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
Ryan Hall Discussion
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Keyzer Soze

I heard Drew Bayes response on T-Nation regarding the presentation by Ryan Hall at the recent HIT convention. According to Drew, Ryan said that people usually respond to intensity or volume and many to a combination of both. And that their is no best training method for everyone. I was wondering what else he said at the convention? Pretty bold to say at a convention held for one training method. I think he is right though. I busted my butt on a one set to failure HIT routine and ended up having to cut back my volume drastically just to recover.

After 12 weeks my results actually regressed (this was not the Mentzer but Darden routines). I decided that training that hard was not suited for me, I didn't give up on many HIT staples though. I do train hard usually one to two reps shy of failure and do mostly two sets per exercise and on many smaller accessorie movements I do one. Taking the set just shy of failure allows me to recover faster and I can workout three days per week without feeling fatigued. I use a controlled movement on all lifts and avoid olympic or ballistic movements and train full body. My results are pretty good so far.
Open User Options Menu

Law&Order

Keyzer Soze wrote:
I heard Drew Bayes response on T-Nation regarding the presentation by Ryan Hall at the recent HIT convention. According to Drew, Ryan said that people usually respond to intensity or volume and many to a combination of both. And that their is no best training method for everyone.


He's right! And it's what i've always implied.Also,when i've stated in the past that i train upto 1.5hrs per session (even when using failure) some here accuse that of being HVT... HAHA.

If you read the Steve Reeves thread,Grimek stated emphatically that Reeves (presumed steroid free) trained anywhere from 2-4hrs per session.Reeves too,from my understanding,trained to failure.



Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

No offense whatsoever intended towards Mr. Hall but that different people respond differently is very old hat. In fact as far as dealing with it sensibly, Johnston developed the RX Theory many moons ago. The link to the slightly scaled down version of it is here: http://www.exercisecertificati...

It never sees to confound and sadden me that so many born of HIT went as far right as the HVT guys did to the left. They had (volume types) ever increasong qualities of drugs coursing through their veins that may somewhat justified the shift (both physically and mentally) though that is not an excuse. I wonder what the problem is with so much of the HIT spin off crowd, why they are 3-4 decades getting around to hashing out this basic principle of fitness/bodybuilding exercise, whatever you wish to label training for a better body?!

Just because you don't and shouldn't "train like Mr. X Olympia" doesn't mean you do the opposite. He did what worked for him to some extent, shouldn't you do the same?

I for one have a good idea of what works for me (but am always learning) the mere notion that my daughter or Ma for that matter, could or should cut and paste it for themselves is silly beyond reason ;^)

Nothing wrong with sound principles and experience based assumptions as long as they are applied logically.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

karma50

Guys,
How many total failure sets can you do in four hours? Yikes!
Griff
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

karma50 wrote:
Guys,
How many total failure sets can you do in four hours? Yikes!
Griff


Personally I train 20 to maybe 40 minutes, I don't need many sets to hit the mark. However I have had great 1 - 2 hour sessions in the distant past. I have also had many excellent workouts lasting no more than 10 minutes. The devil is in the details ;^)

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

kevindill

Maryland, USA

overload, recovery, and progression, the rest is just details. I've long held the belief that people chose thier training methods base more on their psychology, than physiology. This is more due to the fact that any reasonable routine in which you achieve overload, allow for recovery, and train progressively will over time yield about the same results. Tolerance for high intensity or high volume is mostly learned.

KD
Open User Options Menu

DSears

Kevin,

Actually, what Ryan found by looking at the research is that it is not something that can be learned, it is entirely genetic. If you don't have the genetic profile to tolerate higher volume all the desire and discipline in the world won't help you and you'll never gain that ability. It's like getting a suntan, if you're one of those unfortunate ones, as I am, who do not have the necessary enzyme to tan you'll NEVER tan, no matter how much you expose your skin to the sun.

David
Open User Options Menu

Law&Order

AShortt wrote:
I wonder what the problem is with so much of the HIT spin off crowd, why they are 3-4 decades getting around to hashing out this basic principle of fitness/bodybuilding exercise,whatever you wish to label training for a better body?!


Like most spin offs,it boils down to one simple fundamental.To borrow a phrase
from Jerry McGuire (aka Tom Cruise).......

*SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!*
*SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!*
*SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!*

The $hit people will do for it........hence the repetitive cycle of old hat turned new hat and so-on.Not to mention the overly confused weight-trainer because of it.

Open User Options Menu

eintology

California, USA

Keyzer Soze wrote:

According to Drew, Ryan said that people usually respond to intensity or volume and many to a combination of both. And that their is no best training method for everyone.


In a certain respect, that's clear to even the casual observer.

We knew he was going to be speaking on this topic, did Ryan Hall mention what he thought it was that differentiated the individuals in such a way?

I'm sure we all have some ideas on this, but as Ryan Hall was the one speaking at the seminar, did he provide any specific hints that led to his conclusions?

Erik



Open User Options Menu

aikon

There is no BEST way to train. All there is, are sensible approaches.

<quote>
overload, recovery, and progression, the rest is just details.
</quote>

Spot on Kevin, and recovery is the weak link. Strength can increase substantually but a persons ability to recover at the same rate is limited.

You have to train within your recovery abilities. Training too infrequently like Mentzer pushed it - is not quite correct.

<quote>I've long held the belief that people chose thier training methods base more on their psychology, than physiology.</quote>

That's a fair point.

<quote>This is more due to the fact that any reasonable routine in which you achieve overload, allow for recovery, and train progressively will over time yield about the same results.</quote>

Quite true, and extremely well put. There is only so much "Intensity" or "volume" a person can handle and the more advanced or longer (time in years) they train the less than can handle - DEMINISHED RETURNS.

It doesn't matter whether you use HIT or sensible higher volume you will eventually reach your genetic limits.

When people start preaching one and only one method of training, keep your hands in your pockets - chances are they are after something, your money.

Muscle growth is an adaptation response to a stress of significant magintude - this stress can be in various forms not just ONE and only ONE form.

Good post Kevin.
Open User Options Menu

David_27

Tennessee, USA

Law&Order wrote:
AShortt wrote:
I wonder what the problem is with so much of the HIT spin off crowd, why they are 3-4 decades getting around to hashing out this basic principle of fitness/bodybuilding exercise,whatever you wish to label training for a better body?!

Like most spin offs,it boils down to one simple fundamental.To borrow a phrase
from Jerry McGuire (aka Tom Cruise).......

*SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!*
*SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!*
*SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!*

The $hit people will do for it........hence the repetitive cycle of old hat turned new hat and so-on.Not to mention the overly confused weight-trainer because of it.



I totally agree with your sentiment! After I read the Nautilus Bulletins from '70-'71 (a couple of weeks ago) I felt that what needed to be known was known already; the rest is just fluff.

But it may be more than just money. A lot of people are sincerely interested in studying the "why's" of muscle development. This leaves us with the spectacle of magazines, studies, and seminars being stuffed with what you call "the repetitive cycle of old hat turned new hat and so-on." They want to study, and there has therefore got to be something to study, and so it gets rehashed ad nauseaum.

That's also why, even knowing what we know, as Kevin says "overload, recovery, and progression, the rest is just details," we--a part of the spectacle ourselves, I guess--still come here and discuss it.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

The basic principles are the same for everybody. It is the application of those principles that varies considerably, based on genetics, environmental factors, age, etc.

While we've known this for a long time, what was really interesting about Ryan's presentation was how scientists are finding out what genes are responsible for what kinds of variation in response to exercise, and just how much it can vary between individuals.

In a few years, you'll be able to have your DNA tested and determine an exercise prescription based on that. In the meanwhile, it's trial and error.

This doesn't mean that all programs have equal validity, as many exercise programs aren't science-based, but rather based on tradition, misinterpretation or misunderstanding of science, fads and trends, etc.

The majority of research shows no significant difference between single set and multiple set programs. Consider that this conclusion is typically based on the averages of the results of two or more study groups, after the outliers are discarded. Some people in both the single set and multiple set groups did very well, some did relatively poorly. While this has to do with a variety of factors, it is possible that some of the people in the single set group did poorly at least in small part due to the requirement for more sets because they are resistant to microtrauma. Some people in the multiple set groups may have done poorly at least in small part due to the requirement for less sets because they are highly susceptible to microtrauma.

While on average, single set programs are preferred because they are more time efficient, there are a few people who may benefit from doing a second, or possibly even a third set. Whether the benefit is significant enough to justify the additional time investment depends on the individual's values.

Consider that most people would probably do better to err on the side of fewer sets, fewer exercises, and lower frequency, and that the average person would probably do best on something around 8 to 12 exercises, 2 to 3 times per week. Some people will need to do less, a small few might benefit somewhat from doing a little more.

Even a person who could handle more and possibly benefit from more should make good progress with a more old-school/traditional 2 to 3x/weekly 8 to 12 exercise HIT routine. It is better to err on the side of less sets and workout volume, and more recovery time, since overtraining is worse than undertraining.

Someone who would make good progress on a 20 set workout done three times weekly would still make some progress doing a 6 set workout once or twice weekly.

However, someone who can only tolerate a 6 set workout once or twice weekly will make little or no progress on a 20 set workout done three times weekly.

Although some people will get better results with somewhat more volume and frequency, the majority of people would probably do best on a HIT-type program, and those who are capable of and willing to work at a very high level of intensity would do better with even less volume.

If anyone is wondering whether they're training too hard, you can stop. The answer is "no". Training "too hard" is definitely not the case for the majority of people. In fact, just training "hard" isn't. If anything, most people aren't training nearly hard enough.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

aikon wrote:

When people start preaching one and only one method of training, keep your hands in your pockets - chances are they are after something, your money.



There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting money, provided you are offering a fair value for the price. Everybody has to make a living somehow, and some of us do so with exercise and fitness.

Although fitness is full of quacks and cons (*cough* Weider *cough*) not everybody in the business is just trying to rip people off, and many people who come up with a program probably honestly believe they've got something worth selling.
Open User Options Menu

karma50

Drew,
Thanks for the synopsis of Ryan Hall's presentation.
Also, you're right about the money issue. I think people would actually pay well for good guidance on the value of exercise, without all the hype. I believe folks actually would respond to real info on the benefits of exercise. I had hopes that the SSG would do this, but alas...
Thanks,
Griff
Open User Options Menu

aikon

Nice stuff Drew.

People who believe (as I did) that HIT is the only way too train for muscle growth are misguided. In fact, some of the strength coaches, advocates and writers for HIT are to blame for this. Some of the claims made are exaggerated, with ?logic? and ?science? used to back it all up.

HIT may be one of the most efficient methods of training, but whether it's the best is debatable. Hypertrophy Specific Training, Brian Haycock's baby is mostly based on sub maximal effort, periodization and is ?science? base.

Brian considers HIT to be based on the GAS principle and is incorrect. His method is based on mechanical loads, I've also read other methods using this principle and there is strong research and data (10 years worth) backing the claims.

I could go on for years ? the point is most, if not all methods will result in muscle growth.

This statement:

If anyone is wondering whether they're training too hard, you can stop. The answer is "no". Training "too hard" is definitely not the case for the majority of people. In fact, just training "hard" isn't. If anything, most people aren't training nearly hard enough.

This maybe fine for a beginner or someone starting HIT for the first time. However, an advance person can train too hard.

Mentzer acknowledged that traditional HIT was too much for genetically normal people ? most of the human race. He possibly went too far though. However, he was correct on this point.

There is a huge difference in training super slow in the squat, once or twice a week and training in the old 20 rep, breathing squat method with maximal weights until you drop. Upper body stuff is a totally different story compared to heavy deadlifting, squatting and leg pressing.

True gains in muscle and mass come from those big exercises.

Rest-pause stuff will kill your CNS. I've personally found that going all out, full body with maximal weights can take up to a week to recover- if not longer, never mind that I'm an emotional and physical wreck for 4 of those days.

Moreover, there is a certain point where using a ?heavy? weight can only be taken so far. Once you start forcing a muscle/body to exceed that level/point you risk structural damage. What happens when you can no longer get stronger ?

HIT is pretty well basis its adaptive response on a heavy load, TUL and perceived failure. It totally ignores other possible methods of stress/stimulation such as
the physiology adapting to slightly more volume/frequency or even cumulative fatigue.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Please tell me why I should listen to Ryan Hall. He website is full of super-slow information. Also, he has an article entitled "Superslow Exercise Protocol, The Fastest Way To Get In Shape".

Who exactly has he trained? Where are his results? Which athlete uses his methods exclusively? Which natural bodybuilder uses his methods exclusively? What are Mr. Hall's credentials? Does he make a living getting results for his clients.

The real facts are this. No one knows exactly why muscles grow and get large.
History tells what methods work. Go look there for real time-tested information.

Marc
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

aikon wrote:

People who believe (as I did) that HIT is the only way too train for muscle growth are misguided. In fact, some of the strength coaches, advocates and writers for HIT are to blame for this. Some of the claims made are exaggerated, with ?logic? and ?science? used to back it all up.


First, you missed the point, then you went on to state a bunch of nonsense about rest pause and "CNS burnout". The whole idea that you can burn out your CNS from HIT is nonsense. How many of you people that repeat this crap have the foggiest idea of what the CNS is, much less how it functions, and MUCH less how it is affected by exercise? Not a one, I suspect.

You people have no idea what you're talking about.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

marcrph wrote:
Please tell me why I should listen to Ryan Hall. He website is full of super-slow information. Also, he has an article entitled "Superslow Exercise Protocol, The Fastest Way To Get In Shape".


Tell me why any of us should listen to you? Ryan Hall has a hell of a lot more experience and credentials in the field than you do. You have no idea.

Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

If I am the 'Brian' you are referring to, no where have I stated that HIT is based on GAS or is GAS or anything like that. The principles of exercise science is based on the principles of GAS, since exercise is a form of stress (strain). It matters not the method of exercise employed, the three stages of GAS can and may relate (depending to the extent that exercise is applied). I hope that clarifies matters, and if not, please elaborate on the connection between HIT and GAS and what you think I said.
Open User Options Menu

aikon

No that would be Brian Haycock and Mentzer did an excellent job on informing me on the GAS principle and how it relates to exercise - but thanks for the offer - Brian Johnson or Johnston (can't remember).
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Drew Baye wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Please tell me why I should listen to Ryan Hall. He website is full of super-slow information. Also, he has an article entitled "Superslow Exercise Protocol, The Fastest Way To Get In Shape".

Tell me why any of us should listen to you? Ryan Hall has a hell of a lot more experience and credentials in the field than you do. You have no idea.



No one should listen to me. Further, I am not promoting anything to be listened to, for I do not train individuals for a living. I have no interest in making a living out of the fitness/exercise business. Weight lifting has always been a hobby for me, and will remain so. Further, I was asking questions, to which you did not respond to, but rather simply hurled insults. An idea, if a good one, will stand the test of time, plus produce results. I think my questions were fair.
Joe Weider has a lot of experience in the fitness industry, but I do not listen to him. Charles Poliquin has lots of credentials, but I don't listen to everything he says either.

Marc
Open User Options Menu

TheSofaKing

Manitoba, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:

First, you missed the point, then you went on to state a bunch of nonsense about rest pause and "CNS burnout". The whole idea that you can burn out your CNS from HIT is nonsense. How many of you people that repeat this crap have the foggiest idea of what the CNS is, much less how it functions, and MUCH less how it is affected by exercise? Not a one, I suspect.

You people have no idea what you're talking about.


Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking. The entire "CNS burnout" thing is probably my biggest pet peeve. Everytime some T-nation lackie brings it up, I want to stab myself in the eardrums with pencils just so I don't have to hear it.

Open User Options Menu

tylerg

I have a neutral question on the CNS issue: What exactly are people referring to by CNS burnout? What are the symptoms, what does it look/feel like?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Tyler
Open User Options Menu

TigerFighter VS

New Jersey, USA

Wouldn't it take like 3rd degree burns over 90% of your body to suffer from Central Nervous system burnout?
Open User Options Menu

aikon

<quote>

Tell me why any of us should listen to you? Ryan Hall has a hell of a lot more experience and credentials in the field than you do. You have no idea.

First, you missed the point, then you went on to state a bunch of nonsense about rest pause and "CNS burnout". The whole idea that you can burn out your CNS from HIT is nonsense. How many of you people that repeat this crap have the foggiest idea of what the CNS is, much less how it functions, and MUCH less how it is affected by exercise? Not a one, I suspect.

You people have no idea what you're talking about.

<quote>

Mate, you've got a serious problem.

Funny how all these Jones, want to be clones seem to abuse the daylights out of people.

Very hard to have an intelligent conversation with a closed minded, dogmatic person who "knows it all".

I bet I could go through heaps of threads here, where you've attacked people on your safe little keyboard, behind your safe little monitor, in your safe little room.

It's a safe little world you live in.

See ya :)
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy