nz is full of Volume training,what about high intesnsity?

[FastFreddy]

I tried a program like the one suggested for a few months. I found that you can indeed maintain ????

1. Fat gain. (Possibly because my diet is no good

2. Loss of hand and forearm strength.

3. Loss of flexibility

GOOD MORNING

one big problem with ppl trying heavy duty training is:if you dont understand all of the system ,yes u will gain fat!(eatting more dos not stimulate musclur growth!,IT ONLY SURPORTS THE NEEDS)

force feeding is only going to add to fat gain not muscle gain.

when we deside on what we want:size or muscle endurance,This system is for size,and is gaged by strenght gains,if u were doing h/d training and only maintained ya size and strenght ;( YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND)

1 FREQUENCY,2 DURATION,3 IDENTITY,4 INTENSITY,5 PROGRESSION.

all these fundamentals are concerns for failer doing heavy duty.

loss of flexibility an be a problem,keeping inmind you should be doing full range of motion in movments and warming the muscles before working sets,one thing i do myself if in comp mod:is no stretching because i want my muscles standing up-shorter not long looking like a runner eg...

sorry about my spelling,i never got school c ,lol,but i try to get it right!!!

thx

[andrew_k]

Just to add my 2 cents worth... There is a lot of merit to Mike Mentzers approach. The almost universal adoption of shorter, more intense workouts these days compared to Arnolds era is possibly attributable to his influence. Mentzer got his original ideas from Arthur Jones, the designer of the Nautilus range of exercise machines. These ideas revolved around the concept of very brief, intense workouts performed infrequently. The workouts themselves focused on working the muscle past the point of failure, using forced reps, heavy negatives, supersets with pre-exhaustion and so forth. The end result being the muscle is forced to develop a level of tension higher than it has had to develop previously. This increased tension is acknowledged (eg. Goldberg et al, 1975) as one of the stimuli for hypertrophy. For instance, even chronic stretching (leading to increased tension) of muscles in vitro has been shown to lead to increased mass.

However there are other factors involved with hypertrophy that the proponents of HIT don't take into account. Biopsies of bodybuilders have shown not only an increase in the number of contractile (protein) elements within the muscle but an increase in the cell volume as well. There is some indication that a certain volume of training is needed to gain this effect. Other factors such as lactate production affect hypertrophy.

Training programs I believe need to take into account things like:

1. Somatotype (degree of ectomorphy/mesomorphy/endomorphy)

2. Predominant muscle fibre type (I / IIa / IIb / IIc). Note that this can vary within the individual.

3. Previous and current training

4. Environmental factors such as diet, rest, stress levels, age, gender etc.

HIT doesn't really take these factors into consideration. Mentzer claimed his methodology was universal. However I think different body/fibre types require different volumes of training both in terms of total number of sets as well as number of reps per set. However the HIT approach is definitely effective for highly mesomorphic individuals with a higher percentage of type II fibres.

Also Mentzer stressed in his literature that hypertrophy is an adaptive response to a stress. This is 100% true. Your body isn't the least bit interested in developing big muscles, it is simply responding to the stress imposed upon it by training with a series of biochemical and physiological adaptations, the end result of which means less stress on the system next time a training load of similar intensity is imposed upon it. That is, its all about a kind of biological pain avoidance! However what Mentzer neglected to take into account was that over time the body adapts to the demands of his high intensity training approach too (point 3 above). Having touted HIT as the only way to train I guess it would have been difficult for him to come out and say other methods thrown in to shock the body could on occasion be effective too.

[FastFreddy]

Just to add my 2 cents worth... There is a lot of merit to Mike Mentzers approach. The almost universal adoption of shorter, more intense workouts these days compared to Arnolds era is possibly attributable to his influence. Mentzer got his original ideas from Arthur Jones, the designer of the Nautilus range of exercise machines. These ideas revolved around the concept of very brief, intense workouts performed infrequently. The workouts themselves focused on working the muscle past the point of failure, using forced reps, heavy negatives, supersets with pre-exhaustion and so forth. The end result being the muscle is forced to develop a level of tension higher than it has had to develop previously. This increased tension is acknowledged (eg. Goldberg et al, 1975) as one of the stimuli for hypertrophy. For instance, even chronic stretching (leading to increased tension) of muscles in vitro has been shown to lead to increased mass.

However there are other factors involved with hypertrophy that the proponents of HIT don't take into account. Biopsies of bodybuilders have shown not only an increase in the number of contractile (protein) elements within the muscle but an increase in the cell volume as well. There is some indication that a certain volume of training is needed to gain this effect. Other factors such as lactate production affect hypertrophy.

Training programs I believe need to take into account things like:

1. Somatotype (degree of ectomorphy/mesomorphy/endomorphy)

2. Predominant muscle fibre type (I / IIa / IIb / IIc). Note that this can vary within the individual.

3. Previous and current training

4. Environmental factors such as diet, rest, stress levels, age, gender etc.

HIT doesn't really take these factors into consideration. Mentzer claimed his methodology was universal. However I think different body/fibre types require different volumes of training both in terms of total number of sets as well as number of reps per set. However the HIT approach is definitely effective for highly mesomorphic individuals with a higher percentage of type II fibres.

Also Mentzer stressed in his literature that hypertrophy is an adaptive response to a stress. This is 100% true. Your body isn't the least bit interested in developing big muscles, it is simply responding to the stress imposed upon it by training with a series of biochemical and physiological adaptations, the end result of which means less stress on the system next time a training load of similar intensity is imposed upon it. That is, its all about a kind of biological pain avoidance! However what Mentzer neglected to take into account was that over time the body adapts to the demands of his high intensity training approach too (point 3 above). Having touted HIT as the only way to train I guess it would have been difficult for him to come out and say other methods thrown in to shock the body could on occasion be effective too.

good day to you Andrew

intresting theroey on you beharf!

1 Did u think of changing the stress(movements)Substituting Exercises.

there for the body has not adapted, stopping nurologicail connection to improve to the point were (your muscles just get good at that movement) and the stress is new, Making new muscle stimulation.evry time u train to failer.if having a lay off or extra days did not work.stopping Exhaution stage :G.A.S

2 With regard to cell proforming types,if a muscle group is proforming a movement and its working at 100% of its abilatity(failer):that means,Ever cell is firing at 100% and all of the muscles within that group are being worked at 100%, effort,you have reached the break-over point.

3 and 4 ant worth getting into,because all of those factors should of already being addressed before starting training in this manner.

why? If one was training with this system he/she would be looking for the fastist mostproductive workouts they can get,

[andrew_k]

good day to you Andrew

intresting theroey on you beharf!

1 Did u think of changing the stress(movements)Substituting Exercises.

there for the body has not adapted, stopping nurologicail connection to improve to the point were (your muscles just get good at that movement) and the stress is new, Making new muscle stimulation.evry time u train to failer.if having a lay off or extra days did not work.stopping Exhaution stage :G.A.S

2 With regard to cell proforming types,if a muscle group is proforming a movement and its working at 100% of its abilatity(failer):that means,Ever cell is firing at 100% and all of the muscles within that group are being worked at 100%, effort,you have reached the break-over point.

3 and 4 ant worth getting into,because all of those factors should of already being addressed before starting training in this manner.

why? If one was training with this system he/she would be looking for the fastist mostproductive workouts they can get,

Hi,

Thanks for your response. In actual fact my own training is not too dissimilar in concept to the HIT approach. The changes I've made revolve around cycling training intensity (and techniques for training beyond failure), slight increases in training volume plus quite a different approach to diet compared to that advocated by Mentzer. Mike stated that if you require, say, 2500 kcal per day to maintain your weight this only needed to be increased to around 2600 kcal daily to get a 10lb lean mass gain over the course of a year. 100kcal extra per day over the course of the year equates to a 36500 calorific excess. Gaining one pound of body weight requires an excess of around 3500kcal hence 36500kcals gives a roughly 10lb weight gain. However this fails to take into account the metabolic changes that can occur with an increase in food consumption. Some tissues (brown fat for instance) perform what is known as futile cycling. That is, they have chemical cycles that actually produce nothing (no end product) but still consume energy. For a lot of individuals slightly increased consumption as a result of these sort of processes results in little or no weight gain at all. For myself I really have to consume quite a few extra calories to gain weight. Again though, there is a lot of inter-individual variability.

Mentzer also stated that you shouldn't aim for much more than 5lbs lean weight gain per year. Anything beyond this he claimed was just fat. In some senses there is a lot of merit in his saying this, as it leads to perhaps more realistic expectations for the majority of people. However there is a significant body of evidence to suggest that under the right circumstances the amount of muscle that can be gained is much greater. In the work by Goldberg et al the tendon of the soleus was cut in a group of rats to observe the effects of the increased load on the gastrocnemius muscle. These increased in wet mass by around 30% on average in the space of a week. Mentzer himself as I recall also gained about 7lbs of muscle in a 2 week period, a fact verified by hydrostatic weighing.

There is a lot of merit in Mentzers work. The fact that there is perhaps more variability involved in peoples response to training and diet than he allowed for by no means diminishes his impact. Ask Dorian Yates...

[BIGKIWI]

dam I wish I had the patience and typing skills of you bro take me 3 days to write just 1 of your posts :)

good day to you Andrew

intresting theroey on you beharf!

1 Did u think of changing the stress(movements)Substituting Exercises.

there for the body has not adapted, stopping nurologicail connection to improve to the point were (your muscles just get good at that movement) and the stress is new, Making new muscle stimulation.evry time u train to failer.if having a lay off or extra days did not work.stopping Exhaution stage :G.A.S

2 With regard to cell proforming types,if a muscle group is proforming a movement and its working at 100% of its abilatity(failer):that means,Ever cell is firing at 100% and all of the muscles within that group are being worked at 100%, effort,you have reached the break-over point.

3 and 4 ant worth getting into,because all of those factors should of already being addressed before starting training in this manner.

why? If one was training with this system he/she would be looking for the fastist mostproductive workouts they can get,

Hi,

Thanks for your response. In actual fact my own training is not too dissimilar in concept to the HIT approach. The changes I've made revolve around cycling training intensity (and techniques for training beyond failure), slight increases in training volume plus quite a different approach to diet compared to that advocated by Mentzer. Mike stated that if you require, say, 2500 kcal per day to maintain your weight this only needed to be increased to around 2600 kcal daily to get a 10lb lean mass gain over the course of a year. 100kcal extra per day over the course of the year equates to a 36500 calorific excess. Gaining one pound of body weight requires an excess of around 3500kcal hence 36500kcals gives a roughly 10lb weight gain. However this fails to take into account the metabolic changes that can occur with an increase in food consumption. Some tissues (brown fat for instance) perform what is known as futile cycling. That is, they have chemical cycles that actually produce nothing (no end product) but still consume energy. For a lot of individuals slightly increased consumption as a result of these sort of processes results in little or no weight gain at all. For myself I really have to consume quite a few extra calories to gain weight. Again though, there is a lot of inter-individual variability.

Mentzer also stated that you shouldn't aim for much more than 5lbs lean weight gain per year. Anything beyond this he claimed was just fat. In some senses there is a lot of merit in his saying this, as it leads to perhaps more realistic expectations for the majority of people. However there is a significant body of evidence to suggest that under the right circumstances the amount of muscle that can be gained is much greater. In the work by Goldberg et al the tendon of the soleus was cut in a group of rats to observe the effects of the increased load on the gastrocnemius muscle. These increased in wet mass by around 30% on average in the space of a week. Mentzer himself as I recall also gained about 7lbs of muscle in a 2 week period, a fact verified by hydrostatic weighing.

There is a lot of merit in Mentzers work. The fact that there is perhaps more variability involved in peoples response to training and diet than he allowed for by no means diminishes his impact. Ask Dorian Yates...

[andrew_k]

dam I wish I had the patience and typing skills of you bro take me 3 days to write just 1 of your posts :)

It would take me 3 days (and a bit of help) to lift one of your dumbells...

[FastFreddy]

There is a lot of merit in Mentzers work. The fact that there is perhaps more variability involved in peoples response to training and diet than he allowed for by no means diminishes his impact. Ask Dorian Yates...

Morning ,Dorian Yates,that man had it all!!!

But didnt under stand Mikes treaching( i dont think)if ya look at A Warriors Story:All the fundamentals have being throughin out the window along with the fact that mike had treached him apartfrom (his ideas in the book) witch condrdicked mikes systems,

Were u regaining muscle from a lay off ? useing gear ? creatine-water?

I us to find ithard to put weight on too 68kg and 5.8ft at 20yrs now 32 yrs and after 12 yrs of training weght is 98kg untrained-i own it!!!

what i did was build up to 107 kg and doing h/d of couse and held it for 18-24 months! why,sick of going up and down and up and down with weight and size fom comps,looking into it the body after that long of being that big(for me)found it normal,nornality!,like a man that was 1ookg got sick and lost 7 kg,what happens after he gets over his sickness,he gos back to his normal weight right?the body was happy at that weight and finds it (normality).that why i ask u about you idea of putting on ?

[rigger]

Hi Mr Heavy Duty. All this talk about Heavy duty training. How much fat are you carrying? Quite a bit I bet. When was the last time you were on stage and how much fat did you have to lose? Were you happy with your condition? Heavy Duty is just a term. Serious competitive bodybuilders train their guts out anyway. If this heavy duty system of yours is so good then lets have a look at it. i'm sure you train hard but so do lots of people who are serious. What are some of your numbers in the gym "without someone spotting you". Later. Rigger.

[FastFreddy]

Hi Mr Heavy Duty. All this talk about Heavy duty training. How much fat are you carrying? Quite a bit I bet. When was the last time you were on stage and how much fat did you have to lose? Were you happy with your condition? Heavy Duty is just a term. Serious competitive bodybuilders train their guts out anyway. If this heavy duty system of yours is so good then lets have a look at it. i'm sure you train hard but so do lots of people who are serious. What are some of your numbers in the gym "without someone spotting you". Later. Rigger.

hat Rigger!good to hear from ya!

heavy duty training is not my idea mate,as mike would say im a second hander! lol,but i try to have a Active mind of my own.

the heay duty training system is not :just heavy like a lot bbrs train with,its very controled,timed,u only do 3-6 working sets in a workout and they are all to failer(positive failer then sometimes add negatives,static or partials.

its called high intensity because it is,i have trained with volume too,and each time i deited for a comp ,id loss to much muscle,but last time i dieted and used h/d i keeped a lot more on,from not over training.

u can train long of hard,but not both,u cant sprint for 2 hr,but ya can jog it maybe,that the intesity leavel between h/d and volume no matter how tuff u are!

at 80kg just one month out 3 yrs ago i dead lifted 230kg 3.2 times before failer after 4 other working set till failer,and it was smooth and controled over about 8-10 seconds per rep,wide grip too,

i won that comp,under 80kg,ive comped only three time the first too ,volume didnt work that well like i said.i use to train about 23 hrs per week then Arnolds systems,i loved it, and i do own a gym,so i am all way there,but it wasnt as productive.my cleints would never go back to volume,its like fine art looking in my gym and seeing (most of them) doing movements controled with the right weights for them and in the right order too.

Most bbrs like u talk of would fall over after a h/d work out:Sergio Oliva did!!! u ever see blood and guts? some thing like that,but mike and Aurther made it a hell of a harder under them(not heavyer but more intensity,

thx dude ,laters

[jono]

Ask Dorian Yates...

dorian retired after a massive amount of injuries

[FastFreddy]

Ask Dorian Yates...

dorian retired after a massive amount of injuries

Yep!

and he was not doing controled movement those day i bet,as u fail in a set ya weeker that at the start of the set,there for if you were to yank the weight ya going to tear some thing a,the trick with h/d is not to tear ya muscle,but to shock it with controld load,member muscle cannot count weghts or reps,but they do respond to load,positive resistance

[rigger]

Heavy Duty. Your so called heavy duty system. From how you describe it. It's called weight training. You just read too much Mentzer articles. Rigger.

[Marcus]

I'm a bit lost as to what you are trying to achieve here Mr Heavy Duty NZ. Every type of program will work in one way or another, it's just finding what works for you. :wink:

[FastFreddy]

Heavy Duty. Your so called heavy duty system. From how you describe it. It's called weight training. You just read too much Mentzer articles. Rigger.

u seem to know it all mate,

i wont waste time trying to inform u of heavy duty,u just pump ya iron dude :shock: :shock:

[FastFreddy]

I'm a bit lost as to what you are trying to achieve here Mr Heavy Duty NZ. Every type of program will work in one way or another, it's just finding what works for you. :wink:

what is the fastest most productive training system matie???

no one would ever know if ya dont look for it a,mindless cavemen wont find out! so use a active mind,thats why we have a brain,use it

[Marcus]

Exactly bro. If you read my post above you will see I've been following DC training which is high intensity low volume. Does that meet your approval as having an active mind?

Like I keep saying round here, different things work for different people.

Why don't you just post a link to your heavy duty training & be done with it. Else start a journal so we can follow your progress.

[FastFreddy]

hi there,

im not looking for aprovial or saying heavy duty is the only workable training system,

but id like ppl to see for themselfs greater results from there training than most get these day walking around the gym trying to think of something to do ta get more results.

there are so meany ppl out there thinking they train with a high intensity system,most just use the name ,so they sound cool or some thing?

and after watching them train ,most! are doing f all,and its there great genetics or there gear that getting results,not logic,plaining and time put into there programs

good luck

[Marcus]

Well it's pretty hard to judge who here trains hard & who here doesn't don't you think?

I can see you're enthusiastic & full credit to you for that. But without being specific it's hard to convey that on a forum.

[FastFreddy]

more like imforming ppl of training ideas rather that checking on them i was thinking,

my progress repots on meself,lol i ant training dude,burnt out,lay off what ever ya call it,moto x keeps me bissy when im not training ppl or running my gym,

but ill be back,and yes with record it all down,looking to comp next yr

[andrew_k]

dorian retired after a massive amount of injuries

Yeah, I know, good point. However we don't know if his spate of injuries were due to his training methods, warmup routines perhaps not really doing the job, genetic predisposition to certain types of injury, drug usage increasing muscular strength faster than tendon strength or any other number of possible factors.

With the comments I made earlier I hope I didn't sound like I was trying to push one training system as being better than others. This most certainly wasn't my intention, my apologies if this is how I came across.

[Marcus]

No problem with your posts Andrew. Very informative.

[Pseudonym]

Agreed. :nod:

Somehow, we've developed a culture here where we can debate issues without getting abusive. I may be biased (just slightly) but I think that's the best thing about this forum. So good on you guys for being able to have mature discussions, and long may it continue! :grin:

[andrew_k]

Somehow, we've developed a culture here where we can debate issues without getting abusive. I may be biased (just slightly) but I think that's the best thing about this forum. So good on you guys for being able to have mature discussions, and long may it continue! :grin:

Agreed, this is a great place to visit!

[FastFreddy]

yep,like wiss guys,no bull and some good ideas coming tho this.

:pfft:

[FastFreddy]

yep,like wiss guys,no bull and some good ideas coming tho this.

:pfft:

so whos calling in for a heavy duty hit next time they drive past my gym,(HAWERA)free one on one,but ya gotta phone first!

let me know two days before and ill take ya tho the workout of ya life!!!