brickhoused

Hy guys,
I have decided to run a thread based upon the biggest and most questioned theory in Bodybuilding- is more always better or did Mentzer and Dorian have the right idead with the High Intensity Training principle?

Me myself trained for a number of years sometimes performing up to 50 sets a session (when i was young and stupid LOL), but about 2 years ago decided to buy the Dorian Yates book, 'A Warriors Story', I decided to implement Dorians style training and TBH could not believe the responce my physique had, i litterally grew by the week and my overall look on bodybuilding changed totally.

People often critisice me because i only take 30-40 mins tops in the gym, and people often dont realise how much more productive this type of training can be if impemented properly. In my workouts failure means failure!

I just wanted to hear other expierienced trainers views on this type of training?

MXD

I think a hybrid HIT is a better approach, DC for example.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you want 5% off you first order use code: MP27405


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you want 5% off you first order use code: bsd62

My journal is found
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My pics are here
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jw007 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ERIC Cartman Follow your dreams. You can achieve your goals; I'm living proof. Beefcake. Beefcake!!

wogihao

You are being just as closed minded as the people that say your mental for doing 30-40 mins a session in the gym.

Im glad that your training is good for you but honestly why cant both methods be effective if its used corectly. Volume training didnt last 70+ years because it was crap.

What puts me off HIT the most is that most of the people I talk to about it are for want of a better word fantatics they just wont accept any other view and debate is pointless with these people.

Just in the same way as the volume junkies will never ever accept that low volume training could help them. there is no debate with these people they are just as much a zellot as the HIT guy.

Its the "Your either with me or against me." attitude that I dont understand.

Why must one method be flawed for the other to be good?

Nine Pack

This debate is as old as the hills. everyone knows I like HIT, but I also aknowledge that everyone is different & some respond better to other methods. Dorian's approach has been blamed for ruining a few peoples physiques, and likewise high volume has been responsible for limiting peoples progress. All you can do is find what works best for you. It took me nearly ten years to realise what I best responded to & during that time, I tried everything.

What people often miss is the fact that variation is key. Even a great programme will become ineffective if you do it week in, week out for eternity. If you throw a spanner in the works & introduce a new stimulus from time to time (even one that is thought less effective than what you have been doing for ages), you will keep progressing.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


''I reject your reality and substitute my own''
Adam Savage.

wogihao

Its also a can of worms debate, your see the very worst of some people when this is debated as its such a hot potato issue. Even though like you said its such a old topic.

brickhoused

I for one do not have the atittude of " your with me or your not".
I am was just curious to see how some trainers on the board train themselves.

Obviously High volume training has worked for some but i was just implying that I myself use HIT and have had tremendous gains using this method-
for example when I train biceps for example, I will do 1 light warmup of ez bar curls, without much rest i will instantly add weight and go to absoloute failure i will then have a moment and perform a warmup on the preacher curl machine, then add weight and at this point in my mind it is time to take my bis to OBLIVIOUN, i perform as many full reps as poss coming up and lowering at graduale pase, when i cant perform any more full reps my partner helps it up and i hold it at peak contraction for up to a minute before lowering it as slowly as possible then performing half reps and eventually 1/4 reps before letting go and feeling as though i am going to throw up,lol. This takes about 10 mins max and theyer are then recovering for the rest of the week. If i did this for numerous sets it would be totally counter productive and a total time waste.

This is not to say that high vol does not work- it obviously does but it is a totally different bal game and as mentioned above different methods work for different people but i was just implying which i prefer and was asking which method all you guys prefer!

So i am by no means flawing any one method am I wogi, It is in my opinion you who jumped to that conclusion!

Con

I think HIT with out a doubt creates a thicker grainer looking physique i remember back in my home town most guys trained with the traditional volume programs besides a couple of guys who did only HIT work outs and they deffo looked a lot freakier.

brickhoused

Very much agree Con!

Wee G

Neither / either / both.

Agree with wogi and Nine that a variety of stimuli over time is the real key to progression. Obviously I have some pretty fixed views as to how and when that "variety" should be implemented, but I would not reduce it down to a "HIT or Volume" question.

What annoys me about HIT as usually prescribed (Mentzer et al!) is that it's doctrines prohibit the use of any other training methodology, ever, and that is just ignorant.

Cheers,

G