HIT

[Mystere3]

Has anyone tried the yates technique of one working set per exercise? My instinct is that this would be more likely to cause injury, but is intriguing nonetheless.

For example I would change my workout like this:

Today's workout:

Old Db shoulder press warmups 12 x 60, 12 x 80, work sets: 12 x 100, 10 x 110, 8 x 120

Hit: warmup 12 x 60, 12 x 80, 10 x 100, 11 x 150* (2 rest pause reps, one spotted rep)

Old Raises superset 12 x 50, 10 x 60 8 x 70

Hit: 10 x 85 (2 rest pause, 2 spotted reps)

Military press 12 x 225, 10 x 245, 8 x 275

Hit: 9 x 315 (2 rest pause, 2 spotted)

 

[hardwork25]

Has anyone tried the yates technique of one working set per exercise? My instinct is that this would be more likely to cause injury, but is intriguing nonetheless. For example I would change my workout like this: Today's workout: Old Db shoulder press warmups 12 x 60, 12 x 80, work sets: 12 x 100, 10 x 110, 8 x 120 Hit: warmup 12 x 60, 12 x 80, 10 x 100, 11 x 150* (2 rest pause reps, one spotted rep) Old Raises superset 12 x 50, 10 x 60 8 x 70 Hit: 10 x 85 (2 rest pause, 2 spotted reps) Military press 12 x 225, 10 x 245, 8 x 275 Hit: 9 x 315 (2 rest pause, 2 spotted)

Yes but must be done with a partner. Used it for 6 weeks and loved it. Again though must have a partner with you.

 

[puccah8808]

What is HIT?

 

[JD261985]

I have. Definitely much easier on the joints and tendons compared to high volume. HIT is high intensity training

 

[PaulBlack]

See Dr Ken, or Mike Mentzer or Maximum Bob Whelan, or Fred Hahn et al. There IMO, are a few differing versions of HIT.
Doing a Dr Ken full body HIT workout with one set of say 20 rep squats and then some pressing and a pull is pretty different than Mentzer's BB set ups using forced reps and negatives until you can no longer move a weight or are at about 90%-100% true failure after 1-2 sets.
Fred Hahn, who uses the trademark SuperSlow/HIT, moves a weight quite slowly thru an ROM without any momentum whatsoever and takes perhaps 20+ seconds or more to complete only one rep. Say a 10 second up 10 second down chinup. So at this point the loads one uses IMO are not optimum for gains. There is to me, something gained from force. (See Dave Maurice & Rich Rydin vs. Fred Hahn SS discussions in Hardgainer Magazine)
Remember too, some of these guys (Mentzer and Yates et al) were assisted PEDS lifters, so some bets might be off on gains.

I have tried those styles (especially Ken's 20 rep squat stuff but his stuff is a bit different to me than the others) When I tried Hahn's SS, it was way too boring and I got no satisfaction from it or the feeling of training hard. I have done a few Mentzer/Viator style W/O's, especially the one that combines curls to failure followed (by running over to the chin bar) and doing a number of negative slow chins until my arms froze up or numbed or tri extensions and then neg dips. Meh, not much in size or strength aside from my old positive failure multi sets stuff.

As far as joints or injuries being less!?, I am of the opinion that it can depend widely on the work being done, the exercises and the execution or form of that said work. Doing forced negatives, can be pretty dangerous IMO and you have to be in great control of a load you cannot do a concentric move on. As was mentioned it usually needs a good adept partner.

From my experiences (*YMMV) multi sets and reps and cycling or ramping intensity, works best for the vast majority of trainees (probably why they are the most popular among gurus) as HIT can beat up the CNS somewhat and find some liters falling short or gains in both strength and mass.
Louie once commented on HIT and Dr Ken's style, and I have to agree too that singles in the 90%-95% range get very intense, even though it is not considered the gym meaning of regular HIT style training.
I think stuff like this can spark gains because your intensity or stimulus changes.
As Dan John says.. Everything works for about 6 weeks, then nothing seems to work...

Sorry for long winding, but I think this stuff is the oldest and some of the best discussion material for reg gym lifting.

 

[Mystere3]

Well I specifically would be looking at the yates one set technique as I described above. I'm very skeptical that it would yield equal gains to a volume workout. Both workouts would be done with AAS.

 

[cumminslifter]

What is HIT?

High Intensity Training

 

[hardwork25]

Well I specifically would be looking at the yates one set technique as I described above. I'm very skeptical that it would yield equal gains to a volume workout. Both workouts would be done with AAS.

Doesn't he include two working sets on some exercises? I did this and saw solid results. The working set was always very very heavy and assisted. Everything was pushed way passed failure on the working sets.

Also what's the hurt if you run it for 6 weeks?

 

[Mystere3]

In his latest iteration it's 1 set.

 

[HIT4ME]

HIT - Mentzer or Yates Style - is great. It is my favorite way to train (thus my username), but it is not for everyone.

The idea is harder, but briefer. Bring your sets to muscular failure (and sometimes beyond), and do the minimal amount to stimulate growth, and then get home to rest and then recover. As stated above, heavy weights with low reps, brought to failure, can be very taxing on the CNS. I believe that you need to, most of the time, keep your reps in the 6-12 rep range when going to failure in order to minimize the impact on CNS when doing this.

There are some issues that most trainees will over-look in HIT and most other styles of training. Most trainees consider only the positive portion of a motion - i.e. - the press up on a bench press. HIT is looking for failure, in some instances, in all 3 phases of the motion - Positive, Static, and Negative. This can be BRUTAL.

You also need to lift under complete control - Mentzer prescribed 4 seconds up, 2 second hold, 4 seconds down. I think this greatly enhances the effectiveness of the training and is often over-looked. You may have to drop some weight to do this, but we are looking for muscle growth, not ego growth.

As far as injuries - Mentzer always pointed out that you are less likely to injure yourself on the last rep of an exercise brought to failure than the first. During the first rep, you can generate much more force than is required, on the last, you are weaker and the forces that can be involved are somewhat less. Still, I often find that injury is not always a function of force - jerking and twisting are major contributors. So good form and the 4/2/4 cadence seem to eliminate injuries for this. I've got more injuries working on cars and bending over than I have from lifting weights in the past 18 months (I started that long ago after 1 0 year break). I lifted this way in HS and got more injuries playing basketball than lifting weights - and I was much more indestructible (in my head) back then.

As far as 1 set or 2 sets - I think it is OK to experiment. Mentzer takes a lot of heat for his 1 set to failure protocol, but I don't disagree with his philosophies around it. If you stimulate growth, why do more? You are only hurting your recovery and thus growth potential after you've done the job. It isn't like doing 2 sets will get you twice the results, but it will cost twice the energy. I like to do 2-3 exercises per body part, 1 set to failure each exercise. I have done 2 sets or 1 set on some and 2 on others, and sometimes it works, but you burn out quickly. You can actually burn out quickly doing 1 set too if you aren't careful.

I think the biggest thing to keep in mind is what Mentzer used to say - you can work hard or you can work long. You can't do both. HIT is increased intensity (and thus CNS strain), while volume requires decreased intensity and more metabolic strain (obviously an oversimplification). Nobody is doing 6 sets to absolute failure and growing, unless they are enhanced.

I think there is a mental reason some people gravitate toward HIT or Volume also - some people would rather go lighter and do more volume and some people really enjoy just pushing to the end and being done sooner. I hate running with a passion, but don't mind HIIT Sprints - while someone else may like to do marathons but wouldn't be thrilled with sprinting. Both may have their uses, but I think HIT is growing in acceptance and has its place for sure.

 

[Mystere3]

I don't understand the rationale for the 4 sec concentric portion; it seems counterintuitive.

 

[JD261985]

Gordon lavelle has a great style too. 3 seconds down 1 second hold and explode up . Alternate between heavy (5-8 reps) and light weeks (8-15 reps). Except his weeks are shorter (4 days on 1 day off). I think utilizing intensity technique weeks randomly can also be a great way to burst through plateaus plus they're fun. The 3-1-1 rep tempo is brutal if you are doing drop sets

 

[Mystere3]

I might consider moderate weight with 4210 rhythm; I don't see a reason to take a long time on the concentric though.

The biggest problem with hit for me is too high of weight; I'd need at least one spotter if not 2 for all the lifts and it's not necc practical.

 

[asooneyeonig]

has anyone tried super high intensity training?

 

[HIT4ME]

The slow concentric is mostly to eliminate momentum and make sure the workload is on the muscle, not momentum. I know a lot of guys have rationals for "exploding" the weight up, but I'm not sure there is really any scientific evidence behind this and most people tend to build momentum and let their egos get ahead of them when doing this. I'm not real strict when I do it - I may be closer to 3/2/3 or something of that nature, but the point is always to maintain control, avoid momentum, and put the stress on the muscle.

Mentzer always pointed out that you should be able to stop at any point and hold the weight at any position in the exercise, because your static hold strength is greater than your concentric strength. If you cannot do this, you are using momentum. Using the slow cadence ensures you are not cheating.

I'm not against the faster cadence, it may not make all the difference, but I've learned it gives me better results. When I started, I was against it because my ego took a big hit. Instead of deadlifting 300-350 I was down to 250. Now I'm back to 400 in this fashion and don't see any reason to attempt faster motions with 400+ pounds. Actually, lifting a sufficiently heavy weight typically slows the concentric anyway...

 

[cumminslifter]

The slow concentric is mostly to eliminate momentum and make sure the workload is on the muscle, not momentum. I know a lot of guys have rationals for "exploding" the weight up, but I'm not sure there is really any scientific evidence behind this and most people tend to build momentum and let their egos get ahead of them when doing this. I'm not real strict when I do it - I may be closer to 3/2/3 or something of that nature, but the point is always to maintain control, avoid momentum, and put the stress on the muscle.

Mentzer always pointed out that you should be able to stop at any point and hold the weight at any position in the exercise, because your static hold strength is greater than your concentric strength. If you cannot do this, you are using momentum. Using the slow cadence ensures you are not cheating.

I'm not against the faster cadence, it may not make all the difference, but I've learned it gives me better results. When I started, I was against it because my ego took a big hit. Instead of deadlifting 300-350 I was down to 250. Now I'm back to 400 in this fashion and don't see any reason to attempt faster motions with 400+ pounds. Actually, lifting a sufficiently heavy weight typically slows the concentric anyway...

faster concentrics have been found to be more beneficial than slow concentrics

 

[Mystere3]

How are you using momentum when you're lifting from a pause? That makes no sense.

 

[PaulBlack]

2 cents...
(Force) This was one of the arguments (or discussions) that Maurice and Rydin had with Fred Hahn and Superslow, as in SS you use a very slow cadence and no momentum whatsoever. So yes the loads used would have to be less.
Personally, I do feel there is a place for (lack of a better word) "cheating" and thus being able to overload the muscle (or get past the worst leverages) with more weight and some speed force than one is able to use with ultra strict form & slow cadence and hitting those areas with the least power.
If anything I might site oly lifters, as they use speed (plyometrics and or speed work in ways) that equate to great forces that the muscles (tendons and ligaments also) adapt to and thus get stronger.
I will also state here, that I am more about the strength than the mass, but I do feel strongly that the 2 have a relationship.

The Russians (from what I remember) believe you can so called pinken the receptors to take or develop more speed coordination so perhaps was born speed work!? Plus, one can apparently use force/speed work and in turn bump capacity and work the muscles and receptors but with less weight cutting into recovery)
Force or the generation thereof, IMO, does play a role in muscle/ power and strength gains.

Dr Ken's take was not in agreement with the Russian "speed work" as far as I remember per se, as he felt that becoming more explosive was probably something that was genetic and already set, but when addressing a slow deliberate cadence, he said he usually moved the weight as fast as he could with force. Now, granted it sounds like you would be slinging and cheating the bar around, but that is not true when you are using loads in areas of 75%-85% of say maxes, as the weight is heavy as in a deadlift, but you are still pulling with pretty much as much force as one can muster, especially near the end of a set. WHen I pull a limit DL, I am pulling as hard and as fast as I can.
The question is, that if you get stronger, do you get faster, say if sprinting!?

I always thought Mentzer (in his prime) was more about very intense perhaps single sets with negatives and forced reps. I was not really aware of him using very slow cadences, (at least when he competed)!?

Now, this may all be useless to some of you guys that are interested in BBing as I have no true proof or idea if a slow cadence produces good mass. I just don't know many BB'ers or top lifters who use it to the extent of such slow cadences. I have no doubt Yates was a monster, but I think his cadences were more in line with old Mentzer HIT stuff.
Someone can correct me if I am wrong!?

has anyone tried super high intensity training?

It shtinks...!

 

[HIT4ME]

Mentzer's training when he competed and his philosophies in HD1 and HD2 were all evolving. In HD2 he used slower, control cadences. I haven't read HD1. I wouldn't call it Super Slow, since some people who claim to be super slow can take twice that time to move the weight through a rep.

Mystere3 - Your question ignores the fact that every exercise, at some point starts with a pause (I hope that wasn't offensively worded). You build momentum by moving quickly, which allows you to gain speed through the strongest portion of the movement, and carry that through the weaker portions. It also creates a greater amount of force when the muscle is at its weakest position - fully extended - as you come from a pause to full acceleration. This coupled with the fact that trying to move a weight quickly increases the likelihood that you will jerk or twist to get it moving, is negative.

Cumminslifter - do you have any studies to back up that claim? I am not saying there is no purpose for faster motions - and HIT may work fine with them. I think the slower movements have some real benefit and many people overlook them. Just like most people focus on the concentric part of the movement and ignore the negative, or fail on the concentric and consider that failure when failing on the eccentric portion is much more intensive. Accelerating the rate quickly may require a slight increase in instantaneous muscle contraction, but it also decreases TUT - so where is the trade-off?

PaulBlack - Yes, most of the biggest athletes use horrible form and accelerate their weights quickly. Most of the biggest athletes also use volume work over HIT. Not saying it is right or wrong, but lots of people have gotten very big doing things that very well may be wrong. Arnold is on the front page of AM right now claiming pull-overs actually expanded his rib cage. Lots of evidence suggests he is wrong. He still got big....

 

[Mystere3]

This article examines the primary literature for both slow eccentrics and concentrics; it found slow eccentrics don't have much benefit; the data on slow concentrics seems equivocal.

http://www.danogborn.com/training/slow-eccentrics-for-growth/#.U2BHte29LCQ

 

[Mystere3]

Also Coyle et al. 1981 found that fast concentric movements increase type 2 muscle fiber recruitment by 11% over slow concentric.

 

[Rodja]

I'd have to dig it up, but there was a recent article demonstrating that bar speed (aka fast concentric) has a positive effect on hypertrophy.

 

[Mystere3]

I tried a hit workout of sorts today; 2 sets of rest/pause with pretty big weight. It went ok, I needed to up the rest pause time up to 30 sec because of the difficulty of getting the weight in position.

Incline bench 140 x 12, 140 x 12 + 3
Flat bench 140 x 12 + 5, 140 x 17 + 3 (PR)

Hammer strength incline bench 7 x 12 x 200

 

[cumminslifter]

I'd have to dig it up, but there was a recent article demonstrating that bar speed (aka fast concentric) has a positive effect on hypertrophy.

yup^

 

[HIT4ME]

Interesting stuff - I may try to increase tempo in my workouts and see if it makes a difference. I already know that slowing down the tempo made a huge difference, because my strength went up dramatically in the first 6 months doing it. It may be good to modulate this factor. Also, please keep in mind - I am not advocating SUPER slow training. Most cadences are really like 2/0/2 or something along those lines - so this is only slightly slower. I may try a 2/2/4 cadence or something along those lines. I think this may allow me to lift a heavier weight in the concentric portion, which will thus make eccentric failure somewhat easier....

 

[WontOutWorkMe]

Is HIT training optimal for size, strength, or both? Also is it better than high volume pyramid splits for size?

 

[Rodja]

Is HIT training optimal for size, strength, or both? Also is it better than high volume pyramid splits for size?

Definitely not for maximal strength since it is suboptimal for the stretch-reflex.

 

[PaulBlack]

HIT will always have it's detractors and supporters. Mentzer's old stuff or Yates, or Dr Ken/Max Bob Whelan stuff I can see (even if for a cycle or period), but SS (SuperSlow) I lose total faith on it being a good way to train for mass or strength power.

Also is it better than high volume pyramid splits for size?

As far as pyramids, the old school pyramids have somewhat fallen by the wayside, for some differing or newer style approach loading programming, but I have talked to a guy in Iceland who trains in the same gym as WSM's retired Ver Magnusson and he still uses old pyramids and still pulls over #650 or something.
Most anything can work, if you stick with the basics of loads, progression (adding weight to bar) recovery, and the big exercises.
Too much emphasis can be put on less important stuff other than, hard work and progression on a handful of big exercises.

 

[karenduff]

I have never tried HIT !!

 

[cumminslifter]

Is HIT training optimal for size, strength, or both? Also is it better than high volume pyramid splits for size?

more strength than size but suboptimal for both

 

[amarula]

HIT will always have it's detractors and supporters. Mentzer's old stuff or Yates, or Dr Ken/Max Bob Whelan stuff I can see (even if for a cycle or period), but SS (SuperSlow) I lose total faith on it being a good way to train for mass or strength power.




As far as pyramids, the old school pyramids have somewhat fallen by the wayside, for some differing or newer style approach loading programming, but I have talked to a guy in Iceland who trains in the same gym as WSM's retired Ver Magnusson and he still uses old pyramids and still pulls over #650 or something.
Most anything can work, if you stick with the basics of loads, progression (adding weight to bar) recovery, and the big exercises.
Too much emphasis can be put on less important stuff other than, hard work and progression on a handful of big exercises.

Agree, that is why we can find a huge array of protocols/stlyes/methods with supporters and detractors. Individual preferences, condition, genetics can play a role here also. But the true basics for mass/strenght is hard work, consistency, progression and the big exercises

 

[amarula]

I tried a hit workout of sorts today; 2 sets of rest/pause with pretty big weight. It went ok, I needed to up the rest pause time up to 30 sec because of the difficulty of getting the weight in position.

Incline bench 140 x 12, 140 x 12 + 3
Flat bench 140 x 12 + 5, 140 x 17 + 3 (PR)

Hammer strength incline bench 7 x 12 x 200

Used Mentzer protocol for bíceps twice. After 8 weeks of 5x5 type of training used 3 weeks of Mentzer's HIT just for bíceps and had the best results ever for this muscle (that is also the one that I have more difficulty to make him grow)

 

[FunkyChicken]

Interesting stuff - I may try to increase tempo in my workouts and see if it makes a difference. I already know that slowing down the tempo made a huge difference, because my strength went up dramatically in the first 6 months doing it. It may be good to modulate this factor. Also, please keep in mind - I am not advocating SUPER slow training. Most cadences are really like 2/0/2 or something along those lines - so this is only slightly slower. I may try a 2/2/4 cadence or something along those lines. I think this may allow me to lift a heavier weight in the concentric portion, which will thus make eccentric failure somewhat easier....

when your talking about your cadence what does 2/0/2 and 2/2/4 mean exactly?

 

[PaulBlack]

when your talking about your cadence what does 2/0/2 and 2/2/4 mean exactly?

Average rep cadences are usually counted as (1-2) 1 second up on concentric and say 2 down on eccentric.
2-2-4/ 2 secs up 2 sec pause 4 secs down.
In Superslow or Slow Burn even, the cadences are so slow as to use low force, ie: 10 second concentric, then say 10 seconds eccentrics. or even 60+ seconds to complete one rep. Very slow cadences.
See also El Darden HIT or Dick Conner (who over the years converted more to training his clients Superslow)

 

[FunkyChicken]

See also El Darden HIT or Dick Conner (who over the years converted more to training his clients Superslow)

Thanks a lot man. Should I just search that in the forum?

 

[PaulBlack]

Thanks a lot man. Should I just search that in the forum?

Umm not sure about them being on this forum per se.
You can google them certainly. I think Darden has his own HIT forum.
As far as their style of training, I do not do it, since I don't like training with that slow of a cadence really. And I am not sold on it being the most effective way to train a muscle or especially a compound lift like deads or squats to get the most strength from it.
Nothing at all wrong with learning or trying as many ways to train as poss. and finding one's own way. I know some people believe it is a safer way to train. YMMV!?!?

 

[HIT4ME]

As Paul Black said, I don't know that the speed of your workout should be the over-reaching factor in your training. Going super slow puts the emphasis on the speed, since you will have to reduce the weight so much to accomplish the speeds in any given rep range.

Mentzer is the one who got me using the 4/2/4 cadence (4 seconds up, 2 second pose at the fully contracted position, and 4 seconds down). Even he said that this speed did NOT translate well to certain exercises, and I give some leeway myself on squats, deadlifts, and dumbbell laterals.

I think the real point that needs to be focused on is that most people ONLY focus on the concentric phase of the movement they are doing. There are really 3 phases to failure - the concentric phase, a static phase (how much you can hold still) and an eccentric phase (how much you can lower). You gain a lot of strength, it is hypothesized, from the lowering of the weight. In order to ENSURE you have achieved failure, all 3 levels must be exhausted.

In order to do this, you must complete enough reps to reach eccentric failure, then have a partner help do some 'forced reps' to get you in position to do more static and negative work. Mentzer even used "holds" in which he would lower the weight a little, stop it, and try to push it back up (which he could not do), lower some more, stop it, try again, lower some more, stop it, try again, until he couldn't even lower the weight any longer.

This type of work can be extremely demanding, which is why 1 set per exercise and 2-3 sets total for most body parts is really all you can take, and then you need a good amount of time to recover. It also requires someone else who understands the goals you are going for and can push you past your perceived limits without putting you at risk of injury.

I think the majority of people like using explosive movements on the positive - it helps with the ego and they perceive that it is more effective. I think the studies supplied above, which I have not fully gone through yet, show that there may be a SLIGHT advantage or no advantage to explosive movements. In other words, at the end of the day, the concentric speed may not be the controlling factor - which actually further supports Mentzer's theories that it is the negative and static capabilities that play a greater role in strength gains.

I think Paul mentioned earlier that progression is really a big key to the entire thing, and many methods will work to varying degrees if that principle is followed. Jay Cutler uses lighter weights but incredible volume and goes through his workouts quickly. Yates used less volume, heavy weights and increased intensity. The key is the trade-off. You can't go heavy, high intensity and high volume all at once.

 

[PaulBlack]

I think the real point that needs to be focused on is that most people ONLY focus on the concentric phase of the movement they are doing. There are really 3 phases to failure - the concentric phase, a static phase (how much you can hold still) and an eccentric phase (how much you can lower). You gain a lot of strength, it is hypothesized, from the lowering of the weight. In order to ENSURE you have achieved failure, all 3 levels must be exhausted.

And to be totally fair to some of the (at least BB crowd) eccentrics may very well play a role, at least in mass, since if you look at many oly lifters, they are very strong, but can lack some actual mass, since 90% of their movements are concentric only and they are not interested in letting the weight down slowly. At least on their money lifts, when the rep/lift is completed, the bar is dropped and not lowered. Compare Pudz to Bergmanis. 2 differing backgrounds in ways.
Sure they do rep squats which relate to leg size, but their shoulders, for what they can get overhead is relatively smaller than say the delts of a Mentzer or a Larry Scott.

In order to do this, you must complete enough reps to reach eccentric failure, then have a partner help do some 'forced reps' to get you in position to do more static and negative work. Mentzer even used "holds" in which he would lower the weight a little, stop it, and try to push it back up (which he could not do), lower some more, stop it, try again, lower some more, stop it, try again, until he couldn't even lower the weight any longer.

When I did more BB type workouts, I used to do this type of stuff on occasion. It can be brutal and perhaps this is another reason why some respond and some almost shut down to it. I can remember Dennis Tinnerino making a comment about that type of intensity melted size off of him. So again, YMMV.

 

[Mystere3]

Check out the article I posted which showed fast eccentrics are better than slow for hypertrophy.

 

[Rodja]

Check out the article I posted which showed fast eccentrics are better than slow for hypertrophy.

Flip that: slow eccentric and fast concentric.

 

[cumminslifter]

Check out the article I posted which showed fast concentrics are better than slow for hypertrophy.

fixed

 

[PaulBlack]

There’s always a limitation regardless of the study, or something that stands in the way of the overall applicability of how a research study applies to those of us who actually train. Oversimplified, machine-based programs is often one, sedentary, untrained participants is definitely another, but in this case, it would have been nice to have an additional training group that trained at a tempo more representative to how many of us actually train. This would give a clear picture of the effect of prolonging the eccentric or concentric phase relative to a standard tempo, and more specifically address the questions I’ve raised in this article. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen anyone in a gym perform something resembling a 2/1/6 or 6/1/2 tempo, and while I know many of you out there do experiment with tempos, I’d argue that in most cases a 1/0/1 tempo would be a generous description.

I think this is also a take away point, as personally, I do not pay great attention to the so called training sciences (even though in some cases the human body and how it responds really interests me) I think some of it gets overthunk and thus takes focus off of the real reason why people gain and that is old fashioned hard work on the biggest stuff.
Also, nearly all of the science comes mostly from untrained individuals and we all know an untrained person responds to almost anything.

I use pretty much the standard but never count or measure. I am to busy screaming or crying because I have a few sets left to do. I just seemed to do my absolute best, with the big compound exercises, hard work and a good bit of food...!!!!!!

 

[HIT4ME]

There’s always a limitation regardless of the study, or something that stands in the way of the overall applicability of how a research study applies to those of us who actually train. Oversimplified, machine-based programs is often one, sedentary, untrained participants is definitely another, but in this case, it would have been nice to have an additional training group that trained at a tempo more representative to how many of us actually train. This would give a clear picture of the effect of prolonging the eccentric or concentric phase relative to a standard tempo, and more specifically address the questions I’ve raised in this article. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen anyone in a gym perform something resembling a 2/1/6 or 6/1/2 tempo, and while I know many of you out there do experiment with tempos, I’d argue that in most cases a 1/0/1 tempo would be a generous description.

Well said. What attracted me to Mentzer is simply this - Mentzer had the philosophy that if something works, it should produce results on a regular, measurable basis. If you have a theory that works, then it should give you results when you are applying it. If it does not give the expected result, then either your theory is wrong or you are applying it incorrectly. This dovetails with the theory of progression. Most people I saw when I went to the gym and didn't work out at home would do the same thing week in and week out and tell me how what I was doing was wrong and their way was better. They were doing lots of volume and lifting the same weight they did 6 months earlier. I was putting every 45 plate the place had on the leg press machine and repping it out. I didn't just get there. It was hard work and progression and the expectation that if something works, I will see the results. If I don't get WEEKLY results, I need to change something. Those results may only be 1 extra rep or 5 extra pounds after a few weeks of 1 rep increases, but they were measurable.

 

[Mystere3]

fixed

no it was eccentrics.

Two isokinetic training studies have demonstrated the relative superiority of fast eccentric actions for strength and muscle mass development. Farthing and Chilibeck (4) investigated the effects of contraction mode (concentric vs eccentric) and velocity (30 degrees per second, slow; 180 degrees per second, fast) on muscle growth and strength. The groups performed 8 weeks of eccentric training randomized to fast or slow training, then a five week washout, followed by another 8 week period of concentric training randomized to fast or slow training (fast groups performed fast eccentric, followed by fast concentric and vice versa for slow). The unlucky subjects were randomized to a control condition, who remained sedentary over the training period to account for the potential effects of time throughout the experiment.

Following both training periods the authors found that, as far as strength was concerned, fast eccentric actions were superior. This pattern was more or less replicated for muscle thickness (hypertrophy), as fast eccentrics outgrew both concentric velocities, but was not statistically different from slow eccentrics (13% vs 7.8%). We could argue it was a limitation of their experimental design, or that they simply lacked power, however in either case this would suggest that purposely reducing eccentric velocity provides no additional hypertrophic benefit, as is often recommended.

Data from Shepstone et al (29) clarifies the ambiguity of eccentric tempo, at least when trained with isokinetics. The participants were randomized to either fast (3.66 radians per second) or slow (0.35 rads/second) eccentric actions, performed in a progressive program over eight weeks. At the end of training, fast eccentrics were superior to slow, increasing strength across the range of concentric and eccentric velocities more so than in slow training. Whole muscle growth was increased in both conditions, however there was a trend (nsd, p=0.06 on the ANOVA) for increased growth in the fast eccentric group. Fibre-type specific growth found a similar effect on type I fibres between conditions, however growth of type IIa and IIx fibres was greater with fast eccentric actions.

Cumulatively, these two studies favour fast eccentric actions for the development of both muscle strength and hypertrophy over both concentric contractions alone and slow-eccentric actions. While such a response may be due to the fact that fast eccentric actions promote greater torque production and muscle damage than slow (29) (data from (23) disputes part of this) that may promote elevated hypertrophy (27), more experiments are required to clarify such relationships. We also cannot rule out that these results are dependent on use of isokinetic training, and as such may not translate to what most of us actually do in the gym.

 

[PaulBlack]

Mentzer had the philosophy that if something works, it should produce results on a regular, measurable basis.

As does almost any program, especially if a trainee is not near their full potential. I had so much room to gain in my squat and DL when I first started using those exercises, that almost anything I did, found me adding weight and or reps weekly and for loooooong periods of time or until I go close to my potential at a given BW .
As far as the average gym public!?, most of my experiences with watching them and discussions on other forums, cannot compare heavy hip, back and leg work as a marker, since so many of those young guys and gals do not necessarily work those areas anywhere near as hard as they work the pressing or more upper body or mirror showing muscles and thus the smaller groups.
I could always find a very strong bencher(s) #300-#400+ in a few gyms, but a lot of times only #300 (or even less,) in their squat or DL which have much greater potential.
I also do not consider the main stream gyms specifically the true workhouse gyms where elite lifters/athletes gravitate, so to use them as markers for the "perfect" protocols are again IMO skewed in some ways. (and yes perhaps this is where we differ, since I am not doing BB'ing per se)
Again mine and your positive comparisons in gains, seem to be more in the hard work, consistency and ethics of heavy training, than specific protocols.


And yes Mystere, I did see the fast eccentric sciences, which is again why I posted his last comment on using training subjects that do not always relate to us who have been training longer, and are more advanced than off the street test subjects, so it too gets skewed IMO.
But I might tend to agree that a very heavy neg, (dangerous however) can inroad those fibers perhaps more, than a controlled less intense perhaps, neg.

 

[Mystere3]

I've been incorporating more single set lifts with rest pause or drop sets (but not cadence changes) lately and have had pretty good results.

We'll see how this goes now that I've come off cycle though.

 

[Mystere3]

I've been doing this a lot lately and gotten great results from it. I think tweaking the workouts to be the right ones is very important. Rest pause is bad with dumbbells or anything where you have to lift it into position. Drop sets are much better for that! I like using easier variations of lifts later on in workouts.