Muscle Failure?

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by semag
No... you didn't catch my drift. I've worked out SINCE high school, havne't stopped. Switched to low volume and have begun making gains as if I was a newbie again. Insane stuff...

If you like HST and HIT, go look up Doggcrapp's cycle (unless you have already). That guy knows his shyt.

Lol, my bad, I've worked a 12 hr shift and am somewhat of a corpse now.

 

[doctoroxygen]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
In other words, working out for a long time (high volume) gives you higher cortisol levels which eat up your muscle proteins, send their amino acids to the liver to be converted into glucose in which in turn is broken down into pyruvate. Excess pyruvate gets converted into lactic acid.

That's a very comprehensive description of pyruvate synthesis. However, I don't see where you're making the leap from working out for a long time to high volume. As I understand it (and this is what I personally do), high volume refers to the total "tonnage" you're putting up. For instance, a high volume bench routine would be 10x3 with ~3 minute rest between sets, with the weight being between 80-90% of your 1RM. Each set would last far less than one minute, so your muscles wouldn't get to the point where they're creating pyruvate. It's the same number of reps as a 3x10 routine, but since you're lifting the weight three times, you can lift a lot heavier.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by doctoroxygen
That's a very comprehensive description of pyruvate synthesis. However, I don't see where you're making the leap from working out for a long time to high volume. As I understand it (and this is what I personally do), high volume refers to the total "tonnage" you're putting up. For instance, a high volume bench routine would be 10x3 with ~3 minute rest between sets, with the weight being between 80-90% of your 1RM. Each set would last far less than one minute, so your muscles wouldn't get to the point where they're creating pyruvate. It's the same number of reps as a 3x10 routine, but since you're lifting the weight three times, you can lift a lot heavier.

Very good post, I like the way you present your argument.

Yes you are right in saying that high volume referrs to total tonnage. However, the actual set/rep routine you use will depend on what you are training for. A powerlifter will train in the 1-3 rep range as that is what is necessery for their competitions. A bodybuilder will train in the higher rep ranges, as that is what is proven to produce hypertrophy. But even the powerlifter that uses the 10x3 routine will take 35 minutes to finish just his bench. If he does the same for his squats and deadlifts, he'll be at the gym for well over an hour and a half (lots of cortisol).

In this thread, the argument started when MetalFortress stated that the only way to build muscle mass (i.e. hypertrophy) is high volume workouts.

So if we're talking about hypertrophy, it means we are training in the range of 5-10 reps (e.g. 5-7 reps, 6-8 reps, 8-10 reps). That means that if we train in high volume, we do lots of sets. If you look at his workout journal, you'll see that he does 6 sets / exercise sometimes (he does like 29 sets on his upper body day). More sets = longer workout time. Longer workout time = more cortisol = more protein taken from muscles = more glucose used for energy = more pyruvate = more lactic acid = poor gains.

The less then a minute, then 3 mins of rest is a way to slow down cortisol, but it is low intensity training which is a bad way to stimulate muscle fiber. The whole principle of HIT is to stimulate as much of the fiber as possible while avoiding overtraining. 1 or 2 sets with high intensity (i.e. slow reps, squezing and holding during contractions, forced reps) is enough to stimulate all the muscle fiber. It's much more efficient then 4-6 sets of low intensity training.

 

[doctoroxygen]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
Very good post, I like the way you present your argument.

Yes you are right in saying that high volume referrs to total tonnage. However, the actual set/rep routine you use will depend on what you are training for. A powerlifter will train in the 1-3 rep range as that is what is necessery for their competitions. A bodybuilder will train in the higher rep ranges, as that is what is proven to produce hypertrophy. But even the powerlifter that uses the 10x3 routine will take 35 minutes to finish just his bench. If he does the same for his squats and deadlifts, he'll be at the gym for well over an hour and a half (lots of cortisol).

In this thread, the argument started when MetalFortress stated that the only way to build muscle mass (i.e. hypertrophy) is high volume workouts.

So if we're talking about hypertrophy, it means we are training in the range of 5-10 reps (e.g. 5-7 reps, 6-8 reps, 8-10 reps). That means that if we train in high volume, we do lots of sets. If you look at his workout journal, you'll see that he does 6 sets / exercise sometimes (he does like 29 sets on his upper body day). More sets = longer workout time. Longer workout time = more cortisol = more protein taken from muscles = more glucose used for energy = more pyruvate = more lactic acid = poor gains.

The less then a minute, then 3 mins of rest is a way to slow down cortisol, but it is low intensity training which is a bad way to stimulate muscle fiber. The whole principle of HIT is to stimulate as much of the fiber as possible while avoiding overtraining. 1 or 2 sets with high intensity (i.e. slow reps, squezing and holding during contractions, forced reps) is enough to stimulate all the muscle fiber. It's much more efficient then 4-6 sets of low intensity training.

I agree that high volume isn't the only way to build muscle, obviously it's not since most people don't train that way and build muscle regardless. However, am I right in making the logical leap that cortisol is produced just by being in the gym? You say that an hour and a half workout produces a lot of cortisol; is this because the gym is a relatively high-stress environment? That makes sense to me, since cortisol is the primary stress hormone.

It's possible to stimulate the entire muscle in 1 or 2 sets of HIT. It's also possible to stimulate the entire muscle in high volume training, but it requires a lot more focus and total body tension of the kind recommended by (haha) Pavel Tsatsouline. So it's sort of a tradeoff: HIT hurts A LOT more, and high tonnage lifting requires more time and a lot more focus.

A new point to introduce: heavy training of the high volume kind is primarily for powerlifters, as MOM has said. This is because heavy training is designed to "rewire" the nerves that make the muscles contract. This leads to harder contractions and tenser muscles overall, but not necessarily larger muscles. That's why you'll sometimes see 135-pound maniacs putting up 350+ bench and so forth: their nervous system is what's most affected by that kind of training.

 

[MindOverMatter]

You say that an hour and a half workout produces a lot of cortisol; is this because the gym is a relatively high-stress environment?

You are correct, the whole process of lifting weights is a neurogenic (physical) stressor, and hence triggers the release of cortisol. Obviously working out for a longer duration will stress the body more then working out for a shorter duration. If you can stimulate the fiber in less time and avoid high levels of cortisol, it is more efficient for building mass.

I feel that high volume bodybuilding (i.e. lots of sets) is inefficient because you do more work then is necessery, and end up overtraining and not growing.

I'll give you an example:

I've seen one of the high volume guys at my gym train biceps. He'll do 4 sets of barbell curls, then 4 sets of preachers, then 4 sets of hammers, then 4 sets of reverse curls.

The bicep is a small muscle, it does not need this kind of volume. Sure he hits the bicep from every angle, but he is overworking the muscle.

It's enough to do 1 set of barbell curls warmup, 1 sets of barbells to failure, 1 set of preachers/hammers/reverse to failure. In a total of 5 total sets, you'd stimulate the entire bicep without overworking it.

After that, all you need is rest, and you grow.

However, I disagree about HIT using less focus. In my opinion, HIT requires more focus then any other routine. Perfect form, focus on contraction, and making every second count. If you watch Dorian Yates work out in the Blood & Guts training video, there is no way you can consider that training without focus

 

[MetalFortress]

No you didn't, you told me that "low volume builds lactic acid and that it stresses the CNS". I responded that it is high volume that does that. And just because you are too ignorant to understand it doesn't make it pseudoscience. It's valid university research.

Actually, if high volume does that, and low volume does not, explain why you would always feel LESS worked 2 hours after HIT than you would 2 minutes after HIT? And if you don't, then you're either lying or have odd muscles. I feel worked almost the same with decent volume workouts between 2 hours and 2 minutes.

Studies on HIT and volume go both ways, so you'd be better off not referring to them unless you also want to start looking up studies that go against HIT. And again, I'm not going to bother going to the library to go dig through studies. I haven't the time nor the desire.

MINDOVERMATTER

In this thread, the argument started when MetalFortress stated that the only way to build muscle mass (i.e. hypertrophy) is high volume workouts.

TO WHICH I REPLY WITH

METALFORTRESS

The real king for growth is 6-week cycle of 20-rep squats

AND

METALFORTRESS

Anyways, I like all sorts of routines. Right now I am on medium to high volume, medium to high intensity. I've trained low volume, high intensity, high frequency before, as well as high volume, medium intensity, low frequency.Training multiple sets and taking the last set to and beyond failure can be a kickass way to break plateaus, but taking one set to failure isn't a very smart long term workout plan. People who trumpet it as the best ever way to workout are just morons.

LOL, foot, meet mouth!

I thought this article was supposed to help your case?

It does. My argument is against low sets to failure. High sets to failure will work your muscles WAY faster than low sets to failure, possibly even fast enough to catch up with how hard they work your CNS. They would work your muscles more overall than high sets to NO failure, but I still wouldn't do them, because I'd rather save my CNS and attain overall recovery faster.

My whole point was that you don't know IF high volume works better then HIT, because you haven't tested it yourself for a long period of time. I.e. You have no results with it, which means you have no experiance in the subject. For all you know, high volume can give you no gains whatsoever. You don't know because you havent tested it for yourself.

You're assuming. I didn't say whether or not I did, but truth is, I actually did. In senior year of HS, when I had first discovered the sort of routines, I begun to go very high intensity and volume on chin ups and dips (trading off) once a week. Chin ups went from not a prayer of doing chinups to about 2 chinups in a row within a month (bw of 235). Dips went from less than 1, to almost 20 in a row, in the same period of time. While I didn't bother keeping body statistics, I do know that I had arm and lat definition for the first time in my life. How's that for no results?

Oh, and I tried training to failure before, too, also in late senior year of high school (that and the volume came around the time I finally started wising up about lifting). At first I made some decent gains on a few lifts here and there, but my chin-up and dip gains which I had previously attained via volume, went straight to stagnation hell, and my squats got worse and worse. And to make it even worse, I hated working out more than I ever did. Also, I would feel slammed after my workout, but an hour or two later I wouldn't feel NEAR as worked! After about 3 weeks, I wised up and went back to doing what I enjoyed (sometimes volume, sometimes olympic lifting singles and kettlebell training, and heavy medicine ball lifts)

Want to tell me now that I have no experience? Or are you going to come up with a lame excuse as to why my experience is invalid? Neither one would surprise me, really.

Oh, and the routine that gained me 13 lbs in 6 weeks that I did as a college freshman, was a combination of 20-rep squats and high volume psuedo-olympic lifting (around 5-6 sets of 4-5 reps on power cleans and on jerks). Another example. And no, I don't have pictures to prove my gains, but I have no reason to lie about this. In fact, I believe I posted about my gains on this forum a long time ago, too, possibly over a year ago.

Yep, all pros use roids, even the ones on HIT. However if you look at some of the natural bodybuilders on bodybuilding.com, you will notice that most of them use variations of HIT/MAX OT/HST, which are all low volume workouts. If you are on juice, high volume is great because you can hit the muscle all you want, and not have to worry about overtraining and muscle atrophy. Your body has a super high protein synthesis, and as long as you eat well, you have amazing hypertrophy potential.

Most of the naturals also seem to think that gaining 12 pounds of lean mass in a year is a great accomplishment. If they would apply some powerlifting wisdom to their bodybuilding goals, they would have even better results than before.

So lets say he does 30 sets in 45 minutes. 45mins /30 sets = 1.5mins/set (or 90 seconds per set).

Now he says he rests less then a minute after every set, lets say 40 seconds of rest (out of 90). That leaves him 50 seconds to do his set. Say he does sets of 8-10 reps. That means it takes him 5-6 secs to do 1 rep. That's not high intensity. A high intensity set takes FOREVER to do, since you are doing it slowly, with perfect form, and focusing on the contraction the entire time / holding the muscle in a static flex as you finish every rep. We're talking 4 secs up, 4 secs down, 2-4 secs of squezing at the moment of full contraction. Doing a set like that would take 80-100 seconds, which would give him no time to rest inbetween sets. In other words, it's impossible.

That's not so unbelievable. It seems to me that he is lifting for real muscle, not "fake" muscle that looks great but can't do too much. In that case, he, I, and other similar trainers would lift at normal speed, not "super slow".

I might look out of shape to you, but pit me against a HIT guy who looks good in almost any sports contest (assuming we have either the same training or lack of training in that contest) and I assure you I will win hands down.

I disagree. A good, high intensity set is more then enough to stimulate all the fiber in that muscle group and produce growth, without making you overtrain. Obviously doing a set of squats in 50 secs like he said he does will not stimulate all the fiber. Duh! Low volume does NOTHING if it's not high intensity.

Now wait a minute. Us non-HITers will use a weight heavy enough that it will be a slow lift weight WITHOUT intentionally trying to slow it down. If you can lift it so fast that you have to slow it down intentionally, you need to lift heavier.

And since when did intentionally doing slow lifts become high intensity? If that's true, high intensity is a good way to become a complete poser - looks buff, but no uses for the muscle.

Which is TOTALLY FALSE. You can see Dorian Yates' routines at: http://dorianyates.net/workout1.html

They were all low volume routines, done in short amounts of time. I have no clue where he got this from.

Do you think pros are 100% honest about their routines? If he lifts the same weight every time, eventually he's going to quit growing. And it looks to me like he did as many as 9 sets of chest. And I'm sure that those 4 incline bench sets, and his sets of hammer strength machines, seated press and dumbbell flies weren't ALL warmups just to get to 1 set of flies and 1 set of cable crossovers. Your chest will not grow if those are your two main sets, pure and simple.

I also see that he does 8 work sets and a bunch of warmup sets for legs. And no squats. Unless he is on enough steroids to change a woman's gender, there's no way he's going to get that big without squatting. And no natural will get optimal leg results without squatting

His curls are wuss weights for someone his size. Oh, and I did not find anywhere on the page that mentions how frequently he works out. I also didn't find anything to make me believe that this is how he worked out for his entire career. Surely you don't believe it!

As for the two studies that didn't work, just take the comma off the end of the URL.


[quoteI've seen one of the high volume guys at my gym train biceps. He'll do 4 sets of barbell curls, then 4 sets of preachers, then 4 sets of hammers, then 4 sets of reverse curls. [/quote]

If you thought this sort of thing is what I meant by high volume, then it's no wonder you thought I was a total idiot. I come from circles more interested in olympic lifting, powerlifting, and strong man training. To me, high volume is doing a ton of squats and deadlifts, (where powerlifting comes in) a lot of bench press (or a ton of dips) and either pullups/chinups or rows or some other workout that owns the lats/back/biceps) Routines vary depending on what you are training for, sometimes excluding bench press altogether.

Read my training journal for what I consider "high volume".

t's not invalid, but at the same time it doesn't prove that the method he used is better then any other method, since you can make same, if not better gains with other training methods? Capicse?

Now wait a second, there's a routine where you can gain MORE than 31 lbs in 6 weeks, while keeping the same BF percentage, maybe 1% or 2% higher, WITHOUT using steroids and WITHOUT newbie gains being a factor?? Why wasn't I aware sooner?? Tell me about it, so that I may incorporate it into my training!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by MetalFortress
Actually, if high volume does that, and low volume does not, explain why you would always feel LESS worked 2 hours after HIT than you would 2 minutes after HIT? And if you don't, then you're either lying or have odd muscles. I feel worked almost the same with decent volume workouts between 2 hours and 2 minutes.

I have no clue what you are talking about. 2hrs after a 20-30 minute HIT leg session I can barely walk. I work legs in the evening so that when I get like this, I can just go pass out. I'm not lying, nor do I have odd muscles, but I do train with high intensity, and it leaves me weak as an infant for a long period afterwards.

Studies on HIT and volume go both ways, so you'd be better off not referring to them unless you also want to start looking up studies that go against HIT. And again, I'm not going to bother going to the library to go dig through studies. I haven't the time nor the desire.

Until you can find studies and prove your point by referrencing them, you're just assuming things. If you don't have time nor the desire to prove your point, then why should I listen? Why even argue it then if you can't prove it?

It does. My argument is against low sets to failure. High sets to failure will work your muscles WAY faster than low sets to failure, possibly even fast enough to catch up with how hard they work your CNS. They would work your muscles more overall than high sets to NO failure, but I still wouldn't do them, because I'd rather save my CNS and attain overall recovery faster.

No, you stated that "training to failure is training to fail". In no way did you indicate that "high set training to failure is success, and low set is failure". But I'll overlook that.

Now, for a guy that thinks body chemstry and its responses to stress is pseudoscience, you sure talk a lot about the CNS. Can I see some studies backing up this notion of yours?

How do high sets to failure work my muscles faster then low sets to failure? Failure is failure. Once you hit it, you're done. But feel free to prove me wrong. Find me some scientific knowledge to prove your claim.

You're assuming. I didn't say whether or not I did, but truth is, I actually did. In senior year of HS, when I had first discovered the sort of routines, I begun to go very high intensity and volume on chin ups and dips (trading off) once a week. Chin ups went from not a prayer of doing chinups to about 2 chinups in a row within a month (bw of 235). Dips went from less than 1, to almost 20 in a row, in the same period of time. While I didn't bother keeping body statistics, I do know that I had arm and lat definition for the first time in my life. How's that for no results?

Like I said, I attribute this to newbie gains. When you first starting lifting, your body is so unused to the neurogenic stressors that almost any routine will help you build strength/mass.

Oh, and I tried training to failure before, too, also in late senior year of high school (that and the volume came around the time I finally started wising up about lifting). At first I made some decent gains on a few lifts here and there, but my chin-up and dip gains which I had previously attained via volume, went straight to stagnation hell, and my squats got worse and worse. And to make it even worse, I hated working out more than I ever did. Also, I would feel slammed after my workout, but an hour or two later I wouldn't feel NEAR as worked! After about 3 weeks, I wised up and went back to doing what I enjoyed (sometimes volume, sometimes olympic lifting singles and kettlebell training, and heavy medicine ball lifts)

Did you train in low volume? You didn't specify, just stated that you tried training to failure. But I'll assume you meant low volume.

That still tells me nothing. I don't know whether you trained with proper intensity for one, that can be the reason you weren't feeling the workout 2 hours later. Secondly, I don't know what your diet was like. Judging by your photos, it seems you have a weakness for food every now and then.

Want to tell me now that I have no experience? Or are you going to come up with a lame excuse as to why my experience is invalid? Neither one would surprise me, really.

Because judging from your pictures, there was no indication that you gained any muscle mass with high volume. When I look at your 2001 and 2004 pictures, it just looks like you did cardio. In no way does it show you actually put on muscle mass. To me that says that you either didn't do high volume, or that you did it for a bit and gave up (hence the difference between the 2nd and 3rd picture).

I have yet to see a dedicated HITer quit. Why? Our results keep us going.

Secondly, I checked out your workout log, and it says that you started it this month. That tells me you are only now starting a consisten workout routine. Maybe in 6 months or a year you can prove me wrong on the value of high volume, but as of now, you have no PROOF that high volume worked for you.

All you have is a few photographs showing you lost fat, and while that is commendable, it could have been done with cardio for all I know.

Until you have some photos to prove your gains, your opinion is of little value, because you have not built any noticable muscle mass. That is why you have no experiance. You can claim that high volume worked for you, but you can't prove it. You can claim that you didn't make gains on HIT, but I have no idea if you even knew what HIT was back then, or if you did it correctly.

Oh, and the routine that gained me 13 lbs in 6 weeks that I did as a college freshman, was a combination of 20-rep squats and high volume psuedo-olympic lifting (around 5-6 sets of 4-5 reps on power cleans and on jerks). Another example. And no, I don't have pictures to prove my gains, but I have no reason to lie about this. In fact, I believe I posted about my gains on this forum a long time ago, too, possibly over a year ago.

Like I said, no pictures = no proof. For all I know, those 13 lbs could have been gotten from eating junk food.

Also that means nothing to me. I've gained 27 lbs in my first year of working out, while staying between 8 and 11% bodyfat (was on a clean bulk). That's on HIT. I know some people that have gained 40+ lbs (although their bodyfats were slightly higher). If I had decided to do real bulks, my newbie gains would have been even higher, but I didn't wanna lose the six pack.

Why would you lie? I don't know, but you seem like the type that hates losing an argument, so I'll just assume that's the reason.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Most of the naturals also seem to think that gaining 12 pounds of lean mass in a year is a great accomplishment. If they would apply some powerlifting wisdom to their bodybuilding goals, they would have even better results than before.

Come on man, you did not just say that. You did not even stick to a workout routine for 4 years, yet you are assuming how easy it is to put on mass (especially if you are a natural)? If you had worked out consistently for a long period (4+ years), you would know that the longer you workout, the harder it is to put on new muscle mass. For a newbie, putting on 30+ lbs in a single year is common. For an advanced lifter, putting on 13 lbs in a year is AMAZING. for a pro, putting on 5lbs (even with juice) is an amazing gain.

By the way, I've checked out the bb.com articles you linked and responded to them. You did not respond to those Layne Norton articles I linked. He is a perfect example of a natural HITer. 8-10 overall sets / workout, all to failure, with high intensity.

That's not so unbelievable. It seems to me that he is lifting for real muscle, not "fake" muscle that looks great but can't do too much. In that case, he, I, and other similar trainers would lift at normal speed, not "super slow".

It is unbelievable because unless he's training with low intensity, there is no way can DO all those sets in the time he said he did!

As for real muscle vs fake muscle, who are you to tell whether it's functional or not? What proof do you have that HIT does not build strength (I'll get to Dorian's curls in a bit)? I could post my own strength gains as my personal proof that it does, but it's the internet, and anyone can make up numbers.

Considering I started training for the police force, it's obvious that I would train for strength and size. Size without strength doesn't mean squat (no pun).

I might look out of shape to you, but pit me against a HIT guy who looks good in almost any sports contest (assuming we have either the same training or lack of training in that contest) and I assure you I will win hands down.

Come on man, those are bold words, and you can't prove them over the internet. Why are you even saying them?

Now wait a minute. Us non-HITers will use a weight heavy enough that it will be a slow lift weight WITHOUT intentionally trying to slow it down. If you can lift it so fast that you have to slow it down intentionally, you need to lift heavier.

Most non-HITers or high volumers DO USE heavy weights, but I've never seen one that does reps as slowly as a HITer, no matter what the weight is. Most high-volumers tend to do fast reps with poor form, so they can get on to the next set. I'm not saying all high volumers train like this. However, those high volumers that train with a HIT-like intensity overtrain anyway with the amount of sets they do! How many times do we have to come back to this agrument.

simply put, lots of sets = overtraining.

And since when did intentionally doing slow lifts become high intensity? If that's true, high intensity is a good way to become a complete poser - looks buff, but no uses for the muscle.

You are making more assumptions here. First of all, doing reps slow, with perfect form is a lot harder to do then normal speed reps with sloppy form, or even perfect form. The slower you move the weight, the more gravity pressure there is, and the harder the process becomes.

One of my gym partners is a competitive powerlifter. He trains his routines based on contest rules, so for example on a bench, he'll bring the bar down to his chest, wait 2 seconds, then bring it up. He does this on every rep.

One time, instead of doing a slow speed chest workout, I decided to do one like this (normal speed lift, normal speed drop, 2 sec pause). I used this for my 8-10 rep range set. I noticed that I was able to put on way higher weights with this method of training then I was with my 10-12 second reps.

When I eliminated the 2 second pause (basically just lift, drop), and trained the way most people train, the weight I was able to use went up even more then my HIT 8-10RM.

Meaning, that even tho I trained with slow reps, and put on very good muscle mass, I still made solid strength gains.

Do you think pros are 100% honest about their routines? If he lifts the same weight every time, eventually he's going to quit growing. And it looks to me like he did as many as 9 sets of chest. And I'm sure that those 4 incline bench sets, and his sets of hammer strength machines, seated press and dumbbell flies weren't ALL warmups just to get to 1 set of flies and 1 set of cable crossovers. Your chest will not grow if those are your two main sets, pure and simple.

No I don't, but at the same time, you were the one who started the pro argument, stating that pros only use high volume, yada yada yada.

And yes they are warm ups. He doesn't train them to failure. If there's one thing you can say about Dorian Yates, it's that he takes his warm-ups seriously (i'll explain why soon).

I also see that he does 8 work sets and a bunch of warmup sets for legs. And no squats. Unless he is on enough steroids to change a woman's gender, there's no way he's going to get that big without squatting. And no natural will get optimal leg results without squatting

Dorian was on enough steroids to change a woman's gender, and he did use squats in his career, but I have no clue about why he left them off that chart. I'm as confused as you are.

His curls are wuss weights for someone his size. Oh, and I did not find anywhere on the page that mentions how frequently he works out. I also didn't find anything to make me believe that this is how he worked out for his entire career. Surely you don't believe it!

There is a reason why his curls suck. In the 90s, while doing underhand grip barbell rows (a dangerous exercise that many bodybuilders get injured on, even non HITers), he injured his bicep.

He is more careful how he trains now, as is evident by his dedication to warm up sets.

He works out each muscle group once a week. That's common HIT practice. No he didn't train with that exact routine his whole career, but he used low volume, high intensity training (hit) long before he started winning Olympias.

As for the two studies that didn't work, just take the comma off the end of the URL.

They're articles, not studies. Studies are empirical in nature, and are researched in a laboratory setting. Articles on the other hand are written by an individual, usually without any research, no control groups, and are vulnerable to bias.

However, I will read them later. It's late, and I'm gonna hit the sack soon (I will check them out tho).

If you thought this sort of thing is what I meant by high volume, then it's no wonder you thought I was a total idiot. I come from circles more interested in olympic lifting, powerlifting, and strong man training. To me, high volume is doing a ton of squats and deadlifts, (where powerlifting comes in) a lot of bench press (or a ton of dips) and either pullups/chinups or rows or some other workout that owns the lats/back/biceps) Routines vary depending on what you are training for, sometimes excluding bench press altogether.

Ok, we're making more sense here. I wish you specified that you were training specifically as powerlifter/strongman/olympic lifter/

When you wrote the original argument, you said that the key to putting on muscle mass was high volume. I assumed you building muscle mass as in training for hypertrophy (i.e. bodybuilding). In bodybuilding terms, high volume is generally 3-5 sets / exercise, and like 3-5 exercises per body part. To me, that is a tried, tested and inefficient way of building muscle mass.

While powerlifters tend to have very explosive strength, mass wise they don't gain as much hypertrophy as bodybuilders. Yes they look big, but with 20-30% bodyfat, that's normal.

Read my training journal for what I consider "high volume".

I did, your leg day wasn't that bad (you wouldn't overtrain that much on it), but your upper body day was something like 29 sets. That's way too much, and I don't see how you can avoid stressing the CNS (which has been one of your main argument points), or avoiding long duration workouts (and high cortisol levels).

Now wait a second, there's a routine where you can gain MORE than 31 lbs in 6 weeks, while keeping the same BF percentage, maybe 1% or 2% higher, WITHOUT using steroids and WITHOUT newbie gains being a factor?? Why wasn't I aware sooner?? Tell me about it, so that I may incorporate it into my training!

Come on now, lets be adults. There is no routine that can give you 31lbs with 1-2% bodyfat increase without steroids and without newbie gains in 6 weeks lol. I never said HIT was a miracle way of putting on muscle mass, I just said it was the most efficient way for a natural to train if he wants to build muscle tissue (and I stick by that).

I'm not saying you can't put on muscle mass with high volume bodybuilding, I'm just saying that it's NOT the most efficient way (as you claim), and I have explained why I feel that way using everything from personal progress photos, to scientific journals, to natural bodybuilder routines like Layne Norton's.

And if you are serious about incorrporating HIT to your training, feel free to PM me and I'll send you a routine. I am 90% sure that after 16 weeks, you'd stick with it for life jus like everybody else (and 10% of me thinks you'd get off it just to spite me lol).

P.s. I hate you for making me type all this over and over again lol.

 

[TedJustAdmitIt]

MOMeeps could learn alot from how you've conducted yourself in this discussion...you back up you claims with scientific proof and photos,you never lose your cool or resort to name calling...if only more posts were like yours

I'd appreciate some help with sorting out a HIT routine if you have the time?

I'm a lifting newb having only started around last xmas.
I was a skinny lil biatch so the gains have been good so far using a routine roughly like this:

Mon:Chest & Bis
Wed:Legs & Shoulders
Fri:Tris & Back

It's usually 2-3 exercises per bodypart and 3 sets per exercise with increases of 1lb or so with each set and decreases of 2 reps with each set.....

eg:Barbell Curl 10 reps@20kg/8 reps@21kgs/6 reps@22kgs
with around a 3 minute rest between sets.

Like I say,gains have been great(we can put that down to being new tho,right?)but the length of each workout pushes 60mins which I know isn't good and with only training each bodypart once per week my gut tells me I could be doing each bodypart more often.

I've done some reading on HIT but each article seems to contradict the one before and I'm left feeling even more confused than ever

However,I've managed to come up with a full body workout using 11-12 exercises@1 set of 8-10 reps each(12-15 for calves and abs).
The question I can't seem to answer tho is how many times a week can I do this routine?

Twice?
3 times.....or is that over training?

Some HIT articles have a 3-day split similar to the one I'm doing now,some have a 2-day split and some have a full body workout 3 times a week.

What would you suggest?

Thanks for your help.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Hey! HIT in general isn't a specific routine, but rather a low set way of training and doing the exercises with maximum intensity. The routine is up to each individual. Some like to do 3 full body workouts a week, some like to do 3-day splits, some like to do upper and lower days, pushing and pulling days, etc.

Anyway, I'll pm you a good starter routine.

 

[vanwilder]

Originally posted by doctoroxygen
Can someone explain why working to muscle failure is so important to maximize muscle growth, physiologically? I'm just trying to get a handle on the prevailing opinion about this.

its not lol, i was actually reading up on it today, and it is not necessary, to build muscle you stay in the 4-6 rep range, anything above is not giving you optimum results. ill see if i can fish the article up in a bit

 

[MindOverMatter]

Re: Re: Muscle Failure?

Originally posted by vanwilder
its not lol, i was actually reading up on it today, and it is not necessary, to build muscle you stay in the 4-6 rep range, anything above is not giving you optimum results. ill see if i can fish the article up in a bit

You are quoting Max OT. Re-read the article again, the guide stresses out that you go to POSITIVE FAILURE (i.e. you can't do more then 6 reps, and if you can, you should up the weight).

What Max OT states is that you should not go past that and do forced reps. While some people agree on this, many others don't.

Also, 4-6rep range is good for strength, but it's not the best for hypertrophy results. 6-8, 8-10 is much better if your main goal is muscle mass (i.e. hypertrophy/size)

 

[vanwilder]

Re: Re: Re: Muscle Failure?

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
You are quoting Max OT. Re-read the article again, the guide stresses out that you go to POSITIVE FAILURE (i.e. you can't do more then 6 reps, and if you can, you should up the weight).

What Max OT states is that you should not go past that and do forced reps. While some people agree on this, many others don't.

Also, 4-6rep range is good for strength, but it's not the best for hypertrophy results. 6-8, 8-10 is much better if your main goal is muscle mass (i.e. hypertrophy/size)

sorry my bad, i didnt read this thread correctly, and yes i am quoting it, wrong context i suppose, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[MetalFortress]

"Ok, we're making more sense here. I wish you specified that you were training specifically as powerlifter/strongman/olympic lifter/"

Never needed to before. I can't even remember the last time I discussed high volume bodybuilding routines... or if I ever even did.

"They're articles, not studies"

Wrong word. I meant articles.

"When you wrote the original argument, you said that the key to putting on muscle mass was high volume. I assumed you building muscle mass as in training for hypertrophy (i.e. bodybuilding). In bodybuilding terms, high volume is generally 3-5 sets / exercise, and like 3-5 exercises per body part. To me, that is a tried, tested and inefficient way of building muscle mass."

When I wrote the original argument, I honestly forgot about 20-rep squats.

"While powerlifters tend to have very explosive strength, mass wise they don't gain as much hypertrophy as bodybuilders. Yes they look big, but with 20-30% bodyfat, that's normal."

But powerlifters who double as bodybuilders can gain MUCH more mass than bodybuilders who do not use the powerlifts (assuming the steroid doseage or lack thereof is the same)

"I did, your leg day wasn't that bad (you wouldn't overtrain that much on it), but your upper body day was something like 29 sets. That's way too much, and I don't see how you can avoid stressing the CNS (which has been one of your main argument points), or avoiding long duration workouts (and high cortisol levels)."

My upper body day is basically two days put together, because I don't want to work upper back and biceps, and accidentily kill my triceps and chest again (I did that once before I started writing the journal). Half the sets are for upper back/lats/biceps, and the other half are for chest and triceps. Lately, the DOMS has been cut to almost insignificant levels, so I am considering flipping back to a 3 day split.

"Come on now, lets be adults. There is no routine that can give you 31lbs with 1-2% bodyfat increase without steroids and without newbie gains in 6 weeks lol. I never said HIT was a miracle way of putting on muscle mass, I just said it was the most efficient way for a natural to train if he wants to build muscle tissue (and I stick by that)."

If you had read the Dragondoor article I posted about the Super Squats 20-rep squat routine, you would know what I was talking about. Powerlifters, oly lifters, and strongmen have known about this FOREVER - if you ever ventured to the powerlifting/strongman forum at bodybuilding.com or to www.dragondoor.com's forums, you would find LOTS of people who swear by the. You were too stubborn to click it, thinking it would just be something trying to sell you kettlebells. And you talk to me about not replying to your articles. I think you are the one who needs to be an adult.

"I'm not saying you can't put on muscle mass with high volume bodybuilding, I'm just saying that it's NOT the most efficient way (as you claim), and I have explained why I feel that way using everything from personal progress photos, to scientific journals, to natural bodybuilder routines like Layne Norton's."

Actually, you were pretty much acting like it was the only way to put on serious muscle. Maybe if you like 1/2 hour workouts 2 days a week it is, but I just plain don't enjoy that, and overall, when you don't factor in time, it's not the best way to put on muscle. A Corvette might be the fastest car with high highway fuel efficiency (over 28 MPH) but when you take out efficiency, it will get creamed by tons of other cars.

"And if you are serious about incorrporating HIT to your training, feel free to PM me and I'll send you a routine. I am 90% sure that after 16 weeks, you'd stick with it for life jus like everybody else (and 10% of me thinks you'd get off it just to spite me lol)."

I'd rather not. I not only am already making gains on my current routine, but I am thoroughly enjoying it. And I'm never, ever going to do any sort of "super slow" routine. I train to be strong AND fast, and training to be slow makes you slow.

"P.s. I hate you for making me type all this over and over again lol."

Then quit replying.

Oh, and I ignored the rest of the post because I don't feel any of it is worth replying to if you're going to think I am lying simply because I didn't bother taking before and after pics.

 

[MindOverMatter]

But powerlifters who double as bodybuilders can gain MUCH more mass than bodybuilders who do not use the powerlifts (assuming the steroid doseage or lack thereof is the same)

I agree that the use of compound lifts is necessery in putting on muscle mass, but I disagree that training in a specific powerlifter fashion is key to putting on mass. I know several guys that train like powerlifters at my gym, and one of them is even competitive. I've been training with them for the last 3 years. It's obvious their strength goes up, but I've never seen amazing hypertrophy out of them (even my competitive friend).

My upper body day is basically two days put together, because I don't want to work upper back and biceps, and accidentily kill my triceps and chest again (I did that once before I started writing the journal). Half the sets are for upper back/lats/biceps, and the other half are for chest and triceps. Lately, the DOMS has been cut to almost insignificant levels, so I am considering flipping back to a 3 day split.

I'd split it.

If you had read the Dragondoor article I posted about the Super Squats 20-rep squat routine, you would know what I was talking about. Powerlifters, oly lifters, and strongmen have known about this FOREVER - if you ever ventured to the powerlifting/strongman forum at bodybuilding.com or to www.dragondoor.com's forums, you would find LOTS of people who swear by the. You were too stubborn to click it, thinking it would just be something trying to sell you kettlebells. And you talk to me about not replying to your articles. I think you are the one who needs to be an adult.

K, against my intuition, I checked out the dragondoor articles. While the articles showed a good way for powerlifters to break out of their plateaus and add more mass (20-30kg per lift), I did not see one indication that 20 rep squats will give an experianced (i.e. no newbie gains) 30+ lbs of muscle with a 1-2% bf increase in 6 WEEKS, without the use of steroids.

Edit - here is a picture of Pavel. While he's very cut and I can tell his muscle fiber is dense, there is not a lot of hypertrophy. If he put on a shirt, you wouldn't be able to tell from his physique that he has any muscle mass.

http://www.russiankettlebells.com/images/pavel_kb_250.jpg

Where did you get that from 30 lbs in 6 weeks from?

Now that I've finished reading your articles, read the Layne Norton ones and then tell me that training as a natural under HIT methods doesn't produce results.

Actually, you were pretty much acting like it was the only way to put on serious muscle. Maybe if you like 1/2 hour workouts 2 days a week it is, but I just plain don't enjoy that, and overall, when you don't factor in time, it's not the best way to put on muscle. A Corvette might be the fastest car with high highway fuel efficiency (over 28 MPH) but when you take out efficiency, it will get creamed by tons of other cars.

If you don't enjoy it, you don't have to do it. I'm not here to convince anyone that HIT is enjoyable. It's a pain in the ass way to train. But I'm saying it does give better hypertrophy results then a high volume routine (and I stick by that). I've proven that HIT is great for putting on muscle mass, provided photographs of progress to prove it, provided university studies to back my points up, provided articles to bodybuilders who use HIT training methods.

I've gotten my point across, and have gotten over 15 PMs in the last 3 days asking for help on how to get started off on a HIT routine.

I'd rather not. I not only am already making gains on my current routine, but I am thoroughly enjoying it. And I'm never, ever going to do any sort of "super slow" routine. I train to be strong AND fast, and training to be slow makes you slow.

I disagree. Some boxers wear 10-15lbs wrist weights when they're hitting the bag. That kind of weight on each arm makes their punches slow. However, once the fight comes up and they are not wearing the wrist weights, their punching speed is explosively fast. Bruce Lee was known for wearing ankle/wrist weights, and training this way. There's no way you could call him slow. Weight training, no matter what the speed will give you explosive speed once you remove the resistance.

Anyway, I've explained that even tho I train super slow, whenever I decide to train at a normal or fast speed, I can add more weight to my previous maxes. Even though you train slow on HIT, you will still gain strength.

You've conveniently changed your argument from mass building to strength building and now you are assuming that HIT cannot give you strength gains.

Oh, and I ignored the rest of the post because I don't feel any of it is worth replying to if you're going to think I am lying simply because I didn't bother taking before and after pics.

Do what you gotta do, but you still haven't shown me proof that you have tested high volume out and made good gains with it. Maybe a year from now you'll post some result pics like you said, we'll see.

 

[jiza101]

My brain hurts :rockon:

 

[naoi deag se deag]

I don't necessarily agree with everything Pavel says. I tend to trust him more than a lot of bodybuilding sites for three reasons: one, he knows there is no lower abdominal muscle. Two, he recognizes that you can't build the front of a muscle because nerve endings run throughout the muscle, contracting the whole thing when you lift. Three, he does cite a lot of research in his books, though it's all in Russian and could be made up.

I've gotten a lot out of reading his stuff (I can't do anything without flexing my ass anymore: COMPLETE BODY TENSION), but I've gotten a lot out of reading MOM's stuff as well. Nice work, dude - you've compelled me try to incorporate some HIT lifting in my routines now. Thanks for helping all the guys on this site.

 

[Ricky]

MindoverMatter

As a busy professional I've been training HIT style for a few years and love it.

Could you post a routine. If you don't want all the doubters to read it just PM me.

I have done just as well on high volume as low volume. I'm a hardgainer naturally so I am happier doing low volume and getting the same gains as high volume. Plus I have a life outside the gym

Doing a fullbody workout gives me a better buzz than 10 sets of each exercise that leaves me bored.

 

[MetalFortress]

The 20 rep super squats article is at http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/222/ . I think you clicked all of them but that one.

And no, I'm not changing my argument from mass to strength. Maximal strength and maximal mass go hand in hand. You have to build a lot of mass to get as strong as you can, and you have to build a lot of strength to get as big as you can. It is then not a change in argument, but rather, an addition.

"I disagree. Some boxers wear 10-15lbs wrist weights when they're hitting the bag. That kind of weight on each arm makes their punches slow. However, once the fight comes up and they are not wearing the wrist weights, their punching speed is explosively fast. Bruce Lee was known for wearing ankle/wrist weights, and training this way. There's no way you could call him slow. Weight training, no matter what the speed will give you explosive speed once you remove the resistance."

That's not the same thing. If a fighter intentionally takes 2 seconds to throw every punch with those weights on, he might wear out faster, but his gains are going to suck. As far as lifting, there is a difference between lifting slow because you can't go any faster and still maintain form, and lifting slow outside of that realm.

"Edit - here is a picture of Pavel. While he's very cut and I can tell his muscle fiber is dense, there is not a lot of hypertrophy. If he put on a shirt, you wouldn't be able to tell from his physique that he has any muscle mass."

Pavel doesn't train for hypertrophy. He trains to have the most strength and endurance that he can without gaining size (as do many of Dragondoor's patrons). At his weight, he can deadlift over 500 lbs.

Anyways, you might be intrigued by my workouts now. Instead of changing to a 3 day split like I was talking about, I instead changed to a full 20-rep squat routine, with 1x20 squats and 5x5 either lat pulldowns or bench press (depending on the day (every workout I alternate). I felt I was back into the game enough to do this, so I'll get back to you on it 6 weeks (and hopefully 30 lbs) later.

 

[doctoroxygen]

Just to clarify my workouts, I don't believe in training individual muscles. I only do compound lifts, so I agree with MOM when he says that 12+ sets for biceps is too much.