biceps suck!!!

[go2failure]

There was a very lengthy discussion at Fortified Iron that covers HIT and the issues with single factor theory up, down, and sideways. It gets rediculous at times (because gfgomaz is one of the denser individuals on the planet and has never once read anything other than BBing magazines and Heavy Duty and rather than listen to those who are fairly well read and have tried everything - he'd rather hear himself and his very limited knowledge talk) but it's something that is very much worth your while to read simply because there is more at play here than supercompensation and the timing of workouts. There are also a lot of good books referenced and links provided throughout.

It probably best to start on page 4 here. Gfgomaz also doesn't know how to use the damn quotes properly but it's worth pushing through to the end. I think I got involved on page 6 somewhere. But it really is worthwhile reading it until the end because several people go through a lot of pain to try to explain this stuff. Like I said before, believing anything to be the best or possible is fine but it should be in the context of understanding all else that is out there specifically if a method is unequivocably dominant and used worldwide among elite coaches and athletes: http://www.fortifiediron.net/invision/index.php?showtopic=6685&st=75

Here is a condensced explanation of basic dual factor theory in a nutshell: http://forum.mesomorphosis.com/showpost.php?p=48&postcount=3

The main issue with Mentzer is that he didn't know this stuff or anything about it nor does most of BBing which is a sad state of affairs in training and relies almost exclsuviely on drugs. Strict supercompensationg is very sexy and clean from a logical point of view, but unfortunately if that point of view doesn't accurately describe how the body works it doesn't matter how sexy and clean it is. This becomes far more important the more advanced an athelte becomes. Also, if you are aware of Mentzer's life, it isn't exactly out of character for him to cling to something clean and logical - it probably stabalized his mind to some degree to have a BBing parallel to Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, if you poke hard enough there are some major gaps in HIT and they tend to get glossed over with nifty quotes from Mentzer/Jones/or some other guy who's never read a good training book in his life or something about people not wanting to work hard enough. It's fine to use and believe HIT is the best (there are some qualified people who do - i.e. PSU's strength coach), all that said - one can't legitimately claim best unless one is well versed in the other theories.

Thank you for the articles!


Before I read them...


It was the ridiculous training programs offered up by bodybuilding magazines which drove me to Mentzer's philosophies. Interestingly enough, I end up swapping volume with 1 set HIT every 2 months--I eventually get stagnant in both...

 

[Madcow2]

When you start out with BBing, you wind up with HIT pretty fast because it gets fairly obvious that nobody has a clue what they are doing and HIT makes sense. All that said if you work your way to any of these people - who are never featured or mentioned in the BBing magazines: Medvedyev, Zatsiorsky, Siff, Laputin, Roman, Verkhoshansky - you get some far far better insight into effective training stimulus. I watched BBing go from 3 day on 1 off splits with people doing AM/PM work in the late 1980s to 3 days a week doing a bodypart once per week by the mid-to-late 1990s - all from not having a clue as to why they came back stronger after a layoff and thinking they were overtrained. This runs headlong into a detraining effect but regardless, they never once even hypothesized that there was an independent fatigue component at work - something that was very well known and very well documented and studied years before and in use worldwide by that point. This wasn't advanced - this was training 101.

A lot of people on here quote Arnold's Encyclopedia which amounts to a rough roll of toilet paper. Very very few people have ever heard of any of these books yet they are generally and fairly widely accepted to be some of the best ever written on the subject of training. Coming from a BBing perspective it's hard to fathom that all this is out there in maintstream use and you never ever run accross it. Then again, this is the whole thing I'm trying to fix.

www.elitefts.com - Go to the books on training. You'll find the following (in no particular order):
A System of Multi Year Training in Weightlifting
Fundmentals of Special Strength Training in Sport
Supertraining (plus lots of others by Siff)
Managing the Training of Weightlifters
Science and Practice of Strength Training

 

[d3track]

my arms suck
i dont have any good advice for ya

 

[go2failure]

Arnold's Encyclopedia which amounts to a rough roll of toilet paper.

Hilarious. After reading the book, I ended up just using it for the motivating pictures.

www.elitefts.com - Go to the books on training. You'll find the following (in no particular order):
A System of Multi Year Training in Weightlifting
Fundmentals of Special Strength Training in Sport
Supertraining (plus lots of others by Siff)
Managing the Training of Weightlifters
Science and Practice of Strength Training

What are your thoughts on Poliquin?

 

[Madcow2]

Kind of mixed on Poliquin. He knows his stuff - no doubt but sometimes I get the feeling he's just marketing himself to the masses (reasonable from a business sense). I mean, some of the stuff he writes for BBing is just pure common sense, geared to very very low levels, and sometimes just some exotic minutia. I just think some of his stuff is all over the place. As far as what he's using/used for his own athletes you can bet it's some type of periodized template regulating volume/intensity - I guess that's common sense plain vanilla too and why would he even bother writing it but I just see a lot more value in him putting this in words rather than some of the stuff that usually comes out (hell - look at the programs in BBing, they need to hear this). I think it would have more of an impact. That said, if I remember his German Volume Training article this is exactly how this program is layed out but I bet few follow it or think about what's behind it.

Just rambling - like I said, kind of mixed on him but I guess in a nutshell I think he could be having a bigger effect helping the general masses than he is currently. He has the potential to change the way everyday people in the gyms train and empower them to make progress - yet his articles have no such impact and don't convey any of this or really contribute to changing the status quo (where most people are working and making little progress) in any way. Like I said, mixed.

 

[ilpadrone]

i know i need to gain weight to get bigger arms its like imppossible for me to gain weight im 6'0 and like 150 lbs i wanted to see my abs but i dont wanna lose weight either

Nothing is impossible dude, if you keep on thinking like that you probably wont gain anything. Start thinking positive..very important! It IS possible for you to grow. So start thinking about a good diet. You got a perfect height to put some nice muscles on. Abs are of later concern bro, really, by eating accordingly you will get both. Check for a good diet, maybe someone here can help you with that.
Good Luck

 

[go2failure]

When you start out with BBing, you wind up with HIT pretty fast because it gets fairly obvious that nobody has a clue what they are doing and HIT makes sense. All that said if you work your way to any of these people - who are never featured or mentioned in the BBing magazines: Medvedyev, Zatsiorsky, Siff, Laputin, Roman, Verkhoshansky - you get some far far better insight into effective training stimulus. I watched BBing go from 3 day on 1 off splits with people doing AM/PM work in the late 1980s to 3 days a week doing a bodypart once per week by the mid-to-late 1990s - all from not having a clue as to why they came back stronger after a layoff and thinking they were overtrained. This runs headlong into a detraining effect but regardless, they never once even hypothesized that there was an independent fatigue component at work - something that was very well known and very well documented and studied years before and in use worldwide by that point. This wasn't advanced - this was training 101.

A lot of people on here quote Arnold's Encyclopedia which amounts to a rough roll of toilet paper. Very very few people have ever heard of any of these books yet they are generally and fairly widely accepted to be some of the best ever written on the subject of training. Coming from a BBing perspective it's hard to fathom that all this is out there in maintstream use and you never ever run accross it. Then again, this is the whole thing I'm trying to fix.

www.elitefts.com - Go to the books on training. You'll find the following (in no particular order):
A System of Multi Year Training in Weightlifting
Fundmentals of Special Strength Training in Sport
Supertraining (plus lots of others by Siff)
Managing the Training of Weightlifters
Science and Practice of Strength Training

After reading up on the dual theory and the 5X5 you advocate, I have to ask you what you believe HIT really is?


To me your program is not "volume" rich at all, I perceive to be more like HIT than volume. When the underlying fatigue you refer to appears, you advocate the 3X3--even lower "volume".

So I have 2 more questions for you:

1) Have you ever tried traditional 1 STF programs?

2) What is your belief on what differentiates: DT, HIT, and "volume?"

 

[Sub-Zero]

As mentzer said, "With one who claims to be a expert in all things training, walk away, that person is a fool"....

your most likely an alter and as ronnie coleman says, a "Light waeeieght baaaabaaaaay"

 

[go2failure]

your most likely an alter and as ronnie coleman says, a "Light waeeieght baaaabaaaaay"

Federov will shut Ronnie's hole this year...


If he doesnt, can I play the politics card?

 

[Sub-Zero]

Hilarious. After reading the book, I ended up just using it for the stimulating pictures.