[Tkarrde]

...

[lylemcd]

...

Powerman wrote
"As a system of bodybuilding, HIT will work fine for most people. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that in some of its incarnations it’d be ideal for a lot of people. It’s based on the concepts of recovery, hard work, and progressive overload, and while it does lack (okay, outright reject) any system of long-term planning, it will nevertheless produce results. There’s also the fact that many positive effects can come from training to failure, as noted. Whether those results are better, worse, or the same as other bodybuilding systems is unimportant to this article, and likely not worth worrying about."

I have to disagree here, based on research examining gene expression as it pertains to exercise. The problem I have with a HIT, go to failure and then take forever to train again, approach to bodybuilding is taht such infrequent training will absolutely NOT lead to the types of cumulative gene expression effects that promote optimal growth (the same goes for endurance training, it's the cumulative effects on gene expression taht lead to accumulation of proteins within the cell, a single stimulus that is too infrequent generates piss-poor results).

Several years ago, many of the HIT hardheads (HIT digest) found that stopping a rep short of failure allowed them to train more frequently (b/c they weren't waiting for neural recovery to occurr) and they went from just getting stronger to actually getting bigger. You hear this a lot about the pure intensity/go to failure based systems, folks get stronger (to a degree) but not much bigger.

As well, there are literally no elite strength athletes that train to the point of concentric failure so their benefit in generating strength gains is questionable as well. A higher frequency of training (even if this means adjustments in intensity or volume) would appear to give both better strength AND hypertropy gains for most people.

Beyond that, a good examination of the neural factors of training, something that is usually forgotten.

Lyle

[PowerManDL]

Lyle,

I agree with you about the frequency issue. Going to extreme failure once every 7 days or less is going to do about fuck-all for muscle growth. I should have been more clear in that paragraph-- over the years of digging through the topic (meaning, arguing with HIT-Jedi), I did actually come across a few older programs that called for training each part twice weekly, using giant-set style workouts. Minimal volume per exercise, but a lot of exercises, each performed with short rest intervals.

Personally, I found that rather interesting, especially to come from the HIT crowd. It seems that in the later incarnations, such things have been forgotten in place of the OMG TWICE TEH WEEK IS OVURTRAIN0RZ!!111 mentality. The routine I mentioned above was a Mentzer-era thing, so it wouldn't be surprising if the fanatics have long-since shredded any modicum of it's intent.

That's the kind of thing I was alluding to, and I should have been more specific...not so much the one-set to failure every 14 days thing-- that's not even adequate as a strength-training system, let alone for size.

[Dio]

I did actually come across a few older programs that called for training each part twice weekly, using giant-set style workouts. Minimal volume per exercise, but a lot of exercises, each performed with short rest intervals.

The routine I mentioned above was a Mentzer-era thing, so it wouldn't be surprising if the fanatics have long-since shredded any modicum of it's intent.

I actually did this type of workout for ~8 weeks about 12 years ago. Got it out of a book, but could never remember who wrote it. Are you sure it was Mentzer? I remember the pictures vaguely and it was more of an Italian looking guy, I thought it might have been Parrilo.

It was very productive strengthwise and I grew a little (wasn't working legs or eating right). The funny part is that as soon I stopped and took a couple of weeks off, I gained muscle right away.

Anyway, nice article. I've been interested neural fatigue issues for a while. Thought it was also interesting that the RPE approach resembles something put forth by Ian King a while back (lyle's article also has some similarities to his work)

[lylemcd]

I agree with you about the frequency issue. Going to extreme failure once every 7 days or less is going to do about fuck-all for muscle growth. I should have been more clear in that paragraph-- over the years of digging through the topic (meaning, arguing with HIT-Jedi), I did actually come across a few older programs that called for training each part twice weekly, using giant-set style workouts. Minimal volume per exercise, but a lot of exercises, each performed with short rest intervals.

Yeah, I can live with that although I don't think short rest intervals (trying for some vague systemic intensity or some shit, think Leistner) are ideal for growth. But even my 'standard' split is an upper/lower with each worked twice per week. I wouldn't go any less frequently than that for a natural wanting growth or strength.

I also think it's important to note that even though the early HIT/Jones stuff only advocated one set/exercise, they frequently used multiple exercises/bodypart. It sure as hell wasn't one set/bodypart like some of the more modern HIT bullshit interpretations.

Personally, I found that rather interesting, especially to come from the HIT crowd. It seems that in the later incarnations, such things have been forgotten in place of the OMG TWICE TEH WEEK IS OVURTRAIN0RZ!!111 mentality. The routine I mentioned above was a Mentzer-era thing, so it wouldn't be surprising if the fanatics have long-since shredded any modicum of it's intent.

Some of the supposed volume/frequency interpretatinos have gotten truly retarded, Superslow cultists/HIT extremists training stuff every 10-14 days. Swear they are getting stronger but they never get bigger (and I doubt they ever get strong).

That's the kind of thing I was alluding to, and I should have been more specific...not so much the one-set to failure every 14 days thing-- that's not even adequate as a strength-training system, let alone for size.

yeah, we're on the same page then.

Lyle

[Par Deus]

The main thing with HIT that could be advantageous is that it will cause the greatest increase in the metabolic products that signal adaptation.

But, Spook brought something up recently that makes a lot of sense -- namely, that AA and it's cascade, including NO, are just for the oxidative/aerobic adaptations. It makes a lot of things make sense and ties a lot of shit together:

The fact that COX inhibition reduces protein synthesis but it does not reduce muscle mass, a couple studies show AA and IGF-1 to be in opposition, and the fact that an increase in fatty acid intake leads to an increase in and fatty acid oxidation, not unlike aerobic exercise -- IOW, the fatty acid substrate increases oxidation pathways. And, of course, increases in muscle mass are associated not with oxidative metabolism but with glycolytic and high-energy phosphate pathways. And, that fits nicely with the three myosin isoform types.

This is obviously quite speculative, but it fits in so well with the paradigm presented in our Leptigen article, and it is just so fucking elegant.

[Lgoosey]

I wouldn't go any less frequently than that for a natural wanting growth or strength.

Why did you add in the word "natural" Lyle?

What changes if one is using androgens?

[lylemcd]

The main thing with HIT that could be advantageous is that it will cause the greatest increase in the metabolic products that signal adaptation.

???

The difference in going to concentric failure (and generating a ton of neural fatigue) and stopping a rep short in terms of metabolites will be inconseuential.

Lyle

[lylemcd]

I wouldn't go any less frequently than that for a natural wanting growth or strength.

Why did you add in the word "natural" Lyle?

What changes if one is using androgens?

My rather strongly held feeling is that andrognes allow trainees to get away with less frequent training without hte negatives associated with it because the androgens both:

a. limit the atrophy which occurs with such infrequent loading
b. probably stimulate gene expression associated with growth itself

The whole each bodypart once/week thing didn't really come around until roids really entered the picture. Prior to that most bodybuidlers trained each bodypart 2-3X/week. So while a natural won't get a ton of growth training that infrequently, I think an androgen user can probably 'get away' with it (which isn't to say it's optimal but it will be workable).

That said, Istill think a higher frequency (which steroids probably allow, along with allowing an overall higher workload) will work better with androgens. I know Bryan Haycock has worked with at least one pro bodybuilder who grew that much better using HST principles.

Lyle

[PowerManDL]

The difference in going to concentric failure (and generating a ton of neural fatigue) and stopping a rep short in terms of metabolites will be inconseuential.

The advantage that would come of it would be the extra fibers that would get trained during that final rep. Of course, that comes with all the fatigue issues that have to be dealt with.

[Blade]

If the load is heavy enough - something like a 5RM load - you won't recruit or stimulate any extra fibers doing that extra rep to failure vs stopping one rep short. Actually the difference is probably negligible even at a 15RM load, so the negatives of squeezing out that one extra rep far outweigh the benefits IMO.

[lylemcd]

If the load is heavy enough - something like a 5RM load - you won't recruit or stimulate any extra fibers doing that extra rep to failure vs stopping one rep short. Actually the difference is probably negligible even at a 15RM load, so the negatives of squeezing out that one extra rep far outweigh the benefits IMO.

Exactly, above ~80-85% 1RM (~6-8 reps or so), you get full fiber recruitment from the get go, fatigue induced fiber recruitment is only relevant if you are using higher RM loads. Even then, the difference in that last rep is going to be minor, do another set and you'll be fine.

Lyle

[Number 5]

The main idea in this article seems to be that one should not train all out every single workout. This of course is nothing new and makes sense, yet it often seems that the people who make the best gains work as intensily as possible every single workout.

But perhaps I am wrong in my assessment here? I'd like to know if Layne, Derek or others here train to failure only once in a while and other times stop a little before they reach that point?

-5

[Blade]

yet it often seems that the people who make the best gains work as intensily as possible every single workout.

I'd have to disagree. Apart from simply not eating enough, I'd say the majority of people I've troubleshooted training programs for, were training to absolute failure and beyond using volumes and splits copied from their favorite elite bodybuilder. Have them implement a progression (load primarily, volume secondarily), train each muscle group more frequently, and hitting failure only occasionally as a function of these changes - and they begin to grow. I tell you, it's magic... (actually, just a mix of science and common sense)

[Lgoosey]

yet it often seems that the people who make the best gains work as intensily as possible every single workout.

completely agree.

I've been to a whole lot of gyms and the majority of people who have respectable physiques bring it all to the gym and leave it there every workout.

[lylemcd]

yet it often seems that the people who make the best gains work as intensily as possible every single workout.

completely agree.

I've been to a whole lot of gyms and the majority of people who have respectable physiques bring it all to the gym and leave it there every workout.

What you find is that those people will generally have great physiques almost n spite of what they do. When you couple those genetics with more intelligent training, they get even BETTER results. I've been helping out a guy on my forum (posts as Sporto) who is a true freak genetically and he's getting better results training my way (intelligently) than his previous way. Genetic elites can 'get away' with improper training, that still doesn't make it optimal.

A friend once watched a guy at a gym do nothing but cheat curls and overhead presses and he had full, symmetrical muscularity and was lean.

It's when you try to get good results out of non-genetic superiors that you find this type of 'go all out in the gym' crap gets you nowhere.

Lyle

[Beast]

What you find is that those people will generally have great physiques almost n spite of what they do.  When you couple those genetics with more intelligent training, they get even BETTER results.

I think that is a good point. Most routine will produce results. But there is always the question of could I be progressing faster? Growing quicker? I found that since I have stopped training to failure (may do so occasionally), I am making better progress, have been injury free, and feel great. I am also hitting each muscle more frequently, with more total sets during the entire week (training each muscle 2X a week as opposed to once).

[Lgoosey]

Intensity doesn't have anything to do with failure.

I'm not saying they are training correctly or optimally, simply that they usually have the most aesthetically pleasing physiques.

[Beast]

Intensity doesn't have anything to do with failure.

Who said it did?

[lylemcd]

Intensity doesn't have anything to do with failure.

I'm not saying they are training correctly or optimally, simply that they usually have the most aesthetically pleasing physiques.

Oh for fuck's sake, someone said

"yet it often seems that the people who make the best gains work as intensily as possible every single workout. "

which you agreed with by saying
"I've been to a whole lot of gyms and the majority of people who have respectable physiques bring it all to the gym and leave it there every workout. "

What the fuck does "intensely as possible" imply if not failure?

Or, better yet, how about defining your terms before anybody wastes any more time on this?

Lyle

[Number 5]

I found that since I have stopped training to failure (may do so occasionally), I am making better progress, have been injury free, and feel great. I am also hitting each muscle more frequently, with more total sets during the entire week (training each muscle 2X a week as opposed to once).

derek, this is a very basic level question, but do you stop one rep short of your estimated failure point or what's your criteria to judge how far to go? also, how do you judge if your strength is going up unless you try to push out max reps for at least one of your exercises?

-5

[Beast]

I stop 1-2 reps short of failure. If I can squat 405 for 4 reps, with 1 in the tank, then a month later I can squat 425 for 4 reps, with 1 rep left, it's obvious I gained strength.

[Lgoosey]

relax Lyle.

For example. I've seen plenty of people stopping 1-2 reps short of failure when in fact they could easily push out about 3-4 more especially with big lifts like dealifts squats cleans push presses and something like T-bar rows or pullups. I've seen plently of people lift like shit for many sets out of the say 4 sets they do for an exercise. This has alot to do with the mindset and intensity you bring to the gym.

And your guilty of not defining the terms as well before responding so fuck ninjas.

[PowerManDL]

There's also the anabolics issue.

Anecdotally, you can keep up a much harder pace in the gym while on than while off. It will eventually catch up to you centrally if you push it too hard...but by that point, you look at the actual amount of work done in the gym and just think "damn." Big difference between what you can handle in this regard.

[DrPhil]

relax Lyle.

For example. I've seen plenty of people stopping 1-2 reps short of failure when in fact they could easily push out about 3-4 more especially with big lifts like dealifts squats cleans push presses and something like T-bar rows or pullups. I've seen plently of people lift like shit for many sets out of the say 4 sets they do for an exercise. This has alot to do with the mindset and intensity you bring to the gym.

And your guilty of not defining the terms as well before responding so fuck ninjas. 

If you are stopping 1-2 reps short of failure, it would be impossible to squeeze out 3-4 more reps...remember the defintion of "failure".

[Lgoosey]

  If you are stopping 1-2 reps short of failure, it would be impossible to squeeze out 3-4 more reps...remember the defintion of "failure".

In the gym, people can underestimate there actual point of failure.

[PowerManDL]

  If you are stopping 1-2 reps short of failure, it would be impossible to squeeze out 3-4 more reps...remember the defintion of "failure".

In the gym, people can underestimate there actual point of failure.

.....which, again, is the point of the article (and the conclusion of the 30-odd studies supporting it, and more I didn't include...). It doesn't really matter. It's just another trivial point for everyone to bitch about that really does not matter at the end of the day.

Go lift, add weight to the bar. How you choose to do that really isn't that important.

[str8flexed]

Personally I abhore not lifting to failure though I have tried to cut back on the amount of sets I do. I know it is just a mental/ego thing, but I hate thinking about not leaving everything I've got on that set right there that I'm doing.

[Fletch]

I do each exercise to the point where I know that I would not be able to get another rep without sacrificing form. I have practiced this for the past year rather than trying to increase my 1RM load each workout by getting "1 more rep!". Popping blood vessels in my eyes occasionally wasn't appealing to me anymore.

My current training program is a design I made using the first 2 articles of Lyle's combined with a couple Tudor Bompa books I own. It consists of a step-type loading pattern and alternating training intensities inside each microcycle. I understand that the energy supplied by the ATP/CP system can be replenished in around 24 hours, however leaving it all in the gym every workout is not what has given me the gains I have achieved in the past year.

I also agree with Lyle that Bompa's Muscle Definition (cuts) phase is moronic.

- Fletch

[lylemcd]

I found that since I have stopped training to failure (may do so occasionally), I am making better progress, have been injury free, and feel great. I am also hitting each muscle more frequently, with more total sets during the entire week (training each muscle 2X a week as opposed to once).

derek, this is a very basic level question, but do you stop one rep short of your estimated failure point or what's your criteria to judge how far to go? also, how do you judge if your strength is going up unless you try to push out max reps for at least one of your exercises?

-5

After you've been training for a while, you get a reasonable idea of where failure is going to occur. this is actually one reason to spend at least *some* time going to true failure, to know when it occurs.

But when you grind out a rep, you can usually be pretty sure that the next one won't go. Might as well stop there, very little point in hitting that last rep and failing. When I"m training someone, I can usually be pretty sure when they are right on top of failure by bar speed, when they grind out a rep, I'll stop them, the next one probably wouldn't have gone.

As far as knowing if yo'ure getting stronger, well, if the weight on the bar is going up over time, you're getting stronger. Going to failure doesn't tell you anything that watching the weight build over time doesn't.

Lyle