Sorry pal, Ronnie was natural half his career, while Dorian took steroids since he started..... The best bodybuilders are always volume guys.... HIT guys never have a balanced physique...
-
Comment -
What about Abs? How many days a week should they be worked and for how long?Comment -
I understand this. I recently started working out again and I'm currently doing my Abs every other 2 days. I'm considering stepping it up to every other day which sounds like what you do. I have around a 10 minute Ab routine that I do. That doesn't sound like much but I find it pretty painful. How long do you work your Abs for?Comment -
Comment -
We used to do drop sets.
An example..Start with a warm up set. Then do 40lb dumbbell bicep curls until failure, drop the weight and immedialty do 30lb curls until failure then 25, 20, 15, 10, all to failure, one right after the other without rest..Pretty intense but I blew up after only a couple of weeks.Comment -
people do that with biceps all the time
its a shame nobody will do it with anything else, and people think they know stuff
warmup sets , 1 set to failure with an occassional drop set or 2 which is just continuing the setComment -
As the Body Changes, Training Requirements Change:
Sticking Points are NOT Inevitable!
Very often an individual's progress ceases entirely because he failed to account for a very important consideration: that during periods of physical-muscular progress the body is not static, it is in a process of change; and that as the body changes training requirements change. (This was only touched upon briefly in Heavy Duty I; but elaborated thoroughly in Heavy Duty II.) In fact, this is the most important issue in bodybuilding science once the fundamentals of intensity, volume and frequency are grasped.
A properly conducted bodybuilding program is essentially a strength training program. Or, in other words, if one wants to grow larger he must grow stronger. When someone starts to argue with me on this point, I say, "What is one supposed to do to grow larger, get weaker? As one grows stronger, i.e., as the weights grow progressively greater, the stresses on the body become progressively greater; and must be compensated for. (This is the conceptual link that high-intensity theorists have been missing; and which explains their inability to answer the question of sticking points.)
Perhaps the easiest way to understand this phenomenon is to observe the stresses on your body when performing a warm-up set of Squats compared to those experienced during the actual workout set to failure. On the heavier workout set, you immediately recognize the much greater stress on the bones compared to that with the warm-up set; then the much greater demands on the cardio-respiratory system, and so forth. (Not available to conscious awareness are the physiologic-metabolic stresses.) Now simply extrapolate that into the situation over time, as you lift progressively greater weights workout to workout.
As the stresses grow progressively greater, they will eventually reach a critical point such that they constitute overtraining. The first symptom will be a slow down in progress; and if the individual continues with the same volume and frequency protocol, the stresses will continue to increase until there is a complete cessation of progress, typically referred to as a "sticking point." One need not ever experience a slow down in progress, let alone a sticking point, if he bears in mind all the while that as the weights grow progressively greater so do the stresses; and he must do certain specific things to compensate for them.
Within two to three weeks upon embarking on a Heavy Duty, high-intensity training program, a bodybuilder should begin inserting an extra rest day or even two at random beyond the suggested every fourth day workout so that he's compensating for the increasing stresses; and, then, with increasing regularity until he is training but once every five days with an extra rest day or two added beyond that.
To quell any fear about the progressive reduction of training frequency, consider this. An individual making progress training once every fourth day, i.e., whose body is overcompensating--(i.e., growing stronger and larger)--cannot lose anything by taking a further day or two of rest. If his body is overcompensating on day four, how is it that he would decompensate on day five or six? So, while there is no risk of a negative, no threat of a loss, by inserting an extra day or two of rest, there is the actuality of a positive; which is - with the extra rest day(s) you have that much greater certainty that enough time has elapsed between workouts to allow the body sufficient opportunity to complete both the recovery and the growth processes. The implication here is that if the individual trains again before the body's growth production process is completed, it will be short-circuited; and less than 100 units of possible progress realized.
Reduced volume will necessitate switching from the Suggested Workout #1 to the Consolidation Program. With a consolidation routine, there is a decided shift in emphasis to predominately compound exercises, i.e., ones that involve multiple muscle groups, such as Squats, Dips and Deadlifts, etc. A workout program consisting of compound exercises still works all of the major muscle groups, but with fewer total sets, making for a minimal inroad into recovery ability. (Ideally, growth would be stimulated with zero sets; then none of the body's limited recovery ability would be used for recovery, it would all be used for growth production; and you'd grow so fast as to stagger the imagination. At this juncture, however, no one knows how to stimulate growth with zero sets.)
Following the above advice, you'll never hit a sticking point; you will experience unbreached progress with your training. As I have written before: if scientists can send a man to the moon and bring him back safely each time, we should be able to succeed with every one of our missions to the gym here on earth. Building bigger muscles should be a cake walk compared to moon walk.Comment -
Special Tip for Lagging Body Parts For some, even one set for certain body parts may prove more than the individual can tolerate or even need. For instance, over the years, I have had training clients, who informed me at the start that they couldn't stimulate growth in their calves, whether they were training them with 12 sets three times a week or just one set once a week. They took my advice, acknowledging the possibility that even one set may be too much, then ceased training their calves entirely. These individuals reported to me on a regular basis, claiming calf increases of 3/4" to 1 1/2" in several months.
Similarly, I've had clients who gained quite well overall with their greatest circumference increase in the neck. These examples prove the reality of "indirect effect", i.e., when growth is stimulated in one muscle, growth is stimulated through the entire musculature - though to a lesser degree; and the larger the muscle being worked, the greater the degree of indirect effect.
The calf increases reported above were likely the result of the effect provided by Leg Presses, Squats and Deadlifts; with those experiencing tremendous increases in their neck being the indirect result of growth stimulation induced by Shrugs and Deadlifts.
Conclusion: If you have a lagging body part, stop training that part entirely for a few weeks, then resume training with a lesser number of sets, or, with calves and neck, stop training them entirely.Comment -
Literally awash in the oceanic proliferation of new 'theories' on exercise, the average bodybuilder cannot even begin to judge, or evaluate, the flood of contradictory information. His thinking is severely hampered, limited to interminable quibbling over relatively unimportant details, such as whether to turn his little pinky up or down when doing Dumbbell Laterals; is a wide grip better than a close grip; is four sets of five exercises better than five sets of four exercises; is three days on and one day off better than one day on and one day off; or, are partial reps better than full range reps?"
The details mentioned in the previous HIT are not totally without import; they are actually "derivatives" - (based on and derived from) - which only have relevance when understood in the context of the fundamentals from which they were derived. What's the difference, for instance, whether a bodybuilder does four sets of five exercises or five sets of four, if he hasn't grasped the cardinal fundamental of exercise science -- the fact that a high-intensity training stress, i.e, training to a point of failure, is an absolute, objective requirement for stimulating growth and, therefore, none of his sets is triggering the growth mechanism into motion? Or, not cognizant of the crucial importance of properly regulating the volume and frequency of his workouts because of the body's strictly limited capacity for tolerating the "wear and tear" of high-intensity training stresses, he becomes so grossly overtained that, even if he were "stimulating" any growth, the overtraining would prevent his body from "producing" growth.
The Fog Grows Deeper
Bodybuilders whose thinking is thusly restricted usually resort to a type of "Russian roulette," where they move anxiously and uncertainly from one training approach to the next, hoping that someday they luckily happen upon one that works. Or, having sacrificed individual judgment and personal sovereignty entirely, fearing that he - and he alone - suffers a nameless deficiency, many opt to conform to the herd, and blindly follow the other sheep by adopting the training program that has the most adherents in their gym. Little does he suspect that the others are doing the same thing. Like him, they think the others must know what they're doing; after all, how can the majority be wrong. In fact, the entire world can be wrong and one man right. Remember that even though for thousands of years millions of people thought the earth was flat, such didn't make it true.
An Identity Crisis
What's the value of possesing well developed muscles, if the individual is arrested intellectually on the level of a dependent child? Not long ago, in Flex magazine, a very young, heavily muscled, well-known bodybuilder was quoted in bold print, "If 20 sets are good enough for Arnold, it's good enough for me!"
When someone asks, "Who am I to judge?" you really have to wonder. Your "self", your "I," is your mind, i.e., your concepts, ideas, beliefs - in short, your philosophy; which determines the extent of your ability to think and to judge. When a person has relinquished his judgment, deferring that responsibility to others, he has, in effect, sacrificed his self, and literally ends up selfless, suffering an identity crisis.
For those who understand the importance of developing the mind along with their muscles,
The idea of a "healthy mind in a healthy body" comes to us from the age of classical Greece, 23 centuries ago. Theirs was a Golden Age which idealized the beauty of the human body and exalted the power of man's mind.
The power (or health) of an individual man's mind is directly proportional to his conceptual range, i.e., the number of concepts his mind has integrated, how well he understands their exact meaning, and the number of logical connections he has made among them.
More Confusion from the Experts
An increasing number of "experts" in the bodybuilding magazines are erroneously asserting that all training approaches invariably lead to "adaptation, " something they deem negative, or undesirable; and use as a justification for moving arbitrarily from one system of training to another.
In reality, in logic, adaptation is precisely what is desired. The purpose of imposing a high-intensity, anaerobic training stress is to cause adaptation, i.e., an adaptive response, i.e., stronger and larger muscles. Similarly, people lay in the sun to elicit an adaptive response; namely, the development of a suntan.Comment -
<center> How Brief is Brief Enough?
by Dave Sears
Editor and Publisher of Muscles in Minutes
</center><hr width="50%">
An important factor in determining proper exercise “dosage” is the time off in between your workouts. Mike Mentzer spoke about this issue on countless occasions and was often quite specific; start with 4-5 days between workouts and add 1 or 2 days as your progress stalls. Eventually, you could end up working out once every 10 - 12 days (or less).
However, Mike also recognized - and often referred to - the necessity of the stimulus being brief. How brief is brief enough? The answer is simple; as brief as necessary to stimulate growth, but not impede the growth process. I acknowledge this doesn’t sound simple to figure out, but with a little testing of days off and volume, it will be.
As editor and publisher of Mike’s latest book, Muscles in Minutes, we often discussed his most recent and greatest thoughts and ideas. We both knew that while it would be possible to further “tweak” his tremendously successful training program, this was pretty much “it”. It would be nearly impossible to improve upon his methodology in any grand-scale way.
The purpose of this article is to share a personal discovery with you. It should help some of you jumpstart your gains - and make Mike smile in the process. Over the past few years, I constantly experimented with my training - always reporting my conclusions to Mike. He was never surprised by my findings, just validated. After all, he didn’t need convincing that his training worked. Here are a few thoughts about what I have learned.
Days off…
While living in a vacuum as much as possible (same diet, same rest, same activity), I experimented with only one variable: days off in between my workouts. I performed an abbreviated total-body routine (3 exercises) and never varied the exercises. To be exact in measurement of strength, I used both rep count and the T.U.L. (time under load) method and was careful to record accurate times and keep rep modality as consistent as possible.
Overall, I tested (in 2 - 4 day increments) from 2 days off to 26 days off. After careful review, I determined that if I took any less than 6 days off - or more than 12 days off - I actually became weaker. I had (disappointingly) determined that the key (for me) was not as simple as adding days off in between workouts. Even staying in the 6 - 12 day off range, I was making barely perceptible progress.
Volume…
However, I knew that the complete equation involves both rest and volume. I had not initially planned on testing this [volume], because I was already doing an abbreviated routine and felt that any less exercise would be no exercise at all!
Yet, after applying logic to the situation, I decided to experiment anyway. I started with the facts I knew, and systematically eliminated the variables that were not in question. After all, as Mike said, if a training method is valid, it is valid all the time - it should work consistently. If it does not, the method (or a component of it) is not valid.
I checked my premises and concluded that:
- a. One set was certainly enough stimulus to cause growth (if performed properly), so I could eliminate the testing of adding of additional sets
b. While I was training only once every 6 - 10 days - seeing marginal gains, I knew that I could eliminate the testing of days off in between workouts (I had tested that!)
c. Creating different workouts (with different exercises) was not the answer as I had tested that before and knew there was a more basic issue at hand
d. After rationally reviewing all available variables, I concluded the only one that needed to be tested was volume - so where did I start? At the beginning…
I consequently further reduced my workout to the following:- Workout 1: (1) set of pulldowns
Workout 2: (1) set of incline presses
Workout 3: (1) set of squats
Each workout was followed by 4 days off (later increased to 5, then 6 days off). After not having made any significant strength gains in the previous 8 months, I increased strength in EVERY workout for 2-1/2 months! I was especially amazed since one of the exercises (pulldowns) I had not increased in strength in 2 years!
I had previously been thinking that my days of strength increases were over forever - something I did not even want to consider. However, by thinking “outside the box”, and testing objectively (as Mike encouraged), I was able to break through to the next level.
By the way, the only reason I didn’t continue my strength increases past 2-1/2 months was due to two significant health issues back-to-back. However, I am now back in top shape, have just started back on that Super Consolidated Routine, and will report my progress as it occurs.
Mike, you were right - once again!
Comment - a. One set was certainly enough stimulus to cause growth (if performed properly), so I could eliminate the testing of adding of additional sets
-
Five Types of Exercise: Which is Best?
by Arthur Jones
Article from IronMan,
With a barbell, while training without the help of assistants, you have only one choice regarding the type of exercise...you are restricted to a "normal" type of exercise, movements involving in both positive and negative work.
But if assistants are available, then you have a wider choice. If the weight is lifted for you, then you can restrict your exercise to "negative only" work.
AND...if you are training with an exercise machine, you can lift the weight with two arms (or two legs0 and lower it with one arm (or one leg). Thus providing "negative accentuated" work.
Until very recently, those four types of exercise were the only choices available...(1) normal, (2negative only, (3) Positive only or (4) negative accentuated. But now, a fifth type of exercise has been added to the list of choices...HYPER, a new type of exercise involving both positive and negate work and providing absolutely maximum levels of intensity during both the lifting and lowering of the weight.
At this point in time (September of 1973), little or nothing is yet known about the results of training with this new type of exercise...so the real value of such a type of training remains unproven. However, certain basic points related to this new type of exercise are already clearly established; so we can, at least, examine these known factors in the light of simple logic.
ONE...for the purpose of increasing muscular size and strength, the results of exercise are closely related to the intensity of work. Low intensity exercise will do little or nothing in the way of increasing strength, regardless of the amount of exercise performed...medium intensity exercise will increase strength, but slowly and only up to a certain limited point...high intensity exercise is an absolute requirement for producing rapid and large scale strength increases, and it appears that the higher the intensity, the better the results.
HPER exercises provide maximum possible intensity of exercise, during both the positive and negative parts of the work; so it would appear to be logical to assume that hyper exercises are better than other types of exercise for the purpose of stimulating growth.
Which is certainly an important consideration...but not the ONLY consideration. Low intensity exercise is almost worthless for the purpose of increasing strength, simply because it does very little if anything in the way of STIMULATING growth. So it logically follows that hyper exercises, by providing maximum intensity, should produce maximum growth stimulation.
Muscular growth is produced only when two factors are involved...growth must be STIMULATED, but it must also be PERMITTED.
A resting body does not grow in a complete lack of exercise; on the contrary, in a state of total inactivity, muscular size and strength is quickly lost.
AND ...exercised muscles do not grow unless growth is permitted by proper rest. In fact, the results of overwork are very similar to the results of total inactivity...losses in muscular size and strength.
Proper exercise must be of high intensity in order to stimulate growth...but it must also be brief and infrequent in order to permit growth.
Hyper exercises raise the level of intensity to a point that was never before possible in a practical manner, if at all...so growth stimulation should also be greater than ever. But it is also true that high intensity exercises impose a higher level of demands upon the overall recovery ability of the body, and it remains to be seen just what effect this will have on the ability of the body to grow.
If we can judge by previous experience, then the use of hyper exercises will require a great reduction in the amount of training...because, when the intensity of exercise is increased, the amount of exercise must be reduced. When you train harder, you must train less...and you have no choice in the matter.
Comment -
agree with this 100 percent, just wish i would follow it more often
uperhydration
(From Classic X, March 17, 1999)Note: This article is packed with pertinent guidelines on the importance of drinking a large amount of water each day and how doing so facilitates fat loss and muscle building. In fact, the material has been widely distributed (without my permission) throughout the Internet. The concept of ice-cold water supplying a positive, calorie-burning effect — which I’ve applied for more than 15 years — has been recently confirmed by German scientists (see Boschmann, Michael, et al, "Water-Induced Thermogenesis," Journal of Clinical Endocinology & Metabolism 88: 6015-6019, 2003).
by Ellington Darden, Ph.D.
Americans, not by the thousands — but by the millions — are getting fatter each year. If you vacationed in Florida this past summer, then you know what I’m talking about.
Have you ever seen so many overweight and extremely obese people at the beach? Or how about the profiles of all those family fun-seekers — who, with ice creams in one hand and hot dogs in the other, crowd the major theme parks? They seem to come in three sizes: fat, fatter, and, even fatter!
Oh sure, you do see a few lean individuals at the beach and at the theme parks. But I guarantee you 99 percent of these people are 18 years of age or younger. You have to walk, and walk, and walk some more — to find a single person in great shape, over the age of 40.
I’m not going to present my lengthy philosophy about why and how Americans should decrease their dietary calories to lose fat and intensify their exercise to build muscle. You’ve probably heard it several times already.
What I want to describe is something that is much simpler to apply than dieting and exercising. That something is Superhydration, or the drinking of at least one gallon of ice-cold water each day.
Superhydration, practiced properly, can make a valuable contribution toward combating and conquering obesity in the United States — and throughout the world.
THE ORIGINS OF SUPERHYDRATION
I didn’t invent the concept of drinking large amounts of cold water, but I was the first person to popularize it by connecting it to my fat-loss courses. Also, I was probably the first author to provide specific directions on why, how, and when to consume the fluid.
I did have a lot of help, however. Dr. Harold Schendel, my major nutrition professor at Florida State University, hammered me with the value of drinking lots of water in losing fat. Brenda Hutchins, who worked with me on many recipes in my early fat-loss studies, made major contributions. Connie May, who trained many research subjects at the Nautilus headquarters in Dallas, Texas, had several great ideas concerning water drinking. And so did Terry Duschinski, the owner of a personal training center in DeLand, Florida.
Superhydration began to formalize in 1985 as I supervised three large groups of subjects through the Nautilus diet program at Joe Cirulli’s fitness center in Gainesville, Florida. I instructed the groups to drink 64 ounces of water a day. Back then, I didn’t understand fully the ice-cold concept so the fluid could be consumed at any temperature. This research was published in a major book called The Nautilus Diet.
When Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries relocated the headquarters in 1987 to Dallas, Texas, I continued to research and refine these ideas. These findings were published in three books: The Six-Week Fat-to-Muscle Makeover, 32 Days to a 32-Inch Waist, and Hot Hips and Fabulous Thighs. By now, my water recommendations were up to 128 ounces a day and I was beginning to explore the advantages of consuming cold water.
After three years in Dallas, I returned to the Gainesville Health & Fitness Center, and from 1990 through 1997, I developed four more courses of action: Two Weeks to a Tighter Tummy, Living Longer Stronger, Body Defining, and A Flat Stomach ASAP. During these courses, I proved that chilled water was a significant boon to the fat-loss process. I actually had some of my subjects progress up to two gallons of fluid a day. Interestingly, the individuals in my programs who consistently drank the most cold water tended to lose the most fat.
Over the last dozen years, 549 women and 271 men have officially completed one of my routines that involved Superhydration. Not a single one of these participants ever suffered from any major medical problem as a result of drinking at least one gallon of ice-cold water each day for the duration of the course.
The reason I mention this fact is because Superhydration has been criticized as problematic or dangerous. "People can’t drink that much water without getting sick," noted a medical advisor, who vetoed a review of one of my books from being published in a large newspaper.
"They not only can drink that much water," I’ve discovered, "but they thrive on it."
Let’s take a closer look at why your body thrives on water.
WATER AND THE HUMAN BODY
The human body is from 50 to 65 percent water. But not all body components have the same water percentage. Your blood, for example, is 90 percent water, your brain is 85 percent, your muscle is 72 percent, your skin is 71 percent, your bone is 30 percent, and your fat is 15 percent.
As your body experiences dehydration, you feel it first in those systems that contain the most water. For example, you lose your mental alertness and you suffer from overall muscular weakness. The last component that dehydration affects is your fat. That’s why excessive sweating makes almost no dent in reducing your body-fat percentage.
Men have more water in their bodies than women, primarily because men have more muscle mass and less fat than women. A lean man with a body weight of 180 pounds may have 14 gallons of water in his system. A gallon of water (128 ounces) weighs approximately 8 pounds, so simple multiplication (8 x 14)
reveals that 112 pounds of this man’s body is water.
You may not think of water as food, but it’s the most critical nutrient in your daily life. You can only live a few days without it. Every process in your body requires water. For instance, it:• Acts as a solvent for vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and glucose.PARTIAL DEHYDRATION
• Carries nutrients through the system.
• Makes food digestion possible.
• Lubricates the joints.
• Serves as a shock absorber inside the eyes and spinal cord.
• Maintains body temperature.
• Rids the body of waste products through the urine.
• Eliminates heat through the skin, lungs, and urine.
• Keeps the skin supple.
• Assists muscular contraction.
Water contributes to so many functions that most people take it for granted. At the end of a long workday, maybe you have a headache. Plus, your eyes are irritated, your back hurts, and your entire body has a dull numbness. You blame it on stress and lack of sleep over the weekend.
Maybe you’re right. But more likely, you’re simply suffering from partial dehydration.
Perhaps you’ve had several cups of coffee for breakfast, a high-fat lunch with more coffee or maybe an alcoholic drink or two, and spent the rest of your time breathing air-conditioned or heated air at work — all of which has left your body, and most of its systems, dry and parched. Unless you’ve been drinking water throughout the day, dehydration is your problem.
If you are attuned and sensitive enough to your body’s signals, you should be able to recognize some of the early warnings of dehydration:• DizzinessThese warning signs merit your attention. Unfortunately, most people never realize that they spend most days in a state of partial dehydration.
• Headache
• Fatigue
• Thirst
• Flushed skin
• Blurred vision
• Muscle weakness
Although thirst is an important warning sign, many people seem to be desensitized to the signal. Some people, especially adults over 40, may actually have a decreased sensation of thirst.
WATER AND FAT LOSS
Large amounts of water facilitate the fat-loss process in a number of ways:
Kidney-liver function: Your kidneys require abundant water to function properly. If your kidneys do not get enough water, your liver takes over and assumes some of the functions of the kidneys. This diverts your liver from its primary duty — to metabolize stored fat into usable energy.
If your liver is preoccupied with performing the chores of your water-depleted kidneys, it doesn’t efficiently convert the stored materials into usable chemicals. Thus, your fat loss stops, or at least, plateaus. Superhydration accelerates the metabolism of fat.
Appetite control: Lots of water flowing over your tongue keeps your taste buds cleansed of flavors that might otherwise trigger a craving. Furthermore, water keeps your stomach feeling full between meals, which can help take the edge off your appetite.
Urine production: Here’s a little-understood fact: As much as 85 percent of your daily heat loss emerges from your skin. Heat emerging from your skin is important because another word for heat is calories, and another word for calories is fat. That’s right, most of your fat is lost through your skin in the form of heat. Anyway, the remaining 15 percent of that heat loss is divided between warm air coming from your lungs and warm fluid being passed out through the normal urination process.
Superhydration can double, triple, or even quadruple your urine production. As a result, you’ll be able to eliminate more heat. Remember, inside your body, fat loss means heat loss. So get used to going to the bathroom more frequently than normal.
Cold-water connection: Have you ever wished for a food that supplies negative calories? Let’s say such a food exists and it contains a minus 100 calories per serving. Anytime you feel like a piece of chocolate cake or a donut, all you have to do to compensate is simply follow the sweet with two servings of the negative-calorie food. Presto — plus 200 calories and minus 200 calories yields 0 calories. While no negative-calorie food exists in science — ice-cold water has a similar, but smaller, effect inside your body.
When you drink chilled water, which is about 40-degrees Fahrenheit, your system has to heat the fluid to a core body temperature of 98.6 degrees. This process requires almost 1 calorie to warm each ounce of cold water to body temperature. Thus, an 8-ounce glass of cold water burns approximately 8 calories, or 7.69 to be exact. Extend that over 16 glasses, 128 ounces, or one gallon — and you’ve generated 123 calories of heat energy, which is significant. There’s real calorie-burning power in cold water.
A professor of biology from the University of Florida added to my understanding of the cold-water connection when he pointed out that melting ice and a burning candle both require the transfer of heat. They simply modify their forms. The ice changes from solid to liquid, and the candle from solid to gas. Both transfers, or changes, involve heat.
Constipation help: When deprived of water, your system pulls cellular fluid from your lower intestines and bowel creating hard, dry stools. One of the big roles of water is to flush waste from the body. This is a substantial task during fat metabolism because waste tends to accumulate quickly. Superhydration tends to make people more regular and consistent with their bowel movements, which is helpful to the overall fat-loss process.
WATER-DRINKING GUIDELINES
How do you drink a gallon of ice-cold water a day? "With great difficulty," you may reply. Although such a recommendation may sound difficult, in fact, it only presents a few minor problems — such as how, when, and where. Each of these problems can be solved with some intelligent planning.
How: One secret is to not drink the water, but to sip it. Get yourself one of those 32-ounce plastic bottles, the kind that has a long straw in the top. I’ve found that most people can consume water easier with a straw than trying to gulp it down the standard way with a glass. Also, while you’re checking out various bottles, select one that is insulated. The insulation will keep your fluid colder for a longer time.
When: Another tip is to spread your water drinking throughout the day. There’s a useful guide that I worked out for more than 100 men who went though my six-week, fat-loss plan in Living Longer Stronger on page 140.
You’ll notice on this plan that after Week 1, the men add 16 ounces of water each week to their starting level of 128 ounces per day. During Week 6, the recommendations are up to a daily consumption of 208 ounces, or 1 5/8 gallons. This schedule is just an example. Unless you’re involved in the other aspects of the Living-Longer-Stronger program, simply stick with the Week 1 guidelines.
It’s important to sip from 75 to 80 percent of the water before 5:00 P.M. The early drinking of most of the water eliminates the need to get out of bed during the night and visit the bathroom.
Where: You sip water everywhere you go during the day because you know how to plan ahead. Once again, you need a 32-ounce, insulated, plastic bottle. Okay. But what about refilling the bottle, the ice, and all that hassle of keeping count of the ounces?
The really motivated people invest in a two-gallon thermos jug. First thing in the morning, they fill the large jug with ice and water. Then, they draw off their initial 32-ounces of fluid into their insulated bottle and start sipping. As soon as the bottle is empty, it’s refilled from the thermos jug. When they leave home each day, they carry both the thermos jug and the smaller bottle with them. That way they always have access to their chilled water. When they return home that night, they wash the jug and the bottle and prepare for the next morning.
A great way to keep count of the bottles and ounces is to place rubber bands around the middle of the bottle equal to the number of bottles of water you are supposed to drink. Each time you finish 32 ounces, take off a rubber band and put it into your pocket.
Additives: There is a difference between plain water and other beverages that contain mostly water. Those mostly water fluids — such as soft drinks, coffee, tea, beer, and fruit juices — contain sugar, flavors, caffeine, and alcohol. Sugar and alcohol add calories. Caffeine — found in coffee, tea, and many soft drinks — stimulates the adrenal glands and acts as a diuretic. Rather than superhydrate the system, caffeine-containing beverages actually dehydrate the body. You should keep such beverages to a minimum.
The only recommended flavoring for water is a twist of lemon or lime. Even so, most of the people who like lemon or lime eventually get to the level where they prefer their water plain with nothing added.
Tap water or bottled water: In general, the United States has one of the safest water supplies in the world. Chances are high that your community’s tap water is fine for drinking. Furthermore, research shows that bottled water is not always higher quality water than tap water. The decision to consume bottled water or not is usually one of taste.
If you dislike the taste of your tap water, then drink your favorite bottled water. Just be sure to check the label carefully for unwanted additives. If you have no problems with your city’s water supply, then save some money and consume it.
TOO MUCH WATER
It’s possible to drink too much water, but it’s highly unlikely that you would ever do so. In the medical literature, drinking too much water leads to a condition know as hyponatremia. Hyponatremia most often occurs in athletes involved in triathlons and ultrmarathons. A few of these athletes consume many gallons of water during the course of these unusually long competitions, and because of the continuous activity they don’t or can’t stop to urinate. Thus, they impede their normal fluid-mineral balance and actually become intoxicated with too much water. Such a condition, however, is rare.
I’ve never observed anything close to intoxication happening with any of my participants, and some of them consume two gallons of water daily. Of course, they also have no trouble urinating frequently.
Note: Anyone with a kidney disorder or anyone who takes diuretics should consult a physician before making modifications of his or her water consumption.
GIVE SUPERHYDRATION A TRY
If you have more than 5 pounds of fat to lose, then I’d suggest that you get involved with Superhydration through one of my books. Both Living Longer Stronger and A Flat Stomach ASAP have all the latest recommendations incorporated into their week-by-week rules — which include eating and exercising plans.
On the other hand, if you only have a few pounds of fat to remove, or if your are already in lean condition, or if you just want to give Superhydration an informal trial for whatever reason, then here are the most efficient guidelines to utilize:1. Purchase a 32-ounce, insulated, plastic bottle to sip your water from.WHAT TO EXPECT
2. Start by sipping one gallon, or 128 ounces, of water a day. Do not go higher than 128 ounces per day for this informal trial period.
3. Drink most of the water before 5:00 P.M.
4. Keep the water ice cold. Remember, each ounce of 40-degree Fahrenheit water requires approximately 1 calorie to warm it to a core body temperature of 98.6 degrees.
5. Apply the above recommendations for at least 14 days.
Expect to feel more energetic, less fatigued, smoother skinned, and more satiated (from a nutritional standpoint) by the end of the first week. Anticipate being a little leaner by the end of the second week.
If you keep the Superhydration routine intact for a full month, you just may get healthily hooked for a long time.
During this brief process, you’ll experience some of your body’s quest, thirst, and fulfillment for water: large amounts of it. You’ll realize that, for years and years, what you’ve been calling hunger was really an inner cry for more water.
Listen closely to your body. It will reward you when it gets what it needs.
A FINAL TOAST
Superhydration has worked for thousands of people. It will work for you by improving your well being — both on the inside and the outside of your body.
It will definitely help you lose fat and live leaner longer.
Decide today to make Superhydration a salient aspect of your daily lifestyle.
Let’s drink to it.
WATER: on the rocks . . . straight up . . . and with a straw.
Make it a double!Comment -
How to Add Size on Your Arms – Quickly!
Arthur Jones's Unsuspected Secret(This article involves an intriguing promise that Arthur Jones
issued in IronMan magazine during the early 1970s.)by Ellington Darden, Ph.D.
"From only one workout," Arthur Jones announced, "I'll put half an inch of permanent muscle size on each of your upper arms!"
Jones's pledge was made to advanced bodybuilders, who were readers of IronMan. These men would do almost anything to add a fraction of an inch to their biceps and triceps.
Furthermore, Jones backed up his declaration with a remarkable guarantee:
"If you don't put half an inch of solid muscle on your arms, I'll pay your expenses to and from Florida."
As you can imagine, many bodybuilders made the journey to DeLand, Florida, in the early 1970s. I witnessed Jones put dozens of men through his workouts. And crazy as this whole challenge seemed, he actually made good on his promise. I never saw any of these men ask for his expenses to be reimbursed.
A quick half an inch of muscle on each arm? What was Jones's secret? How was he able to stimulate growth so fast?
The secret to such growth was totally unsuspected by most bodybuilders.
Jones's Formula
Here's the formula that Arthur Jones devised:
Jones would meet the arriving bodybuilder at the airport, bus station, or a local restaurant. Almost immediately he'd get out his tape and measure the trainee's upper arms – on the first flex, cold, and unpumped – and record it appropriately in his yellow tablet, along with the guy's name, age, and date. Arthur was a vigilant record keeper. Then, over a large and leisurely meal, they'd talk training and Jones's harder-but-briefer philosophy.
After an hour of conversation, Jones would check the visitor into a Daytona Beach motel, where he was instructed to spend the next three nights and days sleeping and resting. Invariably, the bodybuilder would ask, "But what about my workout?"
Jones knew from his dinner discussion that the bodybuilder was in a state of overtraining – as most were then, and are now – so it would be counterproductive to exercise him straight away in that condition. What he desperately needed was rest, relaxation, and sleep – plenty of all three – and no workouts.
Yes, the trainee could enjoy the beach, the sun, the surf, and the fresh air. But no, absolutely no, exercise of any kind. And Jones made the guy give him his word on this.
On the afternoon of the fourth day, Arthur would meet the bodybuilder at the Quonset hut gym behind DeLand High School. That was where Jones housed his early Nautilus equipment.
Talk about being enthusiastic, the guy would usually be almost wild. After training daily, often twice a day, for years – the body feels simply great after three days of rest.
Before the workout, however, Jones would measure the trainee's arms again. With most bodybuilders, their arms would already be 1/4-inch larger. That's right, 1/4-inch bigger from no exercise – from just rest and sleep.
Three days and nights of forced rest and sleep . . . was Jones's unsuspected secret to quick growth.
Thus, if you even remotely think that you might be in a state of overtraining, coerce yourself to take three or four days off from anything related to exercise. Double-check your recovery ability by comparing accurate before-and-after measurements (three-days apart) of your flexed upper arms.
A slight increase in arm size is a clear indication that you are training too much and lacking in sleep.
The Workout
The workout never consisted of more than 10 exercises. Usually there were two exercises for the legs, two for the torso, and the rest devoted to the arms.
For example:
- Leg extension machine
- Leg curl machine
- Nautilus pullover machine
- Nautilus rowing-torso machine
- Standing biceps curl with barbell*, immediately followed by
- Nautilus biceps machine, immediately followed by
- Pulldown on lat machine
- Bench press with barbell*, immediately followed by
- Nautilus triceps machine, immediately followed by
- Dip on parallel bars
* Do not rest between exercises 5, 6, & 7 . . . and 8, 9, & 10.
Only one set of approximately 8 to 12 repetitions was performed, but each exercise was carried to all-out failure. Particular attention was placed on the contracted position of the biceps and triceps exercises. It's impossible to describe the type of failure that Arthur Jones gets out of people, except to say simply: It's extreme!
Many of the bodybuilders would throw up after the first three exercises. All of them wanted to. They all took a long rest, flat on their backs or stomachs, after the workout. No one ever asked for a second set of any exercise.
An hour after the workout, and over another meal, Jones was back explaining his new philosophy. It was surprising how much more receptive and inquisitive the bodybuilder was now. After another hour or two, it was back to the motel for another night's sleep.
The Result
Jones would arrive early the next morning (day 5) at the motel for the climatic measurements and yellow-tablet comparison of the data.
On each one I ever witnessed or heard about, there was at least a 1/2-inch increase on each upper arm. A few gained 5/8 of an inch or more.
Only two guys came close to failing. They registered a 7/16-inch increase per arm, but after one more night's sleep, they were up another 1/8 inch.
Salient Advice
I've learned a great deal about strength training and bodybuilding from being associated with Arthur Jones for 35 years. But nothing I've learned has more salience than the importance of rest and sleep in building larger and stronger muscles. This was especially true for the biceps and triceps.
I've also read many articles and books on rest and sleep that complement Jones's beliefs. I'm convinced that you'll get better results from your high-intensity training if you apply the following guidelines:
- Achieve 10 hours of sleep each night if you are a teenager.
- Get 9 hours of sleep each night if you are an adult.
- Schedule a 15-minute nap each day, if possible.
- Do less exercise, not more – if in doubt about the length of your routines.
- Limit any type of vigorous activity on your off days.
- Keep accurate records of measurements, workouts, and sleeping and resting schedules.
- Take a 9-day layoff after each period of six months of steady training.
Conclusion
If you rest and sleep abundantly, your muscles will reward you well. Incorporate Arthur Jones's unsuspected secret into your training today.Comment -
i will be on skype tommorrow talking about training if anyone wants to join in, I have about 50-100 expected to show up
pm me for details. Im ttwarrior1 on skypeComment -
CONTRACTION CONTROL
There is a vast difference between performing reps fast and performing them slowly. Movements that are initiated with a sudden jerk and then continued rapidly to completion apply resistance only at the start and at the end of the movement. Repetitions that leave the starting position in a slow and deliberate fashion apply resistance to the muscle through the entire movement, making them more productive. Once the speed of the movement exceeds a certain rate, the outside force of momentum comes into play and it, rather than the force exerted from muscular contraction, is responsible for the completion of the movement. It is imperative, therefore, that you perform all the exercises listed in this report in a deliberate and relatively slow manner. This is essential if you are to derive maximum benefit from the suggested routines. Having left the starting position in a deliberate fashion, with no sudden jerk or thrust of the weight, continue to the top or contracted position slowly, with no momentum aiding in the work. A momentary pause should be made at the top before lowering the weight back again. If you cannot hold it at the top without having the weight fall back to the starting position, then you didn’t lift it with muscular contraction alone. Any weight that you can lift with the force of muscular contraction you should be able to hold at any position in the exercise’s range of movement, because we have more strength in ‘holding’ weights, our static strength level, than we do in raising weights. The lowering of the weight back to the starting position should likewise be done in a slow and deliberate manner. The lowering should take at least as much time as the raising of the weight. The actual amount of time that it should take to both raise and lower the weight will be about four seconds each. This will insure that the work was done by the muscle and not outside forces.
Studies conducted with subjects performing exercises while standing on a device that measures change in force known as a force plate, have demonstrated the vast difference between fast reps and slow reps. Barbell and dumbbell exercises that are initiated with a sudden jerk and continued rapidly to completion apply the needed resistance only at the start and the end of the exercise. Exercises that are begun and completed in a relatively slow and deliberate fashion, on the other hand, provide resistance all the way through the movement, making it a much more productive style of performance, since it works the entire length of the muscle. It was found in these studies that once the speed of movement exceeds a certain rate, the force of momentum comes into play and it, rather than muscular contraction, is responsible for the work being done.Comment -
another skype convo this thursday, had over 100 show up last time, expect more this time. I will remove anyone from inappropriate behavior during the skype chat. 6 to 9 pmComment -
HEAVY DUTY™ - a Scientific Perspective
Dave Smith, PhD
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
James Fisher, MSc
Southampton Solent University, UK
Sometimes potential newcomers to Mike Mentzer’s HEAVY DUTY™ high-intensity training inquire asking for referrals to studies conducted that support Mike’s teachings. The following article is quite substantial in answering this type of question, and the writers are certainly credible and qualified based upon their experience and education. I would like to introduce the writers to you:
Dave Smith is Senior Lecturer in Sport Psychology at Manchester Metropolitan University, which is one of the largest exercise science facilities in Europe. Dave had worked previously as a personal trainer utilizing high-intensity training with considerable success. Dave knew Mike for some years and had even written articles for Mike in the past. They had a mutual respect for each other.
James Fisher is Senior Lecturer in Sports Conditioning and Fitness at Southampton Solent University and is also an Assistant Coach with the British Wheelchair Basketball team, where he is involved in the athletes’ conditioning. Again, he is a strong advocate of high-intensity training. It is my hope that James will write an article for Mikementzer.com in the future as he finishes his current study which might also further support Mike’s HEAVY DUTY™ teachings and philosophy.
Ten years after his death, Mike Mentzer’s HEAVY DUTY™ high-intensity training philosophy still generates a huge amount of debate amongst bodybuilders. In his books, Mike claimed that his HEAVY DUTY™ training was, in essence, a scientific approach to training. Indeed, ‘The Science of Bodybuilding’ in Chapter 3 of HEAVY DUTY© (also known as HEAVY DUTY 1), outlines his key training principles. However, although at face value his approach certainly appears logical, it is difficult for most trainees to evaluate whether the scientific research on resistance training substantiates this claim. This is simply because most people do not have easy access to the (sometimes obscure) body of work examining this topic. This article, therefore, aims to explore the scientific literature on resistance training to put Mike’s theories to the test. In it, we will examine some of the key tenets of HEAVY DUTY™ to determine whether it truly does represent a scientific approach to bodybuilding. Though the article is not meant as a comprehensive review of the resistance training literature, or of Mike Mentzer’s views on every single aspect of resistance training*, we will summarize the key findings relating to the main tenets of the HEAVY DUTY™ approach.
* For a comprehensive explanation and discussion of Mike’s key training principles, see High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way© (Mentzer & Little, 2003) and The Wisdom of Mike Mentzer© (Little & Sharkey, 2005)
Intensity and the Importance of Training to Momentary Muscular Failure:
Mike often focused in his writing on his principle of ‘intensity’, which he defined as the percentage of momentary muscular effort being exerted (see, for example, High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way©, chapter 5). This in itself is controversial, as the term ‘intensity’ is often used in the literature to refer to load. For example, and typically, Willardson and Burkett (2008) and Fry (2004) point out that it is a common term for percentage of 1 repetition maximum (%1RM). This definition is problematic. For instance according to this definition, if one individual performs an exercise with a weight of 80% of 1RM, and performs one easy repetition with that weight, this person is training more ‘intensely’ than another individual who performs a hard set to momentary muscular failure with 79% of their 1RM. Clearly this is nonsensical; Mike’s definition of intensity seems much more logical as it refers to how the word ‘intensity’ is usually used in the exercise setting, i.e. to refer to the severity of the exercise. He argued that trainees should exercise to the point of failure, as this will ensure individuals make a sufficient inroad into the body’s reserve capacity to stimulate muscular adaptations:
“Carrying a set to a point where you are forced to utilize 100 percent of your momentary ability is the single most important factor in increasing size and strength”
--- Mike Mentzer (High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way©, p. 41).
A similar suggestion was made by Willardson (2008), who suggested that training to momentary muscular failure may provide greater stimulation to the higher threshold fast-twitch motor units which are capable of producing the greatest increases in strength and hypertrophy. Thus, training to momentary muscular failure is theoretically more beneficial simply because doing so would ensure recruitment of as many motor units and muscle fibres as possible. Unfortunately, few studies have directly addressed the concept of training to momentary muscular failure whilst accurately controlling for other variables such as load, volume and frequency. Those that have, however, have produced some interesting findings.
For example, Rodney et al. (1994) reported significantly greater gains (41.2% to 19.7%) in dynamic strength when training to muscular failure compared to sub-maximal sets of exercise. Similarly, Schott et al. (1995) reported significantly greater gains in isometric strength when training to failure compared to stopping the exercise short of failure (24.9kg to 14.3kg), and Drinkwater et al. (2005) reported significantly greater dynamic strength gains (9.5% to 5%), and also peak power for a bench press throw exercise when training to muscular failure compared to not training to failure (40.8W/10.6% to 25W/6.8%). Notably Folland et al. (2002) reported no significant difference in strength increase between a training time of around 7 minutes (to failure) and 25 minutes (not to failure), suggesting that the same strength gains could be achieved in approximately 30% of the time by training to momentary muscular failure. Overall, therefore, the evidence suggests that individuals should be encouraged to train to momentary muscular failure, as this appears to maximize muscle fibre recruitment and leads to greater improvements than sub-failure training.
Training Volume:
Mike argued that one set to failure per exercise was sufficient to trigger an adaptive response and that any more exercise would simply be wasted effort and possibly counterproductive in that it would increase the likelihood of overtraining:
“…one set to failure is all that is required to stimulate an increase in strength and size – with no number of lesser sets having the same effect”
– Mike Mentzer (Muscles In Minutes, p. 26).
The number of sets is one of the most controversial issues in resistance training, and one of the most well-researched. Reviews, such as those conducted by Carpinelli and Otto (1998) and Smith and Bruce-Low (2004), have concluded that one set per exercise produces optimal results. In the Carpinelli and Otto paper, they found that single sets produced optimal results in 33 studies out of the 35 they reviewed. In contrast, Peterson et al. (2004, 2005) also analyzed this issue and claimed that multiple sets were superior. However, their own data clearly did not support their conclusions as in fact there was no statistically significant difference between the effect sizes of the different training volumes (see Carpinelli’s excellent 2009 article for a discussion of this issue). Overall, therefore, the weight of evidence strongly supports the HEAVY DUTY™, one set to failure approach.
Training Frequency:
In contrast to many bodybuilding authorities, who suggest training up to six days per week (sometimes even twice per day), Mike argued in his revised HEAVY DUTY© (1993) book that bodybuilders should train no more than three times per week with each muscle group trained no more than once per week. Later, in HEAVY DUTY II: Mind and Body© (1996), Muscles In Minutes© (2000), and High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way© (2003), he argued that even this routine would constitute overtraining for many people and advocated a training frequency of once every several days at the most, with those especially prone to overtraining advised to train every 5-7 days (and in some cases even less frequently) using primarily compound movements (a method he termed ‘consolidation training’). Some have argued that such training frequencies are not sufficient to induce optimal muscle gains. However, the scientific research appears to suggest otherwise. A plethora of research, reviewed by Carpinelli et al. (2004) and Smith and Bruce-Low (2004), suggests that there is little or no difference between training 1, 2 or 3 x/week for both trained and untrained persons. Though no research has been published to date examining the effectiveness of consolidation-type training (the second author of this paper is undertaking such a study at present), there are some interesting findings on the recovery period following intense resistance training which appear very supportive of the need for relatively infrequent training to ensure recovery. For example, Cleak and Eston (1992) considered maximal eccentric exercise of the biceps, reporting changes in relaxed joint angle and swelling between 24 and 96 hours. In fact, maximal isometric strength had not returned within the 96 hour period. Newham et al. (1987), also considering maximal eccentric biceps exercise, reported a 50% decrease in strength immediately after training, and only a recovery to 80% of that prior to training after 2 weeks!
Another recognized indicator of muscle damage is swelling as measured by magnetic resonance imaging. A study by Nosaka et al. (1996) with untrained persons reported enlargement of trained muscles from 1-day post training up to 23-days post training, further suggesting that adequate recovery from intense training sessions can take considerable time.
Other research has reported significantly elevated creatine kinase levels and rating of perceived muscle soreness at 96 hours post exercise, as well as significantly elevated resting metabolic rate 48 hours post exercise (Dolezal, et al., 2000). All this research seems to suggest that recovery from hard training takes days, and in some cases up to several weeks. Therefore, it is very important to allow adequate recovery time between workouts, and this might be several days or even longer depending on the individual. Indeed, Mike argued latterly that attempting to prescribe rigid guidelines for frequency of training was a mistake as individual needs varied so much in this regard, something borne out by the above studies, all of which found considerable inter-individual variability.
Repetition Duration:
Mike advocated that repetitions should be performed slowly and deliberately with the weight always under full control to maximise muscle tension. In Muscles in Minutes©, he advocated a duration of about four seconds on the positive (lifting) and the same on the negative (lowering) portion of the repetition on most exercises, with a two second pause in the fully contracted position. Comprehensive reviews of this topic (Bruce-Low & Smith, 2007; Carpinelli et al., 2004) have supported Mike’s claim that a relatively slow cadence can produce optimal gains in strength and hypertrophy, but that ‘super slow’ (10:4 to 10:10 cadence) training does not offer additional advantages (Mike held that conducting “super slow” training beyond his recommended cadence could actually hold back the bodybuilder’s progress, because he would get tired quicker). For example, Johnston (2005) considered force production in a case study, reporting little difference in forces generated or experienced where movement was performed at repetition durations that maintained muscular tension (including 10:10, 5:5, and 2:4 (concentric: eccentric). Nevertheless, when attempting to move the load explosively, forces increased by as much as 45% initially, but then decreased by 85% for most of the repetition. This is likely due to the excess force provided to overcome the inertia being so great that momentum carries the weight through the rest of the range of motion. Johnston suggested that explosive lifts would likely recruit fewer muscle fibres due to momentum and that the diminished recruitment through most of the range of motion would be less effective for enhancing muscle function. This has previously been reported by Hay et al. (1983) with arm curl exercises. A study by Tran, Docherty and Behm (2006) considered decrement in force production and rate of force development, noting significantly larger decreases following sets of 10 repetitions at a 5:5 repetition duration compared to 10 repetitions at 2:2, and 5 repetitions at 10:4 repetition durations. This larger decrease in force production suggests fatigue in a larger proportion of muscle fibres, potentially stimulating greater growth and strength/power gains. Also, Bruce-Low and Smith (2007) specifically considered the risk of injury from ballistic exercises, reporting some disturbing statistics suggesting that explosive lifting can cause injuries to the wrist, shoulder, elbow and lumbar regions. Overall, therefore, Mike’s recommendation of a relatively slow speed of movement during resistance exercise seems both efficacious and prudent according to the research findings.
The Importance of Genetics:
Mike strongly emphasized in his writings that not everyone could develop to the same degree, and that although everyone can improve with proper training, few people have the genetic predisposition to enable them to develop a Mr. Olympia physique. Indeed, he devoted whole chapters in HEAVY DUTY© and in High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way© to this issue. This issue is often evaded in the bodybuilding magazines and books, and yet there is now a large body of evidence that various genes do indeed play a huge role in response to training. For example, myostatin [an “anti-growth” genotype, inhibiting muscular development] appears to be important, and research suggests the genetic variation in the IL-15RA (receptor-a gene) is a significant moderator of muscle mass in response to resistance training. Other genotypes include ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF), where the G/G and G/A genotypes have shown significantly greater muscular strength compared with the A/A homzygotes. There is also alpha-actinin-3 (ACTN3), where the R577X genotype is generally associated with muscle function, contractile properties and strength/power athletes and could modulate responsiveness to training. Stewart and Rittweger (2006) provide a comprehensive review of molecular regulators and genetic influences, and suggest that these genetic effects likely account for 80-90% (!) of the variation in muscular strength and cross-sectional area.
A very simple demonstration of the importance of genetics is shown by Van Etten et al.’s (1994) study. This reported significant increases in fat-free mass for a mesomorphic (muscular) group after 12 weeks of resistance training, where an ectomorphic (thin) group recorded no significant improvement having followed an identical training routine. Therefore, it appears that those who are naturally lean and muscular to start with, can gain strength and size to a much greater degree than naturally ‘skinny’ individuals. So, as Mike often emphasised, genetics are a key factor in bodybuilding success. As Arthur Jones once said on this topic, you simply can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. However, as noted above, everyone can improve on their existing condition with proper training, and a great deal of exercise science research suggests that HEAVY DUTY™ is an effective way for individuals to maximize whatever potential they do have.
--- Dave Smith and James FisherComment -
HEAVY DUTY™ - Is it Really Based on Science?
Shane Provstgaard, Masters Degree in Exercise Science
(17 Years Experience as a High-Intensity Trainer)
HEAVY DUTY™, High-Intensity Training, Mike Mentzer -- Say any of these names in the presence of any seasoned strength trainer, and you will undoubtedly get a strong response. While the opinions - either for or against - run deep, what can be said of the science that backs High-Intensity Training? Is there enough to lend any support to Mike Mentzer’s claims of brief and infrequent training? Is there any research that supports the need of training to failure, of doing only one set per exercise, of backing off the frequency of training in accordance to the intensity of the muscular contraction? Much research has been done over the last several decades in the realm of strength training. Does any of it support HEAVY DUTY™?
One of the first and most controversial aspects of HEAVY DUTY™ training is its emphasis on single sets of each exercise. Volume proponents decry the low volume of training prescribed by HIT in general and HEAVY DUTY™ in particular. Because of the popularity of volume training, many are swayed to believe that the methodology of more is better must be correct. After all, the muscle magazines and the champions espousing these claims can’t be wrong can they? What does the research say? In study after study, one set of exercise taken to momentary concentric failure has been shown to be as productive or more productive than training with multiple sets of the same exercise (Carpinelli and Otto, 1998; Ostrowski, K.J., et al., 1997; Fincher G. E., 2000; Hass, C. J., Garzarella, L, de Hoyos, D., & Pollock, M. L., 2000; Fincher, G. E., 2001; Wolfe, B. L., Vaerio, T. A, Strohecker, K., & Szmedra, L., 2001; Journal of Exercise Physiology online, 2004). This is not to say that there has not been research to back multiple sets, but in many cases, the research has been poorly run or had confounding variables that brought the results under scrutiny (Journal of Exercise Physiology online, 2004). This being the case, most of the credible research points to the superior efficacy of a high intensity routine based on single bouts of exercise taken to momentary muscular failure. As one of the main premises of HEAVY DUTY™ is the tightly regulated use of set volume, HEAVY DUTY™ is backed by science. Mike Mentzer believed that the greater the volume of sets in a workout, the longer it would take just to recover from the exercise leaving less of the body’s resources for growth. A study ran in 2001 found this to be true, finding that multiple sets carried to failure can result in extended recovery times of 96 hours or longer just to recover to pre-exercise strength (McLester, J. R., Bishop, P, Smith, J., Dale, B., & Kozusko, J., 2001). Some of the participants in the study had not recovered pre-workout strength even at the last testing of 96 hours (4 days) post-exercise session. It seems that the more sets added to the routine, the longer the window for recovery. This study also found that people recovered at different rates. Mike Mentzer was aware of this and HEAVY DUTY calls for the regulation of volume, frequency, and intensity of training based on each person’s innate response to exercise.
Another controversial issue when dealing with HEAVY DUTY™ is the frequency with which it is carried out. Mike Mentzer was a staunch advocate of doing not less, not more, but the precise amount of strength training needed to elicit the maximum physiological response. Research on this aspect of strength training has been sorely overlooked by the exercise science community. What little that has been done has shown that a frequency of once to twice per week, or less, was as effective as training for three or more sessions per week. Studies regarding the muscles of the lumbar area (lower back) have shown that training frequencies of once per week to once every other week were as productive in the acquisition of lumbar muscle strength as training frequencies of 2 to 3 times per week (Carpenter et al., 1991; Graves et al., 1990). Once the strength of these muscles improved, the increased strength could be maintained with but one set of 8 to 10 repetitions every two to four weeks (Tucci et al., 1992). The muscular rotators of the hip area have shown similar strength gains when training at 2 days per week as opposed to 3 days per week (DeMichele et al., 1997). Training once per week with one set also resulted in impressive gains in muscular strength for the cervical spine (Highland, R.H., Vie, L. L., Dreisinger, T. E., Russell, G. S., 1992). Research carried out by the MedX Corporation on quadriceps training via a leg extension machine showed a 60% to 80% increase in quadriceps strength with training frequencies of once per week or less (Jones; et al., 1993). The take home message of all of this research is that even with one set of one exercise once or twice per week participants were able to gain strength and hypertrophy. In older adults training just once per week with a single set high intensity routine resulted in the same strength gains as training twice per week (J DiFrancisco-Donoghue, W Werner, P C Douris, 2007).
With HEAVY DUTY™ high-intensity training, the frequency of training is adjusted to the individual. Again, as with the other precepts of HEAVY DUTY training, the research bears this out. A study carried out at Nautilus North in Bracebridge, Ontario, Canada found that although it took the average trainee seven days to recover and grow from a single session of high intensity exercise some participants required nine to eleven days to recover and grow from one training session (Little, 2006). This study backed up the findings from the previously cited study (McLester, J. R., Bishop, P, Smith, J., Dale, B., & Kozusko, J., 2001) showing that the optimal recovery interval between hard training sessions is much longer than previously thought and that people recover at different rates, some taking much longer than others.
HEAVY DUTY™ also calls for the judicious use of advanced high-intensity techniques and then only within the parameters of a tightly regulated routine. Full negative training is one such form of advanced HEAVY DUTY training, and the research regarding its use has shown that extended periods of recovery are necessitated following its use. Howell, Chleboun, and Conaster, (1993) found that recovery following a single bout of three sets of full negative training for the biceps muscles required over 6 weeks! Once recovered, the biceps for all participants averaged a 5% increase in strength at a full twelve weeks post training session. Full negative training is thought to be much more intense than standard strength training causing a deeper inroad into the body’s limited recuperative resources necessitating longer recovery times. Further research into the effects of multiple sets of extremely intense negative contractions noted similar decreases in strength following the training session with the corresponding exaggerated recuperative times (Jones, Newman, Round, and Tolfree, 1986; Newman, Jones, and Clarkson, 1987; and Ploutz-Snyder, Tesch, and Dudley, 1998). Because of the extreme nature and inroading of advanced HEAVY DUTY™ methods, such as full negative training, Mike Mentzer only allocated their use for advanced HEAVY DUTY™ practitioners that have mastered the fundamentals of HEAVY DUTY and that are reaching the end of their genetic potential.
Another study employing a single set of concentric/eccentric (negative) or concentric/ accentuated eccentric (negative) training for the knee extensors found that two sessions per week for 10 weeks resulted in roughly a 100% improvement in strength (Godard, Wygand, Carpinelli, Catalano, and Otto, 1998). Keep in mind that was one total set of exercise per workout twice per week. Judging from the aforementioned research, multiple sets even for different body parts would likely add to the time necessary for full recuperation from the training session, as the added volume would cause deeper inroads with each successive set. It might seem from the above data that training with less intensity, but with more volume may allow for a more frequent and productive routine, but the research supports intensity, leading to muscular failure, above all else when it comes to producing strength and hypertrophy (Bigland-Ritchie, Furbush, & Woods, 1986; Rooney, Herbert, & Balnave, 1994; Drinkwater et al, 2005). As a case in point, the above cited research involving concentric/eccentric training noted a 100% or greater increase in strength over 10 weeks, whereas a review of 12 other studies employing less intense but more frequent modalities of strength training noted only a 7% to 71% increase in strength over a period of time ranging from 8 to 24 weeks of training (Fleck & Kraemer, 1987).
Another factor affecting the amount of force production produced by the muscles contractile components (muscle fiber) and therefore, the intensity of each exercise, is the rate of speed with which the weight is actually lifted. HEAVY DUTY training calls for the execution of each repetition in a slow controlled manner. Biomechanists have found that the only time a muscle builds maximum contractile force is at zero velocity (Hamill & Knutzen, 1995). Further research has found that lifting at high velocities (explosive lifting) did not result in higher levels of muscle fiber recruitment (Burhle, Schmidtbleicher, and Russel, 1983), but can precipitate the onset of spondylosis as well as expedite bone and joint damage (Dangles & Spencer, 1987). Research has also found that lifting at slow speeds, or with minimal movement (isometric training), results in greater strength and muscle mass gains than standard lifting techniques or even other high-intensity techniques (Westcott, W. L., Winett, R. A., Anderson, E. S., Wojcik, J. R., Loud, R. L., Cleggett, E., & Glover, S., 2001; Little, 2006). Because force production and intensity of muscle contraction are dictated by slow controlled movement, it is imperative, as Mike Mentzer stated, that any exercise carried out for the purpose of safe maximum muscle contraction should involve slow controlled lifting speeds consisting of a 4 second concentric phase, a 2 second pause in the fully contracted portion of the exercise, and a 4 second eccentric phase.
From the overwhelming amount of research, Mike Mentzer and his HEAVY DUTY™ style of high-intensity exercise established safe effective guidelines for those seeking a stronger, more muscular, fit body. The foundation of the HEAVY DUTY™ training system is to train intensely, slowly, and with good form, while keeping the volume of training low, which means doing no more than one set per exercise. He also realized that the strength training process is tri-phasic in nature, meaning you must first stimulate the muscle to grow, then you must recover from the training bout, which can take anywhere from 24 to 264 hours or more to accomplish, and only then can your body actually strengthen and grow from the training session. The recovery rate or period of time between training bouts is highly personalized, meaning you should not let gym dogma and custom dictate your training program. Remember, as per Mentzer, that training before you have recovered fully will not allow you to actualize the growth production stimulated from your training routine. Also, remember that the frequency of training can change as you get older, the intensity of your training goes up (which could be related to you getting stronger [more muscle mass being recruited] or adding intensity variables), or any other number of innate or external influences. You should not get caught up in training a certain number of days per week, but instead should be tracking your strength gains with a log book and adjust your frequency of training until strength gains are noted on the exercises you are performing. Again, the research has shown that exercise should be looked at in terms of performing the minimal dose to achieve the maximum benefit. This will limit the wear and tear on the body, allow for maximum recovery, and this, when combined with a proper diet and sleep will result in the greatest strength and hypertrophy gains allowed by your individual genetics.
--- M. Shane Provstgaard, M.Sc.
[Ed.: Shane Provstgaard is a trainer specializing in High-Intensity Training. He holds both Bachelors and Masters degrees in Exercise Science and has 17 years experience training a wide variety of clients ranging from teenagers looking to improve their sport to post-stroke patients looking to regain the strength and fitness necessary for everyday life.]Comment -
[quote=ttwarrior1;6176375]Once muscular growth has been stimulated, it can't be stimulated anymore than what it is. Anymore than the exact precise amount is overtraining.
Essentially, you are quite right. However, it is important to emphasise that the initial set, taken to failure, should be as few as two-to-three reps.
One should set the weight sufficiently high as causes failure on the third rep. Then, one should not use that sort of lift again that session.
I got exceptional results bearing this in mind, with nothing else more than a decent protein powder taken in sufficient doses (at least 250g of protein per day when training or recovering). Also never exercise the same group again (i.e. upper body) for fully three days.
Day 1 Upper Body, Day 2 Lower Body, Day 3 Rest is a simple and effective cycle. No more than 15-30 minutes needed on weights per session either!
Comment -
what was your rep speed ????Comment -
tt quit with gay man muscle shit
you supposed to meet me for tennis matchComment -
can't wait for your gym videos ttwarrior.
Its only been a few months since you promised them.Comment -
Arent you a fat fuk???? Funny talking about this shit lol just go to the gym work out 3-5 times a week 1.5 to 2 hours each .....eat good food and take Deer Antler you will be surprisedComment -
Lifting until you fail is a good thing but WTF you fail at 10 lbs
are you 105lbs? I curl 125 4 sets of 10 the next gym visit is 140 3 set of 10 increasing reps and wieghts on different days
My orginal curling started at 70lbs in the begining start slow at first
You have to be careful if you are older Im 55 now and I blew my shoulder out I got carried away benching to much I took 5 weeks off and dropped back down to just benching 200-240 I used to do 8 station a gym visit 3 or 4 sets of 10 using wieghts that got me to the failure pt now I do 6 or 7 station and lift a little lighter added more cardio I dont want to go back to being a fat fuk
Comment -
I post the truth and or what i believe to be correct at the time. If you don't like my posts , don't read them. No I don't practice what i preach . I just ate a half a bag of doritos also and not doing any lifting or cardio today , but i will be training people. I'm also a mod at a hair growth forum but my hair falls out everyday even though I am also a expert on how to get most people's hair to grow back or maintain what they have
Go hire magic johnson to help you become better at basketball
,
Comment -
No tt, I mean it in a good way. Countless government employees out there sitting around waiting for retirement to kick in or company people wasting their lives away in some cubicle. You're doing it your way
Comment -
good stuff guys. At almost 50 years of age I can tell u it gets a bit tough to keep the body fat off. i think I'm in damn good shape for my age, but the best benefit is to be agile and mobile later in life so you can enjoy your golden years. Soo many people work and work all there lifes and neglect there body cause there too lazy or too tired. then they finally retire with there $$ and can't climb a set of stairs. sad. I wanna be able to enjoy my $$ later in life and thats why i stay in shape.Comment -
Comment
