HIT Digest #81

1. Re: HIT Digest, digest #80
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
2. Re: HIT Digest, digest #80
by: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
3. Rotator cuff
by: Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@onr.com>
4. Re: Increase in weights and growth
by: James Krieger <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
5. Re: Rotator Cuff Rehab
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
6. Re: HIT Digest, digest #80
by: DrewBaye <DrewBaye@aol.com>
7. Re: Mentzer
by: Brad Collins <bcollins@hotmail.com>
8. Rotator cuff suggestion and Mentzer HD2
by: bull <STRIETPJ@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu>

-------------------- 1 --------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 22:43:50 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #80

> From: "Kevin Dye" <kevind@picknowl.com.au>
> I disagree with the fact that Mentzer relies upon the his client's results for proof of his system. Lately, I have been > privileged to 'converse' with one of his 285 [drug-free pound clients], who trains every 8-9 days for 2 sets/exercises, & > is still growing!!! When comparing the weights we used, we weren't that far apart, so rational prevailing, I too should be > on something similar.

Your point being? Somewhere, there is a 330 lb'er at my gym who is completely natural, a quiet spoken man who trains with atleast 16 sets for chest. What does your example and my example mean? Nothing. Personally, I think empirical evidence is worthless if used as the only argument one has. Used in conjunction with sound scientific proof, sure, icing on the cake. But as an entire argument; I think we can all find "some lifter" to prove a theory. University of Nebraska uses disgustingly high volume periodization protocols, traditional tapering programs. University of Michigan uses single set training throughout the season, multiple times a week. Both of these systems boast stellar athletes (i.e. Charles Woodson and Ahman Green) with tremendous strength, speed and relative size. Both teams were rated #1 at one time or another this season. What does it say about training methodologies and success? Nothing, except that there are many routes to it.

#1 rule of statistics: a small population does not necessarily reflect the issue well. You can find any one individual out there to support a hypothesis. One could say well, water consumed only in a gym is highly anabolic and the stimulus for growth. From that I could chart out the millions of people in the world right now, regardless of training system, regardless of expertise, training levels, age, nutrition, etc. who are making gains and drinking water at the gym. Does it prove anything? No. The empirical evidence does not support scientific proof.

The adaptability that human beings have is incredible. Looks folks, if we've made it through the past million years there has GOT to be some kind of mechanism that can adapt itself to many different situations. Think about how long we would have lasted if our ancestors could fight off a saber toothed tiger when they're fresh but hey, if you run more than 20 feet, you're dead. Implication for training? A wide variety of stimuli, WITHIN REASON, will provide results. Extreme data, i.e. at the fringes of accepted variations on loading parameters (sets, reps, tempo, rest intervals, frequency, duration) do not yield results as positive as those closer to the middle. Training is NOT black and white, it is a series of grays. If this were not true, then don't you think by now through all of the research study done, through all of the knowledgeable strength coaches (HIT'er and non HIT'er alike), through all of the training journals and competitions, that THE perfect training program would have been devised? Something so perfect, and so effective, that it's basic efficacy spreads word of it like wildfire? That every institution, group and individual that utilizes a training program of some sort, adopts it quickly, seeing the light? That suddenly a class of superhuman men and women develop, all with similar gains in strength and size and differentiated only upon the basis of genetic predisposition to success?

Why has this not happened if the "ultimate training program has been found"?

My point is this. Anyone claiming to have found the holy grail of training is a huckster who wishes to dispel their own frustrations and misunderstandings by lying to themselves and others as having found the truth. Trial and error experimentation in training is BLOODY FRUSTRATING. But it is worth it in the end. It's VERY easy to find something that works relatively well, stop right there and say "I'm done. Here's the answer!" There are a lot of things that work! I'm not insulting anyone here (Mentzer). I think that Mentzer has had to deal with a lot of years going up against mindless morons and as a result he has become somewhat defensive over his training system. I can't blame him. Low volume training does work; to have others alledge that it doesn't again and again...over time, the situation deteriorates from a training discussion to an insult to one's thinking capacity. Hence, the pseudo-philosophical discussion interlaced with training stuffs. Low volume training works, but it's not the end all to everything.

> Most trainees fail to realise the workout is only the START of the muscle building process, rest & recuperation actually > DELIVERS the results. The more you short change recuperation time, the more you hamper the growth mechanism. All steroid

Sure, but exactly what manipulation of loading parameters is the optimal route for this to occur? If you talk to anyone with
a basis in physiology, they'll tell you that the central nervous system ultimately begins to limit the total adaptations the body makes in response to a stimulus. Hell, we learned this in Gr. 11 Biology. If this were not true, this would represent a VERY inefficient method of survival. Think about how much energy would have to be expended to survive, if everytime you were faced with cold weather, your body went into the same amount of thermoregulatory shock as it did the first time you encounter cold. Your body treats every subsequent experience with eh cold as if it was the first...doesn't happen! The body adapts, responds not only by compensating for the stimuli but responding SMARTER over time. What is smarter? Minimizing the damaging effects of a stimulus by expending less energy and resources. The adaptation process is made more efficient. Hence the reason why ultimately ALL training programs cease to provide results as effective as they did when initially embarked upon. Look at ANY gym in the world. Find the idiot who has been on his training program for years on end. Are his gains as good as they were when he started? No. Has he changed? No. Does he even think about this? No.

The problem, I think, with training progress, is more a lack of knowledge in the fundamentals than subscribing to a pariticular protocol or dogma. People want to jump into training and start making gains. "Hell, if I curl this weight, I should automatically grow, shouldn't I?" When that doesn't happen, they think more weight. When they still aren't gaining, they add calories. When they still aren't gaining, they resort to the muscle rags for enlightenment. When they still aren't gaining, hell, they use whatever works for someone else. The point of all of this is that fundamentally they still lack a prerequisite knowledge in the principles of effective training and THAT over all things is what is disarming them. Sometimes it is a lack of intensity, sometimes it is a lack of proper form, sometimes an ineffective rest interval, too much volume FOR THE GIVEN RECOVERY PERIOD, too much frequency, too little of this and that. But without the proper understanding of training principles they can never properly and intelligently assess and correct their training errors.

> a reduced exercise & frequency routine [Consolidation style]. If the weights steadily increase, as they should, then how >can I not grow bigger? It stands to reason. If not, I will have to regulate the volume & frequency until results are forth

I think that study has shown that size and strength are not necessarily interrelated. For example, a beginning athlete gets significantly stronger through greater neuromuscular efficiency; i.e. more motor units are innervated by the nervous system in the same amount of muscle mass. Muscle mass does not increase but the body becomes more efficient at using what it has. Furthermore, training in low repetition, high intensity (i.e. %RM) ranges improves this neuromuscular efficiency - which is WHY powerlifters and weightlifters usually improve their relative strength (i.e. strength per pound bodyweight) and not necessarily size. You have these 132 lb. powerlifters who can outbench their 200 lb. bodybuilder counterparts.

----------
Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"

Jan 1998 09:34:22 -0800
From: Alson.Kemp@jksmtp.nsc.com
Subject: "Rotator Cuff" Injuries

Just found CyberPump 3 months ago and have been using HIT to great
advantage ever since. I am soooooo much happier only working out 2-3 days per week (and probably overtraining at that).
Anyways, two comments.
There has been a bit of discussion about rotator cuffs here, so I thought
I'd throw in my experience with a long fought "rotator cuff" problem. The short of it is that it turned out to be my biceps tendon. Symptoms were that, while working out, I got a hot/burning pain in the front of my shoulder right in between the middle and front delt. Also, if I put my left fist on my hip and gently pulled my elbow forward, I felt a stretch in the front of my shoulder and not in the back. Once I recognized (actually two separate orthopedists diagnosed the problem as the biceps tendon and one physical therapist had no idea what it was) the problem and changed my workout to avoid impinging on the tendon, it cleared up.
What is a good guideline for caloric intake? I never have had a strict
diet (though I generally have a good diet). My diet is generally Zone-like (40:30:30) and is keeping my body working well. What kind of caloric intake are y'all on? I'm about 6'2", 215-220, 8% bodyfat and I probably consume between 2000-3000 calories over the course of 5 meals per day. -Alson Kemp

-------------------- 5 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:03:12 -0500
From: "Couch, Mike" <couchm@DSD1POST.DAYTONOH.ncr.com>
Subject: HIT seminars

I recently attended a Bigger Faster Stronger (BFS) seminar at a high
school in Cincinnati. Since, I do not believe in explosive type of lifting, I was wondering if HIT has a similar type of seminar to offer. Also, I'm looking for a good workout program for high school
athletes. They would be lifting three days a week for about one hour. Any, suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

-------------------- 6 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:03:48 -0600
From: "Don Pendergraft" <dpendergraft@beckett.com>
Subject: What about hypertrophy?

I have been hitting for roughly six months now. I do the HD2 first workout. I go about 4 days between workouts and there are four different workouts. So, I get plenty of recovery. My lean body mass is about 158 pounds. I eat about 170g of protein a day and plenty o' carbs, fats. (Zone). I have been thrilled with the strength gains. I literally go up every workout. My leg press has gone up over 100 pounds. My straight barbell curls have gone up 25 pounds. Every other exercise I have seen similar progress. Anyway, with this I hate to sound like I am griping. However, in the first 2 months I put on 12 pounds of LBM (I started at 146 lbm). Since the, over 4 months, nothing!! I have been told to be patient. That if I keep getting stronger, I am sure to get bigger. Well, I'm still waiting! The other response is perhaps that I am not eating enough. I assure you that I am. In fact, I have put on some blubber lately.

I understand that neural adaptation has played a role in my gains, but I honestly do not agree that my strength gains (that continue to this day!) are still the result of neural adaptation! So, what is the deal? Here is my take on it:

I think that genetics is my limiting factor here. I believe that I will grow, but at the rate from here on out of say 3 pounds a year. Discouraging, especially in light of the some of the outrageous claims made by some HIT advocates. That is OK I guess. I will keep up the lifting. For my sport, I do it for the strength anyway, not the weight as I compete in weight classes. However, I would like to add lean mass to: 1. Look better.
2. To increase my metabolism. More muscle=more calories burned a day.

I guess I just wanted everyone to know that I am at this point frustrated, but will keep plugging and hitting along. Comments or suggestions welcome.

Don P.

-------------------- 7 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:11:44 -0500
From: Sandeep De <sde@golden.net>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #83

> Sandeep,
>
> While I respect your knowledge & insight, [especially for one so young] I feel that your [mis] understanding of effective > training [ie. Heavy Duty] is a shade off. Firstly, point taken that one trainee is not proof enough to validate a theory > as

Kevin, keep in mind that I once thought HD was the end all to everything. Then I learned the hard way that it was not. I was a staunch advocate of HD style training, I understood and completely agreed with what Mentzer said, I applied it with perfection for the better part of two years. Despite this, the gains still came to a close. The past year of my training has been asking why this happened. So if I condemn the thought that HD is the only way to train, it is not only from a physiological standpoint but an empirical one as well. The two together and brought me to my conclusions.

> THE best way. But when ALL the success's HD has produced is taken into
> consideration, including the reigning Mr.. Olympia, [who, drugs aside,
> is the ONLY contender to noticeably improve each year] then how can such
> overwhelming evidence be

The reigning Mr. Olympia does not train pure HD style. Dorian uses as many as 6-8 sets for back, although they are split up in different exercises. As far as I am concerned this still undermines Mentzer's basic premises of HD; although single sets per exercise are utilized. Using Mentzer-ian arguments; if Dorian was truly training as hard as he could be, he would be obliterated by the first few sets. Obviously, this is the not the case. Is this to alledge that Dorian does not train hard enough to merit any growth? Surely that is a joke. But how can he grow using multiple sets? Dorian is an unfair example; we're ignoring the drug issue here...nonetheless, his training is a far cry from the "one set per bodypart" idea. And
coincidentially, it supports the notion that the body can be taxed repeatedly in maximal efforts.

In so far as the drug issue - Kevin, have you ever looked at the training styles of steroid users? I have. I know you have as well. But have you thought about it? I'm not trying to be insulting here, so please don't misunderstand. But these are people who can look at a barbell and grow. Whether they train high volume, low volume, light weights, heavy weights, short rest intervals, long rest intervals, high frequency, low frequency, it doesn't matter - the testosterone makes up for SO much. People have long known that if one is gifted with endogenous hormone production beyond their peers, they will attain success MUCH faster. Steroids make up for stupidity, plain and simple! That being considered - look at the trend in
bodybuilding science (HAH) these days. Maximizing testosterone however possible (nutritional methods, training techniques, etc). And I'm not going to even touch the fact that Dorian is using
a lot more than just steroids.

In so far as testosterone - I think we can all agree it is a limiting factor in the attainment of progress - and Kraemer's studies have clearly shown that greater amounts of testosterone is secreted in response to multiple sets to failure rather than single sets to failure.

Again, my point isn ot whether high volume is good or bad or if low volume is good or bad. Each is good within their specific situation of need.

> they most certainly have / are. Even Pete Sisco, who is as dedicated to research & determining the exact ratio of high > > intensity exercise as anyone, has found that 4 total sets repeated every 2-3 weeks has delivered some substantial gains!

Is this in reference to his Static Contraction theory? I find the results a little hard to believe. And remember, I was one of those who once believed that HD is the only way and applied it to perfection. I did the HD II, I did the consolidation routine, I did the HD I. Hell, look at my website and the information from a year ago (approximately). You'll find it all HIT/HD centered. So I'm not against this stuff, and it's not as though I never tried it out. It's just not the only answer to the question.

> To argue whether Mentzer's principles are 'perfect' is a mute point, because when you compare his theory to all the > > others, it's the closest [if not the most exact] we currently have. Why? Because its basis is supported by rational, > > science, & experience. Therefore, there is little that anyone who uses common sense as their guide can fault.

To whose theory shall we compare Mentzer's? When compared to the lunkhead former roid munchers who write for magazines, yes, Mentzer is a god send. His clear rationale, common sense reasoning and arguments against certain training concepts are far more organized and intelligent than what you'll find in the majority of training publications. But if you want to compare Mentzer to the big boys, I think it's safe to say that HD falls short - in scientific proof, in physiological construction and in reasoning. Zatsiorsky's (former Russian Strength Coach with Olympic program during their hey-day) "Science and Practice of Strength Training". Kraemer and Fleck - PhD's who are regarded as some of the top research scientists in the industry - "Designing Resistance Training Programs". Or Dr. Mel Siff's textbook "Supertraining". When you look at the physics, the physiology, the biology, the pure, cold, calculated SCIENCE in these books Mentzer's philosophical basis of proof for his program seems simplistic at best. There is much more to training than what can be justified by Ayn Rand.

> human physiology is all about. Likewise, we are all basically
> biologically similar, for if we were not, each individual would require
> their own doctor tuned into their own unique needs. What most trainees
> overlook in their search for the

Standard Mentzerian argument. I used to use this one too about a year and a half ago. However, while
we are all biochemically similar, there is also signficant variance in biochemical factors. It's not a black and white issue; like we're all the same or we're not the same. Human individuality and variance is an incredible thing. You have variations across the board on a basic theme. The hGH production of a midget versus a giant would have a huge impact on the training progress they have! Whether or not Mentzer's system is the isolation of the basic fundamentals necessary for effective exercise is the true question. IMHO it is not the end all to everything, although it is a good start.

Remember, I'm not against HIT/HD training. But I do believe that the dogmatism present in these training systems undermine the progress that their followers make. There are specific points that I think quite highly of in HD / HIT. These are strong points that any one can benefit from.

1] Focus on training to the best of one's capacity i.e. to concentric failure- most people who are unfamiliar with the concept of training hard benefit from this the most
2] Allowing for sufficient time to recuperate and adapt from training 3] Focus on quality over quantity...BUT QUALITY AND QUANTITY CAN BE ACHIEVED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT!
4] Learning to listen to one's body instead of following preprogrammed designs that do not take into account one's personal physiological characteristics
5] Focus on effective, compound movements (at times...I think the debate re: machines over free weights is a freaking joke)

The underlying principles of HIT and HD are great stuff that should serve as the fundamentals in training thought for all athletes. But the interpretations of these fundamentals is where the variability question comes in. Questions regarding the above parameters:

Point 1] Training hard is important, but is training to concentric failure absolutely critical for growth. Olympic lifters rarely train to failure but still see positive gains in strength and size.

Point 2] Volume and recovery time are directly related. Hence the reason why nautilus 1 set every 2 days workouts are effective and yet higher volume, more infrequent workouts are also effective. Train, and give yourself enough time to recover - YOU WILL ADAPT AND GROW STRONGER. It is physiologically impossible to say that this is not true.

Furthermore - the rate of one's strength gains is dependant on how effectively they time the stimulus/growth cycle. I.E. If you are training, resting, training, resting with the exact numbers that you need to grow on a continual basis, attainment of strength and size gains will be more efficient than if you were say training too much and resting too little, or training too little and resting too much. It IS possible to provide an ineffective stimulus for growth just as it is possible to provide an excessively effective stimulus for growth (i.e. too much training effect at one time).

Point 3] Quality and quantity can be executed together despite being related inversely to each other. Yes, as quantity goes up, quality goes down. But what ratio of "quality" (i.e. intensity in the HIT sense) to quantity (i.e. sets) yields the best results? This question, imho, depends entirely on the situation of the individual athlete and CANNOT be simplified into "well, one set is good or 10 sets is good". Both are good depending on the specific situation they are applied in.

> 'right' routine is the fact that the whole name of the game is to 'get the most from the least', & considering the unique
> stress high intensity training places on the WHOLE body, it isn't very much at all.

Physiologically, neurologically, or mathematically, I don't believe that low volume training can provide the same level of mechanical stimulus to the muscle as repeated efforts can. It's technically impossible! How can 1 be more than 3 mathematically? Here is my point. Volume is intimately related to recovery time. As one goes up, so does the other. The most common mistake is for people to overload their recovery time with excess volume! The solution is not black and white, i.e. one set performed once a week. In this case, the volume and recovery time must be balanced. That might mean 3 sets a week, 1 set every 2 days (conventional HIT or Nautilus training) or One set every 7 days. The important thing is that each person's individual situation is going to be highly specific and as such you cannot generalize about this kinda thing.

> I don't / can't agree with this statement at all. Everything being equal, a stronger a trainee gets, the larger they > become. What about powerlifters who HAVE to move up to a higher weight division because they have increased their muscle
Kevin - look up a physiology textbook and Sales' papers on neuromuscular efficiency and training. The body can either a] innervate more motor units in the same given muscle mass or b] remap the pathways through which motor units are innervated. Again, I can only discuss this subject on the basis of physiological fact. I don't have the time to really discuss someone's "personal" opinions without basis in physiological fact (no offense intended). We already have enough "opinions" out there without sufficient proof.

> mass, despite their training? Saying; their muscles got bigger though they were training solely for strength. It is > obvious that tendon length, amongst other variables, would account for one person being stronger than another. That isn't

Another Nautilus argument...tendon length isn't the only factor in strength production where size increases do not occur. Neuromuscular efficiency is far more influential.

> If you don't use strength levels as a guide to your efforts, then what can you use to determine the effectiveness of your
Strength levels are NOT the only measure of training progress. Each training variable (sets, reps, intensity, % of RM, rep tempo, rest interval) have an influence on training progress. Say one week you do 2 sets of 10 reps with a weight. The next you do 3 sets of ten reps with the same weight. Reps nor weight have increased, but would anyone be daring enough to say that you got weaker from the first week to the second? Hell no. Every training variable must be considered in assessing strength gains. More realistically - One week, you perform a set with 10 reps at a 2-0-3-1 tempo. The next week, you perform the same weight for the same reps at a 3-1-3-1 tempo. This is a significant strength gain, although reps and weight have not changed - TIME UNDER TENSION HAS! The muscles utilized are contracting for a much more significant period indicating an increase in strength - in fact, the first week, TUT = approximately 50 seconds (assuming you move reps faster towards end of set). Second week, TUT = 70 seconds. So reps x weights x sets is not the only measure of strength.

> success. Remember; it's not rocket science!

I really disagree with this. Training progress can be simplified into the following:

1] Get stronger
2] Eat right
3] Rest sufficiently.

BUT IT IS BY NO MEANS THE END OF THE DISCUSSION. If it were, EVERYONE would be growing out there, and NO one would ever hit a wall in growth, no one would stop growing until they hit their genetic potential (interestingly enough this is the major claim of Mentzer's latest program).

> Mentzer has probably done more for bodybuilding, in terms of solidifying the principles, than anyone, & if one chose's to > ignore what he has tried to save us from [namely, wasted years of our own research], then one is simply refusing to see.
I find this ironic. Bodybuilding is not science. Bodybuilding is a bunch of losers who think they'll get laid more if they increase their biceps by an inch, pumping and prissing in a gym with bunny weights in spandex with their weight belts cinched up around their fat guts. These are the types of people who end up writing for magazines. And well, if their appearance and vocabulary are indicative of their intelligence, then anyone who trusts what Champion X says worked for him deserves any (lack of) results that they get. Sure Mentzer will seem like an oracle of knowledge in comparison to these half wits. Mentzer is a bright guy but he's also human and fully capable of mistakes. Just as you and I are. Perhaps he is capable of less mistakes than the typical bodybuilding writer, but he is not immune to them.

In so far as "being saved from ourselves", turn to science, turn to the physiology, turn to the real experts, and suddenly, things become so much clearer and you won't have to worry about that. Too many people rely upon others to interpret what is best for them rather than expending their energy to scientifically find out what is right. THAT is why people get screwed, not because they're stupid - because they choose not to think!

Sandeep De
The Power Factory: http://geocities.datacellar.net/HotSprings/4039/
"We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart?"

-------------------- 8 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:31:03 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: The Dose-Response Relationship of Exercise

> From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
>
> Please read the article THE DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP OF
> EXERCISE: Part II
> (The Narrow Therapeutic Window)
> at http://www.mikementzer.com/doseresponse2.html to see that "within
> reason" appears to be much narrower than you think.
>

I read this article, and while I feel that it makes some good points, there are a few points that it makes that I would like to take issue with.

First, this article (as does Mentzer's theories) operates on the assumption that the human body is a logical organism and operates accordingly. However, if this was true, then why does the male human have nipples? Nipples serve absolutely no logical function for the male human. Why do humans have sparse hair all over their bodies? This hair is too sparse to aid in prevention of heat loss, which is the function of hair in other animal species. It serves absolutely no function at all. What about the human appendix, which serves no physiological function at all in the digestive system? A "logical" human would not have these things; they are simply a waste of the body's resources. For example, shave the hair off your arms and it eventually grows back. Why should the body waste its resources and time regrowing this useless hair? This defies all logic and reason.

Now, I will address a few comments made in this article:

"The concept of periodization does not address any real physiologic needs; rather it is designed to address a person's psychological needs."

The author of this article gives no support for this statement. The concept of periodization does address real physiologic needs. For example, Mentzer and other Heavy Duty advocates question the idea of having "light" or "moderate" days (submaximal training). Why not just rest? The reason is as follows. Muscles are made up of motor units, which are groups of muscle fibers innervated by a single motor neuron. These motor units range from low-threshold (the slow twitch range) to high-threshold (the fast twitch range). Training using high-intensity weights places tremendous stress on the entire range of motor units. Now, just as smaller bodyparts (like calves) have more rapid recovery times than larger bodyparts (a popular and successful way to train for many bodybuilders is to train smaller bodyparts, like calves or biceps, more frequently than larger ones), low threshold motor units recover from training faster than high threshold motor units. This implies that, for optimal progress, low threshold motor units should be trained more frequently than high threshold motor units. How can this be accomplished? Through the use of light or moderate days, using lighter weights than normal. This provides a training stimulus for low threshold motor units while allowing high threshold motor units to recover from a previous heavy bout. Also, gains in strength are due to both neural and hypertrophic adaptations. Neural adaptations take place much more quickly than hypertrophic adaptations, and thus are also lost much more quickly. Light and moderate days can help maintain neural adaptations while allowing the larger window of hypertrophic adaptations to take place.

"The test of a training technique's efficacy is not how it performs on a genetic freak but how well it performs on those of average or below-average potential. High-intensity training will win hands down every time."

I agree with the first part of this statement and highly disagree with the second part, due to some real-life examples which show that HIT does not win hands down every time. I recommend that everyone check out

http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/weights/

or

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~matthew/weights/barry.txt

These articles outline the experience of Barry Merriman, who was a devoted HITer for 6 years. He made slow, steady gains on these protocols, but was not able to reach his genetic potential. He reached a bodyweight of about 170 and some significant strength levels while using HIT protocols. He then switched to a higher volume, periodized protocol, training very frequently but periodizing his training intensity. After only 2 years of training this way, he had reached a bodyweight of 208 and more significant strength gains. Barry was definitely not a genetic freak, and only had average genetics. I then direct you to

http://www.frsa.com/garrymass.html

Garry Holmen and his training partner embarked on a training protocol very similar to Barry's, with only slight modifications, and achieved similar results.

One thing about these guys is that they have absolutely no vested financial interest in the training philosophies they are espousing, which cannot be said for individuals like Mentzer or Darden since they have numerous books, videos, and other products out on the market espousing their training techniques.

James Krieger

-------------------- 9 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:46:16 +1000
From: Teri Pokere <T.Pokere@uq.net.au>
Subject: Re: Re: HD in Digest #72

Hi guys,

I will only comment on those parts of James' post that I think need attention.

> -------------------- 4 --------------------
> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:07:24 -0800 (PST)
> From: "James Krieger - EECS (CPTS446)" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
> Subject: Re: HD in Digest #72

<snipped>
> Mentzer defines intensity as "% momentary ability", which is a level of
> effort. However, effort is partially a subjective quantity.

Mike Mentzer using this definition will get himself into trouble unless he changes it to (inroad/time) which is the only one that I have come across that makes sense. 1 rep and 10 reps both taken to failure would both "prove" to be equally effective with his definition but they are not according to empirical experience and inroad/time.

> Simplistic is the notion that less is better as well.

James if you have read any of Mentzer's recent articles maybe in ANMD or even his book HDII you will see that the notion of less is better is no longer held by him. He is interested not in less but what is the precise stimulus.

<snipped>
> We can also falsify a theory by providing real-life examples that refute
> it, not just by refuting the foundation premises. This individual
> provides a real-life example that refutes what Mentzer is trying to say.

A refutation cannot not be made unless all of the variables can be measured accurately.
Basing this on what someone thinks about whether they recovered and overcompensated or not is not "very" exact. When or if we can measure this accurately prior to exercising, this will be the day when doubt is removed totally. Guessing is not good enough.

> I have often heard Mentzer make the claim that if you can perform 10 reps
> of an exercise to failure, but never attempt the 11th, then the body has
> no reason to enlarge on its existing capacities and therefore will not
> produce an increase in size or strength. This insinuates that an athlete
> that never trains to failure will not achieve increases in strength.
> However, in the real world, there are numerous examples of athletes
> increasing in strength despite not training to failure. I'm not arguing
> for/against training to failure here, but I am arguing the premise that
> training to failure is a requirement for an increase in strength, which is
> what Mentzer insinuates.

I have read that Mentzer doesn't know the exact level of intensity required but only 0 and 100% can be accurately measured. Intensity is on a continuum I believe, and that a certain level probably needs to be reached before meaningful results are evident. I would guess that intensity is measured on an exponential curve and the closer one got to the ultimate value the better the results would be. We have built in protective mechanisms so that we don't expend all of our energy at once and they probably help to ensure that we don't or can't train too intensely. If we are unskilled at listening to them it could be too late for those who are unfit however.

> The human body is a very complex organism which I feel cannot be reduced
> to simple logic and mathematics. There are so many systems within the
> body with highly complex interactions.

Maths to my recollection can get very complex or at least it seemed to me :).
<snipped>
> This premise alone is based on assumption that a plateau is caused by
> either overtraining or undertraining. A solid theory should not be based
> on assumptions.

I think that the premise is based on a reasonable overview of the facts. If one has a stimulus sufficient for growth to occur and growth is not evident there seem to be only two possibilities, either over or undertraining. IT is assuming that the stimulus is sufficient for growth to occur but you would not bother to check otherwise.

> This is assuming these principles are correct and valid. However, as I
> pointed out, one of these principles which you refer to is based on an
> assumption which may very well be incorrect (I definitely believe that it
> is incorrect).

You could be right James in that you may not HAVE to train to failure but you will have to train to at least the minimal requirement to shake up the homeostasis. However "our" way could be the most effective and efficient method.

Cya
Teri

-------------------- 10 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:48:42 -0800
From: "James Krieger" <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Heavy Duty Doubter!

> From: "Kevin Dye" <kevind@picknowl.com.au>
>
> While I respect your knowledge & insight, [especially for one so young] I
feel that your >[mis] understanding of effective training [ie. Heavy Duty] is a shade off. Firstly, point taken >that one trainee is not proof enough to validate a theory as THE best way. But when ALL >the success's HD has produced is taken into consideration, including the reigning Mr.. >Olympia, [who, drugs aside, is the ONLY contender to noticeably improve each year] then >how can such overwhelming evidence be ignored?

If one were to examine Dorian Yates's training, one would find that his training is actually not very similar to HD, and therefore he is not an example to show the success of HD. First, Dorian uses multiple heavy warmup sets prior to his last intense set. Second, despite using one intense set to failure for an exercise, he uses multiple exercises per bodypart, and therefore uses multiple sets per bodypart. Finally, if you were to examine his training methodologies from when he first started training, you would find his training volume for most of his career to be much higher than HD espouses. Even his current training volume is higher than most HD training volumes that I've seen.

You speak of "overwhelming evidence" of the success of HD, yet I have not seen this. I've seen numerous people get great results from HD, yet I've also seen people get poor results from it. I've also seen people get results from it at one point in their training careers but cannot get continuous, long-term results from it.

>
> Recently I have had an onslaught of trainees contact me, ALL using the
SAME approach >with substantial success!!!! These are intelligent, logical individuals who have regulated >their training down to the MINIMAL stimulus required to grow, & grow they most certainly >have / are. Even Pete Sisco, who is as dedicated to research & determining the exact ratio >of high intensity exercise as anyone, has found that 4 total sets repeated every 2-3 weeks >has delivered some substantial gains!

I'd be willing to bet there are a large number of trainees not having substantial success as well. However, these trainees would have no reason to contact you, so you do not hear about their lack of results. This is similar to the phenomena of NDE's (Near Death Experiences). The majority of NDE's that have been reported are all positive; however, there have been some negative ones reported. It is estimated that there are many more negative ones out there, but no one talks about these experiences, so everyone assumes that NDE's are positive since you only hear about the positive ones.

I question some of Pete Sisco's methodologies of research. Many of you might be familiar with his Power Factor Training System, which was supposedly the be-all end-all answer to everyone's problems. I remember hearing some pretty dramatic stories of people making huge gains with this system (this is a perfect example of hearing only positive stories as I mentioned above). I tried the PFT system, and lost significant size and full-range strength while on it, despite improving my strength in the partial range. This was due to PFT's ignorance of the specificity of exercise to the range of motion it is performed in.

>
> To argue whether Mentzer's principles are 'perfect' is a mute point,
because when you >compare his theory to all the others, it's the closest [if not the most exact] we currently >have. Why? Because its basis is supported by rational, science, & experience. Therefore, >there is little that anyone who uses common sense as their guide can fault.

Mentzer's principles actually have many flaws since they are based on assumptions. Let's look at what some of the assumptions that Mentzer makes and why they are flawed:

1. Mentzer assumes that gains in size and strength are one and the same. It has been demonstrated time and time again in the laboratory and in the real world that this is not true at all. Significant gains in strength have been found in the absence of muscle hypertrophy. If gains in size and strength were one and the same, then the optimal training program for a bodybuilder would be the same for a powerlifter and would also be the same for an Olympic lifter, yet this is obviously not true in the real world.

2. Mentzer assumes that a plateau is caused by overtraining. According to Mentzer's philosophies, if I start out training once a month, and am not making progress, then I must be overtraining, so I reduce my training frequency. However, in my example the opposite is obviously true.

3. Mentzer assumes that it is the last repetitition carried to failure which is the stimulus for muscle hypertrophy. However, there are many real-world examples of athletes who do not train to failure yet make substantial gains in muscle hypertrophy.

4. Mentzer assumes that a muscle acts as a "whole" unit when adapting to exercise. He insinuates that carrying that muscle to failure will cause an increase in muscle size and strength, and that the magnitude of this response is constant. However, he fails to realize that muscles are made up of many different motor units and muscle fibers, which have different physiologic properties and have different responses to training. According to Mentzer's principles, a 6 RM set is no different from a 12 RM set as far as the body's response is concerned, yet in the real world, this is not the case.

> Life does have certainties, & it is these dependable entities that we
rely upon to guide us >in our endeavors. Does each person have their own unique set of math rules? Physic >equations? Of course not. Then how can we all be in need of our own training guidelines >that are VASTLY separate from the rest of the population???

The human body is not a set of math rules and physics equations. Much of the knowledge that we have about the human body is based upon the observations of others, not logic or reason.

> I don't / can't agree with this statement at all. Everything being equal,
a stronger a trainee >gets, the larger they become. What about powerlifters who HAVE to move up to a higher >weight division because they have increased their muscle mass, despite their training? >Saying; their muscles got bigger though they were training solely for strength. It is obvious >that tendon length, amongst other variables, would account for one person
being stronger >than another. That isn't to say that if the 'weaker' trainee focused on increasing his strength >levels he wouldn't increase his former size. He would.

I suggest that you read the latest "Reflections of a HITer" by the HIT Jedi Matt Brzycki. In this article he explains how he added 100 lbs to his trap bar deadlift in a year's time with absolutely no increase in bodyweight. I also explained in another post how my best friend's wife added 100 lbs to her leg press with no increase in thigh girth. You can have significant increases in strength with absolutely no increase in size due to neural adaptations, so your statement that the "stronger a trainee gets, the larger they become" is not true.

> Mentzer has probably done more for bodybuilding, in terms of solidifying
the principles,

I would have to disagree here, because if this were true, then Mentzer's philosophies would have taken over all strength training and bodybuilding protocols by now, and that everyone would get optimal results from his protocols.

>than anyone, & if one chose's to ignore what he has tried to save us from [namely, wasted >years of our own research], then one is simply refusing to see. While I'd like to think that I >am unique & different from the other 2000 trainees Mentzer has helped over the years, >biologically, I am not. Then again, neither are you or anyone else for that matter. As a race >[humans], we all have a similarities that only exceed a certain parameter
in our >physiological make-up, & while their might be exceptions to the rule that do in fact tolerate >high intensity stress better than others, the variance isn't that vast that it makes their >training requirements totally unique from the rest.

If the variance is not that vast, then I suggest you check out Barry Merriman's web page and explain to me why he achieved vastly better results on a higher volume periodized protocol than on Mentzer's protocols.

>
> The answer, at least for me, after twenty years of dedication & research
is so EXACT, it is >as certain as tomorrow. Trying to fault Mentzer's research findings, is like trying to re->invent the wheel.

Mentzer's Heavy Duty concept is a philosophy. It is not based upon any research findings.
While the theory is noncontradictory within itself, it is very contradictory when applied to real life since it is based upon assumptions which I refuted earlier.

>Sure you might find your own unique style, but I refuse to accept that it
will be anything >but a similar entity. We can only learn from what we have available, IF we want to listen. >If you do not, then that is your choice. But rational would dictate that Heavy Duty is >sound in theory, effective for those that follow the guidelines [even if it means slight >adjustments], & has delivered some substantial gains for so many trainees
[including Mr.. >Yates]. How can you perfect this system? I don't think you can. Still, if you want to >dedicate your training efforts around proving Mike wrong, best of luck!

Heavy Duty is not "sound" in theory because it is based upon false assumptions. Now, I'm not saying that Heavy Duty does not work and cannot give great results to some trainees; I would be a fool to say this since there are numerous examples of people out there who have gotten great results. The problems I have are the claims that it is the be-all end-all solution to everyone's problems, which it is not, and that it is unflawed, which it is not.

James Krieger

-------------------- 11 --------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:00:31 +1300
From: Paul Englert <Paul.Englert@vuw.ac.nz>
Subject: Reply to James Krieger in defense of HD2

Firstly may I ask that if you are quoting me could you please make it clear which statements are mine and which are not. Your posting does not differentiate my writings from those of the contributor whose comments I was refuting. This can led to confusion over my position within this discussion for other readers. In the following post my replies will be preceded with a -

James you wrote in defense of the original contributor:

What this individual is pointing out is that HD did not result in the best way for progressive overload for him. He achieved better workout to workout gains while on a higher volume, higher frequency protocol.

- No, what this person has noted is that he had not yet defined the optimal Hd wout for his individual genetic make up, intensity level and stage of development.

Mentzer defines intensity as "% momentary ability", which is a level of effort. However, effort is partially a subjective quantity. If someone tells you they trained with 100% intensity (maximal effort), you have to take their word for it. Whether they actually did or not cannot be measured, making it a subjective rather than objective quantity.

- Absolutely. This is why for some individuals two sets can be performed. Do you not think Mentzer's definition of intensity (actually Arthur Jones I think?), is not a workable definition? It allows us to note that some people train at higher intensity levels than others which is the point that is being made.

Simplistic is the notion that less is better as well.

-Yes, but no one is saying that less is better without first qualifying a base line of performance. Less is better with respect to maintaining constant progress over time.

We can also falsify a theory by providing real-life examples that refute it, not just by refuting the foundation premises. This individual provides a real-life example that refutes what Mentzer is trying to say.

- Empirical evidence does indeed provide support for a contrary view. However we must be careful about what we are refuting here. Is it the principles of HD or a particular exercise programme? From the original post I believe it is the later. There are many variables that are unknown and therefore limit the discussion of this particular case. For example, how new to training is the individual, what is their recovery ability like, etc. Had Mentzer himself put this person on a HD wout then I think you would be justified in saying this. However, it is unclear whether or not this person grasped that HD is about the description of principles of training and not the prescription of a generic training regime.

I have often heard Mentzer make the claim that if you can perform 10 reps of an exercise to failure, but never attempt the 11th, then the body has no reason to enlarge on its existing capacities and therefore will not produce an increase in size or strength. This insinuates that an athlete that never trains to failure will not achieve increases in strength. However, in the real world, there are numerous examples of athletes increasing in strength despite not training to failure.

- Of which you provide none.

I'm not arguing for/against training to failure here, but I am arguing the premise that training to failure is a requirement for an increase in strength, which is
what Mentzer insinuates.

- What Mentzer is saying is that if you never go faster than you will never know how fast you are. It is tautological that you MUST go to failure to grow stronger ie even just to know how strong you are.

The human body is a very complex organism which I feel cannot be reduced to simple logic and mathematics. There are so many systems within the body with highly complex interactions.

- Everything is subject to laws. Once we define all the variables and the principles pertaining to those variables than yes everything is reducible to logic. To say otherwise is to provide no explanation for phenomena at all and argue that it is in the hands of God so to speak.

This premise alone is based on assumption that a plateau is caused by either overtraining or undertraining. A solid theory should not be based on assumptions.

- You are right. It should be based on a theory supported by empirical proof. HD fulfills both criteria. You provide no alternative that could cause a plateau. Nor do you provide an alternative argument other than the opinion that Mentzer is wrong.

- James please define for me beyond opinion:-
a. Which assumptions are incorrect ie the one you have stated on strength not being dependant on training to failure, and why
b. Your proposed alternative.

James Krieger

I am therefore I'll think - Ayn Rand

-------------------- 12 --------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:30:21 EST
From: JLoftus230 <JLoftus230@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HIT Digest, digest #82

For the last 22 years I have read, listened, and often times participated in the discussion/debate/ about HIT and non-hit strength training programs. What I have never heard mentioned is the fact that if both programs produce results, the advantage of HIT is that it takes far less time to implement ( although it's a more demanding workout) the free time left to the athlete can be used in a more productive way. By the way, has anyone ever seen a Eastern European weightlifter trudge out to the countryside taking a helmut, shoulder pads, footbal pants and spikes, practicing blocking and tackling, in order to become "more explosive" in his olympic lifts?