MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Worst Training Program?
Author
Rating
Options

jason_m

I like high intensity training. I've used it with success in the past. Also, I usually don't like to tear apart any of the various training methods (which often happens in the HIT vs. high volume debates.). Do what works best for you is my opinion.

However, some training methods seem so bad that they have to be centered out:

http://www.amazon.com/...uct/0809229072/

Holding extremely heavy weights for 5-15 seconds until you can't hold them anymore for 1 set of 5 exercises per week?

I believe in the HIT philosophy of not overdoing it, but come on! - you wouldn't even shed a drop of sweat on this routine. In addition to the undertraining, what about the load your skeletal system takes from trying to hold weights that are nearly twice your maximum? Could this be the worst training system ever invented?

Jason.

Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Little was a Mike Mentzer protege who has taken some of Mike's later ideas to the extreme.

The Static whatever training takes Mike's consolidation training and incorporates it into strongest-range partials and static holds. If you got stronger, but not bigger on HDII routines, then you'll get even moreso on this routine.

They're ignoring the full ROM for the muscles, especially the growth-inducing stretched position. In addition, the TUL is nowhere near ong enough for hypertrophy.

On a positive note, you can add this stuff to the end of HIT sets periodically as a set variable.

Worst routine? Not by far. As misguided as it is, I'd say it's better than the M&F and Flex magazine routines with 20 sets per bodypart.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

noone

New York, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:

On a positive note, you can add this stuff to the end of HIT sets periodically as a set variable.

Scott


Yes, this is a good way to increase the intensity at the end of a set. I use it now and then.

Bret
Open User Options Menu

David_27

Tennessee, USA

"They're ignoring the full ROM for the muscles, especially the growth-inducing stretched position."

--Is this a valid concept? Have there been comparisons of full ROM vs static vs partials, or whatever, and the results differred significantly? And haven't we all experienced growth with no direct work, range of motion, or stretch? (My forearms gained over an inch just from deadlifting.)

"In addition, the TUL is nowhere near long enough for hypertrophy."

--Again, is this supported? Is there a proven, 'optimal level' of TUL?

These questions aren't meant to be offensive; they're just newbie Q's.
Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

Just a quick question. For time under load, does this mean the time it takes to complete the set or how long the muscle is actually under tension.

An example of the difference is side laterals, Sometime in the last few reps I have to leave the weight down at my side and take multiple breaths before I make the next effort it raise the wieght. Does that break change my TUL or not?
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

The studies have been done about ROM and TUT - years ago (MedX). They make it clear such training is poor. Try it, you will find out pretty soon that the gains in actual muscle are poor. Possibly the short term change especially if you weren't training that hard before may see some gains but they will be minimal and short lived if any.

The worst? NO - Functional Training is the worst (Paul Check and anything about mimicking real world moves)That is the biggest fraud going, a complete and utter joke.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

bigmikep wrote:
Just a quick question. For time under load, does this mean the time it takes to complete the set or how long the muscle is actually under tension.

An example of the difference is side laterals, Sometime in the last few reps I have to leave the weight down at my side and take multiple breaths before I make the next effort it raise the wieght. Does that break change my TUL or not?


Yes the break changes your TUL.

1. TUL = Total Time - Break Time
2. You can shoot for a higher TUL if you include a break in your set.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

David_27 wrote:
"In addition, the TUL is nowhere near long enough for hypertrophy."

--Again, is this supported? Is there a proven, 'optimal level' of TUL?


The jury is definitely still out on what the "optimal" TUL window is, IF there is one.

Generally accepted: 40-90 seconds per exercise (this is for HIT - can't speak for multiple-set workouts). If you follow Dr. D's 8-12 reps with 6-sec reps, you'll be in a 48-72 second window.

As your training advances, you may want to work outside that box from time to time to stimulate new growth. I'll go out on a limb and say to go no lower than 30 seconds and no higher than 120.

People have argued that Dr. D's specialization routines (3-4 exercises performed back-to-back) far exceed this. That's all fine and dandy, though I warn you:
A. Not to do those routines more than 2-3 workouts for risk of overtraining.
B. Will definitely NOT work for all muscle groups.

On the subject of the static stuff, I can uneqivocally say that 15-sec sets will NOT build anything but a small amount of initial size, as indicated by Andrew.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

seanoz

simon-hecubus wrote:
David_27 wrote:
"In addition, the TUL is nowhere near long enough for hypertrophy."

--Again, is this supported? Is there a proven, 'optimal level' of TUL?


The jury is definitely still out on what the "optimal" TUL window is, IF there is one.



McGuff says that our bodies will generally find their optimal time under load. At least that has been his experience at his clinic. I too feel that the optimal TUL is set within the person's system, but that is subject to change as other parts change, so it is dynamic.

What is fixed is that progression and microtrauma- ideally over the full ROM, must take place to induce Hypertrophy AND strength increases.

A paper titled: "How muscles know how to
adapt" indicates that both static AND full range exercise have beneficial effects, but are distinct in their action, (which is why isometric or failure contractions at the end of a set are essential to fully stimulate growth.)

It is clear that having a 'reasonable' TUL stimulates both strenght-by way of inroad - AND TUL provides mechanical stress (positive, negative and static)by way of repetitions over a certain time. That time relates to the degree of warm-up required for optimal output in the specific area, the person's ratio of FT to ST fibres and the cardiovascular system.

Sean.
Open User Options Menu

seanoz

David_27 wrote:
... (My forearms gained over an inch just from deadlifting.)


David,

They grew yes because of grip requirements AND because of indirect effects.

Obviously as illustrated by the first reviewer on AMazon a full blown static only program had little overall effect on the body, but lots of "localised" and specific STATIC-ONLY strength development.

So your DYNAMIC deadlifts induced overall hypertrophy that helped the forarms due to their heavy involvement.

Not forgetting that they were getting quite a significant negative workout because at all times throughout the deadlift your fingers are lengthening and the grip is slackening, which results in eccentric microtrauma in the forearm muscles.

Sean.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

seanoz wrote:
Not forgetting that they were getting quite a significant negative workout because at all times throughout the deadlift your fingers are lengthening and the grip is slackening, which results in eccentric microtrauma in the forearm muscles.

Sean.


Dude, that is quite an interesting bit of insight. You just blew my mind with that one.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

David_27

Tennessee, USA

Not forgetting that they were getting quite a significant negative workout because at all times throughout the deadlift your fingers are lengthening and the grip is slackening, which results in eccentric microtrauma in the forearm muscles.

Sean.

--Awesome point! Never considered that.
Open User Options Menu
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy