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
Doug Brignole on Volume vs HIT
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Rikus

New Zealand

THE MENTZER BROTHERS, ARTHUR JONES AND NAUTILUS HOW IT AFFECTED BODYBUILDING

https://www.youtube.com/...ewtT57-FzY&t=0s

He references some studies.
Mentions beginners can't tolerate much volume but the more advanced need volume.

I still train low volume, lots of rest days. But some results did happen when I tried a few 50 rep sessions where I did 20, then 10, then 10, then 10 with short rests. And then I did it again with another exercise. This could just be an impact of variation/conditoning the muscle in new ways though rather than a higher volume aspect. (Who the hell knows.)
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Someone still has an @AOL.com e-mail address?! Not inspiring much confidence right out of the gate...
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

So many dead-ass wrong things said by those two that I had to stop watching after about 4 or 5 minutes. Even if the subject is only 'Bro Science', they still get a "C"!
Open User Options Menu

ron33

My old training partner trained with him back in mid 70s , at Bill Pearls gym in Pasadena .. I think that's where his training ideas may have came from...
Open User Options Menu

sirloin

Love how he mentioned how the guys who trained with AJ got their results because they were using "supplements", however Arnold and the likes supposely got their results because they used high volume....sure they did;)


Open User Options Menu

Rikus

New Zealand

I really Enjoy Ric's show. Entertaining. He gets some 70s bodybuilders on the show. Walks down memory lane of the Gold Gyms era in the 70s with Arnold and the rest.

Doug Brignole had a great physique, and is still in good shape for his age. He has some interesting ideas on bio-mechanics, selecting which exercise is effective and which isn't.

I know what has worked best for me. Intensity techniques, as used in Darden routines using dropsets and partials/21s, pre-exhaustion....and variety. Cycling these techniques.

But I did appear to grow from 10 sets of biceps and 10 sets of triceps, using a technique from Brian Johnson's book where you do 50 reps (20-10-10-10) (although I think he intended for 50 reps not 100!)

I definitely didn't grow until I came across Darden's routine....20 years ago. But hell...the 100 reps worked too.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
Someone still has an @AOL.com e-mail address?! Not inspiring much confidence right out of the gate...


---Scott--
What's the problem with an AOL . Com email ???
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

I never heard him say Arnold was natural...

I've watched a lot of Ric's videos, he's just telling what he saw, he was there. Most the big guys did use volume, and as Ric and Doug said, the 20 sets was just a popular method, Ric said he grew just as well if not better later, with less. I'm sure Arnold would have looked the same with less, probably even with 4-6 good sets instead of 20. Those guys were genetic wonders, on 'supplements', they could grow with anything they did I'm sure. Look at how Mentzer actually trained, that would bury most of us in a week! 4,5 and 6 killer sets to failure, with rest pauses, and other post set intensity extenders. It's all about getting in the 'good reps', whether you do it all in a row while highly fatigued (HIT) or take a long time and use volume and get a few good reps at the end of each set.

Open User Options Menu

sirloin

Nwlifter wrote:
I never heard him say Arnold was natural...

I've watched a lot of Ric's videos, he's just telling what he saw, he was there. Most the big guys did use volume, and as Ric and Doug said, the 20 sets was just a popular method, Ric said he grew just as well if not better later, with less. I'm sure Arnold would have looked the same with less, probably even with 4-6 good sets instead of 20. Those guys were genetic wonders, on 'supplements', they could grow with anything they did I'm sure. Look at how Mentzer actually trained, that would bury most of us in a week! 4,5 and 6 killer sets to failure, with rest pauses, and other post set intensity extenders. It's all about getting in the 'good reps', whether you do it all in a row while highly fatigued (HIT) or take a long time and use volume and get a few good reps at the end of each set.



It was actually ric that pointed out to doug that they used "supplements" too.

Was just noseying through a few books↓
On them it has most of Ray and Mikes bodypart routines, Rays chest routine was...
Incline press 2-3 sets
Pec peck 2-3 sets
Cable crosses 2-3 sets
DB Flyes 2-3 sets
He preformed this 3x a fourtnight, meaning he preformed anywhere on average from 12-18 sets for chest per week, and of course these were all out sets. Not really what id call low volume.



Open User Options Menu

sirloin

There again, it mentions in the wisdom of MM book, how both Ray and Mike experimented with high reps for legs, right up to 100 if i recall right, but they found that going above 20 reps didnt produce any additional growth, Mike felt it was out of the anerobic pathway. Perhaps if it was done in rest pause style / clusters it may have been a different story.








Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
Someone still has an @AOL.com e-mail address?! Not inspiring much confidence right out of the gate...

entsminger wrote:
---Scott--
What's the problem with an AOL . Com email ???


Nothing, Scott. AOL and your Commodore 386 are simply the ginchiest...
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Someone still has an @AOL.com e-mail address?! Not inspiring much confidence right out of the gate...

entsminger wrote:
---Scott--
What's the problem with an AOL . Com email ???

Nothing, Scott. AOL and your Commodore 386 are simply the ginchiest...


==Scott==
The real problem is when we start judging people by what e-mail address they have and what the hell is ginchiest?? Right now you aren't inspiring much confidence in what you have to say.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Lighten the hell up, Francis! Why are you so concerned about this guy?

So I judged that this guy still had AOL, so what? (even my late-70s parents know better than that) After that, I judged based on the misnomers and judgmental misconceptions:

1. No, HIT and Heavy Duty are not interchangeable.

2. No, the main intention of the Nautilus Pullover was NOT rib cage expansion.

There was at least one BroScience misstep for every minute of the 5 minutes I watched! I could go on, but it would force me to rewatch more of their inane chatter --- and thus lose more minutes of my life I could never get back...
Open User Options Menu

Bastion

simon-hecubus wrote:
Lighten the hell up, Francis! Why are you so concerned about this guy?

After judging that this guy still had AOL (even my late-70s parents know better than that), I judged based on their misnomers and judgmental misconceptions:

1. No, HIT and Heavy Duty are not interchangeable.

2. No, the main intention of the Nautilus Pullover was NOT rib cage expansion.

I could go on, but there was at least one BroScience misstep for every minute or the 5 minutes I watched.


As much as I enjoy Ric's corner. They clearly had no clue what they were talking about. And know nothing about Hit/Jones/Mentzer's. Most of these so called youtube fitness experts have no idea what they are talking about. The blind leading the blind.

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Who's Francis?
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Nwlifter wrote:
Who's Francis?


Not a late 70s/early 80s comedy buff?
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

I am sorry but this fella has no idea what the pullover machine is for. in my opinion the pullover machine is the best isolation exercise for the lats.

he also he has no idea about the concept of the cam.

plus he was interrupting Drasin every chance he could get, was pretty annoying to me
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
Lighten the hell up, Francis! Why are you so concerned about this guy?

So I judged that this guy still had AOL, so what? (even my late-70s parents know better than that) After that, I judged based on the misnomers and judgmental misconceptions:

1. No, HIT and Heavy Duty are not interchangeable.

2. No, the main intention of the Nautilus Pullover was NOT rib cage expansion.

There was at least one BroScience misstep for every minute of the 5 minutes I watched! I could go on, but it would force me to rewatch more of their inane chatter --- and thus lose more minutes of my life I could never get back...


----Scott---
Concerned about this guy? I could care less about him or what he said or anything else said in this thread, I'm just wondering what a person like you who usually shows some brains on here , which is a rare commodity , has a problem with AOL with ?? Since when does a AOL account or Yahoo or whatever account have to do with ones intelligence ?? Maybe if one uses Twitter he'd be considered a genius , ha ha
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Nwlifter wrote:
Those guys were genetic wonders, on 'supplements', they could grow with anything they did I'm sure.


Isn't it funny how guys who respond to well volume are 'genetic freaks' but HIT is for the rest of us ?

I think you ALSO need to be a genetic freak if you respond well to super low volume and super high intensity. I thinks most of us do / would respond best to something in the middle.

Remember that the bodybuilders that we often associate with HIT built their physiques with volume and split routines ( not to mention the drugs ) BEFORE they were even exposed to HIT ; Mentzers, Viator, Oliva, Coe and the rest we claim to be from 'our camp' already had built world-class championship physiques before they tried HIT.

If a championship BODYBUILDER physique could be built with a Dr.Ken-type routine of simply being progressive on " ... a hand full of basic exercises ... " that you did till you fell on your face and puked, we had fifty years to prove that, yet it hasn't happened. I'm not talking about just getting big and strong , HIT does a great job at that , I'm talking about the 'bodybuilder look.' I think that is what most of were always after..

Yates was one, and I DO see his routines as HIT, but 9 out of 10 HIT guys would say that his way wasn't really HIT as he split routines , used more than one set, drugs , etc. Once again, it comes down to what you define as HIT.

No doubt us mortals can screw up our training results by doing too much while not hard enough but can also go way off course by training too hard and too little. A few of us here have done that.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

simon-hecubus wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Who's Francis?

Not a late 70s/early 80s comedy buff?


Yes I am, or thought I was lol, but not familiar with that show, which one was that?

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Yes for sure, that's what I meant, genetics and drugs, ANYTHING works well, HIT, volume, monkey bars lol


Crotalus wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Those guys were genetic wonders, on 'supplements', they could grow with anything they did I'm sure.


Isn't it funny how guys who respond to well volume are 'genetic freaks' but HIT is for the rest of us ?

I think you ALSO need to be a genetic freak if you respond well to super low volume and super high intensity. I thinks most of us do / would respond best to something in the middle.

Remember that the bodybuilders that we often associate with HIT built their physiques with volume and split routines ( not to mention the drugs ) BEFORE they were even exposed to HIT ; Mentzers, Viator, Oliva, Coe and the rest we claim to be from 'our camp' already had built world-class championship physiques before they tried HIT.

If a championship BODYBUILDER physique could be built with a Dr.Ken-type routine of simply being progressive on " ... a hand full of basic exercises ... " that you did till you fell on your face and puked, we had fifty years to prove that, yet it hasn't happened. I'm not talking about just getting big and strong , HIT does a great job at that , I'm talking about the 'bodybuilder look.' I think that is what most of were always after..

Yates was one, and I DO see his routines as HIT, but 9 out of 10 HIT guys would say that his way wasn't really HIT as he split routines , used more than one set, drugs , etc. Once again, it comes down to what you define as HIT.

No doubt us mortals can screw up our training results by doing too much while not hard enough but can also go way off course by training too hard and too little. A few of us here have done that.


Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Nwlifter wrote:
Who's Francis?


simon-hecubus wrote:
Not a late 70s/early 80s comedy buff?


Nwlifter wrote:
Yes I am, or thought I was lol, but not familiar with that show, which one was that?


A movie: 'Stripes'. Bill Murray's first 'vehicle'. With Warren Oates as Sgt Hulka, their uber-agressive drill sergeant.

I really don't remember who played Francis...
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

simon-hecubus wrote:

A movie: 'Stripes'. Bill Murray's first 'vehicle'. With Warren Oates as Sgt Hulka, their uber-agressive drill sergeant.

I really don't remember who played Francis...


Great cast and have the movie on my shelf.

I had to look him up - Conrad Dunn.

http://www.imdb.com/...name/nm0420718/
Open User Options Menu

Rikus

New Zealand

Crotalus wrote:

If a championship BODYBUILDER physique could be built with a Dr.Ken-type routine of simply being progressive on " ... a hand full of basic exercises ... " that you did till you fell on your face and puked, we had fifty years to prove that, yet it hasn't happened. I'm not talking about just getting big and strong , HIT does a great job at that , I'm talking about the 'bodybuilder look.' I think that is what most of were always after..

No doubt us mortals can screw up our training results by doing too much while not hard enough but can also go way off course by training too hard and too little. A few of us here have done that.


I agree. Although low volume is still very niche. How many people here learned of it during the 80s/90s and how many new people have even heard of it. We might be the last Hit Jedi's :)

I definitely gained size with Darden style intensity techniques and went no where with straight sets to failure pushing for one more rep or weight increase each workout. I had to use partials (21s), pre-exhaust and drop sets to get size increases (measurable with tape). And it came quite easily. Then it would wear off in 2 workouts and I'd cycle a different bodypart.

Only thing I'd say is I am not strong...but I look like I am. (Not sure that is good thing!)

Brian Johnston's stuff is interesting as it takes the variation stuff and runs with it.



Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Rikus wrote:
I had to use partials (21s), pre-exhaust and drop sets to get size increases (measurable with tape). And it came quite easily. Then it would wear off in 2 workouts and I'd cycle a different bodypart.

Brian Johnston's stuff is interesting as it takes the variation stuff and runs with it.


I'm with you with this ... I'm using Zones, break downs, pre-exhaust and 50% sets and believe I can do so without running myself into the ground because I'm splitting the routine three ways ... which of course is one of the first 'rules' of old school HIT - work the whole body each workout and don't split the routine. But I definitely do better with a split routine. Still hard and brief, but in a three way split.

Agreed also with your views on Johnson ... really good training info.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Jump'n Jack, Ellington Darden
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy