Hello all.
car insurance | payday loan | web directory | business directory | alprazolam | diazepam | fioricet | hydrocodone | vicodin | tramadol | xanax | valium | ultram | soma | carisoprodol | ambien | ativan | lorazepam | propecia | adipex | didrex | cialis | levitra | paxil | meridia | viagra | wellbutrin | clonazepam | xenical | prozac | butalbital | phentermine | buy vicodin | alprazolam | online pharmacy | tooth whitening | hydrocodone | buy fioricet | buy ultram | buy xanax | buy valium | buy paxil | buy meridia | buy carisoprodol | buy diazepam | buy tramadol | buy soma | buy phentermine | buy cialis | buy levitra | buy didrex | buy adipex | buy ativan | carisoprodol | flower online

Dr. Devany,

If I could share some feedback on Mike Mentzer: I trained at Gold's at various times in 1982 and 1983 and I'll share Mike's routine was not HIT or Heavy Duty. He and his brother Ray along with a third training partner did multi-set workouts during those years. Strong as you can imagine, but, the times I saw Mike in action he wasn't following his own prescriptions. Dr. Ellington Darden also commented on this in his latest bodybuilding book.

A few years later, while visiting California, I signed up for a seminar with Mike and we actually talked for quite a while. He admitted that he did not follow his methods for a number of years but he'd come full circle and was again teaching his original Heavy Duty approach.

But, by then, the results of his training approach had begun to show: shoulder problems preventing full range of motion and elbow issues.

I admired Mentzer and spoke with him periodically through the early 90s from time to time...I felt his attempt to challenge something as mundane as bodybuilding from a logical approach was refreshing and worth considering. Much more so than the legacy mindless pump routines. In fact, he said if he had it to do all over again he might have used an approach more closely resembling SuperSlow because of the safety. (Mentzer, in fact, highlighted Dr. Doug McGuff's book on the subject on his website.)

Mike was also a true gentleman and willing to share ideas, thoughts and advice.

So, the point of the post is to simply share high intensity approaches don't necessarily reap the best results, functionally, nor do their advocates always follow HIT as recommended.

Matt wrote:

I do think one of the main characteristics of elite athletes is that they do not break down at high volumes - in fact, they often improve. This has been shown in regards to distance runners, I believe.

Don't know if I can agree with the above. Building "work capacity" - which is what we are really talking about, takes years. Think of it this way: anyone here whom has trained seriously (seriously meaning the athlete has made continual progress) for let's say, ten years...compare your training log now to your training log then. I think you will find that, at least compared to when you started, you are greater volume territory.

I can't agree with the oft repeated mantra that high volume is evil (except for what Art points out in terms of long term health). Volume is relative to each trainee. Assuming for a moment that a trainee does not exceed his own capacity - should one stop at three sets when his performance at a given weight/rep range does not drop off until 6 sets? I'm getting into what has been referred to elsewhere as "autoregulatory training" the basis of which illustrates somewhat my position that volume and tolerance are dependent upon work capacity - and work capacity, as the athlete progresses over years, can and will increase. It may not be long term "healthy", but its certainly necessary to improve performance. The higher the work capacity, the more volume necessary to illicit gains - in my opinion. A very simple example of increased volume (one example) ; if last month I bench pressed 200 x 10 reps for 3 sets and this month I can move 210 x 10 reps for 3 sets, my volume just increased. Another angle; what is last month I could not get a 4th set with 200 for 10 but this month I can get a 4th set with 10. Well, I have a couple of options - all of which increase the volume; I can increase the weight or I can do another set. If i do nothing - then I am certainly "undertraining" and in terms of improving performance, undertraining is almost as undesirable as overtraining.

I always wondered why Dorian Yates had a much higher muscle quality than other bodybuilders. Although HIT training is a plausible explanation it can also be due to various other reasons:

1. Use of diuretics in the 1990's; Bodybuilders from this era used diuretics more extensively than the current pros.

2. A racial issue; most pro bodybuilders are black, and black people have a thicker skin, on average. On a side note, most of the very impressive Dorian Yates pictures are those in black and white, a set up which seems to favor his looks.

3. Use of growth hormone; Today's bodybuilders use higher doses of growth hormone and God knows what else, which might thicken their skin and make them look softer.

Furthermore, isn't HIT training dangerous, after all Dorian Yates had to retire because of his numerous injuries.

I don't really see how many sets would work the slow twitch fibers any more or less than just a few sets. As long as the rep range is low and the weight sufficient fast twitch fibers should be stimulated. However I can be mistaken, of course.

By the way, no criticism was taken, I was just, tongue in cheek, expressing my anticipation for Chapter 2. how is it progressing?

Chris

I do think one of the main characteristics of elite athletes is that they do not break down at high volumes - in fact, they often improve. This has been shown in regards to distance runners, I believe.

However, there is a finite group of these individuals. For the average trainee, or better yet, 95% of trainees, I think a brief, intermittent plan like Art describes is the way to go. There are always extremes on a bell curve, as I'm sure Art can comment on. Yet these individuals do not constitute a model for the rest of us.

Art, sorry for the errant comment and unintended tone :) I found Marius' workout some time ago on his personal web site after he won his (I think) 3rd WSM in a row. I am a competitive powerlifter and started tinkering with strongman training for variety and added functional strength so I was doing some research. I cut and paste that particular outline direct from T-mag in their archives but it is accurate from my memory. I too was struck by the higher rep / lower weight (relatively) for much of his program. But remember, when training purely for strength, there is some correlation between muscle size and strength...so the training line of thinking goes that once you peak at your present size, its time to put on additional size if you want to be stronger and hence, the higher rep hypertrophic prescriptions.

Real eye opener on the glucose binding 9 grams of water!

Space won't permit but I think the comments about "slow" are a bit too general...I know of at least one relatively large BB from the last decade whom had a verified mid 4 sec. 40 time.

I think your comments about competitive endeavors is a real eye opener to the average reader - its just not long term healthy to continually "stress" your body. However, in reality, many elite athletes live off higher volume training as a necessity and I believe it can, and is done, w/o the typical negative hormonal profile of actute "overtraining"...it goes back to an earlier comment of mine roughly illusstrated as ...my routine that made me a 400lb bench presser (or squatter, insert whatever, including sprint times), will not make a 450 lb bencher or shave x of my sprint times. Invariably, the key to continued progress, involves manipulation of volume, work-out density, work load, etc. and in the advancing athlete, those numbers continue to creep upwards as peformance increases (sprinters included - remember, at Ben Johnson's peak, he could squat, olympic style, ass to ground, 600lbs for reps)...its, in my opinion, an inescapable trap on the path to continuing performance enchancement as opposed to, let's say, "performance maintenence". Alas though, if you look beyond "performance" and into "health" and "longevity", the pursuit of continued "progress" is probably too stressful and not healthy at all. Great post sir!

By the way Steve, your tone is still a bit off. I see no reason for this gratuitous remark in your comment: "For a scientist, you seem to indulge in a great many generalizations."

You could have made all your points without adding this. It does nothing for credibility and only detracts from the otherwise good content of your comment.

By the way, scientists do try to find generalizations; they are called a model or a theory.

Where on Earth did you find that work out?

No criticism intended Chris; your comment just got me thinking about the issue and I had been reading a bit about body builders, contraction velocity, and health.

Steve's comment is an eye opener; I had little information on how Marius trained. Of course, the Strong Man Competition is a bit of a marathon, spanning so many days and events. Endurance training is important, at least so his training would suggest.

Mentzer's theories are not well-formulated or even sound. On this we agree. To me, he looked better than just about anyone else during his prime, including Arnold. But, that is more taste than science. Neither are models for a healthy male who is accomplished in sports and in his career.

Part of the "puffed look" is indeed water retention, both from steroids and from a high glycemic diet. A gram of glucose binds about 9 grams of water. Drink "gainer" drinks and get smooth.

Puff may also have to do with the muscle fiber distribution, with more ST fibers or hypertrophied but smaller ST fibers inducing a less cut look. I can't find anything on this, but the contraction/relaxation velocities of body builders indicate a surprisingly high ST fiber mix. Very high volume would account for this adaptation, especially if there is a short interval between sets. Both induce gene expression through the MAPKs to augment ST fibers.

Yes, adaptability is huge and highly specific as the same time. There are lots of ways to train and one can overtrain on any of them and this is what I meant to warn about.

Art:

This is certainly not a post in defense of bodybuilding - of which I am no fan - but rather, another attempt at discussing comments you make that are not entirely accurate. For a scientist, you seem to indulge in a great many generalizations. Anyway, to the point; You say compare "Marius Puzinofsky or power lifter Cash to any body builder but Yates and see what I mean." I post below a sample of Marius' typical workout template:

Monday
Morning Gym Session (9.00)

Back Squat
Warm-up: 8 sets, pyramiding from 60 to 160kg
Work sets: pyramiding from 160 to 280kg, reps going from 6 down to 2
Mariusz performs his squats olympic-style, he uses knee wraps and a belt.

Leg Curl (for hamstrings)
6 sets of 20 reps

Leg Extension (for quads)
6 sets of 20 reps

Pull Up
6 sets of 15 reps

Chin Up
6 sets of 10 reps

Behind-the-neck Pulldowns
4 sets of 15 reps

Barbell Rows
4 sets of 15 reps

Abs: 6 sets of 30 reps
exercises used (haging leg raise, bends, various)

Afternoon Event Training (19.00) with Strongman Equipment

Sandbag Carry (130kg on back)
3 times 170 meters

Conan's Wheel - 290kg
3 times 2.5 revolutions

Tire Flip
3 sets of 10 flips

Tuesday
Morning Gym Session (9.00)

Front Squats
work up to 250

Calf Work
6 sets of 15 reps

Standing Military Press
Warm-up sets - 7 sets of 60 to 100kg
Work sets - 6 sets pyramiding up from 110, 120, 130, 140kg for 5-4 reps

Deadlifts
Warm-up sets - 6 with 200kg
Work sets - work up to 300kg

Good Mornings
8 sets with 100kg

Afternoon Session (19.00)
Bushman's Walk
300 kg 3 x 15 meters

Presses with Machine Used in Competition
3 sets of 10 reps with 120kg

Parallel Crucifix
Hold 40kg weights for 30 seconds

Wednesday
Morning Gym Session (9.00)

Bench Press
Warm-up sets - work up to 180kg in 8 sets
Work sets - work up from 150kg to 220kg, going from 8 down to 2 reps

Barbell Extensions: work up to 80kg

Standing French Press

Afternoon (19.00)
Same as Monday plus powerstairs and so called parallel stairs

I've made this point before and I'll make it again; The human body is amazingly adaptive. And as you become more advanced, particularly as a strength athlete, you require more volume/work to progress. What may be "high" volume to the average trainee may be low volume to me. I was quite surprised myself at much of the high rep work Marius does but I'd be remiss not to point out that he is obviously aided by drugs (as are most of our sprinters by the way). The point is that there are many exercise prescriptions to accomplish the job and most, if not all are valuable - low rep, high intesity and higher rep alike.

To use Dorian and Mentzer as an example to beat the "high intensity" drum is misleading; Dorian, like all professional bodybuilders, used massive amounts of drugs. How then, can you accurately evaluate the merits of a methodology when the same is tainted by drug use? The same would hold true for Marius, many sprinters, et als.

Having a "puffed look" has little to do with exercise prescription and more to do with drug use. The so called puffed look is water retention - a known side effect of steroid use depending on the type of anabolic.

I do agree that competitive sports in general, or rather the preparation necessary to be competitive, are probably not healthy in the long term. It goes without saying, that the "bodybuilding lifestyle" is also probably not healthy in the long term - I don't believe the heart distinguishes between 275lbs of lean mass or fat mass - its the same workload to the heart all other things being equal - its why we don't see 7 foot 80 year old men or 80 year old 275 lb men. It's why personally I'm endeavoring to lose mass, become leaner, and why, I'm interested in alot of what you have to say.

It does appear to me though that you subscribe to Mentzer's theories. I won't belabor that though except to say we agree to disagree.

If this was prompted by my comment below, at least I said " a bit more like him".

I've trained in gyms with competitive bodybuilders and their lifestyles and often general personalities always put me off.

I think the recetn discussion of sprinters was helpful - both functional and physically impressive.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: