# Correct protocol for Naturals.



## essexboy

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7216113/Why-Convetional-Bodybuilding-Methods-Suck-by-Stuart-Mcrobert


----------



## Guest

I have read this before and even though i am not natural i consider this brilliant advice.

Great post mate, nothing better than a good long article!


----------



## BLUTOS

Wish I had read about Stuart McRoberst when 17 lol.


----------



## Guest

BLUTOS said:


> Wish I had read about Stuart McRoberst when 17 lol.


x 1 MILLION.

Instead i had the Arnie book, fvck knows how i grew on the two 2 hour sessions i did each day but i did..........didn't do any thing else such as have a social life though thats for sure:laugh:


----------



## essexboy

Con said:


> I have read this before and even though i am not natural i consider this brilliant advice.
> 
> Great post mate, nothing better than a good long article!


The thing is Con you understand.How many will follow this advice? (I do) im sure many will read it then dismiss it. :confused1:


----------



## Guest

essexboy said:


> The thing is Con you understand.How many will follow this advice? (I do) im sure many will read it then dismiss it. :confused1:


99% will dismiss and 98% will make no progress 1% will due to chemical aids and/or superb genetics. 1% may follow it and receive results worth working for


----------



## Chris4Pez1436114538

bump for read tomorrow


----------



## Ashcrapper

anyone got an account on there? wouldnt mind downloading this and reading later


----------



## essexboy

Con said:


> 99% will dismiss and 98% will make no progress 1% will due to chemical aids and/or superb genetics. 1% may follow it and receive results worth working for


.......Yup.


----------



## stavmangr

VERY,VERY,VERY OLD NEWS...

Training twice a week??? good if youre a beginner or start bb after 40 y.o and I always suggest to my trainees 2 days weights + one day cardio between.

But if you been training for a long time is absolutely rubbish expect no progress,your body adjusts to your training volume thats why you need to change workouts.

Depent of your training habbits you can easily train 4-5 days/week and progress.

Is like you start working as a builder, the first 2-4 weeks you feel dead tired at the end of your shift but after this period you can go to pub or do overtime afterwards.

Ive been training in all my life (32 training years as im 49y.o),and i train 5days/week FST-7 at the moment and I still grow and feel great,but I dont got drunk every week or spend every afternoon at the pub or smoking weed.

:cool2:


----------



## essexboy

stavmangr said:


> VERY,VERY,VERY OLD NEWS...
> 
> Training twice a week??? good if youre a beginner or start bb after 40 y.o and I always suggest to my trainees 2 days weights + one day cardio between.
> 
> But if you been training for a long time is absolutely rubbish expect no progress,your body adjusts to your training volume thats why you need to change workouts.
> 
> Depent of your training habbits you can easily train 4-5 days/week and progress.
> 
> Is like you start working as a builder, the first 2-4 weeks you feel dead tired at the end of your shift but after this period you can go to pub or do overtime afterwards.
> 
> Ive been training in all my life (32 training years as im 49y.o),and i train 5days/week FST-7 at the moment and I still grow and feel great,but I dont got drunk every week or spend every afternoon at the pub or smoking weed.
> 
> :cool2:


What do you base your recommendations on? empirical evidence or traditionalism?McRobert, has spent 25 years training people.He suggests twice weekly training.Mentzer trained close to 2000 in the nineties, his recommendations were even less frequency.Mcduff/Little have supervised close to 4000 trainees, and found once every 7 days to be optimal.

Your analogy is flawed.Going to the pub and working overtime, has no correlation with the dose response rhetoric of effective strength training. Merely stating "absolutely rubbish" is hardly a convicing reponse.

I train once and week, and progress every workout. Im the same age as you, so obviously your incorrect.What you "can" do and what is "required" is not the same.


----------



## Guest

stavmangr said:


> I always suggest to my trainees 2 days weights + one day cardio between.


No offense but who cares what you suggest? This is not the point of the article. If you can not see the rational behind the article and if you can not read between the lines and see the real point then i have to question your skills as a pt.

P.S. Being a personal trainer means nothing, most people on here have probably either in the past or currently trained people. Actual real life success is what matters, not a certification (most that are as easy to come by as sticking your hand in a box of cornflakes).


----------



## robisco11

essexboy...what would 'a week' of training, for you personally, look like?


----------



## essexboy

robisco11 said:


> essexboy...what would 'a week' of training, for you personally, look like?


Hi, tommorows workout will be as follows;

Nautlius pullovers on my modified plateloader.One set slowish reps(8ish) to faliure,plus a few forced to get past the sticking point.immediately, to negative chins on the nautilus omni.using 30 lbs, climb to top, and lower in 10 seconds.I can usually manage 4/5, till im exausted.Rest for 30 secs, then one set of dips(very slow) to failure.Next to nautilus duo squat.Its modified, so i can work one leg at a time.15 slow reps is approx 2 minutes each leg.After this walking is very difficult, and breathing very laboured, hr rate is 190ish.Then its one set of slow reps to failure of nautilus overhead press.

if i can make it, ill finish with one set of trap bar deads, if i cant i wont.


----------



## DNC

Thanks for the link mate,a very good read:thumb:


----------



## Robleerob

Essexboy do you think the idea behind this training system is to train everything in the max 2 workouts per week he suggests, that you would usually train in 4-5, or train some muscles every other week???


----------



## essexboy

Robleerob said:



> Essexboy do you think the idea behind this training system is to train everything in the max 2 workouts per week he suggests, that you would usually train in 4-5, or train some muscles every other week???


Yes.You can train the same body part, twice weekly, but change the movement.Pick two workouts of 4/5 movements each.Use 3/4 compounds and an isolation if you fancy.Train twice a week.However, lets say you due to train on saturday, but you had to build that rockery your wifes been nagging you about for ages.then wait another day or so.it really doesnt matter, you wont atrophy or lose strength, but you MUST recover from the previous workout before you subject the body to the stress again.

Its not the localised recovery(of the muscle) you need to recover from, but the recovery of the system(you) as a whole.


----------



## Heineken

Cracking read, reps mate. All make's a lot of sense, even though he repeats himself a lot.. probably just doing that for true emphasis though. I've always avoided 2 days a week, never seemed like enough to me but I'll try it in Jan. You have had success training this way I presume?


----------



## essexboy

Heineken said:


> Cracking read, reps mate. All make's a lot of sense, even though he repeats himself a lot.. probably just doing that for true emphasis though. I've always avoided 2 days a week, never seemed like enough to me but I'll try it in Jan. You have had success training this way I presume?


go back a few posts.


----------



## kaos_nw

Ashcrapper said:


> anyone got an account on there? wouldnt mind downloading this and reading later


bump this q!


----------



## Jungle

I trained like this when I first started training for about 6-8 months. Got really good results obviously, as you do when you first start out. I went to conventional methods after as I thought it would be best. I assume progress slowed down due to my ability in general. Im going to bring this into my training routines to see how I get on...I currently cycle 5x5, GVT and a 4 day split hypertrophy routines.

Personally, do you stick to this all year round or do you mix it about?


----------



## kaos_nw

this looks really interesting and i think ill try it in 2 months or sooner when i change my routine. Just to get it straight though, is this correct:

its 2 workouts a week

3-5 compound movements or 6-8 including isolations?(does this mean 3-5 total sets, or 3-5 different exercises all with 3 sets?)

2 alternating workouts

also is 8-12 reps ok?

I wish he offered a example routine in that ebook! does anyone have one i can look at?


----------



## kaos_nw

is this a good example of a weeks wo

http://www.musclenet.com/hardgainer.htm


----------



## stavmangr

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE my friend,show me a good bb who trains once or twice a week constantly.

Mike Mentzer he suggests to train once or twice a week in his negative training method and is correct because in the late 80s i test his method for months,but you need aas to full recover and its a killer for your tendons (if you bench press 1 rep max is 100kg you assisted to lift the bar with 150 and do only the negatives for 6-8 reps)and dont you think that he trained once or twice a week.

The muscles for all around training need to be trained as.. lets say bis:

1.in the 3 positions of flexion

midrange=test release-bar curls

stretch=produce anabolic hormones release within the muscle tissue-incline curls

contracted=block blood flow and stimulates growth hormone release-consetration curls

2.muscle fibers

2a= high reps greater than 12

2b=low reps 4-12

So you need to train both ways low reps and high reps workouts, the periods depend of your yearly macrocycle and microcycle every 3 months or every week or every month..

Thats in general, there are a lot more details to take in consideration depending your goals.

But the first rule is you need to change your frequency or poundage or intensity of your workouts BECAUSE THE BODY ADOPTS and you will eventually stop growing.

And as Mike Mentzer have said the people who work in road work and dig every day they would have the biggest backs in the world.

My point isnce or twice a week training is good to feel great and fit,but if youre serious about bb and you have serious (down to earth goals)is not enough, why? you need to train a lot of muscle groups in every training session so you compromice the volume or the intensity or the poundage or all to finish so you dont past your point to

"give it all" and grow.

Anyway whats the point of posting a thread without a debate isnt it? 

Its the only way for all of us to learn something new. I dont say you or the author is wrong I only disagree that this is a universal rule how everybody should train in bb

:cool2:


----------



## essexboy

stavmangr said:


> EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE my friend,show me a good bb who trains once or twice a week constantly.
> 
> Mike Mentzer he suggests to train once or twice a week in his negative training method and is correct because in the late 80s i test his method for months,but you need aas to full recover and its a killer for your tendons (if you bench press 1 rep max is 100kg you assisted to lift the bar with 150 and do only the negatives for 6-8 reps)and dont you think that he trained once or twice a week.
> 
> The muscles for all around training need to be trained as.. lets say bis:
> 
> 1.in the 3 positions of flexion
> 
> midrange=test release-bar curls
> 
> stretch=produce anabolic hormones release within the muscle tissue-incline curls
> 
> contracted=block blood flow and stimulates growth hormone release-consetration curls
> 
> 2.muscle fibers
> 
> 2a= high reps greater than 12
> 
> 2b=low reps 4-12
> 
> So you need to train both ways low reps and high reps workouts, the periods depend of your yearly macrocycle and microcycle every 3 months or every week or every month..
> 
> Thats in general, there are a lot more details to take in consideration depending your goals.
> 
> But the first rule is you need to change your frequency or poundage or intensity of your workouts BECAUSE THE BODY ADOPTS and you will eventually stop growing.
> 
> And as Mike Mentzer have said the people who work in road work and dig every day they would have the biggest backs in the world.
> 
> My point isnce or twice a week training is good to feel great and fit,but if youre serious about bb and you have serious (down to earth goals)is not enough, why? you need to train a lot of muscle groups in every training session so you compromice the volume or the intensity or the poundage or all to finish so you dont past your point to
> 
> "give it all" and grow.
> 
> Anyway whats the point of posting a thread without a debate isnt it?
> 
> Its the only way for all of us to learn something new. I dont say you or the author is wrong I only disagree that this is a universal rule how everybody should train in bb
> 
> :cool2:


Re your first point.I have no interest in the training regimes of "famous" bodybuilders.Citing the results of an individual who possess extremely rare genetic advantages, and uses large amounts of drugs, has no corellation to my previous examples, of the empirical evidence in supervised trainees.You may as well use the ficticious routines from the muscle comics, its about as valid.

However, our friend here Marso, trains twice a week, and is a big lad, with high levels of strength, perhaps he would like to comment.

Mentzers recommendations were from the 90s, NOT the eighties, and not related to negative only training, but full body and segmental workouts, influenced from the RESULTS of 2000 plus trainees.

Your second point, is im afraid psuedo scientific mumbo jumbo.Flexion, test release? block blood flow creating growth release? -Oh dear, unless you can provide scientific papers to back up these claims, then im afraid those statements are inadmissable.

I agree that intensity must increase to facilitate further progress.That need is satisfied by high intensity training(to failure) and increasing resistance, when strength gains are noted.Its all you have to do.

Your next quote as to why individuals who dig roads, dont have big backs.It has nothing to do with adaptation.Its because the intensity, of digging roads all day, is not high enough to stimulate a change, thats all.

Your next point, I quote; "if youre serious about bb and you have serious (down to earth goals)is not enough, why? you need to train a lot of muscle groups in every training session so you compromice the volume or the intensity or the poundage or all to finish so you dont past your point to give it all" and grow" makes no sense so im afraid i cant respond, sorry.


----------



## stavmangr

both the stretch- and contracted-position exercises are important for different reasons. Each triggers growth along different pathways (but there is an easy solution to your problem, as you'll see)...

We often reference the animal study that produced a 300 percent muscle-mass increase--that's a triple-size gain--in one month of progressive-*stretch "workouts*." The researchers believe the stretch overload caused hyperplasia, or fiber replication, as well as hypertrophy. (Antonio, J., and Gonyea, W.J. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 25:1333-45; 1993.)

In a more recent study that produced significant growth via stretch overload, the researchers said, "excess muscle stretch promotes the orderly lining of sarcomeres within muscle, leading to a stronger muscle contraction and setting the stage for architectural changes in the muscle that precede growth." (Seynnes, O.R., et al. J Applied Physiol. 102:368-373; 2007.)

So *stretch-position exercises* like incline curls for biceps, flyes for pecs, sissy squats for quads, pullovers for lats, etc., are excellent for extra anabolic effects after the big midrange move; however...

*Contracted-position exercises*, like leg extension, leg curls, concentration curls, pushdowns, etc., produce continuous tension and occlusion. Japanese researchers got an 800 percent muscle-mass increase with occlusion compared to standard training that allowed blood into the muscles [occlusion produced 800 percent better results, not an 8-fold size increase]. Also, other studies show that tension/occlusion triggers more lactic acid and muscle burn, which is key to growth hormone production, setting up an optimal anabolic environment. (Can J of App Phys; 22:244-255;


----------



## glen danbury

I love mcroberts work as it hammers home the important basic concepts

- use compounds

- focus on progression

- dont over do it

- dont do stuff which has a high potential for risk if not needed

however personally training once a week doesnt make alot of sense to me as even if it was the best route to strength and size (which is debatable) it misses a whole host of other factors

- enjoyment

- health benefits

- body composition through increased metabolism (physcial activity and EPOC)

essexboy you really have the HIT jedi mentality down pat :thumb:

whether you need to recover froma session depends upon whether you believe in the single factor theory or dual factor theory of fitness. obviously the single factor indictaes a stimulus, a recovery to new heigths and then a new larger stimulus for further gains

the dual factor states fitness and fatigue are seperate and that even if you havent fully recovered a new stimulus will promote increases in fitness if even there are signs of fatigue present.

personally I used to love the HIT/abbreviated stuff and made progress on it as I focused on the basics (big lifts, progressive overload and busting a gut), but my personal view point changed after doing a smolov cycle for my bench press

my 1RM for around two years was stalled at 137kg on the bench using HIT/abbreviated style routines, I then did a four week smolov routine which had me benching four times per week with high volume (soemtimes up to ten working sets in a session) this occured over three weeks then a weeks recovery to allow fatigue to dissipate - the end result I benched 145kg comfortably

I am natural, dont think I have great genetics (type one diabetic, fairly small joints) - and i doen well one a higher volume training, both work if the basics are dealt with IMO

(on a side note I think genetics are a cop out used by those who haven't got their **** together as there are so many enviromental, past history and nutritional factors which can be manipulated before genetics can be determined as the reason for slow response)


----------



## Guest

Nytol made his best gains training twice per week.


----------



## essexboy

glen danbury said:


> I love mcroberts work as it hammers home the important basic concepts
> 
> - use compounds
> 
> - focus on progression
> 
> - dont over do it
> 
> - dont do stuff which has a high potential for risk if not needed
> 
> however personally training once a week doesnt make alot of sense to me as even if it was the best route to strength and size (which is debatable) it misses a whole host of other factors
> 
> - enjoyment
> 
> - health benefits
> 
> - body composition through increased metabolism (physcial activity and EPOC)
> 
> essexboy you really have the HIT jedi mentality down pat :thumb:
> 
> whether you need to recover froma session depends upon whether you believe in the single factor theory or dual factor theory of fitness. obviously the single factor indictaes a stimulus, a recovery to new heigths and then a new larger stimulus for further gains
> 
> the dual factor states fitness and fatigue are seperate and that even if you havent fully recovered a new stimulus will promote increases in fitness if even there are signs of fatigue present.
> 
> personally I used to love the HIT/abbreviated stuff and made progress on it as I focused on the basics (big lifts, progressive overload and busting a gut), but my personal view point changed after doing a smolov cycle for my bench press
> 
> my 1RM for around two years was stalled at 137kg on the bench using HIT/abbreviated style routines, I then did a four week smolov routine which had me benching four times per week with high volume (soemtimes up to ten working sets in a session) this occured over three weeks then a weeks recovery to allow fatigue to dissipate - the end result I benched 145kg comfortably
> 
> I am natural, dont think I have great genetics (type one diabetic, fairly small joints) - and i doen well one a higher volume training, both work if the basics are dealt with IMO
> 
> (on a side note I think genetics are a cop out used by those who haven't got their **** together as there are so many enviromental, past history and nutritional factors which can be manipulated before genetics can be determined as the reason for slow response)


Hi Glen, im a single factor kinda guy.Your jedi reference is well worn, and although tinged with sarcasm, is fine. 

I entered this endevour with a past free of commerical or traditional influences, so my reasoning is pure and uncorupted.I find the HIT paradigm hard to refute.I think we agree on more issues than not.


----------



## Gerry_bhoy

Ah ****. I tried to print this off at uni and it just printed 70 odd blank pages with a rectangle in the middle. Charging me somewhere between 5 and 7 p a page.


----------



## marso

Ok lets get a few things straight here first, citing that no one trains full body is therefore not proof of its effectiveness and is easily countered by saying of all the legions of trainees who train "like the pro's" how many of them are making the same gains...? The fact is full body twice per week using high intensity can and will produce gains, its a physiological fact, it is dependant on many factors such as tolerance to exercise stress, genetics, rest diet etc etc, but this does not alter the fact that such exercise works..

Take the pro's off the huge amount of drugs and I guarantee you every single one would have to REDUCE the amount of exercise they do..

I myself have trained extensively using full body and currently train twice per week using a mixture of compound and isolation exercises, as an advanced trainee and also one who uses steroids, I still have to account for and limit the cost of metabolic fatigue and stress...

Which ever way you cut it, anaerobic stress is a negative to the body and will be perceived as such, so therefore the goal is to limit and use up as little as possible of your limited resources in replacing what was used up in a workout before the body will even think about overcompensating via hypertrophy...twice per week makes full use of this.

A lot of people say " I used HIT and got stronger but not much bigger" but then when it turns out, it is their perception of HIT and more importantly how they in fact applied it, high intensity training is indeed very demanding and as such, one has to understand the cause and effect of exercise stress (see the General Adapatation Syndrrome for an explanation of this) also a lot of people have unrealistic expectations of both themselves in relation to their training and any training program they undertake, this can lead to frustration and questions as to "Yeah I tried that HIT thing but it didn't work for me"...

Well I've done HIT for 20 years and its worked and continues to do so, so its not the method which is at fault...


----------



## marso

This site contains all the info you'll ever need....

http://arthurjonesexercise.com/index.html


----------



## kawikid

I want to see some physiques. Theres alot of talk about how much growth is being attained but this is all sh1te to me without pics.

Talk all the talk you want. Show me results and i'll listen.


----------



## BigDom86

i agree id love to see both essexboy and marsos physiques on this very low volume once or twice a week training for like 10mins a time. i respect both of you so dont take this the wrong way, would just like to see if for myself.


----------



## essexboy

kawikid said:


> I want to see some physiques. Theres alot of talk about how much growth is being attained but this is all sh1te to me without pics.
> 
> Talk all the talk you want. Show me results and i'll listen.


Nice attitude.I really have no interest what you think.By the look of your Avatar. your doing fine anyway.I presume that is you?

,


----------



## essexboy

BigDom86 said:


> i agree id love to see both essexboy and marsos physiques on this very low volume once or twice a week training for like 10mins a time. i respect both of you so dont take this the wrong way, would just like to see if for myself.


Dom, it does work, but realise only within the confines of individual potential.I would not be able to impress, by posting a picture of myself, anymore than posting an image of ronnie sullivans would convince me his is the "best way"

I could take 50 pictures, of guys training at fitness first, with no results, which you could counter with a picture of Ronnie Sullivan.it would neither prove, or disprove the effectiveness of "traditional" protocols.

If the rational doesnt at least intrigue you, then countless renforcement, or "proof" is not the way to proceed, however there are many examples of big strong guys using this type of w/o on you tube.


----------



## TOBE

I don't agree with their being a solid method of training for anyone..

The best advice I've learned over the years is to listen to your body, notice when your recovered, how you react to certain training and most of this is trial and error over time, constantly...

I do agree with not overtraining, but only you know surely when your recovered or not enough for another good workout..

It is good though to read other people opinions and different articles and pick certain ideas or theory's which you think would work for you... but at the end of the day some things may work for him and the opposite may work better for you..

I'm comfortable training 3x per week, but if i feel i'm not in a good state to train i wont, simple..


----------



## BigDom86

essexboy said:


> Dom, it does work, but realise only within the confines of individual potential.I would not be able to impress, by posting a picture of myself, anymore than posting an image of ronnie sullivans would convince me his is the "best way"
> 
> I could take 50 pictures, of guys training at fitness first, with no results, which you could counter with a picture of Ronnie Sullivan.it would neither prove, or disprove the effectiveness of "traditional" protocols.
> 
> If the rational doesnt at least intrigue you, then countless renforcement, or "proof" is not the way to proceed, however there are many examples of big strong guys using this type of w/o on you tube.


i believe casey viator (sp?) followed something similar if im correct. although he wasnt natural


----------



## essexboy

BigDom86 said:


> i believe casey viator (sp?) followed something similar if im correct. although he wasnt natural


well he was when he won the america.I presume not at the olympia.Casey was training 3 times a week.Jones eventually admitted that twice would have been more productive.Recovering from three 3 full bodys a week must be tough.i was refering to more recent examples,not 40 year old ones!

I think Paul(Marso) is on there too.Todd beard on the bodybyscience videos, is using a very similar routine.


----------



## marso

essexboy said:


> Dom, it does work, but realise only within the confines of individual potential.I would not be able to impress, by posting a picture of myself, anymore than posting an image of ronnie sullivans would convince me his is the "best way"
> 
> I could take 50 pictures, of guys training at fitness first, with no results, which you could counter with a picture of Ronnie Sullivan.it would neither prove, or disprove the effectiveness of "traditional" protocols.
> 
> If the rational doesnt at least intrigue you, then countless renforcement, or "proof" is not the way to proceed, however there are many examples of big strong guys using this type of w/o on you tube.


That's pretty much what I would have said, the bottom line is training twice per week works. Is it the best way to train? Who can say for sure, what I can tell you is this is that I've trained lots of ways over the past 20 years and for the majority its been using HIT methods, there are lads in my gym and other gyms I've trained in that have used significantly more volume than me (not withcounting drug use) and their results despite all the extra time invested are no greater than mine, so on on this level this type of training is better as its simply more efficient per time invested..


----------



## TH0R

Nice debate going on here

Just to add my 2p's worth

Regarding AAS, there is a school of thought that this is the best method for training

whilst on AAS, when on AAS your putting your muscles/joints through more intensity than

is natural (obviously)

This means you need to rest more on AAS than naturally, not sure I believe this but

thought I'd just put it out there

Thoughts?


----------



## Heineken

I was always under the impression that AAS sped up your recovery abilities meaning you could train with greater frequency


----------



## Seyyed-Merat

Good read, thanks essexboy for posting it up, nice to see im not the only one who thinks training out of the "bodybuilding norm" can benefit immensly...Ive been reading about a training methodology of Power/Rep range/Shock, anyone heard of it? if so any thoughts?


----------



## Andrikos

Con said:


> No offense but who cares what you suggest? This is not the point of the article. If you can not see the rational behind the article and if you can not read between the lines and see the real point then i have to question your skills as a pt.
> 
> P.S. Being a personal trainer means nothing, most people on here have probably either in the past or currently trained people. Actual real life success is what matters, not a certification (most that are as easy to come by as sticking your hand in a box of cornflakes).


+1


----------



## essexboy

Heineken said:


> I was always under the impression that AAS sped up your recovery abilities meaning you could train with greater frequency


Yup, your right they do.


----------



## Guest

Heineken said:


> I was always under the impression that AAS sped up your recovery abilities meaning you could train with greater frequency


 How do you define recovery? Increased nitrogen retention with PED's sure, however, they actually can increase cortisol levels and increase the chances of illness so it is a mistake to assume you can just train and train some more when using them.

What makes me laugh is all the guys that do not agree with this type of training do not have a concrete training method either.

Athletes train hard with specific methods. Bodybuilders have to the same it is a pity most guys do not.....then again how many good physiques do we have on this thread...........:laugh:


----------



## marso

While AAS may enhance recovery, its a false assumption to state that one should then train more frequently, as this does not ignore the fact that you only have a limited amount of physiological resources, so the LESS you use of recovery from the workout, the MORE you stand to gain..(in theory)..

Its not as simple as that, and this very topic of training frequency, intensity etc as been debated at length, numerous times (myself more times than I care to remember.. :innocent: )

To state "well non of the pro's train this way" proves nothing, as most of the pro's don't even know how to train, and some well established ones have sought advice from others, Mark Dugdale and Chris Cormier spring to mind, so they are successful i*n spite of their training not because of it..*

To then state "well show me your physique and I'll believe you" again proves nothing as its dependant on the individuals view point, for example some might say I've achieved good results from my training, while others may think might results are not that impressive..so its a pointless stance..

Tell me why you think training twice per week is an inefficient way to train based on scientific valid principles which refute it, then we can have a debate, till then its just opinion...

This guy is probably one of the most successful (in terms of size and strength) trainees to use this method under the guidance of the legendary Dr Ken Liestner..

His name is Kevin Tolbert


----------



## essexboy

Nice post marso.


----------



## glen danbury

essexboy said:


> Hi Glen, im a single factor kinda guy.Your jedi reference is well worn, and although tinged with sarcasm, is fine.
> 
> I entered this endevour with a past free of commerical or traditional influences, so my reasoning is pure and uncorupted.I find the HIT paradigm hard to refute.I think we agree on more issues than not.


dont take it as offensive, it was not meant to be 

I do think the basic tenants of HIT are right and use variants of it

however I do also think that volume does play a part as well here is an article I wrote for the beef magazine on my beliefs around HIT vs volume



*HIT or miss?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>*
​
<o> </o>

Its probably one of the most argued issues in weight training - the age old argument of High intensity training and the benefit of doing more sets than a single one for any given exercise. This article will look at the theory of HIT training and some of the evidence around it.

*<o>* *</o>*

*Superfluous activity?<o></o>*

<o> </o>

I used to be deeply into the HIT style of training when I started out (heavy duty was one of the first books I bought and Yates was Mr <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1lace w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">olympia</st1:City></st1lace> at that point). Lately I have looked at the physiological reason for doing more than one set and to be honest I am sitting clearly on the fence - however I do find that one thing is often quoted in that it's said

<o> </o>

'once you have hit failure the muscle is fatigued and therefore whats the point in doing another set!'

<o> </o>

To me this makes little sense when you look at what is actually happening. What is going on when someone hits failure?

<o> </o>

Basically muscle fibers are recruited according to the size principle with smaller fatigue resistant fibers first and with progressive difficulties/load the higher threshold fatigable fast fibers. Several neurological consequences occur also such as syncronisation of the fibers (so they fire together), rate coding or the amount of action potentials sent to a fiber is also increased. In essence more fibers are recruited and coordinated when the exercise becomes harder.

<o> </o>

Once you are over 85% of your maximum load its said that all the fibers apart from a few ballistic responsive fast fibers are recruited, after that its all about intra and intermuscular coordination from the CNS (central nervous system). During submaximal lifting (under eighty five percent of your one rep max) something called muscle wisdom occurs where fibers will be switched off and alternated with other fibers to avoid fatigue.

<o> </o>

Once you hit failure basically you have reached a point where the maximal tension and force that can be developed from a muscle isn't sufficient to lift the weight and as such a number of fibers are fatigued - but what about the others? Granted the exhausted fibers will have a stimulatory response for growth but is the maximal or optimal level of stimulation occurred to as many fibers as possible? Surely we would like all the possible fibers to have a degree of stimulation in order that we get the most stimulation and growth response per session?

<o> </o>

Does this occur by adding in more sets? I would say possibly - after all the next set leads to a second level of exhaustion and in all likely hood it's a different set of fibers as the first lot are fatigued already - which is why the second set is always lower in reps as you have less fibres to call upon.

<o> </o>

<o> </o>

*Energetic hypothesis<o></o>*

Another issue is what actually causes hypertrophy or muscle growth? One theory is highly regarded is the energetic hypothesis - basically this states that the hypertrophy response is related to the amount of protein degraded during a session. The amount of protein degraded is related to two factors - volume and rate of protein degradation. Typically the higher intensity or weight used the greater the protein degradation but this is multiplied by the volume done with this weight. Heavier weights have the highest protein degradation but due to their limit on volume (you cant do ten reps in a set with a one rep max weight) their overall protein degradation is low, like wise high volumes with light weights have great volumes but low degradation per rep due to the low intensity of each. Moderate weights done for moderate reps or the typical bodybuilder rep range end up with the most protein degradation. To make things clearer I will use arbitrary numbers to illustrate the point.

<o> </o>

If we choose three repetition maxes, 1RM, 10RM, 20RM and we assign them each a protein degredation score of 20, 10, 1 each respectively the total protein degradation for each would work out as follows (volume times protein degradation)

<o> </o>

1RM = 20 (1 x 20)

10RM = 100 (10 x10)

20RM = 20 (20 x 1)

<o> </o>

As can be seen the moderate weight and moderate rep range yields the highest protein degredation and therefore the greatest protein synthesis response, Which basically means moderate volume with a reasonably heavy weight is the best way to cause muscle growth and generally is reflected in what we see in gyms with both powerlifters who only do max lifts and endurance athletes who use lightweights for high reps showing less muscle growth than a typical bodybuilder.

<o> </o>

If this theory is correct it shows that intensity and appropriate weight selection is important but so is volume - if volume wasn't an issue and only taking a muscle to the point of failure with maximal intensity was the key for muscle growth why don't the HIT aficionados come in do a one rep max and leave? Because volume is important!

<o> </o>

*Endocrine response to volume<o></o>*

The acute protein degradation at muscle level isn't the only issue though as the bodybuilder, especially a natural one wants to create an anabolic environment and that means plenty of testosterone and other anabolic hormones in the response to weight training. Volume seems to play a part in the body's ability to produce these hormones and too much volume can suppress testosterone. One study which looked at the volume of training and how it effected testosterone was undertaken by Alemany et al (2004), this study looked at testosterone levels within three groups; number one - no exercise, number two - 25 sets for the whole body, number three - 50 sets for the whole body. The loading parameters for group two and three where repetitions of five to ten with around one and half to two minutes rest between sets of large multijoint exercises such as squats, bench presses etc.

Group two showed no suppression of testosterone; however group three showed marked suppression of testosterone over a twenty four hour period. And this would be key for those wanting to keep themselves in an anabolic state unless they where able to produce their own anabolic environment through pharmacological aid.

<o> </o>

<o> </o>

Considering what's been said HIT does have a few plus points in that it gets the person to focus on progressive overload as there are less distractions, the trainee will be unlikely to over train and the minimalist approach should favour the selection of the more productive exercises such as squats, deadlifts and presses due to their training efficiency which reflects the HIT mentality.

<o> </o>

I have found a middle ground tends to work best and I allow my body to dictate the volume. Whatever goal I am training (max strength, hypertrophy, muscular endurance ect) I pick a rep range. If it was hypertrophy I would say six to twelve repetitions. I would then select a weight which is a repetition max for the upper end of that rep range, for example a ten rep max for the rep range currently mentioned. I would do my first set and get ten reps, on my second set I might get eight or nine, and on my third set I might only get five or six which would be the bottom end of my rep range and I would terminate the exercise there and move on. Once I could get the twelve reps on my first set I would up the weight so I could only do ten again.

The thinking behind this is that when you can't get the bottom number of reps with a weight which falls into the goal rep range you have fatigued all the fibres which have a fatigue time around that goal.

<o> </o>

Whilst there will still be a debate about one set versus multiple I feel this modified stratergy gets the best of both worlds.


----------



## glen danbury

as a side note I am definately some one who likes to see studies to back up theories

there are alot of studies comparing one set vs three and there are alot of mixed results, some show that one set is equal to three sets, some show that three sets are better than one - however i have never seen one that showed a greater response from one set compared to three

consdiering this i am edging my bets towards multiple sets


----------



## TH0R

Very good article Glen

Can I have your opinion on what I am presently working at.

I currently start with a compound exercise, for example squats, warm up and then work

up to a 1 or 2 rep max over several sets of 3, just warming the cns up more than anything

apart from the last couple of sets which are balls and all sets.

I will then do the workout as you've explained above, 3 sets of squats 8-12, leg press 8-12,

Finish off with 3 sets of leg extensions 8-12 and possibly a pump set of 20+, quads done.

My thinking is that I get as many muscle fibers stimulated as possible without excessive volume,

or should I stick to one regime at a time ie strength, hypertrophy or muscle endurance.


----------



## glen danbury

I have used workouts in that fashion before and they do work

if you look at most texts they always suggest to work one biomotor ability then another but for hypertrophy i find that system works well


----------



## glen danbury

essexboy - no comment?


----------



## Gazbeast

Cracking read there Essexboy, wish I'd got to page 66 quicker than reading about dissing the roiders and their reigimes. A bit repetitive was that! It is very similar to what I am doing anyway so a big :thumb: from me although I do use protein powders and creatine.

I have gained 14lb in the three months I have been training on this, now I know being a newbie I will gain quick at first but still it is proof that it does work.

Gaz


----------



## essexboy

glen danbury said:


> essexboy - no comment?


Sorry , missed your response.The debate rages on.Im well aware of studies, and to be honest am very sceptical, whether it favours single or multiple sets.

Stimulation can be achieved with one set, of that there is no doubt.If your not performing that single set, as it should be, then it wont.

My view of the growth process, probably differs from most lifters( i dont class myself as a BB)I believe the body reacts to the stimulation, as a systemic effect, not localised.If you create an alarm situation then the body has no option other than to respond.

Most of last year, i trained on a nautilus circuit of 6 exercises, once a week.I got strong as hell ,on a few movements, and was well chuffed, that i managed to max out the stack on the leg press.Now, i didnt gain a great deal of muscular size or weight.my w/o took approx 18 minutes.I didnt move very quickly, between exercises, and because i train alone, I could only go to positive failiure.

The last 2 months, im training at home.Very similar protocol.The only difference is that im moving much quicker, between movements,and also have a partner who pushes me through the w/o.Now, at the end of the w/o, im at the point of collapse.My hr is spiking at 180ish, and im totally exausted.My strength is rocketing, ive got my journal here;

3/12/09 nautilus duo squat,10 x 160lb (single legged)tul 1.31.

24/12/09 duo squat 18x160lbs (single leg) tul 2.10

other movements are also increasing,(4 workouts) although not as dramatic, and my arms are bigger, and i do no direct arm work.

There is no way Glen that i could do anymore work.I could rest for 20 minutes, but im usually asleep by then!All I could do wolud be to decrease the intensity, of the first set, if i needed to perform more.

The thing is we can get caught up in the science of it,and blur the issues that matter.If i want to inspire myself i look back to the guys in the 40s,what they did wasnt a million miles away.The golden rule;Get as strong as possible on a few compound movements.


----------



## essexboy

Gazbeast said:


> Cracking read there Essexboy, wish I'd got to page 66 quicker than reading about dissing the roiders and their reigimes. A bit repetitive was that! It is very similar to what I am doing anyway so a big :thumb: from me although I do use protein powders and creatine.
> 
> I have gained 14lb in the three months I have been training on this, now I know being a newbie I will gain quick at first but still it is proof that it does work.
> 
> Gaz


I didnt write it, only put it out there.


----------



## TH0R

essexboy said:


> Sorry , missed your response.The debate rages on.Im well aware of studies, and to be honest am very sceptical, whether it favours single or multiple sets.
> 
> Stimulation can be achieved with one set, of that there is no doubt.If your not performing that single set, as it should be, then it wont.
> 
> My view of the growth process, probably differs from most lifters( i dont class myself as a BB)I believe the body reacts to the stimulation, as a systemic effect, not localised.If you create an alarm situation then the body has no option other than to respond.
> 
> Most of last year, i trained on a nautilus circuit of 6 exercises, once a week.I got strong as hell ,on a few movements, and was well chuffed, that i managed to max out the stack on the leg press.Now, i didnt gain a great deal of muscular size or weight.my w/o took approx 18 minutes.I didnt move very quickly, between exercises, and because i train alone, I could only go to positive failiure.
> 
> The last 2 months, im training at home.Very similar protocol.The only difference is that im moving much quicker, between movements,and also have a partner who pushes me through the w/o.Now, at the end of the w/o, im at the point of collapse.My hr is spiking at 180ish, and im totally exausted.My strength is rocketing, ive got my journal here;
> 
> 3/12/09 nautilus duo squat,10 x 160lb (single legged)tul 1.31.
> 
> 24/12/09 duo squat 18x160lbs (single leg) tul 2.10
> 
> other movements are also increasing,(4 workouts) although not as dramatic, and my arms are bigger, and i do no direct arm work.
> 
> There is no way Glen that i could do anymore work.I could rest for 20 minutes, but im usually asleep by then!All I could do wolud be to decrease the intensity, of the first set, if i needed to perform more.
> 
> The thing is we can get caught up in the science of it,and blur the issues that matter.If i want to inspire myself i look back to the guys in the 40s,what they did wasnt a million miles away.The golden rule;Get as strong as possible on a few compound movements.


How long have you been training Essex?

Its hard to quantify your experiences as I don't have enough info about you,

would you consider yourself a hard gainer, easy gainer, somewhere inbetween?

What are your goals, your bf, how much have you gained etc.

I know a guy who I swear only has to look at a weight and he puts good solid

muscle on, he can be off season and look like most people in show condition.

His workouts vary from easy going to unbelievably hard (and long).

Point is we are all very different, if I trained like my friend here, I'd be a big

porky with not much muscle.

There is no orthodox method, its about trial and error, I've got 10+ years

in a gym and I still don't have a fecking clue what works best for me, seriously

not a clue.

I have never tried this low volume stuff, I know its pretty well documented

Yates used it, and Mentzer swore by it, but they were genetic freaks, where

I am a hardish gainer. It goes against the grain but I'm all for learning.

Of course we are going to grow from 1 set, any stimulation of muscle fibers

will create growth, but will it be optimum growth ie the fastest:confused1:

I'm getting on and don't have much time left at this

:beer:


----------



## glen danbury

essexboy said:


> Sorry , missed your response.The debate rages on.Im well aware of studies, and to be honest am very sceptical, whether it favours single or multiple sets.
> 
> Stimulation can be achieved with one set, of that there is no doubt.If your not performing that single set, as it should be, then it wont.
> 
> My view of the growth process, probably differs from most lifters( i dont class myself as a BB)I believe the body reacts to the stimulation, as a systemic effect, not localised.If you create an alarm situation then the body has no option other than to respond.
> 
> Most of last year, i trained on a nautilus circuit of 6 exercises, once a week.I got strong as hell ,on a few movements, and was well chuffed, that i managed to max out the stack on the leg press.Now, i didnt gain a great deal of muscular size or weight.my w/o took approx 18 minutes.I didnt move very quickly, between exercises, and because i train alone, I could only go to positive failiure.
> 
> The last 2 months, im training at home.Very similar protocol.The only difference is that im moving much quicker, between movements,and also have a partner who pushes me through the w/o.Now, at the end of the w/o, im at the point of collapse.My hr is spiking at 180ish, and im totally exausted.My strength is rocketing, ive got my journal here;
> 
> 3/12/09 nautilus duo squat,10 x 160lb (single legged)tul 1.31.
> 
> 24/12/09 duo squat 18x160lbs (single leg) tul 2.10
> 
> other movements are also increasing,(4 workouts) although not as dramatic, and my arms are bigger, and i do no direct arm work.
> 
> There is no way Glen that i could do anymore work.I could rest for 20 minutes, but im usually asleep by then!All I could do wolud be to decrease the intensity, of the first set, if i needed to perform more.
> 
> The thing is we can get caught up in the science of it,and blur the issues that matter.If i want to inspire myself i look back to the guys in the 40s,what they did wasnt a million miles away.The golden rule;Get as strong as possible on a few compound movements.


yeah, i dont doubt that HIT works, its quite clear it does, for me the big question is always - is it optimal?


----------



## Dav1

Although this is not a "new" approach I was and am always open to them, but I don't think anyone should limit themselves to believing a single approach is the panacea. Its about reading, absorbing information, experimenting and trying out different methods and instinctively learning whats right for you. I have tried this approach and gained better from German Volume training, abeit still using comparitively heavy weights. My methods worked for me my own results proved that, and Casey Viator although a freak was not unassisted when he won the Mr America in his teens.

I have witnessed numerous world champions train and not one of them followed the same apporach to training, their only commonalities were dedication, discipline and a 100% focus on what they wanted to achieve, more important imo than training per se.


----------



## essexboy

glen danbury said:


> yeah, i dont doubt that HIT works, its quite clear it does, for me the big question is always - is it optimal?


Mmm.From a rational logical viwepoint, I believe so.However, if you have no belief or confidence in a protocol, I dont think it will be optimal.

Constantly doubting will affect your results,confidence will also i believe.


----------



## essexboy

tel3563 said:


> How long have you been training Essex?
> 
> Its hard to quantify your experiences as I don't have enough info about you,
> 
> would you consider yourself a hard gainer, easy gainer, somewhere inbetween?
> 
> What are your goals, your bf, how much have you gained etc.
> 
> I know a guy who I swear only has to look at a weight and he puts good solid
> 
> muscle on, he can be off season and look like most people in show condition.
> 
> His workouts vary from easy going to unbelievably hard (and long).
> 
> Point is we are all very different, if I trained like my friend here, I'd be a big
> 
> porky with not much muscle.
> 
> There is no orthodox method, its about trial and error, I've got 10+ years
> 
> in a gym and I still don't have a fecking clue what works best for me, seriously
> 
> not a clue.
> 
> I have never tried this low volume stuff, I know its pretty well documented
> 
> Yates used it, and Mentzer swore by it, but they were genetic freaks, where
> 
> I am a hardish gainer. It goes against the grain but I'm all for learning.
> 
> Of course we are going to grow from 1 set, any stimulation of muscle fibers
> 
> will create growth, but will it be optimum growth ie the fastest:confused1:
> 
> I'm getting on and don't have much time left at this
> 
> :beer:


I started a HIT regime in sept 07.I used to box at 168lb.I lifted weights in my 20s, with zero progress.Im genetically very average, otherwise i would have progressed 25 years ago.I was 164lbs when i began, im about 215 lb now, but i ve got a ton of fat, ive never been lean, even when i was boxing.Always had a roll round the middle.Im 50 in february(gulp) you think times running out!I understand what im doing and my physical shortcomings, so im realistic in my expectations.I think id look my best at 175ish, so this year , i may start cutting back on the calories.


----------



## glen danbury

essexboy said:


> Mmm.From a rational logical viwepoint, I believe so.However, if you have no belief or confidence in a protocol, I dont think it will be optimal.
> 
> Constantly doubting will affect your results,confidence will also i believe.


*I understand what im doing and my physical shortcomings, so im realistic in my expectations.*

kind of contradictory statements there mate no?


----------



## TH0R

I'm not far behind you Essex, 47 next yearmg:

I was an amateur boxer, 6 years, then onto TKD for 10 years and finally KB for

last couple of years, that was when I had flexible joints and good looks:rolleyes:

I originally started in gym to move up to Heavyweight at TKD as Middles was

so fecking hard to win, sort of took over my life then:rolleyes:

You seem to analyse a fair bit, can you say categorically why multi sets are

not the optimum way, I try to read as much as possible but there's so many

counter arguments I sometimes wonder why


----------



## essexboy

tel3563 said:


> I'm not far behind you Essex, 47 next yearmg:
> 
> I was an amateur boxer, 6 years, then onto TKD for 10 years and finally KB for
> 
> last couple of years, that was when I had flexible joints and good looks:rolleyes:
> 
> I originally started in gym to move up to Heavyweight at TKD as Middles was
> 
> so fecking hard to win, sort of took over my life then:rolleyes:
> 
> You seem to analyse a fair bit, can you say categorically why multi sets are
> 
> not the optimum way, I try to read as much as possible but there's so many
> 
> counter arguments I sometimes wonder why


Them years keep flashing by eh Tel!I cant say that multi sets are not optimum.No one can.However, if you accept that muscle grows, as a result of overcompensation, and that we have limited recovery ability, then it would seem that single set, will provide the optimum stimulation, whilst preserving your recovery ability, and not hinder the growth process.All i can tell you, theres only one thing worse than this type of workout, and thats not doing it.

You really should read the Works of Arthur Jones, Marso posted the link earlier.


----------



## essexboy

glen danbury said:


> *I understand what im doing and my physical shortcomings, so im realistic in my expectations.*
> 
> kind of contradictory statements there mate no?


Er.. no Glen makes sense to me mate? Ill rephrase if you like.Im aware of the response that im trying to achieve, but i realise any progress(or not)that i make,is governed by my individual potential.


----------



## stonecoldzero

essexboy said:


> Er.. no Glen makes sense to me mate? Ill rephrase if you like.Im aware of the response that im trying to achieve, but i realise any progress(or not)that i make,is governed by my individual potential.


In a general way, I understand the positions that all sides of this debate are taken from. Both have merit. However .....

genetics are not destiny.


----------



## TH0R

essexboy said:


> Them years keep flashing by eh Tel!I cant say that multi sets are not optimum.No one can.However, if you accept that muscle grows, as a result of overcompensation, and that we have limited recovery ability, then it would seem that single set, will provide the optimum stimulation, whilst preserving your recovery ability, and not hinder the growth process.All i can tell you, theres only one thing worse than this type of workout, and thats not doing it.
> 
> You really should read the Works of Arthur Jones, Marso posted the link earlier.


I've read the Mentzer stuff, articles anyway, I do remember when it was very

much in vogue, as in everyone was doing it, seems funny that most have gone

back to volume or at least more than one set.

One thing I do agree with is the recovery, I'm sure I need more recovery time

between body parts, my DOMS has got progressively worse over the last few

months.

I may give it a go Essex, and read that book Will keep you posted, almost

newbie question here, how long will it take for me to notice if its working:laugh:


----------



## stonecoldzero

stonecoldzero said:


> In a general way, I understand the positions that all sides of this debate are taken from. Both have merit. However .....
> 
> genetics are not destiny.


I realise that post was a bit vague. What I meant was that ...

Everyone has a genetic predisposition.

How the environment impacts those genetics, either positively or negatively, will result in how those genetics develop ie traits.

So, in a trait relevant environment, maximal positive adaptation is given the greatest chance of success.

Training outcomes are not predisposed, genetically or otherwise.

The outcome is dependant on:

the interaction between genes and environment, the trait relevancy of the environment (ie type of training based upon your genetics) and, perhaps most importantly, time.

It can never truly be known what works for who and how well. Changing may appear to give better results for various individuals for a variety of reasons, but that in itself may have been reliant on prior training etc etc.

So .... you've got your chicken or egg debate stuck inside a Catch 22. You simply cannot isolate cause and effect due to the amount of variables.

The point is -

if it works .....................

DON'T FIX IT!


----------



## essexboy

tel3563 said:


> I've read the Mentzer stuff, articles anyway, I do remember when it was very
> 
> much in vogue, as in everyone was doing it, seems funny that most have gone
> 
> back to volume or at least more than one set.
> 
> One thing I do agree with is the recovery, I'm sure I need more recovery time
> 
> between body parts, my DOMS has got progressively worse over the last few
> 
> months.
> 
> I may give it a go Essex, and read that book Will keep you posted, almost
> 
> newbie question here, how long will it take for me to notice if its working:laugh:


Well it might tale a few w/o to get in the groove, and make sure your form is PERFECT . You should see strength increases every workout.if your not you need to revaluate the exercise, or your capacity for work.what eqipment do you have at your disposal?


----------



## essexboy

stonecoldzero said:


> I realise that post was a bit vague. What I meant was that ...
> 
> Everyone has a genetic predisposition.
> 
> How the environment impacts those genetics, either positively or negatively, will result in how those genetics develop ie traits.
> 
> So, in a trait relevant environment, maximal positive adaptation is given the greatest chance of success.
> 
> Training outcomes are not predisposed, genetically or otherwise.
> 
> The outcome is dependant on:
> 
> the interaction between genes and environment, the trait relevancy of the environment (ie type of training based upon your genetics) and, perhaps most importantly, time.
> 
> It can never truly be known what works for who and how well. Changing may appear to give better results for various individuals for a variety of reasons, but that in itself may have been reliant on prior training etc etc.
> 
> So .... you've got your chicken or egg debate stuck inside a Catch 22. You simply cannot isolate cause and effect due to the amount of variables.
> 
> The point is -
> 
> if it works .....................
> 
> DON'T FIX IT!


If what your trying to say, is that results are not accurately comparable between individuals, due to the amount of variables involved, then i agree with you.

Some are more (gentically) predisposed to gaining muscle.Some can run fast.Some are great at chess.Natural ability will always impact more than (learning) training.


----------



## TH0R

essexboy said:


> Well it might tale a few w/o to get in the groove, and make sure your form is PERFECT . You should see strength increases every workout.if your not you need to revaluate the exercise, or your capacity for work.what eqipment do you have at your disposal?


Everything that a gym has to offer.

I don't do sloppy form

My training atm includes doing all sets to absolute failure, not just common

and garden failure as in 90% of gym goers (ooh, hurts a bit) but I can't get

another rep out, the exception to this is probably bench and squats if I don't

have a spotter (which nowadays is rare) as these are very much confidence lifts.

I sometimes cry a little after sets:whistling::laugh:


----------



## essexboy

tel3563 said:


> Everything that a gym has to offer.
> 
> I don't do sloppy form
> 
> My training atm includes doing all sets to absolute failure, not just common
> 
> and garden failure as in 90% of gym goers (ooh, hurts a bit) but I can't get
> 
> another rep out, the exception to this is probably bench and squats if I don't
> 
> have a spotter (which nowadays is rare) as these are very much confidence lifts.
> 
> I sometimes cry a little after sets:whistling::laugh:


sorry tel, i should have been more specific.do you have quality machines available? (nautilus, hammer?)use these if avaliable, to minimise leverage advantages.

Re the squat.Unless you have a good leg press NOT a sled variety,then make sure you have an experienced spotter, who can "feel" the last hard reps with you, as opposed to some halfwit, whos too busy looking at the girls to notice you lying under the bar!you might want to forgo bench press for ohp , it untilises more muscle.

you might want to buy body by science too.(mcduff/little)

crying is permissable, but uncontrollable sobbing, only after squats ok? good luck mate


----------



## TH0R

essexboy said:


> sorry tel, i should have been more specific.do you have quality machines available? (nautilus, hammer?)use these if avaliable, to minimise leverage advantages.
> 
> Re the squat.Unless you have a good leg press NOT a sled variety,then make sure you have an experienced spotter, who can "feel" the last hard reps with you, as opposed to some halfwit, whos too busy looking at the girls to notice you lying under the bar!you might want to forgo bench press for ohp , it untilises more muscle.
> 
> you might want to buy body by science too.(mcduff/little)
> 
> crying is permissable, but uncontrollable sobbing, only after squats ok? good luck mate


Ahh, I see, no nautilus stuff, some hammer strength stuff, pull down, row, smiths

a shoulder press, seated press hammer grip, seated press with incline, biceps

machine thing, triceps thing, and the usual other stuff, leg curls leg ext lat pull

downs etc, we do have one of the best leg press machines I've ever used

Swap Bench for over head press, can you explain that one mate?

Thanks Essex, appreciate your input:thumbup1:


----------



## essexboy

tel3563 said:


> Ahh, I see, no nautilus stuff, some hammer strength stuff, pull down, row, smiths
> 
> a shoulder press, seated press hammer grip, seated press with incline, biceps
> 
> machine thing, triceps thing, and the usual other stuff, leg curls leg ext lat pull
> 
> downs etc, we do have one of the best leg press machines I've ever used
> 
> Swap Bench for over head press, can you explain that one mate?
> 
> Thanks Essex, appreciate your input:thumbup1:


you actually work a greater range of motion, and have more potential, with an ohp as opposed to a bench press.However, if you want to include it , no problems.pick 5/6 movements, ohp, pulldowns, rows, leg press and maybe dips.A few push a few pull, plus 1/2 lower body.this is a guy from empire, whos getting back to competing, using a hammer circuit.


----------



## glen danbury

stonecoldzero said:


> I realise that post was a bit vague. What I meant was that ...
> 
> Everyone has a genetic predisposition.
> 
> How the environment impacts those genetics, either positively or negatively, will result in how those genetics develop ie traits.
> 
> So, in a trait relevant environment, maximal positive adaptation is given the greatest chance of success.
> 
> Training outcomes are not predisposed, genetically or otherwise.
> 
> The outcome is dependant on:
> 
> the interaction between genes and environment, the trait relevancy of the environment (ie type of training based upon your genetics) and, perhaps most importantly, time.
> 
> It can never truly be known what works for who and how well. Changing may appear to give better results for various individuals for a variety of reasons, but that in itself may have been reliant on prior training etc etc.
> 
> So .... you've got your chicken or egg debate stuck inside a Catch 22. You simply cannot isolate cause and effect due to the amount of variables.
> 
> The point is -
> 
> if it works .....................
> 
> DON'T FIX IT!


totally agree

again i am posting alot of work by myself but this is my opinion on the cop out of genetics



Phenoptype Vs Gentotype, the genetic myth?
​
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>

<o> </o>

Virtually everyone I speak to believes that its genetics which ultimately dictate a persons development and there responses to any given training or diet. Personally I feel the total amount of muscle you can gain and the amount of fat you can shift are all down to controllable factors and as such your development is pretty much in your own hands.

<o> </o>

Granted there are certain things which will determine how a person looks that can't be changed namely

<o> </o>

Height

Bone structure

Insertions

<o> </o>

Once we have fully developed into adulthood these things wont change and as such if two people gain five pounds of muscle it will look better on those who have more favourable bone structures and insertions.

<o> </o>

Virtually everything else from hormones, fiber types, capilarisation, neural drive and all the other determining factors of strength and size are alterable to some degree - leaving you with control.

<o> </o>

Any response we have to any given stimulus is the accumulation of past training, lifestyle and nutritional choices which govern your current physical state. Even if you are currently eating, sleeping and training the same as the next person their previous experiences will mean they respond in a different manner to you for a variety of reasons (namely some of the those factors stated above which are changeable). Normally people will say that's because they are genetically superior to you because they respond better. However I would just state they have a better base level than you from previous choices, the real question should be can a period of training and nutrition make up these differences if you know what they possess that you don't.

<o> </o>

As an example I would say lets take two friends who start training together, they both use the same training and nutrition program pulled from some muscle rag. After three months of training the first friend has gained more size and strength than the other - so the weaker and smaller one decides his a genetic hardgainer. Is this a correct assumption?

<o> </o>

From the outside it would appear so, but when you look at their past histories you find the one who gained more strength and size had a greater level of past exercise history meaning systemic systems and neural patterns were their to begin with. Considering this he had the following factors in place over his friend



Greater capilirisation (able to handle heavier workloads during session and gets better nutrient deliver during recovery between sessions)


Better neural coordination in general


Able to push himself harder due to knowing own limits


Better glucose tolerance and therefore better assimilation of consumed nutrients


<o> </o>

All these things are not genetic but rather due to past training experiences. This is just one thing and we all have varied pasts of many different factors. When you think about all the things which could influence our current physical state and the numerous permutations that could arise by interaction of these variables its easy to see how the many and varied responses to training nutrition or other stimuli come about.

<o> </o>

So what about individuals in a family and the close resemblances of physiques (im being nice I mean fat families), the families are brought up the same and share many common experiences, habit formations (both dietary, attitude and activity wise) and controllable factors that can account for the similar response patterns families show.

<o> </o>

This only takes into account what they are doing in the past, what about at the present - the two friends mentioned previously could be doing exactly the same routine and following exactly the same nutrition plan but think of all the endless variations in day to day issues which could impact their physical state such as

<o> </o>



Sleeping habits, even if they get the same amount are they getting the same quality? Quality of mattress, sleeping with the light on, environmental sounds and so on could all effect this vitally important period of recovery.


Enviromental estrogens (xenoestrogesn) from things like water source, plastic containers, soya foods etc etc


Stress from enviroment and family. If your worked up about outside issues your hormonal balance will be different.


Acidity of body. A mild metabolic acidosis from eating foods with high PRAL (potential renal acid loads) and various other acidic substances. This acidosis will effect enzyme and hormonal profiles


Habitual activity patterns and the effect on posture and facilitation and stretch weakness on certain muscle groups. Your training has a large effect on the bodies adaption process, but so does things like how you stand, sit and basically hold yourself day in day out.


<o> </o>

I could go on and on but I vary much doubt we all do things exactly the same and have exactly the same resources on a day to day basis.

<o> </o>

So what about having muscle groups which respond better than others surely that's genetic right? You train your muscle with the same loading patterns and the same frequency as the rest but one group doesn't respond so it has to be that genetically you have less fibers in that muscle group?

<o> </o>

BUT how do you know the fibers aren't there? if you answer because the body part in question doesn't respond to training I would say how can a body part respond to something its not receiving?

As an analogy I would say this, suppose you text a friend regularly and they never respond you could presume the guys an idiot who never responds, but how do you know he is getting the message?

suppose you are texting the wrong number (wrong movement pattern) and someone else is getting the message (in this case the anterior delts rather than the chest), also suppose the person is getting the message but cannot respond as they don't have the ability to text back (an inability to recruit the fibers there), suppose the phone company is barring him from texting back (antagonistic/reciprocal inhibition), suppose he doesn't have enough credit to reply (in this case enough energy, amino acids etc - and just because the rest of the body is getting enough doesnt mean one bodypart will if theres a lack of capilirisation,etc,etc)

now all these factors are alterable to some degree and if you tick off these then you can say Ok none of these factors are the reason as such the guy is a idiot after all (i.e fibers arent there), the question is how many of us try to figure out whether we have all the boxes ticked before assuming the fibers arent there?<o></o>

<o> </o>

Considering this I will concide that genetics will influence rate of gain and the eventual look gained from training, but how many of us can really say that we do everything possible to optimise our lifestyles to reap the maximum benefit to training and achieve our full genetic potential? I doubt many do, those who do are probably the ones who are termed the genetic elite (some people tick all the boxes without even realising it, their day to day habits just take care of many issues without them even knowing it).<o></o>

<o> </o>

Until you have done everything to optimise your genetic potential can you stop whinging about being a hargainer


----------



## jordi

Glen,

I have a few quick (not really, quite long) questions about your HIT or Miss article on page 4.

If we say there are a number of muscle fibres to recruit in a muscle (say arbitrarily = 100) and working them to failure causes 20 to fatigue we'd then have a 20% drop in strength. Working further sets would cause more to fatigue (% drops down to 50). Which I think is what you're saying but correct me if I'm wrong.

My questions then are -

Q1) How long does it take to recover that %age? Longer for 50% than 20% I guess? Which would need a longer recovery time? Does anyone know how much longer (any studies, anecdotal evidence etc)?

Q2) Does the body seek to repair and overcompensate on a muscular (group) or a fibre level? Are the fatigued fibres the ones improved after/during repair or are they repaired whilst other (healthy) fibres in the group are improved?

Q3) Is there a 'growth window' after exercise where a fatigued muscle will continue to improve? (i.e. - if it takes say 4hrs to repair 1% then will it continue to repair/improve indefinitely until it reaches its signalled growth requirement from the previous exercise or does repair/adaptation only occur within a set period say 48hrs for instance)?

All occurring in a hypotheticallly optimal environment (sleep, fuel etc).

Obviously I know very little about biology :whistling: so any answers would need to be as simple as possible :lol:

Sorry if this is slightly hijacking the thread, but I think its on topic :confused1: The questions are on Glen's article so I directed the questions to him but the more answers the better :beer:


----------



## glen danbury

no definate answers for you rather just educated assumptions rahter than actual figures

people like zatsiorsky indicate that unless a muscle (and we are talking fibres here) is fatigued its not stimulated. the hypertrophic response would be for that group of fibres in the fatigued motor unit, take a look at something like calves and often with either inhibition due to neural impingement or due to posture shifts (and therefore body position changes under load) you will see one head being bigger than the other so its clear (at least to me) that the adaptation is very localised rather than whole muscle

when you look at alot of HIT advocates they will try to achieve the same degree of additional fatigue by using 'beyond failure' techniques such as forced reps , rest pause etc which will result in a similar additional fatigue of fibers as doing additional sets

when you are asking what timeline for recovery are we talking recovery/adaptation time or are you meaning recovery to match the same workload in a session?

theres alot of mixed theories and evidence on reocvery time and adaptation (theres some evidence that fatigue will not stop additional work causing a positive reponse in long term gains - i.e dual theory factor)


----------



## jordi

Cheers for the quick reply.

For the recovery I was interested in both recovery back to 100% and adaptation beyond 100% (of starting muscular size/ability).


----------



## BigDom86

that guy in the video essexboy posted looks in good shape. i looked at a few other videos and they also look in good shape. nothing different to any other guy you see in the gym though. the reason im sceptical is. how many top level bb'ers be them assissted or "natural" advocate this time of training? im guessing the number is very low. i know for a fact none of the top 10 olympians do, they all do volume training. as do say the top 5 "naturals" in the world


----------



## glen danbury

to come to essexboys defense some top guys use it

a top natural - andrew palmer


----------



## BigDom86

i was going more along the lines of rob hope, kiyoshi moody etc. but yeah hes in good nick.

but i dont understand the difference really. what say dorian did is that HIT? it just looks like normal training to me.

i mean what essexboy is advocating is like nonstop exercise for 5minutes right?


----------



## glen danbury

yeah, dont know if i would agree with the circuit style for training

total nisnomer as well to state this type of training increases intensity - it increases workout density and may feel hard but actually reduces intensity because the weight on the bar is lower (from a purely scientific definition of intensity)

but if its working for him, then fair play


----------



## essexboy

BigDom86 said:


> i was going more along the lines of rob hope, kiyoshi moody etc. but yeah hes in good nick.
> 
> but i dont understand the difference really. what say dorian did is that HIT? it just looks like normal training to me.
> 
> i mean what essexboy is advocating is like nonstop exercise for 5minutes right?


Dom,Mate Please dont thow in the old "well, i dont see any Olympians doing this type of training" argument.

The results of an infedesimal small amount of Genetic freaks , have no bearing on 99.99% of the population.

Yates trained hard.He called it high intensity, but a lot of protocols, that I (and others use) Yates ignored.He used explosive movements, rested in the lockout, trained 4 times a week etc.A more accurate decription, would be he used a low volume protocol.


----------



## essexboy

glen danbury said:


> yeah, dont know if i would agree with the circuit style for training
> 
> total nisnomer as well to state this type of training increases intensity - it increases workout density and may feel hard but actually reduces intensity because the weight on the bar is lower (from a purely scientific definition of intensity)
> 
> but if its working for him, then fair play


Glen, the question that is hotly debated in HIT circles is exactly that.

move quickly between movements, thus mantaining a high hr, with less weight, or rest between sets , and use more weight.

I tend to rest 30/60 seconds to let my breathing stabilise.Its a hotly debated subject, thats never going to reach a satisfactory conclusion.


----------



## essexboy

BigDom86 said:


> i was going more along the lines of rob hope, kiyoshi moody etc. but yeah hes in good nick.
> 
> but i dont understand the difference really. what say dorian did is that HIT? it just looks like normal training to me.
> 
> i mean what essexboy is advocating is like nonstop exercise for 5minutes right?


There is a wide umbrella Dom that covers HIT.Personally i dont use the non-stop style.It works well for Mark, in the video, as you can see.I rest enough to let my breathing stabilise.However, i believe that the non-stop protocol, might be more effective at triggering the alarm response.Only an idea.It really depends what theory you adhere to.

The most difficult aspect, is keeping out of the bloody gym! I get such an enormous endorphin rush from this, that i want more.Yet i know that in 3/4 days im not recovered, let alone adapted.


----------



## tomass1342

glen danbury said:


> to come to essexboys defense some top guys use it
> 
> a top natural - andrew palmer


Natural?


----------



## glen danbury

but each style will develop different components of a muscle 9poeple seem to lump muscle growth in as one thing)

higher rep shorter rest periods will develop

*sarcoplasmic hypertrophy

*substrate storage

* capilarisation

* mild myofibril hypertrophy

where as low rep work develops

*moyfibril hypertrophy

*intermuscular coordination

*intramuscular coordination

*mild sarcoplasmic hypertrophy

this is why i dont believe that theres one optimal perfect way - a muscle is made up of many components and one style of training will not develop all to the best level


----------



## tomass1342

an you please explain to me what natural actually means now?


----------



## BigDom86

natural means know performance enhancing drugs. ie. AAS, insulin, growth hormone, prohormones etc


----------



## essexboy

BigDom86 said:


> natural means know performance enhancing drugs. ie. AAS, insulin, growth hormone, prohormones etc


Or is it not getting caught? :confused1:


----------



## BigDom86

essexboy said:


> Or is it not getting caught? :confused1:


haha mate thats a complete different topic  i would agree to this aswell.

it would be nice to beleive most of the guys are natural and most guys in the olympics dont take drugs, but they sadly do. i know "naturals" who take insulin and gh:rolleyes:


----------



## essexboy

BigDom86 said:


> haha mate thats a complete different topic  i would agree to this aswell.
> 
> it would be nice to beleive most of the guys are natural and most guys in the olympics dont take drugs, but they sadly do. i know "naturals" who take insulin and gh:rolleyes:


I just dont understand? Olympic athletes, stand to make huge financial gain from winning.Drug use, in this case is understandable.To "cheat" in a BB contest, when the only reward is a plastic cup,I just dont get.

Id rather enter a non tested competion, and come last,at least knowing I didnt lie to myself,(and others)and that it was a level playing field.

Where is the satisfaction in knowing youve not enough integrity to compete fairly? :confused1:


----------



## BigDom86

lol completely agree i dont get it either


----------



## Horico

OK.

I've been training properly for about a year now and trained without the benefit of any form of knowledge for a year previous to that. I'm currently re-evaluating what I do in the gym and was planning on going for the bigger exercises and heavy weights as I've not really done that before.

I'm not that big or strong (I don't think) but have made good relative progress in the last year (45% increase in DB BP for example) using the 'conventional' methods but this may well just be down to being a weakling in the first place and not training before .

The gym I go to at the mo doesn't have much equipment but am thinking of having a go at the one workout per week method. Now, I did have a big op on my shoulder a while ago that has meant there is a disparity in strength (read endurance) left vs right so exercises using both arms and the same weight mean the good side (right) compensates. I try to avoid these if possible and work to the weakness of my left side.

Without making this post too long with any more explanation, would the following be a good starter for 10? All exercises done with no rest and targeted at 5 reps failure:

DB Shoulder press

Chin

DB Decline Press

Seated row

Squat

There is a leg press sled but I'm thinking the Squat would involve more effort per se?

I'd be interested to hear thoughts.

Matt


----------



## glen danbury

tomass1342 said:


> Natural?


as most sure as can be really - he has competed on the natural scene for a long time (meaning a greater chance of getting caught or being squeeled upon), has passed numerous drug tests and passed polygraphs when competing abroad with the WNBF

whilst i think there are some cheats in the natural feds (pretty sad really considering theres a choice unlike the olympics etc) I think the majority are clean

alot of people like to think not - but typically i think this is more people wanting to make themselves feel better for there own lack of development or progress. I know this will offend many but often people dont make the same progress arent as honest with themselves over everything they do in and outside the gym but like to think they are and when someone else makes better progress they rationalize they 'must be on drugs' because i cant do it so how can they?


----------

