Let's talk - Natural Mr Olympia gives advice

[str8flexed]

Care to tell your numbers for squat, bench, deadlift? You definitely look like you could put up some huge numbers, which is what bodybuilding's about anyway.

uh, i thought bodybuilding was about what you looked like onstage?

[jonny62]

uh, i thought bodybuilding was about what you looked like onstage?

u beat me to it man


x2

[|ceman]

Sounds good! Let's talk to the moderators and get it set up. I would love to be available to answer any questions you guys have!

John

Thanks for your time and insights, John! I don't plan on taking any drugs to enhance my training or build and appreciate the information shared by natural athletes.

I've repped John, but I don't have enough to give him a rep count.
I ask you this my fellow posters, shouldn't John have more than a 0 rep count?
Rep him if you read this, awesome guy!

Repped. Bumped him up to 18

I'll also rep John every chance I get.

uh, i thought bodybuilding was about what you looked like onstage?

u beat me to it man


x2

LOL...Yep....x2

Layne...instead of having John start a new thread, couldn't you just change the title of this one and make it "his" sticky? There is a lot of good info in the early pages (including John's explanation of his history in the sport) that would be a shame to lose. It is also interesting to see his responses to critics (kinda like Serge's thread) in that is helps show personality.

[str8flexed]

i am not a mod in this section

[|ceman]

i am not a mod in this section

Whoops, my mistake. I'll pursue it with the right mods, then. Thanks!

[Triple_B]

1. i guarantee bob does not respond to this post. i think he avoids the steroid talk whenever possible, which is totally understandable.

2. that guy john hansen (or whatever his name is) is most definitely natural. i guarantee he works just as hard as jay or ronnie, but doesnt have the genes nor the juice to be competitive at the pro level.

I've read posts from Bob where he admited pro's are on gear

[ctgblue]

One of the few worthy threads to make a sticky.

Go John, all of us 40 somethings applaude you.


One of these days we need to have a posedown,
You post your pictures, then I dodge posting mine and make wild claims about how much bigger I "really am" than my avatar shows.

[jonny62]

yes im in on a great thread...from the start

[|ceman]

One of the few worthy threads to make a sticky.

Go John, all of us 40 somethings applaude you.


One of these days we need to have a posedown,
You post your pictures, then I dodge posting mine and make wild claims about how much bigger I "really am" than my avatar shows.

Awesome!! Thanks for making this happen, ctgblue! Nice title too, btw.

[Lowdown5]

Sticky, right on!!!

[Guardian]

You know I'm a natty Guardian (or maybe you didn't realize it). I know you've seen my posts.

G, CNS EFFORT/STRESS causes overtraining, not muscular volume. Failure->increased NE output (fight or flight)->chronic cortisol production->overtraining

Evidence: Why did Mentzer et. al. advocate so few sessions? Yet athletes who moderate momentary effort can train with INCREDIBLE volume and frequency?

You can "overtrain" by having a stressful life. Conversely, BBs in the 70s used to do tremendous volume but with moderated effort (despite what many say).

I agree

However, its pretty much impossible to resistance train with any reasonable resistance (not just doing sets of 50 or whatever) without wearing on the cns. Of course using a high weight for 5 reps will prolly wear the cns more then a lower weight for 7 or 8. Using forced reps and failure may wear it more then not using them.

But as I have posted in past, people fail to realize that the muscle is failing each and every set assuming your using a reasonable weight. Every rep you pound out essentially a small portion of fibers are failing, the final rep where you cant do any more is essentially when there is enough cumulative failure to prevent contract. This is why people cheat at the end sometime, they have reached enough failure to prevent contraction so they cheat the weight up.

What does this all mean? Unless your using panzy weights, you are straining your cns each and every rep of each and every set. Because of this, I still fail to see how the majority of naturals would benefit most from doing 10-13 sets.

Its my opinion, and I underline opinion that people who perform that many sets are causing themselves more systematic stress then is needed. If you require that many sets to stimulate growth, chances are the body has adapted to prior volume, meaning only the last couple sets are actually stimulating hypertrophy, especially if your using higher frequency. But, if you allow your system to decondition, then fewer sets will be needed to stimulate growth. This is why Yates style training works well for some people like me. Basically you stimulate, recover, grow, slightly decondition, and then repeat. If your system builds up a tolerance to training, you will need to do more and more sets, reps, weight, etc. I know some may feel this is what training is about but if you ask me its not the best way to approch it. All of this workload is likely to strain the connective tissues more then needed, may hamper hormonal response, and is likely to demand greater calorie needs.

Im not knocking you or the Natural Mr Olympia, everyone is different, and there are many ways to achieve your best shape, but now a days I feel its warranted to at least try to formulate a more "smart" approach to bodybuilding instead of just "more of everything" so to speak.

[Briggsy]

do not take this the wrong way gaurdian as it is not meant in a offensive way.

This guy is a natural Mr. Olympia. he has stood supreme over every other natural bodybuilder on the planet. He managed to build a huge ripped physique without roidz by mastering himself and by training in a near perfect manner.

Where he was your age he weighed in at 230 pounds.


His advice is more than good enough for me.

[Guardian]

do not take this the wrong way gaurdian as it is not meant in a offensive way.

This guy is a natural Mr. Olympia. he has stood supreme over every other natural bodybuilder on the planet. He managed to build a huge ripped physique without roidz by mastering himself and by training in a near perfect manner.

Where he was your age he weighed in at 230 pounds.


His advice is more than good enough for me.

Thats nice

Someday maybe you will wake up and realize

1. How important genetics are

2. The difference between training that works and ideal training

My post is not directed against his style or anyone elses, as with alot of my posts in this subject manner, I bring up issues that may relate to alot of ordinary Joes like me on this site.

Alot of pros have alot of different training philosophies both nattys and enhanced. In both cases the top pros that average guys look up to most often have the genetics to take them to a superior level regardless of the training. Dont get me wrong, training is obviously important, but one must realize the better off you are in other areas whether it be drugs, genetics, nutrition, or any combination the less important training will be. I would venture to say alot of top guys may not even be using what the bodies best training program would be, because they make great gains and do well anyways with what they are doing.

[lionelxxl]

Firstly, thanks for taking time off to pop by bb.com and answering very basic questions. Would love to ask a few of my own

1. May i know your abbreviated take on diet/nutrition when dieting? Things like how low you go in calories, cardio, carb intake etc.

2. What kinda split do you employ? Does each body part get worked only once a week?

Thanks John and i'm really interested in getting he dvd/book off your site.

[chenko]

You know I'm a natty Guardian (or maybe you didn't realize it). I know you've seen my posts.

G, CNS EFFORT/STRESS causes overtraining, not muscular volume. Failure->increased NE output (fight or flight)->chronic cortisol production->overtraining

Evidence: Why did Mentzer et. al. advocate so few sessions? Yet athletes who moderate momentary effort can train with INCREDIBLE volume and frequency?

You can "overtrain" by having a stressful life. Conversely, BBs in the 70s used to do tremendous volume but with moderated effort (despite what many say).

Agreed with Defiant1 and Guardians points on CNS overtraining. Also good point that every stressor takes its toll on your CNS so unless you live a very uncomplicated stress free life this is going to impact on your recovery ability.

Thanks John for replying to my posts. It would seem you use a moderate volume approach, somewhere in the middle between high and low volume. But you state that you have experienced the adverse effects of trying to do too much on your physique and overall energy levels. And note the threat of overtraining to naturals is more prevalent then users.

Will do some research on what St8flexed is saying but believe me have tried high volume and it doesnt work for me at high intensity as well. Individual variances and recovery abilities cannot be discounted though, some people need more time and rest then others.

[percussion8903]

i appreciate that but I don't think my name belongs in the same sentence as john yet lol

definitely belong in the same thread though

[Guardian]

Agreed with Defiant1 and Guardians points on CNS overtraining. Also good point that every stressor takes its toll on your CNS so unless you live a very uncomplicated stress free life this is going to impact on your recovery ability.

Thanks John for replying to my posts. It would seem you use a moderate volume approach, somewhere in the middle between high and low volume. But you state that you have experienced the adverse effects of trying to do too much on your physique and overall energy levels. And note the threat of overtraining to naturals is more prevalent then users.

Will do some research on what St8flexed is saying but believe me have tried high volume and it doesnt work for me at high intensity as well. Individual variances and recovery abilities cannot be discounted though, some people need more time and rest then others.

The science will back up str8flexed, and Im by no means discounting his ideas.

There are many schools of thought in bodybuilding. One area that is discussed less is the debate between adaptation or stimulation. Though the debate may have different banner words then above it basiscally boils down to one camp feeling training should be about forcing the body to adapt to increasing stress. The other camp feels more that bodybuilding is about stimulating, then completly recovering, deloading, and stimulating again. This debate is somewhat underneath the debate between higher volume/frequency and lower volume/lower frequency.

Its important to undertsand the majority of science and studies will support the higher volume and frequency. The reason for this is because it is generally almost always more beneficial for sports training. The sports trainee is most interested in increasing there muscular tolerance to stress and also strength. If you do many sets frequently, the body will adapt. I agree with Layne that overtraining is sometimes overplayed and that you will adapt to this training. However where I disagree is how ideal it is for bodybuilding. When you do increasing volume and frequency the body is very likely to slowly foster an intolerance to the training, in essence it is adapting. This makes good lingo on adds or for people to say in the weightroom, because most people would think adapting is good for bodybuilding, and it is to an extent.

But what does adapting really mean? It means that unlike the prior workout, your body can better handle what you are doing this workout (assuming you did the same workout). Since it can better handle the workout, there is less stimulation for adaptation, obviously the body doesnt need to adapt to something its already adapted to! So what do people do? They perform more sets, increase volume, or increase weight or any combination and the process repeats. This works great for SPORTS TRAINING which pretty much is all science cares about, because the trainee can take more physical punishment before breaking down and is getting stronger.

But what are the potential negatives of this training? First off if you want to make progress you most often need to always increase volume, you could also increase the weight. So as a trainee your stuck doing many sets, ok some people may like that... The next issue is cns fatigue. The body will adapt yes, but nonethless the increased volume will put greater stress on the cns, this may hamper progress. It may also be why so many people who use this program feel burnt out and or overtrained. The next problem is muscle and connective tissue integrity. Chances are if your doing lots of volume you are not only stimulating myofiberler hyoertrophy, your also causing more chronic stress to the internal muscle connective tissue and also ligaments, joints, etc. This will cause you to both require more calories, more rest, and perhaps hamper gains. Again, this may be yet another reason on top of the cns why alot of folks feel burnt out on this program. So, basically a person on this program is stuck with fairly long workouts, an even higher caloric requirement, and increased systematic stress. This doesnt mean people cant do it, the human body is remakable, but is it ideal?

The other school which I and Yates come from is the shorter volume and less frequency philosophy. The idea here is to stimulate growth in 3-4 intense sets for each muscle (back would be more with multiple areas). Rather then force frequent adaptation, it is thought that its better to stimulate the growth then have a very brief mini deload followed by the next workout. The idea is to allow the muscle to fully recover before the next workout and slightly decondition. By having less volume and longer intervals between sessions one can be more confident they are getting maximum recovery and growth from the prior workout. Due to the decreased cumulative load there is less stress on the connective tissue, muscle integrity, and cns. This therefore reduces caloric needs and prevents overtraining/burning out. Where as the 1st philosphy will train even if they do not feel complelty recovered, this philosphy you will rest if need be to ensure complete recovery. This philopshy also believes that there is greater stimulation for growth when a completly recovered and grown muscle is stressed as opposed to one that is forced to adapt to frequent training. The reasoning behind this is that with increased volume and frequency it is thought by some (including myself) that the muscle fibers will become increasingly resilient to stress from training where the low volume method they remain more "fresh" to training which is why fewer sets is needed.

Again, in sports the higher volume and frequency is favored by a vaste majority. When it comes down to it athletes want as much tissue tolerance as they can get while maintaining strength which suits this program well, but as bodybuilders I would argue that we dont want tissue to become resilient.

[Natural_O]

Care to tell your numbers for squat, bench, deadlift? You definitely look like you could put up some huge numbers, which is what bodybuilding's about anyway.

Well, like Layne said, bodybuilding is really about how you look onstage and not how much you can lift. However, I always liked lifting heavy weights and I think lifting heavy for 6-8 reps IN THE CORRECT FORM is what contributes to more size and strength. I never did a max in anything because I didn't want to get injured. I was never good at the bench press. I was pretty strong using the dumbbells but the barbell bench press was always a difficult movement for me. 315 was pretty heavy for me on this exercise but I've done 335-345 for 5 reps. I've done 130-140 pound dumbbells on incline db press. As for squats, I've gone as heavy as 455-495 but those days are long gone because of the compressed discs in my lower back. The last time I went that heavy was in 2002. I've always been pretty strong on the back exercises. I've done 335-345 on barbell rows and I was deadlifting over 500 for 3 reps back in 2001-2002. I can still use 130 pound dumbbells for one arm dumbbell rows with my knee on a bench. There are a lot of bodybuilders stronger than me but I've always said I would rather look like I could bench 400 and not be able to do it than be able to bench 400 and not look like I could.

[Natural_O]

One of the few worthy threads to make a sticky.

Go John, all of us 40 somethings applaude you.


One of these days we need to have a posedown,
You post your pictures, then I dodge posting mine and make wild claims about how much bigger I "really am" than my avatar shows.

That's great guys! I'm happy that they made this thread a sticky and I will do my best to answer your questions. It's great to be here!!

[|ceman]

I've always said I would rather look like I could bench 400 and not be able to do it than be able to bench 400 and not look like I could.

So true! My philosophy is that only two people care about your max bench (you and your gym buddies) and this is only for 1 hour a day (while you train at the gym). The rest of the 23 hours of the day nobody cares how much you bench, they care how you look.

I too am cursed with lousy bench stats, but I have changed my focus from one of trying to increase the stats to increase the musclarity. So far a higher volume approach has worked and while I won't be breaking any bench records in my life, I hope to have a physique to be proud of and to show off.

[Lowdown5]

So true! My philosophy is that only two people care about your max bench (you and your gym buddies) and this is only for 1 hour a day (while you train at the gym). The rest of the 23 hours of the day nobody cares how much you bench, they care how you look.

I too am cursed with lousy bench stats, but I have changed my focus from one of trying to increase the stats to increase the musclarity. So far a higher volume approach has worked and while I won't be breaking any bench records in my life, I hope to have a physique to be proud of and to show off.

x2

I feel like barbell bench will always be my nemisis, but have done 95 pound dumbbells for reps. Sometimes I as WTF? Why would that be. My max barbell bench is maybe 215x5.

[Natural_O]

Firstly, thanks for taking time off to pop by bb.com and answering very basic questions. Would love to ask a few of my own

1. May i know your abbreviated take on diet/nutrition when dieting? Things like how low you go in calories, cardio, carb intake etc.

2. What kinda split do you employ? Does each body part get worked only once a week?

Thanks John and i'm really interested in getting he dvd/book off your site.

When I'm dieting, I usually eat around 2800 calories on a training day and about 2400 on a rest day. I'll train 4 maybe 5 days a week and take at 2 days totally off. I keep my protein intake high, over 300 grams a day and I moderate my carb intake. I'll eat around 200 grams of carbs on my training day and only about 140-150 grams of carbs on my rest days. I keep my fat intake around 50 grams a day, mostly from the flaxseed oil and salmon. My goal when I am dieting is to lose the fat very slowly, about 1/4" a week off my waist and usually about 1-1.5 pounds a week. Doing it this way allows me to keep my muscle mass while losing the bodyfat.

My training split is chest, triceps and calves on Monday, abs and legs on Tuesday, rest on Wednesday, delts, traps and calves on Thursday and back and biceps on Friday. I try to keep my cardio limited, maybe 2-3 days a week immediately following my upper body workouts (I never do cardio on a leg day). I'll use the treadmill at about 3.3mph and a 8.5-9 incline using my arms when I am walking.

[Natural_O]

Agreed with Defiant1 and Guardians points on CNS overtraining. Also good point that every stressor takes its toll on your CNS so unless you live a very uncomplicated stress free life this is going to impact on your recovery ability.

Thanks John for replying to my posts. It would seem you use a moderate volume approach, somewhere in the middle between high and low volume. But you state that you have experienced the adverse effects of trying to do too much on your physique and overall energy levels. And note the threat of overtraining to naturals is more prevalent then users.

Will do some research on what St8flexed is saying but believe me have tried high volume and it doesnt work for me at high intensity as well. Individual variances and recovery abilities cannot be discounted though, some people need more time and rest then others.

Yes, I would agree I use a moderate amount of volume in my training. Not extremely low but not too high either. It's easy to become overtrained when you begin dieting for a contest or to get cut-up. Because you are cutting back on your calories, the nutrients used for recuperation are limited. If you add cardio into the mix, the chance of overtraining increases. That's why I try to get cut up without any cardio and just by dieting. This helps to keep my muscle mass. I will add the cardio on a limited basis if I feel I need to but I definitely don't overdo it.

[Natural_O]

x2

I feel like barbell bench will always be my nemisis, but have done 95 pound dumbbells for reps. Sometimes I as WTF? Why would that be. My max barbell bench is maybe 215x5.

I think you need the right body structure to be a great bench presser. Guys with short arms and a big ribcage are usually good benchers. I always feel like my triceps are giving out when I am doing the exercise. Plus, I grab the bar pretty wide to target my chest and I think this cuts back on the strength a little. As long as you are feeling the exercise in the chest, that's all that counts.

[ooi33]

its nice to have someone like john here

[gangsta1087]

i use a lot of volume and I know many other natural pros who do as well. If you are natural you actually need MORE frequency not less. Steroids allow you to maintain elevated rates of protein synthesis constantly... regardless of workouts so you can workout less frequently. If you workout at that frequency as a natural your synthetic response to a workout is only about 48-72 hours MAX. If you only work a bodypart once per week, it's only growing for about 2-3 days, then the rest of the time it's just sitting there

so even if i do 25 sets for shoulders or chest in three days i should be hitting them agian, bit with that much volume in one workout that shoud be enough for a weeks worth of muscle growth

[ArchAngel'73]

Hey John nice to see the thread turned into a sticky since my last post.
I noticed you take glutamine. I feel this supp works, however I'm finding difficulty locating any empirical evidence to back up its effectiveness. I am told by the nay sayers that I am experiencing the placebo effect. However, after 18 years of training I know my body and am convinced I am not thinking myself into glutamine working.
What is your perspective on this supp?
Furthermore, some old school supps that I take or plan on taking have received some flak as well. I take GABA (helps me sleep, gives me a little buzz before bed, and increases Gh production (I hope)). What's your take on GABA?
Is apple cider vinegar (tabs, not liquid) good for a natural diuretic?
The show I'm looking to enter is run by FAME and allows ephedrine. I have a decent amount of knowledge and experience with this supp but again, I'm curious as to your opinion?
Lastly, I gave MCT oil a try a few years back, got a gut ache for the entire time and quit taking it. Is this supp worth re-visiting?
Thank-you in advance!

[dedicated bb]

The science will back up str8flexed, and Im by no means discounting his ideas.

There are many schools of thought in bodybuilding. One area that is discussed less is the debate between adaptation or stimulation. Though the debate may have different banner words then above it basiscally boils down to one camp feeling training should be about forcing the body to adapt to increasing stress. The other camp feels more that bodybuilding is about stimulating, then completly recovering, deloading, and stimulating again. This debate is somewhat underneath the debate between higher volume/frequency and lower volume/lower frequency.

Its important to undertsand the majority of science and studies will support the higher volume and frequency. The reason for this is because it is generally almost always more beneficial for sports training. The sports trainee is most interested in increasing there muscular tolerance to stress and also strength. If you do many sets frequently, the body will adapt. I agree with Layne that overtraining is sometimes overplayed and that you will adapt to this training. However where I disagree is how ideal it is for bodybuilding. When you do increasing volume and frequency the body is very likely to slowly foster an intolerance to the training, in essence it is adapting. This makes good lingo on adds or for people to say in the weightroom, because most people would think adapting is good for bodybuilding, and it is to an extent.

But what does adapting really mean? It means that unlike the prior workout, your body can better handle what you are doing this workout (assuming you did the same workout). Since it can better handle the workout, there is less stimulation for adaptation, obviously the body doesnt need to adapt to something its already adapted to! So what do people do? They perform more sets, increase volume, or increase weight or any combination and the process repeats. This works great for SPORTS TRAINING which pretty much is all science cares about, because the trainee can take more physical punishment before breaking down and is getting stronger.

But what are the potential negatives of this training? First off if you want to make progress you most often need to always increase volume, you could also increase the weight. So as a trainee your stuck doing many sets, ok some people may like that... The next issue is cns fatigue. The body will adapt yes, but nonethless the increased volume will put greater stress on the cns, this may hamper progress. It may also be why so many people who use this program feel burnt out and or overtrained. The next problem is muscle and connective tissue integrity. Chances are if your doing lots of volume you are not only stimulating myofiberler hyoertrophy, your also causing more chronic stress to the internal muscle connective tissue and also ligaments, joints, etc. This will cause you to both require more calories, more rest, and perhaps hamper gains. Again, this may be yet another reason on top of the cns why alot of folks feel burnt out on this program. So, basically a person on this program is stuck with fairly long workouts, an even higher caloric requirement, and increased systematic stress. This doesnt mean people cant do it, the human body is remakable, but is it ideal?

The other school which I and Yates come from is the shorter volume and less frequency philosophy. The idea here is to stimulate growth in 3-4 intense sets for each muscle (back would be more with multiple areas). Rather then force frequent adaptation, it is thought that its better to stimulate the growth then have a very brief mini deload followed by the next workout. The idea is to allow the muscle to fully recover before the next workout and slightly decondition. By having less volume and longer intervals between sessions one can be more confident they are getting maximum recovery and growth from the prior workout. Due to the decreased cumulative load there is less stress on the connective tissue, muscle integrity, and cns. This therefore reduces caloric needs and prevents overtraining/burning out. Where as the 1st philosphy will train even if they do not feel complelty recovered, this philosphy you will rest if need be to ensure complete recovery. This philopshy also believes that there is greater stimulation for growth when a completly recovered and grown muscle is stressed as opposed to one that is forced to adapt to frequent training. The reasoning behind this is that with increased volume and frequency it is thought by some (including myself) that the muscle fibers will become increasingly resilient to stress from training where the low volume method they remain more "fresh" to training which is why fewer sets is needed.

Again, in sports the higher volume and frequency is favored by a vaste majority. When it comes down to it athletes want as much tissue tolerance as they can get while maintaining strength which suits this program well, but as bodybuilders I would argue that we dont want tissue to become resilient.

Great post i agree 100%, i guess it's about what works best for you.

[Defiant1]

uh, i thought bodybuilding was about what you looked like onstage?

lol...not on this site.

I can cite 3 million references.



Don't you know, you are supposed to do heavy side bends, in order to be ready for street fights?

lolololol.

[Defiant1]

I agree

However, its pretty much impossible to resistance train with any reasonable resistance (not just doing sets of 50 or whatever) without wearing on the cns. Of course using a high weight for 5 reps will prolly wear the cns more then a lower weight for 7 or 8. Using forced reps and failure may wear it more then not using them.

You are overcomplicating it. It is mental effort.

But as I have posted in past, people fail to realize that the muscle is failing each and every set assuming your using a reasonable weight. Every rep you pound out essentially a small portion of fibers are failing, the final rep where you cant do any more is essentially when there is enough cumulative failure to prevent contract. This is why people cheat at the end sometime, they have reached enough failure to prevent contraction so they cheat the weight up.

Every rep does not cause failure. Not sure where you are getting that from. Fibers are recruited fully at about 80% effort. Further effort is maintained via rate coding (rate of neural firing). What causes the "stress" is overcoming built in self-protective mechanisms in the muscle/NM junction etc etc.

What does this all mean? Unless your using panzy weights, you are straining your cns each and every rep of each and every set. Because of this, I still fail to see how the majority of naturals would benefit most from doing 10-13 sets.

Non sequitor. It's simply not true. "CNS stress" is not a constant. It varies. The largest variable is PERCEIVED effort. This is why P/Ls can only do singles occasionally, but O-lifters who moderate effort can train 3x per day, 6x per week.

Its my opinion, and I underline opinion that people who perform that many sets are causing themselves more systematic stress then is needed. If you require that many sets to stimulate growth, chances are the body has adapted to prior volume, meaning only the last couple sets are actually stimulating hypertrophy, especially if your using higher frequency. But, if you allow your system to decondition, then fewer sets will be needed to stimulate growth. This is why Yates style training works well for some people like me. Basically you stimulate, recover, grow, slightly decondition, and then repeat. If your system builds up a tolerance to training, you will need to do more and more sets, reps, weight, etc. I know some may feel this is what training is about but if you ask me its not the best way to approch it. All of this workload is likely to strain the connective tissues more then needed, may hamper hormonal response, and is likely to demand greater calorie needs.

Your idea of the last sets being the only ones that stimulate growth is not correct. Hypertrophy is about workload within certain parameters.

G..I don't know how to say this any more plainly....HIT is based on a false premise. The premise is that FULL EFFORT is the primary stimulus to muscular response. It simply isn't true. If you've seen my post on the origins of HIT, you would see how spurious the idea is.

There is just so much anecdote to support this, it can't be denied. Dog tracks in the snow.

Despite being around for 35 years, where is the HIT only produced champion?

I have done HIT. I was a freakin' guru. I want my 2 years back. It made complete logical sense. Unfortunately, it was wrong.

Im not knocking you or the Natural Mr Olympia, everyone is different, and there are many ways to achieve your best shape, but now a days I feel its warranted to at least try to formulate a more "smart" approach to bodybuilding instead of just "more of everything" so to speak.

It's already been done.

For some reason, HITters always have the underlying "I know something you don't". This has been around for thirty five years. It is NOT new.

You don't realize how many people tried HIT/Heavy Duty/Yates style through the years. Believe me, if it were best, word would (have) spread like wildfire.

I'm not denying that it works for you. But to try to sell it as best, or wondering why others don't do it is crazy.

I don't want to come off as bashing you, because you don't seem like a zealot. In fact, you are very reasonable. You remind me of someone else...are you English?