1. Re: Heavy Duty II
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
2. Heavy Duty
by: Scott Hopgood <woozer@southnet.co.nz>
3. HIT & Anabolic/BodyOpus diets
by: Chris Gore <JazmanX@webtv.net>
4. Re: Quantifying Training damage and recovery demand
by: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 10:06:39 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: Re: Heavy Duty II
Just making a few comments on the below post. Mike Mentzer's system is
just that. It is not a set in stone prescription that must be
religiously adhered to or a money back guarantee is offered. YOU are
the one responsible for applying it CORRECTLY. This means that you must
find out the optimal stimulus with reference to (vol of sets and REPS
(muscle fibre type dictates), cadence of lifting for the entire w/o),
and then adjust the recovery time to suit. With all of these variables
(and they do vary) there is no cookie cutter applications with "This is
how it should be". If some of you read the article on fibre type and
what progress was made or not made according to when just ONE variable
was changed you may well appreciate that it may take a little time
initially before the results are forthcoming to the magnitude that you
wish. Take the time to make some initial tests, it is well worth it.
These 2 articles should be useful for one variable so I will give them
once again.
http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/4000/hitfaq20.html#Q32 under "Optimal
range"
http://geocities.datacellar.net/Colosseum/4000/mfh42.html starting at 14th
paragraph.
-------------------- 4 --------------------
> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 15:02:34 -0500
> From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
> Subject: Heavy Duty II
>
> In a nutshell, I got smaller, fatter and weaker using Mentzer's HD II.
> My overall muscle mass decreased while my bodyfat percentage went up,
> and my strength went down accordingly. <snipped>.
> Some might say; "Well, you getting fatter was your own fault
> because you did not cut back calories". That is not the case. <snipped>
You actually lost strength. this would give you an idea that muscle was
being lost. Once you realised this and continue with the same calorie
intake, this is YOUR prerogative
> Muscle mass was lower, indicating that growth had not been stimulated and furthermore
> had decreased beyond previous levels.
Either that or you needed to go onto a "consolidation routine". It is
higly probable that growth was stimulated but was interrupted before
becoming evident. I would suggest this is the case in that you actually
lost strength and for me it takes me a long time (>4 wks) to lose
strength by resting completely. For the routine not to supply enough
stimulus for even maintenance seems highly unlikely.
Cya
Teri
-------------------- 2 --------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:46:49 +1300
From: "Scott Hopgood" <woozer@southnet.co.nz>
Subject: Heavy Duty
I and everybody else I know have had the same results (or lack of results)
with Mike Mentzers HD2 system.
I have tried several times with little success with his HD1 also, the
amount of strength gained on a workout to workout was considerably less,
than the higher volume/frequency program I was on.
For example on my existing program I may have been able to put my weight up
2.5 kgs and maintain the same amount of reps, or keep the same amount of
weight and increase the reps 2-3. This was while training each bodypart
every 3-4 days.
With HD1 I was training each bodypart less frequently, with a higher amount
of intensity per work set, and yet the strength gains were at best
negligible, and after several weeks were almost reversing as it was getting
harder to even make the same amount as the workout before.
If I was to look at it from Mentzers over simplistic point of view, I would
take it to mean that I had reached a point of overtraining, and should
reduce training volume and freq. even more. Funny thing was though as I
went back to a higher volume/frequency program gains once again started.
Later I tried HD2 for several weeks with even less success, not only could
I not maintain strength, but I lost about 2 kgs of LBM.
Now I have talked to no less than a dozen other trainers who have
experienced similar things with his methods.
While I am not an advocate of High volume training (10 sets+ per B/P) I do
think that Mentzers system has several major flaws:
1. According to him overtraining is the reason most BBuilders don't get the
results they desire, yet why, following that logic, could someone be losing
strength on a low volume program, and then gain it far quicker on a higher
volume program, if according to Mentzer the reason I would have not been
gaining was due to overtraining. Things should have got worse.
He also claims that as you get stronger the stresses on your body get more,
so therefore you need to rest more. The problem is though, that your body
is an adaptive organism, and the reason it is able to lift more is that it
has already "adapted" and is able to now handle a higher load, with no
extra stress.
For example: if when you started lifting the maximum stress your legs could handle for an all out set was 100kg for 6 reps in the squat. After 6 months you can now handle 150kg for an all out set, that does not mean that your legs are 50%more stressed, it means that your legs have adapted and now their maximum is 50% more. If you were to put the 50 extra kilos on your "original" legs it would be more stress as they have not adapted to increased loads. If 100kg for 6 reps was your maximum and it took you 4 days to recover, when you progress to 150kgs it will also take you 4 days to recover, as your body has adapted to take the increased load.
Also the issue of detraining comes into play. The more conditioned an
athlete the quicker they will recover from an intense session, but he body
will also revert to it's previous state quicker, in an effort to preserve
equilibrium. Your body does not want to have to feed extra kilos of muscle,
and the muscle is not stimulated regularly.
Also just of interest has anybody out there been able to increase their
poundages 10-20% once they reached the 12 rep limit?. I know that right now
I can squat 180kgs for 12 reps, but if I put the weight up to 200kgs (10%
increase) it knocks me back to 2 reps, not the 6-8 it is supposed to. I
have yet to find anybody, even drug users who can increase their poundages
like that.
Has anybody got their genetic potential in 1 year as is stated in HD2? I
know Mike is a successful Personal Trainer, so surely he must be cranking
out 240 pound monsters on a regular basis. HD2 came out well over a year
ago now.
I don't have anything personal against Mike or his system (somebody must be
gaining on it, otherwise how does he sell so many books), it is just a
little to simplistic, and like 80% of pre-mixed programs just doesn't work
as well as he hypes it up to.
Have a great New Years,
Scott
-------------------- 3 --------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:44:58 -0600
From: JazmanX@webtv.net (Chris Gore)
Subject: HIT & Anabolic/BodyOpus diets
Greetings!
I was just wondering if anyone out there has tried a HIT-type program with a low carb/high fat diet such as the Anabolic Diet or the BodyOpus diet. I have had great results with HIT training, but now I am wanting to cut up, so I thought I would experiment with one of these diets. Any tips, experiences, suggestions, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Chris Gore
-------------------- 4 --------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:01:01 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: Re: Quantifying Training damage and recovery demand
Wrt the following calculations, it is not the amount of metabolic work that produces strength and size gains but the metabolic cost in a GIVEN UNIT of TIME. The calculations will not work because if they did the metabolic cost of lifting 100 reps of 4 kg would be equal to lifting 5 x 80. With all things being equal this is not the case.
If you continue to do the momentarily possible even for many sets will
not provide the body with a message that it needs to overcompensate to
the degree that if it is asked to accomplish the momentarily
impossible. To those HITers out there I believe it is a good idea to
keep pushing when concentric failure occurs for at least 10sec. I
believe only then is the body getting a very clear explicit message that
more is required of it. Now sometimes lifting the weight will be easier
slowly and sometimes it will be harder.
As I've explained before lifting a heavy weight fast makes for hard work
but this lifting syle applied to a light weight unloads the muscle due
to momentum. This variable is not taken into account but it makes a
difference. Did you know that I can do 1000 pushups at one go, does it
really matter that I rest after every 20 for 5 min, good I didn't think
so .
The only valid way to determine metabolic cost that I know of and can be used fairly easily is to know what one's maximal lift and once they fail to lift for eg 80% of it, they know that a 20% reduction in momentary ability was accomplished. Now a heart rate monitor may be useful for determining how specific relates to systemic intensity. This idea came from either Matt B or Rob S (I can't remember which but they want Joe Weider's bronzed body:)) It could be that it is more important to make greater systemic demands than local for size and strength gains?
Cya
Teri
> -------------------- 6 --------------------
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:34:44 -0500
> From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
> Subject: Quantifying Training Damage and Recovery Demand
>
> Andrew Baye (drewbaye@aol.com) wrote:
> >If a person is capable of training at such a high degree of intensity that
> >they require a week, 10 days, even two or more weeks of recovery, but their
> >overall strength increases are greater than if they were to train at a
> lower
> >(some might say more "tolerable") level of intensity and higher frequency,
>
> How in the _world_ can you justify this comment? How in the world can
> there be so much metabolic cost created by typical low volume "high
> intensity" training protocols (HIT, HD, Superslow) that 10 days of complete rest
> would be necessitated? It does not make mathematical sense. A
> proposition:
>
> Damage Incurred = [number of sets performed] x [percentage of 1RM x
> eccentric lowering time x repetitions performed]