HighIntensity.net View Mike Mentzer Bodybuilding Topic

Login

– or –

Register

All Forums

Total Members: 2037

Forums moderator – Forum Admin

[email protected]

The Message from Forum Admin (moderator)

 Search Topics:  
General Forum:
Topic:
Started By Danobolic (Canada, Ontario, Canada)

Started on: 8/11/2004 11:49:23 AM, viewed 1514 times
Moving away from HD… Again.

Heavy Duty for me personally is something that has failed to produce much in the way of results over the past few years. Even with the mild progression in the Consolidated routine, the progress was short-lived, with no visible mass increase or weight on the scale. Although I do agree with some factors espoused in HD, such as Intensity, too little is attributed to the effects of adaptation and the tons of factors involved in muscular growth. The circular arguments that are constantly rehashed and re-argued are making the validity a little shaky. As Mentzer does make a good case in his writings about the logic of recovery and training frequency, I simply cannot accept that this is the only way that adaptation will occur. Look, from an aging perspective, most of our organs have amazing reserve capacities and our bodies are designed to take many stressors, simultaneously. When going over the breaking point, we then experience signs of illness, depression, etc… I think that the key behind the stagnation in progress for many is the lack of variable changes. As I stated in one of my first posts, variety itself is an important factor in adaptation. Referring to the experiment done by Analyzer about his arm training, hypertrophy occured primarily in the higher volume protocol. Why, I have the following example to explain my view on it:

Many have cited the study about the 3 vs 1 set protocol, showing no superiority in EITHER. I think the take-home message from this could be that we will adapt to the stressor, with either 1 or 3 sets. Sure, doing only 1 set sounds pretty time efficient. But what if I told you that if you were to train biceps and triceps on the same day, and did one set of curls, not to failure, but by using a weight that would of caused failure on the 6th rep done in HD fashion. Then, you would go do a set for triceps. After a few minutes, when going back to the same exercise you did for biceps, you would then be able to crank out the same number of reps, plus or minus 1. This leaves the nervous system less-taxed, and more energy for recovery. I really think that the CNS takes alot of recovery.

This is where I think attention should be given. Not only do you have the same amount of momentary muscular strength, but it appears that you have resinthesized the needed substrates (ATP) that are necessary to do another set. I have experimented with this in my last arm workout, as I kept alternating between bi-tri exercises, to find out just how efficient I was. Turns out that I could do 4-5 sets of the same exercise without a substantial difference in performance. My arms are sore as hell, and it is 2 days later, with a noticeable pump, but that is besides the point. I think that training to find your own optimum volume will produce better results than just sticking to the 6-10, 1 set protocol.

The next logical step, the following workout would be to increase the weight. Seems like I am personally capable of doing 4-5 sets without a noticeable decrease in performance. My point is, why wait until the next session to do something you know you are already capable of doing. Also interesting was the fact that I really felt the stimulation in the muscle, as opposed to the tendons and joints.

Anyway, this is the routine. The same concept will be tried for other body-parts as well, until stagnation eventually sets in.

ARMS:

2 warmup sets, 50% of targetted weight.

Set 1: Hammer Strength One-Arm Preacher Curl: 90lbsx4

Close grip Bench :275 x 4

Set 2: " ":86×5

" ":275×4

Set 3: " ":86×5

" ":275×4

Set 4: " ":86×5, followed by 40lbs x 15 reps

" ":275×4, followed by set of dips to failure

This Topic has 10 Replies: Displaying out of 10 Replies:

gmlongo (Wolcott, CT, U.S.A.) on 8/11/2004 2:13:33 PM

I have had similar problems with very low volume HIT routines. I didn′t, however, jump back into volume training. I simply added a second set. So now, my workout looks like the following:

Monday:

Incline Bench:

1 set of 6-8 reps with 255lbs to failure

1 set of n reps with 225lbs superslow to failure

Dips:

1 set of 6-8 reps with BW + 65lbs to failure

1 set of n reps superslow to failure

Wednesday:

Squats:

1 set of 8 reps with 315lbs to failure

1 set of n reps with 225lbs superslow to failure

Friday:

Deadlift:

2 sets of 8 reps with 315lbs to failure

Undergrip Pullup:

1 set of 8 reps BW + 25lbs to failure

1 set of n reps superslow to failure

Barbell Curl:

1 set of 6-8 reps 115 superslow to failure

This allows me to work on strength with my first set, and the second set seems to add just enough volume to help with hypertrophy.

-G

Analyzer (CDA, id, U.S.A.) on 8/11/2004 10:33:33 PM

Hey Danobolic-

Good post, I agree. The truth is, more will stimulate more, it has to, optimum would be the most stimulation we can gain more adaptation from. Not everyone′s optimum is a single set.

On those studies about single vs multiple Most people only read the short version, then pop down to the authors conclusions.

If you really read the studies it′s kind of amazing, for example..

One study that is on the ACM′s reveiw of one set studies, says that one group gained 13% size from mutliple sets, the other group did single sets and gained something like 6.3%, then they say .. No significant difference. WHAT? Double the size increase in a few weeks isn′t significant!!! ???

Az

MikeMentzerWasGod! (-, -, Europe) on 8/12/2004 5:17:33 AM

NO! NO! Danobolic you are making very ILLOGICAL move now! Instead of increasing volume you should decrease your volume! Of course physiology and exercise science state otherwise (and there are dozens of studies how higher volume with usually lower intensity leads to superior mass gains for advanced trainees), but we know how irrelevant and twisted they are (only Arthur Jones′ bygone friend Dr. Pollock at University of Florida did valid research concerning training volume). We here know that Rayndish logic is much more logical branch of science for muscle building and it says you must be near your genetic limits and your volume may have overtrained you! I say ′may have′, because it is also possible that your size gains are coming soon afterwards – like Mike explained there may be no gains for a long, long time and then BANG! They just somehow suddenly and massively rush in!

Rest now for two weeks. Then try this:

Workout 1: Deadlift 1×8-10

Rest 7 days

Workout 2: Dip 1×8-10

Rest 7 days

Analyzer (CDA, id, U.S.A.) on 8/12/2004 10:59:12 AM

One thing also, doing a few sets, even 5 sets isn′t really VOLUME training, it′s still very abbreviated stuff. I can see how a normal non-drug assisted person would overtrain on 20 sets per body part, but 5 or so sets of the big compounds, a bit short of failure, has been a very successful recipe for MANY people.

Az

Page: | | – Next

To Post Your Reply:
Please Login :
E-Mail:
Password:
Remember me next time
or, Register Now
and enjoy FREE Membership

with Highintensity Fan Club!


 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.