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
And Then The Dud
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

I have noted on this forum deleting failure training from my personal training. I want to note that since this deletion occurred, I have not experienced post training effects such as soreness and fatigue. I have increased my strength during this period, along with an inflammatory condition in my right elbow which has also greatly diminished during this time.

I have also mentioned recently on this forum the need to utilize the phosphagen system of energy. This system supplies ATP energy for high intensity muscular contractions, which lasts for roughly 10 seconds, thus making low repetition, high load sets a necessity. Empirical evidence abounds that anaerobic fast twitch muscle fibers can best be trained this way for strength. This is a severe blow to current paradigms of high intensity training.


And then the dud,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...11205081643.htm

"No pain no gain," all out exercise to complete muscular failure was shown to be counterproductive, as the brain acts as a governor to shut down these types of muscular contractions. Remember it was I who stated that the brain is the master of the muscles. Yes, it looks like training to failure will turn out to be a dud.

Open User Options Menu

WesH

That's funny, this study says something else:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...00811125943.htm
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

WesH wrote:
That's funny, this study says something else:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...943.htm


That is a different study.....next time....please look first
Open User Options Menu

garethit

marcrph wrote:
I have noted on this forum deleting failure training from my personal training. I want to note that since this deletion occurred, I have not experienced post training effects such as soreness and fatigue. I have increased my strength during this period, along with an inflammatory condition in my right elbow which has also greatly diminished during this time.

I have also mentioned recently on this forum the need to utilize the phosphagen system of energy. This system supplies ATP energy for high intensity muscular contractions, which lasts for roughly 10 seconds, thus making low repetition, high load sets a necessity. Empirical evidence abounds that anaerobic fast twitch muscle fibers can best be trained this way for strength. This is a severe blow to current paradigms of high intensity training.


And then the dud,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...11205081643.htm

"No pain no gain," all out exercise to complete muscular failure was shown to be counterproductive, as the brain acts as a governor to shut down these types of muscular contractions. Remember it was I who stated that the brain is the master of the muscles. Yes, it looks like training to failure will turn out to be a dud.



Here's an idea for you Marcph; both methods work! It doesn't have to be one or the other, the body will adapt to either stressor by becoming stronger, S.A.I.D, remeber?
Open User Options Menu

cmg

marcrph wrote:
WesH wrote:
That's funny, this study says something else:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...00811125943.htm

That is a different study.....next time....please look first


Is the study you like the best the correct one?

Regards,

Ron
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

garethit wrote:
Here's an idea for you Marcph;


I'll assume this was for me....it is marcrph btw...

both methods work!


That is true.....but it depends on your goal....if you want maximum strength....then low repetitions....high load....multiple sets....long rest intervals are the best way. if you want endurance then by all means....use as this study states....30% of maximum weight....and upwards of 24 repetitions....but I know for sure this is not the best method for strength. And you do too....you just didn't read the whole report.
It doesn't have to be one or the other, the body will adapt to either stressor by becoming stronger, S.A.I.D, remeber?


You have been misled.

No one wins a strength meet of any kind using 30 % of maximum weights for high repetitions......

IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

cmg wrote:

Is the study you like the best the correct one?

Regards,

Ron


You sarcastic reply indicates that my reply will be ignored. Anyway...


FYI.....There are myriads of studies....many which I've never read....some which I know are simply misleading....and some slanted due to preferences.(McMaster U comes to mind)

I've known for some time that the brain controls muscular actions. This is the first study I can recall, and btw.....unrelated to the McMaster studies, which deals with the relationship of muscle/mind. I'm not sure if I comprehend all of this study's content...but the indications are all too clear for training.... Train don't strain.

You on the other hand may choose to ignore studies like these and others....so....I wish you well with such choices.
Open User Options Menu

jroach

marcrph wrote:
cmg wrote:

Is the study you like the best the correct one?

Regards,

Ron

You sarcastic reply indicates that my reply will be ignored. Anyway...


FYI.....There are myriads of studies....many which I've never read....some which I know are simply misleading....and some slanted due to preferences.(McMaster U comes to mind)

I've known for some time that the brain controls muscular actions. This is the first study I can recall, and btw.....unrelated to the McMaster studies, which deals with the relationship of muscle/mind. I'm not sure if I comprehend all of this study's content...but the indications are all too clear for training.... Train don't strain.

You on the other hand may choose to ignore studies like these and others....so....I wish you well with such choices.


You are to science what Jefferson Airplane was to rock.
Open User Options Menu

overfiftylifter

I think you may be right if your goal in training is the demonstration of high load strength. Conditioning your physiology to handle low rep high load probably requires some period of neurological/mental conditioning. If your goal though is skeletal muscle hypertrophy, some recent studies show that more than one approach may work. Multiple sets of low load training done to muscular failure may be a rich resource for muscular growth. I have had some communication with Dr. Phillips and there is a study which is presently in review that may make this even more clear.

I have no personal doubt that your training regime can work. Used something similar when I was younger and made excellent strength gains but little hypertrophy.

Here is a more recent study. I am not sure if it has been posted on this forum. http://journals.lww.com/...abolic.167.aspx
Open User Options Menu

kulitsa

New York, USA

I wish I knew how to make a single set to failure per body part work....
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

Marc,ems.
I'm with you all the way on multiple low-rep sets best for strength gains. I know you recommend this due to how the Alactic System works. The only part I disagree with is the total disregard for training the other energy systems. I say this because all 3 energy systems are dependant upon the other and used (%-wise) during all forms of exercise. In other words, we use all 3 energy systems when we exercise a muscle. The dominant system will be determined by the form of exercise (duration and intensity), so I believe in order to fully maximize the use of one energy system, the other energy systems should be in good working order, as well. Hope that makes sense. Just something I have thought about when I read your posts.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

kulitsa wrote:
I wish I knew how to make a single set to failure per body part work....


It is a good training program.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

fbcoach wrote:
Marc,ems.
I'm with you all the way on multiple low-rep sets best for strength gains. I know you recommend this due to how the Alactic System works. The only part I disagree with is the total disregard for training the other energy systems. I say this because all 3 energy systems are dependant upon the other and used (%-wise) during all forms of exercise. In other words, we use all 3 energy systems when we exercise a muscle. The dominant system will be determined by the form of exercise (duration and intensity), so I believe in order to fully maximize the use of one energy system, the other energy systems should be in good working order, as well. Hope that makes sense. Just something I have thought about when I read your posts.


I'm not after hypertrophy...I'm after speed...that is why I do not train the other energy systems. Increasing mass specific force is the way to get fast. To increase force....one must get strong. To get strong...one must exercise the 11B fibers at all cost. Condition the players with practice......start counting..1...2...3...4...5..and if they are not ready to run a play...say aloud....why are we not ready.
This is football conditioning done right. No more stupid gassers at the end when players are tired. Teach, train & drill them to play FAST.
Open User Options Menu

kulitsa

New York, USA

marcrph wrote:
kulitsa wrote:
I wish I knew how to make a single set to failure per body part work....

It is a good training program.


So I am saying, I wish I knew how to make it work. It worked for others, but in my case I have better results with 4-5 exercises in 2-3 NTF sets on a 3 day split. That is all.

Plus when I was training in 1 set to failure my strength levels came to a plateau. Now I am finally increasing the weights in all the movements.

If I could train my body 2 times a week with one set to failure and get better results I would immediately proceed to training this way.

Open User Options Menu

garethit

marcrph wrote:
garethit wrote:
Here's an idea for you Marcph;

I'll assume this was for me....it is marcrph btw...

both methods work!

That is true.....but it depends on your goal....if you want maximum strength....then low repetitions....high load....multiple sets....long rest intervals are the best way. if you want endurance then by all means....use as this study states....30% of maximum weight....and upwards of 24 repetitions....but I know for sure this is not the best method for strength. And you do too....you just didn't read the whole report.
It doesn't have to be one or the other, the body will adapt to either stressor by becoming stronger, S.A.I.D, remeber?


You have been misled.

No one wins a strength meet of any kind using 30 % of maximum weights for high repetitions......

IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!


Sorry for the typo marcrph, don't be so petty!

When I said both methods I was referring to training to failure vs multiple NTF sets, I never mentioned using 30% of max.

I'm sure your well aware of all the studies that show training to failure works better than not to failure, they'll be the ones you ignored while you were cherry picking the ones that agree with your chosen training method.

If you define strength as the ability to move a maximum weight in a specific exercise then using low rep, heavy multiple sets will be better. This is quite obvious as your practicing exactly the task you want to perform.

In one of your other posts you state that your not interested in hypertrophy only speed and "one must exercise the 11B fibers at all cost". Well if multiple heavy sets do this better than you will be getting plenty of hypertrophy as the high threshold fibers have the most growth potential, so could you explain how this works? It seems like a big contradiction to me and please don't bullshit me with any sarcoplasmic hypertrophy nonsense.






Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

kulitsa wrote:
marcrph wrote:
kulitsa wrote:
I wish I knew how to make a single set to failure per body part work....

It is a good training program.

So I am saying, I wish I knew how to make it work. It worked for others, but in my case I have better results with 4-5 exercises in 2-3 NTF sets on a 3 day split. That is all.


Stick with what brings results.


Plus when I was training in 1 set to failure my strength levels came to a plateau. Now I am finally increasing the weights in all the movements.

If you read my statements closely, now you know why.

If I could train my body 2 times a week with one set to failure and get better results I would immediately proceed to training this way.



Ditto, btw....it is very hard to practice the skill of a sport when recovering from all-out HIT failure workouts. Too much fatigue and soreness from these WO's, especially if HIT WO's are just once a week or less.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

garethit wrote:
marcrph wrote:
garethit wrote:
Here's an idea for you Marcph;

I'll assume this was for me....it is marcrph btw...

both methods work!

That is true.....but it depends on your goal....if you want maximum strength....then low repetitions....high load....multiple sets....long rest intervals are the best way. if you want endurance then by all means....use as this study states....30% of maximum weight....and upwards of 24 repetitions....but I know for sure this is not the best method for strength. And you do too....you just didn't read the whole report.
It doesn't have to be one or the other, the body will adapt to either stressor by becoming stronger, S.A.I.D, remeber?


You have been misled.

No one wins a strength meet of any kind using 30 % of maximum weights for high repetitions......

IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

Sorry for the typo marcrph, don't be so petty!

Look who's talking.


When I said both methods I was referring to training to failure vs multiple NTF sets, I never mentioned using 30% of max.

The McMaster study did however, as you seem to be defending such.


I'm sure your well aware of all the studies that show training to failure works better than not to failure,


The harbinger of a successful weight training program is intensity. Do not confuse intensity with effort as most in the HIT camp have for years. Training to failure is not necessarily intense, it just requires effort.


If you define strength as the ability to move a maximum weight in a specific exercise then using low rep, heavy multiple sets will be better. This is quite obvious as your practicing exactly the task you want to perform.

Does putting words in others mouths give you some sort of pleasure?

In one of your other posts you state that your not interested in hypertrophy only speed and "one must exercise the 11B fibers at all cost". Well if multiple heavy sets do this better than you will be getting plenty of hypertrophy as the high threshold fibers have the most growth potential, so could you explain how this works? It seems like a big contradiction to me and please don't bullshit me with any sarcoplasmic hypertrophy nonsense.



Can you explain why an athlete can lose weight but can add 100 pounds to their deadlift. OTOH, I certainly do not want to upset you with my statements, as this is certainly not my goal in posting




Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

With 2012 Olympic Games coming soon....I wonder who will win the Gold.

United states was once very good at Olympic weightlifting. Since bodybuilding's golden era....not so much! Another dud! Bodybuilding that is!

Open User Options Menu

garethit

edit

Open User Options Menu

garethit



Can you explain why an athlete can lose weight but can add 100 pounds to their deadlift. OTOH, I certainly do not want to upset you with my statements, as this is certainly not my goal in posting



Lost fat and got better at deadlifting, pretty simple stuff. Have you never had significant progress in a lift only to find the increased "strength" didn't transfer to another exercise that used the same muscle groups? Why would that be?
Open User Options Menu

WesH

marcrph wrote:
With 2012 Olympic Games coming soon....I wonder who will win the Gold.

United states was once very good at Olympic weightlifting. Since bodybuilding's golden era....not so much! Another dud! Bodybuilding that is!



Whoever has the best endocrinologists will win gold, silver, and bronze.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

WesH wrote:
marcrph wrote:
With 2012 Olympic Games coming soon....I wonder who will win the Gold.

United states was once very good at Olympic weightlifting. Since bodybuilding's golden era....not so much! Another dud! Bodybuilding that is!



Whoever has the best endocrinologists will win gold, silver, and bronze.


So true.

And powerlifting is more popular in the United States than weightlifting now.

In "The Los Angeles Times", Ken Patera was asked about the difference between Vasili Alexeyev(who died in November of this year).

"Last year the only difference between him and me was I couldn't afford his drug bill. Now I can.

"When I hit Munich ('72 Olympic Games)I'll weigh in about 340, or maybe 350. Then we'll see which are better -- his steroids or mine."

"Sports Illustrated"
August 2, 2004:

Thirty-four years after Vasili Alexeyev became the first weightlifter to clean-and-jerk 500 pounds, the man who pumped the iron that added to the aura of the Iron Curtain still claims he doesn't understand why he was portrayed in the U.S. as the symbol of the power?and the threat?of the Soviet Union.

"In 1985, as the cold war icebergs were melting, I was watching an American TV documentary about the Soviet Union," Alexeyev said recently, sitting in the trophy room of his home in the Russian city of Shakhty, 600 miles south of Moscow. "Suddenly, they showed me, and the announcer said, 'At a time when the Soviet Union was lagging behind the United States in space exploration, the Russians responded with Vasili Alexeyev.' I was shocked at how highly America thought of me."

The two-time Olympic gold medalist and six-time world champion, who still describes himself as "the Number 1 sports legend in the history of the Soviet Union," was being coy. Each of Alexeyev's 80 world records in the superheavyweight division has been surpassed (his record for setting the most world records still stands), but, at 62, his ego remains as imperial as ever.

In 1975, between his Olympic triumphs at Munich (1972) and Montreal ('76), an SI cover story praised Alexeyev's "kingly chest and belly, broader than any barrel, bass drum or office safe in common use today." Back then, Shakhty was a booming coal-mining city, and Alexeyev was officially listed?and very well paid, by Soviet standards?as a "mining engineer." Now, like the U.S.S.R., the Shakhty mines are no longer operating. "Everything is in ruins," he says.

Alexeyev, who swears that he never used performance-enhancing drugs, was 38 when the Olympics came to Moscow in 1980, and he competed for the last time. However, he failed to complete a lift and complained, unconvincingly, that Soviet officials had poisoned him with "a strange drink that made me act like a stupid sheep." He was unemployed for eight years and then spent four years as national team coach, guiding the lifters representing the Unified Team of Independent States?the banner under which the former Soviet nations competed at the 1992 Games?to five gold medals in Barcelona. He remains the nominal vice president of the Russian Weightlifting Federation, but won't be on hand to assist his country's lifters in Athens.

Not surprisingly, Alexeyev's planet-sized abdomen and rain-forest eyebrows remain proudly intact, as does his 42-year marriage. He continues to work out avidly in the training cabin he built behind his house and is introducing his two grandsons-one of them named Vasili Alexeyev?to the sport that made his name synonymous with Soviet strength. "I think kids should be forced to do sports," he says. "I tell them, 'You may not be champions, but you do have to be strong!"

1970s / Weightlifter Vasili Alexeyev 1942-2011
It has been reported that Vasili Alexeyev, the Soviet weightlifter who utterly dominated the super-heavyweight division of the sport during most of the 1970s, died in Germany on November 25, 2011 at the age of 69. He was at a clinic seeking treatment for a serious heart ailment. Alexeyev easily won gold medals at both the 1972 and 1976 Olympics and won eight straight world championships from 1970 to 1977. (The Olympics doubled as weightlifting's world championships.) Alexeyev, who set 80 world records in his career, was listed as a "mining engineer" by Soviet sports authorities. Alexeyev was the first man to lift 500 pounds in competition. But his fans were fickle: When the 38-year-old Alexeyev failed to make any of his three lifts at the 1980 Moscow Olympics, he was jeered off the stage. In a 1971 interview, the affable Alexeyev said he liked to spend his spare time reading Agatha Christie mystery novels.








Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

WesH wrote:
marcrph wrote:
With 2012 Olympic Games coming soon....I wonder who will win the Gold.

United states was once very good at Olympic weightlifting. Since bodybuilding's golden era....not so much! Another dud! Bodybuilding that is!



Whoever has the best endocrinologists will win gold, silver, and bronze.



It really is sad to see drugs play such a prominent role in bodybuilding, Olympic weightlifting, Tour De France....and I could go on...on...etc.

That is one of the reasons I like alactic training as the goal is NOT additional mass, but mass specific strength....ie pound for pound strength. No need for drugs!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

garethit wrote:


Can you explain why an athlete can lose weight but can add 100 pounds to their deadlift. OTOH, I certainly do not want to upset you with my statements, as this is certainly not my goal in posting



Lost fat and got better at deadlifting, pretty simple stuff. Have you never had significant progress in a lift only to find the increased "strength" didn't transfer to another exercise that used the same muscle groups? Why would that be?


If the same person increased his RENEX leg press 100 pounds and lost weight....would you say he "lost fat and got better at leg pressing?"

You don't get 100 pounds better at deadlifting without gaining some strength.

To answer you question: You gain strength, and get better at said movement.

The real question is: does the type IIB fibers gain appreciable mass when the are trained with low reps, high load, multiple sets, long rest intervals. The answer is: I don't know. My guess is they do slightly....which I respond with...one can live with that.

One thing I do know, is that the first 4 or 5 reps of a 8-12 rep failure set do not recruit the IIB fibers well, but ATP is being used up.....good....guess again.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

marcrph wrote:

The real question is: does the type IIB fibers gain appreciable mass when the are trained with low reps, high load, multiple sets, long rest intervals. The answer is: I don't know. My guess is they do slightly....which I respond with...one can live with that.


I will say I have been looking a bit more dense lately using lower reps for multiple sets (although I still throw in a higher rep set or two). My strength has been going up considerably. Up ten pounds on the pulldown and incline press yesterday for the same number of reps. It's interesting as I will do a higher rep set after the low reps sets as sort of a finisher....and that set too has been going up a quite a bit. It's as if the low rep sets are positively affecting the higher rep set which obviously seems to indicate a real strength gain all the way around as other variables have remained essentially the same (exercise speed, form, forceful effort on the positive, etc.).
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Ellington Darden, Mod Jump'n Jack
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy