Manwhore
Member
- Awards
- 0
Just want to know what everyone thinks training to failure does for the body that not training to failure doesn't....
Sorry,i didn't understand that last comment.HIT training just burns the nervous system. Also why would you want teach body to fail.
I think he means "why would you want to show your CNS exactly where failure is, thereby putting yourself in a position where a CNS rut is more likely".Sorry,i didn't understand that last comment.
It didn't work at all for meHIT works for everyone but is great for those who take longer to recover
Alot of people may have had that problem,which is why there are now so many types of HIT. Dorian took it to 2 sets per exercise,DC switched it up,and so many others have changed it to their likingIt didn't work at all for me
Which is why taking each set to failure works so well. You know you've done all you can possibly do to stimulate growth. If your making progress with each training session while taking each set to failure,how can your body adapt. It can't adapt to stress it hasn't already felt.we are very adaptable creatures
umm your nervous system CAN adapt to that sort of training to lie to your brain THINKING you've given all you've got when you really havent... PLUS your muscles can also develop much more endurance therefore needing MORE sets to reach that state... load, frequency, intensity, and volume are all seperate variables; tweak one and you have to tweak another, but one by itself does not a exercise plan make...Which is why taking each set to failure works so well. You know you've done all you can possibly do to stimulate growth. If your making progress with each training session while taking each set to failure,how can your body adapt. It can't adapt to stress it hasn't already felt.
more like fanaticalI just don't like how religious HIT guys are, that's all
And, to those who think WSB is too PL aimed (which it is, but will still give size) DoggCrapp is like PL for bodybuilders. I've not used it, yet, but most people are happy with his training when they've done it correctly (under he or one of his approved DC trainers)......
If you want to see a program that is both scientific and based on massive volumes of anecdotal evidence, check out Westside Barbell. Louis simmons and chuck vogelpohl took a friend of chuck's from off the street to a 600 bench in just over three years. I think he's lifting in the 275 class too which means the guy has some size.....
Cardio is not essential. The diet would be the primary cog in reducing bodyfat. You can get big and preserve definition without cardio. The same applies to people looking to get rid of bodyfat. 80% of losing fat is about the diet. Tom Venuto’s amplified this in “Burn the fat, feed the muscle�. Weight training coupled with a sound diet and cardio would obviously work best. For bodybuilders cardio is the least “necessary� element. The bodybuilder can do without cardio, but can’t without diet or weight lifting. PLs are not generally bodybuilders, so they don’t excite us anyway. WSB or otherwise. BTW, any “strength training program� will induce size. Even with that WSB isn’t admired in bodybuilding circles. WSB is exclusively for strength, not for size/hypertrophy.And, to those who think WSB is too PL aimed (which it is, but will still give size) DoggCrapp is like PL for bodybuilders. I've not used it, yet, but most people are happy with his training when they've done it correctly (under he or one of his approved DC trainers).
I just vonder what dante looks like NOW. I've seen pics of him over at avant that are a little old, but I don't know if he'd want them posted
edit: Oh, and that "lack of definition" is a bodyfat issue. Cardio will fix that, not some high volume routine or something fancy. lol.
Just want to know what everyone thinks training to failure does for the body that not training to failure doesn't....
tell that to the Pros Alot of people think it's better to cut calories with cardio than to cut calories through diet and chance slowing the metabolism. Lee Priest cheats during his cutting phase and uses cardio to make up for it.Cardio is not essential. The diet would be the primary cog in reducing bodyfat. You can get big and preserve definition without cardio. The same applies to people looking to get rid of bodyfat. 80% of losing fat is about the diet. Tom Venuto’s amplified this in “Burn the fat, feed the muscle�. Weight training coupled with a sound diet and cardio would obviously work best. For bodybuilders cardio is the least “necessary� element.
What type of results are we talking about and how long have you been on the HIT program?Well in a nutshell simply put, for me = RESULTS.
Stroy
The main failing of a good PL routine for a bodybuilder is that PL routines don't tend to encourage symmetry. You will put on just as much size training with WSB as anything else out there and be MUCH stronger. The reality of bodybuilding is pretty much that how you look = how you eat, as your eating determines how fat and how big you get, as long as you aren't training incorrectly. Research has shown however, that progressive increases in bar tension are required for continual growth (which is why HST has a detraining phase), so your options are either to continually get stronger, or do as HST does and take time off every once in a while, if you want to keep getting bigger.WSB is for power lifters and strongmen. I doubt budding bodybuilders and those concerned primarily with size and definition, and not strength, show sweeping interest in WSB regimes. Most power lifters have a lack of definition, which is why WSB is not extremely popular with bodybuilders.
Both HIT and non-HIT users are equally fanatic about their respective training protocols. Volume training uses too will have you believe that their set of rules is the holy grail. Likewise HST/Max-OT/WSB/20-rep-squat users will all fervidly argue that their regime is most excellent.
I believe mixing the routines together over a period of time produces good results. Sometimes you may train to failure, and other times you need not. The body adapts easily and it takes time to identify what cycles/protocols may be best for your body.
I disagree with the first statment. I don't think most traniees should concern themselves with "sculpting". They need to get bigger period. And second most PL's don't concern themselves with diet. But there are a few that do and they are much more denser then most BBer. And definition is a byproduct of diet and cardio-not your lifting routineWSB is for power lifters and strongmen. I doubt budding bodybuilders and those concerned primarily with size and definition, and not strength, show sweeping interest in WSB regimes. Most power lifters have a lack of definition, which is why WSB is not extremely popular with bodybuilders.
Both HIT and non-HIT users are equally fanatic about their respective training protocols. Volume training uses too will have you believe that their set of rules is the holy grail. Likewise HST/Max-OT/WSB/20-rep-squat users will all fervidly argue that their regime is most excellent.
I believe mixing the routines together over a period of time produces good results. Sometimes you may train to failure, and other times you need not. The body adapts easily and it takes time to identify what cycles/protocols may be best for your body.
BB and PL programs are different for several reasons, not just for hypertrophy and definition.The main failing of a good PL routine for a bodybuilder is that PL routines don't tend to encourage symmetry. You will put on just as much size training with WSB as anything else out there and be MUCH stronger. The reality of bodybuilding is pretty much that how you look = how you eat, as your eating determines how fat and how big you get, as long as you aren't training incorrectly. Research has shown however, that progressive increases in bar tension are required for continual growth (which is why HST has a detraining phase), so your options are either to continually get stronger, or do as HST does and take time off every once in a while, if you want to keep getting bigger.
Where did you hear/read that? Nearly all BB trainees want a sculpted and big physique. It's not popular among BBs to simply grow big without achieving a fairly sculpted look. If that would have been true then most (if not all) would be plump. That is why they all have a bulking and a cutting phase, so as to get the sculpted look. This holds true not just for pros but also for intermediates and many on this very forum.I disagree with the first statment. I don't think most traniees should concern themselves with "sculpting". They need to get bigger period.
PLs are rather particular about their diet. They KNOW what goes into their bodies and what makes them strong. Further, they also manage their diets so as to retain their weight categories. To say they don’t care about their diets is simply false. Also, your lifting routine is paramount in achieving definition. Definition is a result of mostly diet + hypertrophy. Without hypertrophy definition is a lost cause; whether you’re shedding weight or gaining weight. That is why weightlifting is highly recommended even for fat loss. The body’s metabolism skyrockets if muscle mass is added and the "soft" look also disappears. Cardio is good, but not obligatory. Most programs catering to hypertrophy do not recommend cardio (moderate cardio at best). Even Pros take up cardio mainly during competition season.And second most PL's don't concern themselves with diet. But there are a few that do and they are much more denser then most BBer. And definition is a byproduct of diet and cardio-not your lifting routine
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. It seems to me hwta you are saying is that if you have the "right type" of lifting routine you can be cut? If that is what you are saying then I believe you are wrong. There a many guys here that lift: high volume. low volume, and etc, who never see their abs. And to see these abs they need to change up their diet and add cardio. I am not denying that you need a solid lifting routine (and I thought that since we were have this discussion on a lifting board that would be a given), but to become lean you need cardio and a solid diet.Where did you hear/read that? Nearly all BB trainees want a sculpted and big physique. It's not popular among BBs to simply grow big without achieving a fairly sculpted look. If that would have been true then most (if not all) would be plump. That is why they all have a bulking and a cutting phase, so as to get the sculpted look. This holds true not just for pros but also for intermediates and many on this very forum.
Of course it may be your personal opinion to not have a sculpted physique, or size may precede definition forever. But the general consensus among BBs remains that size with definition is what appeals most. Looking at the picture section on any BB forum will tell you this.
PLs are rather particular about their diet. They KNOW what goes into their bodies and what makes them strong. Further, they also manage their diets so as to retain their weight categories. To say they don’t care about their diets is simply false. Also, your lifting routine is paramount in achieving definition. Definition is a result of mostly diet + hypertrophy. Without hypertrophy definition is a lost cause; whether you’re shedding weight or gaining weight. That is why weightlifting is highly recommended even for fat loss. The body’s metabolism skyrockets if muscle mass is added and the "soft" look also disappears. Cardio is good, but not obligatory. Most programs catering to hypertrophy do not recommend cardio (moderate cardio at best). Even Pros take up cardio mainly during competition season.
And take a look at marathon runners. Their physique is certainly not the model description of definition. They rarely weight train and do a lot of cardio. A sprinters or a gymnasts body would be the ideal prototype here. Both (sprinters and gymnasts) engage in weight lifting and cardio. Current 200m Olympic record holder Shawn Crawford bench presses over 350 pounds. He’s got awesome definition with size. Weight lifting hence should pave the way for definition. Tom Venuto's BFFM is a must read to understand weight lifting benefits for fat loss and definition.
By teaching the body to fail you teach it to progress.HIT training just burns the nervous system. Also why would you want teach body to fail.
Ok, you reinforced my statement about powerlifting tending to produce asymmetrical physiques. We agree there (though the upper back and traps are well developed by powerlifting routines, and powerlifters have HUGE powerful abs and obliques - you'd know this if you met any good powerlifters and watched them train).BB and PL programs are different for several reasons, not just for hypertrophy and definition.
The main failing of a good PL routine is that it is solely designed for “Strength Training purposes� and NOT for Hypertrophy. Excellent symmetry can be still developed in a power lifter. Sure PL will make you much stronger, but BBs prefer size over strength. The purpose of a BB program is to first get you big, without getting too strong (as quoted in HST). Both are excellent methods, but with notably different objectives. Equally important is that a PL routine is not concerned with exercises for upper back, calves, biceps, neck, abs, forearms, etc. This makes it incomplete for bodybuilding purposes. Further, mixing PL with BB has not been recommended in any popular BB program (20 rep squats/ MAX-OT/HST/HIT).
As Bryan Haycock puts it; “there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (strength training) if that is your goal. All you have to do is induce more fatigue, and train less frequently�.
You will note here both inducing fatigue and frequency of training are radically different in PL and BB programs.
PL = more fatigue + less frequency = strength training
BB = less fatigue + more frequency = hypertrophy (HST)
Different goals = different programs. This is important because no single program is optimal for all goals. WSB and a routine BB program have clear cut objectives. It’d be disputable to mix the two. Quoting from MFW; “BB and PL routines have different goals for two entirely different populations of exercisers. There is nothing similar in terms of intensity, progression, etc. with the exception of the fact that they both train 3 times a week and both add weight over time (the latter of which most if not all training protocols use).�
The idea for both is long term progress, one that is (obviously) recurrent. And that is why SD (Strategic deconditioning) or periodization comes into place. It has nothing to do with BB or PL. Any physically intensive activity (sports/BB/PL) would require a deconditioning phase.
And as I mentioned earlier any PL program will bring about size. However, much faster muscle gains will come from a BB program. PLs are involved in explosive lifts (explosiveness/acceleration) with insignificant focus on muscular contraction and more on technique of the explosive lift; whereas a BB would focus on muscular contraction and controlling the weight so as to encourage hypertrophy.
This is merely the tip of the iceberg. Much has been written about the considerable differences in PL and BB in both MFW and HST. And the conclusion is that BB programs should not include power lifts on a regular basis. Researching on MFW would corroborate this. Advanced bodybuilders do include them, but it’d be futile for a novice or intermediate BB since he is concerned with size.
One must also remember PLs are normally categorized into weight classes. This is significant because they don’t want to put on too much size so as to retain their desirable weight category. The lower the weight category for a PL, the better his chances at winning. Hence hypertrophy is the last thing on their mind.
Just don't wear a shirt and stay cut You don't think Chip n dale dancers are big enough to enter natural BBing competitions? The ones i know are. We'll they used to be with chip n dales but now it's Hunkmania. I can get you a ticket if you'd like :run:Oh, just to chime in on the size and definition argument...
If you worry too much about maintaining definition all the time as a natural (like most people on internet bodybuilding forums) you will probably get the chip'n'dales look at best, maybe a bit larger if you have decent genes for size, and maybe a bit leaner if you have decent genes for leanness. To really get the bodybuilder look, you have to EAT LIKE CRAZY. Not to say you have to get FAT but realistically if you want to make any long term progress you are going to have to accept being smooth most of the time. Also, most naturals are going to burn a good portion of their gains made while bulking to get lean, and you end up with the 2-5lb yearly gains (in a good year) that a lot of naturals in gyms make. Of course, gear changes this scenario entirely, but you already knew that.
So, to sum it all up, if you want to look like a bodybuilder when you've got clothes on, you are probably going to need to accept being smooth with your clothes off. If you want to be cut, you are probably going to have to accept people not being able to tell you work out when you have your shirt on. People with great genes or who are on gear are the exception of course.
Alot of those guys use gear to achive that body. Theres a thread some where in the the cycle section by a guy who uses gear for modeling ie: Men's Health and etc. Don't get me wrong some are natural, but most I think are not.Just don't wear a shirt and stay cut You don't think Chip n dale dancers are big enough to enter natural BBing competitions? The ones i know are. We'll they used to be with chip n dales but now it's Hunkmania. I can get you a ticket if you'd like :run:
Um, just googling, they look like mens health cover guys - that's the sort of guy that you can't tell works out if they have a shirt that's not super tight on *fate worse than death*Just don't wear a shirt and stay cut You don't think Chip n dale dancers are big enough to enter natural BBing competitions? The ones i know are. We'll they used to be with chip n dales but now it's Hunkmania. I can get you a ticket if you'd like :run:
O ok well these guys do use gearAlot of those guys use gear to achive that body. Theres a thread some where in the the cycle section by a guy who uses gear for modeling ie: Men's Health and etc. Don't get me wrong some are natural, but most I think are not.
These guys can enter and probably win a few BBing competitions but they do use gear.... Then again,so does everyone else. When i think BULK,i think PLing. I would rather have a Frank Zane body over Ronnies any day. Not that Frank is a small guy,but there's a big difference between those two.Um, just googling, they look like mens health cover guys - that's the sort of guy that you can't tell works out if they have a shirt that's not super tight on *fate worse than death*
When I think bodybuilder I think massive and symmetrical, how lean they are is less of a factor in my mind - leanness can be gained quickly in contest prep. As long as you don't have a gut...
That is one of the main problems with todays Pros. it makes them look like cartoon charactersColeman has a big ole gut
I personally think that's a consequence of being on large doses of sauce all the time. It seems likely to me that the comination of insulin and lots of test causes visceral fat accumulation. Lots of pros before Yates hit up the gear hard, Haney was hitting the GH like a madman, but it wasn't until insulin came on the scene that the huge guts started popping up - Right around the time pros started stepping on stage at 260 plus...That is one of the main problems with todays Pros. it makes them look like cartoon characters
I agree they work their traps etc. I was mainly referring to the fact that all PL programs focus on the big three lifts. The purpose is to take the total of the big three as high as possible. I have nothing against WSB. I have read numerous articles on WSB and have a great amount of respect for those who have reached the Elite standard. The thought of touching a total of even 1500 jolts me. All I am saying is that for BB purposes, WSB is not practical. You can become big and strong and sturdy and rugged and elite, but for the “bodybuilders look� a sound BB program is preferred, and for the most part adopted. And it’s not just me; every BB will tell you the same. In fact I don’t know any popular BB (natural or otherwise) who adopts a WSB regime. Likewise no PL would adopt a BB routine. And before I digress, let me also mention WSB participants never focus on hypertrophy. The only purpose is to increase their lift totals. I reiterate; different goals = different programs.Ok, you reinforced my statement about powerlifting tending to produce asymmetrical physiques. ......... If you have any actual studies to back up the stuff I disagree with you on, I'd be happy to take a look at them, I'm always trying to learn.
These guys never see their abs because either they don’t work them or they don’t diet right. You don’t NEED cardio to become lean. Cardio is important; I don’t differ with you there. But more than cardio a lifting routine in necessary. In fact, the order of preference for a BB would be:Maybe I am misunderstanding you. It seems to me hwta you are saying is that if you have the "right type" of lifting routine you can be cut? If that is what you are saying then I believe you are wrong. There a many guys here that lift: high volume. low volume, and etc, who never see their abs. And to see these abs they need to change up their diet and add cardio. I am not denying that you need a solid lifting routine (and I thought that since we were have this discussion on a lifting board that would be a given), but to become lean you need cardio and a solid diet.
As for the sculpted look. How may trainees have you seen cocentrate on pec deck, dumbbell kickbacks and etc, but weigh 165lbs or so. First you should put on size, then you should refine your body. Thats how Arnold did it. He competed in many PL tournys when he was younger.
As for a PLers diet, a prime example is Dave Tate. Dave only until the last 3 years, has become more devote in his diet. I recall him replying to a Q&A about training and someone asked him about diet. He laughed and said that PLer are not BBers. Then he pointed to a World Record holder who he claimed only took in around 150 grams of protein a day. On another board a Senior PLer World Record holder for the most part eats a everyday American diet, just more of it. As I said there are PLers who do a very dialed it diet (Scott Mendleson, for example). But there are many who don't.
I don’t think that is the physique most people in here want. It’s not sculpted to BB standards. I agree with Manwhore here that bulk is not the craze today. Every one wants to be defined, even if that means less size. Monsters of today (BB and PL) do not have an aesthetic appeal. Take a look at the attached images and compare them all. I don’t know about you, but I think most in here would prefer these bodies over a PLs. After all women and people on the street don’t care how much you bench or lift. That’s only a craze amongst us weight lifters.As for PLing not sculpting someone, take a look at the guy spotting...
Most guys on this board would kill someone to loo like him.
All I have to say is look at the cycle forum. Most of the guys that come here want to be bigger, but they wrongly use bbing routines ie "sculpting". And what happens..they get no where. They can't break the 180lb barrier. And you may say all I want is to be cut. Everyone says that, but they always complain about their arms not be big enough or their bench press not being high enough. And those bodies that you point out. Most go on mass gains and use compound exercises and then diet, cardio and sculpting routine to remove all the fat. And do you think these cover models walk around all day looking like that? No they don't because I have meet a few of them. When they are not on a shoot they have a much higher fat percentage and they lift heavy. Again go to the cycle forum and there is a member there who does do modeling for the major mags and he takes gear to achive that look.These guys never see their abs because either they don’t work them or they don’t diet right. You don’t NEED cardio to become lean. Cardio is important; I don’t differ with you there. But more than cardio a lifting routine in necessary. In fact, the order of preference for a BB would be:
1. BB Routine & Diet
2. Cardio
The BB routine and diet are mandatory for size or definition. Many guys get lean and cut without cardio, but how many muscle guys have you seen just on cardio and a good diet? You’ve said a lifting routine is given. Even then the preference would be diet over cardio. Cardio is the last component and is normally reserved to get rid of the very last/stubborn layer of fat. There are several BBs who get lean and cut without cardio. I use HIIT as a form of cardio, but that’s only two sessions a year. However, diet is given importance to all round the year.
Everyone tries and retains as much definition as possible even while bulking; especially around the hip/waist area. Else cutting becomes an ordeal. Arnold put on size first, but looking at his early pictures will tell you he also maintained enviable definition. Since he wanted to compete he needed size over definition initially. Despite that he was lean enough always.
I don’t think that is the physique most people in here want. It’s not sculpted to BB standards. I agree with Manwhore here that bulk is not the craze today. Every one wants to be defined, even if that means less size. Monsters of today (BB and PL) do not have an aesthetic appeal. Take a look at the attached images and compare them all. I don’t know about you, but I think most in here would prefer these bodies over a PLs. After all women and people on the street don’t care how much you bench or lift. That’s only a craze amongst us weight lifters.
Ok, just a few quick points because I don't feel like writing any more books.I agree they work their traps etc. I was mainly referring to the fact that all PL programs focus on the big three lifts. The purpose is to take the total of the big three as high as possible. I have nothing against WSB. I have read numerous articles on WSB and have a great amount of respect for those who have reached the Elite standard. The thought of touching a total of even 1500 jolts me. All I am saying is that for BB purposes, WSB is not practical. You can become big and strong and sturdy and rugged and elite, but for the “bodybuilders look� a sound BB program is preferred, and for the most part adopted. And it’s not just me; every BB will tell you the same. In fact I don’t know any popular BB (natural or otherwise) who adopts a WSB regime. Likewise no PL would adopt a BB routine. And before I digress, let me also mention WSB participants never focus on hypertrophy. The only purpose is to increase their lift totals. I reiterate; different goals = different programs.
Bryan Haycock is an exercise physiologist. His methods are grounded on provable data about muscle physiology. The reason I want to support Haycock is because there is simply far more science on the side of Haycocks approach than any other program. HST is relatively new, but apparently has worked for numerous BBs. I have looked up WSB and Louie Simmons but have found no study (not a single scientific one) which forms the foundation of a WSB regime. WSB is a method founded 50 years ago. WSB works. I don’t dispute that. However, they have figured the training routines/protocols through trial and error, much like most BB programs in place today. From what I read WSB is being changed even today. HST is 5 odd years old and employs many references from various studies pertaining to nutrition, exercise physiology, strength and hypertrophy. While HST could still be disputed, it is perhaps the only sttdy (in this domain) that uses scientific references. You could look up the HST website to understand muscle hypertrophy function. There are ample studies and references thrown in to clarify the underlying concepts. Also, since you mentioned studies/references, I would be interested to read any studies that form the base for WSB.
Review my previous posts. All thru I’ve maintained no one program can perform miracles. Sometimes high volume and at other times low volume is necessary. The body adapts and hence varying the protocols are a must. HST does this very effectively. The 15/10/5 system seems to be a sound one.
WSB is an excellent method, but it simply doesn’t serve BB purposes. It’ll sure bulk you up and even define you, but it still isn’t an effective BB method. I have looked up and did not find a single BB who has stated using WSB techniques has given him the physique he displays today. Further, no novice or intermediate BB should use WSB. If the person wants to be a PL then by all means yes. But he will surely find more effective methods for attaining a BBs physique. The members in this forum I believe are primarily BB buffs. I don’t see many of them recommending a WSB routine. Most of them may not have even bothered to look it up. This is pretty much the case in all BB forums. They have a separate section altogether for PL.
All related articles I’ve read state low rep training bring fatigue and strain the CNS - which should be the purpose of strength training. Hypertrophy or not is always secondary. If hypertrophy is the objective a BB routine which uses higher reps would be necessary. I’d elaborated on that in the previous post. Just for clarification I quote Bobo’s comments on the same.
“Lower reps don't increase myofibrillar hypertrophy that much. Rep range from 6-10 are more for that stimulus. Low reps heavy weight stimulate CNS more than anything (strenght training). High reps stimulate sarcoplasmi hypertrophy (nutrient capacity).�
The thread is here - http://anabolicminds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22668
I believe we both may be stating personal opinions. That is the reason I want to quote Haycock and MFW (Lyle McDonald to address your query), so as to deviate from making an individual opinion. We could have as many opinions as members (some 10,000 at least) and we could debate till the end of time about which program is best (HIT/HST/WSB/DC or whatever). What works for some, may not work for others. But at the very least we have defined objectives, and for those objectives we have defined programs. So if I wish to be a PL I have a defined regimen (such as WSB/Korte) and if I am a BB enthusiast I have HIT/HST etc. This has been well accepted and many PLs and BBs have used respective programs to grow strong or big. Intertwining the two may not provide the best results, else it’d have been popularised a long time ago. If a method works for a particular purpose, word spreads on its own. Hard selling isn’t required. If BBs (natural and otherwise) thought WSB was suitable most BBs would have been using WSB instead of conventional BB routines.