Why volume trainers deny the truth of low volume training

[Cuthbert]

You saw my INTENSE squats from last night????



B True

Saved the video... I will use it to fire me up for max attempts.

PURE INSPIRATION BOR

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

So you finally admit that your training methods are not for everyone...

Edited to add that Cuthbert is a hard training, intense, man.

B True

Yes and they resort to steroids and overtraining to compensate

 

[Synpax]

Ok, now I guess I'm decided on HIT. He blew of my last post and his last argument (non-argument) was to "take a leap of faith" in a field that requires none.

Sorry.

On a side note AA, I think your signature contradicts your entire argument.

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

If HIT is the complete bomb and the "only way to train," then why do people make good gains on not-to-failure programs?

One of the reasons I like HST is that its principles explain why OTHER programs are successful at causing growth. HIT does nothing of the sort. Other programs are successful despite what HIT says about them. "Too much volume, not enough intensity!" Guess what, I grew!

You misunderstand brother..cuthbert was talking about a hardgainer routine -typically a routine where very low volume is used,usually at most x2 a week with low frequency..I would suggest that high intensity a la DC,Mentzer HIT,Dorian etc..would be necessary for it to work optimally.

HST is different and a very interesting routine that on day I shall try..I have never claimed people don't grow on other programs..what I do claim is that they do not train OPTIMALLY.

I can understand why HST works well..I think it flirts a lot with overtraining,but that is one of it's central facets.

We do not sing from the same hymnsheet all the time but we are members of the same choir and a total revulsion at the volume routines of steroid freaks and genetic ubermen unites us.

Finally, I have said this before..HIT means many different things :Jones' old school,Mentzer,Yates etc..It's actually confusing which type people are talking about

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

Ok, now I guess I'm decided on HIT. He blew of my last post and his last argument (non-argument) was to "take a leap of faith" in a field that requires none.

Sorry.

On a side note AA, I think your signature contradicts your entire argument.

my point was articulate ..if you don't understand I can't help you.

I don't post thousands of articles because you can find so called scientific proof of almost anything related to training ..both positive and negative..I'm an empiricist...I learn by experience, 'suck it and see' so to speak

Seriously, if you don't want to believe me and try a low volume routine that's fine..that's why I term it a 'leap of faith'..I'll keep growing like Jack's beanstalk regardless, maybe even catch you on the way down while I'm on the way up bro

 

[WalkingBeast]

my point was articulate ..if you don't understand I can't help you.

I don't post thousands of articles because you can find so called scientific proof of almost anything related to training ..both positive and negative..I'm an empiricist...I learn by experience, 'suck it and see' so to speak

Seriously, if you don't want to believe me and try a low volume routine that's fine..that's why I term it a 'leap of faith'..I'll keep growing like Jack's beanstalk regardless, maybe even catch you on the way down while I'm on the way up bro

I almost pissed myself laughing at this whole thing. your responses....AWESOME! we need to discuss this.... (This statement has been pirated from an undisclosed member.)

 

[Cuthbert]

Yes and they resort to steroids and overtraining to compensate

LMAO

Get a clue, bro... lol

 

[MattRecc]

someone ban AA hes too ignorant and stupid

 

[Synpax]

my point was articulate ..if you don't understand I can't help you.

translation: I can't sucker you, i give up.

I don't post thousands of articles because you can find so called scientific proof of almost anything related to training

translation: I can't find even one.

..both positive and negative..I'm an empiricist...I learn by experience, 'suck it and see' so to speak

translation: I don't believe in reason. If I feel it, it's true.

Seriously, if you don't want to believe me and try a low volume routine that's fine..that's why I term it a 'leap of faith'..I'll keep growing like Jack's beanstalk regardless, maybe even catch you on the way down while I'm on the way up bro

translation: I'll never, ever post pictures of myself.

 

[rbrown]

I appreciate reading the insightful posts of people who train for bodybuilding like needsize. However, many times I think this board needs to be split into a bodybuilding board and a strength training board. We are talking apples and oranges. Yes there are some strong bodybuilders, but that is simply a side effect of their training, not the intended result. Therefore the training methods will differ dramatically. I don't care if I look like a bean pole as long as I can peform.

In my opinion, you would be unwise to use HIT or any of its variations if your sole goal is absolute strength. It may be benefical as an occassional variation, but certainly not as your prime routine. It's simply not as effective as other methods for building strength. That is why I consistently shock people when they see me and then see me do squats or deadlifts--they wonder where it is coming from. It's all the result of the training.

AA, you are way off base with your statements regarding intensity and steroids. I would love for you to come to one of mine and Cuthbert's squat workouts. I would venture to say that you would likely be thrown through the gym floor when you tried to unrack my training weight.