I guess some other factors might need to be considered. Age, genetics, experience and lifestyle. I do a minimum of 3 workouts per week, sometimes add another here or there depending on how I feel, what's on my social calendar etc. But I agree with Shrek, try a few different combinations, listen to your body (sorry to go zen-like).
-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
Goosey
.
Shrek is right on this Rambo.
That's it, you use what you want, if it works it works.
walt
DuffProteinMan
If stuart mcrobert said to remove 2 rib cages for pleasure purposes... would you?
Muscle and Brawn Bodybuilding, Powerlifting and Muscle Building. – 10 Reasons Stuart McRobert Can Go Fuck Himself
0ni
Registered Rustler
My opinions of HIT are mostly based on the stupid claims made by the people who thought it up and the whole hardgainer bullshit
High Reps vs Low Reps For Muscle Gain: Roundtable With The Experts | Intermittent fasting diet for fat loss, muscle gain and health
Back on topic, there is an interesting point raised here about frequency. Just search for german volume training
High Reps vs Low Reps For Muscle Gain: Roundtable With The Experts | Intermittent fasting diet for fat loss, muscle gain and health
Back on topic, there is an interesting point raised here about frequency. Just search for german volume training
walt
DuffProteinMan
who?
Goosey
.
It's ok, if you'll allow me to give you two a bit of insight or education you might be a bit more informed and help you understand a bit about weight training and specifically H.I.T
Arthur jones arrived on the scene mid sixties at a time when bodybuilding as an industry was blossoming into the smoke and mirrors that it is today.
Many bodybiulders where spending hours in the gym daily, doing the workouts that the elite where supposedly doing out of the then weider publications.
Wieder didn't like Jones because he was basically teeming people that weider was a liar, weider wouldn't publish jones articles.
Peary reader however like Arthur's writings and did publish them.
In fact I will post weekly, a chapter from the two bulletins in another thread If people are interested.
I do understand how people get all kunty about HIT, Stuart mcrobert has nothing to do with HIT, HIT was in fact a term that Ellington Darden used in his books.
I've spoken many times with the blokes that worked under jones, nobody they say got results like Arthur Jones through one on one training they would say.
Jones theory, and this is in the 70's mind you, was work very hard on the basic barbell exercises, infrequently, provide enough rest to allow progression.
Jones stated many, many times that the barbell squat, was a miracle exercise at a time when it was very anti squat.
Jones honestly believed he could improve the efficiency and safety of the barbell with a machine and he did with a lot of exercises through providing constant rotary resistance, there is no sticking point.
He was trying to prove that you could spend half the time in gym and garner better results, if the workout was hard.
Arthur jones arrived on the scene mid sixties at a time when bodybuilding as an industry was blossoming into the smoke and mirrors that it is today.
Many bodybiulders where spending hours in the gym daily, doing the workouts that the elite where supposedly doing out of the then weider publications.
Wieder didn't like Jones because he was basically teeming people that weider was a liar, weider wouldn't publish jones articles.
Peary reader however like Arthur's writings and did publish them.
In fact I will post weekly, a chapter from the two bulletins in another thread If people are interested.
I do understand how people get all kunty about HIT, Stuart mcrobert has nothing to do with HIT, HIT was in fact a term that Ellington Darden used in his books.
I've spoken many times with the blokes that worked under jones, nobody they say got results like Arthur Jones through one on one training they would say.
Jones theory, and this is in the 70's mind you, was work very hard on the basic barbell exercises, infrequently, provide enough rest to allow progression.
Jones stated many, many times that the barbell squat, was a miracle exercise at a time when it was very anti squat.
Jones honestly believed he could improve the efficiency and safety of the barbell with a machine and he did with a lot of exercises through providing constant rotary resistance, there is no sticking point.
He was trying to prove that you could spend half the time in gym and garner better results, if the workout was hard.
Darkoz
-
You know who buddy.
walt
DuffProteinMan
I wasn't actually giving an opinion, i was just posting the link which i found hilarious on stuart mcrobert.
especially point three:
3) HE COINED THE TERM “HARDGAINER.”
Though he coined this term, he at no point demonstrated conclusively a manner by which one could objectively determine one’s self to be one, thereby creating legions of pasty-faced assholes who will blather on about being hardgainers simply because they’ve never trained hard a day in their lives, their diets suck shit, they don’t squat or deadlift, and they think a workout routine consists of milling about Nautilus equipment for 45 minutes a day, three times a week. McRobert and his legions of hardgainers can go fuck themselves- they’re pussies though, so it won’t be the epic, Max Hardcore fucking they deserve.
Yeah from what I have seen all your average gym goer understands is curls get the girls.
Darkoz
-
And that's all that article is, a bit of comic relief.
0ni
Registered Rustler
are you kidding me? pretty much every kid does a 5 day split with 3 sets to failure per exercise
RyanF
Member
In another thread we have a discussion announcing that if you're not progressing then you're not pushing hard enough, now you're saying that the majority of people fail to make progress because they push too hard within each set?
I think the reason the majority of people over 25 (and females in general) don't make any progress is because they don't try, they don't have any planned progression, their exercise technique is crap, their program is a random list of exercises and/or their nutrition sucks. I think the reason the majority of males under 25 don't make any progress is a combination of all of the above except for effort. Young boys will try hard, but every other component will be craptacular. Also, while they'll be trying hard, it'll typically only be on bench press, curls, maybe pull ups, maybe crunches and maybe leg extensions.
HIT isn't the reason the majority of people get nowhere. The people who actually understand and follow a HIT program usually understand the other factors as well, at least enough to make a difference (nutrition, exercise technique, a balanced program, etc). I'm not anti-HIT. I'm not pro-HIT, either. It's just a way of training. But the idea that a lot of HIT enthusiasts will promote with the way they train is a bit like 20-rep squats, in that they're going beyond the regular point of failure if they were to just rep out the weight.
For an exercise in a regular volume program, stopping a couple reps short of failure, you might do 3x8x100kg for a given exercise. On a HIT program, you might take that same exercise and that same weight, and do 10 reps to concentric failure, then 6 eccentric reps with spotters doing the concentric for you, then hold for 15 sec until you can't stop the weight from coming back down. All other variables being equal, which of the above two training options would promote greater hypertrophy? I don't know. I don't claim to know. But I'm not so quick to dismiss what actually makes HIT, HIT. I think that the relatively low volume and low frequency compared to other options (which, btw, is not a requirement of HIT) that is common in HIT programs is more likely where the training style may run into problems, rather than the actual training techniques used.