General

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

xahrx — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:19:50 GMT

Sieben:
I was thinking about nolvadex. But you're right, straight up steroids are supplements. I don't mess with them though. My gym's manager says I should just save supplements to break plateaus... like start taking creatine for a little while if I get stuck. Take caffiene if you've had a bad day, etc.

Pretty good recommendation. I used to get a kick out the NO Explode types who used to to swear by it when some monohydrate and 200mg of caffeine would do the same thing minus the pump. I went through a supplement phase, guess lots of people do, and then a steroid phase, and now all I take a multi vit and fish oil regularly. Everything else is, as with you, saved for when I might need a little bump.

At the very least, he has to concede that exercising with higher volumes increases the insulin sensitivity of muscles more because it depletes their glycogen. So when you ingest carbs, and your body releases insulin, a larger portion of nutrients are driven into muscle rather than adipose tissue.

No, he doesn't, though he might. Remember as with any religion: ~~rationality~~. In my experience getting logic into the head of an HIT'ard is like trying to thread a needle with an oyster.

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

Sieben — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:04:11 GMT

xharx:

Meh. In my experience raising your test with OTC herbs be they estrogen blockers or free test enhancers is a lot of money for little return, a little hardness and vascularity. If you want to go that route, best save you money and get some real hormones and go to town. It won't cost much more, the results will be great, and the risks while real have been over blown.

I was thinking about nolvadex. But you're right, straight up steroids are supplements. I don't mess with them though. My gym's manager says I should just save supplements to break plateaus... like start taking creatine for a little while if I get stuck. Take caffiene if you've had a bad day, etc.

xharx:
Also I'd note his fixation on muscle damage and your mentioning of hormone levels and large compound movements. I'd take issue with both. There is plenty of research showing muscle growth absent traditional signs of damage as well as growth even though 'recovery' from the previous bout hadn't been completed. There is also research both ways on whether or not the acute and chronic changes in hormone levels in response to resistance training really amount to all that much. There was a recent study I saw that looked into just this issue and came up wanting, I'll see if I can dig it up for you if you'd like.

At the very least, he has to concede that exercising with higher volumes increases the insulin sensitivity of muscles more because it depletes their glycogen. So when you ingest carbs, and your body releases insulin, a larger portion of nutrients are driven into muscle rather than adipose tissue.

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

xahrx — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:14:07 GMT

"Uhh... the supplements comment is a straw man. But if you think supplements can't significantly improve recovery... I don't take anything other than protein powder because my recovery is fine, but I bet I'd be a lot stronger if I took estrogen blockers."

Meh. In my experience raising your test with OTC herbs be they estrogen blockers or free test enhancers is a lot of money for little return, a little hardness and vascularity. If you want to go that route, best save you money and get some real hormones and go to town. It won't cost much more, the results will be great, and the risks while real have been over blown.

Also I'd note his fixation on muscle damage and your mentioning of hormone levels and large compound movements. I'd take issue with both. There is plenty of research showing muscle growth absent traditional signs of damage as well as growth even though 'recovery' from the previous bout hadn't been completed. There is also research both ways on whether or not the acute and chronic changes in hormone levels in response to resistance training really amount to all that much. There was a recent study I saw that looked into just this issue and came up wanting, I'll see if I can dig it up for you if you'd like.

All told one of the main reasons why a devotion to HIT or any other particular program is stupid is because our understanding of what drives muscle growth and strength gains is evolving as we learn more, and right now there seem to be a variety of possible pathways to accompish either goal. Real 'proper' exercise would start with a varied approach and then using the trainee's goals as a guide, hone in on the methods they seem to respond to the best,

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

Sieben — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:05:55 GMT

Krazy Kaju:
Leg extensions are the only exercise that work your quads through a full range of motion. Notice that in lower body compound movements (e.g. squats, deadlifts, leg presses, lunges, etc.), the quads are worked very minimally or not at all at or near the lock-out (where the bones/joints of your body bear the entire weight).

Squats (full squats) put the quad through at least 90% of its full ROM. Full range of motion and isolation aren't necessary to stimulate muscles maximally anyway.

Muscle growth is not only related to micro tears, but the hormonal response to lifting weights. Compound exercises work infinitely more muscle mass than any isolation exercises, and therefore result in larger growth.

Seriously, I don't know any athletes who use the leg extension to build mass or strength in their quads. Its used to pump blood into the leg muscles, and pre contest to cut up and seperate the quad. Compound exercises build mass and strength. No one walks around doing isolation exercises for more than 50% of their routine, and the most intense sets are always compound movements. Isolation is for shaping.

Krazy Kaju:
The only person with my genetics is me.

Don't be so obtuse. No one is so unique. If they were, you'd have no basis to advocate LVT.

Krazy Kaju:
Bullshit and you know it. Exercise is a form of stress that causes micro-tears in your muscle. It takes time and resources to heal that damage and then more time and resources to overcompensate. Eating a greater volume of food and consuming more supplements will do nothing, if anything for your recovery ability, unless you're a starving African child. Supplement companies, however, want you to believe otherwise. "If you take our weight gainer, you'll put on slabs of muscle!" "If you take our amino acid supplement, your recovery ability will increase dramatically!" "If you take this post-workout supp, you'll boost your anabolism 5,000%!" C'mon now, these guys are as trustworthy as most economists.

Uhh... the supplements comment is a straw man. But if you think supplements can't significantly improve recovery... I don't take anything other than protein powder because my recovery is fine, but I bet I'd be a lot stronger if I took estrogen blockers.

Regardless, diet and sleep does have a HUGE impact on recovery. Eating carbs causes insulin to be released, shuttling resources to your muscles. Microtears are only ONE of the ways your muscles need to recover anyway. Glycogen, damage from lactic acid... A very large amount of growth hormone and T is released during sleep. That's why bodybuilders sleep all the time.

Not to be mean, but if you had a bad experience with traditional programs, and you weren't eating lean protein and slow digesting carbs every 2-3 hours, sleeping 8 hrs a night, and taking a 20 min nap during the day, that probably explains why. Low volume training is a lazy man's workout. They'll never get the results that traditional fitness models, bodybuilders, and powerlifters get. They'll just blame their genetics.

Krazy Kaju:
Lifting weights to failure or close to failure does everything you described. It doesn't matter if you're a powerlifter or a bodybuilder. That said, higher reps emphasize aerobic metabolism moreso than lower reps.

Uhh... doing 1 set versus 3 sets. Doing 10 reps versus 5. One takes a LOT more energy. It has to come from somewhere.

Krazy Kaju:
Muscle endurance is determined by how many slow-twitch muscle fibers you have. The more you have, the more endurance to strength you have. Conversely, the strongest muscle fibers are the fast-twitch fibers, which also have the least endurance. Your CNS recruits muscle fibers based on orderly recruitment: first, the weakest slow-twitch fibers are activated, then, as those slow-twitch fibers fatigue and are no longer to move the weight, the stronger fast-twitch fibers are activated. Once those fatigue, you can no longer lift the weight (failure).

Uhh.. and muscle glycogen, and ATP. There is a reason powerlifters can do 1 rep of 500, and not get 15 reps of 315. Fibers in and of themselves don't fatigue. They run out of energy.

Krazy Kaju:
Do you do 3x10? Has your strength been increasing each and every workout? If not, then you're overreaching.

Despite my low testosterone (430ng/dl), yes. I have been increasing every workout. 5-10%. And I do 3x10 because it feels like a good balance between strength and endurance. I've done 5x5 and the sets aren't long enough to deplete muscle glycogen. I've done 10x10 and you can't go heavy enough to justify the focus on endurance.

I think people go to lower volume because it is a lot easier to get increases in strength that way. Neurological adaptation masks physical stagnation. Makes you feel like you're making fast progress.

Also consider that higher volume will deplete your muscle glycogen, increasing the tissue's insulin sensitivity. This allows you to eat more, and more nutrients to get into the muscles. Another benefit of not going low volume.

Additionally, you get a pump from working out one or two body parts during workouts, and the extra blood helps feed your muscles more. Full body, low volume workouts spread the blood around, so you don't get the benefit.

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

xahrx — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:49:59 GMT

"Finally, in addition to weight loss, optimal health also requires proper nutrition. While caloric intake has gone up, what's happened to vitamin and mineral intake? How about transfats?"

Last i read which I think was in some research gathered up in Alan Aragon's blog, calorie intake was up across the boards, not just in sugar or carbs in particular. As for vits a mineral intake I haven't looked because I'm getting mine, couldn't care less about others these days. As for trans fats, what? Again, a blanket dismissal of them as 'bad' doesn't take into account CLA and naturally occurring trans fats. I haven't followed any data on consumption of hydrogenated oils so if it's up, yeah that's not necessarily a good thing. But is the issue the transfat itself or the fact that people down two bags of oreos at a time?* Dose always makes the poison, dose need not be what it is assuming it's high.

*EDIT: And be clear, I'm aware trans fats, especially hydrogenated oils, are bad for one's health. But the mandate is to reduce consuption to trace amounts, not remove them from the food supply altogether, and some argue for the health benefits of naturally occurring trans fats like CLA.

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

xahrx — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:41:02 GMT

"Real fast, do you accept that suggesting that somebody substitute, for example, walnuts for cashews, would be reasonable? We shouldn't focus on "eating less", but on limiting your options to what would lead you to eat the right amount without much conscious "intervention", if you know what I'm saying."

In my experience substitutions and limitations are good attention-getters, but for a lot of people aren't necessarily the means to change habits. For some it works, they just want a list of stuff that's okay and stuff that isn't. But at least from what I've seen the biggest issue to overcome is the psychology of food as a reward, and more specifically massive portions of calorie dense food as a reward. Overall I've found you can't ignore the portions, and given the list of okay stuff a lot of people will still over eat. They may be healthier over eating certain foods than others which I guess is progress, but most people have the goal of looking better for whatever it's worth, and for that they need to lose pounds consistently.

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

JAlanKatz — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:22:07 GMT

Which is only true because those prices are being artificially supported. And for the same amount of consumption, the health affects would be the same. I don't think either one of us could predict how things would shake out between sweeteners if all trade restrictions were removed. Suffice it to say I agree eating ridicuous amounts of either wouldn't be good, the true issue is that calorie consuption per person has gone up over the years which brings me back to my point of not singling out things like fructose or HFCS or even more generally carbs as bad when portion control overall is the real issue. What concentrating on portion control does:

Exactly, I wasn't taking on the libertarian issue. I was taking on the fact that those subsidies do exist, and that with them in place, people would be better off avoiding HFCS. However, certainly it's true that calorie consumption has gone up over the years - but it's also worth looking at just where it's gone up. Fat consumption hasn't gone up, it's dropped. Consumption of sugar has skyrocketed. So it stands to reason that telling people, absent other advice, to "cut the fat and avoid meat and butter, and focus more on consumption of grain products" or creating a pyramid saying that will not help.

Finally, in addition to weight loss, optimal health also requires proper nutrition. While caloric intake has gone up, what's happened to vitamin and mineral intake? How about transfats?

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

I. Ryan — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:14:54 GMT

xahrx:

1) Lets people know they have to eat less to lose weight, which is true.

Real fast, do you accept that suggesting that somebody substitute, for example, walnuts for cashews, would be reasonable? We shouldn't focus on "eating less", but on limiting your options to what would lead you to eat the right amount without much conscious "intervention", if you know what I'm saying.

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

xahrx — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:12:06 GMT

"If sucrose were used instead, the foods would be more expensive. Then people would, on the margin, consume less of them."

1) Lets people know they have to eat less to lose weight, which is true.

2) Makes them realize it is about discipline and their overall eating habits, not simply rearranging their food intake around certain formulas other than the simple one of eating less than you burn.

3) Avoids the tendency to blame this or that food villain (like HFCS or carbs) and using them as a scapegoat for what is really an over consumption problem.

4) Takes the impetus away from diets based on magical thinking centered around food villains and their spandex clad hawkers and puts the responsibility on the trainee to eat less, not eat leas carbs or avoid HFCS or gluten or fat or whatever the new food villain will be next week, but to eat less in an absolute sense.

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

JAlanKatz — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:09:06 GMT

If sucrose were used instead, the foods would be more expensive. Then people would, on the margin, consume less of them. Of course they don't force us to do anything, but undermining the opposition most people have to HFCS will not help the average person's health. The average person will be healthier giving up HFCS - even if he continues to eat sugary foods, he'll have to consume them in lower quantities than he would the HFCS good because the price is higher.

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

xahrx — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:03:12 GMT

"Right, I acknowledge that you get the same blood sugar effects from any processed sugar, separated from its food source so that you can eat more of it faster and without anything else in the stomach to slow absorption. However, what is the form of sugar in the majority of our foods? What form of sugar is used in soda? What form of sugar is incredibly cheap due to subsidies and therefore taken in in larger quantities?"

And how would things be any different if sucrose were used instead? Answer: they wouldn't. If you're suggesting avoiding foods with HFCS in them is good because those foods tend to be unhealthy or served in extra large portions with the HFCS being merely an arbitrary marker that works for right now, I'm with you. However subsidies and what not only have an influence on what is in front of us in what portions, they do not force us to eat anything in particular. I go all day without eating HFCS, all month in fact unless I decide to have a soda here or there which I do occassionally. So it's not like it takes any great effort to avoid such foods.

"See, now this is a claim that you didn't include earlier, but that makes HIT look more absurd. You now want to say that you are doing nothing for size and strength unless you hit failure - but you know it's problematic to say that directly because plenty of people massively increase those things without using HIT. You've gone from "HIT is the best" to "HIT is the only" which is just absurd. I see no reason to start with 45 pounds. In the famous squat routine, you start with a weight that lets you comfortably do 10 reps, then you do rest-pause to get up to 20. Then you add a fixed amount, generally between 5 and 10 pounds, per week, and at each workout, do 20 reps."

Perhaps now you see why I didn't want to spend time going post for post with another HIT'ard like KK? I mean strictly speaking, rationality and consistency aren't the HIT crowd's strongest points. You may as well argue The Bible with a fundamentalist Christian, because True Believers in HIT or any other guru backed workout program are just that, believers. Rationality need not apply when you believe someone lived in a whale for a whilem just chillin', I have no idea why so many such people have gravitated to HIT except perhaps for the various gurus who, like Mentzer (RIP), had shall we say 'exceptional' personalities.

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

JAlanKatz — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:57:21 GMT

I guess you believe what every econ PhD says, right? Hey guys, bring on the "stimulus" spending!

And you do realize that people who are champions are champions because they have unusual genetics predisposed towards their activity, right?

And you do realize that there are a few record holders, champions, PhDs, and MDs in the HIT camp too, right?

How about a rigorous experimental protocol that has been proven to increase strength, endurance, metabolic conditioning, and cardiovascular fitness in a study performed at West Point, under the supervision of the coaches there (some of whom were hostile to it), while the testing was performed by outside sources who didn't even know who funded the study or trained the subjects? Oh right, you don't like that study because its conclusions don't fit your worldview. So much for "science."

No, I don't agree with every PhD. On the other hand, I don't spend my time joking about how stupid and uninformed they are. I respect that someone with that level of education most likely has a reason for what they say, and I engage them rather than making jokes in my own circles at their expense. My objection to HIT, as I've said before, is not about the science, it's about the conceptual framework and its application to the real world of training. To deny that the mind and pain-avoidance play a role is just silly. We can convince ourselves of all sorts of things. For instance, when the weight gets really painful around the 12th rep, regardless of what you have left in you, you can convince yourself that you've failed. Going to failure makes sense, assuming one can actually make sense of it in a real situation. In practice, most people will not do what you're calling for.

You're clearly trying to cloud the facts here.

First of all, the leg extension machine Jones invented was the only one around at the time which could accurately measure strength.

Secondly, the leg extension machine determined the strength of the quadricepetes only (duh).

Thirdly, squats, especially the ways powerlifters "squat," involve the hamstrings and glutes to a great degree. It's possible to perform a heavy squat with weak quads, given the right joint angles and strong hams and glutes.

Fourthly, you're saying that if you don't like the results of a study or test, that you should perform it over and over again or tweak the method being used until you get the results you want. You sound like a mainstream economist or exercise scientist. "Rigorous experimental protocols." LOL!

No, I'm talking about obviously absurd results when the basis of the test hasn't been verified first. What makes more sense - squatting 1000+ with weak quads, or a mistake in machine design or conceptualization?

So everyone has the potential to be Ronnie Coleman. Haha, okay buddy.

No, it's not that there's no such thing as genetic potential, it's that something unquantifiable, and only known after the fact, is not a valid tool of analysis. You can't tell me ahead of time who can grow and who can't. All you do with the concept is say that your method is the best, and if someone doesn't grow on it, he has poor genetic potential. This is question-begging.

Again, powerlifting is a sport, and like every other sport, it requires a lot of skill. Of course you have to be strong to do the powerlifts, but you also have to be strong in order to perform well in other largely anaerobic sports like amateur wrestling. That doesn't mean that the best heavyweight wrestler in the world is the strongest person in the world. In any case, I'll play your game for a little. Paul Brodeur, trained in a heavy duty, high intensity way and squatted 1,000 lbs at 318 lbs with 10% bodyfat.

The essentials of what you're doing are as follows: First you claim that, with a particular training method, you can make 50% per month gains. When it is pointed out that this is problematic, to say the least, you invoke genetic potential as a reason that you shouldn't have to deliver on your claims. You can bring one person who lifts a heavy weight after using your training method. I'm not limiting the question to powerlifts, choose any lifts you want and HITers should be setting records left and right if they're gaining 50% per month (which for some reason you extrapolate geometrically.) There aren't, so you invoke ideas that you never bring up when looking at how other methods work. For instance, another poster mentioned using 3X10 and you asked him if he was gaining. If he wasn't, what would the conclusion be? Why not that he reached his genetic potential? Because you only invoke that when HIT doesn't work.

Haha, I know you aren't serious right now, because if you were, you'd be de facto mentally retarded. But, c'mon, don't confuse AJ's hectic and sarcastic writing style with the results he was capable of producing.

And I'm guessing you're referring to "The Colorado Experiment" which was conducted by Dr. Elliot Plese at Colorado State University? Oh what? Another study that doesn't confirm your worldview? Shun it!

Locking two people in a room is not a study. If AJ doesn't want the world to judge him by his published writings, he shouldn't publish them.

1. In order to stimulate growth in as many muscle fibers as possible, you need to recruit as many as possible. You can only do that by taking your sets to failure with proper form.

2. If you're not getting stronger each and every work out, that means that you're not giving your body enough time and/or resources to grow. Thus, if you're already running a caloric surplus on a balanced diet, you have to cut the volume of your workouts by either performing less sets per workout or giving your body more rest days per workout, or both.

That's the bare basics of HIT. Do you disagree with either of these two, logical points?

The first, as I've said before, is assuming we have a decent notion of failure. As for the second, why not instead say that you've reached your genetic potential? Or that you are not stimulating the muscles enough?

Pain resistance has nothing to do with failure. If you've recovered from your previous workout, you will have the same amount of glycogen, if not more. If you're feeling tired, you shouldn't be working out. I only work out on days that I feel good and energized.

Again, this is ridiculous, and assumes that somehow you have to shut off all the survival mechanisms your brain uses in order to work out.

You're saying that it's possible for 99.9% of people to become as big as Casey and as strong as Paul. Not gonna happen buddy, sorry.

No, I'm saying that you're making claims that can't possibly be delivered on, then invoking genetic potential as an out.

It absolutely is measured in an objective way. When you can't move the bar no matter how hard you push or pull, that's failure. It's a very simple formula that you seem to be incapable of wrapping your head around. You're insisting that only because a lady partially moved a car upward a few inches at most, that disproves "failure." Bullshit. You have yet to formulate a logical argument as to how this is.

What you've shown is that you can type up a definition. You haven't shown that there's some connection between what people actually do in the gym and failure. I can convince myself at any point in a set that I've failed. You're expecting a person to be objective about their muscular ability while they're laying under a weight. The real world doesn't work this way.

So you should start with 45 lbs and slowly move up on the squat? Again, bullshit. If you do that, you'll spend an inordinate amount of time just increasing your intensity while doing absolutely NOTHING for size or strength. People following such a program won't be doing anything for size or strength until they do hit failure. And I don't mean "oh, I'm feeling ill failure" I mean "I'm pushing with every ounce of strength I can possibly muster, yet somehow this weight is moving in the wrong direction" type of failure.

See, now this is a claim that you didn't include earlier, but that makes HIT look more absurd. You now want to say that you are doing nothing for size and strength unless you hit failure - but you know it's problematic to say that directly because plenty of people massively increase those things without using HIT. You've gone from "HIT is the best" to "HIT is the only" which is just absurd. I see no reason to start with 45 pounds. In the famous squat routine, you start with a weight that lets you comfortably do 10 reps, then you do rest-pause to get up to 20. Then you add a fixed amount, generally between 5 and 10 pounds, per week, and at each workout, do 20 reps.

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

xahrx — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:52:53 GMT

"HIT can be boiled down to intensity, form, and progression. How is that screwy at all?"

That isn't screwy, but that isn't HIT as it has been and currently is marketed by the most annoying crowd of nut swinger internet gun slinger type gurus and their mentally unbalanced followers who tend to call anyone who exercises more than one set and/or more than once a week a retard. Now, as I said, I'm not in gunslinging mode and couldn't care less what retarded brand of HIT or other workout regimen you've devoted yourself to. There are a myriad of ways to workout that produce results vis a vi trainee goals that are not and would not be considered HIT. They are effective and that's all there is to it. HIT is not 'proper exericse'. It's an annoying cult for the mentally challenged who feel insecure without a defined structure to lean on and espourse to others to make them feel superior. Whereas normal people just realize low volume high intensity work is appropriate for some trainees and their goals, and not for others.

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

JAlanKatz — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:35:47 GMT

Right, I acknowledge that you get the same blood sugar effects from any processed sugar, separated from its food source so that you can eat more of it faster and without anything else in the stomach to slow absorption. However, what is the form of sugar in the majority of our foods? What form of sugar is used in soda? What form of sugar is incredibly cheap due to subsidies and therefore taken in in larger quantities?

Re: A Rational Approach to Exercise

krazy kaju — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:50:47 GMT

Sieben:
Leg extensions are used to warm up the leg muscle before the heavy mass builders for quads - squats, leg presses, etc.

Leg extensions are the only exercise that work your quads through a full range of motion. Notice that in lower body compound movements (e.g. squats, deadlifts, leg presses, lunges, etc.), the quads are worked very minimally or not at all at or near the lock-out (where the bones/joints of your body bear the entire weight).

"Mass building exercises" vs. non-mass building exercises is a false distinction. The leg extension is the single best exercise for building mass and strength in the quads, as it isolates the muscle and works it through a full range of motion. That said, compound exercises are better for the sole reason that you can perform more work in less time while using compound movements. For example, using the squat, you don't have to isolate the calves, quads, hamstrings, glutes, and hips. If you did isolate all of those muscles, you'd likely overreach.

So what I'm saying is that there is a certain balance you have to strive for - isolation exercises are the best exercises for the muscle being worked, since they work that muscle through a full range of motion (especially if these isolation exercises are done on machines with correct cam profiles), but trainees will overtrain if they use only isolation exercises (also, it's impossible to isolate every muscle in your body). Also, a few compound movements are excellent exercises for certain muscles (e.g. chin-ups work the biceps muscles through both ends, the elbow-joint AND the shoulder-joint, whereas biceps curls ONLY work the biceps through the elbow-joint). Thus, most people should stick mainly to compounds, with a few isolation exercises thrown in if they have the genetics to stand the extra work. I think three compound movements (one lower body, one upper body push, and one upper body pull) and a few isolation exercises is a good starting work out routine for most people.

You should find someone with your genetics who has succeeded, and try to do what they do.

The only person with my genetics is me.

You can say the same thing about any workout routine...

Overreaching or overtraining is not done in the gym. Its done outside the gym when people don't rest and don't eat. Read how hard Rich Gaspari worked out. He has some of the worst genetics for bodybuilding.

Bullshit and you know it. Exercise is a form of stress that causes micro-tears in your muscle. It takes time and resources to heal that damage and then more time and resources to overcompensate. Eating a greater volume of food and consuming more supplements will do nothing, if anything for your recovery ability, unless you're a starving African child. Supplement companies, however, want you to believe otherwise. "If you take our weight gainer, you'll put on slabs of muscle!" "If you take our amino acid supplement, your recovery ability will increase dramatically!" "If you take this post-workout supp, you'll boost your anabolism 5,000%!" C'mon now, these guys are as trustworthy as most economists.

Furthermore, powerlifting workouts are much less intense than bodybuilding workouts... Powerlifting only fatigues the CNS and muscle fibers. Bodybuilding fatigues the CNS, muscle fibers, muscle endurance, and cardiovascular system.

Lifting weights to failure or close to failure does everything you described. It doesn't matter if you're a powerlifter or a bodybuilder. That said, higher reps emphasize aerobic metabolism moreso than lower reps.

As a side note, you cannot increase muscle endurance independently from your strength. Muscle endurance is determined by how many slow-twitch muscle fibers you have. The more you have, the more endurance to strength you have. Conversely, the strongest muscle fibers are the fast-twitch fibers, which also have the least endurance. Your CNS recruits muscle fibers based on orderly recruitment: first, the weakest slow-twitch fibers are activated, then, as those slow-twitch fibers fatigue and are no longer to move the weight, the stronger fast-twitch fibers are activated. Once those fatigue, you can no longer lift the weight (failure).

The alternatives probably aren't as good, considering that powerlifters don't use them.

Powerlifters don't use "the alternatives" because their only goal is to increase their three powerlifts. Dips are a better compound movement than bench presses, as dips also work the rhomboid muscles of the back. Also, dips hit the pecs harder in relation to the front delts than do bench presses. Leg presses with correct cam profiles will hit the muscles of the legs much harder than either squats or deadlifts, as neither squats or deadlifts can incorporate variable resistance. That said, chains and bands can add a degree of variable resistance (a start in the right direction), but a leg press with a correct cam profile will match the resistance better to your strength curve.

Since when is 3x10 "too much"? You have to train pretty hard and eat pretty crappy to get muscle atrophy...

Do you do 3x10? Has your strength been increasing each and every workout? If not, then you're overreaching.

Also, why 3x10? Why not 3x8, 8x10, 10x8, 5x5, 3x3, etc.? I won't deny that multiple sets to failure per exercise will work better for certain genetically gifted individuals. But the rational starting point is one set. If you find yourself recovering/growing just fine, then maybe you can add in a few more sets. That said, if I were genetically gifted, I would add in more isolation exercises in order to work my muscles through a full range of motion with variable resistance instead of adding more sets of the same exercise(s).

For example, if I were a gifted powerlifter, my base routine would obviously include the three powerlifts, each done one set to failure. In addition to that, I would all or some of the following, depending on my recovery ability: leg curls, overhead triceps extensions, leg extensions, pec flyes, etc.

JAlanKatz:
See, I used to hang in HIT circles. What I learned was that, if you aren't gaining, you're spending too much time lifting weights, and not enough time on cyberpump making fun of people who, you know, hold world records in things you claim to care about, and have PhDs in the subject, and actually apply rigorous experimental protocols.

I guess you believe what every econ PhD says, right? Hey guys, bring on the "stimulus" spending!

And you do realize that people who are champions are champions because they have unusual genetics predisposed towards their activity, right?

And you do realize that there are a few record holders, champions, PhDs, and MDs in the HIT camp too, right?

If you know anything about the field, you instead design contraptions that you claim measure strength, apply them to world record holders in the squat, and determine that they have very weak leg muscles (rather than concluding that there is something wrong with your machine).

You're clearly trying to cloud the facts here.

First of all, the leg extension machine Jones invented was the only one around at the time which could accurately measure strength.

Secondly, the leg extension machine determined the strength of the quadricepetes only (duh).

Your unsupported ad hominem is not an argument.

The guy was thoroughly schooled in Florida and then he went back to Cali and lied about it in Weider's muscle mags.

But the rest of what you're doing is caricature. That muscle mags promote lies doesn't make what you do the truth. Take a look at the Jones 'paper' you sent us. He references a study design and criticizes it for attaining poor gains. Perhaps those experimenters can also appeal to 'genetic limitations.'

He references a study performed by a "scientist" who offered to design studies that came to the same conclusions as Jones. Jones denied the "scientist's" offer.

But hey, since you're interested in cherry-picking studies, I'll play ball with you. Please see the following:

1. K.J. Ostrowski, G.J. Wilson, R. Weatherby, P.W. Murphy, and A.D. Lyttle, "The Effect of Weight Training Volume on Hormonal Output and Muscular Size and Function," Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 11, no. 3 (August 1997): 148-54.

2. R.N. Carpinelli and R.M. Otto, "Strength Training: Single Versus Multiple Sets," Sports Medicine 26, no. 2 (1998): 73-84.

3. W. Wescott, K Greenberger, and D. Milius, "Strength Training Research: Sets and Repititions," Scholastic Coach 58 (1989): 98-100.

4. D. Starkey, M. Welsch, and M. Pollock, "Equivalent Improvement in Strength Following High Intensity, Low and High Volume Training," (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, June 2, 1994).

5. D. Starkey, M. Pollock, Y. Ishida, M.A. Welsch, W. Brechue, J.E. Graves, and M.S. Feigenbaum, "Effect of Resistance Training Volume on Strength and Muscle Thickness," Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 28, no. 10 (October 1996): 1311-20.

The second study I listed is actually a survey of all of the known scientific literature at the time regarding single set vs. multiple set training. Only two out of forty-seven studies showed any benefit, and a marginal improvement at that, from performing multiple sets. The other 45 studies showed that one set was either sufficient or superior to multiple sets.

The fact that something cannot be measured means that your claims about it cannot be verified. You cannot tell me about genetic potential before the fact, all you can tell me is that whatever I've achieved was within my potential from the start. Furthermore, you use it as a limiting factor whenever your method is not successful. This is simply question-begging.

So everyone has the potential to be Ronnie Coleman. Haha, okay buddy.

Unfortunately, most of us do not have the equipment to measure whether or not we have "growth and differentiation factor 8" (it's the gene that determines myostatin production), or GDF-8, and how generous our expression of that gene is. Most of us will never find out how much ciliary neurotraphic factor (CNTF) we have. Most of us will never figure our if our interleukin-15 genotype is Type AA, Type CA, or Type CC. Most of us will never find out how much, if any, alpha-actinin-3 we have. Most of do not know and will never know how much myosin light chain kinase our body produces. And, as it turns out, most of us will not even know how much free testosterone, DHT, insulin, growth hormone, estriadol, IGF-1 and other insulin-like growth factors our bodies produce.

Furthermore, there are possibly hundreds of different genetic and epigenetic factors that we cannot account for at this time, due to limited scientific knowledge in these fields.

And it's called proof that lifting the car was within whatever you choose to call her 'genetic potential.' But if that same woman had maxed out with a 250 pound bench press using HIT, you'd be telling me that that was her genetic potential. The rarity is not a factor if you cannot predict ahead of time who will do it and who won't.

First of all, this has been annoying me, so I looked up this bullshit about a mom lifting up a car. And as it turns out it is, well, bullshit: See this.

In any case, this doesn't even apply to exercise. By denying the existence of genetic limitations, you're essentially saying that it's possible for people to develop the strength to flex so hard that they tear apart their joints, to jump so high as to make individual moon travel a possibility, and to lift three million pound objects with ease.

Clearly, there is such a thing as genetic limitation. Clearly, different people will have different genetic limitations, just as people are of different heights and just as people have predispositions to certain diseases and illnesses.

At the very least, you have to admit that your strength will be limited by how long your muscle bellies are, for the simple fact that at a certain point, your muscles will get so large that the angle of pull of the muscle fibers will not add anything to strength.

And? All of that is subjective decision-making by judges. It has nothing to do with your claims that you can attain 50% gains every month. By the way, if one month you do get such gains, why treat it geometrically, by focusing on the percentages, rather than arithmetically, by focusing on the actual weight added to the bar? Why is one a more natural extrapolation than the other? Anyway, my question was about setting strength records, not being judged attractive by judges.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that powerlifters actually train in a semi-rational fashion. Generally, powerlifters train on non-consecutive days and they train closer to failure than many bodybuilders. But again, it's important to point out that powerlifting requires skill AND that the champion powerlifters are also the guys who are predisposed towards being strong. That doesn't mean that what they say works will actually work for the average person.

Oh, you mean like taking even a seasoned athlete and putting him on an unusual machine, like a Nautilus or Hammer machine, and then talking about his 50% strength gains in one month, rather than referring to his gain in skill at using this unusual machine? That kind of thing? No one here asked about looking like Casey, I asked about setting strength records if you really believe you can gain 50% per month. If you prefer, we can do the testing with a Hammer machine, or even Jones' silly strength testing machines, rather than something so obviously unconnected to strength as a barbell.

1. There's a lot less skill involved when you're put in a machine that isolates a muscle.

2. Arthur's tests accounted for skill-gain. For example, the 1975 West Point study's pre-tests didn't begin until two weeks after the training began, in order to account for the West Point football players learning how to use the new equipment.

3. Six weeks is about a month and half, not a month.

Studies like "I locked Casey and myself in a room for a month and look what we achieved?"

But most interestingly of all, you have opted for sarcasm in order to ignore my central argument about methodology. We cannot rely on studies or "empirical data," because they're skewed by fraud, genetic variability, and a host of other factors. Why not look at some basic science and determine what works best from there? So...

1. In order to stimulate growth in as many muscle fibers as possible, you need to recruit as many as possible. You can only do that by taking your sets to failure with proper form.

That's the bare basics of HIT. Do you disagree with either of these two, logical points?

Things change on a daily basis. You can be more or less focused, more or less pain-resistant, be more or less tired, have more or less glycogen, more or less nutrition the day before, and so on. Uttering the words 'total failure' is not a magic spell that makes all else be equal.

And again, all you mean by that phrase is "I can't do what I claim is possible."

You're saying that it's possible for 99.9% of people to become as big as Casey and as strong as Paul. Not gonna happen buddy, sorry.

You can be sure of no such thing. That woman we were talking about can 'go to failure' on a 100 pound military press, then lift a car when her system is flooded with hormones. Clearly she didn't recruit all muscle fibers when she went to failure on the lift. Of course the kids didn't 'go to failure' on each set. That's the point. This failure thing cannot be measured in any objective way, and doesn't have any precise meaning. It's just another way out when the gains you talk about don't materialize. Here's what you're doing (in a massive simplification): you're in pain. You're torturing yourself. Your survival-circuits want to stop. Your conscious mind is insisting that you can only stop when you reach 'failure.' Guess what? You're going to convince yourself you've failed.

That's why I'd advocate 'working into failure.' Start with a light weight, and do a number of reps. Then each week, add some weight, and do the same number of reps. By having a fixed number in mind, you have a goal other than failure. You see the light at the end of the tunnel, and you don't start chickening out on each rep. A good example of this is the famous 20 rep squat routine.

xahrx:
Hence my predaliction with individual goals of trainees. Some want size, others want strength, some want both, others want neither and merely want to be able to play with their kids without getting winded. At least KK is quoting Arthur Jones. From memory he wasn't too screwy, I think it was the later comers to HIT that really began the nut-swinging retardation that seems to dominate these days.

HIT can be boiled down to intensity, form, and progression. How is that screwy at all?