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
New Thibaudeau Article on T-Nation
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

It is very interesting.
Here is a quote: "If any rep of any set doesn't have the feel ? like a max-force rocket launch ? then TERMINATE the set right then and there. Do not even attempt another rep. And if you want to try another set, cut a rep or two and only do rocket launches.

Trust me, if you honestly want to build muscle mass and explosive strength and power as fast as humanly possible, stop grinding those slow-moving reps. They serve no purpose other than to boost egos and totally rob you of your potential gains."

Please read the whole article before commenting.

Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

"I firmly believe that taking a day completely "off" is worse for recovery and hinders performance."

I stopped reading at that point.
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

sgb2112 wrote:
"I firmly believe that taking a day completely "off" is worse for recovery and hinders performance."

I stopped reading at that point.


You didn't follow the directions.
Open User Options Menu

krazy kaju

Two things:

1. Force = Mass x Acceleration

2. Orderly Recruitment

[/thread]
Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

"All of this, of course, is dependant upon also taking in high-level peri-workout nutrition ? like MAG-10, ANACONDA, and SURGE Workout Fuel ? to support anabolic physiology as well as recovery.

In fact, I'd never work out without MAG-10, ANACONDA, and SURGE Workout Fuel. These formulations are just as much a part of my training protocol as the training method itself. The overall effect makes a night and day difference with recovery. It really does make you feel like you have superhuman recovery ability."

THE END.
Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

Interesting article.
However if Mr. Thib is right then HIT would be completely wrong.

- Moving the weight as fast as possible
- Eccentric-less training
- No Days off
- Volume
- Lowered Intenisty via not grinding out those last reps

There are lots of people out there who disagree with HIT but I don't think I have read an article that I felt was literally the opposite end of the spectrum.

Michael
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

Michael Petrella wrote:
Interesting article.
However if Mr. Thib is right then HIT would be completely wrong.

- Moving the weight as fast as possible
- Eccentric-less training
- No Days off
- Volume
- Lowered Intenisty via not grinding out those last reps

There are lots of people out there who disagree with HIT but I don't think I have read an article that I felt was literally the opposite end of the spectrum.

Michael


Hi Michael,
He comes from an Olympic lifting background. That explains a lot.
What is interesting is that Olympic lifters train a lot and build huge muscles not going to failure. They are managing fatigue and therefor can train more.

Obviously this is embarking on a new direction of training for bodybuilders but it is very interesting.
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

Michael Petrella wrote:
Interesting article.
However if Mr. Thib is right then HIT would be completely wrong.

- Moving the weight as fast as possible
- Eccentric-less training
- No Days off
- Volume
- Lowered Intenisty via not grinding out those last reps

There are lots of people out there who disagree with HIT but I don't think I have read an article that I felt was literally the opposite end of the spectrum.

Michael


Also, your last point is false. The intensity is high but the fatigue is low. Don't mix up intensity with fatigue.
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

I knew some Oly lifters in University and they trained everyday and sometimes twice. I laughed at them but in retrospect they were really strong and had better backs and legs than everyone.
I can't imagine training like that but maybe someone should give it a good effort. I just screwed my ankle so no lower body exercises for a long time.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

summaHIT wrote:
Michael Petrella wrote:
Interesting article.
However if Mr. Thib is right then HIT would be completely wrong.

- Moving the weight as fast as possible
- Eccentric-less training
- No Days off
- Volume
- Lowered Intenisty via not grinding out those last reps

There are lots of people out there who disagree with HIT but I don't think I have read an article that I felt was literally the opposite end of the spectrum.

Michael


Also, your last point is false. The intensity is high but the fatigue is low. Don't mix up intensity with fatigue.


It would be the reverse actually:

high intensity=high fatigue, which is why these programs cycle it. You can see this is true if you do it and feel drained for a few days.

But that is working with the definition of CNS or systematic fatigue, not counting stimulation or workload as a part of it.

I believe this is accurate based off what many DFT 'gurus' describe, which I disagree with in the context of more stimulation needing to be 3 minutes apart. To me, more stimulation under 'intense' conditions is best (rest pause, statics, negatives, forced reps).

The rep speed thing is different IMO again.

No way in hell can someone move a weight in under 2 seconds without either employing bad technique or using light weight, light enough to toss it.

If you look at even a NTF set, say doing 8 with your 10rm, the weight moves slower, even if your pushing as hard as possible.

Unless you disregard the negative portion of the rep completely that is.

So, to sum my thoughts on it up:

1.5-2 seconds is about as fast as you can move a weight that is worth lifting without letting form fall apart. The later reps take more time, even NTF.

I don't mean to be argumentative or sound like a jerk, but honestly I feel like the above should be common sense for a BBer or anyone trying to gain FFM vs attempting to train for functionality in a specific lift (which again, is just to practice your ability to break through sticking points for a big competitive lift).

But if it works, is safe, and allows progress I am all for it. I just believe those who ask me about training in reality and those reading this would be better off ignoring this if health, longevity, and vanity are the main concerns.
Open User Options Menu

natemason5

Ontario, CAN

summaHIT wrote:
Also, your last point is false. The intensity is high but the fatigue is low. Don't mix up intensity with fatigue.


I'm under the impression that intensity (as DrD and HIT defines it) means that each set is taken to failure.

The word intensity can be taken in different ways, although on this board intensity=failure.

Nate
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

smanjh wrote:
summaHIT wrote:
Michael Petrella wrote:
Interesting article.
However if Mr. Thib is right then HIT would be completely wrong.

- Moving the weight as fast as possible
- Eccentric-less training
- No Days off
- Volume
- Lowered Intenisty via not grinding out those last reps

There are lots of people out there who disagree with HIT but I don't think I have read an article that I felt was literally the opposite end of the spectrum.

Michael


Also, your last point is false. The intensity is high but the fatigue is low. Don't mix up intensity with fatigue.

It would be the reverse actually:

high intensity=high fatigue, which is why these programs cycle it. You can see this is true if you do it and feel drained for a few days.

But that is working with the definition of CNS or systematic fatigue, not counting stimulation or workload as a part of it.

I believe this is accurate based off what many DFT 'gurus' describe, which I disagree with in the context of more stimulation needing to be 3 minutes apart. To me, more stimulation under 'intense' conditions is best (rest pause, statics, negatives, forced reps).

The rep speed thing is different IMO again.

No way in hell can someone move a weight in under 2 seconds without either employing bad technique or using light weight, light enough to toss it.

If you look at even a NTF set, say doing 8 with your 10rm, the weight moves slower, even if your pushing as hard as possible.

Unless you disregard the negative portion of the rep completely that is.

So, to sum my thoughts on it up:

1.5-2 seconds is about as fast as you can move a weight that is worth lifting without letting form fall apart. The later reps take more time, even NTF.

I don't mean to be argumentative or sound like a jerk, but honestly I feel like the above should be common sense for a BBer or anyone trying to gain FFM vs attempting to train for functionality in a specific lift (which again, is just to practice your ability to break through sticking points for a big competitive lift).

But if it works, is safe, and allows progress I am all for it. I just believe those who ask me about training in reality and those reading this would be better off ignoring this if health, longevity, and vanity are the main concerns.


I did not even bother with the rest of your message but I am right in my statement.
High fatigue comes from grinding reps!
High Intensity comes from heavy weights moved as fast as possible.
f=mxa
Don't confuse fatigue and the effort at the end of a slow grinding set with intensity.
This is probably the most misused word in HIT.
Open User Options Menu

Raider22

Ohio, USA

Intensity:
The amount of work performed per unit of time.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

summaHIT wrote:
smanjh wrote:
summaHIT wrote:
Michael Petrella wrote:
Interesting article.
However if Mr. Thib is right then HIT would be completely wrong.

- Moving the weight as fast as possible
- Eccentric-less training
- No Days off
- Volume
- Lowered Intenisty via not grinding out those last reps

There are lots of people out there who disagree with HIT but I don't think I have read an article that I felt was literally the opposite end of the spectrum.

Michael


Also, your last point is false. The intensity is high but the fatigue is low. Don't mix up intensity with fatigue.

It would be the reverse actually:

high intensity=high fatigue, which is why these programs cycle it. You can see this is true if you do it and feel drained for a few days.

But that is working with the definition of CNS or systematic fatigue, not counting stimulation or workload as a part of it.

I believe this is accurate based off what many DFT 'gurus' describe, which I disagree with in the context of more stimulation needing to be 3 minutes apart. To me, more stimulation under 'intense' conditions is best (rest pause, statics, negatives, forced reps).

The rep speed thing is different IMO again.

No way in hell can someone move a weight in under 2 seconds without either employing bad technique or using light weight, light enough to toss it.

If you look at even a NTF set, say doing 8 with your 10rm, the weight moves slower, even if your pushing as hard as possible.

Unless you disregard the negative portion of the rep completely that is.

So, to sum my thoughts on it up:

1.5-2 seconds is about as fast as you can move a weight that is worth lifting without letting form fall apart. The later reps take more time, even NTF.

I don't mean to be argumentative or sound like a jerk, but honestly I feel like the above should be common sense for a BBer or anyone trying to gain FFM vs attempting to train for functionality in a specific lift (which again, is just to practice your ability to break through sticking points for a big competitive lift).

But if it works, is safe, and allows progress I am all for it. I just believe those who ask me about training in reality and those reading this would be better off ignoring this if health, longevity, and vanity are the main concerns.

I did not even bother with the rest of your message but I am right in my statement.
High fatigue comes from grinding reps!
High Intensity comes from heavy weights moved as fast as possible.
f=mxa
Don't confuse fatigue and the effort at the end of a slow grinding set with intensity.
This is probably the most misused word in HIT.


LOL...

We will have to agree to disagree man. If you want to bounce weight and move it really fast while opening yourself up to injury, be my guest.

BTW, I am not talking about moving intentionally slow, that is retarded with a light weight.

It ends up moving slow on a max attempt or close to it because the force can't be generated.

Sure, the CNS fails to recruit, or rather it goes in reverse order near the end, it has to, and it does so regardless, otherwise it would feel the same.

To each his own though, there are several reasons why the Oly lifters were bigger, not just genetics, or rather why they needed the frequency that they did.
Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

I would like to guage rate of progress with this system vs a traditional HIT protocal.

For instance when I took my deadlift from 435 - 500 I deadlifted once a week putting 2.5 lbs on the bar each week. Some weeks I managed 5lbs more. However I never missed the 2.5 increase.

I believe I managed a 5lb increase on 2 of those weeks. This means it took me 24 weeks to hit 500.

I am very happy with this rate. It's predicatable and attainable.

I am now working on 600. Again I pretty much know when Im going to get there. I have not missed thus far.

Could I hit 2.5 lbs 2 or 3x a week if I employed less fatigue and more duration/reps/set, etc? Maybe. However I think most would find smaller gains over more sessions. I would bet measurable strength gains over a longer period of time would be almost the same assuming overtraining was not reached. Perhaps altering between the 2 and imposing different stresses would change rate of progress as well.

However the method I use has me in the gym a minimal amount of time and stresses all the other systems of my body less frequently.

I understand the factors involved to make Thibs system work. I don't see it as efficient and safe though.

Like I said before long term progress will probably be at the same rate.

Michael

Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

Smanj nails it.



Open User Options Menu

smanjh

http://www.youtube.com/...h?v=_MaldG7eqUU

Summa,

You might not want to bother with this either, but this pretty much sums it up.

FAST FORWARD to 1:20.

Arthur was certainly correct on this.

This 'explosive' crap has been around forever, these guys have been trying to sell this shit for years.
Open User Options Menu

Joseph Anderson

summaHIT wrote:
High Intensity comes from heavy weights moved as fast as possible.
f=mxa


Your equation is for force, not intensity. Are you suggesting high force is the only requirement/factor in intensity?

Most define intensity in terms of percentage of 1RM, Heart Rate or level of effort (by definition may be correct, but the measurement of is subjective).

I've also seen intensity defined as work per unit of time (but only mechanical work can be measured . . . no one can quantify the metabolic work).

Don't confuse fatigue and the effort at the end of a slow grinding set with intensity.
This is probably the most misused word in HIT.


Force is a factor of intensity, but so is fatigue (in that intensity describes effort . . . high effort causes rapid fatigue). The fourth rep of a 5RM set takes more effort than the first (but that effort wouldn't show up in your force equation or the work equation). Metabolic effects (including fatigue) affect intensity, to say nothing of tension (the actual muscular effort) that again cannot be computed by the above formulas.

I agree that failure does not necessarily = max intensity.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Michael Petrella wrote:
I would like to guage rate of progress with this system vs a traditional HIT protocal.

For instance when I took my deadlift from 435 - 500 I deadlifted once a week putting 2.5 lbs on the bar each week. Some weeks I managed 5lbs more. However I never missed the 2.5 increase.

I believe I managed a 5lb increase on 2 of those weeks. This means it took me 24 weeks to hit 500.

I am very happy with this rate. It's predicatable and attainable.

I am now working on 600. Again I pretty much know when Im going to get there. I have not missed thus far.

Could I hit 2.5 lbs 2 or 3x a week if I employed less fatigue and more duration/reps/set, etc? Maybe. However I think most would find smaller gains over more sessions. I would bet measurable strength gains over a longer period of time would be almost the same assuming overtraining was not reached. Perhaps altering between the 2 and imposing different stresses would change rate of progress as well.

However the method I use has me in the gym a minimal amount of time and stresses all the other systems of my body less frequently.

I understand the factors involved to make Thibs system work. I don't see it as efficient and safe though.

Like I said before long term progress will probably be at the same rate.

Michael



Just to be clear with the argument here for the discussion, I am for good form and safety. If you can't keep this up until you drop dead, don't do it.

So then, the question is on how to manage that. If your a competitive weight lifter, maybe learn the technique. You want muscle growth, focus on that, which means not using every advantage you can vs gravity.

So, when you are looking down at 500 pounds, you are not thinking about rep speed. You try to be explosive because you have to be, but the weight moves slower than if you used that force with 250 pounds. Simple physics.

(This is a good thought provoking topic that I hope sees an intellectual conclusion and not end in another car crash)
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

smanjh wrote:
Michael Petrella wrote:
I would like to guage rate of progress with this system vs a traditional HIT protocal.

For instance when I took my deadlift from 435 - 500 I deadlifted once a week putting 2.5 lbs on the bar each week. Some weeks I managed 5lbs more. However I never missed the 2.5 increase.

I believe I managed a 5lb increase on 2 of those weeks. This means it took me 24 weeks to hit 500.

I am very happy with this rate. It's predicatable and attainable.

I am now working on 600. Again I pretty much know when Im going to get there. I have not missed thus far.

Could I hit 2.5 lbs 2 or 3x a week if I employed less fatigue and more duration/reps/set, etc? Maybe. However I think most would find smaller gains over more sessions. I would bet measurable strength gains over a longer period of time would be almost the same assuming overtraining was not reached. Perhaps altering between the 2 and imposing different stresses would change rate of progress as well.

However the method I use has me in the gym a minimal amount of time and stresses all the other systems of my body less frequently.

I understand the factors involved to make Thibs system work. I don't see it as efficient and safe though.

Like I said before long term progress will probably be at the same rate.

Michael



Just to be clear with the argument here for the discussion, I am for good form and safety. If you can't keep this up until you drop dead, don't do it.

So then, the question is on how to manage that. If your a competitive weight lifter, maybe learn the technique. You want muscle growth, focus on that, which means not using every advantage you can vs gravity.

So, when you are looking down at 500 pounds, you are not thinking about rep speed. You try to be explosive because you have to be, but the weight moves slower than if you used that force with 250 pounds. Simple physics.

(This is a good thought provoking topic that I hope sees an intellectual conclusion and not end in another car crash)


you don't try to be "explosive" with a 600# dead, it won't happen, you apply force gradually until you hit your peak, it literally takes seconds between the time you apply force against the bar and when it actually moves. Trying to be "explosive" against top end loads is like trying to gun your car in 5th gear from a dead stop. high rev....putter out.

When you can find your low gear, you become UNSTOPPABLE.

Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

Michael Petrella wrote:
I would like to guage rate of progress with this system vs a traditional HIT protocal.

For instance when I took my deadlift from 435 - 500 I deadlifted once a week putting 2.5 lbs on the bar each week. Some weeks I managed 5lbs more. However I never missed the 2.5 increase.

I believe I managed a 5lb increase on 2 of those weeks. This means it took me 24 weeks to hit 500.

I am very happy with this rate. It's predicatable and attainable.

I am now working on 600. Again I pretty much know when Im going to get there. I have not missed thus far.

Could I hit 2.5 lbs 2 or 3x a week if I employed less fatigue and more duration/reps/set, etc? Maybe. However I think most would find smaller gains over more sessions. I would bet measurable strength gains over a longer period of time would be almost the same assuming overtraining was not reached. Perhaps altering between the 2 and imposing different stresses would change rate of progress as well.

However the method I use has me in the gym a minimal amount of time and stresses all the other systems of my body less frequently.

I understand the factors involved to make Thibs system work. I don't see it as efficient and safe though.

Like I said before long term progress will probably be at the same rate.

Michael



I do not disagree with anything you wrote. Adding a little weight every workout is the most basic and proven way to gain. If you can do it everyday great. If you do it every week great.
Whatever your recovery ability can handle is ideal for you.
Great poundage by the way. I just started getting into the trap bar myself but wrecked my ankle again. Long term progression has many hurdles to overcome along the way to our goals. Good luck.
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

Joseph Anderson wrote:
summaHIT wrote:
High Intensity comes from heavy weights moved as fast as possible.
f=mxa

Your equation is for force, not intensity. Are you suggesting high force is the only requirement/factor in intensity?

Most define intensity in terms of percentage of 1RM, Heart Rate or level of effort (by definition may be correct, but the measurement of is subjective).

I've also seen intensity defined as work per unit of time (but only mechanical work can be measured . . . no one can quantify the metabolic work).

Don't confuse fatigue and the effort at the end of a slow grinding set with intensity.
This is probably the most misused word in HIT.

Force is a factor of intensity, but so is fatigue (in that intensity describes effort . . . high effort causes rapid fatigue). The fourth rep of a 5RM set takes more effort than the first (but that effort wouldn't show up in your force equation or the work equation). Metabolic effects (including fatigue) affect intensity, to say nothing of tension (the actual muscular effort) that again cannot be computed by the above formulas.

I agree that failure does not necessarily = max intensity.


I'll buy your statement that force is a factor of intensity.
That is what I was saying. Because Thib is moving the weight as fast as he can the force is high and the intensity is also high. Not low as was stated.
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

The interesting thing with these bodybuilding studies that T-Nation is doing is that they are taking High level athletes and focussing on performnace of the exercise and not the overall fatigue of each set. They are getting good results as the legions of Oly lifters have done for decades while building superb physiques. WHY?
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Joshua Trentine wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Michael Petrella wrote:
I would like to guage rate of progress with this system vs a traditional HIT protocal.

For instance when I took my deadlift from 435 - 500 I deadlifted once a week putting 2.5 lbs on the bar each week. Some weeks I managed 5lbs more. However I never missed the 2.5 increase.

I believe I managed a 5lb increase on 2 of those weeks. This means it took me 24 weeks to hit 500.

I am very happy with this rate. It's predicatable and attainable.

I am now working on 600. Again I pretty much know when Im going to get there. I have not missed thus far.

Could I hit 2.5 lbs 2 or 3x a week if I employed less fatigue and more duration/reps/set, etc? Maybe. However I think most would find smaller gains over more sessions. I would bet measurable strength gains over a longer period of time would be almost the same assuming overtraining was not reached. Perhaps altering between the 2 and imposing different stresses would change rate of progress as well.

However the method I use has me in the gym a minimal amount of time and stresses all the other systems of my body less frequently.

I understand the factors involved to make Thibs system work. I don't see it as efficient and safe though.

Like I said before long term progress will probably be at the same rate.

Michael



Just to be clear with the argument here for the discussion, I am for good form and safety. If you can't keep this up until you drop dead, don't do it.

So then, the question is on how to manage that. If your a competitive weight lifter, maybe learn the technique. You want muscle growth, focus on that, which means not using every advantage you can vs gravity.

So, when you are looking down at 500 pounds, you are not thinking about rep speed. You try to be explosive because you have to be, but the weight moves slower than if you used that force with 250 pounds. Simple physics.

(This is a good thought provoking topic that I hope sees an intellectual conclusion and not end in another car crash)

you don't try to be "explosive" with a 600# dead, it won't happen, you apply force gradually until you hit your peak, it literally takes seconds between the time you apply force against the bar and when it actually moves. Trying to be "explosive" against top end loads is like trying to gun your car in 5th gear from a dead stop. high rev....putter out.

When you can find your low gear, you become UNSTOPPABLE.



Right, your applying your strength as needed to a practiced movement, or in other words consciously giving what is needed.

Obviously if, somehow, you lost the weight without knowing it on the bottom, you would probably throw yourself back to some degree, right? Probably end up falling down or something.

My point was that you are exerting 600 pounds of force or whatever, you are just trying to eliminate outside forces if possible, but your not going 'one thousand one...' or trying to hit a cadence or anything with that kind of weight (I try to on the way down with the Nautilus Explode, but only smooth negatives, not super controlled 6-10 second ones).
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

summaHIT wrote:
The interesting thing with these bodybuilding studies that T-Nation is doing is that they are taking High level athletes and focussing on performnace of the exercise and not the overall fatigue of each set. They are getting good results as the legions of Oly lifters have done for decades while building superb physiques. WHY?


It isn't bad per say or wrong. If one likes it, one should keep with it. It isn't like the guy lifting 700 pounds in a deadlift will be small with whatever technique.

But I have seen tiny Japanese guys clean 400+ pounds (Olympics), which tells me that maybe that is not the best option for BBing as a rule. No offense, they are great athletes and they are amazing, but if one of my heavily juiced up friends can't do that at like 2.5x the bodyweight, then I figure something other than hypertrophy is at play.

We have all seen these recreational 'pro wannabe' bench pressers that look like they could hardly handle 225 but the get like 350x1. Again, this is my working observation on how momentum can get in the way and a lot of this is cheating the movement. IMO of course.

Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy