Hi there,
Whats all the fuss, we all like to train, so lets just get along.
You made some great points, like,
Most people using 'volume' here don't have a fricking clue about progression and program design.
And,
Wayne, I sincerely hope my posts are easier to read than yours. I can't even follow that and I know I'm not the only one.
Yep my Inglish and Gwammer is cwapish,
Thank you Wayne
|
Closed Thread
Results 241 to 270 of 1205
-
11-03-2005, 05:58 PM #241
Last edited by waynelucky; 11-03-2005 at 06:00 PM.
-
11-03-2005, 06:12 PM #242Originally Posted by Madcow2
Again, PERFECTLY STATED!
IA
-
11-03-2005, 06:16 PM #243Originally Posted by waynelucky
Originally Posted by waynelucky
One thing to try maybe, are quote tags. like these but without the $ inside as I have to put something in there to break it and make it visible:
[$QUOTE=Some Username] Stuff you are quoting from someone else [$/QUOTE]
Maybe that helps some, you can also embed a quote within a quote and it works pretty nicely. This works on all VB boards I think.
EDIT: I'll use it below
Originally Posted by wayneluckyLast edited by Madcow2; 11-03-2005 at 06:42 PM.
Training Theory, Info, and Starr/Pendlay 5x5 Info:
http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1
Direct Table of Contents:
http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1/table_of_contents_thread.htm
-
11-03-2005, 06:44 PM #244
Here's a goosd read from Dan John http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle....rticle=311hit2
-
-
11-03-2005, 08:02 PM #245Originally Posted by Madcow2
I've said to him repeatedly, why not let the results speak for themselves? Of course we all know the answer to that one. Since the results aren't saying much, guys like Ron have had to don the white suit, cue the hymns, and do their best to spread the word.
-
11-03-2005, 08:09 PM #246
- Join Date: Mar 2005
- Location: Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada
- Age: 45
- Posts: 844
- Rep Power: 384
^ follow my journal. Who cares if any "famous" strength athlete or whatnot use HIT. Some of the volume guys; that's the only leg they're standing on. I know HIT works because I use it and I'm still getting the results.
There is no be all end all to training, HIT or volume. It boils down to knowing what works best for you at any given time but to go out and basically say that HIT is no good because no well known people use it is pretty silly.I eat to failure.
-
11-03-2005, 08:28 PM #247
No one is saying HIT doesn't "work", a lot of what we talk about is in regards to optimality. Ron makes the claim that HIT is equal to, safer and better than any other program for strength. Bodybuilding is wishy washy and largely bull****. However, strength is absolute, measurable and quantifiable.
A LOT of research has gone in to strength training for athletes whether they are a pure strength athlete or simply improve performance in a sport through strength training. The bottom line is that you will not find HIT being used in this context if development of maximal strength is the goal.
There is not a single elite OL or PL who has been successful. Don't think for a second that massive research commintments by communist countries to promote their supperiority on the platform and field didn't choose to impliment an equally good training program that took a lot less time and was safer simply because they were "HVT" or "Volume" guys. Terms which only exist in bodybuilding circles BTW. They worked hard to find what works and then they used it and turned the training world on its head for a while doing it. Also, just because they use more sets doesn't mean their programing even remotely resembles the stuff you see on this board that people might label as 'volume or hvt'.Last edited by Madcow2; 11-03-2005 at 08:36 PM.
Training Theory, Info, and Starr/Pendlay 5x5 Info:
http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1
Direct Table of Contents:
http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1/table_of_contents_thread.htm
-
11-03-2005, 08:32 PM #248Originally Posted by Awnold79
And I agree, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Ron is the one promoting HIT (along with promoting his own product in the past) in ways I don't agree with and I know I'm not alone there. Let's say I was doing Arnold's routines from his book and getting results. I wouldn't take it personally if guys were criticizing it, I'd just say it works for me and I'll keep doing it for as long as it works.
I don't see what is wrong with asking him to quantify its success. It's not grasping at straws, it's a valid question. If I wrote a book on weight loss and after 30 years only a handful of people had seen results with it, the odd celebrity here and there, I couldn't claim it to be a success, could I? He has pitched it as many things and I'm simply asking the question, if it's so great then why aren't more people training that way?
-
-
11-03-2005, 08:51 PM #249Originally Posted by DRush
As Matt Brzycki said in one of his "Reflections" series posted on this site:
According to Dr. Roger Anoka -- a biomechanist and author of the excellent college text "Neuromechanical Basis of Kinesiology" -- the Overload Principle states, "To increase their size or functional ability, muscle fibers must be taxed toward their present capacity to respond." He adds: "This principle implies that THERE IS A THRESHOLD POINT THAT MUST BE EXCEEDED BEFORE AN ADAPTIVE RESPONSE WILL OCCUR." I dunno about you but to me, "threshold" suggests a minimum level of muscle fatigue. Do ya gotta train to muscle failure? I dunno. But how else are ya gonna know whether you surpassed this "threshold"?
-
11-03-2005, 09:10 PM #250Originally Posted by Awnold79
Same point with all strength athletes. There's no one set/rep/frequency scheme that is a commonality among the top athletes - or even all athletes. Why not say, "if high volume is so great, then why isn't EVERYONE using it successfully?".
- If Japanese cars are better quality than NA cars, then why does ANYBODY buy an American car?
- If buying low and selling high is the best approach to make money in the stock market, then why doesn't EVERYBODY do this?
- If Macs are better than PCs, why doesn't EVERYBODY have a Mac? So few people have Macs compared with PCs, so I guess PCs are much better, right?
...and so on
Here's a good quote <you gotta love the cut and paste functionality - such a time saver >
"We note that previous articles advocating evidence-based training protocols (35,36) have met with the objection that NSCA-style, high-volume training is much more popular than Jones’ approach among the athletic fraternity (21,112). We anticipate similar reactions to this paper, and therefore would like to make a couple of points regarding the argument that the popularity of the training methods advocated by the NSCA and others indicate that such methods are more efficacious than those of Jones and colleagues. Essentially, such individuals have argued that because the majority of athletes train in a particular manner, this must be the best way to train. This begs the question, why bother to perform scientific research at all? If such an argument is carried to its logical conclusion, rather than performing research to determine optimal training protocols, the time and money would be better spent conducting a poll of trainees to determine which method is most popular. This would then be the one that scientists should advocate. We contend that such individuals resort to such arguments purely because the scientific research does not support their position. "
--Dave Smith, Ph.D., Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University College Chester
Originally Posted by Awnold79
Originally Posted by Awnold79
-
11-03-2005, 09:14 PM #251Originally Posted by Ron Schwarz
As Matt Brzycki said in one of his "Reflections" series posted on this site:
According to Dr. Roger Anoka -- a biomechanist and author of the excellent college text "Neuromechanical Basis of Kinesiology" -- the Overload Principle states, "To increase their size or functional ability, muscle fibers must be taxed toward their present capacity to respond." He adds: "This principle implies that THERE IS A THRESHOLD POINT THAT MUST BE EXCEEDED BEFORE AN ADAPTIVE RESPONSE WILL OCCUR." I dunno about you but to me, "threshold" suggests a minimum level of muscle fatigue. Do ya gotta train to muscle failure? I dunno. But how else are ya gonna know whether you surpassed this "threshold"?
-
11-03-2005, 10:29 PM #252
Well since I know you guys are easy to find here, I just posted a really good interview with Glenn Pendlay and Mark Rippetoe on programing for lifters and atheltes. This covers from the novice all the way up as well as touching on periodization (why and when it should be used as well as when it shouldn't), Westside and why conjugate method is so very useful to this sport, Bulgarian style training in OL and why frequency can be so outrageously high for the OLs, and also nutshell's what Glenn's progression of training a beginner OL and how that training changes over time to where they are the some of the best in the country and competing at nationals.
If you haven't had exposure to a lot of this stuff and don't really understand the how and why programing variables are tailored to an athelte and systematically altered, this is a really good ice breaker. Even if you never use any of it, it's a very 'everyday' easy to understand piece.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=617952Training Theory, Info, and Starr/Pendlay 5x5 Info:
http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1
Direct Table of Contents:
http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1/table_of_contents_thread.htm
-
-
11-03-2005, 10:35 PM #253Originally Posted by Madcow2
-
11-04-2005, 05:44 AM #254
While I don't think HIT is the best way to train for athletes, it can be extremely effective for the recreational lifter. I used it successfully for several years and it took me from 150lbs to 235lbs, and I bench pressed 450 while using it (yes, freeweight bench press, no shirt). However, my version of HIT was a bit more frequent with workouts than most people's idea of HIT. I worked each bodypart twice a week for 1-2 sets each. Workouts were quick, hard, and fit into my busy lifestyle perfectly.
With less frequency I just never seemed to progress; I had to hit each bodypart hard twice a week to see results. I even saw some results while hitting each bodypart 3 times a week at one point, but burned out quickly on that frequency.
I'm not taking any sides on this issue, but it's just as ridiculous to claim HIT is useless as it is to claim HIT is the best. HIT is just another tool to sculpt your physique; some people may not need it, some people may find it very suitable for their goals.
By the way, it was Iron Addict's guidance years ago on the GF board and Animal's board that really fine tuned my HIT workouts; the man knows his stuff.
-
11-04-2005, 08:56 AM #255Originally Posted by Jotun
-
11-04-2005, 09:45 AM #256
If you want to see what style routines I write, please see my board:
http://www.ironaddicts.com/forums/index.php?
There are many examples there. However paying clients are NOT allowed to post their INDIVIDUAL routines. They are written for the INDIVIDUAL and not cookie cutter.
These days I mostly write westside barbell for BB'er variations. They are low-mid volume and strenght based and also do great from a size standpoint.
Iron Addict
-
-
11-04-2005, 10:14 AM #257Originally Posted by the iron addict
You probably aren't even using the Weider muscle confusion and instinctive training principles correctly - you can't have a training plan and use these, they can do whatever they want and even not train when they feel like it. Better stop now before those guys get too big and strong without forging themselves in the fires of Muscle and Fitness.Training Theory, Info, and Starr/Pendlay 5x5 Info:
http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1
Direct Table of Contents:
http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1/table_of_contents_thread.htm
-
11-04-2005, 10:52 AM #258
- Join Date: Oct 2003
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 68
- Posts: 19,925
- Rep Power: 10377
Originally Posted by DRush
P.S. KEEP POUNDING!
-
11-04-2005, 11:59 AM #259Originally Posted by Awnold79
Also when people quote others accomplishments to solidify why that type of training is better is weak at best. We do not know the persons background or anything just posting #s is a start but it only shows the end product, we need to know how they got there. We dont care about the destination , just the journey of getting there.
-
11-04-2005, 12:11 PM #260Originally Posted by all pro
-
-
11-04-2005, 12:32 PM #261Originally Posted by DRush
The problem occurs that a lot of people swap exercises around all the time and talk about all the progression they are making, yet a year from now they are still squatting 225x8 in the rack and that hasn't changed. Well, if X and Y have really made you significantly and fundementally stronger, after an acclimation period of reintroducing the squat, you should be setting personal records in the squat with this new capacity from X and Y.
This is what frequently doesn't happen. As Glenn Pendlay put it in that interview above (which is really good reading by the way) you are changing the means of training but you are not getting progression. This is why tracking those big proven lifts are important. That might be 1RM for some, for others a 5RM or 5x5 or 8RM or whatever. Regardless, when those lifts move up you are fundementally stronger and providing you've been eating enough and not training in a pure neural range (i.e. very low reps all the time) over the mid to long term hypertrophy will move in line with that increase.
Hope that helps but setting goals for these lifts, planning progression, and tracking them over time is what gives you systematic progress and quantifiable results allowing you to evaluate the success of whatever training protocol you are using at the time.Training Theory, Info, and Starr/Pendlay 5x5 Info:
http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1
Direct Table of Contents:
http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1/table_of_contents_thread.htm
-
11-04-2005, 12:40 PM #262Originally Posted by Madcow2
-
11-04-2005, 04:57 PM #263Originally Posted by DRushYou'll thank yourself when you're older for getting into the iron game at a young age.
It's not a game, it's a job.
It's not a job, it's a lifestyle.
It's not a lifestyle, it's my life.
Journal: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=113751491
-
11-04-2005, 05:26 PM #264Originally Posted by Madcow2
"Bodybuilding magazines have WREAKED strength training in America".
7 out of 10 questionnaires on average I receive from new training clients have a statement such as:
I don't care about strength at all, I just want to get huge.
WTF???
While I have seen quite a few very strong guys that were not very big, I have NEVER seen a really big guy that didn't have at least a decent strength level.
Absolute strength is not the be all, end all in BB'ing, but until you have at least a solid strength foundation it should be your prime goal. And that does not just mean a big bench. It means big numbers in all the primary movement planes on the big coumpound lifts, squats, benches, deads, rows, overhead pressing. Hitting everything from all angles at every workout to ensure "complete development" is pretty useless activity for those guys that don't have any development to speak of.
Iron Addict
-
-
11-04-2005, 06:24 PM #265Originally Posted by the iron addict
One of my favorite quotes:
“I am fond of telling doubting trainees that it’s just a matter of always adding weight to the bar, adding another repetition, If you could get to the point where you’re squatting 400 lbs for 20 reps, stiff-legged deadlifting 400 lbs for 15 reps, curling 200 for 10 reps, pressing 200 for 10 reps, doing 10 dips with 300 lbs around your waist, and chinning with 100 pounds, don’t you think you would be big - I mean awfully big? And strong? Obviously!” -- Dr. Ken Leistner
-
11-04-2005, 06:53 PM #266Originally Posted by Ron/Rob Schwarzenspector
I think "Barney" was a HITter....
-
11-04-2005, 10:27 PM #267Originally Posted by Ron Schwarz* low frequency/low volumeAnd for powerlifting, consider it's:
* one set per exercise to failure
* no pattern of load progression beyond trying to lift more weight every week, ad infinitum* fundamentally opposed to explosive lifting (it advocates SLOW LIFTS instead)So we've got a system that advocates only 1-2 workouts a week, one set per exercise, taking each set to total failure, involves no load progression outside of trying to lift more weight or do more reps each week, forever), avoids all forms of explosive lifting and instead prescribes slow submaximal lifting, and is against training near your 1RM, which goes against the whole point of powerlifting. Finally, Zatsiorsky and many other strength training experts claim that at least 3 training sessions a week should be scheduled to increase strength, with 2 sessions a week being used to retain strength.
* is opposed to training near your 1RM (Hello? Powerlifting is all about demonstrating your 1RM)
-
11-04-2005, 10:45 PM #268Originally Posted by Ron Schwarz
My brother is around 180-185lbs and puts much bigger guys to shame in the gym. Incline presses 110lb dumbbells for 6-8 reps. Dips for 8-10 with 110 on a belt. He's been training for 2 years. Does he look huge? No. More athletic looking. The point being, it's not all about size because he's much stronger than he looks.
Of course it's pointless trying to explain all this to you because you completely dismiss the neural factors involved in developing strength. You think it's all about muscle size. Your "train for strength and get big approach" doesn't really make sense because you're not really training for strength following those principles I listed earlier: what you do is low volume hypertrophy training, period.
-
-
11-05-2005, 07:57 AM #269Originally Posted by _Dominik_
-
11-05-2005, 08:21 AM #270
- Join Date: Oct 2003
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 68
- Posts: 19,925
- Rep Power: 10377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron/Rob Schwarzenspector
Well said. I agree. Work for strength, and size will come as well. Of course, I will disagree that the systems used for strength are the best, and will continue to push HIT though less strength trainers use it than even bodybuilders use it. I constantly contradict myself. I will say that strength is primary yet push a system that is frankly outdated and laughed at by the strength community.
One of my favorite quotes:
sing along...."I love HIT, you love HIT, we're all "Arthurs" family with one set, never more, and a kiss from a sailor, won't you tell me you train to failure." -- Dr. Flibberty Flooberty
I think "Barney" was a HITter....
HA HA HAAAA! I'm still wiping the tears. D1 You are the "MAN" !
Bookmarks