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
State of Exercise Science 2017
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

sonny153

Hi Grant, nothing personal, you seem like a nice guy but I'm going to say this 30 second rep stuff is all nonsense, I don't know anyone who ever built muscle doing things like that nor do I expect to. Ditto for working out once a week with 3 exercises. I briefly experimented with superslow and I now feel all these slow reps are just a waste of time and do not build anything. All due respects to Mr Hutchins who I'm sure thought he had a good idea and its probably better than doing nothing at all especially with older people but its not for me!
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

sonny153 wrote:
Hi Grant, nothing personal, you seem like a nice guy but I'm going to say this 30 second rep stuff is all nonsense, I don't know anyone who ever built muscle doing things like that nor do I expect to. Ditto for working out once a week with 3 exercises. I briefly experimented with superslow and I now feel all these slow reps are just a waste of time and do not build anything. All due respects to Mr Hutchins who I'm sure thought he had a good idea and its probably better than doing nothing at all especially with older people but its not for me!


I think the 30 second rep set is beneficial to the older generation that suffer from osteoporosis and severe arthitis or for rehab patients after some kind of injury or stroke. But for the average Joe trying to get in shape or for the aspiring bodybuilder or crossfitter or powerlifter it is not a benefit. just my 2 cents worth.

Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

hit4me wrote:

I for the average Joe trying to get in shape or for the aspiring bodybuilder or crossfitter or powerlifter it is not a benefit. just my 2 cents worth.



And my 4 cents worth ... I thought SS was the greatest thing when I first learned of it and dedicated my training to that style for 9 months.

I'd have to say that it was the biggest waste of time I ever spent on anything training related. One of those thing that looks and sounds good on paper but in the real world is a complete flop for anything other than rehab.
Open User Options Menu

Bastion

Crotalus wrote:
hit4me wrote:





And my 4 cents worth ... I thought SS was the greatest thing when I first learned of it and dedicated my training to that style for 9 months.

I'd have to say that it was the biggest waste of time I ever spent on anything training related. One of those thing that looks and sounds good on paper but in the real world is a complete flop for anything other than rehab.


I've read and heard this countless times regarding super slow. I played around with slow training for a bit, far too needlessly tedious for the majority. Other than for rehab, as mentioned.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

IMO, the biggest issue with HIT, is it gets too wrapped up with 'whole methods' that 'use' HIT. (this included SS, etc.)

It's HIT
High Intensity Training
It doesn't have to be
HITSSPMLF
High Intensity Training Single Set Per muscle Low Frequency

Most of the time, when you do find a success story, someone went outside the 'HIT box', and made it 'fit them'.

Like our member TSG 2513
He said
4-day HIT Split. 2-on, 1-0ff, 2-on, repeat. 3 exercises per bodypart, 1-2 sets to failure.pre-exhaust, drop-sets, static holds...basically anything to keep the intensity high

His photo he posted in the photos' thread, now that is a success IMO.

http://www.drdarden.com/...oto_2.1_(2).jpg


I think some of the 'other ideas' are what prevents the root stuff (just good old high intensity training) from working long term.
Open User Options Menu

Bastion

Nwlifter wrote:
IMO, the biggest issue with HIT, is it gets too wrapped up with 'whole methods' that 'use' HIT. (this included SS, etc.)

It's HIT
High Intensity Training
It doesn't have to be
HITSSPMLF
High Intensity Training Single Set Per muscle Low Frequency

Most of the time, when you do find a success story, someone went outside the 'HIT box', and made it 'fit them'.

Like our member TSG 2513
He said
4-day HIT Split. 2-on, 1-0ff, 2-on, repeat. 3 exercises per bodypart, 1-2 sets to failure.pre-exhaust, drop-sets, static holds...basically anything to keep the intensity high

His photo he posted in the photos' thread, now that is a success IMO.

http://www.drdarden.com/...oto_2.1_(2).jpg


I think some of the 'other ideas' are what prevents the root stuff (just good old high intensity training) from working long term.


It's been said before. All the obsession with rep speed, tul, outroading, bracing, not making faces etc etc , is all nothing but a distraction from what's most important. Hard work! . It took me years to see it. But I now understand why many trainers such as Dante Trudel don't want any association with "Hit", even though Hit is exactly what they do and preach.
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Bastion wrote:
All the obsession with rep speed, tul, outroading, bracing, not making faces etc etc , is all nothing but a distraction from what's most important. Hard work! .


That's probably the best way I ever heard it put !

Open User Options Menu

Bastion

Mr America John Heart shares his experience with slow training at the end of the article.

http://oldbutstrong.co.uk/...tine-john-heart
Open User Options Menu

tsg2513

Florida, USA

Nwlifter wrote:
IMO, the biggest issue with HIT, is it gets too wrapped up with 'whole methods' that 'use' HIT. (this included SS, etc.)

It's HIT
High Intensity Training
It doesn't have to be
HITSSPMLF
High Intensity Training Single Set Per muscle Low Frequency

Most of the time, when you do find a success story, someone went outside the 'HIT box', and made it 'fit them'.

Like our member TSG 2513
He said
4-day HIT Split. 2-on, 1-0ff, 2-on, repeat. 3 exercises per bodypart, 1-2 sets to failure.pre-exhaust, drop-sets, static holds...basically anything to keep the intensity high

His photo he posted in the photos' thread, now that is a success IMO.

http://www.drdarden.com/...oto_2.1_(2).jpg


I think some of the 'other ideas' are what prevents the root stuff (just good old high intensity training) from working long term.


I'd like to share a recent experiment. For the past 10 weeks I have switched to a "BBS" type routine of 6-8 compound movements using a 5/5 cadence, to complete failure, 90-150 seconds TUL, once every 5 days or so.

Results....significant increase in reps and weight over the last 10 weeks but a decrease in my physical appearance.

Why did I do this? To once again, prove to myself that there is more than one way to do HIT. So for now, back to my tried-and-true method outlined above.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

tsg2513 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
IMO, the biggest issue with HIT, is it gets too wrapped up with 'whole methods' that 'use' HIT. (this included SS, etc.)

It's HIT
High Intensity Training
It doesn't have to be
HITSSPMLF
High Intensity Training Single Set Per muscle Low Frequency

Most of the time, when you do find a success story, someone went outside the 'HIT box', and made it 'fit them'.

Like our member TSG 2513
He said
4-day HIT Split. 2-on, 1-0ff, 2-on, repeat. 3 exercises per bodypart, 1-2 sets to failure.pre-exhaust, drop-sets, static holds...basically anything to keep the intensity high

His photo he posted in the photos' thread, now that is a success IMO.

http://www.drdarden.com/...oto_2.1_(2).jpg


I think some of the 'other ideas' are what prevents the root stuff (just good old high intensity training) from working long term.


I'd like to share a recent experiment. For the past 10 weeks I have switched to a "BBS" type routine of 6-8 compound movements using a 5/5 cadence, to complete failure, 90-150 seconds TUL, once every 5 days or so.

Results....significant increase in reps and weight over the last 10 weeks but a decrease in my physical appearance.

Why did I do this? To once again, prove to myself that there is more than one way to do HIT. So for now, back to my tried-and-true method outlined above.


Very cool information, total proof that reductions in frequency and volume, even if they lead to strength gains, do not always lead to muscle gains and may even lead to muscle loss.

I had that happen with a hardgainer routine. I did a very abbreviated 2 day a week setup, just a few sets to failure, I gained strength, but lost muscle mass and lots of conditioning.



Open User Options Menu

S.M.Punisher

Despite appearances, I don't see how you can lose muscle, actual muscle, if you at least maintain the weights you're capable of (avoiding saying "get stronger" as that involves many factors). You can lose fullness (energy storage) and tone (activation of ST fibers at rest) by reducing frequency, hence the dilemma of trading off short-term appearance for long-term performance - and what you are capable of ultimately determines appearance, whether short or long term.

There is a significant psychological component as well. When the muscles have been recently worked they feel bigger than whatever temporary effect you're more sensitive to perceive, especially muscles you've been trying to bring up. Any increase in size in this state is amplified by the mind.

Sometimes it takes a layoff of a few weeks and some honestly objective photos to bring this into perspective. In the long run, the time off after hard training, whether programmed low frequency or layoffs after intensive periods of higher frequency (specialization, overreaching etc.) is essential to liberate the body's potential from the overly optimistic impatience of the mind.

The solution, if it's important to look the most muscular possible in the short-term, but without sacrificing long-term progress, is to combine HIT with higher frequency, even daily, sub-failure workouts. The difference between one or two reps short of failure and failure is huge in my experience, enough that the former would not impact the recovery of the latter much if at all. That's of course if you can exercise restraint.
Open User Options Menu

Bastion

tsg2513 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
IMO, the biggest issue with HIT, is it gets too wrapped up with 'whole methods' that 'use' HIT. (this included SS, etc.)

It's HIT
High Intensity Training
It doesn't have to be
HITSSPMLF
High Intensity Training Single Set Per muscle Low Frequency

Most of the time, when you do find a success story, someone went outside the 'HIT box', and made it 'fit them'.

Like our member TSG 2513
He said
4-day HIT Split. 2-on, 1-0ff, 2-on, repeat. 3 exercises per bodypart, 1-2 sets to failure.pre-exhaust, drop-sets, static holds...basically anything to keep the intensity high

His photo he posted in the photos' thread, now that is a success IMO.

http://www.drdarden.com/...oto_2.1_(2).jpg


I think some of the 'other ideas' are what prevents the root stuff (just good old high intensity training) from working long term.


I'd like to share a recent experiment. For the past 10 weeks I have switched to a "BBS" type routine of 6-8 compound movements using a 5/5 cadence, to complete failure, 90-150 seconds TUL, once every 5 days or so.

Results....significant increase in reps and weight over the last 10 weeks but a decrease in my physical appearance.

Why did I do this? To once again, prove to myself that there is more than one way to do HIT. So for now, back to my tried-and-true method outlined above.


The way I see it now. If for example, your biceps are used to doing 4-6 working sets once a week, on top of 5-8 working sets for back. Then all of a sudden you cut all that out, for just a set of rows and pulldowns. Then of course 98% of the people who go this route lose size and development, or never make the progress they are capable of in the first place. I commend you for having the guts to stick with an experiment, even while watching yourself deflate.
Open User Options Menu

sirloin

Nwlifter wrote:
tsg2513 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
IMO, the biggest issue with HIT, is it gets too wrapped up with 'whole methods' that 'use' HIT. (this included SS, etc.)

It's HIT
High Intensity Training
It doesn't have to be
HITSSPMLF
High Intensity Training Single Set Per muscle Low Frequency

Most of the time, when you do find a success story, someone went outside the 'HIT box', and made it 'fit them'.

Like our member TSG 2513
He said
4-day HIT Split. 2-on, 1-0ff, 2-on, repeat. 3 exercises per bodypart, 1-2 sets to failure.pre-exhaust, drop-sets, static holds...basically anything to keep the intensity high

His photo he posted in the photos' thread, now that is a success IMO.

http://www.drdarden.com/...oto_2.1_(2).jpg


I think some of the 'other ideas' are what prevents the root stuff (just good old high intensity training) from working long term.


I'd like to share a recent experiment. For the past 10 weeks I have switched to a "BBS" type routine of 6-8 compound movements using a 5/5 cadence, to complete failure, 90-150 seconds TUL, once every 5 days or so.

Results....significant increase in reps and weight over the last 10 weeks but a decrease in my physical appearance.

Why did I do this? To once again, prove to myself that there is more than one way to do HIT. So for now, back to my tried-and-true method outlined above.


Very cool information, total proof that reductions in frequency and volume, even if they lead to strength gains, do not always lead to muscle gains and may even lead to muscle loss.

I had that happen with a hardgainer routine. I did a very abbreviated 2 day a week setup, just a few sets to failure, I gained strength, but lost muscle mass and lots of conditioning.



https://m.youtube.com/...h?v=xZ_9eZWjK-g

So here's another individual with elite genetics, whom apparently is able maintain his solid 238lb @5'9 frame with one superslow workout per week, consisting of 3-5 exercises - one set each.
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

Nwlifter wrote:
tsg2513 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
IMO, the biggest issue with HIT, is it gets too wrapped up with 'whole methods' that 'use' HIT. (this included SS, etc.)

It's HIT
High Intensity Training
It doesn't have to be
HITSSPMLF
High Intensity Training Single Set Per muscle Low Frequency

Most of the time, when you do find a success story, someone went outside the 'HIT box', and made it 'fit them'.

Like our member TSG 2513
He said
4-day HIT Split. 2-on, 1-0ff, 2-on, repeat. 3 exercises per bodypart, 1-2 sets to failure.pre-exhaust, drop-sets, static holds...basically anything to keep the intensity high

His photo he posted in the photos' thread, now that is a success IMO.

http://www.drdarden.com/...oto_2.1_(2).jpg


I think some of the 'other ideas' are what prevents the root stuff (just good old high intensity training) from working long term.


I'd like to share a recent experiment. For the past 10 weeks I have switched to a "BBS" type routine of 6-8 compound movements using a 5/5 cadence, to complete failure, 90-150 seconds TUL, once every 5 days or so.

Results....significant increase in reps and weight over the last 10 weeks but a decrease in my physical appearance.

Why did I do this? To once again, prove to myself that there is more than one way to do HIT. So for now, back to my tried-and-true method outlined above.


Very cool information, total proof that reductions in frequency and volume, even if they lead to strength gains, do not always lead to muscle gains and may even lead to muscle loss.

I had that happen with a hardgainer routine. I did a very abbreviated 2 day a week setup, just a few sets to failure, I gained strength, but lost muscle mass and lots of conditioning.





maybe that's why Reeves, Colbert, Grimek and others in the 40s and 50's performed each body part 3x/week and were in great shape

Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

tsg2513 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
IMO, the biggest issue with HIT, is it gets too wrapped up with 'whole methods' that 'use' HIT. (this included SS, etc.)

It's HIT
High Intensity Training
It doesn't have to be
HITSSPMLF
High Intensity Training Single Set Per muscle Low Frequency

Most of the time, when you do find a success story, someone went outside the 'HIT box', and made it 'fit them'.

Like our member TSG 2513
He said
4-day HIT Split. 2-on, 1-0ff, 2-on, repeat. 3 exercises per bodypart, 1-2 sets to failure.pre-exhaust, drop-sets, static holds...basically anything to keep the intensity high

His photo he posted in the photos' thread, now that is a success IMO.

http://www.drdarden.com/...oto_2.1_(2).jpg


I think some of the 'other ideas' are what prevents the root stuff (just good old high intensity training) from working long term.


I'd like to share a recent experiment. For the past 10 weeks I have switched to a "BBS" type routine of 6-8 compound movements using a 5/5 cadence, to complete failure, 90-150 seconds TUL, once every 5 days or so.

Results....significant increase in reps and weight over the last 10 weeks but a decrease in my physical appearance.

Why did I do this? To once again, prove to myself that there is more than one way to do HIT. So for now, back to my tried-and-true method outlined above.


Yep, it happens to just about everyone on that kind of approach. It's just not a good way to train for maximum size and muscularity. Johnston and others laid out good reasons why this happens.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

S.M.Punisher wrote:
Despite appearances, I don't see how you can lose muscle, actual muscle, if you at least maintain the weights you're capable of (avoiding saying "get stronger" as that involves many factors). You can lose fullness (energy storage) and tone (activation of ST fibers at rest) by reducing frequency, hence the dilemma of trading off short-term appearance for long-term performance - and what you are capable of ultimately determines appearance, whether short or long term.

There is a significant psychological component as well. When the muscles have been recently worked they feel bigger than whatever temporary effect you're more sensitive to perceive, especially muscles you've been trying to bring up. Any increase in size in this state is amplified by the mind.

Sometimes it takes a layoff of a few weeks and some honestly objective photos to bring this into perspective. In the long run, the time off after hard training, whether programmed low frequency or layoffs after intensive periods of higher frequency (specialization, overreaching etc.) is essential to liberate the body's potential from the overly optimistic impatience of the mind.

The solution, if it's important to look the most muscular possible in the short-term, but without sacrificing long-term progress, is to combine HIT with higher frequency, even daily, sub-failure workouts. The difference between one or two reps short of failure and failure is huge in my experience, enough that the former would not impact the recovery of the latter much if at all. That's of course if you can exercise restraint.


Or just avoid failure and those tremendous blood pressure spikes as well as draining of the CNS. I can honestly say failure has never helped me gain anything more than sub failure. Actually overall better results on sub failure and more volume and freq when I look back on everything I gained on over the last 27 years of consistent training.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

On the surface that seems true, but that's when we assume muscle strength is always proportional to it's size. Unfortunately, that's not exact. People have simplified the way 'it works' and made some cross assumptions.

If a muscle gets larger, it's strength potential does increase. You have more myofibrils, and if fully activated, in unison, will be capable or more strength. But, just 'getting stronger' doesn't always mean you grew larger, strength has a large neural component. Look at those people who get 'extra strength' in an emergency situation, that reveals just how much neural potential we have and is usually untapped. Training in a way that focuses on the neural (low work, high neural output/effort) can increase our ability to 'use' the muscle we have yet provide very low mechanical stimulation for growth. Therefore, we get stronger with anything from very little size increase 'per strength gain' to even size losses while gaining neural strength.




S.M.Punisher wrote:
Despite appearances, I don't see how you can lose muscle, actual muscle, if you at least maintain the weights you're capable of (avoiding saying "get stronger" as that involves many factors). You can lose fullness (energy storage) and tone (activation of ST fibers at rest) by reducing frequency, hence the dilemma of trading off short-term appearance for long-term performance - and what you are capable of ultimately determines appearance, whether short or long term.

There is a significant psychological component as well. When the muscles have been recently worked they feel bigger than whatever temporary effect you're more sensitive to perceive, especially muscles you've been trying to bring up. Any increase in size in this state is amplified by the mind.

Sometimes it takes a layoff of a few weeks and some honestly objective photos to bring this into perspective. In the long run, the time off after hard training, whether programmed low frequency or layoffs after intensive periods of higher frequency (specialization, overreaching etc.) is essential to liberate the body's potential from the overly optimistic impatience of the mind.

The solution, if it's important to look the most muscular possible in the short-term, but without sacrificing long-term progress, is to combine HIT with higher frequency, even daily, sub-failure workouts. The difference between one or two reps short of failure and failure is huge in my experience, enough that the former would not impact the recovery of the latter much if at all. That's of course if you can exercise restraint.


Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

I wonder how long till he starts seeing muscle loss.....


sirloin wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
tsg2513 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
IMO, the biggest issue with HIT, is it gets too wrapped up with 'whole methods' that 'use' HIT. (this included SS, etc.)

It's HIT
High Intensity Training
It doesn't have to be
HITSSPMLF
High Intensity Training Single Set Per muscle Low Frequency

Most of the time, when you do find a success story, someone went outside the 'HIT box', and made it 'fit them'.

Like our member TSG 2513
He said
4-day HIT Split. 2-on, 1-0ff, 2-on, repeat. 3 exercises per bodypart, 1-2 sets to failure.pre-exhaust, drop-sets, static holds...basically anything to keep the intensity high

His photo he posted in the photos' thread, now that is a success IMO.

http://www.drdarden.com/...oto_2.1_(2).jpg


I think some of the 'other ideas' are what prevents the root stuff (just good old high intensity training) from working long term.


I'd like to share a recent experiment. For the past 10 weeks I have switched to a "BBS" type routine of 6-8 compound movements using a 5/5 cadence, to complete failure, 90-150 seconds TUL, once every 5 days or so.

Results....significant increase in reps and weight over the last 10 weeks but a decrease in my physical appearance.

Why did I do this? To once again, prove to myself that there is more than one way to do HIT. So for now, back to my tried-and-true method outlined above.


Very cool information, total proof that reductions in frequency and volume, even if they lead to strength gains, do not always lead to muscle gains and may even lead to muscle loss.

I had that happen with a hardgainer routine. I did a very abbreviated 2 day a week setup, just a few sets to failure, I gained strength, but lost muscle mass and lots of conditioning.



https://m.youtube.com/...h?v=xZ_9eZWjK-g

So here's another individual with elite genetics, whom apparently is able maintain his solid 238lb @5'9 frame with one superslow workout per week, consisting of 3-5 exercises - one set each.


Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

oh yeah, forgot, the only real good examples I've seen for low frequency, low volume, are John Heart, Jay Vincent and Nathan Tebeck, so 3 out of.... oh so many.... Bummer as I wish it worked, I enjoy that type of training, mentally and physically.
Open User Options Menu

sirloin

Nwlifter wrote:
I wonder how long till he starts seeing muscle loss.....


sirloin wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
tsg2513 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
IMO, the biggest issue with HIT, is it gets too wrapped up with 'whole methods' that 'use' HIT. (this included SS, etc.)

It's HIT
High Intensity Training
It doesn't have to be
HITSSPMLF
High Intensity Training Single Set Per muscle Low Frequency

Most of the time, when you do find a success story, someone went outside the 'HIT box', and made it 'fit them'.

Like our member TSG 2513
He said
4-day HIT Split. 2-on, 1-0ff, 2-on, repeat. 3 exercises per bodypart, 1-2 sets to failure.pre-exhaust, drop-sets, static holds...basically anything to keep the intensity high

His photo he posted in the photos' thread, now that is a success IMO.

http://www.drdarden.com/...oto_2.1_(2).jpg


I think some of the 'other ideas' are what prevents the root stuff (just good old high intensity training) from working long term.


I'd like to share a recent experiment. For the past 10 weeks I have switched to a "BBS" type routine of 6-8 compound movements using a 5/5 cadence, to complete failure, 90-150 seconds TUL, once every 5 days or so.

Results....significant increase in reps and weight over the last 10 weeks but a decrease in my physical appearance.

Why did I do this? To once again, prove to myself that there is more than one way to do HIT. So for now, back to my tried-and-true method outlined above.


Very cool information, total proof that reductions in frequency and volume, even if they lead to strength gains, do not always lead to muscle gains and may even lead to muscle loss.

I had that happen with a hardgainer routine. I did a very abbreviated 2 day a week setup, just a few sets to failure, I gained strength, but lost muscle mass and lots of conditioning.



https://m.youtube.com/...h?v=xZ_9eZWjK-g

So here's another individual with elite genetics, whom apparently is able maintain his solid 238lb @5'9 frame with one superslow workout per week, consisting of 3-5 exercises - one set each.




According to the video he'd been training like that for a year, i havent read them all, but hes made quite a few more recent posts in the comments section since the making of that video. Vee Ferguson was another who a made great progress training this way, but again, id say genetics is on his side.

Not promoting superslow or once per week training btw, am not a fan of either, but it clearly works for some. So it cant be said that its "total proof" that because it didnt go so well for one indivdual whom switched from a fast high rep, higher volume and freqency appoarch to superslow low vol etc etc.

Why dont we see more like Beard or Ferguson? Probably because the appoarch doesnt appeal to most, not many people doing it. Are we also forgetting the results of those in the bodyfat breakthrought that used a 30/30/30..just once or twice per week?



Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

sirloin wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
I wonder how long till he starts seeing muscle loss.....


sirloin wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
tsg2513 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
IMO, the biggest issue with HIT, is it gets too wrapped up with 'whole methods' that 'use' HIT. (this included SS, etc.)

It's HIT
High Intensity Training
It doesn't have to be
HITSSPMLF
High Intensity Training Single Set Per muscle Low Frequency

Most of the time, when you do find a success story, someone went outside the 'HIT box', and made it 'fit them'.

Like our member TSG 2513
He said
4-day HIT Split. 2-on, 1-0ff, 2-on, repeat. 3 exercises per bodypart, 1-2 sets to failure.pre-exhaust, drop-sets, static holds...basically anything to keep the intensity high

His photo he posted in the photos' thread, now that is a success IMO.

http://www.drdarden.com/...oto_2.1_(2).jpg


I think some of the 'other ideas' are what prevents the root stuff (just good old high intensity training) from working long term.


I'd like to share a recent experiment. For the past 10 weeks I have switched to a "BBS" type routine of 6-8 compound movements using a 5/5 cadence, to complete failure, 90-150 seconds TUL, once every 5 days or so.

Results....significant increase in reps and weight over the last 10 weeks but a decrease in my physical appearance.

Why did I do this? To once again, prove to myself that there is more than one way to do HIT. So for now, back to my tried-and-true method outlined above.


Very cool information, total proof that reductions in frequency and volume, even if they lead to strength gains, do not always lead to muscle gains and may even lead to muscle loss.

I had that happen with a hardgainer routine. I did a very abbreviated 2 day a week setup, just a few sets to failure, I gained strength, but lost muscle mass and lots of conditioning.



https://m.youtube.com/...h?v=xZ_9eZWjK-g

So here's another individual with elite genetics, whom apparently is able maintain his solid 238lb @5'9 frame with one superslow workout per week, consisting of 3-5 exercises - one set each.




According to the video he'd been training like that for a year, i havent read them all, but hes made quite a few more recent posts in the comments section since the making of that video. Vee Ferguson was another who a made great progress training this way, but again, id say genetics is on his side.

Not promoting superslow or once per week training btw, am not a fan of either, but it clearly works for some. So it cant be said that its "total proof" that because it didnt go so well for one indivdual whom switched from a fast high rep, higher volume and freqency appoarch to superslow low vol etc etc.

Why dont we see more like Beard or Ferguson? Probably because the appoarch doesnt appeal to most, not many people doing it. Are we also forgetting the results of those in the bodyfat breakthrought that used a 30/30/30..just once or twice per week?





Yeah, it's hard to figure. I guess some have really good genetics and can maintain or even gain some on very little stimulation, I'm sure they'd gain more if they did more, but as long as their happy with their gains and program, then their happy.

Open User Options Menu

sirloin

https://ast-ss.com/...eight-training/

Small but interesting study...
Open User Options Menu

Grant D

Illinois, USA

Points of Exercise Science in 2017 ...

Super Slow does not work beyond initial gains (6 months) if performed correctly. Why ... it is so intense that gravity circuited lifting capability increases faster than one's ability to NOT outoad. After a period of months "gains" are due to skill development and eventual cheating aka outroading, squiggling, shifting, coaching, coaxing ..

My recent workout after two weeks:
Leg Press MaxpPyramid increasein 5 pounds and 7 seconds. More than I prescribed (and expected), but I Shoulda Known Better since i haven't done any "legs"since early April.

Pull Down Max Pyramid gain in 10 pounds

Shoulder Shrug Max Pyramid gain in 5 pounds

Tripce Extension (demo) 303030 gain in 7 seconds held gravity weight due to previous (April) session early runaway

How many understand then need for safe and focused ultra intensity, rest and regulating overall volume? If you do than you will/have seen gains in size EVERY workout like me.
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

Grant D. wrote:
Points of Exercise Science in 2017 ...

Super Slow does not work beyond initial gains (6 months) if performed correctly. Why ... it is so intense that gravity circuited lifting capability increases faster than one's ability to NOT outoad. After a period of months "gains" are due to skill development and eventual cheating aka outroading, squiggling, shifting, coaching, coaxing ..

My recent workout after two weeks:
Leg Press MaxpPyramid increasein 5 pounds and 7 seconds. More than I prescribed (and expected), but I Shoulda Known Better since i haven't done any "legs"since early April.

Pull Down Max Pyramid gain in 10 pounds

Shoulder Shrug Max Pyramid gain in 5 pounds

Tripce Extension (demo) 303030 gain in 7 seconds held gravity weight due to previous (April) session early runaway

How many understand then need for safe and focused ultra intensity, rest and regulating overall volume? If you do than you will/have seen gains in size EVERY workout like me.


hey Grant, like someone asked before....where's the pic so we can see the progress and proof

Open User Options Menu

Bastion

Grant D. wrote:


My recent workout after two weeks:
Leg Press MaxpPyramid increasein 5 pounds and 7 seconds. More than I prescribed (and expected), but I Shoulda Known Better since i haven't done any "legs"since early April.

.


1 set of leg presses since early April? . Man, you must have one mean set of wheels!.
How can you even say that you train? Or care about your health and well being? .
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy