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
Ray and Mike Mentzer
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Intensely Fit

North Carolina, USA

Back in The late 80s I witnessed Big Jim Zaharas (local body builder) Squat 730 for 3 reps...the first one was not deep enough for the owner of the facility (He worked as an assistant for the Jets)so he made him go deeper...well the second one was deeper and the smell from the shit that came out of ass (no joke...he really crapped himself)was god awful but this sick fuck did another one...which was perfect...
Open User Options Menu

kulitsa

New York, USA

entsminger wrote:
In the dressing room he often talked of the drugs he used etc.


Anyone with a half brain would understand that by just looking at the guy. So it was not his training methods that won, it was his drug intake program that won. Genetics might have played some role in it, but there are people who supposedly did not have them to begin with and have placed much higher in competition.


He was very head strong though and always felt his way was the best and didn't seem open to trying other methods.


This does not surprise me, that is [probably] why he decided to retire after Arnold beat him @ 1980 Mr.O. Headstrong people often have problems with entitlement.

Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

kulitsa wrote:
entsminger wrote:
In the dressing room he often talked of the drugs he used etc.


Anyone with a half brain would understand that by just looking at the guy. So it was not his training methods that won, it was his drug intake program that won. Genetics might have played some role in it, but there are people who supposedly did not have them to begin with and have placed much higher in competition.


He was very head strong though and always felt his way was the best and didn't seem open to trying other methods.

This does not surprise me, that is [probably] why he decided to retire after Arnold beat him @ 1980 Mr.O. Headstrong people often have problems with entitlement.



==Scott==
I wouldn't say it was the drugs that did it all for Mike Mentzer. Sure, he used them but so did all the big guys. He had outstanding genetics and that combined with the drugs made a huge difference.If he had the drugs of today he'd be as big as Levrone.

I think Mike quit because he was a big baby. He complained that the shows were rigged and he should have won. Yes, I'm sure they were rigged as they are today, as most pro sports are, but did all the other contestants quit when they didn't get their way? No!He wimped out!
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

entsminger wrote:
kulitsa wrote:
entsminger wrote:
In the dressing room he often talked of the drugs he used etc.


Anyone with a half brain would understand that by just looking at the guy. So it was not his training methods that won, it was his drug intake program that won. Genetics might have played some role in it, but there are people who supposedly did not have them to begin with and have placed much higher in competition.


He was very head strong though and always felt his way was the best and didn't seem open to trying other methods.

This does not surprise me, that is [probably] why he decided to retire after Arnold beat him @ 1980 Mr.O. Headstrong people often have problems with entitlement.



==Scott==
I wouldn't say it was the drugs that did it all for Mike Mentzer. Sure, he used them but so did all the big guys. He had outstanding genetics and that combined with the drugs made a huge difference.If he had the drugs of today he'd be as big as Levrone.

I think Mike quit because he was a big baby. He complained that the shows were rigged and he should have won. Yes, I'm sure they were rigged as they are today, as most pro sports are, but did all the other contestants quit when they didn't get their way? No!He wimped out!


Only he can make that decision - you cannot judge someone for a decision he makes about something like this. The way I see it: there was no point for him to compete any longer. Despite getting in top notch shape in '79 and '80 over the competitors it was obvious Weider was NEVER going to give it to someone associated with Arthur Jones, Nautilus, and HIT. Period. It was a worthless cause for him at that point. Why go through all of the "tortures" of competing when you will NEVER become Mr. Olympia at that point?
Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
entsminger wrote:
kulitsa wrote:
entsminger wrote:
In the dressing room he often talked of the drugs he used etc.


Anyone with a half brain would understand that by just looking at the guy. So it was not his training methods that won, it was his drug intake program that won. Genetics might have played some role in it, but there are people who supposedly did not have them to begin with and have placed much higher in competition.


He was very head strong though and always felt his way was the best and didn't seem open to trying other methods.

This does not surprise me, that is [probably] why he decided to retire after Arnold beat him @ 1980 Mr.O. Headstrong people often have problems with entitlement.



==Scott==
I wouldn't say it was the drugs that did it all for Mike Mentzer. Sure, he used them but so did all the big guys. He had outstanding genetics and that combined with the drugs made a huge difference.If he had the drugs of today he'd be as big as Levrone.

I think Mike quit because he was a big baby. He complained that the shows were rigged and he should have won. Yes, I'm sure they were rigged as they are today, as most pro sports are, but did all the other contestants quit when they didn't get their way? No!He wimped out!

Only he can make that decision - you cannot judge someone for a decision he makes about something like this. The way I see it: there was no point for him to compete any longer. Depsite getting in top notch shape in '79 and '80 over the competitors it was obvious Weider was NEVER going to give it to someone associated with Arthur Jones, Nautilus, and HIT. Period. It was a worthless cause for him at that point. Why go through all of the "tortures" of competiting win you will NEVER become Mr. Olympia at that point?


YUP X2
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
entsminger wrote:
kulitsa wrote:
entsminger wrote:
In the dressing room he often talked of the drugs he used etc.


Anyone with a half brain would understand that by just looking at the guy. So it was not his training methods that won, it was his drug intake program that won. Genetics might have played some role in it, but there are people who supposedly did not have them to begin with and have placed much higher in competition.


He was very head strong though and always felt his way was the best and didn't seem open to trying other methods.

This does not surprise me, that is [probably] why he decided to retire after Arnold beat him @ 1980 Mr.O. Headstrong people often have problems with entitlement.



==Scott==
I wouldn't say it was the drugs that did it all for Mike Mentzer. Sure, he used them but so did all the big guys. He had outstanding genetics and that combined with the drugs made a huge difference.If he had the drugs of today he'd be as big as Levrone.

I think Mike quit because he was a big baby. He complained that the shows were rigged and he should have won. Yes, I'm sure they were rigged as they are today, as most pro sports are, but did all the other contestants quit when they didn't get their way? No!He wimped out!

Only he can make that decision - you cannot judge someone for a decision he makes about something like this. The way I see it: there was no point for him to compete any longer. Despite getting in top notch shape in '79 and '80 over the competitors it was obvious Weider was NEVER going to give it to someone associated with Arthur Jones, Nautilus, and HIT. Period. It was a worthless cause for him at that point. Why go through all of the "tortures" of competing when you will NEVER become Mr. Olympia at that point?


==Scott==
Firstly you say only he could make that decision and then you give your opinion as to why he may have quit. Somehow your opinion is valid but mine is not?? Secondly, isn't there more to life in bodybuilding than winning Mr. Olympia? How many others keep training after a loss at the Olympia who never have a chance to win anything?? He could have gone on to win many other titles and other accolades. Big baby he was!!!!
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

entsminger wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
entsminger wrote:
kulitsa wrote:
entsminger wrote:
In the dressing room he often talked of the drugs he used etc.


Anyone with a half brain would understand that by just looking at the guy. So it was not his training methods that won, it was his drug intake program that won. Genetics might have played some role in it, but there are people who supposedly did not have them to begin with and have placed much higher in competition.


He was very head strong though and always felt his way was the best and didn't seem open to trying other methods.

This does not surprise me, that is [probably] why he decided to retire after Arnold beat him @ 1980 Mr.O. Headstrong people often have problems with entitlement.



==Scott==
I wouldn't say it was the drugs that did it all for Mike Mentzer. Sure, he used them but so did all the big guys. He had outstanding genetics and that combined with the drugs made a huge difference.If he had the drugs of today he'd be as big as Levrone.

I think Mike quit because he was a big baby. He complained that the shows were rigged and he should have won. Yes, I'm sure they were rigged as they are today, as most pro sports are, but did all the other contestants quit when they didn't get their way? No!He wimped out!

Only he can make that decision - you cannot judge someone for a decision he makes about something like this. The way I see it: there was no point for him to compete any longer. Despite getting in top notch shape in '79 and '80 over the competitors it was obvious Weider was NEVER going to give it to someone associated with Arthur Jones, Nautilus, and HIT. Period. It was a worthless cause for him at that point. Why go through all of the "tortures" of competing when you will NEVER become Mr. Olympia at that point?

==Scott==
Firstly you say only he could make that decision and then you give your opinion as to why he may have quit. Somehow your opinion is valid but mine is not?? Secondly, isn't there more to life in bodybuilding than winning Mr. Olympia? How many others keep training after a loss at the Olympia who never have a chance to win anything?? He could have gone on to win many other titles and other accolades. Big baby he was!!!!


You are extremely narrow minded in your judgement. I am looking at it from HIS perspective which I happen to agree with. He's the one having to go through all of that BS and how could you complain about ANYONE giving up that lifestyle. It's their own choice. There's a lot more than bodybuilding competing and given he reached about as far as one could go to reaching the Mr. O, one has to ask, what would the point be to continue? Again, whether one decides to professionally compete for years and years is their own choice (not to mention more years and abuse on the body from growth drugs).

Based on your reasoning, one could call you out, Scott. It would be like calling YOU a pussy. You never competed Scott, and you never took the drugs - your're a f'ing wimp! You never even tried competing yourself.

Do you see my point? Do you see how ridiculous this reasoning happens to be? Don't judge someone on what career path they choose to take - especially in bodybuilding competition.
Open User Options Menu

jn6047

entsminger wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
entsminger wrote:
kulitsa wrote:
entsminger wrote:
In the dressing room he often talked of the drugs he used etc.


Anyone with a half brain would understand that by just looking at the guy. So it was not his training methods that won, it was his drug intake program that won. Genetics might have played some role in it, but there are people who supposedly did not have them to begin with and have placed much higher in competition.


He was very head strong though and always felt his way was the best and didn't seem open to trying other methods.

This does not surprise me, that is [probably] why he decided to retire after Arnold beat him @ 1980 Mr.O. Headstrong people often have problems with entitlement.



==Scott==
I wouldn't say it was the drugs that did it all for Mike Mentzer. Sure, he used them but so did all the big guys. He had outstanding genetics and that combined with the drugs made a huge difference.If he had the drugs of today he'd be as big as Levrone.

I think Mike quit because he was a big baby. He complained that the shows were rigged and he should have won. Yes, I'm sure they were rigged as they are today, as most pro sports are, but did all the other contestants quit when they didn't get their way? No!He wimped out!

Only he can make that decision - you cannot judge someone for a decision he makes about something like this. The way I see it: there was no point for him to compete any longer. Despite getting in top notch shape in '79 and '80 over the competitors it was obvious Weider was NEVER going to give it to someone associated with Arthur Jones, Nautilus, and HIT. Period. It was a worthless cause for him at that point. Why go through all of the "tortures" of competing when you will NEVER become Mr. Olympia at that point?

==Scott==
Firstly you say only he could make that decision and then you give your opinion as to why he may have quit. Somehow your opinion is valid but mine is not?? Secondly, isn't there more to life in bodybuilding than winning Mr. Olympia? How many others keep training after a loss at the Olympia who never have a chance to win anything?? He could have gone on to win many other titles and other accolades. Big baby he was!!!!


He likely had a great deal of stress from work and many family commitments to attend to that affected his recovery and schedule. That is why he couldn't achieve his goals, it wasn't because he was making excuses or being a "baby", it's just that his life was very busy.

jn6047

Open User Options Menu

hdlifter

kurtvf wrote:
I believe the Ray Mentzer 900 lb. squat (now it was a double!) is considered to be bunk like the Franco Columbu 525 lb. bench press.


WRONG! Here was a guy who trained at the same gym...

The 925 squat was at Muscle Mill but I was not present. When I came in on Monday Benny (Podda) came running up to me and told me about it. It was during the Saturday workout.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

jn6047 wrote:
entsminger wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
entsminger wrote:
kulitsa wrote:
entsminger wrote:
In the dressing room he often talked of the drugs he used etc.


Anyone with a half brain would understand that by just looking at the guy. So it was not his training methods that won, it was his drug intake program that won. Genetics might have played some role in it, but there are people who supposedly did not have them to begin with and have placed much higher in competition.


He was very head strong though and always felt his way was the best and didn't seem open to trying other methods.

This does not surprise me, that is [probably] why he decided to retire after Arnold beat him @ 1980 Mr.O. Headstrong people often have problems with entitlement.



==Scott==
I wouldn't say it was the drugs that did it all for Mike Mentzer. Sure, he used them but so did all the big guys. He had outstanding genetics and that combined with the drugs made a huge difference.If he had the drugs of today he'd be as big as Levrone.

I think Mike quit because he was a big baby. He complained that the shows were rigged and he should have won. Yes, I'm sure they were rigged as they are today, as most pro sports are, but did all the other contestants quit when they didn't get their way? No!He wimped out!

Only he can make that decision - you cannot judge someone for a decision he makes about something like this. The way I see it: there was no point for him to compete any longer. Despite getting in top notch shape in '79 and '80 over the competitors it was obvious Weider was NEVER going to give it to someone associated with Arthur Jones, Nautilus, and HIT. Period. It was a worthless cause for him at that point. Why go through all of the "tortures" of competing when you will NEVER become Mr. Olympia at that point?

==Scott==
Firstly you say only he could make that decision and then you give your opinion as to why he may have quit. Somehow your opinion is valid but mine is not?? Secondly, isn't there more to life in bodybuilding than winning Mr. Olympia? How many others keep training after a loss at the Olympia who never have a chance to win anything?? He could have gone on to win many other titles and other accolades. Big baby he was!!!!

He likely had a great deal of stress from work and many family commitments to attend to that affected his recovery and schedule. That is why he couldn't achieve his goals, it wasn't because he was making excuses or being a "baby", it's just that his life was very busy.

jn6047



==Scott==
Hah hah, very funny. The thing is he did achieve his goals in building muscle, he just didn't win the big one and why that was can be argued over and over again like it has for many years. Frankly come to think of it his stressful life most likely did have an impact on why he quit training.

He had some personal issues that in the end sort of drove him off the deep end so to speak so yes, his life aside from training may well have been a part of his down fall. I can still see him sitting there smoking that cigarette in an interview in his later days..Oh brother I kept saying to myself...
Open User Options Menu

hdlifter

As for Mike's Consolidation Routine. Mike enticed me to make the switch late 90's. These are my results from 4 weeks:

Dates 5th July 1998 - 26th July 1998
Weight: 96.5kg (212.3#) - 99kg (217.8#)
Quad: 25.4 - 25?
Calf: 16.1" - 16.4" (the hardest muscle to grow)!
Chest: 47.1/4" - 49"
Forearm: 12.5" - 12.6"
Bicep: 16.3" - 16.5"
Waist: - 1/8th"

That's quite dramatic progress for a months work... on less than an hours total training!!!

I used the typical Consolidation Routine consisting of 3 exs/sets with a 5/5 rep tempo. As an advanced trainee, I was bezerk with enthusiasm, rearing to go days before I got the opportunity to train again. I can't remember why I didn't remain with it other than the anxiety of waiting a week to train again.
Open User Options Menu

hdlifter

The below I believe aptly sums it up!

I have been using a modified form of the consolidation routine for 9 weeks now and here are the results;

Incline crunchs start 60#/25 now 110#/30
Deadlifts start 405#/6reps now 605#/5reps
Hammer military start 270/8 now 470/5
Hammer iso curl start 60#/8 now 100#(whole stack)/12
Hammer dip start 2 plates and 25 each side/6 now 5 plates/side/6 reps

7 days later

Leg press start 1080/11 now 1310/11 reps
Toe press same as above
Rev grip PD start 210/7 now 300(stack) 11
Incline press start 275/6 now 385/6

I know these seem outragous but they are true and the best part is I take no drugs (steroids) and no supplements at all so those of you who wonder" where all the clients are" I am right here, if anyone does not believe these numbers I am inviting you to come to Albuquerque and see for your self!!

I am 5'11, 276lbs, 29 1/2" legs, 20" arms, 55" chest.

I am by no means ripped although my abs are visible, I am not posting this for any other reason than to show there are people out there who are using HD and that it does work. As for my defense of the principles of HD against the nay sayers it is just my opinion that Mike never wanted to "Convince" anyone of anything he wanted to present HD in a logical manner and it was up to the individual to accept it or not, I am not here to "CONVINCE" anyone or to be "CONVINCED" by anyone either, I personally do not believe that I owe anyone an explantion for what I believe, and have never seen a post one on this site where anyone except one has asked to be "CONVINCED" and no matter how many posts are put up to "CONVINCE" or to prove the valid theory of HD, the nay sayer has to "DISAGREE", there comes a time when it goes from a discourse to just pure antagonism, when no matter who says what this person will disagree, so my question is why bother. I once heard a quote that seems to apply here "Don't throw your pearls to swine"!
Open User Options Menu

hdlifter

And because we, started, discussing Ray. Here is a guy who knew him, and watched him train:

You asked for a sample Ray workout, so here is one option. First of all you should understand that he often did several warm up sets for the very first exercise on any given day, like as many as 3-5 sets. He worked up to some very serious weight (Ray was one strong dude!) and I'm sure that the amount of weight on his last warm up set or two made everyone watching assume it was an actual work set. If he used 475 for a set of inclines his last warmup would be with 405. Virtually everyone watching him do a set with 405 thought it counted as a work set, but he didn't. He would also often do a couple of warm up sets for the first exercise for a body part, although he almost never did a warm up set for his arms. Then again, Ray never needed many isolation exercises for his arms anyway ... They grew pretty well for from working his back and chest.

Incline Press (3-5 sets total including warm ups)
Nautilus Press
Nautilus Flyes
DB overhead press (2-3 total sets including warm ups)
Dips

Squats (4-7 sets total including warm ups)
Leg extension
Leg curl
Calve raises
Toe presses

Barbell Rows (3-5 sets including warm ups)
Pulldowns
Nautilus rear delt
Barbell curls
Preacher curls

These are not the only exercises he used, but you asked for a sample. He liked switching between machines and free weights fairly often. For example he really liked the Nautilus bicep curl, but after using it for a few weeks he would start to feel "stuck" as he put it, like he couldn't quite do the motion properly, so he would switch to barbell curls or DB curls. If you have ever used a Nautilus curl you probably know what he means. It is very smooth and a great feeling in the biceps, but sometimes it just starts to feel like you aren't pulling directly against the curve of the machine. Sometimes he would do lying extensions or pushdowns instead of dips for triceps. Sometimes he used the Nautilus press for delts. I'm sure you get the idea.

He liked to stay around 8 reps for everything except he liked slightly higher reps for arms like 10-12 and much higher reps for legs. He would do 15-20 reps for legs and sometimes have a day where he would go even higher, like 30. He experimented with sets of 50 for his legs and thought they felt great, but I think he found his growth slowed when he went above 30. Using 495 for a set of 30 reps of squats is a pretty serious workout!

He didn't do this on a regular basis, but Ray was the first guy I ever knew that used staggered reps or partials in his workout. On an incline bench for example he would do a full rep, then lower it 1/4 of the range and hold it for 2-5 seconds, then lower it to 1/2 of the range and do another 2-5 second hold, then 3/4, then just off his chest. He usually couldn't do more than 2-3 reps this way but he thought it was an additional increase in intensity. I forget what he called these ... Mike wrote about them at some point, but he almost never used them. Ray did.

Ray's routine is pretty close to the Heavy Duty 1 routine.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Great stories, Kevin. Thanks for sharing.
Open User Options Menu

Intensely Fit

North Carolina, USA

hdlifter wrote:
The below I believe aptly sums it up!

I have been using a modified form of the consolidation routine for 9 weeks now and here are the results;

Incline crunchs start 60#/25 now 110#/30
Deadlifts start 405#/6reps now 605#/5reps
Hammer military start 270/8 now 470/5
Hammer iso curl start 60#/8 now 100#(whole stack)/12
Hammer dip start 2 plates and 25 each side/6 now 5 plates/side/6 reps

7 days later

Leg press start 1080/11 now 1310/11 reps
Toe press same as above
Rev grip PD start 210/7 now 300(stack) 11
Incline press start 275/6 now 385/6

I know these seem outragous but they are true and the best part is I take no drugs (steroids) and no supplements at all so those of you who wonder" where all the clients are" I am right here, if anyone does not believe these numbers I am inviting you to come to Albuquerque and see for your self!!

I am 5'11, 276lbs, 29 1/2" legs, 20" arms, 55" chest.

I am by no means ripped although my abs are visible, I am not posting this for any other reason than to show there are people out there who are using HD and that it does work. As for my defense of the principles of HD against the nay sayers it is just my opinion that Mike never wanted to "Convince" anyone of anything he wanted to present HD in a logical manner and it was up to the individual to accept it or not, I am not here to "CONVINCE" anyone or to be "CONVINCED" by anyone either, I personally do not believe that I owe anyone an explantion for what I believe, and have never seen a post one on this site where anyone except one has asked to be "CONVINCED" and no matter how many posts are put up to "CONVINCE" or to prove the valid theory of HD, the nay sayer has to "DISAGREE", there comes a time when it goes from a discourse to just pure antagonism, when no matter who says what this person will disagree, so my question is why bother. I once heard a quote that seems to apply here "Don't throw your pearls to swine"!


Looks like you just made the list of "Really" Strong HITters my friend..

Open User Options Menu

Turpin

simon-hecubus wrote:
Great stories, Kevin. Thanks for sharing.


I agree , a fascinating insight.

T.
Open User Options Menu

hdlifter

Thanks, one and all. My purpose for posting all that was to show, when applied properly, HIT does indeed work. You don't need Mentzer or Yates genetics, though it doesn't hurt any. HIT stands as the most efficient way, bar none!
Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

hdlifter wrote:
HIT stands as the most efficient way, bar none!


YES X2

The problem with HIT for most people IS its simplicity (among others).

Human nature desires something to be more complicated, more sophisticated.

There isn't much to discuss with HIT cause its so simple and people like to have endless discussions.

many love to train and go to the gym (gym rat mentality), they paid for the membership and they want to use it more often. With HIT little time is spent in the gym.

And then there are many who simply do not have the personality to step into the gym infrequently and go all out "balls to the wall".

Too hard on their CNS...hahahahahah

YES HIT absolutely works.

And for someone like me with POOR bodybuilding genetics its the ONLY method I can progress with.



Open User Options Menu

Dan Davidson

Connecticut, USA

gerry-hitman wrote:
hdlifter wrote:
HIT stands as the most efficient way, bar none!

YES X2

The problem with HIT for most people IS its simplicity (among others).

Human nature desires something to be more complicated, more sophisticated.

There isn't much to discuss with HIT cause its so simple and people like to have endless discussions.

many love to train and go to the gym (gym rat mentality), they paid for the membership and they want to use it more often. With HIT little time is spent in the gym.

And then there are many who simply do not have the personality to step into the gym infrequently and go all out "balls to the wall".

Too hard on their CNS...hahahahahah

YES HIT absolutely works.

And for someone like me with POOR bodybuilding genetics its the ONLY method I can progress with.





gerry, HIT really isn't that simple. I think the real reason there isn't all that much discussion here or anywhere about it is that most just can't figure out how to put it all together i.e, the workouts, which exercises, how often to train, how and when to use all the different techniques at the end of a set, forced reps, negatives, etc. How much recovery, 3 days, 4 days, one week, 10 days? How about not to failure workouts, when to use them? How do you know if you're ready for the next workout? I've been doing it now since 1986 and I am constantly questioning the old and new Nautilus guard. Dr Darden has written 40 or so books about it. Not all that simple.
And not to mention training to failure or balls to the wall as you say is hard. Arthur said if you enjoy it chances are you're doing it wrong. And as Dr. Darden has stated many cannot or will not go to failure.
But for those of us that really can do it, it is the best!!
Open User Options Menu

Nautilus1975

hdlifter wrote:
kurtvf wrote:
I believe the Ray Mentzer 900 lb. squat (now it was a double!) is considered to be bunk like the Franco Columbu 525 lb. bench press.

WRONG! Here was a guy who trained at the same gym...

The 925 squat was at Muscle Mill but I was not present. When I came in on Monday Benny (Podda) came running up to me and told me about it. It was during the Saturday workout.



So are you saying, for the record, that Ray Mentzer squatted 925 pounds raw sometime in the early 80s or late70s?



Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

Dan Davidson wrote:

gerry, HIT really isn't that simple. I think the real reason there isn't all that much discussion here or anywhere about it is that most just can't figure out how to put it all together i.e, the workouts, which exercises, how often to train, how and when to use all the different techniques at the end of a set, forced reps, negatives, etc. How much recovery, 3 days, 4 days, one week, 10 days? How about not to failure workouts, when to use them? How do you know if you're ready for the next workout? I've been doing it now since 1986 and I am constantly questioning the old and new Nautilus guard. Dr Darden has written 40 or so books about it. Not all that simple.
And not to mention training to failure or balls to the wall as you say is hard. Arthur said if you enjoy it chances are you're doing it wrong. And as Dr. Darden has stated many cannot or will not go to failure.
But for those of us that really can do it, it is the best!!


Dan, HIT IS simple YES, easy NO.

People tend to gravitate to what is easier yet more (supposedly), "scientific", "complicated" "important sounding" ETC.

But I know what you mean and your right there should be MORE discussion here at a HIT site regarding the issues you mentioned.

Problem is, even though this is a "HIT site" few here actually train HIT.

Ok I will give my take on some of the issues you mentioned.

RECOVERY: The more volume you do, the longer it takes to recover, simple yet true.

High intensity weight training quickly "digs a hole into recovery". This means the deeper more completely you "break down" the muscle fibers, and dare I say put a strain on your CNS (God forbid:)

The more (volume of exercise) you DO, the more "recovery resources" needed (and TIME it takes), just to get back to where you were; then more is needed to add the growth response (compensation effect).

SO, in HIT our goal is to use the LEAST amount of volume of exercise, instead,using INTENSITY to "trigger" the growth response.

INTENSITY: in HIT is defined as being "HIGH", when the trainee uses weights heavy enough that causes him/her to reach a point of temporary muscular failure within a given rep range, 8-12 seemed to be the most overall effective range to progress in strength and muscle growth.

Sets leading up to the "work set" are not called working sets, they are considered "warm ups", having the purpose of warming up the target muscle for the ONE all out high intensity working set.

Of course these warm ups are exercise and do dig somewhat into recovery, so these need to be kept to the minimum required for their purpose.

Why ONE working set?
Because if your working set was INTENSE and you went to MMF, this is ALL that is needed to stimulate the muscle to grow larger/stronger. To perform the second set would only accomplish to dig a deeper hole extending the recovery time.

"set extenders" are Intensity techniques such as dropping weight and continuing the set longer (more reps) static holds negatives ETC...while these add intensity to the 1 set they need to be used sparingly if at all, as these too serve to dig a deeper hole into recovery.

Well, this is all for now...maybe I will write more later need to go..training legs today:)


Open User Options Menu

hdlifter

Nautilus1975 wrote:
hdlifter wrote:
kurtvf wrote:
So are you saying, for the record, that Ray Mentzer squatted 925 pounds raw sometime in the early 80s or late70s?


Ray ran Muscle Mill early 80's I believe, so that was when it happened.
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

gerry-hitman wrote:
POINT 1... RECOVERY: The more volume you do, the longer it takes to recover, simple yet true.

POINT 2... SO, in HIT our goal is to use the LEAST amount of volume of exercise, instead,using INTENSITY to "trigger" the growth response.

POINT 3... Why ONE working set?
Because if your working set was INTENSE and you went to MMF, this is ALL that is needed to stimulate the muscle to grow larger/stronger. To perform the second set would only accomplish to dig a deeper hole extending the recovery time.

POINT 4... "set extenders" are Intensity techniques such as dropping weight and continuing the set longer (more reps) static holds negatives ETC...while these add intensity to the 1 set they need to be used sparingly if at all, as these too serve to dig a deeper hole into recovery.


POINT 1... Sure, but who says that volume has to increase indefinitely? Performing 3 exercises/sets total for a muscle does not require that much more recovery time than 1 set... not like having to take two weeks vs. 1 week; in fact, once the body gets accustomed to the minor volume increase, there really isn't much difference between the two in regard to training frequency. 35 years of training experience with myself and coaching others spells that out clearly.

POINT 2... It is the 'total demands' of training that causes or results in a proper stimulation. Keep doing that one set to failure, performed in the same way, with the same frequency, etc., and how large do you think you will become? Certainly an increase in load helps, but altering the nature of the stimulus will serve you better than simply training to failure. Making exercise 'hard' is required, but so too is applying the right amount of volume, frequency and even application of training, as per the Principle of Influence-Interaction-Reliance.

POINT 3... There is NO proof that only one set is all that is needed. As per the above point, it's the overall demands and the nature of your training that will dictate as much. There is a reason why people are doing more than one set per body part (and sometimes per exercise) with equal or greater results, and I'm talking about muscle building, not getting proficient at an exercise by being able to lift more at it, e.g., powerlifting. If it works for you, then fine, but it does squat for me, and I do squat!

POINT 4... set extenders are not intensity techniques... they alter the overall demands, but intensity can only be as high as 100%. For example, if you train to failure (100%) and reduce the load, then continue the set, you again can reach 100%... then reduce the load and build back up to 100%. Set variables are not associated with intensity specifically, but the overall demands, which are two different things. Overall demands is affected by intensity, but comprises intensity and other facets, whereas intensity is its own animal.
Open User Options Menu

Ray200

hdlifter wrote:
The below I believe aptly sums it up!

I have been using a modified form of the consolidation routine for 9 weeks now and here are the results;

Incline crunchs start 60#/25 now 110#/30
Deadlifts start 405#/6reps now 605#/5reps
Hammer military start 270/8 now 470/5
Hammer iso curl start 60#/8 now 100#(whole stack)/12
Hammer dip start 2 plates and 25 each side/6 now 5 plates/side/6 reps

7 days later

Leg press start 1080/11 now 1310/11 reps
Toe press same as above
Rev grip PD start 210/7 now 300(stack) 11
Incline press start 275/6 now 385/6

I know these seem outragous but they are true and the best part is I take no drugs (steroids) and no supplements at all so those of you who wonder" where all the clients are" I am right here, if anyone does not believe these numbers I am inviting you to come to Albuquerque and see for your self!!

I am 5'11, 276lbs, 29 1/2" legs, 20" arms, 55" chest.

I am by no means ripped although my abs are visible, I am not posting this for any other reason than to show there are people out there who are using HD and that it does work. As for my defense of the principles of HD against the nay sayers it is just my opinion that Mike never wanted to "Convince" anyone of anything he wanted to present HD in a logical manner and it was up to the individual to accept it or not, I am not here to "CONVINCE" anyone or to be "CONVINCED" by anyone either, I personally do not believe that I owe anyone an explantion for what I believe, and have never seen a post one on this site where anyone except one has asked to be "CONVINCED" and no matter how many posts are put up to "CONVINCE" or to prove the valid theory of HD, the nay sayer has to "DISAGREE", there comes a time when it goes from a discourse to just pure antagonism, when no matter who says what this person will disagree, so my question is why bother. I once heard a quote that seems to apply here "Don't throw your pearls to swine"!


I just have to check that: your deadlift went from 405lbs for 6 reps to 605lbs for 5 reps in only 9 weeks? I assume that the 405lbs was a true PB and the subsequent gains weren't from muscle memory? If so, that seems extraordinary especially when you consider that in those 9 weeks you would have done, at most, 4 deadlifting sessions.
Have I misinterpreted the above? Perhaps you meant to write that you have been on the consolidation routine for 9 weeks but your deadlift gains were for a longer period? If not then that is unheard-of progress for a natural who has passed the beginner phase.

Ray
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Brian Johnston wrote:
gerry-hitman wrote:
POINT 1... RECOVERY: The more volume you do, the longer it takes to recover, simple yet true.

POINT 2... SO, in HIT our goal is to use the LEAST amount of volume of exercise, instead,using INTENSITY to "trigger" the growth response.

POINT 3... Why ONE working set?
Because if your working set was INTENSE and you went to MMF, this is ALL that is needed to stimulate the muscle to grow larger/stronger. To perform the second set would only accomplish to dig a deeper hole extending the recovery time.

POINT 4... "set extenders" are Intensity techniques such as dropping weight and continuing the set longer (more reps) static holds negatives ETC...while these add intensity to the 1 set they need to be used sparingly if at all, as these too serve to dig a deeper hole into recovery.


POINT 1... Sure, but who says that volume has to increase indefinitely? Performing 3 exercises/sets total for a muscle does not require that much more recovery time than 1 set... not like having to take two weeks vs. 1 week; in fact, once the body gets accustomed to the minor volume increase, there really isn't much difference between the two in regard to training frequency. 35 years of training experience with myself and coaching others spells that out clearly.

POINT 2... It is the 'total demands' of training that causes or results in a proper stimulation. Keep doing that one set to failure, performed in the same way, with the same frequency, etc., and how large do you think you will become? Certainly an increase in load helps, but altering the nature of the stimulus will serve you better than simply training to failure. Making exercise 'hard' is required, but so too is applying the right amount of volume, frequency and even application of training, as per the Principle of Influence-Interaction-Reliance.

POINT 3... There is NO proof that only one set is all that is needed. As per the above point, it's the overall demands and the nature of your training that will dictate as much. There is a reason why people are doing more than one set per body part (and sometimes per exercise) with equal or greater results, and I'm talking about muscle building, not getting proficient at an exercise by being able to lift more at it, e.g., powerlifting. If it works for you, then fine, but it does squat for me, and I do squat!

POINT 4... set extenders are not intensity techniques... they alter the overall demands, but intensity can only be as high as 100%. For example, if you train to failure (100%) and reduce the load, then continue the set, you again can reach 100%... then reduce the load and build back up to 100%. Set variables are not associated with intensity specifically, but the overall demands, which are two different things. Overall demands is affected by intensity, but comprises intensity and other facets, whereas intensity is its own animal.


Great debate guys.

Brian , I think we are of similar thinking.

T.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy