... not high ... but maximum, as I would describe it (MIT :). Total failure. Hard work, as Arthur Jones would describe the intensity.

Workouts brief, infrequent and intense. Infrequent training to avoid extreme mental and physical fatigue -- overtraining.

Consolidated Training: His workout that emphasized as little as three compound workouts with low frequencies for advanced trainees and so-called "hardgainers"

An Arthur Jones disciple who attempted to improve upon his theories.

Nutritional advice was rather simple --eat from the four food groups, additional protein is unneeded. Supplements are ripoffs (my word). He thought diets followed by many were extreme and unnecessary. 60 percent of one's diet should be carbohydrates.

Believed Rest-Pause training was an integral part of his physique development as well as his brother.

As a person grows stronger, Mentzer believed in inserting rest days into the person's routine in order to compensate for overtraining.

Emphasized strict form and lifting weights in a controlled manner but did not embrace SuperSlow.

Believed in training for the shortest time possible to achieve the greatest result.

Performed aerobic exercise such as running himself although he does not emphasize it in his writing.

The deadlift was the most beneficial exercise a person could perform, according to Mentzer, in one of books. In a book written by John Little about Mentzer's theories he quoted Mentzer as saying the squat and the deadlift were the best.

Never jumped on the anti-carb, anti-sugar bandwagon.

Disciple of Ayn Rand (most of which I reject, not all.)
Believed one should be a well-rounded individual and not allow bodybuilding or weight training to dominate one's life.

The main difference with the others is I cannot find any mention of NTF workouts by Mentzer, not even an opinion on whether NTF is worthwhile.

Mentzer began with 3X/week training, then his "Ideal" routine, then training every four to seven days with no more than five sets, later his Consolidation Routine which is controversial but has been copied by others.

Have to return to this latter. This is what I can remember now, SB.

Regards,
Tony
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
smanjh wrote:
They are all the same, the debate really doesn't come from discussing these three.


Exactly.

None of these are defined by a particular routine or exercise for that matter.

It's all really about finding the right amount of intensity, volume, and frequency in order to make optimal gains. This is the goal of HIT, HD, BBS, etc.



Mentzer never advocated rushing from one exercise/bodypart to another ( save for pre-exhaust ) , and ALWAYS advocated warm ups.

T.

Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
smanjh wrote:
They are all the same, the debate really doesn't come from discussing these three.


Exactly.

None of these are defined by a particular routine or exercise for that matter.

It's all really about finding the right amount of intensity, volume, and frequency in order to make optimal gains. This is the goal of HIT, HD, BBS, etc.



Some differences exist between the three although some might consider them subtle:

For example, Mentzer's nutritional advice is more "mainstream" than McDuff's.

Mentzer did not advocate NTF workouts.

Darden's "lean program" within his intensive coaching seems superior to the advice given by Mentzer and McGuff, but that is opinion.

When I asked once for everyone's favorite weight-training books, smanjh listed it as one of the worst he had read.

Why, if the three programs are virtually the same?

McGuff's book is full of technical information which many just starting could do without and seems to be included simply to increase the pages and impress the reader on the author's credentials.

Regards,
Tony
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
Heavy Duty for sure, but only for the love of split routines.

However Mentzer's last conclusion was a full body routine or pretty darn close to it.


His last routine was the Consolidated Routine -- only three compound exercises.

Never understood how some think split routines always aid in overtraining. That would mean the liver and kidneys know the difference between workouts.

You still have to rest.

Regards,
Tony
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
southbeach wrote:
this is going to end one of the best threads ...let get the training philosophiy out in open! i welcome the challenge anyone else


They are all the same, the debate really doesn't come from discussing these three.

Darden=full body workouts, multitude of different techniques, super hydration, and recovery. 1-2x a week.

Mentzer: Just enough to stimulate growth, and enough time to fully recover. 1-2x in 8 days or less.

Mcguff BBS (I refuse to give Little any credit here): Superslow, Full body consolidation routines, the same as the other two.

All three are just about in line with each other, the only issue is who got the byline.


SuperSlow and diet are important points.

Mentzer did not believe it was the ultimate program. As far as I can remember, Darden does not either. Both believe a 2-1-4 4-4 speed or something close is fine as long is form is strict and momentum eliminated.

Mentzer believed with CR that one might ultimately train only every 21 days. Obviously, that frequency would drive some or most of the posters on this site nuts :)

McGuff's dietary guidelines are much different than Mentzer's or Darden's who would be considered by most dieticians as more mainstream.

Regards,
Tony

Jacksonville 35 Dallas ... oh who cares?
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Turpin wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
smanjh wrote:
They are all the same, the debate really doesn't come from discussing these three.


Exactly.

None of these are defined by a particular routine or exercise for that matter.

It's all really about finding the right amount of intensity, volume, and frequency in order to make optimal gains. This is the goal of HIT, HD, BBS, etc.



Mentzer never advocated rushing from one exercise/bodypart to another ( save for pre-exhaust ) , and ALWAYS advocated warm ups.

T.



True, which is why I agree with him more on the specifics, but the goal with all of the programs is precisely the exact same-gain strength in either longer TUL, repetitions, or total weight moved.

No one is ever advocating something like 'your benching 315 for 8 now, in 6 months let's see if we can get you doing 225 for 6', lol.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Some have made fun of Dr. Darden's advice to avoid "making faces" when lifting.

I know I was doing it. It is a hard habit to break.

But I tried not making a face or grimace the other day, and the lift was easier.

Yeah, I know. You think I am nuts, but I was also worried about increased blood pressure too.

So here is what he wrote in "The Nautilus Book", page 249 in a Q&A section of the book:

"Anytime you make a face, you must contract many small muscles of the face and neck. Not only does this take a certain amount of energy, but it also reduces your ability to contract larger muscle groups repeatedly.

"If you were to try to determine how much weight you could handle for a maximum-attempt, one-repetition effort, it might be beneficial to scream and shout and make faces. But unless you were a competitivve weightlifter, there is no need to try to determine how much weight you can handle for one repetition.

"In performing 8-15 repetitions of a dozen different exercises, making faces reduces your efficiency. If you are using the leg extension machine, you should concentrate on the quadriceps muscles as you perform the exercise, and at the same time try to relax the noninvolved muscles of your body.

"Bringing into play the facial or other upper body muscles forces your transport system to do a less efficient job on the legs.

"Making faces convinces you, as well as your instructor, that you are working harder than you actually are. This reaction can stop you short of momentary muscular failure on many exercises.

"Furthermore, making faces unnecessarily elevates the blood presssure. Forceful gripping of the hands also increased blood pressure to dangerously high levels. Since high intensity exercise by itself elevates your blood pressure temporarily, there is no need to make it higher by making face or by gripping excessively.

"For better results from Nautilus exercise, you must learn to relax the muscles of your face, neck and hands as well as other muscles that are not involved in the specific movement."

As far as I know, Mentzer and McGuff never mentioned this.

Regards,

Tony
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Smanjh wrote; However Mentzer's last conclusion was a full body routine or pretty darn close to it.

.......................................

Turpin wrote;
Mentzers lasting conclusion was not of a `full body routine` but that of precise volume , intensity and frequency to enable progression.

Consolidated training could be only 1 or 2 exercises per workout or more , the premise was that the use of compound movements negated the need for isolation work for the smaller/secondary muscle groups by way of sufficient stimulus from heavy/progressive resistance in the multi-joint movements. And progress was assumed to be an ongoing process provided adequate recovery was allowed , ( although we have come to find that such effort must be cycled to realise ongoing progress ) , some may say this was an oversight by Mike ... however Im more than sure that Mike would have shook his head at those who persisted in vain with such effort devoid of progression without them reaching the conclusion that they were still doing too much ( too much intensity/effort ) and had lost the `precise` balance between their effort and recovery.
Whilst one must apply effort to realise results/progress , any more effort than that which is required for such progression ( the `precise amount` ) is counterproductive.

T.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
Turpin wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
smanjh wrote:
They are all the same, the debate really doesn't come from discussing these three.


Exactly.

None of these are defined by a particular routine or exercise for that matter.

It's all really about finding the right amount of intensity, volume, and frequency in order to make optimal gains. This is the goal of HIT, HD, BBS, etc.



Mentzer never advocated rushing from one exercise/bodypart to another ( save for pre-exhaust ) , and ALWAYS advocated warm ups.

T.



True, which is why I agree with him more on the specifics, but the goal with all of the programs is precisely the exact same-gain strength in either longer TUL, repetitions, or total weight moved.

No one is ever advocating something like 'your benching 315 for 8 now, in 6 months let's see if we can get you doing 225 for 6', lol.


Well, let me put the question this way:

What if you were allowed to keep only the books written by one author?

Would you choose Darden's, Mentzer's or McGuff's books?

Regards,

Tony
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
Turpin wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
smanjh wrote:
They are all the same, the debate really doesn't come from discussing these three.


Exactly.

None of these are defined by a particular routine or exercise for that matter.

It's all really about finding the right amount of intensity, volume, and frequency in order to make optimal gains. This is the goal of HIT, HD, BBS, etc.



Mentzer never advocated rushing from one exercise/bodypart to another ( save for pre-exhaust ) , and ALWAYS advocated warm ups.

T.



True, which is why I agree with him more on the specifics, but the goal with all of the programs is precisely the exact same-gain strength in either longer TUL, repetitions, or total weight moved.

No one is ever advocating something like 'your benching 315 for 8 now, in 6 months let's see if we can get you doing 225 for 6', lol.


Regarding their books, Dr. Darden is a far superior writer. No contest.

Both Darden and Mentzer are fairly easy to read.

McGuff uses a lot of jargon. In additional, many of the studies he presents are quite old. Does not mean the studies are invalid, but it makes you wonder if they are included to prove his point to the exclusion of others.

