Serious Discussion On HIT/Heavy Duty/Abbreviated Training

[QUOTE=anab0lic_;186186251]Intresting, I have used 5-8 reps with a slow ecentrics (about 3-4seconds) explosive positive for a long time and have made amazing gains from it both in terms of strength and size. Alot of popular programs advocate to lift that way, I don't have any scinetific mumbo jumbo to support it, but its what I've found best through trial and error of various rep ranges and speeds... for me anyway.[/QUOTE]

OR- you can do a 5 rep max set. Lift it like you hate it and do a 10 rep final set with a slower rep speed. There are many ways to skin the proverbial cat.

[QUOTE=all pro;186184161]I'm not saying he's wrong just simplifying his answer and making sure it includes mixed qualities so that it doesn't look like another written in stone, either or type answer.
size and strength. You can do both at the same time.[/QUOTE]

That's why your 3x5 and my 5x2, followed by higher rep, stricter form exercises work so well. Mixed qualities is based on tension, force output, and hormonal stimulation. I'm not just talking about testosterone and GH, but also thyroid, cortisol, insulin, etc. This why HITters (not the silly little jedi), but guys successful with HIT, cycle it by adding more volume and frequency at times. If not, they get FAT, deconditioned, and hit plateaus.

[QUOTE=fbcoach;186211271]That's why your 3x5 and my 5x2, followed by higher rep, stricter form exercises work so well. Mixed qualities is based on tension, force output, and hormonal stimulation. I'm not just talking about testosterone and GH, but also thyroid, cortisol, insulin, etc. This why HITters (not the silly little jedi), but guys successful with HIT, cycle it by adding more volume and frequency at times. If not, they get FAT, deconditioned, and hit plateaus.[/QUOTE]

That's my point. People seem to think that if they go all out on a low rep set 1-6 reps, that they can't follow it up with an effective high rep set 10-15. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[QUOTE=all pro;186213881]That's my point. People seem to think that if they go all out on a low rep set 1-6 reps, that they can't follow it up with an effective high rep set 10-15. Nothing could be further from the truth.[/QUOTE]

Wasnt there a study you sent me that showed that rep work after ME work was actualy very effective due to the CNS being primed?

[QUOTE=all pro;186165161]Kelei nice try. Now let me give it a shot...........YOU NEED BOTH!!!
If you're working in the 1-6 rep range, LIFT IT LIKE YOU HATE IT and lower it quickly but under control. If you're working in the 8+ rep range then slow it down to NORMAL.

Simple enough?[/QUOTE]


Of course you need both, I wasnt suggesting which way to train, just stating information, I was hoping that most people would have enough brain power to consider the information and put the picture together for themselves.

All I said was that slow concentrics generate greater tension than fast concentrics, and that fast eccentrics generate more tension than slow eccentrics, I wasn't trying to say which is best because that entirely depends on your training goals.

- Faster concentrics generate greater force with less tension
- Slower concentrics generate less force with more tension

Considering that a high level of attempted force is the dominant stimulas for strength and CNS adaption and that a high level of tension is the dominant stimulas for hypertrophy (sarcomere) you should put 2 and 2 together and decide for yourself how to train.

Also as I said before, fast eccentrics generate even greater tension that slow eccentrics, but you must consider total TUT for the workout, doing 50 eccentrics with a 1 second speed may generate more tension than 50 eccentrics with a 4 second speed, but the vastly superior workload of 4 second eccentrics would far outweigh the greater tension of 1 second eccentrics.

I'm just telling you how to load the gun, I ain't trying to tell you how to shoot. While it's good to consider the performance aspect of things, you shouldn't always give advice from a performance viewpoint, if performance training methods were the best for hypertrophy then performance athletes would have the biggest muscles, obviusly this is not the case.

As we know force is simply a product of weight x speed, also we know that as force increases tension decrease vice versa,

Fast Concentric = 10 force, 2 tension (A)
Slow Concentric = 8 force, 4 tension (B)
Slow Eccentric = 6 force, 6 tension (A)
Fast Eccentric = 4 force, 8 tension (B)

*All the exampls below use 300 pounds of weight

A fast concentric rep averages 10MPH speed
A slow concentric rep averages 3MPH speed
A slow eccentric rep averages -3MPH speed
A fast eccentric rep averages -10MPH speed

Now you can see why eccentrics generate greater tension and therefor greater hypertrophy, because the speed of movement is much lower, as the speed lowers so does force, therefor tension must increase.

[QUOTE=britlifter;186431731]Wasnt there a study you sent me that showed that rep work after ME work was actualy very effective due to the CNS being primed?[/QUOTE]

Hey Brit,
I'm not sure if you are referring to Post Activation Facilitation, which is where you excite the CNS into firing off stronger impulses, by lifting heavier weights..thus making your lighter load feel like you are expending less effort.. Or, if you are referring to the hormonal mileiu caused by the pump, that cleans up the inflammation and facilitates fat loss?

Kelei I guess there is nobody who doesn't agree with your opinions about how to increase the tension. The point that I don't agree with you is about the speed of concentric phase and with the idea of you can't give the muscle enough tension with fast concentrics. You are right about for hypertrophy tension is an important factor but hypertrophy can't be reduced only to tension . As you know there are other important factors like TUT, intensity of the sets(using %X of 1 rep max) for performing the sets . As an example you can give muscles greater tension with Super Slow Reps and you can choose a load that provides you to complete the rep under appropiate time . Tension , TUT are okey but what about the intensity of the set? The intensity of the set will be very low and the load will be inappropiate for gaining strength and hypertrophy. Super Slow Reps are an extreme example and probably you are not performing them. Super Slow Reps show that greater tension is not the only indicator of the hypertrophy . TUT is important too. If you give muscle tension and keep the intensity of the sets high but don't keep TUT enough for hypertrophy again your results will be diminished . The reason why I am keeping the rep tempos for hypertrophy 4-0-X , 3-1-X or 3-1-X-1 because I am considering all these factors. Tension is very important but not the only factor . I also must consider TUT and intensity of the sets.
I keep concentric phase of the reps longer but I do this when I am aiming for more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. For more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy I also keep the TUT for the sets longer , decrease the rest times between sets and increase the volume . As you wrote in a message for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy I fatigue the muscles.

[QUOTE=Squat-Man;186499201]Kelei I guess there is nobody who doesn't agree with your opinions about how to increase the tension. The point that I don't agree with you is about the speed of concentric phase and with the idea of you can't give the muscle enough tension with fast concentrics. You are right about for hypertrophy tension is an important factor but hypertrophy can't be reduced only to tension . As you know there are other important factors like TUT, intensity of the sets(using %X of 1 rep max) for performing the sets . As an example you can give muscles greater tension with Super Slow Reps and you can choose a load that provides you to complete the rep under appropiate time . Tension , TUT are okey but what about the intensity of the set? The intensity of the set will be very low and the load will be inappropiate for gaining strength and hypertrophy. Super Slow Reps are an extreme example and probably you are not performing them. Super Slow Reps show that greater tension is not the only indicator of the hypertrophy . TUT is important too. If you give muscle tension and keep the intensity of the sets high but don't keep TUT enough for hypertrophy again your results will be diminished . The reason why I am keeping the rep tempos for hypertrophy 4-0-X , 3-1-X or 3-1-X-1 because I am considering all these factors. Tension is very important but not the only factor . I also must consider TUT and intensity of the sets.
I keep concentric phase of the reps longer but I do this when I am aiming for more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. For more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy I also keep the TUT for the sets longer , decrease the rest times between sets and increase the volume . As you wrote in a message for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy I fatigue the muscles.[/QUOTE]


Of course there is more to hypertrophy than simply tension, but I was simply talking about tension itself, I wasn't talking about hypertrophy. Basically all I told you guys was how rep speeds influence tension and motor unit recruitment, that's all. If I was to explain to you how a bullet works then you should take it for what it is, I am not trying to explain how the entire gun and all it's components work in relation to the bullet, I am simply talking about the bullet.

[QUOTE=Kelei;186524891]Of course there is more to hypertrophy than simply tension, but I was simply talking about tension itself, I wasn't talking about hypertrophy. Basically all I told you guys was how rep speeds influence tension and motor unit recruitment, that's all. If I was to explain to you how a bullet works then you should take it for what it is, I am not trying to explain how the entire gun and all it's components work in relation to the bullet, I am simply talking about the bullet.[/QUOTE]

You are right about the relationship between force and tension also for fast reps more motor units will be recruited. No need to argue these.

[QUOTE=britlifter;186431731]Wasnt there a study you sent me that showed that rep work after ME work was actualy very effective due to the CNS being primed?[/QUOTE]
As Coach said, it's called post activation facilitation. It's good for an additional 3-5% boost. I have a few articles on it. It's why Starr's 636 is so effective and if used for too long leads to over training. Run 40 yards with 5 pound ankle weights. Take the weights off and run it again. You'll understand.

i'm a bit upset-- these last couple of pages have been too civil for a HIT related thread.

good read, i'm still taking it all in.

thanks evryone

dave

That's because, Dave, momo has taken off for parts unknown--where DID he go, anyway?--and m_risinger can't read.

Still, it's nice to read up on all this.

With regards to post-activation, all pro, kelei, britlifter, fbcoach, what are your thoughts on it as a hypertrophic programme as opposed to straight sets or supersets. Steve Holman (IRONMAN'S writer) and Michael Gundill (sic?) swear by it. What are your thoughts?

[QUOTE=GuyJin;186763421]With regards to post-activation, all pro, kelei, britlifter, fbcoach, what are your thoughts on it as a hypertrophic programme as opposed to straight sets or supersets. Steve Holman (IRONMAN'S writer) and Michael Gundill (sic?) swear by it. What are your thoughts?[/QUOTE]

It's only a tool, basically it means that you should perform your heavy and/or fast rep work first while fatigue is less, this will enable greater force generation, you could then finish with your lighter weight and/or slower rep speed work. If you do your fatigue training first then you will limit force generation which will impede your strength training, but if you do it the other way around it's actually very beneficial, you do your strength training first and then you follow it up with your fatigue training, the strength training you did at the start of the workout has also created some fatigue so this will simply mean you require less actual fatigue training to reach the same end.

Basically post-activation is short term CNS adaption, when attempting to generate high levels of force the CNS adapts by,

1. Increasing immediate (temporary aswell) force capacity to complete the task currently being performed (post-activation)
2. Increasing long term force capacity so that more force can be generated in the future so the CNS is prepared for the task more efficiently should it need to be performed again in the future (aka regular strength/power gains etc)

Thanks for the reply, Kelei. The way Holman writes about it, you'd think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I've used it in the past on occasion and it did get me a few more reps, although that didn't last for too long--eventually I plateaued. But it was still a nice change of pace. I think it's best to mix it up from time to time, as long as the changes aren't too drastic.

[QUOTE=GuyJin;186876951]Thanks for the reply, Kelei. The way Holman writes about it, you'd think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I've used it in the past on occasion and it did get me a few more reps, although that didn't last for too long--eventually I plateaued. But it was still a nice change of pace. I think it's best to mix it up from time to time, as long as the changes aren't too drastic.[/QUOTE]

Kelei,
Well explained post!
Guy Jin,
Personally, I love it also. I modify it occassionally. Lately, I have been performing 5x2 followed by 2x10-12, but I have also used it 1x1-2 followed by 3x10 or even 5x10 with 20 seconds rest between sets. You can modify it to fit whatever needs or goals you are trying to achieve.

Thanks for the feedback, coach. The way it was explained by Gundill was to do 4-6 reps with a heavy weight, get it up any way possible within reason, rest about two minutes, then do an iso exercise in PERFECT form for higher reps, then repeat the process. Larry Scott often used this technique, or so I read, and it didn't hurt him any, although he took no rest between sets. That's how I did it before, and the results were good, although, as All Pro likes to point out, all things work for about 6 weeks. Good to know that others have found this type of workout useful, as well as the different rep ranges available.

[QUOTE=GuyJin;186999861]Thanks for the feedback, coach. The way it was explained by Gundill was to do 4-6 reps with a heavy weight, get it up any way possible within reason, rest about two minutes, then do an iso exercise in PERFECT form for higher reps, then repeat the process. Larry Scott often used this technique, or so I read, and it didn't hurt him any, although he took no rest between sets. That's how I did it before, and the results were good, although, as All Pro likes to point out, all things work for about 6 weeks. Good to know that others have found this type of workout useful, as well as the different rep ranges available.[/QUOTE]

Totally Agree!!

[QUOTE=GuyJin;186763421]That's because, Dave, momo has taken off for parts unknown--where DID he go, anyway?--and m_risinger can't read.

Still, it's nice to read up on all this.

With regards to post-activation, all pro, kelei, britlifter, fbcoach, what are your thoughts on it as a hypertrophic programme as opposed to straight sets or supersets. Steve Holman (IRONMAN'S writer) and Michael Gundill (sic?) swear by it. What are your thoughts?[/QUOTE]

I think it's excellent because it will allow you to lift more weight on a final set of a multi set program and as everyone knows more volume = more size.

Mishap #1. Post-tetanic Facilitation

I'm sure most of you have heard of wave loading. Basically, it consists of using varying levels of maximal loads in an effort to cause immediate strength gains. An example of wave loading looks like this:

Wave 1

Set 1: 5 reps with 300 lbs.
Set 2: 3 reps with 320 lbs.
Set 3: 1 rep with 340 lbs.

Then, with the neural enhancements that occur, you're able to repeat the above sequence with somewhere around 2% more load for each set. In other words, your 5RM, 3RM, and 1RM are enhanced so you can do this:

Wave 2

Set 1: 5 reps with 305 lbs.
Set 2: 3 reps with 325 lbs.
Set 3: 1 rep with 345 lbs.

Pretty cool, eh? Yep, it's a very effective method. Many have extolled the virtues of this method by giving credit to a nervous system response called post-tetanic facilitation. But apparently, post-tetanic facilitation isn't limited to just wave loading, I've heard it used in relation to holding a supramaximal load (ie, a load greater than your 1RM) in order to cause immediate strength gains, among many other methods.

So what's the problem? Well, when they use post-tetanic facilitation in reference to wave loading, supramaximal holds, or some other maximal strength method they don't know what in the hell they're talking about!

[url]http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do;jsessionid=C723F5F76CAF790F6936E95CC2C1757A.hydra?article=06-054-training[/url]

[url]http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=05-037-training[/url]

you know all pro, for the reasons you don't like 1 set to failure training.. You wouldn't like 2 set or even 3 set routines. Mentzer was being laughed at when he was first doing 4 sets and only lifting for 45 min and people said it wasnt enough.. It was too much. Sometimes even one set one day a week is overtraining, built up over time.

[QUOTE=m_risinger;191183981]you know all pro, for the reasons you don't like 1 set to failure training.. You wouldn't like 2 set or even 3 set routines. Mentzer was being laughed at when he was first doing 4 sets and only lifting for 45 min and people said it wasnt enough.. It was too much. Sometimes even one set one day a week is overtraining, built up over time.[/QUOTE]

lol..............right...........

m_risinger

Appears once in a blue moon and posts utter nonesense

m_risinger,

Like the roach what crawled outta the toilet...

Nothing new or original to add? Didn't think so...

What's next--one set a month done to failure? Okay.......have YOU grown on that protocol?

Doubt that as well...

[QUOTE=m_risinger;191183981]you know all pro, for the reasons you don't like 1 set to failure training.. You wouldn't like 2 set or even 3 set routines. Mentzer was being laughed at when he was first doing 4 sets and only lifting for 45 min and people said it wasnt enough.. It was too much. Sometimes even one set one day a week is overtraining, built up over time.[/QUOTE]

You know, Mentzer is the only HIT guy that advocated such brief routines like 1-2 sets every 10 days or even less frequently. You never see Drs. Darden or Ken saying to train so infrequently. Neither of them recommend anything less than 3x full body in two weeks. They also had a lot more experience training geneticly normal people than Mentzer ever did and *documented* proof their clients' results. M_risinger, don't try to lump all HIT under Mentzer's ramblings of his later years. Even Mentzer had some decent routines and HIT concepts prior to 1996.

every ten days, lol. I train 3 days a week and train each bodypart 2 days a week but for some people once every ten is the only thing that will work.

[QUOTE=m_risinger;192553091]every ten days, lol. I train 3 days a week and train each bodypart 2 days a week but for some people once every ten is the only thing that will work.[/QUOTE]

Then these people need to stop training to all out failure and stressing their CNS so hard then shouldnt they.

I am reading a book on the history of bodybuilding [url]http://www.prfit.com/[/url]

Up until the 60s the 3 x a week full body routine was the standard of working out with 1 set per exercise for 10-12 exercises. And even in the late 1800s they were aware (some) of overtraining. This was for both weightlifting and bodybuilding.

Tons of lifters build extensive physiques this way, worked back then and still works today.

Guess who was the BIGGEST pusher of more often... Joe Weider, the rest in majority did not agree but his view mainly prevailed because by the 60s he was one of the biggest bodybuilding magazines out there, if not the biggest for the bodybuilding scene.

That book is amazing and I am only half way through!

[QUOTE=Blashy;193247201]I am reading a book on the history of bodybuilding [url]http://www.prfit.com/[/url]

Up until the 60s the 3 x a week full body routine was the standard of working out with 1 set per exercise for 10-12 exercises. And even in the late 1800s they were aware (some) of overtraining. This was for both weightlifting and bodybuilding.

Tons of lifters build extensive physiques this way, worked back then and still works today.

Guess who was the BIGGEST pusher of more often... Joe Weider, the rest in majority did not agree but his view mainly prevailed because by the 60s he was one of the biggest bodybuilding magazines out there, if not the biggest for the bodybuilding scene.

That book is amazing and I am only half way through![/QUOTE]

Cool, that's how I'm training now, I'll have to take a look at that book.

go up to almost every single retired pro bodybuilder or powerlifter and ask them what they would do if they started over. Almost every single one would say they lifted too often and did too many sets and workouts. Thats a fact, not an opinion.

[QUOTE=m_risinger;195783671]go up to almost every single retired pro bodybuilder or powerlifter and ask them what they would do if they started over. Almost every single one would say they lifted too often and did too many sets and workouts. Thats a fact, not an opinion.[/QUOTE]

Proof?

And even if an ex-lifter did regret his training history, it doesnt mean thathe had to go to the other extreme of 1 set to failure!

Why do you HITers have trouble understanding that between high volume and HIT there are many alternatives!? HUH?