high intensity training

[1705total]

I just wanted to start this poll to get people opinion. I recently purchased Mike Mentzers training book (the last one he wrote). Not only am I impressed with his writing, but also his theories.

I think the bottom line with high intensity and why people don't respond to it is that they are not training hard enough.

Heavy weights are extremely important, but you must take the muslce to failure (in my opinion postive and negative failure).

This means a variety of techniques.

WHat do you all think?

[Leviathan]

I for one don't buy into the "if it didn't work, you weren't working hard enough". I tried Mentzers' style when Dorian first hit the scene in 91 and made great gains in strength, but not really anything in muscle mass. Once I made the switch to volume training and had someone to show me that not every set has to be a test of manhood, I began making gains. This is not to invalidate Mike or Art Jones or Viator or Darden etc, as they obviously work wonders for some people. Unfortunately, I'm not one of those people. I actually liked the training till you can't move style and always appreciated the next day muscle soreness, but the gains never seemed to manifest until I switched to volume type loading.

I think the one thing that I disagree with most is that failure is an absolute requirement to get bigger and stronger. Try telling that to a powerlifter. I have yet to meet a powerlifter that would dare go near failure, and some of these people are so thickly muscled it makes me think about switching sports.

Again, not bashing anything here, just bringing up some valid points that invariably pop up when HIT is discussed.

Here's a little something I told a kid the other day at the gym when he asked me why I didn't go to failure like the guys say in the magazines:

" It would be like telling olympic sprinter Maurice Green that the only to get faster is running till you can't take another step, to failure. Loading is more important that fatigue."

[1705total]

Interesting thoughts. I respect your opinion. The one point in which I disagree with Mentzer is when it comes to training frequency. At one point he recommends training once every seven days. This type of logic implies that buy pure walking we could get huge!
I hope others weigh in on this topic as well

[Leviathan]

Yeah, the frequency thing for so little sets seems a little... I don't know... "off" somehow. We all can remember doing beginner type programs where do a set or two per muscle group, 3 days a week and making progress. Who's to say that wouldn't work now?

Great Topic, I always love to participate in a thinking man/woman's discussion.

[Tim Wescott]

I`m more of a volume type person myself.

Tried it years ago, but didn`t make much in the way of gains,but in the programs defense...I didn`t eat as well as I should have been either.

Knowing myself as well as I do,I could nit train this infrequently personally.

Bottom line IMO,it should be used periodically alternating it with higher volume training....this way you can make gains because of the fact that you are de-loading in a sense.

I like/enjoy my training too much to train this scarecly and again,I would go antsy waiting until my next training session!!

Beside,I`m making good and fairly steady progress the way I`m training now, so I`ll cite the old adage,"If it ain`t broke,don`t fix it" !!

[ChrisC]

Mentzer had a lot of good things to say, the problem is that he was dogmatic in his training methodologies.

FWIW, I think hit does have a place in training. Particularly for individuals who are using excessively high volume. I also think that's why a hit approach can yield very impressive gains for some indiviudals. Suppose someone starts working out and following the pro routines they see in flex - an ungodly amount of sets/reps etc. Now if that person works like that for six months they are going to be seriously overtrained. Take that person and switch them to a lower frequency hit routine and they will often make dramatic gains simply from the reduction in volume, regardless of the one-set-to-failure approach.

I also think that the success of any training philosophy is going to be dependent on how the individual responds. It took me years to figure out that what works best for my body is lower frequency and more of a one hard set approach.

[In-Human]

I guess I will be the opposite here, I did Mikes program from 82-84 and it taught me how to lift as much weight as I could handle with perfect form, I made excellent gains in muscle and strength of course, what it did teach me is to be big you must lift and eat big. High volume never did much for me except turn into a cardio session and not be able to go 110% on each heavy workset, I was just going backwards. Not being able to recouperate from the high volume was the biggest concern, trying to go all out and doing 30-50 set workouts 5-6 days a week was not letting my body get the chance to recouperate and grow. This is one thing I learned from Jones, Trevor and now DC, lift big, eat big and rest big to grow, for me anyways...

[1705total]

Do you know how many times you actually took a set to failure?

For me its only been a scarce few. After 25 years of training.

I remember doing a shoulder routine which brought tears to my eyes. I was sore for days. Its almost as if everything fell into place.

Remember the old saying "your mind is always the first muscle to fail."

Volume training may have a place, as does HIT. But reading Mentzer's writings is almost cult like. It makes you feel that there is only one way to train.

I intend to document my training following HIT over the next couple of months. I will report on my findings.

When reading Menzter's work, he does make a strong argument that although we have individualistic traits we are basically the same, thus muscle growth can only come from subjecting it to every increasing levels of intensity, but only in a length of time.

Interesting. But the problem with analyzing any training techniques is that in looking at the top amateurs or pros all use AAS and more.

So how can any training method be truely analyzed, unless done by using "natural" trainers.

Agree or disagree?

[In-Human]

1400, You want to go to positive and negative failure on every working set, try DC's program, it will make you sick to your stomach, before, during and after you are done with one workout...

[In-Human]

Excuse me, before I get jumped on by someone with schooling, "total momentary muscle failure"...

[ChrisC]

In-Human said:

Excuse me, before I get jumped on by someone with schooling, "total momentary muscle failure"...

;D

[Tim Wescott]

I agree wholeheartedly....a person on gear will definately respond better to any thought out decent program, better than a natural trainee,taking into consideration, of cours, that the peson is eating adequate amounts of food and geting sufficient rest!

HIT devotees are dogmatic ,but the same thing can be said for their adversaries........volume trainees,who say their method is best!!

I think a peson should use many different training protocols, at different times, garnering as much as he can from each one!!

HIT training was the BEST type of training.........for Mike Mentzer,but this may not hold true for you or others.

There is no BEST method, only the ones that work best for you at various stages of your training.

Mix things up, and experiment,it takes a long time to learn what your particular body responds best to.

Do your research with different protocols, and find your own training niche!

[Leviathan]

I agree with some of the things being said here. sometimes changing one variable affects how other things work. For years I was low rep, high volume advocate, knocking out 14-16 sets per muscle group for 6-8 reps per set and made great progress, avoiding failure all the way. I recently switched to high rep type trianing hitting 12-20 reps per set and lowered the volume to about 6 sets per muscle group, and I even hit failure now and then, but the emphasis is always about putting weight on the bar. Nothing works for ever and you have to keep evolving and changing you training when you stagnate.

I say give HIT a try, keep notes and make kind of a report that you can post here, I think it would be a tremendous help to people that might feel stuck about their training to hear a real testmonial about specific training styles.

[Intensity]

It's bizarre because i'm the #1 fan of high intensity training... but i never read the book of Mike Mentzers!!!! I dont know what i am waiting for... Can you give me the name of the book?

And like a lot of you wrote on that tread, i think that training it's all about finding what works best for you!

Just for fun, here is what i think is the more important in the gym (I always want to look like a guy that have is own theory ;D ;D):

Discipline (In training, food, sleep)
Quality (Mouvments, information and knoledge)
Intensity (It should be more that difficult...)
Fun (The only way to be sure that it will continu for years)

Mo

[1705total]

The book is titled :"High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way, with John Little."
A good read indeed.