Muscle Failure?

[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.

 

[MindOverMatter]

when you lift a weight lesser when your 1 rep max, all your muscle's fibers don't come into work at once. going to failure on a set recruits ALL of the muscle fibers present. that way, when you eat and rest afterwards, more of the fiber grows then it would if you just trained normally & without intensity.

 

[Grandor]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
when you lift a weight lesser when your 1 rep max, all your muscle's fibers don't come into work at once. going to failure on a set recruits ALL of the muscle fibers present. that way, when you eat and rest afterwards, more of the fiber grows then it would if you just trained normally & without intensity.

Well not your 1 rep max necessarily.
Just your max, doesnt matter how many reps. As long as its to failure.

 

[MetalFortress]

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.

It's not. The king of mass building workouts are heavy, high volume workouts, backed up with lots of quality rest and recovery. Training to failure is a good way to mess with your CNS. It only works for people who haven't worked out much prior to that, or did stupid workouts, because basically anything would work for these tools.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Re: Re: Muscle Failure?

Originally posted by MetalFortress
It's not. The king of mass building workouts are heavy, high volume workouts, backed up with lots of quality rest and recovery. Training to failure is a good way to mess with your CNS. It only works for people who haven't worked out much prior to that, or did stupid workouts, because basically anything would work for these tools.

Wow. You are wrong about so many things it's not even funny.

First of all, the whole HIT (high intensive training) system was built upon principles of low volume and intensity (going to failure, forced reps etc). It's used by countless bodybuilders, both amateur and competitive. Almost every bodybuilder trains to failure. Saying only newbies make gains off it is ridiculous.

Second of all, while high volume works for certain people, it is not necessery in building muscle mass! First of all, high volume likewise stresses your CNS. Second of all, there are studies that prove that with high intensity, only 1-2 sets / exercise are required to stimulate the muscle fiber, and anything past that just burns calories.

Now here is where your advice falls apart.



Third of all, high volume workouts are the reason most people in the gym overtrain! They do all these unnecessery sets, and completly stretch their workout times to 1-2 hours.

When you begin a workout, your body pumps out cortisol which breaks down protein into their constituent amino acids and sends them to the liver to be converted to glucose. The longer you workout, the more protein your body converts into cortisol. Where is this protein stored? In your muscles. By stretching out your workouts with unnecessery volume, you ruin whatever gains you could have made with the workout.

Besides atrophy, cortisol excess also creates a decrease in insulin sensitivity, loss of bone mass (due to increased calcium excretion and less calcium absorption). This is the main reason long-distance/marathon runners are skinny as hell. They push their bodies for such long periods of time and produce so much cortisol that they are in a constant catabolic state.

Almost forgot, cortisol can inhibit growth-hormone levels. It stimulates the release of somatostatin (a growth-hormone antagonist).

Some studies for you to read:

Brillon, et al., "Effect of cortisol on energy expenditure and amino acid metabolism in humans," Am J Physiol 268 (1995) : E501-13.

Fry, et al., "Resistance exercise overtraining and overreaching. Neuroendocrine responses," Sports Med 23.2 (1997) : 106-129.

Rizza, et al., "Cortisol-induced insulin resistance in man. Impaired suppression of glucose production and stimulation of glucose utilization due to a post receptor defect of insulin action," J Clin Endocrinol Metab 54 (1982) : 131-138.

 

[MetalFortress]

Want to tell me which system the most pro BBers (natural and juiced, oldtime and modern), powerlifters, olympic lifters, strongmen, and other athletes have BECOME pros with? If you say HIT, I'm going to laugh. THEY DID IT WITH VOLUME. And what's with your crap psuedo science regarding cortisol? If it were as severe as you make it out to be, every pro athlete would break down into an old degenerate very, very fast.

I'm a volume trainer, not a long distance runner. The difference between cortisol in a 50 minute workout and a 70 minute workout is minimal at best. If it wasn't, I wouldn't make gains at all when my gym workouts run overtime, now would I? Besides, the reason distance runners are so skinny is not cortisol. It's because they train for endurance and ONLY endurance, and they will do whatever is necessary to achieve that, and obviously, excess weight holds that back.

The reason most people in the gym overtrain is because THEY DO IDIOTIC ROUTINES. High volume, light weight, no recovery, crappy diet does not gains make. High volume, smart training, HEAVY WEIGHT, and enough recovery time and good food to satisfy the muscles = good gains. That's an unarguable fact, unless you have some kind of scientific disorder that requires you ONLY do 1-2 sets. Are you under some kind of impression that all high volume = low intensity or something?

If HIT is so godly, why don't you go to the BBing.com forums and explain to me why everybody who starts using it gains fast, and then hits a wall? And this time, use facts, not psuedoscience.

One more thing. HIT is centered around isolative movements. Smart (not stupid) volume training is centered around big compound movements, with some assistance exercises. Guess which one produces more growth?

The real king for growth is 6-week cycle of 20-rep squats, but despite being ultra high intensity, even THESE aren't done to failure. Mixing 20-reppers (not to failure) and upper body HIT (including forced reps, slow negatives, and static holds - REALLY training it to failure) could own - but HIT as we all know it, is not the be-all end-all. And I would still trust med-to-high volume upper body work over HIT upper body work, assuming either one is mixed with 20-reppers.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by MetalFortress
Want to tell me which system the most pro BBers (natural and juiced, oldtime and modern), powerlifters, olympic lifters, strongmen, and other athletes have BECOME pros with? If you say HIT, I'm going to laugh. THEY DID IT WITH VOLUME. And what's with your crap psuedo science regarding cortisol? If it were as severe as you make it out to be, every pro athlete would break down into an old degenerate very, very fast.

I'm a volume trainer, not a long distance runner. The difference between cortisol in a 50 minute workout and a 70 minute workout is minimal at best. If it wasn't, I wouldn't make gains at all when my gym workouts run overtime, now would I? Besides, the reason distance runners are so skinny is not cortisol. It's because they train for endurance and ONLY endurance, and they will do whatever is necessary to achieve that, and obviously, excess weight holds that back.

The reason most people in the gym overtrain is because THEY DO IDIOTIC ROUTINES. High volume, light weight, no recovery, crappy diet does not gains make. High volume, smart training, HEAVY WEIGHT, and enough recovery time and good food to satisfy the muscles = good gains. That's an unarguable fact, unless you have some kind of scientific disorder that requires you ONLY do 1-2 sets. Are you under some kind of impression that all high volume = low intensity or something?

If HIT is so godly, why don't you go to the BBing.com forums and explain to me why everybody who starts using it gains fast, and then hits a wall? And this time, use facts, not psuedoscience.

First of all, I have provided studies and physiological evidence for why high volume is bad. Yes, after an hour or two of heavy lifting, your cortisol levels are high as sh!t. Read the studies I gave you before you talk about things you have no knowledge about.

You have not provided me any evidence for why high volume is good, other then the fact "pros did it, people on bodybuilding forums do it". Are you for real?

I don't give a damn what pros do. All the IFBB bodybuilders are juiced as hell, it doesn't matter what their routines are, their protein synthesis is so high that they can do whatever they want. A natural bodybuilder on this routine will overtrain.

As for powerlifters/strongment/olympians, most of them train for their 1 REP max in squats/bench/deadlift/clean and press. All these are sets done to failure, and as a result, they are all low volume. You cannot do each set to failure and train in high volume, it's physically impossible.

And if you're gonna quote bodybuilding.com, you will notice that most of their known natural bodybuilders are on low volume routines, like HST, Max OT, and yes, HIT. And I don't know why people hit plateaus when training under HIT principles. I don't know their routines, diets, supplementation, how much they rest. I don't go by hearsay, I go by physiological studies and sports medicine research.


But anyway, to answer your meaningless question:

yes, pros have used HIT. Dorian Yates, the 7 time MR O. has trained exclusively with HIT. Mike Mentzer, the man who would have won 1980 MR O if it wasn't for the fact the promoter was a business partner of Arnolds pioneered HIT. All their students train in HIT methods.

And another reason why your pro argument is meaningless is because you are telling us that training to failure is bad, YET most pros regardless of volume train to failure.

[color=dark blue]Now, explain to me, physiologically, why high volume is so good. I've explained to you why it's bad, and the argument you gave me has no solid evidence to it. [/color]

 

[MindOverMatter]

One more thing. HIT is centered around isolative movements. Smart (not stupid) volume training is centered around big compound movements, with some assistance exercises. Guess which one produces more growth?

The real king for growth is 6-week cycle of 20-rep squats, but despite being ultra high intensity, even THESE aren't done to failure. Mixing 20-reppers (not to failure) and upper body HIT (including forced reps, slow negatives, and static holds - REALLY training it to failure) could own - but HIT as we all know it, is not the be-all end-all. And I would still trust med-to-high volume upper body work over HIT upper body work, assuming either one is mixed with 20-reppers.

HIT is done around isolative movements? Where did you get this from?! HIT, and any real routine is based on compound movements.

Also, your argument is weak. "The real king for growth" according to who? You? What evidence to you have for this? Give me a physiological explenation why this works the best. You can't? Too bad. Well it must have worked for you right? Do you have photos of your progress?

 

[MindOverMatter]

By the way, the study that proved that the first 2 sets of an exercise are all that's required to stimulate all the muscle fiber, and that excess sets do nothing but burn calories:

[color=dark blue]Paddon-Jones D, Abernethy PJ. Acute adaptation to low volume eccentric exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Jul;33(7):1213-9.[/color]

 

[doctoroxygen]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
As for powerlifters/strongment/olympians, most of them train for their 1 REP max in squats/bench/deadlift/clean and press. All these are sets done to failure, and as a result, they are all low volume. You cannot do each set to failure and train in high volume, it's physically impossible.

I don't know much about bodybuilding, but I do know that powerlifters never train to failure. They always stop with at least one rep left "in the tank". Read Pavel Tsatsouline's "Power to the People" for how the Soviet powerlifters (who dominated for half a century, so I assume non-Soviets train this way too) trained.

 

[semag]

Go read up on WestSide Barbell.... I wouldn't consider that high volume.

 

[NewMan]

don't know much about bodybuilding, but I do know that powerlifters never train to failure. They always stop with at least one rep left "in the tank". Read Pavel Tsatsouline's "Power to the People" for how the Soviet powerlifters (who dominated for half a century, so I assume non-Soviets train this way too) trained.

I agree.

I used to train all exercises to failure. After reading this book several months ago, I changed my training style to lower reps, less exercises, not to failure.

I've added 20 lbs to my bench - where prior I could not get any gains above my max for 8 reps.

After training all my life to failure (8 - 12 reps), 4-6 exercises per body part and 4 set's per exercise I've found that Pavel's training rountine is far superior.

Not only that - I have completely fvcked up both my shoulders during lifting to failure rountines. I consistantly get injured (pull a muscle, joint pain - whatever) every couple of months - and have not picked up an injury while training Pavel's why.

One thing I have noticed though - is that Pavel's routines seem to work best on larger muscles groups - leg's, back, chest - but are not as effective on Bi's and Tri's. My belief is that I need more Rep's on the smaller muscles group's - but less on the big compound exercises (even though I've got considerably stronger on Bi's, It's been at the cost of muscle size).

Has anyone noticed this?

In my mind, to failure set's are NOT the way to train.

 

[MetalFortress]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
HIT is done around isolative movements? Where did you get this from?! HIT, and any real routine is based on compound movements.

Also, your argument is weak. "The real king for growth" according to who? You? What evidence to you have for this? Give me a physiological explenation why this works the best. You can't? Too bad. Well it must have worked for you right? Do you have photos of your progress?

http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/222/

Here's your evidence. Why don't you start providing links to the studies you speak of? I'm not hauling off to the library just because you quote this or that study. Studies aren't infallible, anyways. Anyways, good job, smart guy, you just bashed the best routine for growth, WHICH IS A ROUTINE INVOLVING ONE SET OF 20 ON SQUATS!!! You're a real winner. You can quote me all these studies but you don't even know what 20-rep squats are.

More articles about volume and 20-rep squats, from people who have been there and done that:

http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/80/ (best one)

http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/81/

http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/151/

http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/54/

Oh, and HIT is not based around big compound movements other than maybe bench press. You can't squat to failure, do forced/assisted reps with squat, or do slow negatives. Why? BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO F**K UP YOUR BODY AND GET INJURED. Same with deadlifts. And as we all (well, most of us) know, no bulking routine is complete without squats and deadlifts. So how do you propose to train squats and deadlifts? 5x5? 10x5? 5x10? Sounds like VOLUME to me.

And nobody does clean and presses to failure. If you are suggesting that any powerlifters and olympic lifters do that, you should be kicked in the balls. Failing while trying to achieve a new 1 rep max is not the same as intentionally hitting failure.

Do a study of old time bodybuilders before steroids were invented. You will notice that none of them trained to failure. Not one of them. What do you say to that?

I haven't ever taken comparison pics, and I don't plan to. The mirror, the scale, and the barbell are all I need to judge myself and my improvement. Right now, I do not look or lift that well, because I have just begun a real lifting routine for the first time since October 2003 (been putting off joining a gym).

Why don't YOU post some comparison pics of you before and after HIT, since, after all, you challenged me to do the same?

BTW: There are times when training with high intensity and low volume would be the best option (1RM and 2RM training, as well as the 20 rep squat routine. However, training with high intensity IS NOT "High Intensity Training", and none involve intentional training to failure.

To close this with a heavy dose of truth... "Training to failure is training to fail."

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by MetalFortress
http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/222/

Here's your evidence. Why don't you start providing links to the studies you speak of? I'm not hauling off to the library just because you quote this or that study. Studies aren't infallible, anyways. Anyways, good job, smart guy, you just bashed the best routine for growth, WHICH IS A ROUTINE INVOLVING ONE SET OF 20 ON SQUATS!!! You're a real winner. You can quote me all these studies but you don't even know what 20-rep squats are.

More articles about volume and 20-rep squats, from people who have been there and done that:

http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/80/ (best one)

http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/81/

http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/151/

http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/54/

I ask you to find me physiological proof, and you link me a kettlebell website where some guy is saying that he couldn't deadlift 135, and pavel's advice helped him. Do you even know what physiological means? I don't want to see articles written by some guy that's trying to sell me kettlebells, I want a scientific study that proves 20 rep squats is the key for growth.

You're in college, your library should have access to electronic journals. You can look up those studies I mentioned there.

Oh, and HIT is not based around big compound movements other than maybe bench press. You can't squat to failure, do forced/assisted reps with squat, or do slow negatives. Why? BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO F**K UP YOUR BODY AND GET INJURED. Same with deadlifts. And as we all (well, most of us) know, no bulking routine is complete without squats and deadlifts. So how do you propose to train squats and deadlifts? 5x5? 10x5? 5x10? Sounds like VOLUME to me.

Do some research and look at HIT routines. All of them have squats and deadlifts. Heavy Duty and Heavy Duty II, written by Mike Mentzer, which are the bibles of HIT involve all the compound exercises. And yes it is possible to go to failure on both those exercises, it's called a spotter. I train to failure on both exercises, and do forced reps with my spotter.

Do a study of old time bodybuilders before steroids were invented. You will notice that none of them trained to failure. Not one of them. What do you say to that?

You are still talking vague. Which old time bodybuilders? Sergio Olivia? Trained to failure. Franco? trained to failure. Reg Park?
Trained to failure. Larry Scott? You guessed it, trained to failure. p.s. dianabol has been around for a very very long time.

I haven't ever taken comparison pics, and I don't plan to. The mirror, the scale, and the barbell are all I need to judge myself and my improvement. Right now, I do not look or lift that well, because I have just begun a real lifting routine for the first time since October 2003 (been putting off joining a gym).

Why don't YOU post some comparison pics of you before and after HIT, since, after all, you challenged me to do the same?

So in other words you are a gym newbie, you don't have any proof that your routine worked (other then a martial arts website about kettlebells). You have no photos to prove your progress, and you admit to having a crappy physique and that you can't lift well.

I'm not even gonna argue with you anymore, you have nothing to bring to the table. As for the pics, here:

Pic 1: Before I started lifting:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/Mind_Over_Matter/Pic1.jpg

Pic 2: After I lost the fat (right before starting HIT):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/Mind_Over_Matter/Pic2.jpg

Pic 3: After HIT:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/Mind_Over_Matter/Pic3.jpg

Pic 4: Later, after more HIT:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/Mind_Over_Matter/Pic4.jpg

 

[MindOverMatter]

Oh, almost forgot.

I've explained why low volume is great for building muscle mass.

You still haven't explained WHY high volume is good, other then "it just is". Explain to me why doing more sets per exercise is better for growth.

 

[MetalFortress]

Actually, I've been working out since I was 15, but stopped doing it regularly when I left high school. At my best, I power clean + jerked 192 lbs, squatted around 300 parallel (last workout, I 5-repped 185 NOT parallel but ass to grass), and deadlifted 320 (on only my second deadlift workout ever) On my only real bulking routine, I gained 13 lbs in six weeks, yet lost a belt size (basically involved 20-rep squats, sets of 5-rep power cleans and 4-rep jerks, and some other assistance work). Right now, I can easily 5-rep 235 on DLs, and I assume that my 1-rep would be between 280 and 310.

Oh, and good job not reading the entire articles, or even CLICKING most of them. Until you stop being a wimp and read the whole articles, I'm going to quit debating this with you, because arguing with a fool is useless. The dude who couldn't deadlift 135, deadlifted 285 and weighed 194 when he started the Super Squats routine, and then weighed 225 at the end of it, with his 20-rep squats up from 135 to 210, and his deadlift going from 285 to 365 without even having trained deadlifts. if you would have manned up and read the article, you would have known that.

As well, read the Smolov squat routine article (number 80) and then tell me that volume doesn't work.

Good progress on physique, but in how much time have you done that? I've gone from 285 lbs to 215, and then back up to 235 via bulking. Right now, I am 228. This is what I have done in 5 years, but my major gains came in spurts, due to idiotic workout routines in high school, and me not joining a gym sooner. Now, I have access to a real gym, the willpower (and masochism) to cane myself in the weight room, and the lifting smarts to use the both of them to my best. Hell, I might even get "after" pics when I finish bulking up, just to piss you off.

So why, you ask, is high volume great for building mass? When you are low-set training to failure, your muscles are loading up with lactic acid and getting extremely pumped, which means that in a few hours, you will NOT feel as worked as you did 10 minutes after finishing your workout. How do I know this? Why, from experience! Also, your CNS will fry because you will feel as if you have no gas left in the tank after you workout. Your mind tires before your body does.

Contrast this with a high intensity, medium volume or medium intensity, high volume workout, neither of which go to failure. Overall, the muscles have done MORE work. However, you feel like there is still gas left in the tank at the end of the workout. This is how you are SUPPOSED to feel. This eliminates the whole "my muscles feel fine but my lifts have begun to suck" phenomenon. Your body tires before your mind does.

Now don't even bother replying until you read the articles I linked you. I love how you refer me to a million studies, and then can't even read a few LINKED articles

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by MetalFortress
Actually, I've been working out since I was 15, but stopped doing it regularly when I left high school. At my best, I power clean + jerked 192 lbs, squatted around 300 parallel (last workout, I 5-repped 185 NOT parallel but ass to grass), and deadlifted 320 (on only my second deadlift workout ever) On my only real bulking routine, I gained 13 lbs in six weeks, yet lost a belt size (basically involved 20-rep squats, sets of 5-rep power cleans and 4-rep jerks, and some other assistance work). Right now, I can easily 5-rep 235 on DLs, and I assume that my 1-rep would be between 280 and 310.

And yet not one photograph? For all I know, you could be a fat slob making up numbers here. Not saying you are, but you telling me things you can't prove, which makes them worthless.

Oh, and good job not reading the entire articles, or even CLICKING most of them. Until you stop being a wimp and read the whole articles, I'm going to quit debating this with you, because arguing with a fool is useless. The dude who couldn't deadlift 135, deadlifted 285 and weighed 194 when he started the Super Squats routine, and then weighed 225 at the end of it, with his 20-rep squats up from 135 to 210, and his deadlift going from 285 to 365 without even having trained deadlifts. if you would have manned up and read the article, you would have known that.

The fact that guy couldn't DL 135 at first shows that he was a newcomer, and that these were newbie gains. It's common knowledge that when you first start working out you will make fast gains.

Good progress on physique, but in how much time have you done that? I've gone from 285 lbs to 215, and then back up to 235 via bulking. Right now, I am 228. This is what I have done in 5 years, but my major gains came in spurts, due to idiotic workout routines in high school, and me not joining a gym sooner. Now, I have access to a real gym, the willpower (and masochism) to cane myself in the weight room, and the lifting smarts to use the both of them to my best. Hell, I might even get "after" pics when I finish bulking up, just to piss you off.

Less then 3 years. But enough about my photographs, where are yours? Why don't you post them now?

So why, you ask, is high volume great for building mass? When you are low-set training to failure, your muscles are loading up with lactic acid and getting extremely pumped, which means that in a few hours, you will NOT feel as worked as you did 10 minutes after finishing your workout. How do I know this? Why, from experience!

MetalFortress argument: When you are low-set training to failure, your muscles are loading up with lactic acid and getting extremly pumped

WRONG

I've already said how cortisol which breaks down muscle proteins into their constituent amino acids and sends them to the liver to be converted to glucose. When glucose is burned for fuel during exercise, it is broken down to a chemical called pyruvate. When you do high volume, you work out for a long period of time, and have high cortisol levels. When your body produces a high amount of pyruvate, there is not enough oxygen to convert all of the pyruvate to carbon dioxide and water.

What does that mean? It means that some of the pyruvate is converted to lactic acid, which builds up in the muscles and overflows into the bloodstream.

In English? Working out in high volume creates more cortisol, which in turn produces high amounts of pyruvate, which in turn causes lactic acid build up.

I have just proven to you how high volume training causes lactic acid build up. Now explain to me how low volume training builds up lactic acid.

Contrast this with a high intensity, medium volume or medium intensity, high volume workout, neither of which go to failure. Overall, the muscles have done MORE work. However, you feel like there is still gas left in the tank at the end of the workout. This is how you are SUPPOSED to feel. This eliminates the whole "my muscles feel fine but my lifts have begun to suck" phenomenon. Your body tires before your mind does.

My muscles feel fine, and my lifts don't suck. Which phenomenon are you talking about? Or is this like you saying HIT doesn't use squats or deadlifts, then dropping the argument once I proved you wrong?

Now don't even bother replying until you read the articles I linked you. I love how you refer me to a million studies, and then can't even read a few LINKED articles

I can reply whenever I want. I'm not gonna read the articles because they're either written by a guy who wants me to buy his book and highly-overpriced kettlebells, or some guy who made newbie gains and wants to teach the world about it.

Another reason why I wont read them is the same reason I wont post any HIT articles (even tho there are dozens of them on bb.com. They're articles written by guys, without any scientific back up.

I have refered you to 4 studies (not a million). I have done this to back up my points (they are just references). Unlike your articles, they have validity, and no bias (i.e. no pavel trying to prove to me how kettlebells are awesome and I should buy them). Whether you chose to read them is none of my concern, but they do prove my points, and they do back up the physiological explenations I have given to you.

Peace.

 

[MetalFortress]

http://c.myspace.com/00023/65/43/23773456_l.JPG Me in Spring 2004

http://n00100.myspace.com/00100/81/31/100501318_l.jpg Me after my workout a couple weeks ago. This will be my "before" pic in the future. My pic of me at 270 in 2001 is not on myspace, nor will it ever be, so you'll just have to use your imagination.



"The fact that guy couldn't DL 135 at first shows that he was a newcomer, and that these were newbie gains. It's common knowledge that when you first start working out you will make fast gains. "

The fact remains that when he started the Super Squats bulking routine, WHICH I MIGHT ADD has been around WAY longer than kettlebells have been in the USA, the dude could deadlift 285. Your statement is like saying that my gaining 13 lbs in six weeks is invalid because I was a newbie three years ago. Honestly, are you TRYING to sound dumb here?

"My muscles feel fine, and my lifts don't suck. Which phenomenon are you talking about? Or is this like you saying HIT doesn't use squats or deadlifts, then dropping the argument once I proved you wrong?"

I'm talking about overtraining. Sheesh, do you have ADHD? Pay attention to the topic at hand.

"WRONG

I've already said..."

I don't give a damn. You haven't proven anything, and until you post linked studies which are NOT sponsored by gyms and HIT advocates, you never will.

"I can reply whenever I want. I'm not gonna read the articles because they're either written by a guy who wants me to buy his book and highly-overpriced kettlebells, or some guy who made newbie gains and wants to teach the world about it. "

You have proven nothing, posted rhetoric, and wasted time. Good job, you are officially the weakest link.

And are you going to tell me that DIESEL is wrong too? (http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18040&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

Anyways, NONE of those articles mention routines involving kettlebells, and only one, WHICH DOES NOT MENTION KETTLEBELLS AT ALL, is written by Pavel. As long as you are going to be a closed-minded little girl about this, I'm done replying to you until you pull up your skirt and start thinking with logic.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by MetalFortress
http://c.myspace.com/00023/65/43/23773456_l.JPG Me in Spring 2004

http://n00100.myspace.com/00100/81/31/100501318_l.jpg Me after my workout a couple weeks ago. This will be my "before" pic in the future. My pic of me at 270 in 2001 is not on myspace, nor will it ever be, so you'll just have to use your imagination.

I wish you good luck with your workouts, but if your physique (in either of the pictures) is an indicator of high volume training, I'm glad I don't train like you.

The fact remains that when he started the Super Squats bulking routine, WHICH I MIGHT ADD has been around WAY longer than kettlebells have been in the USA, the dude could deadlift 285. Your statement is like saying that my gaining 13 lbs in six weeks is invalid because I was a newbie three years ago. Honestly, are you TRYING to sound dumb here?

I'm saying that high strength gains are common when you first start working out, regardless of the system you use. When you first begin training, your body is unused to the physical stressors and it responds quickly, giving you fast hypertrophy & strength. A 150lb deadlift increase is not uncommon in 1 year of training.

It'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?

I'm talking about overtraining. Sheesh, do you have ADHD? Pay attention to the topic at hand.

No I don't have ADHD, thank you for your concern tho. You specifically said "muscles feel fine, but lifts start to suck" phenomenon. In return I said that after 3 years of HIT, my lifts are still great, and the only time I'll have a bad workout is when I have a poor breakfast. So my lifts don't suck, my muscles feel fine, I use HIT, and I haven't overtrained. HIT is specifically designed so you DON'T overtrain!

I don't give a damn. You haven't proven anything, and until you post linked studies which are NOT sponsored by gyms and HIT advocates, you never will.

What?! Lol! Sponsored by gyms and HIT advocates? Where did you get this from? Please stop pulling things from your ass just because you can't back up your arguments with any real evidence.

These are all university studies, their research is funded by their university department. They are published in American Journal of Physiology, Sports Medicine Journal, and Medical Science Sports Journal. Every study has to wait over a year before it gets published so it can be proven valid enough to be posted in one of these journals.

I've summarized the contents of the studies to prove my argument, you can chose to believe me, or you can chose to disbelieve me and read them for yourself. Since I graduated, I don't have free access to electronic journals, and I'm not gonna pay money to link them to you just to win an internet argument on sosuave.

Holy hell, you are stupid. You have proven nothing, posted rhetoric, and wasted time. Good job, you are officially the weakest link.

That's the second time you've said that I've proven nothing. If you keep repeating it, it may eventually come true!

Allow me to present a summary of this thread:

1.) You asked me for names of pros that used HIT, I have listed names of several that did, including Dorian Yates, a 7 time Mr. Olympia.

2.) Said that HIT doesn't use compound movements, when you haven't even done HIT, or read into it. I have stated that HIT DOES use compound movements, and that I use them as well.

3.) You have stated that you can't do squats and deadlifts to failure & forced reps, I have stated that you can as long as you have a spotter. You conveniantly dropped that argument.

4.) You have stated that low volume training produces lots of lactic acid, which I explained to be wrong using knowledge of body chemistry, and once you couldn't come up with a counter argument, you put your fingers in your ear and started singing "lalala i cant heear you"

5.) I asked you for photos of your progress with high volume training, you posted 1 pic of you wearing a black shirt where you don't look built at all, and one pic where you look out of shape as hell.

I don't want BEFORE pics of you out of shape sitting in front of a computer, I want to see AFTER pictures of the results you have gotten with high volume.

Since you don't have any, so I can safely assume that you have not personally tested high volume training, and that you have no experiance with it and are just a keyboard jockey of bodybuilding.

I on the other hand have posted a pictures of my progress in all stages. You can compare the photos and see the results I have gotten with HIT. My progress proves that HIT works.

Instead of arguing with me, go get your ass into shape and prove to me that high volume works.

As long as you are going to be a closed-minded little girl about this,

I'm not gonna get into an insult war with you. I have proven my argument with maturity, scientific knowledge, and photographs of my progress. You on the other hand have failed to provide any solid explenation for why high volume is good, and are arguing just because you hate to lose an argument. The fact that you're resorting to insults tells me how frustrated you are! Relax bro, it's just an online forum!

I'm done replying to you until you pull up your skirt and start thinking with logic.

Liar, you are gonna reply as soon as you read this post. And if you don't, so much the better, because you've done a horrible job of convincing anyone that you know what you are talking about.

 

[semag]

Dudes... why don't you both post your routines, MetalFortress with your "high volume" and MOM with your "HIT."

I really don't think you guys have THAT much different beliefs

I think you each have a "thought" in your head about what the other guy is talking about (be it HIT or high volume) and may actually believe the same thing...

At least, that's what I gather from reading MF's posts on other stuff, and MOM's on other stuff. You guys actually agree on a lot, I think terms are getting in the way...