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
Superiority of a Failure Based Routine
First | Prev | 1 | 2
Author
Rating
Options

entsminger

Virginia, USA

oldbutsteady wrote:
I think everyone on this forum needs to list to the Jim Bryan interview on Mindforce Radio. Episode 15 titled "Arthur Jones in Deland, Kim Wood, Dr.Ken, Casey Viator, Jim Flanagan, Dick Butkus"

https://soundcloud.com/bob-whe...

His information is priceless. It discusses the Nautilus Principles and much more.

OBS
==Scott==
Please take note: Wow!! Thank you very much for this link, I really enjoyed the blogs especially about Jones and Wood etc, etc.



Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

entsminger wrote:
I have never seen a study on the growth potential difference between momentary failure and near failure. HIT insists to maximize growth momentary failure must be achieved but no proof has ever been offered. Even if there was a difference, how much of a difference?

==Scott==
I've seen this question and others like it asked a million times and never is it answered definitively and I think that is because it's next to impossible to give absolute answers in this business of building muscle. One study can say this and another study can say that. Everybody reacts differently to things. Like the question going around in circles right now, what is HIT? To one person it means this, to another it means that. There is no easy definitive answer.What we can hope for since Dr, Darden coined it that maybe some day he can come out with a concise explanation that once and for all wraps up what he considers it to be.Even then the argument will continue as others will question that.There's no end to it.


That's because HIT has two meanings, originally it was Dr. Darden's complete training prescription, but later it got 'gener-icised' and people use it for all 'failure' based training, as just the phrase high intensity training would mean.
It's kinda like 'what is a kleenex'? in reality it's a brand name of tissues but now anything that is like that, people call a 'kleenex'.
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Ents,

Agreed, the Jones legacy and HIT has been twisted beyond recognition.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Another Golden Age lifter of note is Marvin Eder and you can listen to him at Mindforce Radio, he is 83 years old at the time of this interview (if memory serves).

OBS
Open User Options Menu

AndyMitch

I consider Jim B to be a very good mate, over the last 25 years we?ve had many conversations and I?ve learned a lot from him.
Open User Options Menu

PTDaniel

Nwlifter wrote:
oldbutsteady wrote:
Nwlifter,

Thank you for the info, I appreciate it, and I look forward to seeing his conclusion.

As for what you posted about the other studies, they agree with what I've observed. For me personally failure never had any noticeable benefit but to increase my recovery dramatically.

The most productive program I followed, when trying to build mass, was a mix of 3x5 and 5x5. I used the basic compound exercises and limited the routine to 4 or 5 exercises. However, I'm into the maintaining stage of my life now, being old but steady ;)

OBS


I'm curious and can't wait for his studies too, I also have had absolute best results with
3x5 and 5x5
3x8 Gironda
set close to failure plus rest pauses

Never had great results with just 'a set to failure', never enough to get me growing.


Recently some group did a study comparing conventional sets to a ascending repetition, cumulative fatigue pattern similar to one of Brian Johnston's. I can't remember the authors or the name of the paper.
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Why is it so hard for HITters to realize that hard work with multiple sets works consistently to build muscle? We have 100 years of proof. What more do you need? Turpin on this very forum proved it beyond any doubt and yet people persist 1 set to failure is better, quicker, and the correct way.

The Golden Age lifters noted for extreme strength, Grimek, Reeves, and especially Eder developed their bodies with hard work, heavy weight, and multiple set but HITters are looking for a shortcut that doesn't exist. If what is considered HIT on this forum worked why are there only a few lifters here that have maxed out their potential after decades of this style of training? Or am I missing something?

Also, when you use 2 or 3 exercises for the same muscle and say it what most here consider HIT, you're full of BS. According to what I keep reading here, one set to failure per muscle group is HIT. Multiple sets are the domain of another form of training.

OBS

P.S. For those that don't like that I'm posting this, don't read it anymore!
Open User Options Menu

spud

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, videos must be worth even more.

On another thread I posted something similar to this. I'll expand on it here.

There is obviously a massive difference in results obtained by training to failure compared with results obtained by not training very hard at all.

Training to failure would be performing 12 reps with your 12 rep max and not training very hard at all would be performing 6 reps with your 12 rep max.

However, there is virtually no difference at all in training results when you compare training to failure (performing 12 reps with your 12 rep max) with training very hard (performing 10 or 11 reps with your 12 rep max).

So what does training very hard but not to failure look like?

Doug Holland's client Dan. Check out these two videos of him performing trap bar deadlifts.

https://www.instagram.com/.../p/B0oy8W8gsCL/

https://www.instagram.com/.../p/B1KNKhSAvxn/

He gets 10 reps with 370 pounds on the low handles and 11 reps that we can see with 428 on the high handles.

Could he have got more reps? Perhaps another 1 or 2 on either set, but that would have strayed into form breakdown and injury territory.

The point is this: If you think that either of those sets was unproductive because he didn't go to failure, then you need your head looking at.
Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

spud wrote:
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, videos must be worth even more.

On another thread I posted something similar to this. I'll expand on it here.

There is obviously a massive difference in results obtained by training to failure compared with results obtained by not training very hard at all.

Training to failure would be performing 12 reps with your 12 rep max and not training very hard at all would be performing 6 reps with your 12 rep max.

However, there is virtually no difference at all in training results when you compare training to failure (performing 12 reps with your 12 rep max) with training very hard (performing 10 or 11 reps with your 12 rep max).

So what does training very hard but not to failure look like?

Doug Holland's client Dan. Check out these two videos of him performing trap bar deadlifts.

https://www.instagram.com/.../p/B0oy8W8gsCL/

https://www.instagram.com/.../p/B1KNKhSAvxn/

He gets 10 reps with 370 pounds on the low handles and 11 reps that we can see with 428 on the high handles.

Could he have got more reps? Perhaps another 1 or 2 on either set, but that would have strayed into form breakdown and injury territory.

The point is this: If you think that either of those sets was unproductive because he didn't go to failure, then you need your head looking at.


I hear ya on this. For me, on an exercise like deads, squats or bench presses, I'm more conservative of how far I go. If I have to be concerned about potentially not being able to get the weight back up or have to be concerned with getting back down or into a rack, I have to keep something in tank and be conscious of form.

As far as not going to failure not being as productive: I think about how many different points could be considered failure: concentric, concentric with a static attempt, concentric with a drop set or more than one drop set. If I'm using a machine I have that added feel of safety and not having to worry about getting the weight reracked and all that. I see the significance of the work done pre failure/ deep inroad/ deep fatigue. As you talked about. When I walk away from doing a set of squats feeling winded and momentarily wiped out. Sometimes I delve deeper than others but I guess is largely due to the tool.
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

tensionstrength wrote:
spud wrote:
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, videos must be worth even more.

On another thread I posted something similar to this. I'll expand on it here.

There is obviously a massive difference in results obtained by training to failure compared with results obtained by not training very hard at all.

Training to failure would be performing 12 reps with your 12 rep max and not training very hard at all would be performing 6 reps with your 12 rep max.

However, there is virtually no difference at all in training results when you compare training to failure (performing 12 reps with your 12 rep max) with training very hard (performing 10 or 11 reps with your 12 rep max).

So what does training very hard but not to failure look like?

Doug Holland's client Dan. Check out these two videos of him performing trap bar deadlifts.

https://www.instagram.com/.../p/B0oy8W8gsCL/

https://www.instagram.com/.../p/B1KNKhSAvxn/

He gets 10 reps with 370 pounds on the low handles and 11 reps that we can see with 428 on the high handles.

Could he have got more reps? Perhaps another 1 or 2 on either set, but that would have strayed into form breakdown and injury territory.

The point is this: If you think that either of those sets was unproductive because he didn't go to failure, then you need your head looking at.

I hear ya on this. For me, on an exercise like deads, squats or bench presses, I'm more conservative of how far I go. If I have to be concerned about potentially not being able to get the weight back up or have to be concerned with getting back down or into a rack, I have to keep something in tank and be conscious of form.

As far as not going to failure not being as productive: I think about how many different points could be considered failure: concentric, concentric with a static attempt, concentric with a drop set or more than one drop set. If I'm using a machine I have that added feel of safety and not having to worry about getting the weight reracked and all that. I see the significance of the work done pre failure/ deep inroad/ deep fatigue. As you talked about. When I walk away from doing a set of squats feeling winded and momentarily wiped out. Sometimes I delve deeper than others but I guess is largely due to the tool.



not going to failure produces results, there are millions of fit people who do not go to failure
Open User Options Menu

Equity

Dr. Darden has never asserted that one set to failure is optimal. Brian Johnston has brought this up several times on this forum.

Darden recommends his specialisation routines with extra volume for a purpose... AN INCREASED STIMULUS FOR GROWTH. The full body routines are there for gradual progress but not quick gains.

Open User Options Menu

Chris H

spud wrote:
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, videos must be worth even more.

On another thread I posted something similar to this. I'll expand on it here.

There is obviously a massive difference in results obtained by training to failure compared with results obtained by not training very hard at all.

Training to failure would be performing 12 reps with your 12 rep max and not training very hard at all would be performing 6 reps with your 12 rep max.

However, there is virtually no difference at all in training results when you compare training to failure (performing 12 reps with your 12 rep max) with training very hard (performing 10 or 11 reps with your 12 rep max).

So what does training very hard but not to failure look like?

Doug Holland's client Dan. Check out these two videos of him performing trap bar deadlifts.

https://www.instagram.com/.../p/B0oy8W8gsCL/

https://www.instagram.com/.../p/B1KNKhSAvxn/

He gets 10 reps with 370 pounds on the low handles and 11 reps that we can see with 428 on the high handles.

Could he have got more reps? Perhaps another 1 or 2 on either set, but that would have strayed into form breakdown and injury territory.

The point is this: If you think that either of those sets was unproductive because he didn't go to failure, then you need your head looking at.


Good post, however i don't believe you should ever go to failure on any form of deads, and defo not Squats.
Technical lifts, to many links
Open User Options Menu

S.M.Punisher

I don't believe training to failure need impact recovery so much that it be counterproductive when compared to not-to-failure routines, at least if we exclude highly neural exercises like deadlifts which might need weeks for proper recovery.

I have recently been gaining more strength and mass than at any point since I was about 18 years old, using a low-volume, to-failure routine, though with higher frequency than in the past.

I'm 38 and about 17 pounds heavier than in my avatar pic (taken a few years ago), of which I estimate about 5-7 pounds is fat--having realized that if you're already cut, you need to accept some fat gain for muscle gain if you've been at it a long time, all natural.

My routine is every other day; incline press machine, behind-neck press machine, deadlift machine--one set each, one minute between the pressing exercises and 30 seconds between one-leg DLs (one or two short sets each leg) and stiff-legged DLs, about 3-6 reps on all exercises except for the SLDLs which are higher because I can't use any more weight; next w/o day is one-arm negative chins, 1x1 each arm, thick bar; then back to just the presses, no DLs; then back to the chins; then repeating the cycle with the presses and DLs together.

Each set is done with maximum or close to maximum intensity, but due to the low volume I walk away feeling I could do it again. Recovery has not been an issue; I have been gaining strength every workout, though been trying to gain body weight, so that helps.

I don't see how training less intensely would help, if my recovery is good. I suppose I could do it every day if I held back a bit, but I like having the days off.

Another point is that I enjoy testing my strength, knowing exactly where I'm at, having a previous attempt to beat. I could not do that nearly as well if I were holding back failure.
Open User Options Menu

sirloin

For me, the set ends when I can no longer accelerate the weight. Ive trained in a gym where olympic lifters trained, they'd outstanding development in their legs, back, shoulders etc. They lift explosively, low reps / high sets and never to failure.
Open User Options Menu

Chris H

S.M.Punisher wrote:
I don't believe training to failure need impact recovery so much that it be counterproductive when compared to not-to-failure routines, at least if we exclude highly neural exercises like deadlifts which might need weeks for proper recovery.

I have recently been gaining more strength and mass than at any point since I was about 18 years old, using a low-volume, to-failure routine, though with higher frequency than in the past.

I'm 38 and about 17 pounds heavier than in my avatar pic (taken a few years ago), of which I estimate about 5-7 pounds is fat--having realized that if you're already cut, you need to accept some fat gain for muscle gain if you've been at it a long time, all natural.

My routine is every other day; incline press machine, behind-neck press machine, deadlift machine--one set each, one minute between the pressing exercises and 30 seconds between one-leg DLs (one or two short sets each leg) and stiff-legged DLs, about 3-6 reps on all exercises except for the SLDLs which are higher because I can't use any more weight; next w/o day is one-arm negative chins, 1x1 each arm, thick bar; then back to just the presses, no DLs; then back to the chins; then repeating the cycle with the presses and DLs together.

Each set is done with maximum or close to maximum intensity, but due to the low volume I walk away feeling I could do it again. Recovery has not been an issue; I have been gaining strength every workout, though been trying to gain body weight, so that helps.

I don't see how training less intensely would help, if my recovery is good. I suppose I could do it every day if I held back a bit, but I like having the days off.

Another point is that I enjoy testing my strength, knowing exactly where I'm at, having a previous attempt to beat. I could not do that nearly as well if I were holding back failure.


Interesting/
I you don't mind can you relay your actual strength increase, and how that correlates to your heavier body weigh.

I.E - is it the routine or the body weight ?
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

like the saying goes, "there are a thousand ways to skin a cat"

IMO, there is no superior method to build muscle and strength other than the method of being consistent in your training, whatever the training the individual finds that works for them and to be smart enough to know when to change a routine that is not working at all or anymore
Open User Options Menu

S.M.Punisher

Chris H wrote:
Interesting/
If you don't mind can you relay your actual strength increase, and how that correlates to your heavier body weight.

I.E - is it the routine or the body weight?


For the last ten years I had been around 175-185lbs, cut but not ripped, at 6-1. Over the last 4 months I've got up to 200 pounds. I thought I would gain more fat, and was prepared to, and I'm not really sure why this most recent routine has worked so well, although I must admit I've made some lifestyle changes that help with my focus on training and seemingly my test levels (let's just say I have embraced the MGTOW lifestyle without completely giving up on women; to say any more would be getting into x-rated territory).

Where I live there is a park gym that has weight machines. I had been doing body weight training (muscle ups, one-armed push and pull ups, front levers, pistol squats) but I'm too heavy for that now. I would like to give more precise information, but I'm not using free weights. I really like the machines as I can lift heavy without taxing the CNS too hard. I could do about 25 reps with the whole stack on the DL machine (have done 405lbs regular DL) so started midway down the stack for one leg, 4 reps, and am now ready to try the whole stack for a double. I've gained similar strength on the pressing exercises (the machine is built for both bench and shoulder presses, so I've got a lot of the stack yet to use, and the machine itself is heavy). I have no idea how much weight I'm really lifting.

The one-arm negative chins are difficult to assess as it depends on how much I weigh exactly at that moment, but the thick bar has helped both forearm and upper arm development, not to mention the long head of the triceps gets just as much work as the biceps, lats and rear delts with this exercise. It was easy at the lighter body weight, but at 200 I'm happy to just keep full control over the descent.
Open User Options Menu

too old

Sirloin or anyone else,
Regarding the method of stopping the set when reps slow, how does this work with low reps. i.e the 10x 3 scheme.
Trainers like Waterbury say to use your 6 rep max for 10x3 and also advocates stopping sets when rep speed slows.After a few sets I would imagine you would be close to failure on most of the remaining sets. What if rep speed slows after one rep. How would this method work?
Open User Options Menu

sirloin

too old wrote:
Sirloin or anyone else,
Regarding the method of stopping the set when reps slow, how does this work with low reps. i.e the 10x 3 scheme.
Trainers like Waterbury say to use your 6 rep max for 10x3 and also advocates stopping sets when rep speed slows.After a few sets I would imagine you would be close to failure on most of the remaining sets. What if rep speed slows after one rep. How would this method work?


You could (for example), build up to 10x3, OR, if you find you begin to lose explosiveness by say set 7 or 8, you could lighten the load just enough to ensure zero grinding through to set 10.


Open User Options Menu

Chris H

S.M.Punisher wrote:
Chris H wrote:
Interesting/
If you don't mind can you relay your actual strength increase, and how that correlates to your heavier body weight.

I.E - is it the routine or the body weight?

For the last ten years I had been around 175-185lbs, cut but not ripped, at 6-1. Over the last 4 months I've got up to 200 pounds. I thought I would gain more fat, and was prepared to, and I'm not really sure why this most recent routine has worked so well, although I must admit I've made some lifestyle changes that help with my focus on training and seemingly my test levels (let's just say I have embraced the MGTOW lifestyle without completely giving up on women; to say any more would be getting into x-rated territory).

Where I live there is a park gym that has weight machines. I had been doing body weight training (muscle ups, one-armed push and pull ups, front levers, pistol squats) but I'm too heavy for that now. I would like to give more precise information, but I'm not using free weights. I really like the machines as I can lift heavy without taxing the CNS too hard. I could do about 25 reps with the whole stack on the DL machine (have done 405lbs regular DL) so started midway down the stack for one leg, 4 reps, and am now ready to try the whole stack for a double. I've gained similar strength on the pressing exercises (the machine is built for both bench and shoulder presses, so I've got a lot of the stack yet to use, and the machine itself is heavy). I have no idea how much weight I'm really lifting.

The one-arm negative chins are difficult to assess as it depends on how much I weigh exactly at that moment, but the thick bar has helped both forearm and upper arm development, not to mention the long head of the triceps gets just as much work as the biceps, lats and rear delts with this exercise. It was easy at the lighter body weight, but at 200 I'm happy to just keep full control over the descent.


thanks for the response
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

hit4me wrote:
like the saying goes, "there are a thousand ways to skin a cat"

IMO, there is no superior method to build muscle and strength other than the method of being consistent in your training, whatever the training the individual finds that works for them and to be smart enough to know when to change a routine that is not working at all or anymore


==Scott==

I was away from this excitement on vacation for almost a week and now that I'm back it's taken me almost that long to find something on here worth reading. I agree with what's said above completely!!
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy