T Nation

Dorian yates Training or Arnold Training?

Hello all!

What do you think is best for size. Arnold Trainign style or Dorian Yates training style?

Also is going to failure good for muscle growth or bad? Pavel is strongly against failure, but his priorities are a bit different than mine.

reply please!

thanks!

Somewhere in the middle for me. I don’t think going to failure is necessary, but it obviously works for some. I think Arnold did lots (>10) sets of lots of reps (like 12 or something), while Dorian did fewer sets. If I wanted to gain weight fast, I’d do a breathing squat routine which is more like what Dorian would have done.

Arnold style training is not good for a natural trainer. Training like he did will make you overtrained unless you are on roids. Dorians style, for most people doesn’t put on mass, it is for strength. I take you are a newbie? I suggest you read thru all the articles on this site and you will find what you are looking for. A lot of people seem to like Ian King’s programs for size and strength. Good luck!

However, if your comparing the amount of steriods being used? Dorian would wins, hands down. Granted, Dorian is still a good size boy - and he ain’t competing. But so is Arnold (and Lou Ferrigno). I am just in firm belief that Arnold and the competitors from his time, didn’t use as much as the competitors do now.

So, a good questin would be: the now-Arnold would benefit most (if his goal was to put on LBM) from which style of training the Arnold of old or Dorian style? Or maybe he should give Ian a call? So, if you're a newbie - are you asking which style of training would be best suited for you - *why* are you asking? To follow a similar routine? Not a good idea. Check out Ian King's articles as was suggested. Different priorities require different routines.

4 reasons why failure is overrated.

1) Extreme stress spikes the hormone cortisol, which is highly catabolic.

2) The gains achieved by training to failure, employing heavy eccentric work and/or forced reps are short lived and easily reversed

3) Training to failure derails your strength gains

4) Attempting to lift a resistance and having to set it back down without completing the repetition is very taxing on the nervous system, and is a sure way to lead to overtraining

Don't attempt a rep you won't complete in less than perfect form. In other words, train one-rep shy of failure; not to failure.

That is a good cut and paste job there.

I agree with those points. BUT i can turn around the table.

Yes 1 set to failure can overdo it more than 5 sets to non failure, so you need like 10-20 sets.

BUT BUT. Maybe it is implying that 1 set to failure EQUALS to 20 non failure sets, stress wise. And thus it is good??? There is shoirt and steep road or long and easy road.

Maybe just maybe 1 set to failure is like 10-20 sets in muscle stress, and if so, it is as good? But now you spend much less time workoing out and your recovery time is longer.

Also Pavel is mostly strength coach. If you look at him, he isnt very big. He is strong yes, but not hypertrophied beyond recognision!

Yes, Pavel is a strength coach, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t know anything about bodybuilding…the reasons not to train to failure are clear, and are very applicable to the bodybuilder.

Pavel hates bodybuilders and speaks badly of them in person.

I’have always train to failure,I’use lots of weights,I’ do hit the muscles from every posible angle,I’do not use any ilegal stuff and I’ went from 165 to 208 in just 2 years,for me arnolds way work best(training and diet)

Joel, if you are saying that training to failure is not good, then i should not be making the gains i am since i train to failure every single workout. At the gym i train at, the people with the best bodies are the ones that continue to push themselves, the ones that dont havent changed a bit.

both volume (sets and reps) and intensity (weight) should be cycled so as to use all possible avenues of overload. some say that unless you have been to true failure you are not going to know what one rep short of it is. going to failure or as near as possible is needed at times, becasue it is only ballisitc movements or movements in which all the slower fibres have been recruited (and possibly fatigued) that the faster ones will be recruited. you can train hard or long not both as such the closer you go to failure the less volume you should use.

There is no point to attempt something that you cannot do, or to compromise form and call upon other muscles besides the one’s that are being trained in the lift…it is a waste of time. You would get the same results, if not better by calling the set when you know you will not be able to push up the next rep. Why attempt it, or use extremely poor form to get it up? It’s a great way to get injured and completely uneccesary; your muscles don’t need that kind of stimulation to grow…period.

High volume VS Low volume… This has been a debt for experts for years. Heres my take on it.

We know for pretty much a fact that 4-6 reps gives us strength 8-10 reps muscluar hypertaphy and 12-15 and even higher reps creates muscular endurance.

I find it amusing that this argument still goes on. To me it is no different then arguing that you should either eat only chicken or only salmon. People have had success with both methods, and if what you are doing is working, then great, but if not, do something else.

The reason for trying to do something that you can not do is that you might just be wrong. There were many times where I thought my next rep would hit failure, and ended up doing 2 more. Also, going to failure requires good form. If you cant lift the weight with good form, then you have achieved failure.

HIT has treated me well, but I know how to do it properly, which many people unfortunately don’t. There are a lot of people who cannot go to failure, as it is a hard thing to learn. You also have to recognize when your mind is telling you that you have failed when you haven’t. I am not doing HIT right now, but will return to it every once in a while. At this point, I plan on doing it once a year.

I just wish I knew s much about diet as I do now. I think I would have grown more then I have. Now I am not humongous, and I have a way to go, but when I was doing HIT I got up to a 49 inch chest measurement. But my back so outpaced everything else that I have been trying to get the rest of my body to catch up.

I overtrain very easily. I dont pay much attention to diet. I get good/consistent results from attempting pre-set goals each workout no more, no less. I use a 4 week wave like pattern of increasing resistance with a recovery and a reload week followed by 2 weeks of increase. I avoid failure, but increase my resistance each workout. I change assistance exercises each week and monitor progress with core lifts. I have had success with failure based training but didn’t cycle or incorporate a recovery week so i suffered.

I thought roid use would be more scientific these days. I was told the less is better theory and based on this users today use less than the early days. Where is there good research & stats. How long since new & more effective drugs were made. A different person told me roids hadn’t been modified since the 70s due to law. There are so many products out there. I wonder if this is true. I would hate to spout off crap next time i discuss this with someone. Perhaps u know some users.