Regards,
Tony
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Tony Williams wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
smanjh wrote:
They are all the same, the debate really doesn't come from discussing these three.


Exactly.

None of these are defined by a particular routine or exercise for that matter.

It's all really about finding the right amount of intensity, volume, and frequency in order to make optimal gains. This is the goal of HIT, HD, BBS, etc.



Some differences exist between the three although some might consider them subtle:

For example, Mentzer's nutritional advice is more "mainstream" than McDuff's.

Mentzer did not advocate NTF workouts.

Darden's "lean program" within his intensive coaching seems superior to the advice given by Mentzer and McGuff, but that is opinion.

When I asked once for everyone's favorite weight-training books, smanjh listed it as one of the worst he had read.

Why, if the three programs are virtually the same?

McGuff's book is full of technical information which many just starting could do without and seems to be included simply to increase the pages and impress the reader on the author's credentials.

Regards,
Tony


The books are a bit different, but the message or philosophy is fundamentally the same in that they all share the same philosophy of intense, brief and infrequent training. Each recommends finding the precise amount of exercise - although Heavy Duty might emphasize this a bit more I suppose.

In all reality, all training programs are exactly the same in that they contain intensity, volume and frequency. It's just the AMOUNT of each that varies as it's applied to an individual is different.


Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Heavy Duty for sure, but only for the love of split routines.

However Mentzer's last conclusion was a full body routine or pretty darn close to it.

His last routine was the Consolidated Routine -- only three compound exercises.

Never understood how some think split routines always aid in overtraining. That would mean the liver and kidneys know the difference between workouts.

You still have to rest.

Regards,
Tony


Split routines make training far more tolerable and keep sessions briefer when necessary when helps recovery.

For example, one set per muscle is very effective, but likely not optimal for most people.

Therefore, a split routine to accommodate more than one set per muscle becomes very desirable unless you have a CNS of steel to be able to tolerate 8-10 intense sets per session.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Tony Williams wrote:
Some have made fun of Dr. Darden's advice to avoid "making faces" when lifting.

I know I was doing it. It is a hard habit to break.

But I tried not making a face or grimace the other day, and the lift was easier.

Yeah, I know. You think I am nuts, but I was also worried about increased blood pressure too.

So here is what he wrote in "The Nautilus Book", page 249 in a Q&A section of the book:

"Anytime you make a face, you must contract many small muscles of the face and neck. Not only does this take a certain amount of energy, but it also reduces your ability to contract larger muscle groups repeatedly.

"If you were to try to determine how much weight you could handle for a maximum-attempt, one-repetition effort, it might be beneficial to scream and shout and make faces. But unless you were a competitivve weightlifter, there is no need to try to determine how much weight you can handle for one repetition.

"In performing 8-15 repetitions of a dozen different exercises, making faces reduces your efficiency. If you are using the leg extension machine, you should concentrate on the quadriceps muscles as you perform the exercise, and at the same time try to relax the noninvolved muscles of your body.

"Bringing into play the facial or other upper body muscles forces your transport system to do a less efficient job on the legs.

"Making faces convinces you, as well as your instructor, that you are working harder than you actually are. This reaction can stop you short of momentary muscular failure on many exercises.

"Furthermore, making faces unnecessarily elevates the blood presssure. Forceful gripping of the hands also increased blood pressure to dangerously high levels. Since high intensity exercise by itself elevates your blood pressure temporarily, there is no need to make it higher by making face or by gripping excessively.

"For better results from Nautilus exercise, you must learn to relax the muscles of your face, neck and hands as well as other muscles that are not involved in the specific movement."

As far as I know, Mentzer and McGuff never mentioned this.

Regards,

Tony



it's too bad you find McGuff's writing too technical otherwise you would have got a better introduction to the subject. This is a big point of emphasis in McGuff's work. Every piece of research he includes is perfectly within the context of the subject and in my opinion it gives the best explanations of training adaptation on a physiologic level . i think you should read this stuff, at least before spouting off.

and no i don't think he's trying to just fill pages and of course his reference is to support his credibility.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Turpin wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
smanjh wrote:
They are all the same, the debate really doesn't come from discussing these three.


Exactly.

None of these are defined by a particular routine or exercise for that matter.

It's all really about finding the right amount of intensity, volume, and frequency in order to make optimal gains. This is the goal of HIT, HD, BBS, etc.



Mentzer never advocated rushing from one exercise/bodypart to another ( save for pre-exhaust ) , and ALWAYS advocated warm ups.

T.



True, which is why I agree with him more on the specifics, but the goal with all of the programs is precisely the exact same-gain strength in either longer TUL, repetitions, or total weight moved.

No one is ever advocating something like 'your benching 315 for 8 now, in 6 months let's see if we can get you doing 225 for 6', lol.

Well, let me put the question this way:

What if you were allowed to keep only the books written by one author?

Would you choose Darden's, Mentzer's or McGuff's books?

Regards,

Tony


Mentzer by miles and miles.

He truly understood someone like my training goals as specified by his writings and the fact that he felt the very same way.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy